PRE-SERVICE SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS LEARNING …
ISSN 0827 3383
International Journal
of
Special Education
VOLUME 26 2011 NUMBER 2
• Beginner Pre-Service Special Education Teachers’ Learning Experience During Practicum
• The Direct and Indirect effects of Environmental Factors on Nurturing Intellectual Giftedness
• Teaching to Diversity: Creating Compassionate Learning Communities for Diverse Elementary School Students
• Creating Success for Students with Learning Disabilities in Postsecondary Foreign Language Courses
• Social Developmental Parameters in Primary Schools: Inclusive Settings’ and Gender Differences on Pupils’ Aggressive and Social Insecure Behaviour and their Attitudes Towards Disability
• Let’s Have Fun! Teaching Social Skills Through Stories, Telecommunications, and Activities
• Parents’ Perspectives on Inclusion and Schooling of Students with Angelman Syndrome: Suggestions for Educators
• Enhancing Preservice Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy and Attitudes Toward School Diversity Through Preparation: A Case of One U.S. Inclusive Teacher Education Program
• Professionalism and Institutionalization of Education of Speech and Language Impaired Children in an Inclusive System in Germany
• School Culture for Students with Significant Support Needs: Belonging is Not Enough
• Inclusive Education in Sweden: Responses, Challenges and Prospects
• Special Education in Saudi Arabia: Challenges, Perspectives, Future Possibilities
• Differentiated Accountability Policy and School Improvement Plans: A Look at Professional Development and Inclusive Practices for Exceptional Students
International Journal of Special Education
EDITORIAL POLICY
The International Journal of Special Education publishes original articles concerning special education. Experimental as well as theoretical articles are sought. Potential contributors are encouraged to submit reviews of research, historical, and philosophical studies, case studies and content analyses in addition to experimental correlation studies, surveys and reports of the effectiveness of innovative programs.
Send your article to marcsapo@interchange.ubc.ca or irisdoug@ as attachment by e-mail, in MSWORD for IBM format ONLY.
Articles should be double spaced (including references). Submit one original only. Any tables must be in MS-WORD for IBM Format and in the correct placement within the article. Please include a clear return e-mail address for the electronic return of any material. Published articles remain the property of the Journal.
E-mailed contributions are reviewed by the Editorial Board. Articles are then chosen for publication. Accepted articles may be revised for clarity, organisation and length.
Style: The content, organisation and style of articles should follow the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition. An article written in an obviously deviating style will be returned to the author for revision.
Abstracts: All articles will be preceded by an abstract of 100-200 words. Contributors are referred to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition for assistance in preparing the abstract.
Responsibility of Authors: Authors are solely responsible for the factual accuracy of their contributions. The author is responsible for obtaining permission to quote lengthy excerpts from previously published material. All figures submitted must be submitted within the document.
JOURNAL LISTINGS
Annotated and Indexed by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children for publication in the monthly print index Current Index to Journals of Special Education (CIJE) and the quarterly index, Exceptional Child Education Resources (ECER).
IJSE is also indexed at Education Index (EDI).
The journal appears at the website:
The editor can be reached at marcsapo@interchange.ubc.ca
The co-editor can be reached at irisdoug@
VOLUME 26 2011 NUMBER 2
Beginner Pre-Service Special Education Teachers’ Learning Experience During Practicum…………..1
Karen P. Nonis & Tan Sing Yee Jernice
The Direct and Indirect effects of Environmental Factors on Nurturing Intellectual Giftedness……….15
Ahmad Mohammad Al-Shabatat, Merza Abbas &Hairul Nizam Ismail
Teaching to Diversity: Creating Compassionate Learning Communities for Diverse
Elementary School Students……………………………………………………………………………..26
Jennifer Katz & Marion Porath
Creating Success for Students with Learning Disabilities in Postsecondary
Foreign Language Courses………………………………………………………………………………39
Michael E. Skinner & Allison T. Smith
Social Developmental Parameters in Primary Schools: Inclusive Settings’ and
Gender Differences on Pupils’ Aggressive and Social Insecure Behaviour and
their Attitudes Towards Disability………………………………………………………………………..55
Athina Arampatzi, Katerina Mouratidou, Christina Evaggelinou, Eirini Koidou, & Vassilis Barkoukis
Let’s Have Fun! Teaching Social Skills Through Stories, Telecommunications, and Activities……….67
Kaili Chen Zhang
Parents’ Perspectives on Inclusion and Schooling of Students with Angelman Syndrome:
Suggestions for Educators………………………………………………………………………………..76
Yona Leyser & Rea Kirk
Enhancing Preservice Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy and Attitudes Toward School
Diversity Through Preparation: A Case of One U.S. Inclusive
Teacher Education Program………………………………………………………………………………89
Wei Gao & Gerald Mager
Professionalism and Institutionalization of Education of Speech and Language
Impaired Children in an Inclusive System in Germany…………………………………………………………………………………………………105
Jörg Mussmann
School Culture for Students with Significant Support Needs: Belonging is Not Enough…………………………………………………………………………………………………..117
Diane Carroll, Connie Fulmer, Donna Sobel, Dorothy Garrison-Wade, Lorenso Aragon, & Lisa Coval
Inclusive Education in Sweden: Responses, Challenges and Prospects………………………………………………………………………………………………...125
Girma Berhanu
Special Education in Saudi Arabia: Challenges, Perspectives, Future Possibilities……………………………………………………………………………………………...146
Turki Alquraini
Differentiated Accountability Policy and School Improvement Plans: A Look at
Professional Development and Inclusive Practices for Exceptional Students………………………………………………………………………………………………….157
Marsha Simon & William R. Black
Beginner Pre-Service Special Education Teachers’ Learning Experience during Practicum
Karen P. Nonis
Tan Sing Yee Jernice
Nanyang Technological University
In Singapore, training for pre-service special education (PSSE) teachers is supported by a ten-week special education teaching (SET) practicum process in special school setting. In the first four weeks of SET practicum PSSE teachers are familiarized with their pupils, class routines, school culture and administrative processes within the school. The PSSE teachers were guided in lesson preparation and delivery by way of written and face-to-face feedback. Following this handholding, the PSSE teachers are observed by supervisors and cooperating teachers in the school and the University supervisors and they are graded for their overall performance of the SET practicum. This study focuses on the learning experiences of the PSSE teachers during the ten-week SET practicum in their respective special schools. The PSSE teachers completed a survey the week following completion of their practicum experience in school. Thirty-three (Male = 3; Female = 30) PSSE teachers participated in the survey. The survey instrument used a 4-point Likert scale which included two sections: (a) Teachers’ Response to the Practicum Experience their Learning Experience and (b) The process of the SET Practicum. The overall findings indicate that the PSSE teachers had positive experiences. Although the majority of PSSE teachers indicated that they enjoyed the SET practicum, their reasons varied. They felt that their supervisors both within the school and the University understood and the SET practice process and also conveyed the correct SET practicum process to them. The findings of this study are discussed in the light of recommended improvements to the SET practicum process for the PSSE teachers in special schools.
Introduction
A beginner teacher’s first experience in a classroom setting can be very daunting. It is for this reason that courses that offer foundation in education with a practicum component is valuable (Ogonor & Badmus, 2006). Studies on occupational stress have also revealed that teaching is one of the most stressful occupations (Boyle, Borg, Falzon & Baglioni Jr., 1995; Hui & Chan, 1996; Schonfeld, 2001. Teachers working in the field of Special Education experience stressful work situations (Antoniou, Polychroni & Kotroni, 2009; Emery & Vandenberg, 2010; Forlin, 2001; Willliams & Gersch, 2004). Practicum for pre-service special education (PSSE) teachers is especially important. Teaching practicum forms a critical part of the teacher training of the beginning teacher’s first experience in a real school setting. It is a time where pre-service teachers are able to test out new or different strategies and apply what they have learned in their lectures to classrooms situations. It could also be a time to experience and learn to cope with occupational stress while they are having practicum.
Studies have also suggested that for PSSE teachers in mainstream schools which include teaching children with special education needs (SEN), lectures and discussions are insufficient (Kraayenoord, 2003). Instead, teachers should be encouraged to reflect and discuss thoughts and new innovative ideas for inclusion would be most suitable in the classroom environment. While the literature on beginner teacher’s experiences in regular classrooms is well documented, that of beginner PSSE teachers in mainstream or special education classrooms is limited (Conderman, Katsiyannis & Franks, 2001; Conderman, Morin & Stephens, 2005; McIntyre, Bryd & Foxx, 1996).
The Value of the Practicum Experience
Practicum experience help beginner teachers remain in teaching, develop skills and competencies in classroom management and progress in their teaching profession (Cameron, Lovett & Berger, 2007; Heppner, 1994; Smith & Lev-Ari, 2005). Cameron et al. (2007) tracked teachers in both primary and secondary schools from their third year between the years 2005 and 2008. The authors wrote that quality leadership and organizational commitment and practices, collegial support and opportunities to continue to learn about teaching collectively assisted beginner teachers in their classrooms. Further, these factors kept teachers longer in the teaching profession. Specifically, at the class level, beginner teachers indicated that they were supported in classes with pupils of less behavioral challenges. In this way, beginner teachers, Cameron and colleagues (2007) said, could concentrate better on the teaching rather than managing the pupils’ behaviors. In addition, when beginner teachers taught in subject areas they were qualified in and having a lower number of subjects to teach added to the support they needed at the start of their careers in teaching.
Interestingly, Cameron et al. (2007) reported that beginner teachers had Provisionally Registered Teacher (PRT) time allowance which protected the time of the teachers from covering duties such as teacher absences and or the kitchen manager. Although the authors did not provide an explanation as to the role of the kitchen manager, one would assume this would mean duties other than classroom teaching. Creatively, beginner teachers were encouraged to use their PRT time to locate resources and increase their awareness of their school and community and observe other teachers in classroom teaching (Cameron et al., 2007).
The School Culture as Support to the Practicum Experience
Beginnings in any new job can be stressful; some take it at their stride while others have problems settling in. The teaching profession, in particular has been ranked as a high stress occupation by many researchers (Beer & Beer, 1992; Borg, Riding & Falzon, 1991). Practicum forms part of the most stressful component in teaching and managing pupils’ behavior as this is one area where beginner teachers are challenged (Kyriacou & Stephens, 1999). Managing challenging pupils’ behaviors not only affects beginner teachers but even qualified teachers tend to feel stressed as well (Head, Hill & McGuire, 1996). Toren and Iliyan’s (2008) study of 146 beginner teachers, five mentors and five advisors using open-ended questions and semi-structured interviews, reported that beginner teachers faced adjustment to the schools’ culture, overload with work and individual differences amongst pupils.
In Lee, Walker and Bodycott’s study (2000) exploring the perceptions and expectations of Principals, pre-service teachers did not expect to receive assistance from their Principals during their first month of teaching. However, some of these pre-service teachers expected their Principals to be receptive and supportive to innovative teaching. The study further revealed that the pre-service teachers either wished for more support from their teaching colleagues or they believed that they should depend on themselves during their teaching practicum (Lee et al., 2000). Adding to this, Cameron et al.’s study (2007) reported that beginner teachers felt better when the school understood that it was not easy for a new teacher to adjust to a new environment. Consequently, irrespective of the type of profession, a positive, warm, welcoming and supportive environment combined with collegiality certainly help settle beginner PSSE teachers a little better.
Mentoring forms a critical part of the practicum process which could also affect the level of stress of a beginner PSSE teacher. However, this would depend on the experience and ability of the mentors (Roehrig, Bohn, Turner & Pressley, 2008). The authors wrote that experienced mentors had more to offer to their mentees and that effective beginner teachers communicated more with their mentors (Roehrig et al., 2008). Good mentorship is reflected in mentor ability to work with beginning teachers, developing strong and positive interactions with openness to discussions between mentor and mentees and teaching competence of the mentor (Evertson & Smithey, 2000). Mentors feedback to beginner student teachers during practicum has shown to affect their performance (Heppner, 1994). Heppner’s study (1994) involving five doctoral student teachers (four male, one female) found that the self-efficacy beliefs of these five student teachers were significantly enhanced under a structured teaching practicum system. This was seen through pre and post test ratings of prospective faculty of teaching whereby these five student teachers achieved significant differences in 21 out of 22 learning objectives during the course of the practicum. Some of these significant findings included learning objectives such as how to set the norms and expectations for my class, how to use learning objectives to guide my teaching strategies, developmental issues college students go through, factors to consider in leading a discussion, how to conduct a peer consultation and how to develop a teaching portfolio (Heppner, 1994, p. 503).
In addition, Heppner’s (1994) study also emphasized the need to have more varied forms of feedback for the student teachers to maximize the development of prospective faculty members’ self-efficacy. Typically, the common form of feedback from the instructor to the student teachers was through standard teaching evaluation questionnaires administered at the end of the semester. As Heppner’s (1994) study suggests, feedback can come in different forms such as instructor or peer observations, videotaping, peer consultation, or more traditional teaching evaluations. Further, the student teachers could also be introduced to a variety of activities during the teaching practicum such as peer support, discussion in teaching methods and techniques.
Other studies have supported the importance of having a mentorship programme during practicum (Boz & Boz, 2006, Hastings & Squires, 2002; Smith & Lev-Ari, 2005). For example, in Boz and Boz’s (2006) study, student teachers indicated that they either did not like the teachers they were attached to or felt that they did not get enough practice in their teaching experience. Smith and Lev-Ari (2005) study of 480 student teachers with a 68 closed-item questionnaire on their evaluation of various components of teacher education programmes indentified University supervisors as providing the strongest support next to their peers and school-based mentors during practicum. In Hastings and Squires’ (2002) study in which the role of mentorship was tasked to an experienced school-based teacher educator over a three-week period (rather than to the University Supervisor), the authors suggested that such new teaching practicum model allow opportunities for more collaboration which could potentially benefit every stakeholder in the practicum process. Examples of collaborative opportunities include sharing of ideas and understanding of ideal models of effective teaching among the different stakeholders and recognizing the new teaching practicum as a discussion platform for University mentor/supervisors and school-based mentors to develop the university course material incorporating their practical professional knowledge (Hastings & Squires, 2002).
Others studies have reinforced the need for teaching institutes to take a larger role in fostering and enhancing communication between mentors and student teachers while also providing on-going support to mentors while in the practicum process (Bradbury & Koballa Jr., 2008). Bradbury & Koballa Jr. (2008) explored the tensions between two pairs of mentor student teachers using border crossing as a theoretical framework. In this study, tension is defined as a strain or source of anxiety in the relationship. Border crossing framework involves a negotiation channel of transitions and expectations between mentors and the student teachers in order to develop a successful working relationship. This study revealed that the tensions between mentors and student teachers include different perceptions of mentoring, difficulty in communication and relationship development and different beliefs in teaching.
Conderman et al. (2005) surveyed faculty members of special education programme from 100 institutions in the United States of which one of the surveyed areas included supervision practices. The authors reported that between 94% and 98% of special education University supervisors provide feedback either verbally or written to their student teachers (i.e. PSSE teachers). Further, that 80% of University supervisors made four visits for student teachers on a quarter system while 33% and 28% made four and six visits to student teachers on a semester system respectively. The duration of the visits varied for supervisors as well. For example, 60% of each visit lasted between 30 to 60 minutes, 32% of each visit lasted for 30 minutes or less , 6% of each visit lasted between 60 and 90 minutes, and 2% of each visit lasted for over 90 minutes (Conderman et al., 2005). When the respondents (i.e. PSSE teachers) were asked to specify what were the most student teaching challenges, the top three most frequent responses were getting appropriate and adequate resources in terms of time, travel and other university resources (Respondents: 29%), selecting and retaining qualified cooperating teachers who shared same teaching philosophy of teacher preparation programme (Respondents: 25%) and finding appropriate teaching placements for student teachers (Respondents: 19%, Conderman et al., 2005). Finding appropriate teaching placements was especially an important factor influencing the learning experiences during SET practicum (Conderman et al., 2005). Although not part of the most significant factors, 7% of faculty members of special education programme of various institutions indicated that the student teachers (i.e. PSSE teachers) themselves were the greatest teaching challenge. The PSSE teachers were socially and emotionally unprepared to teach and had the impression that they would receive an A grade from their mentors or that they would be posted out to schools in their home districts for SET practicum (Conderman et al., 2005).
Lewis, Hatcher and William (2005) study investigated 263 pre-doctoral psychology graduate students through a survey on their practicum experience. The study highlighted problems in communication between practicum sites and education programme taken by student teachers and that they hoped to have more information about the practicum. Similarly, Tarquin and Truscott (2006) surveyed a national sample of 139 school psychology students to better understand their practicum experiences. Although these students were generally satisfied with their practicum experiences and their supervisors, many knew little about the whole range of activities which they were supposed to do after they graduated. The authors suggested that training should be provided to supervisors to set clear expectations to provide appropriate activities for practicum students and to ensure that practicum students be exposed to a range of potential professional functions. In addition, supervisors should understand the importance of modelling as these practicum students may look to them as role models. Thus, supervisors should also be aware of the specific strategies they can use to provide support, feedback, and apprentice-type learning opportunities.
Caires and Almeida (2007) explored the student teachers’ perception about their practicum. Specifically, Caires and Almeida (2007) conducted a survey based on the reflections of 224 student teachers about their cooperative teacher’s and university supervisor’s performance. Generally, the study concluded the way supervisors interacted with their supervisors in terms of involvement, proximity, respect and support contributed to a positive practicum experience. Further, the study also emphasized that the university supervisors’ interpersonal skills was crucial to the student teachers’ positive practicum experiences. Rajuan, Beijard & Verloop (2008) study involving 10 cooperating teachers and 20 undergraduate student teachers of an Israeli academic teachers’ college reported that student teachers can learn about personal characteristics essential for creating positive teacher-pupil relationships through the interpersonal relationships between student teachers and cooperating teachers. In general, student teachers viewed the practicum experience as the most significant aspect of learning to teach of which they regarded the relationship with their cooperating teachers as the most important part of the fieldwork experience. In another words, the supervisory relationships are important to the personal and professional development of the prospective teachers (Caires & Almeida, 2007). A view shared by other researchers (Rajuan, et al., 2008).
The Practicum Process for Pre-Service Special School Teachers (PSSE) in the 1990s to 2004
In the past, the PSSE teachers in special schools underwent a two-year part-time Diploma in Special Education (DISE) at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore’s teacher training hub for all teachers in both mainstream and special schools. At the time, the training involved two teaching practicums over a two-year period, Teaching practicum I (TP I) – which was seven weeks and Teaching Practicum II (TP II) – over a ten-week period. During both TP I and TP II, the PSSE teachers returned to their respective special schools that sponsored their teaching training for their SET practicum experience (Quah & Jones, 1996). The processes for TP I and TP II required a strong partnership between the NIE, the School and the PSSE teachers in training. The TP I was equated to that of the handholding session in which the teachers learned about the school environment, the pupils in the class, the culture of the school (the administrative processes) while observing other teachers in classrooms and learning to prepare and deliver lessons. The uniqueness of the special schools was that most of the PSSE teachers were experienced in working with pupils with special needs without formal training as they had on-the-job training and or in-house training. Annecdotal observations indicated that in the years from 1990 to 2004, majority of the PSSE teachers had at least three years and up to ten years of formal teaching in special schools.
Consequently, while the initial TP I allowed the PSSE teachers the time to get to know their special school, majority of the PSSE teachers were well established in their schools. The PSSE teachers were observed in both TP I and TP II but TP II carried a greater weight on the final grade and which the PSSE teachers had to pass in order to graduate as fully-trained special education teachers (Quah & Jones, 1996). The TP I handholding session served as a means of identifying and counseling the PSSE teachers at risk whereby measures were taken to assist them further into TP II. Further, it was at TP I where the PSSE teachers’ negative attitudes would also be addressed with the PSSE teachers prior to the TP II. In the more serious cases, the PSSE teachers would be recommended to repeat the TP I.
The New Practicum Process for Pre-Service Special School Teachers (PSSE) from 2005 to Present
Beginning in 2003, a taskforce was formed within the NIE, Early Childhood and Special Needs Education Academic Group (ECSEAG) to review the DISE programme for PSSE teachers in training. The taskforce recommended changes for the two-year part-time DISE to be reduced to a one-year full-time programme for the DISE. Inclusive in this change was the SET Practicum process which would be aligned to that of pre-service teachers in mainstream teacher training. With the two-year part-time compressed into a one year, the SET practicum was compacted to a ten-week practicum. Unlike the earlier TP process, TP I and TP II which comprised of a total of 17 weeks (spread over the two years) was now a ten-week SET practicum (see Figure 1). The PSSE teachers completed all their courses in the DISE prior to the SET Practicum. The new SET practicum for special schools comprised of the School Coordinating Mentor (SCM) and the Cooperating Teacher (CT) and the University Supervisors. The Principal (P), Vice-Principal (VP) and or Programme Level Leader (PLL) could be the SCM in the schools while the teacher working with the PSSE teacher on a day-to-day basis in classroom planning and delivery of lessons and co-teaching was usually the CT.
Given that both handholding and graded SET Practicum was compressed into one ten-week period, the rationale was to have handholding session within the new ten-week SET Practicum for special schools. The process of ten-week SET practicum for the PSSE teachers was further divided into TP I and TP II. In TP I, the SCM, CT and University Supervisors had to complete one observation each within the first four weeks of the start of the practicum with the submission of a Summary Interim report (see Figure 1). However, in cases where there were weak PSSE teachers, an additional observation could be done after discussions between all partners in the process. The Interim Report is unique to the SET practicum process and transparent to the PSSE teachers involved in the process prior to entry to the second phase of the TP II. The Interim Report would highlight a summary of the either a PSSE teacher at risk of failing and or with a negative attitude towards teaching and or a potential A grader in the SET practicum.
Figure 1. SET Practicum Process for Special Schools
Specific guidelines would be written in the Interim Report and made known to the student teacher in preparation for the TP II. For example, where a PSSE teacher has been performing extremely well and where both the school and the University supervisor were in agreement that the PSSE teacher was observed to be consistently performing at a high level which would be highlighted in the interim report. The expectations required for a potential A grade would be discussed with the University supervisor and the School. This interim process would give the PSSE teacher a clear and guided opportunity to view the expectations towards a potential A grade in the TP II. The TP II comprised of the remaining six weeks in which the SCM completed two observations, the CT had two observations and the University supervisor had one observations adding to a total of five out of eight observations for this period (see Figure 1). In the event that the school and the University supervisor unanimously agreed after completing the total of eight observations, that the PSSE teacher was either a fail or an A grade then an independent observation would be done by a moderator from the University.
Given the importance of practicum to PSSE teachers’ learning experiences and the change in the SET practicum process for special education teachers in Singapore, this study focused on the following questions raised as a result of the change to the SET practicum for special schools during the ten-week SET practicum in their respective schools. These included:
1. What were the PSSE teachers’ experiences during the SET Practicum?
2. From the PSSE teachers’ perspectives, was the new process in-place and understood by all those involved in the SET Practicum?
3. What were the factors that helped the PSSE teachers have a positive experience during SET Practicum? And what were not?
4. What were the difficulties faced by the PSSE teachers during the SET practicum?
5. What would the PSSE teachers like to see more of in the SET Practicum?
Method
Participants
The total cohort of PSSE teachers enrolled in the Diploma in Special Education (DISE) participated in the study (N= 33; Male =3, Female = 30; M Age = 30.8 years old, Age Range = 23 – 44 years old). The PSSE teachers completed their ten-week special education teaching (SET) practicum as partial fulfillment of the DISE. On average, the PSSE teacher’s teaching experience ranged between four months and seven years, five months (Mean Years in Teaching Special Education = two years, ten months).
Test Instrument and Training of the PSSE Teachers, School and University Supervisors
A 4-point Likert scale which included two sections: Section (A) PSSE Teachers’ Response to the Experience of SET Practicum to their Learning Experience (16 items) and Section (B) PSSE Teachers’ Response to the process of the SET Practicum (15 items) was used in this study. In addition, in Section A, where the PSSE teachers agreed or strongly agreed with the statement I enjoyed my teaching practicum, they were asked to elaborate what made their experience enjoyable. However, where there was disagreement with the same statement, they were to provide reasons for their responses. In the event that the PSSE teachers provided two responses to an item question, their response was coded as unsure. The survey also asked the PSSE teachers to write about the three most important difficulties they faced and three most important changes they would like to see take place in the SET practicum process.
All PSSE teachers, school and University supervisors were briefed about the new SET practicum process prior to the start of SET practicum. During the briefings, the first author encouraged discussion of potential problems based on past experiences in relation to the new SET practicum process. In addition, PSSE teachers, school and University supervisors could revert back to the first author to make further clarifications of the new process throughout the ten-week SET practicum.
Administration of the Survey Instrument
The PSSE teachers completed a survey at the National Institute of Education (NIE) the week following the completion of their SET practicum experience in special schools. The PSSE teachers took 30 minutes to complete the survey and they could opt out of the survey participation if they choose to.
Data Reduction and Analysis
Initial and Overarching Themes were formed from the raw data collected (Barber & Turner, 2007). Specifically, from the Overarching Theme in Section A – PSSE teachers’ response on the Experience of SET Practicum to their Learning Experiences during Practicum, the responses to the five questions (Questions 5, 7, 9, 10 and 15) formed the theme Understanding Child’s Needs. The responses from the questions 1 through to 4, 6 and 11 through to 14 and 16 formed the theme Classroom and School Related Matters. For the overarching theme in Section B – PSSE teachers’ response to the Process of SET Practicum in Section B, the four themes included were (1) School & Supervisors’ Understanding of the Practicum Process (Questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 7); (2) Conveying Correct Information about the Practicum Process (Questions 4, 6, 8); (3) Support from School and University (Questions 9, 11, 13) and (4) Rapport with Teacher (Questions 10, 12, 14, 15). The percentage frequency of responses were calculated for each item and based on the total sample of 33 participants.
Results & Discussion
The PSSE teachers’ learning experience during SET practicum
The overall findings indicate that the PSSE teachers had positive experiences (see Table 1). These positive experiences were reflected in the themes of Understanding Child’s Needs and Classroom and School Related Matters. For example, about 91% of the PSSE teachers felt that the SET practicum had helped them better understand the educational needs of their pupils (see Table 1). In addition, the PSSE teachers agreed that with the SET practicum they were able to identify problems that pupils faced in class and had helped them developed a better understanding of pupils’ social needs (88% respectively; see Table 1). A component of understanding their pupils in special education is essential in developing student teachers Individual Educational Plans (IEP) which would affect the delivery of the lessons. Cameron et al. (2007) highlighted that teachers in their study were stressed when they could not focus on the teaching when they had to attend to pupils’ behavioral problems during teaching practicum.
In relation to the theme of Classroom and School Related Matters, the SET practicum provided the PSSE teachers a link between theory and practice in classrooms, real situations and provided hands-on experience (91%, 88% & 91% respectively; see Table 1). The PSSE teachers were positive as they could try out different teaching strategies and reflect on the delivery of their lessons (91% & 88% respectively; see Table 1). Further, the majority of the PSSE teachers found the SET practicum helped them to understand Diagnostic Summaries and Individual Educational Plans (IEP) and to write and improve their lesson plans (see Table 1). A small percentage of the PSSE teachers disagreed that the SET practicum helped them understand their school culture (30%; see Table 1).
Although the majority of PSSE teachers indicated that they enjoyed the SET practicum, their reasons varied. They also felt that their supervisors both within the school and the University understood the process of the SET practicum. Supervisors conveyed the correct process to the PSSE teachers during the SET practicum.
Table 1
Percentages of teachers’ responses of SET Practicum and their learning experience (N=33)
|Question |Strongly Disagree |Strongly Agree|Unsure |No Response | |
| |& Disagree | | | | |
| |% |& Agree | |% | |
| |(n) |% |% |(n) | |
| | |(n) |(n) | | |
|Understanding Child’s Needs | | | | |
| | | | | |
|The practicum helped me to identify problems that my pupils |12.1 |87.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
|faced in class (qs 5) |(4) |(29) |(0) |(0) |
|The practicum gave me an insight into teaching children with |9.1 |90.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
|special needs on a daily basis (qs 7) |(3) |(30) |(0) |(0) |
|The practicum helped me better understand the educational |9.1 |90.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
|needs of my pupils (qs 9) |(3) |(30) |(0) |(0) |
|The practicum gave me insights into the needs of the family’s|39.4 |60.6 |0.0 |0.0 |
|of my pupils (qs 10) |(13) |(20) |(0) |(0) |
|The practicum helped me developed a better understanding of |12.1 |87.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
|my pupils’ social needs (qs 15) |(4) |(29) |(0) |(0) |
| | | | |
|Classroom and School Related Matters | | | |
|The practicum provided a link between theory and practice in |6.1 |90.9 |3.0 |0.0 |
|a classroom (qs 1) |(2) |(30) |(1) |(0) |
|The practicum experience help me to translate theory to |9.1 |87.9 |3.0 |0.0 |
|practice in a real situation (qs 2) |(3) |(29) |(1) |(0) |
|The practicum gave me the hands-on experience I needed in my |9.1 |90.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
|field (qs 3) |(3) |(30) |(0) |(0) |
|The practicum helped me to try out different strategies in |9.1 |90.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
|teaching (qs 4) |(3) |(30) |(0) |(0) |
|The practicum gave me time to reflect on my lesson delivery |12.1 |87.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
|(qs 6) |(4) |(29) |(0) |(0) |
|The practicum gave me a picture of what a special education |21.2 |78.8 |0.0 |0.0 |
|teacher’s life is like on a daily basis in school (qs 8) |(7) |(26) |(0) |(0) |
|The practicum helped me understand Diagnostic Summaries (qs |15.2 |84.8 |0.0 |0.0 |
|11) |(5) |(28) |(0) |(0) |
|The practicum helped me understand Individual Educational |9.1 |90.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
|Plans (qs 12) |(3) |(30) |(0) |(0) |
|The practicum helped me understand how to write lesson plans |9.1 |90.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
|(qs 13) |(3) |(30) |(0) |(0) |
|The practicum helped me improve on writing my lesson plans |9.1 |90.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
|(qs 14) |(3) |(30) |(0) |(0) |
|The practicum helped me with understanding my school culture |30.3 |69.7 |0.0 |0.0 |
|(qs 16) |(10) |(23) |(0) |(0) |
The PSSE Teachers’ Perspectives of the new process of SET Practicum in-place
The percentages of PSSE teachers’ responses in relation to school and supervisors’ understanding of the new SET practicum process were generally positive (see Table 2). For example, the PSSE teachers felt that the school’s supervisors and cooperating teachers and the University’s supervisor understood and conveyed the correct process of teaching practicum to them (Percentage Range of Responses: 82% - 94%; see Table 2). This result suggests the importance of the support that the PSSE teachers need from both the school and the University during the practicum which has been supported in other studies (Hastings & Squires, 2002; Lee et al., 2000; Rajuan et al., 2008). The results showed a marginally larger percentage of the PSSE teachers understood the SET practicum better when they experienced it in schools than when they were briefed during lectures (Percentage Difference: 91% & 82%; see Table 2).
The PSSE Teachers responded that they their supervisors both at the school and the University gave good support throughout their SET practicum experience (see Table 2). Where the rapport between the PSSE Teachers and their respective supervisors were concerned, an average of 90% had good rapport. However, by comparison, although still a large percentage, 70% indicated they enjoyed their SET practicum experience. Others studies support the positive relationship that the PSSE teachers have with their mentors and supervisors influence the learning experience of student teachers during practicum (Boz & Boz 2006; Caires & Almeida, 2007; Conderman et al., 2005; Lewis et al., 2005; Roehrig et al., 2008). Based on the findings, it is suggested that careful consideration must be given when matching supervisors both at the schools and the University and the PSSE teachers. The authors in this study would go a step further to suggest that potential school and University supervisors have opportunities to meet to discuss supervisory roles prior to confirmation of supervisors. This would give both supervisors and PSSE teachers a chance to select whom they could best work with during the SET practicum.
Table 2
Percentages of PSSE teachers’ responses of the process of SET Practicum (N=33)
|Question |Strongly Disagree |Strongly |Unsure |No Response | |
| |& Disagree |Agree | | | |
| |% |& Agree | |% | |
| |(n) |% |% |(n) | |
| | |(n) |(n) | | |
|School & Supervisors’ Understanding of the TP Process | | | |
|I understood the process of practicum when I was briefed |18.2 |81.8 |0.0 |0.0 |
|during lectures (qs 1) |(6) |(27) |(0) |(0) |
|I understood the process of practicum when I experienced it|9.1 |90.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
|in schools (qs 2) |(3) |(30) |(0) |(0) |
|My school’s Cooperating Teacher understood the process of |9.1 |87.9 |0.0 |3.0 |
|practicum (qs 3) |(3) |(29) |(0) |(1) |
|My school Supervisors understood the process of practicum |6.1 |93.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
|(qs 5) |(2) |(31) |(0) |(0) |
|My University Supervisor understood the process of |9.1 |90.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
|practicum (qs 7) |(3) |(30) |(0) |(0) |
| | | | | |
|Conveying Correct Information about the TP Process | | | |
|My school’s Cooperating Teacher conveyed the correct |12.1 |87.9 | | |
|process of practicum to me (qs 4) |(4) |(29) |0.0 |0.0 |
| | | |(0) |(0) |
|My school Supervisors conveyed the process of practicum to |18.2 |81.8 |0.0 |0.0 |
|me (qs 6) |(6) |(27) |(0) |(0) |
|My University Supervisor conveyed the process of practicum |15.2 |81.8 |0.0 |3.0 |
|to me (qs 8) |(5) |(27) |(0) |(1) |
| | | | | |
|Support from School and University | | | | |
|My Cooperating Teacher provided good support (qs 9) |9.1 |90.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
| |(3) |(30) |(0) |(0) |
|My University Supervisor provided good support (qs 11) |9.1 |90.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
| |(3) |(30) |(0) |(0) |
|My school Supervisor provided good support (qs 13) |6.1 |93.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
| |(2) |(31) |(0) |(0) |
| | | | | |
|Rapport with Teacher | | | | |
|My Cooperating Teacher and I had good rapport (qs 10) |9.1 |90.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
| |(3) |(30) |(0) |(0) |
|My University Supervisor and I had good rapport (qs 12) |6.1 |93.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
| |(2) |(31) |(0) |(0) |
|My school Supervisor and I had good rapport (qs 14) |6.1 |93.9 |0.0 |0.0 |
| |(2) |(31) |(0) |(0) |
|I enjoyed my teaching practicum* (qs 15) |21.2 |69.7 |6.1 |3.0 |
| |(7) |(23) |(2) |(1) |
Factors that helped the PSSE teachers have a positive experience during SET Practicum
The PSSE teachers wrote that they enjoyed their SET practicum experience when their supervisors supported them with good techniques and strategies in organising and delivering their lessons (see Table 3). The PSSE teachers were also receptive to constructive feedback from both their school and the University supervisors, a finding supported elsewhere (Heppner, 1994). Cooperation, mentoring and rapport that the PSSE teachers received from their supervisors were also highlighted as reasons for teachers enjoying their practicum experience (see Table 3). Other studies conducted to investigate teaching practicum of pre-service teachers claim positive associations of their practicum experiences to factors such as having good relationships with their supervisors, support and guidance from supervisors (Boz & Boz, 2006; Caires & Ameida, 2007; Tarquin & Truscott, 2006).
Table 3
Top three most common responses as to why the PSSE teachers enjoyed TP (N = 33)
*If you Agree / Strongly Agree with I enjoyed my teaching practicum, tell us what made your experience enjoyable.
|% (n) | |
| | |
|27.3 (9) |Provided me with good techniques and strategies in organizing and delivering lesson plans well |
|27.3 (9) |Obtained constructive feedback from both school and University supervisors to improve my lessons better |
|21.2 (7) |Received affirmative support such as cooperation, mentoring and rapport received from cooperating teacher, |
| |and both school and University supervisors |
By contrast, the PSSE teachers who did not enjoy their SET practicum experience cited handling too much paperwork, feelings of stress as a result of being watched, sticking to lesson plans and setting too many objectives (presumably by the supervisors), and not having opportunities with their pupils before commencement of the practicum as reasons. Similarly, Toren and Iliyan (2008) reported that student teachers were stressed as a result of heavy workload during their teaching practicum. This study also showed that a small percentage highlighted that they received limited support from their CTs and schools which led them to have a less enjoyable SET practicum experience (see Table 4).
Table 4
Top three most common response as to why the PSSE teachers did not enjoy TP (N = 33)
*If you Disagree / Strongly Disagree with I enjoyed my teaching practicum, tell us what made your experience not enjoyable.
|% (n) | |
|12.1 (4) |Needed to handle too much paperwork for Practicum. |
|9.1 (3) |Felt stressful during Practicum having being watched, sticking to lesson plan and setting too many |
| |objectives but not having enough opportunities with pupils beforehand. |
|9.1 (3) |Received limited support from school and cooperating teacher to prepare well for Practicum. |
Teaching Practicum in Special Schools requires teachers to read, prepare and make sense of the diagnostic summaries of the pupils in their class. In many challenging pupil cases, the PSSE teachers need to discuss with school therapists and parents to get a better understanding of the needs of their pupils. Only after having a better understanding of their pupils, the PSSE teachers will be able to plan the IEPs and lesson plans effectively. Although a relatively small percentage of teachers (12.1%, n = 4) were unhappy, it should not be ignored as we consider that the number of pupils and the type of disability could vary for each teacher. For example, schools may have as many as up to 16 pupils in a class which may be co-taught with a Teacher Aid or Teacher. To assist PSSE teachers with their workload, it is recommended that supervisors limit the number of pupils based on the level of support needs assigned to the PSSE teacher undergoing the SET practicum. Given that the results showed that 9% (n = 3) were stressed when observed (being watched & sticking to lesson plans), the authors recommend that the supervisors convey a feeling of comfort and openness during the classroom observations with the PSSE teachers. The research suggests that when beginner teachers experienced openness with their supervisor s and or mentors, it helped them in their practicum experience (Evertson & Smithey, 2000). Rapport with teachers is critical to set the pace and the atmosphere of the teaching practice. The results indicated that overall, the PSSE teachers had good rapport with their supervisors.
Difficulties that the PSSE teachers faced during their SET Practicum
The PSSE teachers responded that time to both observe their pupils and also develop an understanding of pupils’ educational needs in order to prepare for the appropriate lessons plans was a challenge for them during the SET practicum. In addition, it was difficult for the PSSE teachers to handle pupils who were uncooperative or had diverse educational needs. Of interest, some 22% (n = 7) responded that the transition from learning (at the NIE) to SET practicum was a difficult adjustment they had to make which influenced their SET practicum experience (see Table 5). Currently, the PSSE teachers complete their final year of courses in the DISE in Semester II over 6 weeks followed by the ten-week SET practicum attachment in Special Schools. This process has raised concerns about the difficulties that PSSE teachers faced in the transition from a full-time course into the Special School and which warrants further investigation.
Table 5
Top three difficulties faced by the PSSE teachers during their SET practicum (N = 33)
|Tell us about 3 difficulties you faced during the practicum |
|% (n) | |
| | |
|64.5 (20) |Inadequate time to observe pupils to know their educational needs and prepare appropriate lesson plans. |
|38.7 (12) |Challenge to handle pupils with diverse educational needs as well as uncooperative pupils as they were not|
| |used to being observed during Practicum. |
|22.6 (7) |Disorientation faced in transiting from learning to teaching (working) once returned from NIE to school |
Changes that the PSSE Teachers would like to see in new SET Practicum
The PSSE teachers wanted pre-briefings on the expectations of the practicum prior to entering the schools while also allowing for informal observations of their delivery of lessons (57.6%, n = 19; see Table 6). In addition, the PSSE teachers required time to assess pupils’ needs and prepare suitable lesson plans. They also asked for guidance and improved support from both the school and the University in terms of preparation of IEPs and other resources (see Table 6). While pre-briefings in reference to the practicum and preparation of lessons were part of the DISE course, the results suggests that it was not enough for the PSSE teachers and warrants further review. In addition, the overall findings suggests that a review of the SET practicum process in view of the importance of gelling theory with practical experiences within the programme for teacher preparation in Special Education, the authors propose a continuous SET practicum process (see Figure 2).
Table 6
Top Three changes the PSSE teachers would like to see in ‘new’ SET practicum (N = 33)
|Tell us 3 things you would like to see take place during the practicum |
|% (n) | |
|57.6% (19) |Pre-briefings on the expectations of us and also allow informal observations as a discussion platform to |
| |give feedback or suggestion to reflect and improve. |
|41.9% (13) |More time to assess pupils’ needs and prepare appropriate lesson plans. |
| | |
|35.4% (11) |Clearer guidance and better support from school as well as NIE in preparing IEP, lesson plans and other |
| |resources. |
In reference to Figure 2, the revised SET practicum process for PSSE teachers should spread over the one year full-time DISE course instead of the current compacted 10 weeks. The PSSE teachers will have the opportunity to explore different classroom teaching with their respective CTs while also assisting with the assessment of pupils in the TP I. The PSSE teachers will then be able to observe and get to know their pupils in the class in the Special Schools which they helped assess. The PSSE teacher would then be able to know the pupils better and could also take this class in Semester 2 - TP I (see Figure 2). This process will assist schools to better match pupils, class and level type with the PSSE teacher and CTs thus reducing the stress of all those involved in the revised SET practicum. The PSSE teachers will be able to settle better into the revised SET practicum as they will be at their respective schools on a continuous basis through their training and not only at the end of their courses. It is hoped that this continuous practicum process will help diminish the stress of transition anxiety from a full-time course into SET practicum. In addition, given that the PSSE teachers will be in contact with their respective schools throughout their training, they will be able to share and discuss the problems in relation to observations made in the classrooms with their course mates, brainstorming on effective teaching strategies for classroom management in relation to different disabilities both at the school and University.
Conclusion
Overall, the findings of this study indicate that the majority of PSSE teachers had a positive experience during the new SET practicum. These positive experiences were related to the fact that they were better able to understand their pupils’ needs, they were able to link what they learned in their courses to the SET practicum, they could write IEPs and deliver their lessons to the pupils and they had overall good rapport with both their school and University supervisors. The new process of practicum, as indicated by the PSSE teachers, was understood by all involved in the process and this was also conveyed clearly to the PSSE teachers during the ten-week SET practicum. The findings highlight the importance of a quality mentorship programme reported in other studies (Cameron et al., 2007; Conderman et al., 2006; Evertson & Smithey, 2000; Roehrig et al., 2008).
While the overall process was clearly understood by the school and University supervisors, the study showed that a small percentage of teachers were somewhat unhappy during their practicum. These PSSE teachers cited unhappiness due to stresses of being overloaded, being watched and having poor rapport while others as problems with understanding the needs of their pupils given that they had a very short time in the schools (8 observations within ten-week SET practicum). Williams and Gersch (2004) reported the lack of time to spend with individual student as one of the stressors experienced by SEN teachers in their studies. In this study, a small number of the PSSE teachers cited transition from the full-time course work at the NIE followed by the immediate ten-week SET practicum at the school was difficult for them.
In view of these challenges faced by the PSSE teachers and to enhance the quality of the PSSE practicum, the authors in this study recommend a continuous SET practicum experience throughout the 1-year full-time DISE course (see Figure 2). This continuous practicum will allow the PSSE teachers a better match with their supervisors in schools and classrooms while also reducing the stress faced in the current SET practicum as PSSE teachers will be able to better understand the needs of their pupils. In addition, given that the PSSE teachers would be in the school throughout the DISE course, better rapport could be built between the school, the school supervisors, pupils and the PSSE teachers. While recommendations to enhance the quality of the PSSE practicum are made, PSSE teachers may need to realize that occupational stress experienced by teachers is common as reported in other studies (Antoniou et al., 2009; Boyle et al., 1995; Emery & Vandenberg, 2010; Forlin, 2001; Hui & Chan, 1996; Schonfeld, 2001). It is further suggested that educators could use the practicum experience to prepare PSSE teachers cope with the challenges encountered in real classroom settings.
Figure 2. Revised SET Practicum Process for Special Schools.
References
Antoniou, Α.S., Polychroni, F., & Kotroni, C. (2009). Working with students with special educational
needs in Greece: Teachers’ stressors and coping strategies. International Journal of Special Education,
24(1), 100-111.
Barber, N. & Turner, M. (2007). Even while they teach, newly-qualified teachers learn. British Journal
of Special Education, 34(1), 33-39.
Beer, J., & Beer, J. (1991). Burnout and stress, depression and self-esteem of teachers. Psychological
Reports, 71, 1331-1336.
Bradbury, L. U. & Koballa Jr., T. R. (2008). Borders to cross: Identifying sources of tension in mentor
intern relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education. 24, 2132-2145.
Borg, M. G., Riding, R. J., & Falzon, J. M. (1991). Stress in teaching: A study of occupational stress and
its determinants, job satisfaction and career commitment among primary school teachers. Educational
Psychology, 11, 59-75.
Boyle, G. J., Borg, M. G., Falzon, J. M. & Baglioni Jr., A. J. (1995). A structural model of the
dimensions of teacher stress. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 49-67.
Boz, N., & Boz, Y. (2006). Do prospective teachers get enough experience in school placements?
Journal of Education for Teaching, 3 (4), 353-368.
Caires, S., & Ameida, L. S. (2007). Positive aspects of the teacher training supervision: The student
teachers’ perspectives. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(4), 515-528.
Cameron, M., Lovett, S., & Berger, J. G. (2007). Starting out in teaching: Surviving or Thriving as a new
teacher. New Zealand Council for Educational Research, (3) 32-37.
Conderman, G., Katsiyannis, A., & Franks, D. (2001). Program assessment practices in special education
teacher preparation programs. Preventing School Failure, 45(4), 182–186.
Conderman, G., Morin, J., & Stephens, J. T. (2005). Special Education Student Teaching Practices.
Preventing School Failures, 49(3), 5-10.
Emery, D. W., & Vandenberg, B. (2010). Special Education Teacher Burnout and Act. International
Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 119-131.
Evertson, C. M., & Smithey, M. W. (2008). Mentoring effects on proteges’ classroom practice: An
experimental field study, Journal of Educational Research, 93, 294-304.
Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers. Educational
Research, 43, 235-245.
Hastings, W., & Squires, D. (2002). Restructuring and Reculturing: Practicum supervision as
professional development for teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 3 (1), 79-91.
Head, J., Hill, F., & McGuire, M. (1996). Stress and the postgraduate secondary school trainee teacher: A
British case study. Journal of Education for Teaching, 22, 71-84.
Heppner, M. J. (1994). An Empirical Investigation of the Effects of a Teaching Practicum on Prospective
Faculty. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72, 500-507.
Hui, E. K. P. & Chan, D. W. (1996). Teacher stress and guidance work in Hong Kong secondary school
teachers. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24, 199-211.
Kraayenoord, C.V. (2003). The task of professional development. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 50 (4), 363-365.
Kyriacou, C., & Stephens, P. (1999). Student teachers’ concerns during teaching practice. Teachers and
Teaching Research in Education, 13, 18-31.
Lee, C. K. J, Walker, A., & Bodycott, P. (2000). Pre-service Primary Teachers’ Perceptions about
Principals in Hong Kong: Implications for teacher and principal education. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Teacher Education, 28(1), 53-67.
Lewis, B. L., Hatcher, R. L., & William, E. P. II. (2005). The Practicum Experience: A Survey of
Practicum Site Coordinator. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(3), 291-298.
McIntyre, D. J., Byrd, D. M., & Foxx, S. M. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In W. R. Houston,
M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: A project of the
association of teacher educators (pp. 171–193). NY: Macmillan.
Ogonor, B. O., & Badmus, M. M. (2006). Reflective Teaching Practice among Student Teachers: The
Case in a Tertiary Institution in Nigeria. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 31 (2), 1-11.
Quah, M. L., & Jones, K. (1996). The professional development needs of learning support coordinators
in Singapore primary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 11(2), 181-190.
Rajuan, M., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2008). What do student teachers learn? Perceptions of learning
in mentoring relationships. The New Educator, 4, 133-151.
Roehrig, A. D., Bohn, C. M., Turner, J. E., & Pressley, M. (2008). Mentoring beginning primary teachers
for exemplary teaching practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 684-702.
Shonfeld, I. S. (2001). Stress in 1st-year women teachers: The context of social support and coping.
Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs, 127, 133-168.
Smith, K., & Lev-Ari, L. (2005). The place of the practicum in pre-service teacher education: the voice of the students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 289-302.
Tarquin, K. M., & Truscott, S. D. (2006). School Psychology Students’ Perceptions of Their Practicum
Experience. Psychology in the Schools, 43(6), 727-736.
Toren, Z. & Iliyan, S. (2008). The problems of the beginning teacher in the Arabs school in Israel.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1041-1056.
Williams, M. & Gersch, I. (2004). Teaching in mainstream and special schools: are the stresses similar or
different? British Journal of Special Education, 31(3), 157-162.
THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ON NURTURING INTELLECTUAL GIFTEDNESS
Ahmad Mohammad Al-Shabatat
Merza Abbas
Hairul Nizam Ismail
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Many people believe that environmental factors promote giftedness and invest in many programs to adopt gifted students providing them with challenging activities. Intellectual giftedness is founded on fluid intelligence and extends to more specific abilities through the growth and inputs from the environment. Acknowledging the roles played by the environment in the development of giftedness leads to an effective nurturing of gifted individuals. Further, giftedness requires a context that enables it to develop. However, no study has investigated the direct and indirect effects of environment and fluid intelligence on intellectual giftedness. Thus, this study investigated the contribution of environment factors to giftedness development by conducting tests of fluid intelligence using CCFT and analytical abilities using culture reduced test items covering problem solving, pattern recognition, audio-logic, audio-matrices, and artificial language, and self report questionnaire for the environmental factors. A number of 180 high-scoring students were selected using CCFT from a leading university in Malaysia. Structural equation modelling was employed using Amos V.16 to determine the direct and indirect effects of environment factors (family, peers, teachers, school, society, and resources) on the intellectual giftedness. The findings showed that the hypothesized model fitted the data, supporting the model postulates and showed significant and strong direct and indirect effects of the environment and fluid intelligence on the intellectual giftedness.
Introduction
Environment plays an essential role as an incubator hold the energy, direction, and feedback which give the gifted opportunities to manifest their potentials, and support constructing connections between the fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence through social interfaces (Al-Shabatat et al., 2008). However, giftedness requires social context that enables it to develop and individuals’ aptitudes need nurturance and support. The child surrounded environments such as family, peers, school, and community, beside the social, economical, and political institutions can help to determine the field of talent that society expect to be achieved (Tannenbaum, 1991). However, researchers advocating the environment, or nurturing, account of talent development promoted the belief that appropriate environmental conditions could lead to the development of giftedness to become into talent. Individuals’ dedication to their activities is typically accompanied by great sacrifices for both the individuals themselves and their families, they are surrounded by others, who support and nurture their talent. Further, families, peers, and teachers play an essential role in the development of expertise (Bloom, 1985; Csikzentmihalyi et al., 1993; Feldman, 1986; Winner, 1996).
Environment has been studied through two levels; micro-level (e.g. family, personality givers, socioeconomic) that children interact with their families, peers and school (Amabile, 1983; Csikzentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1998; Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 1998; Wachs, 1992). Second is the macro-level (e.g. demographic, sociological) which helps to shape environments as a larger socio-historical milieu (Li, 1997). Bloom (1985) demonstrates that the role of families is vital in nurturing individuals’ talents. In his study, the individuals participating defined their families as greatly child-centered in which parents offer efforts to support their talent development. For example, they would work more than one job to pay for private skating lessons, or make extra efforts in order to be closer to training facilities. Indeed, as Csikzentmihalyi et al. (1993) stated that when the child's abilities are truly prodigious, parental and social investments need to be prodigious as well (p. 26). Therefore, parents must provide the right nurture stimulation at the right time according to the genetic trait of the child in order to give a greater chance for the child to achieve giftedness (Haensly, 2004).
Parents tend to set high standards for their talented children rather than their emotional and financial support (Winner, 1996). Parents also support their children to challenge, to strive for increasingly higher levels of achievement and evaluate the success of their performances (Bloom, 1985). According to Zimmerman and Ringle (1981), talented children's levels of achievement and personal ambitions are affected by the goals parents set for them. Thus, the best environments for cultivating talent challenging are provided by supportive families (Csikzentmihalyi et al., 1993). Moreover, the behaviours parents’ model influences children's talent development (Bloom, 1985; Winner, 1996). For example, children closely notice the way in which parents conduct themselves, and they garner many parental values. In addition, parents also can teach children industriousness and perseverance by working hard themselves. Indeed, Zimmerman and Ringle (1981) found that the length of time children were keen to work on a similar situation, influence the duration of an adult model's persistence on a task significantly.
Competitive and supportive peer groups can serve to promote the intrinsic value of school and the educational process in its members (Ryan, 2001). The influence of the peers is quite considerable outside the classroom. Peers have an influential effect on attitudes and concepts (Guimond, 1999). Children's peers also support the development of talent (Bloom, 1985). However, talented children often tend to spend their time alone and with parents more than with than non-talented children, because they feel isolated from mainstream peers (Csikzentmihalyi et al., 1993; Winner, 1996).
Even parents themselves often feel alone and unable to talk with friends about their parenting experiences and their children’s development (Delisle, 2002a; Webb & DeVries, 1998). Moreover, talented’ peers themselves are varied in terms of their developmental and social goals. For example, a child whose central ambition is often looking for peers of similar ability to chase her/his talent development. These children flourish when encircled by peers that challenge, support, and legitimize their talents. On the other hand, the tendency to interact more frequently with non-talented children accompanied by a proclivity that often consequences in a lessened desire to achieve by talented whose main goal is to be sociable (Feldman, 1986).
Teachers also play an important role in the development of talent (Bloom, 1985; Csikzentmihalyi et al., 1993). Instructional environments affect the ways in which children are motivated to participate and excel in their activities. Teaching styles characterized by clear rules for achieving distinction, controlled decision-making, and public performance evaluations promote extrinsic motivation in children. On the other hand, teaching styles that highlight student participation in evaluations of success and decision-making processes encourage intrinsic motivation and autonomy (Eccles et al., 1998).
Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence
Sternberg (1985) identifies three kinds of giftedness including analytic, synthetic and practical giftedness. The identification includes assessment through observation of a student’s ability in these three areas. Teachers may then design opportunities for students demonstrating analytical, synthetical and/or practical abilities. According to Sternberg (1985), people with analytical giftedness can analyze and understand problem elements, and this kind of giftedness might be tested by traditional tests for intelligence, such as testing analogies, synonyms and matrix problems. The second type is synthetic giftedness, which might be noted on the people who are creative or tend to deal with discovering and inventing. Unlike the first kind of giftedness, this kind might not be measured by the traditional tests of intelligence. The third type of giftedness is practical giftedness, people who are practitioners have a propensity to apply and implement what have been analyzed or synthesized, with an investment of environment situations. The analytical abilities were investigated in this study by measuring the effects of general abilities g and the environmental factors on this element of intellectual giftedness.
Methods
Participants
The study involved one hundred and eighty students (age ≈ 19-20) in the schools of Mathematics and Computer Science at a leading university in Malaysia. Students were selected through lecturers’ nominations and exceeding the cut-off point of 35 of the raw scores of CCFT. A total of 210 students were nominated by their lecturers as good to excellent first-year students at these schools. The Cattell Culture Fair Test (CCFT) was then administered to identify the potentially gifted students. Since CCFT can be administered by groups, the nominated students (210) were divided into five groups and tested according to the test manual. Out of the 210 students, only 180 exceeded the 35 cut-off point of CCFT raw scores and were chosen for the study. The analytical test was administered the following week through two sessions with a refreshment break. The environment questionnaire was administered immediately after the students had completed the analytical test.
Measures
Cattell Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CCFT)
The test consisted of four types of spatial problems administered according to a set time. All four subtests of geometric figures are intended to give the widest range of perceptual relation-educing operations possible. Each subtest begins with three practice items. Test items are graded in order of increasing difficulty following an easy-to-grasp item to start off with (Cattell & Cattell, 1960). To score performance on the test, one point is given for each correct item. A total score out of 46 is calculated. The test can be given either as a group test or as an individual test using exactly the same instructions and time limits. The test is considered to have low knowledge dependence, thereby making it a reliable test for measuring general intelligence g despite socioeconomic status, educational background, and cultural upbringing of any participant.
Analytical Abilities Measure
To measure the analytical abilities 30 items were developed and validated prior to the time of conducting this study. These items were subjected to factor analysis which revealed five factors with Eigen values greater or equal to one while three items were dropped due to cross loadings (> 0.30). Further the items were subjected to reliability scale to calculate the internal consistency; Spearman-Brown technique was used to calculate the reliability coefficient for the analytical abilities items. The internal consistency measuring the reliability of the analytical abilities measure using Spearman-Brown was ranging from 0.70 to 0.79 and the overall coefficient for the scale was 0.73. These values show high reliability indices which support the appropriateness of the instrument as shown in Table 1. According to Nunnaly (1967), a value above .70 is considered as highly reliable.
Table 1: Summary of Internal Consistency Indices for the Ten Factors of the Analytical Abilities
|N |Factor |Valid Items |Spearman-Brown |
|1 |Problem Solving |7 |0.74 |
|2 |Pattern Recognition |7 |0.72 |
|3 |Artificial Language |4 |0.79 |
|4 |Audio-Logic |5 |0.70 |
|5 |Audio-Matrix |4 |0.77 |
|Total |27 |0.72 |
Pattern Recognition
This section contained two parts. The first part is composed of two items require from the respondents to recognise a shape given on the top of the questions within a list of choices attached to the questions. The shapes are similar to the required shape but only one accurate shape matches the given shape that is needed to be identified out of the given choices. Item number three of the test was conducted through computer flash application. A shape was given to be identified out of a number of shapes. When identifying the correct choice of the shape, it will be removed from the arranged given shapes. Then another shape was given and so on. All the given shapes were constituted of geometrical figures ordered from easy to difficult. The second part of this test consisted of four items with auditory contents. Respondents were asked to hear a musical sound then to match it to the similar sound form the given options. All sounds have the same rhythm but differed in their pitch.
Problem Solving
This section is composed of seven items. Items number one, two, three, and four have primitive indices followed by dilemmas, however, the solutions for the proposed problems was covered by irrelevant remarks. Respondents have to go backward and forward through the primitive indices for the situations connecting the relative indices and eliminating the irrelevant ones seeking for the correct solutions. The correct answers or choices were attached to each item. Items number five and six have weight measurement contained grading system on each side of the scale. The weight was known but the concentration or scaling point to figure out the needed weight on the other side of the scale to achieve balance. Items number seven and eight include two maps, on the right side; they contain an indicator for the direction along with four symbols. The directions and symbols are [a star; indicates the east, triangle; indicates the north, square; indicates the south, and a circle and triangle indicate to the north-west direction]. Respondents were given instructions in each question to move according to the provided symbols. Each move was designed for one intersection included in the map. Respondents were required to identify the place that the symbol indicates on the map. The symbol indicated the correct given place in the choices attached to the items within a number of other places symbolised on the map.
Audio Matrices
This section consisted of four items; each item has a series of sounds presented in a progressive form. Sounds were manipulated professionally using computer sounds application (Sound Forge V.8) to be varied in their pitch. Respondents were asked to choose from the given options the correct sound that should be added to complete the matrix.
Audio-Logic
The audio-logic items require the use of the deductive logic which involves drawing conclusions based on sets of premises that are assumed to be true. Deductive reasoning involves the use of two or more premises, which may be rules, laws, principles, or generalizations, and forms a conclusion based upon them. In order to be valid, a deductive argument must have premises that are true and a conclusion that logically follows from those premises, without trying to go beyond them. When individuals understand how these arguments work, they will know how to construct their own strong arguments. This section consisted of five items, each item introduced premises represented by sounds, respondents are asked to draw a correct conclusion by getting use of the provided premises from the sounds, and the correct conclusion (answer) was given in item answer options. The following is an example of audio-logic items:
Premise (1): If North-East is represented by the sound (A)
Premise (2): North-West is represented by the sound (B)
Premise (3): South-East is represented by the sound (C)
What sound could indicate to South-West?
Sound A in the first premise consisted of two distinct musical notes (X: indicates North, Y: indicates East). In the second premise, sound B also is composed of two distinct musical notes, namely, X that indicates North, and a new note Z that indicates West. In the third premise, sound C is composed of another pair of notes, i.e., W that indicates to South and Y that indicates East). Thus the sound which indicates South-West must be W & Z the pair of notes. In order to solve such a problem, a high level of sound recognition, an ability to keep holding the various notes for a long time in the working memory, and the abilities to build logical linkages and connections among the premises to draw the conclusion are required.
Artificial Language
This section consisted of six items. It was developed to measure the qualitative reasoning into two different levels (average and advanced). The average level includes two logical introductions (premises) require from respondents to find out the result (conclusion) following the logical indicators of the premises. The advanced level involves three logical premises require from the respondent to find out the possible conclusion from the given six multiple choices attached to each item.
Environment questionnaire
A number of 36 items were developed and validated in form of self rating scale to identify students’ environment status using Likert scale (1-5) ranging from very frequent to never. The items were distributed on eight factors encompass the environmental status perceived by the gifted students. All the items were structured of informative sentences aim at measuring the amount or strength of value that the respondents have regarding their environment elements (family, peers, teachers, school, society, and resources). Items were built through exhibiting the conduct related to the findings of the gifted and talented as in several studies (e.g. Bloom, 1985; Csikzentmihalyi et al., 1993; Winner, 1996; Feldman, 1986). The internal consistency measuring the reliability of the environment factors using Cronbach’s Alpha was ranging from 0.71 to 0.83 and the overall coefficient for the questionnaire was 0.89. These values had shown high reliability indices which support the appropriateness of the instrument as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of Internal Consistency Indices for the Six Factors of the Environment Questionnaire
|Factor |Valid Items |Chronbach’s Alpha |
|Resources |6 |0.71 |
|Family |6 |0.83 |
|Peers |6 |0.74 |
|School |6 |0.75 |
|Society |6 |0.75 |
|Teachers |6 |0.79 |
|Total |36 |0.89 |
Results
Evaluation of SEM Assumptions
Multicollinearity refers to a high correlation among a set of variables within a specific construct. Hair et al. (2006) suggest that the value greater than 0.9 of correlation coefficient creates multicollinearity problem. Although some of the variables for this research are highly correlated, they fell within the acceptable range (< 0.9) suggested by Hair et al. (2006) as shown in Table 3. There was no evidence of multicollinearity of the variables so all these variables were used for further analysis. Prior to the SEM analysis, the assumptions for SEM were evaluated. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) were computed to access the reliability of the indicators for all observed variables. The results showed that the measures used for the current study had adequate to excellent internal reliability. The sample covariance matrix value was evaluated to confirm multicollinearity and to determine if singularity problems existed. A high value of determinant on the sample covariance matrix (1.567) was found in the Sample Moments section and it was larger than zero. Therefore, there was no singularity problem among the tested variables. No further rescaling was required for the current data. A skewness range from -0.268 to 0.467 was well below the suggested level of the absolute value of 3.0. In addition, a kurtosis range from -0.322 to.945 revealed that the variables are not overly peaked and well below the absolute value of 10.0 as suggested by Chan (2003). Thus the presented values reveal that the variables are normally distributed and have met the criteria for the SEM analysis.
Evaluation of the Measurement Model: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Confirmatory Factor Analysis CFA was carried out to determine the adequacy of the factor loadings and the standardized residuals and explained variances for the measurement variables. Figure 1 presents the measurement model for the variables. For this constructed measurement model, all factor loadings are freed (i.e., estimated); items are allowed to load on only one construct (i.e., no cross loading); and latent constructs are allowed to correlate (equivalent to oblique rotation in exploratory factor analysis EFA).
Table 3 shows the elaborated evaluation of the measurement model parameters. All standardized regression weights were significant with CR > ± 1.96, p < 0.05 and all the error variance were < 1.0 indicating that there was no violation of estimates revealed. The standardized regression weights range from 0.278 to 0.770. These values indicate that the 15 measurement variables are significantly represented by their respective latent constructs. The explained variances for the 15 measurement variables are represented by their squared multiple correlations (SMC), the higher the value of the squared multiple correlation, the greater the explanatory power of the regression model. The percentage of variance explained range from 0.129 or 12.9 % (Artificial language) to 0.593 or 59.3 % (Pattern Recognition) as shown in Table 3. SMC results indicate a strong relationship between the constructs and their factors and demonstrate the greater explanatory power of these factors in predicting these compounds.
Figure 1: The Measurement Model with the Factor Loadings
Table 3: Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimates of the Standardized Factor Loadings, Standard Error, Critical Ratio, and Squared Multiple Correlation for Measurement Model
|Parameters |Estimate |S.E. |C.R. |SMC |
|Teachers | | |0.657 |- |- |0.432 |
|Society | | |0.743 |0.130 |7.292 |0.552 |
|School | | |0.665 |0.154 |6.325 |0.442 |
|Peers | | |0.664 |0.138 |6.619 |0.441 |
|Family | | |0.533 |0.146 |5.548 |0.284 |
|Resources | | |0.475 |0.178 |4.746 |0.226 |
|CCFT Series | | |0.452 |- |- |0.205 |
|CCFT Classification | | |0.535 |0.326 |3.784 |0.287 |
|CCFT Matrices | | |0.278 |0.298 |2.323 |0.177 |
|CCFT Topology | | |0.657 |0.401 |3.681 |0.431 |
|Problem Solving | | |0.547 |- |- |0.299 |
|Pattern Recognition | | |0.770 |0.216 |5.906 |0.593 |
|Audio logic | | |0.489 |0.130 |4.668 |0.239 |
|Audio matrix | | |0.763 |0.206 |5.968 |0.582 |
|Artificial language | | |0.359 |0.115 |3.602 |0.129 |
|Covariances | | | |
|Environment | |g |0.754 |0.243 |3.107 | |
|g | |Analytical |0.308 |0.102 |3.010 | |
|Environment | |Analytical |1.135 |0.285 |3.990 | |
|Correlations | | | |
|Environment | |g |0.530 | | | |
|g | |Analytical |0.544 | | | |
|Environment | |Analytical |0.639 | | | |
Examination of the Modification indices MI did not give any suggestions to modify the measurement model. As the adequacy of the measurement model was supported by parameters estimates, the directions of the estimates were theoretically justifiable. In other words, the three latent variables in the measurement model, namely, g, analytical, and environment are theoretically represented by their constructs. Many scholars such as Cattell and Cattell (1960) identify the components of the fluid intelligence as the ability of classification, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and manipulate conditions (topology). Further, Carroll’s (1993) conception of high order intellectual abilities (stratum II) are consisted of the sequential reasoning (premises or conditions to conduct one or more steps of reasoning to draw a conclusion), induction (to find out the rules that direct the similarities or contrasts), quantitative reasoning (using concepts including mathematical relations to reach a correct conclusion), Piagetian reasoning (abstraction), visualisation (to manipulate visual patterns), and originality/creativity (original verbal/ ideational responses). And for the environment latent variable, numerous scholars (e.g. Bloom, 1985; Csikzentmihalyi et al., 1993; Winner, 1996; Feldman, 1986) present gifted’ environment in terms of family, peers, teachers, school, society, and resources which were confirmed in the measurement model as one latent variable named environment.
Assessment of Model Adequacy for the Competing Model
The competing model has been analyzed using Amos V.16 with Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) as shown in Figure 2. Table 4 shows the results for Goodness-of-Fit Indices (GFI) for the competing model.
Table 4: Results of Goodness-of-fit Indices of the Competing Model
|Goodness of fit indexes |[pic] |df |[pic]/df |
| | | |(CMIN/df) |
|Environment ( | g |0.530 |0.050 |3.374 |
|Environment ( |Analytical |0.488 |0.056 |3.466 |
|g ( |Analytical |0.285 |0.189 |1.886 |
|Standardized Indirect Effects |
|Environment ( |Analytical |0.151 | | |
|Standardized Total Effects (Direct Effects + Indirect Effects) |
|Environment ( |g |0.530 | | |
|Environment ( |Analytical |0.639 | | |
|g ( |Analytical |0.285 | | |
The percentage of variance (SMC) explained range from 0.129 or 12.9 % (Artificial language) to 0.593 or 59.3 % (Pattern Recognition). The amount of variance associated with g accounted for 0.281 or 28.1 % by its predictors, namely, CCFT series, CCFT matrices, and CCFT topology. The amount of variance associated with the analytical abilities accounted for 0.467 or 46.7 % by its predictors, namely, problem solving, pattern recognition, audio-logic, artificial language, and audio-matrices as shown in Table 6. SMC results indicated a strong relationship between the variables’ constructs and their factors and demonstrate the greater explanatory power of these factors in predicting the intellectual giftedness. Examination of the modification indices (MI) did not give any suggestions to modify the competing model. As the adequacy of the competing model was supported by parameters estimates, the directions of the estimates were theoretically justifiable.
By examining paths coefficients among the latent variables in the competing model, one latent variable revealed a strong bond among them, namely, environment, g, and analytical abilities. This bond was supported by calculating the direct and indirect effects among these variables. The direct effects were: environment to g = 0.53, environment to analytical abilities = 0.49 and g to analytical abilities = 0.29. The indirect effects were: environment to analytical abilities = 0.488 as shown in Table 3. This bond was named analytical giftedness; the existence of this bond was due to the crucial roles played by environment to crystallize these compounds (g and analytical abilities). This role is mediating by g platform which supports the analytical abilities to be maximized.
Discussion and Conclusion
The findings of this study are consistent with Gagne’s (1985) DMGT model, Tanenbuam’s (1991) Star model, and Sternberg’s (1985) Triarchic model. The beauty of the current findings stand on counting the contribution of environment factors (family, peers, teachers, school, society, and resources) to the development of the intellectual giftedness. No study utilized multivariate analysis using SEM to investigate the interrelationships of the environment factors, the fluid intelligence, and intellectual giftedness. Further, the concept of giftedness and talent is now varied based on the incubating environments of the intellectual giftedness. However, the previous models of giftedness and talent (e.g. Gagne’s (1985) model) describe giftedness in terms of high ability and talent as high performance, while
Table 6: Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimates of the Standardized Factor Loadings, Standard Error, Critical Ratio, and Squared Multiple Correlation for Measurement Model
|Factor Loadings |S.E. |C.R. |SMC |
|Teachers |0.657 |- |- |0.432 |
|Society |0.743 |0.130 |7.292 |0.552 |
|School |0.665 |0.154 |6.325 |0.442 |
|Peers |0.664 |0.138 |6.619 |0.441 |
|Family |0.533 |0.146 |5.548 |0.284 |
|Resources |0.475 |0.178 |4.746 |0.226 |
|CCFT Series |0.452 |- |- |0.205 |
|CCFT Classification |0.535 |0.326 |3.784 |0.287 |
|CCFT Matrices |0.278 |0.298 |2.323 |0.177 |
|CCFT Topology |0.657 |0.401 |3.681 |0.431 |
|Problem solving |0.547 |- |- |0.299 |
|Pattern Recognition |0.770 |0.216 |5.906 |0.593 |
|Audio logic |0.489 |0.130 |4.668 |0.239 |
|Audio matrix |0.763 |0.206 |5.968 |0.582 |
|Artificial language |0.359 |0.115 |3.602 |0.129 |
|g |0.530 |0.050 |3.374 |0.281 |
|Analytical |0.285 |0.189 |1.886 |0.467 |
it can be redefined by prescribing these concepts in depth showing how a specific series of aptitudes combined in a certain way to establish g , analytical abilities, or any other areas of giftedness and talent. Further, the foundation of talent can be redefined by having these compounds connected to internal and external factors, namely motivation and environment to establish the bonds as talent foundation. This conceptualization is consistent with Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model (McGrew, 1997) as crystallized intelligence extends the fluid intelligence capabilities by having a context, which encompasses motivation and environment factors.
Environment as a nurturing tool plays a crucial role in the development of giftedness to become a distinguished talent. The evaluation of the competing model parameters in terms of the direct, indirect, and total standardized effects gave a significant direct effect of environment on g and analytical abilities. These results are consistent with Bloom (1985) and Carlson (1993), in which talent development is supported by several factors such as good teachers, potential support, sport clubs, socialization, playful activities with guidance, support from parents, and stimulation of interest. Environment gives the gifted opportunities to manifest gifted potentials and to supports individuals’ aptitudes to be nurtured through various interfaces. Additionally, giftedness requires social context that allows individuals’ abilities to be flourished. The analytical abilities are affected by the environment factors, which is consistent with Tannenbaum (1991) that child’s environments such as family, peers, school, and community, beside the social, economical, and political institutions can help to determine the field of talent.
The family factor loading in the structural model was significant (CR > ± 1.96, p < 0.05), and this highlights the important role of parents as emphasized by Bloom (1985) in his studies as the role of families is vital in nurturing individuals’ talents and parents offer efforts to support their talent development. The Environment’ items developed in this study followed the theoretical foundations of the role of parents proposed in the literature. For example, Winner (1996) suggests that parents tend to set high standards for their talented children rather than their emotional and financial support, while Bloom (1985) emphasized that parents support their children to challenge, to strive for increasingly higher levels of achievement and to evaluate the success of their performances. Zimmerman and Ringle (1981) demonstrate that talented children's levels of achievement and personal ambitions are affected by the goals parents set for them. According to Csikzentmihalyi et al. (1993), the best environment for cultivating talent challenging is provided by supportive families. Bloom (1985) and Winner (1996) reported that the behaviours parents’ model influences children's talent development which is consistent with results of this study.
The peer factor loadings in the structural model were significant (CR > ± 1.96, p < 0.05) and this indicates that the important role of the peers in giftedness development. This result is consistent with Ryan (2001) in which the competitive and supportive peer groups can serve to promote the intrinsic value of school and the educational process in its members. Also it is consistent with Bloom (1985) and Guimond (1999) as children's peers support the development of talent and have an influential effect on attitudes and concepts. Sichivitsa (2004) found peers to play a significant role in shaping students’ values and attitudes toward music. The teachers factor loading in the structural model was significant (CR > ± 1.96, p < 0.05), and this indicates the important role of teachers play in the development of giftedness, which in turn consistent with Bloom (1985), Csikzentmihalyi et al. (1993), and Sichivitsa (2004) who found that teachers play a crucial role in improving both academic and social integration of their students, parental support of music and the amount of previous musical experience had a significant positive impact on college students’ self-concepts in music.
A multivariate analysis employing the structural equation modelling (SEM) to explore the simultaneous interconnections and relationships between fluid intelligence, analytical abilities, and environmental factors was used in this study. The main focus of this study was to investigate how these factors interacted so that the administration of the gifted and talented education and the role of parents and other environmental factors can be enhanced. The findings of this study indicated that the availability of supportive environments promoted higher analytical abilities and suggested that environmental factors were integral and significant variables in the further development of gifts and talent. Thus, these findings provide support for the belief that with proper environmental scaffolding everyone can be talented and these findings can be helpful for planning and conducting the identification and nurturing processes of gifted and talented individuals. However, more studies that explore the characteristics of the environmental factors in promoting other intellectual, emotional, and psychomotor intelligences are recommended.
References
Al-Shabatat, A., Ismail, H., & Abbas, M. (2008). Giftedness and Talent: Definitions and Conceptions
Perspectives. Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities 2008
(Icossh’08), 18th-20th June 2008. Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag New York
Incorporated.
Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, Ballantine.
Carlson, R. (1993). The path to the national level in sports in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine
and Science in Sports, 3, 170 - 177.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Cattel, R. B., & Cattell, A. K. S. (1960). Handbook for the individual or group Culture Fair Intelligence
Test - Scale II. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Chan, Y. H. (2003). Biostatistics 101: Data Presentation. Singapore Med J, 44(6): 280-285.
Csikzentmihalyi, M., & Rathunde, K. (1998). The development of the person: An experiential
perspective on the ontogenesis of psychological complexity. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology. Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., 635-684). New York: Wiley.
Csikzentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and
failure. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Delisle, J. R. (2002a). Barefoot irreverence: A guide to critical issues in gifted child education. Waco,
TX: Prufrock Press.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg
(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, (5th ed.), 3, 1017-1095. New York, NY: Wiley.
Feldman, D. H. (1986). Nature's gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New
York: Basic.
Gagne, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 29, 103–112.
Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1998). Role of cognitive stimulating home
environment in children's academic intrinsic motivation: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 69,
1448-1460.
Guimond, S. (1999). Attitude change during college: normative or informational social influence, Social
Psychology of Education, 2, 237 - 261.
Haensly, P. (2004). Parenting gifted children. Gifted Child Today, 27, 1, 31.
Hair, J. F., William, C. B., Barry, B., J., Rolph, E. A., & Ronald, L. T. (2006). Multivariate Data
Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J. Pearson Education Inc.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York:
Guilford.
Li, J. (1997). Creativity in horizontal and vertical domains. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 107-132.
McGrew, K. S. (1997). Analysis of the major intelligence batteries according to a proposed
comprehensive Gf-Gc framework. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.),
Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (131-150). New York: Guilford.
Nunnaly, J. C. (1967). Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ryan, A. (2001). The peer group as a context for the development of young adolescent motivation and
achievement. Child Development, 72, 1135-1150.
Sichivitsa, V. (2004). Music motivation: A study of fourth, fifth and sixth graders’ intentions to persist in
music. Contributions to Music Education, 31(2), 27-41.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1991). The social psychology of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.),
Handbook of gifted education (27-44). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Wachs, T. D. (1992). The nature of nurture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Webb, J. T., & DeVries, A. R. (1998). Gifted parent groups: The SENG Model. Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted
Psychology Press.
Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books.
Zimmerman, B., & Ringle, J. (1981). Effects of model persistence and statement of confidence on
children's self-efficacy and problem-solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 485- 93.
Teaching to diversity: Creating compassionate learning communities for diverse elementary school students
Jennifer Katz
Marion Porath
The University of British Columbia
Emotional and behavioral outcomes of the Respecting Diversity (RD) program, a social and emotional learning (SEL) intervention to develop self-awareness, self-respect and respect for diverse others, were investigated with 218 students in Grades four to seven and their teachers. Intervention and control groups were assessed pre and post intervention for level of self-awareness, self-respect, awareness of others, and respect for others. Measures of classroom climate were also included. Students completed several measures of SEL, and a selected sample were interviewed to obtain detailed information about their experiences with the RD program. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis procedures and repeated measures MANCOVAs. The intervention significantly increased students’ self-respect, awareness of others, and respect for others, while students in control classrooms decreased in these factors. Classroom climate also significantly improved for treatment classrooms according to both teachers and students, and, similarly, decreased in control classrooms.
Introduction
Around the world, children of the same age enter today’s classrooms with differing learning strengths and challenges, background knowledge, cultures, languages, and experience (Karangwa, Miles, & Lewis, 2010; Mowat, 2010; Schirmer & Casbon, 1995). Students do not learn alone, but rather, in diverse communities, interacting with their teachers, in the company of their peers, and bringing with them the values and teachings of their families. Internationally, unacceptably high rates of school violence, bullying, school dropout, youth suicide, and other negative behaviors have been documented (Kawabata, Crick & Hamaguchi, 2010; Liang, Flisher, & Lombard, 2007; McCombs, 2004; Zins & Elias, 2006). These behaviors have taken a toll on students’ social and emotional well-being, evidenced by rising rates of depression, emotion-related illnesses, and expressions of fear and hopelessness (Cluver, Bowes, & Gardner, 2010; Hymel, Schonert-Reichl, & Miller, 2006; Modrcin-McCarthy & Dalton, 1996). However, findings from a number of recent research investigations indicate that schools are among the most effective socialization contexts in our culture, and among the most influential in guiding social and emotional learning (Schonert-Reichl, Smith, & Zaidman-Zait, 2006). Children’s social and emotional learning can be fostered via classroom and school-based intervention efforts (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007; Graczyk, et al, 2000; Greenberg, Domitrovich, & Bumbarger, 2001).
For students to learn all students must be recognized as having diverse needs, and a classroom created that allows all students to learn and develop a sense of belonging. To support inclusion and diversity in Canada, several Canadian provinces have added social and emotional curricula to their mandate. For instance, in British Columbia, the province in which the current study took place, the Ministry of Education defines social responsibility as one of four foundational skills, equal in importance to reading, writing, and numeracy. Despite these efforts, many Canadian youth continue to struggle socially and emotionally. Approximately 20% of children and adolescents, well over 800,000 children in Canada, experience bullying, and mental health problems severe enough to warrant mental health services, (Kutcher & Davidson, 2007; Romano, Tremblay, Vitaro, Zoccolillo, & Pagani, 2001), a number that parallels findings in other countries (Cheng et al, 2010; Nansel, Craig, Overpeck, Saluja, & Ruan, 2004).
In the current study, the effects of a multiple intelligences based program designed to increase students’ self and social awareness and respect, key factors in the development of social and emotional health, were evaluated, and their impact on classroom climate assessed. Respecting Diversity (RD) is a theoretically derived social competence program, based on the framework for social and emotional learning (SEL) proposed by Zins, Bloodworth, Weissberg, and Walberg (2004), and using a multiple intelligences (MI) framework derived from the work of Gardner (1983).
Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)
According to the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), SEL is defined as the process of acquiring and effectively applying the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to recognize and manage emotions, developing caring and concern for others, making responsible decisions, establishing positive relationships, and handling challenging situations capably (Zins & Elias, 2006, p. 1). SEL has positive effects on many aspects of children’s development, including academic performance, physical, mental, and emotional health, prosocial behaviors, and citizenship (Zins & Elias, 2006). However, debate has raged over to what extent schools can or should be asked to devote time to social and emotional learning given their emphasis on academic learning (Elias, Zins, Graczyk, & Weissberg, 2003). What is not recognized in this argument is the link between social and emotional development and academic success. Strengthening students’ sense of community in school increases academic motivation and aspirations, and has a substantial effect on academic achievement (Brock, Nishida, Chiong, Grimm, & Rimm-Kaufamn, 2008; Zins et al., 2004), including performance on standardized tests (Malecki & Elliott, 2002).
Key Factors in SEL
SEL programs can develop protective factors in children that reduce the likelihood of psychological or mental health problems in adolescence and later life. In the elementary school years, research has clearly demonstrated that key amongst these protective factors is self and social awareness, and respect (Greenberg et al., 2001).
Self- and social awareness. Self-awareness involves recognizing and acknowledging one’s strengths and challenges (Brandt, 1998; Hippe, 2004; Jaouen, 1990). Children who are self-aware are able to recognize their own emotions, and are aware of how they are perceived by others. Social awareness, on the other hand, involves the ability to perspective take (Zins et al., 2004). Children with well-developed social awareness recognize that others have differing strengths and challenges, are therefore able to understand others’ reactions to situations, and suggest win-win solutions to problems.
Self- and social respect. Children who have self-respect embrace their strengths and see them as tools for achieving their goals and overcoming their challenges (Hippe, 2004). They are willing to take risks and try challenging tasks. Students who are respectful of others demonstrate empathy for others, and accept the relative strengths and challenges of others in relation to their own. They can work cooperatively with others, utilizing their own and others’ abilities appropriately (Johnson & Johnson, 2004). Socially, respect for others implies an appreciation for diversity (Zins et al., 2004).
Classrooms provide different emotional, social, and academic environments, and these factors affect student’s social and emotional learning, which in turn, affects the classroom climate, and learning (Keogh, 1998). In order to assess the outcomes of any program, intervention or curriculum designed to promote SEL, therefore, it is important to acquire baseline measures of classroom climate, and compare them to post intervention measures.
Important Components of SEL Programs
Effective programs for social and emotional learning have several key components, including teaching specific skills such as self-awareness, self-respect, empathy (respect for others), perspective taking (awareness of others), and cooperation (Zins et al., 2004). These programs must be integrated into comprehensive school programs if they are to be successful over the long term (McCombs, 2004).
The Respecting Diversity (RD) Program
The Respecting Diversity (RD) program’s emphasis is on the promotion of positive development among all children and youth. As a program designed by teachers for teachers, the RD program differs in some significant ways from other SEL programs. The program was initially designed by the first author, and then reviewed and modified by many teachers of grades K-12 over a 6-year period. Most SEL programs are highly scripted in their implementation, requiring teachers to teach them as a separate curriculum. The RD curriculum provides teachers with a nine-lesson script which is flexible in its implementation - the curriculum is meant to be differentiated to fit the unique context of each classroom, while still maintaining particular concepts/skills, as most curricula are.
Another unique feature of the RD program is that it uses a multiple intelligences framework (Gardner, 1993) to facilitate SEL. MI theory is internationally known as an educational framework for the delivery of content area curricula (Kim & Cha, 2008; Temure, 2007). Thus the RD program fits within teachers’ skill set in classrooms around the world, and is easily extended across the curriculum. According to Taylor and Dymnicki (2007), researchers have offered little information about how to infuse SEL interventions into the regular academic curriculum and create opportunities for students to learn through authentic experiences. By using MI as a framework, the RD program aims to do just this.
Multiple intelligences (MI)
The theory of multiple intelligences (MI) (Gardner, 1983) spawned a regular education reform movement that includes many of the teaching philosophies, techniques, and assessment methods found to be effective for developing social and emotional learning and positive classroom climates. Practices based on MI are facilitative of inclusion, since they are designed to accommodate a diverse range of learners (Armstrong, 1994; Eichinger & Downing, 1996; Falvey, Givner, & Kimm, 1996). An MI framework was chosen for this research for specific reasons, despite its controversy in the field (Gardner & Moran, 2006; Waterhouse, 2006). First, there is the intuitive utility of MI for differentiating instruction (Stanford, 2003), allowing teachers to connect students’ learning in the RD program to the rest of the curriculum. An MI framework may therefore increase implementation and cross-curricular delivery, a goal for SEL programs. Second, MI theory provides teachers and schools with neutral, non-culturally biased, language. Because MI is based in cross-cultural studies of intelligence (Gardner, 1983), everyone, regardless of cultural or racial background, or learning profile, is intelligent, and the program can have international application. Finally, MI has been cited as a useful tool for counseling and addressing social and emotional issues, and therefore bridges the curricular and social-emotional life of the classroom (Booth & O’Brien, 2008). Thus the framework is simply being used as a tool to allow teachers to explore diversity, differentiate instruction, and build self and social respect.
MI and SEL. Two of the intelligences posited by Gardner (1983) are social and emotional constructs - interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence. Interpersonal intelligence includes the SEL components of social awareness and respect. Intrapersonal intelligence incorporates self-awareness and respect.
Goals of the Respecting Diversity (RD) Program
Goals of the RD program include developing self and social awareness and respect, as well as the creation of a positive, inclusive classroom climate. Developing self-awareness and respect necessitates helping students understand their unique learning profile. This in turn allows students to become aware of how they learn best, and see their strengths and what they can contribute (Brandt, 1998; Jaouen, 1990). Thus students know how to use their strengths to make choices for academic activities and see how their learning profile can make valuable contributions to their classroom, community and future career choices (Levine, 2001, 2002).
Social awareness and respect allow students to appreciate diversity, develop respect and empathy for others, and gain an understanding of diverse learning profiles and the advantages to this diversity within a community (Peavey & Leff, 2002; Smith, 1999), resulting in respect for diverse others, and a more positive classroom climate. Students, teachers and school management influence classroom climate (Sprott, 2004), which in turn affects children’s adjustment, including self-esteem, interest and motivation, behavior and school achievement, (Somersalo, Solantaus, & Almqvist, 2002).
Purpose of the Study
This study investigated the extent to which the RD curriculum facilitated the development of students’ self and social awareness and respect in classrooms of diverse learners. The following research questions were addressed:
1. Is there a significant difference in students’ self-awareness and respect following an introduction to multiple intelligences theory and individual and group instructional activities focused on the value of diverse learning profiles?
2. Is there a significant difference in students’ social awareness and respect following an introduction to multiple intelligences theory and individual and group instructional activities focused on the value of diverse learning profiles?
Method
The methodology for this study parallels common practice in the field of SEL program evaluation (e.g., Greenberg, Kusche, Cook, & Quamma, 1995). This involves pre intervention / program delivery and post intervention measurement processes using both qualitative and quantitative measures. A quasi-experimental control group pretest-posttest design was used.
Participants
Participants were drawn from a large suburban public school district in British Columbia, Canada. All students attend their neighborhood school and are enrolled in regular education classrooms. Support services are provided in school and in class to facilitate inclusion. Students in the schools speak more than 57 languages, and more than 60% of the student population is learning English as a second language (ESL).
Nine elementary school teachers located in five schools volunteered to participate in the study. All schools enrolled students from K- Grade seven, and ranged in size from 300-500 students. Two schools were randomly selected to serve as the treatment group (three teachers in one school, two teachers in another). Treatment group classes and control group classes were located in separate schools, to avoid transference of program materials/ideas, and allow treatment group teachers to support and collaborate with each other. Student ESL populations ranged from 58% to 67% in these schools. Percentage of students below the poverty line ranged from 26% – 33%. Control group classrooms were located in three schools (with 1, 2, and 1 teachers respectively), and no intervention was made in these classrooms between pre and post testing. Student ESL populations in these schools ranged from 48% to 72%. Percentage of students below the poverty line ranged from 20% to 33%.
Teachers involved in the study ranged in age, experience, and education level. Age ranged from 32 to 60 years and experience from 2 to 36 years. Two teachers, one in each of the groups, had master’s degrees; the rest had a baccalaureate degree or post-baccalaureate education. Two hundred and eighteen students from grades four to seven took part in the study. Forty-nine and a half percent were boys, while 50.5% percent were girls. Mean age was 11 years. Students for whom English was a second language made up 67.4% of the sample, which is common in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. The dominant languages spoken were English and Asian in origin. The treatment group consisted of 121 students, while the control group had 97 students. Chi square analyses were used to investigate any group differences, including differences in gender, age, first language, and ability (ministry categories such as students with autism, learning disabilities, etc.). A significant difference was found for grade (X2 [3,N=218]=7.754, p ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- special education questions and answers
- special education report card template
- louisiana ser special education system
- special education teacher loan forgiveness
- special education philosophy statement
- special education and learning disabilities
- nys special ed teachers new requirements
- alabama department of education special education forms
- special schools for learning disabilities
- pre discharge debtor education course
- special education service log template
- special education teacher education required