From the Student's Perspective-My Class Activities: An Instrument for Use in

Research and Evaluation Marcia Gentry & Robert K. Gable This study reports the development of My Class Activities, a nlew instrument that can be used to measure students' perceptions of interest, challenge, choice, and enjoyment in their classrooms. These dirmensions are frequently found in gifted education literature and are tied to student motivation and learning. Describedare (a) the theoretical basis upon which the instrument was developed, (b) the investigation of construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory, and (c) interncal consistency alpha reliability estimates using a sample of 1,523 grades 6-8 students. Confirmatory factor analysis, item response theory, and alpha reliability information supported meaningful and accurate interpretationsof data obtained from the instrument.

Introduction Historically, incorporating student interests, appropriately challenging curriculum, meaningful choices, and enjoyment has been advocated in designing learning experiences for gifted students. Extending these dimensions to all students as a means for improving education frequently has been called for in recent years (Bloom, 1985; Goodlad, 1984; Hopfenberg & Levin, 1993; Renzulli, 1994; Renzulli & Reis, 1997; Siavin, 1984; Tomlinson & Callahan, 1992; U.S. Department of Education, 1993; Williams, 1986). Although student attitudes toward school have been tied to school success and achievement, historically their measurement has been infrequent due, in part, to the lack of suitable instrumentation {Haladyna & Thomas, 1979). Although a review of the literature revealed many student-attitude measures, the vast majority were subject specific; only a small number were concerned with attitudes toward school or class in general (e.g., Arlin I 976; Masters, 1974; Meier, 1974), and none addressed the dimensions identified in the prcsent studty. Instrumentation for collectively assessing middle school student perceptions of interest, Marcia Gentrv is Associate Professor of Education at Minnesota State University, Mankato. Robert K. Gable is Emeritus Professor at University of Connecticut, Storrs. fournal for the Education of the Gifted. Vol. 24, No. 4, 2001, pp. 322-343. Copyright 02001 The Association for the Gifted, Reston, VA 20191-1589.

322

From the St dent's Perspective My Class Activities

323

challenge, choice, and enjoyment in their classrooms was not found in the literature. Given the connection of these dimensions to motivation and learning, such instrumentation would clearly be valuable to those engaged in research, reflection, school-improvement efforts, or some combination of these conditions. It would be especially useful to those involved in education of the gifted and talented since the dimensions measured often serve as the basis of gifted education programs. The present study extends a previous exploratory pilot study of a similar instrument iGentry, Maxfield, & Gable, 1998) as well as recent work with an elementary sample of students who responded to the instrument in this study (Gentry, Rizza, & Gable, 2001). This current study presents results of confirmatory factor analysis, item response theory analyses, and internal consistency reliability estimates from a national sample of middle school students (N = 1,523). Literature Review Middle school students are faced with a variety of problems associated with adolescence. Perhaps the single biggest challenge middle school educators face is maintaining the interest and motivation of students during the middle school years when there is often a drop in academic performance, interest in school, and motivation (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Eccles & Midgley, 1989). Some researchers have gone so far as to suggest that the middle school years are the critical years in determining whether students will, in fact, succeed in school and in life. School investment during the middle grades may have serious and enduring effects on shaping career patterns and life choices. That this lack of investment all too often eventuates in dropping out of school before graduation is disturbing, if not frightening; consequently, we are left to ponder how much of the decline in motivation is attributable to factors over which the school has a significant degree of control. (Anderman & Maehr, 1994, p. 289) The dimensions of Interest, Challenge, Choice, and Enjoyment

have often been advocated as the basis for gifted and talented student programming (Gallagher, 1985; Gentry, 1999; Maker, 1982; Parke, 1989; Passow, 1982; Renzulli, 1978, 1994; Ward, 1980) and have been identified as key components to maintaining student motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Schiefele, 1991; Tobias, 1994). Further, recent ca]ls for school reform have suggested that pedagogy from gifted education be used to improve general education programs (Bloom, 1985;

324

Journalfor the Education of the Gifted

Gentry; 1999; Goodlad, 1984; H[opfenberg & Levin, 1993; Reis, Gentry, & Park, 1995; Renzulli, 1994; Schlichter, 1986; Slavin, 1984; Tomlinson & Callahan, 1992; U.S. Department of Education, 1993; Williams, 1986). Renzulli suggested two reasons for using gifted education practices to improve general education: the lack of success of the remedial-oriented compensatory education practices and programs and the success of the practices developed in gifted education programs. The application of gifted program know-how to general education is supported by a wide variety of research on human abilities (Bloom, 1985; Gardner, 1983; Sternberg, 1985). Both James (1890) and Dewey (1913) suggested that interest was key to learning and developing children's abilities. Not only have theorists from gifted education suggested that students' interests should drive programming (Gallagher, 1985; Maker, 1982; Passow, 1982; Renzulli, 1978, 1994; Ward, 1980), but Good and Brophy (1987) suggested that all students, regardless of their achievement levels or background, should have the opportunity to explore their interests. Other researchers have suggested that much can be learned about intrinsic motivation by studying student interests (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Schiefele, 1991; Tobias, 1994). Hootstein (1994) suggested making learning relevant and interesting to middle school students by relating learning to students' needs, interests, concerns, and experiences and by encouraging students to pursue their own interests. This is especially important because many middle school students view school as uninteresting (Eccles et al., 1989). C1hallenge is essential for a quality education that will help ensure that students reach their potential (Bloom, 1985; Shore, Cornell, Robinson, & Ward, 1991; Vygotsky, 1962). The need for challenging gifted middle school students is well documented (Tomlinson, 1992). However, Tomlinson acknowledged the continued influence of the largely refuted theory of brain periodicity (Epstein, 1974) on middle school writings, which thereby encourages concrete, low-level learning that may be counterproductive to the academic and affective development of these students. Further, in a study of the differences in motivation and learning of resilient and nonresilient Latino middle school students, Waxman, Huang, and Padron (1997) suggested that to increase self-efficacy, teachers need to recognize and demand academic performance as well as increase access to academically challenging programs for at-risk students. The federal government continues to call for setting more challenging curriculum standards and for providing all students with more challenging opportunities to learn (U.S. Department of Education, 1993); however, research indicates that

From the Student's Perspective My Class Activities

325

challenge is lacking in many schools (Archambault et al., 1993; Goodiad, 1984; Reis et al., 1993; Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993). Eccles and Midgley (1989) suggested that teachers should have high expectations for the academic performance of middle school youth. Choice is a simple yet powerful motivator that is often recommended to enhance student learning (Bloom, 1985; Dewey, 1913,

1916; Gardner, 1991; Goodlad, 1984; Holt, 1983; Renzulli & Reis, 1997; Shore et al., 1991; Wang & Lindvall, 1984). Offering choices and autonomy to middle school students as a means of increasing motivation is a recurring theme that emerges in the adolescent literature 1 Ames, 1992; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Eccles & Midgley, 1989). Choices are important both in content and in grouping arrangements, and students should be given choices regarding group assignments and whether they work alone or with others (Robinson, 1991; Rogers, 1991). Eccles and Midgley suggested providing students choices and input into class discussions. As youth enter adolescence, there is a struggle for autonomy and freedom, and educators might consider using this need as a means of reaching students rather than as a problem that must be controlled. Providing a variety of choices to middle school students can promote ownership and control of learning as well as enhance relevance, achievement, and belonging. Providing an engaging, enjoyable learning environment is another means of positively influencing student learning and student involvement (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Dewey, 1916; Renzulli, 1994; Schiefele, 199 1). Currier (1986) suggested that middle school students need to explore real issues and have an impact on their world. She recommended that middle schools offer choice, inquiry, and a variety of high-interest activities that address individual differences among students while facilitating student learning by helping students plan, follow these plans, and self-evaluate. In following such suggestions, it may be possible to create an enjoyable learning environment that retrains attractive to middle school students. As demonstrated by Roeser and Eccles (1998), adolescents' school perceptions were significant predictors of their academic and psychological adjustment at the end of eighth grade. When they enter middle school, many youth perceive school as uninteresting and unimportant (Eccles et al., 1989). Further, as suggested by the literature, changes in the learning environment that occur from elementary school to middle school may affect the changes in the academic motivation, achievement, and behavior of students (Eccles et al., 1993; Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995). Haladyna and Thomas (1979) identified a sharp decline in student attitudes in all subject

326

26ournal for the Education of the Gifted

areas between grades 6 and 8. Deci and Ryan ,1985) suggested that providing opportunities for autonomy and participation in learning may have a Dositive influence on adolescents' motivation, behavior, and psychological well-being. Clearly, the dimensions of interest, challenge, choice, and enjoyment are important areas to consider when educating adolescents. Further, in education, there is emphasis placed on those things that can be measured. Therefore, this instrument has the potential to help schools set goals and increase learning within classrooms by focusing on areas that have strong theoretical ties to learning. It is important that, during educationalreform efforts, student attitudes, perceptions, and opinions be sought-something too seldom done. After all, the students are the ones who experience learning in school firsthand. By looking to the students in a valid and reliable format, perhaps changes can be made to affect positively adolescents' educational experiences. Method Sample The sample was drawn from the collaborative school districts with the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT, at the University of Connecticut. From the database of collaborative schools, middle schools were identified and then sorted into categories of Rural, Urban, or Suburban, based on their federal classification. Five of each type of school were randomly selected, and letters describ'ing the study were sent to contact persons who could then elect to participate. The advantages of using these schools were many: They have volunteered to cooperate with the NRC/CT in research projects, their demographics are on file, they exist in every state, and they represent every form of school district, including rural and urban. The grades 6-8 middle school sample included studlents from 61 teachers (in subjects including social sciences, language arts, science, and math), from eight schools (one urban, five suburban, two rural), in five states from the northeastern, midwestern, southern, and western United States. There were a total of seven separate school districts involved, as one of the suburban schools provided data from two middle schools. The sample for the present study consisted of 1,523 students and was primarily Caucasian (83%). Other groups represented were African Americans (5%), Asian Americans (9%), and Hispanic Americans (2%). Fifty-one percent of the sample was male and 49% was female.

From the Student's Perspective My Class Activities

327

InstrumentatLion

A pilot study was condtucted to develop the instrumrent, My Class Activities. Data from this study, including content and construct validity information, were used to revise the instrument for the present, more extensive study and construct validation (Gcntry, Maxfield, & Gable, 1998). The instrument contains 31 items responded to on a 5-point frequency scale (never, seldom, sometimes, often, always) and assesses four dimensions identified through the literature: Interest, Challenge, Choice, and Enjoyment. Data CollectioniProcedures Contact persons from each district administered in-school surveys to the 61 classrooms. Contact persons were used for two reasons. First, to help ensure uniformity in the administration of the instrument, each contact person followed the same set o' directions and administered the instrument in school to classrooms of students, resulting in a 100% return rate for all students present during the administration. Second, by using contact persons who informed students that their teachers would not see their responses, students were more likely to answer honestly than if the instrument had been administered by their teachers. Student demographics were collected from classroom teachers and included sex, ethnicity, special programming, and achievement levels. Results and Discussion Validity Evidence for (onstruct interpretation:Confirmatory FactorAnalysis The area of construct validity addresses the extent that certain explanatory concepts (i.e., constructs) explain covariation in the responses to the items in the survey (Gable & Wolf, 1993). Whereas the support for content validity was judgmental in nature (i.e., literature-based and opinions of content experts), the examination of construct validity was empirically based on the data obtained from the middle school respondents. While several empirical techniques are available for the ongoing process of examining construct validity, a confirmatory factor analysis approach was chosen for this analysis, and the LISREL statistical program was employed to analyze the data 4Jorcskog & Sorbom, 1989). This procedure required the researchers to first identify (i.e., hypothesize) the literature-based item-dimension assignments used in the survey. The analysis then examined how well the data fit the

328

Journalfor the Education of the Gifted

hypothesized model. Overall model fit and each item's conitribution to the respective dimension were examined. Table I contains the standardized weights for the items assigned to each of the four dimensions. With the exception of items 17 and 19, cach of the weights is sufficiently high with a minimum t value of 11.41 to indicate that the items fit the hypothesized model. Bentler (1990) has suggested that the Tucker-Lewis and goodness of fit indices ideally should be close to 1.0. Our values of .88 and .87, respectively, suggest adequate model fit. Ideally, the root mean square residual should be less than .05 for a good fit, less than .08 for a reasonable fit, and never larger than 1.0. Our value of .09 indicates a near-reasonable fit. Overall, our various fit statistics suggest near reasonable fit of the data to the hypothesized model. While we categorize these indices as near reasonable, they do provide us with adequate support for the model fit for these types of affective items and data. This information, along with the evaluation of the modification indices, suggested that the construct validity of the proposed four-factor solution could be supported for these data. A further examination of construct validity using item response theory was carried out. First, we empirically examine the adequacy of the definition of each construct. Second, we present model-fit data regarding how well the 5-point frequency response scale worked for these items and respondents. Validity Evidence for Construlct Interpretation:Item Response Th eory

Adequacy of Cornstrzct Definition. The one-parameter Rasch latent trait analysis was run using the FACETS program (Linacre, 1999). This analysis was employed to examine further the construct validity issue regarding meaningful score interpretations. This item response theory technique is important because it addresses the adequacy with which the attitude continuum underlying each variable i.e., construct) was assessed by the respective items. More complete score interpretations are possible when the items defining the construct are differentiated or spread across the respective attitude continuum. Variable maps showing the positions of items for each dimension were developed. Figures 1-4 contain the variable maps for each of the four dimensions. In each figure, the left column labeled "Measure" contains the scale values for each item in logits. This functions like a vertical ruler, defining the affective continuum. These logits operate like a standard score indicating where the items

From the Student's Perspective My Class Activities

329

Table I

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Maximum-Likelihood Loadings (N= 1,523) Dimension

Dimension/Item Interest 1. What I do in my class fits my interests. 2. 1 have an opportunity to work on things in rny class that interest ine. 3. What I do in my class gives me interesting and new ideas. 4. I study interesting topics in mv class. 5. The teacher involves me in interesting learning activities. 6. What I learn n my class is interesting to me. 7. What I do in my class is interesting. 8. My class has helped me explore my interests.

I

Ii

Ill

IV

.72 .67 .67 .72 .66 .79 .80 .67

C'hallenge

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

The activities I do in my class are challenging. 1have to think to solve problems in my class. I use challenging materials and books in my class. I challenge myself by trying new things. My work can make a difference. I find the work in this class demanding. I am challenged to do my best in class. What we do in class fits my abilities. This class is difficult.

Choice 18. I can choose to work in a group. 19. I can choose to work alone. 20. When we work together, I can choose my partners. 21. 1 can choose my own projects. 22. When there are many jobs, I can choose the ones that suit me. 23. I can choose materials to work with in the class. 24. I can choose an audience for my product.

.70 .65 .63 .51 .42 .48 .65 .43 .38 .54 .32 .62 .60 .67 .56 .54

Enjoyment 25. I look forward to my class. 26. I have fun in my class.

27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

The teacher makes learning fun. I like what I do in my class. I like working in a class. The activities I do in my class are enjoyable. 1 like the projects I work on in my class.

.79

.83 .78 .86 .71 .84 75

330

0ournal for the Education of the Gifted Items

IM: INT8 INTl INT2 INT5

INT3

INT4

INT6

INT7

Figure 1. Variable map for the interest dimension. are located on the affective continuum. Scale values, or difficulty indices, toward the top of the map are those most difficult to agree with, whereas those toward the bottom are least difficult to agree with. The item locations on the logit scale are most important for this discussion. A good example of the difficulty-index concept can be found in Figure 2 for the Challenge dimension. Item 17, "This class is difficult," was the most difficult item for people to agree with, whereas item 15, "I am challenged to do my best in class," was the easiest to agree with. These difficulty indices allow us to examine how well the items span the attitude contilnuum, which we refer to as how well the construct being assessed has been differentiated. The differentiation of an attitude construct is important because only with such differentiation can we contribute meaningful construct validity information to our score interpretations. Hence, differentiation leads to more complete score interpretations, which are

From the Student's Perspective My Class Activities Items

t tS:Msalre iSXt 7e?iSfgfi: t: :0. ft, :: Al

::0:;

L:

::

:2

i

f t;

:

i:

331

4 tA: : t 1L

t;;*3 t; :

::

i?tr; :?f

f:; t; :: ::0: :f;S ::: t4:: ;X X :

| :S :: : i

j 1,#7

S

i tT' i :: :4 t: X t L :t L: ht i:

:: :

i

i

:

: ::

::

:

:: :: 0 L tt; C:S 4 'L:: :t: :0:g:0:0:: tS :: iC:d ::

C :; 0 :; 77 y :X: C: §y :E :-:Ft

:; r (: t: ft :; ;: jESCRiS g :: !; i:2 yEt: d SS tEV:Xi:) fi g t); igE; E: :t i:7::SE; >: ;; id: t 41: S:E0! :: ::: :: S:: jC:

X

X :::

:::Xt Altt :l S t aLL i: ;: i 4 t: t i: E; tE $ :S

i

i::

:

:.::

| fE: :N f:;

::

t ty: tetV :t V :E: :

: i:

: ::

y

CHA£7 CHAID CHAl2 CHA 14 CHA13 CHA9 CHA16 CHAlO

! :: t:t ::

: Ef; SEiE :!Sif

:00: ::#:; !: S:t AX

CHAl5

:::: ![ 44 :: i 0 t; t: i :; tS :fi: i! :E ;|: :l at; L tt:LL t t

g ;; tX t.if ;; ' t; i t :00 At: 2 t: :: :'S:fr: :: i: i: :S::;; i::: a:S i: ;f$i a:: !: dE f: t: t:: W: E :S0 WS: A::E i: :d :4 dE: iA:: i:: i:iSE:: iXX 0 iT' 0 :

i:

:E:

t: f: t

f

::7:: i:

tr:

d t: 0 l's :: iEi:: 0 0 t t: ft ll:

Figure 2. Variable map for the Challenge dimension. the heart of the construct validity issue. The differentiation of the attitude construct can be examined through the spread of the itemscale values across the attitude continuum. The spread of the items within the dimensions was quite good for the Challenge and Choice dimensions depicted in Figures 2 and 3. It is easier for us to describe a high- and low-scoring person on these dirrensions because we have a more comprehensive understanding of the construct through the content of the respective items. Less definition of the construct was fo-und for the Interest and Enjoyment itemns in Figures I and 4. In these situations, items appearing at the same locations on the attitude continuum do not really add

. 11- , 9 wX_ _-

-I.-

I.,.,,,

- _

4-

4,

a- -- -, - _,,_ -

,

332

lournal for the Education of the Gifted

::SMeasste :>g: Items .f

i

:2::

i:

J

::;

E

tS''':: tStAk304;::fid: S::: t 0 00: SStad:iL::i: f :;S |:L040S::i::!i 3E:

oft0000 jE1liAtiSSS:0:;000 0 5 :t!:12400> {05:dd5C:;E ( BEdi:i:

:E :f:

:ng: 7EiN 7

d:gEE:;:::Qlyi::FS : E:EL04 0 tSSt%:: :050:; lLiS di f ti:: :R C ::0: iSi: i

tE T:

d.:iV::;::: t::: S 0XtS !t aS;:S g ::0: tW:ESAL: ! !:: E if iL:E:EShEsiESinE

i::

: iC!gLtlEP00204400.U:000 E iSiL

iSEd0Xi:jir:3: tA:

t; t tt: tL::gS;S;(EW4:rE: |4:fEr:4AStl;Xl:d+1:P;! :04404 0:4: StE:: 4SCEa7 WL g A t;:g:::S:g;q!j3:09X:it: : ::; S;H:: ,!y: S 0:; t: 2 : ;g:: ;i0:; ::;:: :: E t: E i:

i:

th:::

:::U::

CR024 CH021

:E

teli:! SiV;fEi ;,: S l,l: !0!Ffid . aySt: CD 5:: t!Xh 7:fe S:fi)T t;20 t:.L d 2 :; . :S :4:-i: DSi4 hE :; AiCt; tESt :St4.::Ud CE:4.g:; t::USt40:Edf45 ti 0 t:: S Vi ;;: 4::iNdD 4 iS.|200.:W.:l: :00;0! :>4:: tSiMAS t At: S i00tE 120: A.H:0;;::;X!.40:SWh:i ::: f ( S:0;;i: 4 ): i liS:: tESt: d t00:S::::) :E:: 0 AS:: S:4tSA;fEE:; :SttSSSS:::: : iV0dE::E C;tASSSti:: : ;grEttESE :ar S5i::

CH018 CH02G CH022 CR023 CH019

E;! ;:ggltSSS00i000:; : :St: tHE 440 :,; 0 AtS: tllUt442::iEaSH i

S titF tSUldd4010 p:D'S d:: LL ASAiti:: Ct ts:TW: :: tST:tUX| :: W:.o0 jA: f t:tS t2000: l: iA < (g3;;

Figure 3. Variable map for the Choice dimens-on. new information for differentiating the meaning of high- and lowscoring people. For example, the Interest dimension illustrated in Figure 1 contains six items with relatively the same logit values on the underlying attitude continuum. Examination of the content of these items indicates that they all assess the general interest concept (see Table 1). On the other hand, item 8, "My class has helped me explore my interests," and item 5, "The teacher involves me in interesting learning activities," tap different and more specific aspects of the interest construct. This is not to say that these two items are bad items in that they contribute to a multidimensional construct. We have evidence through the previously presented con-

From the Student's Perspective My Class Activities HE:

:: :N fi:

rE

333

:i:

.; geasure

C t: Items 0 ;:ftatE Et000i::040:gUSA:gS:g: fr;

tE ::;

;iS:d -0E CPHE:.t

ft

SS:tiN!t; ;RiNC:EED::*a.:: tt diR i:

L . PE:iR SEEE E i

40L0200 giNS Si d;Et:S S:4:1::S :;g;a ::S 0':t) Ai:Ck:24o:d t; ;S SS.Ed445i Si; tE1000 X

t:.W::;'di 10.li:14gLUt tF tt :::EAS;S.PeR:. 0 .d i.eX t: [ dER422:!EAi.t4i;S5}e t iNiS :E f0!g:. iS. 0E :E i:

: aSES 02 0240 10E j tr: t: t: :7: pSk T:-;t: :07 Aj i: i:

::

:; ::

2 fT

::

y ::

tUit: C!

SE 2'S 10

A)ACC,

AN2+0F

;:

C:

;:

S) :)5LiCEi:

S t:iti

:t

L:S ::

L: W: tLL

::f ft P:arE 4S, at; 0LLiS :: ;:; :r: E :0000 1 40 ;: t: t: :g:C%iS: i i,: ::: 14.E aNtFtht: (::t:d::0 ;12 tE: :t SSUt:

ESlt:iSkXiSS000 tS iS.o t d;S,,:P,1122 .: tl0:;:. g SCy ig, Ci:%20L,$: t. ::Si:!; tE:SE :SHdC,:

i

't

N9 N- tC C

t

C C

N-c CC'C_ CCN

N~ l

CC 'C

CC cc -

Ut o

'C

C N

r- .

cN N ta eCi

NI N N

2)

u

Sc

?> - C


C

N

i-1

N,l OC NN9 N- N- -

r-

N

,

C) C

33fSl7

338

3jurna,l for the Education of the Gifted

ing items defining the respective dimension. For this sample of middle school students, we note that Items 13, 16, and 17 from the Challenge dimension havc tow correlations with the remaining items; but deleting the items would not raise the overall category reliability estimate of the data (see far right columns of Table 3). For the Choice dimension, deleting Item 19 would raise the alpha reliability estimate from .75 to .76, not a necessary deletion. Overall, the internal consistency reliabilities are considered quite good for this type of affective instrument and student grade level (Gable & Wolf, 1T9931. Consistent with Nunnally's (1978) domain item sampling model, we conclude that the empirical evidence sUpports the judgmental evidence regarding the sampling of item content from the intended domain of content identified earlier in the literature review.

Summrnary and Conclusions Given the evidence of validity and reliability reported here as used with mLiddle school students, we suggest that My Class Activities can be used in both evaluation and research. This instrurment can provide insight into middle school classrooms regarding affective dirnensions from students' points of view, Information gained through the Lise of this instrurment can provide teachers feedback and, thus, help them to set goals to improve their classroom climate with respect to interest, challenge, choice, and enjoymentall factors that are tied to motivation and learning in the lite-ature. This instrumernt has the potential to help educators set goals and increase learning within classrooms by focusing on areas shown by the literature to positively affect student learning. Since the dimneasions assessed by this instrument are often used in gifted education programming, this instrument showud be a useful evaluation tool for such programs (e.g., magnet schools, cluster classrooms, pull-out programs) by providing affective student perceptions concerning these programs. With recent and renewed efforts toward differentiation of curriculum and instruction 'e.g., Tomlinson, 1999), this instrument can assist researchers and educators in assessment of how such efforts meet the needs of students from different ability or achievement levels. For example, when using tiered lessons, is the level of challenge appropriate for the different groups of students? Or, when using flexible grouping by interest, do students perceive their activities as interesting? Further, Miy Class Activities can be usedl to assist researchers who

From the Stucdent's Perspective My Class Activities

339

wish to measure student attitudes about school by providing data regarding how students view their classrooms in the context of a specific treatment being studied. Previous research has reported similar findings concerning the validity and reliability of Mly Class Activities for use with elementary students 'Gentry, Rizza, & Gable, 2001). Future evidence of construct validity could be obtained by correlating scores from the interest, enjovment, and choice dimensions with student classroom achievement. Another area for future research might also include investigating the predictive validity of this nstrument with respect to dropping out of school. In this type of study, the instrument would be administered in, grades 7 or 8, and the relationship between scores on the instrument and dropping out of school would be examined. References Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.4, Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327-348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287-309. 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. Storrs: The University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Arlin, M. (1976&. Manual for Arlin-Hills Attitude Survey. Jacksonville, IL: Psychologists and Educators. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (19851. Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Literacy and intrinsic motivation. Daedalus, 119, 115-140. Currier, L. (1986). A declaration of independence: A reed for middle school educators. Mtiiddle School Journal, 17(2), 4-6. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and selfdeterminationin human behavior. New York: Plenum. Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

"-

..

__

,-.....1..:-.......---' _ _--

?.W..'W

.X~

340

30ournal for the Education of the Gifted

Dewey, J, (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press. Eccles, . S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmnentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. Irn C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.j, Research on motivation in education. Vol. 3: Goals and cognitions (pp. 13-44). New York: Academic. Eccles, J.S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchannan, C. lvM., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & MacIver, D. (19931. Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on adolescents' experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90-101. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Flanagan, C. A., Miller, C., Reuman, D. A., & Yee, 1). (1989). Self-concepts, domain values, and self-esteem: Relations and changes at early adolescence. Journal of Personality,57, 283-310. Epstein, H. (1974). Phrenoblysis: Special brain and mind growth periods. Human mental development. Developmental Psychobiology, 7, 21-7-224. Gabie, R. K., &Wolf, M. B. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Gallagher, J. J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1991 ,. The unschooled mind: How children think and now schools should teach. New York: Basic Books. Gentry, M. (1999). Promoting student achievement and exemplary classroomn practices through clustergrouiping:A researchbased alternative to heterogeneouzs elementary classrooms. Storrs: The University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Gentry, M. L., 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 PsychologicalMeasurement, 58, 258-274. Gentry, M., Rizza, M. G., & Gable, R. K. J2001). Gifted students' perceptions of their class activities: Differences among rural, urban, and suburban student attitudes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 115-129. Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1987). Looking in classrooms (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Goodlad, J. !. (1984:. A place called school. New York: McGrawHill.

From the Student's Perspective My Class Activities

341

Haladyna, T., & Thomas, G. (1979). The attitudes of elementary school children toward school and subject matters. Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 18-23. Holt, J. (1983). Escape from childhood. In J. W. Noll (Ed.4, Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial eduzcational issues (2nd ed., pp. 40-44). Guilford, CT: Dushkin. Hootstein, E. W. (1994, May). Motivating middle school students. Middle School Jounal, 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. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (19891. LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications (2nd ed.). Chicago: SPSS. Linacre, J. M. (1999). A users guide to FACETS. Chicago: MESA. Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Masters, J. (1974). School attitude scale (4-6). (ERIC Microfiche document 107684) Meier, R. (1974). A measure of attitude toward school. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement 34, 997-998. Midgiey, C., Andermnan, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 90-113. Nunnaily, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. 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. Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F., Hebert, T., Plucker, J., Purcell, J. H., Rogers, J. B., & Smist, J. M. (1993). Why not let high-abilitystudents start school in January? The curriculuin complactinig study. Storrs: The University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Reis, S. M., Gentry, M., & Park, S. i 1995). Extending the pedagogy of gifted education to all students: The enrichment cluster study (Tech. Rep. No. 12M 95118). Storrs: The University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184, 261. Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A coinprehensive plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

342

4ournal for the Education of the Giftedl

Renzu ih, J. S., & Reis, S. M. 11997). Thle schoolwide enrichment mnodel A comprehensive plan for eduzcational excellence (2nd ed.j. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Robinson, A. (1991). Cooperative learning and the academically talented student. Storrs: The University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Roeser, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (1998]. Adolescents' perceptions of middle school: Relation to longitudinal, changes in academic and psychological adjustment. Journalof Research on Adolescence, 8, 123-158. Rogers, K. B. (1991. The relationship of grouping p.ractices to the education of the gifted and talented learner. Storrs: The Unliversity of Connecticut, Thne National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Schlichter, C. (1986). Talents unlimited: Applying the multiple talent approach to mainstream and gifted programs. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 352-390). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. 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. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond iQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tob)ias, S. 11 994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of EducationalResearch, 64, 37-54. Tomlinson, C. A. ([992). Gifted education and the mriddle school movement: Two voices on teaching the academically talenited. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 206-238. Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Differentiation of cuirriculum:A guide. Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1992). Contributions of gifted education to general education Jin a time of change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 183-189. U.S. Department of Education. (1993). Na tional excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

From the Student's Perspective My Class Activities

343

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology 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. Waxman, H. C., Huang, S. L., & Padron, Y. N. (1997). Motivation and learning environment differences between resilient and nonresilient Latino middle school students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19, 137-155. 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. Storrs: The University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. 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.

.

. . -.-......... -, _,,........ .-. ,,... ....-.....-.......... ... . M. a

..

7..... .,_ .

..

-.

-…

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: From the student’s perspective--My class activities: an instrument foruse in research and evaluation SOURCE: Journal for the Education of the Gifted 24 no4 Summ 2001 WN: 0119605876002 The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited.

Copyright 1982-2001 The H.W. Wilson Company.

All rights reserved.