INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Z eeb Road. Ann Arbor.Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9505244
Young children’s acceptance of the gifted label
Lai, Tsuei-Yuan, Ph.D.
The Ohio State University, 1994
UMI 300 N. ZeebRd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 YOUNG CHILDREN'S ACCEPTANCE OF
GIFTED LABEL
DISSERTATION
Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
By
Tsuei-yuan Lai, B.A. M. A.
* * * * *
The Ohio State University
1994
Dissertation Committee: Approved by
James L. Collins, Ph. D. William E. Loadman, Ph. D. Raymond H. Swassing, Ed. D. Adviser College of Education To my parents, my sisters, brother,
and my husband Eric,
for their
love and support ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to her advisor Dr. Raymond H. Swassing for his unrelenting assistance and time commitment throughout the course of this project. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Ann
Robinson of University of Arkansas at Little Rock for providing her questionnaire to me and Dr. Wu-Ten Wu of
National Taiwan Normal University for helping me do my research in Taiwan. The author would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Swassing, Dr. William
E. Loadman, Dr. James L. Collins, Dr. Elsie J. Alberty, and
Dr. Rosemary Bolig in the development of my knowledge and skills in the area of gifted education. Thanks also go to my friends Min-hsu Juan and Shuo-hsu Ho, for their assistance in assessment of the data in this study. VITA
April 23, 1964...... Born - Taichung, Taiwan
1989 B.A. Providence University, Taichung, Taiwan
1991 M.A. The Ohio State University
FIELD OF STUDY
Major Field: Education
Studies in Gifted Education & Early Childhood Education TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION...... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... iii
VITA...... iv
LIST OF TABLES...... vii
LIST OF FIGURES...... x
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION...... 1
Purpose of Gifted Labeling...... 1 Issues Concerning Early Labeling...... 2 Statement of Problem ...... 4 Definition of Terms...... 5 Research Hypotheses...... 6
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...... 8
Definition of Gifted and Talented...... 8 Identification of the gifted and Talented... 14 Gifted Education in Taiwan...... 22 Geographical and Political Background.. 22 Historical Background...... 23 History of Gifted Education...... 23 Definition of Gifted and Talented 24 Identification...... 24 Support System...... 27 Program Design...... 29 Teacher Training...... 30 Resources Provided...... 30 Students' Enrichment and Acceleration.. 31 Program Evaluation and Research...... 34 Facing Problems...... 34 Perspective...... 37 Conclusion...... 37 Labeling Framework...... 38 The Effects of Gifted Labeling...... 40 v III. METHOD...... 43
Subjects...... 43 Instrument...... 49 Data Collection Procedures...... 49 Pilot Study...... 51 Data Analysis...... 51 Validity and Reliability...... 55 Statistical Analysis...... 55
IV. RESULTS...... 57
Analysis on Likert Scale Items...... 57 Analysis on Open-Ended Items...... 113
V. DISCUSSION...... 124
Findings...... 125 Limitation of Study...... 131 Directions for Future Research...... 132 Summary...... 133
LIST OF REFERENCES...... 138
APPENDICES
A. QUESTIONNAIRE...... 145 B. QUESTIONNAIRE (CHINESE)...... 149 C. LETTER TO PRINCIPAL AND TEACHER...... 152 D. LETTER TO PRINCIPAL AND TEACHER (CHINESE) 154 E. CONSENT FORM...... 157 F. CONSENT FORM (CHINESE)...... 159 G. QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTION SHEET...... 161 H. QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTION SHEET...... 163 I. PERMISSION OF USING QUESTIONNAIRE...... 165
vi LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number One by Groups...... 58
2. Three-Way ANOVA on Question Number One by Gender, Grade and School...... 60
3. Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Two by Groups...... 61
4. Three-Way ANOVA on Question Number Two by Gender, Grade and School...... 62
5. Table of Question Number One by Question Number Two...... 64
6. Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Three by Groups...... 66
7. Table of Question Number One by Question Number Three...... 68
8. Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Four by Groups...... 70
9. Two-Way ANOVA on Question Number Four by Gender and Gifted Area...... 71
10. Three-Way ANOVA on Question Number Four by Gender, Grade and School...... 72
11. Table of Question Number One by Question Number Four ...... 74
12. Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Five by Groups...... 7 6
13. Two-Way ANOVA on Question Number Five by Gender and Gifted Area...... 77 vii 14. Table of Question Number One by Question Number Five...... 78
15. Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Six by Groups...... 80
16. Three-Way ANOVA on Question Number Six by Gender, Grade and School...... 82
17. Table of Question Number One by Question Number Six...... 83
18. Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Seven by Groups...... 85
19. One-Way ANOVA on Question Number Seven by Gender...... 86
20. One-Way ANOVA on Question Number Seven by Grade. 87
21. One-Way ANOVA on Question Number Seven by Gifted Area...... 87
22. One-Way ANOVA on Question Number Seven by School...... 88
23. Table of Question Number One by Question Number Seven...... 89
24. Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Eight by Groups...... 91
25. Three-Way ANOVA on Question Number Eight by Gender, Grade and School...... 93
26. Table of Question Number One by Question Number Eight...... 94
27. Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Nine by Groups...... 96
28. Three-Way ANOVA on Question Number Nine by Gender, Grade and School...... 98
viii 29. Table of Question Number One by Question Number Nine...... 99
30. Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Ten by Groups...... 101
31. Three-Way ANOVA on Question Number Ten by Gender, Grade and School...... 102
32. Table of Question Number One by Question Number Ten...... 103
33. Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Eleven by Groups...... 105
34. Three-Way ANOVA on Question Number Eleven by Gender, Grade and School...... 107
35. Table of Question Number One by Question Number Eleven...... 108
36. Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Twelve byGroups ...... 110
37. Table of Question Number One by Question Number Twelve...... 112
ix I
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES PAGE
1. Screening Procedures for gifted Students in the R. 0. C ...... 26
2. Support Systems for Gifted Education in the R. 0. C ...... 28
3. Distribution of Samples...... 45
4. What Does Gifted Label Mean to You?...... 114
5. What Does Gifted Label Mean to You? (n=561)...... 116
6. When Were You Told that You Are Gifted?...... 118
7. Who Told You that You Are Gifted?...... 120
8. How Did People Tell You that You Are Gifted?.... 121
9. How Do You Feel about Yourself?...... 123
x CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to investigate and explore the effects of the gifted labeling system on second and third grade students in Taiwan. Through analysis of a set of questions dealing with self concept/awareness and self- reporting of other's point of view about the gifted label given them, an overall figure of students' acceptance of the gifted labeling system was completed. Areas of giftedness were then compared among four groups in this study in relation to gender and grade differences. This chapter introduces the reader to the purpose of labeling the gifted, issues concerning labeling students in early primary grades, the statement of problem, the definition of terms related to the gifted and talented labeling system in Taiwan and research hypotheses.
Purpose of Labeling the Gifted
Definitions of gifted and talented ranges from those with one or more academic aptitudes to those with exceptional abilities in creative thinking, marked leadership ability, talented in the visual or performing
1 arts (Kitano & Kirby, 1986). As these definitions are applied to the educational system and serve as functions of labeling children, there is a great debate about such an effort to classify students into certain categories, especially for those who are in the early primary grades.
In general, labeling means assigning a categorical descriptor to a student so that the need of educational services can be fulfilled based on that category (Robinson,
1990; Guskin et al., 1986). Hobbs (1975) suggested that only through the process of labeling and categorizing would appropriate services and programs be available for exceptional children. However, once a student is labeled in a category with certain characteristics, it might lead others to stereotype individuals based on that descriptor
(Robinson, 1990). Moreover, labeling could also emotionally effect those labeled students eitherpositively or negatively, depending on their own acceptance of the labeling system.
Issues Concerning Early Labeling
Although some research has been done studying adolescents' acceptance of the gifted label (Robinson, 1990;
Guskin et al., 1986; Ford, 1978), there has been almost no attention paid to younger students. This could be due to several reasons. First, there are problems associated with early identification, such as the high cost of early identification (Hollinger & Kosek, 1985), the lack of effectively standardized screening instruments (Thompson,
1987; Richert, 1985) as well as the deficiency of reliable standardized academic/intelligence tests (Kitano Sc Kirby,
1986; Burns, Mathews & Mason, 1990).
Second, only a few special programs for the gifted and talented exist for children in early primary grades
(Hollinger & Kosek, 1985; Kitano & Kirby, 1986; Thompson,
1987). The lack of public funding for programming is a main reason for this issue (Burns, Mathews Sc Mason, 1990) . In addition, the debate about why more than half of gifted youngsters show no signs of giftedness after the third grade plays a significant role in determining the need for programming (Kitano Sc Kirby, 1986). Under such conditions, program designers tend to prefer having gifted programs for children in fourth grade or above.
Finally, unlike adolescents, who are more mature and would emotionally experience extreme positive or negative feelings about being labeled "gifted" (Robinson, 1990), children in the early primary grades might not have so many difficulties in accepting the gifted label. However, this does not mean that they have no feelings about being labeled gifted. Moreover, the early environmental influence does have a great impact on their learning later in life
(Hollinger Sc Kosek, 1985; Parke & Ness, 1988). Statement of Problem
Despite the relatively consistent agreement regarding the need for early identification and education intervention for gifted and talented students (Barbe & Renzulli, 1975;
Bonds f i t Bonds, 1983; Hollinger & Kosek, 1985; Johnson, 1983;
McCarthy, 1980), only a few programs for students in the primary grades are available today. As a result, most of the youngsters are ignored and unserved under our educational system (Richert, 1987).
In order to provide quality service to these special needs youngsters, the importance of labeling should be addressed. However, once a student is labeled in a category with certain characteristics, a positive or negative effect on this student may not be avoided. Although some research has been done studying adolescents' acceptance of the gifted label, the influence of gifted labeling on students in primary grades is still unknown. No research has been done to study the early primary graders' acceptance of the gifted label. To better help these youngsters adapt to their environment and also provide better services, study of the primary graders' acceptance of the gifted label is urgently needed. 5
Definition of Terms
Definition of gifted and talented: According to the Law of
Special Education (1991) in the Republic of China (Taiwan),
three areas of gifted and talented are included in the
educational system:
1. Excellence in general educational abilities.
2. Specific academic abilities.
3. Special talents (such as visual arts, music and
dance).
Identification of gifted and talented: In Taiwan, gifted
students are identified through a series of screening tests which are administered by the Ministry of Education.
Students are first selected based on the results of group
intelligence tests and group achievement tests. Then they must take a series of standardized tests (Law of Special
Education in R. 0. C., 1991). Students who score in the top
10 percent take a more stringent battery of standardized
intelligence tests, such as the Stanford-Binet, the WISC-R,
Ravens Progressive Matrices, and the Torrance Test of
Creative Thinking. Students who show signs of artistic or musical talent are selected through both individual performances and aptitude tests in which they must exhibit an IQ higher than average. For instance, talented students in dance are screened from individual performance and also required to have an IQ higher than 120 (Law of Special
Education in R. 0. C., 1991).
Gifted and talented label; Gifted and talented children are categorized into "gifted" and "talented" in Taiwan's special educational system (Wu, 1991). Students labeled "gifted" are those who demonstrate high capacity in specific academic fields as measured by standardized tests. Students categorized as "talented" are those who have demonstrated excellence in music, painting, dance, and athletics.
Special classes are offered in primary, junior, and senior high schools for these gifted and talented students.
Research Hypotheses
The following research hypotheses were addressed in this study:
Hypothesis one: It was hypothesized that more children will
report accepting than rejecting the gifted
label.
Hypothesis two: It was hypothesized that children in
different grades will report accepting the
gifted label differently.
Hypothesis three: It was hypothesized that children who
experience more family support are more
likely to report accepting the gifted label. 7
Hypotheses four: It was hypothesized that children who are
gifted in different areas will report
accepting the gifted label differently. CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The literature review is divided into five main sections. The first section is titled Definition of Gifted and Talented. Special emphasis is given to the definition of all areas of gifted and talented. The second section/
Identification of the Gifted and Talented, outlines the identification procedures and measurement tools. Section three. Gifted Education in Taiwan, addresses the gifted education system in Taiwan. The fourth section.Labeling
Framework, describes the purpose of labeling in special education. In section five. The Effects of Gifted Labeling, research on both public attitudes toward the gifted and gifted students' attitudes toward themselves are discussed.
Definition of Gifted and Talented
The definition of gifted and talented varies according to different interpretations. Most educators today agree with the general definition of the gifted and talented that began to emerge in the 1950's {Alexander, 1982). Tannenbaum
(1956) pointed out that gifted and talented children are
"outstanding consumers and producers of knowledge and ideas
8 in any worthwhile endeavor, whether in math, engineering,
music or social leadership" (p. 6). The Council for
Exceptional Children (CEC) (1955) adds that they are "those
children and youth whose abilities, talents and potential
for accomplishment are so outstanding they require special
provisions to meet their education needs. These are persons
of exceptional promise whose capabilities predict contri
butions of lasting merit in widely varying fields" (p. 2).
Even though they are unique, gifted children tend to
have certain characteristics in common (Feldhusen & Sayler,
1990; Barbe, 1955, 1956; Hildreth, 1966; Pressey, 1955,
1963; Terman, 1922; Witty, 1962). Rarely does any one
gifted child exhibit all the characteristics, while some may
have traits diametrically opposite the characteristics
supposedly common to gifted children.
Intellectually or academically gifted children have been characterized as having good memories, long attention
spans, diverse interests and large vocabularies (Burns,
1990; Hollinger & Kosek, 1985; Mckenzie, 1986; Weber, 1985).
They tend to be observant, curious and questioning, as well
as independent and resourceful in their thinking and working. They easily analyze and synthesize concepts to
find new relationships among ideas. They may be logical,
rational and practical, as well as nonconforming and
impulsive. Empathy, sensitivity and perceptiveness usually 10
characterize their social interactions. They may have a
high degree of energy, both mental and physical, that
sometimes leads them to be falsely diagnosed as hyperactive.
Academically gifted children learn quickly (Feldhusen,
1989; Feldhusen & Kolloff, 1988; Johnson, 1985; Stanley,
1991). Where the average child may need to go through
several steps in order to absorb a concept, the gifted
child's mind appears to make huge leaps over many of those
intermediate steps (Getzels, 1975). Gifted children may set
high standards of perfection for themselves, ignoring
external praise when they know they can do better. Only the most extraordinarily bright children seem to have adjustment problems (Kitano & Kirby, 1986). Maybe it is because gifted
children are smart enough to adapt to different situations and often have a keen sense of humor (Tannenbaum, 1983).
Before school age, gifted children may walk and talk early, have many interests and be insatiably curious
(Hollinger, 1985; Burns, 1990; Weber, 1985, Barbe, 1965).
They may learn to read spontaneously and show remarkable ability to communicate their knowledge and solve problems.
They are likely to have amazing memories and unusual concentration, sitting for long periods at a single project.
They tend to tell time and deal with money earlier than other children. They may also show unusual facility working with jigsaw puzzles, blocks, clay or crayons. 11
While much literature abounds with descriptions of gifted children at preschool and elementary school levels, it lacks such descriptions of secondary school students. By the time students reach secondary school, and even well before, the way they do or do not manifest their gifts and talents appears to depend greatly on their previous experiences (Thompson, 1987).
Children gifted in creativity exhibit traits different from or even opposite those of children whose giftedness is strictly high intelligence (Barbe, 1965). The highly intelligent but noncreative children tend to be conformist, to do what is expected, and to seek approval from others.
These children are the ones who adjust best and are socially popular (Johnson,1985). They give conventional responses, seek conventional careers, and have conventional interests.
Generally, teachers like them best.
The highly creative child is usually the nonconformist, the independent thinker, less concerned with authority or with order and organization, and more temperamental
(Feldhusen, 1984; Delisle & Squires, 1989; Renzulli, 1977).
Highly creative children tend to become more emotionally involved and committed, and to be aware of and open to their own feelings. They may have wild or unusual ideas and a sharp sense of humor. They may be playful and imaginative, give unexpected response, have a rich fantasy life, and be 12 perceptive and intuitive. They usually thrive on complexities and open-ended problems. They tend to be self-confident, flexible and willing to take risks. They may seek unconventional careers, have unconventional interests, and care little about social restraints or the opinions of others. Both literally and figuratively, highly intelligent children may be afraid of the dark because of the unknowns lurking there, whereas highly creative children relish it for the very same reason.
Torrance (1977) defines creativity as "the process of sensing problems or gaps in information, forming ideas or hypotheses, testing and modifying these hypotheses, and communicating the results" (p. 1). He thought that creative children are divergent thinkers, while non-creative but highly intelligent children are convergent thinkers who seek for right answers. According to Torrance (1977), creative thinkers are characterized by:
Fluency - the ability to produce large quantities of
ideas.
Flexibility - the ability to use many approaches.
Originality - the ability to produce something new and
to see new relationships.
Elaboration - the ability to fill in the details and to
embellish a basic idea with further
steps and responses (p. 2). 13
Children with talent in the visual or performing arts also have unique characteristics (Clark, 1989; Gallagher,
1987; Mckenzie, 1986; Barbe, 1955). These children may or may not have unusually high intelligence. However, they may be considered as one group among the highly creative, with traits similar to creative scientists, architects and inventors.
It is not until recent years that leadership has been recognized as an identifiable gifted characteristic (Sisk,
1985). Children gifted in leadership are liked by others and able to influence others. They are the persons who take charge, delegate responsibilities, find ways of accomplishing things, or get elected to office. In fact, other children will come to them for ideas and decisions.
Culturally different children may be found to be gifted too (Barbe, 1955, 1956; Pressey, 1955, 1963; Kitano & Kirby,
1986; McKenzie, 1986; Richert, 1987). Their giftedness is usually different from the norm. In general, most gifted children who find outlets for their giftedness is different in some measure of personal reward and social approval. It is the same for the cultural outlets. Unless one culture rewards and approves different outlets, the culturally different gifted children will be hide behind the limitation of their culture. For example, music, art, dance, humor, obedience, physical power and dexterity, attention to small 14 details, sensitivity and coolness are traits and abilities that may be prized or rejected by any given culture.
Identification of the Gifted and Talented
It is important to know that gifted and talented children may vary among themselves in their behavior and responses more than does the whole group of average children. The truth is many gifted children hide their talents. To better identify the gifted and talented, there needs to be a set of measurements totally accepted for identifying all gifted and talented children (Feldhusen &
Sokol, 1982). Researchers generally accept that identification needs to start early and many methods must be used (Burns, 1990; Clark, 1989; Hollinger Si Kosek, 1985;
Mckenzie, 1986; O'Tuel, 1989; Richert, 1987; Weber Si
Battaglia, 1985).
Researchers have emphasized the importance of identifying the gifted and talented early in a child's life.
They show that considerable potential may be lost as the child gets older (Burns, 1990; Hollinger & Kosek, 1985;
Feldhusen, Asher, St Hoover, 1984). Early identification is most productive for intellectual and academic giftedness.
Most experts suggest that identification should begin in kindergarten or first grade while some claim that it should be started at the preschool level (Burns, 1990; Barbe,
1965). Such early identification not only improves the 15
chances of the child's needs being met before frustration
and boredom set in, but also enhances parental involvement
at a time in the child's life when parents can make a real
difference. Some experts warn that signs of giftedness may
not be translated into outstanding academic achievement at
the preschool level (Barbe, 1965; Kitano & Kirby, 1986;
Richert, 1987). Others point out that the needs of
intellectually gifted children exist through all their
schooling and identification, thus, should continue through
the grades (Delisle, 1990).
Use of multiple methods of identification is a logical
out-growth of the recognition that there are many gifts and many dimensions to each gift (Burns, 1990; Hollinger &
Kosek, 1985; Feldhusen, Asher, & Hoover, 1984). Gifted
education specialists recommended using as many of the
following identification methods as possible (Richert, 1987;
Renzulli, 1977; McKenzie, 1986; Feldhusen et at., 1984):
Teacher nominations - Because teachers on their own tend to identify fewer than half the gifted students,
Renzulli (1975) and others have developed Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students as an aid in guiding teacher judgement.
Tests - Group tests may be used as an initial screening to select children to take individual tests which are more expensive to administer but also more reliable. The best of 16 the individual IQ tests, according to some experts (Richert,
1985; Sternberg, 1985), are Stanford-Binet and the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R). In
addition, experts suggest that when using these two tests the purpose, the timeing and reasson of using them should be
carefully concerned (Robinson, 1992; Silverman & Kearney,
1992). A number of nonverbal and culture-fair IQ tests have been developed in the past two decades. The tests recommended by the panel of experts for the National Report include: The Cattell Culture-Fair Intelligence Series (age
8-adult),(The Ravens\ Progressive Matrices (age 8-adult),
The Cartoon Conservation Scales (grades K-6), The Stallings
Environmentally Based Screen (grades K-l), and The System of
Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment (SOMPA) (age 5-11 years) (Richert, 1987). There are achievement tests, such as The Iowa Test of Basic Skills. For creativity, The
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking are the most widely used
(Richert, 1985; Clark, 1989).
Parent nominations - These tend to be fairly reliable, especially in the child's early years (Richert, 1985).
Peer nominations - These are based on charts that indicate preferences in friendships (sociogram) (Kitano &
Kirby, 1986).
Auditions - These are used for psychomotor and performing arts abilities. Examinations of portfolios will 17 show the student's original work in the visual and communication arts (Clark, 1989).
Evaluation of data from all sources - Based on flexibility above the cut-off point, this is the overriding method (Richert, 1987).
Procedures for identifying intellectual and academic giftedness have been the longest history of development
(Kitano & Kirby, 1986). Thus, they are abundant and varied.
Although IQ tests have often been attacked as biased in favor of the white middle class, educators tend to agree that they are reliable predictors of academic success but should not be the sole measurement (Richert, 1987). Even for initial screening purposes, they have been found most effective when used together with group achievement tests
(Richert, 1985).
The sequence for identifying academically gifted children is significant to the service of education for them. Richert (1985) suggested that following a certain sequence of identification will ensure the quality of service. The sequence is:
1) Nominations: from guidance counselors, specialists,
community professionals, classroom
teachers, principals, administrators,
parents and self.
2) Screening: based on weighted checklists. 18
3) Descriptive case study:
a) academic history,
b) cognitive testing - convergent thinking by
achievement and IQ test, divergent thinking by
creativity and intellectual maturity tests, and
affective - convergent and divergent,
c) interest, observations, social-emotional
adjustment appraisals,
d) personality assessment - interviews
4) Placement: based on evaluation of data by a
committee of teachers, psychologists, and
administrators (p. 69).
Measurements of creative thinking are also
comparatively well-developed (Richert, 1985). In most
cases, identification of intellectual ability includes testing for creative-thinking abilities (Feldhusen, 1989).
The theory is that these are actually two sides of the same giftedness, the IQ being a measurement of divergent thinking. For example, the Torrance Test of Creative
Thinking (1977) attempt to trigger several creative factors at one time, whereas Guildford's Creativity Test for
Children (Guildford, 1971) attempt to measure the specific components of creative thinking separately.
Less well-developed are instruments for assessing creative achievement (Feldhusen et al, 1984). Many 19 researchers and educators have found a correlation between intellectual giftedness and talent in the visual and/or performing arts. Even though they are quick to point out that while superior artistic abilities do not require unusual intellect, intellectual giftedness may be accompanied by only aesthetic appreciation of or interest in art. Most schools rely on the judgment of experts, peers and parents for discovering talent in the visual and performing arts. Nominations by classmates, classroom teachers and parents provide the initial screening for assessments by arts specialists in the school system and professionals from the community.
Measurements for leadership are relatively scarce, usually limited strictly to observation. Researchers (Sisk,
1985; Bass, 1981) suggest that while success in school is a good indicator of success in professional life, it bears little relation to successful leadership. Both adults and peers are usually able to spot the leaders, but children sometimes lead in socially unacceptable ways. They may be leaders of street gangs or scout troops. They may be elected to school offices or lead others into trouble.
However, they are the ones other children look to when a problem needs to be solved or something needs to be done.
Educators are now paying increasing attention to identifying the gifted and talented among minorities and 20
disadvantaged groups (Karnes & Johnson, 1986; Richert, 1987;
Frasier, 1989, 1991; Harris, 1991). However, culture-fair
tests are only a partial solution, because they still seek
characteristics considered worthy by the dominant culture
(Harris, 1991). An environment lacking intellectual
stimulation, adult role models, or other children with whom
a gifted child might share ideas is not likely to produce a
child with the accepted characteristics of the dominant
culture.
Increasing attention has been paid to the problem of
identifying the gifted and talented among handicapped
children (Kitano & Kirby, 1986). Specific techniques used
in the identification process tend to be unstructured and
informal. They include biographical information forms, behavioral checklists, play observation records and peer
evaluation forms. Since such children are undoubtedly held back by their handicap, the recommended approach is to look
for potential rather than demonstrated achievement.
A second approach, suggested by Richert (1987), is to
compare the performance of a handicapped individual with that of others who have the same handicap. Emotionally disturbed children who are achieving at or slightly above
grade level, for example, should be considered gifted. They probably have the potential for even higher achievement. 21
Finally, one should give added weight to characteristics
that enable a handicapped person to compensate most
effectively for the handicap.
Identification procedures are complex, and they raise
issues of validity and purpose which are of major concern to
thoughtful program directors. Problems in the
identification of gifted and talented children can occur at various points within the identification process. Feldhusen
et al., (1984) suggested a sound identification process which included five major steps to avoid problems. Each of these steps must be viewed separately in order todetermine
its validity within the framework of the entire process.
These five steps are:
(1) defining program goals and types of gifted children
to be served
(2) nomination procedures
(3) assessment procedures
(4) individual differentiation
(5) validation of the identification process (p. 150).
Gifted and talented children come in all shapes, sizes, colors and cultural backgrounds. Some are rich, some are poor, some are handicapped, and some are not achieving anywhere near their potential. Some display their giftedness more clearly on any of a multitude of standardized tests; others do not. Through the use of 22
standardized tests and testing procedures along with many
other indicators (observations of teachers, parents, and
children) to identify the gifted and talented, the gifted and talented children could be served appropriately and have as bright a childhood as each educator expects.
Gifted Education in Taiwan (R.O.C.)
Geographical and Political Background
The total land area of Taiwan is less than one-third that of the state of Ohio. Roughly two-thirds of the island is mountainous or hilly which leaves Taiwan about 4650 square miles of arable land, but only about two-thirds of the arable land is actually farmed. Given the fact that few mineral resources are available, over 95 percent of its energy and economic raw materials are imported from other countries. Generally speaking, the only resources Taiwan has are human resources. Over 20 million people live on this tiny island. The crowded living space has resulted in many troubles such as housing, traffic, criminal, and ecological problems.
To maintain an adequate capability to protect itself from attack by Mainland China, the Taiwanese government spends more than one-third of its yearly revenue on the military. Therefore, relatively few resources are allowed for use in social welfare and education. In addition, the intention to move the capitol back to Mainland China has 23 never been given up. However, the efforts of the government and the people working together as a team have really- created an economical miracle and let Taiwan become one of the new industrialized countries. Now consensus on promoting cultural and educational growth is forming and consequently is reflected in legislature actions (Wu, 1989).
Historical Background
According to Chinese history, Taiwan was first governed by the Tang Dynasty around the Seventh Century. In the Ming
Dynasty, Taiwan was held by Holland until Mr. Cheng, Cheng- kung excluded the Dutch. It was conquered by Japan in 1893, the Ching Dynasty ceded Taiwan to the Japanese government.
The Taiwanese waited for 52 years to get back the Chinese government {Hong, 1988). Because of the frequent change of governors, Taiwan formed its style in a very special way.
It accepted some Dutch traditions and was deeply affected by the Japanese culture, social effects and also the style of thinking. In this way, if one may say that Taiwan's education system is almost the same as the Japanese system.
History of Gifted Education
Though Taiwan began its special educational program in
1961, it was not until 1973 that the Ministry of Education started the Research and Experimental Plan for Educating
Exceptional Primary School Students to serve gifted children. The plan focused primarily on those students who 24 'demonstrate outstanding ability' meaning those who have a high IQ (Mao, 1989). In 1979, this plan was extended from primary to junior high schools, and then to senior high schools in 1986.
By categorizing "gifted" and "talented," programs for
"gifted" students are focused on academic achievement (Wu,
1989). In 1982, the Ministry of Education implemented its
Program of Guidance for Gifted High School Students in
Mathematics and Natural Sciences in order to identify those students who should participate in special accelerated classes (Mao, 1989). The students who were categorized
"talented" as are those who have demonstrated excellence in music, visual arts, dance, and athletics. However, all of these students are now served by special program in primary, junior, and senior high schools.
Definition of Gifted and Talented
According to the Law of Special Education (1991) in the
Republic of China (Taiwan), there are three areas of gifted and talented:
1. Excellence in general educational abilities.
2. Specific academic abilities.
3. Special talents (such as art, music, and dance).
Identification
In Taiwan (R. 0. C.), gifted students are identified through a series of screening tests which are administered 25 by the Ministry of Education. Students are first selected
from group intelligence tests and group achievement tests.
Then they must take a series of standardized tests (Law of
Special Education in R. 0. C., 1991). Students who score in the top 10 percent take a more stringent battery of standardized intelligence tests, such as the Stanford-Binet, the WISC-R, Ravens Progressive Matrices, and the Torrance
Test of Creative Thinking. Figure 1 serves as an outline of the identificational procedures (adapted from Wu, 1989).
Students who show signs of artistic or musical talent are selected through both individual performances and aptitude tests, in which they must exhibit a higher than average IQ. Students talented in dance are screened from individual performance and also are required to have an IQ higher than average (Law of Special Education in R. 0. C.,
1991). 26
Teacher Group Achievement Group intelligence Test Recommendation Test
^ •S c re e n in g Decision Uppei Remain in 10% Based on 2 of 3 NO— » Regular Class \ Sercening Procedures
Yes
Achievement Group Creativity Individual I.Q. Test . Performance Test
Yes
Identification Decision Based on I.Q> Remain in over 130 after Consideration of Regular Class Achievement and Creativity Selected
Yes
Placement in Gifted Class
Figure 1 Screening Procedures for Gifted Students in the R.O.C. ( adapted from Wu, 1989 ) 27
Support System:
Any successful program needs the encouragement and full material support from the government. The Ministry of
Education of the Republic of China has developed a plan to
insure a successful program for gifted and talented children through a combination of materials, training, curriculum design, research support and a free flow of this information through various meetings and activities (Ministry of
Education, R. 0. C., 1982). Resources for the development of the children's capabilities have been provided through involvement of local school programs to international exchanges. The variety of strategies employed by the
Ministry of Education to provide resources for development of children's capacities include curriculum design, teacher training, resources and research. The information in Figure
2 indicates the relation of four support areas emanating from the Ministry of Education (adapted from Wu, 1989). MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
PROGRAM DESIGN TEACHER TRAINING RESOURCES RESEARCH
Curriculum design is Designed al the based on the goals of Ministry university and national education and local level. supplemented by the The responsibility of designed by school statutes governing National Needs: personnel to answer colleges. Individual testing, altitude scales, local questions related Designs are developed problem solving lo program effects. by the local grants for teachers mailers,etc. Universities develop experimenlal programs advanced study. Local Needs: reserch. in conjunction with materials lo match local programs and universities subject content.
BENEFITS TO CHILDREN
FIGURE 2. Support Systems for Gifted Education in the R.O.C. ( adapted from Wu, 1989 ) 29
Program Design
The educational system of the Republic of China is a
centralized system and has governmental agencies that
reflect national, provincial and local legislative units.
People interested in gifted education at the national,
regional and local level often cooperate with their governmental counterparts. Thus, guidelines for designing a program are set up by meetings that involve all concerned
Taiwanese.
Meetings of specialists and parties interested in gifted education are held at national, regional and local level. The national meetings are usually held at National
Taiwan Normal University and focus on problems in programming and curriculum development. The regional and local level meetings are held at other nine National
Teacher's colleges. During the meetings of the regional groups, problems of identification, student performance levels, teaching materials and other concerns are discussed.
New ideas, governmental regulations and programs for the future are introduced.
Attending international meetings is another way to improve the gifted educational service by applying successful foreign experiences to the program. Moreover, the Ministry of Education systematically sends review teams to foreign countries to evaluate programs, talk to 30
educational leaders and learn about recent research in these
counties.
Teacher Training
A primary commitment of the government has been to
increase the number of trained teachers available for the implementation of gifted programs. This increase of specialists has reduced the normal student-teacher ratio in gifted classrooms, from 45 to 50 students to 25 to 30 students. This is an important first step toward the development of a workable program.
Funding for teacher training includes both short term and long term support, with funds going to the regionally responsible institution of higher learning. A certified teacher of the gifted must complete 20 credit hours in the field of gifted education. Programs for teachers include weekend workshops, weekly programs and summer programs.
Also, the staff of the ministry and faculty at colleges and universities are retrained by the Ministry of Education.
All these opportunities broaden the expertise of teachers and the support personnel in the Republic of China. Since the ultimate success of this administration, significant time, money and energy have gone into this training.
Resources Provided
Along with the funds provided to reduce the student- teacher ratio, each school also receives funds for the 31 development of resources for students in the programs. The decision on the use of these funds rests with the local school administrator, who consults with the teachers in the program to develop a plan for the utilization of the money
(Wu, 1989). Use of these local funds would include the upgrading of facilities for teaching, such as classrooms and reading rooms for gifted students and the purchase of advanced library materials, equipment, and apparatus. Funds are provided on an annual basis for the continued upgrading of the programs.
However, according to a questionnaire survey by Wu
(1986), the amount of financial support actually differed greatly for each experimental school. Many schools raised funds through other sources, such as parents association and private community agencies.
Students1 Enrichment and Acceleration
There are three principles of instruction in the program for the gifted in Taiwan: 1) to enrich, 2) to broaden the teaching materials, and 3) to adopt the creative teaching methods in the classroom (Wu, 1991). For enriching the materials, more analysis in construction and grammar have been done in Chinese and English classes.
Supplementary materials which are related to the topics in the textbooks, are also provided in Math and Science classes. Flexible teaching methods, such as, self-teaching 32
by students, debates, discussions, group crafts,
experiments, dramas, contests, or games are selected to
stimulate interest and creativity in students. Most of the
time, teachers only play the role of a guide, to record
student performances and hold follow-up discussions with the
students. Therefore, the classroom atmosphere is more
lively than in a regular classroom. Rather than passively
listening to the teacher, the gifted students actively
discuss, make speeches or otherwise express their talents.
In order to provide a better learning environment,
classrooms are placed next to library and resource room which has information, books in different areas and space
for free discussion.
The summer camps sponsored by the university and
colleges are most attractive to the gifted children. They
felt that they gained much from attending summer camps
especially designed for them. For example, the Sunshine
Summer Camp conducted by the National Taiwan Normal
University has been providing for gifted students of junior high schools in the Taipei area since 1980. Two-weeks of
extracurricular activities include studying with university professors, independent study, play with computer, group
counseling, recreational and athletic activities, field trip, creative writing, leadership training, problem solving, etc. 33 Camps on specific subjects are also offered by the government to evaluate gifted abilities. Since 1983, a new program of national selection for highly gifted students in math and science has been designed by the Ministry of
Education. Every year, in early April, those who are selected attend a week of science camps held in National
Taiwan Normal University. University professors are invited to participate in the guidance and evaluation. The qualified students are allowed to enter the higher level of school with exemption from the entrance examination. A scholarship is awarded to those who major in fundamental science in the university.
Measures to fulfill the acceleration of extremely gifted students in primary schools were also announced in
1983. For the first year, about 40 primary students graduated a year early. Presently, highly gifted students in primary, junior high, senior high school and colleges can shorten their education by one year according to the acceleration measures. Thus, ideally, a highly gifted student can save four years at most from primary school to university in the Taiwan educational system. However, the new Special Education Law allows more flexible measures of acceleration without the limitation of one year at each stage for those who are extremely gifted. As a result, more highly gifted students will enjoy the acceleration program. 34
Program Evaluation and Research
Research is performed in basic and applied areas.
Schools perform applied research for the analysis of student performance on testing, anxiety and the effects of specific programs on student leadership or growth.
University research often evaluates national trends in gifted education, levels of teacher education, the impact of programs on attitudes and aptitudes of students. Research has developed in direct response to the emphasis placed on gifted programs. From a limited inquiry into the qualities of gifted education ten years ago, research in the area has developed to evaluate many key questions of gifted education.
Facing Problems
Even though there is overwhelming merit in the gifted and talented education of Taiwan, it is not guaranteed to be problem free. More concern about special class grouping has been expressed in recent years. According to Roger (1986) gifted students "are likely to experience different patterns of success in school and in life in general" (p. 31), grouping become very important to the gifted students' learning and life. Some educators pointed out that by placing gifted children in normal classrooms, they can lead the whole classroom to better results in learning (Mao,
1989; Lehman & Erdwins, 1981). Gifted students can help a 35
teacher teach their classmates as models or tutors. Also,
the gifted children might have better social abilities than
those who stayed in a special classroom. Others argue that
putting gifted students back into normal classrooms will
stop the benefits of special class grouping with respect to
academic achievement and creative thinking (Feldhusen &
Sayler, 1990; Feldhusen & Sokol, 1982). Moreover, the
learning process of the gifted might be slowed down by this action. Both have their own advantages and disadvantages.
Another problem that arises from the elementary gifted
classes is that many students have no comparable classes to go to in the junior high. Since each area has only certain
schools which students are permitted to attend, students whose elementary school has such classes may find they have much readjusting to do in junior high. This is even more serious for the graduates of junior high gifted and talented classes, because in senior high there are only a very limited number of comparable gifted and talented classes at present.
Although education in Taiwan is free and compulsory for the first nine years, one must take one entrance examination for senior high and another examination for college or university entrance. Many parents are preoccupied by the idea that entering the best senior high school is the most important thing of all for their children, since they 36 believe this will result in passing the college entrance
examination. Therefore, they think that the gifted classes
have too much content outside the scope of this exam.
Rather, they put their children in regular classes to be
sure that their children will get into a good high school
and good college. This perception places great pressure on the school. It even influences the normal teaching in the gifted and talented classes.
The teachers for the gifted classes also face problems.
They are all enthusiastic senior teachers and most of them have taken 20 credits of gifted education courses. But they feel it is oftentimes very difficult to deal with a class with high IQs. The students are avid learners who often consume in less than one day the material which teachers have been preparing for a week. Indeed, the gifted classes are often pointed to as "model classes" which should hold study visits, struggle for first place in every contest and answer the parents' queries. Because the emphasis of gifted education is on "enrichment," due to the shortage of sufficient knowledge, resources and time many teachers feel overloaded. They have to collect teaching materials and design curriculum as well as teach and all this makes teachers of the gifted exhausted. Many of them hope to get more chance for advanced studies and to exchange experiences. 37
Perspective:
"The immediate goals of gifted education in Taiwan are to enrich and broaden the expertise and materials available to the school" (Wu, 1989, p. 13). Materials necessary to sustain sophisticated programs from early education through
junior high school are being developed and field tested by universities and schools across the country. Rural and urban schools which are members of the experimental programs continue to develop materials in their special interest area with the intent of producing a clear, usable curriculum for gifted students. Concurrently, teachers, administrators, university personnel and government education officers are being trained to understand, develop and direct programs for the gifted. These leaders will guide the programs for the gifted in the near future.
The long term goals of gifted education include the establishment of programs for academically talented students in all areas of the country to meet the national need of well educated future leaders (Wu, 1991). Moreover, a broad program of talent development is desired by the nation's leadership and the community to foster the growth of Chinese culture and a broad view of Western culture.
Conclusion:
Overall, gifted education in Taiwan is indeed effective. It should carry on and plan for future 38
development. To ensure the full development of all of the
talent in Taiwan, the country must not be contented with
the limited programs in limited areas on an experimental
basis. The multi-flexible gifted education programs ought
to be designed to meet the divergent needs of the students with multi-capabilities (Feldhusen, 1982). The final goals
are, as Passow (1983) states, "total school planning for the pursuit of excellence and the nurturance of individual
talented potential" (p. 3).
In conclusion, the services which the Taiwanese provide
for the gifted and talented students are:
1. Identification
2. Support system
3. Program design
4. Teacher training
5. Resources provided
6. Students' enrichment and acceleration
7. program evaluation and research
Labeling Framework
Drawing from the sociology of deviance (Becker, 1963),
labeling is one of the more widely used frameworks in the
educational system. Labeling theory was initially employed to explain law or rule breaking behavior and its
consequences. However, by expanding its meaning, it has been applied to categorize the physically disabled 39
(Freidson, 1965), the mentally ill (Scheff, 1966), and the mentally retarded (Guskin, 1978; MacMillan, Jones & Aloia,
1974; Mercer, 1973).
Hobbs (1975) articulated the central dilemma associated with the labeling of children. He observed that the classification of school learning difficulties, whether based on cognitive or emotional factors, is a practical necessity in order to provide appropriate special programs for youngsters who cannot learning in regular classroom.
The problem with labeling is that students become identified with the learning difficulty. Stereotype attitudes and beliefs associated with the label can be falsely attributed to each labeled student. This, in turn, shapes the way others interact with the child and negatively influences the child's self-perception. A pattern of self-fulfilling expectations may hinder resolution of the child's problems
(Cornell, 1983).
When applied to gifted and talented children, the theory of labeling might imply: being labeled gifted means having outstanding abilities; others are likely to react differently to persons who are labeled gifted; gifted person might view themselves differently; the effects of labeling will result in patterns of behavior and experiences which lead to an irreversible life pattern very different from 40
those of non-labeled (but equally able) individuals
(Zimmerman, 1985).
The Effects of Gifted Labeling
Not until the 1960's did researchers begin to
recognize the concern of other people's perception of the
gifted. From a questionnaire that was designed to survey
school personnels' attitudes toward the gifted, Weiner and
O'Shea (1963) found that attitudes of supervisors were found to be most favorable, followed by those of administrators, university faculty, teachers, and graduate students. Weiner
(1968) later studied the attitudes of school psychologists and psychometrists toward the gifted. He found that female psychologists and psychometrists, school psychologists and psychometrists who were working in gifted programs, and personnel with less than 10 years or more than 20 years of experience were more inclined to favor gifted children. In addition, Damrin (1965) found that peers of college honor students viewed the gifted the same as, or more favorably than, other students.
In the 1970's, studies related to labeling the gifted continued to focus on attitudes toward the gifted. Mills and Berry (1979) studied the public attitudes toward the gifted and found that teachers and parents of gifted children tended to have more positive attitudes than did regular classroom teachers, educational administrators, community leaders, and the general public. Ford (1978)
developed a Special Program Attitude Survey questionnaire to
study gifted children in pull-out classes to examine these
children's attitudes toward special programming and
identification. The results indicated that most of the
gifted children were aware of the reason for their selection
to the special program, almost all gifted children responded
positively toward the special program, and most of the
gifted children noted indifferent attitudes of family,
friend and teachers toward their being in special programs.
From the 1980’s to the present, studies of gifted
labeling started to focus on both adolescents' attitudes
toward their giftedness and the impact of gifted labeling on
families. In general, adolescents tend to report neutrality
or positive feelings about themselves. For instance, Guskin
et al., (1986) reported that gifted adolescents have a
highly positive view about their giftedness. However, these
children believe that giftedness can be attained by hard work and they did not think of themselves as different from
the general population. Kerr et al., (1988) also found that
adolescents felt positive about their giftedness but did not
believe that others were positive toward them. In addition,
they pointed out that gifted adolescents viewed their
giftedness as a positive indicator toward their personal growth and academic performance, but as a negative indicator 42 in social relations. Robinson (1990) compared adolescents who felt extremely comfortable and uncomfortable with the gifted label. The results indicated that adolescents with parental support were more likely to report being comfortable with the gifted label than those without parental support.
Generally speaking, the impact of gifted labeling on the family comes out positively. For example, Colangelo and
Brower (1987) found that while families held a positive attitude toward the gifted member, it was the gifted who seemed to doubt the positive feeling from siblings and parents regarding their gifted label. Further, Colangelo and Brower (1987) studied self-esteem among gifted and non gifted siblings. It was found that gifted labeling seemed only affect academic areas for labeled individuals. That is, no difference in self-esteem was found between gifted and non-gifted siblings. Cornell (1983) thought that the positive labeling could have significant impact on the family. It would positively influence parental perceptions of the child and enhance the child's status in family group interaction. Unfortunately, siblings were likely to have negative effect and suffered poorer personality adjustment. CHAPTER III
METHOD
Chapter Three provides a description of the subjects participating in the study, the instruments used, data collection procedures, data analysis procedures, definitions of variables, method of assessing reliability of the data, and the statistical analyses employed to test the hypotheses. The research hypotheses are:
1. It was hypothesized that more children will report accepting than rejecting the gifted label.
2. It was hypothesized that children in different grades will report accepting the gifted label differently.
3. It was hypothesized that children who experience more family support are more likely to report accepting the gifted label.
4. It was hypothesized that children who are gifted in different areas will report accepting the gifted label differently.
Subjects
One thousand two hundred and seventy-nine (1279) second and third grade gifted and talented Taiwanese students participated in this study. Subjects were from 36 schools
43 44
(51 classes) located in different parts of Taiwan. A nearly equal distribution of gender was obtained: 641 (50.1%) were male and 638 (49.9%) were female. Three hundred and twenty- nine subjects (25.7%) were academically gifted second graders. The remaining 950 students (74.3%) were gifted and talented third graders in four different areas: 438 (46.1%) in academic, 174 (18.3%) in dance, 87 (9.2%) in music and
251 (26.4%) in visual arts. Figure 3 presents the total number of students from all four areas. 87 Music 174 Dance
767 Academic 251 Visual arts
Figure 3. Distribution of Samples 46
The gender ratio in each grade was slightly different.
For the 329 second grade, 198 (57.4%) were male and 140
(42.6%) were female. For the 950 third graders, there were
454 (47.6%) male and 498 (52.4%) female. Indeed, the gender
ratio in each area of third graders, with the exception of the visual arts students (48.6% male and 51.4% female), was not equally distributed. There were over twice as many academically gifted males as females: 299 (68.9%) males and
139 (31.1%) females. Moreover, more females were talented in dance and music. In dance talented, 13 (7.5%) were males and the remaining 161 (92.53%) were females. Of subjects categorized as musically talented, 18 (20.7%) were males and
69 (79.3%) were females.
To obtain subjects from each school, a list of schools which offered gifted and talented programs was provided by
Dr. Wu from the Graduate Institute of Special Education at
National Taiwan Normal University. According to the list, there were 74 schools (30 academic, 17 visual arts, 17 music and 10 dance) offering academically gifted program from second grade while visual arts, music and dance programs from third grade. In addition, the label "gifted" was added to the names of these programs. However, further contact found that 15 schools did not name their programs "gifted".
Since their students were not labeled gifted, these schools participate in this study. Another 22 schools declined to 47 participate in this study. A total of 36 schools that were willing to participate.
To make sure that truly gifted and talented students were involved in this study, five principals and ten teachers were interviewed by telephone by the researcher regarding their criteria used to identify gifted and talented students. It was found that every school followed the guidelines of selection according to the Ministry of
Education. Students in the gifted and talented programs were first selected from group intelligence tests and group achievement tests. Then they took a series of standardized tests. Students who scored in the top 10 percent took a more stringent battery of standardized intelligence tests, such as the Stanford-Binet, the WISC-R, Ravens Progressive
Matrices, and the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking.
Students who showed signs of artistic or musical talent were selected through individual performances and through aptitude tests in which they must exhibit an IQ higher than average. Students talented in dance were screened from individual performance and also required to have an IQ higher than average.
The size of the 36 schools which participated in this study were very different. The total number of students in each school ranged from 3000 to 12,000, depending on the location of the school. Schools which were located in urban 48
areas were more likely to have more students. However, each
of these schools was the biggest school in its area. The
Taiwanese Ministry of Education requires special program not
to exceed 30 students in a classroom, thus the mean class
size was 25 students for these 51 classes, ranging from 12
students to 30 students.
Of these participating schools, only two provided more than one programs: one provided academic and dance, another provided academic and music. The others provided one program in each school. However, all these programs provided a continuum service for the gifted and talented
students. Once students are admitted into these programs they will be kept in these classes until they graduate from
elementary school.
Since gifted programming in Taiwan starts in second grade for academically gifted students, and in third grade for the other three areas (dance, music and visual arts), it was necessary to involve both grades in all four areas in this study to survey all young gifted children's acceptance of the gifted label. At the time of this study, only the third grade academically gifted students had been in the program for more than one year. The remaining subjects had been in the programs for about four months. 49
Instrument
The survey questionnaire consisted of both open-ended
items and Likert Scale items. Two open-ended items were
adapted from Guskin et al., (1986). The items in the Likert
scale were developed based on Ford (1978) and Robinson's
(1990) questionnaires. Through the pilot study, the Likert
Scale items were modified from a five point interval scale to a three point interval scale to fit the subjects language abilities. Questionnaires were then translated into Chinese to meet the language ability of the subjects. The exact translation from English to Chinese was checked by an expert
in the Department of Chinese at The Ohio State University and also by primary school teachers for gifted and talented
in Taiwan. (See Appendix A, the original questionnaire in
English, and Appendix B, the Chinese version).
In consideration of subjects' language abilities, the
survey questionnaires were directly distributed to the
subjects in the classroom setting and introduced with verbal
instructions from their teachers. Subjects answered the questionnaires in a group situation during the school day.
Students in the class who did not feel comfortable with the questions did not participate in the study.
Data Collection Procedures
Questionnaires, consent forms, and solicitation letters along with the questionnaire instruction sheets in Chinese 50 were mailed to each target school. Second and third grade gifted and talented students were asked to fill out the questionnaires with oral instructions from their teachers.
If, during the test period, any student had any questions regarding answering the questionnaire, they were free to ask help from their teachers. In consideration of the subjects' writing abilities, either form of Chinese writing style was acceptable.
To make certain that all questions were explained properly, the following questionnaire instruction sheet was provided for teachers to explain to their students:
Questionnaire Instruction Sheet
This questionnaire is designed to be answered in a group situation during the school day. Parts of the questions need to be explained by the instructor. It should take about 15 to 20 minutes for a group of students to finish this questionnaire individually. The following instructions should be heeded: * Before the survey begins, please tell the students that since this survey takes place during the school day, if they do not feel comfortable with the questions, they can withdraw at any time. Please provide an alternative activity for those who do not wish to participate.
* Age: please ask students to write down their actual age; e.g., if born in June, 1985, the age is 8.
* Area of giftedness: please ask students to write down the specific area of giftedness; i.e., academic, music, dance.
* Part A, questions 3. 4. and 5: If students do not live with their parents, please ask them to write down their custodian's opinion; e.g., grandparents, uncle, aunt. 51
* Part A, questions 6. and 7: If students have no siblings, please ask them to write down "0."
* Part B (open-ended questions): No specific form of Chinese writing style is required. Students may use any form that best expresses their thinking to answer the questions.
If you have any further questions, please contact Miss Tsuei-Yuan Lai before the questionnaires are distributed. Thank you very much for your help and for the cooperation of your students.
Pilot Study
A trial of the questionnaire was conducted with one second grade gifted class to serve as a pilot for further data collection. This pilot test was conducted to determine the value and usefulness of the questionnaire adapted from experts in America and to determine if additional changes should be made. In addition, the pilot was used to test the comprehensibility of the questionnaire's instructions.
Questionnaire was modified from five points Likert scale to three points scale due to the pilot study. Wording was also changed according to the result of the first pilot. After the changing another pilot study was conducted with the same class to test the usefulness and value of the modification questionnaire.
Data Analysis
Both independent and dependent variables were used in this study. The independent variables were gender, grade, area of gifted/talented, and school. The reason that age 52 did not serve as an independent variable was due to the different explanations of the instructions. Some teachers asked students to write down their actual age whereas others only asked students to write down their age. This might not be a problem in the United States, however some Chinese tend to add one year to their actual age. Therefore, the age for these second and third graders ranged from six years to ten years and varied from one school to another.
The dependent variables came from the subjects' responses to the questions. The following is a description of the variables:
Variable A: Self concept toward gifted label. Question number one deals with subjects' feeling about being labeled gifted and talented. Subjects' beliefs about their own gifted and talented label played a major part when answering the question.
Variable B: Response toward the special program. To better understand subjects' feelings about the gifted program they were in, question number two asks subjects about their happiness in this program.
Variable C: Self reporting parental attitude toward the gifted label. Question number three asks subjects to report their parents' agreement with the gifted label.
Variable D: Self reporting parental approval of subjects’ placement in the gifted program. Question number 53 four asks about parental satisfaction with subjects' being placed in the gifted classroom.
Variable E: Self reporting parental treatment.
Question number five asks subjects if they feel they are treated any differently than their siblings by their parents because of their gifted label.
Variable F: Self report of different treatment from parents. This open-ended question is a sub-question of question numberfive. Four categories were created to code the answers.
Variable G: Self report of siblings' attitude toward the gifted label. Question number six asks subjects to report their siblings' feelings about the gifted label.
Variable H: Self report of siblings' treatment.
Question number seven asks subjects if they feel they receive any different treatment from their siblings because of their gifted label.
Variable I: Self report of different treatment from siblings. This open-ended question is a sub-question of question number seven. Three categories were created to code the answers.
Variable J: Self report of other students' attitudes toward the gifted label. Question number eight asks subjects to report other students' response to the gifted label. 54
Variable K: Self report of teachers' attitude toward
the gifted label. Question number nine asks subjects to
report classroom teachers' response to the gifted label.
Variable L: Self recognition. Question number ten asks
subjects about their feelings toward self, whether they are different than others or not.
Variable M: Approval of the name of the gifted program.
Question number eleven asks subjects' opinion about the name of the gifted program.
Variable N: Older siblings' academic status. Question number twelve asks if any subjects' older siblings are in the gifted program.
Variable 0: Meaning of "gifted" to subjects, open-ended question. Subjects answered freely. Six categories were created to code the answers.
Variable P: Open-ended question asks when the subjects were told they were gifted. Subjects answered freely. Five categories were created to code the answers.
Variable Q: Open-ended question asks who told the subjects that they were gifted. Subjects answered freely.
Five categories were created to code the answers.
Variable R: Open-ended question asks how subjects were told they were gifted. Subjects answered freely. Four categories were created to code the answers.
Variable S: Open-ended question asks how subjects feel 55 about themselves. Subjects answered freely. Five categories were created to code the answers.
Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability of this questionnaire were confirmed through different procedures. Two pilot tests with the same class were conducted in order to test wording, reliability, and item analysis. At the same time, questionnaires were sent out to both teachers for gifted and talented students and Professors of Gifted Education in
Taiwan to study reliability and validity. The pilot study was conducted in a school located in Taichung. Twenty-three second grade academically gifted students were involved in this pilot study. Cards were sent to the teachers with the questionnaire to ask the teachers' reaction to the questionnaire and some basic information about their school.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated and presented for each variable. Analyses were based on the answers
"Yes," one point, "Do Not Know," two points, and "No," three points. To further examine gender, grade, and school as well as gifted-area differences, frequency distributions were performed. One-way, two-way and three-way analyses of variance were performed to compare the differences between and within groups. To assess the relation of answering one question to another, multivariate analyses of variance and 56 were applied.
Chi-square tests in log-linear models were also computed to test the differentiation. According to
Darlington (1990) log-linear models are designed for regression analysis to test the range of hypotheses by choosing the terms in the model. The test is on the terms
"missing" from the model. The more terms omitted from the model, the greater the difference between expected and observed frequencies and the larger the chi-square. A model containing all possible terms will always make all expected cell frequencies exactly equal the observed frequencies, leaving a chi-square of 0. Chapter IV
Results
This chapter provides the results of the Taiwanese
gifted and talented students' responses to the
questionnaire. Comparisons were made of gender, grade,
areas of giftedness and school to assess the differences.
The chapter is divided into two sections: (a) analysis on
Likert scale items and (b) analysis on open-ended items
Analysis on Likert Scale Items
Answers were analized based on the score that "Yes,"
one point, "Do Not Know," two points, and "No," three
points. For the total of 1279 students, the ratio of each
group are described as follows. The gender ratio was: male,
641, and female, 638. The grade ratio was: second grade,
329, and third grade, 950. The ratio for gifted areas were:
academic, 767, dance, 174, music, 87, and visual arts, 251.
Question number one, "The gifted label describes you" addressed student's acceptance of the gifted label. Less than half of the children answered "Yes" (43.9%) to the question that asks whether they feel the gifted label describes them. More than one/third (39.8%) of the students did not sure about their own giftedness by answering "Do not
57 58 know." However/ less than one/fourth answered "No" (16.3%) to the question. The means and standard deviations of the answers are presented on Table 1.
TABLE 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number One bv
GrouDs
Std.
Mean Dev.
By Gender: Male 1.71 0.73
Female 1.74 0.72
By Grade: Second 1.47** 0.65
Third 1.81 0.73
By Gifted Academic 1.67* 0.72
Areas: Dance 1.82 0.75
Music 1.83 0.78
Visual Arts 1.80 0.68
Note. N=1279. * indicates significantly different means at the p<.01 level. ** indicates significantly different means at the p<.0002 level. 59
To determine if the differences with group were
significant, analyses of variance were performed. The
results of one-way analysis of variance indicated that there were significant differences in grade, F(1,1277)=57.88, p<.0002, gifted area, F(3,1275)=3.87, p<.01, and school,
F(35,1243)=4.86, p<.0002. That is, children in second grade and children who are academically gifted tend to better accept the gifted label. In addition, three-way analysis of variance showed that there were significant differences in the interaction of grade and school F(12,1183)=1.86, p<.035.
This indicated that second grade students in some schools did have more positive feelings about their giftedness than third grade student in other schools. Table 2 presents the results of the analysis. TABLE 2
Three-Way ANOVA on Question Number One bv Gender. Grade and
School
Source DF SS MS F P
Sex 1 0.3506 0.3506 0.77 0.3811
Grade 1 28.8528 28.8528 63.18 0.0001**
School 35 74.4507 2.1272 4.66 0.0001**
Sex & Grade 1 0.0488 0.0488 0.11 0.7437
Sex & School 33 12.7992 0.3879 0.85 0.7116
Grade & School 12 10.2120 0.8508 1.86 0.0349*
Interaction 12 6.1282 0.5132 1.12 0.3362
Error 1183 540.2538 0.4567
Total 1278 673.1243
** p < .0002 * p < .035
Question number two, "Do you feel happy in this gifted program?" dealt with the satisfaction about the programming.
The results indicate that most of the students (73.7%) felt happy in their program. Less than one/third (23.0%) of the
children had no opinion about the program. Less than four percent (3.3%) felt unhappy in their program. Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of the answers. TABLE 3
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Two bv
Groups
Std.
Mean Dev.
By Gender: Male 1.29 0.52
Female 1.31 0.52
By Grade: Second 1.26 0.53
Third 1.31 0.52
By Gifted Academic 1.28 0.52
Areas: Dance 1.34 0.54
Music 1.33 0.54
Visual Arts 1.29 0.50 62
When three-way analysis of variance was performed, significant differences were found on the interaction among gender, grade and school, F(12)=1.97, p<.024. This indicated that students of different gender at different grade in different school do answer at significantly different rate. Table 4 presents the results of the analysis.
TABLE 4
Three-Wav ANOVA on Question Number Two bv Gender. Grade and
School
Source SS MS F P i i i i o l i '
Sex 1 0.1298 0.1298 0.49 0.4828
Grade 1 0.5690 0.5690 2.16 0.1419
School 35 16.6178 0.4748 1.80 0.0030**
Sex & Grade 1 0.2132 0.2132 0.81 0.3685
Sex & School 33 11.1871 0.3390 1.29 0.1295
Grade & School 12 3.6662 0.3055 1.16 0.3076
Interaction 12 6.2351 0.5962 1.97 0.0235*
Error 1183 311.6664 0.2635
Total 1278 350.2846
** p<.004 * p < .025 It was found that most of the students were satisfied with the program regardless of their acceptance of the gifted label. When further analyses were made, children who accepted being gifted were more likely (81.8%) to report to feel happy in their program, whereas children who did not accept the gifted label were more likely to report unhappiness. Very few (1.78%) of the children who accept that they were gifted were unhappy in their program.
Moreover, more than half (59.3%) of the children who did not accept the gifted label also reported they were happy in their program. Table 5 presents the results of the analysis. 64
TABLE 5
Table of Question Number One by Question Number Two
Question 1 Question 2
Frequency Expected Percent Row Pet Do not Col Pet Happy Know Unhappy Total
Yes 459 92 10 561 413.62 128.96 18.42 35.89 7.19 0.78 43.86 81.82 16.40 1.78 48.67 31.29 23.81
Do Not 360 141 8 509 Know 375.28 117 16.72 28.15 11.02 0.63 39.80 70.73 27.70 1.57 38.18 47.96 19.05
No 124 61 ** 24 209 154.09 48.04 6.86 9.70 4.77 1.88 16.34 59.33 29.19 11.48 13.15 20.75 57.14
Total 943 294 42 1279 73.73 22.99 3.28 100.00
Note. Chi-Square DF(4) = =81.669. * indicates a contribution of more than 5 points, ** indicates a contribution of more than 50 points. Question number three, "Your parents would agree that the gifted label describes you" asked students to report whether their parents think they are gifted or not. Results showed that less than half (45.3%) of the students reported
"Yes." More than one/third (40.9%) of the students reported
"Do not know." Less than 14 percent (13.8%) of the students reported "No." Table 6 presents the means and standard deviations of the answers. 66
TABLE 6 Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Three bv
Groups
std.
Mean Dev.
By Gender: Male 1.72 0.73
Female 1.65 0.67
By Grade: Second 1.57* 0.69
Third 1.73 0.70
By Gifted Academic 1.69 0.73
Areas: Dance 1.69 0.64
Music 1.70 0.72
Visual Arts 1.67 0.67
Note. N=1279. * indicates significantly different means at the p<.001 level. 67
One-way analysis of variance showed significant
differences in grade, F(l, 1277)=11.84, p<.001 and school,
F(35,1234)=1.99, p<.001. Despite school differences,
children in second grade were more likely to report "Yes"
confidently (second grade, 54.41%; third grade, 42.11%). No differences were found on either gender or gifted area. In
addition, no interactions were found when two-way and three- way analyses of variance were computed. However, when
further analyses were made, it was found that children who accepted the gifted label were more likely to report "Yes"
(67%) while children who did not accept the gifted label were more likely to report "No" (39.2%). Table 7 presents the results of the analysis. 68
TABLE 7
Table of Question Number One bv Question Number Three
Question 1 Question 3
Frequency Expected Percent Row Pet Do Not Col Pet Yes Know No Total
Yes ** 376 ** 151 ★ ic 34 561 253.96 229.40 77.64 29.40 11.81 2.66 43.86 67.02 26.92 6.06 64.94 28.87 19.21
Do Not 164 ** 284 61 509 Know 230.42 208.14 70.44 12.82 22.20 4.77 39.80 32.22 58.80 11.98 28.32 54.30 34.46
No * * 39 88 *** 82 209 94.61 85.46 28.92 3.05 6.88 6.41 16.34 18.66 42.11 39.23 6.74 16.83 46.33
Total 579 523 177 1279 45.27 40.89 13.84 100.00
Note. Chi-Square DF(4)=288.91 * indicates a contribution of more than 15 points. ** indicates a contribution of more than 30 points. *** indicates a contribution of more than
90 points. 69
Question number four, "Are your parents happy that you
are in this program?" asked students to report their
parents' satisfaction with the programming. According to
the children's report, most parents were satisfied with their child's program. Table 8 presents the means and
standard deviations of the answers. 70
TABLE 8
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Four bv Groups
Std.
Mean Dev.
By Gender: Male 1.23 0.51
Female 1.20 0.47
By Grade: Second 1.25 0.54
Third 1.21 0.47
By Gifted Academic 1.24 0.51
Areas: Dance 1.29 0.52
Music 1.25 0.51
Visual Arts 1.10 * 0.35
Note. N=1279. * indicates significantly different means at the p<.0002 level. One-way analysis of variance showed that there were
significant differences in gifted area, F(3,1275)=6.85,
p<.0002, and in schools, F(35,1243)=2.28, p<.0002. Results
indicated that students who were gifted in visual arts
(91.63%) tended to positively report more parents'
satisfaction than students who were gifted in other areas.
Significant differences were found in the interaction of
gender and gifted area when two-way analysis of variance was performed. Table 9 presents the results of the analysis.
TABLE 9
Two-Wav ANOVA on Question Number Four bv Gender and Gifted
Area
Source DF SS MS F P
Sex 1 0.3236 0.3236 1.38 0.2408
Area 3 5.3003 1.7668 7 .52 0.0001**
Interaction 3 1.8512 0.6171 2.63 0.0491*
Error 1271 298.6640 0.2350
Total 1278 306.1391
** p < .0002 * p<.05 72
When three-way analysis of variance was computed there were significant differences in the interaction of gender with grade, grade with school and area with school,
F(12,1234)=2.49, p<.0035 . Table 10 presents the results of the analysis.
TABLE 10
Three-Wav ANOVA on Question Number Four by Gender. Grade and
School
Source DF SS MS F P
Sex 1 0.3236 0.3236 1.43 0.2316
Grade 1 0.3694 0.3694 1.63 0.2013
School 35 18.1479 0.5185 2.29 0.0001***
Sex & Grade 1 0.9180 0.9180 4.06 0.0441*
Sex & School 33 7.8046 0.2365 1.05 0.3966
Grade & School 12 6.9686 0.5807 2.57 0.0023**
Interaction 12 4.2749 0.3562 1.58 0.0923
Error 1183 267.3322 0.2260
Total 1278 306.1391
*** p < .0002 ** p < .003 * p < .045 73
It was found that most of the parents, according to the students reports, were satisfied with the program. When further analyses were made, children who accepted being gifted were more likely {91.27%) to report parents' satisfaction. Very few children (1.78%) who accept that they were gifted reported parental unsatisfaction.
Moreover, about 69.3% of the children who did not accept the gifted label also reported their parents’ satisfaction.
Table 11 presents the results of the analysis. 74
TABLE 11
Table of Question Number One bv Question Number Four
Question 1 Question 4
Frequency Expected Percent Row Pet Do not Col Pet Happy Know Unhappy Total
Yes 512 ★ * 39 10 561 456.61 85.09 18.86 40.03 3.05 0.78 43.86 91.27 6.95 1.78 49.18 20.10 23.26
Do Not 385 106 18 509 Know 414.28 77.21 17.11 30.10 8.29 1.41 39.80 75.64 20.83 3.54 36.89 54.64 41.86
No 145 49 15 209 170.11 31.70 7.03 11.34 3.83 1.17 16.34 69.38 23.44 7.18 13.93 25.26 34.88
Total 943 294 42 1279 73.73 22.99 3.28 100.00
Note. Chi-Square DF(4)=72.56. * indicates a contribution of more than 5 points. ** indicates a contribution of more than 20 points. 75
Question number five, "Do your parents treat you differently because you are gifted?" asked the students to report if they received any different treatment from their parents because of their giftedness. Results indicated that most of the students (71.1%) reported they received no different treatment from their parents. In addition, a few
(15.7%) students reported they received different treatment from their parents. Table 12 presents the means and standard deviations of the answers. TABLE 12
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Five bv
Groups
Std.
Mean Dev.
By Gender: Male 2.55 0.76
Female 2.56 0.74
By Grade: Second 2.48* 0.80
Third 2.58 0.73
By Gifted Academic 2.54 0.77
Areas: Dance 2.57 0.66
Music 2.37** 0.90
Visual Arts 2.65 0.68
Note. N=1279. * indicates significantly different means at the p<.05 level. ** indicates significantly different means at the p<.02 level. 77
While one-way analysis of variance was performed, there
were significant differences in grade, F(1,1277)=4.25,
p<.05, and gifted area, F(3,1275)=3.55, p<.02. This
indicated that students in second grade and students who
were musically talented were more likely to report they
received different treatment from their parents.
Significant differences were also found in the interaction
of school and grade, F(12,1230)=3.92, p<.0002. Table 13
presents the result of the analysis.
TABLE 13
Two-Wav ANOVA on Question Number Five bv grade and School
Source DF SS MSFP
Grade 1 0.2688 0.2688 0.50 0.4810
School 35 27.1409 0.7755 1.43 0.0496*
Interaction 12 25.4322 2.1193 3.92 0.0001**
Error 1230 665.2394 0.5408
Total 1278 718.0813
** p < .0002 * p<.05 78
Results of further analyses also indicated that students who accepted the gifted label tended to report they received more different treatment from their parents. Table
14 presents the results of the analysis.
TABLE 14
Table of Question Number One bv Question Number Five
Question 1 Question 5
Frequency Expected Percent Row Pet Do Not Col Pet Yes Know No Total
Yes 104 63 394 561 88.16 74.13 398.71 8.13 4.93 30.81 43.86 18.54 11.23 70.23 51.74 37.28 43.34
Do Not 68 * 85 356 509 Know 79.99 67.26 361.75 5.32 6.65 27.83 39.80 33.83 50.30 39.16 28.32 54.30 34.46
NO 29 21 159 209 32.85 27.62 148.54 2.27 1.64 12.43 16.34 13.88 10.05 76.08 14.43 12.43 17.49
Total 201 169 909 1279 15.72 13.21 71.07 100.00
Note. Chi-Square DF(4)=13.91. * indicates a contribution of more than 2 points. The 201 students who reported they received different treatment from their parents were then asked to explain what the differences were. The answers were categorized as (a) high expectation and pressure, (b) extra home work, (c) kind and good treatment, and (d) no answer. More than one/third
(35%) of the subjects did not put down anything to explain the differences. However, most of the students (63.1%) who wrote down their answers did express the feelings of high expectation and pressure. Less than one/third (30%) of the students thought their parents were especially kind and good to them.
Question number six, "Your brothers and sisters would agree that the gifted label describes you" asked students to report their siblings' opinion about their giftedness.
About one/third (34.2%) of the students reported "Yes."
Forty percent of them answered "Do Not Know." Less than 20 percent (18.3%) answered "No," about ten percent (9.6%) reported to have no siblings. Table 15 presents the means and standard deviations of the answers. TABLE 15 Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Six by
Groups
Std.
Mean Dev.
By Gender: Male 1.63 0.91
Female 1.71 0.85
By Grade: Second 1.51 * 0.88
Third 1.72 0.88
By Gifted Academic 1.60 * 0.90
Areas: Dance 1.90 0.79
Music 1.61 * 0.93
Visual Arts 1.76 0.85
Note. N=1279. * indicates significantly different means at the p<.0005 level. 81
Results of one-way analysis of variances indicated that
there are significant differences on grade, F(l,1277) = 14.03,
p<.0005, gifted area, F(3,1275)=6.59, p<.0005, and school,
F(35,1243)=1.80, p<.0035. That is, students in second grade
and academically and musically gifted students in different
schools were more likely to report positively.
Significant differences were also found in the
interaction of gender, grade and school when three-way
analysis was performed. These indicated that second grade male students in different schools were more confident about
their siblings' acceptance of the gifted label for them.
Table 16 presents the results of the analysis. TABLE 16
Three-Wav ANOVA on Question Number Six bv Gender, Grade and
School
Source DF SS MS F P
Sex 1 2.5412 2.5412 3.35 0.0674
Grade 1 10.0198 10.0198 13.21 0.0003**
School 35 38.8496 1.1100 1.46 0.0407*
Sex & Grade 1 0.0051 0.0051 0.01 0.9346
Sex & School 33 22.0263 0.6675 0.88 0.6636
Grade & School 12 8.04944 0.6708 0.88 0.5626
Interaction 12 17.9776 1.4981 1.98 0.0233*
Error 1183 897.2941 0.7585
Total 1278 996.7631
** p<.0004 * p < .0453
When further analyses were made, students who accepted the gifted label were more likely (50.1%) to have positive reports on their siblings' acceptance of the gifted label.
In addition, students who did not accept the gifted label had negative reports (40.2%). Table 17 presents the results of the analysis. 83
TABLE 17
Table of Question Number One bv Question Number Six
Question 1 Question 6
Frequency Expected Percent Row Pet No Do Not Col Pet Sibling Yes Know No Total
Yes 55 ** 281 * 34 * 63 561 53.95 179.84 224.58 102.64 4.30 21.97 12.67 4.93 43.86 9.82 50.09 28.88 11.23 44.72 68.54 19.21 26.92
Do Not 47 * 100 * 275 87 509 Know 48.95 163,17 203.76 93.12 3.67 7.82 21.50 6.80 39.80 9.23 19.65 54.03 17.09 38.21 24.39 53.71 37.18
No 21 * 29 75 ** 84 209 20.10 67.00 83.67 38.24 1.64 2.27 5.86 6.57 16.34 10.05 13.88 35.89 40.19 17.07 7 .07 14.65 35.90
Total 123 410 512 234 1279 9.62 32.06 40.03 18.30 100.00
Note. Chi-Square DF(6)=216.77. * indicates a contribution of more than 14 points. ** indicates a contribution of more than 50 points. 84
Question number seven, "Do your brothers and sisters treat you differently because you are gifted?" Students were asked to report any differences in treatment from their siblings. The means and standard deviations of the subjects answers are presented on Table 18. TABLE 18 Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Seven by
Groups
Std.
Mean Dev.
By Gender: Male 2.34 * 1.02
Female 2.48 0.93
By Grade: Second 2.28 * 1.07
Third 2.46 0.94
By Gifted Academic 2.36 * 1.03
Areas: Dance 2.55 0.75
Music 2.28 * 0.06
Visual Arts 2.51 0.90
Note. N=1279. * indicates significantly different means at the pc.Ol level. ** indicates significantly different means at the p<.0002 level. 86
When computing one-way analysis of variance, significant differences were found in all four independent variables: gender, grade, gifted area, and school. These indicated that those more likely to report receiving different treatment from their siblings were male students, second graders, musically gifted, and those in different schools. However, no significant difference was found in interaction when computing both two-way and three-way analyses of variance. Table 19, 20, 21, and 22 present the results of analyses.
TABLE 19
One-Way ANOVA on Question Number Seven bv Gender
Source DF SS MS F P
Gender 1 5.6801 5.6801 5.97 0.0147*
Error 1277 1215.9978 0.9522
Total 1278 1221.6779
* p < .015 87
TABLE 20
One-Way ANOVA on Question Number Seven bv Grade
Source DF SS MS FP
Grade 1 7.6738 7.6738 8.07 0.0046*
Error 1277 1214.0041 0.9501
Total 1278 1221.6779
* p < .005
TABLE 21
One-Way ANOVA on Question Number Seven by Gifted Area
Source DF SS MS F P
Area 3 9.0107 3.0036 3.16 0.0240*
Error 1275 1212.6672 0.9511
Total 1278 1221.6779
* p < .025 88
TABLE 22 One-Way ANOVA on Question Number Seven bv School
Source DF SS MS F P
School 35 55.1887 1.5768 1.68 0.0082*
Error 1243 1166.4892 0.9384
Total 1278 1221.6779
* p < .009
When further analyses were made, it was found that students who accepted the gifted label tended to report they received more different treatment from parents. Table 23 contains the results of the analysis. 89
TABLE 23 Table of Question Number One bv Question Number Seven
Question 1 Question 7
Frequency Expected Percent Row Pet No Do Not Col Pet Sibling Yes Know No Total
Yes 56 * 51 79 375 561 53.95 38.16 92.11 376.78 4.38 3.99 6.18 20.32 43.86 9.98 9.09 14.08 66.84 45.53 58.62 37.62 43.66
Do Not 46 * 25 93 345 509 Know 48.95 34.62 83.57 341.85 3.60 1.95 7.27 26.97 39.80 9.04 4.91 18.27 67.78 37.40 28.74 44.29 40.16
No 21 11 38 139 209 20.10 14.22 34.32 140.37 1.64 0.86 2.97 10.87 16.34 10.05 5.26 18.18 66.51 17.07 12.64 18.10 16.18
Total 123 87 210 859 1279 9.62 6.80 16.42 67.16 100.00
Note. Chi-Square DF(6)=11.39. * indicates a contribution of more than 2 points. 90
The 123 students who reported they received different
treatment from their siblings were then asked to explain
what the differences were. The answers were categorized as
(a) respect, kind and proud of (b) hate and fight (c) no
answer. Nearly half (44.8%) of the subjects did not put
down anything to explain the differences. However, most of
the students (62.5%) who wrote down their answers did
express their siblings’ treatment by such answers as
"respect," "kind" and "proud of." The remaining students
(37.5%) thought their siblings either hated them or would
fight with them.
Question number eight, "The other students in your
school would agree that the gifted label describes you"
looked at the other students' opinion about the subjects'
giftedness. More than half (50.4%) of the subjects answer
"Don't know" to this question. About 40 percent (40.4%) did
report the others' opinion as positive. Less than 10 percent (9.2%) answered negatively. The means and standard deviations of the answers are presented on Table 24. 91
TABLE 24
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Eight bv
Groups
Std.
Mean Dev.
By Gender: Male 1.69 0.63
Female 1.70 0.65
By Grade: Second 1.68 * 0.61
Third 1.75 0.64
By Gifted Academic 1.62 * 0.63
Areas: Dance 1.87 0.59
Music 1.78 0.69
VisualArts 1.73 0.62
Note. N=1279. * indicates significantly different means at the p < .0002 level. 92 Results of one-way analysis of variances indicated that
there are significant differences in grade, F( 1,1277)=33.16,
p<.0002, gifted area, F(3,1275)=8.66, p<.0002, and school,
F(35,1243)=3.11, p<.0002. These suggest that students in
second grade and students who are academically gifted were more likely to report positively.
Significant differences were also found in the
interaction of grade and school when three-way analysis of variance was performed. This indicated that second grade
students in different schools were more confident about others' acceptance of the gifted label toward them. Table
25 presents the results of the analysis. TABLE 25 Three-Way ANOVA on Question Number Eight by Gender, Grade
and School
Source DF SS MS FP
Sex 1 0.1309 0.1309 0.36 0.5487
Grade 1 13.2054 13.2054 36.32 0.0001**
School 35 36.9610 1.0560 2.90 0.0001**
Sex & Grade 1 0.6303 0.6303 1.73 0.1882
Sex & School 33 11.3110 0.3428 0.94 0.5618
Grade & School 12 8.91374 0.7428 2.04 0.0181*
Interaction 12 7.5706 1.6309 1.73 0.0546
Error 1183 430.1794 0.3636
Total 1278 580.9023
** p < .0002 * p < .02
Results of further analyses also suggested that
students who accepted the gifted label tended to report positively about other students' attitudes toward their gifted label whereas students who did not accept the gifted
label were more likely to report negatively. Table 26 presents the results of the analysis. 94
TABLE 26
Table of Question Number One by Question Number Eight
Question 1 Question 8
Frequency Expected Percent Row Pet Do Not Col Pet Yes Know No Total
Yes ** 339 * 191 31 561 226.77 281.91 51.32 26.51 14.93 2.42 43.86 60.43 34.05 5.53 65.57 29.61 26.50
Do Not * 128 346 35 509 Know 205.75 256.69 46.56 10.01 27.05 2.74 39.80 25.15 67.98 6.88 24.76 55.64 29.91
No 50 108 ** 51 209 84.48 105.40 19.12 3.91 8.44 3.99 16.34 23.92 51.67 24.40 9.67 16.74 43.59
Total 517 645 117 1279 40.42 50.43 9.15 100.00
Note. Chi-Square DF(4)=224.08. * indicates a contribution of more than 20 points. ** indicates a contribution of more than 50 points. 95 Question number nine, "Teachers in your class would agree that the gifted label describes you" concerned classroom teachers' attitudes toward the gifted label. Only one/third (34.9%) of the students answered "Yes." in addition, more than half (56.4%) of them responded "Do Not
Know," and less than 10 percent (8.7%) put "No" as their answers. Table 27 presents the means and standard deviations of the answers. 96? U
TABLE 27
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Nine bv
Groups
Std.
Mean Dev.
By Gender: Male 1.74 0.63
Female 1.74 0.58
By Grade: Second 1.54 * 0.59
Third 1.81 0.60
By Gifted Academic 1.69 * 0.62
Areas: Dance 1.89 0.61
Music 1.44 * 0.56
Visual Arts 1.88 0.52
Note. N=1279. * indicates significantly different means at the p<.0002 level. 97
Of the 111 students, who reported they were not viewed
as a gifted individual by their teachers, were mostly from
academically gifted (65). However, this is about eight percent (8.5%) of the academically gifted subjects. Indeed,
students who were in dance programs had a higher percentage
(13.22%) to report they were not viewed as gifted
individuals by their teachers.
Results of one-way analysis of variances indicated that there were significant differences in grade,
F(l,1277)=48.58, p<.0002, gifted area, F(3,1275)=16.94, p<.0002, and school, F(35,1243)=8.39, p<.0002. That is,
students in second grade and students who are academic and music gifted were more likely to report positively on their teachers' attitudes toward their giftedness.
Significant differences were also found in the interaction of grade and school when three-way analysis was performed. This indicated that second grade students in different schools were more confident about their teachers' attitude toward their gifted label. Table 28 presents the results of the analysis. 98
TABLE 28
Three-Wav ANOVA on Question Number Nine bv Gender, Grade and
School
Source DF CO 1 1 W MSFP i i i i i
Sex 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.9911
Grade 1 17.3221 17.3221 59.61 0.0001*
School 35 81.6488 2.2328 8.03 0.0001*
Sex & Grade 1 0.0135 0.0135 0.05 0.8293
Sex & School 33 8.4233 0.2553 0.88 0.6662
GradesSchool 12 14.5743 1.2145 4.18 0.0001*
Interaction 12 3.4956 0.2913 1.00 0.4442
Error 1183 343.7779 0.2906
Total 1278 469.2557
* p < .0002
Results of further analyses also suggested that
students who accepted the gifted label tended to report positively about their teachers' attitudes toward their gifted label. Students who reported "Don’t know" about whether the gifted label described them or not tended to answer "Don't know" to this question. In addition, students 99 who did not accept the gifted label were more likely to
report negatively. Table 29 presents the results of the analysis.
TABLE 29
Table of Question Number One bv Question Number Nine
Question 1 Question 9
Frequency Expected Percent Row Pet Do Not Col Pet Yes Know No Total
Yes *** 315 * 219 27 561 195.63 316.69 48.69 24.63 17.12 2.11 43.86 56.15 39.04 4.81 70.63 30.33 24.32
Do Not * 96 * 379 34 509 Know 177.49 287.33 44.17 7.51 29.63 2.66 39.80 18.86 74.46 6.68 21.52 52.49 30.63
No 35 124 ** 50 209 72.88 117.98 18.14 2.74 9.70 3.91 16.34 16.75 59.33 23.92 7.85 17.17 45.05
Total 446 722 111 1279 34.87 56.45 8.68 100.00
Note. Chi-Square DF(4)=257.61. * indicates a contribution of more than 20 points. ** indicates a contribution of more than 50 points. *** indicates a contribution of more than
70 points. 100
Question number ten, "Do you feel that you are different from the other people of your age?" More than half (53.8%) of the students answered "Yes" regardless of their acceptance of the gifted label. About 30 percent
(29.9%) of the students answer "No." Table 30 presents the means and standard deviations of the answers. TABLE 30
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Ten bv
Groups
Std.
Mean Dev.
By Gender: Male 1.80 0.89
Female 1.72 0.88
By Grade: Second 1.57 * 0.80
Third 1.83 0.90
By Gifted Academic 1.79 0.88
Areas: Dance 1.64 0.84
Music 1.71 0.89
Visual Arts 1.77 0.91
Note. N=1279. * indicates significantly different means at the p<.0002 level.
When computing the one-way analysis of variance, significant differences were found in grade,
F(l,1277)=20.81, p<.0002, and school, F(35,1243)=3.07, p<.0002. These indicated that second grade students were 102 9 more likely to report feeling different. Significant differences were also found in the interaction of grade and school while performing three-way analysis of variance.
Table 31 presents the results of the analysis.
TABLE 31
Three-Wav ANOVA on Question Number Ten bv Gender. Grade and
School
Source DF SS MS F P
Sex 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.9911
Grade 1 17.3221 17.3221 59.61 0.0001*
School 35 81.6488 2.2328 8.03 0.0001*
Sex & Grade 1 0.0135 0.0135 0.05 0.8293
Sex & School 33 8.4233 0.2553 0.88 0.6662
Grade&School 12 14.5743 1.2145 4.18 0.0001*
Interaction 12 3.4956 0.2913 1.00 0.4442
Error 1183 343.7779 0.2906
Total 1278 469.2557
* p < .0002 103
The results of further analyses also suggested that
students who accepted the gifted label tended to feel different from others/ whereas students who did not accepted the gifted label tended to feel no different. Table 32 presents the results of the analysis.
TABLE 32
Table of Question Number One bv Question Number Ten
Question 1 Question 10
Frequency Expected Percent Row Pet Do Not Col Pet Yes Know No Total
Yes * 307 48 143 561 301.77 91.23 167.99 28.93 3.75 11.18 43.86 65.95 8.56 25.49 53.78 23.08 37.34
Do Not 227 ** 138 144 509 Know 273.80 82.78 152.42 17.75 10.79 11.26 39.80 44.60 27.11 28.29 32.99 66.35 37.60
No 91 22 * 96 209 112.43 33.99 62.59 7.11 1.72 7.51 16.34 43.54 10.53 45.93 13.23 10.58 25.07
Total 688 208 383 1279 53.79 16.26 29.95 100.00
Note. Chi-Square DF(4)= 111.09. * indicates a contribution of more than 15 points. ** indicates a contribution of more than 35 points. Question number eleven, "Do you think the name of the program is OK to you?" concerned the program title. Most of the students (80.3%) seemed to like the names of their program. Less than 20 percent (19.7%) did not like the name at all (9.3%) or did not have an opinion (10.4%). Table 33 presents the means and standard deviations of the answers. 105
TABLE 33 Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Eleven by
Groups
Std.
Mean Dev.
By Gender: Male 1.29 0.63
Female 1.32 0.66
By Grade: Second 1.11 * 0.40
Third 1.35 0.68
By Gifted Academic 1.27 0.60
Areas: Dance 1.46 0.76
Music 1.09 * 0.39
Visual Arts 1.30 0.65
Note. N=1279. * indicates significantly different means at the p<.0002 level. 106
Results of one-way analysis of variances indicated that there are significant differences in grade, F(l,1277)=36.61, p < .0002, gifted area, F(3,1275)=7.52, p<.0002, and school,
F(35,1243)=8.85, p<.0002. That is, students in second grade and students who are talented in music were more likely to like the names of their programs better. Significant differences were also found in the interaction of grade and school when computing three-way analysis of variance. This suggested that students in second grade of different schools did answer significantly different from others. Table 34 presents the results of the analysis. 107
TABLE 34
Three-Wav ANOVA on Question Number Eleven bv Gender. Grade and School
Source DF SS MSF P
Sex 1 1.2591 1.2591 4.08 0.0436*
Grade 1 14.8157 14.8157 48.03 0.0001***
School 35 94.8684 2.7105 8.79 0.0001***
Sex & Grade 1 0.0504 0.0504 0.16 0.6861
Sex & School 33 13.5197 0.4097 1.33 0.1026
Grade&School 12 9.9292 0.8274 2.68 0.0014**
Interaction 12 2.0580 0.1715 0.56 0.8779
Error 1183 364.8834 0.3084
Total 1278 501.3839
*** p<.0002 ** p<.0014 * p < .05
Results of further analyses suggested that students who accepted the gifted label tended to like the names of their program better. Students who did not accepted the gifted label seemed to like the names of their program less. Table
35 presents the results of the analysis. 108
TABLE 35
Table of Question Number One by Question Number Eleven
Question 1 Question 11
Frequency Expected Percent Row Pet Don' t Col Pet Yes Know No Total
Yes * 512 ** 25 24 561 450.47 58.34 52.20 40.03 1.95 1.88 43.86 91.27 4.46 4.28 49.85 18.80 20.17
DO Not 380 ** 81 48 509 Know 408.71 52.93 47.36 29.71 6.33 3.75 39.80 74.66 15.91 9.43 37.00 60.90 40.34
No * 135 27 icieit 47 209 167.82 21.73 19.45 10.56 2.11 3.67 16.34 64.59 12.92 22.49 13.15 20.30 39.50
Total 1027 133 119 1279 80.30 10.40 9.30 100.00
Note. Chi-Square DF(4)=106.34. * indicates a contribution of more than 5 points. ** indicates a contribution of more than 15 points. *** indicates a contribution of more than
40 points. Question number twelve, "Does any of your older
brothers or sisters study in a gifted program?" Forty-two percent of the students have no older brothers or sisters.
However, of the 742 students with older siblings 26.1% of the older brothers or sisters studied in a gifted program.
Table 36 presents the means and standard deviations of the answers. 110
TABLE 36
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Number Twelve bv
Groups
Std.
Mean Dev.
By Gender: Male 0.96 0.92
Female 1.04 0.91
By Grade: Second 0.88 0.92
Third 1.04 * 0.91
By Gifted Academic 0.93 0.93
Areas: Dance 1.29 ** 0.87
Music 0.94 0.89
Visual Arts 1.01 0.87
Note. N=1279. * indicates significantly different means at the p<.01 level. ** indicates significantly different means at the p<.0002 level. Ill When computing one-way analysis of variance, significant differences were found in grade, F( 1,1277)=6.80, p<.01, gifted area, F(3,1275)=7.52, p<.0002, and school,
F(35,1243)=2.25, p<.0002. These indicated that students in third grade and students who are talented in visual arts or music were more likely to have older siblings studied in gifted programs. No significant difference was found when computing either two-way or three-way analyses of variance.
Also, students who were not sure of their giftedness had the highest percentage with a older brothers or sisters studied in gifted programs. Table 37 presents the results of the analysis. 112
TABLE 37
Table of Question Number One bv Question Number Twelve
Question 1 Question 12
Frequency Expected Percent Row Pet No Col Pet Sibling Yes No Total
Yes 232 93 236 561 234.66 93.87 231.59 18.14 7.27 18.45 43.86 41.35 16.58 42.07 43.35 43.46 44.760
Do Not 208 92 209 509 Know 212.91 85.17 210.13 16.26 7.19 16.34 39.80 40.87 18.07 41.06 38.69 42.99 39.58
No * 97 29 83 209 87.42 34.97 86.28 7.58 2.27 6.49 16.34 46.41 13.88 39.71 18.13 13.55 15.72
Total 537 214 528 1279 41.99 16.73 41.28 100.00
Note. Chi-Square DF(4)=3.46. * indicates a contribution of more than 1 point. 113 Analysis of Open-Ended Items
Question number one, "As a talented young person, you
may have been labeled by others (the school, your family,
your peers) as gifted. What does the label gifted mean to you?" The answers were coded into five categories: 1) honor
- good, glad, and proud of self, 2) uncomfortable - never been called gifted, and did not think they were qualified
for such a label, 3) pressure - high expectation, too much home work/study, 4) genius - different from others, very
special people, very smart, better than others, and 5) nothing - no opinion, no meaning at all or did not answer.
Figure 4 presents the distribution of answers. 44 Uncomfortable
273 Genius
631 Nothing special & didn't answer 16 Pressure
315 Honor
Figure 4. What Does Gifted Label Mean to You? Nearly fifty percent (49.3%) of the students' answers were on category five. In addition, students who did not accept the gifted label had a high percentage (58.4%) in category five, whereas answers for students who accepted the gifted label were mostly in three categories; category one
(33.9%), category four (36.2%), and category five (26%).
Figure 5 presents the distribution of answers for students who accepted the gifted label. 12 Uncomfortable 203 Nothing special & 146 Genius didn't answer
'//////A
10 Pressure
190 Honor
Figure 5. What Does Gifted Label Mean to You? (n=561) Question number two, "(a) When were you told you were gifted? (b) Who told you? (c) How did they tell you? and (d)
As a gifted youngster, how do you feel about your self?"
About half (49.2%) of the students were told they were gifted when they were first grade. Less than seven percent
(6.6%) of the students were told in kindergarten or earlier.
Figure 6 presents the distribution of answers. 85 Forgot & 151 didn't answer Kindergarten
629 First grade
414 Second grade
Figure 6. When Were You Told that You Are Gifted? When further analysis was made, most of the male
students (62.%) were found to be gifted in first grade while
female students were found to be gifted in either first
grade (36.2%) or second grade (38.9%). According to the
answers given by the students, their giftedness were
discovered through the entrance examination of the gifted
and talented programs. Thus, students who were academically
gifted were found to be gifted at first grade (77.3%) mostly, whereas students who were gifted in the other three
areas were found to be gifted at second grade.
Most students were told they were gifted either by their parents (39.8%) or their teacher (32.7%) in a joyful way (73.8%). Figure 7 and Figure 8 present the distribution of answers. 78 Friends or 134 relatives Poster/newspaper
140 Forgot & didn’t answer
418 Teachers
Figure 7. Who Told You that You Are Gifted? 138 Poster or 25 Phone Letter
172 Forgot & didn't answer
944 Directly & pround
Figure 8. How Did People Tell You That You Are Gifted? 122
The answers to how the students felt about themselves were coded into six categories: 1) positive about self - class is wonderful, could learn many good things, an honor to be gifted, proud to be gifted 2) uncomfortable - think they are not gifted, 3) nothing different at all - no special feeling, did not answer question 4) very special - different from other, very smart, a genius, better than other, 5) self awareness - must do better, high self expectation, and 6) too much pressure - too much homework, too many studies, high expectation from parents, teachers and school. Most of the answers the students gave were in category one (43.4%0) and category three (31.9%). Figure 9 presents the distribution of answers. 86 Better than 26 others Uncomfortable
117 Pressure
555 Proud of self
408 Nothing different & didn't answer
Figure 9. How Do You Feel About Yourself? 123 CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
In the present study, young Taiwanese children in the
gifted programs were surveyed on their acceptance of the
gifted label to test the research hypotheses. Through
analysis of a set of questions dealing with self
concept/awareness and self-reporting of others' points of view about the gifted label given to them, the overall
students' acceptance of the gifted labeling system was completed. Areas of giftedness were then compared among four groups in this study in relation to gender and grade differences. Several data analyses were used to determine group differences in gender, grade gifted area, and schools.
These were reported in Chapter IV. In this chapter, findings for all the research question are discussed. This chapter is divided into three sections, (a) findings, (b) limitations of study, and (c) directions for future research.
124 The following research hypotheses were addressed in this study:
Hypothesis one: It was hypothesized that more children will
report accepting than rejecting the gifted
label.
Hypothesis two: It was hypothesized that children in
different grades will report accepting the
gifted label differently.
Hypothesis three: It was hypothesized that children who
experience more family support are more
likely to report accepting the gifted label.
Hypotheses four: It was hypothesized that children who are
gifted in different areas will report
accepting the gifted label differently.
Findings
The findings suggest that most young gifted and talented students in this study do not reject the gifted label. Rather, they tend to positively or neutrally accept the label and feel positively about themselves. This confirms the conclusions of Guskin et al., (1986) and Kerr et al., (1988) that gifted children have a positive view about their giftedness.
In addition, most of the gifted students were satisfied by their programs. Whether or not they accept the gifted label, almost all of the gifted children reported they were
125 126 happy in their program. This supports Ford's (1978) conclusion that almost all gifted children would respond positively toward a special program.
Findings also suggested that children who were gifted in different areas accepted the gifted label differently.
Children who were academically gifted tend to better accept the gifted label. According to Wu (1989), there are many reason to this situation. However, the main reason comes from the educational system of Taiwan. Schools tend to stress the academically gifted and pay more attention on them than for children who gifted in other areas.
With parental support, young gifted children seem to accept the gifted label better than children without parental support. Approval from parents letting these children participate in the gifted program is also important in effecting their awareness of the gifted label. This confirms Robinson's (1990) finding that children with parental support are more likely to report being comfortable with the gifted label than those without parental support.
The support from other members of the family is also very important to these gifted young children. Findings of this study indicate that different treatment from either parents or siblings to these children was infrequent.
Children who accepted the gifted label tended to have more parental and sibling support than children who did not 127 accept the gifted label. This finding supports Robinson
(1990) and Colangelo & Brower's (1987) conclusion that with the approval of their giftedness by family members, gifted children would express comfortable feelings toward the gifted label.
Most of the gifted youngsters tend to report that they felt they were different from the other people their age.
This might be caused by the extra curriculum and school recognition. The curriculum for the gifted classroom in
Taiwan includes regular class-based curriculum and extra curriculum. Gifted students not only study the same things a regular class does but also in the areas where they are gifted. Extra homework and numerous field trips are the basics of a gifted classroom (Wu, 1989). Moreover, because these are not pull-out programs, the gifted programs are often offered by schools which also offer programs for disabled students. Many times the school points to the gifted classroom as a teaching demonstration class and the class size is always smaller than a regular class.
Even though most of these young gifted children felt different from others, they all seemed to like the name of their programs very much. This seems to suggest the acceptance of the program and somewhat suggests acceptance of their own giftedness. That is, by expressing their feeling of approving the names of their programs these 128
gifted Taiwanese youngsters in the study recognize their fit with the programs.
The results of this study also indicate that there is
about a one/third chance for a gifted child to have a gifted
older sibling in Taiwan. Causes of this situation are very
complicated. However, parental support, heredity, culture values and environment all have great impacts on it. Since
one family rises her children in a certain way with similar
genes, there is a great chance that a family may nurture more than one gifted child.
It was noted that younger children seemed to accept the
gifted label better than older children. This might be because of the greater attention that the younger children
are given. Because they are younger, their parents or teachers tend to give them more encouragement and positive
attention than the older children. With this attention, the younger gifted students may be better in adjusting to the gifted label.
The following research hypotheses were answered by this
study:
Hypothesis one: It was hypothesized that more children will
report accepting than rejecting the gifted
label.
Answer: Most young gifted and talented students in this
study do not reject the gifted label. They tend 129 to positively or neutrally accept the label and
feel positively about themselves.
Hypothesis two: It was hypothesized that children in
different grades will report accepting the
gifted label differently.
Answer: It was noted that younger children seemed to accept
the gifted label better than older children. This
might be because of the greater attention that the
younger children are given. Because they are
younger, their parents or teachers tend to give
them more encouragement and positive attention
than the older children. With this much
attention, the younger gifted students are better
in adjusting themselves to the gifted label.
Hypothesis three: It was hypothesized that children who
experience more family support are more
likely to report accepting the gifted label.
Answer: With parental support young gifted children seem to
accept the gifted label better than children
without parental support. Approval from parents
letting these children participate in the gifted
program is also important in effecting their
awareness of the gifted label. The support from 130
other members of the family is also very important
to these gifted young children. Findings of this
study indicate that different treatment from
either parents or siblings to these children was
infrequent. However, children who accepted the
gifted label tended to have more parental and
sibling support than children who did not accept
the gifted label.
Hypotheses four: It was hypothesized that children who are
gifted in different areas will report
accepting the gifted label differently.
Answer: Findings of this study suggest that children who
were gifted in different areas accepted the gifted
label differently. Children who were academically
gifted tend to better accept the gifted label.
According to Wu (1989), there are many reason to
this situation. However, the main reason comes
from the educational system of Taiwan. Schools
tend to stress the academically gifted and pay
more attention to them than children from other
gifted areas. 131
Limitations of Study
One limitation of the present research involves the development of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was adapted and modified from questionnaires designed for adolescent rather than very young students. Moreover, the
limitation of language abilities in the young children might cause some problems in their fully understanding the questions and putting down answers. Also, the translation from English to Chinese provides difficulties in accuracy.
Sometimes, a meaning changes because of differences in translation. Although the exact translations were checked by many experts, the meaning of some questions may not be clear. Therefore, the answers might be different from expectations.
Another limitation of this study is the differences between the two cultures. Some answers to certain questions are deeply dependent on the values of that culture. For instance, Chinese students will feel very proud of being admitted into a gifted program since their parents want them not only to be "the best" but "the first." To be in a gifted class is like a dream come true for some families.
Moreover, when comparing data from American students to
Chinese students, the results may be totally different.
A third limitation involved the initial selection of students. Initially it was proposed that all second and 132 third grade students were to be surveyed based on the
reference from National Taiwan Normal University. However/
only about half of the schools voluntarily participated in
this study. The data from these involved schools might not
generalize to the whole population. For example/ of the ten
schools that offer musically gifted programs starting in
third grade, only three schools joined the research.
Therefore, the representation of samples to the population may not be accurate.
Directions for Future Research
Information gained in this study of young gifted
children's acceptance of the gifted label may have important
educational implications. Future research might investigate
the reasons for rejecting the gifted label, so that the
acceptance rate would become higher and gifted children in the program would feel more comfortable about their own
giftedness. To insure this emotional change, it is very
important that gifted children should not only have a positive feeling toward programming but also positively accept the gifted label.
A follow-up study might be very helpful for school personnel too. In order to understand the emotional and conceptual changes of gifted children, there is a need for a follow-up study. By comparing the previous year's data to the present one, emotional as well as conceptual changes of 133
these gifted youngsters could be assessed. Therefore, the direction of counselling would be very clear.
Information gained from this study might also be very helpful for teacher training and parental education. It is
essential that people who help the gifted and talented recognize the need for early identification and educational
intervention in early primary grades. They must be aware of any possible emotional reaction from both positive or negative effects of a labeling system once it is used to categorize youngsters. They must help children deal with that reaction appropriately so that the negative effect will be minimized.
Summary
Definitions of gifted and talented range from those with one or more academic aptitudes to those with exceptional abilities in creative thinking, marked leadership ability, talented in the visual or performing arts. As the definitions of gifted and talented are applied to the educational system and serve as functions of labeling children, there is a great debate about such an effort to classify students into certain categories, especially for those who are in the early primary grades. Since the effects of labeling could result both positive and negative to the students, to minimize the negative effect become very important when labeling young gifted children. 134
This study investigated and explored the effects of the
gifted labeling system on second and third grade students in
Taiwan. One thousand two hundred and seventy-nine second
and third grade Taiwanese gifted and talented students participated in this study. The areas of gifted were: academic, dance, music, and visual arts. Students were from
36 schools located in different parts of Taiwan. A survey questionnaire of twelve Likert Scale questions and two open-
ended questions was filled out by second and third grade gifted youngsters.
Results indicate that most young gifted and talented
students in Taiwan do not reject the gifted label. Rather, they tend to positively or neutrally accept the label and feel positively about themselves. In addition, most of the gifted students were satisfied by their programs. Whether or not they accept the gifted label, almost all of the gifted children reported they were happy in their program.
With parental support young gifted children seem to accept the gifted label better than children without parental support. Approval from parents letting these children participate in the gifted program is also important in effecting their awareness of the gifted label. The support from other members of the family is also very important to these gifted young children. Findings of this study indicate that different treatment from either parents 135 or siblings to these children was infrequent. Children who
accepted the gifted label tended to have more parental and
sibling support than children who did not accept the gifted
label.
Most of the gifted youngsters tend to report that they
felt they were different from the other people their age.
This might be caused by the extra curriculum and school
recognition. The curriculum for the gifted classroom in
Taiwan includes regular class-based curriculum and extra
curriculum. Gifted students not only study the same things a regular class does but also in the areas where they are gifted. Extra homework and numerous field trips are the basics of a gifted classroom (Wu, 1989). Moreover, because these are not pull-out programs, the gifted programs are often offered by schools which also offer programs for disabled students. Many times the school points to the gifted classroom as a teaching demonstration class and the class size is always smaller to a regular class.
Even though most of these young gifted children felt different from others, they all seemed to like the name of their programs very much. This seems to suggest the acceptance of the program and somewhat suggests acceptance of their own giftedness. That is, by expressing their feeling of approving the names of their programs these 136
ifted Taiwanese youngsters in this study recognize their fit
with the programs.
The results also indicate that there is about a
one/third chance for a gifted child to have a gifted older
sibling in this study. Causes of this situation are very
complicated. However, parental support, heredity, cultural
values and environment may all impact it. Since one family
rises her children by the same child rearing theory, there
is a great chance that a family could nurture more than one
gifted child.
It was noted that younger children seemed to accept the
gifted label better than older one. This might be because
of the greater attention that the younger children are
given. Because they are younger, their parents or teachers
tend to give them more encouragement and positive attention
than the older children. With this attention, the younger
gifted students are better in adjusting to the gifted label.
Information gained in this study might have important
educational implications. Future research might investigate the reasons for rejection the gifted label, so that the acceptance rate would become higher and gifted children in the program would feel more comfortable about their own giftedness. A follow-up study might be very helpful for
school personnel. By comparing the previous year's data to the present one, emotional as well as conceptual changes of 137 the present one, emotional as well as conceptual changes of these gifted youngsters could be assessed. Therefore, the direction of counselling would be very clear.
Information gained from this study might also be very helpful for teacher training and parental education. It is essential that people who help the gifted and talented recognize the need for early identification and educational intervention in early primary grades. They must be aware of any possible emotional reaction from both positive or negative effects of a labeling system once it is used to categorize youngsters. They must help children deal with that reaction appropriately so that the negative effect will be minimized. LIST OF REFERENCES
Alexander, P. A., & Muia, J. A. (1982). Gifted education: A comprehensive roadmap. Rockville: Aspen System Corporation.
Barbe, W. B. (1955). Characteristics of gifted children. Educational Administration and Supervision, 41.(4), 207- 217 .
Barbe, W. B. (1956). Homogeneous grouping for gifted children. Educational Leadership. 13.(4), 225-229.
Barbe, W. B. (19 65). Psychology and education of the gifted: Selected reading. New York: Meredith Publishing Company.
Barbe, W. B., & Renzulli, J. S. (Eds.). (1975). Psychology and education of the gifted. New York: Irvinton Publishers.
Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: The Free Press.
Burns, J. M., Mathews, F. N., & Mason, A. (1990). Essential steps in screening and identifying preschool gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34.(3 ), 102-107.
Clark, G. (1989). Screening and identifying students talented in the visual arts: Clarks drawing abilities test. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(3), 98-105.
Colangelo, N., & Brower, P. (1987). Gifted youngsters and their siblings: Long-term impact of labeling on their academic and personal self-concepts. Roeper Review, 10(2), 101-103.
Colangelo, N., & Brower. D. (1987). Labeling gifted youngsters: Long-term impact on families. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31.(2), 75-78.
Coleman, J. M., & Fults, B. A. (1982). Self-concept and the gifted classroom: The role of social comparisons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 2_6(3), 116-119.
Cornell, D. G. (1983). Gifted children: The impact of positive labeling on the family system. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 5_3 ( 2 ), 322-335. 138 139
Damrin, D. E. (1965). The superior student: Evaluation of success and failure as illustrated by the James Scholar Program at the University of Illinois. Illinois English Bulletin, 523, 1-14.
Darlington, R. B. (1990). Regression and linear models. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
Delisle, J. R. (1990). The gifted adolescent at risk: Strategies and resources for suicide prevention among gifted youth. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13.(3), 212-228.
Delisle, J. R., & Squires, S. K. (1989). Career development for gifted and talented youth: Division on career development (DCD) and the association for the gifted (TAG) position statement. Career Development for Exceptional Individual, 12.(2 ), 65-70.
Douthitt, V. L. (1992). A comparison of adaptive behavior in gifted and nongifted children. Roeper Review, 14(3), 149-151.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1989). Synthesis of research on gifted youth. Educational Leadership, 46.(6), 6-11.
Feldhusen, J. F., Asher, J. W. , & Hoover, S. M. (1984). Problem in the identification of giftedness, talent, or ability, Gifted Child Quarterly, .28.(4), 149-151.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Sayler, M. F. (1990). Special classes for academically gifted youth. Roeper Review, 12(4) , 244-249.
Feldhusen, J., & Sokol, L. (1982). Extra-school programming to meet the needs of gifted youth: Super Saturday. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26.(2), 51-56.
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1982). To be or not to be gifted: What is the question? The Elementary School Journal, 82(3) , 299-303.
Ford, B. (1978). Student attitudes toward special programming and identification. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22(4), 489-497.
Frasier, M. (1991). Disadvantaged and culturally diverse gifted students, Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 14(3), 234-245. 140
Frasier, M. M. (1989). Poor and Minority students can be gifted too, Educational Leadership, 46.(6), 16-18.
Friedson, E. (1965). Disability as social deviance. In M. B. Sussraan (Ed.). Sociology and rehabilitation. Washington, D. C.: American Sociological Association, 71-99.
Harris, C. R. (1991). Identifying and serving the gifted new immigrant, teaching Exceptional Children. 23(4), 26-30.
Gallagher, J. (1987). How do you view education of gifted youth with special talents in arts and sciences? should these studies be integrated? Roeper Review. 10(1), 47- 52.
Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Education reform, values, and gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly. 35.(1), 12-19.
Getzels, J. (1975). Problem finding and the inventiveness of solutions. Journal of Creative Behavior. 9., 12-18.
Guilford, J. P. (1971). Creativity test for Children. El Segundo, CA: SOI Institute.
Guskin, S. L. (1978). Theoretical and empirical strategies for the study of the labeling of mentally retarded person. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.). International review of research in mental retardation. New York: Academic Press, 127-158.
Guskin, S. L., Zimmerman, E., Okolo, C., & Peng, C. J. (1986). Being labeled gifted or talented: Meanings and effects perceived by students in special programs. Gifted Child Quarterly. 10(2), 61-65.
Hildreth, G. H. (1966). Introduction to the gifted. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Hobbs, N. (1975). The futures of children: Categories, labels, and their conseouences. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Hollinger, C. L., & Kosek, S. (1985). Early identification of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly. 22(4), 168-171.
Hong, M. L. (1988). The history of China: A guick review. Taipei, Taiwan: Chen-Chung Publisher. 141 Janos, P. M., Fung, H. C., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Self- concept, self-esteem, and peer relations among gifted children who feel "different". Gifted Child Quarterly. 29(2), 78-82.
Jones, R. L. (1972). Labels and stigma in special education. Exceptional Children. 553-564.
Johnson, T. F. (1985). Helping the gifted child adjust to the outside world. Gifted Child Today. 38, 30-33.
Karnes, M. B., & Johnson, L. J. (1986). Bringing out head start talents: Findings from the fields. Gifted Child Quarterly, .30(4), 174-180.
Kerr, B., Colangelo, N., & Gaeth, J. (1988). Gifted adolescents’ attitudes toward their giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly. 32(2), 245-247.
Kitano, M. K., & Kirby, D. F. (1986). Gifted education: A comprehensive view. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Lehman, E. B., & Erdwins, C. J. (1981). The social and emotional adjustment of young, intellectually-gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly. 25(3), 134-137.
MacMillan, D. L., Jones, R. L., & Aloia, G. F. (1974). The mentally retarded label: A theoretical analysis and review of research. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 79. 211-214.
Maddux, C. D., Scheiber, L. M. , & Bass, J. E. (1982). Self- concept and social distance in gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly. 26(2), 77-81.
Mao, L. W. (1989). Special education for special kids. Free China Review. 39(5), 36-41.
McKenzie, J. A. (1986). The influence of identification practices, race and sex on the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(2), 93-95.
Mercer, J. R. (1973). Labeling the mentally retarded. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mills, B. N., & Berry, G. L. (1979). perceptions of decision-making groups towards programs for the mentally gifted. Educational Research Quarterly. 4.(2), 66-76. 142 Ministry of Education/ R. 0. C. (1982). Guidelines for the third-stage experimental educational programs for gifted students in elementary and junior high schools.
National Taiwan Normal University. (1991). Rule for special education in Taiwan. Republic of China.
Parke, B. N., & Ness, P. S. (1988). Curricular decision making for the education of young gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly. 32.(1)/ 196-199.
Passow, A. H. (1983). An universal view of gifted and talented program. Paper Prepared for the Second Plenary Session of the 4th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children, Manila, The Philippines, 1983.
Pressey, S. L. (1955). Concerning the nature and nurture of genius. Scientific Monthly. 81.(3), 123-129.
Pressey, S. L. (1963). A new look at "acceleration." Acceleration and the Gifted (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Department of Education), 1-4.
Renzulli, J. S. (1975). A guidebook for evaluating programs for the gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and Talented.
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model; A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Connecticut: Creative Learning Press, Inc.
Renzulli, J. S. (1988). The multiple menu model for developing differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly. 32.(3), 298-309.
Renzulli, J. S. (1991). The national research center on the gifted and talented: The dream, the design, and the destination. Gifted Child Quarterly. 35(2), 73-80.
Richert, E. S. (1985). Identification of gifted student: An update. Roeper Review. 8(2), 68-72.
Richert, E. S. (1987). Rampant problems and promising practices in the identification of disadvantaged gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly. 11(4), 149-154. 143
Roger, K. B. (1986). Do the gifted think and learn differently? A review of recent research and its implications for instruction. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 10(1), 17-39.
Robinson, A. (1990). Does that describe me? Adolescents' acceptance of the gifted label. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 13(3), 245-255.
Robinson, N. M. (1992). Stanford-Binet IV, of coursel time march onl Roeper Review. 15(1) 32-33.
Scheff, T. J. (1966). Being mentally ill. Chicago: Aldine.
Silverman, L. K., & Kearney, K. (1992). The case for the Stanford-Binet L-M as a supplemental test. Roeper Review. 15.(1) 34-37.
Sisk, D. A. (1985). Leadership development: its importance in programs for gifted youth. NASSP Bulletin. 69, 49- 54.
Sternberg, R. (1985). Bevone 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stanley, J. C. (1991). An academic model for educating the mathematically talented. Gifted Child Quarterly. 35.(1), 36-42.
Swassing, R. H. (1985). Teaching gifted children and adolescents. Columbus: A Bell & Howell Company.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1962). Adolescent attitudes toward academic brilliance. New York: Teacher's College Press.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: MacMillan.
Terman, L. M. (1954). The discovery and encouragement of exceptional talent. American Psychologist, 9.(6), 221- 230.
Thompson, G. B. (1987). An experimental program for highly gifted children in the early primary grades. Gifted Child Quarterly. 31(1), 34-36.
Terman, L. M. (1922). A new approach to the study of genius, Psychological Review. 29.(4), 310-318. 144
Torrance, E. P. (1977). Creativity in the classroom; What research savs to the teacher. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.
Weber, P., & Battaglia, C. (1985). Reaching beyond identification through the "identi-form" system. Gifted Child Quarterly. 29.(1), 35-47.
Weiner, J. (1968). Attitudes of psychologists and psychometrists toward gifted children and programs for the gifted. Exceptional Children. 34(5), 354.
Weiner, J. L., & O ’Shea, H. E. (1963). Attitudes of university faculty, administrators, teachers, supervisors, and university students toward the gifted. Exceptional Children, M ( 4 ) , 163-165.
Wu, W. T. (1983). Evaluation of educational programs for intellectually gifted students in junior high schools in the Republic of China. Paper Prepared for the 1983 annual convention of NAGC, Philadelphia.
Wu, W. T. (1989). Current trends in gifted and talented education in Taiwan, R. 0. C. Paper Prepared for the 8th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children in Sydney, Australia.
Wu, W. T. (1991). New perspectives of gifted and talented education in Taiwan, Republic of China. Paper Prepared for the 9th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children in the Hague, The Netherlands.
Wu, W. T. (1989). Gifted education in Taiwan. Educational Perspectives. 26(1&2), 10-14.
Wu, W. T. (1988). Sun-rise Summer camp: A Summer enrichment program for the gifted in Taiwan, R. 0. C. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University Press.
Wu, W. T. (1989). Cultivating genius. Free China Review. 39(5), 54-59.
Zimmerman, E. (1985). Toward a theory of labeling artistically talented students. Studies in Art Education. 2J7(1), 31-42. APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE
145 146
Attitude Survey on Gifted Labeling
To make sure that your opinions are expressed, please answer the following questions as clear as you can.
Age:
Sex Role:
Grade:
Area of giftedness:
School:
PART A
Please circle the answer that best expresses your feelings in the following questions.
1. The "gifted" label describes you. a. yes b. don't know c. no
2. Do you feel happy in this gifted program? a. happy b. don’t know c. unhappy
3. Your parents would agree that the "gifted" label describes you. a. yes b. don't know c. no
4. Are your parents happy that you are in this program? a. happy b. don't know c. unhappy
5. Do your parents treat you differently because you are gifted? a. yes b. don't know c. no
PLEASE EXPLAIN: 147
6. Your brothers and sisters would agree that the "gifted" label describes you. (please circle "0" if you have no brothers or sisters) a. yes b. don't know c. no 0
7. Do your brothers and sisters treat you differently because you are gifted? (please circle "0" if you have no brothers or sisters) a. yes b. don't know c. no 0
PLEASE EXPLAIN:
8. The other students in your school would agree that the "gifted" label describes you. a. yes b. don't know c. no
9. Teachers in your class would agree that the "gifted" label describes you. a. yes b. don't know c. no
10. Do you feel that you are different from the other people of your age? a. yes b. don't know c. no
11. Do you think the name of the program is OK to you? a . yes b . don't know c . no
12. Does any of your older brothers or sisters study in a gifted program? (please circle "0” if you have no older brothers or sisters) a. yes b. no 0 148 PART B
Please answer the following questions by writing down your feelings.
1. As a talented young person, you may have been labeled by others (the school, your family, your peers) as "gifted." What does the label "gifted" mean to you?
2. When were you told you were gifted? Who told you and how did they tell you? As a gifted youngster, how do you feel about yourself? APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE (CHINESE)
149 150
+2- A r 'fii' JM3-
Mi* ^5-ttsofeS'Ar
* s — 4p*fts.: #i.aS5.*M4:2.5t3'ffS'*5JE.fr ( ) 2. ffc3»£*&frtt8*WfcS'jfcM*H*2vl|lM*? ? CD 4*3,#!® -fr-ii!© * * ( ) 3. £*£? '«5A$5tJ'ff*'^iA-,~ fflis#’ft=A»'i:5'4b?? © & ''© *2'*» i*>® *>&''<> ( ) 4. ffcvtf j £ * £ ? ' AM0M'? © A-’® ^2'^»«ai2>© ( ) 5. & % k > ''&*? © * * © T^'^o-Uii'® *>*•* ° $S ;*tfc " ( ) 6. •tts»’« s A ‘*!''Jb5 ? © it'’ ® *:>*»■ i*!>® 0 ( $M^^«j*frz.&sOr) ( ) 7. *:— 'ft«'*Jb*?®i‘!UD ^2'*»«jts>© *:'**<> ( $=*#$• m m o ? ) m^i'H'T-'''-- #.S'65s#4.!n^ts 151 “"Iy ? (D «LV© ULZ'(3)tf-2 'fk.’-' ° ( ) 9. ? © f r ' ® *:« i£ 2'© o ( ) 11. ffc-'3£3'#?' T kT:-^:«*t :-? © kri-d) T-- ^.a* ijj_2M© ./^2>!rx«> ° ( ) 12. ffc^S -f S *.*#£/#$ &'?'*&'&'*'$' ft! ^ SU-i **© RL'"'©) 1. iMIi'/v^tt:. r f ’ft;£:J a©’’ {*:.£§,$* r $ ’ft:J LLM@“£r&: 2. ^M&; #/:!©? ? .t-s^s ? &2,%l il ’' C ^ - ' f M&; APPENDIX C LETTER TO PRINCIPAL AND TEACHERS 152 153 Dear Principal and Teachers: As more gifted classes become established in elementary schools, the attitude of gifted students toward this classroom setting becomes a big issue. It has always been our goal to help our gifted students flourish through education. However, there is a great debate about classifying students into certain categories, especially for those who are in the early primary grades. In America, both pull-out programs and gifted classes are offered to gifted students, depending on educational beliefs. The focus is on 4th and 5th graders, not on 1st and 2nd grade gifted students. Gifted classes are the only method for schools to offer services to gifted students in Taiwan. The survey research proposed by The Ohio State University titled "Young Children's Acceptance of the Gifted Label" is designed to understand the effects of the labeling system toward the gifted primary graders. Also, from the data analysis of this study, we hope to provide educators with more information to help other gifted youngsters deal with the negative effects of the labeling system. Your consent and support of your students in filling out this survey questionnaire are highly appreciated. Please know that you and your students' parents will have access to information on the questionnaire and to a final report. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dr. Swassing or Ms. Tsuei-yuan Lai; we would be very glad to help you. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, Dr. Raymond H. Swassing Tsuei-yuan Lai Associate Professor Doctoral Student Department of Educational Department of Educational Service and Research Service and Research The Ohio State University The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210 Columbus, OH 43210 APPENDIX D LETTER TO PRINCIPAL AND TEACHERS (CHINESE) 154 155 m 05 K Jk ' ?& fiili M ll"l OF ; jii ^ & liti 2ft f t eg IE $ $ & & ^ & & £ ’ f t ® i £ iu; £1 i a -fefi # IET i 'X 05 ti£ '£ S JS ’ £j & fiSc tin ^ ft 05 irS ® ° An ffl {& eg ^ iii £ ?-£ SS IE :il 1$ & j : pTf titi til — it il $ t? X -i§ ofr $( A 05 @ fi * $. M i XUl til 113 I? Be £ ffl 3il05 & tii ^ I I tiE I5J — ® fif ;$ ± f$ 05 £ > IE H F t- 1 ££^31®! » $£$ti'l R05£ti0 £ ^ ® 10 ft tg BE 05 # tiE » ffi fiff ti£ -ff 05 A &, J i EE - H SB F5 o 5 ^ - ^ * n - i i IE M tif SO 05 iff M C pul 1 out program ) l& 5£ 2ft 23 ' a m m 05 m a ° ttl 05 m % 1 05 » M $ £ ' ^ i g $ [ W ± 05 ia®'ll^73?05 m j j > til£;£^$fW ^li^^i!lW ^:K $!:J2||ffiti;r£$£05 f & $5 EE iiM' a ' W 3 S t + i f i J ’ m^rnm M f\ £ "o' 1*3 Bti £ a ' EE •"& M ft £5 IE MHk 3? 05 fal -§ [p IE ’ t& 3§ f-f iti a tir 7 m & & ^ m 05 s ! s ’ m m i k n 0 & ee k $ 05 ^ s i rnr -w ;'fn % BE 05 A ilti ° idIti- ntf A ,rf JfiJ05A ^ ',/;}W ^ (I11] 0 5 111!- * tin i Jj « „ViS|?f jfr i^rl»lJ & “ ' H # M ft ffi M fii M 5e & Jifc ® ' iili ^ i t i f f j& % Z M i $ i& & A fttt-f^W Is!;® ® - i ) { £X A I® il "G1 ui3 ilE $d iita- ° 3F- 7& ,f , 1 M KJ 'n tF ! :£ it f\ ffi H W Ittl M ^ ji S TlU ^ H ft ® m % at "tllidrF A Dr. Raymond H. Swassing ItjiHlflftA APPENDIX E CONSENT FORM 157 158 Consent Form After contact with our students' parents, we hereby represent our students as a group in agreeing to be involved in the survey study of "Young Children's Acceptance of the Gifted Label" proposed by the Department of Educational Service and Research, College of Education at The Ohio State University. All the related materials were mailed to us by Miss Tsuei-yuan Lai. We understand that the responses our students give to this survey will be kept confidential. Also, the students' names and other identifying information will not be revealed without our permission. We recognize that we have the right to request a final report. Principal:______Teacher: ______ Dr. Raymond H. Swassing Tsuei-yuan Lai Associate Professor Doctoral Student Department of Educational Department of Educational Research and Service Research and Service The Ohio State University The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210 Columbus, OH 43210 APPENDIX F CONSENT FORM (CHINESE) 159 160 m m . $ & ft ~M M & & IfJ # flq * 5H n IK £ ® Ji‘l i ft $ & W ^ l£ '•!« $ n is^iiifflR^f ± ^ r a sifei&n/jN- ' ® 3- i s ^ s i g j o m u # ft 2.® ’ IE^ll^:£f&J3&^:jl:ftiU£t$ o W&&X&W f t J.A o &±fl^iJM^£ft^&S£ftS! Affiff5£lfl^ig ASIA fr A!f ; ^ ; t o Is^ SsxiE ^ 0 88 Dr. Raymond H. Swassing m era______ri-aiAfTA a m m w- s§ Tsue i-yuan La i APPENDIX O QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTION SHEET 161 162 Questionnaire Instruction Sheet This questionnaire is designed to be answered in a group situation during the school day. Parts of the questions need to be explained by the instructor. It should take about 15 to 20 minutes for a group of students to finish this questionnaire individually. The following instructions should be heeded: * Before the survey begins, please tell the students that since this survey takes place during the school day, if they do not feel comfortable with the questions, they can withdraw at any time. Please provide an alternative activity for those who do not wish to participate. * Age: please ask students to write down their actual age; e.g., if born in June, 1985, the age is 8. * Area of giftedness: please ask students to write down the specific area of giftedness; i.e., academic, music, dance. * Part A, questions 3. 4. and 5: If students do not live with their parents, please ask them to write down their custodian's opinion; e.g., grandparents, uncle, aunt. * Part A, questions 6. and 7: If students have no siblings, please ask them to write down "0." * Part B (open-ended questions): No specific form of Chinese writing style is required. Students may use any form that best expresses their thinking to answer the questions. If you have any further questions, please contact Miss Tsuei-Yuan Lai before the questionnaires are distributed. Thank you very much for your help and for the cooperation of your students. APPENDIX H QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTION SHEET (CHINESE) 163 164 ISM iafi-MSffl'J'- ' = *£ M f f i M « M 3 M • 1 ® ! ^ ’ * $ l%-&wtomwj'8twirffii&& ° * riy-i» % i5~3o»ffl#flg£j* - : ;.i- ^ iiifi : ,ifi ^ £ Jj? IKW i i & m . - an ^ H 7 4 . £ PJJ M 8 $ » f£ jtb $ i J i ° •SKttffifll : “ - $ ” » ...... * ■ f'J Iff « aj & M 30 £ « fl> o * 5£ ft P9 ^ ‘ r,'/ &? : £ )Rt pa M S5 & Jg ffl □ 'is M W %a ?$: at%& ° £ » - « f & 8 3. 4. s. si . ra3y#tti£&&i#&:££ft3Ett$ft * • pjj !m i ^ i a c snia^S:' ) m t s m m z . x%-Mm(>. i.m > pgpj& $ s* as pa h > # ^ “ o ” ° •xlaigmzsura-paM - - ? m * m £ M M m J £ fiE fa gg pa - • & b^j vti uc & (0 4) 2 3 7 - 0 <506 $ m . $ $ i APPENDIX I PERMISSION OF USING QUESTIONNAIRE 165 166 Center eor Research on Teaching and Learning College of Education July 16,1993 Chris Tsuei-yuan Lai 633 Tuscarawas Court Columbus, OH 43210 Dear Chris: Thank you for your letter describing your interest in my article published in Journal for the Education of the Gifted. I am enclosing the instrument used to survey the subjects, which you are welcome to use. You will need to develop your own demographics form to be used with this instrument. I regret I do not have any related information on reliability or validity with which I can supply you. I would be happy to receive a copy of your results after you have used the instrument in Taiwan. Best wishes for your continued success. C ordially, Ann Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor AR:cl UNIVERSITY Of ARKANSAS AT LlTTIJ- R o c k . 2801 South University • Little Rock, AK 72204-1099 ♦ (501) 569-3422/FAX 569-8694