Education HW help

Gifted Child Quarterly 55(4) 250 –264 © 2011 National Association for Gifted Children Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0016986211418107 http://gcq.sagepub.com

418107GCQXXX10.1177/0016986211 418107Hong et al.Gifted Child Quarterly

1University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA

Corresponding Author: Eunsook Hong, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nevada, Box 453003, Las Vegas, NV 89154-3003, USA Email: [email protected]

Cognitive and Motivational Characteristics of Elementary Teachers in General Education Classrooms and in Gifted Programs

Eunsook Hong1, Mary Greene1, and Stephanie Hartzell1

Abstract

Whether teachers in general education classrooms and in gifted programs differ in their cognitive and motivational characteristics was examined in 182 elementary school teachers. The teacher characteristics examined were epistemological beliefs (beliefs about the nature of knowledge and beliefs about the nature of learning), metacognition (planning, monitoring, and strategy selection), and motivation (self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and goal orientation). Teachers in gifted programs reported more sophisticated epistemological beliefs, higher learning-goal orientation, and lower performance-goal orientation than did teachers in general education classrooms. However, perceived use of metacognitive strategies, self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation were not different between the two groups. Teachers in general reported epistemological sophistication more in the nature of learning than in the nature of knowledge, that they use cognitive strategies more so than planning and monitoring of their activities, and that they are more learning-goal oriented than performance-goal oriented. It is suggested that more courses and trainings are needed for preservice and in-service teachers so they have opportunities to learn and self-reflect on their own characteristics.

Putting the Research to Use

This study compared trait-level cognitive and motivational characteristics between teachers in gifted programs and teachers in general education classrooms. The findings provide some evidence that teachers in gifted programs and teachers in general education classrooms have characteristic differences and that gifted students in pullout programs seem to be more likely to have teachers with certain favorable characteristics. The reality is that the majority of gifted children spend most of their hours in general education classrooms. Therefore, the focus should be whether teacher training can provide opportunities for preservice and in-service teachers in general education as well as in gifted education programs, to become aware of these characteristics evidenced as having strong relationships with student learning. Beyond teacher knowledge and skills, teacher attributes and beliefs about student learning are underscored as important areas in teacher preparation for differentiating instruction for gifted children in the general education classroom. Preservice and in-service teacher trainings should provide teachers with opportunities to learn and self-reflect on their own cognitive and motivational characteristics as they develop into effective teachers.

Keywords

cognitive characteristics, motivational characteristics, teachers, general education classrooms, gifted programs

Teachers are an integral part of success in education. Effec- tive teachers implement relevant teaching strategies, use rel- evant learning and instructional technology, understand students’ characteristics, and use them in the teaching pro- cess. The sheer volume of research on teacher effects on school, program, and student success indicate the importance of the “teacher” in the success of education.

Studies on the characteristics of effective teachers report in-depth knowledge and skills, desirable attitudes and dispositions, high self-efficacy, and proper use of instructional strategies as

distinguishing characteristics (Da Ros-Voseles & Moss, 2007; Rockoff, Jacob, Kane, & Staiger, 2008; Rushton, Morgan, & Richard, 2007; Walker, 2008). Common words to describe

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

Hong et al. 251

effective teachers include competent, expert, analytical, respon- sive, reflective, fair, flexible, creative, challenging, and caring (Evans, 2002; Stronge, 2002; Walker, 2008).

Although characteristics of effective teachers in gifted pro- grams largely overlap with those of effective teachers in gen- eral education classrooms, there are additional characteristics that distinguish effective teachers in those two groups. Effective teachers of gifted children have expertise and in-depth knowl- edge in the subjects they teach, employ effective teaching methods, and provide student-centered and nonthreatening learning environments (Eyre et al., 2002; Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994; Whitlock & DuCette, 1989). Effective teachers of the gifted possess certain personality traits: they have a sense of humor, are willing to make mistakes, and are self-confident, enthusiastic, empathetic, highly tolerant of ambiguity, open, and flexible (Chandler & Bean, 1998; Eyre et al., 2002; Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994; Mills, 2003; Whitlock & DuCette, 1989). They are intellectual and achievement-oriented and tend to be creative thinkers (Chandler & Bean, 1998; Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994; Whitlock & DuCette, 1989).

Effective teachers for a group of students may not be as equally effective in teaching other groups of students (Brophy & Good, 1986). This notion begs the question regarding whether characteristics of the two groups of teachers—teachers in gifted programs versus teachers in general education classrooms—differ from each other. As literatures on effec- tive teachers indicate, there seem to be characteristics that distinguish effective teachers from less effective teachers and those that distinguish teachers in gifted programs from teach- ers in general education classrooms. Most of the studies on teacher characteristics, however, have not focused on cogni- tive and motivational characteristics (e.g., metacognition and intrinsic motivation). Although numerous studies have explored cognitive and motivational characteristics in stu- dents (Hong & Peng, 2008; Schommer & Dunnell, 1994) and some in teachers in general education classrooms (Jordan & Stanovich, 2003; Ross, 1995), research examining these char- acteristics among teachers in gifted programs is rare. In addi- tion, research comparing the characteristics of these two groups of teachers is not found. As the teacher is one of the most essential factors influencing gifted learners (Cramer, 1991; Renzulli, 1968; Whitlock & DuCette, 1989), examin- ing these teacher characteristics is critical for understanding sources that make differences in student success in schools.

With this understanding, the current study focused on teach- ers’ cognitive and motivational characteristics and explored differences between elementary teachers in gifted programs and those in general education classrooms, with the purpose of understanding whether in fact there are differences in teachers who choose or are assigned to teach students in gifted programs versus students in general education classrooms. The characteristics that we examined included a number of indicators of three constructs—epistemological beliefs, meta- cognition, and motivation—that have been shown to influ- ence student learning (Amabile, 1996; Brophy, 2005).

Metacognitive and motivational components in this study were drawn from the social–cognitive perspective of self- regulated learning (Bandura, 1997; Hong, Peng, & Rowell, 2009; Wolters, 2003; Zimmerman, 2000) and other perspec- tives on motivation such as goal orientation and intrinsic motivation (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994; Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1999). Self-regulated learners employ effec- tive metacognitive strategies such as planning activities, monitoring processes, and regulating the use of cognitive strategies (Pintrich, Wolters, & Baxter, 2000). Self-regulated learners are also motivated as they are highly self-efficacious, have intrinsic motivation, and are oriented toward learning goals favorable for mastering tasks (Ames, 1992; Corno, 2001; Pintrich, 2000). As such, learners’ motivation is posi- tively related to cognitive and metacognitive strategy use (Boekaerts, 1997; Schunk, 2001). Epistemological beliefs— beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing—have demonstrated strong relationships with learning and achieve- ment (Buehl & Alexander, 2005; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Schommer, Calvert, Gariglietti, & Bajaj, 1997; Schommer- Aikins & Easter, 2006), cognitive strategy use (Kardash & Howell, 2000; Schommer, Crouse, & Rhodes, 1992), and motivation (Buehl & Alexander, 2005; Ravindran, Greene, & DeBacker, 2005).

We examined 10 indicators for these three constructs that have been evidenced as important in student learning and achievement: epistemological beliefs with two indicators (nature of knowledge and nature of learning), metacognition with three indicators (planning, monitoring, and cognitive strategy use), and motivation with five indicators (self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation for challenging work and for creative work, learning goal, and performance goal). Literatures on these constructs are reviewed in the section below. Because of the limited number of studies with teachers on these con- structs, the review included literature on both students and teachers.

Epistemological Beliefs Individuals’ epistemological beliefs vary along a continuum of naïve to sophisticated beliefs. Individuals with naïve epis- temological beliefs tend to oversimplify information and perform more poorly than do those with sophisticated beliefs (Kardash & Howell, 2000; Schommer et al., 1992). Classroom interactions influence the development of epistemological sophistication (Brownlee, 2001; Jordan & Stanovich, 2003; Marra, 2005). Teachers can facilitate changes in students’ epistemological beliefs by encouraging students to reflect on their epistemological beliefs (Brownlee, Purdie, & Boulton- Lewis, 2001; Gill & Ashton, 2004).

Various conceptualizations of epistemological beliefs have been advanced (Baxter Magolda, 1992; Hofer & Pintrich, 2002; Schommer, 1994). Of these, we used Schommer’s multidimensional conceptualization of epistemological beliefs, which has attracted the interest of many educational

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

252 Gifted Child Quarterly 55(4)

researchers (Braten & Stromso, 2004; Ravindran et al., 2005). The four dimensions that Schommer et al. (1997) pro- posed include beliefs in simple knowledge (knowledge is characterized as isolated pieces vs. knowledge is complex), beliefs in certain knowledge (knowledge is absolute vs. knowledge is uncertain), beliefs in quick learning (learning is quick or not at all vs. knowledge is constructed through learning processes), and beliefs in fixed ability (ability to learn is innate vs. ability is malleable) (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Schoenfeld, 1989; Schommer & Walker, 1995).

The conceptual dimensions proposed by Schommer, however, have been challenged (Clarebout, Elen, Luyten, & Bamps, 2001). Hofer and Pintrich (1997) distinguished the nature of knowledge (beliefs in simple knowledge and cer- tain knowledge) from the nature of learning (beliefs in quick learning and fixed ability). Moreover, beliefs in certain knowledge and beliefs in simple knowledge did not emerge empirically as separate dimensions (Hofer, 2000; Qian & Alvermann, 1995). Based on these theoretical and empirical backgrounds, two components of teachers’ epistemological beliefs—the nature of knowledge and the nature of learning— were examined in this study to determine whether there are differences between teachers in general education class- rooms and those in gifted programs in their epistemological beliefs about students’ learning.

Metacognition Metacognition concerns awareness of monitoring and control of one’s own learning processes through activities such as planning, checking, and strategy selection and use (e.g., Borkowski & Burke, 1996; Flavell, 1979). Effective learners use metacognitive strategies systematically by planning what and how to study and monitoring their progress at various stages of task completion and selecting and using effective cognitive strategies more so than less effective learners (Hong, Sas, & Sas, 2006; Sundre & Kitsantas, 2004). Planning strategies prior to and during tests are associated with high test performance (Kitsantas, 2002). Monitoring complements the planning process in metacognitive activities (Carver & Scheier, 1981), and monitoring and perceived academic com- petence are positively related (Obach, 2003). Although low achievers, in general, have shown difficulties applying meta- cognitive strategies in academic tasks when compared with high achievers (Bryan, Burstein, & Bryan, 2001; Garavalia & Ray, 2003; Kitsantas, 2002), this relationship has not been consistently found (Hong & Peng, 2008; Malpass, O’Neil, & Hocevar, 1999; Schraw, 1997).

Planning instruction, monitoring student progress, and implementing research-based instructional strategies are viewed as important resources for teachers when they make efforts to increase student learning (Stronge, Tucker, & Hindman, 2003). However, although teacher metacognitive activities have been examined in specific subject matters (e.g., mathematics; Artzt & Armour-Thomas, 1992; Garofalo

& Lester, 1985), teachers’ domain-general metacognitive characteristics have not been systematically examined.

Domain generality and specificity have been an issue in examining the impact of cognitive behavior on learning and achievement (Hofer, 2000). Schraw, Dunkle, Bendixen, and Roedel (1995) contend that general cognitive skills serve an important metacognitive role beyond the effect of domain- specific skills and knowledge. Domain-general metacognitive skills are gradually generalized from the experience of using transitory, state metacognitive skills to become relatively sta- ble, trait-like skills (Borkowski & Muthukrishna, 1992; Karmiloff-Smith, 1992). The structure of trait and state self- regulation are invariant, and trait and state measures are highly correlated (Head, Engley, & Knight, 1991; Hong, 1995, 1998). In this study, we examined rarely studied domain-general metacognitive strategy use as perceived by teachers.

Motivation Of the various motivation constructs examined in educa- tional research, self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and goal orientation have demonstrated their importance in student learning and achievement. Teachers’ self-efficacy is posi- tively related to student learning and achievement (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Ross, 1992) and enhanced motivation and positive attitudes toward school (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989). Teachers who per- ceive themselves as highly self-efficacious set challenging goals for students and themselves, persist when they are faced with learning difficulties (Ross, 1995), and are enthu- siastic for their teaching subjects and willing to experiment with new teaching strategies (Allinder, 1994; Tschannem- Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Some individuals apply self-efficacy to various domains and situations (i.e., more general, stable, trait-like), whereas others have narrow effi- cacy beliefs (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Although teacher efficacy has been examined in various studies, the trait-like, general self-efficacy has not been explored. In this study, we explored whether the two groups of teachers differ in their general self-efficacy beliefs.

Intrinsic motivation concerns motivation to engage in a task for its own sake. Intrinsically motivated individuals are interested in and do enjoy the task in which they are engaged, whereas individuals with extrinsic motivation engage in tasks with the goal of seeking recognition and a reward (Wigfied & Guthrie, 1997). Intrinsically motivated individuals prefer challenging tasks, and curiosity or interest drives their learn- ing. As this trait-like intrinsic motivation guides individuals toward challenge, mastery, or creativity (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), it is not surprising to find its relationship with the use of learning strategies (Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992) and high achievement and task completion (Vansteenkiste, Timmermans, Lens, Soenens, & Van den Broek, 2008).

Gifted individuals, especially the creatively talented, are often intrinsically motivated. They tend to exhibit high

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

Hong et al. 253

interest and enjoyment in what they choose to do (Amabile, 1996; Winner, 1996). In a study by Hong, Hartzell, and Greene (2009), the researchers examined intrinsic motiva- tion with two different indicators of intrinsic motivation manifested by teachers’ preference for the kinds of work that are challenging versus those that require creative thinking. They found that teachers who reported having high intrinsic motivation for creative work supported student creativity by engaging in creativity-fostering instructional practices such as providing students with opportunities to solve problems that have more than one answer, to apply knowledge and skills in different or unfamiliar situations, or to develop open- ended questions, whereas teachers with intrinsic motivation for challenging work did not. However, Hong, Hartzell, et al. (2009) did not distinguish teachers in gifted programs and teachers in general education classrooms in their study. In the current study, we adopted this scheme in an effort to determine if there is any difference between the two groups of teachers in the pattern of intrinsic motivation.

As motivation researchers began studying the relation- ship between achievement goals and performance, various goal theories emerged. Dweck and Leggett (1988) suggest that goals provide a framework within which a person inter- prets and responds to events and result in a unique pattern of cognition, behavior, and affect. Of the various perspectives of goal orientation, learning (or mastery or task-involved) goal orientation and performance (or ego-involved) goal ori- entation have been discussed widely (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1999). Individuals with learning goals define success as mastering something new, are interested in their own prog- ress, and tend to choose challenging tasks, thus facilitating the development of competence and task mastery. Individuals with performance goals focus on outperforming others, com- pare their competence with others, and tend to choose tasks in which they know they are able to succeed (Midgley & Urdan, 1995).

Similarly, teachers who foster student adoption of learn- ing goals tend to structure classroom environments that require student involvement, encourage student interaction, emphasize effort, and describe learning as an active process, whereas teachers who focus on performance goals tend to concentrate their efforts on formal assessments, grades, and the relative performance of their students (Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). As high-achieving students tend to be more learning- goal oriented than low-achieving students, it is of interest to find whether teachers in gifted programs and teachers in gen- eral education classrooms also differ in their own goal orien- tations as reflected in their classroom structure.

Purpose of the Study Teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and characteristics brought to their classrooms have been documented as relatively stable and tenacious, thus having long-lasting effects on their

instructional behaviors (Kagan, 1992; Nettle, 1998). In this study, we explored whether characteristic differences exist between teachers in gifted programs and teachers in general education classrooms. We covaried the number of years of teaching experience to control for the effects of classroom teaching experiences in determining the characteristic differ- ence between the two groups of teachers. Having teaching experience has been evidenced to have an impact on the development of cognitive or motivational characteristics of the teacher. Individuals with prior teaching experience dem- onstrated changes in their epistemological sophistication when compared with those with no prior teaching experi- ence (Roberts, Busk, & Comerford, 2001). Likewise, teach- ers with more experience report higher self-efficacy in teaching and classroom management, suggesting the rise of self-efficacy with additional years of teaching practice (Chan, 2008; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). Teacher trainers of more than 3 years of teaching experience were more intrinsically motivated than were novice teacher trainers (Bastick, 2002). More experienced teachers engaged in metacognition in their instructional practice to promote stu- dent learning and understanding, whereas novice teachers focused on content coverage and time management (Artzt & Armour-Thomas, 1998).

In brief, we examined whether the two groups of teachers would demonstrate reliable differences in cognitive and motivational characteristics. The constructs and indicators examined in this study included epistemological beliefs (beliefs about the nature of knowledge and beliefs about the nature of learning), metacognition (planning, monitoring, and strategy selection), and motivation (self-efficacy, intrin- sic motivation, and goal orientation), along with years of teaching as a covariate.

Method Participants

Participants were 182 elementary school teachers (117 in general education classrooms and 65 in gifted programs) of third-, fourth-, and fifth-graders from a large metropolitan school district. All teachers of gifted programs (GATE spe- cialists) are required to attain a GATE certification. Table 1 presents a demographic breakdown of teachers by their teaching placements—general education classrooms and gifted programs. In both teacher groups, there were more female teachers (about 80%) than male teachers. The major- ity of teachers were Caucasian American (84%). Ages of teachers varied widely from 21 years to more than 46 years. The age distributions of the two teacher groups were similar, except that teachers in gifted programs consisted of more teachers who were 46 years and older. About 65% of the teach- ers had attained a master’s degree in each group of teachers. Participants’ teaching experience, defined as the number of years teaching as a full-time teacher, ranged from less than

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

254 Gifted Child Quarterly 55(4)

Table 1. Demographics by Teachers in General Education Classrooms and Teacher in Gifted Programs

Teacher group

General (n = 117) Gifted (n = 65) Total (N = 182)

Gender Male 26 (22%) 9 (14%) 35 (19%) Female 90 (77%) 55 (85%) 145 (80%) Unspecified 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 2 (1%) Age (years) 21-25 8 (7%) 3 (4%) 11 (6%) 26-30 20 (17%) 5 (8%) 25 (14%) 31-35 28 (24%) 5 (8%) 33 (18%) 36-40 20 (17%) 12 (18%) 32 (18%) 41-45 14 (12%) 8 (12%) 22 (12%) 46+ 26 (22%) 31 (48%) 57 (32%) Unspecified 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 2 (1%) Highest degree obtained BA/BS 31 (27%) 12 (19%) 43 (24%) MA/MS 76 (65%) 44 (68%) 120 (66%) EdS 4 (3%) 7 (11%) 11 (6%) EdD/PhD 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 2 (1%) Unspecified 5 (4%) 1 (1%) 6 (3%) Years of teaching ~5 41 (35%) 10 (15%) 51 (28%) 6-10 44 (38%) 8 (12%) 52 (29%) 11-15 9 (8%) 13 (20%) 22 (12%) 16-20 11 (9%) 11 (17%) 22 (12%) 21-25 2 (2%) 6 (9%) 8 (4%) 26-30 4 (3%) 13 (20%) 17 (9%) 31-37 4 (3%) 3 (5%) 7 (4%) Unspecified 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 3 (2%) Gifted education training In-service 26 (22%) 38 (59%) 64 (35%) Endorsement 9 (8%) 43 (66%) 52 (29%) MS specialization 2 (2%) 9 (14%) 11 (6%) MS in gifted education 1 (1%) 6 (9%) 7 (4%) Doctorate specialization 0 (0%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%) Doctorate in gifted education 0 (0%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%)

Note. General = teachers in general education classrooms; Gifted = teachers in gifted programs; EdS = education specialist; MS specialization = master’s degree in education with specialization in gifted education; MS in gifted education = master’s degree in gifted education.

1 year to 37 years, with a median of 10 years. In general, teachers in gifted programs had more teaching experiences than did teachers in general education classrooms. Participants’ training experiences relative to gifted education showed that although there were some teachers in general education classrooms who had attended in-service training in gifted education, teachers in gifted programs reported far more training in gifted education (see Table 1).

Measures Epistemological beliefs. Epistemological Beliefs in Teaching

and Learning (EBTL; Hong & Nadelson, 2006) was used to measure two Epistemological Beliefs subscales. The EBTL

questionnaire was developed based on Schommer (1994) and Wood and Kardash (2002), by modifying items to measure classroom teachers’ beliefs about student learning.

Sample items on beliefs about the nature of knowledge (9 items) are “When I teach, I prefer to make things as simple as possible” and “It’s a waste of time for students to work on problems that have no possibility of coming out with a clear- cut answer.” Sample items for beliefs about the nature of learning (10 items) are “If students don’t understand material right away, repeating the same material usually doesn’t help” and “Smart students don’t have to study very hard to get good grades.” Participants responded to each item by rating them- selves on a 4-point Likert-type scale of agreement: (1) Strongly disagree, (2) Disagree, (3) Agree, and (4) Strongly agree.

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

Hong et al. 255

We subjected EBTL scores to factor analysis using prin- cipal axis factoring (PAF) and maximum likelihood (ML) extraction with a two-factor criterion to determine whether the proposed two-factor structure underlies teachers’ episte- mological beliefs scores. The results from oblique rotation indicated that the factor correlations were small (.22 to .30 with delta = 0). In addition, orthogonal (varimax) rotation yielded simpler structure than that of oblique rotation. Factor solutions from both PAF and ML procedures were similar, with minor differences in loading sizes; the PAF solution is reported henceforth. The two-factor solution accounted for 32% of the variance. Most items developed for each factor (nature of knowledge or nature of learning) loaded on the corresponding factors proposed by the authors. Five items cross-loaded on both factors; four items loaded more heavily onto the intended factor, with only one item developed to measure the nature of knowledge loading more heavily on the noncorresponding factor, the nature of learning. A close inspection of this item (“If I provide many different sides of a theory or a concept to students, it will just confuse them”) indicated that the content is relevant for measuring the nature of knowledge; thus, the item was used as planned. Internal consistency estimates of scores were .65 and .85 for nature of knowledge and nature of learning, respectively.

Metacognition. The Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ; Hong, 2004) was used to measure participants’ perceived behavior in planning, monitoring, and strategy selection. Questionnaire items on metacognition were adopted from a well-established instrument (see Hong, O’Neil, & Feldon, 2005; O’Neil, Sugrue, Abedi, Baker, & Golan, 1992, for the history of instrument development and validation results). Although two empirical factors emerged in this sample— planning and monitoring as one factor and strategy selection as another (49% explained variances)—due to the validation history and empirical one-factor structure for each subscale with 58%, 46%, and 33% explained variances, respectively, the three original indicator scores were used.

Sample items are “I carefully plan my course of action before I start working on a task” (planning; 8 items); “I check my accuracy as I progress through a task” (monitor- ing; 8 items); and “I select and organize relevant information before I work on a task” (strategy selection; 4 items), total- ing 28 items. Participants responded to each item by indicat- ing how they generally think or feel on the following 4-point scale: (1) Almost never, (2) Sometimes, (3) Often, and (4) Almost always. Internal consistency estimates of the scores for planning, monitoring, and strategy use were .91, .87, and .61, respectively.

Motivation. Motivation subscales included in the SAQ (Hong, 2004) were used to measure participants’ perceived self-efficacy, motivational inclination in two areas—enjoying or favoring “challenging” work and enjoying or favoring “creative” work. Self-efficacy items were modified from the generalized self-efficacy scale by Schwarzer and Jerusalem

(1995). The intrinsic motivation items for challenging work were modified from the Work Preference Inventory by Amabile et al. (1994). The items about enjoying work that required creativity were adopted from Hong, Hartzell, et al. (2009). The items characterize individuals who prefer work that involves imagination and creative thinking or individuals who enjoy solving open-ended problems that may have mul- tiple solutions. Goal orientation was measured using Instruc- tional Practice Questionnaire II (IPQ-II; Hong, Nadelson, & Hartzell, 2005). The IPQ-II measured teachers’ goal orienta- tions as they are manifested in their perceived instructional practices in processing and structuring tasks and instruc- tional materials for their students.

With all 38 items included in factor analysis, a four-factor solution fit the data well (44% variance explained), with 3 items loading on more than one factor. Empirical factors extracted were self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, learning goal, and mastery goal. When intrinsic motivation was factor- analyzed separately, two factors emerged, with 54% vari- ance explained. When motivation manifested by favoring challenging work and creative work were factor-analyzed separately, a one-factor structure emerged for each, with 56% and 46% explained variances, respectively.

Sample items are “I am confident that I could deal effi- ciently with unexpected events” (self-efficacy, 8 items); “I enjoy working on complex tasks” (intrinsic motivation— challenge; 4 items); and “I prefer the kind of work for which I can use my imagination or creative thinking” (intrinsic motivation—creative; 4 items). For these three subscales, participants responded to each item by indicating how they generally think or feel on the following 4-point scale: (1) Almost never, (2) Sometimes, (3) Often, and (4) Almost always. Internal consistency estimates of the scores for self-efficacy and motivation for challenging and creative work were .83, .84, and .76, respectively.

IPQ-II began with a general stem (“In my class . . .”) fol- lowed by items. Sample items are “I select challenging instructional materials for my classes” (learning goal orien- tation; 11 items) and “I focus on students’ test performance because good test scores indicate that I taught well” (perfor- mance goal orientation; 11 items). Participants responded to each item by rating their classroom practices on the follow- ing scale: (1) Not at all true, (2) Seldom true, (3) Somewhat true, and (4) Very true. Internal consistency estimates of scores on learning and performance goals were .87 and .87, respectively.

Procedure Data collection. In an effort to distribute questionnaires to

third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade teachers evenly, volunteers were sought at regional meetings of resource room teachers of gifted students. Packets of survey instruments were distributed to teachers attending the meetings who volunteered to distribute

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

256 Gifted Child Quarterly 55(4)

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Indicator Scores for Epistemological Beliefs, Metacognition, and Motivation by Teachers in General Education Classrooms and Teachers in Gifted Programs Adjusted for Years of Teaching Experience

Teacher group

General (n = 117), M (SE) Gifted (n = 65), M (SE) Total (N = 182), M (SE)

Epistemological beliefs Nature of knowledge 2.06 (0.03) 1.89 (0.04) 1.98 (0.03) Nature of learning 1.78 (0.04) 1.71 (0.05) 1.74 (0.03) Total 1.92 (0.03) 1.80 (0.04) Metacognition Planning 2.99 (0.06) 3.02 (0.08) 3.01 (0.05) Monitoring 2.92 (0.05) 2.96 (0.07) 2.94 (0.04) Strategy selection 3.22 (0.04) 3.21 (0.06) 3.21 (0.03) Total 3.04 (0.04) 3.06 (0.06) Motivation Self-efficacy 3.09 (0.04) 3.13 (0.06) 3.11 (0.04) IM challenge 2.97 (0.06) 3.10 (0.08) 3.03 (0.05) IM creative 3.14 (0.05) 3.36 (0.07) 3.25 (0.04) Learning goal 3.31 (0.04) 3.49 (0.05) 3.40 (0.03) Performance goal 2.54 (0.05) 2.20 (0.07) 2.37 (0.04) Total 3.01 (0.03) 3.06 (0.04)

Note. General = teachers in general education classrooms; Gifted = teachers in gifted programs; IM challenge = intrinsic motivation for challenging work; IM creative = intrinsic motivation for creative work. Cell means and estimated marginal means are adjusted for the covariate, years of teaching.

them at the school sites they served. These packets contained consent forms and questionnaire packets—two packets for two teachers of each grade and one packet for the gifted resource room teacher. With the permission of the school administra- tors, volunteers were sought in each grade. The completed questionnaires were then returned to the teachers who distrib- uted questionnaires, who, in turn, sent the packets to a desig- nated school through the school district’s interschool mail delivery system, where the researchers collected the packets.

Data analysis. Inspection of participants with missing val- ues indicated that they were at random (i.e., items skipped were random). Missing data were imputed using maximum likelihood estimation with EM algorithm. The 12 indicators of cognitive and motivational characteristics were normally distributed in each teacher group, with skewness and kurto- sis indices ranging from |.02| to |.85| for teachers in general education classrooms, except one with a slight skewness, 1.57, and from |.08| to |.87| for teachers in gifted programs. Standardized residuals were all less than |3.00| except for one score with −3.06. Influence analyses of these cases caus- ing slight departure indicated that none were influential. Thus, no cases were removed.

To examine profiles of teachers in gifted programs and teachers in general education classrooms, a multivariate approach to repeated-measures analysis of variance was per- formed. As the three constructs—epistemological beliefs, metacognition, and motivation—are conceptually distinct, they were profiled separately for the two groups of teachers. In each construct, several indicators were measured repeatedly

for each participant. For example, for metacognition, repeated measures were planning, monitoring, and strategy selection. Thus, epistemological beliefs, metacognition, and motivation were the within-subject factors examined sepa- rately, and the type of teachers (gifted vs. general) was the between-subject factor. When interactions between the within- and between-subject factors were significant, simple effects were tested. Otherwise, main effects were tested fol- lowed by multiple-comparison tests, where relevant, with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing. Because of the unequal sample sizes in the two groups of teachers, particu- lar attention was paid to the equality of variance–covariance matrices. All multivariate and univariate tests (Box’s and Levene’s) indicated that the equality assumption was met, with p values ranging from .09 to .92. Other assumptions to profile analysis were satisfactory.

Results The means and standard deviations of indicator scores for epistemological beliefs (EB), metacognition, and motivation adjusted for years of teaching experience are presented in Table 2 for the two groups of teachers. In general, EB scores of teachers in gifted programs were lower (more sophisti- cated) and their metacognition and motivation scores were higher, except for performance goal, as compared with the scores of teachers in general education classrooms. Tests for statistical significance on the mean differences and effect sizes are provided below.

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

Hong et al. 257

Epistemological Beliefs

The teacher-group difference in the combined EB scores (i.e., nature of knowledge and nature of learning) was statis- tically significant, F(1, 179) = 4.67, p < .05, partial η2 = .03, indicating a small effect size. See Table 2 for marginal group means adjusted for years of teaching.

The EB main effect was statistically and practically sig- nificant, F(1, 179) = 29.16, p < .0005, partial η2 = .14. The mean nature of knowledge was higher than the mean nature of learning, indicating that teachers have more sophisticated beliefs about the nature of learning when compared with nature of knowledge (see Table 2 for means).

There was no interaction effect between EB and teacher group, p = .11.

Metacognition Neither teacher-group difference nor interaction effect between teacher-group and metacognition was significant, ps > .70. The main effect of metacognition was statistically significant, F(2, 178) = 5.61, p = .004, with a medium effect size, partial η2 = .06. Pairwise comparisons among the three indicators showed that all three pairs were statistically sig- nificantly different, ps ranging from .04 to .0005. As can be seen in the marginal means in Table 2, strategy selection was the highest, followed by planning and monitoring.

Motivation A statistically significant interaction effect was found between motivation and teacher group, F(4, 176) = 9.19, p < .0005, partial η2 = .17. Simple effects of teacher-group dif- ferences for each motivation indicator revealed that group difference was significant only in the two goal orientation indicators, F(1, 179) = 8.44, p = .004, partial η2 = .05, for learning-goal orientation, and F(1, 179) = 14.10, p < .0005, partial η2 = .07, for performance-goal orientation.

When motivation indicator differences within each teacher group were tested, the indicator differences were sig- nificant. Within the group of teachers in general education classrooms, all pairs of the motivation indicators were sig- nificantly different, except for the differences between self- efficacy and the two intrinsic motivation (IM) indicators (challenge, creative), ps > .05. The highest mean score was with learning goal, followed by IM-creative, and self-efficacy and IM-challenge, and performance goal (see adjusted cell means in Table 2).

Within the group of teachers in gifted programs, all pairs of the motivation indicators were significantly different, except for the differences between self-efficacy and IM-challenge, and between IM-creative and learning-goal orientation, ps > .40. The highest means were those of learn- ing goal and IM-creative, followed by self-efficacy and IM-challenge, with the lowest score of performance goal

(see adjusted cell means in Table 2). The mean score ranks for the two groups were very similar.

The motivation main effect was also significant, F(4, 176) = 34.31, p < .0005, partial η2 = .44. When both teacher groups were analyzed together, all mean pairs were significantly different except for one pair, self-efficacy and IM-challenge. Again, the highest and the lowest means were learning-goal orientation and performance-goal orientation, respectively (see adjust marginal means in Table 2). Figure 1 presents motivation scores for groups of teachers in general education classrooms and in gifted programs.

Discussion We discuss first the teacher-group differences in cognitive and motivational characteristics, followed by the differences among indicators of each construct—epistemological beliefs, metacognition, and motivation.

Teachers in general education classrooms and teachers in gifted programs differed in epistemological beliefs and goal orientation. Characteristics of teachers in gifted programs corresponded to those evidenced as having more positive impact on student learning and achievement. However, other characteristics—perceived use of metacognitive strategies, self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation—were similar across the two teacher groups.

Teachers in gifted programs reported more sophisticated epistemological beliefs (nature of knowledge and nature of learning), higher learning-goal orientation, and lower performance- goal orientation than did teachers in general education class- rooms. Brownlee et al. (2001) and Gill and Ashton (2004) contend that teachers can facilitate the development of stu- dents’ epistemological sophistication. However, if teachers themselves do not hold sophisticated beliefs, they are not likely able to help students. More teachers in gifted programs reported that they structure the classroom environment and use instructional materials in ways that foster student learn- ing. However, more teachers in general education class- rooms reported having focused on students’ test performance. Previous studies indicated that teachers who facilitate the development of learning goals in students provide classroom environments that describe learning as an active process and require student involvement in learning (Patrick et al., 2001; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). The findings are encouraging for students in gifted programs as their teachers adopt learn- ing-goal orientation when structuring instruction and class- rooms. However, teachers in general education classrooms seem more focused on performance and test scores than learning and mastery of materials. It should be noted that these differences may be attributed to the content that teach- ers are expected to teach. Gifted programs are largely designed for enrichment activities. Students in gifted pro- grams are likely to have mastered the content. Thus, teachers in gifted programs may not be concerned about test perfor- mance. Although the data and findings are from teachers’

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

258 Gifted Child Quarterly 55(4)

Figure 1. Motivation subscale scores by teachers in general education classrooms and in gifted programs Note. 1 = self-efficacy; 2 = intrinsic motivation for challenging work; 3 = intrinsic motivation for creative work; 4 = learning goal; 5 = performance goal.

self-perceived goal orientation, the content differences that two groups of teachers cover might have been part of the rea- sons for the group difference in perceived goal orientation.

The two teacher groups did not differ in their reported use of metacognition. In previous research, the relationship between achievement and metacognition has not been con- sistent across studies, although more findings point to a posi- tive relationship (Bryan et al., 2001; Garavalia & Ray, 2003; Sundre & Kitsantas, 2004) than no relationship (Hong, Peng, et al., 2009; Schraw, 1997). Studies on teachers’ metacogni- tion are noticeably sparse. Only a few empirical studies have examined teachers’ metacognitive activities in mathematics (Artzt & Armour-Thomas, 1992; Garofalo & Lester, 1985). The findings of this study indicate that teachers in both groups perceive themselves as engaging highly in metacog- nitive activities (adjusted means were more than 3 on the 4- point scale). However, whether this nonsignificant difference implies that metacognitive trait has little influence in select- ing and using teaching strategies is to be further investigated. In addition, more studies on teachers’ metacognition and its impact on student learning are warranted.

Studies on teachers’ self-efficacy have demonstrated that teachers with high efficacy beliefs take responsibility for student outcomes, set challenging goals for students and themselves, persist when they are faced with learning difficulties, and are

enthusiastic for their teaching subjects and willing to experi- ment with new teaching strategies (Allinder, 1994; Ross, 1995; Tschannem-Moran et al., 1998). Interestingly, the current study found no differences in general self-efficacy between the two teacher groups. Teachers in both groups may believe that their general sense of self-efficacy is similarly high (adjusted means were more than 3 on the 4-point scale). This is encouraging; however, their efficacy beliefs related to teaching may differ. Various experiences in teaching through- out the years may lead to the development of teaching efficacy that is qualitatively different across teachers. The relation- ship between general self-efficacy beliefs and teaching self- efficacy is an interesting topic for future study.

Similar to the findings on self-efficacy beliefs, no differ- ences were observed in perceived intrinsic motivation between the two groups of teachers. Teachers reported high levels of intrinsic motivation by indicating a preference for work that is challenging or that requires creativity (adjusted means of 2.97-3.36 on the 4-point scale). Although the high scores are promising, whether these self-reported levels of motivation are translated into teaching practice has been rarely studied (Hong, Hartzell, et al., 2009). In research stud- ies with students, intrinsic motivation has shown to have a positive relationship with the use of learning strategies and high achievement (Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992; Vansteenkiste

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

Hong et al. 259

et al., 2008). More studies on the relationship between teach- ers’ intrinsic motivation and their teaching practice are warranted.

When the two indicators of epistemological beliefs were compared, teachers seem to have developed epistemological sophistication regarding the nature of learning (i.e., learning takes time, ability is not fixed) more than the nature of knowledge (i.e., knowledge is complex and uncertain). Experiences in classroom teaching allow teachers to observe how students learn, which in turn helps them develop beliefs about the nature of learning. However, teaching experiences may not be as influential on the development of belief sophistication about the nature of knowledge. The slightly more sophisticated than naïve levels of epistemological beliefs reported by teachers (adjusted mean scores 1.74-1.98 on the 4-point scale; lower scores indicate higher sophistica- tions) suggest that teachers’ epistemological beliefs should constitute an important topic of discussion during and after a teacher education program.

Although teachers report having selected proper strate- gies for instruction, they do less planning and monitoring of their activities. Adjusted mean scores (2.94-3.21 on the 4-point scale) suggest that, on average, teachers engage in metacognitive activities “often.” Whether this reported level translates into student learning is to be further investigated.

In both teacher groups, the highest motivation indicator was learning goal, followed by intrinsic motivation for cre- ative work, self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation for difficult work, and performance goal. The finding that more teachers perceive themselves as learning-goal oriented rather than performance-goal oriented is encouraging, as the former has demonstrated its relationship with high achievement (Midgley & Urdan, 1995). The findings, however, are based on self- ratings. Whether teachers do in fact structure their class- rooms to promote students’ learning-goal orientation is to be further studied.

More teachers in this study reported that they are more motivated for the creative type of work than challenging type of work. In the study conducted by Hong, Hartzell, et al. (2009), although teachers who prefer creative work reported practicing creativity-fostering instruction, preference for challenging work was not related to creativity-fostering instructional practice. Teachers’ self-report may reflect their preferences to different types of work. However, whether they are actually practicing classroom instruction according to their preferences needs to be further investigated. Teachers, on average, reported an adjusted mean of more than 3 (on the 4-point scale), except for performance goal, indicating that they perceive themselves learning-goal oriented, confident, and intrinsically motivated more so than not.

Educational Implications This study is the first to compare trait-level cognitive and motivational characteristics between teachers in gifted programs

and teachers in general education classrooms. Thus, there are many questions generated from this study that should be answered in follow-up investigations. The few group differ- ences found in the study were favorable to teachers in gifted programs. The findings are from the two groups of teachers with similar distributions of the highest academic degree and age (except for one level, 46 years or older, with more teach- ers in gifted programs). In addition, the effect of teaching experience was partialled out when comparing the two groups of teachers. However, teachers in gifted programs reported receiving more training in gifted education than did teachers in general education classrooms. Based on the cur- rent data, however, whether teachers of the gifted were inclined to possess characteristics that are congruent with those that have demonstrated as having positive relationships with achievement is difficult to clarify. Likewise, whether their gifted education training facilitated the development of desirable characteristics needs further examination.

Gifted students in pullout programs seem to have opportu- nities to be taught by teachers with certain favorable charac- teristics. It is also possible that teachers of the gifted may undergo conceptual changes throughout the years of having opportunities to observe and learn from interaction with gifted students, as some gifted students challenge teachers with higher expectations for better-quality instruction. It has been observed that many characteristics of effective teachers were in many ways similar to those typically ascribed to gifted stu- dents (Howley, Howley, & Pendarvis, 1986; Mills, 2003).

Two decades ago, Mandrell and Fiscus (1981) argued that not all teachers should be assigned to teach the gifted. Brophy and Good (1986) also suggested that effective teachers for a group of students may not be effective in teaching other groups of students. Although the current study shows some evidence that teachers in gifted programs and teachers in general education classrooms have characteristic differences in some areas, there were more similarities than differences in as far as the trait-like characteristics examined in the study are concerned. However, the important reality is that the majority of gifted children spend most of their hours in gen- eral education classrooms. Thus, the focus should be whether teacher training can provide opportunities for preservice and in-service teachers in general education as well as in gifted education programs to become aware of these characteristics evidenced as having strong relationship with student learn- ing. VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh (2005) pointed out challenges for serving gifted students in general education classrooms, including teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about learning and lack of teacher knowledge (content, curriculum modification), skills (classroom management, pedagogy, diversity), and resources (time, support). Beyond teacher knowledge and skills, teacher attributes and beliefs about student learning are underscored as an important area in teacher preparation for differentiating instruction for gifted children in the general education classroom. In the same vein, Ross (1995) proposed that skill-development approaches

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

260 Gifted Child Quarterly 55(4)

that preservice and in-service training programs have adopted be augmented by attending to teacher beliefs (e.g., self-efficacy and epistemological beliefs).

Teachers in gifted programs receive trainings for gifted education in various formats such as university courses, in- service trainings, or workshops on gifted education, gifted- ness, and creativity. However, these trainings frequently do not include time for discussing teacher beliefs or attributes but involve spending time for learning about gifted students’ characteristics (Gross, 1994; Whitton, 1997). Although there are numerous literatures that discuss the importance of incor- porating teacher attributes and dispositions into teacher edu- cation, most of these pieces discuss characteristics such as attitude, enthusiasm, high expectations, temperament, or learning styles (Baum & King, 2006; Nath & Balan, 2010; West & Hudson, 2010). Paris and Winograd (2003), how- ever, urge teacher education programs to implement contex- tualized instructional practices by helping teachers attain understanding of cognitive and motivational principles of learning and teaching and to promote those principles for students by modeling metacognitive strategies (e.g., self- monitoring) and motivational characteristics (e.g., mastery goal orientation; Gordon, Dembo, & Hocevar, 2007). A col- lege reported benefits of assessing various dispositions of all applicants to the teacher education program (Mullin, 2003). These included intrinsic motivation, creativity, problem solving, and reflection, anticipating positive outcomes from helping candidates recognize the need for dispositional devel- opment. However, relevant literatures of the past 10 years seem to indicate that no teacher education program system- atically incorporates such cognitive and motivational charac- teristics into courses. More courses and trainings are needed for preservice and in-service teachers so they have opportu- nities to learn and self-reflect on their own characteristics as they develop into effective teachers.

Limitations and Future Research Teacher characteristics were measured by self-report in this study. Although some studies suggest that self-reports can be valid indicators of educational constructs (O’Neil, Sugrue, & Baker, 1995/1996), especially individuals’ belief systems, readers are reminded to exercise caution in interpreting the findings, as the instrument we used may not reflect teachers’ real characteristics. We examined a few cognitive and moti- vational characteristics for comparing two groups of teach- ers in this study. Understanding other important teacher attributes and beliefs that may distinguish the two groups may enlighten further areas that teacher education and pro- fessional development should tackle to improve the educa- tion of all children. Teacher experiences in teacher education programs—content and pedagogy courses they have taken and kinds of practicum and field experiences—are important determinants of teacher quality. However, unless teacher training includes teacher characteristics in the program and

fosters the development of desirable teacher attributes, the training will be less than effective as teacher characteristics are the foundation for building knowledge and skills for effective teaching. Future research should examine the effects of preservice and in-service training that target fostering desirable teacher beliefs and attributes.

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

Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationships between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consul- tants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(2), 86-95.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: West- view Press.

Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 950-967.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student moti- vation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Development of a cognitive-metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 137-175.

Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1998). Mathematics teaching as problem solving: A framework for studying teaching meta- cognition underlying instructional practice in mathematics. Instructional Sciences, 26, 5-25.

Ashton, P., & Webb, R. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York, NY: Longman.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

Bastick, T. (2002, January). Materialist culture and teacher attri- bution in the Caribbean: Motivational differences between novice and experienced Jamaican teacher trainees. Paper presented at the Annual Conference on Caribbean Culture, Kingston, Jamaica.

Baum, A., & King, M. A. (2006). Creating a climate of self-awareness in early childhood teacher preparation programs. Early Child- hood Education Journal, 33, 217-222.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161-186.

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

Hong et al. 261

Borkowski, J. G., & Burke, J. E. (1996). Theories, models, and measurements of executive functioning: An information pro- cessing perspective. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 235-261). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Borkowski, J. G., & Muthukrishna, N. (1992). Moving metacogni- tion into the classroom: “Working models” and effective strat- egy instruction. In M. Pressley, K. Harris, & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 477-501). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Braten, I., & Stromso, H. I. (2004). Epistemological beliefs and implicit theories of intelligence as predictors of achievement goals. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 371-388.

Brophy, J. (2005). Goal theorists should move on from performance goals. Educational Psychologist, 40, 167-176.

Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Whitrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328-375). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Brownlee, J. (2001). Knowing and learning in teacher education: A theoretical framework of core and peripheral epistemological beliefs. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education and Devel- opment, 4, 167-190.

Brownlee, J., Purdie, N., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2001). Changing epistemological beliefs in pre-serve teacher education students. Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 247-268.

Bryan, T., Burstein, K., & Bryan, J. (2001). Students with learn- ing disabilities: Homework problems and promising practices. Educational Psychologist, 36, 167-180.

Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2005). Motivation and perfor- mance differences in students’ domain-specific epistemologi- cal belief profiles. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 697-726.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control theory approach to human behavior. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Chan, D. W. (2008). General, collective, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy among Chinese prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1057-1069.

Chandler, L. A., & Bean, R. M. (1998). The personalities of exem- plary teachers. Journal of Research in Education, 8, 64-67.

Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Luyten, L., & Bamps, H. (2001). Assessing epistemological beliefs: Schommer’s questionnaire revisited. Educational Research & Evaluation, 7, 53-77.

Corno, L. (2001). Volitional aspects of self-regulated learning. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 191-225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cramer, R. H. (1991). The education of gifted children in the United States: A Delphi study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 84-91.

Da Ros-Voseles, D., & Moss, L. (2007). The role of dispositions in the education of future teachers. Young Children, 62(5), 90-96.

Dweck, C. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, person- ality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. In S. T. Fiske, D. L. Schacter, & C. Sahn-Waxler (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (pp. 109-132). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Evans, J. F. (2002). Effective teachers: An investigation from the perspectives of elementary school students. Action in Teacher Education, 24(3), 51-62.

Eyre, D., Coates, D., Fitzpatrick, M., Higgins, C., McClure, L., Wilson, H., & Chamberlin, R. (2002). Effective teaching of able pupils in the primary school: The findings of the Oxford- shire Effective Teachers of Able Pupils Project. Gifted Educa- tion International, 16, 158-169.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psy- chologist, 34, 906-911.

Garavalia, L., & Ray, M. (2003). Distinctions among subgroups of developmental students: Differences in task value, self-regulated learning, and grade expectations. Research & Teaching in Devel- opmental Education, 19(2), 29-40.

Garofalo, J., & Lester, F. K. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive mon- itoring, and mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 163-176.

Gill, M. G., & Ashton, P. T. (2004). Changing preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs about teaching and learning in math- ematics: An intervention study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 164-185.

Gordon, S., Dembo, M. H., & Hocevar, D. (2007). Do teachers’ own learning behaviors influence their classroom goal orien- tation and control ideology? Teaching and Teacher Educa- tion: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 23, 36-46.

Gross, M. U. M. (1994) Changing teacher attitudes to gifted stu- dents through inservice training. Gifted and Talented Interna- tional, 9(1), 15-21.

Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 115-121.

Head, L. Q., Engley, E., & Knight, C. B. (1991). The effects of trait anxiety on state anxiety and perception of test difficulty for undergraduates administered high and low difficulty tests. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 18, 65-68.

Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychol- ogy, 25, 378-405.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epis- temological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

262 Gifted Child Quarterly 55(4)

Hong, E. (1995). A structural comparison between state and trait self-regulation models. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 333-349.

Hong, E. (1998). Differential stability of state and trait self- regulation in academic performance. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 148-158.

Hong, E. (2004). Self Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ). Unpub- lished document, College of Education, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Hong, E., Hartzell, S., & Greene, M. T. (2009). Fostering creativity in the classroom: Effects of teachers’ epistemological beliefs, motivation, and goal orientation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 192-208.

Hong, E., & Nadelson, L. (2006). Epistemological beliefs in teach- ing and learning. Unpublished document, College of Educa- tion, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Hong, E., Nadelson, L., & Hartzell, S. A. (2005). Instructional Practice Questionnaire II. Unpublished document, College of Education, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Hong, E., O’Neil, H. F., & Feldon, D. (2005). Gender effects on mathematics achievement: Mediating role of state and trait self- regulation. In A. M. Gallagher & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gen- der differences in mathematics (pp. 264-293). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hong, E., & Peng, Y. (2008). Do Chinese students’ perceptions of test value affect test performance? Mediating role of motiva- tional and metacognitive regulation in test preparation. Learn- ing and Instruction, 18, 499-512.

Hong, E., Peng, Y., & Rowell, L. L. (2009). Homework self-regulation: Grade, gender, and achievement-level differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 269-276.

Hong, E., Sas, M., & Sas, J. C. (2006). Test-preparation and test- taking strategies of high and low achievers in mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 144-155.

Howley, A., Howley, C. B., & Pendarvis, E. D. (1986). Teaching gifted children: Principles and strategies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. Elementary School Journal, 93, 356-372.

Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2003). Teachers’ personal epistemo- logical beliefs about students with disabilities as indicators of effective teaching practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 3(1), 1-14.

Kardash, C. M., & Howell, K. L. (2000). Effects of epistemological beliefs and topic-specific beliefs on undergraduates’ cognitive and strategic processing of dual positioned text. Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, 92, 534-535.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27, 65-90.

Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective in cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Kitsantas, A. (2002). Test preparation and performance: A self- regulatory analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 101-113.

Malpass, J. R., O’Neil, H. F., Jr., & Hocevar, D. (1999). Self-reg- ulation, goal orientation, self-efficacy, worry, and high-stakes math achievement for mathematically gifted high school stu- dents. Roeper Review, 21, 281-288.

Mandrell, C., & Fiscus, E. (1981). Understanding exceptional peo- ple. New York, NY: West Publishing.

Marra, R. (2005). Teacher beliefs: The impact of the design of con- structivist learning environments on instructor epistemologies. Learning Environments Research, 8, 135-155.

Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related beliefs in mathemat- ics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, 81, 247-258.

Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school stu- dents’ use of self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 389-411.

Mills, C. J. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: Teacher background and personality styles of stu- dents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 272-281.

Mullin, D. (2003). Developing a framework for the assessment of teacher candidate dispositions (ERIC Document Reproduc- tion Service No. ED479255). Retrieved from http://www.eric .ed.gov/PDFS/ED479255.pdf

Nath, B. K., & Balan, M. (2010). Teacher-pedagogy approach for sustainable proficiency. (ERIC Document Reproduction Ser- vice No. ED507759). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ PDFS/ED507759.pdf

Nettle, E. B. (1998). Stability and change in the beliefs of student teachers during practice teaching. Teaching and Teacher Edu- cation, 14, 193-204.

Obach, M. S. (2003). A longitudinal-sequential study of perceived academic competence and motivational beliefs for learning among children in middle school. Educational Psychology, 23, 323-328.

O’Neil, H. F., Sugrue, B., Abedi, J., Baker, E. L., & Golan, S. (1992). Final report of experimental studies on motivation and NAEP test performance (Report to NCES, Grant No. RS90159001). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

O’Neil, H. F., Jr., Sugrue, B., & Baker, E. L. (1995/1996). Effects of motivational interventions on the National Assessment of Educational Progress mathematics performance. Educational Assessment, 3, 135-157.

Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (2003). The role of self-regulated learning in contextual teaching: Principles and practices for teacher preparation. A commissioned paper for the U.S. Department of Education project, “Preparing Teachers to Use Contextual Teaching and Learning Strategies to Improve Stu- dent Success In and Beyond School.” Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. C., & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers’ Communication of goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 102, 35-58.

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

Hong et al. 263

Pintrich, P. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Pintrich, P., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 149-183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pintrich, P., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacog- nition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43-97). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Qian, G., & Alvermann, D. (1995). Role of epistemological beliefs and learned helplessness in secondary school students’ learning science concepts from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 282-292.

Ravindran, B., Greene, B. A., & DeBacker, T. K. (2005). The role of achievement goals and epistemological beliefs in the predic- tion of pre-service teachers’ cognitive engagement and learn- ing. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 222-233.

Renzulli, J. S. (1968). Identifying key features in programs for the gifted. Exceptional Children, 35, 217-221.

Roberts, W. L., Busk, P. L., & Comerford, S. S. (2001, February). Epistemological beliefs of teacher credential students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.

Rockoff, J. E., Jacob, B. A., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). Can you recognize an effective teacher when you recruit one? (NBER Working Paper No. 14485). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 503-324)

Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17, 51-65.

Ross, J. A. (1995). Strategies for enhancing teachers’ beliefs in their effectiveness: Research on a school improvement hypoth- esis. Teachers College Record, 97, 227-251.

Rushton, S., Morgan, J., & Richard, M. (2007). Teacher’s Myers- Briggs personality profiles: Identifying effective teacher personality traits. Teaching and Teacher Education: An Inter- national Journal of Research and Studies, 23, 432-441.

Schraw, G. (1997). The effect of generalized metacognitive knowl- edge on test performance and confidence judgments. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 135-146.

Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., Bendixen, L. D., & Roedel, T. D. (1995). Does a general monitoring skill exist? Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, 87, 433-444.

Schunk, D. (2001). Social-cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 125-151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Explorations of students’ mathemati- cal beliefs and behavior. Journal of Research in Mathematical Education, 20, 338-355.

Schommer, M. (1994). An emerging conceptualization of episte- mological beliefs about their role in learning. In R. Garner &

P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 25-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schommer, M., Calvert, C., Gariglietti, G., & Bajaj, A. (1997). The development of epistemological beliefs among secondary stu- dents: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychol- ogy, 89, 37-40.

Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 435-443.

Schommer, M., & Dunnell, P. A. (1994). A comparison of epis- temological beliefs between gifted and non-gifted high school students. Roeper Review, 16, 207-210.

Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1995). Are epistemological beliefs similar across domains? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 424-432.

Schommer-Aikins, M., & Easter, M. (2006). Ways of knowing and epistemological beliefs: Combined effect on academic perfor- mance. Educational Psychology, 26, 411-423.

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Mea- sures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and con- trol beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, England: NFER-Nelson.

Stronge, J. H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Stronge, J. H., Tucker, P. D., & Hindman, J. L. (2003). Handbook for qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sundre, D. L., & Kitsantas, A. (2004). An exploration of the psy- chology of the examinee: Can examinee self-regulation and test- taking motivation predict consequential and non-consequential test performance? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 6-26.

Tschannem-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educa- tional Research, 68, 202-248.

Vansteenkiste, M., Timmermans, T., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Van den Broek, A. (2008). Does extrinsic goal framing enhance extrinsic goal-oriented individuals’ learning and performance? An experimental test of the match perspective versus self- determination theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 387-397.

VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and pos- sibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44, 211-217.

Walker, R. J. (2008). Twelve characteristics of an effective teacher: A longitudinal, qualitative, quasi-research study of in-service and pre-service teachers’ opinions. Educational Horizons, 87, 61-68.

West, E. A., & Hudson, R. F. (2010). Using early career special educations voice to influence initial teacher education. Interna- tional Journal of Whole Schooling, 6, 63-74.

Whitlock, M. S., & DuCette, J. P. (1989). Outstanding and aver- age teachers of the gifted: A comparative study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 15-21.

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

264 Gifted Child Quarterly 55(4)

Whitton, D. (1997). Regular classroom practices with gifted stu- dents in grades 3 and 4 in New South Wales, Australia. Gifted Education International, 12(1), 34-38.

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s moti- vation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420-432.

Winner, E. (1996). The rage to master: The decisive role of talent in the visual arts. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excel- lence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts, sci- ence, sports, and games (pp. 271-302). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wolters, C. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an under- emphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educational Psy- chologist, 38, 189-205.

Wolters, C., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teach- ers’ sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level. Journal of Educational Psy- chology, 99, 181-193.

Wood, P., & Kardash, C. (2002). Critical elements in the design and analysis of studies of epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 231-260). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cogni- tive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Bios

Eunsook Hong is professor of educational psychology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Her areas of research interest include creativity, giftedness, self-regulation, motivation, and homework. Books published include Preventing Talent Loss and Homework: Motivation and Learning Preferences. She has been serving as an editorial board mem- ber for journals in education, creativity, and giftedness.

Mary Greene graduated from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, with a PhD in special education with emphasis in Gifted Education, Learning Disabilities, and Educational Administration. She is currently employed by the Clark County School District as a teacher in the Gifted and Talented program (GATE) for the past 20 years. She is also an instructor at UNLV where she teaches courses on gifted education regarding curriculum design to instruc- tional techniques designed to foster creativity. She is the past presi- dent of Nevada’s Association for the Gifted and Talented, where she served for two terms in office.

Stephanie Hartzell is a doctoral candidate in educational psychology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, with an emphasis in research methods. Her research focuses on the differential development of tal- ented individuals across domains, examining various factors that affect talent development. She has earned a master’s in business administra- tion and a bachelor’s degree in physics.

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