Several programmatic strategies for gifted students involve removal from the regular classroom in order to attend special schools, resource rooms, or enrichment classes. The focus of this study was on factors that influenced transitions between a regular-educational program and a gifted program, based on the perceptions of four African-American males. Using a case-study approach, qualitative data from students, parents, and teachers were collected and analyzed. Critical factors that contributed to the students' ability to adapt to the transitions were the perception of a strong family unit; development of goals for the future; socialization factors, which included student personality and peer influences; the perceived benefits of their participation in the gifted program; discrepancies between identification and placement; and a discrepancy in the manner in which material was presented in the various programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmosR.AmosL. (1989). Research on motivation in education: Vol. 3. San Diego: Academic Press.
2.
BaldwinA. (1987). Undiscovered diamonds: The minority gifted child. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 271–285.
3.
BaumgartD. (1987). Making transitions work: Short- and long-term transition strategies: A planning guide for junior and senior high school teachers. Secondary transition and employment project: STEP. Moscow, ID: Idaho University Moscow Department of Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 306 727).
4.
BlythD. A.SimmonsR. G.BushD. (1978). The transition into early adolescence: A longitudinal comparison of youth in two educational contexts. Sociology of Education, 51, 149–162.
ClarkB. (1992). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school. New York: Macmillan.
7.
EmersonR. (1983). Contemporary field research. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
8.
EriksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.
9.
ErlandsonD.HarrisE.SkipperB.AllenS. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage Publications.
10.
FordD. (1993). An investigation of the paradox of underachievement among gifted black students. Roeper Review, 16(2), 78–84.
11.
FrasierM. (1978). Culturally different gifted/talented: Educational implications–cognitive. In Advantage: Disadvantaged gifted (pp. 53–57). Presentations from the 3rd National Conference on Disadvantaged Gifted. Ventura, CA: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Office.
12.
FrasierM. (1992). Ethnic/Minority children: Reflections and directions. In Challenges in Gifted Education (pp. 41–48). Worthington, OH: State Department of Education.
13.
GayL. R. (1987). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
14.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
15.
GlesneC.PeshkinA. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York: Longman.
16.
GrahamS. (1989). Motivation in Afro–Americans. In BerryG. L.AsamenJ. K. (Eds.), Black students: Psychosocial issues and academic achievement (pp. 40–68). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
17.
GrantC. (1989). Black students and education: Points for consideration. In MakerC. J.SchieverS. W. (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education (pp. 275–280). Austin: PRO-ED.
18.
BensonHale J. (1989). The school learning environment and academic success. In BerryG. L.AsamenJ. K. (Eds.), Black students: Psychosocial issues and academic achievement (pp. 83–97). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
19.
KarnesM. B.JohnsonL. J. (1986). Identification and assessment of gifted/talented handicapped and nonhandicapped children in early childhood. In WhitmoreJ. R. (Ed.), Intellectual giftedness in young children: Recognition and development (pp. 35–54). New York: Haworth.
20.
KunjufuJ. (1984). Developing positive self-images and discipline in black children. Chicago: African American Images.
21.
McEwinC.ThomasonJ. (1989). Who they are—How we teach: Early adolescents and their teachers. Columbus: Ohio Middle School Association.
22.
MeansB.KnappM. (1991). Introduction: Rethinking teaching for disadvantaged students. In MeansB.ChelemerC.KnappM. (Eds.), Teaching advanced skills to at-risk students. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
23.
MuellerR. J. (1974). Principles of classroom learning and perception: An introduction to educational psychology. New York: Praeger.
24.
NatrielloG.McDillE.PallasA. (1990). Schooling disadvantaged children: Racing against catastrophe. New York: Teachers College Press.
25.
Ohio Department of Education. (1984). Rule for school foundation units for gifted children. Columbus: Ohio Department of Education.
26.
OlszewskiP.KuliekeM.WillisG. (1987). Changes in the self-perceptions of gifted students who participate in rigorous academic programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 287–303.
27.
PendarvisE.HowleyA.HowleyC. (1990). The abilities of gifted children. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
28.
RichertE. S. (1987). Rampant problems and promising practices in the identification of disadvantaged gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 149–154.
29.
SchmitzC.GalbraithJ. (1985). Managing the social and emotional needs of the gifted: A teacher's survival guide. Minneapolis: Free Spirit.
30.
StarkoA. (1990). Life and death of a gifted program: Lessons not yet learned. Roeper Review, 13(1), 33–38.
31.
StewingJ. (1974). Exploring language with children. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
32.
WhitmoreJ. R. (1980). Giftedness conflict and underachievement. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
33.
WigfieldA.EcclesJ.MacIverD.ReumanD.MidgleyC. (1991). Transitions during early adolescence: Changes in children's domain-specific self-perceptions and general self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology, 27, 552–65.
34.
WillisG. (1991). Phenomenological inquiry: Life-world perceptions. In ShortE. (Ed.), Forms of curriculum inquiry (pp. 173–186). Albany: State University of New York Press.
