Education HW help

Gifted Child Quarterly 55(3) 167 –180 © 2011 National Association for Gifted Children Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0016986211412770 http://gcq.sagepub.com

412770GCQXXX10.1177/001698621141277 0Peterson and LorimerGifted Child Quarterly

1Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA 2Meadow Brook Elementary School, Grand Rapids, MI, USA

Corresponding Author: Jean Sunde Peterson, Department of Educational Studies, Purdue University, BRNG, 100 N University Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2098, USA Email: [email protected]

Student Response to a Small-Group Affective Curriculum in a School for Gifted Children

Jean Sunde Peterson1 and Michelle R. Lorimer2

Abstract

A 5-year longitudinal study of the implementation of an affective curriculum in a school for gifted children, in the form of weekly development-oriented, teacher-led small-group discussions for all students in Grades 5 through 8, found that initial resistance changed to receptivity and gains over time. Analysis of Likert-type responses and brief comments from the students offered guidance for curriculum development and delivery. Differences in a positive direction reflected institutionalization of the group program and support for continuation. However, findings also underscored the need to clarify the purpose of the program to students, select discussion topics carefully, consider gender when forming groups, provide adequate time for group meetings, and provide adequate training for group facilitators.

Keywords

gifted, longitudinal, cross-sectional, affective curriculum, social, emotional, group work, middle school, development

Scholars have long presented evidence that giftedness can be a social and emotional asset (Ablard, 1997; J. A. Baker, 1995; Lupkowski, 1989; Nail & Evans, 1997; Neihart, 2002; Scholwinski & Reynolds, 1985; Terman, 1925; VanTassel- Baska & Olszewski-Kubilius, 1989). Such findings have per- haps contributed to assumptions that highly capable students do not need assistance and that intelligence helps gifted indi- viduals combat personal problems (Peterson, 2010). Yet a growing body of literature highlighting particular social and emotional concerns (e.g., Alsop, 2003; Kerr, Colangelo, & Gaeth, 1988; Neumeister & Finch, 2006; Plucker & Levy, 2001; Rice, Leever, Christopher, & Porter, 2006; Tong & Yewchuck, 1996; Yoo & Moon, 2006) argues for including curricula to promote social and emotional learning in gifted education (Betts & Kercher, 1999; Buescher, 2004; Hébert & Neumeister, 2001; Johnson, 2000, 2001; Larson, 2003; Peterson, 2003, 2008; VanTassel-Baska, 2006; Wood, 1996). However, such programs for gifted students, and the process of implementing them, have generally not had research attention.

One kind of program promoting social and emotional devel- opment proactively is small-group discussion. However, pertinent to this study are several gaps in the literature. For example, multiyear longitudinal studies of group work in schools (e.g., Littrell & Peterson, 2002; Pedro-Carroll, Sutton, & Wyman, 1999) are uncommon. In addition, group work that does not focus on specific negative behaviors, emotional regulation, school retention, achievement gaps, substance abuse, divorce, or self-concept, for example, has only rarely been the focus of research. Literature about school-based

group work (e.g., Bidgood, Wilkie, & Katzhaluba, 2010; Bostick & Anderson, 2009; Crespi, Gustafson, & Borges, 2006; Rose, 2009), including research reviews by Whiston and Quinby (2009), has generally been supportive of group work, but has usually addressed remediation- and goal- oriented, not prevention-oriented, group work, in spite of strong trends for more than a decade toward developmental, com- prehensive school counseling programming (Campbell & Dahir, 1997). Even textbooks for preparing counselors to do group work (e.g., Capuzzi, 2003; Corey & Corey, 2002) sel- dom focus on developmental tasks and prevention of social and emotional problems. Whiston and Sexton (1998), noting the lack of balance, encouraged both researchers and coun- selors to attend to preventive and developmental activities that might decrease the need for remediation. In their review of research, they also noted that more studies of approaches with middle school students were needed as well as more appropriate research methods. Finally, with rare exceptions (e.g., Dansby, 1996; Littrell & Peterson, 2002), scholars have also not focused on the process of implementing small-group

at Northcentral University on January 16, 2015gcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

168 Gifted Child Quarterly 55(3)

work in schools. Particularly pertinent to this presentation is that none of these areas have been explored as related to affective curriculum for gifted students.

The purpose of this study was to address the research gaps related to prevention-oriented group work, affective curricu- lum with gifted students, group work with middle school stu- dents, and long-term follow-up of group work. The focus would be on weekly small-group discussion with gifted stu- dents about social and emotional development. Instead of focusing on outcomes as reflected in measureable gains in attendance and tardiness, fewer disciplinary referrals, and academic achievement, for example, the authors were inter- ested in students’ and teachers’ perceptions, during the pro- cess of implementation, of connectedness among students; skills related to talking about social and emotional concerns; ease in communicating these concerns with peers, teachers, and parents; and impact on a school. Findings might inform the school counseling field about group work with gifted stu- dents. Similarly, educators interested in creating affective curricula for gifted students might benefit from this explora- tion of development-oriented group work, including what might be expected when a small-group program dimension is implemented.

The focus here is on the student experience. Findings related to the teachers’ experience are presented elsewhere (Peterson & Lorimer, 2011).

Review of Literature Social and Emotional Concerns of Gifted Children

Neihart (2002), in a review of empirical literature, con- cluded that gifted individuals are probably neither more nor less well adjusted than their typical age peers. She also noted that the psychological well-being of a gifted child is related to type of giftedness, educational fit, and personal character- istics. Nevertheless, in the interest of preventing problems, it is important to consider characteristics associated with gift- edness, such as sensitivities, intensity (Daniels & Piechowski, 2009), divergent thinking, perceptiveness, and drivenness (Lovecky, 1992). When gifted children face the death of some- one close, parental separation and divorce, parental substance abuse, or difficult developmental transitions, for example, those characteristics may contribute to their experience being qualitatively different from how others experience these chal- lenges (Peterson, Duncan, & Canady, 2009).

In the past decade, scholars focusing on high-ability stu- dents have noted a wide range of concerns during the school years. Discomfort related to poor fit in the school milieu may contribute to social and emotional problems (Rimm, 2003). Peterson and Ray (2006) found in a national study that two thirds of gifted students had experienced bullying at some point during grades K-8. Other conditions or situations that

may put highly able individuals at risk for poor academic or personal outcomes are depression, eating or sleep disorders, inaccurately assessed behavior (see Webb et al., 2005), and academic underachievement (Reis & McCoach, 2002). A mixed-methods study of predominantly high achievers (Peterson, Duncan, et al., 2009) revealed high stress from extreme involve- ment and heavy academic loads. In addition, gifted graduates may not be prepared for post–high school transitions. Peterson (2000) found that 24% of high school achievers listed social challenges, 15% finding direction, 14% being away from home, 14% illness, trauma, accident, or crisis, and 9% rela- tionships as being their most significant challenges during the first 4 years after high school. Of underachievers, 16% men- tioned social concerns, 16% being away from home, 16% relationships, and 10% addictions. These findings suggest that gifted students might benefit from opportunities to dis- cuss these concerns before leaving home.

However, educators and even parents may not recognize social and emotional needs of gifted youth. Gifted individu- als may actually need help with expression of emotions (Mendaglio, 2003). Regardless of distress, highly able stu- dents may believe they must solve their own problems, maintain a façade of invincibility, and be reluctant to ask for assistance, according to studies of gifted students at risk for poor outcomes (Peterson, 2001), bullied (Peterson & Ray, 2006), or homosexual (Peterson & Rischar, 2000). Jackson and Peterson (2003) found that gifted students felt shame for perceived weaknesses, as well as concern about burdening others.

Developmental, Prevention- Oriented Curriculum Jackson (1997), noting that expression, understanding, and commonality are needs of gifted adolescents, recommended program components that attend to inter- and intrapersonal aspects, such as self-awareness, self-reflection, empathy building, empowerment, and communication with other gifted students. Existing literature provides examples of potentially beneficial affective curriculum: service proj- ects (Johnson, 2000, 2001), speakers (Hébert, 2001; Peterson, 2003), bibliotherapy (Hébert, 1991, 2000), guided viewing of film (Hébert & Neumeister, 2001), writing groups within or outside of regular school hours (Peterson, 1996; Zaffrann & Colangelo, 1977), counselor presenta- tions during study halls (Hébert, 2001), and discussion groups with high-ability peers (Peterson, Betts, & Bradley, 2009; Swiatek, 1998). Noting that gifted students are not usually the focus of traditional school counseling, Larson (2003) argued that developmental, preventive group coun- seling offers a chance to feel support, discover inner strengths, reframe problems into challenges, find meaning, and connect with peers about high expectations, adolescent issues, and existential concerns.

at Northcentral University on January 16, 2015gcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Peterson and Lorimer 169

Group Counseling in Schools

Group work in schools has a long history, with pertinent literature appearing in the 1960s (e.g., Moore, 1969) and 1970s (e.g., Hillman & Reunion, 1978; Kaczkowski, 1979) and being well established by the 1980s (e.g., S. B. Baker, Thomas, & Munson, 1983) and 1990s (e.g., Myrick, 1993; Phillips & Phillips, 1992). Pertinent to the study to be presented here, scholars in the 1980s noted that structured group dis- cussion can be effective as primary prevention (S. B. Baker et al., 1983), specifically for teaching prosocial skills (Goldstein, Sprafkin, Gershaw, and Klein, 1980). Rose (1987) suggested that an intervention-oriented social behavior group format could be modified to work with children not in distress, but wishing to improve social skills. Carroll (1981) argued even for making counseling part of the school curriculum. Kulic, Dagley, and Horne (2001) made recommendations for mea- suring process and outcome variables, based on an extensive review of prevention-group literature.

In general, group work in the schools offers efficiency, increasing the number of students who can benefit from counselor attention (DeLucia-Waack, 2000). Rolland and Neitzschman (1996) described a middle school model in which counselors trained teachers to facilitate group guid- ance, extending the reach of guidance ever further.

However, only one study (Dansby, 1996), according to a search of databases, has focused on issues related to imple- mentation of school groups. Related to the study to be pre- sented here, school-system obstacles were among several foci. Dansby found that time, scheduling, and access to stu- dents were the main constraints. She concluded that using systems organizational theory to conceptualize implementa- tion problems and solutions might be helpful.

Several types of groups have been described in the litera- ture, some appropriate for schools. Therapeutic groups tend to focus on gaining knowledge of self and others; identifying areas of possible change; and working toward those changes. Group therapy is reserved for long-term clients in treatment for psychological or behavioral disorders. Group counseling is linked to goals and concerns of shorter duration (Corey & Corey, 2002). Group guidance can involve a class-size group (Capuzzi & Gross, 1998). The Association for Specialists in Group Work (2000) added two additional group types: task facilitation, focusing on action toward performance-based goals, and psychoeducational, used for prevention and imparting information. The latter are likely to focus on top- ics, emphasize coping skills, and address personal concerns. The discussion groups in the current study were psychoedu- cational groups, exploring development-oriented topics. Just as with students in the general population, gifted students in these groups have an opportunity to listen, be heard, express themselves, interact with same-age and ability peers, and develop social skills in a safe environment under the leader- ship of a nonjudgmental adult (Peterson, 2008).

Group specialists have discussed factors that contribute to success in group work, applicable to various types of groups, including psychoeducational groups. These factors include readiness, commitment, attractiveness of the group for mem- bers, and feelings of acceptance and security (Gladding, 2003). Yalom (1995), among the first to articulate therapeu- tic factors that potentially contribute to positive change within and among group members, noted the following: instillation of hope, universality, imparting information, altru- ism, corrective recapitulation of the primary family group, development of socializing techniques, imitative behavior, interpersonal learning, group cohesiveness, catharsis, and existential factors.

Method The Head of the School and the Director of Student Services at a nonsectarian, coeducational private school for gifted children, prekindergarten through Grade 8, in a Midwestern urban setting had attended a regional workshop focusing on the social and emotional development of gifted youth. The workshop had included experiential learning related to semistructured, topic-centered small-group discussion. They expressed interest in implementing such a component at the school, without indicating any particular need or concern beyond a desire to add an affective dimension to their cur- riculum. Subsequently, they accepted an invitation to par- ticipate in a study of the implementation of the new program.

Two research questions led to the methodology employed. One focused on attitudes: How do gifted middle school stu- dents respond, over time, when a small-group affective cur- riculum is implemented? A second focused on perceived effects of group work: How do students assess the value of a group experience over time?

Participants Participants in the study were approximately 260 fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth graders. Eligibility for school admission required a minimum 130 full-scale IQ score, with commen- surate grades and achievement test scores. Approximately 420 students were enrolled in the entire school each year, with approximately 25% representing minority cultural and ethnic groups. No children were eligible for free and reduced lunches. Annually, approximately 150 students were enrolled in the middle school, composed of Grades 5 through 8, with 30 to 40 new fifth graders each year. All students enrolled in those grades from the 2004-2005 through 2008-2009 school years were involved in the study.

All classroom teachers (95% White) in those grades, as well as the school counselor, were group facilitators. Because the groups were part of the weekly schedule, the Head of the School, a music teacher, a librarian, and an art assistant, all of whom were members of the staff and familiar with the

at Northcentral University on January 16, 2015gcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

170 Gifted Child Quarterly 55(3)

students and the program, served infrequently as substitute facilitators when needed.

Procedure At the outset, the first author conducted a 3-hour preschool training for all teachers in Grades 5 to 8. Of the substitutes, the Head and the music teacher also received this training, and the librarian and the art assistant later received training from the Director of Student Services, who had assumed the role of group program director. The training included content related to the social and emotional development of highly able students, similar to the information provided at the out- set of the review of literature here. The training also included skill training in listening and responding, as related to encouraging self-reflection and expressive language in chil- dren. Actual semistructured small-group activities and dis- cussions occurred, simulating the format to be implemented with the students. At the conclusion of the training, partici- pants observed a demonstration group, comprised of teacher volunteers and led by the trainer, and then discussed what they had seen, referring to various aspects of their training.

The program director subsequently organized small groups to be facilitated weekly by the teachers. The trainer returned midyear to discuss with the teachers their experi- ences and to offer guidance. Thereafter, she communicated with the Head or the program director at the end of the first and second years about the survey employed, used by the school leaders to guide decisions about topics, as well as when arranging the final data gathering and when requesting demographic data and topics. The author-trainer had no con- tact with students at any point in the study.

On Thursdays, the groups met for 22 minutes, for approxi- mately 30 meetings per year. On Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, students had so-called “Flex” time for indepen- dent class-related work. Because school curriculum was rig- orous, students valued that unstructured time for homework, as revealed in the study. On Fridays, all students attended a meeting in the school theater. At the outset of the first year, the focus, format, and purpose of the discussion groups were explained to the students. Thereafter, fourth graders spent one Thursday in the spring in the middle school, including attending a discussion group about “what middle school is like” with a fifth-grade “buddy.” The program was explained to their parents at an orientation meeting.

During the second year of discussion groups, as a result of survey and informal student feedback and teachers’ sense, expressed at teacher meetings, that some topics were dis- cussed more comfortably with same-gender peers, one third of the meetings were in single-gender groups and two thirds were with both genders. During the remaining years, based on further feedback, half were single-gender and half were both-gender groups. Each teacher facilitator led one of each.

All teachers had new group members each year. Teachers were assigned to groups with students in a grade level they did not teach in order to diminish students’ perception that

evaluation in a subject might be affected by what they con- tributed to discussion and also to give teachers a chance to become acquainted with students they usually had no contact with. After the second year, teachers were asked to list their grade-level preferences for groups. During the final 3 years, based on teacher-leader perceptions about some students’ discomfort with one or more group members and the positive impact of being comfortable, all students filled out a summer questionnaire, identifying two students they would prefer not to have in their group and four they would like to have. The program director attempted to place each child with at least one friend.

Social/Emotional Curriculum Initially, discussion topics came from a two-volume small- group curriculum (Peterson, 1993, 1995). During the final year, The Essential Guide for Talking With Gifted Teens (Peterson, 2008) was also a resource. Selected topics were related to feelings, first impressions, change, values, competitiveness, learning styles, role models, stereotypes, isolation, humor, relaxation, stress, relationships with parents, holiday gather- ings, nonmaterial gifts, eating disorders, friendships, compli- ments, time management, procrastination, perfectionism, self-control, giving permission to self, diversity, male–female similarities and differences, gender stereotypes, having fun, career development, and attitudes about work. Based on teacher- leaders’ observations of response to various topics, their thoughts about possible follow-up topics, and the need to avoid repetition of topics across grade levels, the program director gradually added other topics, some to be discussed only at the older or only at the younger grade levels. These topics were largely related to current issues or school concerns: ethical/moral issues, kindness, character, decision making, conflict resolution, bullying and cyber bullying, sportsman- ship, honesty, safety, goals, commitment, leadership, effort connected to achievement, assertiveness, cheating, risk tak- ing, materialism, resilience, accomplishments, positive atti- tude, religious and cultural holidays, volunteering, Earth Day, personality inventory, healthy habits, emotional intel- ligence, and delayed gratification, for example. All topics reflected common aspects of social and emotional develop- ment. Leaders were encouraged to approach them creatively, adapting them to fit developmental level and personalities of group members.

Each year approximately 30 topics were discussed. New topics were added, some topics were used again with incom- ing fifth graders, and some were discussed each year or every other year, but with varying format and emphases. Over the 5 years, approximately 100 topics were addressed. The pro- gram director developed a lesson plan and discussed the focus with the group facilitators as each week began, wel- coming suggestions. Activity sheets from the books described above, questionnaires, newspaper articles, internet resources, online questionnaires, activities requiring move- ment, scenario cards (e.g., for topics related to character and

at Northcentral University on January 16, 2015gcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Peterson and Lorimer 171

choice), a brief play (e.g., focused on stereotypes), candy to demonstrate cooperation versus competition, and YouTube videos were used to introduce topics and generate discus- sion. Beginning with the third year, eighth graders focused on topics related to career exploration to prepare for a later career-shadowing experience. Other grade levels focused on other topics during that time.

Instrument Prevention “outcomes,” in terms of future student behavior, are difficult to measure, since what is prevented cannot be ascertained precisely by tallies of particular actions. Traditional outcome measures also cannot control for factors such as maturity and personal characteristics when determining whether a program contributed to change. In addition, cost, logistics, and administrators’ impatience may preclude stud- ies to evaluate changes over time (Cole, 2004). Given these limitations, and considering that high achievement was a prerequisite for being enrolled in the school of interest here, the study was focused only on attitudes and perceptions related to the group experience itself, not on academic and other student data.

A 14-item nonstandardized survey (see the appendix), using a Likert-type scale of 1 to 5, was developed, based on tacit knowledge about and experience with school groups and with some reference to Larson’s (2003) questionnaire items related to enjoyment, self-acceptance, social comfort, pertinence of issues discussed, and effectiveness of the adult facilitator. In the current study, two items were about attitude toward the groups, one about level of comfort with participa- tion, one about perceived teacher comfort level, one about perceived need for the groups, four about ease of talking about social and emotional concerns with others (peers, teachers, parents), two about perceived importance of atten- tion to social and emotional concerns, one about the effect of the group program on the school, and one about becoming well acquainted with one other person in the group. All items were statements written in a positive direction, and students indicated the extent to which they agreed with them. Space at the end was provided for comments. The students completed the survey at the end of the first semester of the experience and at the end of the first (2005), second (2006), and fifth (2009) years of the study. After the second year, to assist them with planning, the Head and program director added an item about single-gender grouping.

Data Analysis Quantitative data. Quantitative data were analyzed with

SPSS software using an independent samples t test. Of inter- est were both short-term and long-term differences per item. A “total score” for the survey was not of interest. Therefore comparison statistics were used to ascertain whether the reac- tions to a specific aspect of the program at one grade level differed from reactions at that same grade level in another

year, as the group program became established in the school. Examples of examining the same grade level over time are as follows: fifth grade at the end of Year 1 with fifth grade at the end of Year 2; fifth grade at the end of Year 1 with fifth grade at the end of Year 5; and fifth grade at the end of Year 2 with fifth grade at the end of Year 5—each having had one full year in the program. Items were also examined separately, over time. Responses to Item 1 on Student Survey 2 (end of Year 1) were compared with responses to Item 2 on Student Survey 3 (end of Year 2), for example. All items and grade levels were compared in this cross-sectional manner.

The authors were also interested in comparing the same group of students over time. Similarly to the above, this lon- gitudinal analysis was performed using an independent sam- ples t test of each survey item, for example, the original fifth graders at midyear and at the end of the first year (2005; i.e., after one and two semesters of groups), and at the end of 2006 (i.e., after 2 years of groups). Another example was comparing the data of fifth graders who finished their first year of groups in 2006 with their data in 2009, after 4 years of group (the longest the same children at any grade level could be followed). It should be noted that sometimes these comparisons differed regarding total years of group partici- pation. Since no data were collected in 2007 and 2008, the original sixth, seventh, and eighth graders were followed for only 1½, 1½, and ½ years, respectively. They were no longer in the school in 2009 for the last data collection.

Students’ comments. A majority of all students made no comments on the survey, and the comments of the others were usually extremely brief (i.e., one to three words). Anal- ysis of the comments involved simple frequency counts for positive versus negative words or phrases for each grade level and percentages of responders in those categories. Sub- sequently, each of these categories was divided into subcat- egories (e.g., Flex, value). The Head and the program director examined responses after Years 1, 2, and 5 for guidance in planning, using the survey as formative assessment.

Results Following summary information for each, tables display areas in which significant differences occurred. Grade levels are presented separately, listing only the areas with differ- ences. In the first four tables, student numbers during the years when data were collected appear after the title. Since no data were gathered during two of the years, and with some students graduating during that time, the number of years in the program for students at each grade level is noted when needed for clarity.

Same-Grade Comparisons Over Time When following each grade over time (e.g., original fifth graders with later fifth graders), a varying number of sig- nificant differences appeared at each grade level. The find- ings discussed in this section are limited to students who had

at Northcentral University on January 16, 2015gcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

172 Gifted Child Quarterly 55(3)

Table 1. Grade 5 Examined Over Time (n = 40, 31, 40): Significant Positive Differences

Survey item 2005-2006 2005-2009 2006-2009

1. Look forward to group

.002 .007

2. Comfortable experience

.014 .000

3. Groups a good idea .045 .000 .005 4. Need a place to

talk about social/ emotional at school

.000 .001

5. Easy to talk with peers about social/ emotional

.004

6. Easy to talk with teachers about social/emotional

.025

7. Easy to talk with parents about social/emotional

.042

9. Social/emotional as important as academics

.000 .000

10. Teachers’ comfort talking about social/ emotional

.036 .007

11. Gifted kids have fewer problems than other kidsa

.003 .005

12. Discussion groups should continue

.000 .000

13. Groups have nice effect on the school

.000 .004

14. Acquainted with one other person through group

.010

a. Reflects increasing agreement, over time, that they have fewer problems, although with low means (<2.0).

had at least a full year in the groups; therefore data from the midyear survey during Year 1 were not considered.

Grade 5. In fifth-grade-to-fifth-grade comparisons, more differences occurred in a positive direction between Years 1 and 2 than at other grade levels. Long term, from Year 1 (2005) to Year 5 (2009), a significant difference occurred (p < .001) in several areas of interest to the school leaders: that groups are a good idea, are comfortable, have a nice effect on the school, and should continue; that students need a place to talk with an adult about social/emotional concerns at school; and that social/emotional is as important as academic development.

Between the end of Year 2 and the end of Year 5, the only significant positive differences at the p < .001 level were in groups continuing and students needing a place to talk. However, at the p < .05 level, differences appeared in look- ing forward to group, groups being a good idea and having a nice effect, ease with talking with teachers and parents, and belief that gifted students have fewer problems than other students do. Table 1 displays these findings.

Grade 6. Sixth graders at the end of Year 1, compared with sixth graders at the end of Year 5 (the latter with 2 years of experience), showed significant differences in a positive direction (p < .001) for items related to groups being com- fortable and a good idea, having a nice effect, and continu- ing; students needing a place to talk; and gifted students having fewer problems.

When comparing the sixth graders at the end of Year 2 with the sixth graders at the end of Year 5 (each with 2 years of experience), significant positive differences (p < .001) were related to nice effect, continuation, and a place to talk. However, significant positive differences (p < .05) had also occurred regarding comfort, a good idea, social/emotional being important, teachers’ comfort, and gifted students hav- ing fewer problems. No significant differences occurred for this grade level when comparing Year 1 with Year 2. Table 2 displays these findings.

Grade 7. When comparing seventh graders at the end of Year 1 with seventh graders at the end of Year 5 (3 years of experience), significant positive differences (p < .05) were related to groups being a good idea and continuing, ease with talking with teachers, teachers’ comfort with group work, and gifted students having fewer problems than others.

Only one difference (p < .05), in a positive direction, occurred between the end of Year 1 and the end of Year 2: social/emotional development seen as being as important as academic. Likewise, when comparing the end of Year 2 (2 years of experience) with the end of Year 5 (3 years of experi- ence), the only significant positive difference was regarding gifted students having fewer problems. Significant findings for Grade 7 are given in Table 3.

Grade 8. When comparing eighth graders at the end of Year 1 and at the end of Year 2, the latter group’s sense of their own skills and of their teachers’ comfort level was

more positive (p < .05) for both. Between the end of Year 1 and the end of Year 5 (4 years of experience), a significant positive difference (p < .05) was evident only in regard to ease when talking with peers and viewing social/emotional and academic as equally important. Between the end of Year 2 and the end of Year 5 (4 years of experience) positive differences (p < .05) occurred regarding a place to talk, talk- ing with parents, teachers’ comfort, and social/emotional and academic being equally important. Only Grade 8 showed no significant differences over time regarding gifted students having fewer problems. Table 4 displays the significant differences.

Summary of positive differences. Table 5 indicates the grade levels where significant positive differences occurred, by item, between 2005 and 2009, between 2006 and 2009, or during both periods. This table displays particular grades, not the same students, over time.

at Northcentral University on January 16, 2015gcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Peterson and Lorimer 173

Table 2. Grade 6, Examined Over Time (n = 33, 39, 38): Significant Positive Differences

Survey item 2005-2006 2005-2009 2006-2009

1. Look forward to group

.010

2. Comfortable experience

.001 .050

3. Groups a good idea .000 .004 4. Need a place to

talk about social/ emotional at school

.000 .001

9. Social/emotional as important as academics

.002

10. Teachers’ comfort talking about social/emotional

.025

11. Gifted kids have fewer problems than other kidsa

.000 .044

12. Discussion groups should continue

.000 .000

13. Groups have nice effect on the school

.000 .000

a. Reflects increasing agreement, over time, that they have fewer problems, although with low means (<2.0).

Table 3. Grade 7, Examined Over Time (n = 40, 28, 42): Significant Positive Differences

Survey item 2005-2006 2005-2009 2006-2009

3. Groups a good idea

.018

6. Easy to talk with teachers about social/emotional

.049

9. Social/emotional as important as academics

.035

10. Teachers’ comfort talking about social/ emotional

.041

11. Gifted kids have fewer problems than other kidsa

.003 .039

12. Discussion groups should continue

.003

a. Reflects increasing agreement, over time, that they have fewer problems, although with low means (<2.0).

Table 4. Grade 8, Examined Over Time (n = 29, 38, 33): Significant Positive Differences

Survey item 2005-2006 2005-2009 2006-2009

4. Need a place to talk about social/ emotional at school

.040

5. Easy to talk with peers about social/emotional

.007

7. Easy to talk with parents about social/emotional

.009

8. Skilled at talking about social/ emotional concerns

.034

9. Social/emotional as important as academics

.001 .050

10. Teachers’ comfort talking about social/ emotional

.023 .049

Following the Same Students for 4 Years

The original fifth, sixth, and seventh graders left the school during years that no data were collected. Therefore those students were followed for only 2 years. The original eighth graders left at the end of the first year. However, the fifth graders who began the program at the outset of the second year provided data reflecting 4 years—from the end of that year to the end of Year 5. Changes could therefore be seen over time. Significant change in a positive direction (p < .05) occurred only with talking with peers about concerns, with a relatively high end mean (4.03). Significant change in a negative direction occurred regarding perception of teach- ers’ comfort with talking about social and emotional con- cerns (p < .01), although the end mean was a moderately high 3.38. Significant negative change also occurred for groups being a good idea (p < .05). Additional high means from start to finish, but not reflecting statistically significant change, were for skills related to talking about social and emotional concerns, for social and emotional being as impor- tant as academics, and for groups being a comfortable expe- rience. Although this group did not change significantly in how they viewed problems of gifted students, the means were low (<2), with only one exception, indicating only minimal support for the idea that gifted students have fewer problems than other students. Table 6 includes high means and significant changes from Grades 5 through 8 for the same group of students over 4 years.

at Northcentral University on January 16, 2015gcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

174 Gifted Child Quarterly 55(3)

Table 6. The Only Group With 4 Years of Group Experience: Significant Change, High Means

Survey item 5/2006 M 5/2009 M Significant

change

2. Comfortable experience

3.73 3.78

3. Groups a good idea .026a

5. Easy to talk with peers about social/ emotional

3.29 4.03 .027b

8. Skilled at talking about social/ emotional

3.37

9. Social/emotional as important as academics

4.29 3.97

10. Teachers’ comfort talking about social/ emotional

4.30 3.38 .008a

a. Negative direction. b. Positive direction.

Table 5. Comparing Same Grade Levels Over 4 or 5 Years or Both: Significant Positive Differences

Survey item Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

1. Look forward to group

× ×

2. Comfortable experience

× ×

3. Groups a good idea

× × ×

4. Need a place to talk about social/ emotional at school

× × ×

5. Easy to talk with peers about social/ emotional

× ×

6. Easy to talk with teachers about social/emotional

× ×

7. Easy to talk with parents about social/emotional

× ×

8. Skilled in talking about social/ emotional in general

9. Social/emotional as important as academics

× × ×

10. Teachers’ comfort talking about social/emotional

× × × ×

11. Gifted kids have fewer problems than other kidsa

× × ×

12. Discussion groups should continue

× × ×

13. Groups have nice effect on the school

× ×

14. Acquainted with one other person through group

×

a. Reflects increasing agreement, over time, that they have fewer problems, although with low means (<2.0).

The original eighth graders, many of whom wrote nega- tive comments about losing Flex time, changed significantly only in a negative direction during the one semester they were assessed: groups being a good idea and needing a place to talk (p < .01), and looking forward to group, teacher com- fort, and the importance of attention to social/emotional (p < .05). During that semester, the sixth graders changed in a negative direction in three of those areas: looking forward to group and needing a place to talk (p < .01) and groups being a good idea (p < .05).

In contrast, during the first semester, the original seventh graders showed significant positive change (p < .01) in regard to comfort in their groups. During the first 2 years, these stu- dents changed in a positive direction in regard to skills, talk- ing with peers and teachers about concerns, and their own and teachers’ comfort with group discussions. The one sig- nificant change in a negative direction (p < .05) was in their view of gifted students having fewer problems. Over the first 2 years, the original fifth graders changed negatively only in ease talking with parents. Table 7 displays the original stu- dents’ one- and three-semester changes, as well as significant changes between the end of Year 1 and the end of Year 2.

As the original students progressed through the first 2 years of the study, the means per item sometimes reflected only modest support, even when changing significantly in a positive direction (e.g., ease with talking with teachers). However, some were indeed high. Table 8 displays relatively high means (>3, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 highest), regard- less of significance levels, after 2 years for the three grades that could be followed. Eighth graders had left the school at the end of the first year.

Student Comments: Positive and Negative At the end of Year 1, the loss of Flex was the most common negative complaint. At the end of Year 2, it was still the dominant negative comment at the two older grade levels, but several positive comments about “gender groups,” largely by female students, also appeared. At the end of the study, the first time a majority of a students at a particular grade level made comments, 58% of the 40 eighth graders (in the group program since Grade 5) wrote something, and

at Northcentral University on January 16, 2015gcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Peterson and Lorimer 175

Table 7. Original Students, Followed During the First 2 Years: Significant Changes

Survey item 1/05-5/05 5/05-5/06 1/05-5/06

Grade 5 through Grade 6 7. Easy to talk with parents about social/emotional .040 (neg.) Grade 6 through Grade 7 1. Look forward to group .007 (neg.) 3. Groups a good idea .049 (neg.) 4. Need a place to talk about social/emotional at school .006 (neg.) Grade 7 through Grade 8 2. Comfortable experience .002 .000 5. Easy to talk with peers about social/emotional .033 .002 6. Easy to talk with teachers about social/emotional .007 7. Easy to talk with parents about social/emotional .040 .020 8. Skilled at talking about social/emotional .050 .004 10. Teachers’ comfort with social/emotional .006 .009 11. Gifted kids have fewer problems than othersa .019 (neg.) Grade 8, half year only, January through May 2005 1. Look forward to group .026 (neg.) 3. Groups a good idea .001 (neg.) 4. Need a place to talk about social/emotional .005 (neg.) 9. Social/emotional as important as academics .036 (neg.) 10. Teachers’ comfort with social/emotional .044 (neg.)

a. Reflects that this group became less likely to believe that gifted students have fewer problems than other students.

Table 8. Original Students: Relatively High Means After 2 Years, Regardless of Significant Change

Survey item Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7

1. Comfortable experience 3.34 3.68*** 5. Easy to talk with peers 3.35 3.66* 7. Easy to talk with parents 3.36 3.25 3.63* 8. Skilled at talking about

social/emotional 3.07 3.63**

9. Social/emotional as important as academics

3.79 3.26

10. Teachers’ comfort talking about social/emotional

3.35 3.38 4.00**

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

the actual purpose of the groups was reflected in positive comments by 74% of those. Several at all grade levels com- mented about the loss of Flex, but there were comparatively fewer then.

Positive and negative perspectives. Positive comments, across time, supported the idea of discussion groups: “can help you” (male, fifth), “are fun” (female, fifth), “relaxing” (male, sixth), “help me understand things from different points of view” (female, seventh), and “are a good experi- ence where you can share your thoughts” (female, fifth). A few wrote complete sentences: “Discussion groups rule!” (male, fifth), “I really liked telling how I felt” (female, fifth),

“We should keep discussion groups” (males, sixth and eighth), and “Being able to talk to someone makes me feel better most of the time, especially knowing that there are girls just like me having these problems” (female, fifth). Examples of comments by females supporting same-gender groups were “I prefer gender groups because boys . . . criti- cize me when I speak my mind” (sixth); “Girls listen, boys don’t” (sixth); “Gender is sooooo much better!” (seventh); and “You can be more open” (sixth).

In contrast, examples of negative comments, including rare complete sentences, were “It’s really uncomfortable for me. I’ve never been able to talk about feelings with anybody, but I’m really loud and boisterous at school” (female, fifth), “Good idea, but [they] don’t work” (male, seventh), “Give us Thursday FLEX back!” (male, eighth); “I have not learned anything from them” (female, seventh), and “waste of time” (four males, eighth). Eighth graders were the most likely to be negative about having topics, not being able to choose top- ics, or wanting topics to be more relevant. The schedule was the focus for one male’s (sixth) suggestion: “We should have longer discussion group periods and fewer of them. This would give us a chance to talk more about a certain topic.”

Discussion If the study had not been longitudinal, findings could have inspired pessimism about implementing a small-group affective curriculum for gifted middle school students with

at Northcentral University on January 16, 2015gcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

176 Gifted Child Quarterly 55(3)

noncounselor facilitators. During the first year, the negative survey findings for Grades 6 and 8 were indeed surprising, given the generally quick positive response in the first author’s several years of voluntary attendance group work with gifted youth elsewhere. Nevertheless, in this study, significant change in a positive direction occurred in all areas at one or more grade levels over time—during the first year or over 4 or 5 years. Those changes, and the high means in several areas, argue for optimism about such programs. It might be concluded that work with social and emotional development, in contrast to academic knowledge acquisition, involves com- plex student–student and teacher–student interaction, self- reflection in new ways, unique and unpredictable group dynamics, and ambiguity regarding “product” from time invested. Each of these aspects might be uncomfortable for gifted students at some point. Just as counselors must do, teacher facilitators must gauge when students are ready to respond to a particular approach or topic, rather than viewing them as “resistant.” It is important not to make assumptions about readiness (Prochaska, Norcross, & DiClemente, 1992) even when there is a per- ceived need for attention to affective concerns (Peterson & Lorimer, 2011).

One important finding related to implementing a group curriculum is that change in perception, in a positive direc- tion, is likely to happen slowly. More years of experiencing the group program usually meant more positive perceptions. Based on the negative trends and lack of positive trends dur- ing Years 1 and 2, as compared with the positive differences that occurred for all grade levels over 5 years, “institutional- ization” of the discussion groups likely occurred over time. The group program was no longer new and generally was no longer seen as interfering with an established schedule. Other factors might also have contributed. The teachers became more comfortable with facilitation (Peterson & Lorimer, 2011). Limiting some meetings to a single gender, allowing students to list preferred peers, and incorporating more activ- ities into the group meetings also might have contributed to more positive attitudes. In addition, at the end of Year 2, despite their generally negative perception of the experience, eighth graders’ responses indicated, at a significant level, that their own skills and their teachers’ comfort level had improved. Noteworthy is that most of the high means for the only children followed from Grade 5 through 8 were related to comfort, talking with peers, skills, and attention to social and emotional concerns—all of these supporting the ratio- nale for the group program.

Each new fifth grade class entered middle school with the group program already established. Unlike the original stu- dents, they did not expect a Flex time on Thursdays, and the group program had been explained to them and their parents before the students entered fifth grade. In fact, during the first 2 years of data collection, the fifth graders in the original group, who also had not previously experienced Flex, showed negative change only as related to being able to talk comfort- ably with their parents about social and emotional concerns.

That negative finding is not surprising between the ages of 10 and 12 years, given the developmental tasks of developing identity and constructively breaking away from families of origin (Santrock, 2000) and the tendency for gifted adoles- cents not to tell adults about concerns (Peterson, 2001).

At each grade level, when comparing the same grade level over time, positive change occurred in more areas over all 5 years than over just the final 4 years. That finding sug- gests that, starting in Year 2, students were more receptive to the program. However, change appears to reflect more than just grade level. More differences in a positive direction occurred for Grade 5 than for Grade 6, and for Grade 7 than for Grade 8. In Grade 5, these included perceptions of teach- ers’ ease. Students were probably more likely to relax and talk when teachers were comfortable discussing affective concerns. According to both quantitative and comment data, the original eighth graders sensed teachers’ discomfort, and the students’ negative attitudes, including about structure, may have affected teachers’ comfort reciprocally.

The significant changes in a negative direction for the original sixth and eighth graders stand in contrast to the posi- tive changes just discussed and indicate that age does not seem to be a differentiating factor. These changes might be explained by grade-level student leadership, as one teacher suggested during the follow-up debriefing during Year 1. During Years 1 and 2, the original seventh graders showed significant positive change in several areas. Their only change in a negative direction was their agreeing less that gifted chil- dren have fewer problems than do others their age. They were the only grade level with that change. Their positive group experience, from the outset, might indicate that when students are comfortable interacting with peers about social and emo- tional concerns, and with teachers who also seem comfort- able, they may be more open about their concerns and more likely to conclude that gifted youth have at least as many social and emotional concerns as others have. The groups probably helped students realize that they were not alone with those concerns, reflecting universality (Yalom, 1995).

During the second year, same-gender and mixed-gender groups alternated weekly. That change might be reflected in the higher means in several areas after students moved from sixth to seventh grade. In general, group dynamics change whenever membership changes (Peterson, 2008). However, it is possible that the two types of groups, for each student, were seen quite separately, with the weekly change not affecting the experience in either group.

The affective curriculum that was used and the topics that were added by the program director, over time, offered a flex- ible structure for these predominantly non-counselor facilitators. However, especially before the groups became institutional- ized and before skills had developed, both teachers and stu- dents were venturing into new territory with substantial challenges. Students’ increasing perception that teachers were comfortable talking about affective concerns suggests that experience in group facilitation matters. Students’ own

at Northcentral University on January 16, 2015gcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Peterson and Lorimer 177

skill development and more positive attitudes about groups may have helped the teachers feel comfortable.

Fifth graders, according to their comments, were the most receptive to the affective curriculum. The development-oriented topics in the published curriculum are relevant even in late high school. However, it is possible that the topics related to character, behavior, organization, study skills, and health, which were added by the director, were received better at that level because students are more accustomed to a focus on such topics. Pertinent here, fifth and sixth were the only two grade levels that perceived that the groups had a positive effect on the school. Given that bullying of gifted students peaks in those years, and that “being known” can be a protec- tive factor (Peterson & Ray, 2006), it is possible that these students reflected on school climate, believed it was positive, and assumed that the groups were playing a role in that regard.

Even comments appearing only one to three times were informative to the program director and warrant thought when considering potential problems related to implementa- tion. Areas reflected in such comments include teacher- leader being the reason for a positive or negative experience (e.g., “It depends on the teacher”); doubting teacher invest- ment; perceiving teacher discomfort; groups not being needed in a small, private school; wanting a looser structure; wanting different topics (mentioned mostly by eighth grad- ers); perceiving that the groups were supposed to be about “problems”; discomfort with the gifted label; and irritation with the item about gifted children having fewer problems.

Implications for Educators and Counselors Many student comments, though brief, underscore the impor- tance of creating an affective program carefully in regard to rationale, topics, approach, leader training, logistics, and developmental levels—and then communicating the rationale to both teachers and students. Loss of Flex time (i.e., what students liked or believed they needed), short meeting times not allowing depth, topics perceived not to be relevant, initial discomfort when talking about social and emotional con- cerns, and misunderstandings about purpose (i.e., for devel- opmental support, not therapy)—all these concerns deserve thoughtful consideration prior to program implementation. The process of institutionalization also benefits from a long- term view and patience. The time constraints, problems related to the Flex schedule, and what one teacher viewed as negative grade-level student leadership reflect system-related challenges similar to those noted by Dansby (1996).

Another cautionary note is related to word choice in sur- vey items. During the first year, six students recoiled at the inclusion of the word gifted in the survey, reflecting one finding in Kerr et al.’s (1988) study: that gifted students had mixed feelings about their giftedness, particularly as related to social life. If the focus of a future study is on exploring the subjective experience of development, it might be wise to avoid the word. Irritation with the term, particularly when

assumptions are implied, may preclude students’ consider- ation of development until discussions about integrating gift- edness into one’s identity (Mahoney, 2007) have occurred.

Some mention of the role of the school counselor is also warranted here. The counselor was a group facilitator but was also available as a counseling resource. Though the out- comes were generally positive over time, a more active role for the counselor might nevertheless have been beneficial: for instance, observing group sessions and offering feedback to group members and facilitator, conducting periodic dem- onstrations of group facilitation for the teachers, and offering counselor perspectives as support and as information during debriefings for the facilitators.

Limitations and Future Research One limitation of the study is that the sample fits common stereotypes related to giftedness, with selection based on test scores and school grades and no low-income families repre- sented. Future researchers might replicate the study with a wider range of achievement levels and more socioeconomic diversity in order to explore whether a more diverse popula- tion would respond differently. Replicating the study with gifted students in a public school would also be informative. Regardless of venue, data could be collected throughout implementation.

In this study, the curriculum itself was not examined, and components varied somewhat from year to year in response to student feedback and school needs. All topics were related to affective development. However, a more standardized curriculum would be advisable in future research, important for further replication.

The fact that all middle school students participated likely helped to institutionalize the program and avoided potential research problems related to self-selection for the experi- ence. However, their having no choice regarding participa- tion can be considered a limitation, since that might have affected their experiences.

The study explored both short- and long-term change in specific areas. Comparing “total scores” was not of interest. However, developing a survey to determine global change over time and conducting factor analysis could provide another approach to studying the process.

Last, significant negative changes for Grades 6 and 8 dur- ing the first year likely contributed to the significance levels of positive changes at those grade levels over the next 4 years. Nevertheless, those changes underscore the need for patience during the initial year or two of implementation. At last report, the program continued at the school where the study occurred.

Conclusion This longitudinal study focused on the implementation of an affective curriculum in a private school for students with

at Northcentral University on January 16, 2015gcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

178 Gifted Child Quarterly 55(3)

high intellectual ability in the form of weekly, relatively brief, development-oriented, teacher-led small-group discus- sion for all students in Grades 5 through 8. The researchers found that initial resistance, largely because of the loss of time available for independent activity, including homework, changed to receptivity and gains over the 5 years of the study. Analysis of survey responses offers guidance not only for curriculum development and, in this case, composition of small groups, but also for implementation of programs geared to social and emotional development. Findings sup- port the need for clarity regarding purpose, careful selection of discussion topics, gender considerations, adequate meet- ing length, and patience as students become accustomed to a program. Significant positive change in multiple areas reflected institutionalization of the group program over time.

Appendix Student Survey

Please rate the following on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being “I totally agree,” 1 being “I don’t agree at all,” and DK being “I don’t know.” (Circle your choices.) (Note: A 1-to-5 scale was positioned to the right of each item in the actual survey.)

1. I look forward to coming to discussion group. 2. Participating in discussion groups this year is a

comfortable experience for me. 3. It’s a good idea to have small-group discussion for

kids at [school]. 4. Gifted kids, in general, need a place at school to talk

about social and emotional concerns with an adult. 5. I find it easy to talk about social and emotional

concerns with peers. 6. I find it easy to talk about social and emotional

concerns with teachers. 7. I find it easy to talk about social and emotional

concerns with parents. 8. I am skilled at talking about social and emotional

concerns, in general. 9. Social and emotional development is as important

as academic development for someone my age. 10. [School] teachers are comfortable talking with stu-

dents about social and emotional concerns. 11. Gifted children have fewer problems with “grow-

ing up” than other children do.

(Note: Items 12-14 added to the survey at the end of the first year)

12. I think [school] should continue the groups. 13. I think the groups have had a nice effect on the

whole school. 14. I became well acquainted with at least one other

person through discussion groups this year.

(Note: Item 15 added to the survey at the end of the second year; not analyzed)

15. I liked meeting in gender groups this year.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, author- ship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ablard, K. E. (1997). Self-perceptions and needs as a function of type of academic ability and gender. Roeper Review, 20, 110-115.

Alsop, G. (2003). Asynchrony: Intuitively valid and theoretically reliable. Roeper Review, 25, 118-127.

Association for Specialists in Group Work. (2000). Professional standards for the training of group workers. Group Worker, 29(3), 1-10.

Baker, J. A. (1995). Depression and suicidal ideation among academically gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 218-223.

Baker, S. B., Thomas, R. N., & Munson, W. W. (1983). Effects of cognitive restructuring and structural group discussion as pri- mary prevention strategies. School Counselor, 31, 26-33.

Betts, G., & Kercher, J. (1999). Autonomous learner model: Opti- mizing ability. Greeley, CO: ALPS.

Bidgood, B. A., Wilkie, H., & Katchaluba, A. (2010). Releasing of the steam: An evaluation of the supporting tempers, emotions, and anger management (ATEAM) program for elementary and adolescent-age children. Social Work With Groups: A Journal of Community & Clinical Practice, 33, 160-174.

Bostick, D., & Anderson, R. (2009). Evaluating a small-group counseling program: A model for program planning and improvement in the elementary setting. Professional School Counseling, 12, 428-433.

Buescher, T. M. (2004). Counseling gifted adolescents: A curriculum model for students, parents, and professionals. In S. M. Moon (Ed.), Social/emotional issues, underachievement, and counsel- ing of gifted and talented students (pp. 221-228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Campbell, C. A., & Dahir, C. A. (1997). Sharing the vision: The national standards for school counseling programs. ED 45746. Alexandria, VA: American School Counselor Association.

Capuzzi, D. (2003). Approaches to group work: A handbook for practitioners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Capuzzi, D., & Gross, D. R. (1998). Group counseling: An intro- duction. In D. Capuzzi & D. R. Gross (Eds.), Introduction to group counseling (2nd ed., pp. 3-30). Denver, CO: Love.

Carroll, M. R. (1981). End the plague on the house of guidance: Make counseling part of the curriculum. NASSP Bulletin, 65, 17-22.

at Northcentral University on January 16, 2015gcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Peterson and Lorimer 179

Cole, C. (2004). Character development as an outcome of the Ohio Northern University educational experience. Journal of College and Character, 5(1), Article 2. Retrieved from http://journals.naspa.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1370& context=jcc

Corey, M. S., & Corey, G. (2002). Groups: Process and practice (6th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Crespi, T. D., Gustafson, A. L., & Borges, S. M. (2006). Group counseling in the schools: Considerations for child and family issues. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 22, 67-85.

Daniels, S., & Piechowski, M. M. (2009). Living with intensity: Understanding the sensitivity, excitability and emotional devel- opment of gifted children, adolescents and adults. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Dansby, V. S., (1996). Group work within the school system: Sur- vey of implementation and leadership role issues. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 21, 232-242.

DeLucia-Waack, J. L. (2000). Effective group work in the schools. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 25, 131–132.

Gladding, S. T. (2003). Group work: A counseling speciality (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Goldstein, A., Sprafkin, R., Gershaw, N. J., & Klein, P. (1980) Skill-streaming the adolescent: A structured learn- ing approach to teaching prosocial skills. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Hébert, T. P. (1991). Meeting the affective needs of bright boys through bibliotherapy. Roeper Review, 13, 207-212.

Hébert, T. P. (2000). Helping high ability students overcome math anxiety through bibliotherapy. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 8, 164-178.

Hébert, T. P. (2001). “If I had a new notebook, I know things would change”: Bright underachieving young men in urban class- rooms. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 174-194.

Hébert, T. P., & Neumeister, K. L. S. (2001). Guided viewing of film: A strategy for counseling gifted teenagers. Journal for Secondary Gifted Education, 12, 224-235.

Hillman, B. W., & Reunion, K. B. (1978). Activity group guidance: Process and results. Elementary School Guidance & Counsel- ing, 13, 104-111.

Jackson, P. S. (1997). Bright star–black sky: A phenomenological study of depression as a window into the psyche of the gifted adolescent. Roeper Review, 20, 215-221.

Jackson, P. S., & Peterson, J. S. (2003). Depressive disorder in highly gifted adolescents. Journal for Secondary Gifted Educa- tion. 14, 175-186.

Johnson, K. S. (2000). Affective component in the education of the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 23(4), 36-40.

Johnson, K. S. (2001). Integrating an affective component in the curriculum for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Today, 24(4), 14-18.

Kaczkowski, H. (1979). Group work with children. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 14, 44-51.

Kerr, B., Colangelo, N., & Gaeth, J. (1988). Gifted adolescents’ attitudes toward their giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 245-247.

Kulic, K. R., Dagley, J. C., & Horne, A. M. (2001). Prevention groups with children and adolescents. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 26, 211-218.

Larson, M. L. (2003). TAG, I’m it: A counseling group for talented and gifted adolescents. In D. Capuzzi (Ed.), Approaches to group work (pp. 74-81). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Littrell, J. M., & Peterson, J. S. (2002). Establishing a comprehen- sive group work program in an elementary school: An in-depth case study. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 27, 161-172.

Lovecky, D. V. (1992). Exploring social and emotional aspects of giftedness in children. Roeper Review, 15, 18-25.

Lupkowski, A. E. (1989). Social behaviors of gifted and typical preschool children in laboratory school programs. Roeper Review, 11, 124-127.

Mahoney, A. S. (2007). Gifted identity formation: A therapeutic model for counseling gifted children and adolescents. In S. Mendaglio & J. S. Peterson (Eds.), Models of counseling gifted children, ado- lescents, and young adults. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Mendaglio, S. (2003). Heightened multifaceted sensitivity of gifted students: Implications for counseling. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 72-82.

Moore, L. (1969). A developmental approach to group counseling with seventh graders. School Counselor, 16, 272-276.

Myrick, R. D. (1993). Developmental guidance and counseling: A practical approach (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation.

Nail, J. M., & Evans, J. G. (1997). The emotional adjustment of gifted adolescents: A view of global functioning. Roeper Review, 20, 18-22.

Neihart, M. (2002). Gifted children and depression. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 93-102). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Neumeister, K. L. S., & Finch, H. (2006). Perfectionism in high- ability students: Relational precursors and influences on achievement motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 238-250.

Pedro-Carroll, J. L., Sutton, S. E., & Wyman, P. A. (1999). A two- year follow-up of a preventive intervention for young children of divorce. School Psychology Review, 28, 467-476.

Peterson, J. S. (1993). Talk with teens about self and stress. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.

Peterson, J. S. (1995). Talk with teens about feelings, family, and relationships. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.

Peterson, J. S. (1996). The breakfast club: Poetry and pancakes. Gifted Child Today, 19(4), 16-19, 49.

Peterson, J. S. (2000). A follow-up study of one group of achiev- ers and underachievers four years after high school graduation. Roeper Review, 22, 217-224.

Peterson, J. S. (2001). Gifted and at risk: Four longitudinal case studies. Roeper Review, 24, 31-39.

Peterson, J. S. (2003). An argument for proactive attention to affective concerns of gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 62-71.

Peterson, J. S. (2008). The essential guide to talking with gifted teens. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.

at Northcentral University on January 16, 2015gcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

180 Gifted Child Quarterly 55(3)

Peterson, J. S. (2010). The asset-burden paradox of gifted: A longi- tudinal case study. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Peterson, J. S., Betts, G., & Bradley, T. (2009). Discussion groups as a component of affective curriculum for gifted students. In J. L. VanTassel-Baska, T. L. Cross, & F. R. Olenchak (Eds.), Social-emotional curriculum with gifted and talented students (pp. 289-317). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Peterson, J. S., Duncan, N., & Canady, K. (2009). A longitudinal study of negative life events, stress, and school experiences of gifted youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 34-49.

Peterson, J. S., & Lorimer, M. R. (in press). Small-group affective curriculum for gifted students: A longitudinal study of teacher- facilitators. Roeper Review.

Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006). Bullying among the gifted: The subjective experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 252-269.

Peterson, J. S., & Rischar, H. (2000). Gifted and gay: A study of the adolescent experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 149-164.

Phillips, T. H., & Phillips, P. (1992). Structured groups for high school students: A case study of one district’s program. School Counselor, 39, 390-393.

Plucker, J. A., & Levy, J. J. (2001). The downside of being talented. American Psychologist, 56, 75-76.

Prochaska, J. O., Norcross, J. C., & DiClemente, C. C. (1992). Changing for good: A revolutionary 6 stage program for over- coming bad habits and moving your life positively forward. New York, NY: William Morrow.

Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2002). Underachievement in gifted students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 81-91). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Rice, K. G., Leever, B. A., Christopher, J., & Porter, J. D. (2006). Per- fectionism, stress, and social (dis)connection: A short-term study of hopelessness, depression, and academic adjustment among hon- ors students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 524-534.

Rimm, S. B. (2003). Underachievement: A national epidemic. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 424-443). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Rolland, C. B., & Neitzschman, L. (1996). Groups in schools: A model for training middle school teachers. Journal for Special- ists in Group Work, 21, 18-25.

Rose, S. R. (1987). Social skills training in middle childhood: A structured group approach. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 12, 144-149.

Rose, S. R. (2009). A review of effectiveness of group work with children of divorce. Social Work With Groups: A Journal of Community & Clinical Practice, 33, 160-174.

Santrock, J. W. (2000). Life-span development (7th ed.). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.

Scholwinski, E., & Reynolds, C. R. (1985). Dimensions of anxiety among high IQ children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 125-130.

Swiatek, M. (1998). Helping gifted adolescents cope with social stigma. Gifted Child Today, 21(1), 42-46.

Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. I. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Tong, J., & Yewchuck, C. (1996). Self-concept and sex-role ori- entation in gifted high school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 15-23.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2006). Secondary affective curriculum and instruction for gifted learners. In F. A. Dixon & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 481-503. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

VanTassel-Baska, J., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (Eds.). (1989). Pat- terns of influence on gifted learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Webb, J. R., Amend, E. R., Webb, N. E., Goerss, J., Beljan, P., & Olenchak, F. R. (2005). Misdiagnosis and dual diagnosis of gifted children and adults: ADHD, bipolar, OCD, Asperger’s, depression, and other disorders. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Poten- tial Press.

Whiston, S. C., & Quinby, R. F. (2009). Review of school counsel- ing outcome research. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 267-272.

Whiston, S. C., & Sexton, T. L. (1998). A review of school coun- seling outcome research: Implications for practice. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, 412-426.

Wood, S. J. (1996). Implementing a successful affective curricu- lum. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32, 126-128.

Yalom, I. D. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychother- apy (4th ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Yoo, J. E., & Moon, S. M. (2006). Counseling needs of gifted stu- dents: An analysis of intake forms at a university-based coun- seling center. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 52-61.

Zaffrann, R. T., & Colangelo, N. (1977). Counseling with gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 21, 305-321.

Bios

Jean Sunde Peterson, PhD, is professor and director of school- counselor preparation at Purdue University. Her research and many publications have focused largely on the social and emotional development of high-ability adolescents and the asset-burden para- dox of giftedness. Her considerable clinical work with gifted youth and their families is reflected in Gifted at Risk: Poetic Profiles and The Essential Guide to Talking with Gifted Teens.

Michelle R. Lorimer, MSEd, is a school counselor at Meadow Brook Elementary in Forest Hills Public Schools, Grand Rapids, Michigan. A graduate of the Purdue University School Counseling Program, she was formerly a school counselor in Kokomo, Indiana. Her research interests include the psychosocial effects of grief and loss for elementary-aged children, as well as the affective needs of students with high ability.

at Northcentral University on January 16, 2015gcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from