The Extent, Nature and Effectiveness of Planned Approaches in ...

2. In consultation with the administrative assistant, the decision was made to create two tables(one for identification, another for provision) for ease of data coding. This also allowed fordifferent probes into extent and degree as related to identification and provision.Additionally, the questionnaire was formatted for data coding, and as a consequence, thisformatting lengthened the questionnaire substantially.3. In response to concerns over terminology related to areas of giftedness, the decision wasmade to use the six broad areas most often reported in the international literature –academic/intellectual, creative, social/leadership, the arts, physical/sports, cultural/ethnic. Aplace for respondents to indicate any ‘other’ areas was also included.4. The question order was changed, in the hope of creating a less threatening set of questionsand encouraging a positive response rate. Additionally, several filter questions were added.5. In regard to identification methods used and provisions offered, the decision was made tolimit those to the last twelve months. This was in response to the pilot study which indicatedthat schools often changed their approaches over short periods of time (i.e., from one year tothe next).The revised questionnaire was then sent out to the small advisory group for further comment. Therewas considerable on-going discussion over the terminology used for ‘areas of giftedness,’ with theMinistry of Education representatives raising concerns over their appropriateness. Two options werediscussed at length: to eliminate all areas of giftedness and allow respondents to indicate in their ownwords those identified and provided for in their school setting; or to come to an agreement on anappropriate set of terms. The decision was made to use the following areas of ability:intellectual/academic (in any of the essential learning areas); creativity; expression throughvisual/performing arts; social/leadership; culture-specific abilities and qualities; expression throughphysical/sport; and other (please specify). These terms were also clarified on the back of the coveringletter.The development and revision of the questionnaire involved a considerable amount of consultationand time. As a result, the questionnaire was not distributed to schools as early as intended.Distribution of the questionnaire. During the second week of March the questionnaire and a coverletter were mailed (with a freepost self-return envelope) to 2689 schools in New Zealand requestingtheir return by the 25 th of March. The letter and questionnaire are in Appendix B. The cover letteroutlined the purpose of the questionnaire and respondents’ rights as stated in the Massey UniversityCode of Ethical Conduct. A follow-up email was sent to all schools the last week of March, thankingthose who had replied and requesting replies from those who hadn’t done so. The deadline forsubmission of questionnaires was extended to the 11 th of April in hopes of increasing the responserate. Other measures taken to enhance the rate of response included information passed on toprincipals’ and educators’ workshops by the Project Director, and the willingness of the advisorygroup members to encourage schools in which they worked to respond.Analysis. Upon return, the questionnaires were coded and a database created. Open-ended responseswere transcribed. The data from the questionnaires were ‘cleaned up’ through an examination of eachwritten response in relation to the coded responses. Using SPSS 11.5 for Windows the quantitativedata were analysed using descriptive statistics to determine frequencies of responses. Crosstabsanalyses of different variables were undertaken to determine patterns amongst responses, for examplethe relationship between a school type and provision. The open-ended responses were coded tocommon themes, and these were cross-checked by members of the research team.Limitations. It is important that the results of the questionnaire be considered with an understanding ofthe possible limitations. Firstly, there is a potential for bias amongst the responding sample; in otherwords, schools which are identifying and providing for gifted and talented students might be morelikely to respond than those which are not. Secondly, the questionnaire results give an indication of theextent of identification, provisions, and policies/procedures, but by the very nature of a close-ended162