Gifted and Administrative Education Programs - Article Example

Gifted and Administrative Education Programs Introduction 1. Yes, the researchers are affiliated with gifted and administrative education programs at the University of Nebraska at Kearney. Joan Lewis is the director of the gifted education program, Patricia Cruzeiro is the associate professor of education administration and Charmaigne Hall is a research assistant in the Deparment of Education. (pg. 2) 2. Yes, the researchers acknowledge that the research is a purposeful sampling and that the principals were selected for their ‘strong’ leadership. Accordingly, the research bias favored the principals’ positive involvement. Outside of these issues the researchers didn’t overtly demonstrate any significant bias. (pg. 4) 3. Yes. While the literature review was conducted before the study and have influenced later findings, specifically that there are administrative deficiencies in supplying gifted education, the research linked interview findings with outside research throughout the conclusion. As a lay observer the literature review seemed significantly comprehensive and the research that was cited related directly to the research problem that the study addressed. Specifically, a study by Weber, Colarulli-Daniels, and Leinhauser (2003) was cited as shared a similar methodology to the current study, but didn’t examine the issue of gifted education within elementary schools. Other studies attested to the roles and issues facing principals and teachers in regards to gifted education, and Woods (2005) was cited as indicating that there were specific problems. Research Procedures 4. Yes. The researchers used purposeful sampling to select two principals who are recognized for their ‘strong’ gifted education programs. This was effective as it ensured the principals would be proactively engaged in the gifted programs. (pg. 4) 5. No. The data collection method was interview based. This may not be the most effective method as the principals might be inclined to exaggerate their contributions or the school’s success. The interview technique was fairly typical and could be used to seemingly confirm the researchers preconceived interpretive bias and not significantly unearth new information. 6. Yes. The interviews were conducted in a 60-75 minute phone conversation. As the research sought to determine the current state of gifted education programs the data collection didn’t necessarily need to exist for an extended period of time, however one might argue that follow up interviews or cite specific data collection from multiple perspective to gain a more thorough understanding of the true nature of the problem; this is particularly noted when considering that the research conclusion makes claims about teacher accountability regarding gifted education. (pg. 5) 7. No. There were no specific steps taken to ensure the principal’ true emic perspective was gained. 8. Yes, within the discussion and conclusion sections frequent comparison was made to outside studies to show congruencies and discongruencies with the interview researching findings. A Glatthorn (1997) study was cited to connect the principal’s success with their adoption of differentiated supervision, and others studies were cited for other specific features of success. One of the most notable connections the researchers made was connecting the interview responses with past research that noted there was a significant concern with the perception of elitism. (pg. 6) 9. No, the methodology section indicated the means that the data was collected and analyzed, but failed to indicate the specific questions that were asked and the exact means that this analysis occurred. The research indicated that one research conducted the interviews and another analyzed and formed them into the study, but doesn’t specify either of the processes (pg. 5) Research Findings 10. Yes, the interview findings were addressed in relatively thick detail, with specific answers divided into three sections: strength themes, gifted-specific issues, and services provided for gifted learners. One criticism that might be levied against the descriptions are that by grouping the interview findings into themes, unique perspectives and new or useful information could be disregarded as it doesn’t conform to past standards of significance (pg. 6) 11. Yes, the research was written with a readable narrative and a thematic caption was situated in the middle of the report. There was also an elaborately designed cover page picturing a iconic image of an elementary school with a large bell. (pg. 5) 12. Yes, the research indicated that principals needed to remain in congruence with the vision of the community and that teachers needed to be trained to deal with gifted students. It’s possible that the applicability of these findings be tested in future studies. Furthermore, the research indicated significant concern regarding elitism was an issue and needed to be addressed. (pg. 7) 13. No, quantitative data was not used. 14. No, the chain of evidence was relatively weak and based entirely on the interviews and outside qualitative research. The research did make some notable connections with research interview findings and past research. 15. No, member checking was not conducted. Discussion 16. No specific researcher opinions were noted, however the research findings were most likely colored by the researchers’ personal views; the discussion findings that principals were doing too much and recommendations for gifted accountability standards are examples of this. 17. Yes, the researchers incorporated significant amounts of outside studies to corroborate their research findings. Findings by Colangelo (2003) were cited to corroborate findings that concern with elitism was a major concern. Glickman (2007) was cited to corroborate interview findings that principals should become increasingly acquainted with effective schools research. (pg. 7) 18. Yes, researchers adequately indicated that the data analysis indicated a need for increased teacher accountability standards and furthered administrative delegation. There were also suggestions for further improvements that were derived, including the new for a shift to a learning community paradigm, identify teacher leaders, and to fill communication gaps. (pg. 8) 19. No, the study did not indicate that the findings could not be generalized. One must question the validity of the researchers’ implications for generalization as the study was conducted with only two principals, both in rural districts with successful gifted programs. 20. Yes, despite non-rigorous data collection, the suggestions derived from the findings, including for increased accountability standards and furthered administrative delegation, appeared valid. Read More