Cognizance of gifted education among elementary-education professors from MCREL member states.

Although there are many issues about which experts in the education of gifted and talented children disagree, most agree that the level of awareness of gifted education among educators is not at a desirable level. Clinkenbeard and Kolloff (2001) suggested that pre-service teacher preparation poorly prepares undergraduates for instructing the gifted. If this is true, it should not be surprising that the awareness of the needs of gifted children is inadequate among practicing teachers. To learn whether this is true, it is important to investigate the level of knowledge elementary-education college professors and instructors have regarding issues in gifted education.

Prior research consists of several surveys that identify the level of knowledge of gifted-education issues among various educator groups such as university department heads and heads of state, gifted-education associations (Cross & Dobbs, 1987; Davison, 1996). Studies of teacher attitudes toward gifted students also have been an emphasis of prior research.

Review of Literature

Awareness of gifted education

The first study related to investigating the level of awareness of gifted-education issues among educators of pre-service teachers was conducted by Cross and Dobbs (1987). A 20-question survey was administered to heads of state gifted associations with a response rate of 40 out of 51 (78%).

Respondents were asked to rate the level of importance of topics in gifted education. They rated the three most important issues as (a) educational and psychological needs of the gifted; (b) application of a variety of instructional models/educational strategies appropriate for use with gifted/talented; and (c) ability to modify, adapt, design appropriate curriculum units of study for use with gifted/talented (mean rating 3.88 out of 4.00). Respondents rated the second most important issue as the understanding of a variety of delivery models for gifted/talented students (mean rating 3.75). Respondents rated the third most important issue as characteristics of and identification procedures recommended for academically gifted, and characteristics of and identification procedures recommended for culturally disadvantaged gifted (mean rating 3.73). The least important issues were perceived as the historical development of gifted in the United States (2.28), and the eligibility for certification at a specific grade level (2.75).

The most significant criticism of the Cross and Dobbs research is that their survey was completed only by heads of state, gifted-education associations (e.g. Indiana Association for Gifted Children, Utah Association for Gifted Children). Surveying the heads of the associations provides an informed, but very limited perspective. In their study one individual represented the viewpoints of an entire state. The most significant contribution of this research was that it precipitated a discussion regarding what issues are most significant in the field of gifted education. While experts criticized measurement and methodological aspects of this study, this research did open a forum for a discussion of awareness of gifted issues.

More recently, Davison (1996) conducted a similar study of department heads at teacher preparation institutions in Iowa. Davison's survey assessed the extent to which Iowa teacher preparation institutions met state mandates for preparing pre-service teachers to teach gifted students. As in the Cross and Dobbs (1987) study the response rate was quite high (23 out of 28 or 82%). It is not clear whether the respondents represented elementary- or secondary-preparation programs.

Davison's investigation found that a separate course in gifted education was not offered in any teacher preparation program in Iowa. Gifted-education mandates were often met by courses entitled Exceptional Child, Exceptional Behavior, Exceptional Persons, Special Learner, or Mainstreaming. Nine institutions addressed gifted-education issues in content courses and 18 institutions offered 1 to 8 hours of instruction addressing gifted education. Assuming teacher preparation programs across the country are similar to those in Iowa, institutions are only minimally addressing gifted-education topics in their courses. As in the Cross and Dobbs (1987) study, a limited perspective was provided by department heads. What actually gets carried out in courses may be wholly different from what syllabi suggest. Davison suggested that separate gifted-education classes should be offered and that research similar to hers should be conducted in various regions of the country.

Teacher attitudes

Studies regarding teacher attitudes towards gifted students and gifted education are plentiful (Battery, 1978; Begoray & Slovinsky, 1997; Cramond & Martin, 1985, 1987; Gagne & Nadeau, 1985; Gross, 2002; Moon, Callahan, & Tomlinson, 1999; Ribich, Agostino, & Barone, 1998; Tirri, Tallent-Runnels, Adams, Yuen, & Lau, 2002; Tomlinson et al., 1994). The focus of each study is slightly different, but the general consensus is that teachers hold negative attitudes towards gifted students for various reasons.

For instance Gross (2002) discussed teachers' misconceptions of gifted students and called for additional training of post-graduate teachers. Begoray and Slovinsky (1997) discussed negative teacher attitudes of gifted students and what can be done to improve them. Moon et al. (1999) reported that while college educators are making efforts to discuss gifted education, it is a difficult task without experience. Battery (1978), Cramond and Martin (1985, 1987), and Ribich et al. (1998), reported that pre-service teachers have negative attitudes about gifted students. Tomlinson et al. (1994) reported that lower-performing students get more teacher attention than higher-performing students in school. In total these studies indicate that many of the barriers deterring progress coupled with negative attitudes towards teaching gifted students derived from a lack of understanding or familiarity with gifted students. Generally this lack of understanding arises from lack of experience with gifted students and/or lack of gifted-education issues discussed in teacher-preparation coursework.

The call for additional training of pre-service teachers is not new. For years experts have been advocating the use of additional training for teachers of the gifted- and general-education teachers who are likely to encounter gifted students (Clinkenbeard & Kolloff, 2001; Goncharova, Poniaeva, & Antoschuck, 1997; Hanninen, 1988; Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994; Rogers, 1989; Schack & Starko, 1990).

Hanninen (1988) stated that differences exist in the way general-education teachers are prepared and the way teachers of the gifted are prepared and this difference is noticeable in the classroom when they are working with gifted students. According to Clinkenbeard and Kolloff (2001), pre-service teacher education needs to more adequately prepare undergraduates for instructing the gifted. Little appears to have changed in the years since that recommendation. Hansen and Feldhusen (1994) cited several shortcomings of being unprepared to instruct gifted students. The most significant shortcoming of teachers is intimidation and inflexibility when working with children of advanced intellect. Moreover, they argue, if it is reasonable to expect teachers to have specialty training in physical education, music, typing, auto mechanics, and teaching handicapped students, then it seems reasonable to expect specialty training for teachers of gifted. Finally they argued that, "it is generally accepted that typical pre-service teacher training programs do not adequately prepare teachers to meet the needs of gifted learners (p. 115)." These studies advocate for additional training in education of the gifted. However, without actual data about how much attention is devoted to gifted education in teacher-preparation programs, the argument is less persuasive than it otherwise might be. Consequently, we were interested in investigating the level of GT knowledge among elementary-education professors. Secondarily, we were interested in investigating the relationship between the level of knowledge and (a) GT training teachers received during their undergraduate career, (b) GT requirements for undergraduates at their current institution and, (c) the amount of time they devote to GT issues in methods classes they teach.

Methods

Sample

The population for this study was identified as any professor or instructor who prepared pre-service elementary teachers at a 4-year teacher preparation institution in the seven state region served by Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning (MCREL). A list of all (N = 83) 4-year elementary-teacher-preparation institutions was obtained from MCREL or the state commission for higher education. Member states were Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. From this list every third institution was selected resulting in N = 27 institutions of which 26 were surveyed (one institution chose not to participate).

To identify which individuals were eligible to receive the survey, one or more of three administrators (department head, department chair, or dean) along with the administrative assistant were contacted. This was done to obtain a list of methods instructors/professors who had taught elementary methods courses in the past three years or would teach these courses in the upcoming year. In the event no response was received, a personal phone call or a manual search of the university directory was conducted to obtain all participants' e-mail addresses. Once a list for each school was complete, an invitation to participate in the survey, an institutional review-board letter (as an attachment) along with the web address for the survey were sent to participants.

Of the 146 participants contacted, 68 responded, for a response rate of 42%. The number of respondents from each state is shown in Table 1. This stratified cluster sample was judged to be fairly representative of various types of colleges, from small liberal-arts colleges to major research institutions, in the region.

Instrument

A 21-question online instrument was created using several sources (See Appendix). First, items from Cross and Dobbs (1987) and Davison's (1996) surveys were adapted. Similarities in the two instruments were identified and these items were triangulated with items suggested by the National Association for Gifted Children's Pre-K- 12 Program Standards (1998). Together these three sources had substantial overlap on the issues of differentiation, acceleration, curriculum models, NAGC standards, identification of students, creativity, grouping, and gifted-education literature. Experts in the field of gifted education and survey design were then contacted for feedback on the survey and how it should be administered. Four iterations of the survey were created before the final revision. Pilot work was completed in the summer of 2002 at a major research institution in the Midwest.

First, knowledge of gifted-education issues was investigated using 16 questions. Two questions each were created to investigate differentiation, acceleration, curriculum models, NAGC standards, identification of students, creativity, grouping, and gifted education literature. Second, demographic information was gathered. These questions pertained to state of employment, time devoted to gifted-education topics in methods class, undergraduate-gifted-education requirements for graduation, instructor or professor requirements in gifted education to graduate, and state of graduation. Due to the small number of questions used to investigate each issue, it is problematic to comment on professors' level of knowledge on any separate factor (e.g. differentiation, acceleration, curriculum models). Not enough items were presented to form composite variables (Anderson & Bourke, 2000). Instead all eight factors, 16 items, were collapsed to provide a picture of professor and instructor knowledge of gifted education as a whole in the MCREL states region. The survey is available at www.uwyo.edu/giftedsurvey, it is listed in the appendix, and a copy of it may be requested from the first author (Chamberlin, 2004).

Procedures

From the 26 institutions surveyed, all 146 eligible individuals were contacted in fall 2004 by e-mail with an invitation to participate in the survey and a human subjects consent letter. Two weeks after the initial e-mail was sent, a survey reminder e-mail was sent to each participating individual.

Results

The sum of the first 16 items formed a Likert scale measuring the instructors' self-rated level of knowledge of gifted education. The average gifted-education knowledge self-rating of instructors was 3.18 (SD = .85), where 1 represented the lowest level of knowledge and 5 represented the highest level of knowledge.

Methods instructors were asked what amount of instruction time was devoted to gifted-education topics. Most (69%) reported 1-2 hours per semester with another 19% reporting 3-4 hours per semester. Only 11% of the sample reported 5 or more hours per semester devoted to gifted-education topics.

Many (47%) of the instructors' institutions required undergraduate students to complete only one course that partially addressed gifted education. Some (27%) reported more than one required course that partially addresses gifted-education topics, while few (6%) reported one or more required course addressing gifted education exclusively. Another 27% reported no required course addressing gifted education in their teacher-preparation program. A majority of instructors (61%) indicated there had been no required course addressing gifted education in the college where they had prepared to become a teacher. Another 24% had one course partially addressing gifted education, and 6% reported having taken more than one course partially addressing gifted education. Only 8% reported having taken one or more courses addressing gifted education exclusively.

We studied the relationship between self-reported knowledge of gifted education and (a) the training the methods instructor had received, (b) the requirements for GT education in their current institution, and (c) the amount of time they devoted to GT issues in the methods classes they now teach. Analysis of variance showed no statistically significant difference in knowledge level depending on the amount of GT training the instructor had received, F(4, 57) = 1.90, p = .123 (see Tables 2 and 3) or depending on the institutional requirements where they now teach, F(4, 57) = 0.42, p = .794 (see Tables 4 and 5).

However, there was a relationship between the level of self-reported knowledge of gifted education and the number of hours the instructor devotes to GT education in methods courses F(3, 58) = 5.69,p = .002 (see Tables 6 and 7). The greater the instructors' self-rated level of knowledge of gifted education, the more instructional time they devoted to gifted-education topics in their methods course.

In order to examine the relationships among amount of instructional time devoted to gifted education, the institutional requirement in gifted education, and the amount of gifted education required in the programs when instructors were in college, chi-square analyses were conducted. Categories with small marginal frequencies were collapsed so that the chi-square tests of independence were valid.

There was a statistically significant relationship between the amount of instructional time devoted to gifted education and the institutional requirement of courses in gifted education, [chi square] (2) = 10.40, p = .006 (see Table 8). Where the institutional requirement is for more than one course partially addressing gifted education, 47% of methods professors reported spending 3 or more hours per semester in their own methods course. In contrast, where the institutional requirement is for only one course partially addressing GT education, 58% of methods professors reported spending only 1-2 hours per semester addressing GT Education.

The relationship between the degree of exposure to GT education during professors undergraduate programs and their current institutional requirement in gifted education was statistically significant, [chi square](1) = 7.17, p = .007. Nearly all (92%) who had a GT course requirement during their undergraduate teacher preparation program reported being at an institution with one or more GT courses required, while only 60% of those with no GT course requirement reported being at an institution with one or more GT courses required.

Finally there was a statistically significant relationship between professors' having a GT course required during their undergraduate program and the amount of instructional time devoted to gifted education in courses they taught, [chi square](1) = 10.19, p = .001. While over half (54%) of those who had a GT course requirement in their own college program reported 3 or more hours of time spent in GT in their current courses, only a few (16%) of those with no GT course requirement reported 3 or more hours of time spent in GT in their current courses.

Discussion

Though the mean self-rated knowledge of respondents who reported more GT education required in their undergraduate programs rated their knowledge of GT education higher, this difference was not statistically significant. We suspect that with a larger number of respondents, this relationship would be statistically significant. If this proves to be correct, it supports the notion that the more preparation professors have, the higher their knowledge of GT education can be expected.

Our data do show that the higher the self-reported knowledge of GT education, the greater the amount of instructional time devoted to GT education. Practically speaking, the greater the professors' knowledge of GT education, the more time they invest in teaching issues related to the needs of gifted and talented students. Several hypotheses may explain this finding. First, professors aware of GT topics may realize its importance and want their students to know something about the educational needs of gifted and talented children. On the other hand, professors who are unaware of GT issues may underestimate the significance of discussing them in their methods class.

Together, these two findings suggest that increased exposure to GT education during the undergraduate career leads to more knowledge of GT education, which in turn leads to increased time invested in teaching GT in methods classes.

Further evidence that this model is correct is supported by the relationship between amount of exposure to GT courses in their undergraduate education and the investment of time in methods courses. In our study, most respondents who were not required to take a GT course during their undergraduate program invested only 1 to 2 hours on GT issues in their current methods class. However, of the respondents who did have a GT course required during their undergraduate program, about half spent 3 or more hours on GT issues in class. This finding suggests that individuals with no GT requirements for graduation during their undergraduate coursework were inclined to minimize instruction time on GT issues, while individuals who had GT course requirements during their undergraduate program invested some time on GT issues in class.

One other important finding regarding teacher knowledge of gifted issues emerged from this study. Respondents who were required to take a GT course during their undergraduate program were much more likely to be employed by institutions that required one or more GT courses of their undergraduates for graduation. Of the respondents who had a GT course in their undergraduate program, nearly all were employed by institutions where one or more GT courses were required for their current students. However, of the respondents who did not have a GT course in their undergraduate program, slightly more than half were employed by institutions that had one or more GT course requirement for current students. This finding suggests that individuals who were required to enlist in GT coursework during their undergraduate program eventually worked at institutions that have undergraduate GT coursework requirements.

Several hypotheses may explain this finding. First, professors from institutions requiring more GT coursework may choose to be employed by institutions that include GT topics in their pre-service programs. Alternatively, professors with a stronger background in GT issues may have worked to establish GT requirements at their current institutions.

Implications

There are two important implications from this study. Individuals required to take GT courses during their undergraduate program are likely to be stronger advocates for gifted issues at their local university. Faculty members who were required to take a GT course are employed by institutions in which GT topics are discussed. This finding may imply that individuals from institutions that discussed GT issues seek institutions holding similar beliefs. Practically speaking, having GT requirements during undergraduate-teacher preparation courses may encourage those who later become teacher educators to seek employment at institutions that value gifted and talented education. When faculty are hired by an institution that does not address GT issues, the teacher or professor with a GT education background may work to raise awareness of GT topics at the institution.

A second implication is that the extent to which one discusses GT issues in methods courses is generally determined by the extent to which one discussed GT issues during undergraduate coursework. Professors who were not required to take a course on GT issues do not discuss such issues adequately in their methods course(s). Conversely professors who were required to take a course on GT issues discuss these issues in greater detail than their counterparts. Professors in education are generally individuals who have majored in education. Not requiring professors to take an undergraduate course that discusses GT issues therefore perpetuates the cyclical process of underprepared professors preparing underprepared students, who subsequently may become the next generation of underprepared professors.

Consequently, NAGC should strive to attain Specialty Professional Association (SPA) affiliate status with the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). NCATE is a national governing body that reviews and certifies 4-year institutions to be recognized as teacher preparation institutions. In attaining affiliate status, NAGC would be recognized as a specialty area, which ultimately means that NAGC could strongly urge NCATE to adopt some or all of its NAGC standards. At this point NAGC is not a SPA. Instead, the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) is the lone voice representing gifted education.

Limitations

Two limitations may have reduced the generalizability of this study. The low response rate (approximately 42%) may have resulted in a non-response bias in the sample. One cannot be sure that non-respondents would have responded similarly to those who did respond. Second, the follow-up for non-respondents was not as effective as desired. In order to assure anonymity in the online survey, everyone contacted for the initial mailing was contacted for the second mailing. Hence, non-respondents could not be contacted individually, but could be encouraged to respond only through mass e-mails to the entire target sample. It may be that the appeal lost its effectiveness as a result of this impersonal plea.

Areas for future research

Research on pre-service teacher preparation in gifted education has perhaps precipitated more questions than it has answered. These questions may be answered in many ways. For instance, individual interviews with department heads at 4-year teacher preparation institutions might reveal further information with respect to why gifted-education issues do not play a prominent role in elementary-education curricula. The question of whether or not topics of gifted education are discussed in diversity classes also warrants investigation. This question could be investigated by contacting experts in the field of multicultural education. A final question might be why the field of education remains obstinate in its acceptance of gifted education in spite of attempts by gifted-education advocates.

Gifted and talented children and the need to educate them will always be with us. Consequently, educators at 4-year teacher-preparation institutions should examine closely the extent to which they discuss gifted-education issues. By not incorporating some component of gifted education into curricula for pre-service teachers, the needs of an important population of students are being ignored, resulting in ill-prepared elementary-school teachers and subsequently ill-prepared professors.

Appendix

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Manuscript submitted January 27, 2004. Revision accepted March 16, 2005.

REFERENCES

Anderson, L. W., & Bourke, S. F. (2000). Assessing Affective Characteristics in the Schools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Battery, T. J. (1978). Pre-service teachers' attitudes regarding gifted children. College Student Journal, 12, 288-289.

Begoray. D., & Slovinsky, K. (1997). Pearls in the shell: preparing teachers to accommodate gifted low income populations. Roeper Review, 20, 45-49.

Chamberlin, S. A. (2004). Survey on Gifted Education. Retrieved June 23, 2004, from University of Wyoming Web site: http://www.uwyo.edu/giftedsurvey

Clinkenbeard, P., & Kolloff, P. (2001). Ten suggestions for including gifted education in preservice teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 36, 214-218.

Cramond, B., & Martin, C. E. (1985). In-service and pre-service teachers' attitudes toward the academically brilliant. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 264211)

Cramond, B., & Martin, C. E. (1987). In service and pre-service teachers' attitudes toward the academically brilliant. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31. 15-19.

Cross, J. A., & Dobbs, C. (1987). Training teachers of the gifted: Goals of a teacher training program for teachers of the gifted. Roeper Review, 9, 170-171.

Davison, J. (1996). Meeting state mandates for gifted and talented: Iowa teacher preparation programs. Roeper Review, 19, 41-43.

Gagne, F., & Nadeau, L. (1985). Dimensions of attitudes toward giftedness. In A. H. Roldan (Ed.), Gifted and Talented Children and Adults." Their Social Perspectives and Cultures (pp. 148-170). Manila, Philippines: Reading Dynamics.

Goncharova, G., Poniaeva, S., & Antoshchuk, M. (1997). To whom shall we entrust the gifted? Russian Education and Society, 39(9), 69-79.

Gross, M. U. M. (2002). Musings: Gifts to the gifted Training our teachers. Understanding Out Gifted, 15(1), 25-27.

Hanninen, G. E. (1988). A study of teacher training in gifted education. Roeper Review, 10, 139-143.

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

Moon, T., Callahan, C. M., & Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Effects of mentoring relationships on pre-service teachers' attitudes towards academically diverse students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 56-62.

National Association for Gifted Children (1998). Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards. Retrieved July 23, 2004, from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=546

Ribich, F., Agostino, R., & Barone, W. (1998). Semantically different: Pre-service teachers' reactions to the gifted student concept. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 308-312.

Rogers, K. B. (1989). Training teachers of the gifted: What do they need to know? Roeper Review, 11, 145-180.

Schack, G. D., & Starko, A. J. (1990). Identification of gifted students: An analysis of criteria preferred by pre-service teachers, classroom teachers, and teachers of the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 346-363.

Tirri, A.. Tallent-Runnells, M. K., Adams, A. M.. Yuen, M., & Lau, S. L. (2002). Cross cultural predictors of teachers' attitudes toward gifted education: Finland, Hong Kong, and the United States. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 112-131.

Tomlinson, C. A., Tomchin, E. M., Callahan, C. M., Adams, C. M., Pizzat-Tinnin, P., Cunningham, C. M., et al. (1994). Practices of pre-service teachers related to gifted and other academically diverse learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 106-114.

Dr. Scott Chamberlin teaches mathematics and science methods for elementary pre-service teachers at the University of Wyoming. His research interests include the use of problem solving with upper elementary and middle-grade gifted students as well as conceptual foundations and global policy in gifted education. E-mail: [e-mail]

Dr. Alan Moore specializes in educational research methods, statistics, and measurement at the University of Wyoming. He continues to work with schools and districts in Wyoming and the Rocky Mountain region in analysis of school achievement data, Body of Evidence systems, interpretation of WyCAS and other test data, and alignment studies. E-mail: [e-mail]

Table 1
Distribution of Respondents

State            Frequency   Percent

Missouri            15         24
Kansas              11         18
South Dakota        10         16
Nebraska             9         14
Colorado             8         13
Wyoming              5          8
North Dakota         4          6

Table 2
Instructors' Self-Rated Level of Knowledge of
Gifted Education by Number of Courses They
Were Required to Take in Their College Program

Number of courses       N     M      SD

More than one course
which addressed
gifted education
exclusively             2    3.96   1.28

One course which
addressed gifted
education
exclusively             3    3.67   1.22

More than one
course which
partially
addressed
gifted education        4    3.86   0.79

One course which
partially
addressed gifted
education               15   3.06   0.64

No course(s)
which addressed
gifted education        38   2.99   0.85

Table 3

ANOVA of the Relationship Between Instructors'
Self-Rated Level of Knowledge of Gifted Education
and Number of Courses They Were Required to Take
in Their Undergraduate Program

Source             SS    of    MS      F       p

Between groups    5.16    4   1.29   1.90   0.123
Within groups    38.69   57   0.68
Total            43.84   61

Table 4

Instructors' Self-Rated Level of Knowledge of Gifted
Education by Number of Courses Undergraduates are
Required to Complete at Their Current Institution

Number of courses         N      M     SD

More than one course
which addresses
gifted education
exclusively                3   2.98   0.07

One course which
addresses gifted
education
exclusively                1   3.69   0.00

More than one
course which partially
addresses gifted
education                 12   3.35   0.87

One course which
partially addresses
gifted education          29   3.03   0.77

No course(s) which
addresses gifted          17   3.14   1.04
education

Table 5

ANOVA of the Relationship Between
Instructors' Self-Rated Level of
Knowledge of Gifted Education and the Number
of Courses Undergraduates are Required
to Complete at Their Current Institution

Source             SS    df     MS      F       p

Between groups    1.26    4   0.314   0.42   0.794
Within groups    42.59   57    0.75
Total            43.84   61

Table 6

Instructors' Self-Rated Level of Knowledge of
Gifted Education by Amount of Instruction
Time per Semester Devoted to Gifted
Education Topics in Their Methods Course

Time sent         N      M     SD

7 or more hours    2   3.72   1.02
5-6 hours          5   3.98   0.82
3-4 hours         12   3.61   0.73
1-2 hours         43   2.87   0.76

Table 7

ANOVA of the Relationship Between
Instructors' Self-Rated Level of Knowledge
of Gifted Education and the
Amount of Instruction Time per Semester
Devoted to Gifted Education Topics
in Their Methods Course

Source             SS    df    MS      F       p

Between groups    9.97    3   3.32   5.69   0.002
Within groups    33.87   58   0.58
Total            43.84   61

Table 8

Contingency Table of the Relationship
Between Amount of Instructional Time
Devoted to Gifted Education and the
Institutional Requirement of Courses in
Gifted Education, [chi square] (2) = 10.40, p = .006

                               Institutional requirement
                                   in GT Education

Hours taught in      >1 course,   1 course,    No course
methods course        partial      partial

1-2 hours                4            24          13
                        9.8%        58.5%        31.7%
3 or more hours          8            5            4
                       47.1%        29.4%        23.5%