ABSTRACT

In this paper, the question, “To what extent does involvement within the gifted programs create long term productivity within gifted students in post-secondary education?” is investigated. This was investigated via a qualitative content analysis method, utilizing a researcher-created survey, coding keys, and scoring keys to determine student attitudes towards relevant topics in order to attain data. Results came from scoring multiple choice responses and coding free responses to the survey from 21 gifted college students aged 20-25 throughout East Tennessee. Conclusions were that the increased workload and difficulty often from the gifted program in secondary school created productive habits within students, but the habits were maintained through college via outside motivating factors. These findings can be used to better prepare gifted students for post-secondary education by encouraging gifted programs to form productive habits in their students with a priority for longevity and motivating factors. 

INTRODUCTION

In education, some students possess qualities that make them more needing of special care and attention than their peers. For this reason, throughout secondary schooling, select students are assessed and identified as “gifted”, a label distinguishing students that possess traits that can be more easily attended to when given their own environment. A definition for giftedness was delivered in the United States Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, stating; “Students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities” (20 U.S. Code § 7801 - Definitions, n.d.).  This definition is applied at all levels of education in the US in order to identify students belonging to a school's gifted program. Gifted Programs (GP) are in-school programs that seek to accommodate gifted students (GS) through methods meant to enrich and appropriately educate (National Association for Gifted Children, n.d.). 

GP involvement has students participate in courses with advanced rigor and workload (Mullis et al., 2011). This is a GP method titled “acceleration” that accommodates gifted students' advanced capabilities by increasing the rigor and academic placement of their classes in school (Plucker et al., 2014, p. 393; Mullis et al., 2011).  Another method common in GP includes “Colloquium”, where classes teach advanced material (Mullis et al., 2011). An example of this are “Advanced Placement (AP)”, “Honors”, or “Accelerated” classes. When GS manage their often accelerated workload, a crucial component to success is a student's own productivity. Throughout the paper, “Productivity” is a term encompassing a student’s work ethic and positive habits relating towards schooling that result in successful and efficient work produced. Productivity is often referred to traits relating to a student's ability to produce quality and proactive content in a timely and punctual manner (Rock et al., 2007; Powzen et al., 2019). 

Despite GP’s presence being limited to Primary and Secondary schooling, effects can be seen in Post-Secondary education (PSE) like in colleges and universities. These effects include typically higher aptitude with material, and in some cases even early entrance into secondary education (Subotnik et al., 2011).  There is also evidence to GS having to have heightened levels of productivity in PSE (Neumeister, 2004). However, there remains a noticeable gap in the inquiry as to how productivity produced by the GP in secondary schools affects the GS productivity in PSE. 

LITERATURE REVIEW

Effectiveness of Gifted Involvement

Since the inception of Gifted Education as a field of study, defining and conducting education towards GS has become simpler. Separating GS from Non-GS is less of an issue than ever before. For years, it was debated amongst educational scholars as to how to distinguish students that were gifted and nongifted (Jolly et al., 2008). IQ used to be the deciding factor but other factors have now become more commonplace. (Subotnik et al., 2011, p. 3; Carpenter, 2001) In her seminal study “Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted Education: A Proposed Direction Forward Based on Psychological Science”, Rena Subotnik and associates investigated the matter of defining giftedness. IQ level as revealed by tests was revealed to be a major factor, but far from the only factor to account. Factors related to elements of cognitive abilities, domain-specific abilities, and psychosocial abilities (ie, ability to handle criticism or cope with challenges) all play major factors in determining giftedness at a young age. (Subotnik et al., 2011, p. 39-40)

Effectiveness of GPs are more commonly questioned, but is agreed to mean how well GS students' unique needs can be met and educated towards (National Association for Gifted Children, n.d.). The seminal study from Plucker and Associates, “Research on Giftedness and Gifted Education: Status of the Field and Considerations for the Future.” states the following: “Ironically, the one type of acceleration with mixed evidence of effectiveness includes the very popular Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs, whose widespread use is probably due to the fact that they fit conveniently into the grade-level structure of most high schools and do not require significant organizational accommodations” (Plucker et al., 2014, p. 393; Mullis et al., 2011). This research would suggest that accelerated workload and content efficiency serves as both common and effective tool of GPs. 

Effectiveness in GP has its limitations, however. GS commonly report intense pressure to succeed from not only their place of education, but from self and external expectations (Baker, 1996). These stressors have been commonly cited for underachievement and burnout among GS (Fimian et al., 1989, p. 140). 

Productivity as it Relates to Giftedness

Productivity is a trait essential for managing a workload. It is defined by key traits that bolster one’s own ability to effectively manage time and workload while remaining an active participant (Zenger et al., 2018). Student productivity and engagement was tested in a study, wherein it was found that monitored students with expectations for their work had improved productivity compared to when expectations were absent (Rock et al., 2007). This shows that student productivity is bolstered when given an expectation to meet - a motivating factor. Motivating factors play a major role in student productivity, particularly those that have to do with goal-setting and self-concept (Steinmayr et al., 2019). 

In education, student productivity is defined by a student's competence and timeliness in accomplishing their work in a manner that keeps the student engaged with the material, and classwork. However, GS tends to suffer as a result of motivating factors based on self-concept and expectations of others becoming stressors that lead to burnout (Rubenstein et al., 2012, pg. 2; Bandura, 1977). With this, it’s seen that GS rely on motivating factors to remain productive, but can also be overwhelmed should the motivators become overpresent. 

Gifted Relationship to Productivity in Post-Secondary Education

Student productivity is paramount when moving into PSE. Due to the increase in course difficulty and workload, productive habits are necessary for academic success. For this reason, secondary education needs to produce productive habits within their students. Ellen Jansen investigated this in a study, where it was found that secondary school curriculum with a focus on time management and learning skills often leads to a more academically successful PSE experience, showing the need to develop these skills beforehand (Jansen et al., 2010; Gettinger et al., 2019). This study was done with consideration for multivariable qualitative research that encompasses student behavior, something encouraged by the literature to best determine productivity levels of students (Hall et al., 2017).

Giftedness has shown a pattern of influencing students when in PSE. Engagement and accountability on the part of the GS has been found to be a major factor to remaining productive in school, and decrease dropout likelihood (Landis et al., 2013). GS also tend to have better motivators of productivity in the form of career goals throughout PSE (Schroer et al., 1986; Seigle et al., 2005). Another study found that for GS that held perfectionist tendencies, motivators to remain productive stem from a fear of failure influencing their academic goals (Neumeister, 2004). These students tended to have good productive work ethics, but the correlation between these productive habits and their earlier involvement in GP is unclear. 

Identifying the Gap

Though pre-existing research has concluded that GP has potential to carry an effect on GS workload, no evidence has been conclusive as to its long lasting effects. Additionally, there is a clear gap in the research regarding the relationship between participation in GP and its long term effects on productivity seen in PSE students.  The purpose of this study is to acknowledge and resolve this gap. This is salient as it will improve understanding of how GP can create productive GS, and prepare them for future education. To analyze the connection between GP and productivity in PSE GS, the guiding research question is: To what extent does involvement within the gifted program create long term productivity within gifted students in post-secondary education?

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Study Design

This study investigates the correlation between student participation in GP as it correlates to those same student’s productivity in PSE  The goal of the study is to discover what long-term effects of GP are on productivity to improve the GP’s ability to make GS productive during PSE. This is important because greater productive habits lead to more successful in-school performance (Siegle et al., 2005). 

A qualitative, content analysis study was conducted. This was done in order to maintain  focus on the content and context of qualified student experiences and testimony to determine results, a practice common in education based studies (Garmy et al., 2015; Lathem et al., 2011). The method of data collection was done with a survey produced by the researcher. Results from the questionnaire were analyzed with a two part method of coding qualitative multiple choice responses and content analysis of qualitative free response questions. As seen in the literature review, qualitative analysis is common when using interviews or free response answers, while surveys are analyzed quantitatively. However, the researcher has opted to review the survey responses via a qualitative scoring method using the answer key developed (Appendix E). This method of scoring answers with a score of positive or negative based on connotation is inspired by Sandra Lathem’s study “The Socially Responsible Engineer: Assessing Student Attitudes of Roles and Responsibilities”, and is used to simplify answers to determine overall attitude towards relevant concepts (Lathem at al., 2011). 

Participants

The desired audience for data analysis was students, as that was who the study was based around. The students had to meet qualifications in order to take the survey. Firstly, the students had to presently attend PSE, to ensure that parameter of the gap was fulfilled. Secondly, the student must have been between the ages of 20 and 25. This was in order to test the long term effects of GP on GS productivity, having the participants several years removed from secondary school but close enough to reasonably remember their experiences in the GP. Thirdly, the students had to have participated in the GS in high school, in order to ensure data is in line with the inquiry topic. The only people that could take this survey were those that met all the criteria. 

For distribution of the survey (Appendix C), cooperation with post-secondary schools was paramount. Achieving this required aid from student advisors that worked at those schools, so they could distribute the survey to students that met qualifications. The schools contacted were limited to those in the East Tennessee area, in order to limit the geographic scale of the research.

Instruments

This form will be created with “Google Forms”, chosen for its ease of use, protection of anonymity, and limit to one attempt per respondent. The completed google form consists of both the Student Consent Form and the Student Survey (Appendix C). 

Survey was created by the researcher, as no previous survey asked questions regarding all topics relevant to the gap. Use of a survey is also common in education based studies (Roberts et al, 2013; Roberts et al., 2015). The student consent form was included at the beginning of the survey, and must be agreed to in order to complete the survey. This is to ensure participants are informed as to the survey content and how their responses will be used to form conclusions. Next, the students must agree that they meet the qualifications outlined in the participants section. This is to ensure that all response data matches the topic of inquiry. The questionnaire portion of the survey was split into four sections. The sections were determined for being primary topics that related to the subject. Section 1 was “Productivity”, and gauges if students are productive. Section 2 was “Giftedness”, and determines GS experiences with the GP. Section 3 was “Outside Applications”, and formulates a GS experience outside of schools impact on their schooling with an emphasis on relation to giftedness and productivity. Section 4 was “Short Answer”, and allows GS to expand on their opinions of GP and Productivity. This sectional approach was inspired by the cross-sectional approach used by Micheal J. Fimian to determine GS classroom burnout, and was done to find correlation and student attitudes towards concepts (Fimian et al., 1989, p. 142). Sections 1-3 include multiple choice questions relating to their section’s topic. Section 4 included questions that were solely free response.

 A QR code linking to the survey was created in order to make the form easier to share , to ensure the most number of qualifying participants (Appendix B). This made the survey easier to share among participants. Additionally, a consent form listing the duties and responsibilities on the part of the advisor when agreeing to distribute the forms was created (Appendix A). This is to ensure advisors are aware of the research they are engaging in and how to fulfill their role in distributing the survey. These three items were included in an email sent to six post-secondary institutions described in the ‘participants’ section (Appendix D). This was used because this email format carries all necessary information and instruments necessary to introduce the study and role of involvement to the advisors.

Procedures

The procedure for this study was divided into two phases, Data Collection (Phase 1) and Data Analysis (Phase 2). 

Phase 1

The data collection phase is as follows. First, the researcher had to locate PSE schools that could distribute the survey (Appendix C). With the limitation of East Tennessee schools, a list was made of the six schools. After finding the contact information of the school’s academic advisor, emails were sent out to them using the format seen in (Appendix D). After communication has been settled, the advisor agrees to the terms listed in (Appendix A), they share the survey out to the student body they advise. Once sent out, GS will be able to take the survey shared with them via email from their academic advisor. The researcher had a month to collect data. This method had been both reviewed and approved by the IRB as ethically sound to conduct.

Phase 2

The data analysis phase is as follows. After data collection ends, all responses are graphed individually, each response on its own. The responses are printed out. They are coded using the coding key (Appendix F). This was primarily inspired by Brantlinger and associates method for qualitative coding when concerning special education, and was done to best simplify and collect the qualitative data (Knesting, 2008; Brantlinger et al., 2005). As seen in the coding key, answer connotation is scored to be found as positive (+) or negative (-). This method of determining student attitudes towards concepts and topics was inspired by McCoach and Siegle’s focus on student attitudes towards key topics relevant to the study (McCoach et al., 2003). It was done as it simplifies the student’s perception, additude, and habits into a comparable form. Whether or not an answer is marked “(+)” or “(-)” is determined by the scoring key found in (Appendix E). This is repeated for every question for every response.  The only exception to this is responses to questions in “Section 4 - Short Answer”, as determining the score for that section is based on context determined by the researcher following the coding.

Overall sectional connotation is determined by the amount “+”. Another score chart was developed in order to determine overall student feelings. This chart is Table 1. 

For example, if a student had 13/16 “+” responses in “Section 1 - Productivity”, that student would receive a score of “+” for that section. This is repeated for every section. It’s also the duty of the researcher to note any interesting findings throughout the analysis that stand outside the scoring process.

In addition to scoring, the coding key (Appendix E) was used to identify and track keywords in “Section 4 - Free Response” responses, in order to piece together themes during analysis. All responses to questions marked “prefer not to answer” or “N/A” are marked as “(-)”. This is because they do not offer any data that is usable to defend a claim (Albaum et al., 2010).

Delimitations

Method limitations are as follows. For participants, to take the survey one must meet the qualifications stated in the participants section. This means the only students able to fill out the survey are students that participated in the GP in post-secondary education, currently attend a PSE, and were within the age range of 20-25. No other factors are relevant or considered as to if a student is qualified to take the survey. For PSE schools, they had to be located in the East Tennessee area in order to be considered. This limits the scope of schools geographically. The data collection period lasted one month, from February 1 to February 28 of 2022. This limited the amount of time and thereby potential participants that could take the survey. 

Many factors cited as being relevant to Giftedness, like socioeconomics, were not factored here to prevent scope creep away from the gap (Hamilton et al., 2017). The literature also mentions that decisions for gifted programs are determined at a state or local level (Robertson et al., 2011). Limiting survey distribution to East Tennessee limits the amount of GPs influenced. 

Also, because the survey is not mandatory, students that take the survey are likely more proactive in school regardless. This would immediately make them more likely to receive productive “+” scores. 

RESULTS

Upon conclusion of data collection, the survey had been distributed among 4 of the 6 PSE schools contacted. From the four colleges that distributed the surveys, 21 responses were collected in total, all of which were from qualifying participants. This is evident from having taken the survey one must have agreed to the mandatory qualifications of being gifted, aged 20-25, college students (Appendix C). 

Survey Response Content Connotative Attitude Coding Results

Table 2, seen below, presents the summarized forms of data from the survey results after having been coded and their corresponding sectional attitudes found.

“Response #” the response that column is referring towards. Section 1 refers to if the GS is productive or not. Section 2 refers to Gifted Concept, or if the student had a good experience in the gifted program or not. Section 3 focuses on Outside Application, or how activities outside of school affect their education. Section 4 focuses on Short Answer Responses, or an individual’s elaborate weighing of personal factors they believe to have affected both giftedness and productivity. For the “Gifted Impact” Section, results were determined based on answers to questions 18, 19, and 31 - questions from across the survey that gauged a participant’s belief as to the impact their experience with giftedness held. The “Education Priority” section weighs overall student attitude to determine if the student holds school as a top priority. 

The most noteworthy findings from Table 2 are as follows. 19/21 (≈90.48%) of all gifted students were productive (+). 18/21 (≈85.71%) students all said they held education as a priority, a productive trait in of itself. 12/21 (≈57.14%) students were gifted concept (+). 12/21 (≈57.14%) students were both productive (+) and held a positive experience within the gifted program (+). This is noteworthy as all gifted concept positive (+) students were also productive positive. 12/21 (≈57.14%) students were both gifted concept positive (+) and were also gifted impact positive (Present). This is also something worth noting, as all gifted concept positive (+) students also claimed being gifted left an impact on them. 20/21 (≈95.24%) students claimed the gifted program left a lasting impact on them (Present), evidencing long term effects of the gifted program. 5/21 (≈23.81%) GS were fully positive (+)(Present)(Yes) across the board, which implies maximum productivity and giftedness correlation, a formidable amount, making up almost a fourth of the sample size. 

Survey Free Response Coding

Table 3 and Table 4  record the key words given within responses to their correlating questions (Survey Questions 30 and 31 respectively). Alongside Tables 3 and 4, excerpts from student responses are shared to further contextualize each section's respective findings. 

Motivating Factors of Productivity

This section identifies the motivating factors for college students to remain productive in PSE. The prompt for these responses was: “What factors would you say are the greatest motivators for yourself to be productive at school.” 

One of the most common themes among answers via words was “expectations of others”. Words that supported this theme’s presence were “Affirmation (1)”, “Adults (1)”, “Expectations (1) ”, “Family (3)”, “Others (1)”, “Parents (1)”, “Told (1)”, and “Pleaser (1)”. Several students responded more in detail with context that supported this point. One participant claimed, “My family expects my sister and me to do well in school…” Another claims, “I’m also a people pleaser and want the adults in my life, whether professors or mentors or parents; to be proud of me.” 

Another common theme was “desire for success”. Words pertaining to desire for success were “Career (3)”, “Connections (1)”, “Good(1)”, “Well (1)”, “Degree (3)”, “Family (3)”, “Fund (1)”, “Degree (3)”, “Future (3)”, “Gains (1)”, “Graduate (1)”, “Job (3)”, “Skills (1)”, “Succeed (1)”, “Stable (1)”, and “Support (1)”. Similarly, present statements such as, “not being homeless in the future.” and “I’m really passionate about the career I’m pursuing.” come to a similar conclusion on avoiding future failure and working towards future successes.

The final most common theme among common words was “self-motivating terms”, or terms that suggested influence on a self-serving basis. Terms supporting this include “Connections (1)”, “Efforts (1)”, “Enjoy (2)”, “Good (1)”, “Identity (1)”, “Interest (2)”, “Passionate 1”, “Proud (1)”, “Purpose (1)”, and “Stimulate (1)”. One participant stated, “I like doing a good job and enjoy school.” Another participant stated, “A sense of purpose/feeling that I am doing well in my classes.” Another response states,  ”I thoroughly enjoyed school, and I’m motivated to be productive because I get to take subjects that interest me.”

Effects of Giftedness

This section determines the motivating factors for college students to remain productive. The prompt for this question was; “If you answered “yes” to Question 18 (Q18: would you say being a gifted student has impacted your life in any meaningful way?), list in what ways being gifted has affected you.”

A present theme among many students keywords is the presence of the Gifted Program being difficult, but through it creating positive study habits. Terms supporting this include “Ahead (1)”, “Challenge (2)”, “Dedication (1)”, “Excel (1)”, “Groomed (1)”, “Helpful (1)”, “Interests (1)”, “Learning (1)”, “Manage (2)”, “Opportunities (1)”, “Passion (1)”, “Push (2)”, “Taught (1)”, and “Work ethic (2)”. Student free responses expand on this. One participant claims, “Gifted taught me to manage my work better. I am able to manage large quantities of [work] through the pushes I received from the gifted program.” Another participant states, “I had lots of opportunities. It also helped me find people who had similar interests, aptitudes, and levels of dedication.”

Another theme was present was pressures of being gifted present in students and the effect it holds. Present terms indicating “Awful (1)”, “Bored (1)”, “Directionless (1)”, “Fear (1)”, “Harder (1)”, “Mental Health (1)”, “Pressure (2)”, “Self-Worth (1)”, “Stress (1)”, “Worth (1)”. In displaying this point, a participant claimed, “came easy to me. I was in all honors classes and the work was so easy I became bored ... It puts an immense pressure on me to please people and live up to that expectation.” Another participant claims, “I was always an A student because it was easy for me. Now I am accountable for my own work with more restrictions, and was never taught how to manage myself the right way to do work without procrastinating.”

ANALYSIS

Analysis of the data included comparing the data as it was curated into Tables 2, 3, and 4. Table 2 used the connotation assigned scoring method to determine a students attitude towards the primary subject of the given section of the survey. Tables 3 and 4 used a coding method to take data from student written free responses, done to determine consistent themes among students. Significant data trends were used to draw the following conclusions.

Present Correlation of Gifted Impact on Productivity

Upon reviewing the crossing the data obtained from the survey responses, GP and productivity share correlative factors. Evidence to this can be seen in Figure 4, wherein (≈90.48%) of all GS respondents were productive positive (+). Reviewing responses from all students also shows a presence of an overwhelming (≈95.24%) of students claiming that being gifted left a significant impact on their lives, educational career, and educational career. This suggests participation in GP can create habits of productivity used in college, as results seen in Table 2 point to GS being generally productive in addition to almost unanimity in stating that the GP left a major influence on their educational careers. 

Gifted Involvement Effect on Productivity Development into College

The GP is generally likely to produce productivity and positive habits in GS. According to the data, GP participation  in secondary school tends to create productive traits in students that will be used in later education, with study habits, class participation, class punctuality, and overall attitudes towards in-school productivity being common Gifted concept positive (+) GS with 100% of that group suggesting involvement in GP carried great impact on them. Of this same group, 100% had survey answers suggesting they remained productive in high school. 

According to free response answers, common themes that arose had to do with the productive habits they hold’s origin in their High School’s gifted program. Gifted involvement, among several participants, is cited as creating study habits due to the difficulty, rigor, and college-preparatory nature of many of their courses. Using Table 4, one can see words with a connotation for school rigor, such as “Challenge (2)”, “Manage (2)”, “Push (2)”, and “Work Ethic (2)”, were common amongst respondents when describing how being in gifted programs groomed them to manage difficult workloads. Short Answer responses also suggest that GS who found school to be more challenging tended to create more productive habits and approaches towards schoolwork. Respondents like Participant 4 state, “I had lots of opportunities. It also helped me find people who had similar interests, aptitudes, and levels of dedication.” This presents evidence that opportunities exclusive among GS can produce productive habits. 

Similarly, students that cited the gifted program as having a negative impact on their productivity tended to claim other factors alongside it. Words such as “Harder (1)”, “Stress (1)”, “Pressure (2)”, and “Bored (1)” all point to a gifted experience that was personally challenging rather than demanding in a way that demands productivity. (-) coded responses typically claimed GP added pressure on them personally to succeed and live up to stressful expectations from others common in GP (Baker, 1996). The notion that ease of GP classwork created boredom leading to a lack of productive habit development was present. GS responses defend this, like “came easy to me. I was in all honors classes and the work was so easy I became bored”, which claims that eventual productivity in college was developed out of a need to respond to a difficult workload rather than from their involvement in Gifted. 

These findings would suggest GP created productivity through its increased and accelerated workload. In many cases, however, opportunities from GP such as in-class study skills, connections, and elevated investment from schooling can also create productivity. 

Motivating Factors for Continued Productivity

Factors other than GP are often cited for continued productivity throughout PSE, as GP is never by students as being an ongoing motivator. Survey question #30 and Table 3 produce respondents' motivators for continued productivity. The primary factors for continued productivity in college are approval and expectations from others, desire for success, fear of failure, and other self-motivating terms such as passion or personal interest. These findings go against, in part, some of the literature that state self-oriented motivations are the only major factor for GS productivity (Steinmeiyer et al., 2019; Neumeister, 2004). These factors, particularly those about satisfying expectations, are also cited as being stressors of GS. These factors are cited as primary motivators of continued productivity. 

DISCUSSION

Findings

Upon reviewing the data obtained from the survey responses, student involvement in GP has a clear correlation to productivity in PSE. GP produces productive habits in GS during high school due to the accelerated workload and material. Outside factors, such as family, future, fear of failure, and self-interest were the most commonly cited motivating factors for ongoing productivity is PSE. The GP is not cited as a motivator for ongoing productivity, it still influences GS productivity as it develops that productivity early on. 

Fulfillment of Gap in the Research

The study addressed several gaps in the discipline of gifted education. Investigating this gap allowed for improved understanding of long lasting effects of giftedness on productivity in students, which no prior studies had attempted. The focus on finding correlation between GPs on productivity in PSE had never explicitly been explored before. This study remedied that by using a method of inquiry and content analysis, in addition to taking direct testimony from students to determine the consensus and therefore link shared with student giftedness and productivity habits in college. Narrowing the gap to college aged students as a way to gauge long term effects of giftedness especially is rare in the academic discipline of gifted education, but was successful in contributing to findings. 

Implications

With the results of the study gifted educators can now utilize an improved understanding of their students' productivity. For high school educators, these findings can be used to better understand the uniqueness of their student as well as how to appropriate a workload as to not overwhelm, but enough to instill long-lasting productive habits. With this, educational experiences for students could be made to decrease oft-cited pressures from being gifted students (Fimian et al. 1989, p. 142). Instead, it would focus on workload and educational environment. In addition, PSE educators and academic advisors will have a better understanding of GS struggles in maintaining productivity. Thus, students could be better guided in how to improve their habits in approach toward workload, which will have benefits for them not only in education but in all future career and personal endeavors.

Limitations

Placing greater emphasis on students' ease of managing workload and material in both school and college in the survey could have made the conclusions about high school difficulty creating productive habits more habits in the long term more complete. A larger sample size would have been useful to better gauge variety across more gifted students. Another limitation is that GPs are often managed at local levels. This papers results are limited to the GP experiences of respondents, meaning many GPs and GP methods of education weren’t taken into account because no students from them responded to the survey. 

Areas for Further Research

With these results, GP and long lasting productivity share a correlation. However, delimitations of the project allow for increased specificity in areas of research that should be attended to in order to come to more detailed conclusions. During data analysis, an emphasis on difficulty in classroom workload being a factor arose. This could encourage more research into classwork and difficulty of classwork distributed in GP. An extension of this could be investigating the relationship between workload in the classroom’s effect on an individual’s productivity and well-being. If further researched, motivators in education could be better studied and understood to elicit greater passion on the part of the student. Inquiries into workload across different GPs could also be pursued to test conclusions against other programs and gifted education methods. One could also test different sample sizes with the methodology developed for this study to weigh effectiveness of varied GPs in order to improve GPs, thus benefiting the GS across the nation. 

REFERENCES

20 U.S. Code § 7801 - Definitions. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/7801#27

Albaum, G., Roster, C. A., Wiley, J., Rossiter, J., & Smith, S. M. (2010). Designing Web Surveys in Marketing Research: Does Use of Forced Answering Affect Completion Rates? Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 18(3), 285–294. doi.org/10.2753/mtp1069-6679180306

Baker, J. A. (1996). Everyday Stressors of Academically Gifted Adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 7(2), 356–368. doi.org/10.1177/1932202x9600700203

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191

Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative Studies in Special Education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207. doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205

Carpenter, M. (2001, June 10). The IQ factor: Despite advances in defining gifted children, intelligence testing still plays a large role. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. old.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20010610giftediqsidereg8.asp

Fimian, M. J., Fastenau, P. A., Tashner, J. H., & Cross, A. H. (1989). The measure of classroom stress and burnout among gifted and talented students. Psychology in the Schools, 26(2), 142. doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(198904)26:2<139::AID-PITS2310260205>3.0.CO;2-E

Garmy, P., Berg, A., & Clausson, E. K. (2015). A qualitative study exploring adolescents’ experiences with a school-based mental health program. BMC Public Health, 15(1). doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2368-z

Gettinger, M., & Seibert, J. K. (2002). Contributions of Study Skills to Academic Competence. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 350–365. doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2002.12086160

Hall, J. D., O’Connell, A. B., & Cook, J. G. (2017). Predictors of Student Productivity in Biomedical Graduate School Applications. PLOS ONE, 12(1), e0169121. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169121

Hamilton, R., McCoach, D. B., Tutwiler, M. S., Siegle, D., Gubbins, E. J., Callahan, C. M., Brodersen, A. V., & Mun, R. U. (2017). Disentangling the Roles of Institutional and Individual Poverty in the Identification of Gifted Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 6–24. doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738053

Jansen, E. P., & Suhre, C. J. (2010). The effect of secondary school study skills preparation on first‐year university achievement. Educational Studies, 36(5), 569–580. doi.org/10.1080/03055691003729070

Jolly, J. L., & Kettler, T. (2008). Gifted Education Research 1994–2003: A Disconnect Between Priorities and Practice. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(4), 427–446. doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2008-792

Knesting, K. (2008). Students at Risk for School Dropout: Supporting Their Persistence. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52(4), 3–10. doi.org/10.3200/psfl.52.4.3-10

Landis, R. N., & Reschly, A. L. (2013). Reexamining Gifted Underachievement and Dropout Through the Lens of Student Engagement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(2), 220–249. doi.org/10.1177/0162353213480864

Lathem, S. A., Neumann, M. D., & Hayden, N. (2011). The Socially Responsible Engineer: Assessing Student Attitudes of Roles and Responsibilities. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(3), 444–474. doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00022.x

McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003). Factors That Differentiate Underachieving Gifted Students From High-Achieving Gifted Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 144–154. doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700205

Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Minnich, C. A., Stanco, G. M., Arora, A., Centurino, V. A. S., & Castle, C. E. (2012). TIMSS 2011 Encyclopedia: L-Z and benchmarking participants (Vol. 2). IEA, TIMSS & PIRLS, International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.

National Association for Gifted Children. (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions about Gifted Education | National Association for Gifted Children. Nagc.Org. nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-gifted-education#:%7E:text=The%20U.S.%20Department%20of%20Education%27s,Gifted%20Education%20in%20the%20U.S

Neumeister, K. L. S. (2004). Understanding the Relationship Between Perfectionism and Achievement Motivation in Gifted College Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 219–231. doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800306

Plucker, J. A., & Callahan, C. M. (2014). Research on Giftedness and Gifted Education. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 390–406. doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527244

Pozen, R., & Downey, K. (2019, November 26). What Makes Some People More Productive Than Others. Harvard Business Review. hbr.org/2019/03/what-makes-some-people-more-productive-than-others

Roberts, L. D., & Allen, P. J. (2013). A brief measure of student perceptions of the educational value of research participation. Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(1), 22–29. doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12007

Roberts, L. D., & Allen, P. J. (2015). Exploring ethical issues associated with using online surveys in educational research. Educational Research and Evaluation, 21(2), 95–108. doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2015.1024421

Robertson, S. G., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Taylor, N. (2011). Serving the gifted: A national survey of school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 48(8), 786–799. doi.org/10.1002/pits.20590

Robinson, N. M. (1997). The role of universities and colleges in educating gifted undergraduates. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3–4), 217–236. doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.1997.9681875

Rock, M. L., & Thead, B. K. (2007). The Effects of Fading a Strategic Self-Monitoring Intervention on Students’ Academic Engagement, Accuracy, and Productivity. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16(4), 389–412. doi.org/10.1007/s10864-007-9049-7

Rubenstein, L. D., Siegle, D., REIS, S. M., Mccoach, D. B., & Burton, M. G. (2012). A Complex quest: The development and research of underachievement interventions for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 678–694. doi.org/10.1002/pits.21620

Rugutt, J.K., & Chemosit, C.C. (2005). A Study of Factors that Influence College Academic Achievement: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. 19021829

SCHROER, A. C., & DORN, F. J. (1986). Enhancing the Career and Personal Development of Gifted College Students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 64(9), 567–571. doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1986.tb01206.x

Siegle, D., & Mccoach, D. B. (2005). Making a Difference: Motivating Gifted Students who are not Achieving. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 38(1), 22–27. doi.org/10.1177/004005990503800104

Steinmayr, R., Weidinger, A. F., Schwinger, M., & Spinath, B. (2019). The Importance of Students’ Motivation for Their Academic Achievement – Replicating and Extending Previous Findings. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01730

Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted Education. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056

Tennessee Department of Education. (n.d.). Intellectually Gifted. Tn.Gov. tn.gov/education/student-support/special-education/intellectually-gifted.html

Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2018, July 8). 7 Traits of Super-Productive People. Harvard Business Review. hbr.org/2018/04/7-traits-of-super-productive-people