CHAPTER III: PRESENTING AND ANALYSING THE RESULTS
III. 5. Research Question Two
III. 5.2. Classroom practices with the gifted and variables
Similarly to the analyses carried out on the OGE, further analyses aimed to understand whether variables such as gender, age, years of teaching experience, gifted education courses, in-service training, confidence in teaching the gifted, self-perception as gifted and having a gifted relative influence secondary teachers’ practices in differentiating for the gifted.
In order for the data to be analysed successfully, the ages of the respondents was divided into three groups: 30-40, 40-50 and 50-60. Although statistical differences were not found between items and age, Question 8, “Use pre-tests to determine if students know the topic before it is given,” yielded a significance level of 0.051, revealing a larger discrepancy amongst the three different age groups. More specifically, although this cannot be generalised, teachers aged between 30 and 40 tended to use pre-tests more frequently than their older aged peers to understand whether students knew the topic before it was taught. This can be seen in Figure 32 where the mean (M=3.333) is higher for the 30-40 age group.
156
Figure 32.Means for Question 8 “Use pre-tests to determine if students know the topic before it is given” amongst different age groups
The analysis in terms of factors did not yield statistically significant data.
However, the component with the most dissimilar mean was “Curriculum Modification.” It was the 30-40 age group again that stood out with a higher mean (𝑀 = 9,33) (Table 72).
Table 72
Age and Statistics of the four components
N Mean Std.
Deviation Std.
Error Reading and
Writing Assignments
[30.40[ 9 7.44 2.651 .884 [40.50[ 14 7.21 3.965 1.060 [50.60[ 12 8.67 2.995 .865 Total 35 7.77 3.317 .561 Providing
Challenge and Choice
[30.40[ 9 7.89 3.100 1.033 [40.50[ 14 7.14 4.204 1.123 [50.60[ 12 7.92 3.528 1.018 Total 35 7.60 3.632 .614 Curriculum
Modification [30.40[ 9 9.33 3.240 1.080 [40.50[ 14 7.43 3.715 .993 [50.60[ 12 7.42 2.678 .773 Total 35 7.91 3.284 .555 Questioning and
Thinking
[30.40[ 9 16.56 4.613 1.538 [40.50[ 14 15.79 5.508 1.472 [50.60[ 12 15.33 4.376 1.263 Total 35 15.83 4.799 .811
157
Teachers either worked in private Portuguese schools, international schools or public schools. Four out of the 26 practices yielded statistical differences ranging from 0.04 to 0.36 (see Table 73). In other words, the type of school teachers worked in seemed to have an influence on the following practices: Question 2 “Assign projects or other work requiring extended time for students to complete”; Question 19 “Group students by ability across classrooms at the same grade level”; Question 25. “Encourage students to ask higher-level questions,” and Question 26 where teachers answered how frequently they “Encourage student participation in discussions”.
Table 73
Kruskal Wallis Test for Type of School Chi-Square df Asymp. Sig.
q1 3.683 2 .159
q2 10.829 2 .004
q3 2.546 2 .280
q4 2.265 2 .322
q5 4.843 2 .089
q6 2.244 2 .326
q7 .779 2 .678
q8 .239 2 .887
q9 5.412 2 .067
q10 4.318 2 .115
q11 3.786 2 .151
q12 .765 2 .682
q13 3.131 2 .209
q14 2.825 2 .244
q15 3.211 2 .201
q16 4.427 2 .109
q17 1.045 2 .593
q18 4.708 2 .095
q19 6.625 2 .036
q20 .969 2 .616
q21 4.617 2 .099
q22 1.142 2 .565
q23 2.854 2 .240
q24 4.958 2 .084
q25 7.334 2 .026
q26 7.164 2 .028
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Current School
Focussing further on Question 2 “Assign projects or other work requiring extended time for students to complete” a significantly higher mean (𝑀 = 4) was observed in international schools (Table 74).
158 Table 74
Statistics for Question 2 “Assign projects or other work requiring extended time for students to complete” and Type of School
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Public 18 2.28 1.127 .266
Private Portuguese 9 2.00 1.225 .408
Private/English International
8 4.00 .926 .327
Total 35 2.60 1.333 .225
Using Scheffe, which is a robust and conservative statistical analysis used for multiple comparisons, it was found that teachers working in the international private sector tended to “Assign projects or other work requiring extended time for students to complete,” more frequently than teachers working in either private Portuguese schools or public schools (Table 75).
Table 75
Scheffe Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable related to Question 2
(I) Current
School (J) Current School
Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound Public Private Portuguese 2.194444 3.467532 .820 -6.70643 11.09532
Private/English International
-12.312500* 3.609122 .007 -21.57682 -3.04818 Private
Portuguese
Public -2.194444 3.467532 .820 -11.09532 6.70643 Private/English
International
-14.506944* 4.127189 .005 -25.10110 -3.91278 Private/English
International
Public 12.312500* 3.609122 .007 3.04818 21.57682 Private Portuguese 14.506944* 4.127189 .005 3.91278 25.10110
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
The school teachers taught in also seemed to influence how often teachers
“Group students by ability across classrooms at the same grade level” (Question 19) although this difference was only statistically significant between international schools and private Portuguese schools (Appendix E; Table E1). Teachers tended to “Encourage students to ask higher-level questions” (Question 25) and “Encourage student participation in discussions” (Question 26) more often in international schools (𝑀 = 4.88 𝑎𝑛𝑑 5,00). The means can be see in in Figure 33 below.
159
This difference was statistically significant when making a comparison between international schools and public schools (Appendix E; Tables 1 to 3).
The practices as part of the four components were also analysed. Table 76 demonstrates higher means amongst teachers from the international private sector in all four components.
Figure 33. Means for Items and Type of School
160 Table 76
Statistics for Type of School across the four components
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Reading and Writing
Assignments
Public 18 7.56 3.053 .720
Private Portuguese 9 5.89 2.848 .949
Private/English International
8 10.38 3.021 1.068
Total 35 7.77 3.317 .561
Providing Challenge and Choice
Public 18 7.06 3.369 .794
Private Portuguese 9 6.33 3.742 1.247
Private/English International
8 10.25 3.105 1.098
Total 35 7.60 3.632 .614
Curriculum Modification
Public 18 7.78 3.116 .735
Private Portuguese 9 7.33 4.243 1.414
Private/English International
8 8.88 2.588 .915
Total 35 7.91 3.284 .555
Questioning and
Thinking Public 18 14.61 4.865 1.147
Private Portuguese 9 15.22 5.563 1.854
Private/English International
8 19.25 1.165 .412
Total 35 15.83 4.799 .811
The higher means can be confirmed visually in Figure 34.
Figure 34. Means for Type of School across the four components
161
The associated p-value in the Kruskal Wallis test was found to be significant in three out of the four components (Table 77); it was only in practices within the component of Curriculum Modification where schools teachers taught in seemed to have no bearing. Practices considered gifted-friendly strategies within Reading and Writing Assignments, Providing Challenge and Choice and Questioning and Thinking were more frequent in international schools than in other schools. Larger samples are required for any conclusions to be reached.
Table 77
Kruskal Wallis Test Statisticsa,b for Type of School across the four components Readingand
Writing Assignments
Providing Challenge and Choice
Curriculum Modification
Questioning and Thinking
Chi-Square 7.297 5.979 1.320 6.141
df 2 2 2 2
Asymp. Sig. .026 .049 .517 .046
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Current School
For statistical analysis to take place, years of experience in teaching had to be divided into less and more than 20 years of experience. Although most gifted-friendly practices did not seem to be influenced by these variables (Table 78), Question 20,
“Send students to a higher grade level” yielded a statistically significant value (p 0.022).
At a closer look at the crosstab for Question 20 (see Appendix E, Table 4), it can be seen that 82.9% never sent students to a higher grade level; within these, 95.2% with more than 20 years of experience were likely to never engage in this behaviour. In other words according to the current sample, teachers with more than 20 years of experience were less likely to send students to a higher grade level than their less experienced peers.
162 Table 78
Mann-Whitney U Test for Years of Teaching Experience Mann-Whitney
U Wilcoxon W Z
Asymp. Sig.
(2-tailed)
q1 144.500 249.500 -.086 .931
q2 129.500 234.500 -.605 .545
q3 137.500 368.500 -.336 .737
q4 146.500 251.500 -.017 .986
q5 102.000 207.000 -1.570 .116
q6 129.000 234.000 -.632 .528
q7 107.000 338.000 -1.378 .168 q8 113.000 344.000 -1.183 .237
q9 121.000 226.000 -.925 .355
q10 145.000 250.000 -.070 .944 q11 131.500 236.500 -.541 .589 q12 142.500 373.500 -.155 .877 q13 118.500 349.500 -.986 .324 q14 119.500 224.500 -.952 .341 q15 126.000 357.000 -.726 .468 q16 107.000 338.000 -1.410 .159 q17 138.500 369.500 -.314 .754 q18 136.000 367.000 -.384 .701 q19 118.000 223.000 -1.001 .317 q20 102.500 333.500 -2.283 .022 q21 145.000 250.000 -.069 .945 q22 135.000 366.000 -.414 .679 q23 140.500 245.500 -.231 .818 q24 136.500 241.500 -.387 .698 q25 137.500 368.500 -.339 .735 q26 134.000 365.000 -.487 .626
Number of weekly hours seemed to have an influence on six gifted-friendly practices as reported by the teachers that had one or more gifted student in the classroom. The statistical data in Table 79 denote statistically significant values. Figure 35 also depicts the tendency for certain practices as reflected in Questions 2,3,5,9,18 and 19 (p values ranging from 0.03 to 0.38) to be more likely to be carried out when teachers had more than four hours of English with the students.
In reference to Question 2 “Assign projects or other work requiring extended time for students to complete,” a larger percentage of teachers answered “Never”
(28.6%); all of these Secondary teachers of English had less than four hours of English a week (Appendix E; Table E5). Similarly, in Question 3 where teachers were asked to
163
report how often they “Give creative or expository writing assignments on topics selected by the teacher” 68.5% reported to either never engage in this practice or to apply it once a term. Again, the majority of responses within this set were given by teachers teaching fewer than four hours of English. Approximately 43% of the teachers replied that they never “Eliminate curricular material that students have mastered” and 31% reported never to “Provide a different curricular experience by using a more advanced curriculum unit on a teacher-selected topic”. When teachers reported their practices regarding Question 19, “Group students by ability across classrooms at the same grade level,” a similar pattern was found (approximately 29%). All six gifted-friendly practices referred to above were more frequently used by teachers with more than four hours of English a week (Appendix E; Tables E6 to E10).
Table 79
Mann-Whitney U Test for weekly number of hours of English Mann-Whitney
U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig.
(2-tailed)
q1 89.500 414.500 -1.329 .184
q2 52.500 377.500 -2.718 .007
q3 71.000 396.000 -2.072 .038
q4 90.500 415.500 -1.290 .197
q5 58.500 383.500 -2.516 .012
q6 76.000 401.000 -1.865 .062
q7 85.500 410.500 -1.475 .140
q8 88.500 413.500 -1.377 .168
q9 47.000 372.000 -3.008 .003
q10 117.000 172.000 -.302 .762
q11 82.500 407.500 -1.609 .108
q12 94.000 419.000 -1.159 .247
q13 90.500 415.500 -1.294 .196
q14 84.000 409.000 -1.539 .124
q15 81.000 406.000 -1.650 .099
q16 86.500 411.500 -1.471 .141
q17 91.500 416.500 -1.340 .180
q18 68.500 393.500 -2.136 .033
q19 66.500 391.500 -2.190 .029
q20 107.000 432.000 -1.002 .317
q21 79.500 404.500 -1.711 .087
q22 102.500 427.500 -.842 .400
q23 82.000 407.000 -1.654 .098
q24 91.500 416.500 -1.341 .180
q25 76.000 401.000 -1.897 .058
q26 101.500 426.500 -.955 .340
a. Grouping Variable: Nº of weekly teaching hours of English per class
164
Educational qualifications were divided into undergraduate levels and postgraduate levels of qualification. This did not seem to have an influence on most practices except when teachers reported how frequently in Question 8 (p 0.007) “Use pre-tests to determine if students know before a new topic is given” (Table 80). A further look at the crosstab (Appendix E; Table E11) shows that the most frequent answer was that teachers never engaged in this practice. Amongst the teachers that never used this practice, 60% were teachers with a postgraduate level of study.
Figure 35. Means of items and weekly number of hours of English
165 Table 80
Mann-Whitney U Test for Level of Qualification Test Statisticsa
Mann-Whitney
U Wilcoxon W Z
Asymp. Sig.
(2-tailed)
q1 97.000 217.000 -1.811 .070
q2 121.500 241.500 -.975 .329
q3 127.000 247.000 -.806 .421
q4 123.500 243.500 -.904 .366
q5 97.500 217.500 -1.813 .070
q6 146.000 356.000 -.139 .889
q7 136.500 346.500 -.460 .645
q8 72.000 192.000 -2.687 .007
q9 142.000 352.000 -.282 .778
q10 149.000 269.000 -.035 .972
q11 139.000 259.000 -.380 .704
q12 116.000 236.000 -1.160 .246
q13 138.000 348.000 -.411 .681
q14 136.000 256.000 -.480 .631
q15 148.000 358.000 -.068 .945
q16 147.500 357.500 -.087 .931
q17 123.000 243.000 -.986 .324
q18 146.000 266.000 -.138 .890
q19 132.000 342.000 -.615 .539
q20 143.500 263.500 -.330 .741
q21 143.500 353.500 -.223 .823
q22 144.000 354.000 -.205 .838
q23 131.000 341.000 -.667 .505
q24 124.000 334.000 -.950 .342
q25 139.000 259.000 -.389 .697
q26 119.000 329.000 -1.150 .250 a. Grouping Variable: Highest Degree earned
The teachers that had training in gifted education as part of their university course seemed to yield higher means and lower standard deviations than those that had had none (see Table 81).
166 Table 81
Means of Yes and No groups: Did you have training in gifted education during your university course?
Statistics Questions
“No” “Yes”
Mean Std.
Deviation Mean Std.
Deviation
q1 2.57 1.331 3.80 .837
q2 2.40 1.303 3.80 .837
q3 1.87 .900 3.00 1.000
q4 2.67 1.470 3.60 .894
q5 2.27 1.081 3.40 .894
q6 2.07 1.112 3.20 1.095
q7 2.50 1.383 4.20 .837
q8 2.27 1.337 3.60 .894
q9 1.90 1.185 3.20 1.095
q10 3.43 1.478 3.60 1.673
q11 2.50 1.137 3.80 .447
q12 2.57 1.431 4.00 .707
q13 2.53 1.332 3.40 .894
q14 2.40 1.276 3.40 .548
q15 2.70 1.579 4.20 .837
q16 2.07 1.230 3.20 1.483
q17 1.90 1.398 3.60 .894
q18 2.43 1.382 3.80 .447
q19 2.77 1.501 3.20 1.643
q20 1.10 .403 2.40 1.140
q21 2.33 1.213 3.40 .894
q22 2.97 1.497 3.80 .447
q23 3.77 1.305 4.40 .548
q24 3.97 1.377 4.40 .548
q25 3.73 1.413 4.60 .548
q26 4.00 1.339 4.60 .548
Statistical differences shown by a level of significance lower than 0.05 were found in 15 of 26 gifted friendly practices in the CPQ (Table 82). This indicated that that teachers who reported to have had gifted education training/workshops within their university course engaged in specific gifted practices more often than when teachers did not have this kind of training.
167 Table 82
Mann-Whitney U Test for “Did your university course include training in gifted education?”
Crosstabs (Appendix E; Tables 12 to 26) indicate that 40% of the teachers who had had training/workshop in gifted education during their further education reported that the following practice “Assign reading of more advanced level work” was carried out at least twice a month whilst only 10% reported doing so when they hadn’t endorsed this kind of training. Often the differences were evident in the percentage of teachers that replied never providing certain activities; this was the case in Question 2
“Assign projects or other work requiring extended time for students to complete”;
Question 7 “Make time for students to pursue self-selected interests”; Question 9
“Eliminate curricular material that students have mastered”; Question 14 “Assign different homework based on student ability”; Question 17 “Allow students within your classroom to work from a higher grade level textbook” and Question 20 “Send students to a higher grade level”.
Mann-Whitney
U Wilcoxon W Z
Asymp.Sig.
(2-tailed)
q1 33.000 498.000 -2.030 .042
q2 30.000 495.000 -2.178 .029
q3 30.500 495.500 -2.204 .028
q4 45.500 510.500 -1.424 .154
q5 31.500 496.500 -2.125 .034
q6 32.000 497.000 -2.113 .035
q7 25.000 490.000 -2.411 .016
q8 32.500 497.500 -2.071 .038
q9 27.000 492.000 -2.390 .017
q10 70.000 535.000 -.244 .807
q11 22.500 487.500 -2.565 .010
q12 32.500 497.500 -2.051 .040
q13 44.500 509.500 -1.477 .140
q14 37.500 502.500 -1.817 .069
q15 35.000 500.000 -1.937 .053
q16 41.500 506.500 -1.653 .098
q17 25.500 490.500 -2.557 .011
q18 28.000 493.000 -2.294 .022
q19 62.500 527.500 -.604 .546
q20 19.500 484.500 -3.987 .000
q21 35.500 500.500 -1.917 .055
q22 51.000 516.000 -1.160 .246
q23 58.000 523.000 -.844 .399
q24 72.500 537.500 -.129 .897
q25 51.500 516.500 -1.175 .240
q26 62.500 527.500 -.656 .512
168
Whilst asked how frequently secondary teachers of English in this sub-sample
“Assign book reports” 40% of the teachers without any training answered never and 43% replied carrying this activity out twice a month. Question 5 asked teachers to report how frequently they “Give creative or expository writing assignments on topics selected by the teacher”; 60% of the teachers within this group answered once a month while a much lower percentage, 10% of the teachers without any training did. A similar pattern followed in Question 6 which focussed on a similar question but topics selected by the students. The use of “... pre-tests to determine what students know before a new topic is given,” was popular amongst those with training (80%) who carried this out at least twice a month while only 10% of the teachers without training did with the same frequency. More than three quarters of the teachers with training “Substitute different assignments for students who have mastered regular classroom work” (Question 11) at least twice a month in contrast to a mere 3% of the teachers without training. Question 12 “Modify the instructional format for students who learn better using an alternative approach,” was also significantly more frequent when teachers had more training. A relatively large difference in Question 18 “Provide a different curricular experience by using a more advanced curriculum unit on a teacher-selected topic” was evident; 80%
of the teachers with training engaged in this particular practice at least twice a month while 3.3% of those with no training during their higher education.
The analysis of the four factors also seemed to demonstrate the same pattern; in all of the cases, teachers who had training during their university courses scored higher means (Figure 36).
169
Figure 36. Means of Yes and No groups - “Did your University course include training in gifted education?”
Further analysis, however, only showed significant statistical differences in two out of four components: Reading and Writing Assignments (p 0.08) and Curriculum Modification (p 0.05) which can be seen in the table below (Table 83). It can be said that according to the results obtained in this study, teachers who had received some sort of training/workshop or seminars during their university course seemed to engage more frequently in gifted friendly practices related to Reading and Writing and Curriculum Modifications than teachers who had not had this opportunity.
Table 83
Mann-Whitney U Test for “Did your University course include training in gifted education?” across the four components
Questioning and Thinking
Reading and Writing Assignments
Providing Challenge and Choice
Curriculum Modifications
Mann-Whitney U 58.500 21.000 34.500 18.000
Wilcoxon W 523.500 486.000 499.500 483.000
Z -.799 -2.557 -1.924 -2.703
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .424 .011 .064 .007
Exact Sig.
[2*(1-tailed Sig.)]
.448 .008 .060 .005
170
When teachers reported having participated in in-service courses in gifted education more engagement was shown throughout the practices, as can be seen in Figure 37.
Figure 37. Means of Yes and No groups – “Have you ever participated in any in-service courses in gifted education?
This was also evident in the analysis of the four factors (Figure 38), yet in none of the cases were there any statistical differences found. Further research with a bigger sample is warranted.
171
Figure 38. Means of Yes and No groups - “Have you ever participated in-service training?” across the four components
Teachers reported their level of confidence concerning teaching gifted learners by choosing Yes, No or Somewhat Confident. Despite some apparent discrepancies, no statistically significant values were found. Similarly, although some quantitative differences were present, the application of the Kruskal Wallis test on the four components revealed that the level of confidence a teacher has in teaching the gifted does not have a bearing on the usage of gifted friendly practices.
Teachers were asked to report whether they perceived themselves as gifted by selecting Yes, No or Maybe. Although no patterns were found in relation to most practices, when asked the frequency in which teachers “Engage students to ask higher-level questions” (Question 25) a statistically significant statistical value of 0.04 emerged (Table 84). Out of the teachers that reported considering themselves as gifted, all engaged in higher-level questioning more than once week (in comparison to 48% of the ones who answered No and 11% of the ones who answered Maybe).
172 Table 84
Kruskal Wallis Test for self-perception as gifted Test Statisticsa,b
Chi-Square df Asymp. Sig.
q1 .686 2 .710
q2 .227 2 .893
q3 2.698 2 .260
q4 1.376 2 .502
q5 .650 2 .723
q6 1.466 2 .480
q7 2.418 2 .299
q8 1.846 2 .397
q9 2.154 2 .341
q10 .245 2 .885
q11 2.486 2 .289
q12 1.347 2 .510
q13 .370 2 .831
q14 .067 2 .967
q15 1.856 2 .395
q16 .965 2 .617
q17 .294 2 .863
q18 1.452 2 .484
q19 2.010 2 .366
q20 1.532 2 .465
q21 1.491 2 .475
q22 3.634 2 .163
q23 4.047 2 .132
q24 2.052 2 .359
q25 6.440 2 .040
q26 4.839 2 .089
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Do you consider yourself gifted
The factor analysis, carried out with the help of the Kruskal Wallis test did not yield any significant data. In other words, none of the factors seemed to be influenced by whether teachers perceived himself/herself as gifted. Having a family member who was gifted or not did not influence teachers’ pedagogical strategies as reported by the responses given in the CPQ either. The factor analysis, carried out with the help of the Kruskal Wallis test did not yield any significant data. In other words, none of the factors seemed to be influenced by whether teachers perceived himself/herself as gifted.
However, self-perception as gifted did seem to relate to more frequent usage of higher-level questioning.
173