Case studies of gifted kindergarten children Part II: the parents and teachers.

The early years have been considered formative, and critical, to subsequent cognitive, social, and emotional development, yet research on young children has focused on commonalities; individual differences and abnormally advanced development are often viewed as "'troublesome noise' rather than objects of interest in themselves" (Robinson, 1993, p. 507).

This study (Parts I and II) utilized an in-depth, qualitative case study research approach, as described by Bogdan and Biklen (1992), to investigate the lives of gifted kindergarten children. When studying subpopulations of gifted students, it is difficult to obtain large populations. Thus, to employ random selection as the identification of the gifted and talented within this age group is not common practice. Although many authors work closely with these children in "present time," very few studies of this population have been undertaken in present time, when the children are actually experiencing events, such as school programs, parenting, social relationships, and other influences that contribute to their overall development. By focusing on the present, characterizations of particular and idiosyncratic features of the child's development and more detailed attention to environmental factors influencing the individuality and diversity of this population can be acquired. Retrospective studies, by contrast, are subject to the inaccuracies of the recollections of older memories.

This study allowed growth and change experiences to be observed firsthand. Part I (published in 2004 in Roeper Review 26, 192-207) discussed the children along themes relating to intellectual, achievement, social, affective, physical, aesthetic, and creative domains. This paper examines parent and teacher influences along themes corresponding to parent roles, and teacher styles and roles. Early life experiences can powerfully impact attitudes toward learning and later achievements in education. The information provided can be used to provide the foundation for parenting guidelines and the provision of developmentally appropriate curricula.

Methodology

Participant Selection

In order to obtain subjects, this study was publicized through a number of channels, including support groups for parents of gifted children, public and separate school boards throughout Alberta, preschool and early childhood education organizations, early childhood and gifted councils of the Alberta Teachers' Association, charter schools for the gifted, and chartered provincial psychologists known to have a particular interest in gifted and talented children. The initial criteria for identifying participants were (a) an IQ score at or greater than 130 on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale IV (Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler, 1986), (b) a chronological age between 5 and 6, and (c) an expressive language score equal to or greater than the 75th percentile on the Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (Gardner, 1990). Of the 24 nominations (4 girls and 20 boys) received, 12 met the specified criteria.

From these 12, 4 participants were selected to represent (a) distinctiveness of characteristics, and (b) a variety of educational settings. A fifth participant, Xiang-Huo, although not meeting the cognitive criterion, was also selected for the reasons explained later. All 5 children were between 5 years, 7 months and 5 years, 11 months of age at the onset of the study. With the exception of Xiang-Huo, their IQs ranged from 131 to 141. The students' expressive language measures ranged from the 94th to above the 99th percentiles (age equivalents between 7 years, 10 months and 11 years, 11 months). Three children underwent cognitive assessments independently of this project: Patrick, who needed an IQ measurement as a requirement for entrance into a charter school; Xiang-Huo, at his teachers' suggestion to determine current intellectual and academic functioning; and Jane, whose assessment was used to explore programming options because she was eager to begin school.

In the interest of maintaining confidentiality and anonymity, the children were assigned pseudonyms and identifying particulars (i.e., schools, friends) were modified.

Patrick was nominated by his kindergarten teacher who noted that he "excels verbally and shows strength in logical reasoning." He was chosen because his reading and writing skills are at the kindergarten level (age and grade appropriate), and because he attended one of the two charter schools specializing in the education of students who are gifted and talented. Physically, Patrick was observed to be very small, yet at 5 years, 11 months he was the oldest in the study. He was very affectionate, engaging, and especially verbal. In his kindergarten classroom, which consisted of 14 students, Patrick was very popular and often was the first one picked by his classmates for paired activities. Moreover, Patrick's closest friend was 6-years-older; their favorite activity was to "make action movies" in their neighborhood. He was also described, and observed, as being very comfortable in adult company. He also enjoyed many sports. Patrick's parents, both high-school graduates (UK educated), were a sales manager and a registered nurse. Patrick has a 10-year-old sister.

Xiang-Huo was nominated by his kindergarten teachers, both of whom described him as "reading, running a computer with ease, doing high-level math (multiplication & division), [and as having] good oral-language skills." Reported behaviors, and his parents' and teachers' confidence that his assessment results (IQ = 116) far underestimated his ability, were the driving force behind his inclusion. Initially, there was surprise and shock by both parents and teachers in reaction to Xiang-Huo's low assessment scores (attained independently from this project). Comments on the psychological assessment report stated that he was "very verbal throughout, although difficult to admit [that he] didn't know [an] answer ... eager to try more challenging items ... often completed uninteresting tasks with [his] eyes closed or not looking at the paper and refused to do some (non-compliance) ... [and on creative tasks, there was] not a lot of effort, [he] hurried through." Xiang-Huo looked older than his age would indicate, but he was the youngest in the study. Very quickly, he revealed his independence, humor, and self-challenging nature (i.e., spoke without ending a sentence or taking a breath, drew without lifting his pencil from the page). Xiang-Huo's school, an independent preschool and kindergarten, provided individualized programming and a small student-teacher ratio based on the Project Approach (Katz & Chard, 1988), encouraging young children to explore their environment and express themselves through an in-depth study of a particular topic. There were 22 (3 preschool and 19 kindergarten) students and four teaching staff in his classroom. Xiang-Huo's mother was the general manager of a computer company, and his father was a professor of engineering sciences. Xiang-Huo's 11-year-old sister was a source of information for him; he often rummaged through her school bag for books to read and exercises to complete. Paternal grandparents also lived with Xiang-Huo's family.

Cole was nominated by his kindergarten teacher and his parents. He was characterized by his nominators as "inquisitive, determined, goal oriented, [having a] strong sense of humor, introspective, very energetic, [and] tenacious ... he would 'practice' for quite a length of time." In addition, he was interested in a variety of sports (e.g., basketball, speed skating), academics (particularly math and reading), and constructing things from Lego, Knex, and other building devices (evident during his assessment by his strengths in abstract/visual skills and pattern analysis.) Cole was chosen because, in addition to the above-mentioned characteristics, he was noted by his parents and teacher as not being sensitive to other children in his classroom, and furthermore because Cole's school is a district site for The Academic Challenge Program [ACP]. His kindergarten class had 26 students. His teacher stated that ACP "is a way of looking at the world differently, a way of being able to process information that is different from other children and you can see it in kindergarten ... Cole is able to process information instantaneously ... his mind is spinning with questions. It is not taught." In discussing school demographics, she continued, stating, "these kids come well-trained ... it's the area. These people [adult community in surrounding area] are educated. They know that its important to read to their child every night. They talk to their children, they take them places ... and it shows." Cole had an 11-year-old sister. His mother was a high-school teacher, and his father was a graphics designer.

Jane was nominated by her kindergarten teacher and her parents. Her teacher described her as "bright [with] very good attending skills." Her mother noted "her reading skills, 'take charge' attitude, love [for] challenges, [and] fear of failure and ridicule." She was chosen because of her observational skills, focused concentration and motivation, engaging nature, and very precise language use. During the initial home visit, Jane illustrated several science experiments on static electricity, performed a music recital, and appeared to read flawlessly with emotion and seemingly little effort. Jane also attended ACP, although at a different district site than Cole. There were 15 students in her classroom. Jane's mother was a communication and marketing specialist, and private consultant; and her father was an independent businessman. Jane was an only child. Access to a diary, kept throughout Jane's mother's pregnancy through to the present, made an interesting addition to this study's data collection.

Sawyer was nominated by her preschool teacher from the previous year and her parents. Her nominators described her as having "an advanced vocabulary and a high level of reading comprehension. She readily sees relationships, detects patterns, makes generalizations, and is able to transfer her knowledge from one area to another.... She is highly observant and has an excellent eye for, and memory of, detail. She is very rule- and routine-oriented." She was chosen because her nominators also noted her overwhelming shyness and nervousness with new people or situations. Her kindergarten teacher was surprised by Sawyer's nomination, describing Sawyer as "a selective mute" at the beginning of school, which continued for 4 months, and how she socially lagged behind, spending all of her time by herself, hiding in the reading center, reading, although never reading out loud. Sawyer's teacher continued, commenting, "you couldn't tell she was in the room." Sawyer was extremely shy initially, and not entirely comfortable with her meeting with this author, although she did allow her mother to leave the room after approximately 20 minutes together. She was not willing to guess under any circumstance (i.e., prompting, support) and waited to be told how to respond, or to state her response. She appeared anxious and insecure with her own ability. She was most at ease with the verbal-memory tasks. Over time, she was challenged by the assessment process and persisted through all elements. Her behavior strongly suggested that her measured scores may be an underestimation of her ability. Sawyer attended an inclusive, multi-cultural school setting where the teaching staff use Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences to acknowledge gifts in different areas occurring across all grades, kindergarten to six. There were 19 students in her classroom, including one autistic child (with a funded aide). Sawyer's mother was a stay-at-home mother, although she had completed 1 year of a university arts degree. Her father, a lawyer for 8 years, was completing a graduate degree in business. Sawyer also has a 4-year-old brother.

Data Gathering

Standardized Assessments

A number of achievement tests were utilized for reading, receptive language, math, fine motor skills, creativity, and memory.

The difficulty in attaining reliable assessment information of children of this age was appreciated. Individual intellectual and academic assessments of the participants varied across a continuum from efficient, quick, and on-task behaviors that produced high degrees of confidence in the measured outcomes, to long, sporadic responses requiring much encouragement which resulted in lower levels of reliability in the measured scores.

Observations

Observations occurred in a number of settings (homes, schools, and other settings in which the children were involved; e.g., skating arenas, music bands, art, and swimming classes), as outlined by Bogden and Biklen (1992).

Questionnaires

A parent questionnaire was developed for the study and completed by the parents of each participant to provide information on their child's birth and medical history, personal experiences, and parental perceptions of functioning. A teacher questionnaire was also developed for the study and completed by the teachers of each participant in order to provide information on the child's cognitive (expressive and receptive language), psychomotor (coordination), and social functioning.

Interviews

Interviews were used to review information obtained from questionnaires, clinical testing, observations, and other sources of information. Semistructured and focused interviews, as outlined by Borg and Gall (1989), were conducted with the children, and their parents and teachers. Interviews with the children were based on a protocol developed for the study. All interviews were audiotaped, and subsequently transcribed verbatim. Interviews were used to develop content ideas and suggested directions for final interviews.

Data Analysis

Data collection and analysis are simultaneous processes in qualitative research (Merriam, 1988; Yin, 1994). Yin's (1989) case-study database, an ingredient to enhance the reliability of case studies, was created and maintained. All the above-mentioned data gathering sources were included and triangulated to assure the reliability and validity of this process (Creswell, 1994). Data analysis from this database involved two types of coding: open coding and axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). From open coding, patterns, categories, and themes emerged from the data through "the process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing, and categorizing data" (Strauss & Corbin, p. 61). As Patton (1987) suggested, there were no a priori categorizations that were imposed on the data. Axial coding put the data "back together" by initiating connections among the categories derived in open coding (Strauss & Corbin). Each piece of data, such as "Need for stimuli/keeping busy" was compared to other data relating to the child's need to be kept busy to detect incidents of specific phenomena.

Results of Thematic Analyses

Thematic analyses of the database, from the coding procedures described earlier, resulted in systematic data reduction into patterns and then themes. Consistent with a qualitative design, the themes are developed into narrative descriptions (Creswell, 1994) for the readers to appreciate how they are exhibited in young gifted children. The following categories were generated: intellectual/achievement domain, social domain, affective domain, physical domain, aesthetic and creative domain (discussed in Part I), and parent and teacher influences (discussed in Part II).

Parental Roles

Parental roles involved numerous areas and were multifaceted: teacher, coach, role model, facilitator, and provider of information. Both Cole's and Patrick's mothers discussed how patience is required to foster independence. According to Patrick's mother, being a good role model involves setting an example for life-long learning, including coaching and participating in various activities (i.e., sports or reading). Both she and Patrick's father played Level A squash and tennis, and went cross-country skiing with their children. Jane's father was more physical and active than her mother with Jane; they swam, sledded, and skated. Cole's mother viewed the home as modeling life-long learning, with the freedom to make choices, pursue interests, and have risk-taking experiences in a safe environment. Xiang-Huo's parents valued education and the sciences (math, science, and computers). It was very much in their family, in their home life, and it transferred to Xiang-Huo. Xiang-Huo's teacher did not "believe that they are pushing, not anymore than any other family.... They want him to realize his potential." Patrick's mother discussed a parent's role as having to censor the TV their children watch. Discovering, not chartering, their child's identity was a role Patrick's father included for himself as a parent. Patrick's mother discussed the marvel and delight she and her husband experience in "discovering who their children are ... [and] watching them grow and develop," placing little value on their assumptions about them, but rather supporting their children's own evolution.

Providing for their children's basic, emotional, and developmental needs was another identified parent role. Allowing their children to do things themselves, encouraging responsibility and offering choice were fundamentals to the provision of stimulating (intellectual, physical) experiences appropriate for the children's developmental level (i.e., discussing daily news, songs, books, and traveling together). Jane's father travels a great deal, so "it's part of our life to view the whole world as reachable." Jane has flown to Winnipeg, San Diego, Disneyland, New Zealand, and Hawaii. Jane's mother commented that as she "progressed and learned, we gave her what she needed or changed her routine as necessary." This included learning the alphabet and making letters with a pencil; "I have to say we were pushing her. But she always set the agenda for what she was ready to do or try. If she got frustrated, we would put the items away and say let's try again another time and give her something else to do. The next time she was better ... Jane has always been eager to do more, and learn more. I am always willing to teach her or get her anything she needs." Both of Cole's parents are advocates for his education. Listening to the child's thoughts and feelings were reported by Patrick's, Cole's, and Jane's mothers.

Teacher Domain

This domain consisted of two areas: styles and roles. The former is composed of unique approaches the teacher maintained in the education of her respective participant and the latter includes the roles commonly adopted.

Teacher Styles. Each teacher outlined several interesting styles or unique approaches to the participant's learning needs, including the use of choice and variety, the incorporation of spontaneous material, child-directed topics and activities, group discussions, and individualized assignments. Lynne, Xiang-Huo's teacher, discussed the Project Approach (Katz & Chard, 1988) as providing "lots of choice and we would meet any child's needs.... However for Xiang-Huo, this is difficult because ... he knows so much already ... it may come down to even one-on-one teacher to child [interaction]." Lynne stated that "sometimes [I] feel sorry for him. He must just think, 'what are they doing?'" Kiera, Patrick's teacher, was willing to change planned activities as others presented themselves. When Patrick brought in a model Egyptian mummy, "we dropped everything ... sat around Patrick ... and he took apart the model ... [it] turned it into a big learning experience." She adapted curricular expectations with her students' favorite things and, for most, acceleration. Caroline, Cole's teacher, used very elaborate and in-depth centers which were child directed; the children chose which centre they wanted, chose activities they wanted to do, and Caroline presented the class with new options for novel and "old" materials. During the author's first entrance into the classroom, Caroline was giving a tour through Kindertown (the umbrella theme for the month), showing each of the different "buildings" (centres) throughout the town and a host of activities available at each place. Michelle, Jane's teacher, presented exercises to the entire class with an overview of the possibilities; her students were able to incorporate these suggestions at their individual activities. Jane was also provided with individual writing assignments with selected subject matters or open-ended approaches about any topic she desired.

All the teachers conveyed their desire to challenge their students without causing frustration. Kiera had 14 different curricula, all at their own level, "all of them actually are doing K+, close to grade 1 [work], and well into grade 1 for the language reading and writing." Lynne apologized for reading Dr. Seuss books, and yet when the challenge is presented, "not everyone picks up on the challenge, including Xiang-Huo ... there is a hint of laziness. I don't like to say that about 6-year-olds, I don't think that they are inherently lazy, but there have been some patterns formed where he wants to get away with the bare minimum." The approach taken with Xiang-Huo was that Lynne specifically introduced a topic for him. The computer system on the library, the Internet, and optical illusions, are examples of topics he showed some connection to, yet would not explore them further. Caroline questioned her "role as a kindergarten teacher.... This is a play-based program, and in grade 1 he will be asked to complete assignments ... I struggle with this, with kids like Cole. He is not unique. I would like to see them using that brain power ... I do not want to force too much, because it is only kindergarten."

The teachers' use of external motivators varied greatly. Kiera very rarely used stickers. She stated that her job included the fostering of self-appreciation in her students' work. In Cole's classroom, students received stickers for sharing news; if something was completed particularly well in this exercise, stickers were received for the effort. "Something that we've done for Cole," explained Shannon, his teacher's aide, "to get him to expand on things a little, like there'll be an activity and its so easy for him, so we try and encourage him to go a little further ... we give him a sticker as a reward for doing that.... He's not very eager to do that. He wants to get things done now, get it over with." Allison, Sawyer's teacher, explained her gotcha program as "little pieces of paper placed in a jar ... [that are] called gotchas. I gotcha being good, I gotcha working hard...they write their own name on a piece of paper and put it in the container." Every Friday, a name was drawn to pick a prize from a treasure chest.

Teacher Roles. The roles adopted by all the teachers included: facilitator, observer, parent-substitute, confidant (to parent), and companion (peer).

Patrick's teacher, Kiera, explained a number of roles that she adopts during the day: classroom facilitator and parent (a warm and loving character around them). She often produced activities for individual student needs and group needs. Xiang-Huo's teachers, Lynne and Liz, were very supportive of his mother, acting as confidants and discussing things of benefit for Xiang-Huo, including his difficulties in leaving, attendance, and socializing with the other children and their families. Xiang-Huo's mother was rewarding him with a new game or candy at every pick-up time. His teachers reviewed a number of parenting techniques with her, including modeling effects, reinforcement of positive behaviors and punishment (removal of TV or computer). His teachers were also facilitators in learning, companions and friends, and role models for socially acceptable ways of dealing with frustration and tolerance of others' mistakes. Michelle and Caroline, Jane's and Cole's teachers, respectively, believed their role was to observe, accept ideas, and discuss differing views. For Caroline, some learning situations needed to encourage interactions between students, while others should develop independence (autonomy). Allison, Sawyer's teacher, believed that facilitating growth in all areas, cognitive, social, physical, and emotional, was essential, although in practice it was very difficult to orchestrate.

Discussion

Families offer a special context for learning for young children. They provide unique connections to learning experiences through sport, travel, literature, community, siblings, and other family members. Characteristics, including verbal expertise, curiosity, motivation, play behavior, social expression, and independence, can differ due to home and family conditions (Martlew & Sorsby, 1995).

The awe and continual astonishment experienced by some parents about their children s abilities were very evident. One participant's parents reported embarrassment with their own skills, in comparison to their child's (Patrick's) memory for events. Porter's (1999) discussion of parental underestimation of children's abilities and how some parents did not want their child to be gifted did not apply to any of the parents in this study. The parents of gifted children have been characterized as having a propensity to "push" their children (Sankar-DeLeeuw, 1997); three participants' parents stated being described this way by other adults. One parent admitted that her daughter urged the digesting of more information and delving ahead. Another commented that other adults around her and her husband interpreted some observed behaviors as being "pushy." Yet another felt that her son did not feel pressure by her encouragement, rather, permission to be competitive and give 100%. Likewise, parents may be seen as "pushy" by teachers when appropriate programming for the educational needs of gifted children is not readily available, and the parents have to advocate on behalf of their children.

All the parents, moreover, were eager to provide their busy and active children with plenty of stimuli and, for four of the five children, several formally instructed activities and sports were elected. Congruently, the parents commonly felt stress from the children's unyielding activity, inquisitiveness and curiosity, even though, for some children, self-entertainment, and therefore solitude, in these activities had been attained. Baska (1989) also noted intense curiosity in young gifted children when presented with an exciting environment.

Karnes (1983) discussed the inadequacy many parents indicated about the rearing of gifted and talented children. Parents in this study also voiced inadequacy. Two parents mentioned their uncertainty with what "should" be done before their children's entry into kindergarten. With the exception of Xiang-Huo, all the children participated in a play-school program. Sameroff and McDonough (1994) believe the best age for children to receive formal instruction is around 6-years-old. Others agreed, based on the less-structured exploration necessary prior to structured schooling (Butchart, cited in Hammer, 1998).

In this study, the parents devised specific guidelines to facilitate the rearing of a young-gifted child. In general, a parent is a facilitator of growth, providing stimulating (intellectual, physical) experiences appropriate for the child's developmental level, and an advocate of, and personally involved with, the education of the child. The following is a more explicit assembly of guidelines collectively produced by the parents, which can be applicable to parents of all children:

1. Discover, not charter, your child's identity.

2. Listen to your child's own thoughts, feelings, joys, sorrows, hopes, and fears.

3. Encourage responsibility by offering choice.

4. Allow your child to independently do everything, without assistance.

5. Support friendships.

6. Be patient.

7. Be a good role model (including providing for rich language expression and life-long learning.)

8. Read, both to your child and also on your own.

9. Discuss and debate daily news, songs, and books.

10. Mediate television viewing.

The guidelines were extended to various roles that parents may have to adopt when rearing young gifted children: nurturer, disciplinarian, knowledge bearer, teacher, counselor, coach, financial provider, travel guide and chauffeur, activity coordinator, newsperson and debater, and housekeeper.

Parents presented, in most cases repeatedly, a variety of reading genres to their children: picture books, songs, poetry, fiction, fantasy, folktales, jokes, magazines, nonfiction, fables, and newspapers. In addition, three of the parents read materials with their children, that the children could read independently. Discussions involving predictions of future story progressions were enjoyed. All the parents had a hand in selecting new reading material for their children. The participants' reading characteristics were observed to have the following: noting of distinctive features in print; a capability of predicting feasible or likely endings of words, phrases, and sentences; comparisons to own background knowledge (Does it make sense?); reading for meaning versus identifying letters or words; shifts in speed and approach (dependent on type and purpose of reading); expectations formulated about the way passages will develop; and advantageous use of a passage's graphic, syntactic, and semantic cues to speed reading and improve comprehension. These elements have been observed in good readers. Relative to the other children, Sawyer was not as observant of the physical print. This may be indicative of her strong connection to ascertaining the desired meaning of a story.

The siblings of the participants in this study provided affection, materials and information, criticism, correction of inaccurate information, and playmates within director or actor roles. The male participants all had older sisters and one female participant, Sawyer, had a younger brother. The sisters had a significant amount of patience and tolerance for their younger brothers. Sawyer's brother imitated many of her behaviors and interests. There were times when his presence during visits assisted her; he encouraged her to respond to assessment items and paralleled activities in order for her to participate. He also added greater creativity and novelty to her regard for maintaining exact renditions of dialogue from movies and books; this act was a source of frustration and enormous challenge for Sawyer. Little documentation on young gifted children and their siblings exists. Moreover, the literature on older gifted children provides numerous comparisons between the relationships gifted children have with gifted versus nongifted siblings (Cornell & Grossberg, 1986); negative effects (i.e., less well-adjusted, pressure, resentment, competitive, anxious) on the nonlabeled siblings resulting from a gifted label (Colangelo & Brower, 1987), has consistently been reported. Although none of the siblings were identified gifted, they all displayed many characteristics indicative of giftedness; however, formal assessments of intellectual functioning were not conducted, so relationship comparisons similar to those cited could not be made by this study. Colangelo and Brower found that siblings eventually come to terms with the gifted label without negative feelings.

The final area investigated by this study was the teacher domain. Although remaining grounded in the principles of early childhood education, the different educational settings provided interesting perspectives to each child's learning environment. Four of the children's kindergarten classes were considered to be mixed-groups, that of Xiang-Huo, Sawyer, Cole, and Jane, while Patrick's classroom was homogeneously grouped. Classes varied from 14 to 26 students. The teachers varied from 1 to over 20 years teaching experience.

The kindergarten curriculum presented in each classroom studied occurred along a wide spectrum. At the time of this study, there was no standard curriculum for kindergarten in Alberta and teachers adapt a list of guidelines into practice. A commonly reported observation cited in the literature is that the kindergarten curriculum is boring and redundant for gifted students (Karnes & Johnson, 1990; Kitano, 1985). Gross and Feldhusen (1990) found precocious readers among nearly all the highly gifted children they studied, and that schools disregard their precocity and subject them to the instructional level presented to all children. Boredom and redundancy applied to four of the five participants. In particular, reading instruction for these advanced readers was found to be unchallenging. However, while Sawyer and Jane usually attended to class proceedings, Xiang-Huo and Cole frequently caused disruption. Cole's teacher added an innovative reading technique, Animated Literacy (Stone, 1995), to her reading instruction. Cole's classmates, including those who were already reading, gravitated to the method. However, it was only the written accompaniments (drawing strategies) that seemed to interest Cole. For Patrick, his grade-appropriate academic skills paralleled a number of other classmates; his teacher found the programming of other students in her class to be more of a challenge as their needs were more unique.

Modification of instructional practices and curricular materials are often employed to meet the needs of gifted students. Differentiated curriculum for young gifted children, according to Karnes, Shwedel, and Williams (1983), consists of the following: encouraging the pursuit of a chosen interest in depth; interest- and needs-based learning rather than predetermined instruction; complex, abstract, and higher-level-thinking processes; greater flexibility in the use of materials, times and resources; higher expectations for task persistence and independence; more provisions for acquiring and demonstrating leadership; encouraging creative and productive thinking; more opportunities to broaden the knowledge base and enhance language abilities (pp.129-130). These concepts were practiced through independent study and enrichment.

Smutny, Walker, and Meckstroth (1997) along with Porter (1999) have addressed the area of modified instruction for those functioning above age and grade expectations in early childhood education. Independent study was utilized by three of the participants in this study. Jane, once a week, worked on individualized worksheets and story writing. Xiang-Huo, as opportunities presented themselves, could work on independently generated tasks or isolated sections of class-assigned tasks (i.e., ice-cream shop instead of group building of a hotel). Patrick, almost daily, was presented with grade-appropriate tasks with additional and desired challenge. In particular, group activities were without ceilings and the entire assignment was adjusted with incoming student input. Enrichment, additional exposure to a given topic, was presented to specific children or provided within a given activity or center, and utilized by the teachers; however, it was either well received as with Jane and Patrick, or often rejected as with Xiang-Huo and Cole. Cole's classroom was filled with a host of materials on presented themes. His teacher embedded a variety of explorative activities into her classroom. Cole very rarely utilized them; most of his efforts were expended on the crafts or computer centres. The availability of challenging activities was available to Sawyer as well, requiring self-initiation to access, yet was undertaken very quietly and unassumingly; it was the chalkboard (drawing cats) that she migrated to and worked at until period end.

In this study, the use of accelerative techniques (to higher grade-level content) by two kindergarten teachers exposed territorial issues with the grade 1 teachers about grade 1 curriculum. These grade 1 teachers were opposed to the teaching of grade 1 curriculum (including independent reading) in kindergarten. Children should be receiving programming that is commensurate with their abilities. However, the territorial issue around curriculum could prevent appropriate educational challenge. Additional investigation is required in regard to its prevalence, impact, and interventions to change this conception.

VanTassel-Baska's (1991) four characteristics of effective teachers for gifted learners, eager support of acceleration options, capability to modify a curriculum, adequate training and competence in the content area, and preparation in organizing and managing classroom activities, seemed to be covered by each teacher studied. Teachers' roles identified in this study align themselves to previously cited itemized lists (Clark, 1988), including observer, parent, peer/friend, facilitator (creative, tolerant, interactive), adjuster of individual style, provider of developmentally appropriate curricular choice, and initiator of creative products. A new teacher role, that of confidante/counselor, was identified by this study in the case of Xiang-Huo. Very little published literature has addressed the counseling role of early childhood teachers. Counseling issues involved parenting, family, separation, and discipline. Providing teachers with information and management strategies in dealing more effectively with their gifted students can enhance learning and home environments, and teacher satisfaction. Coping strategies to deal with various psychological needs can facilitate their education and curriculum activities can provide learning environments focused on various areas (imagination, motor, sensory). Porter (1999) notes "counselling does not have to be a formal affair; it can comprise any natural conversation aimed at helping gifted young children to understand their abilities, develop relationships, and manage stress" (p. 254). Davis & Rimm (1998) discuss the importance of not letting them feel abnormal, weird, or alone.

The children in this study presented unique challenges to existing knowledge about parenting, identifying, and programming for young gifted children. Guidelines are provided to parents, teachers, and psychologists by the multiple perspectives considered in this paper. There is no single adequate definition, and there are no procedures, or combination of procedures, that address all the important areas impinged upon by the heterogeneity of this collective group. Although differences among the children were ascertained within every domain (intellectual, social, affective, creative, and physical), and despite selection procedures emphasizing diversity, it is remarkable how much similarity there was among the children studied. Far earlier than most educators expect, these children can be distinguished from the general population, supporting the position that an effective foundation for identification practices can be established. This, in turn, leads to the need to investigate, and especially evaluate, educational options (early entry, heterogeneous classroom, self-contained gifted classroom), including whether specific options are more beneficial, overall, as well as for specific gifts and talents Curricula and learning situations for young gifted children, as for all children, must be individualized according to unique characteristics, interests, and abilities, because learning patterns are established, and attitudes towards others formed, early in their development.

Conclusions

The breadth of student experiences of giftedness is varied (Kerr, Colangelo, & Gaeth, 1988; Kunkel, Chapa, Patterson, & Walling, 1995), but little attention has been focused on the experiences of the gifted young child. In fact, there is reluctance to labeling young children in any way (Porter, 1999). This in-depth, multiple case study investigation adds confidence and value to the literature on young gifted children. Parental identification occurred at early ages from language skills, reading, persistence, or observational skills. Teacher identification can be more difficult due to disbelief and distrust in the identification of behaviorally, socially, and emotionally challenged children. Parents and educators have key roles in helping these children grow intellectually, socially, and psychologically toward being able to function productively in the real and challenging world.

Manuscript submitted May 14, 2004.

Revision accepted December 22, 2005.

REFERENCES

Baska, L. K. (1989). Characteristics and needs of the gifted. In J. Feldhusen, J. VanTassel-Baska, & K. Seeley (Eds.), Excellence in educating the gifted. Denver: Love.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.

Clark, B. (1988). Growing up gifted (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Colangelo, N., & Brower, P. (1987). Labeling gifted youngsters: Long-term impact on families. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 75-78.

Cooper, C. R., & Petrosky, A. R. A. (1976). A psycholinguistic view of the fluent reading process. Journal of Reading, 20, 184-207.

Cornell, D. G., & Grossberg, I. N. (1986). Siblings of children in gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9, 253-264.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gardner, M. E (1990). Expressive one-word picture vocabulary test (Rev. ed.). Novato, CA: Academic Therapy.

Gross, M. U. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1990). The exceptionally gifted child. Understanding Our Gifted, 2(1), 7-10.

Hammer, K. (1998). What do you do with a gifted 4-1/2-year-old? Challenge, 80, 22-24.

Karnes, M. B. (1983). The underserved: Our young gifted children.

Arlington, VA: Educational Council for Exceptional Children.

Karnes, M. B., & Johnson, L. J. (1990). A plea: Serving young gifted children. Early Development and Care, 63, 131-138.

Karnes, M. B., Shwedel, A., & Williams, M. (1983). Combining instructional models to develop differentiated curriculum for young gifted children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 15(3), 128-135.

Katz, L., & Chard, S. C. (1988). Engaging children's minds: The project approach. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

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

Kitano, M. (1985). Ethnography of a preschool for the gifted: What gifted young children actually do. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 67-71.

Kunkel, M. A., Chapa, B., Patterson, G., & Walling, D. D. (1995). The experience of giftedness: A concept map. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 126-134.

Martlew, M., & Sorsby, A. (1995). The precursors of writing: Graphic representation in preschool children. Learning and Instruction, 5, 1-19.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Morelock, M. J. (1992). Giftedness: The view from within. Understanding Our Gifted. 4(1), 11-15.

Patton, M. Q. (1987). Qualitative evaluation methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Porter, L. (1999). Gifted young children: A guide for teachers and parents. Buckingham, England: Open University.

Robinson, N. M. (1993). Identifying and nurturing gifted, very young children. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 507 524). New York: Pergamon.

Sameroff, A., & McDonough, S. C. (1994). Educational implications of developmental transitions: Revisiting the 5-to 7-year shift. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 188-193.

Sankar-DeLeeuw, N. (1997). Gifted preschoolers: Surveys of characteristics perceived by parents and teachers. In J. Chan, R. Li, & J. Spinks (Eds.), Maximizing potential: Lengthening and strengthening our stride (pp. 399-414). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.

Smutny, J. F., Walker, S. Y., & Meckstroth, E. A. (1997). Teaching young gifted children in the regular classroom. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Stone, J. (1995). Animated-Literacy. La Mesa, CA: J. Stone Creations.

Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E .P., & Sattler, J. M. (1986). Technical manual Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (4th ed.). Chicago: The Riverside.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1991). Identification of candidates for acceleration: Issues and concerns. In W. T. Southern & E. D. Jones (Eds.), The academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 148-161). New York: Teachers College Press.

Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dr. Naomi Sankar-DeLeeuw is a registered school psychologist with Edmonton Public Schools. This article is developed from her three paper formatted dissertation in School Psychology completed at the University of Alberta under the direction of Dr. Carolyn Yewchuk. Case Studies of Gifted Kindergarten Children, Part I: Profiles of Promise, was published in 2004 in Roeper Review. E-mail: [e-mail]