‘Table 4.23 Percent of Teachers With Gifted Students Who Are Not Formally Identified fend Poche Public Private African-_Native- Hispanic- _Asian- Category Schools Schools Amencan Amencan Amencan American n=209 on=351 ne 22 e276 e252 n= Teachers with Gifted Students not Formally Identified 485 598 459 493 49.6 37.8 ‘Teachers with Neither Formally nor Informally Identified Gifted Students 451 -2%6 50.4 43.1 44.4 46.3 Don't Know 3.8 37 08 62 44 49 No Response 2.6 68 29 14 16 10 Total 100.0 999 100.0 1000 100.0 100.0 Note: Totals do not equal 100.0% due to rounding errors. Special Needs Gifted ‘Teachers were also asked whether they had special needs students in their classrooms who were either formally identified as gifted or gifted, but not formally identified, Table 4.24 provides data on the percentage of teachers with special needs students fommlly identified as gifted: Table 4.25 reponsthe percentage of teachers with needs students who are gifted, but have not been formally identified. Inboth cases ‘were more limited English proficient, gifted students than any of the other needs calegones, perhaps because thore were more limited English proficient st within the classes. Interestingly, however, more teachers in all of the samples said they had limiwed English proficient gifted students who were not formally identified than teachers who had formally identified limited English proficient gifted students. 83o Table 4.24 Percent of Teachers With Special Needs Studenis Formally identified as Gifted “Special Populat Public Private African-Native- Hispanic- —Asian- Special Needs Schools Schools American American American American p20 ona35) one 242 e276 n= 2821 = 286 Limited English Proficiency 8.1 3.8 8.6 12.7 13.5 10.8 Visually Impaired 29 M7 29 29 3.2 14 Hearing Impaired 0.6 0.9 12 67 1.6 24 Physically Handicapped 0.1 0.0 0.4 00 00 0.7 Other Health Impairment 0.6 09 0.4 07 2.4 0.3 Total 12.3 73 13.5, 23.0 20.7 15.6 Table 4.25 Percent of Teachers With Gifted Special Needs Students Not Formally Identified Special Populations Public Private Aftican- _Native- Hispanic- Asian- Special Needs Schools Schools American American Amencan Amencan n= 204 n=351 n=242 one 2TH n= 282 n= 286 Limited English Proficiency 7159108238. 24.2 13S Visually Impaired 19 55 7 49 2.0 03 Hearing Impaired 0.5 23 0.8 LL 0.8 0.7 Physically Handicapped 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 (Other Health Impairment 0.5 17 04 04 16 0.3 Total 148 26.0 14.1 30.1 28.6 14.8 84a Tables 4.26 and 4.27 provide breakdowns of the percentage of teachers with formally idemtified gifted students and teachers with students who were gifled but not formally identified by ethnic group. Paralleling class enrollments, more teachers had formally identified Caucasian-American students than any other ethnic group for 5 of the 6 samples (see Table 4.26). Larger percentages of teachers in the special population samples reported having formally identified gifted for the target minority than for any of the other minority groups, as enrollment would predict. Teachers in Asian-American schools, where ‘Asia Auciivan students oulumbered Caucasian-Ametican students, reported a higher percentage of gifted Asian-American than Caucasian-American students. Smaller percentages of teachers reported formally identified gifted students in non-target minority groups. ‘Table 4.27 suggests that for the public and private samples, there are more classrooms with unidentified Caucasian-American gifted students than any other ethnic group. However, in special population schools where ethnic minorities exist in greater numbers, there are a large number of classrooms with unidentified gifted minority students. In fact, the percentage of classrooms with unidentified target minority students exceeds the percentage of classrooms with unidentified Caucasian students for all special population samples except African-Americans. This difference is parucularly large tor Hispanic- Americans. Table 4.26 ‘Teachers With Formally Identified Students by Ethnic Group ‘Special Populations Public Private. African Native. Hispanic. Asian- Ethnic Group Schools Schools American American American American n= 206) n=351 0 n=242 one 26 n=? = 286 African-American 67 24 23.9 26 18 9.3 Asian-American 5.3 09 41 0.7 8.4 52.4 Hispanic-American 47 03 18 22 246 5.8 Native-American 16 0.6 20 218 2.0 3.0 Caucasian-American 46.7 143 39.6 30.5 32.5385 Other Ethnicity igh 03 og 18 16 49 ‘Note: The numbers represent the percent of teachers who had formaliy identified gifted students in the various ethnic groups.2 Table 4.27 ‘Teachers With Students in Various Ethnic Groups Perceived to be Gifted but Not Fooally Identified Same Public Private African-Native- Hlispanic- Asian- Ethnic Group School School American American American American n=2049 n=351 0 n= 22 n= 276 ne 252 286 African-American 69 80 219 44 5.6 63 Asian-American 5.3 WW 25 0.4 8.4 24.8 Hispanic-American 5.5 45 57 77° (289 5.2 ‘Native: American 17 7 25 26.1 24 0.0 Caucasian-American 36.0 43.0 24.0 24.6 17.0 19.2 Other Ethnicity 1.0 1.4 12 0.7 12 2.8 Note: The numbers represent the percent of teachers who had students they perceived to be gifted but were not formally identified.CHAPTER 5: Classroom Practices This chapter presents the results of the classroom practices portion of the survey. ‘We begin by describing teacher responses to the 39 questionnaire items and their scores on the six factors empirically derived from them. We then present the results of significance tests comparing factor scores for average and gifted students for each of the six samples (ce., Public School, Private School, African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian- ‘American and Native American). Analyses for the public school sample include Comparisons for regions of the country and type of community. Private school and ethnic- minority samples do not support analyses by region and community type. Descriptive Results fur Classroom Practices Items Public Schuul Sample ‘Table 5.1 summarizes the responses of public school teachers with formally identified gifted students in their classrooms to the 39 classroom practices items. Included for each item are means and standard deviations for gifted and average students, mean differences found by dividing the difference between gifted and average scores by the sample size, and effect sizes found using procedures described by Cohen (1988). Item means for gifted students ranged from .56 for Item 30, "Send students to a higher grade level for specific subject area instruction," to 4.64 for Item 38, "Encourage student participation in discussions.” Given the response scale, these scores imply that sending gifted students to a higher grade level for instruction occurred on average appreciably less than once a month while encouraging gifted students wo participate in discussions occurred more than once a day. Means for average students on these same. items indicate that moving to a higher grade is also a rare event for average students (X=.33) and that teachers cncourage avcrage students to participate in discussions about as frequently (X=4.62) as they do gifted students. Regarding within-class differences .2tween gifted and average students, an inspection of the next o last column of Table 5.1 reveals that for a number of items, such as Item 16, "Modify the instructional format for students who lea better using an altemative approach,” the mean difference was at or near zero. For other items, such as Item 14, "Repeat instruction on the coverage of more difficult concepts for some students,” the mean difference was quite large (X=-0.80). In general, though, most differences were quite small. One way to judge the magnitude of these differences is to calculate what is known as the effect size (ES). This index is found by dividing the mean difference for each item by the pooled within group standard deviation fr that item. Cohen (1988) has proposed that t sizes must be .2 to be considered small, 5 to be considered medium, and .B to be: sonsidered large. Using these criteria, none of the differences is large, 2 are medium (Items 3 and 14), and 8 are small (Items 2, 5, 6, 11, 13, 15, 27, 28). The effect sizes for the remaining 29 items were less than .2, and thus the differences on which they are based are negligible. ‘These preliminary analyses suggest that gifted students are receiving lite differentiated instruction in public school classrooms across the country.! 1 appendix E contsine difternce sore forthe pubic ec teachers who di not have formally denied ited stadenis bat did bave studens they perceived 1 be gifted. The results are very similar to those presented in Table 5a 87T Use basic aklla workabect > 301 11s 347-106-016 0.145, 2. Use enrickinent worksheet 287 109 2.43106 0.440.409 ‘3S Assign aavanced level reading 283 132 203 1230.80 0.022 4. Use self-inetructiona Kit 132 159011747015 0.098 5 Assign repo 180 095 154 0.830.260.2901 & Assign projects 190 1.06 1610.90 0.290.305 ‘Assign Book reports 158 099 1450.93.13 0.135, 8 Use puzzies or word searches 229 105 222 099 © 0.070.069 9 Creative writing; teacher's topic 253 1.06 © 2.42 «1.04 0.110.105 10 Creative writing: student's topic 219 121 204 119 © O.1S 0.125 LL Time for sel-aelected interests 267 130 © 2.40 128 © 0.27 0.209 12 Pretests to determine mastery 173° 111 Ves 080.09 0.082 13° Eliminate material students master 251 139 2:22 137 0.29 0.210 14 Repeat difficult concepts 272 131 3:52 099 © -0.80 0.689 15 Different work for students mastering =»«2.69 1312.26 «1290.43 (0.331 16 Alternalive instructional formats 299 128 299 123 0.00 0.000 17 Various locations around classroom 334134 3.23 138 On 10 Work in location other than elas 22s 144 9 oe tat 0.37 19 Different bomework based on ability «205-152-190 1.49.15 20 Use learning centers for basic skills 217 161 0218159 0.01 21 Uso enrichment centers 230 159 9 242134 Oa. 22 Thinking skills in regular curiculam 3.67107 «3.62109 0.050.046 23 ‘Teach unit on thinking skills 226 143 021k 139 oR 0.057 24 Competitive thinking skills program 0.92130 0.69.14 0.230.188. 25 Contracts for independent study 139 148 132 «1450.07 0.048, 29° Tine for independen sualy projects 237 ied 219 149 0.tB 0.125 27 Work for higher grade textbook 164 176 115 151 0.49 0.300 28 More advanced curiculom unit 172 4l 143-132, 0.29 0.212 29° Group by ability across classrooms 1a5 190 179-190 0.06 0.032 30. Higher grade for specific instruction OSs 132 0.33 1030.23 0.196 31 Betablish interest groups 159 1320 14e 126 00.15 0.116 32. Student opinion in allocating time 220° 145 2111.43 0.090.063, 33 Programmed materi sve si) 2's) | 147) | 0117, e1td 34. ‘Bacourage long-range projects 199 1330 179 1:28 0.20 0.153 35. Questions to encourage reasoning 3:94 098 3.86 1010.08 0.080, 36 Ask open-ended questions 407 0.94 4.02 0.97 0.050.082 37 Encourage higher-level questions 405 0.97 3:97 1.02 0.09 0.090, 38 Encourage discussion 464 059 4.62 0.60 0.02 0.034 39° Use computers 299 133-2191 «1330.08 0.060, | Based on classrooms with formally identified gifted students, 2 The difference score is calculated by subwacting the respondent's average score from their gifted score, ‘Means are calculated from these difference scores. Difference scores are subject to rounding exrors. 3 The Effect Size (ES) is calculated by dividing the mean difference by the square root of the pooled within- group variance (Coben, 1988). 886s Private Sch 201 Sample Because only 214% of the private schoo! teachers taught in schools that had adopted a formal definition of giftedness, item level means and standard deviations are presented for private school teachers who reported having students in their classrooms they perceived to be gifted but not formally identified as such. Using Cohen's (1988) criteria, only one of the differences reported in Table 5.2 is large (Item 3). Two of the effect sizes exceed .5 (items 5 and 14) and therefore represent medium-size differences, and 16 of the effect sizes. are small (Items 1, 2, 4,6, 7,9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31). The effect size for the remaining 20 items was less than .2. These results, as well as those reported in ‘Appendix E for the small number of private school classrooms with formally identified gifted students, suggest that litle differentiated instruction is heing provided to gifted students in private schools. 89Table 5.2 ; - : 1 Mean? Effect “lassroom Practices Item ited Average Difference Size x sD x sD 1 Use basi skills worksheet Jos 142331 107. 023 2. Use enrienment worksheet 300 Lo?) 28a Lis Oe 3 Assign advanced level reading 3.09 1.28184 1221.25 40 Use selfinetrucional Kit 179 69-130 146049 5) Assign repors 183 086 = «1440 0.65 0.43 6 Assign projects 206 0.92 1.66 0.84 0.40 7 Assign book sep tse ge 140 06s O18 8 Use puzzles of word searches 229 087 2.27 0.76 © 0.02 9 Creative writing; teacher's tpi 229 092 210 091 0.19 10 Creative writing: student’ topic 2:00 ie 11a vielen tt ieee 29 11. Time for self-selected interests 292 131 256 135 (036 12. Pretess to determine mastery ta4 Vit 131 oR 013 13. Eliminate material students master 255 146 © 202 «158 0.53 14 Repeat difficult concepts 272° 125. 346 107-074 15 Differeot work for stadents mastering §=§» «2.62132, 2101.28 052 16 Alternative instructional formats 271 134 9-271 1.32 0.00 17 Various lovatione around slaeersom bas gay fa eae 51 ge 40 ee O25) 18. Work in location other than class 260 1.29 216 0.44 19 Different homework based on ability «2.39 1.34 2.12 0.27 20. Ure learning centers for basic skulls, e233 Doz 0.00 21 Use eorichment centers 262 152 2.50 0.12 22 Thinking skills in rapular curiculum © 3.49 1.07 3.41 0.08 23. Teach unit on thinking skills eae elem 7 0.06 24 Competitive thinking skils progam = 0.77 «1.35 «(0.631 o.14 25. Coutts fr independent study 12900147 go eos 26 Time for indepenc nt study projects aaitee 54 eee oom) 0.32 27. Work for higher grade textbook 240 1840 1341 076 28 More advanced curriculum unit Tos vst reo vse 29° Group by ability across classrooms 190 190 Les 1820.23 30. Higher grade for specific instruction Vos 1a3 OSS 142 O51 31 Establish imerest groups 4g 1420014212032 32. Students opinion in allocating time ree se ee 33. Programmed materials 24s 169 0 222 1620.23 34 Boor rage long-range projects iota: 13931 e178) tail 0221 01173) 35. Questions to encourage reasoning 379 098 3.67 097 0.12 0.124 36 Ask open-ended questions 410 0.79 © 400 086 = 0.10 0.121 37. Encourage higher-level questions 392 100 3.73 1.08 0.19 0.183 38 Encourage discussion 466 056 456 067 0.080.130 39° Use computers 290 133° 282 1:33 0.08 0.059 | Based on classrooms with students whom the teacher perceived to be gifted but without formally identified sifted students. 2-The difference score is calculated by subtracting the respondent's average score from their gifted score. ‘Means are calculated from these difference scores. Difference scores are subject to rounding extor. 3 The Effect Size (ES) is calculated by dividing the mean difference by the square roct of the pooled within- ‘group variance (Cohen, 1988), 90Special Populations Item level means and standard deviations for schools with high concentrations of African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American and Native American students are presented in Table 5.3 through 5.6, respectively. Although some sample differences exist, the results are remarkably similar across special population classrooms. These results (including those in Appendix E for classrooms with non-identified gifted students) are also very similar to those presented above for public and private schools. ‘Ius comparability can be seen most readily in Table 5.7 which lists items for which the effects sizes derived from the differences between gifted and average means meet or exceed cutoffs set by Cohen (1988). For all six sainples, the large majority of the differences produce effect sizes below the .2 cutoff that Cohen considers small and labeled "negligible". Further, Items 2, 3, 6, 15 and 27 yield effect sizes that are greater than .20 for all samples, Items 14 and 28 yield effect sizes that are greater than .20 for 5 samples, Items 5 and 11 yield effect sizes that are greater than .20 for 4 samples, and Items 18 and 30 yield effect sizes greater than 20 for 2 samples. And, acrnss the six samples, only 18 items produce differences. which Coben would consider even small. ‘These results would suggest that all gifted students. including gifted minority students. are receiving litte differentiated instruction in regular classrooms across the country.Mean? Effect? ‘Classroom Practices lem Gites Average Difference Size % sp *& sp T Use basic chile worksheet 304121 Tat 2 0-008 2. Use enrichment worksheet 289112 ir “038 0341 3. Assign advanced level reading 293137 125 0.820.623 4 Use seltinsouctional it 132159 143017 oz 5 Assign reports 193087 033022 0.259 & Assign project 183 091 086 0.26 0.294 7 ‘Assign book reports 132 088 084 = O11 0.128 8 Use puzzles or word searches 233, 1.02 105 OS. 0.145 9) Credle writing: eecbers pic aan 1.03 103 ona 038 10 Creative writing; student's topic 2141.24 120 0.17 0.139 11 Time fer vellselected interests 267 133 134 0.24 0.180 12. Preuss to determine mastery uaz 123 Vie 0.07 0.058 13 Eliminate material stsdenis master 24s 147 148033. 0.226 14. Repeat dificolt concepts 300s 120 099-055 0.408 15 Different work for students mastering = 2.63132 128 035 0269 16 Aluroative instructional formate Yor 142 136 0.08 0.088 17 Various locations around classroom 310 13% 138 0.12 0.087 18 Work in location other than clase 2g 135 129025 0.189 19 Different Bomework based on ability «2.01. 1-50 147 020 0135, 20 Use learning centers for basic skis 241157 15s 0.03 0019 21 Use enrichment centers se 157 159 0.14 0.089 22, Thinking sills in regular curicslum 3.65 1.00 X07 0.08 0077 23. Teach unit on thinking skills 218 143 143 O11 0.076 24 Competitive ishing shila program 08S 1.16 top ata 0194 25 Contracts for independent study 161.27 121 0.13. o.105 26 Tune for independent sty projects 225142 14s 021 0147 27 Work for higher grade textbook 19871 150 036 0348 28 More advanced curriculum unit 170139 134 022 0.161 29° Group by ability surune casosoous 193 1e6 aay 010 0084 30 Higher grade for specifi instruction © 0.41 1.19 093 O15 0.140 31 Establish interest groupe 175136 1350.15. OL 32 Students opinion in allocating ime 1.87 1.46 1446 9.10 0.009 33. Programmed materials 230 152 1500.08 0.053 34 Encourage long-range projects 178133 130 «01S 11a 435. Question to encourage reasoning 389 098 vee 007 0.069 46 Ask open-ended auestions 40g 106 10 0.10 0.093 37 Encourage higher-level questions a1 098 105 O10 ou98 38 Encourage discussion 456 059 0.72 0.05 0.091 39° Ure compuers 278155 153 002 0.013, 1 Based on classrooms with formally identified gifted students. 2 The difference score is calculated by subtracting the respondent's average score from their gifted score, Means are calculated from these difference scores. Difference scores are subject to rounding ezross. 3 The Effet Size (ES) is calculated by dividing the mean difference by the square root of uhe pooled within- ‘group variance (Coben, 1988).‘Classroom Practices tem Gites Average Difference Size <7 50) x, 6D) 1 Thee basis ale wostaheat 296 119 314110 2. Use enrichment worksheet 302 094 © 2511.06 3. Assign advanced level reading Boe 121 2231.33 4 Use setrinstucional kit ag 3s 21a 3 Assign re 176 090 © 155 0.77 & een epee 202 107 «173 1.06 7 ‘Assign book repons 189 094 = 800.86 8 Use puraes or word searches 232 114 226 1.06 9 Creauive weitng: teacher's rople 270 V7 264110 10. Creative writing: students topic 241 125229 1.24 11. Te for etter intereste 2m 138 Das 131 12 Press to detemine mastery 175 113 L710 13, Eliminate material stdents master 266 1400-24346 14) Repeat difficult concepts 301 113 3.60 0.98 15. Different work for students mastering = «2901.92.58 1.18 16 Alternative Inerctional formate Bis is 320,122 17 Various locations around classroom = 3.43143 3.24 1:50 18 Work in Toeation other than class 221 141 191A 15 Diffeeot bomework buted on witty 2:13, 143 2.04 1.46 20 Use leaming centers for basic skills $= 2.28168 2.231.65 21. Use enrichment centers 240 161 219 154 22 Thinking skis in regular curicubm 3.79 0973.78. 1.02 23 Teach unit on thinking stills 268 140-252 Laz 24 Competitive thinking wkills rogram = O.91 1350.64 LLB 25. Contac for independeat study 166 158 © 152 1153 26 Time for independent sudy projects «246 «183224 18 27 Work for higher grade textbook a2 181 40157 28 More advanced curicalam wit 196 145168138 29. Group by ability eros claurooms yep ies 179 ea 30 Higher grade for specific instruction «06S. «1380.36 1.01 31. Esublish interest groups 156 1380 Laz 126 32 Students opinion in allocating ime «2.23 «155-210 1.48 33. Programmed materials 234 15324881 34 Domeurege oug-range projects Bos tas eo a3 35 Questions to encourage reasoning 419 0390 413. 092 36 Ask openended questions 425 091 4.23085 37 Encourage higher-level questions 421 102 408 1.03 38 Encourage discussion 4% 050 4.72 052 293 135 2871.40 39° Use computers 1 Based on classrooms with formally identified gifted students. 2The difference score it calculzied by subtracting the respondent's average soore from their gifted score ‘Means are calculated from these difference scores. Difference scores are subject to rounding errors. 3 The Effect Size (ES) is calculated by dividing the mean difference by the square root of the pooled within- ‘group variance (Coben, 1988). 93(Classroom Practices Item Gined Average Difference Size sp x 1 Ure basic skills worksbect 10s am s105) “0.18 0.180 2. Use enrichment worksbeet 1 2a U37 use 3 Assign advanced level reading 12g 2 0.68 0.538, 4 Ure aatfinetructional bit Ves 186 006 ans 5 Assign reports 092 1.68 0.17 0.191 6 Assign projects oot 1.77 0.20 0.221 1 Assign Book reports roi 70 9.03 0.041 8. Use puzzles or word searches 097 1.91 0.06 0.063 9 Creative writing: teacher's topic 1.03 2.63, 0.04 0.029 10 Creative writing; student's topic 9 ait) 0.03 0.025 LL Time for self-selected interests 1302.24 0.21 0.162 12. Prewew wo dewermine masury oss 137 0.09 0.093, 13. Eliminate material students master 1312.26 021 0.161 14 Repeat difficult concepts 126 3.50 0.73 0.649 15. Different work for students mastering 127228 0.35 0.292 16 Alternative instructional formats 1332.95 -0.04 0.031 17 Yarivus lyvations arvind Cesrovut 1433.05, 0.12 0.002 18 Work fa location otber than class 138 Le 031 0.230 19. Different homework based on ability 15300 21 0.14 0.092 20 Use learning centers for basic skills 163 165160 0.02 0.012 21 Use enrichment centers 166159154 0.180.113, 22 Thinking skills in regelar curiculum 10s «3.76 «1050.01 23. Teach unit on thinking skills 130255 1.30 0.05 24 Competitive thinking skills program 127 084 1.23 0.08 0.064 23 Contracts for indepenaent stay 13/186 133 woe 0.020 26 Time for independent study projec's 132 232 132 0.11 0.083, 27 Wok tor higher grate tethone 164 0RR 1400.50 0.328 28 More advanced curriculum wait 4132 135 1.25 0.29 0.226 29° Grovp by ability across classrooms 97 192 1.86 1.93 0.11 0.057 30. Higher grade for specific instruction 54 130 031 1.01 0.23 0.198 31 Esublish inerest groups 69 128 «1S5 (1:26 O14 0.110 32. Student's opinion in allocating time 34134 «2.28 1.35 0.06 0.045 33. Programmed materials 37 156-223 1156 0.14 0.090 34 Encourage long-range projects 03 139 © 186138 O17 0.123 35. Questions wo encourage reasoning, 88 096 «© «3.79 «010.09 0.091 36 Ask open-ended questions 98 0.96 3.92 1.02 0.068 0.061 37. Encourage higher-level questions (99 1103.81 1:13 0.08 0.072 38 Encourage discussion "$9 0.67 4.59 0.67 0.00 0.000 39° Use computers "63 1.23 255 1.22 0.08 0.065 1 Based on classrooms with formally identified gifted students. 2-The difference score is calculated by subtracting the respondent's average score from their gifted score, Means are calculated from these difference scores. Difference soores are subject to rounding eors. 3 The Erfect Size (ES) is calculated by dividing the mean difference by the square root of the pooled within- ‘group variance (Cohen, 1988).n Table 5.6 | Gif Stusents - Nat scan Sample! Mean? — Effect? ‘Classroom Practices Item ited ‘Average Difference Size x sp xX sD 1 Une basic ails worksheet 323105 334 100-011 0.108 2. Use enschment worksheet 297 111-253 os 0.44 0.407 3 Assign advanced level reading 299 121 219 1.23 0.80 0.656 4 Ure seltinstrctionsl it 121 154 LAL 1480.10 0.066 5 Assign repors 169 1108 1480.78 v.21 0.223 & Astign projects 194 108 1.62 097 0.32 0312 17 ‘Assign Book reports 167 LH 156 0.99 0.110.105 8 Use puzzles or word searches 247 101 2143 0.99 0.03 0.040 9 Creative woiing, tsasher® opie 253 104 2145 1000.08 0.078 10 Creative writing: student’ topic 233° 111 2220-11203. 0.117 11 Time for self-selected interests 279 126 © 252 1150.27 0.026 12. Pretest to detenmine mastery 78 1277112 0.01 0.009 43. Eliminate material sudents master 256 140 242-138 0.14 0.101 14. Repeat difficult concepts 290 130 © 364 0990.74 0.641 15. Different work for students mastering = 2.99123 -246«1.29 0.53. 0.420 16 Altemative instructional formats 311 129 © 309 1.21 0.02 0.016 : 17 Various tocatons around classroom 337 119 346 126 0.13 0.106 18 Work in location other than class 224 145192135032 0.228 19 Different homework based on sbilty «-2.06.« 1521.85 1.48 = 0.21 0.140 20. Use leaming centers for basic silt 238 167 2:36 1.60 0.02 0.012 21 Use enrichment centers 236 166 2.22 156 0.14 0.087 22 Thinking wells im regular curtcutom = 315811 3.30 1170.08 (0.070 23 Teach unit on thinking skills 222 145 © 212 139 0.10 0.070 24 Competitive thinking skils propam 1.03 1320.69 1.04 034 0.286 25 Contracts for independent stody 152 154 133 1390.19 0.130 26 Time for independent study projects 251 137 225 137 026 0.190 27 Work for higher grade textbook 221 183 155 163066 0.381 28 More advanced curriculum unit 203 150 159 133 044 0.310 29° Group by ability across classrooms 221 197 216 197 0.05 0.025, 30 Higher grade for specific instruction Vit 168076147035. 0.222 31. Esablish interes groups 92138 1.77 130 OS O12 32° Swdente opinion in allocating time = «239130232 1.26 0.07 0.055 33. Programmed materials 265 143 232 145033 0.229 34. Encourage long-range projects 192 128 = 170 «1.17022 0.179 35 Questions to encourage reasoning 377 093 © 3.63 00 ola O45 36 Ask open-ended questions #01 087 © 3.86 100 01S 0.160 37 Encourage higber level questo aie oe = 3a 111.7 oer 38 Encourage discussion 458 063 4.56 0.63 © 0.02 0.032 39° Use computers 256 102 © 2421.08 0.140.133 2 Based on classrooms with formally ienified giicd students, 2 The difference score i calculated by subtracting the respondents average score from ther gifted score. ‘Mans arc calculated from these difference scores, Difference scores are subject to rounding errors. 3 The Effect Size (ES) is calculated by dividing the mean difference by the square root of the pooled within- ‘group variance (Coben, 1988)n ‘Table 5.7 ‘Number of Items With Effect Sizes of Various Magnitudes Across the Six Samples Special Populations Magnitude Public-Private Aftican- Hiispanic- Asian- Native- of Effect! ‘American ‘american ‘American ‘American Large 1 Meaun 2 2 1 > 2 2 Suet ow 7 ° ‘ 10 Negligible 2 0 En n 3 ” 1 Based on Coben (1988) where effect sizes greater than 0.8 are considered large, effect sizes between 0.5 and 08 are medium, and effet sizes between 0.2 and 0 are considered small Effect sizes below O.2 are considered negligible. Descriptive Results for Factor Scores Inferential statistical analyses comparing teacher responses for average and gifted students were performed on the factor scores empirically derived from the 39 questionnaire items described above. In anticipation of these analyses, we look now at the means and standard deviations for these six factor scores. Public School Sample ‘Table 5.8 presonts factor means and standard deviations for the 1018 public school classrooms with formally identified gifted students and complete data on variables of interest. ‘Teachers of these classes reported that both gifted and average students engaged in Questioning and Thinking activities every day (X=4.08 for gifted students; X=4.03 for average students) and engaged in providing Challenges and Choices less than a few times a month (X=1.74 for gifted students; X=1.54 for average students). Students engaged in activities represented by the remaining four factors a few times a month, Higher mean scores were found for gifted than average students for all 6 factors. Mean differences ranged from 0.05 for Questioning and Thinking to 0.31 for Reading and Written Assignments. As was the case for the individual item means, these differences are small. In fact, three effect sizes are not large enough to be considered small by Cohen (1988) while three are in the small range. The extent to which they are statistically significant and practically meaningful will be discussed below. 96Mean? Effect? Factor Gifted Average Difference Size 1 Questioning & Thinking 408 071 403 0.72 0.05 0.070 IL Providing Challenges & Choices 174 0.79 1.54 0.73 © 0.20 0.263 TI Reading & Writing Assignments 210 074 1.79 065 © 0310.45. TV Curriculum Modification 237 092 217 085 020 0236 ‘V_ Entichment Centers 264 104 = 2.51 013 0.126 Vi Seatwork 238 0.79 224 072 © 0.14 0.185 Total 255 112 238 1.13 0170.11 1 Based on clacsmams with formally ideniified gifted students. 2 The difference score is caloulated by subtracting the respondent's average score from his or her gifted score, Means ae calculated from these difference scores. Difference sooes are subiee to rounding ears. 2 The Eifect Size (ES) is calculated by dividing the mean difference by the square root ofthe pooled within- s70up variance (Cohen, 1988). ‘The public school sample was drawn to support comparisons among regions of the country (i., Northeast, North Central, South and West) and types of communities (i.e., urban, suburban, and rural), As can be seen in Table 5.9, the results by region are very similar to those for the country asa whole. ‘That is, means for gifted students exceed those for average students forall six factors, but the differences are again small. A similar Pattern is found within communities of different types, as can be seen in Table 5.10. Again, the statistical and practical significance of Wiese differcaves will be discussed.4 Table 5.9 actor Score Means for Gifted and Average Students in Public School Sample by Region ofthe Country Region ‘Northeast, South ‘Noch Central Wes Factor Gifted Average Gifted Average Gifted Average Gifted Average (157) (457) 426) (426) (232) (232) (203) 203). 1 Questioning & Thinking 412-407 405 399 404 398 417 4.13 IL Providing Challenges & Choices 180 1.66 1.73 151 1.63 143 181 1.65 IL Reading & Writing Assignments 2.02 175 207 1.75 208 1.72 2.22 197 TV Curricalum Modification 229 245 233 215 235 211 252 2.28 ‘V = Enrichment Centers 254 246 266 251 268 2.52 265 252 ‘VI Seatwork 248 235 243 229 238 214 225 216 Table 5.10 Tacior Scar: Moans for Gifiad and Average Students in Public School Sample by Tyne of Community sitao Subchn Raat Factor Gifted Average Gifted Average Gifted Average (288) (288) G40) 340) 390) (390) 1 Questioning & Thinking 413 4.08 413° 4.08 400 3.94 I Providing Challenges & Choices 181 1.62 173 155 169 1.49 ‘TI Reading & Writing Assignments 2141.85 205 (1.76 241 77 IV Curriculum Modification 246 2.24 2320 2.14 2340 214 Enrichment Centers 266 253-258 245269255 ‘VI Seatwork 232 2.20 231 218 248 (2.33,