{"title":"Effects of Diagnostic Labels for Students With Learning Problems on Teachers’ Stereotypes and Performance Expectations","authors":"Linda Kashikar, Timo Lüke, Michael Grosche","doi":"10.1177/00222194251315187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Labeling students with learning problems may change teachers’ evaluations of them. Our study examined whether the “Special Learning Needs” (SLN) and “Learning Disability” (LD) labels influenced teachers’ beliefs that the diagnosis was correct and activated a low-competence stereotype. We examined whether this stereotype lowered teachers’ performance expectations and teaching intentions. <jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 413 general and special education teachers were randomly assigned to the control (no label) or one of the experimental groups (SLN/LD label). All teachers read the description of a fictitious student with learning problems. Only in the experimental groups was the student labeled with an LD or SLN. Results showed that both labels increased teachers’ acceptance of the diagnosis as accurate. However, the labels did not change teachers’ stereotypes of the fictitious student. The LD label lowered some of teachers’ long-term performance expectations, resulting in more track recommendations to a special school. Unexpectedly, the SLN label increased the intention to foster the student’s academic performance. Some performance expectations of special education teachers were lower than those of general education teachers, which did not manifest in different teaching intentions. The findings are discussed in the context of the Dilemma of Difference.","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194251315187","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Labeling students with learning problems may change teachers’ evaluations of them. Our study examined whether the “Special Learning Needs” (SLN) and “Learning Disability” (LD) labels influenced teachers’ beliefs that the diagnosis was correct and activated a low-competence stereotype. We examined whether this stereotype lowered teachers’ performance expectations and teaching intentions. N = 413 general and special education teachers were randomly assigned to the control (no label) or one of the experimental groups (SLN/LD label). All teachers read the description of a fictitious student with learning problems. Only in the experimental groups was the student labeled with an LD or SLN. Results showed that both labels increased teachers’ acceptance of the diagnosis as accurate. However, the labels did not change teachers’ stereotypes of the fictitious student. The LD label lowered some of teachers’ long-term performance expectations, resulting in more track recommendations to a special school. Unexpectedly, the SLN label increased the intention to foster the student’s academic performance. Some performance expectations of special education teachers were lower than those of general education teachers, which did not manifest in different teaching intentions. The findings are discussed in the context of the Dilemma of Difference.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Learning Disabilities (JLD), a multidisciplinary, international publication, presents work and comments related to learning disabilities. Initial consideration of a manuscript depends upon (a) the relevance and usefulness of the content to the readership; (b) how the manuscript compares to other articles dealing with similar content on pertinent variables (e.g., sample size, research design, review of literature); (c) clarity of writing style; and (d) the author"s adherence to APA guidelines. Articles cover such fields as education, psychology, neurology, medicine, law, and counseling.