Examining Perceptions of Challenge and Choice in Classrooms: The Relationship Between Teachers and Their Students and Comparisons Between Gifted Students and Other Students
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2002
Examining Perceptions of Challenge and Choice in Classrooms: The Relationship Between Teachers and Their Students and Comparisons Between Gifted Students and Other Students
In this study we investigated the relationship between what teachers report they do in their classrooms and their students' perceptions of classroom activities with respect to the dimensions of challenge and choice. Students and teachers in elementary school classrooms 91 classrooms) were analyzed separately front those in middle schools classrooms (n = 64 classrooms). No relationship existed between what teachers reported they do and what students perceived is done at the elementary or middle school levels concerning the dimension of challenge. Further, concerning choice, a slight positive correlation existed for elementary students and their teachers, whereas. no such relationship existed at the middle school level. These findings suggest that what teachers report may not be what students actually experience in the classroom. Additionally, differences among perceptions of challenge and choice of gifted students in magnet schools, gifted students in regular schools, and other students in regular schools were investigated. Regardmig challenge, magnet school gifted students reported significantly more challenge than their gifted and other peers at the middle school level, whereas no such differences existed at the elementary level. No meaningful difference existed among the groups on the dimension of choice at either the elementary or middle school levels.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alderman, M. K. (1999). Motivation for achievement: Possibilities for teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
Alspaugh, J. W. (1998). Achievement loss associated with the transition to middle school and high school. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 20-25.
3.
American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1995). How schools shortchange girls: The AAUW report. New York: Marlowe.
4.
American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1999). Gender gaps: here schools still fail our children. New York: Marlowe.
5.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
6.
Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 287-309.
7.
Archambault, F. X. Jr., Westberg, K., Brown, S. B., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of Connecticut.
8.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. New York: Freeman.
9.
Beamon, G. W. (1997). Sparking the thinking of students, ages 1-14: Strategies for teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
10.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.
11.
Clifford, M. (1990). Students need challenge, not easy success. Educational Leadership, 48, 22-26.
12.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
Cooper, P., & McIntyre, D. (1993). Commonality in teachers' and pupils' perceptions of effective classroom learning. British Journal of Education Psychology, 63, 381-399.
15.
Currier, L. (1986). A declaration of independence: A reed for middle school educators. Middle School Journal, 17(2), 4-6.
16.
Day, D. E., & Libertini, G. (1993). Profiles of children's learning behavior. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 6, 100-112.
17.
Deci, E. L. (1995). Why we do what we do: The dynamics of personal autonomy. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
18.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and seff-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
19.
Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (1992). The initiation and regulation of intrinsically motivated learning and achievement. In A. Boggiano & T. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation (pp. 9-36). New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
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. Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of Connecticut.
21.
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education. Vol. 3: Goals and cognition (pp. 13-44). New York: Academic.
22.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchannan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flannagan, C., & Maclver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on adolescents' experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90-101.
23.
Eisele, T. (1996). Improving the motivation of middle school students through the use of curricular and instructional adaptations. Master's Action Research Project, St. Xavier University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED412010)
24.
Faske, D., & Grubb, D. J. (1997, August). Implications of the learner-centered battery for new teacher standards and teacher education reform in Kentucky. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.
25.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Kroll, M. D. (1991). Boredom or challenge for the academically talented in school. Gifted Education International, 7, 80-81.
26.
Gable, R. K., & Wolf, M. B. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain. Boston: Kluwer.
27.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction, (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
28.
Gallagher, J., Harradine, C. C., & Coleman, M. R. (1997). Challenge or bored? Gifted students' views on their schooling. Roeper Review, 19, 132-136.
29.
Gentry, M. L., & Gable, R. K. (2001a). My class activities: A survey instrument to assess students' perceptions of interest, challenge, choice, and enjoyment in their classrooms. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
30.
Gentry, M. L., & Gable, R. K. (2001b). From the students' perspective My Class Activities: An instrument for use in research and evaluation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 322-343.
31.
Gentry, M. L., Maxfield, L. R., & Gable, R. K. (1998). Construct validity evidence for enrichment clusters and regular classrooms: Are they different as students see them?Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 258-274.
32.
Gentry, M. L., Rizza, M. G., & Gable, R. K. (2001). Gifted students' perceptions of their class activities: Differences among rural, urban, and suburban student attitudes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 115-129.
33.
Glasser, W. (1996). Then and now. The theory of choice. Learning, 25, 20-22.
34.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
35.
Green, A. (1995). Let them show us the way: Fostering independent learning in the elementary classroom. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Peguis.
36.
Hagborg, W. J. (1994). Student and teacher perceptions of classroom instructional methods and evaluation procedures. Evaluation & Program Planning, 17, 257-260.
37.
Hopfenberg, W. S., & Levin, H. A. (1993). The accelerated schools resource guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38.
Kunkel, M. A., Chapa, B., Patterson, G., & Walling, D. D. (1992). Experiences of giftedness: “Eight Great Gripes” six years later. Roeper Review, 15, 10-14.
39.
Lepper, M. R., & Chabay, R. W. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and instruction: Conflicting views on the motivational processes in computer-based education. Educational Psychologist, 20, 217-230.
40.
Locke, E. A. (1991). Goal theory vs. control theory: Contrasting approaches to understanding work motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 9-28.
41.
Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 90-113.
42.
Palmer, L. (1998). Influence of students' global constructs of teaching effectiveness on summative evaluation. Educational Assessment, 5, 111-115.
43.
Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F., Hèbert, T., Plucker, J., Purcell, J. H., Rogers, J. B., & Smist, J. M. (1993). Why not let high-ability students start school in January? The curriculum compacting study. Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of Connecticut.
44.
Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A comprehensive plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
45.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
46.
Reutzel, D. R., & Sabey, B. (1996). Teacher beliefs and children's concepts about reading: Are they related?Reading Research & Instruction, 35, 323-342.
47.
Russell, M. T. (1997). Beating boredom, creating interest. Fastback 419. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED415182)
48.
Sambell, K., Brown, S., & McDowell, L. (1997). “But is it fair?”: An exploratory study of student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23, 349-371.
49.
Schiefele, U. (1991). Interests, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299-323.
50.
Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.
51.
Simmons, R. G., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving into adolescence. Hawthorne, NY: de Gruyter.
52.
Sisk, D. A. (1988). The bored and disinterested gifted child: Going through school lockstep. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 5-18.
Stone, M. E., & Rottier, J. (1996). Who am I? Positive self-concept and classroom climate. Schools in the Middle, 6, 17-21.
55.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1992). Contributions of gifted education to general education in a time of change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 183-189.
56.
Tomlinson, C. A, Tomchin, E. M., & Callahan, C. M. (1994). Preservice teachers' perceptions of and responses to the differential needs of gifted students in their classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372060)
57.
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
58.
VanTartwijk, J., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (1998). Students' perception of teacher interpersonal style: The front of the classroom as the teacher's stage. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 607-617.
59.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
60.
Vygotsky, L. (1987). Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum Press.
61.
Vygotsky, L. (1993). Collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Volume 2 J. Knox & C. Stevens, Trans.). New York: Plenum Press.
62.
Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. J. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms. Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of Connecticut.
63.
Wood, K. D., & Jones, J. P. (1997). When affect informs instruction. Childhood Education, 73, 292-296.
