Quality professional development or professional learning increases educators’ knowledge and skills that result in improved student learning (Learning Forward, 2011). National Professional Learning Standards describe the characteristics of quality professional learning as involving (a) learning communities committed to continuous improvement; (b) leadership that develops capacity, advocates, and creates support systems for professional learning; (c) resources for prioritizing, monitoring and coordinating educator learning; (d) data to plan, assess, and evaluate professional learning; (e) learning designs that integrate theories and models of human learning to achieve outcomes; (f) implementation that results in long-term change; and (g) outcomes related to educator performance and student curriculum (Learning Forward, 2011). These standards have informed new approaches to professional learning activities by including leadership skills, collaboration, and teacher self-reflection (Coleman, Gallagher, & Job, 2012). Within a community of teachers, professional learning has become a social enterprise through the use of mentorships, co-teaching, reflections, book studies, and discussion groups (Desimone, 2011). Teacher reflection appears to encourage teachers to gain awareness of their teaching methods and behaviors (VanTassel-Baska, 2012).
In addition to the National Professional Learning Standards, the National Association for Gifted Children and Council for Exceptional Children (NAGC & CEC, 2013) developed sets of teaching preparation standards for preservice and in-service teachers, identifying teaching expectations for educators of gifted and talented students. These standards provide a foundation for teacher professionalism that includes professional development as a strategy for improving teacher competence (Johnsen, 2012). In Texas, the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students (Texas Education Agency [TEA], 2009) requires teachers who are involved in planning or implementing services for gifted children to obtain 30 clock-hours of training (4.1.1C) with a 6-hour yearly update (4.2C; TEA, 2009). The plan includes ongoing evaluation for professional development for gifted education (4.4C) and requires districts to be in compliance by providing professional development that aids teachers to have the “knowledge required to develop and provide appropriate options and differentiated curricula” for gifted students (Section 4; TEA, 2009). Some districts provide training directly to their teachers or seek professional development from universities or regional service centers through workshops, coaching, or online training.
Unfortunately, only 19 states require professionals working with gifted students to have certifications or endorsements (National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC] & Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted [CSDPG], 2015). Additionally, no standard number of hours is required for training, nor are there requirements that professional development should be aligned to NAGC standards (VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). In fact, in the State of the States report, respondents were asked to rate the importance of 17 different factors related to gifted education (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015). Training for preservice teachers rated third in need of attention, and training for in-service teachers was rated fifth. In the same report, a majority of state directors (n = 31) acknowledged that a federal mandate for gifted education would support accountability, and 27 indicated that a mandate would expand the capacity for educators to differentiate the curriculum for gifted students (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015).
Goldring, Gray, and Bitterman (2013) also found that most teachers’ professional learning did not focus on gifted students. Although 99% of teachers participated in some type of professional development, 58% reported they had not received any training over the past few years related to gifted education, and 65% noted that they had received very little to no gifted education coursework (Farkas, Duffett, & Lovelace, 2008). Because gifted children need daily challenge with advanced content and differentiated, complex activities (Rogers, 2007; VanTassel-Baska & Brown, 2007), researchers in the field of gifted education contend that all teachers who work with gifted students need appropriate training in the special needs and characteristics of this student population (Bangel, Moon, & Capobianco, 2010; Rogers, 2007). In summary, professional learning in gifted education is not mandated nationally and appears to be inconsistent at both the in-service and preservice levels.
To study the recent literature related to professional learning for in-service and preservice teachers of gifted students, we examined articles from the last 10 years (2007–present) in the following five journals: Gifted Child Today, Gifted Child Quarterly, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, Journal of Advanced Academics, and Roeper Review. To be included in this summary, articles needed to focus on professional learning or undergraduate/graduate education in gifted education. Articles were excluded if they were not empirical (i.e., book reviews, literature reviews, opinion pieces) or if the study focused on validating a specific instrument. Studies with samples outside of the U.S. or those that did not focus on the traditional pre-kindergarten through 12th-grade school setting were also excluded. We found 18 articles meeting the criteria, including 9 qualitative studies, 7 quantitative studies, and 2 mixed-methods studies for this summary on professional learning. Although the majority of the studies included elementary and/or secondary teachers as participants, seven studies included undergraduate students or preservice teachers as participants.
Attitudes of Teachers Toward Gifted Students and Gifted Education
Seven studies assessed the attitudes of preservice teachers and practicing teachers toward gifted programs and gifted students (Bain, Bliss, Choate, & Brown, 2007; Berman, Schultz, & Weber, 2012; Carman, 2011; Chamberlin & Chamberlin, 2010; McCoach & Siegle, 2007; Miller, 2009; Olthouse, 2014). Overall, participants held traditional preconceived notions of gifted students’ characteristics and gifted education programs, such as gifted students enjoy reading, can make it on their own, and do not need acceleration. Because individual differences in attitudes occurred in all of the studies, researchers suggested preservice and practicing teachers’ understanding of giftedness may be associated with their beliefs (Miller, 2009), personal experiences related to differentiation of instruction (Chamberlin & Chamberlin, 2010), or their being identified as gifted themselves (McCoach & Siegle, 2007). Most of the researchers recommended more courses, professional learning, and partnerships with gifted education teachers to change attitudes and encourage positive learning experiences for gifted students.
Effects of Formal Education on Attitudes
Seven studies examined the effects of formal education on preservice or in-service teachers. Three of these studies reported positive effects on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward gifted students when they were involved in authentic practicum experiences with gifted students (Bangel et al., 2010; Chamberlin & Chamberlin, 2010; Newman, Gregg, & Dantzler, 2009). In these cases, students participated in enrichment programs and mathematical problem-solving activities. On the other hand, courses without direct experiences with gifted students did not appear to have the same effect (Berman et al., 2012). Practicing teachers who had more training held less stereotypic thoughts toward gifted students than preservice teachers (Carman, 2011). However, Miller (2009) found that even teachers with more training in giftedness identified the same stereotypical characteristics of gifted students as teachers with less training. Similarly, McCoach and Siegle (2007) discovered that more knowledge might influence the teachers’ understanding of the needs of gifted students, but not necessarily gifted students’ support in the classroom. The content and characteristics of formal education and professional learning in gifted education appear to be very important.
Content of Professional Learning
Coleman (2014) identified some characteristics of the content of professional learning by observing a master English teacher instruct gifted students in a summer enrichment program. He examined how the teacher’s use of implicit knowledge influenced the teacher’s discussion framework, flow of discussion, positive atmosphere, and transitions from concrete to abstract concepts. He concluded that professional learning might want to include activities that aid teachers in becoming more reflective practitioners. In studying ways to increase differentiation in the classroom, Dixon and her colleagues (2014) found that higher levels of self-efficacy related to specific instructional strategies could be included in professional learning activities. These strategies included using a variety of assessment methods, gauging student comprehension and providing explanations, and challenging advanced students. Hunsaker, Nielsen, and Bartlett (2010) also made an interesting discovery in the process of studying reading teachers involved in professional learning. They found that teachers tended to specialize in different types of practices, such as assessment or instruction. Identifying strengths and specializations of teachers may influence the characteristics of professional learning and make professional learning more personalized for participants.
Characteristics of Effective Professional Learning
Six of the articles described characteristics of effective professional learning with practicing teachers (Dixon et al., 2014; Latz, Speirs Neumeister, Adams, & Pierce, 2009; Robinson, Dailey, Hughes, & Cotabish, 2014; Rubenstein, Gilson, Bruce-Davis, & Gubbins, 2015; VanTassel-Baska et al., 2008; Weber, Johnson, & Tripp, 2013). Predifferentiated curriculum, curriculum-based assessments, and ongoing support appeared to influence more differentiation in the classroom (Robinson et al., 2014; Rubenstein et al., 2015; VanTassel-Baska et al., 2008). Teacher peer coaching programs also resulted in positive changes in teaching (Latz et al., 2009). Peer coaching was most effective when it focused on differentiation, involved positive communications, and was not evaluative. Weber et al. (2013) also reported the importance of peer support and included discussion meetings revolving around books, half-day training sessions to address misconceptions, and classroom visits.
The duration of the professional learning also appeared to be important to full implementation of the desired practices. For example, Dixon et al. (2014) reported that more professional development hours in differentiation resulted in higher levels of efficacy among teachers. Moreover, VanTassel-Baska et al. (2008) reported that teachers who were involved in professional development over a period of 3 years had greater instructional improvement than teachers with only 1 or 2 years of implementation of practices. Another study examined a 14-week online professional learning model (Edinger, 2017). Whereas participants indicated that the online experience positively changed their practices, attitudes, professional goals, and content and pedagogical knowledge, they did not mentor other educators, read books or articles about gifted education, participate in other gifted education professional development, or encourage colleagues to participate. Edinger (2017) concluded that additional research needed to be conducted to examine teacher and student outcomes.
Teacher and Student Outcomes Related to Professional Learning
Four articles reported on teacher or student outcomes associated with specific professional development activities. In their study examining the relationship between professional development and advanced readers’ growth, Hunsaker et al. (2010) reported that teachers learned how to implement instructional practices and identify advanced readers, but had more difficulty implementing ongoing assessment. Implementation of all of the practices appeared to relate to the teachers’ ability to explain the components of the program to other teachers. As mentioned previously, teachers were more likely to differentiate when they had a predifferentiated math curriculum combined with professional development and resources such as tiered activities and preassessments (Rubenstein et al., 2015). These teachers realized the significance of preassessment and were able to provide differentiated instruction at optimal levels. In a similar study, teachers were provided a predifferentiated language arts curriculum, assessments, and ongoing professional development with observations and support that resulted in improved teacher instruction and increased student engagement (VanTassel-Baska et al., 2008). Robinson et al. (2014) also found that professional development on implementing a rigorous science curriculum resulted in increases in students’ knowledge and skills when teachers linked concepts to content explicitly.
Although several authors cautioned against generalizing the findings in these articles due to small sample sizes (Coleman, 2014; McCoach & Siegle, 2007; Robinson et al., 2014), the articles in this review suggested professional learning is most effective when it involves hands-on experiences with gifted students, predifferentiated curriculum and resources, and long-term follow-up. When these characteristics are present, positive changes in teacher attitudes toward gifted students and practices that encourage student growth are more likely to occur.
Literature Review
Bain, S. K., Bliss, S. L., Choate, S. M., & Brown, K. S. (2007). Serving children who are gifted: Perceptions of undergraduates planning to become teachers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 450–478. doi: https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2007-506
Using a survey, researchers explored the perceptions of 285 undergraduates entering the teaching field about their views of special services for gifted children. The survey was given to education majors in a sophomore-level human development course and a senior-level educational psychology course. The Attitudes and Perceptions of Giftedness Survey included items related to (a) demographic information about the respondent, (b) general beliefs about gifted students, (c) goals for the education of gifted students, and (d) assessment and educational services deemed appropriate for gifted students. In addition to demographic information, participants identified themselves as either gifted or nongifted. Results showed that 76% of participants agreed that students who are gifted are able to do well without any special services, and 64% believed that programs for gifted students are typically elitist in selection and services. In addition, 82% believed acceleration had a negative effect on gifted students. Participants indicated that for enrichment, heterogeneous grouping in general education was the goal; however, if the goal was academic advancement, the self-identified gifted participants chose pullout programs as the best service delivery for gifted students. The respondents indicated that to realize their potential, gifted children needed interaction with others of various intellectual abilities and should be grouped in heterogeneous classroom settings reflecting their egalitarian viewpoints. The researchers noted this perceived need contradicted contemporary research recommendations. The researchers concluded that focusing on research related to the education of gifted children should be a goal for educating undergraduates who will be future educators.
Bangel, N. J., Moon, S. M., & Capobianco, B. M. (2010). Preservice teachers’ perceptions and experiences in a gifted education training model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 209–220. doi:10.1177/0016986210369257
The purpose of this qualitative study was to evaluate the effectiveness of two training models for 12 undergraduate, preservice teachers to increase their understanding of the needs of gifted students. The training model included a practicum experience in a Saturday enrichment program where the preservice teachers taught an enrichment unit to high-ability students and participated in an online introductory course about the concepts of gifted education. Data collected from semistructured interviews were used to determine the students’ views of the nature and needs of gifted students and the effects of the intervention on gifted students. The interviews were triangulated with classroom observations, lesson plans, and answers to The Survey of Practices with Students of Varying Need. Four themes emerged from the data: participants (a) increased their knowledge of the nature and needs of gifted students, (b) increased in their confidence level in their teaching abilities, (c) believed the practicum experience was more practical than their field experiences, and (d) considered the intervention to be beneficial. An interesting note in the findings is that the participants realized during the study that they would indeed have gifted students in their future classrooms, which indicated a lack of awareness of the existence of gifted students in a general education classroom. This study reinforced prior research indicating that training in gifted education gives preservice teachers the skills and knowledge required in order to provide for the education of gifted students. The researchers encouraged teacher education preparation programs to provide coursework in gifted education to all students.
Berman, K. M., Schultz, R. A., & Weber, C. L. (2012). A lack of awareness and emphasis in preservice teacher training: Preconceived beliefs about the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Today, 35, 19–26. doi:10.1177/1076217511428307
This qualitative study explored participants’ beliefs about teacher training courses that emphasize the nature and needs of gifted students and examined preconceived assumptions toward gifted learners. Using a questionnaire, the researchers surveyed 55 preservice education students before and after taking a semester-long course. The findings supported conventional myths and conceptions toward giftedness. For example, 85% of respondents believed one of these statements: (a) gifted students “should not get to do special things,” (b) “everyone is gifted or talented at something,” or (c) gifted students don’t need services because “they can get it on their own.” The preservice teachers’ preconceived notions of giftedness persisted even after the semester-long course of instruction. Even though participants gained awareness of the needs of gifted students, participants mentioned the “workload” that gifted students would require in their future classrooms and resented the idea that anything done additionally for the gifted students would infringe on their time. The authors highlighted the 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act requirement that teacher candidates must have the skills and strategies needed to reach all students with special needs, including gifted children. The researchers concluded that teacher preparation programs must incorporate courses dealing with the needs of gifted learners and provide training specifically in differentiation strategies for teachers in order to combat preconceived misconceptions toward gifted students.
Carman, C. A. (2011). Stereotypes of giftedness in current and future educators. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 790–812. doi:10.1177/0162353211417340
This mixed-methods study investigated the levels of stereotypic views that in-service and preservice teachers hold toward gifted students. Participants were asked to imagine a gifted person and describe in writing the imaginary person’s appearance, free-time activities, and things they might like to learn about. After writing a paragraph about the imagined gifted person, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding the person that they had imagined. The majority (78.8%) of all the participants had stereotypical beliefs about gifted students with regard to four or more of these areas: age, gender, ethnicity, learning interests, talents, and use of glasses. There was a moderate relationship between participant’s gender and the gender assigned to their imaginary gifted person, with 85% identifying the imaginary person as Caucasian and 60% visualizing the gifted person with brown hair. The person was usually characterized as tall and lanky, someone who used free time for studying or sports, but not socially popular. In this sample, participants who had more experience and training held fewer stereotypic thoughts, which is similar to previous research. The researcher concluded that more exposure and knowledge about gifted students may aid in reducing stereotypic thinking. A course on the nature and needs of gifted students for preservice teachers or professional development courses for in-service teachers is recommended before identifying students for gifted programs.
Chamberlin, M. T., & Chamberlin, S. A. (2010). Enhancing preservice teacher development: Field experiences with gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 381–416.
In this study, researchers investigated what preservice teachers learned about meeting gifted students’ needs while working with gifted students on mathematical problem-solving tasks. Preservice teachers (n = 23), without previous experience in teaching gifted students, worked with academically gifted elementary students in small groups. Twenty-five European American and six Asian American students in third through sixth grade participated (16 males, 15 females). Preservice teachers worked in pairs during three 1-hour sessions prior to receiving any instruction in working with gifted students. Prior to working with the students, the preservice teachers developed a working definition of mathematical problem solving and developed problem-solving tasks to present to their students. Each of the preservice teachers completed pre- and post-journal entries about their perceptions and experiences in working with the students. This qualitative study revealed preservice teachers who had limited academic knowledge and instructional experiences in gifted education reflected that adapting the curriculum to meet all students’ needs was critical and must be based on knowledge of the student. Furthermore, the preservice teachers’ understanding of giftedness was impacted by their experiences, especially related to differentiation of instruction. The scope of this study was limited, both in the numbers of study participants and the length of the study. Additionally, the researchers found that some of the preservice teachers’ reflections related to impressions from their general field experience rather than their experiences in working with gifted students. The study findings did support the need for teacher preparation programs to include authentic classroom experiences of working with gifted students to best prepare preservice teachers in meeting the needs of gifted students in their classrooms.
Coleman, L. J. (2014). The invisible world of professional practical knowledge of a teacher of the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 18–29. doi.org/10.1177/0162353214521490
Using lesson plan reviews, observations, and interviews, the researcher examined the professional practical knowledge of a high school English instructor as he taught 2 weeks of a “Theory of Knowledge” course during a summer university enrichment program for gifted adolescents. Both students and colleagues considered Alex (pseudonym) an excellent teacher. The researcher employed ethnographic and phenomenological qualitative research methods to discern the teacher’s perspective. Two categories of professional practice, or “the invisible world of teacher thought” (p. 20), emerged, including thoughts related to planning and action. Planning thoughts occurred before or in reflection after teaching; action thoughts were interactive and occurred as the teacher interacted with students in the classroom. Although not obvious in the teacher’s lesson plans, the researcher learned about the invisible practical knowledge of the teacher through frequent interviews. Alex used the term grey backdrop to encompass the never written but ever-present aspects that influenced his teaching behaviors: (a) teaching actions that impacted the flow of discussion, (b) creating a positive atmosphere where students’ opinions and feelings were valued, (c) aiding students in transitioning from abstract to concrete, and (d) working through discussions independently beforehand to determine a loose structure that would provide a general framework to the class conversation. With researcher probing, Alex discovered two implicit areas or tacit areas of teaching that were invisible to himself, including his structural categories of various classes (e.g., student viewpoint, information gathering, synthesis classes, wrap-up) and his frequent, but unplanned, use of jokes or outrageous stories. An inseparable connection occurred between his experiences from 17 years as an educator and his actions. Although he was unable to predict the result of specific teaching tactics, he could estimate the probability that a behavior would move the conversation in the desired direction by drawing upon his experience. When his actions were not as effective as desired, he knew from experience that the session was still salvageable. Like viewing the limited surface area of an iceberg, this hidden reservoir of professional knowledge is only partially evident in the teacher’s actions. Observation alone was not enough, “One cannot understand what this highly competent professional does unless one considers the invisible part of teaching. One can learn much about teaching from observing what he does, but one misses the core of this practice” (p. 27). Accordingly, although a lesson might appear spontaneous, competent experienced teachers are not random in their actions but draw upon their hidden grey backdrop and implicit knowledge. By implication, preservice teacher and ongoing training programs might want to include activities designed to aid teachers in becoming more reflective practitioners.
Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 111–127. doi:10.1177/0162353214529042
It is widely believed that instructional differentiation (the modification of subject content, rate of learning, process of learning, or products) effectively individualizes student learning by capitalizing on each student’s strengths and interests. Many teachers, however, do not differentiate their instruction. This quantitative study investigated (a) if teachers who report higher levels of self-efficacy tended to differentiate instruction more frequently than teachers with lower levels of self-efficacy and (b) if professional development related to differentiation was associated with self-efficacy. Participants were nominated by district administrators and taught at either an affluent suburban district or a predominantly blue-collar industrial city school district. Forty-one teachers from elementary (n = 18), middle (n = 13), and high (n = 10) schools participated, including secondary teachers who taught science (n = 9), math (n = 6), language arts (n = 5), social studies (n = 1), and other (n = 2). Teachers completed two scales measuring their perceived teaching efficacy and one differentiation questionnaire. Results indicated positive associations between greater efficacy and increasing levels of differentiation. Interestingly, only higher levels of personal efficacy and instructional strategies efficacy were associated with increased differentiation, whereas self-efficacy related to classroom management, student engagement, and teaching were not related to differentiation. Instructional strategy items included a teacher’s ability to use a variety of assessment strategies, provide alternative explanations to confused students, implement different strategies, gauge student comprehension, and appropriately challenge highly capable students. The grade level (elementary, middle, or high school) or subject taught was not related to teachers’ perceived efficacy. Teachers with more professional development hours in differentiation, however, had higher levels of efficacy. This research implies that teachers who participate in longer training workshops (compared to shorter informational sessions on differentiation) developed increased efficacy. Correspondingly, teachers who felt more efficacious were more likely to differentiate. As this research relied on self-report, future research might investigate the relationship of self-efficacy and/or professional development with observed differentiation in the classroom.
Edinger, M. J. (2017). Online teacher professional development for gifted education: Examining the impact of a new pedagogical model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 300–312. doi.org/10.1177/0016986217722616
Assuming that the goal of professional development is the facilitation of pedagogical change, the purpose of this pilot study was to examine teachers’ initial satisfaction with an online training, the PACKaGE Model of online Teacher Professional Development, and to measure any change in teaching behaviors 6 months after completion of the training. Of the 486 elementary and secondary teachers who participated in at least one 14-week online teacher professional development training (oTPD) course, 49% (n = 231) completed the initial anonymous survey. On this initial survey, more than 74% of respondents rated the following aspects of the training as very good or excellent: the usefulness of training materials, adequacy of assessments, overall quality, and teaching effectiveness. Fewer individuals (66%) rated the amount of information they learned as highly as other aspects. Six months after the conclusion of the training, a 17-item online follow-up survey was sent. Attrition occurred because e-mail addresses had changed; of the 171 teachers with deliverable e-mail addresses, 122 completed the follow-up survey measuring behavioral change. More than half of the respondents agreed that the oTPD to a great extent or to a very great extent positively influenced their practice, teaching attitude, professional goals, content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and alignment of their teaching needs with students’ learning needs. At least 30% of respondents, however, indicated that since completion of the oTPD they had not mentored other educators on some aspect of gifted education, read journal articles or books on gifted education, participated in gifted education professional development, or encouraged colleagues to participate. These results provided some support for the use of the specific PACKaGE Model of online Teacher Professional Development. Online professional development may be an effective tool in helping create positive changes in teachers’ attitudes, content, and pedagogical knowledge. The researcher suggested additional research should examine student outcomes associated with teacher training.
Hunsaker, S. L., Nielsen, A., & Bartlett, B. (2010). Correlates of teacher practices influencing student outcomes in reading instruction for advanced readers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 273–282.
As part of a Javits-funded program, Advanced Readers at Risk (ARAR), fourth- to sixth-grade teachers were provided ongoing professional development for 2 to 3 years to facilitate advanced readers’ affective and cognitive growth. Study participants included 37 teachers and 211 advanced readers. Training specifically targeted six teacher practice components: (a) identifying potentially advanced readers, (b) instructional organization, (c) content, (d) teaching strategies, (e) assessment for continuous improvement, and (e) acting as an ARAR ambassador. Pre- and postassessments using My Class Activities were administered at the beginning and end of the year and measured changes in students’ affective outcomes (e.g., interest, choice, satisfaction, perceived challenge). Students’ cognitive reading development was measured using a pre- and posttest performance-based literature analysis. Although some individuals demonstrated growth, the average students’ affective and cognitive scores were unchanged or decreased slightly. Although these results were disappointing, the researchers suggested that prior research has reported decreases in affect toward reading during the late grade school and middle school years. Overall, a high degree of implementation was demonstrated for each of the six reading practices as measured by an observation rubric completed by an external evaluator. On average, teachers were most effective in implementing practices to identify advanced readers. The strategy implemented least consistently was continuous improvement assessment. Correlations between teaching practices appeared to indicate that teachers who were strong at identification were also strong at continuous improvement assessment. Also, teachers who explained the ARAR program more effectively were better at implementing the components related to instruction (e.g., teaching strategies, content, and instructional organization). Given that the teachers who demonstrated greater proficiency in instruction were not the same as those who demonstrated greater assessment ability may suggest that teachers specialize in the types of practices they implement. Measures also indicated a positive relationship between identification of advanced readers and instructional strategies with students’ performance on the affective measure. Students’ literary analysis scores were related to greater levels of implementation of instructional organization, teaching strategies, and the teachers’ levels of implementing ARAR. This exploratory study highlighted several areas for future investigation, including examining if interventions disrupted the typical adolescent decline in affective measures of reading, probing if the hypothesis of two teaching styles—assessors and instructors—exists and its impact, and including additional student outcome measures.
Latz, A. O., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., & Pierce, R. L. (2009). Peer coaching to improve classroom differentiation: Perspectives from Project CLUE. Roeper Review, 31, 27–39. doi.org/10.1080/02783190802527356
Although teachers of gifted children may support differentiated instruction for the gifted students in their classroom, many G/T teachers do not regularly implement this practice. Given that peer coaching may be one way to increase classroom differentiation for high-ability learners, this qualitative study used grounded theory methodology to examine the perspectives of the peer mentors (n = 9) and the teachers (n = 46) who were mentored in differentiation practices. Data were triangulated and included mentor logs, e-mail correspondence, and surveys. Four overarching themes emerged: logistics and scheduling, communication, motivation, and differentiation implementation. With respect to logistics, teachers and mentors found it difficult to find time to schedule observations or to find time to focus on the high-ability students when the administration tended to focus attention on lower performing students. Communication difficulties also surfaced. Although mentors were informed that the observations were not meant to be evaluative, at least some of the teachers felt worried and viewed the mentors’ visits as focusing more on evaluation than instruction. Successful communication from school personnel regarding students’ ability levels and G/T status, however, was typically reported. Mentors were motivated to participate in the program in order to assist fellow teachers. Mentee-teachers were generally motivated by the program. Only three mentees reported negative experiences, suggesting that the mentoring was personally unnecessary or not helpful for them. With respect to the implementation of differentiation, two thirds of the mentors reported observing too little differentiation occurring in the classrooms. Nine teachers, however, reported positive changes in their teaching as a result of the mentoring. On average, mentors and mentee-teachers reported that the program was helpful for “professional development as related to differentiation and educating gifted and talented students.” These findings underscore the necessity for school administrators and supervisors to prioritize professional development/program support, to focus more broadly than simply preparing lowest-performing students for standardized tests, and to minimize extraneous tasks in order to increase teacher participation and potential program effectiveness. Differences in teachers’ perceptions of the evaluative aspect of the observations might be attributed to the level of mentor/teacher rapport built between the pair. One teacher mentioned that more relational meetings with her mentor would have been helpful. Ongoing reminders of the nonevaluative nature of mentoring may also alleviate some of these tensions. The researchers concluded that teacher mentoring programs are one promising way to meet the needs of diverse learners.
McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2007). What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 246–256. doi:10.1177/0016986207302719
Objectives of this study included (a) whether researchers’ affiliation had an effect on how a participant responded to surveys about giftedness, (b) participants’ self-perception as gifted, and (c) the effect that training and experience in gifted or special education had on attitudes toward gifted education. To test if affiliation had an effect, 1,500 teachers in the United States randomly received a survey packet that included one of three different letterheads—500 were sent surveys with University of Connecticut letterhead, 500 received the survey with a cover letter from the Center for Equity and Equality in Education, and 500 received the survey from National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented letterhead. The authors found no effect on teacher responses based on researcher affiliation. More than half of the 262 teachers who responded to the survey reported some previous experience or training with gifted education. To measure teachers’ attitudes toward gifted students and gifted education, researchers used four subscales (support, elitism, acceleration, self-perceptions) from the Opinions About the Gifted and Their Education survey (Gagné & Nadeau, 1991). Overall, the researchers found that teachers had neutral attitudes toward gifted education. Some teachers were very positive toward gifted education, but others held extraordinarily negative attitudes. The researchers suggested evaluating teachers independently instead of presuming all teachers held some kind of negative attitude toward gifted education. The authors found that training did not relate to teachers’ attitudes toward gifted learners but related clearly to teacher self-perceptions of being gifted. The researchers suspected that training might help increase knowledge of the needs of gifted learners but might not have a positive effect on supporting the students’ needs. Other findings suggested that special education teachers have negative attitudes toward gifted education and acceleration of gifted students. The authors recommended that special education and gifted education teachers build partnerships to encourage positive learning experiences for all students with exceptionalities.
Miller, E. M. (2009). The effect of training in gifted education on elementary classroom teachers’ theory-based reasoning about the concept of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 65–105.
Teachers’ beliefs about giftedness play a role in their teaching and nomination behaviors. This study explored how teachers with more training on giftedness differed from teachers without formal training on characteristics of gifted students. Participants included 60 elementary school teachers from five school districts. Teachers with training on giftedness (n = 21) were those with a formal certificate or those with at least 12 hours of gifted coursework at the collegiate level. Participants were asked to draw a concept map regarding their theories of giftedness and include relevant characteristics of gifted students. Teachers also ranked characteristics from least to most important. Data analysis included both quantitative and qualitative methods. Results from the drawing task and the survey indicated that training did not impact teachers’ beliefs about giftedness. Teachers with and without formal training used the same number and type of characteristics on their created maps. Identified characteristics were more likely to be traditional characteristics of giftedness, such as “enjoys reading” or “displays curiosity,” rather than diverse characteristics, such as those related to culture or overcoming obstacles. Teachers’ rankings did not change between the two groups. The structure of teachers’ theories of giftedness did vary, even if the characteristics were similar, indicating a possible area for future research. Additional research might also explore how teachers define the characteristics of giftedness and how training might change teachers’ beliefs to include less traditional characteristics. Most of the teachers in the study were White females, so further work might explore how a more diverse sample views giftedness.
Newman, J. L., Gregg, M., & Dantzler, J. (2009). Summer Enrichment Workshop (SEW): A quality component of the University of Alabama’s gifted education preservice training program. Roeper Review, 31, 170–184. doi.org/10.1080/02783190902993995
Teacher preparation programs are tasked with providing preservice teachers the tools and experiences to develop dispositions for meeting the needs of all students. The University of Alabama’s master’s-level teacher preservice training program for gifted and talented presents a unique clinical experience for their interns. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to answer two questions: (a) Does the Summer Enrichment Workshop (SEW) clinical experience have a significant effect on interns’ knowledge and teaching of the Talents Unlimited model?, and (b) Does the SEW clinical experience, specifically the observation feedback cycle, have a positive effect on interns’ success in learning the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to be effective teachers in today’s diverse classrooms? Thirty-two interns who taught in the SEW in 2004 and 2006 participated in the study. Throughout the 3-week course, preconferences with master teachers and their feedback based on intern observations informed the interns’ teaching practices. After completing the program, quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data collected through interns’ exit interviews demonstrated the SEW experience significantly impacted the interns’ self-appraisal of their knowledge and preparation to teach higher level thinking skills and their learning and teaching. Offering preservice teachers rigorous authentic teaching experiences in working with students with gifts and talents was key to developing in-service teachers who implement higher order thinking skills in their teaching practices.
Olthouse, J. (2014). How do preservice teachers conceptualize giftedness? A metaphor analysis. Roeper Review, 36, 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2014.884200
Definitions of giftedness have varied based on the perceptions of researchers and practitioners. Students (n = 124) enrolled in an introductory special education course were surveyed regarding their perceptions about giftedness. These students were predominantly Caucasian (90%), female, and studying elementary or preschool education; some males and students who were studying secondary education were also included in the sample. The gifted education professor teaching this course was interested in exploring her undergraduate education majors’ perceptions of giftedness by asking them to complete the metaphor, “a gifted student is __.” Additionally, these preservice teachers provided an explanation of their metaphors. The results were analyzed using qualitative metaphor analysis influenced by Dai’s essential tensions. These tensions included ability vs. achievement, being vs. becoming, domain general vs. domain specific, expertise vs. creativity, excellence vs. equity, rapidity vs. abstraction, depth or complexity, and social or motivation. The study revealed the preservice teachers’ responses could be categorized into one or more of these eight essential tensions. Generally, the preservice teachers’ definitions of giftedness related to the gifted child’s achievement as represented by rapidly memorizing content knowledge rather than by their potential for learning. Responses that addressed whether giftedness is natural or developed were mixed. Interestingly, none of the preservice teachers noted gifted students were socially popular, and only a few recognized these students as loners. The researcher suggested the results of this study could not be generalized to preservice teachers’ perceptions in other teacher preparation programs. However, perceptions of preservice teachers regarding the definition of giftedness should be explored to encourage them to expand their beliefs about giftedness and ways in which gifted children’s needs are being met.
Robinson, A., Dailey, D., Hughes, G., & Cotabish, A. (2014). The effects of a science focused STEM intervention on gifted elementary students’ science knowledge and skills. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25, 189–213. doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14533799
Inquiry in science should be incorporated into the elementary grades to promote innovation and engagement with science as students progress through school. Starting early can positively impact students’ later achievement and career opportunities within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. This study investigated the impact of a rigorous science curriculum and teacher professional development on students’ skills in science, knowledge of content, and knowledge of concepts. The curriculum included lessons designed from William & Mary, along with STEM Blueprints. The professional development included summer institutes and peer coaching for a total of 120 hours per teacher. Participants included gifted students in grades 2 through 5 in 70 classrooms within five low-income schools. Data were collected over the course of 2 years. The treatment classrooms contained 87 students in Year 1 and 67 in Year 2; comparison classrooms contained 70 students in Year 1 and 60 in Year 2. Results indicated that students in treatment classrooms had higher scores on science content and concepts and were better at designing an experiment when given a research question. These results supported the hypothesis that rigorous curriculum and specific teacher professional development supported early learners’ science knowledge and skills. However, this study had limitations of a small sample size, student attrition over the 2 years, and a posttest measure that possibly benefited the treatment classes.
Rubenstein, L. D., Gilson, C. M., Bruce-Davis, M. N., & Gubbins, E. J. (2015). Teachers’ reactions to pre-differentiated and enriched mathematics curricula. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38, 141–168. doi.org/10.1177/0162353215578280
Past research has indicated that teachers face difficulties differentiating instruction for students from varying levels of ability. This article, one piece of a larger study, examined how teachers perceive differentiated math curricula. Participants included third-grade treatment classrooms (n = 84) and comparison classrooms (n = 57) from 43 schools in 12 states. Each treatment teacher was provided with one day of professional development and 16 weeks of math curricula, which included a teacher’s manual, student journals, and lesson materials. Data were collected from teacher focus group interviews, administration interviews, classroom observations, and teacher logs. The research team created all instruments. Qualitative analyses indicated three major themes: (a) curriculum preassessments helped teachers understand students’ levels of knowledge and challenge groups of students, (b) participation in the study increased teacher and administrator reflection, and (c) state standards and testing decreased full use of the curriculum. Limitations included participant self-selection, limited classroom observations, and considerable time spent creating the curricula, which took the research team a year to create. Time and effort highlighted one possible issue for teachers who want to differentiate in their classrooms. Additionally, instrumentation varied by unit and did not allow for full exploration of teacher experiences into new arenas. This curriculum and professional development benefited treatment teachers’ experiences, but more research should incorporate student perceptions, teachers’ mathematical knowledge, and environmental supports to better understand classroom differentiation.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A. X., Brown, E., Bracken, B., Stambaugh, T., French, H., . . . Bai, W. (2008). A study of differentiated instructional change over 3 years. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 297–312. doi.org/10.1177/0016986208321809
Teachers’ classroom practices have been found to impact students in gifted classrooms. However, not much is known about how curriculum and professional development change teacher behaviors and help students learn. The study examined third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade teachers’ classroom practices over the course of 3 years. Participants were 71 teachers in Title I schools from six school districts. Teachers were randomly assigned to treatment (n = 37) or comparison (n = 34) groups. Due to the turnover in the study, some teachers needed to be replaced during the course of the study. Participants were given language-arts-based curriculum and attended professional development activities. Observations were conducted twice per year. Teachers’ classroom behaviors were assessed using the Classroom Observation Scale-Revised. Student engagement was determined using the Student Observation Scale. Findings from the quantitative analyses indicated that teachers in the treatment group had greater instructional improvement, with teachers who stayed in the project longer showing improvement at each time point. Students in classrooms where teachers had more experience were more engaged; these teachers had higher ratings on instructional practices from the beginning of the study but their improvement “leveled off” at the end of the study. New project teachers began with the lowest ratings on instructional practices. Teacher improvement and student engagement were positively associated. These results suggested that continued professional development with observations and research-based curricula might improve teacher instruction and increase student engagement for gifted learners. One limitation of the study included teacher attrition. Further research might examine experienced teachers’ plateau at the end of Year 3.
Weber, C. L., Johnson, L., & Tripp, S. (2013). Implementing differentiation. Gifted Child Today, 36, 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217513486646
Employing a culture of differentiation on a schoolwide level can be challenging. This article described the tactics used by one independent private school to help all teachers use differentiation to serve students with all types of needs. The school included approximately 300 students and 35 faculty for grades pre-K through eighth grade. Strategies for implementation included: (a) discussion meetings for similar grade levels revolving around books on differentiation, (b) half-day large group training sessions to address misconceptions and provide teachers with strategies and activities, and (c) classroom visits for individualized teacher help. This case study from Florida emphasized that schools would need additional methods to guide the process, including an expert advisor, open and safe dialogue for participants, time set aside for teachers to work, and clear teaching and assessment objectives. Schools wanting to implement this model should also consider state standards, parents and community member communication, and a school educational philosophy that strives to meet the needs of all students.
Additional References
Bangel, N. J., Moon, S. M., & Capobianco, B. M. (2010). Preservice teachers’ perceptions and experiences in a gifted education training model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 209–220. doi:10.1177/0016986210369257
Coleman, M. R., Gallagher, J. J., & Job, J. (2012). Developing and sustaining professionals within gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 35, 27–36.
Desimone, L. M. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 68–71.
Farkas, S., Duffett, A., & Lovelace, T. (2008). High-achieving students in the era of NCLB. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from https://edexcellence.net/publications/high-achieving-students-in.html
Gagné, F., & Nadeau, L. (1991). Opinions about the gifted and their education. Unpublished instrument.
Goldring, R., Gray, L., & Bitterman, A. (2013). Characteristics of public and private elementary and secondary school teachers in the United States: Results from the 2011–12 schools and staffing survey (NCES 2013-314). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013314.pdf
Johnsen, S. K. (2012). Standards in gifted education and their effects on professional competence. Gifted Child Today, 35, 49–57.
Learning Forward. (2011). Standards for professional learning. Oxford, OH: Author. Retrieved from http://learningforward.org/standards#.VucI5mQrJUN
National Association for Gifted Children, & Council for Exceptional Children, The Association for the Gifted. (2013). NAGC–CEC teacher preparation standards in gifted and talented education. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/NAGC-%20CEC%20CAEP%20standards%20%282013%20final%29.pdf
National Association for Gifted Children, & Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2015). 2014-2015 State of the states in gifted education: Policy and practice data. Washington, DC: Authors.
Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382–396.
Texas Education Agency. (2009). Texas state plan for the education of gifted/talented students. Austin, TX: Author. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/index2.aspx?id=6420
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2012). Analyzing differentiation in the classroom: Using the COS-R. Gifted Child Today, 35, 42–48.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 342–358.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Johnsen, S. K. (2007). Teacher education standards for the field of gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 182–205.
Brenda K. Davis, M.A., has more than 20 years of experience as an educator. She received her B.S. from the University of Texas at Austin and her master’s degree in professional school counseling from Lindenwood University in Missouri. Currently, she is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University, specializing in gifted education. She served on the Board of Directors of the Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented. Her interests include gifted education and program design, social and emotional issues of gifted students, and creativity.
Corina R. Kaul, M.A., received her B.S. degree from the University of Oregon, her master’s degree from Baylor University, and is currently a doctoral candidate in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University, where she is specializing in gifted education and quantitative research. She is Assistant Director of the Center for Community and Learning and Enrichment and administers Baylor’s University for Young People, an enrichment program for gifted students, and the annual conference for K–12 educators of gifted children. She also assists in conducting program evaluations of district gifted programs. Her current research interests focus on G/T program evaluation, twice-exceptional students, gifted English language learners, low-income gifted students, gifted first-generation students, teachers of gifted students, and the affective needs of gifted learners.
Rachel Renbarger is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. She obtained her Language Arts Education degree from the University of Oklahoma and is currently certified in secondary English and psychology. She has taught students in grades K–12 in Oklahoma, Texas, and Italy, and has taught preservice teachers in courses on differentiation and collaboration. Her research interests include assessment, teacher education, and creating equitable education opportunities for students from low-income, underrepresented, minority, and rural backgrounds.
Paula J. Gardner, M.S., CCC/A, received her BSED in Deaf Education and her Master’s of Science in Audiology and Speech Pathology from Texas Tech University. After 33 years of teaching in public and private schools, she retired and began supervising junior and senior education preservice teachers in their experiences in public elementary professional development schools for Baylor University. Her interests include developing preservice teachers to meet the affective and academic needs of gifted students, supporting in-service teachers of gifted students, supporting faculty and staff in professional development schools, and working with low-income gifted and talented students.
Susan K. Johnsen, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University where she directed the Ph.D. program and programs related to gifted and talented education. She has also written three tests used in identifying gifted students. She is editor-in-chief of Gifted Child Today and author of more than 250 publications related to gifted education. She is past president of The Association for the Gifted (TAG) and past president of the Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented (TAGT). She has received awards for her work in the field of education, including NAGC’s President’s Award, CEC’s Leadership Award, TAG’s Leadership Award, TAGT’s President’s Award, TAGT’s Advocacy Award, and Baylor University’s Investigator Award, Teaching Award, and Contributions to the Academic Community.
