- Email: [email protected]
Investigate Attitudes of Parents and Teachers About Educational Placement of Gifted Students
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 631 – 636
3rd World Conference on Psychology, Counselling and Guidance (WCPCG-2012)
Investigate Attitudes of Parents and Teachers About Educational Placement of Gifted Students Abbas Ali Hosseinkhanzadeh a *, Taiebeh Yeganeh b, Mahbobe Taher c a
b
Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran young researchers club, Tonekabon branch, Islamic Azad university,Tonekabon, Iran c M. A., In General Psychology, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
Abstract One of the main barriers to the implementation of integrating gifted students is changing attitudes. The purpose of this study was to investigating of the attitudes of parents and teachers about educational placement of gifted students. The statistical population of study included all parents and teachers of gifted students in Babol city that all of them (64 teachers and 96 parents) were selected as a sample. Attitudes assessment of parents and teachers of gifted student's inventory was used to collect the data. The results indicated that both parents and teachers have negative attitudes about integration of gifted students. © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. © 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer review Uzunboylu under the & responsibility Dr. Melehat HalatUniversity, Cyprus Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Huseyin Dr. MukaddesofDemirok, Near East Keywords: Attitudes assessment, gifted students, educational placement;
1. Introduction For numerous years behaviorism specialists defined gifted as persons with high intelligence. But in recent decades terms such as creativity and talented have used for description gifted too (Hallahan & Kauffman, 2009). Someone can be considered gifted at one day and not the next, simply because an arbitrary definition has been changed (Kauffman & Hallahan, 2005). In other words, giftedness is defined, not discovered (Gallagher, 2002). Giftedness appears to involve both qualitative and quantitative differences in thinking (Goldsmith, 2005). Gifted students are often actually sensitive to their own feelings and those of others and highly concerned about interpersonal relationships, intrapersonal states, and moral issues. In short, gifted students are self-aware, selfassured, socially skilled and morally responsible. Many of these students are happy, well liked by their peers, emotionally stable, and self-sufficient (Colman & Cross, 2000; Neihart et al, 2002). All students at all ages have relative talent strengths, and schools should help students to identify and understand their own best abilities. Those whose talents are at exceptionally higher levels than those of their peers should have access to instructional resources and activities that are commensurate with their talents. One of the most important issues about educating children with special needs such as gifted students is integration or inclusive education Inclusion means full inclusion of children with diverse abilities (that is, both giftedness and disabilities) in all
* Corresponding author name. Tel.: 0098-131-6690274-7 E-mail address: [email protected] , [email protected]
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Huseyin Uzunboylu & Dr. Mukaddes Demirok, Near East University, Cyprus doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.616
632
Abbas Ali Hosseinkhanzadeh et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 631 – 636
aspects of schooling that other children are able to access and enjoy (Loreman &Deppeler, 2001). Inclusion refers to 1992), i.e. all pupils in a school see themselves as belonging to a community , including those with significant disabilities. As such, inclusion embraces the concepts of diversity as a natural state of being human or in educational terms, of being a learner (Bayliss, 1997, Lorman & Deppeler, 2005). . A significant concern that might be addressed through further training is teacher attitudes towards children who have diverse abilities. Positive attitudes towards children with diverse abilities are essential to the success of inclusion programs; these attitudes, however, can, and need to, be fostered through training and positive experiences with children with diverse abilities (Hobbs & Westling, 1998). Nevertheless, integration or inclusion has been the major focus of research, within which one of the main barriers attitudes may act to facilitate or constrain the implementation of inclusion. In these circumstances it is perhaps not surprising that an area of special education which has received considerable research attention is that of the attitudes of teachers, administrators and resource personnel towards the placement of students with special needs in the regular classroom. Clough and Lindsay (1991) revealed that although the respondents appeared more supportive towards integration, they varied in their views regarding the most difficult need to meet. Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) in their metaanalysis reported that tow-thirds of the teachers surveyed agreed with general concept of integration. Ward and LeDean (1996) revealed that prospective teachers hold differing attitudes about school placements based up on the vin (1996) yielded results which favored the inclusion of children with special needs in the ordinary school. educational policies and in the light of the absence of such studies in the Iran, we decided to concentrate our students toward inclusion of these students in the ordinary schools. 2. Methodology The present study is descriptive surveying. The statistical population of study included all the teachers and parents of gifted students of Babol junior high school in 2010 2011 that all of them were selected as samples. Finally, 64 teachers and 96 parents participated in the study. 2.1. TooLS In order to study the perspectives of parents and teachers of gifted students, we design a questionnaire with an analytical-comparative review of literature and theoretical fundamentals. The questionnaire consisted of 26 multiple-choice items and one descriptive question. To determine of the psychometric properties of the questionnaire, it was administered on the parents and teachers in a pilot study. Psychometrics qualities with respect to test-retest reliability, and internal consistency, face and content validity was found to be quite satisfactory (Test-retest coefficients for teachers and parents acquired respectively 0/70 and 0/76; alpha coefficient= 0/79 and 0/93).
633
Abbas Ali Hosseinkhanzadeh et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 631 – 636
3. Tables -Smirnov test was Table 1 shows used to check whether there is a meaningful difference in teachers' level of agreement or disagreement and its results are reported in the table. Table 1. Frequency and percent of Level of agreement Items
to each of the questionnaire items, and results of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
1.It is better to teach gifted students in the gifted education center
Frequency Percent
completely disagree 3 4/7
disagree
agree
8 12/5
completely agree
total
2.Segragation of gifted students and teaching them in gifted education center leads to their academic achievement 3. Educational segregation of gifted students causes self inflation and pride of them 4. Segregation of gifted students and providing them a better educational facility is a kind of discrimination among individuals in a society 5. Segregation of gifted students causes not to pay attention to different aspects of their development 6.Seperating gifted students from others impedes their social development 7.Seperating gifted students from other members of the society prevents their communication with other member of the society 8.Seperating gifted students from others leads to their flourishing and actualization of them 9. separating of gifted students leads to the enrichment of their educational programs 10. Potential abilities of gifted students will be actualized in gifted education centers 11.Educational separating of gifted students increases other expectation of them 12. It is better to teach gifted students in regular education programs 13. Integrating gifted students with others reduced their achievement motivation 14. Inclusive education of gifted student leads to their social adjustment 15. Inclusive education of gifted students facilitates their interactions with normal individuals
Frequency Percent
7 10/9
6 9/4
26 40/6
25 39/1
64 100
Frequency Percent
14 21/9
17 26/6
23 35/9
10 15/6
64 100
Frequency Percent
11 17/2
32 50
13 20/3
8 12/5
64 100
Frequency Percent
13 20/3
29 45/3
13 20/3
9 14/1
64 100
Frequency Percent
11 17/2
32 50
13 20/3
8 12/5
64 100
Frequency Percent
14 21/9
27 42/2
17 26/6
6 9/4
64 100
1/94
Frequency Percent
3 4/7
10 15/6
28 43/8
23 35/9
64 100
Frequency Percent
3 4/7
12 18/8
27 42/2
22 34/4
64 100
1/89
Frequency Percent
5 7/8
13 20/3
27 42/2
19 29/7
64 100
Frequency Percent
2 3/1
9 14/1
33 51/6
20 31/3
64 100
2/17
Frequency Percent
15 23/4
30 46/9
11 17/2
8 12/5
64 100
Frequency Percent
4 6/3
20 31/3
26 40/6
14 21/9
64 100
1/80
Frequency Percent
5 7/8
28 43/8
21 32/8
10 15/6
64 100
Frequency Percent
4 6/3
17 26/6
33 51/6
10 15/6
64 100
2/31
64
Z Kolmogorov 2/23
sig
634
Abbas Ali Hosseinkhanzadeh et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 631 – 636
16.Inclusive education reduces extra expenses in teaching these students 17. Inclusive education of gifted students is ignoring their potential abilities 18. Inclusive education of gifted students disgusts them from educational environments 19. Inclusive education of gifted students and teaching them besides other students facilitates their mutual friendship 20. Inclusive education of gifted students with other students enable regular students to benefit from the technology has been developed for gifted students 21. Inclusive education of gifted to them 22. Inclusive education impedes educational needs 23. Inclusive education of gifted students reduces challenging tasks from their curriculum, and affect of their learning program 24.It is better to teach gifted students in regular schools, at the same time provide them special education enrichment program in specific hours 25. It is better to teach gifted students in regular schools but in separated classes 26.It is better to teach gifted students in regular schools , but permit them to pass two grade levels in one year if they can
Frequency Percent
12 18/8
23 35/9
22 34/4
7 10/9
64 100
Frequency Percent
4 6/3
17 26/6
25 39/1
18 28/1
64 100
Frequency Percent
5 7/8
18 28/1
28 43/8
13 20/3
64 100
1/98
Frequency Percent
5 7/8
17 26/6
33 51/6
9 14/1
64 100
Frequency Percent
4 6/3
22 34/4
30 49/6
8 12/5
64 100
2/11
Frequency Percent
5 7/8
34 53/1
20 31/3
5 7/8
64 100
Frequency Percent
4 6/3
12 18/8
29 45/3
19 29/7
64 100
2/06
Frequency Percent
1 1/6
15 23/4
27 42/2
21 32/8
64 100
Frequency Percent
11 17/2
25 39/1
22 34/4
6 9/4
64 100
1/77
Frequency Percent
24 37
31 48/4
9 14/1
0 0
64 100
Frequency Percent
18 28/1
34 53/1
9 14/1
3 4/7
64 100
2/31
According to the above table, results of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test are meaningful for all items and show there is a significant difference between teachers' agreement level. The same test was done for parents. Results of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test are meaningfu agreement level. -test was used. Based on t test results, there is significant difference between teach (t= -2/87, sig=0/005), 4 (t= 1/96, sig=0/05), & 9 (t= -2/99, sig=0/003) Finally, qualitative analysis of parents' and teachers' answers to the descriptive question showed that overally 0/80 of parents and more than 0/60 of teachers believe that It is better to teach gifted students in the gifted education center, and inclusive education does not meet the needs of gifted students. 4. Discussion and conclusion The purpose of the present study was studying the attitudes of parents and teachers about educational placement of gifted students. Generally, findings showed that both parents and teachers believed that it is better to teach gifted students in the gifted education centers. Moreover they emphasized that inclusive education leads to more interaction and friendly relations between gifted students with other students and enable regular students to benefit from technology has been developed for gifted students. As noted in the findings, more than 70 percent of parents
Abbas Ali Hosseinkhanzadeh et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 631 – 636
635
and teachers believe that gifted students have better education in gifted special centers, because these centers increase their improvement significantly. Actually they believe segregation of gifted students leads to their flourishing and actualization of them. Moreover, parents an students will be actualized in gifted education centers. They believe that integrating gifted students with others reduced their achievement motivation, disgusts them from educational environments, and reduces challenging tasks from their curriculum. Several studies have confirmed these findings. For example, Lin (2004) has concluded in his study that special schools are better and more suitable for learning of gifted students. Martin & Brodesky (1996) have shown that the parents support from gifted education centers, because they believe: 1) Integrated schools education of gifted students, 3) Educational programs in integrated schools are simple and is not challenging for ess of gifted students in integrated schools and segregated schools (e.g. Ellet, 2004). The result of the present study is consistent with the research results of Lin (2004), and Zeidner and Schleyer (1999), and but is not consistent with the research results of Ellett (2004) and Tice (1991). The result of the present study has showed parents and teachers prefer segregated education of gifted students and reject inclusive education. With respect to disadvantages of segregation approach, such as isolating of gifted people from social and emotional issues of normal people, creating sense of pride and excellence in them, having high expectation of parents of parents, teachers and community from them, it is necessary to change from segregation approach to inclusive education. So according to the limitations of this study, such as low sample size , it is proposed that firstly, the findings should be generalized with caution, secondly, broader research should be carried out considering this issue to increase the possibility of generalizing the results with greater confidence. Acknowledgements We appreciate all who helped us in this research. References Bayliss,P.D.(1997). A curriculum for inclusion. Curriculum, 18(1), 15-27. Clough, P. & Lindsay, G. (1991). Integration and the Support Service. London: NFER. Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2000). Social-emotional development and the personal experience of giftedness. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.). International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 203-212). New York: Pergamon. Ellett,P.B.(2004). Placement of identified gifted students in a full-time gifted program versus placement in a regular education classroom: An analysis of benefit.A Dissertation Submitted for the Degree Doctor of Education to the Department of educational administration and foundation Illinois State University. . Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Gallaher.J.J. (2002). Talented. Hallahan, D.P., & Kauffman, J.M. (2009). Exceptional learners. (10th edition). Allyn and Bacon. in Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(1), 12-19. . Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (2005a). Special education: what it is and why we need it. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. : Villa,J.S., Thousand, J., Stainback, W. & Stainback, S. Restructuring for Caring & Effective Education: Administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 25 -40). Baltimore: Paul Brookes. Lin,Y.F.(2004). A Study of Educational Placement for the Gifted of Elementary School in Tainan County.Avalable at: http://140.133.6.46/ETDdb/ETD-search/view_etd?URN=etd-0601105-145923. Loreman,T., Deppeler,J.,& Harvey,D.(2005). Inclusive Education. London & New York, RoutledgeFalmer. Martin, C.,&Brodsky, R.(1996).Serving gifted students through inclusion: A parent's perspective.Roeper Review; 19(1), 2-3. Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children what do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
636
Abbas Ali Hosseinkhanzadeh et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 631 – 636
Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming /inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 1, 59-74. Tice, T.N.,(1991). Gifted in Two Settings.Journal of Educational Research, 83(6), 313-26. Villa,R.A., Thousand,J.S., Meyers ,H., & Nevin ,A(1996). Teacher and administrator perceptions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children,63(1), 29-45. Ward J., Le Dean, L., (1996). Student teachers' attitudes towards special education provision. Educational Psychology, 16 (2), 207-218 Zeidner.M., & Schleyer.E.J.(1999). The effects of educational context on individual difference variables, self-perception of giftedness, and school attitudes in gifted adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescents, 28(6),687-703.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 631 – 636
3rd World Conference on Psychology, Counselling and Guidance (WCPCG-2012)
Investigate Attitudes of Parents and Teachers About Educational Placement of Gifted Students Abbas Ali Hosseinkhanzadeh a *, Taiebeh Yeganeh b, Mahbobe Taher c a
b
Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran young researchers club, Tonekabon branch, Islamic Azad university,Tonekabon, Iran c M. A., In General Psychology, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
Abstract One of the main barriers to the implementation of integrating gifted students is changing attitudes. The purpose of this study was to investigating of the attitudes of parents and teachers about educational placement of gifted students. The statistical population of study included all parents and teachers of gifted students in Babol city that all of them (64 teachers and 96 parents) were selected as a sample. Attitudes assessment of parents and teachers of gifted student's inventory was used to collect the data. The results indicated that both parents and teachers have negative attitudes about integration of gifted students. © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. © 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer review Uzunboylu under the & responsibility Dr. Melehat HalatUniversity, Cyprus Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Huseyin Dr. MukaddesofDemirok, Near East Keywords: Attitudes assessment, gifted students, educational placement;
1. Introduction For numerous years behaviorism specialists defined gifted as persons with high intelligence. But in recent decades terms such as creativity and talented have used for description gifted too (Hallahan & Kauffman, 2009). Someone can be considered gifted at one day and not the next, simply because an arbitrary definition has been changed (Kauffman & Hallahan, 2005). In other words, giftedness is defined, not discovered (Gallagher, 2002). Giftedness appears to involve both qualitative and quantitative differences in thinking (Goldsmith, 2005). Gifted students are often actually sensitive to their own feelings and those of others and highly concerned about interpersonal relationships, intrapersonal states, and moral issues. In short, gifted students are self-aware, selfassured, socially skilled and morally responsible. Many of these students are happy, well liked by their peers, emotionally stable, and self-sufficient (Colman & Cross, 2000; Neihart et al, 2002). All students at all ages have relative talent strengths, and schools should help students to identify and understand their own best abilities. Those whose talents are at exceptionally higher levels than those of their peers should have access to instructional resources and activities that are commensurate with their talents. One of the most important issues about educating children with special needs such as gifted students is integration or inclusive education Inclusion means full inclusion of children with diverse abilities (that is, both giftedness and disabilities) in all
* Corresponding author name. Tel.: 0098-131-6690274-7 E-mail address: [email protected] , [email protected]
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Huseyin Uzunboylu & Dr. Mukaddes Demirok, Near East University, Cyprus doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.616
632
Abbas Ali Hosseinkhanzadeh et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 631 – 636
aspects of schooling that other children are able to access and enjoy (Loreman &Deppeler, 2001). Inclusion refers to 1992), i.e. all pupils in a school see themselves as belonging to a community , including those with significant disabilities. As such, inclusion embraces the concepts of diversity as a natural state of being human or in educational terms, of being a learner (Bayliss, 1997, Lorman & Deppeler, 2005). . A significant concern that might be addressed through further training is teacher attitudes towards children who have diverse abilities. Positive attitudes towards children with diverse abilities are essential to the success of inclusion programs; these attitudes, however, can, and need to, be fostered through training and positive experiences with children with diverse abilities (Hobbs & Westling, 1998). Nevertheless, integration or inclusion has been the major focus of research, within which one of the main barriers attitudes may act to facilitate or constrain the implementation of inclusion. In these circumstances it is perhaps not surprising that an area of special education which has received considerable research attention is that of the attitudes of teachers, administrators and resource personnel towards the placement of students with special needs in the regular classroom. Clough and Lindsay (1991) revealed that although the respondents appeared more supportive towards integration, they varied in their views regarding the most difficult need to meet. Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) in their metaanalysis reported that tow-thirds of the teachers surveyed agreed with general concept of integration. Ward and LeDean (1996) revealed that prospective teachers hold differing attitudes about school placements based up on the vin (1996) yielded results which favored the inclusion of children with special needs in the ordinary school. educational policies and in the light of the absence of such studies in the Iran, we decided to concentrate our students toward inclusion of these students in the ordinary schools. 2. Methodology The present study is descriptive surveying. The statistical population of study included all the teachers and parents of gifted students of Babol junior high school in 2010 2011 that all of them were selected as samples. Finally, 64 teachers and 96 parents participated in the study. 2.1. TooLS In order to study the perspectives of parents and teachers of gifted students, we design a questionnaire with an analytical-comparative review of literature and theoretical fundamentals. The questionnaire consisted of 26 multiple-choice items and one descriptive question. To determine of the psychometric properties of the questionnaire, it was administered on the parents and teachers in a pilot study. Psychometrics qualities with respect to test-retest reliability, and internal consistency, face and content validity was found to be quite satisfactory (Test-retest coefficients for teachers and parents acquired respectively 0/70 and 0/76; alpha coefficient= 0/79 and 0/93).
633
Abbas Ali Hosseinkhanzadeh et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 631 – 636
3. Tables -Smirnov test was Table 1 shows used to check whether there is a meaningful difference in teachers' level of agreement or disagreement and its results are reported in the table. Table 1. Frequency and percent of Level of agreement Items
to each of the questionnaire items, and results of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
1.It is better to teach gifted students in the gifted education center
Frequency Percent
completely disagree 3 4/7
disagree
agree
8 12/5
completely agree
total
2.Segragation of gifted students and teaching them in gifted education center leads to their academic achievement 3. Educational segregation of gifted students causes self inflation and pride of them 4. Segregation of gifted students and providing them a better educational facility is a kind of discrimination among individuals in a society 5. Segregation of gifted students causes not to pay attention to different aspects of their development 6.Seperating gifted students from others impedes their social development 7.Seperating gifted students from other members of the society prevents their communication with other member of the society 8.Seperating gifted students from others leads to their flourishing and actualization of them 9. separating of gifted students leads to the enrichment of their educational programs 10. Potential abilities of gifted students will be actualized in gifted education centers 11.Educational separating of gifted students increases other expectation of them 12. It is better to teach gifted students in regular education programs 13. Integrating gifted students with others reduced their achievement motivation 14. Inclusive education of gifted student leads to their social adjustment 15. Inclusive education of gifted students facilitates their interactions with normal individuals
Frequency Percent
7 10/9
6 9/4
26 40/6
25 39/1
64 100
Frequency Percent
14 21/9
17 26/6
23 35/9
10 15/6
64 100
Frequency Percent
11 17/2
32 50
13 20/3
8 12/5
64 100
Frequency Percent
13 20/3
29 45/3
13 20/3
9 14/1
64 100
Frequency Percent
11 17/2
32 50
13 20/3
8 12/5
64 100
Frequency Percent
14 21/9
27 42/2
17 26/6
6 9/4
64 100
1/94
Frequency Percent
3 4/7
10 15/6
28 43/8
23 35/9
64 100
Frequency Percent
3 4/7
12 18/8
27 42/2
22 34/4
64 100
1/89
Frequency Percent
5 7/8
13 20/3
27 42/2
19 29/7
64 100
Frequency Percent
2 3/1
9 14/1
33 51/6
20 31/3
64 100
2/17
Frequency Percent
15 23/4
30 46/9
11 17/2
8 12/5
64 100
Frequency Percent
4 6/3
20 31/3
26 40/6
14 21/9
64 100
1/80
Frequency Percent
5 7/8
28 43/8
21 32/8
10 15/6
64 100
Frequency Percent
4 6/3
17 26/6
33 51/6
10 15/6
64 100
2/31
64
Z Kolmogorov 2/23
sig
634
Abbas Ali Hosseinkhanzadeh et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 631 – 636
16.Inclusive education reduces extra expenses in teaching these students 17. Inclusive education of gifted students is ignoring their potential abilities 18. Inclusive education of gifted students disgusts them from educational environments 19. Inclusive education of gifted students and teaching them besides other students facilitates their mutual friendship 20. Inclusive education of gifted students with other students enable regular students to benefit from the technology has been developed for gifted students 21. Inclusive education of gifted to them 22. Inclusive education impedes educational needs 23. Inclusive education of gifted students reduces challenging tasks from their curriculum, and affect of their learning program 24.It is better to teach gifted students in regular schools, at the same time provide them special education enrichment program in specific hours 25. It is better to teach gifted students in regular schools but in separated classes 26.It is better to teach gifted students in regular schools , but permit them to pass two grade levels in one year if they can
Frequency Percent
12 18/8
23 35/9
22 34/4
7 10/9
64 100
Frequency Percent
4 6/3
17 26/6
25 39/1
18 28/1
64 100
Frequency Percent
5 7/8
18 28/1
28 43/8
13 20/3
64 100
1/98
Frequency Percent
5 7/8
17 26/6
33 51/6
9 14/1
64 100
Frequency Percent
4 6/3
22 34/4
30 49/6
8 12/5
64 100
2/11
Frequency Percent
5 7/8
34 53/1
20 31/3
5 7/8
64 100
Frequency Percent
4 6/3
12 18/8
29 45/3
19 29/7
64 100
2/06
Frequency Percent
1 1/6
15 23/4
27 42/2
21 32/8
64 100
Frequency Percent
11 17/2
25 39/1
22 34/4
6 9/4
64 100
1/77
Frequency Percent
24 37
31 48/4
9 14/1
0 0
64 100
Frequency Percent
18 28/1
34 53/1
9 14/1
3 4/7
64 100
2/31
According to the above table, results of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test are meaningful for all items and show there is a significant difference between teachers' agreement level. The same test was done for parents. Results of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test are meaningfu agreement level. -test was used. Based on t test results, there is significant difference between teach (t= -2/87, sig=0/005), 4 (t= 1/96, sig=0/05), & 9 (t= -2/99, sig=0/003) Finally, qualitative analysis of parents' and teachers' answers to the descriptive question showed that overally 0/80 of parents and more than 0/60 of teachers believe that It is better to teach gifted students in the gifted education center, and inclusive education does not meet the needs of gifted students. 4. Discussion and conclusion The purpose of the present study was studying the attitudes of parents and teachers about educational placement of gifted students. Generally, findings showed that both parents and teachers believed that it is better to teach gifted students in the gifted education centers. Moreover they emphasized that inclusive education leads to more interaction and friendly relations between gifted students with other students and enable regular students to benefit from technology has been developed for gifted students. As noted in the findings, more than 70 percent of parents
Abbas Ali Hosseinkhanzadeh et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 631 – 636
635
and teachers believe that gifted students have better education in gifted special centers, because these centers increase their improvement significantly. Actually they believe segregation of gifted students leads to their flourishing and actualization of them. Moreover, parents an students will be actualized in gifted education centers. They believe that integrating gifted students with others reduced their achievement motivation, disgusts them from educational environments, and reduces challenging tasks from their curriculum. Several studies have confirmed these findings. For example, Lin (2004) has concluded in his study that special schools are better and more suitable for learning of gifted students. Martin & Brodesky (1996) have shown that the parents support from gifted education centers, because they believe: 1) Integrated schools education of gifted students, 3) Educational programs in integrated schools are simple and is not challenging for ess of gifted students in integrated schools and segregated schools (e.g. Ellet, 2004). The result of the present study is consistent with the research results of Lin (2004), and Zeidner and Schleyer (1999), and but is not consistent with the research results of Ellett (2004) and Tice (1991). The result of the present study has showed parents and teachers prefer segregated education of gifted students and reject inclusive education. With respect to disadvantages of segregation approach, such as isolating of gifted people from social and emotional issues of normal people, creating sense of pride and excellence in them, having high expectation of parents of parents, teachers and community from them, it is necessary to change from segregation approach to inclusive education. So according to the limitations of this study, such as low sample size , it is proposed that firstly, the findings should be generalized with caution, secondly, broader research should be carried out considering this issue to increase the possibility of generalizing the results with greater confidence. Acknowledgements We appreciate all who helped us in this research. References Bayliss,P.D.(1997). A curriculum for inclusion. Curriculum, 18(1), 15-27. Clough, P. & Lindsay, G. (1991). Integration and the Support Service. London: NFER. Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2000). Social-emotional development and the personal experience of giftedness. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.). International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 203-212). New York: Pergamon. Ellett,P.B.(2004). Placement of identified gifted students in a full-time gifted program versus placement in a regular education classroom: An analysis of benefit.A Dissertation Submitted for the Degree Doctor of Education to the Department of educational administration and foundation Illinois State University. . Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Gallaher.J.J. (2002). Talented. Hallahan, D.P., & Kauffman, J.M. (2009). Exceptional learners. (10th edition). Allyn and Bacon. in Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(1), 12-19. . Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (2005a). Special education: what it is and why we need it. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. : Villa,J.S., Thousand, J., Stainback, W. & Stainback, S. Restructuring for Caring & Effective Education: Administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 25 -40). Baltimore: Paul Brookes. Lin,Y.F.(2004). A Study of Educational Placement for the Gifted of Elementary School in Tainan County.Avalable at: http://140.133.6.46/ETDdb/ETD-search/view_etd?URN=etd-0601105-145923. Loreman,T., Deppeler,J.,& Harvey,D.(2005). Inclusive Education. London & New York, RoutledgeFalmer. Martin, C.,&Brodsky, R.(1996).Serving gifted students through inclusion: A parent's perspective.Roeper Review; 19(1), 2-3. Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children what do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
636
Abbas Ali Hosseinkhanzadeh et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 631 – 636
Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming /inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 1, 59-74. Tice, T.N.,(1991). Gifted in Two Settings.Journal of Educational Research, 83(6), 313-26. Villa,R.A., Thousand,J.S., Meyers ,H., & Nevin ,A(1996). Teacher and administrator perceptions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children,63(1), 29-45. Ward J., Le Dean, L., (1996). Student teachers' attitudes towards special education provision. Educational Psychology, 16 (2), 207-218 Zeidner.M., & Schleyer.E.J.(1999). The effects of educational context on individual difference variables, self-perception of giftedness, and school attitudes in gifted adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescents, 28(6),687-703.