Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:24:26.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perceptions of Parent Success in Gifted Families

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Robert Strom ,
Shirley Strom  and
Pat Collinsworth
Robert Strom*
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Shirley Strom
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Pat Collinsworth
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
*
The person to contact regarding this article is Professor Robert Strom, Division of Psychology in Education, Box 870611, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-0611 FAX 602-994-1824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined parent influence as perceived by gifted junior high school students and their parents. The 172 parents and their children ages 12 to 14 responded to parallel versions of the Parent Strengths and Needs Inventory which identified: (a) aspects of parenthood that are satisfying, (b) ways in which parents successfully perform their role, (c) the scope of teaching expected of parents, (d) difficulties with the obligations of parenting, (e) child behaviors which are frustrating to parents, and (0 information that parents need to know to function more effectively. Multivariate analysis of variance was utilized to determine the effects of generation of respondent, gender of parent, and child school performance on parent effectiveness. Analyses revealed significant main effects for all three independent variables. Interaction effects emerged for child school performance and parent gender. Implications are considered for planning parent education programs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , 1995 , pp. 53 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beane, J. (1990). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Google Scholar
Bireley, M., & Genshaft, J. (1991). Understanding the gifted adolescent. New York: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1990). Turning points: Preparing youth for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, pp. 10–16.Google Scholar
Cobb, N. (1995). Adolescence: Continuity, change, and diversity. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, pp. 232–266.Google Scholar
Colten, M., & Gore, S. (1991). Adolescent stress: Causes and consequences. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1-14, 43–66.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1995, April/May). Nurturing talented teenagers. Middle Years, 11–13.Google Scholar
Feldhusen, J., & Kroll, M. (1985). Parent perceptions of gifted children’s educational needs. Roeper Review, 7(4), 249–252.Google Scholar
Huff, C. (Ed.) (1990). Gangs in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
Little, M., & Scott, M. (1990). Parenting: Helping gifted-talented-creative children reach their potential. Gifted Child and Adult Quarterly, 15(2), 143–155.Google Scholar
Mansneras, L. (1992, November 1). Should tracking be derailed? The New York Times Education Life, Section 4A, pp. 14–16.Google Scholar
Messick, R., & Reynolds, K. (1992). Middle level curriculum in action. New York: Longman Publishing Company. Google Scholar
Muro, J., & Kottman, T. (1995). Guidance and counseling in the elementary and middle schools. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark. Google Scholar
Ross, P. (1993). Education of gifted children. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. Google Scholar
Sebald, H. (1993). Adolescence: A social psychological analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 130–151.Google Scholar
Shapiro, J., Loeb, P., Bowermaster, P., Wright, A., Headden, S., & Toch, T. (1993, December 13). Separate but unequal. U. S. News and World Report, pp. 46–60.Google Scholar
Small, S., & Eastman, G. (1991). Rearing adolescents in contemporary society. Family Relations, 40(4), 455–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strom, R. (1980). Sharing accountability for educating mentally handicapped children. Australian Journal of Special Education, 4(2), 11–18.Google Scholar
Strom, R. (1981). Expectations for educating the gifted and talented: A national seminar on the education of gifted and talented children. Melbourne: Commonwealth Schools Commission, 110 pp.Google Scholar
Strom, R. (1985). Developing a curriculum for parent education. Family Relations, 34(2), 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strom, R. (1987). Parent and child evaluation of family development. International journal of Experimental Research in Education, 24(2), 290–304.Google Scholar
Strom, R., Bernard, H., & Strom, S. (1989). Human development and learning. New York: Human Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Strom, R., Griswold, D., Collinsworth, P., & Strom, S. (1990). Assessing the strengths and needs of minority parents. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 14(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Strom, R., Johnson, A., Strom, S., & Strom, P. (1992). Designing curriculum for parents of gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15(2), 182–200.Google Scholar
Strom, R., Johnson, D., Strom, S. & Daniels, S. (1992). Developing curriculum for parent and grandparent immigrants and refugees from Vietnam and Central/South America. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 19(1), 53–60.Google Scholar
Strom, R., Jones, E., & Daniels, S. (1988). Parent education of the deaf. Educational and Psychological Research, 8(2), 117–128.Google Scholar
Strom, R., & McCalla, K. (1988). Perspectives on childrearing competence: Families of the mentally retarded. The Exceptional Child, 35(3), 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitemore, J. (1990). Gifted underachievers: Evidence of the need for educational reform. Gifted Child and Adult Quarterly, 75(2,3), 94–107.Google Scholar