University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching

(USC Thesis Other)

Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content FACTORS INFLUENCING GIFTED STUDENTS' PREFERENCES
FOR MODELS OF TEACHING

by

Georgianna Ravenna

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Georgianna Ravenna

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge several people, without whose support, the
completion of this dissertation would not have been possible. First, I would like to thank
my dissertation chair, Dr. Sandra Kaplan, for sharing her expertise in teaching and in
gifted education, and for her guidance and support throughout this process. Second, I
would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Margo Pensavalle and Dr. Gisele
Ragusa for providing me with their input and sharing their expertise, as well. Third, I
would like to thank Terry Petersen, a member of my dissertation cohort and a good
friend, who shared many ups and downs with me throughout the doctoral program, and
who was a constant source of support and encouragement. Lastly, I would like to thank
my family, especially my husband and my children, for their love, understanding,
patience, and support while I completed this program.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF FIGURES vi
ABSTRACT vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 13
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS 51
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH FINDINGS 70
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS 131
REFERENCES 153
APPENDICES 165
Appendix A: Student Survey 165
Appendix B: Q-Sort 170
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 171
Appendix D: Data Collection Form 174

iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Student Responses to Teaching Models in Math 76
Table 2: Student Responses to Teaching Models in Social Studies 80
Table 3: Student Responses to Teaching Models in Science 83
Table 4: Student Responses to Teaching Models in Language Arts 87
Table 5: Teaching Models Across Content Areas 90
Table 6: Gifted and Non-Gifted Students’ Preferences for Models of Teaching 95
in Math

Table 7: Gifted and Non-Gifted Students’ Preferences for Models of Teaching 96
in Math

Table 8: Gifted and Non-Gifted Students’ Preferences for Models of Teaching 97
in Social Studies

Table 9: Gifted and Non-Gifted Students’ Preferences for Models of Teaching 98
in Language Arts

Table 10: Gifted and Non-Gifted Students’ Preferences for Models of Teaching 98
in Language Arts

Table 11: Second Grade Students’ Preferences for Instructional Experiences 101
in Teaching Models

Table 12: Second Grade Students’ Reasons for Choices of Instructional 107
Experiences

Table 13: Fourth Grade Students’ Preferences for Instructional Experiences 110
in Teaching Models

Table 14: Fourth Grade Students’ Reasons for Choices of Instructional 114
Experiences

v

Table 15: Fifth Grade Students’ Preferences for Instructional Experiences 117
in Teaching Models

Table 16: Fifth Grade Students’ Reasons for Choices of Instructional Experiences 122
vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Steps/Instructional Experiences in Models of Teaching 61
Figure 2: Q-Sort 62
Figure 3: Data Matrix 65
Figure 4: Q-Sort Factor Analysis 66
vii

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine gifted students’ preferences for models
of teaching and the specific factors contributing to those preferences. The sample
population included students in grades 2-5 from economically, linguistically, and
culturally diverse backgrounds, in urban, suburban, and rural districts. Students in the
experimental groups were taught with instructional models by teachers who had
participated in the differentiated professional development plan. Gifted and potentially
gifted students were included. The research questions sought to determine the following
what factors influenced gifted students’ (in grades 2-5) preferences for a model of
instruction related to the teaching and learning of various subject matter; if there was a
difference between gifted and not identified as gifted students’ preferences for a model of
teaching; and what factors (interest, challenge) affected students’ preferences for
instructional experiences in each model of teaching, to what degree, and why.
In this mixed methods study, students were administered a survey in which they
chose the instructional model they preferred math, social studies, science, and language
arts. A Q-sort asked students to choose the specific instructional experiences they found
to be most, somewhat, and least challenging, and most, somewhat, and least interesting
and why. Chi-square tests of significance were used to scrutinize the survey responses,
while factor analysis was utilized to study the responses to the Q-Sort. A qualitative
examination of interview data identified trends amongst the responses.
viii

No significant differences were found between gifted and non-gifted students’
preferences for a model of teaching by grade level. Students cited interest and challenge
as the primary factors influencing their choices. Gifted students preferred the group
investigation model in 3 of 4 content areas and the advance organizer to the concept
attainment model in language arts. A principal component analysis of the factors
influencing students’ preferences for steps of the teaching models revealed marginal
differences between the choices of gifted and non-gifted students; however, all students
preferred steps involving research, and working with the big idea.

1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
According to John Dewey (1973) “Education is the fundamental method of social
progress and reform” (p. 453). As such, it enables society to advance by way of purpose,
economy, and direction. Of utmost importance then is the means by which individuals
may receive the most fruitful education. Studies indicate that the teacher plays a pivotal
role in student learning (Good, 2003). In fact, the teacher is the most essential educational
determinant of student learning and development (Eggen, 2006).
It has also been noted that a core body of knowledge is essential to developing
expertise in the teaching field. Specifically, the most skilled teachers are deemed to be
well versed in four specific categories of knowledge: (a) content or subject matter
knowledge, (b) pedagogical content knowledge or the understanding of specific subject
matter knowledge for teaching, (c) general pedagogical knowledge, an overall
understanding of instructional principles, and (d) knowledge of learning and the learners,
which refers to the teachers capabilities to adapt instruction based on the aforementioned
data (Eggen, 2006; Shulman, 1986). These categories of knowledge help teachers make
professional decisions regarding both curriculum (or the content to be taught), and
instruction (how such curriculum is to be taught) (Eggen, 2006; Rogers, 2002). When
teachers understand their own preferences and strengths, they are able to utilize
compatible instructional strategies to improve their teaching effectiveness (Eggen, 2006).
2

Additional factors, which impact a teacher’s choice of teaching strategies, are the
students, and subject matter to be taught. Instructional objectives vary according to
content area and purpose. The strategy that a teacher uses to teach reading comprehension
in language arts would not be the same strategy he or she uses to teach factual knowledge
in social studies. Instruction must align with such wide-ranging teaching objectives.
Instruction must also align with students who vary in terms of culture, background,
values, academic capabilities, attitudes, and motivation. It is these variances, which
account for the difference in learners’ receptivity to instructional strategies. Therefore,
what is effective for one student may in turn be ineffective for another (Eggen, 2006;
Marzano, 2003).
For gifted students learning variances may be even more pronounced. In his 1972
report to congress, Sidney P. Marland, who was then the U.S. Commissioner of
Education, defined gifted and talented students as “those identified by professionally
qualified persons who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high performance.
These are children who require differentiated educational programs and/or services
beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize their
contribution to self and society” (Marland, 1972, p. 2). Most researchers agree that gifted
students have special learning needs for which curriculum and instruction should be
adapted (VanTassel-Baska, 2000; Gallagher & Gallagher, 1994). In accordance, the
National Association for Gifted Children emphasizes that instruction should be
differentiated, and curriculum modified “based on assessed achievement and interests of
3

individual students” (Purcell, 2002, p. 309). Still, a major concern in gifted education is
that such students are being overlooked and underdeveloped (Baum, 1994; Rea, 2001). In
fact, the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) reported that the
academic performance of a number of gifted students does not match their tested
capabilities (Rimm, 2003).
Although there are several issues which may contribute to students’
underachievement, researchers claim that one of the more prominent causes is lack of
motivation (McNabb, 2003; Rea, 2001). Motivation is the energy that drives behavior
toward a goal (P. Pintrich, & Schunk, D., 2002). According to Ellen Winner (2000),
gifted children are by definition internally motivated to perfect the area or skill in which
they excel, which renders the underachievement of such individuals that much more
puzzling. “The importance of motivation is especially salient for highly able students, for
whom the difference can be substantial and extremely frustrating for parents, teachers,
and the students themselves” (McNabb, 2003, p. 417).
Researchers suggest that teachers are ill prepared to work with gifted children,
which may lead to boredom, and hence lack of motivation (McNabb, 2003). “When
children are not sufficiently challenged in school, as so often happens to gifted children,
they sometimes lose their motivation and become underachievers” (Winner, 2000, p.
163). What is more, an often overlooked factor in achievement motivation is the
curriculum content and the instructional practices employed by the teacher.

4

Conceptual Framework
Social Cognitive Theory
Self-Efficacy
A teacher may alter a child’s behavior through behavior modification and the
development of self-control, but in order to influence the gifted child’s behavior, so that
he or she will strive to both participate and excel in learning experiences at school, the
curriculum and instruction must be motivating (Whitmore, 1985, p. 318). Social
cognitive theorists aver that self-efficacy plays a significant role in students’ goals and
aspirations and choice of activities, as well as their exertion and perseverance in
academic endeavors (A. Bandura, Barbaranelli, C., Vittorio, G., &Pastorelli, C., 2001).
“Ultimately, then it also affects their motivation and achievement”(Omrod, 2002, p. 341).
Students with high levels of self-efficacy tend to be more cognitively engaged in learning
tasks, and utilize more sophisticated organizational, processing, and metacognitive
strategies, which in turn lead to high levels of achievement (Linnenbrink, 2003).
Cognitive Learning Processes
Self-Regulation/Metacognitive Awareness
The primary responsibility of educators is to recognize and provide the conditions
necessary to foster intellectual growth. “Above all they should utilize the surroundings,
physical and social, that exist so as to extract from them all that they have to contribute to
building up experiences that are worth while” (Dewey, 1938, p. 40). The field of
psychology has provided insight into learning, memory, motivational, and cognitive
5

processes, which may lead to improvements in many aspects of education. For example,
research has shown that successful learners share certain characteristics. They are “active,
goal-oriented, self-regulating, and assume personal responsibility for contributing to their
own learning” (Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school
reform & redesign, p. 3). Moreover, successful learners are able to acquire the strategies
necessary to continue learning throughout their lifetime. A primary goal for gifted and
talented students is to become successful learners, and thus develop into autonomous,
self-directed, life-long learners (Betts, 2004). The question then is how to produce such
successful learners, who will subsequently contribute to society.
Instructional Principles
According to Merrill (2002), there are certain principles shared by most
instructional design models and theories, which most theorists deem a necessity for
competent instruction (p. 44). The following are the five principles:
1) Learning is promoted when learners are engaged in solving real world
problems.
2) Learning is promoted when existing knowledge is activated as a foundation
for new knowledge.
3) Learning is promoted when new knowledge is demonstrated to the learner.
4) Learning is promoted when new knowledge is applied by the learner.
5) Learning is promoted when new knowledge is integrated into the learner’s
world (Merrill, 2002, p. 45).
6

There are many models of instruction which maintain the aforementioned principles.
Furthermore, they maintain strong theoretical backgrounds, as well as long histories of
implementation. “In addition to being validated by experience, all are backed by some
amount of formal research that tests their theories and their abilities to gain effects”
(Joyce, 2004, p. 25).
Instructional Models
Joyce and Weil (2004) have categorized many instructional models into families,
these include the (a) information-processing family; (b) social family; (c) personal
family; and (d) behavioral systems family. The instructional models pertinent to this
study are found in three families: The information-processing family, the social family,
and the behavioral systems family.
The information-processing models help students gain an understanding of the
world by gathering and organizing information, uncovering problems and creating
solutions to them, and advancing concepts and developing the terminology to
communicate them. Examples from this family include the inductive thinking model and
the concept attainment model, both of which guide students in developing concepts and
organizing information, and the advanced organizer, which provides students with a
framework for understanding and synthesizing information.
The social models focus on group interaction and cooperative learning, an
example of which would be the group investigation model. Specifically, through the
group investigation model, students work together to identify problems and explore
7

issues related to such problems, thereby honing their skills and ideas, while becoming
well-versed in the information gathered (Joyce, 2004).
The behavioral systems models focus on behavior modification in response to
information or feedback. “These models focus on “observable behavior and clearly
defined tasks and methods for communicating progress to the student, this family of
teaching models has a firm research foundation” (Joyce, 2004, p. 33). An example of this
type of model would be the direct instruction model. As posited above, instructional
models retain several of the identified effective instructional principles, and are upheld by
years of research (Joyce, 2004; J. C. Maker, & Nielson, A.B., 1995; Merrill, 2002).
Metacognition and Learning
The task of providing an effective learning environment and instruction that is
conducive to learning is important. Yet, this alone may not foster lifelong learning. John
Dewey (1973) asserts that “Education must start with a psychological insight into the
child’s capacities, interests, and habits” (p. 445). Social cognitive theory suggests that
both choice and cognitive processes are significant contributors to learning (Flowerday,
2004; Gredler, 2005; Kamii, 1991). Specifically, choice allows for autonomy, and
autonomy is positively correlated with learning, student engagement and study skills
(Linnenbrink, 2002). Moreover, when students make choices in the classroom, they are
more inclined to take interest in their work, complete assignments conscientiously, and
show pride in their accomplishments (Lepper, 1988; Siegle, 1994). Additionally, students
8

demonstrate greater cognitive engagement when the subject at hand is aligned with their
interests, which ultimately translates into learning (De Groot, 1990).
Purpose and Importance of the Study
Educational and psychological researchers emphasize the importance of interest
and student choice in learning (Flowerday, 2004). These researchers also emphasize the
importance of using appropriate instructional methods in working with gifted students
(Eggen, 2006; Whitmore, 1980). Thus, it stands to reason that the combination of both,
the use of instructional models, and student choice, would yield significant learning
benefits to all students. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of
models of teaching on the gifted population of students.
Research Questions
1. What factors influence gifted students’ (in grades 2-5) preferences for a model of
instruction related to the teaching and learning of various subject matter?
2. Is there a difference between gifted and not identified as gifted students’
preferences for a model of teaching?
3. What factors (interest, challenge) affect students’ preferences for steps or
instructional experiences in the four models of teaching and to what degree?
(direct instruction, concept attainment, group investigation, and advance organizer
instructional models)
A. Why do students find the steps or instructional experiences the most,
somewhat, and least interesting, or challenging?
9

Methodological Overview
In order to address the proposed research question, both quantitative and
qualitative methodologies were employed. A survey was distributed to 2
nd
-5
th
grade
students from economically, linguistically, and culturally diverse backgrounds, in urban,
suburban, and rural districts. The survey was created to measure gifted students’
preferences for models of teaching in various content areas. In addition, several students
were given a question sort in which they were asked to sort the steps or instructional
experiences of four instructional models in order of most to least challenging, and
interesting. Finally, the same students were interviewed to determine their reasoning for
the particular arrangement. This line of questioning was open-ended.
Assumptions
It was assumed that all participants will respond honestly to the survey. It was
also assumed that the participants in this study may respond differently due to situational
differences; however, the research was scrutinized to such a degree as to show the
veracity of the information gathered.
Limitations
The researcher was restricted to using data already defined as important to a
project. The project was part of a grant (PR/Award # S206A040072) awarded to Dr.
Sandra N. Kaplan (project director), by the U.S. Department of Education.

10

Delimitations
There were limits to the generalizability of the final results for the following
reasons:
• Not all gifted children share the same characteristics to the same degree.
• Not all teachers in the study were cognizant of models of teaching
• Not everyone learns information in the same way
Definitions
Acceleration. When students are placed in grades or classes which are more advanced
than those of their chronological age group. They also receive instruction and/or
counseling outside of the regular classroom to assist them with advanced work
("California Code of Regulations,").
Cluster Grouping. Students are grouped in a regular classroom and receive applicable
differentiated curriculum from the regular classroom teacher (California Code of
Regulations, Title 5, Chapter 4, Section 3840b).
Curriculum. Refers to the content standards adopted by the State Board of Education (C.
D. o. Education)
Differentiated Curriculum. Differentiation provides the means by which the curriculum
may be varied in order to allow students that have already mastered given material to
continue to progress and students who have a specific interest in an area can study it in
greater depth, complexity, novelty, or acceleration (California Association for the Gifted,
1994).
11

Gifted and Talented Pupil. A student enrolled in a public elementary or secondary
school who is identified as having high performance or the potential for high
performance capabilities (California Education Code, Section 52201a).
Heterogeneous grouping. Heterogeneous grouping mirrors the diversity of students.
Children are not grouped based on their ability or achievement, but in a way which
includes students with differences in age, sex, race, ability, and achievement (American
Association of School Administrators, 1992).
Identification. Refers to the identification of students who demonstrate capabilities that
far exceed their peers. Categories may include intellectual, creative, academic, or
leadership ability; high achievement; performing and visual arts talent; other criterion
that meets the State Board of Education standards ("California Code of Regulations; C.
D. o. Education, 2005).
Instruction. Describes the instructional program for all students, including the support
and services provided for students with special needs, and the procedures for monitoring
student progress toward standards (C. D. o. Education).
Models of Teaching. Describe a learning environment. This includes the teacher’s
behavior when using a particular model. Models may be used in planning curriculums
and lessons, and in designing instructional materials, including multimedia programs
(Joyce, 2004).
Self-Concept. A person’s self-perceptions and how they are formed through experiences
and interpretation of experiences with the environment (Shavelson, 1976).
12

Student/Teacher Self-Efficacy. Sense of competence about ability to perform activities
successfully (Omrod, 2002).
13

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Characteristics of Gifted Individuals
This chapter presents an overview of gifted education, and the means by
which researchers and educators have attempted to address the instructional needs of
gifted learners. It also details theories of learning and motivation relevant to the
underachievement of gifted students. The review of the literature is broken down into the
following categories: characteristics of gifted students, characteristics of gifted teachers,
multiple intelligences, curriculum for the gifted and elements of differentiation, models
of teaching, positive and negative factors affecting gifted curriculum, motivation and
student choice, and underachievement.
Characteristics of Gifted Students
Researchers agree that gifted individuals can be identified by their similarities or
shared characteristics (Colangelo, 2003; Davis, 1989; Gallagher, 1975). In 1972, the U.S.
Commissioner of Education, Sydney P. Marland, defined gifted individuals as children
who are capable of high performance. They demonstrate achievement or potential in one
or more areas, including overall intellectual ability, academic aptitude, creative thinking,
leadership, visual or performing arts, and or psychomotor ability. The ERIC
Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children (1990) published some accepted
characteristics of gifted children. These include advanced reasoning abilities and
intellectual curiosity, a variety of interests, advanced language, reading and writing
14

abilities, and mathematical insights. Gifted students may also display marked learning
skills, creativity, retention, and recall abilities, and intellectual autonomy.
Later in 1993, the National Excellence Report characterized gifted children as
possessing outstanding talent or the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of
accomplishment in comparison with other individuals (Ross, 1993). Clark (1997)
expanded on this definition by providing specific characteristics that gifted students may
exhibit by specific domain. For example, in the cognitive domain, children may exhibit
such characteristics as advanced comprehension, varied interests, and curiosity, high
levels of language development or verbal ability. In the affective domain, children may
show an unusual sensitivity to the feelings or expectations of others, or an elevated sense
of self-awareness, idealism, and/or sense of justice. In the physical domain, individuals
may experience an unusual discrepancy between physical and mental capabilities. They
may also demonstrate an early sense of intuitive knowledge, and /or leadership ability, or
societal involvement.
Joseph Renzulli (2003) suggests that gifted individuals maintain three distinctive,
overlapping characteristics: (a) above average ability, (b) creativity, and (c) task
commitment. Robert J. Sternberg (2003) in his theory of successful intelligence, posits
that giftedness can divided into three specific types. Analytic giftedness refers to one’s
ability to “dissect a problem and analyze its parts” (p. 89). Synthetic giftedness applies to
those who are “insightful, intuitive, creative, or simply adept at coping with novel
situations,” (p. 89) and practical giftedness indicates that given synthetic or analytical
15

abilities, one is able to apply said abilities to everyday situations. In addition, Howard
Gardner (2003) proposes that there are multiple intelligences: linguistic, logical
mathematical, musical, special, kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and more
recently naturalist, and existential. Moreover, he states “A student can be considered
gifted in any domain that draws on one or more of the intelligences” (p. 103).
A current definition of giftedness provided by the California Department of
Education states that gifted children possess extraordinary or the potential for
extraordinary intellectual development, creativity, specific academic ability, leadership
qualities, high achievement, talent in the visual and performing arts, or any other category
which meets similar criteria(Gifted and talented program resource guide, 2005).
Characteristics of Teachers of Gifted Students
Research shows that teachers are the most important factor in fostering students’
achievement. “Gifted students appear to be more profoundly impacted by their teachers’
attitudes and actions than are other students” (Croft, 2003, p. 558). Croft (2003)
continues by suggesting that the most successful teachers of the gifted are those who
share the same characteristics and skills as all effective teachers; however, they also
possess expertise that goes far beyond that of the regular classroom teacher.
Many researchers have detailed the characteristics considered necessary to be a
gifted educator. First, James Gallagher (1975) proposes that teachers, above all, should
set a good example for their gifted students. He notes that in a study in which teachers,
who were deemed successful by their gifted students, were observed for similarities.
16

These teachers were mature, experienced, and intelligent. Moreover, they were interested
in the arts, literature and culture, strove for high personal achievement and intellectual
growth through teaching. They were focused on their students and supported specialized
programs for the gifted.
According to Margaret Lindsey (1980), teachers of the gifted should maintain all
of the characteristics desirable in general education teachers, but magnified. She offers a
three tiered range of characteristics.
A successful teacher of the gifted is first of all an excellent teacher. In addition to
that, she or he must possess those characteristics known to be important in
working with any gifted student. Finally, the teacher needs to have specific
competencies related to the specific type of giftedness-intellectual, creative,
leadership or artistic (p. 14).

More specifically, the personal characteristics desired of gifted teachers are self-
assurance, sensitivity, trust, a high level of intelligence, flexibility, and enthusiasm for
learning. The professional characteristics include the following abilities: to facilitate
rather than force learning, be democratic, process oriented, innovative, and able to
involve students in the process of discovery. Finally, in terms of pedagogy, the teacher
must be able to individualize instruction, create a positive learning environment, offer
feedback, use a variety of teaching strategies, be respectful of students’ values, interests,
and individuality, and stimulate higher level thinking processes (Lindsey, 1980).
June Maker (1982) reasons that gifted teachers must maintain a high level of
intelligence and self-confidence, as well as a “high regard for imaginative ideas, a respect
for the potentialities of the individual, a high regard for the teacher’s responsibility to the
17

child, and a belief in the importance of enhancing pupils’ self images (p. 134). Dorothy
Sisk (1987) adds that one must also pay attention to teachers’ philosophical
characteristics. “Philosophical characteristics are important because the way teachers
view education has an impact on their approach to teaching (p. 191). Moreover, a
teacher’s philosophical stance toward gifted education may determine his or her attitude
toward the students. For example, teachers who believe that gifted programs create
hierarchies or inequality amongst students, will approach students and the program itself
in a negative way, whereas a proponent of gifted programs may display just the opposite
attitude.
In an interview conducted by Rizza & Gentry (2001), six authorities in the field of
gifted education--Gallagher, Kaplan, Reiss, Renzulli, Tomlinson, and VanTassel-Baska--
were asked specifically about those characteristics, knowledge, and skills that should be
maintained by teachers of gifted individuals. They agreed that such teachers need to
understand the often imbalanced, diverse, and individualistic needs of gifted students.
Furthermore, educators must be cognizant of the availability of services and teaching
methods to reach gifted learners. They must be able to differentiate curriculum and
instruction, assess and encourage student performance, and utilize sophisticated content
to meet these children’s needs. Finally, teachers must “be passionate both about teaching
and an area of study, to convey this passion to students, to instill a love of learning by
example” (p. 174). Teachers must be models of lifelong learning if they hope to transfer
this enthusiasm to students.
18

The National Association for Gifted Children ("NAGC standards: Professional
development,") does not qualify specific characteristics associated with teachers of the
gifted. However, it does propose that those educators, who have specialized training in
gifted education, knowledge of differentiation of content and instruction, and who
continuously participate in professional development, are the best suited to work with
gifted children. These recommendations are aligned with the exemplary standards from
the California State Board of Education (2005), which suggest that all teachers of the
gifted be certified to do so, and that they engage in ongoing professional development
Definitions of Intelligence
Multiple Intelligences
Over the years, there have been a myriad of approaches designed to identify gifted
students. The most common method was and is still a standardized intelligence test. The
standardized intelligence test is rooted in the work of Alfred Binet, who created the first
intelligence test in the early 20
th
century in response to the need for a scientific measure,
which might indicate “inferior states of intelligence” (Binet, 1916, p. 9). Since then,
many attempts have been made to broaden the scope of intelligence testing and the
subsequent education of children. The theory of multiple intelligences was one approach.
Howard Gardner (1983/1994) proposed that there are multiple spheres of intelligence. In
doing so, he also called for a “broadened conception of the role of schools in service to
the development of students’ interests and competencies” (Von Karolyi, 2003, p. 100).
19

According to Gardner’s original theory, (1995a) there are seven types of
intelligences, linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal. He later added naturalist and possibly existentialist for
future consideration (Von Karolyi, 2003). All humans possess each of these intelligences;
however, in varying strengths and weaknesses. Its application to education translates into
“multiple entry points to concepts so that learning opportunities are maximized for every
child” (Gardner, 1995a, p. 16). Hence, curriculum and assessment are derived from
multiple sources reflecting the range of intelligences. Gardner (1995b) averred that
schools should nurture the abilities and skills that are valuable to the community and
society, at large, some of which will reflect particular intelligences that may have
previously overlooked. Moreover, schools should focus on depth of understanding, rather
than trying to maximize coverage of material, and thus approach a singular concept in a
multitude of ways. Finally, the MI theory allows for personalization. “Education works
most effectively for most individuals if these differences in mentation and strengths are
taken into account rather than denied or ignored” (p. 206).
The theory of multiple intelligences suggests that each type intelligence has
“autonomous intellectual potential,” and can function independently of the others (Von
Karolyi, 2003, p. 103). This notion carries significant implications for gifted education
because it indicates that a child who is gifted in one area may not be gifted in another.
Similarly, a child who performs poorly on one measure of intelligence may excel on
another measure at a different time. In addition to these considerations, educators must
20

differentiate between skill level and interest level. A student who is gifted in one area
may hold no interest in it, at all. Thus, this child may avoid activities which engage this
gift despite his or her capabilities in that area. The theory of Multiple Intelligences allows
for multiple means to assist students in gaining an understanding of themselves and the
world around them. Students are allowed the opportunity to utilize their preferred method
of gaining knowledge. This is an especially effective means to engage gifted students
because a concept idea can be presented in a variety of ways without the unnecessary
redundancy, which gifted students so often experience (Von Karolyi, 2003).
The Theory of Successful Intelligence
Robert Sternberg (2003) asserts that there are multiple sources of giftedness. In
his theory of successful intelligence, Sternberg cites four definitions of successful
intelligence. First, intelligence reflects one’s success according to individual standards in
the context of one’s sociocultural environment. Second, an individual’s ability to achieve
success is dependent on accentuating one’s strengths and building on one’s shortcomings.
In other words, success relies on an amalgamation of abilities, rather than on any one
particular skill. Third, a person’s ability to choose, to adapt to, and also to modify his or
her surroundings signifies successful intelligence. Fourth, success is determined by one’s
ability to balance one’s creative, practical, and analytical capabilities. “The three main
kinds of giftedness are in terms of analytic, synthetic and practical abilities, and the way
in which they are balanced” (R. J. Sternberg, 2003, p. 89). Analytically intelligent people
are those who are capable of taking a puzzle or problem apart in order to comprehend the
21

individual pieces. Intuitive, insightful, or creative people possess what is termed as
synthetic intelligence, and those with practical intelligence are able to apply the
aforementioned abilities to practical situations. Sternberg concludes that the role of
educators is to help students hone their intellectual capabilities, in addition to helping
them develop those areas in need of enhancement (R. J. Sternberg, & Grigorenko, 2003).
Sternberg and Grigorenko (2003) translate the Theory of Successful Intelligence
into implications for teaching. Students think and learn in different ways (Sternberg,
1997). Some fare better with class discussions, some prefer lectures, etc. There is no
single correct method of teaching. Similarly, there is no single means to assess students’
learning. As previously mentioned, teachers should nurture students’ strengths and
weaknesses, help them to overcome obstacles, and at the same time allow for flexibility
in the classroom. A classroom that is too rigid may cultivate rigidity in the students’
thought processes. Students should also be encouraged to comprehend and denote various
perspectives, in addition to be able to analyze their own. Risk taking should be
encouraged and mistakes allowed for mistakes and risks often present opportunities for
learning. Lastly, instruction and assessment should “balance the use of analytical,
creative, and practical thinking” (R. J. Sternberg, & Grigorenko, 2003, p. 215).

22

Curriculum for the Gifted and Elements of Differentiation
According to Gallagher (2003), in order to alter an educational program, an
educator can change one or a combination of the following: the learning environment, the
curriculum, and/or the methods used to teach. These methods are called differentiation,
where the education program is modified to meet the learning needs of students. A
teacher is differentiating instruction when he of she varies his or her instructional
methods to provide the most advantageous learning experience possible for a particular
group of children (Tomlinson, 2000).
Learning environments can be changed in a variety of ways. For example, the
teacher may provide spaces in the classroom for students to work independently or with a
small group. Students may have the opportunity to move around or sit quietly, depending
on their needs. The teacher may provide materials, which reflect the students’ varying
backgrounds and cultures (Tomlinson, 2000). Learning environments may also be
altered through acceleration, where the student moves through the prescribed program at
a faster pace; peer grouping, where students with similar gifts work alongside each other;
and home schooling, where children obtain their education at home (Gallagher, 2003).
Differentiation is the primary means by which curriculum is modified to meet the
needs of gifted pupils. Carol Ann Tomlinson stresses that the critical piece in
differentiation is to ensure that the curriculum and instruction that is differentiated is of
high quality (Tomlinson, 2000). For high ability learners, quality curriculum will allow
for accelerated learning and it will ensure that these students continue to uncover novel
23

ideas and develop new competencies (Tomlinson, 2005a). Differentiation occurs both
naturally, when students’ knowledge, abilities, interests, and experiences interact with the
classroom curriculum, and intentionally, when a teacher modifies the curriculum to create
learning experiences that differ in acceleration, depth, complexity, or novelty (California
State Department of Education, 1994, p. 16). In this context, acceleration involves
increasing the pace at which the subject matter is presented. Enrichment refers to
“extending normal curriculum with differing examples and associations that build
complex ideas on the regular curriculum”(p. 19). Sophistication or complexity involves
interrelating theories and concepts from various disciplines, so as to create connections
between them; and novelty refers to bringing to ideas into the curriculum.
Finally, teaching methods or strategies may be changed to enhance student
learning. Gallagher (2003) mentions problem based learning as a modification to teaching
strategies. In PBL, students are given a problem, which they role play in order to resolve
the issue. In problem based learning, the teacher acts as a guide or coach in helping them
research the problem. Schiever (1991) asserts that thinking is a developmental process
that includes classification, concept development, derivation of principles, drawing
conclusions, and making generalizations. These processes can be applied to different
types of problems within a curricular framework, thereby allowing students to develop
and utilize the aforementioned thinking processes (J. C. Maker, & Schiever, S.W., 2003).

24

Models of Teaching
Models of teaching are another means by which instruction may be differentiated.
“A teaching-learning model is a structural framework that serves as a guide for
developing specific educational activities and environments” (J. C. Maker, & Nielson,
A.B., 1995, p. 1). Teaching models may range in structure from theoretical to abstract, or
to practical. This variance allows educators the flexibility to design curriculum
appropriate for gifted learners. As stated earlier, Joyce and Weil (2004) grouped teaching
models into families based on their commonalities. The next section of the literature
review will describe the various models of teaching included in this study.
The Concept Attainment Model
The information processing models are designed to help students improve their
ability to process information, solve problems, build concepts, and create new ideas. The
inductive thinking model is designed to helps students to form their own concepts. The
concept attainment model differs in that its design requires students to make a distinction
between exemplars and non-exemplars in different categories, (Bruner, 1967) thereby
facilitating their discovery of pre-determined concepts . Exemplars refer to items which
share characteristics or important attributes, thus allowing students to categorize them in
one way or another. Non-exemplars are necessary because they provide the boundaries
by which a particular concept may be defined (Joyce, 2004). In concept attainment
lessons, students study, evaluate, categorize, build hypotheses, articulate their ideas, and
the consider the ideas of others (Dell'Olio, 2007).
25

The syntax of the model involves three steps or phases. First, the teacher presents
the information or data, as exemplars and non-exemplars. The learner’s job is to develop
a hypothesis based on the categorization of items as positive and negative examples.
Students then create and check their hypotheses from which they derive and name a
concept. Thus, begins the second phase of the model in which the students now identify
new items as positive and negative examples. The teacher validates, names, and defines
the concept, according to its critical attributes. In last part of the phase students add new
pairs of exemplars and non-exemplars based on the confirmed concept. In step three,
students analyze and describe how they formed their hypotheses, and the implications of
such findings. The strategies used in concept attainment lessons give students the
opportunity to practice inductive reasoning and concept- building skills. “Finally,
especially with abstract concepts, the strategies nurture an awareness of alternative
perspectives, a sensitivity to logical reasoning in communication, and a tolerance of
ambiguity” (Joyce, 2004, p. 75).
Several research studies have confirmed the benefits of concept teaching.
Tennyson, Chao, and Youngers (1981) proposed that concept learning consists of both
the attainment of concepts by exposure to best examples and their subsequent connection
to new examples coupled with the attainment of discriminatory skills via the presentation
of examples and nonexamples. To test this hypothesis, the researchers utilized three
presentation methods: 1) expository, where examples and nonexamples were identified
through the use of statements and labels; 2) interrogatory, where students identified
26

examples and nonexamples through questioning; and 3) expository-interrogatory, a
combination of the previous methods. The researchers believed that all three presentation
forms would facilitate concrete and identity levels of learning. However, skill
development in terms of classification and discrimination would be learned with the
interrogatory presentations, while the combination of both interrogatory and expository
presentations would promote formal learning and retention.
The study was conducted with 120 fourth grade students from two suburban
elementary schools. Students were randomly assigned to six treatment groups. Each
group would receive the one of the three aforementioned instructional treatments. In
addition, three groups would include an evaluation component, while the remaining three
would not. All students took a post-test at the conclusion of the program. The researchers
found their hypotheses confirmed. All students performed well at the concrete and
identity levels. At the formal levels, there was a significant difference in performance
between the expository-interrogatory groups and the other either expository or
interrogatory groups. The same findings were documented when students took a retention
test one week later. Hence, the researchers concluded that the combination style of
presentation best facilitated concept attainment and retention.
In a later study, Tennyson and Cocchiarella (1986) tried to discern how 3
rd
grade
students best acquired conceptual knowledge, whether through the presentation of clear
cases or best examples or a list of defining attributes. Students were given a definition
with either a list of attributes or a best example following. Then, groups of examples and
27

nonexamples of a concept were presented in a question format or a statement-question
format. Students in the best examples groups were asked to “compare the best example
with instances in each rational set, while subjects in the two attribute list groups were
directed to check, per interrogatory instance, the presence or absence of the critical
attributes” (p. 45). A post-test immediately followed, as did a retention test two weeks
later. In both instances, the students in the best-examples groups outperformed those in
the attribute-list groups.
More recently, Katherine Cummings (1993) studied the effects of a series of
concept attainment lessons on a first grade classroom. What they found was that initially,
students were hesitant to respond; however, by the end of the lesson, the students were
anxious to share their ideas. Students were able to list attributes of the concept, as well as
generate additional examples. Moreover, students were able to explain their examples
and the attributes that connected them to the concept. They were also able to discuss their
thought processes involved in identifying the concept. Students were “cognitively
engaged throughout the lesson” (p. 28). The model encouraged problem solving,
exploration, and thinking skills that transferred to all classroom work.
Y.V. Shrivastava (1995) also conducted a study to determine the effectiveness of
using the concept attainment model to teach English grammar to 7
th
grade students. Sixty
students were assigned to either an experimental, or a control group. The experimental
group received instruction using the concept attainment model, and the control group was
taught using standard or traditional methods. Each group was given a pre-test, the
28

treatment, or lesson, and a post-test. The results of the post-test were significant. The
achievement of students, both boys and girls, in the experimental group was much greater
than that of the control group.
The Advance Organizer
An Advance Organizer is a teaching tool, which helps to bridge “the gap between
what the learner already knows and what he needs to know if he is going to learn new
material most actively and expeditiously” (D. P. Ausubel, 2000, p. 11). Accordingly,
grounds for an advance organizer are founded on three principles: (a) the import of
having prior knowledge and ideas in order to connect to new ideas and meanings, and to
provide a foundation for them (b) the benefit of using more abstract concepts or
generalized ideas related to given discipline (c) the fact that organizers draw from
relevant content knowledge in order to determine the import of prior and new knowledge.
The advance organizer is presented to the student prior to introducing him or her to the
material to be learned. Thus, it increases the results of the aforementioned principles (D.
P. Ausubel, 2000).
There is research to support Ausubel’s position that advance organizers do indeed
assist learning. Ausubel (1960) conducted an experiment using 120 college students.
Students were given a pretest to ensure unfamiliarity with the topic (metallurgy) being
used for the study. Students in both experimental and control groups were given passages
to read. However, the experimental group received a “passage which was presented at a
much higher level of abstraction, generality, and inclusiveness than the latter passage
29

itself” (p. 268). The passage was intended to provide a foundation for the subject and to
connect it to the students’ prior knowledge. The experimental group was provided a
passage which was also relevant, but much less specific. Three days later, the students
were given a multiple choice test to determine their retention of the information learned.
Accordingly, the comparison yielded favorable results in support of the use of advance
organizers.
In a later study involving the retention of information related to endocrinology,
Ausubel and Fitzgerald (1962) had similar results. This study involved both male (52)
and female (91) undergraduate students, who were enrolled in an educational psychology
course, to satisfy part of their teacher education curriculum requirements. The researchers
chose to utilize two sequential passages related to endocrinology, in order to minimize
the likelihood of students’ familiarity with the information. First, students were given an
initial multiple choice test (general endocrinology test) to verify their knowledge of the
subject matter, or lack thereof. The results verified a normal range or distribution of
knowledge. Second, students were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups
and the population was stratified by sex to ensure an equal male to female ratio. On two
occasions, the experimental groups were given a passage to study, an “expository
organizer,” designed to introduce them to the material they would be learning (D. P.
Ausubel, & Fitzgerald, D., 1962, p. 245). The control groups were also given a passage to
study; however, it bore no resemblance to future information. After the second read of the
30

introductory material, students were given the first passage to read; they were tested on
the material 2 days later.
The difference in scores between the high and average scores in the treatment and
control groups was negligible. However, there was a significant difference between the
treatment and control group scores among the lower scoring third of students. The results
imply that the introductory organizer helped those students with lower verbal ability
retain previously unfamiliar information. The second passage was given to the students 3
days following the first exam. The exam for the 2
nd
passage was administered 4 days
later. The results of the 2
nd
exam suggested that the information retained from the first
passage facilitated the retention of information in the 2
nd
passage. According to the
researchers, this information indicated that “the organizer better enables the subjects to
put their background knowledge to use in structuring the unfamiliar new material” (D. P.
Ausubel, & Fitzgerald, D., 1962, p. 249)
The most effective organizers are those which employ concepts, ideas, and
terminology already recognizable to the student because the purpose of the organizer is to
allow the student to interrelate new material with previously learned material (Joyce,
2004). The advance organizer also has three phases, the first being the presentation of the
model. In this phase, the instructor states the goals or objectives of the lesson, presents
the organizer by providing context, examples, and its attributes, and activates the prior
knowledge of the learner in relation to the organizer. In phase two, the learning material
is presented in a variety of formats (reading, discussions, lectures, etc.). “The learning
31

material needs to be made explicit to the students so that they have an overall sense of
direction and can see the logical order of the material and how the organization relates to
the advance organizer” (p. 198). The final phase is intended to ground and integrate the
new learning with prior knowledge, thereby strengthening the learner’s “cognitive
organization” (p. 198).
Barnes (1975) argued that the Advance Organizer model is vague. Moreover, in a
review of 32 studies, Barnes and Clawson (1975) argued that “the efficacy of advance
organizers has not been established” (p. 651). In accordance, 12 studies supported the
use of advance organizers to facilitate learning, while the remaining 20 did not. Hartley
and Davies (1976) noted that the implications of the first studies, those in favor of
advance organizers, were limited because they used mostly undergraduate students from
one university. The studies did not “describe the procedures used for generating
organizers” (p. 254). Later studies, in which the population was broadened by age and
ability, did not yield the same favorable results.
In response to the claim that Advance Organizer was vague, Ausubel (1978)
claimed that he already detailed the process of construction in many of his works.
Furthermore, he cited flaws in the creation of the advance organizer in the studies cited
by Barnes and Clawson. “In short, the analysis of both the learner’s relevant subsumers
and the concepts to be learned is missing, and hence it is very unlikely that an optimal
advance organizer (or cognitive bridge) could be constructed” (p. 255). In terms of
generalizability, Ausubel (1978), purports that there is no logical reason to suppose that
32

given the methodology of the study, the results would be different in any other state.
What is more, the students utilized populations with a varying range of ability levels, thus
refuting that argument, as well.
More recent studies have also yielded mixed results. For example, in a 1990
article, McEneany claimed that the advance organizer had a minimal effect, if any, in
furthering comprehension and recall of information (Dell'Olio, 2007). Ruthkosky and
Dwyer (1996) found that advance organizer strategies did not foster long-term retention
of information. However, other researchers have found the advance organizer model to be
a very effective method for promoting student learning and retention (Dell'Olio, 2007;
Story, 1998).
Group Investigation
The Group Investigation Model is based, to a certain extent, on the work of John
Dewey (1916). Dewey believed that school mirrors society, in that it is a social process
by which children learn to become better citizens. Specifically, a democratic society is
one which has “ a type of education which gives individuals a personal interest in social
relationships and control, and the habits of mind which secure social changes without
introducing disorder”(p. 115). Herbert Thelen (1954) furthered this concept of
cooperative group work. He suggests that in a classroom learning experience, the focus is
on three kinds of practices: “(1) working with school subject matter, preferably within the
context of problem solving (2) organizing social relations to maintain the greatest support
for and participation in learning activities; and (3) discovering, formulating and testing
33

meanings of experience for one’s self” (p. 51). Thus, this method focuses on teaching
content area knowledge through the social process in an effort to replicate the natural
social order and group negotiation patterns (Joyce, 2004).
In the Group Investigation Model, the teacher facilitates and structures the group
learning experience, assists students locate and arrange information, and makes sure that
the experience and discussion is stimulating. In the first stage of the model, students are
presented with a problem or puzzling condition. In the second stage, students ask
questions or generate reactions to the condition, which leads them to stage three where
they determine what they are going to study and how to organize themselves to do so.
Stage four involves independent and group study and in stage five, students analyze the
results of their study and present these results to the rest of the class. The last stage allows
students to examine additional issues or problems which may arise from the original
investigation (Joyce, 2004; Y. Sharan, &Sharan, S., 1989).
According to Sharan and Sharan (1989), the effectiveness of the Group
Investigation Model lies in the fact that through this model, students maintain a greater
amount of control over their learning than through other teaching methods. Moreover,
their course of inquiry is dictated by their interests, and the questions posed are reflected
of a diverse set of knowledge, abilities, backgrounds, and values. There have been studies
conducted, which document the benefits of using the group investigation instructional
model. Sharan and Sharan (1992) documented five studies, which assessed student
achievement after being taught with the group investigation model in both elementary
34

and secondary schools. Students were given achievement tests before and after months of
instruction with the group investigation model. The achievement tests included both
lower and higher level questions. Students taught with the group investigation methods
progressed at an equal to significantly higher rate than their peers in traditional
classrooms.
One of these studies included 9 eighth-grade classrooms. Five of these classrooms
employed the group investigation method, and the other four used traditional, whole-class
instruction. The students in the group investigation classrooms numbered 197 as opposed
to 154 students in the traditional classrooms. Pre- and post-academic achievement tests
were given in both history and geography. Students in the group investigation classrooms
demonstrated a significantly higher level of academic achievement on both tests,
including both lower and higher level thinking questions (Y. Sharan, & Shachar, H.,
1988).
A later study by Sharan and Shaulov (1990) involved 553 sixth-grade students in
four different elementary schools over the course of two years. Ten classes were taught in
three different subject areas, using the group investigation model, and seven classes were
taught using traditional methods. Forty-nine teachers participated in the study, 28 in the
experimental group and 21 in the control group. They taught the same pupils for two
consecutive years. The researchers used 3 constructs to measure motivation: task
persistence, classroom involvement, and homework effort. Task persistence was
measured via observation of students who when given the choice to go outside and play
35

or continue working, chose to remain in the classroom. Classroom involvement and
homework efforts were measured on report cards by the classroom teacher. Academic
achievement in individual subjects was also measured each semester. All three measures
of motivation indicated that the group investigation methods were more motivating than
traditional whole class methods. Children in the group investigation classes also earned
higher scores in each of the subject areas. Of note is the fact that the students in the group
investigation classes received lower scores overall on the pre-tests in each subject area,
yet their post-test scores surpassed those of the previously higher achieving students in
traditional classrooms.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, Sharan, and Steinberg (1980) noted that children who worked
in small cooperative groups were less competitive and more cooperative than their peers
who were taught with traditional teaching methods. They were also found to be more
productive than students who worked independently. Hutala and Coughlin (1991) found
that while implementing the group investigation model in English and governance
courses, some problems arose. Teachers became frustrated trying to teach a topic, which
changed frequently, some students who were used to independent learning struggled with
the cooperative groupings, and there were some group conflicts. However, the positive
outcomes of this study included an increase in students’ analytical and organizational
skills, increased motivation, better understanding and management of interpersonal
relationships, improved communication skills, knowledge, and competence, and
increased patience and concern for others...
36

In another study, Hutala (1994) found that the implementation of the group
investigation model in an interdisciplinary course of study yielded significant differences
in students’ behavioral and learning outcomes. There was a reduction in the rate of
absenteeism in classes utilizing the group methodology. There was a 20% reduction in
low or failing grades. Students were better able to make connections across the
disciplines, and they demonstrated improved cooperation, motivation, and behavior as a
result.
Direct Instruction
The origins of the Direct Instruction Model lie in the behavioral family,
specifically in the theories of the behavioral and training psychologists (Joyce, 2004).
Behavioral psychologists posit that learning results from changes in behavior or what a
person does (Skinner, 1953; Thorndike, 1937). Hence, in teaching the focus lies on
student-teacher interaction. Specifically, “they speak of modeling, reinforcement,
feedback, and successive approximation” (Joyce, 2004, p. 313). Training psychologists
focus on task analysis and task definition. Thus, they focus on creating learning goals and
tasks, which are subsequently broken down into smaller tasks and training experiences to
guarantee mastery of each learning experience and sequential mastery of the overall
learning goals. The direct instruction model maintains a focus on learning and completing
academic tasks. The model dictates a high degree of teacher direction, control and
performance expectations for student progress (Joyce, 2004); however, it also assumes
that the learners are active participants in the process (Magliaro, 2005).
37

The initial Direct Instruction Model was created by Bereiter and Englemann in
1966. They intended the model to be the most effective means by which a skill may be
taught. The original design included three stages: an introduction to the new skill to be
learned, the presentation of the lesson, and practice with direct feedback (Bereiter, 1966).
Student success, as a result of this model, was attributed to the teacher’s increased
feedback and student increased response (Magliaro, 2005). Although the model has been
modified in some ways, the basic principles remain the same.
Generally speaking, there are now five steps in the direct instruction model. The
first step is called the opening or orientation. In it, the teacher states the objective of and
expectations for the lesson, a description of the lesson and its connection to previous
learning experiences, and the procedures involved, including the students’
responsibilities. The second step is the input or presentation of the lesson. This is when
the teacher discusses and provides examples of the new skill to be learned, and models
how to perform it. The teacher also checks to make sure that students understand what he
or she has just demonstrated and how to apply it. In step three, the structured practice, the
teacher guides students through the practice their newfound learning. This allows the
teacher to provide the students with feedback, reinforce correct responses, and clarify
misunderstandings. Step four is the guided practice where students literally practice the
skill under the teacher’s guidance. This allows the teacher to see if the learners are ready
to move on to step five, independent practice. This step is designed to reinforce the
learning and secure retention (Joyce, 2004).
38

Information processing research suggests learners can only process a limited
amount of information for a limited amount of time. In fact, adults can only keep between
five and nine chunks of information in their working memory at one time. When a learner
tries to process too much information, his or her working memory becomes overloaded,
and information cannot be processed (Tobias, 1982). However, if he or she organizes
information into larger chunks, the working memory can take on more information,
because the organization decreases the memory load (Dembo, 2004).
In order to transfer information from the working memory to long- term memory,
it must be attended to or rehearsed. Hence, when teaching new information, teachers
should present small amounts of information with which students can practice or rehearse
in order to commit it to long-term memory (Dembo, 2004; Rosenshine, 1986). In
addition, the retrieval of previously learned information and the acquisition and retention
of additional new information is facilitated by the strength of its connections to prior
knowledge (Gagne, 1980; Rosenshine, 1995; Thorndike, 1937). Thus, the
aforementioned research, and a number of additional studies support the use of the direct
instruction model to teach new information, because direct instruction dictates that
information be taught in increments and then be elaborately rehearsed (Rosenshine,
1995).
Critics of Direct Instruction have claimed that the model is too restrictive, thereby
creating “teacher poof curricula” (Viadero, 199, p. 41). In addition, some researchers
have questioned the findings of Direct Instruction. Schweinthart and Weikart (1997)
39

found that in a longitudinal study of three preschool programs, the students who attended
the program using direct instruction gained the most academically; however, they were
also found to have more emotional problems and more felony arrests by age 23. The
researchers cited the inattention to students’ emotional needs and the rigid, authoritative
structure of the Direct Instruction Model as a possible explanation for their findings.
There have also been claims that most of the studies, which boast achievement gains as a
result of Direct Instruction, have been completed with special needs populations. Such
studies have also been performed by researchers connected to the Project Follow Through
program (Slavin, 1998).
Adams and Engelemann (1996) completed a meta-analysis of studies on the
positive effects of direct instruction. However, more than half of the studies used special
education populations (Mac Iver, 2002). Finally, some critics claim that the favorable
results of the direct instruction model can simply be attributed to its age. Most of the
programs associated with direct instruction have been around for 25 or more years, hence
there is more research associated with them (Viadero, 199).
Positive and Negative Factors Affecting Gifted Curriculum
There has been an ongoing struggle between equity and excellence in the
American education system. Those who uphold values of equity expect education to be
an equalizing force for economically disadvantaged students. Moreover, they oppose
efforts to provide an appropriate education for gifted students (Gallagher, 2003). The
basis for such opposition is inclusion. Researchers in favor of an inclusive classroom
40

state that pulling gifted students out of classrooms for special services is disruptive to the
classroom sense of community. Moreover, it sends the wrong message to students. It
implies that teachers are not capable of teaching diverse classrooms and those students
who are different have to leave the classroom, thereby making it difficult to promote
cohesion and positive response to differences (Sapon-Shevin, 1994). Others claim that
the curriculum that is appropriate for the gifted could also be beneficial for all children
(Oakes, 1985; Sapon-Shevin, 1997). All children are capable of learning and greater
achievement, given the necessary teaching and support. Furthermore, all children should
be in classrooms where their educational, social, and emotional needs are met (Sapon-
Shevin, 1997).
Proponents of gifted education argue that gifted students are the one of the least
served populations. There is a common misconception in the educational community that
special services are needed for those students who are below grade level; however, gifted
students will succeed, regardless of the educational program. This is not the case.
“Giftedness is the result of an interactive process that involves challenges for the
environment that stimulate and bring forth innate talents, capabilities, and processes”
(Clark, 1997, p. 6).
Some critics have argued for cooperative learning, while others claim that it just
doesn’t work for the gifted (Burton-Szabo, 1996; Jost, 1997). In fact, more often than not
the gifted students become the tutors. Most classes have such varying needs that it is
almost impossible to meet them all. Tomlinson (1994) argues that special classes for the
41

gifted are generally created because these students needs are not being met in the regular
classroom. Indeed, research shows that teachers tend to make more accommodations for
those who struggle than for those who excel. Moreover, teachers maintain pessimistic
attitudes toward gifted students or believe that they can succeed on their own. Hence,
“inclusionism in actual practice means no appropriate education for the gifted
whatsoever, much less an education that is specifically geared to their abilities or needs”
(Bernal, 2003, p. 184). Gallagher (2003) notes that the push for inclusion of gifted
students stems from the under-representation of minority students in gifted environments,
which in turn led to the belief that minorities were being excluded from beneficial
learning experiences. The trend now is to educate gifted students in the general
education classroom with the assistance of a consultant or through cluster grouping.
VanTassel-Baska (2005) believes that there should be certain “nonnegotiables” in
place to meet the needs of gifted students. For example, practices should include
acceleration, the use of technology, and differentiation of curriculum and resources,
instruction, and assessment in all content areas. These practices should be supported with
quality instruction from teachers who possess the abilities and skills to foster gifted
students’ capabilities. Additionally, schools must realize that some students may need
services beyond those provided at the school site. Thus, schools should provide access to
alternate advanced educational opportunities. “Our society cannot afford to neglect its
most able students and their potential contributions” (VanTassel-Baska, 2005, p. 97).

42

Perceptions, Motivation and Student Choice
Learning theorists indicate that motivation plays a key role in learning. To
answer questions about how and why some students seem to learn and perform well in
school, while others do not, researchers must take into account the role of motivation (P.
Pintrich, 2003). The next section reviews the literature related to learning and motivation
and its relevance to gifted students and underachievement.
Specifically, theories on motivation beg the question of what drives students to
focus on certain tasks or activities. Self-determination theory suggests that motivation
hinges upon three psychological needs: competence, autonomy and relatedness. The need
for competence refers to an individual’s desire to be competent in his or her environment.
Autonomy reflects an individual’s need to feel in control of his or her behavior, while
relatedness indicates an individual’s desire to belong to or be a part of a group. When
these needs are satisfied, they produce increased self-motivation and improved mental
health; however, when obstructed, they diminish motivation and well being.
Self-efficacy beliefs also factor into motivation. “Perceived academic self-
efficacy is defined as personal judgments of one’s capabilities to organize and execute
courses of action to attain designated types of educational performances” (A. Bandura,
1977; Zimmerman, 1995, p. 203). Bandura (1977) maintained that self-efficacy beliefs
affect people’s choice of activities, effort, and persistence. Hence, students with high
levels of self-efficacy will engage in and persist at activities with which they believe they
will be successful. Furthermore, they will take on challenging tasks more readily than
43

those with low self-efficacy beliefs. Hence, perceived self-efficacy promotes student
engagement in learning activities, which further educational competencies, and thus
influence academic achievement, in addition to motivation (Zimmerman, 1995).
Researchers have studied the role of goals in achievement motivation, as well.
Specific attention has been played to two types of goals, learning and performance goals.
Learning or mastery goals are those related to learning for the sake of learning. “With a
mastery goal, individuals are oriented toward developing new skills, trying to understand
their work, improving their level of competence, or achieving a sense of mastery based
on self-referenced standards”(C. Ames, 1992, p. 261). In fact, they are what is termed as
intrinsically motivated (Lepper, 1988). In contrast, performance goal links a person’s
self-worth with his or her ability to perform better than others. They are extrinsically
motivated, as their actions are intended to reap some type of reward, or avoid some type
of punishment, extrinsic to activity at hand. As a result, if a person’s effort does not lead
to success, his or her self-concept is threatened. Students, who pursue mastery goals
achieve and persist at challenging tasks because they enjoy doing so; whereas, students
who are performance goal oriented avoid challenge and hence do not persist when such
difficulty arises.
Children who maintain differing goal orientations do not vary in intellectual
abilities; however, these goal orientations can significantly impact their cognitive
performance (Dweck, 1986). Studies reveal that performance goals mitigate the
likelihood that students will seek challenging tasks, unless they perceive their abilities to
44

be high in relation to those tasks. Thus, children with low perceptions of their abilities
will choose only those tasks in which their success is guaranteed. Moreover, students
with high ability assessments may also choose low risk activities in order to appear
competent. Such students are also inclined to link negative outcomes with their ability or
lack thereof; thereby further hindering their level of persistence when faced with
challenge (C. Ames, Ames, R., & Felker, D.W., 1977). For such students exerted effort
is equated with lower ability.
Students with learning goal orientations will do the opposite. They will seek
challenging tasks what promote learning, regardless of their perception of their abilities.
What is more, they will interpret challenges as an opportunity to analyze and hone their
skills, thus increasing their abilities. “Indeed, students endorsing mastery goals have
reported valuing and using those learning strategies that are related to attending
processing, self-monitoring, and deep processing of verbal information” (C. Ames, 1992,
p. 262). Hence, for these students increased efforts lead to satisfaction. Thus, a mastery
goal orientation fosters inquiry, initiative, and the pursuit of challenge, which in turn
leads to cognitive growth.
As stated earlier, mastery goals are associated with internal or intrinsic
motivation. Moreover, mastery goals are associated with improved self-efficacy and
achievement. Hence, for learning purposes, it is optimal to maximize students’ intrinsic
motivation. When examining variances in intrinsic motivation, Ryan and Deci (2000)
cited threats, deadlines, rewards, evaluations, and directives as detriments; however,
45

choice, recognition of feelings, and opportunities for self-direction were found “to
enhance intrinsic motivation because the allow people a greater feeling of autonomy” (p.
70). Further studies reveal that instructors who are supportive of student autonomy arouse
students’ intrinsic motivation, inquisitiveness, and need for challenge. Moreover, students
in such classrooms are more likely to remain in school, and demonstrate increased
perception of academic ability, internal control, mastery motivation, and improved
performance (Reeve, 1999; R. M. Ryan, & Grolnick, W.S., 1986). What is more,
educators who teach in a directive and controlled manner tend to quash student interest in
and comprehension of instructional material. This dictatorial teaching style also tends to
minimize conceptual learning, and creative processing (Grolnick, 1987).
Thus, “the central issue of instructional design in this case is how to maintain a
sense of control or self-determination on the part of the student without an actual
abdication of control by the teacher” (Lepper, 1988, p. 300). Lepper (1983) suggests
three approaches. First, if students demonstrate an intrinsic interest in a lesson, it is
important to refrain from attaching extrinsic or unnecessary rewards or constraints.
Second, if the activity does not ignite intrinsic interest in the students, the use of extrinsic
incentives may be warranted at first, but only if they can be gradually withdrawn “in
order to promote persistence and generalization of behavior change” (p. 301). Third, in
terms of instructional design if one is to use extrinsic constraints, it is preferable to
integrate them into the activity, rather than to impose them on the learner, and thereby
stifle his or her engagement.
46

In addition to the aforementioned approaches, Lepper (1988) suggests lessons or
activities, which are challenging, and include meaningful goals and performance
feedback regarding progress toward those goals. Such goals and lessons should be
rendered in consideration of the students’ proficiency, and thus be adaptable. Additional
theories regarding intrinsic motivation also suggest curiosity as an impetus, “stimulated
by the recognition of some incongruity, discrepancy of new information from prior
knowledge, or disconfirmation of present expectations” (p. 302). Malone and Lepper
(1987) assert that curiosity is peaked in new knowledge if it is connected to other areas of
personal interest. Additionally, the most salient learning occurs when students are
actively involved in the process and when they are able to relate new learning to prior
knowledge and interests in a meaningful way (Dewey, 1938; Ford, 1998; VanTassel-
Baska, 1988).
Tomlinson (2002) contends that students come to school with the desire to
contribute to and make a difference in their world. They also seek challenge and want to
make choices that factor into their success. Deci & Ryan (1985) assert that learning is
enhanced when students are engaged through personal preference, interest, and challenge.
Alfie Kohn (1993) also argues the importance of student decision making in the
classroom. He posits that students can and should be involved in all aspects of the
learning process- the what, how, how well, and why they learn. Indeed, “the entire
constructivist tradition is predicated on the idea of student autonomy” (p. 13) While he
agrees that there may be some justifiable limitations to such freedom, he maintains that
47

teacher involvement may merely “consist of suggesting the tasks, teaching the skills,
supplying the resources – in short providing the conditions under which students can
choose productively and learn effectively” (p. 15) The teacher may provide the
boundaries in which student decisions can be made. In other words, the teacher may state
the objective, yet allow students to decide how to reach it. In this sense, learning can be
thought of as a joint responsibility.
Underachievement
Underachievement has been defined by most researchers as a discrepancy
between a child’s academic abilities and his or her scholastic achievement (Gallagher,
1975; Neihart, 2002; Rimm, 1997). “The underachieving gifted child represents society’s
greatest loss and its greatest potential resource” (Davis, 1989, p. 303). As mentioned
previously, in their report entitled A Nation at Risk, the National Commission on
Excellence in Education recounted that more than half the population of gifted students
do not reach the level of achievement indicated by their test scores (1983). These are
children who are capable of important contributions, but are not using their abilities
productively. In fact, studies have shown that 10-20% of high school dropouts have
exceptional capabilities (Davis, 1989). Hence, giftedness alone does not ensure
achievement or productivity (Rimm, 2003).
Indeed, there are issues related to the child and/or his or her environment that may
adversely affect gifted children, and thus deter them from reaching their creative or
academic potential (Baum, 1994; Neihart, 2002; Rimm, 2003). Such issues may be
48

emotionally driven, due to lack of motivation, or they may be a result of peer or parental
pressure. Underachievement may also be evidence of an undetected learning disability or
poor learning strategies (Baum, 1994; Silverman). Underachievement may also be the
result of an unchallenging classroom environment, or an environment that is too
challenging or competitive. Whitmore (1980) describes he curriculum in both elementary
and secondary schools as created for the average student and primarily based on the
textbook. The idea is for students to read and respond to questions and activities in the
textbook. Gifted students tend to find such curriculum dull, unchallenging, and irrelevant
to their interests. As a result, the teacher may consider the student to be lazy or
unmotivated.
Most American classrooms place the teacher at the forefront as the person
responsible for decisions and organization. In this context, the students are considered
passive recipients of knowledge. In this type of classroom, there is considerable structure
and rigidity, the teacher dominates the discussion, and the students are allotted little time
for questions, self-expression, or idea play. This style of teaching can pose significant
problems for gifted students because these children’s learning styles are incompatible
with predominant instructional strategies (Whitmore, 1985). Consequently, in the absence
of a suitable curriculum achievement may be adversely affected (Baum, 1994; Rimm,
1997; Whitmore, 1985).
Thus, the question remains how to address the specific needs of the
underachieving gifted population. According to Whitmore (1985), approaches that have
49

been successful in changing the cycle of underachievement have assumed that the
problem stems from experiences in school, which can therefore be modified. Therefore,
in order to maintain achievement motivation, the basic psychological, social, and
intellectual needs of gifted students must be met within the classroom.
Minimal conditions for meeting the needs of gifted students require (1) a teacher
who will select curricula and structure learning experiences, and the general
classroom operations, in response to a sensitive understanding of their specific
needs; and (2) a group of gifted classmates with whom the individual student can
gain a sense of social acceptance while developing social skills and leadership
potential (Whitmore, 1980, p. 396).

In sum, the necessary elements of an instructional program for the gifted include a
classroom, which allows for shared responsibility in the choice and planning of
curriculum, classroom organization, and flexibility. This type of classroom would
provide students with the opportunity to socialize, pursue individual interests, and
develop social skills through various activities.
The curriculum must also be balanced, thus including the arts and sciences, and
stimulating and relevant to gifted students’ interests and needs. It should build on
students’ strengths (Baum, 1994), and also allow for creativity, and choice of activities. It
should further utilize discovery learning and problem solving approaches that advance
the higher levels of thinking, such as inquiry, investigation, analysis, synthesis and
evaluation; while also considering the learning style and pace of individual students
(Whitmore, 1980). Indeed, the general research on gifted students shows that students
demonstrate higher levels of achievement when they are allowed to pursue topics of
interest in their preferred style of learning (Baum, 1994). Instructional models allow for
50

active student involvement, which fosters motivation (Eggen, 2006). And as stated
earlier, they have been deemed effective through research (J. C. Maker, & Nielson, A.B.,
1995). Student choice and autonomy are conducive to learning, thus again the
combination of both should yield important results in student achievement.

51

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS
Overview
It has been determined that choice and opportunity for self-direction enhance
students’ intrinsic motivation because they foster their sense of autonomy (R. M. Ryan, &
Deci, E.L., 2000). Students who are intrinsically motivated tend to show an increase in
mastery motivation, perceive themselves as academically able, and demonstrate
improved academic performance (Reeve, 1999; R. M. Ryan, & Grolnick, W.S., 1986).
For gifted students, both learning and motivation tend to increase as a result of this type
of flexibility (J. C. Maker, 1982). It has also been stated that appropriate instruction for
the gifted should be “qualitatively different from the basic program provided for all
children” (J. C. Maker, 1982, p. 3). In order to provide such instruction, one may change
the content, the method of presentation, or the learning environment for gifted students
(Gallagher, 1975). The method of presentation describes teaching methods utilized and
the corresponding thinking processes developed.
Models of teaching constitute an effective means of presentation. They have
strong theoretical backgrounds and a long history of research and practice to support their
usage (Joyce, 2004). Factors to be considered when selecting a particular model or
models of instruction include the setting, the teacher, and the students. The model chosen
must match the needs of the program and the students (J. C. Maker, 1982). It has been
determined that choice represents an important aspect in the education of the gifted. It has
52

been further established that models of teaching are a sound pedagogical means of
instruction. However, gifted students’ preferences for specific models of teaching have
not been examined.
This study contributed to an existing research project, directed by Dr. Sandra
Kaplan (2005), and funded through a Jacob Javitz grant (PR/Number # S26A040072).
The project was designed to develop teachers who are capable of teaching differentiated
curriculum using the models of teaching in order to meet the following objectives:
1. Increase the academic achievement levels of culturally, linguistically, and
economically diverse gifted, and potentially gifted students
2. Increase the identification of gifted and potentially gifted students from
diverse populations
3. Improve quality of instruction for all students in heterogeneous
classrooms
4. Influence teaching and learning of differentiated curriculum
In an attempt to identify pedagogy, which contributes to learners’ success, this
applied research study examined the factors, which influenced gifted students’
preferences for an instructional model. It was hoped that the results of this study would
contribute significant information to the overall research project and to the body of
research on gifted education. It was also hoped that this study would provide gifted
educators with some additional insight into effective pedagogy.

53

The Research Questions
1. What factors influence gifted students’ (in grades 2-5) preferences for a model of
instruction related to the teaching and learning of various subject matter?
2. Is there a difference between gifted and not identified as gifted students’
preferences for a model of teaching?
3. What factors (interest, challenge) affect students’ preferences for steps or
instructional experiences in the four models of teaching and to what degree?
(direct instruction, concept attainment, group investigation and advance organizer
instructional models)
A. Why do students find the steps/instructional experiences most,
somewhat, and least interesting, challenging, or interesting?
Nature of the Study/ Research Design
“Applied researchers work on human and societal problems” (Patton, 2002, p.
217). Such research applies basic theories to real world problems in order to help people
understand specific problems and subsequently take action, when applicable. This study
was considered applied research. It was part of a longitudinal, quasi-experimental study.
Experimental and quasi-experimental research both require the examination of “data to
determine whether two or more groups differ on some variable” (Locke, 2004, p. 141). In
these types of studies, a treatment or intervention is applied to one group (experimental
group), but not to the other (control group). Both groups being treated are considered the
54

independent variables, while the outcome of the treatment itself is considered the
dependent variable (Locke, 2004).
In this study, students in the experimental groups were taught with models of
teaching while those in the control groups were not. Therefore, the independent variables
were the students in the participating (control and experimental) classrooms, and the
dependent variables were the outcomes derived from the treatment or utilization of
teaching models in the experimental groups. Quasi-experiments are used when one or
more of variables critical to the study cannot be controlled and random assignment or
selection of subjects or treatments cannot be used (Locke, 2004). This was considered a
quasi-experiment because neither the teachers, nor the students could be randomly
assigned.
Teachers applied to become participants in this research project. Seventy-five
teachers and their students (grades 2-5) from urban, suburban, and rural districts
participated in the project. These classrooms maintained a large proportion of
economically, linguistically, and culturally diverse students, including gifted and
potentially gifted students. The project teachers were grouped based on (1) self-
evaluations of their knowledge of the four content areas (math, social studies, science,
reading/language arts), and perceptions of their pedagogical content knowledge; and (2)
classroom observations by project staff members. From these two groups, teachers were
further divided into four categories, according to their level of content knowledge and
pedagogical skills (high content/low pedagogy, low content/high pedagogy, low
55

content/low pedagogy, and high content/high pedagogy). In addition, the demographics
(number of years teaching, race, ethnicity, grade level) of the population were equal
across the groups. The teachers in the experimental groups participated in one year of
onsite differentiated training in pedagogical methods according to their level of expertise.
The student assignment was purposeful, in that gifted and non- gifted students were
assigned to the experimental and control groups, as was the teacher selection.
Subjects
The sample included students in grades 2-5 from economically, linguistically, and
culturally diverse backgrounds, in urban, suburban, and rural districts. In addition, the
student population was stratified by geography and student characteristics. Students were
sampled from urban, suburban, and rural districts. The characteristics used in the
stratification were gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status, English proficiency, and
special needs. Students in the experimental groups were taught with specific instructional
models by teachers who had participated in the differentiated professional development
plan. Gifted and potentially gifted students were included.
Data Collection
The data collected for this research project was derived from both the second and
third year of a five year study. Information from surveys can be used to “describe,
explain, or influence some phenomenon” (Gray, 1994, p. 10). In this case, the purpose of
the study was to determine the influence of models of teaching on the gifted population
of students. Hence, a survey was an appropriate measure of this influence. A survey
56

including forced choice or close ended questions regarding instructional models was
distributed to 2
nd
-5
th
grade students. Since the respondents were children, it was more
appropriate to use close ended questions in order to facilitate understanding.
Q-methodology was also used to provide more specific information about which steps
of the teaching models students preferred and for what reasons. Q-methodology, entails
that a person “sort” a group of pre-determined items or statements in a way that
represents his or her point of view (Stephenson, 1953; Storch Bracken, 2006). Q-
methodology allows for the use of a small number of participants (McKeown, 1988) to
glean detailed, “valid scientific conclusions” (Stephenson, 1953, p. 5). In doing so, it
provides a scientific method to study human subjectivity. A Q-sort was given to several
randomly selected students. Students were asked to sort the steps/learning experiences of
the four different instructional models (Direct Instruction, Group Investigation, Advanced
Organizer, and Concept Attainment), according to degree of interest, and challenge.
Finally, students were interviewed to ensure that the interpretation of the Q-sort
accurately depicted the individuals’ viewpoints, and if so, they were asked to identify
their reason for choosing the specific sequence from the Q-Sort. The students’ options
and their corresponding definitions were as follows:
Interest. An instructional strategy that stimulates or encourages student engagement
Challenge. An instructional strategy that activates academic rigor
The choice of categories above is supported by motivational and goal theories.
For example, interest can be equated with intrinsic motivation. It influences how people
57

select and why they persist at certain activities (S. Hidi, 1990; Malone, 1987; R. M.
Ryan, & Deci, E.L., 2000). More importantly, students learn more when they are
interested in what they are doing (Alexander, 1997; R. M. Ryan, & Deci, E.L., 2000).
They are also more likely to retain what they learned, enabling them to reference and
apply it in the future (S. Hidi, Krapp, A., & Renninger, K.A., 1992).
Goal theory reinforces the notion that students who are intrinsically motivated or
learning goal oriented will seek challenging work, which fosters learning and improves
ability (C. Ames, 1992). Tomlinson (2002) concurs with this idea, stating the students
pursue challenges and make choices that promote their success. Accordingly, learning
only occurs when the work is somewhat challenging and when there is someone there to
assist the student reach what were once thought of as unattainable goals (Tomlinson,
2005b).
Motivation is also increased when students experience the appropriate level of
challenge. If a task is too easy, a student may become bored, and if a task is too difficult,
a student may become frustrated (Dweck, 1989; P. Pintrich, & Schunk, D., 2002). People
who are learning goal oriented will seek challenges. People who are performance goal
oriented will also seek challenging tasks, but only if they are confident in their ability to
perform well. They are also more likely to choose easier tasks, those with which they are
familiar in order to appear competent to others (C. Ames, Ames, R., & Felker, D.W.,
1977). Learning goal orientation is the more desirable of the two because it increases the
amount of time students spend on a task, their persistence with the task, and their level of
58

engagement in learning (C. Ames, 1992). To promote interest, motivation, and ultimately
learning goal orientation, curriculum and instruction should be challenging, meaningful,
and related to interests. It should also include elements of novelty, diversity, and variety
(C. Ames, 1992; Brophy, 1987; R. M. Ryan, & Deci, E.L., 2000).
Therefore, in reference to the aforementioned categories, interest, challenge, ease,
and familiarity, interest and challenge are associated with mastery goal orientation. The
researcher was most interested in the teaching models, and accompanying steps that
students selected as interesting and challenging.
Role of the Researcher
In qualitative research the researcher is the primary instrument. As such, he or she
brings his or her values, beliefs, and life experiences to the research process (Dana,
1994). The researcher for this study is a teacher educator who was trained by the project
director in the models of teaching, and who presently teaches and supervises credential
candidates in a multiple subject teacher education program, which also espouses the use
of models of teaching for pedagogical practice.
Research Procedure
This was the 2
nd
year in which students were administered this particular survey. The
survey was given by the classroom teacher and it was collected by the project director.
The “Lesson Selection Survey” was created by the project director specifically for this
study. In this survey, students were asked to read a brief statement indicating the content
area about which they were responding. They were then asked to choose the way in
59

which they preferred to learn about the proposed subject. Their choices consisted of four
lessons, each taught with a different teaching model. After they selected the lesson or
teaching model they preferred, students were asked to indicate one of four reasons why
they selected that particular lesson. They placed a checkmark next to the following
statements: it is interesting, it is challenging, it is like what they always do, or it is easier.
The survey responses provided the researcher with information about how students
preferred to learn in each of the four content areas: math, social studies, science, and
language arts.
The researcher administered the Q-Sort. The students selected were those who
participated in the 2006-2007 program; however, the Q-Sort and interviews took place in
the following 2007-2008 school year. The researcher asked 4 teachers, one from each
grade level, from the experimental groups to randomly select both gifted and non-gifted
students with whom she may conduct the study for a total of 51 participants. Again, the
experimental groups were those in which students were taught with the various
instructional models being studied for this project. The control groups were those in
which the instruction did not include any of the specific teaching models. Each student
was given a set of picture cards representing the steps of the four instructional models.
The individual steps of each of the teaching models were presented to students on
separate cards. Each card contained a picture and a brief description of the step
represented. Each student was asked to sort the steps/learning experiences of the four
60

different instructional models (direct instruction, group investigation, advance organizer,
and concept attainment), in pockets, according to degree of interest and challenge.

61

Direct instruction Group Investigation Advance organizer Concept
attainment
Observe how
something is done
Observe (something
that puzzles you)
Meet an unclear
idea (Big idea)
Look at
examples with
labels
Practice once Question –Ask
questions
Think what I
already know (share
information)
Compare (yes’s
and no’s)
Practice twice Research Research new
information to
define and describe
it
Think about
what it means
Practice again so
you know how to
do it well
Discuss Think how to apply
it
Look at
examples
without labels
Question-Check to
see if questions are
answered
Explain the big idea Name the idea
Use examples
to prove the
idea
Describe your
thinking to
name the idea

Figure 1. Steps/Instructional Experiences in Models of Teaching

62

...etc.
Sort #1
Students choose 4 cards for each category and sort them into:
most, somewhat, and least.
(e.g. most challenging, somewhat challenging, least challenging)

Sort #2

Sort #3

Sort #4

Figure 2. Q-Sort
As a follow up to the Q-sort, the researcher briefly interviewed the fifty-one
students. The interview questions followed each sort. According to Anderson and
Krathwohl (2001), there are four types of knowledge: Factual- knowing the specific
Gifted
Student
#1
Control
Student
#2
Control
Student
#1
Gifted
Student
#2
Advance
Organizer
Challenging
Interesting
Card
#1
Card
#2
Card
#3
Card
#4

Card
#5

Card
#6

Card
#1

Card
#2

Card
#3

Card
#4

Card
#5

Card
#6

Card
#1

Card
#2

Card
#3

Card
#4

Card
#5

Card
#6

Card
#1

Card
#2

Card
#3

Card
#4

Card
#5

Card
#6

Group
Investigation
Concept
Attainment
Direct
Instruction
63

details, Conceptual- knowing the related theories or principles involved, Procedural-
knowing how to do something, and metacognitive- knowing about one’s own cognition
or knowledge. The type of knowledge inherently involved in this issue was
metacognitive. In this case, metacognitive knowledge would indicate that the students
know what how they like to learn. They were asked to identify why they chose specific
steps/instructional experiences in the instructional models. This assumed that they are
able to think about their choices and explain their thinking.
The standardized, open-ended follow up questions were used to gain follow up
information only. “This approach requires carefully and fully wording each question
before the interview” (Patton, 2002, p. 344). The researcher recorded information on a
questionnaire-like form, which had room at the end of each question for recording open-
ended responses. The Q-Sort and interviews were done in person with the students. The
reasons for the use of a structured interview were twofold. First, the researcher was an
inexperienced interviewer and wanted to make sure that she was able to obtain and
analyze the necessary information for her research. Second, the researcher was
interviewing children; hence a standardized protocol yielded better information in a
limited amount of time.
The informant for the Q-Sort and interviews was the project director who was
heading the research project. She had already received IRB approval for working with
specific schools, teachers, and students. The informant was able to tell the researcher
which teachers had been most faithful about implementing the instructional models as
64

dictated by the research project. The students needed to have a familiarity with the
instructional models in order to provide accurate information about their preferences. The
key informants for the interview process were the teachers of the students who the
researcher interviewed. The teachers provided the necessary information about the
students. For example, he or she determined which students would be most comfortable
talking to the researcher and which would not and randomly selected them from there.
This dissertation study was part of a five year grant, on which the project director
had been working. The survey data covered year 2 of the research project; however, the
Q-Sort and interviews were conducted in year three.
Timeline
Research Year 1 Spring '07 Fall '07 Spring '08
Survey
Q-Sort
Interviews

Data Reduction
The data from the survey and Q-Sort was examined using descriptive statistics.
The research design employed a cross-sectional comparison, through the use of SPSS
software, of students across grade levels 2-5 to determine any similarities or variances in
students’ preferences by grade level, gender, socio-economic status, gifted and non-
gifted. The Q-Sort data was analyzed using a principal components analysis, a method of
factor analysis, which “examines the associations between variables, based on the
correlations between them, to see if there are underlying factors” (Hinton, 2005). The
65

survey instrument was created by the project director for this particular study. The Q-Sort
and research questions were created by the researcher for this project.

Question Instrument Data Provided Data Analysis
What factors
influence gifted
students’ (in
grades 2-5)
preferences for a
model of
instruction
related to the
teaching and
learning of
various subject
matter?

Survey Cross-sectional
information for
students across
grade levels 2-5
Descriptive
Statistics: Data
was analyzed for
frequency and
percentages and
chi-square tests
of significance
were performed
What factors
affect students’
preferences for
steps in each
model of
teaching why?
Q-Sort

Cross-sectional
information for
students across
grade levels 2-5
Descriptive
Statistics: Data
was analyzed
using a principal
components
analysis
(factor analysis)
What about the
step do students
find most
interesting,
challenging,
familiar, or
easy?
Interview Correlation data Data was coded
according to
apparent patterns
or themes

Figure 3. Data Matrix

66

CA=Concept
Attainment; DI=Direct
Instruction;
AO=Advance
Organizer; GI=Group
Investigation
Gifted
Student
#1

Gifted
Student
#2 ...etc.
Control
Student
#1
Control
Student
#2 …etc.
CA/Interesting-Card
#1 2

CA/Interesting-Card
#2 3
CA/Interesting-Card
#3 1

CA/Interesting-Card
#4 2
CA/Interesting-Card
#5 4
CA/Interesting-Card
#6 2
CA/Challenge-Card
#1 2
CA/Challenge-Card
#2 2
CA/Challenge-Card
#3 4
CA/Challenge-Card
#4 1
CA/Challenge-Card
#5 2
CA/Challenge-Card
#6 3

…etc.

Figure 4. Q-Sort Factor Analysis

Validity and Confidence
The validity of an instrument indicates that it measures what it is supposed to
measure (Gray, 1994). When randomized assignment is not feasible in the design of the
study, a researcher may use alternative means by which to insure validity. For example,
If a category has six
cards, the rank will be 4,
3, 2, 2, 2, 1.

If a category has only
five cards, then the rank
will be 4, 3, 2, 2, 1.

Finally, if a category has
only four cards, then the
rank will be 4, 3, 2, 1.

The numbers in red
indicate the cards chosen
by the participant.
67

he or she may assign students to the treatment group and then assign similar or matching
students to the control group. In addition, it is beneficial to administer a pre-test to both
experimental and control groups prior to applying the treatment to ensure the
appropriateness of selection (McEwan, 2003). The students were purposefully assigned to
treatment and control groups. The students were randomly selected from the treatment
groups to participate in the Q-Sort and interviews. The data was triangulated: Students
completed a 4 question closed ended survey, a Q-sort, and they participated in interviews,
which employed questions in an open-ended format, thus providing three sources of data
from which to derive findings. Using data from multiple sources and designs is desirable,
because it allows researchers “to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of
interest” (Hanson, Creswell, Creswell, Clark, and Petska, 2005, p. 224).
The validity of the survey was established by prior usage in the study. The Q-sort
and interview instruments were validated by several teachers who were considered
experts in the models of teaching. Two such teachers, a 5
th
grade teacher and a 4
th
grade
teacher, had been involved in the models of teaching research project for the past two
years. In addition, they had both participated in other quasi-experiments, which dealt with
differentiation-acceleration, novelty, depth, and complexity, as had another two teachers,
both GATE coordinators. In addition, a 2
nd
grade teacher and a 3
rd
grade teacher had also
been involved with the models of teaching research project for the past two years. All of
the aforementioned educators believed that the instruments were easily understood and
68

that children would have no problem sorting the cards and answering the interview
questions. Both instruments were also tested in a pilot study to establish further content
validity.
Pilot Study
The researcher pilot tested both the Q-sort and the interview instruments. The
purpose of the pilot study was to determine the feasibility and usability of the instrument.
The pilot study took place in the fall, 2007. The students selected were not part of the
study; however, they were students who had been taught for at least two years with the
models of teaching. The researcher asked one of the aforementioned expert teachers to
select a few students with whom she might complete the pilot test. Three students were
selected; two 5
th
grade boys and a 5
th
grade girl, to complete the Q-Sort and
corresponding interview questions. The researcher administered the Q-Sort and
interviews one day, recorded the students’ responses and then returned two weeks later to
repeat the same process. This reason for two administrations of the test was to validate
the students’ responses and to confirm the benefit of changes made to the instrument after
the first pilot test.
On both days, the students were shown cards with the steps from all four teaching
models: concept attainment, group investigation, direct instruction, and advance
organizer. During the first administration of the Q-Sort, the researcher asked the students
to sort the cards into 3 categories: most, somewhat, least (challenging, interesting, easy).
The students were able to sort the steps of each model into categories and provide a
69

rationale for each of their choices; however, they had difficulty determining a difference
between the “least challenging” category and the “easy” sort. The researcher asked the
students if they thought the challenging sort and the easy sort were similar. Their
response was that it seemed as if they were being asked the same thing; hence the
researcher removed the “easy” sort for the second test administration. The researcher
also noted that some changes needed to be made to her data collection instruments.
Originally, the researcher planned to have the students sort all the cards and then ask why
they were sorted in a particular manner. The students tended to state why they chose to
place the cards in a particular category as they sorted. Hence, the researcher also changed
the data collection sheet to allow the researcher to record the rationale for each choice
immediately.
The 2
nd
administration of the pilot test included the revised sorts and data
collection sheets. This test went very smoothly. Students took approximately 20 minutes
to complete 8 sorts. The students responded to both the Q-Sort and interviews in the
same way during both administrations of the pilot test. Their responses indicated that they
felt that activities or steps that required them to “think” were most challenging and most
interesting. The steps that were chosen as least challenging and/or least interesting were
those steps that required the least amount of effort on the students’ part, such as
observing.

70

CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Overview
The purpose of this study was to examine gifted students’ preferences for models
of teaching and the specific factors contributing to those preferences. The research
questions sought to determine what factors influenced gifted students’ (in grades 2-5)
preferences for a model of instruction related to the teaching and learning of various
subject matter; what was the difference between gifted and non-gifted students’
preferences for a model of teaching; and to what degree and why factors (interest,
challenge) affected students’ preferences for steps/instructional experiences in the models
of teaching.
To address these questions, quantitative and qualitative research methods were
employed. Students were administered a survey in which they were to choose the
instructional model they would prefer to learn about math, social studies, science, and
language arts. In this survey, students were asked to read a brief statement indicating the
content area referenced in the question. They were then asked to choose the way they
preferred to learn about the proposed subject. Their choices consisted of four lessons,
each taught with a different teaching model. After they selected the lesson or teaching
model they preferred, students were asked to indicate one of four reasons why they
selected that particular lesson. They placed a checkmark next to the following statements:
it is interesting, it is challenging, it is like what they always do, or it is easier. The survey
71

responses provided the researcher with information about how students preferred to learn
in each of the four content areas: math, social studies, science, and language arts.
In addition, students were given a Q-sort; they were asked to choose the specific
steps/instructional experiences in each model of instruction (direct instruction, group
investigation, advance organizer, and concept attainment) they found to be most,
somewhat, and least challenging, and most, somewhat, and least interesting and why. Q-
methodology was also used to provide more specific information about which steps of the
teaching models students preferred and for what reasons. Q-methodology, entails that a
person “sort” a group of pre-determined items or statements in a way that represents his
or her point of view (Stephenson, 1953; Storch Bracken, 2006). Q-methodology allows
for the use of a small number of participants (McKeown, 1988) to glean detailed, “valid
scientific conclusions” (Stephenson, 1953, p. 5). In doing so, it provides a scientific
method to study human subjectivity. A Q-sort was given to several randomly selected
students. Students were asked to sort the steps of the four different instructional models
(Direct Instruction, Group Investigation, Advanced Organizer, and Concept Attainment),
according to degree of interest, and challenge. Finally, students were interviewed to
ensure that the interpretation of the Q-sort accurately depicted the individuals’
viewpoints, and if so, they were asked to identify their reason for choosing the specific
sequence from the Q-Sort.
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results of the Student Lesson
Selection Survey and the Q-Sort. Chi-square tests of significance also were used to
72

evaluate the survey responses, while a principal component analysis was utilized to study
the responses to the Q-Sort. A qualitative examination of interview responses was
performed in an effort to find trends amongst the responses.
Sample Population
The sample population included 837 students in grades 2-5 from economically,
linguistically, and culturally diverse backgrounds, in urban, suburban, and rural districts.
The experimental group included 344 students (44% of the sample population) who were
identified as gifted according to district/California state guidelines. One hundred and
seventy-eight of the students (24% of the sample population) were identified as English
learners. The demographics of the population were as follows: Hispanic (55%), White
(23%), Asian (9%), and African American (6%). Students were sampled from urban,
suburban, and rural districts. Students in the experimental groups were taught with
specific instructional models by teachers participating in the differentiated professional
development plan. Gifted and potentially gifted students were included.
Survey Sample and Procedures
The survey (see Appendix A) sample included 301 responses from both gifted and
non-gifted students. Their responses (see Tables 1-16) were compiled in relation to
content area (math, social studies, science, and language arts) and choice of instructional
model (direct instruction, group investigation, concept attainment, and advance
organizer). As in the overall sample, the student population was linguistically, culturally,
and economically diverse. In grades 3 and 4, the dominant race/ethnicity was
73

Hispanic/Latino. In grade 5, the dominant race was Caucasian. In grade 3, there were a
high number of English learners. In addition, 60% of the 5
th
grade students were
identified as gifted, whereas less than 50% of students in all other grade levels (2-4) were
identified as gifted. All regular classrooms chosen for the project were required to have a
cluster grouping of gifted students as a prerequisite of the study. The classroom teachers
administered the survey, which was later collected by the research project director.
Definitions
Gifted and Talented Pupil. A student enrolled in a public elementary or secondary
school that is identified as having high performance or the potential for high performance
capabilities (California Education Code, Section 52201a).
Non-Gifted Pupil. A student who has not been formally identified as gifted at this time
and representing a group of students who are performing in the range from below basic to
proficient.
Interest. An instructional strategy that stimulates or encourages student engagement.
Challenge. An instructional strategy that activates academic rigor.
Routine. An instructional strategy that is utilized often.
Ease. An instructional strategy that is not considered challenging.
The choice of these categories is supported by motivational and goal theories. For
example, interest can be equated with intrinsic motivation. It influences how people
select and why they persist at certain activities (S. Hidi, 1990; Malone, 1987; R. M.
Ryan, & Deci, E.L., 2000). More importantly, students learn more when they are
74

interested in what they are doing (Alexander, 1997; R. M. Ryan, & Deci, E.L., 2000).
They are also more likely to retain what they learned, enabling them to reference and
apply it in the future (S. Hidi, Krapp, A., & Renninger, K.A., 1992).
Goal theory reinforces the notion that students who are intrinsically motivated or
learning goal oriented will seek challenging work, which fosters learning and improves
ability (C. Ames, 1992). Tomlinson (2002) concurs with this idea, stating the students
pursue challenges and make choices that promote their success. Accordingly, learning
only occurs when the work is somewhat challenging and when there is someone there to
assist the student reach what were once thought of as unattainable goals (Tomlinson,
2005b).
Q-Sort Sample and Procedures
The Q-Sort (see Appendix B) sample included a total population of 48 gifted and
non-gifted students in grades 2-5 from a linguistically, culturally, and economically
diverse urban elementary school. The composition consisted of 24 gifted students and 24
non-gifted students. Students were randomly selected by each classroom teacher to
participate in the sorting activity. The students sorted the steps/instructional experiences
of each teaching model (direct instruction, concept attainment, group investigation, and
advance organizer) according to their perceived degree of challenge and interest. The
students were then asked to qualify their choices by stating why they sorted the steps in
that particular manner. Students completed the Q-Sort procedure in small groups of two
or three; gifted students and non-gifted students were not placed in the same groups.
75

Findings by Research Questions
Research Question 1
The first research question asked what factors influenced gifted students’ (in
grades 2-5) preferences for a model of instruction related to the teaching and learning of
various subject matter. Students were asked to choose one reason per choice of
instructional model; however, some were allowed to choose two, if they felt equally
strong about both reasons. Tables 1-4 show the results of the student lesson selection
survey. The data set represents a limited number of gifted students for two reasons. First,
teachers self-selected to participate in this study and second, gifted students were cluster
grouped in regular classrooms in accordance with GATE standards. As a result, statistical
analysis to answer question 1 was not possible. Therefore, an additional research question
was added and chi-square analysis and subsequent calculation of the odds ratio were
undertaken to investigate whether there was an association between teaching model
preference and giftedness.

76

Table 1

Student Responses to Teaching Models in Math

2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade

Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency
Model Reason (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
Direct instruction
(Total students)
16 (23.2%) 13 (19.1%) 45 (30.6%) 9 (32.1%)
Number of gifted
students
3 (18.8%) 5 (38.5%) 15 (33.3%) 1 (11.1%)

Challenge 3 (18.8%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (11.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Interesting 9 (56.3%) 10 (76.9%) 24 (53.3%) 4 (44.4%)
Routine 3 (18.8%) 2 (15.4%) 10 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%)
Facility 6 (37.5%) 6 (46.2%) 24 (53.3%) 4 (44.4%)
77

Table 1 (continued)

2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade

Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency
Model Reason (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
Group
investigation
instruction
(Total students)
23 (33.3%) 21 (30.9%) 50 (34.0%) 10 (35.7%)
Number of gifted
students
11 (47.8%) 12 (57.1%) 27 (54%) 9 (90.0%)

Challenge 11 (47.8%) 11 (52.4%) 23 (46%) 4 (40%)
Interesting 14 (60.9%) 16 (76.2%) 33 (66%) 9 (90%)
Routine 3 (13.0%) 3 (14.3%) 8 (16%) 0 (0.0%)
Facility 5 (21.7%) 3 (14.3%) 7 (14.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Advance
organizer
(Total students)
15 (21.7%) 13 (19.1%) 15 (10.2%) 7 (25.0%)
Number of gifted
students
6 (40.0%) 5 (38.8%) 7 (46.7%) 6 (85.7%)

Challenge 12 (80%) 7 (53.8%) 6 (40%) 2 (28%)
Interesting 7 (46.7%) 10 (76.9%) 11 (73.3%) 6 (85.7%)
Routine 4 (26.7%) 1 (7.7%) 3 (20%) 2 (28.6%)
Facility 2 (13.3%) 1 (7.7%) 2 (13.3%) 0 (0.0%)
78

Table 1 (continued)

2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade

Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency
Model Reason (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
Concept
attainment
(Total students)
13 (18.8%) 9 (13.2%) 31 (21.1%) 2 (7.1%)
Number of gifted
students
4 (30.8%) 4 (44.4%) 12 (38.7%) 1 (50%)

Challenge 3 (23.1%) 5 (55.6%) 6 (19.4%) 1 (50%)
Interesting 10 (76.9%) 5 (55.6%) 27 (87.1%) 1 (50%)
Routine 2 (15.4%) 0 (0.0%) 7 (22.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Facility 2 (15.4%) 1 (11.1%) 9 (29.0%) 0 (0.0%)

In examining Question 1 of the survey, which is reflected in Table 1 for all
students, both gifted and non-gifted, it appears that the majority of students specified the
primary reasons for their choice of models to learn about math, specifically measurement,
were due to interest and ease. For example, 56% of 2
nd
grade students, both gifted and
non-gifted selected the direct instruction model, because they felt it was interesting. In
the 3
rd
grade, 77% of all students stated that the direct instruction model was interesting,
and in the 4
th
grade, 53% found the model to be interesting, while 53% also felt it was
easy. Similarly, 5
th
grade students chose the direct instruction model to learn about math
because it was interesting (44%) and easy (44%).
79

Those students who chose the group investigation model to learn about
measurement also did so primarily due to interest and challenge. In the 2
nd
grade, 61% of
students stated that the model was interesting. In 3
rd
grade, 76% of students cited interest
as their primary reason for choosing the model, and in fourth grade, 66% of students
claimed interest (66%) as their reason for choosing a model. Ninety percent of fifth
graders chose the group investigation model because it was interesting.
The advance organizer model yielded similar results when studying measurement.
Of the 2
nd
grade students who chose this model to learn about measurement, 80% chose it
because it was challenging. Seventy-seven percent of 3
rd
grade students found the
advance organizer to be interesting. Eighty-six percent of 5
th
graders who chose this
model did so due to its level of interest.
The concept attainment model is the last model listed above in reference to the
question about measurement. Seventy-seven percent of 2
nd
grade students chose this
model because it was interesting; 56% of 3
rd
grade students also stated that interest
influenced their choice, in addition to challenge (56%). Additionally, 87% of 4
th
graders
cited interest as the main factor in their choice of this model, while 5
th
grade students
were divided by interest (50%) and challenge (50%).
80

Table 2
Student Responses to Teaching Models in Social Studies

2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade

Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency
Model Reason (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
Direct instruction
(Total students)
28 (40.6%) 10 (14.7%) 25 (17.0%) 2 (7.1%)
Number of gifted
students
8 (28.6%) 3 (30.0%) 8 (32.0%) 0 (0.0%)

Challenge 13 (46.4%) 5 (50.0%) 9 (36.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Interesting 15 (53.6%) 7 (70.0%) 10 (76.0%) 1 (50.0%)
Routine 7 (25.0%) 3 (30.0%) 8 (32.2%) 1 (50.0%)
Facility 5 (17.9%) 1 (10.0%) 2 (8.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Group
investigation
(Total students)
15 (21.7%) 17 (14.7%) 43 (29.3%) 8 (28.6%)
Number of gifted
students
8 (53.3%) 13 (76.5%) 20 (46.5%) 5 (62.5%)

Challenge 6 (40.0%) 3 (17.6%) 15 (34.9%) 4 (50%)
Interesting 9 (60.0%) 16 (94.1%) 34 (79.1%) 4 (50%)
Routine 3 (20.0%) 6 (35.3%) 6 (14.0%) 3 (37.5%)
Facility 2 (13.3%) 1 (5.9%) 9 (20.9%) 0 (0.0%)

81

Table 2 (continued)

2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade

Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency
Model Reason (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
Advance
organizer
(Total students)
9 (13.0%) 14 (20.6%) 30 (20.4%) 12 (42.9%)
Number of gifted
students
3 (33.3%) 3 (21.4%) 17 (56.7%) 7 (58.3%)

Challenge 6 (66.7%) 6 (42.9%) 13 (43.3%) 1 (8.3%)
Interesting 4 (44.4%) 8 (57.1%) 19 (63.3%) 9 (75.0%)
Routine 3 (33.3%) 1 (7.1%) 6 (20.0%) 3 (25.0%)
Facility 1 (11.1%) 4 (28.6%) 4 (13.3%) 4 (0.0%)
Concept
attainment
(Total students)
15 (21.7%) 15 (19.1%) 45 (29.9%) 6 (21.4%)
Number of gifted
students
4 (26.7%) 8 (53.3%) 16 (36.4%) 5 (83.3%)

Challenge 6 (40.0%) 4 (26.7%) 12 (27.3%) 0 (0.0%)
Interesting 8 (53.3%) 11 (73.3%) 33 (75.0%) 5 (83.3%)
Routine 12 (13.3%) 2 (13.3%) 11 (25.0%) 1 (16.7%)
Facility 3 (20.0%) 2 (13.3%) 15 (34.1%) 1 (16.7%)

82

Question 2 of the survey asked how students preferred to learn about people and
how they live (social studies). Again, regardless of the model chosen, students cited
interest and challenge as the factors, which influenced their decision. The first model
represented is the direct instruction model. Of the 2
nd
grade students who chose this
model, 54% chose it because they found it interesting. In the 3
rd
grade, 70% of students
chose direct instruction because they found it interesting. Seventy-six percent of 4
th
grade
students also found the model to be interesting, and 50% of 5
th
grade students said that
the model was interesting and 50% said it was routine.
Students who chose the group investigation model in the 2
nd
grade cited interest
(60%), as well. Ninety-four percent of 3
rd
grade students found the group investigation
model to be interesting, as did 79% of 4
th
grade students. The 5
th
grade was divided
between challenge (50%) and interest (50%).
The results for learning about people with the advance organizer model produced
similar results. Sixty-seven percent of 2
nd
graders chose the advance organizer because it
was challenging. Fifty-seven percent of 3
rd
grade students marked interesting as their
rationale. Sixty-three percent of 4
th
grade students also chose interesting as their rationale
for selecting the advance organizer model. In the 5
th
grade, 75% of students felt that this
model was interesting.
The majority of students who chose the concept attainment model for learning
about social studies also cited interest the primary rationale for their selection. In 2
nd

83

grade, 53% chose challenging; in 3
rd
grade 73% chose interesting; in 4
th
grade 75% chose
interesting; and in the 5
th
grade 83% chose interesting.
Table 3
Student Responses to Teaching Models in Science

2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade

Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency
Model Reason (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
Direct instruction
(Total students)
7 (10.1%) 7 (10.3%) 11 (7.5%) 2 (3.6%)
Number of gifted
students
3 (42.9%) 3 (42.9%) 4 (36.4%) 1 (100.0%)

Challenge 3 (42.9%) 3 (42.9%) 7 (63.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Interesting 4 (57.1%) 6 (85.7%) 5 (45.5%) 0 (0.0%)
Routine 3 (42.9%) 2 (28.6%) 1 (9.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Facility 2 (28.6%) 2 (28.6%) 1 (9.1%) 1 (100.0%)

84

Table 3 (continued)

2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade

Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency
Model Reason (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
Group
investigation
(Total students)
0 (0.0%) 1 (8.3%) 19 (52.8%) 4 (57.1%)
Number of gifted
students
5 (35.7%) 8 (66.7%) 14 (38.9%) 1 (14.3%)

Challenge 5 (35.7%) 8 (66.7%) 14 (38.9%) 1 (14.3%)
Interesting 8 (57.1%) 7 (58.3%) 23 (63.9%) 4 (57.1%)
Routine 3 (21.4%) 2 (16.7%) 9 (25.0%) 1 (14.3%)
Facility 6 (42.9%) 3 (25.0%) 3 (8.3%) 2 (28.6%)
Advance
organizer
(Total students)
21 (30.4%) 10 (14.7%) 38 (25.9%) 11 (39.3%)
Number of gifted
students
9 (42.9%) 7 (70.0%) 16 (42.1%) 8 (72.7%)

Challenge 12 (57.1%) 5 (50.0%) 18 (47.4%) 6 (54.5%)
Interesting 14 (66.7%) 4 (40.0%) 22 (57.9%) 6 (54.5%)
Routine 6 (28.6%) 2 (20.0%) 9 (23.7%) 3 (27.3%)
Facility 2 (9.5%) 1 (10.0%) 9 (23.7%) 1 (9.1%)

85

Table 3 (continued)

2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade

Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency
Model Reason (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
Concept
attainment
(Total students)
25 (36.2%) 29 (42.6%) 55 (37.4%) 7 (25.0%)
Number of gifted
students
11 (44.0%) 17 (58.6%) 22 (40.0%) 2 (28.6%)

Challenge 7 (28.0%) 16 (55.2%) 21 (38.2%) 2 (28.6%)
Interesting 18 (72.0%) 21 (72.4%) 41 (74.5%) 4 (57.1%)
Routine 3 (12.0%) 5 (17.2%) 8 (14.5%) 0 (0.0%)
Facility 5 (20.0%) 2 (6.9%) 19 (34.5%) 2 (28.6%)

Table 3 represents the 3
rd
question on the student lesson selection survey.
Students were asked to select the model of instruction they preferred to learn about the
weather. The students in the 2
nd
grade who chose direct instruction cited interest (57%)
first as the reason for their choice. Students in the 3
rd
grade primarily chose the model
because it was interesting (86%). Students in the 4
th
grade chose direct instruction
because it was challenging (67%), and students in the 5
th
grade (100%) chose direct
instruction because it was easy.
Second grade students who chose the group investigation model to study science
(i.e., the topic of weather) did so because of interest (57%). Challenge (67%) was chosen
86

by 3
rd
grade students, whereas 4
th
grade students chose interest (64%). Fifth grade
students selected group investigation because they found it interesting (57%).
Students who chose the advance organizer model also did so due to interest and
challenge. In the 2
nd
grade, 67% of students selected interesting. In 3
rd
grade, 50% chose
challenge. In 4
th
grade, 58% chose interesting, and in 5
th
grade 55% chose challenge and
55% chose interesting.
Students who chose the concept attainment model to learn about the weather cited
interest as the dominant factor influencing their choice of instructional models. In 2
nd
and
3
rd
grades, 72% of students chose interesting for their reasoning. Seventy-five percent of
4
th
graders chose interesting and in 5
th
grade 57% of students marked interesting to
support their choice.

87

Table 4
Student Responses to Direct Instruction and Group Investigation in Language Arts

2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade

Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency
Model Reason (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
Direct instruction
(Total students)
18 (26.1%) 15 (22.1%) 4 (27.9%) 7 (25.0%)
Number of gifted
students
5 (27.8%) 7 (46.7%) 20 (48.8%) 3 (42.9%)

Challenge 3 (16.7%) 10 (66.7%) 15 (36.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Interesting 10 (55.6%) 8 (53.3%) 24 (58.5%) 1 (14.3%)
Routine 8 (44.4%) 4 (26.7%) 11 (26.8%) 6 (85.7%)
Facility 4 (22.2%) 3 (20.0%) 10 (24.4%) 3 (42.9%)
Group
investigation
(Total students)
13 (18.8%) 22 (32.4%) 42 (28.6%) 9 (32.1%)
Number of gifted
students
4 (30.8%) 13 (59.1%) 20 (47.6%) 5 (55.6%)

Challenge 6 (46.2%) 12 (54.5%) 15 (35.7%) 2 (22.2%)
Interesting 6 (46.2%) 11 (50.0%) 23 (54.8%) 4 (44.4%)
Routine 3 (23.1%) 7 (31.8%) 17 (40.5%) 1 (11.1%)
Facility 2 (15.4%) 5 (22.7%) 8 (19.0%) 4 (44.4%)

88

Table 4 (continued)

2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade

Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency
Model Reason (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
Advance
organizer
(Total students)
19 (27.5%) 10 (14.7%) 25 (17.0%) 6 (21.4%)
Number of gifted
students
7 (36.8%) 6 (60.0%) 13 (52.0%) 5 (83.3%)

Challenge 11 (57.9%) 4 (40.0%) 12 (48.0%) 3 (50.0%)
Interesting 7 (36.8%) 5 (50.0%) 14 (56.0%) 5 (83.3%)
Routine 11 (57.9%) 3 (30.0%) 8 (32.0%) 1 (16.7%)
Facility 3 (15.8%) 2 (20.0%) 6 (24.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Concept
attainment
(Total students)
17 (24.6%) 9 (13.2%) 33 (22.4%) 6 (21.4%)
Number of gifted
students
7 (41.2%) 1 (11.1%) 8 (24.2%) 4 (66.7%)

Challenge 4 (23.5%) 4 (44.4%) 8 (24.2%) 2 (33.3%)
Interesting 5 (29.4%) 5 (55.6%) 23 (69.7%) 1 (16.7%)
Routine 11 (64.7%) 1 (11.1%) 14 (42.4%) 1 (16.7%)
Facility 5 (29.4%) 2 (22.2%) 9 (27.3%) 3 (50.0%)

89

The last question on the student lesson selection survey (see Table 4)
asked students to choose the instructional model with which they would most like to learn
about characters in a story. Students still chose interest and challenge more than any
other factors; however, routine was also a factor, which came up often in this question.
Students in the 2
nd
grade chose the direct instruction model because it was interesting
(56%). In the 3
rd
grade, 67% of students said the model was challenging. In the 4
th
grade,
59% of students marked interesting, and in the 5
th
grade, 86% of students found the
model to be routine when learning about language arts.
Most students, who chose the group investigation model to learn about characters
in a story, used interesting and challenging to support their decisions. Second grade
students were evenly divided between interesting (46%) and challenge (46%). Third
grade students chose challenge (55%). Fourth grade students chose interesting (55%) as
their reason for choosing the group investigation model, and 5
th
grade students chose
interest (44%) and ease (44%) as their reasons.
The advance organizer model yielded similar results. Second graders cited
challenge (58%) and routine (58%) as the factors, which influenced their decision about
instructional models. In the 3
rd
grade, students claimed the model was interesting (50%),
and in the 4
th
grade, students noted the model was interesting (56%). Fifth grade students
chose interesting (83%), as well.
The concept attainment model yielded mixed results in the language arts content
area. Sixty-five percent of 2
nd
graders felt this model was routine. Fifty-six percent of 3
rd

90

grade students found this model interesting. Seventy percent of 4
th
grade students marked
interesting when asked about the concept attainment model and learning about characters,
while fifty percent of 5
th
grade students marked interesting.
Most students chose specific models because they found them interesting or
challenging. Table 5 illustrates this trend by instructional model and content area (math,
social studies, science, and language arts).
Table 5
Teaching Models Across Content Areas

Direct Instruction

Grade level Math Social studies Science Language arts
2 Interesting
(56%)
Interesting
(54%)
Interesting
(57%)
Interesting
(56%)
3 Interesting
(77%)
Interesting
(70%)
Interesting
(86%)
Challenging
(67%)
4 Interesting
(53%)
Interesting
(76%)
Challenging
(64%)
Interesting
(59%)
5 Interesting
(44%)
Interesting
(50%)
Easy
(100%)
Routine
(86%)

91

Table 5 (continued)

Group Investigation

Grade
Level
Math Social Studies Science Language Arts
2 Interesting
(61%)
Interesting
(60%)
Interesting
(57%)
Interesting/
Challenging
(46%)
3 Interesting
(76%)
Interesting
(94%)
Challenging
(67%)
Interesting
(50%)
4 Interesting
(66%)
Interesting
(79%)
Interesting
(64%)
Interesting
(55%)
5 Interesting
(90%)
Interesting/
Challenging
(50%)
Interesting
(57%)
Interesting/Easy
(44%)

Advance Organizer

Grade
Level
Math Social Studies Science Language Arts
2 Challenging
(80%)
Challenging
(67%)
Interesting
(67%)
Challenging/
Routine
(58%)
3 Interesting
(77%)
Interesting
(57%)
Challenging
(50%)
Interesting
(50%)
4 Interesting
(73%)
Interesting
(63%)
Interesting
(58%)
Interesting
(56%)
5 Interesting
(86%)
Interesting/
Challenging
(75%)
Interesting/Challe
nging
(55%)
Interesting
(83%)

92

Table 5 (continued)

Concept Attainment

Grade
Level
Math Social Studies Science Language Arts
2 Interesting
(53%)
Interesting
(53%)
Interesting
(72%)
Routine
(64%)
3 Interesting/Challenging
(56%)
Interesting
(73%)
Interesting
(72%)
Interesting
(56%)
4 Interesting
(87%)
Interesting
(75%)
Interesting
(75%)
Interesting
(70%)
5 Interesting/Challenging
(50%)
Interesting
(83%)
Interesting
(57%)
Easy
(50%)

Students in grades 2-5, who chose direct instruction in math and social studies,
did so because they found the model interesting. In science, 2
nd
and 3
rd
grade students
chose the direct instruction model because it was interesting; however, in grade 4,
students found the model to be challenging and in grade 5, students found it to be easy.
Students in grades 2 and 4 found the direct instruction model to be interesting when
learning about language arts; 3
rd
grade students found the model challenging; and 5
th

grade students found the model to be routine.
Students in grades 2-4, who chose the group investigation model in math and
social studies, did so because they found the model interesting. Fifth graders found the
model both interesting and challenging when learning about social studies. In science,
students in grades 2, 4, and 5 chose the group investigation model because it was
interesting; however, 3
rd
grade students found the model to be challenging. Students in
2
nd
grade said the group investigation model was both interesting and challenging.
93

Students in grades 3 and 4 stated that it was interesting, and 5
th
grade students said that
the group investigation model was both interesting and easy when learning about
language arts.
Students in grade 2, who chose the advance organizer model for math instruction,
stated that the model was challenging. In grades 3-5, students found the advance
organizer model to be interesting when learning math. In social science, 2
nd
graders
again found the advance organizer model to be challenging. Students in grades 3 and 4
said the model was interesting, and 5
th
grade students said it was both interesting and
challenging. In science, students in 2
nd
grade and 4
th
grade chose the model because it
was interesting. Students in 3
rd
grade said the advance organizer was challenging, and
students in 5
th
grade said the model was interesting and challenging. In language arts, 2
nd

grade students stated that the advance organizer was both challenging and like what they
always do. Students in grades 3-5 found the advance organizer model interesting when
learning about language arts.
In math, students in grades 2 and 4 who chose the concept attainment model cited
interest as the determining factor. In grades 3 and 5, students chose the model because it
was both interesting and challenging. In social studies and science, all students marked
interesting as the reason for choosing the concept attainment model. In language arts 2
nd

grade students chose the concept attainment model because it was routine or like what
they always do. Second and third grade students said the model was interesting, and most
5
th
grade students said they preferred the concept attainment model because it was easy
94

when learning about language arts. As stated earlier, due to the limited data set with
insufficient numbers of gifted students included in the sample, statistical analysis to
answer question 1 (the factors influencing gifted students’ (in grades 2-5) preferences for
a model of instruction related to the teaching and learning of various subject matter) was
not possible. An additional research question was added and other analyses were
undertaken to investigate whether there was an association between teaching model
preference and giftedness.
Research Question 2
The additional research question posed was whether or not there was a difference
between gifted and non-gifted students’ preferences for a model of teaching. When
examining the preferences of gifted and non-gifted students by grade level, the data
revealed no significant differences in their choice of instructional models. However,
when students were grouped across all grade levels and the four models were cross
tabulated, there were statistically significant differences in the preferences of gifted
versus non-gifted students for instructional models in various content areas. Only the
cross tabulations that yielded significant differences were discussed in this chapter.
Tables 6 and 7 report the results of the χ² analyses based on the data collected in
question 1 of the Student Lesson Selection Survey, which asked students to state their
preference for a model of instruction when learning about measurement.

95

Table 6
Gifted and Non-Gifted Students’ Preferences for Models of Teaching in Math

Models

Group Concept
investigation attainment Total χ² df p

Non-gifted 45 34 79 4.24 1 < .05
Gifted 59 21 80
Total 104 55 159

The results of a 2 x 2 χ² analysis yielded a significant association between
giftedness and model preference—χ²(1) = 4.24, p < .05. Based on the odds ratio, gifted
students were more than twice as likely (2.1 times) than non-gifted students to prefer
group investigation over concept attainment to learn about measurement.

96

Table 7
Gifted and Non-Gifted Students’ Preferences for Models of Teaching in Math

Models

Direct Group
instruction investigation Total χ² df p

Non-gifted 59 45 104 13.36 1 < .001
Gifted 24 59 83
Total 83 104 187

The results of a 2 x 2 χ² analysis yielded a highly significant association between
giftedness and model preference—χ²(1) = 13.36, p < .001. Based on the odds ratio, gifted
students were more than three times as likely (3.2 times) than non-gifted students to
prefer group investigation over direct instruction to learn about measurement. Of note,
was the increased level of significance when comparing group investigation to direct
instruction in math.
Table 8 reports the results of the χ² analysis based on the data collected in
question 2 of the Student Lesson Selection Survey, in which the students were asked to
identify the model of instruction they preferred when learning about social studies.

97

Table 8
Gifted and Non-Gifted Students’ Preferences for Models of Teaching in Social Studies

Models

Direct Group
instruction investigation Total χ² df p

Non-gifted 46 37 83 9.117 1 < .01
Gifted 19 46 65
Total 65 83 148

The results of a 2 x 2 χ² analysis yielded a highly significant association between
giftedness and model preference—χ²(1) = 9.1, p < .01. Based on the odds ratio, gifted
students were three times as likely (3.0 times) than non-gifted students to prefer group
investigation over direct instruction to learn about social studies. Again, there was a
highly significant correlation between gifted students’ preference for group investigation
over direct instruction in social studies.
Tables 9 and 10 report the results of the χ² analyses based on the data collected in
question 4 of the Student Lesson Selection Survey, in which the students were asked to
identify the model of instruction they preferred to learn about characters in a story or
language arts.

98

Table 9
Gifted and Non-Gifted Students’ Preferences for Models of Teaching in Language Arts

Models

Group Concept
investigation attainment Total χ² df p

Non-gifted 44 45 89 4.275 1 < .01
Gifted 42 20 62
Total 86 65 151

The results of a 2 x 2 χ² analysis yielded a highly significant association between
giftedness and model preference—χ²(1) = 4.3, p < .01. Based on the odds ratio, gifted
students were more than twice as likely (2.1 times) than non-gifted students to prefer
group investigation over concept attainment to learn about characters in a story.
Table 10
Gifted and Non-Gifted Students’ Preferences for Models of Teaching in Language Arts

Models

Advance Concept
organizer attainment Total χ² df p

Non-gifted 29 45 74 4.809 1 < .05
Gifted 31 20 51
Total 60 65 125

99

The results of a 2 x 2 χ² analysis yielded a significant association between
giftedness and model preference–χ²(1) = 4.8, p <.05. Based on the odds ratio, gifted
students were more than twice as likely (2.4 times) than non-gifted students to prefer
advance organizer over concept attainment to learn about characters in a story/language
arts.
The language arts content area appeared to play a role in gifted students’ choice of
models (See Tables 9 and 10). In language arts, gifted students significantly preferred
both the group investigation and the advance organizer models to the concept attainment
model.
Research Question 3
The third research question considered what factors (interest, challenge) affect
students’ preferences for steps or instructional experiences in each model of teaching
(direct instruction, concept attainment, group investigation, and advance organizer
teaching models). The second part of the question asked why students chose the way they
did.
Tables 11-16 illustrate the results of a principal component analysis, performed
using SPSS software, of the choices made by students in each grade level. A principal
components analysis is a statistical approach used to “identify the underlying dimensions
of a data set” (Field, 2005). It breaks down the given data into a group of core variables
(Hinton, 2005). The students’ preferences are assembled into components. Each
component represents a cluster of choices shared by a group of students in each grade
100

level. Only factor scores of 1.5 or higher were included for each component. In 2
nd
grade,
students’ responses clustered into 5 components (see Table 12). In grades 4 and 5 (see
Tables 13-14 and 15-16), students’ responses clustered into 4 components each. The
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .39 for the 3
rd
grade. Although
more data were gathered (18 gifted and non-gifted students), the results of the 3
rd
grade
component analysis showed that the new sample size was still inadequate due to the great
variance of responses. While the loading factors were high enough (> .40) to meet the
threshold to load into clusters (or groups), the diffusion in the pattern of correlations
among the variables clustering into groups was too great to yield reliable results. In other
words, the pattern of association of the variables which clustered into a group yielded
only weak correlations.
The sub-question to research question 3, which addressed why students made
particular choices, was represented and coded in conjunction with each table and
corresponding set of grade level components.

101

Table 11
Second Grade Students’ Preferences for Instructional Experiences in Teaching Models,
Component 1
Teaching Model Preference Card Description
Absolute Value
of Factor Scores
Direct Instruction Interesting Observe how something is done 2.20
Concept Attainment Challenge Use examples to prove the idea 1.90
Advance Organizer Interesting
Meet an unclear idea (big idea is
presented)
1.86
Direct Instruction Challenge Practice by yourself 1.80
Direct Instruction Interesting Practice by yourself 1.57

102

Table 11 (continued)
Component 2

Teaching Model

Preference

Card Description

Absolute Value
of Factor Scores

Direct Instruction

Challenge

Practice by yourself

2.069

Group Investigation

Interesting

Research (Look for answers to
questions)
1.865

Advance Organizer

Interesting

Research/look for new
information
1.794

Group Investigation

Least
Interesting

Check to see if you answered
the questions
1.749

Advance Organizer

Challenge

Explain the big idea

1.674

Direct Instruction

Least
Challenging
Practice once

1.669

Direct Instruction

Interesting

Practice by yourself

1.618

Advance Organizer

Challenge

Meet an unclear idea (Big Idea
is presented)
1.568

Concept Attainment

Interesting

Name the Idea

1.514

103

Table 11 (continued)
Component 3
Teaching Model

Preference

Card Description

Absolute Value
of Factor Scores

Advance Organizer

Challenge

Meet an unclear idea (Big idea
is presented)
2.051

Direct Instruction

Challenge

Observe how something is done

1.892

Concept Attainment

Challenge

Look at the examples without
labels
1.862

Group Investigation

Interesting

Research

1.683

Direct Instruction

Interesting

Observe how something is done

1.514

Concept Attainment

Challenge

Think about what it means
(Compare)
1.510

104

Table 11 (continued)

Component 4

Teaching Model

Preference

Card Description

Absolute Value
of Factor Scores

Group Investigation

Challenge

Research (Look for answers to
questions)
2.374

Concept Attainment

Interesting

Look at the examples with
labels
2.269

Concept Attainment

Least
Interesting
Name the Idea

2.101

Concept Attainment

Challenge

Describe your thinking to
name the idea

1.822

Direct Instruction

Least
Interesting
Practice once

1.501

105

Table 11 (continued)

Component 5

Teaching Model

Preference

Card Description

Absolute Value
of Factor Scores

Direct Instruction

Challenge

Practice by yourself

2.295

Concept Attainment

Interesting

Use examples to prove the idea

1.865

Concept Attainment

Challenge

Think about what it means
(Compare)
1.765

Concept Attainment

Challenge

Look at the examples without
labels
1.665

The results of a principal component analysis (see Table 11) indicated that in
Component 1, two non-gifted students and one gifted student found steps involving
independent practice both interesting and challenging and steps involving observation
interesting. They also found using examples to prove an idea challenging. Hence, this
cluster might be labeled Independent Practice, Proof, and Observation.
Component 2 indicated that two non-gifted students found steps involving
independent practice both interesting and challenging; steps involving research
challenging; and steps involving exposure to, naming, or explaining the big idea to be
both interesting and challenging. However, students found checking to see if they
answered questions and structured practice the least interesting and the least challenging.
Hence, this subscale might be labeled Independent Practice, Research, and Big Idea.
106

Component 3 indicated that two non-gifted and two gifted students found steps
involving observation both interesting and challenging, steps involving research
interesting, and steps involving a big idea and comparing examples and non-examples
challenging. Hence, this subscale might be labeled Observation, Labeled exemplars,
Research, Big Idea, and Comparison.
In Component 4, one non-gifted and two gifted students found steps involving
research to be challenging, steps involving describing one’s thinking to be both
interesting and challenging, and observation of exemplars and structured practice to be
interesting. They found naming the big idea and structured practice to be the least
interesting. Hence, this subscale might be labeled Research, Big Idea, and Labeled
Exemplars.
Component 5 indicated that two gifted students found steps involving independent
practice challenging and steps involving observation of unlabeled exemplars and thinking
about the meaning of the exemplars challenging, as well. These students also found
using examples to prove the big idea to be interesting. Hence, this subscale might be
labeled Independent Practice, Unlabeled Exemplars, Comparison, and Proof.

107

Table 12

Students’ Reasons for Choices of Instructional Experiences

Component 1

Learn something new Difficult/Enjoy Challenge/Independent Work

Observe how something is
done

Practice by yourself

Use examples to prove the idea

Meet an unclear idea

Component 2

Learn More

Difficult

Easy

Research

Practice by yourself

Practice Once
Explain big idea

Meet an unclear idea

Check if you answered
questions

Name the idea

108

Table 12 (continued)

Component 3

Learn Something New

Difficult

Observe how something is
done

No labels

Meet an unclear idea (Big
idea is presented)

Research

Think about what it means

Component 4

Learn Something New

Enjoy Challenge

Easy

Research

Describe thinking to name
idea

Practice Once
Look at Examples with
Labels

Name the Idea

109

Table 12 (continued)

Component 5

Difficult

Practice by yourself

Use examples to prove the idea

Think about what it means

Look at examples without labels

Second grade students cited learning something new, level of difficulty,
enjoyment of challenge and independent work as their reasons for choosing the
instructional experiences in Component 1. They cited learning more, level of difficulty or
ease as their reasons in Component 2. In Component 3, students cited learning something
new and level of difficulty as their reasons for choosing the instructional experiences, and
they cited learning something new, enjoyment of challenge, and level of ease as their
reasons for choosing the instructional experiences in Component 4. Students cited
difficulty only as their reason for choosing the instructional experiences in Component 5.

110

Table 13

Fourth Grade Students’ Preferences for Instructional Experiences in Teaching Models

Component 1

Teaching Model

Preference

Card Description

Absolute Value of
Factor Scores

Advance Organizer

Challenge

Explain the big idea

2.271

Concept Attainment

Interesting

Use examples to prove the
idea
2.050

Group Investigation

Interesting

Research (Look for new
information)
1.726

Direct Instruction

Interesting

Practice by yourself

1.712

Concept Attainment

Least
Challenging
Compare yes’s and no’s

1.514

Advance Organizer

Least
Interesting

Meet an unclear idea (Big
idea is presented)
1.512

111

Table 13 (continued)

Component 2

Teaching Model

Preference

Card Description

Absolute Value of
Factor Scores

Concept Attainment

Interesting

Share what you already know
2.587

Direct Instruction

Challenge

Practice Once

1.718

Direct Instruction

Interesting

Practice Once

1.661

Advance Organizer

Challenge

Research new information

1.527

Direct Instruction

Challenge

Observe how something is
done
1.502

112

Table 13 (continued)

Component 3

Teaching Model

Preference

Card Description

Absolute Value
of Factor Scores

Advance Organizer

Interesting

Meet an unclear idea (Big idea
is presented)
1.994

Advance Organizer

Interesting

Research new information

1.951

Direct Instruction

Least
Interesting
Practice Twice

1.786

Advance Organizer

Challenge

Explain the big idea

1.540

Component 4

Teaching Model

Preference

Card Description

Absolute Value
of Factor Scores

Direct Instruction

Interesting

Observe how something is
done
2.150

Direct Instruction

Challenge

Practice Once

2.068

Group Investigation

Challenge

Observe a puzzlement

1.698

Group Investigation

Interesting

Ask questions about the
puzzlement
1.615

113

The results of a principal component analysis (see Table 13) indicated that in
Component 1, one gifted and two non-gifted students found steps involving explaining a
big idea challenging, steps involving research and independent practice both interesting
and challenging. Students found comparing exemplars and meeting an unclear idea the
least challenging and the least interesting. Hence, this subscale might be labeled Big Idea,
Research, and Independent Practice.
Component 2 indicated that two gifted and two non-gifted students found steps
involving sharing information interesting, structured practice both interesting and
challenging, and research and observation of something new challenging. This subscale
might be labeled Sharing Information, Guided Practice, Research, and Observation.
In Component 3, two gifted students found steps involving a big idea interesting
and challenging, and steps involving research interesting. Students claimed guided
practice was the least interesting. This subscale might be labeled Big Idea and Research.
Component 4 indicated that one gifted and one non-gifted student found steps
involving observation and asking questions interesting, and structured practice and
observing a puzzlement challenging. This subscale might be labeled Observation,
Questions, and Guided Practice.

114

Table 14

Fourth Grade Students’ Reasons for Choices of Instructional Experiences

Component 1

Easy

Fun Difficult

Compare yes/no

Practice by yourself

Explain the big idea

Use examples to prove the
idea

Research

Meet an unclear idea

115

Table 14 (continued)
Component 2

Learn Something New

Difficult

Share what you already
know

Practice once

Research

Observe how something is
done

Component 3

Learn Something New

Easy

Difficult

Meet an unclear idea

Practice Twice

Research

Explain the big idea

Component 4

Learn Something New

Difficult

Observe how something is
done

Practice Once

Observe a puzzlement

Ask questions about puzzlement

116

Fourth grade students cited level of ease, fun, and level of difficulty as their
reasons for choosing the instructional experiences in Component 1; learning something
new and level of difficulty as their reasons for choosing the instructional experiences in
Component 2; learning something new, level of ease or difficulty as their reasons for
choosing the instructional experiences in Component 3; and learning something new and
level of difficulty as their reasons for choosing the instructional experiences in
Component 4.

117

Table 15

Fifth Grade Students’ Preferences for Instructional Experiences in Teaching Models,

Component 1

Teaching Model

Preference

Card Description

Absolute Value
of Factor Scores

Concept Attainment

Interesting

Use examples to prove the
idea
2.2

Group Investigation

Least
Challenging
Ask questions about
puzzlement
2.0

Concept Attainment

Challenge

Use examples to prove the
idea
1.7

Advance Organizer

Least
Challenging
Share what you already
know
1.6

Advance Organizer

Interesting

Research new information

1.5

Advance Organizer

Least
Interesting
Share what you already
know
1.5

Group Investigation

Least
Interesting
Ask questions about
puzzlement

1.5

118

Table 15 (continued)
Component 2

Teaching Model

Preference

Card Description

Absolute Value
of Factor Scores

Group Investigation

Least
Interesting
Observe a puzzlement

1.9

Direct Instruction

Least
Interesting
Practice Twice

1.7

Advance Organizer

Challenge

Meet an unclear idea (Big
idea is presented)
1.7

Advance Organizer

Least
Interesting
Share what you already know

1.7

Group Investigation

Challenge

Ask questions about
puzzlement
1.7

Advance Organizer

Interesting

Think how to apply new
information
1.7

Concept Attainment

Challenge

Use examples to prove the
idea
1.6

Concept Attainment

Least
Challenging
Look at the examples with
labels
1.6

Advance Organizer

Challenge

Share what you already know

1.5

Direct Instruction

Least
Interesting

Observe how something is
done
1.5

119

Table 15 (continued)
Component 3

Teaching Model

Preference

Card Description

Absolute Value
of Factor Scores

Direct Instruction

Least
Challenging
Observe how something is done

2.4

Group Investigation

Challenge

Research (Look for answers to
questions)
2.1

Direct Instruction

Least
Interesting
Observe how something is done

1.7

Advance Organizer

Interesting

Meet an unclear idea (Big idea
is presented)
1.6

Group Investigation

Least
Interesting
Observe a puzzlement

1.6

120

Table 15 (continued)
Component 4

Teaching Model

Preference

Card description

Absolute Value
of Factor Scores

Direct Instruction

Interesting

Practice by yourself

1.9

Concept Attainment

Interesting

Think about what it means
(Compare)
1.9

Concept Attainment

Challenge

Look at the examples with
labels
1.8

Direct Instruction

Interesting

Observe how something is done

1.8

Advance Organizer

Interesting

Research new information

1.7

Advance Organizer

Challenge

Think how to apply it

1.7

Concept Attainment

Challenge

Look at examples without
labels
1.7

Group Investigation

Challenge

Observe a puzzlement

1.5

Advance Organizer

Interesting

Meet an unclear idea (Big idea
is presented)

1.5

The results of a principal component analysis (see Table 15) indicated that in
Component 1, three gifted students found steps involving using examples to prove the
idea to be both interesting and challenging. They also found research to be interesting.
121

However, students found asking questions about a puzzlement and sharing what they
know to be the least interesting and the least challenging. This subscale might be labeled
Proof and Research.
Component 2 indicated that two non-gifted students found steps involving
observation, sharing information and observing how something is done, and guided
practice the least interesting. They found looking at examples with labels the least
challenging. Students stated that meeting an unclear idea, asking questions about a
puzzlement, using examples to prove an idea, and sharing what they know were
challenging. They also found steps involving application of new information interesting.
They found asking questions and working with a big idea challenging. Hence, this
subscale might be labeled Big Idea, Sharing Information, Proof, Application, and
Questions.
In Component 3, one gifted and one non-gifted student decided that steps
involving observation were the least interesting and the least challenging. They claimed
steps involving research to be challenging, and steps involving a big idea or puzzlement
to be interesting. This subscale might be labeled Research and Big Idea.
Component 4 indicated that two gifted students found steps involving independent
practice, comparison, observation, research, and a big idea interesting and steps involving
labeled and unlabeled exemplars, application and observation of a puzzlement
challenging. Hence, this subscale might be labeled Independent Practice, Comparison,
122

Observation, Research, Big Idea, Labeled and Unlabeled Exemplars, Application, and
Puzzlement.
Table 16

Fifth Grade Students’ Reasons for Choices of Instructional Experiences

Component 1

Learn Something New

Easy/Boring Difficult

Research

Share what you already
know

Use examples to prove idea

Ask questions about
puzzlement

123

Table 16 (continued)

Component 2

Learn Something New/Fun

Easy/Boring Difficult

Meet an unclear idea

Observe a puzzlement Ask questions about
puzzlement

Think how to apply new
information

Practice twice Use examples to prove idea

Share what you already
know
Share what you already
know

Look at examples with
labels

Observe how something is
done

Component 3

Learn Something New

Easy/Boring Difficult

Research

Observe how something is
done
Meet an unclear idea

Observe a puzzlement

124

Table 16 (continued)

Component 4

Learn Something
New/Fun

Easy/Boring
Difficult

Research

Look at examples with labels

Think about what it means

Meet an unclear idea

Observe how something is
done

Think how to apply it

Practice by yourself

Observe a puzzlement
Look at examples without
labels

Fifth grade students cited learning something new, level of ease or boredom, and
level of difficulty as their reasons for choosing the instructional experiences in
Component 1; learning something new or fun, level of ease, or boredom, and level of
difficulty as their reasons for choosing the instructional experiences in Component 2;
learning something new, level of ease, or boredom, and level of difficulty as their reasons
for choosing the instructional experiences in Component 3; and learning something new
or fun, level of ease, or boredom, and level of difficulty as their reasons for choosing the
instructional experiences in Component 4.

125

Summary of Findings

The results of the Student Lesson Selection Survey indicated that there were no
significant differences between gifted and non-gifted students’ preferences for an
instructional model by grade level. In addition, regardless of the instructional model or
the content area, students claimed that interest was the primary factor and challenge was
the secondary factor influencing their choice of an instructional model. The only
deviation in this trend was with the direct instruction model in the areas of math and
language arts. Student responses indicated that they found direct instruction to be slightly
less challenging in these areas.
The choice of categories above was supported by motivational and goal theories.
For example, interest can be equated with intrinsic motivation. It influences how people
select and why they persist at certain activities (S. Hidi, 1990; Malone, 1987; R. M.
Ryan, & Deci, E.L., 2000). More importantly, students learn more when they are
interested in what they are doing (Alexander, 1997; R. M. Ryan, & Deci, E.L., 2000).
They are also more likely to retain what they learned, enabling them to reference and
apply it in the future (S. Hidi, Krapp, A., & Renninger, K.A., 1992).
Goal theory reinforces the notion that students who are intrinsically motivated or
learning goal oriented will seek challenging work, thus fostering learning and improving
ability (C. Ames, 1992). Tomlinson (2002) concurs with this idea, stating the students
pursue challenges and make choices that promote their success. Accordingly, learning
126

only occurs when the work is somewhat challenging and when there is someone there to
assist the student reach what were once thought of as unattainable goals (Tomlinson,
2005b).
The data extracted from gifted and non-gifted students’ responses across all grade
levels revealed some different results. Statistical analysis of gifted versus non-gifted
students’ preferences for a model of instruction yielded significant findings. When
learning about measurement, gifted students were twice as likely as non-gifted students to
choose the group investigation model over the concept attainment model. In addition,
gifted students were more than three times as likely as non-gifted students to choose the
group investigation model over the direct instruction model to learn about
measurement/math. When learning about social studies, gifted students were again three
times as likely as non-gifted students to choose the group investigation model over the
direct instruction model. The highly significant results for the group investigation model
over the direct instruction model indicated gifted students’ preference for group
investigation over direct instruction in both math and social studies.
Lastly, in language arts, gifted students were twice as likely as non-gifted students
to choose the group investigation model over the concept attainment model, and they
were more than two times as likely as non-gifted students to choose the advance
organizer model over the concept attainment model. The results indicated that the
content area of language arts impacted gifted students’ preferences for a model of
teaching, other than the concept attainment model, to learn about characters in a story.
127

The findings suggest that indeed gifted students have learning interests and needs,
which differ from those in the general population (Clark, 1997). The results further
indicate that the instructional theories and principles upon which these specific models
are based align with the specific interests and characteristics of gifted children.
A principal component analysis of the factors influencing students’ preferences
for the steps of the four instructional models indicated slight difference in the choices of
gifted (G) and non-gifted (NG) students. Students’ preferences clustered into five
different components in the 2
nd
grade:
• Component 1 - (G/NG) Independent Practice, Proof, Observation
• Component 2 - (NG) Independent Practice, Research, Big Idea
• Component 3 - (G/NG) Observation, Labeled Exemplars, Research, Big Idea,
Comparison
• Component 4 - (G/NG)Research, Big Idea, Labeled Exemplars
• Component 5 - (G) Independent Practice, Unlabeled Exemplars, Comparison,
Proof
Upon examination of each component, it appears that both gifted and non-gifted
found independent practice, research, and working with a big idea the most interesting
and the most challenging. In components 2 and 4, students claimed that guided practice
or practicing once with the teacher was the least interesting.
Students’ responses, as illustrated in the above components, were also coded
according to reasons given for choice of steps. Second grade students claimed that the
128

steps they found to be the most challenging and the most interesting were also the steps
they found to be difficult and with which they felt they learned more. The steps they
claimed to be the least interesting or challenging were those they claimed to be easy or
boring.
In the fourth grade, a component analysis revealed that students’ preferences
clustered into four different components:
• Component 1 - (G/NG) Independent Practice, Big Idea, Research
• Component 2 - (G/NG) Sharing Information, Guided Practice, Research,
Observation
• Component 3 - (G) Research, Big Idea
• Component 4 - (G/NG) Observation, Guided Practice, Asking Questions
Both gifted and non-gifted found research and working with a big idea to be the
most interesting and the most challenging. Fourth grade students also claimed that the
steps they found to be the most challenging and the most interesting were the steps they
found to be difficult and with which they felt they learned more. The steps they claimed
to be the least interesting or challenging were those they claimed to be easy.
Students’ preferences clustered into four different components in the 5
th
grade, as
well:
• Component 1- (G) Proof, Research
• Component 2- (NG) Sharing Information, Big Idea, Proof, Application,
Asking Questions
129

• Component 3-(G/NG) Research, Big Idea
• Component 4-(G) Independent Practice, Comparison, Observation, Research,
Big Idea, Labeled and Unlabeled Exemplars, Application
Of note in the 5
th
grade is the fact that gifted students’ responses clustered on two
components, non-gifted students responses clustered on one component, and the last
component was a mix of both gifted and non-gifted students. Again both gifted and non-
gifted students commonly cited research and working with a big idea to be the most
interesting and the most challenging. In components 1 and 2 students claimed that sharing
what they already knew was the least interesting, and in components 2 and 3, students
also claimed that observing how something is done and observing a puzzlement were the
least interesting and/or the least challenging.
Students’ responses, when coded according to reasons given for choice of steps,
fell into the same or similar categories as those in the 2
nd
and 4
th
grades. The steps they
found to be the most challenging and the most interesting were the steps they found to be
difficult, fun, and with which they felt they learned more. The steps they claimed to be
the least interesting or challenging were those they claimed to be easy or boring.
The trends in students’ responses align with motivational theories. Motivation is
increased when students experience the appropriate level of challenge. If a task is too
easy, a student may become bored, and if a task is too difficult, a student may become
frustrated (Dweck, 1989; P. Pintrich, & Schunk, D., 2002). People who are learning goal
oriented will seek challenges. People who are performance goal oriented will also seek
130

challenging tasks, but only if they are confident in their ability to perform well. They are
also more likely to choose easier tasks, those with which they are familiar in order to
appear competent to others (C. Ames, Ames, R., & Felker, D.W., 1977). Learning goal
orientation is the more desirable of the two because it increases the amount of time
students spend on a task, their persistence with the task, and their level of engagement in
learning (C. Ames, 1992). To promote interest, motivation, and ultimately learning goal
orientation, curriculum and instruction should be challenging, meaningful, and related to
interests (C. Ames, 1992; Brophy, 1987; R. M. Ryan, & Deci, E.L., 2000).

131

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
In 1972 the “Marland Report,” highlighted the fact that the educational needs of
gifted students were not being met, thus triggering the initiation of federal guidelines and
financial support for gifted education (Colangelo, 2003). In 1983, the National
Commission on Excellence in Education reported that the academic performance of a
number of gifted students did not match their tested capabilities (Rimm, 2003), and again
in 1993, the U.S. Department of Education issued a report stating among other things,
that “ the gifts, talents, and high interests” of many of America’s students were being
wasted, and that gifted and talented students were “still not challenged to work to their
full potential” (Riley, 1993, p. 1) More recently, researchers have expressed concern for
the mismatch between the ability and actual performance of gifted students, much of
which has been attributed to lack of motivation and inadequate instruction (Gottfried,
1996; McNabb, 2003; Rea, 2001; Winner, 2000).
Motivational theories suggest that intrinsic motivation or what is termed as
mastery goal orientation is linked to a preference for challenge, risk-taking, task
persistence, interest in, and a positive attitude toward learning (C. Ames, 1992; Dweck,
1986). Furthermore, social cognitive theory purports that choice, which allows for
autonomy, in addition to cognitive processes, significantly impact student engagement
and learning (De Groot, 1990; Flowerday, 2004; Gredler, 2005; Linnenbrink, 2002).
132

Gifted students have special learning needs for which curriculum and instruction
should be adapted (Gallagher, 2003; VanTassel-Baska, 2005). Indeed, researchers
emphasize the importance of using appropriate instructional methods in working with
gifted students (Eggen, 2006; Whitmore, 1980). Instruction and curriculum for gifted
students should be “based on assessed achievement and interests of individual students”
(Purcell, 2002, p. 309).
Overview of the Study
This study sought to connect the aforementioned theories of motivation and
learning to instructional practices, and more specifically to models of instruction. The
research questions were as follows:
1. What factors influence gifted students’ (in grades 2-5) preferences for a model of
instruction related to the teaching and learning of various subject matter?
2. Is there a difference between gifted and not identified as gifted students’
preferences for a model of teaching?
3. What factors (interest, challenge) affect students’ preferences for steps or
instructional experiences in each model of teaching and to what degree? (direct
instruction, concept attainment, group investigation, and advance organizer
teaching models)
A. Why do students find the steps or instructional experiences the most,
somewhat, and least interesting, or challenging?
133

To address these questions, quantitative and qualitative research methods were
employed. Students were administered a survey which asked them to choose which
instructional model they would prefer to learn in the following content areas: math, social
studies, science, and language arts. In addition, students were given a Q-sort, which
required them to choose the specific steps in each model of instruction (direct instruction,
group investigations, advance organizer, and concept attainment) they found to be most
challenging, somewhat challenging, least challenging, and most interesting, somewhat
interesting, and least interesting and to state why they chose that way.
Research Findings and Conclusions
Survey Results
Research Question 1
The first research question asked what factors influenced gifted students’ (in
grades 2-5) preferences for a model of instruction related to the teaching and learning of
various subject matter.
Finding. Although, statistical analysis for this question was not possible, alternate
analyses of gifted and non-gifted students’ preferences for teaching models across all
grade levels indicated the existence of trends in the data. First, regardless of the teaching
model chosen, students indicated that their selection of instructional models was based on
whether they perceived the model to be interesting or challenging. Second, the students’
choices of factors (interest and challenge) were consistent across grade levels and the
content areas. The only deviation in this trend was with the direct instruction model in the
134

areas of math and language arts. Student responses indicated that they found direct
instruction to be slightly less challenging in these areas.
Conclusion. These findings support what researchers have stated about student
motivation and learning. Most notably, children seek challenge and learning opportunities
based on their interests (Tomlinson, 2002). Moreover, students maintain a natural interest
and curiosity in the absence of rewards (Crow, 2006; Lepper, 1988; R. M. Ryan, & Deci,
E.L., 2000). This is significant because the desire for challenging work and interest in
learning are associated with a mastery goal orientation, which is strongly correlated to
positive feelings toward learning and achievement (C. Ames, 1992; Crow, 2006; Elliott,
1988). Further, the data sustains the notion that, in addition to motivational factors and
beliefs about learning, students’ perceptions of the classroom and instruction “are
relevant to cognitive engagement and classroom engagement,”(De Groot, 1990, p. 33)
which are also linked to performance.
Research Question 2
The research question posed was whether or not there was a difference between
gifted and non-gifted students’ preferences for a model of teaching.
Finding. When examining the preferences of gifted and non-gifted students by
grade level, the data revealed no significant differences in their choice of instructional
models. However, when students were grouped across all grade levels and the models
were cross tabulated, there were statistically significant differences in the preferences of
135

gifted versus non-gifted students for an instructional model in three of the four subject
areas.
The first question on the survey related to math. Students were asked which
specific model they preferred to learn about measurement. The results of 2 x 2 χ²
analyses yielded a significant association between giftedness and model preference.
Based on the odds ratio, gifted students were more than twice as likely (2.1 times) than
non-gifted students to prefer group investigation over concept attainment to learn about
measurement. In addition, gifted students were more than three times as likely (3.2 times)
than non-gifted students, to choose group investigation over direct instruction to learn
about measurement.
The second question asked students how they would prefer to learn about people
and how they live (social studies). The results of 2 x 2 χ² analysis again yielded a highly
significant association between giftedness and model preference. Based on the odds ratio,
gifted students were three times as likely (3.0 times) than non-gifted students to prefer
group investigation over direct instruction to learn about social studies.
The last question on the survey asked students how they would like to learn about
characters in a story. The results of 2 x 2 χ² analysis indicated a significant association
between giftedness and model preference. Based on the odds ratio, gifted students were
more than twice as likely (2.1 times) than non-gifted students to prefer group
investigation over concept attainment to learn about characters in a story. Gifted students
136

were also more than twice as likely (2.4 times) than non-gifted students, to choose group
advance organizer over concept attainment to learn about language arts.
Conclusion. The aforementioned findings confirm that indeed gifted students have
learning interests and needs, which differ from those in the general population (Clark,
1997). In 3 of 4 content areas, gifted students preferred a model of teaching other than the
model(s) chosen by non-gifted students. Most often, gifted students chose the group
investigation model rather than the direct instruction model or the concept attainment
model. In language arts, students preferred both the advance organizer model and the
group investigation model over the concept attainment model. The findings, therefore,
indicate that the instructional theories and principles upon which these specific models
are based align with the specific interests and characteristics of gifted children.
The group model investigation dictates that students are given time to search for
information to answer the questions they posed. Moreover, the students decide how they
will organize their research plan in their cooperative groups. “By doing so, they evolve
their own cognitive map that sets out where they will go and how they will get there” (Y.
Sharan, &Sharan, S., 1992, p. 13). Each group’s plan also informs the decision on which
information to select. Furthermore, students must examine various sources and analyze
ideas to extract their merits relative to the questions at hand. Finally, students must create
a presentation of the gathered information to report to the rest of the class. Many of the
qualities and/or abilities shared by gifted students, such as advanced comprehension,
varied interests, high capacity for processing information, leadership abilities, advanced
137

language, reading and writing abilities are fostered through the steps of the group
investigation model (Clark, 1997; Giftedness and the gifted: What's it all about?," 1990).
Indeed, the model allows gifted students to select the information to be researched for
their chosen subtopic, in addition to allowing them to work at their own pace (Robinson,
1991).
The advance organizer model facilitates the processing of information by linking
new information to previously acquired concepts, thereby strengthening cognitive
organization and increasing retention of newly acquired information (Joyce, 2004).
Considering the gifted student’s “unusual capacity for processing information” (Clark,
1997, p. 55), this model would also seem a logical match for gifted students.
Q-Sort Results
Research Question 3
The first part of research question 3 considered what factors (interest, challenge)
affect students’ preferences for steps or instructional experiences in each model of
teaching and to what degree. The sub-question to research question 3 asked students why
they found the steps they chose to be the most, somewhat, or least interesting or
challenging.
Finding. Students’ preferences for steps in each teaching model clustered into 5
components in the 2
nd
grade, and 4 components in the 4
th
and 5
th
grades. In 3
rd
grade, the
variation in student responses was too great to be compiled into specific components.
138

In the 2
nd
grade, students chose steps involving research and working with (either
being presented or using examples to prove) the big idea as the most interesting and the
most challenging. There was marginal variance amongst the clustered components. In
addition, on only two components did gifted and non-gifted students differ slightly in
their choices. Non-gifted students chose the steps of independent practice, research, and
working with a big idea, while gifted students chose independent practice, looking at
unlabeled exemplars, thinking about the meaning of the exemplars, and using the
exemplars to prove an idea.
In the 4
th
grade, students chose steps involving research and working with a big
idea to be the most interesting and challenging. Gifted and non-gifted students clustered
together on 3 of the 4 components. In addition to research and the big idea, students
chose independent practice in component 1, sharing information, guided practice, and
observation in component 2, and observation, guided practice, and asking questions in
component 4. Gifted students clustered together in component 3 by choosing research
and working with a big idea.
In the 5
th
grade, gifted students’ preferences were grouped together on
components 1 and 4, while non-gifted students’ preferences grouped on component 2.
The 3
rd
component was a mix of both gifted and non-gifted students’ preferences. Still,
the steps commonly chosen were research and working with the big idea. Gifted students
chose using examples to prove an idea and working with the big idea for component 1. In
addition, to using examples to prove an idea and the big idea, non-gifted students chose
139

sharing information, applying new information, and asking questions in component 2.
Both gifted and non-gifted students chose research and the big idea in component 3, and
in addition to the two aforementioned steps, gifted students chose independent practice,
comparison, observation, application of new information, and looking at labeled and
unlabeled exemplars in component 4.
Students were asked why they chose those particular steps to be the most,
somewhat, or least challenging. Their responses were coded into the following
categories: learn new information, difficult, fun, and easy/boring. The steps they found to
be the most interesting and challenging were also those they classified as fun, difficult, or
with which they learned new information. The steps they categorized as least interesting
or challenging, they also cited as easy or boring.
Conclusion. The findings suggest that in relation to specific instructional
experiences in models of teaching, gifted and non-gifted students maintain similar
preferences with only slight variance across the grade levels. Even when the students’
preferences clustered by gifted or non-gifted students, the preferences, themselves, were
similar. Students generally preferred independent practice, research, and working with
the big idea in the 2
nd
grade, and research and working with the big idea in the 4
th
and 5
th

grades.
According to self-determination theory, competence, autonomy, and relatedness
drive motivation (R. M. Ryan, & Deci, E.L., 2000). Independent practice satisfies the
need for competence and autonomy, as it is the step that is only reached once the teacher
140

has determined that the student is competent enough to work on a skill independently.
Moreover, students who have reached this stage have also received a substantial amount
of corrective feedback, a process which has also been linked to competence (R. M. Ryan,
& Deci, E.L., 2000). Students should achieve an 85% to 90% accuracy level before
moving on to the next level (Joyce, 2004), further demonstrating their competence, and as
the title suggests, independent practice is an autonomous activity.
Research is a practice, which also requires competence and can be autonomous.
Autonomy, according to self-determination theory refers to “the feeling of volition that
can accompany any act, whether dependent or independent, collectivist or individualist”
(R. M. Ryan, & Deci, E.L., 2000, p. 74). In the group investigation model, group
members “gather information from a variety of sources, analyze and evaluate the data,
reach conclusions, and apply their share of new knowledge to solving the group’s
research problem” (Y. Sharan, &Sharan, S., 1989, p. 19). Students must be able to carry
out the aforementioned skills in order to complete their research. Moreover, students
work in groups, thereby satisfying the need for relatedness, as well.
Finally, students chose meeting an unclear idea and explaining a big idea, both
steps in the advance organizer model, as challenging and interesting. The first step,
meeting an unclear idea, describes the presentation of an idea at a level of abstraction that
is higher than the subsequent material to be learned, yet still related to the learners’
previously acquired knowledge (Joyce, 2004). The advance organizer model is designed
to assist students in processing new information, thereby increasing their level of
141

competence through the relation of new material to prior knowledge. The final step of the
model, explaining the big idea allows students to further demonstrate their competence
through their ability to “verbalize the essence of the material, using their own
terminology and frame of reference” (Joyce, 2004, p. 198). Hence, the steps support
competence, because students demonstrate their ability to process information,
experience autonomy in the expression of their ideas, and relatedness in connecting new
information to existing cognitive resources. In sum, the steps chosen by students are
those which also lead to increased motivation.
The findings from the brief student interviews also support theories on motivation
and learning. Students claimed specific steps were interesting or challenging because they
led to the acquisition of new information, and because the steps were fun or difficult. The
steps that were the least interesting or challenging were those students claimed were too
easy or boring. As mentioned earlier, mastery goal orientation or intrinsic motivation is
linked to a preference for challenge, risk-taking, task persistence, interest in and a
positive attitude toward learning (C. Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986).
Limitations
There were several limitations in conducting the research of the study. First, the
researcher used a survey that was already defined as important to a project. Therefore the
researcher had no involvement in the administration of the survey. Second, the researcher
was limited by time in her administration of the Q-Sort. The researcher worked with
students in groups of three, as opposed to individually. Hence, their responses may have
142

been influenced by the other students in their group. The researcher was utilizing a new
instrument, created specifically for this study. The instrument was tested in a pilot study;
however, the actual implementation revealed that additional time was necessary. Third,
the Q-Sort was implemented at one school site; hence the results may not be
generalizable to other populations. Fourth, not all teachers in the study fully emphasized
all four models of teaching in the 2007-2008 school year, which may have also affected
their students’ responses.
General Conclusions
It can be surmised from the findings of this study that students, when given a
choice, seek challenge and learning opportunities based on their interests (Tomlinson,
2002). Interest and challenge, the two reasons cited most often by students for choosing a
particular model of instruction, are strongly correlated with a mastery or learning goal
orientation. This is significant because the desire for challenging work and interest in
learning also generate positive feelings toward learning and achievement (C. Ames,
1992; Crow, 2006; Elliott, 1988). Learning or mastery goals are those related to learning
for the sake of learning. “With a mastery goal, individuals are oriented toward developing
new skills, trying to understand their work, improving their level of competence, or
achieving a sense of mastery based on self-referenced standards” (C. Ames, 1992, p.
261). In fact, these students are what is termed as intrinsically motivated (Lepper, 1988).
Students, who pursue mastery goals achieve and persist at challenging tasks because they
143

enjoy doing so; whereas, students who are performance goal oriented avoid challenge and
hence do not persist when such difficulty arises.
Goal orientations can also significantly impact students’ cognitive performance
(Dweck, 1986). Students with learning goal orientations will seek challenging tasks that
promote learning, regardless of their perception of their abilities. Additionally, they will
interpret challenges as an opportunity to analyze and hone their skills, thus increasing
their abilities. “Indeed, students endorsing mastery goals have reported valuing and using
those learning strategies that are related to attending processing, self-monitoring, and
deep processing of verbal information” (C. Ames, 1992, p. 262). Hence, for these
students, increased efforts lead to satisfaction. Thus, a mastery goal orientation fosters
inquiry, initiative, and the pursuit of challenge, which in turn leads to cognitive growth.
Another finding of this study indicated that gifted students markedly preferred the
group investigation model over both the direct instruction and concept attainment models,
according to the Student Lesson Selection Survey. Researchers have argued that gifted
students share similar characteristics (Colangelo, 2003; Davis, 1989; Gallagher, 1975),
some of which include advanced reasoning abilities and intellectual curiosity, a variety of
interests, advanced language, reading and writing abilities, and mathematical insights.
Gifted students may also display marked learning skills, creativity, retention, and recall
abilities, and intellectual autonomy ("Giftedness and the gifted: What's it all about?,"
1990). These similarities among gifted students likely explain the similarities in their
preferences, as well.
144

The group investigation model affords students greater control over their learning
than through other teaching methods (Y. Sharan, &Sharan, S., 1989). Moreover, their
course of inquiry is dictated by their interests, and the questions posed are a reflection of
a diverse set of knowledge, abilities, backgrounds, and values. Hence, this model
specifically connects to gifted students’ curiosity, advanced reasoning abilities, and
inclination toward autonomy. The direct instruction and concept attainment models are
neither directed by students’ interests nor afford them the same level of autonomy as does
the group investigation model.
The results of the Q-Sort did not indicate significant differences between gifted
and non-gifted students’ preferences for steps in models of teaching. A principal
component analysis indicated that both gifted and non-gifted students’ responses
clustered on several components. What is more, when gifted students’ responses were
grouped together, the steps chosen did not differ greatly from the other clusters.
According to the data, both gifted and non-gifted students preferred steps involving
research, being presented with or proving a big idea, and independent practice.
According to self-determination theory, motivation hinges upon three
psychological needs: competence, autonomy, and relatedness. The steps chosen by all
students support these psychological needs related to motivation. The need for
competence refers to an individual’s desire to be competent in his or her environment.
Autonomy reflects an individual’s need to feel in control of his or her behavior, while
relatedness indicates an individual’s desire to belong to or be a part of a group. When
145

these needs are satisfied, they produce increased self-motivation and improved mental
health; however, when obstructed, they diminish motivation and well being. It can,
therefore, be inferred that when given the choice, students prefer activities or steps in a
model of teaching which will increase their motivation because they meet such needs.
When asked to provide a rationale for their choices of steps, students consistently
stated that the steps that were the most interesting and the most challenging were also the
steps that were difficult and from which they learned more. The steps that were least
interesting and least challenging were those students considered to be easy or boring.
These findings reaffirm the aforementioned conclusions that when given the choice, all
students seek learning opportunities based on challenge and interest.
Implications for Practice and Suggestions for Future Research
Based on the results of this dissertation study, the following implications for
practice and suggestions for future research can be made: (a) the provision of challenging
curriculum and instructional design connected to student interests and choice; (b) further
research on the use of the group investigation model and advance organizer models with
gifted populations; (c) the provision of learning opportunities, which allow students to
delve into research, work independently, and study abstract concepts and big ideas; (d)
the use of the Q-Sort in further studies of students’ preferences for instructional
experiences.

146

Challenging Curriculum and Instructional Design Connected to Student Interests and
Choice
For learning purposes, it is optimal to maximize students’ intrinsic motivation.
When examining variances in intrinsic motivation, Ryan and Deci (2000) cited threats,
deadlines, rewards, evaluations, and directives as detriments; however, choice,
recognition of feelings, and opportunities for self-direction were found “to enhance
intrinsic motivation because the allow people a greater feeling of autonomy” (p. 70). The
results of this study indicated that students seek learning opportunities based on their
level of challenge and interest to the student. Instructors who are supportive of student
autonomy arouse students’ intrinsic motivation, inquisitiveness, and need for challenge.
Moreover, students in such classrooms are more likely to remain in school, and
demonstrate increased perception of academic ability, internal control, mastery
motivation, and improved performance (Reeve, 1999; R. M. Ryan, & Grolnick, W.S.,
1986). Educators who teach in a directive and controlled manner tend to quash student
interest in and comprehension of instructional material. This dictatorial teaching style
also tends to minimize conceptual learning and creative processing (Grolnick, 1987).
Hence, connections made to student interests and challenge through curriculum and
instruction may lead to increased student achievement and the inclination toward lifelong
learning (Crow, 2006).

147

Further Research on the Use of the Group Investigation and Advance Organizer Models
with Gifted Populations
The survey data collected for this dissertation study indicated that gifted students
significantly preferred the group investigation model in math, social studies, and
language arts. They also preferred the advanced organizer model over the concept
attainment model when studying language arts. Several implications can be gleaned from
this information. The group investigation model allows students to work in a fairly
autonomous manner. Students pose the questions to be answered, organize a plan to
study, perform research, and present their findings. The structure of the model, self-
selected research plan and individual pacing (Robinson, 1991), specifically appeals to the
learning needs of gifted students.
It has also been noted that students’ “motivation to learn and subsequent
achievement are enhanced when they study in a classroom conducted with a teaching
method most consistent with their social orientation” (S. Sharan, & Shaulov, A., 1990,
pp. 199-200). The group investigation model was built upon the beliefs of John Dewey
(1916) about the democratic nature of society, school, and education. Accordingly, a
democratic society is one which has “a type of education which gives individuals a
personal interest in social relationships and control, and the habits of mind which secure
social changes without introducing disorder” (Dewey, 1916, p. 115). The group
investigation model focuses on teaching content area knowledge through the social
process in an effort to replicate the natural social order and group negotiation patterns
148

(Joyce, 2004). Further research in this area might examine whether gifted students’
preferences change or remain constant depending on the grouping. Hence, the research
might examine the use of the group investigation model with gifted students in cluster
groups versus the use of the model with gifted students in mixed-ability groups.
The data also revealed that gifted students preferred the advanced organizer
model to study language arts. The advance organizer is a teaching tool, which helps to
bridge “the gap between what the learner already knows and what he needs to know if he
is going to learn new material most actively and expeditiously” (D. P. Ausubel, 2000, p.
11). This model also lends itself well to the learning needs of the gifted population. Some
of the attributes of gifted students, specifically their ability to process large amounts of
information, to work with abstract concepts, and to transfer knowledge to new situations
(Manning, 2006), are a natural match for basic principles of this model, namely: (a) the
import of having prior knowledge and ideas in order to connect to new ideas and
meanings, and to provide a foundation for them; (b) the benefit of using more abstract
concepts or generalized ideas related to given discipline; and (c) the fact that organizers
draw from relevant content knowledge in order to determine the import of prior and new
knowledge (D. P. Ausubel, 2000). Additional research with this model in other content
areas might reinforce its appeal to gifted students.
Further research might also examine the use of the group investigation and
advance organizer models with gifted underachievers. Gifted students tend to find the
149

standard, textbook-based curriculum dull, unchallenging, and irrelevant to their interests
(Whitmore, 1980).
Minimal conditions for meeting the needs of gifted students require (1) a teacher
who will select curricula and structure learning experiences, and the general
classroom operations, in response to a sensitive understanding of their specific
needs; and (2) a group of gifted classmates with whom the individual student can
gain a sense of social acceptance while developing social skills and leadership
potential (Whitmore, 1980, p. 396).

Research involving the group investigation and advance organizer models, which as
evidenced in this study, are connected to the interests and preferences of gifted students
and address the aforementioned minimal conditions, might reveal an increase in
achievement motivation for gifted underachievers.
The Provision of Learning Opportunities to Allow Students to Research, Work
Independently, and Study Abstract Concepts and Big Ideas
The results of the Q-Sort and follow-up interview questions indicated that
students in grade 2 preferred the steps of the instructional models involving independent
practice, research, and meeting and explaining an abstract or big idea. These steps
directly correlate with the motivational needs of students, the need for competence,
autonomy, and relatedness, according to self-determination theory (R. M. Ryan, & Deci,
E.L., 2000). Moreover, the students’ reasons for choosing these steps further support all
students’ desires to be challenged and learn new information. Further research might
examine whether the provisions of such learning opportunities indeed increase motivation
and subsequent academic achievement for all students.
150

The use of the Q-Sort in further studies of students’ preferences for instructional
experiences
The findings of this research support the contention that the Q-Sort is a valid and
reliable instrument that can be used effectively with students in the elementary grades to
determine their preferences for instructional experiences. “Q-methodology is a useful
statistical technique when a researcher wishes to identify or confirm the existence of
person-prototypes or certain groups of subjects who respond differently form others”
(Daniel, 1993, p. 6). In this study, the Q-Sort was used to determine how gifted and non-
gifted students would respond to various instructional experiences. This study used a
common Q-Sort Strategy, generally referred to as the “conventional-sorting strategy” (p.
7) where students were given a group of cards on which instructional experiences were
depicted. They were required to rank order the experiences according to the following
predetermined criteria: most, somewhat, and least challenging and most, somewhat, and
interesting.
The cards or pictures used in the study were considered “ready-made,”
(McKeown, 1988, p. 26)as they were gained from sources outside of the responses made
by students, and ‘structured” (McKeown, 1988, p. 28). “Structured Q-samples consist of
items developed around the constructs identified in a theory or ordered system of
knowledge about a phenomenon, with adequate representation of each construct reflected
in the items” (Daniel, 1993, p. 8). In this case, the educational experiences represented on
each card were derived from the steps of the teaching models examined in the study.
151

The validity of an instrument indicates that it measures what it is supposed to
measure (Gray, 1994). When randomized assignment is not feasible in the design of the
study, a researcher may use alternative means by which to insure validity. For example,
he or she may assign students to the treatment group and then assign similar or matching
students to the control group. In addition, it is beneficial to administer a pre-test to both
experimental and control groups prior to applying the treatment to ensure the
appropriateness of selection (McEwan, 2003).
The students were purposefully assigned to treatment and control groups. The
students were randomly selected from the treatment groups to participate in the Q-Sort
and interviews. The data was triangulated: Students completed a 4 question closed ended
survey, a Q-sort, and they participated in interviews, which employed questions in an
open-ended format, thus providing three sources of data from which to derive findings.
Using data from multiple sources and designs is desirable, because it allows researchers
“to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of interest” (Hanson, Creswell,
Creswell, Clark, and Petska, 2005, p. 224).
The content of the Q-Sort and interview instruments was validated by several
teachers who were considered experts in the models of teaching. In addition, the
researcher pilot tested both the Q-sort and the interview instruments on two occasions to
determine the reliability or stability of the instruments.

152

Construct validity was established through factor or primary component analysis.
A principal components analysis of the choices made by students in each grade level was
performed using SPSS software. A principal components analysis is a statistical approach
used to “identify the underlying dimensions of a data set” (Field, 2005). It breaks down
the given data into a group of core variables (Hinton, 2005). The students’ preferences
were assembled into components. Each component represented a cluster of choices
shared by a group of students in each grade level. Only factor scores of 1.5 or higher
were included for each component. In 2
nd
grade, students’ responses clustered into 5
components (see Table 12). In grades 4 and 5 (see Tables 13-14 and 15-16), students’
responses clustered into 4 components each. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of
sampling adequacy was .39 for the 3
rd
grade. Although more data were gathered (18
gifted and non-gifted students), the results of the 3
rd
grade component analysis showed
that the new sample size was still inadequate due to the great variance of responses.
While the loading factors were high enough (> .40) to meet the threshold to load into
clusters (or groups), the diffusion in the pattern of correlations among the variables
clustering into groups was too great to yield reliable results.
It is suggested that future research with the use of this Q-Sort be performed with
students on an individual basis. Moreover, larger sample sizes may be necessary to
ensure sample size adequacy.

153

REFERENCES

Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, K.P. (1997). College instruction and concomitant changes
in students' knowledge, interest, and strategy use: A study of domain learning.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 125-146.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261-271.

Ames, C., Ames, R., & Felker, D.W. (1977). Effects of competitive reward structure and
valence of outcome on children's achievement attributions. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 69(1), 1-8.

Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of
meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(5), 267-272.

Ausubel, D. P. (1978). In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the crtitics. Review of
Educational Research, 48(2), 251-257.

Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.

Ausubel, D. P., & Fitzgerald, D. (1962). Organizer, general background, and antecedent
learning variables in sequential verbal learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 53(6), 243-249.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Vittorio, G., &Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-effiicacy beliefs
as shapers of children's aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development,
72(1), 187-206.

Barnes, B. R., & Clawson, E.U. (1975). Do advance organizers facilitate learning?
Recommendations for further research based on an analysis of 32 studies. Review
of Educational Research, 45(4), 637-659.

Baum, S. M., Renzulli, J.S., & Hebert, T.P. (1994). Reversing underachievement: Stories
of success. Educational Leadership, 52(3).

154

Bereiter, C., & Englemann, S. (1966). Teaching disadvantaged children in the preschool.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bernal, E. M. (2003). To no longer educate the gifted: Programming for gifted students
beyond the era of inclusionism. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(3).

Betts, G. (2004). Fostering autonomous learners through levels of differentiation. Roeper
Review, 26(4), 190-191.

Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children. Baltimore:
Williams & Wilkins Company.

Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn.
Educational Leadership, 45(2), 40-48.

Bruner, J., Goodnow, J.J., & Austin, G.A. (1967). A study of thinking. New York:
Science Editions.

Burton-Szabo, S. (1996). Special classes for gifted students? Absolutely! . Gifted Child
Today Magazine, 19(Jan/Feb), 12-15.

California Association for the Gifted, C. S. D. o. E. (1994). Differentiating the core
curriculum and instruction to provide advanced learning opportunities.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement

California Code of Regulations, CCR Section 3840.

California State Department of Education. (1994). Differentiating the core curriculum
and instruction to provide advanced learning opportunities. In California
Association for the Gifted (Ed.) (pp. 35). Washington, D.C.: Office of
Educational Research and Improvement

Clark, B. (1997). Growing up gifted. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Colangelo, N., & Davis, G.A. (2003). Introduction and overview. In N. C. G. A. Davis
(Ed.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Croft, L. J. (2003). Teachers of the gifted: Gifted teachers. In N. C. a. G. A. Davis (Ed.),
Handbook of gifted education. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Crow, S. R. (2006). What motivates a lifelong learner? School Libraries Worldwide,
12(1), 22-34.
155

Cummings, K. (1993). Concept attainment in the primary grades: A game to practice
thinking skills. Catalyst for change; journal of the National School Development
Council 23, 26-29.

Dana, N. F., & Dana, T.M. (1994). Holistic perspectives on the teaching of qualitative
research methods. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Research Association.

Daniel, L. G. (1993). Q-methodology: An overview with comments relateive to artistic
and scientific elements of research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Research Association.

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S.B. (1989). Education of the gifted and talented (Second ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

De Groot, E. V., & Pintrich, P. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.

Dell'Olio, J. M., & Donk, T. (2007). Models of teaching: Connecting students learning
with standards. In. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Dembo, M. H. (2004). Motivation and learning strategies for college success. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Dewey, J. (1973). The Philosophy of John Dewey. New York: Putnam.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist,
41(10), 1040-1048.

Dweck, C. S. (1989). Motivation. In A. L. a. R. Glaser (Ed.), Foundations for a
Psychology of Education (pp. 87-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

156

Education, C. D. o. Curriculum frameworks and instructional materials (Publication.
Retrieved February 23, 2007.

Education, C. D. o. (2005). Gifted and talented program resource guide.

Education, C. S. B. o. (2005). Recommended standards for programs for gifted and
talented students. Retrieved August 23, 2007.

Education, N. C. o. E. i. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.
Retrieved 04/15/2007, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

Eggen, P. D., & Kauchak, D.P. (2006). Strategies and models for teachers (5th ed.).
Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C.S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5-12.

Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.): Sage Publications.

Flowerday, T., Schraw, G., & Stevens, J. (2004). The role of choice and interest in reader
engagement. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(2), 93-114.

Ford, D. Y., Alber, S.R., & Heward, W.L. (1998). Setting motivation traps for
underachieving gifted students. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 21(2), 28-30.

Gagne, R. M. (1980). Teaching methods: Designs for learning. Theory into
Practice(Winter), 6-9.

Gallagher, J. J. (1975). Teaching the gifted child. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Gallagher, J. J. (2003). Issues and challenges in gifted education. In N. C. G. A. Davis
(Ed.), Handbook of gifted education. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Gardner, H. (1983/1994). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New
York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1995a). Multiple intelligences as a catalyst. The English Journal, 84(8), 16-
18.

Gardner, H. (1995b). Reflections on multiple intelligences. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3),
200.

157

Gardner, H. (2003). Giftedness from an MI perspective. In N. C. G. A. Davis (Ed.),
Handbook of gifted education Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Gifted and talented program resource guide. (2005). California Department of Education

Giftedness and the gifted: What's it all about? (1990). Retrieved February 2
2007, from http://www.nagc.org/index.asp

Good, T., & Brophy, J. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th ed.). New York: Longman.

Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A.W. (1996). A longitudinal study of academic intrinsic
motivation in intellectually gifted children: Childhood through early adolescence.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(4), 179-183.

Gray, G., & Guppy, N. (1994). Successful surveys. Toronto, Ontario: Harcourt Brace &
Company Canada Inc.

Gredler, M. E. (2005). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (5th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R.M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An
experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52(5), 890-898.

Hartley, J., & Davies, I.K. (1976). Preinstructional strategies: The role of pretests,
behavioral objectives, overviews, and advance organizers. Review of Educational
Research, 46(2), 239-265.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Sharan, S., & Steinberg, R. (1980). Classroom learning style and
cooperative behavior of elemntary school children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72(1), 99-106.

Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of
Educational Research, 60(4).

Hidi, S., Krapp, A., & Renninger, K.A. (1992). The role of interest in learning and
development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hinton, P. R., Brownlow, C., McMurray, I., & Cozens, B. (2005). SPSS explained:
Routledge.

158

Hutala, J. (1994). Group investigation: Structuring and inquiry-based curriculum, Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.

Hutala, J., & Coughlin, E.B. (1991). Group investigation, democracy, and the middle
east. The English Journal, 80(5), 47-52.

Jost, K. (1997). Are U.S. schools neglecting the brightest youngsters? CQ Researcher,
7(12).

Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (2004). Models of teaching. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Kamii, C. (1991). Toward autonomy: The importance of critical thinking and choice
making. School Psychology Review, 20(3), 7.

Kaplan, S. N. (2005). Grant Performance Report: Executive Summary.

Kohn, A. (1993). Choices for children. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 9-20.

Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school reform & redesign.
(1997). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lepper, M. R. (1983). Extrinsic reward and intrinsic motivation: Implications for the
classroom. In J. M. L. M. C. Wang (Ed.), Teacher and student perceptions:
Implications for learning (pp. 281-317). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.

Lepper, M. R. (1988). Motivational considerations in the study of instruction. Cognition
and Instruction, 5(4), 289-309.

Lindsey, M. (1980). Training teachers of the gifted and talented. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P.R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic
success. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 313-327.

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P.R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student
engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19,
119-137.

Locke, L. F., Silverman, S.J., & Spirduso, W.W. (2004). Reading and understanding
research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

159

Mac Iver, M. A., & Kemper, E. (2002). Guest editors' introduction: Research on direct
instruction in reading. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7(2),
107-116.

Magliaro, S. G., Lockee, B.B., & Burton, J.K. (2005). Direct instruction revisited: A key
model for instructional technology. ETR & D, 53(4).

Maker, J. C. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen
Systems Corporation.

Maker, J. C., & Nielson, A.B. (1995). Teaching models in the education of the gifted.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc.

Maker, J. C., & Schiever, S.W. (2003). New directions in enrichment and acceleration. In
N. C. a. G. A. Davis (Ed.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 163-173). Boston:
Pearson Education, Inc.

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M.R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic
motivation for learning. In R. E. S. M. J. Farr (Ed.), Aptitude, learning, and
instruction: III. Cognitive and affective process analyses (pp. 223-253). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Manning, S. (2006). Recognizing gifted students: A practical guide for teachers. Kappa
Delta Pi Record(Winter).

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P.J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press, Inc.

McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q Methodolgy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

McNabb, T. (2003). Motivational issues: Potential to performance. In N. C. a. G. A.
Davis (Ed.), Handbook of gifted education. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology research
and development, 50(3), 43-59.

NAGC standards: Professional development. Journal. Retrieved from
http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id+545
160

Neihart, M., Reis, S.M., Robinson, N.M., & Moon, S.M. (Ed.). (2002). The social and
emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press, Inc.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, Conn.:
Yale University Press.

Omrod, J. E. (2002). Chapter 12. Cognitive factors in motivation. In Educational
psychology: Developing learners (4th ed., pp. 388-425).

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Pintrich, P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation
in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-
686.

Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Purcell, J. H., Burns, D.E., Tomlinson, C.A., Imbeau, M.B., & Martin, J.L. (2002).
Bridging the gap: A tool and technique to analyze and evaluate gifted educational
curricular units. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(4).

Rea, D. (2001). Maximizing the motivated mind for emergent giftedness. Roeper Review,
157.

Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. . (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach
and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 537-548.

Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Conception of giftedness and its relationship to the development of
social capital. In N. C. G. A. Davis (Ed.), Handbook of gifted education
(pp. 75-87). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Riley, R. R. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent.
Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/DevTalent/intro.html

Rimm, S. B. (1997). An underachievement epidemic. Educational Leadership, 54(7), 18-
22.

161

Rimm, S. B. (2003). Underachievement: A national epidemic. In N. C. G. A. Davis (Ed.),
Handbook of gifted education. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Rizza, M. G., & Gentry, M. (2001). A legacy of promise: reflections, suggestions, and
directions from contemporary leaders in the field of gifted education. The Teacher
Educator, 36(3), 167-184.

Robinson, A. (1991). Cooperative learning and the academically talented student. Storrs,
CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press,
Inc.

Rosenshine, B. (1986). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational
Leadership, 43, 60-69.

Rosenshine, B. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. The Journal of Educational
Research, 88(5), 262-268.

Ross, P. O. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education

Ruthkoksky, K. O., & Dwyer, F.M. (1996). The effect of adding visual and rehearsal
strategies to advance organizers in facilitating long term retention. International
Journal of Instructional Media, 23(1), 31-40.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55(1), 68-78.

Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W.S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report
and projective assessments of individual differences in children's perceptions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 550-558.

Sapon-Shevin. (1994). Why gifted students belong in inclusive classrooms. Educational
Leadership, 52.

Sapon-Shevin. (1997). Should public schools devote more resources for gifted students?
CQ Researcher, 7(12).

Schiever, S. W. (1991). A comprehensive approach to teaching thinking. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
162

Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D.P. (1997). The high/scope preschool curriculum
comparison study through age 23. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 117-
143.

Sharan, S., & Shaulov, A. (1990). Cooperative learning, motivation to learn, and
academic achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and
research. New York: Praeger.

Sharan, Y., & Shachar, H. (1988). Language and learning in the cooperative classroom.
New York: Springer-Verlag.

Sharan, Y., &Sharan, S. (1989). Group investigation expands cooperative learning.
Educational Leadership, 47(4), 17-21.

Sharan, Y., &Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning though group
investigation. New York: Teachers College Press.

Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, & Stanton, G.C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct
interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441.

Shrivastava, Y. V. (1995). Efficacy of concept attainment model in the teaching of
English grammar. Psycho-Lingua, 25(1 & 2), 69-72.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Siegle, D., et al. (1994). What educators need to know about... Series. Storrs, CT:
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Silverman, L. Strategies for underachievers: Gifted Development Center.

Sisk, D. (1987). Creative teaching of the gifted: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.

Slavin, R., & Fashola, O. (1998). Show me the evidence! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
163

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Giftedness according to the theory of successful intelligence. In
N. C. G. A. Davis (Ed.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 88-99). Boston:
Pearson Education, Inc.

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko. (2003). Teaching for successful intelligence: Principles,
procedures, and practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2/3), 207-
228.

Storch Bracken, S., & Fischel, J.E. (2006). Assessment of preschool classroom practices:
Application of Q-sort methodology. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(4),
417-430.

Story, C. M. (1998). What instructional designers need to know about advance
organizers. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(3), 253.

Tennyson, R. D., & Chao, J.N., & Youngers, J. (1981). Concept learning effectiveness
using prototype and skill development presentation forms. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 73(3), 326-334.

Tennyson, R. D., & Cocchiarella, M.J. (1986). An empirically based instructional design
theory for teaching concepts. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 40-71.

Thelen, H. A. (1954). Dynamics of groups at work. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.

Thorndike, E. L. (1937). Human learning. New York: The Century Co.

Tobias, S. (1982). When do instructional methods make a difference? Educational
Researcher, 11(4), 4-9.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1994). Gifted learners too: A possible dream? Educational Leadership,
52(December 1994/January 1995).

Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education Retrieved March
17, 2007, from www.eric.ed.gov

Tomlinson, C. A. (2002). Invitations to learn. Educational Leadership(September).

Tomlinson, C. A. (2005a). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students.
Theory into Practice, 44(2).
164

Tomlinson, C. A. (2005b). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students.
Theory into Practice, 44(2), 160-166.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1988). Currculum design issues in developing curriculum for the
gifted. In J. F. J. VanTassel-Baska, K. Seeley, G. Wheatley, L. Silverman, & W.
Foster (Ed.), Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (pp. 53-76). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005). Gifted programs and services: What are the nonnegotiables?
Theory into Practice, 44(2), 90-97.

Viadero, D. (199). A direct challenge. Education Week, 18(27).

Von Karolyi, C., Ramos-Ford, V., & Gardner, H. (2003). Multiple intelligences: A
perspective on giftedness. In N. C. a. G. A. Davis (Ed.), Handbook of gifted
education. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, Inc.

Whitmore, J. R. (1985). Underachieving gifted students.

Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist, 55(1),
159-169.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura
(Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202-231). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

165

Appendices
Appendix A: Student Survey
Lesson Selection Survey
Name: School:
Check all that apply:
 Gifted Grade:
 English Language Learner
 African American/ Black District:
 Asian
 Hispanic/ Latino Student Profile
 Caucasian/ Anglo/ White High Low
 Other: ________________

*** Although we ask for your personal information, this will only be used for research
purposes and will not affect your grade. ***
Directions
Read the following questions on each page carefully. Then circle the lesson you would
most enjoy. Finally, check the boxes at the bottom of the page to share WHY you chose
the lesson.

166

Which lesson would you want to learn? Why?

To learn about measurement I would want to…

I chose this lesson _____ because: (choose one or more) It is challenging
 It is interesting
 It is like what we always do
 It is easier

Lesson A
• Watch the teacher
measure
• Practice measuring
different things
Lesson B
• Look at different
measurement tools
• Ask questions
• Research to find the
answers to the questions
• Share ideas

Lesson C
• Prove the statement:
objects can be measured
differently
• Research and measure
different things

Lesson D
• Look at different
measurement tools
• Decide how and why
they are alike and/or
different
167

Which lesson would you want to learn? Why?

To learn about people and how they live I would want to...

I chose lesson _____ because: (choose one or more)
 It is challenging
 It is interesting
 It is like what we always do
 It is easier
Lesson A
• Look at pictures of
different groups of
people
• Ask questions
• Research to find the
answers to the questions
• Share ideas
Lesson B
• Listen to the teacher talk
about different groups of
people
• Write a report
Lesson C
• Prove the statement:
People live in different
ways
• Research using pictures
& textbooks
• Discuss ideas

Lesson D
• Look at pictures of
people in different
groups
• Decide why and how
these groups of people
are alike and/or different
168

Which lesson would you want to learn? Why?

To learn about weather I would want to…

I chose lesson _____ because: (choose one or more)
 It is challenging
 It is interesting
 It is like what we always do
 It is easier
Lesson A
• Look at different
pictures of weather
• Ask questions
• Research to find the
answers to the questions
• Share ideas
•
Lesson B
• Read about a textbook
chapter
• Listen to the teacher
describe the information
• Write a report
Lesson C
• Prove the statement:
Weather constantly
changes
• Research using pictures
and textbooks
• Discuss ideas

Lesson D
• Look at pictures of
different types of
weather
• Decide why and how the
weather changes
169

Which lesson would you want to learn?
Why?

To learn about characters in a story I would want to…

I chose lesson _____ because: (choose one or more)
 It is challenging
 It is interesting
 It is like what we always do
 It is easier
Lesson C
• Look at pictures of the
characters in the story
• Decide why and how the
characters are alike
and/or different

Lesson D
• Prove the statement:
characters share
common traits
• Read the story
• Discuss ideas
Lesson A
• Read a story in a book
• Answer the teacher’s
questions
• Do a worksheet about
the character in the story
Lesson B
• Look at pictures of the
characters in the story
• Ask questions
• Read the story to answer
the questions
• Share ideas
170

Appendix B: Q-Sort

...etc.
Sort #1
Students choose 4 cards for each category and sort them into:
most, somewhat, and least.
(e.g. most challenging, somewhat challenging, least challenging)

Sort #2

Sort #3

Sort #4

Gifted
Student
#1
Control
Student
#2
Control
Student
#1
Gifted
Student
#2
Advance
Organizer
Challenging
Interesting
Card
#1
Card
#2
Card
#3
Card
#4

Card
#5

Card
#6

Card
#1

Card
#2

Card
#3

Card
#4

Card
#5

Card
#6

Card
#1

Card
#2

Card
#3

Card
#4

Card
#5

Card
#6

Card
#1

Card
#2

Card
#3

Card
#4

Card
#5

Card
#6

Group
Investigation
Concept
Attainment
Direct
Instruction
171

Appendix C: Interview Protocol
The interview questions will be given as a follow up to each Q-Sort. The following is an
introduction to the interview:
Researcher:
Hello, my name is Georgianna. I am working on a project for school, and I was
wondering if you would help me with it. I am going to show you some cards with
pictures on them. Each picture shows something that you might do in the classroom. I
want you to look at and read the picture cards. I will explain them to you, as well. Then I
want you to decide which card should go into each pocket. There is no right or wrong
answer. I really need your opinion about each card.
*Student begins first sort
Sort 1A:
Which step in the advance organizer did you find to be ____ ?
• most challenging
• somewhat
challenging
• least challenging

Questions 1-3: Why is the step _______?
• most challenging
• somewhat challenging
• least challenging

Sort 1B:
Which step in the advance organizer did you find to be ____ ?
• most interesting
• somewhat interesting
• least interesting

172

Questions 3-6: Why is the step _______?
• most interesting
• somewhat interesting
• least interesting

Sort 2A:
Which step in the group investigation did you find to be ____ ?
• most challenging
• somewhat
challenging
• least challenging
Questions 1-3: Why is the step _______?
• most challenging
• somewhat challenging
• least challenging

Sort 2B:
Which step in the group investigation did you find to be ____ ?
• most interesting
• somewhat interesting
• least interesting

Questions 4-6: Why is the step _______?
• most interesting
• somewhat interesting
• least interesting

Sort 3A:
Which step in the concept attainment did you find to be ____ ?
• most challenging
• somewhat
challenging
• least challenging

Questions 1-3: Why is the step _______?
• most challenging
• somewhat challenging
• least challenging

173

Sort 3B:
Which step in the concept attainment did you find to be ____ ?
• most interesting
• somewhat interesting
• least interesting

Questions 4-6: Why is the step _______?
• most interesting
• somewhat interesting
• least interesting

Sort 4A:
Which step in the direct instruction model did you find to be ____ ?
• most challenging
• somewhat
challenging
• least challenging

Questions 1-3: Why is the step _______?
• most challenging
• somewhat challenging
• least challenging

Sort 4B:
Which step in the direct instruction model did you find to be ____ ?
• most interesting
• somewhat interesting
• least interesting

Questions 4-6: Why is the step _______?
• most interesting
• somewhat interesting
• least interesting

Researcher:
Thank you so much for helping me today.
174

Appendix D: Data Collection Form

Student’s Name:
Grade Level
District:
School:
Gifted:
Boy / Girl
EL:
Ethnicity:

Sort 1: Advance Organizer

Challenge

Most Challenging:

Why:___________________________________

Somewhat Challenging:

Why:____________________________________

Least Challenging:

Why:_____________________________________

Interesting

Most Interesting:

Why:_____________________________________

175

Somewhat Interesting:

Why:_____________________________________

Least Interesting:

Why:_____________________________________

Sort 2: Group Investigation
Challenge

Most Challenging:

Why:_____________________________________

Somewhat Challenging:

Why:_____________________________________

Least Challenging

Why:_____________________________________

Sort 2: Group Investigation
Interest

Most Interesting:

Why:_____________________________________

Somewhat Interesting:

Why:_____________________________________

Least Interesting:
W h y :___________________________________

176

Sort 3: Concept Attainment
Challenge

Most Challenging:

Why:_____________________________________

Somewhat Challenging:

Why:_____________________________________

Least Challenging:

Why:_____________________________________

Sort 3: Concept Attainment
Interest

Most Interesting

W h y :_____________________________________

Somewhat Interesting:

Why:_____________________________________

Least Interesting

Why:_____________________________________

Sort 4: Direct Instruction

Challenge

Most Challenging:

Why:_____________________________________

Somewhat Challenging:

Why:_____________________________________

177

Least Challenging:

Why:_____________________________________

Sort 4: Direct Instruction
Interest

Most Interesting

Why:_______________________________________

Somewhat Interesting:

Why:______________________________________

Least Interesting:

Why:______________________________________

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine gifted students' preferences for models of teaching and the specific factors contributing to those preferences. The sample population included students in grades 2-5 from economically, linguistically, and culturally diverse backgrounds, in urban, suburban, and rural districts. Students in the experimental groups were taught with instructional models by teachers who had participated in the differentiated professional development plan. Gifted and potentially gifted students were included. The research questions sought to determine the following what factors influenced gifted students' (in grades 2-5) preferences for a model of instruction related to the teaching and learning of various subject matter

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

The effects of the models of teaching on student learning

PDF

The influence of teacher characteristics on preference for models of teaching

PDF

Teachers' choices of curriculum and teaching methods and their effect on gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice

PDF

Factors affecting the transfer of differentiated curriculum from professional development into classroom practice

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions of strategies and skills affecting learning of gifted 7th graders in English classes

PDF

Status of teaching elementary science for English learners in science, mathematics, and technology centered magnet schools

PDF

Factors that influence the identification of elementary African American students as potentially gifted learners

PDF

A school's use of data-driven decision making to affect gifted students' learning

PDF

The spill over effect: an examination of differentiated curriculum designs in a heterogeneous classroom

PDF

The placement and participation of gifted African American students in advanced academic services: a case study

PDF

Lack of support for gifted students in the United States

PDF

Effects of the prompts of depth and complexity on gifted and non-gifted students

PDF

The elements of a differentiated curriculum for gifted students: transfer and application across the disciplines

PDF

A world of education: the influence of culture on instructional style and perceived teacher effectiveness

PDF

Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling

PDF

Relationships between teachers' perceptions of gifted program status and instructional choices

PDF

An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?

PDF

Actual and ideal instructional practices in California high school gifted geometry education

Asset Metadata

Creator Ravenna, Georgianna (author)

Core Title Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2008-08

Publication Date 07/31/2008

Defense Date 04/28/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Curriculum and Instruction,Gifted Education,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Kaplan, Sandra N. (committee chair), Pensavalle, Margo T. (committee member), Ragusa, Gisele (committee member)

Creator Email gravenna@fullerton.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1471

Unique identifier UC1433658

Identifier etd-Ravenna-20080731 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-100636 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1471 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Ravenna-20080731.pdf

Dmrecord 100636

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ravenna, Georgianna

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu