A Dissertation Entitled Descriptive Cases of Gifted Indian American

Home , Aishwarya (actress), American Kids, Meet the Parents

A Dissertation

entitled

Descriptive Cases of Gifted Indian American Students and their Families

Karen J. Micko

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Curriculum and Instruction

______Dr. Leigh Chiarelott, Committee Co-Chair

______Dr. Jane Piirto, Committee Co-Chair

______Dr. Marcella Kehus, Committee Member

______Dr. Lynne Hamer, Committee Member

______Dr. Patricia R. Komuniecki, Dean College of Graduate Studies

The University of Toledo

December 2015

This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author.

An Abstract of

Descriptive Cases of Gifted Indian American Students and their Families

Karen J. Micko

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Curriculum and Instruction

The University of Toledo December 2015

There is a sparsity of research focusing on the experiences of Asian-Indian

American students. This study describes how gifted Indian American students and their families perceived factors contributing to the students’ academic success. Specifically, this study used a qualitative case study design to describe the perceptions of four families, each representing one case. The data collection of two open-ended interviews with both students and parents, observations during school, and student-selected artifacts was utilized to establish an in-depth understanding of their perspectives concerning the factors of home, school, culture and self. After analyzing the cases collectively, the following themes emerged: the academic home climate, parents push—but in a good way, plan for the future, the gifted label, participants’ schools in the United States, teachers matter, values of Indian culture, challenges of living in the United States, model minority stereotype, parents’ educational backgrounds, competition, motivation, and mindset: intelligence is a product of work ethic. Results indicated that the families believed a confluence of these factors contributed to the students’ academic success.

iii

This study is dedicated to the late Dr. Larry Coleman who acted as teacher, role-model, and guide in seeking out the voices of gifted students.

Acknowledgements

Heartfelt thanks cannot begin to express the gratitude I have for the following people and many more who have helped me achieve this paramount goal of attaining my doctoral degree. Thank you to my parents who instilled a love for education and the continuous support they gave throughout the entire process; to my siblings and friends who listened, cheered, commiserated, and encouraged me for the past years. You insisted upon perseverance when I began to question the journey.

I owe tremendous thanks to my two chairpersons, Dr. Chiarelott and Dr. Piirto, who guided my path through academia, taught me invaluable lessons, spent countless hours assisting me in a multitude of ways, and inspired me through their own examples. I am eternally thankful to the two of you. To my other committee members, Dr. Hamer and

Dr. Kehus, I truly appreciate the time and suggestions you provided to guide me to a professional study.

To my husband and three children who made sacrafices over the past years to allow me to work on my studies; I am in awe by your continued love, support, and encouragement. I could never have completed this without you.

Finally, this study could not have been possible without the four families involved. I am grateful for their time, insights, and engagement with this project to shed light on the experiences of Indian Americans.

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... iii

Acknowledgements ...... v

Table of Contents ...... vi

List of Figures ...... xii

I. Introduction ...... 1

A. History of Intelligence Testing ...... 2

B. Mindset Theory of Intelligence ...... 7

C. South Asian Views of Intelligence ...... 8

D. Gifted and Talented Education ...... 9

E. This Study’s Definition ...... 12

F. Statement of the Problem ...... 12

G. Research Questions ...... 13

H. Purpose of the Study ...... 14

II. Literature Review ...... 16

A. Models of Giftedness and Talent ...... 16

B. The Gifted Label ...... 20

C. Family Systems Theory ...... 23

D. Parenting the Gifted and Talented ...... 24

E. Parenting Styles ...... 26

F. International Studies ...... 27

G. Immigrant Parents ...... 28

H. Asian Indian Immigrants...... 30

H. The Model Minority Stereotype...... 33

a. Stereotype Threat ...... 33

I. Motivation ...... 34

J. Competition...... 35

K. Conclusion ...... 36

III. Research Design and Methodology ...... 38

A. Qualitative Research ...... 38

B. Research Design...... 39

a. Case Study ...... 40

b. Researcher as instrument ...... 41

C. Participant and Site Selection ...... 42

D. Data Collection ...... 44

a. Interviews ...... 44

b. Artifacts...... 47

c. Participant observations ...... 47

E. Data Analysis ...... 48

F. Validity ...... 51

G. Ethics ...... 55

H. Limitations ...... 57

I. Conclusions ...... 59

IV. Data ...... 60

A. Case One: Yagalla Family ...... 61

a. Mr. Yagalla ...... 62

vii

b. Suren ...... 70

c. Suren’s School ...... 73

B. In-Case Summary ...... 76

a. Beliefs on Intelligence ...... 76

b. School: Gifted Education ...... 77

c. Home Environment ...... 77

d. Beliefs on Motivation ...... 78

e. Culture ...... 78

C. Case Two: Rao Family...... 79

a. Mr. and Mrs. Rao ...... 79

b. Trisha ...... 85

c. Trisha’s School ...... 88

d. Kajol ...... 93

e. Kajol’s School ...... 95

D. In-Case Summary...... 98

a. Beliefs on Intelligence ...... 98

b. School: Gifted Education ...... 98

c. Home Environment ...... 99

d. Culture...... 100

E. Case Three: Sharma Family ...... 101

a. Sonya ...... 103

b. Sonya’s school ...... 105

c. Mrs. Sharma ...... 110

viii

d. Sheela ...... 116

e. Sheela’s school...... 118

F. In-Case Summary...... 124

a. Beliefs on Intelligence ...... 125

b. School: Gifted Education ...... 125

b. Home Environment ...... 126

c. Culture ...... 127

G. Case Four: Patel Family ...... 128

a. Mr. and Mrs. Patel ...... 130

b. Aishwarya ...... 138

c. Aishwarya’s school ...... 141

d. Kareena ...... 146

e. Kareena’s school ...... 149

H. In-Case Summary...... 151

a. School: Gifted Education ...... 151

b. Beliefs on Intelligence ...... 152

c. Home Environment ...... 152

d. Culture...... 153

I. Conclusions ...... 155

V. Data Analysis ...... 157

A. Home Environment ...... 157

a. The Academic Climate ...... 158

b. Parents push—But in a good way ...... 160

c. Plan for the future—work now, relax later ...... 161

B. Students’ Schools ...... 162

a. The Gifted Label ...... 163

b. Participants’ Schools in the United States ...... 165

c. Teachers Matter ...... 167

C. Culture...... 168

a. Values of Indian Culture ...... 169

b. Challenges of Living in American Society ...... 172

c. Model Minority Stereotype in the United States ...... 174

d. Parents’ Educational Backgrounds: Indian School Systems ...... 176

e. Competition as Part of Culture ...... 179

D. Self: Internal Factors ...... 180

a. Motivation ...... 181

b. Mindset: Intelligence is a Product of Work Ethic ...... 184

E. Discussion ...... 186

a. Worlds Collide ...... 187

b. Doing What is Best for the Child ...... 188

c. Indian Culture adds Fuel to the Fire ...... 189

d. Defining Giftedness in Different Worlds ...... 190

e. Intelligence is Malleable ...... 192

F. Implications...... 192

a. Education ...... 192

b. Teaching Growth Mindset ...... 193

H. Future Studies ...... 194

I. Conclusions ...... 194

References………………………………………………………………………………198

Appendix A: Consent Form…………………………………………………………….214

Appendix B: Student Assent Form……………………………………………………..216

Appendix C: Interview Protocol for Students…………………………………………..218

Appendix D: Follow-up Protocol……………………………………………………… 219

Appendix E: Interview Protocol for Parents……………………………………………220

Appendix F: Follow-up Protocol for Parents…………………………………...………221

Appendix G: Observation Log………………………………………………………….222

Appendix H: Piirto’s Pyramid of Talent Development ...……………………………...223

Appendix I: Code Tree……………………………...……………………………….....224

List of Figures

Figure 1. Emergent Themes about Home 158

Figure 2. Emergent Themes about School 163

Figure 3. Emergent Themes about Culture 169

Figure 4. Emergent Themes about Self 181

xii

Chapter One

Introduction

Oftentimes, when individuals learn of academically gifted and talented individuals’ accomplishments, they try to understand them through their own pre- established social and cultural conceptions of intelligence. Social mores and milieu add facets of these conceptualizations. Parents from different cultural backgrounds attest to different strategies and beliefs that contribute to their understanding of intelligence and how they cultivate talent. After noting that nine of the last thirteen winners of the

National Spelling Bee were Indian American, for example, reporters interviewed the students’ parents to discover their secrets of success (Kulkarni, 2011). Descriptions of the Indian cultural value of academic excellence, amount of training, group effort, and support of the child’s interest all emerged as important aspects. One parent commented on the cultural influence of competition and the drive to excel in order to be successful.

Another conceded and reflected on his Indian heritage, “Our parents instill in us, from a very young age, a love for learning and knowledge. Because we love to learn, we are dedicated to it. Our parents teach us the value of good work ethics, and this is what helps us” (Kulkarni, 2011, para. 4). Chinese American Amy Chua, author of Battle Hymn of the

Tiger Mother (2011) would disagree with this emphasis on the joy of learning. She claimed, “Chinese parents understand that nothing is fun until you’re good at it. To get good at anything, you have to work which is why it’s crucial [for parents] to override the[ir child’s] preferences” (Chua, 2011, para.5). She wrote that Westerners cannot properly push their children as they are too concerned with their children’s self-esteem.

In fact, New York Magazine reported that a study revealed 85% of parents think it is important to tell their kids that they are smart (Bronson, 2007).

Various cultures view intelligence and talent development differently, and this often leads to a variation in programs available for students. In the United States, society must determine what will be done with its students who demonstrate high academic abilities. Historically, the focus on high achieving students has changed with the political and social climate as well as the development and alterations of intelligence theories. As understandings of intelligence increase, so do conceptualizations of giftedness.

Definitions, identification practices, pedagogy for the instruction of gifted students, and talent development programs have evolved as additional tenets of intelligence have been revealed. Components of individuals’ internal traits, external situations, culture, family, and chance are part of discussions about intelligence and giftedness at the present time.

How identified gifted students and their families perceive these factors affecting their academic success is an area of needed research. Considering one’s own culture as one of these factors contributing to high achievement is another such needed area; for immigrants in the United States have unique experiences and perspectives to offer. A melding of these two needed areas of research manifest themselves into the present study.

An overview of the history of intelligence testing and conceptualization up to present day is presented in order to demonstrate the parallel changes which have occurred in gifted education. Additionally, a comparison of cultural understandings of intelligence is presented to consider non-Western viewpoints. Once the foundation of intelligence and gifted education is established, understanding the experience of being an identified gifted

Indian American students or their parent is the concentration. The focus of the study rests upon their perceptions of the factors contributing to the students’ academic success.

History of Intelligence Testing

Although the consideration of individuals differing in abilities is not new in the last 150 years, much progress has been made through studies and discoveries about human intelligence. The growth of this understanding has contributed to the understanding of gifted and talented education in describing how to best address these high ability learners, despite the fact that consensus has not been met within the field of education.

In 1865, Galton was interested in the variation of human ability. Through data and statistics, he ascertained that a statistical average could be deduced and utilized to determine how others compared. He studied the lineage of eminent European men, considered above average, and concluded that both physical and mental traits were passed on to offspring. He also believed that if there were a normal distribution of physiological traits on a bell curve shown among humans, then psychological traits such as intelligence could be applied as well. Galton contended that even if two above-average adults had a child, that offspring would be bit closer to the statistical average. Galton called this phenomenon “regression to the mean” and the concept is still utilized today

(Senn, 2011).

Influenced by Galton, Spearman posited a classical test theory. By analyzing the correlation between variables on tests, he deduced that intelligent behavior was the manifestation of one singular factor in the human mind, called general factor or g. In

1904, he published the results in his article, “General Intelligence, Objectively

Determined and Measured,” which gained much acceptance. For the first half of the 20th century, factor g was sought in order to determine gifted children within schools (Jolly,

2009). Theorists and psychologists have countered his assertion of g to present day, though few can argue an absence of a general ability altogether.

In 1904, Binet was asked by the French government to develop an assessment to determine which students might struggle in school. Binet and his assistant Simon designed questions addressing concepts not taught in school such as problem solving, attention, and memory. By comparing the participants’ answers to averages, a mental age was determined. This first intelligence test, called the Binet-Simon Scales is the basis for intelligence testing today, despite Binet’s caution that allocating a single number to a complex concept such as intelligence was not viable. He asserted that intelligence changes over time, is influenced by a number of factors, and can only be compared among children with similar backgrounds (Siegler, 1992).

The scales made their way to the United States where Stanford psychologist

Terman took great interest. He utilized American participants to standardize the scales.

He published the adapted version in 1916 as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. Later, the German psychologist Stern calculated that a test taker’s score could be determined by dividing the mental age derived from answers given on the test by the test taker’s chronological age and then multiplied by 100 equating to the individual’s intelligence quotient or IQ. Scores were placed in normal, below average, or above average ranges. A later category of “supernormal” would be termed “gifted” (Terman, 1916).

Using the Stanford-Binet Intelligent Scale as one of the filters, along with teacher recommendations, Terman and Cox began a longitudinal study of 1,500 gifted students from California in 1921. The results, published in five volumes of Genetic Studies of

Genius (1925-1959) dispelled the common notion that individuals with high intelligence

were emotionally feeble. Instead, the participants were found to have stable personalities, were well-adjusted, and demonstrated leadership capabilities. The study continues to present times to reveal the progression of these individuals.

Despite broad acceptance of intelligence as a unitary trait, contradictory theories emerged. In 1967, Guilford developed his theory of The Structure of Intellect whereby he stated there were 120 kinds of measurable intelligence, with three dimensions: operation, content and products. Two of the operational dimensions were convergent and divergent production. The former consists of learning information already known, remembering it, and then later recalling that same information. The latter is the thinking processes which include revising known information, hypothesizing the unknown and then creating new ideas. He designed psychometric tests of divergent production which included components of: fluency, novelty, flexibility, synthesizing ability, analyzing ability, reorganization or redefinition of existing ideas, degree of complexity, and evaluation.

Later, Meeker applied the Structure of Intellect theory to education. She created the

Structure of Intellect Learning Ability Test as well as the Gifted Screening Form, which utilized 26 of Guilford’s 120 measurable intelligence tests (Meeker, 1969). Despite the idea that Guilford’s theory seemed to reject the notion of g in support of a multidimensional view of intelligence, individuals who scored higher on Meeker’s tests, also had higher g in intelligence tests (Piirto, 2007).

Later, another theory countering the acceptance of intelligence equating to a unitary factor was proposed by Gardner (1983). Gardner equates intelligence to the ability to solve problems or create products considered valuable to a culture. He conducted studies based on interviews and brain research of numerous people from

various walks of life and then asserted that multiple types of intelligences exist in humans. He published his results in his book, Frames of Mind (1983) where he first described seven specific intelligences: linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. Later, Gardner expanded upon his

Multiple Intelligences Theory and added naturalist intelligence as the eighth intelligence, with hints of potential others. Gardner asserts that these intelligences complement one another and rarely operate independently; especially as people problem solve and develop their skills, several intelligences operate simultaneously. Assessments of these intelligences are based on the manifestations of the various intelligences, not through scores obtained on an IQ test (Piirto, 2007). The field of education embraced Gardner’s theory. Training and application for the classroom ensued throughout the United States.

Adding to the understandings of intelligence, Sternberg (1985) contributed the

Triarchic Theory of Intelligence. Sternberg presented three types of intelligences which people utilize in order to be successful: analytical, creative, and practical. The first type is a description of abstract reasoning. Individuals who exhibit this type of intelligence, usually fare well in school and on standardized tests. The second type of intelligence is found in those individuals who value novelty and creativity. Finally, there are individuals who reveal practical or contextual high intelligence. Often known as “street smart,” these people know and understand how to adapt to various environments and situations.

Successful individuals utilize strengths in all three of these traits, often compensating for weaknesses in one area with another.

Sternberg does not ascribe to a unitary factor of intelligence; rather he contends that through “purposeful engagement involving direct instruction, active participation,

role modeling and reward” most individuals can reach high levels of achievement despite their innate capabilities (Sternberg, 2000, p. 60). Others have countered this notion, declaring that general intelligence is of utmost important in predicting success and even in Sternberg’s model, the correlation to g among his components is apparent

(Gottfredson, 2002).

Mindset Theory of Intelligence

Dweck (2006) posited that individuals either have fixed or growth views of intelligence. Those with fixed mindsets tend to believe that intelligence is a set entity.

They tend to focus on their intelligence and avoid challenges which may reveal something unknown or result in a failure. In contrast, individuals with incremental mindsets embrace challenges as they believe that only through struggle, and often initial failures, can intelligence grow and develop (Dweck, 2006, 2012). Mangels, Butterfield,

Lamb, Good, and Dweck (2006) selected a representative sample (n=47) from 535 voluntary undergraduate college students from Columbia University. Based on the students’ responses to Theory of Intelligence questions, the students were categorized as having a fixed or growth mindset. While the students engaged in a cognitive test, researchers analyzed their brainwaves. Results showed that the students who had fixed mindsets entered a heightened state of attention when they were informed of their answers being correct or incorrect. The students who had growth mindsets also had heightened state of attention during this time period but they also had heightened states again when they were informed of the correct answer. A retake assessment of the incorrectly answered questions, showed students who had growth mindsets performed significantly higher than those who had fixed mindsets. With a heightened state of

attention, the students who believed in incremental mindsets, sought to learn from their mistakes and use the correct answers to educated themselves.

How humans perceive intelligence (which mindset they embrace) has also been linked to motivation and academic outcomes (Dweck, 2010; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). In a quantitative longitudinal study of 373 American seventh graders, Blackwell,

Trzensniewski, and Dweck (2007) found that students who held fixed mindsets did not associate effort with intelligence. Thus when challenges were presented, those with fixed mindsets avoided risk-taking tasks. Contrastingly, students with growth mindsets believed that effort activates abilities and these abilities increase over time. As a component of this study, students in an experimental group (n=48) were taught the incremental mindset while the control group of students (n=43) was not. The experimental group showed significant improvement in grades, motivation, and effort.

Blackwell, et al. (2007) concluded that the mindsets regarding intelligence acted as predictors of academic achievement, higher motivation, higher effort, and less helpless strategies when students confronted challenges.

South Asian Views of Intelligence

Research has compared conceptions of intelligence held by individuals from

South Asian countries versus those of North America. Results have shown people from

South Asian countries view intelligence as incremental, thus their understanding is that intelligence can be increased over time through learning and effort (Heine, Kitayama,

Lehman, Takata, Ide, Leung, & Matsumoto, 2001). Through six separate quantitative studies, Rattan, Savani, Naidu, and Dweck (2012) compared Indian (n=69) and American

(n=79) college students’ beliefs on individuals’ potential intelligence and the malleability

of intelligence. They found the students in the United States were significantly less likely to believe that intelligence can be changed over time. These studies indicate that cultural beliefs affect how individuals perceive intelligence and how those beliefs impact students’ effort and performance. Dweck’s theory (2006, 2007, 2010, 2012) on mindset provided the theoretical framework for this study.

Gifted and Talented Education

As the understandings of intelligence have grown and changed over the century, so too has gifted and talented education as a field. The field’s definitions, paradigms, and models have changed based on intelligence research, facets of giftedness research, and studies on talent development. In addition, the field has been altered by political and social variances guiding support for gifted and talented education to fluctuate in accordance with the social and political milieu. Despite the studies, theories, and published political reports, a consensus on the definition of giftedness remains elusive to this day.

In the early half of the 20th century, students who were identified as gifted

(determined through psychometric tests of intelligence) often skipped grades or were accelerated in subject areas (Gross, 2006). In fact, 10% of Terman’s participants had skipped two grades and 23% had skipped one grade by their graduation from high school

(Terman & Oden, 1947). During the same time period that Terman was conducting his study, Hollingworth began an experimental, specialized class for gifted children with

IQ’s of 160+ in New York City’s school P.S. 165. Here, she studied the curriculum, instructional strategies and social interactions of students with high intelligence and published over forty research articles and a book entitled, Gifted Children: Their Nature

and Nurture, reporting her findings. Hollingworth went on to establish P.S. 500, The

Speyer School for gifted children ages 7-9 in 1936. Although her school appeared to provide an optimal learning environment for these gifted students of Manhattan, the education offered was not typical in schools across the United States. More opportunities were available for highly-abled students who lived in large urban settings, but even then only 4% of urban schools offered gifted programming. And by mid-century, “school programming options for gifted students were at an all-time low” (Jolly, 2009, p. 38).

Yet after the Russians launched Sputnik in 1957, the United States government, along with American society, reversed their lack of support for gifted and talented education. The United States issued The National Defense Act to provide scholarships for academically talented students, and money for research, training, and education for the gifted. The gifted student was now viewed as a potential asset to the United States and support followed, for a while.

Once the United States seemed to match the space accomplishments of the Soviet

Union, the fervor to support the education of America’s gifted students dwindled. The

1960’s and the Civil Rights movements shifted attention to equity in education, promoting the needs of special education students, assisting students of lower socio- economic status, and addressing the needs of minority students (Jolly, 2009). The

Marland report considered the educational state of affairs and was presented to the United

States Congress in 1972. The Marland report listed six forms of giftedness (general intellectual, specific academic, creativity, leadership, visual and performing arts, and psychomotor) and the assertion was made that students who exhibited potential or achievement within these areas required a different educational experience than those

who did not. Numerous school superintendents interviewed for the report responded that they had no gifted students at all within their districts (Marland, 1972). Despite the clear recommendations made in the report, the reality in American schools proved lack of acceptance.

A decade later, most states had adopted the gifted definition from the Marland report, yet how the definition was interpreted or applied within their schools was intermittent. In 1988, the Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act was passed.

Denoting gifted and talented students as a national resource for the betterment of the nation, this act set up an agenda to promote research, training and funding for the education of these young people. In addition, the act illuminated the notion that giftedness manifests itself differently in different populations thus gifted education programs need to reflect this diversity.

Then in 1993, another national report entitled, National Excellence: A Case for

Developing America’s Talent revealed how a “quiet crisis” was occurring in American classrooms as high-ability students were being ignored (Ross, 1993). The report described the disproportionate representation of ethnic groups participating in gifted programs and stressed the importance of finding talent in all cultural and economic groups. The report revealed a changing definition of giftedness by focusing on talent

(versus giftedness) and the need to develop potential for outstanding performance in intellectual, artistic, and creative endeavors. This report seemed to invigorate the need for research and pedagogy to address the needs of gifted learners.

Sentiments and support toward gifted and talented education vacillated once again with the passing of an educational reform plan called No Child Left Behind Act (2001).

This act focused the nation’s attention on holding schools accountable to state standards.

The emphasis was placed on reading and mathematics proficiencies of all students, shown through annual testing of elementary children in third through eighth grades. The

Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education program remained within this act, providing some competitive grants within states, but the center of attention was placed on those not performing, leaving gifted students ignored once again (Jolly, 2009).

This Study’s Definition

How individual schools interpret each of the aforementioned national publications and policies to apply them within their school districts has varied. The United States’ federal government allows each state to develop their identification and implementation plans for gifted education. Part of the criteria for participant selection in this study was students were identified gifted and talented by their state definition. In the state where the participants reside, the Department of Education maintains that students who score two standard deviations above the mean, minus the standard error of measurement, on a standardized intelligence test or performed on or above the 95th percentile on a nationally normed achievement test should be identified as exhibiting “superior cognitive ability.”

In addition, students should be identified as exhibiting “specific academic ability” if the student performs at or above the 95th percentile on a standardized achievement test within a specific domain (Ohio Revised Code Section 3324.03). The students’ affective traits are not considered in this definition for identification purposes (although they are held by the researcher). This study seeks to learn of the students’ meaning of the distinction of being identified as gifted in their academic lives.

Statement of the Problem

The student body of American classrooms is changing. The demographics are shifting throughout the United States and now include higher percentages of minorities and immigrants. By 2060, it is predicted that no one population will be the majority (US

Census Bureau, 2012). Asian Americans are the fastest growing ethnic group in the

United States, with Indians the third largest sub-group of that population (US Census

Bureau, 2010). Educational research however, is not reflecting the changing trends in the demographics of the American classroom. Weinberg (1997) stated that “in the world of educational research and writing, Asian American studies occupy little more than the margins” (p. 1). Farver, et al. (2007) stated that despite the fact that Asian Americans comprise 16% of the U.S. immigration population, “relatively little is known about them”

(p. 185). Perhaps the assumption is made that there is no need to study those who appear to not be struggling. Yet placing this group within the “model minority” stereotype (a term coined in 1966 by Petersen) and eliminating them from research due to the success of some within schools is not sufficient. In-depth studies need to be conducted to reveal the lived experience of these students. Granted, India is a huge nation with 29 states, numerous ethnic-linguistic groups, many religions, and an array of cultures. One study cannot begin to encompass the vast amount of thoughts, beliefs, or cultural tenets belonging to Asian Indians. However, the intent is by looking at Indian American students who have been academically successful in American schools and their parents who have emigrated from India, much can be revealed in order to contribute to a growing body of literature surrounding culture, intelligence, and gifted students.

Research Questions

The four guiding research questions for this study are:

1. How do identified gifted Indian American students and their parents perceive

various factors influencing the students’ academic success?

2. How do identified gifted Indian American students and their parents define

giftedness?

3. How do identified gifted Indian American students and their parents perceive

intelligence and its malleability?

4. How do identified gifted students and their parents believe their Indian

background influences their pursuit of academic achievement?

Purpose of the Study

This qualitative descriptive case study is important and needed for several reasons.

First, this study focuses on specific Asian Indian family experiences, as a separate culture from the category of Asians. Because Indians are one of the fastest growing ethnic groups in the United States, it is important to better understand their perspective. By considering four cases, thematic connections can emerge to highlight cultural tenets found in the selected context. Second, by studying several families to elucidate their experiences, while specifically focusing on the students’ perspectives, this study could assist teachers and counselors in public schools where the population of Indian American students is steadily increasing. Gifted education programs specifically have seen a dramatic increase of the

Indian presence and insight into these students’ worlds would be beneficial when addressing their needs. The third goal of the present study is to gain an in-depth understanding of being gifted through the voices of the students, thereby making a substantial contribution to the field of gifted education; since in the past, the descriptions of these exceptional students have mainly come from researchers and practitioners—not

from the students themselves. After analyzing numerous qualitative studies within gifted education, scholars have concluded, “The insider perspective, the meanings of people who are gifted and talented . . . is urgently needed” (Coleman, Guo & Dabbs, 2007, p. 61). The students’ realities, the meanings they attribute to those realities concerning giftedness and influential factors of their success, could inform pedagogical practice and theoretical understanding. Finally, this study will add knowledge to the theory of mindset by considering the psychological constructs of motivation and achievement in regards to academic success within this population.

Chapter Two Literature Review

This study involves gifted Indian American students of first generation immigrants

(those born outside of the United States) who are living and attending school in the United

States of America. They have been labeled gifted in accordance to their state’s identification statute. How this designation is interpreted by the students and their parents and what the implications entail for them is one component of this study. The students and their parents’ perceptions of factors contributing to their academic success are the focus.

This literature review considers gifted and talented studies, family and parenting, culture and immigrant concerns, and motivational constructs.

Models of Giftedness and Talent

For most of the first half of the 20th century, intelligence (or “g”) was considered innate and static and could derive an IQ score which revealed an individual’s intellectual prowess. Because of this conclusion, standardized tests were administered. Pre- determined scores (usually two standard deviations above the mean) granted students the gifted and talented status in schools across the United States.

In 1978, Renzulli revolutionized the notion of only ability equating to giftedness, to include gifted individuals’ behaviors. He revealed his Three Ring Theory of giftedness where he described an interaction of above- ability, high levels of commitment, and high levels of creativity. This theory began to show the confluence of several components contributing to gifted and talented performance. He went on to recognize the importance of the interaction between personality and environment. Renzulli expanded his theory to embed the three rings into a context of learning, called Houndstooth. Renzulli’s theory influenced educational thought and practice with his application of his theory into his

Schoolwide Enrichment Model. Schools are challenged to find their students’ strengths, interests, and creativity, and then inspire learning from there. He believes the goals for gifted education should be to “develop a positive attitude toward creative challenges of investigative activity and knowledge production” (Renzulli, 1988, p. 302). In order to achieve such, he posits that curriculum should result in both concrete and abstract products whereby concrete products would be for students to gain segments of knowledge and then create tangible products to apply concepts into creation. In addition, the curriculum should have abstract products whereby students gain problem-solving strategies, appreciation of knowledge and a continued development of self-actualization.

In 1983, Tannenbaum also emphasized both cognitive and non-cognitive factors for defining and identifying giftedness in his Sea Star model. The five arms of the Sea

Star model include factors of general ability, special aptitude, non-intellective (such as motivation, commitment, confidence and sound mental health), environmental support, and chance. Tannenbaum believed that all five factors must be present for an area of talent to develop. Yet each of the factors has both static and dynamic attributes, so if a child is not born with a trait (static), there is still the potential (dynamic) of that factor to be learned. Since one of the factors acknowledged is chance, Tannenbaum believed that potentially gifted children should be exposed to a vast array of information, experiences and opportunities. The results, Tannebaum posited, are shown in two types of gifted people: producers and performers. The producers create thoughts and tangibles whereas the performers create staged artistry and human services (Tannenbaum, 1983, 2002).

Gagné (1999) proposed the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent

(DMGT) which asserts gifts (intellectual, creative, socio-affective, and sensorimotor) are

untrained natural abilities demonstrating performance within the top 10% of similar age peers. These gifts can then be transformed into talents through learning and practice. The model shows how the process depends upon three types of catalysts: intrapersonal, environmental, and chance. These catalysts result in both positive and negative impacts on an individual’s learning as they can assist or inhibit talent development (Gagné, 2003).

Feldhusen (1992) added to the concept of giftedness and talent development by describing how human abilities lay upon a continuum of low or high, thus the acceptance of an innate ability is false. Human abilities are not dichotomous. He urged a renewed conceptualization which focuses on how human talent develops and changes. Feldhusen proposed the Talent Identification and Development in Education (TIDE) model which stressed four domains of talent: academic/intellectual, artistic, vocational-technical and interpersonal. He asserted that schools should seek demonstrated talent of these domains in children and not focus on a small percentage of students who scored high on a test.

Other talent development models have been created by retrospectively considering the lives of individuals who have been successful in their respective domains and then finding patterns. Piirto (1994, 2004, 2007) studied the biographies of over a thousand eminent creative producers and considered their processes. She developed a contextual framework called The Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development (1994) which demonstrates the confluence of genes, personality, intellect, domain talent, and passion.

Within each of these layers, she folds in psychological, philosophical, and psychoanalytic underpinnings. Within her framework, she purports the importance of various influences on talent development, depicted through environmental “suns” of chance, home, school, culture, and gender.

In 2011, Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Worrell took on the daunting task of analyzing the research and models available for giftedness and talent development. They proposed a mega-model which incorporated the tenets of many proposed theories and models. They proposed the following definition:

Giftedness is the manifestation of performance that is clearly at the upper end of

the distribution in a talent domain even relative to other high-functioning

individuals in that domain. Further, giftedness can be viewed as developmental, in

that in the beginning stages, potential is the key variable; in later stages,

achievement is the measure of giftedness; and in fully developed talents,

eminence is the basis on which this label is granted. Psychosocial variables play

an essential role in the manifestation of giftedness at every developmental stage.

Both cognitive and psychosocial variables are malleable and need to be

deliberately cultivated. (Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011, p. 3)

This definition counters the notion of giftedness being a unitary trait which transfers success across domains. The authors clearly state that the manifestation of giftedness is demonstrated, not a potential state. In addition, the definition draws attention to the fact that both cognitive and psychosocial factors contribute to giftedness. The importance of opportunities, training, and mentoring for talent development are apparent.

Within their framework, the distinction is made between creative producers and creative performers and describes how within each domain, there are differing trajectories of development that vary where talent begins, peaks, and ends. The framework proposes that in the beginning phase of development, precursors of gifted behavior for a specific domain need to be identified; oftentimes by teachers, parents, and mentors. Subotnik, et

al. (2011) noted that an individual’s abilities do matter in the process of talent development. Since these abilities are malleable, they need to be cultivated as giftedness is a process, thus training and intervention of domain-specific skills are required along the domain’s trajectory (p. 6). Environment, family, and mentors are crucial for progressing through the stages of development. In addition, the framework asserts that progress from one stage to the next is also influenced by individual effort, psycho-social skills, and desire on the part of the talented individual. Internal factors such as creativity, motivation, personality, interest, and passion, along with external factors of parents, emotional trauma, opportunity, chance, and culture all demand consideration when discussing the development of talent. The goal of gifted and talented education, then, is for the individual to achieve eminence.

As knowledge and understanding grow, the definitions and implications change as well. Gifted education began with the psychometric testing of intelligence but has evolved with educational, scientific, political and social research, and advancements. It is currently believed that several factors, both internal and external, contribute to students’ high performance. How that process specifically occurs, who and how to best support students’ progression are still points of contention among thinkers.

The Gifted Label

When children are designated as gifted or talented, they often grapple with how this affects their identity. They report having mixed feelings about the label as it seems to confer expectations on the student from others (Berlin, 2009; Davis & Rimm, 2004).

According to the students, the gifted label results in both disadvantages and advantages

(Berlin, 2009; Coleman, Peine, Olthouse & Romanoff, 2009; Kerr, Colangelo, & Gaeth,

1988; Moulton, Moulton, Housewright, & Bailey, 1998). In one study, children spoke of being embarrassed when held up as examples for other students; being confused when students taunted them; and being upset when told by the teacher that he or she was disappointed due to a test score. Students went on to describe other incidents of feeling embarrassed for actions they designated as “failures,” such as answering a question incorrectly in class (Cross, Stewart, & Coleman, 2003). Other studies (Berlin, 2009;

Pereira & Gentry, 2013; Shaunessy, McHatton, Hughes, Brice & Ratliff, 2007) found students denoting additional negative components of being gifted by describing teachers and other adults as having extremely high expectations of them as gifted students, resulting in stress.

American gifted students report that the advantages of the gifted label include access to gifted programming providing original curricula, more opportunities, and less boredom (Berlin, 2009; Henfield, Moore & Wood, 2008; Shaunessy, et al., 2007). Gifted students report that they believe they have “better teachers” in gifted classrooms and highly gifted children also describe the social benefit of making friends in gifted programs (Berlin, 2009, p. 221).

However, studies on the social stigma of giftedness demonstrate that gifted students are aware of how people sometimes react to their label (Coleman, 2011). The negative social implications for gifted students are sometimes all encompassing. One student described being gifted as a “social handicap” (Coleman & Cross, 1988, p. 3).

Gifted students who want to avoid these reactions from others, learn they can influence their social interaction by managing the information people have about them. Gifted children may volunteer information, withhold information, or redirect the situation,

thereby changing how apparent or visible their giftedness might be. Cross, Coleman, and

Terhaar-Yonkers, (1991) interviewed gifted children who described strategies they used to manage social situations in order to camouflage their giftedness. The strategies were categorized into three levels of visibility: invisible, high, and dis-identifying. Invisible strategies included not saying a test was easy, not volunteering answers, asking questions when the answer was already known, and not revealing age if accelerated. Students who implemented high visibility strategies indicated that they acted obnoxiously, were the class clown, or dressed against current style. Students who used dis-identifying strategies feigned interest in small talk, tried out for extracurricular activities for which they had little talent, acted silly, and asked crazy questions. Using these strategies seems to demonstrate the students’ cognizance of the stigma of giftedness. This awareness affected the students’ behavior. More recently, in a qualitative study of twelve gifted African

American students, Henfield, Moore, and Wood (2008) found that the majority of the participants described behaviors they used in order to deny or disassociate themselves from their gifted identities. The participants sought to hide their academic strengths from their African American non-gifted peers (Henfield, et al., 2008).

Acceptance of the gifted label seems to decrease as students grow older. In a quantitative study of 9-17 year old students participating at a summer camp for gifted students (n=30, Feldhusen and Dai (1997) found a significant age effect for accepting the gifted label. How the label affects students, not only socially but also academically has been under investigation. Some fear that the gifted label may cause students to believe their giftedness is a set entity and cause them to avoid difficulties which may challenge their “gifts.” However, Feldhusen and Dai (1997) found that the gifted participants in

their study overwhelmingly held an incremental view of intelligence and sought out challenges, despite their gifted label.

Family System Theory

When considering how student perceptions are derived, it is necessary to look at the parents as well, for separating the two as distinct individuals is difficult if not contentious. Bowen (1978) described the Family Systems Theory whereby he discussed how families are systems, comprised of interconnected and interdependent members.

Each member within the family system has rules to respect and a role to play. The behaviors of each individual impact all other members within the family system. Thus, in order to understand an individual, one must look at the entire family.

When considering the families of gifted and talented children, Piirto and Feldman

(2002) reported how talent often runs within the family. This can be seen in the many examples of talented families throughout history (see for example the Osbournes, Pablo

Picasso and his father José Ruiz Blasco, the Kennedys, Michael and Kirk Douglas, Marie and Irene Curie). The influence of families and the home environment they provide have been studied in connection with academic achievement (Moon, Jurich & Feldhusen,

1998). Campbell and Verna (2007) found that a positive “Academic Home Climate” ignites curiosity in individuals and encourages academic pursuits. Within this type of climate, high expectations are set by the parents, which are then broken down into attainable goals. A child’s positive behaviors such as diligent work habits and acceptance of challenges were rewarded or expected, for these attributes are understood to lead to increased motivation for the child. When the climate and behaviors at home are concurrent to the ones esteemed at school, children have higher levels of achievement

(Campbell &Verna, 2007). Similarly, studies have found correlations between families which focused on being child-centered, supportive of individuality, and close-knit to high achievement in children (Moon, Jurich, Feldhusen, 1998; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2002). Yet the family atmosphere cannot be a prescribed list of elements in order to determine success from the members. Families which were child-centered yet lacked consistency have been shown to lead to underachievement (Rimm & Lowe, 1988). In addition, highly creative individuals have been shown to be the product of stress, trauma, and tension within their respective families (Olszewski-Kubilius, 2002; Piirto, 2004).

Additional factors such as the make-up of the family system are important considerations as well when it comes to contributing to children’s development. The marital status of the parents, the age of the parents, and the birth order of the children all influence the functioning of the family system and how talent is promoted and developed

(Feldman & Piirto, 2002; Moon, et al., 1998). Overall, since family systems are contextually dependent, complex, and dynamic, there is no one definite structure guaranteed to produce high achievement in children.

Parenting the Gifted and Talented

Within the complexity of family systems, research has shown that parents, specifically, hold an important role for the educational trajectories of gifted and talented

(Bloom, 1985; Campbell & Verna, 2007; Goertzel & Goertzel, 1962; Rimm, 1999). All parents try to do the best for their children, but the parents of gifted and talented children seem to have additional burdens. These parents report feeling a great responsibility of identifying and cultivating their child’s talent without over-managing it (Feldman &

Piirto, 2002; Garn, Matthews & Jolly, 2012; Jolly & Matthews, 2014; Morawska &

Sanders, 2009). Also, parents of gifted children feel a lack of support in their endeavor to support their child’s development and often experience negative community response

(Morawska & Sanders, 2009). Despite these difficulties, studies have shown how parental values, parents modeling those values, parents providing resources and social networks, all positively impact a child’s talent development.

Studies have shown how in homes of gifted and talented children, parents exhibited the value of achievement by giving and modeling messages of hard work, perseverance, and productive use of time (Bloom, 1985; Feldman & Piirto, 2002;

Olszewski-Kubilius, 2002). Through discussions, monitoring their child’s behaviors, and giving personal examples, these messages were noted and internalized by their children.

In addition, the value placed upon intellectual or creative excellence and recognition by parents of gifted and talented children was noted (Bloom, 1985; Goertzel & Goertzel,

1962). Parents typically chose a specific interest in which to spend time and show appreciation of the effort involved in attaining a chosen talent. How parents convey the concept that abilities are dynamic constructs which require practice, effort and persistence can lead to an increase in academic motivation (Dweck & Leggett, 1988;

Dweck, 2007, 2012). In fact, the parents’ interest in a specific field, whether in the arts, in athletic events or in scholarly endeavors, were highly related to the field in which their child excelled (Bloom, 1985).

Along with values, parents also provide resources and social networks for their gifted and talented children. Parents offer additional time, money, training, monitoring, and transportation to support their child’s talent (Feldman & Piirto, 2002; Olszewski-

Kubilius, 2002). Activities and enrichment outside of school such as lessons, tutoring,

coaching, practices, and competitions all require assistance from the parents. Likewise, parents of gifted and talented children have been noted as setting up social networks for their children. These networks, comprised of like-minded students and adults, provide important emotional support and understanding for the talented individual (Olszewski-

Kubilius, 2002).

Parenting Styles

Baumrind’s (1968) conceptualization of parenting includes parents’ beliefs and values about their roles as parents as well as the nature of children. She described three types of parenting styles which exert different amounts of control: authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, (and then later added uninvolved). With the authoritarian parenting style, rules are strict. Children are expected to follow these rules without explanation, as the overlying belief that children should obey is dominant. The authoritative parenting style offers clear guidelines which children are expected to follow while parents monitor their behavior. Yet with this style, children are given some input and parents acknowledge and often adapt, based on those thoughts and opinions.

Permissive parenting is highly responsive to children’s input. There are few expectations and very few demands placed upon the children. Uninvolved parenting style also has low demands and low, if any, expectations however there is also low responsiveness shown toward to the children. Since socialization is a dynamic process, Baumrind asserts that children contribute to their own development which in turn influences their parents and the parents’ actions.

Since the publication of Baumrind’s parenting styles, researchers have tried to correlate styles with children’s behaviors as outcomes. Baumrind (1971) found

authoritative parenting predicted high self-esteem and high academic competence in children whereas authoritarian parenting correlated to low self-esteem and poor academic competence. Researchers have tried to superimpose parenting style studies cross cultures to understand the relationship of parenting styles and their child’s academic achievement, yet results have been limited. The cultural and social milieu affects the parenting and developmental outcomes of children (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Rao, McHale &

Pearson, 2003). For example, a Chinese parenting style is often noted as authoritarian, yet their children often show positive academic achievement. Chao (1994) argued that although the style may be “authoritarian” and highly controlling, the surrounding family environment is loving and supportive. In order to address a more culturally relevant concept, Chao (1994) developed an additional dimension of parenting called “training” to describe the motives and actions of some Chinese parents.

International studies

How parents’ support and encouragement differs in various cultures has been documented for designated ethnicities. Campbell and Verna (2007) considered the parenting styles of families in Scandinavia, Europe, Asia, and the United States. They concluded that the home environment surrounding all of the high achieving students from the different countries is an important contributing factor to the students’ success.

Rao, et al. (2003) made a more specific comparison by studying the parenting styles of Chinese parents (n=205) and Indian parents (n=118) in their respective homelands, by conducting a quantitative study utilizing two phases of questionnaires.

The results showed many similarities between the two cultures in their value systems of placing high importance on academic achievement and hard work. Collectivist values of

attaining success for society at large as well as for the family were also shared. In addition, the importance of filial piety (dedication to one’s family as a son or daughter) had an influence on parenting practices in both cultures as well. Parents who placed a high value on filial piety reported a higher incidence of utilizing authoritarian parenting practices, which Rao et al. (2003) explain as indicating “the exertion of parental control is related to the socialization for family responsibilities” (p. 487). Both cultures reported valuing the socio-emotional development of their children and utilized authoritative parenting practices when emphasizing those goals. However, Chinese parents utilized training practices (similar to practices of authoritarian parenting practices) more often than the Indian parents. Rao et al. (2003) hypothesize that Chinese parents may view their primary goals for their children (academic achievement and filial piety) in jeopardy if the goals of socio-emotional development are sought.

Immigrant Parents

Immigrant parents bring their homeland understandings of child-rearing practices with them yet they have an additional set of considerations with which to contend. All children experience enculturation whereby they are socialized to understand cultural mores and function within their respective societies. Yet ethnic minorities are acculturated by their parents’ homeland culture, the surrounding dominant culture, and societal interactions between the two. Parents are influential in guiding their children’s behaviors, attitudes, and success in the navigation of these two worlds (Farver, Xu,

Bakhtawar, Bhada, Narang, & Lieber, 2007).

Farver, Bhadha, and Narang (2002) studied Indian immigrant families. In a quantitative study of Asian Indian adolescents (n=180) and European American

adolescents (n=180) and their parents, participants were asked to complete several questionnaires, checklists, inventories, and scales. Farver, et al. (2002) found that when parents sought to integrate and acculturate to the dominant culture (while maintaining aspects of their homeland culture) instead of being separated from it, the adolescents had higher academic achievement, self-esteem, and sense of ethnic identity.

Studies have looked at the parenting practices and beliefs of other Asian immigrants as well, such as Chinese American. In a case study of three Chinese

American families, results indicate there is an overarching belief that success occurs because of an individual’s persistent and diligent effort more so than because of innate ability (Wu, 2008). Some conclude this mentality derives from Confucius’ teaching of life-long pursuit to reach a person’s optimal state of being (Wu, 2008). This leads

Chinese parenting practices to include involvement in their child’s education and high expectations, as well as an emphasis on hard work and effort from their children. Chinese

American parents reported how they had a sense of responsibility to nurture their child’s development, which sometimes included forcing the child to practice or study (Wu,

2008). Yet these parents were not concerned about their children’s futures as they were confident that through proper parenting and support, the children would be successful.

Farver, et al. (2007) compared the parenting styles of Asian Indian American and

European American parents (n=360) in a quantitative study to consider how adolescents’ identity, self-esteem, family conflict intensity, parenting practices, grades, and anxiety were related. Results showed that for both cultural groups, adolescents’ ethnic identity was positively correlated to self-esteem. Family conflict frequency was positively correlated with anxiety and inversely correlated to both self-esteem and grade point

averages (GPAs). In addition, both cultural groups demonstrated a positive correlation between the parental practice of shaming and anxiety, and an inverse association to self- esteem.

The comparison groups in the Farver et al. study (2007) differed in that Asian

Indian American adolescents (n=180) revealed a positive association between the parent belief of “training” and their GPAs. Authoritative parenting was negatively associated with family conflict. This differed from the European American adolescents (n=180) who positively associated anxiety with their parents’ belief in training. Negative associations were made between anxiety and their GPAs. Authoritative parenting was positively associated with adolescents’ self-esteem and GPAs.

For the present study, the parents were an integral component to understanding the lived experiences of being a gifted Indian American student in the United States. By discovering the parents’ views and the home climate they provide, triangulation of the student data could be made, as well as specific cultural conceptions and parenting beliefs noted.

Asian Indian Immigrants

The vast majority of immigrants from India after the 1965 U.S. Immigration Act have a college degree, are middle class professionals, or students from universities. They are fluent in English and have had exposure to western culture. These first generation

Indian immigrants seek to “affirm their identity” by retaining their Indian culture and traditions within the new world. Some have commented that Asian Indians are more

Indian in their lifestyle in the United States than those individuals living in India (Farver, et al., 2007). They come with a strong value of education and a strong sense of

competition (Sethna, 2004). With India offering some of the most competitive universities in the world, natives are ingrained with the belief of hard work in order to develop one’s abilities. The mentality of postponing immediate gratification for the reward of later success in a career and life is acquired, as well as an appreciation of a supportive environment.

Some Indians are influenced by various religious and philosophical beliefs concerning intelligence and parenting practices to develop that intelligence. For some

Indians ascribing to Hindu philosophy, there is a belief that children are born with predispositions called Samskaras, derived from actions made in previous lives (Rao, et al., 2003). In a study of two Indian schools and institutions, Piirto (2002) reported some

Indians to have a multidimensional perspective of intelligence which is then cultivated to move beyond just nurturing an individual’s academic achievement. Instead, the schools for the gifted were cultivating spiritual growth, leadership abilities, and the process of becoming agents of social change within their students (Piirto, 2002).

Sethna (2004) described how some Indians do acknowledge innate giftedness concerning music or the performing arts and believe that even diligent dedicated hard work cannot overcome a lack of born talent in these arenas. However, academic success is quite different. Here, individuals are expected that with enough hard work and encouragement, every child can succeed (Sethna, 2004). Some Indian parents impress upon their children the culture of hard work, diligent pursuit of careers which provide prestige and high income—typically medicine, law, business, or engineering--a belief that a person can achieve anything with perseverance, success will arrive with encouragement, environment, and due diligence on the part of the child. With these belief

systems, some parents’ actions demonstrate the idea that no sacrifice is too great in order to provide for their children (Rao, McHale, & Pearson, 2003; Sethna, 2004).

The Model Minority Stereotype

Since the 1960’s, Asian immigrants have been portrayed in the media as the

“model minority” (Petersen, 1966). They have been touted as hard working, academically successful, able to climb the social ladder of society, and free from emotional health issues (Grossman & Liang, 2008; Kitano, 1997; Wong & Halgin, 2006). Unfortunately, this positive depiction does not always equate to attainment; rather it sometimes results in dire consequences (Henfield, Woo, Lin, & Rausch, 2014; Plucker, 1996). Asian

Americans have reported high amounts of pressure to reach the academic expectations placed upon them (Henfield, et al., 2014; Wong & Halgin, 2006). However, a study by

Ying, Lee, Tsai, Hung, and Wan (2001) revealed that the myth of Asian Americans out- performing all other sub-groups, including European Americans, is unsubstantiated. In addition, emotional and mental needs are often not addressed, as Asian Americans avoid seeking professional help and counselors often overlook their needs. Stereotypes and generalization lead to discriminatory actions in youth (Grossman & Liang, 2008; Kao &

Hébert, 2006) as well as in business practices (Kitano, 1997; Wong & Halgin, 2006) resulting in the restriction of social and economic growth.

Over-representation of Asian American students in gifted programs in schools has been documented (Yoon & Gentry, 2009), yet studying this population less than others could be a further example of the model minority stereotype permeating societal thought.

Plucker (1996) confirmed that the limited amount of research available on the Asian population from which to derive recommendations for teaching and counseling is

incomplete and does not provide understandings of how to address student needs in the classroom. Knowing that Asian Indians comprise the third largest sub-group of the Asian population in the United States and studies specific to Asian Indians are lacking in the literature, it is of great interest to note whether identified gifted Indian American students report incidents revealing the model minority stereotype when discussing their gifted label and how these experiences might influence their identities and academic endeavors.

Stereotype threat

Stereotypes about minorities not only can affect individuals’ identities and sense of belonging but can have a negative influence upon academic achievement as well

(Perry, Steele & Hilliard, 2003). When minority students feel that their achievements are being judged through a stereotypical lens, their performance is often hindered (Perry et al., 2003). Steele (1999) conducted a study on the stereotype effect by comparing African

American and European American college-age sophomores and found that students who took the tests expecting their performance to reiterate a negative stereotype of their culture group, performed considerably worse than students who thought the test was for another purpose. Students facing the barrier of negative stereotyping could not perform to the best of their abilities.

Shih, Ambady, Richeson, Fujita, and Gray (2002) considered how even positive stereotypes can affect individuals’ achievement. Asian Americans were asked to complete a questionnaire with either subtle references to their ethnic identities or blatant descriptions of stereotypes of their ethnicity. Then a math assessment was given. The group who had received subtle comments about Asian ethnicities performed better than those who had confronted blatant stereotypes about their culture (Shih, et al., 2002). This

study demonstrated how stereotypes influence the performance of individuals, despite the stereotype being positive or negative.

Motivation

Motivation has been linked to perseverance, dedication (Urhahane & Ortiz, 2011), and grit (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Some have even hypothesized that challenges such as stereotypes and stereotype threats act as a motivating force for individuals to persevere

(Garrett, Antrop-Gonzáles, & Vélez , 2010; Worrell, 2012) Many theories and definitions of giftedness contain components of motivation. Renzulli (1986) described his

Three-ring Model of Giftedness where task commitment was evident along with above average ability and creativity. The Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development (Piirto, 1994,

2004) contains personality attributes of drive, persistence, and self-discipline, all relating to motivation. Studies have shown the connection between individuals’ abilities and achievements contain the characteristic of motivation (Dweck, 2010; Dweck & Leggett,

1988; Urhahane & Ortiz, 2011). Motivation has been divided into two contrasting types that result in contrasting theories representing them. Internal motivation is the pursuit of a task due to satiating curiosity, the joy of learning or following interests. Csikszentmihalyi

(1991) described intrinsic motivation in his Theory of Flow. Individuals’ capabilities match the challenge presented and then they become so involved in the process they lose sense of time and surroundings in the pursuit of attaining the goal. This sensation is self- perpetuating, producing additional intrinsic motivation to continue. Winner (1996) described this motivation as the “rage to master” (p. 3) to describe individuals’ overwhelming urge to delve into a chosen domain in order learn and understand. They

seek to make sense of their domain in which they have talent. This internal drive leads to acuity in focus, intense interest and sustained involvement within that domain.

External motivation focuses on the outcomes achieved after a chosen pursuit instead of the process taken to arrive there. The task at hand must be considered worthy and the individual must expect he/she can accomplish it. The consideration of the external motivation while juxtaposing it with self-assessment, can lead to a drive to pursue the task. While extrinsic motivation has sometimes been shown to stifle creative production, it has also been shown to result in intrinsic motivating forces (Amabile,

1993).

In this study, as participants described their successes and reflected upon the mentality and process of reaching those achievements, careful attention was paid to note motivational (both intrinsic and extrinsic) patterns and themes. Connecting the individuals’ experiences with their views on intelligence was of interest.

Competition

The role of competition within public academic settings is not agreed upon.

Gifted students may have more opportunities to compete than their non-gifted peers and many may prefer competition if they encounter some success. However, some gifted students in over-competitive environments shut down and become underachievers, while other students thrive in competitive realms only to then quit as they want to avoid the risk of losing in the future (Rimm, 1997). Ozturk and Debelak (2008) contended that students gain a number of positive affective benefits through competing. They said that competition can lead to increased motivation, a healthy self-concept, experience with a competition in the real world, and interactions with role models. After reviewing much

research on academic competitions, Omdal and Richards (2014) concluded that although more experimentally-based research needs to be conducted, there is evidence that competition establishes positive work habits, leads to mentorships, piques the interest of students, and applies knowledge to real-world projects. Even when competition appears to be extrinsically motivating, competing students often report intrinsic motivation during the preparation stage of a competition. Studies have shown how there are different types of competition and how different internalization can lead toward or move away from motivation. Udvari and Schneider (2000) made the distinction between task-oriented competitive behavior, which stems from a desire to improve performance, and other- referenced competitive behavior, which is driven by a desire to beat an opponent. Often, because gifted children achieve at higher levels than their peers, they are involved in competitions of some kind. According to Udvari and Schneider (2000), as well as Rimm

(1997), it is possible for these students to participate in other-referenced situations while still demonstrating task-oriented behaviors if they are provided mentorship and coaching in a positive manner, stressing the students’ growth versus outcome.

Conclusion

By presenting a backdrop of different models of giftedness and talent, different aspects of influence are illuminated for consideration when approaching a study revolving around gifted students. This chapter then offered insights learned from various researchers and past studies which considered facets of the home (such as parenting), the school (such as the gifted label), the culture and community (such as Asian American immigrants). Studies on individuals’ response to motivation and competition provided additional considerations which tie into an individual’s internal characteristics. How the

participants view these different aspects and relay their experiences will be the focus of the study. The methodology for this qualitative study to achieve this purpose is described in the following chapter.

Chapter Three

Research Design and Methodology

Giftedness as a phenomenon lacks studies that illuminate the voice of gifted individuals and their families. Individuals’ experiences told through their voices need to be heard. Understanding that students have unique perspectives means acknowledging that, "a person's experience is what the world is to that person” (Coleman & Cross 2000, p. 211). Comprehending the meanings of being gifted within a specific context requires listening to what both the young people and their parents say in their own words. By bringing the voice of individuals forward, the subtleties of their experiences are revealed

(Van Manen, 1990). Marshall and Rossman (2011) said, “Because thoughts, feelings, beliefs, values, and assumptions are involved, the researcher needs to understand the deeper perspectives that can be captured through face to face interaction” (p. 91).

Qualitative research is the most effective manner in which to pursue this in-depth understanding of this study’s four research questions: (1) How do identified gifted Indian

American students and their parents perceive various factors influencing the students’ academic success? (2) How do identified gifted Indian American students and their parents define giftedness? (3) How do identified gifted Indian American students and their parents perceive intelligence and its malleability? (4) How do identified gifted students and their parents believe their Indian background influences their pursuit of academic achievement?

Qualitative Research

Creswell (2013) describes how researchers’ philosophical and interpretive frameworks intertwine to inform the decided problem for research, the research question

themselves, the chosen data collection, data analysis, and finally the interpretation of the data. In this exploration of the experiences of gifted Indian American students and their families, a social constructivist framework guided my choices and decisions concerning these tenets of the study, since I sought to “attempt to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003, p.

5). Within this framework, ontologically I agreed that “reality is multiple as seen through many views” (Creswell, 2013, p. 21) hence I highlighted the voices of gifted Indian

American students along with their parents, demonstrating their varying perceptions of what it means to be gifted, the factors which impacted their success, and how they viewed intelligence in their specific context. Their experiences and words to describe them were considered the key data on which to base analysis. As Creswell (2013) noted,

“subjective evidence . . . based on individual views . . . is how knowledge is known” (p.

20). Thus, the insider or emic perspective was highly regarded. However, since I filtered the data through theoretical understanding to present assertions found within and between cases, the etic perspective was prevalent as well. Van Manen (1990) described this approach as “a philosophy of the personal, the individual, which we pursue against the backdrop of an understanding of the evasive character of the logos or other, the whole, the communal, or the social” (p. 7). How the students and their families perceived and described their experiences of living within their specific social contexts lead to an in- depth understanding.

Research Design

In this study, the research questions revolved around the phenomenon of being gifted within the context of a family who is comprised of first generation Indian

immigrants (born outside of the United States) living in the Midwest of the United States.

In order to provide an in-depth understanding of the perspective of these families on the factors contributing to academic success, a case study design was employed.

Case study

A case study strives to provide an in-depth understanding of a specific contemporary phenomenon within the context of real life (Yin, 2009). For this study, the phenomenon of giftedness for students of first generation immigrants from India was the focus. A case is noted by being bounded by time and place. This study focused on Indian families with gifted students who were currently attending school in the Midwest region of the United States. Cases are “integrated systems” (Stake, 2006); thus studying the family dynamics was important; however, the students’ experience of their giftedness in schools while living in Indian family homes was of particular interest. Instrumental cases were those which were selected to best understand the phenomenon (Stake, 2006); in this study, giftedness. Several different families were chosen to represent these cases. Each case was first considered a unique entity. While the detailed functioning and activities of the family were examined, the first objective was to understand the case as a whole

(Stake, 2006). Each case provided triangulating data derived from interviews of parents and their children, direct observations, and physical artifacts. For example, comparisons were made between how one student described receiving homework help with how the sibling and parents described the same situation. The students’ explanations of their chosen artifacts were referenced with their experiences shared in their interviews and observations made at school. Triangulation offered a more in-depth view of each case by collecting different sources of data to substantiate or clarify interpretations (Creswell,

2013, Stake, 2006). Then, because there were four cases, which all shared the common characteristic of immigrant Indian families with gifted students, they were considered categorically bound (Stake, 2006). Thematic connections between the cases were sought to address the research questions. The focus was on the complexity of the cases and their links to the social context of which they were a part (Glesne, 2011).

Researcher as instrument

Within a qualitative study, the researcher is most often the instrument collecting the data. The importance of epoche or bracketing the researcher’s background and assumptions has been noted in order to make both the reader and the researcher cognizant of her own views and to try and separate them from those of the participants (Moustakas,

1994). The intent is to consider the ordinary in a new way. I have been a private tutor for

Indian American students for over ten years. These sessions were not requested for remediation; rather the parents sought me out to provide more rigorous reading and writing instruction than the schools had been providing for their children. They sought me as their tutor based on my previous experience of being a middle school, high school, and college English teacher. Throughout years as their tutor, I have come to know the parents and students well and have participated in their holidays, meals, and celebrations.

I appreciate the enormous risk the parents have taken as immigrants to uproot their ties in their homeland to move to a foreign land. The school systems in this new country do not resemble the Indian schools of which the parents were accustomed, not to mention the food, culture, and parenting style differences. Through dialogue and through students’ writing pieces, I have come to see the students as living in two very different worlds, one in which the Indian families maintain their language, religion, and customs

and then that of mainstream American culture. One might expect students to struggle in the American system with all of the aforementioned differences, yet these students seem to flourish. Chosen as some of the top 10% of academically achieving students in an active middle class community, these immigrant children were designated gifted and talented. Their family structure, cultural beliefs, and home life (in addition to their school experiences) set the contextual background to their lives.

Through our professional relationship, I have acquired one set of informal data serendipitously. Yet for this study, these families went beyond the professional relationship we had established as tutor and client. They opened up to me to share their pasts, their motivations, their goals, and their fears. The students told me their feelings of being gifted in school and the effect of society’s stereotypes of them as minorities. They shared their perspectives on education, teachers, friends, American culture, and Indian competition. The parents relived some childhood memories from India, connecting their experiences with currently held beliefs. They shared immigrant struggles and making sense of parenting in a foreign culture. They revealed both universal struggles of parenting (such as guiding teenagers) to those specific struggles of cultural clashes. As a parent, I empathized with their plight of wanting to do what is best for one’s child, but also wanting the child to make those choices on his or her own. As a European American,

I could only imagine what it would be like to raise a child in a completely different environment than that in which I grew up. I am in awe of their sacrifices, their dedication, their commitment, and their ambitions. I feel privileged that they shared their insights with me, creating a new, richer data set and for that I am honored.

Participant and Site Selection

The participants in this study were put into family units, with each family considered a case. A purposeful sampling approach was conducted to select four families with gifted children of first generation Indian immigrants. Creswell (1998) suggested one to four cases be used when conducting a case study because any more than that often loses the depth of the cases which is sought. These families were already known to me as their children’s former tutor; these four were selected based on selected criteria and the perception of their willingness. Creswell (2013) contended “criterion sampling works well when all individuals studied represent people who have experienced the phenomenon” (p. 155). Although the gifted population is as diverse as the number of individuals it comprises, the study seeks to note perspectives regarding factors contributing to academic success within a population who share the same phenomenon of being gifted and who come from Indian families. The criterion for participation includes: children with parents who have emigrated from India; families with children who have been identified as gifted and talented through a professional evaluation or through school identification procedures; and families who live in the Midwest.

The site was an upper-middle class suburb in the Midwest. Within this school district, 74.7% are White, 11.1% are Asian, 6.6% are Black, 4.3% are multiracial, and

3.2% are Hispanic (www.napls.us/reportcard). This site was chosen out of convenience and offers “easy access to participants, reduces time expenditure for certain aspects of data collection . . . and [an easier situation in which] to establish rapport” (Marshall &

Rossman, 2011, p. 101). Since the participants were already familiar with me as their previous tutor, the established rapport was relied upon for candid, accurate, and truthful

reports of perceptions of intelligence and reported incidents of the influence of those perceptions.

Data Collection

Data collection in a case study relies upon several sources of information. In this study, the data collection consisted of in-depth interviews, participant observation, and physical artifacts, conducted with the culture of the participants in mind. Sternberg,

(2004) cautioned that, “work that seeks to study intelligence [or conceptualization of that intelligence] acontextually risks the imposition of an investigator’s view of the world on the rest of the world” (p. 325). During the process, as the outside researcher, I was cognizant that I was a guest among the Indian culture, and I tried to uphold cultural sensitivity throughout the study. Glesne (2010) wrote, “If doing research with strangers, chances are that to fit in, at least in some situations, you will have to act in certain ways that you might not otherwise if you did not have the researcher role” (p. 142). I asked many questions of explanation but also tried to inconspicuously be a part of the school, cultural, and familial surroundings.

Interviews

Two semi-structured recorded interviews based on a modified format suggested by Seidman (2006) took place at the family homes. This location was chosen as convenient by both the gifted students and their parents. The interview questions moved from descriptions to reflections and interpretations and then connected the shared experiences to the present day by asking participants to make meaning of their phenomenon. Seidman (2006) recommended that each of these interviewing components be a separate interview lasting 90 minutes. Since the participants were younger, the

components were combined into a 45-60 minutes initial interview and then a follow up

20-50 minute interview. The interview questions were “designed to ask participants to reconstruct their experience and explain their meaning” (Stake, 2006, p. 92) using literature to guide topics such as home environment, parenting the gifted, the gifted label, motivation, conceptualization of intelligence, and culture. Questions were crafted as open-ended so as not to seek an answer but to reveal an insight about the topics. Most questions asked for a description of an experience or began with “how does it feel” to elicit meaningful responses (Seidman, 2006). Then more specifics answers were requested as follow-up responses.

Two sets of protocols were developed for this study: one for the students and one for the parents. The student protocol for the initial interview was comprised of eight questions which sought to discover how gifted Indian American students define giftedness, how they view intelligence, how they believe their parents and culture influence their academic success, and any challenges they face as gifted Indian American students. At the end of the initial interview, the students were asked to select an artifact that represented them as gifted Indian American students (See Appendix C). Gentry,

Rizza and Owen (2002) wrote, “Too often students are not asked, nor are their perceptions considered in both educational practices and educational research. Clearly their perceptions are important and different” (p. 145). This study sought to emphasize the voice of the gifted students within the parameters of a case study design.

The follow-up interview focused more on reflections and interpretations, as suggested by Seidman (2006) about being a gifted Indian American student. The protocol consisted of six questions; first asking for a description of their selected artifact which

represented them, and second, how the students felt in school and within the Indian community. In addition, students were asked about experiences demonstrating motivation and overcoming challenges through perseverance. These questions probed students to apply their previously noted understandings of intelligence to reveal the constructs of motivation and perseverance. Finally, the students were asked the overall meaning of being a gifted Indian American student. The open-ended nature of the question allowed students to share what they believed to be important about their identity and experiences

(See Appendix D).

The parents of the gifted students were interviewed with the same two-part interview structure – one lasting 60-90 minutes and one lasting 30-60 minutes (Seidman,

2006) but had slightly different questions to seek their adult perspective and share their parent view. Because of time and schedule constraints, some interview sessions were combined into one long session. In addition, some follow-up questions were conducted on the phone or through email, as needed for clarification. The protocol for the initial interview for the parents consisted of ten questions; topics were derived from the literature but questions remained open-ended. The first three asked about their immigration from India to the United States and differences they noted between Indian and American schools. The next six asked parents about intelligence, academic giftedness, and the roles of schools, culture and parents influencing them. Finally, the last question asked about challenges specific to Indian parents of gifted children (See

Appendix E). The protocol for the second interview included questions revolving around motivation, perseverance, and the impact of their previously defined conceptualization of intelligence. Finally, parents were asked to offer advice to new immigrant families from

India who have gifted students (See Appendix F). The semi-structured nature of these interviews focused on the research questions but allowed for the exploration of related topics that students and parents found relevant and impactful, thus giving credence to their voices and experiences (Seidman, 2006).

Artifacts

According to Creswell (2013), including multiple types of sources corroborates evidence to triangulate data. Asking students to choose an artifact to represent themselves as gifted Indian American students, revealed their perceptions of themselves and what being gifted meant to them in an alternative manner. The students were then asked to explain why they chose the artifact. Their answers were coded within the software system

Atlas.ti along with interview and observation data. Connections between these codes linked the data and corroborated evidence between sources (Yin, 2009). The results of the chosen artifacts are described in chapter four under each participant’s data, with connections drawn to interview data if relevant. Then, the artifacts were collectively considered and presented in chapter five under the section of the gifted label demonstrating a facet of how the students thought of themselves as gifted Indian

American students.

Participant observations

Collecting data through observation was a key element for understanding phenomena in qualitative research (Creswell, 2013). Observing gifted students throughout their day at school provided rich descriptions and understandings of the context of school. As a nonparticipant observer, I followed each student throughout his or her school day, including advisory periods, core academic classes, language and music

classes, as well as lunch periods. I noted the students’ classroom behaviors, involvement with different subject areas, peer interactions, and teacher interactions. All observations concerning these aspects were noted on the observation protocol (see Appendix G) and were later added to Atlas.ti to incorporate into emergent themes found in the interviews.

The observation and field notes were utilized to initiate dialogue with students in follow- up interviews (about 30 minutes) to capture the students’ perceptions of school experiences and to answer questions about the observations made. These follow-up discussions are intermingled with the observations and initial interviews when describing the students’ school experiences and perceptions. The majority of themes which emerged concerning socialization, group work, and teacher influence stemmed from these observations and subsequent conversations.

Data Analysis

Throughout the data collection process, notes and descriptions were made to relay an overall understanding of each case. All of the verbatim transcriptions of the interviews, the observations and follow-up interviews, pictures of the students’ chosen artifacts, field notes, and family descriptions were uploaded into the qualitative analysis software ATLAS.ti. Data were coded the first time using open coding. Charmaz (2006) stated, “Coding is the first step in moving beyond concrete statements in the data to making analytic interpretations. We aim to make an interpretive rendering that begins with coding and illuminates studied life” (p. 43). Over 80 codes were used. Codes were synthesized and combined resulting in 66 codes. The documents were then coded a third time to ensure accuracy. As coding progressed, I continually sought to link those data fragments to a concept or idea. Patterns of words, phrases, feelings, or interpretations

were sought to identify clusters of meaning, or categories. A continual reflection on the connection between these codes was also noted. Coffey and Atkinson (1996) stated that,

“The important analytic work lies in establishing and thinking about such linkages, not in the mundane processes of coding” (p. 27). Connections between the codes were established through the software’s network views. This provided a visual depiction of how codes overlap, influence one another, and are subsets of one another (See Appendix

I).

Codes were then placed within categories to better reveal the themes within these groupings. Categories of home, school, motivation, intelligence, parents, homeland culture, and mainstream culture were established. School was combined with gifted education, as the latter was a part of the former. Parents and home were combined as well, as parents created the home. Mainstream culture and homeland culture were placed under the broad category of culture. Self became the overarching label for internal beliefs on intelligence and motivation. These categories resounded with the talent development models depicting the importance of an individual’s internal and external factors when considering contributors to a person’s achievement. When Seidman (2006) discussed the analysis of data, he stated that participants’ experiences sometimes connect to one another and sometimes “excerpts connect to the literature on the subject” (p. 127). These connections led to the creation of categories. The following table demonstrates the topics that emerged under each of the categories.

Table 1 Emergent topics under each category with connections to literature

Students Parents Category Literature Category Literature Home Home A. Parents A. Family A. Parenting A. Parenting Systems styles and Theory International studies Culture Culture A. Indian A. Asian Indian A. Family A. International Culture Immigrant Background Parenting B. American B. Asian Indian B. Indian B. Asian Indian Culture Immigrant culture Immigrants C. Indian C. Model C. Immigrating C. Asian Indian Stereotype Minority D. American Immigrants D. Socialization Stereotype culture D. International E. Competition D. Asian Indian E. Challenges Parenting Immigrants F. Competition E. Competition E. Competition

School School A. Being Gifted A. Gifted label A. School A. Asian Indian B. Gifted in B. Gifted background Immigrants School education B. Competition B. Competition C. Boredom C. Gifted label C. American C. Gifted D. Group work D. Gifted label Schools education E. Work Habits E. Gifted label D. Giftedness D. Gifted education Self Self A. Beliefs on A. Mindset A. Beliefs on A. Mindset Intelligence Theory Intelligence Theory B. Beliefs on B. Motivation B. Motivation B. Motivation Motivation and and Motivating Parenting the gifted

For each case, data was analyzed to create descriptions of the home environment, school observations, and topics that emerged from each member’s interviews. The original intent was not to collect family background data on the parents, but as it became apparent that their experiences in India greatly impacted their perspectives on parenting, education, and motivation, it was also included in their case descriptions. Next, an in-case

description of the family unit was presented. Themes that emerged within the family unit, shared or disputed between individuals, are presented under the category labels of Home,

School, Culture, and Beliefs, addressing the research questions. These themes were not consistent among the cases since the participants emphasized different aspects of external and internal factors. The findings of similarities and differences between members as well as in the participants’ words and observations were noted.

Next, between-case analysis was conducted by noting the themes that emerged among the four families. Chapter five presents these themes under categories of Home,

School, Culture, and Self encapsulating beliefs on motivation and intelligence. Because of individualistic differences of viewpoints and interpretations, their responses and emphasis of factors varied throughout the study. The themes that emerged highlighted the strong prevalence of a topic either with the same or conflicting viewpoints between the family units. This analysis of themes between cases was presented not to generalize beyond the cases but to reveal the complexity of the cases (Creswell, 2013) within their specific contexts. The intent was to present, as Coffey and Atkinson (1988) stated, a

“representation or reconstruction of social phenomena . . . [to] create accounts of social life, and in doing so construct versions of the social worlds and the social actors we observe[d]” (p.108). The life of the gifted Indian American student and his or her family and their perceptions on contributing factors to academic success was the phenomenon presented hereafter. Finally, a discussion of the data as it pertained to the research questions was presented under the discussion section of Chapter V.

Validity

The concept of validity differs between quantitative and qualitative realms of research. Qualitative researchers’ conceptualizations often fall somewhere on a continuum ranging from positivist views of validity, aligning with quantitative concepts of internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity, through the extreme post-modernist view of validity whereby a study is considered valid dependent upon the transformative impact on society (Creswell, 2013). Different vocabulary has emerged for validity within qualitative studies replacing the aforementioned concepts with trustworthiness, applicability, consistency, and neutrality respectively (Lincoln & Guba,

1985). I find myself somewhere in the middle on this continuum. Validity drawing upon both qualitative and quantitative research, such as that of Maxwell (1992), may be the most useful. Maxwell (1992) described several types of validity which need to be addressed within any study. First, descriptive validity is of great importance. This refers to the accuracy of the data documented by the researcher. Avoiding mis-transcription or omissions is vital to ensure factual accuracy. Without this accuracy, the study is of little worth. In this study, the original recorded interviews and transcripts were kept secure and confidential. Throughout the course of this study, I referred back to these recordings and transcripts to ensure the accuracy of the recorded accounts. Second, interpretive validity, referred to the correctness of the interpretation of the experience of the participant, was needed. This demonstrated the understanding of the participants by the researcher. The interpretation needed to be from the insider’s view or the emic perspective. How the participants viewed their own reactions, responses, and emotions was held in high regard for interpretation. The accuracy of presenting the inner worlds of the participants was key for interpretive validity, thus member checking was employed. Member checking

involves sharing data and analysis with the participants to ensure the accuracy of the accounts (Creswell, 2013). Throughout the interviews, I sought clarification as descriptions were given and experiences shared. Next, the entire in-case descriptions and analysis were shared with each of the family members. I asked them to check for accuracy of facts and representation of their views and contexts. The students and parents alike, all agreed that their respective families and individual views were represented accurately. When the students were asked if there was anything else they wanted to share of their experience of being a gifted Indian American students, they all said no. One even mentioned, “We’ve covered it all.”

The participants received the interpretations of the data in order to ensure that their views were represented as intended. The members agreed to the interpretations of the family cases presented in this study, and only one member offered a change which was to alter the spelling of Telugu words. The third type of validity which needed to be addressed was theoretical. The theoretical explanations provided in the research and held by the researcher, needed to be consistent with the data and analysis. If the research findings fit the theoretical explanation, the trustworthiness of assertions is maintained.

Theories must be accepted and understood within the discipline and then the examples from the data must fall within those definitions outlined within the theory. For example, in this study, Dweck’s theory of mindset (2006) was utilized to understand conceptions of the malleability of intelligence; then the emergent themes from the data was juxtaposed with the theory. In addition, the theoretical constructs held by the researcher, such as constructivism, need to be transparent and need to align with the processes of analysis in order for the study to gain theoretical validity.

Finally, the next type of validity according to Maxwell (1992) was the generalizability of the study. This is of great importance to quantitative studies as it concerns the extent to which researchers can project the account of one group of individuals to another set of individuals. More often in qualitative studies, however, transferability is the term utilized to describe the potential for the study to be utilized to describe similarities to other groups outside the study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Maxwell contended there were both internal and external forms of generalizability. The former referred to making conclusions about the group which was being studied whereas external referred to transferring conclusions beyond the group, setting, or time. Within this study, rich, thick description was used to describe the experiences of these young people and their families. I was cognizant of language choices in my descriptions to avoid generalizations about these families. Acknowledgement that these gifted individuals represent only a snapshot of the multitude of variation in the gifted student population, as well as only a snapshot of the wide variety of Asian Indian immigrant families, was key.

Overall, I tried to be attentive to each of these threats to validity and to take measures and precautions to avoid their pitfalls. For as Onwuegbuzie (2002) wrote, “[I]n order to be taken seriously, the onus is on qualitative researchers to be accountable fully for their data collection, analysis, and interpretative methodologies” (p. 4). To have an outside perspective on my proceedings, I included peer reviewers. Creswell (2013) recommends reviewers in peer debriefing as “an external check of the research process”

(p. 251). Throughout the analysis and presentation stages of the study, two doctoral students within the gifted education program acted in this role for me. One peer, Lisa,

was continually consulted concerning emergent themes of the study. Discussions took place about grouping codes into families and how those manifested into themes.

Individually, we considered codes and then compared how and why they were placed within categories. The other peer, Marnie, offered a critical questioning perspective. She posed contrasting interpretations, case constructions, and alternative considerations while

I would describe why and how choices were made. Lincoln and Guba (1985) state that peer debriefing, “is a process of exposing oneself to a disinterested peer in a manner paralleling an analytical sessions and for the purpose of exploring aspects of the inquiry that might otherwise remain only implicit within the inquirer's mind" (p. 308). During these discussions, topics arose such as cultural meanings of giftedness, constructing cases outside of the family bonds, influence of family dynamics, and the impact of teenage characteristics upon data collection. Creswell (2013) contends that this type of debriefing

“keeps the researcher honest” (p. 251) and helps to validate the study.

Ethics

When conducting any research involving human subjects, the researcher must be attentive to ethical concerns during each step of the research process. Even prior to conducting the research, the researcher needs to anticipate ethical issues that may arise and create a plan as to how to best prevent or address those situations. These considerations, however, have not always been the case throughout history.

Contemporary researchers now wish to avoid mistakes of the past which valued research data above the well-being of the participants. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) has established guidelines to ensure these precautions are in place to protect the subjects in any study. The board only grants approval of research after reviewing clearly written

plans of ethical management of the researcher’s role, access and relationship to participants, data collection, storage, and reporting (Creswell, 2013). The IRB reviews the study proposal “to ensure that the research will proceed with appropriate protections against risk to humans and animals, as mandated by the National Research Act, Public

Law 93-348” (Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 127).

One principle of the IRB is “informed consent.” This entails informing the participants the purpose and procedures of the study and then obtaining their consent through their signatures. They need to be able to opt out of the study at any time and know how their confidentiality will be maintained. In this study, participants’ names were replaced with pseudonyms and data were protected at all times. Potential risks of participating in the study were also revealed to the subjects. I have tried to do no harm to the participants throughout the study, although there was never a guarantee of zero adverse effects arising from research. Psychological harm was a potential risk in this study as the participants were sharing personal experiences and insights. Benefits of participating in the study were also explained, yet this was more difficult to predict.

Reciprocity was the ideal research situation in which the investigator gave back to the subjects in some way for their contributions to the study. In this study, I offered these

Asian Indian families a voice. They were given an opportunity to explain their viewpoint and share their experiences. In doing such, it was believed that the Indian ethnicity would gain some representation in the growing body of literature for gifted education and social sciences. The IRB principles contended that the benefits to the individual and to society outweighed the potential risks. Although this was difficult to measure exactly, I

was hopeful that by separating the Asian Indian group from the larger Asian American group, insights could be gained and perspectives noted.

The aforementioned guidelines were incorporated into the adult informed consent form for this study and approved by the IRB (See Appendix A). In addition, the students were given an assent form which described the purpose of the study, the potential risks and benefits and sought their agreement to participate in the study (See Appendix B).

Confidentiality was another ethical consideration for which measures were taken to ensure protection. All transcriptions, observations, and notes were maintained using

Microsoft Word documents, saved on a personal password-protected laptop to which only

I had access. The audio recordings were to be destroyed one year after the completion of the study. Pseudonyms, for participants’ first and last names, as well as places of business were used in the documentation and presentation of the families.

Limitations

Since I had known the families from years prior, I had some previous knowledge about them. I knew, for example that they spoke different languages. I erroneously made the assumption that they were all from different parts of India. Although it is true that two families come from one state and two come from another, the parents’ homeland from where they immigrated were all located in the southeastern region of India. This study might provide rich contextual data of immigrants coming from this area, but different themes or emphasis might emerge if studies included participants who emigrated from a wider variety of states in India.

Furthermore, these families were selected because they met the criteria of having an identified gifted student, immigrant parents from India, and were living in a Midwestern

state in the United States. These families all had a relationship previously established with me as their former tutor. This relationship was relied upon to establish rapport and trustworthiness. I believe this rapport was established as the comfort level of the participants was apparent during the interviews as we shared meals, laughed, and took photographs. Yet I was concerned that because of my previous relationship and conversations with the participants, I might put words in their mouths. I sought to overcome this possibility by member checking during the interview to seek clarification and then again by sharing the entire in-case descriptions and analysis with each of the family members. The students and parents alike agreed with the interpretations. However, because I had chosen this site out of convenience, the representative cases provided a very narrow view of southeast Indian immigrants living in a Midwestern location which had an active Indian community.

In addition, I had selected known participant families with an established rapport in order to make participants comfortable in sharing in-depth and candid responses. While

I believe these goals were met, variation in family demographics turned out to be lacking.

Coincidentally, all of the families have two children, both identified as gifted. Three out of the four families have two daughters and one family has two sons. The family with two sons, only included one child in the study as the eldest son had moved out of the house to attend a university. None of the cases had one son and one daughter, or only one child. It is difficult to determine how the family dynamics would change the lived experience of these gifted students. Considerations of birth order, gender, and difference of ability between siblings were noted but not analyzed as they were outside the scope of this study.

Conclusion

This chapter described the theoretical as well as the practical descriptions of how this qualitative research took place. The importance of conducting ethical and valid research was discussed and the methods used to ensure such were covered. An overview of the study was presented by describing the design, the researcher as instrument, the site and participant selection, and the modes of data collection. Finally, how the data were analyzed within cases and between cases was noted. The following chapters will present the data in chapter four and the analysis and discussion in chapter five.

Chapter IV

Data

This chapter presents the data collected pertaining to the four cases, each one

comprised of a gifted student, siblings if living in the home, and parents who have

emigrated from India. The table below displays demographic information for each of the

four families. Unbeknownst to me, the parents had all emigrated from Southeast states in

India and thus spoke either Tamil or Telugu to their children at home. Three of the four

mothers did not seek employment outside the home, although two of them had been

employed before moving to the United States. All four families had two children and all

were included in the study except for the eldest son in Case 1 since he attended a

university and no longer lived at home.

Table 2 Demographic Information for the Cases

Highest Education Profession Family Region in Children Father Mother Father Mother Home Language Name India Case 1 Applications Suren BS HS Homemaker Telangana Telugu Yagalla Manager

Case 2 Trisha Senior Business MBA BS Homemaker Andra Telugu Rao Kajol Analyst

Case 3 Sheela Solutions Business MS BA Tamil Nadu Tamil Sharma Sonya Architect Analyst

Software Case 4 Kareena Andra Pradesh/ BS BS Application Homemaker Tamil Patel Aishwarya Tamil Nadu Manager

Data were collected through open-ended interviews with both parents and

students, observations of the student during school, and an artifact chosen by the student

as a representative piece. As a reflexive researcher, I incorporated field notes and observations for the reader to better understand the personalities of the members and the context in which they lived and attended school. It was my intent that through this description, my perspectives could be bracketed by allowing the reader to view the interactions between myself as the researcher with the participants and to note my thought processes throughout the data collection process.

Each case was presented with a descriptive overview of the family’s home environment, since each family chose this location for the primary interviews and because the home was the natural setting for these members. A description of the schools where the observations of the gifted students was also relayed, since this context for their academic achievement was important to note. The members of each family were described through the prominent points which emerged during their interviews. The data was presented under sub-categories based on the emergent themes and connected to the literature. Next, each case was presented as a whole unit in order to present a more complete representation of each family’s home environment, Indian culture, education, and internal beliefs. The themes which had been presented separately for each of the participants were analyzed and presented under the broader categories of Home, Culture,

Education, and Beliefs. All identifiers of member names, schools, and enrichment centers have been given pseudonyms throughout the data to protect the confidentiality of the participants.

Case 1: Yagalla Family

As I drove to the Yagalla family’s home, I passed through a middle-class neighborhood with many kids playing in their yards and on the sidewalks. The

landscaping was well-kept but not lavish. I parked my car in front of a familiar house and walked to the front porch. I had a flashback of sitting on these steps four years prior and trying to demonstrate the importance of using extreme detail in writing. I remembered how baffled the boys had looked at me for telling them we would conduct the entire tutoring session outside that day. Now, I knocked on the door and the father answered.

The mother, wearing a peach colored churidhar with matching scarf, soon joined her husband and warm pleasantries ensued. I was welcomed into their home and led across the hard-wood floors to the office. This was familiar to me as this was where the years of tutoring had taken place. I noted the changes in the room. The books on the large bookshelves no longer held fiction, reading comprehension books, or space exploration books; rather now the book spines read AP Physics, AP Chemistry, SAT and ACT preparation. Clearly the boys’ needs had changed. The eldest son was now a freshman at a respected university and was faring well. Since he was not living at home any longer, he was outside of the scope of the study and not included in this case. Mrs. Yagalla accompanied her husband and me to their home office and then left us. She expressed her approval of the study but believed her English to be limited, so she did not partake in our interview and was not included in the case.

Mr. Yagalla

Mr. Yagalla was a tall, slender man with salt and pepper hair who on this day had a brush of red powder across his forehead. He had brown eyes and smiled whenever speaking of his sons. Mr. Yagalla had a calm, rhythmic voice as he answered my questions and often paused for thought when asked for reflective responses.

Family background. Mr. Yagalla was raised in a family of three children in the southeastern Indian state of Telangana, with a father who had a clerical position with the government and a mother who was a homemaker. He said of his upbringing, “We were living in a rented house, living from paycheck to paycheck. So we had to survive.” Yet a lack of money did not deter the family from their goals. Mr. Yagalla explained:

My dad still sent me and my sister and my brother to a missionary school. You

have to pay for that, for the uniform, for the books, for the tuition, everything. Our

parents sacrificed pretty much everything for the top priority, education.

Mr. Yagalla recounted times of his childhood when:

We three [my younger sister and my younger brother and I] used to walk two

miles to school from kindergarten to tenth grade. All three of us use to hold

hands, two miles, no cell phones, nothing. When we didn’t come home, my mom

had no idea what happened.

He described how sometimes violence would break out in the streets between the

Hindus and the Muslims, resulting in death. A curfew would be placed, closing down major roads so the central forces could utilize the roads. Mr. Yagalla and his siblings had to discern which small roads to take in order to reach home. The children would often arrive home much later than planned while their mother had had no idea where they had been.

School background. The Indian school system, when Mr. Yagalla was attending, was different than the system found in India today. He described the system of which he was accustomed which had rigid academic tracks and public rankings of progress. Mr.

Yagalla explained:

Up until tenth [grade], everybody stud[ies] six subjects: English, Telugu or Hindi,

Math, Science, and Social . . . The individual subject teachers, used to read out the

marks of the papers. Everyone in the class knew where everybody stood and

what he needed to work on. It was very transparent. Whenever we got our papers,

we never used to see our mark, we used to look at our friends' first and then I'd

look to see what I got. I used to always think if that guy can get that, why should I

not get that too? But in eleventh grade you have to choose one of these three

streams…arts and commerce, science meaning engineering track, [or] science

track leading to medicine.

Mr. Yagalla went on to explain how at the end of twelfth grade, students took exams to demonstrate their proficiency in these specific track areas. A ranking of all students who took the exams was made public and used to determine acceptance into a university. Mr.

Yagalla said there were both public and private universities of which to choose.

However, he claimed:

Everyone would want to go to the government colleges because first of all it’s

free. It’s a lot less expensive. Second, the government buildings are huge because

they are all from the British. They all became building for the engineering

schools. So obviously the government schools were the first choice.

Since the number of students was so great, the competition was first to obtain a high ranking and get accepted into a university. Then only a few of those who obtained high marks from a university would gain employment. Jobs were scarce and people were many in India. Mr. Yagalla claimed, “You have to compete . . . it was a survival thing.”

Competition. Not only competing with peers to gain high ranks announced publically in middle and high school, Mr. Yagalla explained the intense competition to gain entrance into a university. He said, “Just to give you perspective, when I came out of my twelfth grade, there were 55,000 kids in our state [taking] the entrance exams competing, and there were at that time fourteen engineering colleges with 4000 seats.”

He went on to explain how some of those seats available were reserved for individuals of different castes. For Mr. Yagalla’s caste, there were, “now 3000 seats left, 52,200 people are competing for those.” The rankings from the examination results would be published and would eventually determine entrance to university. Mr. Yagalla said, “Competition motivated me.”

Immigration. Mr. Yagalla attended an engineering university and secured a stable position in the federal government, but the software industry began to boom. Since he was in manufacturing, he felt that he could, “move to software, [as a] more white collar” position. In 1999, an opportunity arose with a Y2K company -- a company which addressed computer glitches occurring when dates changed to the year 2000 -- which had its parent company in the United States but had a branch in Chennai, the state capital of

Tamil Nadu. Mr. Yagalla decided this was, “a great business opportunity,” so he accepted the position. The company sent him to a Midwest state in the United States where he received additional training. Then he was sent to his current position as an Applications

Manager. His wife and two young sons, ages two and three, joined him shortly after he was established.

Parenting. Mr. Yagalla explained he is a practicing Hindu who believes in a connection between religion and child-rearing. When asked about raising gifted sons, he said:

There are certain things you do to God; there are certain hymns. When you came,

I was watching the TV, there's an Indian channel. I performed my worship just

now. This is why you see this stuff (pointing to red marks on forehead). When we

do these hymns in the house, you have those vibrations in the house that will

change your thought process.

Throughout the interview, he cited the Bhagavad Gita and the values it sets forth for,

“how you can be a good husband, how you can be a good brother, how you can be a good son, how you can be a good king to the people, all these things.” Mr. Yagalla described how he attended temple regularly and placed his sons in religious classes. In response to reflective questions later, Mr. Yagalla said:

We send them to Sunday school which teaches them about the Hindu religion,

Hindu values, Hindu culture; Vedic values, Vedic culture. As I said, we are

exposing them to those culture sand values because they need to stay in touch

with their roots, no matter how westernized they become.

Sharing homeland culture. Mr. Yagalla was cognizant of the different upbringing that he had compared to his son. He said, “We struggled a lot and we are in a much better position here.” He shared pertinent examples of how he applied his experiences of growing up in India to life in the United States. When his son, Suren, took up a new hobby of body building and asked for large quantities of chicken for dinner,

Mr.Yagalla explained to his son:

When we were kids, we did eat meat, but only like once a week because we could

not afford it…That bowlful of chicken would have been for our family of five.

That would have been just once in a week.

Upon reflection, Mr. Yagalla explained that by sharing these childhood stories, “It’s not like we’re saying you should only eat those two small pieces, but we are giving them perspective.”

Another time, when one of his sons said he needed a cell phone in sixth grade,

Mr. Yagalla shared a story of when he had been a teenager attending school. Mr. Yagalla had to take three or four public buses in order to attend his school, located eight miles away. The Indian public transportation system was unpredictable and unreliable. When the busses arrived on time and transported him to where he needed to be, Mr. Yagalla considered himself lucky. Sometimes, he said, “We used to get on a running bus. Some kids would run and get under the bus and get killed. All those things happened.” These were real needs for having a cell phone, but Mr. Yagalla had gone without one. He said,

“We give them examples . . . in context . . . we don’t make them sit and listen to us.”

Mr. Yagalla explained how it was important for him to share his background with his children, but he understood that he could not force his homeland culture. He said:

The thing is, from our side as parents, we try to go to India every other year to

make sure they are connected with their cousins and with their grandparents.

These are the things we do from our side, but there is no expectation at the end of

the day. It’s up to them.

Schools in United States. When Mr. Yagalla received notification that his son had been identified gifted in the schools, he believed this meant:

Your kid needs an extra challenge or he needs to be pushed to the next level. They

[the teachers] are worried that the kid would get bored if they were teaching him

something he already knew six months back. They want to challenge him.

His perception of the gifted label focused on content knowledge; he did not mention non- cognitive attributes in his description. As a parent of a gifted child, Mr. Yagalla was asked how he supported his child in academics. He said, “Honestly speaking, I never directly helped them. I used to explain a little bit on the math side since I am an engineering grad. But other than that, I never got into their lessons.” His wife, however, despite her limited English, was “like a security guard” to ensure the boys’ work was completed. Mr. Yagalla described her involvement. “So what she used to do is, she used to make them do their homework, sit and read books.” In addition to ensuring homework was completed, Mr. Yagalla talked about providing his children with enrichment activities. He said, “It was k-classes [for math] and English tutoring with you.” These classes were provided, according to Mr. Yagalla to establish a good foundation in math and to assist in higher level writing since his sons were not hearing English as a first language at home.

Beliefs on intelligence. When Mr. Yagalla was asked his thoughts on intelligence, his answer reflected the influence of his religious beliefs and life experiences. First he said, “We think that all humans are the same. We think God creates everybody equal.” Then in follow-up assertions, he elaborated;

It may be the family influence. There are good families like in the forward caste .

. . and kids born in those castes are really intelligent. It could be because of the

surroundings because they are surrounded by well educated people, and it may be

that the genes have been modified through generations. So it can be both.

Challenge. According to Mr. Yagalla, the biggest challenges for him were “we did not know.” When the family first moved to the Midwest, “We didn't know what schools were best. We did not know the importance of staying in a good neighborhood.”

The Yagalla’s first child attended kindergarten in a different school than in the district where they live now. After researching schools further, they moved to their current district. Mr. Yagalla talked about the possible implications. He said, “They attended different types of schools, and that may have made a difference in creating the foundation or that outlook. The kindergarten and first grade are fundamental things. You don't know how they shape the kid.”

Later, as his sons progressed through middle and high school, Mr. Yagalla encountered new areas where he felt he did not know enough or understand the American system. He said:

As they progress to high school, you have it so complex. It took us some time to

understand how the high school works and the college process, the application

process, how it all works. We did not have challenges at the subject area level . . .

but it was the system. What should we ask? What should we not ask? Why do

they treat one kid one way and not another kid? We did not know. So there’s no

common ground.

Future goals. Mr. Yagalla claimed that overall, he wanted the best for his sons.

When asked what this meant, he said:

My goals for my sons are that at the end of the day, they have to lead a Dharmic

life; a life where they can be helpful, they can be productive in society. For me

that is most important. Obviously, the financial thing will be there, but I strongly

believe that if you follow a Dharmic life, then everything else will follow you.

Suren

Suren was a seventeen-year-old junior who attended a public high school. He was relaxed and reclined in a leather swivel chair waiting for the interview to start. A large mahogany desk sat between us, and I was perched in a firm yet comfortable captain's chair on the other side. I had another flashback, this time of four years prior when our seated positions had been reversed. I had been his tutor and had tried with numerous attempts to get this shy, young pre-teen with braces to describe the world through literary devices and poetry. Now as I peered across the desk at this handsome young man with broad shoulders and perfectly straight teeth, I tried to imagine how he used to look to me and wondered if he remembered the writing concepts of our former sessions.

Being gifted. When asked about what it meant to be gifted, Suren noted advanced programs offered. He said that being gifted in school was “like being in accelerated reader programs.” When questioned how people became gifted, Suren claimed, “I think it's how they develop . . . if they are in a good environment where education is encouraged then they would probably be more intelligent.” Interestingly, he equated gifted with intelligence and linked it all to environment.

Beliefs on intelligence. When discussing giftedness, Suren interchanged the term giftedness and intelligence. When asked specifically about intelligence and whether he

thought intelligence could be altered, Suren said, “I guess you are born with a certain IQ and then you can raise that IQ from studying.”

Gifted education. Applying the definitions to himself, Suren described his elementary and middle school years. He claimed, “I'd get a grip on the concept faster than other students.” When considering his academic environment he said, “I was not ever bored.” He did remember his teachers asking him to assist other students in class after he had mastered a concept. When asked how he felt about helping he said, “I didn't mind. It was kind of cool.” Suren talked about how in middle school there were a just few classes solely for gifted students. Now in high school, Suren was taking six Advanced Placement

(AP) classes and one honors class. He said he appreciated the, “challenging work because it makes me think.” Suren also described the benefits of being in classes with same- ability peers:

If I ever need help on homework or something, I know who to call because

everyone in that class is able to do what the work is without any trouble. So if we

ever need help from each other, we just call each other.

Questions asked in class were equally shared among his peers and Suren said he preferred to work in groups “even if I’m doing most of the work, at least I have someone to talk to.

. . I hate working alone.”

Artifact. Even though he had a full workload of classes, Suren committed, “Two hours per day” to the high school tennis team as well. He said he had a “passion” for tennis and chose a tennis ball as his artifact to represent himself.

Work habits. How he managed his time between tennis practices every day and a full academic course load was baffling to me. When asked about this, Suren claimed,

“The AP classes really just sound like they are threatening, but they don't have much homework that go with them.” He said the majority of his classes (AP Physics, AP

Calculus, AP Literature, AP Psychology) did not require daily homework and the few which did (AP Statistics and AP History), he completed in “10 minutes.” Or if “We do have homework, but he doesn’t collect it, I just don’t do it.” When asked if this impacted his test grades, Suren said, “I do fairly well on them, like 95 or above.”

He did admit to studying at least a few nights for any tests in all of his courses and spending time on the weekends to write essays.

Suren said that he did study consistently and diligently for the standardized tests he took. He said, “I studied a few months before, so I was pretty prepared.” When asked about his scores he told me he earned a 2200 on the SAT and a 35 on the ACT. He was confident yet modest in tone, even admitting that he had tried for the perfect score of a 36 but since he did not study seriously for the second time, he did not reach his goal. He said, “I guess I just lost motivation because I liked my 35.”

Motivation. In addition to considering the consequences of losing motivation

(such as not reaching his ACT goal), Suren also talked about what did motivate him. He denoted, “competition.” Further questioning led Suren to explain, “I like it when there's competition because it makes me do better.” He described how motivation was also apparent when he encountered a problem. He said, “If I'm having a problem with something I work at it to find a solution. I usually don't give up very easily . . . because it just feels weird to just give up and not think about it anymore.” Suren described his current motivator for striving in school:

Well, as of now, it's to get into a good college, and then when I'm in college

probably to get a good job. . . I want to go into business and engineering, but I'm

not quite sure of the specific job.

When asked for further details and rationale, Suren explained he was striving to attend,

“Ivy League or like one of the top-rated schools. By a good school I mean based on my efforts I've put into my education.”

Suren’s school. I parked my car and walked up the sidewalk with groups of students. Large Georgian-style white buildings were on either side of the walk. The entrance welcomed visitors and students alike through its large, thick pillars. The campus was extensive with several unconnected buildings, much like a college campus. Suren attended this public high school which had been given an “excellent” rating on the state’s report card and had earned the National Blue Ribbon award from the federal education department. The district asserted that it was “reinventing education to prepare students for the future” and through my limited observations, I felt that this goal was being embraced by the teachers. Their classrooms, although each different, seemed to be an extension of the content being taught. For example, the Spanish room had the feel of a

Spanish café complete with comfy chairs, a sofa, coffee tables, a sombrero, stuffed animals, picture books, a coffee maker, and a lamp. Making the lessons relevant, the teacher integrated the use of technology throughout her lesson. After a quiz, during which iPhones had to be stowed away, the teacher utilized her smart board by playing Spanish music videos. She distributed the lyrics to the songs and had the students analyze the use of different verb tenses sung by the artist. Later, students were asked to pair together to create dialogue concerning a hypothetical situation of using Facebook excessively. The

application of knowledge was apparent and the teaching instruction engaging (or at least it appeared to me as a non-Spanish speaker).

After school observations, Suren talked about his classes and various teachers. He described his perspective of the environment his AP Physics teacher had established:

We go at our own pace. So we have to use a textbook, and he just gives us some

notes, and we just learn to do the concepts and do the problems. And then when

we feel we are ready for a test we ask him for the test, and then we do it. If we

have any questions on the way, he is in the classroom, so we just ask him.

Socialization. While observing him in school, I noticed that Suren quietly went through his day. He often pulled out his cell phone (which was allowed by the teachers) and attended to information on it. He interacted with students who sat near him in classes but did not draw attention to himself from peers or teachers. He was quick to smile but did not seek out others' approval. He described how he had different groups of friends but they were "Probably 80% American or non-Indian and then 20% Indian." When he was with his friends, Suren said that he did not hide his intelligence but if he was with friends who might not have his same abilities, he did not point out “really smart things.”

In regards to how social situations were handled at home, Suren explained how his parents were pretty open to what he wanted to do. He said, “They set rules but are never extremely strict. I ask permission, and they will allow it.” He believed that in

Indian families, there was more open communication between kids and their parents.

Suren compared, “American kids just do things. They don’t tell their parents. In Indian families, we let our parents know what’s going on.” Going to parties and staying out late were allowed by his parents, Suren explained, “My parents are fine with that. I mean,

because if I go to dances and stuff, I sometimes stay out until 2:00, so I just come in through the garage, and they're asleep by then.”

Indian stereotype. Suren said he had definitely felt and observed the Indian stereotype. In middle school, he said peers directly asked him, “Hey, you’re Indian, right?

What do you know about this topic?” When asked what this stereotype means to him,

Suren explained how people assumed, “You do really well in academics because you're studying a lot apparently. You pretty much don't do anything else.” Suren’s concession of the connection between studying and becoming smart was made clear through speaking with him, and he was accepting of the smart part of the stereotype. He was not accepting with the negative part of the stereotype alluding to no "social life." He asserted that he played, “tennis . . . and basketball in the summer with my friends all the time. I also go to parties and hang out with friends.” According to him, these activities refuted his association with the stereotypical Indian kid. This refutation was seemed important to him. He stated, “I wouldn’t want to be known as the typical Indian kid or something.”

He was even aggravated by Indian American students who perpetuated the Indian stereotype by always talking about studying and obtaining the best grades. Suren described one peer:

Well, I mean there's this one girl in my school . . . and everyone knows her

because she's known to fit all the stereotypes of being Indian. She's always

studying, always talking about grades, always talking about classes . . . she's super

annoying. I don't really like people like that.

Overall, Suren did not feel any conflict between having an Indian culture while living in the mainstream culture of the United States. Even when being asked in several ways,

Suren asserted that the two cultures “mix pretty fine.” In the future, he said he planned on

“staying in the United States,” which contrasted his brother who Suren said planned on returning to India to live.

Parents. Suren said noticed a difference in the parenting emphasis within Indian and American families. Suren described, “I feel like Indian parents take more of a stance on the importance of education than American parents” When asked specifically about his own parents’ involvement with his academics, Suren first said, “They’ve pushed me to do well at school.” Later when asked to expand on this statement, Suren clarifies by saying that they pushed, “in a good way.” He gave examples of this involvement. “They just kept track of my grades, made sure I made everything fine, and asked me if I needed some help if I were to drop a grade or if everything was alright.”

In-Case Summary

The father and son in this family mirrored many of the same beliefs, such as the influence of competition and their conceptualization of intelligence. Mr. Yagalla emphasized the importance of their religious views while Suren seemed more concerned with the social aspects of his teenage identity. Mr. Yagalla’s cultural, academic, and economic background seemed to have influenced his current ideology on parenting, schooling, and sharing his Indian culture with this son. Suren’s personal attributes of motivation and thoughts on intelligence melded with his home, school, and community values. The following five categories of beliefs on intelligence, school: gifted education, home environment, beliefs on motivation, and culture are presented as the themes which emerged within this case.

Beliefs on Intelligence

Both father and son described how although a few people are exceptional, the majority of people are born with the same capabilities. Mr. Yagalla alluded to different castes in India and the disproportionate amount of more intelligent children in the higher castes. He attributed this to what could be provided to children, thus linking high intelligence to environment, familial support, education, and surroundings. Suren conceded that intelligence is greatly influenced by a “good environment.” He equated giftedness in school to how much knowledge one possessed. Thus, an increase of intelligence is not only possible but probable if one studies. He stated that, "If anyone studies a lot every day, then they could do well at anything.”

School: Gifted Education

Mr. Yagalla believed that when his son had been labeled gifted in school during the third grade, it meant that he was ahead of his class. The school wanted to push and challenge him so that he would not be bored. Suren concurred that being gifted in school simply meant a student was placed in an advanced program of some kind. His description of not being bored in class seemed to accomplish the goal his father attributed to the school’s intention. Interestingly, neither of the Yagalla family members mentioned non- cognitive traits associated with giftedness.

Home Environment

Mr. Yagalla described a home environment which supported academics. He said that he and his wife have tried to give his children a good foundation of math, putting them in K-classes for extra classes when they were young. Later, in middle school, the parents hired me as a private English tutor to enhance their writing skills. Throughout their childhood, the boys were expected to complete their homework each night before

they could play. Mrs. Yagalla monitored their homework time. When reflecting over his past academic success, Suren believed that his parents pressure him, “in a good way.”

His thoughts concerning intelligence being cultivated a home which nurtured academics resonated in his acceptance of his parents’ “push.”

Beliefs on Motivation

Suren and his father both described how competition motivated them. When describing schooling in India where grades were publically announced and competition was fierce, Mr. Yagalla said, “I used to always think if that guy can get that, why should I not get that, too?” He asserted that public competition to be first rank motivated him to study more. When thinking about scholarships or acceptance into programs, Suren followed his father’s beliefs. He said, “When there’s competition, it makes me do better.”

Suren described how future plans motivated him as he described his intentions of attending an Ivy League or other highly-rated university. Suren also gave indication of intrinsic motivation when asked about overcoming challenges. He talked about following through with his goals and not giving up as it would feel strange to him. Perseverance seemed a natural part of work ethic for Suren.

Culture

Mr. Yagalla felt strongly about exposing his sons to Hindu culture and values.

Speaking Telugu within the home, Mr. and Mrs. Yagalla traveled to India with their children every other year to reconnect with their grandparents and extended family. In addition, besides modeling his Hindu faith, Mr. Yagalla sent his sons to Sunday school to teach them Vedic culture. Suren said he understood the importance of knowing his family’s heritage but did not plan on living in India in the future, as did his brother. Suren

believed that although American culture may have different priorities than his Indian culture, the two cultures “mix pretty fine.” He could think of no experiences of cultural conflict of which to share. Even when asked various questions in different ways, Suren expressed no tension with his Indian culture living in the United States. However, he was aware of the Indian stereotype which was held by some of his peers. He described how assumptions were made between his heritage and his knowledge base. Suren did not find discomfort with the association of intelligence, but did not agree with the assumption of being smart to the exclusion of a social life.

Case 2: Rao Family

Nearing dusk, I walked up a sidewalk connecting the driveway to the front porch.

I noted an artificial flower arch over the doorway. There were faint remnants of chalk flowers drawn on the cement porch below my feet. After I knocked, the door opened and

I was warmly greeted. Large smiles, awkward hugs, and an arm gesture told me to come into the family room. An oversized leather couch and love seat created a right angle around a glass coffee table. A caricature sketch of the two daughters was framed over the couch as well as a three-dimensional picture of the ocean. Long ornate drapes hung on the window, matching the long, swooping plants which lived in pots on the balcony but allowed tentacles of leaves to cascade down a far wall. A curio cabinet sat below the balcony displaying small statues, glass objects, and a small painting of the Taj Mahal. I slipped off my shoes and was welcomed into the house by the Rao family.

Mr. and Mrs. Rao

Mr. Rao was of average height, had dark brown eyes, and a frequent smile. His love for his daughters was apparent as well as his determination to provide for them. Mr.

Rao wanted me to understand aspects about his culture and his life, but only if I asked the right questions. He answered each one completely and fully but did not make connections or inferences for me. At the onset of my interview with him, his wife Mrs. Rao, wearing a maroon salwar kameez adorned with a long golden scarf, pulled up a chair and joined the conversation. When I asked her about a separate interview, she declined and said she would be a part of her husband’s.

Family background. Born of a farmer with a seventh grade education, Mr. Rao grew up in a small village with his sister, without modern conveniences. Mr. Rao described his home, “We had no electricity. We used to have kerosene lamps; that was the light I used to study in my school days.” Water had to be pumped, brought inside, and boiled in order to be used. For his first two years of school, he took a rickshaw two miles away to a nearby town which had a private school. Soon after, he attended the local government school in his village. He said, “It was not really a good education . . . [in these] government schools, we didn’t even have buildings. We used to have small huts, they used to run school in these huts. We had no electricity there either.”

Mrs. Rao had a different, wealthier upbringing. Mrs. Rao said, “My father was a doctor, and he was always focused on education.” He often compared the accomplishments of others in order to motivate his daughter. Mrs. Rao remembered him saying to her, “This girl got state first rank; you have to study well.” Mrs. Rao’s mother had finished tenth grade and also supported the academic pursuits of her daughter, although her motivational tactics were different. “If they [my grades] were not good, my mom would beat me with a broom (laughing).” Mrs. Rao assured me that this only lasted

“until tenth grade when we knew we have to study.”

Despite the differences in their backgrounds, they said the stars aligned perfectly and Mr. and Mrs. Rao were arranged to be married, based on their “caste, compatibility, family background, and education background.”

School background. Mr. Rao explained how when he studied in India, students had to choose one of three tracks: Arts and Commerce where students studied civics, economics, and commerce (CEC), Science toward Engineering where students took language courses, math, physics and chemistry (MPC), or Science toward Medicine where students studied language courses, biology, physics, and chemistry (BiPC). Up until tenth Mr. Rao had been pursuing the MPC track but he said, “They told me that it will be an expensive education, your parents may not be able to afford. You better switch to accounting.” He followed this advice where he later obtained a Certified Public

Accountant (CPA) degree. Mr. Rao said, “I was the first graduate in my family, with four uncles and their children.” He explained how even though he was out of the norm, his family supported him. “When I was doing good, everyone encouraged me. In fact that's one thing that motivated me.” When considering other motivators at a different time, Mr.

Rao explained how schools posted students’ grades and rankings. He said, “Everybody knew everybody’s marks. It motivates you sometimes and it depresses you. That was socially acceptable.”

Modestly, Mrs. Rao described how she fared well in school; she skipped a grade in elementary school and then still maintained being in “the top three rankings” of her classes. She described the methodology in school as more memorization than application.

She said, “they teach just memorize, whole book memorize” or the teachers “would say write this sentence 100 times, bring it tomorrow.” Mrs. Rao pursued the medical track

where she majored in biology, and chemistry, then additionally studied law. She explained how once a track had been chosen, she had to complete it. “I chose medical side and I didn't have more opportunities to get into other streams like commerce. I could not change, it's too late.” She completed her degree in three years. Later, she earned her beautician’s license, more for a hobby than a career change.

Immigration. Mr. Rao established himself in his job and gained financial stability. Following the example of a colleague, he undertook IT (Information

Technology) training and began looking for jobs outside of India. In 2000, Mr. Rao found a job in India which relocated him, his wife, and his daughter to a New England state in the United States, and later relocated them to this Midwestern state. He left his extended family, his comfort level, and his friends to seek money and opportunities in the United

States. He said, “I came with the idea of returning in five years, making some money, then go back to India and start my own business.” But according to Mr. Rao, coming to the United States is a kind of one-way ticket. He said, “When you come here, it's hard to find your return way or exit.” The green card extension process, as for many immigrants, was long and drawn out for the Rao family. By the time he and his wife heard that they had been accepted, eight years had passed, and they felt their children were too ingrained into the American school system to move. Mr. Rao had completed his Master of Business

Administration (MBA) in the United States by this time as well.

Challenge. Mrs. Rao explained how the biggest challenge for them was not knowing the reasons behind decisions and how to negotiate cultural differences. She said,

“It's two different worlds. I can't understand this one. I cannot intermingle with American culture. I can but it's difficult to understand why things happen.” She went on to give an

example of one child being allowed to take a course at school when her child was not given that option.

Schools in the United States. Mr. Rao asserted, “The school's role is very important, both for values and academics. Education is not just about reading books or something. It should be some practical application and building character.” Mrs. Rao agreed with this assertion and both parents trusted the American school system to reach this goal.

When the Rao parents received notification that their daughters had been identified gifted in the school system, they believed this meant “she was ahead.” This made them pleased and Mr. Rao said this also meant, “She is living up to our expectations.”

When asked how they supported their gifted children’s academic pursuits, Mr.

Rao described how did not assist them in math since he had learned differently in India.

He said that when he tried to offer help, Trisha “used to listen and try to do it the same way.” His youngest daughter however, “won’t take it [his advice]. She only wants to do exactly the way they do it in class.” So instead of direct help, Mr. Rao said, “I support them by finding sources.” He found enrichment classes and tutoring for his daughters because, “I thought the good background in the early days, in the maths, would help them fundamentally.” He placed his daughters in K-classes, and in on-line courses with Indian instructors for math and hired me as a private tutor for English. He said, “I didn’t teach them, but I just try to inspire them. They think some things are impossible, then I show them nothing is impossible.”

Beliefs on intelligence. Mr. and Mrs. Rao disagreed as to whether intelligence was a born trait. While Mrs. Rao asserted that, “People are born intelligent because my uncle was born with high IQ,” Mr. Rao disagreed. He stated, “I don’t believe that. I believe there is an IQ difference, every person is different. But their background and their socio-economic conditions and motivation level have a huge impact.” However, both parents agreed that “By practice and hard work, people can increase their intelligence.”

Upon further probing, Mr. Rao responded to a situation whereby a student was not faring well in math. He claimed, “They just have to work harder. It's only the amount of effort and time which lead to achievement.” Mrs. Rao agreed with her husband.

Parenting. Mr. Rao believed in sharing his experiences of India to encourage his daughters. He said:

I tell them [stories] when they are demoralized sometimes. I tell them this was our

reality, so you have a better life than us so use it. Millions of people have no

shelter, no food. And they have no opportunity to go to school; even if they do

have, it's not the best school. So you have everything. Use it. This is the time,

your investment. Later you will enjoy your life.

Mrs. Rao concurred with her husband as she explained how she often told her daughters,

“If you do hard work this time, you won’t later.”

Parenting within a different culture other than their own posed some difficulties for the parents. Mr. Rao said, “Certain things we may not like, but we have to accept the reality; like the dressing.” Allowing his daughters to wear “modern” clothing, reflecting the American styles was not ideal for the Rao parents, but they understood their daughters’ desire to fit into their environment. Mrs. Rao talked about giving permission

for her daughters to highlight their hair, even though this had been a forbidden act in the past. She said, “They were asking and asking so I said, ‘okay let them go.’ I don't like it, but it's okay.”

Sharing homeland culture. Both Mr. and Mrs. Rao felt that it was important to make their daughters aware of their culture and heritage. Mr. Rao explained:

Awareness about our culture is very important. I do a lot of social work for Indian

community. We go every week to the temple. We are surrounded by a lot of

Indians. Even on the weekends, we have so many cultural events and get-

togethers. So that passes on some culture, to make it stronger. This adjusts the

way they [his daughters] think. They feel more secure by looking at Indian and

non-Indian.

Mrs. Rao explained how complicated it was to instill culture. She believed, “I'm pushing them toward the culture. I don't know, if I am pushing 100%, they are only learning 1%.

Because it's very different and difficult. We cannot force them, but if we don't tell them, they can't learn.” Mrs. Rao felt the complexities of teaching her native culture to her children while living in different mainstream one.

Future goals. Mr. and Mrs. Rao described their goals for their daughters revolved around happiness. When probed further, Mr. Rao said:

They should have a better life. They should be happy. I'm hoping that it's possible

here, too, because we have family values. Having those rich values will build a

strong personality, so they know what is good and bad. We try to give those

values, so they can think before making any decision.

Trisha

The eldest of two, Trisha, had dark chocolate skin and large penetrating eyes that offset her light smile. Her long, black, shiny hair was held back in a ponytail. When I commented on the length, she told me, “My mom finally allowed me to get highlights.”

She smiled as she slipped on her new glasses. She acknowledged that she liked this new look, but her eyelashes were so long that they hit the glass when she blinked. We laughed that she could not really complain about this problem.

Although Trisha was born in India, moved to the United States when she was a toddler, and then moved two more times before kindergarten. She said, “I don’t remember any problems” with these transitions. Her parents explained how she did not speak much English at the beginning of her schooling, but soon acclimated to life in the

United States. She took language and math classes at a private tutoring center and later in third grade was identified as gifted.

Trisha had been and continued to be active in many activities. For the past ten years, she had upheld Indian culture, by taking and performing classical Indian dance called Bharantanatyam. In addition, she took two classes on Sunday; one was a Telugu class to learn the language of her parents and the other was Purna Vidya (meaning complete knowledge) about their "Vedic" heritage (Hindu faith and culture). She sang

Carnatic music and performed dramatic plays with a local Telugu Association. She had played tennis and had swum on various recreational teams. In school, Trisha had competed in math competitions and Science Olympiad. Her enrichment activities included the following: K-classes, Math World, private online math tutoring from India,

English enrichment tutoring, and tutoring provided from the university affiliated with her high school. She also shared how she had just returned from an out-of-state competition

with her school club. “I do Robotics, and I went on the Pittsburgh trip and got an award there.”

Being gifted. For Trisha, being gifted in school meant, “to be above and beyond your grade level.” When asked if individuals were born gifted she responded, “Nobody's born gifted unless you are like a prodigy. Okay, nobody's really born gifted. It's like the skills they build in life and their teachers, and they slowly build themselves up to be gifted.” In middle school, Trisha participated in the limited advanced classes offered. She did mention a negative aspect of being designated gifted in follow-up questions. Trisha said, “Being gifted, you have to do work at your level, so you always have to do really hard work and challenging stuff. It’s not a bad thing, but sometimes you may not understand something but they say, ‘Oh you’re gifted. You have to do it.’”

Beliefs on intelligence. Trisha believed that intelligence and giftedness were interchangeable terms. Thus her beliefs concerning giftedness and how one could “build themselves up to be gifted” also applied to her conceptualization of gaining intelligence.

When asked for an application of this understanding, she said:

If you put the time in, and you practice hard, anybody can do anything. You do

better in life like to get a better job, get into college, do better on your SAT. You

can increase your score. People take it more than once because they believe they

can do better.

Artifact. The artifact Trisha chose to represent herself was a Certificate of

Achievement in Mathematics which designated her as top of her class in the math concept being studied. She said, “This made me happy.” Trisha emphasized, “I am gifted

in math.” She associates herself with math achievement and was proud of her achievement.

Trisha’s school. Trisha was a sophomore at a Science Technology Engineering

Math (STEM) magnet school about fifteen miles away from her home. When I entered this high school, along with groups of students, it felt like walking into a corporate business. There was a lobby decorated with a large colorful painting of the school name and logo, but no attendance office. I noticed the diversity of the student body, and I wondered if European Americans were the minority here. A teacher later explained to me that this school was indeed open to diversity, including sexual diversity. The teacher later told me that entrance to the school was lottery based but sixty percent of students had to come from the nearby inner city school district. More than half of the students’ parents had not gone to college. No bussing was provided to this school so a parent or a family member had to commit to transporting their child. There was a positive atmosphere in the school and one teacher commented that it was due to high parent involvement and low discipline problems.

Once through the lobby, the students congregated on an open, carpeted area in the middle of the school and while some sat down on the few benches available, others simply plopped down on the floor. Trisha greeted a young woman wearing a hijab. She later introduced me to this young woman and said, “This is my good friend.” The girls smiled and chatted together before focusing their attention on the teacher at the front.

Announcements by teachers and students were given. The students were quiet and attentive, despite the occasional shuffling and readjusting of bags and removing of coats.

Two African American boys and one European American boy were standing in the back

of the room, and they were reminded of the dress code enforced at the school: business casual, no jeans, no sweats, no hoodies. One of them joked back with the teacher. The tone was light. After the opening session, students were dismissed to class. Students carried backpacks or shoulder bags with them as there were no lockers in the school.

Since this is a STEM school, students were required to have laptops (either personal ones or those leased through the school). Classrooms circled the open common area and many had an entire wall made of glass providing passersby an accessible view. One class was conducted in a second open area. Students walked by this "classroom" to get to their own classes just as the teacher began his math explanations.

Within the various classrooms, students' desks were sometimes in small groups of four, sometimes lined around three sides of the perimeter of the room in a horseshoe shape and sometimes in traditional rows facing the front. The teachers had liquid crystal display (LCD) projectors to portray their lessons from their laptops onto the screens within their classrooms.

The curriculum of this school was unique in that every semester, students had the opportunity to take a typical year-long high school course. As freshmen, students could complete ninth and tenth grade requirements. They could pass these courses by earning a

90 percent at the end of the course. If the student did not pass, he or she was required to take the course again. There is also a J-term offering whereby during the month of

January, a student can take just one class. This term is intense and has the same requirements as a typical semester course so the student must work extremely hard. At the end of the J-term, if a student scored a 90 percent or above, he or she was considered proficient and acquired that course credit. The intent of this program was to allow

students to move quickly through core material and complete high school requirements in the first two years. Once done, students were allowed to take classes at an affiliated state university located nearby with a cohort of other interested students. One of the teachers from the high school usually attended with the students and offered support during their weekly meetings back at the high school. The students did not have to pay for the college courses as they fell under the Post-Secondary Enrollment Option Program through the state. The school’s website stated that the educational platform was driven by the Ten

Common Principles of the Coalition of Essential Schools:

1. The school’s central intellectual purpose is helping students to use their minds

well;

2. An essential body of knowledge, skills and dispositions will be identified for

student mastery;

3. The school’s goals apply to all students;

4. The school will be highly personalized;

5. A governing practical metaphor will be “student-as-worker, teacher-as-coach”;

6. Teaching and learning will be documented by student performance on real tasks;

7. The tone of the school will be one of trust and decency;

8. The principal and teachers will act as generalists first and specialists second;

9. Resources will be modest and therefore positioned toward teaching and learning;

and,

10. The school will emphasize democratic, fair and equitable practices.

Since Trisha’s school was based on individual progression, not age, many students found the program appealing. Trisha claimed that at her school “everything

moves at a much faster pace and there is a lot of learning on your own.” On the downside, she gave an example, “I feel nervous . . . they are older than me sometimes and

I don't really know them.” The influence of teachers easing this tension was apparent when discussing Trisha’s participation in class throughout the day. When a teacher was effective in establishing an inquisitive, safe learning environment, Trisha’s comfort level reflected that. I noticed Trisha asking a question only once during my observations.

In addition, throughout my observations, I noted how many teachers had students engaged with some kind of hands-on activity, even if just part of the class. In Trisha’s

English class, students had to roll special dice and then do a quick write including all of the images on each of the five dice. In her Spanish class, students each had an individual white board and as the teacher called out a Spanish word, the students wrote on their boards and held them in the air for all to see. The students seemed to enjoy this relaxed atmosphere and appreciated the teacher’s check of their spelling as a quick review before their quiz. In Trisha’s Economics class, the students were asked to use their laptops to log onto a website called “Invest in what’s next.” This activity included asking students numerous questions about their desired lifestyle, projected goals, and possible career choices. In this life simulation, students utilized the economic concepts learned to a personal life application. Trish said she enjoyed this class the most as she believed, “it was preparing her for the real world.”

Indian stereotype. When Trisha talked about people treating her in a certain way in a group setting because of her ethnicity, she said:

I was really quiet, so they didn't know what kind of work I did. Like there was

the one Indian girl who was loud, and everybody was like, "Oh, you're that kind

of person." So they would go work with her so she did all the work.

Trisha did not mention other experiences in which she noted a prevalent Indian stereotype.

Parents. Trisha described how her parents had always assisted her with any needed help by obtaining resources. She said, “My parents provide me support like tutoring, and if I need help they help me get a tutor.” Trisha designated a difference between the tutoring provided for enrichment purposes and that for extra help. Trisha said that she did not turn to her parents for their direct help since “they might not understand the concepts because they had studied in India.”

Culture. Trisha also believed that since her parents came from India, they had a culture which stressed the importance of having successful children. She said, “I guess there's a lot of pressure on your parents especially [in the Indian community] and then your parents pass it to you.” In follow up answers, Trisha described her community.

“Well, there's a lot of competition. That's the word. Like people always want to do better than the other.” She explained how, “If you're Indian you are expected to do well at school, very well.” If students did not do well, Trisha believed, “Then you get judged,” by the adults in her community.

When asked what this Indian culture meant in her family, Trisha talked about her acceptance of her parents’ high expectations. She said, “I’ve always lived with them.”

When she did not meet those expectations, Trisha stated, “I would get yelled at. I don't really get grounded, but I would just get yelled at and then feel bad.” However, upon

further discussion, Trisha claimed that, “fear is, my number one motivator, fear of getting yelled at.” When thinking about high expectations and feeling bad if not met, Trisha claimed it was “emotional blackmail.”

When asked how this cultural pressure compared to American culture, Trisha described a close friend of hers who was European American. Trisha believed that there were still high expectations to achieve in her friend’s family, but “They don't expect her to do as well as my parents do.” Regardless, Trisha feels that her friend still does well,

“for a Caucasian.”

Trisha embraced other aspects of her Indian culture wholeheartedly. She said, “I always say yes to Indian functions even when a lot of Indian kids don't go because they think they will get bored and stuff.” She described how she enjoyed spicy Indian food, music, movies and felt “more comfortable in Indian clothes than American,” but qualified her statement by saying, “I wouldn't wear it to school.” Trisha did not wear a bindi in public either, unless she was attending an Indian function. When asked about her comfort level with sharing her Indian culture, she shared this story:

I remember once in first grade. There's this red powder. I was wearing that, and I

was on the bus, and I turned about, and this little kid was yelling at me like, “Why

is your head bleeding?” I was like, “What? My head's not bleeding." It was the

red powder, so I took it off and never wore it again.

Yet when considering whether she felt more comfortable living in India, Trisha said,

“No. I don't fit in here or there because I can't speak the language fluently. I don't understand their jokes or anything. I can't read fluently. Then here I don't fit in again.”

Kajol

Kajol, a sixth grader, was shorter than her sister and resembled her mother with lighter brown skin and round bright eyes. She folded a leg up and under her as she sat on the couch and faced me when she was ready to begin. She too had convinced her mother to abandon a previously forbidden request of getting highlights. Hers were redder in hue and she admitted, “The color surprised me.”

Throughout the interview, Kajol mentioned people comparing her to others. She stated that her biggest challenge as a gifted Indian American student was that, “They always compare me and I don’t like that. Every parent does that actually, every Indian parent.”

Artifact. For her artifact to represent herself, Kajol chose a caricature drawing of the two Rao sisters which hung above the couch. She said, “I love this picture. I am the same size and height as [Trisha].” Interesting that she preferred the picture showing parity between herself and her sister as her representative piece but did not cite examples of that equality throughout the interview.

Being gifted. Kajol had been designated gifted in math and took an accelerated course within her school. When asked what gifted meant to her she said, “Gifted is somebody who is really good at a subject, learns more, has a faster pace of learning because they know more and can go ahead.” She did not believe that people were born with these traits, rather through interest and persistence, they gained this label. Kajol stated, “Nobody is born gifted. They probably went to K-classes or did it by themselves, whatever their interest is, they focus on that and they get gifted at it because they keep trying and trying.” When asked to apply this understanding to herself, Kajol talked about being in math enrichment classes for six years, which peaked her interest and motivated

her to continue practicing. She said, “When I was small, I was good at it [math] so then I kept on doing it and doing it. I kept practicing. It was easy for me so I kept on doing it.”

Intelligence for Kajol was “the same thing,” thus her descriptions and applications for intelligence were considered replicated from her conceptualization of giftedness.

Kajol’s school. The lobby-type entrance of this public, blue ribbon award- winning middle school, was full of color and student life. There were numerous examples of student art work displayed both on walls and hanging from the ceiling. A trophy cabinet demonstrated some of the achievements of the student body in spelling bees, sports, art competitions, and environmental concerns.

There was some diversity in the student body, but not a lot. In between classes, a young woman in an abaya was walking down the hallway. Two European American girls paid her no mind as they walked by talking. Boys, two European American and one of

Asian heritage, wore jeans and t-shirts as they strode by laughing with one another. Many students wore sweatshirts with a specific name-brand logo written across the front, advertising for the company whose corporate headquarters were located in the vicinity.

Teachers seemed interested in their students and were knowledgeable of their content. Personal conversations took place between teacher and individual students on several occasions throughout my observations. In addition, the majority of teachers I observed seemed passionate about their teaching (from the Asian American music teacher jumping up and down during a jazz song, to the social studies teacher collecting items to barter in an interactive economics lesson). However, I did find it a bit disconcerting that two of the six teachers mispronounced Kajol's name. This was after having her as a student for over six months in their classrooms. When I asked Kajol if it

bothered her, she said, “I think it’s funny. My P.E. teacher can’t say it at all so he just writes it on the board.”

Kajol was taking advantage of the accelerated math classes offered in the school.

Students in this class were expected to master both sixth and seventh grade curricula.

Kajol said, “I like this class where everyone understands what’s going on.”

Socialization. Kajol was active in activities outside of the classroom. She had taken enrichment classes and tutoring from K-classes, Math World and me as a private

English tutor. She participated in “robotics classes at the temple.” She was active in dramas and Bollywood dance with their local Telugu Association. She took Telugu language and culture classes at the temple every Sunday with her sister. She played guitar and used to take swimming classes.

In her spare time, Kajol said, “I like to draw, I like to watch TV; I just like to relax. I like to talk to my friends on the phone.” When asked about these friends, Kajol described them, “The majority are Indian. I have some white friends. I have both. It's mixed together.” She said her friends intermingled well and just enjoyed one another's company, not paying attention to each other’s nationalities. “We don’t care where we’re from.”

Parents. Kajol talked about her parents’ support in her academics. She said, “If I am having trouble with something, they get me tutoring or help. They always push me.

They tell me to do extra work which sometimes helps me, well mostly.” Kajol seemed to appreciate this assistance yet she stated what she did not like was the comparisons her parents made to others and to her sister. Kajol said of her parents, “They say you have to do as good as your sister. My mom says my sister got A's in everything, and I need to do

that too.” When thinking about being a parent in the future, Kajol claimed that she would motivate her own children by “not yelling.” When describing hypothetical situations for the future, she stated that if her child were to bring home C’s, Kajol believed, “They are going to fail in life” and thus a C would not be acceptable. For child who earned B’s,

Kajol said, “They can always try harder,” thus a B was not acceptable either.

Interestingly, Trisha interjected at this point in the interview and stated, “That is what

Amma (mom) is saying to you.” Kajol responded, “I never thought about that.”

Kajol made other comments around the idea that she was performing less than others. She recalled a time of being intimidated by an Indian girl who took outside enrichment classes with her. She recounted, “There was this girl; she is really good at every subject. I kind of felt dumb because she was a lot smarter. . . If my parents found out they would say ‘you have to be as smart as her.’” In another story, she described her language classes at the temple. Kajol said, “In Telugu class, the other people are so much better and the teacher is like ‘I'm so disappointed in you.’” Mrs. Rao interjected into the conversation, “She cannot speak, not like Trisha.” Apparently, Kajol’s progress with the

Telugu language was simply not as advanced as Trisha’s was at this age.

Culture. When considering the culture of her Indian community, Kajol said in one breath, “Everybody needs to have good grades. You have a reputation. People are so judgmental.” When asked for examples, Kajol talked about not being as successful in her

Telugu language classes and others looking down on her because of it. She admitted to feeling the pressure to “do well in school.”

Kajol stated she “never tried to hide my culture except the bindi thing.” She was concerned that American peers might “make fun of me,” so she limited her time wearing

one only at Indian functions. There, she claimed, “everyone puts them on.” When asking about her mom wearing a bindi all the time, Kajol said, “It actually looks weird when my mom doesn’t wear one.”

In-Case Summary

In the Rao family, Trisha, Kajol and their parents described their perceptions, their home, their culture, and their school environments. They talked about their challenges and their compromises made while living in American society.

Beliefs on Intelligence

For these family members, giftedness equated to intelligence and that was derived through practice, knowledge, and hard work. Mr. and Mrs. Rao differed in their opinions on whether some individuals were born with more potential than others but they did agree that achievement was gained through disciplined work ethic and practice, and was not limited to one’s intelligence quotient (IQ). Trisha agreed with her parents when she talked about being able to accomplish anything if hard work is applied. Kajol, too, talked about how one became gifted, which she equated to intelligent, through dedicated practice revolving around an interest.

School: Gifted Education

For all the members in this case, the Rao family, the gifted label given to students in American schools meant that those students were above the class or grade level and could work faster because of their known knowledge. They attributed this advanced knowledge to the educational opportunities provided to children at a young age. Both daughters took classes at K-classes, for example, and Kajol felt these classes gave her the head start she needed in math. She also described how by attending these enrichment

classes, her success increased, which then led to a greater interest in math, perpetuating her practice in the domain.

Although Trisha’s high school did not have gifted classes specifically, she remembered being in the middle school (where Kajol attended) and how assumptions were sometimes made in her gifted classes about the students and their learning. She recalled how she was expected to do more challenging work as a gifted student, which

Trisha thought appropriate, but oftentimes she felt that she was not given any assistance from teachers since she was assumed to know how to do the work.

Home Environment

Kajol claimed that her parents “always push” her to do well in school. She said throughout her academic past, they continuously told her to seek out extra assistance if her grades fell below an A. She reluctantly agreed that the advice was sound and usually worked. Her father explained, however, that Kajol resisted any help from him, as she only saw value in the help given from teachers at her school, or through private tutoring.

Mr. Rao further explained how Trisha, in contrast, was willing to listen to his teachings and try his strategies.

Kajol felt the pressure of pleasing her parents and achieving as much as her sister. She talked about her parents comparing her to her sister and others but recognized this trait as something of “all Indian parents.” Kajol claimed she would motivate her own children differently yet when presented with hypothetical situations, she expressed her own values of children obtaining high grades in order to be successful in life. Trisha added to the conversation by pointing out that this was exactly the philosophy by which their parents ascribed to them.

Trisha believed her parents had high expectations for her, but this pressure was placed on her parents and was then passed on to her. She thought their culture conveyed the idea that since they were Indian, they would have high achievement in academics.

Sometimes, Trisha admitted, she was motivated to perform well out of fear of the consequences of not living up to these high expectations. These consequences might result in her parents yelling at her, making her feel bad.

Culture

Trisha embraced the Indian culture whole-heartedly and enjoyed attending any

Indian function, even for those which children typically stay at home. Her parents concurred and said she had a deep understanding and appreciation of Indian social norms.

Trisha claimed she enjoyed the various aspects of Indian culture and way of life, yet she said she did not fit in when she visited India because of the language barrier. According to Trisha and her parents, Kajol was more Americanized than her sister. Kajol agreed she enjoyed less spicy food, American movies, music, and clothing. Mr. and Mrs. Rao described how the biggest challenge they faced in the United States was trying to instill their culture while living in a different one. They admitted that because they are minorities, there were certain aspects, like clothing choices, which they did not like but felt they had to accept as part of their reality.

Although both girls claimed that they did not hide their Indian culture, neither of the girls wore a bindi on their forehead, because they had experienced or anticipated comments from their American peers. Trisha recalled a story where a European

American made the mistake of likening her Indian powder to blood. Trisha was embarrassed and never wore anything cultural like that to school again. Kajol claimed

100

that she was certain she would be made fun of if she wore a bindi to school, so she did not. Even though the girls did not wear one, they agreed their mom would look “weird” if she did not wear hers on a daily basis. For them, they would only adorn themselves with a bindi for Indian functions. Their mother did not require them to wear one otherwise.

The Rao sisters also both talked about how their Indian culture promoted high accomplishments and competition to achieve such. When describing their Indian community, Kajol addressed several aspects in her response. Upon further probing, Kajol revealed these aspects meant that first there was the expectation of academic excellence, second there was the importance of making her family proud, and third there was a negative response when excellence had not been achieved. Trisha concurred with these descriptions and said that there was a lot of competition in the Indian community and she felt people looked down upon her if she was not successful.

Case 3: Sharma Family

The Sharma family lived in a middle-class neighborhood which felt established and well kept. Certainly a planned neighborhood, it showed evidence of family life through basketball hoops, bikes, a stray hat in the grass. On the sidewalk, I noticed a small child on a tricycle pedaling while her mother walked leisurely behind her. After parking on the street, I walked up to the front porch and rang the doorbell. I was greeted by two girls, Sheela and Sonya, and their mother, Mrs. Sharma. Broad smiles and bright eyes seemed happy to see me, yet I was not sure whether I should offer handshakes or hugs. A sideways squeeze of the shoulder was the compromise. I took off my shoes and walked by the piano in the hallway, across the hardwood floors as I was directed into the family room. The warm colors of the over-stuffed couch were welcoming but my

101

attention was drawn to the mantle where several trophies sat and were being used as hooks for ribbons attached to at least twenty medals. The medals hung down, stacking upon one another. I mentioned how impressive this looked, and Mrs. Sharma claimed, “I need a better way of displaying them.” I noted the inscriptions on the medals from

Science Olympiad events to math competitions with K-classes, to tennis accomplishments. These girls knew achievement.

As the eldest daughter, Sheela, sat down with me and began to chat, Sonya looked a bit unsure of her role. She appeared uncertain if she should join the conversation or wait until later. She opted for the latter and left the room. Mrs. Sharma was busy in the kitchen when I smelled spicy aromas. Soon she presented us with plates of hot crispy samosas and garlic chutney. Later, the younger daughter returned to sit and listen to us chat. I directed a few questions toward her, but Sheela answered most of them. The three of us were called to the kitchen for dinner. There were steam rice balls called Idli with a gravy to pour over them called Sambhar. As I reached to put some on my plate, Mrs. Sharma realized that by not eating it with my fingers, I might have difficulties. She quickly pulled out a bowl for me, along with silverware.

After dinner, Sonya asked if she could be first to be interviewed. I agreed and followed her to the basement so we would have a quiet, private place to talk. A finished basement with neutral walls and tan carpeting, looked cozy but felt quite chilly. Mrs.

Sharma came down after us to turn on a space heater. Framed paintings created by the girls hung across the back wall. A bookshelf on one side of the room held all kinds of books: classics, modern fiction, SAT preparation, folktales, and picture books. A small painting of an Indian woman gazing down a mountainside hung next to the shelf. Framed

102

photographs of the girls at different ages also decorated the walls and sat on shelves.

Small figurines of elephants rested upon the highest bookshelf, with books perched behind them. We sat at a simple desk with two folding chairs for some of the interviews.

Others were conducted on a later date in the family room.

Sonya

With a sparkle in her eye and sometimes an impish grin, Sonya answered the interview questions freely and openly. She had no hesitation and spoke from her heart.

She had a witty sense of humor and used fluctuating tones to emphasize her points. Quick and articulate, I sometimes forgot she was only in sixth grade. Designated gifted in third grade, she was placed in a pull-out program in elementary school and was now taking advantage of all of the gifted classes offered in her middle school, leaving science and social studies as general education classes.

Beliefs on intelligence. Sonya believed intelligence could be increased “by just learning more, and I think school helps you do that if you really focus on it a lot.” When later asked for an exemplification, Sonya explained:

Like for example, I'll say Indians; you focus more on academics in schools, and

usually most Indians don't usually go to college and become a football player.

That's why you don't see many. They usually just go on to become a doctor, an

engineer, a lawyer. If you focus more on school and focus on your academics and

want to get straight A's, and you want to accelerate in math and science, you are

going to soak in more information compared to other people . . . people who focus

on academics might do more AP's, get more information so they can get to a good

103

college. So I would say, yeah, you can increase your knowledge and intelligence

more because of that.

Sonya said she followed this mindset in school and experienced academic success. She was taking the highest level of math course offered and was planning on testing to opt out of a year of science.

Being gifted. Sonya equated giftedness to intelligence. She then linked her description of gaining intelligence to becoming gifted; giving the majority of the credit to parents. Sonya said, “Honestly, I don’t think people are born gifted. I think the parents, don’t force them, but they help them when they are young.” She described parents providing workbooks and enrichment classes; likening the description to “what my parents did so I can get a head start.” Sonya later re-emphasized the role of parents. She said:

I guess the parents make a big difference because if the parents did not really help

them throughout life, they would not know where to go; so this gives them a head

start. Then they use the information, and if they use it wisely, they will become

gifted.

Sonya was comfortable with being gifted and her academic achievements. In fact, she said, “I am not that scared to actually tell anyone what [grade] I got because I think I have bragging rights.” She said she shared her grades with others who inquired. She noticed less of a difference in ability levels between her and her peers in middle school, she described the gifted classroom environment. “They [gifted students] know the answer for some questions, and I know the answer for some questions, so it’s not like I know

104

every answer compared to if I was in a normal classroom.” She said she only wished she had more gifted classes available to take.

Gifted education. Sonya had been identified as gifted in third grade through the school identification program. She said:

Gifted in school basically means that the teachers think you know more

information, you work faster, you can use critical thinking, and you can just do

different stuff compared to other people who are not. They just make you do more

challenging stuff and just go on and do stuff from the next grade level. They say

they are trying to entertain you by the way you think.

Artifact. Sonya chose a non-fiction book to represent herself as a gifted Indian

American student “. . . because nonfiction books are full of facts. Indians have brains full of facts . . . I feel like that represents us because we just like suck in information and use that for later on.”

Sonya’s school. Sonya attended the same public middle school as Kajol in Case

2. Due to the size of the school, they did not have the same classes with the same teachers, but they did have many of the same courses as sixth graders. Sonya was taking a highly-accelerated math class, completing the curricula for both seventh and eighth grade. She claimed this was her favorite class as it was, “easy but not as easy as everything else.” She also enjoyed this class because of the teacher who, “makes us do stations” which asked students to apply the concepts they were learning. The current project was based on Sherlock Holmes. Students had to write a letter impersonating

Holmes to Watson, describing the surface area of the crime scene. In addition, this teacher allowed students to, “work with a partner a lot.” Sonya said she enjoyed working

105

with groups especially when the ability level of the students was similar and when she was allowed to choose the group members. She said, “I like it because if I’m stuck on anything, I can just ask them, and they know what they are doing because most of them are gifted.”

Socialization. During lunch, Sonya felt sorry for a “really, really smart person who only focuses on academics not a social life. He sits alone.” According to Sonya, this individual was a “nerd” and she wanted to avoid this persona for herself. She sought more of a “balance of her time.” Studying was greatly important but so were friends.

Sonya described social interaction with her non-Indian friends as a bit conflicting.

She said that she had cultural classes on Sunday, but she did not like to talk about her faith with peers. When friends asked her for a sleepover, for example on Saturday night,

Sonya said:

I might say I have to go to a family friend’s house in the morning because I go to

this religion class for Indians . . . so I don’t really talk about it because I feel like

people might think, “Why is she going to a religious place?”

Invitations from friends sometimes inquired of Sonya’s availability during the day or during the weekends. Sometimes, she said no to those friends too because she wanted to “spend time with my family.” For other requests, Sonya said no because, “They

[friends] want to do something that my parents don't feel comfortable doing,” so she was not allowed to attend. Overall, Sonya admitted that her parents’ actions were for her benefit. She said, “I guess they are worried about me but not like they are trying to make me avoid my friends.”

106

Parents. Sonya acknowledged the importance of parents in providing foundational learning at a young age when talking about being gifted. She credited her parents for giving her workbooks and enrichment activities when she was young. She said, “Just doing something at a small age can impact you in the future.” Sonya went on to describe how later in middle school, her parents’ assistance has changed. She said,

“My parents want me to be more independent.” She explained, “They know that we [she and her sister] get good grades so we can handle ourselves. We can focus, and we don’t need assistance from our parents.” However, she also commented on how her parents are paying less attention to her right now compared to her older sister. She said, “Right now I would say they are focusing more on my sister because she has to get into a good college.

I’m just in middle school, and I think it’s pretty easy and straightforward.” Sonya seemed to accept her role as the second child with a bit of resignation, yet full understanding.

She also accepted that her parents had high expectations for her. She said, “My parents are always like, ‘You should be better than everyone,’ and the whole big lecture goes on and how you have to be better.” Sonya agreed that even though she does not enjoy the work involved now, she does want the same accomplishments for herself that her parents wanted for her. She explained this situation:

Parents are like, “You should become a doctor because then you can make a lot of

money, you can help your family, and you can have a huge house, good car.” I

want to have all that stuff and have a good family and support my future children.

So I feel more comfortable being a doctor or a lawyer or have a high job because I

feel like I won't have a lot of money issues or anything. I think they [parents] take

107

us on the right track, but when you're a kid you're like, "Oh, my God, why do I

have to do this?” But later on you understand why they tell you to do it.

When comparing her parents to those of her non-Indian peers, Sonya said her parents pressured her much more than her friends’ parents. Sonya described one European

American peer who was popular, kind, and smart who went shopping on the weekends and hung out with friends. Sonya said, “I don’t think her parents pressure her that much.”

Sonya seemed a bit resentful that her parents did not understand her needs for name brand clothing, short shorts, and hanging out at the nearby mall. She described her biggest challenge of being an Indian child living in the United States as “having restrictions.” She described being limited in materialistic items, for example she said, “If

I wanted to get a new phone my parents would be like, ‘oh wait until seventh or eighth grade.’” She said she had restrictions on what she wore and described her parents saying,

“Oh no, we don’t feel comfortable with you wearing that.” Sonya blamed her mom’s lack of sympathy toward these needs on the fact that she had not grown up in the United

States. She said, “They don’t have experience with that, and if they lived in America and had worn short shorts, they’d be like, ‘We did that too.’”

Culture. Sonya described how the expectation of the Indian community was that,

“Indians have to be academically good.” If a student did not fulfill this expectation,

Sonya responded to this hypothetical situation by saying, “Most Indian parents would just work through it together” with the child.” She said that the parents would offer assistance or a tutor would be sought. When asked to describe the Indian community further, Sonya said, “There is competition because Indians just want to be higher up and want to prove that, ‘Yeah, I'm smart.’” She said Indian students were encouraged to be number one in

108

their class. The competition for this top position among Indian peers was apparent to

Sonya. Then once this position was secured, “Indians are engineers, lawyers, or doctors.

That's the three things that Indians are supposed to be.” When asked of the consequences if she veered from these expectations, Sonya explained that she would be allowed to pursue whatever she chose, but she would have to accept a life of less economic stability.

She said that she desired both financial stability and materialistic gain; thus “I feel more comfortable being a doctor or a lawyer.”

Indian stereotype. Sonya believed that a stereotype of Indians existed in

American society. She said, “They think Indians and Asians are more of those nerdy people.” When asked for clarification, she asserted that “It’s not bad, but usually when I think of nerdy people I think of people who are really, really smart but don't have a social life.”

Beliefs on motivation. Sonya studied outside of school and often embraced challenges offered, such as taking a placement test to opt out of a year of science. She said, “I’d rather take the challenge instead of just sitting there not really learning anything.” By making this decision, Sonya chose to spend her free time studying advanced curriculum both with a small group of friends and by herself. Studying outside of school was nothing new for Sonya. She recalled past experiences when she became so interested in a topic that she spent her time researching and sharing the information with her parents. She remembered, “One time I was interested in India, so I did a Prezi on that.” Another time, “During the summer, I thought space was so cool . . . I was just fascinated by the stars in the sky. I just made a Prezi and presented it to my parents.”

Once passionate about a topic, there was little that deterred her.

109

Mrs. Sharma

Mrs. Sharma sat relaxed and ready for the interview in the basement of her home.

Wearing business dress slacks and a button-up blouse, she spoke calmly and confidently when asked questions. She made many connections between her upbringing in India and her outlook on parenting, spending habits, and priorities.

Family background. Growing up in the southeast state of Tamil Nadu, Mrs.

Sharma’s family of four struggled financially. She described their circumstances:

My father was a government employee. He didn't make that much money. He was

focused on getting enough money home so my mom could feed us. He didn't have

the time. He had to work and then he had to do some odd jobs, meaning, he was a

civil engineer so he would do private jobs. So he would come home late and my

mom was a housewife since she was 18, and she didn't even finish 10th grade.

She could take care of us and squeeze the money as much as she could to expand

it, but even within that, my father was sure to send me and my sister [to] Catholic

schools.

She went on to explain how extra-curricular activities and even storybooks were not part of her childhood.

School background. Everything her father could save, he gave to his daughters for a good education at a private Catholic school. She said, “Maybe that’s why we’re all focused on education because education was the only thing that our family could afford.”

Mrs. Sharma explained how in India the school system she attended was different than that in the United States and even different now decades later in India.

110

We only have a big exam in tenth which I say is public. It's what everybody

writes it in tenth grade. That is all subjects: English, math, social studies, how we

have it here; all the core subjects are on the test. Depending upon that score, then

you would take the path. Either you take computer science, engineering, or you go

into commerce/economics. So those are the options . . . And then in twelfth grade

you write another big exam which is the narrower path. We have cut-off scores.

So if you meet the cut-off then you're guaranteed to get into the college that you

wish. If you are below that then you have to wait for all the other people to take

what they want and then you are left with whatever you have. That's why the

public colleges are very limited.

After describing the few positions available for which numerous people are competing, Mrs. Sharma described the importance of this realization and how it leads to great competition. She said:

You know the population is crazy in India, so education is the only thing that

would get you ahead of the crowd. You have to be in a good position to even

make a living there. Because there are so many people and so few jobs, only the

best people can go into the jobs. It’s always a race to the top. If you don’t, then

you will be very low, maybe even without a job.

This focus on education came with her to the United States after she obtained a

Bachelor’s degree and got married. Her husband had earned his Master’s degree in

Computer Science in the United States before returning to India to marry.

Immigration. Mr. and Mrs. Sharma moved to this Midwestern state for a job he had acquired. Mrs. Sharma soon took a job with a state education office as a business

111

analyst. Mr. and Mrs. Sharma established a home for their two daughters that supports, encourages, and “promotes academics and high achievement.” However, Mrs. Sharma acknowledged that American society is different than her homeland. She said, “Here if you want to move socially, you have to know certain things. And that is what we are trying to teach them. You need schools but just academics alone is not going to cut it over here. You should be able to go and relax, play piano, play tennis.” In follow up questions around extra-curricular activities, Mrs. Sharma further explained why she allowed her daughters to participate in non-academic endeavors:

There are two reasons. First it gets her physically fit. As I told you, here, we can

afford it for her to go and take classes and play. And here, we have committed to

this culture of being well-rounded . . . Even at my work, I need to know

something that happened with football. At least I need to know who won the

match.

Yet there were limits to Mrs. Sharma’s encouragement of her daughters’ success in extra- curricular activities. She said:

I can't just say, well you're good at tennis so you can get a 3.0 GPA and focus on

tennis, and you can be a good player. I just cannot do that. I cannot justify it.

Maybe my brain is tuned so that education is most important for me.

So tennis and piano activities were allowed and even encouraged but they were not to be placed in a higher priority than education.

Challenges. Mrs. Sharma talked extensively about the difficulties of raising her daughters in an affluent American society. She described how her children constantly talked about wanting a bigger house, name brand clothes, iPhones, and vacations. She

112

said, “Every day is a constant struggle and we kind of understand the pressure they are going through but we can't budge into everything they ask; like it's brand names, top to bottom.” Mrs. Sharma said the girls compared themselves to what their European

American peers had. Mrs. Sharma did not want to give in to all of her daughters’ requests, but she was also concerned that at any time they could switch allegiances and go down the wrong path. She said:

It is a struggle and that's why we just hope that they don't flip and go on the

wrong side and spoil whatever they have built so far. That's why it's a balance;

sometimes we have to give in. Sometimes I feel like it's creating a habit. She

keeps nagging us, and then we give in. But it is a hard struggle over here.

Parenting. Mrs. Sharma discussed the how she created a home environment which focused on academics. She said, “It's just practice from the beginning. In kindergarten, first grade, and second grade, it's come home, get your work done and then you watch TV or whatever. I guess it's the discipline. That's how we grew up.” In addition to setting establishing similar work habits, Mrs. Sharma talked about sharing other experiences with her children. She said, “We keep telling them the stories, the hardships we went through.”

In follow-up questions about her role in motivating her children, Mrs. Sharma described additional factors. She said:

I think it's more than motivation. We put a lot of emphasis on the family. Their

grandparents, aunts, and uncles and everybody is looking at them to be become

somebody in life.

113

When Sonya and Sheela did meet their family’s expectations in attaining high grades in school, for example, Mrs. Sharma described how praise was limited:

We don't credit them all the time. We don't say, good job, good job, good job. We

don't ever do that. You'll find that in all Indian families. We only say that if it's

worth it. I think they have to earn our praise. They know that. Maybe that keeps

them motivated. They think, “[To] earn that enthusiasm from my parents, I'll have

to do something really good.”

Mrs. Sharma acknowledges that her daughters, “know the pressure on them.” But when thinking about this pressure, she said, “And sometimes I feel like that is also good. It keeps their mind into that and not roaming around.” Focusing on academics should be top priority for her children even when it meant working hard. Mrs. Sharma commented:

Education is always important. Nothing is fun. That could be our mentality

because that is what got us over here. We didn't do anything fun that got us over

here . . . I'm not sure if it's good or bad, but our focus is studies and fun can come

when you earn your money.

Mrs. Sharma tried to instill a belief of working now in order reap the benefits later. She said, “You'll have your time; now is not the time.” This belief was not only held in regards to studying, but Mrs. Sharma talked about teaching her children to save money as well. She believed her spending habits were based on experiences she had growing up in

India. She said:

Since things in India are very rough, we always tend to save a lot. Because you

never know what is going to happen. And that is a tendency here that we don't

want to spend whatever we get, and that is a habit we also want to teach our kids.

114

We tell them we're saving for education. If you get into a good college, and it's

something you want, we'd be happy to pay for it. You don't have to take the

burden on you. That's why we keep saving. But they don't have the maturity; they

can't see that.

Mrs. Sharma acknowledged that because her children were not growing up in an environment of economic instability, she anticipated that Sonya and Sheela would approach parenting differently. Mrs. Sharma explained, “When [Sheela] has kids over here, she'll be more relaxed because she hasn't seen the hardships we've been through.

Because we come from a place where there's so much competition and getting out is so hard.”

Culture. Mrs. Sharma believed that sharing her homeland culture was important, but she differentiated between herself and the forward caste families. She said:

They are more religious because they have ancestors who used to work the temple

and everything. They are more religious, and they learn different languages; more

emphasis is put on culture. For us, we are relaxed. For them it's very deep into

culture.

Schools in the United States. When Mrs. Sharma received notification that her daughters had been identified as gifted, she said she knew that meant they had scored a certain percentile on a test. When asked what the label meant to her, she said:

Sometimes I don't understand what gifted means. I am thinking that gifted is that

you can be academically challenged. Then we can push them more or say if you

can do this, then you can do much better things. I don't think it's that they’re

gifted from the brains. It's just how they have worked their brains to get there.

115

That's what I think it is. It's not like you have super powers or super

knowledge. All I can say is that most Indian families, they keep their kids focused

on studies. I think that's what gets them into being gifted.

Beliefs on intelligence. Although Mrs. Sharma thought that hard work and family environment created giftedness in the United States, when asked about the malleability of intelligence, she associated intelligence with the different castes in India. She said:

The forward caste people were the brilliant ones. The forward caste people used

to be the priests and the people who learned the Gita and the big sacred books,

and they were enlightened and they teach you. So these people, their brains are

tuned, somehow their brains are tuned differently.

Later, Mrs. Sharma mentioned that her family was not part of the forward caste, but she believed her daughter’s success was a result of “hard work has brought her [Sheela] into what she is today. . . It's not like super smart. It's just hard work, to get better and do it with perfection – not doing it just for the sake of doing it.”

Future goals: Mrs. Sharma believed she was one of many parents who desired more for her children than what she had accomplished. She said:

As a natural tendency of every parent, I want my kids to be better than me. We

keep telling them, here you have so many opportunities that we didn't even know

about. Options, so many options, you don’t even know how to explore some of

them. So hard work and they can achieve whatever they want. That’s what we

keep telling them.

Sheela

116

Sheela was an articulate and passionate sixteen-year-old sophomore. She answered the interview questions carefully and thoughtfully, sharing her opinions with clear support.

Sheela had moved to this Midwestern state after having completed two years of school in India as a kindergartener and first grader. Because of the transition, she had to repeat part of second grade due to her lack of English proficiency. Sheela described her teacher’s influence in making her transition smooth. Eight years later, Sheela spoke of her with tenderness when she said, “She was really nice. She's still the teacher there, and sometimes I go over and visit her.”

Being gifted. Sheela had been identified as gifted in third grade through the school system. For her, a gifted person “isn't just motivated about getting that A in class but is also very unique, and not just about the A but also about improving themselves.”

She did not believe individuals had these capabilities innately. She said:

I don't think they are born gifted. Everyone starts out with the same brain

capacity, their maximum brain capacity. I think it's based on how you take

advantage of it and how much effort you put into putting yourself ahead and your

motivation and your desire to want to be ahead of others.

When asked to discuss these non-cognitive traits of giftedness, Sheela added to her definition. She said, “Gifted is not just about grades. Gifted can be talented. That's also being gifted.” When probed further she explained, “Talented is just a skill that you have that you are just really good at. That's obviously through practice or hard work.” Finding this distinction between gifted and talented interesting, Sheela was asked for clarification.

She then contended that gifted and talented were “not really different” after-all.

117

Gifted education. After being identified, Sheela took part in the pull-out program offered throughout her elementary school. Then in middle school, she took advanced math and reading classes because other courses in middle school were not offered as accelerated. Sheela said, “In school gifted usually means that you find what you are capable of easily finishing, certain projects or assignments in a regular class, and you need more of a challenge.” She recalled being bored in the classes with multi-ability students. In order to combat boredom, even this year, Sheela said, “In Spanish sometimes

I do other homework in that class. I mean, I pay attention to her and follow the notes, but half of my attention is on my homework, and the other half is on Spanish.” She felt comfortable with her knowledge of the content and thought she could do both in-class work and other coursework.

Artifact. Sheela chose a circle to represent herself as a gifted Indian American student. She explained her rationale as, “a circle just because for me gifted is not just about getting the straight A's. It's also about doing other stuff and being well rounded and not just doing the norm.” Her accomplishments manifested this philosophy. Not only had she shown academic success in school, Sheela had shown achievement through Science

Olympiad, playing the piano, earning distinction in poetry competitions, and playing for the high school tennis team. She had done enrichment work through K-classes and a private English tutor. She had also volunteered in several venues, such as the public library and the metropolitan children’s museum.

Sheela’s school. Sheela attended the same high school where Suren in Case 1 attended. Since Sheela was in a different grade, their paths did not cross, although she was taking two Advanced Placement courses. In the AP Chemistry course, I observed

118

how students entered the classroom, opened their notebooks, and began to work, even without the teacher present. This classroom had lab tables with chemistry equipment all around the perimeter of the room, and desks in the middle where students sat and wrote.

Posters of Einstein, inspirational quotations on perseverance, the periodic table of elements, and spectrum analysis adorned the walls. Student-created charts decorated another wall.

Morning announcements boomed through the loudspeaker and students gazed up at the intercom but then continued writing in their notebooks. At this point, only six students were present, but three more trickled into the classroom within the next ten minutes. There were four girls and five boys. Two of the girls were Indian American; all other students were of European descent. Later, I discovered that two additional students were absent on this day.

Students talked among themselves while writing in notebooks and getting organized. A substitute teacher walked in and told the students to get started on their lab.

The students independently set up their lab areas and initiated finding their needed scientific equipment. Standing in groups of one, two, and three, they individually put on their goggles, just as the substitute reminded them to do so. They began their experiments. Students asked one another, instead of the substitute, where equipment was located. They divided tasks within groups and as one student was engaged on a laptop, another read instructions. One student told another which items went in the beaker first and how much, before adding the water. Another student asked Sheela’s group about the coloration of their specimen. They posited possible reasons. Then a young woman asked how to calibrate something. A group, made up of three males, pointed out their graph on

119

their computer and offered an explanation. A girl watching over their shoulder added that they needed to scroll down to find the answer. Others conceded. There seemed to be synergy and collaboration. The students moved around one another effortlessly. One student pointed out that all of the groups were clustered together instead of being spread out throughout the classroom work tables and another student said, “That’s because we’re all family.”

The teacher arrived and proceeded to check with the groups but little changed in the atmosphere of the classroom. I was impressed by the active engagement of the students and the quiet noise level while they were all working. At one point, a cell phone beeped. The owner of the phone left his lab, checked on the phone, then put it back in his backpack. Students continued to ask each other questions equally to asking the teacher.

Once the experiment was completed, the laptops were shut down, the equipment was cleaned and stowed away. The students returned to their seats to work. Again, they mainly focused on their own notebooks, but students freely asked others for interpretation advice and explanations of conclusions. While students worked, the teacher picked up goggles and put them away. A student thanked her. She continued to clean. She asked students if they were done with the laptops. With their assent, she took the cart full of them out of the classroom.

After the observations, Sheela stated that she was not bored in the majority of her classes this year. She described how most of the students in her advanced classes had the same content knowledge, although some differed in how they could apply the information. She did not mind working in groups of same-ability students in general;

120

however, she did feel her greatest challenge was “Replying to 65 text messages at night asking me how to do the math homework.”

Socialization. During lunch, Sheela sat at a table with three European American girls. Surrounding them, I noticed there was not much diversity in this student body.

Those who were of different ethnicities, did not sit together, but rather sat interspersed throughout the cafeteria. Sheela chatted with peers at her table for a bit but then began to work in a notebook. She told me later, “I was working on homework that I did not want to finish at home tonight.” Sheela said she had an array of friends but distinguished between her Indian and non-Indian friends. She stated, “I have Indian friends at school but not for social stuff like we don't go to the football games together. We don't hang out just to have fun. That's usually mostly with my white friends.”

Because of the differences between Indian and American families, Sheela admitted to feeling “torn between worlds.” She talked about how:

They [non-Indian friends] go and hang out with a bunch of people and go to

parties and stuff, and they ask me if I want to come, and I'm like, "Oh, no. I'm

sorry. I have to do homework" or something like that.

Upon further reflection, Sheela mentioned, “I guess they’re not as worried. I mean they’re fine with an A or a B.”

Beliefs on intelligence. Feeling the need to study might have resulted, in part due to her views about intelligence. Sheela equated intelligence to the amount of knowledge an individual has, thus she believed intelligence could be increased. She said:

Intelligence is just based on how much you know, right, so if you choose to be

ignorant and not do anything then obviously you're going to be less intelligent

121

than other people, but if you go out and try new things and go outside the norm,

watch the news, or be less ignorant about what is going on in the world then you

are definitely more intelligent.

Parents. Sheela described how her parents had been involved throughout her academic career. She described how in elementary school, “I did my homework, and then they would review the answers afterwards, and they would correct it.” She said her parents provided her tutors and enrichment classes. “I did K-classes when I was little, and that helped me get ahead in math. By the time we were learning fractions in elementary school I was already learning how to make graphs based on equations.” Now, in high school, Sheela said her parents were even more heavily involved. She was grateful for their assistance in choosing classes, supporting her extra-curricular activities, and finding opportunities. She said, “Obviously, going into medicine, we have been recently looking for internships and stuff, and they have been a huge help. They have also helped me just with small things, like test anxiety problems, they help me calm down.” However, Sheela also believed that in general Indian parents “hover” around their children in order to push them toward embracing challenges. Although expecting high grades and academic performance, Sheela said that when she did not accomplish such, “They have come to realize that one B on a math test is not going to ruin my overall A if I can prove by continuing to do better, it all averages out.” She said her parents did not her yell or reprimand her for grades. Overall, she felt, “Indians are more, not demanding, but they just want more out of their child.”

Sheela thought that European American parents did not push their children as much as her parents. She said, “I mean, they care about their grades, but they're not too

122

worried about their college choice or their future.” Sheela thought this might be because in the community where they live, many families were affluent; therefore, they did not worry about the college in which their child earned acceptance. Sheela admitted that with both of her parents working, her family did not go without necessities, but the expectations were that she would attend an exceptional university and do even better financially than her parents. She said, “At least in our family, it's always like doing better than the past generation . . . So now it's me and my sister's turn to take the next step forward.”

Culture. Sheela described the impact of her Indian community. She said, “My culture definitely influences my academic path and options because there's a pressure of having to do well and make your parents proud.” She went on to describe how the community stressed the importance of hard work leading to high achievement. Sheela said according to her culture, “Hard work and effort bring results. You can't just sit around and do nothing.” This mentality, according to Sheela, was passed down through families. She said:

It's just that drive that has been passed down from generation to generation, so

that motivates the idea of wanting to get those straight A's because you came here

in order to make use of the better opportunities that are given to you here.

When comparing this mentality to Euro-American families she knew, Sheela explained how the emphasis was just different. Indian families focused on reaching “the ultimate goal” whereas non-Indian counterparts focused on:

The smaller things that come in between, the smaller milestones that you have to

get through to get to that bigger goal. . . it's more based upon the stages in life,

123

like elementary to middle school to high school to college to getting a job, to

getting married. I feel like every single stage is a ‘You did it’ sort of feeling.

Sheela articulated how the Indian culture influenced her academic pursuits. However, she said, “Young women are supposed to wear bindis every single day. I don't do that.”

She only felt the need to wear one when attending an Indian function, in which case she said they looked, “cute” with her outfits.

Indian stereotype. Sheela admitted that she felt an Indian stereotype within

American society. Sheela described how people assumed, “She's Indian. She'll get A's in that class, or she'll get into Harvard.” These assumptions frustrated Sheela. She said:

I'm really annoyed by that stereotype just because it's not true. It's not like I just

get A's like that. I mean I have to work hard as every other student in this school

to get that A, and sometimes I have to work harder because those students are fine

with a B or an A. Just because I get an A every single time doesn't mean it just

comes like that. I have to study the night before really hard in order to get to the

top of my class.

Beliefs on motivation. Sheela said that she did not feel that pressure to live up to the Indian stereotype of high achievements was a motivator. Instead she talked about other motivation. She said, “I don't think the stereotype motivates me necessarily, the idea that all Indians have to be like this, but just feeling good that you did well on something is always what is nice.”

In-Case Summary

The Sharma family seemed tight-knit with similar values of hard work leading to high achievement. Although the daughters differed from their mother’s priorities when

124

making social and economic decisions, they agreed with their mother on overall career and life goals.

Beliefs on Intelligence

Sonya equated giftedness to intelligence and similar to her sister Sheela, believed that the more exposure and acquisition of knowledge led to an increase of intelligence.

Mrs. Sharma mentioned individuals of the highest caste had innate traits of intelligence but later when she described her own daughter’s academic success, she attributed it to hard work.

School: Gifted Education

Sheela claimed that although schools designated students as gifted based on a test score, and in elementary and middle school giftedness meant being ahead in class, she believed gifted individuals also have traits of motivation, persistence, and curiosity. She contended that a gifted person is not just motivated by grades but seeks self- improvement. She was the only member who used the term “talented.” She extended her reflection on defining giftedness by stating that talented people were those who had worked hard and had surpassed their peers in specific knowledge. Later, she proposed that perhaps talented and gifted meant the same designation. Sonya believed that intelligence and giftedness were the same concept but offered an interesting perspective when she described how students were labeled gifted when the teacher thought they could work faster, think critically, and accept challenging work. She did not assert that gifted individuals do perform in this way, only that teachers believed these students could. Along this line of explanation, Sonya outlined gifted education as designed to

125

“entertain you by the way you think.” Sonya additionally stressed the importance of the role of the parents in assisting their child in academics to become gifted.

All members in this case agreed that the result of the gifted label in schools meant that a student needed to be academically challenged. Sonya emphasized that this need stemmed from parents setting a good foundation for the child through enrichment studies and programs early in life. Although Mrs. Sharma conceded that it appeared there were many smart Indian children in the United States, her comment, “It's not like you have super powers or super knowledge” indicated that she did not believe it was an innate trait.

Instead, she believed that a child whose brain might appear to be “tuned” different, probably was a result of his/her environment and culture (emphasizing the importance of academics) combined with the individual’s hard work.

Home Environment

Mrs. Sharma described how their home environment reflected their values of education and hard work. She described the discipline of studying before playing starting at an early age. She provided them with tutoring and enrichment classes to ensure her daughters were always focused on those goals of academic achievement. Mrs. Sharma acknowledge that her daughters feel the pressure of attaining academic success but she believed this would result in dedication. Then with hard work, “. . . they can achieve whatever they want.” Mrs. Sharma desired her daughters to do better than she had. She described how her values and priorities stemmed from her upbringing in India, where life was more difficult.

Sheela said that her parents often talked about how the move to the United States had been to provide a better education for Sonya and Sheela. The girls were expected to

126

take advantage of these academic opportunities and do well in school. Making their parents proud of their accomplishments was a pressure felt acutely by Sheela. Sonya concurred that their parents had high expectations for her and her sister. They talked to her about being number one in her class and attending top Ivy League schools. Becoming reflective, Sonya said that parents put their children on the right track and when she was young she had questioned why she had to do all the hard work. Now she understood why they had told her to do it all. Sheela conceded that “It’s all, of course, getting into a really good college and having a really good life afterwards.” Sonya and Sheela agreed that they had those same ambitions for their own lives.

Culture

Mrs. Sharma said that she and her husband thought it was important for their children to be socially acclimated to American culture while still remaining within the confines of their own cultural beliefs. A commitment to the American culture of being well-rounded had been made for herself and for her daughters. Although she would not lessen her high academic expectations of her daughters, she found it necessary that they could relax by playing the piano or stay physically fit through playing tennis. She supported Sheela and Sonya in these endeavors with time and money. In addition, Mrs.

Sharma went on to describe the importance of being able to converse about American social issues for her daughters and even for her within business. She was up-to-date on the local football team, pop-culture television shows, and literature.

None of the three women in the Sharma family wore bindis, although Sheela declared that wearing a bindi looked “cute” with her Indian outfits; overall, the females in this family claimed they did not see the need to wear one unless they were attending an

127

Indian function, entertaining Indian guests, or traveling back to India to visit. Sheela did explain that there was spiritual significance to the bindi but they still chose not to wear one. Mrs. Sharma explained her perception of people in the forward caste as being more religious and focused more on culture. For her family, she said they were not as serious.

Despite this assertion, Sheela mentioned saying her prayers and Sonya talked about attending classes at the temple.

Both Sharma daughters expressed that the stereotype of Indians was prevalent in their interactions with others. They contended there were two negative aspects of this stereotype associated with their heritage. Sonya described how people believed Indians were “nerdy” which meant they were considered really smart but lacked a social life.

Sheela described a different aspect of the stereotype which was that her achievements came naturally without effort. She described how people made the assumption that because she was Indian she would simply get all A’s or even achieve loftier goals such as getting into Harvard.

Both Sheela and Sonya asserted the importance of work ethic and perseverance when it came to achieving their academic goals, but when others did not acknowledge this hard work, or thought studying was all that they did, they were anxious to share who they were beyond the Indian stereotype.

Case 4: Patel Family

Off one of the main highways leading out of the city, I turned off onto a side street and entered a neighborhood. The streets wound in and around without a pattern, with houses placed closely together on either side of the street. These were modular homes which had been constructed elsewhere, then brought into the area. There were

128

both one and two-story buildings with the repetition of a few designs. The landscaping was pleasant and simple, with a few young trees and evergreen bushes in the yards. I parked on the street and walked up to the door of the house where I had been instructed to come. I had met the eldest daughter and her mother previously but the other family members were unknown to me. I was welcomed into their home. After leaving my shoes by the door, I was led through the family room into the kitchen and immediately invited to sit at a wooden table. Mrs. Patel, wearing a cream and gold colored churidhar served tomato rice and channa masala curry. I sat at the table with the two daughters and Mrs.

Patel. The father soon came down the stairs and joined us eating, but he sat in a chair pulled away from the table. Among us, we discussed their move from their previous apartment to this new home. They were pleased with their purchase and found the location more conducive to shopping and to Mr. Patel’s office. This move does add distance for Mrs. Patel who drives her daughters to a magnet school located downtown, but she said she did not mind.

After dinner, I began the interviews. I remained at the kitchen table with each of the daughters, separately, while the other members of the family seemed to disappear into other parts of the house in order to give us some privacy. When I started my interview with Mr. Patel, his wife joined us and actively participated. The two anticipated interviews with each of the parents became one joint interview. Although I wondered if this could have been problematic to separate individual thoughts and responses, I found that the spouses complemented one another and added on additional detail or experiences to given answers. I did not feel that either parent felt inhibited by having the other

129

present. On the contrary, they seemed to help one another remember stories and offer insights. Follow-up questions were also answered as a pair.

Mr. and Mrs. Patel

This receptive couple seemed a bit skeptical at the onset of the interview but once they realized the conversational tone, they became eager to share their responses, even adding insights beyond the scope of this study. The husband often began the response, then turned to his wife who added on to his answer. At one point she commented that marrying him led to following in him in many ways, including conversation.

Family background. Mr. Patel began by explaining his childhood. He said he had grown up in a wealthy home in Tamil Nadu, the only child of a general manager of a construction company which built bridges and airports. His mother was a housewife who had a seventh grade education, but instilled the value of education in her son. Mr. Patel described how, “I lived as a rich kid in India. Money was not an issue for us.” He attended a private school and often had private tutoring to assist him in his studies. He remembered competition among his classmates but he believed this motivated him. Mr.

Patel said his mother always told him, “Do not compete with others for money earned, rather compete in education. The knowledge gained is eternal.” He took this advice seriously and studied hard. His efforts paid off when his teacher selected him to participate in the national talent test. The results were not recorded but he remembered being proud. He also recalled, “I was in the eighth grade when I was introduced to computers.” This exposure inspired him to later pursue a degree in Computer Science

Engineering. He did so at a private engineering college, affiliated with the highly regarded Anna University in Chennai, the capital city. Later, he moved to a neighboring

130

state called Andhra Pradesh. He explained how the states had been divided into sections based on the language that the people speak. In his childhood state, he spoke Tamil, in the latter he spoke Telugu. Mr. Patel clarified, “I speak several languages. I speak seven in all.”

Mrs. Patel spoke five languages; she had been brought up in Andhra Pradesh by a mother who had an eighth grade education and a father who was a chief engineer at an automobile servicing company. She attended a government university and earned her

Bachelor’s degree in commerce and accountancy. With continued studies, Mrs. Patel earned her first level of cost and work accountancy degree as well.

School background. Education was held in the highest regard in India. Mr. Patel said:

In India, it's not just one individual parent, it's the whole society they say a

respectable job comes from being a respectable graduate. A respectable graduate

means an engineering graduate or a medicine graduate or accounting graduate.

Someone who has decent grades and who is trying to excel in his education. You

try to excel in what you do, not just get by with a C or D. Then that basically has a

role in our future, how you'll be placed in your future, how you'll be placed in

society.

Mrs. Patel declared, “There it is so competitive.” Both Mr. and Mrs. Patel told stories of how grades and rankings in classes were always publically shared in India. Mr. Patel explained, “So everyone writes the test. The teacher corrects and writes the grade. Then she basically takes it out and announces the last name and grade. Everybody knows everybody's grade.” Then, Mrs. Patel said that during college, “They print out and stick it

131

to the walls. Your name, your totals, your exams. The list would be from here to there.

That's how we knew whether we passed or not.” She went on to say, “Everyone knows everybody's grades, every subject. It's not like a secret.” This created a competitive atmosphere, but Mr. and Mrs. Patel agreed that it was a positive motivator to study hard and do well. Mr. Patel said that, “My motivation was to be better.”

In addition, Mr. and Mrs. Patel described how neighbors shared and discussed their children’s rankings. This environment was not the same in the United States. Mrs.

Patel said:

After coming here, that was surprising. What's the big deal in knowing their

grades? Here when I ask, [Kareena] tells me it's wrong to ask anybody's grades.

They say, “No, it will hurt them mamma. You don't even ask them. It's not nice to

ask them.”

Immigration. After their arranged marriage, Mr. and Mrs. Patel had one daughter in India. In 1999, when their daughter, Kareena, was around fourteen months old, they moved to a Midwestern state in the United States. For family reasons, Mr. and Mrs. Patel returned to India from 2004-2006. Then, in 2006, Mr. Patel obtained a position with a software provider company in the United States and returned to this Midwestern state.

Mr. Patel moved his wife and child to the United States “to obtain a good position.” It had been difficult for him to leave his family and homeland but he believed it was the best decision for his family. He said:

[We] left our loved ones there, our parents, brothers, sisters, people who are

dependent on us. We come here and we are struggling. It's a dog eat dog world.

132

You want to be better and not only do you want to survive but you want to send

some money back. You are not able to be there for them.

Mr. Patel explained how did not want those sacrifices to be for nothing. He said, “If you are going to lose those things and then you're not gaining anything . . . you think what have I done in my life? If I have sacrificed that, I should see something being fruitful.”

For him, this meant providing opportunities for his children of which they took advantage. He desired to direct his children into positions of engineering, medicine, accounting, or law. Mr. Patel explained, “The reason is, these have been very lucrative.”

He believed these professions would provide the amount of money needed in order to

“buy a better life” for his daughters. Mr. Patel talked about the importance of education to obtain these goals and how that was his primary focus. He believed, “It depends on the individual parents: some say money and education; some say education; some say just money. There are different focuses but for me it's been education tied.” Mr. and Mrs.

Patel agreed that since they immigrated to the United States, they expected their daughters to take advantage of the opportunities available. Mr. Patel told his daughters,

“You don't want to flip burgers or roll tacos in Taco Bell . . . you didn't have to come to

America to do that.”

Parenting. Mr. and Mrs. Patel had created a home environment which emphasized the importance of education, the philosophy that effort now equated to a better future, and the significance of responsibility. According to Mr. Patel, parents had unspoken responsibilities. He said parents need to, “take care of your family, go to work and then bring back money so that you can take care of them. Nobody says that. It's our responsibility.” The children then had a responsibility as well. Mr. Patel said, “Your

133

responsibility is to study as a kid, as a schoolgirl. Your one responsibility is to study well.

When the daughters did lose focus on their studies, the parents felt the need to re-direct them. Mr. Patel explained, “Sometimes when our kids go jolly on TV, she [Mrs. Patel] says, ‘If you are going to that, you're going to end up flipping burgers.’” Mrs. Patel followed up, “We don't get that much involved, but we make sure they are on track. It's not like grounding them or taking back their phone. We just warn them, that's all.”

Mrs. Patel considered herself fortunate that she could be at home with her daughters when they came home from school. She thought this was an important time.

She said, “When the kids do their homework, you sit with them. . . That's the time that you bond with your kids. That's the time that we tell them some things that get into their head.” Mr. and Mrs. Patel talked about the importance of guiding their daughters but then allowing them to make their own decisions. Mr. Patel said:

We have always talked to them as adults . . . We tell them what is right. We tell

them this is how we would like you to be. There are things that are bad which

could happen. Then at the end of the day, it's your future, how you want to be.

Then we leave the decision with the choices on the table, and you pick.

Sharing homeland culture. Raising their children in the United States was different than their own childhoods, but Mr. and Mrs. Patel shared stories of their upbringing in India to guide Aishwarya and Kareena in making wise decisions now. Mr.

Patel explained how as parents, they “always try to put, not pressure, but talk them into it and then show them this is a better way of living.” One story Mr. Patel shared was:

As a teenager, I could have gone to drugs, smoking, drinking, all bad things could

happen. I had friends from all those. Even though my friends were smoking or

134

drinking, whatever they do is fine, but when you are with me, don't force anything

on to me.

He had wanted to make correct choices in order to have a successful future. He relayed these experiences with his daughters. Mrs. Patel concurred that sharing their “typical

Indian lives” with their daughters gave examples of growing up. She said this showed them how parents had experiences which could guide their children. The parents believed this helped the girls to understand their culture and taught them values on which to base decisions.

Mrs. Patel says, “They know English, Hindi and Telugu. They can read, write and speak. I have taught them. Now the younger one is taking classes in Sanskrit.” Mr. Patel continued to explain that his daughters learn Sanskrit, “because it’s being forgotten by most Indians, the generations have passed and they just don’t remember it. It’s like

Latin. You read it in the Bible, but only a few people can speak it.” Mr. Patel compared other aspects of their Hindu beliefs to other religions as well. He explained how:

The kids will point to a person saying that guy's a Catholic, or that girl is a

Christian and they are doing that. I like to say they are performing a sin. Even in

their religion, even in their faith, it's said to be wrong. And when it's said to be

wrong in our religion as well, it's been said to be wrong in Muslim religion, and

even in the Jewish system.

The Patel parents did acknowledge the difficulties the girls might face having a culture at home which differs from the mainstream one in which they lived. Mrs. Patel likened this situation, “The kid is in a sandwich place, he's in the middle: the school, the the kid is in the middle, the mom.” She reflected on this further:

135

But basically, the kids are tuned to this culture so if they don't follow this culture,

the place they are living in, they felt left out from the group. So what they do, they

try to keep up, to be in the group, you have to follow the norms of the group. And

whatever we try to tell them, it works out only 50% of the time. The other major

role is the school and the friends. But finding the balance is hard . . . The kid

struggles a lot. At school there's peer pressure, at home, there's the parents.

Mr. and Mrs. Patel believed that American acceptance of Indian culture and traditions were readily happening now. Mrs. Patel said:

The people here understand more about the Indian culture so they are now

enjoying the way we deal with things. The culture we bring from back home, we

tell them it's how we do it here, and they are so amazed. They like it that way.

Schools in the United States. The Patel parents acknowledged that American schools had different emphases than Indian schools. Mr. Patel said of American schools,

“Creativity is given more importance. Here they let the kids think.” They believed this to be a positive focus. In addition to academics, Mr. Patel asserted, “During school, along with the education, some values have to be imparted.” When questioned if they felt comfortable allowing a school system, different from their own, to teach values, Mr.

Patel said, “We have trusted the school system here.” Much of this trust stemmed from having great teachers and the manner in which they teach. Mr. Patel said:

Every teacher does have a purpose and irrespective of how good or bad they are,

they are influential. There were a couple of these teachers who were very

dedicated. They made a better life for our kid. We can still remember them. . .

136

They made a real impact. They gave real motivation for our kids, to go to school

and be able to do something.

Mrs. Patel agreed. She stated, “I feel, in this country, the way they teach it, it's wonderful.” Upon further explanation, she explained how teachers were vital in the transition to American schools for her children. She said, “The teacher gets to know them, studies their background, and all that, and then she reacts. She trains them in a different way. The teachers do a very good job here.”

When the Patel parents received letters from the schools indicating that their children had been identified as gifted, they were unsure what this meant. When asked for a definition of giftedness, Mrs. Patel responded, “I have no idea. To be true, there was a lot of competition and we talked to a lot of other parents and they told us the kid has to go to gifted.” Upon reflecting on the education provided for a gifted child, Mrs. Patel continued, “I didn't find any difference.” Her daughters were simply placed in accelerated math and reading classes.

Beliefs on intelligence. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Patel believed that intelligence was a fixed trait. Mr. Patel said, “People are born with something but it’s mainly their environment.” Then Mrs. Patel added on to this description by stating, “There are a lot of causes, a lot of things that add up to this. The environment at home, the surroundings, the knowledge the school gives, peer pressure, and everything.” Finally, the Patel parents asserted that an individual had to have motivation to increase his or her intelligence as well. Mrs. Patel contended, “It has to be that the kids try to be at the top.” Mr. Patel agreed.

137

Future goals. Mr. Patel associated his goals for her daughters with the majority of other parents. He said, “This is the general tendency of many parents, you want to see your kid in a better position than what you were and what your ancestors were. It just trickles down. That's how civilization has developed.”

Aishwarya

The younger of two daughters, fourteen-year-old Aishwarya, began the interview a bit shy and soft-spoken but as we progressed, her demeanor relaxed and she spoke animatedly. She had a confidence about her and a beautiful smile which she shared often.

As we spoke, she twirled her long, black hair in her fingers and placed it on her shoulder.

After a minute or so, she flicked it back with a shrug of her shoulder. She repeated this procedure throughout our time together. Aishwarya seemed secure in her knowledge of her own abilities, yet made several disclaimers about the intelligence of others so as not to seem offensive. She often said, “Oh that sounded bad.” By the middle of our interview, her contagious laugh came easily and her facial expressions exemplified whatever point she was trying to make.

Aishwarya moved back to the United States when she was in the first grade. She did not remember anything significant in the transition but always enjoyed her teachers and attending school. Aishwarya took enrichment classes at K-classes to enhance her mathematical skills and was labeled gifted in the third grade through in-school identification procedures adhering to the state’s definition. She was placed in a pull-out program within her elementary school and then took the few offered advanced classes in middle school. As a freshman, Aishwarya transferred from her local public middle school into the early college entrance magnet high school where her sister attended. She had not

138

been happy to change schools and was upset about leaving her friends. She said, “I cried for the first few weeks but now I like it.” She claimed that now she felt a part of her high school community. In her high school, Aishwarya said there was no gifted education program but she went on to describe the fast-paced nature of her school’s curriculum and the importance of an individual’s motivation in completing each course’s requirements.

Outside of the classroom, Aishwarya was active in her high school’s robotics team and was training to become a project manager. She also competed with the tennis team at her district school because her magnet school did not have sports teams. Within her community, Aishwarya was active as well. She took Hindu and Sanskrit classes every week at her temple in addition to lessons on how to sing traditional Carnatic music. She volunteered both at a children’s hospital and at a children’s science museum in the city.

Being gifted. For Aishwarya being gifted was an innate ability. She said, “Some people are just born gifted; they have that ability to be smart. Giftedness, I feel like that’s something that you either have it or you don’t. You can’t just say I’m going to go and get gifted.” When asked to further describe what it means to be gifted, Aishwarya described,

“the ability to look at things differently, I won’t say better but just differently, maybe you think outside the box or something, and that brings up things like creativity. I think that would be what gifted is.”

Throughout our discussion about being labeled gifted in school, Aishwarya made statements about herself but then considered the implications of her what her statement might have implied about other students’ giftedness. She then altered her original statements. For example, she said:

139

When I think gifted in school, I mean it’s wrong of me to do so, but I think of

learning content quicker than others. I know that’s not true because some people

take a little bit longer, but when they get it, they know it a lot better than people

who do learn it faster.

Aishwarya made a distinction between being gifted and having knowledge. She said,

“knowledge and stuff, that’s acquired as you go.” When asked further, Aishwarya said,

“The main thing about being smart in school and being intelligent and begin considered intelligent is basically your attitude about it and your work ethic and how much you actually care and want to do it.”

Artifact. Aishwarya chose a World Math Day certificate to represent herself. She said:

I remember we had this thing called World Math day in fifth grade. There was

this day where everyone gets on [the internet] and competes. Kids all around the

world would get on and do these math problems. In fifth grade it was only open

to gifted kids. I was eleventh for the most points. This is a good example of who I

am.

Work habits. Aishwarya talked about focusing on her future goals inspired her to study and work hard. She said, “Just thinking about the future, thinking about what I want to do, thinking about myself in 20 years from now, 30 years from now, that always motivates me to do better.” This futuristic mindset seemed to increase her perseverance.

Aishwarya believed that “You always have to fail in order to improve. You have to get that one failing grade at least once to appreciate those good grades.” Later, when asked for exemplification, Aishwarya shared an anecdote. She said:

140

I remember in fifth grade, there were these math tests and I would get like an 80

and I was so upset. I was terrified but when I showed my mom she was just like

just study and do better on the next one . . . then I would get like 100’s.

Aishwarya’s school. This STEM magnet high school was the same as was previously described in Case 2. Aishwarya was a freshman and Trisha was a sophomore; however, since students took courses based on completion, not age, there was one class in which both students were present and observed. Throughout my observations of

Aishwarya, I noted her sitting with a wide array of students, working with them, and interacting socially. The first class for Aishwarya was an advisory period where the focus of the day was future planning. The teacher charged the students with looking at their upcoming projects and creating a calendar in which to work to their completion. I found this complementary to the futuristic emphasis that Aishwarya heard at home, in addition to mirroring how Aishwarya had expressed her own motivation. She talked about how she envisioned her future goals and with these thoughts in mind, she overcame any obstacles in order to pursue them. She said her mom always encouraged her to think about the idea, “You reap what you sow.” Future planning and working hard to reach one’s goals were infused aspects into her life.

Aishwarya’s trigonometry class was a flip class where the students were required to watch the teacher’s instruction on-line at home and then worked on problems during class to confirm that they understood the previously presented concepts. The idea, according to Aishwarya, was that the teacher was available to answer questions as the students worked through the problems. Aishwarya said she had been skeptical at first but now understood how this mode of instruction could be beneficial. During my

141

observations, I noted how the students were asked to show their understanding of problems by using dry erase markers to write math problems on their desks. The teacher then circulated the classroom and checked their work. The next type of problem was then projected on the board through an LCD projector. The students erased their previous work on their desks and tried the next problem. I could not understand how Aishwarya and the other students could use the in-class work at home when they studied. Aishwarya explained how she used her phone to take a picture of her work on the desk, whenever she thought she would need to refer back to it. I did not witness her doing this while in her classroom but did note students using phones in other classes.

Aishwarya had no memories of being bored in school. She remembered occasions in middle school when she had to wait for peers to finish their work and she longed to read a book, but she did not because, “I didn’t’ want to get into trouble.” Instead, she tried to learn more. She described the importance of listening to others’ questions in order to enhance her own understanding. Expounding on this idea, she gave an example of herself asking a question in class which could then assist other students who might not ask but could still learn from the answer. During my observations, I noted Aishwarya asking teachers many questions throughout her day. One time, Aishwarya asked a teacher a question privately to maintain quiet work time. The teacher then addressed her question to the entire class because it was vital for all the students to have the clarification that

Aishwarya sought. She clearly was an active participant in class but when I questioned her about ever hiding her intelligence she said she wouldn’t hide it but sometimes she

“would resent being smart because others would label me as a ‘nerd’ . . . it was evident that being intelligent or smart made me different, sometimes not in a good way.”

142

Aishwarya said she had never been asked to teach others in class after she mastered a concept, but she believed an effective teacher realized students could continue improving as individuals even after they had completed classwork. She said, “A good teacher recognizes that if you're done with something, then you need to practice for yourself.” Aishwarya explained how this might be due to her school’s system of a student progressing only if he or she could score well on a mastery test. She said, “When it comes down to the test, you're not going to have that little friend, like a safety net to back you up.” During my observations, however, I noted several times when students sought out Aishwarya for clarification or explanation on various topics. She always complied willingly.

Group work did seem to elicit frustration. Aishwarya felt that people anticipated she would do the majority of the work assigned to a group. She described, “Being a freshman and being Indian makes it even worse. People would just automatically assume that I'll be okay with doing all the work just because I want that grade.” She was uncertain whether this was due to being Indian and the stereotype associated with that, or due to her past record of academic success. Regardless, Aishwarya said, “If I had the choice, I'd most often pick working alone.”

Parents. Aishwarya described her home environment as revolving around academics. She said, “The environment at home it's always a lot more studious. It's a lot more studious. It's like get home, get your homework done, do this, do that. Since my whole family is hard working, that definitely helps.” Since her parents did not study in the

United States, the English they spoke was different so she did not seek their assistance in that subject area. However, since math is universal, she had asked her mom for assistance

143

on several occasions. Many times Mrs. Patel would show Aishwarya a new method of calculating problems. She said:

I liked to ask because she would show me a new method for doing it. So instead

of the mainstream way of doing it, like the teachers would teach us in class, she’d

tell me a faster way, or a more efficient way. And I found that would help me a

lot.

She claimed knowing two methods had helped her in her overall mathematical understanding. Aishwarya said her parents encouraged her to study now and then she could enjoy the benefits later. She said, “My mom always says, ‘If you work hard now then you can enjoy your life when you’re in your job and relaxed.’”

Aishwarya said about her parents’ involvement, “They motivate me.” She said,

“It’s not like my parents would force me to always do this or always do that, they just say that the future is in your hands.” Futuristic planning did motivate Aishwarya. In addition, she did say that her parents “push me to do better.” Aishwarya said it used to bother her when her parents would describe other students’ accomplishments. She said, “I was like why do you keep comparing me?” Later, Aishwarya realized that “Other parents’ kids were doing well and they expected the same from me.” Yet with these high expectations came understanding. Aishwarya explained that if she “got a bad grade, they were just like, ‘It’s okay, just try and do better.’” Aishwarya believed that the most pressure did not come from her parents but from herself. “I feel that if I get a bad grade or anything like that, I feel that I’ll disappoint them but I know that they won’t be; they understand.”

Upon reflection, Aishwarya said, “I feel like all the academic pressure I felt, I put on myself . . . I want that 100 and anything less than that is not perfect.”

144

Culture. When asked about her Indian culture, Aishwarya said, “In India, you wouldn't have the same opportunities that you have here. I'm always thinking you should take advantage of the opportunities you have, so that motivates me to do better.” She went on to explain how there was a sense of obligation to do well with the opportunities provided. In fact she said that her biggest challenge as a gifted Indian American student was, “That expectation of having to do well.”

Aishwarya compared the Indian culture to that of her European American peers’ households. She said:

Not that the other people don't focus on school, it's just less, to a lesser degree. I

feel like people who are in different households they compliment kids a lot. They

don't put as high of a stress on high academics as they do on sports or on music. I

understand that you need to be a well-rounded student for people to recognize

you, but having that good academic base, it's less of an importance to other people

than to Indian parents. Academics is huge for them, then extra-curricular comes

after that. I feel like in Caucasian households priorities lie in different things.

When comparing herself to her sister, Aishwarya said that Kareena, “is more true to

Indian values and customs or understands them better than I do, but sometimes I am less embarrassed to be doing something totally Indian.” Overall, Aishwarya associated her Indian culture with her own identity and was proud of who she was. She said:

I don't think I've ever tried to hide my culture. However, when it comes to my

bindi, it's annoying when people stare but don't make an attempt to ask about it.

Other than that, I don't really feel embarrassed, nor do I feel the need to hide who

I am.

145

Indian stereotype. Aishwarya said that “Everyone thinks that all the Indians are smart.” She went on stating her beliefs about the stereotype, “It is not good to still keep those stereotypes because they are not true. Your background shouldn't affect the way people see you and the way people treat you.” She acknowledged that stereotypes were unmerited and yet she contributed to this belief by stating, “But also, I feel like the stereotype that Asians are smart, that definitely plays a huge role because I don't want to be that one dumb Indian.”

Beliefs on competition. Aishwarya described how competition seemed to be everywhere, in her old school and her new school. She said:

I feel like there’s going to be competition wherever you go. Most often than not,

you’re going to find someone who has the somewhat the same ability as you do.

You will then find yourself competing with them, like it or not; comparing your

scores and something like that. I find this motivates me.

Aishwarya described her close friend she had in middle school with whom she competed.

She described her friend and their relationship:

She had good work ethic and everything. We were very competitive; not to the

point that if one of did bad we would laugh at the other. We were really good

friends. We would compare math test scores. It wasn’t hard core, it was friendly

competition.

Interestingly, Aishwarya did not feel that there was competition between her and her sister. She said, “I’ve never really had an issue, or a sort of a pressure to do as well as my sister. I just know my capabilities. I’m not worried about it.”

Kareena

146

The eldest daughter, sixteen year-old Kareena, was more soft-spoken than her sister and answered each of the interview questions after pausing for thought. She seemed mature and business-like, especially when the recorder was turned on and then became more expressive in her conversation when it was turned off. This young woman had penetrating eyes and a poised demeanor. She wore a bindi on her forehead of which she commented, “I always get asked about the Bindi that I wear. People mostly ask if it’s a sticker or a tattoo.” Kareena wore the cultural adornment and was active in cultural activities. She took Carnatic singing lessons, studied Sanskrit language, and participated in Vedic cultural classes at her temple. She was a serious student at school and active in extra-curricular activities. She played on the district’s public high school tennis team and had proudly earned her varsity letter for it. She had also competed in Science Olympiad and Power of the Pen. In addition, she volunteered her time at a children’s hospital, a local library, and a camp.

Being gifted. Kareena believed that giftedness was not innate, rather it was a cultivated trait which resulted from an individual’s surroundings. She said, “Everyone is born the same, but based on what people are exposed to that makes them gifted. I don't think anyone's born gifted. It's just what you're around.”

Gifted in school, for Kareena means, “When a teacher teaches, you can catch it faster. You are able to understand it more. Students who can understand something and pick it up faster are gifted.” But again, she believed this ability was based on the students’ exposure and knowledge base they had accrued.

Beliefs on intelligence. When asked about her thoughts on intelligence, Kareena associated intelligence with knowledge. She believed intelligence could be increased by

147

gaining more knowledge. She said, “I think it's an exposure thing. If you read more, you obviously gain more knowledge. You are more interested and then you become more intelligent about that topic.” When asked for exemplification, Kareena described a friend of hers. She said, “He’s part of this Chemistry society. He gets articles; he’s always reading. If you ask him something, he'll just rattle out equations. He knows everything about this topic. He wants to be a Chemist so he's doing all this.” Later, Kareena reflected on her own abilities. She said:

I think you're smarter because you do more work, but I don't think it's about

genetics. I don't think I'm smart because my parents are smart. That might be

some part of it but I think it's because I work hard.

Artifact. Kareena had experienced academic success and yet when she was asked to choose an artifact to represent her as a gifted Indian American student, she chose her varsity letter, earned through tennis. She described:

This is something I'm really proud of. Since I started playing tennis, I always

wanted to play varsity and get my varsity letter. Last year, my sophomore year, I

was close but didn't get it. Then this year, I [had] a sense of accomplishment

because I had always hoped for my letter. After academics, tennis is right

afterwards. I really like playing. Tennis is something I can vent out.

I believe this ties into her identity as well for Kareena described how she did not mind being considered a “nerd” in school for that has connotations of working hard and being smart. She said this “was a positive thing.” She did not want to be considered a “geek” however, as that word described those individuals who had no outside activities or

148

strengths. By earning her varsity letter, she not only demonstrated her persistence and work ethic, Kareena established herself as accomplished both in school and on the courts.

Kareena’s school. Kareena was a designated mentor within her school: the

STEM magnet high school described in Case 2. Since Kareena had completed her high school requirements in two years, she was now participating in “Learning Centers” whereby she took courses at the affiliated university, as well as in her school. The school website described how the learning centers assisted students in transitioning into college and required a culminating capstone research project which asked students to demonstrate knowledge in a real life application.

Kareena thoroughly enjoyed the university classes but got frustrated when she did not earn her historical A grade in one of them. She still returned to the high school for advisory period to consult with teachers, work on projects, seek assistance or make plans for the future. On the day I had been planning on observing her interact with her advisor and peers during advisory time at her high school, Kareena was invited to observe a kidney transplant. She expressed how much she enjoyed the real-life opportunities provided for her. When I was at the school on a different day, we did sit down and discuss aspects of her education, in addition to her interviews.

Work habits. During the interview, Kareena brought up how she addressed content which was difficult for her. She described one of her university courses. She said,

“I ask different people. Each person explains it to me in different ways and it registers in my mind. I ask them every day. It just didn't stick in my head until one day it finally did.”

Parents. Kareena described her parents’ philosophy of “You have to study, be successful” as a direct result from their Indian heritage. She described how her parents

149

pushed her but it was motivating for Kareena. She stated, “I think about my parents, they are always like ‘You can do better on this.’ I'm thinking of what I should do.” If Kareena is unsure of how to proceed she said, “My parents have always helped me out if I'm having trouble with something.” When asked for an example, Kareena described, “They are always looking for ways that either they can help me or they are looking for sources that can eventually help me. My mom is always looking at websites.” She described how they have offered tutoring, enrichment classes, and meetings with other families who might be able to offer assistance.

Culture. Kareena described her Indian culture and the influence it had upon her.

She said, “They are very study oriented. Study, study, study.” This helps motivate her because, “It gets into my head, study, study, study. It's not a bad thing, because they want us to study to become successful so everyone studies, so you study too.” With the overall goal of high achievement, Kareena said that the environment leads to comparisons with other families. She said, “Both in my family and my community are very study oriented.

When they [Indians] talk to other Indian families, they are like, ‘Oh their children are doing this, why aren't you doing this? Think about doing this.’” This type of comparisons, resulted in a feeling of competition, but Kareena believed this was not all bad. She said, “There is competition in the Indian community but I think it motivates me.

I feel like there is because when someone does better than you, you're like I want to do better than them.”

When comparing her Indian culture to the culture of her non-Indian peers,

Kareena said:

150

I think there is a difference. If I compare to my American friends, they are still

like you have to get these good grades but they are also give importance to other

things like piano, sports. I know my friend plays three sports, fall, winter and

spring. They put more emphasis on sports but they also care about academics. I

put attention on sports, but I put more on academics.

Indian stereotype. Kareena talked about noticing the Indian stereotype. She said,

“I feel that once anyone hears, an Indian, they are like, ‘oh a smartie.’ She became frustrated when that stereotype transcended into groups where she was expected to the majority of the work. She described a situation when my lab member asked if he did the lab and he said, ‘No but [Kareena] will do it.’” She did not differentiate between expectations being based on her heritage or based on her past performance as her sister did. Regardless, Kareena preferred to work alone or with students of her choice.

Challenge. Kareena said that her biggest challenge of being a gifted Indian

American student was “I feel like I have to live up to that expectations that all Indians or

Asians are smart.”

In-Case Summary

The Patel family respected one another and complemented each other’s roles within the family unit. Many of their beliefs around academic achievement and work ethic were similar; however other beliefs, such as definitions of giftedness, differed.

School: Gifted Education

Interesting that although raised in the same family, Aishwarya and Kareena had different views on what it meant to be gifted. While Aishwarya believed giftedness was a genetic trait (with traits such as thinking outside of the box and being creative), Kareena

151

was adamant that becoming gifted was just about hard work. The older sister cited an example of her peer who exceled in chemistry and described how much extra time and effort he put forth in his studies. The Rao parents said they did not fully understand what giftedness meant, only that it equated to accelerated classes for their daughters.

Beliefs on Intelligence

Upon further probing, Aishwarya did concur that hard work, learning from one's mistakes, and having the appropriate attitude led to an increase in intelligence. She described one period of time when she had earned an eighty percent on a specific math unit, Aishwarya simply had to work hard until she started getting one hundred percent grades. Mr. Patel seemed to blend the ideas of his two daughters as he asserted that gifted individuals were born with “something” but then circumstances determined what the individual became. Mrs. Patel added on to the discussion by claiming, “You cannot only point at one cause. There are a lot of causes, a lot of things that add up to this. The environment at home, the surroundings, the knowledge the school gives, peer pressure, and everything. It has to be that the kids try to be at the top.” She asserted all of these factors contributed to high intelligence and achievement.

Home Environment

All members in this case described a home environment conducive to studying and supportive of academic endeavors. Aishwarya claimed, “Since my whole family is hard working, that definitely helps” her to focus on her own studies. This environment was further confirmed with the parents’ descriptions of how they believed they had a responsibility to take care of their children with a conducive academic home environment.

152

The daughters did not feel competitive with one another but they did feel strong encouragement from their parents. Aishwarya and Kareena knew of their parents’ high expectations placed on them. They believed their parents wanted the best for them, just as all other parents did. The girls said they were reminded of these high expectations when their parents told them of other students’ accomplishments. Both girls separately stated this comparison used to bother them but they now realized their parents just wanted to inspire them so they could be successful. Aishwarya said whenever she has not fared well on a test, she felt she would disappoint her parents but upon reflection, she said, “I know they won’t be. They understand.” In fact, there were no direct consequences whenever the girls did not meet the parents’ high expectations. Mr. and Mrs. Patel simply asked how they could assist the child and then they reminded the girls of the importance of studying now for the future. Mrs. Patel described how she never grounded the girls or took away items as consequences. She simply talked with them. Aishwarya felt no direct pressure placed on her from her parents, rather any academic pressure she felt, she said was self-induced (even stating she was a perfectionist).

Mr. and Mrs. Patel described how they have always spoken to their daughters as adults. They offered guidance and assistance when needed but did not come down too harshly. Both daughters felt their parents had always provided assistance whenever the need arose. Kareena talked about her parents offering tutoring, extra classes, connections to people as resources, and websites whenever she expressed a difficulty in an area.

Aishwarya discussed how she often sought help from her parents in math.

Culture

153

According to the Patel sisters, the Indian community resounded with the mentality of “study, study, study.” There was competition among the students within the community to do well and have academic success. Kareena described how the Indian parents continually compared their children’s accomplishments. “When they talk to other

Indian families, they are like, oh their children are doing this, why aren't you doing this?”

Aishwarya agreed as she said that since academics and a successful career were the top priorities among the Indian community, she did not want to be singled out as the one

“dumb Indian.”

Sharing their homeland culture was important to the Patel parents. By putting their children into Sanskrit classes, Mr. and Mrs. Patel strove to uphold the traditional language of their heritage. Likening Sanskrit to Latin, Mr. Patel explained how many people were forgetting their roots which were vitally important. Aishwarya and Kareena were learning to speak, read, and write this ancient language much in the same manner as learning a foreign language. In weekly classes, they had authentic teaching by using video conferencing from India with each student’s progress monitored by a tutor.

Both parents demonstrated their belief of assimilating and blending into

American culture while still hanging on to important cultural family values. They described how they understood there was peer pressure for the girls to fit in and the parents often conceded that Indian traditions only took place in Indian environments, such as their home, temple or social gathering. Mrs. Patel said she told her girls to

“balance both cultures.” She was empathetic to the position in which her children were placed with Indian parents at home purporting one culture and then the school being part of another. She compared the child to being “in the middle of a sandwich.”

154

When the parents talked with Aishwarya and Kareena about social issues they might encounter and the proper Hindu manner in which to handle them, the parents shared their own experiences, but they also reminded their daughters of their friends’

Christian beliefs, often promoting similar modest or proper behavior. When probed further, Mr. Patel explained if his daughters understood how all religions were based on morality, they might have less of a hesitation adhering to their own faith when faced with decisions. However, the parents gave the decision-making power to their children. They described how, “We tell them what is right. We tell them this is how we would like you to be. Then at the end of the day, it's your future. . .”They explained how choices could impact their future, but then ultimately, the parents left the decision to their daughters.

Aishwarya and Kareena did not feel the need to hide their culture in any way.

They both wore a bindi on their foreheads, like their mother. Aishwarya claimed she was comfortable with who she was yet she got annoyed when people stared at her bindi but did not ask about it. Both sisters agreed they were equally “Americanized” and while

Kareena might have had a deeper understanding of the Indian customs, Aishwarya believed she participated in Indian activities more freely. Kareena explained how since she was older than her sister when they moved back to the United States, she may have had a more difficult time adjusting to the culture differences. I am uncertain whether this is due to birth order, time spent in the United States, or simply personality differences.

Conclusion

Within each case, the student and parent participants described their lives as

Indian immigrant families living in the United States. They talked about their home environment, with parents infusing their homeland culture, and the students feeling the

155

high expectations from their parents. Although each family was unique in relationships between members, the experiences of the individuals, and the perspectives they held, many components of home and family were similar. The participants described their

Indian culture and several facets were also described as the same, even though they were not all part of the same Indian community, nor did the emigrated from the same Indian state. Discussions of school, even when some students in the study attended the same building, differed in the participants’ views of various aspects of education. Personal understandings of intelligence, and factors which motivated participants varied; however some beliefs resounded throughout the cases. The next chapter considers cross-case themes which emerged within the internal factors of self and the external factors of home, culture, and school.

156

Chapter V

Data Analysis

The analysis process demanded detailed work and recursive thinking. Even though the following steps were described in sequential order of action or thought process, many steps were revisited or recreated to revise or rethink analysis. The overarching research question was “How do identified gifted Indian American students and their parents perceive various factors influencing the students’ academic success?”

The analysis then, considered each of the components of the factors which emerged in the individual cases. The themes found between each of the four cases which addressed the primary research question were presented. Overall, the themes revolved around the environmental factors of the families’ home environment, their Indian community, the schools which the students attended, and the students’ internal beliefs about motivation and intelligence.

Components of the participants’ perceptions regarding environmental and internal factors addressed the sub-questions of: How do identified gifted Indian American students and their parents define giftedness? How do identified gifted Indian American students and their parents perceive intelligence and its malleability? How do identified gifted students and their parents believe their Indian background influences their pursuit of academic achievement? Each of these questions is further addressed in the discussion section of this chapter.

Home Environment

Home is the first world that humans know. It is here that individuals are first nourished and protected from the elements. It is here that social mores of the family are

157

instilled. When basic needs of a child are not met, or the social values do not meet those within mainstream society, the child learns that, too. Language, health, self-worth, acceptance, order, and dreams are all nurtured or rejected even in these early stages of life. While some consider home a haven full of warmth, comfort, and protection, others view home as a prison full of rules, punishment, and darkness. For each individual, home makes an everlasting imprint. Views of self and others stem from the home. It is where journeys begin. The major themes which emerged from these four families concerning the home environment are (1) academic climate, (2) parents push— but in a good way, and (3) plan for the future-work now, relax later.

Home

Academic Parents Push Plan for the Climate future

Figure 1. Emergent Themes about Home.

1. The Academic Climate

The parent participants in this study modeled the importance of hard work through their own examples and through creating a home environment which exemplified this. When considering her work ethic, Aishwarya in Case 4 said, “Since my whole family is hard working, that definitely helps.” There was no question about prioritizing how her time would be spent. She studied first. Mrs. Sharma in Case 3 talked about establishing this discipline of hard work. She described how even when her daughters were young, they were expected to come home, finish their homework, and then they could do as they pleased. Parents in other cases described similar expectations of their

158

children even when they were very young. Mr. Patel stated that it was the students’ responsibility to study and do well in school. His wife, Mrs. Patel, noted an emotional component to studying as well, “When the kids do their homework, you sit with them… that's the time that you bond with your kids.” Studying was placed as the highest priority and was expected to be addressed before anything else. Even though Mrs.Yagalla was not fluent in English, she still monitored their sons’ homework to ensure that it was complete before they were allowed to play.

Setting up guidelines for the students’ time and monitoring the students’ progression within a caring environment fit Baumrind’s (1968) authoritative parenting style. In each of the four families, evidence of this style of parenting was apparent. In the

Rao family, the girls proudly displayed their highlighted hair even though that had been previously banned. Mrs. Rao said, “They were asking and asking, so I said okay let them go. I don't like it, but it's okay.” Suren in the Yagalla family talked about telling his parents what he wanted to do on the weekends and his parents allowing it. Although Mrs.

Sharma was not so quick to make the allowances her daughters requested, she did admit to giving into their desires after some time had passed. Mrs. Patel described how her daughters would make arrangements for projects and then she would support them by driving and providing assistance.

In addition, each student participant told how their parents placed them in math enrichment classes starting at a young age which gave them additional homework to complete. When describing his purpose for tutoring and enrichment classes, Mr. Rao said, “I believe that if they learn concepts thoroughly, the application is fine, easier. I thought the good background in the early days, in the maths, would help them

159

fundamentally.” Several of the parent participants described how these classes set up an academic foundation for their children; thus they willingly spent time and money. Several of the student participants acknowledged that they believed these enrichment classes gave them the knowledge to be more advanced in their math classes in elementary school.

Sheela stated, “I did K-classes when I was little, and that helped me get ahead in math. By the time we were learning fractions in elementary school, I was already learning how to make graphs based on equations.” The parents also purchased reading and math workbooks for the students to complete during the summer months. Books of all kinds were noted in each of the homes of the four cases. Students were encouraged to read and were often taken to the public library. This type of positive academic home climate, congruent with academic values set forth by schools, along with high expectations from the parents, has been shown to lead to a high levels of student achievement (Campbell &

Verna, 2007).

2. Parents Push—But in a Good Way

Throughout the cases, the student participants agreed that their parents encouraged them to achieve and pursue specific careers, but there was no direct pressure placed on them (resulting in grounding for example). Aishwarya said, “It’s not like my parents would force me to always do this or always do that. They just say that your future is in your hands.” The majority of the student participants agreed with this sentiment and shared experiences exemplifying their parents trying to help them achieve instead of demanding in any way. Suren in Case 1 and Sheela in Case 3 specifically talked about how their parents asked them about grades. If the grades were below an A, the parents asked how they could help the students. Trisha, however, called this type of involvement

160

from her parents “emotional blackmail” whereby the expectations were set high and if not attained, the consequences were feelings of not reaching the previously set goals.

The parent participants acknowledged the pressure to achieve felt by the students.

Mrs. Sharma said her daughters, “know the pressure. And sometimes I feel like that is also good. It keeps their mind into that and not roaming around.” The parents talked about motivating their children through stories and explanations. Mr. and Mrs. Patel believed that since they had life experience, they should, “always try to put, not pressure, but talk them into it and then show them this is a better way of living.” The parents all concurred that this better way of living was obtained through pursuing a career in math, science, or commerce. Their experiences in India had led them to this conclusion. Mr.

Yagalla explained the three narrow tracks which were available to him as a student. All of the parents concurred that their children should pursue one of those paths as well in order to make a good living. With the child’s interest in mind, Mrs. Sharma explained,

“Again, we keep telling them the stories, the hardships we went through . . . and as a natural tendency of every parent to be better than yourself, I want my kids to be better than me. That's what we keep telling them.” Other parents, such as Mr. Patel, used similar language to describe the natural tendency for parents to want their children to do better than they did. This mentality of encouragement and motivation through demonstrating values of hard work, perseverance, and discipline are congruent with the literature on parents of successful gifted children (Bloom, 1985; Feldman & Piirto, 2002; Olszewski-

Kubilius, 2002).

3. Plan for the Future—Work Now, Relax Later

161

Several of the student participants described how a philosophy permeated their culture and their homes: Work hard now for future benefit. Aishwarya described how her mother often told her to put in her time and effort as a student so she could relax as an adult in a stable job. She seemed to embrace this philosophy as she agreed this was the best way to proceed in life. Sonya and Sheela agreed with the concept of working now for later, but they were not happy about what that entailed for them now as students. Mrs.

Sharma agreed with her daughters when they complained that all of the hard work was not fun. She tried to explain to them, “You'll have your time; now is not the time.” She modeled this view by exemplifying how they (Mr. and Mrs. Sharma) did not accomplish their move to the United States through fun. Their focus had been and continues to be on educational opportunities. They worked toward and saved their money for that goal. It was difficult for her daughters to understand how saving money was their parents’ priority. In Case 4, the parents had also been known to tell their daughters to work now for the benefit of their future. According to Mr. and Mrs. Patel, they told their girls that by watching television instead of working on their studies, the parents’ move to the

United States to provide more opportunities for their daughters would have been for naught because the girls would end up “flipping burgers.” This seemed quite a dire threat coming from a vegetarian family.

Students’ Schools

Schools have an invaluable role in the development of talent. Programs for the gifted, teachers’ encouragement, challenging curriculum, and intellectual climate all have the potential to assist or squelch the passion and talents of young people. In addition, schools are depended upon to guide students in suitable values in order to prepare them

162

for being productive citizens within American society. Oftentimes, schools are expected to fill in the gaps of instructing well-rounded individuals when homes are not proficient in doing so. The demands are huge and the consequences immense. When gifted students present even more needs than the typical learner, schools are asked to provide for them and the response often determines the gifted learner’s developmental trajectory. In this study, the themes which emerged pertaining to the schools where the students’ attended are (1) the gifted label, (2) participants’ schools in the United States, and (3) teachers matter.

School

Schools in the The Gifted Label United States Teachers Matter

Figure 2. Emergent themes about school.

The Gifted Label

The families in this study concurred that being gifted in school, with a test as the determining factor, meant a student possessed certain knowledge ahead of his or her classmates and needed further challenge. Trisha said that being considered gifted in school was, “To be above and beyond your grade level.” While Aishwarya claimed that one could not go out and “get gifted” she did assert that through diligence and hard work, one could gain knowledge and become more intelligent. Her father, Mr. Patel, also contended that gifted individuals were born with “something” but then circumstances

163

determined whether that potential was developed. The other participants attributed the gifted label to educational opportunities. Kajol asserted that people became gifted by taking enrichment classes and cultivating their interests.

Other participants added that students became gifted through studying, family support, home environment, peer influence, and personal motivation. Sheela added specific personality traits such as being unique and seeking self-improvement. However, later in the interview, she started to question her own assertions and concluded that talent, derived through hard work and studying, was the same as giftedness. Regardless of the derivations of their giftedness, none of the students felt the need to hide their gifted label from their teachers or peers. There seemed to be no “social stigma” (Coleman, 2011, p.

377) for these gifted students which makes sense as academic achievement was congruent with and expected within their home and cultural environments. However, a negative attribute of the gifted label was described by Trisha which aligned with studies done on students’ feelings about the gifted label (Berlin, 2009; Pereira & Gentry, 2013;

Shaunessy, et al., 2007). Trisha echoed the students’ perceptions in these studies when she described the pressures placed upon her by teachers as an identified gifted student and the assumptions that she did not need any assistance with challenging work.

When students were asked to choose an artifact to represent themselves as gifted

Indian American students, the results varied. Two students (Aishwarya and Trisha) chose math certificates as their artifacts. They mentioned their math accomplishments and

Trisha commented on the pride she felt. Suren and Kareena chose artifacts related to tennis. Both of these participants explained their enjoyment of the game. Kareena contributed that this artifact showed her sense of achievement since she persevered after

164

defeat and earned her varsity letter for tennis. Sonya chose a non-fiction book to demonstrate the facts that Indians know while Kajol chose a caricature picture of herself and her sister. Sheela said that her artifact was a circle because as a gifted individual, she felt she was well-rounded. Her multitude of activities seemed to demonstrate the truth of that belief. Overall, the variation of artifact selections and explanations demonstrate the diversity among gifted students and their unique personalities.

Participants’ Schools in the United States

Although this study’s intent was not to evaluate the schools or teachers, notations and reflections were noted in terms of the educational context provided to the students and their responses within that context. Student participants in this study attended and were observed in three different school buildings. The public high school and middle schools were large entities and had numerous course offerings. Several levels of math were offered for example. The STEM magnet school had fewer choices but since students were encouraged to move at a faster rate and more at their own pace, the students

(Aishwarya, Kareena, and Trisha) all found acceleration or advancement options available here as well. Acceleration has been shown to be advantageous in summative reports on gifted education studies (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004; Assouline,

Colangelo, VanTassel-Baska, & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2015). When student participants talked about being in gifted programs (primarily in middle school), they described the main benefit was being in classes where they were with same-ability peers. Sonya appreciated these advanced courses. She said that when she was in classes with gifted students, “They know the answer for some questions, and I know the answer for some questions, so it's not like I know every answer compared to if I was in a normal

165

classroom.” Her only complaint was that she desired more, like a gifted science class.

Only math and language arts had gifted options in her middle school.

A talent-development philosophy of advancement within a domain trajectory seemed to be prevalent in these schools (Subotnik, et al., 2011). For example, in middle school, Kajol and Sonya were placed in classes based on their previous demonstrated knowledge of math, not an ability score. Kajol was taking an advanced math course integrating sixth and seventh grade curriculum, and Sonya was taking an accelerated math course covering seventh and eighth grade math as well as an advanced Language

Arts courses. The high school students in the public school (Sheela and Suren) were taking advanced or accelerated coursework also based on their previous achievement in domain-specific areas. Suren said he appreciated a class which challenged him, “because it makes me think.”

Aishwarya and Trisha were on fast-paced trajectories in the magnet high school which would have them finishing high school curriculum by their second year of school.

Then they were planning on taking university courses though the school’s learning centers as Kareena was doing. Through observations and experiences shared by the students, it could be concluded that the students did not feel bored or disengaged from the material being presented. In fact, Suren claimed, “I was not ever bored.” Although individual situations were shared when the teacher’s influence seemed to limit the engagement of the students, most students reported feeling challenged and the need to work hard to be at the top of their classes. The students also consistently reported their appreciation of working in classes with same-ability peers, despite age differences. This

166

environment increased their desire to work in groups and resulted in descriptions of more inquiry-based learning and life application of content.

Teachers Matter

While it might seem obvious, it is important to note accelerated curriculum was not all which inspired the academic needs of these gifted students. When asked about the teachers in their accelerated or advanced classrooms, the students described effective teachers acting as coaches or expert resources. Both Sheela and Suren talked about and were observed working independently without the direct guidance of the teacher. The teachers in some of their Advanced Placement courses were available to offer direction or assistance but did not teach as sole provider of information. Suren described how his teacher conducted his AP Physics class as a resource ready to answer questions but still allowed the students to proceed with their learning at their own pace.

In other courses, students told how lectures were limited and more application and research-based learning took place in their accelerated classes. Even in sixth grade, Sonya told how her teachers made all the difference in her engagement and enjoyment of classes. She contrasted her math teacher who created stations for the students and had them work on projects, to her science teacher who simply put in movies about the concepts being studied. Sonya had always enjoyed science but this year she was discouraged in this class, since little learning was taking place. Math, in comparison, was her favorite class, and she felt she was learning much due to the teacher’s organization and application of material. Trisha claimed that her willingness to ask questions within a class was largely dependent upon how the teacher set the tone and made her feel comfortable doing so.

167

Mr. and Mrs. Patel described the importance of teachers in setting the educational foundation for their children and how vital these teachers were in their acclimation to the

United States. Mr. Patel felt, “Every teacher does have a purpose and irrespective of how good or bad they are, they are influential. There were a couple of these teachers who were very dedicated. They made a better life for our kid.” The Rao parents also felt the impact of exceptional teachers on their children. They discussed how the transition to American schools was much smoother because of some influential teachers their children had in elementary school. In three of the four cases, the parents brought up the idea that schools should be trusted when teaching and guiding their children. Mr. Rao said, “The school's role is very important. Both in values and academics. Education is not just about reading books or something. It should be some practical application and building character.”

When asked if the parents were comfortable allowing teachers of American culture to instruct their Indian children in value and character development, they resounded with the affirmative.

Culture

The culture in which one is submerged informs individuals on expectations for code of conduct, hierarchies within communities and families, language, religion, and social mores. Often times, the culture surrounding an individual is subtly ingrained because it is practiced by the majority of the population. Immigrants, however, have the unique situation of living within a mainstream culture that they desire their children to learn while trying to impart their homeland culture to ensure understanding of their heritage. The themes concerning culture which emerged from the cases in this study include: (1) values of the Indian culture; (2) challenges of living in American society; (3)

168

model minority stereotype; (4) parents’ educational backgrounds: Indian school system; and, (5) competition as part of culture.

Culture

Challenges of Parents’ Values of the living in Model Competition as Educational Indian Culture American Minority part of Culture backgrounds Society Stereotype

Figure 3. Emergent themes about culture.

Values of the Indian Culture

According to the participants in this study, Indian culture focused on academics.

The primary intent was for students to pursue degrees in engineering, medicine, or math.

Sonya explained how Indian children were expected to follow one of these paths of study. They were not to go to college to play sports, for example. Mrs. Sharma expressed how this belief system was part of her identity. She said, “I can't just say, well you're good at tennis so you can get a 3.0 GPA and focus on tennis, and you can be a good player. I just cannot do that. I cannot justify it. Maybe my brain is tuned so that education is most important for me.” Holding education in the highest of esteem was a principle ingrained and passed on to her children.

The students all talked about the competitive nature of the Indian community with whom they associated. Sheela said, “My culture definitely influences my academic path and options just because I guess there's like a pressure of having to do well and make your parents proud.” The student participants in each of the cases echoed similar sentiments of feeling that their culture promoted academic excellence, and they strove to

169

meet those expectations. The students shared numerous examples of comparisons within their community to encourage them to excel and achieve as their peers were doing.

Socially, the students noted that there were social norms of behaving properly and making decisions based on Hindu principles. They all had attended classes at a temple, although different ones with different programs, to instruct them in religious beliefs and practices. Students described various scenarios whereby they did not participate in a non-

Indian activity or wear a certain article of clothing (such as wearing short shorts) because their parents would not have approved.

The parent participants in each of the cases primarily spoke to their children in their native tongue, with some added English occasionally. For the Yagalla, and Rao families that means Telugu was spoken at home. Telugu and Hindi were being taught to the Patel daughters as well as the traditional Sanskrit. The eldest Rao sister, Trisha, had taken some Sanskrit classes as well but Kajol had not. Since Tamil is the native language of the Sharma parents, they spoke this to their children interspersed with English.

The parents in two cases (3 & 4) explained how the Indian culture was being more accepted in the United States. Mrs. Patel said, “People here now understand more about the Indian culture, so they are enjoying the way we deal with things. The culture we bring from back home, we tell them it’s how we do it, here they are so amazed and they like it.” Mr. Rao went on to explain how things have changed. He said it was much more difficult for his wife to assimilate to American culture when they had moved to a state on the east coast thirteen years ago because there were fewer Indians living there.

Now, he said they were within a community. He said there were around ten Indian families living just on his street. Mr. Rao told of the social work he participated within

170

the Indian community. “We are surrounded by a lot of Indians . . . that passes on some culture to make it stronger. This adjusts the way the [girls] think. They feel more secure by looking at Indians and non-Indians.” Parents in many of the cases (1, 2, & 4) stressed how important it was for them to teach their children the Vedic culture and Hindu values.

Mr. Yagalla said exposing his children to these values and culture ensured that his sons

“stay in touch with their roots, no matter how westernized they are.” Studies have shown how when Indian parents emphasize the importance of integrating the homeland with mainstream culture instead of being separate from it, adolescents had higher academic achievement, self-esteem, and ethnic identity (Farver, et al., 2002). Interestingly, Suren stated that his Indian culture within American mainstream culture “mix[ed] pretty well,” while other student participants acknowledged the stark differences (such as Indians emphasizing being the best in academics whereby European Americans stress the importance of being well-rounded) but had no intentions of denying their parents’ homeland culture. They associated that culture with their own identity. Aishwarya said,

“I don’t feel embarrassed, nor do I feel the need to hide who I am.” Aishwarya and her sister Kareena both wore bindis on their foreheads daily, unlike the other female student participants who only adorned their foreheads for Indian functions.

The family participants in Case 3 practiced the Hindu faith through at-home prayers, students attending classes at the temple, and participating in occasional religious ceremonies, but they admitted they were not as focused on culture as some other families they knew.

While the parents reported few social interactions with non-Indians, those who were employed all had working relationships with them. For socialization, the parent

171

participants in each case described their Indian friends and strong ties within the Indian community. The parents did, however, encourage their children to have friendships with students of all nationalities. In fact, all of the student participants said they were friends with both Indian and non-Indian peers.

Challenges of Living in American Society

One of the biggest challenges for the Indian immigrant parents living in the

United States in this study was the unknowing. This lack of knowledge was different from the concern presented in previous studies of parents of gifted students who were not sure how to provide enough stimulation and guidance for their gifted students without over-managing them (Feldman & Piirto, 2002; Garn, et al., 2012; Jolly & Matthews,

2014; Morawska & Sanders, 2009). Instead, parents in this study expressed how they did not know the American school system well enough to provide the best for their children; for example not knowing of enrichment opportunities or how to navigate acceleration procedures. When Mr. and Mrs. Yagalla moved to the United States, they chose to live in a community based on Mr. Yagalla’s commute to work. They did not investigate the quality of the local public elementary school for their sons. They assumed that all

American public schools were the same. Later, they discovered that a nearby suburb had schools with much higher ratings. They moved into that community, where the family currently resided, and were much happier with the education their sons were given. Mr.

Yagalla described how they had to learn the system to provide the best opportunities for their sons. He thought his second son, Suren, had a better kindergarten experience because of their move to the new district. He often wondered, “So they attended different types of schools and that may have made a difference in creating the foundation or that

172

outlook.” Later, when Suren was interested in skipping specific courses, Mr. Yagalla knew the procedures as he had learned them previously with his first-born son.

Mrs. Rao echoed the difficulties of being an immigrant parent living in the United

States. She talked about not understanding why decisions were made in American schools and why things were done in a specific manner. She learned of her friend’s children’s academic paths and wondered why some of those choices were not offered to her daughters. She knew, however, that the school would not discuss other students with her so she remained confused.

For Mrs. Sharma, the social aspects of living in American culture were more pressing than any academic dissonance. She said that because they live in a community where materialism was given a high priority, “Every day is a constant struggle and we kind of understand the pressure they are going through, but we can't budge into everything they ask, like brand names, top to bottom.” Mrs. Sharma said she and her husband wanted their daughters to feel that they fit into American culture, but they could not ignore the values of how they were raised. As children she had gone without much because her parents had not had the means to support her desires. Yet she admitted that even if they could have afforded more luxuries that did not mean that they would have gifted them to her. She often felt torn between appeasing her daughters’ American desires and her prudent values of saving money.

Mrs. Patel also talked about this tension of having children who lived in two cultures. She described how she tried to impart knowledge of her homeland culture, but the children have the influence of peers and school of a different culture, and it is difficult for the children. She and her husband told their daughters to try and balance both

173

cultures. This empathetic stance aligned with studies conducted considering immigrant parenting. Farver, et al., (2002) found that when parents sought to integrate and acculturate to the dominant culture while maintaining aspects of their homeland culture instead of being separated from it, adolescents had higher academic achievement, self- esteem, and sense of ethnic identity. All of the student participants claimed that they did not hide their culture from their European American peers and were proud of their ethnic heritage. Only Trisha recalled a traumatic experience of having a non-Indian peer question the Indian red powder she was wearing in an embarrassing manner. Trisha claimed she would never wear the powder again to school because of this incident.

In addition, because of this experience, Trisha said that she now did not feel comfortable wearing a bindi unless attending an Indian function. However, with friends, she felt at ease explaining her beliefs.

Model Minority Stereotype in the United States

Although all of the student participants acknowledged the existence of the stereotype of Indians being smart and hard-working, most admitted that they did not mind this stereotype and even found it motivating. Three students mentioned that the stereotype helped them to work harder because they did not want to be the one Indian who did not fit into that perception. It is unknown how this pressure to fulfill the stereotype might affect them in the future as has been found in recent studies (Henfield, et al., 2014; Wong & Halgin, 2006). Although the students in this study did not describe incidents when their academic performance was hindered by expectations placed on them because of the stereotype as shown in previous studies (Perry, et al., 2003), students did report different negative aspects of the stereotype.

174

One such aspect was described when Sheela told how she felt her peers did not appreciate the hard work she put forth in order to achieve her high grades; the assumption had been made that since she was an Indian, knowledge came naturally. Kareena and

Aishwarya followed a similar line of description when they talked about their peers depending on Indians in group settings to do the majority of the work at hand. They found this part of the stereotype frustrating and resented the assumption that they would do more work.

Another component of the Indian stereotype was that Indians study to the exclusion of having a social life. Suren in Case 1 and Sonya in Case 2, both relayed that this assumption accompanied their Indian heritage. They both expressed distaste with this conclusion and described how they were different. They told how they were active in clubs and sports and interacted socially with many friends. Other student participants did not mention this motivation for participating in extra-curricular activities, yet the amount of extra-curricular activities was plentiful. In addition to talking about academic achievement, student participants discussed being involved in school clubs, religious organizations, music lessons, language classes, volunteering, and sports teams. Mrs.

Sharma endorsed her daughters’ involvement with extra-curricular activities as she had embraced the American philosophy of being well-rounded while still maintaining that excellence in education was top priority. She also acknowledged the benefits of sports and music as staying physically and mentally fit. The students seemed to embrace the outside opportunities, along with their educational pursuits. Three out of the four families had avid student tennis players. Suren, Sheela, Aishwarya, and Kareena all had earned their positions on school varsity teams and were competing with them. Sonya mentioned

175

playing and taking lessons but had not yet tried out for the school team. Interestingly, three students made comments about their European American peers’ families holding athletics in high regard, and yet these same students thoroughly enjoyed their involvement with their athletic teams.

4. Parents’ Educational Backgrounds: Indian School System

Many of the parents’ beliefs stemmed from their own upbringing, education, and experiences they had while living in India. Their educational background is noted in this study as the concepts derived from their background were materialized in their discussions and expectations for their children.

Although the school system in India has changed much over the past ten years, when the parents of these families attended, tracks were set and movement between them nearly impossible. Because of the sheer numbers of individuals living in India competition among students was extremely high. Mrs. Sharma said, “You know the population is crazy in India, so education is the only thing that would get you ahead of the crowd.”

For the younger grades, both government and private schools existed. According to the parents’ descriptions, the government schools were substandard, often lacking supplies or even a building. Thus, mainly children from lower and lower-middle economic classes attended these schools. The education provided in government schools was not equivalent to the private schooling available. However, the private schools cost money, not only in tuition but for uniforms and books as well. Even the Catholic missionary schools came with a substantial cost.

176

Up until tenth grade, all students studied the same curriculum: English, Hindi (or local language), math, science and social studies. To learn the curriculum, the focus was placed on book memorization. There was little application of content or emphasis on the theory underlying a concept. A common instructional strategy mentioned was to have students write a statement from a book one hundred times. To indicate the progress of the students, teachers would rank them within classes based on their course tests. These rankings were public knowledge and all of the students knew one another’s rank.

At the end of tenth grade, students took a national exam assessing knowledge of the core subjects. The results of this exam admitted students into one of three tracks: Arts and Commerce; Science toward Engineering; Science toward Medicine. For the next two years, students took supporting courses. At the end of twelfth grade, students took exams again to demonstrate their proficiency in these specific areas. A ranking of all of the students who took these exams was made public and was used to determine acceptance into universities.

Universities were also both public and private, but for higher education, most people sought to attend the government schools. Government universities utilized the buildings left over from British rule, attracted the best professors, and cost very little.

However, this made competition for acceptance into these schools extremely fierce.

There were only an allotted number of seats available for new students each year. This number of seats was then divvied up according to caste. To put this system into perspective, Mr. Yagalla explained how when he took the exams, he was ranked against

55,000 students in his state, all competing for 4,000 open positions in the engineering universities. After the 4,000 seats were separated for the different castes, only about

177

3,000 available for him remained, with 52,000 students vying for acceptance. Based on an individual’s ranking on the track exam, as well as an entrance exam, universities would begin to contact the students in order of rank to ask them if they would like to attend the university. They stopped calling students after the designated 4,000 seats had been filled. The remaining student then needed to pay for their attendance at a private university, if they could afford it.

Even once a degree had been obtained, getting a job was not guaranteed as the competition continued. Without a decent job in India, dire consequences could follow.

Mrs. Sharma explained, “Because there are so many people and so few jobs, only the best people can go into the jobs. It’s always a race toward the top. If you don’t, then you will be very low, maybe even without a job.” Therefore, the parent participants who grew up and attended school in India had the understanding that education had to be a top priority.

One parent summed it up saying, “You have to compete . . . it was a survival thing.”

The competitive nature of higher education filtered down to high school and even elementary school. Parent participants explained how everyone knew each other’s grades and rank. When passing back tests or papers, teachers announced each student’s name and rank for the class. Teachers then made students who earned top grades stand up and receive applause from their peers. It was also common for neighbors to call one another and inquire about children’s scores and rank. According to the parents across the cases, this type of competition was very motivating for them. Several of the parents mentioned how it seemed odd to them how in the United States, grades of students other than their own children, could not be shared by the schools or the teachers. Mrs. Patel described

178

how her daughters informed her that even when friends came to their house, Kareena

“tells me it's wrong to ask anybody's grades.”

The parent participants in this study emigrated from a country where educational achievement equated to stability and even survival of one’s family. Competition for the small number of academic opportunities and then later for jobs created a zeal for being at the top in academic. The parents carried this mentality across the ocean to the United

States, even though they acknowledged the plethora of opportunities and various paths available in the United States.

5. Competition as a Part of Culture

How this background of public knowledge of grades and high competition transcended to the United States was shown through the competitive pressure expressed by the students when asked about their Indian culture. The student participants asserted that although they sometimes felt “annoyed” by the comparisons to others, the majority felt competition motivated them. Kareena talked about these comparisons made between her and Indian peers. She described, “When they [Indians] talk to other Indian families, they are like, ‘Oh their children are doing this, why aren't you doing this? Think about doing this.’” Sonya said that the Indian community competitive talks became more personal when her parents made comments to her like, "You should be better than everyone," and then she described how a lecture usually followed, demonstrating the importance of being top of her class. These discussions between parents and their children seemed commonplace for the families in this study. Trisha talked about the negative aspects of competition for her. She said, “Well [in the Indian community], there's a lot of competition. That's the word. Like people always want to do better than

179

the other, and if you lose, people look down on you . . .” Feeling that people looked down upon her was of great concern to Trisha. Later, when talking about being motivated,

Trisha was the only student who mentioned fear as a motivator. She described how she was worried that if she did not achieve, her parents might yell at her. She seemed to internalize any concerns from people in her community or even within her home thinking that she performed less than she was able.

Aishwarya, in contrast, sought out competition, even amongst friends. She talked about finding competition in the different school environments she had attended. She said, “I feel like there’s going to be competition wherever you go.” In addition, she felt that, “You’re going to find someone who has somewhat the same ability as you do. You will then find yourself competing with them, like it or not.” Aishwarya described how she and her friend in her middle school, “were very competitive, not to the point that if one of did bad, we would laugh at the other. We were really good friends. We would compare math test scores. It wasn’t hard core, it was friendly competition.” Suren agreed that competition pushes him. He claimed, “I like it when there's competition because it makes me do better.” The variation in how the students described competition (being the best versus achieving more than a friend) and how that competition motivated them has been considered in previous studies (Ozturk & Debelak, 2008; Udvari & Schneider,

2000). While the students’ parents experienced other-referenced type of competition in

India (as the number of winners excluded the others), the students in this study exhibited task-oriented behaviors, such as monitoring their own growth, even when comparing with others.

Self: Internal Factors

180

The unseen components of an individual often are most powerful. How persons persevere through difficulties, focus on the task at hand, seek assistance, and process set- backs manifest in behaviors and outcomes. The two main themes which emerged in this study as components of self are depicted are (1) Motivation and (2) Mindset: Intelligence is a product of work ethic.

Self: Internal Factors

Motivation Mindset

Figure 4. Emergent themes about the internal factors of Self.

Motivation

Studies have shown the connection between individuals’ abilities and achievements contain the characteristic of motivation (Dweck, 2010; Dweck & Leggett,

1988; Urhahane & Ortiz, 2011). The Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development (Piirto, 1994,

2004) contains personality attributes of drive, persistence, and self-discipline all relating to motivation.

Parents of these gifted students admitted having high expectations of their children. When asked how they transferred those goals into motivational techniques, they shared many aspects of their parenting. First, parent participants believed in supporting their children through offering assistance, creating a foundation of learning, providing tutoring, and encouraging learning outside of school. These beliefs resounded studies that showed how parents of gifted students often provided time, money, training, monitoring,

181

and transportation to support their children’s talent (Feldman & Piirto, 2002; Olszewski-

Kubilius, 2002). Activities and enrichment outside of school such as lessons, tutoring, coaching, practices, and competitions all required assistance from the parents. The parents in this study all supported their children in one if not many of these venues.

The Indian parents in this study, however, did not ascribe to consistent praise of their children’s accomplishments. Parents gave examples of when students brought home high grades, they were commended for reaching their parents’ expectations, but they were not lavishly complimented. Mrs. Sharma commented on how this might differ from parenting strategies in the United States. She relayed how Sonya even complained that her mother did not praise her while her American counterparts’ parents did so after the student brought home an A Mrs. Sharma wondered, “Maybe that keeps them motivated.

They think, [To] earn that enthusiasm from my parents, I'll have to do something really good.” She contended that perhaps Indian children were motivated to reach high achievement because they wanted their parents’ difficult-to-earn commendations.

Parent participants also told how they motivated their children through giving them perspective. Mrs. Sharma explained, “It's more than motivation. We put a lot of emphasis on the family. Their grandparents, aunts and uncles and everybody is looking at them.” This sense of responsibility and thinking beyond themselves was a mentality emphasized in all of the cases as well. Mr. Rao talked about the importance of giving back to society. Attaining high achievement was to be commended but individuals needed to utilize their accomplishments to assist those who were less fortunate. To instill the sense of responsibility and the idea of living up to expectations, all of the parents talked about sharing stories of their own experiences with their children.

182

For many reasons (to take advantage of opportunities in the United States, to make their family members’ proud, to fulfill immigrant parents’ expectations) students in these cases felt the push to succeed. They felt the competition to be at the top of their classes. They strove for the highest grades, and they admitted that these factors motivated them to work hard.

In addition, several of the students mentioned factors beyond their grades or awards as motivational. Both Sheela and Sonya claimed that, although they felt the pressure to achieve from family and culture, they also described how they felt great pride when they did well on something which aligned with intrinsic motivation as shown in studies by Amabile (1993). Aishwarya described how envisioning the future with her diploma in hand and her other goals kept her on task and driven. She said, “Just thinking about the future, thinking about what I want to do, thinking about myself in 20 years from now, 30 years from now, that always motivates me to do better.” Not even projecting years out but simply thinking about the following week, Suren claimed that he could not imagine just giving up on something he had set his mind to as it would feel uncomfortable to leave behind an unfinished goal.

As previously noted, Trisha commented that her biggest motivator was fear.

When probed further, she claimed that she worked hard because she was worried about her punishment if she did not do well. In follow-up questions, she explained this punishment would have consisted of her parents yelling at her and this would have made her feel horrible. This sentiment seemed to relate to the literature concerning filial duty whereby children feel an obligation to succeed as a part of their family responsibility

(Rao, et al., 2003).

183

Mindset: Intelligence Is a Product of Work Ethic

Evidence of the growth mindset was apparent among all four cases, from both parents and students alike. While the majority of participants equated giftedness with intelligence, they had one hundred percent agreement on the malleability of that intelligence.

When discussing the beginnings of intelligence, the participants differed in their views on whether individuals were all born with the same IQ or different capabilities.

While Mr. Yagalla contended that “God creates everybody equal,” Aishwarya said that people were born gifted but intelligence could be cultivated. Mrs. Sharma talked about the various Indian castes into which people were born and how people in the highest caste often have brains which were “tuned” differently. Mr. Yagalla, however, considered this caste difference evidence of an individual’s surroundings resulting in higher intelligence. Mr. Rao echoed these latter sentiments as he described the importance of an individual’s background, and socio-economic class. Mr. Patel also believed in the influence of an individual’s surroundings on one’s intelligence. His wife expounded on his point stating how surroundings could include school, peers, and home environment.

She added that the child’s motivation also greatly contributed to becoming intelligent.

The students, although Sonya gave credit to parents’ influence, focused mainly on the internal factors when asked about increasing intelligence.

The students defined intelligence by how much an individual knew. They universally agreed that the knowledge, hence one’s intelligence, could be increased through studying, time, practice, attitude, and effort. This finding further demonstrated the findings of Rattan et al., (2012) study which considered Indian American college

184

students’ perceptions regarding the malleability of intelligence. Aishwarya said, “The main thing about being smart in school and being intelligent and being considered intelligent is basically your attitude about it, and your work ethic and how much you actually care and want to do it.” These aspects of attitude and motivation leading to hard work resulting in an increase of intelligence encapsulated the sentiments of the participants in this study.

When asked about the result of a hypothetical situation whereby an Indian student was struggling with a subject, Sonya said, “Most Indian parents would just work through it together” with the child. Extra assistance from the parents or from an outside tutor would be provided. The idea that the student was perhaps just “not a math student” was never considered. When the student participants in this study had experienced difficulties with a subject, they described strategies such as asking the teacher for extra help, seeking assistance from their parents, asking peers, or getting a tutor. One student said she asked several people the same question, just to make sure she grasped the concept. Aishwarya believed that “You always have to fail in order to improve. You have to get that one failing grade at least once to appreciate those good grades,” exemplifying her growth mindset.

Student participants shared stories of how they put their beliefs on increasing their intelligence into practice. Suren attributed his American College Test (ACT) score to the amount of time he spent studying for the exam. He then admitted he did not study for his second time and according to him, this led to a lower score. The other students also shared experiences of studying producing higher grades and achievements. Sheela described continuous hours of hard work and dedication to earn her top scores in her

185

advanced placement courses. Aishwarya shared a different view when she described a specific math unit with which she was struggling. She stated she was earning 80 percent on her assignments which did not make her proud. She redirected her efforts and studied more until her grades returned to her historical 100 percent.

Discussion

The talent development models put forth by Tannenbaum (1983), Gagné (2003),

Piirto (1994, 2004, 2007) and Subotnik, et al. (2011) all identified talent development as the manifestation of the culmination of multiple factors. This study’s findings were no different. The perspectives of identified gifted Indian American students and their families demonstrated their beliefs on the influence of home, culture, school, and internal factors of self. The participants showed how they believed these factors, although superficially separated for discussion, intermingled and created synergy among them all those contributing to academic success. Some factors did not emerge as prevalent themes.

In Piirto’s Pyramid of Talent Development Model (1994, 2004, 2007), for example, there were five suns of environmental factors which represented having vital roles in an individual’s development. This study’s external factors of home, culture, and school aligned with three out of five of Piirto’s suns of home, school, community and culture

(See Appendix H). However, Piirto’s sun of gender, did not emerge as a factor from the participants’ perspective. Even though gender probably has a role in these students’ lives, especially with roots in a culture stemming from a male-dominated society in India

(described by both Mrs. Sharma in case 3 and Mr. Rao in case 2), parents who noted gender differences in India noted no differences in student success in the United States based on gender. Student participants made no mention of gender in their descriptions at

186

all. In addition, the sun of chance is not included within this study either. A more retrospective analysis would need to take place after the students have demonstrated the highest of achievements, and they could reveal how specific choices or people contributed to make them possible. For this study, chance was not mentioned as a contributing factor to academic success.

The following discussion section summarizes the results for the research questions through the themes of: worlds collide, doing what is best for the child, Indian culture adding fuel to the fire, defining giftedness in different worlds, and intelligence is malleable.

Worlds Collide

The Family Systems Theory (Bowen, 1978) established the interconnectedness of family members; the behaviors and views of one person influencing others within the family unit. The families in this study were all comprised of parents who emigrated from southeast India. Their culture had been infused into their belief systems – their religious values, their priorities, and their parenting. In order to leave behind one’s known society and strike out with a family in a new country, certain personality traits and values usually accompanied the person. It should be of no surprise that all four families described homes which upheld virtues of work ethic, responsibility, and dedication. These virtues culminated in competitiveness and achievement, described by the students as components of their culture. The intermingling of the parents’ personalities, their homeland culture, their values, and the homes they established for their children in the United States was apparent.

187

As immigrants, the parents were in a situation of raising children within a mainstream culture different from their own. Their parenting styles may have been a reflection of this unique situation. In all of the cases, the parent participants described how compromise was needed in various situations. Some parents talked about the importance of balancing the two worlds, while others talked about acclimating to the

United States by understanding the mainstream culture well enough to participate in conversations. The parents compromised with their children in approved hair color; other times they purchased an item desired by their child, even though the parent did not see the need. The compromising mentality became a part of their authoritative parenting style. The students, as children of first-generation immigrants, knew the influence of their parents within their family unit. They felt the high expectations and competiveness pushing them to succeed. Yet, because a strong sense of ethnic identity was reported, these students did not report pushing back against their culture or home environments.

The students described feeling comfortable with their culture and even reported that the stereotype associated with being smart and hard-working actually acted as a catalyst for achievement rather than a detriment. Students believed that the American community and their homeland culture had different priorities, but the gifted Indian American students in this study found their place in the middle of these two worlds as conducive for academic success.

Doing what is Best for the Child

The parents in all four cases stated they wanted their children to experience more success than they had. The parents supported their children through monitoring their work, setting high expectations, providing outside assistance, and creating an overall

188

academic home climate. In three of the four cases, the parent participants reported growing up in families where money had been a struggle. Their parents had made great sacrifices to provide the best educational opportunities for their children. In this study, parent participants also gave their children academic experiences in hope of providing the best opportunities. In fact, opportunities were a main reason for moving to the United

States. The parents valued the American educational system and appreciated its effective, caring teachers. They expressed a trust in the school system to provide challenge and acceleration for their child’s talent development. Here, the importance of a collaborative relationship of school and home factors was emphasized. Teachers expected homework to be completed and resources provided while the parents looked to the teachers for guidance and educational opportunities to promote their children on their talent trajectories. Fortunately, for the students in this case, mathematic opportunities were prevalent in the three schools. Students’ other talent areas might not have been as supported in the school system.

Indian Culture Adds Fuel to the Fire

The Indian culture, reported by all of the participants in this study, created a sense of competition by exuding the importance of academic achievement. The parent participants described the system in India from whence they came whereby achievement was vital to have a decent standard of living. This push to the top was accepted as typical and the parents reported feeling motivated by this competition. The high prioritization of academic success came with the parents in this study as well as other immigrants making up the community. The student participants reported how this community pressured their parents who, in turn, encouraged them to succeed. Competition was the main motivating

189

force felt by the student participants, and the Indian community certainly provided that impetus. Studying was placed as a top priority in the students’ lives which sometimes meant not engaging in social activities with their European American peers. This social constraint, even when based on social appropriateness, versus taking time away from studying, was also reinforced in the Indian community. In addition, since the Indian community placed high value on academic achievement, none of the students felt the need to hide their intelligence. Their cultural and school communities were congruent in their principles. It is important to note that the student and parent participants in this study lived in an area with an active Indian community in which they all participated.

Without this community promoting their homeland culture and supporting academic achievement, different findings might have emerged in this study.

Defining Giftedness in Different Worlds

Students identified as gifted throughout this study only made reference to the domain which Feldhusen (1992) referred to as the academic or intellectual domain.

Students identified gifted in areas of artistic, vocational-technical, or interpersonal domains (Feldhusen, 1992) were not part of this study. For the parent participants in this study, giftedness was a new term for them to understand in the American school system.

They had not experienced this terminology nor was there a program for gifted students available to them when studying in India. Achievement had been determined purely on the ranking system. When the parent participants received notification that their children were identified gifted, they understood this to mean that their children were more advanced in their knowledge of specific content. It is interesting to note that the state where the student participants attended had sent this notification based on the scores of a

190

standardized test. A general factor of intelligence had been sought for this identification practice. Other gifted attributes described by Renzulli (1978), Tannenbaum (1983), and

Piirto (1994, 2004) such as commitment, creativity, and motivation had not been considered for identification. The parents believed the schools wanted to offer a gifted education program to challenge their children so they would not become bored. This process seemed natural to them; if content were already known (probably through the enrichment courses provided to the children from a young age according to the parents) then the next level of content area should have been provided. The parents might have agreed with Gagné’s Theory of Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (1999) which states that gifts, such as intellect, could be transformed into talents through learning and practice. Perhaps this was the intention of the school as well for the student participants who were all identified at a young age during the early part of elementary school.

The majority of the students agreed with the parents that giftedness meant that they had more knowledge. However, variations in the definition added characteristics onto the knowledge known. For example, Sonya and Kareena said that gifted students knew more than their peers but they could also pick up information quicker and understand complex topics easier. The greatest deviation in definition came from

Aishwarya and Sheela who added internal traits of motivation, effort, creativity, perspective, and desire. These definitions seemed to align more with Renzulli’s Three

Ring Theory of Giftedness (1978), Tannenbaum’s Sea Star Model (1983), and Piirto’s

Pyramid of Talent Development (1994, 2006). It was unknown whether Aishwarya and

Sheela arrived at these conclusions by describing their own identities or had heard of

191

these traits within gifted education classrooms. Regardless, the students’ definitions varied possibly due to the school context in which they were accustomed, differing from their parents who had no gifted educational opportunities provided in India.

Intelligence is Malleable

As previously presented, all student and parent participants, regardless of their beliefs on the innate capabilities of individuals, asserted that intelligence could be increased through attitude, effort, and work. Whether this philosophy stemmed from beliefs in India, or beliefs based on experience, the manifestation of this conceptualization of intelligence seemed to result in academic achievement. When difficulties arose, students sought out help, parents provided assistance, students utilized resources, and parents shared personal experiences of inspiration. Again this confluence of home, school, and culture with their underlying components of self, seemed to propel the students toward academic success.

Implications

Based on the findings of this study, several implications are revealed primarily for schools. The importance of an education meeting the academic needs of gifted students has been shown, both at the curricular and teacher levels. Also, this study has revealed how identified gifted Indian American students and their parents believe intelligence to be malleable. This belief seemed to contribute to behaviors leading to success such as perseverance and hard work. Learning from these four cases, the following implications are stated to enhance the supportive factors for others.

Education

192

Just as the Marland report (1972), the Javits gifted and talented students education act (1988), and the National Excellence: A case for developing America’s talent (1993) all recommended, schools need to nurture students who demonstrate high achievement when compared to their peers. These students need to have different or accelerated curricula in which they can be challenged and supported in their development. By having advanced or accelerated courses for students who dedicate time and effort within that domain, an environment of synergy can be established. Students need to be in classes with same-ability peers to assist in collaborative group work and an inquiry-based environment. This type of learning environment was observed in several of the student participants’ classrooms. When the students in this study described their accelerated courses, they claimed that they were “never bored” and enjoyed the challenge the courses offered. In addition, student participants believed that being in same-ability classrooms was more conducive to their learning since the amount of questioning was spread out among the students and group work was more effective.

Teaching Growth Mindset

Piirto (2007) talked about how school often compensated for the home environment when the home did not provide enough support for students. The students in this study were receiving messages from home that through hard work and perseverance, they could increase their intelligence. This mentality opened the doors of many possibilities. They were taught through personal examples and instruction how to overcome struggles and persevere through difficulties. The students shared anecdotes of seeking help when difficulties arose and not giving up on a plan once it was set in place.

When students do not receive this message, they are sometimes restrained in reaching

193

their potential with thoughts of lacking an intelligence gene of some sort. This misconception has been shown to decrease motivation and risk taking (Blackwell, et al.,

2007). Teaching the malleability of intelligence is an important concept which could inspire students and teachers alike. By presenting teachers and students with brain research on the malleability of intelligence, students’ motivation and achievement could be enhanced.

Similarly, the concept of competitions being utilized as a tool for growth and development (thus emphasizing the components of task-oriented competition) should be embraced by schools. While not all students flourish in competitive realms, those who self-select to compete have been shown to improve in many areas, such as domain- specific interests, real-world application of knowledge, and networking with mentors.

Certainly, the majority of the student participants in this study, along with their parents, felt motivated by competition.

Future Studies

Future studies revolving around diverse family dynamics of Indian families such as variation in number of children, gender, and difference of ability among siblings could provide additional insight into the experiences of gifted students and their immigrant Indian parents. In addition, variance in location both from whence the parents emigrated and where the students and their families reside would provide a broader understanding of

194

culture and home environments. Finally, further studies focusing on the types of competition gifted Indian American students find motivating and how that influences their success would be beneficial to better understanding these constructs.

Conclusions

The identified gifted Indian American students and their families in this study described their perceptions of several factors which they believed contributed to the students’ academic success. First, their schools supported the students’ demonstrated areas of achievement by providing accelerated classes. The students talked about how this learning environment, along with effective teachers, kept them engaged and interested in their learning. They enjoyed being in classes with like-ability peers and most of the students favored group work when this was the case. Second, the home environment of these families was one which mirrored the school’s values of hard work and perseverance. They report taking enrichment classes and doing extra homework outside of school and during the summer. Students were expected to do homework before playing and emphasis was placed on studying now for the future. Third, the participants believed their Indian culture contributed to the students’ academic success. The parent participants, immigrants from India, strove to share their homeland culture with their children. Speaking their native tongue with their children and sharing stories of their

Indian heritage took top priority. The Indian culture of these families was one that professed academic excellence and competition to achieve such. Parents who grew up in

India described their own schooling experiences and the dire consequences if one did not achieve. These values were internalized and passed on to their children. The students reported the pressure they felt to reach the high goals placed upon them but also shared

195

how competition motivated them. The parents recognized that the students needed to be a part of both their native and mainstream culture. The students were encouraged to balance the two despite the often conflicting priorities. Student participants claimed the frustrating part of their culture was the stereotype which accompanied it. They talked about how their peers believed that since they were Indian, they were hard workers, smart, and would do the majority of group work. Finally, internal factors such as motivation and growth mindset contributed to the students’ academic success. The students and parents described how they believed giftedness equated to intelligence and intelligence was developed and enhanced through practice and hard work. Student participants relayed how they were motivated to achieve both for external rewards such as grades and internal gratification.

Clearly these facets intermingle with one another, and they were difficult to separate as separate factors. Culture directly impacts the home environment. Parents’ backgrounds and experiences from India were passed on to their children through parenting strategies. Students felt motivated by both the competition expressed by their culture and their internal desire to be top within their school. Strong work ethic, exemplified by the parents, flowed into their conceptualization of intelligence. The students understood that they were expected to work hard now in order to have stable lives in the future. Even their European American counterparts, according to the participants, identified the Indian students as hard workers. A swarm of forces propelled these students to achieve. They reported feeling pressure to succeed but once probed, the majority did not seem to want it any other way. Whether their comfort level with this pressure would change in their future was unknown. For now, whenever notice is made

196

that winners of a national spelling bee are American Indian students, such as in the recent

CNN article about the 2015 Scripps spelling bee (Basu, 2015) the external and internal forces propelling the students’ success might be better understood. Parents, teachers, administrators and students could all learn how forces surrounding and within gifted

Indian American students assist them in attaining great heights.

197

References

Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resources

Management Review, 3(3), 185–201. doi:10.1016/1053–4822(93)90012–s

Assouline, S., Colangelo, N., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2015). A

nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s

brightest students. Retrieved from Acceleration Institute:

http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/Nation_Empowered/

Basu, M. (2015, May 30). Why Indian Americans win spelling bees: P–R–A–C–T–I–C–

E. CNN. Retrieved http://www.cnn.com/

Baumrind, D. (1968). Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental control. Adolescence, 3(11),

255–272.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology

Monograph, 4(1, Pt. 2), 1–103. doi:10.1037/h0030372

Berlin, J. E. (2009). It’s all a matter of perspective: Student perceptions on the impact of

being labeled gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 31(4), 17–223.

doi:10.1080/02783190903177580

Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of

intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal

study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263.

doi:10.1111/j.1467–8624.2007.00995.x

Bloom, B. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

198

Bortz, W. (2014, January 23). Dare to be 100: The Flynn Effect–smarter and older.

Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York, NY: Jason Aronson.

Bronson, P. (2007, August 3). How not to talk to your kids. New York. Retrieved from

http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/

Campbell, J. R., & Verna, M. A. (2007). Effective parental influence: Academic home

climate linked to children’s achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation,

13(6), 501–519. doi:10.1080/13803610701785949

Chao, R. K. (1994). Parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through cultural

notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111–1119. doi:10.2307/1131308

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through

qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Chen-Yao, K. (2011). The dilemma of competition encountered by musically gifted

Asian male students: an exploration from the perspective of gifted education.

High Ability Studies, 22(1), 19–42. doi:10.1080/13598139.2011.576085

Chua, A. (2011, January 8). Why Chinese mothers are superior. Wall Street Journal.

Retrieved from

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487041115045760597135286987

Chua, A. (2011). Battle hymn of the tiger mother. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

199

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold

back American’s brightest students. The Templeton National Report on

Acceleration. Retrieved from the Acceleration institute website:

http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/Nation_Deceived/ND_v1.pdf

Coleman, L.J. (2011). Lived experience, mixed messages and stigma. In Cross, T. L. &

Cross, J. R. (Eds.) Handbook for school counselors serving gifted students. (pp.

371- 392). Austin, TX: Prufrock

Coleman, L. J., Guo, A., & Dabbs, C. (2007). The state of qualitative research in gifted

education as published in American journals: An analysis and critique. Gifted

Child Quarterly, 51(1), 51–63. doi:10.1177/0016986206296656

Coleman, L. J., Peine, M. Olthouse, J., & Romanoff, B. (2009, November). Doing a non–

evaluation to evaluate a program: A case study. Paper presented at the National

Association for Gifted Children Conference, St. Louis, MO.

Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. (1988). Is being gifted a social handicap? Journal for the

Education of the Gifted, 11, 41–56. doi:10.1177/0162353214521486

Coleman, L. J., & Cross. T. L. (2000). Social-emotional development and personal

experience. In Heller, K., Monks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. S. (Eds.),

International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 203–212). Oxford,

UK: Pergamon.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

200

Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Terhaar-Yonkers, M. (1991). The social cognition of

gifted adolescents in schools: Managing the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the

Education of the Gifted, 15, 44–55. doi:10.1177/016235329101500106

Cross, T. L., Stewart, R., & Coleman, L .J. (2003). Phenomenology and its implications

for gifted studies research: Investigating the lebenswelt of academically gifted

students attending an elementary magnet school. Journal for the Education of the

Gifted, 26, 201–220

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York,

NY: Harper Perennial.

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.

Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487–496. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.113.3.487

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.).

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2003). The Landscape of qualitative research:

Theories and issues (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the short grit

scale (Grit–S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 166–174.

doi:10.1080/00223890802634290

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY:

Ballantine Books.

Dweck, C. S. (2007). The perils and promises of praise. Educational Leadership, 65(2),

34–39. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-

leadership.aspx

201

Dweck, C. S. (2010). Even geniuses work hard. Educational Leadership, 68(1), 16–20.

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx

Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindset and malleable minds: Implications for giftedness and

talent. In R. Subotnik, A. Robinson, C. Callahan & E. J. Gubbins (Eds.).

Malleable minds: Translating insights from psychology and neuroscience to

gifted education. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and

Talented.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and

personality, Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.256

Farver, J. M., Xu, Y., Bhadha, B. R., Narang, S., & Lieber, E. (2007). Ethnic identity,

acculturation, parenting beliefs, and adolescent adjustment: A comparison of

Asian Indian and European American families. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53(2),

184–215.

Farver, J. M., Bhadha, B. R., & Narang, S. K. (2002). Acculturation and psychological

functioning in Asian Indian adolescents. Social Development, 11(1), 11–29.

doi:10.1353/mpq.2007.0010

Feldhusen, J. (1992). Talent identification and development in education (TIDE).

Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.

Feldhusen, J., & Dai, D. (1997). Gifted students’ attitudes and perceptions of the gifted

label, special programs, and peer relationship. Journal of Secondary Gifted

Education, 9, 15–20.

Feldman, D. H., & Fowler, R. (1997). The nature(s) of developmental change: Piaget,

Vygotsky and the transitional process. New Ideas in Psychology, 15(2), 195–210.

202

Feldman, D. H., & Piirto, J. (2002). Parenting talented children. In M. Bornstein (Ed.),

Handbook of Parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 195–219). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Gagné, F. (1999). My convictions about the nature of abilities, gifts, and talents. Journal

for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 109-136.

Gagné, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory.

In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook on Gifted Education (3rd ed., pp.

60–74). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:

Basic Books.

Garrett, T., Antrop-González, R., & Vélez, W. (2010). Examining the success factors of

high-achieving Puerto Rican male high-school students, Roeper Review, 32(2),

106–115. doi:10.1080/02783191003587892

Garn, A., Matthews, M., & Jolly, J. (2012). Parents’ role in the academic motivation of

students with gifts and talents. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 656–667.

doi:10.1002/pits.21626

Gentry, M., Rizza, M. G., & Owen, S. V. (2002). Examining perceptions of challenge

and choice in classrooms: The relationship between teachers and their students

and comparisons between gifted students and other students. The Quarterly

Journal of the National Association for Gifted Children, 46(2), 145–155.

doi:10.1177/001698620204600207

Glesne, C. (2010). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. (4th ed.). Boston,

MA: Pearson.

203

Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, M. G. (1962). Cradles of eminence. Boston, MA: Little, Brown

& Company.

Gottfredson, L.S. (2002). Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and

evidence. Intelligence, 31, 343–397. doi:10.1016/s0160-2896(02)00085-5

Gross, M. U. M. (2006). Exceptionally gifted children: Long-term outcomes of academic

acceleration and nonacceleration. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29,

404–429. Retrieved from http://www.prufrock.com

Grossman, J. M., & Liang, B. (2008). Discrimination distress among Chinese American

adolescents. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 37, 1–11. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-

9215-1

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw–Hill.

Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D. R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C., & Matsumoto,

H. (2001). Divergent motivational consequences of success and failure in Japan

and North America. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 599–615.

doi:10.1037//0022-3514.81.4.599

Henfield, M., Moore, J., & Wood, C. (2008). Inside and outside gifted education

programming: Hidden challenges for African American students. Exceptional

Children, 74(4), 433–450. Retrieved from http://ecx.sagepub.com/

Henfield, M., Woo, H., Lin, Y.-C., & Rausch, M. (2014). Too smart to fail: Perceptions

of Asian American students’ experiences in a collegiate honors program. Gifted

Child Quarterly, 58, 137–148. doi:10.1177/0016986214521659

Hollingworth, L. S. (1929). Gifted Children, Their Nature and Nurture. New York, NY:

Macmillan.

204

Jolly, J. (2009). A resuscitation of gifted education. American Education History Journal,

36(1), 37–52. Retrieved from http://www.infoagepub.com/american-educational-

history-journal

Jolly, J., & Matthews, M. (2014). Parenting. In J. Plucker & C. Callahan (Eds.) Critical

issues and practices in gifted education (2nd ed.) Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Kao, C., & Hebért, T. P. (2006). Gifted Asian American adolescent males: Portraits of

cultural dilemmas. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(1), 88–117.

Retrieved from http://www.prufrock.com

Kerr, B., Colangelo, N., & Gaeth, J. (1988). Gifted adolescents’ attitudes toward their

giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 245–247.

doi:10.1177/001698628803200201

Kitano, M. (1997). Gifted Asian American women. Journal for the Education of the

Gifted. 21 (1), 3–37.

Kulkarni, A. D. (2011, August). Champs: The ABCs of bees. Khabar. Retrieved from

http://www.khabar.com/magazine/features/champs_the_abcs_of_bees.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

McMillan, J. H. (2011). Educational research. Fundamentals for the consumer (6th ed.).

New York, NY: Pearson Education.

Mangels, J. A., Butterfield, B., Lamb, J., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Why do

beliefs about intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive

neuroscience model. Social, Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience, 1(2), 75–86.

doi:10.1093/scan/nsl013

205

Marland, S. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the

United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education (Government Documents

Y4.L 11/2: G36, Vols. 1–2). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard

Educational Review, 62, 279–300. doi:10.17763/haer.62.3.8323320856251826

Meeker, M. N. (1969). The structure of intellect. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Moon, S. M., Jurich, J. H., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Families of gifted children: Cradles

of development. In R. C. Friedman & K. B. Rogers (Eds.), Talent in context:

Historical and social perspectives on giftedness (pp. 81–99).Washington, DC:

American Psychology Association.

Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. (2009). Parenting gifted and talented children: Conceptual

and empirical foundations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(3), 163–173.

doi:10.1177/0016986209334962

Moulton, P., Moulton, M., Housewright, M., & Bailey, K. (1998). Gifted and talented:

Exploring the positive and negative aspects of labeling. Roeper Review, 21, 153–

154. doi:10.1080/02783199809553950

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2002). Parenting practices that promote talent development,

creativity, and optimal adjustment. In M. Neihart, S. Reis, N. Robinson, & S.

206

Moon (Eds.) The Social and emotional development of gifted children: What do

we know (pp. 205–212). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Omdal, S., & Richards, M. R. E. (2014). Academic competitions. In JA. Plucker, & C. M.

Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the

research says (2nd ed., pp. 721–734). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Onwuegbuzie, A. (2002). A conceptual framework for assessing legitimation in

qualitative research. Manuscript submitted for consideration for the Outstanding

Paper Award. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED471659.pdf

Ozturk, M. A., & Debelak, C. (2008). Affective benefits from academic competitions for

middle school gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 31(2), 48–53.

Pereira, N., & Gentry, M. (2013). A qualitative inquiry into the experience of high-

potential Hispanic English language learners in Midwestern schools. Journal of

Advanced Academics, 24(3), 164–194. doi:10.1177/1932202x13494204

Perry, T., Steele, C., & Hilliard, A. (2003). Young Gifted and Black: Promoting high

achievement among African–American students. Boston: Beacon Press.

Petersen, W. (1966, January 9). Success story: Japanese-American style. New York Times

Magazine, p. 21–43.

Piaget, J. (1960). Psychology of intelligence (2nd ed). Paterson, NJ: Littlefield.

Piaget, J. (1978). Behavior and evolution (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.) New York, NY:

Random House.

Piirto, J. (1994). Talented children and adults their development and education (1st ed.).

Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

207

Piirto, J. (2002). ‘Motivation is first–then they can do anything’: Portrait of an Indian

school for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(3), 181–192.

doi:10.1177/001698620204600303

Piirto, J. (2004). Understanding creativity. Tempe, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Piirto, J. (2007). Talented children and adults: Their development and education (3rd

ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Plucker, J. A. (1996).Gifted Asian American students: Identification, curricular, and

counseling concerns. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 315–343.

Retrieved from http://jeg.sagepub.com/

Public Education 100 Years Ago: Could You Have Passed 8th Grade In 1912? (2013,

January 11). Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/public-

education-100-year_n_2456991.html

Rao, N., McHale, J. P., & Pearson, E. (2003). Links between socialization goals and

child–rearing practices in Chinese and Indian mothers. Infant & Child

Development, 12, 475–492. doi:10.1002/icd.341

Rattan, A., Savani, K., Naidu, N. & Dweck, C. (2012). Can everyone become highly

intelligent? Cultural differences in and societal consequences of beliefs about the

universal potential for intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

103, 787–803. doi:10.1037/a0029263

Renzulli, J. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta

Kappan, 60(3), 180–84, 261. Retrieved from

http://pdkintl.org/publications/kappan/

208

Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model

for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions

of giftedness (pp. 53–92). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Renzulli, J. S. (1988). The multiple menu model for developing differentiated curriculum

for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 298–309.

doi:10.1177/001698628803200302

Rimm, S. B. (1997). An underachievement epidemic. Educational Leadership, 54(7), 18–

22. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx

Rimm, S. (1999). See Jane win. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

Rimm, S., & Lowe, B. (1988). Family environments of underachieving gifted students.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 353–361. doi:10.1177/001698628803200404

Ross, P. O. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent.

Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research (3rd ed.). New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Senn, S. (2011). Francis Galton and regression to the mean. Significance, 8(3), 124–126.

doi:10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00509.x

Sethna, B. (2004). An unconventional view of gifted children of Indian descent in the

United States. In D. Boothe & J. Stanley (Eds.), In the eyes of the beholder:

Critical issues for diversity in gifted education. (pp. 101–117). Waco, TX:

Prufrock Press.

209

Shaunessy, E., McHatton, P., Hughes, C., Brice, A., & Ratliff, M. (2007). Understanding

the experience of bilingual, Latino/a adolescents: Voices from gifted and general

education. Roeper Review, 29(3), 174–182. doi:10.1080/02783190709554406

Shih, M., Ambady, N., Richeson, J. A., Fujita, K., & Gray, H. M. (2002). Stereotype

performance boosts: The impact of self-relevance and the manner of stereotype

activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 638–664.

doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.3.638

Siegler, R. S. (1992). The other Alfred Binet. Developmental Psychology, 28, 179–190.

doi:10.1037//0012-1649.28.2.179

Spearman, C. (1904). ‘General intelligence,’ objectively determined and measured.

American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293. doi:10.2307/1412107

Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of

qualitative research (pp.435-453). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Steele, C. M. (1999). Thin ice: ‘Stereotype threat’ and black college students. Atlantic

Monthly, 284(2), 44–54. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/

Sternberg. R.J. (2000). Giftedness as developing expertise. In Heller, K., Monks, F.,

Sternberg, R., & Subotnik, R. (Eds). International handbook of giftedness and

talent (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Publishers.

Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Culture and intelligence. American Psychologist, 59, 325–338.

doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.5.325

Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness

and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological

210

science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3–54.

doi:10.1177/1529100611418056

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives.

New York: Macmillan.

Tannenbaum, A. (2002). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 45–59). Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

Terman, L. M. (1916). The Measurement of intelligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Terman, L. M. & Oden, M. H. (1947). The gifted child grows up: Twenty–five years’

follow-up of a superior group. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Udvari, S. J., & Schneider, B. H. (2000). Competition and the Adjustment of Gifted

Children: A Matter of Motivation. Roeper Review, 22(4), 212–16.

doi:10.1080/02783190009554040

Urhahne, D., & Ortiz, D. (2011). Motivation and emotions of gifted and regular students

performing a creative task. The Open Education Journal, 4, 171–178.

doi:10.2174/1874920801104010105

Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science of an action

sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.).

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

211

Weinberg, M. (1997). Asian-American education: Historical background and current

realities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Winner, E. (1996). The rage to master: The decisive case for talent in the visual arts. In

K. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance

in the arts and sciences, sports and games (pp. 271–301). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Wong, F., & Halgin, R. (2006). The ‘Model minority’: Bane or blessing for Asian

Americans? Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development. 34, 38–49.

doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2006.tb00025.x

Worrell, F. (2012). Mindsets and giftedness: Assumptions and implications. In R.

Subotnik, A. Robinson, C. Callahan & E.J. Gubbins (Eds.), Malleable minds:

Translating insights from psychology and neuroscience to gifted education.

Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Wu, E. (2008). Parental influence on children’s talent development: A case study with

three Chinese American families. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 32(1),

100–129. Retrieved from http://jeg.sagepub.com/

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and method (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Ying, Y., Lee, P. A., Tsai, J. L., Hung, Y., Lin, M., & Wan, C. T. (2001). Asian

American college students as model minorities: An examination of their overall

competence. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7, 59–74.

doi:10.1037/1099-9809.7.1.59

212

Yoon, S. Y., & Gentry, M. (2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs:

Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American students. The Gifted

Child Quarterly, 53(2), 121–136. doi:10.1177/0016986208330564

213

Appendix A Consent Form

214

215

Appendix B Student Assent Form

216

217

Appendix C

218

Appendix D Follow-up Protocol

219

Appendix E

220

Appendix F Parent Follow-up Protocol

221

Appendix G Observation Log

Appendix H

222

Appendix H Piirto’s Pyramid of Talent Development

*Used with permission of the author

223

Appendix I Code Tree