The present dissertation aims to gain insights into teacher judgments and beliefs about giftedness. Scholars stress the importance of identifying gifted students as early as possible to be able to support their socio-emotional and academic development (Fatouros, 1986; Heller, 2004; Karnes & Johnson, 1990; Schofield & Hotulainen, 2004) and have, furthermore, outlined several areas in which teacher judgments about ability and giftedness are connected to students’ development (see Section 1.2). This dissertation therefore specially focuses on elementary school teachers.
The body of research on teacher judgments about giftedness has accumulated a broad range of results concerning the influence of teacher characteristics, student characteristics, judgment characteristics, giftedness criterion characteristics, and different kinds of accuracy measurements (see Section 1.3). Specifically, teachers’ beliefs about giftedness have received strong attention as beliefs can filter and frame information and interpretations (Five & Buehl, 2012; Kleber, 1992; Shavelson & Stern, 1972) and might thereby influence teacher judgments about students’ giftedness. Still, important questions need to be solved concerning beliefs about giftedness, judgments about students’
giftedness as well as judgments about facets of students’ giftedness. This dissertation focused particularly on the following open questions: How do teachers position
themselves with regard to key aspects of scientific conceptions about giftedness? Are teacher judgments about giftedness connected to negative reference group effects? In comparison to parent judgments, how do teachers judge facets of giftedness among students who they nominate as gifted? Furthermore, how is the congruence between teacher and parent ratings related to students’ school achievement?
To tackle these questions, three empirical studies were conducted (see Table 1.2, p.
50). Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of giftedness were investigated in Study 1 (Elementary School Teachers’, Enrichment Program Teachers’, and Student Teachers’
Beliefs About the Nature of Giftedness). The diversity of different definitions of giftedness (see Sternberg & Davidson, 2005) and the frequent debates about key characteristics of giftedness indicate that there is no one definition that all experts in the area of giftedness can agree upon (see Section 1.1). In addition, teachers have different understandings of giftedness (see Section 1.3.2); however, a systematic analysis of teachers’ beliefs and how they align with often-discussed aspects of giftedness is still lacking. Therefore, this study tried to close this gap and explored teachers’ beliefs in light of dimensions of giftedness that are often discussed in the scientific field. To assess these beliefs, a questionnaire was developed. As a framework to extract relevant dimensions of beliefs about the nature of giftedness, Subotnik et al.’s (2011, 2012) comprehensive conception of giftedness, which is based on a review of conceptions of giftedness, was used. To set elementary school teachers’ beliefs about the nature of giftedness into relation with the beliefs of other teachers, 131 elementary school teachers were compared with 529 student teachers and two groups of enrichment program instructors—one group who were also school teachers (N = 212) and one group who were not school teachers but rather experts in the area that they taught in the program (N = 363). The foci in this study were the structure of these beliefs and structural and mean-level differences in these beliefs between the teacher groups. Furthermore, the relations of beliefs about the nature of giftedness with teachers’
number of years in a general classroom and in the enrichment program, and beliefs about whether intelligence is fixed or malleable, were investigated.
Elementary school teachers’ judgments about students’ giftedness were addressed in Study 2 (Exploring Reference Group Effects on Teachers’ Nominations of Gifted Students) by examining teacher nominations of students for a statewide enrichment program for gifted elementary school students. Previous research has shown that, among several student characteristics, students’ intelligence is connected to teacher judgments
of whether these students are gifted (Acar et al., 2016; Machts et al., 2016; Neber, 2004;
see Section 1.3.4-5). However, only a few studies have considered that student variables that are aggregated on a class level might be relevant for teacher judgments about giftedness (Anastasiow, 1964b; McBee, 2010; see Section 1.3.6). Research on, for example, teacher judgments of students’ cognitive abilities has shown that students’
cognitive abilities were rated higher by teachers if they were in classes with lower levels of cognitive abilities than students with the same cognitive abilities in classes with higher average levels of cognitive abilities (Baudson et al., 2014). In this study, it was therefore hypothesized that students’ individual fluid and crystallized intelligence were positively connected to students’ probability of getting nominated. However, after controlling for students’ individual intelligence, it was hypothesized that students from classes with higher average levels of fluid or crystallized intelligence would have a lower probability of getting nominated than students from classes with lower average levels of fluid or crystallized intelligence. Furthermore, this study explored whether three teacher variables, namely experience with giftedness, beliefs about the malleability of intelligence, and the belief that giftedness is domain-specific or holistic, were connected to students’ probability of getting nominated or with the expected reference group effect.
For this purpose, the nomination decisions of 105 elementary school teachers for their 1,468 third graders were viewed.
Investigating elementary school teachers’ judgments about facets of giftedness, namely students’ verbal abilities, mathematical abilities, deductive reasoning, creative thinking, and engagement, was the content of Study 3 (A Comparison of Teacher and Parent Ratings of Teacher-Nominated Gifted Elementary School Students). Specifically, elementary school teachers’ ratings of students who they nominated for an enrichment program were compared with parent ratings because, first, research on teacher and parent ratings of teacher-nominated elementary school students is rare (see Section 1.3.7) and, second, the congruence between teacher and parent ratings of students’ competence and school engagement has been found to be related to students’ academic achievement (Peet et al., 1997, see Section 1.2.3). In this study, the topics of the comparison were (1a) the accuracy of teacher and parent ratings, (1b) whether they were differently affected by halo effects, and (1c) how teacher and parent ratings of the same student characteristics were correlated with one another. Whether the reported effect of teacher-parent congruence in ratings on students’ school achievement can also be found for ratings of
facets of giftedness was further investigated. Based on previous research (Baudson &
Preckel, 2013b; Geiser et al., 2016; Li et al., 2008; Miller & Davis, 1992; Sommer et al., 2008; Petscher & Li, 2008; Pfeiffer et al., 2008) stemming mainly from general classroom samples, the following was expected: (1a) The accuracy of teacher and parent ratings of cognitive abilities is either similar or higher for teachers, is higher for teacher ratings of creative thinking, and does not differ between teachers and parents or is lower for teachers for ratings of engagement. (1b) Both ratings, but teacher ratings more strongly than parent ratings, were affected by halo effects. (1c) Teacher and parent ratings correlated moderately or highly for cognitive abilities, weakly for creative thinking, and moderately for engagement. Furthermore, following Brenner and Mistry (2007), two hypotheses were investigated: (2a) that school grades should be best when teacher and parent ratings were congruently high and worst when teacher and parent ratings were congruently low, and (2b) that high parent ratings would reduce the associations between teacher ratings and school grades.
Although each study had different specific foci, the three studies shared four aspects in particular: first, all studies included—although not exclusively—elementary school teachers from general classrooms. In Germany, students are not segregated by ability but are taught together in one classroom at the elementary school level. Therefore, for all elementary school teachers, it is a possibility that they have taught or will teach gifted students. Second, all samples stemmed from the state of Baden-Württemberg, Germany, in the period from 2012 to 2014, so that, in addition to the school system, many contextual variables like the socio-political setting were similar for all three studies. Third, all studies were imbedded in the context of a statewide enrichment program for gifted elementary school students. The first study included teachers from the enrichment program and general classroom teachers who were aware of this program. In the second study, nominations for the enrichment program were viewed based on the same sample of general classroom teachers from Study 1. In Study 3, teacher and parent ratings of students who participated in the enrichment program were viewed. Fourth, none of the studies transmitted to the participants what giftedness “truly” is, which students are
“truly” gifted, or how gifted students “truly” are. The exclusion of these standards was rooted, first, in the goal of this dissertation to capture the beliefs and judgments as unfiltered as possible and, second, in the diversity of definitions of giftedness, which lead to different giftedness criteria (see Sternberg & Davidson, 2005).
In the following three chapters (2-4), the three empirical studies outlined above will be presented in great detail. Chapter 2 will deal with Study 1 Elementary School Teachers’, Enrichment Program Teachers’, and Student Teachers’ Beliefs About the Nature of Giftedness, Chapter 3 with Study 2 Exploring Reference Group Effects on Teachers’ Nominations of Gifted Students, and Chapter 4 with Study 3 A Comparison of Teacher and Parent Ratings of Teacher-Nominated Gifted Elementary School Students.
ODUCTION AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK51 Overview of the Goals, Research Questions, and Samples of the Three Empirical Studies of the Dissertation
Study Study goal Research questions Sample
Study 1:
1. How are beliefs about the nature of giftedness structured?
2. Will the (a) structure and (b) mean level of beliefs about the nature of giftedness differ between the different groups of teachers?
3. How are beliefs about the nature of giftedness related to beliefs about the malleability of intelligence?
N = 131 elementary school teachers N = 212 school teachers who worked in an enrichment program
N = 363 instructors who worked in an enrichment program but were not school
1. Are students’ individual levels of fluid and crystallized intelligence positively associated with their probability of being nominated?
2. Are teachers’ nominations negatively affected by the class-average levels of fluid and crystallized intelligence, controlling for individual levels of fluid and crystallized intelligence?
3. Are (a) teachers’ experience with giftedness, (b) their beliefs about the changeability of intelligence, and (c) their belief that giftedness is holistic or domain-specific
associated with the size of the reference group effect or with students’ probability of being nominated?
1a. Is the accuracy of teacher ratings in comparison to parent ratings lower or not different for engagement, not different or higher for cognitive abilities, and higher for teacher ratings of creative thinking?
1b. Are both ratings – but teacher ratings more strongly than parent ratings - affected by halo effects?
1c. Are the two ratings correlated weakly for creative thinking, moderately for engagement and moderately or highly for cognitive abilities?
2a. Are school grades best when teacher and parent ratings are congruently high and worst when teacher and parent ratings are congruently low?
2b. Do high parent ratings reduce the associations between teacher ratings and school grades?
N = 294 elementary school teachers N = 408 third and fourth graders who participated in an enrichment program N = 535 parents
2
Study 1:
Elementary School Teachers’, Enrichment Program Teachers’, and Student Teachers’ Beliefs About the
Nature of Giftedness
Rothenbusch, S., Zettler, I., Lösch, T, & Voss, T. (2016). Elementary School Teachers’, Enrichment Program Teachers’, and Student Teachers’ Beliefs About the Nature of Giftedness. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Abstract
In this study, we tested to what extent teachers’ beliefs about the nature of giftedness are aligned with often discussed characteristics of conceptions of giftedness. Specifically, the focus was on the structure of these beliefs, structural and mean-level differences between these beliefs of different teacher groups, and the relation between these beliefs and beliefs about the malleability of intelligence. A scientific conception of giftedness was used to derive eight dimensions of beliefs about the content and development of giftedness, which empirically supported in the total sample (N = 1,235). Partial strong measurement invariance was achieved for comparing 529 student teachers, 131 elementary school teachers, and two groups of teachers from an enrichment program for gifted elementary school students (212 school teachers, 363 instructors). Student teachers’ beliefs differed the most from the other groups. Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of giftedness were related to their beliefs about the malleability of intelligence.
Keywords: beliefs about giftedness, factor analysis, beliefs about intelligence, measurement invariance testing, teachers’ beliefs
Elementary School Teachers’, Enrichment Program Teachers’, and Student Teachers’ Beliefs About the Nature of Giftedness