Printer Friendly

Evaluation of satisfaction in an extracurricular enrichment program for high-intellectual ability participants.

Evaluation of satisfaction in an extracurricular enrichment program for high-intellectual ability participants

From the new paradigm (Dai & Chen, 2013; Matthews & Foster, 2006; Dai, 2005), High Intellectual Ability (HIA) consists of a high initial intellectual potential, multidimensionally configured in various competencies, which should, with development, crystallize into a manifestation of excellence. The cognitive functioning of these individuals differentiates their manifestations of giftedness and talent and distinguishes them from people of average intellectual ability.

Therefore, it is an important responsibility not only to implement educational intervention initiatives, but also to ensure that they are really designed for people with HIA and that they are efficacious. To be effective, the education of the gifted and talented should be based on scientific models or paradigms (Van Tassel-Baska, McFarlane, & Feng, 2006), which indicates the need to start from an explanatory scientific theory of the nature, characteristics and development of HIAto substantiate a differentiated strategy, whether curricular or extracurricular, and to facilitate the manifestation of excellence according to the individual's potential.

A program of educational intervention in HIA is defined as a purposeful set of activities that expend resources to implement processes, procedures, and/or activities that operate in some context to accomplish some outcomes (Brown, Gubbins, & Moon, 2005). These educational activities are differentiated and tailored to the profile of the participants who require the intervention of specialized mentors and they involve the responsibility of responding to the initial objectives. This implies that the education of the gifted and talented students must fulfill at least two requirements: a) the diagnostic reliability to reveal the competencies of the target individuals, and b) the evaluation of the effectiveness the achievements on this pathway to the manifestation of eminence.

The educative evaluation should be conceptualized as a part of the development of the program so that each of its objectives or expected results (not just those with positive effects) is subject to evaluation. Accordingly, programs should be measured with regard to their cost-effective benefits, which means selecting the appropriate methodology for this purpose. It is possible to choose between two ways of doing this: through the scientific evaluation of the programs, or by applying standards such as those set by the International Panel of Experts for Gifted Education in Europe, (2009), the Illinois Exemplary Program Handbook (1979), or the Snapshot Survey of Gifted Programming Effectiveness Factors (Lord & Cotabish, 2010) of specific and contextualized validation.

The first form, the evaluation of educational outcomes in HIA following scientific guidelines (Chacon, Sanduvete, Portell, & Anguera, 2013) takes into account the following components: (a) efficacy, that is, whether the objectives were met; (b) effectiveness, with regard to whether, in addition to the objectives, other (positive, negative or neutral) unexpected effects were achieved; (c) efficiency, as a cost-benefit relationship of the results obtained in addition to the relationships of cost-effectiveness and costutility; (d) continuity; (e) progress; (f) proven adequacy; (g) utility; (h) ethic valoration; and (i) equity. To attain the internal consistency of the expected results, the following aspects should be considered: (a) who the program is aimed at; (b) the type of information obtained; and (c) whether the evaluation process is synchronic or diachronic, the latter being the most appropriate as a reflection of what happens over time and the effects of the program on development as a continuum (Van Tassel-Baska, 2012).

The process of synchronic or diachronic evaluation of educational intervention programs in HIA research presents a number of limitations that may condition but do not invalidate the results. This is particularly so in those that are carried out as extracurricular activities like the one presented herein. Among the most important recognized limitations, we highlight the following:

a) Not everything can be evaluated, because the data set and variables involved are so broad that the evaluation should limit what it measures in accordance with the objectives or the expected results that guide the program (Chacon, Chaves, Sanduvell, & Anguera, 2013).

b) The number of participants from whom the data were extracted must be taken into account since a minimal amount of evidence is necessary. In most cases the estimate of the power of generalization is essential using a framework such as Generalizability Theory (GT) (Cronbach, Rajaratnam, & Gleser, 1972), providing a more satisfactory framework for adapting to the particular conditions of each object of measurement (Blanco, Sastre-Riba, & Escolano, 2010).

c) It is difficult to know the possible interactions between the variables in other contexts and those specific to the particular intervention. Therefore the possible threats to the validity of the information must be considered and appropriate statistical adjustments should be made using alternatives such as the one previously offered by GT, which, in addition to calculating the power of generalization of the results based on the sample size, also enables the study of the sources of variation or error, integrating them in a global structure that enables us to optimize the measure.

Despite these limitations, it is necessary to measure the effectiveness of the gifted and talented education and, as indicated by Van Tassel-Baska (2012), the most important challenge is to evaluate whether they actually learn using higher levels of thinking. This basic challenge has led to the evaluation of an extracurricular enrichment program which has been carried out for seven years at the University of La Rioja (Spain) (Sastre-Riba, 2013). This extracurricular enrichment program is based on a concept of development of giftedness and talent in line with the new paradigm and it has three inter-related components: a) research on the nature and functioning of high abilities, their differential manifestations and stability in their measurement; b) the activity of extracurricular enrichment itself; and, c) the evaluation of the program's efficacy and the satisfaction of attendees and their family members. Thus, we deal with the conceptual input at the outset, the efficacious extracurricular activity, and the result achieved, in accordance with the proposal by Van Tassel-Baska et al. (2006).

The objectives of the program are as follows (see Sastre-Riba, 2013, 2014): 1) to strengthen the harmonious development as individuals supporting the crystallization of their high competence; 2) to enhance cognitive development and cognitive management; 3) to foster the development of interpersonal skills among equals; 4) to prevent behavioral and/or learning dysfunctions; 5) to prevent motivational difficulties due to the mastery of curricular materials. To evaluate the efficacy of the intervention, in line with its objectives, the program measures: 1) the stability of the repeated intellectual ability and creativity; 2) the management of cognitive resources using the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (Schraw & Dennison, 1994); 3) the trajectories of the development through latent growth models (McCoach, Rambo, & Welsh, 2013); 4) the personal adjustment through autobiography (i.e., U-shaped Questionnaire) and perfectionism (i.e., Almost Perfect Scales); 5) classroom observation using the Classroom Observation ScalesRevised (COS-R) (Van Tassel-Baska, 2012); and 6) the satisfaction of the participants and parents with the enrichment program, using the Satisfaction Questionnaire presented in this study.

Due the significant lack of procedures and tools for measuring the effectiveness and satisfaction of such programs, this paper focuses on the measure of participant satisfaction, as an approach to the efficacy (Chacon et al., 2013), of an extracurricular enrichment program for young people with HIA and their parents. This overall goal is divided into three specific objectives: a) the construction and validation of an instrument for measuring the satisfaction of participants and parents; b) the longitudinal analysis of the degree of satisfaction of participants regarding the perceived cognitive and emotional management as well as personal development; and c) examination of the aspects that the participants of the extracurricular enrichment program indicated as possible improvements. We hypothesized that the CSA scores would be associated with adequate psychometric properties and that scores would be stable across time periods. We also hypothesized that the means of the CSA items would be high and would be associated with perceived improvements in the cognitive and emotional management, as well as in the frequency and quality of their social relationships.

Method

Participants

The participants were selected incidentally. They all attend the enrichment program at the University of La Rioja and have been previously diagnosed as having HIA in one of the profiles that it includes (giftedness or talent). All the participants had a HIA diagnosed by the educational psychologist of the educational center. This diagnosed was confirmed for our research team. The criteria for inclusion are showed in the procedure. At the first time point (academic year 2011-2012) n= 38 students participated (29 male and 9 female). The age range was between 7 and 15 years, the average age being 10.8 years (SD = 4). A total of n= 19 parents participated in this first phase (68.9% female, M= 43 years, SD= 4.6). At the second time point (academic year 2012-2013) n= 48 students participated (35 male and 13 female) with an age range between 7 and 17 years (M= 11.9 years, SD= 2.7). At the third time point (academic year 2013-2014) the sample of participants was n= 60 students (35 male and 25 female) with an age range between 8 and 17 years (M= 10.5 years, SD= 2.1). In the first stage information was collected regarding parental satisfaction, too. The total number of participants with various assessments was: n= 25 (2011-12/2012-13), and n= 22 (2012-13/2013-14), n= 12 (2011-12/2013-14) and n= 8 (2011/12-2012/13-2013-14). Of those a total of n= 95 participants were selected (only it first assessment) to conduct the exploratory factor analysis. The time of the first measurement coincided with the end (academic year) of the participation in the extracurricular enrichment program.

Instrument

The instrument used was the Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSA in Spanish). The CSA is a measuring instrument specifically developed for the evaluation of participant satisfaction in the extracurricular enrichment program. The process of its construction was conducted in a systematic and rigorous manner, according with the international guidelines (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999; Downing, 2006; Schmeiser & Welch, 2006; Wilson, 2005) to guarantee the results extracted. The wording of the items followed the guidelines for the construction of multiple-choice items (Haladyna, 2004; Moreno, Martinez, & Muniz, 2006). The content validity was confirmed by a panel of four experts in the thematic evaluation of intervention programs for students of high abilities.

Two versions of the questionnaire were produced: Students (CSA-S) and Parents (CSA-P) in line with the multi-informant evaluation systems. The CSA-S consists of a total of 29 items plus three open questions that examine the aspects rated as the most positive in the program and those that require improvement (see Table 1). The parent version consists of the same 29 items reformulated in the third person, plus 12 specific items measuring their evaluation of the enrichment program (see Table 3). The response format was a Likert-type scale with five categories: from 1 "completely disagree" to 5 "completely agree". This response format improves the reliability of scores and the evidence of validity (Lozano, Garcia-Cueto, & Muniz, 2008; Muniz, GarciaCueto, & Lozano, 2005).

The CSA was constructed based on four theoretical facets: General Satisfaction (items 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11), Cognitive Management (items 6, 8, 10, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29), Interpersonal Relationships, (items 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 22), and Emotional Management (items 4, 12, 14, 16,18, and 20), selected based on the models of HIA and the evaluation of extracurricular enrichment programs (Brown, 2005; Van Tassel-Baska, 2012). The number of items within each facet was homogeneous in order to guarantee the content validity and to avoid under- or overrepresentation of the construct that is being measured (Sireci & Faulkner-Bond, 2014). The facet of General Satisfaction refers to the students' perception of the well-being that they obtained attending the extracurricular enrichment program, their opinion of the mentors and their interest in continuing to participate in the program. The facet of Cognitive Management refers to the students' perceptions of their improvements regarding their management of cognitive resources, creativity, new learning and knowledge. The facet of Interpersonal Relationships refers to students' perceptions of their relationships with their peers, the quality and difficulty of these relationships and the sense of belonging and new friendships. The facet of Emotional Management captures the self-perceived improvements in the ability to manage and regulate their emotional states. All of the facets refer to the participants' experience since joining the program.

Procedure

The steps followed were:

1) Multidimensional intellectual measurement through: a) Differential Aptitude Test (D.A.T.) (Bennett, Seashore, & Wesman, 2000) for the logical-deductive intellectual skills; and b) Torrance's Test of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1974). Participants with a score in the 75th percentile or above in all intellectual aptitudes measured were categorized as gifted (Castello & Batlle, 1998). Those whose score was in the 90th percentile or above in any one or various intellectual aptitudes were categorized as simple or complex talents.

2) Pilot study (quantitative and qualitative) to determine whether the participants adequately understood the statements and questions contained in the CSA-S.

3) Administration of the CSA-S, and/or CSA-P at three time points, corresponding to the end of the academic year on the extracurricular enrichment program. The administration was carried out collectively for the parents, and in groups of up to 10 participants for the students, during the regular timetable of the enrichment program, in a classroom equipped for this purpose and under the supervision of a researcher that they knew. The instruction given was to respond sincerely regarding their satisfaction with the program. The confidentiality of the responses was assured at all times, as was the voluntary nature of participation. The participants received no incentive for their participation.

Data analyses

Different data analyses were performed:

1) Study of the psychometric properties of the CSA scores for which the following steps were taken: a) descriptive statistics were calculated for the items of the CSA, both for the students' version (at different time points) and the parents' version; b) the internal structure of the CSA scores was examined using an exploratory factor analysis on the items (Rios & Wells, 2014) with the method of principal axis factoring; and, c) the reliability of the scores on the CSA was estimated using Cronbach's alpha and Pearson's correlation for the temporal stability of scores between the different time points.

2) Examination of the issues valued most positively and the areas for improvement in the program. The Pearson's correlation was calculated between the total score of the CSA-S and the CSA-P in the cases where the two values were available. The mean scores of the participants were also compared using the Wilcoxon Z (two time measurements), and using the nonparametric Friedman test (three time points).

3) Calculation of the coefficient of generalizability of the results with two Optimization Plans.

Results

Evidence of validity of the internal structure of the CSA-S

The exploratory factor analysis of the 29 items that comprise the CSA-S was performed on a sample of n= 95 participants. The Bartlett sphericity index was 1889.4 (p<0.001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was 0.89. The analysis of the scree plot, the eigenvalues, the value of the communalities, and the weight of the factor loadings were used to determine the number of factors. According to these criteria a general factor that explained 42.02% of the total variance (eigenvalue = 12.18) was extracted. All of the estimated factor loadings were greater than 0.40 (see Table 2). The results of the exploratory factor analysis suggest that the internal structure underlying the CSA-S scores is essentially onedimensional.

Estimation of the reliability of the CSA-S and CSA-P scores

The internal consistency for the total score of the CSA-S in the first year was 0.86, in the second year it was 0.86, and in the third it was 0.94. Meanwhile, the internal consistency for the total score of the CSA-P was 0.85. The correlation between the total score of the CSA-S between the academic years 2011/12-2012/13 was 0.55 (p<0.05). The correlation between the total score of the CSA-S between the years 2012-13/2013-14 courses was 0.56 (p<0.05). The correlation of the total score of the CSA-S between the years 2011/12-2012/13 was not statistically significant (p>0.05).

Participant satisfaction with the extracurricular enrichment program

The mean scores of the items were high (see Table 2). Among the highest values, the items relating to cognitive management and creativity stand out, which measure aspects such as creating new things, improved performance of schoolwork tasks, and knowledge and management of their abilities. The value of the Pearson correlation coefficient between the parents' scores for their children and those of the participants themselves on the enrichment program was not statistically significant (r= 0.535; p>0.05). Table 3 shows the scores of parents in response to the 12 issues rated in the second part of the CSA-P The mean scores of the items were also high indicating general satisfaction with the functioning, facilities, organization, structure and fulfilling their expectations regarding the enrichment program.

Table 4 presents the frequency analysis of the items indicating the issues that students valued as most important in their participation in the enrichment program. Specifically, a large number of participants were happy with the program and made new friends there. Moreover, many of them expressed the wish to continue in subsequent years. It is also worth mentioning that they appreciated that, after attending the enrichment program, they had more new ideas and learnt new things that are not taught in school. Table 5 lists some of the comments made by participants on aspects they value as most positive. Table 6 presents the comments for possible improvement of the program according to students' perceptions. All of these are of interest, qualitatively, in optimizing the effectiveness of the program.

Finally, the comparisons of the mean scores for the different time points were: [M.sub.t1] = 123.7 (SD= 9.6), [M.sub.t2] = 119.8 (SD= 15.2) (Z= -1.320; p= 0.187); [M.sub.t1] = 130.9 (SD= 8.9), [M.sub.t3=] 116.7(SD= 15.4) (Z = -2.703; p= 0.007); [M.sub.t2] =120.5 (SD= 20.1), [M.sub.t3] = 120.4 (SD= 13.9) (Z= -0.195; p = 0.845) and [M.sub.t1] = 129.3(SD = 9.32), [M.sub.t2]= 127.2 (SD= 13.2), [M.sub.t3] = 116.6 (SD= 13.7) ([chi square] = 5.872; p= 0.053). As can be observed, the scores of participants decrease between the different time points, this being statistically significant between the second and third time point.

Analysis of the generalizability of the results

The coefficient of generalizability of the results was high (0.98). To determine whether this was the optimum accuracy or it could be improved, an optimization plan was performed with two projections, increasing the sample size to n= 145 and n= 190 participants. The values obtained were 0.98 and 0.90 respectively showing that increasing the number of participants required does not compensate for the cost. The coefficient obtained allows us to conclude that the results can be generalized with a high degree of accuracy to the general population.

Conclusion

As described above, it is necessary to rethink the education of persons with HIA, promoting fairness and efficacy, in order to ensure that the multiple realities of its expression are addressed and its optimum development is facilitated. In order to do this, in accordance with other authors (Renzulli, 2012; Subotnik et al., 2011; Dai & Chen, 2013), the biggest challenge is to modify the existing traditional approach with an education that is based on a scientific model or paradigm of HIA and attends to the intellectual functioning of high-level processes, management of cognitive resources and learning characteristics aimed at excellence. This implies that the efficacy of achieving the intended objectives must, necessarily, be tested (Van Tassel-Baska, 2012). In other words, the educational intervention should measure its efficacy through forms of scientifically validated evaluation, an issue that is not always considered in the existing initiatives.

The experience presented in this study, based on an initiative of extracurricular enrichment, shows that this adjusted and efficacious educational practice to promote the development of HIA is possible, corroborating the results of other research (Van Tassel-Baska 2011; McCoach et al., 2013). The results obtained regarding the satisfaction of participants and families with the extracurricular enrichment program that they attended regularly, give guidance on its fit with the objectives that are the basis of the program, highlighting as achievements its contribution to personal development and optimization of cognitive functioning, as well as complementing the educational intervention received in regular school. It is interesting to note, not only the efficacy in achieving the objectives, but also the effect of the time of participation in the program regarding the persistence of the satisfaction achieved, which also suggests the need to re-structure the activities or content of the course in order to avoid the possible effect of wear.

Finally, a highlight of the results is the construction of an instrument that allows us to indirectly evaluate the efficacy of enrichment programs, and whose utility can be tested or proven by other studies aimed at measuring the efficacy of educational intervention programs, or in relation to other related constructs. All of this leads to strengthen the evaluation of the efficacy of educational intervention in HIA to determine whether it fits the reality and needs of the individuals concerned, with the basic objective of optimizing the expression of their potential.

DOI: 10.7334/psicothema 2014.239

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by a contractual agreement with the Ministry of Education, Culture and Tourism of the Government of La Rioja (2009-2013).

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, D.C: Author.

Bennett, G.K., Seashore, H.G., & Wesman, A.G. (2000). Test de Aptitudes Diferenciales (DAT-5): manual. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.

Blanco, A., Sastre, S., & Escolano, E. (2010). Desarrollo ejecutivo temprano y Teoria de la Generalizabilidad: bebes tipicos y prematuros [Executive function in early childhood and Generalizability Theory: Typical babies and preterm babies]. Psicothema, 22, 221-226.

Brighton, C.M., Brown, E., Gubbins, E.J., & Moon, T.R. (2005). Institute on gifted program evaluation: Evaluating the effectiveness of services for gifted children. Presentation at National Association for Gifted Children. Columbus OH (november).

Castello, A., y Batlle, C. (1998). Aspectos teoricos e instrumentales en la identificacion del alumno superdotado y talentoso [Theoretical and instrumental aspects in the identification of gifted and talented students]. Faisca, Revista de Altas Capacidades, 6, 26-66.

Chacon, S., Sanduvete, S., Portell, M., & Anguera, M.T. (2013). Reporting a program evaluation: Needs, program plan, intervention, and decisions. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 13, 58-66.

Chacon, S., Anguera, M.T., & Lopez-Rioz, J. (2000). Disenos de evaluacion de programas: bases metodologicas [Program evaluation designs: Methodological foundations]. Psicothema, 12, 127-131.

Cronbach, L.J., Gleser, G.C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Dai, D.Y. (2005). Reductionism versus emergentism: A framework for understanding conceptions of giftedness. Roeper Review, 27, 144-151.

Dai, Y.D., & Chen, F. (2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 151-168.

Downing, S.M. (2006). Twelve steps for effective test development. In S.M. Downing & T.M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 3-25). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Haladyna, T.M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test item (3a ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Illinois Exemplary Program Handbook (1979). Springfield: Illinois Office of Education.

International Panel of Experts for Gifted Education (2009). Professional promotion of the gifted and talented: Recommendations for the qualification of experts in gifted education. Salzburg: OZBF.

Lord, E.W., & Cotabish, A. (2010). Snapshot survey of gifted programming effectiveness factors. In Using the National Gifted Teacher Preparation Standards and NAGC Program Standards to Inform Practice. Session presented at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Atlanta, GA.

Lozano, L.M., Garcia-Cueto, E., & Muniz, J. (2008). Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology, 4, 73-79.

Matthews D.J., & Foster, J.F. (2006). Mystery to mastery: Shifting paradigms in gifted education. Roeper Review, 28, 64-69.

McCoach, B., Rambo, K., & Welsh, M. (2013). Assessing the growth of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 56-67.

Moreno, R., Martinez, R., & Muniz, J. (2006). New guidelines for developing multiple-choice items. Methodology, 2, 65-72.

Muniz, J., Garcia-Cueto, E., & Lozano, L.M. (2005). Item format and the psychometric properties of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 61-69.

Renzulli, J.S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 150-159.

Rios, J., & Wells, C. (2014). Validity evidence based on internal structure. Psicothema, 26, 108-116.

Sastre-Riba, S. (2013). High intellectual ability: Extracurricular enrichment and cognitive management. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 119-132.

Sastre-Riba, S. (2014). Intervencion psicoeducativa en la Alta Capacidad Intelectual: funcionamiento intelectual y enriquecimiento extracurricular [Psychoeducational intervention in high ability: Intellectual functioning and extracurricular enrichment. Revista de Neurologia, 58, 589-598.

Schmeiser, C.B., & Welch, C. (2006). Test development. In R.L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational Measurement (4th ed.) (pp. 307-353). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.

Schraw, G., & Dennison, R.S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.

Sireci, S., & Faulkner-Bond, M. (2014). Validity evidence based on test content. Psicothema, 26, 100-107.

Subotnik, R.F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F.C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science, 12, 3-54.

Torrance, E.P. (1974). The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: Normstechnical manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2012). Curriculum issues: Curriculum, instruction, and assessment for the gifted: A problem-based learning scenario. Gifted Child Today, 36, 71-75.

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2011). An evaluation of the Gifted Programs in Bellevue. Washington: College Wiliam and Mary.

VanTassel-Baska J., MacFarlane, B., & Feng A. (2006). A cross-cultural study of exemplary teaching: What do Singapore and the United States secondary gifted class teachers say? Gifted and Talented International, 21, 38-47.

Sylvia Sastre i Riba, Eduardo Fonseca-Pedrero, Marta Santaren-Rosell and Maria Luz Urraca-Martinez

University of La Rioja

Received: October 25, 2014 * Accepted: March 6, 2015

Corresponding author: Sylvia Sastre i Riba

Faculty of Education Sciences

University of La Rioja

26004 Logrono (Spain)

e-mail: silvia.sastre@unirioja.es
Table 1
Satisfaction Questionnaire Students' Version (CSA-S)

1.     I am happy with my participation on the program Estoy contento
       con mi participacion en el programa

2.     The things that I do on the enrichment program are more
       interesting than the things that I do at school En el programa
       de enriquecimiento hago cosas mas interesantes que las que
       puedo hacer en la escuela

3.     I am happy with the mentors on the program Estoy contento
       con los mentores del programa

4.     I understand my peers' feelings more since I have been on the
       program Entiendo mejor las emociones de mis companeros desde
       que vengo al programa

5.     I would like to continue on the program Me gustaria seguir
       en el programa

6.     Since I have been on the program I am better at solving
       problems (math, logic, etc.) Desde que vengo al programa
       resuelvo mejor los problemas (matematicos, de logica, etc.)

7.     I would recommend the program to other kids like me
       Recomendaria el programa a otros ninos como yo

8.     I know more things (science, technology, etc.) since I have
       been on the program Se mas cosas (ciencia, tecnologia, etc.)
       desde que vengo al programa

9.     On the program I do activities that I cannot do at school
       En el programa hago actividades que no puedo hacer en
       la escuela

10.    I am more interested in learning new things now Ahora tengo
       mas interes por aprender cosas nuevas

11.    I like coming to the program on Saturdays Me gusta venir
       los sabados al programa

12.    I know how to express my emotions better since I have been
       on the program Se expresar mejor mis emociones desde que
       vengo al programa

13.    I have made new friends on the program He hecho nuevos
       amigos en el programa

14.    Since I have been coming here I know how to solve problems
       that I have with my fellow participants on the enrichment
       program Desde que vengo aqui se como resolver los problemas
       que tengo con mis companeros del programa de enriquecimiento

15.    The friends I have made on the program are good friends Los
       amigos que he hecho en el programa son buenos amigos

16.    Since I have been on the program I know how to solve problems
       that I have with my peers at school Desde que vengo al
       programa se como resolver los problemas que tengo con mis
       companeros del colegio

17.    I am happy with my fellow program participants Estoy contento
       con mis companeros del programa

18.    Since coming on the program I understand my feelings better
       Desde que vengo al programa comprendo mejor lo que siento

19.    I have problems with my fellow program participants * Tengo
       problemas con mis companeros del programa *

20.    I feel better since coming on the program Me siento mejor
       desde que vengo al programa

21.    I talk about things that interest me with my fellow program
       participants Con mis companeros del programa hablo de cosas
       que me interesan

22.    I feel that the other children on the program are like me
       Siento que los demas ninos del programa son como yo

23.    I propose new ideas and workshops to the mentors Propongo
       a los mentores nuevos talleres e ideas

24.    Since coming on the program I know better what I am capable
       of doing Desde que vengo al programa conozco mejor lo que
       soy capaz de hacer

25.    My ability to use what I know has improved Ha mejorado mi
       capacidad para utilizar lo que se hacer

26.    Now I can create more new things Ahora puedo crear mas
       cosas nuevas

27.    The program allows me to learn new things that I cannot
       learn at school El programa me permite aprender cosas nuevas
       que no puedo en la escuela

28.    The enrichment program helps me to improve my school work
       El programa de enriquecimiento me ayuda a hacer mejor las
       tareas que hago en la escuela

29.    Since I have been on the program I have more new ideas
       Desde que estoy en el programa tengo mas ideas nuevas

Note: The items of the Spanish version are in italics.
* Item 19 will be recoded

Table 2
Descriptive statistics for the items at the three time points
and estimated factor loadings for the CSA-Students' version

            First year       Second year

Items     Mean      SD      Mean      SD

1         4.68     0.62     4.52     0.82
2         4.66     0.78     4.48     0.77
3         4.68     0.7      4.48     0.77
4         4.08     0.82     3.85     1.09
5         4.82     0.61     4.35     1.14
6         4.08     0.94     3.6      1.25
7         4.63     0.82     4.42     0.94
8         4.68     0.53     4.4      0.87
9         4.84     0.37     4.6      0.79
10        4.34     0.81     4.04     1.18
11        4.45     0.8      4.13     1.23
12        3.97     0.85     3.96     1.17
13        4.66     0.58     4.65     0.64
14        3.95     1.01     3.79     1.17
15        4.58     0.64     4.46     0.65
16        3.89     0.92     3.58     1.27
17        4.45     0.72     4.54     0.68
18        4.08     0.85     3.96     0.99
19        4.21     1.23     4.48     0.95
20        4.18     0.8      3.73     1.12
21        4.39     0.92     4.38     0.7
22        4.08     1.12     3.88     1.21
23        3.68     1.14     3.19     1.41
24        4.39     0.82      4       1.07
25        4.45     0.69     4.1      1.1
26        4.42     0.79     4.27     0.89
27        4.74     0.5      4.54     0.87
28        3.97     1.17     3.63     1.27
29        4.37     0.82     4.25     0.89

            Third year     Factorial
                            loadings
Items     Mean      SD

1         4.58     0.62       0.76
2         4.67     0.68       0.58
3         4.67     0.60       0.68
4         3.50     1.14       0.64
5         4.65     0.66       0.76
6         4.08     1.17       0.74
7         4.57     0.77       0.70
8         4.70     0.70       0.74
9         4.85     0.36       0.41
10        4.20     0.86       0.68
11        4.37     1.01       0.70
12        3.65     1.25       0.66
13        4.67     0.88       0.48
14        3.93     1.18       0.59
15        4.70     0.65       0.57
16        3.53     1.33       0.55
17        4.67     0.66       0.55
18        3.88     1.21       0.71
19        1.52     0.95       0.45
20        4.30     0.85       0.71
21        4.43     0.89       0.58
22        4.03     1.07       0.60
23        3.43     1.31       0.41
24        4.25     1.07       0.76
25        4.23     0.95       0.82
26        4.42     0.89       0.69
27        4.68     0.57       0.65
28        3.75     1.37       0.68
29        4.40     0.83       0.72

Note: SD = Standard Deviation

Table 3
Parents' responses of the second part of the CSA-Parents' version

Items                                            M      SD      % *

1.    I am satisfied with the enrichment       4.63     0.5     100
      program Estoy satisfecho con el
      programa de enriquecimiento

2.    The program fulfilled my prior           4.37    0.68    89.5
      expectations El programa cumple con
      mis expectativas previas

3.    I am satisfied with the work of the      4.58    0.61    94.7
      mentors on the program Estoy
      satisfecho con la labor de los
      mentores en el programa

4.    The program should be continued in       4.84    0.37     100
      future years Se deberia continuar con
      el programa en los proximos cursos

5.    The facilities where the program was     4.63    0.50     100
      carried out are suitable Las
      instalaciones donde se lleva a cabo
      el programa son adecuadas

6.    The tasks of coordination and            4.42    0.84    89.5
      orientation between parents and
      mentors are carried out correctly
      Las tareas de coordinacion y
      orientacion entre padres y mentores
      se realizan de forma correcta

7.    I believe that the enrichment program    4.53    0.61    94.7
      develops and strengthens the skills
      and abilities of my son/daughter Creo
      que el programa de enriquecimiento
      desarrolla y potencia las habilidades
      y las capacidades de mi hijo

8.    I consider that the program promotes     4.37    0.68    89.5
      suitable values (discipline, respect,
      etc.) Considero que el programa
      promueve unos valores (disciplina,
      respeto, etc.) adecuados

9.    The program is an important complement   4.79    0.42     100
      to the education received at school El
      programa es un complemento importante
      a la formacion que se imparte desde
      el colegio

10.   The program is well-organized and        4.32    0.67    89.5
      well-structured El programa esta
      correctamente organizado
      y estructurado

11.   The program helps to improve             4.00    0.75    73.7
      relationships with other children
      El programa ayuda a mejorar las
      relaciones con los demas ninos

12.   I would recommend participation on       4.95    0.23     100
      the program to other Recomendaria la
      participacion en el programa a otras
      familias

Note: D = Standard Deviation. The items of the
Spanish version are in italics.

* The Likert format five point response scale was
dichotomized, with response options four and five
considered as affirmative

Table 4 Issues rated as most important in the extracurricular
enrichment program in the three measures

First year

1. I am happy with my participation on the program (n = 9)

13. I have made new friends on the program (n = 9)

15. The friends I have made on the program are good friends (n = 8)

21. I talk about things that interest me with my fellow program
participants (n = 5)

Second year

29. Since I have been on the program I have more new ideas (n = 8)

5. I would like to continue on the program (n = 7)

15. The friends I have made on the program are good friends (n = 7)

27. The program enables me to learn new things that I cannot learn
at school (n = 5)

Third year

27. The program enables me to learn new things that I cannot learn
at school (n = 6)

15. The friends I have made on the program are good friends (n = 6)

17. I am happy with my fellow participants on the program (n = 5)

13. I have made new friends on the program (n = 5)

Note: The number of pupils who selected each item is shown in
brackets

Table 5

Rating of the most positively valued aspects of the extracurricular
enrichment program

I feel more capable

I understand things better

Since I have been on the program I have learnt many things that I
may not otherwise have been able to learn

I have learnt to think

I feel more competent

The people here understand me

I have a lot of fun

I have become more intelligent

I feel much better; before I felt discriminated against and I had a
hard time

My friends help me to solve problems because everyone is
intelligent here

The mentors help me a lot

I do not feel alone

I have friends with whom I can talk about things that interest me

It is like a dream come true

Table 6

Aspects for improvement on the extracurricular enrichment program

Help for the most problematic participants

Do more science experiments and a greater variety of games

More projects in groups

The program should be more times a week

The workshops should be varied

Ask for access to a physics laboratory

Spend more time in class

Techniques for improving personal relationships

Outdoor activities

Cover more emotional intelligence, biographies of famous people,
activists or politicians

More contact with pupils of other programs

More girls on the program

More robotics and computing

Higher degree of difficulty

Possibility of choosing workshops
COPYRIGHT 2015 Colegio Oficial De Psicologos Del Principado De Asturias
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:articulo en ingles
Author:Sastre i Riba, Sylvia; Fonseca-Pedrero, Eduardo; Santaren-Rosell, Marta; Urraca-Martinez, Maria Luz
Publication:Psicothema
Date:Apr 1, 2015
Words:6473
Previous Article:Parents' conceptions of their homework involvement in elementary school.
Next Article:Exploring the factorial structure of the Sport Anxiety Scale-2: Invariance across language, gender, age and type of sport.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters