This study reports the development of My Class Activities, a new instrument that can be used to measure students' perceptions of interest, challenge, choice, and enjoyment in their classrooms. These dimensions are frequently found in gifted education literature and are tied to student motivation and learning. Described are (a) the theoretical basis upon which the instrument was developed, (b) the investigation of construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory, and (c) internal consistency alpha reliability estimates using a sample of 1,523 grades 6–8 students. Confirmatory factor analysis, item response theory, and alpha reliability information supported meaningful and accurate interpretations of data obtained from the instrument.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmesC. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In SchunkD. H.MeeceJ. L. (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327–348). Hillsdale, NI: Erlbaum.
2.
AndermanE. M.MaehrM. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287–309.
3.
ArchambaultF. X.WestbergK.BrownS. B.HallmarkB. W.EmmonsC. L.ZhangW. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. Storrs: The University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
4.
ArlinM. (1976). Manual for Arlin-Hills Attitude Survey. Jacksonville, IL: Psychologists and Educators.
5.
BentlerP. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
6.
BloomB. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.
7.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Literacy and intrinsic motivation. Daedalus, 119, 115–140.
8.
CurrierL. (1986). A declaration of independence: A reed for middle school educators. Middle School Journal, 17 (2), 4–6.
9.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
10.
DeweyJ. (1913). Interest and effort in education. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
11.
DeweyJ. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.
12.
EcclesJ. S.MidgleyC. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In AmesC.AmesR. (Eds.), Research on motivation in education. Vol. 3: Goals and cognitions (pp. 13–44). New York: Academic.
13.
EcclesJ.S.MidgleyC.WigfieldA.BuchannanC. M.ReumanD.FlanaganC.MacIverD. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on adolescents' experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101.
14.
EcclesJ. S.WigfieldA.FlanaganC. A.MillerC.ReumanD. A.YeeD. (1989). Self-concepts, domain values, and self-esteem: Relations and changes at early adolescence. Journal of Personality, 57, 283–310.
15.
EpsteinH. (1974). Phrenoblysis: Special brain and mind growth periods. Human mental development. Developmental Psychobiology, 7, 217–224.
16.
GableR. K.WolfM. B. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
17.
GallagherJ. J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
18.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
19.
GardnerH. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.
20.
GentryM. (1999). Promoting student achievement and exemplary classroom practices through cluster grouping: A research-based alternative to heterogeneous elementary classrooms. Storrs: The University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
21.
GentryM. L.MaxfieldL. R.GableR. 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.
22.
GentryM.RizzaM. G.GableR. K. (2001). Gifted students' perceptions of their class activities: Differences among rural, urban, and suburban student attitudes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 115–129.
23.
GoodT. L.BrophyJ. E. (1987). Looking in classrooms (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
24.
GoodladJ. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
25.
HaladynaT.ThomasG. (1979). The attitudes of elementary school children toward school and subject matters. Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 18–23.
26.
HoltJ. (1983). Escape from childhood. In NollJ. W. (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial educational issues (2nd ed., pp. 40–44). Guilford, CT:Dushkin.
27.
HootsteinE. W. (1994, May). Motivating middle school students. Middle School Journal, 31–35.
28.
HopfenbergW. S.LevinH. A. (1993). The accelerated schools resource guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29.
JamesW. (1890). The principles of psychology. London: MacMillan.
30.
JoreskogK. G.SorbomD. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications (2nd ed.). Chicago: SPSS.
31.
LinacreJ. M. (1999). A users guide to FACETS. Chicago: MESA.
32.
MakerC. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
33.
MastersJ. (1974). School attitude scale (4–6). (ERIC Microfiche document 107684).
34.
MeierR. (1974). A measure of attitude toward school. Educational and Psychological Measurement34, 997–998.
35.
MidgleyC.AndermanE.HicksL. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 90–113.
36.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
37.
ParkeB. (1989). Gifted students in regular classrooms. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
38.
PassowA. H. (1982). Differentiated curricula for the gifted/talented. Ventura, CA: Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and Talented.
39.
ReisS. M.WestbergK. L.KulikowichJ.CaillardF.HébertT.PluckerJ.PurcellJ. H.RogersJ. B.SmistJ. M. (1993). Why not let high-ability students start school in January? The curriculum compacting study. Storrs: The University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
40.
ReisS. M.GentryM.ParkS. (1995). Extending the pedagogy of gifted education to all students: The enrichment cluster study (Tech. Rep. No. 12M 95118). Storrs:The University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
41.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261.
42.
RenzulliJ. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A comprehensive plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
43.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
44.
RobinsonA. (1991). Cooperative learning and the academically talented student. Storrs: The University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
45.
RoeserR. W.EcclesJ. S. (1998). Adolescents' perceptions of middle school: Relation to longitudinal changes in academic and psychological adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 123–158.
46.
RogersK. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner. Storrs: The University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
47.
SchlichterC. (1986). Talents unlimited: Applying the multiple talent approach to mainstream and gifted programs. In RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 352–390). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
48.
SchiefeleU. (1991). Interests, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299–323.
49.
ShoreB. M.CornellD. G.RobinsonA.WardV. S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.
50.
SlavinR. E. (1984). Team-assisted individualization. In WangM. C.WalbergH. J. (Eds.), Adapting instruction to individual differences (pp. 236–253). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
51.
SternbergR. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
52.
TobiasS. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64, 37–54.
53.
TomlinsonC. A. (1992). Gifted education and the middle school movement: Two voices on teaching the academically talented. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 206–238.
54.
TomlinsonC. A. (1999). Differentiation of curriculum: A guide. Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
55.
TomlinsonC. A.CallahanC. M. (1992). Contributions of gifted education to general education in a time of change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 183–189.
56.
U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
57.
VygotskyL. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
58.
WangM. C.LindvallC. M. (1984). Individual differences in school learning environments: Theory, research, and design. In GordonE. W. (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 11, pp. 161–225). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
59.
WardV. (1980). Differential education for the gifted. Ventura, CA: Ventura Superintendent of Schools Office.
60.
WaxmanH. C.HuangS. L.PadronY. N. (1997). Motivation and learning environment differences between resilient and nonresilient Latino middle school students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19, 137–155.
61.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF. X.DobynsS. M.SalvinT. J. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms. Storrs: The University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
62.
WilliamsF. (1986). The cognitive-affective interaction model for enriching gifted programs. In RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 461–484). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
