Beyond Cultureblindness: A Model of Culture With Implications for Gifted Education

Roeper Review. Winter2005, Vol. 27 Issue 2, p97-103. 7p. 1 Diagram.

Ford, Donna Y.1 donna.ford@vanderbilt.edu

Moore III, James L.2 moore.1408@osu.edu
Milner, H. Richard3 rich.milner@vanderbilt.edu

We are fond of stating that "what is valued and viewed as gifted in one culture may not be
considered gifted in another culture." This assertion appears in gifted education textbooks
and in the writings of several scholars. However, beyond stating this assertion and
providing a few examples to support it, scholars in gifted education, ourselves included,
have not provided a substantive treatment of the concept of "culture" in their works. This
void is addressed in this article where we share definitions and functions of culture, along
with a theoretical model for understanding culture. The article ends with implications for
gifted education.

Cross-cultural awareness and sensitivity are ... basic survival skills for almost everyone.
(Storti, 1999, p. 1)

As we study and read about the poor achievement of culturally diverse students
(specifically, African American, Hispanic American, and Native American students) in
schools and their poor performance on achievement and intelligence tests, we share the
growing sense of urgency among educators that we need to understand better the factors
that contribute to these troubling and persistent findings. In addition to addressing issues
of low performance and underachievement by culturally diverse students, educators have
sought to increase the representation of these diverse students in gifted education
classrooms and services. The magnitude of this problem cannot be overstated nor
overestimated -- for at least seven decades, Black students, for example, have been
underrepresented in gifted education (Ford, 1998; Jenkins, 1943; Witty & Jenkins, 1935).
Hispanic American and Native American students are also underrepresented, by 30% to
70% (U.S. Department of Education, 1993, 1998).

Variables that contribute to underrepresentation among diverse students have been

explored by Frasier, Garcia and Passow (1995), Frasier and colleagues (Frasier, Hunsaker,
Lee, Finley, Frank, et al., 1995; Frasier, Hunsaker, Lee, Finley, Garcia, et al., 1995; Frasier,
Hunsaker, Lee, Mitchell, et al., 1995), Baldwin and Vialle (1999), Castellano (2003) and
discussed in a special issue of Roeper Review (2002, edited by Tarek Grantham).
Contributing variables include testing issues, teacher referral issues, social issues (e.g.,
negative peer pressures), and identity issues, as well as issues surrounding policies and
procedures that have a disparate impact on diverse students. For purposes of the current
article, however, Ford, Harris, Tyson, and Frazier Trotman's (2002) discussion of "deficit
thinking" is most pertinent. According to these authors, diverse students are
underrepresented in gifted education because educators and other decision makers fail to

acknowledge, understand, and affirm cultural differences among students. Reactions to

culture and diversity can be placed into at least three categories: ( 1) acknowledging
differences among groups, educators seek to understand, negotiate, affirm and work with
such differences; ( 2) operating in a culture-blind fashion, defined as ignoring, minimizing
or negating culture and cultural differences, educators pretend that differences do not
exist; or ( 3) holding negative and stereotypic beliefs about culturally diverse students,
teachers are deficit-oriented in their thinking. With deficit thinking, teachers recognize
cultural differences but in negative ways. Thus, students who are different may be
perceived as disadvantaged or dysfunctional; their values, beliefs, norms, and practices
may be viewed as "abnormal," "wrong," or "incorrect." Ford et al. argued that educators
who hold either of the latter views -- culture-blind or deficit thinking -- may not refer
diverse students for gifted education screening and services, and they might have learning
environments that are culturally insensitive rather than culturally responsive.

Whatever view one holds of culturally diverse populations, we find ourselves in increased
contact with people who are from culturally different backgrounds -- yet they are strangers
to us. Statistics on teacher and student demographics shed light on this point. Few teachers
are culturally diverse. According to the U.S. Department of Education (USDE; 2000), during
the 1999-2000 school year, 84.3% of teachers were White; conversely, diverse students
comprised some 30% of the U.S. population in 2000 (USDE, 2003). And in schools with
30% or higher minority enrollment, 69.4% of teachers are White (USDE, 2000). Finally,
while the percentage of culturally diverse students is expected to increase significantly, the
percentage of minorities choosing teaching as a profession is not expected to increase. The
implications of increased student diversity (world diversity) are profound -- they suggest
that teachers must become more familiar with the realities of culture and its impact on
teaching and learning. In the following pages, definitions of culture are presented, along
with a model or framework for understanding cultural differences. In the process of
describing one model, we share sample scenarios to highlight potential cultural differences
in classroom settings. The article concludes with implications for the field of gifted
education.
Definitions and One Model of Culture

The term "culture" originates from the Latin word cultura or culturus as in "agri cultura,"
the cultivation of soil. Later, other meanings were attached to the word. From its root
meaning of an "activity," culture became transformed into a condition, a state of being
cultivated (Freilich, 1989).

Like the terms intelligence and gifted, there are many definitions of culture. The question
"What is culture?" has intrigued scholars in various disciplines for decades. Culture is an
enigma in that it contains both concrete and abstract components (Ting-Toomey, 1999).
The study of culture has ranged from a focus on architecture and landscape to the study of
implicit principles and values to which a group of members subscribe (p. 9).

Ting-Toomey (1999) defines culture as a complex frame of reference that consists of

patterns or traditions, beliefs, values, norms, and meanings that are shared in varying

degrees by interacting members of a community (p. 10). More specifically, D' Andrade
(1984) offered the following definition:

[Culture is] learned systems of meaning, communicated by means of nature language and
other symbol systems... and capable of creating cultural entities and particular senses of
reality. Through these systems of meaning, groups of people adapt to their environment
and structure interpersonal activities... Cultural meaning systems can be treated as a very
large diverse pool of knowledge, or partially shared cluster of norms, or as
intersubjectively shared, symbolically created realities. (p. 116)

This definition of culture and others capture three points worth noting. First, culture refers
to a diverse pool of knowledge, shared realities, and clustered norms that constitute the
learned systems of meanings in a particular society. Second, these learned systems of
meanings are shared and transmitted through daily interactions among members of the
cultural group and from one generation to the next. Third, culture facilitates the capacity of
members to survive and adapt to their external environment (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 9).

Hofstede (1991) is credited with the phrase: "The body is the hardware and culture is the
software." A Macintosh computer and an IBM computer serve the same functions, but do so
in different ways due to different software. So it is with different groups -- all people eat
and sleep; eating and sleeping are universal, but different groups eat different foods (pork
vs. beef vs. no meat) for different reasons (to celebrate, because of traditions, because of
folklore) and in different ways (fork vs. chopsticks; utensils vs. hands). Further, different
groups may have traditions relative to the foods selected and their significance (e.g., on
January 1, some groups eat greens which represent money, pork for health, and blackeyed
peas for luck, to name a few traditions). All people cook or prepare food, but different
groups use different ingredients. Some groups use herbs; others do not. Some use lard;
others dare not. All people sleep, but some groups have communal sleeping arrangements,
and every cultural group does not have sleeping on a mattress as a norm. In short, the acts
of eating and sleeping are universal, but they are influenced by culture or our cultural
software.

Conceptually, many people also describe culture using an iceberg analogy. Above the
surface of the iceberg are cultural artifacts -- music, fashion, and art, for example. However,
as described next, what is beneath the surface is termed "invisible culture" or "deep
culture." Deep culture includes traditions, beliefs, values, norms, and symbolic meanings.
Deep culture, using the computer analogy, is the software. The cultural model developed by
Hofstede appears to receive much attention by scholars interested in cultural diversity.
Because of its popularity, we present his model in Figure 1. The model includes a
discussion of cultural traditions, beliefs, values and norms.
Culturally shared traditions are often mentioned when people think about culturally
different groups or individuals. In general, culturally shared traditions include myths,
legends, ceremonies, and rituals (e.g., celebrating holidays in certain ways) that are passed
on, verbally and nonverbally, from one generation to another. Such traditions include, but
are not limited to, how a group honors or celebrates weddings, rites of passage, and

holidays. Culturally shared beliefs refer to a set of fundamental assumptions that people
hold dearly and without question. These beliefs can revolve around such questions as those
regarding the concept of time, the meaning of life and death, the meaning of space, beliefs
regarding the roles of males and females, or beliefs regarding education. These beliefs -these assumptions -- serve as the explanatory logic for behavior, and as the desired end
goals to be achieved. Cultural values refer to a set of priorities that guide such notions as
good and bad, fair and unfair, and fight and wrong. Cultural values also include evaluative
views on such topics as individual competitiveness versus group harmony or
collectiveness, and judgmental views on a range of other topics. Heated discussions and
debates can and do ensue around differing opinions on the topic under discussion, with
each group believing that its view is the right or only view. Finally, cultural norms refer to
the collective expectations of what constitutes "proper or improper" behavior in a given
situation. Norms guide the scripts to be followed in a particular situation (e.g., how we
greet someone, how we introduce ourselves, how we eat, how we show gratitude, how we
discipline children, how we treat elderly persons, etc.).
Scholars contend that our ignorance of different traditions, beliefs, values, and norms or
rules can produce unintentional clashes among people or groups with different traditions,
beliefs, values, and norms or rules (see Ford et al., 2002; Hofstede, 1991; Seelye & SeelyeJames, 1995; Storti, 1998, 1999). We may not even realize that we have violated another
culture's values and norms in a particular situation. The concept of two icebergs clashing
illustrates this point. For example, a teacher may celebrate Christmas and offer a gift to a
child who does not celebrate or believe in Christmas; a child may offer beef to a teacher
who holds cows as sacred; a teacher may consider pre-arranged marriages to be "wrong"
and share this with a child whose family believes in this practice; a teacher may use the
"okay" sign with a child who recognizes this sign as an insult; a teacher may go to a funeral
wearing black when wearing this color is unacceptable in the group's culture. In a
wonderfully enlightening book entitled I Felt Like I Was From Another Planet (Dresser,
1994), foreign students new to the US share such cultural blunders or clashes. Their
experiences of adjusting to a new culture, one that is very different from their indigenous
culture, describe what many scholars refer to as culture shock or culture fatigue.

People who interact with someone from another culture often experience culture shock, a
term first coined by Oberg (1960). Culture shock is most severe in prolonged situations; it
is defined as severe, sometimes traumatic, difficulty in adjusting to another culture. Culture
shock or fatigue occurs when an individual who is away from his/her environment finds
him/herself immersed in another environment. The most vivid example is that of traveling
to another country. While the notion of culture shock is primarily used relative to
international encounters, it can also be applied to intra-national encounters. One example
would be a student whose values, traditions, and norms conflict with another student or
teacher. A child reared in Mexico might have difficulty understanding, accepting, and
appreciating the values of a person reared in Hungary. A teacher who has never interacted
with or studied Chinese culture may misunderstand some of the customs and traditions of
students from China.
Functions of Culture

Behavior does not somehow carry its meaning within it; meaning is imposed upon it (or
not) by those who observe it.... What is a behavior in one culture, such as a gesture, is in fact
not behavior -- because it has no meaning -- in another culture. (Storti, 1999, pp. 10-11)

In addition to defining culture, it is important to understand the functions of culture. TingToomey (1999) proposed that culture serves at least five functions: (a) identity meaning,
(b) group inclusion, (c) intergroup boundary regulation, (d) ecological adaptation, and (e)
cultural communication.
Identity Meaning Function

Culture provides the frame of reference to answer the most fundamental question of each
human being: Who am I? Stated another way, cultural beliefs, norms, and values provide
the anchoring points in which we attribute meanings and significance to our identities
(Ting-Toomey, 1999). For example, several studies demonstrate that middle-class White
Americans frequently value individual initiative in striving for or toward achievement
(Seelye, 1993; Theiderman, 1990; Triandis, Brislin, & Hui, 1988). To these individuals, a
competent or successful person is one who takes personal initiative to realize his or her
potential. In particular, a person who realizes his or her dreams, despite difficult
circumstances, is admired and considered successful. These individualistic beliefs may not
be held by other cultures; instead, others may value cooperation, and believe in
interdependence or a "we-us-our" philosophy that places a high premium on group
cohesion and collective strivings. For these individuals, working together toward a
common goal or good is valued, and interpersonal relationships are given high priority
such that individual competition is played down or devalued.
Group Inclusion Function

Culture also serves the group inclusion function of satisfying one's needs for membership
affiliation and belonging. Culture, thus, creates a comfort zone in which people experience
in-group inclusion and in-group/out-group differences. Within our own group, we
experience safety, inclusion, and acceptance. We tend to speak the same language, share
similar values, and are able to read the nonverbal moods and cues of others in our group.
Conversely, when interacting with members from other groups, there is increased
likelihood for miscommunication and misunderstanding; when working with others, we
may have to defend, justify and/or explain our actions; we must be on the alert; we tend to
"stand out," resulting in "us-them" conflicts.

Intergroup Boundary Regulation Function

This function shapes our in-group and out-group attitudes in dealing with people who are
culturally different. In this vein, culture helps us to form evaluative attitudes toward others
who are in or out of our group, and they connote positive- or negative-valenced emotions.
In other words, we tend to hold favorable attitudes toward those who are like us, resulting
in a certain amount of ethnocentrism. Further, we tend to experience a range of emotions -frustration and bewilderment, for instance -- when our norms are violated by the norms of

someone from the out-group. This violation comes from being misunderstood and/or
unaccepted by others.
Ecological Adaptation Function

Many scholars contend that culture is dynamic rather than static. This function, therefore,
facilitates the adaptation process among the self, the cultural community, and the larger
environment. People are also dynamic and change with different situations. According to
the iceberg analogy described earlier, surface-level cultural elements (e.g., fashion, music,
art) change at a faster pace than deep-level cultural elements (e.g., values, beliefs, norms).
Change is also based on at least two other conditions: ( 1) the extent to which behaviors are
compatible with a given cultural group and ( 2) the nature and extent of interaction
between individuals from different cultures. Groups reward behaviors that are compatible
with their values, beliefs and norms, and sanction those that are not. The extent to which an
individual seeks group approval will influence how and how much she or he endeavors to
change. Additionally, the more we interact with others, the greater the chance -- due to
opportunity -- of adopting some of their traditions, norms, values, and beliefs. When an
individual or group adopts cultural traditions and the like from another group, this may
indicate assimilation or enculturation (Seelye, 1993; Seelye & Brewer, 1970). Assimilation
(e.g., the melting pot theory) occurs when an individual or group adopts the traditions,
beliefs, values, and norms of another group and gives up their own. However, enculturation
is more of a blending of two different cultures, such that the individual may be bicultural.
Instead of replacing traditions, values, and so forth from one's indigenous culture, the
individual adds to his or her culture.
Cultural Communication Function

This function represents coordination between culture and communication. Culture affects
communication and communication affects culture (Hofstede, 1991). Put another way, one
function of culture is that it is a way to communicate. Verbally, culture affects how a child
from one group talks to a teacher or authority figure. In some cultures, teachers are
revered because they are adults or authority figures; in another culture, reverence must be
earned. In some groups, children are reared not to ask questions of adults; in others,
children and adults are "equal" partners in the communication dyad. Further, because
communication is verbal and nonverbal, some groups show their feelings more than other
groups; and some individuals rely more on nonverbal messages to communicate than
verbal messages. Axtell (1989, 1990) shares telling stories of how miscommunication
nonverbally has had dire consequences in cross-cultural interactions, particularly when
gestures used in one culture are offensive in another culture.
Having shared several definitions and functions of culture, we now present a more
concrete discussion of culture. In the next section, dimensions of culture are presented,
with specific attention to sample scenarios to illustrate each point.
Dimensions of Culture: Sample Scenarios

What's special about people from other cultures is not simply that they are different from
you, but the degree to which they are different. (Storti, 1999, p. 2)

In several publications, Storti (1989, 1998, 1999), Ting-Toomey (1999), Hofstede (1980,
1991), Hofstede and Bond (1984), Hall (1959, 1981), Hall and Hall (1987) and many others
have presented research-based models and theories of culture. Because space limitations
do not permit a detailed discussion of each model, a synthesis of these models is presented,
with a major focus on the interpretations of Hofstede's extensive research in a practical
guide by Storti (1999). In this section, five dimensions of culture are presented: concept of
self, personal versus social responsibility, concept of time, locus of control, and styles of
communication. These dimensions, all having at least two extreme poles, are not to be
interpreted as dichotomous; rather, they are continuous. For the sake of space and clarity,
the discussion and examples below focus on the extreme or opposite orientations of each
dimension. Behaviors can fall anywhere along the continuum, with the behavior of some
groups falling near the center of the continuum. In the discussion below, we focus on the
extreme ends of each continuum (for an extensive discussion of research that summarizes
where specific cultural groups fall along the continua, see Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Seelye &
Seelye-James, 1995; Storti, 1998, 1999; Ting-Toomey, 1999). The following five dimensions
are not an exhaustive list of cultural dimensions( n1); again, readers are referred to
Hofstede, Storti, Hall, and Ting-Toomey for a more extensive discussion of these five
dimensions and others.
Concept of Self

People from different cultures have different notions of personal identity, spanning a wide
range of alternatives, from individualism at one end to collectivism at the other end.
Individualism. At this end of the continuum, the smallest unit of survival is the individual.
People who are primarily individualistic identify primarily with self, and the needs of the
individual are satisfied before those of the group. Looking after oneself and being selfsufficient guarantees the well-being of the group and visa versa. Independence and selfreliance are emphasized and valued, and personal freedom is highly desired.

Collectivism. At this end, the primary group, often the immediate family, is the smallest unit
of survival. One's identity is largely a function of one's membership and role in a group. The
survival and success of the group ensures the well-being of the individual, so that in
considering the needs and feelings of others, one protects oneself. Harmony and
interdependence of group members are stressed and valued, and there is relatively little
psychological or emotional distance between group members. This is a "we-us-our"
orientation.
Scenario: What conflicts might ensue when Ms. Jones, a teacher, tends toward
individualism, while Jerome, her student, tends toward collectivism? Ms. Jones is likely to
value individual effort and independent work, while Jerome is likely to enjoy working in
groups, helping others, and asking questions of classmates. When Ms. Jones posts students'
grades, Jerome is uncomfortable. If he gets a high grade and his friend gets a low grade,

Jerome is not pleased. He feels uncomfortable for standing out, for "outshining" or
"outshowing" his friends. In several instances, Jerome sometimes blames himself for not
being more helpful to his friends. He then attempts to be more helpful to his friends. During
these times, Ms. Jones urges Jerome to work more independently and to let his classmates
take care of themselves. Jerome is confused and frustrated. What are friends for?, he
wonders.
Personal versus Social Responsibility

People in every culture wrestle with how to balance personal responsibilities to family,
close friends and colleagues with responsibility to the larger society (including outgroups). Two opposing poles -- universalism and particularism -- are presented next.

Universalism. At this end of the continuum, people believe there are certain absolutes that
apply, regardless of the circumstances or situation. What is right is always right and rules
should be applied to everyone in similar situations. Being fair means treating everyone
alike and not making exceptions, even for family and friends. Personal feelings are laid
aside in order to be objective in looking at situations.

Particularism. At this end, how one behaves in a given situation depends on the
circumstances -- what is right in one situation may not be right in another. Family and
friends are treated the best, and the rest of the world can take care of itself. There is the
belief that there will always be exceptions made for certain groups, and to be fair is to treat
everyone as unique. Personal feelings should not be laid aside, but rather relied upon.
Scenario: Mr. Richards is no nonsense when it comes to rules; rules are meant to be
followed at all times. Therefore, students must follow his specific guidelines and format
when writing assignments and students who deviate from the prescribed outline lose
points. Tameka dislikes such structure; she is not as linear or structured in her thinking
style and likes to play with ideas. She does not believe in only one way to write a paper.
Thus, she says that she just can't understand or use the outline and format prescribed by
Mr. Richards. This causes her to lose points. She is quickly losing interest in writing.
Concept of Time

Another way that cultures differ is in how people conceive of and manage time, and how
their concept of time affects their interactions with each other. The two poles of this
continuum are monochronic and polychronic orientations to time.

Monochronic. At this end, time is viewed as a commodity -- it is quantifiable and there is a

limited amount of it. Therefore, people consider it essential to use time wisely and not
waste it. A premium is placed on efficiency, as demonstrated by a sense of urgency that
seems to loom over people. When one is monochronic, time is the independent variable
and people are the dependent variable. People change and adjust to suit the demands of
time; the amount of time does not change. Accordingly, efficiency means doing one thing at
a time and doing it well, and interruptions are considered a nuisance.

Polychronic. Time is limitless and not quantifiable when one's orientation is polychronic.
There is always more time, and people are never too busy. Time is the servant and tool of
people, and it is adjusted to suit the needs of people. Schedules and deadlines often get
changed, and people may have to do more than one thing at a time - a sign of being efficient,
maximizing time, and using time wisely. People may also prefer to do assignments
simultaneously (e.g., typing an assignment while talking to you about a different matter). At
this end of the continuum, it is not necessary to finish one task before moving on to
something else. Thus, there is no such thing as an interruption; interruptions are not a
nuisance. Further, if you are enjoying yourself, you lose track of time and concentrate more
about the here and now.
Scenario: Mr. Ogbu (who prefers to be called Brother Ogbu) loves being around people. He
spends each morning talking to students in an attempt to set a positive tone for the day. He
is often late for meetings, as he spends time greeting all students in the hallway. To Mark,
Mr. Ogbu is wasting time. When the bell rings, Mr. Ogbu needs to start the lesson
immediately, and he should never go over the allotted class period, be late, or miss
appointments. His job is to teach, not waste time socializing.
Locus of Control

Cultural groups differ in the degree to which they view their place vis--vis the external
world, particularly relative to the degree to which they believe that human beings can
control or manipulate their own destiny. Two poles -- internal and external -- are described
below.
Internal. The locus of control here is primarily internal, meaning within the individual.
People at this end of the continuum believe there are few givens in life: that few things and
circumstances have to be accepted as they are; most situations can be changed. There are
no limits to what you can do or become, if you set your mind to it, and take the steps
necessary to achieve goals. Life is what you do, which represents an activist orientation.
(You make your own luck. Where there's a will, there's a way. Every problem has a
solution.)
External. This locus of control is largely external, outside of the individual. Some things in
life are predetermined. Individuals at this end of the continuum believe there are limits
beyond which one cannot go, and there are certain givens that cannot be changed and
must, therefore, be accepted. One's success is a combination of one's effort and good
fortune. Life is pan of what happens to you, which represents a more fatalistic orientation.
(That's the way things are. Unhappiness is a pan of life.)

Scenario: Mrs. Lightfoot has just been assigned the class of students identified as gifted. She
has taken some courses in gifted education but struggles with the notion of "gifted." In her
culture, there is no such concept. Those who do well are the ones who work hard; it is a
personal matter. Gifted is what you do, not what you are. Marvena was recently identified
as gifted, but Mrs. Lightfoot does not support the finding. Marvena, she argues, cannot be
gifted because she does not exert herself enough. She does average work. Mrs. Lightfoot

finds excuses to not allow Marvena to go to her pullout program on Monday morning.
When Marvena demonstrates that she is "gifted," then Mrs. Lightfoot will be more
supportive.
Styles of Communication

Communication is the sending and receiving of messages. What people say, how they say it,
and what they don't say are all deeply affected by culture (Storti, 1999). A key feature of
the extreme poles is the amount of directness used when communicating. The differences
between two poles of directness and indirectness account for more cross-cultural
misunderstandings than any other single factor (p. 91) or variable. In addition to degree of
directness, communication styles fall along a continuum of high and low context.
Indirect. Groups in the indirect cultures tend to infer, suggest, and imply rather than say
things directly. There is a tendency toward indirectness and away from confrontation. Ingroup members have an intuitive understanding of each other. (People tell you what they
think you want to hear; you may have to read between the lines to grasp what someone is
saying.)

High-context. This intuitive understanding is known as "context." In high-context cultures,

words are not needed or necessary to convey messages; nonverbal communication is a
primary mode of communication. It is deemed sufficient to express a message. (What you
do is just as important or more important than what you say.) People are sensitive to the
setting or environment and are watchful of the behaviors of others. (Actions speak louder
than words.) Personal space, touching, eye contact, affect, tone when speaking, and other
nonverbal cues receive much attention because they help to communicate messages.
Direct. Direct cultures tend to spell things out; that is, people need to be explicit in
communicating their desires, likes, dislikes, and feelings. People say exactly what they
mean rather than suggest or imply. Thus, the spoken word carries most of the meaning.
(Yes means yes, no means no. One should not read anything into what is not said or done.)
Low-context. In low-context cultures, the primary mode of communication is verbal.
Contextual cues, unique situations and special circumstances are less likely to be noticed
because of the reliance on what is said rather than what is done.

Scenario: Mr. Livingston is very direct in giving students feedback on assignments. If they
don't like the assignment or textbook, they need to say so. If students don't understand
what has been taught, they should ask questions. Lei, a student, holds Mr. Livingston and
teachers in reverence. If she does not understand the lesson, it is her fault. She views
understanding the lesson as her personal responsibility once the teacher has taught it. To
ask him a question would suggest that he is not a good teacher. Thus, Lei asks few
questions and does not admit when she is confused (no can mean yes). After teaching a
lesson, Mr. Livingston always asks students if they have questions or concerns. Lei never
expresses confusion or concerns. Thus, when she does not do well on an assignment, Mr.
Livingston is surprised and frustrated.

Implications for Gifted Education

A persistent challenge facing educators is that of increasing student diversity in gifted

education classrooms and services. In addition to rectifying assessment issues, policies, and
procedures, researchers have proposed that educators explore additional explanations for
underrepresentation. One explanation worth exploring is the cultural mismatch that may
exist between teachers (the majority of whom are White) and culturally diverse students.
As noted earlier, the student population is more diverse than ever before and the
percentage of culturally diverse students is increasing rapidly (USDE, 2003).
Differences between students and teachers can result in cultural mismatch and/or cultural
shock. However, teachers who understand culture, who are familiar with the functions of
culture, and who are aware of the dimensions of culture are less likely to experience such
conflicts. Storti (1999) proposed a model of cultural competence that is noteworthy. He
suggests that professionals must continuously strive to be aware of and sensitive to
cultural differences when working with others. Teachers must always assume that cultural
differences are present in their classrooms and seek to create learning environments that
are culturally responsive (Ford et al., 2002), those in which students from different cultural
backgrounds feel safe -- safe to be themselves, safe to be different. In such an environment,
students feel safe physically and psychologically.
Storti (1989, 1998, 1999), Hofstede (1980, 1991), Hall (1959, 1981) and others contend
that educators should strive to become culturally sensitive in general, but culturally
competent in at least one other culture. Ideally, such cultural knowledge, understanding,
and competence will positively impact teachers' perceptions of and relationships with
culturally diverse students. What are some potential outcomes of such awareness,
knowledge and understanding? Nine possibilities are described below.

Educators may more actively seek to increase the representation of diverse students in
gifted programs. This would entail studying student participation and the myriad factors
that affect their representation and then developing strategies to decrease such barriers.
This would also include broadening the notion of identification to that of "recruiting and
retaining" diverse students in gifted education. In particular, it means addressing the
questions: How do we get more diverse students in our gifted programs and how can we
keep them once placed? How does my teaching style (grouping practices, feedback and
directions, focus on competition, etc.) affect students' interest, engagement, and sense of
belonging? How can I communicate more effectively with diverse students, families, and
communities?

Educators may increase their referral of diverse students for gifted education screening
and placement. When cultural differences are not perceived as deficits, teachers are able to
see strengths in students who come from different cultural backgrounds. Recognizing
students' differences and strengths, teachers are likely to refer culturally diverse students
for gifted education screening. These teachers will serve as cultural bridges and advocates
for students from diverse backgrounds.

Educators, particularly researchers and theorists, may ensure that culture is reflected in
definitions, theories, and research on giftedness. In terms of research, this would include
studies conducted with diverse students and being ever mindful of the role of culture when
developing and refining definitions and theories of giftedness. And those adopting or
developing theories and definitions of giftedness will attend to culture and different
manifestations of giftedness. They will avoid being colorblind in their definitions and
theories of giftedness by recognizing that what is valued as gifted in one culture may not be
valued as gifted in another, and they will honor alternative, culturally influenced definitions
and theories of giftedness.
Educators' commitment to equity may increase. Educators may, accordingly, make
concerted efforts to ensure that instruments, policies and procedures, as well as staff, do
not discriminate against diverse groups. They will endeavor to have policies, procedures,
and measures that are culturally sensitive with bias and disparate impact reduced as much
as possible.

Educators may work more diligently and conscientiously to provide a learning

environment that is culturally responsive. Such a classroom or school is characterized by
positive student-teacher relationships, multicultural curricula, and culturally compatible
instructional styles. In these environments, it is safe for students to be "different." Teachers
work diligently to decrease or eliminate stereotypes about and prejudices against diverse
students and groups; they strive to raise their expectations of diverse students. Strategies
and resources for creating multicultural gifted education learning environments and
curricula appear in Ford and Harris (1999).

Educators, students and their families may have more positive and productive
relationships. As noted earlier, when people are from different cultures and settle into
different environments, they may not have positive encounters or interactions. When
cultural differences are understood, teachers and students will have relationships
characterized by respect, acceptance, and cooperation. Culturally diverse parents will feel
comfortable in school settings, comfortable talking with educators, safe asking for help, and
safe sharing their perspectives. This sense of community or family ultimately improves the
quality of school life for gifted students from diverse backgrounds.

Educators may be more confident in dealing with race-related issues and incidents in
school settings. Some studies indicate that teachers are uncomfortable and ill-prepared to
deal with social injustices (e.g., Harmon, 2002). Teachers who feel culturally competent
may feel better prepared to negotiate group differences and cultural conflicts. Teachers will
engage collectively in a struggle against social injustices and recognize themselves as
political beings (Gollnick & Chinn, 2004).
Educators, particularly administrators, may expand their efforts to increase the diversity of
their staff. The value of a diverse school staff cannot be overstated or overestimated. Like
others, diverse staff can serve as mentors, role models and cultural translators for students
-- not just culturally diverse gifted students but all students.

Educators, particularly administrators, may increase their efforts to provide staff with
multicultural training and preparation. In-services, for example, will be devoted to topics
surrounding culture and diversity (e.g., testing and cultural diversity; multicultural
curriculum; creating culturally responsive classrooms; working with diverse families and
communities; culturally influenced learning styles). A cultureblind philosophy will be
avoided.
Summary

Each of us is like everybody else in some ways (universal behaviors), like the people in our
culture (cultural behaviors), and like no one else at all (personal behaviors). (Storti, 1999,
p. 16)
Some educators are uncomfortable when labels are used to characterize groups or
behaviors. Some of us have been conditioned or encouraged to be "cultureblind," as might
be connoted by the statement "I don't see differences, all people are the same."

Relative to labeling, even the terms intelligent and gifted are debated, both within and
outside the field of gifted education. To some educators, labels strip a person of her or his
personal, unique identity. We would argue that labeling to the extreme may, indeed, result
in all-or-nothing thinking, such as the belief that all Black students have a polychronic
conception of time, or that all Koreans are indirect in communicating their ideas( n2). Such
all-or-nothing thinking goes beyond labeling and results in stereotyping, defined as
inflexible beliefs about groups that are resistant to change, even when data contradicts the
belief (Hewstone, 1989). We have, therefore, avoided summarizing research on group
differences along the five dimensions described in this paper. More specifically, space
limitations cannot do justice to this discussion, as noted earlier. However, hundreds of
studies have examined group differences along these cultural dimensions and reported
consistent group patterns relative to concept of time, concept of self, locus of control, and
so forth. These patterns help us to make generalizations, but our generalizations must be
flexible. What do we mean by the label or concept gifted? What do we mean when we
describe a child as intelligent? Certain characteristics, certain generalizations, come to
mind when these terms are applied to a person. For instance, an intelligent child may be
one who is a logical thinker, an abstract thinker, and a problem solver; a creative child may
be original, expressive, and like playing with ideas. And so it is with cultural differences, as
presented in the aforementioned scenarios. All people share universals, such as the need
for food, water, and shelter. Some groups eat, sleep, and live in dwellings that are different
from others. We urge readers to seek extensive preparation in cultural diversity via
coursework, professional development opportunities, and readings. Banks and Banks'
(2003) handbook presents what may be the most comprehensive source of information on
cultural diversity in the context of educational settings. This work, along with the works of
Hofstede, Hall, and Storti cited herein, provide a solid starting point from which to become
more culturally competent. We offer this suggestion with the understanding that becoming
culturally competent is a lifelong process; we must be lifelong learners. We must always be
in the process of learning about our students and ourselves. For the sake of our nation's

increasingly diverse student population, educators must seek to become more culturally
aware, knowledgeable, and competent.
Manuscript submitted February 5, 2004.
Revision accepted April 7, 2004.

( n1) Other dimensions are: management style (authoritarian vs. democratic); power
distance orientations; attitude toward work (achievement vs. quality of life); key to
productivity (results vs. harmony); source of power (achieved vs. ascribed), and more.
Given space limitations, we concentrate on only a few dimensions.

( n2) In preparing this article, the senior author (Ford) came across the following
statement: "Maintaining a peaceful, comfortable atmosphere is more important [to
Koreans] than attaining immediate goals or telling the absolute truth. Koreans believe that
to accomplish something while causing unhappiness or discomfort to individuals is to
accomplish nothing at all" (Hur and Hur, as cited in Storti, 1999, p. 91). Our own
experiences are similar to those shared by Hur and Hur, but we do not expect all Koreans to
behave in this way. Thus, this knowledge, for us, is a generalization, not a stereotype as it
might be for those with less cultural awareness.
DIAGRAM: Figure 1; How Culture is Like an Iceberg: Going Beneath the Surface for Deeper
Understanding
REFERENCES

Axtell, R. E. (1989). The do's and taboos of international trade: A small business primer. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Axtell, R. E. (1990). Do's and taboos of hosting international visitors. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Baldwin, A. Y., & Vialle, W. (1999). The many faces of giftedness: Lifting the masks. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (2004). Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd
ed.). New York: Jossey-Bass.
Castellano, J. A. (2003). Special populations in gifted education: Working with diverse gifted
learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
D'Andrade, R. (1984). Cultural meaning systems. In R. Shweder, & R. LeVine (Eds.), Culture
theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 88-119). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.

Dresser, N. (1994). I felt like I was from another planet: Writings from personal experience.
New York: Addison-Wesley.
Ford, D. Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education:
Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 414.
Ford, D. Y., & Harris III, J. J. (1999). Multicultural gifted education. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Ford, D. Y., Harris III, J. J., Tyson, C. A., & Frazier Trotman, M. (2002). Beyond deficit thinking:
Providing access for gifted African American students. Roeper Review, 24(2), 52-58.
Frasier, M. M., Garcia, J. H., & Passow, A. H. (1995). A review of assessment issues in gifted
education and their implications for identifying gifted minority students. Storrs, CT: National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of Connecticut.
Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Finley, V. S., Frank, E., Garcia, J. H., & Martin, D. (1995).
Educators' perceptions of barriers to the identification of gifted children from economically
disadvantaged and limited English proficient backgrounds. Storrs, CT: National Research
Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of Connecticut.
Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Finley, V. S., Garcia, J. H., Martin, D., & Frank, E. (1995).
An exploratory study of the effectiveness of the staff development model and the researchbased assessment plan in improving the identification of gifted economically disadvantaged
students. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of
Connecticut.
Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Mitchell, S., Cramond, B., Krisel, S., Garcia, J. H., Martin,
D., Frank, E., & Finley, V. S. (1995). Core attributes of giftedness: A foundation for recognizing
the gifted potential of minority and economically disadvantaged students. Storrs, CT: The
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of Connecticut.
Freilich, M. (1989). Introduction: Is culture still relevant? In M. Frielich (Ed.), The relevance of
Culture (pp. 1-7). New York: Morgan & Garvey.
Gollnick, D. M., & Chinn, P. C. (2004). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (6th ed.).
Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Grantham, T. (Ed.) (2002). Underrepresentation among ethnically diverse students in gifted
education. Roeper Review, 24(2).
Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. New York: Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1981). Beyond culture (2nd ed.). Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. (1987). Hidden differences: Doing business with the Japanese. Garden
City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Harmon, D. (2002). They won't teach me: The voices of gifted African American inner-city
students. Roeper Review, 24(2), 68-75.
Hewstone, M. (1989). Changing stereotypes with disconfirming information. In D. Bar-Tal, C.
Graumann, A. W. Kruglanski, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice: Changing
conceptions (pp. 207-223). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1984). Hofstede's culture dimensions. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 15, 417-433.
Jenkins, M. D. (1943). Case studies of Negro children of Binet IQ 160 and above. Journal of
Negro Education, 12(2), 159-166.
Oberg, K. (1960). Culture shock and the problems of adjustment to new cultural environments.
Practical Anthropology, 7, 170-179.
Seelye, H. (1993). Teaching culture: Strategies for intercultural communication (3rd rev. ed.).
Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.
Seelye, H., & Brewer, M.B. (1970). Ethnocentricism and acculturation of North Americans in
Guatemala. Journal of Social Psychology, 80, 147-155.
Seelye, H. N., & Seelye-James, A. (1995). Culture clash: Managing in a multicultural world.
Chicago, IL: NTC Business Books.
Storti, C. (1989). The art of crossing cultures. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Storti, C. (1998). The art of crossing cultures (2nd ed.). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Storti, C. (1999). Figuring foreigners out: A practical guide. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural
Press.
Theiderman, S. (1990). Bridging cultural barriers for corporate success: How to manage the
multicultural workforce. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford Press.

Triandis, H. C., Brislin, R., & Hui, C.H. (1988). Cross-cultural training across the individualismcollectivism divide. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12(3), 269-289.
U. S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's
talent. Washington, DC: Author.
U. S. Department of Education. (1998). Talent and diversity: The emerging world of Limited
English Proficient students in gifted education. Washington, DC: Author.
U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2000). School and
Staffing Survey, 1999-2000 Public School Teacher Questionnaire and Public Charter School
Teacher Questionnaire. Washington, DC: Author.
U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Statistics and
trends in the education of Blacks. Washington, DC: Author.
Witty, P. A., & Jenkins, M. D. (1935). The case of "B" - A gifted Negro girl. Journal of Social
Psychology, 6, 117-124.
~~~~~~~~

By Donna Y. Ford; James L. Moore III and H. Richard Milner

Donna Y. Ford, Ph.D., is the Betts Chair of Education and Human Development in the
Peabody College of Education at Vanderbilt University. Her research focuses on the
recruitment and retention of minority students in gifted education. In particular, she
focuses on identification and assessment issues, multicultural curriculum,
underachievement, and social-emotional issues among culturally diverse students. She has
written several books and articles and has served on the board of NAGC.

James L. Moore III, Ph.D., is currently an assistant professor in counselor education in the
School of Physical Activity and Educational Services in the College of Education at The Ohio
State University. His work focuses on such topics as how school counselors and other
education professionals understand the aspirations, career interests, and school
experiences of students of color (particularly African American males).
H. Richard Milner, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Teaching and
Learning at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. His research focuses on teacher
thinking, beliefs and knowledge in students' opportunities to learn.

Copyright of Roeper Review is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual
use.
Back