Honors Students' Perceptions of Their High School

513496 research-article2013

GCQXXX10.1177/0016986213513496Gifted Child QuarterlySiegle et al.

Article

Honors Students’ Perceptions of Their High School Experiences: The Influence of Teachers on Student Motivation

Gifted Child Quarterly 2014, Vol 58(1) 35–50 © 2013 National Association for Gifted Children Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0016986213513496 gcq.sagepub.com

Del Siegle1, Lisa DaVia Rubenstein2, and Melissa S. Mitchell3

Abstract Academic motivation is important for students’ task persistence, academic performance, and college selection. The goal of this qualitative study was to understand academic motivation from the students’ perspective. Focus group discussions with 28 university honors freshman revealed that students most often attributed their interest and motivation in high school to their interactions with their teachers. These findings supported the theoretical foundations of the Achievement Orientation Model and demonstrated how effective teachers can influence all components of that model as they encourage students’ growth and satisfaction (building self-efficacy), as they make the content meaningful and challenging for their students (creating task valuation), and as they shape students’ perception of support in their environment through building positive relationships and being knowledgeable about the content (fostering a positive environmental perception). Teachers with extensive depth and breadth of content knowledge are better able to foster student motivation. These teachers have the background to be comfortable differentiating content, straying from the familiar textbook territory, and delving into a variety of instruction strategies, such as in-depth discussions, with their students. Keywords qualitative methodologies, curriculum, high school, motivation, academic achievement, teacher characteristics, gifted and talented, university honors, differentiation Academic motivation is an important determinant of success for many areas in a student’s life, including task persistence, academic performance, and college choices (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Academic motivation is also specifically significant for gifted students, as it is the strongest predictor for academic achievement of gifted students after accounting for socioeconomic differences (Clemons, 2008). McCall, Evahn, and Kratzer (1992) found that high school students’ academic achievement was more closely correlated with students’ college and career success than ability. Even though academic motivation and achievement are critical for future success, not all gifted students are motivated to achieve in school. Controversy persists in the field over the proportion of underachieving gifted students; estimates range from 10% (Matthews & McBee, 2007) to 50% (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). What is clear is that many gifted students are underachieving. This underachievement has negative effects on both the individual and society (Peterson & Colangelo, 1996; Trostel, 2007); therefore, it is important to understand what motivates gifted students to do well in school. McCoach and Siegle (2003) investigated the differences between gifted achievers and nonachievers, and from their study, they developed the Achievement Orientation Model

(see Figure 1), which posits that students are engaged and motivated to do well in school when they believe they have the necessary skills to perform the task (self-efficacy), they find the task meaningful (goal/task valuation), and they see their environment as supportive (environmental perception). When these factors are present, they ultimately regulate themselves to complete the task (self-regulation; Siegle, 2013; Siegle & McCoach, 2005). This model served as a theoretical foundation to this study by suggesting variables that lead to academic motivation. Teachers can influence the components of the Achievement Orientation Model by encouraging students and recognizing growth (building selfefficacy), making the content relevant for the students (creating task valuation), and shaping the students’ environment (fostering a positive environmental perception). Understanding how teachers can affect academic motivation 1

University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA 3 Ellsworth Elementary Middle School, Ellsworth, ME, USA 2

Corresponding Author: Del Siegle, University of Connecticut, 249 Glenbrook Road Unit 3064, Storrs, CT 06269-3064, USA. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on January 9, 2016

36

Gifted Child Quarterly 58(1)

Figure 1. Achievement Orientation Model developed by Siegle and McCoach.

is an important step in understanding motivation and helping gifted students reach their potential. Using the Achievement Orientation Model as a framework, this study provided a voice to high-achieving students as they reflected on what motivated them during their high school experiences and, specifically, what their teachers did that helped their classes become more meaningful.

Teacher Characteristics and Practices As they address the required curriculum, teachers have the option to create classroom environments that encourage and promote student learning. Much research has focused on teacher characteristics that motivate students to achieve; specifically, many studies have examined teacher demographics, as well as teachers’ academic preparation (e.g., Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994; Westberg & Daoust, 2003). We elected to explore teacher practices that students perceive as influential to their motivation. Students may not necessarily be cognizant of their teachers’ certification or preservice training, but students would be aware of their teachers’ personality and teaching style. The existing literature has approached these characteristics and practices through student surveys; expert recommendations leading to teacher interviews, observations, assessments, and surveys; and principal/ administrator surveys. In one classic study, Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, and Whalen (1993) provided students with beepers. Students recorded their activities and feelings whenever the beepers were activated. Teacher activities and characteristics were also part of the data collection. Overall, these studies have suggested characteristics and practices of effective teachers that cluster into three specific categories: cognitive, social, and pedagogical practices.

Cognitive Characteristics Cognitive characteristics are defined as the teachers’ mental abilities and understandings of the world. This includes teachers’ content-specific and general knowledge as well as overall intelligence. Throughout the history of gifted education, experts have proffered descriptions and lists to delineate characteristics of effective teachers of the gifted, and cognitive characteristics have been well represented (Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994; Renzulli, 1992; Ward, 1961). For example, Ward (1961) stated, “It is rather that an intelligent, flexible and benign human being should be sought, and his energies directed first toward his own fullest development and then toward the development of gifted children” (p. 116). Several older empirical studies have closely examined these cognitive characteristics. Bishop (1968) conducted the seminal study in this area by examining more than 200 teachers of the gifted. He compared approximately 100 exemplary teachers as rated by their gifted students with other teachers in the sample. Bishop found that the exemplary teachers differed from the other teachers in their level of intelligence, literary and cultural knowledge, and reason for becoming a teacher, which was, in part, for their own intellectual growth. Buser, Stuck, and Casey’s (1974) work further confirmed Bishop’s findings; they surveyed 500 high and low-achieving high school students and found the highest rated characteristics of teachers for both groups were the knowledge of the subject and a sense of humor. Milgram’s (1979) research extended this line to gifted Israeli students in Grades 4 to 6 and found that students most valued the teacher’s command of the subject area. Furthermore, after interviewing 10 outstanding teachers of the gifted, Whitlock and DuCette (1989) found that these teachers differed from average teachers in their superior ability to apply knowledge to authentic situations.


37

Siegle et al. In 1997, Heath completed a literature review on the characteristics of effective teachers of the gifted. He found 10 empirical studies, and of those, 6 specifically mentioned cognitive characteristics. During the same year Heath’s review was published, Westberg and Archambault (1997) published their analysis of 10 elementary classrooms within effective elementary schools. Their study examined why these classrooms were particularly beneficial for gifted students, and they described the effective teachers as “lifelong learners who expressed curiosity in new topics, issues, and skills” (p. 47). Csikszentmihalyi et al. (1993) also found that effective teachers of talented youth were lifelong learners who enjoyed what they were doing and shared that excitement with their students. More recent, Mills (2003) looked at the personality types of exemplary teachers of the gifted using the Myers Briggs Type Inventory. She found that these teachers were more likely to value intuition and thinking as compared with the normative teaching sample. Like their students, exemplary teachers of the gifted demonstrate a preference for and ease working with abstract concepts and completing logical analyses.

Social Characteristics Although the cognitive characteristics of teachers are very important for working with gifted students, social characteristics have been another recurring and important theme in the literature. Social characteristics refer to teachers’ interactions with students, parents, and administrators and include respecting students’ ideas and caring about students’ lives. In contrast with Milgram’s (1979) study with Israeli gifted students, three different studies of American gifted students found that they believed the personal and social characteristics of teachers were more important than teachers’ cognitive characteristics (Abel & Karnes, 1994; Dorhut, 1983; Maddux, Samples-Lachmann, & Cummings, 1985). Some of these social characteristics may be best exemplified through specific behaviors. For example, in the Buser et al. (1974) study, gifted students identified their most preferred teacher behavior as “listening to students.” Ferrell, Kress, and Croft (1988) also identified the following as important social behaviors of teachers of the gifted: empathy, rapport, and listening. Wendel and Heiser (1989) studied three effective junior high school teachers and found that the teachers demonstrated care and respect for the students and developed close relationships with them. When Frevert (1993) surveyed 51 principals to see what teaching behaviors they believed were most important for teachers of the gifted, she found that the principals believed that these teachers should both encourage and nurture students’ development. Csikszentmihalyi et al. (1993) noted that memorable teachers “transcend institutional roles in favor of a more personal approach to teaching” (p. 181). Another aspect of teacher social characteristics is the students’ perceptions of the teacher as an individual. Effective

teachers of the gifted are confident in their abilities (Whitlock & DuCette, 1989). This is an important characteristic for teachers of gifted students because gifted students have advanced content knowledge and creativity; therefore, they require a confident teacher who can field the students’ questions and learn with the students. In addition to confidence, it is important that students perceive teachers as likeable. Montalvo, Mansfield, and Miller (2007) asked students to complete surveys about their most liked and least liked teachers. They found that teacher likeability influences the levels of student engagement and achievement in the classroom (Montalvo et al., 2007; Montalvo & Roedel, 1995). Students in classes with teachers they like report having higher levels of perceived ability, effort, and persistence (Montalvo et al., 2007).

Pedagogical Practices Pedagogical practices, such as teachers’ classroom expectations, creativity, and enthusiasm for their subject, describe how teachers operate in the classroom environment. Teachers may increase students’ motivation by raising students’ expectations for success and ensuring that students understand the value of a given task (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993). Almost four decades after Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968) seminal Pygmalion project, which showed that the greater the expectation placed on people the better they perform. Jussim and Harber (2005) wrote a comprehensive literature review of research on teacher expectations and concluded that the selffulfilling effects of teacher expectations are statistically significant but relatively small. Hemphill (2003) found the effect size for teacher expectations to be between 0.1 and 0.2 standard deviation units, and when compared with the effect sizes typical in 380 meta-analyses, the expectation effect is in the bottom third. Recently, however, a new branch of teacher expectation studies has emerged that does not examine teachers’ expectations for individual students but rather the effect of teachers’ expectations on the overall class atmosphere. In this newer paradigm, the expectations of a teacher similarly influence the range of students to over- or underperform relative to their individual ability levels (Rubie-Davies, 2006). Teacher behaviors seem to influence student behavior more so than the reverse, and in many classrooms, teachers direct the class as a whole, affording the opportunity to affect all students at once. Gill and Reynolds (1999) found that while teachers’ expectations for future achievement were only moderately mediated by the students’ expectations, teacher expectations had a large, direct effect on students’ actual achievement. Similarly, Kuklinski and Weinstein (2001) established that teacher expectations had large effects on students’ expectations, but the reverse was not true. Rubie-Davies (2006, 2007) was able to identify teachers who had consistently lower expectations than were warranted by the students’ actual performance for all the


38


students in the class. Likewise, it was possible to identify teachers who had consistently higher expectations for all students in the class. Rubie-Davies (2006) also found that students’ self-perceptions decreased in classes with teachers harboring low expectations. While the use of high teacher expectations is an important and effective pedagogical strategy, the literature supports several other vital strategies for motivating students. Creativity and enthusiasm are two indispensable pedagogical characteristics of successful teachers of the gifted (Buser et al., 1974; Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993; Ferrell et al., 1988; Wendel & Heiser, 1989). Buser et al. looked at the differences between high- and low-achieving students’ preferences of teacher characteristics; enthusiasm and the ability to accept student correction were more valued by the highachieving students. Ferrell et al. (1988) described creativity as innovation: a distinguishing factor between successful teachers of the gifted and a random sample of teachers. Csikszentmihalyi et al. (1993) suggested that teachers’ excitement caused students to trust teachers’ judgment and accept new challenges. Another potentially important pedagogical practice is the teachers’ ability to foster students’ ownership of learning. Students may value tasks in which they have more control. One component of the self-determination theory is the need for autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Autonomously motivated students are more likely to finish high school, achieve at greater levels, enjoy better mental health, and experience more satisfaction with their work (Chirkov, Ryan, Kim, & Kaplan, 2003; Ratelle, Guay, Vallerand, Larose, & Senecal, 2007; Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004). Despite these benefits of autonomous learning, most current school environments do not foster student autonomy; rather, they provide a rigid curriculum (Moon, Brighton, Jarvis, & Hall, 2007). A simple way to encourage autonomy may be to focus on students’ interests. Personal interests contribute to a task’s value, which in turn influences a student’s persistence and achievement (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993; Siegle, Rubenstein, Pollard, & Romey, 2010). Csikszentmihalyi (1991) described the effortless persistence that stems from the opportunity to work within one’s interest as being in a state of flow. In this state, people may lose track of the world around them and become consumed with their current task. This intense focus helps people to produce ideas or products that may lead to further optimal experiences, which can inspire curiosity and dedication. Interest can also translate into improved achievement in the classroom. Schiefele, Krapp, and Winteler (1992) found that interest accounts for 10% of the observed achievement variance across different subjects, age groups, and types of schools. In a recent study, Siegle et al. (2010) found that interest—as opposed to perceived effort and ability levels—was the better predictor of students’ assessment of their achievement in 15 different talent areas. Collectively, this research supports the importance

of a teacher’s ability to foster students’ autonomy in learning assignments. Overall, the gifted literature makes a strong case for the importance of an intellectually agile and curious teacher who is kind yet holds high expectations, but would this type of teacher be good for all students? If one compares the literature addressing effective teacher characteristics with the characteristics of effective teachers of the gifted, there are overlapping characteristics that resemble a laundry list. Teachers should be kind, flexible, knowledgeable, encouraging, and so on (Jennings & Greenberg, 2010). Therefore, the question must shift from, “Are they the same characteristics?” to “Does the degree, intensity, or importance of the manifestation of these characteristics matter for different populations of students?” For example, high expectations are good for all students, but an effective teacher of the gifted must be able to set high expectations beyond the regular curriculum objectives. All students need teachers who know and understand the content they teach, but gifted students need deeper and richer content to grow intellectually and thus need more knowledgeable teachers. This study does not propose to delineate these differences, but rather to illuminate specifically what has made a difference for the high-achieving students we interviewed. Robinson (2008) commented on the usefulness of teacher characteristic lists. She stated, “Given the complexity of classroom interactions between teachers and their students, the circumscribed lists of preferred teacher characteristics and behaviors are unlikely to capture the richness of effective teachers” (p. 675). Thus, the goal of this study is to examine these characteristics in depth from current highachieving students’ perceptions. Although much research has been conducted on effective teachers’ characteristics, few of the above studies have interviewed students as a primary means of data collection. Rather, they have primarily used observations or surveys. Therefore, this study will advance this line of investigation by capturing the stories and experiences of these students as well as updating an aging collection of literature.

Method Ames (1992) has described a movement away from classroom observations to determine student motivation toward a more qualitative approach. With this approach, student perceptions are the primary form of research because the classroom experience is different for every individual (Ames & Archer, 1988; Kaplan, Gheen, & Midgley, 2002). To better understand the students’ perspectives, we selected a focus group interview model for this study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Focus groups have become a popular data collection procedure for researchers because participants in group settings often spur thoughts in others regarding shared, similar, or dissimilar experiences. This is a useful method for learning about students’ perceptions of classroom experiences


39

Siegle et al. because as one student is sharing, the other students are thinking how that first student’s experience is like or unlike their own. These interactions within a focus group provide data and insights that often are not obtained with a one-onone interview because they prompt participants to reflect on a variety of topics that participants may not have initially produced on their own.

Participants We conducted four separate focus groups with freshman honors students attending a top ranked, public university. Although we did not collect data on their age, all the participants had graduated from high school the previous year and participation required them to be at least 18 years old. Therefore, most participants were likely to have been 18 years old. The majority of the participants were White. We did not know their socioeconomic status. Each focus group met for one evening and lasted approximately 1 hour. The average number of students in a focus group was seven with a range between six and eight, and 71% of the participants were female. All the students were actively participating in the university honors program. Participation in the honors program at this university was by invitation only, based on SAT scores and high school academic performance. The average combined SAT score for students in the program was 1,400 (out of 1,600), and each student was in the top 4% of his or her graduating high school senior class. While there are other broader ways to define gifted (Renzulli, 2005; Sternberg, 2005), we were interested in understanding these honors students’ experiences because these students experienced academic success in high school, which, as McCall et al. (1992) found, was a better predictor for college and career success than ability scores. This purposeful intensity sampling allowed us to examine motivational factors from the perspective of a population on the far end of the academic continuum (Patton, 1990).

Recruitment Procedures Freshman honors students at this university participate in a first-year seminar to give them an opportunity to build close relationships with faculty and to explore topics that interest them. We visited each of these seminar classes, presented the study, distributed both an informed consent form and a contact form, and answered any questions posed by the students. Those students who wished to participate in a focus group signed and returned the consent form and the contact information form. To avoid pressure to participate, we asked all the students (those who wished to participate and those who did not) to fold the two forms together and hand them to us as they left. Thus, the students were not able to identify which peers had agreed to participate in focus groups. The students were given pizza and soda as a small incentive for

Table 1. Open-Ended Exploratory Questions Posed to the Focus Group. • Think back to your high school classes. What made you want or not want to do well in a class? • Do you think motivation can be taught, encouraged, or developed by teachers? If so, how? • Think of a class that did not originally interest you, and then you became interested in it. Why did you become interested? • Think of a class that did originally interest you, and then you subsequently lost interest. Why did you lose interest in the class? • What makes a class valuable to you? • Have you come to recognize what you are passionate about or interested in? When did you first discover your passion/interests? Did anyone help you discover this? • How does (the challenge level of a course) affect your motivation? (Substitute “the challenge level of a course” for any of the items in the list below:)  the degree of difficulty of the course  your personal relationship with the teacher  the teacher incorporating your personal interests into the course  the teacher’s expertise on the topic  the connection of the course material to your own life  family pressure  your enjoyment of a course  the emotional support from guidance counselors or others  sibling rivalry  participation in extracurricular activities • Is there anything that has not been discussed that has had a role in determining what you value?

their participation. None of us were teaching any of the participants in the study.

Data Collection We conducted these four separate focus group sessions over a 2-week period in the fall of 2009 near the end of the students’ first semester. The sessions were held in the basement of the students’ dormitory. We digitally recorded each focus group and transcribed the conversations. Prior to the focus group sessions, we prepared open-ended discussion questions designed to encourage a free and open dialogue among participants (see Table 1). During the sessions, we also asked impromptu follow-up questions as needed. All participants were encouraged to participate, but they were not specifically asked to answer every question. In three out of the four focus group sessions, there were two of us present; one of us facilitated the focus group while the other recorded detailed notes.

Data Analysis To begin an initial analysis of the data, a member of the research team who was not the lead facilitator of the individual focus group transcribed each focus group recording. Following the transcription, the facilitators read over the transcript and checked it against the recording for accuracy. After the lead facilitator checked each transcription, the members of the research team analyzed all four transcripts. Using the coding method he or she was most comfortable


40


Figure 2. Themes and subthemes for teacher characteristics.

with (i.e., a coding notebook, strips of paper and envelopes, Post-It notes), each of us inductively analyzed (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010; Merriam, 2009) the four transcripts, independently developed a list of codes, and collapsed these into categories (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). We then met and discussed the main categories. Every coder had teacher and school characteristics as a main category. The team then examined subcategories, and while the team shared many overlapping concepts, we discussed the nonoverlapping categories until agreement was reached. Once we had agreement, we recoded the transcripts with this coding scheme. Ultimately, three main themes emerged: teacher/school characteristics, student ownership for learning, and parent/ community expectations. In this article, we focus on the teacher/school characteristics for two reasons: It was the most robust finding, and it is the most useful for teachers and school personnel. We analyzed this theme again for subthemes. We kept detailed notes on all possible webs created within the themes and subthemes. After we analyzed the data, we saw how the subthemes could fit within our theoretical framework. We created a chart (Figure 2) to demonstrate the relationships among the themes and our theoretical framework subthemes. Shenton (2004) provided an overview of how to ensure quality in qualitative research, specifically in the areas of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Credibility examines the congruence of the findings with reality (Merriam, 2009). The research team promoted credibility through several strategies suggested by Shenton. Our focus group method has been established in previous research (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007), our team had “an early familiarity” (Shenton, 2004, p. 65) with the culture as we had all

been teachers, and we used triangulation methods as we analyzed the data and created codes on which we all agreed. Additionally, in this article, we have highlighted past research that supports our findings. We also took care to explain to the participants that their identities would not be revealed in our work. All these components add credibility to our work. Transferability considers the ability of the data to be transferred, or as Patton (2002) described it, extrapolated, to other situations. Each of these students came from different high schools around the country; thus, readers may find some of these findings applicable to their situations. As with most qualitative research, the transferability of these findings is limited to the participants in our focus groups. In addition to credibility and transferability, we also considered the dependability of this information, which is the likelihood that others would uncover similar findings if the research were repeated. Dependability is challenging in social situations because the studied phenomena are constantly changing (Marshall & Rossman, 1999), but we did take care to create an audit trail by recording our methods and analysis strategies, so if another researcher attempts replication, the information is available in this article. Confirmability—whether the same data would be interpreted in the same way—is also an important criterion to use when evaluating qualitative research. Triangulation, the same strategy that can be used to promote credibility, can also be used to add confirmability to a project. We had three different team members examining the data and creating individual codes. We came to an agreement, which indicates the confirmability of our findings. In addition, our audit trail would be helpful in further demonstrating the confirmability of this project.

Results Students overwhelmingly attributed their interest and motivation to their experiences with their teachers. The students described situations and characteristics that are woven through our theoretical framework, the Achievement Orientation Model. In the subsequent sections, we will explore what teachers did to inspire students to believe that they could succeed in their environment (environmental perception), to believe that the task was worth completing (task value), and to build a sense of self-competency (selfefficacy). We will also examine the external factors and characteristics that the teachers demonstrated which contributed to the students’ motivation. We describe these as separate themes, but it is important to remember how they are synergistically linked together. For example, the teacher’s personal characteristics directly affected the task value, environmental perceptions, and student self-efficacy. This is displayed well in the model where each of these concepts overlaps or influences one another (see Figure 1).


41

Siegle et al. Table 2. Environmental Perceptions. Subthemes

Examples

Sample quote

Positive social relationships

• Know and care for students • Accessible • Open • Relatable • Nice • Consistent • Fun loving • Respectful

“. . . she really respected us and she treated us as though we were equals, she never talked down to us . . .”

Knowledgeable

• Overall intelligence • Competent • In-depth content knowledge

“. . . the reason it was my favorite class was just because the teacher was very thorough and she really knew what she was talking about . . .”

Environmental Perceptions Students’ perceptions of school and their teachers have an impact on students’ academic attitudes and behaviors. An interesting component of this concept is perception; it does not have to be true for the students to believe it is true and for it to therefore affect their motivation and behaviors. This is particularly important for teachers to be aware of when dealing with students because even if the teacher believes she is supporting the students, if the students perceive otherwise, they will be less likely to try. For example, Ogbu (1978) noted that people put their effort into areas where they believe they can be successful and in environments where they believe they are supported. In our study, this concept emerged in two findings: Students perceived a supportive environment when they built positive relationships with their teachers and when they felt their teachers were knowledgeable enough to teach them (see Table 2). Positive social relationships. Gifted students in our focus groups found teachers to be inspiring when they fostered meaningful relationships with their students. This included when teachers demonstrated that they cared about their students, knew them personally, and were interested in helping them succeed. One student described the relationship this way: “She knew every single one of us. She knew how we learned. She knew how we learned math, and she knew how to push us in the right way.” One way the teachers connected with the students was through humor. The students appreciated when their teachers “joked around with them.” This seemed to help students stay motivated and interested in the course and solidified a social relationship. One student explained how humor could be used to motivate students: “I think that if a teacher has a sense of humor in a lecture, that you’ll remember what he’s saying and you’ll want to pay attention.” The teachers further demonstrated that they cared in a variety of ways from attending soccer games to putting

students’ names in the problem sets. This type of dedication and personalization not only inspired students in the classroom, but it helped to foster a mentor relationship that continued even outside the classroom. One student explained, “My favorite teacher in high school was my chemistry teacher, but he was also my physics teacher. And after that I didn’t have a class with him, but I hung out in this classroom anyway.” This concept of a relationship is challenging because it is on a continuum. If the teacher was too distant, it had negative consequences on these students’ desire to engage with the class. The other end of the continuum could be just as dangerous, however. One student discussed a teacher who crossed that relationship line by trying to be too friendly. She stated, “. . . she was really personal to the point that I felt like you are not my friend . . . back off.” Knowledgeable. In addition to forming positive social relationships, the students also wanted to be assured that the teacher teaching them was knowledgeable. If they did not believe that the teacher knew more than they did, it had a detrimental effect on their desire to do well in that class. The students in our focus groups realized that poor content knowledge limited the number of instructional strategies that were available to the teacher; such teachers did not stray from the textbook or venture into discussions with their students. To do so, might lead them into unfamiliar territory. One student described this situation: I pretty much realized immediately that the class was just going nowhere. The teacher . . . wasn’t fluent in Spanish first of all, which I thought was strange [since this was an AP Spanish class]. There were lots of times that she didn’t know answers to our questions. . . . She would give us activities out of the textbook. . . . Her busy work was pointless, and we all knew we weren’t going to pass the [AP] test, so no one put any effort into it.

It was not only important for teachers to have expertise in the subject area they were teaching, but it was also important for them to have a wider foundation of knowledge. Many of the students mentioned how important interdisciplinary connections were to their motivation and how they appreciated teachers who were able to see how the course tied with personal stories or current events. This is similar to the findings of Csikszentmihalyi et al. (1993). One student stated, . . . as we progressed in class it maybe seemed like we were sidetracking and talking about a different idea, but at the end of the class she would always end up with the first thing she had started with. Everything made sense.

These types of connections required a teacher who was a flexible thinker with a deep understanding of content. Another student described his most motivating teacher by saying, “She’s . . . one of the most intelligent people I’ve ever


42


Table 3. Task Value. Subthemes High challenge level Meaningful content Grades

Examples • Problem solving • Higher level thinking • Increased depth • Fast pace • Interdisciplinary • Relevant • Current • Personal connections • Class rank • Requirements for certain grades

Sample quote(s) “. . . if it is a more difficult course then I am more motivated to try harder” “. . . she always made connections to the real world . . .” “From Day One, I really wanted to be valedictorian, so grades were really important to me in anything.”

known. I think that has a lot to do with it. . . . She was very well versed. She spoke five different languages.” The students in our study clearly valued not only subject matter knowledge, but they also appreciated when teachers were intelligent enough to make connections. To promote a positive environmental perception, teachers needed to form a relationship with the students in addition to possessing knowledge above and beyond what the students knew. This last piece is important in determining whether teachers of the gifted need to be gifted. Indeed, the teachers’ possession of high intelligence, a deep knowledge base, and an ability to connect the material motivated these students to work hard. The students needed to perceive that the teachers in their environment were capable of teaching them something new and interesting.

Task Value Beyond perceiving an effective and supportive environment, it was also important that the students perceived a given task as valuable and worth their time. Task value has proven to be one of the most important pieces of this model. When McCoach and Siegle (2003) examined the differences between achievers and nonachievers, the two biggest predictors of academic achievement were students’ motivation and whether or not they valued the task. Furthermore, when various interventions were tested, the intervention designed for task value was the most effective in reversing underachievement patterns (Rubenstein, Siegle, Reis, McCoach, & Burton, 2012; Siegle, Reis, & McCoach, 2006). The students in our study described three components that gave classroom tasks value: challenging content, meaningful content, and grades (see Table 3). Challenging content. For the content to be relevant and exciting for these students, it needed to challenge them in some way. They wanted to wrestle with complex ideas, and the

complexity itself seemed to help the content gain importance. One student described this: The things that get me going are the things that I didn’t know that I didn’t know. [There are things] that are really challenging, and you have to wrap your mind around them as opposed to just memorize facts. I really get excited about the stuff. . . . Additionally, anything that I can apply I always like a lot more than something that’s just like frivolous and not part of my life.

Other students recognized several specific strategies that provided high levels of challenge. They discussed the depth and breadth of the content taught in a course, as well as the pace at which it was presented. The advanced academic students in our focus groups seemed to crave content that they could explore in depth. As previously stated in the environmental perceptions section, limited teacher knowledge of the content diminishes the quality of the content presented. Teachers with an extensive understanding of the depth and breadth of the content they are presenting are better able to foster student motivation. Teachers with limited knowledge of the subject were not able to provide the depth students desired and in doing so, sometimes destroyed students’ love of a subject. . . . We would be correcting her and she did not go in depth about anything. I feel she only knew enough to teach a lower level chemistry. She wasn’t able to go in depth on any of the topics . . . and I didn’t enjoy [chemistry] after that.

In addition to depth, these honors students loved courses that moved at a faster pace. They wanted that challenge, and if the course did not move fast enough, some of them lost respect for the class. As one student stated, “I got in there [psychology course] and the material moved so slow, it was a joke of a class.” The honors students recognized that teachers adjusted their instructional pace to accommodate lower achieving students’ needs, rather than adjusted it to meet their needs. While they saw it was beneficial for some, they also found it painful. One student stated, “I think that certain students suffer because the teacher will have to stay on the topic longer . . . [Teachers] don’t want them to fail, so they . . . go over and over [the material] and it kind of ruins it for everyone else.” Other students recognized that they actually performed worse in slower paced, unchallenging classes. [Courses] that didn’t challenge me were the ones I didn’t try at all in. I’d get bad grades in classes that I should just be destroying . . . so the pace of the class and if it was challenging enough would motivate me more.

Both depth and pace added challenge to various courses, and that challenge in turn inspired these students to do well.


43

Siegle et al. Meaningful content. Content was meaningful to students for a variety of reasons; while some students noted the importance of interdisciplinary connections, others mentioned the value of using content that is relevant to the world in which they lived and the students’ personal lives. Students appreciated teachers who wove interdisciplinary themes into their instruction by showing how different concepts were related. They enjoyed seeing how the content was situated in the larger picture, when they could see how this piece of knowledge tied to other subjects or fields. One student explained, “. . . connections across disciplines, like connecting English to environmental science and vice versa . . . was most exciting to me. [I liked] learning and finding connections between disciplines.” In addition to providing these interdisciplinary connections, teachers made the content significant. Significance was added through the development of personal connections and the inclusion of current events with societal relevance. For example, one student noted, “In environmental science we were always reading articles [about] really current issues, and people really cared about what was going on.” Another student stated more generally, “Whenever there is a problem to solve . . . that is good for me. . . . I get really interested in current events and ethics and morality. . . .” Grades. When the content was not challenging or meaningful, these students were motivated by grades. They described the motivational power of this external factor, but they also thought that grades hampered their learning experiences. One student voiced, “You are constantly worrying about what’s going to be on the next test, and you’re not really enjoying the subject matter.” Another student similarly noted, “If you are constantly focused on. . . getting that next A, you are going to miss out on a lot.” The students obviously understood the problem with just focusing on the grade, and many of the students mentioned that they often did just enough to get by or get the A: Times where I felt a lack of motivation were times when I did not feel the material was challenging. . . . I would force myself through it in some scenarios, but in other scenarios I would calculate . . . my grade and see if I still got the [grade] I wanted.

Several of the students mentioned that they did this “minimum work to get an A,” which in some cases was doing “half to sometimes a quarter as much work” as their peers. The students recognized the teachers’ subjectivity when it came to delineating what level of work would be necessary for a specific grade. One student explained how she assessed what would be necessary for a specific course: I think you just have to feel it out in the beginning of the year to see how much work you have to put into a test or what kind of test it is, [and] see how extensive you have to go into detail in your homework to get a good grade on it.

Table 4. Self-Efficacy. Subthemes

Examples

Sample quote

Personal growth and satisfaction

• World connections • Student interests • Student pride in work and accomplishments • Saw the world differently

Developed competencies

• Passing the AP test • Useful for college and career • Saw others being successful

“In calculus class they give you a real world problem, and you would [think], ‘I don’t know how to do this.’ [And when] you made the connections . . . and you put it all together, you felt you accomplished so much having figured it out on your own instead of having the teacher [tell] you to do this and then this and then this.” “The teachers will give the class averages . . . and if you’re not above the class average, you know you didn’t do well in comparison to the class and that affects your motivation. . . . I know that people are doing well in the class and I know that it’s possible. . . I start to ask myself, ‘Why are you not up there if everyone else is up there. You should be up there because it’s possible, and you just need to be working harder’.”

The students agreed that when the teachers’ expectations increased for the students to earn a specific grade, the students would rise to the occasion: There were the C kids and they would always aim for Cs as the bare minimum, but the teachers who gave them more work, they did more work so that they could get the C, and then they did better on the tests at the end of the year . . . better than they would have done had they not been challenged.

This increased expectation forced the students to perform at a higher level. This finding certainly highlights the importance of grades to these students. Eccles and Wigfield (1995) suggested that students value tasks for a variety of reasons. Using their model, grades might hold task value in that they provide future value for scholarships and acceptance into more prestigious universities. However, for some students, grades may not be a motivator, so task value could be added through more meaningful or challenging content.

Self-Efficacy Bandura (1977) first developed the term self-efficacy to describe the level to which students believed that they could accomplish a task. Since Bandura’s efforts, many researchers have demonstrated the importance of this concept. Students’ self-efficacy contributes to academic achievement as well as to their levels of persistence (Robbins et al., 2004; Zientek & Thompson, 2010). In our study, we found students valued courses in which they developed self-efficacy. This self-efficacy was cultivated through their recognition of personal growth and satisfaction as well as their development of competencies through hard work (see Table 4). Self-efficacy was


44


reflected by the pride students expressed when they produced quality work. Personal growth and satisfaction. These honors students could see beyond grades to other class outcomes that were important to them. These students believed that effective teachers empowered them. The teachers instilled a sense of pride in doing quality work and increased students’ confidence in students’ ability by helping students become competent in the subject content. They changed the way students saw the world and helped them make connections while recognizing and developing students’ interests. When the teacher seemed to care about the material and presented the material at a high level, the students took more pride in their work and felt a sense of accomplishment. Students recognized when they had worked hard and achieved something special: We had to write a huge thesis paper, and it had to be 25-35 pages. Everyone was so worried about it, but then everyone got so into it and, like, interviewing people, and it is still the thing I am most proud of that I did in high school.

Students appreciated the opportunity to tackle a true challenge. For some, it took time and the right teacher to develop this sense of self-efficacy with the content: I originally was dreading taking calculus because I’m really not a math person at all. But, the teacher challenged you so much that anytime you succeeded it was just such a huge accomplishment, and when I started doing really well in the class I felt really proud of myself.

Students experienced personal satisfaction when their teachers helped them make real-world connections. Students found the multidisciplinary process of linking different areas together to be more “real world.” One girl stated, I remember when I first connected something from science and literature and psychology. It was so exciting! I was so excited because I was seeing something, how things were working in the world, and I wasn’t just looking for a test.

The students’ self-efficacy comments we include are very similar to those we provide for the challenge level. The two categories are directly related for high-achieving students. Performing well on unchallenging work does little to increase high-achieving students’ self-efficacy. Successful past performances are the strongest source of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Students’ confidence rises when they tackle and succeed at challenging tasks. Useful competencies. Students were also aware of their development of useful competencies, which seemed to motivate them to endure boring content. One girl stated, “The [Greek class] payoff is really worth it, being able to look at something and translate it.” There were several common competencies

students worked to achieve. Many were very focused on developing the skills to do well in college, including earning college credit from AP exams, whereas other students were able to see beyond college and into their careers. Some students were able to relate the competencies more generally to important life skills. Each of these competencies helped to increase students’ self-efficacy. Many students talked about how important it was for the teacher to prepare them for their AP exams. They wanted to develop these competencies to help them test out of college courses. If the teacher did not prepare them well to take the AP exam, they expressed frustration: “The way she taught the course was completely irrelevant for us being able to pass the AP test. . . . She was not teaching us things that were going to help us for the exam.” Another student shared the same frustrations: “[In] my AP U.S. history class the teacher didn’t teach U.S. history . . . so less than half the class actually passed.” Other students looked beyond college credit and discussed their life’s work and passion. They wanted to develop certain competencies so that they could pursue the career about which they were passionate: I already knew I was going to . . . [have] a math type career. I never really tried in any class other than math. I would go through the motions in English, history, science, or whatever, but since I knew I was going to do math that is the only class I tried hard in so the future motivated me.

Students naturally feel some subjects are more important than others. By helping students to see the relevance of subjects, teachers can create student interest in a class. Interest in an area is strongly related to achievement in that area (Siegle et al., 2010). Finally, some students saw the value of learning specific content for their life in general. They talked about specific thinking skills that would have a broader influence. One student explained, Lots of problems . . . challenged [me] to think about what my views are and how do I justify what I am thinking and hopefully coming to my own conclusion so that I can back it up. I can say this is what I believe and this is why I believe it.

Teacher Characteristics and Pedagogies In the Achievement Orientation Model, there are three external factors influencing the motivation of students. These are school, home, and peers. While the students discussed home and peers to some extent, the majority of their comments focused on the school and more specifically on the teacher. Teachers were the determining factor in whether the students did their best work or just enough to get the grade they wanted. Teachers influenced every piece of the model that we have discussed thus far, and for this final component, we


45

Siegle et al. Table 5. Teacher Characteristics. Subthemes

Examples

Sample quote

Passionate

• Enthusiasm • Enjoyment

“. . . when a teacher is really into what they are teaching you, if they really enjoy it and show that enthusiasm it kind of rubs off on you and you enjoy the class more. . .” “he made every effort to be after school if you needed help understanding it and he would go the extra mile. . .” “I liked philosophy class; the discussion thing was a big part of it.” “. . . this whole story took 15 minutes but then we all knew the concept he was trying to teach, without even realizing he was teaching us.” “The material we were covering was ancient civilizations . . . so he made it more interactive and personal so that the class was really interesting.”

Hard working

• Focused • Committed

Delivery methods

• Put in extra effort • Hands on • Active learning • Meaningful stories • Variety of presentation styles • Discussion • Open ended • Structured • Clarity • Students’ learning styles and readiness levels • Student responsibility and participation

examine specific characteristics of teachers that motivate students. Students in our focus groups mentioned that they were motivated by passionate, hard-working teachers who used a variety of delivery methods (see Table 5). Passionate. “Passion is not a luxury, a frill, or a quality possessed by just a few teachers. It is essential to all good teaching” (Day, 2004, p. 11). The students in our study seemed to recognize the truth to this quote. They found that the enthusiasm teachers showed for the content became contagious. One student described how a passionate teacher was inspiring: For me, I become passionate about things when people around me are passionate about them, and so it’s a lot easier for me to do well in the class when I can see that teacher[s are] really interested in the subject and they really care.

Another student similarly commented, “The teacher was just so passionate about [the topic]. You could tell he loved it and that motivated you to want to do well in that class. I think that made a big difference. . . .” This finding is confirmed through research that found a connection between teachers’ passion and positive student outcomes (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993; Day, 2004; Fried, 1995; Patrick, Hisley, Kempler, & College, 2000). Hard working. The students recognized that the teachers also needed to be hard working for the class to be successful, and they appreciated the extra effort these teachers put into teaching. One student described how the teacher “would go the extra mile to make sure you understood. . . . He just did everything that was possible in his power to help us do really well, so I really appreciated that a lot.” Students were more

likely to put forth extra effort if they witnessed their teacher putting forth extra effort. Teacher effort also resulted in wellexecuted instruction that increased students’ desires to learn, as one student delineated: I never really particularly enjoyed math, I usually did well in it, but I struggled in calculus, and I had to work hard to get good grades in it and to pass the AP exam, which I did end up doing. I wanted to put in the work because I knew that my teacher had put in enough effort, and she made herself available enough and taught the material well enough that I could do it, as long as I put in the work.

Delivery methods. These students also were able to identify their preference for a variety of content delivery methods, which allowed the teachers to convey the information in an understandable manner. When teachers were lacking this ability to convey information, students were often frustrated. One student explained, “We had one physics teacher. He was a very smart man. He had his Ph.D. in physics and used to work, I think, for NASA. . . . He didn’t know how to teach, and no one understood his class.” Students discussed a variety of content delivery methods that enhanced their learning experience. While the students agreed that delivery methods or instructional styles were influential in their motivation, they did not necessarily agree on which method or style was the most important. Students tended to appreciate teaching methods that gave them some responsibility for their learning and methods at which the teacher was talented. One student discussed responsibility in a general sense. “The teacher was just a really good teacher. . . . He would teach us the basics of it. . . . He would explain that it’s your responsibility to learn the material.” This student was excited and motivated by that responsibility. Teachers specifically gave students more responsibility through classroom discussions. These discussions were among the most popular instructional strategies that knowledgeable teachers used. Class discussions served several purposes. Discussions broke the standard lecture routine that was common in many classes, actively involved students in the content delivery process, and motivated students to be well prepared when they came to class. As one student noted, he prepared because he “wanted to be able to contribute to the discussions.” However, simply holding a discussion was not considered good teaching. The discussion needed to include a level of Socratic dialogue and self-discovery. I think the discussions, like class lectures, you [can] just zone out. [The class is valuable] when teachers teach you by leading you in a discussion so that you come to the conclusion by yourself. It . . . sticks with you more, and you feel like you’ve actually accomplished something yourself.

In addition to discussions, several participants mentioned interactive experiences such as labs and field trips. They enjoyed the authentic learning these experiences provided.


46


I think it is important for the teacher to understand that there are a variety of different learning styles. I personally like learning through hands on kind of things. I like doing labs in science class because I am actually putting to work what we are learning. Applying it helps me remember it a lot better.

Some students also emphasized the importance of variety in presentation style. One student commented that he enjoyed the content of his Shakespeare class, but the teacher taught each play “the exact same way . . . and by the end of the year it had gotten so tedious, just doing the same exact thing to every play, that I [wasn’t interested] anymore.” No single instructional style fits every student or every teacher. Some students enjoyed lectures that incorporated stories. “I never really liked history, but [my teacher] told a lot of stories, he acted them out in front of the class, and it was just so amusing that everyone enjoyed his class.” The students had differing opinions regarding effective class structure. Several students seemed to prefer very structured and delineated learning objectives, whereas others enjoyed the freedom of open-ended questions and explorations. One student suggested that teachers should give surveys in the beginning of class to better tailor the course to meet different student needs. However, students generally felt that teachers should stick to what they did well: If a teacher can lecture really well and can hold students’ attention by not having a monotone voice, . . . using visuals not overly but just the right amount, then I think that’s their style and they should stick to lectures. . . . Some might not [lecture well] . . . and should stick to discussion. . . . It just depends upon how they can convey what they want most effectively, and it’ll be different.

Limitations We collected our data through four separate focus groups. Because these were open discussions, students’ opinion may have been influenced by what others said. Reserved students may have been less vocal. We did not find differences in the comments students made with respect to the participants’ gender nor the gender of the focus group leader. Our participants were volunteers. We do not know whether the responses from these volunteers would differ from responses provided from freshmen honors students who elected not to participate in our focus groups. Although those limitations remain, different researchers conducted each of the focus groups, which provide some evidence for the trustworthiness of our data. We also learned that individual researchers found similar themes when separately analyzing the transcripts of the four focus groups. This also lends credence to the trustworthiness of our data. Our data are based on these advanced students’ reflections on their high school experience. We caution readers of the potential pitfalls of using retrospective data. Participants

may not accurately recall past events, and participants may edit their responses as they decide whether and how to respond (Beckett, DaVanzo, Sastry, Panis, & Peterson, 2001). These results only represent the opinions of the students in our focus group. Our purposeful intensity sampling (Patton, 1990) does not lend itself to generalization beyond the participants in our study. We do not know exactly how many of the high-achieving students in this study had been formally identified as gifted. Although we suspect many of them were, the group probably also included high-achieving students who may not have qualified for traditional gifted programs. This also limits the generalizability of our finding to the gifted population. Because the participants were university honors students who had been selected for the honors program based on their high academic achievement in high school, these results do not reflect the attitudes of average- or low-achieving students. Gifted underachievers represent an area of concern in the field of gifted education (Siegle, 2013), and gifted students who were not achieving would not have qualified for this honors program and would not be represented in our sample.

Scholarly Significance of the Study The results of this study provide some support for the Achievement Orientation Model (Siegle, 2013; Siegle & McCoach, 2005). These students engaged in learning when they saw the material they were learning as meaningful and challenging (task value), and they believed that their teachers were knowledgeable and genuinely interested in them and their learning (environmental perception). These highachieving students also gained confidence and pride in their work when they developed useful competencies and grew personally (self-efficacy). They also attributed their motivation to their teachers’ characteristics such as being passionate and hard working. When these components were evident, the students self-regulated and were academically engaged. In addition to providing support for the model; this study also provided insight into some of the factors that students may think are the most important for their motivation and provided understanding of what teachers did that these highachieving students found particularly motivating. This study added details to the model that may enable teachers, administrators, and teacher educators to evaluate their own practices when they notice a gifted student who is not motivated. In addition to supporting the Achievement Orientation Model, the students in this study confirmed many of the characteristics of effective teachers as described in the literature. The characteristics in the literature fit into three categories: cognitive, social, and pedagogical, and our unprompted students discussed components of each. The most important cognitive characteristic for these students was the teachers’


47

Siegle et al. knowledge about both the content and the wider world. This is similar to the earlier findings of Buser et al. (1974), Milgram (1979), and Whitlock and DeCette (1989). Our participants recognized teachers who did not possess a strong understanding of the content. As revealed in student quotes, knowledgeable teachers motivate students and elevate their understanding of topics to new levels, whereas teachers with limited content understanding frustrate talented students and sometimes erode students’ love of the topic. Students find that the passion that teachers have for their content is contagious. This finding supports the work of Csikszentmihalyi et al. (1993). In their talented teen study, they noted that many teens are surrounded by adults who are not interested in their jobs and “spend hours in drudgery for the sake of earning a living.” These teens become “captivated by examples of adults. . . . who enjoy what they do” (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993, p. 184). Knowledgeable teachers are also better able to differentiate content and adjust the pace of learning to meet different students’ learning needs. These teachers are comfortable using a variety of instructional strategies; in particular, they have the background to stray from the familiar textbook territory and delve into in-depth discussions with their students. A common question in the field of gifted education is whether teachers of the gifted need to be gifted themselves— something Ward (1961) suggested. Gifted students have advanced content knowledge and creativity that require a confident teacher to field their questions and learn with them. All students need teachers who know and understand the content they teach, but gifted students need deeper and richer content to grow intellectually and thus need more knowledgeable teachers. Our findings with high-achieving students revealed that teachers who make a difference with these students certainly should possess the characteristics of the students they teach. They need to have advanced understanding of the content they teach. This understanding is a by-product of their intellectual curiosity and passion for the subject. Westberg and Archambault (1997) suggested that effective teachers of the gifted were lifelong learners—a behavior of those who are intellectually curious and passionate for their subject. Additional studies are needed to further explore these cognitive characteristics by reviewing teachers’ overall cognitive ability and content knowledge and analyzing their relationship to student respect, achievement, and enjoyment. Researchers also can explore the relationship of teachers’ cognitive characteristics with their ability to differentiate. The existing cognitive literature is aging, and this study suggests that teachers’ cognitive characteristics are very important to today’s high-achieving students. Beyond this essential cognitive characteristic, students described the social characteristics of their effective teachers. These teachers were genuinely interested in their students as individuals and invested in their students’ success at learning. Csikszentmihalyi et al. (1993) suggested that the interest that teachers show toward students builds the

necessary trust needed to convince students to embrace more challenging tasks. Ferrell et al. (1988) found effective teachers demonstrated empathy and rapport with their students. Our students, however, did not appreciate teachers who blurred the teacher–friend distinction. There must be a delicate balance between respectfully developing meaningful relationships with students and maintaining an appropriate distance. For those teachers who struck the right balance, students were more likely to value the course and put forth their best work. They did not want to disappoint these teachers. Future research can examine this balance: How do effective teachers show that they care about students without appearing too friendly? The honors students also mentioned pedagogical strategies of their teachers. As previously mentioned, students appreciated teachers who were passionate and enthusiastic about their subject. Some teachers use humor to convey their passion and enthusiasm. These teachers also expected their students to perform at a high level, which encouraged the students to respond to the challenge. Students also mentioned that they noticed how much effort teachers put into their courses. When students observe that their teachers put significant work into the course, they are inspired to do the same. The outcomes of learning also played an important role in making a task meaningful. Our interviews revealed the positive and negative effects of grades. Earning high grades certainly motivated many of these students to do well in school. However, these students were rewarded for their high grades with placement in this university honors program. We do not have data from students who had the ability to do well and were not motivated by grades. Many of our high achievers viewed grades as a necessary evil and accomplished “just enough to get by” for the grade they desired. They played a “grade game” whereby they continually tracked their semester grades and adjusted their effort accordingly. When they felt their grades were acceptable, they did the minimum to maintain the status quo. When a grade dropped below a desired level, students increased their effort to improve their grades. Students with this mindset unintentionally place an artificial ceiling on their learning. Interestingly, this phenomenon appears to be less of an issue for students who have teachers who are passionate about the content they teach. Overall, students’ perceptions of the support they receive influences how they view the instruction teachers provide. School becomes more meaningful not only when the curriculum includes the features described above but also when teachers are interested in their students and passionate about the topics they are teaching. Interest and passion are contagious. Influential teachers’ personal characteristics directly affect the way teachers present the material, which in turn influences the class outcomes. At a time when educators are bound by standards and student mastery thereof, educators must develop creative methods to embed student interests


48


and their own passion into the learning experience to increase student motivation. As Csikszentmihalyi et al. (1993) cautioned two decades ago, “we cannot expect our children to become truly educated until we ensure that teachers know not only how to provide information but also how to spark the joy of learning” (p. 195). Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References Abel, T., & Karnes, F. A. (1994). Teacher preferences among the lower socioeconomic rural and suburbal advantaged gifted students. Roeper Review, 17, 52-53. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Beckett, M., DaVanzo, J., Sastry, N., Panis, C., & Peterson, C. (2001). The quality of retrospective data: An examination of long-term recall in a developing country. Journal of Human Resources, 36, 593-625. Bishop, W. E. (1968). Successful teachers of the gifted. Exceptional Children, 34, 317-325. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Buser, R. A., Stuck, D. L., & Casey, J. P. (1974). Teacher characteristics and behaviors preferred by high school students. Peabody Journal of Education, 51, 119-123. Chirkov, V. I., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 97-110. Clemons, T. L. (2008). Underachieving gifted students: A social cognitive model. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Day, C. (2004). A passion for teaching. London, England: Routledge Falmer. Dorhut, A. (1983). Student and teacher perceptions of preferred teacher behaviors among the academically gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 84-91.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215-225. Ferrell, B., Kress, M., & Croft, J. (1988). Characteristics of teachers in a full day gifted program. Roeper Review, 23, 235-239. Frevert, A. E. (1993). Elementary principals’ ratings of the most important personal characteristics and teaching behaviors of teachers of the gifted (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Houston, TX. Fried, R. L. (1995). The passionate teacher: A practical guide. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Gill, S., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Educational expectations and school achievement of urban African American children. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 403-424. Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 115-123. Heath, W. J. (1997). What are the most effective characteristics of teachers of the gifted? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service. (No. ED 411665) Hemphill, J. F. (2003). Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist, 58, 78-79. Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2010). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 80, 491-525. Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and selffulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 131-155. Kaplan, A., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (2002), Classroom goal structure and student disruptive behavior. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 191-211. Kuklinski, M. R., & Weinstein, R. S. (2001). Classroom and developmental differences in a path model of teacher expectancy effects. Child Development, 5, 1554-1578. Maddux, C., Samples-Lachmann, I., & Cummings, R. (1985). Preferences of gifted students for selected teacher characteristics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 160-163. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Matthews, M. S., & McBee, M. T. (2007). School factors and the underachievement of gifted students in a talent search summer program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 167-181. McCall, R. B., Evahn, C., & Kratzer, L. (1992). High school underachievers: What do they achieve as adults? Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 144-154. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Milgram, R. M. (1979). Perception of teacher behavior in gifted and non-gifted children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 125-128.


49

Siegle et al. Mills, C. J. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: Teacher background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 272-281. Montalvo, G. P., Mansfield, E. A., & Miller, R. B. (2007). Liking or disliking the teacher: Student motivation, engagement, and achievement. Evaluation and Research in Education, 20, 144158. Montalvo, G. P., & Roedel, T. D. (1995, April). Pleasing the teacher: A qualitative look. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Moon, T. R., Brighton, C. M., Jarvis, J. R., & Hall, C. J. (2007). State standardized testing programs: Their effects on teachers and students. Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for education reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Ogbu, J. U. (1978). Minority education and caste. New York, NY: Academic Press. Patrick, B. C., Hisley, J., Kempler, T., & College, G. (2000). “What’s everybody so excited about?: The effects of teacher enthusiasm on student intrinsic motivation and vitality. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 217-236. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Peterson, J. S., & Colangelo, N. (1996). Gifted achievers and underachievers: A comparison of patterns found in school files. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74, 399-407. Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senecal, C. (2007). Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 4, 734-746. Renzulli, J. S. (1992, April). Chair/discussant comments. In Renzulli, J. S. (Chair), Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Findings from the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246-279). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261-288. Robinson, A. (2008). Teacher characteristics. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 669-680). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. F. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectations and student intellectual development. New York, NY: Holt. Rubenstein, L. D., Siegle, D., Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., & Burton, M. G. (2012). A complex quest: The development and

research of underachievement interventions for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 678-694. Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2006). Teacher expectations and student self-perceptions: Exploring relationships. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 537-552. Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2007). Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of high- and low-expectation teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 289-306. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., & Winteler, A. (1992). Interest as a predictor of academic achievement: A meta-analysis of research. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 183-212). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75. Siegle, D. (2013). The underachieving gifted child: Recognizing, understanding, & reversing underachievement. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Siegle, D., & McCoach, D. B. (2005). Motivating gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Siegle, D., Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2006, June). A study to increase academic achievement among gifted underachievers. Poster presented at the 2006 Institute of Education Sciences Research Conference, Washington, DC. Siegle, D., Rubenstein, L. D., Pollard, E., & Romey, E. (2010). Exploring the relationships of college freshman honors students’ effort and ability attribution, interest, and implicit theory of intelligence with perceived ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 92-101. Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The WICS model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 327-342). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Trostel, P. A. (2007). The fiscal impact of college attainment (Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Secondary Education Working Paper). Retrieved from http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/neppc/wp/2007/neppcwp0702.pdf Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivation learning, performance and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246-260. Ward, V. S. (1961). Educating the gifted, an axiomatic approach. Columbus, OH: C. E. Merrill Books. Wendel, R., & Heiser, S. (1989). Effective instructional characteristics of teachers of junior high school gifted students. Roeper Review, 11, 151-153. Westberg, K. L., & Archambault, F. X. (1997). A multi-site case study of successful classroom practices for high-ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 42-51. Westberg, K. L., & Daoust, M. E. (2003). The results of the replication of the classroom practices survey replication in two states. National Research Center on Gifted and Talented Newsletter, Fall, 3-8.


50


Whitlock, M. S., & DuCette, J. P. (1989). Outstanding and average teachers of the gifted: A comparative study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 15-21. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81. Zientek, L. R., & Thompson, B. (2010). Using commonality analysis to quantify contributions that self-efficacy and motivational factors make in mathematics performance. Research in the Schools, 17, 1-12.

Author Biographies Del Siegle is a professor in gifted and talented education and Head of the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Connecticut. He is a past president of the Montana Association of Gifted and Talented Education (Montana AGATE), past president of the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), and chair

elect of the Research on Giftedness, Creativity, and Talent SIG of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Lisa DaVia Rubenstein is an assistant professor at Ball State University. She has worked as a classroom teacher, gifted coordinator, and research assistant for the National Research Center for the Gifted and Talented. Her current research interests include motivation, creativity, and twice exceptionalities. Melissa S. Mitchell currently serves as the gifted and talented teacher and program coordinator for grades K-8 at an elementary/ middle school in Maine. Melissa received her doctorate in Educational Psychology/Gifted Education from the University of Connecticut. She worked as a research assistant at the Neag Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development and as the assistant editor for the Journal of Advanced Academics. Prior to entering graduate school, Melissa served as a college counselor and adjunct faculty member at a community college in Maine.
