Note: this is not the final draft but Elsje gives more detail about the studies she cites in Chapter 2. (ddc)
A Self-Contained Gifted and Talented Intermediate Elementary Classroom: the Social and Emotional Impact
_______________________________________________________________
A Research Project
Presented to the Education Department of
Albertson College of Idaho
_______________________________________________________________
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Teaching
_______________________________________________________________
by
Desirae K. Smoot
July 2007
Upon the recommendation of the thesis committee
and the chair of the Department of Education
accepts this project in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the Master of Arts in Teaching for
Desirae Smoot
MAT Candidate
Thesis Committee:
John Thurer , Ph.D.
Committee Member Signature
Linda Batie, B.A. Gifted & Talented Endorsement
Committee Member Signature
Debra L. Yates, Ed. D.
Thesis Committee Chair Signature
Date
Department of Education Chair:
Dennis Cartwright, Ph.D.
Chair Signature
Date
Abstract
This is a research paper that dealt with the effects of having a separate gifted and talented classroom in a K-5 elementary school located in the Rocky Mountain Northwest. The subjects in the study were in a first year, combined 4th and 5th grade, separate gifted and talented class. There were also three regular classroom fourth grade teachers who participated in the study. For qualitative means, surveys and interviews were used to measure the research questions. A Chi-Square Test of Independence [p < .05] was used for the quantitative data. It was found that the class did not affect the students’ social relationships, self-esteem or self-belief in a negative manner or a positive manner. It was also found that the regular classroom was not affected negatively; it was in fact affected positively.
Table of Contents
Statement of the Problem and Purpose. 8
Theoretical Framework and Research Design. 9
Section Two: Review of the Literature. 13
How Should We Group Gifted Students?. 13
Social Relationships of Gifted Children. 22
How Self-efficacy and Self-concept Beliefs Differ 33
Section Three: Research Methodology. 40
Section Five: Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations. 71
Recommendations for Practice. 74
Recommendations for Future Study. 75
Appendix A: Teacher Interview Questions. 83
Appendix B: Gifted Students’ Free Response Survey. 84
Appendix C: Gifted Student and Regular Student Survey. 85
Appendix E: Codes Used for Analysis. 88
Appendix F: Social Aspects. 90
Appendix G: Self-Esteem/Self-Belief Aspects. 91
Appendix H: Social Aspects After Answers Were Reversed. 93
Appendix I: Self-Esteem/Self-Belief Aspects After Answers Were Reversed. 94
Appendix J: Chi-Square Calculations for Social Apsects. 96
Appendix K: Chi-Square Calculations for Self-Esteem/Self-Belief Aspects. 98
Table of Tables
Table 1: Comparison of Percentages of Social Responses for Regular and
Gifted Students………………………………………………………………….57
Table 2: Comparison of Self-Esteem/Self-Belief Responses for Regular and
Gifted Students…………………………………………………………………65
Section One: Introduction
Background of the Problem
For years researchers have debated about the proper way to deal with gifted students. Nancy Robinson said, “There is no more varied group of young people than the diverse group known as gifted children and adolescents” (2002, p. xi). Gifted students come in all shapes and sizes. They come from different ethnic groups, socioeconomic groups, nations, and they all have different characteristics of temperament (2002). Researchers also can’t agree on one definition for gifted. The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC, 2006) said, “Even within schools you will find a range of personal beliefs about the word “gifted,” which has become a term with multiple meanings and much nuance” (¶ 5). Neither gifted, or the students it describes, can be clearly defined. There is not a specific definition for gifted that can be agreed upon by all researchers, and there is not one specific description that can be given to characterize a gifted student.
There are many studies that deal with the topic of gifted and talented students. I have chosen to narrow this study to the social and emotional aspects of gifted students when they are moved into full-day gifted classroom. In section two I reviewed a large number of studies and reports written about the emotional and social aspects of gifted students, and the different grouping programs that are available for these students.
I became interested in the full day gifted and talented program when I was interning at a school that had decided to use this type of program for their gifted students. When I was told about this program my interest was instantly piqued. I myself had been in the gifted and talented program when I was in elementary school, but my class was only two or three days a week for an hour. When I was told about this new program I immediately thought about the effects this could have on the students’ social interactions. The students in the gifted class would be together all day. This takes them away from the rest of the students in the regular classrooms. I wondered if this would affect their relationships and if their peers would still accept them. I also wondered if the separate class would affect the gifted students self-belief and self-efficacy. The last thing that I questioned was the effect it would have on the regular classroom. Often teachers have said that they need students of higher abilities to be leaders in their class. I wondered if taking these students out of the classroom would affect the atmosphere of the regular classroom.
These questions and the desire to see the best program implemented for gifted and talented students drove this study. As a society, we are still trying to understand giftedness, and create programs that meet the needs of those students. We are also interested in the regular classroom students and how the different gifted and talented programs affect them. This study was looking at a separate gifted and talented classroom and researched to see if participating in this program was a positive for the gifted students involved . .
Statement of the Problem and Purpose
Theoretical Framework and Research Design
Research Questions
The following questions guided this study:
- 1. How does ability grouping affect a gifted intermediate student’s social relationships?
- 2. How will the separate classroom affect the gifted intermediate student’s self-belief and self-esteem?
- 3. How will removing gifted intermediate students from a regular classroom affect the regular classroom teacher’s perspective of the class?
Significance
Gifted and talented programs are constantly being researched and studied to find the best program for gifted students. There are many different programs that are being used in public schools today. Educators want to know what program would be the most beneficial for their students. This study concentrated on a separate full-day gifted and talented program. This research is beneficial to all educators who are considering this type of program for their school. It looks at the emotional and social factors of this program. It allows educators to look at the results of this study and decide if this type of gifted and talented program is best for their school and students.
Delimitations
There were a few delimitations that affected this study. One was the size of the sample that was being used. Only one gifted and talented class and one regular fourth grade class was surveyed. This smaller sample doesn’t represent all populations of students. Another delimitation to this study was that it only looked at fourth and fifth graders. The results only covered that specific age group. The last delimitation was that the gifted and talented class was a multi-grade class. Not all separate gifted and talented classes are multi-grade classes, so this might have affected the results of this study.
Definitions
There were common terms used in this study that needed to be defined. Using the literature that was found for this study they were defined as follows.
Self-Esteem: “Appreciating [ones] own worth and importance and having the character to be accountable for myself and to act responsibly toward others” (Walz & Bleuer, 1992, p. 27).
Gifted: “Students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities” (NAGC, 2006, ¶ 4).
Talented: “A complex group of characteristics that enable students a permanent achievement of above-average results in one or more human activities, and is caused by a high level of development of particular abilities, individual motivation and other encouragement. Therefore, talent incorporates 3 basic groups of characteristics: above average, general, or specific abilities, motivation and a high lever of creativity” (Tatkovic, 2005, p. 2 ).
Self-efficacy: “People’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives. Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave” (Bandura, 1994, p. 1).
Self-Concept: “Beliefs, hypotheses, and assumptions that the individual has about himself. It is the person’s view of himself as conceived and organized from his inner vantage [and] includes the person’s ideas of the kind of person he is, the characteristics that he possesses, and his most important and striking traits” (Coopersmith & Feldman, 1974, p. 199).
Ability Grouping: “The separation of same-grade school children into groups or classes that differ markedly in school aptitude, also called homogeneous grouping” (Kulik, 1992, p. ix).
Multi-Grade Classes: “Multi-grade classes are classes in which students from two ore more grades are taught by on teacher in one room at the same time. Students in multi-grade classes retain their respective grade-level assignments and their respective grade-level curricula” (Veenman, 1995, p. 319).
Separate Gifted and Talented Class: When the Separate Class program is employed, students are grouped by ability for most or all of their academic class work (Gallagher, Weiss, Oglesby, & Thomas, 1983).
Within-Class Programs (Full-Inclusion Programs): Within-class programs provide students with special educational services while they remain in the regular classroom (Van Tassel-Baska, 1987).
Pull-Out Programs: Students in Pull-Out programs are in a regular classroom for most instructional purposes, but leave the classroom for a portion of the school week in order to attend special classes with other identified gifted students (Reis, 1981).
Special School Programs: A special school is a school that is only for gifted students. Students in Special Schools, theoretically, have the benefit of full-time instruction at a more advanced pace and/or with more thorough coverage of content (Cox, Daniel, &
Boston, 1985).
This study explored the emotional and social effects that a separate gifted and talented class had on students. This study can be very beneficial to schools that are looking to adopt this type of a program in their school because it can show what negatives or positives might emerge from it. The study’s population size and make-up are delimitations to this study. Important terms that were used in this study were defined for the purpose of this study.
Section Two: Review of the Literature
Introduction
This study looked at gifted students, their self-beliefs, self-esteem and social relationships. Therefore, those were the topics that needed to be researched and explored. The study covered literature that explored gifted students and who those students were. The study also discussed the social relationships of gifted students, so research on the social attitudes of gifted students was also reviewed. This literature review will also look at the structure of self-belief, which encompasses self-concept and self-efficacy. Self-esteem was also a concept of the gifted students that was important, so self-esteem was defined and explored in relation to gifted students. Multi-age classes were also researched because that was the structure of the gifted and talented class that was being studied.
Gifted
There seems to be a limitless interpretation of what the word gifted means. Before the different aspects of the gifted and talented program can be looked at, the definition of gifted found in section one needs to be discussed. Gifted students are those that show high achievement in fields such as: academics, leadership, creativity, critical thinking, and performing/fine arts (NAGC, 2006, ¶ 4). Gifted children also differ from the norm in several other ways: They are highly motivated, extremely independent, and tend to be more introverted and introspective (Winner, 1996).
How Should We Group Gifted Students?
In a study of regular education teachers, Reis, Renzulli, and Westberg (1994) found that 61% of public school teachers and 54% of private school teachers reported that they had never had any training in teaching gifted students. In a follow-up study the same authors found that gifted students experienced no instructional or curricular differentiation in 84% of the instructional activities in which they participated. The gifted students are being neglected and research shows that these students need more than what can be provided in full inclusion models, or traditional pull-out gifted programs in regular classrooms (Burns, 1994).
With these findings though, come the questions about the nonacademic factors of a separate classroom. How are the self-concepts of gifted and talented students impacted in a full inclusion model? What about their social relationships (Mathews, 1995)? These concerns greatly affect how we group our gifted students. We then looked at studies that researched different ways of grouping gifted and talented students and what effects, if any, they found.
Kulik (1992) discussed two gifted programs that have been frequently researched. He outlined these programs and what they entail:
- 1. Accelerated classes for the gifted and talented. Students who are high in aptitude in a subject receive instruction that allows them to proceed more rapidly through their schooling or to finish schooling at an earlier age than other students.
- 2. Special enriched classes for the gifted and talented. Students who are high in academic aptitude receive richer, more varied educational experiences than would be available to them in the regular curriculum for their age level. The instruction is usually, but not always, provided in a separate classroom (p. 2).
Kulik (1992) performed a meta-analysis on these different forms of ability grouping to see which was the best way to group gifted and talented students. A meta-analysis is a form of research in which a researcher locates studies that cover an issue with specified procedures. They then characterize the outcomes and features of the studies in quantitative or quasi-quantitative terms. They then use multivariate techniques to describe findings and relate characteristics of the studies to outcomes. Kulik also used the effect-size statistic to describe his study findings. The effect size is an index that gives the number of standard deviation units that separate the outcome scores of experimental groups and control groups. It is calculated by subtracting the average outcome score for the control group from the average score for the experimental group, and then dividing the difference by the standard deviation of the measure. The effect size is interpreted as follows: effects sizes around 0.2 are small, around 0.5 are medium in size, and around 0.8 are large.
Kulik’s (1992) meta-analysis on accelerated classes was based on 23 studies. The 23 studies examined modest forms of rapid advancement. Eighteen of the studies examined programs of grade compression (e.g., four years in three). The remaining five studies examined programs that extended the calendar to speed up the progress of gifted and talented students (e.g., completing the work of four years in three school years with five summer sessions). The effects of 21 programs were evaluated after one or more years of accelerated instruction; the effects of the remaining two programs were evaluated after only one semester of acceleration. None of the programs involved subject-matter acceleration in mathematics, and 14 studies involved comprehensive programs of acceleration. In six of the programs, the accelerated classes began in the elementary school years, in the remaining seventeen; acceleration took place in the junior high grades.
Kulik (1992) found that in each of the 11 studies that had same-age groups, the students in accelerated classes achieved at a higher level than those that were not. The average effect size in these studies was 0.87 and the median effect was 0.84. This meant that on a grade-equivalent scale the scores of the accelerated students would be one grade higher than the bright, non-accelerated students of the same age. Kulik also concluded that gifted students were able to handle academic challenges that the accelerated programs provided. Kulik found two major findings that supported his conclusion:
First, talented youngsters who were accelerated into higher grades performed as well as the talented, older nonaccelerates already in those grades. Second, in the subjects in which they had been moved ahead, talented accelerates showed almost a year’s advancement over talented same-age nonaccelerates (p. 38).
When looking at the studies that compared the accelerates to older pupils, the accelerates were at a disadvantage because they were a year younger in age, but they did very well in most of the comparisons. Overall, their performances were almost indistinguishable from the older, talented nonaccelerates (Kulik, 1992).
Kulik (1992) then looked at special enriched classes for gifted and talented students. He looked at a total 25 studies. The studies were diverse in several important respects. Twenty-two of the studies examined effects of enrichment in separate classes, but three studies examined enrichment in regular classrooms. In twenty studies, the curriculum was adjusted to group ability, but in three studies, children followed the same basic curriculum as in the regular classroom. In two of the studies, placement in the enriched program was based on a specific ability; in the remaining twenty-three studies, placement was based on a measure of general ability. Sixteen of the studies were carried out in grades one through six; five were carried out in grades seven through nine; and four were carried out in grades ten through twelve. Five of the studies involved enrichment in a single subject, and twenty studies involved enrichment in several subjects. All of the studies examined effects after one year or more of enrichment.
According to Kulik (1992), 22 of the 25 studies reported that the talented students achieved more when they were taught in enriched classrooms. The remaining three studies reported that the performance of the talented students was better when they were taught in a mixed-ability class. In 13 of the studies the achievement difference between mixed-ability classes and the enriched classes was considered statistically significant (the effect size was greater than 0.41). They all favored the enriched classes for talented students.
Five of the studies looked at the effects of self-concept for the gifted students. In four of the five studies, self-concept was more favorable when the students were taught in a separate class. In the other study, self-concept was more positive when the students were taught in a heterogeneous class. In his conclusion about enriched class, Kulik (1992) said, “These classes contribute to the intellectual progress of higher aptitude students. Gifted and talented students gain more academically from such classes than they do in regular mixed-ability classes” (p. 41). He also said that the students in the enriched class maintained their self-confidence, and there was no evidence to show that the students lost their self-esteem in the enriched class.
Researchers from the University of Virginia researched the grouping methods used for gifted and talented students. They looked at four types of gifted education programs. Within-class programs, pull-out programs, separate class programs, and special school programs. In within-class programs the students stayed in the classroom and receive special education services in the regular classroom. In pull-out programs, the students were in the regular classroom for most of the time, but they were pulled out for some time during the week to work with other gifted students. In separate class programs the students were grouped by ability for most of their academic class work. In special school programs the student attended a school that was completely designed to their gifted abilities and separate from the general student body that attend their neighborhood school (Delcourt, Loyd, Cornell & Goldberg, 1994). In their research they assessed the effects of these programs on the learning outcomes of gifted and talented students. It was a two-year investigation of over 1,000 elementary school children in grades two and three. The sample included students from urban, suburban, and rural environments. The researchers used an analysis of covariance to examine their findings.
Delcourt et al. (1994) wanted to know if there was a significant difference between any of the four programs. They found that there was a significant difference in academic achievement and affect across the four types of programs for gifted students. They then conducted a follow up analysis using Student-Newman-Keuls procedures for comparisons of means. The results showed that students in the special schools, separate class programs, and pull-out programs showed higher achievement than students from within-class programs. So, academically there were differences among the classes. But there was no significant difference in any of the programs when looking at social acceptance.
The study also looked at the effect the programs could have on the students’ perceptions of themselves. Social psychologists have indicated that individuals base their perceptions of self on comparisons they make between themselves and others. One outcome of making social comparisons is that children who compare themselves to peers of similar academic ability feel an increase in competition, thereby lowering their self-perceptions of scholastic competence (Coleman & Fults, 1982; Hoge & Renzulli, 1991). Delcourt, et al. (1994) said that if this was true then:
…one would hypothesize that students from the Gifted Comparison Group, Pull-Out program, and Within-Class program should have had higher perceptions of their scholastic abilities than children from the Separate Classes and the Special Schools, since the former were in heterogeneously grouped classes according to ability while the latter were in homogenous groups” (p. 75).
This is exactly what happened in their research. They found that student perceptions of their abilities appeared to vary depending on the type of program they were placed in.
The fact that there wasn’t any difference in social acceptance between the groups. The researchers suggested two explanations for this. The first was that the children were in elementary school and weren’t ready to respond to questions about their social relations. The second was that the children in all groups seemed comfortable with the degree to which their peers accepted them:
This means that children find friends and are likely to feel comfortable in any grouping arrangement, thus decreasing the concern that acceptance by peers should be a primary criterion when selecting a type of program for high ability elementary school students” (Delcourt et al., 1994, p.76).
The researchers concluded overall that programs for gifted students are effective. Program implementation should be based on research about the learning outcomes for each program. In terms of achievement, gifted children attending special schools, separate class programs, and pull-out programs showed substantially higher levels of achievement than both their gifted peers not in programs and those attending within-class programs. In fact, within-class programs scored the lowest in all achievement areas (Delcourt et al., 1994).
Academic outcomes weren’t the only things looked at in this study. Cognitive and affective characteristics were also looked at. The separate class program stood out the most when looking at these things:
Students from the separate class format scored at the highest levels of achievement with the lowest perception of academic competence, preference for challenging tasks, sense of acceptance by peers, internal orientation, and attitudes toward learning (Delcourt et al., 1994, p. 79).
Another interesting fact that was found was that students from the gifted comparison group, pull-out program, and within-class program had higher perceptions of their scholastic abilities than the students in the separate class and special school programs. The first groups of programs were in heterogeneously grouped classes while the other two programs were homogenous groups.
The study also looked at the effect that the gifted students might have on the nongifted students. The research found that having gifted programs did not have any negative effect on the academic achievement of the nongifted students. There was also no difference in the social perspectives of the two groups of students:
This refers to the finding that students in all groups (gifted and nongifted) felt comfortable with the numbers of friends they had in school and with their own popularity. The type of grouping arrangement did not influence student perceptions of their social relations for gifted or nongifted students (Delcourt et al., 1994, p. 84).
David Kenny, Francis Archambault, and Bryan Hallmark (1995) performed a study on 786 fourth-grade students (229 gifted and 557 nongifted). They were researching the effects of both heterogeneous and homogenous grouping on these two groups of students. In terms of achievement the researchers found:
- 1. The achievement of gifted students exceeded that of non-gifted students in both mathematics and science regardless of the type of group in which they were involved, but this difference can be entirely explained by gifted students’ higher prior achievement.
- 2. Gifted students worked at quicker pace and produced more when grouped with other gifted students. Said in another way, the productivity level of the groups it directly tied to the number of gifted students in the group.
- 3. However, gifted students learned about the same (i.e. had the same levels of posttest achievement) in homogenous gifted groups as they did in heterogeneous groups.
- 4. Non-gifted students learned the same in homogenous and heterogeneous groups.
- 5. Having a gifted student in a group does not significantly improve the performance of other in the group (p. 59-60).
These results also show that it is beneficial to group gifted students with other gifted students and that it does not affect non-gifted students if you do so.
Social Relationships of Gifted Children
Social relationships are very important for all children including gifted and talented students. Often the abilities of gifted and talented children make them different from their peers. But, Annette Sheely (1998) said, “Gifted children have the same need for friendship as anyone and yet there are many obstacles that interfere with the creation and maintenance of close, social relationships” (p. 3). Teachers and parents tend to only concentrate on the academic development of these students because of their abilities, and they don’t concentrate on the social development. The gifted students can then feel pressure to hide their exceptional abilities in order to appear more like everyone else their age. They don’t want to be the top of the class anymore (Kerr 1995; Kerr & Cohn 2002; Reis 2002; Rimm 2002; Winebrenner, 1999).
As a society we often believe that ability grouping, acceleration, pull-out programs, full-day programs, and special programs interfere with these students’ social adjustments (Silverman, n.d.). But, contrary to popular belief about this a large amount of research has shown that gifted children tend to enjoy greater popularity, greater social competence, and more mature relations than their less gifted peers (Silverman, 1993). In fact, gifted students in elementary schools tend to be popular among their peers (Rimm, 2002). Barry Schneider (1987), in his book The Gifted Child in Peer Group Perspective, also came to this conclusion. He said, “Studies of the peer acceptance of gifted children at the elementary school level have been remarkably consistent in demonstrating that they are well liked” (p. 35).
Linda Silverman (n.d.) said that if we want gifted and talented students to achieve social development then the students “…need to be provided with true peers who are their intellectual equals (p.32). Rimm (2002) agreed and said, “The best way to support gifted and talented students particularly adolescents, is to help assemble a gifted cohort group. That will encourage high achievement and reinforce the full use of students’ talents” (p. 17).
Silverman (n.d.) also said that there are four key factors involved in gifted children’s social development. They are:
- 1. a responsive home environment in which the child is respected.
- 2. parental respect for individuals of all backgrounds and socio-economic status;
- 3. opportunities to relate to other gifted children- particularly during the early years, when self-concept is being formed;
- 4. Opportunities to relate to the mainstream during adolescence (p. 33).
Gifted students will pick up social cues from those around them and if it is developed properly they will have no problems socially. Silverman (n.d.), in her conclusion said:
Gifted children need to find other children like themselves as early as possible so that they feel accepted and understood. This will form the basis of lasting friendships and true social development. They need teachers to look for and develop their strengths, rather than focus on their weaknesses or equalize their abilities (p. 37).
When they researched the 786 fourth-graders, Kenny et al. (1995) found results that dealt with the social aspects of the students. They found:
- 1. Gifted students are perceived by their peers as more intelligent, better teammates, and as more likely leaders than non-gifted students.
- 2. At the end of the study, gifted and non-gifted students had more negative impressions of each other than they had before the treatment began.
- 3. Gifted students were perceived by their peers as providing more help than non-gifted students to the other member of the group.
- 4. Non-gifted students had more negative perceptions of each other when they were in heterogeneous groups than when they were in homogenous groups (p. 60).
Self-Belief
According to Frank Pajares and Dale Schunk (2001), “Two types of self-beliefs have been especially dominant in motivation research – self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs” (p. 2). These two researchers also went on to say, “In general, there is ample reason to believe that both self-efficacy and self-concept are powerful motivation constructs that predict academic achievement” (p. 10). Since we are looking at students in academic settings we will look at both self-efficacy and self-concept in this section.
Self-Efficacy
Albert Bandura (1994) defined self-efficacy as, “People’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives. Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave” (p.1). He went on to say that self-efficacy is developed by four main sources of influence. These sources are mastery experiences, vicarious experiences provided by social models, social persuasion, and to reduce people’s stress reactions and alter their negative emotional proclivities and misinterpretations of their physical state:
The first source was mastery experiences. Bandura (1994) said,
The most effective way of creating a strong sense of efficacy is through mastery experiences. Successes build a robust belief in one’s personal efficacy. Failures undermine it, especially if failures occur before a sense of efficacy is firmly established (p.2).
If people were to have only easy successes they will expect quick results and will be easily discouraged by failure. “A resilient sense of efficacy requires experience in overcoming obstacles through perseverant effort” (p.2). If people experience some setbacks and difficulties it teaches them that success requires sustained effort. Once they have learned this and believe that they have what it takes, they are able to persevere in the face of adversity.
The next way of creating and strengthening self-efficacy is through vicarious experiences provided by social models:
Seeing people similar to oneself succeed by sustained effort raises observers’ beliefs that they too possess the capabilities master comparable activities to succeed. By the same token, observing others’ fail despite high effort lowers observers’ judgments of their own efficacy and undermines their efforts (Bandura, 1994, p.2).
People are able to see models who posses the competencies to which they aspire. The third way of strengthening self-efficacy is social persuasion:
People who are persuaded verbally that they possess the capabilities to master given activities are likely to mobilize greater effort and sustain it than if they harbor self-doubts and dwell on personal deficiencies when problems arise (Bandura, 1994, p. 2).
Bandura also talked about the fact that it is easier to undermine self-efficacy through social persuasion than it is to boost it. “But people who have been persuaded that they lack capabilities tend to avoid challenging activities that cultivate potentialities and give up quickly in the face of difficulties” (p. 2).
The fourth and final way is to reduce people’s stress reactions and alter their negative emotional proclivities and misinterpretations of their physical state. Frank Pajares (2002) said:
Somatic and emotional states such as anxiety, stress, arousal, and mood states also provide information about efficacy beliefs. When (people) experience negative thoughts and fears about their capabilities, those affective reactions can themselves lower self-efficacy perceptions and trigger additional stress and agitation that help ensure the inadequate performance they fear (p. 9).
For their self-efficacy, it is important how people perceive and interpret their emotional and physical reactions to circumstances.
Self-efficacy is developed and changed throughout the different courses of a lifespan. For the purpose of this study we will look at children’s efficacy-testing experiences, more specifically at the broadening of self-efficacy through peer influences:
It is in peer relationships that they broaden self-knowledge of their capabilities. Peers serve several important efficacy functions. Those who are most experienced and competent provide models of efficacious styles of thinking and behavior. A vast amount of social learning occurs among peers. In addition, age-mates provide highly informative comparisons for judging and verifying one’s self-efficacy. Children are, therefore, especially sensitive to their relative standing among the peers in activities that determine prestige and popularity (Bandura, 1994, p. 10).
Bandura also said that children will tend to choose peers who share the same interests and values as they do. He also says that because peers are such a major influence in the development and validation of self-efficacy disruption of peer relationships can cause adverse affects to the growth of self-efficacy. This low self-efficacy can cause problems with further development of peer relationships. “Thus, children who regard themselves as socially inefficacious withdraw socially, perceive low acceptance by their peers and have a low sense of self-worth” (p. 10).
School is also an agency that cultivates cognitive self-efficacy. Frank Pajares (1996) said, “Collective systems such as classrooms, teams of teachers, schools, and even school districts develop a sense of collective efficacy” (p. 567). Because of this Pajares said all involved in schools need to work together. “Students, teachers, and school administrators operate collectively rather than in isolation. As a result, schools develop collective beliefs about the capabilities of their students to learn, of their teachers to teach and otherwise enhance the lives of the students” (p.567).
Bandura (1994) agrees with Pajares (1996) and said that school is also important because:
During the crucial formative period of children’s lives, the school functions as the primary setting for the cultivation and social validation of cognitive competencies. School is the place where children develop the cognitive competencies and acquire the knowledge and problem-solving skills essential for participating effectively in the larger society (p. 11).
As they develop cognitive skills they begin to develop a sense of their intellectual self-efficacy. Not only do they develop intellectual self-efficacy in schools, but they also develop academic self-efficacy. “Academic self-efficacy reflects students’ perceived confidence in performing important classroom learning behaviors” (Gentry & Owen, 2004, p. 21).
Self-efficacy is important for students in school because it affects their academic outcome. There have been several studies done on the relationship between self-efficacy and students’ writing abilities and mathematical abilities. The results showed that students with higher self-efficacy achieved higher academic achievement. There is a relationship between self-efficacy and academic achievement (Pajares & Valiante, 1996; Pajares & Valiante, 1997; Pajares, Miller & Johnson, 1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1999; Pajares & Graham, 1999). Lent, Brown, and Larkin (1984),(1986) also found a relation between self-efficacy and academic achievement when they researched engineering majors. They said, “We found that both level and strength of self-efficacy for educational requirements were generally related to academic outcome” (Lent et al, 1986, p.22).
There are also other factors that influence the student’s intellectual self-efficacy. Bandura (1994) says that these factors are, “…peer modeling of cognitive skills, social comparison with the performances of other students, motivational enhancement through goals and positive incentives, and teachers interpretations of children’s successes and failures in ways that reflect favorably or unfavorably on their ability…” (p. 11). These things will affect children’s judgment of their intellectual/academic self-efficacy.
In an article that talked about self-efficacy in elementary school students Frank Pajares and Gio Valiante (1996) said, “Self-efficacy beliefs affect what students do by influencing the choices they make, the effort they expend, the persistence and perseverance they exert in the face of adversity, and the anxiety they experience” (p. 5). A students’ self efficacy will influence their aspirations in the classroom and how hard they strive for academic accomplishments.
Bandura (1994) said that there are a number of school practices that are converting instructional experiences into educational inefficacy:
These include lock-step sequences of instruction, which lose many children along the way; ability groupings which further diminish the perceived self-efficacy of those cast in the lower ranks; and competitive practices where many are doomed to failure for the success of a relative few (p.11).
Social comparisons also affect the development of intellectual self-efficacy. The comparing of students to each other is detrimental to a students’ self-efficacy (Bandura, 1994; Schunk, 1985). When talking about this classroom structure Bandura (1994) said, “Under such a monolithic structure students rank themselves according to capability with high consensus. Once established, reputations are not easily changed” (p. 11). The students’ self-efficacy is influenced by where they stand compared to their fellow classmates, and that influences how they perform in the classroom.
Frank Pajares and Dale Schunk (2001) said, “Researchers have also been successful in demonstrating that self-efficacy beliefs are positively related to and influence academic achievement and that these beliefs mediate the effect of skills, previous experience, mental ability, or other self-beliefs on subsequent achievement” (p.7).
Zimmerman and Matinzez-Pons (1990) studied 45 boys and girls of the fifth, eighth and eleventh grades from a school of academically gifted students and from a regular school. They found that the gifted students had higher academic self-efficacy than the other students.
Self-Concept
Self-concept has typically been defined in terms of the cognitive appraisal one makes of the expectations, descriptions, and prescriptions that one hold about one’s self (Hattie, 1992). Coopersmith and Feldman (1974) described the self-concept as consisting of:
…beliefs, hypotheses, and assumptions that the individual has about himself. It is the person’s view of himself as conceived and organized from his inner vantage [and] includes the person’s ideas of the kind of person he is, the characteristics that he possesses, and his most important and striking traits (p. 199).
Researchers have identified seven features critical to a definition of self-concept: organized, multifaceted, hierarchical, stable, developmental, evaluative, and differentiable (Marsh & Shavelson, 1985, Marsh, Byrne & Shavelson, 1988). The hierarchical feature has received the most attention. Marsh and Shavelson (1985) said that general self-perceptions comprise self-concepts about academic, social, emotional, or physical facets of the self. The hierarchy progressively narrows into more discreet types of self-concepts. Academic self-concepts can be subject-specific, such as language arts, history, mathematics, science, art, or music self-concepts; social self-concepts can include self-perceptions regarding family, peers, or significant others. People become increasingly aware of their differing domain-specific self-concepts as they grow older. These are the types of self-concept (academic and social) we are concerned with for this study.
Self-concept is also affected by social relationships. Self-concept researchers have described the Big-Fish-Little-Pond-Effect (BFLPE). The Big-Fish-Little-Pond-Effect describes how students form their self-concept in part by comparing their academic ability with the perceived abilities of other students in their reference group. Self-concept will go up when an individual views themselves as more capable than their peers, but self-concept is also lowered when the individual views others as more capable. Self-concept, like self-efficacy can be greatly affected by social relationships (Marsh 1993).
School is where a large amount of social relationships are formed for students. Students are constantly comparing themselves to those around them. When classroom structures are individualized and instruction is differentiated to students’ academic capabilities, social comparisons are minimized and students are more likely to gauge their academic progress according to their own standards rather than compare it to the progress of their classmates. To some degree, students will inevitably evaluate themselves in relation to their classmates regardless of what a school or teacher does to minimize these comparisons (Marsh, 1993).
Robert Hoge and Joseph Renzulli (1991) wrote an article on self-concept and the gifted child. In the study, they were addressing three questions. They were:
First, do gifted and average children differ in self-esteem? The other two questions bear on factors that might affect differences between the two groups. The second question is whether or not labeling a child as gifted has an impact on his or her self-concept. The third question concerns the effect of gifted programming: Does placing a child in a separate enriched or accelerated classroom have any impact on self-esteem (p. 16)?
The researchers then found relevant studies that encompassed the three questions they asked in the beginning. They reviewed them and their results. They came to a conclusion for each of their three questions. The first conclusion was that when comparing gifted students to nongifted students, there was no major deficit in self-esteem for the gifted students. The next conclusion was that there may be some indirect evidence that labeling a child gifted would have a positive impact on their self-esteem, but there is no direct evidence of this. The last conclusion was that there was some support for the idea that moving a child from a regular classroom to a homogenous, highly gifted group could have negative impact on self-concept.
David Kenny et al. (1995) said that even though gifted students perform well in school they might not necessarily have a higher self-concept than other non-gifted children. One possible explanation that they give for this is that the gifted student “…might possess excessively high, rigid expectations about his or her performance, or parents’ expectations could also be excessively high and unobtainable” (p.10). Being unable to meet the expectations would cause the gifted student’s self-worth to go down.
Kenny et al. (1995) also said that when gifted students interacted with other non-gifted students it appeared that the non-gifted student experienced a significant decrease in social self-concept. This meant that non-gifted students who interact with gifted students see themselves as having fewer friends and being less liked by peers. The researchers suggest that the reason for this might be that they see the gifted student as being more competent and friendlier. This may make the non-gifted student feel less socially competent in comparison to the gifted student. However, the non-gifted students did not experience a significant decline in academic or global self-concept when they interacted with gifted students. One would think that a non-gifted student who interacted with a gifted student would experience a decrease in academic self-concept, but this was not the case.
How Self-efficacy and Self-concept Beliefs Differ
When discussing the terms self-efficacy and self-concept, it can seem at times that they might be the same thing. Some researchers use them synonymously. But, Pajares and Schunk (2001) argue, “The difference between self-efficacy and self-concept is not cosmetic. Self-efficacy is a judgment of the confidence that one has in one’s abilities; self-concept is a description of one’s own perceived self accompanied by an evaluative judgment of self-worth” (p. 5). They also talk about how self-concept is dependent on how the culture or social structure values an individual attributes to make them feel self-worth, but self-efficacy is not as bound to cultural considerations.
When talking about self-efficacy and self-concept views for an individual Pajares and Schunk (2001) said:
When individuals tap into their self-efficacy or their self-concept they must ask themselves quite different types of questions. Self-efficacy beliefs revolve around questions of “can” (Can I write well? Can I drive a car? Can I solve this problem?), whereas self-concept beliefs reflect questions of “being” and “feeling” (Who am I? Do I like myself? How do I feel about myself as a writer?) (p. 5).
We can see that although self-efficacy and self-concept are at times used interchangeably, there is a difference between the two concepts, and both terms will be used in this study.
Self-Esteem
There are a variety of definitions for self-esteem. Blascovich and Tamaqua (1991) found self-esteem referred to an individual’s sense of his or her value or worth, or the extent to which a person valued, approved or appreciated prizes, or liked him or herself. Bednar, Wells, and Peterson (1989) defined self-esteem “as a subjective and realistic self-approval” (p.4) They also said “self-esteem reflects how the most fundamental levels of psychological experiencing” (p.4) and that the different aspects of self created a “profile of emotions associated with the various roles in which the person operated…and [that self-esteem] was an enduring and affective series of personal values based on accurate self-perceptions” (p.4). The last definition is by Branden (1997) and he defined self-esteem as. “The disposition to experience oneself as being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and of being worthy of happiness” (p.2).
Mack, as cited in Richardson (2003):
…described self-esteem as a conscious process, which is thought about and described. It was also an unconscious process, reflecting an individual’s inner psychic structure. Individuals with positive self-esteem tended to feel proud, worthy, enthusiastic, and effective, while those with negative self-esteem tended to feel shameful, unworthy, and helpless (p.8).
When looking at self-esteem and achievement Richardson (2003) said, “Researchers found self-esteem affects achievement” (p. 9). In his research, Covington (1989) reported as the level of self-esteem increased, so did achievement scores, as self-esteem decreased achievement scores declined. Holly’s (1987) research supported Covington’s. Holly compiled a summary of some 50 studies and indicated most researchers supported the idea that self-esteem was more likely the result than the cause of academic achievement. He said that a certain level of self-esteem was required for students’ academic achievement and success. He said that the two, self-esteem and achievement, go hand in hand.
Researchers have defined three components of self-esteem; there is the cognitive element, the affective element, and the behavioral element. Reasoner (1994) defined the cognitive element of self-esteem as “…someone who thinks about oneself as one considers the discrepancy between one’s ideal self, the person one wishes to be and the perceived self or the realistic appraisal of how one see oneself” (p. 10)
Gordon (1996) said that the affective element is best defined as “the feelings of emotions, motivations, attitude, perceptions, interest and associations related to past learning experiences, and feelings generated by words and events in the learning situation” (p.10). Reasoner (1994) believed the behavioral element taught children to adopt specific behaviors that would enable them to express themselves confidently to others and would relate to them in a positive manner.
Self-esteem, just like self-efficacy and self-concept, is vital to a student’s achievement in school. How they feel about their academic abilities will affect their actual academic production.
Kenny et al. (1995) also researched self-esteem when they studied the 786 fourth-graders. They wanted to know if heterogeneous or homogenous grouping effects self-esteem of the gifted students. Their results are as follows:
- 1. Gifted students saw themselves as smarter than their non-gifted peers prior to the treatment (i.e., their academic self-esteem is higher)
- 2. Gifted students had a higher perception of their worth as a person (global self-esteem) than non-gifted students prior to the treatment.
- 3. Gifted and non-gifted students’ social self-esteem did not differ prior to the treatment.
- 4. Neither the gifted and non-gifted students’ social self-esteem declined when they were in a group with another gifted student.
- 5. Academic self-esteem improved for both gifted and non-gifted students, but more for non-gifted students.
- 6. There were no differences in the three self-esteem measures (i.e., global, social, and academic) for heterogeneously grouped gifted students versus homogenously grouped students (p.60).
Multi-Grade Classrooms
The gifted and talented class in this study is a multi-grade class. “Multi-grade classes are classes in which students from two or more grades are taught by on teacher in one room at the same time. Students in multi-grade classes retain their respective grade-level assignments and their respective grade-level curricula” (Veenman, 1995, p. 319). Veenman performed a meta-analysis on the research done concerning the cognitive and non-cognitive effects of a multi-grade class.
First, Veenman (1995) looked at the studies that compared the cognitive or achievement effects of multi-grade classes versus single classes. The results showed that there were no consistent differences between the two types of classroom organization (median ES = -.03). He then looked at studies that examined the non-cognitive effects of the two different types of class structure and found there was also no consistent difference between the two (median ES = +.10). Veenman concluded that there was no evidence for the assumption that students may suffer in a multi-grade classroom.
However, Mason and Burns (1996) reanalyzed the data from Veenman’s study and they analyzed 21 other studies and they found that there were two key factors that were ignored in Veenman’s analysis:
- 1. Selection bias: In an effort to reduce the burden on teachers, principals tend to place more able, more independent, and more cooperative students in multi-grade classes, and generally assign better teachers to teach those classes, thus biasing results.
- 2. Management problems typically result in lower quality instruction in multi-grade classes (p.12).
Their conclusion was that multi-grade classes did result in a small negative effect on achievement as well as a potential negative effect on teacher motivation.
Janet Gorrell (1998) also performed a study in which she compared the effects of multi-grade classes to those of single-grade classes. She looked specifically at the achievement of fourth graders in reading and math. She looked at the standardized scores of 20 fourth-grade students in two multi-grade third and fourth-grade classrooms compared to the scores of 20 students from seven traditional single-class fourth-grade classrooms. By applying a t-test to the data she collected she found that there was no difference in reading or math achievement between the students in a multi-grade class and the students in a traditional, single-grade class. So, having a multi-grade class did not affect the students negatively in any way.
In 1997, Thomas R. Guskey and Jane C. Lindle researched the Primary Program, a multi-grade program, which was implemented in Kentucky during the Kentucky Education Reform Act. In their research they noted three problems that had become apparent when the grouping had been implemented. They are as follows:
1. The ‘multi-age’ attribute of the Primary Program, interpreted by state officials as “multi-grade,” magnifies the developmental differences among students in each classroom and, as a result, intensifies the challenge elementary teachers face in their efforts to provide effective instruction.
2. ‘Multi-age’ grouping is a structural change only in the way students are grouped for instruction. Rather than compelling teachers to develop more creative teaching strategies or to engage in more intellectually stimulating activities, it appears to overwhelm their existing repertoire of instructional strategies.
3. ‘Multi-age’ grouping causes many teachers to be more concerned with classroom management and keeping students on task, rather than with the quality of students’ educational experiences. A survey by Rand Corporation researchers found that ‘approximately three-fourths of the elementary teachers responded that too much of their time was diverted from instruction to deal with classroom management issues.” (p. 4).
After considering these problems and researching evidence that has been given concerning multi-age/multi-grade grouping, Guskey and Lindle came to their own conclusion. Their conclusion was that multi-grade grouping:
…appear(s) to confirm what many researchers on grouping practices have known for years: It is not how you group students for instruction, but what you do within those groups that is important to learning. Multi-grade classes do not guarantee high quality instruction for all students, and single grade classes to not prevent it. (p. 10).
So, multi-grade grouping could be a beneficial approach to teaching, but it isn’t the groups that make a difference. It is the choice of instruction for the class and how well that instruction is being implemented.
Summary
The term gifted was defined and explored. The different types of ability grouping available for gifted students in schools today, and their affect on gifted students were discussed. The social relationships of gifted students, and the different influences of those relationships, were researched and explored. Self-efficacy, self-concept, and self-esteem were discussed in relation to gifted children. Lastly, research on multi-grade classes was also discussed in this section.
Section Three: Research Methodology
Introduction
This is a mixed method study using qualitative and quantitative data. The purpose of this thesis is to research the social and emotional effects of a full day gifted and talented program. This study will attempt to answer the following questions: Does ability grouping affect a student’s social relationships? Will the separate classroom affect the student’s self-belief and self-esteem? How will having the separate gifted and talented classroom affect the regular classroom?
Study Design
This study was looking at social and emotional factors, so the design of the study needed to measure those factors. A study that tested the same factors as this study was not found, so the researcher created the instruments. Surveys and interviews were used in the study. These methods were the best way to answer the questions that were being researched. The survey questions needed to measure feelings about social relationships, self-esteem, and self-belief. There were two surveys that were created. One was for both the gifted students and the regular fourth grade students to take. The other survey was a free response survey for only the gifted students. Both surveys were centered on the first two research questions dealing with social and emotional factors. The surveys were taken anonymously. The surveys were anonymous so that the students would be encouraged to be completely honest in their responses.
The survey responses for both the gifted and regular students were in a yes/no/sometimes format. After discussing the different formats that were available with professors at the college it was decided that this format would be appropriate for intermediate elementary age students. The survey that was given to only the gifted and talented students was an open-ended survey. This format allowed students to express their feelings more completely, and it gave qualitative data in which to code and find themes. The free response survey for the gifted students was made up of five questions that were centered on the social aspects of the students and their self-esteem and self-belief.
There were two sets of interviews that were conducted. The first set of individuals interviewed were the fourth grade teachers. The second set of individuals were gifted students. For the teachers, the interview questions were focused on the regular teacher’s perspective of what was happening in the regular classroom since the gifted students were clustered in a separate gifted and talented class. For the gifted students, the interview questions were the same questions from the free response survey.
The teachers in all three of the fourth grade regular classrooms were interviewed because they had taught the students who were fifth graders in the gifted and talented class the previous year, and because the fourth graders in the gifted and talented class would have been in their classrooms this year. The interview questions focused on the effects that the teachers saw in their class with the gifted students taken out of their classroom. The questions also looked at how the teachers’ perceived the separate gifted and talented class.
The student and teacher interviews were done in person. The teacher interviews were done individually, while the gifted student interviews were done two at a time. Interviewing the students made it possible to ask additional questions, and to gather more information for the study. The interviews were recorded with an audiotape, and the answers were coded. The questions were emailed to the teachers before they were interviewed. This was done so that the teachers felt like they had enough time to think about the questions before they were interviewed.
Participants and Setting
In this case study the population was from Riverwoods Elementary School (pseudonym). The elementary school was located in the Rocky Mountain Northwest. The population of the school was approximately 475 students in grades K-5. About 76% (361) of the students received free or reduced breakfast and lunch. Fifty-nine percent (280) of the students were Hispanic and 40% (190) of the students were Caucasian. The number of students with Limited English Proficiency was 37% (176). Nine percent (N=43) of the student population received services from the Resource Staff in Special Education.
The city that Riverwoods Elementary School resides in had a population of 26,141. Of that population, 75.6% (19,770) were Caucasian, 0.5% (121) were African American, 1% (250) were American Indian and Alaska Native, 0.9% (230) were Asian, and 19% (4,977) were listed as some other race. Twenty-six point nine percent (7,038) of the population were Hispanic or Latino (of any race). When looking at the economy of the city, 24% (2,731) of the occupations are management, professional and related occupations, 17.9% (2,041) are service occupations, 21.7% (2,473) are sales and office occupations, 2.6% (294) are farming, fishing, and forestry occupations, 11.6% (1,317) are construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations, and 22.3% (2,539) are production, transportation, and material moving occupations (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).
The sample of the case study consisted of a class of eighteen intermediate gifted and talented students in a fourth and fifth grade mixed class . There were three schools in the school district that were contributing to the gifted and talented class. So, six students (three from each grade) were selected from each school. There were also twenty intermediate students in a regular fourth grade classroom, and three fourth grade regular class female teachers who were also from Riverwoods Elementary School. All three teachers were highly qualified, two had Master Degrees in Education.
Instrument
In this study for the qualitative part the researcher will be the instrument. The researcher will be coding and finding themes in the interviews and the gifted students’ free responses. The teacher interviews can be found in Appendix A, and the gifted students’ free response questions can be found in Appendix B. For the quantitative part of the study the survey that was created for both the gifted students and regular students is the instrument. This survey can be found in Appendix C.
The researcher created both surveys for the study, so they had to be tested for reliability and validity. A pilot group was found to check the reliability of the surveys. The pilot group was a fourth and fifth grade gifted and talented pull-out class from another school. The group took the survey individually. They were asked to mark any of the questions that they felt were not clearly understood. The students then pointed out and discussed the questions they felt were difficult to understand. There were a few questions that needed to be revised so that they would produce reliable data. The surveys were found valid after discussions with faculty and professors of the college.
Procedures
As an educator I am surrounded by many programs and teaching techniques that have been questioned and researched for years. When I heard that the school I was going to be teaching at was going to have a separate gifted and talented class I became one of the people who questioned the effects this program structure would have on the students. I then decided that I wanted to become the person who researched this program. I wanted to know if this class would be a great opportunity for the students, or if it could end up hurting the students.
After deciding to research this gifted and talented class, Albertson College of Idaho had to give permission for the research to be performed. A thesis proposal was created. It introduced the study and the research that would be conducted. Permission from the principal at Riverwood Elementary School also had to be received to conduct the research.
A search was done to see if there were surveys that had already been piloted and used that focused on the same research questions as this study. There were no studies found, so, new surveys had to be created that would address the research questions of this study. The questions on the surveys needed to be centered on the student’s social relationships, their self-esteem, and their self-belief. First, the structure of the surveys had to be decided on. The ages of the students had to be looked at. The students were in the fourth and fifth grade. It was determined that a yes/no/sometimes format would be appropriate for the students, not too difficult and not too simple. It was also determined that a survey with open-ended questions for the gifted and talented students would be beneficial for this study. This was a relevant manner in which the gifted students could express their feelings about the topics that were being researched.
After deciding on the format for the surveys the questions were written. The research questions were looked at, and the researcher started writing down questions that might address them. Then, some of the professors at the college looked at the questions and decide which ones would produce the best data and which ones could be taken out of the surveys. This was testing the validity of the surveys. The reliability also needed to be tested. So, a separate gifted and talented class, who were unrelated to the survey, piloted the surveys. These students took the survey, and looked at the questions to see if there were any changes that needed to be made to make them easier to understand. The researcher then went back to the pilot group and talked about the survey with them. The students pointed out a few questions that they felt needed to be reworded for better understanding. They also suggested that a few of the questions didn’t need sometimes in them, they could be answered with only yes or no. With the open-ended questions, the pilot group felt that they could express themselves more fully when they answered them. After meeting with these students and making the changes they suggested, the survey was ready to be used in the study.
The questions that were going to be asked during the teacher interviews also had to be written. These questions were centered on the teachers’ perspectives about how their classroom was affected by removing the gifted students from the regular classroom. The questions were written and the committee chair reviewed them. They were viewed for validity and edited so that they would produce the data needed for the study. The questions were then ready to be used in the interviews.
Before the surveys and interviews could be administered, a committee meeting had to be held and permission had to be given to collect the data. The principal at Riverwoods Elementary also had to review the surveys and questions and his approval had to be given. The committee met and reviewed the surveys and questions. During the meeting it was suggested that a few of the gifted and talented students should be interviewed. The committee felt that interviewing the students would allow for more information to be collected because the students’ responses could be expounded on. At the end of the meeting permission was given to conduct the research. The final surveys and interview questions can be found in Appendixes A-C. The final surveys and questions were taken to the principal, and he gave his approval for them to be administered to the students.
The next step was receiving permission from the parents of the students that were being surveyed. A permission slip was created explaining the research that was being conducted, and how it would affect their child. They were told that everything was being conducted anonymously and confidentially, and if they chose to not allow their student to participate it would not affect their child’s grade. The parent letter can be found in Appendix D. The letters were given to both the gifted and talented intermediate class, and the regular fourth grade class, two weeks before the research was going to be conducted. This gave the students ample time to get them signed and returned.
The permission slips were collected from the students and a record was kept of who had turned them in, who was allowed to participate, and who still needed to turn them in. Permission slips were collected from all of the students, and there was only one student who chose not to participate in the study. After receiving permission to conduct the research, a time was arranged with the gifted and talented teacher and with the regular class teacher to administer the surveys. Times were also set up with four of the gifted and talented students to interview them. The last step was setting up interview times with the three regular classroom teachers. Copies of the interview questions were given to the teachers before the interviews. This was done so they could read the questions and have time to prepare before the interviews were conducted.
The surveys were administered in December 2006. The regular class was surveyed first. Honesty on the survey questions was very important for the study, so it was emphasized to the students that the surveys were anonymous. It was also explained to them that they were helping with research and their honesty was vital in helping the study. The surveys were handed out and the students turned them into a basket when they were finished. The surveys were not taken out of the basket until all of the students were finished with their surveys. The surveys were then administered to the gifted and talented students. The students were told the same thing as the students in the regular class. Honesty was really emphasized when talking about their open-ended questions. The students were then given the surveys and they were collected in the same manner as the regular classroom surveys.
The gifted and talented students’ interviews and the teacher interviews were conducted in December 2006 also. Four gifted and talented students were interviewed. They were split into pairs for the interviews. The interviews were recorded with an audiotape, so they could be transcribed and coded later. The interviews were done confidentially. No names were revealed during the interviews and none were written down during the transcription and coding. This protocol was followed for both the teacher interviews and the gifted student interviews. For the gifted student interviews, two students were interviewed at a time. The two students sat at a table together. The students were asked the questions found in the open-ended gifted survey. Both sets of interviews were conducted and prepared for transcription.
The teacher interviews were the last to be conducted. The same protocol that was used with the gifted students was followed with the teachers. However, the teachers were interviewed individually. In addition to the questions that were prepared for the teacher interviews, the amount of education they had received, and how long they have been teaching was also recorded. The three interviews were conducted and the tapes were prepared for transcription. The data was then analyzed as discussed in the next section.
Analysis of the Data
The teacher and gifted students interviews and the gifted free responses make up the qualitative part of the study. To analyze the data, the process of coding was used as described by Miles and Huberman (1994) in An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis (Second Edition). When giving a brief description of coding, Miles and Huberman said:
Coding is analysis. To review a set of field notes, transcribed or synthesized, and to dissect them meaningfully, while keeping the relations between the parts intact, is the stuff of analysis. This part of analysis involves how you differentiate and combine the data you have retrieved and the reflections you make about this information (p. 56).
The first step of coding is to create the codes that will be used for the analysis. The coding method that was used for this study was that of creating a provisional “start list” of codes prior to fieldwork. The list comes from the research questions that the researcher is bringing to the study. Appendix E shows a table with the codes that were used for this study, what they represent, and what research question they answer. After codes are created the researcher will start to pattern code. “Pattern codes are explanatory or inferential codes, ones that identify an emergent theme, configuration, or explanation” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p.58).
For the quantitative part of this study the Chi-square test of independence was used as described by Prem S. Mann (2004) in, Introductory Statistics Fifth Edition. Mann defines Chi-square distribution. He said:
The Chi-square distribution has only one parameter, called the degrees of freedom. The shape of a Chi-square distribution curve is skewed to the right for small df and becomes symmetric for large df. The entire Chi-square distribution curve lies to the right of the vertical axis. The Chi-square distribution assumes nonnegative values only, and these are denoted by the symbol x² (read as “Chi-square”) (p. 512).
In this study a Chi-square test of independence was used:
In a test of independence for a contingency table, [you] test the null hypothesis that the two attributes (characteristics) of the elements of a given population are not related (that is, they are independent) against the alternative hypothesis that the two characteristics are related (that is, they are dependent) (Mann, 2004, p. 524).
Summary
The instruments for this study were two surveys and two sets of interviews. The population was a gifted and talented class of fourth and fifth graders, and a regular fourth grade class. The subjects were found in an elementary school in the Rocky Mountain Northwest. The instrument was piloted and tested for reliability and validity. The procedures were followed as listed above and the results were analyzed using coding and the Chi-square test of independence.
Section Four: Findings
Introduction
The findings of this study are centered on the three research questions that were introduced earlier. The interviews and surveys were coded and studied to find common themes that answer the research questions. Each research question was looked at individually. The results from the gifted students’ interviews, the teachers’ interviews were looked at qualitatively, and the results from the gifted and regular students’ surveys were looked at quantitatively. These two different analysis were then brought together in a discussion to address each research questions.
Results
How does ability grouping affect a gifted intermediate student’s social relationships?
The teacher interviews, the gifted and talented interviews, and both of the surveys were used to look at the social relationships of the gifted students. The data of this study was centered on the desire to know if putting gifted students into a separate gifted and talented class would negatively affect their social relationships.
On the free response survey, the gifted and talented students were asked if they had as many friends as they had the previous year when they were in a regular classroom. Seventeen students answered this question. Nine students (53%) said that they did have as many friends as they did last year. In fact, many said that they had more friends. They said that they had more friends because they were in a class with people who were like them. Being in this class and having so much in common with each other had allowed some of the students to create strong friendships with each other.
During an interview one of the gifted students said, “When you are in an advanced class most people are kind of like you. So, you are more like them” (Personal interview student 3, December 2006). This same student said:
Just being in there makes me feel more at home because I have plenty of smart people in my house, but, when I’m at home I hang out with my older brother quite a bit. And he’s actually very smart and getting really good grades and he’s teaching me a little of his math, but since I’m used to being around my smart older brother, being around smarter people in my class makes me feel more at home (Personal interview student 3, December 2006).
Having the separate gifted and talented class gave this student a sense of belonging that he/she hadn’t had in a regular classroom.
A teacher, when interviewed, also said that she believed that having these kids together might foster friendships because they are similar to each other. Another teacher talked about a student who she had the previous year in her regular class. This student really struggled socially and didn’t have a lot of friends:
She wasn’t socially mature as a fourth grader. She had one friend, which was fine, anyway(s), but, this year she has met quite a few people in that class, and she has one really good friend that she talks about all of the time because she and her friend have the same interests (Personal interview teacher 2, December 2006).
The separate gifted and talented class gave this student a great opportunity to make friends who had similar interests as she did. It benefited her socially.
Eight gifted students (43%), on the free response survey, said that they did not have as many friends as they had last year. A few students said that they didn’t have as many friends because they were in a different class this year. Others said that they didn’t have as many friends because they had come from one of the other schools in the school district, and so they left their friends at their previous school. Coming to a new school made it difficult to make a lot of friends.
One of the gifted students said that he/she didn’t have as many friends because, “…all of those friends were in my class last year, but they aren’t now” (Personal interview student 1, December 2006). Another student agreed and said that it was really hard to be friends with her old friends because they were in different classes.
One teacher talked about a student she had the previous year in her regular fourth grade class that was now in the gifted and talented class. She said:
One of the students had a lot of problems at the beginning of the year, socially, with not being able to be around her friends… it was mostly because of her friends not being with her. She was one of the popular girls, and that was hard for her (Personal interview teacher 2, December 2006).
Another teacher expressed her concern about having a separate classroom. She said:
…a lot of the kids that I know (that) are in there (the gifted class) are kind of introverts. They’re the ones who keep to themselves anyway, just because they think so much differently than so many other kids. And so it kind of seems like they are kind of being segregated a little bit, and almost encouraged to be introverted (Personal interview teacher 1, December 2006).
Another teacher pointed out:
Yeah, it’s all their friends that they have been going to school with forever since kindergarten and all the way up and now they are basically completely separated from them because they don’t get to switch classes for math and things like that like the other kids do (Personal interview teacher 2, December 2006).
This teacher felt that the students were feeling separated from the rest of the fifth grade.
One of the other teachers said that she was concerned about the long-term effects of a separate gifted and talented class. She pointed out that these students aren’t always going to be with people who are like them, and they aren’t always going to be with people who are at equal ability level with them. This teacher wondered if this class would hurt these students as they get older and need to be able to work with other people who aren’t like them.
Another social aspect that concerned a fifth grade, gifted student was the fact that the students in the gifted and talented class did not rotate from teacher to teacher for different subjects. They stayed in the same class the whole day. The fifth graders in the regular classes rotated for some subjects in preparation for sixth grade and junior high the next year. This gifted student said:
Another thing that I wish we did in our class, is that they (the regular fifth grade classes) get to prepare for sixth grade. They (the school) give them more classes, so they have to like move from class to class and we just stay here. So, I feel like since we are just staying in here we aren’t really being prepared for sixth grade (Personal interview student 2, December 2006).
A few other students agreed with this student. They felt that they weren’t able to be part of the rest of the fifth grade and rotate and get that social experience in preparation for junior high.
The purpose of the survey given to both the regular students and the gifted students was to see if there was any difference between the responses between the two groups. The survey questions were centered on the social aspects of the students, or the self-esteem and self-belief of the student. So, they answered the first two questions of this study.
Two tables were created, one was for the social aspects questions, and the other was for the self-esteem/self-belief questions. The questions were then divided into each table with the number of responses they each received. The social aspects table can be found in Appendix F. The self-esteem/self-belief table can be found in Appendix G. The format for the survey was yes/no/sometimes. For the calculations of this study the responses were looked at as positive, negative or neutral. For most of the questions “yes” was the positive response, but for a few questions “no” was the positive response. So, for the purpose of calculations, the responses were reversed. The new tables with the reversed responses for the social aspects can be found in Appendix H, and the reversed responses for the self-esteem/self-belief aspects can be found in Appendix I. “Sometimes” was the neutral response for all of the questions.
As discussed in the previous section, a Chi-Square Test of Independence was used to compute the data in the two tables. For this study we were testing whether there was an association between the students being a regular student or a gifted student and how they responded to the questions in the survey. The calculations for the Chi-square that was performed on the social aspects of the students can be found in Appendix J. The critical value of x² for df = 2 and α = .01 was 9.210. For this calculation, x² = 16.3, which was in the rejection region. Therefore, our null hypothesis was rejected. So, the Chi-square test showed that the students’ classification and their responses to the survey were dependent on each other.
Once the two elements were found to be dependent of each other, each of the three responses (positive, negative, sometimes) and the percentage they were out of the total responses were examined to see which responses were more dependent on each other. Table 1 shows those percentages.
Table 1
Comparison of Percentages of Social Responses for Regular and Gifted Students
|
|
Positive (P) |
Negative (N) |
Sometimes (S) |
| Regular (R)Gifted (G) |
71 (45%) 61 (45%) |
49 (31%) 18 (13%) |
39 (39%) 56 (41%) |
Table 1 shows that both groups of students (gifted and regular) were equal in their positive responses. So, their positive responses weren’t dependent on their classifications, but if we look at the negative responses we can see that there is a difference between the two groups. For the regular students, 31% of the total responses were negative responses to the social questions in the survey. Whereas, only 13% of the gifted students answered negatively on the social questions of the survey. The regular students were more negative towards social aspects than the gifted students were. There was also a difference between the two in their neutral responses. Twenty-five percent of the regular students were neutral in their answers to the survey, but 41% of the gifted students were neutral.
We will now look at some of the individual questions on the survey and see how they support the results of the Chi-square test. The total responses for the individual questions can be found in Appendix F. When asked if it was easy for them to make friends 25% of the regular students said, “no”, it wasn’t. Only 6% of the gifted students said it was not easy for them to make friends. The regular students answered more negatively to having friends than the gifted students did. When asked if they were shy around other students, 6% of the gifted students said yes they were shy, whereas 35% of the regular students said yes to the question. For this question, “yes” was the negative answer and the regular students had a larger percentage of students who answered negatively about being shy than the gifted students had.
When the students were asked if they are popular among their fellow classmates 26% of the regular students said yes, and 33% of the gifted students said yes. There was not much of a difference in their answers and that supported the fact that the total positive responses were so close. However, 53% of the regular students had said no to this question, while only 28% of the gifted students said they weren’t popular among their fellow students. This also supports the finding that regular students answered more negatively to the social questions than the gifted students.
When asked if they felt like they had a lot of friends 50% of the regular students answered yes to the questions, whereas 89% of the gifted students said that they felt like they had a lot of friends. When asked if they like to hang out with kids who aren’t in their class during lunch and recess, 40% of the regular students said no, they did not. Only 6% of the gifted students said that they did not like to hang out with students who were not in their class. As we can see these questions and the responses given by the students supported what we found through the Chi-square test. It did appear that classification affected a student’s responses. However, it appeared that it affected how they answered negatively or neutrally to their responses, not positively.
The Chi-square test showed that classification and responses to the surveys were related, but it showed that both groups of students were equal in positive responses. The regular students were more negative in their responses than the gifted students.
When looking at both of the gifted surveys and both of the interviews it would appear that the separate gifted and talented class had both a positive impact and a negative impact on the students’ social relationships, and neither one appeared to be of greater impact on the students.
How will the separate classroom affect the gifted intermediate student’s self-belief and self-esteem?
This study also was exploring whether or not a separate gifted and talented class would affect gifted students’ self-esteem and self-belief. The teacher interviews, the gifted student interviews and both surveys were used to answer this question.
When looking at the gifted students’ open answer surveys, seventeen students answered this question. When asked, twelve students (71%) said that the gifted and talented class was harder than their previous regular class. Some said that there was more expected of them because they were in the gifted class. Others said that the work is harder and that there was more pressure to do well in the class. In the interviews with the gifted students all of the students felt that the class was harder. They felt that a lot was expected of them because they were in an advanced class. The workload was also harder than what they had in their previous regular classes. Two students said that they had received their first B’s in the class, and that was very hard for them to handle. One student said, “Yeah, I have never gotten a B before. It’s kind of hard. I mean there are some things that I haven’t ever done. It’s hard because I really need a lot of help with certain things” (Personal interview student 4, December 2006).
Competition was also something that the students talked about having to deal with. In a class of all gifted students, at times there was a feeling of pressure to be the best. When asked about the expectations and pressure one student said:
Yeah, it’s really hard in math because there’s this kid who sits next to me who is really, really smart and he just does it like that in like one minute, and I feel like I can never get something done because I’m trying to work my hardest on it and he just goes, he whips through it. And I’m like, ah, I wish I was so fast like him (Personal interview student 2, December 2006).
The students also said that some students would always announce when they finished something quickly. They said that at times it made them feel like they were taking too long and that they weren’t as smart as they should be. One student also said that sometimes the students weren’t willing to help each other because of the feeling of having to be better than others.
One of the teachers that was interviewed had the opportunity to teach in the gifted class for an afternoon. She was very surprised by the competitive feeling the students had with each other. When talking about the experience the teacher said:
I also feel that the students are overly competitive. When I went in there and taught they were racing to be the first one done and they wanted to have the right answer, and if they were a little bit slower than the others it really bothered them. Those kids have problems with that anyways, they are competitive by nature which, there’s nothing wrong with that to be a little competitive, but when you put them all together like that, they push each other, not themselves. And I’ve seen that have a negative effect too. Those kids are hard on themselves no matter what. Maybe they aren’t keeping up with the other, or they had a bad day. Things like that really hurt their self-esteem too (Personal interview teacher 2, December 2006).
This teacher saw the competition and worried about the affect it would have on the students’ self-esteem and self-belief they had of themselves.
This same teacher was asked if she believed that there was a lot of pressure in the class because there were so many kids at the same level. She replied:
I would think so and from what I saw in just that little amount of time, that was something that kind of bothered me. Um, very competitive and not necessarily rude, if another person didn’t get the right answer, but just kind of like, geez come on (Personal interview teacher 2, December 2006).
A gifted student also said that in the gifted class, they were sometimes afraid to ask for help if they didn’t understand something. They felt stupid because no one else was asking for help, but they needed it. The pressure to be smart and keep up with the class was great.
During the gifted and talented interviews a few of the students said that their self-esteem had been up and down quite a bit during the year. One student said that they had come into the class with very high self-esteem, but as the class got started their self-esteem went really low because they weren’t used to being in a class with as many gifted students. They said that their self-esteem was slowly going up as they got used to the class, but it had been hard for them to adjust. Their self-esteem has also been affected because they weren’t always the highest kids in the class. One student said, “Yeah, we are a little lower and we have to get used to it” (Personal interview student 4, December 2006). They had to be able to accept that there was a chance that they weren’t the smartest or highest in everything. This was a very difficult adjustment for some of the kids to make. One student said that their self-esteem in math was really low because they weren’t the highest like they had been the previous year in a regular class.
Five (29%) of the gifted students, in the open answer survey, said that the class was not harder than their previous class. They felt that they could handle the workload and the subject matter was easy for them to understand and complete.
There were also things that emerged from the separate gifted and talented class that seemed to be good for the students’ self-esteem and self-belief. The main thing was the amount of independent time the class offered to these students. In the gifted students open answer survey, eleven out of the seventeen kids (65%) surveyed said that the best part of the class was the independent time they had. These students loved being able to work on their own and at their own pace, which was usually fast. This class allowed them to do so. In regular classes, these students were usually forced to help other students with assignments. In the separate class they were able to solve problems and work on assignments on their own and for these students that was something they really enjoyed and thrived on.
Another benefit to the students was the pace that the separate gifted class was able to move at. Most of these students were forced to move at a slower pace in a regular class because they had to wait for everyone to grasp the concept being taught, even if they understood it. In the separate class the students were able to move at a quicker pace. One teacher when asked what she thought the benefit of the separate class was said:
Well, obviously, the acceleration. You know, they can move at a faster pace, through things that are easier for them. The fact that they could have a little bit more challenging material or curriculum, you could just do so much, so many more extensions on things. Definitely that’s a huge strength. You know just to have that acceleration I think (Personal interview teacher 1, December 2006).
The teacher who taught the gifted and talented class for an afternoon described her experience:
It’s very fast paced. I mean, I taught a math lesson, and I had to barely teach it, is what I felt like. I mean I taught it and they got it and it was no problem at all. But you just moved quicker and, but uh, I’m sure (the teacher) is doing things where they might be able to get to two lessons in at once. So, that’s a strength of the classroom (Personal interview teacher 2, December 2006).
The acceleration allowed the students to move at a fast pace and to push themselves. This was a great boost for the self-esteem, and it gave them a positive self-concept of themselves. The class also allowed the students to get more in depth with the curriculum. The students talked about different projects that they were working on for the class. One student was working on a solar system project. The students said that they also had to write up reports and questions for their fellow classmates. The projects were something that they were continually doing throughout the year on various topics (Personal interview students 1 & 1, 2006). These same students also said that they did a lot more writing in the gifted and talented class compared to their regular classes the year before.
At times, the gifted students had felt that they had to hide their abilities when they were in a regular class. When talking about being in the separate gifted and talented class one of the students said, “You don’t feel dumb for being smart. You don’t feel like the smart one” (Personal interview student 4, December 2006). The same student said that they often felt like they had to keep quiet in the regular class because they didn’t want to be giving all of the answers:
I felt like I want to raise my hand but I talked to my mom about it and she was like well you can raise a little finger but it’s good to let other people raise their hands and answer the questions too. Before I talked to my mom about it. I would raise my hand and she (the teacher) wouldn’t pick on me and I would think about it and then raise my hand again (Personal interview student 4, December 2006).
Another student said that when they were in the regular class they felt like they couldn’t struggle on things or ask for help because they were supposed to understand everything and be the leader of the class. They said that they don’t feel this way in the gifted class. They said it was still hard to ask a question in the separate gifted and talented class, but they didn’t feel like they had to know everything like they did in the regular class.
A Chi-square test was also performed for the self-esteem and self-belief of the students using the survey that was given to both the gifted students and the regular students. The steps for this calculation are found in Appendix K. The critical value of x² for df = 2 and α = .01 was 9.210. In this calculation, x² = 11.74, which was in the rejection region. Therefore, our null hypothesis was rejected. So, the Chi-square test showed that the students’ classification and their responses to the self-esteem/self-belief survey were dependent on each other.
Once the two elements were found to be dependent of each other, each of the three responses (positive, negative, sometimes) and the percentage they were out of the total responses were examined to see which responses were more dependent on each other. Table 2 shows those percentages.
Table 2
Comparison of Self-esteem/Self-Belief Responses for Regular and Gifted Students
|
|
Positive (P) |
Negative (N) |
Sometimes (S) |
| Regular (R)Gifted (G) |
115 (56%) 86 (51%) |
35 (17%) 14 (8%) |
54 (54%) 70 (41%) |
When looking at the table, the percentages of positive responses of the two groups were very close. So, it doesn’t seem that this response was dependent on the students’ classifications. However, when we look at the negative responses 17% of the regular students had negative responses when asked about self-esteem/self-belief, but only 8% of the gifted students had answered negatively to these questions. The regular students had once again answered more negatively to the survey than the gifted students had. The gifted students had also answered 41% of the questions with a neutral response. Only 26% of the regular students had answered neutrally to the self-esteem/self-belief questions.
The individual questions on the survey were then looked at to see how they support the results of the Chi-square test. The total responses for the individual questions can be found in Appendix G. When the students were asked if they were a happy person, 55% of the regular students said yes they were. Only 29% of the gifted students said yes they were happy. The regular students were higher than the gifted students in positive responses. This supported the fact that there was a slightly higher percentage of positive responses overall by the regular students as seen in Table 2. When asked if they thought that they had good ideas when they worked in groups, 55% of the regular students said yes, they did. Thirty-five percent of the gifted students said that they had good ideas when working in groups. This also supported the regular students having a slightly higher percentage of positive responses overall.
When asked if they felt like they gave up easily on assignments, “yes” was the negative response and “no” was the positive response. Eighty-three percent of the regular students said they did not give up easily. Sixty-nine percent of the gifted students said that they did not give up easily on assignments. When the students were asked in they felt like they were an important member of their class, 20% of the regular students answered “no”, whereas only 6% of the gifted students said they didn’t feel like an important member of their class. To go along with this questions the students were asked if they felt like other students looked up to them as a leader. Forty percent of the regular students said “no” they didn’t, but only 18% of the gifted students felt that others didn’t look up to them as leaders. These questions support the results of the regular students responding more negatively to the self-esteem/self-belief survey.
The Chi-square test showed us that a student’s classification was dependent on how they responded to the survey. But, the percentages of both group’s positive responses were almost equal, so the positive responses weren’t dependent of the classification. It was the negative responses where there was a larger difference and it was the regular students who responded more negatively to questions about self-esteem and self-belief.
When looking at both of the gifted surveys and the interviews it was found that the gifted students did find the separate gifted and talented class to be harder than their previous classes, and that there was a lot of competition in the class. Initially, these things lead to lower self-esteem and self-belief for some of the students. However, it appeared that the positive aspects of the class like independent time and acceleration increased the students’ self-esteem and self-belief. The class allowed them to enjoy their abilities and not be embarrassed by them. When looking at the effects the separate class had on self-esteem and self-belief, it would appear that initially these things are impacted negatively, but that there are other aspects of the class that positively impacted the students. Neither was more influential than the other on the students.
How will removing gifted intermediate students from a regular classroom affect the regular classroom teacher’s perspective of the class?
This research question was answered through the interviews of the three regular, fourth grade teachers, who would have had the gifted students in their regular class had there not been a separate gifted and talented class. When the teachers were asked how the separate gifted and talented class had affected their classroom the most important point the teachers made was that they had lost the leadership that the gifted students brought into their classes. One teacher said, “I would have liked to have them, like I said, for the leadership role, um, they are the ones who keep the other kids moving. They question a lot, open discussion more. They have just a deeper level thinking” (Personal interview teacher 2, December 2006). The other teachers said pretty much the same thing. They liked having the gifted students because they were examples to the other students.
However, the teachers had found a positive out of this situation. One teacher said:
If I were to have any of those students (gifted students) in here, I think that the ones who seem to be shining right now wouldn’t be shining. So now I see I have two boys and a girl, a couple of girls, who are actually shining and who would probably not be the shining star before (Personal interview teacher 3, December 2006).
Another teacher said that at the beginning of the year it was difficult because the kids were used to the gifted students being the leaders in the class. Now that those students had been put into the separate gifted and talented class, other students had to take their place. The teacher watched students begin to step up and take that leadership role, and the students grew in a way that they might not have if the gifted students had been in the regular class.
Although the teachers missed the leadership that the gifted students brought to a regular classroom, they did not notice a huge difference in their classes because other students were able to step into that role. These students probably wouldn’t have had that opportunity if the gifted students had been in the regular class. So, the teacher found that a separate gifted and talented class produced positive results in the regular classroom.
Other Findings
After reviewing the surveys and interviews a common topic began to emerge. The gifted class was a multi-grade class and this seemed to cause some concerns for the students and the teachers involved in the study. In the gifted and talented class the teacher was being forced to split the time between the two grades. When the teacher was working with the fourth grade students, the fifth grade students had to work on their own. The independent work was something the students liked, but what they didn’t like was the fact that they couldn’t ask for help if they didn’t understand something because the teacher was with the other grade at the time. The students also felt rushed with things because the teacher had to fit in two lessons for each subject each day.
On the open answer gifted survey, when asked if there was something they didn’t like about having two grades in one class, twelve of the seventeen (71%) students mentioned not being able to get help when they needed it, or they mentioned feeling rushed with everything going on. One student said, “The things I don’t like are that my teacher can’t help me with a problem when she’s working with the other grade. Also because the other grade is talking when we are doing something” (Gifted free response student 1, December 2006). Another student said, “There is too much going on. Many people are confused. There are too many things to do” (Gifted free response student 6, December 2006). When talking about feeling rushed, another students said, “I don’t like the having to hurry to do stuff because you have more time in a one-grade class” (Gifted free response student 12, December 2006).
During an interview, one of the gifted students said, “When you are working and she is working with the other grade and you have a question she has to wait for a while until they are doing something and then she can come to you, so it’s really hard” (Personal interview student 1, December 2007). The teachers also talked about their concern for this structure of the class. One teacher said:
The way that it’s a split-level, I think is kind of a huge disadvantage to those kids, because they aren’t getting the full teacher time. I don’t know exactly how they are running it, I’m, curious to know, but from my experience, I actually student-taught in a gifted and talented split-level classroom and the way that she ran it a lot of time she would have to take the fourth graders and the fifth graders would be working on paper work or things by themselves and they didn’t have that teacher time unless I happened to be there and then I would take the one group and she would take the other group. But the times I wasn’t in there student teaching then, they didn’t have that teacher time and she had to constantly keep switching back and forth, back and forth, and so some of the different things, like math for example. If she is working with one group if you have a question and you aren’t in her group. You can’t ask it. And you kind of have to struggle on or work through it yourself. So, I don’t know how they are doing it (Personal interview teacher 1, December 2007).
This teacher had actually experienced teaching in a separate gifted class and saw how hard it was to have two grades in one class. The other teachers also had concerns about having the two grades in one class and that it might be something that is difficult to manage. The separate gifted and talented classroom was a multi-grade class and it appeared to cause some negative effects on the classroom and its students.
Summary
The data from the surveys and interviews was looked at and discussed. In regards to social relationships the gifted and talented class had some negative effects and it had some positive effects on the students, neither was more prominent than the other. In terms of self-esteem and self-belief, the students were affected negatively and positively. Neither one was more prominent than the other. When looking at the regular classroom, it was found that although the leadership that the gifted students brought was missed at first, other students were able to step into those roles. This allowed them to take a leadership role in the regular classroom that they might not have taken if the gifted students been in there. It was also found that the multi-grade structure of the gifted class had some negative effects on the students’ learning.
Section Five: Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
Summary
The purpose of this study was to discuss the social and emotional effects of a full day gifted and talented program. It was answering the following questions: How does ability grouping affect a gifted intermediate student’s social relationships? How will the separate classroom affect the gifted intermediate student’s self-belief and self-esteem? How will removing gifted intermediate students from a regular classroom affect the regular classroom teacher’s perspective of the class? The methods that were used in this study were interviews and surveys. There were two surveys that were used. One survey was in a yes/no/sometimes format. This was for both the gifted students and the regular students. There was also an open-ended survey created for only the gifted students. The interviews were with the teachers in all three of the fourth grade regular classrooms. Four of the gifted students were also interviewed using the free response questions from the gifted survey as the interview questions.
The interviews and free response surveys were coded and themes were found using Miles and Huberman’s (1994) quantitative analysis. They were then talked about in a discussion by the researcher. The survey given to the regular students and the gifted students was separated into social aspect questions and self-esteem/self-belief questions. Then, using the Chi-square test for independence the researcher looked to see if there was a relationship between the classification of a student and their response to the survey.
When looking at the data it was found that some students had more friends because they were in a class with other students like them. Others found that they had lost friends because they were in the separate class. It appeared that having the students in a separate gifted and talented class affected some of the students’ social relationships positively and others were affected negatively. When the gifted students were compared to the regular students there was no difference between their positive answers, and the regular students were found to be more negative in their social responses than the gifted students were.
The data for self-esteem and self-belief also produced positive effects and negative effects. The large amount of independent time and the acceleration of the class allowed students to excel and grow. Being in class with other gifted students also allowed them be proud of their abilities, not embarrassed like some students had been in their regular classes. There was also a lot of competition and pressure in the gifted and talented class. The class was harder with greater expectations. This affected the students’ self-esteem and self-belief negatively at times. When the gifted students were compared with the regular students it was found that there was only a five percent difference between the two group’s positive responses, and the regular students were found to be more negative in their self-esteem/self-belief responses.
When looking at the data in regards to the effects on the regular classroom, it was found that at the beginning of the year the teachers were concerned about losing the leadership that gifted students brought to their classes. However, the teachers found that other students began to take on that leadership role. This was a positive for the regular class. Having the gifted students in a separate gifted and talented class allowed students who normally wouldn’t have, step up and take on a leadership role in the classroom. So, the separate gifted and talented class affected the regular class positively.
Conclusions
This study supported the conclusion made by researchers that putting gifted students in classes with other gifted students was socially beneficial for them. (Rimm, 2002; Schneider, 1987; Silverman, 1993; Silverman, n.d.). However, there were also findings that disputed the research. Some of the gifted students lost friends because they were in the separate gifted and talented class.
Overall, when discussing the social relationships of the gifted and talented students, it was found that although there were some negative social aspects created by the separate gifted and talented class, there were also positive aspects, and neither was more prominent than the other. This supports Delcourt’s et al. (1994) conclusion that there was no difference in students’ social relationships when looking at the four different grouping methods used for gifted students (within-class, pull-out, separate class, special school).
The findings of this study also supported the research found in regards to the pressure put on gifted students to hide their abilities in a regular class so that they don’t stand out. (Kerr 1995; Kerr & Cohn 2002; Reis 2002; Rimm 2002; Winebrenner, 1999). It also found the students weren’t embarrassed about their abilities when they were in the separate gifted and talented class.
For the survey that was given to the gifted students and regular students, the gifted students self-esteem and self-belief had not been tested the year before in a regular class, so this study was not able to test if those aspects had changed over the year. But, it did test whether or not there was a difference of self-esteem/self-belief between gifted students in a separate gifted and talented class and students in a regular class. The study found that the gifted students self-esteem/self-belief responses were 5% lower than the regular students. This is a small percentage and it supports Hoge and Renzulli’s (1991) research that found there was no major deficit in the self-esteem of gifted students when compared to non-gifted students.
This study supported the contention that a gifted students’ self-concept is affected in a positive way when the gifted student is in a separate gifted and talented class (Kulik, 1992). However, it also supported the research that found that putting gifted students into a separate gifted class might have some negative impact on their self-concept because of the competition that can be created (Hoge & Renzulli, 1991; Coleman & Fults, 1982).
This study also supported Kenny et al. (1995) who found that gifted students worked at faster paces and produced more when working with other gifted students, and that this acceleration was a benefit to the gifted students’ self-esteem and self-belief.
Lastly, when discussing the regular classroom, this study agreed with Delcourt el al. (1994) when they found that having gifted programs did not have a negative effect on the academic achievement of non-gifted learners.
Recommendations for Practice
The significance of this study was to see if a separate gifted and talented class was beneficial for gifted students. The researcher wanted to know if there were any negative effects socially or emotionally. Based on this study I believe that having a separate gifted and talented class in schools is beneficial for gifted students. It gave the students a place to find friends and to move at an accelerated pace. Although there were some negative aspects of the class, overall the gifted students’ self-esteem, self-belief and social relationships were not significantly affected, and the regular class was not effected negatively.
Recommendations for Future Study
During this study it was found that having the class structured as a multi-grade class was a negative aspect. I would recommend further researching separate gifted and talented classes that are both multi-grade and those that aren’t to see if this aspect makes a difference in the class. The separate gifted and talented class was also using a scripted curriculum. This could have been contributed to some of the negative responses that were found in this study towards the multi-grade class structure that was used. I would recommend further study on multi-grade classes that use scripted curriculum versus those that don’t. I would also recommend replicating this study with different age groups and with larger populations so see if different results are found.
References
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.
Bednar, R.L., Wells, M.G., & Peterson, S.R. (1989), Self-esteem: Paradoxes and
innovations in clinical theory and practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1993). Measures of self-esteem. In J.P. Robinson, P.R.
Shaver, and L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.) Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes: Third Edition. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.
Branden, N. (1997). What self-esteem is and is not. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from
http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/pdf/what_self_esteem.pdf
Burns, J. (1994). Creating new paradigms for a school inclusion model for the gifted.
Unpublished manuscript.
Coleman, J. M., & Fults, B. A. (1982). Self-concept and the gifted classroom:
The role of social comparisons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 116-119.
Coopersmith, S., & Feldman, R. (1974). Fostering a positive self-concept and high self-
esteem in the classroom. In R.H. Coop &K. White (Eds.), Psychological concepts in the classroom (p. 192-225). New York. Harper and Row.
Covington, M. (1989). Self-esteem and failure in school. The Social Importance of
Self-Esteem. U.C. Press, Berkeley, CA.
Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. O. (1985). Educating able learners: Programs
and promising practices. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
Delcourt, M., Loyd, B., Cornell, D., & Goldberg, M. Evaluation of the effects of
programming arrangements on student learning outcomes. Charlottesville, NC: The University of Virginia.
Gallagher, J. J., Weiss, P., Oglesby, K., & Thomas, T. (1983). The status of
gifted/talented education: United States surveys of needs, practices, and policies.
Ventura County, CA: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Office.
Gentry, M., & Owen, S.V. (2004). Secondary student perceptions of classroom quality:
Instrumentation and differences between advanced/honors and nonhonors classes.
The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, XVI No. 1 (Fall ), 20-29.
Gordon, K.A. (1996). Resilient hispanic youths’ self-concept and motivational patterns.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 18, 63-73.
Gorrell, J. L. (1998). A study comparing the effect of multiage education practices versus
traditional education practices on academic achievement. Unpublished Report/Research, Salem-Teiyko University, Salem, WV.
Guskey, T., & Lindle, J. (1997). Research on multi-age/multi-grade classes (Report).
Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.
Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Eribaum.
Hoge, R. D., & Renzulli, J. S. (1991). Self-concept and the gifted child. Storrs,
CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Holly, W. (1987). Self-esteem: Does it contribute to students’ academic success?
Eugene, OR: Oregon School Study Council, Univ. of Oregon.
Kenny, D. A., Archambault, F.X., & Hallmark, B.W. (1995). The effects of group
composition on gifted and non-gifted elementary students in cooperative learning groups (Report). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Kerr, B.A. (1995). Smart girls: A new psychology of girls, women, and giftedness.
Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.
Kerr, B.A., & Cohn, S.J. (2002). Smart boys: Talent, manhood, and the search for
meaning. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and
contemporary perspectives (Report). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
Lent, R. W., Brown, S.D., & Larkin, K.C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations
to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31 No. 3, 356-362.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S.D., & Larkin, K.C. (1986). Self-efficacy in the prediction of
academic performance and perceived career options. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33 No. 3, 265-269.
Lloyd, L. (1999). Multi-Age Classes and High Ability Students. Review of Educational
Research. 69 (2), 187-212.
Mann, P. S. (2004). Introductory Statistics (5th ed.). U.S.A. : John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Marsh, H.W. (1993). Academic self-concept: Theory, measurement, and research. In J.
Suls (Ed.), Psychological Perspectives on the Self, 4, 59-98. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.
Marsh, H.W., Byrne, B., & Shavelson, R.J. (1988). A multifaceted academic self-
concept: Its hierarchical structure and it relation to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 366-380.
Marsh, H.W., & Shavelson, R.J. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical
structure. Educational Psychologists, 20, 107-125.
Mason, D.A., & Burns, R.B. (1996). “Simply no worse and simply no better” may simply
be wrong: A critique of Veenman’s conclusions about multi-grade classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 307-322.
Mathews, F.N. (1995). Current issues in gifted and talented education. Louisiana
Gifted/Talented Digest, 22 (1), 5-6.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (Second Edition ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
NAGC. (2006). What is Gifted. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from
http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=574&ir
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1996). Predictive utility and casual influence of
the writing self-efficacy beliefs of elementary students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66 No. 4(Winter), 543-578.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students’
writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 90 No. 6(July/August ), 353-360.
Pajares, F., Johnson, M.J., & Miller, M.D. (1999). Gender differences in writing self-
beliefs of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 No. 1, 50-61.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing self-
beliefs of middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 390-405.
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics
performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 124-139.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-belief and school success: Self-efficacy, self-
concept, and school achievement. In S. Rayner, Riding, R. (Ed.), Perception (pp. 239-266). London: Ablex Publishing
Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved
May 14, 2007, from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html
Reasoner, R. (1994). Building self-esteem in elementary schools: Administrators guide.
Consulting Psychological Press. Palo Alto, CA, 1994.
Reis, R.M. (2002). Gifted females in elementary and secondary school. In M. Neihart, S.
M. Reis, N.M. Robinson, & S.M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 125-135). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Reis, S. (1981). TAG serves the gifted and talented. Today’s Education, 70,
22E-25E.
Reis, S., Renzulli, J., & Westberg, K. (1994). Effects of inclusion on high ability students:
Concerns raised by current research. Unpublished manuscripts.
Richardson, C. (2003). The relationship between self-esteem and reading. Unpublished
Thesis, Kean University.
Rimm, S. (2002) Peer pressures and social acceptance of gifted students. In M. Neihart,
S.M. Reis, N.M. Robinson, & S.M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 13-18). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Schneider, B. H. (1987). The gifted child in peer group perspectives. New York:
Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
Schunk, D. H. (1985). Self-efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the Schools,
22 (April), 208-221.
Sheely, A. R. (1998). A circle of friends: The nature and nurturing of social relationships
among gifted children. Understanding Our Gifted (Fall 1998), 3-8.
Silverman, L. K. (n.d.). Social development vs. socialization (Report). Denver, CO:
Gifted Development Center.
Silverman, L.K. (1993). Social development, leadership and gender. In L.K. Silverman
(Eds.) Counseling the Gifted and Talented. Denver:Love.
Tatkovic, N. (2005). Communication for the purpose of encouraging gifted students
(Report): University of Rijeka.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Retrieved July 14, 2007, from
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en&_ts=
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1987). Point-counterpoint: The ineffectiveness of the
pull-out program model in gifted education, a minority perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 255-263.
Veenman, S. (1995). Cognitive and noncognitive effects of multigrade and multi-age
classes: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65 No. 4 (Winter, 1995), 319-381.
Walz, G. R., & Bleuer, J.C. (1992). Student self-esteem (Vol. 1). Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Counseling and Personnel Services, Inc. .
Winebrenner, S. (1999). The dyssynchrony of being different. Understanding Our Gifted
(Spring 1999), 108.
Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. . (1990). Student differences in self-regulated
learning: relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 No. 1, 51-59.
Appendix A: Teacher Interview Questions.
- Do you feel that having a separate gifted and talented program has affected your classroom? Why or why not? (Give Examples)
- How many of your students from your class last year are in the gifted and talented class now?
- Have you noticed a difference in the behaviors of your students from last year? If yes, what types of things specifically?
- Do the students seem to like the gifted and talented class? If yes, what have they said to make you believe so?
- How many students were you supposed to have this year that were put into the new gifted and talented class? How did you feel about this?
- What are some strengths of the separate gifted and talented class?
- What are some of your concerns about the separate gifted and talented class?
- Do you believe that this type of ability grouping might affect the social relationships of the students in the gifted and talented class? In what ways?
- Do you believe that the separate classroom might affect the student’s self-concept and self-esteem? In what ways?
Appendix B: Gifted Students’ Free Response Survey
Do you have as many friends as you did last year? Yes or No? Why do you think you do? Why do you think you don’t?
What is the best part of having two grades in one class?
Are there some things you don’t like about having two grades in one class? What are they?
Is this class harder than your class last year? Yes or No? Why, or why not?
If you could change anything about your school schedule, what would it be?
Appendix C: Gifted Student and Regular Student Survey
Circle the answer that best represents how you feel about the statement
.
Example:
I like to play video games.
1. I am a happy person.
2. It is easy for me to make friends.
3. I feel that I am confident in school.
4. I am shy when I am around other students.
5. When I grow up I think I will be an important person.
6. I am popular among my fellow classmates.
7. I have a lot of friends.
8. I feel that I am a strong student in school.
Yes Sometimes No
Yes Sometimes No
Yes Sometimes No
Yes Sometimes No
Yes Sometimes No
Yes Sometimes No
Yes Sometimes No
Yes No
Yes Sometimes No
9. I have good ideas when I work in groups.
10. I feel like I give up easily on assignments.
11. I feel I do well on my schoolwork
12. I am an important member of my class.
13. In school I am a daydreamer.
14. I enjoy hanging out with my friends during recess.
15. I enjoy hanging out with kids who are not in my class during lunch and recess.
16. I feel like other students look up to me as a leader.
17. Sometimes, other students make fun of me.
Yes Sometimes No
Yes Sometimes No
Yes Sometimes No
Yes Sometimes No
Yes Sometimes No
Yes Sometimes No
Yes Sometimes No
Yes Sometimes No
Yes Sometimes No
Appendix D: Parent Letter
Dear Parent,
My name is Desirae Smoot; I am a graduate student under the direction of Dr. Debra Yates at Albertson College of Idaho. I am also student teaching in the 4th grade at Lewis and Clark Elementary School. Currently I am planning on conducting a research study about the Gifted and Talented Class at Lewis and Clark Elementary. The purpose of this study is to look at the impacts of a full-day gifted and talented program on the students. The study will involve students taking a survey one time during the month of December. The surveys will be taken anonymously. The questions on the survey will deal with the student’s self-concept and social aspects of school. This study and the survey instrument were reviewed and approved by ACI faculty members and you child’s teacher.
I am very excited for this research and I hope that you will be willing to allow your child to help me.
If you are willing to allow your child to complete this survey, please sign the attached consent form and return it to your child’s teacher as soon as possible. Your child’s participation in this study is voluntary, so if you choose to not have your child participate, it will not affect his/her grade. The results of the research study may be published, but neither your child’s name nor the name of the school will be used.
If you have any questions concerning your child’s participation in this, please contact me at 208-921-4090.
Sincerely,
Desirae Smoot
Graduate Student
Albertson College of Idaho
Yes_____ My child may participate in the survey.
No _____ I don’t wish for my student to participate.
____________________________ _____________________________
Child’s Name Parent’s Signature
______________________________
Parent’s Printed Name
Appendix E: Codes Used for Analysis
|
Code |
Meaning |
Research Question |
| G.T.-S.R./POS. |
Positive gifted student social response |
Question 1 |
| G.T.-S.R./NEG. |
Negative gifted student social response |
Question 1 |
| T.R.- S.R./POS. |
Positive teacher social response |
Question 1 |
| T.R.- S.R./NEG. |
Negative teacher social response |
Question 1 |
| G.T.-S.E./POS. |
Positive gifted student self-esteem response |
Question 2 |
| G.T.-S.E./NEG. |
Negative gifted student self-esteem response |
Question 2 |
| T.R.-S.E./POS. |
Positive teacher self-esteem response |
Question 2 |
| T.R.-S.E./NEG. |
Negative teacher self-esteem response |
Question 2 |
| G.T.-S.B./POS. |
Positive gifted student self-belief response |
Question 2 |
| G.T.-S.B./NEG. |
Negative gifted student self-belief response |
Question 2 |
| T.R.-S.B./POS. |
Positive teacher self-belief response |
Question 2 |
| T.R.-S.B./NEG. |
Negative teacher self-belief response |
Question 2 |
| T.R.-REG./POS. |
Positive teacher response to removal of gifted students from regular classroom. |
Question 3 |
| T.R-REG./NEG. |
Negative teacher response to removal of gifted students from regular classroom. |
Question 3 |
| G.T.-M.G./POS. |
Positive gifted student response to the multi-grade class |
Other Findings |
| G.T.-M.G./NEG |
Negative gifted student response to the multi-grade class |
Other Findings |
| T.R.-M.G./POS. |
Positive teacher response to the multi-grade class |
Other Findings |
| T.R.-M.G./NEG. |
Positive gifted student response to the multi-grade class |
Other Findings |
Appendix F: Social Aspects
Social Aspects
|
Yes |
No |
Sometimes |
|
|
| #2 |
7/35% |
8/40% |
5/25% |
Regular |
| #2#4* |
8/44% 7/35% |
9/50% 6/30% |
1/6% 7/35% |
Gifted Regular |
| #4* |
1/6% |
10/59% |
6/35% |
Gifted |
| #6 |
5/26% |
4/21% |
10/53% |
Regular |
| #6 |
6/33% |
7/39% |
5/28% |
Gifted |
| #7 |
10/50% |
4/20% |
6/30% |
Regular |
| #7 |
16/89% |
|
2/11% |
Gifted |
| #14 |
18/90% |
2/10% |
|
Regular |
| #14 |
13/81% |
3/19% |
|
Gifted |
| #15 |
9/45% |
3/15% |
8/40% |
Regular |
| #15 |
6/38% |
9/56% |
1/6% |
Gifted |
| #16 |
7/35% |
5/25% |
8/40% |
Regular |
| #16 |
2/13% |
11/69% |
3/18% |
Gifted |
| #17* |
5/25% |
7/35% |
8/40% |
Regular |
| #17* |
5/31% |
7/44% |
4/25% |
Gifted |
| Total |
68 |
39 |
52 |
Regular |
|
57 |
56 |
22 |
Gifted |
|
| *These answers were reversed for the purpose of calculations | ||||
Appendix G: Self-Esteem/Self-Belief Aspects
Self-Esteem/Self-Belief Aspects
|
Yes |
No |
Sometimes |
|
|
| #1 |
11/55% |
8/40% |
1/5% |
Regular |
| #1#3 |
5/29% 11/58% |
12/71% 6/32% |
2/10% |
Gifted Regular |
| #3 |
12/67% |
4/22% |
2/11% |
Gifted |
| #5 |
11/55% |
6/301% |
3/15% |
Regular |
| #5 |
13/72% |
2/11% |
3/17% |
Gifted |
| #8 |
11/55% |
6/30% |
3/15% |
Regular |
| #8 |
10/55% |
7/39% |
1/6% |
Gifted |
| #9 |
11/55% |
7/35% |
2/10% |
Regular |
| #9 |
6/35% |
10/59% |
1/6% |
Gifted |
| #10* |
2/11% |
3/17% |
15/83% |
Regular |
| #10* |
|
5/31% |
11/69% |
Gifted |
| #11 |
13/65% |
4/20% |
3/15% |
Regular |
| #11 |
10/63% |
6/37% |
|
Gifted |
| #12 |
11/55% |
5/25% |
4/20% |
Regular |
| #12 |
8/50% |
7/44% |
1/6% |
Gifted |
| #13* |
2/10% |
4/20% |
14/70% |
Regular |
| #13* |
1/6% |
6/38% |
9/56% |
Gifted |
| #16 |
7/35% |
5/25% |
8/40% |
Regular |
| #16 |
2/13% |
11/69% |
3/18% |
Gifted |
| Total |
90 |
54 |
55 |
Regular |
|
67 |
70 |
34 |
Gifted |
|
| *These answers were reversed for the purpose of calculations | ||||
Appendix H: Social Aspects After Answers Were Reversed
Social Aspects After Answers Were Reversed
|
Yes |
No |
Sometimes |
|
|
| #2 |
7/35% |
8/40% |
5/25% |
Regular |
| #2#4* |
8/44% 7/35% |
9/50% 6/30% |
1/6% 7/35% |
Gifted Regular |
| #4* |
6/35% |
10/59% |
1/6% |
Gifted |
| #6 |
5/26% |
4/21% |
10/53% |
Regular |
| #6 |
6/33% |
7/39% |
5/28% |
Gifted |
| #7 |
10/50% |
4/20% |
6/30% |
Regular |
| #7 |
16/89% |
|
2/11% |
Gifted |
| #14 |
18/90% |
2/10% |
|
Regular |
| #14 |
13/81% |
3/19% |
|
Gifted |
| #15 |
9/45% |
3/15% |
8/40% |
Regular |
| #15 |
6/38% |
9/56% |
1/6% |
Gifted |
| #16 |
7/35% |
5/25% |
8/40% |
Regular |
| #16 |
2/13% |
11/69% |
3/18% |
Gifted |
| #17* |
5/25% |
7/35% |
8/40% |
Regular |
| #17* |
4/25% |
7/44% |
5/31% |
Gifted |
| Total |
68 |
39 |
52 |
Regular |
|
57 |
56 |
22 |
Gifted |
|
| *These answers were reversed for the purpose of calculations | ||||
Appendix I: Self-Esteem/Self-Belief Aspects After Answers Were Reversed
Self-Esteem/Self-Belief Aspects After Answers Were Reversed
|
Yes |
No |
Sometimes |
|
|
| #1 |
11/55% |
8/40% |
1/5% |
Regular |
| #1#3 |
5/29% 11/58% |
12/71% 6/32% |
2/10% |
Gifted Regular |
| #3 |
12/67% |
4/22% |
2/11% |
Gifted |
| #5 |
11/55% |
6/301% |
3/15% |
Regular |
| #5 |
13/72% |
2/11% |
3/17% |
Gifted |
| #8 |
11/55% |
6/30% |
3/15% |
Regular |
| #8 |
10/55% |
7/39% |
1/6% |
Gifted |
| #9 |
11/55% |
7/35% |
2/10% |
Regular |
| #9 |
6/35% |
10/59% |
1/6% |
Gifted |
| #10* |
15/83% |
3/17% |
2/11% |
Regular |
| #10* |
11/69% |
5/31% |
|
Gifted |
| #11 |
13/65% |
4/20% |
3/15% |
Regular |
| #11 |
10/63% |
6/37% |
|
Gifted |
| #12 |
11/55% |
5/25% |
4/20% |
Regular |
| #12 |
8/50% |
7/44% |
1/6% |
Gifted |
| #13* |
14/70% |
4/20% |
2/10% |
Regular |
| #13* |
9/56% |
6/38% |
1/6% |
Gifted |
| #16 |
7/35% |
5/25% |
8/40% |
Regular |
| #16 |
2/13% |
11/69% |
3/18% |
Gifted |
| Total |
90 |
54 |
55 |
Regular |
|
67 |
70 |
34 |
Gifted |
|
| *These answers were reversed for the purpose of calculations | ||||
Appendix J: Chi-Square Calculations for Social Apsects
Comparison of Social Responses for Regular and Gifted Students
|
|
Positive (P) |
Negative (N) |
Sometimes (S) |
| Regular (R)Gifted (G) |
71 61 |
49 18 |
39 56 |
Comparison of Social Responses for Regular and Gifted Students With Totals
|
|
Positive (P) |
Negative (N) |
Sometimes (S) |
Row Totals |
| Regular (R) |
71 |
49 |
39 |
159 |
| Gifted(G) |
61 |
18 |
56 |
135 |
| Column Totals |
132 |
67 |
95 |
294 |
Expected Frequencies of Social Responses for Regular and Gifted Students
|
Positive (P) |
Negative (N) |
Sometimes (S) |
Row Totals |
|
| Regular (R) |
71 E = 71.39 |
49 E =36.23 |
39 E =51.38 |
159 |
| Gifted (G) |
61 E = 60.61 |
18 E =30.77 |
56 E =43.62 |
135 |
| Column Total |
132 |
67 |
95 |
294 |
x² = ∑ (Observed Cell Frequency-Expected Cell Frequency)²
Expected Cell Frequency
x² = (71-71.39)² + (49-36.23)² + (39-51.38)² + (61-60.61)² + (18-30.77)² + (56-43.62)²
71.39 36.23 51.38 60.61 30.77 43.62
x² = 16.3
df = (R-1) (C-1) =(2-1) (3-1) =2
Appendix K: Chi-Square Calculations for Self-Esteem/Self-Belief Aspects
Comparison of Self-esteem/Self-Belief Responses for Regular and Gifted Students
|
|
Positive (P) |
Negative (N) |
Sometimes (S) |
| Regular (R)Gifted (G) |
115 86 |
35 14 |
54 70 |
Comparison of Self-esteem/Self-Belief Responses for Regular and Gifted Students With Totals
|
|
Positive (P) |
Negative (N) |
Sometimes (S) |
Row Totals |
| Regular (R) |
115 |
35 |
54 |
204 |
| Gifted (G) |
86 |
14 |
70 |
170 |
| Column Totals |
201 |
49 |
124 |
374 |
Expected Frequencies of Social Responses for Regular and Gifted Students
|
Positive (P) |
Negative (N) |
Sometimes (S) |
Row Totals |
|
| Regular (R) |
115 E =109.64 |
35 E =26.73 |
54 E =67.64 |
204 |
| Gifted (G) |
86 E =91.36 |
14 E =22.27 |
70 E =56.36 |
170 |
| Column Total |
201 |
49 |
124 |
374 |
x² = ∑ (Observed Cell Frequency-Expected Cell Frequency)²
Expected Cell Frequency
x² = (115-109.64)² + (35-26.73)² + (54-67.64)² + (86-91.36)² + (14-22.27)² + (70-56.36)²
109.64 26.73 67.64 91.36 22.27 56.36
x² = 11.74
df = (R-1) (C-1) =(2-1) (3-1) =2
