Gifted and Nongifted Middle School Students: Are Their ... Files/GENTRY/GentryGableSprin… · sought to compare the perceptions of middle school students who ... Attitudes Toward

Gifted and Nongifted Middle SchoolStudents: Are Their Attitudes

Toward School Different as Measuredby the New Affective Instrument,

My Class Activities ... ?

Marcia Gentry, Robert K. Gable, & Penny Springer

This paper describes a study in which the attitudes of gifted middle schoolstudents were compared with other middle school students, using a surveyinstrument that measures the dimensions of interest, challenge, choice,and enjoyment-dimensions rooted deeply in gifted education and centralto learning. Although statistical differences were found between the twogroups, the effect size was so small that the findings were interpreted toindicate that gifted students viewed their class activities essentially thesame as the other students in this study. Each group reported their classactivities were only slightly more than "sometimes" interesting, challeng-ing, and enjoyable and that they were slightly more than "seldom " offeredchoices in their educational activities. These findings offer insight intohowgifted and other students view their class activities and have implica-tions forpractices that may affect motivation and learning for all students.

Statement of the Problem

Educators from the field of gifted education have long called forusing student interests as a basis for designing challenging learningexperiences for gifted and talented students. Further, they have sug-gested that learning should be student driven through the inclusionof meaningful choices, thereby creating an enjoyable environmentwhere the learner becomes autonomous and self-directed. In effortstoward general school improvement, it has been suggested fre-quently that these strategies from gifted education be extended togeneral education students as a means of creating engaged learners(Bloom, 1985; Goodlad, 1984; Hopfenberg & Levin, 1993; Renzulli,

Marcia Gentry is Associate Professor at Minnesota State University, Mankato.Robert K. Gable is Professor Emeritus at University of Connecticut, Storrs. PennySpringer is a graduate student in the Master of Arts in Teaching Program atMinnesota State University, Mankato.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted. Vol. 24, No. 1, 2000, pp. 74-96. Copyright©2000 The Association for the Gifted, Reston, VA 20191-1589.

74

My Class Activities ... Attitudes Toward School

1994; Renzulli & Reis, 1985; Slavin, 1984; Tomlinson & Callahan,1992; U.S. Department of Education, 1993; Williams, 1986). Further,it is often claimed that gifted students may be unchallenged or boredin their regular classrooms (e.g., Feldhusen & Kroll, 1991; Gallagher,1985; Kunkel, Chapa, Patterson, & Walling, 1992; Renzulli, 1994;Sisk, 1988; U.S. Department of Education, 1993); and it has beenreported that little differentiation of curriculum and instructionoccurs for gifted children in regular classrooms (e.g., Archambault etal., 1993, Reis et al., 1993). These issues raise questions concerninghow all students perceive their general education classrooms withregard to the dimensions of interest, challenge, choice, and enjoy-ment and whether there are differences between gifted students' per-ceptions and other students' perceptions of their regular classactivities on these dimensions. I

Recent research has indicated that there is little difference in whatoccurs in classrooms for gifted students and average students, yet thisresearch relies on self-report data from teachers (Archambault et al.,1993) and on direct observation of classroom practices (Westberg,Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993). Although the perspectives ofclassroom teachers are important, little has been reported that incor-porates reliable perceptions from students regarding their classroomexperiences. Clinkenbeard (1991) provided insights into how a smallsample of gifted students viewed their experiences in gifted classescompared to their experiences in regular classes by examining essaysthat students wrote on the subject. A major finding of this study wasthat gifted students seenied to believe that outside of the gifted pro-gram expectations of peers and teachers were unfair. This studysought to compare the perceptions of middle school students whowere identified as gifted and who received gifted education servicesfrom their schools with other students regarding the frequencies withwhich they were provided with the dimensions of interest, challenge,choice, and enjoyment in their regular education classrooms.

Review of the Literature

Characteristics of middle school students include negative changesin motivation, self-concept of ability, attitude toward,school, andacademic performance (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Eccles & Midgley,1989). Explanations for the negative changes include the psychologi-cal upheaval assumed to be associated with early adolescence (Blos,1962). In addition, the educational experiences in the classroom havebeen found to have significant effects on the magnitude and direction

75

Journal for the Education of the Gifted

of motivational changes (Feldlaufer, Midgley, & Eccles, 1989;Moore, 1983; Power, 1981). A comprehensive longitudinal studyfound evidence of motivational change based on how students' abil-ity beliefs and achievement values change as they transition fromelementary to middle school (Eccles, Wigfield, Midgley, et al., 1993).In the fall and spring of sixth grade and seventh grade, a group of2,500 students was studied. The study included a questionnaire tomeasure the self-concepts of ability and valuing of academics activ-ities, sports, and social activities. Specifically, the researchers foundthe students' general self-esteem was lowest in the fall of the sev-enth-grade year, during the transition period. Student self-efficacytheory is an important part of motivation (e.g., Bandura, 1977).Thus, a link between motivational declines and the middle schooltransition seems to be occurring (Blyth, Simmons, & Carlton-Ford,1983; Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Eccles, Midgley, & Adler, 1984;Simmons & Blyth, 1987). Student boredom is linked to negativemotivation. In a national educational longitudinal study,researchers surveyed 25,000 eighth graders and found that nearly50% claimed they were bored in school half or most of the time(Rothman, 1990). Considering the information about middle schoolstudents and motivation, it follows that changes need to occur inorder to boost motivation and learning. The enhancement of learn-ing is possible if schools provide challenging and interesting educa-tional experiences in which students are afforded choices in anenjoyable environment. In the sections that follow, the dimensionsof interest, challenge, choice, and enjoyment are discussed.

Interest

Addressing, creating, and holding student interests have long been aconcern of educators. More than a century ago, William James(1890) suggested that awakening and nurturing children's interestswere central to learning. Dewey (1913) promoted educators to dis-cover, develop, and build upon the abilities and interests of thechild. Educators from the field of gifted education have called forinterest to be central in determining a child's educational program(Gallagher, 1985; Maker, 1982; Parke, 1989; Passow, 1982; Renzulli,1978, 1994; Ward, 1980). However, as Good and Brophy (1987) sug-gested, all students, regardless of their achievement levels or back-ground, should have the opportunity to explore their interests.Researchers have found that middle school students often viewschool as uninteresting (Eccles et al., 1989). Hootstein (1994) sug-gested making learning relevant and interesting to middle school

76


students by relating to students' needs, interests, concerns, and expe-riences and by encouraging students to pursue their own interests.

A review of the literature documented positive results for studentsallowed to pursue their own interests in reading and classroom activ-ities. Specifically concerning reading, students who were allowed toselect reading material based on topic interest were found to have sig-nificantly higher comprehension than those students assigned read-ings (Asher, Hymel, &Wigfield, 1978; Bernstein, 1955). A study of 93fifth- and sixth-grade students in a public school in a small midwest-ern city tested the effect of interest on reading comprehension(Stevens, 1980). The students read paragraphs on topics previouslyidentified as high or low interest to them. The results were analyzedby ability level, gender, and interest level. Although the sample wassmall, interest was related to increased comprehension only for high-ability students.

With regard to interest and its relationship to classroom activities,middle school students responded to inquiry-based activities utiliz-ing topics and issues relevant to society and to early adolescents(Currier, 1986). Tassinari (1996) utilized inquiry-based projects andfound, as the students became more interested and motivated in theirwork, they also began to iake more responsibility for their learningand, therefore, learned more efficiently-clearly, a connection amongintrinsic motivation, interests, and learning. Further review of the lit-erature identified a study designed to compare high-interest and low-interest activities with regard to different indicators of studentcomprehension and, thereby, to reflect varying degrees of processingdepths (Schiefele, 1991). Schiefele found a moderate to strong rela-tionship between interest and learning strategies and concluded thatinterest is an important motivator for the use of learning strategiesthat facilitate deep processing. Other researchers have also docu-mented the connection between interest and intrinsic motivation(Deci &Ryan, 1985; Tobias, 1994).

Challenge

Challenge is often viewed as essential for optimal learning and qual-ity education (Bloom, 1985; Shore, Cornell, Robinson, & Ward, 1991;Vygotsky, 1962). The federal report National Excellence: A Case forDeveloping America's Talent (U.S. Department of Education, 1993)called for setting more challenging standards, including providingstudents more challenging opportunities to learn. These standardsare important because a lack of challenge leads to boredom in schoolfor both gifted and nongifted students (Feldhusen & Kroll, 1991).

77

8ournal for the Education of the Gifted

Boredom in school decreases motivation to learn and may lead tounderachievement. Work by Lev Vygotsky in the early 1920s and1930s suggested challenge as critical to good instruction, and thiswork has become increasingly popular in recent years. In his "Zoneof Proximal Development," Vygotsky (1987) stressed keepinginstruction paced just slightly ahead of the student's developmentin order to achieve maximum learning. More recently, learning the-orists have demonstrated that moderately difficult tasks are a pre-requisite for maximizing intellectual development, therebysupporting the call for more challenge in the classroom (Clifford,1990; Fischer, 1980; Paris & Turner, 1994). Malone and Lepper(1987) and Lepper and Hodell (1989) studied the incorporation ofchallenge, interest, and perceived control in classrooms by design-ing specific project-based tasks and learning activities. They con-cluded that the assignment of these tasks offered personal challenge,gave students a sense of control over the process or product, andtapped students' interests over time. Despite this information,recent research continues to find that challenge is absent in many ofAmerica's classrooms (Archambault et al., 1993; Goodlad, 1984;Reis et al., 1993; Westberg et al., 1993).

Choice

Providing students with choices is a powerful method to motivatethem and has often been recommended to enhance student learning(Bloom, 1985; Dewey, 1913, 1916; Gardner, 1991; Goodlad, 1984;Holt, 1983; Renzulli & Reis, 1985; Shore et al., 1991; Wang &Lindvall, 1984). Students, especially at the middle school level, viewchoices as support for their decision-making abilities. However, thisis true only when the choices are perceived as equal or structured insuch a way that the child's choice is guided by interest and not byan intent to minimize effort, protect feelings of self-worth, or avoidfailure (Ames, 1992; Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985). Offering middleschool students choices and autonomy as a means for increasingmotivation is evident in the adolescent literature (Ames, 1992; Deci& Ryan, 1985; Eccles & Midgley, 1989).

Turner and Meyer (1995) suggested that one of the most evidentcharacteristics of middle school students is their strong desire forindependence and to make decisions. As youths enter adolescence,there is a struggle for autonomy and freedom. Educators might con-sider using this need as a means of reaching students rather than asa problem to be controlled. However, middle school students onlyvalue choices they perceive to have significance, such as selecting

78

My Class Activities . .. Attitudes Toward School

units of study, topics for writing, resources for use, ways and meansfor showing, and methods for sharing what they have learned(Currier, 1986).

Choices are also important in developing grouping arrangements.With regard to grouping assignments, Rogers (1991), in her analysis ofgrouping, and Robinson (1991), in her review of research on coopera-tive learning, concluded that students seek choices regarding groupassignments and whether they work alone or with others. Allowingstudents choices also is a way of imparting responsibility and controlto them. Control appears to be a significant factor affecting studentengagement in learning and quality of learning (Ames, 1992).Autonomous behavior that is self-determined, freely chosen, and per-sonally controlled elicits high task interest, creativity, cognitive flex-ibility, positive emotion,!and persistence (Deci &Ryan, 1985). Thus,choice within educational activities offers students ownership andcontrol of their learning and may serve to enhance relevance,achievement, and belonging for middle school youth.

Enjoyment

Student enjoyment is also instrumental in the learning process(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Dewey, 1916; Renzulli, 1994; Schiefele,1991). Providing a learning situation that is both enjoyable and engag-ing for the student is essential for student involvement and learning.Renzulli proposed that learning is most effective when children enjoywhat they are doing and that creative, productive individuals performat optimal levels when they are doing what they enjoy. Carrier (1986)suggested that middle school students need to explore real issues thathave an impact on their.own world. She recommended that middleschool students be offered choice, inquiry, and a variety of high-inter-est learning activities that address individual differences among stu-dents, while facilitating, student learning by helping students plan,follow these plans, and self-evaluate. A comic book reading studywith middle school students identified the link between learning andenjoyment (Ujiie & Krashen, 1996). One conclusion of the authorswas that those students who read more comic books did more plea-sure reading, liked to read more, and tended to read more books.Another example of middle school student enjoyment wasTassinari's (1996) research on the use of projects with students. Hissocial study projects incorporated various skills, such as criticalthinking and cooperative learning. Middle school students enjoyedthese projects and were identified as thinking and working in a col-laborative, yet productive, learning environment. By incorporating

79

8oumal for the Education of the Gifted

strategies similar to those found in the literature, it is possible tocreate enjoyable learning environments that remain attractive tomiddle school students.

Middle School-Aged Learners

Roeser and Eccles (1998) demonstrated adolescents' school percep-tions to be significant predictors of student academic and psycho-logical adjustments at the end of eighth grade. The adolescentstudents, as Erikson (1968) described them, were proceedingthrough a period of "storm and stress." Many adolescents, whenentering middle school, perceive school as uninteresting and unim-portant (Eccles et al., 1989). Further, as suggested by the literature,changes in the learning environment that occur from elementaryschool to middle school may affect the changes in the academicmotivation, achievement, and behavior of students (Eccles,Wigfield, Midgley et al., 1993; Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995).The decline in motivation may lead to what Clifford (1990) termedschool abandonment. She stated that school abandonment is a sys-tematic failure affecting the most gifted and knowledgeable as wellas the disadvantaged and that it is threatening the social, cultural,moral, and psychological well-being of the country. Deci and Ryan(1985) suggested that providing opportunities for autonomy and par-ticipation in learning might have a positive influence on adolescentmotivation, behavior, and psychological well-being. Clearly, thedimensions of interest, challenge, choice, and enjoyment are impor-tant areas to consider when educating adolescents. Further, in edu-cation, there is emphasis placed on specific measurement ofelements of education.

Gifted Middle School Students, Differences?

It has long been asserted that gifted students are at risk of not havingtheir needs met in the regular classroom (e.g., Archambault et al.,1993, Gallagher, Harradine, & Coleman, 1997; Reis et al., 1993;Sisk, 1988; U.S. Department of Education, 1993; U.S. Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare, 1971; Ward, 1961). Consequently,special programs for gifted students have been implemented inmany schools across the country. Federal reports continue to chal-lenge educational standards (e.g., U.S. Department of Education,1983, 1993; U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,1971), and international comparisons continue to find America'sstudents near the bottom in science and math (Johnson, 1998;

80


Silver, 1998; U.S. Department of Education, 1993). One conclusionfrom all this is that gifted students are bored in the regular school set-ting; therefore, it would f6llow that they would report less challengethan their nonidentified peers. Given the issues of boredom and lackof challenge, one might also question whether gifted students findschool interesting or whether they perceive that they are providedchoices when compared to other students. As Stevens (1980) sug-gested, interest played a significant role in the reading comprehen-sion of high-ability students but not for other students. Theimplications are that gifted students may, in fact, learn more if theyare interested than if they are not interested in the task they aregiven. Again, looking toward student perceptions of their class activ-ities can provide valuable insights into these classrooms. Further,investigating differences in perceptions among students who areidentified as gifted and other students can help researchers to under-stand whether such differences are perceived by the students. Thelack of suitable instrumentation to date has made this type of com-parative study relatively uncommon. In other words, little in the lit-erature exists to either substantiate or discredit the notion that giftedstudents perceive differences in the levels of challenge, interest,choice, or enjoyment than other students in school. Conversely, sev-eral studies have documented through teacher report and observationthe existence of such differences (e.g., Archambault et al., 1993;Westberg et al., 1993).

Methods and Procedures

This study employed a group-administration survey research designthat was causal comparative. Identified gifted students were com-pared with other students who were not identified for any special pro-grams regarding their attitudes toward their class activities on thedependent variables of interest, challenge, choice, and enjoymentusing multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with discrimi-nant function analysis (DFA) follow-up procedures.

Sample

The researchers used the collaborative school districts with theNational Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT) atthe University of Connecticut. The advantages of using these schoolswere many: They volunteered to cooperate with the NRC/GT indata-gathering efforts; their demographics are on file; they exist in

81


every state; and they represent every form of school district, includ-ing rural, urban, and suburban. The sixth-grade through eighth-grade middle school sample included 35 classrooms (in subjectsincluding social sciences, language arts, science, math, art, andSpanish) from seven schools in five states from the northeastern,midwestern, and western United States. The sample for the presentstudy consisted of 787 students and was primarily Caucasian (n =695, 88%). Other groups represented were African Americans (n =31, 4 %) and Asian Americans (n = 49, 6% .

Those students who were identified for and received special pro-gramming in gifted education from their respective districts werecompared with other students who were not identified and who didnot receive any sort of special services. Consequently, any studentsfrom the sample schools who received special education, compen-satory education, or other remedial services were eliminated fromthe present data set to facilitate comparison of identified gifted stu-dents with their regular education counterparts. This was done toeliminate the possibility of differences due to comparing studentsfrom opposite ends of the continuum of special services (i.e., giftedstudents with those who were receiving remedial services). Of the787 students in the sample, 114 students were identified as giftedand 673 were nonidentified, other students. In grade 6, there were 25gifted and 186 other students; in grade 7, there were 46 gifted and342 other students; in grade 8, there were 43 gifted students and 145other students. It should be noted that the definitions used by eachdistrict to identify and service gifted students were used to form theidentified gifted group for this research. Although there was somevariability among the districts, all used some standardized achieve-ment testing together with teacher, parent, and student self-identi-fication measures for inclusion in their respective gifted programs.The types of gifted programs in these districts ranged from weeklypull-out programs to daily special classes. Although this variabilityin identification and programming methods is a weakness of thestudy, it is also representative of the variability that exists acrossthe country in these areas. In all, about 14% of the middle schoolstudents in this sample had been identified as gifted and werereceiving gifted education services from their respective districts.

Instrumentation

The instrument used to measure student attitudes in this study, MyClass Activities... (Gentry, Gable, & Rezendes, 1999; Gentry,Maxfield, & Gable, 1998; Gentry, Rizza, & Gable, in press), has

82


undergone extensive validity and reliability study. The dimensionsmeasured by this instrument were operationally defined by the devel-opers during a pilot study as follows:

* Interest reflects positive feelings, a preference for certaintopics, subject areas, or activities.

* Challenge engages the student and requires extra effort.* Choice gives the student the right or power to select educa-

tional options and direct his or her own learning.* Enjoyment provides the student with pleasure and satisfac-

tion (Gentry et al., 1998).Initially, content validity was investigated using a panel of 16 con-

tent experts, including teachers, program coordinators, universityprofessors, and graduate students, who reviewed the pilot instrumentand provided judgmental data concerning item-to-dimension place-ment (Gentry et al., 1998). Specifically, for use with middle schoolstudents, construct validity and reliability were investigated usingconfirmatory factor analysis, item response theory, latent trait analy-sis, and alpha internal consistency reliability estimation (Gentry etal., 1999). The authors reported a Tucker-Lewis goodness-of-fit indexof .88 and mean root square residual of .09 and suggested that theconstruct validity of the four-dimension solution was supported bythe data. Further, an examination of construct validity through itemresponse theory suggested that the definitions of each dimension hadadequate depth and that the five-point response format operatedeffectively. For the grade 6-8 sample in the validity study, alpha reli-ability estimates for the four dimensions ranged from .75 to .92,which are considered quite good for this type of an affective measure(Gable & Wolf, 1993). For the present study, we checked the alphareliability estimates of the data for each dimension and found themto be consistent with those previously reported with interest (.89),challenge, (.76), choice (.73 ), and enjoyment (.92).

Data-Collection Procedures

The My Class Activities... instrument contains 31 items respondedto on a five-point frequency scale (never, seldom, sometimes, often,always). Data for the present study were gathered during the1996-1997 and 1997-1998 school years. Surveys were administeredin school to the 35 classrooms by contact persons from each district.Contact persons were used for two reasons. First, to help ensure uni-formity in the administration of the instrument, each contact personfollowed the same set of directions and administered the instrumentin school to a classroom of students, resulting in a 100% return rate

83


for all students present during the administration. Second, by usingcontact persons who informed students that their teachers wouldnot see their responses, students were more likely to answer hon-estly than if the instrument had been administered by their teach-ers, although we have no assurance that they did, in fact, answermore honestly. Student demographics were collected from class-room teachers and included sex, ethnicity, special programming,and achievement levels.

Results and Discussion

Identified Gifted Versus Nonidentified Other Students

The data from the four My Class Activities... dimensions were com-pared for students participating in gifted programs and other stu-dents who received no special program services.

A MANOVA was run to determine if the identified gifted stu-dents differed in their responses from the nonidentified other stu-dents. Overall, the Wilks's Lambda (.985) for the MANOVAindicated that the groups differed on the four My Class Activities...means (F = 3.02; df = 4,781, p = .017). However, the significant dif-ference is mostly driven by the large sample size for the students notin the gifted programs. In fact, the R value of .015 (1 - Wilks'sLambda; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989) does not approach even thesmall effect size (Cohen, 1988). We conclude that the identifiedgifted and nonidentified other students had essentially similar viewstoward class activities and that it was not necessary to follow up theMANOVA with the DFA procedure. Table I contains the means foreach group for the four respective dimensions; and, although themeans are essentially the same, as discussed above, the largest dif-ference existed on the dimension of Choice, with the gifted studentsreporting less choice (by about one standard deviation) than theirnongifted peers.

Discussion

This study compared the attitudes of students identified for giftededucation services with those of other students who were not iden-tified for such services. While a slight difference did exist, this dif-ference was primarily due to a large sample size-meaning that, ineffect, gifted students' attitudes toward school were essentially thesame at the other students' attitudes. In light of the literature that

84


Table 1

My Class Activities... Dimension Means and Standard Deviationsfor Identified Gifted Students and Nonidentified/Other Students

Program Status

Dimension Identified gifted Nonidentified/other

Mean sd Mean sd

Interest 3.32 .59 3.20 .75Challenge 3.38 .60 3.35 .63Choice 2.28 .63 2.85 .68Enjoyment 3.29 .73 3.34 .92

suggests gifted students are often bored in regular classrooms andClinkenbeard's (1991) findings that gifted students perceived unfairexpectations from their regular education teachers, these findings aresomewhat surprising. However, examination of the mean scores forinterest, enjoyment, challenge, and choice (see Table 1) providessome disturbing insights regarding how all middle school students inthis sample viewed their classroom activities. Both groups foundtheir classrooms sometimes enjoyable, challenging, and interesting.Yet, regarding choice, the gifted students' mean score indicated thatthey were seldom given choices, and the mean score of the other stu-dents indicated that choice was offered somewhere between seldomand sometimes. These findings are consistent with the findings ofArchambault et al. (1993), Westberg et al. (1993), and Goodlad (1984),who all reported a lack of challenge, few instructional strategies, andlittle engagement of students with curriculum in the classrooms theystudied. Goodlad presented a picture of total group instruction, withthe teacher as the central figure determining both the activities andtone of the classroom. He found a narrow range of classroom activi-ties that included listening to the teacher, writing answers, workingat desks, and taking tests and quizzes. He stated:

Only rarely did we find evidence to suggest instruction likely togo much beyond mere possession of information to a level ofunderstanding its implications and either applying it or explor-ing its possible applications. Nor did we see activities likely toarouse students' curiosity or to involve them in seeking solu-

85


tions to some problem not already laid bare by teacher or text-book. (p. 236)

Given the recent national attention focused on improvingschools, one might hope, 15 years later, that students would findtheir classrooms often interesting, challenging, and enjoyable andthat they would be offered choices often, as well. Unfortunately,students in this study indicated otherwise.

We might have expected a difference in attitudes between thegifted students and others based on the literature that reveals a lackof challenge and boredom for gifted students in school. However, itappears that these students have the same views toward their class-room experiences on the dimensions of challenge, choice, interest,and enjoyment as do other students. As the teachers in theArchambault et al. (1993) study reported and the observations in theWestberg et al. (1993) study indicated, few differences in curriculumand instruction exist for gifted students in the regular classroom,and most students spend the majority of their day doing the samethings. Therefore what this study has done is confirm that studentsfind their classrooms only sometimes interesting, enjoyable, chal-lenging, and seldom offering choices. The attitudes of these twogroups of students, although similar, provide evidence regarding thecontinued need for improved instructional and curricular strategiesand improved learning climates that students will find more engag-ing and, thus, motivating. Perhaps an increase in the frequencieswith which students are provided choices and challenges in schoolas well as an increase in activities in the classroom that studentsfind interesting and enjoyable might lead to increases in studentmotivation and achievement.

Integrating Interest in the Classroom

There are several steps that classroom teachers could take thatmight address the dimension of interest in their classrooms. First,teachers might consider, as suggested by Renzulli (1994), determin-ing existing areas of student interests by administering an interestassessment. This information could then be used in helping stu-dents choose areas in which to work as well as the basis for inde-pendent studies or investigations. Once known, student interestscould also be used in the general curriculum as appropriate, thusproviding a more personal and connected approach to curriculum.Developing student interests by exposing them to ongoing topicsand areas not traditionally addressed in curriculum could also serveas a method for addressing the idea of interest in the classroom.

86


Finally, teachers might examine their own strengths and interests asa basis from which to draw to be interesting in their instructionalpedagogy-similar to the ideas of artistic modification suggested byRenzulli (1988) or appeal to the imagination suggested by Phenix(1964). As previously discussed, interest is central to motivation andlearning-especially for the middle school learner. Making deliberateefforts to discover, develop, and connect to student interests couldhave positive effects on student attitudes, engagement, and learning.

Ensuring Appropriate Levels of Challenge

Raising the frequency and levels of challenge in the classroom isanother area that middle school teachers might want to consider. Themethods and processes by which challenge can be delivered in schoolsinclude presenting high-level content, using advanced thinking skills,using advanced and authentic methodologies, developing products orservices for audiences, and compacting curriculum (Bloom, 1985; Reiset al., 1993: Renzulli, 1994; Schlichter, 1986; Treffinger, 1986; U.S.Department of Education, 1993). Using flexible grouping to deliver dif-ferentiated curriculum and offering the opportunity for acceleratedlearning are additional means for providing students with appropriatechallenges in learning (Gentry & Owen, 1999; Rogers, 1991). Becausesuccess has been tied to challenge and optimal learning has beenshown to occur when tasks are challenging (Clifford, 1990; Fischer,1980; Paris & Turner, 1994), high expectations and conscious efforts toprovide challenges to students more often than their perceived "some-times" are important considerations. As Crockett (1994) suggested,adolescents are motivated to learn when tasks are developmentallyappropriate, relevant to their lives, and sufficiently challenging.

Providing Choices That Motivate

Providing students with choices is probably the simplest modificationthat teachers can make to increase motivation and learning, and thismodification is especially important for middle school students. Giventhe perceptions of the students in this study and the connection ofchoice to motivation in the adolescent literature (e.g., Ames, 1992; Deci& Ryan, 1985; Eccles & Midgley, 1989), serious consideration should begiven to providing middle school students with more meaningfulchoices (Currier, 1986). Rather than giving the assignment with explicitexpectations for its completion, which encourages following directionsand compliance, teachers might want to consider giving several choicesfor demonstrating mastery of curriculum. Included in these choices

87


might be an "other" that is left to the student to suggest. For example,rather than assigning an oral book report, students might be providedwith options to produce a commercial, write a critique, develop a dis-cussion group, create a PowerPoint presentation, or design an interac-tive web page conceming the book. Further, if none of these options isattractive to the students, then they could suggest an original idea fora product or performance. In this manner, involvement, interest, own-ership, quality, and creativity are likely to be stimulated (Deci & Ryan,1985). Tumer and Meyer (1995) suggested that teachers take advantageof the adolescent's desire for independence and decision making andallow them the option of self-evaluation as a means for increasing per-formance and motivation. Choice of types of assessments, group mem-bers (or not), order of curriculum, specific content, audiences, andrelevant homework are other not-so-difficult-to-integrate types ofchoices that can be offered to students.

Making the Classroom Enjoyable

Finally, concerning the dimension of enjoyment, there are severalsuggestions for making the classroom a more enjoyable place. Byattending to student interests and offering choices, perceptions ofenjoyment are likely to increase. Even the increase in challengemight positively affect enjoyment since students often derive satis-faction from appropriate challenge and learning (Malone & Lepper,1987). Use of projects and collaboration has been shown to increaseenjoyment among students (Slavin, 1996; Tassinari, 1996).Therefore, teachers might want to consider building projects intothe curriculum as well as opportunities for group work in which allmembers have roles that suit their strengths (Renzulli, 1994).Pollak and Freda (1997) suggested that humor is related to buildingstudent empowerment, creative thinking, self-esteem, and social-ization at the middle school level. Therefore, one should not over-look the explicit use of humor on a regular basis to infuseenjoyment in the classroom. Through encouraging laughter,humor, and positive energy, the classroom environment can be anenjoyable learning place for both students and their teachers.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

We recognize several limitations that affect this study. Amongthem is the issue of which students were identified as gifted bytheir districts, the variation in this process among the schools in

88


the sample, and the probability that there were unidentified giftedstudents in the group to which the gifted students were compared.The existence of gifted students in the "other" group may have con-tributed to the lack of practically important differences between thegroups. Error exists in the instrumentation, and this too may havecontributed to the lack of differences between the groups. The defi-nitions of the dimensions cannot capture the complete essence ofeach dimension, and the results and recommendations need to beinterpreted with consideration to the dimensions as defined in thescope of the instrumentation. Obviously, there is much more toChallenge or Enjoyment than could be simply measured by oneinstrument. Further, the My Class Activities... instrument onlymeasures four of many important affective dimensions; and furtherinsights into student perceptions are warranted in follow-up inves-tigations. Qualitative interviews with a sample of students in futureresearch might yield significant and complimentary understandingto these quantitative findings. This study was limited to the atti-tudes of gifted and other students toward their regular classroomactivities. Further research that takes into account other kinds oflearning environments, such as gifted programs or deliberately dif-ferentiated classroom environments, would provide valuable infor-mation. Looking to student perceptions of their class activities canprovide insight into classrooms from the students' points of view.Unfortunately, little such research exists, especially that examineshow gifted students compare with other groups. Such informationcan then help teachers reflect on their practices and researchers bet-ter understand classrooms as students experience them.

References

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motiva-tion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling inthe middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287-309.

Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K., Brown, S. B., Hallmark, B. W.,Emmons, C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practiceswith gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroomteachers. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted andTalented.

Asher, S., Hymel, S., & Wigfield, S. (1978). Influence of topic intereston children's reading comprehension. Journal of ReadingBehavior, 10, 35-48.

89


Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behav-ioral change. Psychology Review, 84, 191-215.

Bernstein, M. (1955). Relationship between interest and readingcomprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 49, 283-288.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. NewYork: Ballantine Books.

Blos, P. (1962). On adolescence: A psychoanalytic interpretation.New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

Blyth, D. A., Simmons, R. G., & Carlton-Ford, S. (1983). The adjust-ment of early adolescents to school transitions. Journal of EarlyAdolescence, 3, 105-120.

Clifford, M. (1990). Students need challenge, not easy success.Educational Leadership, 48, 22-26.

Clinkenbeard, P. K. (1991). Unfair expectations: A pilot study ofmiddle school students' comparisons of gifted and regular classes.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 56-63.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-ences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crockett, M. (1994). Restructuring schools for early adolescentlearners. NASSP-Bulletin, 78, 70-78.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Literacy and intrinsic motivation.Daedalus, 119, 115-140.

Currier, L. (1986). A declaration of independence: A reed for middleschool educators. Middle School Journal, 17(2), 4-6.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. New York:Houghton Mifflin.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The FreePress.

Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit:Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. InC. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education:Vol. 3, Goals and cognition (pp. 13-44). New York: Academic.

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., & Adler, T. (1984). Grade-related changesin the school environment: Effects on achievement motivation.In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.), The development of achievement motiva-tion (pp. 283-331). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchannan, C. M., Reuman,D., Flannagan, C., & Maclver, D. (1993). Development duringadolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on adolescents'experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48,90-101.

90


Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Flanagan, C. A., Miller, C., Reuman, D. A.,& Yee, D. (1989). Self-concepts, domain values, and self-esteem:Relations and changes at early adolescence. Journal of Personality,57, 283-310.

Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Midgley, C., Reuman, D., McIver, D., &Feldlaufer, H. (1993). Negative effects of traditional middle schoolson students' motivation. Elementary School journal, 93, 553-574.

Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Student/teacher

relations and attitudes toward mathematics before and after thetransition to junior high school. Child Development 60,981-982.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Kroll, M. D. (1991). Boredom or challenge for theacademically talented in school. Gifted Education International,7, 80-81.

Fischer, K. W. (1980). Learning as the development of organizedbehavior. Journal of Structured Learning, 3, 253-267.

Gable, R. K., & Wolf, M. B. (1993). Instrument development in theaffective domain. Boston: Kluwer.

Gallagher, J. J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child (3rd ed.). Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Gallagher, J., Harradine, C. C., & Coleman, M. R. (1997). Challengedor bored? Gifted students' views on their schooling. RoeperReview, 19, 132-136. .

Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think andhow schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.

Gentry, M. L., Gable, R. K., & Rezendes, G. (1999, April). Assessingmiddle school students' perceptions of classroom activities:Rationale and instrumentation. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association,Montreal, Canada.

Gentry, M. L., Maxfield, L. R., & Gable, R. K. (1998). Construct valid-ity evidence for enrichment clusters and regular classrooms: Arethey different as students see them? Educational andPsychological Measurement, 58, 258-274.

Gentry, M. L., & Owen, S. V. (1999). An investigation of total schoolflexible cluster grouping on identification, achievement, and class-room practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 224-243.

Gentry, M. L., Rizza, M. G., & Gable, R. K. (in press). Gifted students'perceptions of their class activities: Differences among rural, urban,and suburban student attitudes. Gifted Child Quarterly.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1987). Looking in classrooms (4th ed.).New York: Harper & Row.

91

Joumal for the Education of the Gifted

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGrawHill.

Holt, J. (1983). Escape from childhood. In J. W. Noll (Ed.), Takingsides: Clashing views on controversial educational issues (2nded., pp. 40-44). Guilford, CT: Dushkin Publishing Group.

Hootstein, E. W. (1994, May). Motivating middle school students.Middle School journal, 31-35.

Hopfenberg, W. S., & Levin, H. A. (1993). The accelerated schoolsresource guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. London: MacMillan.Johnson, E. G. (1998). Linking the National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP) and the Third International Mathematics andScience Study (TIMSS): A technical report. Washington, DC:National Center for Education Statistics, Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

Kunkel, M. A., Chapa, B., Patterson, G., & Walling, D. D. (1992).Experience of giftedness: "Eight great gripes" six years later.Roeper Review, 15, 10-14.

Lepper, M. R., & Hodell, M. (1989). Intrinsic motivation in the class-room. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation ineducation (Vol. 3, pp. 73-105). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Austin,TX: PRO-ED.

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A tax-onomy of intrinsic motivation for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J.Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction (Vol. 3, pp.223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences betweenelementary and middle school teachers and students: A goal the-ory approach. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 90-113.

Moore, D. W. (1983, April). Impact of school grade-organizationpatterns on seventh- and eighth-grade students in K-8 and juniorhigh school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NewEngland Research Association, Rockport, ME.

Paris, S. G., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Situated motivation. In P. R.Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C. E. Weinstein (Eds.), Student motiva-tion, cognition, and learning: Essays in honor of Wilbert J.McKeachie (pp. 213-237). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Parke, B. (1989). Gifted students in regular classrooms. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.

Passow, A. H. (1982). Differentiated curricula for the gifted/tal-ented. Ventura, CA: Leadership Training Institute on the Giftedand Talented.

92


Phenix, P. H. (1964). Realms of meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Pollak, J.; & Freda, P. (1997). Humor, learning and socialization in

middle level classrooms. The Clearinghouse, 70, 176-178.Power, C. (1981). Changes in students' attitudes toward science in

the transition between Australian elementary and secondaryschools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 33-39.

Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F., H6bert, T.,Plucker, J., Purcell, J. H., Rogers, J. B., & Smist, J. M. (1993). Whynot let high-ability students start school in January? The curricu-lum compacting study. Storrs, CT: National Research Center onthe Gifted and Talented.

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a defini-tion. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184, 261.

Renzulli, J. S. (1988). The multiple menu model for developing differ-entiated curriculum and instruction for the gifted and talented.Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 298-309.

Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A comprehen-sive plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT:Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichmentmodel: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence.Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Robinson, A. (1991). Cooperative learning and the academically tal-ented student. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Giftedand Talented.

Roeser, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Adolescents' perceptions of mid-dle school: Relation to longitudinal changes in academic and psy-chological adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 81,123-158.

Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to theeducation of the gifted and talented learner. Storrs, CT: NationalResearch Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Rothman, R. (1990, November 7). Educators focus attention on waysto boost student motivation. Education Week, 11-17.

Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Deci, E. L. (1985). A motivationalanalysis of self-determination and self-regulation in education. InC. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education(Vol. 2, pp. 13-51). San'Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Schiefele, U. (1991). Interests, learning, and motivation. EducationalPsychologist, 26, 299-323.

Schlichter, C. (1986). Talents unlimited: Applying the multiple tal-ent approach to mainstream and gifted programs. In J. S. Renzulli(Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted

93


and talented (pp. 352-390). Mansfield Center, CT: CreativeLearning Press.

Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S. (1991).Recommended practices in gifted education. New York:Teachers College Press.

Silver, E. A. (1998). Improving mathematics in middle school:Lessons from TIMSS and related research. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office

Simmons, R. G., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving into adolescence.Hawthorne, NY: de Gruyter.

Sisk, D. (1988). The bored and disinterested gifted child: Goingthrough school lockstep. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,11, 5-14.

Slavin, R. E. (1984). Team-assisted individualization. In M. C. Wang& H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Adapting instruction to individual differ-ences (pp. 236-253). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Cooperative learning in middle and secondaryschools. The Clearing House, 69, 200-204.

Stevens, K. (1980). The effect of topic interest on reading compre-hension of higher ability students. Journal of EducationalResearch, 73, 365-368.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statis-tics. New York: HarperCollins.

Tassinari, M. (1996). Hands-on projects take students beyond thebook. Social Studies Review, 34, 16-20.

Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review ofEducational Research, 64, 37-54.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1992). Contributions of giftededucation to general education in a time of change. Gifted ChildQuarterly, 36, 183-189.

Treffinger, D. (1986). Fostering effective independent learning throughindividualized programming. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems andmodels for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp.429-460). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Turner, J., & Meyer, D. (1995). Motivating students to learn:Lessons from a fifth-grade math class. Middle School Journal, 27,18-25.

Ujiie, J., & Krashen, S. (1996). Comic book reading, reading enjoy-ment, pleasure reading among middle class and Chapter 1 middleschool students. Reading Improvement, 33, 51-54.

U. S. Department of Education, National Commission onExcellence. (1983). A nation at risk: An imperative for educa-tional reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office

94


U. S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A casefor developing America's talent. Washington, DC: Office ofEducational Research and Improvement, U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (1971).Education of the gifted and talented. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA:Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S.Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Volume1-Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum Press.

Wang, M. C., & Lindvall, C. M. (1984). Individual differences inschool learning environments: Theory, research and design. In E.W. Gordon (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 11, pp.161-225). Washington, DC: American Educational ResearchAssociation.

Ward, V. (1961). Educating the gifted: An axiomatic approach.Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Ward, V. (1980). Differential education for the gifted. Ventura, CA:Ventura Superintendent of Schools Office.

Westberg, K. L., Archambault, P. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin T. J.(1993). An observational study of instructional and curricularpractices used with gifted and talented students in regular class-rooms. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Giftedand Talented.

Williams, F. (1986). The cognitive-affective interaction model forenriching gifted programs. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and mod-els for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp.461-484). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Author Notes

1. The work reported herein was supported under the JavitsAct program (Grant #R206r50001) as administered by theOffice of Research and Improvement, U.S. Department ofEducation. The findings and opinions expressed in this arti-cle do not reflect the positions of the Office of Research andImprovement or the U.S. Department of Education.

2. Additional support for this research was provided by aMinnesota State University Faculty Research Grant.

95

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Gifted and nongifted middle school students: are theirattitudes toward school different as measured by the newaffective instrument, My class activities--?

SOURCE: Journal for the Education of the Gifted 24 no1 Fall2000

WN: 0028905876003

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.prufrock.com/.

Copyright 1982-2002 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.

Documents

Gifted and Nongifted Middle School Students: Are Their ... Files/GENTRY/GentryGableSprin… · sought to compare the perceptions of middle school students who ... Attitudes Toward