This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee, Knoxville]On: 22 December 2014, At: 08:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Roeper ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uror20

Characteristics and Competencies of Teachers of GiftedLearners: The Hong Kong Student PerspectiveDavid W. ChanPublished online: 17 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: David W. Chan (2011) Characteristics and Competencies of Teachers of Gifted Learners: The Hong KongStudent Perspective, Roeper Review, 33:3, 160-169, DOI: 10.1080/02783193.2011.580499

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.580499

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Roeper Review, 33:160–169, 2011Copyright © The Roeper InstituteISSN: 0278-3193 print / 1940-865X onlineDOI: 10.1080/02783193.2011.580499

BELIEFS, ACTIONS, AND CHARACTERISTICSOF TEACHERS

Characteristics and Competencies of Teachersof Gifted Learners: The Hong Kong

Student Perspective

David W. Chan

Six hundred and seventeen teacher-nominated Chinese gifted students rated the importance of25 characteristics and 14 competencies for teachers of gifted learners, and all 39 character-istics and competencies were endorsed as important. The 25 teacher characteristics could beconceptualized in four dimensions, as an individuality orientation, a change orientation, a reg-ulated working orientation, and an achieving orientation. The 14-teacher competencies couldbe conceptualized in two dimensions, as specific teaching skills and global-consultative skills.Characteristics related to the individuality and change orientations and competencies related tospecific teaching skills were rated as more important. Implications of the findings for teacherselection and teacher preparation for teachers of gifted learners are discussed.

Keywords: Chinese gifted students, Hong Kong, teacher characteristics, teacher competencies,teacher education

It is generally acknowledged that identifying the charac-teristics and competencies unique to effective teachers ofthe gifted is a challenge (Croft, 2003). Though these teach-ers might share with effective teachers in general educationcertain common characteristics such as spontaneity, accep-tance, creativity, and self-realization, which are deemed tobe important in promoting the development of human poten-tial (Iannon & Carline, 1971), and high levels of positiveregard, which are directly facilitative of high cognitive func-tioning in the classroom (Aspy & Roebuck, 1972), it issaid that they might have to develop areas of expertise thatteachers of general education do not require (Croft). Yet,attention to teachers of gifted learners seems to be under-emphasized in the literature of gifted education (Graffam,2006), despite the fact that special training or preparationfor teachers of gifted learners is recommended in gifted edu-cation (Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994). Specifically, the field

Received 10 November 2009; accepted 17 April 2010.Address correspondence to David W. Chan, Department of Educational

Psychology, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong. E-mail: davidchan@cuhk.edu.hk

has emphasized creating acceptable definitions of giftedness,identifying characteristics of the gifted, designing programsand curricula that can challenge bright minds, and develop-ing methods for teaching gifted learners (see Davis & Rimm,2004; Gallagher, 1964; Piirto, 1999; Van Tassel-Baska &Stambaugh, 2006). In sharp contrast, there are relatively fewresearch studies focusing on the understanding of teachersof gifted learners (e.g., Chan, 2001; Graffam, 2006; Mills,2003; Roberts, 2006).

Based on the systematic review of the small number ofstudies that focused more specifically on the characteristicsof teachers of gifted learners (see Bishop, 1968; Hultgren &Seeley, 1982; Maker, 1975; Whitlock & DuCette, 1989),Feldhusen (1997) observed that the characteristics foundin these successful teachers were similar to those foundin gifted and talented students and were desirable in allteachers. These characteristics include (a) being highly intel-ligent, achievement oriented, knowledgeable, and flexible;(b) having cultural and intellectual interests; (c) respect-ing individual differences; and (d) relating well with giftedindividuals. However, he suggested that it would be moreproductive for teacher education to focus on competencies,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 08:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE HONG KONG STUDENT PERSPECTIVE 161

skills, and knowledge than on teacher characteristics, asteachers could acquire competencies in their preparation tobecome teachers of gifted learners.

In addition to the observation of teacher characteristics,Feldhusen (1997) also summarized the competencies of suc-cessful teachers of gifted learners based on the results of pastsurveys (e.g., Hultgren & Seeley, 1982; Nelson & Prindle,1992) and studies on teachers working with gifted and tal-ented students (e.g., Silverman, 1982; Starko & Schack,1989; Story, 1985). These competencies include skills inteaching thinking skills, problem solving, and creativity; ininteracting with students; in using appropriate motivationaltechniques; in conducting student-directed activities; andin facilitating independent research. In addition, Feldhusencautioned that competencies could be domain-specific in thatcompetencies required in teaching certain specific contentdomains such as science and mathematics could be very dif-ferent from those required for teaching other domains suchas art and music.

In recent years, the concerns and interests regardingteacher preparation for effective teachers in general education(e.g., Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Stronge, 2002;Stronge, Tucker, & Hindman, 2006) have spread to the fieldof gifted education, resulting in an increase in studies andpublications on works related to effective teachers of giftedlearners (e.g., Dixon & Moon, 2006; Karnes & Bean, 2005;Purcell & Eckert, 2006). In 2006, the Initial Knowledge andSkill Standards for Gifted and Talented Education developedjointly by two U. S. national organizations, the Council forExceptional Children (CEC) and the National Associationfor Gifted Children (NAGC) were approved as national offi-cial standards to guide the development of programs toprepare gifted educators (see Johnsen, VanTassel-Baska, &Robinson, 2008; Kitano, Montgomery, VanTassel-Baska, &Johnsen, 2008). The 10 standards are foundations, devel-opment and characteristics of learners, individual learningdifferences, instructional strategies, learning environmentsand social interactions, language and communication, instruc-tional planning, assessment, professional and ethical practice,and collaboration. It is of great interest to explore empiricallywhether these standards are judged as important by giftedstudents and teachers of gifted learners in the United Statesas well as outside the U.S. settings.

Study on the characteristics and competencies of teach-ers of gifted learners is particularly relevant in Hong Kong,where the call for specialized preparation for teachers ofgifted learners has been on the increase since the publicationof the report from the Board of Education’s subcommitteeon special education more than a decade ago (The Boardof Education, 1996). The subcommittee, after reviewing thedevelopment of gifted education in Hong Kong at the time,recommended that training in gifted education should beincluded in initial teacher education, refresher courses, andlong-term development programs for teachers. Despite therecommendations and after years of increased efforts in

developing gifted education and gifted programming withthe planned three levels of school-based and pull-out servicesin Hong Kong (Education Department, 2000), few effortshave been directed to establishing teacher education pre-service preparation or in-service professional developmentprograms that will lead to a form of advanced certifica-tion for teachers of gifted learners, and there is no officialstandards equivalent to the U.S. CEC-NAGC standards forinitial preparation of teachers of gifted learners.

Partly in response to the call for specialized preparationfor teachers of gifted learners and partly with the aim toheighten public awareness of the importance of specific char-acteristics and competencies of teachers of gifted learners,Chan (2001) conducted a study that investigated Chineseteachers’ perceptions of the importance of the 25 characteris-tics and 14 competencies summarized by Feldhusen (1997).Specifically, the findings suggested three dimensions of char-acteristics interpretable as philosophical ideals, professionalpredispositions, and personal attributes. The philosophicalideals that encompassed such characteristics as respect,responsibility, flexibility, empathy, and the commitment toindividual differences were generally rated as more impor-tant than the professional predispositions that included char-acteristics related to organization, enthusiasm, accessibility,cooperativeness, facilitation, and guidance. The professionalpredispositions were in turn generally rated as more impor-tant than the personal attributes that included characteristicsrelated to having cultural and intellectual interests and beinginnovative, highly intelligent, knowledgeable, and achiev-ing. Regarding competencies, two dimensions emerged. Onedimension covered competencies in terms of specific skillsrelated to teaching creativity and problem solving, iden-tification, questioning, and meeting the needs of studentswith gifts and talents. These competencies were generallyrated as more important than competencies covered in theother dimension, which described global skills related togeneral principles in philosophy and methods, group pro-cesses, career education, process orientation, research, andmulticultural considerations.

Taken together, Chan’s (2001) study provided data to sup-port the use of the checklist of characteristics and competen-cies for teachers of gifted learners in the Hong Kong Chinesesetting, suggesting that these characteristics and competen-cies could be regarded as criteria for teacher selection orobjectives and outcomes of teacher education programs.However, it can be argued that the study only privileged theteachers’ perspectives and the views on teacher characteris-tics and competencies from gifted students as the recipientsof services also need to be examined. With this in mind, thepresent study aimed to extend past findings of the teacherperspective on teacher characteristics and competencies toexamining the student perspective in a sample of Chinesegifted students in Hong Kong. Specifically, this study aimedto evaluate gifted students’ ratings of the importance ofthe 25 teacher characteristics and 14 teacher competencies,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 08:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

162 D. W. CHAN

examined the dimensionality or structure of teacher charac-teristics and competencies from the student perspective, andexplored gender and age differences in these dimensions ofcharacteristics and competencies.

METHOD

Participants

A total of 617 Chinese students participated voluntarilyin this study. Seventy-eight percent (483) of the studentswere from primary schools (Grades 3 to 6), and 22% (134)were from secondary schools (Grades 7 to 10). These stu-dents (392 boys and 225 girls), aged 6 to 16 (M = 10.10,SD = 2.03), were nominated by their schools to participatein different enrichment courses provided for gifted learnersat the Chinese University of Hong Kong over a half-yearperiod. In nominating students, schools were requested torecommend students who were judged to be either giftedintellectually (e.g., with a high IQ score) or academically(e.g., with outstanding performances in school subjects)or had demonstrated talents in other specific nonacademicareas. In general, this sample of participants representedstudents with gifts or talents in different domains and stu-dents from a broad age range. Specifically, about 74% ofthe students were 11 years old or younger. Although all par-ticipants were admitted to university gifted program coursesbased mainly on teacher nomination, most participants werereported to have been assessed as students with high IQ (i.e.,130 or above) using either Raven’s Standard or AdvancedProgressive Matrices (Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998) orthe Hong Kong Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children(Psychological Corporation, 1981).

Measure and Procedure

The 25 characteristics and 14 competencies of teachers ofthe gifted compiled from the list of characteristics and com-petencies summarized by Feldhusen (1997) were assembledin a checklist. This checklist in English, employed in a studywith Chinese teachers (Chan, 2001), was translated intoChinese and back-translated by two language teachers. Carewas taken to ensure that the original meanings were retainedin the translation and that the characteristics and competen-cies were described in simple language for young students.

All nominated students were invited in the second schoolterm (February to July) to come to the university campus toparticipate in a larger research project of which this studywas a part. Students who chose to participate were groupedinto small groups of 30 to 50 and administered a set ofquestionnaires that included the checklist of teacher charac-teristics and competencies relevant to this study. Participantswere requested to judge and rate the importance of eachof the 25 characteristics and 14 competencies for a good

teacher of gifted learners. Ratings were made on a 5-pointscale ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (most impor-tant). Research assistants, who were briefed on the study andthe checklist, were available in these assessment sessions toassist participants, especially young students, in completingthe checklist.

RESULTS

Mean Ratings on the List of Teacher Characteristicsand Competencies

The responses of the 617 students to the 39 items of teachercharacteristics and competencies were aggregated and aver-aged. Table 1 presents separately the mean ratings of the listof characteristics and the list of competencies in descend-ing order of importance. The mean ratings for the 25 teachercharacteristics ranged from 3.23 to 4.19, whereas those forthe 14 teacher competencies ranged from 3.38 to 4.20, sug-gesting that all characteristics and competencies were ratedas relatively important. From Table 1, it can be seen thatteacher characteristics rated as most important include suchcharacteristics as seeing things from students’ points of view,respecting individuality, and being innovative and open tochange. These characteristics could be interpreted as relatingto a view that emphasizes respecting students’ individualitywith an open and innovative orientation. Characteristics ratedas less important are more related to personal attributes, suchas being highly intelligent, knowledgeable, less critical, andhighly achieving.

Table 1 also shows the mean ratings on teacher competen-cies or skills deemed to be important for teachers teachinggifted students. The skills rated as most important generallyhave to do with specific teaching or teaching-related activ-ities, such as teaching creativity and problem solving anddeveloping gifted curriculum and materials. The skills ratedas less important appear to be those less directly related toteaching, such as identifying gifted students and providingcareer education or consultative services to other teachers.

Dimensions of Teacher Characteristicsand Competencies

To explore whether certain characteristics and competenciestended to be perceived to go together in terms of their levelsof importance, exploratory factor analyses were performedseparately on the importance ratings of teacher characteris-tics and teacher competencies. Specifically, the 25-item andthe 14-item correlation matrix of teacher competencies wereeach subjected to separate maximum likelihood exploratoryfactor analyses.

In the exploratory factor analysis of teacher character-istics, an initial estimate yielded four factors with eigen-values greater than unity, and the four factors accounted

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 08:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE HONG KONG STUDENT PERSPECTIVE 163

TABLE 1Gifted Students’ Ratings on the Importance of Characteristics and Competencies of Teachers of Gifted Learners (N = 617)

Characteristics or competencies Mean SD

Item/characteristic8. Can see things from students’ points of view 4.19 1.02

15. Respects individuality, personal self-images, and personal integrity 4.18 1.0914. Accepts responsibility for individual children 4.10 1.0512. Is innovative and experimental, rather than conforming 4.07 1.12

7. Is mature, experienced, self-confident 4.06 1.0510. Is well organized, systematic, orderly 4.06 1.0623. Seeks new solutions through continued learning 4.06 1.0811. Is imaginative, flexible, open to change, stimulating 4.02 1.16

4. Is enthusiastic about talent 4.02 1.2017. Can communicate the needs of gifted children, muster support for the gifted program 4.00 1.1013. Recognizes individual differences 3.99 1.1721. Can create a warm, safe, democratic environment 3.99 1.17

9. Facilitates learning; does not direct 3.99 1.205. Relates well to talented people 3.98 1.25

19. Can teach students to evaluate for themselves 3.94 1.1824. Can work closely with other members of gifted staff, students, parents, other professionals 3.94 1.1616. Sees need to develop students’ self-concepts 3.93 1.1822. Guides rather than coerces 3.74 1.4225. Has control over his or her personal life 3.68 1.39

6. Has broad general knowledge 3.66 1.2520. Aligns more closely with students than a formal teacher 3.54 1.43

2. Has cultural and intellectual interests 3.47 1.2318. Is less judgmental or critical 3.42 1.41

1. Is highly intelligent 3.27 1.263. Strives for excellence, high achievement 3.23 1.31

Item/competency29. Is skilled in teaching higher thinking abilities, including creativity and problem solving 4.20 0.9630. Is adept at questioning techniques 4.12 1.0828. Can develop (or select) methods and materials for use with the gifted 4.10 1.0633. Can work with culturally different talented youth 4.07 1.0726. Has knowledge of the nature and needs of the gifted 4.07 1.1232. Can direct individualized learning and teaching 4.06 1.0939. Can focus on process as well as product 4.05 1.1531. Is skilled in facilitating independent research 3.96 1.1135. Is skilled in group processes, teaching groups 3.90 1.1634. Is skilled in counseling gifted and talented youth 3.85 1.1838. Can lead young people to successful accomplishments 3.84 1.2327. Can identify gifted and talented students 3.67 1.3036. Can present career education and professional options 3.39 1.3937. Can conduct in-services for other teachers regarding gifted and talented philosophy and methods 3.38 1.34

Note. Ratings were made from 1 to 5. A higher number indicates greater importance.

for 52.87% of the total variance, suggesting that one couldretain four factors for closer examination. Alternatively, thechi-square values (χ2) computed to evaluate the lack of fit forone- through five-factor solutions were 1,244.22 (df = 275),914.83 (df = 251), 693.12 (df = 228), 553.89 (df = 206),and 437.48 (df = 185), respectively (all p < .001). The cor-responding amount of total variance accounted for was35.02, 39.07, 42.17, 44.23, and 46.96%, respectively, forthe five factor solutions. The results indicated that an ade-quate representation of the data on teacher characteristics,one that yielded a nonsignificant chi-square, would requiremore than five factors. To avoid overfactoring, the one-factorsolution and the two- through five-factor varimax-rotatedsolutions were carefully examined for simple structure and

interpretability. It was found that the four-factor solutionwas most interpretable as four distinct dimensions of teachercharacteristics. The five-factor solution had the fifth factordefined by only one salient characteristic (item 12), and thethree-factor solution had a factor defined by merging the firsttwo distinct factors of the four-factor solution. Therefore, thefour-factor solution was regarded as an adequate representa-tion of the data on teacher characteristics.

Table 2 presents the four-factor varimax-rotated solutionof teacher characteristics judged to be important by students.Factor 1 was defined saliently by an array of characteristicsrelated to meeting the individual needs of gifted students.This dimension could be interpreted as one that emphasizesthe respect for individuality or an individuality orientation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 08:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

164 D. W. CHAN

TABLE 2Varimax-Rotated Four-Factor Solution of Gifted Students’ PerceivedImportant Characteristics of Teachers of Gifted Learners (N = 617)

Factor

Item/characteristic 1 2 3 4

16. Sees need to develop students’self-concepts

67 — — —

15. Respects individuality, personalself-images, personal integrity

64 — — —

17. Can communicate the needs ofgifted children, muster supportfor the gifted program

61 — — —

13. Recognizes individual differences 54 — — —14. Accepts responsibility for

individual children43 — — —

9. Facilitates learning; does notdirect

43 43 — —

5. Relates well to talented people 42 — — —18. Is less judgmental or critical — — — —19. Can teach students to evaluate for

themselves— — — —

20. Aligns more closely withstudents than a formal teacher

— — — —

22. Guides rather than coerces — — — —11. Is imaginative, flexible, open to

change, stimulating— 60 — —

10. Is well organized, systematic,orderly

— 54 — —

12. Is innovative and experimental,rather than conforming

41 49 — —

6. Has broad general knowledge — 48 — —7. Is mature, experienced,

self-confident— 47 — —

8. Can see things from students’points of view

46 46 — —

4. Is enthusiastic about talent — — — —25. Has control over his or her

personal life— — 63 —

21. Can create a warm, safe,democratic environment

— — 60 —

24. Can work closely with othermembers of gifted staff, students,parents, other professionals

— — 58 —

23. Seeks new solutions throughcontinued learning

— — 51 —

1. Is highly intelligent — — — 683. Strives for excellence, high

achievement— — — 66

2. Has cultural and intellectualinterests

— — — 56

Note. Only salient loadings of magnitude .40 or above are shown.Decimals are omitted.

Factor 2 was loaded saliently by characteristics reflect-ing values that go against tradition and conformity. Thesecharacteristics included openness, innovativeness, flexibility,and breadth of knowledge. This was a dimension reflecting aflexible, innovative, and change orientation.

Factor 3 captured some of the teacher characteristicsdeemed to be important for supporting enhanced learning.They included being able to provide an environment

conducive to learning and being collaborative and self-regulatory. This dimension could be interpreted as oneemphasizing a regulated working orientation.

Factor 4 was a minor factor defined by three char-acteristics that reflected striving for excellence and highachievement. This dimension clearly described an achievingorientation.

The same procedures were followed in the exploratoryfactor analysis of the data on teacher competencies.Specifically, an initial estimate yielded two factors witheigenvalues greater than unity, accounting for 59.09% ofthe total variance. The chi-square values computed to eval-uate the lack of fit for one- through three-factor solu-tions were 628.69 (df = 77), 275.46 (df = 64), and 188.95(df = 52), respectively (all p < .001). The correspondingamount of total variance accounted for was 46.98, 52.93,and 55.53%, respectively, for the three-factor solutions. Toobtain an adequate representation of the data on teachercompetencies, the one-factor solution and the two- andthree-factor varimax-rotated solutions were carefully exam-ined for simple structure and interpretability. It was foundthat the two-factor solution was most interpretable as twodistinct dimensions of teacher competencies and could beregarded as an adequate representation of the data of teachercompetencies.

Table 3 presents the two-factor varimax-rotated solutionof teacher competencies judged to be important by students.Factor 1 was defined saliently by a heterogeneous array ofcompetencies or skills related specifically to teaching giftedstudents. These skills included those related to teaching cre-ativity and problem solving, identification, questioning, andmeeting the needs of gifted students. This was a dimen-sion interpretable as representing specific teaching skills orcompetencies.

Factor 2 was loaded saliently by competencies that weremore general or global and related to consultative or col-laborative work. This dimension could be interpreted as onedescribing global-consultative competencies.

Perceived Characteristics and Competenciesof Teachers of Gifted Learners

Based on the results of exploratory factor analyses, it waspossible to examine more closely teacher characteristicsand teacher competencies by defining four constructs ofteacher characteristics and two constructs of teacher com-petencies in terms of relevant items with salient loadingson the four factors of teacher characteristics and the twofactors of teacher competencies, respectively. To keep theseconstructs relatively independent of each other, items withsalient cross-loadings that suggested assessment of morethan one construct and items with nonsalient loadings thatsuggested weak assessment of the relevant construct wereomitted in the item composition of these constructs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 08:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE HONG KONG STUDENT PERSPECTIVE 165

TABLE 3Varimax-Rotated Two-Factor Solution of Gifted Students’ PerceivedImportant Competencies of Teachers of Gifted Learners (N = 617)

Factor

Item/competency 1 2

28. Can develop (or select) methods andmaterials for use with the gifted

76 —

26. Has knowledge of the nature and needs ofthe gifted

70 —

30. Is adept at questioning techniques 67 —29. Is skilled in teaching higher thinking

abilities, including creativity and problemsolving

66 —

33. Can work with culturally different talentedyouth

62 —

32. Can direct individualized learning andteaching

59 —

31. Is skilled in facilitating independent research 59 —27. Can identify gifted and talented students 59 —34. Is skilled in counseling gifted and talented

youth58 40

35. Is skilled in group processes, teachinggroups

53 47

37. Can conduct in-services for other teachersregarding gifted and talented philosophy andmethods

— 82

36. Can present career education andprofessional options

— 76

38. Can lead young people to successfulaccomplishments

— 62

39. Can focus on process as well as product 45 47

Note. Only salient loadings of magnitude .40 or above are shown.Decimals are omitted.

To check the validity of these constructs, two separatemaximum likelihood confirmatory factor analyses were con-ducted to examine whether the items specified to define theconstructs did load on their respective factors in the four-factor solution of teacher characteristics and the two-factorsolution of teacher competencies. These confirmatory fac-tor analyses were conducted using the LISREL 8 program(Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). Because the four-factor modelof teacher characteristics and the two-factor model of teachercompetencies would be rejected by the χ2 test statistic at aconventional alpha level if a large enough sample was usedand accepted if a small enough sample was used (Browne& Cudeck, 1993), a number of residual-based fit indicesand comparison-based fit indices were employed to helpdetermine whether these two models were well-fitting forthese data (e.g., Bentler, 1989; Browne & Cudeck, 1993;Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993; Steiger, 1990). Thus, apart fromthe chi-square statistic, the fit indices used included the rootmean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), the rootmean square residual (RMR), the standardized root meansquare residual (SRMR), the goodness of fit index (GFI), thenon-normed fit index (NNFI), and the comparative fit index(CFI). In general, an adequate fit is suggested by RMSEA,RMR, and SRMR values below or approaching .05 and by

TABLE 4Completely Standardized Four-Factor Solution of Gifted Students’

Perceived Important Characteristics of Teachers of Gifted Learnersby Confirmatory Factor Analysis (N = 617)

Factor

Item/characteristic 1 2 3 4

16. Sees need to develop students’self-concepts

75 0 0 0

15. Respects individuality, personalself-images, personal integrity

68 0 0 0

17. Can communicate the needs of giftedchildren, muster support for the giftedprogram

71 0 0 0

13. Recognizes individual differences 66 0 0 014. Accepts responsibility for individual

children61 0 0 0

5. Relates well to talented people 60 0 0 011. Is imaginative, flexible, open to change,

stimulating0 74 0 0

10. Is well organized, systematic, orderly 0 72 0 06. Has broad general knowledge 0 66 0 07. Is mature, experienced, self-confident 0 70 0 0

25. Has control over his or her personal life 0 0 60 021. Can create a warm, safe, democratic

environment0 0 69 0

24. Can work closely with other members ofgifted staff, students, parents, otherprofessionals

0 0 69 0

23. Seeks new solutions through continuedlearning

0 0 71 0

1. Is highly intelligent 0 0 0 703. Strives for excellence, high achievement 0 0 0 692. Has cultural and intellectual interests 0 0 0 72

Factor correlation matrixFactor 1 (individuality orientation)Factor 2 (change orientation) 80Factor 3 (regulated working orientation) 72 75Factor 4 (achieving orientation) 59 72 62

Note. Decimals on factor loadings and factor correlations areomitted. Lack-of-fit indices for the solution are as follows: normaltheory weighted least square chi-square, χ2(113) = 272.55 (p < .001);RMSEA = 0.0479; RMR = 0.0528; SRMR = 0.0370; GFI = 0.951;NNFI = 0.983; CFI = 0.986.

fit index values between 0.80 and 1.00 (see Byrne, 1998;Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000).

Table 4 summarizes the completely standardized solu-tion in fitting the four-factor model of teacher characteristicsto the data. The relevant residual-based indices had valuesbelow .05 or approaching .05, and the relevant comparison-based indices were all above .95, suggesting an adequate fitof the model and construct validity of the four constructsof teacher characteristics. Similarly, Table 5 summarizes thecompletely standardized solution in fitting the two-factormodel of teacher competencies to the data. Although therelevant residual-based indices had values above .05 andreached a value as high as .08, the relevant comparison-basedindices were all above .93. These results also suggested areasonably adequate fit of the model and construct validityof the two constructs of teacher competencies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 08:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

166 D. W. CHAN

TABLE 5Completely Standardized Two-Factor Solution of Gifted Students’

Perceived Important Competencies of Teachers of Gifted Learnersby Confirmatory Factor Analysis (N = 617)

Factor

Item/competency 1 2

28. Can develop (or select) methods andmaterials for use with the gifted

77 0

26. Has knowledge of the nature and needsof the gifted

75 0

30. Is adept at questioning techniques 72 029. Is skilled in teaching higher thinking

abilities, including creativity andproblem solving

70 0

33. Can work with culturally differenttalented youth

70 0

32. Can direct individualized learning andteaching

71 0

31. Is skilled in facilitating independentresearch

69 0

27. Can identify gifted and talented students 66 037. Can conduct in-services for other

teachers regarding gifted and talentedphilosophy and methods

0 83

36. Can present career education andprofessional options

0 82

38. Can lead young people to successfulaccomplishments

0 71

Factor correlationFactor 1 (specific teaching skills)Factor 2 (global-consultative skills) 70

Note. Decimals on factor loadings and correlation are omitted. Lack-of-fitindices for the solution are as follows: normal theory weighted least squarechi-square, χ2(43) = 240.15 (p < .01); RMSEA = 0.0863; RMR = 0.0603;SRMR = 0.0439; GFI = 0.934; NNFI = 0.969; CFI = 0.975.

With construct validity of the four constructs of teachercharacteristics and two constructs of teacher competencies,it was appropriate to treat these constructs as scales andconstruct scale scores based on aggregating relevant itemsof the constructs for further analyses. Table 6 summarizesthe mean scores on the four scales of teacher characteristicsand the two scales of teacher competencies and their inter-nal consistency measures as scales. It can be seen that thecoefficient alphas of the four scales of teacher characteris-tics were moderately high, and those of the two scales ofteacher competencies were even higher, supporting the factthat the scales constructed on the basis of the results fromfactor analysis were internally consistent.

From Table 6, it can also be seen that students rated,in descending order of importance, individuality orienta-tion, change orientation, regulated working orientation, andachieving orientation as reflected in the four scale scoresof characteristics and specific teaching skills and global-consultative skills as reflected in the two scale scores of com-petencies. Support for these differences was gleaned fromthe one-way within-subjects analyses of variance (ANOVAs)

TABLE 6Mean Scores and Internal Consistencies of Scales of Perceived

Characteristics and Competencies of Teachers of Gifted Learners(N = 617)

Scale Number of items M SD α

CharacteristicsIndividuality orientation 6 4.03 0.84 .83Change orientation 4 3.95 0.89 .79Regulated working orientation 4 3.92 0.92 .76Achieving orientation 3 3.33 1.03 .74

CompetenciesSpecific teaching skills 8 4.03 0.83 .89Global-consultative skills 3 3.54 1.14 .83

Note. Scale composition is based on results of factor analysis:Individuality orientation (items 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17); change orientation(items 6, 7, 10, 11); regulated working orientation (items 21, 23, 24, 25);achieving orientation (items 1, 2, 3); specific teaching skills (items 26, 27,28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33); global-consultative skills (items 36, 37, 38). α isthe coefficient alpha, a measure of internal consistency.

that treated the four scores of teacher characteristics asdependent measures and the paired t-test that compared thetwo scores of teacher competencies. Regarding teacher char-acteristics, the results indicated that the overall differencesamong the four teacher characteristics scores were signifi-cant, Wilks’ �= 0.63, F(3, 614) = 120.96, p < .001, partialη2 = . 371. Follow-up paired t-tests on the differences ofall possible pairs of scores indicated that five out of the sixpairs were significantly different from each other after con-trolling for familywise error rate across the six tests usingthe Bonferroni procedure, with t-values evaluated at the sig-nificance level of .05/4 or .0125. The nonsignificant pairwas between the change orientation and the regulated work-ing orientation. Regarding teacher competencies, the pairedt-test on the difference between the two scores of teachercompetencies indicated that the difference was significant,t(616) = 13.75, p < .001, with a median effect size d = .554(see Cohen, 1988).

Gender and Age Group Differences

To explore whether there were gender or age group (mediansplit, age 9 and younger vs. age 10 and older) differenceson the four scores of teacher characteristics and on the twoscores of teacher competencies, two 2 × 2 (Gender × Agegroup) multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) wereconducted.

For teacher characteristics, the MANOVA results indi-cated that the overall gender main effect and the over-all gender–age group interaction effect were nonsignificant(p > .05), but the overall age group main effect was sig-nificant, Wilks’ � = .92, F(4, 610) = 14.17, p < .001, par-tial η2 = .085. Subsequent univariate ANOVA on each ofthe four teacher characteristics scores was conducted as afollow-up test to the significant MANOVA overall age groupmain effect. Using the Bonferroni procedure to adjust for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 08:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE HONG KONG STUDENT PERSPECTIVE 167

multiple tests, each ANOVA was evaluated at the valueof .05/4 or .0125. The results suggested that the youngerstudents tended to rate the teacher characteristics of anachieving orientation as significantly more important thandid the older students, F(1, 613) = 12.55, p < .001, partialη2 = .020. However, the effect size (η2) of this age groupeffect could be interpreted as relatively small and modest(see Cohen, 1988).

For teacher competencies, the MANOVA results indi-cated that the overall gender main effect and the overallgender–age group interaction effect were again nonsignifi-cant (p > .05), but the overall age group main effect was sig-nificant, Wilks’ � = .96, F(2, 612) = 13.93, p < .001, partialη2 = .044. Subsequent univariate ANOVA on each of the twoteacher competencies scores was conducted as a follow-uptest to the significant MANOVA overall age group maineffect. Using the Bonferroni procedure to adjust for multipletests, each ANOVA was evaluated at the value of .05/2 or.025. The results suggested that the younger students tendedto rate the teacher competencies of global-consultative skillsas significantly more important than did the older students,F(1, 613) = 16.48, p < .001, partial η2 = .026. However, theeffect size (η2) of this age group effect could also beinterpreted as relatively small and modest (see Cohen, 1988).

DISCUSSION

Building on past findings of the characteristics and compe-tencies of teachers of gifted learners in Western countries,this study expanded the investigation on the importance ofteacher characteristics and competencies from a previousstudy (Chan, 2001) that focused on teachers’ perspectivesto this study that focused on gifted students’ perspectives.Similar to the data provided by teachers who by and largeendorsed the importance of the 25 characteristics and 14competencies of teachers of gifted learners, data from thisstudy suggested that all characteristics and competencieswere rated as important by gifted students.

Comparing the mean ratings by teachers and students oncharacteristics and competencies, it seemed that students inthis study gave ratings on a more limited range (3.23 to 4.20)than those by teachers in the previous study (2.84 to 4.52).However, characteristics and competencies rated as moreimportant by students were generally those rated as moreimportant by teachers. Specifically, for example, among thetop 10 characteristics with ratings of 4 or above for stu-dents, 7 of these characteristics were also among the top 10for teachers. Similarly, among the top seven competencieswith ratings of 4 or above for students, six of these sevencompetencies were among the top seven for teachers.

Given the slight differences between the perceived impor-tance of individual characteristics and competencies bystudents and that by teachers, it was of interest to com-pare whether characteristics and competencies perceived as

going together by students were similar to those by teachers.Specifically, without assuming that the student data wouldyield similar factor solutions of characteristics and compe-tencies as the teacher data, exploratory and confirmatoryfactor analyses were conducted and four factors on character-istics and two factors on competencies emerged to representthe student data. On closer examination, it seemed that thestudent dimension of individuality orientation was very sim-ilar to the teacher dimension labeled as philosophical ideals.The student dimensions of change orientation and regulatedworking orientation appeared to correspond to the teacherdimension labeled as professional predispositions and partof the teacher dimension labeled as personal attributes. Thestudent dimension of achieving orientation seemed to corre-spond to the most salient part of the teacher dimension ofpersonal attributes.

Regarding the perception of competencies, the separa-tion of global-consultative competencies and specific teach-ing competencies as two student dimensions correspondedbroadly to the two teacher dimensions labeled as globalstrategies and specific skills. Although there was no one-to-one mapping, the correspondence was close, consideringthat there were some substantial cross-loadings between thetwo student dimensions in the exploratory factor analysis andthe two dimensions correlated .70 in the confirmatory factoranalysis.

Taken together, the present study provided data that addedto the body of past findings on characteristics and competen-cies of teachers of gifted learners, supporting the fact thatthese characteristics and competencies were rated as impor-tant and could be conceptualized in similar dimensions bystudents and teachers alike. It is also noteworthy that studentsperceived teacher characteristics related to individuality con-cerns as most important, followed by characteristics relatedto the teacher’s flexibility, innovation, and change orienta-tion. This is reminiscent of gifted students’ characteristicsof preferring to learn autonomously and in their own way(see Winner, 1996). The student perspective on teachers’commitment to individual differences could also be read-ily interpreted from the teacher perspective that reflects theChinese or Confucian educational ideal of yin-cai-shi-jiao(all individuals should be educated according to levels oftheir abilities). Equally noteworthy is the relative consensusamong students and teachers that the most important teachercompetencies were those related to specific teaching skillstargeted to meet the needs of gifted learners in the class-room environment. Thus, this study together with Chan’s(2001) previous study provided data that served to dispelany lingering doubts that teacher preparation for teachersof gifted learners based on these characteristics and compe-tencies might only privilege the teacher perspective withoutgiving due respect to the perspectives of gifted students whoare the recipients of educational services.

With the understanding that teachers who receive train-ing in gifted education are more effective teachers of gifted

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 08:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

168 D. W. CHAN

learners than untrained teachers (Hansen & Feldhusen,1994), teacher preparation programs could focus on select-ing and training effective teachers of gifted learners basedon the list of important teacher characteristics and compe-tencies. Accordingly, teachers’ commitments to individualdifferences with a change orientation or teachers with broadeducational or philosophical ideals should not be neglectedin teacher selection and teacher preparation programs. Thelearning and practice of specific skills and competenciesdirected specifically to identify, teach, and counsel giftedand talented students should also be made top priorities inthe training. In this connection, the list of teacher compe-tencies, especially the specific teaching skills, could provideguidelines for specifying goals, objectives, and outcomes forteacher preparation. Taking into account that the requiredcompetencies might differ for specific content domains andspecific gifted subpopulations (see Feldhusen, 1997), desir-able competencies of teachers of gifted learners should covereffective approaches to different types of gifted and talentedchildren (e.g., disadvantaged, underachieving, creative), andteachers should not only be sensitive to the needs of indi-vidual students but also their capabilities to meet thoseneeds (Dubner, 1980). Thus, the results of the present study,together with the findings on teachers’ perspectives (Chan,2001) and studies on positive student outcomes as a resultof effective teaching (see Darling-Hammond & Bransford,2005; Dixon & Moon, 2006; Purcell & Eckert, 2006),have great implications for the design and developmentof teacher preparation programs that offer training to helptransform teachers to become effective teachers of giftedlearners.

Although this study was designed to investigate the stu-dent perspective on characteristics and competencies ofteachers of gifted learners based on Feldhusen’s (1997)checklist, the results could also be interpreted as provid-ing some support of the CEC-NAGC standards as vehiclesto facilitate the integration of gifted education into teacherpreparation programs at various levels. For example, whatstudents rated as highly important characteristics and com-petencies could be, in the framework of the CEC-NAGCstandards, the standards of individual learning differences,instructional strategies, and learning environments and socialinteractions. Nonetheless, the comparison between standardsand students’ perceptions requires more refined analysis andwarrants further investigations in future studies.

The present findings also bear indirectly on the devel-opment of a reliable and valid assessment instrument basedon the present checklist of teacher characteristics and com-petencies for teacher selection and monitoring of teachertraining for effective teachers of gifted learners. The scalesof perceived characteristics and competencies of teachersof gifted learners developed in this study, together withdata in Chan’s (2001) study, provide a foundation for futurescale refinements and further development. The need forcross-replication with different populations of gifted students

and validation of the scale with external measures of teachercharacteristics and competencies should be given due atten-tion in future investigations.

This study certainly has its strengths as well as lim-itations. By focusing on student perspectives, this studyhighlighted the importance of considering the perceptionsof students on characteristics and competencies of teachersof gifted learners, which was often left out in the con-sideration of teaching and learning. Specific characteristicsand competencies were found to go together and could beconceptualized as constructs of characteristics and compe-tencies, laying the foundation for further exploration andcomparison with approved standards of teacher skills andknowledge in teacher preparation. This study also attemptedto explore students’ perceptions across age, because studentsof different age groups might have differential perceptionson the importance of specific characteristics and compe-tencies of teachers of gifted learners, but it seemed thatthese age differences were not notable and might be sosubtle as to require further refined analyses in future stud-ies. As to limitations, perhaps the more obvious one is theadequacy of the present sample as representative of giftedstudents in Hong Kong, because all students in this sam-ple were nominated by teachers who tended to nominatehigh academic achievers, and students who only exhibitednonacademic talents in school and outside of school werelikely to be excluded from nomination. It would be a chal-lenge to collect data from this group of gifted students ifresearchers intend to include these students for greater rep-resentativeness in future studies. Another related limitationin this study that emphasized the student perspective is thelack of a comparison group of average or nongifted studentsto highlight characteristics and competencies of teachers ofgifted learners as opposed to effective teachers in generaleducation. One further limitation has to do with the study’semphasis on the general characteristics and competenciesof teachers of gifted learners rather than domain-specificcompetencies of teachers teaching science, mathematics,art, or music. It is therefore not known what additionaldomain-specific competencies need to be included in teacherpreparation in teaching different subjects or content domains.Thus, future studies should examine these specific issuesmore closely to shed light on a more complete picture ofthe characteristics and competencies of teachers of giftedlearners.

REFERENCES

Aspy, D., & Roebuck, F. (1972). An investigation of the relationshipbetween student levels of cognitive functioning and the teacher’s class-room behavior. Journal of Educational Research, 65, 365–368.

Bentler, P. (1989). Comparative fit indices. Psychological Bulletin, 107,238–246.

Bishop, W. E. (1968). Successful teachers of the gifted. ExceptionalChildren, 34, 317–325.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 08:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE HONG KONG STUDENT PERSPECTIVE 169

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing modelfit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models(pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS,and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chan, D. W. (2001). Characteristics and competencies of teachers ofgifted learners: The Hong Kong teacher perspective. Roeper Review, 23,197–202.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science (2nded.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Croft, L. J. (2003). Teachers of the gifted: Gifted teachers. InN. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rded., pp. 558–571). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachersfor a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. SanFrancisco, CA: Wiley.

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Dixon, F. A., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of secondarygifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Dubner, F. (1980). Thirteen ways of looking at a gifted teacher. Journal forthe Education of the Gifted, 3, 143–146.

Education Department. (2000). Gifted education in Hong Kong. Hong Kong,China: Special Educational Needs Section, Curriculum DevelopmentInstitute, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’sRepublic of China.

Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). Educating teachers for work with talented youth. InN. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nded., pp. 547–552). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gallagher, J. (1964). Teaching the gifted child. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Graffam, B. (2006). A case study of teachers of gifted learners: Moving from

prescribed practice to described practitioners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50,119–131.

Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained anduntrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38,115–123.

Hultgren, H. W., & Seeley, K. R. (1982). Training teachers of the gifted:A research monograph on teacher competencies. Denver, CO: Universityof Denver, School of Education.

Iannon, R. V., & Carline, J. L. (1971). A humanistic approach to teachereducation. Journal of Teacher Education, 22, 429–433.

Johnsen, S. K., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Robinson, A. (2008).Using theNational Gifted Education Standards for university teacher preparationprograms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide.Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.

Karnes, F. A., & Bean, S. (Eds.). (2005). Methods and materials for teachingthe gifted (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Kitano, M., Montgomery, D., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Johnsen, S. K. (2008).Using the National Gifted Education Standards for preK–12 professionaldevelopment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Maker, C. J. (1975). Training teachers for the gifted and talented. Reston,VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Mills, C. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students:Teacher background and personality styles of students. Gifted ChildQuarterly, 47, 272–281.

Nelson, K. C., & Prindle, N. (1992). Gifted teacher competencies: Ratingsby rural principals and teachers compared. Journal for the Education ofthe Gifted, 15, 357–369.

Piirto, J. (1999). Talented children and adults: Their development andeducation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Psychological Corporation. (1981). Hong Kong Wechsler Intelligence Scalefor Children manual. New York, NY: Author.

Purcell, J. H., & Eckert, R. D. (Eds.).(2006). Designing services andprograms for high-ability learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’sProgressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scale. Oxford, England: OxfordPsychologists Press.

Roberts, J. L. (2006). Teachers of gifted secondary students: What makesthem effective. In F. A. Dixon & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The handbook ofsecondary gifted education (pp. 567–580). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Silverman, L. K. (1982). The gifted and talented. In E. L. Meyen (Ed.),Exceptional children and youth (pp. 184–190). Denver, CO: Love.

Starko, A. J., & Schack, G. D. (1989). Perceived need, teacher efficiency,and teacher strategies for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly,33, 118–122.

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: Aninterval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25,173–180.

Story, C. M. (1985). Facilitator of learning: A microethnographic study ofthe teacher of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 155–159.

Stronge, J. H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Stronge, J. H., Tucker, P. D., & Hindman, J. L. (Eds.).(2004). Handbookfor qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development.

The Board of Education. (1996). Report of the Subcommittee on SpecialEducation. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.

VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculumfor gifted learners (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Whitlock, M. S., & DuCette, J. P. (1989). Outstanding and average teach-ers of the gifted: A comparative study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33,15–21.

Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York, NY:Basic Books.

AUTHOR BIO

David W. Chan is a professor of educational psychology and program director of the Program for the Gifted andTalented at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He has diverse research interests. He has published in differentareas that include stress and coping, psychopathology and health, creativity and intelligence, and gifted education andtalent development. E-mail: davidchan@cuhk.edu.hk

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 08:

56 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014