University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content TEACHERS’ CHOICES OF CURRICULUM AND TEACHING METHODS
AND THEIR EFFECT ON GIFTED STUDENTS’ SELF-PERCEPTIONS
by
Rebecca Wei Nakagawa
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 Rebecca Wei Nakagawa
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents.
Dad, thank you for your unlimited patience, unconditional support, and
strong shoulder which you allowed me to cry on during tough times. You are an
inspiration to all your children. You taught us the value of hard work and the
power of perseverance. You taught us that anything can be accomplished in
America…the Land of Dreams. Although you never said a word, I know how
much you gave up immigrating to a new country so that your children could have
the possibility of a better life. You taught me the value of education and to never
take it for granted. I will always treasure your advice and your wisdom. I love
you, Dad.
Mom, I hope that one day I can be like you. Your faith and your
convictions inspired Steven and me. Through your example, you showed me the
importance of giving 100% to any task. My work ethic is due to your influence.
Through the entire process of earning a doctorate, anytime I felt overwhelmed and
ready to give up. I heard your gentle voice in the back of my head encouraging me
to go on. Thank you for always believing in me. I love you, Mom.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to thank my husband Ken, who, after thirteen years together, still makes
my heart skip a beat. I never know what you are going to say next, and you
always keep me on my toes. Thank you for bringing joy and laughter to my
life. I love you.
To my brother Steven who is wise beyond his years, thank you for your
unconditional love and support these past twenty-two years. You have been a
blessing in my life. I admire so much about you...your passion for life, your
courage to be yourself, and your selfless dedication to all your goals. You are
my hero.
To my mentor and former principal, Bruce Terry, thank you for encouraging
me to start this program. Your inspirational leadership motivated me to pursue
administrative education. Working with you, I saw the true power of what a
strong leader can motivate his staff to do…we would all have walked on hot
coals for you. You made me believe that I could do anything. Thank you.
To Emily and Scott, my friends, my colleagues, and my teammates, thank you
for your support and care these past few years. I am honored to work with the
two of you, and I constantly strive to improve my teaching skills through our
interactions and our collaborations. You two have been my inspiration and my
foundation these past few years, and I am so blessed to work with the both of
iv
you. To Michelle, my teammate, thank you for helping me through the last
year. I could not have done it without you.
To Dr. Kaplan, thank you for your assistance, patience, and support through the
entire process. It has been an educational journey…one that ended in success.
Your wealth of knowledge in the area of gifted education is invaluable, and I
am grateful for the opportunity to work with you.
To Dr. Pensavalle and Dr. Ragusa, thank you both for serving on my
dissertation committee. I appreciated your constructive feedback, insights, and
support both through the defense proposal and the final defense.
To Dr. Jimenz y West and Dr. Vallejo Peña at the Doctoral Support Center,
thank you for helping me through the dissertation process. It is through your
feedback, support, and encouragement that I am able to finish this stage of my
life.
To my Catalina Ohana (Zina and Lei’ala), those days on the island writing our
dissertation bonded us together. I will never forget any of you, and I know that
together we can all finish this process. Here’s to not being ABDs and being
DRs.
To Heidi Wietting and Dr. John Wietting, thank you for your patience and your
incredible editing skills. Without you, this dissertation would not look as
polished or as complete.
v
To Stan Machesky, thank you for all of your support and advice these past three
years. Your message points were well delivered and very much appreciated!
Dissertation Committee
___________________________________________________________________
Sandra N. Kaplan, Ed.D., Committee Chair
Associate Professor of Clinical Education
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California
Margo Pensavalle, Ed.D.
Associate Professor of Clinical Education
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California
Gisele Ragusa, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Clinical Education and Director of Undergraduate and
Teacher Education Programs
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ................................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................. iii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................ix
List of Figures ............................................................................................................x
Abstract .....................................................................................................................xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.........................................................................1
Overview.............................................................................................................1
Purpose of the Study ...........................................................................................3
Significance of the Study....................................................................................4
Research Questions...........................................................................................11
Overview of the Proposed Method ...................................................................11
Assumptions......................................................................................................12
Limitations ........................................................................................................13
Delimitations.....................................................................................................13
Glossary ............................................................................................................14
Summary...........................................................................................................15
Organization of the Chapters ............................................................................16
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............................................17
Introduction.......................................................................................................17
Teacher Choices................................................................................................17
Differentiated Curriculum and Instruction........................................................21
Student Perception ............................................................................................24
Student Abilities on Curriculum and Teaching Methods .................................25
Student Interests in Curriculum and Teaching Methods...................................26
Teaching Methods to Differentiate ...................................................................27
Grouping Patterns .............................................................................................28
Teacher Perceptions of Students.......................................................................29
Conclusion ........................................................................................................30
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...............................................31
Introduction.......................................................................................................31
Definitions of Factors/Rationale.......................................................................32
Rationales..........................................................................................................33
Affects All Learners in the Classroom ......................................................33
vii
Challenge to Students ................................................................................34
Expectations of the District, School, etc....................................................34
Expediency (Time) ....................................................................................34
Just Because…I Don’t Have a Reason for the Choice ..............................35
Previous Experience Dictates This Works Best ........................................35
Relationship to Expectations or Needs of the Gifted.................................35
Nature of the Study ...........................................................................................36
Sample and Population .....................................................................................36
Instrumentation .................................................................................................37
Data Collection .................................................................................................40
Data Collection Process ....................................................................................41
Data Analysis....................................................................................................42
Analysis for Research Question 1..............................................................43
Analysis for Research Question 2..............................................................43
Analysis for Research Question 3..............................................................44
Analysis for Research Question 4..............................................................44
Conclusion ........................................................................................................44
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS......................................................................................46
Introduction.......................................................................................................46
Demographic Data ............................................................................................47
Overview...........................................................................................................48
Report of Findings ............................................................................................49
Research Questions....................................................................................49
Research Questions 1 and 2................................................................49
Research Question 3...........................................................................60
Research Question 4...........................................................................63
Challenge ...................................................................................................66
Self-Perception ..........................................................................................67
Gender........................................................................................................68
Summary...........................................................................................................70
CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS ...................................................72
Introduction.......................................................................................................72
Implications ......................................................................................................73
Differentiation...................................................................................................76
Spillover............................................................................................................79
Student Perceptions...........................................................................................81
Limitations ........................................................................................................82
Areas for Future Research ................................................................................82
Conclusion ........................................................................................................83
viii
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................85
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................95
Appendix A: Javits Grant Teacher Survey, Section III ...................................95
Appendix B: Javits Grant Student Survey .......................................................98
Appendix C: Informed Consent.....................................................................100
Appendix D: Conceptual Framework of Differentiation...............................102
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Item 1 of the Javits Grant’s Teacher Survey.........................................50
Table 2: Teacher Survey Areas of Inquiry..........................................................51
Table 3: Curriculum and Teaching Methods Preferred by Teachers
in the Inquiry Area of Curriculum Source ............................................53
Table 4: Curriculum and Teaching Methods Preferred by Teachers
in the Inquiry Area of Differentiated Curriculum Elements.................54
Table 5: Curriculum and Teaching Methods Preferred by Teachers
in the Inquiry Area of Content..............................................................54
Table 6: Curriculum and Teaching Methods Preferred by Teachers
in the Inquiry Area of Organizational Structure ...................................56
Table 7: Curriculum and Teaching Methods Preferred by Teachers
in the Inquiry Area of Grouping Patterns .............................................57
Table 8: Curriculum and Teaching Methods Preferred by Teachers
in the Inquiry Area of Student Preferences...........................................57
Table 9: Results from Teacher Survey Data .......................................................59
Table 10: Student Interview Questions Correlated to the Javits
Student Survey Items ............................................................................64
Table 11: Results on Teaching Methods (Curriculum Source) and
Rationale ...............................................................................................76
Table 12: Results on Teaching Methods (Content) and Rationale .......................79
Table A-1: Teacher Survey Questions from the Javits Grant .................................95
Table B-1: Javits Grant Student Survey Questions 6 and 7....................................98
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Javits grant’s “All About Me and School” student survey. ..................61
Figure 2. Second- to fifth-grade student survey results on abilities.....................61
Figure 3. Second- to fifth-grade student survey results on interests. ...................62
Figure D-1. Conceptual Framework of Differentiation..........................................102
xi
ABSTRACT
This study examined the role of teachers’ choices of curriculum and
teaching methods and their effect on gifted students’ self-perceptions.
The study extracted the data from teacher survey items about teachers’
choices of curriculum and teaching methods and examined the rationales for their
selections. A corresponding examination extracted the data from student survey
items that related to gifted students’ self-perceptions of their interest and abilities.
Based on the results from the surveys, open-ended student interview questions were
formulated to further examine the relationship between teachers’ choices of
curriculum and teaching methods and their effect on gifted students’ self-
perceptions.
The results found that teachers’ choices varied in six areas of inquiry:
curriculum, differentiated elements, content, organizational structure, grouping
patterns, and student preferences. The participating teachers’ choices for selected
curriculum and teaching methods showed a preference for instructional strategies
that spilled over to benefit all learners. The students’ survey responses to their
teachers’ selection of lessons reflected that these lessons met their interests and
abilities. The open-ended student interviews reflected three slight variations in the
collective responses related to challenge, self-perception, and gender.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Overview
“A well-defined differentiated curriculum can be enhanced or diminished
by the selection and use of a model of teaching or an instructional strategy”
(California Association for the Gifted, n.d., p. 27). There are differing viewpoints
regarding Gifted and Talented Education and its merits and detriments.
Historically, schools have failed to provide the rigorous curriculum needed for
children with outstanding talent to perform at the highest level. “In the majority of
our classrooms, an invisible ceiling restricts the progress of academically gifted
students” (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004, p. 1). While gifted and talented
students have always been present in the school system, standardized reform is a
relatively new concept in the historical domain of gifted education. In examining
legislation that brought gifted education to the forefront of reform, a few crucial
documents must be mentioned. Assembly Bill 1040 (California Department of
Education, 1980) established a GATE program with districts individually setting
their own criteria for entrance. Assembly Bill 2313 (California Department of
Education, 2000) further established requirements for differentiated GATE
programs in the classrooms while the California Code of Regulations, Title 5 (n.d.)
2
established implementation of the programs. In 2001, the California State Board of
Education approved a set of recommended standards for programs for gifted and
talented students (California GATE standards, 2001).
With evolving federal and state educational laws, it is time to examine
whether classrooms address the needs of the gifted and talented. Are schools
holding back their brightest students? Are there enough research and data to show
that while teachers are ensuring that No Child is Left Behind, they are also
challenging the gifted and talented population? With the term “special education,”
people generally think of curriculum modifications for students with learning
disabilities. However, students with learning disabilities lie on one end of the
special education spectrum. Frequently, people forget that gifted and talented
students exist on the other end of the special education spectrum and also require
quality programs and modifications to meet their curriculum needs.
As teachers play a central role in establishing quality programs and ensuring
continuing services for gifted students in the classroom, further examinations are
needed to analyze the factors that determine teachers’ choices of curriculum and
teaching methods and their effect on gifted students’ self-perception, specifically
their interest and ability levels. Tomlinson’s work (2001) found that “a great
teacher constructs durable and trustworthy bridges between herself and her
students—often using subject matter as part of the construction material” (p. 45).
This study examined the factors that determine whether curriculum and teaching
3
methods are being utilized in the classrooms to meet the needs of the individual
students on the gifted end of the special education spectrum. It further analyzed
teacher rationales behind the curriculum and teaching methods chosen for the
special education GATE students. The final purpose of the study determined if a
correlation existed between what the teacher teaches in the classroom and the
students’ self-perceptions of themselves as learners. Has the California educational
system trained teachers to create learning environments that challenge student
abilities and raise their interest levels? This study addressed those issues and
created opportunities for future research on the topic of teacher curriculum choices
and their effect on gifted students’ self-perceptions.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between teacher
curriculum and teaching methods and their relevance on students’ self-perceptions
of their interests and abilities. According to the works of Bloom (1984), Shore,
Cornell, Robinson, and Ward (1991), and Vygotsky (1962/1986), quality education
can be delivered only through the development of challenging curricula and
instruction. Furthermore, Deci and Ryan (1985) concluded that when students are
engaged through choice, challenge, and interests, learning is enjoyable and
productive. Instructional enrichment is needed to move students from being
passive learners to autonomous and independent learners. Introducing complexity
and cognitive challenges to instruction takes into consideration the students’
4
feelings and attitudes and differentiates the curriculum to meet their needs.
Teachers can increase motivation and raise student self-concept and efficacy
through selecting curriculum that are slightly beyond their students’ abilities.
According to Vygotsky (1962/1986), children develop intellectually when they are
provided with difficult tasks that require higher level thinking. Through the
extensive work of Bandura (1997) the role of self-selected goals provided through
teacher methods or instruction was shown to have a positive relationship on student
self-regulation, personal commitment, and motivation in learning. Bandura’s work
served as one foundation in examining the relationship between teacher curriculum
choices and their effect on student self-perceptions.
Significance of the Study
With the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983 (USDE, 1983), the
education environment focused on heterogeneous classrooms, cooperative learning,
whole-class instruction, uniform standards, and increased attention to high stakes
testing (Callahan, Tomlinson, Reis, & Kaplan, 2000). The No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 resulted in more prescriptive and standardized curriculum, mandated
standards, and guidelines for teaching methods or instruction in the classroom
ensuring that at-risk students received the opportunities for an equal education.
“But surprisingly, gifted students drop out at the same rates as non-gifted kids—
about 5% of both populations leave school early. Later in life, according to the
scholarly Handbook of Gifted Education, up to one-fifth of dropouts test in the
5
gifted range” (Cloud, 2007, p. 42). Gallagher (1998) reiterated the propensity that
when the focus of a reform targets its energy on specific populations (at-risk, ELD,
minorities, special education, etc.), the other populations are left to compensate for
the deficiency in resources. President Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration
of Independence, said, “There is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of
unequal people” (Jefferson, n.d.). The context of Jefferson’s quote can be applied
to the current state of gifted education as the research shows that the GATE
populations are not seen as a source of concern for lawmakers and subsequently are
not allocated the same resources to support a comprehensive program.
In looking at ensuring equality for all students, Clark (2008) found that
“[f]or true equal opportunity, a variety of learning experiences must be available at
many levels so that all children and youth can develop their talents and abilities to
the level of their highest potential” (p. 7). Differentiation of teaching methods is a
requirement to meet the needs of individual learners. However, in trying to provide
an equal playing field for all students, the resources are divided unequally. Quite
often, the classroom teacher’s resources of effort and time are spent boosting the
lower quartile students up to proficiency at the expense of the students already
proficient. “In a no-child-left-behind conception of public education, lifting
everyone up to a minimum level is more important than allowing students to excel
to their limit. It has become more important for schools to identify deficiencies
than to cultivate gifts” (Cloud, 2007, p. 42).
6
The federal report, National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s
Talent (USDE, 1993) posited that “over the past 20 years, while the regular school
program focused on basic skills and minimum standards, programs for gifted and
talented students served as laboratories for innovative and experimental approaches
to teaching and learning” (Reis, Gentry, & Maxfield, 1998, p. 310). When teachers
focus their attention on implementing curriculum and instructional strategies to
help the lower quartile students, the end result is minimal regard for the students
who are already in the top percentile. “Nearly all efforts of the reform movement
were aimed at improving the status of at-risk students and improving school
performance in general—both worthy goals, but ones that are not to be pursued at a
cost to advanced learners” (Callahan, Tomlinson, Reis, & Kaplan, 2000, p. 2).
Significantly, this type of educational practice is a detriment to our school system.
“Gifted education pedagogy has often been suggested as a means for general
student improvement” (Gentry, Rizza, & Owen, 2002, p. 146). This study
examined the rationale behind the teaching methods chosen by teachers and found
that the majority of the participants implemented teaching methods for all students
using the strategies they were trained in as GATE teachers. Instructional strategies
created for the benefit of gifted learners spilled over as a beneficial teaching
method for the regular students and showed how GATE methodology and
pedagogy could be applied for the benefit of all the learners in the classroom.
7
According to the California Association for the Gifted (1996), gifted
learners differ from their age peers cognitively, affectively, physically, and
intuitively. They have their own unique patterns of characteristics and interests that
require differentiated curriculum. To understand the history of differentiation and
its value in current educational reform, it is important to review its creation. The
foundation of differentiation originated from the following philosophical beliefs
and educational theories:
1. Trait theory: within this theory, differentiation is defined as the
provision of learning experiences that correspond to the traits of
gifted students.
2. Compensation theory: within this theory, differentiation is
defined as the provision of educational experiences that offer the
learner valuable areas of study the core curriculum has omitted
or minimized.
3. Extension theory: within this theory, differentiation is defined as
the provision of opportunities for gifted students to study areas
that further develop the core curriculum.
4. Challenge theory: within this theory, differentiation is defined as
the provision of curricular experiences that cause gifted students
to think independently, study areas of the core curriculum in
depth, and venture into new and varied topics and ideas of study
that are beyond the expectations of the core curriculum. (CAG,
1996, pp. 9–10)
“Teachers, like other professionals, are sometimes victims of self-delusion
about their own work or captives of their own self-interest” (Gallagher, 1998, p.
739). While they have the best intentions for differentiating their instruction, other
factors (such as expediency and district expectations) play a role and the impact of
the lesson is lost.
8
Educators knowledgeable about gifted education and talent
development can design and implement appropriate
educational programs and experiences that allow gifted and
talented learners to grow academically and intellectually at
their own pace and to their own level, a right of every child.
(Clark, 2008, p. 8)
Teachers need to be trained to evaluate the discrepancies and missing components
of their curriculum and instruction. Discrepancy theory assesses the core
curriculum against the traits of gifted students in order to determine what missing
curricular elements would be responsive to the needs of gifted students.
The concept of a differentiated curriculum must not only
emphasize the importance of designing and providing
curricula for gifted students. It must also reinforce teaching
to these individuals. The curricula must be differentiated to
reinforce teaching to all individuals within the group of
gifted students. (Kaplan, 2006, p. 35)
Gallagher (1998), another innovator of gifted and talented education,
presented four methods of content differentiation:
1. [A]cceleration: the material presented to the gifted
student may be drawn from the established curricula of
a grade or more above the student’s current level
2. [E]nrichment: the same curriculum goals are used for
the entire class, but the material assigned to the gifted
student is more extensive and in-depth
3. [S]ophistication: the material presented to the gifted
students is at a higher level of complexity—
representing systems of knowledge—than that given to
regular students
4. [N]ovelty: gifted students may study material that is not
part of the regular curriculum but that holds some
interest for them. (p. 740)
9
These four methods emphasized the need for selecting curriculum components that
meet the needs of the individual GATE student. They are similar to the California
GATE standards (California Department of Education, 2005) which state that
“differentiated curriculum focuses primarily on depth and complexity of content,
advanced or accelerated pacing of content and novelty (unique and original
expressions of student understanding)” (p. 4). For many gifted students, the pace
of their progress in school is determined by the rate of progress of their classmates
(Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004). The aforementioned methods helped
teachers differentiate the content standards for the population of gifted students.
Gallagher’s (1998) work on differentiated curriculum and accountability for
teachers led him to state that “one way to discover what gifted students are thinking
about their education is to ask them” (p. 740). Student’s self-perception of
themselves as learners applies to their overall self-concept. Studies continue to be
done on differentiated curriculum to examine its effect on the gifted and talented
population. This study on teacher curriculum choices and student self-perception
adds to that body of knowledge about gifted education.
Researchers further explored the link between giftedness and self-concept.
On the positive spectrum, “labeling a child as gifted may normally be expected to
communicate a positive image (Cornell, 1983; Sapon-Shevin, 1984, 1987, 1994)
and this would be expected to have a positive impact on the child’s self-esteem”
(Hoge & Renzulli, 1993, p. 451). On the other hand, Buescher’s (1987) research
10
hypothesized that high expectations contribute to feelings of failure. Often the
gifted child sets unrealistic expectations and never quite measures up to them.
Freeman (1985) speculated that as gifted children are more cognitively advanced,
they are more sensitive to them and tend to have a more critical attitude towards
their own performance.
Another school of thought different from Coleman and Fults (1982), Harter
(1986), and Marsh’s (1990) research on negative self-concept in the gifted child
examined the role of grouping in the classroom. The implication is that as these
students are grouped in an environment with other gifted peers, social comparisons
lead to a decline in self-esteem. A goal of the American education system and
reform process is that as it continues its process of stabilizing quality programs for
all students, the gifted and talented students will continue to learn and grow in the
midst of the chaos. The educational community believes that gifted students learn
on their own and require no special nurturing (Clark, 2008). Through the research
questions listed below, this study evaluated the correlation between teacher
curriculum choices and their effect on gifted students’ self-perception. It filled in
the gaps in the current research concerning teacher curriculum choices and its
relation to student interest and efficacy about their abilities.
11
Research Questions
The following research questions (RQ) guided the investigation:
1. Which curriculum and teaching methods do teachers in the second- to
fifth-grade heterogeneous classrooms prefer?
2. What the reasons explain teachers’ choices of curriculum and teaching
methods for gifted second- to fifth-grade students?
3. How do the teachers’ choices of curriculum and teaching methods affect
the gifted students’ self-perceptions of their interest and abilities in the
heterogeneous classroom?
4. What factors affect gifted students’ self-perceptions of the curriculum
and teaching methods used by their teachers?
Overview of the Proposed Method
The most current federal involvement in the education of gifted and talented
students came with the 1988 enactment, the 1994 reauthorization, and the $11.11
million funding by the U.S. Congress of the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented
Students Education Act (Clark, 2008). Dr. Sandra N. Kaplan’s Javits Act of Gifted
Education Grant’s S206A040072 primary objective was to
increase elementary teachers’ content knowledge [and] to
develop teachers’ expertise in the implementation of
various models of teaching as a means to raise the level of
12
student achievement of culturally, linguistically, and
economically diverse gifted and potentially gifted students
participating in a differentiated curriculum. (USDE, 2005,
Grant Performance Report [ED 524B], p. 7)
The instrumentation of the grant included student survey results, achievement
scores, teacher survey, teacher observation ratings, teacher video observation
ratings, and teacher lesson plan evaluation developed under grant S206A040072.
The participant sample for the current study was identified through a selection
process relevant to the terms of the grant. It included “fifty-five teachers of grades
2–5 and 1406 students from rural (Brawley), urban (Los Angeles Unified), and
suburban (Santa Ana and Oceanside) school districts” (USDE [524B], 2005, p. 2).
Permission was granted by the applicants, and the findings from the study were
presented to protect the participants’ identity per the IRB guidelines. The surveys
were sent out to the schools and filled out by teachers and students. The data were
gathered, assessed, and reported yearly per the terms of the grant.
Assumptions
A crucial assumption of this study was that students and their teachers view
what goes on in the classroom differently, and this leads to questioning the integrity
of the respondents’ answers. Teacher surveys were sent out and collected through
the same process as the student surveys. By providing two separate surveys,
multiple sources of data were gathered to complete the picture of the classroom.
“Too often students are not asked, nor are their perceptions considered, in both
13
educational practices and educational research. Clearly, their perceptions are
important and different, which raises questions concerning whether all the teacher
self-report research is sufficient” (Gentry, Rizza, & Owen, 2002, p. 145).
Limitations
The limitations of the study included using survey data that were
predetermined to fit the focus areas that were significant to the grant. The purpose
of the grant was to improve teacher efficacy among the diverse rural, urban, and
suburban populations. The survey data were gathered to meet the terms of the
grant and were not interchangeable. Another limitation concerned the research’s
choice of methodology for the study and the secondary analysis of the data.
Delimitations
The delimitation of the study included using a pre-formulated questionnaire
and survey. Delimitation occurred with the timing of the surveys sent out to the
classrooms, which varied across districts. School dynamics also differed across
districts as did the make-up of the school population (e.g., number of English
Language Learners). GATE designation policies also diverged across districts.
Although teachers were provided with developed Models of Teaching content
lessons and researched models of teaching curriculum, the amount of teacher
assistance fluctuated as did their understanding of the GATE curriculum. Teacher
and student interpretation of the survey was another delimitation to the study as the
14
surveys were sent out to the schools and not given directly by the director of the
grant, Dr. Sandra Kaplan.
Glossary
The following were key educational terms used regularly in the proposal
and were relevant to the study.
Abilities: refers to the students’ self-perceptions of what they were capable of doing
in the classroom. The student survey asked the students to
determine their level of ability on a given lesson.
Curriculum: the program taught in the classroom; it varied by subject.
Differentiation: modification of the curriculum to meet the individual needs of the
learners. This was the prevalent theme throughout the research
study (see Appendix D, Figure D-1).
Gifted and Talented Students: students with unique and advanced abilities
(intellectual, creative, artistic, leadership, or specific academic
fields) that required special educational services to ensure their
academic, social, and emotional growth and development.
Interests: areas that bring happiness and motivation. Students were asked to
respond in the survey about their interest levels in the classroom.
Models of Teaching: the pedagogy of gifted and talented education. The Javits
Grant trained the teacher participants in the Models of Teaching.
15
Rationale: the reasoning behind the choices made. In the teacher survey, the
teachers were asked to explain the reasoning behind the teaching
methods they employed in the classroom.
Self-Perception: the awareness of one’s competencies or lack thereof. The student
survey asked the students to respond to how they felt the lessons
taught in school matched their feelings about their abilities and
interests.
Teaching Methods: the ways that teachers provide instructional strategies in the
classroom. The teacher survey required the teacher to select a
teaching method from five areas of inquiry: curriculum source,
differentiated curriculum elements, content, organizational structure,
and grouping patterns (see Appendix A, Table A-1).
Summary
In conclusion, there is a need for further study to examine the role of
teacher curriculum choices and their effect on student self-perceptions. Chapter 2
reviewed the foundation of literature on gifted and talented education. The seven
overlying themes analyzed in the literature review served to support the reasoning
behind the study’s four research questions that focus on examining the relationship
between teacher curriculum choices and their effect on student perception.
16
Organization of the Chapters
Chapter 1 (Introduction) presented the purpose of the study based on the
conceptual framework of differentiation (see Appendix D, Figure D-1). It
addressed the significance of the study and its application to role of the teacher and
the needs of the gifted and talented; it introduced the research questions and an
overview of the proposed research methods; it stated the assumptions, limitations,
and delimitations of the study; and it supplied a glossary of relevant terms of the
study. The following chapters are explained in further detail at the start of each
section. Chapter 2 encompasses a Review of the Literature. Chapter 3 focuses on
Research Methodology. Chapter 4 presents the Results. Chapter 5 completes the
study with Research Conclusions.
17
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Teachers make over one hundred decisions on a given school day. Of these
decisions, none is more important than the choice of differentiated curriculum and
teaching methods.
Teacher Choices
Several researchers (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Glasser, 1996) stated that
providing choices in the classrooms requires teachers to share power with their
students. This enables the gifted and talented students to share in the decision-
making of their own learning and creates a sense of powerful ownership.
Alderman’s (1999) work emphasized that the tasks teachers choose for their
students and the structure they provide in the classroom can positively influence
students to maximize their learning. If the goal of education is to create life-long
learners, then it follows that the role of teacher choices in differentiated curriculum
and instructional strategies plays a vital part in students’ perception of themselves.
This is an important concept to examine because theorists hypothesized that
perception and attitude play a crucial role in the success of gifted and talented
18
learners. Teachers’ beliefs shape the content selection, delivery methods,
interaction styles, and evaluation techniques that drive curricula and instruction on
a daily basis (Albion & Ertmer, 2002; Pajares, 1992). The positive correlation
between teacher perception of their students’ abilities and their related expectation
increases with additional opportunities to interact with gifted students (Hershey &
Oliver, 1988).
In their study on gifted and talented education, Gentry, Rizza, and Owen
(2002) claimed that as teachers make the choice to work toward the appropriate
delivery of curricula and instruction for all learners, they can begin to recognize the
power of students involved in self-regulated learning. “Self-regulation plays a
major role in the successful academic performance of gifted students” (Moore,
2005, p. 42). These successful, self-directed, and motivated learners take an active
role in their learning process. However, not all gifted learners are self-regulators.
According to Moore (2005), the opposing characteristics of gifted learners
frequently include the following:
self-criticism,
inability to deal with failure,
boredom with grade-level curriculum
inappropriate behavioral outburst or reactions,
sloppy work,
demanding of their parents’ and teachers’ attention,
demanding of other students,
inconsiderate of others’ needs/wants, and
difficulty transitioning from one subject to the next
during the school day. (p. 40)
19
Self-regulation learning involves the students’ intrinsic motivation to start and
finish a task without adult prompting. This self-regulation allows teachers and
gifted and talented students to make appropriate educational choices based on their
individual strengths and interests. It creates an environment that allows for self-
exploration without harsh penalties as students—especially those in the elementary
and middle school grades—discover for themselves their interests, strengths, and
weaknesses.
Gifted teachers who excite their students to do their best are to some degree
contrary according to Sternberg and Lubart (1993). In an ever-increasing world of
norm and criterion referenced tests, there is a decrease emphasis on higher level
thinking. However, Sternberg and Lubart (1993) reiterated that this is the time for
elementary school teachers to challenge traditional beliefs, bend the rules, interpret
in fresh ways, and present information by novel means. In order to challenge
students’ minds effectively, a successful teacher of gifted and talented students
must be aware of the traditional content and teaching methods of his or her field.
By maintaining this strong foundation, it is possible for them to supply students
with established knowledge. Then, through their ideas, encouragement, and
example, the teachers can spur the students on to their own opinions and
discoveries.
Schack’s (1993) study on the change in teachers’ perceptions of students’
creativity, critical thinking skills, ability to work in groups, and potential giftedness
20
as defined by teachers showed the dichotomy of these two worlds of excelling on
tests versus emphasizing higher level thinking. With the increasing need for No
Child [to be] Left Behind, teachers may only be willing to see students as gifted if
they are highly successful and learn quickly and easily. Schack and Starko (1990)
contended that changes in instruction could allow students to demonstrate abilities
that they are not able to display in the traditional classroom. If the emphasis is on
scoring highly on tests, gifted and talented students’ are stifled in their learning.
However, changes in teacher choices in differentiated curriculum and instructional
strategies can allow teachers to acknowledge unseen strengths in students not
previously identified as gifted. As research shows, if the needs of gifted students
are not met, our educational system will fail to encourage the traits that would
produce innovative inventors. Teachers in the trenches, not the politicians or
theoreticians, need to take an active role in determining the challenging curriculum
that the gifted and talented population need. In 2004, the authors of the report “ A
Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students” wrote
about the mixed understanding about the benefits of gifted and talented students
enrolled in magnet schools versus those mainstreamed in inclusion traditional
schools. Further study is needed to determine the impact of homogenous (magnet
schools) versus heterogeneous (traditional schools) environments and its effect on
both student perception and teacher curriculum choices.
21
Differentiated Curriculum and Instruction
According to the U.S. Department of Education (1993), gifted learners are
“children and youth with outstanding talent who perform or show the potential for
performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with
others of their age, experience, or environment” (u.p.). Before the curricular
program is provided, it is also necessary to identify it. The state departments of
education and local school divisions found identifying and providing different
programs for gifted learners challenging (Patton, Prillaman, & Van Tassel-Baska,
1990). Taylor (2005) stated that before effective educational programs can be
taught in the classrooms, to identify gifted and talented students “schools must
develop a system” that
Seeks variety—looks throughout a range of disciplines
for students with diverse talents;
Uses many assessment measures—uses a variety of
appraisals so that schools can find students in different
talent areas and at different ages;
Is free of bias—provides students of all backgrounds
with equal access to appropriate opportunities;
Is fluid—uses assessment procedures that can
accommodate students who develop at different rates
and whose interests may change as they mature;
Identifies potential—discovers talents that are not
readily apparent in students, as well as those that are
obvious; and
Assesses motivation—takes into account the drive and
passion that play a key role in accomplishment. (p. 18)
22
An effective gifted and talented education program has multiple
components. “The goal of a gifted program that wants longevity is to retain its
particularized boundaries while simultaneously overlapping boundaries with other
educational programs” (Kaplan, 1988, p. 36). Sternberg and Lubart (1993) stated
that the education system should seek to develop all children’s resources for
creativity—especially at the elementary and secondary levels of schools. It is a sad
state of affairs that classes for the gifted tend to be glorified versions of regular
curricula rather than fundamentally different curricula that prepare students for
creative endeavor.
Pull-out programs are common in the elementary grades. These programs
are intended to serve the needs of the gifted by pulling them out of their
heterogeneous classes for a selected period of the time and providing them with a
differentiated lesson. However, for these gifted and talented students, the
additional workload from these programs can be detrimental. “Quality practices
need to be defined and shared broadly to ensure that everyone is working together
to maximize the benefits of both school programs” (Smith, 2005, p. 27).
To improve education for the gifted and talented students of America,
schools must
expand effective education programs and incorporate
more advanced materials into the regular school
program;
provide all students with opportunities to solve
problems, analyze materials and situations, and learn
from real-life experiences;
23
identify students who need individual or special
opportunities, using test data only as appropriate;
serve students identified as having outstanding talent in
many places—the regular classroom, a special class, the
community, at a university or a museum, in front of a
computer, or anywhere the opportunity meets the need;
and
create flexible schools that enable all students, including
the most able, to be grouped and regrouped according to
their needs and interests. (Taylor, 2005, p. 17)
This dissertation study connected Taylor’s research about the general education for
the gifted and talented with Dr. Kaplan’s Javits grant increasing teacher
pedagogical knowledge on differentiating curriculum and instruction to service this
population of students.
Kaplan (1988) emphasized the use of program standards as a benchmark to
assure quality control of gifted and talented programs. These program standards
must incorporate (1) goals and objectives, (2) decision-making, (3) monitoring, (4)
limitations, (5) expenditures, (6) perceptions, (7) training, and (8) philosophy.
Furthermore, teachers of the gifted and talented students should be subject to the
same type of evaluation or review process applied to other educational programs
(ELD, special education needs, Title I, etc.). Similar to any system that does not
employ checks and balances, the lack of a monitoring system denies the teachers of
the gifted the necessary feedback to determine their level of competency and
provide the opportunity to improve. Research purports that when teachers expand
their ability to implement successful teaching strategies in the classroom for their
24
gifted and talented population, the entire class benefits, but further research is
needed to examine the spillover effect. Does employing effective teaching
strategies for gifted students (e.g., Sternberg and Lubart’s 1993 study on creativity
and Davis and Rimm’s 1985 study on critical thinking and problem solving) benefit
all students in the classroom?
Student Perception
A review of literature makes it clear that “the impact of student perceptions
regarding what is challenging and interesting to them can be a factor that affects
student achievement. Research reveals that student performance can be dependent
on the nature of content and how it is taught” (USDE, 2005, ED 524 B, p. 2). The
research literature indicated that a student’s self-perception/self-efficacy depends
on his or her self-confidence. Sternberg and Lubart (1993), Feldhusen (1986), and
Hennessey and Amabile (1988) claimed that creatively gifted people need some
degree of self-esteem. It is crucial that they believe in themselves and their ideas.
They need to believe that their ideas are worth expressing. “The perceptions
students have about their skills influence the types of activities they select, how
much they challenge themselves at those activities, and the persistence they exhibit
once they are involved in the activities” (McCoach & Siegle, 2003, p. 145).
Gentry, Rizza, and Owen (2002) discovered that this ability to self-regulate
separates those who reach their potential and the gifted underachievers. The
dimensions central to learning and motivation include challenge, choice, interest,
25
and enjoyment. The works of Sternberg and Lubart (1993) further stated that
creatively gifted individuals with high self-efficacy/positive self-perceptions
actively engage in divergent thinking as a matter of problem-solving strategy.
Kaplan (1988) cautioned educators, parents, and students who are directly
or indirectly involved in the gifted about their perceptions towards the program.
However, Kaplan further stated that these misconceptions can be beneficial.
Instead of casually dismissing these various opinions as faulty, incomplete, or
inappropriate remarks, they can be used as a helpful source of information to
improve the worth and quality of the program.
Student Abilities on Curriculum and Teaching Methods
The California Association for the Gifted (1996) and Clark (2008) both
agreed that a common problem in identifying the abilities of gifted learners is the
identification of high achievers. High achievers perform well on academic tasks of
knowledge and comprehension–level learning but lack the range and diversity of
gifted students. Renzulli (1979) presented a three-dimensional model of above-
average ability, task commitment, and creativity. “The Renzulli definition seems to
be appropriate as a specific identification procedure for a specific high aptitude,
high-performance school program, but not totally satisfactory as a generic
definition of giftedness” (Gallagher, 1985, p. 8). Van Tassel-Baska (1981)
specified that gifted children exhibit the following characteristics to a greater
degree with the caveat that some characteristics are more evident than others.
26
Clark (2008) stated that “gifted children usually exhibit the ability to generalize, to
work comfortably with abstract ideas, and to synthesize diverse relationships to a
far higher degree” (p. 54). Clark further stated that in identifying the abilities of
gifted students, it is important to examine the differentiating characteristics in the
cognitive, affective, physical, and intuitive domains.
The abilities of gifted students are as numerous as any special education
group and range from overachievers to underachievers. Their needs comprise the
variety of perfectionist tendencies, inappropriate and unchallenging curriculum in
the classroom (thus reiterating the need for differentiation), gaps in academic skills,
lack of self-confidence, social immaturity, students with dual identifications (EL
and GATE), etc. What is important to keep in mind is that “these students need an
opportunity to be challenged in the areas in which they are advanced” (CAG, 1996,
p. 4). This makes it even more crucial to examine teacher reasoning behind the
methods they choose as they differentiate curriculum and instruction.
Student Interests in Curriculum and Teaching Methods
Gifted students share some commonalities and traits in terms of their
interest levels. Gallagher’s (1975) work identified some gifted students noted for
their all-consuming interest to the exclusion of everything else. Others in the gifted
population desire to master all subjects, and they are interested in everything. The
goal of the teacher is to understand the varying interests, needs, and abilities of the
27
gifted learners in their classroom. Recognizing that gifted students have special
needs requiring differentiated curriculum and teaching methods is the first step.
Teaching Methods to Differentiate
Clark’s (2008) work found that gifted students must have educational
materials and experiences appropriate to their level of development. “With needs
that range far beyond the age-graded curriculum in which they are commonly
placed, gifted students are among the most poorly served in the school population”
(p. 9). According to the findings of the California Association for the Gifted
(1996), “gifted students are particularly averse to conventional lecture, drill and
practice, and prepackaged learning. They respond much more positively to real,
hands-on problem solving activities that make use of a variety of resources” (p. 18).
Creating an educational environment that stresses student autonomy and choices is
one of the most effective strategies that teachers can employ. Differentiated
curriculum and instruction in the classroom can occur through a variety of
methods:
1. differentiated curriculum as an integral feature of the regular or core
curriculum
2. differentiated curriculum parallel to the core curriculum
3. differentiated curriculum as the predominate curriculum and the core
curriculum serving as the secondary curriculum
28
Gallagher’s work (1975) stated that differentiation involves the devices of
content acceleration, content enrichment, content sophistication, content novelty,
the opportunity to seek sophisticated system of ideas and conduct investigations
based on these ideas, study of the future, exposure to literature from other cultures,
opportunities to express their creativity, and more.
Grouping Patterns
According to research, grouping alone does not provide
significant benefits for gifted students; however, grouping
gifted students with their intellectual peers does provide
important gains in academic and social emotional
achievement when the curriculum is differentiated to meet
these needs. (CAG, 1996, p. 18)
This particular study examined the role of gifted students in heterogeneous
classrooms in rural, urban, and suburban school districts. Van Tassel-Baska (1981)
reiterated that “the hallmark of education for the gifted and talented is careful
planning of individual opportunities for advanced learning which are suitable to
exceptional minds and talents” (p. 5). Understanding that gifted students need to
move at their own rate, need diversity in their instructional experiences, need to be
challenged and stimulated in their educational environment, and need counseling
for the social-emotional adjustment of being gifted, the focus is not on how to
segregate gifted students from the regular school population. The emphasis on
grouping patterns in the heterogeneous classroom focuses on flexible settings and
on “the stimulation of the thinking processes of creativity, originality, problem
29
solving, and of increasing the content depth and sophistication” (Gallagher, 1975,
p. 82).
Teacher Perceptions of Students
The work of Rosenthal (1968) and others . . . [gave] us a
clear picture of how important the teacher’s attitude is to
the performance of the student. The level of expectation
communicated by the teacher can so easily lead to self-
fulfilling prophecies. (Clark, 1997, p. 166)
Margaret Mead’s work in 1954 is still applicable today. She found that
“American society tends to grade or rate attributes rather than allow uniqueness and
incomparability” (u.p.). The term gifted used to label students with special abilities
reflects the belief that their success is given and not earned and thus they must
constantly prove themselves. This relates to many characteristics of the gifted
student: perfectionist, the classic underachiever, extreme focus on specific topics,
etc. These perceptions by educators can be detrimental as they affect not only the
students and their performance in the classroom but also the attitude of the gifted
program. As a result, differentiation for the gifted is often an afterthought and not
as purposeful as interventions for the struggling learners. Successful teachers who
held positive perceptions of students also “tended to be more student-centered,
stimulating in the classroom, and, not surprisingly, were supportive of special
educational programs for the gifted” (Gallagher, 1975, p. 384).
30
Conclusion
The study results reveal a limited analysis of the exact nature between
teacher choices’ of differentiated teaching methods of curriculum and instruction
and students’ perception of themselves as learners. Further research need to
determine if there is a causal relationship between teacher choices of teaching
methods to differentiate curriculum and instruction and student perceptions of
interests and abilities.
31
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter discusses the research methodology used in this qualitative
study. As part of the Javits grant, 55 teacher surveys and 1,406 student surveys
were collected and analyzed by an outside evaluator at the University of Virginia.
Demographic information about the subjects was gathered and categorized. This
study took the existing quantitative data and asked four research questions
concerning the relationship between teacher curriculum choices and student
perceptions. The secondary analysis of the teacher data emerged with two
prevalent categories about differentiation and spillover. The qualitative research
delved deeper into the patterns that emerged from the student data with open-ended
interviews at X Elementary in the Santa Ana Unified School District. Chapter 3
explains the sequence of the methodology of this study.
The initial analysis of the study examined the data collected from the Javits
grant on both teacher and student responses to questions on curriculum, interest,
and abilities. Numerous researchers studied the role of the teacher in the
classroom. This study analyzed the role of teacher curriculum choices in the
classroom but also examined its correlation to gifted students’ self-perceptions.
32
Researchers acknowledged an increased awareness to include student perception in
studies. If a goal of education is for students to derive a sense of ownership from
their work, then it is important to provide opportunities for the students to give
voice to their perceptions about their education. To fulfill its purpose, this study
examined the relationship between teachers’ choices of curriculum and teaching
methods to students’ self-perception of their interest and abilities to learn. The
focal points of this study examined the following questions:
1. Which curriculum and teaching methods do teachers in the second- to
fifth-grade heterogeneous classrooms prefer?
2. What reasons explain teachers’ choices of curriculum and teaching
methods for gifted second- to fifth-grade students?
3. How do the teachers’ choices of curriculum and teaching methods affect
the gifted students’ self-perceptions of their interest and abilities in the
heterogeneous classroom?
4. What factors affect gifted students’ self-perceptions of the curriculum
and teaching methods used by their teachers?
Definitions of Factors/Rationale
Before the methodology is explained, it is important to explain one
component of the instrumentation. The teacher survey asked the participants to
33
choose a teaching method from five areas of inquiry: curriculum source,
differentiated curriculum elements, content, organizational structure, and grouping
patterns (see Appendix A, Table A-1). Each question had two teaching methods to
choose from, and the teachers chose the one they most valued. They were also
required to select their rationale for each choice. The survey rationales were
written in an order decided by Dr. Kaplan per the terms of the grant. For this study,
the rationales were organized in alphabetical order. Each rationale was identified
and the theoretical research behind each question explained. This allowed the
researcher to find the emerging patterns of differentiation and spillover.
Rationales
Affects All Learners in the Classroom
Educators were split between the applications of the spillover effect. One
school of thought contended that
if policymakers and educators are to be truly accountable
for serving students in responsible and responsive ways,
they must use information about educational conditions
along with knowledge of sound educational practices to
evaluate where changes are warranted and to adopt
strategies that will support student success. (Darling-
Hammond, 1991, p. 23)
Bernal (2003) claimed that “some teachers dilute the concept of giftedness by
emphasizing that ‘everyone has gifts’ and many hold that traditional GT practices
are good for everyone” (p. 184). Strategies used for the gifted population should be
34
utilized for all learners in the classroom. The opposing side reiterated that “the
curricula must be differentiated to reinforce teaching to all individuals within the
group of gifted students” (Kaplan, 2006, p. 35).
Challenge to Students
Students must feel challenged in the classroom and confident that their
abilities are being utilized. “Self-efficacy is a motivational construct that is the key
to promoting students’ engagement and learning” (Ferrara, 2005, p. 36).
Expectations of the District, School, etc.
“Nearly all efforts of the reform movement were aimed at improving the
status of at-risk students and improving school performance in general—both
worthy goals, but ones that ought not to be pursued at a cost to advanced learners”
(Callahan, Tomlinson, Reis, & Kaplan, 2000, p. 788). McCutcheon’s (1980) work
on deliberate teacher lesson planning found that “several teachers seemed unable to
see options because of system-wide mandates” (p. 8).
Expediency (Time)
‘Time’ is an academic terrorist when the differentiated
tasks are more expansive than the time allocated to
complete them [and when] the teacher adjusts a lesson to
meet the daily schedule, rather than allowing the lesson to
absorb as much time as is needed. (Kaplan, 2006, p. 49)
Gallagher (1998) further stated that “the biggest enemy of the teacher is time” (p.
741) and that time posed a dilemma for the teacher who assigns a task with
individual goals/results.
35
Just Because…I Don’t Have a Reason for the Choice
This rationale speaks for itself. Teachers have no purpose for their
reasoning for the teaching method they choose to use.
Previous Experience Dictates This Works Best
In McCutcheon’s (1980) work on the nature of planning, she found that
“experienced teachers discussed the notion of a repertoire of ideas that had been
successful in the past” (p. 8) and utilized these instructional strategies and
curriculum choices in the classroom.
Relationship to Expectations or Needs of the Gifted
The teachers participating in the grant were trained in the Models of
Teaching. They were taught the pedagogy behind gifted education and the
importance of meeting the expectations and needs of this population. Van Tassel-
Baska (1981) stated that education for the gifted and talented student must be
appropriate for their needs. “Programs are planned for them, not on the basis of
content which suits the majority of pupils, but on the basis of their advanced
accomplishments and interests which require different content and different
opportunities” (p. 5). While all of the rationales performed a purpose, the
relationship to expectations or needs of the gifted served an important distinction.
It was the foundation of differentiation, one of the emerging patterns found from
the analysis of the data. With an understanding of the rationales from the teacher
survey, it is time to discuss the nature of the study.
36
Nature of the Study
The nature of the design included analyzing multiple forms of data. Javits
Grant S206A040072 collected student survey results, teacher survey results,
demographic information for each classroom and teacher, second- to fifth-grade
standardized achievement scores, teacher lesson match to standard survey, teacher
observation ratings, teacher video observation ratings, and teacher lesson plan
evaluation. A qualitative study was included with the development of student
interview questions. For the purpose of this study, student survey results, teacher
survey results, and individual student interviews were analyzed. The student
survey and teacher survey results of each intact second- to fifth-grade classroom
were analyzed to determine the level of correlation between teacher choices in
selecting teaching methods to differentiate curriculum and instruction and students’
perceptions of their interests and ability to learn. The interview questions served
the purpose of further research on student rationale behind their perceptions of their
interests and abilities as it relates to the teacher lessons.
Sample and Population
The participant sample was identified through a selection process relevant
to the terms of the Javits grant. The four school districts demonstrated
commonalties of low social economic status (Title I schools), gifted students
identified by state criteria, district-approved GATE plans by the California
Department of Education (CDE), and cluster group setting of homogenous classes.
37
The sample included “fifty-five teachers of grades 2–5 and 1,406 students from
rural (Brawley), urban (Los Angeles Unified), and suburban (Santa Ana and
Oceanside) school districts” (USDE, 2005, ED 524B, p. 2). All 55 teachers were
either self-selected or nominated by principal recommendations. To participate in
this study, all teachers were trained in the Models of Teaching (direct instruction,
group investigation, role playing, concept attainment, deductive reasoning, and
advance organizer) and reviewed the differentiated curriculum defined by the
California GATE standards (2001).
Instrumentation
The instrumentation of the study included a teacher survey, a student
survey, and student interview questions. By providing two separate surveys from
both teachers and students and a series of student interview questions, multiple
sources of data were gathered to complete the picture of the classroom. “Too often
students are not asked, nor are their perceptions considered, in both educational
practices and educational research. Clearly, their perceptions are important and
different, which raises questions concerning whether all the teacher self-report
research is sufficient” (Gentry, Rizza, & Owen, 2002, p. 145). Both surveys were
“forced choice” which provided the opportunity for follow-up interviews to gather
open-ended results.
Forcing a choice not only yields the direction of preference,
but also requires the respondent to give a more considered
response. However, forcing a choice does distort the
38
responses of individuals who genuinely have no opinion,
are genuinely unsure, or who genuinely do not care.
(Garson, n.d.)
To balance the quantitative data derived from two force-choice surveys, qualitative
data from student interviews were also collected.
The secondary analysis of the quantitative data served two aspects of the
study. Two items from the student survey specifying student interest and ability
and one section (with 13 items) from the teacher survey concerning teaching
methods and rationale were extracted. The data were analyzed to find emerging
patterns that shaped the qualitative method of the study.
The qualitative aspect of the study included student interviews in grades
four to five at a selected participating school. The purpose of the interviews was to
investigate gifted students’ perceptions of the reasoning behind the level of their
interest in teacher-differentiated lessons and their perceptions of their abilities in
said lesson. In examining the sample protocol of this study, it was important to
remember that “interviewers are not in the field to judge or change values and
norms. Researchers are there to understand the perspectives of others” (Patton,
2002, p. 394). The IRB process enabled the researcher to formulate questions that
were free of bias and did not violate the guidelines concerning human subjects.
As part of the terms of the grant, all the students had parent permission to
participate in the study. IRB approval (Appendix C) was obtained to allow the
research to ask the interview questions that pertained specifically to this study. The
39
X School student interviews were face-to-face and tape recorded. This allowed the
researcher to transcribe each interview and categorize it into a matrix for analysis.
The student interview questions were created based on the student survey
previously filled out. As the surveys were forced choice, the interviews allowed
the students to express their thoughts in a more open-ended way. Interviews gave
fourth- and fifth-grade students the opportunity to expand on their perception
(specifically concerning their interest and ability) of the teacher’s lessons. This
information enabled the researcher to determine if a relationship existed between
the rationale selected in determining teaching methods or differentiated curriculum
and instructional strategies and the students’ perception of their interests and
abilities.
Allowances were made to recognize that school dynamics differed across
districts as did the make-up of the school population (e.g., number of EL students).
GATE designation policies also diverged across districts. Although teachers were
provided with teacher-developed content lessons and trained in the Models of
Teaching curriculum, the amount of teacher assistance fluctuated as did their grasp
of the GATE curriculum.
Quantitative and qualitative information such as teacher surveys, student
surveys, and student interviews served to provide different data sources to test for
consistency. Through the different results derived, it was possible to gather both
the common themes and the inconsistencies. As the goal of summative evaluations
40
was to make a decision about its value, “finding the inconsistencies ought not to be
viewed as weakening the credibility of results, but rather as offering opportunities
for deeper insight into the relationship between inquiry approach and the
phenomenon under study” (Patton, 2002, p. 248). Although the qualitative aspect
of the study was done at only one school which was relatively small compared to
the entirety of the grant population, “the validity, meaningfulness, and insights
generated from qualitative inquiry have more to do with the information richness of
the cases selected and the observational/analytical capabilities of the researcher
than with sample size” (Patton, 2002, p. 245).
Data Collection
The research procedure of the study included access to the Title I population
derived on the basis that they were members of the established Javits grant. Data
were collected once a year from the teachers and students. For the purpose of this
study, there was a data analysis of the teacher and student survey questions. An
analysis of corresponding student interviews on fourth and fifth graders at X
Elementary School in the Santa Ana Unified School District was examined to
determine the factors that dictated student perception of the curriculum and
teaching methods used by their teachers. Once the data were gathered, frequency
scores were tabulated to percentages, and statistical significance was analyzed.
41
Data Collection Process
The following steps were taken to collect data:
1. Fifty-five teacher surveys were sent out in the fall of 2006 to rural
(Brawley), urban (Los Angeles Unified), and suburban (Santa Ana and
Oceanside) school districts.
2. Exactly 1,406 student surveys were sent out in the fall of 2006 to rural
(Brawley), urban (Los Angeles Unified), and suburban (Santa Ana and
Oceanside) school districts.
3. Fifty-five teacher surveys (Teacher Questionnaire) and 1,406 student
surveys (All About Me and School) were collected in the school year of
2006–2007.
4. The researcher extracted one section (see Appendix A, Table A-1,
Teacher Survey Questions, Part III) of the Teacher Questionnaire
pertaining to teacher choices in selecting differentiated curriculum and
teaching methods and the corresponding rationale for their selections.
5. The researcher extracted two questions (see Appendix B, Table B-1,
Student Survey Questions, Part III) from the All About Me and School
pertaining to the students’ perceptions of how the lessons taught by the
teachers in the classroom fit or match their abilities and interests.
42
6. There was a data analysis of the 53 (2 teachers dropped out from the
original 55 number mentioned previously) classrooms and 1,406
students as a correlation coefficient to determine teacher choices for
differentiated curriculum and teaching methods and student perception
of abilities and interest within the same class.
7. Fourth and fifth graders at X Elementary School in the Santa Ana
Unified School District were interviewed in the spring of 2008. This
school site was chosen because the two teachers participated both years
in the grant. The student interview questions were generated to
correlate or support the analysis of the student survey questions. The
purpose of this aspect of the data collection was to gather additional
information from the students to authenticate or extend the responses to
the two student survey items regarding student perception on interest
and abilities in the All About Me and School survey.
Data Analysis
With the information collected from both the surveys and the interviews,
the next procedure analyzed the data. The following techniques or programs were
used to analyze the data.
43
Analysis for Research Question 1
RQ 1. Which curriculum and teaching methods do teachers in the second-
to fifth-grade heterogeneous classrooms prefer?
Valid percentage results were gathered to compare the value the teachers
assigned their chosen curriculum and instructional strategies/teaching method. The
comprehensive findings from the teacher survey are presented in chapter 4. The
purpose of this analysis was to rank the most frequently used teaching methods
chosen by the teachers participating in the Javits grant.
Analysis for Research Question 2
RQ 2. What reasons explain teachers’ choices of curriculum and teaching
methods for gifted second- to fifth-grade students?
Valid percentage results were gathered to compare the weight of the
rationales the teachers chose for their selected teaching method. The
comprehensive findings for the rationales are presented in chapter 4. The purpose
of this analysis was to rank the most frequently chosen rationale for teacher
choices. This was used to determine the factors that influenced teacher choices of
curriculum and teaching methods.
44
Analysis for Research Question 3
RQ 3. How do the teachers’ choices of curriculum and teaching methods
affect the gifted students’ self-perceptions of their interest and
abilities in the heterogeneous classroom?
Valid percentage results were gathered to determine the rate that students
felt their interest and abilities were being met in the classroom. The purpose of this
analysis was to derive the frequency of their responses. This enabled the researcher
to create specific interview questions to target the factors that determined their self-
perceptions.
Analysis for Research Question 4
RQ 4. What factors affect gifted students’ self-perceptions of the
curriculum and teaching methods used by their teachers?
Fourth- and fifth-grade gifted students at X elementary school were
interviewed. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed. A table was created to
code key terms from the student interviews to determine patterns or themes. The
emergent patterns and themes are discussed in a narrative fashion.
Conclusion
There are various methodologies that can be used to analyze the data from
this study. The confidence of the findings was addressed by analyzing the results
from the teacher and student surveys to the student interview questions.
45
Studies that use only one method are more vulnerable to
errors linked to that particular method (e.g., loaded
interview questions, biased or untrue responses) than
studies that use multiple methods in which different types
of data provide cross-data validity checks. (Patton, 2002, p.
248)
As a form of summative evaluation, the study relied on the validity and
confidence of the data triangulated by acknowledging and correcting strengths and
weaknesses of the program. The purposes of summative evaluations were to (a)
determine the program’s effectiveness, (b) make a decision about the continuity or
cessation of the program, and (c) focus on the generalizability of the program to
other situations. It was only through careful examination of all aspects of a
dissertation design that a study can be set up to provide the information needed to
make the most informative decision needed for the benefit of all.
Chapter 4 provides the results from the data collected to show how the
research methodology designed in this chapter was effective in answering the
research questions.
46
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Introduction
This chapter presents the quantitative and qualitative findings in response to
the previously stated research questions that specifically addressed teacher
curriculum choices and their effects on gifted students’ self-perceptions. The
chapter analyzes the quantitative results from the teacher surveys concerning
teaching methods and rationales, the quantitative student survey results concerning
interest and abilities, and the qualitative student responses from the interviews.
Chapter 5 covers interpretations of the findings and the additional variables that
need further study.
This chapter answers the following research questions:
1. Which curriculum and teaching methods do teachers in the second- to
fifth-grade heterogeneous classrooms prefer?
2. What reasons explain teachers’ choices of curriculum and teaching
methods for gifted second- to fifth-grade students?
47
3. How do the teachers’ choices of curriculum and teaching methods affect
the gifted students’ self-perceptions of their interest and abilities in the
heterogeneous classroom?
4. What factors affect gifted students’ self-perceptions of the curriculum
and teaching methods used by their teachers?
Demographic Data
Javits Act of Gifted Education Grant S206A040072 involved 53 teachers (2
teachers dropped out from the original 55 number mentioned previously) with a
mean of 14.57 years of general education teaching experience. Forty-nine teachers
had a mean of 7.92 years of gifted education teaching experience. Forty-one
teachers had a mean of 18.34 credit hours in university courses in gifted education.
Forty-eight teachers attended a mean of 138.88 workshop or conference hours in
gifted education. Forty-nine teachers spent a mean of 2.57 hours preparing lessons
for gifted students each day. These statistics showed that the teachers involved in
the Javits grant had experience in teaching the gifted and talented population. The
teacher “n” population was small and statistically insignificant compared to larger
empirical studies. However, the diversity of the population they served (1,406
students from rural, urban, and suburban Title I schools) mirrored the
demographics of California schools and proved the validity of the study. Its
validity illustrated what Patton (2002) referred to as a common sampling strategy:
48
“studying a relatively small number of special cases that are successful at
something and therefore a good source of lessons learned” (p. 7). The survey data
served as a representative population of the larger group in terms of economic,
cultural, and linguistic diversity.
Overview
This qualitative study started with a secondary analysis of the quantitative
findings from 53 teacher surveys and 1,406 student surveys from rural (Brawley),
urban (Los Angeles Unified), and suburban (Santa Ana and Oceanside) school
districts. The analysis of the entire data helped formulate qualitative follow-up
interview questions at X Elementary School in the suburban Santa Ana Unified
School District. The teacher and student surveys were a Javits grant data subset
compiled by an outside evaluator from the University of Virginia. The data were
analyzed and presented to the Department of Education per the requirements of the
grant.
This study performed a narrative analysis of the quantitative data by
analyzing the data of two intact classrooms at a school site unit and strengthening it
with a qualitative analysis of the interview questions. X Elementary School fitted
the qualitative aspect of this study based on the following requirements:
(a) The school had participated in 2 years of the Javits grant
(b) The school had minimal teacher grant participant turnover; each grade
level had at least one teacher trained in the Models of Teaching (direct
49
instruction, group investigation, concept attainment, deductive
reasoning, and advance organizer).
(c) Student interviews could formulate a 2-year longitudinal study of the
Javits grant.
The purposeful qualitative sampling was drawn from fourth- and fifth-grade
students who had participated for two consecutive years in the grant. The student
responses to the open-ended questions were coded. It was then related to the
general student data across the study. For the purpose of this qualitative study,
Patton (2002) reiterated that “the quality of the insights generated is what matters,
not the number of such insights” (p. 7). The purpose was to “illuminate the people
behind the numbers and put faces on the statistics…to deepen understanding” (p.
10).
Report of Findings
Research Questions
Research Questions 1 and 2
The first research question concerned the selection of curriculum and
teaching methods that were most preferred by teachers in the second- to fifth-grade
heterogeneous classrooms. Each item on the teacher questionnaire offered two
options to help determine if teachers selected appropriate differentiated curriculum
and teaching methods for the gifted when choosing from the two alternatives given
to them. The second research question focused on the reasons that explained the
50
teacher’s choices for differentiated curriculum and teaching methods for gifted
second- to fifth-grade students. The findings on Research Question 1 and 2 are
discussed simultaneously, as the teacher survey addressed curriculum, teaching
methods, and rationale at the same time. Table 1 serves as an example of how the
survey asked the teachers to select a curriculum and teaching method and its
corresponding rationale. In analyzing the data, the researcher followed the same
pattern instead of addressing each research question individually. Its significance
is more evident when addressed simultaneously.
Table 1: Item 1 of the Javits Grant’s Teacher Survey
Six areas of inquiry. The results of the teacher survey were divided into
five areas of inquiry by the principal investigator of the Javits grant and one
additional area of inquiry hypothesized by the researcher (see Table 2).
51
Table 2: Teacher Survey Areas of Inquiry
Area of Inquiry
Item Curriculum and Teaching Method
1. Creating own lessons
or following teacher’s guide or prescribed curriculum.
6. Related to interests of students and meet needs/abilities of gifted
or related to standards-based text or district curriculum
Curriculum
Source
13. Teaching small groups
or allowing student independent study
4. Teaching basic skills
or teaching critical thinking skills
11. Teaching creative thinking skills
or teaching basic skills
Differentiated
Curriculum
Elements
12. Teaching basic prompts
or teaching depth/complexity prompts
5. Teaching basic facts and concepts
or teaching universal concepts and big ideas
Content
7. Teaching traditional knowledge in each subject area
or teaching generalizations, principles, theories across disciplines
8. Teaching many different topics across various disciplines
or teaching a single discipline
Organizational
Structure
10. Teaching single subjects separately
or teaching all subjects connected to a theme or universal concept
2. Teaching in small homogeneous groups
or teaching entire heterogeneous groups
Grouping
Patterns
3. Teaching in heterogeneous small groups
or teaching whole class heterogeneous groups
Student
Preferences
9. Teaching advanced students
or teaching average students
or teaching struggling students
52
The five areas of inquiry grouped by the principal investigator were the following:
curriculum source, differentiated curriculum elements, content, organizational
structure, and grouping patterns. The sixth additional area of inquiry hypothesized
by the researcher concerned teachers’ choices of teaching students at different
abilities which will be referred to as student preferences. The Javits grant’s areas
of inquiry were referenced during the analysis to group the items into themes. The
results of the curriculum and teaching methods preferred by teachers were
presented as a theme in the six areas of inquiry (see Tables 3–8). The shaded
section identified the most valued choice within each area.
Inquiry area of curriculum source. In examining the inquiry area of
curriculum source (Table 3), second- to fifth-grade teachers preferred creating their
own lessons through standards-based curriculum and allowing students to get
involved in self-directed independent studies. Focusing on the elements that are
most crucial to the success of gifted education, Renzulli’s (1968) inquiry found that
the three selected by these judges most frequently were the
teacher, with both selection and training seen as major
issues, the curriculum, and how it can be made
purposefully distinctive, and student selection procedures
for the particular program in question. (Gallagher, 1975,
pp. 71–72)
53
Table 3: Curriculum and Teaching Methods Preferred by Teachers in the Inquiry Area of
Curriculum Source
Curriculum and Instructional Strategies Valid
Percentage
1. Creating your own lesson 76%
1. Following the teacher’s guide or prescribed curriculum 24%
6. Teaching areas that interest the students and meet their needs and abilities as
gifted individuals
49%
6. Teaching the standards-based, text material, or district curriculum 51%
13. Teaching in small groups 48.9%
13. Allowing students to get involved in a self-directed independent study 51.1%
Inquiry area of differentiated curriculum elements. In examining the
inquiry area of differentiated curriculum elements (Table 4), second- to fifth-grade
teachers preferred teaching both critical and creative thinking skills over the basic
skills. This was supported by the fact that teachers were expected to differentiate
curriculum and teaching methods to meet the needs of their gifted learners as
evident from the California GATE Standards (CDE, 2005). The GATE Standards
state that “the differentiated curriculum provides for the balanced development of
critical, creative, problem solving and research skills, advanced content, and
authentic and appropriate products” (p. 4).
54
Table 4: Curriculum and Teaching Methods Preferred by Teachers in the Inquiry Area of
Differentiated Curriculum Elements
Teaching Method Valid
Percentage
4. Teaching basic skills such as define, identify, compare 18%
4. Teaching critical thinking skills such as judging with criteria, prove with
evidence
82%
11. Teaching creative thinking skills such as redesign, combine 58.3%
11. Teaching basic skills such as compare, identify the main idea 41.7%
12. Teaching the basic prompts of who, what, when, etc. to seek information
16.3%
12. Teaching the prompts of Depth and Complexity to seek information 83.7%
Inquiry area of content. In examining the inquiry area of content (Table 5),
second- to fifth-grade teachers preferred teaching universal and big ideas that can
be generalized across the disciplines as compared to basic facts and traditional
knowledge.
Table 5: Curriculum and Teaching Methods Preferred by Teachers in the Inquiry Area of
Content
Curriculum and Instructional Strategies Valid Percentage
5. Teaching basic facts and concepts 33.3%
5. Teaching universal and big ideas 66.7%
7. Teaching traditional knowledge in each subject area 36.7%
7. Teaching generalizations, principles, theories across the disciplines 63.3%
55
No Child Left Behind requires that all students be proficient with grade level
standards. The teachers’ choices of curriculum and teaching methods focus on
emphasizing knowledge and comprehension. The aspect of requiring that all
students acquire basic skills is important. “The important points about teaching the
basic skills to the gifted are that this should be done much sooner than usually
occurs in school and should be far more extensive at each level of learning”
(Ehrlich, 1982, p. 79). Once gifted students have a foundation of basic facts and
traditional knowledge, the focus shifts to higher level thinking skills. For teachers
of gifted students, this refers to the top tier of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives: Cognitive Domain.
While the knowledge and comprehension levels naturally
are necessary for all students, teachers of gifted students,
especially, will want to apply rules, principles or theories;
analyze components, relationships, hypotheses, patterns
and causes and effects; synthesize parts into creative
solutions, plans, theories, generalizations, designs, and
compositions; and evaluate the accuracy, value, efficiency,
or utility of alternate ideas or courses of action. (Davis &
Rimm, 1985, p. 168)
Inquiry area of organizational structure. Examining the inquiry area of
organizational structure (Table 6) reinforced the finding that second- to fifth-grade
teachers who in the inquiry area of content (Table 5) preferred teaching universal
and big ideas also connected them to a theme across various disciplines.
56
Gifted students often have the ability to broaden their
understanding of concepts by making connections with
other ideas, seeing the relationship between concepts, and
understanding from perspectives other than their own. For
that reason, more universal themes and interdisciplinary
instruction need to be a part of their educational
experiences. (Clark, 2008, p. 293)
Table 6: Curriculum and Teaching Methods Preferred by Teachers in the Inquiry Area of
Organizational Structure
Curriculum and Instructional Strategies Valid Percentage
8. Teaching many different topics across the various disciplines 85.7%
8. Teaching in a single discipline 14.3%
10. Teaching single subjects separately 34.7%
10. Teaching all subjects connected to a theme or universal concept 65.3%
Inquiry area of grouping patterns. In examining the inquiry area of
grouping patterns (Table 7), second- to fifth-grade teachers preferred teaching
heterogeneous groups. This pattern was reinforced by the selection of the teacher’s
rationales (see Table 9) for their curriculum and teaching methods decision making.
Due to allocation of fiscal resources, personnel, and philosophical beliefs of a
district or schools, grouping patterns may not be in a teacher’s control. However,
Clark (2008) reiterated that
it is important to note that all programs for gifted learners,
regardless of how they are structured, must provide
differentiation, flexible grouping, continuous progress,
57
intellectual peer interaction, continuity, and teachers with
specialized education regarding this population if optimal
learning is to occur. (p. 406)
Table 7: Curriculum and Teaching Methods Preferred by Teachers in the Inquiry Area of
Grouping Patterns
Curriculum and Instructional Strategies Valid Percentage
2. Teaching in small homogenous groups 42.6%
2. Teaching the entire heterogeneous class 57.4%
3. Teaching in heterogeneous small groups 20.8%
3. Teaching the whole class heterogeneous group 79.2%
Inquiry area of student preferences. In examining the inquiry area of
student preferences (Table 8), second- to fifth-grade teachers preferred teaching
advanced and gifted students.
Table 8: Curriculum and Teaching Methods Preferred by Teachers in the Inquiry Area of
Student Preferences
Curriculum and Instructional Strategies Valid Percentage
9. Teaching advanced and gifted students 81.3%
9. Teaching average students 10.4%
9. Teaching struggling learners 8.3%
58
This may seem self explanatory since there is the misconception that all gifted
students are able to succeed on their own and require no special nurturing to ensure
their growth (Clark, 2008). However, further training is needed to ensure that
teachers have the tools necessary to meet the needs of gifted learners. The
California GATE standards (CDE, 2005) state that
[a]ll teachers assigned to teach gifted students are certified
through a variety of formal and informal certificate
programs. Teachers in the program have education and/or
experience in teaching gifted students or are ensured
opportunities to gain or continue such knowledge and
experience. (p. 6)
In looking towards the future of gifted education, Kaplan’s (1999) position
on teaching training stated that “the shift from placing emphasis on in-service to
pre-service has and could further change the quality of teachers educating the
gifted” (p. 45).
To elucidate the reasons for teachers’ choices, a summary of the curriculum
and teaching methods and rationales is listed in Table 9. The shaded cells highlight
the rationale most frequently selected by teachers.
Regardless of whether the question was in the inquiry area of curriculum
source, differentiated curriculum elements, content, organizational structure, or
grouping patterns, the teachers continuously (12 times out of 13) indicated that the
decisions behind their curriculum and teaching methods were based on the fact that
they “affect all learners”.
59
Table 9: Results from Teacher Survey Data
Curr.
& M.
Rationale
Item
Expediency
(time)
Previous
experience
dictates this
works best
Expectations
of the
district,
school, etc.
Just
because
…I don’t
have a
reason
for the
choice
Challenge
to
students
Relationship
to
expectations
or needs of
the gifted
Affects all
learners in
the
classroom
1 2% 6% 18% 18% 20% 36%
2 18% 6% 6% 10% 8% 52%
3 26% 4% 6% 6% 4% 52%
4 4.1% 4.1% 14.3% 2% 24.5% 32.7%
5 4.1% 4.1% 14.3% 2% 24.5% 18.4% 32.7%
64% 48% 6% 24% 18%
7 6% 24% 2% 20% 8% 40%
8 10.2% 8.2% 12.2% 2% 20.4% 8.2% 38.6%
9 2% 2% 9.8% 5.9% 17.8% 25.5% 37.3%
10 10% 10% 14% 2% 12% 12% 40%
11 6.3% 22.9% 2.1% 27.1% 6.3% 35.4%
12 4.2% 12.5% 29.2% 14.6% 39.6%
13 8.2% 8.2% 6.1% 16.3% 20.4% 40.8%
Note. Curr. & M. = Curriculum and Teaching Methods (see also Appendix A, Table A-1); Item 1 = (a)
Creating your own lesson or (b) Following the teacher’s guide or prescribed curriculum; Item 2 = (a) Teaching
in small homogenous groups or (b) Teaching the entire heterogeneous class; Item 3 = (a) Teaching in
heterogeneous small groups or (b) Teaching the whole class heterogeneous group; Item 4 = (a) Teaching basic
skills such as define, identify, compare or (b) Teaching critical thinking skills such as judging with criteria,
prove with evidence; Item 5 = (a) Teaching basic facts and concepts or (b) Teaching universal and big ideas;
Item 6 = (a) Teaching areas that interest the students and meet their needs and abilities as gifted individuals or
(b) Teaching the standards-based, text material, or district curriculum; Item 7 = (a) Teaching traditional
knowledge in each subject area or (b) Teaching generalizations, principles, theories across the disciplines; Item
8 = (a) Teaching many different topics across the various disciplines or (b) Teaching in a single discipline;
Item 9 = (a)Teaching advanced and gifted students or (b) Teaching average students or (c) Teaching struggling
learners; Item 10 = (a) Teaching single subjects separately or (b) Teaching all subjects connected to a theme or
universal concept; Item 11 = (a) Teaching creative thinking skills such as redesign, combine or (b) Teaching
basic skills such as compare, identify the main idea; Item 12 = (a) Teaching the basic prompts of who, what,
when, etc. to seek information or (b) Teaching the prompts of Depth and Complexity to seek information; Item
13 = (a) Teaching in small groups or (b) Allowing students to get involved in a self-directed independent study
60
However, as “affects all students” continued to dominate the reasons for the
curriculum and teaching methods the teachers made in the classrooms, it was
important to examine this spillover effect in further detail in chapter 5.
Research Question 3
The third research question explained how the relevance of differentiated
curriculum and teaching methods chosen by teachers affected the gifted students’
self-perceptions of their interest and abilities in the heterogeneous classroom. The
researcher extracted two items from the Javits grant’s student survey entitled “All
About Me and School.” Figure 1 shows the two questions selected focused on the
student’s responses to whether the teacher’s lessons fit their abilities and matched
their interests (see also Appendix B, Table B-1).
Students from the second through the fifth grade favored the response that
the teacher lessons matched their abilities and interests almost all of the time as
seen in Figures 2 and 3.
61
Figure 1. Javits grant’s “All About Me and School” student survey.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade
Lessons are too easy
Lessons are too difficult
Lessons match my abilties
Figure 2. Second- to fifth-grade student survey results on abilities.
62
0
20
40
60
80
100
2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade
Lessons do not match my
interests
Lessons match my interests
Figure 3. Second- to fifth-grade student survey results on interests.
Figures 2 and 3 reflected the data that two-thirds of the students in second
through fifth grade felt that the curriculum choices of their teachers matched their
abilities and interests. The researcher conducted follow-up interview questions to
determine whether the students actually believed that their abilities and interests
were being met or whether their answers were pre-determined because it was the
social norm.
Chapter 5 discussed the issue of whether alignment of teacher and student
responses was crucial to the success of the classroom environment. As the
literature from chapter 2 addressed, student self-perceptions of their abilities and
interests was a strong indicator of their academic achievement. The U.S.
Department of Education Grant Performance Report (ED 524B, 2005) for the Javits
grant stated that “the impact of student perceptions regarding what is challenging
and interesting to them can be a factor that affects student achievement. Research
reveals that student performance can be dependent on the nature of content and
63
how it is taught” (p. 2). Supplemental interviews from students at X Elementary
provided the additional information needed to identify the factors of student ability
and interest to answer Research Question 4. The following section explains the
qualitative analysis of the data gathered for this study.
Research Question 4
Through the analysis of 1,406 student surveys from rural (Brawley), urban
(Los Angeles Unified), and suburban (Santa Ana and Oceanside) school districts,
interview questions were created as seen in Table 10. The questions were
formulated to reinforce or negate the results of the two student survey questions
pertaining to self-perceptions of student abilities and interest from the Javits grant
data. Since the survey items were forced choice, the open-ended student interviews
provided a more precise perspective of what the student survey results achieved.
In evaluating students’ self-perceptions on their abilities, research
determined “pupils’ attitudes towards themselves (an aspect of the self-concept)
and its possible relationship of attitude and school success” (Ball, 1977, p. 125).
The first five interview questions were developed to gain a deeper understanding of
students’ levels of competency, intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation, and the role of
natural ability vs. hard work. However, in this study, no causal inferences were
made to determine whether high self-perceptions or high academic achievement
comes first. The teachers’ choices in curriculum and teaching methods contributed
64
to the positive or negative outcomes that follow achievement-orientated tasks and
developed students’ sense of their abilities and interests.
Table 10: Student Interview Questions Correlated to the Javits Student Survey Items
Javits Student Survey Item Student Interview Question
1. How do you know when a lesson is too easy
for you? What do you do when it is too easy
for you?
2. When you learn something new, how would
you like your teacher to teach it to you?
3. How do you know when a lesson is too
difficult for you? What do you do when it is
too difficult for you?
4. When you have been successful or when you
have done good work, what is the way you
would want to be recognized?
Student abilities
How do you think the teacher’s lessons
match your abilities, or what you are most
able to do?
5. What is more important: being recognized
for being gifted or for the good work that
you do?
6. When do lessons most grab your interest and
attention?
7. All of us have encountered things that are
less than enjoyable. What are the things that
least interest you in school and why?
Student interests
How do you think the lessons the teacher
teaches fit or match your interests, or what
grabs your attention?
8. What are the things that most interest you in
school and why? What is your favorite
subject in school? Why is it your favorite?
How would you like your teacher to teach
you more about this subject?
65
The last three interview questions concerning interests were formulated and they
validated Elliot, Hufton, Willis, and Illushin’s (2005) work on teacher perceptions,
beliefs, and practices. Their studies “reflected the need for students to meet local
curriculum demands in order to count as ‘successful’” (p. 152). The student
responses in this study showed that when the students felt success in a particular
subject matter, they were more interested in the curricula. The analysis of the data
in the latter portion of this chapter also revealed the opposite to be true.
All the identified gifted fourth- and fifth-grade students from the Javits
grant at X Elementary were selected for the interview process. The purpose for
excluding second-grade and third-grade students from the interview process was
that they had not participated in two consecutive years of the Javits grant.
Therefore, there was no longitudinal survey data available from those two
subgroups. Interviews were conducted at X Elementary in the Santa Ana Unified
School District. Once completed, 16 fourth-grade interviews (identified as 4A-4P)
and 10 fifth-grade interviews (identified as 5A-5J) were transcribed in terms of the
type of question asked:
Question 1: easiness of lesson
Question 2: preferred teaching method
Question 3: difficulty of lesson
Question 4: intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation
Question 5: the value of gifted identification versus good work
66
Question 6: component of lesson
Question 7: curricular areas of least interest and
Question 8: curricular areas of high interest.
Patton (2002) reiterated that whether done manually or with computer software, a
coding scheme is important to determine the significance of the content of
qualitative interviews. The researcher coded the student responses into the themes
that most represented the collective responses: challenge, self-perception, and
gender.
Challenge
Schools often organize students by chronological age and not by their
assessed needs or achievements. Gallagher’s (2000) work found that “the
redundancy of the curriculum and the low level of thought required, then triggered
many statements of student boredom” (p. 7). During the interview, the fourth- and
fifth-grade students were asked focus questions to determine their responses to the
concept of curriculum lessons that were too easy or too difficult for them. As the
current educational reform is focused on ensuring No Child is Left Behind and that
all students are able to meet grade level standards, the concern was that many of
these gifted students were not being challenged. “With needs that range far beyond
the age-graded curriculum in which they are commonly placed, gifted students are
among the most poorly served in the school population” (Clark, 2008, p. 9). The
researcher wanted to gain a deep understanding if their needs and abilities were
67
being met through the lessons that the teachers implemented. Students were quoted
as commenting:
I already know most of it…I can do it fast without thinking.
I get bored because I know all the answers…/ I sit there and
talk.
I can do it faster than most people. I kind of fool around
because I finish first.
These types of comments are not surprising. They correlate with the study
conducted by the University of Virginia for the National Research Center on the
Gifted and Talented. The report found that “as a result of this redirection of the
classroom focus on basic skills development and testing skills, gifted students are
reported to be bored and disengaged” (Moon, 2005, p. 18). Chapter 5 delves into
further analysis on the topic of teachers choosing challenging curriculum and
utilizing teaching models that effectively meet the interests and abilities of their
gifted students.
Self-Perception
A pattern that arose from the student interviews concerned the interview
question about whether students perceived it was more important to be recognized
for being gifted or for the good work that they do. The researcher investigated
further to determine if the students perceived themselves as gifted and whether that
label was important to their sense of identity. Eighty-five percent of the students
stated that it was more important to do good work. When asked, “What is more
68
important: being recognized for being gifted or for the good work that you do?”
students responded with the following statements:
I feel the good work because when you are gifted, you
won’t need a lot of attention.
By the good work that I do because I’m proud of myself.
For the good work that I do because when I do a good job, I
like my teacher to recognize my work and how hard I try.
For the good work that I do because you could be gifted but
not have any good work. It could be all horrible and that,
but just because you’re smart, they respect you so it’s better
to have good work and then they will accept that you are
smart because you can show that you are smart.
Researchers have found that as a general rule, gifted students have better self-
concepts. Milgram and Milgram (1976) stated that “intellectual giftedness is an
asset in coping with life’s challenges and is associated with…favorable social and
personal adjustment” (p. 24). Further implications of gifted student self-perception
are addressed in chapter 5.
Gender
While examining differences between student perceptions, it was necessary
to consider the role of gender. According to Reis (2002), “females identified as
gifted tend to experience diminished self-confidence as they enter adolescence,
likely due to parental, teacher, and societal expectations” (p. 130). Although the
correlation between gender and student perception of interest and ability to learn
were not examined in depth in this research, it was a topic that arose in the research
69
and deserved to be mentioned and acknowledged for further research. “There is
some evidence that females identified as gifted have lower self-concepts in specific
areas than gifted males” (Bain & Bell, 2004, p. 168). During the student
interviews, 42% of the students stated that the curricular areas of math and science
held the least interest for them. Eleven students (out of 26) struggled with math
because
…it is more of a thinking subject.
…it is more intense.
…it is too hard.
…I am not doing very well.
…not everyone gets it
Of the 11 students who responded that math held the least interest for them,
statistically 9 (82%) were females.
The issues affecting student efficacy and perception were detected in the
increasing gap between male and female achievement in central academic subjects.
“Too many girls believe that work in the technology field
(Green, 2000), and the ideas that they formulate based on
their experiences in computer courses affect their
confidence and self-efficacy regarding technical and
scientific abilities with computers” (Reis & Graham, 2005,
p. 17).
In an era where there is an increasing need for technology, math, or science, gifted
girls as well as boys should have the opportunity to participate in these fields. “The
70
problem may be even worse for academically talented girls, who often fail to
perform at levels that match their potential” (p. 16). Teacher training and
professional development should be provided to help gender equality of gifted and
talented students. “Girls in the upper elementary or middle school grades are at a
particularly critical point in their scientific, mathematical, and technical
development” (p. 17). However, the caution is that a one-size-fits-all training
becomes an “isolated, add-on activity that has little relevance to the intellectual or
socioemotional needs of gifted learners” (Shaunessy, 2005, p. 47).
Summary
Differentiation serves to adapt the curriculum to meet the individual needs
of all learners. According to the California Association for the Gifted (2001), a
classroom should have multiple paths for academic success. Through the
implementation of the California GATE Standards and the use of such strategies as
depth, complexity, acceleration, and novelty, differentiation in the standards-based
lessons takes place. Twelve of the 13 questions on the teacher survey valued the
rationale that it “affects all learners in the classrooms.” The existing body of
knowledge about the spillover effect found that implementation of successful
teaching strategies for the gifted and talented population is beneficial for the rest of
the students. Shore, Cornell, Robinson, and Ward’s work (1991) on identifying
widely advocated practices for gifted education found that
71
although some of these (grouping, acceleration, high-level
content) would seem to apply particularly to gifted
students, such things as well-trained teachers, thinking
processes, and microcomputers would seem to be beneficial
for all students. These practices include elements of
changing learning environments, content, and skills,
supporting the goal of curriculum differentiation. (p. 112)
Applying the curriculum and teaching methods previously reserved for the gifted
population for the benefit of all is a positive step in improving teaching practices.
However, “the ‘run-of-the-mill’ gifted student may be dealt with by the support
system we have described here[;] the highly gifted students need more individual
attention, perhaps by providing tutoring, acceleration, or planning individualized
studies and projects” (Gallagher, 2005, p. 8). If the advocated practices for
educating gifted students become mainstreamed for the benefit of all, is that enough
to meet the needs of the wide range of abilities and interests of this population?
The answer is discussed in chapter 5 along with the implications for future study.
72
CHAPTER 5
RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The summary of the analysis for this study examined the following
questions:
1. Which curriculum and teaching methods do teachers in the second- to
fifth-grade heterogeneous classrooms prefer?
2. What reasons explain teachers’ choices of curriculum and teaching
methods for gifted second- to fifth-grade students?
3. How do the teachers’ choices of curriculum and teaching methods affect
the gifted students’ self-perceptions of their interest and abilities in the
heterogeneous classroom?
4. What factors affect gifted students’ self-perceptions of the curriculum
and teaching methods used by their teachers?
The two consistent themes that emerged from the secondary analysis of the
quantitative data were the qualities of differentiation of the curriculum and the
73
spillover effect. These suggested many implications for the nature of gifted
education in the United States.
Implications
Our recent reform efforts have focused on many groups:
students at risk, those from impoverished environments,
those who underachieve, those who live in urban or rural
areas, and even the ‘typical’ student. With regard to
advanced or highly able learners, however, the voice of
reform has been virtually mute—even when the reform
initiative has the potential to address the need for offering
appropriate challenges to this group. (Callahan, Tomlinson,
Reis, & Kaplan, 2000, p. 789).
This study examined the reasoning behind the lack of fiscal and political
support that led to teachers’ curriculum choices and it is relation to student self-
efficacy.
Regardless of the label given to the student (ELL, FEP, LEP, ELD,
Resource, Special Ed., GATE, etc.), one key educational term used in schools is
differentiation. For example, English Language Learners, whether fluent (FEP) or
limited (LEP), require language-rich environments, modified text, language
support, etc. Resource and Special Education students have IEP’s (Individual
Education Plans) and 504 plans which mandate changes in their education to meet
their specific learning needs and vary from pre-teaching lessons, modification of
assignments, to full time aide assistance in the classroom. However, “gifted
education is becoming more concerned with meeting [all] students’ needs and less
74
concerned with developing a rationale for selecting or excluding students from
various programs or activities” (Davis & Rimm, 1985, p. 119).
It is perceived that the gifted and talented needs and services are not
emphasized compared to those on the other end of the special education spectrum.
Kaplan’s work (2006) on gifted and talented education reiterated the need for a
parallel curriculum in the classroom to meet the needs of these learners. “The
curricula must be differentiated to reinforce teaching to all individuals within the
group of gifted students” (Kaplan, 2006, p. 35). Tomlinson (2004) stated that
if we allow ourselves to be positioned only as agents of test
preparation-or even as coverers of content, we relinquish
the core of our profession…. [C]ontent is much more about
ideas than data. We teach best when we recommend ideas
to students as complex, worthy of their most mature
consideration. (p. 40)
Textbook companies have expanded on the concept of differentiation and
offer multiple resources for their programs—challenge handbooks, ELD support
reading materials, intervention Web sites, etc. School site teacher workshops and
district program adoptions center on meeting the needs of individual students. The
purpose behind differentiation cannot be argued. In a school, the consumers are the
students, and every student consumer should have the right to an individual
education.
Currently there is a dichotomous struggle in the education system. The
federal government advocates No Child Left Behind while educators
75
simultaneously discuss differentiation to accommodate the diversity among
learners. “In a no-child-left-behind conception of public education, lifting everyone
up to a minimum level is more important than allowing students to excel to their
limit. It has become more important for schools to identify deficiencies than to
cultivate gifts” (Cloud, 2007, p. 42).
While a “one size fits all” does not differentiate for the needs of the
individuals, it is often the solution to raising achievement levels. “Again, most of
the policies that determine the time available for the interaction of general
education teachers and specialists in gifted education are driven by economics
rather than by good educational practice or theory” (Gallagher, 2000, p. 10).
Districts and principals mandate scripted lessons to ensure that all students are
being taught the same material. To raise accountability and ensure that teaching is
ensuing in the classrooms, schools have moved toward regulated curriculums.
“Nearly all efforts of the reform movement were aimed at improving the status of
at-risk students and improving school performance in general—both worthy goals,
but ones that are not to be pursued at a cost to advanced learners” (Callahan,
Tomlinson, Reis, & Kaplan, 2000, p. 2). The needs of one group of students could
be met at the cost of another group. The research shows that gifted and talented
students perform best when they are allowed self-regulation and autonomy in their
choices (Moore, 2005; Schack & Starko, 1990; Sternberg & Lubart, 1993) which
mitigates against a curriculum defined for all students. The secondary analysis of
76
the quantitative data presented in the study from the teacher and student surveys
examined this dichotomous relationship.
Differentiation
Differentiation occurs when teachers adjust their models of teaching to meet
the needs of their students. In the teacher survey, 76% of the teachers (see shaded
row in Table 11), stated that one of the teaching methods they preferred to
implement in the classroom was to create their own lesson plans.
Table 11: Results on Teaching Methods (Curriculum Source) and Rationale
Teaching Method Rationale
1. Creating your own lesson 76%
or
Following the teacher’s guide or
prescribed curriculum 24%
Expediency (time) 2%
previous experience dictates this works best
6%
expectations of the district, school, etc. 18%
just because…I don’t have a reason for the
choice
challenge to students 18%
relationship to expectations or needs of the
gifted 20%
affects all learners in the classroom 36%
This should mean that differentiation is occurring since these classroom
teachers have received intensive training to write lessons geared toward meeting
the needs of the gifted learners. Training involved educating the teachers in the
77
pedagogical foundation of the GATE curriculum, writing lesson plans with the goal
of GATE standards in mind, and above all employing methods of teaching and
instructional strategies that met the needs of the diverse group of gifted and talented
learners. However, 18% of the teachers stated that their rationale for creating their
own lesson was due to the expectations of the district and school. All of the
schools participating in the Javits grant—and by relation to this study—are Title I
schools that characteristically mandate Open Court or Reading First (both which
are scripted curriculum) in the primary grades. While teachers might want to
develop their own lesson, the scripted core curriculum leaves no room for teacher-
created lessons
The demographic data cited previously stated that the teachers spent a mean
of 2.57 hours preparing lessons for gifted students each day. Eighteen percent of
these same trained gifted and talented education teachers stated that creating their
own lessons was done to challenge students. Twenty percent of the teachers cited
the expectations or needs of the gifted as their rationale; 36% advocated that the
rationale behind creating their own lesson was to affect all learners in the
classroom. This refers back to the previously mentioned study from Gentry, Rizza,
and Owen who found that “[g]ifted education pedagogy has often been suggested
as a means for general student improvement” (2002, p. 146).
Gifted and talented education standards emphasized the teaching of critical
and creative thinking skills over teaching basic skills. The No Child Left Behind
78
Act of 2001 and other educational reforms mandate adherence to content standards
and standardized testing. The results are that the high school exit exams and
standardized state tests which determine AYP and program improvement status are
based on students knowing the basic skills and having a proficient mastery of grade
level standards. Elliot et al. (2005) also concurred that “the growth of high stakes
testing and the NCLB Act are criticized for testing a narrow range of academic
skills and for encouraging a surface approach to learning” (p. 230). As stated
earlier, the education pendulum in America has swung to focus on the needs of the
lower quartile students, so teachers are expected to teach and reiterate basic skills.
In fact, Table 12 (located below) indicates that 41.7% of teachers stated that they
teach basic skills with only a slightly higher majority at 58.3% (see shaded row in
Table 12) teaching the creative thinking skills so necessary for meeting the needs of
gifted students.
Following the trend of spillover, 35.4% of teachers (see shaded row in
Table 12) cited their rationale for teaching the basic skills because of the need to
affect all learners in the classroom. As this answer continues to dominate the
reasons for the curriculum and instructional choices the teachers made in the
classrooms, it is important to examine it in more depth.
79
Table 12: Results on Teaching Methods (Content) and Rationale
Teaching Method Rationale
11. Teaching creative thinking skills
such as redesign, combine 58.3%
or
Teaching basic skills such as:
compare, identify the main idea
41.7%
Expediency (time) missing
previous experience dictates this works best
6.3%
expectations of the district, school, etc. 22.9%
just because…I don’t have a reason for the
choice 2.1%
challenge to students 27.1%
relationship to expectations or needs of the
gifted 6.3%
affects all learners in the classroom 35.4%
Spillover
The term “spillover” is a relatively new in education. Spillover refers to the
implementation of GATE curriculum and instructional strategies/teaching methods
created to meet the needs of the gifted learners for all the students in the classroom.
The concept of spillover relates to implementing curriculum and instruction for all
gifted learners in the classroom. The Javits grant’s primary objective was to
increase elementary teachers’ content knowledge [and] to
develop teachers’ expertise in the implementation of
various models of teaching as a means to raise the level of
student achievement of culturally, linguistically, and
economically diverse gifted and potentially gifted students
participating in a differentiated curriculum.” (U.S.
Department of Education Grant Performance Report [ED
524B], 2005, p. 7)
80
The Javits grant is in the second year of its inception and a current study has shown
evidence of the spillover effect. This study only focused on the analysis of
spillover as a response to the second research question concerning the reasons that
explained teachers’ choices of teaching methods or differentiated curriculum and
instructional strategies for gifted second- to fifth-grade students.
Table 9 (located in chapter 4) is a visual representation to illustrate that 12
out of 13 times, teachers selected spillover as a rationale for their curriculum and
instructional strategy choices. “Some teachers dilute the concept of giftedness by
emphasizing that ‘everyone has gifts’ and many hold that traditional GT practices
are good for everyone” (Bernal, 2003, p. 184). This frequency is important to
consider in that of the 13 teacher survey items, the project-trained GATE teachers
selected “affects all learners in the classroom” as their rationale for the teaching
methods or differentiated curriculum and instructional strategies for their gifted
students. With a mean of 18.34 credit hours in university courses in gifted
education and 138.88 workshop or conference hours in gifted education, these
teachers were trained in methods of differentiation. The teachers stated that their
curriculum and teaching methods were utilized to meet the individual needs of their
gifted and talented students and spilled over to the benefit of the remaining
population.
81
Student Perceptions
In summarizing the results of the 26 student surveys, it is important to
clarify the importance of obtaining student responses. Based on the secondary
analysis of the student survey, second- to fifth-grade students predominantly stated
that most of the lessons in the classrooms all met their abilities and targeted their
interest. It could be assumed from the teacher survey results that the emphasis on
spillover as a rationale could affect the extent to which the needs of the gifted
population were being met.
Gifted students drop out at the same rates as non-gifted
kids—about 5% of both populations leave school early.
Later in life, according to the scholarly Handbook of Gifted
Education, up to one-fifth of dropouts test in the gifted
range. (Cloud, 2007, p. 42)
It can be hypothesized that being gifted does not guarantee academic success. In
fact, the majority of the fourth and fifth graders all agreed that it was more
important to do good work than it was to be labeled a gifted student. When asked,
“What is more important: being recognized for being gifted or for the good work
that you do?” one of the fifth graders responded with the comment that, “being
gifted does not mean that you are smart. You have to work hard and have
something to show to succeed.”
Students are also trained from a young school age to know how to give the
expected response to answers. Although they may have felt that the lesson did not
match their ability or interest, there are perceived negative connotations to such a
82
response so that the students gave the answer that they thought they “ought to”
give. Studies on group membership found that the group’s social norms “exerts an
influence on his attitudes, modifying them in the direction of conformity to the
group norm” (Ball, 1977, p. 125). Even in the open-ended interview process,
students consistently gave the answer that they thought was “required” and it took
additional prompting for many of them to identify something that least interested
them in school. Quite often the students gave very similar answers and appeared to
respond with respect to what they thought the researcher wanted to hear.
Additional research on this cultural phenomenon needs to determine the effect of
student perceptions of school and social norms on their self-perceptions.
Limitations
There were a number of limitations to this study. Causality cannot be
determined to find the effect of teacher curriculum and instructional strategies on
gifted student perceptions. A survey is a snapshot in time as are student interviews.
Without identifying and extracting intervening variables, it is not possible to draw a
straight correlation between teacher choices and student perceptions.
Areas for Future Research
The study results revealed a limited analysis of the exact nature between
teacher choices of differentiated curriculum, teaching strategies and students’
perception of themselves as learners. Research showed that student perceptions
83
affected their academic success in school. Students need to feel that they are being
challenged to the extent of their ability. Teachers of gifted students should
“emphasize the cultivation of individual differences and styles over uniformity of
preparation and panache over basic skills” (Bernal, 2003, p. 189). The current
educational placement practices group gifted students by grade rather than by their
abilities or needs. An area of future research could examine other grouping
practices.
For example, Kalusmeier’s Individually Guided Education-
Multi-Unit School (IGE-MUS) plan eliminates the
traditional concept of age-graded, lock-step, self-contained
classrooms. The plan centers upon individualized
instruction, which permits capable students to accelerate
through the regular curriculum at a comfortable pace,
skipping content they already know. (Davis & Rimm, 1985,
p. 115)
Another suggestion for further research is to examine teacher perception and
expectations of gifted students and their relationship to student self-perception and
success.
Conclusion
Teachers’ choices to select curriculum and teaching methods are dependent
on many factors. Choices are defined by federal legislation, district mandates,
teacher comfort, and competence.
To provide for the different ways that gifted learners learn
(consistent challenge, daily talent development,
independent work, whole-to-part, fast paced, depth and
84
complexity, limited drill and review), educators must
consider whether (and how) they can manage increasingly
heterogeneous and diverse classrooms. (Rogers, 2007)
As students mature, peer attitudes start taking precedent over their own self-
perceptions. It is the reason that gender has been an area of research in examining
interest and ability among females in the curricular subjects of math and science.
The fourth and fifth graders that participated in the study were still impressionable
enough that they believed that the lessons matched their interest and abilities.
This study attempted to add onto the existing body of knowledge on the
effects of teachers’ choices of curriculum and teaching methods and their effects on
gifted students’ self-perceptions.
85
REFERENCES
Albion, P. R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2002). Beyond the foundations: The role of vision
and belief in teachers' preparation for integration of technology.
TechTrends, 46(5), 34–38.
Assembly Bill (AB) 1040. (1980). GATE program. Available from the California
Department of Education Web site: http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/lw/
Assembly Bill (AB) 2207. (2000). Gifted and Talented Education (GATE).
Available from the California Department of Education Web site:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/lw/
Assembly Bill (AB) 2313. (2000). Gifted and Talented Education (GATE).
Available from the California Department of Education Web site:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/lw/
Bain, S. K., & Bell, S. M. (2004). Social self-concept, social attributions, and peer
relationships in fourth, fifth, and sixth graders who are gifted compared to
high achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 167–178.
Ball, S. (1977). Motivation in education. New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H.
Freeman.
Bernal, E. M. (2003). To no longer educate the gifted: Programming for gifted
students beyond the era of inclusionism. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(3),
183–191.
Bloom, B. S. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: McKay.
Buescher, T. M. (1987). Counseling gifted adolescents: A curriculum model for
students, parents, and professionals. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(2), 90–94.
California Association for the Gifted (CAG). (n.d.). Meeting the standards: A guide
to developing services for gifted students (pp. 23–40). Retrieved September
2007 from the California Association for the Gifted Web site:
http://www.cagifted.org
86
California Association for the Gifted (CAG). (1996). Meeting the challenge: A
guidebook for teaching gifted students. Retrieved September 12, 2007, from
the California Association for the Gifted Web site: http://www.cagifted.org
California Association for the Gifted (CAG). (2001). California GATE standards
(2001). Retrieved September12, 2007, from the California Association for
the Gifted Web site: http://www.cagifted.org/
California Code of Regulations, Title 5. (n.d.). California Department of Education.
California Office of Administrative Law. Available: http://government.
westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?Action=TOC&RS=GVT1.0&VR=2.0
&SP=CCR-1000
California Department of Education (CDE). (2005). California GATE standards.
Retrieved September 7, 2007, from the California Department of Education
Web site at http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r12/documents/gatestandards.doc
Callahan, C. M., Tomlinson, C. A., Reis, S. N., & Kaplan, S. N. (2000). TIMSS
and high-ability students: Message of doom or opportunity for
reflection? Phi Delta Kappan, 81(10), 787–790.
Callard-Szulgit, R. S. (2005). Teaching the gifted in an inclusion classroom.
Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.
Clark, B. (2008). Growing up gifted (7
th
ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
Cloud, J. (2007). The genius problem. Time, 170(9), 41–47.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Ambroson, D. (1994). Talent development. Dayton,
OH: Psychology Press.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S.G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A.E. (2004). Whole-Grade
Acceleration. In The Templeton National Report on Acceleration. A Nation
Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students (Vol. 2).
Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S.G., & Gross, M.U.M. (2004). A Nation Deceived:
How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students Introduction. In The
Templeton National Report on Acceleration. A Nation Deceived: How
Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students (Vol. 2). Iowa City, IA:
The University of Iowa.
87
Coleman, J. M., & Fults, B. A. (1982). Self-concept and the gifted classroom: The
role of social comparisons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(3), 116–20.
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2001). Being gifted in school: An introduction to
development, guidance, and teaching. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Coleman, M. R. (1999). Back to the future: The top ten events that have shaped
gifted education in the last century. Gifted Child Today, 22(6), 16–18.
Cornell, D. G. (1983). Gifted children: The impact of positive labeling on the
family system. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53, 322–335.
Cornell, D. G. (1990). High ability students who are unpopular with their peers.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(4), 155–160.
Cross, T. L. (2005). Nerds and geeks: Society’s evolving stereotypes of our
students with gifts and talents. Gifted Child Today, 28(4), 26–27.
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B (1985). Education of the gifted and talented.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Deci, E. L., & Reeve, J. (1996) Elements of the Competitive Situation That Affect
Intrinsic Motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(1), 24–
33.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in
human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Ehrlich, V. Z. (1982). Gifted children. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Elliot, J. G., Hufton, N. R., Willis, W., & Illushin, L. (2005). Motivation,
engagement, and educational performance. international perspectives on
the contexts for learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1982). Meeting the needs of gifted students through differentiated
programming. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 37–41.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1986). A conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E.
Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 112–127). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
88
Feldhusen, J. F. (1989). Synthesis of research on gifted youth. Educational
Leadership, 46(6), 6–11.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Talent development as an alternative to gifted education.
Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5, 5–9.
Ferrara, S. L. N. (2005). Reading fluency and self-efficacy: A case study.
International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 52(3),
215–231.
Freeman, J. (1985) Emotional aspects of giftedness. In J. Freeman (Ed.), The
psychology of gifted children (pp. 247–254). New York: Wiley.
Friedman, R. J., & Murphy, D. L. (1988). The Mary Poppins effect: Relationships
between gifted students self concept and adjustment. Roeper Review: A
Journal on Gifted Education, 11(1), 26–30.
Gallagher, J. J. (1975). Teaching the Gifted Child (2
nd
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon, Inc.
Gallagher, J. J. (1985). Educational strategies for gifted students in secondary
schools. NASSP Bulletin, 69 (482), 17–24.
Gallagher, J. J. (1998). Accountability for Gifted Students. Phi Delta Kappan,
70(10), 739–742.
Gallagher, J. J. (2000). Unthinkable thoughts: Education of gifted students. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 44(1), 5–12.
Gallagher, J. J. (2005). Nurturing the Innovative minority. Roeper Review, 28(1), 9.
Garson, G. David (n.d.). "Survey Research", from Statnotes: Topics in Multivariate
Analysis. Retrieved June 12, 2007 from http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/
pa765/survey.htm#forced
Gentry, M., Rizza, M. G., & Owen, S. V. (2002). Examining perceptions of
challenge and choice in classrooms: The relationship between teachers and
their students and comparisons between gifted students and other students.
The Quarterly Journal of the National Association for Gifted Children,
46(2), 145–155.
Glasser, W. (1996). Then and now. The Theory of choice. Learning, 25(3), 20–22.
89
Haensly, P. A. (1999). My view of the “top ten” events that have influenced the
field of gifted education during the past century. Gifted Child Today, 22(6),
33–37.
Harter, S. (1986). Processes underlying the construction, maintenance, and
enhancement of the self-concept in children. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald
(Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 3, pp. 139–181).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Heimberger, M. J. (1980). Teaching the gifted and talented in the elementary
classroom. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1988). Story-telling: A method for assessing
children's creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 22(4), 235–46.
Hershey, M., & Oliver, E. (1988). The effects of the label gifted on students
identified for special programs. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted
Education, 11(1), 33–34.
Hoekman, K., McCormick, J., & Barnett, K. (2005). The important role of
optimism in a motivational investigation of the education of gifted
adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(2), 99–110.
Hoge, R. D., & Renzulli, J. S. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and
self-concept. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 449–465.
Howell, D. C. (2004). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences (5
th
ed.).
Los Angeles, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Howell, S. K. (1979). Characteristics of talented and gifted children. Unknown
binding: Oregon State Department of Education.
Jefferson, T. (n.d.). Thomas Jefferson Quotes. Retrieved January 8, 2008, from the
Web site Brainy Quote: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/
thomas_jefferson.html
Johnson, K. (2001). Integrating an affective component in the curriculum for gifted
and talented students. Gifted Child Today, 24(4), 14–18.
Kaplan, S. N. (1988). Maintaining a gifted program. Roeper Review: A Journal on
Gifted Education, 11(1), 35–37.
90
Kaplan, S. N. (1999). Events that have impacted gifted education. Gifted Child
Today, 22(6), 44–45.
Kaplan, S. N. (2003). Is there a gifted-child pedagogy? Roeper Review, Volume
25(4), 165.
Kaplan, S. N. (2005). Fighting the war on academic terrorism advocacy. Gifted
Child Today, 28(1), 49–64.
Kaplan, S. N. (2006). Advocacy by discussion: Dialogues about differentiation.
Gifted Child Today, Volume 29(1), 35–38.
Lindsey, M. (1980). Training teachers of the gifted and talented. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). Influences of internal and external frames of reference on the
formation of math and English self-concepts. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 61, 187–196.
McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003). Facts that differentiate underachieving gifted
students from high-achieving gifted students. The Quarterly Journal of the
National Association for Gifted Children, 47(2), 144–154.
McCutcheon, G. (1980). How do elementary school teachers plan? The nature of
planning and the influences on it. The Elementary School Journal, 81(1), 4–
23.
Mead, M. (1954). The swaddling hypothesis: Its reception. American
Anthropologist, 56(3), 395–409.
Milgram, R. M., & Milgram, N. A. (1976). Personality characteristics of gifted
Israeli children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 129, 185–194.
Moon, T. R. (2005, September). National and state testing initiatives: A call to
arms for parents of gifted youth. Parenting for High Potential, 18–21.
Moore, M. (2005, fall). Meeting the educational needs of young gifted readers in
the regular classroom. Gifted Child Today, 28(4), 40–55.
National Association for Gifted Children Web site http://www.nagc.org/index.
aspx?id=565
91
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law 107–110. 107
th
Congress. (2002,
January 8). Available from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-
110.pdf
Page, S. W. (2000). When changes for the gifted spur differentiation for all.
Educational Leadership, 58(1), 62–65.
Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–32.
Pajares, F., Britner, S. L., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement
goals and self-beliefs of middle school students in writing and science.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 406–422.
Patton, J. M., Prillaman, D., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (1990). The nature and extent
of programs for the disadvantaged gifted in the united states and territories.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(3), 94–96.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for students who are gifted:
What the experts say. The Quarterly Journal of the National Association for
Gifted Children, 47(2), 161–169.
Piechowski, M. M. (2002). Experiencing in a higher key: Dabrowski’s theory of
and for the gifted. Gifted Education Communicator, 33(1), 28–31.
Redick, S. S., & Vail, A. (1991). Motivating youth at risk. Gainesville, VA: HEEA.
Reis, S. M. (2002). Social and emotional issues faced by gifted girls in elementary
and secondary school. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M.
Moons (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children:
What do we know? (pp. 125–135). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Reis, S. M., Gentry, M., & Maxfield, L. R. (1998). The application of enrichment
clusters to teachers’ classroom practices. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 21(3), 310–334.
Reis, S. M., & Graham, C. (2005, summer). Needed: teachers to encourage girls in
math, science, and technology. Gifted Child Today, 28(3), 14–23.
92
Renzulli, J. S. (1968) Identifying key features in programs for the gifted.
Exceptional Children, 35, 217–221
Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A
synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly,
51(4), 382–396.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1984). The tug-of-war nobody wins: Allocation of educational
resources for handicapped, gifted, and "typical" students. Curriculum
Inquiry, 14(1), 57–81.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1987). Giftedness as a social construct. Teachers College
Record, 89(1), 39–53.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Playing favorites: Gifted education and the disruption of
community. New York: State University of New York.
Schack, G. D. (1993). Effects of a creative problem-solving curriculum on students
of varying ability levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 32–38.
Schack, G. D., & Starko, A. J. (1990). Identification of gifted students: An analysis
of criteria preferred by preservice teachers, classroom teachers, and teachers
of the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(4), 346–363.
Shaunessy, E. (2003). State policies regarding gifted education. Gifted Child
Today, 26(3), 16–21.
Shaunessy, E. (2005). Assessing and addressing teachers’ attitudes toward
information technology in the gifted classroom. Gifted Child Today, 28(3),
45–55.
Shore, B., Cornell, D., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. (1991). Recommended practices
in gifted education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Smith, L. (2005, spring). Teaming up to support gifted students’ best practice
guidelines for schools and programs. Gifted Child Today, 28(2), 26–37.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1993). Creative giftedness: A multivariate
investment approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 7–38.
93
Taylor, R. (2005). Cutting-edge strategies and practical classroom techniques for
gifted and highly capable students: A differentiated approach. Resource
handbook. Bureau of Education and Research (pp. 1–374). Washington:
Bellevue.
The Templeton National Report on Acceleration. (2004). A nation deceived: How
schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2). Iowa City, IA: The
University of Iowa.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001, summer). What is the teacher’s role in a high quality
classroom? Gifted Education Communicator, 42–45.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). The curriculum we never talked about. Gifted Education
Communicator, 35(3), 39–40.
Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Purcell, J. H., Leppien, J. H., Burns, D. E., &
Strickland, C. A. (2006). The parallel curriculum in the classroom.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Troxclair, D. A. (2000). Differentiating instruction for gifted students in regular
education social studies classes. Roeper Review, 22(3), 195–198.
U.S. Department of Education (USDE). National Commission on Excellence in
Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.
Retrieved on December 12, 2007, from the Web site
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html
U.S. Department of Education (USDE). (1993). National excellence: A case for
developing America’s talent. Available: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/DevTalent
/toc.html
U.S. Department of Education (USDE). (2005). Grant performance report (ED
524B). Washington, DC: Author.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1981). An administrator’s guide to the education of gifted
and talented children. Washington, D.C.: National Association of State
Boards of Education.
Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of
the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 51(4), 342–358.
94
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. (Rev. ed.). The MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA. (Originally published in 1962)
95
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Javits Grant Teacher Survey, Section III
Table A-1: Teacher Survey Questions from the Javits Grant
(table continues)
96
Table A-1 (continued): Teacher Survey Questions from the Javits Grant
(table continues)
97
Table A-1 (continued): Teacher Survey Questions from the Javits Grant
Used with the permission of Sandra N. Kaplan, USC, 2006.
98
Appendix B: Javits Grant Student Survey
Table B-1: Javits Grant Student Survey Questions 6 and 7
________________________________________________________________________________
DIRECTIONS:
1. Read each question. Sometimes the question asks you to choose MORE than one answer.
2. Look at all the pictures and read the descriptions that go with the pictures.
3. Find the picture(s) and words that BEST answer the question.
4. Put an “X” in the box or boxes under the picture or pictures that BEST represent(s) your
answer or answers.
___________________________________________________________________
(table continues)
99
Table B-1 (continued): Javits Grant Student Survey Questions 6 and 7
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Used with the permission of Sandra N. Kaplan, USC, 2006.
100
Appendix C: Informed Consent
Using Models of Instruction to Improve Student Achievement
IRB #UP-06-00177
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Sandra Kaplan
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS INFORMATION?
You have previously signed a Parental Permission Informed Consent which
remains current and valid. We are providing you with new information about a
small change in the study procedure. The research team may want to ask follow-up
questions to make previous answers more clear or to confirm a finding. This is a
common way to improve the research and understanding of the results.
Rebecca Nakagawa is an Ed.D. student working on her dissertation with Dr.
Kaplan. Your child has already completed a student survey as part of the original
study and Rebecca is following up with your student to gather more information.
She will be trying to learn the rationale used by your child in choosing his/her
answers. There are eight questions in total. For example, two of the questions are
“How do you know when a lesson is too easy for you?” and “When do lessons
most grab your interest and attention?”
WHO CAN I CALL IF I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT CONTINUED PARTICIPATION OR
MY RIGHTS AS A RESEARCH SUBJECT?
You may contact Sandra Kaplan at the Rossier School of Education, University of
Southern California at 213/740-3291 or email at skaplan@usc.edu with any
questions, concerns about the research or your child’s participation in this study.
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
101
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights
and/or your child’s rights as a study subject or you would like to speak with
someone independent of the research team to obtain answers to questions about the
research, or in the event the research staff can not be reached, please contact the
University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement,
Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.
102
Appendix D: Conceptual Framework of Differentiation
Conceptual Framework Conceptual Framework
Differentiation
is a teacher’s response to learner’s needs
guided by general principles of differentiation
Respectful tasks Flexible grouping Continual assessment
Quality Curriculum Building Community Teachers can differentiate through
Process Content Product Affect/Environment
According to students’
Learning Profile Interest Readiness
Irvine Unified School District Professional Development, Summer, 2007. Meeting the Needs of the High-Ability Learner, Beth Andrews
Figure D-1. Conceptual Framework of Differentiation.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined the role of teachers' choices of curriculum and teaching methods and their effect on gifted students' self-perceptions.

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

PDF

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

PDF

Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching

PDF

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

PDF

Beginning teachers' perceptions of effective practices used by their mentor

PDF

The effects of the models of teaching on student learning

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice

PDF

The effects of a multi-linguistic diagnostic spelling intervention on the writing achievement and writing self-perception beliefs of secondary students: phonology, orthography, and morphology

PDF

Women's self-efficacy perceptions in mathematics and science: investigating USC-MESA students

PDF

A comparative study of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and retention of beginning urban science teachers

PDF

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

PDF

Differentiated culturally relevant curriculum to affirm identity for gifted African American students

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of induction: a study of program designs and teacher quality outcomes

PDF

No teacher left behind: an examination of beginning teachers' preconceptions and attitudes about induction

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Nakagawa, Rebecca Wei (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 07/10/2008

Defense Date 04/28/2008

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

Tag Education,gifted students,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

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

Creator Email rnakagaw@iusd.org

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1331

Unique identifier UC1226717

Identifier etd-Nakagawa-20080710 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-80867 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1331 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Nakagawa-20080710.pdf

Dmrecord 80867

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Nakagawa, Rebecca Wei

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