The results of a study to determine whether sixth-grade students in three different gifted programs could depict models of their ideal gifted program in ways that were not limited by their experiences in these programs are described. The 57 subjects performed two Q-sorts using a set of 40 statements taken from the list of recommended practices generated by the Knowledge Production and Utilization Task Force of CEC-TAG. Eight factors emerged using the Pearson product moment correlation, four from each condition of instruction. All were different, with no significant correlations among them. In describing their ideal programs in ways that closely matched the program models which have been available since 1957, these gifted students appear to endorse those practices. The emergence of multiple ideal models, though, speaks to the importance of offering more than one type of gifted program, since none is ideal for all students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ. (1983). Preferences for the ideal classroom environment: A comparison between gifted and non-gifted students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43(9-A), 2869.
2.
BarbeW. (1960). A follow-up study of graduates of special classes for the gifted: Division of Major Works classes thirty years after. Cleveland, OH: Cleveland Public Schools.
3.
BarbeW.MiloneM.Jr. (1982). Modality characteristics of the gifted. G/C/T, 21, 2–5.
4.
BegleE.WilsonJ. (1970). Evaluation of mathematics programs. In BegleE. (Ed.), Mathematics education, The sixty-ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 367–404). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BettsG.KnappJ. (1980). Autonomous learning and the gifted: A secondary model. In ArnoldA. (Ed.), Secondary Programs for the Gifted (pp. 29–36). Ventura, CA: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Office.
6.
BrownS. (1980). Political subjectivity. New Haven: Yale University.
7.
BybeeR. (1973). The teacher I liked best: perceptions of advantaged, average, and disadvantaged science students. School Science and Mathematics, 73, 384–390.
8.
BybeeR. (1975). The ideal elementary science teacher: perceptions of children, pre-service and inservice elementary science teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 75, 229–235.
9.
BybeeR. (1978). Science educators' perceptions of the ideal science teacher. School Science and Mathematics, 78, 3–22.
10.
ClarkB. (1983). Growing up gifted (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
11.
ClarkB. (1986). Optimizing learning: The integrative education model in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
12.
CoxJ.DanielN.BostonB. (1985). Educating able learners. Austin: University of Texas Press.
13.
DorhoutA. (1983). Student and teacher perceptions of preferred teacher behavior among the academically talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(3), 122–125.
FisherD.FraserB. (1983). A comparison of actual and preferred classroom environments as perceived by science teachers and science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(1), 55–61.
16.
FraserB.FisherD. (1983). Use of actual and preferred classroom environment scales in person-environment fit. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 303–313.
17.
GallagherJ. (1970). Three studies of the classroom. In GallagherJ.NuthallG.RosenshineB., Classroom observation. American Educational Research Association Monograph Series No. 6 (pp. 74–108). Chicago: Rand McNally.
GriggsS. (1984). Counseling the gifted and talented based on learning style. Exceptional Child, 50(5), 429–432.
20.
HorowitzF.O'BrienM. (Eds.). (1985). The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
21.
KaplanS. (1986). Preconceptions of gifted and non-gifted students toward the learning expectancies of an ideological curriculum. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(6-A), 2004.
22.
KauffmanF. (1981). The 1964–1968 Presidential Scholars: A follow-up study. Exceptional Children, 48(2), 164–169.
KruegerM. (Ed.). (1978). On being gifted. New York: Walker.
25.
MarlandS. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: A report to the Congress of the United States by the Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
26.
MidgettJ.OlsonJ. (1983). Perceptions of gifted programming. Roeper Review, 5(3), 42–44.
27.
NesterenkoA.WilsonS. (1980). Concourse: computer program for the Q methodologist. Operant Subjectivity, 4, 17–22.
28.
OkabayashiH.TorranceE. (1984). Role of learning and thinking and self-directed learning readiness in achievement of gifted students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17(2), 104–107.
29.
PetersonK.MaysB. (1981). Ideal teacher behavior and perceptions of science students: Success, gender, course. School Science and Mathematics, 81, 315–321.
30.
RenzulliJ. (1973). New directions in creativity. New York: Harper & Row.
31.
RenzulliJ. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
32.
RogersK. (1986). Do the gifted think and learn differently? A review of recent literature and its implications. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(1), 17–39.
33.
SchultzR. (1983). Sociopsychological climates and teacher bias expectancy: A possible mediating mechanism. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 167–173.
34.
SeagoeM. (1974). Some characteristics of gifted children. In MartinsonR., The identification of gifted and talented children. Ventura, CA: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools.
35.
SellinD. (1986). [Voices and choices of gifted learners]. Unpublished raw data.
36.
ShoreB.CornellD.RobinsonA.WardV. (1986). Recommended practices in the education and upbringing of the gifted: A progress report on an assessment of the knowledge base. In FeldhusenJ. F. (Ed.), Leadership accessing monographs: Education gifted and talented youth. West Lafayette, IN: Gifted Education Resource Institute, Purdue University (unpaginated).
37.
StanleyJ.KeatingD.FoxL. (Eds.). (1974). Mathematical talent: Discovery, description and development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
38.
StephensonW. (1978). Concourse theory of communication. In Communication (Vol. 3, pp. 21–40). New York: Gordon Breach Science Publishers.
39.
TannenbaumA. (1983). Gifted education: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan.
40.
TorranceE. (1960). The Minnesota studies of creative thinking in the early school years. University of Minnesota Research Memorandum (No. 59–4). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Bureau of Educational Research.
