Professional Development for Teachers of Gifted Education in Hong Kong: Instrument Validation and Training Effectiveness
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Professional Development for Teachers of Gifted Education
1.2. Project GIFT
1.2.1. Development and Implementation of the Professional Development Program
Specific School Support Initiatives
General Teaching Development Program
1.2.2. Evaluation of the Program
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Instruments
2.2.1. Teachers’ Knowledge of Gifted Education
2.2.2. Teachers’ Attitudes toward School-Based Gifted Education
2.2.3. Teachers’ Behavior to the Gifted Learners
2.2.4. Teachers’ Well-Being
2.2.5. Characteristics and Competencies of Teachers of Gifted Students
2.3. Procedures
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Scale Validation
3.1.1. Teacher Knowledge Scale (TKS)
3.1.2. Teacher Attitude Scale (TAS)
3.1.3. Teacher Behavior Scale (TBS)
3.2. Effectiveness of Professional Development to Teachers
4. Discussion
5. Implications
6. Limitations
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Items | |
---|---|
1. | Have confidence in one’s opinions |
2. | Not afraid to voice opinions |
3. | Decisions not influenced by other people |
4. | Judge self by what is self-important |
5. | No difficulty in arranging life |
6. | Can manage the living situation |
7. | Able to build a home and a lifestyle |
8. | Good at managing responsibilities |
9. | Have improved much as a person |
10. | Have developed a lot as a person |
11. | Learn, change, and grow in life |
12. | Consider new experiences important |
13. | Seen as loving and affectionate |
14. | Described as a giving person |
15. | Trust friends and being trusted |
16. | Enjoy conversations with friends |
17. | Have direction and purpose in life |
18. | Not wander aimlessly through life |
19. | Know what it is to accomplish |
20. | Enjoy making plans for the future |
21. | Confident and positive self-views |
22. | Happy with how things have turned out |
23. | Like most aspects of one’s personality |
24. | Feel good about self |
25. | In most ways my life is close to my ideal. |
26. | The conditions of my life are excellent. |
27. | I am satisfied with my life. |
28. | So far I have gotten the important things I want in life. |
29. | If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing. |
Appendix B
Items | |
---|---|
1. | Is highly intelligent |
2. | Has cultural and intellectual interests |
3. | Strives for excellence, high achievement |
4. | Is enthusiastic about talent |
5. | Relates well to talented people |
6. | Has broad general knowledge |
7. | Is mature, experienced, self-confident |
8. | Can see things from students’ point of view. |
9. | Is well organized, systematic, orderly |
10. | Is imaginative, flexible, open to change, stimulating |
11. | Is innovative and experimental, rather than conforming |
12. | Recognizes individual differences |
13. | Respects individuality, personal self-images, and personal integrity |
14. | Can create a warm, safe, democratic environment |
15. | Guides rather than coerces |
16. | Has knowledge of the nature and needs of the gifted |
17. | Can develop (or select) methods and materials for use with the gifted |
18. | Is skilled in teaching higher thinking abilities, including creativity and problem solving |
19. | Is adept at questioning techniques |
20. | Is skilled in facilitating independent research |
21. | Can direct individualized learning and teaching |
22. | Is skilled in counseling gifted and talented youth |
23. | Is skilled in group processes, teaching groups |
24. | Can lead young people to successful accomplishments |
25. | Can focus on process as well as product |
References
- Chandler, W.G. Ongoing issues surrounding RTI. In Examining Response to Intervention (RTI) Models in Secondary Education; Epler, P., Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2015; pp. 268–283. [Google Scholar]
- Özdemir, D.A.; Bostan, M.I. Mathematically gifted students’ differentiated needs: What kind of support do they need? Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 52, 65–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. Revisiting Gifted Education. 2019. Available online: https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/publications-filter/revisiting-gifted-education (accessed on 19 March 2020).
- Horn, C.V. Young scholars: A talent development model for finding and nurturing potential in underserved populations. Gift. Child. Today. 2015, 38, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraser-Seeto, K. Pre-service teacher training in gifted and talented education: An Australian perspective. J. Stud. Engagem. Educ. Matters 2013, 3, 29–38. [Google Scholar]
- Vreys, C.; Ndungbogun, G.N.; Kieboom, T.; Venderickx, K. Training effects on Belgian preschool and primary school teachers’ attitudes towards the best practices for gifted children. High Abil. Stud. 2017, 29, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuen, M.; Chan, S.; Chan, C.; Fung, D.C.L.; Cheung, W.M.; Kwan, T.; Leung, F.K.S. Differentiation in key learning areas for gifted students in regular classes: A project for primary school teachers in Hong Kong. Gift. Educ. Int. 2018, 34, 36–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bartley, V. Educators’ attitudes towards gifted students and their education in a regional Queensland school. TalentEd 2014, 28, 24–31. [Google Scholar]
- Peters, S.J.; Jolly, J.L. The influence of professional development in gifted education on the frequency of instructional practices. Aust. Educ. Res. 2018, 45, 473–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hernández-Torrano, D.; Saranli, A.G. A cross-cultural perspective about the implementation and adaptation process of the schoolwide enrichment model: The importance of talent development in a global world. Gift. Educ. Int. 2015, 31, 257–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reid, E.; Horváthová, B. Teacher training programs for gifted education with focus on sustainability. J. Teach. Educ. Sustain. 2016, 18, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bangel, N.J.; Moon, S.M.; Capobianco, B.M. Preservice teachers’ perceptions and experiences in a gifted education training model. Gift. Child Q. 2010, 54, 209–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plunkett, M.; Kronborg, L. Learning to be a teacher of the gifted: The importance of examining opinions and challenging misconceptions. Gift. Talent. Int. 2011, 26, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowley, J.L. Professional development needs of teachers to identify and cater for gifted students. Aust. J. Gift. Educ. 2012, 21, 75–80. [Google Scholar]
- Szymanski, A.; Croft, L.; Godor, B. Determining attitudes toward ability: A new tool for new understanding. J. Adv. Acad. 2018, 29, 29–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maher, L.; Geeves, J. Acceleration: Dispelling the myths with research and reality. Aust. J. Gift. Educ. 2014, 23, 39–48. [Google Scholar]
- Sheffield, L.J. Dangerous myths about “gifted” mathematics students. ZDM Math. Educ. 2017, 49, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Şahini, Ç.Ç. A meta-synthesis of teacher training studies in the focus of gifted education. Int. J. Progress. Educ. 2021, 17, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edinger, M.J. Online teacher professional development for gifted education: Examining the impact of a new pedagogical model. Gift. Child. Q. 2017, 61, 300–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, N.; Tay, J.; Desmet, O.; Maeda, Y.; Gentry, M. Validity evidence for the Revised Classroom Practices Survey: An instrument to measure teachers’ differentiation practices. J. Educ. Gift. 2021, 44, 31–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shek, D.T.L.; Cheung, A.C.K.; Hui, A.N.N.; Leung, K.H.; Cheung, R.S.H. Development and evaluation of a pioneer school-based gifted education program (Project GIFT) for primary and secondary students in Hong Kong. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, D.W. Promoting quality education through developing gifted programs: The university-school tripartite model of talent development. Educ. Res. J. 1998, 13, 7–21. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, J.C.K. Teacher’s reflective practice and action research: Initial experiences form the university and school partnership for quality education project. In Proceedings of the HKERA 2002 International Conference of Globalization: New Horizons for Educational Change, Hong Kong, China, 21–22 December 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Renzulli, J.S.; Renzulli, S.R. The schoolwide enrichment model: A focus on student strengths and interests. Gift. Educ. Int. 2010, 26, 140–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matthews, D.J.; Foster, J.F. A dynamic scaffolding model of teacher development: The gifted education consultant as catalyst for change. Gift. Child Q. 2005, 49, 222–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarke, D.; Hollingsworth, H. Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2002, 18, 947–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schrader, P.G.; Lawless, K.A. The knowledge, attitudes, & behaviors approach: How to evaluate performance and learning in complex environments. Perform. Improv. 2004, 43, 8–15. [Google Scholar]
- DeVellis, R.F. Scale Development: Theory and Applications; Sage Publications: Saunders Oaks, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 1–171. [Google Scholar]
- National Association for Gifted Children. Myths about Gifted Students. 2020. Available online: https://www.nagc.org/myths-about-gifted-students (accessed on 24 March 2021).
- Education Bureau. Gifted Education in Hong Kong Book 1: Learning About Gifted Education; Education Bureau, HKSAR: Hong Kong, China, 2015; pp. 1–89. [Google Scholar]
- Catley, M.J.; O’Connell, N.E.; Moseley, G.L. How good is the neurophysiology of pain questionnaire? A Rasch analysis of psychometric properties. J. Pain 2013, 14, 818–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Makhalid, K.A. Primary Teachers’ Attitudes and Knowledge Regarding Gifted Pupils and Their Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Bureau of Curriculum and Instruction. Education of Gifted Students in Florida. 2013. Available online: https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7567/urlt/stategiftedplan.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2017).
- Krijan, I.P.; Borić, E. Teachers’ attitudes toward gifted students and differences in attitudes regarding the years of teaching. Croatian. J. Educ. 2015, 17, 165–178. [Google Scholar]
- Krijan, I.P.; Jurčec, L.; Borić, E. Primary school teachers’ attitudes toward gifted students. Croatian J. Educ. 2015, 17, 681–724. [Google Scholar]
- Stambaugh, T.; Thomerson, G.; Peters, M.P.; Robertson, K.F.; Delisle, S.S.; McLean, L. Audit Report: New Albany—Plain Local Schools Gifted Education; Vanderbilt University: Nashville, TN, USA, 2013; pp. 1–171. [Google Scholar]
- Brighton, C.M.; Moon, T.R.; Jarvis, J.M.; Hockett, J.A. Primary Grade Teachers’ Conceptions of Giftedness and Talent: A Case-Based Investigation (RM07232); The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut: Storrs, UK, 2007; pp. 1–344. [Google Scholar]
- Caldwell, D.W. Educating Gifted Students in the Regular Classroom: Efficacy, attitudes, and Differentiation of Instruction. Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Delisle, J.; Lewis, B.A. The Survival Guide for Teachers of Gifted Kids: How to Plan, Manage, and Evaluate Programs for Gifted Youth K-12; Free Spirit Publishing Inc.: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2003; pp. 1–176. [Google Scholar]
- Chan, D.W.; Chan, L.K.; Sun, X. Developing a brief version of Ryff’s scale to assess the psychological well-being of adolescents in Hong Kong. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2019, 35, 414–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, D.W. Life satisfaction, happiness, and the growth mindset of healthy and unhealthy perfectionists among Hong Kong Chinese gifted students. Roeper Rev. 2012, 34, 224–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, D.W. Subjective well-being of Hong Kong Chinese teachers: The contribution of gratitude, forgiveness, and the orientations to happiness. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2013, 32, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- West, S.G.; Taylor, A.B.; Wu, W. Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling; Hoyle, R.H., Ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 209–231. [Google Scholar]
- Cangur, S.; Ercan, I. Comparison of model fit indices used in structural equation modeling under multivariate normality. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 2015, 14, 152–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 8–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabin, R.J.; Mitchell, R.J. To Bonferroni or not to Bonferroni: When and how are the questions. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 2000, 81, 246–248. [Google Scholar]
- Tomczak, M.; Tomczak, E. The need to report effect size estimates revisited: An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Trends Sport Sci. 2014, 1, 19–25. [Google Scholar]
- Erazo, M.; Fors, M.; Mullo, S.; González, P.; Viada, C. Internal consistency of Yesavage Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS 15-item version) in Ecuadorian older adults. Inquiry 2020, 57, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ung, P.; Ngowtrakul, B.; Chotpradit, R.; Thavornwong, N. Spatial ability test for upper-elementary school student: Confirmatory factor and normative data. J. Assoc. Res. 2016, 21, 48–57. [Google Scholar]
- George, D.; Mallery, M. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 17.0 Update; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 1–386. [Google Scholar]
- Leech, N.L.; Barrett, K.C.; Morgan, G.A. IBM SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Interpretation; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 1–368. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, T.A. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 1–462. [Google Scholar]
- Bhatnagar, R.; Kim, J.; Many, J. Candidate surveys on program evaluation: Examining instrument reliability, validity and program effectiveness. Am. J. Educ. Res. 2014, 2, 683–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Morgan, G.A.; Leech, N.L.; Gloeckner, G.W.; Barrett, K.C. IBM SPSS for Introductory Statistics: Use and Interpretation; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1–256. [Google Scholar]
- Callahan, C.M.; Moon, T.R.; Oh, S. Describing the status of programs for the gifted: A call for action. J. Educ. Gift. 2017, 40, 20–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novak, A.M. What works in professional learning for educators of the gifted: Findings from research and legislation. In Best Practices in Professional Learning and Teacher Preparation: Methods and Strategies for Gifted Professional Development, 1st ed.; Novak, A.M., Weber, C.L., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 5–21. [Google Scholar]
- Brigandi, C.B.; Gilson, C.M.; Miller, M. Professional development and differentiated instruction in an elementary school pullout program: A gifted education case study. J. Educ. Gift. 2019, 42, 362–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plucker, J.A.; Callahan, C.M. Research on giftedness and gifted education: Status of the field and considerations for the future. Except. Child. 2014, 80, 390–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makel, M.C.; Smith, K.N.; Miller, E.M.; Peters, S.J.; McBee, M.T. Collaboration in giftedness and talent development research. J. Educ. Gift. 2020, 43, 91–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cross, T.L.; Cross, J.R.; O’Reily, C. Attitudes about gifted education among Irish educators. High Abil. Stud. 2018, 29, 169–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- VanTassel-Baska, J.; Hubbard, G.F.; Robbins, J.I. Differentiation of instruction for gifted learners: Collated evaluative studies of teacher classroom practices. Roeper Rev. 2020, 42, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarrah, A.M.; Almarashdi, H.S. Mathematics teachers’ perceptions of teaching gifted and talented learners in general education classrooms in the UAE. J. Educ. Gift. Young Sci. 2019, 7, 835–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, C.K.J.; Yin, H.; Zhou, X. Facilitating teacher professional development through ‘4-P Model’: Experiences from Hong Kong’s Partnership for Improvement of Learning and Teaching (PILT) Project. J. Educ. Res. Dev. 2008, 4, 17–48. [Google Scholar]
- Milan, L.; Reis, S.M. The implementation of the schoolwide enrichment model in Italian schools. Int. J. Talent. Dev. Creat. 2020, 8, 69–78. [Google Scholar]
- Shaunessy-Dedrick, E.; Evans, L.; Ferron, J.; Lindo, M. Effects of differentiated reading on elementary students’ reading comprehension and attitudes toward reading. Gift. Child. Q. 2015, 59, 91–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaunessy-Dedrick, E. Looking back and looking forward: Curriculum for gifted and talented students. In Handbook of Giftedness in Children: Psychoeducational Theory, Research, and Best Practices, 2nd ed.; Pfeiffer, S.I., Ed.; Springer Science and Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2018; pp. 149–161. [Google Scholar]
- National Association for Gifted Children and Council for exceptional Children. Advanced Standards In Gifted Education Teacher Preparation. 2013. Available online: https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/Advanced%20Standards%20in%20GT%20(2013).pdf (accessed on 16 November 2020).
- Pérez, J.; Aperribai, L.; Cortabarria, L.; Borges, A. Examining the most and least changeable elements of the social representation of giftedness. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weyns, T.; Preckel, F.; Verschueren, K. Teachers-in-training perceptions of gifted children’s characteristics and teacher-child interactions: An experimental study. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2020, 97, 103215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watters, J.J.; Diezmann, C.M. Starting small: A staged approach to professional development in gifted education. Aust. J. Gift. Educ. 2013, 22, 5–17. [Google Scholar]
- Ziegler, A.; Stoeger, H.; Vialle, W. Giftedness and gifted education: The need for a paradigm change. Gift. Child. Q. 2012, 56, 194–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Type of the Activity | Number of Sessions | Content of the Activity |
---|---|---|
1. Thematic seminars and workshops | 8 | A series of academic lectures under the theme of “Talent development—Nurturing creativity and excellence”, and workshops on differentiation and action research |
2. Centralized professional development workshops | 26 | Staff development on creativity and creative teaching, as well as affective education to gifted and regular students |
3. Overseas study trips | 2 | Study trips to Taiwan and Singapore |
4. Academic conferences | 2 | Participation in The 15th Asia Pacific Conference on Giftedness and WCGTC World Conference |
5. Cluster professional sharing | 58 | Topics such as the implementation of school-based gifted education and pull-out programs, gifted education in English Language Education and STEM education, and utilization of e-learning in gifted education |
Matched Sample (N = 734) | ||
---|---|---|
Experimental (N = 548) | Control (N = 186) | |
Gender | ||
Male | 129 (23.5%) | 47 (25.3%) |
Female | 419 (76.5%) | 139 (74.7%) |
Age (median) | 39.50 | 40.98 |
Years of teaching experience (median) | 15.93 | 16.18 |
Grade | ||
Primary | 387 (70.6%) | 139 (74.7%) |
Secondary | 161 (29.4%) | 47 (25.3%) |
Education level | ||
Diploma and Associate degree | 15 (2.7%) | 5 (2.7%) |
Bachelor | 306 (55.8%) | 109 (58.6%) |
Master and Doctorate | 227 (41.4%) | 72 (38.7%) |
Professional training | ||
Yes | 524 (95.6%) | 179 (96.2%) |
No | 23 (4.2%) | 7 (3.8%) |
Experience in teaching gifted students | ||
Yes | 263 (48.0%) | 87 (46.8%) |
No | 285 (52.0%) | 99 (53.2%) |
1. The Education Bureau considers gifted education should be provided to every student who has outstanding performance in different areas. |
* 2. The Education Bureau implements a 3-tier operational mode in gifted education with the level one as off-site support. |
* 3. Only students who have high intelligence (IQ score over 130) are classified as gifted students. |
4. Gifted education should be part of quality education, with the aim of nurturing the potential and talents of every student. |
* 5. The serving target of gifted education is only limited to high-ability or gifted students. |
6. The academic performance of gifted students and their actual ability may not be consistent. |
* 7. Every student is gifted, but with different areas of giftedness. |
8. Some gifted students are with Dyslexia. |
* 9. Through hard work, all students can become gifted individuals. |
* 10. A twice-exceptional gifted student refers to a student who has two types of gifted features. |
Dimensions and Items | Factor Loadings |
---|---|
Teacher Support | |
1. In general, schools in Hong Kong effectively implement gifted education. | 0.55 |
2. The Education Bureau provides sufficient resources for schools to implement gifted education. | 0.75 |
3. The Education Bureau provides schools with necessary professional support to implement gifted education. | 0.89 |
4. The Education Bureau provides adequate training in gifted education for teachers. | 0.77 |
5. Our school provides adequate support for teachers responsible for nurturing gifted students. | 0.58 |
Opposition to gifted education | |
6. Implementing gifted education will hugely increase teachers’ workloads. | 0.76 |
7. Implementing gifted education will cause difficulties to everyday teaching. | 0.81 |
8. Taking care of gifted students in class will negatively affect other students’ learning. | 0.37 |
9. With huge learning diversity among students, teachers cannot fulfil the educational needs of gifted students in everyday teaching. | 0.36 |
Support for gifted students | |
10. I should have a greater understanding of the characteristics and needs of gifted students. | 0.57 |
11. It is the responsibility of each teacher to provide counseling and support to gifted students who have behavioral or emotional problems. | 0.53 |
12. I should cater for the special educational needs of gifted students. | 0.57 |
Dimensions and Items | Factor Loadings |
---|---|
Nurturance for gifted students | |
1. I select appropriate teaching materials for high-ability or gifted students. | 0.73 |
2. I search for suitable resources for gifted students who need support. | 0.76 |
3. I provide training or counseling activities for high-ability and gifted students. | 0.74 |
4. Through acceleration, high-ability or gifted students in my class can learn at a different pace. | 0.64 |
5. I design pull-out programs or activities for high-ability students to have a deeper understanding of certain topics. | 0.68 |
Differentiated teaching | |
6. I use differentiated teaching through appropriate grouping of students based on their abilities or traits. | 0.47 |
7. I use curriculum compacting for high-ability students so that they have time for self-learning and project-based learning. | 0.72 |
8. I provide opportunities for students to choose learning activities related to the core curriculum according to their interests. | 0.72 |
9. I respond to the learning needs of high-ability or gifted students with tiered assignments. | 0.55 |
Learning support for regular students | |
10. I immerse three core elements advocated in gifted education (higher-order thinking skills, creativity and personal-social competence) in my everyday teaching. | 0.66 |
11. I cultivate students’ higher-order thinking with high-level questions. | 0.74 |
12. I arrange enquiry-based learning activities to nurture students’ creativity and higher-order thinking ability. | 0.72 |
Experimental Groups | Control Groups | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | Pretest | Posttest | Pretest | Posttest | ||||
M(SD) | α | M(SD) | α | M(SD) | α | M(SD) | α | |
Teacher knowledge | 0.62 (0.17) | - | 0.65 (0.18) | - | 0.63 (0.16) | - | 0.62 (0.17) | - |
Teacher attitudes | ||||||||
TS | 2.69 (0.66) | 0.83 | 2.84 (0.70) | 0.85 | 2.66 (0.69) | 0.85 | 2.77 (0.63) | 0.83 |
OGE | 3.23 (0.62) | 0.65 | 3.18 (0.67) | 0.72 | 3.31 (0.62) | 0.65 | 3.20 (0.63) | 0.69 |
SGS | 3.75 (0.62) | 0.56 | 3.72 (0.67) | 0.69 | 3.79 (0.60) | 0.61 | 3.74 (0.56) | 0.61 |
Teacher behaviors | ||||||||
NGS | 2.71 (0.62) | 0.82 | 2.84 (0.69) | 0.85 | 2.65 (0.66) | 0.85 | 2.74 (0.58) | 0.83 |
DT | 2.75 (0.60) | 0.70 | 2.94 (0.68) | 0.79 | 2.73 (0.63) | 0.72 | 2.82 (0.60) | 0.74 |
LSRS | 3.25 (0.60) | 0.75 | 3.35 (0.66) | 0.81 | 3.29 (0.56) | 0.71 | 3.28 (0.55) | 0.70 |
Teacher well-being | 3.64 (0.50) | 0.95 | 3.66 (0.54) | 0.96 | 3.63 (0.49) | 0.94 | 3.61 (0.46) | 0.95 |
Teacher characteristics | 3.54 (0.44) | 0.90 | 3.57 (0.49) | 0.92 | 3.56 (0.47) | 0.91 | 3.58 (0.43) | 0.91 |
Teacher competency | 3.16 (0.53) | 0.92 | 3.30 (0.57) | 0.93 | 3.19 (0.54) | 0.92 | 3.27 (0.56) | 0.93 |
Experimental Groups | Control Groups | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | N for the Analysis | Pretest | Posttest | Posttest | |||
M | M(SE) | M(SE) | F-Value | df | p-Value | ||
Teacher knowledge | 734 | 0.62 | 0.65 (0.01) | 0.62 (0.01) | 3.77 | 1, 731 | 0.052 |
Teacher attitudes | |||||||
TS | 732 | 2.68 | 2.83 (0.03) | 2.78 (0.04) | 1.04 | 1, 729 | 0.309 |
OGE | 733 | 3.25 | 3.19 (0.02) | 3.16 (0.04) | 0.40 | 1, 730 | 0.526 |
SGS | 733 | 3.76 | 3.73 (0.02) | 3.73 (0.04) | 0.00 | 1, 730 | 0.997 |
Teacher behaviors | |||||||
NGS | 729 | 2.70 | 2.84 (0.02) | 2.77 (0.04) | 2.65 | 1, 726 | 0.104 |
DT | 729 | 2.74 | 2.95 (0.02) | 2.83 (0.04) | 6.17 | 1, 726 | 0.013 |
LSRS | 728 | 3.26 | 3.37 (0.02) | 3.26 (0.04) | 6.48 | 1, 725 | 0.011 |
Teacher well-being | 733 | 3.64 | 3.66 (0.02) | 3.62 (0.03) | 1.39 | 1, 730 | 0.238 |
Teacher characteristics | 733 | 3.54 | 3.58 (0.02) | 3.57 (0.03) | 0.06 | 1, 730 | 0.812 |
Teacher competency | 731 | 3.17 | 3.31 (0.02) | 3.26 (0.04) | 1.73 | 1, 728 | 0.189 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cheung, A.C.K.; Shek, D.T.L.; Hui, A.N.N.; Leung, K.H.; Cheung, R.S.H. Professional Development for Teachers of Gifted Education in Hong Kong: Instrument Validation and Training Effectiveness. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9433. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159433
Cheung ACK, Shek DTL, Hui ANN, Leung KH, Cheung RSH. Professional Development for Teachers of Gifted Education in Hong Kong: Instrument Validation and Training Effectiveness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(15):9433. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159433
Chicago/Turabian StyleCheung, Alan Chi Keung, Daniel Tan Lei Shek, Anna Na Na Hui, Kim Hung Leung, and Ruby Shui Ha Cheung. 2022. "Professional Development for Teachers of Gifted Education in Hong Kong: Instrument Validation and Training Effectiveness" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 15: 9433. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159433