Abstract
- Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1989). The motivation to win: Negative aspects of success at competition. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 293–305.
- Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1998, November). In defense of individualistic goal structures: Balancing group and solitary learning. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Association for Gifted Children, Louisville, KY.
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row.
- Dai, D. Y., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1996). Goal orientations of gifted students. Gifted and Talented International, 11, 84–88.
- Dai, D. Y., Feldhusen, J. F. (1998, April). Mapping an interrelated network of constructs associated with goal theories: A study of gifted students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
- Dai, D. Y., Moon, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Achievement motivation and gifted students: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 45–63.
- Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
- Dweck, C. S. (in press). Students’ theories about their intelligence: Implications for talent and achievement. In R. Friedman (Ed.), The psychological development of the gifted child: The emotional price of excellence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Dweck, C. S., & Henderson, V. L. (1988). Theories of intelligence: Background and measures. Unpublished manuscript.
- Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction.
- Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1993). Gifted students illustrate what isn’t cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 50(6), 60–61.
- Kline, T. J. B. (1995). Cooperativeness and competitiveness: Dimensionality and gender specificity of the Classroom Life Instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 335–339.
- Li, A. K. F., & Adamson, G. (1992). Gifted secondary students’ preferred learning style: Cooperative, competitive, or individualistic? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 46–54.
- Matthews, M. (1992). Gifted students talk about cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 48–50.
- Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democrative education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Rizza, M. G. (1997). Exploring successful learning with talented female adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
- Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9–27.
- Robinson, A. (1997). Cooperative learning for talented students: Emergent issues and implications. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 243–252). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
- Sapon-Shevin, M., & Schniedewind, N. (1993). Why (even) gifted children need cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 50(6), 62–63.
- Slavin, R. (1990). Ability grouping, cooperative learning, and the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 3–8.
- SPSS 9.0 [Computer software]. (1998). Chicago: SPSS.
- Subotnik, R., Kassan, L., Summers, E., & Wasser, A. (1993). Genius revisited: High-IQ children grown up. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
- Thorkildsen, T. A. (1988). Theories of education among academically able adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 323–330.
- Thorkildsen, T. A. (1994). Some ethical implications of communal and competitive approaches to gifted education. Roeper Review, 17, 54–57.
- Volume 23
- Issue 3
- Publication Date: Spring 2000
Dimensions of Competitive and Cooperative Learning Among Gifted Learners
John F. Feldhusen, David Yun Dai, & Pamela R. Clinkenbeard
This study explored the dimensionality of preferences for competitive and cooperative learning. A researcher-designed Cooperation/Competition Scale was administered to a sample of 176 gifted students who attended a summer program for gifted children. A factor analysis partitioned competition items into 2 components: (a) a desire to win or outperform others and (b) a preference for competition as an energizing factor for learning. Different motivational correlates of cooperative and competitive factors also suggest the validity of a differentiated conception of competitiveness. A cluster analysis identified five relatively homogeneous groups in terms of preferences for cooperative and competitive learning. The results are discussed in the context of recent debates on the desirability of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning conditions for gifted students.
Cart Summary
Your cart is empty.