This qualitative case study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of a new self-contained classroom with curriculum that was differentiated for highly intellectually gifted students. The special class was investigated throughout its first year of operation in a school district. Participating students were fourth and fifth graders with IQ scores on the Slosson Intelligence Test Revised ranging from 148 to 193. Data were collected using observations, interviews, comparison essays, and a goal-attainment scale.Qualitative data were analyzed using the techniques of open, axial, and selective coding, data displays, and peer debriefing; quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. The results suggested that the self-contained classroom provided a challenging learning environment for highly intellectually gifted students, but that the responses of individual students to this more challenging environment varied considerably, creating different emotional and social outcomes fo-r specific students at different times during the school year. The results suggest that gifted and talented programming can have differential effects on individual students and that future program evaluation research should attempt to investigate the etiology of these differential effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baum, S. M. (1994). Meeting the needs of gifted/learning disabled students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5(3), 6-22.
2.
Baum, S. M., Olenchak, F. R., & Owen, S. V. (1998). Gifted students with attention deficits: Fact and/or fiction? Or, can we see the forest for the trees?Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 96-104.
3.
Benbow, C. P. (1986). SMPY's model for teaching mathematically precocious students. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 1-26). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
4.
Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D. J., & Suchy, B. (1996). The impact of SMPY's educational programs from the perspective of the participant. In C. P. Benbow & D. J. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 266-300). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
5.
Berndt, T. J. (1999). Friends' influence on students' adjustment to school. Educational Psychologist, 34(1), 29-42.
6.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballentine.
7.
Brody, L. E., & Benbow, C. P. (1986). Social and emotional adjustment of adolescents extremely talented in verbal or mathematical reasoning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15(1), 1-18.
8.
Brody, L. E., & Benbow, C. P. (1987). Accelerative strategies: How effective are they for the gifted?Gifted Child Quarterly, 3, 105-110.
9.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 6, pp. 189-250). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
11.
Carter, K. R. (1986). A cognitive outcomes study to evaluate curriculum for the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 41-55.
12.
Coleman, J. M., & Fults, B. A. (1985). Special-class placement, level of intelligence, and the self-concepts of gifted children: A social comparison perspective. Remedial and Special Education, 6(1), 7-11.
13.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Dai, D. Y., Moon, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). Achievement motivation of gifted students: A social cognitive perspective. Unpublished manuscript.
15.
Dauber, S. L., & Benbow, C. P. (1990). Aspects of personality and peer relations of extremely talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 10-15.
16.
Delcourt, M. A. B., & Evans, K. (1994). Qualitative extension of the learning outcomes study. Charlottesville, University of Virginia: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
17.
Delcourt, M. A. B., Loyd, B. H., Cornell, D. G., & Goldberg, M. D. (1994). Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on student learning outcomes. Charlottesville, University of Virginia: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
18.
Dettmer, P. (1994). IEPs for gifted secondary students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5(4), 52-59.
19.
Duncan, G. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Assessing the effects of context in studies of child and youth development. Educational Psychologist, 34(1), 29-41.
20.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1995). TIDE: Talent identification and development in education. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.
21.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Programs and services at the elementary level. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd ed., pp. 211-223). Denver: Love.
22.
Feldhusen, J. F., Kolloff, M. B., Cole, S., & Moon, S. M. (1988). A three-stage model for gifted education: 1988 update. Gifted Child Today, 11(1), 63-67.
23.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Kolloff, P. B. (1986). The Purdue Three-Stage Enrichment Model at the Elementary Level. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 153-179). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
24.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Moon, S. M. (1995). The educational continuum and delivery of services. In J. L. Genshaft, M. Birely, & C. L. Hollinger (Eds.), Serving gifted and talented students: A resource for school personnel (pp. 103-121). Austin, TX: PRO-ED
25.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Sayler, M. F. (1990). Special classes for academically gifted youth. Roeper Review, 12, 244-249.
26.
Feldhusen, J. F., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Seeley, K. (1989). Excellence in educating the gifted. Denver: Love.
27.
Feldman, D. H. (1986). Nature's gambit. New York: Basic Books.
28.
Gagné, F. (1998). A proposal for subcategories within gifted or talented populations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 87-95.
29.
Gallagher, J. J. (1997). Educational research and educational policy: The strange case of acceleration. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 83-92). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
30.
Gallagher, J. J., & Crowder, T. (1957). The adjustment of gifted children in the regular classroom. Exceptional children, 23, 306-312, 317-319.
31.
Gallagher, J. J., & Gallagher, S. G. (1994). Teaching the gifted child. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
32.
Gallagher, S. A. (1997). Problem-based learning: Where did it come from, what does it do, and where is it going?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 332-362.
33.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
34.
Gibbons, F., & Benbow, C. P. (1994). From top dog to bottom half. Social comparison strategies in response to poor performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 638-652.
35.
Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., & Guerin, D. W. (1994). Gifted IQ: Early developmental aspects: The Fullerton longitudinal study. New York: Plenum.
36.
Gross, M. (1992). The use of radical acceleration in cases of extreme intellectual precocity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 91-99.
37.
Gross, M. U. (1995, November). Giftedness, motivation, and self-esteem: Effects of full-time grouping. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Tampa, FL.
38.
Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. London: Routledge.
39.
Gross, M. U. M. (1994). Radical acceleration. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5(4), 27-34.
40.
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford.
41.
Harter, S., Whitesell, N. R., & Kowalski, P. S. (1992). Individual differences in the effects of educational transitions on young adolescents' perceptions of competence and motivational orientations. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 777-807.
42.
Hoge, R. D., & Renzulli, J. S. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and self-concept. Review of Educational Research, 63, 449-465.
43.
Hollingworth, L. (1926). Gifted children. New York: World Press.
44.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ.New York: World Book.
45.
Janos, P. M., Marwood, K. A., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Friendship patterns in highly intelligent children. Roeper Review, 8, 46-49.
46.
Janos, P. M., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Psychosocial development in intellectually gifted children. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 149-195). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
47.
Kolloff, M. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1981, May/June). PACE (Program for Academic and Creative Enrichment): An application of the three-stage model. Gifted Child Today, 5, 47-50.
48.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, J. A. (1997). Ability grouping. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gtfted education (pp. 230-242). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
49.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.
50.
Lovecky, D. V. (1994). Exceptionally gifted children: Different minds. Roeper Review, 17, 116-120.
51.
Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1996). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
52.
Marsh, H. W., Chessor, D., Craven, R., & Roche, L. (1995). The effects of gifted and talented programs on academic self-concept: The big fish strikes again. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 285-319.
53.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54.
Moon, S. M. (1991). Case study research in gifted education. In N. K. Buchanan & J. F. Feldhusen (Eds.), Conducting research and evaluation in gifted education (pp. 157-178). New York: Teachers College Press.
55.
Moon, S. M. (1995). The effects of an enrichment program on the families of participants: A multiple-case study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 198-208.
56.
Moon, S. M., Feldhusen, J. F., & Dillon, D. R. (1994). Longterm effects of an enrichment program based on the Purdue Three-Stage Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 38-48.
57.
Moon, S. M., & Trepper, T. S. (1996). Case study research. In D. H. Sprenkle & S. M. Moon (Eds.), Research methods infamily therapy (pp. 393-410). New York: Guilford.
58.
Moon, S. M., Zentall, S. S., Grskovic, J. A., Hall, A., & Stormont, M. (2001). Social and emotional characteristics of boys with AD/HD and/or giftedness: A comparative case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 207-247.
59.
Nelson, S. M., Gallagher, J. J., & Coleman, M. R. (1993). Cooperative learning from two different perspectives. Roeper Review, 16, 117-121.
60.
Nicholson, C. L., & Hibpshman, T. L. (1991a). Slossen Intelligence Test, SIT-R, for children and adults: Technical manual. East Aurora, NY: Slosson Educational Publications.
61.
Nicholson, C. L., & Hibpshman, T. L. (1991b). Slosson Intelligence Test, SIT-R, for children and adults: Manual. East Aurora, NY: Slosson Educational Publications.
62.
Nielsen, M. E., Higgins, L. D., Hammond, A. E., & Williams, R. A. (1993). Gifted children with disabilities. Gifted Child Today, 16(5), 9-12.
63.
Piirto, J. (1994). Talented children and adults: Their development and education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
64.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
65.
Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9-27.
66.
Robinson, N. M. (1997). Acceleration as an option for the highly gifted adolescent. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 169-178). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
67.
Robinson, N. M., & Noble, K. D. (1991). Social-emotional development and adjustment of gifted children. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice (Vol. 4, pp. 57-76). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
68.
Roeser, R. W. (1998). On schooling and mental health: Introduction to the special issue. Educational Psychologist, 33(4), 129-133.
69.
Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Strobel, K. R. (1998). Linking the study of schooling and mental health: Selected issues and empirical illustrations at the level of the individual. Educational Psychologist, 33(4), 153-176.
70.
Rogers, K. B. (1991). Relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learners. Storrs, The University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
71.
Silverman, L. K. (1989). The highly gifted. In J. F. Feldhusen, J. VanTassel-Baska, & K. Seeley (Eds.), Excellence in educating the gifted (pp. 71-83). Denver: Love.
72.
Silverman, L. K. (1993). The gifted individual. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 3-28). Denver: Love.
73.
Silverman, L. K. (1998). The highly gifted. In J. Van Tassel-Baska (Ed.), Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (pp. 115-128). Denver: Love.
74.
Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (1991). The academic acceleration of gifted children. New York: Teachers College Press.
75.
Stanley, J. C. (1996). In the beginning: The study of mathematically precocious youth. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 225-235). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
76.
Stanley, J. C., & Benbow, C. P. (1986). Youths who reason exceptionally well mathematically. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 361-387). Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.
77.
Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the classroom. New York: Simon & Schuster.
78.
Strauss, A. L. (1989). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.
79.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
80.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan.
81.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
82.
Van Tassel-Baska, J., Landrum, M. S., & Peterson, K. (1992). Cooperative learning and gifted students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 405-414.
83.
Vaughn, V. L., Feldhusen, J. F., & Asher, W. J. (1991). Meta-analysis and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 92-98.
84.
Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A. W., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 607-651.
85.
Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social influences on school adjustment: Commentary. Educational Psychologist, 34(1), 59-69.
86.
Whitchurch, G. C., & Constantine, L. L. (1993). Systems theory. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 325-355). New York: Plenum.
87.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
