1 / 30

The Differential Behavioral Work Styles of African American High School Students With and Without Learning Disabilities

Problem Statement . Many CTE programs are based on research reflecting a white middle-class perspective therefore, their applicability to diverse populations has been called into question (McNair

ghalib
Download Presentation

The Differential Behavioral Work Styles of African American High School Students With and Without Learning Disabilities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. The Differential Behavioral Work Styles of African American High School Students With and Without Learning Disabilities Tony D. Bright, Ph.D July 25th 2002

    2. Problem Statement Many CTE programs are based on research reflecting a white middle-class perspective therefore, their applicability to diverse populations has been called into question (McNair & Brown, 1993). Programs are generically designed so to meet the needs of all segments of the population (Kerka, 1998).

    3. Narrow Focus Programs Are Not Tailored to Meet Unique Needs of Students Low-income African American Students Less career mature Little knowledge of own career interests Lower occupational expectations for self Unemployed, underemployed, and employed part time in greater numbers than Caucasian counterparts (McNair & Brown, 1993; Wagner & Blackorby, 1996) Learning Disabilities African Americans have the highest representation in special education (Bondy, 1998) Highest unemployment rate Career immature Greater difficulty assessing skills & weaknesses (rely on others) 2 times more likely to be indecisive about career aspirations (Rojweski, 1996)

    4. Self-Knowledge Interventions

    5. Behavioral Work Styles (Marston, 1928; Geier, 1989) Based on understanding of interpersonal styles Styles are influenced by specific values, beliefs, gender, ethnicity, SES, and family background. Intent – recognize personal strengths and limitations and how individuals from various behavioral patterns relate to each other on the job. Gain an understanding of themselves and the environment most conducive to their style.

    6. Purpose of the Study To examine behavioral work style differences between two groups from one population: 17 African American high school students with learning disabilities (LD) 15 African American high school students without learning disabilities (NLD)

    7. Research Question 1 Independent Variable What are the behavioral work styles of LD & NLD African American high school students? Are there differences in behavioral work styles between the two groups? Do the behavioral work styles of LD and NLD African American students differ from the majority population?

    8. Research Question 2 2 Dependent Variables Do relationships exist between behavioral work styles and the familial factors, students perceptions of parental involvement and socioeconomic status? Do relationships exist between behavioral work styles and level of student perceptions of parental involvement in career related activities? Do relationships exist between behavioral work styles and level of SES?

    9. Research Question 3 Are the perceived behavioral work styles (student’s belief of their personal style) consistent with the realized self (observed styles) in a situated work context?

    10. Behavioral Work Styles (Marston, 1929 Operationalized by Geier, 1989)

    11. Behavioral Work Styles Dimensions Dominance – emphasis is on shaping the environment by overcoming opposition. Acts on unfavorable environments. Influence – emphasis is on shaping the environment by influencing or persuading others. Acts on favorable environments. Conscientiousness – emphasis is on working with existing circumstances to promote quality. Accommodates unfavorable environments. Steadiness – emphasis is on cooperating with others to carry out a task. Accommodates favorable environments.

    12. Dependent Variables Familial Factors Parental Involvement Daily barriers (Dillard, 1980) Social & economic changes constrain time & effort (NCRVE, 1997) Due to own lack of skills & training believe had nothing to offer students (Wentling & Waight, 1999) Most successful students – involved mothers, extended families, authoritative, influential (Luster & McAdoo, 1996) SES Much of what school’s know about behavior and career development does not apply to situational & economic determinants that impinge African Americans (Dillard, 1980) Comprehensively related to career aspirations, choice, & maturity (Harris, 1993) Associated with differing information about work, work experience, & stereotypes

    13. Methods Quantitative & Qualitative Research Questions RQ 1: What are the behavioral work styles of African American students with and without LD RQ 2: Do relationships exist between behavioral work styles and student perceptions of parental involvement & SES.? RQ 3: Are perceived behavioral work styles consistent with the realized self in a situated work context? Data Sources Behavioral Analysis Assessment (I-Sight) Questionnaire regarding student perceptions of parental involvement. Hollingshead Two-Factor Index of Social Status (included on questionnaire) One-on-one interviews and observations with eight randomly selected students (video and audio taped). Review of student records Triangulation of Data sources

    14. Research Question 1A: Are there differences in behavioral work styles between LD and NLD African American students?

    15. Results RQ1 Differences in predominant style and dispersion LD Majority (53%) Steadiness Dimension. Dominance (24%) second highest classification Less powerful than the environment and believed the best way to accomplish goals was to cooperate with others (Geier, 1989) External Locus of Control NLD Dimensions more dispersed between Dominance (40%) & Steadiness (33%) More powerful than the environment and believed the best way to accomplish goals was by taking control of environment based on their views (Geier, 1989) Internal Locus of Control

    16. Research Question 1 B: Do the behavioral work styles of LD and NLD African American students differ from the majority population?

    17. Results RQ1 B Differences in predominant style and dispersion Caucasian dispersion was broad with no one style being predominant. Caucasian LD highest classified dimensions – Steadiness (35%) & Influence (29%) Caucasian NLD highest classified dimensions – Conscientiousness (35%) & Dominance (30%). In other words, they perceive the environment as non-supportive & filled with challenges. African American & Caucasian LD – highest classified dimension was Steadiness.

    18. Results RQ1 B by variables “ethnicity” & “group” Dispersion by Ethnicity only Two highest classified dimensions of both groups were Steadiness and Dominance African American = 75% Caucasian = 54% Dispersion by Group only Again, two highest classified dimension of both groups were Steadiness and Dominance LD = 67% - Predominant - Steadiness NLD = 60% - Predominant - Dominance

    19. Research Question 2 A: Do relationships exist between behavioral work styles and student perceptions of parental involvement (PPI)? BWS & PPI: Dominance highest PPI Steadiness lowest PPI PPI & Group: NLD highest PPI LD lowest PPI PPI & Educational level of Father & Mother: Father – College educated related to highest PPI, 11th grade or less education related to lowest PPI Mother – College educated related to highest PPI, high school graduate related to lowest PPI Interaction Effect (PPI, Group, and Educational Level of Mother): LD & NLD – Highest PPI, college educated mothers LD – Lowest PPI, high school graduate mothers NLD – Lowest PPI, high school dropouts (11th grade or less)

    20. Research Question 2 B: Do relationships exist between behavioral work styles and levels of SES? Two Levels of SES (SES 1 = low to low-middle) (SES 2 = middle to high) Statistically Significant Relationships were found - 1) Behavioral Work Styles and SES levels: SES 1 = 63% of respondents classified in Steadiness SES 2 = 54% of respondents classified in Dominance 2) Behavioral Work Styles, SES and male respondents 79% of males in SES 1 were classified in Steadiness No relationships among behavioral work styles, SES, and females

    21. Research Question 3: Are perceived behavioral work styles consistent with the realized self in a situated work context? I-Sight used as the standard against which other data sources (Interview & Observation) were compared Consistency Criteria: No discrepancy between perceived and realized styles = score of “0” (consistent) One discrepancy between perceived and realized styles = score of “1” (somewhat consistent) Two discrepancies between perceived and realized styles = score of “2” (inconsistent)

    22. Consistency Results

    23. Results RQ3 80% of the eight students were “consistent” or “somewhat consistent” across perceived and realized styles. 75% of LD students were “consistent” compared to 25% of NLD. 75% of NLD were “somewhat consistent” across the three data measures. One LD student was “inconsistent” across the three measures. Four case studies were written to explore perceived and realized consistencies (3 LD & 1 NLD).

    24. Discussion/Conclusions RQ1 LD Predominant classification of Steadiness More likely to exhibit an external locus of control Typical behaviors reflection of Steadiness Behaviors apparent in transition Steadiness behaviors may be linked to high rates of career immaturity Environmental success requires flexibility which may be difficult for LD. To accomplish their goals they rely on others (hallmark of Steadiness) Locus of Control - because tend to blame failure on themselves and achievement on luck – which may lead to frustration and passivity (Short & Weissberg-Benchell, 1989) Typical Steadiness Behaviors - predicable routines, uninvolved, avoiding responsibility, identification with a group Behaviors apparent in transition – greater difficulty assessing personal strengths and weaknesses, uninvolved in transition process, higher probability of relying on others (Rojewski, 1996) High rates of career immaturity, - supported by Holland (1985) who found individuals with LD had a lower level of career maturity than NLD. Locus of Control - because tend to blame failure on themselves and achievement on luck – which may lead to frustration and passivity (Short & Weissberg-Benchell, 1989) Typical Steadiness Behaviors - predicable routines, uninvolved, avoiding responsibility, identification with a group Behaviors apparent in transition – greater difficulty assessing personal strengths and weaknesses, uninvolved in transition process, higher probability of relying on others (Rojewski, 1996) High rates of career immaturity, - supported by Holland (1985) who found individuals with LD had a lower level of career maturity than NLD.

    25. Discussion/Conclusions RQ1 NLD Predominate classification of Dominance More powerful than the environment, internal locus of control Directly influenced by characteristics and environmental constraints Exhibiting Dominance behaviors can be viewed two ways: 1) need to overcome opposition (strong-willed, impatient, quick-tempered, free from controls and restraints) and 2) result of environmental influences such as home and church. Dominance behaviors could be seen as problematic in the workplace. Internal locus of control – supported by McCombs (1991) suggested individuals with internal locus of control believe to succeed they want to control what happens around them. Characteristic and Environment - Based on diverse characteristics of students classified as Dominance (i.e., lower GPA, lower PPI, personal achievements) this classification seems reasonable. Supported by Jenkins (1981) who suggested a person’s style is influenced by characteristics such as family involvement, personal achievements, and SES. 2 ways – A desire to overcome opposition. To succeed they have learned to act on the environment by taking control they exhibit Dominance behaviors. Workplace – low-tolerance for frustration and impulsivity. Internal locus of control – supported by McCombs (1991) suggested individuals with internal locus of control believe to succeed they want to control what happens around them. Characteristic and Environment - Based on diverse characteristics of students classified as Dominance (i.e., lower GPA, lower PPI, personal achievements) this classification seems reasonable. Supported by Jenkins (1981) who suggested a person’s style is influenced by characteristics such as family involvement, personal achievements, and SES. 2 ways – A desire to overcome opposition. To succeed they have learned to act on the environment by taking control they exhibit Dominance behaviors. Workplace – low-tolerance for frustration and impulsivity.

    26. Discussion/Conclusions RQ1(B) Steadiness predominant classification of LD African American & Caucasian. Again supports external locus of control (Short & Weissberg-Benchell, 1989). It appears that ethnicity did not play a role in predominant dimension of LD. Bingham (1980) LD are more likely to be viewed by themselves and others as ineffective, therefore they incorporate these perceptions in all aspects of life. Second highest classified dimensions were - African American LD (Dominance) and Caucasian LD (Influence).

    27. Discussion/Conclusions RQ2 Connection between Behavioral work styles, PPI, and SES levels. Highest PPI – (Dominance) – 54% of SES 2 Supported by Luster and McAdoo (1999) who found that the most successful students had parents who were authoritative, influential, and had high expectations. Lowest PPI – (Steadiness) – 63% of SES 1 Supported by McAdoo (1999), NCRVE (1997) & Rank (1994) lower placement in the stratification hierarchy impinge modes of family interactions (including career related) and child rearing practices.

    28. Discussion/Conclusions RQ3 Consistency of Perceived and realized styles by the LD group is considered uncharacteristic for this group. LD have been shown to exhibit lower levels of psychological and developmental maturity, both of which are based on experience and knowledge about one’s environment (Rojewski, 1996). Consistency levels of each case based on several factors; based on individual and environmental influences.

    29. Recommendations/Implications Educational Research Provides the groundwork for future studies Types of LD & IQ – Are they reflected in certain style classifications? Studies that explore classifications in gender only Additional use of study’s triangulation research design with other populations would add generalizability to findings. Link (prevalence) between student styles and educational level of parent, compare parents and student’s style, and examine notion of extended families. Could yield information specifically for parents.

    30. Recommendations/Implications CTE & Special Education Predominant classifications have implications for tailoring programs Self-knowledge interventions for understanding specific style. Understanding of “how” their behaviors affect school, job, and peer relations. Interventions to help students think outside their style. Implications for accommodation and flexibility in work environments. Teacher In-service (prior to interventions) Authenticate style in work-based learning activities. Assist students in exploring environments conducive to their style. Heuristic tool for problem-solving and collaborative exercises. Target lower PPI students. Provide additional mentoring in career related activities (targeting career aspirations – link aspirations and abilities, work-based learning in environment conducive to style – provide a realistic picture between interests, skills, and training).

    31. Limitations Study took place in one CTE setting Small sample size Categorical (nominal) design of I-Sight dimensions (strength of association) Student perceptions of parental involvement in career related activities Situated work context – would behaviors be different in different environments? Unable to review IEPs and CA-60s

More Related