My Class Activities (MCA) is an instrument that has been used for evaluation of university-based Saturday enrichment programs, but was originally normed using students in regular schools. A sample of MCA scores from 826 students in grades 3-8 from a Saturday enrichment program was used. Four different MCA models were evaluated: (a) the original MCA model containing interest, challenge, choice, and enjoyment; (b) a model including a second-order term connecting enjoyment and interest; (c) a three-factor model containing a combination of interest and enjoyment, challenge, and choice; and (d) the original MCA model after two items were removed. Results indicated that the original MCA four-factor structure provided a better fit when used with the Saturday enrichment sample than did the second-order and the three first-order factor models. However, the best solution regarding model fit was found using the original model, but with the removal of two poorly functioning items. This study highlighted the importance of evaluating an instrument whenever used with a different population than that on which it was originally normed. With two items deleted from the challenge scale, MCA is a potential tool for use in enrichment program evaluation that provides measures of four motivational dimensions often emphasized in programs for high-ability students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderJ. M.SchnickA. K. (2008). Motivation. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 423–447). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
2.
BangelN. J.EnersenD.CapobiancoB.MoonS. M. (2006). Professional development of preservice teachers: Teaching in the Super Saturday program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 339–363.
3.
BloomB. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine.
4.
BrownT. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
5.
CallahanC. M. (2001). Fourth down and inches. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12, 148–156.
FeldhusenJ.HansenJ. (1987). Selecting and training teachers to work with the gifted in a Saturday program. Gifted International, 4, 82–94.
12.
FeldhusenJ.HansenJ. (1988). Teachers of the gifted: Preparation and supervision. Gifted Education International, 5, 84–89.
13.
FeldhusenJ. F.WymanA. R. (1980). Super Saturday: Design and implementation of Purdue's special program for gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24, 15–21.
14.
FengA. X.VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2004). Collecting student impact data in gifted programs: Problems and processes. In VanTassel-BaskaJ.FengA. X. (Eds.), Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement (pp. 133–153). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
15.
FinneyS. J.DiStefanoC. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269–314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
16.
GableR. K.WolfM. B. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
17.
GallagherJ. (2006). How to shoot oneself in the foot with program evaluation. Roeper Review, 28, 122–124.
18.
GentryM. (2006). No child left behind: Neglecting excellence. Roeper Review, 29, 24–27.
19.
GentryM.GableR. K. (2001a). My Class Activities: A survey instrument to assess students' perceptions of interest, challenge, choice and enjoyment in their classrooms. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
20.
GentryM.GableR. K. (2001b). From the students' perspective My Class Activities: An instrument for use in research and evaluation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 322–343.
21.
GentryM.GableR. K.RizzaM. G. (2002). Students' perceptions of classrooms activities: Are there grade level and gender differences?Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 539–544.
22.
GentryM.GableR. K.SpringerP. (2000). Gifted and non-gifted middle school students: Are their attitudes toward school different as measured by the new affective instrument, My Class Activities?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 74–96.
23.
GentryM.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.
24.
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.
25.
Gifted Education Resource Institute. (2007a). Student Assessment Form. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Gifted Education Resource Institute.
Gifted Education Resource Institute. (n.d.). Parent program evaluation form. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Gifted Education Resource Institute.
28.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
29.
JamesW. (1890). The principles of psychology. London, England: MacMillan.
30.
Joint Committee on Testing Practices. (2005). Code of fair testing practices in education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
31.
McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2008). Underachievers. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 721–734). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
32.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2007). Mplus user's guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
33.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2000). Pre-K-grade 12 gifted program standards. Washington, DC: Author.
34.
Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2003). Special summer and Saturday programs for gifted students. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 219–228). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
35.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.GrantB. (1996). Academically talented women and mathematics: The role of special programs and support from others on acceleration, achievement, and aspirations. In ArnoldK.NobleK. D.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), Remarkable women (pp. 281–294). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
36.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.LeeS. (2004). Parent perceptions of the effects of the Saturday enrichment program on gifted students' talent development. Roeper Review, 26, 156–165.
37.
PetersS. J.GatesJ. C. (2009, August). Teacher Observation Form—Revised. Paper presented at the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children Conference, Vancouver, BC.
38.
ReisS. M. (2007). No child left bored. School Administrator, 64, 22–26.
39.
RenzulliJ. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A comprehensive plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
40.
RobinsonN. M. (2006). NAGC symposium: A report card on the state of research in the field of gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 342–345.
41.
RobinsonA.ShoreB. M.EnersenD. L. (2007). Best practices in gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
42.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
43.
ThompsonB. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
44.
TomlinsonC. A.EdisonC. C. (2003). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
45.
U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Government Printing Office.
46.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2004). The process in gifted program evaluation. In VanTassel-BaskaJ.FengA. X. (Eds.), Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement (pp. 23–39). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
47.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2006). NAGC symposium: A report card on the state of research in the field of gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 339–341.
48.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.FengA. X. (Eds.). (2004). Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
49.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
