- Email: [email protected]
Are professors likely to report having “beliefs” about the intelligence and competence of students who stutter?
J. FLUENCY DISORD. 15 (1990), 319-321
ARE PROFESSORS LIKELY TO REPORT HAVING “BELIEFS” ABOUT THE INTELLIGENCE AND COMPETENCE OF STUDENTS WHO STUTTER? FRANKLIN H. SILVERMAN Marquette
University,
Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
Some university students who stutter report that they avoid participating in class discussions and talking with professors because they believe that if their professors find out they stutter, the professors are likely to view the students as being less intelligent and/or competent than they otherwise would. The purpose of this study was to determine whether professors, as a group, are likely to report such beliefs. A random sample of 87 professors at Marquette University, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, and the State University of New York at on each of 81 seven-point, bipolar semantic Stonybrook rated “A Student Who Stutters” differential scales, including intelligent/unintelligent and competent/incompetent. Although there was considerable scatter in their ratings for the majority of the scales, 85 of the 87 end of the intelligent/unintelligent scale and rated the student at the center or “positive” 83 of the 87 did so on the competent/incompetent one. Assuming that the attitudes reported by the professors reflect their “real” ones, these data suggest that many-perhaps the majority-do not have negative attitudes about the intelligence and competence of their students who stutter.
The purpose of this study was to begin to answer the following question: Are professors likely to report beliefs (particularly ones that would be regarded as undesirable) about the intelligence and competence of students who stutter? Some university students who have the disorder report that they avoid participating in class discussions and talking with professors (Van Riper, 1982). Judging by comments that were made by a number of students to the author, one reason is the students believe that if their professors find out they stutter, they are likely to view them as being less intelligent and/or competent than they otherwise would. If these students are correct, they may be gaining more than they are losing by avoiding talking (and thereby concealing stuttering). On the other hand, if they are wrong, the students are losing more than they are gaining by keeping Address correspondence to Franklin H. Silverman, Ph.D, Department thology and Audiology, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53233.
8 1990 by Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
of Speech
Pa-
319 cO94-730x/90/$3.50
320
F. H. SILVERMAN
silent. Although there have been studies (e.g., Hurst and Cooper, 1983; Silverman and Paynter, 1990; Woods and Williams, 1976; Yeakle and Cooper, 1986) dealing with the beliefs that various groups of nonstutterers acknowledge having regarding specific subgroups of the stuttering population, to our knowledge there have been none dealing with professors’ beliefs about the intelligence and competence of students who have the disorder. METHOD A random sample of the faculty at Marquette University, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, and the State University of New York at Stonybrook who held the rank of assistant professor or above and did not teach speech pathology courses were asked by a student (who does not stutter) if they would be willing to complete a rating scale for a project she was doing. A total of 87 (more than 60% of those asked) agreed to participate: 34 from Marquette University: 27 from Indiana University of Pennsylvania; and 26 from the State University of New York at Stonybrook. The distribution by rank was assistant professors, 33%; associate professors, 36%; and professors, 31%. The number of years they had taught at the university level ranged from 1.5 to 39. The majority indicated that their teaching had been primarily at the undergraduate level. Sixty-four percent reported having had students in their classes who stutter. Each was asked to rate “A student who stutters” on 81 seven-point, bipolar, adjectival scales using standard semantic differential instructions (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957). The semantic differential used (Silverman, 1985) was designed for sampling attitudes toward persons who stutter. The locations of the two target scales-intelligent/unintelligent and competent/incompetent-in the set was determined using a table of random numbers. The other 79 scales were included to conceal the purpose of the study. RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
The ratings of the 87 participants for all 81 scales were tabulated. The frequency distributions for the intelligent/unintelligent and competent/incompetent scales are presented in Table I. A one-variable x2 test (Siegel,
Table 1. Distribution Competent/Incompetent
of Ratings Scales
on the Intelligent/Unintelligent
and
Ratings Scale Intelligent/unintelligent Competent/incompetent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I1 5
7 4
9
58
2
0
0
7
67
4
0
0
BELIEFS
ABOUT
STUDENTS
WHO
321
STUTTER
1956) was performed on the distributions of the two scales, and the results indicated that the probability of each occurring by chance was less than 0.001. The findings of this study suggest that professors are not likely to report beliefs (particularly ones that would be regarded as “undesirable”) about
the intelligence and competence of students who stutter. Eighty-five of the 87 participants on the intelligent/unintelligent scales and 83 of the 87 on the competent/incompetent scale rated the student at the center or “positive” end of the scale. This suggests that their attitudes about the intelligence and competence of such a student tended to be neutral or positive. With regard to the validity and reliability of their ratings on these two scales, it is interesting to note both that they did not agree as often on their ratings for the majority of the other points and that on some they were willing to ascribe “undesirable” attributes to the student (e.g., being handicapped, frightened, frustrated, isolated, and having a negative selfconcept). Assuming that the attitudes reported by the professors reflect their “real” ones, these data suggest that many-perhaps the majoritydo not have negative attitudes about the intelligence and competence of their students who stutter. Perhaps communicating this information to them would encourage at least a few to participate (or to participate more often) in class discussions. I wish
to thank Suzanne Tresidder, Wendy Wolfgram, in gathering the data reported in this paper.
and Jennifer
Stone for their assistance
REFERENCES Hurst, M.A., and Cooper, E.B. (1983) Vocational rehabilitation counselors’ titudes toward stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 8, 13-27.
at-
Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., and Tannenbaum, P.H. (1957) The Measurement Meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 82-84.
of
Siegel, S. (1956) Nonparametric
Statistics.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Silverman,
F.H. (1985) Research Design and Evaluation in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 258-259.
Silverman, F.H., and Paynter, K.K. (1990) Impact of stuttering on perception occupational competence. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 15, 87-91.
Van Riper, C. (1982) The Nature
of Stuttering
(Second Edition).
of
Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Woods, C.L., and Williams, D.E. (1976) Traits attributed to stuttering and normally fluent males. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 19, 267-278. Yeakle, M.K., and Cooper, E.B. (1986) Teacher perceptions of stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 11, 345-359.
ARE PROFESSORS LIKELY TO REPORT HAVING “BELIEFS” ABOUT THE INTELLIGENCE AND COMPETENCE OF STUDENTS WHO STUTTER? FRANKLIN H. SILVERMAN Marquette
University,
Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
Some university students who stutter report that they avoid participating in class discussions and talking with professors because they believe that if their professors find out they stutter, the professors are likely to view the students as being less intelligent and/or competent than they otherwise would. The purpose of this study was to determine whether professors, as a group, are likely to report such beliefs. A random sample of 87 professors at Marquette University, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, and the State University of New York at on each of 81 seven-point, bipolar semantic Stonybrook rated “A Student Who Stutters” differential scales, including intelligent/unintelligent and competent/incompetent. Although there was considerable scatter in their ratings for the majority of the scales, 85 of the 87 end of the intelligent/unintelligent scale and rated the student at the center or “positive” 83 of the 87 did so on the competent/incompetent one. Assuming that the attitudes reported by the professors reflect their “real” ones, these data suggest that many-perhaps the majority-do not have negative attitudes about the intelligence and competence of their students who stutter.
The purpose of this study was to begin to answer the following question: Are professors likely to report beliefs (particularly ones that would be regarded as undesirable) about the intelligence and competence of students who stutter? Some university students who have the disorder report that they avoid participating in class discussions and talking with professors (Van Riper, 1982). Judging by comments that were made by a number of students to the author, one reason is the students believe that if their professors find out they stutter, they are likely to view them as being less intelligent and/or competent than they otherwise would. If these students are correct, they may be gaining more than they are losing by avoiding talking (and thereby concealing stuttering). On the other hand, if they are wrong, the students are losing more than they are gaining by keeping Address correspondence to Franklin H. Silverman, Ph.D, Department thology and Audiology, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53233.
8 1990 by Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
of Speech
Pa-
319 cO94-730x/90/$3.50
320
F. H. SILVERMAN
silent. Although there have been studies (e.g., Hurst and Cooper, 1983; Silverman and Paynter, 1990; Woods and Williams, 1976; Yeakle and Cooper, 1986) dealing with the beliefs that various groups of nonstutterers acknowledge having regarding specific subgroups of the stuttering population, to our knowledge there have been none dealing with professors’ beliefs about the intelligence and competence of students who have the disorder. METHOD A random sample of the faculty at Marquette University, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, and the State University of New York at Stonybrook who held the rank of assistant professor or above and did not teach speech pathology courses were asked by a student (who does not stutter) if they would be willing to complete a rating scale for a project she was doing. A total of 87 (more than 60% of those asked) agreed to participate: 34 from Marquette University: 27 from Indiana University of Pennsylvania; and 26 from the State University of New York at Stonybrook. The distribution by rank was assistant professors, 33%; associate professors, 36%; and professors, 31%. The number of years they had taught at the university level ranged from 1.5 to 39. The majority indicated that their teaching had been primarily at the undergraduate level. Sixty-four percent reported having had students in their classes who stutter. Each was asked to rate “A student who stutters” on 81 seven-point, bipolar, adjectival scales using standard semantic differential instructions (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957). The semantic differential used (Silverman, 1985) was designed for sampling attitudes toward persons who stutter. The locations of the two target scales-intelligent/unintelligent and competent/incompetent-in the set was determined using a table of random numbers. The other 79 scales were included to conceal the purpose of the study. RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
The ratings of the 87 participants for all 81 scales were tabulated. The frequency distributions for the intelligent/unintelligent and competent/incompetent scales are presented in Table I. A one-variable x2 test (Siegel,
Table 1. Distribution Competent/Incompetent
of Ratings Scales
on the Intelligent/Unintelligent
and
Ratings Scale Intelligent/unintelligent Competent/incompetent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I1 5
7 4
9
58
2
0
0
7
67
4
0
0
BELIEFS
ABOUT
STUDENTS
WHO
321
STUTTER
1956) was performed on the distributions of the two scales, and the results indicated that the probability of each occurring by chance was less than 0.001. The findings of this study suggest that professors are not likely to report beliefs (particularly ones that would be regarded as “undesirable”) about
the intelligence and competence of students who stutter. Eighty-five of the 87 participants on the intelligent/unintelligent scales and 83 of the 87 on the competent/incompetent scale rated the student at the center or “positive” end of the scale. This suggests that their attitudes about the intelligence and competence of such a student tended to be neutral or positive. With regard to the validity and reliability of their ratings on these two scales, it is interesting to note both that they did not agree as often on their ratings for the majority of the other points and that on some they were willing to ascribe “undesirable” attributes to the student (e.g., being handicapped, frightened, frustrated, isolated, and having a negative selfconcept). Assuming that the attitudes reported by the professors reflect their “real” ones, these data suggest that many-perhaps the majoritydo not have negative attitudes about the intelligence and competence of their students who stutter. Perhaps communicating this information to them would encourage at least a few to participate (or to participate more often) in class discussions. I wish
to thank Suzanne Tresidder, Wendy Wolfgram, in gathering the data reported in this paper.
and Jennifer
Stone for their assistance
REFERENCES Hurst, M.A., and Cooper, E.B. (1983) Vocational rehabilitation counselors’ titudes toward stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 8, 13-27.
at-
Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., and Tannenbaum, P.H. (1957) The Measurement Meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 82-84.
of
Siegel, S. (1956) Nonparametric
Statistics.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Silverman,
F.H. (1985) Research Design and Evaluation in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 258-259.
Silverman, F.H., and Paynter, K.K. (1990) Impact of stuttering on perception occupational competence. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 15, 87-91.
Van Riper, C. (1982) The Nature
of Stuttering
(Second Edition).
of
Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Woods, C.L., and Williams, D.E. (1976) Traits attributed to stuttering and normally fluent males. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 19, 267-278. Yeakle, M.K., and Cooper, E.B. (1986) Teacher perceptions of stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 11, 345-359.