This qualitative research study focuses upon 18 highly creative/productive secondary school students. Creative/ productive behavior is examined by studying characteristics of youths who pursued and completed investigations based on their interests. The data sources were the family, the school, and the student. Methods of investigation included document analysis, questionnaires, and a student interview. Reflecting on experiences in their respective programs for the gifted, students revealed insights into the ways they obtained ideas for their projects, how their interest in their investigations was sustained, and what they learned from their efforts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Attitudes toward school K 12. (1972). Los Anodes. CA: Instructional Objectives Exchange.
2.
Bandura. A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
3.
Barbe. W. (1988). Pain or pleasure in the gifted child family. Gifted Child Today.11(1). 6-8.
4.
Bloom, B.S. (1982). The role of gifls and markers in the developroent of talent. Exceptional Children. 48(6). 510-522.
5.
Burns. D.E. (1990). The effects of group training activities on students initiation of creative investigations. Gifted Child Quarterly.34. 31-36.
6.
Gable. R.K. (1986). Instrument development in the affective domain . Boston. MA: Kluwer Nijoff.
7.
Getzels. J.W., & Csikszentmihalyi. M. (1976). Tire creative vision A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York : Wiley.
8.
Getzcls, J.W., & Jackson. P.W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
9.
Goertzel. M.G.Goertzel. V., & Goertzel, T.G. (1978). Three hundred eminent personalities . San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass .
10.
Gubbins. E.J. (1982). Revolving door identification model: Characteristics of talent pool students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticul. Storrs.
11.
Haensly, P.A., & Roberts, N.M. (1983). The professional productive process and its implications for gifted studies. Gifted Child Quarterly. 27. 9-12.
12.
Jick. T.D. (1979). Mixing qunlitative and quantiative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4). 602-611.
13.
MacKinnon. D.W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness: Identifying and developing creativity, Buffalo. NY: Creative Education Foundation.
14.
McCurdy. H.G. (1960). The childhood pattern of genius. Horizon, 2. 3338.
15.
Measures of self concept K-12.(1972). Los Angeles. CA: Instructional Objectives Exchange.
16.
Milgram. R.M. (1984). Creativity in gifted adolescents: A review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted.8(1). 2542.
17.
Miles. M.B. & Huberman. M.A. (1984). Qualitative data analvsis . Beverly I Hills. CA: Sage.
18.
Mitchell, E.S. (1986). Multiple triangulation: A methodology for nursing science. Advances in NursingScience. 8(3). 18-26.
19.
Patton. M.Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverty Hills, CA: Sage.
20.
Reis. S.M. (1981). An analysis of the productivity of gifted students participating in programs using the revoking door identification model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Connecticut , Storrs.
21.
Renzulli, J.S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for deuelopment of defensible programs for the gifted. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
22.
Renzulli, J.S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53-92). New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Renzulli, J.S., & Reis, S.M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center. CT: Creative Learning Press.
24.
Renzulli, J.S., & Reis. S.M. (1986). The enrichment triad/revolving door model: A schoolwide plan for the development of creative productivity. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 216-266). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
25.
Roe, A. ( 1952). The making of a scientist. New York : Dodd, Mead.
26.
Roeder. C., Haerisly, P.A., & Edlind. E.P. (1982, November). The secret ingredients in gifted children's productivity. Paper presented at the conference of the National Association for Gifted children, New Orleans. LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 263 710)
27.
Schack, G.D. (1986). Creative productivity and self-efficacy in children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. TheUniversity of Connecticut . Storrs.
28.
Seidel. J.V., & Clark, J.A. (1984). The ethnograph: A computer program for the analysis of qualitative data. Qualitative Sociology, 7(1 & 2), 110-125.
29.
Seidel. J.V., Kjolseth. R., & Seymour, E. (1988). The ethnograph: A program for the computer-assisted analysis of text-based data [Computer Program]. Littleton, CO: Qualis Research Associates.
30.
Siegler, R.S., & Kotovsky, K. (1986). Two levels of giftedness: Shall ever the twain meet? In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 417-435). New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Simonton. D.K. (1983). Creative productivity and age: A mathematical model based on a two-step cognitive process. Deuelopmental Review. 4(1). 77-111.
32.
Smith. H.W. (1975). Triangulation: The necessity for multimethod approaches . In W. H Smith (Ed.), Strategies of social research: The methodological imagination (pp. 271-292). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
33.
Spradley, J.P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
34.
Starko. A.J. (1986). The effects of the revolving door identification model on creative productivity and self-efficacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University of Connecticut, Storrs.
35.
Starko. A.J. (1988). Effects of the revolving door identification model on creative productivity and self-efficacy. Gifted Child Quarterly , 32, 291-297.
36.
Sternberg, R.J. (1986). Identifying the gifted through IQ: Why a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Roeper Review, 8(3), 143-147.
37.
Sternberg. R. J. (Ed.). (1988). The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectiues. New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Swanson-Kauffrnan. K.M. (1986). A cornbined qualitative methodology for nursing research. Advances in Nursing Science.8(3). 58-69.
39.
Tannenbaum. A.J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan .
40.
Torrance, E.P. (1980). Growing up creatively gifted: A 22-year longitudinal study. TheCreative Child and Adult Quarterly. 5, 148-170.
41.
Torrance. E.P. (1981). Predicting the creativity of elementary school children (1958-80) and the teacher who made a difference. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(2), 55-61.
42.
Wehb. E.J. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago. II: Rand McNally.
43.
Walberg. H.I.J. (1969). A portrait of the artist and scientist as young men. Exceptional Children, 36, 5-11.
44.
Walberg. H.J. (1971). Varieties of adolescent creativity and the high school environment. Exceptional Children.38, 111-116.
