Development and Evaluation of a Pioneer School-Based Gifted Education Program (Project GIFT) for Primary and Secondary Students in Hong Kong
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Gifted Education in Hong Kong
1.2. Project GIFT in Hong Kong
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Instruments
2.2.1. Multiple Intelligences
2.2.2. Gifted Characteristics
2.2.3. Self-Efficacy
2.2.4. Psychological Well-Being
2.2.5. Life Satisfaction
2.3. Procedures
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
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. Gifted Characteristics Inventory
Items |
1. I concentrate on things that I am interested in. |
2. I have my own opinion on many issues. |
3. If I am doing things of my interest, I will not give up easily when facing difficulties or failures. |
4. I enjoy leisure reading. |
5. I have keen interest in some topics. |
6. I interact with people in a fair and just manner. |
7. I am willing to spend a great deal of time and energy on what I am interested in. |
8. I strive for excellence in whatever I do. |
9. When I have difficulties, I try to solve it by myself first. |
10. I actively search for information related to my interests. |
11. I like exploring new things. |
12. I work hard to keep myself up in some areas. |
Note. This scale was developed by David Chan and Lai-kwan Chan. David Chan and Lai-kwan Chan are Program Founders and Honorary Program Director in the Program for the Gifted and Talented in Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, respectively. They are scholars who have been working in gifted education for more than 30 years. In Project GIFT, David Chan was an Honorary Advisor and Lai-kwan Chan was a Co-Chief Principal Investigator of the project. She was the Project Operation Leader and Budget Holder from December 2016 to December 2018. |
References
- 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]
- Renzulli, J.S. What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan 1978, 60, 180–184. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, K.B. The academic, socialization, and psychological effects of acceleration: Research synthesis. In A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students, 2nd ed.; Assouline, S.G., Colangelo, N., VanTassel-Baska, J., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Eds.; Belin-Blank Center: Iowa City, IA, USA, 2015; Volume 2, pp. 19–29. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, M. A meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment programs on gifted students. Gift. Child Q. 2016, 60, 102–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- 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]
- Steenbergen-Hu, S.; Makel, M.C.; Olszewski-Kubilius, P. What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on k-12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta- analyses. Rev. Educ. Res. 2016, 86, 849–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- James, A.L. What Are the Effects of Curriculum Compacting on Students’ Ability to Use Higher Order Thinking? Ph.D. Thesis, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Bicknell, B. Gifted students and the role of mathematics competitions. Aust. Prim. Math. Classr. 2008, 13, 16–20. [Google Scholar]
- Johnsen, S.K.; Parker, S.L.; Farah, Y.N. Providing services for students with gifts and talents within a response-to-intervention framework. Teach. Except. Child. 2015, 47, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raben, K.; Brogan, J.; Dunham, M.; Contreras Bloomdahl, S. Response to intervention (RTI) and changes in special education categorization. Except. Educ. Int. 2019, 29, 59–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poon-McBrayer, K.F. Practicing response-to-intervention model: A case of leadership practices. Int. J. Whole Sch. 2018, 14, 154–171. [Google Scholar]
- Cheung, R.S.H.; Hui, A.N.N.; Cheung, A.C.K. Gifted education in Hong Kong: A school-based support program catering to learner diversity. ECNU Rev. Educ. 2020, 3, 632–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, D.W. Multiple intelligences of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong: Perspectives from students, parents, teachers, and peers. Roeper Rev. 2004, 27, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, D.W.; Chan, L.K.; Chau, A. Judging drawing abilities of Hong Kong Chinese gifted students: Could nonexperts make expert-like judgments? Gift. Child Q. 2009, 53, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Kwan, A.C.K.; Yuen, M. “Mathematics in the workplace”: A pilot enrichment programme for mathematically talented primary students in Hong Kong. Gift. Talent. Int. 2013, 28, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, E.F. Is response to intervention and gifted assessment compatible? J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 2012, 30, 103–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardner, H. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 1–496. [Google Scholar]
- Reis, S.M.; Peters, P.M. Research on the schoolwide enrichment model: Four decades of insights, innovation, and evolution. Gift. Educ. Int. 2021, 37, 109–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanley, J.C.; Benbow, C.P. Youths who reason exceptionally well mathematically. In Conceptions of Giftedness; Sternberg, R.J., Davidson, J.E., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1986; pp. 361–387. [Google Scholar]
- Chan, D.W. Education for the gifted and talented. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2nd ed.; Wright, J.D., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; Volume 7, pp. 158–164. [Google Scholar]
- Lupkowski-Shoplik, A.; Beneow, C.P.; Assouline, S.G.; Brody, L.E. Talent searches: Meeting the needs of academically talented youth. In Handbook of Gifted Education, 3rd ed.; Colangelo, N., Davis, G.A., Eds.; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 204–218. [Google Scholar]
- Education Bureau. Operation Guide on the Whole School Approach to Integrated Education. 2014. Available online: https://sense.edb.gov.hk/uploads/page/integrated-education/guidelines/ie_guide_en.pdf (accessed on 19 December 2016).
- Bronfenbrenner, U. Ecological models of human development. In Readings on the Development of Children, 2nd ed.; Gauvain, M., Cole, M., Eds.; Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1994; pp. 37–43. [Google Scholar]
- Education Bureau. Gifted Education in Hong Kong Book 1: Learning about Gifted Education. 2015. Available online: https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/tc/curriculum-development/major-level-of-du/gifted/resources_and_support/ge_resource_bank/files/Policy/GE_info_booklet/GE_info_booklet_1_eng.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2016).
- Bloom, B.S. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain; Longmans, Green and Company: London, UK, 1956; pp. 1–207. [Google Scholar]
- Renzulli, J.S.; Reis, S.M. The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A How-to-Guide for Educational Excellence; Prufrock Press: Austin, TX, USA, 2014; pp. 1–450. [Google Scholar]
- Education Bureau. Guidelines on School-based Gifted Development Programmes. [Archive] Appendices. 2018. Available online: https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/major-level-of-edu/gifted/guidelines-on-school-based-gifted-development-programmes/app_1-eng.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2018).
- Renzulli, J.S. The schoolwide enrichment model: An overview of the theoretical and organizational rationale. Gift. Educ. Int. 2003, 18, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, D.W. Multiple intelligences and perceived self-efficacy among Chinese secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Educ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 521–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, D.W. Perceived multiple intelligences among male and female Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong: The structure of the student multiple intelligences profile. Gift. Child Q. 2006, 50, 325–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, D.W. Stress, self-efficacy, social support, and psychological distress among prospective Chinese teachers in Hong Kong. Educ. Psychol. 2002, 22, 557–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.X.; Schwarzer, R. Measuring optimistic self-beliefs: A Chinese adaptation of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychologia 1995, 38, 174–181. [Google Scholar]
- 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. Orientations to happiness and subjective well-being among Chinese prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong. Educ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raven, J.C.; Court, J.H.; Raven, J. A Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Tests; The Psychological Corporation: San Antonio, TX, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Hong Kong Education Department. Hong Kong Supplement to Guide to the Standard Progressive Matrices; Hong Kong Government: Hong Kong, China, 1986.
- Chan, D.W. Identifying gifted and talented students in Hong Kong. Roeper Rev. 2000, 22, 88–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wallach, M.A.; Kogan, N. Modes of Thinking in Young Children; Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1965; pp. 1–357. [Google Scholar]
- Chan, D.W.; Cheung, P.C.; Lau, S.; Wu, W.Y.H.; Kwong, J.M.L.; Li, W.L. Assessing ideational fluency in primary students in Hong Kong. Creat. Res. J. 2001, 13, 359–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsikriktsis, N. A review of techniques for treating missing data in OM survey research. J. Oper. Manag. 2005, 24, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsang, H.W.H.; Cheung, W.M.; Chan, A.H.L.; Fung, K.M.T.; Leung, A.Y.; Au, D.W.H. A pilot evaluation on a stress management programme using a combined approach of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for elementary school teachers. Stress Health 2013, 31, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engels, J.M.; Diehr, P. Imputation of missing longitudinal data: A comparison of methods. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2003, 56, 968–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Twisk, J.; de Vente, W. Attrition in longitudinal studies: How to deal with missing data. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2002, 55, 329–337. [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]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1988; pp. 1–567. [Google Scholar]
- Bhatnagar, R.; Kim, J.; Many, J.E. 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: Oxfordshire, UK, 2013; pp. 1–256. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Kettler, T.; Oveross, M.E.; Bishop, J.C. Gifted education in preschool: Perceived barriers and benefits of program development. J. Res. Child. Educ. 2017, 31, 342–359. [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]
- Gubbels, J.; Segers, E.; Verhoeven, L. Cognitive, socioemotional, and attitudinal effects of triarchic enrichment program for gifted children. J. Educ. Gift. 2014, 37, 378–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Regier, P.; Savic, M. How teaching to foster mathematical creativity may impact student self-efficacy for proving. J. Math. Behav. 2020, 57, 100720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golle, J.; Zettler, I.; Rose, N.; Trautwein, U.; Hasselhorn, M.; Nagengast, B. Effectiveness of a “Grass Roots” statewide enrichment program for gifted elementary school children. J. Res. Educ. Eff. 2018, 11, 375–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van der Meulen, R.T.; van der Bruggen, C.O.; Spilt, J.L.; Verouden, J.; Berkhout, M.; Bögels, S.M. The pullout program day a week school for gifted children: Effects on social-emotional and academic functioning. Child Youth Care Forum 2013, 43, 287–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dimitriadis, C. Provision for mathematically gifted children in primary schools: An investigation of four different methods of organizational provision. Educ. Rev. 2012, 64, 241–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, K.W. Cooperative learning in a Hong Kong primary school: Perceptions, problems and accommodation. Intercult. Educ. 2014, 25, 216–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demir, S. Effects of learning style based differentiated activities on gifted students’ creativity. J. Educ. Gift. Young Sci. 2021, 9, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joli, N.S.; Kamarulzaman, M.H.; Rashid, S.A.; Hazir, N.M.; Simin, N.; Hissam, F.A.B. Curriculum compacting: Differentiating statistics syllabus according to the readiness levels of gifted students. Int. J. Educ. Pedagog. 2020, 2, 359–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milan, L.; Reis, S.M. The implementation of the schoolwide enrichment model in Italian schools. Int. J. Talent Dev. Creat. 2021, 8, 69–78. [Google Scholar]
- Peterson, M. Whole Schooling Consortium: Eight Principles of Whole Schooling. 2007. Available online: http://www.wholeschooling.net/WS/WS%208%20Principles.html (accessed on 15 January 2017).
- Siegel, L.S. Early identification and intervention to prevent reading failure: A response to intervention (RTI) initiative. Educ. Dev. Psychol. 2020, 37, 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olszewski-Kubilius, P. A critique of Renzulli’s theory into practice models for gifted learners. J. Educ. Gift. 1999, 23, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, D.W. Gifted education in Asia. In APA Handbook of Giftedness and Talent; Pfeiffer, S.I., Shaunessy-Dedrick, E., Foley-Nicpon, M., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; pp. 71–84. [Google Scholar]
- Sternberg, R.J. Cultural concepts of giftedness. Roeper Rev. 2007, 29, 160–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z. Gifted education in China. Cogent Educ. 2017, 4, 1364881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shek, D.T.L.; Ng, C.S.M. Subjective outcome evaluation of the project P.A.T.H.S. (Secondary 2 program): Views of the program participants. Sci. World J. 2009, 9, 1012–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shek, D.T.L.; Ng, C.S.M. Qualitative evaluation of the project P.A.T.H.S.: Findings based on focus groups with student participants. Sci. World J. 2009, 9, 691–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reio, T.G. The threat of common method variance bias to theory building. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2010, 9, 405–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Groups | Experimental Groups | Control Group (N = 754) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Overall (N = 2453) | Level 1 Program Only (N = 2277) | Both Level 1 and 2 Programs (N = 176) | ||
Gender | ||||
Male | 1328 | 1223 | 105 | 241 |
Female | 1124 | 1053 | 71 | 93 |
Missing | 1 | 1 | 0 | 420 |
Age (Mean, SD) | (10.36, 1.50) | (10.33, 1.50) | (10.88, 1.46) | (10.89, 1.84) |
Missing | 8 | 8 | 0 | 47 |
Grade | ||||
Primary 3 | 579 | 555 | 24 | 0 |
Primary 4 | 682 | 658 | 24 | 174 |
Primary 5 | 728 | 651 | 77 | 380 |
Primary 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Secondary 1 | 346 | 306 | 40 | 0 |
Secondary 2 | 117 | 106 | 11 | 135 |
Secondary 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 65 |
Missing | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
School type | ||||
Primary schools | 15 | 15 | 13 | 6 |
Secondary schools | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 |
Experimental Groups | Control Group | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Level 1 Program Only | Both Level 1 and 2 Programs | |||||||||||
Pretest | Post-Test | Pretest | Post-Test | Pretest | Post-Test | |||||||
Variable | M (SD) | α (IIC) | M (SD) | α (IIC) | M (SD) | α (IIC) | M (SD) | α (IIC) | M (SD) | α (IIC) | M (SD) | α (IIC) |
CREAT | 6.42 (4.18) | - | 7.56 (4.61) | - | 7.99 (4.08) | - | 9.52 (5.24) | - | 7.62 (4.59) | - | 8.64 (5.00) | - |
AP | 14.55 (8.91) | - | 16.20 (9.67) | - | 18.43 (9.28) | - | 20.22 (9.96) | - | 18.44 (10.82) | - | 18.55 (10.84) | - |
MI | ||||||||||||
VI | 3.05 (0.88) | 0.65 (0.38) | 3.09 (0.88) | 0.69 (0.42) | 3.26 (0.89) | 0.74 (0.48) | 3.34 (0.91) | 0.74 (0.49) | 3.00 (0.90) | 0.68 (0.41) | 3.08 (0.92) | 0.72 (0.45) |
MU | 3.44 (1.08) | 0.78 (0.55) | 3.48 (1.08) | 0.83 (0.63) | 3.53 (1.03) | 0.80 (0.58) | 3.55 (1.02) | 0.83 (0.62) | 3.51 (1.07) | 0.80 (0.57) | 3.49 (1.10) | 0.85 (0.65) |
LM | 3.14 (1.03) | 0.71 (0.45) | 3.16 (1.05) | 0.79 (0.56) | 3.55 (0.99) | 0.77 (0.52) | 3.61 (1.01) | 0.79 (0.55) | 3.23 (1.08) | 0.78 (0.53) | 3.22 (1.05) | 0.78 (0.54) |
VS | 3.46 (0.97) | 0.66 (0.39) | 3.45 (0.95) | 0.71 (0.45) | 3.62 (0.87) | 0.64 (0.37) | 3.69 (0.89) | 0.77 (0.54) | 3.52 (0.94) | 0.67 (0.41) | 3.50 (0.94) | 0.69 (0.43) |
BK | 3.43 (0.95) | 0.64 (0.39) | 3.40 (0.99) | 0.72 (0.47) | 3.41 (0.96) | 0.63 (0.38) | 3.43 (1.06) | 0.82 (0.61) | 3.42 (0.97) | 0.66 (0.40) | 3.42 (0.97) | 0.70 (0.45) |
INTRA | 3.40 (0.89) | 0.70 (0.44) | 3.39 (0.90) | 0.76 (0.51) | 3.53 (0.81) | 0.66 (0.40) | 3.62 (0.82) | 0.73 (0.48) | 3.39 (0.88) | 0.69 (0.43) | 3.40 (0.91) | 0.75 (0.50) |
INTER | 3.80 (0.88) | 0.77 (0.53) | 3.75 (0.90) | 0.82 (0.61) | 3.83 (0.88) | 0.82 (0.60) | 3.79 (0.83) | 0.83 (0.62) | 3.79 (0.87) | 0.77 (0.53) | 3.77 (0.88) | 0.78 (0.54) |
NAT | 3.02 (1.19) | 0.85 (0.66) | 3.00 (1.18) | 0.89 (0.73) | 2.98 (1.16) | 0.88 (0.72) | 2.97 (1.16) | 0.90 (0.75) | 2.93 (1.20) | 0.86 (0.66) | 2.92 (1.22) | 0.89 (0.72) |
GC | 3.91 (0.69) | 0.86 (0.35) | 3.90 (0.72) | 0.90 (0.43) | 4.13 (0.57) | 0.83 (0.29) | 4.12 (0.64) | 0.90 (0.42) | 3.96 (0.67) | 0.86 (0.35) | 3.91 (0.71) | 0.88 (0.40) |
GSE | 3.44 (0.81) | 0.90 (0.46) | 3.49 (0.82) | 0.92 (0.53) | 3.64 (0.72) | 0.89 (0.45) | 3.74 (0.71) | 0.91 (0.49) | 3.50 (0.79) | 0.90 (0.46) | 3.52 (0.81) | 0.91 (0.51) |
PWB | ||||||||||||
AU | 3.37 (0.94) | 0.78 (0.47) | 3.40 (0.95) | 0.83 (0.55) | 3.59 (0.85) | 0.76 (0.44) | 3.67 (0.93) | 0.86 (0.60) | 3.41 (0.96) | 0.80 (0.50) | 3.35 (0.96) | 0.82 (0.54) |
EM | 3.64 (0.91) | 0.83 (0.55) | 3.66 (0.91) | 0.87 (0.63) | 3.81 (0.82) | 0.82 (0.53) | 3.89 (0.76) | 0.82 (0.54) | 3.65 (0.90) | 0.83 (0.55) | 3.67 (0.90) | 0.85 (0.59) |
PG | 3.81 (0.88) | 0.80 (0.51) | 3.85 (0.85) | 0.84 (0.57) | 4.13 (0.69) | 0.69 (0.36) | 4.11 (0.78) | 0.83 (0.56) | 3.86 (0.87) | 0.80 (0.50) | 3.82 (0.88) | 0.83 (0.54) |
PR | 3.53 (0.89) | 0.74 (0.42) | 3.54 (0.91) | 0.79 (0.49) | 3.55 (0.86) | 0.76 (0.45) | 3.59 (0.91) | 0.83 (0.55) | 3.52 (0.94) | 0.77 (0.46) | 3.49 (0.93) | 0.79 (0.48) |
PL | 3.67 (0.93) | 0.83 (0.54) | 3.66 (0.95) | 0.87 (0.63) | 3.87 (0.87) | 0.83 (0.56) | 3.83 (0.85) | 0.86 (0.61) | 3.68 (0.96) | 0.84 (0.58) | 3.61 (0.97) | 0.86 (0.61) |
SA | 3.68 (0.90) | 0.79 (0.49) | 3.66 (0.91) | 0.84 (0.56) | 3.82 (0.80) | 0.75 (0.43) | 3.83 (0.80) | 0.82 (0.54) | 3.67 (0.92) | 0.81 (0.51) | 3.63 (0.92) | 0.82 (0.53) |
SWL | 3.45 (0.92) | 0.79 (0.45) | 3.43 (0.94) | 0.84 (0.53) | 3.44 (0.93) | 0.83 (0.52) | 3.44 (0.94) | 0.86 (0.56) | 3.36 (0.95) | 0.81 (0.47) | 3.37 (0.98) | 0.84 (0.53) |
Variable | Level 1 Program Only | Both Level 1 And 2 Programs | Control Group | F Value | df | p-Value | R2 (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pretest | Post-Test | Post-Test | Post-Test | |||||
AM | AM(SE) | AM(SE) | AM(SE) | |||||
CREAT | 6.79 | 7.81 (0.08) | 8.69 (0.28) | 8.07 (0.14) | 5.30 | 2, 3178 | 0.005 | 38.7 |
AP | 15.68 | 17.30 (0.08) | 17.53 (0.29) | 15.86 (0.14) | 40.42 | 2, 3177 | 0.000 | 85.3 |
MI | ||||||||
VI | 3.05 | 3.09 (0.02) | 3.23 (0.06) | 3.11 (0.03) | 2.82 | 2, 3179 | 0.060 | 29.9 |
MU | 3.46 | 3.50 (0.02) | 3.50 (0.07) | 3.46 (0.03) | 0.62 | 2, 3179 | 0.536 | 37.0 |
LM | 3.19 | 3.18 (0.02) | 3.39 (0.06) | 3.20 (0.03) | 5.06 | 2, 3179 | 0.006 | 35.0 |
VS | 3.48 | 3.46 (0.02) | 3.61 (0.06) | 3.48 (0.03) | 3.08 | 2, 3179 | 0.046 | 29.2 |
BK | 3.42 | 3.40 (0.02) | 3.44 (0.06) | 3.42 (0.03) | 0.55 | 2, 3179 | 0.578 | 37.9 |
INTRA | 3.41 | 3.39 (0.02) | 3.55 (0.06) | 3.41 (0.03) | 3.90 | 2, 3179 | 0.020 | 28.3 |
INTER | 3.80 | 3.75 (0.02) | 3.77 (0.06) | 3.77 (0.03) | 0.45 | 2, 3179 | 0.641 | 32.2 |
NAT | 3.00 | 2.98 (0.02) | 2.98 (0.08) | 2.96 (0.04) | 0.16 | 2, 3179 | 0.849 | 30.6 |
GC | 3.94 | 3.91 (0.01) | 4.00 (0.04) | 3.89 (0.02) | 2.41 | 2, 3179 | 0.090 | 33.9 |
GSE | 3.47 | 3.50 (0.01) | 3.65 (0.05) | 3.50 (0.02) | 3.84 | 2, 3179 | 0.022 | 32.5 |
PWB | ||||||||
AU | 3.39 | 3.41 (0.02) | 3.58 (0.06) | 3.34 (0.03) | 5.98 | 2, 3179 | 0.003 | 25.2 |
EM | 3.65 | 3.67 (0.02) | 3.82 (0.06) | 3.67 (0.03) | 3.13 | 2, 3179 | 0.044 | 24.0 |
PG | 3.84 | 3.87 (0.02) | 3.96 (0.06) | 3.81 (0.03) | 3.56 | 2, 3179 | 0.029 | 26.6 |
PR | 3.53 | 3.54 (0.02) | 3.57 (0.06) | 3.49 (0.03) | 1.18 | 2, 3179 | 0.308 | 30.6 |
PL | 3.69 | 3.67 (0.02) | 3.73 (0.06) | 3.61 (0.03) | 1.81 | 2, 3178 | 0.164 | 29.8 |
SA | 3.69 | 3.66 (0.02) | 3.76 (0.06) | 3.64 (0.03) | 1.86 | 2, 3178 | 0.156 | 28.0 |
SWL | 3.43 | 3.42 (0.02) | 3.43 (0.06) | 3.40 (0.03) | 0.29 | 2, 3177 | 0.747 | 25.5 |
Variable | Combined Experimental Groups | Control Groups | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pretest | Post-Test | Pretest | Post-Test | |||||
M (SD) | α (IIC) | M (SD) | α (IIC) | M (SD) | α (IIC) | M (SD) | α (IIC) | |
CREAT | 6.53 (4.19) | - | 7.70 (4.69) | - | 7.62 (4.59) | - | 8.64 (5.00) | - |
AP | 14.83 (8.99) | - | 16.49 (9.74) | - | 18.44 (10.82) | - | 18.55 (10.84) | - |
MI | ||||||||
VI | 3.06 (0.88) | 0.66 (0.39) | 3.11 (0.89) | 0.69 (0.43) | 3.00 (0.90) | 0.68 (0.41) | 3.08 (0.92) | 0.72 (0.45) |
MU | 3.44 (1.07) | 0.79 (0.55) | 3.49 (1.08) | 0.83 (0.62) | 3.51 (1.07) | 0.80 (0.57) | 3.49 (1.10) | 0.85 (0.65) |
LM | 3.17 (1.03) | 0.72 (0.46) | 3.19 (1.05) | 0.80 (0.56) | 3.23 (1.08) | 0.78 (0.53) | 3.22 (1.05) | 0.78 (0.54) |
VS | 3.47 (0.96) | 0.66 (0.39) | 3.46 (0.95) | 0.71 (0.45) | 3.52 (0.94) | 0.67 (0.41) | 3.50 (0.94) | 0.69 (0.43) |
BK | 3.43 (0.95) | 0.64 (0.38) | 3.40 (0.99) | 0.72 (0.48) | 3.42 (0.97) | 0.66 (0.40) | 3.42 (0.97) | 0.70 (0.45) |
INTRA | 3.41 (0.88) | 0.70 (0.44) | 3.40 (0.89) | 0.76 (0.51) | 3.39 (0.88) | 0.69 (0.43) | 3.40 (0.91) | 0.75 (0.50) |
INTER | 3.80 (0.88) | 0.77 (0.53) | 3.75 (0.90) | 0.82 (0.61) | 3.79 (0.87) | 0.77 (0.53) | 3.77 (0.88) | 0.78 (0.54) |
NAT | 3.02 (1.19) | 0.85 (0.66) | 2.99 (1.18) | 0.89 (0.73) | 2.93 (1.20) | 0.86 (0.66) | 2.92 (1.22) | 0.89 (0.72) |
GC | 3.93 (0.68) | 0.86 (0.35) | 3.91 (0.72) | 0.90 (0.43) | 3.96 (0.67) | 0.86 (0.35) | 3.91 (0.71) | 0.88 (0.40) |
GSE | 3.46 (0.80) | 0.90 (0.46) | 3.51 (0.81) | 0.92 (0.53) | 3.50 (0.79) | 0.90 (0.46) | 3.52 (0.81) | 0.91 (0.51) |
PWB | ||||||||
AU | 3.39 (0.94) | 0.78 (0.47) | 3.42 (0.95) | 0.83 (0.56) | 3.41 (0.96) | 0.80 (0.50) | 3.35 (0.96) | 0.82 (0.54) |
EM | 3.65 (0.91) | 0.83 (0.55) | 3.68 (0.90) | 0.87 (0.62) | 3.65 (0.90) | 0.83 (0.55) | 3.67 (0.90) | 0.85 (0.59) |
PG | 3.84 (0.87) | 0.80 (0.50) | 3.87 (0.85) | 0.84 (0.57) | 3.86 (0.87) | 0.80 (0.50) | 3.82 (0.88) | 0.83 (0.54) |
PR | 3.53 (0.89) | 0.74 (0.42) | 3.54 (0.91) | 0.80 (0.50) | 3.52 (0.94) | 0.77 (0.46) | 3.49 (0.93) | 0.79 (0.48) |
PL | 3.69 (0.93) | 0.83 (0.54) | 3.67 (0.94) | 0.87 (0.63) | 3.68 (0.96) | 0.84 (0.58) | 3.61 (0.97) | 0.86 (0.61) |
SA | 3.69 (0.89) | 0.79 (0.48) | 3.67 (0.90) | 0.84 (0.56) | 3.67 (0.92) | 0.81 (0.51) | 3.63 (0.92) | 0.82 (0.53) |
SWL | 3.44 (0.92) | 0.79 (0.45) | 3.43 (0.94) | 0.84 (0.53) | 3.36 (0.95) | 0.81 (0.47) | 3.37 (0.98) | 0.84 (0.53) |
Variable | Combined Experimental Group | Control Group | F Value | df | p-Value | R2 (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pretest | Post-Test | Post-Test | |||||
AM | AM(SE) | AM(SE) | |||||
CREAT | 6.79 | 7.87 (0.08) | 8.07 (0.14) | 1.53 | 1, 3179 | 0.216 | 38.5 |
AP | 15.68 | 17.32 (0.08) | 15.86 (0.14) | 80.30 | 1, 3178 | 0.000 | 85.3 |
MI | |||||||
VI | 3.05 | 3.10 (0.02) | 3.11 (0.03) | 0.08 | 1, 3180 | 0.772 | 29.8 |
MU | 3.46 | 3.50 (0.02) | 3.46 (0.03) | 1.24 | 1, 3180 | 0.265 | 37.0 |
LM | 3.19 | 3.20 (0.02) | 3.20 (0.03) | 0.00 | 1, 3180 | 0.974 | 34.8 |
VS | 3.48 | 3.47 (0.02) | 3.48 (0.03) | 0.14 | 1, 3180 | 0.710 | 29.1 |
BK | 3.42 | 3.40 (0.02) | 3.42 (0.03) | 0.50 | 1, 3180 | 0.481 | 37.9 |
INTRA | 3.41 | 3.40 (0.02) | 3.41 (0.03) | 0.16 | 1, 3180 | 0.691 | 28.1 |
INTER | 3.80 | 3.75 (0.02) | 3.77 (0.03) | 0.65 | 1, 3180 | 0.420 | 32.2 |
NAT | 3.00 | 2.98 (0.02) | 2.96 (0.04) | 0.32 | 1, 3180 | 0.572 | 30.6 |
GC | 3.94 | 3.92 (0.01) | 3.89 (0.02) | 0.96 | 1, 3180 | 0.327 | 33.8 |
GSE | 3.47 | 3.51 (0.01) | 3.50 (0.03) | 0.15 | 1, 3180 | 0.697 | 32.4 |
PWB | |||||||
AU | 3.39 | 3.42 (0.02) | 3.34 (0.03) | 5.24 | 1, 3180 | 0.022 | 25.0 |
EM | 3.65 | 3.68 (0.02) | 3.67 (0.03) | 0.08 | 1, 3180 | 0.772 | 23.8 |
PG | 3.84 | 3.87 (0.02) | 3.81 (0.03) | 4.33 | 1, 3180 | 0.037 | 26.5 |
PR | 3.53 | 3.54 (0.02) | 3.49 (0.03) | 1.98 | 1, 3180 | 0.160 | 30.6 |
PL | 3.69 | 3.67 (0.02) | 3.61 (0.03) | 2.70 | 1, 3179 | 0.100 | 29.8 |
SA | 3.69 | 3.67 (0.02) | 3.64 (0.03) | 0.86 | 1, 3179 | 0.353 | 28.0 |
SWL | 3.43 | 3.43 (0.02) | 3.40 (0.03) | 0.58 | 1, 3178 | 0.448 | 25.5 |
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
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. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084832
Shek DTL, Cheung ACK, Hui ANN, Leung KH, Cheung RSH. Development and Evaluation of a Pioneer School-Based Gifted Education Program (Project GIFT) for Primary and Secondary Students in Hong Kong. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(8):4832. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084832
Chicago/Turabian StyleShek, Daniel Tan Lei, Alan Chi Keung Cheung, Anna Na Na Hui, Kim Hung Leung, and Ruby Shui Ha Cheung. 2022. "Development and Evaluation of a Pioneer School-Based Gifted Education Program (Project GIFT) for Primary and Secondary Students in Hong Kong" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 8: 4832. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084832