teachers characteristics-stu perception

Roeper Review, 33:8696, 2011Copyright The Roeper InstituteISSN: 0278-3193 print / 1940-865X onlineDOI: 10.1080/02783193.2011.554156

CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND TEACHERS

Gifted Israeli Students Perceptions of TeachersDesired Characteristics: A Case of Cultural

OrientationBillie Eilam and Hava E. Vidergor

Gifted students perceptions of the desired characteristics of teachers of the gifted wereassessed from a sample comprised of 404 elementary- and junior highschool Israeli Jewishand Arab students studying in pullout centers. Perceptions were measured using a questionnairecomprising teachers cognitive, personal, and pedagogical dimensions. Personal characteristicswere perceived by both Jewish and Arab students as the most important. Significant effects ofculture, gender, and grade level were detected for all three dimensions. We suggest that dif-ferences stem from collectivist/individualist cultural orientations and girls status aspirations.Thus, students perceptions of teachers desired characteristics have to be discussed in rela-tion to their cultural background and schooling. A new lens for examining teaching of giftedstudents is offered, along with practical implications for teacher-certification programs.

Keywords: cultural orientations, gifted students perceptions, pullout programs, teachersdesired characteristics

Studies have emphasized the importance of designing learn-ing environments that respond to gifted students needs(Johnsen & Goree, 2005; Rogers, 2002; Van Tassel-Baska &Stambaugh, 2006). They have examined the effectivenessof various composites such as curriculum and placementin these environments, from educators points of view.However, research concerning various learning aspects asseen and perceived from gifted students eyes, based on theirown experiences, is scarce.

Another important issue insufficiently addressed byresearch is gifted students cultural backgrounds, their widercontext of growing up and learning. Cultural context mayplay a significant role in shaping students perceptions con-cerning learning experiences. Literature directly relating tolearning styles in this perspective was insufficient. Culturallyrelevant pedagogy, on the other hand, has been proposed byLadson-Billings (1995) as a practice for reaching learners ofdiverse cultural backgrounds and engaging them in meaning-ful learning processes. This pedagogy involves environments

Received 18 August 2008; accepted 21 March 2010.Address correspondence to Billie Eilam, Faculty of Education,

University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]

that pay careful attention to knowledge, skills, attitudes,and beliefs that learners bring to the educational settingsand build on them (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999,p. 133). Among the principles advocated by this pedagogyis the nurturing of cultural competence and academic devel-opment. The latter focuses on access to academic materialsand achievements via curricula that students find relevant andinteresting (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking).

The current study attempted to shed more light on theseissues. It focused on Jewish and Arab gifted students study-ing in pullout programs in Israel and addressed the issuesof their perceptions of their teachers desired pedagogi-cal, cognitive, and personal characteristics. We examinedwhether these perceptions are affected by students differentcultural orientations, believing that attending to them mayincrease programs impact on students learning. Increasingthe impact of programs is particularly important in light offindings showing that limited exposure to programs offeredat pullout centers does not accomplish much (Feldhusen,1997; Gagn, 1995, 2003; Winner, 1997).

Programs for the gifted were first administered in Israel inthe early 1970s. Nowadays, approximately 13,000 gifted stu-dents are identified by the Department of Gifted Educationand partake in a variety of programs. About 7,000 of the

GIFTED STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHERS 87

students are provided the choice of a variety of enrich-ment topics offered in a weekly pullout program at one ofthe 53 centers for gifted education located in their districts(36 centers in the Jewish and 17 in the Arab culture;Arabs comprise about 20% of the Israeli population). Otherprograms available for talented students include separateclassrooms and summer programs offered by universities(Division for Gifted and Excellent Students, 20082009).Participants of this study were gifted students studying atJewish and Arab pullout centers. These Israeli pullout cen-ters allow for bicultural comparison, which constitutes thefocus of this study.

PULLOUT PROGRAMS

Enrichment programs expose students to increased breadthand depth of content (Schiever & Maker, 1997). Enrichmentcan take many forms, from in-class enrichment for giftedstudents in regular classrooms, to pullout programs, to out-of-school programs. The present study addressed giftedstudents learning in pullout programs. Schiever and Makeridentified three kinds of pullout programs: (a) process-oriented programs that focus on creative problem solvingand critical thinking, often domain independent; (b) content-oriented approaches, offering minicourses or mentorship in aspecific subject domain; and (c) product-oriented approachesinvolving students in projects, reports, and presentations,which combine process and content elements.

Empirical studies from earlier years concerning pulloutprograms (as cited in Moon, Feldhusen, & Dillon, 1994)revealed positive effects for achievement (Aldrich & Nills,1989; Kulik & Kulik, 1992), critical thinking (Beckwith,1982; Carter, 1986; Neilsen, 1984), creativity (Kollof &Feldhusen, 1984; Starko, 1988), or promoting interest invarious domains and interaction with students (Humes &Campbell, 1980). Moreover, studies show long-term positiveeffects of pullout programs on elementary-school students(Feldhusen & Moon, 1992; Moon, 1991). For example,Moon et al. (1994) found that most students loved the pull-out programs because they were significantly different fromregular school, which at times reflected the perception thatschoolwork was boring.

A questionnaire administered to gifted elementary- andmiddle-school students revealed that pullout programs werethe most common practice in gifted education (40%;Swiatek & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2003), a result that is con-sistent with past research findings (see Winner, 1997). Someexperts stated that these ineffective programs for giftedstudents are often worse than having no exposure to pro-grams at all (e.g., Davidson, Davidson, & Vanderkam, 2004).According to many current analyses, pullout programs inschools are more age dependent than interest and abilitydependent (Davidson et al., 2004); that is, the gifted are rarelygrouped according to interest in mixed-age classrooms. Othercritics noted that even the most exciting curriculum cannot

accomplish much if exposure lasts for only several hours aweek (Feldhusen, 1997; Gagn, 1995, 2003; Winner).

TEACHERS OF THE GIFTED: COGNITIVE,PEDAGOGICAL, AND PERSONAL

CHARACTERISTICS

A review of the literature showed that most gifted studentscan have special cognitive characteristics such as acceler-ated and flexible thought processes, language proficiency andverbal ability, abstract thinking, and preference for complexand challenging work and the ability to effectively consumelarge quantities of knowledge, apply original approachesto problem solving, form unusual relationships among dis-ciplines or objects, successfully conduct self-inquiry, ortransfer knowledge and apply it in new situations. Giftedstudents are characterized as diligent and curious, as well asexhibiting high metacognitive abilities (Chuska, 1989; Clark,2002; Silverman, 2000; Winebrenner, 2001). More currentapproaches to understanding giftedness and talent from adevelopmental perspective suggest that individuals developin highly diverse ways, and there are as many developmen-tal speeds and directions associated with becoming a highachiever as there are high-achieving individuals (Horowitz,Subotnik, & Matthews, 2009).

Teachers PerceptionsExperts often speculate about whether teachers of the giftedshould possess the same characteristics as their students.A comparative study of specifically trained and untrainedteachers of the gifted showed that trained teachers were moreaware of the cognitive needs of the gifted, employed pedagog-ical strategies that encouraged high-level thinking, promotedindependent learning and were more creative than untrainedteachers (Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994). Feldhusen (1997)observed that, similar to gifted and talented students, thesesuccessful teachers were characterized as highly intelligent,achievement oriented, knowledgeable and flexible; as havingcultural and intellectual interests; as respecting individualdifferences; and as relating well with gifted individuals.

Chan (2001) reviewed researchers past surveys of suc-cessful teachers competencies while working with giftedand talented students, including the ability to teach think-ing skills, problem solving, and creativity; the ability tointeract with students effectively, use appropriate motiva-tional techniques, conduct student-directed activities, andfacilitate independent research. Researchers noted that com-petencies needed for teaching specific content domains mayvary, because the teaching of science and mathematics maybe very different from the teaching of art and music. Across-cultural study (VanTassel-Baska, MacFarlane, & Feng,2006), which examined beliefs about best teaching prac-tices among Singapore and American teachers, suggestedthat regardless of cultural backgrounds an exemplary teacher

88 B. EILAM AND H. E. VIDERGOR

should exhibit the following characteristic qualities: (a) con-tent mastery, (b) a passionate personality dedicated to theteaching profession and to students, and (c) a flexible andadventurous spirit in practicing instruction. The top threeessential skills required for working with the gifted included(a) the knowledge and effective use of teaching techniques,(b) strong communication skills, and (c) the ability to under-stand and to address students needs. These studies examinedbest competencies and practices from teachers perspectivesalone, neglecting the gifted students comprising the targetpopulation.

Students PerceptionsA study by Mills (2003) that examined the characteris-tics of effective teachers of gifted students supported J. F.Feldhusens findings (1997) and elaborated on them. Millsindicated that the successful teachers personality types werein many ways similar to those of gifted students, suggest-ing that teachers who are judged to be highly effective inworking with gifted students prefer abstract themes and con-cepts, are open and flexible concerning different or newideas, and value logical analysis and objectivity. However,though Feldhusen stressed the acquisition of knowledge andcompetencies in teachers professional development overthe consideration of teachers personal characteristics, Millssuggested that teachers personalities and cognitive stylesmay play an important role in their instructional effec-tiveness. These findings, however, are still insufficient forguiding teachers of the gifted.

Data concerning students preferences for personalityor cognitive strengths in their teachers are also inconclu-sive. A study of gifted and nongifted elementary studentsin Israel demonstrated a strong preference for intellectualcognitive qualities of teachers over other personal dimen-sions like creativity and also over teachers approaches toareas such as classroom organization and presentation ofmaterial (Milgram, 1979). On the other hand, Maddux,Samples-Lachmann, and Cummings (1985) found that theirstudents preferred personal and social characteristics of theirteachers over intellectual and creative qualities.

An Australian study reported that students preferred themore open climate established by trained teachers of thegifted and those undertaking training, compared to untrainedteachers of the gifted (Rowley, 2002). Students also reportedthese teachers greater emphasis on higher-level thinking(analysis and synthesis) rather than on retention, on discus-sion rather than on lecturing, and on feelings (the affectivedimension). Data regarding gender and grade level (i.e., ele-mentary, junior high, or high school) as related to studentsperceptions of teachers characteristics are still insufficient.

In summary, experts recommend that teachers of giftedstudents should possess many of the characteristics attributedto gifted students. For addressing the needs of gifted stu-dents, these teachers are expected to possess high-levelcognitive abilities and pedagogical competencies, along with

learning-related personal and social abilities. Due to theabundance of studies addressing teachers characteristicsfrom students perspectives, our study attempted to elabo-rate and focus on differences in students perceptions acrosscultures as related to gender and grade level.

GIFTED EDUCATION IN ISRAEL:A MULTICULTURAL VIEW

The Israeli gifted education system is comprised of Jews,Arabs (Muslim and Christian), and Druz students, reflectingIsraels multicultural society. This population may be char-acterized on the Triandis (1995) individualismcollectivismcontinuum, which provides a useful global tool for describ-ing societal cultural orientations. The Arab collectivist viewemphasizes adults (including teachers) authority and beingrespectful and obedient toward adults (Al-Haj, 1995; Eilam,2002). In schools, these collectivistic norms are mostly trans-lated into the traditional instructional practices of teacher-centered instruction, which may discourage students fromexpressing opinions and dominantly emphasize memoriza-tion and rote learning (Al-Haj, 1995, 1996, as cited in Eilam,2002, 2003). In recent years, efforts have been carried out tochange these practices to increase students active learning.

These instructional practices, which reflect collectivistnotions enacted in regular school settings in Israel, are inconflict with the leading recommended practices in giftededucation, which mostly represent the Western individualis-tic orientation. As stated earlier, in pullout programs studentsare encouraged to develop new fields of interest, think-ing, and problem-solving skills, along with affective andsocial competencies. These can flourish best in an open andaccepting environment created by teachers possessing thecharacteristics discussed herein.

Jewish gifted students who belong to Western individu-alistic societies often emphasize their own agendas, whichseldom overlap with those of society as a whole. On theother end of the continuum, Arab gifted students, belongingto collectivist societies, often seriously consider the com-mon goals of their society in addition to considering theirown. For example, Arab adolescents explain their strivingfor higher education and career aspirations as reflecting col-lective motives (to help my people) to a much greaterextent than do Jewish counterparts (Seginer, Karayann, &Mari, 1990). In addition, Arab boys and girls live in differentrealities, with boys facing more parental demands concern-ing education and academic achievement compared to girls(Seginer, 1988, 2001). Seginer (1988, 2001) explained thatboys are considered a privileged gender and are servedfrom childhood forward. Therefore, because their status isalready secured, they may feel less motivated to achieve aca-demically. Arab girls receive conflicting messages regard-ing the importance of female education and professionalpursuit (Mernissi, 1985). They develop motivation to suc-ceed in school and academically achieve higher in order


to materialize their hopes for higher education and career(Seginer & Mahajna, 2004). Higher education is Arab girlsonly means for breaking from the traditional path des-tined for Arab women, but they emphasize achievementrather than meaningful learning (Malka & Convington, 2005;Miller, DeBaker, & Green, 1999). These themes related tohigher education and career are rarely found in narrativedata collected from Israeli Arab boys (Seginer, Shoyer, &Mahajna, 2008; Suleiman, 2001) and Israeli Jewish boys andgirls (Seginer, 2005; Seginer, Vermulst, & Shoyer, 2004).

FOCUS OF STUDY AND MAIN HYPOTHESIS

In light of the presented knowledge, the study attemptedto examine the desired characteristics of teachers of giftedlearners in three dimensions (cognitive, pedagogical, andpersonal) as perceived by gifted students of both gendersfrom two cultural groups in Israel (Jewish and Arab) andfrom two grade levels (elementary and junior high school).The main research question asked was whether there aredifferences in desired cognitive, pedagogical, or personalcharacteristics of teachers of gifted students by culture,gender, and grade level.

METHOD

ParticipantsThe study was conducted in five Jewish and Arab pull-out programs taking place in gifted-education centers inIsrael. Students were identified as gifted by the Ministry ofEducation based on a two-stage screening process indentify-ing high achievement and academic abilities (above 130 IQ).Jewish students attended these centers for 6 hours once aweek on a regular school day, and Arab students attended thecenters on their free day. Jewish and Arab students studied inseparate centers because of housing patterns. They studied indifferent languages (Jewish students in Hebrew and Arab stu-dents in Arabic) because these were the first languages taughtin their schools. Students were randomly selected from var-ious pullout programs. Disproportional stratified sampling(Salant & Dillman, 1994) was applied. Group sizes werenot proportional to their size in population (which is usually1%3%) to better detect differences between them.

In order to examine the study hypotheses, participantswere sought from two cultural groups: (a) gifted Jewishelementary and junior high-school students (N = 204) and(b) gifted Arab elementary and junior high-school students(N = 200), both participating in pullout programs. Table 1presents the composition of participants by cultural orienta-tions, grade, and gender.

Numbers of boys and girls among participants and num-bers of elementary and junior high students reflect theirrelevant ratio in pullout Israeli programs at that time

TABLE 1Study Population: Number of Students by Culture,

Grade Level, and Gender

Jews, No. (%) Arabs, No. (%) Total, No. (%)

Grade levelElementary 130 (32.2) 102 (25.2) 232 (57.4)Junior high 74 (18.3) 98 (24.3) 172 (42.6)Total 204 (50.5) 200 (49.5) 404 (100)

GenderMale 143 (35.4) 108 (26.7) 251 (62.1)Female 61 (15.1) 92 (22.8) 153 (37.9)Total 204 (50.5) 200 (49.5) 404 (100)

(Male = 62.1%, Female = 37.9%; elementary = 57.4%,junior high school = 42.6%). The number of Jewish malesand females (143 to 61) reflected the ratio usually found inidentified gifted children there (twice as many boys com-pared to girls). In the Arab group, the number of girls tendedto be even higher (108 to 92) because of their tendency toachieve higher.

Instrumentation

A questionnaire for measuring students perceptions ofdesired teacher characteristics was administered to eachgroup in their native language. Translation was performedby three Arab educators. An expert in gifted education val-idated the content. The questionnaire was comprised of twoparts: The first part consisted of 42 statements, requiringstudents respondes to them on a 6-point Likert-type scalefrom 1 (completely incorrect) to 6 (completely correct),reflecting gifted students evaluation of the extent to whichgifted teachers should possess the characteristics stated (seeAppendix).

A factor analysis with Varimax rotation performed onresponses of 217 teachers (see Table 2) yielded threescales of teachers characteristics, each describing a dif-ferent dimension: (a) teachers cognitive characteristics(13 items, Cronbachs alpha = .78) (b) teachers per-sonal characteristics (17 items, Cronbachs alpha = .86),and (c) teachers pedagogical characteristics (13 items,Cronbachs alpha = .81), with the 43-item instrumentsinternal consistency yielding a reliability of Cronbachsalpha = .85.

Reliability calculated for students responses yieldedresults similar to that obtained for teachers only on the per-sonal and pedagogical dimensions but much lower reliabilityfor the cognitive dimension as follows: (a) teachers per-sonal characteristics, related to teaching, attitudes towardstudents, and nurturing creativity (17 items, Cronbachsalpha = .84), including statements such as, Teachersrespect the students, or Teachers are aware of differ-ences among students; (b) teachers pedagogical charac-teristics concerning teaching modes and classroom activities


TABLE 2Factor Analysis Results According to Teachers Perceptions of

Various Dimensions

Dimension Cognitive Personal Pedagogical

Alpha .78 .86 .81Not assign research projects .57Present diverse modes of solving a

problem.55

Encourage students to always think inthe same way

.53

Show a single mode of solving aproblem

.52

Not assign the building of models .51Focus on the subject and not get

carried away.50

Lecture most of the time .47Teach a subject with no connection to

other subjects.45

Be knowledgeable in subjects he or shedoes not teach

.43

Teach each subject in a single way .38Be able to make meaningful

connections among ideas originatingin different subjects

.38

Teach the same topic from differentpoints of view

.37

Assign independent research projects .35Encourage the presentation of research

and creative projects in theclassroom

.71

Use movies, songs, objects, and gamesfor illustration

.65

Create good personal relations withstudents

.64

Encourage students self-evaluation .61Assign cooperative work during class .56Be aware of differences among

students.53

Stimulate students curiosity .52Assign creative work .52Respect the students .52Be aware of students different

learning modes.50

Use rich language .46Organize visits to museums and labs .46Present the use of acquired knowledge

in new situations.46

Motivate students to learn .45Occasionally have a personal

conversation with each student.44

Be creative .41Not reject students opinions .41Send students to regional and national

competitions.70

Hold science competitions amongstudents

.67

Strive for outstanding achievements .64Assign homework almost every lesson .62Test students orally by calling them to

the board.59

Ask students to memorize and recitethe material

.56

(Continued)

TABLE 2(Continued)

Dimension Cognitive Personal Pedagogical

Demand high grades .53Incorporate computer work in studies .49Invite experts for lectures and

discussions.49

Often check students notebooks andhomework

.48

Grade or evaluate students on eachtask

.45

Invite parents to school science fairs .41Teach material in a fast pace .36Explained variance (%) 15.0 17.30 10.70Mean score 5.22 5.56 4.10(SD) (.47) (.38) (.68)

(13 items, Cronbachs alpha = .76); for example, Teacherssend students to regional and national competitions orTeachers invite experts for lectures and discussions; and(c) cognitive characteristics; in particular teachers appli-cation of cognitive skills and requisition that students dothe same, yielded a lower reliability (12 items, Cronbachsalpha = .60). The cognitive dimension included statementssuch as Teachers are able to make meaningful connec-tions among ideas originating in different subjects orTeachers present diverse modes of solving a problem.The item Lectures most of the time was omitted fromstudents questionnaire to obtain .60 reliability. Instrument42 items internal consistency yielded a reliability coefficientof Cronbachs alpha = .86.

The Division for Gifted and Excellent Students in Israel(2004) indicated that teachers expertise regarding the edu-cation of gifted students should be as follows: The teacherof gifted students should be knowledgeable in learningprocesses and types of learning, promoting thinking, andenhancing socialemotional and moral aspects, providingoptimal conditions for learning. The three dimensions ofteachers characteristics are principally interwoven.

Based on research findings and Israeli perception, weaddressed the teachers role in the classroom as resultedfrom the factor analysis, emphasizing three dimensions:(a) the cognitive dimension, represented by promoting think-ing skills in the process of learning; (b) the pedagogicaldimension, focusing on promoting learning in general; and(c) the personal dimension, relating to teachers personalityas building productive learning environments emphasizingthe socialemotional and creative aspects. The differencesin nuances of perception of dimensions of teachers charac-teristics found for our samples, compared with the teachers,may evolve from students and teachers different perspec-tives regarding these statement evaluations. For instance,students evaluate from an external perspective as learn-ers, lacking teachers knowledge of instructional pedagogy,whereas teachers evaluate statements from their own broad


extended instructional experiences. The second part of thequestionnaire consisted of demographic information and theindependent variables including cultural orientations (Jewishor Arab), grade level (elementary or junior high school), andgender (male or female).

ProcedureQuestionnaires were administered to students in each groupin their native language in their study groups in the variouspullout centers during morning hours. The Jewish elemen-tary and junior gifted-education centers were located in var-ious areas of the country, and the Arab centers were locatedin the northern part of Israel. Students filled in the question-naire and handed it to the researcher. They were told that thedata would be used anonymously for a study concerning thegifted. Translation of students responses into Hebrew wasnot required due to responses being marked on the Likertscale. Time allocated for filling in the questionnaire wasapproximately 15 minutes.

Data AnalysisThree-way MANOVA procedures were performed to affirmthe relevance of independent variables such as gradelevel, gender, and culture. Pearson correlations were per-formed to establish connections between dependent vari-ables. Differences between Arab and Jewish students ratingon statements were established via t-tests.

RESULTS

Desired Teachers Characteristics Concerning VariousDimensions

The main hypothesis concerning differences in desired cog-nitive, pedagogical, or personal characteristics of teachers byculture, gender, and grade level was confirmed.

Table 3 presents Pearson correlations among the threemeasures of the dimensions of teachers characteristics,namely, the cognitive, pedagogical, and personal dimensions.

Means comparisons (SD in parentheses) of studentsratings of dimensions yielded the personality dimensionhighest, followed by the cognitive, which is higher than the

TABLE 3Correlations Among the Three Dimensions of Teachers Desired

Characteristics as Rated by Students

Cognitive Personal Pedagogical

Cognitive Personal .604 Pedagogical .275 .517

Note. N = 404.p < .001.

pedagogical, 4.85 (.62) > 4.31 (.59) > 3.59 (.76), respec-tively. Pearson correlation for the various dimensions ofteachers characteristics yielded significant main effects forall possible pairs of characteristics dimensions (p .001),suggesting that they are related in students minds. However,the personal dimension is more strongly related to thecognitive one in students minds than it is to the pedagog-ical dimension, whereas the cognitive and the pedagogicaldimension are perceived by students as related to a smallerdegree. The three dimensions were examined by backgroundvariables to determine their effect, as seen in Table 4.

Significant main effects were detected for grade level,F(1,394) = 3.78, p .05, Effect Size (ES) = .028;gender, F(1,394) = 2.77, p .05, ES = .021; culture,F(1,394) = 25.35, p .001, ES = .16; and the interactionof gender by culture, F(1,394) = 3.76, p .05, ES = .028.

The Cognitive DimensionSignificant differences in students preferences related to

cognitive characteristics of teachers of gifted were detectedin the background variables of grade level, gender, andthe interaction of culture by gender but not for culture.Examination according to grade level indicated that juniorhighschool gifted students rated the cognitive dimensionhigher than did elementary gifted students, 4.40 (.60)> 4.23(.57) respectively, F(1,396) = 10.89, p .001, ES = .027.Examination according to gender showed that girls ratedhigher than boys on the cognitive scale, 4.34 (.55) > 4.26(.56), respectively, F(1,396) = 4.14, p .05, ES = .010.

Analysis according to cultural orientations showed no sig-nificant differences between Jewish and Arab students on thecognitive dimension. The significant interaction of gender byculture on the cognitive dimension indicated that boys andgirls of the different cultural orientations perceived teach-ers characteristics differently, F(1,396) = 10.46, p .001,ES = .026).

Jewish boys tended to rate the cognitive dimensionslightly higher than Jewish girls did, 4.36 (.50) and 4.29

TABLE 4Results of MANOVA for All Students Ratings on Teachers

Characteristics in the Three Dimensions by Culture, Grade Level,Gender, and Gender by Culture, Presented in F Values and

Significance Levels

Dimensions(df = 394) Culture Grade level Gender Gender CultureCognitive .84 10.89 4.14 10.46Personal 13.72 2.04 4.19 4.73Pedagogical 16.32 .67 .10 .31Multivariate 25.35 3.78 2.77 3.76

F (df = 3)p < .05. p < .001.


(.64), respectively, whereas Arab girls tended to rate teach-ers cognitive characteristics significantly higher than Arabboys did, 4.43 (.62) and 4.13 (.60), respectively.

These findings show opposite gender-related trendsamong Jewish and Arab students regarding preferred cog-nitive characteristics of teachers of gifted.

Paired sample t-tests showed a significant differencebetween Arab boys and Arab girls, t(198) = 3.47, p .001,Mean Difference (MD) = .30, but not between Jewish boysand girls. Namely, Arab girls, who rated the desired cogni-tive characteristics of the teacher of the gifted significantlyhigher than Arab boys did, perceived cognitive character-istics as more important for their personal development. Incontrast, Jewish boys and girls equally perceived teacherscognitive characteristics to be important. In addition, Jewishboys rated teachers cognitive characteristics significantlyhigher than Arab boys did, 4.36 (.50) > 4.13 (.60) respec-tively, t(249) = 3.36, p .001, MD = .23. It seems thatArab boys perceived teachers cognitive characteristics asless important than Jewish boys did.

The Personal Dimension

Significant differences in students perceptions of thedesired personal characteristics of the teachers of giftedwere detected in gender and culture but not in grade level.Analysis according to gender indicated that girls rated thepersonal dimension higher than boys, 4.90 (.63)> 4.81 (.61),respectively, F(1,396) = 4.19, p .05, ES = .010.According to culture, Jewish students tended to ratethis dimension higher than their Arab counterparts did,4.96 (.49) > 4.72 (.70), respectively, F(1,396) = 13.72,p .001, ES = .033. t-Test results show a signif-icant difference between Arab gifted boys and girls,4.63 (.71) < 4.83 (.69), respectively, t = 1.98, p .05,MD = .30, in perception of the importance of teacherspersonal characteristics.

The Pedagogical DimensionA significant difference according to culture alone was

found on the pedagogical dimension, indicating Jewishstudents tendency to rate such characteristics lower thantheir Arab counterparts did, 3.44 (.72) < 3.73 (.77),respectively, F(1,396) = 16.32, p .001, ES = .040.Differences were detected between both Jewish and Arabgifted boys, 3.46 (.73) < 3.73 (.83), respectively, t = 2.75,p .05, MD = .27, and Jewish and Arab gifted girls,3.39 (.69) < 3.73 (.69), respectively, t = 2.97, p . 005,MD = .34.

In summary, an examination of teachers characteristicsaccording to the three different dimensions revealed that bothJewish and Arab gifted students valued the personal and cog-nitive over pedagogical characteristics. Differences betweenthe groups according to the various dimensions exhibitrecurrent patterns in the cognitive and personal dimensions,

showing that Jewish boys and girls and Arab girls tendedto rate these dimensions higher than Arab boys. An oppo-site trend was detected on the pedagogical dimension, whereArab girls and boys tended to rate this higher than theirJewish counterparts did.

DISCUSSION

Dimensions of Teachers CharacteristicsExamination of teachers characteristics according to thethree dimensions revealed that all gifted students valuedthe personal and cognitive dimensions more than they val-ued the pedagogical, consistent with recent research (Mills,2003) but not with past research in Israel (Milgram, 1979).This inconsistency with Israeli past findings may resultfrom the many changes that have occurred in the educa-tion of gifted students over these last 30 years. Findingssuggest that background variables may influence studentsperceptions of the cognitive and personal dimensions ofteachers desired characteristics. In our discussion here, weemphasize gender-related cultural orientations and the gen-eral cultural-orientation perspective, because these may havea strong effect on students perceptions of teachers desiredcharacteristics.

The Cognitive DimensionGrade-level or age-related differences regarding the rat-

ing of characteristics on the cognitive dimension may beexpected due to older students emphasis on the intelligencedomain, which is more associated with the conventionalgoals of education (Milgram, 1979, p. 128). The similarperceptions found for Jewish students, expressed in theirrelatively higher rating of teachers cognitive characteris-tics, suggest their acknowledgement of the importance ofthe cognitive dimension. Arab girls higher ratings of thecognitive dimension compared with Arab boys reflect theiraspirations for higher education and career, consistent withliterature relating to nongifted students in Israel (Seginer &Mahajna, 2004). The authors cited here reported a recenttrend, expressed by Arab females, of valuing higher educa-tion as a means for breaking the traditional path destinedfor them by society. On the other hand, gifted Arab boysattributing less importance to the cognitive characteristics isconsistent with past research relating to nongifted Arab boys(Seginer, 1988, 2001), suggesting that due to their alreadysecure status in society, given societal perceptions that boysare the privileged gender, they feel less motivated to achieveacademically.

The Personal Dimension

Gender-related perceptions of the personal dimensionare consistent with literature emphasizing girls strongerdesire for personalsocial relations. Culture-related percep-tions of the personal dimension may suggest that Jewish


gifted students are more sensitive to teachers personal char-acteristics and the current outcome-learning climate. Arabgifted students attributed less importance to the teacherspersonal characteristics, whereas their Jewish counterpartsacknowledged the importance of these characteristics andnoticed teachers exhibiting unique qualities when attend-ing pullout programs. The finding related to Arab giftedgirls, compared with Jewish gifted girls and boys, supportsour previous explanations concerning the value these girlsattach to teachers personal characteristics as a means forimproving their societal status. However, girls from both cul-tural orientations equally value the personal characteristicsof teachers of the gifted.

The Pedagogical DimensionArabJewish differences in perceiving the teaching

learning situation may be explained by their cultural back-ground; namely, students being exposed to collectivistnorms, as translated into instructional practices, are discour-aged from expressing opinions and are expected to respectadults authority (Al-Haj, 1995, 1996, as cited in Eilam,2002). These behaviors may influence their perceptionsof the teachinglearning situation at pullout centers. Arabteachers of gifted students in the pullout centers may con-tinue their educational traditions, rather than fostering cre-ativity, problem solving, group work, and individual projects.Individualistic Jewish teachers are likely more aware ofstudent-centered practices promoting active learning andenhancing creativity and apply them more than Arab teach-ers do in the centers. Jewish students high expectations forsuch instructional modes, as found here, may constitute anadditional pressure for applying them.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The main conclusion of this study is that students per-ceptions of their teachers desired characteristics cannot bediscussed separately from their contextual background andschooling. Jewish and Arab gifted students exhibit differingperceptions regarding the various dimensions of teacherscharacteristics, which may result from belonging to soci-eties representing different cultural orientations. It seemsthat Arab gifted boys (in contrast with Arab girls) have notyet developed an awareness of the cognitive and personalbenefits of pullout programs. This finding is probably oneoutcome of programs for gifted students being introducedmuch later in the Arab culture than in the Jewish cultureand Arab gifted girls striving for education as a means forimproving their societal status.

Students perceptions of what teachers characteristics aredesirable in the three dimensions suggest that it is importantfor teachers to discuss with students the aims of programsfor gifted students, and the opportunities they provide, as

different from that of regular school and as responding totheir needs, so that students will not perceive the programs asjust an improved school or as simply extending some schoolexperiences.

The findings also underscore the importance of teach-ers awareness of students cultural orientations as a factorinfluencing students perceptions related to teaching andlearning and affecting their preferences and related expec-tations. Awareness of these differences in gifted studentsperceptions and preferences, in individualist and collec-tivist cultural orientation, and concerning what is desired inteacher characteristics may promote students participationand learning. Among the reported preferences are open andchallenging tasks as well as a climate favoring individualsuccess and positive competitions. Hence, we recommendthat both Arab and Jewish teachers, representing Arab andJewish cultural orientations, be encouraged to attend cer-tification programs recently established by the Division ofGifted and Excellent Students at the Ministry of Educationin Israel. Because students from both cultures emphasizedthe importance of teachers personal and cognitive charac-teristics, we advise that both dimensions be considered wheninterviewing teachers for these programs.

Our study showed the importance of considering studentscultural orientations while planning and designing learningenvironments for gifted students. In our case, culturally rel-evant pedagogy for gifted students is particularly importantto consider. Because Arab gifted students are a minority, weassume that responding to their needs, which seem to differfrom those of Jewish gifted counterparts, will result in abetter fulfillment of their potential. In this sense, we do notrecommend implementation of the Jewish ideas of how toadvance gifted students in Israel but rather that Jewish andArab teachers together consider students needs and culturalorientation when designing programs to promote Arab giftedstudents.

STUDY LIMITATIONS

This study raises some crucial issues with respect to the edu-cation of gifted students in a multicultural society. Becauseparticipants of the present study were representative of thepullout programs in the Jewish and Arab cultures sanc-tioned by the Ministry of Education in the northern andcentral regions of Israel, we recommend only cautious gen-eralization to other gifted populations and other types ofprograms. Data collected were self-reported and not trian-gulated with parents or teachers perceptions. A deeperexamination of perceptions and preferences of students fromdiverse cultures and of teachers of gifted students mightcontribute to a better understanding of education of giftedstudents. Semistructured interviews would likely provide amore comprehensive view of students notions regarding thecharacteristics of their teachers, and indirectly of pullout


center atmosphere and curriculum, which in turn might bringabout a better, more efficient approach to gifted educationthat enhances each individuals potential.

REFERENCES

Aldrich, P. W., & Nills, C. J. (1989). A special program for highly able ruralyouth in Grades 5 and 6. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 1114.

Al-Haj, M. (1995). Kinship and modernization in developing societies: Theemergence of instrumentalized kinship. Journal of Comparative FamilyStudies, 26, 311328.

Al-Haj, M. (1996). Education among the Arabs in Israel: Control and socialchange. Jerusalem. Israel: The Hebrew University Magnes Press.

Beckwith, A. (1982). Use of the Ross Test as an assessment measure inprograms for the gifted and a comparison study of the Ross Test to indi-vidually administered intelligence tests. Journal for the Education of theGifted, 5, 127140.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn(Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Carter, K. (1986). A cognitive outcome study to evaluate curriculum for thegifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9, 4155.

Chan, D. W. (2001). Characteristics and competencies of teachers of giftedlearners: The Hong Kong perspective. Roeper Review, 23, 197201.

Chuska, K. R. (1989). Gifted learners K12: A practical guide to effectivecurriculum and teaching. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.

Clark, B. (2002). Growing-up gifted (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Merrill Prentice-Hall.

Davidson, J., Davidson, B., & Vanderkam, L. (2004). Genius denied: Howto stop wasting our brightest young minds; What you and your school cando for your gifted child. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Division for Gifted and Excellent Students. (2004). Steering committeereport on the advancement of gifted education. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministryof Education.

Division for Gifted and Excellent Students. (20082009). Issues in educat-ing gifted students in Israel. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.il/gifted/

Eilam, B. (2002). Passing through a Western-democratic teacher educa-tion: The case of Israeli Arabs. Teacher College Record, 104, 16561701.

Eilam, B. (2003). Jewish and Arab teacher trainees orientations towardteachingLearning processes. Teaching Education, 14(2), 189186.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Moon, S. M. (1992). Grouping gifted students. GiftedChild Quarterly, 36, 6367.

Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). Educating teachers for work with talented youth. InN. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nded., pp. 547552). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gagn, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and itsimpact on the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18, 103111.

Gagn, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a develop-mental theory. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of giftededucation (3rd ed., pp. 6074). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrainedteachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 115121.

Horowitz, F. D., Subotnik, R. F., & Matthews, D. J. (2009). The developmentof giftedness and talent across the life-span. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Humes, C. W., & Campbell, R. D. (1980). Gifted students: A 15-yearlongitudinal study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24, 129131.

Johnsen, S., & Goree, K. (2005). Teaching gifted students through inde-pendent study. In F. Karnes & S. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materialsfor teaching the gifted and talented (pp. 379408). Waco, TX: PrufrockPress.

Kolloff, M. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1984). The effects of enrichment onself-concept and creative thinking. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 5357.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1992). Programming, grouping and acceler-ation in rural school districts: A survey of attitudes and practices. GiftedChild Quarterly, 36, 112117.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant peda-gogy. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 465491.

Maddux, C. D., Samples-Lachmann, I., & Cummings, R. E. (1985).Preferences of gifted students for selected teacher characteristics. GiftedChild Quarterly, 29, 160163.

Malka, A., & Convington, M. V. (2005). Perceiving school performance asinstrumental to future goal attainment: Effects on graded performance.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 6080.

Mernissi, F. (1985). Beyond the veil: Male female dynamics in a Muslimsociety. London, England: Al Saqi Books.

Milgram, R. M. (1979). Perception of teacher behavior in gifted and non-gifted children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 125128.

Miller, R. B., DeBaker, T. K., & Green, B. A. (1999). Perceived instrumen-tality and academics: The link to task valuing. Journal of InstrumentalPsychology, 26, 250260.

Mills, C. J. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students:Teacher background and personality styles of students. Gifted ChildQuarterly, 47, 272281.

Moon, S. M. (1991). The PACE Program: A high school follow-upstudy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, WestLafayette, IN.

Moon, S. M., Feldhusen, J. F., & Dillion, D. R. (1994). Long-term effects ofan enrichment program based on the Purdue Three-Stage Model. GiftedChild Quarterly, 38, 3848.

Neilsen, M. E. (1984). Evaluation of gifted rural program: Assessment ofattitudes, self-concepts, and critical thinking skills of high ability studentsin grades 312. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.

Rogers, K. B. (2002). Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions andanswers. Roeper Review, 24, 102107.

Rowley, J. (2002). Teacher effectiveness in the education of gifted students:A comparison of trained, trainee and untrained teachers of gifted andtalented students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of NewSouth Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to construct your own survey. NewYork, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Schiever, S. W., & Maker, C. J. (1997). Enrichment and acceleration: Anoverview and new directions. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.),Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 113125). Boston, MA: Allyn& Bacon.

Seginer, R. (1988). Adolescents orientations towards the future: Sex roledifferentiation in sociocultural context. Sex Roles, 18, 739757.

Seginer, R. (2001). Young people chart their path into adulthood: The futureorientations of Israeli Druz, Arab and Jewish adolescents [Special issue].Megamot, 41, 97112.

Seginer, R. (2005). Adolescent future orientation: Integrational transmissionand interviewing tactics in culture and family settings. In W. Fridelmeier,P. Chakkarath, & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Culture and human develop-ment: The importance of cross-cultural research to the social sciences(pp. 231251). Hove, England: Psychology Press.

Seginer, R., Karayanni, M., & Mari, M. M. (1990). Adolescent attitudestowards womens roles: A comparison between Israeli Jews and Arabs.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 119133.

Seginer, R., & Mahajna, S. (2004). Looking forward: Ecological per-spectives on adolescent future orientation. Unpublished manuscript,University of Haifa, Israel.

Seginer, R., Shoyer, S., & Mahajna, S. (2008, March). Diversity and com-monality: Relationships with parents and peers among Israeli Arab andJewish adolescents. In B. Schwarz (Chair), The role of parents and peersfor adolescent development: A cross cultural perspective. Symposiumconducted at the 12th Biennial meeting of the Society for Research onAdolescence, Chicago, IL.

Seginer, R., Vermulst, A., & Shoyer, S. (2004). The indirect link betweenperceived parenting and adolescent future orientation: A multiple-step


model. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28,365378.

Silverman, L. K. (Ed.). (2000). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver,CO: Love.

Starko, A. J. (1988). Effects of the revolving door identification modelon creative productivity and selfefficacy. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32,291297.

Suleiman, M. A. (2001). Parental style and Arab adolescents future orient-ation (Unpublished masters thesis). University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.

Swiatek, M. A., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2003). Elementary- and middle-school student participation in gifted programs: Are gifted studentsunderserved? Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 118129.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Van Tassel-Baska, J., MacFarlane, B., & Feng, A. X. (2006). Across-cultural study of exemplary teaching: What do Singapore andUnited States secondary gifted class teachers say? Gifted and TalentedInternational, 21(2), 3847.

Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculumfor gifted learners (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Winebrenner, S. (2001). Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom:Strategies and techniques every teacher can use to meet the academicneeds of the gifted and talented (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.

Winner, E. (1997). Exceptionally high intelligence and schooling. AmericanPsychologist, 52, 10701081.

APPENDIX: STUDENTS QUESTIONNAIRE

The following statements describe the characteristics andclassroom practices of teachers of gifted and talented stu-dents. Read each statement carefully and circle the numberwhich seems appropriate. Indicate to what extent it is correctin your opinion:

Teachers will: Completely incorrect Incorrect Not so correct Quite correct Correct Completely correctFocus on the subject and not get carried away 1 2 3 4 5 6Teach material in a fast pace 1 2 3 4 5 6Demand high grades 1 2 3 4 5 6Be able to make meaningful connections among ideas

originating in different subjects1 2 3 4 5 6

Often check students notebooks and homework 1 2 3 4 5 6Be knowledgeable in subjects he or she does not teach 1 2 3 4 5 6Present diverse modes of solving a problem 1 2 3 4 5 6Invite experts for lectures and discussions 1 2 3 4 5 6Teach a subject with no connection to other subjects 1 2 3 4 5 6Not reject students opinions 1 2 3 4 5 6Organize visits to museums and labs 1 2 3 4 5 6Respect the students 1 2 3 4 5 6Be aware of differences among students 1 2 3 4 5 6Lecture most of the time 1 2 3 4 5 6Stimulate students curiosity 1 2 3 4 5 6Test students orally by calling them to the board 1 2 3 4 5 6Strive for outstanding achievements 1 2 3 4 5 6Assign creative work 1 2 3 4 5 6Send students to regional and national competitions 1 2 3 4 5 6Assign homework almost every lesson 1 2 3 4 5 6Ask students to memorize and recite the material 1 2 3 4 5 6Be creative 1 2 3 4 5 6Show a single mode of solving a problem 1 2 3 4 5 6Encourage students to always think in the same way 1 2 3 4 5 6Hold science competitions among students 1 2 3 4 5 6Assign independent research projects 1 2 3 4 5 6Use rich language 1 2 3 4 5 6Use movies, songs, objects, and games for illustration 1 2 3 4 5 6Be aware of students different learning modes 1 2 3 4 5 6Assign cooperative work during class 1 2 3 4 5 6Incorporate computer work in studies 1 2 3 4 5 6Not assign research projects 1 2 3 4 5 6Occasionally have a personal conversation with each

student1 2 3 4 5 6

Encourage students self-evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6Encourage the presentation of research and creative

projects in the classroom1 2 3 4 5 6

Grade or evaluate students on each task 1 2 3 4 5 6Invite parents to school science fairs 1 2 3 4 5 6Create good personal relations with students 1 2 3 4 5 6Present the use of acquired knowledge in new situations 1 2 3 4 5 6Motivate students to learn 1 2 3 4 5 6Not assign the building of models 1 2 3 4 5 6Teach the same topic from different points of view 1 2 3 4 5 6Teach each subject in a single way 1 2 3 4 5 6


AUTHOR BIOS

Billie Eilam is a professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Haifa, Israel. Her research focuses onvisualization in learning, instruction and curriculum, emphasizes cognitive skills, and treats aspects of contextualand cultural factors. Many of her studies examine the application of theories in authentic learning situations. E-mail:[email protected]

Hava E. Vidergor, PhD, is a pedagogical coordinator and lecturer in a certification program for teachers of giftedstudents at Oranim Academic Teachers College, Israel, where she has designed a number of courses related toeffective pedagogies and curriculum planning for gifted and talented students. She is an invited lecturer in certificationprograms for teachers of gifted, as well as a large number PD programs for teachers of high achievers. She is anexperienced teacher in both general and gifted education frameworks, where she has designed and taught courses onleadership, and creativity in English as a second language to middle school gifted students. She is the initiator andco-editor of The Handbook for Teaching Gifted and Able Learners (2011). She has published a number of refereedjournal articles, and has given presentations and workshops in national and international conferences. She has recentlyestablished the HV Gifted Expertise Center supported by a team of world renowned scholars www.hvgifted.com. Herresearch interests are instruction, teacher education and policy. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Copyright of Roeper Review is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed tomultiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, usersmay print, download, or email articles for individual use.

teachers characteristics-stu perception

Documents