The movement toward inclusive schools in this country has necessitated a search for instructional models that would best meet the needs of gifted and high-achieving children in increasingly heterogeneous classrooms. In the present study, a multiple baseline design was used to evaluate three popular models of gifted education implemented by general-education teachers in their classrooms. The study focused on process-oriented dependent variables such as the cognitive level of teacher queries and student responses during classroom interactions. While none of the models showed dramatic changes in cognitive complexity of teacher-student interaction, the Cognitive-Affective Interaction Model (Williams, 1986) demonstrated the best results for increasing the cognitive complexity of classroom interactions and on-task behavior of high-achieving students. A strong relationship was found between the cognitive level of teacher queries and student responses across all models.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArnoldD. S.AtwoodR. K.RogersU. M. (1973). An investigation of the relationships among question level, response level, and lapse time. School Science and Mathematics, 73, 591–594.
2.
BeckwithA. (1982). Use of the Ross Test as an assessment measure in programs for the gifted and a comparison study of the Ross Test to individually administered intelligence tests. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 5, 127–140.
3.
BloomB. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
4.
CarterK. (1986). A cognitive outcome study to evaluate curriculum for the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9, 41–55.
5.
DanielsT. R. (1992). Education of the gifted and the excellence-equity debate: Lessons from history. In MakerC. J.Orzechowski-HarlandD. (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Vol. 3. Programs for the gifted in regular classrooms (pp. 6–18). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
6.
DelcourtM. A. B.LoydB. H.CornellD. G.GoldbergM. D. (1994). Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements of student learning outcomes (Research Monograph No. 94108). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
7.
DillonJ. T. (1982). Cognitive correspondence between question/statement and response. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 540–551.
8.
FeldhusenJ. F.ClinkenbeardP. R. (1986). Creativity instruction materials: A review of research. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 153–181.
9.
FlandersN. A. (1970). Analyzing teacher behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
10.
FraenkelJ. R.WallenN. E. (1990). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
11.
GallM. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 40, 707–721.
12.
GallagherJ. J. (1992). Comments on McDaniel's “Education of the gifted and the excellence-equity debate.”. In MakerC. J.Orzechowski-HarlandD. (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Vol. 3. Programs for the gifted in regular classrooms (pp. 19–21). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
13.
GallagherJ. J.GallagherS. A. (1994). Teaching the gifted child (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
14.
GallagherJ. J.AschnerM. J.JennéW. (1967). Productive thinking of gifted children in classroom interaction. Research Monographs of the Council for Exceptional Children, (Series B, No. B-5). Washington, DC: Council for Exceptional Children.
15.
GallagherJ. J.WeissP.OglesbyK.ThomasT. (1983). The status of gifted and talented students: United States survey of needs, practices, and policies. Los Angeles: Leadership Training Institute.
16.
GoldringE. B. (1990). Assessing the status of information on classroom organizational frameworks for gifted students. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 313–326.
17.
GoodladJ. I. (1983). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
18.
HamakerC. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 212–242.
19.
HareV. C.PulliamC. A. (1980). Teacher questioning: A verification and extension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12, 69–72.
20.
HersenM.BarlowD. H. (1976). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. Oxford: Pergamon.
21.
Kansas State Board of Education. (1993). State regulations for special education. Topeka, KS: Author.
22.
LundsteenS.W. (1991). Ethnographic perspective: From beginning to final product. In BuchananN. K.FeldhusenJ. F. (Eds.), Conducting research and evaluation in gifted education (pp. 114–136). New York: Teachers College Press.
23.
MakerC. J.NielsonA. B. (1995). Teaching models in education of the gifted (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
24.
McDanielT. R. (1992). Education of the gifted and excellence-equity debate: Lessons from history. In MakerC. J.Orezechowski-HarlandD. (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Vol. 3. Programs for the gifted in regular classrooms (pp. 6–18). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
25.
McLeanJ. E.ChissomB. S. (1980). Talents unlimited program: Summary of research finding for 1979–80. Mobile, AL: Talents Unlimited Project, Mobile County Public Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 198 660).
26.
MillsS. R.RiceC. T.BerlinerD. C.RousseauE. W. (1980). The correspondence between teacher questions and student answers in classroom discourse. Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 194–204.
27.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1992). Winners all: A call for inclusive schools. Washington, DC: Author.
28.
NielsenM. E. (1984). Evaluation of a rural gifted program: Assessment of attitudes, self-concepts, and critical thinking skills of high ability students in grades 3 through 12. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
29.
ParkeB. N. (1989). Gifted students in regular classrooms. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
30.
PetersonD.KromreyJ.BorgJ.LewisA. (1990). Defining and establishing relationships between essential and higher order teaching skills. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 5–12.
31.
RedfieldD. L.RousseauE. W. (1981). A meta-analysis of experimental research on teacher questioning behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 237–245.
32.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (1982). A research report on the Revolving Door Identification Model: A case for the broadened conception of giftedness. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 619–620.
33.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (1991). The assessment of creative products in programs for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 128–134.
34.
RenzulliJ. S. (1986). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
35.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1986). The enrichment triad/revolving door model: A schoolwide plan for the development of creative productivity. In RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 216–266). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
36.
RichertS. (1991). Rampant problems and promising practices in identification. In ColangeloN.DavisG. (Eds.), Handbook on gifted education (pp. 81–96). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
37.
RoseL. H.LinH. (1984). A meta-analysis of long term creativity training programs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18(1), 11–22.
38.
SattlerJ. M. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego: Author.
39.
SchackG. D. (1986). Creative productivity and self-efficacy in gifted children. An expanded version of a paper presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 307 732).
40.
SchlichterC. L. (1981). The multiple talent approach in mainstream and gifted programs. Exceptional Children, 48, 144–150.
41.
SchlichterC. L. (1986a). Talents Unlimited: An inservice education model for teaching thinking skills. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 119–123.
42.
SchlichterC. L. (1986b). Talents Unlimited: Applying the multiple talent approach in 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.
43.
StarkoA. J. (1988). Effects of the Revolving Door Identification Model on creative productivity and self-efficacy. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 291–297.
44.
Sulzer-AzaroffB.MayerG. R. (1991). Behavior analysis for lasting change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
45.
TawneyJ. W.GastD. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. New York: Macmillan.
46.
TaylorC. W. (1986). Cultivating simultaneous student growth in both multiple creative talents and knowledge. In RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 306–351). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
47.
VaughnV. L.FeldhusenJ. RAsherJ. W. (1991). Meta-analyses and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(2), 92–98.
48.
WangM. C.ReynoldsM. C.WalbergH. J. (1994, December/1995, January). Serving students at the margins. Educational Leadership, 52, 12–17.
49.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF. X.DobynsS. M.SalvinT. J. (1993). An observational study of the instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms. Monographs of The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (Research Monograph No. 93104).
50.
WilenW. W. (Ed.). (1987). Questions, questioning techniques, and effective teaching. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
51.
WilliamsF. E. (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.
52.
WinneP. H. (1979). Experiments relating teachers' use of higher cognitive questions to student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 49, 13–50.
