Roeper Review, 33:8696, 2011

Copyright The Roeper Institute

ISSN: 0278-3193 print / 1940-865X online
DOI: 10.1080/02783193.2011.554156

CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND TEACHERS

Gifted Israeli Students Perceptions of Teachers

Desired Characteristics: A Case of Cultural
Orientation
Billie Eilam and Hava E. Vidergor

Gifted students perceptions of the desired characteristics of teachers of the gifted were
assessed from a sample comprised of 404 elementary- and junior highschool Israeli Jewish
and Arab students studying in pullout centers. Perceptions were measured using a questionnaire
comprising teachers cognitive, personal, and pedagogical dimensions. Personal characteristics
were perceived by both Jewish and Arab students as the most important. Significant effects of
culture, gender, and grade level were detected for all three dimensions. We suggest that differences stem from collectivist/individualist cultural orientations and girls status aspirations.
Thus, students perceptions of teachers desired characteristics have to be discussed in relation to their cultural background and schooling. A new lens for examining teaching of gifted
students is offered, along with practical implications for teacher-certification programs.
Keywords: cultural orientations, gifted students perceptions, pullout programs, teachers
desired characteristics

Studies have emphasized the importance of designing learning environments that respond to gifted students needs
(Johnsen & Goree, 2005; Rogers, 2002; Van Tassel-Baska &
Stambaugh, 2006). They have examined the effectiveness
of various composites such as curriculum and placement
in these environments, from educators points of view.
However, research concerning various learning aspects as
seen and perceived from gifted students eyes, based on their
own experiences, is scarce.
Another important issue insufficiently addressed by
research is gifted students cultural backgrounds, their wider
context of growing up and learning. Cultural context may
play a significant role in shaping students perceptions concerning learning experiences. Literature directly relating to
learning styles in this perspective was insufficient. Culturally
relevant pedagogy, on the other hand, has been proposed by
Ladson-Billings (1995) as a practice for reaching learners of
diverse cultural backgrounds and engaging them in meaningful learning processes. This pedagogy involves environments
Received 18 August 2008; accepted 21 March 2010.
Address correspondence to Billie Eilam, Faculty of Education,
University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel. E-mail: beilam@
construct.haifa.ac.il

that pay careful attention to knowledge, skills, attitudes,

and beliefs that learners bring to the educational settings
and build on them (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999,
p. 133). Among the principles advocated by this pedagogy
is the nurturing of cultural competence and academic development. The latter focuses on access to academic materials
and achievements via curricula that students find relevant and
interesting (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking).
The current study attempted to shed more light on these
issues. It focused on Jewish and Arab gifted students studying in pullout programs in Israel and addressed the issues
of their perceptions of their teachers desired pedagogical, cognitive, and personal characteristics. We examined
whether these perceptions are affected by students different
cultural orientations, believing that attending to them may
increase programs impact on students learning. Increasing
the impact of programs is particularly important in light of
findings showing that limited exposure to programs offered
at pullout centers does not accomplish much (Feldhusen,
1997; Gagn, 1995, 2003; Winner, 1997).
Programs for the gifted were first administered in Israel in
the early 1970s. Nowadays, approximately 13,000 gifted students are identified by the Department of Gifted Education
and partake in a variety of programs. About 7,000 of the

GIFTED STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHERS

students are provided the choice of a variety of enrichment topics offered in a weekly pullout program at one of
the 53 centers for gifted education located in their districts
(36 centers in the Jewish and 17 in the Arab culture;
Arabs comprise about 20% of the Israeli population). Other
programs available for talented students include separate
classrooms and summer programs offered by universities
(Division for Gifted and Excellent Students, 20082009).
Participants of this study were gifted students studying at
Jewish and Arab pullout centers. These Israeli pullout centers allow for bicultural comparison, which constitutes the
focus of this study.

PULLOUT PROGRAMS
Enrichment programs expose students to increased breadth
and depth of content (Schiever & Maker, 1997). Enrichment
can take many forms, from in-class enrichment for gifted
students in regular classrooms, to pullout programs, to outof-school programs. The present study addressed gifted
students learning in pullout programs. Schiever and Maker
identified three kinds of pullout programs: (a) processoriented programs that focus on creative problem solving
and critical thinking, often domain independent; (b) contentoriented approaches, offering minicourses or mentorship in a
specific subject domain; and (c) product-oriented approaches
involving students in projects, reports, and presentations,
which combine process and content elements.
Empirical studies from earlier years concerning pullout
programs (as cited in Moon, Feldhusen, & Dillon, 1994)
revealed positive effects for achievement (Aldrich & Nills,
1989; Kulik & Kulik, 1992), critical thinking (Beckwith,
1982; Carter, 1986; Neilsen, 1984), creativity (Kollof &
Feldhusen, 1984; Starko, 1988), or promoting interest in
various domains and interaction with students (Humes &
Campbell, 1980). Moreover, studies show long-term positive
effects of pullout programs on elementary-school students
(Feldhusen & Moon, 1992; Moon, 1991). For example,
Moon et al. (1994) found that most students loved the pullout programs because they were significantly different from
regular school, which at times reflected the perception that
schoolwork was boring.
A questionnaire administered to gifted elementary- and
middle-school students revealed that pullout programs were
the most common practice in gifted education (40%;
Swiatek & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2003), a result that is consistent with past research findings (see Winner, 1997). Some
experts stated that these ineffective programs for gifted
students are often worse than having no exposure to programs at all (e.g., Davidson, Davidson, & Vanderkam, 2004).
According to many current analyses, pullout programs in
schools are more age dependent than interest and ability
dependent (Davidson et al., 2004); that is, the gifted are rarely
grouped according to interest in mixed-age classrooms. Other
critics noted that even the most exciting curriculum cannot

87

accomplish much if exposure lasts for only several hours a

week (Feldhusen, 1997; Gagn, 1995, 2003; Winner).

TEACHERS OF THE GIFTED: COGNITIVE,

PEDAGOGICAL, AND PERSONAL
CHARACTERISTICS
A review of the literature showed that most gifted students
can have special cognitive characteristics such as accelerated and flexible thought processes, language proficiency and
verbal ability, abstract thinking, and preference for complex
and challenging work and the ability to effectively consume
large quantities of knowledge, apply original approaches
to problem solving, form unusual relationships among disciplines or objects, successfully conduct self-inquiry, or
transfer knowledge and apply it in new situations. Gifted
students are characterized as diligent and curious, as well as
exhibiting high metacognitive abilities (Chuska, 1989; Clark,
2002; Silverman, 2000; Winebrenner, 2001). More current
approaches to understanding giftedness and talent from a
developmental perspective suggest that individuals develop
in highly diverse ways, and there are as many developmental speeds and directions associated with becoming a high
achiever as there are high-achieving individuals (Horowitz,
Subotnik, & Matthews, 2009).
Teachers Perceptions
Experts often speculate about whether teachers of the gifted
should possess the same characteristics as their students.
A comparative study of specifically trained and untrained
teachers of the gifted showed that trained teachers were more
aware of the cognitive needs of the gifted, employed pedagogical strategies that encouraged high-level thinking, promoted
independent learning and were more creative than untrained
teachers (Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994). Feldhusen (1997)
observed that, similar to gifted and talented students, these
successful teachers were characterized as highly intelligent,
achievement oriented, knowledgeable and flexible; as having
cultural and intellectual interests; as respecting individual
differences; and as relating well with gifted individuals.
Chan (2001) reviewed researchers past surveys of successful teachers competencies while working with gifted
and talented students, including the ability to teach thinking skills, problem solving, and creativity; the ability to
interact with students effectively, use appropriate motivational techniques, conduct student-directed activities, and
facilitate independent research. Researchers noted that competencies needed for teaching specific content domains may
vary, because the teaching of science and mathematics may
be very different from the teaching of art and music. A
cross-cultural study (VanTassel-Baska, MacFarlane, & Feng,
2006), which examined beliefs about best teaching practices among Singapore and American teachers, suggested
that regardless of cultural backgrounds an exemplary teacher

88

B. EILAM AND H. E. VIDERGOR

should exhibit the following characteristic qualities: (a) content mastery, (b) a passionate personality dedicated to the
teaching profession and to students, and (c) a flexible and
adventurous spirit in practicing instruction. The top three
essential skills required for working with the gifted included
(a) the knowledge and effective use of teaching techniques,
(b) strong communication skills, and (c) the ability to understand and to address students needs. These studies examined
best competencies and practices from teachers perspectives
alone, neglecting the gifted students comprising the target
population.
Students Perceptions
A study by Mills (2003) that examined the characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students supported J. F.
Feldhusens findings (1997) and elaborated on them. Mills
indicated that the successful teachers personality types were
in many ways similar to those of gifted students, suggesting that teachers who are judged to be highly effective in
working with gifted students prefer abstract themes and concepts, are open and flexible concerning different or new
ideas, and value logical analysis and objectivity. However,
though Feldhusen stressed the acquisition of knowledge and
competencies in teachers professional development over
the consideration of teachers personal characteristics, Mills
suggested that teachers personalities and cognitive styles
may play an important role in their instructional effectiveness. These findings, however, are still insufficient for
guiding teachers of the gifted.
Data concerning students preferences for personality
or cognitive strengths in their teachers are also inconclusive. A study of gifted and nongifted elementary students
in Israel demonstrated a strong preference for intellectual
cognitive qualities of teachers over other personal dimensions like creativity and also over teachers approaches to
areas such as classroom organization and presentation of
material (Milgram, 1979). On the other hand, Maddux,
Samples-Lachmann, and Cummings (1985) found that their
students preferred personal and social characteristics of their
teachers over intellectual and creative qualities.
An Australian study reported that students preferred the
more open climate established by trained teachers of the
gifted and those undertaking training, compared to untrained
teachers of the gifted (Rowley, 2002). Students also reported
these teachers greater emphasis on higher-level thinking
(analysis and synthesis) rather than on retention, on discussion rather than on lecturing, and on feelings (the affective
dimension). Data regarding gender and grade level (i.e., elementary, junior high, or high school) as related to students
perceptions of teachers characteristics are still insufficient.
In summary, experts recommend that teachers of gifted
students should possess many of the characteristics attributed
to gifted students. For addressing the needs of gifted students, these teachers are expected to possess high-level
cognitive abilities and pedagogical competencies, along with

learning-related personal and social abilities. Due to the

abundance of studies addressing teachers characteristics
from students perspectives, our study attempted to elaborate and focus on differences in students perceptions across
cultures as related to gender and grade level.

GIFTED EDUCATION IN ISRAEL:

A MULTICULTURAL VIEW
The Israeli gifted education system is comprised of Jews,
Arabs (Muslim and Christian), and Druz students, reflecting
Israels multicultural society. This population may be characterized on the Triandis (1995) individualismcollectivism
continuum, which provides a useful global tool for describing societal cultural orientations. The Arab collectivist view
emphasizes adults (including teachers) authority and being
respectful and obedient toward adults (Al-Haj, 1995; Eilam,
2002). In schools, these collectivistic norms are mostly translated into the traditional instructional practices of teachercentered instruction, which may discourage students from
expressing opinions and dominantly emphasize memorization and rote learning (Al-Haj, 1995, 1996, as cited in Eilam,
2002, 2003). In recent years, efforts have been carried out to
change these practices to increase students active learning.
These instructional practices, which reflect collectivist
notions enacted in regular school settings in Israel, are in
conflict with the leading recommended practices in gifted
education, which mostly represent the Western individualistic orientation. As stated earlier, in pullout programs students
are encouraged to develop new fields of interest, thinking, and problem-solving skills, along with affective and
social competencies. These can flourish best in an open and
accepting environment created by teachers possessing the
characteristics discussed herein.
Jewish gifted students who belong to Western individualistic societies often emphasize their own agendas, which
seldom overlap with those of society as a whole. On the
other end of the continuum, Arab gifted students, belonging
to collectivist societies, often seriously consider the common goals of their society in addition to considering their
own. For example, Arab adolescents explain their striving
for higher education and career aspirations as reflecting collective motives (to help my people) to a much greater
extent than do Jewish counterparts (Seginer, Karayann, &
Mari, 1990). In addition, Arab boys and girls live in different
realities, with boys facing more parental demands concerning education and academic achievement compared to girls
(Seginer, 1988, 2001). Seginer (1988, 2001) explained that
boys are considered a privileged gender and are served
from childhood forward. Therefore, because their status is
already secured, they may feel less motivated to achieve academically. Arab girls receive conflicting messages regarding the importance of female education and professional
pursuit (Mernissi, 1985). They develop motivation to succeed in school and academically achieve higher in order

GIFTED STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHERS

to materialize their hopes for higher education and career

(Seginer & Mahajna, 2004). Higher education is Arab girls
only means for breaking from the traditional path destined for Arab women, but they emphasize achievement
rather than meaningful learning (Malka & Convington, 2005;
Miller, DeBaker, & Green, 1999). These themes related to
higher education and career are rarely found in narrative
data collected from Israeli Arab boys (Seginer, Shoyer, &
Mahajna, 2008; Suleiman, 2001) and Israeli Jewish boys and
girls (Seginer, 2005; Seginer, Vermulst, & Shoyer, 2004).

89

TABLE 1
Study Population: Number of Students by Culture,
Grade Level, and Gender
Jews, No. (%)

Arabs, No. (%)

Total, No. (%)

130 (32.2)
74 (18.3)
204 (50.5)

102 (25.2)
98 (24.3)
200 (49.5)

232 (57.4)
172 (42.6)
404 (100)

143 (35.4)
61 (15.1)
204 (50.5)

108 (26.7)
92 (22.8)
200 (49.5)

251 (62.1)
153 (37.9)
404 (100)

Grade level
Elementary
Junior high
Total
Gender
Male
Female
Total

FOCUS OF STUDY AND MAIN HYPOTHESIS

In light of the presented knowledge, the study attempted
to examine the desired characteristics of teachers of gifted
learners in three dimensions (cognitive, pedagogical, and
personal) as perceived by gifted students of both genders
from two cultural groups in Israel (Jewish and Arab) and
from two grade levels (elementary and junior high school).
The main research question asked was whether there are
differences in desired cognitive, pedagogical, or personal
characteristics of teachers of gifted students by culture,
gender, and grade level.
METHOD
Participants
The study was conducted in five Jewish and Arab pullout programs taking place in gifted-education centers in
Israel. Students were identified as gifted by the Ministry of
Education based on a two-stage screening process indentifying high achievement and academic abilities (above 130 IQ).
Jewish students attended these centers for 6 hours once a
week on a regular school day, and Arab students attended the
centers on their free day. Jewish and Arab students studied in
separate centers because of housing patterns. They studied in
different languages (Jewish students in Hebrew and Arab students in Arabic) because these were the first languages taught
in their schools. Students were randomly selected from various pullout programs. Disproportional stratified sampling
(Salant & Dillman, 1994) was applied. Group sizes were
not proportional to their size in population (which is usually
1%3%) to better detect differences between them.
In order to examine the study hypotheses, participants
were sought from two cultural groups: (a) gifted Jewish
elementary and junior high-school students (N = 204) and
(b) gifted Arab elementary and junior high-school students
(N = 200), both participating in pullout programs. Table 1
presents the composition of participants by cultural orientations, grade, and gender.
Numbers of boys and girls among participants and numbers of elementary and junior high students reflect their
relevant ratio in pullout Israeli programs at that time

(Male = 62.1%, Female = 37.9%; elementary = 57.4%,

junior high school = 42.6%). The number of Jewish males
and females (143 to 61) reflected the ratio usually found in
identified gifted children there (twice as many boys compared to girls). In the Arab group, the number of girls tended
to be even higher (108 to 92) because of their tendency to
achieve higher.

Instrumentation
A questionnaire for measuring students perceptions of
desired teacher characteristics was administered to each
group in their native language. Translation was performed
by three Arab educators. An expert in gifted education validated the content. The questionnaire was comprised of two
parts: The first part consisted of 42 statements, requiring
students respondes to them on a 6-point Likert-type scale
from 1 (completely incorrect) to 6 (completely correct),
reflecting gifted students evaluation of the extent to which
gifted teachers should possess the characteristics stated (see
Appendix).
A factor analysis with Varimax rotation performed on
responses of 217 teachers (see Table 2) yielded three
scales of teachers characteristics, each describing a different dimension: (a) teachers cognitive characteristics
(13 items, Cronbachs alpha = .78) (b) teachers personal characteristics (17 items, Cronbachs alpha = .86),
and (c) teachers pedagogical characteristics (13 items,
Cronbachs alpha = .81), with the 43-item instruments
internal consistency yielding a reliability of Cronbachs
alpha = .85.
Reliability calculated for students responses yielded
results similar to that obtained for teachers only on the personal and pedagogical dimensions but much lower reliability
for the cognitive dimension as follows: (a) teachers personal characteristics, related to teaching, attitudes toward
students, and nurturing creativity (17 items, Cronbachs
alpha = .84), including statements such as, Teachers
respect the students, or Teachers are aware of differences among students; (b) teachers pedagogical characteristics concerning teaching modes and classroom activities

90

B. EILAM AND H. E. VIDERGOR

TABLE 2
Factor Analysis Results According to Teachers Perceptions of
Various Dimensions

TABLE 2
(Continued)
Dimension

Dimension
Alpha
Not assign research projects
Present diverse modes of solving a
problem
Encourage students to always think in
the same way
Show a single mode of solving a
problem
Not assign the building of models
Focus on the subject and not get
carried away
Lecture most of the time
Teach a subject with no connection to
other subjects
Be knowledgeable in subjects he or she
does not teach
Teach each subject in a single way
Be able to make meaningful
connections among ideas originating
in different subjects
Teach the same topic from different
points of view
Assign independent research projects
Encourage the presentation of research
and creative projects in the
classroom
Use movies, songs, objects, and games
for illustration
Create good personal relations with
students
Encourage students self-evaluation
Assign cooperative work during class
Be aware of differences among
students
Stimulate students curiosity
Assign creative work
Respect the students
Be aware of students different
learning modes
Use rich language
Organize visits to museums and labs
Present the use of acquired knowledge
in new situations
Motivate students to learn
Occasionally have a personal
conversation with each student
Be creative
Not reject students opinions
Send students to regional and national
competitions
Hold science competitions among
students
Strive for outstanding achievements
Assign homework almost every lesson
Test students orally by calling them to
the board
Ask students to memorize and recite
the material

Cognitive Personal Pedagogical

Cognitive Personal Pedagogical

.78
.57
.55

.86

.81

.53
.52
.51
.50
.47
.45
.43
.38
.38

.37
.35
.71

.65
.64
.61
.56
.53
.52
.52
.52
.50
.46
.46
.46
.45
.44
.41
.41
.70
.67
.64
.62
.59
.56

(Continued)

Demand high grades

Incorporate computer work in studies
Invite experts for lectures and
discussions
Often check students notebooks and
homework
Grade or evaluate students on each
task
Invite parents to school science fairs
Teach material in a fast pace
Explained variance (%)
Mean score
(SD)

.53
.49
.49
.48
.45

15.0
5.22
(.47)

17.30
5.56
(.38)

.41
.36
10.70
4.10
(.68)

(13 items, Cronbachs alpha = .76); for example, Teachers

send students to regional and national competitions or
Teachers invite experts for lectures and discussions; and
(c) cognitive characteristics; in particular teachers application of cognitive skills and requisition that students do
the same, yielded a lower reliability (12 items, Cronbachs
alpha = .60). The cognitive dimension included statements
such as Teachers are able to make meaningful connections among ideas originating in different subjects or
Teachers present diverse modes of solving a problem.
The item Lectures most of the time was omitted from
students questionnaire to obtain .60 reliability. Instrument
42 items internal consistency yielded a reliability coefficient
of Cronbachs alpha = .86.
The Division for Gifted and Excellent Students in Israel
(2004) indicated that teachers expertise regarding the education of gifted students should be as follows: The teacher
of gifted students should be knowledgeable in learning
processes and types of learning, promoting thinking, and
enhancing socialemotional and moral aspects, providing
optimal conditions for learning. The three dimensions of
teachers characteristics are principally interwoven.
Based on research findings and Israeli perception, we
addressed the teachers role in the classroom as resulted
from the factor analysis, emphasizing three dimensions:
(a) the cognitive dimension, represented by promoting thinking skills in the process of learning; (b) the pedagogical
dimension, focusing on promoting learning in general; and
(c) the personal dimension, relating to teachers personality
as building productive learning environments emphasizing
the socialemotional and creative aspects. The differences
in nuances of perception of dimensions of teachers characteristics found for our samples, compared with the teachers,
may evolve from students and teachers different perspectives regarding these statement evaluations. For instance,
students evaluate from an external perspective as learners, lacking teachers knowledge of instructional pedagogy,
whereas teachers evaluate statements from their own broad

GIFTED STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHERS

extended instructional experiences. The second part of the

questionnaire consisted of demographic information and the
independent variables including cultural orientations (Jewish
or Arab), grade level (elementary or junior high school), and
gender (male or female).
Procedure
Questionnaires were administered to students in each group
in their native language in their study groups in the various
pullout centers during morning hours. The Jewish elementary and junior gifted-education centers were located in various areas of the country, and the Arab centers were located
in the northern part of Israel. Students filled in the questionnaire and handed it to the researcher. They were told that the
data would be used anonymously for a study concerning the
gifted. Translation of students responses into Hebrew was
not required due to responses being marked on the Likert
scale. Time allocated for filling in the questionnaire was
approximately 15 minutes.
Data Analysis
Three-way MANOVA procedures were performed to affirm
the relevance of independent variables such as grade
level, gender, and culture. Pearson correlations were performed to establish connections between dependent variables. Differences between Arab and Jewish students rating
on statements were established via t-tests.
RESULTS
Desired Teachers Characteristics Concerning Various
Dimensions
The main hypothesis concerning differences in desired cognitive, pedagogical, or personal characteristics of teachers by
culture, gender, and grade level was confirmed.
Table 3 presents Pearson correlations among the three
measures of the dimensions of teachers characteristics,
namely, the cognitive, pedagogical, and personal dimensions.
Means comparisons (SD in parentheses) of students
ratings of dimensions yielded the personality dimension
highest, followed by the cognitive, which is higher than the
TABLE 3
Correlations Among the Three Dimensions of Teachers Desired
Characteristics as Rated by Students

Cognitive
Personal
Pedagogical
Note. N = 404.

p < .001.

Cognitive

Personal

Pedagogical

.604
.275

.517

91

pedagogical, 4.85 (.62) > 4.31 (.59) > 3.59 (.76), respectively. Pearson correlation for the various dimensions of
teachers characteristics yielded significant main effects for
all possible pairs of characteristics dimensions (p .001),
suggesting that they are related in students minds. However,
the personal dimension is more strongly related to the
cognitive one in students minds than it is to the pedagogical dimension, whereas the cognitive and the pedagogical
dimension are perceived by students as related to a smaller
degree. The three dimensions were examined by background
variables to determine their effect, as seen in Table 4.
Significant main effects were detected for grade level,
F(1,394) = 3.78, p .05, Effect Size (ES) = .028;
gender, F(1,394) = 2.77, p .05, ES = .021; culture,
F(1,394) = 25.35, p .001, ES = .16; and the interaction
of gender by culture, F(1,394) = 3.76, p .05, ES = .028.

The Cognitive Dimension

Significant differences in students preferences related to
cognitive characteristics of teachers of gifted were detected
in the background variables of grade level, gender, and
the interaction of culture by gender but not for culture.
Examination according to grade level indicated that junior
highschool gifted students rated the cognitive dimension
higher than did elementary gifted students, 4.40 (.60) > 4.23
(.57) respectively, F(1,396) = 10.89, p .001, ES = .027.
Examination according to gender showed that girls rated
higher than boys on the cognitive scale, 4.34 (.55) > 4.26
(.56), respectively, F(1,396) = 4.14, p .05, ES = .010.
Analysis according to cultural orientations showed no significant differences between Jewish and Arab students on the
cognitive dimension. The significant interaction of gender by
culture on the cognitive dimension indicated that boys and
girls of the different cultural orientations perceived teachers characteristics differently, F(1,396) = 10.46, p .001,
ES = .026).
Jewish boys tended to rate the cognitive dimension
slightly higher than Jewish girls did, 4.36 (.50) and 4.29

TABLE 4
Results of MANOVA for All Students Ratings on Teachers
Characteristics in the Three Dimensions by Culture, Grade Level,
Gender, and Gender by Culture, Presented in F Values and
Significance Levels
Dimensions
(df = 394)
Cognitive
Personal
Pedagogical
Multivariate
F (df = 3)

Culture

Grade level

Gender

Gender Culture

.84
13.72
16.32
25.35

10.89
2.04
.67
3.78

4.14
4.19
.10
2.77

10.46
4.73
.31
3.76

p < .05. p < .001.

92

B. EILAM AND H. E. VIDERGOR

(.64), respectively, whereas Arab girls tended to rate teachers cognitive characteristics significantly higher than Arab
boys did, 4.43 (.62) and 4.13 (.60), respectively.
These findings show opposite gender-related trends
among Jewish and Arab students regarding preferred cognitive characteristics of teachers of gifted.
Paired sample t-tests showed a significant difference
between Arab boys and Arab girls, t(198) = 3.47, p .001,
Mean Difference (MD) = .30, but not between Jewish boys
and girls. Namely, Arab girls, who rated the desired cognitive characteristics of the teacher of the gifted significantly
higher than Arab boys did, perceived cognitive characteristics as more important for their personal development. In
contrast, Jewish boys and girls equally perceived teachers
cognitive characteristics to be important. In addition, Jewish
boys rated teachers cognitive characteristics significantly
higher than Arab boys did, 4.36 (.50) > 4.13 (.60) respectively, t(249) = 3.36, p .001, MD = .23. It seems that
Arab boys perceived teachers cognitive characteristics as
less important than Jewish boys did.
The Personal Dimension
Significant differences in students perceptions of the
desired personal characteristics of the teachers of gifted
were detected in gender and culture but not in grade level.
Analysis according to gender indicated that girls rated the
personal dimension higher than boys, 4.90 (.63) > 4.81 (.61),
respectively, F(1,396) = 4.19, p .05, ES = .010.
According to culture, Jewish students tended to rate
this dimension higher than their Arab counterparts did,
4.96 (.49) > 4.72 (.70), respectively, F(1,396) = 13.72,
p .001, ES = .033. t-Test results show a significant difference between Arab gifted boys and girls,
4.63 (.71) < 4.83 (.69), respectively, t = 1.98, p .05,
MD = .30, in perception of the importance of teachers
personal characteristics.
The Pedagogical Dimension
A significant difference according to culture alone was
found on the pedagogical dimension, indicating Jewish
students tendency to rate such characteristics lower than
their Arab counterparts did, 3.44 (.72) < 3.73 (.77),
respectively, F(1,396) = 16.32, p .001, ES = .040.
Differences were detected between both Jewish and Arab
gifted boys, 3.46 (.73) < 3.73 (.83), respectively, t = 2.75,
p .05, MD = .27, and Jewish and Arab gifted girls,
3.39 (.69) < 3.73 (.69), respectively, t = 2.97, p . 005,
MD = .34.
In summary, an examination of teachers characteristics
according to the three different dimensions revealed that both
Jewish and Arab gifted students valued the personal and cognitive over pedagogical characteristics. Differences between
the groups according to the various dimensions exhibit
recurrent patterns in the cognitive and personal dimensions,

showing that Jewish boys and girls and Arab girls tended
to rate these dimensions higher than Arab boys. An opposite trend was detected on the pedagogical dimension, where
Arab girls and boys tended to rate this higher than their
Jewish counterparts did.
DISCUSSION
Dimensions of Teachers Characteristics
Examination of teachers characteristics according to the
three dimensions revealed that all gifted students valued
the personal and cognitive dimensions more than they valued the pedagogical, consistent with recent research (Mills,
2003) but not with past research in Israel (Milgram, 1979).
This inconsistency with Israeli past findings may result
from the many changes that have occurred in the education of gifted students over these last 30 years. Findings
suggest that background variables may influence students
perceptions of the cognitive and personal dimensions of
teachers desired characteristics. In our discussion here, we
emphasize gender-related cultural orientations and the general cultural-orientation perspective, because these may have
a strong effect on students perceptions of teachers desired
characteristics.
The Cognitive Dimension
Grade-level or age-related differences regarding the rating of characteristics on the cognitive dimension may be
expected due to older students emphasis on the intelligence
domain, which is more associated with the conventional
goals of education (Milgram, 1979, p. 128). The similar
perceptions found for Jewish students, expressed in their
relatively higher rating of teachers cognitive characteristics, suggest their acknowledgement of the importance of
the cognitive dimension. Arab girls higher ratings of the
cognitive dimension compared with Arab boys reflect their
aspirations for higher education and career, consistent with
literature relating to nongifted students in Israel (Seginer &
Mahajna, 2004). The authors cited here reported a recent
trend, expressed by Arab females, of valuing higher education as a means for breaking the traditional path destined
for them by society. On the other hand, gifted Arab boys
attributing less importance to the cognitive characteristics is
consistent with past research relating to nongifted Arab boys
(Seginer, 1988, 2001), suggesting that due to their already
secure status in society, given societal perceptions that boys
are the privileged gender, they feel less motivated to achieve
academically.
The Personal Dimension
Gender-related perceptions of the personal dimension
are consistent with literature emphasizing girls stronger
desire for personalsocial relations. Culture-related perceptions of the personal dimension may suggest that Jewish

GIFTED STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHERS

gifted students are more sensitive to teachers personal characteristics and the current outcome-learning climate. Arab
gifted students attributed less importance to the teachers
personal characteristics, whereas their Jewish counterparts
acknowledged the importance of these characteristics and
noticed teachers exhibiting unique qualities when attending pullout programs. The finding related to Arab gifted
girls, compared with Jewish gifted girls and boys, supports
our previous explanations concerning the value these girls
attach to teachers personal characteristics as a means for
improving their societal status. However, girls from both cultural orientations equally value the personal characteristics
of teachers of the gifted.
The Pedagogical Dimension
ArabJewish differences in perceiving the teaching
learning situation may be explained by their cultural background; namely, students being exposed to collectivist
norms, as translated into instructional practices, are discouraged from expressing opinions and are expected to respect
adults authority (Al-Haj, 1995, 1996, as cited in Eilam,
2002). These behaviors may influence their perceptions
of the teachinglearning situation at pullout centers. Arab
teachers of gifted students in the pullout centers may continue their educational traditions, rather than fostering creativity, problem solving, group work, and individual projects.
Individualistic Jewish teachers are likely more aware of
student-centered practices promoting active learning and
enhancing creativity and apply them more than Arab teachers do in the centers. Jewish students high expectations for
such instructional modes, as found here, may constitute an
additional pressure for applying them.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The main conclusion of this study is that students perceptions of their teachers desired characteristics cannot be
discussed separately from their contextual background and
schooling. Jewish and Arab gifted students exhibit differing
perceptions regarding the various dimensions of teachers
characteristics, which may result from belonging to societies representing different cultural orientations. It seems
that Arab gifted boys (in contrast with Arab girls) have not
yet developed an awareness of the cognitive and personal
benefits of pullout programs. This finding is probably one
outcome of programs for gifted students being introduced
much later in the Arab culture than in the Jewish culture
and Arab gifted girls striving for education as a means for
improving their societal status.
Students perceptions of what teachers characteristics are
desirable in the three dimensions suggest that it is important
for teachers to discuss with students the aims of programs
for gifted students, and the opportunities they provide, as

93

different from that of regular school and as responding to

their needs, so that students will not perceive the programs as
just an improved school or as simply extending some school
experiences.
The findings also underscore the importance of teachers awareness of students cultural orientations as a factor
influencing students perceptions related to teaching and
learning and affecting their preferences and related expectations. Awareness of these differences in gifted students
perceptions and preferences, in individualist and collectivist cultural orientation, and concerning what is desired in
teacher characteristics may promote students participation
and learning. Among the reported preferences are open and
challenging tasks as well as a climate favoring individual
success and positive competitions. Hence, we recommend
that both Arab and Jewish teachers, representing Arab and
Jewish cultural orientations, be encouraged to attend certification programs recently established by the Division of
Gifted and Excellent Students at the Ministry of Education
in Israel. Because students from both cultures emphasized
the importance of teachers personal and cognitive characteristics, we advise that both dimensions be considered when
interviewing teachers for these programs.
Our study showed the importance of considering students
cultural orientations while planning and designing learning
environments for gifted students. In our case, culturally relevant pedagogy for gifted students is particularly important
to consider. Because Arab gifted students are a minority, we
assume that responding to their needs, which seem to differ
from those of Jewish gifted counterparts, will result in a
better fulfillment of their potential. In this sense, we do not
recommend implementation of the Jewish ideas of how to
advance gifted students in Israel but rather that Jewish and
Arab teachers together consider students needs and cultural
orientation when designing programs to promote Arab gifted
students.

STUDY LIMITATIONS
This study raises some crucial issues with respect to the education of gifted students in a multicultural society. Because
participants of the present study were representative of the
pullout programs in the Jewish and Arab cultures sanctioned by the Ministry of Education in the northern and
central regions of Israel, we recommend only cautious generalization to other gifted populations and other types of
programs. Data collected were self-reported and not triangulated with parents or teachers perceptions. A deeper
examination of perceptions and preferences of students from
diverse cultures and of teachers of gifted students might
contribute to a better understanding of education of gifted
students. Semistructured interviews would likely provide a
more comprehensive view of students notions regarding the
characteristics of their teachers, and indirectly of pullout

94

B. EILAM AND H. E. VIDERGOR

center atmosphere and curriculum, which in turn might bring

about a better, more efficient approach to gifted education
that enhances each individuals potential.

REFERENCES
Aldrich, P. W., & Nills, C. J. (1989). A special program for highly able rural
youth in Grades 5 and 6. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 1114.
Al-Haj, M. (1995). Kinship and modernization in developing societies: The
emergence of instrumentalized kinship. Journal of Comparative Family
Studies, 26, 311328.
Al-Haj, M. (1996). Education among the Arabs in Israel: Control and social
change. Jerusalem. Israel: The Hebrew University Magnes Press.
Beckwith, A. (1982). Use of the Ross Test as an assessment measure in
programs for the gifted and a comparison study of the Ross Test to individually administered intelligence tests. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 5, 127140.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn
(Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Carter, K. (1986). A cognitive outcome study to evaluate curriculum for the
gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9, 4155.
Chan, D. W. (2001). Characteristics and competencies of teachers of gifted
learners: The Hong Kong perspective. Roeper Review, 23, 197201.
Chuska, K. R. (1989). Gifted learners K12: A practical guide to effective
curriculum and teaching. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.
Clark, B. (2002). Growing-up gifted (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Davidson, J., Davidson, B., & Vanderkam, L. (2004). Genius denied: How
to stop wasting our brightest young minds; What you and your school can
do for your gifted child. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Division for Gifted and Excellent Students. (2004). Steering committee
report on the advancement of gifted education. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry
of Education.
Division for Gifted and Excellent Students. (20082009). Issues in educating gifted students in Israel. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.il/
gifted/
Eilam, B. (2002). Passing through a Western-democratic teacher education: The case of Israeli Arabs. Teacher College Record, 104, 16561701.
Eilam, B. (2003). Jewish and Arab teacher trainees orientations toward
teachingLearning processes. Teaching Education, 14(2), 189186.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Moon, S. M. (1992). Grouping gifted students. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 36, 6367.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). Educating teachers for work with talented youth. In
N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd
ed., pp. 547552). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gagn, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its
impact on the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18, 103111.
Gagn, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted
education (3rd ed., pp. 6074). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained
teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 115121.
Horowitz, F. D., Subotnik, R. F., & Matthews, D. J. (2009). The development
of giftedness and talent across the life-span. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Humes, C. W., & Campbell, R. D. (1980). Gifted students: A 15-year
longitudinal study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24, 129131.
Johnsen, S., & Goree, K. (2005). Teaching gifted students through independent study. In F. Karnes & S. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials
for teaching the gifted and talented (pp. 379408). Waco, TX: Prufrock
Press.
Kolloff, M. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1984). The effects of enrichment on
self-concept and creative thinking. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 5357.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1992). Programming, grouping and acceleration in rural school districts: A survey of attitudes and practices. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 36, 112117.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 465491.
Maddux, C. D., Samples-Lachmann, I., & Cummings, R. E. (1985).
Preferences of gifted students for selected teacher characteristics. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 29, 160163.
Malka, A., & Convington, M. V. (2005). Perceiving school performance as
instrumental to future goal attainment: Effects on graded performance.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 6080.
Mernissi, F. (1985). Beyond the veil: Male female dynamics in a Muslim
society. London, England: Al Saqi Books.
Milgram, R. M. (1979). Perception of teacher behavior in gifted and nongifted children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 125128.
Miller, R. B., DeBaker, T. K., & Green, B. A. (1999). Perceived instrumentality and academics: The link to task valuing. Journal of Instrumental
Psychology, 26, 250260.
Mills, C. J. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students:
Teacher background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 47, 272281.
Moon, S. M. (1991). The PACE Program: A high school follow-up
study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN.
Moon, S. M., Feldhusen, J. F., & Dillion, D. R. (1994). Long-term effects of
an enrichment program based on the Purdue Three-Stage Model. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 38, 3848.
Neilsen, M. E. (1984). Evaluation of gifted rural program: Assessment of
attitudes, self-concepts, and critical thinking skills of high ability students
in grades 312. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Rogers, K. B. (2002). Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and
answers. Roeper Review, 24, 102107.
Rowley, J. (2002). Teacher effectiveness in the education of gifted students:
A comparison of trained, trainee and untrained teachers of gifted and
talented students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to construct your own survey. New
York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Schiever, S. W., & Maker, C. J. (1997). Enrichment and acceleration: An
overview and new directions. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.),
Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 113125). Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Seginer, R. (1988). Adolescents orientations towards the future: Sex role
differentiation in sociocultural context. Sex Roles, 18, 739757.
Seginer, R. (2001). Young people chart their path into adulthood: The future
orientations of Israeli Druz, Arab and Jewish adolescents [Special issue].
Megamot, 41, 97112.
Seginer, R. (2005). Adolescent future orientation: Integrational transmission
and interviewing tactics in culture and family settings. In W. Fridelmeier,
P. Chakkarath, & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Culture and human development: The importance of cross-cultural research to the social sciences
(pp. 231251). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Seginer, R., Karayanni, M., & Mari, M. M. (1990). Adolescent attitudes
towards womens roles: A comparison between Israeli Jews and Arabs.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 119133.
Seginer, R., & Mahajna, S. (2004). Looking forward: Ecological perspectives on adolescent future orientation. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Haifa, Israel.
Seginer, R., Shoyer, S., & Mahajna, S. (2008, March). Diversity and commonality: Relationships with parents and peers among Israeli Arab and
Jewish adolescents. In B. Schwarz (Chair), The role of parents and peers
for adolescent development: A cross cultural perspective. Symposium
conducted at the 12th Biennial meeting of the Society for Research on
Adolescence, Chicago, IL.
Seginer, R., Vermulst, A., & Shoyer, S. (2004). The indirect link between
perceived parenting and adolescent future orientation: A multiple-step

GIFTED STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHERS

95

model. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28,

365378.
Silverman, L. K. (Ed.). (2000). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver,
CO: Love.
Starko, A. J. (1988). Effects of the revolving door identification model
on creative productivity and selfefficacy. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32,
291297.
Suleiman, M. A. (2001). Parental style and Arab adolescents future orientation (Unpublished masters thesis). University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Swiatek, M. A., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2003). Elementary- and middleschool student participation in gifted programs: Are gifted students
underserved? Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 118129.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Van Tassel-Baska, J., MacFarlane, B., & Feng, A. X. (2006). A
cross-cultural study of exemplary teaching: What do Singapore and
United States secondary gifted class teachers say? Gifted and Talented
International, 21(2), 3847.

Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum

for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Winebrenner, S. (2001). Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom:
Strategies and techniques every teacher can use to meet the academic
needs of the gifted and talented (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
Winner, E. (1997). Exceptionally high intelligence and schooling. American
Psychologist, 52, 10701081.

Teachers will:

Completely incorrect

Incorrect

Not so correct

Quite correct

Correct

Completely correct

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

6
6
6
6

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

6
6

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

Focus on the subject and not get carried away

Teach material in a fast pace
Demand high grades
Be able to make meaningful connections among ideas
originating in different subjects
Often check students notebooks and homework
Be knowledgeable in subjects he or she does not teach
Present diverse modes of solving a problem
Invite experts for lectures and discussions
Teach a subject with no connection to other subjects
Not reject students opinions
Organize visits to museums and labs
Respect the students
Be aware of differences among students
Lecture most of the time
Stimulate students curiosity
Test students orally by calling them to the board
Strive for outstanding achievements
Assign creative work
Send students to regional and national competitions
Assign homework almost every lesson
Ask students to memorize and recite the material
Be creative
Show a single mode of solving a problem
Encourage students to always think in the same way
Hold science competitions among students
Assign independent research projects
Use rich language
Use movies, songs, objects, and games for illustration
Be aware of students different learning modes
Assign cooperative work during class
Incorporate computer work in studies
Not assign research projects
Occasionally have a personal conversation with each
student
Encourage students self-evaluation
Encourage the presentation of research and creative
projects in the classroom
Grade or evaluate students on each task
Invite parents to school science fairs
Create good personal relations with students
Present the use of acquired knowledge in new situations
Motivate students to learn
Not assign the building of models
Teach the same topic from different points of view
Teach each subject in a single way

APPENDIX: STUDENTS QUESTIONNAIRE

The following statements describe the characteristics and
classroom practices of teachers of gifted and talented students. Read each statement carefully and circle the number
which seems appropriate. Indicate to what extent it is correct
in your opinion:

96

B. EILAM AND H. E. VIDERGOR

AUTHOR BIOS
Billie Eilam is a professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Haifa, Israel. Her research focuses on
visualization in learning, instruction and curriculum, emphasizes cognitive skills, and treats aspects of contextual
and cultural factors. Many of her studies examine the application of theories in authentic learning situations. E-mail:
beilam@edu.haifa.ac.il

Hava E. Vidergor, PhD, is a pedagogical coordinator and lecturer in a certification program for teachers of gifted
students at Oranim Academic Teachers College, Israel, where she has designed a number of courses related to
effective pedagogies and curriculum planning for gifted and talented students. She is an invited lecturer in certification
programs for teachers of gifted, as well as a large number PD programs for teachers of high achievers. She is an
experienced teacher in both general and gifted education frameworks, where she has designed and taught courses on
leadership, and creativity in English as a second language to middle school gifted students. She is the initiator and
co-editor of The Handbook for Teaching Gifted and Able Learners (2011). She has published a number of refereed
journal articles, and has given presentations and workshops in national and international conferences. She has recently
established the HV Gifted Expertise Center supported by a team of world renowned scholars www.hvgifted.com. Her
research interests are instruction, teacher education and policy. E-mail: hava@hvgifted.com; vidergor@bezeqint.net

Copyright of Roeper Review is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.