REDUCING STEREOTYPE THREAT: THE EFFECT OF AFFIRMATION
INTERVENTION ON STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this project
is my own or was done in collaboration with my Advisor. This project does not include
proprietary or classified information.
________________________________________________________________________
Chance M. Giddens
Certificate of Approval:
_______________________________
Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D
Associate Professor and Project Co-Advisor
Education Department
_______________________________
Sharon M. Livingston, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor and Project Co-Advisor
Education Department
Stereotype Threat ii
REDUCING STEREOTYPE THREAT: THE EFFECT OF AFFIRMATION
INTERVENTION ON STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES
A project submitted
by
Chance M. Giddens
to
LaGrange College
in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the
degree of
SPECIALIST IN EDUCATION
in
Curriculum and Instruction
LaGrange, Georgia
July 14, 2011
Stereotype Threat iii
Abstract
An achievement gap is present between Black and White students and between
poor and affluent students. Research indicates one reason for the disparity in
performance might be the presence of stereotype threat. This study was designed to
negate the effects of stereotype threat on academic performance by way of affirmation
intervention. The study combined action research with evaluation research to analyze the
effectiveness of affirmation intervention on standardized test scores and the school
improvement plan. Results showed no statistical difference in test scores before and after
implementation but included responses from students and teachers that showed
appreciation for affirmation intervention. Further, administrative responses indicated
receptiveness toward affirmation intervention techniques being employed in the
classroom as part of the school improvement plan.
Stereotype Threat iv
Table of Contents
Abstract
iii
Table of Contents
iv
List of Tables
v
Chapter 1: Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Significance of the Problem
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
Focus Questions
Overview of Methodology
Human as Researcher
1
1
1
2
4
5
6
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
Effect on Test Scores
Student Perceptions
Leadership Thoughts
7
8
10
12
Chapter 3: Methodology
Research Design
Setting
Subjects and Participants
Procedures and Data Collection Methods
Validity and Reliability Measures
Analysis of Data
16
16
17
17
18
20
22
Chapter 4: Results
24
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results
Analysis of Results
Discussion
Implications
Impact on School Improvement
Recommendations for Future Research
36
36
40
41
43
44
References
46
Appendices
52
Stereotype Threat v
List of Tables
Table 3.1: Data Shell
18
Table 4.1: t-Test, Paired Two Sample for Means
25
Table 4.2: Chi Square Results, Student Questionnaire
27
Stereotype Threat 1
CHAPTER ONE-INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
This study explores how reducing stereotype threat amongst African American
high school students will affect their scores on the Georgia High School Graduation Test
in social studies. Minority students underperform their counterparts in the majority
population on nearly all measures of learning. From standardized test scores to grade
point average to graduation rates, there is an “achievement gap” between Black and
White students in the United States. Bifulco and Ladd (2007) note that “among the most
persistent issues in American education are the racial segregation of students and the
achievement gap between black and white students” (p. 1). The problem is, in fact, a
national one. Though socioeconomic status also has stratification, with high SES
individuals consistently outperforming low SES individuals, the most common factor in
the achievement gap is race. As Bali and Alvarez (2004) state “the ‘race gap,’ usually
studied as the difference between Black and White students’ achievement scores, clearly
and repeatedly arises across the nation” (p. 1). In light of this evidence, this study seeks
to answer the following research question: Will reducing stereotype threat among
African American students result in higher standardized test scores for them?
Significance of the Problem
If the achievement gap between Black and White students is not narrowed, the
ramifications will continue to be far-reaching. Left unabated, the gap will ensure that
schools cannot meet Adequate Yearly Progress as proscribed in No Child Left Behind as
graduation rates for minorities, often the most important part of the equation for overall
graduation rate (a central component of AYP), will continue to decrease. Beyond
Stereotype Threat 2
immediate concerns, the long-range denouement can be nothing other than a further
entrenchment of what has become inter-generational poverty. Previous research has
suggested that skills reflected in test-score performance on tests such as the Armed
Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) can account for some of the racial differences in
average wages (Blackburn, 2004). To put it simply, less academic achievement translates
into less earning power for the individual, or, in this case, the group. The academic
achievement gap is a reality that impedes social and economic advancement for the
African American family. In order to strengthen the African American family via
academic achievement and educational attainment, the amelioration of the gap must be a
primary goal of the educational establishment (Leach & Williams, 2007).
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
This study is germane to the LaGrange College Education Department’s (2008)
Conceptual Framework in three important ways. Tenet 1 states that when “teachers
implement the principles of constructivism in their teacher preparation programs, they
transform their candidates and stimulate them to develop their own personal
understandings of constructivism” (pg. 3). The idea of stereotype threat is rooted deeply
in the social constructivist view that learning has many outside factors influencing it; that
education does not happen “in a vacuum.” Central to this overarching philosophy is a
critical theory view regarding education and how the group holding power determines, in
effect, the educational achievement of the group that does not. The fact that low SES
students in general, and African American students in particular, are outside the power
structure and are thusly affected by outside forces over which they have no control is an
important context of this study. Students who have internalized the popular myth that
Stereotype Threat 3
their particular group has less academic acumen than other groups are bound to “live
down” to that stereotype. Jost and Banaji, as cited by Spencer and Castano (2007), posit
the notion that System Justification Theory suggests “members of both high and low
status groups are motivated to maintain the status quo and legitimize the existing social
structures through the use of stereotypes, whether positive or negative” (p. 38).
Furthermore, because critical theory holds that transmission of education is not “value
free,” the dominant group within society determines what values are transmitted. By
reducing stereotype threat this study is designed to help students not only overcome an
artificial barrier but also to help them navigate their world by having a deeper, critical
view of it.
The goal of this study aligns nicely with Tenet 2 of the Conceptual Framework
insofar that “we believe that learning is mostly an affective, dramatic, and emotional
event and that it requires learners to construct new connections” (p. 5). That is, for a
critical understanding of the world around them, students must take an active role in their
education. The best way to do this is to connect their education to the world around
them. The implementation of avenues to overcome stereotype threat will be an emotional
exercise. Only by confronting externalities that serve as impediments to learning,
however, will students be able to excise them. In so doing, the idea that the brain, much
like a muscle, will grow when exercised will allow students to construct those new
connections.
Tenet 3 of the Conceptual Framework asserts that “through action research,
positive classroom practices, and on-going research in school communities, candidates
can affect policies and practices around them” (p. 8). The reason for this study is to
Stereotype Threat 4
affect the lives of children in a real and long-term way. Teaching children mechanisms to
reduce stereotype threat will lead to positive outcomes in both school and the real world.
Further, this study is aligned with the theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of
the Five Elements of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education 2000
Standard I for Initial Programs. The Five National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards Core Propositions for Experienced Teachers, specifically Proposition 5, that
teachers are members of learning communities, is reflected in this study as well.
Focus Questions
This study is guided by three focus questions. Question one explores the
quantitative effect of the study and is concerned with the overarching research question;
namely, how reducing stereotype threat will impact student achievement on standardized
exams. Question two explores the effect on student perception when presented with
affirmation intervention and is designed to glean pertinent information from the students
affected. From a pedagogical perspective, question three investigates how the study will
affect the culture of the school as seen through an administrative lens.
The three focus questions are:
1.
Will reducing stereotype threat amongst students in eleventh grade
government classes result in a markedly better score for this group on the
Georgia High School Graduation Test in social studies?
2. How will students respond to a campaign specifically designed to increase
achievement on standardized tests?
Stereotype Threat 5
3. How will school leaders feel about the processes used to reduce stereotype
threat with regards to the stated goals of the school improvement plan for
social studies?
Overview of Methodology
In Comparative Education, Arnove and Torres (2003) suggest that “the goal of
comparative education has been to contribute to theory building; to the formulation of
generalizable propositions about the working of school systems and their interactions
with their surrounding economies, politics, cultures, and social orders” (p. 86). This
study was centered on the comparative approach of reducing stereotype threat.
This study was conducted in one section of 11th grade government at Troup
County Comprehensive High School. The male to female ratio was equal with a
preponderance of students in a low SES level. The students were exposed to various
methods to reduce stereotype threat prior to the Georgia High School Graduation Test in
social studies.
The study utilized both quantitative and qualitative measures of assessment.
Quantitatively, a Likert scale questionnaire and a dependent t-test to examine pre and
post test results amongst students was implemented in response to focus question one.
Students were given an exam similar to the GHSGT in social studies prior to stereotype
reduction methods being implemented. Once stereotype reduction methods had been
implemented, students took the GHSGT in social studies. Qualitatively, the study
utilized surveys and interviews. Students were given surveys to assess how they felt
about the methods used in response to focus question two. Similarly, administrators were
Stereotype Threat 6
interviewed to assess their feelings about both the efficacy of the procedure and the
results thereof in response to focus question three.
Human as Researcher
In my ten years in front of the classroom, I have taught many different courses
within the social studies curriculum from remedial social studies to AP European History.
In that time I have seen first-hand the achievement gap in play. As a member of the
School Improvement Team (or varying iterations thereof) for all ten years, I have been
privy to data that proves the achievement gap between the races is not only pervasive, but
growing. As a social scientist, I am also keenly aware of historical factors that continue
to play a part in the achievement gap. As a parent, I’m concerned with how this gap, if
left unattended to, will affect the country my children inherit. Reducing stereotype threat
to narrow the achievement gap meshes my experiences, knowledge, and desires in a
research-based approach that I hope will prove fruitful.
Stereotype Threat 7
CHAPTER TWO—REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This study focuses on three research questions: Will reducing stereotype threat
amongst students in eleventh grade government classes result in a markedly better score
for this group on the Georgia High School Graduation Test in social studies? How will
Black students respond to a campaign specifically designed to increase achievement on
standardized tests? How will school leaders feel about the processes used to reduce
stereotype threat with regards to the stated goals of the school improvement plan for
social studies? To imbue the study with the proper credentials, research and review of
available literature concerning each question was undertaken.
Stereotype threat arises when members of a group internalize negative
connotations about said group with regards to completion of or excelling at specific tasks.
This negativity is manifested by a fear of reinforcing the negative stereotype. Black high
school students exhibit stereotype threat in the face of meeting or exceeding statemandated “cut-off” scores on standardized exams. The stark achievement gap between
the races on these types of assessments lends credence to the theory. To reduce
stereotype threat, then, is to narrow the achievement gap.
Affirmation intervention techniques have been used in various guises in numerous
studies in an effort to disabuse black students of the notion they are incapable of
academic achievement. The task is all the more difficult when confronted with the stark
reality that the achievement gap first arises in the primary grades. Poor starts causing an
early achievement gap often result in an exponential growth of the gap with grade-tograde progression (Chapin, 2006). Couple the knowledge that many black students carry
with them about past performance with the trepidation all adolescents have for
Stereotype Threat 8
assessments of any kind and underperformance because of stereotype threat becomes an
all too-real possibility. As the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance found (Aronson, Cohen, McColskey, Montrose, Lewis, & Mooney, 2009),
“although a test-taking situation may seem objectively the same for all students, some
students, because of their social identity, may experience it in a very different way” (p.
2).
Effect on Test Scores
What then to engender positivity in Black test takers? Use of instruments
designed to assess student perceptions of race and the achievement gap is a necessity.
One-on-one conversations, group discussions, surveys, questionnaires, and fostering an
environment of trust in conjunction with or because of the use of such techniques have
proven successful (Bruce, Getch, & Ziomek-Daigle, 2009). Group dynamics in this sense
are a positive. The negative group dynamic, the one that gives rise to stereotype threat,
can and must be overcome. Using affirmation intervention techniques can mitigate the
negative group dynamic by replacing it with a positive group dynamic through
relationship building within and across the group.
To this end, an effort to re-educate the student about educational attainment is of
paramount importance. Students who have all too often had negative experiences in
school need to be taught that school can and should be a positive experience. And while
it is true that different kinds of students may require different pedagogies of improvement
(Steele, 1999), it is also true that all students can benefit from learning about the
malleable nature of the human brain and its capacities. Teaching students that their mind
is like a muscle—that it becomes stronger or “smarter” with exercise—can lead to
Stereotype Threat 9
improved performance across any number of educational assessments (Aronson et al.,
2004). Such interventions can ultimately lead to success outside the schoolhouse as well.
Serna, Forness, and Neilson (1998) posit that “ultimately, teachers may be able to teach
social/resiliency/self-determination skills so that children can advocate for themselves
and exhibit behaviors that promote independence and success in school, family, and
community settings” (p. 49). Thus, improving the self-perception of the student can
improve test scores, graduation rates, and life-long earning potential for the student.
Beyond discussions about and lessons devoted to learning potential, though, other
affirmation intervention techniques are needed to help reduce stereotype threat.
Affirmation intervention can be both teacher directed and student (or self) directed. By
understanding motivational urges and how to harness self-control, self affirmation is sure
to follow (Schmeichel & Vohs, 2009). As stereotype threat afflicts members of a group,
group affirmation is also important to reduce the threat. Peer support is invaluable to
these ends (Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006). When students can point to another who is,
ostensibly, just like themselves but different in that the other has attained educational
success, students can begin to imagine themselves matching said achievement. Frequent
contact with the parent by the school in a concerted effort to improve the student’s selfworth and self-perception of ability on regimented educational tasks leads to improved
performance and the counselors of the school should be primarily engaged in such efforts
(Brigman, Webb & Campbell, 2007).
What then of actual classroom instruction? Research indicates that specific
reading and writing tasks work to reduce stereotype threat. The use of authentic reading
materials has shown to be effective to this end. When students are allowed to read
Stereotype Threat 10
materials that are at their reading level and in an area of interest to them, educational
awareness and, most importantly, self esteem are raised (Erickson, 2008). When Black
students are allowed to write about their values and interests, there tends to be an
improvement in achievement as well (Cohen, Garcia, Purdie-Vaughns, Apfel, &
Brzustoski 2009).
Labeling, though, is perhaps most important in this area. Just as stereotype threat
affects performance on assessments, labeling bias does as well. When tests are labeled in
different ways, it affects performance on them (Jencks & Phillips 1998). By describing a
test as a measure of intelligence, for example, the instructor may be unwittingly setting
his Black students up for failure. Even if the test measures intelligence quotient, labeling
it as something else improves the performance of minority students (Sackett, Hardison, &
Cullen 2004). To reduce stereotype threat one must be cognizant of these findings.
Focused lessons that are attuned to both group dynamics and individual perceptions of
ability must be employed along with the focused efforts of parents and counselors to do
the same.
Student Perceptions
How then will Black students feel about efforts to reduce stereotype threat?
Racial inequality in educational attainment is not something that is simply rooted in the
past. Opportunities within schools are often racialized knowingly or unknowingly by the
school leaders (Pollock, 2008). The key to assuring buy-in by minority students toward
affirmation intervention techniques lies in the overall climate of the school. The better
Black students feel about the racial climate in their particular school, the more likely the
achievement gap there is narrower than at a school with a poor racial climate (Mattison &
Stereotype Threat 11
Aber 2007). The fact is, racial climate within a school is indicative of achievement by
minorities. Students who attend schools that have a balanced distribution of races do
better than those who attend schools dominated by one race (Ipka, 2003). Being aware
of this factor should help students appreciate efforts designed to help them overcome
internalized feelings of deficiency.
To that end, expressing the idea of educational capital in explicit terms will help
Black students understand the importance of accepting affirmation intervention. By
maximizing experiences in school students can gain additional “capital”, or tools to help
them be successful in all areas of their life (Lewis, 2003). The trick is to get Black
students to accept such theory. To have a positive experience in school and thusly be
positively affected by learning, Black students and their families need to take pro-active
roles in their education (Leach & Williams, 2007). By reaching out to parents when
implementing affirmation intervention techniques, teachers can have a positive impact on
the perception of parents with regards to their child’s education. Insistence on academic
achievement and family environment play a critical role in how a student views his
education (Mandara, Varner, Greene, & Richman, 2009). The question of how Black
students will respond to efforts at stereotype reduction through affirmation intervention
can largely be answered by what type of home life the student has. Not only are attitudes
about education within the home important, but the educational attainment of the mother
has a direct impact on her child’s educational journey (Mandara et al., 2009). To assess
the feelings of Black students these variables must be taken into account.
To what degree students view intelligence as malleable influences how they will
react to affirmation intervention (Aronson et al., 2003). In situations where stereotypes
Stereotype Threat 12
exist, this information is vital. By determining the nature of individuals’ achievement
goals, one can focus attention on patterns of behavioral variables (Smith, Schneider, &
Ruck, 2005). This relates directly to minority students in two important ways. One,
there must be positive role-models present to emulate; two, positive attitudes toward
education are of significant importance. When there is evidence of educational
attainment by visible minority populations, youth within those populations have higher
achievement (Maximova & Krahn, 2005). Students who can point to someone similar to
themselves having success in education are more likely to believe success is possible for
them. Possessing a positive attitude is instrumental in educational achievement for all
students, but especially so for minority students. In Canada, for example, only two
percent of the population is Black, but an achievement gap still exists between Black
Canadians and White Canadians. That gap is narrowed, however, when positive attitudes
about education manifest themselves within the minority population. When students and
their parents feel good about education, academic successes follow (Smith et al., 2005).
Leadership Thoughts
Assessing how students feel about change processes is one thing; assessing how
school leaders feel about the same change process is something altogether different.
Multi-racial schools need strong leadership in place to affect change with regards to the
achievement gap. To reduce alienation of minority students, the leadership must be proactive in making the school climate one where all students can feel comfortable (Shah,
2008). This fact must go hand in hand with parental involvement. As Roscigno (1999)
states, “family and school, rather than being independent institutions, likely overlap and
intrude on one another” (p. 160). This is especially true when the discussion is about
Stereotype Threat 13
how to narrow the pervasive achievement gap. When stake-holders work together to
implement strategies designed to ameliorate a problem such as the achievement gap, the
outcomes are invariably better than if those stake-holders are at odds with one another.
For the educational institution, how to address the problem is the matter at hand.
The school has to figure out if the problem is one of structure blaming or one of culture
blaming (Sperling & Vaughn, 2009). Structure blaming encompasses a belief that the
problem is systemic, that is, that the root cause of the achievement gap lies within the
school and its pedagogical and/or disciplinary practices. Culture blaming posits the
notion that the “culture,” in this case one of a supposed callous disregard by Black
parents for the educational attainment of their children, is the primary factor in the
achievement gap. Whatever the case might be, perception of school climate by students
and their parents is directly correlated to the size of the achievement gap (Mattison &
Aber, 2007). With that in mind, it is incumbent upon school leaders to foster an
atmosphere of openness, equity, and high expectations. Without such institutional mores,
stake-holders cannot have the buy-in necessary to narrow the achievement gap.
How then to enhance programs that work or to implement new ones for those that
do not? For schools, and more importantly for school leaders, this is the crux of the
matter. To put it simply, school policies can help narrow the achievement gap (Alvarez,
Salas, & Garofano, 2004). In today’s era of high-stakes testing, student scores are
scrutinized from many different angles. The scores of White students are compared to
those of Black students. The scores of economically-disadvantaged students are
compared to those of students who come from high socio-economic status families. And
while state polices matter, (Van Dorn, Bowen, & Blau, 2006) it is what happens within
Stereotype Threat 14
the walls of each school that truly make a difference in narrowing the achievement gap.
Schools cannot simply focus on “content standards” in an effort to address the gap. A
holistic approach is necessary to make any real gains (Rothstein, 2004). That is, while
schools must operate under the direction of an overseeing body and conform to whatever
constraints their policies put in place, it is each school itself that must determine how to
address the gap within its walls. Just as no two classes are the same even if the subject
matter is, no two schools are just alike even if the achievement gap is.
School choice has become de rigueur as of late with those who blame the schools
themselves (structure blaming) for the failings of their students. Allowing parents to
move their children to the school of their choice is seen by some as a step in the right
direction to narrowing the achievement gap. However, Bifulco and Ladd (2006) note that
“how a particular school choice program affects students from disadvantaged groups will
depend both on the new schooling options that the program makes available and on the
choices made by their parents” (p. 32). Taken in that context, school choice is on par
with parental choices regarding expectations for their children. School choice is not
confined to schools in the United States, either. School choice is a big issue in the
Netherlands, too. There, however, it is believed that schools make the best choices for
themselves, i.e., on how to improve student achievement (Vedder, 2006). The Dutch
further believe that it is the parent who makes the best choices for their children.
Schools, then, are left to determine what is in their best interest while adhering to
the restrictions the law has placed upon them. In order to affect positive change, schools
must change from within. To become an agent of change the school must utilize
research-driven “best practices.” By implementing said best practices to narrow the
Stereotype Threat 15
achievement gap, the school becomes the main driver of change (Olszewski-Kubilius,
2006). Teaching students is one thing; teaching teachers how to teach better is something
altogether different. For this sea change to become a reality, schools have to get
information to their teachers on best practices. More importantly, schools must show
teachers how to implement those best practices in front of students. Professional learning
is the best avenue to retrain teachers. Closing the achievement gap, ultimately, is the
responsibility of the school. For this to happen, four components are key: strengthened
teaching, courageous conversations, student-teacher relationships, and positive energy
concerning the solutions to the problems (Hirsch, 2005). These components are,
obviously, best handled “in-house.” To affect the kind of change one would like to see
concerning the achievement gap, school leaders can and should take the lead on these
issues. By focusing on strong curricular, instructional, and assessment design, schools
leaders can help close the gap (Cooper, DeRoche, Ouchi, Segal, & Brown, 2006). The
question then becomes one of faculty involvement in and mastering of new techniques
designed to affect the desired change.
This study takes into account the complexities of narrowing the achievement gap
by focusing on three areas with the gap at its heart. By introducing affirmation
intervention techniques in the classroom designed to reduce stereotype threat in Black
students, the goal is to affect change by increasing standardized test scores for those
students. By assessing how those students felt about the intervention, the goal is to be
able to refine the techniques implemented for future use by other educators. By finding
out how the educational leaders at my school viewed the research, the goal is to be able to
affect an institutional change that will narrow the achievement gap between students.
Stereotype Threat 16
CHAPTER THREE—METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This project is a combination of an action research design and an evaluation
research design. As such, the study is designed both to resolve an issue in the classroom
and to affect change at the institutional level.
By using an inductive approach to qualitative research the study focused on the
gains made by students on standardized test scores. And while quantification of said
gains is important, this type of research undeniably has the person as the focus. The
emphasis is on words rather than numbers (Maxwell, Mergendoller, & Bellisimo, 2005).
The immediate goal was an improvement in test scores; the long-term goal was an
improvement in the self-perception of the students. GHSGT-aligned pre-test scores were
compared to the student’s scores on that year’s GHSGT. Further, surveys to assess
student feelings about the study were utilized to assess the efficacy of the study with
regards to self-perception.
To determine the effectiveness of affirmation intervention, the study also
incorporated an evaluation research design. Benefit maximization principles dictate that
the decision about whether or not to expand the techniques used in the study be based on
utilitarian philosophy. The best decision is the one that results in the greatest benefit for
the most people (Cohen et al., 2009). Interviews of school leaders were used to
determine the overall efficacy of the study with regards to implementation of the
employed techniques by a greater number of the faculty.
Stereotype Threat 17
Setting
The research was conducted at a public high school with 1382 students located in
west-central Georgia. Twenty-three students from the school were participants.
Mirroring both school and community demographics, the study group was approximately
60% White and 40% Black with 35% overall identified as being at a low socio-economic
level.
The school was chosen as the site to conduct the research by virtue of the fact that
the researcher is employed there. Permission to use the students as participants in the
study was granted by both the principal of the school and the school improvement
specialist and assessment coordinator at the district level. Further, the Institutional
Review Board of the cooperating college accepted the application for the study.
Subjects and Participants
Twenty-three students taking 11th grade government classes at the participating
high school participated in the study. The sample number was determined by the
number of students in the government classes studied.
The students at the focus of the study were in one section of an 11th grade
government class taught by the researcher. Between 16-19 years of age, 50% male and
50% female, 60% white and 40% black, the students were selected to be the subjects of
the study by being enrolled in the researchers’ government class.
School leaders at the cooperating high school were participants in the study.
These participants included the principal, the registrar, and the district academic coach
for social studies. The principal was in his 2nd year at the school and his 21st in
education, the registrar was in her 3rd year at the school and in her 13th in education, and
Stereotype Threat 18
the academic coach was in her 5th year in that capacity and had been in education for 18
years. The participants were selected both for their ability to give pertinent feedback
about the study and their ability to affect institutional change should the study warrant
doing so. Further, permission was needed from the principal as the instructional leader at
the school and from the registrar as the administrator in charge of the researcher’s
department at the school to allow the study.
Procedures and Data Collection Methods
This study was designed to reduce stereotype threat in Black students through
affirmation intervention techniques in an effort to improve standardized test scores. The
following table explains the foci, data collection methods, and analysis procedures.
Table 3.1 Data Shell
Focus Question
Literature Sources
Will reducing stereotype
threat amongst students in
11th grade government
classes result in a markedly
better score for this group
on the Georgia High
School Graduation Test in
social studies?
How will students respond
to a campaign specifically
designed to increase
achievement on
standardized tests?
Bruce, A. (200
Demack, S. (2000)
Steele, C. (1999)
How will school leaders
feel about the processes
used to reduce stereotype
threat with regards to the
stated goals of the school
improvement plan for
social studies?
Type of Method
and Data
Method:
assessment,
reflection
How these data are analyzed
Dependent T Test (comparing GHSGT
scores in social studies with pre-test
scores.)
Data:
quantitative,
qualitative
Ipka, V. (2003)
Mandara, J. (2009)
Olszewski-Kubilius, P.
(2006)
Cooper, B. (2006)
Mattison, E. (2007)
Roscigno, V. (1999)
Method:
survey,
discussion
questions,
reflection
Data:
Nominal and/or
ordinal,
qualitative
Method:
interview, focus
group, reflection
Survey,
Likert scale results examined via Chi
Square
Coded for themes
Coded for themes
Data:
qualitative
Focus Question One addresses the quantitative aspect of the evaluation research
design. Will reducing stereotype threat amongst Black students in11th-grade government
Stereotype Threat 19
classes result in a markedly better score for this group on the Georgia High School
Graduation Test in social studies? A pre-test similar to the GHSGT in social studies was
administered prior to affirmation intervention techniques being applied. Data from that
assessment was then compared to the actual GHSGT in social studies taken at the
conclusion of the study.
Focus Question Two was to determine the affective-reflective outcomes of the
study. How will Black students respond to a campaign specifically designed to increase
achievement on standardized tests? Specific instruments used in affirmation intervention
are found in the appendices of the study along with the survey designed for this study and
given to the students. Further, a discussion questionnaire was given to the students at the
end of the semester to gauge their feelings on the effectiveness of the treatment.
Essentially, the program of affirmation intervention utilized three overarching platforms.
Those platforms were: 1) Instructing the students that the brain is like a muscle and can
be strengthened with “exercise.” Affirmation intervention through group discussion and
one-on-one conversations held within the parameters of the social studies curriculum is
aimed at getting students to buy-in to the idea that intelligence is malleable rather than
immutable. 2) Disabusing the students of the notion that prior performance in school is a
predictor of their current abilities, i.e., just because success has not been had does not
mean that it cannot be had. Assignments, early in the semester, that fostered this notion
through subjective rather than objective grading were utilized. 3) Focusing the students
on attributes they possess that are equally as important as their educational acumen. To
this end, differentiated dissemination approaches as well as differentiated assessments
that give opportunities for non-traditional learners to showcase their talents were utilized.
Stereotype Threat 20
Focus Question Three deals with the change process at the institutional level.
How will school leaders feel about the processes used to reduce stereotype threat with
regards to the stated goals of the school improvement plan for social studies? An
interview with the researcher’s immediate supervisor and a focus group involving the
researcher’s colleagues within the social studies department were convened to gauge their
thoughts on the treatment and the possibility of replicating the study across the discipline.
The instruments employed, focus group prompts and interview questions, can be found as
Appendices A, B, and C, respectively. Said instruments are designed to assess both the
success of affirmation intervention itself with reducing stereotype threat amongst the
subjects and the efficacy of extending the procedures used to the faculty at large in hopes
of affecting institutional change.
In addition to quantitative data associated with focus question one, the nominal
and qualitative data associated with focus question two, and the qualitative data
associated with focus question three, a reflection by the researcher that touches on all
three foci was written as a further resource by which to view the study.
Validity, Reliability/Dependability, Bias, and Equity
To measure student learning after affirmation intervention techniques were
implemented, interval data was gathered via pre-and post-tests. Both instruments were
designed to measure student knowledge about the content area. The pre-test was a
diagnostic exam developed by the content Academic Coach for the school system and
was given prior to affirmation intervention. The post-test was the state-mandated
Georgia High School Graduation Test in Social Studies, thusly assuring content validity.
Stereotype Threat 21
To ensure reliability, a test-retest statistic was used to correlate the scores (Salkind,
2010). Furthermore, the exams were free from bias as they had been developed using the
methodology of Psychometricians to ensure the questions are not unfair, are inoffensive,
and have engendered no disparate impact upon the exam takers.
To assess how students felt about the affirmation intervention techniques and
whether or not they believed the techniques were worthwhile, surveys were given to the
students at the end of the study to ensure construct validity. The responses proved
reliable by disaggregating the quantitative data using a Chronbach’s Alpha (Salkind,
2010). To increase the dependability of the qualitative data collected, several measures
were implemented including having an adequate number of participants, developing a
well-organized method of data collection, and establishing a chain of evidence.
To assess how the administration viewed the methodology of the study and results
thereof, an interview of the registrar was undertaken to ensure construct validity. Several
measures were implemented to increase the dependability of the data collected including
developing a well-organized method of data collection, having an adequate number of
participants, and establishing a chain of evidence.
Given that I was aware of potential bias, an equity audit was undertaken prior to
the development of the interview questions to mitigate the potential for bias. Further,
teacher quality throughout the research period was largely static as the same instruction
was given to all students involved in the study. To ensure programmatic equity, great
pains were undertaken to maintain protocols that are easily replicated. The design of the
study itself negates any effects that might have arisen from an equity trap as the express
Stereotype Threat 22
purpose was to determine if affirmation intervention could increase the standardized test
scores of historically marginalized populations.
Analysis of Data
For the analysis of Focus Question One, regarding student mastery of content,
pre-and post-tests were utilized to determine if significant stereotype reduction occurred
thanks to affirmation intervention. The test scores were analyzed by a dependent t-test. A
dependent t-test was used to determine if there are significant differences between the
pre-test and the post test. In this instance, the decision to reject the null hypothesis was
set at p < .05. Effect size was measured by Cohen's r for the dependent t-test.
To analyze the results of focus question two, a chi square was used to determine
the significance of each response. The significance level was reported at the p < .05, p <
.01 and the p < .001 levels.
To analyze the results of Focus Question Three, interview responses were
analyzed by survey data. The survey included qualitative data that was coded for
dominant, recurring, or emerging themes. Furthermore, a reflection that touches on all
three foci was written to be used as another lens with which to view the study.
This study exhibits consensual validation by the approval of LaGrange College
faculty to allow it. Eisner (1991) calls the faculty review process an agreement among
competent others that the description, interpretation, evaluation and thematic are right. To
ensure epistemological validation, the results of this study have been compared to similar
studies. Denzin and Lincoln (1998) describe the cycling back to the literature review as a
place where the researcher convinces the reader that he has remained consistent with the
theoretical perspectives used in the review of the literature. Credibility within the study
Stereotype Threat 23
is the result of structural corroboration by using many different sources. Eisner (1991)
calls this a process a confluence of evidence coming together to form a compelling
whole. Precision has been attended to by presenting a tight argument, coherent case and
strong evidence to assert judgments. Eisner (1991) refers to precision as ‘rightness of fit.’
Fairness has been attended to within the study by including opposing views from both
students and faculty taking part. The study has transferability because of the great care
taken in ensuring the above attributes, meaning the easily-replicable nature of the study
gives it referential adequacy, where perception and understanding by others will increase
because of the research (Eisner, 1991). Lather, as cited by Kinchloe & McLaren (1998)
define catalytic validity as the degree to which one anticipates a study to shape and
transform participants, subjects or school. The researcher hopes for catalytic validity in
that positive change might occur because of the study.
Stereotype Threat 24
CHAPTER FOUR—RESULTS
This chapter recounts the results of the implementation of affirmation intervention
techniques in an effort to reduce stereotype threat with regards to standardized test scores.
The study sought to gauge the effect of this intervention by comparing pre-test scores to
Georgia High School Graduation Test scores to assess if gains were made. The study
also sought to determine if the subjects of the study agreed with the tenants central to
stereotype reductions. Further, the study sought to ascertain if similar applications of the
intervention could be beneficial to the school improvement process. Data regarding these
foci are discussed by focus question.
Focus Question One
To determine the answer to Focus Question One, whether affirmation intervention
techniques did in fact reduce stereotype threat to allow for improvement in standardized
exams, pre-test and post-test data were compared. Students were given a pre-test that
was closely aligned to the standards used on the GHSGT prior to affirmation intervention
techniques being employed. Throughout the course of a ten week period, lasting directly
after the administration of the pre-test to the day before the administration of the
GHSGT, affirmation intervention techniques were employed in the classroom.
Essentially, the program of affirmation intervention utilized three overarching platforms.
Those platforms were: 1) Instructing the students that the brain is like a muscle and can
be strengthened with “exercise.” Affirmation intervention through group discussion and
one-on-one conversations held within the parameters of the social studies curriculum
were aimed at getting students to buy-in to the idea that intelligence is malleable rather
than immutable. 2) Disabusing the students of the notion that prior performance in school
Stereotype Threat 25
is a predictor of their current abilities, i.e., just because success has not been had does not
mean that it cannot be had. Assignments, early in the semester, that fostered this notion
through subjective rather than objective grading were utilized. 3) Focusing the students
on attributes they possessed that are equally as important as their educational acumen.
To this end, differentiated dissemination approaches as well as differentiated assessments
that gave opportunities for non-traditional learners to showcase their talents were utilized.
The pre-test post-test data is presented below in a statistical analysis using a
dependent t- test.
Table 4.1
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
t(22)=.17, p>.05
T score PreTest
50.20913043
102.7477901
23
0.806835509
T score
GHSGT
49.98304348
99.36578577
23
0
22
0.173480667
0.431929965
1.717144335
0.86385993
2.073873058
Based on the data gleaned from the statistical analysis, the researcher accepted the
null hypothesis. There was no significant difference in test scores after affirmation
intervention techniques had been employed. Students whose scores on the pre-test were
above average had scores on the GHSGT that were above average. Students whose
scores on the pre-test were below average, had scores on the GHGST that were below
Stereotype Threat 26
average. The Pearson Correlation, a reliability statistic, came back at 0.806835509,
meaning that there was a strong positive correlation between pre-test and GHSGT scores.
Effect size, measuring the magnitude of a treatment effect, was also taken into account.
Effect Size r – for paired data such as the dependent t-test run for this study, came back at
.010, which was negligible at best. Therefore, affirmation intervention techniques had no
bearing on improving test scores and the null hypothesis was accepted.
Qualitatively, attrition through incompetence, indifference, incarceration, and
institutionalization wreaked havoc on the ability to conduct meaningful research with the
student population selected. The research was initially intended to study the effects of
affirmation intervention treatment on two classes to secure a meaningful number of
students with which to quantify data. However, extenuating circumstances necessitated
formally offering intervention affirmation techniques to only one class. This class started
with twenty nine students, but was reduced to twenty three throughout the semester for
the reasons listed above. Both numbers fall within the norm for class sizes, but are still
too large for effective personalized education. As Achilles and Finn (1990) note, “… a
significant benefit accrues to students in reduced-size classes in all subject areas and
there is evidence that minority students in particular benefit from the smaller class
environment” (pg. 21). Regular attendance became an unforeseen impediment as well.
One student in the group receiving treatment missed forty two days of instruction; the
class averaged eleven absences per student. The small sample size, static Pearson
Correlation, and negligible effect size are resultant from these difficulties.
Stereotype Threat 27
Focus Question Two
Regarding Focus Question Two, how students viewed affirmation intervention
techniques, these results, as enumerated by a chi square statistical instrument, revealed
that two disparate themes emerged.
Table 4.2
Chi Square Results
Survey Items
n=10
Item 1
Student Questionnaire
χ
5=Strongly agree
4=Agree
3=Neutral
2=Disagree
1=Strongly disagree
5.913043478
Item 3
Past performance in school predicts future
performance
Like a muscle, the brain gets stronger when
exercised
I like to read
Item 4
I have to study to pass classes
0.260869565*
Item 5
Test taking causes anxiety
16.7826087*
Item 6
Everyone is good at something
7.652173913*
Item 7
School is hard
11.56521739*
Item 8
Homework is important to help me understand
the subject matter
A positive attitude helps me be successful
5.47826087
Item 2
Item 9
Item 10
How much money someone has means that
person worked hard
* p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
8.52173913
10.69565217*
13.73913043
7.652173913
Despite the fact that students expressed that they like to read as revealed in Item
3, students also stated that test taking causes anxiety, as revealed in Item 5. Further,
regarding Item 9, students agreed that a positive attitude will help them be successful.
However, based on critical values for the chi square test (Salkind, 2010), the obtained
Stereotype Threat 28
value is less than the critical value and thus the null hypothesis must be accepted. There
was no significance regarding the student’s attitudes concerning learning and/or the
effectiveness of affirmation intervention techniques.
Qualitatively, no conclusion could be based on the feedback given by students via
the student questionnaire. Few responses proved statistically significant and those that
did were at opposite ends of the spectrum with regards to attitudes surrounding learning.
There were no themes present in the responses that would lend credence to the hypothesis
that affirmation intervention is successful as a stand-alone process.
Student responses via discussion, moreover, revealed qualitative data that yielded
conclusions that necessitated rejecting the null hypothesis. Two themes emerged from
the discussion sheets; 1) Interest in school was minimal and largely familial, 2)
Affirmation intervention was met with apathy and students showed indifference toward
how it might have affected their test scores.
Four questions were derived with the goal of peeling back attitudinal mores
toward education itself amongst the students and how education has affected their lives
and the lives of their families and peers. When asked how successful they had been in
school up to this point, most responses were some variation of “alright.” “Pretty good,”
“so-so,” and “okay, I guess” were interspersed with answers such as “I made it this far.”
Only one student, a White female who made the highest score on both the pre-test and
GHSGT, answered with overwhelming positivity. Her response was “extremely
successful.” This student offered responses to each question that proved to be an outlier.
Two questions sought to evaluate attitudes toward assessment, one prior to treatment, the
other after treatment. Responses were similar to both questions. When asked how they
Stereotype Threat 29
felt about taking tests, most responses were “hate tests” or some iteration thereof. “Tests
are stupid,” “tests be hard,” and “didnt car, sometime jus bubble in ansers” were
representative answers. When asked how they felt about tests as a result of being in the
researcher’s class, the responses were remarkably similar. “Still don’t care,” “still hate
tests,” “I really don’t feel nothing,” and “I can retake, so why care?” were the norm. In
response to a query about how successful people “like them” have been in school, an
illustrative answer for the group was “everybody I know and everybody like me get by
somehow.”
Four more questions were designed to assess student buy-in to affirmation
intervention techniques themselves. Students responded favorably to class discussions
about race, poverty, and education noting that “it be better than reading,” “it was ok,” and
“talking about stuff that we want to talk about is cool.” But when asked about malleable
cognitive abilities and differentiated skill sets specifically, the answers once again
suggested that the intervention techniques were not successful. Typical responses to a
question about believing that everyone is good at something were “I don’t know,” “sure,
whatever,” “just cause you say it don’t make it so,” and “no…my brother aint good at
nuthin.” The final question asked if they believed the discussions and lessons about
reducing stereotype threat had any bearing on their performance on the GHSGT. And
while the students asserted that it had helped, their answers belied their confidence.
Standard responses were “I think it helped, but that test be hard,” “maybe, but I had to
guess a bunch,” “I hope so…I don’t want to have to take that junk over again,” “yes, but I
failed,” and “I just want to graduate.”
Stereotype Threat 30
Focus Question Three
Focus Question Three, how the administration of the school viewed the study,
was addressed by convening a focus group discussion amongst the researcher’s twelve
colleagues in the social studies department about affirmation intervention, stereotype
threat, and standardized test scores and then interviewing the researcher’s immediate
supervisor, the school registrar, about both the results of the study and the analysis of the
focus group answers. This interview revealed qualitative data showing an appreciation for
the study in both its theoretical underpinnings and the prosecution thereof. Further,
openness toward replicating the intervention techniques across segments of the
curriculum was relayed to the researcher by his supervisor despite some misgivings by
his colleagues on the efficacy and replicable nature thereof.
Focus group discussion amongst and between members of the social studies
department revealed two dominant, but antithetical themes. The group was nearly evenly
split between those who found merit in both stereotype threat and the concept of using
affirmation intervention techniques to counter it and those who found both concepts to be
substantively flawed. The group of educators who were receptive to the central tenants
of this study, while having only cursory knowledge of the fact that the study was being
conducted, found both the idea of stereotype threat and the possible minimizing of it
through affirmation intervention to be plausible. Answers to the question about their
belief in the phenomena of stereotype threat revealed their receptiveness to the theory.
“Yes stereotype threat exists! It’s socially expected,” and “ absolutely because it is still
not cool to be smart” were answers given along with “In my opinion, when a student
comes from a culture that has ceased to place any significant value on education, that
Stereotype Threat 31
student is far less likely to place any real value on their own education. This results in
lower achievement. Stereotype threat exists, but it is a side effect, not the root issue.”
When asked if specific affirmation intervention techniques might help reduce stereotype
threat in students, this group of educators was likewise sanguine. Characteristic
responses were “I believe this type of focus could potentially prove to be foundational to
the success of the content-heavy sections of the class,” “I think these efforts could be
positive in that they are attempts to boost students’ confidence and to stop them from
believing in negative stereotypes about themselves,” “Absolutely, opening their eyes to
the fact that nothing holds them back is the best way to motivate someone,” and “Yes!
The fact that you even had a conversation with them about them shows them that you
care…and they will want to please you.”
Conversely, the other educators in the group found both stereotype threat and
affirmation intervention to be “…a load of bull.” When asked if they believed in
stereotype threat this group of educators answered with the likes of “No. Psychobabble is
what got us in this situation in the first place,” “Really? Girls aren’t good in math is still
being trotted out? This is 2011!” “I do not believe it exists on a factual basis. I feel that
people have been trained to find excuses such as this one and ride them and use them as a
reason to be apathetic,” and “Who knows? Even if it does it’s a load of bull.” This same
group of educators was also asked if they believed students would be successful on an
exam if they believed they would be. Their responses were typified by “They feel good
because they are prepared/studied and score better because of that not because of the
endorphins given off from positive thinking…garbage!” When asked if they believed
that affirmation intervention might be successful in improving standardized test scores,
Stereotype Threat 32
they responded with “Not necessarily. They may not put in the appropriate preparation to
do well,” “I doubt it. Kids don’t need confidence, they need knowledge,” and “Only if
they realize that in failure they have no one to blame except themselves.”
The last question for the focus group asked if the participants might employ
affirmation intervention in their classrooms. Again, the answers revealed disparate points
of view. The teachers who answered in the affirmative made comments like “This is
something that any good teacher would do,” and “I have used similar techniques in the
past and found it to be effective.” Those who answered in the negative made comments
like “No. It won’t work with all students. Students are not magically going to do better
because they feel better about themselves,” and “How? With all the other stuff they
make us do it’s pretty hard to find time to go off the immediate subject with which we are
supposed to be focused.”
The culmination of Focus Question Three revolved around interviewing the
researcher’s immediate supervisor about all aspects of the study. The Registrar indicated
that, with regards to the race gap, “I think the number one thing that can close this gap is
engaging students from all backgrounds and creating a classroom and school culture that
embraces everyone but also stresses accountability of all students within that culture.”
As for the efficacy of affirmation intervention techniques themselves, she said “… it
makes things personal, but it also makes them non-threatening, especially to students
who's culture is one of ‘you must do this or else.’” This buy-in for the theory behind the
study was evident in other answers as well. When asked Focus Question Three directly,
“How will school leaders feel about the processes used to reduce stereotype threat with
regards to the stated goals of the school improvement plan for social studies?”, the
Stereotype Threat 33
Registrar replied “The reason that we must make sure students pass the GHSGT in social
studies is so they can graduate.”
When questioned about the results of the study, the responses were more nuanced
but still positive. When asked about the quantitative data, the registrar was dismissive of
the test results, insisting that student responses would be a better barometer. When
presented with the survey results and student responses to the discussion questions, the
researcher’s supervisor indicated that she was not surprised, stating “student apathy is
certainly a problem.” When the issue of student absences was brought up, the registrar
intimated that this might have been the root cause of poor results, saying “They can’t get
it if they are not here. That goes to both the academic piece and the affective focus.” As
for the possibility of expanding the implementation of affirmation intervention techniques
to the rest of the faculty, the researcher’s immediate supervisor noted that “I think all
teachers should demonstrate affirmation interventions, but it's not something that's
necessarily taught. It usually develops with the art of teaching, and some teachers are
still working on just getting the pedagogy right.” The possible reluctance of some staff
members to fully embrace the initiative should it be mandated was addressed by replying
that “If relationship building is stressed, if it is part of our school improvement plan, we
can and will expect our faculty to do that. Beyond that, letting students know you care is
simply a best practice.”
Finally, the Registrar was asked if she had any recommendations should the
researcher choose to employ such techniques in the future. She affirmed that “I think you
had an effect on those kids regardless of the outcome of your study. Asking you to step
outside your comfort zone, to give up Advanced Placement and College Preparatory
Stereotype Threat 34
courses to focus on remediation and “regular” classes was, I know, difficult for you. But
I’ve talked to your students this year. They learned a lot from you. And you learned a lot
from them.”
Reflection
I began this study with the best intentions in mind....how to affect both immediate
results and long-term methodologies within the social studies curriculum with regards to
improving standardized test scores. Even when girded with “best practices” and imbued
with best intentions, the monumental challenges facing a public high school educator
seem to be insurmountable. I found that attrition through incompetence, indifference,
incarceration, and institutionalization wreaked havoc on my ability to conduct
meaningful research. Whereas I had intended to give treatment to two classes in hopes of
securing a meaningful number of students with which to quantify data, extenuating
circumstances necessitated formally offering intervention affirmation techniques to one
class only. Add to this attendance issues, and a perfect storm resulted. One student in the
group receiving treatment missed forty two days of instruction. The class average was
eleven absences per student.
As this study revolved around the question of stereotype threat and the reduction
thereof, particularly as it relays to the achievement gap, I found the difficulties I
encountered during the application of the study to be emblematic of the problem as a
whole. Students who one might think would be motivated to succeed in class . . . White,
middle-class . . . did in fact succeed in class; whereas, students one would assume might
struggle . . . Black, lower socio-economic . . . did in fact struggle. Moreover, the students
who failed to achieve significant gains were from families that had a low level of
Stereotype Threat 35
education to begin with. Unfortunately, these results cannot be attributed to affirmation
intervention as every student in the class, assuming they were present, were exposed to
the same methodologies.
In conducting a focus group with my colleagues, I found my experience with a
lack of participation because of attendance to be a recurring theme. This problem is both
a construct of ineffective absentee policies from the school district and indicative of
larger societal ills. Apathy amongst our student population toward the value of
education, and thusly school itself, is endemic. Whether this problem is an engagement
issue once the student arrives at school or a systemic one derived from inter-generational
poverty, or both, is the question at hand. I had hoped my study would counter the former
and alleviate the carcinogenic effects of the latter. It did neither.
In summation, two important elements of the study were marginalized by
circumstance. The difficulties I encountered detracted from rightness of fit for the study
by minimizing the amount of evidence with which to assert a strong judgment with
regards to the results. Further, catalytic validity was somewhat compromised from a
student perspective, though tangible from a teacher perspective.
Stereotype Threat 36
CHAPTER FIVE—ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
This chapter offers interpretation of the results of the study and my assertions,
reflections, and conclusions as researcher to both the results of the study and the larger
impact of the study with regards to transformation within the subjects and the setting as
well as recommendations for further research.
Analysis of Results
For Focus Question One, whether or not affirmation intervention would reduce
stereotype threat amongst Black students so that they might realize an increase on
standardized test scores, I used a pre-test/post-test model. Scores from the standardsaligned pre-test were compared with the Georgia High School Graduation Test in social
studies at the conclusion of the study by means of a dependent t-test. Unfortunately,
there was no strong evidence that affirmation intervention improved test scores.
Students, all of whom were exposed to the same affirmation intervention techniques, had
remarkably similar scores on both tests. Qualitatively, the size of the group receiving
treatment was marginalized. Though the results are reliable by virtue of adhering to data
collection guidelines and valid by the fact that test scores for Black students were
compared, there was no significance found. The small sample size, static Pearson
Correlation, and negligible effect size are resultant from unforeseeable difficulties.
The review of literature prior to the commission of the study was the catalyst for
the study itself. I found by reviewing literature on the subject that a gain in test scores
was a possibility for populations experiencing stereotype threat if affirmation intervention
techniques were employed. In a review of three experimental studies of interventions to
Stereotype Threat 37
reduce stereotype threat, the results were described as “positive” (Aronson et al., 2009).
Though Bruce et al. (2009) note that intervention “…can have significant and immediate
results” (pg. 6), I found no such results.
For Focus Question Two, how Black students would respond to affirmation
intervention techniques, I employed a formal questionnaire and distributed a discussion
sheet in addition to the tried-and-true method of listening to my students throughout the
semester. Students were asked questions about their general attitude toward education on
the questionnaire and asked to discuss the affirmation intervention techniques used in the
classroom on the discussion prompts. The questionnaire was evaluated using a chi square
statistical analysis that uncovered two disparate themes. Student responses were actually
contradictory, indicating they liked to read, but hated tests; that they believed the brain
could grow with exercise but that school was hard. Because the obtained value was less
than the critical value and the null hypothesis had to be accepted, there was no
quantitative significance regarding the students’ attitudes concerning learning and/or the
effectiveness of affirmation intervention techniques.
I do not feel as though the questionnaire gave a true picture of student attitudes,
though, as it did not measure exactly how affirmation intervention played a part in their
educational journey during the course of the study. By contrast, the discussion questions
were extremely important in this regard. Two dominant themes, that interest in school
was minimal and that affirmation intervention techniques had no bearing on student
perceptions, emerged from the discussion questions.
My results therefore proved one theme from the literature review true and proved
to be incongruent with the literature review with regards to the other theme, a duality
Stereotype Threat 38
within the epistemological validity. Demack, Drew and Grimsley’s (2000) assertion that
“…the relative effect of a school on educational attainment is small in comparison with
the effect of a pupil’s social and ethnic background and variables related to economic and
other factors” (p. 119) could explain the disinterest in school relayed by the subjects of
my study and their disbelief that affirmation intervention had any effect on them. The
achievement gap being as entrenched and inter-generational as it is manifests itself in
stereotype threat (Leach & Williams, 2007). There is no doubt that the attitudes of my
subjects toward education and their description of their beliefs themselves bears this out.
Where my study has findings that the literature doesn’t wholly comport with, though, is
on the question of affirmation intervention techniques themselves. My subjects found it
ineffective if not disingenuous. The literature suggests that self-affirmation engenders
positivity toward the self and one’s abilities (Schmeichel & Vohs, 2009), that selfdetermined skills instruction aides in performance (Serna et al., 1998), and that
confidence in one’s abilities can be manipulated by simply re-framing questions in nonthreatening ways. Despite a near constant message that eschewing stereotypes of all
kinds, especially with regards to academic achievement, would be beneficial to them, my
students did not find truth in that message.
Focus Question Three, how the administration viewed my study through the lens
of the school improvement plan to improve test scores, was measured through a focus
group with my peers and an interview with my immediate supervisor about the results of
both the focus group discussions and the results of the study. The focus group answers
were coded for themes as were the interview responses. Focus group responses fell into
two antithetical camps. One group of educators found validity with the study, the other
Stereotype Threat 39
thought it tripe. This is important because of the possible impact on the school
improvement plan. As mandated by law, high schools must show improvements from
year to year in both standardized test scores and graduation rates. One of the
impediments to full compliance with state and federal regulations is the intractable
achievement gap. This study was instituted to see if affirmation intervention might
narrow that gap and, if so, how feasible replicating the intervention techniques across the
school as a whole might be. The responses from my colleagues, however, give me pause
should such an initiative be implemented even with assurances from the registrar that the
use of certain techniques can be expected from the staff as a whole. The registrar noted
approval for both the reasoning behind my study and, despite a somewhat lukewarm
reception from my peers about the causal relationship between perception and
performance in school, the results thereof.
With regards to epistemological validity and Focus Question Three, there is no
doubt as to the alignment. The literature, overwhelmingly, supports pedagogical
enhancements that are research-based and locally-owned at the same time. To have any
chance of making Adequate Yearly Progress, racially-diverse schools have to take steps
to close the achievement gap. Closing the achievement gap, ultimately, is the
responsibility of the school. For this to happen, four components are key: strengthened
teaching, courageous conversations, student-teacher relationships, and positive energy
concerning the solutions to the problems (Hirsch, 2005). All four of these components
were central components of my study.
Stereotype Threat 40
Discussion
I began this study with the best intentions in mind....how to affect both immediate
results and long-term methodologies within the social studies curriculum with regards to
improving standardized test scores amongst Black students. The desire to "crack the
dish" or "subvert the dominant paradigm" insofar that current pedagogical practices are
seemingly ineffective to improve test scores was the driving force behind the selection of
this topic to study. The chance to affect change by simply being sensitive to historical
inequities and attempting to fashion a curriculum supplement that would help students
overcome the institutional difficulties they were saddled with through no fault of their
own, to somehow find the proverbial straw on the back of achievement gap that would
allow me to narrow it through research-based efforts proved tantalizing to a sociallyconscious individual such as myself. And then the reality of life in a public high school
set in.
Putting aside all the externalities educators have occupying our time and energies,
from No Child Left Behind and it’s proscriptions at the national level to Failure Is Not
An Option initiatives at the local level, and discounting wholly the harsh reality that
many of our students have never had instilled in them a basic understanding of selfrespect or respect of others as a result of highly dysfunctional home lives, we as
educators can control how we approach our jobs. In fact, our title dictates as much. The
tone we set has as much to do with student achievement as anything. Setting high
expectations and refusing to settle for anything less is imperative to achieving the goal of
our profession; namely, preparing the youth of America for career or college. But even
when girded with “best practices” and imbued with best intentions, the monumental
Stereotype Threat 41
challenges facing a public high school educator seem to be insurmountable. Spotty
attendance, attrition, and apathy are common themes among many high school students
today. For students of color, these themes are magnified. When added to a culture that
rewards hostility to following the rules and castigates those who try to improve
themselves and their lot in life, the answers are very hard to come by indeed.
Despite my difficulties and the negativity I encountered on student answers and in
focus groups and even though the study did not yield the desired results with regard to
change for a large number of students, I feel it made a difference for a student or two.
And that, ultimately, gives me satisfaction that my study was in fact a success.
Implications
While this study focused only on one section of one 11th-grade government class
at one public high school in one state, I firmly believe the difficulties I had with the
implementation of the study can be extrapolated to many sections, many classes, many
schools, and many states. Stories of “broken schools” are legion in the press and are part
of the reason “school reform” agendas have been a staple of political campaigns since “A
Nation At Risk” was penned in 1983.
The themes I uncovered, that apathy toward
education is rampant in student populations, that indifference toward underachieving
student populations is accepted amongst my colleagues, and that school leaders are
willing to try nearly anything to halt the widening of the achievement gap, are, at least
anecdotally, prevalent in educational institutions around the country. I think any educator
would find this study to be of interest if not a validation of their beliefs…whatever side of
the aisle they sit on. Referential adequacy, how well this study can be replicated, is at a
high level. Affirmation intervention techniques are not difficult to employ in the
Stereotype Threat 42
classroom. In fact, I believe, like my supervisor, that tactics like them should be a staple
in every classroom everywhere. Whether or not any educator using them found different
results from mine would be interesting to me.
I’m not sure that my study transformed my school in any meaningful way other
than the fact that all thirteen members of the social studies department are now at least
conversant on the theory of stereotype threat. Some of them will employ affirmation
intervention techniques of their own accord, and others will continue to shun strategies
that have psychological underpinnings in favor of straight instruction in whatever subject
matter they teach. Even if the administration mandates “letting students know you care”
to the staff, it will be of little consequence. Teachers are going to do what they want once
the door to their classroom is closed, regardless. Further, I’m not sure my study had any
long-lasting effects on my students. I hate to say it, but I have no doubt that some of
them have already forgotten what subject I taught them. The level of disengagement
amongst many high school students is such that I had one student who, as a subject of this
study, was adamant he was in “Geography” as opposed to “Government” as late as the
last week of school.
This study did have a transformational effect on me, though. Accustomed to
teaching Advanced Placement courses and having the best and brightest students at a
school sit in my classes year after year, I was not only hesitant to teach remedial and
“regular” classes this year, I was intimidated at the prospect of doing so, fearing I would
not relate to my “new” type of student. What I found, though, was that teenagers are
teenagers no matter their scholastic aptitude and that I had just as much fun with my
students this year as I have any of the other ten years of my career. Whereas I had never
Stereotype Threat 43
had to overtly let a class know I “cared” about their success before, I found that in so
doing it was therapeutic for me and appreciated by my students. Even though I had
hoped to see stellar scores across the board for the subjects of my study on the GHSGT,
and was thusly disappointed when that did not happen, I learned a lot about the
importance of attitude and mutual-respect this year…that by being explicit with my
expectations rather than implicit students respond well in the classroom if not on
standardized tests. That, despite their underwhelming responses to my queries about
affirmation intervention itself, the message seeped in just a little bit. I will be utilizing
affirmation intervention techniques in every class I ever teach from this day forward.
Impact on School Improvement
As a member of the School Improvement Team, I am well-versed in the tenants of
our School Improvement Plan. From setting the goals to honing the language to
monitoring the implementation of the plan, I am responsible for large sections of the SIP
specifically with regards to the social studies department. Serving as a liaison between
members of my department and the administration is a part of my job I enjoy and one at
which I excel. Part of the reason my school has not met AYP in recent years is a
maddeningly persistent achievement gap between the races. Student surveys have shown
time and again that our minority students do not feel a strong sense of connection to the
school itself, the faculty, or both. Stereotype threat, no doubt, plays a role in this attitude
as an overwhelming majority of our Black students are classified as economicallydisadvantaged and many of them come from “The Bricks,” government-subsidized
housing developments that offer little exposure to the outside world. To untie the
Gordian Knot of the achievement gap very well might be the panacea education needs.
Stereotype Threat 44
One small step in doing so would be to foster a greater sense of school spirit and the
importance thereof within the segment of the Black population that today distrusts
education in general. Affirmation intervention techniques just might help in this regard.
My immediate supervisor, the registrar, has asked that I share the results of my study
with the School Improvement Team as a whole. If that body agrees, I will then share the
results of my study with the entire faculty. At that point, it will be up to the
administration to determine if asking teachers to have “courageous conversations” in
their classrooms is something that might be written into the SIP. Whether or not that
happens, I know this: I’ve talked with many of my colleagues about my study, about the
theoretical underpinnings with regards to stereotype threat and affirmation intervention,
and about how easy it is to employ techniques designed to mitigate the damage low selfesteem can do to a student and have had positive interactions in most cases. If my school
is improved because a handful of teachers take it upon themselves to verbalize to students
that they care about them as students and people and that their achievement is important
to them, then my school has been improved as a result of my study.
Recommendations for Future Research
In compiling the results of this study I found I had made a couple of
miscalculations with regard to the prosecution of the study. First, a control group would
lend greater structural corroboration to the study. I was loathe to offer services to one
class I did not offer to another and so declined to have a class of my own as a control
group; the fact that my research was relegated to one class rather than the two I had
originally planned to study notwithstanding. I chose not to use another teacher’s class as
a control group out of deference to my colleagues’ autonomy and out of the realization
Stereotype Threat 45
that “one more thing” to deal with as instructed by a department chair is not something
most teachers would appreciate. In retrospect, however, the impact it would have had on
one of my colleagues would have been negligible at best. Should someone wish to
recreate this study, I would recommend a control group. Second, though a class divided
by race might well be illegal, it would have been interesting to see the difference in
discussions about stereotype threat with classes populated by different races. I don’t
know that segregated classes would make any difference in the outcome, but they might
lead to a greater willingness to talk openly about socially taboo subjects such as race than
did a racially-diverse classroom.
Finally, were I to expand this research, I would insist upon a greater number of
students as subjects. Hamstrung by having only two classes that fit my criterion and
further constrained by attrition, I’m sure a larger sample size would alleviate concerns
about rightness of fit. Perhaps in the future such a teaching schedule will be available to
me or to someone who would like to take this research and expand upon it.
Stereotype Threat 46
References
Achilles, C., & Finn, J. (1990). Answers and questions about class size: A statewide
experiment. American Educational Research Journal, September 21, 1990 vol.
27.
Alvarez, K., Salas, E., & Garofano, C. M. (2004). An integrated model of training
evaluation and effectiveness. Human Resource Development Review, 3(4), 385416.
Arnove, R., & Torres, C. (2003). Comparative Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman
and Littlefield
Aronson, J., Cohen, G., McColskey, W., Montrosse, B., Lewis, K., & Mooney, K.
(2009). Reducing stereotype threat in classrooms: A review of socialpsychological intervention studies on improving the achievement of Black
students (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2009-No. 076). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Education Laboratory
Southeast.
Bali, V. A. & Alvarez, R. M. (2004), The race gap in student achievement scores:
Longitudinal evidence from a racially diverse school district. Policy Studies
Journal, 32(4), 393–415.
Bifulco, R., & Ladd, H. F. (2007). School choice, racial segregation, and test-score
gaps: Evidence from North Carolina's charter school program. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 26(1), 31-56.
Stereotype Threat 47
Blackburn, M. L. (2004). The role of test scores in explaining race and gender
differences in wages. Economics of Education Review, 23(6), 555-576.
Brigman, G. A., Webb, L. D., & Campbell, C. (2007). Building skills for school
success: Improving the academic and social competence of students.
Professional School Counseling, 10(3), 279-288.
Bruce, A., Getch, Y., & Ziomek-Daigle, J. (2009). Closing the gap: A group counseling
approach to improve test performance of African-American students.
Professional School Counseling, 12(6), 450-457.
Chapin, J. R. (2006). The achievement gap in social studies and science starts early:
Evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study. Social Studies, 97(6-),
231-238.
Cohen, G., Garcia, J., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Apfel, N., & Brzustoski, P. (2009). Recursive
processes in self-affirmation: Intervening to close the minority achievement
gap. Science, 324 (5925), 400-403.
Cooper, B. S., DeRoche, T. R., Ouchi, W. G., Segal, L. G., & Brown, C., (2006).
Weighted Student Formula: Putting Funds Where They Count in Education
Reform. Education Working Paper Archive, 7(22), 101-119.
Demack, S., Drew, D., & Grimsley, M. (2000). Minding the gap: Ethnic, gender and
social class differences in attainment at 16, 1988–95. Race, Ethnicity &
Education, 3(2), 117-143.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),
The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 407-430).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stereotype Threat 48
Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York: MacMillan.
Erickson, E. (2008). A reading program to narrow the achievement gap. Reading
Improvement, 45(4), 170-180.
Hirsch, E. R., (2005). Education Reform and Content: The Long View. New York
Brookings Institution, The: Brown Center on Education Policy.
Horton, A. (2004). The academic achievement gap between Blacks and Whites: The
latest version of blaming the victim?. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social
Environment, 10(2), 57-70.
Ipka, V. (2003). At risk children in resegregated schools: An analysis of the
achievement gap. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30(4), 294-304.
Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (1998). The Black-White Test Score Gap. The Brookings
Review, 16(2), 24-33
Kinchloe, J., & McLaren, P. (1998) Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In
N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories
and issues (pp. 260 – 299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
LaGrange College Education Department. (2008). Conceptual framework. LaGrange,
GA: LaGrange College.
Leach, M., & Williams, S. (2007). The impact of the academic achievement gap on the
African American family: A social inequality perspective. Journal of Human
Behavior in the Social Environment, 15(2/3), 39-59.
Lewis, A., (2003). Shaping the future of American youth: Youth policy in the 21st
century. American Youth Policy Forum, 78(4), 2-92.
Stereotype Threat 49
Mandara, J., Varner, F., Greene, N., & Richman, S. (2009). Intergenerational family
predictors of the Black-White achievement gap. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 101(4), 867-878.
Mattison, E., & Aber, M. (2007). Closing the achievement gap: The Association of
racial climate with achievement and behavioral outcomes. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 40(1/2), 1-12.
Maximova, K., & Krahn, H. (2005). Does race matter? Earnings of visible minority
graduates from Alberta universities. Canadian Journal of Higher Education,
35(1), 85-110.
Maxwell, N. L., Mergendoller, J. R., & Bellisimo, Y. (2005). Problem-based learning
and high school macroeconomics: A comparative study of instructional
methods. Journal of Economic Education, 36(4), 315.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2006). Addressing the achievement gap between minority and
nonminority children. Gifted Child Today, 29(2), 28-37.
Pollock, M. (2008). From shallow to deep: Toward a thorough cultural analysis of
school achievement patterns. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 39(4), 369380.
Roscigno, V. (1999). The Black-White achievement gap, family-school links, and the
importance of place. Sociological Inquiry, 69(2), 159-186.
Rothstein, R. (2004). The achievement gap: A broader picture. Educational Leadership,
62(3), 40-43.
Stereotype Threat 50
Sackett, P. R., Hardison, C. M., & Cullen, M. J. (2004). On interpreting stereotype
threat as accounting for African American-White differences on cognitive
tests. American Psychologist, 59(1), 7-13.
Salkind, N. J. (2010). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (Excel 2nd Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schmeichel, B., & Vohs, K. (2009). Self-affirmation and self-Control: Affirming core
values counteracts ego depletion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,
96(4), 770-782.
Serna, L., Forness, S. R., & Nielsen, M. (1998). Intervention versus affirmation:
Proposed solutions to the problem of disproportionate minority representation
in special education. Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 48-51.
Shah, S. (2008). Leading multi-ethnic schools: Adjustments in concepts and practices
for engaging with diversity. British Journal of Sociology of Education,
29(5),523-536.
Smith, A., Schneider, B., & Ruck, M. (2005). “Thinking about makin’ it”: Black
Canadian students’ beliefs regarding education and academic achievement.
Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 34(4), 347-359.
Spencer, B., & Castano, E. (2007). Social class is dead. Long live social class!
Stereotype threat among low socioeconomic status individuals. Social Justice
Research, 20(4), 418-432.
Sperling, R., & Vaughan, P. (2009). Measuring the relationship between attribution for
"the gap" and educational policy attitudes: Introducing the attributions for
scholastic outcomes scale-Black. Journal of Negro Education, 78(2), 146-158.
Stereotype Threat 51
Steele, C. M., (1999). Thin ice: Stereotype threat and Black college students. The
Atlantic Online, 44(6), 21-31.
Van Dorn, R. A., Bowen, G. L., & Blau, J. R. (2006). The impact of community
diversity and consolidated inequality on dropping out of high school. Family
Relations, 55(1), 105-118.
Vedder, P. (2006). Black and White schools in the Netherlands. European Education,
38(2), 36-49.
Stereotype Threat 52
Appendix A
Student Questionnaire
1) How old are you?
2) What grade are you in?
3) How successful have you been in school in the past?
4) How successful have people like you been?
5) Prior to taking this class, how did you feel about taking tests?
6) Now how do you feel before you take a test?
7) Did you like our class discussions about race and poverty and education? Why or
why not?
8) What part of those discussions did you find the most interesting? Why?
9) Do you believe, like I asserted, that your brain can get stronger with “exercise”?
That everyone is good at something and that that can help them be successful in
school?
10) Do you think those discussions helped you be successful this year on the
GHSGT? Why or why not?
Stereotype Threat 53
Appendix B
Focus Group Questions
1) What do you know about the affirmation intervention techniques I employed in my 6th
period government class this year?
2) Stereotype threat is the idea that members of a group who have historically had
difficulty with a task will themselves have difficulty because of this. The classic
example is girls and math…”girls are bad in math, I’m a girl, therefore I’m bad in
math.” Do you think this phenomenon exists?
3) Research has indicated that if students feel good about themselves and/or their
ability to perform on a test, that they will, in fact do good on the test. What are
your thoughts on the matter?
4) I used “affirmation intervention” techniques in my class this year to try and
reduce stereotype threat amongst Black students with regards to test-taking. We
talked about how the brain is like a muscle that grows with exercise and how prior
academic performance does not necessarily predict future performance and about
how everybody is good at something in an effort to help my students feel better
about their ability to do well on exams. Do you think these efforts could yield
positive results?
5) What do you think about using techniques like this in your class? Is it something
you think you might do? Why or why not?
Stereotype Threat 54
Appendix C
Interview Questions
1) Please tell me your name, title, and how many years you have been in
education.
2) How does the achievement gap impact our school’s ability to achieve AYP?
3) What do you think can be done to close the gap?
4) What programs are currently in place at the school or district level to address
the needs of our underachieving students?
5) What legal obligations do we have in meeting the needs of students who
underperform on the GHSGT in social studies?
6) How do you view the affirmation intervention techniques I employed in my
11th grade government classes?
7) The quantitative results of my study proved there was no statistical correlation
between the application of affirmation intervention techniques and GHSGT
scores. In your capacity as my immediate supervisor and as a part of the study
itself, what response do you have to the quantitative results?
8) Qualitatively, several themes emerged that are important to the results of the
study. One involved attrition and absences on the part of the subjects. In
what ways do you think absences affect not only student performance, but
also the receptiveness to affirmation intervention?
9) Another qualitative theme was the fact that the social studies department was
pretty evenly split between members who believed stereotype threat could be
diminished through affirmation intervention and those who found the whole
Stereotype Threat 55
concept had no merit whatsoever. If affirmation intervention were to be
expected of the faculty as part of a school-improvement initiative, how could
leadership encourage reluctant educators to embrace this pedagogical
supplement?
10) What, if anything about the study would you like to see replicated? Is there
anything you would recommend that I do different?
11) Do you think affirmation intervention techniques designed to reduce
stereotype threat could be extended to other classes?
12) Is there anything I’ve missed that you think we should discuss?