User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > The Journal Of Secondary Gifted Education > Volume 13 |  Issue 4 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Amabile, T. M., & Hennessey, B. A. (1992). The motivation for creativity in children. In A. Boggiano & T. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation (pp. 54–76). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.
  • Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K., Brown, S. B., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers (RM 93102). Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  • Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
  • Baird, J., & Penna, C. (1996). Challenge in learning and teaching science. Research in Science Education, 26, 257–269.
  • Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.
  • Bower, G. H., Karlin, M. B. & Dueck, A. (1975). Comprehension and memory for pictures. Memory and Cognition, 3, 216–220.
  • Brandt, R. (1993). On teaching for understanding: A conversation with Howard Gardner. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 4–7.
  • Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.
  • Chionh, Y. H., & Fraser, B. J. (1998, April). Validation of the "What Is Happening in This Class" questionnaire. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.
  • Clifford, M. (1990). Students need challenge, not easy success. Educational Leadership, 48, 22–26.
  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Literacy and intrinsic motivation. Daedalus, 119, 115–140.
  • Csikszentmihalyi, M., & McCormack, J. (1986). The influence of teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 415–419.
  • Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Deci, E.L. (1995). Why we do what we do: The dynamics of personal autonomy. New York: Putnam’s Sons.
  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Perspectives on motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1990 (pp. 237–288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (1992). The initiation and regulation of intrinsically motivated learning and achievement. In A. Boggiano & T. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation, (pp. 9–36). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press.
  • Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.
  • Dewey, J. (1933). How we think (Rev. ed.). New York: Heath.
  • Durden, W. G., & Tangherlini, A. E. (1993). How academic talents are developed and nurtured in America. Kirkland, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
  • Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 3 Goals and cognitions (pp. 139–186). New York: Academic Press.
  • Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Flanagan, C. A., Miller, C., Reuman, D. A., & Yee, D. (1989). Self-concepts, domain values, and self-esteem: Relations and changes at early adolescence. Journal of Personality, 57, 283–310.
  • Faske, D., & Grubb, D.J. (1997, August). Implications of the learner-centered battery for new teacher standards and teacher education reform in Kentucky. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.
  • Feldhusen, J. F., & Kroll, M. D. (1991). Boredom or challenge for the academically talented in school. Gifted Education International, 7, 80–81.
  • Fischer, K. W. (1980). Learning as the development of organized behavior. Journal of Structured Learning, 3, 253–267.
  • Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1983). Validity and use of classroom environment scale. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 5, 261–271.
  • Fraser, B. J. (1990). Individualized classroom environment questionnaire. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
  • Fraser, B. J., Anderson, G. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Assessment of learning environments: Manual for learning environment inventory (LEI) and My Class Inventory (MCI) (3rd vers.). Perth, Australia: Western Australian Institute of Technology.
  • Gable, R. K., & Wolf, M. B. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain. Boston: Kluwer.
  • Gallagher, J. J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.
  • Gentry, M. L., & Gable, R. K. (2001). My Class Activities: Instrument and technical manual. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Gentry, M., Gable, R. K, & Springer, P. (2000). Gifted and nongifted middle school students: Are their attitudes toward school different as measured by the new affective instrument, My Class Activities? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 74–96.
  • Gentry, M., Maxfield, L. R., & Gable, R. K. (1998). Construct validity evidence for enrichment clusters and regular classrooms: Are they different as students see them? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 258–274.
  • Gentry, M., Rizza, M. G., & Owen, S. V. (2002). Examining perceptions of challenge and choice in classrooms: The relationship between teachers and their students and comparisons among gifted students and other students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 145–155.
  • Glasser, W. (1996). Then and now: The theory of choice. Learning, 25, 20–22.
  • Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Henerson, M. E., Morris, L. L., & Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. (1987). How to measure attitudes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Hootstein, E. W. (1994, May). Motivating middle school students. Middle School Journal, 25(5), 31–35.
  • Hopfenberg, W. S., & Levin, H. A. (1993). The accelerated schools resource guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. London: MacMillan.
  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Kerka, S. (1994). Self-directed learning. Myths and realities. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education (ERIC Reproduction Service document no. ED365818).
  • Lepper, M. R., & Chabay, R. W. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and instruction: Conflicting views on the motivational processes in computer-based education. Educational Psychologist, 20, 217–230.
  • Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
  • Maltese, R. (1995). The game game. English Journal, 84, 55–58.
  • Nemerow, L. (1996). Do classroom games improve motivation and learning? Teaching and Change, 3, 356–66.
  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Owen, S. V. (1995). SPSS and factor analyses. Unpublished paper, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
  • Parke, B. (1989). Gifted students in regular classrooms. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Passow, A. H. (1982). Differentiated curricula for the gifted/talented. Ventura, CA: Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and Talented.
  • Phenix, P. H. (1964). Realms of meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 703–732). New York: Wiley.
  • Pintrich, P., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
  • Pintrich, P., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 149–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Reis, S. M., & Cellerino, M. (1983). Guiding the gifted students through independent study. Teaching Exceptional Children, 15, 136–139.
  • Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F., Hébert, T., Plucker, J., Purcell, J. H., Rogers, J. B., & Smist, J. M. (1993). Why not let high-ability students start school in January? The curriculum compacting study.
  • (RM 93106). Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  • Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184.
  • Renzulli, J. S. (1988). The multiple menu model for developing differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 298–308.
  • Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A comprehensive plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Renzulli J. S., Leppien, J., & Hays, T. (2000). The multiple menu model: A practical guide for developing differentiated curriculum. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The school-wide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Robinson, A. (1991). Cooperative learning and the academically talented student (RBDM 9106). Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  • Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner (RBDM 9102). Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  • Schiefele, U. (1991). Interests, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299–323.
  • Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Slavin, R. E. (1984). Team-assisted individualization. In M. C. Wang & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Adapting instruction to individual differences (pp. 236–253). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
  • Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Tassinari, M. (1996). Hands-on projects take students beyond the book. Social Studies Review, 34, 16–20.
  • Taylor, P. C., Dawson, V., & Fraser, B. J. (1995, April). Classroom learning environments under transformation: A constructivist perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
  • Thompson, B., & Daniel, L. G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: A historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56 , 197–208.
  • Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64, 37–54.
  • Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.
  • Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1992). Contributions of gifted education to general education in a time of change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 183–189.
  • U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
  • Vygotsky, L. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 101–120). New York: Plenum Press.
  • Wang, M. C., & Lindvall, C. M. (1984). Individual differences in school learning environments: Theory, research, and design. In E. W. Gordon (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 11, pp. 161–225). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  • Ward, V. (1980). Differential education for the gifted. Ventura, CA: Ventura Superintendent of Schools Office.
  • Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin T. J. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms. (RM 93104). Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  • Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The rhythm of education. In A. N. Whitehead (Ed.), The aims of education (pp. 46–59). New York: MacMillian.
  • Williams, F. (1986). The cognitive-affective interaction model for enriching gifted programs. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 461–484). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Wittrock, M. (1985). Learning science by generating new conceptions from old ideas. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 259–256). San Diego: Academic Press.
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
 

Your Name:*
 

Your Email:*
 

Friend's Name:*
 

Friend's Email:*
 

Message:
 

 
Send CC to self
 

 
 

Bookmark
X
  • Volume 13
  •  Issue 4
  • Publication Date: Summer 2002



Secondary Student Perceptions of Their Class Activities Regarding Meaningfulness, Challenge, Choice, and Appeal: An Initial Validation Study

Marcia Gentry and Penny Mork Springer

This research reports the results of an initial study in which the instrument Student Perceptions of Classroom Quality was developed and then administered to a sample of students to allow examination of validity and reliability evidence. Accordingly, exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the construct validity of the scores, and internal consistency alpha reliability estimates were calculated for the 4 factors that were derived from the data. Student Perceptions of Classroom Quality, assesses how high school students perceive their class activities concerning meaningfulness, challenge, choice, and appeal—constructs clearly tied in the literature to motivation and learning and with their roots of practice found in gifted education programming. Validity and reliability evidence from this pilot study were sufficiently strong, and, thus, this line of research will be continued using a larger national sample in a confirmatory study of the revised version of the instrument that resulted from the present research. Ultimately, this instrument has potential value for those engaged in research or school improvement efforts in both general education and gifted education by providing them a means to assess constructs central to learning and classroom climate from the students’ points of view.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.