TEACHERS OF THE GIFTED IN ISRAEL: COGNITIVE ASPECTS
OF TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
By: Hava Vidergor
Supervised by: Dr. Billie Eilam
A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE
"DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY"
University of Haifa
Faculty of Education
Department of Learning Instruction and Teacher Education
October, 2010
Recommended by: _______________________ Date :_____________________
(Advisor)
Approved by: ___________________________ Date: _____________________
(Chairman of Ph.D. Committee)
Dedication
This thesis is dedicated to:
My parents: Mr. Dov Horowitz and Mrs. Ruth Horowitz
My husband: Mr. Itzhak Vidergor
My children: Dr. Guy Vidergor and Yochai Vidergor
and all other members of my family.
You have been the source of unconditional love,
encouragement, and inspiration throughout my life.
Thank you for the emotional and practical support
in undertaking this challenge.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Billie Eilam for her advice, insightful criticisms,
and patient encouragement which aided the writing of this thesis in innumerable ways.
Without her this journey would not have been possible.
Many thanks also to Mrs. Sandra Zukerman for being of great help concerning statistical
analysis.
I would also like to thank the participants, for, without their time and cooperation, this
project would not have been completed.
The establishment of certification program for teachers of gifted students by the Division
of Gifted and Excellent Students in Israel headed by Mrs. Shlomit Rcahmel, and the new
US standards formed by task force chaired by Prof. Joyce Van Tassel-Baska and Prof.
Susan Johnsen, who have also kindly agreed to review this dissertation, have been the
source of inspiration to pursue this study. I wish to convey my gratitude to them for their
support, and their professional and genuine remarks.
This thesis would be incomplete without the mention of the support given to me by Mr.
Avinoam Ben Zeev, who encouraged me to pursue my doctoral studies in gifted
education.
Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. IV
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... XV
List of Figures ................................................................................................................ XVII
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1: Theoretical Background ................................................................................. 3
Defining Giftedness .......................................................................................................... 5
Characteristics of Gifted Students..................................................................................... 7
Identifying Giftedness ....................................................................................................... 8
Programs and Models ...................................................................................................... 10
Programs: Enrichment and acceleration. ..................................................................... 10
Gifted education: Curriculum models and teaching-learning strategies. .................... 11
Pullout Programs for Gifted Students and Program Characteristics ............................... 11
Pullout program characteristics. .................................................................................. 11
Teaching-learning situation in pullout courses vs. regular classroom. ....................... 12
Programs in Israel ........................................................................................................... 18
Gifted Education in Israel: A Multicultural View........................................................... 20
Teachers of the Gifted ..................................................................................................... 22
Teachers' and students’ perceptions of cognitive, pedagogical, and personal
characteristics of the teacher of gifted students. ......................................................... 22
Theory and practice. .................................................................................................... 24
Professional Development of Teachers ........................................................................... 26
General professional development of regular teachers. .............................................. 26
Pedagogical knowledge acquired in professional development. ................................. 29
Models of professional development. ......................................................................... 32
Curriculum transformation. ......................................................................................... 34
Professional Development for Teachers of the Gifted .................................................... 35
Israeli professional development program for teachers of the gifted (PDTG). ........... 35
Professional development of teachers of the gifted in US and other countries........... 37
Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................. 39
Chapter 2: Research Design and Methodology .............................................................. 42
Study Sample .................................................................................................................. 42
Procedure......................................................................................................................... 47
Data Collection and Instrumentation .............................................................................. 48
Questionnaires. ............................................................................................................ 48
Written documents. ..................................................................................................... 53
Deep and semi-structured interviews. ......................................................................... 54
Observations. ............................................................................................................... 55
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 55
II
Qualitative data analysis. ............................................................................................ 58
Quantitative data analysis. .......................................................................................... 64
Study Ethics .................................................................................................................... 66
Chapter 3: Results ............................................................................................................. 67
Part1: Gifted Education Status ........................................................................................ 67
Teachers’ perceptions – pre-test. ................................................................................. 67
Students’ perceptions. ................................................................................................. 77
Teachers’ and students’ perceptions. .......................................................................... 92
Part 2: Israeli Professional Development Program - Curriculum Transformation ......... 95
Ideological curriculum. ............................................................................................... 95
Formal curriculum. ...................................................................................................... 97
Perceived curriculum. ............................................................................................... 101
Operational curriculum. ............................................................................................ 105
Experienced curriculum. ........................................................................................... 108
Part 3: Cognitive Aspects of Professional Development Program ............................... 112
Teachers’ perceptions pre-and-post-test.................................................................... 112
Chapter 4: Discussion ..................................................................................................... 126
Part 1: Gifted Education Status in Pullout Programs .................................................... 126
Israeli teachers’ and students’ perceptions of gifted education in pullout centers. ... 126
Part 2: Israeli Professional Development Program ....................................................... 134
Curriculum transformation. ....................................................................................... 134
Part 3: Cognitive Aspects of Professional Development Program ............................... 139
Teachers’ perceptions pre-post-test. .......................................................................... 139
Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 143
Theoretical Contribution ............................................................................................... 146
Implications ................................................................................................................... 146
Implications concerning teachers’ and students’ cultural orientations. .................... 146
Implications concerning PDTG curriculum. ............................................................. 149
Implications concerning Israeli certification programs. ............................................ 149
Study Limitations .......................................................................................................... 152
Suggestions for Future Research ................................................................................... 153
References ........................................................................................................................ 155
Appendix A: Teachers' Questionnaire .......................................................................... 179
Appendix B: Students' Questionnaire ........................................................................... 182
Appendix C: Collectivism Questionnaire ..................................................................... 187
Appendix D: PDTG Program Contributions Questionnaire ...................................... 188
Appendix E: Core Interview Questions ........................................................................ 190
III
TEACHERS OF THE GIFTED IN ISRAEL: COGNITIVE ASPECTS
OF TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Hava Vidergor
Abstract
The study focused on the professional development of teachers of the gifted
(PDTG) taking its initial steps in five centers in Israel. It aimed to gain a deeper
understanding of the professional development process and of participants' experiences
and practices, as related to programs' stated goals and adopted US standards for teachers
of gifted. US standards were used as the theoretical base of this study.
In order to investigate the cognitive impact of PDTG program on its participants
the study sought to gain some knowledge concerning: (a) the status of gifted education as
perceived by teachers and students; (b) PDTG curriculum transformation from ideological
facet until it reaches trained teachers, and US standards expressed in each facet; and (c)
pre-post assessment at initial and final stage of certification. Aspects examined were
teachers’ perceptions of teaching-learning situation in pullout programs, teachers’ desired
characteristics, and self-assessed program contribution regarding knowledge, competence,
general satisfaction with program and readiness to teach gifted students.
IV
Research Questions
1. How do Israeli teachers and gifted students perceive the status of gifted
education in pullout centers relating to the teaching-learning situation, and
teachers’ desired characteristics?
2. How is the Israeli PDTG curriculum transformed from ideological facet until it
reaches teacher trainee, and how does it comply with US standards?
3. What is the cognitive impact from pre-to-post-test of PDTG program on their
participants’ concerning perceptions of the teaching-learning situations in
pullout centers in Israel, the desired characteristics of teachers of the gifted,
and self-assessment of knowledge and competencies they acquired?
Study Sample
Participants included five groups: (a) PDTG teachers (N=88) learning in five joint
Jewish and Arab certification programs across the country; (b) Pullout center teachers
Jewish and Arab teachers (N=58) teaching in pullout centers located in central and
northern Israel; (c) School teachers Jewish and Arab teachers (N=71) teaching in regular
schools in the same area; (d) Gifted students Jewish and Arab (N=404) elementary and
junior high school gifted students studying in grades 5 to 9, taking part in pullout
programs in centers for gifted education in Israel; and (e) Executives and instructors
(N=40) comprising four sub-groups: (I) Head of Division of Gifted and excellent students;
(II) interviewed program coordinators and lecturers; (III) observed program coordinators,
invited lecturers, and program lecturers; and (IV) interviewed PDTG participants studying
in first and second year.
V
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Data were collected via questionnaires, documents, interviews and observations.
Teachers’ Desired Characteristics Questionnaire
Teachers’ Desired Characteristics Questionnaire comprised three parts: (a) One
open-ended question requiring participants to relate freely to uniqueness in teaching gifted
students, and 43 closed items requiring response on a six-point Likert scale. The
statements described various personal, cognitive and pedagogical characteristics of
teachers of the gifted. (b) Consisted of 10 closed items regarding students' expectations
from and perceptions of pullout program courses, and 2 open-ended questions relating to
the contribution of pullout program to students' academic and social development; and (c)
Involved items concerning demographic information about participants. In teachers'
version of the questionnaire part (b) was left out, and questions were added to part (c)
concerning important teachers' demographic information. The questionnaire was
administered to three groups of teachers (pre-and-post-test) and students.
Collectivism Questionnaire
Collectivism Questionnaire, comprising 11 closed items on a five-point Likert
scale, was administered to all teachers to assess their orientations.
PDTG Program Contributions Questionnaire
PDTG Program Contributions Questionnaire comprised three parts: (a) Teachers’
knowledge of different aspects related to gifted education (15 items, on a four-point
Likert-type scale); (b) Teachers’ competencies (10 items, on a six-point Likert-type scale)
referring to teachers’ abilities or skills; (c) Teachers’ satisfaction and readiness (2 items,
on a four-point Likert-type scale).The questionnaire was administered to PDTG teachers at
initial and final stage of certification.
VI
Written Documents
Key documents and programs curricula were gathered from Division of Gifted and
Excellent Students at Ministry of Education and program coordinators for the analysis of
ideological and formal facets of curriculum respectively.
Deep and Semi-Structured Interviews
Deep interview with head of Division of Gifted enabled gathering information on
ideological facet of curriculum. Semi-structured interviews with program coordinators and
lecturers, and deep interviews with a small sample of PDTG participants enabled
collecting information on perceived and experienced facets of curriculum respectively.
Observations
Two random observations of three PDTG programs enabled collecting data on
program coordinators and lecturers teaching curriculum in operational facet.
Data Analysis
Qualitative Data Analysis
Open-ended question, semi-structured and deep interviews. Teachers’ and
students’ responses to open-ended question, program coordinators and lecturers responses
to semi-structured interview, and head of division’s and program participants’ responses to
deep interview were analyzed using grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Written documents. Documents and written programs were read several times.
Emerging themes were recorded and divided into specific categories, enabling comparison
and identification of orientations.
Observations. Data collected during observation were categorized according to
Schwab’s notion of the four commonplaces characterizing teaching-learning situations
(Schwab, 1964, 1969/1978).
VII
Quantitative Data Analysis
Open-ended question. Teachers’ and students’ reference to a single characteristic
of any of the commonplaces in the open-ended question was scored 1. The summed scores
of for each commonplace were compared to reveal differences in perceptions of the
inherent importance of each commonplace and mean values of participant scores in each
group were calculated. For pre-and-post-tests repeated measures ANOVAs and repeated
contrasts for post hoc were performed.
Teachers’ desired characteristics. Mean values of statement scores of group
participants were calculated for each dimension of teacher characteristics, and two-way
MANOVA tests were performed to establish differences between Arab and Jewish
teachers’ and students’ ratings. Differences between Arab and Jewish teachers’ and
students’ ratings on statements within groups were established via paired sample t-tests.
Pullout program contribution (students). Descriptive statistics were used to
analyze students’ course offering, and their perceptions of academic and social
contribution. Multivariate analysis was used for course preferences, and Univariate
analysis was used for analyzing students’ satisfaction with pullout program.
Collectivism questionnaire. Pearson correlations were performed to establish the
relevance of the collectivism variable.
PDTG program contributions questionnaire. Paired sample tests were performed
to establish differences between participants’ pre-post self-evaluated knowledge and
competence, and within Type 1 and Type 2 PDTG participants. Univariate analysis was
used for differences according to factors by group type.
VIII
Procedure
The participants of all 3 groups of teachers (PDTG, Pullout and school teachers)
individually performed the pre-test i.e., responding to teachers' questionnaire and
collectivism questionnaire in their original study groups or at teachers' meetings. PDTG
teachers also responded to PDTG contributions questionnaire. At the end of the PDTG
program, two years later, the entire procedure was repeated with same teachers (post-test).
Students responded to students’ questionnaire in the course of the first research
year at various pullout centers in different parts of the country. Interviews were conducted
individually, and documents relating to the PDTG program were collected. The Head of
the Israeli Division for Gifted and Excellent Students, program coordinators, and lecturers
were interviewed. Observations and deep interviews with program participants were
conducted.
Results
Part One: Gifted Education Status
Teachers’ perceptions. The two aspects investigated in the present study, the
teaching-learning situation in pullout programs and the desired characteristics of the
teacher of the gifted, revealed a strong group effect for the first aspect, and a group and
cultural effect for the second. Pullout center teachers, and even more so, those from Arab
communities, were found to differ significantly, in both aspects, from their colleagues in
PDTG and in regular schools. These teachers also exhibited a higher level of collectivism
correlated with the pedagogical dimension of teachers’ characteristics, and an opposite
trend in the cognitive. Teachers taking their initial steps in PDTG programs generally
IX
showed a different perception of the teachers’ roles and desired characteristics, although a
cultural effect can also be detected within this group.
Students’ Perceptions. Significant differences were detected between Jewish and
Arab gifted students in their perceptions of the teaching-learning situation and teachers’
desired characteristics. Arab girls exhibited a different perception of the cognitive and
personal characteristics of the teacher, in addition to suggesting more instrumental courses
to be studied at pullout center compared with Arab counterparts. No significant
differences were found according to culture concerning social and academic contribution
of pullout programs. Satisfaction with program according to grade level by culture was
higher among Arab elementary students, and reversed in junior high school.
Differences between teachers’ and students’ perceptions. Both teachers and
students attributed higher importance to personal and cognitive, and lower importance to
pedagogical characteristics of the teacher. Students rated all characteristics significantly
lower compared with teachers. Although teachers and students significantly differed in
their perception of the teaching-learning situation and desired characteristics of the teacher
of the gifted, investigation by culture showed a similar trend among Arab teachers and
students rating higher in the pedagogical dimension, and a gap between Jewish teachers
and students and Arab counterparts ratings of the cognitive dimension.
Part Two: Curriculum Transformation
Division of Gifted main ideas expressed in curriculum transformation.
Division of Gifted main ideas as expressed in the ideological facet of curriculum were
adequately transferred to the formal and perceived facets, where they were translated into
curriculum programs, and were referred to by coordinators in interviews using the same
X
terminology. The forum established by the Division helped all concerned parties keep
main ideas, but also was flexible enough to allow a slightly different interpretation. As a
result, two types of programs evolved, Type 1 focusing on teacher education, and Type 2
adding the development of participants’ personal characteristics.
The operational facet of curriculum, focusing on what actually happens in the
classroom, was found to be the most problematic. Although both types of programs tried
to maintain Division and program rationale, as well as aims, and objectives, observation
results indicated three areas that needed attention. The three areas were the
teacher/lecturer, subject matter, and milieu. These difficulties faced in the operational
facet were mirrored in the perceived facet as presented by interviewed trained teachers.
Adopted US Standards Expressed in Curriculum Transformation. Application
of standards as perceived by program coordinators transformed to operational and
experienced facet became incomplete due to certain difficulties. PDTG participants were
partially exposed to Foundations, Characteristics, Instructional and Planning Strategies, as
well as Learning Environments suitable for the gifted. Some of the standards like
Language and Communication, Professional and Ethical Practice, and Collaboration, that
seemed less relevant to PDTG participants at this initial stage of certification program
were left out. Assessment might have been addressed to some extent in clusters or courses
relating to teaching, but not as a separate topic which needs special attention.
Factors Influencing Curriculum Transformation. Main factors influencing
curriculum tranformation from formal to operational facet were: (a) program design and
coordinators’ role (mainly Type 1 program) ; (b) significant elements of subject matter and
miliue (both types of programs); and (c) materials available (both types of programs).
Moving from operational to experienced facet revealed one main factor relating to
XI
program relevance comprising of (a) theoretical knowledge and parctical aspects of
teaching (mainly Type 1 program); and (b) Program sturucture (Type 2 program).
Part Three: Cognitive Aspects of Professional Development Program
Comparing teachers’ perceptions, as measured in pre-and-post-test questionnaires
administered to same participants at the beginning and towards the end of PDTG program,
revealed two aspects of cognitive outcomes; self-assessed knowledge and competence
assessed based on adopted US standards, and conceptual change regarding the instruction
of gifted students, which was assessed indirectly by perceptions of teaching-learning
situation and teachers’ desired characteristics.
On the one hand, measuring explicit cognitive contribution indicated teachers from
both types of programs perceived they had gained new knowledge, and were competent
and ready to teach gifted students. On the other hand, partial results concerning implicit
cognitive contribution, assessed by perception of teaching-learning situation and teachers’
desired characteristics, showed they have not made the required conceptual change.
Although participants of both types of programs had gained some knowledge concerning
teachers’ role in the pullout program, teachers of gifted not participating in PDTG program
had exhibited similar knowledge based on practicum.
Theoretical Contribution
Concerning the contribution of the study to theory, its results elaborate on the
insufficient data accumulated concerning the professional development of teachers of the
gifted. It promotes our understanding of various factors affecting curriculum
transformation like program design, significant elements of subject matter and milieu,
materials available and program relevance. It contributes to the understanding of cognitive
XII
aspects regarding the impact of teacher training in this specific area and teachers'
professional development. It promotes awareness of differences in teachers’ perceptions of
teacher’s desired characteristics according to culture. In addition, it elaborates on data
concerning the effectiveness of pullout centers as perceived by teachers and students of
different cultural orientations. Practically, study results would enable developers of
curriculum to identify and cope with difficulties in implementation.
Implications
Implications Concerning Teachers’ and Students’ Cultural Orientations
Awareness of differences in perception and preferences of teachers of the gifted
can promote student participation and learning, and contribute to the improvement of
pullout programs; so can awareness of individualist vs. collectivist cultural orientation
with respect to the teaching-learning situation in pullout centers and to desired teacher
characteristics. Teachers of the gifted already working in these centers must be continually
supported in their efforts to promote their gifted students’ cognitive abilities. It is therefore
recommended that both Arab and Jewish teachers, representing their respective cultural
orientations, be encouraged to attend certification programs recently established by the
Division of Gifted and Excellent Students at the Ministry of Education in Israel.
Implications Concerning PDTG Curriculum
Awareness to curriculum transformation increases the ability to monitor
influential factors and reduce the gap between ideal and experienced. Defining
coordinators’ roles, monitoring program design, offering materials in participants’
language, aligning program with adopted US standards, and incorporating advanced
milieu could contribute to the achievement of program aims. Relevance of program could
XIII
be enhanced by micro teaching and other forms of practicum accompanied by reflection
and analyzed based on acquired theory.
Implications Concerning Israeli Certification Programs
The program should be closely monitored and evaluated for several years until it is
stabilized. The following issues should be considered: (a) addressing lack of materials and
lecturers; (b) incorporating practicum; (c) upgrading subject matter and learning
environment; (d) incorporating additional US standards; (e) promoting research and
development of assessment tools; (f) promoting awareness to cultural orientations; (g)
incorporating assessment of personal and cognitive dimensions in interviewing teachers
for the program.
XIV
List of Tables
Table1: Study Population: Number of Teachers in 3 Study Groups by Culture in
Pre-Test (Stage 1)……………………………………………………………….44
Table 2: Study Population: Number of Teachers in 3 Study Groups by Culture in
Pre-Post-Test (Stage 3)…………………………………………………………..44
Table 3: Study Population: Number of Students by Culture, Grade Level, and Gender
(percentage in parentheses)……………………………………………………...45
Table 4: Number of Participants According to Role, Program Type and Data
Source……………………………………………………………………..…….46
Table 5: Results of Factor Analysis According to Perceptions of Various Dimensions….50
Table 6: Research Questions, Instruments, and Qualitative and Quantitative Measures…56
Table 7: Examples of Three Levels of Coding Procedures for Teachers’ Responses……59
Table 8: Examples of Three levels of the Coding Procedure for Interviews with
Program Coordinators…………………………………………………………...61
Table 9: Examples of Three levels of the Coding Procedure for Interviews with
PDTG participants……………………………………………………………….63
Table 10: Teachers Rating Teachers’ Characteristics in Three Dimensions: Mean
Scores Differences and Significance in Post Hoc Tests for Groups……………73
Table 11: Pearson Correlations between Three Dimensions of Teachers’
Characteristics and Collectivist Orientation according to Culture, Group,
and Group by Culture………………………………………………………….74
Table 12: Teachers’ Ratings of the Three Dimensions of Teachers’ Characteristics by
Group, Culture, and group by Culture: Multivariate Tests Results Presented
in F Values, Effect Size and Significance Levels………………………………75
Table 13: Correlations Among the Three Dimensions of Teachers' Desired
Characteristics as Rated by Students (N=404)………………………………...81
Table 14: Results of MANOVA for All Students’ Ratings on Teachers’ Characteristics
in the Three Dimensions by Culture, Grade Level, Gender and Gender by
Culture, Presented in F Values and Significance Levels…………………….…82
XV
Table 15: Mean Scores (and SD), F Values, and Size Effect for Differences between
Groups: Results of Multivariate Tests According to Culture…………………..86
Table 16: Preference of Courses According to Gender: Results of Multivariate Tests
Expressed in F Values, Significance, and Size Effect………………………….88
Table 17: Mean Scores (SD) and Rank of Program’s Academic Contribution
According to Culture…………………………………………………………...90
Table 18: Ratings of the Three Dimensions according to Teacher-Student, Culture,
and Teacher-Student by Culture, Presented in F Values, Significance, and
Size Effect……………………………………………………………………...94
Table 19: Program Types Description According to Program Main Criteria…….………99
Table 20: Triangulation of findings from document analysis, interviews, and
observations…………………………………………………………………..111
Table 21: Differences between Pre-post tests for the Commonplaces of Teacher and
Milieu: Results of Multivariate Tests According to Group and Culture
Presented in Mean Scores (and SD), F Values, and Size Effect……………...113
Table 22: Pre-and-Post-Test Results of Teachers’ Perceptions of the Commonplace of
Teacher by Three Dimensions of Teachers’ Desired Characteristics
According to Group…………………………………………………………..115
Table 23: Mean Scores (and SD), F Values, and Size Effect for Differences between
Pre-Post-Tests for the Cognitive Dimension: Results of Multivariate Tests
According to Group, Group by Culture and Type of PDTG Program…….….118
Table 24: Pearson Correlations between Three Dimensions of Teachers’
Characteristics and Collectivist Orientation according to Culture, Group,
and Group by Culture…………………………………………………………121
Table 25: Differences between Pre-Post-Tests of Teachers’ Self-Evaluated Knowledge
and Competencies According to Group, Group by Culture and Type of
PDTG Program Presented in Mean Scores (and SD), F Values, T-tests,
and Size Effect……………………………………………………………..…123
Table 26: Summary of Curriculum Transformation according to addressed US
standards, factors or encountered difficulties, and required steps.……………148
XVI
List of Figures
Figure 1: Teachers’ Perceptions of the Four Commonplaces in a Teaching-Learning
Situation: Differences of Mean Scores between Groups…………………..68
Figure 2: Teachers’ Perceptions of the Four Commonplaces in a Teaching-Learning
Situation According to Cultural Orientation: Differences of Mean Scores
between Groups……………………………………………………………70
Figure 3: Students’ Perceptions of the Four Commonplaces in a Teaching-Learning
Situation: Mean Score Differences between Groups……………………...78
XVII
Introduction
The exposure to a fast-paced competitive world dealing with the overflow of
knowledge increases the importance of the enhancement and development of human
potential, which is the main resource of Israel. Hence, there is a need to cater for gifted
children and train expert teachers in the field.
The steering committee in Israel (Ministry of Education, 2004), has asserted that
teaching and education of gifted constitute a unique pedagogical domain that requires a
special framework of training, thus stressed the need for a legislative procedure that will
result in The Gifted Act, which will establish special professional development programs
intended for both regular teachers, and teachers who teach gifted students.
Five centers in Israel currently carry out the professional development program for
the first time. Mostly, they aim at developing a holistic approach to the education of gifted
students, namely, one which emphasizes the relations between cognitive, emotional, social
and environmental factors. Among other stated aims of these programs, it aspires to
develop expert teachers of the gifted characterized by having profound knowledge of
theoretical issues in this domain, acquainted with specific pedagogical, didactic and
methodological teaching tools, as well as, the ability to develop relevant curricular units
for the gifted. The programs highlight pedagogical approaches, which apply dynamic
instructional models that emphasize processes, openness to change, and incorporation of
field experience.
The study focused on the professional development of teachers of the gifted taking
place in five centers in Israel. It aimed to gain a deeper understanding of the professional
1
development process and of participants' experiences and practices, as related to programs'
stated goals.
2
Chapter 1: Theoretical Background
Standards for professional development of teachers of the gifted (PDTG) have
been developed by the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) and Council of
Exceptional Children (CEC) with approval of the National Council for Accreditation for
Teacher Education (NCATE) in the United States. These standards are based on research
and main theories in the field of gifted education (Van Tassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007).
They define the essential knowledge and skills teachers need for becoming effective in
classrooms, and can be used to guide program developers in preparing future teachers of
the gifted. The standards ensure that teachers acquire knowledge concerning relevant
theories, research findings, pedagogy, and management techniques, so that they can
identify gifted students, develop programs and offer gifted students substantial learning
opportunities.
Indicators for this knowledge were organized in ten Council of Exceptional Children
(CEC) standards: Foundations (theories and definitions), Development and Characteristics
of Learners, Individual Learning Differences, Instructional Strategies, Efficient Learning
Environments and Social Interaction, Language and Communication, Instructional
Planning, Assessment, Professional and Ethical Practice, and Collaboration. These
standards should guide program developers when preparing teachers at all levels, ranging
from endorsement, certification, and/or a master's degree program with emphasis in gifted
education. Moreover, the use of standards would not only promote consistency and
coherence in teacher preparation, but can also be used as assessment tools by institutions
and teacher education programs (Van Tassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). To link standards
with candidate performance, a list of six required assessments was developed: (a) licensure
3
(b) content knowledge, (c) candidate’s ability to plan instruction, (d) teaching in a field
placement, (e) effect on student learning, and (f) additional assessment addressing
standards (Johnsen, Van Tassel-Baska & Robinson, 2008).
Only recently there has been an attempt to establish guidelines for the construction
of PD programs for teachers of the gifted. The process of developing the standards
included: taking into consideration relevant research findings, developing a professional
literature base relating to all aspects of gifted education, and validation of procedures
outlined by the CEC and approved by the NCATE in 2001 (Council for Exceptional
Children, 2003). The standards may serve as a model for guiding the rationale and
development of teacher education programs for teachers of the gifted. In the absence of
any other direct theory for PD for teachers of the gifted (PDTG) (except indirect general
theories concerning teacher education, instruction and learning), these standards will guide
the study for analysis of the Israeli PDTG.
The Israeli program for certification and professional development of teachers of the
gifted (PDTG) is taking its initial steps. It aims at developing a holistic approach to the
education of gifted students, which emphasizes the relations among the cognitive,
emotional, social and environmental components of gifted education. Hence, all standards
are relevant to these programs. At its initial steps, the standards relating to foundations
(standard 1), development, characteristics and individual learning differences (standards 2
& 3), and instructional strategies and planning (standards 4 & 7) are expected to be
emphasized in the program. Assessment (standard 8), although significantly important, is
expected to be briefly addressed at this stage. We focus on standards relevant to program
in Israel, in order to examine program and professionals' stated goals and orientations.
4
Defining Giftedness
Defining giftedness is considered by the CEC to be an inherent part of standard
one. The field of gifted education is set out to identify a specific population, which will be
provided the opportunity to fulfill its potential and will eventually contribute to society at
large. Such identification requires definitions and various measures. The evolving
definition of giftedness and talent is based on the orientation of social, cultural, and
economic equity.
Historically, the initial definition of giftedness was suggested by Terman (1925) and
Terman and Oden (1947, 1959) who used the I.Q. score of 140 on the Stanford- Binet
Intelligence Scale as the leading operational definition. This definition was elaborated in
the 1950s by Guilford (1956) who viewed intelligence as comprised of multiple abilities,
using the term "gifted and talented" for the first time. In the seventies, a multi-dimensional
definition was proposed by Marland (1972). The definition was adopted by the American
Department of Education, and included abilities like creative or productive thinking,
leadership, artistic and psychomotor skills in addition to general intellectual and specific
academic aptitude. In 1978 the psychomotor gift was excluded.
The perception of giftedness as multi-dimensional rather than being represented by
one I.Q. score is expressed, among other things, in the theory of multiple intelligences
(MI), (Gardner, 1983, 1993). The theory suggested the existence of several intelligence
types representing skills in various dimensions, arguing that there is more than one way to
test intelligence and more than one criterion to determine giftedness.
Other theories such as the triarchic theory of intelligence (Sternberg, 1985, 1997)
perceive analytical, creative and practical intelligences as being separate and
5
interconnected forms of abilities. At the same time the concept of emotional intelligence
(Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2000) was
developed. The "three-ring" conception, or Renzulli Triad, (Renzulli, 1978, 1986) viewed
giftedness as comprising ability, creativity and task commitment. Gagne (1985, 1995,
2003) expanded on this model, and distinguished between gifts and talents, proposing that
giftedness should be considered as the translation of natural abilities (aptitude domains),
into high performance talent areas, with the help of intrapersonal and environmental
catalysts.
The United States Department of Education (1993) adopted the definition for gifted
and talented individuals, first used in the Marland Report (1972), and extended it. Based
on the definition used in the federal Javits Gifted and Talented Education Act (1988) it
stresses: (a) the diversity of areas in which performance may be exhibited (e.g.,
intellectual, creative, artistic, leadership, academic), (b) the comparison with other groups
(e.g., those in general education classrooms or of the same age, experience, or
environment), and (c) the use of terms that imply a need for development of the gift (e.g.,
capability and potential). Performance and high levels of accomplishment are included in
the definition as characteristics, which contribute to and support giftedness (Johnsen,
2004). The emphasis on giftedness as present in all cultural groups initiated new lines of
research on diversity and underachievement.
As reflected in the standards suggested for the education of teachers of the gifted
(Van Tassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007), the teacher should acquire a large knowledge base
and skills to form a holistic view of giftedness and planning provisions for gifted students.
Holistic view emphasizes the relations among the cognitive, emotional, social and
environmental components of gifted education.
6
The existing universal definitions, which were based on intellectual and specific
academic aptitude, were reexamined by a professional committee for the advancement of
gifted education in Israel (Ministry of Education, 2004). Hence, the Israeli operational
definition of giftedness now includes: "1.General intellectual ability. 2. Specific academic
aptitude. 3. Artistic talent in various areas. 4. Psychomotor talent" (p.10). Creativity and
high level of motivation are considered in accordance with committee definition as extra
requirements. Resulting from the application of this expanded definition, an extra 4% of
talented students are identified in each cohort as participants of various programs for
gifted.
Characteristics of Gifted Students
Characteristics of gifted students are considered by the CEC an inherent part of
standard two. These are frequently described either in general terms across several
domains, or as related to specific areas cited in the federal and state definitions (Johnsen,
2004). The various characteristics can be related to different areas: (a) Academic or
intellectual (Renzulli, Smith, White, Callahan, Hartman & Westberg, 2002) (e.g., having
in-depth knowledge, fluency of thoughts, ability to question, and large number of ideas).
(b) Creative and artistic (Coleman & Cross, 2001; Piirto, 1999, Sternberg, 1988) (e.g.,
ability to apply unique solutions to problems, to improvise, to contribute new concepts,
methods, products, being sensitive to beauty, observant and attentive to details) (c)
Affective and social (Clark, 2002; Renzulli, et al., 2002) (e.g., being emotionally sensitive,
confident and risk taker, playful and intuitive). (d) Leadership (Renzulli at al., 2002) (e.g.
being responsible and cooperative, having a tendency to dominate others, having a
tendency to question authority). (e) Motivation (Gottfried, Gottfried, Cook & Morris,
7
2005) (e.g. having the desire to succeed, having a tendency to enjoy challenging tasks,
having the ability to work well without encouragement or reinforcement).
Note that gifted and talented students do not have to exhibit characteristics, a
potential or performance, in all areas. Due to the dynamic nature of these characteristics,
appropriate measures for identifying gifted and talented students should be developed and
applied.
Identifying Giftedness
The identification procedures are considered by the CEC as an inherent part of
standard eight. The criteria for identifying gifted and talented students are driven from and
guided by the described validation of giftedness, and are based on methods and
instruments developed by researchers for this purpose.
The US Department of Education (1993) recommendations for the identification of
gifted students emphasize the need to include measures of diverse talents. Such measures
are collected by the application of a variety of assessment instruments while striving to
conduct assessment using appropriate measures. Evaluation has to be comprehensive,
multi-factored-based, performed by the application of psychometrically sound measures to
incorporate information from a variety of sources (Kaufman & Harrison, 1986; Pfeiffer,
2001).
Nowadays, schools in many countries, use a variety of measures for identifying
gifted children and determining students' capability and potential. These may include
portfolios of student's work, classroom observations, achievement measures, as well as
intelligence scores (Johnsen, 2004). Teacher rating scales are another method of gathering
information to assist in the identification of gifted children, but should be used in great
8
caution (Jarosewich, Pfeiffer & Morris, 2002). Dynamic assessment is yet another nontraditional approach used to assess cognitive abilities that are often not apparent through
most forms of the applied standardized tests. This type of assessment usually consists of a
test-intervention-retest format, with the focus being on students' improvement after
intervention, which exposed them to cognitive strategies that enable the mastery of the
testing task (Kirschenbaum, 1998). The two-stage process of screening and identification
was meant to ensure that appropriate measures are used in the selection of students for a
program (Van Tassel- Baska, 2000).
Practitioners' and educators' attitudes towards identification of gifted and talented
children, exhibit a strong agreement with the importance of using multiple criteria (Brown,
Renzulli, Gubbins, Siegle, Zang & Chen, 2005). However, recent field reports show that
even though rating scales were designed and are readily available, they are not applied in
many schools (Jarosewich et al., 2002).
The changing conception of giftedness brought about a process of designing a
variety of valid and reliable measures to be used for identifying gifted students in Israel.
The newly designed assessment tools will include teachers' rating scales, portfolio
assessment, motivation and creativity questionnaires, in addition to the more traditional
achievement and intelligence tests (Ministry of Education, 2004). The Israeli committee
for the advancement of gifted education recommended that students comprising the upper
5% would be identified yearly, and the identification process would begin as early as
kindergarten all through high school.
9
Programs and Models
Programs and models are considered by the CEC an inherent part of standards four
and seven. The education of the gifted and talented takes on many forms and is directly
influenced by the many definitions of giftedness and various means of identification. It is
of utmost importance to be aware of the diverse programs and strategies applied in gifted
education. Such knowledge may shed some light on and contribute to our understanding of
how to design an effective teacher education program for educating the gifted.
Programs: Enrichment and acceleration. Enrichment and acceleration are two
main program-types practiced in gifted education. Enrichment programs, which expose
students to increased breadth and depth of content (Schiever & Maker, 1997), supplement
education in
regular classrooms and improve gifted child's educational experiences
(Winner, 1997). Among them are resource centers, pull-out programs (Renzulli & Reis,
1997; Feldhusen, 1997) and out-of-school Sunday or summer programs (OlszewskiKubilius, 2003).
Accelerative programs (Colangelo, Assuline & Gross, 2004; Kulik, 2004) or
programs that alter educational experiences (Winner, 1997) include full time ability
grouping (Kulik & Kulik,1992,1997), segregated classrooms (Zeidner & Shcleyer, 1999a,
1999b), or special/magnet schools, as well as the more common ones such as: Early
entrance
to any of the education levels (Olszewski-Kubilius, 1998), grade skipping
(Colangelo, Assuline & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2004), mentoring (Moon & Callahan, 2001),
curriculum compacting (Reis, Westberg, Kulikowich, & Purcell, 1998 ), and above-level
courses without grade skipping (i.e., dual enrollment, advance placement (Southern &
Jones, 2004).
10
Gifted education: Curriculum models and teaching-learning strategies. Various
models are available for providing meaningful curricula to enhance the learning of gifted
students. Among the best known and practiced are: The Integrated Curriculum Model
(ICM) (Van Tassel-Baska, 2003, 2005), The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM)
(Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1994, 1997, 2003), The Parallel Curriculum Model (PCM)
(Tomlinson, Kaplan, Renzulli, Burns, Leppien & Purcell, 2001), Multiple Intelligences
(MI) (Gardner, 1983, 1993), The Triarchic Model (Sternberg, Torff & Grigorenko, 1998),
and The Autonomous Learner Model (ALM) (Betts & Neihart, 1986).
Learning/teaching strategies often practiced with gifted students in the various
programs and as derived from the different models include the application of: High- order
thinking (Anderson & Krathwhol, 2001), of problem-based learning (Gallagher, 1997,
Stepien & Pyke,1997), independent study (Johnsen & Goree, 2005), creativity and creative
thinking (Van Tassel-Baska, 2004; Cramond, 2005), technology (Pyryt, 2003), and the
application of meta- cognitive strategies (Van Tassel-Baska, Avery, Little & Hughes,
2000).
Pullout Programs for Gifted Students and Program Characteristics
Pullout program characteristics. Pullout programs can take many forms. The two
most prevalent ones are those in which students spend time in a gifted resource room at
school or travel to a center for gifted education. Schiever and Maker (1997) identified
three types of pullout programs: (a) process-oriented programs that focus on creative
problem solving and critical thinking, taught independently of specific subject matter
content; (b) content-oriented approaches that offer mini-courses or mentorship in a
11
specific subject domain; and (c) product-oriented approaches that involve students in
projects, reports, and presentations, combining process and content elements.
Pullout programs at centers for gifted education usually require that students travel to
these centers (Davidson, Davidson & Vanderkam 2004). The centers offer a choice of
enrichment topics appropriate for the students' grade level and interests. Some scholars
criticize these programs and topics offered, saying they do not contribute to gifted
children, and sometimes participation causes more harm than having no program at all
(Davidson, Davidson & Vanderkam 2004).
A study conducted by Swaitek and Lupkowski-Shoplik (2003), based on a
questionnaire administered to gifted elementary and middle school students, found that the
pullout program was the most common practice in gifted education (40%), consistent with
results of past research (Winner, 1997).
Teaching-learning situation in pullout courses vs. regular classroom. The present
study applied Schwab’s notion of the four commonplaces to obtain a comprehensive view
of all four aspects of teaching-learning situations in pullout centers, compared with regular
classrooms. The study examined pullout learning situations involving a teacher who is
teaching a subject matter to students in a social and cultural context – the milieu (Schwab,
1973, 1978). Schwab emphasizes the interaction among four commonplaces that translate
theoretical ideas into curriculum as it emerges in practice. Although representing four
unique theoretical foundations, each commonplace influences the others with equal
emphasis (Schwab, 1973). (a) The commonplace of the teacher refers to the knowledge,
abilities and beliefs that the teacher brings to the enactment of the curriculum; (b) with
respect to the commonplace of the learner, the teacher should know what his or her
learners already know, what each will find easy or difficult to learn, and what motivates
12
each learner or creates anxiety in him or her; (c) the commonplace of the milieu represents
the learning environments that influence the affective aspects of learning: How do learners
relate to one another? What kind of interactive structure does the teacher favor? and (d)
the commonplace of the subject matter should be deeply understood by the teacher (Sack,
2008).The commonplaces employed in this study enable a comprehensive view of all four
aspects of the teaching-learning situation in pullout centers and is compared to that in
regular schools.
Teacher. US standards for teaching the gifted are based on research and theoretical
studies in the field of gifted education (Van Tassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). These studies
define essential knowledge and skills in ten areas, covering all aspects of gifted education
that teachers need in order to become effective in classrooms. Teachers of the gifted are
portrayed as life-long learners, characterized by various desirable cognitive abilities, in
particular the ability to think and process information simultaneously. Teachers are further
described as using skills associated with various knowledge domains, having a deep
understanding of a single area of knowledge, and being passionate about it (Van TasselBaska, 2005).
Students. Gifted students are identified by the Division of Gifted and Excellent
Students in the Ministry of Education in Israel as the top 1-3% of their cohort (Ministry of
Education, 2004), who attend the centers for gifted education in their regions. Whether
students attend these centers or drop out depends, among others, on their perception of
how important it is to be and to study with other students who possess similar
characteristics and abilities (Vidergor & Reiter, 2008).
Subject matter. The variety of courses offered at pullout centers affects
significantly the students' willingness to remain in the program (Vidergor & Reiter, 2008).
13
Students at pullout centers can choose semester or yearly courses offered by teachers.
Subjects intentionally differ from those studied in regular school. An outline for a core
curriculum for pullout center is currently being developed (Division of Gifted and
Excellent Students, 2008/2009).
Milieu. Studies have emphasized the importance of designing learning
environments that respond to gifted students’ needs (Johnsen & Goree, 2005; Rogers,
2002;Van Tassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2006). They examined the effectiveness of various
composites such as curriculum and placement in these environments, from educators’
points of view. However, research concerning various learning aspects as seen and
perceived from gifted students’ eyes, based on their own experiences, is scarce.
To ensure students’ satisfaction and the successful operation of the pullout centers, it
is important to create an open, no-stress, highly challenging environment (Vidergor &
Reiter, 2008). A learning environment of this type must address the components, courses,
and characteristics of the program and the various demands these place on studying. For
example, Gallagher and Harridine (1997) compared student perceptions of challenges
presented to them in programs for the gifted with perceptions of challenges in regular
school courses. They found that gifted students valued courses in math and courses with
high content complexity that suited their fast learning pace. Another study, which
examined students’ perceptions and attitudes toward the gifted label, special programs,
and the relationships of gifted students with their peers, found a positive correlation
between students’ perception of exceptional capability and a preference for challenging
learning experiences (Feldhusen & Dai, 1997). Students studying in special programs for
the gifted in the 5th and 8th grades in Israel reported having higher expectations from
14
teachers, receiving more feedback, and devoting more time to study and doing homework
than did their peers in regular classrooms (Shields, 1995).
Courses and course selection. There are no clear guidelines for courses to be
offered to gifted students. Courses offered by different gifted education centers change
based on their perspectives. One of the leading centers for gifted education in the US
(College of William & Mary, 2009) offers courses in science, language arts, social studies,
and math to gifted students of different ages. The courses were designed specifically for
gifted learners based on the Integrated Curriculum Model (ICM) (Van Tassel-Baska, 1986,
2003; VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2006).
Israeli pullout programs are conducted in centers for gifted education, open to gifted
students from the 3rd to the 9th grades. Courses are designed mostly by uncertified local
teachers or experts, based on the preferences of local students. The range of course
offerings increases with the students’ age. The most common subjects taught are math, the
sciences (space, medicine, computers, and astronomy), languages (English, Chinese, and
Japanese), arts, and law (Division of Gifted Education, 2008/2009).
Course selection was shown to be affected by the students’ self-concept (Nagy,
Trautwein, Baumert, Koller & Garrett, 2006). Social self-concept is described by
Hollinger and Fleming (1988) as an instrumental trait, with students being on one hand
decisive, active and risk-taking (considered to reflect masculinity), and on the other being
expressive, caring, communicative, and affiliative (considered to reflect femininity). Selfconcept is also linked with high achievement motivation and high career aspirations
(Mendez & Crawford, 2002). These characteristics match well the reported characteristics
of gifted students (Johnsen, 2004).
15
Courses in general, including those offered at pullout centers, can be categorized into
two groups according to their possible role and contribution to students' future: (a)
instrumental courses, directly serving students’ preparation for possible higher education
and future careers, as, for example, courses in science, math, or languages, and (b)
expressive courses, promoting students’ development of personal talents that do not
usually relate to their future careers, such as creative writing, arts, or sports. Instrumental
traits (Hollinger, 1983; Mendez, 2000) and career aspirations (Mendez & Crawford, 2002)
may be translated into course selection. Given the instrumental nature of their social selfconcept, gifted boys are expected to exhibit a tendency for choosing instrumental courses.
Studies have shown that girls in gifted education programs perceive themselves as
possessing instrumental traits to a greater degree than do their female peers in general
education (Hollinger, 1983), or as possessing both traits (Mendez, 2000). Mendez and
Crawford (2002) also found that girls were interested in a significantly greater number of
careers and showed greater gender-role flexibility in their career aspirations than did boys.
Boys aspired to careers that were significantly higher in required education and prestige
level than girls. Therefore, girls are expected to choose both instrumental and expressive
courses.
Academic contribution. Empirical studies of pullout programs (cited in Moon,
Feldhusen & Dillon, 1994) revealed positive effects in a variety of areas, including
achievement (Kulik & Kulik, 1992; Aldrich & Nills, 1989), critical thinking (Neilsen,
1984; Carter, 1986; Beckwith, 1982), creativity (Kollof & Feldhusen, 1984; Starko, 1988),
encouragement of students
in fields of interest (Humes & Campbell, 1980), and
interaction with students (Humes & Campbell, 1980). Studies have also shown long-term
positive effects on students (Moon, 1991; Feldhusen & Moon, 1992/1993).
16
Several studies reported that gifted students studying in supplementary programs for
the gifted showed higher achievement in school than did regular school students and gifted
students not attending these programs, suggesting that these programs make a significant
academic contribution to gifted students (Feldhusen, Sayler, Nielsen & Kollof, 1990).
Delcourt, Cornell, and Goldberg (2007) also observed that pullout program curricula
contain academic units not found in regular schools, stressing higher academic level and
independent study.
In a study conducted in the USA, 50 gifted college students indicated in interviews
that the gifted programs had an overwhelmingly positive effect on their lives, regardless of
their specific content. Students perceived that the influence of the programs was mostly
marked in secondary school, when they participated in honors and advanced placement
programs and in competitions. Among the noted benefits of programs were better
preparation of students as life-long learners for college and future career paths, the
promotion of learning abilities, and skill acquisition. Most students preferred challenging
academic experiences, but noted that they felt harassed and different because of studying
in pullout programs and segregated classrooms (Hertzog, 2003).
Social contribution. A recent study reported no differences in social perception of
gifted elementary school children attending various gifted programs, including pullout
programs, suggesting that this type of program has no effect on the students’ social
perception. Students were comfortable with the number of friends they had and with their
popularity (Delcourt, et al., 2007). By contrast, in a study of pullout programs in Israel,
pullout dropouts indicated lack of friends as one of the main reasons for leaving the
programs (Vidergor & Reiter, 2008). The social issue should, therefore, be further
investigated.
17
Satisfaction with pullout program. Most students were found to value the pullout
programs for being significantly different from regular school (Moon, Feldhusen, &
Dillon, 1994). Although gifted students studying in pullout programs were less satisfied
with this framework than were students in segregated classrooms, they demonstrated more
positive attitudes about the quality of human relations with their teachers, reporting that
their teachers showed interest in them, respected them, and treated them fairly (Zeidner &
Schleyer, 1999a, 1999b).
A study assessing 229 gifted students' satisfaction with various frameworks in Israel
concluded that students studying in pullout programs at gifted education centers expressed
the highest level of general satisfaction (Vidergor & Reiter, 2008). Despite the fact that a
large number of elementary school gifted students dropped out after two years of
participation, seventy percent of them expressed their satisfaction with the pullout
program. They explained their reasons for dropping out in schoolwork overload (48.3 %),
lack of new appealing courses (37.1%), and lack of friends (20.2%).
Programs in Israel
The education system in Israel is generally controlled by the Ministry of Education.
(Vurgen & Fildman, 2009) The Division for Gifted and Excellent Students is part of the
Ministry. Most Jewish and Arab teachers are trained in integrated university and college
programs (Eilam, 2002, 2003).
The one day pullout model was designed to enable gifted students to study in a
unique framework suitable for their needs and capabilities. They travel to the center in
their area of residence one day a week, and continue studying in regular school for the rest
of the week. This model has become very popular as (a) classes are small; (b) subjects
18
offered are very different from formal curriculum; (c) students can choose the courses they
would like to study; and (d) the gifted meet friends sharing same fields of interests
(Division of Gifted and Excellent Students, 2009/2010).
Currently, approximately 12,100 gifted students have been identified by the Division
of Gifted and Excellent Students, and most of them take part in a variety of programs.
About 7,000 students are offered a choice of enrichment topics in weekly pullout
programs at one of the 53 centers for gifted education located in their districts, 36 centers
in Jewish and 17 in Arab communities (Arabs make up about 20% of the Israeli
population). Pullout programs in the Arab communities started approximately 10 years
ago and have gradually grown in number (Division of Gifted and Excellent Students,
2009/2010).
The structure and content offered by the pullout centers are as similar as possible,
although variations may exist based on teachers available. All pullout center principals are
chosen by the Division, and both principals and teachers of the gifted participate in a
national professional development program. The Division also conducts certification
programs for teachers of the gifted, in mixed cultural groups (Division of Gifted and
Excellent Students, 2008/2009).
Pullout program main objectives, regardless of culture, stated by the Division are: (a)
developing interdisciplinary and strategic thinking; (b) acquiring independent research
skills; (c) enhancing the ability to become excellent performers at solving problems and
processing and creating new knowledge actively; (d) encouraging curiosity, personal
initiative, and innovation; and, (e) developing good inter-personal communication
teamwork skills (Division of Gifted and Excellent Students, 2008/2009). Gifted students
attend pullout centers once a week for six school hours. The only difference between the
19
structures of various pullout centers is that gifted Jewish students attend pullout centers on
a regular school day and must make up the school work they miss, whereas gifted Arab
students attend pullout centers on Friday or Sunday, which are not school days, therefore
they do not have to cope with the extra work. Israeli pullout centers may be characterized
as following the content-oriented approach, offering mini-courses or mentorship in a
specific subject domain (Schiever & Maker, 1997).
Gifted Education in Israel: A Multicultural View
The Israeli gifted education system comprises Jewish, Arab (Muslim and Christian),
and Druze students, reflecting Israel's multi-cultural society. Based on their cultural
orientations, members of the society may be characterized as individualist or collectivist
regarding the individualism-collectivism continuum and (Triandis, 1995). Although
studies reported herein tend to generalize, we would like to emphasize that despite how
cultures are characterized, one should always keep in mind the diversity amongst people.
Arabs students may be characterized as having a collectivist orientation that
emphasizes the common goals of society over those of the individual, whereas Jewish
students are characterized by the individualist orientation that tends to emphasize their
individual agenda over that of the society in general. Moreover, the collectivist orientation
emphasizes learning, the authority of adults (including teachers), and the need for
respecting and obeying adults (Al-Haj, 1995; Eilam, 2002, 2003). In schools, these
collectivist norms may translate into instructional practices that discourage students from
expressing opinions, criticizing, or arguing, and encourage memorization and rote learning
(Al-Haj, 1995, 1996, cited in Eilam, 2002).
20
Instructional practices reflecting a collectivist orientation in regular school settings
may conflict with the practices recommended in gifted education, the latter representing
more closely a western individualist orientation. As described earlier, pullout program
students are encouraged to develop new fields of interest, thinking, and problem-solving
skills, together with affective and social competences. These flourish best in an open and
accepting environment created by teachers who possess certain personal, cognitive, and
pedagogical characteristics.
Arab adolescents explain their striving for higher education and a career by
collective motives (e.g., "to help my people") to a much greater extent than Jewish
students do (Seginer, Karayanni & Mari, 1990). Arab girls show high motivation to
succeed in school to realize their hopes for higher education and a career (Seginer &
Mahajna, 2004), which is the Arab girls' only means of breaking away from the traditional
path of Arab women, but they emphasize achievement rather than meaningful learning
(Malka & Convington, 2005; Miller, De Baker & Green, 1999). Themes related to higher
education and career are rarely found in narrative data collected from Israeli Arab boys
(Seginer et al., 2008; Suleiman, 2001) or Israeli Jewish boys and girls (Seginer, 2005;
Seginer, Vermulst, & Shoyer, 2004).
An important issue neglected by research is gifted students’ cultural background,
their wider context of growing up and learning. Cultural context may play a significant
role in shaping students' perceptions concerning learning experiences. Literature directly
relating to learning styles in this perspective was insufficient. Culturally relevant
pedagogy, on the other hand, has been proposed by Ladson-Billings (1995) as a practice
for reaching learners of diverse cultural backgrounds and engaging them in meaningful
learning processes. This pedagogy involves environments that “pay careful attention to
21
knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs that learners bring to the educational settings” and
build on them (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 1999, p. 133). Among the principles
advocated by this pedagogy is the nurturing of cultural competence and academic
development. The latter focuses on access to academic materials and achievements via
curricula that students find relevant and interesting (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 1999).
Teachers of the Gifted
Teachers' and students’ perceptions of cognitive, pedagogical, and personal
characteristics of the teacher of gifted students. Experts often speculate whether
teachers of the gifted should be gifted themselves, in other words, whether they should
posses the same characteristics as their students (Croft, 2003; Vialle & Quigley, 2002). A
comparative study of specifically trained and untrained teachers of the gifted showed that
trained teachers were more aware of the cognitive needs of the gifted, employed
pedagogical strategies that encourage high-level thinking, promoted independent learning,
and were more creative than their untrained peers (Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994). Feldhusen
(1997), who stressed the teachers’ acquisition of knowledge and pedagogical competences
in the course of their professional development, also observed that similarly to gifted and
talented students, successful teachers were highly intelligent, achievement-oriented,
knowledgeable, and flexible; had cultural and intellectual interests; respected individual
differences; and interacted well with gifted individuals. It was suggested that teachers of
the gifted would be life-long learners. Various desired cognitive abilities were emphasized
like: being good thinkers and good processors of information in a simultaneous mode,
having the ability to use skills associated with knowledge domains, being passionate about
22
one area of knowledge, and having deep knowledge in a subject area (Van Tassel-Baska,
2005).
Reviewing past surveys on successful teachers’ competences in working with gifted
and talented students, Chan (2001) addressed the following three dimensions: (a) the
cognitive dimension, teaching thinking skills, problem solving, and creativity; (b) the
personal ability to interact with students effectively and to use appropriate motivational
techniques; and (c) the pedagogical competence to conduct student-directed activities and
facilitate independent research. Researchers noted that the competences needed to teach
specific content domains may vary, as the teaching of science and mathematics is
significantly different from teaching art and music.
A cross-cultural study that examined beliefs about best teaching practices among
teachers in Singapore and the U.S. suggested that, regardless of cultural background, the
exemplary teacher should exhibit the following characteristic qualities (Van Tassel-Baska,
Quek & Feng, 2007): (a) content mastery; (b) a passionate personality dedicated to the
teaching profession and to students; and (c) a flexible and adventurous spirit in practicing
instruction. The top three essential skills required for working with the gifted included: (a)
knowledge and effective use of teaching techniques; (b) strong communication skills; and
(c) the ability to understand and to address students’ needs.
A study by Mills (2003) that examined the characteristics of effective teachers of
gifted students supported Feldhusen's findings (1997) and elaborated on them. Mills
indicated that the successful teachers' personality types were in many ways similar to
those of gifted students, suggesting that teachers, who are judged to be highly effective in
working with gifted students, prefer abstract themes and concepts, are open and flexible
concerning different or new ideas, and value logical analysis and objectivity. However,
23
while Feldhusen stressed the acquisition of knowledge and competencies in teachers'
professional development over the consideration of teachers' personal characteristics,
Mills (2003) suggested that teachers' personality and cognitive style may play an
important role in their instructional effectiveness. These findings are still insufficient to
guide teachers of the gifted, however.
Data concerning students' preferences for personality or cognitive strengths in their
teachers is also inconclusive. A study of gifted and non-gifted elementary students in
Israel demonstrated a strong preference for intellectual - cognitive qualities of teachers
over other personal dimensions like creativity, and also over teachers' approaches to areas
such as classroom organization and presentation of material (Milgram, 1979). On the other
hand, Maddux, Samples-Lachmann and Cummings (1985) found that their junior high
school students preferred personal and social characteristics of their teachers over
intellectual and creative qualities.
An Australian study reported that elementary and junior high school students
preferred the more open climate established by trained teachers of the gifted and those
undertaking training, compared to untrained teachers of the gifted (Rowley, 2003).
Students also reported these teachers' greater emphasis on higher level thinking (analysis
and synthesis) rather than on retention, on discussion rather than on lecturing, and on
feelings (the affective dimension). Data regarding gender and grade level (i.e., elementary,
junior high, or high school) as related to students’ perceptions of teachers’ characteristics
is still insufficient.
Theory and practice. As indicated above, teachers of the gifted should be
acquainted with theories and practices in the field (Ministry of Education, 2004). A
recently conducted survey (Bain, Bourgeois & Pappas, 2003) found that most respondents
24
were familiar with one or more theory based model or program for gifted and talented
service delivery. Among mentioned models were Renzulli's Triad (1986), Betts'
Autonomous Learner Model (ALM) (1985, 1986), Gardner's MI (1983), and Renzulli's
SEM (Rezulli & Reis, 1994). Half of the respondents reported following specific
theoretical models, while others reported using a combination of models, adopting models
by themselves, or using models adopted by districts or schools. The most common goals
perceived to be important for gifted programs were: (a) Developing high order thinking;
(b) Providing enrichment activities; (c) Accelerating academic progress; (d) Increasing
self esteem; and (e) Developing social skills. Additional goals mentioned were: creativity,
use of computers, research, and love of learning.
Research findings (Bain, Bourgeois & Pappas, 2003) suggest no match between
identified models and those actually used for teaching gifted students. Half of the teacher
respondents failed to identify usage of any instructional model in their classroom. The
study raises questions regarding the quality of both, programs for gifted students, and of
specialized training for gifted education. It is suggested that university educators involved
in training teachers of the gifted stress the link between existing theoretical models, and
actual practice.
An assessment of gifted students' learning processes using the Integrated Curriculum
Model (ICM) (Van Tassel Baska, 2003) indicated teachers' difficulties in delivering a high
quality curriculum. Researchers suggested that an effective implementation of curriculum
requires at least three years teaching experience to enhance teachers' instructional skills.
Therefore, PDTG programs should engage teachers in sessions targeted at curriculum
implementation (Feng, Van Tassel-Baska, Quek, Bai & O'neill, 2005).
25
A study involving 15 secondary level teachers, who taught fast paced classes at a
summer program and at their local schools, indicated they used a variety of instructional
strategies, but expressed difficulties in adapting courses for gifted students using in-depth
enrichment materials or individualized assignments. The results suggested that even good
experienced teachers need specific training to adapt courses or materials for gifted
students (Lee & Olsewski-Kubilius, 2006).
To summarize, it is widely believed that teachers of gifted students should posses
many of the characteristics attributed to gifted students, should be competent in using
different teaching and learning strategies, and be able to apply cognitive abilities suitable
for gifted and talented learners without neglecting the affective and social dimensions. It is
expected that teachers coming out of certification will use the relevant pedagogies in the
classroom and that their students will be able to cite their use as well. Findings relating to
professional certification and classroom practices showed that teachers encounter
difficulties in using relevant pedagogies and curriculum models and need time and specific
training. Students could be aware of characteristics they expect teachers to possess, but
may find it difficult to articulate.
Professional Development of Teachers
General professional development of regular teachers. PD in Israel was examined
by Zuzovsky (2001) based on the Goodson & Hagraves models (1996) describing the
different routes of professional development: (a) classical professionalism; (b) flexible
professionalism; (c) practical professionalism; (d) extended professionalism; and (e)
complex professionalism. In Israel she identified three models. The first, closest to
classical professionalism, is concerned with higher academic studies involving
26
academicisation of teacher education institutions and whole teacher force. In the second,
teaching is regarded as a reflective practice and is school-based and school-focused, with
teachers’ professional development being tied to school reform. It aims to redirect teachers
from being task-oriented to being curricular and research-oriented, which requires
collaborative work at schools. The third model identified in Israel is the personal route
towards professionalism taken and led by the teacher often supported by teacher unions. It
requires increased access to information and resources (Zuzovsky, 2001).
Similarly to Israel, Professional development (PD) is considered in the US the core
of educational reform (Dilworth & Imig, 1995). The "No Child Left Behind" Act defines a
qualified teacher as having a full state certification and/or passing state's licensing exam.
The PD under this definition includes a variety of activities, among which are: the
improvement of teachers' knowledge of the academic subject they teach and a substantial
increase of knowledge and teaching skills (Trahan, 2002).
The historical view of PD was based on professional knowledge that was developed
by experts and handed down to teachers, who worked alone implementing the required
procedures (Darling-Hammond, 1998). Rather than perceiving PD as a single event, this
view was changed to perceive it as a phenomenon which supports on-going changes and
challenges teachers to be lifelong learners, who design plans with specific purposes aimed
at intended learning (Wetherill, Burton, Calhoun & Thomas, 2001/2). Moreover, during
the last decade, emphasis has shifted from outside consultants to in-house experts relying
on mentoring, coaching, peer observation and study groups using collaborative learning
strategies, engaging in problem-posing and problem solving (Darling-Hammond, 1998).
Guskey (2000) states that PD evaluation should focus on measuring its impact in
terms of: change in knowledge, skills, as well as attitudes and beliefs of teacher
27
participants. In a recent report (Guskey, 2003) he indicates that among the many
characteristics influencing PD the most frequently cited was the enhancement of teachers'
content and pedagogical knowledge.
Findings revealed that experts organize and represent knowledge quantitatively and
qualitatively resulting in a holistic view of domains. This holistic view is expressed by a
collection of abilities, in knowledge organization constituting a rich web of concepts,
theories, abilities etc, with a large number of links among them (Sternberg, 1996). Such
experts' knowledge is organized around big ideas of domains, and promotes their ability to
apply relevant aspects of their vast repertoire in particular situations (Bransford et al,
1999). Another distinction can be made by examining structural similarities. Knowledge is
usually organized according to structural similarities among knowledge units. Whereas,
novices, have small disconnected units organized according to superficial similarities
(Bryson, Bereiter, Scardamalia & Jordan, 1991).
Sternberg (1998) claimed that achievements and abilities, of both experts and gifted
individuals reflect two different kinds of expertise; expertise in a specific domain and
expertise in the general problem solving domain. While solving problems or analyzing a
situation, experts opposed to novices, mention major principles or laws applicable to it,
and have a clear rational for why and how those laws may be applied (Chi, Feltovich &
Glaser., 1981). In other words, novices' schemata, contains primarily surface features,
while experts connect such features with laws and conditions under which they are
applicable (Chi, Glaser & Rees, 1982).
Hence, having all the advantageous characteristics, experts are more capable of
acquiring knowledge, and at retrieving knowledge relevant to a particular task, than
novices. Fluent retrieval does not necessarily imply a faster performance. Attempting to
28
understand problems before jumping to solution strategies, experts sometimes take more
time than novices do (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976).
Time spent on each of the problem solving states, constitutes another factor that may
distinguish novices from experts. Findings show that experts, contrary to novices, spend
more time on the initial state of the problem trying to classify its nature and match the
given information with existing schemata (Schoenfeld, 1992; Sternberg & Ben-Zeev,
2001). Once they pass the initial state, and find a match, they tend to solve it quickly (Chi,
et al., 1982).
Expert problem-solvers apply a meta-cognitive approach, are usually self-aware
thinkers, plan strategies, analyze, and reflect on the process, incorporating meta-cognitive
skills in methods and strategies applied (Polya, 1945, 1957; Bransford & Stein, 1993;
Treffinger, 1995). Monitoring and control are meta- cognitive competencies expressed in
knowing how and when to use strategies effectively and efficiently (Schoenfeld, 1992).
Pedagogical knowledge acquired in professional development. PD programs
constitute an important phase in the long path of gaining expertise. Their products should
reflect advancement in the described aspects. Among other stated goals of PDTG are:
Familiarizing teachers with pedagogical, didactic and methodological tools especially
suitable for the instruction of the gifted, as well as, the ability to develop programs and
curricula for students' advancement.
Studies demonstrated that novices often reach ungrounded interpretations and
decisions as they lack the knowledge and awareness to interpret various classroom
situations (Eilam & Poyas, 2007). Differently from novices, experts are able to consider
the classroom as a system, to reveal patterns of activities and draw inferences about its
occurrences (Sabers, Cushing & Berliner, 1991).
29
Research indicates that teachers must acquire knowledge at least in three areas:
domain content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge about students
(Shulman, 1987). Furthermore, the content knowledge necessary for developing expertise
in a domain should be differentiated from the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)
acquired for effective teaching (Shulman, 1986, 1987). Experts usually acquire both,
although PCK (pedagogical content knowledge) is far more important for teachers to
become effective (Bransford, et al., 1999).
A term recently coined in the field addressing teachers' knowledge is pedagogical
context knowledge (Bartnett & Hodson, 2001), which comprises: (a) academic and
research knowledge – concepts and theories. (b) PCK – knowing how to set goals, conduct
a lesson, present topics, etc. - all in relation to specific topic and its characteristics, and to
specific students. (c). Professional knowledge – knowing of teaching by unconsciously
reflecting on experiences. (d) Classroom knowledge – which is situational, particular and
is under constant review and reconstruction.
The interrelated sources feeding Situated Pedagogical Content Knowledge (SPCK)
according to Eilam & Poyas (2007) are: (a) Theoretical – declarative knowledge of the
various involved domains (gifted ed., psychology of gifted), of pedagogy (methods of
teaching), and PCK (specific methods for teaching a specific subject to specific students);
(b) Procedural knowledge of PCK- being able to enact PCK in authentic classroom
situation; and (c) Conditional or situated knowledge, which combines the first two
components in a specific classroom context, realizing its effects.
SPCK can be enhanced via case oriented approach (video recorded episodes), as they
highly resemble real life situations, capturing its richness and complexity (Putnam &
Borko, 2000). Analyzing these episodes engages teachers in knowledge integration using
30
three levels of knowledge processing: description, interpretation and evaluation, enhances
the development of PCK within specific topic, and fosters student teachers access to the
thinking underlying the practices of expert teachers (Eilam & Poyas, 2007).
The research conducted by Eilam & Poyas (2005, 2007) intended to promote novice
teachers' awareness of classroom complexity and focused on trainees' ability to identify
and interpret the core cognitive aspects of teaching-learning situations, as well as to link
them with relevant theoretical knowledge acquired in university courses. A video case
analysis task administered at two points in time, and other written data, indicated a shift
towards a cognitive perspective, an increased ability to identify and interpret factors and
interrelations, reflecting a higher awareness of complexity; and an enhanced capacity to
link teaching-learning processes to theoretical knowledge.
Leikin (2006) suggested a 3D model of teachers' knowledge structure integrating
types, sources and forms: (a) Types of teachers' knowledge (Shulman, 1986) comprising
subject matter, pedagogical, and curricular content knowledge; (b) Sources of teachers'
knowledge (Kennedy, 2002) comprising craft, systematic, and prescriptive knowledge;
and (c) Forms of knowledge (Fishbein, 1984; Schefler, 1965) comprising formal
knowledge, intuitions, and beliefs. The described notions will be utilized in the analysis of
teachers' responses to the proposed study stimuli.
Constructing a coherent body of conceptual knowledge including cognitive,
emotional, social and environmental aspects enables deep understanding of instruction and
learning involved in that domain, and ability to think and act flexibly with what is known
(Perkins, 1998; Spiro, Coulson, Feltovitch & Anderson, 1988). Research on conceptual
change proposes that prior concepts are highly resistant to change, and some are attached
to others, generating thoughts and conceptions. The first phase of conceptual change of
31
using existing concepts to deal with new phenomena is called assimilation. The second
phase, of replacing or reorganizing central concepts to grasp a new phenomena, is called
accommodation (Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog, 1982). Most learning is additive and
involves an enrichment of existing knowledge. Conceptual change cannot be achieved
through additive mechanisms (Vosniadou, 1994). The use of additive mechanisms in
situations requiring conceptual change is one of the major causes of misconceptions.
Misconceptions are interpreted as individuals’ attempts to assimilate new information into
existing conceptual structures that contain information contradictory to their view
(Vosniadou, 1994).
Models of professional development. Various models of teachers' development are
available, relating to stages, as well as, knowledge and practices teachers should acquire.
Such models and designs must be investigated to provide educators with a variety of
worthwhile opportunities to enhance their knowledge and skills (Glickman, 1996;
Schlichter, 1986).
Models proposed by different experts suggest that teacher development tends to be
linear, consisting of fixed stages, sequential and hierarchical (Richardson & Placier, 2001).
Some recent studies of teacher education that emphasize teachers’ active involvement in
learning, suggest that under the right circumstances teachers can develop a more expert
practice, even as beginning practitioners. Such circumstances are: well chosen tasks,
appropriate scaffolding and a supportive learning environment (Darling- Hammond, 2000;
Darling- Hammond & Macdonald, 2000; Hammerness, Darling- Hammond & Shulman
2002).
According to Feiman-Nemser (1983), beginning teacher trainees focus on teachers'
activities rather than on students’ learning, noticing and reporting mostly behavioral
32
aspects. Therefore, a shift towards the recognition of cognitive aspects of teachinglearning processes may indicate further professional development.
Usually teachers progress from novice to expert in five stages: Novice, advanced
beginner, competent, proficient, and expert (Berliner, 1988). Elaborating on that Berliner
(1994) indicates that there are five developmental stages, in which they: 1. Learn basic
elements. 2. Accumulate knowledge about learning, teaching and students. 3. Make
conscious decisions about actions. 4. Reflect based on experience. 5. Sense appropriate
responses to any given situation at expert stage. In a recent study Berliner (2001) found
that teachers develop competencies over a period of 5-7 years and only a small percentage
develop into experts.
A different model (Farnan & Grisham, 2005) proposed four stages for a teachers'
development continuum including: (a) Highly-qualified novice in initial preparation stage.
(b) Developing professional - in teacher induction stage. (c) Advanced professional - in
ongoing PD stage, and (d) Master teacher - culminating national board certification
requirements. Farnan and Grisham (2005) also indicate that the journey from highly
qualified novice to expert needs support if teacher is to move smoothly from novice to
expert.
As mentioned earlier, studies show that teachers undergo a journey from novice to
expert, in the course of which they acquire knowledge that affects their ability to
comprehend reality and that equips them with better skills to solve problems or analyze
situations related to learning and instruction (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 1999). To take
this one step further, it has been found that along this path, teachers develop increased
cognitive capacities including, strong content knowledge base, well developed
pedagogical skills and efficient problem solving skills (Sternberg & Horvath, 1995).
33
Curriculum transformation. A curriculum trasformation model by Goodlad, Klein
& Tye (1979) suggested a framwork for curriculum analysis encompassing five facets of
curriculum iterpretation: (a) the ideological curriculum; (b) the formal curriculum; (c) the
perceived or instructional curriculum; (d) the operational curriculum; and (e) experiential
curriculum.
Based on this theory of curriculum transformation,these five facets were defined
by Goodlad’s associates Klein, Tye & Wright (1979) and data concerning each facet in the
aim of characterising them, may be collected by means described in the following: (a)
Ideaological curriculum: the beliefs, options, and values of the scholars regarding what
ought to be included in the curriculum and how it ought to be developed. Data is gathered
by interviewing the developing team and analyzing their view of what should be studied;
(b) The formal facet of curriculum is expressed in expectations of what should be done at
school. It is derived from sourses outside classroom and consists of written statements.
Data about this facet is gathered by analysing silllabi, and text books; (c) The Perceived
curriculum is expressed in teachers’ understanding and perceptions as reflecting their
knowlwdge. Interviewing teachers enables collecting data about this facet; (d) Operational
curriculum is characterized by “what actually goes on in the classroom.” It takes into
account alterations made in perceived curriculum while being engaged in the teachinglearning processs and responding to learners’ needs. Data is gathered by repeated
observations; (e) Experiential curriculum is expressed in students’ perceptions of offered
curriculum, and their own experiences and outcomes. Data collected from students refers
both to class and overall curriculum (Klein, Tye & Wright, 1979, pp.244-245).
Among factors contrubuting to implementation of a planned curriculum moving
from formal to operational facet are: teachers’ understanding of the curriculum and
34
acceptance of decisions, teachers’ skills, knowledge and attitudes, the material available
for implementation, operational definitions of significant elements in content, formative
and summative evaluation and more (Klein, 1979).
However, studies report large gaps between ideologies and visions concerning
programs of learning, teachers’ perceptions and enactment as agents of implementing
these programs, and what learners actually experience and acquire (Cronin, 1989; Driel,
Beijaard & Verloop, 2001). These transformations were described by experts in
curriculum (Goodlad, Klein & Tye ,1979) and their model of transformation is used in the
present study as a conceptual framework for examining the Israeli certification programs.
Professional Development for Teachers of the Gifted
Israeli professional development program for teachers of the gifted (PDTG).
Certification/endorsement in Israel. Currently, there are five PDTG training
centers approved by the Ministry, which operate in the north, center, and south of the
country. The need for establishing a certified training program derives from the fact that
most of the instructors teaching in gifted frameworks lack any formal gifted or even
teacher education training (Ministry of Education, 2004). The PDTG training programs in
Israel aim at developing a holistic approach to the education of gifted students, which
emphasizes the relations among the cognitive, emotional, social and environmental
components of gifted education (Zorman, Rachmel & Shaked, 2004).
Three programs operate in universities in different parts of the country, offering the
program as part of the professional development in the faculty of education. Two
programs operate in academic teachers’ colleges. Programs vary in organizational aspects
and curriculum (Ben-Zeev & Barzel, 2008; Gershon & Kohn, 2008; Turin & Schleyer,
35
2008; Zoran & Atir, 2008; Zoran & Kasovitch, 2008). A completion of all requirements
grants participants ministry certification, which permits them to work in the field of gifted
education based on prior teacher certification (Ministry of Education, 2010).
Candidates of Israeli PDTG Program. Candidates of teacher education programs
are professionally and culturally diverse. A large number of participants are from the Arab
and Druze communities, which are characterized as collectivist societies (Triandis, 1995).
There is a growing interest in gifted education in these communities. In many Arab
schools, collectivist norms are translated into granting teachers ultimate authority;
discouraging students from expressing opinions, criticizing, or arguing; and stressing
memorization and rote learning (Al-Haj, 1995; Mar’I, 1974). In two studies, Eilam (2002,
2003) examined the orientation of Jewish, Arab (Christian and Muslims), and Druze
teacher trainees toward teaching-learning processes in relation to their cultural
background. Significant differences were found between trainees' orientations toward the
teaching of Jewish and Arab (especially Muslim) students, and in critical issues of
teaching and learning. Arab and Druze teacher trainees graduated from a western-oriented
teacher education program and were in the process of returning to teach in their own
communities (Eilam, 2002). This issue of multiculturalism gained attention in teaching
education programs around the world, current classrooms being characterized as
multicultural due to large demographic changes (Kitano, Lewis, Lynch & Graves, 1996;
Banks & McGee Banks, 2009). It is therefore particularly important, in light of the stated
objectives of the PDTG framework, to meet the needs of a culturally diverse student body.
To ensure that PDTG program characteristics match the students' needs and cultural
background in the context of their future performance, it must be thoroughly examined.
36
Professional development of teachers of the gifted in US and other countries.
Certification in gifted education. A review of the data concerning certification
requirements and programs for teachers of gifted students indicates that although
perceived as important, such expertise is not always required. According to a report on
certification for teachers in gifted education in the US (Karnes, Stephens & Whorton,
2000) a total of 28 states have certification/endorsement, 3 of which are optional. Only 2
states require a master degree for certification in gifted education. Study requirements vary
from 6 to 21 hours, and only 1 state requires passing a final exam specific to teachers of
gifted education prior to certification. On the other hand, according to data reported by
The Council of State Director Programs for the Gifted (1999), 125 colleges and
universities in 30 states offer graduate programs in the education of gifted learners and 18
states have doctoral programs with majors or with a focus on gifted education (Clark,
2002). As these reports have been written ten years ago, it is possible the present situation
is improved in this respect.
Curriculum of professional development programs for teachers of the gifted
(PDTG). In spite of the fact that only half of the US states require special certification,
there is a genuine need and interest in the field in specializing in the field of gifted
education. The provided programs in colleges and universities, beyond basic requirements,
may expand teachers' knowledge and expose them to various issues concerning the
education of gifted students, which thus affect their practice (Clark, 2002; Karnes,
Stephens & Whorton, 2000).
Universities frequently offer M.A., M.Ed. or Ph.D. degrees in special education,
(e.g., Ohio State University, 2009), or educational policy and leadership (e.g., College of
37
William & Mary, 2009) with a specialization in gifted education. Programs can also be
completed separately for licensure (e.g., Northern Kentucky University, 2009). Courses
offered range between 12-30 semester hours. Objectives stated include: studying the
nature and needs of gifted, studying creativity, studying procedures for counseling, ability
to identify gifted students, ability to develop curriculum and programs, ability to organize
strategies and materials, and ability to resolve special problems. Courses offered by
universities include: Introduction to gifted education, teaching the gifted, gifted
underachievers, early giftedness, theory and practice in multicultural education, social and
emotional needs of gifted (Ohio State University, 2009). Other courses offered include:
Teaching creative and high level thinking, school programs, as well as seminar and field
experience (Northern Kentucky University, 2009).
Many universities in the US and other countries offer online graduate programs
including a master’s degree, Ph.D. and certification in gifted education (Education of the
Gifted - Graduate School Programs, 2009). A unique online program developed in New
South Wales, offers a 6 module computer-based professional development package, each
consisting of core, extension and specialization levels. Each module contains a pre-test, an
overview of research and covers all levels of schooling. Topics addressed are:
Understanding giftedness, identification of gifted students, social-emotional development,
underachievement, curriculum differentiation, and developing programs and provisions for
gifted students (Federal Department of Education, GERRIC & UNSW, 2005).
Courses in various education institutions and programs in US and other countries
(certification, B.A., M.A. and Ph.D.) can be divided into three major categories: Courses
focusing on psychology, on pedagogy, and general courses. Courses focusing on
psychological aspects address: identification, understanding unique needs and behavior,
38
social-emotional characteristics and support, understanding the development of talent, and
dealing with twice exceptional children. Courses focusing on pedagogical aspects like:
teaching strategies, curriculum, planning, and practicum. General courses can address
four main topics: research methods, technology, creativity, and leadership (Schoyer,
2008).
Purpose of Study
In light of the accumulating knowledge, the study attempted to examine the impact
of PDTG program on their participants; namely, to investigate the changes occurring in
Jewish and Arab teachers who participated in programs for teachers of the gifted, as
compared with teachers who taught gifted students without any professional training, as
well as teachers of regular classrooms who had no training in teaching gifted. A
preliminary assessment of gifted education status in pullout centers as perceived by
teachers and students, and PDTG curriculum, were essential to the assessment of program
impact on its participants.
Research Questions
1. How do Israeli teachers and gifted students perceive the status of gifted education
in pullout centers relating to the teaching-learning situation, and teachers’ desired
characteristics?
1a. What are the differences between teachers who receive and who do not
receive training in PDTG, and between teachers of different cultural
orientations in perceptions of the teaching-learning situation in pullout
programs, and of teachers’ desired characteristics?
1b. What are the differences between teachers of different groups and cultural
39
orientations in perceptions of teachers’ desired characteristics according to
collectivist orientations?
1c. What are the differences between gifted students from different grade levels,
gender, and cultural orientations in the perception of the teaching-learning
situation in pullout programs, and teachers’ desired characteristics?
1d. What are the differences between gifted students from different grade
levels, gender, and cultural orientations in perception of the academic and
social contribution, course selection and general satisfaction with pullout
program?
1e. What are the differences between teachers’ and gifted students’ perceptions
of the teaching-learning situation in pullout programs, and teachers’ desired
characteristics?
2. How is the Israeli PDTG curriculum transformed from ideological facet until it
reaches teacher trainee, and how does it comply with US standards?
2a. How is Israeli PDTG curriculum transformed from ideological facet until it
reaches teacher trainee?
2b. How does each facet comply with US standards?
2c. What are the main factors involved and difficulties encountered in PDTG
curriculum transformation?
3. What is the cognitive impact from pre-to-post-test of PDTG program on their
participants’ concerning perceptions of the teaching-learning situations in pullout
centers in Israel, the desired characteristics of teachers of the gifted, and selfassessment of knowledge and competencies they acquired?
40
3a. What are the differences from pre-to-post-test between teachers’ perceptions
of the teaching-learning situation in pullout programs, and teachers’ desired
characteristics according to group and cultural orientation?
3b. What are the differences from pre-to-post-test between teachers of different
groups and cultural orientations in perceptions of teachers’ desired
characteristics according to collectivist orientations?
3c. What are the differences from pre-to-post-test between PDTG participants’
self-assessment of standard-based knowledge and competencies acquired?
41
Chapter 2: Research Design and Methodology
The study involved a quantitative paradigm complemented by qualitative measures
to learn about the cognitive impact of PDTG program (Patton, 2002). Utilization of the
quantitative approach (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000), which emphasizes measurement and
analysis of relationships between variables, enabled the comparison between various
sample populations. The qualitative approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Corbin & Strauss,
1990) enabled an in-depth investigation of PDTG program orientations and perceptions of
designers, executives and instructors, as well as, participants' knowledge growth and
development.
Study Sample
Participants included three groups of teachers:
(a) PDTG teachers – learning in five joint Jewish and Arab certification programs
across the country; (b) pullout center teachers – teaching in three Jewish pullout centers
located in central and northern Israel, and three Arab centers in the north; and (c) school
teachers – teaching in regular Jewish and Arab schools in the same area. Jewish and Arab
teachers of the first group attended certification programs together on a weekly basis for
two years (four semesters). In the second group, Jewish teachers of gifted learners
attended pullout centers once a week on a regular school day, and Arab teachers attended
the centers on their free day (for an additional day of teaching).
42
To meet the study objectives, participants of the various groups were randomly
selected. All participants were teachers owning teacher certificates, teaching for 2-35
years, therefore, possessing basic knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, as well
as beliefs about instruction and learning constructed over the years. These beliefs formed
by contact with students may have advantages and disadvantages concerning instruction
which demands special skills, and catering for the needs of gifted students possessing
different characteristics.
Group 1: PDTG Teachers. A total of 88 teachers, Jewish (n1=62) and Arab (n2=26),
beginning their learning in five PDTG programs. Most of them were of medium SES,
teaching for 8-30 years a range of subjects in various regular schools. The teachers’
interest in the gifted evolved from past contact with gifted students, families, or family
members.
Groups 2: Pullout Center Teachers. A total of 58 randomly selected teachers, Jewish
(n3=28) and Arab (n4=30), teaching for 2-20 years in various pullout programs in different
places in Israel. They lacked professional training as teachers for the gifted. It is
reasonable to assume that these teachers have gained some experience in teaching gifted
students through practice alone, which enables us to investigate the effect of experience of
working with gifted learners on teacher knowledge.
Group 3: School Teachers. A total of 71 experienced teachers, were randomly
selected from regular schools feeding gifted education centers. Jewish (n5=44) and Arab
(n6=27), teaching for 8-35 years various subjects in regular classrooms. They lacked
training and experience in teaching gifted children. Table 1 presents the composition of
teachers by cultural orientation.
43
Table1: Study Population: Number of Teachers in 3 Study Groups by Culture in
Pre-Test (Part 1)
Group
PDTG Teachers
Pullout Center
Teachers
School Teachers
Total
Cultural
Orientation
Arabs
Jews
26
62
28
44
134
Total
88
30
58
27
83
71
217
Table 2 shows three study groups by culture in per-and-post-test.
Table 2: Study Population: Number of Teachers in 3 Study Groups by Culture in
Pre-Post-Test (Part 3)
Group
PDTG Teachers
Pullout Center
Teachers
School Teachers
Total
Cultural
Orientation
Arabs
Jews
23
34
23
24
81
Total
57
22
45
21
66
45
147
Group 4: Gifted Students. Jewish (n7=204) and Arab (n8=200) elementary and junior
high school gifted students (N4=404) grades 5 to 9. All of these students participated in
pullout programs, which constitute the largest form of program for the education of the
gifted in Israel. They all studied in urban schools and attended the center for gifted
education for one day each week. These students enabled us to reveal students' perceptions
44
concerning teachers and teaching of gifted, as well as, their expectations. Table 3 shows
number of students by culture and grade level.
Table 3: Study Population: Number of Students by Culture, Grade Level, and
Gender (percentage in parentheses)
Jews
Arabs
Grade Elementary 130 (32.2) 102 (25.2)
Level Junior
74 (18.3) 98 (24.3)
High
204 (50.5) 200 (49.5)
Total
Gender Male
143 (35.4) 108 (26.7)
61 (15.1)
92 (22.8)
Female
204 (50.5) 200 (49.5)
Total
Total
232 (57.4)
172 (42.6)
404 (100)
251 (62.1)
153 (37.9)
404 (100)
Numbers of boys and girls among participants, and numbers of elementary and
junior high students reflect their relevant ratio in pullout Israeli programs at that time
(male=62.1%, female=37.9%; elementary= 57.4%, junior high school=42.6%). The
number of Jewish males and females (143 and 61 respectively) reflected the ratio usually
found in identified gifted children (twice as many boys compared with girls) there. In the
Arab group, the number of girls tended to be even higher (108 and 92 respectively)
because of their tendency to achieve higher (Seginer & Mahajna, 2004).
Group 5: Executives and Instructors. Participants comprised four sub-groups:
Group A: Head of Division of Gifted and Excellent Students in Ministry of
Education (n=1).
Group B: Program coordinators and lecturers (n=18). This group of participants
constituted individuals taking their first steps in developing a curriculum and teaching a
PDTG program. They enabled us to reveal the rationale and core orientations of the
45
training programs, as perceived by program coordinators and instructors of PDTG, which
determined to a large extent the program structure, content, and organizational aspects.
Group C: Program coordinators, invited lecturers, and program lecturers) (n=6)
who were observed teaching in 3 certification programs.
Group D: PDTG participants (n=15) teachers participating in 3 certification
programs studying in first and second year. Table 4 presents information about
participants.
Table 4: Number of Participants According to Role, Program Type and Data Source
Group
A
B
C
D
Role
Head of
Division
Program
Coordinators
Lecturers
Program
Coordinators
Invited
Lecturers
Program
Lecturers
Program
Participants
Total
D = deep interview
No. of
Centers
Type 1
Type 2
Program Program
Total
Data
Source
___
___
___
1
D
5
8
2
10
S
___
4
4
8
S
3
2
___
2
O
____
2
___
2
O
___
___
2
2
O
3
9
6
15
D
25
14
40
S= semi-structured interview O = observation
Sampling method applied used disproportional stratified sampling to assess
differences between groups not proportional to their sizes in population (Salant &
46
Dillman, 1994). All PDTG teachers attending program participated in the study, while
teachers belonging to other groups and gifted students were randomly selected.
Procedure
The study comprised three major parts:
Part1: Assessing Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the status of gifted
education in pullout centers relating to the teaching-learning situation, and teachers’
desired characteristics. In addition, gifted students related to academic and social
contribution, course selection and general satisfaction with pullout program.
Part 2: Examining the Israeli professional development program in light of program
curriculum transformation from ideological facet until it reaches teacher trainee.
Part 3: Examination of the cognitive aspects of the Israeli professional development
program utilizing a pre-post design investigating changes in teachers’ perceptions
concerning the teaching-learning situation, teachers’ desired characteristics, and self
evaluation of knowledge and competencies acquired.
The participants of all 3 groups (pre-test N=217, post-test N=147) individually
performed the pre-test i.e., responding to teachers' questionnaire and collectivism
questionnaire in their original study groups or at teachers' meeting. PDTG teachers also
responded to PDTG contributions questionnaire. Time estimated for pre-test was
approximately 30 minutes. All written materials were collected by researcher on location.
At the end of the PDTG course, two years later, the entire procedure was repeated
with same teachers (N=147). Students (N=404) responded to the questionnaires in the
course of the first research year at various pullout centers in different parts of the country.
Time estimated was approximately 20 minutes.
47
Interviews were conducted individually, and documents relating to the PDTG
program were collected. The Head of the Israeli Division for Gifted and Excellent
Students was interviewed in her office at the Ministry of Education in Jerusalem in
December, 2008 for about an hour. Semi-structured interviews with program coordinators
and instructors of teachers of the gifted were conducted from mid 2008 to mid 2009. All
program coordinators and lecturers were interviewed in their time of choice on PDTG
program site for about half an hour. Observations and deep interviews with program
participants were conducted during December 2009. Each observation session lasted an
hour and a half to three hours, depending on the lectures or courses observes.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Tools developed addressed the: (a) general inclusive perception of the essence of
nurturing the gifted; (b) teachers' and students' perceptions of teaching of the gifted; (c)
programs and their teachers' orientations regarding PDTG; (d) PDTG participants’
perceptions of cognitive aspects and competencies acquired.
Questionnaires.
Teachers’ desired characteristics questionnaire. Same questionnaires were
administered to Jewish and Arab individuals (groups 1, 2 and 3, Pre-test- N= 217, pre-andpost-test- 147), and to Arab and Jewish gifted students (N= 404) (see Appendix A and B).
Questionnaires were administered to each group in its native language. Translation was
performed by native educators. The students' questionnaire comprised three parts: (a) the
first section of this part consisted of 1 open-ended question requiring participants to relate
48
freely to uniqueness in teaching gifted students. This part was answered first to avoid the
influence of other parts of the questionnaire on the teacher's response. The second section
comprised 43 close-ended items phrased like statements to which participants respond on
a six-point Likert scale, from 1 = "not correct at all" to 6 = "completely correct". The
statements described various characteristics of teachers of the gifted. (b) Consisted of 10
closed items regarding students' expectations from and perceptions of pullout program
courses, and 1 question (comprising two parts) in which students had to choose 5 out of 11
options concerning academic contribution and rank order them. With respect to social
contribution, students were asked how attending a pullout program contributed to their
social lives; and (c) Involved items concerning demographic information about
participants. The teachers' version of the questionnaire part (b) was left out, and questions
were added to part (c) concerning important teachers' demographic information (see
Appendix A). Table 5 presents the results of factor analysis according to the perception of
the various dimensions.
49
Table 5: Results of Factor Analysis According to Perceptions of Various Dimensions
Dimension
Cognitive
.78
Alpha
Not assign research
Personal
.86
.57
Present diverse modes of solving a problem
.55
Encourage students to always think in the same way
-.53
Show a single mode of solving a problem
-.52
Not assign the building of models
-.51
Focus on the subject and not get carried away
-.50
Lecture most of the time
-.47
Teach a subject with no connection to other subjects
-.45
Be knowledgeable in subjects he/she does not teach
.43
Teach each subject in a single way
Be able to make meaningful connections among ideas originating
in different subjects
-.38
.38
Teach the same topic from different points of view
.37
Assign independent research projects
Encourage the presentation of research and creative projects in the
classroom
.35
.71
Use movies, songs, objects and games for illustration
.65
Create good personal relations with students
.64
Encourage students’ self evaluation
.61
Assign cooperative work during class
.56
Be aware of differences among students
.53
Stimulate students' curiosity
.52
Assign creative work
.52
Respect the students
.52
Be aware of students’ different learning modes
.50
Use rich language
.46
Organize visits to museums and labs
.46
Present the use of acquired knowledge in new situations
.46
Motivate students to learn
.45
Occasionally have a personal conversation with each student
.44
Be creative
.41
Not reject students' opinions
.41
50
Pedagogical
.81
Table 5 (continued)
Dimension
Cognitive
.78
Alpha
Personal
.86
Pedagogical
.81
Send students to regional and national competitions
.70
Hold science competitions among students
.67
Strive for outstanding achievements
.64
Assign homework almost every lesson
.62
Test students orally calling them to the board
.59
Ask students to memorize and recite the material
.56
Demand high grades
.53
Incorporate computer work in studies
.49
Invite experts for lectures and discussions
.49
Often check students’ notebooks and homework
.48
Grade or evaluate students on each task
.45
Invite parents to school science fairs
.41
Teach material in a fast pace
.36
Explained Variance (in Percentage)
15.0
17.3
10.7
Mean Score
5.22
(.47)
5.56
(.38)
4.1
(.68)
(SD)
A factor analysis with Varimax rotation performed on teacher responses yielded
three scales of teacher characteristics (43 items, Cronbach's alpha = .85), each one
describing a different dimension: (a) Teachers' cognitive characteristics, and in particular
teachers' application of cognitive skills and requirement that students do the same (apply
them as well) (13 items, Cronbach's alpha = .78). (b) Teachers' personal characteristics,
teaching-related characteristics, attitudes toward students, and degree of fostering
creativity (17 items, Cronbach's alpha = .86). (c) Teachers' pedagogical characteristics
concerning teaching modes and classroom activities (13 items, Cronbach's alpha = .81).
The Division of Gifted and Excellent Students in Israel (2004) defined teachers’
expertise in the education of gifted students as follows: The teacher of gifted students
should be knowledgeable in learning processes and types of learning, promote thinking,
enhance social-emotional and moral aspects, and provide optimal conditions for learning.
51
The three dimensions of teacher characteristics are interrelated. Based on research
findings, Israeli perceptions and factor analysis, we addressed the teacher’s role in the
classroom, emphasizing three dimensions: (a) the cognitive dimension, represented by
promoting thinking skills in the process of learning; (b) the pedagogical dimension,
focusing on promoting learning in general; and (c) the personal dimension, having to do
with the teacher’s personality as it relates to building productive learning environments
and to emphasizing the social-emotional and creative aspects of learning. The small
differences in the nuances of perception in the dimensions of teacher characteristics
between results in Israel and those reported in other countries may derive from differences
in the orientation and emphasis of various teacher-education programs.
Collectivism questionnaire. (adapted from Oyserman, 1993). The questionnaire
comprised 11 closed items, Cronbach's alpha = .73. Responses to statements were
provided on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1= "totally disagree" to 5 = "totally
agree" (Oyserman, 1993). Cronbach's alpha calculated for adapted questionnaire was also
.73. The questionnaire was administered to Jewish and Arab individuals (groups 1, 2 and
3, Pre-test- N= 217, pre-and-post-test- 147) to assess their orientations. Scores ranged
from 1 (low) to 6 (high) collectivist orientations. An analysis of PDTG program
contributions as related to cultural background was performed supplying data concerning
the fifth research question (see Appendix C).
PDTG program contributions questionnaire. The content of items used to measure
teachers’ assessment of PDTG program contribution was based on US standards. The
questionnaire (25 items, Cronbach's alpha = .97) comprised three parts: (a) Teachers’
knowledge of different aspects related to gifted education (15 items, Cronbach's alpha =
.97) requiring a response on a four-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = "do not
52
know" to 4 = "know." This dimension included statements such as “definitions of
giftedness”, “characteristics of gifted children”, and “instructional strategies”. (b)
Teachers’ competencies (10 items, Cronbach's alpha = .95) requiring a response on a sixpoint Likert-type scale referring to teachers’ abilities or skills, ranging from 1 =
"completely incorrect" to 6 = "completely correct. This dimension included statements
such as “identify a gifted child in the regular classroom”, “better communicate with gifted
students”, and “plan a lesson or unit for gifted in a pullout program”. (c) Teachers’
satisfaction and readiness requiring a response on a four-point Likert-type scale, ranging
from 1 = "completely satisfied" to 4 = "completely dissatisfied”, and 1 = “completely
ready” to 4 = “not ready at all”. (see Appendix D).
Written documents.
Ideological curriculum. Two key documents provided data concerning the
ideological curriculum: The Israeli Report on the Advancement of Gifted Students (2004),
and “How should teachers of gifted be chosen and trained?” (Zorman, Rachmel & Shaked,
2004). Data collected shed light on intentions and core orientations that guide the
development of the formal curriculum of training programs in Israel, their main
perceptions of desired training program requirements and outcomes, and program relation
to the various US standards.
Formal curriculum. The official transformed product of the ideological
curriculum is expressed in the formal curriculum which constitutes, in our case,
documents regarding rationale, training program objectives and course or cluster offerings.
They were gathered from the Ministry of Education and coordinators of all five PD centers
53
for teachers of the gifted. Data collected shed light on formal core orientations that guide
training program executives and instructors, and training program requirements and
outcomes.
Deep and semi-structured interviews.
Ideological curriculum. The head of the Israeli Division of Gifted and Excellent
Students was interviewed. The interview, conducted as an open dialogue, focused on
program objectives, content, and participants. It also addressed perceived difficulties,
program outcomes, and assessment. Interview was video recorded and transcribed
verbatim (see Appendix E).
Perceived curriculum. Semi-structured interviews with program coordinators and
instructors of teachers of the gifted were designed to collect data regarding the perceived
curriculum from executives and instructors (n=18). Interviews were video recorded (when
possible, n=15) and transcribed verbatim (see Appendix E).
Experiential curriculum. Deep interviews enabled collecting data concerning
learners’ interpretation of the experienced facet of the curriculum. A small sub-group
(n=3) of each observed study group was interviewed about the data collected from
observation in order to reveal details, deep thoughts, and attitudes of
participants
concerning their experiences with program curriculum and its relevance to teaching of
gifted. PDTG participants were asked to comment on the contribution of the specific
lesson to their expectations regarding certification program, and what subjects or courses
were missing? The interviews were videotaped (when possible, n=9) and transcribed
verbatim.
54
Observations.
Operational curriculum. Two random observations of PDTG sessions conducted
in each of three certification centers enabled collecting data concerning instructors’ and
lecturers’ enactment of the curriculum. Notes taken during observation sessions in the 3
PDTG programs (Patton, 2002) shed light on how the program coordinators or lecturers
had actually taught the curriculum.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was performed utilizing qualitative and quantitative measures. Study
focused on three main questions:
1. How do Israeli teachers and gifted students perceive the status of gifted
education in pullout centers relating to the teaching-learning situation, and
teachers’ desired characteristics?
2. How is the Israeli PDTG curriculum transformed from ideological facet
until it reaches teacher trainee, and how does it comply with US standards?
3. What is the cognitive impact from pre-to-post-test of PDTG program on
their participants’ concerning perceptions of the teaching-learning
situations in pullout centers in Israel, the desired characteristics of teachers
of the gifted, and self-assessment of knowledge and competencies they
acquired?
Table 6 presents research questions generated from main questions, instruments and
methods of analysis.
55
Table 6: Research Questions, Instruments, and Qualitative and Quantitative
Measures
Research Question
Instrument
Method
1a. What are the differences between
teachers who receive and who do not receive
training in PDTG, and between teachers of
different cultural orientations, in perceptions
of teaching-learning situation in pullout
programs and of teachers' desires
characteristics?
Teachers'
Questionnaire Openended question
Teachers' characteristics
Quantitative
Qualitative
Quantitative
1b. What are the differences between
teachers of different groups and cultural
orientations in perceptions of teachers’
desired characteristics according to
collectivist orientations?
Collectivism
Questionnaire
Teachers' Questionnaire
1c. What are the differences between gifted
students from different grade levels, gender,
and cultural orientations in the perception of
the teaching-learning situation in pullout
programs, and teachers’ desired
characteristics?
Students' Questionnaire
Open-ended question
Teachers' characteristics
1d. What are the differences between gifted
students from different grade levels, gender,
and cultural orientations in perception of the
academic and social contribution, course
selection and general satisfaction with
pullout program?
Students' Questionnaire
Course Selection
Academic Contribution
Social Contribution
General Satisfaction
1e. What are the differences between
teachers’ and gifted students’ perceptions of
the teaching-learning situation in pullout
programs, and teachers’ desired
characteristics?
Teachers' Questionnaire
Students' Questionnaire
-Open-ended question
Teachers' characteristics
56
Quantitative
Qualitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Qualitative
Quantitative
Table 6 (continued)
Research Question
2a. How is PDTG curriculum
transformed from ideological facet
until it reaches teacher trainee?
Instrument
Deep interview-Head
of Division
Document Analysis
Semi-Structured
InterviewCoordinators and
Lecturers.
Observations
Deep InterviewPDTG teachers
Method
Qualitative
2b. How does each stage comply with
US standards?
Deep and semiStructured Interview
Document Analysis
Observations
Qualitative
2c. What are the main factors involved
and difficulties encountered in PDTG
curriculum transformation?
Semi-Structured
InterviewCoordinators and
Lecturers.
Observations
Deep InterviewPDTG teachers
Qualitative
3a. What are the differences from preto-post-test between teachers’
perceptions of the teaching-learning
situation in pullout programs, and
teachers’ desired characteristics
according to group and cultural
orientation?
Teachers'
Questionnaire
Quantitative
Qualitative
Quantitative
3b. What are the differences from preto-post-test between teachers of
different groups and cultural
orientations in perceptions of teachers’
desired characteristics according to
collectivist orientations?
Collectivism
Questionnaire
Teachers'
Questionnaire
Quantitative
3c. What are the differences from preto-post-test between PDTG
participants’ self-assessment of
standard-based knowledge and
competencies acquired?
PDTG Program
Contributions
Questionnaire
Quantitative
57
Qualitative
Qualitative
Qualitative
Qualitative
Qualitative
Qualitative
Qualitative data analysis.
Open-Ended Question, Semi- Structured and Deep Interviews. Teachers’ and
students’ responses to open-ended question, program coordinators and lecturers responses
to semi-structured interview, and head of division’s and program participants’ responses to
deep interview were analyzed using grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Responses
and interviews were read line by line, broken apart into phrase segments, compared and
categorized. To begin the analysis researcher separately open coded responses to openended question, deep and semi-structured interviews. Once main categories emerged raw
data was shared with two independent coders. Reliability of categorization was calculated
for 20% of analyzed content, performed by the two independent coders. Inter-coder
agreement was calculated in percentage, as the number of agreed upon classification of
statements out of total number of statements multiplied by 100. Definitions of problematic
criteria were refined, and an additional random sample of that content was categorized to
obtain 90% of inter-coder reliability (Keeves, 1988).
Open-ended question. A pilot test for analysis of the open ended question,
administered to 60 Jewish and Arab teachers, yielded the following results: (a) axial
coding procedure generated categories from the initial coding were teachers’ personal
characteristics, teachers’ pedagogical characteristics, teachers’ cognitive characteristics,
gifted
students’
characteristics,
course
characteristics,
learning
environment
characteristics, and climate characteristics; (b) selective coding created four core
categories relating to the four commonplaces: teacher, student, subject matter, and milieu.
Table 7 presents examples of the coding procedure for teachers’ responses.
58
Table 7: Examples of Three Levels of Coding Procedures for Teachers’ Responses
Level I Codes
Original Responses From
Teachers
"Teachers should be open and
flexible."
“Willing to listen.”
"Promote thinking and problem
solving"
"Teachers should have
comprehensive knowledge."
“Assign independent research
projects.”
“Incorporate lab experiments and
field trips into studies.”
"Students are bored quickly."
"Students have special talents and
abilities.”
"Students should develop their
social skills.”
"Self actualization.”
"Subjects are more varied."
“Subjects are different than
regular school.”
"Freedom of thinking."
“Open and accepting.”
“Challenging”
"Higher level and faster pace."
Level II Codes
Categories
Generated From
Level I Codes
Personal
Characteristics
Level III Codes
Consistent Themes
Created From Level II
Codes
Teacher
Cognitive
Characteristics
Pedagogical
Characteristics
Characteristics
Gifted Student
Personal
Characteristics to
be Developed
Course
Characteristics
Subject Matter
Climate
Characteristics
Milieu
Learning
Environment
Characteristics
Our memos on the initial stage of analysis and coding exhibited the following subcategories: teachers’ knowledge, teachers’ personality, teaching methods, teaching tools,
level of studies, pace of studies, level of interest, students’ social contribution, students’
personal skills, climate, and subjects taught. Core categories that emerged were: teacher,
59
studies, teaching strategies, students, courses, and teaching-learning environment. Some
sub-categories were renamed, refined and combined to form one core category. Core
categories emerging, describing the teaching-learning situation in pullout programs, were
found similar to the commonplaces suggested by Schwab (1973, 1978).
Semi-structured interviews. Analysis of semi-structured interviews with program
coordinators and lecturers yielded the following categories. Some examples of categories
generated through axial coding were program structure, program main difficulties,
cognitive objectives, pedagogical objectives, coordinators’ experience, coordinators’
academic role. Selective coding allowed main categories to connect more systematically
and link to a core category. Core categories represented the central phenomenon around
which all the categories were integrated. Examples created from interview data were
program design, main objectives, and program coordinators’ role. See Table 8 for
examples of coding procedure.
60
Table 8: Examples of Three levels of the Coding Procedure for Interviews with
Program Coordinators
Level I Codes
Level II Codes
Original Responses From Program Coordinators
and Lecturers
Categories
Generated From
Level I Codes
Program - Structure
"Clusters divided in two years. First year,
theoretical (giftedness and gifted student).
Second year, more practical (teacher and
pedagogy)."
Level III Codes
Consistent Themes
Created From Level II
Codes
Program Design
"An
academic
program
focusing
on
understanding of giftedness, not just cognitively,
but feeling and experiencing it."
"Psychology, didactics, and aspects such as
creativity, problem solving, thinking and arts."
“First year - Definitions, cognitive and
noncognitive
characteristics,
and
the
environment. Second year – thinking, creative
thinking, the family, pedagogy and practice."
Program - Main
Subjects
"It is a continuous process of trying to improve
courses to fit the program."
"Participants come from different backgrounds
and cultures, and do not have the experience, or
have not encountered a gifted child."
Program - Main
Difficulties
"We hold integrative sessions at the end of each
cluster, and assign the writing of a reflective
journal."
"University questionnaire transferred to the
Division of Gifted in the Ministry of Education."
"Teachers will learn about gifted children's
characteristics."
Program Evaluation and
Assessment
"Acquiring knowledge and understanding of
emotional, cognitive, and social characteristics."
Cognitive
Objectives Knowledge and
Understanding
"Giving teachers tools to develop their own
(tools), practice, and answer advanced
questions."
Pedagogical
Objectives - Skills
and Competencies
"Plan and design a unit."
"Teachers should be charismatic, open, flexible,
and challenging."
Personal Objectives
"Teachers should be creative, curious and open
to new ideas."
61
Main Objectives
Table 8 (Continued)
Level I Codes
Level II Codes
Level III Codes
Original Responses From Program Coordinators
and Lecturers
Categories
Generated From
Level I Codes
Consistent Themes
Created From Level II
Codes
"I had some experience with my gifted child, but
no specific training to become program
coordinator."
Coordinators’
Experience and
Training
Program Coordinator's
Role
"I was principal of a pullout center for many
years. There is no Professional training for
program coordinators."
"Develop the program, pick lecturers, interview
students, and teach 1-2 courses."
"Build the program, connect between the
different clusters, teach some of the subjects, and
grade papers."
"Monitor the courses and students' attendance."
"Participate in program coordinators' forum once
a month."
Coordinators’
Academic Role
Coordinators’
Administrative
Role
Deep interviews. Some examples of categories generated through axial coding of
deep interviews with program participants were: theory - new knowledge, pedagogy tools and skills, program - design and structure, and additional courses or clusters. Core
categories created from interview data were program contribution and program
disadvantages. See Table 9 for examples of coding procedure.
62
Table 9: Examples of Three levels of the Coding Procedure for Interviews with
PDTG participants
Level I Codes
Level II Codes
Original Responses From Participants
Categories Generated From
Level I Codes
Theory - New Knowledge
“We received theories (foundations) and
it was excellent."
“New knowledge on how gifted students
think.”
“How to encourage curiosity and
creativity.”
"Tools for analysis of curriculum."
Level III Codes
Consistent Themes Created
From Level II Codes
Program Contribution
Pedagogy - Tools and
Skills
"Program coordinator modeled how to
change and adapt material for the group."
"Lecturer served as a good role model of
how to prepare and present material in a
logical and interesting manner."
Modeling by
Coordinator/Lecturer
"There was a good attempt to combine
psychological, developmental
(perspectives) with curriculum and arts."
Program - Design and
Structure
"Overall I feel that the program enabled
the exposure to different perspectives of
giftedness and experience through courses
like research and art how gifted feel and
learn."
"There was no new knowledge that
surprised me."
Theory - New Knowledge
"Not enough scientific and theoretical
knowledge."
"I would like more practical workshops."
"I would like more examples of good
teaching."
"As a PDTG participant I could also give
that lecture."
Pedagogy - Tools and
Skills
Modeling by
Coordinator/Lecturer
"Lecturer came in late, lectured on a
different topic and left earlier than
expected."
"Summer semester is too condensed and
therefore ineffective."
Program - Design and
Structure
"Lectures are repeated as there is not
enough communication between program
coordinator and invited lecturers."
“It would prefer to have a course in
specific subject matter (like math)
showing how giftedness is expressed and
giving me tools to lead them."
Additional
Courses/Clusters
"A teacher needs practicum- to go into the
classroom and teach the gifted."
63
Program Disadvantages
Written documents. Documents were read several times. Emerging themes were
recorded and divided into specific categories, enabling comparison and identification of
orientations. Written programs (rationale, objectives and course descriptions) gathered
from all five PD centers for teachers of the gifted, were analyzed for their content to reveal
core orientations.
Observations. Data collected during observation were categorized according to
Schwab’s notion of the four commonplaces characterizing any teaching-learning situation,
examining learning situations for the lecturer who is teaching the subject matter to
students in a network of social and cultural context – the milieu (Schwab, 1964,
1969/1978).
Quantitative data analysis.
Open-ended question. Teachers’ and students’ reference to a single characteristic
of any of the commonplaces in the open-ended question was scored 1. The summed scores
of Jewish and Arab teachers for each commonplace were compared to reveal differences
in their perceptions of the inherent importance of each commonplace, as expressed by the
number of characteristics they assigned to it. The mean values of participant scores in
each group were calculated for open-ended question. For pre-and-post-tests repeated
measures ANOVAs were performed to establish the differences between Arab and Jewish
teachers’ perceptions of various teaching-learning characteristics of pullout centers.
Repeated contrast tests were used post hoc.
Teachers’ desired characteristics. In the pilot test, results of a factor analysis of
60 Jewish and Arab teachers’ responses to a teacher characteristics questionnaire of 52
64
items (9 items omitted, 3 rephrased) yielded three scales of teacher characteristics. The
internal consistency of the 43-item instrument yielded a reliability of Cronbach's alpha =
.85 describing three dimensions of teacher characteristics: (a) cognitive characteristics (13
items, Cronbach's alpha = .77); (b) personal characteristics (17 items, Cronbach's alpha =
.86); and (c) pedagogical characteristics (13 items, Cronbach's alpha = .80).
Mean values of statement scores of group participants were calculated for each
dimension of teacher characteristics, and two-way MANOVA tests were performed to
establish differences between Arab and Jewish teachers’ and students’ ratings. Differences
between Arab and Jewish teachers’ and students’ ratings on statements within groups
were established by paired sample t-tests.
Pullout program contribution (students). Descriptive statistics were used to
analyze students’ course suggestions, and their perceptions of academic and social
contribution. Multivariate analysis was used for course preferences, and Univariate
analysis was used for analyzing students’ satisfaction with pullout program.
Collectivism questionnaire. Pearson correlations were performed to establish the
relevance of the collectivism variable.
PDTG program contributions questionnaire. Paired sample tests were performed
to establish differences between participants’ pre-post self-evaluated knowledge and
competence, and within Type 1 and Type 2 PDTG participants. Univariate analysis was
used for differences according to factors by group type.
65
Study Ethics
Parents' consent in writing was obtained for filling in questionnaires related to
expected teacher characteristics. The Head of The Gifted Department in the Ministry of
Education was contacted after obtaining the authorization from Head Researcher, to
discuss procedures involving adult study sample – executives and instructors, teachers in
five PDTG programs, and teachers at various pullout centers.
66
Chapter 3: Results
Part1: Gifted Education Status
Teachers’ perceptions – pre-test.
The uniqueness of the teaching-learning situation in pullout courses. Teacher
responses to the open-ended question revealed differences in their perceptions of teachinglearning situations in gifted pullout courses and in regular schools. A total of 172 teachers
(105 Jewish and 67 Arab) out of a total of 217 participants responded to the question.
Results presented combine both the qualitative and quantitative data analysis, which
contributes to a better understanding of teachers’ perceptions.
Multivariate analysis yielded a significant difference between groups (F[1,169]=5.58,
p≤.005, ES=.062), cultural orientations (F[1,170]=11.12, p≤.001, ES=.061), and the
interaction between groups by culture (F[5,166]=5.07, p≤.001, ES=.132).
Differences between groups. Comparison by group yielded significant
differences in three of the commonplaces: teacher (F[2,166]=18.79, p≤.001, ES=.185),
student (F[2,166]=8.43, p≤.001, ES=.092), and milieu (F[2,166]=2.98, p≤.05, ES=.035). Figure
1 shows the differences in mean scores between groups for the four commonplaces.
67
Figure 1: Teachers’ Perceptions of the Four Commonplaces in a Teaching-Learning
Situation: Differences of Mean Scores between Groups.
In describing the unique characteristics of teaching in pullout centers compared with
regular school curriculum, PDTG teachers tended to relate to the commonplace of teacher
significantly, almost twice as much as did teachers in pullout center (M= 3.03(1.73) and
1.48(1.65) respectively, MD=1.56, p≤.05) and regular school teachers (M= 3.03(1.73) and
1.55(1.33) respectively, MD=1.48, p≤.05). PDTG teachers mentioned personal
characteristics like: “related well with students”, “flexible”, “open”, “aware of students’
difficulties”, “curious”,” creative “and “intelligent”; cognitive characteristics like:
“knowledgeable”, “uses rich language”, and” connects between subjects”; and
pedagogical characteristics such as: “uses discussions”, “assigns independent learning”,
“serves as guide or tutor”, and “designs programs”.
PDTG teachers also referred to the milieu [M= .98(1.31)], but to a lesser extent.
Pullout center teachers referred more to the milieu than did PDTG teachers [M=
1.24(1.40) and .98(1.31)], but significantly less than school teachers [M= 1.65(1.57) and
68
.98(1.31) respectively, MD=.67, p≤.05]. Pullout center teachers mentioned for climate:
“freedom of thinking” and “open and accepting atmosphere”; and for learning
environment characteristics; “challenging” and “higher level and faster pace”.
Pullout center teachers referred more to the student commonplace than did PDTG
teachers [M=.57(.83) and .12(.49) respectively, MD= .45, p≤.05] and school teachers
[M=.57(.83) and .23(.57) respectively, MD= .34, p≤.05]. They mentioned students’
characteristics like: “students are bored quickly” and “students have special talents and
abilities”; and for personal characteristics to be developed: “students should develop their
social skills”, “self actualization” and” self expression”. School teachers perceived the
teacher commonplaces as important as did pullout center teachers [M=1.55(1.33) and
1.48(1.65)], and results were similar for the milieu commonplace [M=1.65(1.57)].
Differences in cultural orientations. Comparison by culture yielded significant
differences between Jewish and Arab teachers in two commonplaces, milieu (F[1,166]=14.13,
p≤.001, ES=.078) and subject matter (F[1,166]=5.70, p≤.05, ES=.033). Figure 2 presents the
differences in mean teacher perceptions scores between groups for cultural orientation.
69
Figure 2: Teachers’ Perceptions of the Four Commonplaces in a Teaching-Learning
Situation According to Cultural Orientation: Differences of Mean Scores between
Groups.
All teachers referred less to the student and subject matter commonplaces than to the
teacher and the milieu. The main differences were in Jewish and Arab teachers’
perceptions of the milieu. Jewish pullout center teachers and school teachers referred more
to the milieu than did Arab teachers in these groups, but references to the teacher
commonplace were similar.
Differences were detected in the following commonplaces:
(a) Teacher and student. The main difference detected in teachers’ perception of the
teacher and student commonplaces were between the groups of Jewish and Arab
pullout center teachers, with Jewish teachers attributing greater importance to the
teacher commonplace [M= 1.74(1.95) and 1.22(1.27) respectively] and Arab
teachers to the student commonplace [M=.78(.95) and .35(.64) respectively].
Jewish pullout center teachers stressed the teachers’ personal characteristics:
70
“sensitive”, “encourages students’, “open”, “flexible”, “original”, and “possesses
good communication skills”. Arab counterparts tended to relate more to teachers’
pedagogical characteristics: “uses inquiry”, “uses integrative learning”, “uses
different methods”, “incorporates field trips”, “designs curriculum with
students”, and “uses lab experiments”.
Arab counterparts mentioned gifted
students’ characteristics like: “students are bored quickly”, “students have
special talents and abilities”; and for personal characteristics to be developed:
“students should develop their social skills”, “self actualization” and” self
expression”.
(b) Milieu. Arab teachers in all three groups, PDTG, pullout teachers, and school
teachers, attributed less importance to the milieu commonplace than did their
Jewish counterparts [M= .68(1.12), .74(1.01), 1.0(1.36) and 1.12(1.39),
1.74(1.57), 2.08(1.58) respectively]. Jewish school teachers perceived the milieu
as characterizing pullout programs twice as often as did Jewish PDTG teachers
[M= 2.08(1.58) and 1.12(1.39) respectively]. For learning environment
characteristics Jewish school teachers mentioned:
“high level of interest”,
“challenging”, “higher level”, “faster pace”, and “enriching”.
(c) Subject matter. The subject matter commonplace received a low rating from all
teachers, Jewish and Arab, but Arab pullout center teachers attributed higher
importance to it than did Jewish teachers of the same group [M= .43(.94) and
.00]. Arab pullout center teachers mentioned for course characteristics: “subjects
are more varied”, “and subjects are different than regular school”.
71
No group by culture interaction was found, indicating that the group effect is much
stronger than the interaction, that is, Jewish and Arab teachers within each group tended to
rate the commonplaces similarly.
Teachers' perceptions of desired teacher characteristics in various dimensions.
Significant main effects were detected for group (F[6,418]=8.23, p≤.001, ES=.106), culture
(F[3,209]=17.36, p≤.001, ES=.200), and group by culture (F[6,418]=2.59, p≤.001, ES=.036), in
the three dimensions of teachers’ desired characteristics: The cognitive, the pedagogical
and personal.
Differences among groups. Differences between the three groups were found in
the cognitive dimension, with PDTG teachers rating the desired cognitive characteristics
of the teacher of the gifted significantly higher than did pullout center teachers and school
teachers [M= 5.36(.43) and 4.95(.51) and 5.24(.39) respectively, F[2,211]=11.41, p≤.001,
ES=.098]; in the pedagogical dimension, with school teachers rating the characteristics
higher than did PDTG teachers and pullout center teachers [M= 4.35(.50) and 4.05(.66)
and 3.88(.79) respectively, F[2,211]=12.15, p≤.001, ES=.103); and in the personal
dimension, with PDTG teachers and school teachers rating the characteristics similarly and
significantly higher than did pullout center teachers [M= 5.61(.37) and 5.60(.35) and
5.41(.40) respectively, F[2,211]=4.28, p≤.05, ES=.039]. Although all dimensions were
perceived to be important, PDTG teachers exhibited higher awareness of the cognitive and
personal characteristics of teachers of the gifted than of the pedagogical dimension.
Table 10 presents the results of post hoc tests for the three groups of teachers
concerning the three measures of dimensions of teacher characteristics – cognitive,
pedagogical, and personal.
72
Table 10: Teachers Rating Teachers’ Characteristics in Three Dimensions: Mean
Scores Differences and Significance in Post Hoc Tests for Groups
Dimension
PDTG
Pullout Center Teachers
Pedagogical PDTG
Pullout Center Teachers
PDTG
Personal
Pullout Center Teachers
*p< .05 ***p<.001
Cognitive
Pullout
Teachers
.40 ***
0.17
.19 *
School
Teachers
0.11
-.29***
-.30*
-.47***
-0.02
-.19*
Significant differences were detected between the three groups in all dimensions, and
significant main effects were found for culture in all three dimensions:
(a) Cognitive dimension. PDTG teachers rated the cognitive dimension higher than
did pullout center teachers [M= 5.36(.43) and 4.96(.51) respectively, MD=.40,
p≤.001].
(b) Pedagogical dimension. School teachers perceived the pedagogical dimension
higher than did PDTG teachers [M= 4.35(.50) and 4.05(.66) respectively,
MD=.30, p≤.05] and pullout center teachers [M= 4.35(.50) and 3.88(.79)
respectively, MD=.47, p≤.001].
(c) Personal dimension. PDTG teachers rated the personal dimension higher than did
pullout center teachers [M= 5.61(.37) and 5.41(.40) respectively, MD=.20,
p≤.05], and school teachers rated it higher than did pullout center teachers and
similarly to PDTG teachers [M= 5.60(.35) and 5.41(.40) respectively, MD=.19,
p≤.05].
73
Differences related to cultural orientation. An ANOVA for dependent variable
of collectivism on a scale of 1 to 6 (1 indicating low collectivism, 6 high collectivism)
showed a significant difference in cultural orientations between Jews and Arabs [M=
2.92(.51) and 3.55(.62) respectively, F[1,200]=41.16, p≤.001, SE=.171] and an interaction of
group by culture (F[2,200]=4.29, p≤.05, SE=.041). The correlations between dimensions of
teachers’ desired characteristics and level of collectivism by culture, group, and group by
culture interaction yielded several significant differences. Table 11 presents the Pearson
correlations between dimensions and the collectivism of teachers in the various groups.
Table 11: Pearson Correlations between Three Dimensions of Teachers’
Characteristics and Collectivist Orientation according to Culture, Group, and Group
by Culture
General
Culture
Group
Group
by
Culture
*p< .05
Total Population
Jewish
Arab
PDTG
Pullout Teachers
School Teachers
Cognitive
-.32**
-.22*
-.26*
-.30**
-.31*
-.22
Pedagogical
.24 *
.22
-.06
.19
.51 **
.18
Personal
-.11
.11
.06
-.18
-.01
.03
-.31*
-.22
-.18
-.08
-.13
-.30
.24
.28
.16
-.17
.11
.08
-.28*
-.21
.14
.11
.38*
-.08
PDTG Jewish
Pullout Teachers Jewish
School Teachers Jewish
PDTG Arab
Pullout Teachers Arab
School Teachers Arab
**p<.01
Correlations with collectivism were found in all three dimensions:
(a) Cognitive Dimension: A negative correlation on the cognitive dimension
suggests a reversed relation between the teachers’ orientation and their score on
74
the cognitive dimension. In other words, teachers who rated higher on the
cognitive dimension expressed less collectivist orientations. Analysis by group
shows PDTG teachers and pullout center teachers following this trend on the
cognitive dimension. An interaction of group by culture yielded only a single
negative correlation, for Jewish PDTG teachers on the cognitive dimension.
(b) Pedagogical Dimension: The significant correlations found between orientation
and the pedagogical dimension, were positive for the total population, and high
for the pullout center group, regardless of orientation.
(c) Personal Dimension: An interaction of group by orientation yielded a single
negative correlation, for collectivism among Jewish PDTG teachers.
Differences concerning cultural orientations. Table 12 presents results of
MANOVA tests for teachers’ ratings on teacher characteristics in three dimensions, by
group, culture, and group by culture interaction.
Table 12: Teachers’ Ratings of the Three Dimensions of Teachers’ Characteristics by
Group, Culture, and group by Culture: Multivariate Tests Results Presented in F
Values, Effect Size and Significance Levels
Dimensions
df
Cognitive
Group
2,211
11.41***
.098
Pedagogical
12.15***
.103
Personal
4.28*
.039
Multivariate F
8.23***
.106
df
6,418
*p< .05 **p<.01 *** p<.001
Culture
1,211
10.81***
.049
38.13***
.153
4.84*
.022
17.36***
.200
3,209
75
Group by
Culture
2,211
2.29
.021
5.18*
.047
.019
.000
2.59*
.036
6,418
Group and culture were found to have the strongest effect on teachers’ perceptions of
desired teacher characteristics. A much lower effect in the group by culture interaction
indicates that within groups the gap between teachers’ perceptions of the various
dimensions according to culture is much smaller.
(a) Cognitive dimension. Jewish teachers rated the cognitive dimension of desired
teacher characteristics significantly higher than did Arab teachers [M= 5.31(.40)
and 5.05(.52) respectively, F[1,211]=10.81, p≤.001, ES=.049]. Although no
significant group by culture interaction was detected on the cognitive
dimensions, further investigation revealed differences within groups. Jewish
PDTG teachers tended to rate the cognitive characteristics higher than did Arab
PDTG teachers [M= 5.45(.34) and 5.15(.52) respectively, t=3.17, MD=.30, p≤
.005), and Jewish pullout center teachers rated these characteristics significantly
higher than did Arab teachers [M= 5.11(.46) and 4.81(.52) respectively, t=2.27,
MD=.30, p ≤ .05].
(b) Pedagogical dimension. Jewish teachers rated statements pertaining to
pedagogical characteristics significantly lower than did Arab teachers [M=
3.93(.69) and 4.38(.55) respectively, F[1,211]=38.13, p≤.001, SE=.153). The group
by culture interaction on the pedagogical dimension (F[2,211]=5.18, p≤.05,
SE=.047) indicates an opposite culturally-related trend among groups, with
Jewish pullout center teachers rating these characteristics significantly lower than
did Arab teachers [M= 3.40(.77) and 4.33(.50) respectively, t= - 5.46, MD= .93,
p≤.001), and Jewish PDTG teachers rating them significantly lower than their
Arab counterparts [M= 3.94(.67 ) and 4.29(.58) respectively]. Both Jewish and
76
Arab school teachers rated characteristics of the pedagogical dimension highest,
with Arab teachers rating them even slightly higher.
(c) Personal dimension. Jewish teachers tended to rate higher than did their Arab
counterparts on statements relating to the personal dimension [M= 5.61(.35) and
5.46(.41) respectively, F[1,211]=4.84, p≤.05, SE=.022].
In sum, the two aspects investigated in the present study, the teaching-learning
situation in pullout programs and the desired characteristics of the teacher of the gifted,
revealed a strong group effect for the first aspect and a group and cultural effect for the
second. Pullout center teachers, and even more so, those from Arab communities, were
found to differ significantly from their colleagues in PDTG and in regular schools in both
aspects. Teachers taking their initial steps in PDTG programs generally showed a different
perception of the teachers’ roles and desired characteristics, although a cultural effect
could also be detected within this group.
Students’ perceptions.
Uniqueness of the teaching-learning situation in pullout courses. In their
responses to the open-ended question, gifted elementary and junior high school students
pointed out differences between the teaching-learning processes taking place in courses
they attended at the gifted pullout center and at their regular schools. A total of 265
students (155 Jewish, 110 Arab) out of 404 participants responded to the question.
Multivariate analysis yielded a significant difference among students’ perceptions of
commonplaces (F[3,783]=54.62, p≤.001, SE=.173), and the interaction of commonplaces by
77
cultural orientations (F[3,783]=33.16, p≤.001, SE=.113), and commonplaces by grade level
and culture (F[3,783]=5.10, p≤.005, SE=.019).
Cultural orientation. Significant differences were detected between students’
perceptions regarding the commonplace of teacher and student (F[1,261]=39.08, p≤.001,
SE=.130), of student and milieu (F[1,261]=12.11, p≤.001, SE=.044), and milieu and subject
matter (F[1,261]=37.85, p≤.001, SE=.127). Figure 3 presents Jewish and Arab students’
mean scores concerning their perceptions of the four commonplaces.
Figure 3: Students’ Perceptions of the Four Commonplaces in a Teaching-Learning
Situation: Mean Score Differences between Groups.
In describing the unique characteristics of pullout centers compared with regular
schools, Jewish students tended to relate to characteristics of teacher and milieu, whereas
Arab students tended to relate to subject matter and milieu. Because the question referred
78
specifically to “situations,” only a few references to students were made by both groups,
and gifted Jewish students made only a few comments about subject matter.
Students’ perceptions according to the four commonplaces were as following:
(a) Teacher. Gifted Jewish students related to teacher characteristics twice as
much as did Arab students [M= 1.24(1.15) and 0.56(.79) respectively]. The
former mentioned such personal teacher characteristics as flexibility, openness,
patience, creativity, originality, and sense of humor. They also considered
teachers' knowledge, experience, and professionalism. Teacher’s attitude to
students was also perceived as important among Jewish students, who
mentioned teachers respecting students, understanding and helping them, and
showing personal interest in students. Arab students addressed mostly teacher's
instructional modes and practices such as assigning no homework,
administering no tests, performing lab experiments, conducting inquiries, and
directing creative and fun activities (e.g., movies, games, plays, trips).
(b) Student. Two aspects of this commonplace were addressed, one relating to the
characteristics of gifted students, the other to what students can achieve by
attending pullout programs. Gifted Arab students mentioned the characteristics
of pullout students three times more than did Jewish students [M= 0.21(.60)
and 0.07(.25) respectively]. Both groups stressed their preference for highly
successful learners as peers in the pullout program. Arab students tended to
emphasize homogeneous grouping, high ability students, excellence, and the
expectation that other students should be able to personally and socially
contribute to them. Jewish students emphasized in particular such
characteristics as quick understanding, out-of-the-box thinking, and high
79
achievement. Arab students also mentioned intra- and-inter-social and personal
contributions such as building relationships with students from other religions
or meeting new friends. They stressed exposure to new hobbies and the
development of their ability to choose a profession that would lead to their selfactualization.
(c) Subject Matter. Arab students related to the commonplace of subject matter
twelve times more than did Jewish students, regarding it as being most
different from what was taught in regular school [M= 0.82(1.21) and 0.07(.28)
respectively].
(d) Milieu: Although both groups related to the milieu, a significant difference was
found between Jewish and Arab gifted students [M= 1.12(.94) and 0.81(.90)
respectively]. Jewish students related both to the general climate characteristics
of the program (the program was dynamic, less strict, open, and more free) and
the characteristics of the learning environment (the quality and quantity of
programs, their academic level, learning pace, and interest). Both groups noted
their expectation of higher academic level, greater material complexity, and
faster learning pace than in regular school. Jewish students stressed their desire
for a large variety of creative assignments and enrichment activities rather than
more of the same (emphasis on quality rather than quantity). They also
commented on the climate being more open, free, less strict, and more dynamic
than in regular school. Arab students indicated that the difference from regular
schools was manifest in an absence of uniforms, informality, lower
commitment, and longer breaks. In sum, Jewish gifted students tended to
80
emphasize more characteristics associated with learning, whereas Arab
students tended to comment on formalities and to a lesser degree on learning.
Grade level by cultural orientation. A significant difference was detected in the
interaction of grade level by culture between the commonplace of teacher and that of the
student (F[1,261]=12.72, p≤.001, SE=.046). Relating to the commonplace of teacher, a
significant difference was found between Jewish junior high school students and Arab
counterparts [M= 1.71(1.24) and .50(.77) respectively]. Both groups, Jews and Arabs,
related much less to the commonplace of student [M= 0.9(.29) and .23(.57) respectively].
Desired teachers' characteristics concerning various dimensions. The main
hypothesis concerning differences in desired cognitive, pedagogical, or personal
characteristics of teachers by culture, gender and grade level was confirmed. Table 13
presents Pearson correlations among the three measures of the dimensions of teachers'
characteristics, namely, the cognitive, pedagogical and the personal dimensions.
Table 13: Correlations Among the Three Dimensions of Teachers' Desired
Characteristics as Rated by Students (N=404).
Cognitive
Personal
Pedagogical
Cognitive
_______
_______
_______
Personal
.604 ***
_______
_______
Pedagogical
.275 ***
.517 ***
_______
*** p< .001
Means comparisons (SD in parenthesis) of students’ ratings of dimensions yielded
the personality dimension highest, following by the cognitive, which is higher than the
81
pedagogical [M= 4.85(.62) and 4.31(.59 and 3.59(.76)]. Pearson correlation for the various
dimensions of teachers' characteristics yielded significant main effects for all possible
pairs of characteristics dimensions (p≤.001), suggesting that they are related in students'
minds. However, the personal dimension is more strongly related to the cognitive one in
students' minds than it is to the pedagogical dimension, whereas the cognitive and the
pedagogical dimension are perceived by students as related to a smaller degree. The three
dimensions were examined by background variables to determine their effect, as seen in
Table 14.
Table 14: Results of MANOVA for All Students’ Ratings on Teachers’
Characteristics in the Three Dimensions by Culture, Grade Level, Gender and
Gender by Culture, Presented in F Values and Significance Levels.
Dimensions
(df=394)
Cognitive
Culture
Grade Level
Gender
Gender by
Culture
.84
10.89***
4.14*
10.46***
Personal
13.72***
2.04
4.19*
4.73*
Pedagogical
16.32***
.67
.10
.31
3.78 *
2.77*
3.76*
Multivariate F
25.35***
(df =3)
* p< .05 *** p< .001
Significant main effects were detected for grade level (F[1,394]=3.78, p≤.05,
ES=.028), gender (F[1,394]=2.77, p≤.05, SE=.021), culture F[1,394] =25.35, p≤.001, SE=.16),
and the interaction of gender by culture F[1,394]=3.76, p≤.05, SE=.028).
82
The cognitive dimension. Significant differences in students’ preferences related
to cognitive characteristics of teachers of gifted were detected in the background variables
of grade level, gender, and the interaction of culture by gender, but not for culture.
Examination according to grade level indicated that junior high school gifted students
rated the cognitive dimension higher than did elementary gifted students [M= 4.40(.60)
and 4.23(.57) respectively, F[1,396]=10.89, p≤.001, SE=.027]. Examination according to
gender showed that girls rated higher than boys on the cognitive scale [M= 4.34(.55) and
4.26(.56)] respectively, F[1,396]=4.14, p≤.05, SE=.010].
Analysis according to cultural orientations showed no significant differences
between Jewish and Arab students on the cognitive dimension. The significant interaction
of gender by culture on the cognitive dimension indicated that boys and girls of the
different cultural orientations perceived teachers' characteristics differently (F[1,396]=10.46,
p≤.001, SE=.026). Jewish boys tended to rate the cognitive dimension slightly higher than
Jewish girls did [M= 4.36(.50) and 4.29(.64) respectively], whereas Arab girls tended to
rate teachers’ cognitive characteristics significantly higher than Arab boys did [M=
4.43(.62) and 4.13(.60) respectively]. These findings show opposite gender-related trends
among Jewish and Arab students regarding preferred cognitive characteristics of teachers
of gifted.
Paired sample t-tests showed a significant difference between Arab boys and Arab
girls (t(198)=-3.47, p≤.001, MD= -.30), but not between Jewish boys and girls. Namely,
Arab girls, who rated the desired cognitive characteristics of the teacher of the gifted
significantly higher than Arab boys did, perceived cognitive characteristics as more
important for their personal development, whereas, Jewish boys and girls equally
perceived teachers' cognitive characteristics as important. In addition, Jewish boys rated
83
teachers' cognitive characteristics significantly higher than Arab boys did [M= 4.36(.50)
and 4.13(.60) respectively, t(249)=3.36, p≤.001, MD= .23]. It seems that Arab boys
perceived teachers’ cognitive characteristics as less important than Jewish boys did.
The personal dimension. Significant differences in students’ perceptions of the
desired personal characteristics of the teacher of gifted were detected in gender and culture
but not in grade level. Analysis according to gender indicated that girls rated the personal
dimension higher than boys [M= 4.90(.63) and 4.81(.61) respectively, F[1,396]=4.19, p≤.05,
ES=.010]. According to culture, Jewish students tended to rate this dimension higher than
their Arab counterparts did [M= 4.96(.49) and 4.72(.70) respectively, F[1,396]=13.72,
p≤.001, SE=.033]. T-test results show a significant difference between Arab gifted boys
and girls [M= 4.63(.71) and 4.83(.69) respectively, t= -1.98, p≤.05, MD= -.30] in
perception of the importance of teachers’ personal characteristics.
The pedagogical dimension. A significant difference according to culture alone
was found on the pedagogical dimension, indicating Jewish students’ tendency to rate such
characteristics lower than their Arab counterparts did [M= 3.44(.72) and 3.73(.77)
respectively, F[1,396]=16.32, p≤.001, SE=.040]. Differences were detected between both
Jewish and Arab gifted boys [M= 3.46(.73) and 3.73(.83) respectively, t= -2.75, p≤.05,
MD= -.27] and Jewish and Arab gifted girls [M= 3.39(.69) and 3.73(.69) respectively, t= 2.97, p≤.005, MD= -.34].
In summary, an examination of teachers’ characteristics according to the three
different dimensions revealed that both Jewish and Arab gifted students valued the
personal and cognitive over pedagogical characteristics. Differences between the groups
according to the various dimensions exhibit recurrent patterns in the cognitive and
personal dimensions, showing that Jewish boys and girls and Arab girls tended to rate
84
these dimensions higher than Arab boys. An opposite trend was detected on the
pedagogical dimension, where Arab girls and boys tended to rate this higher than their
Jewish counterparts did.
Course selection. Ten relevant statements were used to examine the students’
notions about their preferences regarding choice of courses. Participants responded by
rating the correctness of each statement on a six-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = "not
correct at all" to 6 = "completely correct." Table 15 presents the differences found between
the ratings of gifted Jewish and Arab students.
85
Table 15: Mean Scores (and SD), F Values, and Size Effect for Differences between
Groups: Results of Multivariate Tests According to Culture.
Statements
I would like more courses
I would like more elective options
I would like more science courses
I would like more art courses
I would like more computer courses
I would like more math courses
I would like more language courses
I prefer studying courses in one subject area
I would like to choose courses I study each
year
I would like more courses in varied subjects
Size
Jewish
Arab
F
Students
Students
(df=1,339) Effect
(N=204) (N=200)
4.89
4.12
(1.13)
(1.74)
4.99
4.43
(1.18)
(1.54)
4.14
3.62
(1.53)
(1.62)
3.01
3.53
(1.63)
(1.91)
4.43
4.46
(1.55)
(1.65)
3.82
4.15
(1.78)
(1.76)
3.78
4.58
(1.77)
(1.73)
1.72
1.81
(1.05)
(1.29)
5.62
4.28
(0.84)
(1.80)
5.15
4.27
(1.19)
(1.59)
24.06***
.058
15.64***
.038
3.3
.008
0.8
.002
0.45
.001
6.30*
.016
13.34***
.033
1.12
.003
86.80***
.182
41.74***
.096
* p< .05 *** p< .001
Multivariate Wilks F (10,382) = 14.56, p<.001
Multivariate tests yielded several significant effects concerning the differences
between preferences of gifted Jewish and Arab students’ regarding course choice. The
main significant difference had to do with Jewish and Arab students' desire to choose their
courses [M= 5.62(.84) and 4.28(1.80) respectively, F
[1,399]
= 86.80, p≤.001, SE=.182],
Jewish students expressed a significantly higher desire to choose their own courses each
86
year. Students were found to differ significantly on the range of subjects offered
(F[1,399]=41.74, p≤.001, SE=.096). Gifted Jewish students expressed a desire for a variety
of courses available every year to choose from much more than did their Arab peers [M=
5.15(1.19) and 4.27(1.59)]. These results are consistent with gifted Jewish students' desire
to have access to more courses in general [M= 4.89(1.13) and 4.12(1.74) respectively, F
[1,399]
= 24.06, p ≤ .001, SE = .058], and to have more choices in particular [M= 4.99(1.18)
and 4.43(1.54) respectively, F [1,399] =15.64, p≤.001, SE =.038].
Gifted Arab students desired significantly more language and math courses than did
their Jewish counterparts [M= 4.5(1.73) and 3.78(1.77) respectively, F[1,399]=13.34,
p≤.001, SE=.033] and [M= 4.15(1.76) and 3.82(1.78) respectively, F[1,399]=6.30, p≤.05,
ES =.016]. No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding the
students’ desire for computer, science, and art courses. Both Jewish and Arab groups
rejected the idea of studying a single subject area [M= 1.72(1.05) and 1.81(1.29)
respectively, F[1,399] =1.12, p≤.05, SE=.003].
Student preferences in the context of their cultural orientations gender, and the
interaction between orientations and gender also yielded several significant effects. Table
16 presents results of multivariate tests conducted based on culture, gender, and culture by
gender.
87
Table 16: Preference of Courses According to Gender: Results of Multivariate Tests
Expressed in F Values, Significance, and Size Effect.
Statements
df
I would like more courses
I would like more elective options
I would like more science courses
I would like more art courses
I would like more computer courses
I would like more math courses
I would like more language courses
I prefer studying courses in one subject area
I would like to choose courses I study each
year
I would like more courses in varied subjects
Multivariate F
Culture
Gender
Culture by
Gender
1, 399
1, 399
1, 399
24.06*
5.42*
2.26
15.64*** 1.55
1.99
3.30
38.92*** 4.29*
0.80
86.27*** 6.66*
0.45
9.45**
4.06*
6.30*
6.79*
0.29
13.34*** 1.10
0.028
1.12
9.57**
0.10
86.80*** 1.31
0.96
Size
Effect
1, 382
41.74*** 0.004
.005
2.04
.006
.005
.011
.017
.010
.001
.000
.000
.002
14.56*** 17.75*** 2.00*
(df=10,382)
* p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001
Table 16 shows that differences in student preferences may stem from both cultural
orientation and gender. Whereas differences detected between gifted Jewish and Arab
students were in course choice and variety, differences between boys and girls were
reflected in their preference of courses in specific areas, boys preferring courses in
science, math, and computers, as well as more courses in single subject areas, and girls
preferring more courses in arts and no courses in single subject areas, indicating that
differences may stem from the interaction between gender and culture.
Gender by cultural orientation interaction produced significant differences in
students’ preference of specific courses. Jewish and Arab gifted girls preferred art courses
more than did the boys [M= 4.47(1.30), 4.14 (1.87) and 2.37 (1.33), 3.00(1.79)
respectively, p≤.001). Science was preferred by Jewish boys more than by Arab boys [M=
88
4.55(1.36) and 3.94(1.63) respectively, p≤.001], and computers were preferred by Arab
boys more than by their Jewish counterparts (M= 4.85(1.47) and 4.50(1.60) respectively,
p≤.005). Although both Jewish and Arab boys indicated their preference for computer
courses, the latter rated them higher.
When asked to suggest one to four courses to be taught in pullout programs students’
suggested courses were classified into instrumental and expressive. As described above,
instrumental courses prepare students directly for higher education and future careers, and
include courses such as science, math, chess, languages, law, medicine, economics,
astronomy, and space. Expressive courses tend to develop personal talents and include
such courses as creative writing, performing arts, drawing, sculpting, and sports.
Overall, Jewish students suggested 342 instrumental courses and 119 expressive
ones (1:2.87 ratio), whereas Arab students expressed preferences for 318 instrumental
courses and 220 expressive ones (1:1.45 ratio). Jewish boys suggested 278 instrumental
courses and 69 expressive ones (1:4.0 ratio), and Arab boys 178 instrumental courses and
105 expressive ones (1:1.70 ratio). Expressing a different trend, Arab girls suggested
somewhat more instrumental courses than expressive ones (140 and 115, a 1:0.82 ratio),
whereas Jewish girls suggested the smallest number of instrumental and expressive
courses (64 and 50, a 1:0.78 ratio).
Academic contribution of the pullout program. The academic contribution of the
pullout programs was examined in two steps. In the first step, students were asked to
choose 5 of 11 statements describing general or specific program contributions. In the
second step they were asked to rank the 5 items they had chosen from highest to lowest
contribution.
89
The findings concerning academic contribution indicate that obtaining a wider range
of knowledge was most frequently chosen by both Jewish and Arab students [187 (18%)
and 149 (14.9%)], as was improving thinking [109 (10.6%) and 144 (14.4%)]. Items
chosen by both groups reflect general contribution; other items, concerning contributions
in specific areas, were mentioned much less frequently. In the second step, gifted students
were asked to rank the 5 items they had chosen according to their importance from 1 (most
important) to 5 (least important). Table 17 shows the five items chosen by each group.
Table 17: Mean Scores (SD) and Rank of Program’s Academic Contribution
According to Culture
Academic Contribution
I think better now
I have a wider range of knowledge now
I think in a more creative way
My interest and curiosity have increased
I am now more prepared for high school
and university
Jewish Students
Mean
Rank
(SD)
1.83
(1.91)
3.77
(1.62)
1.49
(1.88)
1.16
(1.63)
1.65
(1.69)
2
1
3
5
4
Arab Students
Mean Rank
(SD)
2.70
(2.03)
2.30
(1.72)
1.63
(1.69)
1.36
(1.58)
1.85
(2.03)
1
2
4
5
3
Table 17 shows differences between Jewish and Arab students in their ranking of the
importance of the five main areas of contribution. Whereas Jewish students ranked the
wider range of knowledge over thinking and creativity, Arab students chose thinking as
the main contribution, followed by knowledge and preparation for university, with
creativity in fourth place.
90
Social contribution of the pullout program. Students were asked to comment on
the social contribution of the pullout program in an open-ended question. Of the 404 study
participants 224 (55.44%) answered the question about the importance of the social
contribution. Comparison of the Jewish and Arab students’ perceptions of the social aspect
shows similarity between groups [120/204 (58.8%) and 104/200 (52%)], with Jewish
students tending to grant the issue slightly greater importance than Arabs did. All students
mentioned meeting new friends, with Arab students tending to stress meeting new friends
from different villages or religions, i.e., Muslims, Christians and/or Druze (no Jewish
students study in Arab centers and vice versa).
Comparison within the two groups' perception of the social contribution of the
program showed some differences between them. Twice as many Jewish elementary
students answered the question as Jewish junior high school students [82/130 (68.3%) vs.
38/74 (31.6%)]. The number of elementary school Jewish boys responding was about
twice that of junior high school boys [61/92 (50.8%) vs. 27/51 (22.5%)], and the ratio for
Jewish girls was similar [21/38, (17.5%) vs. 11/23 (9.2%)]. Three times as many boys
responded as girls [88/120 (73.3%) vs. 32/120 (26.6%)].
No differences were found between the number of Arab boys and girls responding to
the question in the elementary and junior high schools [52/102(50%) vs. 52/102, (50%)],
but the number of Arab girls in elementary school was nearly twice as high as that of the
boys [33/50 (31.7%) vs. 19/52, (18.2%)], whereas in junior high school, similarly to
Jewish students, the number of boys was slightly higher than that of the girls [30/56
(28.8%) vs. 22/42 (21.1%)]. The total number of Arab boys responding to the question
was slightly smaller than that of the girls [49/104 (47.1%) vs. 55/104 (52.9%)].
91
Satisfaction with the pullout program. Gifted students from both groups were
asked to rank their satisfaction with the pullout program on a scale from 1= “not satisfied
at all” to 4 =“very satisfied.” A univariate analysis yielded significant differences in grade
level and the interaction of grade level with culture. According to grade level, Jewish and
Arab elementary students were more satisfied than were junior high students (M=
3.66(.50) and 3.49(.60) respectively, F[1,396] =8.1, p=.005, SE=.020).
The significant
interaction of grade level with culture (F[1,396] =7.16, p=.008, SE=.018) shows that Arab
elementary students reported a higher level of satisfaction than did their Jewish peers [M=
3.75(.55) and 3.59(.50) respectively], a trend that was reversed in junior high school [M=
3.56(.55) and 3.42(.64) respectively].
To summarize, significant differences were detected between Jewish and Arab gifted
students in their perceptions of the teaching-learning situation and teachers’ desired
characteristics. Arab girls exhibited a different perception of the cognitive and personal
characteristics of the teacher, in addition to suggesting more instrumental courses to be
studied at pullout center compared with Arab counterparts. No significant differences were
found according to culture concerning social and academic contribution of pullout
programs. Satisfaction with program according to grade level by culture was higher among
Arab elementary students, and reversed in junior high school.
Teachers’ and students’ perceptions.
Uniqueness of the teaching-learning situation in pullout courses. A comparison
of teachers’ and students’ responses to the open-ended question revealed significant main
92
effects for teacher-student (F[4,444]=37.49, p≤.001, ES=.252), culture F[4,444]=21.76,p≤.001,
ES=.164), and the interaction of teacher-student by culture F[4,444]=5.12, p≤.001, SE=.044).
Teachers tended to relate much more to the commonplace of teacher compared with
students [M= 2.31(1.77) and .96(1.07) respectively, F[4,447]=99.85, p≤.001, SE=.183].
Teachers tended to mention desired characteristics in all three dimensions, whereas
students focused on personal ones adding “patience” and sense of humor”; and
pedagogical characteristics such as: teacher assigns no homework”,” administers no tests”
and “directs creative and fun activities”. According to culture, Jewish teachers and
students related to the commonplace of teacher more than Arab counterparts
[M=1.78(1.56) and 1.12(1.46) respectively, F[4,447]=18.05, p≤.001, SE=.039], while an
opposite trend was detected for the commonplace of subject matter [M= .08(.32) and
.60(.1.07) respectively, F[4,447]=43.63, p≤.001, SE=.089].
For the interaction of teacher-student by culture a significant difference detected in
the commonplace of subject matter showed Arab students attributed to this commonplace
more importance compared with Arab teachers [M= .82(1.21) and .26(.70) respectively,
F[4,447]=17.58, p≤.001, SE=.038], although both groups’ comments were identical referring
to subject matter in pullout programs being “different from regular school” and “ subjects
are more varied”.
Desired teachers’ characteristics. A comparison of teachers’ and students’ ratings
of the various dimensions of teachers’ characteristics revealed significant differences.
Table 18 presents multivariate tests results of differences in teachers’ and students’ ratings
of the three dimensions.
93
Table 18: Ratings of the Three Dimensions according to Teacher-Student, Culture,
and Teacher-Student by Culture, Presented in F Values, Significance, and Size Effect
Dimensions
TeacherStudent
df(1,617)
Cognitive
351.18***
.124
Pedagogical
86.97***
.363
Personal
223.48***
.266
Multivariate F 128.87***
df (3,615)
.386
* p< .05 *** p< .001
Culture
Teacher-Student
by Culture
12.58***
.020
37.50***
.057
19.88***
.022
36.99***
.153
3.87*
.006
1.71
.003
1.17
.002
3.94*
.019
Significant main effects were detected for teacher-student (F[3,615]=128.87, p≤.001,
SE=.386), culture F[3,615] =36.99, p≤.001, SE=.153), and the interaction of teacher-student
by culture F[3,615]=3.94, p≤.05, SE=.019).
Significant differences were detected between teachers’ and students’ ratings of all
three dimensions: the personal dimension [M= 5.57(.38) and 4.85(.62) respectively]; the
cognitive dimension [M= 5.22(.47) and 4.30(.59) respectively]; and the pedagogical
dimension [M= 4.10(.67) and 3.58(.76) respectively]. Both teachers and students rated the
personal dimension as most important and pedagogical least important. Although a similar
trend is detected, students tended to rate all dimensions much lower than teachers did.
Significant differences according to culture indicated the same trend of Jewish teachers
and students rating the personal [M= 5.24(.55) and 4.94(.71) respectively] and cognitive
[M= 4.73(.68) and 4.50(.69)) respectively] dimensions higher than Arabs, while Arab
counterparts tended to rate the pedagogical dimension higher [M= 3.92(.77) and 3.63(.74)
94
respectively]. Comparison according to culture revealed a single significant difference
between Jewish teachers and students [M= 5.31(.40) and 4.34(.55) respectively] and Arab
counterparts [M= 5.05(.52) and 4.27(.63) respectively] in the cognitive dimension.
Meaning that, a larger gap can be detected between Jewish teachers’ and students’
perception of the cognitive dimension compared with Arab counterparts.
In sum, although teachers and students significantly differed in their perception of
the teaching-learning situation and desired characteristics of the teacher of the gifted,
investigation by culture showed a similar trend among Arab teachers and students rating
higher in the pedagogical dimension, and a gap between Jewish teachers and students and
Arab counterparts ratings of the cognitive dimension.
Part 2: Israeli Professional Development Program - Curriculum Transformation
Ideological curriculum. The Israeli Report on the Advancement of Gifted Students
published in 2004 by a steering committee assigned by the Ministry of Education,
determined that education of gifted constitutes a unique pedagogical domain. It requires a
special framework of training, thus special certification and professional development
programs intended for both regular school teachers, and teachers who teach gifted students
should be established. Training should focus on pedagogical knowledge to cater for the
cognitive and emotional needs of gifted and talented children. Training will focus on
teachers getting acquainted with theoretical issues in gifted education in general, as well as
the specific Israeli experience. It is suggested that working procedures would be devised
bearing the unique needs of gifted population in mind, and guided reflective practicum
would be included in programs.
95
Zorman, Rachmel & Shaked (2004) set guidelines for choosing and educating the
teachers of gifted. Their rationale for establishing a certification program, based on review
of international literature, lies on the premises that the ideal teacher of gifted should be
able to combine knowledge in specific content area with comprehensive teaching
strategies that will sufficiently cater for students’ needs and encountered difficulties. The
program is intended for teachers holding a B.A., providing a second certification or M.A.
degree (in the near future). The program will combine theory and practice and will consist
of four stages: (a) acquaintance with theoretical aspects of teaching gifted like: definition
of giftedness, identification, cognitive and social aspects, brain research and learning
processes, characteristics and development of gifted child, curriculum planning, teaching
strategies, assessment, and characteristics of unique frameworks; (b) acquaintance with the
field involving observations and interviews followed by discussions. This stage will be
introduced while studying first stage theoretical aspects; (c) designing and formalizing
suitable working strategies guided by professional and expert teachers focusing on
cognitive, social and emotional needs of gifted students; and (d) supervised practicum
followed by team and individual discussions reflecting on teaching experience.
The deep interview with the Head of the Division for Gifted and Excellent Students
in the Ministry of Education revealed the origin of aforementioned report. First, a
thorough
research
was
conducted
regarding
worldwide
certification
programs
(requirements, curriculum and outcomes) by the Division. The accumulating theoretical
knowledge about instruction supported this area being a profession requiring its own
professional development. She summarized it saying that “Teachers should make a
conceptual change and understand that teaching of the gifted is different than teaching
regular students”. Accordingly, five PDTG programs were established gradually, over a
96
three year period, in universities and colleges in different parts of Israel, and a decision
was made in 2009 that completing a certification program will be obligatory for new
teachers of gifted, or those with less than 10 years of experience, by the year 2014. A
forum of program coordinators was established. Its roles were defined as devising and
improving certification programs in light of field feedback and experiences discussed.
Programs are reviewed and changed constantly and program coordinators have a major
role serving as mediators integrating knowledge with application. It was decided that
PDTG programs should facilitate teachers’ roles as leaders and advocates of the gifted.
The curriculum of the Israeli certification program, in its ideological facet, was
designed in the spirit of the US standards, although not specifically addressing Individual
Learning Differences, Language and Communication, Professional and Ethical Practice,
and Collaboration.
Currently, the field of gifted education in Israel taking its initial steps lacks experts.
Therefore, the Division and forum of program coordinators had to design a unique
program to accommodate local conditions and restrictions. One of the five PDTG
programs is very different from the others, due to having a different perspective on teacher
education. The expression of perspectives as expressed in formal program curriculum will
be examined next, to reveal conditions, perspectives or restrictions affecting the
ideological curriculum resulting in the emergence of different PDTG programs.
Formal curriculum. Content analysis of written documents relating to program
curriculum (rationale, objectives and course descriptions) gathered from all five PDTG
centers reveal large similarities in 4 PDTG programs, with small local variations. These
are referred to as Type 1 programs. Type 2 program represents one PDTG center. Table 19
97
presents Type 1 and Type 2 programs according to categories generated in the content
analysis of these documents.
98
Table 19: Program Types Description According to Program Main Criteria
Duration &
Semester Hours
Rationale
Main Objectives
Type 1 Programs
2 years (4 semesters)
Type 2 Program
2 years (4 semesters+ 2 summer semesters)
224 hours (4 sem. hours x 4 sem. x14)
A professional development program
540 hours (6 sem. hours x 6 sem. x15)
An academic program offering semester
courses and academic credit.
The process of acquisition of expertise
involves:
The process of acquisition of expertise
involves:
1. The acquisition of knowledge reference.
1. Learning about giftedness and
characteristics of gifted.
2. The application of theoretical knowledge
and examination of its expression in case
studies, and action research.
2. Personal development of teachers’
characteristics enhancing creativity, problem
solving and computer skills.
3. Development of new professional
knowledge, as well as shaping and
formatting the role of the teacher of gifted.
3. Professional development in relevant
subject domains.
4. Embedding the vision of the Division in
the spirit of the steering committee report.
4. The application of theoretical knowledge
and examination of its representation in case
studies, and action research.
1. Training teachers as advocates for gifted
education in regular schools
1. Develop teachers’ awareness and
commitment of teachers to cultivating
gifted and excellent students.
2. Deepening professional knowledge of
teachers of gifted students.
3. Developing and establishing a holistic
approach to nurturing of gifted and
excellent students, including their
cognitive, social and emotional needs.
2. Developing awareness to the special needs
of gifted students in the regular school.
3. Designing a dynamic model of working
with gifted and excellent students.
4. Application of theoretical and
practical knowledge in research of gifted
education issues.
Course
Description
First Year
First Year
Clusters stressing definitions, as well as
gifted students’ characteristics and
cognition.
First Semester
Semester courses
1.Giftedness as a Complex Phenomenon
1. Case Studies of gifted students
2. Thinking, Learning and Giftedness or
Cognitive Characteristics of Gifted
2. Teaching Strategies for gifted and
Excellent Students – Workshop
First Semester
3. Cognitive and Emotional Aspects of
Giftedness
Second Semester
Second Semester
1.Non – Cognitive characteristics or,
Social-Emotional Aspects of Giftedness
1.Developing Creativity Through Arts Workshop
2. The Environment of the Gifted Child
2. Psychology of The Gifted Child
3. Encounters with Nurturing Frameworks
3. Curriculum and Planning - Workshop
4. Project Work
99
Table 19 (continued)
Type 1 Programs
Type 2 Program
Course
Summer Semester
Description
1. Giftedness and Leadership
2. Encounters with Gifted
3. Gifted in the Cinema
Second Year
Clusters stressing pedagogy – strategies,
curriculum, specific areas and subject matter
First Semester
Second Year
1.Developing Awareness of Instructional
Planning
2. Nurturing Creativity Through Instruction
or, Creative and Motivational Components
3. Research and Development of
Instructional Practice
4. Nurturing Special talents or, Special
Populations of Gifted+ observation
5. Meaningful Learning and Knowledge
Construction
Second Semester
1.Genius in Arts
1. Models for Planning Curriculum
1.Games Theory
2. Excellence
2. Discourse Analysis
3. Instruction of Gifted – The Challenge
3. Project Work
First Semester
2. Observation + Project Work
3. Developing Curiosity Through Inquiry
Second Semester
4. Project Work + Presentation
Summer Semester
1. Project Presentation
2. Gifted Students’ Dialect
3. Computer Assisted Instruction – Workshop
4. Theory of Constraints
Requirements
B.A + teaching certificate
B.A + teaching certificate
Interview
Interview
Recommendations by school principal
Recommendations by School principal
Experience in integrative teaching
Developing an instructional unit.
Computer skills
Knowledge of English language
Personal track is available for persons who do
not hold a teaching certificate.
Certification
Certificate in gifted education by the
Ministry of Education
100
Certificate in gifted education by the Ministry
of Education
Type 1 programs (duration of 4 semesters 4 semester hours) stress the acquisition of
theoretical knowledge about giftedness and its application in teaching of gifted and
excellent students in light of the vision and spirit of the Division report. Type 2 program
(duration of 6 semesters and 6 semester hours) stresses in addition, the development of
professional specific subject content knowledge and personal teachers’ characteristics.
Courses aimed at developing personal characteristics of trained teachers are interwoven in
first and second year of program. Trained teachers are required to take courses in arts,
mathematical thinking, leadership, discourse and dialect analysis, theory of constraints,
and computer assisted instruction and inquiry. These courses intend to develop teachers’
creativity, ability to think, prepare them to better understand how gifted think and operate,
and focus on main aspects of instruction, which will better cater for their needs.
Instructional strategies and planning were added to the program upon request of PDTG
participants.
The curriculum of the Israeli certification program, in its formal facet, did not
specifically address US standards like Individual Learning Differences, Language and
Communication, Assessment, Professional and Ethical Practice, and Collaboration. Both
types of programs stress the Foundations (theories and definitions), Development and
Characteristics of Learners, Instructional Strategies, Efficient Learning Environments and
Social Interaction, and Instructional Planning standards. Presentation of standards varies;
with type 1 program dedicating the first year to foundations and characteristics, and
second year to instruction, and type 2 program, offering them throughout program.
Perceived curriculum. Perceptions and understanding of program coordinators and
lecturers who enact the formal curriculum represent the perceived stage of curriculum
101
transformation. Semi structured interviews with program coordinators and lecturers from
two types of programs revealed their beliefs and values regarding the formal curriculum.
Program design.
Program structure. Main difference was found in the perception of program
structure. Type 1 program coordinators focused on “theoretical aspects of giftedness and
gifted students, and practical aspects concerning teacher and pedagogy” intending to
prepare teachers in line with teacher education programs. Type 2 program coordinators
explained that “program in its initial stage aimed at understanding giftedness, not only
cognitively, but feeling and experiencing it.”
Therefore, “the program aimed at
developing PDTG participants’ competencies to think, solve problems, and be creative, in
addition to other personal characteristics like openness, flexibility, and acceptance.” It was
decided by college program committee that instructional and planning strategies will not
be part of program, since the focus is the PDTG participant himself, and he/she will know
how to approach and teach the gifted if prepared along these lines. In addition, “PDTG
participants are expected to be intellectuals and knowledgeable in various subject areas.”
The second coordinator added that “with time, instructional and planning strategies were
added upon request to PDTG participants.”
Main difficulties. Relating to main difficulties Type 1 coordinators mentioned
“keeping the suitable order of clusters, as lectures tend to be postponed or cancelled
occasionally”. Type 2 coordinators stressed the fact that “the program is in its initial steps
and a transition period is required to establish a well thought out and designed program
that will meet the needs and academic requirements”, they also added that “the program
102
did not have aspects of instruction and planning and “some courses were substituted with
others, or thoroughly reconstructed to suit program needs”.
Representatives of both types of programs stressed the “difficulty of identifying
potential PDTG participants who share the suitable knowledge base, characteristics,
enthusiasm and motivation to become good teachers of gifted”. Type 2 program
coordinators and lecturers mentioned “a greater struggle with language and writing of
papers, since most participants are of Arab culture studying in Hebrew which is their
second language”. Type 1 program coordinators expressed “difficulty in finding suitable
lecturers and persuading them to travel far out”, while Type 2 counterparts stressed
“difficulty in finding expert lecturers in the field of gifted education, generally scarce in
Israel, who are willing to design and teach semester courses in a peripheral area”.
Regarding practicum, coordinators and lecturers found its implementation a central and
most difficult area to tackle. Although they acknowledge its importance, they feel that
“implementation is somewhat unrealistic” or “very difficult to work out for teachers
working in regular schools, as they can hardly allocate time for observation and practice
teaching”.
Evaluation and assessment. Concerning evaluation and assessment they
addressed: (a) student evaluation: Both interviewed parties mentioned students were being
evaluated based on “attendance, participation, papers, project work, presentations, and
observation reports”. Type 1 coordinators added “holding integrative sessions at the end of
each cluster, and assigning the writing of a reflective journal”; and (b) program
assessment: Type 1coordinators mentioned a “university questionnaire transferred to the
Division of Gifted in the Ministry of Education”, while type 2 counterparts reported "an
assessment study by college research authority conducted in 2008”. Both parties indicated
103
“program must be approved by the Division of Gifted and Excellent students”, but they
were not aware of any kind of program assessment carried out. They did mention
“informal discussions with students eliciting feedback on courses and program in general”.
Program coordinators’ roles. Some differences were detected in the perception of
program coordinators’ roles, not yet defined by the Division.
Experience and training. Coordinators of both types of programs mentioned they
had no specific training preparing them for their role, apart from participating in national
forum. Type 1 coordinators reported having a larger experience working with gifted
students in various frameworks, while the two coordinators in Type 2 program had only
personal experience parenting a gifted child.
Academic role. Type 1 coordinators perceived their academic roles as having a
greater responsibility and level of involvement in the program. Among perceived roles
were “designing the programs”, “teaching some of the subjects under different clusters”,
“serving as knowledge mediators tying lectures and clusters to create a comprehensive
body of knowledge”, sometimes “serve as invited lecturers in other programs of same
type”, as well as “grading students papers at the end of each academic year”. Type 2
coordinators perceived their roles as “designing the program”, “monitoring the different
courses and changing them if necessary”, and in addition, “teaching one or two courses”.
Administrative role. Coordinators belonging to both types of programs
mentioned “attending monthly national forum meetings”, “inviting lecturers”, and
“eliciting students’ feedback”. “Monitoring students’ attendance“, was mentioned as the
responsibility of type 2 coordinators, while others indicated it was monitored by the
academic institute hosting the program.
104
US standards as rising from perceived facet of curriculum, tend to remain similar to
former facets, with the exception that difficulties are expressed in keeping the order of
standards (especially first two) and also recruiting experts to lecture or give workshops
relating to other standards like teaching strategies or planning.
Operational curriculum. The operational stage reveals what actually goes on in the
classroom and how curriculum is altered and adapted to local needs. Notes taken during
two random observation sessions conducted in the 3 PDTG programs shed light on how
the teachers actually taught the curriculum. Results are presented by type of program
analyzed according to the four commonplaces involved in the teaching-learning situation.
Type 1 programs.
Lecturer/coordinator. Invited lecturers presented using no special visual aids or
PPT. Discussion was limited as lecturers tended to speak most of the time. One lecturer
came in late and left early due to prior engagements, and program coordinator took over.
Coordinator of a different program conducted a workshop in groups engaging PDTG
participants in the analysis of written curriculum programs for gifted in pullout centers.
All lecturers were friendly and accepted students’ remarks. One lecturer photocopied an
excerpt from a book. Program coordinator brought enough copies of various programs to
be analyzed and instructions and criteria for analysis summarized in one page. She
instructed participants to work in pairs and present findings of analysis based on
predetermined criteria in a simulated “program fair”. Activities engaging participants in
thinking about issues addressed were missing, except for the case of curriculum analysis.
There was no use of PPT presentations, and other materials were scarce.
105
PDTG participants. Number of PDTG participants varied from 12 in first year
and 17 in second year of program in two different programs. In one case 31 PDTG
participants of first and second year formed one group and attended a lecture by an invited
speaker. In each session observed a small number of two to three participants arrived late
and joined the group. PDTG participants were cooperative, attentive, and most of them
took notes. Some asked questions or commented on lecturers’ words. In one case, some
participants showed reluctance and were engaged in personal matters, or stepped out of the
classroom. In another case, they became tired during the second part of the session and
used their mobile phones or discussed other matters.
Milieu. As observed sessions were part of clusters, they lasted 180 minutes each
with a 15 min break. The learning environment was open and accepting. Participants
reacted to one another and to lecturers. Physical environment consisted of a plain
classrooms equipped with one computer and internet access. No other means of
technology available at university or college were utilized. Pace and level were average. A
challenging learning environment was created by program coordinator engaging
participants in curriculum analysis.
Subject matter. One of the invited lecturers presented on the “drama of the gifted
child” instead of discipline problems among gifted students, which was the declared topic.
Subjects addressed were parents and the gifted child and narcissism. When program
coordinator took over, she addressed requirement of writing final project work. Second
invited lecturer addressed programs for gifted, in second part of her lecture, while first part
was devoted to other issues such as comparative educational research. Issues addressed in
the second part of the lecture included definition of giftedness, characteristics of gifted,
advantages and disadvantages of segregated classrooms and pullout programs, and
106
identification of gifted (in this order). The program coordinator addressing the analysis of
curriculum for gifted and excellent students exposed participants to various authentic
programs being used in gifted pullout centers, enrichment courses for excellent students,
and courses designed by teachers of gifted. Elements missing in all sessions were research
based information, references, and exact definitions of concepts mentioned.
Type 2 program.
Lecturer/coordinator. One lecturer used PPT, while the other used the board.
Both lecturers observed showed vast knowledge in fields (art and psychology), were
friendly and related to students’ questions and remarks. They did not use any other
materials in form of photocopied pages or article excerpts. The lecturer presenting a
genius artist described him and his characteristics vividly, offering an interdisciplinary
perspective of historical events, and other great artists creating at that time.
PDTG participants. Number of PDTG participants varied from 17 in first year
and 10 in second year of program. All participants were cooperative, attentive and most of
them took notes. Students shared their personal experiences and perspectives in both
sessions. Some of the first year participant arrived late and joined the session.
Milieu. As observed sessions were parts of semester courses they lasted for 90
minutes each. Physical environment consisted of a plain classrooms equipped with one
computer and internet access. No other means of technology available at university or
college were utilized. Learning environment was open and accepting, and level and pace
were suitable.
Subject matter. Both lecturers addressed subjects predetermined in course
curriculum. One related to psychology of gifted; more specifically exam anxiety, including
107
theory and studies focusing mainly on regular students, with an attempt to apply them to
gifted at the end of the session. Concepts addressed were inner and outer locus of control,
motivation, effort, cognitive and biofeedback. Second lecturer taught a course named
“Genius Artists” focusing on biographies and analysis of great artists’ works and
personality. Subject of observed lesson was the painter Monk, and aimed at presenting the
unique characteristics, perspectives and works of a genius artist. Elements missing in both
sessions observed were the connection to gifted education in terms of research based
information, references, and exact definitions of concepts mentioned.
Translated into actual teaching-learning situation in the classroom, US standards
addressed in Type 1 program were Development and Characteristics of Learners, Efficient
Learning Environments, and Instructional Planning. Type 2 program lecturers focused on
Development and Characteristics of Learners from several aspects.
Experienced curriculum. The experienced stage of curriculum reveals PDTG
participants’ perception of taught curriculum and their expectations. Results of analysis of
deep interviews with PDTG participants will be presented in two core categories generated
from their responses and by type of program.
Program contribution.
Theory – new knowledge. Type 1 program students’ reactions varied. Some
complained about “lack of acquisition of new knowledge, tools or skills, stating their
expectations for more focused and effective lectures, and overall program”. Others
expressed their “satisfaction with learning situation, skills acquired, and different
perspectives presented to them”. They also added they have received “new knowledge on
108
how gifted students think”. Type 2 program students expressed their “satisfaction with
learning situation, skills acquired, and different perspectives presented to them”.
Pedagogy – tools and skills. Type 1 PDTG participants felt the program supplied
“tools for analysis of curriculum” and “how to encourage curiosity and creativity”. Type 2
participants mentioned “acquisition of tools for coping with various aspects of giftedness”,
and “learning how to build units and courses for gifted in the regular classroom and
pullout center”. Coordinator or lecturer serving as role model, were addressed by both
groups. Type 1 participants mentioned “coordinator modeled how to change and adapt
materials to students’ needs and upon students’ requests”, and type 2 program participants
"Lecturer served as a good role model of how to prepare and present material in a logical
and interesting manner."
Program design and structure. Type 1 participants did not address this aspect.
Type 2 program participants felt "There was a good attempt to combine psychological,
developmental (perspectives) with curriculum and arts" and added that "Overall the
program enabled the exposure to different perspectives of giftedness and experience
through courses like research and art which enabled them to experience how gifted feel
and learn."
Program disadvantages.
Theory – new knowledge. Type 1 participants mentioned “not enough scientific
or theoretical knowledge” and “no new knowledge that surprised me”. Type 2 participants
did not address this aspect.
109
Pedagogy – tools and skills. Participants representing both types of programs
stated “programs should incorporate more practical aspects such as tools, workshops and
effective teaching models”.
Program design and structure. Type 1 program participants complained about
“lack of communication between invited lecturers and program coordinators” resulting in
“repetition of lectures”. They also felt that there were “too many invited lecturers and not
enough hours taught by program coordinators”. Type 2 program students especially
addressed “summer program which was too condensed and not very effective”. Additional
Courses/clusters: Participants representing both types of programs stated that the most
important component missing was practicum “a teacher needs practicum (which means)
going into the classroom and teaching the gifted”. Some Type 2 program participants
mentioned they would prefer an additional course “in specific subject matter (like math)
showing how giftedness is expressed and receiving tools to lead them”.
The experienced facet of curriculum as perceived by PDTG participants exhibited
further difficulties in the translation of Foundations and Characteristics standards into
content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge involving strategies and planning
practiced in the field. An additional aspect, raised by PDTG participants attending Type 1
program, concerned the need for more theoretical knowledge and difficulty to follow
lectures and connect them to one coherent understanding representing gifted education.
Table 20 shows triangulation of findings from document analysis, observations and
interviews focusing on program design and structure, coordinators’ roles, participants, and
program relevance.
110
Table 20: Triangulation of findings from document analysis, interviews, and
observations
Program
Design and
Structure
Document Analysis and
Interviews with
Coordinators
Observations of
PDTG Sessions
Interviews with
PDTG Participants
Type 1-Clusters. First year
theory, second year practice.
Type 2-Semester courses.
Theory and practice mixed.
Focus on personal
development.
Predetermined factors:
Lack of materials in native
language. Lack of lecturers who
are experts in the various
aspects addressed.
Most sessions observed
were part of planned
curriculum. In one case
invited lecturer addressed
a different subject than
announced.
Type 1- lack of
communication
between invited
lecturers. Too many
invited lecturers.
Type 2- Enabled
exposure to various
perspectives. Summer
semester was
condensed and
ineffective
Type 1- Served as
lecturer in one case, and
as substitute for a lecturer
in another case.
Type 2- was not
observed.
Type 1- Making sense
of and connecting
issues addressed by
lecturers to enable a
coherent perception of
gifted education.
Coordinators' Academic Role: Type 1Keeping the order of clusters.
Role
Monitoring program based on
lecturers' availability. Serving
as knowledge. mediators.
Type 2 - Designing program.
Teaching a course.
Both Types-Assessment and
evaluation of program and
students.
Administrative role: Attending
meetings of national forum.
Eliciting feedback.
Inviting lecturers.
Type 2- Monitoring students'
attendance.
Participants
Identification of candidates.
Type 2- Language difficulties.
Mostly cooperative and
willing to learn.
Issue was not
addressed
Program
Relevance
Both programs offer theoretical
knowledge and practical aspects
of teaching.
Program is in transition.
Subject Matter: Most
lecturers did not use
research based
information, references
and definitions
concerning gifted
education.
Plain learning
environment not making
use of available facilities.
Theoretical knowledge
was insufficient and at
times disconnected.
More practical teaching
strategies.
Incorporating
practicum.
111
The triangulation of findings reveals areas of concern in all four facets addressed.
Difficulties experienced in the formal and perceived facets (document analysis and
interviews with coordinators) are transformed to operational (observations) and
experienced facets (interviews with participants). Main areas of concern rising from this
analysis are program design and structure, coordinators’ roles and program relevance.
In summary, as of the four stages mentioned in the ideological facet, acquaintance
with theory, acquaintance with fields by observations, and designing working strategies,
are partially met. The last one dealing with practicum is missing. The different standards
addressed are also perceived by PDTG participants as incomplete. The conceptual change
the head of the division strives for, which enables teachers to understand that teaching of
the gifted is different than teaching regular students, was examined in the third part of this
study.
Part 3: Cognitive Aspects of Professional Development Program
Teachers’ perceptions pre-and-post-test.
The uniqueness of the teaching-learning situation in pullout courses. Pre-andpost-tests for teacher responses to the open-ended question revealed differences in their
perceptions of teaching-learning situations in gifted pullout courses and in regular schools.
A total of 115 teachers (54 certification, 35 pullout center teachers, and 26 school
teachers) out of a total of 147 participants responded to the question. Multivariate tests
revealed a significant main effect (F[4,106] =13.07, p≤.001, SE=.330). Per-and-post-tests
revealed significant differences in two commonplaces: teacher (F[1,109]=5.94, p≤.05,
SE=.052), and milieu (F[1,109]=52.46, p≤.001, SE=.325). Comparison by group yielded a
112
significant difference in the commonplaces of teacher (F[2,109]=4.13, p≤.05, SE=.071), and
comparison by culture (F[2,109]=4.54, p≤.05, SE=.040) in the commonplace of milieu.
Table 21 shows the differences in mean scores, F values and effect size between groups
and cultures for the commonplaces of teacher and milieu.
Table 21: Differences between Pre-Post Tests for the Commonplaces of Teacher and
Milieu: Results of Multivariate Tests According to Group and Culture Presented in
Mean Scores (and SD), F Values, and Size Effect
General
Teacher
Milieu
Teacher
by Group
PDTG Teachers
Pullout Teachers
School Teachers
Milieu
by Culture
Jewish Teachers
Arab Teachers
Mean (SD)
PrePostTest
Test
2.28
2.74
(1.82)
(1.88)
1.19
.25
(1.35)
(.56)
3.09
3.07
(1.75)
(1.84)
1.63
2.91
(1.76)
(1.94)
1.46
1.81
(1.33)
(1.65)
1.43
.26
(1.39)
(.59)
.88
.24
(1.25)
F
Size
(df=1,109)
5.94*
Effect
.052
52.46***
.325
4.13*
.071
4.54*
.040
(.51)
* p< .05 *** p< .001
(a) Teacher. In describing the unique characteristics of teaching in pullout centers
compared with regular school curriculum, PDTG participants referred more to
the commonplace of teacher than did pullout teachers and school teachers [M=
3.07(1.84), 2.91(1.94) and 1.81(1.65) respectively] after learning in the program.
113
Pre-and-post-tests within groups indicated a significant difference in pullout
center teachers [M=1.63(1.76) and 2.91(1.94) respectively, MD=1.286, t=3.60,
p≤.001]. No difference was detected in PDTG teachers [M=3.09(1.75) and
3.07(1.84) respectively, MD=.019, t=.063, p≤.950], and school teachers
[M=1.46(1.33) and 1.81(1.65) respectively, MD=.345, t=.850, p≤.404],
concerning their reference to the commonplace of teacher.
(b) Milieu. Examination according to cultural orientation showed Arab teachers
attributed less importance to the milieu commonplace than did their Jewish
counterparts in per-test [M= 1.43(1.39) and .88(1.25) respectively], when teachers
from both cultures referred to the commonplace of milieu in post-test similarly but
significantly less [M=.26(.59) and .24(.51) respectively].
Table 22 presents pre-and-post-test examination of teachers’ answers according to
group relating to the commonplace of teacher by the three dimensions of teachers’ desired
characteristics.
114
Table 22: Pre-and-Post-Test Results of Teachers’ Perceptions of the Commonplace of
Teacher by Three Dimensions of Teachers’ Desired Characteristics According to
Group.
PDTG
Teachers
Cognitive
Pre-Test
Post-Test
"Uses rich language"
"Uses rich language"
"Possesses vast knowledge"
"Possesses vast knowledge"
"Connects between domains"
"Connects between domains"
"Promotes creative thinking"
"Promotes problem solving"
"Offers intellectual challenges'
"Offers various solutions to a problem"
"Enhances the ability to think"
Personal
"Creative"
"Creative"
"Flexible"
"Flexible"
"Curious"
"Curious"
"Open"
"Possesses good communication
skills"
"Open"
"Possesses good communication skills"
“Sensitive to giftedness"
"Possesses a special character"
"Able to build close relationships"
"Attracted to novelty"
Pedagogical "Serves as guide or tutor"
"Serves as guide or tutor"
"Designs special curriculum"
"Designs special curriculum"
"Uses discussions"
"Uses discussions"
"Assigns independent learning"
"Assigns independent learning"
"Uses reflection"
"Uses reflection"
"Uses challenging assignments"
"Assigns inquiry"
"Uses group work"
"Asks challenging open-ended
questions"
"Uses visual aids"
"Uses tools for developing thinking
skills"
115
Table 22 (Continued)
Pullout
Teachers
Cognitive
Pre-Test
Post-Test
"Promotes abstract thinking"
"promotes abstract thinking"
"Promotes creative thinking"
"Promotes creative thinking"
"Promotes problem solving"
"Promotes problem solving"
"possesses vast knowledge"
"Acknowledges students’ cognitive
abilities"
Personal
"Attentive"
"Attentive"
"Open"
"Open"
"Flexible"
"Flexible"
"Creative"
"Creative'
"Original"
"Original"
"'Able to create good personal
relations"
"'Relates to emotional aspect"
Pedagogical "Uses independent study and inquiry"
"Uses independent study and inquiry"
"Uses group work"
"Uses group work"
"Assigns creative projects"
"Assigns creative projects"
"Uses riddles"
"Uses riddles"
"Uses experiments"
"Uses experiments"
"Does not assign homework"
"Uses integrative teaching-learning
situations"
"Does not assign homework"
"Uses integrative teaching-learning
situations"
"Designs curriculum with students"
"Designs curriculum with students"
"Uses visual aids"
"Asks questions"
"Serves as guide or tutor"
"Focuses on process"
Comparison of the two groups of PDTG and pullout center teachers revealed PDTG
teachers possessed less knowledge in pre-test compared with pullout counterparts. Posttest results indicated pullout center teachers broadened their perception of teachers’
characteristics. PDTG teachers expanded their knowledge and understanding, expressing a
similar perception to pullout center teachers.
116
Teachers' perceptions of desired teacher characteristics in various dimensions.
Per-and-post-tests showed all study participants attributed greater importance to the
personal [M=5.60(.35) and 5.56(.35) respectively] as well as cognitive [M=5.19(.48) and
5.08(.52) respectively] characteristics of the teacher than to pedagogical dimension
[M=4.10 (.68) and 4.08(.66) respectively].
A significant effect was detected for the pre-and-post-test (F[1,144]=4.85, p≤.05,
SE=.033), in the cognitive dimension of teachers’ desired characteristics. No changes were
detected in the perception of personal and pedagogical dimensions. The correlations
between cognitive and personal dimension of teachers’ desired characteristics, which was
found significant in per-test, was strengthened in post-test (Correlation =.422, and p≤.01
.633, p≤.01). Meaning that, teachers who rated higher in the cognitive, did the same in the
personal dimension. The negative correlations between cognitive and pedagogical
dimension found in pre-test (Correlation= -.196, p≤.01) disappeared in post=test
(Correlation = -.126), meaning that, in post-test there is no connection between higher
rating of cognitive and lower rating in pedagogical dimension.
Table 23 presents the results of post hoc tests for the three groups of teachers and
two types of certification program concerning the measures of the cognitive dimension of
teacher characteristics.
117
Table 23: Mean Scores (and SD), F Values, and Size Effect for Differences between
Pre-Post-Tests for the Cognitive Dimension: Results of Multivariate Tests According
to Group, Group by Culture and Type of PDTG Program
General
Cognitive
Group
PDTG Teachers
Pullout Teachers
School Teachers
Group by
Culture
PDTG
Type
PDTG Teachers
Jewish
PDTG Teachers
Arab
Pullout Teachers
Jewish
Pullout Teachers
Arab
School Teachers
Jewish
School Teachers
Arab
Type 1
Type 2
Mean (SD)
PrePostTest
Test
5.19
5.08
(.47)
(.52)
5.32
5.12
(.45)
(.47)
4.99
5.05
(.54)
(.57)
5.21
5.07
(.40)
(.52)
5.44
5.19
(.33)
(.45)
5.14
5.01
(.55)
(.50)
5.16
5.09
(.44)
(.62)
4.82
5.01
(.59)
(.53)
5.25
5.11
(.38)
(.45)
5.18
4.84
(.44)
(.56)
5.39
5.11
(.33)
(.45)
5.17
5.13
(.60)
(.52)
* p< .05
118
F
Size
(df=1,144)
4.89*
Effect
.034
3.19*
.043
4.51*
.060
4.56*
.077
Differences within groups. A significant difference within groups was found in
the cognitive dimension (F[2,144]=3.14, p≤.05, SE=.165) with PDTG teachers rating the
desired cognitive characteristics of the teacher of the gifted significantly higher in the pretest compared with post-test [M= 5.32(.45) and 5.12(.47) respectively, MD= .198 (.42),
t=3.58, p≤.001]. Pullout center teachers [M=4.99(.54) and 5.05(.57) respectively] and
school teachers [M=5.21(.40) and 5.07(.52) respectively] rated the cognitive dimension
lower than did PDTG teachers, showing no changes in their perceptions.
Correlations between the cognitive and personal dimension were found significant in
pre-and-post-tests for PDTG teachers (Correlation= .432. p≤.01 and .666, p≤.01) and pullout
center teachers (.487, p≤.01 and .603, p≤.01). Meaning that, in both groups, teachers rating
cognitive dimension higher rated personal dimension accordingly.
Differences concerning cultural orientations. The interaction of group by culture
was found to have a strong effect on teachers’ perception of the cognitive dimension
(F[2,144]=4.51, p≤.05, SE=.60) indicating a gap within groups between teachers’ perceptions of
the cognitive dimension according to culture. This mainly results from pre-and-post
differences in PDTG Jewish teachers’ perceptions [M= 5.44(.33) and 5.19(.45) respectively].
Although a significant decline was detected in their ratings of the cognitive dimension, their
rating was the highest compared with all Jewish and Arab teachers of other groups and Arab
PDTG teachers [M= 5.14(55) and 5.19(45) respectively].
Correlations between the cognitive and personal dimension were found significant in
pre-and-post-tests for Jewish teachers (Correlation = .416, p≤.01 and .704, p≤.01
respectively) and Arab counterparts (.364, p≤.01 and .530, p≤.01 respectively).
Correlations in post-test were strengthened in both cultures, although a stronger
connection between the two dimensions can be detected among Jewish teachers.
119
An ANOVA for dependent variable of collectivism on a scale of 1 to 6 (1 indicating
low collectivism, 6 high collectivism) showed a significant difference in culture [M= 2.98
(.63) and 3.57(.63) respectively, F[1,140]=45.88, p≤.001, ES=.247] and an interaction of
group by culture (F[2,140]=9.36, p≤.001, SE=.118). Arab pullout center teachers were found
to be the most collectivist [M= 3.88(.57) and 3.94(.45) respectively], and their Jewish
counterparts the least collectivist [M= 2.77(.54) and 2.89(.72) respectively]. Among
PDTG teachers, although less collectivist compared with pullout center teachers, the
significant difference between Jewish and Arab teachers in pre-test [M= 2.87(59) and 3.38
(.67) respectively] remained unchanged in post-test [M= 3.06(70) and 3.52(81)
respectively].
The correlations between dimensions of teachers’ desired characteristics and level of
collectivism by culture, and group by culture interaction yielded several significant
differences. Table 24 presents the Pearson correlations between dimensions and the
collectivism of teachers according to culture and group by culture.
120
Table 24: Pearson Correlations between Three Dimensions of Teachers’
Characteristics and Collectivist Orientation according to Culture, Group, and Group
by Culture
General
Culture
Group
Group
by
Culture
*p< .05
Total Population
Jewish
Arab
PDTG
Pullout Teachers
PDTG Jewish
PDTG Arab
Pullout Teachers
Jewish
Pullout Teachers Arab
Cognitive
Pre
Post
-.417** -.234**
-.351** -.229*
-.359** -.079
-.386** -.076
-.393** -.411**
Personal
Pre
Post
-.176* -.108
-.221* -.149
______ ______
______ ______
______ ______
Pedagogical
Pre
Post
.257** .286**
.238*
.225
______ ______
______
______
______
______
______
______
-.306
-.639** -.442*
-.714**
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
.632**
.661
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
**p<.01
(a) Cognitive Dimension. A negative correlation on the cognitive dimension suggests
a reversed relation between the teachers’ orientation and their score on the
cognitive dimension. In other words, teachers who rated higher on the cognitive
dimension expressed less collectivist orientations. Thus, the negative correlation
between the cognitive dimension and collectivism found among Jewish and Arab
teachers, shows that the lower they rated collectivism, the higher they rated the
cognitive dimension. An interaction of group by culture yielded only a single
negative correlation, for Jewish pullout center teachers on the cognitive
dimension.
121
(b) Pedagogical Dimension. The significant correlations found between orientation
and the pedagogical dimension, were positive for the total population and higher
for pullout center group regardless of orientation.
(c) Personal Dimension. An interaction of group by orientation yielded a single
negative correlation, for collectivism among Jewish pullout center teachers.
Differences concerning certification group types. Investigation of per-and-posttest results according to PDTG group types relating to the cognitive dimension revealed a
significant difference (F[1,55]=4.56, p≤.05, SE=.077 ) between group types. Type 1 PDTG
teachers perceptions showed a decline from pre-to-post-test [M= 5.39(.33) and 5.11(.45)
respectively, MD= .28 (.42), t=4.07, p≤.001). Type 2 PDTG teachers perceptions did not
change [M= 5.17(.60) and 5.13(.52) respectively].
Knowledge and competencies.
Differences concerning certification group types. Self evaluation of knowledge
and competencies addressed were based on US standards. The variable of self evaluation
knowledge was measured on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 indicating no knowledge, 4 high level of
knowledge), and the self-evaluated variable of competence on a scale of 1 to 6 (1
indicating low competency, 6 high competency). Table 25 presents results of multivariate
and pared sample tests in these two dimensions according to culture and group type.
122
Table 25: Differences between Pre-Post-Tests of teachers’ Self-Evaluated Knowledge
and Competencies According to Group, Group by Culture and Type of PDTG
Program Presented in Mean Scores (and SD), F Values, T-tests, and Size Effect
Main
Self-Evaluated
Knowledge
Competence
Culture
Self-Evaluated
Knowledge Jewish
Self-Evaluated
Knowledge Arab
Self-Evaluated
Competence Jewish
Self-Evaluated
Competence Arab
Group
Type
Type 1 Self-Evaluated
Knowledge
Type 1 Self-Evaluated
Competence
Type 2 Self-Evaluated
Knowledge
Type 2 Self-Evaluated
Competence
Mean (SD)
PrePostTest
Test
2.03
3.41
(.61)
(.39)
3.12
5.03
(1.19)
(.64)
2.05
3.33
(.50)
(.36)
1.95
3.53
(.73)
(.39)
3.23
4.86
(1.09)
(.59)
2.98
5.27
(1.33)
(.64)
2.27
3.34
(.56)
(.38)
3.51
4.93
(1.17)
(.61)
1.60
3.54
(.45)
(.36)
2.44
5.21
(.91)
(.67)
F
T
293.81***
181.84***
(df=1,109)
___
___
Size
Effect
.847
.774
2.24
___
.041
3.65
___
.065
___
___
___
___
9.14***
7.43***
16.78***
11.55***
___
___
___
___
*** p< .001
Investigation of per-and-post-test results according to PDTG group types revealed
significant main effects for both, teachers’ self evaluation of their knowledge
(F[1,53]=293.81, p≤.001, SE=.847), and their competencies (F[1,53]=181.84, p≤.001,
SE=.774). No differences were detected in examination by culture regarding both aspects,
123
meaning that, teachers’ evaluations of themselves did not differ according to culture
within groups.
Investigation according to group type revealed differences in both dimensions. Both
groups indicated they have gained knowledge and competencies in relevant aspects of
gifted education. Type 2 PDTG teachers, who seemed to start program with lower selfevaluation of knowledge and competencies, felt they have gained more in both dimensions
compared to Type 1 counterparts.
PDTG teachers’ answers relating to satisfaction and readiness were measured on a
scale of 1 to 4 (1 indicating high level of satisfaction or readiness, 4 indicating low level
of satisfaction or readiness). Participants’ answers revealed a general perception of
satisfaction with 80% answering 1 or 2 on the scale, and feeling of readiness to teach
gifted students with 88% answering likewise. Investigation according to group types
revealed that among Type 2 less teachers were satisfied (70%) compared with Type 1
counterparts (86%). Among Type 2 teachers 20% indicated they were not very satisfied
with the program answering 3 on the scale, whereas only 8.3% of Type 1 group answered
likewise. Both groups felt they had acquired enough knowledge and skills feeling well
prepared for teaching gifted students.
In summary, the three aspects investigated in third part of the present study were the
teaching-learning situation in pullout programs, the desired characteristics of the teacher
of the gifted, and teachers’ self-assessment of knowledge and competencies acquired.
Results revealed a strong group effect in the perception of the teaching-learning situation
in pullout centers relating to the commonplace of teacher. Pullout center teachers showed
the most significant change, although analysis of written answers indicated PDTG
counterparts have gained new knowledge and exhibited a similar understanding of the
124
uniqueness of teaching-learning situation in pullout centers. Concerning the desired
characteristics of teachers of the gifted a group and group by culture effect indicated a
change in the cognitive dimension. A negative change detected from pre-to-post-test in
Jewish PDTG teachers, derives from Type 1 program. PDTG teachers, opposed to pullout
counterparts, were found to be less collectivist and slightly differed according to culture.
All PDTG teachers indicated their knowledge and competencies had been promoted to
some extent, regardless of culture. Type 2 program teachers, who exhibited a lower
starting point, showed greater improvement.
125
Chapter 4: Discussion
Part 1: Gifted Education Status in Pullout Programs
Israeli teachers’ and students’ perceptions of gifted education in pullout
centers.
Teachers’ perceptions. One of the objectives of the study was, to explore the
differences between perceptions of teachers of different instructional backgrounds and
cultural orientations, concerning the teaching-learning situation in pullout centers and
teachers’ desired characteristics in Israel.
General perceptions. All teachers, regardless of cultural orientation, related more
to the commonplace of the teacher, and shared a common perception of the teachers’
personal characteristics being most important probably due to teachers perceived as role
models and nurturers of gifted students. This finding is consistent with literature (Mills,
2003; Rowley, 2003). Study groups perceived gifted education status in pullout programs
differently relying on their own experience.
PDTG teachers. In describing the unique characteristics of pullout centers,
compared with the regular school curriculum, PDTG teachers taking their initial steps in
the program considered teacher and milieu to stand for their main objectives regarding
these programs: learning how to become a teacher of the gifted and creating a suitable
teaching-learning environment. By contrast, pullout center teachers related less to the
teacher and more to the milieu and student commonplace, reflecting their actual
experience of teaching gifted learners in pullout centers. No differences were detected
126
according to culture. This may suggest that teachers’ perceptions of the uniqueness of the
teaching-learning situation in pullout centers were shaped more by their own experience or
intended learning objectives than by cultural orientation.
PDTG teachers expressed a higher awareness of desired personal and cognitive
characteristics of the teacher of the gifted. This finding is consistent with the literature on
effective teachers (Mills, 2003) and may suggest that those teachers who chose to take part
in the PDTG may hold different preconceptions about the needs and education of gifted
students. Jewish teachers’ ratings reflected a negative correlation between the cognitive
dimension and collectivism, especially among PDTG teachers. The negative correlation
may suggest a higher awareness of the gifted students’ cognitive-related needs among
Jewish teachers, possibly because of their western orientation that stresses the
development of individual students.
Pullout center teachers. Jewish and Arab pullout center teachers exhibited a
different perception of the teaching-learning situation in pullout centers and the teachers’
desired characteristics, with Jewish teachers attributing greater importance to the teacher
and milieu commonplaces than did their Arab colleagues. In addition Arab pullout center
teachers rated the pedagogical characteristics of the teacher higher compared with Jewish
counterparts correlating with collectivism. The higher collectivist orientation detected
among Arab teachers, especially among pullout center teachers, may result from Arab
pullout center teachers’ perceptions. Some of these teachers have no teaching certificates,
and experience less contact with Jewish society, therefore, hold more collectivist views.
This trend may also reflect a perception that links the use of efficient instructional modes
in gifted education with the development of students for the betterment of society.
127
The main difference, which was detected between Jewish and Arab pullout center
teachers, may derive from Jewish teacher education programs stressing a student-centered
pedagogy with an individualistic orientation, focusing on the development of the
individual's abilities, in contrast to Arab teachers, who tended toward collectivism but
were influenced by the same programs. This suggests that Arab teachers were torn
between their western individualistic teacher education, focusing on individual
development, and their collectivist orientations. These findings are consistent with the
literature (Eilam, 2002, 2003).
Students’ perceptions.
General perceptions. All students expressed a high level of satisfaction with
pullout programs, acknowledging their academic and social contribution, and courses
offered at centers. They valued the personal and cognitive characteristics of the teacher
more than the pedagogical, consistent with recent research (Mills, 2003), but not with past
research in Israel (Milgram, 1979). This inconsistency with Israeli past findings may result
from the many changes that have occurred in the education of gifted students over these
last 30 years. Jewish and Arab gifted students showed different perceptions of the
uniqueness of teaching-learning situation, teachers’ characteristics which may be
attributed to cultural orientations and interaction of culture by gender.
Differences according to cultural orientations. Differences according to cultural
orientations were detected in the perception of the uniqueness of teaching-learning
situation in pullout programs and teachers’ desired characteristics. Cultural collectivist
norms in Arab society discouraging students from expressing opinions and expecting them
to respect adult authority (Al–Haj, 1995, 1996 cited in Eilam 2002) as translated into
128
instructional practices could explain the differences in the perception of teaching-learning
situation and the different dimensions of teachers’ desired characteristics examined in this
study. When describing the uniqueness of teaching-learning situation Arab students related
more to teacher as information transmitter, focused on the group and unique characteristics
that define it, related to formalities, to specific topics being studied, and to a lesser degree
to challenging experiences. Whereas, Jewish gifted students
expressed more
individualistic orientations relating to the teacher’s preferred instructional modes,
expecting teachers to follow practices characterized by challenge, valuing more the milieu,
acknowledging the importance of personal and cognitive characteristics of the teacher
perceived as enabling individual growth.
The differences detected between the perceptions of Jewish and Arab junior high
school students of the teacher commonplace suggest that student perception of the
difference between the pullout program and regular school may be affected by their
cultural orientation. No difference detected in elementary school may be age-related,
meaning that younger students experienced less exposure to cultural orientations, as well
as to pullout programs.
Findings concerning course selection shed light on the difference in the perception
of the role a pullout program should play, and show that Arab students also sought the
opportunity to develop special talents and interests, which may be one of the results of the
influence exerted by the majority (individualist) Jewish society. Arabs students’ desire for
chess and Jewish students’ preference of sciences could both be understood as means to
improve thinking and prepare for higher education and career. Whereas Arab girls chose
various arts as reflecting creativity, Arab boys emphasized sports as a means for
129
developing the body, discipline, and as a strategic activity. It appears, therefore, that
students in both groups seek similar paths and careers.
Our findings suggest that all participants valued languages as important for their
academic growth and careers. Children are aware of the importance of English as a second
language. Moreover, language promotes the ability to communicate, and may express the
Arab students’ desire to better integrate into the educational and economic structure of
Israel. In the last few years, there have been reports of a large increase in the number of
Arab students learning Hebrew at the university, supporting our assumptions. Moreover,
some Arabs students pursue their education or careers in other countries, requiring foreign
languages. The interest in sports, by contrast, specifically chosen by gifted Arab students,
may be attributed to their need to practice and play with similarly endowed peers.
Growing up in different cultural environments, Jewish and Arab students perceive the
achievement of aims differently.
This may be detected in the perception of academic contribution. Gifted Jewish
and Arab students chose the same items, with a slight difference in their ordering,
reflecting both, their awareness of the general contribution of pullout program courses to
their academic development, and their views on what is important for success. The small
differences may indicate a difference in students’ perceptions of how to attain that goal.
It appears that the social contribution of pullout programs is of great importance to
students, as more than half of the study population addressed the question. This is
consistent with reports in the literature that the lack of friends was one of the main causes
for dropping out of a pullout program (Vidergor & Reiter, 2008). Boys responded to the
open-ended question three times more than the girls did, suggesting that boys, in particular
in junior high school, regard the pullout center program as contributing to them socially,
130
indirectly suggesting their greater awareness of the issue, possibly because of the social
difficulties they experienced in the regular school. It is possible that Jewish students, with
an individualist background, experienced a lower level of social support relative to Arab
students who enjoyed social support on the part of their collectivist families and
community, and sought the interaction with peers.
Other reasons may also contribute to the Jewish boys’ slightly higher sensitivity to
the social aspect. Literature states that gifted students perceived labeling having social
effects which included stereotypes and labels such as nerd or snob (Manaster, Chan, Watt
& Wiehe, 1994). It is possible then that these Jewish boys who were identified and labeled
as gifted much earlier than their Arab peers suffered more from stigmatization at school,
whereas Arab students who were new to the phenomenon suffered less. Boys’ greater
awareness and social needs may reflect the established opinion that girls are more open
and friendly than boys are, especially in the lower grades, satisfying their social needs in
school and feeling a lesser need for additional social frameworks (Archer, 1992). Boys’
difficulties in trying to associate with peers in their regular school may be attributed to the
combination of such personality traits as shyness, and special interest in unique subject
areas not shared by regular students.
The general satisfaction with the pullout program expressed by students from both
groups is consistent with the literature (Moon, Feldhusen, & Dillon, 1994). Unexpectedly,
however, Arab students in junior high school expressed the least satisfaction. Their
response may have resulted from higher expectations not being met because of difficulties
experienced by teachers, who belong to the same collectivist culture, in employing
strategies and models better suited for gifted children.
131
In addition to reflecting students’ cultural orientations, the difference in perception
the teaching-learning situation, translated into school practices, may also be the outcome
of the Arab students’ shorter exposure to pullout programs, which were only recently and
gradually established in the Arab communities. Despite these general differences, the
differences found in students’ perceptions of academic and social contribution were not
substantial. On the one hand, they reflect to a certain degree the students’ cultural norms
of behavior; on the other hand, both groups exhibited similar trends in their aspirations for
the future, in the same country. This may occur by their exposure to similar educational
messages by state and by the Division of Gifted and Excellent Students, although they
viewed these messages through different cultural lenses that also influenced perceptions of
pullout program practices.
Differences according to cultural orientations by gender. Relating to teachers’
desired characteristics a culture by gender difference was detected in the cognitive and
personal dimensions. Arab girls’ higher rating of the cognitive dimension compared with
Arab boys reflects their aspirations for higher education and career, consistent with
literature relating to non-gifted students in Israel (Seginer & Mahajna, 2004). The authors
cited here reported a recent trend, expressed by Arab females, of valuing higher education
as a means for breaking the traditional path destined for them by society. On the other
hand, gifted Arab boys attributing less importance to the cognitive characteristics is
consistent with past research relating to non-gifted Arab boys (Seginer, 1988, 2001),
suggesting that due to their already secure status in society, given societal perceptions that
boys are the privileged gender, they feel less motivated to achieve academically.
Gender-related perceptions of the personal dimension are consistent with literature
(Archer, 1992) emphasizing girls’ stronger desirability for personal-social relations.
132
Culture-related perceptions of the personal dimension may suggest that Jewish gifted
students are more sensitive to teachers’ personal characteristics and the current outcomes
of learning climate. Arab gifted students attributed less importance to the teachers’
personal characteristics, whereas their Jewish counterparts acknowledged the importance
of these characteristics and noticed teachers exhibiting unique qualities when attending
pullout programs. The finding related to Arab gifted girls, as compared with Jewish gifted
girls and boys, supports our previous explanations concerning the value these girls attach
to teachers’ personal characteristics as a means for improving their societal status.
However, girls from both cultural orientations equally value the personal characteristics of
teachers of the gifted more than boys.
Gender-related cultural norms may have influenced their perception of status, with
the understanding that boys and girls are expected to behave and choose differently. These
norms are translated into school practices and result in choosing different types of courses.
Findings showing that Jewish and Arab girls favored arts, whereas boys preferred science
and computers, may be the result of social pressures pushing boys and girls in different
academic directions to fulfill social expectations. Contrary to reported in studies
(Hollinger, 1983; Mendez, 2000; Mendez & Crawford, 2002) gifted Jewish girls growing
older tend to prefer more expressive courses. This may reflect Hollinger & Fleming’s
(1988) earlier assertion that in light of their desire to develop individual expressive talents
and interests, girls try to fit in with social roles predetermined for females and less
associated with math, science, computers, regarded as more masculine.
Differences between teachers’ and students’ perceptions. Differences between
teachers and students in the perception of the uniqueness of teaching-learning situation in
pullout centers may be explained by age difference. Teachers are obviously more mature
133
and have acquired knowledge in their profession. Therefore, they were able to relate to a
wider range of aspects concerning the pullout program. Students related to more apparent
aspects perceived by them as directly influencing and representing pullout program unique
characteristics grasping its essence.
Both teachers and students attributed higher importance to personal and cognitive,
and lower importance to pedagogical characteristics of the teacher. Students rating all
characteristics significantly lower compared with teachers may indicate that they have not
yet formed a well thought out notion of teachers’ desired characteristics due to their young
age.
Part 2: Israeli Professional Development Program
Curriculum transformation.
Differences in transformation of curriculum in the five facets will be discussed
according to study objectives focusing on main ideas expressed by the Israeli Division for
Gifted, adopted US standards and general factors influencing such transformation.
Division of Gifted main ideas expressed in curriculum transformation. Division
of Gifted main ideas as expressed in the ideological facet of curriculum were adequately
transferred to the formal and perceived facets, where they were translated into curriculum
programs, and were referred to by coordinators in interviews using the same terminology.
The forum established by the Division helped all concerned parties keep main ideas, but
was also flexible enough to allow a slightly different interpretation.
The two types of programs maintained their different perspectives on preparation
of teachers, although both experienced difficulties in operational and perceived facets. The
134
differences in interpretation between the two types of programs did not occur as a result of
Type 2 program rejecting ideas expressed by the Division, on the contrary, Type 2
program seemed to add its own interpretation to it. Type 2 program stressed the fact that
teachers of the gifted should be prepared, not only acquiring theoretical and practical
knowledge, but also developing their own personal abilities that will better enable them to
cater for the gifted, which is consistent with literature (Van Tassel- Baska, Mac Farlan, &
Feng, 2006). Designers of Type 2 program at its initial stage placed less importance on the
instructional and planning aspects that were added later upon request of PDTG
participants. This may occur due to the overall perception of the teacher’s characteristics
combined with the understanding that choosing this perspective will enable program
operation overcome conditions and restrictions.
The operational facet of curriculum, focusing on what actually happens in the
classroom, was found to be the most problematic. Although both types of programs tried
to maintain Division and program rationale, as well as aims, and objectives, observation
results indicated three areas that needed attention. The three areas, according to Schwab’s
commonplaces (1964, 1969/1978) are the teacher/lecturer, subject matter, and milieu. In
both types of programs most lecturers did not serve as role models, using instructional
tools which enhance creativity and thinking skills. Regarding subject matter, they mostly
tried applying general knowledge to gifted education. In two cases, each occurring in a
different type of program; one focusing on analysis of curriculum, and the other on a
genius painter, subject was somewhat more relevant. Still, no theoretical aspects,
references to research, and definitions of concepts relating to the gifted education were
addressed. As for Milieu, in both programs trained teachers were not exposed to, and did
not have an opportunity to experience a teaching-learning environment adequate for the
135
enhancement of interaction, performance and products expected from gifted students. This
might be caused by lecturers not attending a professional development program preparing
them to teach the trained teachers, and by programs coordinators not utilizing access to
computers and other technological equipment offered by universities and academic
colleges.
These difficulties faced in the operational facet were reflected in the perceived
facet as presented by interviewed teacher trainees. Relating to program outcomes, trained
teachers repeated main ideas as expressed by Division in the ideological as well as the
programs designed in the formal facet of curriculum. The difference in perception of
program disadvantages as perceived by Type 1 program participants repeats some of the
aspects dealt with in the operational stage and elaborates on them. Two main aspects
addressed were subject matter (knowledge) and teacher (coordinators and lecturers). The
difficulties in transforming curriculum in Type 1 programs seem to lie in these two areas
connected to program and program coordinator’s role determined in the formal facet of
curriculum.
Type 2 program PDTG participants expressed no reservations concerning
knowledge acquired, and stressed the teachers/lecturers serving as role models catering for
students needs. On the other hand, the complaint relating to the summer semesters not
being effective refers back to program design in the formal facet, although focusing on a
unique aspect relevant to the specific program. Effectiveness of summer program may be
influenced by its intensity and ability of trained teachers to cope with such large body of
knowledge in a very short period of time.
PDTG participants’ expectations for more practical aspects like tools, workshops
and effective teaching models is consistent with literature stating knowledge and effective
136
use of teaching techniques being one of top three essential skills required for working gifted
(Van Tassel- Baska, Mac Farlan, & Feng, 2006). US standards also stress the acquisition of
teachers’ knowledge and skills in instructional strategies and planning (Van Tassel-Baska
& Johnsen, 2007).
Adopted US standards expressed in curriculum transformation. The Israeli
program, designed and constantly altered in light of accumulated experience and US
standards, expressed best intentions to include most of the standards in certification
program. Some of the standards like Language and Communication, Professional and
Ethical Practice, and Collaboration, that seemed less relevant to PDTG participants at this
initial stage of certification program were left out. Assessment may be addressed to some
extent in clusters or courses relating to teaching, but not as a separate topic which needs
special attention. The same standards addressed in the Ideological and formal facets of
curriculum, although taking a slightly different interpretation by Type 2 program
designers, still indicated a positive transformation. Application of standards as perceived
by program coordinators transformed to operational and experienced facet became
incomplete due to certain difficulties. This resulted in PDTG participants being partially
exposed to Foundations, Characteristics, Instructional and Planning Strategies, as well as
Learning Environments suitable for the gifted. This may partially occur due to lack of
experts specializing in gifted education from various aspects, and lack of preparation of
lecturers and program coordinators in the form of on-going professional development.
Factors influencing curriculum transformation. Main difficulty in transforming
certification curriculum was detected in moving from formal to operational, consistent
with literature (Klein, 1979). Some of the factors influencing such transition were
addressed by program coordinators in the perceived facet.
137
Program design and coordinators’ role. Program design and the perception of
program coordinator’s role directly affect what is taught in the classroom. Type 1 program
coordinators constantly having to monitor program, rethink cluster order and program
design based on availability of lecturers faced more difficulties transforming the written
curriculum into operational facet. Type 2 program coordinators felt less presured since
transformation of formal facet meant designing semester courses, for which they had to
find fewer lecturers. This may have also resulted in greater freedom designing the courses,
as a large part were dedicated to developing PDTG participants’ personal characteristics,
focusing less on specific issues directly addressing giftedness. Therefore, Type 2 program
transformation into operational facet might seem slightly more positive.
Significant elements of subject matter and miliue. Breaking down each cluster or
course into significant elements of subject matter might help coordinators and lecturers
present more relevant information. Elements of milieu suitable for teaching gifted
enhancing PDTG participants’ experience in both types of programs might enable a more
positive transformation.
Materials available. Materials available were indirectly adressed by program
coordinators. Coordinators of both types of programs perceived this factor as
perdetermined, and were aware that materials were not available in Hebrew or Arabic.
Results of obseravtions in the operational facet indicated both types of programs exhibited
difficulty in this area, which influenced PDTG participants’ experiences in the classroom.
Moving from operational to experienced facet revealed one main factor relating to
Program relevance consisting of two apsets: (a) theoretical knowledge; and (b) program
structure.
138
Program relevance. (a) Theoretical knowledge and parctical aspects of teaching:
Type 1 PDTG participants’ expectations were partially met due to the perception that in
some cases theoretical knowledge was insufficeinet, and at times was disconnected.
Progran coordinators’ role might be crucial at this point in making sense of and connecting
issues addressed by lecturers to enable a coherent perception of gifted education. In both
types of programs PDTG participants expected to receive more practical teaching
strategies to be applied in gifted classrooms. Incorporating them into the operational facet
would enable a more positive transformation in the experienced one; (b) Program
sturucture: Type 2 program participants commented on summer semester which was
ineffective due to too much information condensed in a short period of time, indicating
that positive transformation in this facet might also be influenced by program structure.
Part 3: Cognitive Aspects of Professional Development Program
Teachers’ perceptions pre-post-test.
The uniqueness of the teaching-learning situation in pullout courses. PDTG
teachers were expected to show the most significant change in the perception of the
teaching-learning situation in pullout centers. Pullout center teachers showing a significant
change, and addressing the commonplace of teacher equally to PDTG counterparts in posttest reveals the effect of practicum. Study results exhibiting no change among PDTG in
the perception of teacher’s role, as translated into the importance attributed to the
commonplace of teacher from pre-to-post-test, relates to a single aspect. The larger
perspective, considering the content analysis of written answers, shows PDTG teachers
have gained new knowledge and exhibited a similar understanding of the uniqueness of
139
teaching-learning situation in pullout centers. This finding exhibits a limited impact of
PDTG program, but does not rule out the likelihood of practicum effect exhibited by
pullout center teachers.
Practicum is mentioned as one of the main components of the PDTG program
proposed by the Division of Gifted and Excellent Students (Zorman, Rachmel & Shaked,
2004), but was not applied as such, due to organizational difficulties. It seems that as most
PDTG teachers work in regular schools rather than gifted pullout centers, they were
unable to practice and make the mental investment required for processing theoretical
information acquired in the program and transforming it into practice. Practicum is
considered as one of the most important aspects of a student teacher’s education (Clarke &
Collins, 2007), and extended teaching practice could give the student teachers
considerable exposure to practices of experienced/expert teachers (Zeichner, 2006). It was
long stated by experts in gifted education that practicum and observations were effective
learning experiences (Feldhusen & Huffman, 1988). This is supported by a recent study
contending that field experience with gifted students could enhance teacher development
(Chamberlin & Chamberlin, 2010).
Teachers' perceptions of desired teacher characteristics in various dimensions.
Per-test results show PDTG teachers rated the personal and cognitive characteristics
higher compared with pullout center counterparts, and similar to school teachers. Meaning
that, they already entered certification program with conceptions related to gifted
education and teachers’ role. These conceptions may have been formed by personal
experiences with gifted children at home or school. They might have also affected the
lower level of collectivism of Arab PDTG teachers interested in improving community
and contributing to it by focusing on the individual gifted child. In addition, Arab PDTG
140
teachers, still more collectivist compared with Jewish counterparts, may be experiencing a
transition. This is consistent with previous findings, which might be explained by a longer
exposure to teacher education system in Israel, which possesses a more individualistic
orientation (Eilam 2002, 2003).
Pre-and-post-test examination within groups revealed no changes in the perception
of personal and pedagogical characteristics of the teacher. A change detected in the
cognitive dimension among PDTG teachers suggests a slight reduction in their awareness
of teachers’ cognitive characteristics. Meaning that, in this respect, PDTG teachers have
not changed their perceptions of teachers’ roles and how they should cater for the needs of
gifted students.
This questionnaire, including an open-ended question and statements, referred to
knowledge processing by influence of instruction. Research on conceptual change
proposes that prior concepts embedded in individuals’ body of knowledge are highly
resistant to change. A change in the understanding of a concept requires revision of others.
Most learning is characterized as being additive involving the adding of details and facts
to existing knowledge, which does not promote conceptual change procedures
(Vosniadou, 1994). The use of additive mechanisms in situations requiring conceptual
change is one of the major causes of misconceptions. Misconceptions are interpreted as
individuals’ attempts to assimilate new information into existing conceptual structures that
contain information contradictory to their view (Vosniadou, 1994). Most teachers
attending PDTG program are experienced in teaching and possess firm opinions and
pedagogical content knowledge formed by their personal experience. In order to create a
significant conceptual change they should be exposed to a different type of experience.
Literature suggests conceptual change can be fostered by creating cognitive conflict
141
(Posner et al., 1982) using several models based on Nusbaum and Novick (1982).
According to these models: (a) preconceptions have to be revealed by exposure to a
situation; (b) conceptions should be presented and described; (c) conceptions should be
discussed and evaluated in groups; (d) participants should be presented with an event that
cannot be explained by current conceptions, which will create a conceptual conflict; and
(e) time for reflecting on differences between conceptions and target theory should be
allowed.
The slight change in the perception of teachers’ desired cognitive characteristics
among PDTG teachers attending Type 1 program might occur due to exposure to program
for a shorter period of time compared with Type 2 counterparts. Studies suggest that the
duration of professional development is related to the depth of teacher change (Shields,
Marsh & Adelman, 1998; Weiss, Montgomery, Ridgway & Bond, 1998). Type 1 program
(duration 4 semesters 4 semester hours) designed in clusters addressing different aspects
of gifted education might face greater difficulties in transforming curriculum catering for
PDTG teachers’ needs. Difficulties, detected in program design, and continuity of subjects
addressed by invited lecturers, might affect teachers’ perceptions and the ability to
construct coherent knowledge.
Knowledge and competencies. An assessment of PDTG teachers’ perceptions of
program contribution regarding knowledge and competencies revealed changes from perto-post-test. School teachers interested in the field entered professional development
program with a limited knowledge of what giftedness means, the unique characteristics of
gifted students, and suitable planning and instructional strategies. As these aspects were
taught to some extent during the two year duration of PDTG program, teachers, regardless
of culture, felt they have gained knowledge about gifted education.
142
Teachers, possessing a somewhat limited view of the field, based on what they have
been exposed to, felt competent and ready to teach gifted students. PDTG program
investigated using a curriculum transformation model (Goodlad et al., 1979) detected
difficulties in operational facet referring to lecturer, and subject matter; and experienced
facet referring to program contribution and program disadvantages. Namely, difficulties in
teaching relevant content, modeling and experiencing teaching strategies and learning
environment suitable for gifted, resulted in some PDTG teachers finding theoretical and
practical knowledge insufficient.
Type 2 program, focusing on developing PDTG teachers’ personal characteristics, in
addition to gifted education aspects addressed, may contribute to teachers’ perceptions
regarding knowledge and competencies acquired. Some Type 2 teachers might think that
these personal development courses come at the expense of theoretical or practical aspects,
addressed to the same extent in the program, therefore, showed less general satisfaction
compared with Type 1 counterparts.
Conclusions
Gifted education status as revealed by teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the
teaching-learning situation and teachers’ desired characteristics portrays a very positive
perspective regarding pullout programs. Pullout programs are considered unique and
different from regular schools, catering for the needs of gifted students.
An additional conclusion of this study is that students’ perceptions of their teachers’
desired characteristics cannot be discussed separately from their contextual background
and schooling. Jewish and Arab gifted students exhibited differing perceptions regarding
the various dimensions of teachers’ characteristics, which may result from belonging to
143
societies representing different cultural orientations. On the other hand, both Jewish and
Arab students perceived pullout program as contributing to their academic and social
development and expressed a high level of satisfaction, although, achieving their aims in
slightly different ways influenced by cultural orientations.
As the Division had determined that instruction of gifted students was considered a
profession, five centers were gradually established and a certification program was
designed. Teachers of gifted in pullout centers and school teachers were invited to
participate in the PDTG program to prepare for the instruction of gifted and excellent
students. Program analysis using the curriculum transformation theory detected some
difficulties in transformation of the formal curriculum into the operational and experienced
facets. Pre-determined factors like lack of experts in gifted education and materials not
available in Hebrew and Arabic made program design a very difficult task to begin with.
In addition, incorporating elements of subject matter and milieu were limited. PDTG
programs at their initial stage, not yet defining program coordinator’s role, enabled a great
deal of freedom, but at the same time also created different interpretations and difficulties,
depending on coordinator’s perception of the role.
Difficulties encountered in the operational facet were reflected in experiential facet
as perceived by PDTG participants. Program relevance was affected by insufficient
theoretical knowledge and coordinators’ difficulties to connect the different aspects of
giftedness addressed by various invited lecturers to one coherent knowledge base. As
PDTG program was at its initial stage, only part of the US standards were addressed.
Difficulties experienced in operational facet resulted in PDTG participants being partially
exposed to those standards that were addressed, ultimately affecting program relevance.
Program duration may have affected its application according to standards.
144
The cognitive outcomes of PDTG program might be influenced by difficulties faced
by curriculum transformation. Comparing teachers’ perceptions, as measured in pre-andpost-test questionnaires administered to same participants at the beginning and towards the
end of PDTG program, revealed two aspects of cognitive outcomes; self assessed
knowledge and competence assessed based on US standards, and conceptual change
regarding the instruction of gifted students, which was assessed indirectly by perceptions
of teaching-learning situation and teachers’ desired characteristics.
On the one hand, measuring explicit cognitive contribution indicated teachers
perceived they had gained new knowledge and were competent and ready to teach gifted
students. This should be carefully considered as it involved self report which is often
inflated in respect to practice. On the other hand, partial results concerning implicit
cognitive contribution showed they have not made the required conceptual change.
Although they had gained some knowledge concerning teachers’ role in the pullout
program, teachers of gifted not participating in PDTG program had exhibited similar
knowledge based on practicum. Moreover, no significant changes found in pre-and-posttests concerning teachers’ desired characteristics strengthen the assumption that no
conceptual change has occurred regarding the perception of gifted education and the
teacher’s role.
Gifted students looked for the unique characteristics of the teacher of the gifted they
can rarely find in regular schools. Although PDTG participants have gained some
knowledge and competencies, difficulties encountered in the transformation of curriculum,
and especially lack of practicum, prevented them from making the required conceptual
change. Therefore, they are expected to encounter difficulties in translating the knowledge
and competencies acquired into practice that will enable them to respond to students’
145
academic, social and emotional needs. Teaching gifted students at a pullout center for
several years will hopefully decrease theory-practice gap and promote the process of
conceptual change, understanding that instruction of gifted students is unique and different
from the instruction of regular students.
Theoretical Contribution
Concerning the contribution of the study to theory, its results elaborate on the
insufficient data accumulated concerning the professional development of teachers of the
gifted. It promotes our understanding of various factors affecting curriculum
transformation like program design, significant elements of subject matter and milieu,
materials available and program relevance. It contributes to the understanding of cognitive
aspects regarding the impact of teacher training in this specific area and teachers'
professional development. It promotes awareness of differences in teachers’ perceptions of
teacher’s desired characteristics according to culture. In addition, it elaborates on data
concerning the effectiveness of pullout centers as perceived by teachers and students of
different cultural orientations. Practically, study results would enable developers of
curriculum identify and cope with difficulties in implementation.
Implications
Implications concerning teachers’ and students’ cultural orientations.
Our study showed that differences between the groups may be ascribed to culture,
therefore, considering students’ cultural orientation while planning and designing learning
environments for gifted students is of great importance. In our case, culturally relevant
146
pedagogy for gifted students is particularly important to consider. Since Arab gifted
students are a minority, we assume that responding to their needs, which seem to differ
from those of Jewish gifted counterparts, will result in a better fulfillment of their
potential. In this sense, we do not recommend implementation of the “Jewish ideas” of
how to advance gifted students in Israel, but rather that Jewish and Arab teachers together
consider students’ needs and cultural orientations when designing programs to promote
Arab gifted students.
The possible effects of culture on individuals' perceptions of teaching and learning,
call for increased awareness of policy makers and practitioners. Their awareness of
differences in perception and preferences of teachers of the gifted can promote student
participation and learning, and contribute to the improvement of pullout programs; so can
awareness of individualist vs. collectivist cultural orientation with respect to the teachinglearning situation in pullout centers and to desired teacher characteristics. The challenges
faced by teachers of a collectivist orientation in creating and supporting a positive
classroom climate and teaching-learning practices in pullout programs are by far more
complex. Teachers of the gifted already working in these centers must be continually
supported in their efforts to promote their gifted students’ cognitive abilities. It is therefore
recommended that both Arab and Jewish teachers, representing their respective cultural
orientations, be encouraged to attend certification programs recently established by the
Division of Gifted and Excellent Students at the Ministry of Education in Israel.
Table 26 summarizes findings concerning curriculum transformation according to
addressed US standards, factors or encountered difficulties, and required steps.
147
Table 26: Summary of Curriculum Transformation according to addressed US
standards, factors or encountered difficulties, and required steps.
Curriculum
Facets
US Standards
Factors and/or
Difficulties
Required Steps
Ideological
Curriculum
Not addressed:
Individual Learning
Differences, Language and
Communication,
Professional and Ethical
Practice, and
Collaboration.
Not addressed:
Individual Learning
Differences, Language and
Communication,
Professional and Ethical
Practice, Collaboration
and assessment.
Not addressed:
Individual Learning
Differences, Language and
Communication,
Professional and Ethical
Practice, Collaboration.
Accumulating theoretical
knowledge.
Creating vision.
Establishing certification
programs.
Creating certification
forum.
Program design.
Different perspectives
resulting in two types of
certification programs.
Encouraging follow up studies.
Promoting PD for coordinators.
Program Design:
Keeping the order of
clusters.
Identifying participants.
Finding suitable lecturers.
Implementing practicum.
Evaluation of teacher
trainees.
Program assessment.
Program Coordinators'
Roles:
Tying subjects of lectures
together.
Designing the program.
Monitoring and changing
courses.
Lack of materials in
participants' language.
Some lecturers not serving
as role models.
Difficulties addressing
subject matter on gifted
education.
Difficulties in creating
suitable milieu.
Program Relevance:
Insufficient theoretical
knowledge.
Insufficient practical
aspects of teaching.
Program design and
structure:
Summer semester.
PD for coordinators should
include:
Theoretical knowledge
concerning gifted education.
Identification of participants.
Awareness to cultural
orientations.
Using assessment tools.
Specializing in a specific area.
Curriculum planning.
Organization.
Monitoring.
Implementation of program.
Formal
Curriculum
Perceived
Curriculum
Operational
Curriculum
Partially addressed:
Development and
Characteristics, Efficient
Learning Environments,
and Instructional Planning.
Experienced Partially addressed:
Curriculum Foundations, Development
and Characteristics,
Teaching Strategies and
Instructional Planning.
148
Adding more standards.
Developing assessment and
evaluation tools.
Defining program coordinator’s
roles.
Designing PD for coordinators.
Translating materials to be used
by lecturers and participants.
Monitoring use of relevant
subject matter.
Upgrading learning
environment.
Adding more theoretical
knowledge in students'
language.
Adding workshops.
Implementing practicum.
Designing online courses to be
taken in summer.
Implications concerning PDTG curriculum.
The use of Goodlad’s model of curriculum transformation enables revealing how
ideal curricula, which are the most desired, are changed along their path, encountered by
reality, to become formal and experienced. It allows for identifying factors that bring
about such transformation. Some of the factors may strengthen the influence of curriculum
and others may be avoided if considered. This awareness to curriculum transformation
increases the ability to monitor influential factors and reduce the gap between ideal and
experienced.
Defining coordinators’ roles, monitoring program design, offering materials in
participants’ language, aligning program with US standards, and incorporating advanced
milieu could contribute to the achievement of program aims. As teachers attending
certification program expect to be exposed to theoretical and practical aspects of
giftedness and teaching the gifted, relevance of program could be enhanced by micro
teaching and other forms of practicum accompanied by reflection and analyzed based on
acquired theory.
Implications concerning Israeli certification programs.
1. The coordinators’ forum should be utilized to address difficulties in program
design, creating more options for program coordinators to specialize in
certain fields and resume a more significant part in the actual instruction
process. This can also partly address the lack of available lecturers,
specifically exhibited in Type1 programs in peripheral area. Inviting the
lecturers for a number of consecutive lectures or to resume responsibility for
149
an entire cluster can also be considered. It may also help PDTG participants
feel more oriented and create more continuity and coherence.
2. Incorporating practicum into the certification program can take several forms,
depending on availability. Certification program located near pullout center
for gifted students, or self contained classrooms for gifted in regular schools,
can use them as observation and practice teaching locations. When those are
not available, students may be asked to accompany gifted students in the
regular classroom, observe and teach them in small groups, build resource
centers and teach integrative units, use differentiation, acceleration, and
enrich gifted students’ knowledge and develop their competencies.
3. Subject matter relevant to gifted education and upgraded learning
environments within universities and colleges should be monitored by forum.
4. PDTG participants, generally aware of their needs, pointed out certain
weaknesses which need attention. Type 2 program participants facing the
difficulty to cope with two summer programs, can be addressed by rethinking
of courses offered and their contribution to PDTG participants, which may
lead to the elimination of some courses or integration of others. An additional
option could be offering some online courses to be taken during the summer.
5. The Division of gifted and excellent Students in the Ministry of Education
should encourage research and design a special professional development
program for coordinators and program lecturers to better equip them to cater
for PDTG participants who intend to be teachers of gifted. Regarding
150
program design, it is advised to maintain both structures and encourage them
to evolve into graduate programs.
6. As programs evolve, the gradual incorporation of additional US standards
should be considered. Standards already present, and those to be added, are to
be adapted to fit Israeli certification program objectives and requirements.
Once Israeli standards are established, they should be monitored for
applicability.
7. Assessment tools should be developed for PDTG participants to reflect their
progress in certification program, as well as by the Division for Gifted and
Excellent Students for the assessment of program outcomes. Both should be
used regularly to aid in the process of development of certification program.
8. Program designers are additionally advised to raise their awareness of
teachers’ cultural orientations, trying to design a program sensitive to
teachers
possessing
collectivist
orientations,
accustomed
to
more
conventional ways of teaching. This is mainly true for the coming years,
when many more Jewish and Arab pullout center teachers are about to attend
PDTG program, which will become a pre-requisite for teaching gifted
students in Israel.
9. Given that teachers from both cultures stressed the importance of the
teacher's personal and cognitive characteristics, it is recommended that both
dimensions be considered when interviewing teachers for these programs.
151
The program should be closely monitored and evaluated for several years until it is
stabilized. Evaluation tools specifically designed for certification program will supply
solutions to various problems encountered by different types of programs, or other local
difficulties. They will, hopefully, enhance PDTG program impact and create a conceptual
change in teachers’ minds, changing the perception of teacher’s role in the education of
gifted students, and enable constant improvement.
Study Limitations
The study investigated the Israeli certification program taking its initial steps
focusing on the teacher’s role in the education of gifted students in a multicultural society.
It examined the perceptions held by participants concerning their acquisition of the
cognitive aspects represented in the teaching-learning situation, characteristics of teachers
of gifted students, and knowledge and competencies. Participants of the study were
representatives of Jewish and Arab teachers and students working and studying in pullout
centers, teachers participating in PDTG programs, and regular school teachers in Israel.
There are several limitations of this study that need to be considered. Potential study
PDTG participants were part of a group of 95 teachers in the first year of the program,
with sample size of 88, and 68 PDTG participants in the second year, with a smaller
sample size of 57. Most teachers were lost in the study due to personal decision to drop
out. The sample was also reduced in the other two groups of pullout center teachers, and
school teachers, who were lost due to leaving the pullout program or school system, or
being reluctant to answer the same questionnaire twice. The pre-post design in the third
part of the study matched participants’ questionnaires and used a reduced sample that
answered both per-and post-test questionnaires.
152
Given that data were collected by self-report teachers’ and students’ answers
reflected their own perceptions of issues investigated, therefore, it is possible that social
desirability influenced responses regarding knowledge and competencies acquired. In
addition, although teachers and students were offered the opportunity to freely comment
on uniqueness of pullout program, most answers for open-ended question were brief and
were mainly expressed in phrases and points. To deeply asses teachers' ability to teach
gifted, they should be observed in practice.
Suggestions for Future Research
A deeper examination of PDTG program, focusing on difficulties in transformation
of curriculum rising from this study, could facilitate transition and contribute to
effectiveness of program. Utilizing assessment tools specifically designed for the
certification program would enable focusing on aspects as program design, program
coordinator’s role, and program relevance.
A comparison of certification programs in different parts of the world could shed
light on similarities and differences related to cultural orientations, program design and
structure, knowledge acquired, and teachers’ perceptions of their roles as educators of
gifted students. Results could lead to formulating local and international standards for
teacher education.
The study raises crucial issues of the education of gifted students in a multicultural
society, with focus on the teaching-learning situation and the characteristics of teachers of
gifted students. Capturing the nature of implementation of differentiation in pullout
program using direct observation of a sample of classrooms in both cultures and
153
interviewing teachers and students could document the specific pedagogical differences
that might be relevant to understanding the role of culture.
Cultural differences of gifted Jewish and Arab students in respect to impact on
learning could be studied by teaching the same course to both groups of students and
monitoring for ability and achievement. Differences could be investigated relating to
expression style, learning style, interests, and motivation.
Investigating trained teachers’ effectiveness in pullout classrooms utilizing
observations, questionnaires and interviews of both teachers and their students could
contribute to better understanding of the impact of PDTG program. Among suggested
aspects would be use of teaching strategies (promoting high order thinking skills,
enhancing creativity, developing problem solving skills), teaching-learning environment,
and use of motivational techniques.
The education of teachers of gifted taking its initial steps in Israel, and information
enabling a better understanding of different aspects involved, can contribute to its further
development and success.
154
References
Aldrich, P. W., & Nills, C. J. (1989). A special program for highly able rural youth in
grades 5 and 6. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(1), 11-14.
Al-Haj, M. (1995). Kinship and modernization in developing societies: The emergence of
instrumentalized kinship. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 26, 311-328.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New
York: Longman.
Archer, J. (1992). Childhood gender roles: Social context and organization. In H. McGurk
(Ed.), Childhood social development: Contemporary perspectives (pp.31-62). East
Sussexs, U.K.: Lawrence Elbaum Associates.
Bain, S. K., Bourgeois, S. J., & Pappas, D. N. (2003). Linking theoretical models to actual
practice: A survey of teachers in gifted education. Roeper Review, 25(4), 166- 173.
Banks, J. A., & McGee Banks, C. A. (2009). Multicultural education: Issues and
perspectives (7th Ed.). NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Bartnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Towards a fuller
understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85(4), 426453.
Beckwith, A. (1982). Use of the Ross Test as an assessment measure in programs for the
gifted and a comparison study of the Ross Test to individually administered
intelligence tests. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 5(2), 127-140.
155
Ben Zeev, A., & Barzel, G. (2008). Biannual certification program for teachers of gifted
and able students. Oranim Academic College, Tivon. (Hebrew)
Berliner, D. C. (1988). The development of expertise in pedagogy. Washington,
D. C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performances. In J. Mangieri,
& C. Block (Eds). Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students: Diverse
perspectives. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.
Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International
Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 463-482.
Betts, G. T. (1985). Autonomous Learner Model for the Gifted and Talented. Greeley,
Colorado, USA: Autonomous Learning Publications and Specialists.
Betts, G. T., & Neihart, M. (1986). Implementing self-directed learning models for the
gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(4), 174-177.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bransford, J.D., &. Stein, S. B. (1993). The ideal problem solver. (2nd Ed.). New York:
Freeman.
Brown, S. W., Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, E. J., Siegle, D., Zhang, W., & Chen, C. (2005).
Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 4(1), 68-78.
Bryson, M., Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., &
Joram, E. (1991). Going beyond the
problem as given: Problem solving in expert and novice writers. In R. Sternberg &
P. French (Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
156
Carter, K. (1986). A cognitive outcome study to evaluate curriculum for the gifted.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9(1), 41-55.
Chamberlin, M. T., & Chamberlin, S. A. (2010). Enhancing pre-service teacher
development: Field experience with gifted students. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 33(3), 381-416.
Chan, D. (2001). Characteristics and competencies of teachers of gifted learners: The
Hong Kong perspective. Roeper Review, 23(4), 197-201.
Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich P.J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of
physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.
Chi, M .T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.). Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 1 pp. 775).Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Clark, B. (2002). Growing- up gifted, (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merill PrenticeHall.
Clarke, A., & Collins, S. (2007). Complexity science and student teacher supervision.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(2),160-172.
Colangelo, N., Assouline. S. & Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.). (2004). A Nation deceived: How
schools hold back America's brightest students. Templeton National Report on
Acceleration (pp.13-22). Iowa: Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education & Talent
Development. University of Iowa.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E. (2004). Whole grade
acceleration. In N. Colangelo., S. Assouline., & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.). A nation
deceived: How schools hold back America's brightest students. Templeton
157
National Report on Acceleration (pp.77-86). Iowa: Belin-Blank Center for Gifted
Education & Talent Development. University of Iowa.
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2001). Being gifted in school: An introduction to
development, guidance, and teaching. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
College of William and Mary (2009). Center for Gifted Education. Masters program in
gifted education. Williamsburg, VA: U.S.A. Retrieved 20 February, 2009, from
http://cfge.vm.edu/masters.php.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and
evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2003). What every special educator must know: Ethics,
standards, and guidelines for special educators (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: CEC.
Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (1999). The 1998-99 state of the
states gifted and talented report. Denver, CO: Council of State Directors of
Programs for the Gifted.
Cramond, B. (2005). Developing creative thinking. In F. Karnes, & S. Bean (Eds.).
Methods and materials for teaching the gifted and talented (pp. 313-352). Waco,
TX: Prufrock Press.
Croft, L. J. (2003). Teachers of the gifted: gifted teachers. In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis
(Eds.). Handbook of gifted education, (3rd Ed., pp. 60-74). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Cronin, J. (1989). Science teacher beliefs and their influence on curriculum
implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(3), 235-250.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning.
Educational Leadership, 55(5), 6-11.
158
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state
policy and evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved 19
September, 2006, from http:// epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/
Darling-Hammond, L., & MacDonald, M. B. (2000). “Where there is learning there is
hope: The preparation of teachers at the Bank Street College of Education.” In L.
Darling-Hammond (Ed.). Studies of excellence in teacher education: preparation
at the graduate level (pp.1-95). Washington, DC: American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education.
Davidson, J., Davidson, B., &
Vanderkam, L. (2004). Genius denied: How to stop
wasting our brightest young minds; what you and your school can do for your
gifted child. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Delcourt, M. A. B., Cornell, D. G., & Goldberg, M. D. (2007). Cognitive and affective
learning outcomes of gifted elementary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly,
15(4), 359-381.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (2nd Ed., pp.1-42). London: Sage productions.
Dilworth, M. E., & Imig, D. G. (1995). Re-conceptualizing professional teacher
development. The Eric Review, 3(3), 5-11.
Division for Gifted Education (2008/2009). Participation in gifted programs. The
Ministry of Education, Jerusalem. Retrieved 29 February, 2009, from:
http://www.education.gov.il/gifted/ (Hebrew)
159
Division for Gifted and Excellent Students (2009/2010). Programs for gifted students in
Israel. The Ministry of Education, Jerusalem. Retrieved 18 March, 2010, from
http://www.education.gov.il/gifted/ (Hebrew)
Driel, van J. H. Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform
in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158.
Education of the Gifted-Graduate School Programs (2009).On-line resource for graduate
school
information.
Retrieved
20
November,
2009,
from
http://www.gradschools.com/Subject/Education-of-the-Gifted/111.html
Eilam, B. (2002)." Passing Through" a western-democratic teacher education: The
case of Israeli Arabs. Teacher College Record, 104(8), 1656-1701.
Eilam, B. (2003). Jewish and Arab teacher trainee's orientations toward teaching- learning
processes. Teacher Education, 14(2), 169-186.
Eilam, B., & Poyas, Y. (2005). Promoting awareness of the characteristics of classrooms'
complexity: A course curriculum in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 22(3), 337-351.
Eilam, B., & Poyas, Y. (2007). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ awareness to the
complexity of situated pedagogical content knowledge: A case study. Paper
submitted for publication.
Farnan, N., & Grisham, D. L. (2005). Teacher preparation programs graduate highly
qualified novice teachers. In S. Lenski, D. L. Grisham, & L. S. Wold (Eds.),
Literacy teacher preparation (pp. 102-113). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
160
Federal Department of Education, GERRIC & UNSW, (2005). Australian gifted education
online modules. Retrieved 20 November, 2009, from
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/Gifted_E
ducation_Professional_Development_Package.htm
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to teach. In L. Shulman, & G. Sykes (eds.).
Handbook on teaching and policy (pp. 150-170). New York: Longman.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). Educating teachers for work with talented youth. In N. Colangelo,
& G. A. Davis. (Eds.). Handbook of gifted education, (2nd ed., pp. 547-552).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Dai, D.Y. (1997). Gifted students’ attitudes and perceptions of gifted
label, special programs and peer relations. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,
9(10), 15-20.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Huffman, L. (1988). Practicum experiences in an educational program
for teachers of the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12(1), 34-45.
Feldhusen, J., & Moon, S. M. (1992/1993) Grouping gifted students. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 36(2), 63-67.
Feldhusen, J. F., Sayler, M. F., Nielsen, M. E., & Kollof, P. B. (1990). Self concepts of
gifted children in enrichment programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
13(4), 380-387.
Feng, X. A., Van Tassel-Baska, J., Quek, C., Bai, W., & O'Neill, B. (2005).A longitudinal
assessment of gifted students' learning using the Integrated Curriculum Model
(ICM): impacts and perceptions of the William and Mary language arts and science
curriculum. Roeper Review 27(2), 78-84.
161
Fischbein, E. (1984). The Interactions between the formal, the algorithmic, and the
intuitive components in a mathematical activity. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R.
Sträßer, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.). Didactics of mathematics as a scientific
discipline (pp. 231-245). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gagne, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning. Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York.
Gagne, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the
language of the field. Roeper Review, 18, 103–111.
Gagne, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory.
In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Eds.). Handbook of gifted education, (3rd Ed., pp.
60-74). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gallagher, S. (1997). Problem-based learning: Where did it come from, what does it do,
and where is it going? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(4), 332-362.
Gallagher, J., & Harridine, C.C. (1997). Gifted students in the classroom. Roeper Review,
19(3), 132-136.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic
Books.
Gershon, A., & Kohn, J. (2008). Biannual certification program for teachers of gifted and
able students. Section of Professional Development in Education, Education
Department. Hebrew University, Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
Getzels, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of
problem finding in art. Wiley-Inter-science, New York
162
Glickman, E. (1996). Developing teacher thought. Journal of Staff Development, 7(1), 621.
Goodlad, J. I., Klein, M. F., & Tye, K. A. (1979). The domains of curriculum and their
study. In J. I. Goodlad & Associates, Curriculum Inquiry: The study of curriculum
practice (pp.43-76). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Cook, C. R., & Morris, P. (2005). Educational
characteristics of adolescents with gifted academic intrinsic motivation: A
longtitudial investigation from school entry through early adulthood. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 49(2), 172-186.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267-293.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta
Kappan, 84(10), 748-750.
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Shulman, L. (2002). Toward expert
thinking: How curriculum case writing prompts the development of theory-based
professional knowledge in student teachers. Teaching Education, 13(2), 221–245.
Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of
gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 115-121.
Hertzog, N. B. (2003). Impact of gifted programs from students’ perspective. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 47(2), 131-143.
Hollinger, C. L. (1983). Counseling the gifted and talented female adolescent: The
relationship between social self-esteem and traits of instrumentality and
expressiveness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(4), 157-161.
163
Hollinger, C.L., & Fleming, E.S. (1988). Gifted and talented young women: Antecedents
and correlates of life satisfaction. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(2), 254-259.
Humes, C. W., &
Campbell, R. D. (1980). Gifted students: A 15-year longitudinal
study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(3), 129-131.
Jarosewich, T., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Morris, J. (2002). Identifying gifted students using teacher
rating scales: A review of existing instruments. Journal of Psycho-Educational
Assessment, 20(4), 322 -336.
Javits, J. K. (1988). Gifted and Talented Students' Education Act. USA: Department of
Education.
Johnsen, S. K. (Ed.) (2004). Identifying gifted students: A practical guide. Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Johnsen, S., & Goree, K. (2005). Teaching gifted students through independent study. In
F. Karnes, & S. Bean (Eds.). Methods and materials for teaching the gifted and
talented (pp. 379-408). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Johnsen, S., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Robinson, A. (2008). Using the national gifted
education standards for university teacher preparation programs. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Crowin Press.
Karnes, A. F., Stephens, K. R., & Whorton, J. E. (2000). Certification and specialized
competencies for teachers in gifted education programs. Roeper Review, 22(3),
201.
Kaufman, A. S., & Harrison, P. L. (1986). Intelligence tests and gifted assessments: What
are the positives? Roeper Review, 8(3), 154-159.
Keeves, J. P. (1988). Educational research, methodology and measurement. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
164
Kennedy, M. M. (2002). Knowledge and teaching. Teacher and teaching: Theory and
Practice, 8(3/4), 355-370.
Kirschenbaum, R .J. (1998). Dynamic assessment and its use with underserved gifted and
talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(3), 140-147.
Kitano, M. K., Lewis, R. B., Lynch, EW., & Graves, A. W. (1996). Teaching in a
multicultural
classroom:
Teacher
education’s
perspectives.
Equality
and
Excellence in Education, 29(3), 70-77.
Klein, F. M. (1979). Instructional decisions in curriculum. In J. I. Goodlad & Associates,
Curriculum Inquiry: The study of curriculum practice (pp.177-190). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Klein, F. M., Tye, K. A., & Wright, J. E. (1979). A study of schooling: Curriculum. Phi
Delta Kappan, 61(4), 244-248.
Kolloff, M.B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1984). The effects of enrichment on self-concept and
creative thinking. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(2), 53-57.
Kulik, J. A. (2004). Meta-analytic studies of acceleration. In N. Colangelo., S. Assouline.,
& M. U. M. Gross (Eds.). Iowa: A Nation Deceived: How schools hold back
America's brightest students. Templeton National Report on Acceleration. (pp.1322). Iowa: Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education & Talent Development.
University of Iowa.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1992). Programming, grouping and acceleration in rural
school districts: A survey of attitudes and practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2),
112-117.
165
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. (1997). Ability grouping. In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis
(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd Ed., pp. 230-242). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Lee, S. Y.,& Olsewski-Kubilius, P. (2006). A study of instructional methods used in fastpaced classes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(3), 216-235.
Leikin, R. (2006). Learning by teaching: The case of Sieve of Eratosthenes and one
elementary school teacher. In R. Zazkis, & S. Campbell (Eds.), Number theory in
mathematics education: Perspectives and prospects. (pp. 115-140). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Maddux, C. D., Samples-Lachmann, I., & Cummings, R. E. (1985). Preferences of gifted
students for selected teacher characteristics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(4), 160163.
Malka, A. & Convington, M. V. (2005). Perceiving school performance as instrumental to
future goal attainment: Effects on graded performance. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 30(1), 60-80.
Manaster, G. J., Chan, J. C., Watt, C., & Wiehe, J. (1994). Gifted adolescents' attitudes
toward their giftedness: A partial replication. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38 (4), 176178.
Mar’I, S. K. (1974). School and society in the Arab village in Israel. Studies in Education,
4, 85-104. (Hebrew).
166
Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented, Volume 1: Report to the
Congress of the United States by the Commissioner of Education. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D.
Sluyter (Eds.). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications
for educators (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000) Models of emotional intelligence. In R.
J. Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of human intelligence (2nd Ed, pp 396-420). New
York: Cambridge.
Mendez, L. M. R. (2000). Gender roles and achievement-related choices: A comparison of
early adolescent girls in gifted and general education programs. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 24(2), 149-170.
Mendez, L. M. R., & Crawford, K. M. (2002). Gender-role stereotyping and career
aspirations: a comparison of gifted earl adolescent boys and girls. Journal for
Secondary Gifted Education, 13(3), 96-107.
Milgram, R. M. (1979). Perception of teacher behavior in gifted and non-gifted children.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 125-128.
Miller, R. B., DeBaker, T. K., & Green, B. A. (1999). Perceived instrumentality and
academics: the link to task valuing. Journal of Instrumental Psychology, 26(4),
250-260.
Mills, C. J. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: teacher
background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(4), 272281.
167
Ministry of Education. (2004). Steering committee report on the advancement of gifted
education. Department for Gifted and Talented Students, Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
Ministry of Education. (2010). Director-general regulations on gifted education. Division
for Gifted and Excellent Students, Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
Moon, S. M. (1991). The PACE Program: A high school follow-up study. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Moon, T. R., & Callahan, C. M. (2001). Curricular modifications, family outreach, and a
mentoring program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24(4), 305-321.
Moon, S. M., Feldhusen, J. F., & Dillion, D. R. (1994). Long-term effects of an
enrichment program based on the Purdue Three-Stage Model. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 38(1), 38-48.
Nagy, G., Trautwein, U., Baumert, J. Koller, O, & Garret, J. (2006). Gender and course
selection in upper secondary education: Effects of academic self-concept and
intrinsic value. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(4), 323-345.
Neilsen, M.E. (1984). Evaluation of gifted rural program: Assessment of attitudes, selfconcepts, and critical thinking skills of high ability students in grades 3- 12. West
Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Northern Kentucky University (NKU) (2009). Gifted and talented education endorsement.
Retrieved 23 August, from
http://coehs.nku.edu/docs/GiftedTalentedEndors.pdf.
Nussbaum, J., & Novick, N. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict, and
accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science, 11,
183-200.
168
Ohio State University: College of Education and Human Ecology (2009). M.A. degree in
special education: Specialization in gifted education. Retrieved 23August, from
http://www.coe.ohio-state.edu/PAES/newacademic/speced/gifted.htm.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1998). Early entrance to college: Students' stories. Journal of
secondary Gifted Education, 10(1), 226-247.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2003). Special summer and Saturday programs for gifted students.
In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Eds.). Handbook of gifted education, (3rd Ed., pp.
219-228). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Oyserman, D. (1993). The lens of personhood: Viewing the self and others in multicultural
society. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 993-1009.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Perkins, D. (1998). What is understanding? In M. S. Wiske (Ed.), Teaching for
understanding: Linking research with practice (pp. 39-57). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2001). Professional psychology and the gifted: Emerging practice
opportunities. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32(2), 175-182.
Piirto, J. (1999). Talented children and adults: Their development and education (2nd
Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Pólya, G. (1945; 1957) (2nd Ed.). How to solve it. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of
a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education,
66(2), 211-227.
169
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have
to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
Pyryt, M. C. (2003). Technology and the gifted. In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Eds.).
Handbook of gifted education, (3rd Ed., pp.582-589). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J. M, & Purcell, J. H. (1998). Curriculum
Compacting and Achievement Test Scores: What Does the Research Say?
Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(2), 123-29.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta
Kappan, 60(3), 180-184, 261.
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). New York: Cambridge University
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive
plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1991). The reform movement and the quiet crisis in
education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(1), 26-35.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1994). Research related to the schoolwide enrichment
model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 2 -14.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide
for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2003). The schoolwide enrichment model: Creative and
productive giftedness. In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Eds.). Handbook of gifted
education, (3rd Ed., pp. 184-203). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
170
Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., Hartman, R. K., & Westberg,
K. L. (2002). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students.
Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.). Handbook
of research on teaching. (4th ed., pp. 905-947). Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.
Rogers, K. B. (2002). Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers. Roeper
Review, 24(3), 102-107.
Rowley, J. (2003). Teacher effectiveness in the education of gifted and talented students:
A comparison of teachers trained, not trained and undertaking training in gifted
education. Un-published dissertation. University of New South Wales, Australia.
Sabers, D., Cushing, K., & Berliner, D. C. (1991). Differences among teachers in a task
characterized by simultaneity, multidimensionality and immediacy. American
Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 63-88.
Sack, J. J. (2008). Commonplace intersections within a high school mathematics
leadership institute. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 189-199.
Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. ( 1994). How to construct your own survey. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, 9, 185-211.
Scheffler, I. (1965). Conditions of knowledge. An introduction to epistemology and
education. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman & Company.
Schiever, S. W., & Maker, C. J. (1997). Enrichment and Acceleration: An overview
171
and new directions. In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Eds.). Handbook of gifted
education, (2nd ed., pp. 113-125). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Schlichter, C. L. (1986). Talents unlimited: An in-service education model for teaching
thinking skills. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(3), 119 – 123.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition and sense making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.). Handbook for
research on math teaching and learning (pp. 334-370). New York: Macmillan.
Schoyer, S. (2008). Assessment of certification program for teachers of gifted at Oranim.
Oranim Academic College Research and Assessment Authority, Tivon. (Hebrew)
Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical: Translation into curriculum. School Review, 8(4)1,
501-522.
Schwab, J. J. (1978). Education and the structure of discipline. In I. Westbury, & N. J.
Wilkof (Eds.), Science curriculum and liberation: Selective assays (pp. 229-272).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Seginer, R. (2005).
Adolescent future orientation: Integrational transmission and
interviewing tactics in culture and family settings. In W. Fridelmeier, P.
Chakkarath, & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Culture and human Development: The
importance of cross-cultural research to the social sciences (pp. 231-251). Hove,
UK: Psychology Press.
Seginer, R. & Mahajna, S. (2004). Looking forward: Ecological perspectives on
adolescent future orientation. Unpublished manuscript. University of Haifa. Israel.
Seginer, R., Karayanni, M., & Ma'ri, M. M. (1990). Adolescent attitudes towards women's
roles: A comparison between Israeli Jews and Arabs. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 14, 119-133.
172
Seginer, R., Shoyer, S., & Mahajna, S. (2008). Diversity and commonality: Relationships
with parents and peers among Israeli Arab and Jewish adolescents. In B. Schwartz
(Chair), the role of parents and peers for adolescent development: a cross-cultural
perspective. Symposium conducted at the 12th Biennial meeting of the society for
research on adolescence. Chcago, IL.
Seginer, R., Vermulst, A., & Shoyer, S. (2004). The indirect link between perceived
parenting and adolescent future orientation: A multiple-step model. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(4), 365-378.
Shields, C. M. (1995). A comparison study of student attitudes and perceptions in
homogeneous and heterogeneous classrooms. Roeper Review, 17(4), 234-238.
Shields, P. M., Marsh, J. A., & Adelman, N. E. (1998). Evaluation of NSF’s Statewide
Systemic Initiatives (SSI) Program: The SSIs’ impacts on classroom practice.
Menlo Park, CA: SRI.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Southern, T. W., &
Jones, E. D. (2004). Types of acceleration. In N. Colangelo., S.
Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.). A nation deceived: How schools hold back
America's brightest students. Templeton National Report on Acceleration (pp. 512). Iowa: Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education & Talent Development.
University of Iowa.
173
Spiro, R. J., Culson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive
flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In V.
L. Patel, & G. J. Gvoen (Eds.). Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive science
society (pp. 375-383). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Starko, A. J. (1988). Effects of the revolving door identification model on creative
productivity and self- efficacy. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(3), 291-297.
Stepien, W. J. & Pyke, S. L. (1997). Designing problem-based learning units. Journal for
the Education of the Gifted, 20(4), 380-400.
Stemberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1988). The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary psychological
perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Cognitive Psychology. Orlando FL: Harcourt Brace College
Publishers.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York: Plume.
Sternberg, R. J.
(1998). Abilities are forms of developing expertise. Educational
Researcher, 27(3), 11–20.
Sternberg, R. J., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2001). Complex cognition: The psychology of human
thought. New York. Oxford University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Horvat, J. (1995). A prototype view of expert teaching. Educational
Researcher, 24(6), 9-17.
Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E.L. (1998). Teaching triarchically improves
school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 374-384.
174
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park. CA: Sage.
Suleiman, M. A. (2001). Parental style and Arab adolescents' future orientation.
Unpublished master's thesis, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Swiatek, M. A., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2003). Elementary and middle school student
participation in gifted programs: are gifted students underserved? Gifted Child
Quarterly, 47(2), 118-129.
Terman, L.M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Mental and physical traits of a thousand
gifted children (Vol. I). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius: The gifted child grows
up (Vol. 4). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius: The gifted group at
mid-life (Vol. 5). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Renzulli, J., Bums, D. E., Leppien, J. H., & Purcell, J. H.
(2001). The parallel curriculum: A model for planning curriculum for gifted
students and whole classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Trahan, C. (2002). Implications of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 for teacher
education. Eric Digest. Washington D.C. Eric Clearinghouse on Teaching and
Teacher Education.
Treffinger, D. J. (1995). Assessing creativity in educational settings. Creative Learning
Today, 5(3), 2-5.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
175
U.S. Department of Education: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993).
National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Turin, O., & Schleyer, E. J. (2008). Biannual certification program for teachers of gifted
and able students. Gordon Academic College, Haifa. (Hebrew)
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1986). Effective curriculum and instructional models for talented
students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(4), 164-169.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2000). The on-going dilemma of effective identification practices in
gifted education. The Communicator, 31(2), 39-41.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2003). What matters in curriculum for gifted learners: Reflections
on theory, research and practice. In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Eds.). Handbook
of gifted education, (3rd Ed., pp. 60-74). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2004). Creativity as an elusive factor in giftedness. Updates,
College of William & Mary. Virginia, USA.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2005). Gifted programs and services: What are the nonnegotiables?
Practice into Theory, 44(2), 90-97.
Van Tassel-Baska, J., Avery, L. D., Little, C., & Hughes, C. (2000). An evaluation of the
implementation of curriculum innovation: The impact of the William and Mary
units on schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23(2), 244-272.
Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Johnsen, S. K. (2007). Teacher education standards for the field
of gifted education: A vision of coherence for personnel preparation in the 21 st
century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 182-205.
176
Van Tassel-Baska, J., Mac Farlane, B., & Feng, A. X. (2006). A cross-cultural study of
exemplary teaching: What do Singapore and United States secondary gifted class
teachers say? Gifted and Talented International, 21(2), 38-47.
Van Tassel-Baska, J., Quek, C., & Feng, A. X. (2007). The development and use of
structure teacher observation scale to assess differentiated best practice. Roeper
Review, 29(2), 84-92.
Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted
learners (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Vialle, W. & Quigley, S. (2002). Does the teacher of the gifted need to be gifted? Gifted
and Talented International, 17(2), 85 – 90.
Vidergor, H. E, & Reiter, S. (2008). Frameworks for nurturing gifted students in Israel:
Satisfaction with school. Gifted and Talented International, 23(1), 38-49.
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning
and Instruction,4(1), 45-69.
Vurgen, Y. & Fildman, I. (2009). The education system in Israel. A report submitted to the
Education Committee: Knesset research and information center. (Hebrew)
Weiss, I. R., Montgomery, D. L., Ridgway. C. J., & Bond, S. L. (1998). Local systemic
change through teacher enhancement: Year three cross-site report. Chapel Hill,
Wetherill, K., Burton, G., Calhoun, D., & Thomas, C. (2001/2002).Redefining
professional career development in the twenty-first century: A systemic approach.
High School Journal, 85(2), 54–66. NC: Horizon Research.
Winner, E. (1997). Exceptionally high intelligence and schooling. American Psychologist,
52(1), 1070-1081.
177
Zeichner K (2006). Reflections of a university based teacher educator on the future of
college and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,
57(3), 326-340.
Zeidner, M., & Schleyer, E. J. (1999a). Evaluating the effects of full-time vs. part-time
educational programs for the gifted: Affective outcomes and policy considerations.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(4), 413-427.
Zeidner, M., & Schleyer, E .J. (1999b). Educational setting and psychological adjustment
of gifted students. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 25(1), 33-46.
Zoran, Y., & Atir, I. (2008). Biannual certification program for teachers of gifted and able
students. Section of Professional Development in Education, Education
Department. Tel- Aviv University. (Hebrew)
Zoran, Y., & Kasovitch, D. (2008). Biannual certification program for teachers of gifted
and able students. Section of Professional Development in Education, Education
Department. Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva. (Hebrew)
Zorman, R, Rachmel, S. & Shaked, I. (2004). Principles for developing unique programs
for gifted students. Ministry of Education, Department of Gifted Education.
Jerusalem, Israel. (Hebrew)
Zuzovsky, R. (2001). Teachers’ professional development: an Israeli Perspective.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 24(2), 133-142.
178
Appendix A: Teachers' Questionnaire
A. State exactly, the differences between the instruction or a course for gifted students and
instruction in a regular classroom.
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
B. The following statements describe the characteristics and classroom practices of teachers
of gifted and talented students. Read each statement carefully and circle the number that
seems appropriate. Indicate to what extent it is correct in your opinion:
Completely
Incorrect
Incorrect
Not So
Quite
Correct
Correct
Correct
Completely
Correct
The teacher will:
Focus on the subject and not
get carried away
Teach material at a fast pace
Demand high grades
Be able to make meaningful
connections between ideas
originating in different
subjects
Often check students’
notebooks
and homework
Be knowledgeable in subjects
he/she does not teach
Present diverse modes of
solving a problem
Invite experts for lectures and
discussions
Teach a subject with no
connection to other subjects
Not reject students' opinions
Organize visits to museums
and labs
Respect the students
Be aware of differences
among students
Lecture most of the time
Stimulate students' curiosity
Test students orally by asking
them to the board
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
179
Completely
Incorrect
Incorrect
Not So
Quite
Correct
Correct
Correct
Completely
Correct
The teacher will:
Strive for outstanding
achievements
Assign creative work
Send students to regional
and national competitions
Assign homework almost
every lesson
Ask students to memorize and
recite the material
Be creative
Show a single method for
solving a problem
Encourage students to always
think in the same way
Hold science competitions
among students
Assign independent research
projects
Use rich language
Use movies, songs, objects,
and games for illustration
Be aware of students’
different learning modes
Assign cooperative work
during class
Incorporate computer work in
the studies
Not assign research projects
Occasionally have a personal
conversation with each
student
Encourage students’ self
evaluation
Encourage the presentation of
research and creative projects
in the classroom
Grade or evaluate students on
each task
Invite parents to school
science fairs
Create good personal relations
with students
Present the use of acquired
knowledge in new situations
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
180
Completely
Incorrect
Incorrect
Not So
Quite
Correct
Correct
Correct
Completely
Correct
The teacher will:
Teach the same topic from
different points of view
Teach each subject in a single
way
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Part Two:
Please circle or fill in the relevant information:
1. Gender: A. Male
2. Culture:
B. Female
A. Jewish
B. Arab
3. Location of certification program:
A. Tel Aviv University
B. Oranim Academic College
C. Ben-Gurion University
D. The Hebrew University
E. Gordon Academic College
181
Appendix B: Students' Questionnaire
A. State exactly, the differences between the instruction or a course for gifted students and
instruction in a regular classroom.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
B. The following statements describe the characteristics and classroom practices of teachers
of gifted and talented students. Read each statement carefully and circle the number that
seems appropriate. Indicate to what extent it is correct in your opinion:
Completely
Incorrect
Incorrect
Not So
Quite
Correct
Correct
Correct
Completely
Correct
The teacher will:
Focus on the subject and not
get carried away
Teach material at a fast pace
Demand high grades
Be able to make meaningful
connections between ideas
originating in different
subjects
Often check students’
notebooks
and homework
Be knowledgeable in subjects
he/she does not teach
Present diverse modes of
solving a problem
Invite experts for lectures and
discussions
Teach a subject with no
connection to other subjects
Not reject students' opinions
Organize visits to museums
and labs
Respect the students
Be aware of differences
among students
Lecture most of the time
Stimulate students' curiosity
Test students orally by asking
them to the board
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
182
Completely
Incorrect
Incorrect
Not So
Quite
Correct
Correct
Correct
Completely
Correct
The teacher will:
Strive for outstanding
achievements
Assign creative work
Send students to regional
and national competitions
Assign homework almost
every lesson
Ask students to memorize and
recite the material
Be creative
Show a single method for
solving a problem
Encourage students to always
think in the same way
Hold science competitions
among students
Assign independent research
projects
Use rich language
Use movies, songs, objects,
and games for illustration
Be aware of students’
different learning modes
Assign cooperative work
during class
Incorporate computer work in
the studies
Not assign research projects
Occasionally have a personal
conversation with each
student
Encourage students’ self
evaluation
Encourage the presentation of
research and creative projects
in the classroom
Grade or evaluate students on
each task
Invite parents to school
science fairs
Create good personal relations
with students
Present the use of acquired
knowledge in new situations
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
183
Completely
Incorrect
Incorrect
Not So
Quite
Correct
Correct
Correct
Completely
Correct
The teacher will:
Teach the same topic from
different points of view
Teach each subject in a single
way
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Part2:
The following statements relate to courses in your own program.
Read each statement carefully and circle the appropriate number.
Subject
I would like more
courses
I would like more
elective options
I would like more
science courses
I would like more
art courses
I would like more
computer courses
I would like more
math courses
I would like more
language courses
I prefer studying
courses in only one
subject area
I would like to
choose the courses I
take each year
I would like more
courses in varied
subjects
Completely
Correct
Correct
Quite
Correct
Not So
Correct
Incorrect
Completely
Incorrect
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
184
54. Write the subjects you would like to add:
A. ___________________
C. ________________________
B. ___________________
D. ________________________
55a. How did the program contribute to your learning abilities?
(You can mark up to 5 statements).
A. I think better now
B. I say things better and more clearly
C. I take on learning assignments
D. There is no need to remind me to carry out assignments
E. I can perform independent research
F. I have a wider range of knowledge now
G. I think in a more creative way
H. My interest and curiosity have increased
I. I would like to succeed in my studies more than before
J. I can study more material in a shorter time
K. I am now more prepared for high school and university
55b. Put the statements you have marked in the correct order.
(1= the most important ability, and 5= the least important one).
1. ________________________________________________________
2. ________________________________________________________
3. ________________________________________________________
4. ________________________________________________________
5. ________________________________________________________
56. How did the program contribute to your social life?
____________________________________________________________________
185
Part 3:
1. Grade Level:
A. Elementary
B. Junior high School (Middle School)
2. Gender:
A. Male
B. Female
3. Culture:
A. Jewish
B. Arab
4. How long have you participated in the gifted program?
A. Less than a year
B. One year
C. Two years
D. Three years
E. Four years
F. Five years or more
5. How satisfied were you from the program/ class you studied in?
A. Very satisfied
B. Satisfied
C. Not so satisfied
D. Not satisfied at all
186
Appendix C: Collectivism Questionnaire
Read each statement carefully and circle the number that seems appropriate.
(1- I totally disagree and 6 - I totally agree).
Totally
Disagree
Totally
Agree
What is good for my group is good for
me
When I meet someone from my nation or
group I know we will have common
goals and aspirations
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Without group loyalty there is no self
actualization
1
2
3
4
5
6
I am willing to give up my personal
opinion in order to belong to the group
1
2
3
4
5
6
When I try to understand an event, I
immediately weigh its ramifications for
my group
1
2
3
4
5
6
If I lose touch with my group, I will be a
different person
1
2
3
4
5
6
If you know the group I belong to, you
know who I am
1
2
3
4
5
6
When I meet someone from another
group, I know he/she won’t be able to
understand me
1
2
3
4
5
6
In the end, a person feels closer to
members of his own group than to others
1
2
3
4
5
6
A mature person understands that he
must act in accordance with the honor of
the group
1
2
3
4
5
6
A man of character helps his group
before all else
1
2
3
4
5
6
187
Appendix D: PDTG Program Contributions Questionnaire
The following statements describe various aspects taught in certification programs for
teachers of gifted. Read each statement carefully and circle the number that seems
appropriate.
A. Indicate what you currently know concerning gifted education:
Don’t
Know
Know
1. Definitions of giftedness
1
2
3
4
2. Characteristics of the gifted child
1
2
3
4
3. The social-emotional development
1
2
3
4
4. The twice-exceptional gifted child
1
2
3
4
5. Identification tools and methods
1
2
3
4
6. Programs and frameworks for gifted
1
2
3
4
7. Enhancing creativity
1
2
3
4
8. Models for developing thinking and
1
2
3
4
9. Instructional strategies for gifted
1
2
3
4
10. Curriculum models for designing programs
1
2
3
4
11. Developing challenging learning environments
1
2
3
4
12. Assessment of curriculum
1
2
3
4
13. Various assessment tools to adjust
1
2
3
4
14. Professional and ethical practice
1
2
3
4
15. Collaboration with families, teachers of gifted
1
2
3
4
of the gifted child
in Israel and worldwide
problem solving skills
instruction and learning progress
and other educators
188
Indicate what you are currently capable of performing:
Completely Incorrect Not so Quite Correct Completely
Incorrect
16. Identify a gifted child in the
Correct Correct
Correct
1
2
3
4
5
6
17. Better communicate with gifted
1
2
3
4
5
6
18. Plan a lesson or unit in a pullout program
1
2
3
4
5
6
19. Teach a lesson or unit in a pullout program
1
2
3
4
5
6
20. Design creative activities for gifted in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
23. Design activities for enhancing creativity
1
2
3
4
5
6
24. Use assessment/evaluation tools suitable
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
regular classroom
regular class
21. Design creative activities for gifted in my
subject domain
22. Design activities for developing thinking
skills
for instruction
25. Design a multi-disciplinary unit or course
based on a certain curriculum model
26. Indicate your satisfaction with certification program:
1. Completely satisfied 2. Satisfied 3. Not so satisfied 4. Completely not satisfied
27. Indicate to what extent you feel ready to teach gifted students:
1. Completely ready 2. Ready
3. Not so ready
189
4.Completely not ready
Appendix E: Core Interview Questions
Head of Division (deep interview)

Please tell me about gifted education in Israel.

Could you tell me about PDTG program?
Program coordinators and lecturers (semi-structured interview)

Why and how did you get to be involved in this field?

Describe the training you received (courses, lectures, in-service PD).

How was the idea, of certification program for teachers of the gifted, formed?
(Connection to research, models, practices throughout the world).

What are the objectives of the certification program?

What frameworks are teachers trained to work in?

Please tell me about your certification program
(Special features, structure, selecting program coordinators, number of
participants, selecting content, courses, practice teaching, projects).

In your opinion, how much (in percentage) is devoted in the different programs to:
General content (psychology and gifted education), pedagogy and practicum?

A teacher completing the program:
Should know …………….
Should understand………..
Should be able to ……….

In retrospect of a few years' practice: What were the difficulties?

What are future prospects? How will they be applied? What are the future
changes? Is there a follow up study of teachers completing the program?

Which direction will the program evolve in?
(M.A., courses in G/T education for B.A.)

What options are teachers completing the program offered in the various
frameworks?

What evaluation and assessment procedures are used by you and/or the Ministry
of Education?
190