running head: academics and experiences of gifted27444... · running head: academics and...

Running Head: ACADEMICS AND EXPERIENCES OF GIFTED

MIDDLE SCHOOL GIFTED STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND

PERCEPTIONS OF COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE EXPERIENCES WITH PARTICIPATION

IN FULL-TIME OR PART-TIME GIFTED PROGRAM SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS

A dissertation presented to

The Faculty of the College of Education

Florida Gulf Coast University

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

Doctor of Education

By

Patricia Clunan Zubal

2015

2

APPROVAL SHEET

This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

____________________________

Patricia Clunan Zubal

Approved: June 2015

____________________________

Dr. Dorothy Rea, Ph.D.

Committee Chair

____________________________

Dr. Elia Vázquez-Montilla, Ph.D.

____________________________

Dr. Lynn K. Wilder, Ed.D.

Florida Gulf Coast University

Fort Myers, Florida

The final copy of this thesis [dissertation] has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form

meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline.

3

Abstract

In this causal comparative study the researcher looked at academic achievement scores and

student perceptions of their experiences in gifted programs. The student sample for the analysis

of the students’ academic achievement scores included all gifted students in a large school

district in Southwest Florida who had recently completed 8th grade in one of the two Service

Delivery Models (SDMs). The student sample for the survey included all students from the

academic section sample who, with parental consent, voluntarily completed the study survey.

The first four research questions asked if significant differences existed between the

mean achievement scale scores of students who participated in the study by SDM, ethnicity, or

socio-economic status (SES). The final two research questions asked if significant differences

existed between the mean student survey scores for each of the three domains of the survey by

SDM, SES, or ethnicity.

Analysis of the quantitative data for academic achievement of the students in the study

indicated that significant differences existed between the academic achievement scale scores of

students by SDM for both the mathematics and reading sections of the Florida Comprehensive

Achievement Test (FCAT 2.0). There also were significant differences found by SES group and

mathematics and reading scores for gifted students in the study. Analysis of the survey data

revealed significant differences between student survey response scores by SES in all domains

and in both SDMs. No other differences were found within or between survey variables.

Key words: Gifted, Service Delivery Model (SDM), Socio-economic Status (SES), Affective,

Cognitive

4

Dedication

I dedicate this work to the important people in my life who have inspired me to be a

lifelong learner. My father, Richard Clunan, modeled a curiosity about the world and a love of

learning. Some of my earliest memories of him revolve around his desire to gain and share ideas

and information about the world around us which helped to form my perspective of what is

important in life. My three wonderful and uniquely gifted children, Jennifer, Pamela, and

Nicholas, inspired my interest in the topic of gifted education as well as my desire to better

understand the social and emotional characteristics and needs that are concomitant with

intellectual giftedness. My children taught me that love has no limits and have given me the

most joyful moments and memories to cherish. I have also been inspired by the many students I

have taught over the years. I have been fortunate to teach children and adults of all ages and

backgrounds and have learned something from all of them along the way. They have challenged

me to learn more, to understand better, and to strive for continual improvement as an educator

and a person.

5

Acknowledgments

There are many people that I would like to acknowledge for their support and assistance

in completing this work. Dr. Rea has been exceedingly supportive as my professor and my

committee chair. She has always been positive and helpful, had high expectations, gone above

and beyond expectations, and modeled the qualities that I would like to attain. Dr. Vázquez-

Montilla has also modeled qualities that I admire as well as provided support and assistance

throughout my coursework and the dissertation process. Dr. Wilder has served as my advisor as

well as my internship supervisor in addition to being a member of my committee. Dr. Triscari

has given generously of his time and knowledge and provided much needed assistance with

understanding the statistical and data analysis aspects of this work. Dr. Carlos Negrón has

provided me with his strong encouragement, impressive expertise, and helpful feedback

whenever I needed it.

I would also like to acknowledge the support and assistance of Danielle Bailey, Cathy

Kane, Charles Ewell, Debbie Kirchen, and Amy Galbreath for their assistance with adapting and

field testing the survey as part of the validity process. I am also grateful to my daughter Pam for

her interest in my efforts and her skilled editing feedback on the literature review. Finally, I want

to acknowledge my partner John Zubal, who has always believed in me, given me steady

support, understanding, and encouragement especially when I was feeling frustrated or

discouraged. It has been a long and winding road.

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I…………………………………………………………………………………. 14

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY……………………………………………………….. 14

Background………………………………………………………………………………….. 14

Statement of Problem………………………………………………………………………... 16

Statement of Purpose………………………………………………………………………… 17

Research Questions………………………………………………………………………….. 17

Hypothesis…………………………………………………………………………………… 18

Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………………….. 19

Study Overview……………………………………………………………………………… 22

Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………………. 23

CHAPTER II………………………………………………………………………………… 24

LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………………………. 24

Overview…………………………………………………………………………………….. 25

Historical Background……………………………………………………………………….. 25

7

Definitions of Gifted Learners………………………………………………………………. 35

Diverse Populations of Gifted Learners……………………………………………………... 39

Academic Needs of Gifted Learners………………………………………………………… 41

Social and Emotional Needs of Gifted Learners…………………………………………….. 45

Issues Unique to Adolescent Middle School Learners………………………………………. 48

Common Expectations of Parents of Gifted Learners……………………………………. 50

Characteristics of effective Gifted Programs……………………………………………....... 51

Gifted Program Service Delivery Models…………………………………………………… 56

Summary…………………………………………………………………………………….. 58

CHAPTER III……………………………………………………………………………….. 60

RESEARCH METHOD…………………………………………………………………….. 60

Participants…………………………………………………………………………………... 60

Sample……………………………………………………………………………………….. 61

Data Source………………………………………………………………………………….. 62

Goals of Research……………………………………………………………………………. 64

8

Research Questions………………………………………………………………………….. 65

Hypothesis…………………………………………………………………………………… 66

Dependent Variables………………………………………………………………………… 67

Independent Variables………………………………………………………………………. 67

RESEARCH DESIGN……………………………………………………………………… 68

Design………………………………………………………………………………………... 68

Data Analysis Procedures……………………………………………………………………. 68

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations……………………………………………….. 70

Assumption…………………………………………………………………………………... 70

Limitations…………………………………………………………………………………... 71

Delimitations………………………………………………………………………………… 71

CHAPTER IV……………………………………………………………………………….. 72

RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………………. 72

Descriptives………………………………………………………………………………….. 72

Research Question 1…………………………………………………………………………. 76

9






Summary…………………………………………………………………………………….. 106

CHAPTER V………………………………………………………………………………… 107

DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………………….. 107

OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH RESULTS………………………………………………….. 107

Summary of Topics and Themes…………………………………………………………….. 112

Implications of the Research………………………………………………………………… 115

Future Research……………………………………………………………………………… 116

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………… 116

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………… 118

Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………... 129

10

Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………….. 129

Appendix B………………………………………………………………………………….. 130

Appendix C………………………………………………………………………………….. 131

Appendix D………………………………………………………………………………….. 133

Appendix E………………………………………………………………………………….. 134

Appendix F…………………………………………………………………………………... 135

11

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TOPIC PAGE

TABLE 1 Total Student Sample by SDM 73

TABLE 2 Total Student Sample by Ethnicity 74

TABLE 3 Total Student Sample by SES 75

TABLE 4 Reading and Mathematics Scale Scores 76

TABLE 5 Group Statistics of Mean FCAT Reading Scale Scores 77

TABLE 6 Independent Samples t-test for Equality of Means 78

TABLE 7 Group Statistics of Mean FCAT Math Scale Scores 79


TABLE 9 Descriptive Statistics for FCAT Reading Scale Score by

SDM and SES

81

TABLE 10 ANOVA Comparing Means of FCAT Reading Scale Score

by SDM and SES

82

TABLE 11 Descriptives for FCAT Reading Scale Score by SDM and

Ethnicity

83

TABLE 12 ANOVA comparing means of FCAT Reading Scale Scores

by SDM and Ethnicity

84

TABLE 13 Descriptives for FCAT Mathematics Scale Scores by SDM

and SES

85

12

TABLE 14 ANOVA comparing means of FCAT Mathematics Scale

Scores by SDM

86

TABLE 15 Descriptives for FCAT Mathematics scale scores by SDM

and Ethnicity

87

TABLE 16 ANOVA for FCAT Mathematics Scale Score by SDM and

Ethnicity

88

TABLE 17 Group Statistics of t-test for Domain C 89


TABLE 19 Group Statistics of t-test for Domain A 91


TABLE 21 Group Statistics of t-test for Domain P 95


TABLE 23 Descriptives for Domain C SDM by SES 95

TABLE 24 ANOVA for Survey Domain C SDM and SES 96

TABLE 25 Descriptives for Domain C SDM and Ethnicity 97

TABLE 26 ANOVA for Survey Domain C SDM and Ethnicity 98

TABLE 27 Descriptives for Survey Domain A SDM and SES 99

TABLE 28 ANOVA for Survey Domain A SDM and SES 100

13

TABLE 29 Descriptives for Domain A SDM and Ethnicity 101

TABLE 30 ANOVA for Survey Domain A SDM and Ethnicity 102

TABLE 31 Descriptives for Domain P SDM and SES 103

TABLE 32 Anova for Survey Domain P SDM and SES 104

TABLE 33 Descriptives Survey P SDM and Ethnicity 105

TABLE 34 Anova for Survey Domain P SDM and Ethnicity 106

14

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Background

Since its beginning in the 1920’s, the field of gifted education has experienced a

continuous ebb and flow of public interest and support (Jolly, 2009; Delisle, 2014). Federal aid

has followed a similar pattern, increasing and decreasing in response to national security interests

and concerns from private institutions and foundations. Despite the initial enthusiasm for

educating the nation’s brightest students that was inspired by the 1957 launching of Sputnik and

the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), the impact on gifted education would be short-

lived. Debates concerning priorities of excellence and equity have also created conflict about

gifted education. Gifted and talented students become a national priority when a critical need is

perceived and excellence is required. As urgency subsides and equity becomes the focus, gifted

students’ needs begin to be viewed as an elitist extravagance and are soon exchanged with the

priorities of students from other subgroups (Delisle, 2014; Heansly, 1999; Imbeau, 1999; Jolly,

2009; NAGC, 2008; and Roberts, 1999).

Many people are concerned that in the United States (U.S.) today our students perform

inadequately on international comparisons of academic achievement. As an example, seventh-

and eighth-grade students performed poorly on the mathematics portion of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Boe & Shin, 2005). Such results have

led experts to develop deep concerns about the country’s ability to sustain economic

15

competitiveness (Boe & Shin, 2005). According to a task force sponsored by the Council on

Foreign Relations (CFR) in a report on U.S. Education Reform and National Security (Klein,

Levy, & Rice, 2012), our students’ lack of preparedness presents risks on five national security

fronts: economic growth and competitiveness, physical safety, intellectual property, U.S. global

awareness, and U.S. unity and cohesion. The Task Force, including Joel Klein, formerly the

leader of the New York City Public Schools System, and former Secretary of State Condoleezza

Rice, suggest three primary educational policy proposals:

Implement educational expectations and assessments in subjects vital to protecting

national security.

Make structural changes to provide students with good educational choices.

Launch a "national security readiness audit" to hold schools and policymakers

accountable for results and to raise public awareness (Klein, Levy, & Rice, 2012).

These recommendations indicate a belief that there is a need for awareness in terms of

what our schools are doing to improve education, that student achievement in critical areas

should be monitored, and that students will perform better if they are provided with good

educational choices. Society advances from the improvement and highest development of all of

the talents and abilities of all of its citizens, no matter their strengths and weaknesses (Clark,

2002 p. 6). Van Tassel-Baska points out that, “Excellence for all, if it means the same standards,

same curriculum, same instructional emphases, becomes basically inequitable for all since it fails

to recognize individual difference” (1997, p.11). The issues of excellence and equity can best

be addressed through a balanced approach. Equal opportunity does not necessarily mean the

16

same opportunity. All children, including gifted children have a right to develop their own

potential (Clark, 2002).

Statement of Problem

Research has shown that students identified as gifted have intellectual, social and

emotional needs that require special educational services and accommodations (Clark, 2002).

A large Southwest Florida school district offers two service delivery models for gifted

educational services at the elementary and middle school levels: full-time and part-time services.

The part-time model is considered to be an enrichment program. In middle school the part-time

program has students receiving enrichment services from a gifted endorsed teacher one period a

day. The full-time service model for middle school has students participate in classes taught by

gifted endorsed teachers for all of their academic classes. All of the students in these classes are

gifted. In order to provide the optimum educational experience for their gifted children, parents

need to collaborate with educators to make decisions about which service delivery model

placement will be the best fit for their individual child. To make wise choices, parents and

educators need to be aware of the current academic achievement of students participating in the

two gifted service delivery model options provided. Additionally, students, educators and

parents need to be aware of the experiences of the students currently participating in the two

gifted service delivery options. Existing research has addressed general placement options but

not the strengths and weaknesses of local service delivery models regarding academic

achievement and social/emotional well-being of specific subgroups of gifted students.

17

Statement of Purpose

This quantitative research study looked at the academic achievement as well as the social

and emotional experiences of two groups of students who received gifted services in either the

part-time or full-time gifted service delivery models. The purpose of this study was to provide

useful information and insight about strengths and weaknesses of the two placement options and

their impact on academic achievement and affective experiences of students. This information

will be useful to parents, educators, and students when determining the best gifted service

delivery model choice as well as when planning future instructional strategies and curriculum to

be used in the two service delivery models.

Research Questions:

1. Are there statistically significant differences in FCAT reading mean achievement scale

scores for Southwest Florida gifted middle school students when these students

participate in a full-time gifted service delivery model or a part-time gifted service

delivery model?

2. Are there statistically significant differences in FCAT mathematics mean achievement

scale scores for Southwest Florida gifted middle school students when these students

participate in a full-time gifted service delivery model or a part-time gifted service

delivery model?

3. Are there statistically significant differences in FCAT reading mean achievement scale

scores by SES status or ethnicity for Southwest Florida gifted middle school students

18

when these students participate in a full-time gifted service delivery model or a part-time

gifted service delivery model?

4. Are there statistically significant differences in FCAT mathematics mean achievement

scale scores by SES status or ethnicity for Southwest Florida gifted middle school

students when these students participate in a full-time gifted service delivery model or a

part-time gifted service delivery model?

5. Are there statistically significant differences in scores in the areas of curriculum,

affective learning, and general program experiences on the Student Survey for students

receiving full-time gifted program services or part-time gifted program services?

6. Are there statistically significant differences in scores in the areas of curriculum,

affective learning, and general program experiences on the Student Survey by SES status

or ethnicity for Southwest Florida gifted middle school students who participate in a full-

time gifted service delivery model or a part-time gifted service delivery model?

Hypotheses:

1. Differences in reading achievement scale scores for full-time gifted program students will

not be statistically significantly different compared to those of students in a part-time

gifted program.

19

2. Differences in mathematics achievement scale scores for full-time gifted program

students will not be statistically significantly different compared to those of students in a

part-time gifted program.

3. Differences in reading mean achievement scale scores for full-time gifted program

students will not be statistically significantly different by SES status or ethnicity

compared to those of students in a part-time gifted program.

4. Differences in mathematics mean achievement scale scores for full-time gifted program

students will not be statistically significantly different by SES status or ethnicity

compared to those of students in a part-time gifted program.

5. Differences in Student Survey scores for full-time gifted program students will not be

statistically significantly different compared to those of students in a part-time gifted

program.

6. Differences in Student Survey scores for full-time gifted program students will not be

statistically significantly different by SES status or ethnicity compared to those of

students in a part-time gifted program.

Definition of Terms

The following definitions are from the Florida Department of Education document

Education of Gifted Students in Florida: The Florida State Plan (2014, p. 87):

Acceleration- Grade level or subject level advancement designed to meet the learner’s needs.

20

This includes various means for advancing through material or grade levels ahead of normal

progress. It may include subject or grade acceleration, curriculum compacting, early graduation,

etc.

Affective Curriculum - Curriculum that focuses on personal/social awareness and adjustment,

and includes the study of values, attitudes, and self.

Asynchrony - A term used to describe disparate rates of intellectual, emotional, and physical

rates of growth or development often displayed by gifted children.

Critical Thinking - Analysis of complex problems or ideas that leads to understanding and

decision making.

Differentiation - Modifying curriculum and instruction according to content, process, product,

and learning environment to meet individual student needs. Differentiated instruction is a

philosophy a teacher uses to meet the unique needs of every learner. Even within a self-

contained gifted class there should be differentiation in the curriculum.

Differentiated Curriculum- A set of activities, a program, or a plan of instruction that is designed

to meet the unique needs of special children. For gifted children this means curriculum that

allows for acceleration, stimulation of high level thinking, divergent thinking, and convergent

thinking.

21

Enrichment Programs- Activities that go beyond the basic curriculum to incorporate more

complex, higher-level thinking, and sophistication, abstractness, depth instead of the general

curriculum (different – not more).

Overexcitability - A characteristic first described by Kazimierz Dąbrowski that involves

heightened sensitivities, awareness, and intensity in one or more of five areas: psychomotor,

sensual, intellectual, imaginational, and emotional.

Perfectionism - An intrinsic motivation that through striving for perfection leads to outstanding

accomplishments. This is healthy perfectionism. Perfectionism that tends to be disabling is

extrinsically motivated by a belief that one is worthless in the eyes of others unless one can

present oneself and one’s work perfectly.

Socio-economic status (SES) - Socioeconomic status is commonly conceptualized as the social

standing or class of an individual or group. For the purposes of this study the emphasis is on a

student’s economic status as determined by eligibility for free or reduced lunch within the school

district guidelines. Examinations of socioeconomic status often reveal inequities in access to

resources, plus issues related to privilege, power and control.

Service Delivery Model (SDM)-The format in which exceptional student education services are

delivered to a student. The district referred to in this research offers two specific delivery

models for gifted services in middle school; full-time service and part-time service.

22

Social-Emotional Needs -Gifted and talented students may have affective needs that include

heightened or unusual sensitivity to self-awareness, emotions, and expectations of themselves or

others, and a sense of justice, moral judgment, or altruism. Counselors working in this area may

address issues such as perfectionism, depression, low self-concept, bullying, or

underachievement.

Study Overview

A concern for the perceived low level of achievement of students in the United States

currently exists. A suggested solution is to provide quality program choices for all students,

including those with high academic potential, to prepare them to make positive contributions to

the national security in the areas of economic growth and competitiveness, physical safety,

intellectual property, U.S. global awareness, and U.S. unity and cohesion.

The state of Florida requires that all students that qualify for gifted services must be

offered the opportunity to receive them. Placement in part-time or full-time service delivery

models is initially determined by specific gifted program eligibility criteria. Once eligibility is

determined, the actual service delivery model placement is a choice provided to parents of the

eligible gifted students. A causal comparative design was used in this study. For the academic

achievement scale scores section of the study the FCAT scale scores for each service delivery

group were compared. The Student Survey score section of the study was made up of a

comparison of student scores on a survey consisting of questions about the curricular, affective,

23

and general program experiences of the students in each of the two service delivery model

options.

Significance of the Study

The information provided by this study provides valuable information about the academic

achievement as well as the degree of academic, emotional and social satisfaction within the two

service delivery models as perceived by the students participating in each type of placement. In

addition to its helpfulness to placement decision making, this information provides valuable

feedback to both teachers and program designers.

24

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

"Human capital will determine power in the current century, and the failure to produce

that capital will undermine America's security" warns a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

sponsored independent task force on U.S. education reform and national security (Klein, Levy &

Rice, 2012, p. 4). At times when concerns about the educational system's ability to keep our

country competitive reach crisis proportions, an increased emphasis on the education of the

country’s most talented students is a logical consequence. It was this logic that birthed the field

of gifted and talented education in the 1920's. Since its inception, interest in and support for the

education of gifted and talented youth has historically been cyclical in nature. Federal aid for

gifted education has increased and decreased in response to national security interests and

economic concerns from private institutions and foundations (Delisle, 2014; Jolly, 2009; Rogers,

2010). This chapter includes a review of the literature pertaining to gifted education, the historical

beliefs and attitudes that have impacted gifted education, as well as components of effective

gifted educational programs and services.

This chapter will discuss the following concepts relevant to delivering services to gifted

students:

historical background

definitions of gifted learners

diverse populations of gifted learners,

25

academic needs of gifted learners

social/emotional needs of gifted learners,

issues unique to middle school gifted learners,

common expectations of parents of gifted learners,

characteristics of effective gifted programs, and

gifted program service delivery models.

Overview

Historical Background.

Throughout history societies have attempted to advance the abilities of their citizens in an

effort to improve or sustain their level of power and control. (Winkler & Jolly, 2011).

Historically, giftedness has been strongly associated with the idea of genius. This association

started in the early 1900’s when psychologists developed assessment instruments that purportedly

were able to measure intelligence. Low scores resulted in the examinee being labeled "retarded,"

while high end scores were thought to belong to "geniuses" (McClellan, 1985). Jolly traces the

history of gifted education back to English scientist Francis Galton, whose work using statistical

methods to study high ability levels and the elements influencing success provides a basis for

later methods of research (2005). Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, is credited with the earliest

significant research and writing devoted to intelligence testing. His pivotal work, Hereditary

Genius, published in 1869, indicates that intelligence is passed from one generation to another

(Davis & Rimm, 2004; National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC], 2014a). Galton

26

influenced other researchers to pursue longitudinal studies that focused on both inborn and

external factors that might influence intelligence. Alfred Binet is the first to have developed tests

designed to classify children according to intelligence (Jolly, 2005). One of Binet’s significant

contributions was the notion of mental age, the idea that children grow in intelligence and that

any child may be at the proper intellectual phase for his or her age or may instead be

demonstrably behind or ahead of same age peers (Davis & Rimm, 2004; Jolly, 2005).

America has a long tradition of identifying and grooming talented individuals (Winkler &

Jolly, 2011). Lewis Terman, recognized as the father of the gifted education movement,

influenced gifted education both in its practice and in the understanding of gifted learners

(Colangelo & Davis, 2003; Cross, 1999; Delisle, 1999; Ericson, 1985; Imbeau, 1999; Jolly,

2005). He is known for two important contributions. He supervised the modification and

Americanization of the tests designed by Binet producing the forerunner of the modern Stanford

Binet Intelligence Scale. He also published results of his longitudinal study of gifted children

entitled Genetic Studies of Genius (Jolly, 2005). Both Lewis Terman and Leta Hollingsworth

were influenced by the work of Galton and Binet. Their work considered issues such as

identification, differentiation, research interests, and the social and emotional needs of gifted

children. Hollingsworth contributed to efforts to counsel the gifted, calling this practice

“emotional education” (Davis & Rimm, 2004, p.8). These topics continue to be relevant and at

the center of the current field of gifted education (Jolly, 2005).

Winkler and Jolly (2011) discussed Lewis Terman’s longitudinal research of gifted

27

children and observed that gifted children were often more healthy and stable than their peers, but

few had achieved the level of success that Terman had expected. Terman noted that intellect and

achievement are not necessarily linked. It became evident that even highly gifted learners need

more than academics to become successful adults (NAGC, 2014a ; Winkler & Jolly, 2011)

After the Second World War, United States policy makers began to recognize the need to

provide a strong education for its most talented students, as worries about shortages in

occupations such as engineering and science began to surface (Tannenbaum, 1983). The desire

was for the United States to remain the superpower it had become, along with the Soviet

Union. Although concern was voiced about America’s public schools in this period, little action

was taken until the Russian launching of Sputnik, the first satellite into space (Robinson,

1999). This event was a point in history that many cite as one of the most influential in shaping

the American educational system (Corn, 1999; Delisle, 2014). When the Russians launched

Sputnik in 1957, it became clear that American students were far behind in both mathematics and

science, which caused a dramatic shift in perspective toward education (Coleman, 1999; Delisle,

2014).

The launching of Sputnik shook the American public's confidence in the strengths of their

country, its role as a leader, and its ability to defend itself. Many Americans became concerned

that the Russians would soon dominate the world (Cross, 1999), especially in the mathematics

and science fields. Bright and talented American students were expected to fulfill their potential

and offer their advanced abilities in service to the nation (Tannenbaum, 1979). Gifted students

28

were placed in special schools focused on math and science curriculum developed by leading

educators and scientists (Delisle, 1999; 2014).

To further strengthen the emphasis on education, congress enacted the National Defense

Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 which made federal funding available for the purpose of

developing talent, particularly in the areas of science and mathematics (Roberts, 1999). The

NDEA became law on September 2, 1958, and provided funding to U. S. education institutions at

all levels. The act was designed to fulfill two purposes: to provide the country with specific

defense oriented personnel and to provide financial assistance for college students through the

National Defense Student Loan program. This included providing federal help to foreign

language scholars and engineering students. Sputnik’s impact was a turning point in gifted

education (Coleman, 1999; Corn, 1999; Delisle, 1999; 2014; Gallagher & Weiss, 1979; McIntosh,

1982; Tannenbaum, 1983). The NDEA came about at a time when the country’s immediate

needs surpassed the conflict between excellence and equity, and it may be perceived as a positive

swing of the pendulum toward interest in gifted education (Jolly, 2009).

In 1972, the Education of the Gifted and Talented Report, better known as the Marland

Report was issued. It identified six areas of giftedness: general intellectual ability, specific

academic ability, creative or productive thinking, leadership ability, visual and performing arts,

and psychomotor ability. As a result of this report, the Office of Gifted and Talented Education

was established and an awareness of the needs of gifted and talented children began to develop

29

(Roberts, 1999).

The National Commission on Excellence in Education was formed in 1983, and released

the now famous report A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. The report

contained the following highly publicized line: “the educational foundations of our society are

presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and

a people" (U.S. Department of Education, 1983, p. 5). The authors of the report cautioned that

the country was in danger and expressed ominous concern that our "once unchallenged pre-

eminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by

competitors throughout the world" (U.S. Department of Education, 1983, p. 5). Boe and Shin

(2005) point out that the perception of poor performance by U.S. students on international

comparisons is typically attributed to the ineffectiveness of American public

education. Educators and policy makers of widely different perspectives embraced this

conclusion because it created enormous pressure for change (Boe & Shin, 2005).

The Nation at Risk report further emphasized the idea that learning is cumulative, and that

learners are able to reach their full potential only when their individual strengths are recognized

and reinforced throughout their lives. Also noted in the report was the idea that because

economically underprivileged children often face so many barriers to success, the need for

identification and support for these students’ strengths is particularly urgent. The Nation at Risk

report officially defined gifted learners as follows:

Children and youth with outstanding talent who perform or show the potential for

performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with others of

30

their age, experience, or environment. These children and youth exhibit high performance

capability in intellectual, creative, and/or artistic areas, possess an unusual leadership

capacity, or excel in specific academic fields. They require services or activities not

ordinarily provided by the schools. Outstanding talents are present in children and youth

from all cultural groups, all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor. (U.S.

Department of Education, 1983, p. 5)

The authors of the Nation at Risk report noted that gains in student achievement made in

the period after Sputnik had been wasted and that support systems which had helped make those

gains possible had been taken away. They went as far as to describe this situation as “…an act of

unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament” (U.S. Department of Education, 1983, p. 5).

In 1988, Congress passed the Javits Gifted and Talented Students Act as part of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Javits Act is the only federal program devoted

exclusively to the needs of gifted students. It provides an organized program of research,

projects, strategies, and activities that develop and improve the capacity of schools to provide for

gifted students’ unique educational needs. The Javits Act concentrates its resources on

recognizing and providing services to students who are often underrepresented in gifted

programs, especially economically disadvantaged, limited-English proficient and disabled

students. It aims to decrease achievement gaps and to foster equal educational opportunities for

all students (NAGC, 2014c).

National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent, issued in 1998, was the

next national report on the state of the country’s educational programs for gifted students. The

report focused on the fact that gifted students' learning needs continued to be inadequately

addressed. The report provided a similar definition of gifted learners as did the Nation at Risk

31

report and stressed that, “Outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural

groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor” (U.S. Department of

Education, 1993, p.5). The National Excellence report provided recommendations that states

have used in their own definitions of gifted learners and in designating the services that should be

provided (Roberts, 1999). The report states that recent studies show:

Gifted and talented elementary school students have mastered from 35 to 50 percent of the

curriculum to be offered in five basic subjects before they begin the school year.

Most regular classroom teachers make few, if any, provisions for talented students.

Most of the highest-achieving students in the nation included in Who's Who Among

American High School Students reported that they studied less than an hour a day. This

suggests they get top grades without having to work hard.

In the one national survey available, only 2 cents out of every $100 spent on K-12

education in the United States in 1990, supported special opportunities for talented

students (U.S. Department of Education, 1993, p. 4).

In both the Nation at Risk and National Excellence reports, the authors established

expanded definitions of giftedness, clarified that gifted learners come from all backgrounds, and

that educators bear the responsibility for identifying learners that exhibit higher potential

compared with same age peers. The reports' authors recommended services for gifted children

that match needs instead of one size fits all programs, and they recognized that the least restrictive

32

environment for various gifted students is quite different than for students with other

exceptionalities (Jolly & Kettler, 2008).

Piirto (2007) believes that any gains made for gifted education by the National Excellence

report were destroyed when the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was passed as the

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2001. Although this

legislation was meant to improve education for all students, it focused on proficiency and

accountability instead. Funds once assigned to gifted programs are now frequently provided to

programs focused on proficiency (Piirto, 2007).

In 2004, another national research report was issued entitled, A Nation Deceived: How

Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students. This report debunks the myths and

misunderstandings which have led schools, parents and teachers to be resistant to the strategy of

acceleration as a means of addressing the learning needs of gifted students despite the vast

amounts of evidence of its effectiveness. The different forms of acceleration presented include

early-entrance, grade skipping, the Advanced Placement program and early college. The success

of A Nation Deceived led to the creation of the Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration,

which is dedicated to the study and support of educational acceleration for academically talented

students (NAGC, 2014a).

As Gallagher (1994) noted, the attitude toward gifted students at a personal and societal

level has often been one of ambivalence, in both the educational setting and society at large. “We

may love the creative products of their mental processes but still feel the sting of envy when we

33

observe some persons doing, with apparent ease, what is so difficult for others to accomplish”

(Gallagher, 1994, p. 3). The field of gifted education has remained in a constant struggle between

excellence and equity. At times society focuses on education for the brightest and most creative

students, concentrating on developing their potential, but at other times the focus is on bringing

students at the other end up to the average (Davis & Rimm, 1998; Gallagher, 1994; Jolly,

2009). Roberts (1999) believes that enthusiasm for educating gifted students is influenced by

economics and politics. At times of prosperity and peace among nations interest is low, but when

a crisis occurs, gifted students become a valuable resource to be developed to their fullest

potential (Roberts, 1999). Public understanding and support as well as federal aid have reflected

this fluctuating pattern of increasing and decreasing interest and concern. Tannenbaum noted,

“The cyclical nature of interest in the gifted is probably unique in American education. No other

special group of children has been so alternately embraced and repelled with so much rigor by

educators and laypersons alike” (1983, p. 16). Reflecting the back and forth of society’s

priorities from “critical need to its elitist luxury” (Jolly & Kettler 2008, p. 427), gifted and

talented students become a national priority when excellence is pursued and a critical need is

perceived. Conversely, as equity takes the foreground, gifted students’ needs are seen as an elitist

extravagance and the needs of other subpopulations become the priority (Jolly & Kettler,

2008). Remarkably, it was decades ago that Hollingsworth explained, “Schools cannot equalize

children, schools can only equalize opportunity” (1924 in Dai, 2010, p. 174).

Negative assessment of the concept of giftedness exists in the United States due to the

34

association of gifted programs with the practice of subtle or even blatant social stratification and

exclusivity (Dai, 2010). Even in the time period when Terman was developing intelligence

testing, his encouragement for its use in the identification of gifted students was not

unchallenged. In the 1980s, research began to focus more on a developmental view of

giftedness. In this view giftedness is seen as less of an unchanging mental quality and more as

the result of multiple factors combining fortuitously. There has been an evolution of giftedness

from initial notions of conventional intelligence to more recent acknowledgement of a multitude

of indicators and expressions of talents. This changing perspective emphasizes the role of

developmental processes as opposed to innate abilities (Dai, 2010)

Currently, the United States is involved in Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics (STEM) programs to once again counteract competition from other countries that

have increased their competence in these subjects (Jolly, 2009). The purpose of these initiatives

is to encourage students to pursue careers in STEM disciplines. These programs are not

specifically aimed at gifted and talented students as were previous programs during the era of the

NDEA. Our society and its educational system have yet to fully reconcile the concept that

education can combine excellence with equity. As a result many gifted students continue to lack

sufficient appropriate learning opportunities (Delisle, 2014; Jolly, 2009).

Definitions of Gifted Learners

A comprehensive definition of giftedness is crucial because it is the basis on which a

program for gifted students is developed (McClellan, 1985). The definition selected supplies the

35

basis for gifted programs and services. It influences important decisions such as who will be

found eligible for services, the areas of giftedness that programs will address, and when and how

the services will be provided. Scholars, scientists and educators have been attempting to find the

appropriate definition of giftedness for over one hundred years. Currently, no definition of

giftedness is universally accepted (Davis & Rimm, 2005; Delisle, 2014; NAGC, 2014b).

“Without a cohesive definition…the likelihood of inequity abounds” (Delisle, 2014, p. 115).

What was once exclusively the realm of scholars, scientists and educators has now gained

the interest of the federal government. Its interest in the identification and education of gifted

learners was sparked during World War II, when a need for technological expansion to meet the

goal of upholding military and political dominance was recognized (McClellan, 1985). By 1950,

Congress had passed the National Science Foundation Act which marked the first time the federal

government provided funds specifically for the gifted and talented, especially in the areas of

mathematics and science. Thus, the legislation led to the idea of specific intellectual ability as a

form of giftedness. Another noteworthy event in defining giftedness was the publishing of

Guilford's structural model of the components of intelligence that resulted in the creation of tests

to assess intellectual capacities excluding those measured by traditional IQ tests (McClellan,

1985).

The use of intelligence tests as the sole measure of giftedness has been increasingly

criticized because the tests are frequently biased toward white middle class students. Frustration

with a narrow viewpoint has resulted in the development of more comprehensive definitions of

36

giftedness. Many experts have come to believe that giftedness includes creativity, memory,

motivation, physical dexterity, social adeptness, and aesthetic sensitivity in addition to intellectual

ability. The emergence of creativity tests and the acceptance of the relationship between

intelligence and creativity have resulted in the inclusion of creativity in many definitions of

giftedness (McClellan, 1985). A greater comprehension of what constitutes giftedness has

evolved from an intellectual, social and emotional perspective although the field continues to

struggle to adequately identify diverse groups of students (Colangelo & Davis, 2002).

Definitions of giftedness based on theoretical conceptions include those of Gagne,

Renzulli, Gardner, and Sternberg. In Gagne’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent a

well-defined difference between talent and giftedness is expressed. He sees giftedness as having

and using naturally occurring abilities to a level that identifies a learner as within the top ten

percent of same age peers. Gagne sees talent as the exceptional mastery of carefully developed

capabilities and proficiency to a level that places a child's achievement at the upper ten percent of

same age peers. Gagne’s model provides five domains of ability: intellectual, creative, socio-

affective, sensorimotor, and others such as extrasensory perception (Gagne, 1985).

Renzulli’s concept of giftedness involves the interaction of above-average abilities, high

levels of motivation, and an advanced degree of creativity. Within this concept gifted learners are

those who possess or have the capacity to develop this combination of traits and who apply their

abilities to any area of worthwhile human accomplishment (Renzulli, 1978). Howard Gardner

(1999) suggests that people have a variety of abilities and potentials, or multiple intelligences,

37

which can be made use of individually or together. For Gardner (2011), giftedness is exhibited

with the interaction of above-average abilities, motivation and creativity. Gifted learners either

have or have the ability to develop this combination of traits and to apply them to any worthwhile

human endeavor (Gardner, 1999).

The multiple intelligences, as defined by Gardner (1999), include linguistic intelligence,

logical/mathematical intelligence, musical rhythmic intelligence, bodily/kinesthetic intelligence,

spatial intelligence, naturalist intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, interpersonal intelligence

and existential intelligence. For Gardner, intelligence itself is the ability to generate an effective

product or provide a valued service, possession of a group of skills that allow one to solve

problems, and the capacity for identifying or developing solutions for problems, which includes

collection of new knowledge (1999).

Sternberg developed a more cognitive approach with his Triarchic Theory of Intelligence.

Intelligence for Sternberg (2005) is made up of three components; analytical intelligence, creative

intelligence and practical intelligence. It is not enough to possess the three components. One

must also know when and how to use these components in order to be effective. Sternberg (2005)

sees intelligence as the ability to reach one’s goals in life, within one’s sociocultural context.

Moving from the theoretical to the practical educational perspective, the National

Association for Gifted Children, (NAGC, 2014b) provides this definition of giftedness:

Gifted individuals are those who demonstrate outstanding levels of aptitude (defined as

an exceptional ability to reason and learn) or competence (documented performance or

achievement in top 10% or rarer) in one or more domains. Domains include any

structured area of activity with its own symbol system (e.g., mathematics, music,

language) and/or set of sensorimotor skills (e.g., painting, dance, and sports).

38

Almost all states have a unique gifted or gifted and talented definition. Some definitions

are based on a comparison of the student’s ability to that of the same age peers. Other state

definitions are based on student needs beyond the regular curriculum. Florida’s definition of

gifted is derived from State Rule 6A-6.03019, FAC, Special Instructional Programs for Students

Who Are Gifted. This rule describes a gifted student as “one who has superior intellectual

development and is capable of high performance.”

The current federal definition of gifted and talented is provided in No Child Left Behind

(NCLB, 2001):

The term ‘gifted and talented,” when used with respect to students, children, or youth,

means students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in

such areas as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic

fields, and who need services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to

fully develop those capabilities.

Fischetti and Shames (1998) explain that when designing and implementing a process for

identification of gifted students in a school system, educators find it challenging to differentiate

between very bright and gifted students. They recommend a multiple component process that

provides a broader picture of the student’s characteristics and abilities. The following ideas, as

provided by McClellan (1985), may serve as a guide to assist educators in making placement and

programming decisions:

The concept of giftedness is not limited to high intellectual ability. It also comprises

creativity, ability in specific academic areas, ability in visual or performing arts, social

39

adeptness, and physical dexterity.

A program for gifted children should be based on the way in which the school system

operationally defines giftedness. A definition should be the basis of decisions regarding

the selection of identification procedures as well as the provision of educational services

for gifted children.

Definitions of giftedness are influenced by social, political, economic, and cultural

factors.

Giftedness is found among all groups, including females, minorities, handicapped persons,

persons with limited English-speaking proficiency, and migrants.

The recent emphasis on math, science, foreign languages, and computer learning found in

the federal definition emphasizes how a school systems’ definition of giftedness is frequently

grounded in the needs of society, its cultural belief systems, and socioeconomic factors

(McClellan, 1985).

Diverse Populations of Gifted Learners

Identifying giftedness in children and delivering appropriate educational services to them

is especially complex when the students belong to diverse subgroups. Students who are recent

immigrants are one such group. Factors affecting these students include; their linguistic and

cultural backgrounds, economic and attitudinal factors, sociocultural peer-group expectations,

cross-cultural stress, and intergenerational conflict (Harris, 1993). Learners who have unique

40

talents or gifts hail from every linguistic and cultural background. These students have an

abundance of specific qualities that are strongly valued in their own society or culture but these

students are not always identified as gifted.

Bermudez and Rakow (1993) provide survey data indicating few programs identify and

instruct gifted limited English proficient (LEP) students in states with high Hispanic

concentration. Even those programs that do have procedures in place for identifying LEP

students as gifted report little success with these measures. A contributing factor may be a failure

to gain community input into the identification process (Bermudez and Rakow, 1993).

Assessment procedures for identifying gifted and talented students have historically been

designed to be used with middle class, native English speaking children. This situation can lead to

an underrepresentation of diverse students in gifted programs and also make it more difficult for

schools to develop the unique abilities and strengths of these students (Cohen, 1990). Research

indicates that minorities (with the exception of Asian-Americans) are underrepresented in gifted

programs (Colangelo 2002). African-American, Latinos, and Native-American students are

extremely conscious of their minority status within gifted programs and are conflicted about their

involvement in these programs. Unfortunately, some minority students associate high academic

achievement with "acting white" (Colangelo, 2002). Gifted minority students may worry about

whether they belong in gifted programs as well as how they will be perceived by their ethnic

peers if they take advantage of gifted services. While gifted students could benefit from

counselor’s support, most school counselors have very little training in dealing with gifted

students’ affective needs (Colangelo, 2002).

41

Research on family influences on the achievement of low socioeconomic status (SES)

students has typically focused on variables of status that correlate directly with student

performance on assessments used to identify the gifted. Current studies indicate that gifted

students are present and nurtured within low SES families but emphasize the need to focus on the

unique expressions of giftedness within cultural contexts when making decisions about placement

and programming (Hunsacker, Frasier, King, Watts-Warren, Cramond & Krisel, 1995).

Another group of students that has become a research priority within the area of gifted

education is that of special populations, particularly students who are learning disabled or on the

autism spectrum. According to the Office of Educational Research & Improvement (National

Excellence, 1993), more research including looking at program effectiveness is needed for gifted

students with disabilities. Similarly, research is needed on the effectiveness of programs for

minority students. An emphasis on studies using diverse subgroups of students, is becoming

increasingly important given the growth of these populations (Hishinuma & Nishimura, 2000)

Districts should implement programs that will best meet the needs of their specific population of

gifted and talented students (Cohen, 1990).

Academic Needs of Gifted Learners

Clark (2002) explains that a high level of intelligence can be viewed as advanced and

accelerated brain function. It has been demonstrated that brain processes present at birth will

deteriorate if they are not provided with the environmental stimulus needed to maintain them.

The richness of the environment that we provide actually influences the rate of glial cell

42

production and changes the chemical structure of nerve cells. By increasing the strength and the

speed of synaptic activity we can affect the process of learning. With changes in teaching and

learning procedures, it is possible to increase the complexity of connections in a child’s brain.

The learning environment can affect students at the cellular level (Clark, 2002).

Advanced and accelerated development of functions allow for more efficient and effective

use of the brain. Giftedness includes an interaction of all of the areas of brain function; physical

sensing, emotions, cognition, and intuition. Giftedness may be conveyed through problem

solving, creativity, academic ability, leadership, artistic expression, invention, etc. Most

importantly high level intelligence is the result of interaction between inborn and learned

characteristics (Clark, 1997).

If you believe that a child is born with a set amount of intelligence, you will not be

concerned with providing opportunities for optimal development, you will only be

interested in providing information and content. If you believe that intelligence is

dynamic and dependent on the environment interacting with what is inherited, you will be

concerned about the kind of environment you provide; you will not leave education to

chance (Clark, 2002, p. 43).

While societal expectations are for students to be competitive in a global economy, and to

excel and become productive citizens; gifted education has been criticized as having possible

negative effects on non-gifted students when funding is provided to gifted programs (Adelson,

McCoach & Gavin, 2012). Research into the effects of gifted education indicates that gifted

programming does not have negative effects on the achievement of non-gifted students and

conclude that gifted programming does not appear to have any detrimental effects on non- gifted

43

students. The research also states that there are no positive effects for gifted students and

conclude that gifted programs, as provided in American schools, do not affect gifted students’

achievement (Adelson, McCoach & Gavin, 2012; Dai, 2010). Although some gifted reading and

math programs show positive gains in student achievement, their effects are minimized by the

amount of programs that have no effect or counteracted by programs with negative results

(Adelson, McCoach & Gavin, 2012) We are not implementing effective programs and practices

consistently throughout the country to improve gifted students’ achievement overall. A need

exists for researchers to study the types of programs and curriculum that positively affect the

achievement of gifted students (Adelson, McCoach & Gavin, 2012; Dai, 2010). Delcourt,

Cornell, and Goldberg (2007) explain that the main goals of gifted programs are to boost learning

and achievement to a degree corresponding to the student’s potential as well as to improve self-

concept by providing students the opportunity to interact and learn with peers sharing similar

interests and abilities. While these ideas are widely held, empirical evidence of their validity is

lacking (Delcourt et al., 2007).

According to Davis and Rimm (2004), grouping for enrichment, whether within a general

education classroom or a gifted resource room yields significant gains in academic achievement,

creativity and thinking skills. They suggest that higher achievement of gifted students is probably

caused by a mixture of high ability, engaged instructors, and the motivation to learn when gifted

students share a classroom with other high ability, engaged learners.

In the continuing quest for excellence in academic achievement, the No Child Left

44

Behind Act (NCLB), was enacted to increase the accountability of educators and the academic

achievement of all students. Gallagher (2004) believes that excellence means providing sufficient

academic opportunities and instruction to allow the most able of our students to investigate and

discover novel concepts and reach their full potential. Educational policies and legislation can

and do have unintended consequences that are of particular concern to gifted students, their

parents and teachers (Gallagher, 2004). One effect of high stakes testing is that students,

including the gifted, spend large portions of their instructional time practicing basic skills that are

likely to be assessed. This practice is actually counterproductive for gifted students who need

advanced and differentiated curriculum in order to advance their learning and achieve excellence.

When gifted student’s academic needs are appropriately met, the legitimate goals of excellence

and equity in education will be attained for them (Gallagher, 2004).

Although gifted program placement may be advantageous for most gifted students, some

may experience difficulties with the label or the placement. Because gifted curriculum includes

accelerated coursework and a greater amount of work than usually occurs in the standard

curriculum classroom, a student lacking in motivation may have difficulty handling the increased

structure and expectations resulting in academic failure. Gifted program placement could cause

an increased level of psychological distress for some gifted students (Pfeiffer, 2008). Others may

find the content irrelevant to their experiences and lose interest in learning. Minority students, in

particular, may disengage if they feel uncomfortable in an unknown educational setting (Pfeiffer,

2008). Educators have an ethical responsibility to be informed about placement decision

making and the social, emotional, and academic implications of placing students in programs

45

(Pfeiffer, 2008).

When working with gifted students, the development of the whole child should be

considered. Educators should address emotional, social, cognitive and physical factors equally.

Betts and Neihart declare, “A child is a total entity; a combination of many characteristics.

Emotions cannot be treated separately from intellectual awareness or physical development. All

intertwine and influence each other” (1988, p. 248).

Social and Emotional Needs of Gifted Learners

The stereotype of a gifted student as a physical, emotional, and social misfit has been

disproven by many studies yet it is still important to understand that unique stresses and issues are

related to giftedness (Robinson, Shore & Enersen, 2007). Despite the extensive

acknowledgement of the need for healthy affective development as a goal of gifted education

programs, few studies have looked at program effects in this realm (Delcourt, Cornell, &

Goldberg, 2007). There are many reasons why school may be difficult for gifted students. One

major cause is the practice of grouping children by age instead of ability or performance level.

The result of this practice is that school is too slow and repetitive for students of high intelligence.

The greater the level of intelligence, the more emotional adjustment becomes an essential

consideration (Ruf, 2005). Some of the effects of boredom and lack of challenge for gifted

students include learning to underachieve, having problems fitting in, discovering rewarding

friendships and becoming confused about who they are and what they can accomplish (Ruf, 2005;

Robinson et al., 2007). Some additional problems encountered by gifted students include:

46

perfectionism, ridicule by peers who don’t understand their interests, worry and a sense of

helplessness about world problems, uneven development, intensity, stress and burnout (Delisle &

Lewis, 2003).

Although the affective domain has been discussed as essential to the development of

personal and social talents, as well as being an essential component of motivation and social

emotional functioning, little consideration has been given to affect regulation in the gifted

(Keiley, 2002). Affect regulation includes monitoring, enduring, and managing the

physiological, behavioral, or experiential aspects of emotional experience. Affect is controlled to

lessen unfavorable circumstances or to increase positive ones. Regulation of affect allows people

to comprehend, organize, and act on their experiences. Gifted students may be at risk for

developing internalizing disorders and may be susceptible to feelings of isolation and loneliness.

Their intensity, sensitivity, and emotionality can also contribute to anxiety, phobias and

interpersonal problems (Kaplan, 1990; Keiley, 2002)

While many issues come from within the student, some of the challenges come from

outside the student such as family, school environment, peers, or society in general. Delisle and

Galbraith (2002, p. 62-67) compiled a list of eight “gripes” about being gifted identified through

interviews with gifted and talented students:

No one explains what being gifted is all about-it’s kept a big secret.

School is too easy and boring.

Parents, teachers and friends expect us to be perfect all the time.

Friends who really understand us are few and far between.

47

Kids often tease us about being smart.

We feel overwhelmed by the number of things we can do in life.

We feel different and alienated.

We worry about world problems and feel helpless to do anything about them.

Cross addressed the many commonly held beliefs about the social and emotional aspects

of giftedness and gifted education that are actually myths (2002). Parents, teachers,

administrators, and gifted students themselves fall prey to these myths:

Gifted students should be with students their own age. Actually, gifted students need

opportunities to be with their intellectual peers, no matter the age differences.

Gifted students are better off if they spend their entire school day amidst same-age,

heterogeneous classmates. Research that supports this myth is virtually nonexistent.

Students have many opportunities to interact with other children such as; church, sports,

clubs and camps.

Being perfectly well rounded should be the primary goal for gifted student development. A

more reasonable approach is to encourage and nurture other interests in the child rather

than sending them the message that they are unacceptable as they are.

Being gifted is something with which you are just born. Actually, talent is developed with

hard work and some failure.

Virtually everybody in the field of gifted education is an expert on the social and

emotional development of gifted students. In reality, children would be better served by

48

having the expertise of those who specialize in social and emotional development.

Adults (parents, teachers, and administrators) know what gifted students experience. In

fact, children live in a somewhat different context today than adults did at the same age.

Being too smart in school is a problem, especially for girls. In point of fact support must

be provided for these children as they navigate the anti-intellectual contexts in which they

spend much of their time.

All kids are gifted, and no kids are gifted. Really, a person who shows extraordinary

ability for high levels of performance when young and, if provided appropriate

opportunities, demonstrates a development of talent that exceeds normal levels of

performance, is gifted (Cross, 2002, p 44-67).

Issues Unique to Adolescent Middle School Gifted Learners

The developmental issues that all adolescents encounter also exist for gifted students, yet

they are further complicated by the special needs and characteristics of being gifted (Buescher &

Higham, 1996). Gifted adolescents frequently report a variety of difficulties as a result of their

many abilities including; perfectionism, competitiveness, unrealistic appraisal of their gifts,

rejection from peers, confusion due to mixed messages about their talents, parental and social

pressures to achieve, and problems with unchallenging school programs (Buescher & Higham,

1996). Making choices about friendships, a course of study, and, eventually, a career can also

seem overwhelming. Colangelo (2002) explains that as gifted students advance through school,

their self-concept lowers while at the same time they become increasingly isolated and anxious.

Positive self-concept is linked with challenge-seeking, motivation to take risks or do challenging

49

work, and accuracy in self-evaluation. Gifted students’ self-concepts tend to be higher in

academic areas, and lower in social realms. Adolescents see their giftedness positively as it

relates to their academic performance but negatively regarding peer relations (Colangelo, 2002).

Rakow (2005) describes inconsistencies among physical, social, emotional, and

intellectual maturity, known as asynchronous development and explains that this may be the

cause of many conflicts gifted adolescents face. Some programs designed for gifted adolescents

may develop an imbalance that overemphasizes the affective domain to the detriment of the

cognitive. Rakow recommends that equal attention be given to both the mental and the social-

emotional needs of gifted students, and that schools should provide a continuum of services to

meet the needs of all gifted students (2005).

Historically, conflict has existed between educators of the gifted and educators of standard

education middle school classes (Tomlinson, 1995). Each of these groups of educators is

concerned with both the cognitive and affective well-being of their young adolescent students.

They are aware of the inconsistencies in the academic, social, emotional, and physical

development of early middle school age students. Both groups believe that all students should

experience challenging learning experiences (Tomlinson, 1995). The conflict is that of

excellence versus equity. Heterogeneous grouping is valued in middle schools however educators

of the gifted appreciate the advantages of ability grouping for gifted learners. Educators of the

gifted are also troubled by the shortage of differentiated instruction in heterogeneous middle

school classrooms. Standard education educators are concerned with the idea of labeling students

and believe this practice unfairly benefits some and disadvantages other students. Gifted

50

educators believe that identifying advanced ability is needed for proper planning and talent

development to be achieved (Tomlinson, 1995).

Common Expectations of Parents of Gifted Learners

According to Clark, “No child is born gifted — only with the potential for giftedness”

(1997, p. 8). Cognitive Learning theory supports the idea that a child’s environment is as

important as their innate gifted characteristics in shaping a child’s potential achievement (Jordan,

2011). Parents have lasting and varied effects on their children. They create the attitudes and

expectations that allow high levels of development. Parents of high-achieving students want

appropriate educational programs for their children and value schools that are considerate of their

students’ needs (Brulles & Winebrenner, 2012) Gifted students’ parents are applying pressure

to states and districts to secure services for their children whose needs are greater than the

conventional classroom can provide. Although these parents have faced challenges in the past,

their struggle has recently increased due to budget constraints and competing needs. Some

parent advocates state that the problem is even greater for low income and minority parents

who see gifted programs as a way to obtain greater challenge and opportunity for their children

(Fleming, 2013). Because most teachers do not receive training in the identification of gifted

students, parents end up with the responsibility of obtaining gifted services for their children.

Educators are not proactive enough in assisting parents, particularly low SES and minority

parents, with the identification process (Fleming, 2013). Orienting educators toward supporting

academically gifted students through process and program modifications, differentiating

instructional strategies and content, and providing increased variety in program options would be

51

beneficial to all students (Olszewski-Kubilius, 1998).

Martin, a parent of gifted children himself, states that one of the biggest problems parents

of gifted students face when arguing against inclusion is that they are often portrayed as being

antidemocratic because they want special classes for their children (2002). He argues that

students with special needs require special services and that expecting schools to address the

needs of gifted students is not antidemocratic, just quality education (Martin, 2002).

When parents initially realize that their children are gifted, they may become anxious

about how to meet the needs of the child. Parents of newly identified gifted children frequently

hope for some kind of guidance, because they are convinced that they cannot cope alone and deal

with feelings of inadequacy in accessing an appropriate education for their child (Rash, 1998).

Educators need to be able to provide research based information and resources so that parents can

make informed decisions about their child’s education (Pfeiffer, 2008). According to Robinson,

Shore, and Enersen, parents have two great needs: the support of other parents who are

experiencing the same kind of challenge and information about gifted children and the resources

that are available to them (2007). To be certain that students receive the appropriate educational

opportunities and interventions at the appropriate time and intensity level, educators must

establish active collaboration with families. These collaborations will be optimally effective

when educators are sensitive to the parental perspective (Van Tassel-Baska, 2012).

Characteristics of Effective Gifted Programs

The misconception that children are innately gifted and will flourish on their own has an

52

enormous impact on public perceptions of gifted students, and the practice of educators (Clark,

1997). The concepts of equity, democratic ideals, and human rights should be stressed as they

apply to gifted students. Our country was founded on democratic principles. For true equal

opportunity, a range of learning opportunities must be offered at various levels so that all children

can be taught at their level of development. The strongest programs for gifted students and other

special needs students provide choice among a variety of services and thorough assessment of the

students’ needs for services (Clark, 1997). Appropriately matched curriculum for our most

capable students is a positive direction toward the upward mobility of a society. “What a society

provides its best learners is an indication of its commitment to excellence, to the traditions of

learning that have shaped civilizations over the centuries” (Van Tassel-Baska, 2013, p. 214).

Too often the most beneficial educational settings for gifted students are not provided

based on mistaken concerns such as:

Gifted students have a need to be with other students who have different intellectual and

socioeconomic levels in order to understand how the world works.

Gifted students do not need much in the way of special programs because they can do well

without such arrangements.

Gifted students are not entitled to privileges not afforded to other students (Van Tassel-

Baska, 2013).

Cloud states that “…our education system has little idea how to cultivate its most

promising students" (2007, p. 41). He further declares his belief that schools in the United States

53

are actually holding the most intelligent students back, often resulting in isolation and academic

underachievement. Cloud wonders, “Has the drive to ensure equity over excellence gone too

far?" (2007, p. 42). He concludes that it has become more critical to a school district to identify

deficits instead of nurture gifts. Each year the U.S. spends eight billion dollars on educating

children with special needs and only ten percent of that on serving gifted students (Cloud, 2007).

In taking a look at curriculum and instruction for the gifted, it is clear that there are many

methods and programs that have been implemented and embraced without sufficient testing and

without enough thought to their overall educational value. Competition among different models

has interfered with the goal of building a strong differentiated program for the gifted that

addresses all of their intellectual needs (Van Tassel-Baska, 1986). Cloud speculates as to

whether our society actually expects students with the highest capability to achieve that potential.

“We venerate Einstein, but there is no more detested creature than the know-it-all” (Cloud, 2007,

p.42). It is time for educators, parents, and policy makers to accept that children are not all the

same and that teaching every child the same material in the same fashion will never make all

children the same (Ruf, 2005).

A problem with educating gifted students in mixed-ability classes with grade-level

academic standards is that gifted learners are less likely to have learning experiences that address

their faster rate of learning or larger capacity for complex content (Burney, 2008). Because of a

lack of challenge, they may not have to make much effort to achieve the basic standards. Instead

of advancing at their own rate, they may learn that school is easy, and when they finally do

experience challenge, they may not know how to deal with it. Children will learn from what they

54

experience (Burney, 2008).

The Florida Department of Education, through the Challenge Grant Project, developed

Florida’s Framework for K-12 Gifted Learners. This document, written by Weber, McKee, and

Hairston, and revised in 2013, states that:

Students who are gifted have learning needs that go beyond what is traditionally offered in

the regular classroom. The nature of their abilities, demonstrated or latent, requires

differentiated learning experiences and opportunities for them to maximize their potential.

Experts in the field of gifted education agree that this can be accomplished by providing

students with opportunities to: be unique, to socialize and learn with peers of similar ability

levels, advance at a faster pace as their needs require, tackle more authentic and complex

academic tasks, pursue individual areas of interest frequently and in greater depth or at a greater

level of cognitive challenge, and develop a sense of self and an awareness of the possibilities that

the world has to offer (Rodgers, 2007; Weber, McKee, and Hairston, 2013).

Making use of research-based practice is an important part of conscientious education.

Curriculum and instructional models that have been shown to be effective with gifted learners

exist and should be employed with consistency and rigor so that gifted learners can achieve

optimal learning (Van Tassel-Baska & Brown, 2007). Brulles and Winebrenner (2011) believe

that it is doubtful that one program model can effectively meet the needs of all gifted students,

however effective gifted programs do share some important features; intellectual peer interaction,

flexible grouping, differentiation of curriculum and instruction, continuous academic progress,

continuity of support services and teachers with specialized training in gifted education.

Effective teachers of gifted are able to provide instruction that takes into account the attributes of

55

gifted learners, emphasize appropriately challenging curriculum, and encourage divergent, critical

thinking (Brulles & Winebrenner, 2011).

Teachers can promote academic gains for gifted students provided the curriculum is

created to support learning at multiple ability levels, the teachers are experienced with and

knowledgeable about the content, and the classroom environment supports collaborative learning

and challenges all students. Differentiation allows teachers to support all learners and particularly

gifted learners (Pierce, Cassady, Adams, Speirs, Neumeister & Cross, 2011). Rakow (2012)

explains that for differentiation to be effective with gifted learners teachers need to be

knowledgeable in above grade and in depth content, resources and innovative instructional

strategies.

Developers of programs for the gifted rarely evaluate the success of their programs. One

reason for this is that “success” in teaching gifted and talented students is difficult to assess

(Davis & Rimm, 2004). Results of the research indicate that there are differences in cognitive

and affective outcomes across all program types. For this reason it is strongly suggested that

educators do continuing evaluation of their programs to monitor and focus on all students’ needs

(Delcourt, Cornell, & Goldberg, 2007). According to Davis and Rimm, “There are two ways in

which evaluation information can be used: to approve or to improve” (2004).

Reis explains that research has rarely studied if and how students in gifted programs

benefit from participation and what else could be done for gifted students (2013). A continuum

of services should include a variety of approaches such as acceleration, counseling, consistent

modification and differentiation of curriculum, separate classes, as well as a pull-out model.

56

Reis (2013, p. 1) states:

If we could imagine a perfect learning situation for every advanced learner, it might

include some of the following: opportunities for advancement through the regular

curriculum at an appropriately challenging rate and pace; depth and advanced content;

independent, self-directed learning challenges; independent study; and varied learning

opportunities based on interest, learning styles, product preferences and modality

preferences.

Gifted Program Service Delivery Models

Research indicates that ability grouping is beneficial for all students and is particularly

impactful for academically advanced students. Gains on standardized tests are most substantial

when programs involve acceleration of instruction. Enrichment classes provide students with a

more varied educational experience, but improve test scores more moderately (Kulik, 1993; Van

Tassel-Baska & Reis, 2004). Ability grouping has minimal effects on the self-esteem of students

(Kulik, 1993).

Acceleration and ability grouping are critical and contentious issues in gifted education

(Borland, Horton, Subotnik, Shiang-Jiun, Freeman, Goldberg, &Yu, 2002). There are many

myths and misconceptions associated with these issues that influence the thinking and decision

making of parents and educators. Special schools and full-time self-contained classes for gifted

students resemble tracking in some respects and often are assumed to carry the negative effects of

full scale school-wide tracking. Research however has shown these programs to be among the

most academically effective options for gifted learners (Borland, et al, 2002). Rogers (1993)

believes gifted students require some type of ability grouping to accomplish learning goals

expeditiously because grouping allows for differentiated pacing and a broader more extensive

57

curriculum. Never the less, Rogers admits that criticisms of tracking are legitimate and must be

addressed (1993).

The part-time pull-out enrichment class is the most typical, less permanent form of ability

grouping that resembles tracking the least. According to Rogers (1993), enrichment pull-out

programs provide significant increases in achievement, critical thinking, and creative thinking for

gifted students and those gains are greatest when the pullout program content is an extension of

regular classroom curriculum. Unfortunately, many parents and educators believe that part-time

pull-out programs provide little academic advantage for gifted students. The research literature is

inconclusive but involves contentious issues such as race, social class, economic status and

inequality (Borland, et al., 2002). Although parents of gifted students appreciate gifted services,

others deem these services elitist because they are frequently seen as serving more well-to-do

white children than impoverished and minority students (Brulles &Winebrenner, 2012).

Van tassel-Baska and Reis (2004) state that the manner in which gifted students are

grouped and the curriculum and instructional options offered are what is critical. Differentiation

of instruction to meet the needs and abilities of students is the key to enhancing learning within

any grouping model. Van tassel-Baska and Reis (2004) provide results of their research on the

strengths and weaknesses of different gifted service delivery models. The strengths of the part-

time pull-out gifted model include; opportunities for peer interaction, a curricular focus on

comprehensive, complex study or new content learning. For the teacher, this model requires just

one lesson plan. Weaknesses of the part-time pull-out model include lack of connection to

general education class content and only partial differentiation of curriculum. Strengths of the

58

full-time gifted grouping include; complete differentiation of curriculum, an intellectual peer

group for gifted students, and flexible grouping options for teachers. The only weakness noted

with this model is that it is sometimes viewed as more extreme than other models. One of the

part-time special class model’s strengths is the ability to accommodate a wide variety of students

with academic and artistic gifts. This model also provides options for students with asynchronous

patterns of development. Weaknesses of the part-time special class model include the

possibilities of limited subjects, insufficient differentiation of curriculum and watered down

content to meet the needs of non- gifted learners in the model (Vantassel-Baska & Reis, 2004).

There are large variances within the gifted population, and it is a fallacy to believe that

one type of program or delivery model will meet the academic and affective needs of all gifted

students. Programming considerations include; the degree of giftedness, the racial, cultural and

socioeconomic differences, gender, talent area, the student’s home life, additional exceptionalities

or learning disabilities, physical challenges, and emotional illness within the child (Robinson et

al., 2007).

Summary

Gifted students’ cognitive, affective, and motivational characteristics are connected and

interactive. They cannot be separated from the methods we employ to develop gifted behaviors

in students of high potential (Renzulli, 2012). As we review the manner in which the United

States addresses issues involving educating gifted children, we find a large variety of options;

however there are many areas of deficiency and little consistency from one state to another

(Robinson, 1999). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to look at the two models offered in the

59

district where this study takes place and to investigate if a relationship exists between the chosen

model of gifted service delivery, a student’s academic achievement, and his or her perceptions

regarding social/emotional development and well- being.

60

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHOD

Participants

This chapter describes the methods used to research the relationship between a full-time or

part-time gifted program placement on student achievement and student perception of the

cognitive and affective impact of their program placement in middle schools in one large

Southwest Florida School District. The Florida Department of Education defines a gifted student

as, “one who has superior intellectual development and is capable of high performance, including

those with demonstrated achievement and/or potential ability.” To be eligible for gifted program

services in the district where the research took place, a student must demonstrate a need for a

program, a majority of characteristics of gifted students according to a standard scale or checklist,

and superior intellectual development as measured by an intelligence quotient of two standard

deviations or more above the mean on an individually administered standardized test of

intelligence. A gifted student may also be a member of an under-represented group and meet the

criteria specified in an approved school district plan for increasing participation of under-

represented groups in gifted programs. The state of Florida requires that all students that qualify

for gifted services are offered the opportunity to receive them. Students in middle schools that

are identified as eligible for program placement may participate in either a full-time or part-time

gifted program service delivery model (SDM). In this Southwest Florida School District, middle

school students in a full-time gifted SDM participate in two to five core academic gifted classes,

61

while students in a part-time gifted SDM participate in one gifted class. In both SDMs, classes are

taught by gifted endorsed teachers who are knowledgeable in appropriate strategies for dealing

with academic and affective needs of gifted students. Research was conducted to determine if

students who participated in a full-time gifted SDM had significantly higher achievement scale

scores in reading or mathematics than similar students who chose a part-time gifted SDM.

Additional research was conducted to determine if eighth grade students who participated in a

full-time gifted SDM had significantly higher scores on a student survey than eighth grade gifted

students whose SDM was part-time.

Sample

A convenience sample was used in both parts of this study. A convenience sample is a

sample of the most available subjects in the population. For the analysis of students’ achievement

scores the student sample included all gifted students in a large school district in Southwest

Florida who completed eighth grade in 2014. Middle schools in this district are schools that serve

students in grades six through eight. The school district used in the study had 17 middle schools

in academic year 2013-2014. The sample group was made up of gifted students who participated

in a full-time or part-time gifted SDM during their middle school years. All students in the study

had similar potential for high academic achievement based on their having met the eligibility

criteria for participation in the gifted program. For the analysis of students’ perceptions of their

gifted program experiences, the sample included all gifted students who completed eighth grade

in 2014 and who, with their parent’s permission, agreed to complete the survey.

62

Data Source

The student’s academic achievement data for this study was collected from the school

district’s central office Information Systems Department. Archived student data was provided to

the researcher for all ninth grade gifted students who completed eighth grade in district middle

schools in 2014. The students’ gifted program SDM while in middle school was included in that

data along with the student’s reading and mathematics scaled scores, SES status (as measured by

eligibility for the free or reduced lunch program) and ethnicity.

The data collected for the survey aspect of the study was from a survey created for this

study that was based on a sample survey created by Kristie Speirs Neumeister, Ph.D., and

Virginia H. Burney, Ph.D. and included in their book, Gifted Program Evaluation: A Handbook

for Administrators & Coordinators (2012) which was co-published with the National Association

for Gifted Children. The researcher was granted permission from the survey authors to make use

of their questions in designing the survey for this study. The survey questions were adapted for

use with the specific students participating in this study and content validity was established by a

panel of experts and a field test. (See Appendix A). Reliability of the survey was established by

using SPSS to determine Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients on the sample. The survey

consisted of three domains: Domain C, curriculum and instruction, Domain A, affective needs,

attitudes and guidance, and Domain P, program effectiveness. Domain C had 16 questions,

Domain A had 8 questions and Domain P had 3 questions for a total of 27 questions based on a

63

Likert scale format in the survey.

In developing the survey instrument, the panel of five experts consisted of the researcher,

who is gifted endorsed and the teacher on assignment for the district’s gifted program, three

gifted endorsed resource teachers who provide gifted services for gifted high school students, and

the district’s coordinator for the gifted endorsement. The panel used the following criteria to

establish its framework, the survey must: 1) be at an appropriate reading level for gifted students

who have recently completed eighth grade 2) refer to individual student’s perception of the gifted

program in which the student participated. 3) focus on key aspects of gifted programs that would

be present in both service delivery models and 4) be relevant to the objectives of the study. The

survey was administered as a field test to 16 gifted students who had participated in the gifted

program while in middle school. The researcher used SPSS to compute the Cronbach’s alpha

reliability coefficient on the students’ survey data for each of the domains included in the survey.

For Domain 1, Curriculum and Instruction, the reliability coefficient was .819. For domain 2,

Affective Needs, Attitudes and Guidance, the reliability coefficient was .837. For domain 3,

Program Effectiveness, the reliability coefficient was .834.which indicates a high level of internal

consistency. According to George and Mallery (2003), the closer the Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient is to1.0 the greater the internal consistency. The following rules for interpreting the

Cronbach’s alpha are applicable: ≥ .9 = Excellent, ≥ .8 = Good, ≥ .7 = Acceptable, ≥ .6 =

Questionable, ≥ .5 = Poor and ≥ .5 = Unacceptable” (George & Mallery, 2003. p. 231). The

administration of the survey was expected to take between 10 and 15minutes. The researcher

64

works in the district where the survey was administered but does not teach any of the students

who participated in the survey. Parents and students were notified by newsletter (Appendix: B),

by email (Appendix: C), and by mail (Appendix: D) about the survey and student assents

(Appendix: E) for completing the survey were obtained. The survey was administered

electronically or on paper at each of the 13 high school campuses in the district. After

administration, the researcher analyzed mean student scores for each of the survey domains. The

data was used to compare scores between the two SDMs as well as the subgroups of ethnicity and

socioeconomic status within each SDM.

Goals of Research

One of the researcher’s goals with this study was to determine if students in full-time

gifted SDM placement showed a statistically significant difference in mean proficiency level

scores on the FCAT 2.0 reading and/or mathematics assessment than the mean FCAT 2.0

proficiency level scores of gifted students placed in a part-time gifted program SDM. An

additional goal was to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in student’s

responses on a Student Survey of student perceptions of the gifted program. The researcher also

examined if there were any differences in these groups by SES status or ethnicity. The end goal

of the researcher was to provide useful information and insight about strengths and weaknesses of

the two placement options and their impact on academic achievement and affective experiences

of students.

65

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Research Questions:

1. Are there statistically significant differences in FCAT reading mean achievement scale scores

for Southwest Florida gifted middle school students when these students participate in a full-time

gifted service delivery model or a part-time gifted service delivery model?

2. Are there statistically significant differences in FCAT mathematics mean achievement scale

scores for Southwest Florida gifted middle school students when these students participate in a

full-time gifted service delivery model or a part-time gifted service delivery model?

3. Are there statistically significant differences in FCAT reading mean achievement scale scores

by SES status or ethnicity for Southwest Florida gifted middle school students when these

students participate in a full-time gifted service delivery model or a part-time gifted service

delivery model?

4. Are there statistically significant differences in FCAT mathematics mean achievement scale

scores by SES status or ethnicity for Southwest Florida gifted middle school students when these

students participate in a full-time gifted service delivery model or a part-time gifted service

delivery model?

5. Are there statistically significant differences in scores in the areas of curriculum, affective

learning, and general program experiences on the Student Survey for students receiving full-time

66

gifted program services or part-time gifted program services?

6. Are there statistically significant differences in scores in the areas of curriculum, affective,

learning and general program experiences on the Student Survey by SES status or ethnicity for

Southwest Florida gifted middle school students who participate in a full-time gifted service

delivery model or a part-time gifted service delivery model?

Hypotheses:

1. Differences in reading achievement scale scores for full-time gifted SDM students will not be

statistically significantly different compared to those of students in a part-time gifted SDM.

2. Differences in mathematics achievement scale scores for full-time gifted SDM students will

not be statistically significantly different compared to those of students in a part-time gifted SDM.

3. Differences in reading achievement scale scores for full-time gifted SDM students will not be

statistically significantly different by SES status or ethnicity compared to those of students in a

part-time gifted SDM.

4. Differences in mathematics achievement scale scores for full-time gifted SDM students will

not be statistically significantly different by SES status, gender or ethnicity compared to those of

students in a part-time gifted SDM.

5. Differences in Student Survey scores for full-time SDM students will not be statistically

67

significantly different compared to those of students in a part-time gifted SDM.

6. Differences in Student Survey scores for full-time gifted SDM students will not be statistically

significantly different by SES status or ethnicity compared to those of students in a part-time

gifted SDM.

Dependent Variables

In the state of Florida student achievement in reading and mathematics is measured

through the use of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test 2.0 (FCAT 2.0). On the FCAT

2.0, reading and mathematics scores are reported on a developmental scale, which is used to

determine a student’s proficiency level with state standards and to track annual progress from

grade to grade. Reading scale scores range from 140-302 across grades 3 through 10, while

Mathematics scale scores range from 140-298 across grades 3 through 8. Students’ scale scores

on the FCAT 2.0 Reading and Mathematics Assessments were the dependent variables used to

examine the relationship between gifted program placement and student achievement.

For the analysis of Student Survey responses in the study, the dependent variables were

the students’ total scores on the three domains addressed in the survey which were curriculum and

instruction, affective needs, attitudes, and guidance, and program effectiveness.

Independent Variables

The independent variables in this study were gifted program SDM placement, SES status

68

and ethnicity. Only eighth grade gifted students who were in either a full-time gifted program

SDM or a part-time gifted program SDM were part of the study. For the Academic Achievement

aspect of the study, mean achievement scale scores in reading and mathematics were analyzed to

determine if there were statistically significant differences between program placement groups.

Survey scores for each SDM group were also analyzed to determine if there were statistically

significant differences between SDM groups.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Design

The study design was causal comparative. A causal-comparative design is one that seeks

to find relationships between independent and dependent variables by comparing two or more

groups. For this study the groups being compared were made up of gifted students in the full-time

SDM placement and gifted students in the part-time SDM.

Data Analysis Procedures

Descriptive statistics was used to describe the sample being studied to include the

frequency of groups and subgroups.

Question 1

Gifted students who were in full-time SDMs were identified along with their FCAT 2.0

reading scale scores. Gifted students who were in part-time SDMs were identified along with

69

their FCAT reading scale scores. Mean reading scores for each group were examined using

Statistical Package for Social Services (SPSS). An independent samples t-test was run to analyze

the mean reading achievement scale scores for each group and determine if there was a difference

that was statistically significant between the full-time SDM group and the part-time SDM group.

A study wide alpha level of .05 was used to determine significance.

Question 2

Gifted students who were in full-time SDMs were identified along with their FCAT 2.0

math scale scores. Gifted students who were in part-time SDMs were also identified along with

their FCAT math scale scores. Mean math scores for each group were examined using Statistical

Package for Social Services (SPSS). An independent samples t-test was run to analyze the mean

math achievement scale scores for each group and determine if there was a difference that was

statistically significant between the full-time SDM group and the part-time SDM group. An alpha

level of .05 was used to determine significance.

Question 3

Full-time and part-time SDM gifted students FCAT 2.0 scale scores in reading were

analyzed using SPSS by subgroups of SES and ethnicity using 2 factorial analyses of variances

(ANOVAs). An alpha level of .05 was again used to determine if a significant difference existed

between subgroups.

70

Question 4

Full-time and part-time SDM gifted students FCAT 2.0 scale scores in math were

analyzed using SPSS by subgroups of SES and ethnicity using 2 factorial analyses of variances

(ANOVAs). An alpha level of .05 was used to determine if a significant difference existed

between subgroups.

Question 5

Using SPSS students were examined by gifted SDM and student survey responses in each

domain were analyzed by means of an independent samples t-test to determine if there was a

significant statistical difference between Student Survey responses of full and part-time SDM

groups at the .05 alpha level.

Question 6

Students in each gifted SDM group were examined by SES and ethnicity using SPSS. Six

factorial ANOVAs were run to determine if there was a significant statistical difference in

Student Survey responses of full and part-time SDM groups by subgroups for each of the sub

scores at .05 alpha levels.

ASSUMPTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND DELIMITATIONS

Assumptions

1. It is assumed that the FCAT 2.0 reading and mathematics assessments are valid and reliable

instruments for determining student’s academic achievement.

71

2. It is assumed that the Student Survey is a valid and reliable instrument for determining student

perceptions of their program.

3. It is assumed that assessment instruments and criteria used to determine eligibility for gifted

program services are valid and reliable instruments for determining innate intellectual ability and

learner characteristics.

Limitations of the Study

1. The type of curriculum used in the full-time and part-time SDM is not controlled.

2. The quality of instruction in individual classrooms within the two SDMs may not be the same.

3. Level of parental support and involvement in students’ schooling may not be the same.

4. Individual student motivation toward achievement varies from student to student.

5. The size of the sample for the survey is limited to those who chose to participate.

6. The sample is not random.

Delimitations

1. The results of this study could only be generalizable to eighth grade gifted students in middle

schools with similar demographics and similar SDMs to those in the large Southwest Florida

school district in which this study will be conducted.

2. The survey instrument used a Likert scale to measure the quantitative data. Although it did

include the option of open-ended comments in each domain, very few students opted to include

comments and the researcher did not analyze the comments for this study. This may have

resulted in restricted responses.

72

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

This causal comparative research study’s primary purpose was to determine if a

relationship exists between gifted service delivery model (SDM) placement and performance on

the reading and/or mathematics subtests of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test 2.0

(FCAT 2.0). An additional purpose was to determine if a relationship exists between ethnicity

and socioeconomic status (SES) with regard to reading and/or mathematics academic

achievement on the FCAT 2.0. The final purpose of the study was to look at the students’

perceptions of their academic, social and emotional experiences while participating in either the

part-time or full-time gifted SDMs.

This chapter will present the quantitative findings of the research study. The study

explored the mean differences between each of the following variables: SDM, ethnicity, SES,

reading and mathematics FCAT 2.0 scores and student perceptions of their experiences within the

two service delivery models. The quantitative findings will be discussed by each of the research

questions examined in the study.

Descriptives

SPSS 22 was the statistical program used to compute the quantitative findings.

Descriptives analyses were used to gain information on the student sample, which was a

convenience sample. It was made up of all students identified as gifted who completed middle

school during school year 2013-2014 in a district in Southwest Florida. The total number of

73

students in the sample for academic achievement scores was 533. The number of students in the

sample who had participated in a full-time gifted service delivery model in middle school was

285 or 53.1 percent. The number of students in the sample who had participated in a part-time

gifted service delivery model was 248 or 46.2 percent. In Table 1 a relatively balanced sampling

between the two groups of students is shown.

Table 1

Total Student Sample by SDM

n %

Full-time 285 53.1

Part-time 248 46.2

Total 533

Another important aspect of the student sample was the ethnic makeup of the students.

Because this was a convenience sample, the frequency of the different ethnicities could not be

controlled. The numbers of students in each ethnic category are shown in Table 2. While the

ethnic makeup of the student sample was not equally distributed the sample did show a diverse

population overall with meaningful representation for each ethnic group except for the Native

American group which was too small.

74

Table 2

Total Student Sample by Ethnicity

Ethnicity

n %

White 363 67.6

Black 29 5.4

Hispanic 103 19.2

Asian 18 3.4

Multiracial 19 3.5

Native

American 1 .2

Total 533 99.3

The next attribute of the student sample that was relevant to the research questions was the

socioeconomic status of the students in the sample. SES status was determined by each student’s

free or reduced lunch status. The number of students who were identified as low SES and the

number of students not identified as low SES are indicated in Table 3.

75

Table 3

Total Student Sample by SES status

n %

Low SES 220 41.3

Not Low

SES 313 58.7

Total 533 100.0

All students in the sample had achievement scale scores reported for the 2014 FCAT 2.0

Reading and the FCAT 2.0 Mathematics Achievement Tests. For the Reading portion of the

FCAT 2.0 test the highest scale score reported within the student sample was 296 while the

lowest score reported for the sample was 222. The sample students’ FCAT 2.0 Mathematics scale

scores ranged from a high of 298 and a low of 226. For both of these tests the scores overall were

similar. The mean scores for the reading and mathematics portions of the test as well as the

standard deviations are displayed in Table 4. The similarity of these results was to be expected as

the students in the sample had all met the criteria for gifted services which included high ability

and high achievement.

76

Table 4

Reading and Mathematics Scale Scores

Scores

Minimum Maximum M SD

FCAT Reading Scale Score (n=533) 222.00 296.00 264.64 16.04

FCAT Mathematics Scale Score (n=533) 226.00 298.00 262.59 14.01

Research Question 1

For the first question of the study the researcher explored whether statistically significant

differences in FCAT reading mean achievement scale scores for Southwest Florida gifted middle

school students existed when these students participated in a full-time SDM or a part-time SDM.

Research Hypothesis: There is not a statistically significant difference in FCAT reading mean

achievement scale scores for Southwest Florida gifted middle school students when these students

participate in a full-time SDM or a part-time SDM.

Statistical Hypothesis: H0: µSDM 1 = µSDM 2

An independent samples t-test was run to compare the mean scale scores on the FCAT 2.0

Reading test of the students in the full-time and part-time SDMs. The differences in mean scores

for each group are shown in Table 5.

77

Table 5

Group Mean FCAT Reading Scale Scores

Group M

Full-time SDM (n=285) 267.38

Part-Time SDM (n=248) 261.48

The differences in mean reading scores between the two SDM groups was found to be

statistically significant (t (531) = 4.30, p = .00); therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. The

mean of the part-time SDM group was significantly lower (m = 261.48, SD = 15.85) than the

mean of the full-time SDM group (m = 267.38, SD = 15.72). The Levene’s test for equality of

variances was .99 which was greater than the established p value of .05 so equal variances were

used. A significant difference in mean reading scores between the two SDMs is shown in Table 6.

78

Table 6

Independent Samples t-test for Equality of Means

t df Sig. (2-

tailed

Mean

Difference

FCAT Reading Scale Score

Equal Variances Assumed

4.30 531 .00 5.90

Research Question 2

In addressing the next research question the researcher looked to discover if there were

statistically significant differences in FCAT mathematics mean achievement scale scores for

Southwest Florida gifted middle school students when these students participated in a full-time

SDM or a part-time SDM.

Research Hypothesis: There is not a statistically significant difference in FCAT math mean

achievement scale scores for Southwest Florida gifted middle school students when these students

participate in a full-time SDM or a part-time SDM.


An independent samples t-test was run to compare the mean scale scores on the FCAT 2.0

Mathematics test of the students in the full-time and part-time SDMs. The differences in mean

scores for each group are shown in Table 7.

79

Table 7

Group Statistics of Mean FCAT Math Scale Scores

Group M SD

Full-time SDM (n=285) 264.34 13.92

Part Time SDM (n=248) 260.57 13.87

The mean mathematics scores between the two SDM groups was found to be statistically

significant (t (531) = 3.13, p = .002); therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. The mean of the

part-time SDM group was significantly lower (m = 260.57, SD = 13.87) than the mean of the full-

time SDM group (m = 264.34, SD = 13.92). The Levene’s test for equality of variances was .78

which was greater than the established p value of .05 so equal variances were used. A significant

difference in mean mathematics scores between the two SDMs is shown in Table 8.

80

Table 8


t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

FCAT Mathematics Scale Score


3.13 531 .002 3.77

Research Question 3

Looking further into the academic achievement of the same sample groups, the researcher

examined whether there were statistically significant differences in FCAT reading mean

achievement scale scores by SES status or ethnicity for Southwest Florida gifted middle school

students when these students participated in a full-time gifted SDM or a part-time gifted SDM.

Research Hypothesis: There are no statistically significant differences in FCAT reading mean

achievement scale scores by SES status or ethnicity for Southwest Florida gifted middle school

students when these students participate in a full-time SDM or a part-time SDM


FCAT 2.0 Reading scale scores were analyzed by subgroups of SES and ethnicity using a

2x2 factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) for SES and a 2x5 ANOVA for ethnicity. An alpha

level of .05 was again used to determine if significant differences existed between subgroups.

The descriptive data for the ANOVA comparing mean reading scores of students in the two

SDMs by SES categories is displayed in Table 9.

81

Table 9

Descriptive Statistics for FCAT Reading Scale Score by SDM and SES

SDM SES M SD n

Full-time Low SES 263.54 16.12 117

Not Low SES 270.05 14.90 168

Total 267.38 15.72 285

Part-time Low SES 259.77 15.731 103

Not Low SES 262.70 15.88 145

Total 261.48 15.85 248

Total Low SES 261.77 16.01 220

Not Low SES 266.65 15.77 313

Total 264.64 16.04 533

There was a main effect on the mean reading scale scores for both SES, F (1, 529) =

11.80, p =.00 and SDM, F (1, 529) = 16.33, p =.00. There was, however, no interaction effect

indicating the reading scores of the SES subgroups were not affected across SDM, F(1,522) =

1.69, p= .19 as shown in Table 10.

82

Table 10

ANOVA Comparing Means of FCAT Reading Scale Score by SDM and SES

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

SDM 3976.57 1 3976.57 16.33 .00

SESSTATUS 2871.98 1 2871.98 11.80 .001

SDM *

SESSTATUS 411.73 1 411.73 1.69 .19

Table 11 includes the descriptive data for the ANOVA comparing mean reading scores of

students in the two SDMs by ethnicity. The sample included students identified as White, Black,

Hispanic, Asian, Multiracial and Native American. Because a convenience sample was used for

the study, the different ethnicities were not represented equally. Although there were six separate

ethnicities represented within the complete sample, there was only one Native American in the

part time SDM and no Native Americans in the SDM group. The data for Native American

students was therefore insufficient to be included in the ANOVA comparing FCAT Reading scale

scores by SDM and Ethnicity.

83

Table 11

Descriptives for FCAT Reading Scale Score by SDM and Ethnicity

SDM Ethnicity M SD n

Full-time White 268.59 15.20 188

Black 258.94 19.34 17

Hispanic 264.77 15.87 60

Asian 270.27 12.38 15

Multiracial 273.40 21.16 5

Total 267.38 15.72 285

Part-time White 262.26 15.76 175

Black 266.08 13.24 12

Hispanic 258.72 17.45 43

Asian 257.67 19.22 3


Total 261.48 15.89 247

Total White 265.54 15.77 363

Black 261.90 17.19 29

Hispanic 262.24 16.73 103

Asian 268.17 13.90 18


Total 264.64 16.05 532

84

Although a statistically significant difference in Reading scale scores was found for the

main effect of SDM F (1, 522) = 5.46, p =.02, there was no significant difference found in student

Reading scale scores by the main effect of ethnicity, F (4, 522) = 1.21, p = .30 or by the

interaction of ethnicity with SDM, F (4, 522) = 1.75, p =.14, indicating the reading scores of the

Ethnicity subgroups were not affected across SDM. The data for the ANOVA that compared

FCAT reading scale scores by SDM and ethnicity is displayed in Table 12.

Table 12

ANOVA comparing means of FCAT Reading Scale Scores by SDM and Ethnicity

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial Eta

Squared

SDM 1349.30 1 1349.30 5.46 .02 .01

ETHNICITY 1192.87 4 238.58 1.21 .30 .01

SDM *

ETHNICITY 1725.92 4 431.48 1.75 .14 .01

Research Question 4

With the final question on academic achievement scores the researcher considered if there

were statistically significant differences in FCAT mathematics mean achievement scale scores by

SES status or ethnicity for Southwest Florida gifted middle school students when these students

participated in a full-time gifted SDM or a part-time gifted SDM.

Research Hypothesis: There are no statistically significant differences in FCAT mathematics

85

mean achievement scale scores by SES or ethnicity for Southwest Florida gifted middle school

students when these students participate in a full-time gifted SDM or a part-time gifted SDM.


FCAT 2.0 Mathematics scale scores were analyzed by the subgroups of SES and ethnicity

using a 2x2 ANOVA for SES and a 2x5 ANOVA for ethnicity. An alpha level of .05 was used to

determine if significant differences existed by subgroups. Descriptives for the FCAT 2.0

Mathematics Scale Scores by SDM and SES are provided in Table 13.

Table 13

Descriptives for FCAT Mathematics Scale Scores by SDM and SES

SDM SES M SD n

Full-time Low SES 262.09 13.35 117

Not Low SES 265.92 14.12 168

Total 264.34 13.92 285

Part-time Low SES 258.27 12.73 103

Not Low SES 262.21 14.44 145

Total 260.57 13.86 248

Total Low SES 260.30 13.17 220

Not Low SES 264.20 14.37 313

Total 262.59 14.01 533

A statistically significant difference in mean Mathematics scale scores was found between

the students by the main effects of SES F(1, 529 ) = 10.20, p =.001 and SDM, F(1, 529 ) = 9.58,

86

p = .002, however, there was no statistical difference identified for the interaction of SDM and

SES, F(1, 529 ) =.002, p =.966 as shown in Table 14.

Table 14

ANOVA comparing means of FCAT Mathematics Scale Scores by SDM

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

SDM 1819.71 1 1819.71 9.58 .002

SESSTATUS 1939.09 1 1939.09 10.20 .001

SDM *

SESSTATUS .35 1 .347 .002 .966

Table 15 includes the descriptive data for the ANOVA comparing mean Mathematics

scale scores of students in the two SDMs by ethnicity. Again the data for Native Americans was

insufficient to be included in the ANOVA comparing FCAT Mathematics scale scores by SDM

and Ethnicity.

87

Table 15

Descriptives for FCAT Mathematics scale scores by SDM and Ethnicity



Black 253.82 10.77 17

Hispanic 261.67 13.95 60

Asian 270.67 12.22 15


Total 264.34 13.92 285


Black 263.00 9.71 12

Hispanic 261.14 13.52 43

Asian 268.33 20.98 3


Total 260.57 13.86 248

Total White 263.13 14.15 363

Black 257.62 11.16 29

Hispanic 261.45 13.71 103

Asian 270.28 13.25 18


Total 262.59 14.01 532

88

No statistically significant difference in Mathematics scale scores was found for the main

effects of SDM, F (1, 522) = .09, p = .77 or ethnicity, F (4, 522) = 1.83, p = .12. Additionally

there was no interaction effect indicating that the Mathematics scale scores of the ethnicity

subgroups are not affected across SDM, F(4, 522) = 2.24, p =.06. The data for the ANOVA that

compared FCAT Mathematics scale scores by SDM and ethnicity is displayed in Table 16.

Table 16

ANOVA for FCAT Mathematics Scale Score by SDM and Ethnicity

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial Eta

Squared

SDM 16.54 1 16.54 .09 .77 .00

ETHNICITY 1859.23 4 344.62 1.83 .12 .01

SDM *

ETHNICITY 1685.99 4 421.50 2.24 .06 .02

Research Question 5

After receiving the 99 completed surveys from the students in the sample whose parents

consented to their participation in the study, the researcher analyzed their responses to determine

if there were statistically significant differences in scores in the areas of curriculum, affective

needs, attitudes and guidance and general program experiences on the Student Survey for students

who received full-time gifted program services or part-time gifted program services.

Research Hypothesis: There are no statistically significant differences in scores in the areas of

89

curriculum, affective needs, attitudes and guidance and general program experiences on the

Student Survey for students who received full-time gifted program services or part-time gifted

program services.


The sample for the student survey was determined by the number of parents who provided

consent for their child to participate as well as the students providing assent for participation.

Because this was strictly voluntary, the sample did not contain equal numbers of full and part-

time students nor were the subgroups of ethnicity and SES represented equally. Student survey

responses were analyzed by means of three independent samples t- tests to determine if there was

a significant statistical difference between student survey responses of full and part-time SDM

groups in each of three survey domains at the .05 alpha levels. The three domains included in the

survey were: Domain C (Curriculum and Instruction), Domain A (Affective Needs, Attitudes and

Guidance), and Domain P (Program Effectiveness). Group statistics and differences in mean

scores for each group for the t-test for Domain C are shown in Table 17.

Table 17

Group Statistics of t-test for Domain C

SDM M

C Total Full-time (n=58) 45.84

Part-time (n=41) 46.12

For Domain C, curriculum and instruction, the difference in mean student response score

90

totals between the two SDM groups was not found to be statistically significant (t (97) = -.14, p =

.89); therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted. The mean of the part-time SDM group was not

significantly different (m = 46.12, SD = 10.22) than the mean of the full-time SDM group (m =

45.84, SD = 8.88). The Levene’s test for equality of variances was .28 which was greater than the

established p value of .05 so equal variances were used. Although the mean response score totals

for the full-time group were slightly lower than the mean response score totals for the part-time

group, no statistically significant difference is shown in Table 18.

Table 18


t df Sig. (2-

tailed

Mean

Difference

Domain C Score


-.14 97 .89 -.28

A second independent t- test was run for student responses in Domain A. Group statistics

and differences in mean scores for each group for the independent t-test for Domain A are

provided in Table 19.

91

Table 19

Group Statistics of t-test for Domain A

SDM M

A Total Full-time (n=58) 10.02


For Domain A, affective needs, attitudes, and guidance, no statistically significant

difference in mean student response scores between the two SDM groups was found (t (97) =

1.24, p =.22); therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted. The mean of the part-time SDM group

was not significantly different (m = 21.89, SD = 6.33) than the mean of the full-time SDM group

(m = 23.24, SD = 4.64). The Levene’s test for equality of variances was .01 which was less than

the established p value of .05 so equal variances was not assumed. Although the mean response

scores for the full-time group were slightly higher than the mean response scores for the part-time

group, no statistically significant difference is shown in Table 20.

92

Table 20

Independent Samples t-test for Equality of Means Domain A

t df Sig. (2-

tailed

Mean

Difference

Domain A Score


1.24 97 .22 1.36

A third independent t- test was run for student responses in Domain P, program

effectiveness, Group statistics and differences in mean scores for each group for the t-test for

Domain P are provided in Table 21.

93

Table 21

Group Statistics of t-test for Domain P

SDM M

P Total Full-time (n=58) 10.02


For Domain P, the difference in mean student response scores between the two SDM

groups was not found to be statistically significant (t (97) = .11, p = .91); therefore, the null

hypothesis was accepted. The mean of the full-time SDM group was not significantly different (m

= 10.02, SD = 1.73) than the mean of the part-time SDM group (m = 9.98, SD = 1.92). The

Levene’s test for equality of variances was .28 which was greater than the established p value of

.05 so equal variances were used. Although the mean response scores for the full-time group

were slightly higher than the mean response scores for the part-time group, no statistically

significant difference is shown in Table 22.

94

Table 22

Independent Samples T-Test for Equality of Means

t df Sig. (2-

tailed

Mean

Difference

Domain P Score


.11 97 .91 .04

Research Question 6

Looking further into the students’ survey responses, the researcher wanted to determine if

there were statistically significant differences in scores in the domain areas of curriculum and

instruction, affective needs, attitudes, and guidance, and general program effectiveness on the

student survey by subgroups of SES status or ethnicity for Southwest Florida gifted middle school

students who participate in a full-time gifted SDM or a part-time gifted SDM.

Research Hypothesis: There are no statistically significant differences in mean student total

scores in the areas of curriculum, affective needs, attitudes, and guidance, and general program

experiences on the student survey by SES or ethnicity for Southwest Florida gifted middle school

students who participate in a full-time gifted SDM or a part-time gifted SDM


Six factorial ANOVAs were run to determine if there was a significant statistical

difference in mean student survey response totals of full and part-time SDM groups by domain

for each of the subgroup scores at .05 alpha levels. The results of the ANOVAs are discussed for

each domain by the main effects and interactions of each SDM with each subgroup. Mean

95

student response totals for each domain in the survey were analyzed by subgroups of SES and

ethnicity using a 2x2 factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) for SES and a 2x5 ANOVA for

ethnicity. Table 23 includes descriptive statistics for the Domain C ANOVA for SDM and SES.

Table 23

Descriptives for Domain C SDM by SES

SDM SES M SD n

Full-time low SES 50.44 6.03 16

not low SES 44.10 9.21 42

Total 45.84 8.88 58

Part-time low SES 50.00 8.25 14

not low SES 44.11 10.70 27

Total 46.12 10.23 41

Total low SES 50.23 7.03 30

not low SES 44.10 9.74 69

Total 45.96 9.41 99

A statistically significant difference in mean student responses for Domain C was found

by the main effect of SES F(1, 95 ) = 768.07, p =.003; however there was no statistical difference

identified for the main effect of SDM alone, F(1, 95 ) = .91, p = .917 nor the interaction of SDM

and SES, F(1, 95) =1.05, p =.910 indicating that the mean student survey scores of the ethnicity

subgroups are not affected across SDM for Domain C as shown in Table 24.

96

Table 24

ANOVA for Survey Domain C SDM and SES

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial Eta

Squared

SDM .92 1 .91 .011 .92 .00

SES 768.07 1 768.07 9.25 .003 .09

SDM * SES 1.06 1 1.06 .013 .91 .00

For the Domain C ANOVA for SDM and ethnicity there were too few students identified

as Black or Asian in the part time SDM which resulted in no means comparisons included for

those subgroups in the descriptive statistics shown in Table 25.

97

Table 25

Descriptives for Domain C SDM and Ethnicity

No statistically significant difference in mean student responses for Domain C were found

by the main effects of SDM, F(1, 89) = 1.29, p =.26, ethnicity, F(4, 95 ) = .91, p = .92 nor the

interaction of SDM and ethnicity, F(4, 95) = 1.05, p =.91 indicating that the mean student survey



Black 55.50 2.12 2

Hispanic 44.40 6.69 5

Asian 47.20 7.43 5

Mixed Race 49.50 3.54 2

Total 45.84 8.88 58


Black 39.00 . 1

Hispanic 50.80 5.31 5

Asian 32.00 . 1

Mixed Race 53.33 3.51 3

Total 46.12 10.22 41

Total White 45.29 9.96 75

Black 50.00 9.64 3

Hispanic 47.60 6.62 10

Asian 44.67 9.09 6

Mixed Race 51.80 3.70 5

Total 45.96 9.41 99

98

scores of the ethnicity subgroups are not affected across SDM for Domain C of the survey as

shown in Table 26.

Table 26

ANOVA for Survey Domain C SDM and Ethnicity

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial Eta

Squared

SDM 114.42 1 114.42 1.29 .26 .01

Ethnicity 334.89 4 83.72 .94 .44 .04

SDM *

Ethnicity 494.21 4 123.55 1.39 .24 .06

Descriptives for the ANOVA for mean student responses totals for Domain A for SDM

and SES are shown in Table 27.

99

Table 27

Descriptives for Survey Domain A SDM and SES

SDM SES M n

full-time low SES 25.25 16

Not low

SES 22.48 42

Total 23.24 58

part-time low SES 25.15 14

Not low

SES 20.19 27

Total 21.88 41

Total low SES 25.20 30

Not low

SES 21.58 69

Total 22.68 99

A statistically significant difference was found in mean student response totals for

Domain A by the main effect of SES, F(1,95) =11.60, p=.001; however there was no significant

difference found for the main effect of SDM, F(1,95) =1.12, p= .29, nor the interaction of SDM

and SES, F(1,95) = .93, p = .34 indicating that the mean student survey score totals of the SES

subgroups are not affected across SDM for Domain A as shown in Table 28.

100

Table 28

ANOVA for Survey Domain A SDM and SES

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial Eta

Squared

SDM 29.53 1 29.53 1.12 .29 .01

SES 306.90 1 306.90 11.60 .001 .11

SDM * SES 24.49 1 24.49 .93 .34 .01

For the Domain A ANOVA for SDM and ethnicity there were too few students identified

as Black or Asian in the part-time SDM subgroup which resulted in no means comparisons

included for those subgroups in the descriptive statistics shown in Table 29.

101

Table 29

Descriptives for Domain A SDM and Ethnicity

For the ANOVA for mean student survey response totals in Domain A for SDM and

ethnicity a statistically significant difference in mean student response totals was found for the

SDM Ethnicity Mean n

Full-time White 22.84 44

Black 29.50 2

Hispanic 24.20 5

Asian 22.20 5

Mixed Race 26.00 2

Total 23.24 58

Part-time White 21.81 31

Black 17.00 1

Hispanic 22.60 5

Asian 12.00 1

Mixed Race 26.33 3

Total 21.88 41

Total White 22.41 75

Black 25.33 3

Hispanic 23.40 10

Asian 20.50 6

Mixed Race 26.20 5

Total 22.68 99

102

main effect of SDM, F(1, 89) =5.50, p = .02 however; no statistically significant differences were

found in student response totals for the main effect of ethnicity, F(4,89) =1.52 , p = .20, nor the

interaction of SDM and ethnicity, F(4,89 ) = 1.33, p = .27 indicating that the mean student survey

score totals of the ethnicity subgroups are not affected across SDM for Domain A as shown in

Table 30.

Table 30

ANOVA for Survey Domain A SDM and Ethnicity

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Partial Eta

Squared

SDM 156.72 1 156.72 5.50 .02 .06

Ethnicity 173.54 4 43.39 1.52 .20 .06

SDM *

Ethnicity 151.00 4 37.75 1.33 .27 .06

Descriptives for the ANOVA for mean student response totals for Domain P for SDM and

SES are shown in Table 31.

103

Table 31

Descriptives for Domain P SDM and SES

SDM SES M n

Full-time low SES 10.50 16

Not low

SES 9.83 42

Total 10.02 58

Part-time low SES 10.71 14

Not low

SES 9.60 27

Total 9.98 41

Total low SES 10.60 30

Not low

SES 9.74 69

Total 10.00 99

A statistically significant difference in mean student response totals for Domain P was

found for the main effect of SES subgroup, F(1,95) = 5.18, p=.03; however no significant

difference in mean student response totals was found for the main effect of SDM, F(1,95) =

.001, p = .97, nor the interaction of SDM and SES, F(1,95) = .34, p = .56 indicating that the mean

student survey score totals of the SES subgroups are not affected across SDM for Domain P as

shown in Table 32.

104

Table 32

Anova for Survey Domain P SDM and SES

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial Eta

Squared

SDM .004 1 .004 .001 .97 .00

SES 16.42 1 16.42 5.18 .03 .05

SDM * SES 1.06 1 1.06 .34 .56 .004

For the Domain P ANOVA for SDM and ethnicity there were too few students identified

as Black or Asian in the part time SDM which resulted in no means comparisons included for

those subgroups in the descriptive statistics shown in Table 33.

105

Table 33

Descriptives Survey P SDM and Ethnicity

SDM Ethnicity M n

Full-time White 10.05 44

Black 12.00 2

Hispanic 10.20 5

Asian 8.80 5

Mixed Race 10.00 2

Total 10.02 58

Part-time White 9.94 31

Black 10.00 1

Hispanic 10.00 5

Asian 7.00 1

Mixed Race 11.33 3

Total 9.98 41

Total White 10.00 75

Black 11.33 3

Hispanic 10.10 10

Asian 8.50 6

Mixed Race 10.80 5

Total 10.00 99

106

No statistically significant differences were found in mean student responses for Domain

P for SDM, ethnicity, or the intersection of SDM and ethnicity indicating that the mean student

survey score totals of the ethnicity subgroups are not affected across SDM for Domain P as

shown in Table 34.

Table 34

Anova for Survey Domain P SDM and Ethnicity

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial Eta

Squared

SDM 1.93 1 1.93 .60 .44 .01

Ethnicity 19.60 4 4.90 1.51 .20 .06

SDM *

Ethnicity 7.22 4 1.81 .56 .70 .02

Summary

Analysis of the quantitative data for academic achievement of the students in the study

indicates that a relationship exists between the SDM in which the students participated during

middle school and their scores on the FCAT 2.0 assessment for both mathematics and reading.

There also was a relationship found between SES group and mathematics and reading scores for

gifted students in the study. Analysis of the survey data revealed a relationship between SES and

student responses to survey questions in all domains and both SDMs. No other relationships were

found within or between survey variables.

107

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

Services provided in the two different service delivery model (SDM) placements are

apparent factors in gifted students’ academic achievement as well as their perceptions of their

gifted program experiences while in middle school. Analysis of the research literature suggests

that variables such as SDM, Socio Economic Status (SES) and ethnicity may play a critical role in

students’ academic achievement as well as the level of their feelings of satisfaction with their

experiences within a gifted program.

The goal of this causal comparative study was to examine if and how the variables of

SDM, SES and ethnicity relate to gifted students’ academic achievement and their perceptions of

their experiences in the gifted program in middle school. The results presented in this research

study support previous research in the field as well as raise new questions for future research.

OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH RESULTS

This quantitative research study investigated six research questions that focused on two

separate aspects of student outcomes as a result of completing middle school while participating

in a gifted program. The first four questions of the study looked at students’ achievement scores

on the FCAT 2.0 for reading and mathematics. Student scores were analyzed statistically in SPSS

using Descriptives, independent samples t-tests and factorial ANOVAs to compare students’

mean scores for each subject area by the independent variables of SDM, SES, and ethnicity to

108

better understand how the different independent variables affect the dependent variable of student

achievement scores.

The last two research questions focused on students’ perceptions of their experiences in a

gifted program while in middle school. Student responses to a survey were analyzed using

Descriptives, independent samples t–tests and factorial ANOVAs to determine relationships

between the independent variables of SDM, SES and ethnicity with the dependent variable of

survey response scores. The survey was based on a handbook written by Neumeister and Burney

(2012) with the authors’ permission and adapted with permission from the authors for use with

this study (See Appendix A). Validity was established by a panel of experts and the survey was

field tested for reliability and analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient (See

Appendix F).

The following section will be organized around topics covered in the existing literature as

well as those that emerged as a result of this study.

Excellence versus Equity

Historically, the conflict between the ideals of excellence and equity has negatively

impacted support for gifted education (Delisle, 2014; Jolly, 2009). One of the most common

myths that impact attitudes and educational policies about gifted students is that their giftedness is

innate, and therefore, they will be successful on their own. This misconception leads to opposition

toward providing appropriately differentiated learning experiences and encourages the mistaken

notion that excellence and equity are separate and opposing concepts (Clark, 1997). The academic

109

achievement findings for research questions 1-4 provide support for the idea that gifted students

do benefit from full-time gifted SDMs with increased academic achievement, disproving the myth

that they can reach their full potential on their own without special programs. Students in the

study who participated in the full-time gifted SDM had significantly higher mean scale scores on

both the Reading and Mathematics sections of the FCAT 2.0 achievement test than those students

who participated in the part-time SDM. Additionally, mean scale scores for low SES students

participating in a full-time SDM were significantly higher than scores for low SES students

participating in a part-time SDM. Further research could be done to compare mean scores of

gifted ability students who did not receive any gifted services to gifted students who participated

in the different SDMs.

Identification of Diverse Populations of Gifted Learners

Cohen (1990) explains that common processes used to identify gifted students have

traditionally been developed for use with middle class, native English speaking students which

can result in an underrepresentation of diverse students in gifted programs. This has proven to be

the case in the district where this study took place. Although steps have been taken to increase

the numbers of diverse students in gifted programs, the percentage of White students remains

significantly higher in the gifted population than in the population as a whole. Hispanic students

were represented fairly strongly in the study sample; however other ethnicities were not as well

represented. There were actually no limited English proficiency students in the convenience

sample that was used for this study. Low SES students were well represented in the sample so

110

that group was able to be included as an independent variable in the study. More research needs

to be done to determine what identification methods are effective in identifying giftedness in all

populations of students.

Gifted Program Service Delivery Models

Cognitive Learning Theory supports the concept that a student’s educational setting is

equally important as their inborn gifted qualities in the development of their potential

achievement (Jordan, 2011). For students in gifted programs SDM placement determines the

educational setting. Acceleration and ability grouping are significant and controversial matters in

the realm of gifted education (Borland, Horton, Subotnik, Shiang-Jiun, Freeman, Goldberg, &Yu,

2002). Many myths and misconceptions exist relative to these issues that continue to influence

decision making of legislators, educators and parents. Although frequently criticized as elitist and

unnecessary, part-time gifted SDMs have been found to produce significantly greater

achievement scores for gifted students than regular education programs (Feldhusen & Moon,

1992). Full-time programs for gifted students are burdened with the negative feelings associated

with school-wide tracking despite the fact that research has shown these programs to be among

the most academically effective options for gifted learners (Borland, et al., 2002). The findings

for the first four research questions of this study support the research of Borland et al. by

revealing that gifted students in full-time SDMs have significantly higher academic achievement

test scores than gifted students in part-time SDMs.

111

Academic and Social/Emotional Needs of Gifted Learners

The main objectives of gifted education are to increase achievement to a level consistent

with students’ potential and to improve their self-concept by providing opportunities to learn and

collaborate with other students of similar interests and abilities (Delcourt, Cornell, and Goldberg,

2007). Findings for the first four research questions indicate that of the SDM options available

the full-time SDM is most effective in meeting the academic aspect of this goal. Overall positive

answers to Affective Needs Attitudes and Guidance (Domain A) and Program Effectiveness

(Domain P) questions on the survey indicate that the gifted program options available in district

middle schools are providing meaningful opportunities for students to work collaboratively with

students of like abilities in the areas of affective needs, attitudes and guidance. In fact, for

Domain A, the mean total score for all students in the survey was 22.68, which when divided by

8, the total number of questions in that domain, yields a mean response of 2.84 with a score of 3

representing a response of “adequately or sufficiently” on the Likert scale. Similarly, for Domain

P, the mean total score for all students in the survey was 10.00, which when divided by 3, the

number of questions in that domain, yields a mean response of 3.3. Again a response of 3 on the

Likert scale represents a response of “adequately or sufficiently.” The results further suggest that

further research into the reasons behind student responses would provide further insight into the

programs’ relationship to positive self-concept and social/emotional development.

Characteristics of Effective Gifted Programs

Few studies have focused on how gifted students benefit from their experiences in gifted

112

programs, or what else could have been done to enhance programs for gifted students (Reis,

2013). Educators are encouraged to do continuing evaluation of their programs to monitor and

focus on all students’ needs (Delcourt, Cornell, & Goldberg, 2007). In the survey aspect of this

study, students were asked about their experiences and the findings provide insights into their

perceptions of program effectiveness. The findings suggest that further investigation into the

reasons behind the responses would provide richer understanding and suggest additional ideas for

program improvement. According to Davis and Rimm (2004), evaluation information can be

used either to approve or to improve programs. Conducting further surveys and interviews of

students on a regular basis would provide opportunities for continuous program improvement.

Needs and Expectations of Parents of Gifted Learners

Parents of gifted children frequently look for guidance in accessing an appropriate

education for their child (Rash, 1998). Educators must provide research based information to

parents to allow them to make informed decisions regarding their children’s education (Pfeiffer,

2008). Program choice is a critical decision that parents make and the findings from this study

should help parents to be better informed about the academic achievement results of the available

SDM choices as well as the students’ perceptions of their experiences in both of the district’s

SDMs.

Summary of Topics and Themes

The samples for the academic achievement aspect of the study and the survey aspect of

113

the study were very different both in size and in the makeup of the subgroups. The academic

achievement portion of the study used a convenience sample that was made up of all current ninth

grade students in the large school district in Southwest Florida who had participated in one of the

two gifted SDMs while in middle school. This sample included 533 gifted students. The survey

sample was made up of 99 of those students whose parents gave consent for them to participate.

These students also assented to participation. Both the survey sample and the academic

achievement sample had unequal representation within SDM, SES and ethnicity groups.

The academic achievement data for both reading and mathematics indicated that there

were significantly higher mean scores reported for gifted students who participated in the full-

time SDM than those students who participated in the part-time SDM. Additionally the reading

and mathematics mean scores of low SES students were lower than those who were not identified

as low SES in both the full-time SDM and the part-time SDM student groups. There were no

significant differences in mean reading or math scores for different ethnic groups for either of the

SDM groups.

The survey response data indicated that SDM had no significant relationship with student

mean response scores for survey questions in any of the three domain areas. Interestingly,

students identified as low SES had higher mean response scores in all three domains for both

part-time and full-time SDMs, indicating more positive perceptions of their experiences in all

three domains than those students not identified as low SES. No differences in mean response

scores were found by ethnic group in either SDM on any of the survey domains. It is important to

114

note that there was low representation in some ethnic groups which affected the output of

ethnicity data.

Assumptions

1. It is assumed that the FCAT 2.0 reading and mathematics assessments are valid and reliable

instruments for determining student’s academic achievement.

2. It is assumed that the Student Survey is a valid and reliable instrument for determining student

perceptions of their program.

3. It is assumed that assessment instruments and criteria used to determine eligibility for gifted

program services are valid and reliable instruments for determining innate intellectual ability and

learner characteristics.

Limitations of the Study

1. The type of curriculum used in the full-time and part-time SDM was not controlled.

2. The quality of instruction in individual classrooms within the two programs may not have been

the same.

3. Level of parental support and involvement in students’ schooling may not have been the same.

4. Individual student motivation toward achievement varies from student to student.

5. The size of the sample for the survey was limited to those who chose to participate.

115

6. The sample was not random.

Delimitations

1. The results of this study could only be generalizable to eighth grade gifted students in middle

schools with similar demographics and similar SDMs to those in the large Southwest Florida

school district in which this study will be conducted.

2. The survey instrument used a Likert scale to measure the quantitative data. Although it did

include the option of open-ended comments in each domain, very few students opted to include

comments and the researcher did not analyze the comments for this study. This may have

resulted in restricted responses.

Implications of Research

It is clear that participation in a full-time SDM results in increased achievement test scores

in both reading and math for gifted middle school students as compared to gifted students who

participated in a part-time SDM. This suggests that more information is needed about what

aspects of the full-time model had a positive effect on academic achievement scores and whether

those aspects would benefit gifted students at the elementary and high school levels as well. It is

also clear that SES is an important factor influencing academic achievement, and that neither of

the available SDM options were able to bridge the gap for low SES students.

Students of low SES do have more positive perceptions of their experiences in a full-time

gifted model than in a part-time gifted model. This was true in all three domains of the survey.

116

This suggests that more information is needed regarding the reasons why low SES students’

perceptions were more positive and whether the full-time model would have a similar effect on

the perceptions of students in other grade levels.

Future Research

While this study has provided information about the effect of SDM on students’ academic

achievement in middle school, further research is suggested regarding effective curriculum

models and instructional strategies that can provide further academic advancement at all grade

levels. As evidenced by the convenience sample used in this study, the field of gifted education

continues to struggle to adequately identify diverse groups of students (Colangelo and Davis

2002). Future research should investigate various identification methods to determine which are

most effective in identifying gifted students from diverse groups. Additionally, the findings of

this study indicate a need for further research into student perceptions of their experiences to

include qualitative research into the reasons behind students’ perceptions of their gifted program

experiences.

Conclusion

Solutions to current societal concerns for national security brought about by the perceived

low level of achievement of students in the United States are in need of discovery. One suggested

solution is to provide quality program choices for all students, including those with high academic

potential, to prepare them to make positive contributions to the national security in the areas of

117

economic growth and competitiveness, physical safety, intellectual property, global awareness,

and countrywide unity and cohesion. Improving program services for high ability gifted students

across various levels of economic status and ethnicities will contribute to the resolution of

concerns about low achievement levels of students in our country. Research based information

about the effects of available service delivery models on gifted students’ achievement and

perceptions of their educational experiences will be useful to those interested in resolving

anxieties about American students’ academic achievements and improving educational options

for students with high potential.

It is further hoped that this study will help inform stakeholders; including district and

school level administrators, policy makers, teachers, parents, and gifted students themselves to

better understand the relationships that exist between academic achievement, SDM, SES,

ethnicity, and student perceptions of their gifted program experiences. This increased

understanding should allow for better decision making and an increased ability to meet the needs

of all gifted students so that they can reach their full potential academically and affectively.

118

REFERENCES

Adelson, J. L. , McCoach, D. B., & Gavin, M. K. (2012).Examining the effects of gifted

programming in mathematics and reading using ECLS-K. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56. (1),

25-29.

Betts, G. T., & Neihart, M. (1988). Profiles of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly,

32,(2), 248-253.

Bermudez, A., & Rakow, S. (1993). Examining identification and instruction practices for gifted

and talented limited English proficient students. In L.M. Malave (Ed.). Annual

Conference Journal. Proceedings of the National Association for Bilingual Education

Conference, Tucson, AZ, 1990 and Washington, D.C., 1991. 99-114.

Borland, J.H., Horton, D., Subotnik, R. F. , Shiang-Jiun, C., Freeman, C., Goldberg, S., & Yu,

J. (2002). Ability grouping and acceleration of gifted students: Articles from the Roeper

review. Roeper Review, 24(3), 100-101.

Boe, E. & Shin, S. (2005). Is the United States really losing the international horse race in

academic achievement? University of Pennsylvania Scholarly Commons. GSE

Publications.

Brulles, D., & Winebrenner, S. (2011).The school-wide cluster grouping model: Restructuring

gifted education services for the 21st century. Gifted Child Today, 34(4), 35-46.

Brulles, D., & Winebrenner, S. (2012). Clustered for success. Educational Leadership, 69(5),

41-45.

Buescher, T. M. & Higham, S. (1996). Helping adolescents adjust to giftedness. The Council For

119

Exceptional Children. Arlington, VA. ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted

Education #E489.

Burney, V. H. (2008). Applications of social cognitive theory to gifted education. Roeper

Review, 30(2), 130-139.

Clark, B. (1997). Social ideologies and gifted education in today’s schools. Peabody Journal of

Education, 72(3/4), 81-100.

Clark, B. (2002).Growing up gifted. (6th

ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Clark, B. (1997 ). No child is just born gifted: Creating & developing unlimited potential.

Parenting for High Potential, 8–11.

Cloud, J. (2007) Are we failing our geniuses? Time Magazine. Retrieved 06/02/14 from

http://www.earlyentrancefoundation.org/peep/articles/2007/failinggeniuses.html

Cohen, L. M. (1990). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented minority language students.

Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, ERIC EC Digest # E480. ERIC

Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, CEC.

Colangelo, N. (2002). Counseling gifted and talented students. The National Research Center on

the Gifted and Talented. Newsletter. Fall, 5-9

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., Gross, M. U. M., Templeton Foundation., Connie Belin &

Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.,

& National Association for Gifted Children (U.S.). (2004). A nation deceived: How

schools hold back America's brightest students. Iowa City, Iowa: Connie Belin &

120

Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development,

University of Iowa.

Coon, P. (2004). Trigram: A gifted program model all students can enjoy. Rural Special

Education Quarterly, 23(1), 22-25.

Cross, T. L. (2002). Social/Emotional needs: Competing with myths about the social and

emotional development of gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 44-65.

Dai, D. Y. (2010). The nature and nurture of giftedness: A framework for understanding gifted

education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented. (5th

ed.) Boston, MA:

Pearson Education , Inc.

Delcourt, M. A. B., Cornell, D. G., &Goldberg, M. D. (2007). Cognitive and affective learning

outcomes of gifted elementary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 359-381.

Delisle, J. & Galbraith, J. (2002). When gifted kids don’t have all the answers: How to meet their

social and emotional needs. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing. 62-67.

Delisle, J. & Lewis, B. A .(2003). The survival guide for teachers of gifted kids: How to plan,

manage, and evaluate programs for gifted youth K-12. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit

Publishing.

Delisle, J. (2014). Dumbing down America. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press., Inc.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Moon, S. M. (1992). Grouping gifted students: Issues and concerns. Gifted

Child Quarterly, 36, 63-67.

121

Fischetti, B. Emanuelson, K. & Shames, A. (1998). Will the “real” gifted students please stand

up? Roeper Review, 21(2), 161-163.

Florida Department of Education. (2013). Education of Gifted Students in Florida: The Florida

State Plan. Retrieved June 19, 2014 from:

http://www.fldoe.org/bii/gifteded/pdf/State Gifted Plan.pdf

Florida Department of Education, (2006). Special Instructional Programs for Students Who Are

Gifted. Retrieved June 19, 2014 from:

https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleNo.asp?ID=6A-6.03019

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New

York: Basic Books.

Gagne, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted

Child Quarterly, 29, 103-112.

Gallagher, J. J. (2004). No child left behind and gifted education. Roeper Review, 26(3). 121-

123.

Haensly, P. (1999). My view of the ‘top ten’ events that have influenced the field of gifted

education during the past century. Gifted Child Today, 22, 33-38.

Harris, C. R. (1993). Identifying and serving recent immigrant children who are gifted. Retrieved

from: ERIC Clearinghouse.

122

Hishinuma, E. S. & Nishimura, S.T.(2000). Parent attitudes on the importance and success of

integrated self-contained services for students who are gifted, learning disabled, and

gifted/learning disabled. Roeper Review, 22(4), 241-250.

Hollingsworth, L. S. (1924). Provisions for intellectually superior children. In Dai, D. Y. (2010).

The nature and nurture of giftedness: A framework for understanding gifted education.

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hunsaker, S.L., Frasier, M. M., King, L. L., Watts-Warren, B. Cramond, B. & Krisel, S. (1995).

Family influences on the achievement of economically disadvantaged students:

Implications for gifted identification and programming. (RM95206). Storrs, CT: The

National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Imbeau, M. B. (1999). A century of gifted education: A reflection of who and what made a

difference. Gifted Child Today, 22(6), 40–43.

Johnsen, S. K. (Ed.). (2012). Using the NAGC Pre-K-Grade 12 gifted programming standards.

Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Jolly, J. L. (2005).Historical perspectives : Foundations of the field of gifted education. Gifted

Child Today,28(2). 14-18.

Jolly, J. L. (2009). A resuscitation of gifted education. American Educational History Journal.

36(1), 37-52.

Jordon, L. A. W., (2010). Gifted student academic achievement and program quality.

Dissertation. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/519224396

Kaplan, L. S. (1990). Helping gifted students with stress management. ERIC Clearinghouse on

123

Handicapped and Gifted Children. Reston, VA. ERIC Digest #E488.

Keiley, M.K. (2002). Affect regulation and the gifted. In M. Neihart, S.M. Reis, N.M. Robinson,

& S.M. Moon (Eds.), The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Children (pp. 41–

50). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Klein, J., Levy, J., & Rice, C. (2012). U.S. Education Reform and National Security. ( Mar).

Independent Task Force Report #68. Retrieved Jun, 2013.

Kulik, J. (1993). An analysis of the research on ability grouping. the Davidson Institute for

Talent Development. Retrieved 6/12/14 from: www.DavidsonGifted.org.

Long, C. (2013). Portrait of a gifted student. Nea Today, Fall, 44-47.

Maker, C. J.& Nielson, A. B. (1996). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted

learners. (2nd

ed.). Austin, Texas: Pro-ed, Inc.

Martin, C. (2002). Serving gifted students through inclusion: A parent’s perspective. Roeper

Review, 24, (3), 127.

McClellan, E. (1985). Defining giftedness. Retrieved from: Eric Clearinghouse on Handicapped

and Gifted Children. Reston, VA ED262519

Mingus, T. Y., & Grassl, R. M. (1999). What constitutes a nurturing environment for the growth

of mathematically gifted students? School Science & Mathematics, 99(6), 286-293.

Moon, T. R., Callahan, C. M., Tomlinson, C. A., & Miller, E. M., (2002). Middle school

classrooms: Teachers' reported practices and student perceptions. Charlottesville, VA:

National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. University of Virginia.

http://www.davidsongifted.org/

124

National Association for Gifted Children.[NAGC] (2008) State of the nation in gifted education.

How States regulate and support programs and services for gifted and talented students.

Retrieved from http://ektron.nagc.org/

National Association for Gifted Children.[NAGC] (2014a). A Brief History of Gifted and

Talented Education. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org

National Association for Gifted Children. .[NAGC] (2014b). Definitions of Giftedness.

Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org

National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC] (2014c). Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented

Students Education Act. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/search/node/Javits%20Act

National Association for Gifted Children. .[NAGC]) (2014d). Myths About Gifted Students.

Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org

Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M. & Moon, S. M. (2002). The social and emotional

development of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc.

Neumeister, K. S. &Burney, V. H. (2012). Gifted program evaluation: A handbook for

administrators & coordinators. Waco, TX Prufrock Press, Inc.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1998). Parents' expectations of school services for academically gifted

children: Why they are unfulfilled. Educational Horizons. 77(1), 18-24.

Pfeiffer, S. J.(Ed.). (2008). Handbook of giftedness in children: Psycho-educational theory,

research, and best practices. New York, NY: Springer Science-Business Media, LLC.

125

Pierce, R. L., Cassady, J. C., Adams, C. M., Speirs, J, L., Neumeister, F. A,,& Cross, T. L.

(2011). The effects of clustering and curriculum on the development of gifted learners’

math achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(4) 569–594.

Piirto, J., (2007). Talented children and adults: Their development and education, 3rd

ed. Waco,

TX: Prufrock Press.

Plucker, Jonathan A. (Ed); Callahan, Carolyn M. (Ed), (2008). Critical issues and practices in

gifted education: What the research says. Waco, TX,: Prufrock Press.

Rakow, S. (2005). Educating gifted students in middle school: A practical guide. Waco, TX:

Prufrock Press, Inc.

Rakow, S. (2012). Helping gifted learners soar. Educational Leadership, 69(5), 34-40.

Rash, P. (1998). Meeting parents' needs. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 21(5), 14-17.

Reid, C., & Romanoff, B., (1997). Using multiple intelligence theory to identify gifted

children. Educational Leadership 55(1) 71-75.

Reis, S. M. (2013). Major turning points in gifted education in the 20th century. NEAG Center

for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Storrs CT Retrieved from:

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/general/faculty/reis/Major_Turning_Points.html

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappa, 60,

180-181.

Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the

century: A four part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150-159.

126

Renzulli, J. S. & Renzulli, S. R. (2010). The schoolwide enrichment model: A focus on student

strengths and interests. Gifted Education International,26( 2/3), 140-156.

Roberts, J. L. (1999). The top 10 events creating gifted education for the new century. Gifted

Child Today Magazine, 22(6), 53-56.

Robinson, A., Shore, B. M. & Enersen, D. L. (2007). Best practices in gifted education: An

evidence–based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc.

Robinson, N. M. (1999). Necessity is the mother of invention: The roots of our system of

providing educational alternatives for gifted students. The Journal of Secondary Gifted

Education, X(3), 122-128.

Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and

talented learner: An executive summary. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on

the Gifted and Talented.

Rogers, K. B. (1993.) Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers. Roeper Review,

16(1). 13-15.

Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the

research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382-396.

Ruf, D. L., (2005). 5 Levels of gifted: School issues and educational options. Scottsdale, AZ:

Grant Potential Press. Inc.

Silverman, L. (2009). What we have learned about gifted children 30th

anniversary, 1979-2009.

Gifted Development Center: Embracing Giftedness. Retrieved from:

http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/What_is_Gifted/learned.htm

127

Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The theory of successful intelligence. Revista Interamericana de

Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology 39 (2). 189 - 202.

Subotnik, P & Worrell, F. C. (2012). To nurture genius, improve gifted education. Scientific

American, Division of Nature America, Inc.

Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2012). Nurturing the young genius.

Scientific American Mind, 23(5), 50-57.

Tannenbaum , A. J., (1979). Pre-Sputnik to post- Watergate concern about the gifted. In A. H.

Pascow (Ed.). The gifted and the talented. 5-27. Chicago National Society for the Study

of Education.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Gifted learners and the middle school: Problem or promise? Retrieved

from: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. Reston, VA.ERIC

Digest E535.

Tomlinson, C. A. & Doubet, K. (2006). Smart in the middle grades: Classrooms that work for

bright middle schoolers. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

U.S. Department of Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational

Reform. Retrieved June 19, 2014 from http://datacenter.spps.org/uploads/ SOTW_

A_Nation_at_Risk_1983.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National Excellence: A Case for Developing America's

Talent. Retrieved June 19, 2014 from https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q =National

+Excellence%3A+A+Case+for+Developing+America's+Talent%3A

128

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1997). Excellence as a standard for all in education. Roeper Review,

20(1), 9-12.

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2003). Curriculum & instructional planning & design for gifted learners.

Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.

Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Reis, S. (2004). Program delivery models for the gifted. Duke Gifted

Letter, (5) 1. Retrieved from: http://www.dukegiftedletter.com/articles/vol5no1_ef.html.

Van Tassel-Baska, J. & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice : An analysis of the efficacy

of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4). 342-358.

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2012).Basic educational options for gifted students in schools. College of

William and Mary. Davidson Institute for Talent Development. Retrieved from:

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10270.aspx

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2013). Curriculum for the Gifted: A commitment to excellence. Gifted

Child Today,36(3). 213-214

Weber, C., McKee, C., & Hairston, K. (2013). Florida’s framework for k-12 gifted learners.

Florida Department of Education. Retrieved from:

http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7567/urlt/k12giftedlearners.pdf

Winkler, D.L. & Jolly, J.l. (2011). Historical perspectives: Project talent. Gifted Child Today,

34(2), 34-36.

129

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

STUDENT SURVEY

130

APPENDIX B

NEWSLETTER

131

APPENDIX C

PARENT NOTIFICATION EMAIL (Page 1 of 2)

132

APPENDIX C

PARENT NOTIFICATION EMAIL (Page 2 of 2)

133

APPENDIX D

NOTIFICATION FOR PARENTS WITHOUT EMAIL

134

APPENDIX E

STUDENT ASSET FORM

135

APPENDIX F

CRONBACH’S ALPHA RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR STUDENT SURVEY

Reliability Statistics for Domain C

Reliability Statistics for Domain A

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based

on

Standardized

Items n

.837 .855 8

Reliability Statistics for Domain P

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based

on

Standardized

Items n

.834 .833 3

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based

on

Standardized

Items n

.819 .827 16

running head: academics and experiences of gifted27444... · running head: academics and...

Documents