Group Work with Gifted
Running Head: PARENTS' AND TEACHERS' DIFFERING VIEWS
Parents' and Teachers' Differing Views of Group Work with Gifted Students
Katie Saunders
Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology
McGill University, Montreal
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MA in Educational Psychology
Specialization in School/Applied Child Psychology
© 2004, Katie Saunders
1+1
Library and
Archives Canada
Bibliothèque et
Archives Canada
Published Heritage
Branch
Direction du
Patrimoine de l'édition
395 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A ON4
Canada
395, rue Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A ON4
Canada
Your file Votre référence
ISBN: 0-494-06528-1
Our file Notre référence
ISBN: 0-494-06528-1
NOTICE:
The author has granted a nonexclusive license allowing Library
and Archives Canada to reproduce,
publish, archive, preserve, conserve,
communicate to the public by
telecommunication or on the Internet,
loan, distribute and sell th es es
worldwide, for commercial or noncommercial purposes, in microform,
paper, electronic and/or any other
formats.
AVIS:
L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive
permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives
Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver,
sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public
par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter,
distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans
le monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres,
sur support microforme, papier, électronique
et/ou autres formats.
The author retains copyright
ownership and moral rights in
this thesis. Neither the thesis
nor substantial extracts from it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author's
permission.
L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur
et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse.
Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de
celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement
reproduits sans son autorisation.
ln compliance with the Canadian
Privacy Act some supporting
forms may have been removed
from this thesis.
Conformément à la loi canadienne
sur la protection de la vie privée,
quelques formulaires secondaires
ont été enlevés de cette thèse.
While these forms may be included
in the document page count,
their removal does not represent
any loss of content from the
thesis.
Bien que ces formulaires
aient inclus dans la pagination,
il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant.
•••
Canada
Group Work with Gifted
2
Abstract
In a previous study by our research group, parents and teachers of gifted children
disagreed about the importance of group work in the inquiry-based classroom, with
parents rating group work as less important than did teachers (Syer & Shore, 2001). The
purpose of the present study was to attempt to understand this difference of opinion.
Parents (n
=
15), teachers (n
=
Il), and a group who were both parents and teachers (n =
5) of gifted children responded to a researcher-designed telephone interview. Teachers
perceived parents as competitive and grade-oriented. Parents themselves, however,
reported that their opinions of group work were based on their children's negative
experiences. Teachers reported that their opinions were affected by their pedagogical
knowledge regarding group work. Although parents' and teachers' opinions differed, they
were aware of each other's point ofview.
Group Work with Gifted
3
Résumé
Dans une étude antérieure effectuée par notre groupe de recherche, les parents et
enseignants d'enfants doués étaient en désaccord quant à l'importance du travail en
groupe dans un environnement pédagogique d'enquête, les parents y accordant moins
d'importance que les enseignants (Syer et Shore, 2001). La présente étude cherche à
comprendre cette différence d'opinion. Des parents (n
= 15), des enseignants d'enfants
doués (n = Il), et un groupe mixte (n = 5) ont répondu à une entrevue téléphonique
conçue par le chercheur. Selon les enseignants, les parents sont compétitifs et axés sur les
résultats scolaires. Les parents rapportent que leurs opinions du travail en groupe
découlent des expériences négatives de leurs enfants. Les enseignants ont rapporté que
leurs propres opinions sont affectées par leurs connaissances pédagogiques concernant le
travail en groupe. Quoique les opinions des parents et des enseignants sont différentes,
chaque groupe était conscient du point de vue de l'autre.
Group Work with Gifted
4
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, 1 would like to thank my advisor, Prof. Bruce M. Shore, for his
unwavering support and guidance over the past two years. His involvement throughout
the preparation ofthis thesis has been invaluable. 1 would also like to thank the members
of the High Ability and Inquiry Research Team for their assistance and friendship,
especially Cassidy Syer for her help coding transcripts. Thank you to Dr. Marcia A. B.
Delcourt for her feedback on an early version of the interview, which lead to positive
changes and additions. AIso, thank you to my family and friends for their patience and
support. Most especially, thank you to Jarrett Stewart for aIl of the little things he does to
make my life easier. FinaIly, 1 would like to thank the members of the National
Association for Gifted Children who took part in this study. Without them, this thesis
would not have been possible. This research was completed with the assistance of a
Master's Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada.
Group Work with Gifted
5
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................ 2
Résumé ................................................................................................................................ 3
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 4
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................. 5
Chapter 1.............................................................................................................................. 8
Review of the Literature .................................................................................................. 8
Inquiry-Based Leaming ............................................................................................... 8
Cooperative Learning ................................................................................................ 10
Ability Grouping ........................................................................................................ 12
Faimess ...................................................................................................................... 13
The Present Study ...................................................................................................... 13
Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 14
Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................................ 17
Method ........................................................................................................................... 17
Participants ................................................................................................................ 17
Materials .................................................................................................................... 17
Procedure ................................................................................................................... 18
Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................................ 21
Results and Discussion .................................................................................................. 21
Concem for Entire Class versus One's Own Child ................................................... 23
Lack of Beneficiai Educational Opportunities for Gifted Students ........................... 26
Bases for Parents' Negative Opinions ....................................................................... 31
Group Work with Gifted
6
Teachers' Education and Theoretical Knowledge .................................................... .32
Faimess in the Classroom .......................................................................................... 34
Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................................ 37
Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 37
Summary of the Results ................................................................................................. 37
Connections with Previous Research ............................................................................. 38
Inquiry-Based Leaming ............................................................................................. 38
Grouping Practices .................................................................................................... 39
Faimess ...................................................................................................................... 41
Contribution and Implications ....................................................................................... 42
Limitations and Future Directions ................................................................................. 43
References .......................................................................................................................... 45
APPENDIX A: Consent Form ........................................................................................... 48
APPENDIX B: Interview .................................................................................................. 50
APPENDIX C: Ethical Approval Form ............................................................................. 53
Group Work with Gifted
7
List of Tables
Table 1
Frequencies of Answers to "Is Group Work Important for Social,
Emotional and Academic Development?". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....
Table 2
22
Frequencies of Factors Motivating Parents' Negative Opinions of Group
Work...................................................................................
24
Table 3
Frequencies of Preferences for Group ofIndividual Grades... ...... ..... .....
25
Table 4
Frequencies of Answers to "What is your General Opinion of Group
Work?"......... ......... ............ ............... ......... .........................
Table 5
28
Frequencies of Answers to "Does your Opinion of Group Work Change if
it is in General Education Classes or Gifted Classes?" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29
Table 6
Frequencies of Types of Groups Respondents were Picturing................
Table 7
Frequencies of Factors Motivating Teachers' Positive Opinions of Group
31
Work ................................................................................... 33
Group Work with Gifted
8
Chapter 1
Review of the Literature
Why do parents and teachers of gifted students disagree about the importance of
group work? This difference of opinion became apparent through a previous study
conducted by our research group. In 200 1, we contacted parents and teachers of gifted
children through a part of the mailing list that we had purchased from the National
Association for Gifted Children (NAGC). Parents and teachers who participated in that
study differed in their opinions about the importance of group-Ieaming activities within
an inquiry-based classroom (Syer & Shore, 2001). Parents ranked group work as being
relatively less important than did teachers. Parents also ranked the reporting of findings
back to the group as less important than did teachers.
The purpose of the current study is to further investigate and seek to understand
this parent and teacher difference of opinion about the importance of group work in an
inquiry environment, and the possibility that the child could be caught in the middle of a
difference that could affect the development of values, attitudes, and pedagogical
preferences.
Inquiry-based learning. Inquiry-based leaming provides the opportunity for
students to engage in such activities as "making observations, posing questions,
examining books and other sources of information to see what is already known, planning
investigations, reviewing what is already known in light of experimental evidence,
proposing answers and explanations, and communicating the results" (National Research
Council, 1996). In this type ofteaching and leaming, a substantial part ofleamers'
experience is based on their own interests and curiosity. In contrast to traditional teaching
Group Work with Gifted
9
methods, inquiry-based curriculum is much more leamer-centered, and the role ofthe
teacher changes in large part from that of a distributor of knowledge to a facilitator of
leaming in the classroom (Llewellyn, 2002). Teachers and leamers work together to
construct parts of the curriculum, plan and execute solutions for their questions, and share
and review their results. Tasks are carried out in a manner that resembles real-life
interactions, and therefore group work is often used as a way for students to leam from
each other, share and challenge ideas, and construct knowledge together (Llewellyn,
2002).
While inquiry-based leaming is appropriate for aIl students, it has been
recommended as particularly beneficial for students who are highly able. Components of
inquiry can be found in many educational approaches that are recommended for use with
gifted students. The most widely known contemporary example of an inquiry-based
leaming model in gifted education is probably a "Type III" Enrichment Triad activity as
developed by Renzulli (1977). In Type III activities, individual students or small groups
engage in research investigations in areas of personal interest. Students pose questions,
gather data, solve problems, and share a final product with an appropriate audience. This
process is similar to how a professional would carry out research and present his or her
results. In Betts's Autonomous Learner Model, students also create unique products for
real audiences (Maker & Nielson, 1995). Other characteristics of inquiry-based education,
such as students' opportunity to choose activities based on their own interests and
readiness, have also been advocated as important components of educational programs for
gifted students (Smutny, 2003). Because inquiry-based education often involves students
Group Work with Gifted 10
working together in groups, research on group work with respect to gifted students is
worthy ofreview.
Cooperative learning. Although cooperative leaming is only one type of group
leaming, most research on grouping with regard to gifted students has come from the
cooperative leaming literature. Cooperative leaming involves several specifie
characteristics that make it unique from traditional group work. The main components of
effective cooperative leaming, according to Johnson and Johnson (1992), are that students
promote one another' s leaming by helping, sharing, and encouraging. They are intended
to be accountable to do their fair share of the work, they practice the required skills for
the group to ensure the success of each member, and they regularly process how
effectively the group is functioning.
A great deal of this literature focuses on the effectiveness of cooperative leaming
for low- and average-ability students. Such students often benefit from the expertise of
the high-ability child in their group. For this reason, sorne proponents of cooperative
leaming advise that groups should be heterogeneous, usually being composed of one lowability student, two average-ability students, and one high-ability student (Slavin, 1990).
Cooperative leaming advocates such as Johnson and Johnson (1992) and Slavin
(1990) argued that gifted children also bene fit from cooperative leaming because, by
teaching the information to others, understanding and retention are enhanced in the
explainer. They also argued that this instructional methùd is effective in reducing peer
rejection and isolation for gifted students, although there is no evidence that gifted
children are more at risk of such social problems than are other students (Colangelo &
Davis, 2003).
Group W ork with Gifted Il
Experts on the education of the gifted disagree with assertions made by
cooperative learning advocates. First and foremost, teachers of the gifted recommend that
gifted students be grouped homogeneously for academic success (Robinson, 1990).
Because gifted students often already know the material being learned in class, being
grouped with other high-ability students allows them the opportunity to progress to more
challenging work. In heterogeneous groups they are not given this time for acceleration,
that is known to have a positive effect on the achievement and attitude of gifted students
(Robinson, 1990). Educators of the gifted believe that the curriculum in most cooperative
learning is not sufficiently challenging for bright students (Coleman, Gallagher, &
Nelson, 1993) and that they are bored in this learning situation (Feldhusen & Moon,
1992). Not only might bright children become unmotivated in cooperative learning, but
they also miss out on educational opportunities that are beneficial to them. For instance,
when grouped with other high-ability students, gifted students exchange constructive
types of knowledge and prosocial feedback significantly more frequently than
heterogeneously mixed gifted and nongifted youth (Lando & Schneider, 1997).
According to teachers of the gifted, another problem with the heterogeneous
grouping that is normally used in cooperative learning is that gifted students often serve
the function of "exp lainer" (Robinson, 1990). Cooperative learning supporters view this
as a way for high-ability children to better learn and retain material; experts in gifted
education believe that this arrangement fosters exploitation of the gifted student
(Coleman et al., 1993): AlI students have the right to an appropriately challenging
education, and too frequently or routinely playing the role of junior teacher seems to be
inappropriate for any student.
Group Work with Gifted 12
In addition to the contradictions in the cooperative learning literature, the research
on cooperative learning has not focused specifically on gifted learners (Robinson, 1990).
Nonetheless, sorne authors have proceeded to generalize research results to this
population, so one must cautiously interpret results supporting the use of cooperative
learning with gifted students.
Ability grouping. Concern about the fairness of other grouping practices is also
apparent in the literature. The grouping ofhigh-ability students together (abilitygrouping) has received harsh criticism by those who believe it to be elitist or unfair to
other students (Slavin, 1990). Although permanent tracking of students with different
abilities is not ideal, flexible ability grouping has been shown to produce achievement
gains for students of all ability levels (Tieso, 2003). Godwin, Kemerer, Martinez, and
Ruderman (1998) reported that when schools are segregated by class and ethnicity,
educational opportunity is less equal, which, in turn, leads to negative consequences for
student learning. Those who oppose ability-grouping may therefore believe that by
segregating students of differing ability levels, students will fail to bene fit from collective
work with others who are different from themselves. However, research on leaming under
conditions of ability grouping has consistently shown that average- and low-ability
students do not suffer when classes are grouped by ability, and that achievement scores
actually increase when this type of grouping is used (Tieso, 2003). Kulik and Kulik
(1992), who conducted a meta-analysis of findings on grouping programs, agreed that
grouping high-ability students together instead of in mixed-ability groups leads to
increased academic achievement for all students, and most markedly for high-ability
students.
Group Work with Gifted 13
Fairness. The fairness of other classroom-teaching practices, especially with
regard to high-ability students, has also been questioned. Thorkildsen (1989) examined
students' own perceptions of fairness in the classroom, and delineated five levels of
conceptions of fairness with students at the highest level having the most differentiated
conceptions offaimess. Development ofthese conceptions begins at a young age, and
adult conceptions of fairness did not emerge until 18 years (Thorkildsen, 1994). Children
at the earlier stages believe that faimess means equality, wherein everyone should leam
the same thing, while older adolescents believe that faimess me ans equity, wherein
everyone should be able to leam at their own rate (Thorkildsen, 1989). When interviewed
about the faimess of five practices of adapting classroom instruction, peer tutoring was
seen as the fairest by all children, although it was seen as less fair by older than by
younger students.
High-ability students' conceptions of fair leaming practices are similar to those of
a group of average-ability students, with both groups selecting peer tutoring as the fairest,
followed by enrichment and acceleration (Thorkildsen, 1993). Both groups held the same
conceptions of fairness in terms of progression through the five levels; however, at each
age, the high-ability students showed more differentiated conceptions of fair leaming
practices than did the average-ability group. For example, high-ability students reached
the highest level of conceptions of fair learning practices, equity of leaming, at 9 to 10
years. The average-ability students did not begin to reach the highest level until Il to 12
years, and a fewer number of average-ability students reached this level altogether.
The present study. Such detailed research has not been carried out with respect to
adult conceptions of faimess. More specifically, the notions of classroom fairness held by
Group Work with Gifted 14
parents and teachers of gifted children have not been investigated. In addition, although
there is an abundance of information conceming the advantages and disadvantages of
certain grouping arrangements with highly able students, little research has focused on
gifted children's parents' and teachers' opinions of group work as opposed to grouping.
The purpose ofthis study is to further investigate and attempt to understand parents' and
teachers' differing opinions of the importance of group work with gifted students in the
inquiry-based classroom.
Research Questions
Both parents and teachers are reasonably expected to have the students' best
interests at heart, so where might this discrepancy lie? Part of the difference may be in
parents' and teachers' goals for the education ofhighly able students. In a survey of
parent views on education for the gifted, a list of goals for their children's education did
not include social development or any reference to leaming to work with others (Buckley,
1994). Other research on parents' perspectives oftheir gifted children's leaming needs
indicated that parents perceived work with peers as more important for high school
students than for middle school or elementary students, and ev en then it was low on the
parents' list ofleaming priorities (Hertzog & Bennett, 2004). Although the CUITent study
is exploratory, several possible explanations for the difference of opinion between parents
and teachers are anticipated.
First, teachers may be more concemed than parents with the collective benefit to
the whole class. Although teachers are expected to consider the needs of aIl children in
their classes, parents are likely more concemed with the individual well-being or
advancement of their own children. They may view participation in group work as taking
Group W ork with Gifted 15
away their own child's opportunity to shine. They may feel that it is important for their
child to show his or her independent capabilities in order to gain a competitive advantage
for scholarships and awards. These parents may even be concemed that their children
might get lower grades as a result of being held back by team members who are less able,
or who do not fully contribute.
Second, parents may be concemed that, in heterogeneous cooperative leaming
groups, their children are doing more teaching than leaming. When this happens, there is
less time left for acceleration, enrichment, or compacting, or other educational
opportunities that are known to benefit gifted students. The literature suggests that this
may be a valid concem for parents of gifted children (Robinson, 1990).
Third, parents may be concemed because they are aware of their own gifted
child's leaming style that might include a preference for working alone or, perhaps, in a
group with other gifted students. Matthews (1992) asked gifted students themselves about
their opinions of cooperative leaming. She discovered that these students are more
comfortable working in cooperative leaming groups when they are grouped with other
students ofthe same ability. The gifted students who participated in this study also said
that they do not enjoy, or bene fit from, explaining material to other students.
Adams-Byers, Whitshell, and Moon (2004) also interviewed gifted students about
their perceptions of the academic and social advantages and disadvantages of both
heterogeneous and homogeneous grouping. Although these students perceived mixedability grouping to offer the greatest number of social and emotional advantages, they felt
that high-ability grouping provides the greatest number of academic advantages.
Interestingly, sorne group-work characteristics were viewed as advantages and
Group Work with Gifted 16
disadvantages simultaneously. For example, sorne students reported that the less
challenging curriculum in mixed-ability groups was an advantage because they were
always ranked first in their class, but others reported the slower pace as a disadvantage
because of the boredom that resulted. Sorne students reported that the expectation for
them to help less able students in mixed-ability classes was an advantage because they
enjoyed doing so and it made them feel good about themselves, but others viewed these
tutoring demands as a source of annoyance and frustration. There seem to be different
reasons why different students prefer one type of grouping to the other, and parents may
have based their opinions of group work on their knowledge oftheir own children's
leaming preferences.
Fourth, for the most part, teachers have more experience in educational theory
than parents, and may have pedagogical reasons for endorsing group work. They may see
the instructional value of collaborative activity for children's social and academic
development that is not so apparent to parents. On a more practicallevel, teachers may
find it easier to manage a classroom when students are arranged in groups.
FinaIly, parents and teachers may hold different views about what constitutes
faimess in the classroom. Teachers may be more inclined to think that faimess involves
aIl students having more or less the same opportunities, while parents may feel that
faimess implies more extensive educational differentiation to meet aIl students' needs,
especially their gifted children.
Group Work with Gifted 17
Chapter 2
Method
Participants
In 2001, our research team contacted parent and teacher members of the National
Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) through a part oftheir mailing list that we
purchased, inviting them to participate in an online study. Only 91 replies were received
to 5000 mailings, probably because participants received our letters the week of
September Il, 2001. Potential participants in the current study consisted of those 91
parent and teacher members ofNAGC who responded to our original online survey. Of
those who were successfully contacted, 16 parents, Il teachers, and 5 parent-teachers
agreed to participate in the current foIlow-up study. Ofthese, one parent participant was
exc1uded from the analyses because she did not have any children who had been
identified as gifted. AIl other parent participants had at least one child who had been
identified as gifted. AlI teacher participants had taught gifted students at sorne point in
their teaching career. Participants lived in various states across the United States.
Materials
A researcher-designed interview was developed to examine the reasons why
parents and teachers of gifted students disagree about the importance or value of group
work in the c1assroom. Interview questions were generated by examining the literature on
cooperative leaming and other forms of group work with gifted students, and also through
discussion about topics that might differentiate the parents' and teachers' opinions. The
final interview consisted of eleven questions for aIl parents and teachers, three questions
specifically for parents, and three questions specifically for teachers. Of those, eight of
Group W ork with Gifted 18
the questions for aU participants, two of the questions for parents, and two of the
questions for teachers were open-ended in nature, while the remaining questions included
a lü-point Likert scale. See Appendix A for a copy of the interview.
A cassette tape recorder and a device that attached it to the telephone were used to
record the interviews on cassette tapes. The interviews were then transcribed using a
Memo-Scriber. AlI participants knew the conversation was being recorded. Ethical review
was conducted prior to beginning the study by the McGill University Faculty of
Education Ethics Review Committee.
Procedure
The interviews were conducted between February and April, 2004. Potential
participants were contacted by phone, using telephone numbers that they provided at the
time of the original study. Ifthey had not provided a telephone number, an e-mail was
sent inviting them to supply their telephone number and sorne times when it would be
convenient for the interviewer to contact them. Similarly, if the telephone number
provided was no longer in service, an e-mail was sent inviting them to supply their
current telephone number. An attempt was made to contact each of the 91 potential
participants by either telephone or e-mail. Of the 33 people who were successfuUy
contacted, two refused to participate, resulting in the 15 parents, Il teachers, and 5
parent-teachers who participated in the study.
When potential participants were contacted by phone, the interviewer explained
that she was calIing because they had participated in an on-line study with our research
group two years ago, and that we would now like to invite them to participate in a folIowup interview. If they indicated that they may be willing to participate, the interviewer
Group Work with Gifted 19
explained that we are interviewing parent and teacher members ofNAGC in order to
leam more about their opinions of group work in the classroom. They were then told
details of the study that would help them to make an informed decision about whether or
not they would be willing to participate. They were told that interview will take
approximately ten minutes to complete, that we would like to tape-record the interview
with their consent, that tapes and transcripts of the interviews will be kept in a secure file
at Mc Gill University, that there are no personal questions, that we will only use the data
in ways that individual respondents cannot be identified by a reader or listener, and that
they are free to stop at any time. They were then asked if they would be willing to
participate in the study. The 31 people who agreed to participate were asked to provide a
CUITent e-mail address to which we could send them a written copy of the consent that had
been read to them over the telephone. They were asked to read this message and reply to
it, as a way ofproviding a permanent record oftheir consent to participate in the study.
At this point, the tape recorder was tumed on, and the interview was initiated.
Parents were asked how many identified gifted children they have, and their children's
ages. Teachers were asked what grades and subjects they teach. Participants who
identified themselves as both a parent and teacher of gifted students were asked to
respond to the interview in whichever way they feIt most comfortable.
Participant responses to the interviews were transcribed verbatim. Answers to
open-ended questions were compiled by reading each participant' s answer to the
questions to create preliminary response categories. Rules of inclusion were created for
membership in each category, and participants were assigned accordingly. Five parent
transcripts and five teacher transcripts were then given to a second coder, along with the
Group Work with Gifted 20
rules of inclusion for one question that was judged to be simple and two questions that
were judged to be difficult to code. This coder assigned participants to response
categories for each ofthese questions, based on the inclusion rules. Participants'
assignments to answer categories were then compared, participant by participant, between
the original coder and the second coder. When compared, 64 out of76 assignments of
participants to answer categories were identical, resulting in inter-rater reliability of 84%
on this first classification. Based on the discrepancies, the inclusion rules were made
clearer, and the transcripts were reviewed and reclassified. When compared the second
time, 72 of 76 assignments of participants to answer categories were identical, resulting in
inter-rater reliability of 95%. The four still unmatched ratings were reviewed and full
consensus was reached for these 76.
Group Work with Gifted 21
Chapter 3
Results and Discussion
The first results presented here support the previously reported finding that
parents and teachers from the same population of gifted students disagree about the
importance of group work in the classroom. Although not directly related to the research
questions ofthis study, these results will provide the context in which the CUITent research
questions will be addressed specificaIly.
When asked to rank the importance of group work for gifted students on a scale
from 1 (not at aIl important) to 10 (very important), teacher responses had a mean of 8.95
(SD
= 1.59) while parent responses had a mean of 6.33 (SD = 1.91). When asked the same
question with respect to average-ability students, the mean for teachers was 8.64 (SD=
1.55) and the mean for parents was 6.57 (SD = 2.10). The parent-teacher group had means
that were more similar to those of the teachers than those of the parents both with respect
to gifted students (M = 8.60, SD
= 1.67) and with respect to average-ability students (M =
8.80, SD = 1.79).
The means of the three groups were compared for each of these questions with a
one-way ANOV A. With respect to gifted students, the difference between groups was
significant, F(2, 28) = 7.85, P < 0.0 1,
,,2 = 0.36. Tukey' s Honestly Significant Difference
Test indicated that teachers ranked group work as significantly more important than did
parents for gifted students (p < 0.01). With respect to average-ability students, the
difference between groups was aiso significant, F(2, 27) = 16.76, P < 0.05,
,,2 = 0.26.
Tukey's HonestIy Significant Difference Test indicated, again, that teachers ranked group
Group Work with Gifted 22
work as significantly more important than did parents for average-ability students (p <
0.05).
When asked ifthey think that group work is important for children's social,
emotional, and academic development, the three groups did not differ significantly in
their responses,;(6, N= 29) = 8.73,p > 0.05, ns (see Table 1). However, more teachers
than parents said yes to aU three. Almost aU parent-teachers also replied that yes, group
work is important for aU three types of development. A smaller number of participants
from each group (but more parents) indicated that it is important for aH three types of
development, but only if it is done properly. Five parents (and no teachers or parentteachers) indicated that they feel that group work is important for social and emotional
development, but not academic development. One parent and one teacher responded that
they did not think that group work is important for any of these types of development.
Table 1
Frequencies ofAnswers to HIs Group Work Importantfor Social, Emotional and
Academic Development? "
Respondents
Important
Important for Social and
Not Important
Important if
for aH 3
Emotional Only
Parents
5
5
1
3
Teachers
8
o
1
1
Parent-Teachers
4
o
o
1
Done Right
Group Work with Gifted 23
Concernfor Entire Class versus One 's Own Child
The first research question of the current study, whether teachers are more
concemed with the good of the whole class while parents are more concemed with their
own children's needs, was addressed in several ways.
When asked what they think might be motivating parents' less favorable and
teachers' more favorable opinions of group work, participants' responses were sorted into
categories with respect to both parents and teachers. Three categories emerged as the
explanations that might be motivating parents to feel the way they do: (a) parents are
looking after their own children' s interests first, (b) parents are competitive and selfserving, and (c) the children have a negative classroom experience (see Table 2). The
three groups did not differ significantly in their responses to this question, 1(4, N = 31) =
9.24,p> 0.05, ns, but their answers provided interesting information nevertheless. For
instance, the responses that made up the "competitive" category referred to parents'
tendency to be grade-oriented or concemed about their children receiving due credit for
work they completed within a group. For example, one teacher (#14) said, "1 think with
gifted kids, the parents are very competitive. They want their child to have the best grade,
and they resent the idea of sharing the glory or something. Like if everybody's going to
get an A, ifmy child worked harder than this other person's child, then that's not fair."
Group Work with Gifted 24
Table 2
Frequencies of Factors Motivating Parents Negative Opinions of Group Work
1
Respondents
Parents are Looking Out for
Parents are
Children Have a
Their Own Children's Interests
Competitive
Negative Experience
2
12
Parents
Teachers
4
4
3
Parent-Teachers
0
2
3
As another way to explore this issue, participants were asked to rate the following
statement in terms of its truth as an explanation for parents' and teachers' differing
opinions (l = strongly disagree with the statement, 10 = strongly agree with the
statement): "Parents are concerned that, in groups, their children will not receive due
credit or that they will get lower marks because of other group members' performance."
The three groups' ratings did not differ significantly, F(2, 27) = 1.97,p > 0.05, ns, but the
effect size was moderate (11 2 = 0.13). The teachers (M= 9.50, SD = 1.08) agreed with this
statement more strongly than did the parents (M= 7.73, SD = 3.03) or parent-teachers (M
=
7.60, SD = 1.52), suggesting that teachers may see this concern in parents more than the
parents see it in themselves. While teachers perceived parents' competitiveness and
concern about grades as a reason for parents' negative opinions of group work, parents
gave other reasons for their opinions. In particular, 80% of parents reported that their
opinions were influenced by their knowledge oftheir children's negative experiences
with group work. Because oftheir different roles in children's lives, parents' and
Group Work with Gifted 25
teachers' ideas about what may be motivating parents to feel the way they do about group
work are different.
ln order to further examine the specifie concem about grades, participants were
asked if, when engaged in group work, students should receive group or individual
grades. The groups differed significantly in their responses to this question,
=
t(4, N = 31)
8,84, p < 0.05 (see Table 3). Parents overwhelmingly indicated that individual grades
are best, followed by a preference for a combination of individual and group grades. No
parent indicated that a group grade alone is preferable. The majority ofteachers stated
that they would prefer a combination of individual and group grades, although two
teachers endorsed a group grade alone, and two teachers endorsed an individual grade
alone. Four of the five parent-teachers chose a combination, while one preferred an
individual grade.
Table 3
Frequencies of Preferences for Group or Individual Grades
Respondents
Pre fer Group Grades
Prefer Individual Grades Combination
Parents
o
10
5
Teachers
2
2
7
Parent-Teachers
o
1
4
Group Work with Gifted 26
Participants' responses to these questions supported the outcomes obtained for the
first research question in that parents do seem to focus solely on their own chi Id, while
teachers also value group performance or the ability to work together. Teachers valued
group participation, as evidenced by their preference to provide a group grade along with
individual grades. To the contrary, parents preferred that their children receive a mark
that is reflective of his or her work, and not based on the work of group members who
may be less able or who did not do their share of the work. One participant who is both a
parent and teacher (#17) nicely described this concem from her perspective:
As a parent, 1 know it was extremely frustrating for my children, especially
at the middle school and high schoollevel, to come home and tell me that
they were in the group again with the kids who didn't care ifthey were
there, who didn't do their work, and they were expected to shoulder the
burden. So as a parent that was frustrating. And yet as a teacher, when we
go through aIl of our teacher training and our training days and in-service
time, we're constantly bombarded with how important it is for the kids to
work together and get along .... So 1 think we get different messages as
teachers than we do as parents.
Lack of Beneficiai Educationai Opportunities for Gifted Students
The second research question was whether parents are concemed that their
children are doing more teaching than leaming if the y are in heterogeneous cooperative
leaming groups. When gifted students spend much oftheir time teaching other children in
their group, there is less time left for other educational opportunities that are known to
benefit gifted students. This was first addressed by as king participants to rank the
Group Work with Gifted 27
following statement on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree) in terms
ofits potential in helping to explain parents' and teachers' differing opinions: "Parents
are concemed about the lack of enrichment or acceleration for their children in mixedability groups." The three groups of respondents did not differ significantly in their
ratings ofthis item, F(2, 26) = 0.94,p > 0.05, 11 = 0.07, ns, with parents (M= 7.21, SD =
2.46), teachers (M= 8.20, SD = 1.99), and parent-teachers (M= 6.60, SD = 2.51) aU
moderately supporting this statement.
Participants were also asked open-ended questions about their general opinions of
group work and about what types of grouping arrangements they believe are best. General
opinions reported by participants were separated into three categories: (a) group work is
necessary, (b) group work is conditionally acceptable, and (c) group work is undesirable.
A chi-square test was conducted to compare the responses of the three groups of
respondents, 1(4, N = 31) = 13.50, P < 0.01. This significant difference indicated that the
frequencies of responses for parents, teachers, and parent-teachers were differently
distributed among the necessary, conditionally acceptable, and undesirable response
categories (see Table 4).
Group Work with Gifted 28
Table 4
Frequencies ofAnswers to "What is four General Opinion of Group Work?"
Respondents
Group Work is
Group Work is Conditionally
Group Work is
Necessary
Acceptable
Undesirable
Parents
o
12
3
Teachers
7
3
1
Parent-Teachers
2
3
0
The most common response for teachers was that group work is necessary.
Parents were especially likely to say that it is conditionally acceptable. These conditions
imposed by parents included concems about how the group work is carried out, the skills
of the teacher to do so properly, and the composition of the groups. Many parents
expressed concems that their children often feel resentful that they need to take aIl of the
responsibility when working in groups. One parent (#11) said, "we feIt like our kids
haven't gotten a fair shake in the group work, or their contribution has been out of
proportion with what other members of the group have contributed."
Parents' comments about the value of group work often depended on the
composition of the group. Participants' attitudes about different grouping arrangements
were explored further by asking if their opinions of group work change when they are
thinking about a general education class versus when they are thinking of a class of aIl
high-ability students. A chi-square analysis indicated that the groups of respondents did
not differ significantly in this respect, 1(6, N = 28) = 2.47, p > 0.05, ns (see Table 5).
Group Work with Gifted 29
Table 5
Frequencies ofAnswers to "Does your Opinion of Group Work Change ifit is in General
Education Classes or Gifted Classes?"
Group Work is
Group Work is
Group Work is
It
the Same in
Better in Gifted
Better in General
Depends
Both
Classes
Ed.
Parents
4
5
o
4
Teachers
2
4
1
3
Parent-Teachers
2
2
o
1
Respondents
The plurality of participants stated that is best for gifted students to work together,
while only one participant, a teacher, reported that a mixed-ability environment is
preferable. Several participants also said that their opinion of group work would be the
same in either situation, or that it depends on other factors, such as teacher or student
characteristics.
It seems that parents and teachers agree, for the most part, that homogeneous
ability-grouping is more beneficial for gifted students than mixed-ability grouping. In
doing so, they may be responding differently to our questions based on how they,
personally, have seen group work happening in schools. For example, a teacher of gifted
students may see different groups of children for one hour each day, during which time
they are always grouped with other highly able students. Therefore, this teacher sees
Group Work with Gifted 30
gifted students only in that situation. However, parents ofthese same students see that
their children are grouped with their academic peers for only one hour each day, at which
time they retum to a regular classroom where instruction may not be weIl adapted to their
needs.
In order to determine whether these different points of reference were contributing
to parents' and teachers' discrepant opinions, participants were asked what type of group
they were picturing as they responded to the interview questions. Although a chi-square
test indicated that there was no significant difference among the groups overaIl for this
item, 1(4, N = 24) = 4.04, p > 0.05, ns, a slightly greater number of parents reported
picturing groups of mixed abilities, while a slightly greater number ofteachers reported
picturing more homogeneous groups. More parents than teachers also reported thinking of
different types of groups, depending on the question (see Table 6). Perhaps parents have
seen their children experience different grouping arrangements in different classes or
grades, so they have a wider variety of grouping experiences to which to refer than would
a teacher who may have taught the same grade for many years.
Parents are concemed that, when working in groups, their children's education is
compromised because they spend a lot of their time teaching others in their group. This is
highlighted by parents' conditional acceptance of group work in the classroom.
Altematively, teachers perceive that group work is an important or even necessary part of
children's education. It seems that the discrepancy between parents' and teachers'
opinions of group work may be due to parents' skepticism about the way that group work
is carried out in the classroom, and because ofparents' and teachers' different views of
children's experience of group work.
Group Work with Gifted 31
Table 6
Frequencies of Types of Groups Respondents were Picturing
Respondents
Mixed-Ability
Homogeneous
Changing with Each
Groups
Groups
Question
Parents
5
3
5
Teachers
3
5
1
Parent-Teachers
o
1
Bases for Parents' Negative Opinions
The third research question asked if parents base their unfavorable opinions of
group work on their knowledge of their own gifted child' s leaming styles or preferences.
If parents are aware that their children have had bad classroom experiences with group
work, they are perhaps likely to have negative opinions of this type of instruction.
Participants themselves presented this as a factor that might affect parents' perceptions of
group work (see Table 2). Parents overwhelmingly reported that seeing their children's
negative experiences contributed to their opinions of group work.
Participants referred to different circumstances in which parents may have seen
their children suffer through negative group-work experiences. References were also
made specifically to the idea that children complain to their parents about problems they
encounter in group work, such as being grouped with students who do not do their share
of the work. While teachers are dealing with a whole class at one time, parents get
feedback directly from their own children. Unfortunately, children are probably more
Group Work with Gifted 32
likely to report negative than positive experiences to their parents. For example, when
asked what they think might be driving parents' negative opinions on group work, one
parent (#33) said, "1 think it's because kids come home and complain."
Teachers' Education and Theoretical Knowledge
Several of the interview questions dealt with the fourth research question, which
was whether teachers' experience in educational theory led them to have pedagogical
reasons for endorsing group work. When asked to rate the following statement as a
possible explanation for the different opinions of group work, "Teachers recognize the
instructional value of collaborative activity for children's social and academic
development," (1 = Strongly Disagree, 10 = Strongly Agree) the three groups of
respondents did not differ significantly in their ratings, F(2, 26) = 1.55, P > 0.05, ns,
although there was a moderate effect size (11 2 = 0.11). AlI three groups agreed that
teachers' knowledge of the instructional value of group work may affect their opinions,
with parents endorsing the statement the least (M = 7.93, SD = 2.58), parent-teachers
endorsing it slightly more (M = 8.40, SD = 2.07), and teachers endorsing it the most
strongly (M = 9.50, SD = 0.87)
When asked to provide their own ideas about what might be motivating the
teachers' more positive views of group work, the answer categories that emerged were (a)
teachers are more aware of the pedagogical value of group work, (b) teachers find it
easier to manage their classroom when students are arranged in groups, and (c) teachers
are looking out for the good of the group (see Table 7).
Group Work with Gifted 33
Table 7
Frequencies of Factors Motivating Teachers' Positive Opinions of Group Work
Respondents
Pedagogical Value Easier to Manage
Looking at Good of the Group
Parents
9
5
1
Teachers
8
1
o
Parent-Teachers
4
o
1
Participants from aIl three groups indicated overwhelmingly that teachers are
more aware ofthe social and pedagogical value of group work. One teacher (#91) stated,
"From a teacher's perspective, 1 think it's so valuable for the kids to learn how to interact,
and 1 think that they benefit from the other students in the group, and it' s just a great way
to learn because of the motivating ... the level of involvement." These comments are
consistent with the statement of a parent (#86) who said, "Teachers may be concerned
about the social development and the exchange of ideas, and that may be what's driving
the difference." OveraIl, differences between the three groups' responses were not
significant,.t(4, N= 29)
= 5.l6,p > 0.05, ns, indicating that even the parents are aware
that teachers value certain aspects of group work to which they themselves do not give
equal priority.
Three participants mentioned specifically that current teacher education focuses
on the importance of group work. One parent (#35) said, "1 think that the CUITent trend in
teacher training is leaning very heavily toward cooperative learning groups, and 1 think
it's the trend right now in teacher education, so anyone who's been trained in the last 10
Group Work with Gifted 34
or 15 years is coming out of school with the idea that this is the be-aU and end-aU."
OccasionaIly, teachers mentioned specifie instructional models and spoke in
pedagogical terms, indicating that they have advanced knowledge about these educational
issues. For example, one teacher (#8) stated, "Things have happened in terms ofresearch
and other things that show that group work is important and is a very valuable piece,
especially if it's do ne in an inquiry-type way, is a very important piece of science
especially, because scientists work in groups."
Participants from aU three groups agreed that teachers' awareness of the
instructional value of group work could be contributing to their more positive opinions.
When asked open-ended questions about factors that might affect teachers' opinions of
group work, participants themselves suggested this as a possible explanation. Based on
their comments, such as the examples above, it seems reasonable that educational or
pedagogical knowledge of group work may be a contributing factor to parents' and
teachers' differing opinions.
Fairness in the Classroom
The final research question asked if parents' and teachers' differing opinions may
be affected by their different views about what constitutes faimess in the c1assroom. In
the results presented so far, parents and teachers have different perspectives on the
importance of group work although they weIl recognize the perspective of the other
group. When asked to rate on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree) the
statement, "Parents and teachers differ in their interpretations of faimess in the
c1assroom" as a possible explanation of parents' and teachers' differing opinions, the
means of the three groups did not differ significantly, F(2, 24) = 2.00, p > 0.05, ns,
Group Work with Gifted 35
although the effect size was moderate (11 2 = 0.14). Each of the three groups rated this
statement as relative1y true, with teachers endorsing the statement the least (M = 6.50, SD
= 3.02), with parents endorsing the statement more strongly (M = 8.00, SD = 1.85), and
with parent-teachers most strong1y endorsing it (M = 9.00, SD = 1.41). It is interesting
that the parent-teachers rated this item as more true than did both the teachers and parents.
Perhaps their unique perspective as both a parent and a teacher of high-abi1ity students
allowed them to see more clearly the discrepancies in views of faimess. It is also possible
that they have personally experienced faimess in different ways at different times,
depending on whether the y were in the role of parent or teacher.
Parents' views of faimess in the classroom may also depend upon the type of
instruction provided by the teacher. Sorne parents indicated that teachers might use group
work because they find it easier to manage their classroom when students are arranged in
groups. Teachers disagreed with this assertion, with many teachers articulating exactly
the opposite, that it is more difficult to manage group work. For example, one parentteacher participant (#73) said "Managing groups effectively is not all that easy. It kind of
goes back to that, is the teacher aware of what the students are doing and who is
participating and who isn't. Because ifthey are monitoring appropriate1y, then they are
sitting in on sorne of the groups, and they are moving around the classroom."
Participants were asked to rate the following statement, "Teachers find it easier to
manage a classroom when students are arranged in groups," for its possibility as an
explanation of parents' and teachers' differing opinions of group work (1
= strongly
disagree, 10 = strongly agree). The three groups differed significantly in ratings ofthis
statement, F(2, 27) = 4.42, p < 0.05, 11 2 = 0.25. Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference
Group Work with Gifted 36
Test indicated that the parents (M = 7.60, SD = 2.85) ranked this item significantly higher
than did teachers (M = 4.00, SD = 3.09). This is consistent with parents' and teachers'
comments about the management of group work.
The discrepancy here between parents and teachers may be a difference in the
quality of group work to which the parents and teachers refer. Several teachers noted that
it is difficult to effectively manage groups; however, the parents may have se en their
children in situations where group work has go ne bad because the teacher was not
actively or appropriately involved. The type of group management described in the quote
above requires much more energy and effort than the version that parents may be
picturing. Again, it seems that parents' and teachers' experiences with group work
affected their opinions.
On many of the interview questions, participants from aIl three groups were in
agreement in their answers. Even when given the opportunity to spontaneously provide
their thoughts about what might be driving the opinions of the opposite group,
participants were aIl in agreement. It seems that parents and teachers are, for the most
part, able to see and respect each others' perspectives, while still retaining their own
OpInIOns.
Group Work with Gifted 37
Chapter 4
Conclusions
Summary of the Results
The research questions of this study were supported as several possible
explanations emerged for parents' and teachers' differing opinions about the importance
of group work. Parents were doubtful of the value of group work for their gifted children.
When asked for their general opinions of group work, parents were most likely to deem it
acceptable only under certain conditions such as appropriate group management by the
teacher and particular grouping arrangements. Parents were concemed that when these
conditions are not met, their gifted children do not receive the best possible education for
their needs because they spend a great deal of their time teaching other students.
Parents claimed that their negative opinions were affected by their children's bad
experiences with group work. Many said the y have either observed their children doing
aIl of the work in a group or have heard their children complaining about their frustration.
Teachers did not report the same negative experiences. They were more likely to perceive
parents as competitive and grade-oriented, although parents were less likely to see these
qualities in themselves. Teachers' knowledge of the pedagogical value of group work was
indicated by aIl three groups of respondents as a major contributor to their more positive
opinions of group work.
The reasons behind parents' and teachers' differing views seem to relate to the
different ways they have seen group work occur. Teachers see the benefits of group work
in the classroom, while parents get negative feedback from their children. The children
may be the link that will help us to understand parents' and teachers' differing opinions.
Group Work with Gifted 38
While children corn plain to their parents, they may tell teachers what they want to hear or
not tell them their opinions of group work at aU. Thus, parents and teachers may be
working under different assumption about gifted children's enjoyment of or benefit from
group work activities.
Until such time as parents and teachers walk in each others' shoes, they willlikely
still disagree about the importance of group work with gifted students. However, they
seem to be aware of valid concerns from each side of the coin, which is a starting point
for an exchange of ideas that may help parents and teachers to better understand and
appreciate each others' points ofview. Children can bene fit from the input ofboth
parents' and teachers' perspectives when they work together, despite the difference of
opinion. One participant who is a parent and a teacher put it best, "As a parent, you really
fight for your own individual chi Id. And rightfuUy, 1 think parents need to advocate for
their own kids. As a teacher, you see the group, and so 1 think there's just going to be that
conflict there. Whether it's meant to be, you don't intend it to be, 1just think it happens."
Connections with Previous Research
Inquiry-based learning. The activities involved in inquiry-based learning, such as
formulating questions, planning and executing solutions for these questions, and sharing
and reviewing their results (National Research Council, 1996) are often carried out in
small groups, mimicking a work-place scenario where adults work together in teams.
Parents reported that their children have had negative experiences when working in
groups, but teachers did not report these negative experiences. Instead, teachers spoke of
the advantages of group work, including the sharing and exchange of knowledge, and
learning to work with others. It seems that there are both positive and negative aspects of
Group Work with Gifted 39
the group work that occurs within an inquiry-based environment. Students leam to work
together, but at the same time it may be a frustrating task for many highly able youth.
Perhaps there should be a compromise, so that students spend part oftheir time in
groups and part oftheir time working individually. Further, if the group work is
sometimes homogeneous and sometimes heterogeneous, students could benefit from
different aspects of both kinds of group leaming. The frustration that gifted students
experience in mixed-ability groups likely parallels their future experiences in the
workplace. In this way, heterogeneous grouping may be preparatory for the realities of
their futures, which is consistent with the authenticity of the leaming that is meant to
happen in an inquiry-based environment.
Teachers would argue that even if students complain to their parents about their
dislike of group work, it is still important to work in groups sometimes in order to leam
how to share opinions, listen to others, and work together as a team. Thus, inquiry-based
leaming appears to be beneficial provided that students are not always required to work in
groups and are sometimes given the opportunity to explore their interests and ideas
individually.
Grouping practices. One of the reasons offered to explain teachers' more positive
opinions of group work was that they are more aware than parents of current educational
theory and research. Because a great de al of the research on grouping with regard to
gifted students has come from the cooperative leaming literature, teachers are presumably
aware of this research and more likely than parents to use this knowledge as a rationale
for favoring group work. However, cooperative leaming is a unique type of group
leaming wherein groups are composed of one low ability student, two average-ability
Group Work with Gifted 40
students, and one high-ability student (Johnson & Johnson, 1992; Slavin, 1990). Teachers
in this study seemed to prefer that their high-ability students work in groups with their
academic peers as opposed to working in mixed-ability groups. Perhaps this is because
they were aware that research on cooperative learning has been inappropriately
generalized to gifted students (Robinson, 1990). It is also possible that they were aware of
research carried out more specifically with respect to the educational needs of gifted
students. For example, Robinson (1990) recommended that gifted students be grouped
together for academic success. Coleman, Gallagher, and Nelson (1993) and Robinson
(1990) addressed the notion that gifted students can be exploited in mixed-ability groups
where they are expected to teach the other students. Kulik and Kulik (1992) and Tieso
(2003) reported that aIl students, and especially high-ability students, achieve at a higher
level when they are grouped homogeneously by ability. Teachers who are knowledgeable
about the research in this area are not only more favorable than parents toward group
work, but they are also more aware of the benefits and pitfalls of certain grouping
arrangements.
Overall, parents are less favorable toward group work. It is possible that they see
the more practical effects of group work on their own children first-hand, and are
therefore less interested in the educationalliterature that supports the use of different
types of group learning mentioned above. Parents' concerns about their children's
satisfaction in the c1assroom support previous research on gifted children's own opinions
of different types of group work. Adams-Byers, Whitshell, and Moon (2004) discovered
that gifted students perceive mixed-ability grouping as having more social advantages,
and that they perceived homogeneous grouping as having more academic advantages.
Group Work with Gifted 41
Matthews (1992) reported that gifted children prefer to be grouped with other children of
the same ability. These students also reported that they do not enjoy teaching others in
their group. Parents who participated in this study were concemed about these same
issues, likely because of their own children' s similar feedback.
If students must be arranged in groups, parents prefer that their children be
grouped with their academic peers as opposed to mixed cooperative leaming groups. The
difference of opinion between teachers and parents is consistent with the debate in the
literature conceming which type of grouping is most beneficial. It seems that the answer
is different depending on your perspective of what constitutes high-quality and fair
education.
Fairness. Differences in perceptions of faimess in the classroom were expected to
contribute to parents' and teachers' differing opinions about the importance of group
work. It was discovered that although parents and teachers disagree about the importance
of group work, they are able to recognize each other's opinions. Perhaps faimess refers to
the goals that parents and teachers feel are appropriate for children's education. This
study provides support for assertions about parents' goals for their gifted children's
education. In a previous study, parents did not mention social development or leaming to
work with others on a list of goals for their children's education (Buckley, 1994). The
parents in the current study also did not see group work as valuable.
Despite the lack ofprevious research with respect to parents' and teachers' views
offaimess in the classroom, children's conceptions of fair teaching practices have been
studied in the past (Thorkildsen, 1989, 1993, 1994). Peer tutoring was seen as fairest by
aIl children, followed by enrichment and acceleration. Interestingly, parents involved in
Group Work with Gifted 42
the current study reported that their children have negative experiences when expected to
teach less able students in their group. Perhaps "peer" is not understood in the same way
by aU, since it can also refer to ages, interests, or ability levels, for example. This is
perhaps one area where the difference of opinion between parents and teachers occurs,
because children teU their teachers that they see peer tutoring as fair, but then complain to
their parents about group members who are not puUing their weight. Although parents
and teachers do not agree about the importance of group work, their views of faimess are
not so disparate that they cannot recognize sorne of the reasons behind each others'
vlews.
Contribution and Implications
This study has helped to clarify the questions to be explored in the future with
regard to parents' and teachers' differing opinions. Although aU the answers are nuanced
or qualified, the previous finding that parents and teachers disagree about the importance
of group work was supported, and several possible explanations for this fact were brought
to light. Perhaps most importantly, parents' and teachers' different relationships with the
children seem to affect their perceptions of the importance of group work. Although they
are able to recognize and appreciate each others' differing opinions, they still do not agree
with each others' points ofview.
Parents and teachers bring different are as of expertise to their relationships with
children. Teachers, although perhaps more knowledgeable in educational theory, would
bene fit from listening to parents' concems: Parents may hear more accurate feedback
regarding children's learning preferences than do teachers, including children's
preference for group work. Other professionals in the educational community such as
Group Work with Gifted 43
principals and school psychologists can help to foster the parent-teacher partnership by
being aware of differences of opinion such as this.
Limitations and Future Directions
There are several ways in which this study could be improved should it be
replicated. First, the sample size could be larger. Unfortunately, due to the size of the
original participant pool and the difficulty in reaching potential participants over the
phone, the number of participants in the current study was quite small. Second, the
sample could be more representative of the population. The participants in this study were
aH members of the National Association for Gifted Children. This meant that the teachers
were more likely than the average teacher to have specialized training in the education of
the gifted. Parents were likely to be highly educated, and because they have chosen to
obtain membership in this organization, they were very interested and involved in their
children's education. The results of the current study may not be generalizable to a larger
and broader population due to these limitations. Control groups based on average-ability
children are necessary, as weIl.
Future research is needed to further investigate parents' and teachers' differing
opinions of the importance of group work with gifted and other students. Studies
incorporating the improvements noted above would be helpful in understanding this
difference and improving generalizability. Specifically, children's roles in this difference
should be addressed because oftheir influence of parents' and teachers' opinions.
Children could be asked about the types of things they tell their parents and teachers
about their c1assroom experiences with group work. Another interesting extension of this
study would be to investigate the opinions of parents and teachers of non-gifted youth.
Group Work with Gifted 44
Perhaps their views of group work are not as discrepant as those held by parents and
teachers of gifted children.
Group Work with Gifted 45
References
Buckley, K. C. P. (1994). Parents' views on education for the gifted. Roeper Review, 16,
215-216.
Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (Eds.). (1993). Handbook ofgifted education (3rd ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Feldhussen, J. F., & Moon, S. M. (1992). Grouping gifted students: Issues and concems.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 63-67.
Gallagher, J. J., Coleman, M. R., & Nelson, S. M. (1993). Cooperative learning as
perceived by educators ofgifted students and proponents of cooperative
education. Chapel Hill, NC: Gifted Education Policy Studies Program. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 355675)
Goodwin, K., Kemerer, F., Martinez, V., & Ruderman, R. (1998). Liberal equity in
education: A comparison of choice options. Social Science Quarterly, 79, 502522.
Hertzog, N. B., & Bennett, T. (2004). In whose eyes? Parents' perspectives on the
learning needs oftheir gifted children. Roeper Review, 26, 96-104.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). What to say to advocates for the gifted.
Educational Leadership, 50(2), 44-47.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted
Child Quarter/y, 36, 73-77.
Lando, B. Z., & Schneider, B. H. (1997). Intellectual contributions and mutual support
among developmentally advanced children in homogeneous and heterogeneous
work/discussion groups. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 44-57.
Group Work with Gifted 46
Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Maker, J. C., & Nielson, A. B. (1995). Teaching models in education of the gifted (2nd
ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Matthews, M. (1992). Gifted students talk about cooperative learning. Educational
Leadership, 50(2), 48-50.
National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Renzulli, 1. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible
programs for the gifted and talented. Wethersfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative
learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9-27.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Ability grouping, cooperative learning, and the gifted. Journal for
the Education of the Gifted, 14, 3-8.
Smutny, 1. F. (2003). Designing and developing programsfor gifted students. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Syer, C. A., & Shore, B. M. (2001, November). NAGC members' understanding of
inquiry-based learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Association for Gifted, Cincinnati, OH.
Thorkildsen, T. A. (1989). Justice in the cIassroom: The student's view. Child
Development, 60, 323-334.
Thorkildsen, T. A. (1993). Those who can, tutor: High-ability students' conceptions of
fair ways to organize learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 182-190.
Group Work with Gifted 47
Thorkildsen, T. A. (1994). Toward a fair corn munit y of scholars: Moral education as the
negotiation of classroom practices. Journal of Moral Education, 23,371-385.
Tieso, C. L. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore. Roeper Review, 26,
29-36.
Group Work with Gifted 48
APPENDIXA
Consent Form
Group Work with Gifted 50
APPENDIX B
Interview
Group Work with Gifted 51
Telephone Interview for Parent and Teacher Members ofNAGC
Are you a parent or a teacher?
Ifparent: How many children do you have? 1 am assuming, because of your membership
in NAGe, that at least one of your children has been identified as gifted. How old is he or
she? How was he or she identified? What kind of school pro gram is he or she currently
in?
Ifteacher: What grade and subject do you teach?
If both parent and teacher: From which perspective would you be most comfortable
answering our questions?
Questions for parents and teachers
1. 1 would like to know about your opinion of group work in classrooms in general. Are
you favorable or unfavorable towards group work? Why do you feel the way you do?
Probes: What do you see as sorne of the advantages/disadvantages? Is your opinion
different if you think about a general class or a gifted class? Does your opinion change
based on in-class assignments or out of class work? Does the curriculum or subject
matter? Do you think that group work is important for children's development, either
social, emotional, or academic?
2. a) On a scale from 1 to 10, how important is group work for gifted children, with 1
being not at aU important, and 10 being very important.
2. b) On a scale from 1 to 10, how important is group work for non-identified children,
with 1 being not at aU important, and 10 being very important.
Why do you think it is/is not more important for one group?
3. When students engage in group work, is it best for them to receive group or individual
grades?
Probes: Why? Do you think this makes a differences for gifted versus nongifted students?
4. When you think of school-children working in groups, are you imagining of a group of
children of mixed abilities, or are you imagining of a group of gifted children?
Probes: Would your answers have been different ifyou were imagining [the other type of
group]?
Questions for parents only
1. a) Did you have any personal experience with group work when you were a student?
Probes: If yes, please describe the situations.
1. b) On a scale from 1 to 10, how much did you enjoy this type of work, with 1 being did
not enjoy at all, and 10 being enjoyed very much.
Group Work with Gifted 52
2. Describe the ways in which you advocate directly on behalf of your child(ren), if you
do so.
Questions for teachers only
1. When given the choice, how do you arrange your c1assroom for learning purposes?
Probes: Do you use leaming centers? Do you like aIl the desks to be lined up in rows?
2.a) On a scale from 1 to 10, how often do students in your c1ass engage in group work,
with 1 being never, and 10 being always.
2.b) When students work in groups, who decides what students are in each group? How
big are the groups? Are the groups flexible?
Follow-up questions for parents and teachers
In our previous study, there were key differences in the way parents and teachers
responded regarding group work. In particular, parents ranked group-Iearning tasks as
being relatively less important than did teachers.
1. What do you think is driving the parents' opinions which were less favorable, and the
teachers' opinions which were more favorable?
For my final question, 1 am going to give you five explanations that 1 have come up with
to possibly explain the contradictory opinions. Sorne ofthese might overlap with what
you have just toid me. Would you please rate each of these statements on a scale from 1
to 10, with 1 meaning you strongly disagree with the statement, and 10 meaning you
strongly agree with the statement.
a. Parents are concemed that, in groups, their children will not receive due credit or that
they will get lower marks because of other group members' performance.
b. Parents are concemed about the lack of enrichment or acceleration for their children in
mixed-ability groups.
c. Teachers recognize the instructional value of co Ilaborative activity for children's social
and academic development.
d. Teachers find it easier to manage a c1assroom when students are arranged in groups.
e. Parents and teachers differ in their interpretations of faimess in the c1assroom.
Group Work with Gifted 53
APPENDIX C
Ethical Approval Form