Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Relationships between teachers' perceptions of gifted program status and instructional choices
(USC Thesis Other)
Relationships between teachers' perceptions of gifted program status and instructional choices
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GIFTED
PROGRAM STATUS AND INSTRUCTIONAL CHOICES
by
Kathleen Ann Apps
________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2011
Copyright 2011 Kathleen Ann Apps
ii
DEDICATION
To
My Family
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I wish to thank my committee members - Chairperson, Dr. Sandra N.
Kaplan, Dr. Courtney Malloy and Dr. Reynaldo Baca – for their support and
encouragement during my dissertation process. My deepest gratitude especially goes
to Dr. Kaplan for her mentorship, encouragement and guidance. She inspires and
ignites passion in those she teaches.
I would like to recognize the Dissertation Cohort whose esprit de corps was a
great source of motivation and support during the dissertation process. Particularly, I
would like to thank Kim Dodds for her heartening camaraderie and positive energy
and Carol Hagg for her words of encouragement, support and friendship.
I would like to recognize the California Association for the Gifted and those
teachers who participated in this study. Hopefully, the information gained from
herein will provide helpful insights to district decision-makers and State educational
policy makers about the academic needs of all children, including the gifted.
Most importantly, I will be forever grateful to my family for their love and
support over the last three years. I thank my mother, Dolores Holmes, for being a
strong role model in persistence and hard work. I thank my mother-in-law, Dorothy
Apps, for her belief in me and for her belief that education is a great investment.
Mostly, I thank my husband, Bill, and my son, Ryan, for their unwavering patience,
understanding and encouragement throughout the Ed.D. process. It is their collective
generous spirit that allowed me to fulfill my personal and professional dream.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vii
Abstract viii
Chapter I: Introduction 1
Chapter II: Literature Review 35
Chapter III: Research Methods 64
Chapter IV: Results 83
Chapter V: Conclusions 152
Bibliography 172
Appendices 180
Appendix A: Online Survey 180
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 210
Appendix C: Coding Sample Using Atlas ti 217
Appendix D: Final Code List 218
Appendix E: Area Code Map of California Representing Geographic 220
Areas within the Study
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Regional Representation of the Study’s Sample (n=15) 84
Table 2: Years of Teaching Experience in General Education and 87
Giftted Education
Table 3: Teachers’ Self-assessment in Teaching the Gifted (n=15) 88
Table 4: Teachers’ Ability to Differentiate Curriculum for Gifted 89
Students (n=15)
Table 5: Teachers’ Ability to Use Appropriate Instructional Strategies 89
with Gifted Students (n=15)
Table 6: Teachers’ Ability to Assess the Performance of Gifted 89
Students (n=15)
Table 7: Teachers’ Self-assessment of Expertise as a Teacher of 90
Gifted Students (n=15)
Table 8: Certificates and Endorsements in Gifted Education Earned by 91
Sample Population (n=15)
Table 9: GATE Program Types within the Study (n=15) 93
Table 10: Perceived GATE Program Aspects Affected by Flexible Use 95
of Categorical Funds (n=10 respondents out of 15 teachers in
the study who answered “yes” to being aware of changes in
the law regarding the flexible use of GATE funds)
Table 11: Priority of GATE Compared to Other Site Programs (n=15) 104
Table 12: Level of Perceived Superintendent Support for Gifted 106
Program (n=15)
Table 13: Level of Perceived Site Principal’s Support for Gifted 106
Program (n=15)
Table 14: Level of Perceived Support for GATE by Faculty Assigned to 107
Teach Gifted Students (n=15)
vi
Table 15: Level of Perceived Support for GATE by Non-GATE 107
Faculty (n=15)
Table 16: Teacher Preferences and Rationales – Standards-based 122
Curriculum (n=14)
Table 17: Teacher Preferences and Rationales – Lesson Design (n=15) 124
Table 18: Teacher Preferences and Rationales – Interdisciplinary 126
Content (n=15)
Table 19: Teacher Preferences and Rationales – Universal Concepts & 127
Themes (n=14)
Table 20: Teacher Preferences and Rationales – Critical Thinking 128
Skills (n=14)
Table 21: Teacher Preferences and Rationales – Creative Thinking 130
Skills (n=15)
Table 22: Teacher Preferences and Rationales – Thinking Prompts (n=15) 131
Table 23: Teacher Preferences and Rationales – Instructional Grouping 139
Practices: Homogeneous vs. Heterogeneous (n=15)
Table 24: Teacher Preferences and Rationales – Instructional Grouping 141
Practices: Small vs. Whole (n=15)
Table 25: f & % of Rationales Matching Most Preferred Methods of 144
Differentiating Curriculum
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Overview of Approaches to Differentiating Curriculum and 8
Instruction
Figure 2: California Gifted Program District and Site Responsibilities 11
Figure 3: Sample of NAGC-CEC Teacher Knowledge and Skills in 15
Working with Gifted Students
Figure 4: Kaplan’s Guidelines for Differentiated Learning Experiences 38
for the Gifted
Figure 5: Kaplan’s (1986) “Stage Definition of Differentiation” 42
Figure 6: Timeline Depicting the Status of Gifted Education Support 52
at the Federal Level
Figure 7: Schematization of Bandura’s Triadic Causation Depicting the 61
Dynamic Relationship between Three Factors in Determining
a Person’s Actions. Adapted from Bandura (1986, p. 24)
Figure 8: Comparison of Primary and Secondary Instrument Sample 72
Questions
Figure 9: Sample Survey Questions 76
Figure 10: Sample Questions from the Interview Guide 77
Figure 11: Cognitive Map of Fiscal Status of the GATE Program at the 97
District/Site Levels
Figure 12: Cognitive Map of GATE Program Priority at the District Level 109
Figure 13: Cognitive Map of GATE Program Priority at the Site Level 113
Figure 14: Types and Non-Types of Differentiation Used by the 134
Respondents
Figure 15: The Types of Differentiation Reported During the Interviews 136
Figure 16: Influencing Factors upon Teachers’ Curricular and 146
Instructional Choices
viii
ABSTRACT
This study examined the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of gifted
program status and their curricular and instructional choices in teaching the gifted
students in their classrooms. The research design included the use of mixed methods
in the gathering and analysis of data from two different data sources. The primary
data source was an anonymous online survey sponsored by the California
Association for the Gifted. Eight hundred and ninety K-12 teachers participated in
the online survey and 55 of those members indicated at the end of their survey that
they would be willing to participate in a follow-up interview. The pool of 55
candidates was divided up by area code into three major California regions
representing northern, central and southern California. A purposeful random
selection of the final 15 study participants was conducted in order to ensure that all
geographic regions of California were represented in the study. In the second stage
of the study, the researcher conducted in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews
with the 15 selected participants. The data from the interviews was used to support
the findings that resulted from the online surveys.
Analysis of the quantitative data was conducted using descriptive statistical
analysis and was reported in frequencies and percents. The coding of interview
transcripts was conducted using ATLAS.ti, a qualitative software program that
enabled the researcher to create cognitive maps depicting the major patterns that
emerged from the transcripts’ coding process. Both quantitative and qualitative data
sets were analyzed for parallels, patterns, and big ideas about the relationship
ix
between gifted program status and the curricular and instructional decisions that the
teachers in the study made when planning learning experiences for their gifted
students.
Two major findings emerged from the data analysis that have major
implications for gifted education programs and the students they serve. First, it was
found that the teachers in the study perceived that gifted education holds low fiscal
and priority status in their districts and schools. They attributed these perceptions to
the fiscal crisis that presently exists in California and to the increased instructional
focus on high-stakes testing. However, a second major finding from this study was
that the study’s teachers continued their resolve to provide differentiate curriculum
and instruction for their gifted students, despite the little support provided to sustain
gifted education services in their schools.
It is anticipated that the outcomes of this work will be used to raise decision-
makers’ awareness about the value of gifted programming in assuring that gifted
students receive appropriately planned and delivered differentiated curriculum and
instruction in order to fulfill their academic promise.
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem
“In human affairs the logical future, determined by past and present conditions, is
less important than the willed future, which is largely brought about by deliberate
choices”
-- René Dubos
(quoted by VanTassel-Baska in
Comprehensive Curriculum for Gifted Learners, 1988, p. 1)
In the Introduction of The Handbook of Gifted Education, Colangelo and
Davis (1991) provided the paradox that surrounds gifted education, stating that
“Giftedness is one of the most exciting and at the same time most controversial
issues facing education today”(p.3). While our nation demands excellence and
equity in the education for all students, there remains a tendency to impose a
contradictory relationship between the two concepts. The idea of “excellence” is
often connected with global competition, prompting attention to high-ability students
in order to preserve our nation’s identity as a global superpower. Conversely, the
idea of “equity” in current times is related to the democratic principles of our nation
in providing equal educational opportunity for underperforming, underserved and
underrepresented students, particularly in urban settings, in order to assure equality
for these children. However, “Treating issues of equity and excellence as mutually
exclusive (indeed, as antagonistic) has been destructive to the development of sound
and stable educational practices” (Colangelo & Davis, 1991, p. 3). Such sound
“practices” include program choices made by educational policymakers and
2
curricular and instructional choices made by teachers of gifted students in classrooms
across the country.
Along the same line of thought, gifted education scholar A. Harry Passow felt
that the excellence vs. equity debate proved to be wrongly focused on the real issue
of providing an excellent program appropriate for each student. In his 1998
interview with Robert J. Kirschenbaum, Passow explained his position: “I always
thought the equality vs. excellence debate poses a false dichotomy. I believe the real
question is how to do both because otherwise you can’t do either…In a democracy
we must be committed to making appropriate provisions for all students regardless of
their differences or similarities” (p. 195). The equity vs. excellence debate is a
divisive one that does not benefit any student. Passow proffered that while we do
not educate one group of students at the expense of the other, “but neither should the
gifted and talented student be shortchanged because there are students in the general
population who are being underserved…Education of the gifted must be an integral
part of our effort to provide adequate and appropriate programs for all children” (p.
195).
Therefore, if it is a democratic principle to afford all students with an
excellent and appropriate education, including gifted children, then it becomes
apparent that providing an appropriate education means that there is a need for the
classroom teacher to differentiate learning experiences in order for each student to
reach his or her potential (Ward, 1961; Tomlinson, 2001). While differentiation of
curriculum and instruction has become more defined over the last 50 years, there still
3
are questions about the influences upon teachers in deciding whether or not to
provide appropriately differentiated curriculum and instruction for their gifted
students and whether or not the perceived importance of gifted programming plays a
part in the teachers’ decisions to do so.
Examining the vacillating interest that the United States has shown in
educating gifted children over the past several decades has demonstrated
ambivalence towards gifted education, particularly when it comes to special
programming and differentiated curriculum and instruction. A historical look at the
development of differentiated learning experiences provides background
understanding to these issues.
Background of the Problem
Differentiation for Gifted Learners
The status of gifted programs and the practices within these programs have
been a constant source of discussion within the American educational system. In the
Series Introduction to Differentiation for Gifted and Talented Students, Reiss (2004)
alluded to gifted scholar Abraham Tannenbaum’s depiction of the development of
gifted education. Tannenbaum (1983) stated that, “The cyclical nature of interest in
the gifted is probably unique in American education. No other special group of
children has been alternately embraced and repelled with so much vigor by educators
and laypersons alike” (p. 16). A brief study of gifted education and significant events
demonstrates the ebb and flow of interest in the education of talented students.
4
The early twentieth century is spotted by significant events that have
impacted the field of gifted education, beginning with the advent of Terman’s
modifications to the Binet-Simon intelligence tests (later to become the Stanford-
Binet Intelligence Scale) which prompted the initial debate over providing special
provisions for educating the gifted. Leta Hollingworth’s early work established
gifted education programming for exceptionally able students in New York City in
1916. In her seminal research she “argued that it is the business of education to
consider all forms of giftedness in pupils in regard to how unusual individuals may
be trained for their own welfare and that of society at large” (Colangelo & Davis,
1991, p. 7).
In more recent times, one event that was a clarion call exclaiming the need
for differentiated learning experiences for highly-abled students was the 1957
Russian launch of the Sputnik satellite into space, placing the Russians in a winning
position in the “race for space” and provoking the United States’ interest to invest in
the development of mathematical and scientific talent. Fueling the embarrassment of
the U.S. in this loss were two prior reports that prophetically exposed the neglect of
gifted youths. The 1950 Educational Policies Commission report predicted that there
would be “losses in the arts, sciences, and professions” (Colangelo & Davis, 1991, p.
7) and Bestor’s 1953 book, Educational Wastelands, accused policymakers of
creating “schools that provided ‘meager intellectual nourishment or inspiration,
particularly for bored gifted students’”(p. 7). While these events sparked revisions in
math and science curricula and interest in re-examining the development of talented
5
youth, such interest was short-lived, until the next significant event almost two
decade later.
In 1971, the United States Commissioner of Education, Sydney P. Marland,
submitted a report to Congress that, “defined for the first time in the country’s
history the rights of gifted and talented children and youth to experience
differentiated educational programs commensurate with their special capabilities”
(Clending and Davies, 1980, p. 3). The Marland Report (1972) revealed within the
“Findings and Actions Steps” that “Differentiated education for the gifted and
talented is presently perceived as a very low priority at Federal, State and most local
levels of government and educational administration” (p. 7). Responsively, the
report then provided guidelines for establishing an appropriate program for gifted
students that placed differentiation of curriculum and instruction as a major focus in
the education of the gifted based on the following three characteristics:
1. A differentiated curriculum which denotes higher cognitive concepts and
processes.
2. Instructional strategies which accommodate the learning styles of the
gifted and talented and curriculum content.
3. Special grouping arrangements which include a variety of administrative
procedures appropriate to particular children, i.e., special classes, honor
classes, seminars, resource rooms, and the like (Marland, 1972, p. 11).
The Marland Report prompted attention for gifted education and resulted in
additional legislative and governmental support for the establishment of leadership
6
and financial assistance to states and institutions to develop improved programming
to gifted students. However, interest waned, until another governmental report in
1993 brought notice, again, to the inattention to the academic needs of gifted
students in classrooms across America.
In National Excellence, A Case for Developing America’s Talent, Ross
(1993), revealed the “quiet crisis” of the underachievement of America’s most able
students, reporting that
Despite sporadic attention over the years to the needs of bright students, most
of them continue to spend time in school working well below their
capabilities. The belief espoused in school reform that children from all
economic and cultural backgrounds must reach their full potential has not
been extended to America's most talented students. They are underchallenged
and therefore underachieve” (Part I).
Within the report’s recommendations, Ross (1993) echoed Marland’s findings of 20
years before:
The nation must establish comprehensive and advanced learning
opportunities that meet the needs of children with outstanding talents in every
school in the nation. Opportunities must be as diverse as the talents of the
children and enable them to do more in-depth work in the core curriculum;
[and] accelerate the rate at which they learn the core curriculum… (Part III)
Ross’s conclusions were clear: Differentiated learning experiences and
opportunities are essential for students with exceptional academic ability (Part III).
The report encouraged training for teachers to help them provide challenging
curriculum that requires complex thinking, as well as the financial support from
various levels of government to help in this endeavor. Since 1993, researchers in
7
gifted education have continued to demonstrate the need for differentiating
curriculum and instruction for gifted students.
For example, in their study of the effects of professional development on
teachers’ ability to differentiate curriculum, Reiss and Westberg (1994) underscored
the need for teachers to learn how to modify content and instruction, stating that that
due to the large amount of content review in textbooks, much time is spent on skills
and knowledge that the students have already know. The “research indicates that the
challenge level of textbooks has declined and that teachers often use whole-class
instructional techniques” (p. 128). As a result, gifted students are often left bored and
unchallenged.
Over the last two decades, several gifted education curriculum experts have
researched and developed various approaches to modifying classroom curriculum
and instruction for gifted students. Johnsen, Haensly, Riser and Ford (2002, p. 45)
provided an overview of these approaches to differentiation (Figure 1).
While gifted experts have researched and developed ways to differentiate
curriculum and instruction, Johnson, Haisley, Riser and Ford (2002) referenced
Fullan (1993), cautioning that “practical experience tells us that changing the general
education classroom is not an easy task. It is a complex, slow process that needs to
be supported from many directions and involves many factors” (p. 46). For the
thousands of general education teachers who have gifted students in their
classrooms, the “support” that Fullan referred to can be provided by gifted programs.
8
Figure 1: Overview of Approaches to Differentiating Curriculum and Instruction
Approach to differentiating
curriculum and instruction Developed by
Acceleration Brody & Benbow, 1987; Southern & Jones, 1991
Curriculum Compacting Reis, Burns & Renzulli, 1992
Enrichment Felhusen & Kolloff, 1986; Renzulli & Reiss,
1997
Learning Centers Feldhusen, 1986; Lopez & MacKenzie, 1993
Creative Problem Solving Parnes, 1979; Treffinger, 1980
Independent Study Doherty & Evans, 1981; Johnsen & Johnson,
1986; Treffinger, 1980
Inter-disciplinary Curricula Kaplan, 1986; VanTassel-Baska, 1985; Ward,
1980
Problem-based Curricula Gallagher, Stepien & Rosenthal, 1992; Van
Tassel-Baska, 1994
Instructional Style Preferences Renzulli & Reiss, 1997
Gifted Education Programs
Both Marland’s and Ross’ previously mentioned reports have had weighty
impact on gifted education with the creation of gifted programming standards and
the reform of legislation regarding gifted education at both the national and state
levels particularly in the State of California.
In 1998 the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) released their
Pre-K – Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards, a blueprint for developing a
9
comprehensive gifted education program. Included in the seven program standards
of the blueprint are two criteria that are key for teachers in providing high-ability
students with appropriately differentiated curriculum and instruction: 1.) The
professional development of teachers of the gifted and 2.) Classroom instruction of
the gifted.
The professional development criterion states that teachers who work with
gifted children must be certified to do so, demonstrate extensive expertise and be
given time to plan differentiated instruction. The curriculum and instruction
criterion emphasizes differentiated learning opportunities that should be integrated
into the core curriculum in order to “facilitate higher level learning goals” that are
appropriate for gifted students in their classrooms (“Gifted Program Standards”,
1998, p. 6).
In the State of California, attention to gifted education programming reached
a zenith from 1999 to 2003. Educational Code Statutes 52200-52212 pertaining to
gifted education were amended in 2000, requiring that GATE programs integrate
differentiated learning experiences as part of the school day, recognizing that gifted
students need appropriately planned instruction in the core curriculum (“Gifted
Laws,” 2009, ¶1). However, in California gifted education holds a non-mandated,
permissive status.
Not long after the statutes pertaining to Gifted Education were amended,
California Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented Students
(SBE, 2001, Rev. 2005) was released by the State Board of Education, which was
10
modeled after NAGC’s Program Standards. In order to assure that the gifted
program was conducted according to the standards, school districts were granted
funds based on their population size. These standards delineate the responsibilities
that both the district and the schools have in providing educational services to meet
the needs of gifted students.
In the overall picture of gifted programming, in California, it is clearly seen
that the district holds the responsibility for providing the infrastructure of
coordination, guidance and support. The school’s primary responsibility is to
implement the program service model (e.g., cluster grouping, special day classes or
part-time grouping), and to assure that there is a teacher with specialized preparation
to deliver differentiated curriculum and instruction to their gifted students. Figure 2
demonstrates this delineation of responsibilities.
Two of the seven sections of the California GATE program standards provide
essential guidance in the selection of appropriate curriculum and instruction
strategies for gifted students, as well as for the professional development of their
teachers:
Section 3: Curriculum and Instruction - Districts develop differentiated
curriculum, instructional models and strategies that are aligned with and
extend the state academic content standards and curriculum frameworks. The
differentiated curriculum is related to theories, models, and practices from the
recognized literature in the field (SBE, 2001, Rev. 2005, p. 4).
Section 5: Professional Development - Districts provide professional
development opportunities related to gifted education to administrators,
teachers, and staff to support and improve educational opportunities for gifted
students (SBE, 2001, Rev. 2005, p. 6).
11
Figure 2: California Gifted Program District and Site Responsibilities
District Program (according to the
California Recommended Standards for
GATE Programs)
School Program (according to the
California Recommended Standards for
GATE Programs)
District Program Responsibilities:
• Developing and implementing
identification guidelines and process
• Allowing for a variety of
administrative grouping options for
schools (e.g., cluster grouping, special
day classes, part-time grouping)
• Articulation with the general education
program
• Developing a scope and sequence of
significant learning in content, skills
and products in all grade levels
• Providing training for school personnel
in meeting the social-emotional needs
of gifted students
• Implementing a district professional
development plan; provide
training/certification opportunities for
teachers in the program; training
conducted by experts or experienced
GATE teachers
• Forming an active GATE parent
advisory council; communicate with
district GATE parents on topics such as
identification; offer parents awareness
training about gifted education; form
partnerships between the GATE
program and the business community
• Providing on-going program
assessment
School Program Responsibilities:
• Identification recruitment
• Assuring that program services are an
integral part of the school day and are
implemented through a selected
administrative grouping option (e.g.,
cluster grouping, special day classes,
part-time grouping)
• Providing opportunities for continuous
progress and intellectual peer
interaction (e.g., flexible grouping in
the classroom)
• Assuring that differentiation of
curriculum is scheduled on a regular
basis and is part of the school day that
stresses depth, complexity, novelty and
acceleration
• Assuring that differentiation of
instruction that includes inquiry, self-
directed learning, discussion, debate
and meta-cognition, as well as a
appropriate instructional models, takes
place within the classroom
• Assuring that staff is trained to
understand the social-emotional needs;
provide guidance services, and;
monitor for at-risk gifted students
• Ensuring that administration and GATE
teachers are provided with professional
development opportunities, as well as
follow-up support
• Ensuring that the GATE population is
represented by parents at the district
and school levels
• Assessing students performance based
on rubrics at each grade level
12
While many states, such as California, have program standards to guide the
implementation of appropriately differentiated curriculum and instruction in the
classroom, Archambault et al. (1993) reported that, “given its importance, it is
surprising that so little research has been conducted on what happens to gifted
students in regular classrooms” (p. ix). The little research that has been conducted
found that while regular classroom teachers are expected to differentiate teaching
and content for their gifted learners (as well as for any student with special needs),
many of them, in fact, do not or do not do much to modify content or instruction for
their high-ability students (Kirschenbaum, 1998; Archambault et al., 1993;
Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, and Salvin, 1993).
Teachers’ Responsibilities in Providing Appropriate Curriculum and Instruction
Ward (1961) emphasized the weighty import of the teacher’s role in the
education of gifted students by stating, “The teachers’ understanding of what really
constitutes ‘enriched experiences’ and how these may stimulate the talented student
determines the degree to which a school [gifted] program will be effective” (p. 53).
Passow also indicated that the primary duty of the classroom teacher was to create a
dynamic environment – one that would elicit “what might be called a ‘gifted
response,’ the result of interactions between the predispositions the student brings to
the learning situation and the richness of the situation itself” (1982, p. 7).
However almost 50 years after Ward’s initial direction for educating the
gifted student, Ann Robinson found studies in her review of the field literature
indicating “that both pre-service and in-service teachers are aware of the needs of
13
gifted learners, but are unable to translate their awareness into differentiated
instruction in general classrooms, [and so] the focus on preparation remains a key
issue in gifted education” (Robinson, 2008, p. 678).
Researcher and teacher preparation advocate, Linda Darling-Hammond,
underlines the dilemma of novice teachers who are unprepared to meet the varied
needs of students in their classrooms. She stated that “Although many who enter
teaching initially believe they do not need specialized training, most learn quickly
that teaching is much more difficult than they thought, and they either desperately
seek out additional training, construct a teaching style focused on control (often by
‘dumbing down’ the curriculum to what can be easily managed), or leave in despair”
(2006, p. 13).
Starko (2008) likewise reported that there is plenty of research regarding the
preparation of general education teachers and the connection between teacher
preparation and student achievement; however, “the idea of specialized knowledge
or skills to teach subsets of the student population has not been a major topic in the
teacher preparation debates” (p. 682).
Moreover, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)
does not “recognize teaching gifted students as a distinctive specialty area” as stated
by Starko (2008, p. 682) in a communication to gifted education scholar, James
Gallagher in 2000. In reviewing the NBPTS’ website, it states that “the National
Board did not envision Gifted and Talented as part of the Exceptional Needs
Specialist category…[and] that teachers in the area of Gifted and Talented would
14
find a much better fit in the content or generalist categories” (“FAQ’s and Help,”
2010, ques.15).
Conversely, The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)
acknowledges teacher preparation as a vital aspect of meeting the academic needs of
gifted students.
It is critical that all teachers are able to recognize a high-ability student who
may need more depth and complexity in instruction or be referred for further
assessment and services. Teachers in specialized programs for gifted learners
or those who coordinate gifted and talented programs and services should be
familiar with the theory, research, curriculum strategies, and educational
practices necessary to developing and sustaining classroom-based
opportunities for advanced student learning (“Standards” 2010, ¶1).
In its NAGC-CEC Teacher Preparation Program Standards, the National
Association for the Gifted and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) provide
10 research-based standards which outline the knowledge and skills that both gifted
education specialists and general education teachers should demonstrate in order to
teach high-ability students. Standards 4 and 7 address the area of instructional
strategies and planning. A sample of the specialized knowledge and skills
represented in the NAGC-CEC Teacher Knowledge and Skills Standards (“NAGC-
CEC Teacher Standards”, 2008, p. 2-7) is provided as Figure 3.
While the NAGC and CEC have created these research-based standards, the
evidence shows that there is relatively little support for their use, as only one state
(Washington) requires regular education teachers to take gifted education
coursework and only 23 states require some sort of certification or professional
development for working with gifted students (Starko, 2008).
15
Figure 3: Sample of NAGC-CEC Teacher Knowledge and Skills in Working with
Gifted Students
Standard 4: Instructional Strategies
K2 Curricular, instructional and management strategies effective for
individuals with exceptional learning needs.
S2 Apply higher-level thinking and meta-cognitive models to content areas to
meet the needs of individuals with gifts and talents.
S3 Provide opportunities for individuals with gifts and talents to explore,
develop, or research their areas of interest or talent.
S5 Pace delivery of curriculum and instruction consistent with needs of
individuals with gifts and talents.
S6 Engage individuals with gifts and talents from all backgrounds in
challenging, multi-cultural curricula.
Standard 7: Instructional Planning
K2 Features that distinguish differentiated curriculum from general curricula
for individuals with exceptional learning needs.
S2 Design differentiated learning plans for individuals with gifts and talents,
including individuals from diverse backgrounds
S5 Select and adapt a variety of differentiated curricula that incorporates
advanced, conceptually-challenging, in-depth, distinctive and complex
content.
In California, although the California Recommended Standards for Programs
for Gifted and Talented Students (SBE, 2001, Rev. 2005, p. 6) outlines minimal and
exemplary competencies for the professional development of teachers who work
with gifted students:
16
5a. (Minimal) Teachers in the program have education and/or experience in
teaching gifted students or are ensured opportunities to gain or continue
such knowledge and experience.
5a. (Exemplary) All teachers assigned to teach gifted students are certified
through a variety of formal and informal certificate programs.
A review of the California Commission on Teacher Credential (CTC) website
(2007) shows that there is no required certification for teaching gifted students. In
the past, the CTC offered a Gifted Specialist Instruction Credential that “authorizes
the holder to develop and coordinate curriculum, develop programs and deliver staff
development for gifted education programs coordinated by schools districts and
county offices of education” (“Specialist Instruction,” 2009, p.2). However, this
credential is no longer offered by the CTC.
Given the conflicting perspectives about differentiating curriculum and
instruction for gifted students from powerful entities, such as the NBPTS and
NAGC, as well as the lack of a specialized credential required by the State of
California to teach gifted students, how do teachers decide whether or not to receive
specialized training in teaching gifted students? Furthermore, does the level of
importance that is placed on gifted education within a district weigh in their decision
to receive such training?
Teachers’ Perceptions and Beliefs: A Framework
What influences teachers’ personal decision making processes when making
curricular and pedagogical choices in their classrooms? Key considerations in this
17
study are teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about the value or priority that gifted
programming holds, and if these perceptions and beliefs have any relationship to
their pedagogical choices, particularly the use of differentiation of curriculum and
instruction.
In researching the literature for this study, it was found that authors often
used “perception,” “belief,” and “attitude” synonymously within the context of their
research. “Perception”, as defined by Cambridge Online Dictionary, “is a belief or
opinion, often held by many people and based on how things seem” (“Cambridge
Dictionaries”, 2010). “Attitude” is defined as “a feeling or opinion about something
or someone, or a way of behaving that is caused by this” (“Cambridge Dictionaries,”
2010). Thus, the study of perception and behavior has an organic relationship.
In their study of the influence of teachers’ perspectives on classroom
practice, Rueda and Garcia (1996) found that conducting research on teachers’ belief
systems is difficult because beliefs “are not directly observable…” (p. 312). Despite
this difficulty, they state that looking closely at belief systems is how many
researchers try to understand teaching practices (Rueda and Garcia, 1996).
A conceptual framework that provides a means of examining the relationship
between belief and behavior is based on some of the fundamental features of
Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (1986). Bandura (1986) explained that there is
dynamic interaction between behavioral, cognitive and environmental factors. This
dynamic interaction becomes the locus of motivation and, subsequently, human
behavior.
18
While conducting this study, the researcher found no studies that directly
examined the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of program value and
pedagogical choice to differentiate curriculum and instruction for gifted students.
However, Scot, Callahan and Urquhart (2009) conducted a study in which they
investigated the influence of NCLB’s focus on accountability via high stakes testing
had on teachers’ abilities to utilize gifted strategies that they learned in professional
development workshops. The researchers concluded that “the accountability
movement in the schools with its affiliation with high-stakes testing has created a
barrier for practice and development of best-practice teaching and learning for gifted
students” (p. 50). A concomitant finding was that teachers perceived that the
demands of NCLB impacted their ability to appropriately teach their gifted students
(p. 50).
Two other studies examined topics related to beliefs and attitudes about
gifted education and differentiation of curriculum and instruction, as well as the
affecting factors. The Successful Practices Study was conducted by Westberg and
Archambault (1997) “to learn more about the specific ways in which teachers make
accommodations for students and the factors that influence them” (p. 43). They
found that “truly effective teachers” were ones who worked to modify their
instruction to meet both the differences and similarities among their students.
Effects on their ability to differentiate included extensive training, supportive
leadership and a sense of autonomy.
19
Another study of related interest that looked at general education teachers’
attitudes and beliefs about gifted students and gifted education was conducted by
McCoach and Siegle (2007). These researchers underscored the importance of
studying beliefs and attitudes about gifted education by stating that “In this era of
‘No Child Left Behind,’ concerns about equity of instruction and achievement
appear to override concerns about ‘raising the academic bar.’ The effects of this
zeitgeist on regular education teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted are unknown” (p.
246).
McCoach and Siegle (2007) found in their review of the literature that though
many gifted education experts have studied the attitudes of general education
teachers towards gifted education, the findings have been ambiguous. These
researchers discovered in their own study that the teachers (n=262) were “generally
supportive of gifted education” (p. 251). Mean scores on subscales that looked at
“support,” “acceleration” and “elitism” all hovering around the middle, indicated that
“teachers appear to have fairly neutral attitudes toward gifted education” (p. 253).
However, a deeper analysis revealed that there was a polarization of very strong
positive and negative attitudes about gifted education. In addition, the researchers
“were surprised that gifted education training had no impact on teachers’ attitudes
toward the gifted” (p. 253). The researchers recommended that research in the field
of gifted education should assess individual teachers’ attitudes “rather than assuming
that ‘all teachers’ harbor positive or negative attitudes toward gifted education” ( p.
253).
20
While McCoach and Siegle (2007) did not directly study teachers’
perceptions about the value of gifted programming, their findings about teachers’
attitudes towards gifted education demonstrate the need for further research about the
relationship between teacher attitude and gifted education.
Statement of the Problem
While gifted education has made progress over the past half decade, it has not
been constant, according to gifted education researcher Sally Reis. In her Series
Introduction to Differentiated Education for Gifted and Talented Students (2004),
Reis referenced works from Gallagher (1979), Renzulli (1980) and Tannenbaum
(1983) which “have discussed the various high and low points of national interest
and commitment to educating the gifted and talented” (p.ix), many of which were
portrayed in the preceding historical review.
More than 20 years have passed since Ross (1993) awoke the nation to the
“quiet crisis” of underachieving gifted students in classrooms. The 1980’s resulted
in many gifted program accomplishments, including support at both national and
state levels; unfortunately, the 1990’s and the first decade of the 21
st
century have
brought a marked decline in gifted program support due to the economic crisis across
the country.
Gifted education experiences an ebb and flow of interest and commitment
from national and state policymakers, and currently again faces the problems of the
past: the low priority status that “differential education for the gifted and talented
learners receives…at the federal, the state, and most local levels of government and
21
educational administration” (Brown, et al., 2006; Clark, 1997 referencing Marland,
1972, p. 159); and subsequently, the inability or unwillingness of many classroom
teachers to provide modified curriculum and instruction for the gifted students
sitting in their classrooms (Westberg and Archambault, 1997; Marland, 1972).
In more current research, gifted education expert Robinson (2009) provided
reasons for the lagging status of gifted programs in recent times, stating that, “First,
the availability of specialized services to talented learners appears to have declined
and is in danger of collapsing from a lack of funding and program infrastructure” (p.
259), as well as the NCLB focus on struggling learners.
San Francisco Gate.com newspaper writer Jill Tucker (2010) concurred with
Robinson’s assessment of the declining priority and status of gifted education stating
that:
Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) programs even in the best of
economic times have gotten only a token nod in school budgets, but in recent
years, funding for those programs has eroded further as school districts have
grappled with ever-shrinking budgets” (¶5)
Tucker (2010) reported that a recent decrease in state funds allotted for gifted
education has resulted in only 8 cents for every $100 spent on education to support
the approximate 490,000 gifted students in California classrooms. Moreover, the
new flexibility spending law permits districts to draw on these funds to cover other
areas of budget deficits.
For example, at the time of her writing in May 2010, Tucker stated that “San
Francisco schools ha[d] proposed siphoning off a third of that district’s GATE
22
funding to cover a major budget shortfall over the next two years,” (¶12) and that a
local high school it was considering cutting back on funds for conducting labs in
Advanced Placement science classes in order to “spread the funding out to meet the
needs of a greater number of students.” (¶10).
At the federal level, mixed messages of interest and support for gifted
education exist. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law (2001) includes the Jacob
K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act (NCLB, Title V, Section D,
Subpart 6, 2002) which awards grants to school districts, state agencies and
universities for research and innovative projects related to meeting the educational
needs of gifted and talented students. Emphasis is placed on recognizing that
giftedness exists among all cultures and economic strata, and particularly aims to
search out gifted students from traditionally under-represented populations. “NCLB
has created a positivism for students and has been an advocacy base for gifted
education” (Kaplan, 2009, class lecture).
However, Kaplan has also pointed out the paradox of NCLB in regards to
gifted students. Because NCLB purports to close the achievement gap in student
performance as evidenced by high-stakes assessments, there are severe federal
sanctions that districts face for under-performing students. As a result, attention is
focused on the struggling learner. “If it [NCLB] does in fact show that a student is
proficient or advanced, then why aren’t we paying more attention to them? Caring
for them is not just caring for their presence, but for their welfare” (Kaplan, 2009,
class lecture). Kaplan has asserted that there should be concern also for the far
23
below basic students because they have been marginalized, along with the advanced
students, as districts focus their efforts towards students on the cusp of proficiency
(Kaplan, 2009, class lecture, 2009).
Others, as well, have expressed worry over the national focus on low-
achieving students and its effects on the gifted students. Tom Loveless, a Senior
Fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, has studied achievement trends of high-
achieving students. He stated that, “Some analysts today express the concern that by
focusing attention on the education of students at the bottom of the achievement
distribution, NCLB is surely encouraging schools to neglect high achievers” (2008).
Loveless pointed out how “Incentives shape behavior…Nothing, however, happens
when schools fail to boost the learning of already proficient students to higher
levels” (2008).
A recently released report from the Indiana University Center for Evaluation
and Education Policy (CEEP) corroborates Loveless’ concern about the neglect of
the high achievers. In “Mind the (Other) Gap: The Growing Excellence Gap in K-12
Education,” researchers have found that “achievement gaps among gifted students
from different economic, racial and linguistic backgrounds in the U.S. are large and
growing, and some in the top achieving groups aren’t performing as well as in the
past” (Indiana University News Release, January 28, 2010). The authors of the
report analyzed the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores, as
well as other state assessments, and concluded that while much progress has been
made in shrinking the achievement gap at lower levels of competency, it has come
24
“at a price” (Plucker, Burroughs and Song, 2010, p. 1). One of the co-authors of the
report, Nathan Burroughs, stated:
I think that the evidence is pretty clear that we have a very long way to go
when it comes to ensuring equal opportunities for all high ability students
[and] that such a small percentage of lower income, minority and English
language students are scoring at the advanced level on the NAEP is simply
indefensible (“Equity and Opportunity,” 2010).
Nancy Green, Director of the National Association for Gifted Children called
“Mind the Other Gap” “the wake-up call to all education policymakers that our
nation is failing to serve its highest-potential students, particularly those students
from underserved and disadvantaged backgrounds” (“Equity and Opportunity,”
2010).
In addition, while President Obama emphasized the spirit of scientific
research, ingenuity and innovation in a speech to the National Academies of Science
in April, 2009, his administration subsequently cut the funding for the Jacob K.
Javits Act – the only federal support for the National Research Center for Gifted and
Talented Education at the University of Connecticut, as well as demonstration
projects for gifted and talented education. Though Congress reinstated the Javits
funding, the level of support has been significantly reduced from peak funding level
of $11.25 million in 2002 to the current level of $7.5 million. This funding level
equates to “less than 2 cents out of every $100 of the federal K-12 education budget”
(Bonney, 2010, CEC web blog) that is spent on addressing the academic needs of
gifted students in this country, while $8 billion of federal stimulus monies has been
earmarked to help struggling schools (Tucker, 2010, ¶7).
25
In addition, President Obama’s proposed budget to Congress (February 2010)
called for the consolidation of the Javits Program with two other programs
(Advanced Placement Program and the High School Graduation Initiative) with a cut
of $2 million to each program in the new merger. This new consolidation was to
become known at the “College Pathways and Accelerated Learning Fund” (Fine,
2010, Edweek web blog). Such a move, gifted education advocates feared, would
“eliminate funding for the Javits program. This would result in a loss of research,
supports, and services that help schools provide gifted education” (CEC, March 10,
2010 web blog).
At the State level, support for gifted programming has experienced a drastic
decrease due to the economic crisis that the State has faced over the last two years.
Although California has statutes which guide gifted programming, gifted education
is a non-mandated, permissive program. Up until 2008, the California Department of
Education granted designated categorical funds to districts that completed a plan
which aligned with the California Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted
and Talented Students. However, in an effort to provide school districts with
discretionary funding flexibility, in February 2009, the State enacted SB 4 X3 which
removed limitations from categorical funds, allowing districts to use funds from
programs such as Gifted and Talented Education to supplement their general
budgets. This legislation has allowed districts to continue all, part, or none of the
aspects of gifted programming. In addition, all statutes regarding gifted
programming have been suspended (CA SB 4 X3, February 14, 2009).
26
As a result of the national focus on underperforming students, school districts
are feeling the pressure to utilize their funds to focus on the underachievement of
struggling students. In turn, many teachers’ decision-making abilities regarding the
curriculum and instruction in their classrooms have been reduced because teachers
feel pressure to prepare students for high stakes achievement tests. “High-ability
students are also losing due to the shift NCLB has made from our nation’s
longstanding emphasis on educating the individual to measuring group performance”
(Cooper, 2007, p. 15). These recent downward trends in the support of gifted
education have implications of negatively affecting not only the students, but also the
teachers who look to gifted program standards in curriculum and instruction to help
guide them in their teaching. Unfortunately, “Given the emphasis on high-stakes
testing and scarcity of funding, many states without strong policies in gifted
education have seen the elimination of [gifted] programs (Brown, et al., 2006, p. 12).
Purpose of the study
Though there are federal and state policies and statutes in providing
specialized programs to meet the unique educational needs of gifted students, these
policies and statutes are permissive, leaving states, such as California, to select
whether or not to implement all, some or none of the gifted program components.
The recent California economy has prompted the legislative body to lift the
constraints in the use of funding for Gifted and Talented Education. Such action has
had a trickle-down effect. School districts now have flexibility to redirect these
funds to meet general budget demands and focus on increasing achievement of the
27
struggling learner in order to meet NCLB and state achievement goals. As a result,
gifted programs, which are responsible for assuring that the guidelines for
appropriately differentiating curriculum and instruction, as well as for teacher
professional development, have been reduced and in some cases, completely
eliminated. Within this context there exists the concern for the classroom teacher
whose responsibility it is to create differentiated learning experiences for his or her
gifted students.
We are examining the data from this study for the following reasons:
• To shed light on the value of gifted programming in addressing the needs
of gifted students in the State of California.
• To determine the relationship between teachers’ perceived value or status
of gifted programs and their curricular and instructional choices to
differentiate curriculum and instruction for gifted students in their
classrooms.
• To determine what other factors, such as professional development, can
be related to curricular and instructional decision making.
Research Question
The purpose of my study is to answer the question:
• What is the relationship between teachers’ perceived priority or status of
gifted programs and their pedagogical choices to differentiate curriculum
and instruction for gifted students in their classrooms?
28
Significance of the Study
The State of California has suspended the educational laws pertaining to
gifted and talented education due to the poor economic status of the State. The
effects from this action could endanger the support that gifted students and their
teachers receive from gifted programs at the district and school levels. Just as
students need teachers who offer appropriately differentiated instruction to meet their
individual needs, teachers need to perceive that there is support from the school’s
administration and district office. In turn, the school and district receive direction
from the State and Federal levels. Programs for the gifted cannot work in isolation
without the support at various levels, whether it is the State, district or site.
This study addresses the influence of “programming” – that is, structured
services – on gifted teachers’ curricular and instructional choices. It is anticipated
that the outcomes of this work will be used as an advocacy base for districts to raise
decision-makers’ awareness about the value of gifted programming in assuring that
gifted students receive differentiated curriculum and instruction.
There is also evidence that in doing so, districts will be able to support not
just gifted students, but all of the other students in the classroom, as well. One of the
concomitant values of gifted programming is the “spill-over effect” – how
differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted students positively contributes to
the learning and achievement of all children in the classroom (Reis, 2008; Kaplan,
2004).
29
Research Methods
This study used a mixed method approach, utilizing both quantitative and
qualitative methods. There were two instruments used in the collection of data: a
closed-ended survey that provided the quantitative data and a semi-structured
interview that provided the secondary qualitative data.
The researcher drew the primary quantitative data from a closed-ended
survey that was developed by Dr. Sandra Kaplan, Professor of Clinical Education in
the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California and
Carolyn Callahan, Professor of Education at the University of Virginia. California
Association for the Gifted (CAG) funded and supported the survey. CAG distributed
a notice of invitation to participate in the online survey to its members which number
in the thousands, thus providing a large pool of respondents from which to draw a
purposeful random sample.
The survey contained questions that ranged from knowledge about gifted
programs to choices of instructional practices and the rationale for such choices.
Sample questions from the online survey (see Appendix: Survey) included:
• How would you rate your expertise as a professional educator of gifted
students? (using a Likert rating system)
• On the average, how many hours do you spend each week planning
differentiated curricula for gifted children?
30
• Before receiving this survey, did you know that recent legislation released
all categorical funding, including GATE program funding, and allows it
to be used as flexible funding?
• To what extent is the GATE Program in your school supported by (using
a Likert rating system)…
1.) Your principal
2.) Your superintendent
3.) Parents of gifted students
4.) Parents of students not identified as gifted?
5.) Faculty not assigned to teach gifted students?
6.) Faculty assigned to teach gifted schools?
• Which teaching method do you prefer? Creating your own differentiated
lessons or following the lessons in the teacher’s guide? (Followed by a
list of rationales from which to choose.)
At the end of the survey, respondents read a short message that invited them
to participate in a follow up interview and an email address was provided for them to
send their contact information, should they have chosen to participate in the follow-
up interview. Purposeful random sampling was used in selecting the interviewees,
using demographic data, assuring that there would be representation of urban,
suburban and rural school districts throughout California.
Respondents to the follow-up interview option were contacted for an in-depth
semi-structured telephone interview which provided the qualitative data that would
31
augment the data gathered from the primary survey. Sample questions from the
interview instrument included questions about the GATE program at the school and
district level, differentiated classroom practices at the school level and decision-
making factors in planning differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted
students (See Appendix B: Interview Protocol.)
The qualitative data from the survey was analyzed using frequencies and
percents. The qualitative data from the follow-up interviews with K-12 public
school teachers were coded and analyzed for patterns and trends relating to the
perceived value of gifted programs at the school and/or district levels and gifted
teachers’ instructional choices. All quantitative and qualitative data was then
analyzed for patterns and big ideas that would help in determining the relationship
between gifted program status and teachers’ curricular and instructional decision-
making for their gifted students.
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of this study include the following:
• Gifted education is a permissive program in California. It is a school
district’s right whether or not to formulate and conduct a gifted program
for its students.
• The interpretation of the California Recommended Standards for
Programs for Gifted and Talented Students is not uniform. This is due to
the fact that the California Department of Education “readers” of
districts’ applications for funding a gifted program do not possess
32
consistent levels of expertise, resulting in inconsistencies in the
implementation of the standards.
• Teachers have had different experiences within their teaching careers.
This results in an uneven interpretation of the California Recommended
Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented Students which can
affect implementation of the standards that particularly pertain to
differentiating curriculum and instruction.
• Districts that maintain a gifted program without a coordinator who has
district support experience uneven implementation of the program’s
elements across the district, and State.
• In culling the data from the online survey and the follow-up telephone
interviews, respondents may change how they answer a question in an
interview from how they answered with anonymity on the survey.
Delimitations include:
• In contemporary education, the concept of “differentiation” and the
ability to differentiate instruction is considered an indication of a skilled
and caring teacher. As a result, teachers have become very sensitive to
the word “differentiation” and they are trying in their own way to give it
meaning. This results in various interpretations of the concept.
• In contemporary education, there is an eagerness on the part of the
teachers to recognize the needs of all students. This eagerness may affect
respondents’ answers to the survey and follow-up interviews.
33
Definition of Terms
The follow terms are related to gifted education and are defined within that
context.
Categorical Program refers to a special program, such as Gifted and
Talented Education, that is intended to address a particular purpose and funded with
either State or Federal monies which are to be spent conducting that program as
defined by the State or Federal statutes governing the program (Clark et al., 1996).
Differentiation refers to the modification of curriculum (what students learn)
and of instruction (how the teacher delivers the content in the classroom). These
modifications are designed to meet the unique academic needs of different learners,
such as the high-ability student (Clark et al., 1996).
Equity refers to equal access to good teaching, learning environment,
programs and opportunities in order for all students to have the opportunity to
develop to their fullest potential. Equity equally applies to gifted students as well as
other learners with special academic needs and unique learning abilities.
Gifted Learners refers to the “Students, children or youth who give evidence
of high achievement capabilities 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” (No Child Left Behind, 2002)
Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) in the State of California is defined
by Education Code 52200-52212 which in part states that a "Gifted and talented
34
pupil, as used in this chapter, means a pupil enrolled in a public elementary or
secondary school of this state who is identified as possessing demonstrated or
potential abilities that give evidence of high performance capability as defined
pursuant to Section 52202.”
Mandated Program/Permissive Program refers to the status of a program as
designated by the State. A mandated program is a “legally required program or
action by law” (Clark et al., 1996). A permissive program is implemented by choice,
but governed by the California Education Code. In the State of California, Gifted
and Talented Education is a permissive program.
Program refers to the structured delivery of a defined set of experiences and
services that meet the educational needs of gifted students. The goal of a “gifted”
program is to “provide opportunities for gifted learners to meet the needs that cannot
be met in a regular classroom program…” (Clark, 1992, p. 168).
Underrepresented refers to the insufficiently or inadequately represented;
representation in numbers that are disproportionately low, relative to the numbers in
the general population.
35
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
“The justification of educational actions, or plans of actions, depends not only on our
values but also on our understanding of the pertinent ‘facts,’ the relevant contexts,
the particular features of the setting at hand, and the conflicting demands felt at a
particular juncture”
-- Liston & Zeichner
(Teacher Education and the Social Conditions of Schooling, 1991, p. 60)
The focus of this study, then, was to determine the relationship between the
teachers’ perceived value or status of gifted programs and their decision to
differentiate curriculum and instruction for the gifted students in their classrooms.
This section presents a review of the literature regarding key elements of this study
that includes differentiation of curriculum and instruction for gifted learners, gifted
programs, and factors that impact teachers’ practices such as attitudes and beliefs,
professional experience and context.
What is “Differentiation”?
Germane to this study is the consideration of teachers’ decision-making
responsibility regarding modification of the curricular and instructional practices that
they utilize which address the academic needs of the gifted students in their
classrooms. Contemporary curriculum theorist Carol Ann Tomlinson has stated that,
“The term differentiation and related forms of the word have been used in varied
ways in the field of gifted education, including denoting modifications of curriculum
and instruction appropriate to the needs of gifted learners” (p. 167). While the term
36
“differentiation” has become a staple in educational jargon, it is interesting to note,
as Tomlinson (2004) avers, that differentiation is “an issue born in the field of gifted
education, and one that continues to experience rebirth” (p.xxiii).
Differentiation of Curriculum and Instruction for the Gifted
In his seminal work, An Axiomatic Approach to Teaching the Gifted, theorist
Virgil Ward (1961) professed that a “differential” program was needed for gifted
students in order to meet their unique academic needs. He felt that there was
“credence” in an earlier observation by Dewey who noted that the educational
system sometimes loses sight of its own purpose of developing individual potential:
It is easy to fall into the habit of regarding the mechanics of school
organization and administration as something comparatively external and
indifferent to educational purposes and ideals…The school environment and
machinery almost compel the more mechanical features of school work to
lord it over more vital aims (Ward quoting Dewey, 1961, p. 77).
Ward’s (1961) principal arguments for designing appropriate curriculum and
instruction for highly able students in public schools was based on the belief that not
only can the students “manage” such a different curriculum, but also because they
“need” it (p. 80). Otherwise, “To occupy the gifted at levels of experience and in
view of lower expectations is to fail both the individual and society” (p. 81).
Ward’s theory of “differential curriculum” for highly able students was
followed by early contributions to the concept of a “qualitatively different
curriculum” made by several scholars in the field of gifted education. Patterns have
emerged over time to support the importance of curriculum and instruction that
requires complex content and higher levels of thinking as a means to facilitate gifted
37
student learning (Kaplan, 1974; Renzulli, 1977; Passow, 1982; Maker, 1982;
VanTassel Baska, 1985 and Tomlinson, 1995).
In her book, Curriculum Development for the Gifted, Maker (1982) stated
that the seminal and contemporary gifted education experts unquestionably believe
in the need to provide opportunities for highly-able students to meet their potential,
but that opinions run wide on what such curriculum for the gifted should look like,
and additional “difficulty [lay] in disagreement over the purposes(s) of such special
programs or in the differing values of today’s multicultural society” (p. 3).
According to Maker (1982, p. 4), the United States Office of Education
provided an early definition of differentiation in an effort to provide direction for the
development of curriculum and instruction:
Differentiated education or services” means that the process of instruction
which is capable of being integrated into the school program and is adaptable
to varying levels of individual learning response in the education of the gifted
and talented and includes but is not limited to:
1. A differentiated curriculum embodying a high level of cognitive and
affective concepts and processes beyond those normally provided in
the regular curriculum of the local educational agency
2. Instructional strategies which accommodate the unique learning styles
of the gifted and talented
3. Flexible administrative arrangements for instruction both in and out of
school, such as special classes, seminars, resource rooms, independent
study, student internships, mentorships, research field trips, library
media research centers and other appropriate arrangements (USOE,
1976, pp 18665-18666).
However, before the federal government defined the qualities of
differentiated curriculum for gifted students, Kaplan offered extended guidelines for
38
differentiated learning experiences within the regular classroom. Maker (1982)
stated that, “According to Kaplan (1974), differentiation of curricular activities for
the gifted and talented relies on the elaboration of (1) procedures for presenting
learning opportunities, (2) nature of the input, and (3) expectancies for learning
outcomes” (p. 5). Figure 4 outlines each of these three principles of Kaplan’s
guidelines for differentiating curriculum and instruction for gifted students.
Figure 4: Kaplan’s Guidelines for Differentiated Learning Experiences for the
Gifted
Procedures for
presenting learning
opportunities
Exposure to experiences, materials and information
beyond the core curriculum; novelty; no age/grade
binding expectancies. Extension through the chance to
elaborate on the regular curriculum; further self-initiated
study. Development of concepts or skills from the
regular curriculum with thorough and novel explanations
Nature of the Input Advanced; more complex; extending the regular
curriculum; driven by student interests; focus on the
abstract concepts in content area; multiple and varied
resources
Expectancies More time spent on learning; creative thinking and
products; deep thinking and investigation of a topic;
transference of knowledge to other areas; showing
personal growth and sophistication; developing
generalizations and higher order thinking; initiating
personal studies (Maker, 1982, p. 6 citing Kaplan, 1974,
p. 123)
39
Gallagher (1975) also offered a description of curriculum modification for
gifted students which included content that focused on more abstract and complex
concepts; instructional delivery that promoted long-term learning, and; learning
environments that are responsive to unique learning needs of gifted students (Maker,
1982, p. 6).
In 1997, Renzulli, took a different perspective about qualitatively different
curriculum with his Type III Enrichment Triad approach. In this approach,
“enrichment” extends beyond the classroom and takes into account the gifted
students’ interests and learning styles. Students pursue topics of interest and apply
problem solving skills to “real situations rather than classroom structured exercises”
(p. 5).
From these early gifted curriculum theorists, Maker (1982, p. 6) culled
together foundational tenets about what differentiated curriculum for the gifted
should include:
• addressing the unique learning characteristics of gifted children
• providing the teaching of content at conceptual and complex levels
• developing and nurturing higher level thinking skills
• utilizing administrative settings such as flexible grouping that benefits all
students in their efforts to learn.
However, in the landscape of all the various early opinions, “One thing [experts did]
agree on… is what it is not: more work” (Maker, 1982, p. 3).
40
While Maker (1982) outlined some of the early thinking about the essential
components that differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted students must
have, other gifted scholars opined about what it was lacking. Harry Passow (1986)
felt that what was missing in many differentiated programs were clear goals and
objectives. Passow argued that levels of talent and interest is not as important as
knowing what it is educators want students to achieve because of the curriculum.
Otherwise, “We may implement programs and provide various learning
opportunities but we can never know whether we have achieved our ends of helping
the gifted to realize their potential…” (p. 186). He posited seven common goals that
gifted students need to achieve which emphasized the development of self-
understanding, good citizenship, and problem-solving skills.
In contemporary times, Carol Ann Tomlinson (2001) promotes differentiated
curriculum that focuses on content, process, and product, while giving serious
consideration to students’ interests, readiness levels and learning profiles.
Tomlinson maintains a “shared focus” of differentiation that includes the individual
needs of the general population of students. “Somewhat more recently, the term
“differentiation” has been applied to a broader range of students and, in that context,
has to do with ways in which teachers can respond effectively to the varied needs of
students in academically diverse settings – including, but not limited to, students
with high-ability and/or advanced learning status (e.g., Tomlinson, 1999, 2001)
(Tomlinson, 2008, p. 167).
41
However, the wide-ranging perspectives on how to design appropriate
differentiated experiences resulted in separate rather than a unified direction for
those curriculum directors, principals and classroom teachers who are responsible for
designing such experiences for their gifted students. Kaplan (1986) wrote that, “A
review of the literature related to differentiated curricula for the gifted reveals that
differentiation for the gifted is not well-defined, and that it is ambiguous and value
laden” (in Maker, 1986, p. 121). Maker referenced Clasen’s (1982) analogy of this
problem by stating that “the term “differentiated curricula” has become a shibboleth
for educational provisions for the gifted because of the lack of clarity and specificity
necessary to define the meaning of the term” (in Maker, 1986, p. 121). According to
Kaplan (1986), those whose early endeavors in designing differentiated curriculum
for gifted students observed that the consequences of this lack of clarity resulted in a
wide variety of unintended practices.
In acknowledging that there is no “single definition of differentiation” of
curriculum, Kaplan (1986) proposed a “multi-stage definition inclusive of many
perspectives that would suffice to give substance and clarity to the concept of
differentiation” (p.124), while allowing for many models that offer various ways for
the development of academic potential.
42
Figure 5: Kaplan’s (1986) “Stage Definition of Differentiation”
Stage Definition
Stage I –
Reflective
Contextual (educational, economic, political or social) and
environmental considerations are integral to the design,
implementation and evaluation of the curriculum (p. 125).
Stage II –
Generic
“The generic stage refines the statements derived from the
contextual references in terms of broad ends and multiple means
specific to the gifted, but inclusive of aspects of the regular or
basic [core] curriculum for all students” that are “benchmarked”
against principles developed by the National/State Leadership
Training Institute on the Gifted and Talented (p. 126).
Stage III –
Selective
The selective stage is the further refinement of broad ends and
means into specific teaching options and learning experiences that
addresses the academic needs of a particular population, taking
into account their personal interests, needs and abilities.
Kaplan (1986) summarized that a “defensible” differentiated curricular
program is one that has:
1. A direct response to the nature of the real characteristics of the gifted and
an attempt to develop, as well as to recognize, these traits.
2. A relationship and balance between attending to the collective needs of
all children and the specialized needs of the gifted.
3. Substantive and valued learnings that are planned and articulated by
design rather than happenstance.
4. Acknowledgement of prerequisite learnings and readings for learning.
5. A correlation to a philosophical and theoretical framework (p. 133).
43
Kaplan’s multi-stage definition continues to be a viable guide for designing a
defensible differentiated curriculum rather than defining one set curriculum for the
gifted. However, almost 25 years later, there continues to be the “myth” that there
should be a single curriculum for the gifted. “The reasons that underscore the
existence of a single curriculum for the gifted are neither necessarily true for all
educators of the gifted nor are they validated in relationship to theories related to
curriculum development or design,” Kaplan has argued (2009, p. 257). According
to Kaplan, the current educational focus on prescriptive curriculum, pacing charts
and standardized testing, equity and access, and reduced fiscal resources has
prompted interest in a single gifted curriculum. Kaplan reminds educators of the
original intent of differentiated curriculum and that what educators need to continue
to debate about is, “In what ways does the differentiated curriculum designed or
chosen for our gifted students respond to their needs, interests, and abilities” (2009,
p. 258).
Differentiation – Related Studies
The field of gifted education is replete with studies that examine the topic of
differentiation. Much of the contemporary research examines the varied ways and
degrees in which teachers make modifications to grade level curriculum and their
instructional delivery for their gifted students. Many studies also examine the factors
that influence teachers to make such modifications, and the effects on student
achievement.
44
For example, in a National Research Center for the Gifted and Talented study
Reis and Westberg (1994) examined the effects of professional development on
teachers’ ability to modify curriculum for gifted students. Reis and Westberg (1994)
underscored the problem of gifted students attending regular classes everyday where
the work is unchallenging and easy (p. 127). The researchers cited previous studies’
findings which revealed that gifted students have already mastered much of the
content and skills taught in core subjects, as demonstrated on pre-tests administered
at the start of the school year. Much of the problem, they found, stems from the lack
of challenge within the textbooks that are used in the classroom. To support their
position, Reis and Westberg (1994) cited the following findings:
• In a study conducted by the Educational Product Information Exchange
Institute (1980-81) it was found that “60% of the fourth graders in the
school districts studied were able to achieve a score of 80% or higher on a
test of the content of the math texts before they had opened their books in
September. Similar findings were reported on content tests with 4
th
-and
10th-grade science texts and with 10th-grade social studies texts” (p.
128).
• In a study conducted by Kirst (1982), it was found that the level of
difficulty in textbooks in California had dropped two grade levels and that
publishers had no alternative text to offer for high ability students in the
adoption process of new texts (p. 128).
45
• In a 1988 Taylor and Frye study, it was found that average and above
average fifth and sixth grade readers scored 92% or higher on basal
comprehension pre-tests before using the reader (p. 128).
• In addressing a conference of school administrators in 1984, then
Secretary of Education, Terell Bell cited A Nation at Risk in stating that
“much concern with readability has resulted in a “dumbing down” of
textbooks” (p. 128).
Reis and Westberg surmised that because of the large amount of content
review that is presented in classroom textbooks, gifted students are often left bored
while sitting through lessons covering content and skills that they already know and
have mastered (p. 128). The implication of Reis and Westberg’s research is that
teachers need the requisite knowledge and skills that will enable them to
appropriately modify grad- level curriculum in order to challenge their gifted
students.
While no study could be found that specifically examines the relationship
between the perceived priority of gifted programming by classroom teachers and
their decisions to modify curriculum and instruction, Westberg and Archambault
(1997) conducted the Successful Practices Study “to learn more about the specific
ways in which teachers make accommodations for students and the factors that
influence them” (p. 43). Specifically, the researchers looked at environment and
gifted programming as effecting factors. The study was a follow-up to three
previous studies conducted by National Research Center for Gifted and Talented
46
(NRC/GT). The previous studies, the Classroom Practices Survey (Archambault, et
al., 1993); the Classroom Practices Observation Study (Westberg, Archambault,
Dobyns, and Salvin, 1993); and the Curriculum Compacting Study (Reis, et al.,
1993) all examined the degree to which regular classroom teachers modified their
curriculum and instruction for gifted students. The Curriculum Compacting Study
also studied the effects of modifications on student achievement scores (Westberg
and Archambault, 1997). However, they did not examine the relationship between
curricular and instructional modifications and program value.
The findings of Westberg and Archambault were that, “typical teachers tailor
instruction to students’ similarities; but truly effective teachers tailor instruction to
students’ differences as well as their similarities” (1997, p. 51). Themes that emerged
as influencing factors on teachers’ decision-making to “tailor” instructional practice
for their gifted students were advanced training; willingness to take risks in their
classroom practice; teacher collaboration; awareness of and response to students’
individual academic needs; district and school leadership that clearly supported
gifted programming; and a supportive environment that allows for autonomy (p. 51).
Self-reported limitations to the Successful Practices Study included:
• Limited time and scope of observations. Although in-depth, only 10
elementary sites were visited
• Possible “observer effects” affected the teachers and students’ actions
• Possible “observer bias” commonly related to qualitative research (p. 51)
47
Understanding the development of the principles and elements of
“differentiated” curriculum and instruction is significant to this study. The seminal
and contemporary field literature has provided background knowledge for the study
by defining “differentiated” curriculum and instruction, as well as providing the
rationale for its use by teachers of the gifted.
Gifted “Program” – Definition
In Growing Up Gifted, Barbara Clark (1992) stated that, “Organizing a
program that will deliver educational services to gifted learners is one of the most
complex, most researched, and least clarified area of gifted education” (p. 159).
However, the concept of gifted programming and the perceived status by the
educational stakeholders holds significant relevance to this study.
In his 1973 landmark report to Congress, Marland stated that those few
students who had participated in a gifted program showed personal and academic
growth because of it. He also noted that the lack of programming resulted in the
little and improper identification of gifted individuals. According to Marland (1973),
there was a need for gifted programming at the federal, state and local levels.
Gifted “program” is not clearly defined in the literature (Fox, 1979);
however, many seminal experts have provided some thoughts about what elements
define a gifted program. For example, Gallagher (1975) referenced a 1968 survey
conducted by Renzulli in which he asked 21 gifted education experts to name the
most essential gifted program elements. The respondents felt that the three most
crucial elements were teacher selection and training, the curriculum and how it can
48
be differentiated for the gifted learner, and student identification processes (p. 76-
77).
Gallagher (2002) posited that there are “rules and standards [that] can also be
established that affect the nature and delivery of the program for gifted students” (p.
13). He proposed four ways to modify the general education program in order to
meet the needs of gifted learners:
1. Where the educational services are delivered (such as Advanced
Placement and other accelerated classes.
2. What the curriculum content contains (such as differentiating the core
State standards to meet the academic needs of gifted learners).
3. Advanced skills that gifted students learn (such as creativity and problem-
solving).
4. The nature of support services to the teacher of gifted students (such as
gifted curriculum specialists who can help teachers appropriately
differentiate the curriculum for their gifted students (p. 13).
The State of California, however, clarifies in its Education Code (52210) that
“Program means an appropriately differentiated curriculum provided by a district for
gifted and talented pupils which meets the standards established pursuant to this
chapter and also includes the identification of these pupils.” This is a narrow
definition of “program,” as there are many additional components to consider when
organizing a gifted program, according gifted education expert Clark (1982).
49
The California Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted and
Talented Students provides comprehensive guidelines by which a school district can
conduct a gifted and talented education program. There are eight components to a
program: program design; identification; curriculum and instruction; social and
emotional development; professional development; parent and community
involvement; program assessment; and budgets. Each of these components are
addressed in districts’ Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) plans that they submit
to the California Department of Education for funding.
While there are several program components that districts have to address,
gifted experts have asserted over time that the primary goal of a gifted program
should be to provide gifted learners with differentiated learning experiences that
meet their unique academic needs and that challenge their abilities (Passow, 1955;
Fox, 1979; Clark, 1982).
However, there have been gradual cutbacks to specialized gifted services
over the past two decades and many gifted students are now served within the
regular classroom and dependent upon general education teachers to provide
differentiated curricula and instruction for the cluster of gifted students in their
classrooms (Purcell & Lippien, 1998; NAGC, 2009). Robinson (2009) cited several
studies (Bernal, 2003; VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005; Westberg,
Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993; Westberg & Daoust, 2004) that exposed the
“difficulties of relying solely on regular classroom models” (p. 259) primarily
50
finding the lack of differentiated curriculum and instruction that challenges the gifted
learner.
Implication for clearly defined expectations articulated between the district
and/or school and the classroom teacher regarding the teaching of the gifted children
in his/her classroom exists in the literature. The gifted “program” is the support for
the teacher in achieving this goal.
In a review of the field literature on gifted education programs, Sally Reiss
(2008), Distinguished Professor and Teaching Fellow in Educational Psychology at
the University of Connecticut, and a principal researcher for the National Research
Center on the Gifted and Talented, concluded from her analysis of 36 studies that
there is “both the need and the benefits of gifted education programs” (p.1). Reiss
(2008) stated that
Gifted program effectiveness has been documented in schools with widely
differing socioeconomic levels and program organization patterns and the
effectiveness of these programs has been documented longitudinally with
both case study as well as larger data base studies. Of special interest are the
documented benefits that occur for all children when gifted education
strategies and programs are extended to other students, as well (p. 1).
The salient findings from Reiss’ (2008, p. 2) review of 36 studies on gifted education
programs and pedagogy that pertain to this dissertational study are that:
1. Gifted programs are needed to provide challenges to gifted and high
ability students in regular classrooms.
51
2. Gifted education programs and differentiated curriculum are effective in
increasing students’ achievement and developing interests, creativity,
productivity and career goals.
3. Gifted education programs and differentiated curriculum can benefit all
students, including those from ethnically, socio-economically and special
needs backgrounds.
4. Gifted education programs can help prevent gifted student
underachievement and drop-out by providing differentiated curriculum
and instruction that addresses students’ areas of interest.
5. Teachers need training and professional development opportunities, as
well as time and support, to learn how to address the unique academic
needs of gifted students in regular classrooms. The consequences from a
lack of teacher training in how to differentiate curriculum and instruction
for their gifted students include little challenge and lower student
achievement.
Status of Gifted Programs
The State of the Nation in Gifted Education, a 2008-2009 report published by
NAGC, provided the most current status of gifted education within the United States
and echoed the findings from previous landmark reports by Marland (1972) and Ross
(1992) as seen in Figure 6.
52
Figure 6: Timeline Depicting the Status of Gifted Education Support at the
Federal Level
Document Year Federal Funding Status Indicator
Education of the
Gifted and
Talented: Report to
the Congress of the
United States
(Marland)
1972 “Since priorities do not
focus on this
population, present
USOE activities do not
include gifted and
talented children and
youth as a targeted
population” (Ch. 7)
“Differentiated
education for the gifted
and talented [was]
perceived as a very low
priority at Federal, State,
and most local levels of
government and
educational
administration” (Ch. 8).
National
Excellence: A Case
for Developing
America’s Talent
(Ross)
1993 Javits Act (enacted in
1988, provided federal
funding for gifted
demonstration
programs and national
research center);
Funding level in 1992-
93 was $10 million.
Most gifted and talented
programs today are
modest in scope. The
vast majority of talented
students spend most of
the school day in a
regular classroom where
little is done to adapt the
curriculum to their
special learning needs
(Part III).
State of the Nation
in Gifted Education
(NAGC)
2008-
2009
2010
2011
Javits Act provides 7.2
million.
Javits Act provides 7.2
million.
As of Sept. 2010,
Congress is planning on
eliminating the Javits
funding (NAGC
website).
“…there is a markedly
insufficient national
commitment to gifted
and talented children
…The federal
governments support for
gifted children now
stands at only 2 cents of
every $100 dollars it
invests in K-12
education” (Exec.
Summary, p. 2.)
53
While Figure 6 depicts the status of fiscal support for gifted education over
time at the federal level, it is important to clarify that the Jacob J. Javits grant is the
only source of federal support targeted for supporting gifted education. Javits grant
monies are used primarily for sustaining the National Research Center for Gifted
Children and for awarding competitive grants to demonstration projects spread
throughout the United States.
There is no federal mandate regarding gifted and talented education. States
are left to their own discretion to mandate and/or fund gifted and talented education.
Thus, “In the absence of federal funding for gifted education services, the success
and long-term stability of gifted programs and services are tied to the degree to
which states dedicate a reliable funding stream to districts to meet student needs”
(State of Nation, 2009, p. 12).
The field literature validates that there is a lack of varying levels of support
from policymakers, state and federal governments and classroom teachers for gifted
programs (Purcell,1994; Clark,1997; Brown et al, 2006; & Robinson, 2009). Clark
(1997) cited that in public opinion polls a large majority of the public would support
the idea of special funding for gifted programming; ironically, she also pointed out
the absence of support comes from school boards and classroom teachers. Clark
substantiated this fact with research conducted by Dettmer in 1985 wherein it was
“discovered [that] attitudes of educators toward gifted students affect, not only the
students and their performance, but also the acceptance and effectiveness of the
gifted program and the morale of the school as a whole” (1997, p. 83).
54
In their research that analyzed gifted education policies across states, Brown,
E., Avery, VanTassel-Baska, Worley, & Stanbaugh (2006) asserted that gifted
education policy “affects the daily lives of gifted students and those who work on
their behalf” (p. 11), but that “since the 1993 National Excellence report, many
programs for the gifted in states without mandates have been eliminated [and] even
mandated programs have seen a decline” (p. 11). The No Child Left Behind Act is a
contributing factor to the downward spiral that gifted programs are taking because
overt support for gifted education is not apparent. “States compromise services for
the gifted in order to focus on the specific mandates addressed in the legislation”
(Brown, et al., 2006, p. 12).
Scot, Callahan and Urquhart (2009) also found that the demands of
“accountability systems, performance on high stakes standardized assessments, and
meeting annual yearly progress requirements” (p.44) can have effects on professional
development efforts to teach teachers effective instruction of gifted students. Scot,
Callahan and Urquhart cited Scot (2005) in emphasizing how the current political
context can be a significant influence on teaching practice stating that, “Program
implementation is influenced by the complexities of the political, organizational and
social, and economic contexts in which it unfolds” (p. 43). The researchers
maintained that the current political mandates of NCLB promotes uniformity of
instruction that result in “paint-by number teachers” and “cookie-cutter” students,
regardless of the diverse learning needs of students in a classroom, including the
gifted ones (p. 51).
55
Van Tassel-Baska (2006) argued that the field of gifted education suffers
from a “problem of credibility [because] we have failed to convince policy makers at
all levels of the serious need to view gifted education as an important concern for our
society” (p. 199). Indicators for this lack of credibility that Van Tassel-Baska cited
were the absence of teacher preparation at the university level that focuses on gifted
education (less than 3%); lack of full-time state level gifted education coordinators;
and the continued problem of overcoming a label of elitism, especially in the era of
NCLB. Moreover, Van Tassel-Baska stated that federal funding of gifted education
is less than 1% of the federal education budget while more than 160 times more total
dollars (state, local, and federal) is going to support other exceptionalities”(p. 199).
As a result, Van Tassel-Baska asserted that the status of gifted education programs
are at a “standstill” (p. 199.)
In her study, VanTassel-Baska (2006) conducted a mixed methods evaluative
analysis of 20 gifted programs and identified several recurring problems. Findings
from VanTassel-Baska’s research that have implications to this study are:
1. The lack of differentiated curriculum and instruction, particularly in the
general education classroom, “suggesting that gifted practices have not
impacted general teaching practices to the extent necessary for gifted
students to profit from them” (p. 202).
2. The inadequate levels of professional development in both content and
quality for both the regular and gifted classroom teachers.
56
3. The wide and varied interpretations of gifted program services and
design, indicating a “lack of definition in the program structure” (p. 206).
4. The lack of funding for the coordination, professional development and
materials that prevents gifted program development.
Despite the troubles that the study exposed, it was also found that those
teachers within the gifted programs who were reviewed were considered as the
programs’ “lifelines” (p. 206). They were highly dedicated to the program and
unwavering in their focus to meet the needs of their gifted students. VanTassel-
Baska concluded her analysis by stating that,
The problem is the neglect of gifted program infrastructure and direct service
delivery to gifted students in favor of diffusion strategies to all teachers and
all learners. While leaders in gifted education clearly support a multiple-
level emphasis in gifted programming, under-resourced districts are being
forced to make untenable choices, usually opting for service to general
education demands rather than gifted needs due to strong political pressure”
(p. 207).
Lack of support for gifted programs at the federal, state and district levels
translates into a lack of perceived value that a district places on its gifted program,
teachers and students. Tomlinson (2009) asserted that when programs such as gifted
programs become at-risk, there is a tendency to implement a “patch-on” approach to
continuing the program at some level. “An evident result is that too few classroom
teachers are prepared to provide high-end challenge on a systematic basis” (p. 254).
What is missing in the field research on gifted programming is the
examination of the relationship between program status and how teachers’
perception of that status affects their curricular and instructional decisions. In this
57
time of budget cuts and program downsizing and elimination, how does this affect
teachers’ curricular and instructional choices?
Teacher Perceptions
McCoach and Siegle (2007) conducted a study of teachers’ attitudes towards
the gifted. Within their review of the literature they found that, “Although many
studies have explored the attitudes of teachers toward gifted students and gifted
education, we still do not have a clear and definitive picture of teachers’ attitudes
toward gifted students and gifted education” (p. 247). They contended that “most
[previous] studies failed to use either a random or representative sample of teachers
and cautioned that the findings from these previous studies did not have
generalizable application to the general population of teachers” (p. 247). In addition
to poor sampling practices, they cited other methodological problems such as
inconsistent and inappropriate measures, lack of reliability and validity for
“homegrown instruments and the use of crude or inappropriate analyses” (p. 247).
However, they did find that among a few statistically significant predictors related to
attitudes towards the gifted was “the presence of a gifted program in the participant’s
school” (p. 247).
McCoach and Siegle also found in their review of literature that “context”
can affect how a respondent answers “attitude” questions.
Recently, this has led some researchers to speculate that people’s attitudes
may represent temporary states, rather than stable traits…If this theory is
correct, then contextual effects surrounding the administration of an attitude
survey should influence participants’ self-reported attitudes” (p. 248).
58
However, stronger attitudes that “possess internal consistency, certainty, and
intensity” are stable and may be “more resistant to contextual effects than weak
attitudes” (p.248).
McCoach and Siegle stated that there were several limitations to their study.
First, a low response rate (17.5%) could have indicated that teachers with an invested
interest (such as training or experience) in gifted education were the main
respondents, possibly having an effect on the study’s results. Second, “the training
variable was broadly defined, and the quality of gifted education training is
impossible to assess” (p. 254). Thus, the wide range of training experiences could
have affected teachers’ attitudes towards gifted education in as many ways. Finally,
“the instrumentation used in this study captured only a limited number of factors
related to attitudes towards the gifted” (p. 254). Therefore, using other instruments
could yield different results.
Although the McCoach and Siegle study does not directly align with this
study’s purpose, there are several lessons that are learned about conducting a study
that examines teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about gifted education.
In other research related to looking at teachers’ beliefs, Rueda and Garcia
(1996), conducted a comparative study in which they “examined the relationship
between the beliefs and practices of special education, credentialed bilingual, and
bilingual waivered teachers of Latino language-minority students” (p. 311) with
regard to literacy assessment and instruction. Rueda and Garcia grounded their
research in a constructivist approach, proffering that “teachers are seen as knowing,
59
meaning-making beings whose knowledge and meaning influence their actions” (p.
312).
Rueda and Garcia (1996) pointed out that conducting research on teachers’
belief systems is difficult because beliefs “are not directly observable and must be
inferred…[however,] In spite of these difficulties, many researchers are examining
belief systems as a way of understanding teaching” (p. 312).
Although Rueda and Garcia’s (1996) research was not in the field of gifted
education, the premise of their study addresses similar concerns of this study about
teacher’s perceptions and the influence of these perceptions upon their instructional
choices. The 1984 work of Tabachnick and Zeichner also provided theoretical
support for the Rueda and Garcia study. The researchers found that “classroom
practices were mediated by features of the local context, such as the press for
students to learn English and demands on teachers’ time” (p. 311).
Westberg and Archambault (1997) underscored the influence of environment
upon teachers’ perceptions and beliefs when enacting differentiated curriculum and
instruction, particularly in relation to the environment in which they work. Among
the several themes from their multi-case study, two themes included the overt
support of the district superintendent and school principal. “Teachers are successful
if they have strong administrative leaders who provide them with autonomy and
support, which results in a belief system and school culture that supports the
development of students’ talent” (p. 10). In addition, the researchers found that
within a supportive environment of leaders, staff and parents did the teachers of the
60
gifted students find the autonomy and self-confidence needed to enact newly learned
differentiation strategies.
The influence of contextual factors on teachers’ curricular and instructional
practices was the focus of a study conducted by Scott, Callahan and Urquhart (2009).
The researchers wanted to know if teachers who went through extensive professional
development focused on meeting the needs of gifted learners could put into practice
the strategies that they learned, especially in the current political context of
accountability and high-stakes testing and standards-based teaching. The researchers
found that “Indicators of conformity and uniformity that emerged from the study
were mandated use of curriculum pacing guides and imposition of rigid timelines”
(p. 46), ultimately leaving the teachers feeling “disempowered” and “constrained”
about pedagogical choice (p. 50). The teachers in their study perceived that the
professional development that focused on curricular and instructional strategies to
meet the needs of their gifted students was fruitless time spent because the “counter-
messages” sent by administrators that “conformity of curricula and instruction take
precedence” (p. 51). Ultimately, the teachers felt that the pressures of the reform
movement to increase test scores took away their ability to meet the needs of their
gifted students.
A conceptual framework that helps guide this study of the relationship
between belief and behavior is based on some of the fundamental features of
Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory. Bandura suggested that there is dynamic
61
interaction between behavioral, cognitive and environmental factors. Bandura
(1986) explained that,
In the social cognitive view people are neither driven by inner forces nor
automatically shaped and controlled by external stimuli. Rather, human
function is explained in terms of a model of triadic reciprocality in which
behavior, cognitive and other personal factors and environmental events all
operate as interacting determinants of each other (p. 18).
Bandura’s triadic reciprocality espouses the idea that a person’s subsequent actions
result from not just one factor, such as environment or reward or thoughts and
beliefs, alone. In contrast, action is determined by a dynamic interplay of these
“determinants” (Bandura, 1986) as seen in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Schematization of Bandura’s Triadic Causation Depicting the
Dynamic Relationship between Three Factors in Determining a
Person’s Actions. Adapted from Bandura (1986, p. 24)
62
The interplay or “reciprocality” is not always consistent in strength and
influence between the factors or “determinants.” “The relative influence exerted by
the three sets of interacting factors will vary for different activities, different
individuals, and different circumstances” (Bandura, 1986, p. 24). For example,
sometimes environment may play as a dominating influence on behavior, without
much thought. In the situation where teachers at a school follow strict curriculum
pacing and instruction because they fear that if they deviate in practice they will
receive consequences such as a negative performance evaluation or change in
assignment, then environment (e.g., the district or school administration) exerts
stronger influence. But, in the case of one teacher at the same school who has
extensive professional development in modifying curriculum and strong self-
efficacy, and may decide to deviate from the prescribed pacing and instruction to
better meet the needs of individual students, then cognition and personal factors are
the influencing determinant.
Another distinct aspect of social cognitive theory that holds significant
relevance to this study is the role of what Bandura (1986) termed “self-regulatory
functions.” People do not always choose action to please others. Rather, Bandura
stated that,
Much of [people’s] behavior is motivated and regulated by internal
standards and self-evaluative reactions to their own actions. After personal
standards have been adopted, discrepancies between a performance and the
standard against which it is measured activate evaluative self-reactions,
which serve to influence subsequent behavior. An act, therefore, includes
among its determinants self-produced influences (p. 20).
63
Bandura’s premise is simple. People are motivated by completing goals. To
that end, they self-select actions and reasons “to persist in their efforts until their
performance matches their goals” (Bandura, 1986, p. 233). To illustrate this point, a
competent classroom teacher must have the knowledge and skills to bridge potential
into performance for each of his or her students in a class of diverse learners. The
standard of meeting the diverse learning needs of his or her students becomes a self-
selected goal. In order to accomplish this goal, the teacher seeks out professional
development that will help him or her in attaining this goal. Furthermore, the teacher
also elects to modify the curriculum and instruction he or she uses, and in doing so
finds student performance and achievement increases, thus achieving a sense of
fulfillment and self-efficacy.
64
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODS
Introduction
All students, including gifted children, should be afforded an excellent and
appropriate education. In their 1993 research, Archambault, Westberg, Brown, et al.
found in the work of Ward (1961, 1980), Marland, (1971) Fox (1979), Passow
(1982), Ross (1993), and Good and Brophy (1987) that providing an appropriate
education for gifted students requires the classroom teacher to differentiate learning
experiences in order for these students to reach their potential. Differentiation of
curriculum and instruction has become more defined over the last 50 years; yet, there
remain questions about what influences teachers’ perceptions and decision-making in
choosing appropriately differentiated curricular and instructional approaches for their
gifted students. More pointedly, what is the relationship between teachers’
perceived status of gifted programs at the district and site levels and their choice to
differentiate curriculum and instruction for the gifted students whom they teach
within their classrooms?
The call for specifically defined gifted programming that integrates both
appropriately differentiated curriculum and instruction was triggered by
governmental reports such as those by Marland (1971) and Ross (1993). The clarion
was answered in standards that were established by the National Association for the
Gifted (NAGC) in 1998. In their guiding principles for gifted programming NAGC
states that core curriculum and instruction should emphasize differentiated learning
65
opportunities that are integrated into the core curriculum in order to “facilitate higher
level learning goals” that are appropriate for the gifted students in their classrooms
(NAGC, 1998, p. 6).
The State of California also delineates in its Recommended Standards for
Programs for Gifted and Talented Students definitive guidelines for the
differentiation of curriculum and instruction for gifted learners (SBE, 2001, Rev.
2005). Specifically, Section 3 of these Standards states that, “Districts develop
differentiated curriculum, instructional models and strategies that are aligned with
and extend the state academic content standards and curriculum frameworks” (CSB,
2001, Rev. 2005, p. 4).
A significant consideration in examining teachers’ differentiated curricular
and instructional choices for gifted students becomes the prioritization or value
ascribed to the gifted program within the teachers’ districts; in other words, the
“status” of the program. While “status” is predicated upon the absence or presence
of specified aspects of a defined program, it is the acceptance or rejection of these
aspects that determines the level of importance that the gifted program holds within a
school or district.
The focus of this study, then, was to determine the relationship between the
teachers’ perceived value or status of gifted programs and their decision to
differentiate curriculum and instruction for the gifted students in their classrooms.
From the literature we have learned that the negative effects from the elimination of
gifted programs can result in the perceived underachievement of gifted students who
66
become bored and begin to exhibit possible behavior problems (Purcell, 1993). It is
assumed that if a district or school clearly places importance on meeting the needs of
all students, including those who are academically gifted, then the chances will be
more likely that the classroom teacher will use differentiated curriculum and
instructional strategies appropriate for challenging these gifted students. If there is
no perceived value of a gifted program within a school or district, then identifying
those factors that do influence teachers’ instructional choices within their classrooms
might be subject for further study.
It is hoped that the findings from this dissertation will provide a basis for the
advocacy of gifted education programming in the State of California, as well as
contribute to the field of gifted education literature. As the literature review
indicated, there is little research that examines the relationship between gifted
education programming and classroom practice. Those who make the decisions
about providing services that meet the academic needs of the diverse learners in
California classrooms will be able to put the research to use in making informed
decisions that affects the teaching and learning of all students in California public
school classrooms, including gifted ones.
Research Question
The following research question guides this study:
• What is the relationship between the perceived status of a gifted program
at school and district levels, and the teachers’ curricular and instructional
choices to educate gifted students?
67
Sample and Population
The purposeful random sample was drawn from K-12 teachers who are
members of the California Association for the Gifted (CAG) and responded to the
online survey. There were 890 survey responses, and 55 of those who responded
indicated at the end of the survey that they were willing to be contacted for a further
in-depth interview. The demographic section of the online survey provided
information about years of experience in gifted education, gender, educational
background, level of professional development and teaching environment (e.g.,
urban, suburban or rural).
The 15 subjects (n=15) represented in both the quantitative and qualitative
parts of this study were drawn from the pool of 55 survey respondents who
anonymously offered to participate in follow-up interviews and provided contact
information by clicking on a separate link at the end of the online survey. In order to
ensure representation from across the State of California, the phone numbers and
area codes of the 55 respondents were purposefully divided into three groups that
indicated northern, central and southern parts of the state, as well as urban, suburban
and rural areas. “The logic and power of purposeful sampling lie in selecting
information-rich cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from
which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of
the inquiry, thus the term purposeful sampling” (Patton, 2002, p. 230).
The final sample population of 15 K-12 teachers (10 elementary; four
intermediate; and one high school) were randomly selected from the area code
68
groupings that represented the various regions of California. According to Patton
(2002), random selection of subjects from within a purposeful sample significantly
impacts the credibility of the study’s findings, regardless of sample size (p. 241).
Appendix E depicts the regions in which the 15 subjects worked and lived.
At the start of the interviews the participants were asked if they worked in an
urban, suburban or rural district in order to ensure representation of a cross-section
of school district sizes and types in California. At that time was also determined that
each interview that the participant was a teacher who worked at a school that had
gifted programs and had gifted students in their classrooms in 2009-2010.
The researcher chose to focus on 15 subjects selected from the initial pool of
55 self-selected respondents willing to participate in interviews because a group of
15 subjects allowed the researcher to look deeply at the thinking involved in the
construction of the interview responses in a personalized way. The interview
dialogues yielded very “information-rich” responses that augmented the information
provided by the data from the surveys. In addition, because of the correlational
nature of the study, it was important that in the process of drawing a relationship
between both the quantitative and qualitative data that the analysis and findings were
based on the same set of data sources and subjects.
Patton (2002) posits that there are no guiding principles when it comes to
selecting sample size; rather “The validity, meaningfulness, and insights generated
from qualitative inquiry have more to do with the information richness of the cases
69
selected and the observational/analytical capabilities of the researcher than with
sample size” (p. 245).
One possible concern regarding the subject sample pertained to whether or
not the study’s participants perceived an affiliation between the sponsoring website,
CAG, which is an advocacy association for gifted education, and the researcher’s
purpose. McCoach and Siegle (2007) conducted a survey that examined teachers’
attitudes towards the gifted. Among their questions, they asked “Do teachers tailor
their responses about attitudes toward the gifted to fit what they perceive to be the
research interests of the researcher?” or what they termed as the “Letterhead Effect”
(p. 248). As McCoach and Siegle pointed out in their discussion, should this be
proved, then such findings would have “serious implications for the researchers in
the field of gifted education” (2007, p. 253). However, the results of the data in
McCoach and Siegle’s study suggested that “teachers are not unduly influenced by
the researcher’s affiliation when responding to attitudinal surveys” (2007, p. 253).
Nature of the Study/Research Design
According to Patton (2002), establishing the purpose of a qualitative research
study is a key consideration in the design of the study and the instrumentation that
will be used. The purpose of this study was to “illuminate a societal concern”(p.
213) and “contribute knowledge that will help people understand the nature of a
problem in order to intervene…” (p. 217). As such, this was an “applied” research
study because the intent of the researcher was to contribute information that can be
used to better understand the relationship between the perceived status of the gifted
70
program within a district and school by the teachers who work there, and how it
subsequently affects teachers’ choices of instruction.
This study employed a mixed method approach, utilizing both quantitative
and qualitative methods. Miles and Huberman (1994) cite Firestone (1987) on the
positive attributes of linking quantitative and qualitative data, stating that
…on the one hand, quantitative studies ‘persuade’ the reader through de-
emphasizing individual judgment and stressing the use of established
procedures, leading to more precise and generalizable results. On the other
hand, qualitative research persuades through rich depiction of and strategic
comparison across cases, thereby overcoming the ‘abstraction inherent in
quantitative studies (p. 41).
There are features in both modes of research that proffered useful data for both
analysis and interpretation in the course of this study.
The design of this study utilized what Cresswell (2009) refers to as a
“concurrent embedded” strategy in which there is one primary method that guides
the study (which in this study was the online survey that provided quantitative data),
and a secondary method that supports the study (which were the follow-up
interviews that provided qualitative data). The secondary method is “embedded”
within the primary method and probes deeper with different questions and levels of
analysis (p. 215).
The primary source which provided the quantitative data was a subset of
questions rooted in an extensive online survey. The complete survey was used as the
primary instrument in a large study that examined the trends in gifted education in
the State of California, conducted by Dr. Sandra Kaplan, professor of Education at
71
the University of Southern California and sponsored by the CAG (California
Association for the Gifted). The areas of questions from the extensive survey that
aligned with this study primarily asked respondents about their 1.) demographics, 2.)
perceptions of the fiscal status and priority of the GATE program in their districts
and at their schools, and 3.) curricular and instructional choices and rationales for
those choices. Sample questions from the online instrument appear in Figure 8.
While 890 members anonymously responded to the online survey and the
data was used for the larger separate study, the design of this smaller study called for
a sample size of 15. This intentional design allowed the researcher to conduct a
comprehensive analysis of two sources of data from the same 15 subjects. The
primary data for this study resulted from the responses to the subset of survey
questions by 15 teachers who were part of the 890 teachers-responders to the larger
online survey. The results were then further validated by qualitative data-rich
information that resulted from in-depth interviews with the same 15 teachers. As
Patton (2002) pointed out, it is not the size of the sample that should be the focus;
rather, the focus should be the quality of the in-depth data that is gleaned from the
data sources.
The interview questions were designed to align with the online survey
questions and topical areas of the research question that guided the study. Figure 8
provides a comparison of questions from both the primary and secondary instruments
72
Figure 8: Comparison of Primary and Secondary Instrument Sample Questions
Topic Primary (Online Questionnaire) Secondary (Interview)
Demo-
graphics
• Grade level taught
• Years of experience teaching general
education
• Years of experience teaching GATE
• Level of education
• Hours of professional development
related to teaching gifted/Certificate of
endorsement to teach GATE
• Regional Area (urban, suburban or
rural)
• Grade level taught
• Years of experience teaching general
education
• Year of experience teaching GATE
• Certificate of endorsement to teach
GATE
Program
Fiscal
Status
(Using forced-choice selections for each
question)
• How would you describe the financial
resources available for the GATE
program at your school this year?
• Before receiving this survey, did you
know that recent legislation released
all categorical funding, including
GATE program funding, and allows it
to be used as flexible funding?
• What has been the result of the new
funding environment (flexible funding)
on your GATE program?
• To your knowledge, has the funding
for any of the following GATE
program elements been reduced for
this school year?
• To what extent will the new flexible
funding environment affect curriculum
and instruction decisions you make?
• What is the current level of support
for the GATE program at your school
in terms of funding/financial support
for GATE resources and teacher
professional development?
• Are you aware of the effects of the
State’s fiscal crisis on the GATE
program in your district? At your
school?
• Have there been apparent effects of
this fiscal crisis on the GATE program
at your district? At your school?
• Given the current fiscal crisis in
California, to what level and in what
ways, if any, do you think this has
impacted the GATE Program in your
district? What have been the
consequences of this impact,
particularly for students and teachers?
Program
Priority
Status
• To what extent is the GATE Program
in your school supported by your
principal, superintendent, parents of
gifted and non-identified gifted
students, faculty assigned and not
assigned to teaching gifted students?
• To what degree is the GATE program
a priority compared to other academic
programs at your school?
• What do you believe to be the current
level of support for GATE at your
school in terms of admin support;
funding support; compared to
previous years and other current
programs?
• Overall, how much of a priority is the
GATE Program in your district?
• How do you feel about this level of
support for GATE?
• Do you feel that the admin’s level of
support for a program influences your
teaching?
73
Figure 8, continued
Topic Primary (Online Questionnaire) Secondary (Interview)
Curric-
ulum and
Instruc-
tion
• Teaching method you prefer and why?
1. Creating your own differentiated
lessons or following the teacher’s
guide.
2. Teaching in homogeneous groups or
in heterogeneous groups.
3. Teaching in small groups or whole
class.
4. Teaching basic skills such as define,
identify, compare or teaching critical
thinking skills such as judge with
criteria, prove with evidence, note
ambiguity?
5. Teach basic facts and simple concepts
such as culture or teaching universal
concepts and big ideas such as
change?
6. Teaching the standards-based
curriculum as prescribed or teaching
the standards-based curriculum with
modifications to differentiate it for
students?
7. Teaching the content in an integrated,
interdisciplinary way or teaching the
content in each discipline separately?
8. Teaching the basic prompts of who,
what, when, etc to seek information or
teaching the prompts of Depth and
Complexity to seek information (e.g.,
patterns, points of view)
• In walking through classrooms that
have GT students, what would I see, if
anything, that indicated differentiated
curriculum and instruction such in
terms of depth, complexity, novelty
and acceleration?
• Describe what evidence of
differentiation of curriculum and
instruction I would see in your
classroom.
• To what degree do you feel that the
school admin supports differentiation
for gifted students?
• On a scale of 1-5 how would you rate
the impact of admin priorities on your
planning of curriculum and instruction
for your gifted students?
• On a scale of 1-5, how would you rate
the impact of GT program standards
on your planning of curriculum and
Instruction?
74
The follow two sections further outline the quantitative and qualitative
methods used to conduct this study.
Quantitative Methodology
The primary instrument in this study, as previously explained, was an online
survey which was used as the primary instrument in a separate and extensive study
conducted by Dr. Sandra Kaplan from the University of Southern California that
examined the trends in gifted education in California. Information culled from a
subset of questions embedded within that extensive survey provided the data used in
this study to determine the relationship between program status and teachers’
curricular and instructional choices in teaching gifted students.
Survey Monkey was used to conduct the online survey. There were several
advantages to conducting research using web-based questionnaires. According to
Cox, Murray and Warm (2003, p. 167), some of these advantages include:
• Increasing the respondent’s self-assurance while reducing social anxiety
and the desire to please the questioner.
• Increasing access to a much larger and more diverse sample.
• Allowing the researcher to target specialized populations that otherwise
would be difficult to reach.
To obtain a precise picture of the respondents’ perceptions and preferences,
the respondents chose from forced-choice responses to the questions that were asked
in the online survey (see Appendix A). According to research conducted by Smyth,
Dillman, Christian and Stern (2006), using a forced-choice format “promotes deeper
75
processing and allows for finer differentiation of meaning” (p. 11), thus enabling the
respondent to give a more accurate response.
The survey questions, as seen in Figure 9, yielded a wide range of data
including demographic information about the subjects who were teachers of gifted
students; their perception of the status and priority of gifted programming within
their school and district; their preferences in using differentiated curriculum and
instructional methods; and their rationale for these choices.
Some of the questions that asked the respondent about their own levels of
expertise or the levels of support for GATE within the district or school were
answered using a Likert rating scale; other questions were closed-end, offering a
selection of possible responses. The questions regarding differentiated curriculum
instructional choices offered two choices of instruction and then were accompanied
by eight rationale choices from which the teachers could select.
The survey was administered by a Los Angeles-based research firm and was
posted on the California Foundation for the Gifted and the California Association for
the Gifted (CAG) website for one-month. Emails solicited CAG members to
anonymously participate by clicking a link that took them to the survey site. This
survey provided insights to understanding the relationship, if any, between the
perceived value of a program such as a Gifted and Talented Education (independent
variable) on teachers’ curriculum and instructional choices and their rationale for
those choices (dependent variable).
76
Figure 9: Sample Survey Questions
Questions from the Online Survey (primary instrument)
Please rate how certain you are that you can do the following
• Differentiate core curriculum
• Use appropriate instructional strategies for gifted students
How would you rate your expertise as a professional educator of gifted students?
To what degree is the GATE program a priority compared to other academic
programs at your school? (Other programs that were listed included Special
Education, English Learners, Physical Education, after school programs, art and
music)
How would you describe the financial resources available for the GATE program
at your school this year?
Which teaching method do you prefer? Creating your own differentiated lessons or
following the lessons in the teacher’s guide? Which reasons best explains your
choice?
• It takes less time
• My previous experience has proven it works
• My district and/or school expects me to do it this way
• It is more stimulating for me as a teacher to do it this way
• It is more academically rigorous for gifted students
• It is more aligned to GATE standards
• It has the potential to affect all learners in my classroom
• I don’t know
77
Qualitative Methodology
To further understand teachers’ responses to the survey, the secondary
strategy used to provide qualitative data, or the “why?” were interviews with 15
teachers who, after completing the online questionnaire, volunteered to be contacted
for follow up questions. The format of the interview was a semi-structured
standardized, open-ended interview, described by Patton (2002) as an “approach
[that] requires carefully and fully wording each question before the interview” (p.
344). An interview question guide (Appendix B) was used to keep a focus on the
topical areas of the study: gifted program status within the school and district,
followed by the area of differentiated curriculum and instruction. The interview
guide assured uniformity in the primary and probing questions (or stimuli) that were
asked and in the order that they were asked. Figure 10 presents a sample of
questions from the interview guide.
Figure 10: Sample Questions from the Interview Guide (secondary instrument)
Sample Questions from Interview Guide
Q4. Given the current fiscal crisis in California, to what level and in what ways, if
any, do you think this has impacted the GT Program in your district?
Q8. How do you feel about the level of support for Gifted Education at your
school?
Q13. What factors do you take into consideration when planning lessons for your
gifted class/students?
Q19. So, overall, on a scale of 1-5, (5 being strongest) how would you rate the
impact of administration priorities on your planning of curriculum and instruction
for your gifted students? Please explain your rating.
78
Preparing an interview guide provided consistency that balanced the novice
skills of the interviewer. The guide also kept the open-ended interviews focused on
the priorities of the research study and on a manageable time-table, which according
to Patton (2002) is important aspects to attaining consistent data that is easily
organized and retrievable.
The findings from the surveys and follow up interview data sources revealed
association patterns between perceived value of gifted programming within schools
and/or districts and gifted teachers’ instructional choices.
Validity and Reliability
The original form of the online survey (primary instrument) was piloted and
administered in 2007 under a federal Javits grant directed by Dr. Sandra Kaplan from
the University of Southern California and Dr. Carolyn Callahan from the University
of West Virginia. It was again reviewed by a panel of experts in light of the research
question that guided this study.
To test the content validity of the secondary instrument – the follow-up
interview guide -- a pilot study was conducted using educators with expertise in
gifted programs in the field who have experience in gifted education. Feedback from
the teachers in the pilot study prompted the needed adjustments to the open-ended
standard interview guide prior to the actual implementation with study subjects.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this “applied” research study was to shed light on the need for
providing students with differentiated learning opportunities within their everyday
79
classroom. To that end, then, “the relevance, clarity, utility, and applicability of the
findings will become most important” (Patton, 2002, p. 434). This study employed a
“concurrent embedded” (Cresswell, 2009) mixed methods approach in which the
primary method that guided the study was quantitative and the secondary qualitative
method provided support.
Quantitative Analysis
In support of mixed methods, the use of quantitative data enabled the
researcher to draw conclusions based on numerical data. Miles and Huberman
(1994) maintained that “During analysis, quantitative data can help by showing the
generality of specific observations, correcting the ‘holistic fallacy’ (monolithic
judgments about a case), and verifying or casting a new light on qualitative findings”
(p. 41).
The computer analysis of the teacher responses gathered from the online
survey was conducted by an independent research and evaluation firm located in Los
Angeles which conducts extensive work in the field of education for large urban
school districts and universities. As previously mentioned, the 32 questions that
provided data for this study were embedded in a larger survey that was part of large
study conducted by Dr. Sandra Kaplan, Professor of Clinical Education, and
sponsored by the California Association for the Gifted Foundation. The major
analytical method used was a descriptive statistical analysis which was computed
using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version18.0, and was reported in
frequencies and percents.
80
The researcher examined the SPSS output to look for overall patterns, trends
and objective perspective of the picture that the numbers painted about
demographics, program status, and teachers’ curricular and instructional choices and
their rationales for such choices, in order to draw conclusions about the relationships
between these variables.
Qualitative Analysis
Miles and Huberman (1994) also underscore the rationale for the use of
qualitative data in a mixed methods approach, stating that in the analysis stage of a
study, qualitative data “can help by validating, interpreting, clarifying, and
illustrating quantitative findings…” (p. 41).
Interviews were conducted with a purposeful random sample of 15 people.
Individual telephone interviews lasted approximately 50 minutes. Interviews were
conducted by telephone because of the vast geographical area, the State of California
in which the subjects worked. After the interviews concluded, the tapes were
transcribed by an outside transcription service. Transcripts were then uploaded into
the computer software program, ATLAS.ti (version 6.0) which was used to store,
code and retrieve data. The researcher performed the content analysis, determining
the patterns and themes that emerged from the data coding.
Open coding was employed using what Miles and Huberman (1994) called a
“start list” of codes that emerged from the research question (p.58). Additional
codes were added to the list throughout the coding process. Appendix C provides a
81
screen shot of a section of the coding process, demonstrating multiple layers of
coding using the ATLAS.ti huermentics unit coding application.
The initial coding of transcripts yielded 135 codes. An inductive process of
classifying and categorizing these initial codes resulted in a more manageable list of
51 sub-codes attached to seven super or main codes which were labeled using
terminology that emerged from the transcripts within that category (See Appendix
D). Looking for “recurring regularities” began to reveal patterns (Patton, 2002,
p.465). The patterns were directly referenced back to the research question (Patton,
2002).
The process of coding and content analysis took one more step in a divergent
direction by making additional connections and proposing new ideas. A conceptual
mapping application in ATLAS.ti was used to create a semantic network of nodes.
Nodes represented the larger concepts created by the classification of codes and were
linked by terms such as “is associated with” or “contradicts” to demonstrate
relationships between and among nodes. Connected to the networks were the textual
quotations from the transcripts that could be referenced in the analysis process. This
aspect became significant in determining the overall trends during analysis.
After the conceptual mapping process was complete, the qualitative analysis
was brought to a close. As concluded by Patton (2002), “The analyst brings closure
to the process when source of information have been exhausted…when the analysis
begins to ‘overextend’ beyond the boundaries of the issues and concerns guiding the
analysis” (p. 467).
82
Quantitative and qualitative data were then examined for correlated patterns
and big ideas about program status and teacher curricular and instructional decision-
making.
Research Timeline
The survey was posted online via the California Association for the Gifted
website in Winter, 2010, and remained posted for one month. At the same time, a
pilot study of the follow up interview was conducted and appropriate revisions were
made. Follow-up interviews with willing participants from those who responded to
the survey were conducted via telephone in late spring, 2010. Data analysis was
completed in fall, 2010.
83
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Introduction
This study employed a mixed methods design to examine the relationship
between gifted teachers’ perceived status of the GATE program within their districts
and schools and the decisions that they make in providing appropriate curriculum
and instruction for their gifted students. If teachers perceive that gifted programming
(which includes differentiating curriculum and instruction for gifted students) is
considered a priority in their district and/or at their school sites, then it will be more
likely that they will appropriately differentiate their curricular and instructional
approach for their gifted students.
However, if there is not a clear relationship between perceived program
priority or status and the teachers’ choice to differentiate their curricular or
instructional approach to teaching their gifted students, then identifying those factors
that do affect how teachers make curricular and instructional choices would be of
value and significance to the study.
This chapter details the results from both the primary (quantitative) and
secondary (qualitative) data sources used in this mixed-methods study. The
quantitative data was garnered from a subset of questions embedded within an
extensive online survey that was used as the primary instrument in a larger study.
That study, which was conducted by Dr. Sandra Kaplan from the University of
Southern California and sponsored by the California Association for the Gifted,
84
examined the trends of gifted education in California. The qualitative data, which
served as a secondary support for the quantitative data, resulted from in-depth
interviews with the study’s participants. The results of the demographic data will be
presented first, followed by both quantitative and qualitative data results for program
status and priority, and curriculum and instruction.
Respondents’ Demographics
District Type and Region
In order to acquire a representative picture of gifted education programs in
California and of the teachers who educate gifted children within those programs, the
final sample of 11 females and four males were randomly chosen from three area
code groups from northern, central and southern parts of California. This assured
that there was representation from urban, rural and suburban school districts from
northern, central and southern California as seen in Table 1 which displays the
regional representation of the sample (n=15).
Table 1: Regional Representation of the Study’s Sample (n=15)
Geographical Regions with the Study
Demographic
Types
Northern
California
Central
California
Southern
California
Urban 2 -
1
3
Suburban 2 2 3
Rural 1 1 1
1
The Central Valley of California, which is roughly 60 miles wide, extends from Bakersfield to Shasta
County and is primarily agricultural. None of the respondents identified their location as urban
central CA (A Statistical Tour, 1997, ¶1).
85
Respondents’ Educational Background
Demographic data was self-reported in the online survey by 14 of the 15
teachers who were in the sample population. Data about the extent of the teachers’
level of college education, their level of experience within general and gifted
education, their level of professional development in regards to gifted education, and
how they perceived their own expertise in teaching gifted students provided a better
understanding of the sample population, particularly in relation to the key variables
of perceived program status and curricular and instructional choices.
Responses to the survey question about the educational backgrounds of the
sample population (n=15) revealed the levels of post-secondary education.
Responses concluded that 73.3% (n=11) held Master of Arts or Master of Education
Degrees; and 30% (n=3) had some “other educational background,” excluding a
post-graduate degree.
Respondents’ Teaching Experience
The online survey also asked the respondents’ to provide the number of years
of experience in general education and in teaching in gifted education. The number
of years of teaching in general education was indicated by a mean of 14.50 years. A
closer look at Table 2, however, reveals that the distribution of years of general
education teaching experience follows a pattern of intervals of no more than four
years up to 21 years, and then there is a significant jump to one instance of 40 years
of experience, skewing the actual centermost value. Salkind (2008) states that,
“When you have a set of scores in which one or more scores are extreme, the median
86
better represents the centermost value of that set of scores than any other measure of
central tendency” because it is insensitive to outlier scores (p. 25). Thus, median
number of years of teaching experience in general education for the sample
population (with one missing) was 13 years.
Using the median rather than the mean to determine the average years of
experience that the sample population had teaching in gifted education was also
appropriate because there was one outlier case of 32 years of experience, while the
other 13 cases represented one to 17 years with no more than a three year gap
between cases. Thus, Table 2 indicates that the median number of years of teaching
experience in gifted education for the sample population (with one missing) was 8
years.
The data gathered about the years of experience in teaching in both general
education and gifted education is of significance to the understanding of the
teachers’ curricular and instructional choices. Experience plays an important role in
perception, and as Rueda and Garcia (1996) asserted in their study of teacher’s
perceptions, “teachers are seen as knowing, meaning-making beings whose
knowledge and meaning influence their actions” (p. 312). Since the sample
population in this study had a median of 13 years of general education experience
and of eight years of gifted education experience, it can be assumed that these levels
are significant enough to affect the sample population’s perceptions, attitudes and
beliefs about teaching gifted students.
87
Table 2: Years of Teaching Experience in General Education and Gifted Education
General Education
N=14 (missing 1)
Gifted Education
N=14 (missing 1)
Years Frequency Years Frequency
4 1 1 1
6 1 3 2
7 1 4 2
8 1 5 1
10 2 7 1
11 1 9 2
15 2 10 1
17 1 11 1
18 1 12 1
21 2 15 1
40 1 32 1
Mean = 14.5
Median = 13.0
Mean = 8.93
Mode = 8.0
Respondents’ Perceptions – Self-Efficacy in Working with Gifted Students
In addition to teaching experience, another factor to consider in this study
was how teachers’ perceived their own levels of ability in meeting the academic
needs of gifted students.
A series of three subscale topics asked respondents to rate their abilities to
teach and assess gifted students. A Likert scale was employed and a high score
indicated that the teacher perceived himself or herself as “highly certain” in their
abilities to do these tasks.
88
The data from these three subscales indicated that the teachers perceived
themselves as competent in their ability to differentiate the core curriculum, use
appropriate instructional strategies in teaching gifted students, and assess their
performance. As seen in Table 3, the mean of the responses from these questions
ranged from 8.73 (ability to assess performance of gifted students) to 8.93 (ability to
use appropriate instructional strategies for gifted students) on a ten point scale.
In their study of general education teachers’ perceptions of gifted education,
McCoach and Siegle (2007) found that the general picture of teachers’ attitudes was
not always an accurate portrayal of data and that “practitioners in the field of gifted
education need to assess teachers’ attitudes on an individual basis” (p. 253) in order
to obtain a clearer picture from the data. Tables 4 through 6 demonstrate in a closer
analysis of the three previous subscales that the majority (80-90%) of teachers rated
themselves at the upper end of each scale (choosing 8, 9 or 10 on a 1 to 10 scale) in
planning curriculum for instructing and assessing gifted students.
Table 3: Teachers’ Self-assessment in Teaching the Gifted (n=15)
Scale Range Minimum Maximum Mean
Differentiate core
curriculum
1-10 6 10 8.73
Use appropriate
instructional strategies
for gifted students
1-10 6 10 8.93
Assess the performance
of gifted students
1-10 7 10 8.73
89
Table 4: Teachers’ Ability to Differentiate Curriculum for Gifted Students (n=15)
Scale 1-10 Frequency Percent
6 1 6.7
7 2 13.3
8 4 26.7
9 1 6.7
10: Highly certain I can do 7 46.7
Table 5: Teachers’ Ability to Use Appropriate Instructional Strategies with Gifted
Students (n=15)
Scale 1-10 Frequency Percent
6 1 6.7
8 3 20.0
9 6 40.0
10: Highly certain I can do 5 33.3
Table 6: Teachers’ Ability to Assess the Performance of Gifted Students (n=15)
Scale 1-10 Frequency Percent
7 3 20.0
8 4 26.7
9 2 13.3
10: Highly certain I can do 6 40.0
90
Table 7: Teachers’ Self-assessment of Expertise as a Teacher of Gifted Students
(n=15)
Scale 1-6 Frequency Percent
3 1 6.7
4 3 20.0
5 8 53.3
6: Expert 3 20.0
Overall, 73.3% of the teachers perceived themselves as competent in their
ability and level of expertise in meeting the academic needs of gifted children and in
their own overall expertise as a professional educator of the gifted.
It is possible that the respondents’ sense of competence in working with
gifted students is related to survey data in which 14 of the 15 teachers reported
having participated in some level of professional development in the area of gifted
education. Six (42.9%) of the teachers participated in a range of 15-90 hours of
professional development and eight (57.1%) of the teachers participated in a larger
amount of professional development that ranged from 100-540 hours.
In addition, 11 (73.3%) of the teachers reported having earned continuing
education units in gifted education. The large amount of hours spent in professional
development which focused on gifted education has resulted in one teacher earning a
master’s degree.
91
Table 8 demonstrates that 12 of the teachers have earned certificates and/or
endorsements in gifted education.
Table 8: Certificates and Endorsements in Gifted Education Earned by Sample
Population (n=15)
Responses
Type of Endorsement N Percent
No certificate or endorsement 3 17.8
University Certificate 6 35.3
School District Certificate 6 35.3
CAG Endorsement 2 11.9
Summary – Respondents’ Perceptions of Self-Efficacy
In general, the sample population of teachers in this study is a group of
trained professional educators who have extensive training in meeting the needs of
gifted students.
• 73.3% of these teachers assessed their skill and knowledge as a teacher of
the gifted close to or at an “expertise” level, indicating that these teachers
felt competent in designing differentiated curriculum, instruction and
assessments that meet the academic needs of their gifted students.
• 14 (93.33%) out of 15 of the study’s participants have participated in
some level of professional development activities which focused on gifted
education.
92
• 11 (73%) of the participants have earned continuing education credits in
gifted education.
• 14 (93%) of the participants have earned a certificate and/or endorsement
in gifted education.
The teacher-participants’ professional development experiences align with
California’s Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented Students
which requires that teachers who work with gifted students have some level of
education or experience in teaching gifted students at a minimal level, and have
earned a certificate of endorsement at an exemplary level.
In support of these findings, Van Tassel-Baska (2006) found in her evaluative
study of 20 gifted programs that despite problems that result from under-sourced
programs, gifted teachers and program coordinators remained highly dedicated to
meeting the academic needs of their gifted students.
In addition, Bandura (1986) proffered a theoretical premise that provides a
plausible rationale for the extensive amount of professional development training
taken by the teachers in this study. Bandura espoused that people are “motivated and
regulated by internal standards and self-evaluative reactions to their own actions” (p.
20). They are driven by these internal standards and benchmark their own
performances according to these standards. In a sense, the people themselves
become their own driving force, continually striving to match their own performance
to their own standards. Several of the teachers in this study perceived that they had
achieved a level of “expertise” in teaching gifted students. Aligning with Bandura’s
93
motivational premise, it is possible to surmise that these teachers were intrinsically
driven to be highly qualified gifted teachers who sought the knowledge and skills
necessary to meet the academic needs of their gifted students by differentiating their
curricular and instructional approaches in the classroom.
Gifted Program Status
Program Type
The concept of “program” is a significant variable in this study. Therefore, it
was important to identify the type of GATE programs at the schools at which the
sample population worked.
Table 9 reveals that 10 (66.7%) respondents within the sample (n=15) taught
in a gifted program as indicated by eight (53.3%) responses that said “regular
classroom with a cluster of gifted students;” one (6.7%) response that said “magnet
school;” and one (6.7%) response that said “other” type of gifted program.
Table 9: GATE Program Types within the Study (n=15)
Frequency Percent
1. Not currently teaching in a gifted program 2 13.3
2. Magnet school 1 6.7
3. Regular classroom 3 20.0
4. Regular classroom with a cluster of gifted students 53.3
5. Other 1 6.7
94
That just over half of the teachers responded that they taught in a cluster
model aligns with research which states that the cluster model within a regular
classroom has become a widely accepted gifted program option for the delivery of
academic services for gifted children (NAGC, 2009; Robinson, 2009; Purcell &
Lappien, 2004).
The three (20%) responses that indicated the teacher taught in “a regular
classroom” posed some ambiguity in that the respondents could have meant that
there are no gifted students in these classes or that there are not enough gifted
students in the classroom to establish a “cluster” model. VanTassel-Baska (2006)
cites that a lack of program consistency results in an inconsistent understanding of
program implementation.
Gifted Program Status - Fiscal
The fiscal status and priority of the gifted program in a district or at a school
site was a significant consideration in this study. Five questions in the online survey
asked teachers to rate aspects of their school’s gifted program’s fiscal status. To
further support the data gathered from the online survey, there were four questions
on the interview instrument that asked about the respondents’ knowledge of the
fiscal status of GATE in their districts and schools.
Quantitative Data Results
In analyzing the data resulting from the online survey responses that
demonstrated the teachers’ knowledge about the fiscal status of the gifted programs
at their schools, 10 (66.7%) of the 15 teachers in the study responses indicated that
95
they were aware that there had been legislative changes in the State budget which
allows districts to redirect GATE funds (along with other categorical funds) into a
flexible spending account.
Of the 10 respondents who had knowledge of the flexibility changes in the
use of State funds targeted for gifted education, nine (90%) of the teachers had the
perception that these State changes have had negative consequences on several
aspects of gifted programming at their schools, including program implementation
(i.e., staffing and service options for gifted students) and resources such as materials
and workshops for parents, as seen in Table 10. The only aspect of gifted
programming that the teachers did not perceive much impact upon was in the
identification of gifted students.
Table 10: Perceived GATE Program Aspects Affected by Flexible Use of
Categorical Funds (n=10 respondents out of 15 teachers in the
study who answered “yes” to being aware of changes in the law
regarding the flexible use of GATE funds)
Program Aspect Response Frequency
Valid
Percent
Program Implementation
(e.g., staffing, student groupings)
Yes
No
9
1
90.0
10.0
GATE Program Resources
(e.g. curricular materials, etc.)
Yes
No
9
1
90.0
10.0
Educational workshops/ resources for
parents of gifted students
Yes
No
9
1
90.0
10.0
Identification of gifted students Yes
No
2
8
20.0
80.0
96
Overall, seven (77.8%) of the 10 respondents who indicated that they were
aware of the flexible funding status of GATE funds and were aware of the how this
funding change impacted the gifted programs in their districts and schools also felt
that flexible use of GATE funds affected their curriculum and instructional decisions
that they made in their classrooms. All 15 (100%) teachers in the study felt that
there were inadequate financial resources available to the gifted education program
at their schools.
Qualitative Data Results
The follow-up phone interviews generally supported the findings from the
online interviews and provided an in-depth look at the teachers’ perceptions about
the fiscal status of GATE in their districts and schools. All but one of the teachers
stated that they were aware of the effects of the State’s fiscal crisis on the GATE
program in their districts that allows for the flexible use of the GATE funds. As one
teacher stated, “Our district basically said the funds that we have for our gifted
programs are now being put into the general fund.” The one teacher who was not
aware of the change in the State’s statutes was, however, aware that the GATE
program had experienced cutbacks in his district and school.
Figure 11 illustrates the major effects that the teachers perceived to be
associated with the fiscal cuts to the GATE program at both the district and site
levels.
97
Figure 11: Cognitive Map of Fiscal Status of the GATE Program at the
District/Site Levels
The respondents, in general, stated during the interviews that there were more
negative effects on the GATE Program, its students and the teachers that stemmed
from the flexible use of GATE funds than positive effects or no effects at all.
Similar to the survey findings, the interviews revealed that the fiscal effects were
apparent in all aspects of the gifted program at the district levels that ranged from
direct services to the students to coordination of the program. Two aspects of the
GATE program at the district level that the respondents perceived as mostly affected
98
were the lack of funds to supplement classroom resources and enrichment, as well as
opportunities for professional development.
For example, when asked what impact, if any, the flexible use of GATE
funds had on the GATE Program at the district level, one teacher explained with
exasperation how the GATE funding cuts had resulted in significant changes to the
program coordination and provision of services to the GATE students:
Okay. First of all, our program is set up so that in the past there has been a
specific GATE coordinator at the district level. In the last year, that has
changed due to funding. So now the district GATE coordinator is
actually…in charge of GATE plus a bunch of other things. Each school is
supposed to have a GATE coordinator at each school who is responsible for
making sure that – well in the past—things have changed this year. That’s
why. In the past, the GATE coordinator was responsible for providing
GATE services to the students, being a GATE liaison for the parents,
providing information on GATE to teachers, doing testing and identification
of GATE students. Now in this year, in the 2009/2010 school year, our
budget has been cut to nothing, and basically a lot of the things that we’ve
done in the past, like providing enrichment after school, pullout and things
like that, we no longer have funding for, so we’re not doing any of that.
Another teacher perceived that the impact of the funding flexibility at the district
level had far reaching effects at the classroom level and described it in this way:
At the district level, I can only speak to how it’s trickled down, and I’m
assuming that whatever trickles down to us at the school level is what’s going
on at the district level, but we’ve lost funding, so we’ve had fewer
opportunities to go observe other GATE Programs. We’ve had fewer
opportunities to attend conferences, or to purchase materials that might be
suitable for our kids, our gifted kids.
One teacher summed up her thoughts about the fiscal impact on the gifted program
status in her district which represented the general perception of most of the teachers
in the study:
99
I think it [the fiscal crisis] has impacted it [gifted programming] a lot, like
everything else. I think that Gifted Ed will receive less funding, and I feel
like the emphasis will go toward higher test scores, and higher API’s for
schools, and depth and complexity and those kinds of things, and Gifted Ed,
it’s just not seen as the high priority for the fiscal crisis.
During the interviews, 13 (85.7%) of the 15 teachers perceived that in
addition to the negative effects stemming from the low fiscal status at the district
level, there were also negative effects on the GATE program at their schools. Most
of the teachers associated these GATE funding cuts at the site level with the GATE
funding cuts at the district level.
As seen in Figure 10, a pattern emerged in that the areas which the teachers
perceived as mostly being affected by funding cutbacks to the site’s GATE Program
were program coordination, classroom resources and professional development – the
same areas seen as receiving cuts at the district level. Also, these were the same
areas that respondents reported in the online survey as being most affected by the
flexible use of GATE funds within their districts.
When asked if the school provided support for the gifted program, one
teacher replied, “…there’s absolutely no support…there’s no money for novels,
there’s no money for training, there’s no money for use to meet and collaborate.
There’s no money for anything.”
Many of the teachers who were interviewed also indicated that they were the
school’s GATE coordinator whose responsibilities included holding parent meetings,
assuring that students were clustered in classrooms with trained teachers and
providing afterschool mini-trainings for teachers. While in the past, these teachers
100
were provided a stipend for their extra time spent in implementing the GATE
program components at their schools, many of them indicated that their stipends had
been eliminated this past year and that they were continuing to coordinate the
program for no extra pay because they felt a sense of responsibility towards the
program and the students.
Several of the teachers recognized professional development for teaching
gifted students was of paramount importance. However, some of the teachers
indicated that if they wanted to attend a gifted education conference or workshop,
they would have to do so at personal costs. As one teacher stated, “There’s no
financial support for that, and there’s not even support as for getting a sub so I could
go, even if I paid my own way...I would have to take it out of my sick leave.”
While many teachers provided a plethora of examples of how the current
fiscal status of the GATE programs in their districts and sites had some level of
effect on the program, in the classroom and on a personal level, several of the
teachers recognized that the low fiscal status of gifted education was part of a larger
fiscal problem at the State level. As one teacher reasoned, “Their [administration]
verbal support is strong, their financial support is less so…I guess it’s a function of
the State budget crises perhaps.”
As reported in the State of the Nation in Gifted Education Report (NAGC,
2009), the attribution of the low fiscal status of gifted education to inadequate
funding was rated “one of the areas of greatest need of attention” (p. 13). The
perceptions of the teachers in the study that the low fiscal status of the gifted
101
program in their districts and schools was related to the State’s fiscal crisis aligns
with NAGC’s Report findings that country’s economic crisis has “affected several
state budgets, and some states have reacted by reducing support for gifted education”
(p. 13).
This data is corroborated by field research that has exposed the negative
impact of funding cuts, past and present, on gifted programming and the students
who are served by such programs. For example, the State of the Nation in Gifted
Education Report (NAGC 2009) found that several states reported funding issues for
gifted education during the difficult economic climate that both the nation and states
have been experiencing for the past few years. The impact of the difficult economic
times has resulted in an average of -0.5 in state funding for gifted education (p.46).
The areas of impact are primarily programming services, personnel and teacher
professional development (p. 48).
Purcell (1994) also found that gifted programs suffer during times of
economic strife. In her report, The Status of Programs for High Ability Students, it
was found that states without a gifted education mandate coupled with state fiscal
instability seriously jeopardized gifted programs’ stability and growth within those
states (p. 5). More recently in California, where the mandates regarding gifted
education are permissive and economic pressures have resulted in large cuts to the
education budget, school districts have had to make cuts to program services for
gifted students, as reported by Jill Tucker (2010), an education journalist for the San
102
Francisco Chronicle, who wrote about the negative impacts of funding reductions on
gifted programs and students in the Bay area.
Summary of Findings: Fiscal Status
In summary, the data associated with the independent variable of program
status revealed significant findings resulting from the online survey and follow-up
interviews.
• In both quantitative and qualitative findings, most of the teachers who
were aware of the flexible use of GATE funds perceived that there were
negative effects on the GATE program in their district or school because
of this.
• In both quantitative and qualitative findings, the areas which the teachers
perceived as mostly being affected by funding cutbacks to the site’s
GATE Program were program coordination, classroom resources and
professional development
• The quantitative findings showed that seven (70%) of teachers perceived
that the flexible use of GATE funds also negatively impacted their
curricular and instructional choices in meeting the academic needs of the
gifted students in their classrooms.
• All 15 (100%) of the respondents perceived that there were inadequate
resources to differentiate their curriculum and instruction, overall.
103
It is important to note that these findings do not align with California’s
Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented Students which
states that in order to appropriately challenge gifted students, teachers need to
supplement the core curriculum, assuring that “An extensive range of resources
(including out of grade level print and non-print materials) is available to augment
differentiated curriculum and to supplement independent study opportunities for
individual students.” (SBE, 2001, Rev. 2005, p.9). In addition, the standards state
that districts should provide budgets that can assist in providing trained teachers and
direct services to students.
In general, the data indicated that the teachers felt that the funding cuts to the
GATE programs at their schools has led to a lack of adequate resources needed to
fully coordinate the GATE program, provide appropriate classroom resources and
instruction, and offer professional development geared towards working with gifted
students. While these teachers remained highly dedicated to teaching gifted students
during difficult fiscal times, the lack of funding may lead to program stagnation and
instability, as found by Van Tassel-Baska (2006) and the State of the Nation in
Gifted Education report (2009).
Program Status - Perceived Priority
Quantitative Results
To gain a better picture of the respondents’ perception of the priority that the
gifted program holds in their district and schools, the teachers were asked in the
online surveys to benchmark the priority of the gifted program against other staple
104
programs commonly found at their schools. Table 11 demonstrates that the teachers
within the study (n=15) perceived that the GATE program at their schools held at
least as much priority as several other programs such as art, music, physical
education and tutorial at the school sites where the teachers worked.
However, when compared to programs that serve students with “special
needs,” such as Special Education and English Language Development, gifted
education, which is also considered by some to be a special needs program, was
considered significantly less of a school priority.
GATE was considered more of a priority only when compared to after school
enrichment programs, and this could be attributed to the fact that after-school
enrichment is often perceived as a gifted programming activity.
Table 11: Priority of GATE Compared to Other Site Programs (n=15)
Spec. Ed. EL Art Music P.E.
Tutorial/
Homework
Program
After-
school
Enrichment
GATE
is… f % f % f % f % f % f % f %
Less
Priority
10 66.7 9 60.0 7 46.7 7 46.7 7 46.7 8 53.3 5 33.3
Equal
Priority
1 6.7 3 20.0 6 40.0 4 26.7 7 46.7 5 33.3 7 46.7
More
Priority
4 26.7 3 20.0 2 13.3 4 26.7 1 6.7 2 13.3 3 20.0
105
The low priority of gifted education has been documented in the field since
the Marland Report in 1972 and Ross’ National Excellence report in 1993. More
recently, Brown (2006) reported that there has been significant decrease in gifted
services and programs, particularly in states where gifted education is not mandated,
such as in California. Furthermore, gifted education experts attribute the lack of
attention to gifted programs to the focus of NCLB on low-performing students and
high- stakes testing (Brown, 2006; VanTassel-Baska, 2006; Loveless, 2008;
Robinson, 2009; Scot, Callahan, & Urquhart, 2009). As such, Special Education and
English Learners programs are perceived as priority programs on campus by the
teachers within this study.
A factor that was considered as a possible link to teachers’ perception of
program priority was the level of support that the teachers believed GATE had from
other members within the school community such as the superintendent, principal,
staff, and parents.
Table 12 demonstrates that 11 (73.4%) of the teachers perceived that there
was some level of district level support for gifted programs, even if it was minimal.
Table 13 illustrates that 14 (93.4%) of the 15 teachers perceived that the site
principal’s support for gifted programs was stronger than the support from the
district office level.
106
Table 12: Level of Perceived Superintendent Support for Gifted Program (n=15)
Frequency Percent
A great deal 3 20.0
Some 7 46.7
A little 1 6.7
Not at all 3 20.0
Total 14 93.3
(Missing) Don’t know 1 6.7
Total 15 100.0
Table 13: Level of Perceived Site Principal’s Support for Gifted Program (n=15)
Frequency Percent
A great deal 6 40.0
Some 4 26.7
A little 4 26.7
Not at all 1 6.7
Total 15 100.0
Fourteen (88%) of the teachers in the study also believed that the GATE
program was supported by faculty assigned to teach gifted students, even if the level
of support was little, as evidenced in Table 14.
107
Table 14: Level of Perceived Support for GATE by Faculty Assigned to Teach
Gifted Students (n=15)
Frequency Percent
A great deal 5 33.3
Some 7 46.7
A little 2 13.3
Not at all 1 6.7
Total 15 100.0
On the other hand, eight (53.3%) of 15 teachers in the study believed that
they had only a low level of support from faculty not assigned to teach gifted
students as seen in Table 15.
Table 15: Level of Perceived Support for GATE by Non-GATE Faculty (n=15)
Frequency Percent
A great deal 0 0.0
Some 2 13.3
A little 6 40.0
Not at all 7 46.7
Total 15 100.0
108
Overall, Tables 12-15 demonstrate that there are varying degrees of support
for the GATE program from the administrators and staff. This inconsistency of
support is further examined in the data from the in-depth interviews that follow in
the next section.
Qualitative Results
Perceived Priority – District Level
As the teachers’ perceptions about the priority level of the GATE program in
their district and at their schools was an emergent theme in the online survey data, it
also surfaced as a significant theme in the interviews, as well. However, while there
were strong parallels between some of the results, there were also some paradoxes
that existed between the two data sets on particular points.
While many teachers stated in the interviews that the low status of the GATE
program may be attributable to larger environmental conditions, such as the State’s
fiscal crisis, they also believed that the low priority of GATE was related to other
contextual factors as seen in Figure 12.
Similar to the survey findings, during the interviews the teachers perceived
that there was an increased importance administrators were placing on other
programs, such as English Learners and Special Education, as well as increasing the
achievement test scores of low performing students. One teacher commented that
The priority of our school district is EL and Special Ed. Period. Pull up the
test scores are the only priority. And even our district goals…focus on EL
and bringing children up. So any child that's gifted and is already proficient,
there are no expectations that we do anything different for them.
109
Another teacher reflected, “At this point, sadly enough, it appears that our district is
ignoring our gifted students in favor of more time, more resources, more money
going to helping the lower achieving students.”
Figure 12: Cognitive Map of GATE Program Priority at the District Level
One difference between the online survey results and the interviews was the
perception of the low priority that GATE held at the district level. The online survey
results showed in Table 12 that most (73.4%) of the respondents perceived that there
was some level of superintendent support for gifted programs. Conversely, when
110
asked their perception of the level of priority GATE had in their district during the
interviews, 13 (85.7%) of the teachers strongly felt that the GATE program had “low
priority” at the district level. In some cases, teachers felt that the program had no
priority, as indicated in one teacher’s response, “Right now,” he said, “it’s more of
‘lip service’ priority than actual priority.” Another teacher remarked, “Right now
it’s absolutely not a priority. It’s like not even on the list at all, basically.”
There were two teachers who, during the interviews, stated that they believed
that the GATE program held high levels of importance in the district. In one case,
the teacher said that her district was becoming more competitive with local charter
schools “that are trying to promote their gifted program and they’re pulling our
gifted students from our schools.” The other teacher who felt that the gifted program
at her school was considered with some priority said that it was because the school
district just recently had implemented the GATE program in the school in which she
taught.
Several consequences were seen as the direct result of the low priority of the
gifted programs, such as the loss of gifted students to other schools, and in one case,
few advanced classes being offered. Respondents also perceived that because of the
low status that GATE held within their districts, the program was left fragmented
and lacked consistency in implementation. This was due to the perceived lack of
philosophy or concern that administration had about gifted education, the number of
other program “hats” that the district coordinator wore in addition to GATE, and the
turnover of GATE coordinators at both the district and the site. As one teacher
111
commented, “Since I’ve been in this district, which is about nine or 10 years I think,
that position has changed hands probably five times.”
However, the overwhelming sentiment from the teachers about the perceived
consequences of the low priority of the gifted program was that the gifted students
were, as one teacher stated, “getting really short-changed.” She went on to explain:
I think our district’s insistence upon bringing up the lower end is not in the
best interest of the students themselves, as individuals, with the enormous
amount of resources that are going toward intervention, and nothing going
toward enrichment. It’s the idea that the districts seems to have the idea that
the gifted kids are going to do fine. They’re going to do just fine on their
own, so they don’t need the support or the teachers can just differentiate
within the classroom.
Most teachers believed that district and school administrators didn’t feel that gifted
programming was a main concern because gifted students would “do just fine on
their own.” This point was reverberated throughout the interviews. Passages from
the interviews demonstrate the respondents’ thoughts about what they felt were
administrators’ misconceptions of the importance of gifted programs, as one teacher
explained:
…And it just sort of takes a back seat. It’s like…you guys are doing well.
Your scores look good. Keep up the good work. And I don’t think that
means that GATE is not important. The administrators don’t have a lot of
background in GATE, and I don’t think they really understand Gifted Ed.
They appreciate the advantage of the test scores, again, and I just don’t think
it’s a big priority as far as understanding and appreciating Gifted Ed.
Another teacher echoed:
It’s [GATE] not supported on a district level. It’s not supported. When you
hear the word differentiation in our district, it doesn’t refer to gifted kids. It
simply refers to differentiating for Second Language Learners, differentiating
to meet the needs of the Special Ed children, but when we’re talking about
112
differentiating to meet the needs of gifted kids, the mindset is gifted kids
don’t need any extra support. And if they get it, great, but there’s no support
for it.”
It is important to note that there were three teachers who felt that the GATE
program within their district was considered as important as other programs such as
Special Education and Bilingual Programs. In addition, four teachers perceived that
the GATE program and gifted students were considered inclusive of other “special
needs” programs in the district. Finally, while many teachers felt that professional
development was strongly affected by the low priority status that the GATE program
held in their districts, there were many teachers who indicated that their districts
continued professional development to some level for teachers of gifted students
and/or required teachers to hold some sort of endorsement or certificate to teach
gifted students.
The application of findings from past research that took into consideration the
effect that contextual factors have upon teachers’ attitudes and perceptions, as found
in the work of Rueda and Garcia (1996) and Bandura (1986), provides a plausible
rationale for the teachers’ negative perceptions about the priority of gifted education
within their districts. While most teachers clearly felt that GATE held little
significance at the district level, they attributed this attitude to contextual factors
such as the emphasis on high-stakes testing as mandated by NCLB and high-needs
programs such as English Learners and Special Education.
113
Perceived Priority – Site Level
As seen in Figure 13, the results of the interview data regarding the perceived
program priority at the site level closely paralleled the interview findings about the
level of program priority at the district level. The areas of similar concern between
the district and site levels were lack of program implementation, priority of “special
needs” programs such as Special Ed and English Learners, and an instructional focus
on increasing student test scores.
Figure 13: Cognitive Map of GATE Program Priority at the Site Level
114
On the other hand, an inconsistency emerged between the quantitative and
the qualitative findings that dealt with the perception of the level support for the
gifted program at the school site. Results from the online survey showed that 14
(93.4%) of the respondents felt that there was some level of support for GATE from
the principal. However, several teachers perceived a sense of indifference among
site administrators towards gifted programming and gifted students as indicated in
seven (46%) of the interview transcripts.
In addition, there was a sense of apathy towards the GATE program among
staff at the respondents’ schools, as evidenced in nine (60%) of the 15 interview
transcripts. This finding closely paralleled those from the online survey seen in
Table 15 wherein it shows that only 8 (53.3%) of non-GATE staff provided “some”
or “a little” support for the GATE program. Comments that revealed the indifferent
attitude among staff and administrators towards gifted students and gifted
programming were found in approximately half of the transcripts. There were those
who:
• Perceived that the staff was supportive of the GATE program, but
believed that the staff didn’t see the teaching assignment of working with
gifted students as challenging or the learning needs of gifted students as
any more different than other students. As one teacher stated, “They’re
not always supportive of the idea that it’s actually harder to teach in some
ways, many ways, because you have to be much better planned, and fully
planned because kids finish things very quickly…which leads to
115
misbehavior.” Another teacher summed up this indifferent attitude
among other staff members by stating that “there is a general lack of
understanding. I think the myth of what a GATE student is capable of
doing, and supposedly how easy they are to teach, is a myth that is still
perpetuated even though we try hard to dispel that myth.”
• Perceived that the staff didn’t understand the need for professional
development for GATE teachers, as one of the respondents commented
that there was resentment about her attendance at a GATE conference
and, “trying to make them understand that it’s not a one-time conference
that you go to and that you are capable of teaching the depth and
complexity…there’s a lot to wrap your mind around when it comes to
meeting their needs.”
• Perceived that the staff was not supportive of gifted programming,
primarily because if there is a GATE program, then gifted students would
be taken from their classrooms and clustered with one teacher. One
teacher commented on how her school was resistant to GATE
programming and that despite “encouraging all of the schools to have
clustering and have GATE within the school day, like the law requires,
but most of them do not include GATE in their school day and do not
cluster. The principals do not want to cluster because the teachers
complain that the classrooms are not even.”
116
• Perceived staff and administration apathy towards differentiation of
curriculum and instruction for gifted students. One teacher commented
that the teachers at her school “were completely closed to learning
anything about working with GATE students,” and that though she has
offered to conduct training in differentiation on early release days
intended for staff training, that the principal wouldn’t allow her to do so.”
• Perceived administration apathy and lack of understanding of gifted
students. A well-experienced teacher spoke with frustration, explaining
that her last two principals had no understanding of gifted students’
academic need for differentiated curriculum. The previous principal
admonished the teacher with a written warning for differentiating for a
gifted student. When she asked the present principal if she could
differentiate for her gifted students, the principal replied that it would be
okay, as long as there was fidelity to the curriculum. Several other
teachers indicated that they had supportive principals, but these principals
were generally not knowledgeable about differentiating curriculum and
instruction for gifted students. Most teachers indicated that their
principals were primarily concerned about raising test scores among the
underachieving students at their sites. And several teachers attributed the
lack of the principal’s understanding of gifted students to the attitude that,
“...well, they’re gifted, and… well, they’re doing well on the tests, and we
117
can take our focus somewhere else, to the children who aren’t scoring so
well.”
It should be noted, however, that comments from some of the teachers’
interviews indicated that there was some level of staff support and administrative
support for gifted programming and differentiation of curriculum for gifted students.
Yet, the support of administrators was more in terms of just “staying out of the way”
of the GATE teachers, and not for differentiation of curriculum or the needs of the
GATE students.
In summary, these findings are somewhat corroborated by McCoach and
Siegle (2007) who found levels of “slight to moderate support of gifted education”
(p. 251) and “Where as some teachers harbor very positive attitudes, other teachers
harbor extraordinarily negative attitudes” (p. 253) towards gifted education. While
the teachers of this study were not reporting on their attitude towards gifted
education, they were reporting on their perceptions of the levels of support from staff
and administration. What the researcher found was that some teachers perceived a
“moderate” level of support from staff and administration for gifted education; but
there were also other teachers in the study who intensely felt that the support for
gifted education at their school waned in comparison to other programs that focuses
on “special needs” students.
McCoach and Siegle also considered the theory of “response effect,” that is,
“responses to attitude questions are inconsistent over time and sensitive to question
order and context” (McCoach and Siegle, p. 248 referencing Torangeau, Rips, &
118
Rasinski, 2000, p. 169). Bandura (1986) also addressed the factor of context in the
dynamic interplay between context (environment), behavior and thought. This
theory of contextual factors as an influence on perceptions is a plausible explanation
for the respondents’ perceptions about the low fiscal and priority status of gifted
programs at their schools. It was evident that the teachers perceived that the State’s
fiscal crisis, as well as the administrators’ emphasis on raising test scores among
low-performing students, had negative effects on the gifted programming at the
school. Thus, it can be surmised that such contextual factors had significant
influence on the participants’ perceptions about program status and priority.
Summary of Results: Program Priority
• There were parallel findings between the online surveys and the
interviews in which the teachers felt that the GATE Program did not hold
an equal level of importance as Special Education or English Learner
Programs, both which are highly focused on meeting the academic needs
of a special student population.
• There was a contradiction in the findings regarding administrative support
for GATE. The majority of the teachers indicated in the online survey
that the GATE program was supported by their superintendent and even
more so by their principal. Conversely, the interviews showed that the
teacher-participants did not feel that there was much support for GATE
from the district or site administration at the district and site levels.
119
In considering these overall findings, it is important to note that some
researchers (Rueda & Garcia, 1996; McCoach & Siegle, 2007) have established that
teachers’ perceptions, attitudes and beliefs are difficult to measure because of the
researcher’s inability to observe such systems of thinking and the reliance upon
inference in the analysis of them.
While Rueda and Garcia (1996) and McCoach and Siegle (2007) found
inherent difficulties in measuring perceptions, attitudes and beliefs in and of
themselves, they did, however, establish that contextual factors played a significant
role in the shaping of such ideas. Furthermore, because of the dynamic state of
contextual or environmental factors, attitudes and beliefs may also fluctuate with the
changes of such factors.
Curricular and Instructional Choices
The dependent variable in this study was whether or not the teachers chose to
differentiate their curriculum and instruction for their gifted students. Relevant to
this aspect were three levels of questions for the teachers to consider: 1.) If they
differentiated their curriculum and instruction; 2.) How they differentiated their
curriculum and instruction; and 3.) Why they differentiated their curriculum and
instruction.
In this mixed methods study, responses from the online survey provided the
primary source of quantitative data. A series of seven forced choice questions on the
survey prompted the respondents to consider these aspects in relation to their own
teaching. Using a forced-choice format “promotes deeper processing and allows for
120
finer differentiation of meaning,” thus enabling the respondent to reply more
accurately than a “yes”/”no” format would allow (Smyth, Dillman, Christian and
Stern, 2006, p. 11).
To support the qualitative data, interviews were conducted with the same 15
teachers whose responses to the online survey served as the primary data. The
interview protocol (see Appendix B) was developed as a direct consequence of the
online survey questions used in this study and used as a tool to delve deeper into the
teachers’ responses to the online survey questions. Thus, the interview data provided
secondary support to the data collected from the online survey. Respondents were
candid about their perceptions of the status of the gifted programs in their districts
and schools, as well as their curricular and instructional choices in teaching gifted
students. While some of the teachers’ interview responses corroborated the online
survey data, there also seemed to be some inconsistencies between the two data sets
especially in the area of program priority and contextual factors that affected
curricular and instructional decision-making.
ATLAS.ti allowed the researcher to employ “cognitive mapping” in the
analysis of the themes that emerged from the transcript coding process. According
to Miles and Huberman (1994), “People’s minds—and theories about them—are not
always organized hierarchically...They can be represented fruitfully by a connection
of nodes attached by links” (p. 134). “Cognitive maps” are the researcher’s visual
representations of themes that evolve from examining text, such as that provided
within transcripts, and the relationships that link one or more concepts together
121
(Miles and Huberman, 1994). With the use of cognitive mapping, the researcher was
able to display a type of “semantic network” depicting the relationships within the
major themes established by the variables of the study, as well as the additional
themes that organically evolved from the interviews. Relationships can include “is
associated with” or “contradicts” or “is a part of”. Also helpful to the researcher was
an ATLAS.ti program feature that displays the number of quotes attached to each
concept node, indicating the level of significance attached to the ideas within each
theme.
The quantitative and qualitative results regarding the teachers’ curricular
choices are presented first. This is followed by quantitative and qualitative data
results that depict their instructional grouping preferences. The final section will
examine the rationales for the teachers’ choices, drawn from both the online surveys
and in-depth interviews.
Differentiated Curriculum
Quantitative Findings
Table 16 indicates that 14 (93.3%) of the 15 respondents (with one non-
respondent) would rather modify their standards-based curriculum for their gifted
students rather than teach a prescribed standards-based curriculum because
modifying the curriculum has the potential to positively affect all of the learners in a
classroom. The data also demonstrate that the teachers found it professionally
stimulating to craft differentiated curriculum for their students.
122
Table 16: Teacher Preferences and Rationales – Standards-based curriculum
(n=14)
Teaching method you prefer (select one)
Teaching standards-
based curriculum as
prescribed
Teaching
standards-based
curriculum w/
modifications
Reasons that
best explains
your choice
It takes less time Count
%
0
.0%
0
.0%
My previous
experience has
proven it works
Count
%
0
.0%
11
73.3%
My district and/or
school expects me
to do it this way
Count
%
0
.0%
5
33.3%
It is more
stimulating for me
as a teacher to do
it this way
Count
%
0
.0%
12
80.0%
It is more
academically
rigorous for gifted
students
Count
%
0
.0%
10
66.7%
It is more aligned
to GATE
standards
Count
%
0
.0%
10
66.7%
It has the potential
to affect all
learners in my
classroom
Count
%
0
.0%
14
93.3%
Total
Respondents
(missing 1)
Count
% of
Total
0
.0%
14
93.3%
123
Table 17 demonstrates that 13 (86.7%) out of 15 of the respondents preferred
creating their own differentiated lessons primarily because they felt their lessons
were more academically rigorous for their gifted students. The data also indicated
that the teachers felt that the differentiated lessons they created provided the
potential to positively affect all learners and to design their own differentiated
lessons provided more professional satisfaction.
This data was supported by research conducted by Reis and Westberg (1994)
in which it was found that teachers found it professionally satisfying when they saw
the positive effects on student learning after they eliminated material that the
students already mastered and modified the curriculum with appropriate challenging
activities.
The two respondents that preferred following the lesson in the teacher’s guide
indicated that in doing so they felt that it took less time to prepare lessons and that it
was the expectation of the district and/or school administrators to follow the
teacher’s guide which provided scripted curriculum. The influence of contextual
factors, such as prescribed curriculum and pacing guides, on a teacher’s ability to
make their own pedagogical choices has been documented by field research (Scot,
Callahan & Urquhart, 2009; Rueda & Garcia, 1996; Bandura, 1986). Strong
contextual factors such as mandated curriculum made teachers “disempowered” to
make their own pedagogical choices (Scot, Callahan & Urquhart, 2009).
124
Table 17: Teacher Preferences and Rationales – Lesson Design (n=15)
Teaching method you prefer (select one)
Creating your own
differentiated
lessons
Following lessons
in the teacher’s
guide
Reasons that
best explains
your choice
It takes less time Count
%
1
7.7%
1
50.0%
My previous
experience has
proven it works
Count
%
8
61.5%
0
.0%
My district and/or
school expects me
to do it this way
Count
%
1
7.7%
2
100%
It is more
stimulating for me
as a teacher to do
it this way
Count
%
10
76.9%
0
.0%
It is more
academically
rigorous for gifted
students
Count
%
13
100%
0
.0%
It is more aligned
to GATE
standards
Count
%
9
62.2%
0
.0%
It has the potential
to affect all
learners in my
classroom
Count
%
11
84.6%
0
.0%
Total
Respondents
Count
% of
Total
13
86.7%
2
13.3%
125
Table 18 demonstrates that 100% of the 15 respondents preferred teaching in
interdisciplinary units primarily because their professional experience has proven to
them that it is a most effective way to teach gifted students. However, the teachers
also felt, as demonstrated through a narrow range of rationale choices, that teaching
in interdisciplinary units was more stimulating for the teachers, that teaching
interdisciplinary content provided academic rigor, and that interdisciplinary teaching
has the potential to affect all students, not just gifted ones.
In Table 19, it can be seen that 13 (92.9%) of the 15 teachers in the study
(with one non-respondent) preferred using universal concepts and big ideas such as
“change” more than basic facts and simple concepts such as “culture” when teaching
their gifted students because it was a more professionally stimulating experience for
the teachers and provided more academic rigor for their gifted students. Moreover,
the respondents also strongly felt that such teaching benefits all students in the
cluster class, gifted and non-gifted.
Table 20 indicates that 12 (85.7%) of the 15 teachers in the study (with one
non-respondent) preferred teaching critical thinking skills (e.g., judge with criteria,
prove with evidence or note ambiguity) rather than teach basic skills (e.g., define,
identify or compare) to their gifted students. The primary reasons for their choice
was that teaching critical thinking skills provided a more stimulating professional
experience for the teacher, as well as provided academic rigor for the students.
126
Table 18: Teacher Preferences and Rationales – Interdisciplinary Content (n=15)
Teaching method you prefer (select one)
Teaching content
in integrated,
interdisciplinary
way
Teaching content
in each discipline
separately
Reasons that
best explains
your choice
It takes less time Count
%
3
20.0%
0
.0%
My previous
experience has
proven it works
Count
%
12
80.0%
0
.0%
My district
and/or school
expects me to do
it this way
Count
%
3
20.0%
0
.0%
It is more
stimulating for
me as a teacher
to do it this way
Count
%
11
73.3%
0
.0%
It is more
academically
rigorous for
gifted students
Count
%
11
73.3%
0
.0%
It is more
aligned to
GATE standards
Count
%
8
53.3%%
0
.0%
It has the
potential to
affect all
learners in my
classroom
Count
%
11
73.3%
0
.0%
Total
Respondents
Count
% of Total
15
100.0%
0
.0%
127
Table 19: Teacher Preferences and Rationales – Universal Concepts & Themes
(n=14)
Teaching method you prefer (select one)
Teaching basic
facts & simple
concepts
Teaching universal
concepts & big ideas
Reasons that
best explains
your choice
It takes less time Count
%
0
.0%
1
7.7%
My previous
experience has
proven it works
Count
%
1
100.0 %
5
38.5%
My district and/or
school expects me
to do it this way
Count
%
0
.0%
3
23.1%
It is more
stimulating for me
as a teacher to do
it this way
Count
%
1
100.0%
11
84.6%
It is more
academically
rigorous for gifted
students
Count
%
1
100.0%
10
76.9%
It is more aligned
to GATE
standards
Count
%
0
.0%
9
69.2%
It has the potential
to affect all
learners in my
classroom
Count
%
1
100.0%
10
76.9%
Total
Respondents
(one missing)
Count
% of Total
1
7.1%
13
92.9%
128
Table 20: Teacher Preferences and Rationales – Critical Thinking Skills (n=14)
Teaching method you prefer (select one)
Teaching basic
skills
Teaching critical
thinking skills
Reasons that
best explains
your choice
It takes less time Count
%
0
.0%
0
.0%
My previous
experience has
proven it works
Count
%
1
50.0%
8
66.7%
My district and/or
school expects me
to do it this way
Count
%
1
50.0%
2
16.7%
It is more
stimulating for me
as a teacher to do
it this way
Count
%
1
50.0%
11
91.7%
It is more
academically
rigorous for gifted
students
Count
%
1
50.0%
10
83.3%
It is more aligned
to GATE
standards
Count
%
1
50.0%
9
75.0%
It has the potential
to affect all
learners in my
classroom
Count
%
1
50.0%
9
75.0%
Total
Respondents
(one missing)
Count
% of Total
2
14.3%
12
85.7%
129
When asked if the respondents preferred teaching basic thinking skills (e.g.
define, identify or compare) or creative thinking skills (e.g., redesign, combine or
substitute), all 15 teachers (100%) selected teaching creative thinking skills as seen
in Table 21. The primary reason teachers chose to teach creative thinking skills was
because they felt doing so was more academically rigorous for the students. A
second finding which emerged from the rationale responses is that the teachers also
felt that in using creative thinking skills they were aligning instruction with the
California GATE Standards and it was a more stimulating way to teach.
When asked about differentiation of content, Table 22 indicates that 14 of the
15 (93.3%) respondents preferred using the prompts of depth and complexity (e.g.,
patterns and points of view) rather than basic teaching prompts (e.g., who, what and
when to gain information) primarily because the use of depth and complexity aligns
with California’s GATE Standards regarding curriculum and instruction. However,
the respondents also felt that using depth and complexity provided for more rigorous
instruction and was a more stimulating way to teach content.
130
Table 21: Teacher Preferences and Rationales – Creative Thinking Skills (n=15)
Teaching method you prefer (select one)
Teaching basic
skills
Teaching creative
thinking skills
Reasons that
best explains
your choice
It takes less time Count
%
0
.0%
1
6.7%
My previous
experience has
proven it works
Count
%
0
.0%
7
46.7%
My district and/or
school expects me
to do it this way
Count
%
0
.0%
2
13.9%
It is more
stimulating for me
as a teacher to do
it this way
Count
%
0
.0%
11
73.3%
It is more
academically
rigorous for gifted
students
Count
%
0
.0%
12
80.0%
It is more aligned
to GATE
standards
Count
%
0
.0%
11
73.3%
It has the potential
to affect all
learners in my
classroom
Count
%
0
.0%
9
60.0.%
Total
Respondents
Count
% of Total
0
.0%
15
100.0%
131
Table 22: Teacher Preferences and Rationales – Thinking Prompts (n=15)
Teaching method you prefer (select one)
Teaching basic
prompts
Teaching prompts
of depth and
complexity
Reasons that
best explains
your choice
It takes less time Count
%
0
.0%
1
7.1%
My previous
experience has
proven it works
Count
%
0
.0%
10
70.4%
My district and/or
school expects me
to do it this way
Count
%
0
.0%
3
21.4%
It is more
stimulating for me
as a teacher to do
it this way
Count
%
0
.0%
11
78.6%
It is more
academically
rigorous for gifted
students
Count
%
0
.0%
11
78.6%
It is more aligned
to GATE
standards
Count
%
0
.0%
12
85.7%
It has the potential
to affect all
learners in my
classroom
Count
%
1
100.0%
8
57.1%
Total
Respondents
Count
% of Total
1
6.7%
14
93.3%
132
In brief, the quantitative data presented in Tables 16 through 22 results from
responses to online survey questions that probed the teachers to specify how they
differentiate their curriculum and their rationales for their choices. The vast majority
of the teachers indicated that they prefer to differentiate curriculum by asking
students to think critically and creatively about content; by connecting content to
universal concepts and generalizations; by teaching content with interdisciplinarity;
and by giving the students tools to examine and investigate content deeper and more
complexly.
These findings are in accordance with California’s Recommended Standards
for Programs for Gifted and Talented Students which promote the use of
differentiated curriculum focused on depth and complexity of content, big ideas, and
critical and creative thinking skills. While such curricular differentiation promotes
extended learning of the core content standards and, the teachers’ also believed, as
indicated by their rationale choices, that differentiating the curriculum also results in
a “spill-over” effect, increasing all students’ levels of learning, as supported by
Kaplan (2004).
Qualitative Findings
The interviews with the study’s participants included questions about their
own curricular practices in regards to differentiation. The questions between the two
instruments were not precisely aligned. In the online interview, teachers were asked
specifically about their preferences in lesson design, interdisciplinarity of content,
universal themes and generalizations, critical and creative thinking skills and
133
thinking prompts. The respondents were allowed to choose preferences in
modifying their curriculum. In a different manner, the interview protocol asked the
respondent, “What would I see in terms of depth, complexity, novelty and
acceleration?” This question and the open discussion format within the interview
allowed the teachers to talk more in-depth about their differentiation within their
lessons, providing examples of daily activities. While teachers reported in the online
survey their preferences and rationales in differentiating curriculum, the interviews
enabled the researcher to delve deeper into the topic of curricular practices which
provided evidence to support the online responses.
In general, all of the teachers reported during the interviews that they
differentiate their curriculum and instruction for their gifted students. As seen in the
cognitive mapping of the responses in Figure 14, the types of differentiation that the
teachers said they use in teaching their gifted students included methods supported
by the California Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented
Students, which is depth, complexity, novelty and acceleration (SBE, 2000, rev.
2005).
Several of the teachers also indicated that they consider students’ interests
and ability levels when planning their differentiated lessons; an aspect of
differentiation that emerged during the interviews in which teachers talked about the
use of independent/research projects in their curricular practice.
134
Figure 14: Types and Non-Types of Differentiation Used by the Respondents
In addition to the approaches to curricular differentiation, as recognized by
the California GATE Standards, the teachers also reported using non-types of
differentiation in their instruction, such as field-trips, prescribed curriculum, and
testing preparation. During their interviews, several respondents talked about the
expectations of the principal to provide instruction that prepared students for test
preparation or instruction that was considered to have fidelity to the publisher’s
prescribed curriculum. Several of the teachers talked about using these approaches
in addition to their own differentiated strategies. They clearly understood that such
135
approaches were not considered differentiation for gifted students, but stated that
they used the approaches in addition to GATE strategies because they were expected
to do so. In addition, though none of the teachers indicated that they took field trips,
some perceived field trips to be a type of curricular “enrichment.”
Figure 15 illustrates a breakdown of the types of differentiation reported by
each teacher during the interviews. According to this data, the predominate
approaches that the respondents used to differentiate content were the use of depth
and complexity and independent projects. Some of the teachers indicated that they
use problem-based learning and questioning techniques which are also approaches to
differentiated instruction that are supported by the Recommended Standards.
136
Figure 15: The Types of Differentiation Reported During the Interviews
Teacher Method of Curricular Differentiation Instructional Grouping Method
1. Depth and Complexity Homogeneous groups
2. Depth and Complexity; themes; interest
based projects; independent research
projects
Flexible/homogeneous groups
whole class instruction
3. Depth and Complexity; enrichment (for
math); interest-based projects
Flexible, heterogeneous groups
4. Depth and complexity; interest-based
projects; content acceleration (math);
Socratic dialogue; learning-styles-based
activities
Flexible groups, both
homogeneous and heterogeneous;
independent work
5. Depth and complexity Flexible, homogeneous groups
6. Depth and complexity; interest-based
products; novelty
Heterogeneous groups
7. Depth and complexity; compacting;
GLAD strategies
No groups- traditional rows
8. Depth and Complexity; themes and
generalizations
Homogeneous groups
9. Questioning Heterogeneous groups
10. Questioning techniques Heterogeneous pairs, teams and
groups
11. Project-based learning; depth and
complexity
Traditional Rows (parliamentary
style) and homogeneous groups
12. Extension menus Flexible homogeneous groups
13. Depth and Complexity; Project-based
learning
Traditional Rows; homogeneous
groups
14. Depth and complexity; interest-based
independent projects; tiered assignments
Whole group and small
homogeneous groups
15. Themes and Generalizations, independent
projects; inquiry-based case studies
Homogeneous groups
137
Summary of Differentiated Curriculum
The interview data supported the survey data in that both data sets
demonstrated that the teachers’ primary method of differentiation was the use of the
depth and complexity content prompts. Also both data sets indicated that there were
some teachers who differentiated their curriculum with the use of themes and
generalizations.
Whereas teachers reported in the online survey that they prefer using critical
and creative thinking skills, during the interviews teachers reported using these skills
in relation to the use of questioning techniques (e.g., Socratic dialogue) and projects
(independent, research, and interest-based).
What appeared to be disparity between the survey and interview data could
be a result of the differences in the design and functionality of the instrumentation, as
previously discussed. One difference was in relation to the topic of using prescribed
curriculum. The online survey reported that none of the teachers preferred using a
prescribed curriculum, but during the interviews, as noted above, several teachers
reported that in addition to modifying their curriculum using various GATE
approaches, they also used the prescribed curriculum because they were expected to
do so by site administration. Also, in the online survey, all of the teachers reported
their preference of teaching content in an interdisciplinary way; during the
interviews, this approach was not reported upon by the teachers.
138
Differentiated Instruction
Quantitative Findings
The following section provides data regarding teachers’ instructional
grouping practices and their rationales for their choices. The data in Table 23 reveals
that 10 (66.7%) out of 15 respondents preferred teaching in homogeneous groups
primarily for the reason that they felt that such practice was more academically
rigorous for their gifted students. The respondents also felt that that such practice
had the potential to have a positive effect on all of the learners in their classrooms.
Educational reform of the past two decades has promoted the use of
heterogeneous grouping as a preferred instructional practice over homogeneous
grouping in classrooms. Homogeneously grouping students, it has been argued,
promotes “tracking” or full-time ability grouping. Supporters of heterogeneous
grouping feel that such practice assures equal learning opportunities (Tomlinson,
1995 referencing Kozol, 1991; Oakes, 1985; Page, 1991; Salvin, 1987; and
Wheelock, 1992).
139
Table 23: Teacher Preferences and Rationales – Instructional Grouping Practices:
Homogeneous vs. Heterogeneous (n=15)
Teaching method you prefer (select one)
Teaching in
homogeneous
groups
Teaching in
heterogeneous
groups
Reasons that
best explains
your choice
It takes less time Count
%
2
20.0%
0
0.0%
My previous
experience has
proven it works
Count
%
6
60.0%
2
40.0%
My district and/or
school expects me
to do it this way
Count
%
0
.0%
3
60.0%
It is more
stimulating for me
as a teacher to do
it this way
Count
%
6
60.0%
3
60.0%
It is more
academically
rigorous for gifted
students
Count
%
8
80.0%
3
60.0%
It is more aligned
to GATE
standards
Count
%
6
60.0%
2
40.0%
It has the potential
to affect all
learners in my
classroom
Count
%
7
70.0%
3
60.0%
Total
Respondents
Count
% of Total
10
66.7%
5
33.3%
140
However, contemporary constructs of “differentiation” have emerged that
emphasizes “flexible” grouping of students. For example, Rogers (2008) argues for
flexible grouping for targeted instruction, cluster grouping and pull-out groups. Such
examples of homogeneous grouping “all rely on students’ current level of
performance and what they already know about what is being taught as the criteria
for group placement” (p. 78). Rogers reasons that such grouping practice
appropriately addresses the needs of all children because placement into these groups
are based on pre-assessments and that teachers can differentiate instruction to meet
the academic needs of the students.
Flexible grouping may also be based on interests, readiness levels and
learning styles (Tomlinson, 2001). Therefore, the appropriate practice of flexible
grouping allows for targeted rigorous instruction to meet the needs of all students, as
indicated by the respondents’ rationales for choosing homogeneous grouping.
Data in Table 24 indicates that 10 (66.7%) out of 15 of the respondents
preferred small group instruction to whole class instruction because their teaching
experiences have proven to them that small group instruction has the potential to
affect all learners in their classroom. The response data also indicated that the
teachers found such practice more professionally stimulating as a teacher. Small,
homogeneous-group instruction is supported by research conducted by Sorensen and
Hallinan (1986) which found that such instructional practice “facilitate[s] learning
more than larger, more heterogeneous groups” (p. 539) This approach benefits
students because of the natural application of differentiation that takes place in small
141
homogeneous-groups, as concluded by Sorenson and Hallinan (1986): “One positive
main effect of grouping…could be interpreted to mean that students learn more of
what is taught in grouped classes because of greater attention and/or the adaptation
of instruction and preparations of the students” (p. 540).
Table 24: Teacher Preferences and Rationales – Instructional Grouping Practices:
Small vs. Whole (n=15)
Teaching method you prefer (select one)
Teaching in
small groups
Teaching students
in whole class
Reasons that
best explains
your choice
It takes less time Count
%
0
.0%
4
80.0%
My previous
experience has proven
it works
Count
%
8
80.0%
2
40.0%
My district and/or
school expects me to
do it this way
Count
%
1
10.0%
1
20.0%
It is more stimulating
for me as a teacher to
do it this way
Count
%
7
70.0%
2
40.0%
It is more
academically rigorous
for gifted students
Count
%
6
60.0%
1
20.0%
It is more aligned to
GATE standards
Count
%
4
40.0%
0
.0%
It has the potential to
affect all learners in
my classroom
Count
%
7
70.0%
2
40.0%
Total
Respondents
Count
% of Total
10
66.7%
5
33.3%
142
Qualitative Findings
During the interviews, eight teachers reported grouping students
homogenously by ability; four teachers reported grouping heterogeneously based on
ability and interests; 2 reported using both heterogeneous and homogeneous
groupings based on abilities and interests; and, one teacher did not group because she
said her classroom was too limited on space to do so. These results are similar to
those of the online survey in which 10 teachers reported using homogeneous
grouping practices and 5 teachers reported using heterogeneous grouping practices.
Summary of Differentiation of Instruction
The majority of the teachers in this study indicated that they preferred to
differentiate instructional settings primarily through the use of homogeneous groups,
as well as small groups. This was evident in both the quantitative and qualitative
data. The teachers relied on past experience and felt that using these grouping
arrangements allowed them to provide a more rigorous learning experience for their
students and had the potential to have a positive effect on all students in their
classrooms.
California’s GATE Standards support instructional differentiation through the
utilization of a variety of grouping patterns, including homogeneous and small
groups, which allow for the many different learning styles and needs of the students
in the classroom (SBE, 2001, Rev. 2005, p. 4).
What the data did not indicate is how often the teachers changed grouping
arrangements, and used “flexible” grouping as opposed to permanent groupings. As
143
contemporary research states, permanent homogeneous groupings do not allow for
movement into higher groups; nor does it address the various academic needs,
interests or learning styles of the students in the classroom.
Influencing Factors in Curricular and Instructional Decision-making
In determining why the teachers chose to differentiate their curriculum, a
pattern emerged in from both the online survey data and the interviews that
demonstrated the significant role that professional stimulation and satisfaction plays
in teaching.
Table 25 illustrates the frequency and percentage of rationales that
accompanied the teachers’ curricular differentiation choices in the online surveys
and seen previously in Tables 16-22. The vast majority of teachers in the study
chose to differentiate most often because the method was more stimulating for the
teacher to do it that selected way.
This finding is supported by Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory. In this
theory, Bandura posits that people find satisfaction in mastering goals and meeting
the standards that they set for themselves.
Supported also by Bandura’s theory, a large amount of the responses
indicated that the teachers selected methods of differentiation because these methods
aligned with the curriculum and instruction methods and models stated in the
California Standards for Gifted Programming, again underscoring the role that self-
efficacy plays in professional stimulation.
144
Table 25: f & % of Rationales Matching Most Preferred Methods of Differentiating
Curriculum
Rationale f %
It takes less time 6 2.5
My previous experience has proven it works 42 15.78
My district and/or school expects me to do it this way 13 4.88
It is more stimulating for me as a teacher to do it this way 55 20.6
It is more academically rigorous for gifted students 54 20.3
It is more aligned to GATE standards 49 18.42
It has the potential to affect all learners in my classroom 47 17.66
Total Responses 266
Note: Respondents (n=15) could select multiple rationales for each question
Additionally, a large amount of rationale responses indicated that the
teachers’ preferences provided more academic rigor for their students and had the
potential to have a positive effect on all learners in the classroom. These finding are
supported by Reis and Westberg (1994) who found that teachers tend to choose and
sustain strategies that prove to be most effective in attaining student success. When
students succeed, teachers feel professionally satisfied.
Findings from the in-depth interviews regarding teachers’ reasons for
differentiating curriculum paralleled those from the online surveys in many ways.
Figure 16 illustrates the cognitive mapping of the themes that emerged from the
interviews regarding the factors that influenced the teachers’ curricular and
instructional choices. The reasons for their choices that the teachers discussed
145
formed a dichotomy of two general areas of influencing factors upon their curricular
and instructional decision-making: External (e.g., environmental/contextual
influences) and Internal (e.g., self-efficacy and self-imposed standards). This
dichotomy of influencing factors aligns with Bandura’s (1986) premise of
“reciprocal causation” in which people, their behaviors and their environments have
mutual influence upon each other. For example, the administrative expectation
(environmental factor) that the teachers use specific teaching methods may or may
not be an external influence upon teachers when they are making curricular and
instructional choices (behavior). The same idea may apply when a teacher perceives
that a certain academic program holds higher status (external factor) at a school site
than others, possibly influencing his or her approach to teaching (behavior). Or, it
may be that a teacher is influenced by his or her own internal level of self-efficacy in
meeting a self-imposed level of standards or goals (person) when choosing
instructional approaches (behavior) that he or she feels best benefits their classroom
students. Thus, the researcher found that the most prominent influencing factors fell
into categories of external influence (environment) and internal influence (person
and behaviors).
146
Figure 16: Influencing Factors upon Teachers’ Curricular and Instructional
Choices
External Factors
During the closing of the interviews, teachers were asked to rate, on a scale
of 1-5 (5 being the strongest), the influence of the administration priorities upon their
own curricular and instructional planning. The average response rate was 3.26. A
few of the teachers attributed their low rating of 1 or 2 to their years of experience
and felt that the administration had very little impact on their teaching because they
had the support of the administration. This perception was voiced by one teacher
147
who explained, “I’ve taught a lot more years than he has taught, and he’s not familiar
with the differentiation…And he’s supportive of me.”
However, roughly half of the teachers strongly felt that the administration’s
level of support for a particular program had some level of influence on their
curricular and instructional decision-making. As one teacher commented about the
role that support plays in his instructional planning, “I think that’s huge. In this
budget crisis we’ve really seen how important the perception of support is, because
there’s not a lot of physical support available.”
When it came to discussing differentiation of curriculum and instruction for
gifted students, teachers reported that the level of principal support for using GATE
strategies varied from very supportive to “non-existent.” Many of these teachers felt
that the principals were pressured to focus on raising test scores. As a result, most
teachers felt that their principal’s priority was other programs and instructional
strategies that focused on meeting the needs of low-achieving students. Several
teachers indicated that their principals “didn’t know what differentiated teaching
even looks like.”
In addition, a larger amount of teachers felt that there was a sense of
administrator apathy towards differentiation for gifted students. For example, one
teacher reflected that,
Administration I do not believe…really has any attention on it. It’s not
expected to be shown necessarily on my lesson plans what higher level
differentiation I’m doing. Lower level differentiation is expected.
Intervention is expected on my lesson plans, but enrichment is not.
148
This finding from the interviews paralleled that of the online survey data in Table 25
which showed that the rationale that read, “because the district or school wants it”
was one of the least chosen rationales by the teachers in the study.
While the analysis of the data regarding the influence of administrative
expectations in teacher curricular decision-making led to ambiguous interpretation,
the role of fellow GATE teachers’ support was a significant external factor. This
was evident in the online survey results in which 14 of the 15 teachers felt that the
GATE program was supported by GATE staff members (see Table 14). During the
interviews, one teacher talked about the way her GATE professional community
filled the resource gap that was left by the fiscal cutbacks, stating, “One of the things
that we have done, kind of to get around the budget stuff is we have an online kind of
professional community…but for GATE resources, where we kind of share what
we’ve learned in an electronic format…” Another teacher commented that it wasn’t
the administration support that influenced his decision to differentiate his approach
to teaching his gifted students, but rather, “I think it’s our gifted cadre of teachers’
commitment to the idea. I think they’ve [administration] supported it somewhat, but
I think it’s more our interest in doing it.”
One final influencing external factor that the teachers perceived as having an
impact on their teaching were the State’s GATE standards. In the online survey,
teachers often selected “It is aligned with GATE standards” as a reason why they
differentiate their curriculum. Similarly, in the interviews, when teachers were asked
to rate (on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the strongest) the level of influence that the
149
GATE program standards had on their planning of differentiated curriculum and
instruction for their gifted students, the average response was 3.7, with nine (60%) of
the teachers rating the influence of the State’s standards on their teaching at a 4 or 5.
One teacher stated, “Through the GATE program at our school is how I’ve become
myself informed about strategies and tactics and philosophies that I use to design my
instruction.” And another teacher reflected and said, “I would actually give it a 4-5
because it is at the top of my list.”
Internal Factors
In addition to external factors, such as collegial support and State GATE
standards, teachers indicated in the interviews that the reason why they chose to
differentiate for their gifted students was because they felt, regardless of contextual
factors, they were driven by a strong sense of moral and professional responsibility
to meet the academic needs of their students. As one veteran teacher responded,
“I’m a rebel. I am going to do what I think is best for kids.”
This “do what is right for the kids” attitude was apparent in both the online
survey data and the follow-up interviews. Table 25 shows that among the top
rationales that teachers gave for differentiating their curriculum were because in
doing so provided students with a rigorous experience and because it had the
potential to have a positive effect on all of the kids in the classroom. Similarly, this
attitude of doing what’s right for kids was present throughout the telephone
interviews. In general, the teachers spoke with certainty about their choice to
differentiate the curriculum for their gifted students. For example, when one teacher
150
was asked about the level of influence that administrative support had upon her
teaching, she answered, “Well, it does some, but I don’t let that get in my way,
because the impetus and the motivation is, many times, what’s best for the students.
And I’ve worked under administrators who really felt that Gifted Ed was not a big
priority. I could tell. And it didn’t matter. My morale did not go down. It was just
as strong, because the impetus, the motivation, like I said, was the needs of the
students.”
Summary of Results – Influencing Factors on Teachers’ Curricular Decision-
making
In general, all of the teachers found that using differentiation in their teaching
of gifted students was professionally stimulating. This finding was evident in both
the online-survey and the follow-up interviews. For example, one teacher of
eighteen years spoke with fervent passion about how teaching gifted students affects
her planning and instruction, “I love it. I love it, but I love curriculum and I love
finding ways to make these kids think.” Another teacher of four years was talking
about teaching with themes and generalizations. When asked why she differentiates
her teaching, she said, “It’s more fun to teach that way.”
In addition to the professional satisfaction that teachers felt when
appropriately differentiating for their gifted students, most teachers also felt that they
were providing high quality curriculum and instruction to all of the students in their
classrooms. With this “spill-over” effect, all students in these teachers’ classrooms
151
had the opportunity to increase their levels of knowing and understanding because of
the differentiation that took place in the classrooms.
Over all, the teachers in the study felt that they were the guardians of the
gifted program and of the gifted students at their schools. From the telephone
interviews, the researcher dubbed these teachers as the “lighthouse keepers” because
there was an attitude that if they didn’t watch over the program, then it would
completely dissolve and that the students’ academic needs would not be met. This
observation was captured in one teacher’s reflection: “It seems that it comes down
to two teachers at our school, [another teacher] and myself, who fly this flag, won’t
put it down, and make sure these students’ needs are met.” And another teacher’s
final comment that, “I hope we don’t see gifted education go by the wayside. I think
we have to continue to fight for it and fight for these kids.”
152
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS
“Whether we have limited or unlimited resources, we need to strive to achieve both
equity and excellence, or we have failed. We’re talking about quality education for
everyone.”
-- A. H. Passow
(quoted by R. J. Kirschenbaum,
Interview with Dr. A. Harry Passow, 1998, p. 195)
Purpose of the Study
It has been recognized through the field literature that gifted education has
long experienced an ebb and flow of interest within the American educational system
(Reiss, 2004; Tannenbaum, 1983). The status of gifted education and gifted
programs that assure the delivery of appropriate services for gifted students,
including differentiated curriculum and instruction, has waned in the shadow of
national education reform policies and State fiscal crisis. In consequence of these
events, gifted education programs across the nation have experienced a severe
reduction in fiscal status (NAGC, 2009). Particularly, in the State of California,
where gifted education is a permissive rather than a mandated program, the
decreasing fiscal status of gifted education has had a trickle-down effect on school
districts and the schools therein (Tucker, 2010).
It has also been established through field research that in order to fulfill their
academic potential, gifted students require differentiated curriculum and instruction
that provides them with challenging learning experiences (Ward, 1961; Marland,
1972, Ross, 1993; Tomlinson, 2001). It is ultimately the responsibility of classroom
153
teachers, then, to provide appropriately differentiated curriculum and instruction for
their gifted students. However, one has to ponder what influences teachers as they
craft their lessons to meet the diverse learning abilities of their students, including
their gifted students.
Thus, the researcher’s primary purpose in this study was to analyze the
relationship between teachers’ perceived priority or status of gifted programs and
their choice to differentiate curriculum and instruction for the gifted students in their
classrooms. In addition, through the course of the study, the researcher sought to
uncover other factors that could be related to teachers’ curricular and instructional
decision-making for gifted students. The findings from this study are intended to
raise awareness of the value of gifted programming in addressing the needs of gifted
students in California.
Methodology
During the course of this study, both quantitative and qualitative methods
were employed for gathering data related to the research question. During the first
stage of the research, quantitative data, which served as the primary source of
findings, resulted from responses to a subset of questions that were part of a large
survey. The larger survey was the primary instrument utilized in a different study
conducted by Dr. Sandra Kaplan, Professor of Clinical Education at the University of
Southern California which focused on providing a big picture of the current trends in
gifted education in California. The complete survey was posted by CAG (the
California Association for the Gifted) on its website and invitations to participate in
154
the survey were emailed to CAG members. Respondents answered forced choice
questions that ranged from topics about their awareness of fiscal effects on gifted
programs in their districts and schools to curricular and instructional choices and
rationales for those choices.
Eight hundred and ninety CAG members anonymously completed the larger
survey which included questions used in this study; however, only 55 of those
respondents indicated at the end of the survey that they would be willing to be
contacted to participate in a follow-up telephone interview as part of a separate study
about gifted education. It was from these 55 respondents that the researcher drew the
sample population for this study because the study’s design called for match sets of
survey and interview data drawn from the same sample population.
The researcher conducted a purposeful random selection of 15 study
participants. This assured that all geographic regions of California were represented
in the study. The researcher chose 15 subjects from the across California because the
purpose of the study was to determine a relationship between the status of a GATE
program in a school district or on a school site and the decisions teachers make to
differentiate their curriculum and instruction for their gifted students. It was critical
that the researcher was able to deeply explore a set of survey answers with the use of
interview questions that were a direct consequence of the online survey questions as
a way to cross-check the validity of the data. Moreover, it was determined in
planning this study that using only 15 subjects would allow the researcher to conduct
an in-depth analysis of two sets of data which was essential to conducting this
155
applied research study. Analysis of the quantitative data from the subset of survey
questions used in this study was conducted using descriptive statistical analysis and
was reported in frequencies and percents.
Qualitative data collected in the second phase of the research was used to
support the primary quantitative data and was gathered from the telephone interviews
conducted with the sample population of 15 K-12 teachers. Semi-structured
interview questions augmented the online survey questions and probed the
respondents’ further as to their perceptions and beliefs about the status of the gifted
programs in their districts and schools, their curricular and instructional choices in
addressing the academic needs of their gifted students and their rationales for those
choices. As stated earlier, the researcher chose a small sample size because it
afforded her the opportunity to delve deeply into the online responses by the subjects
by using in-depth interviews. As Patton (2002) proffered, it isn’t the size of the
sample population that matters; rather it is the level of information-rich data and the
analysis of that data that makes for good research. Analysis of the qualitative data
was conducted using ATLAS.ti, a qualitative data software program, which enabled
the researcher to organize, code, and create cognitive maps, which are a type of
visual display of data analysis.
Both quantitative and qualitative data sets were then analyzed for patterns,
trends and big ideas about the relationship between gifted program status and the
curricular and instructional decisions that the teachers in the study made when
156
planning learning experiences for their gifted students. The findings from this
analysis follow in the next section.
Key Findings
This section will begin with a brief discussion of the demographic findings of
the sample population. Following the demographic discussion will be a summary
and discussion highlighting major findings from both the quantitative and qualitative
data regarding the significant variables of program status and teachers’ curricular and
instructional choices regarding differentiation of curriculum and instruction for
gifted students.
Key Demographic Findings
At the time of the study, the 11 female and four male respondents, were
teaching in urban, suburban and rural districts from all regions of California. Eleven
of the teachers held a Master of Arts or Master of Education Degree. On average,
the respondents were experienced teachers with a median of 13 years. The data from
the survey indicated that the respondents, as a group, felt competent in their abilities
to differentiate the core curriculum, use appropriate instructional strategies for gifted
students, and assess their gifted students’ performance. The respondents, in general,
also had participated in professional development specifically focused on gifted
education, as evidenced by 14 (93%) of them having earned some type of certificate
or endorsement in gifted education. Interpretation/Discussion: Ward (1961) and
Passow (1982) both underscored the responsibility of the classroom teacher to
differentiate learning experiences for their gifted students in order to ensure that the
157
students were provided challenge in their classrooms and effective gifted program
services. In addition, both NAGC and CAG recognize that teacher professional
development is a critical aspect in providing teachers with the necessary knowledge
and skills to create and maintain “classroom-based opportunities for advanced
student learning” (“Standards,” 2010, ¶1) which includes curriculum and instruction
that employs depth and complexity, novelty and acceleration (SBE, 2001, Rev.
2005).
The demographic data in this study demonstrated that the teacher-participants
were trained in teaching gifted students. There was a clear indication from both the
online data and the interviews that the teachers possessed a strong sense of self-
efficacy in their ability to plan and deliver differentiated curriculum and instruction.
These findings suggest the possibility that the teachers’ self-efficacy is related to the
amount of training related to gifted education that they possess. This viewpoint
aligns with Bandura’s (1986) principles regarding motivation and “self-regulatory
functions” which maintain that, “behavior is motivated and regulated by internal
standards and self-evaluative reactions to their own actions” (p. 20). Considering the
amount of time and effort spent in professional development by the teachers in this
study, which in most cases earned them certificates of endorsement, it is possible
that these teachers held themselves to a certain level of professional competence or
to self-imposed standards, as purported by Bandura (1986).
For districts and schools that strive to meet NCLB compliance by having
“highly-qualified” teachers in classrooms, the implications of the findings
158
underscore the utility of gifted programs, and the professional development
component therein. It is not clear from the data however, if the teachers were driven
only by intrinsic motivation to meet self-imposed standards or by other factors such
as district-imposed requisites to teach the gifted classes, or remuneration that may be
attached to holding a gifted specialist certificate.
Key Findings – Program Fiscal Status
Findings from the data produced by the online survey indicated that all 15
(100%) of the teachers felt that the financial resources used to supplement classroom
materials and provide implementation of the GATE program were inadequate, even
though only 10 (77.8%) of the teachers were aware of the changes in the State law
that allows for districts’ discretionary or “flexible” use of GATE funds, and nine
(90%) of those teachers perceived that there were negative consequences to their
district and school’s GATE program because of these changes in the State law.
The findings from the telephone interviews paralleled those of the online
survey in that most of the teachers perceived that there were fiscal cuts to the GATE
program in their districts, creating negative consequences that impacted several
aspects of the GATE program, including coordination, professional development,
and classroom materials and resources that supplement the core curriculum.
In addition, many of the teachers perceived that the funding cuts were part of
a “trickle-down” effect resulting from a larger fiscal crisis that started at the State
level and carried through to the district and site levels. While the teachers reflected
on the consequences of these funding cuts on their gifted programs, they didn’t fault
159
their district or school administration for what they saw to be an unavoidable
situation. The teachers appreciated that they had their principals’ verbal support for
the GATE program, but complained about the lack of funding for it. Paradoxically,
the teachers expressed extreme frustration at the large amounts of resources directed
towards other programs with special needs students, such as Special Education and
English Learner programs. Frustration was also expressed about the fiscal support of
efforts to increase students’ test scores. Interview data demonstrated the teachers’
dedication to maintain the gifted program despite tough fiscal constraints. Many of
them continued to coordinate their site’s GATE program, though their stipends for
doing so had been eliminated and many continued to seek professional development
at significant personal financial costs.
Interpretation/Discussion
Whether or not the teachers interviewed were aware of the changes in the law
pertaining to the flexible use of GATE funds, all 15 teachers felt that the financial
resources allocated to GATE were insufficient for implementing the GATE Program
in their schools. This finding indicated that gifted programs in the schools directly
related to the study may be at risk and align with the results of GATE Program status
research conducted by Purcell (1994) and NAGC (2009). The research exposed the
consequences of financial cuts to gifted programs across the nation which negatively
impacts services to gifted students, professional development for teachers, and the
overall stability of gifted program growth (Purcell, 1994; NAGC, 2009). Purcell
160
(1994) found this to be true particularly in states that did not have mandates
pertaining to gifted education and were experiencing fiscal reductions.
In addition, the outcomes of this study further confirmed the results of
previously conducted field research (Scot, Callahan and Urquhart, 2009; Brown, et
al., 2006; VanTassel-Baska, 2006) which documented the consequences that
contemporary political reform policies have had on the status of gifted education
programs. The focus of Federal and State policies and dollars has been on sustaining
high stakes testing, increasing achievement scores of low-performing students and
supporting programs for students with “exceptionalities” other than giftedness (Van
Tassel-Baska, 2006). Van Tassel-Baska (2006) suggested that to improve gifted
programming during contemporary times, the field needs to “capitalize on
opportunities to promote the reform agenda for all learners. In an ideal system,
gifted education could be considered an equal collaborative partner in raising
achievement for all” (2009, p. 209). However, Van Tassel-Baska cautioned that to
achieve this goal may be difficult for local educational agencies to do because of the
“lack of strong national and state policy and limited funding” for gifted education (p.
209). NAGC (2009) also reported in the State of the Nation in Gifted Education
upon the impact, as perceived by many in the field that educational reform policies
have had on gifted education. The report stated that, “NCLB was one of the most
negatively rated factors influencing gifted education” (p. 11); however, they also
stated that the extent of influence of NCLB on gifted education is still being
assessed.
161
It was evident from the data that in many of the schools in which the study’s
participants worked, there was the perception that the gifted programs had
experienced significant funding reductions, leaving teachers with little or no fiscal
support for their efforts to provide gifted students with appropriate services or
enriching classroom experiences. Teachers in this study chose to differentiate for
their gifted students because they felt that they were driven by a strong sense of
moral and professional responsibility to meet the academic needs of their students,
regardless of contextual factors. As one veteran teacher commented, “I’m a rebel. I
am going to do what I think is best for kids.” The finding that the teachers continued
to “carry the GATE banner” in sustaining services to students was consistent with
that of VanTassel-Baska (2006) who considered such teachers as the program’s
“lifelines” and suggests that while resources are helpful in sustaining a program,
teachers take seriously the moral obligation to do what is necessary to meet their
students needs.
Key Findings – Program Priority
The findings from the online survey and the interviews both indicated that the
GATE program at both the district and school levels held low priority. When asked
to benchmark the level of priority of the gifted program to that of other special needs
programs at their sites, the teachers’ perceptions were that Special Education and
English Learners programs held much more priority, especially among the
administrators. In addition to the large amount of fiscal resources being spent on
those two programs, the teachers indicated during the interviews that they were
162
discouraged about the amount of instructional time they had to spend on preparing
students for benchmark and achievement tests.
Parallels also existed between the survey and interview data regarding the
lack of support for gifted education by other staff members who weren’t assigned to
teach the GATE cluster classrooms. The interviews suggested that there was a sense
of apathy about the needs for gifted students that came from some administrators and
non-GATE teachers. Many of the respondents cited reasons for the staffs’
indifference that included misunderstanding gifted children’s needs, not approving of
clustering the gifted students with one teacher and not wanting to attend professional
development inservice focused on GATE strategies. The belief that administrators
held that the gifted students “will do okay” or “be just fine” without special services
because of their high abilities was threaded throughout the interviews.
Interpretation/Discussion
The literature is replete with research that demonstrates the ambivalent
attitudes towards gifted education. Clark (1997) pointed out that while the majority
of the public supported the idea of funding gifted programs, “school boards and
legislative bodies...consistently give token support at best to public school programs
for gifted learners” (p. 82). In addition, teachers’ attitudes toward gifted students
influenced both the students and the overall acceptance of gifted programs (Clark,
1997, p. 82 ref. Dettmer, 1985). McCoach and Siegle (2007) found in their
subscales’ analysis of teachers’ attitudes towards the gifted that teachers supported
the idea that gifted children need special services. Paradoxically, they also found
163
that the teachers held very negative towards gifted programs, expressing concerns
over the “elitism” and “favored status” attached to such programs. McCoach and
Siegle (2007) cited that contextual influences may have an impact on attitudinal
surveys and that teacher’s attitudes should be assessed on individual basis.
The findings of this study underscored the perceptions held by many that
gifted programming holds low priority at districts and schools, and corroborating
those findings of previous research (Van Tassel-Baska, 2006; Clark 1997).
However, what stands out differently between previous research and this study is the
basis for such attitudes. In previous research, there was concern that such programs
carried an elite and preferred status. This did not seem to be the case in this study.
A concomitant result of the contemporary federal and state policies’ goal to close the
achievement gap has been the intense focus by teachers and administrators on high-
stakes accountability tests and the students who traditionally perform poorly on such
measures. The findings in this study were similar to the recent findings of Scott,
Callahan and Urquhart (2009) in which teachers felt that the pressure to increase test
scores impeded their ability to meet the needs of their gifted students. The
consequence is that, as VanTassel-Baska (2006) found, “districts are being forced to
make untenable choices, usually opting for service to general education demands
rather than gifted needs due to strong political pressure” (p. 207). Apparent, too, is
the continued belief of educators that gifted students will flourish on their own – a
belief that Clark (1997) attributed to a lack of understanding about how gifted
potential develops. Essential for gifted students’ growth, then, are appropriate
164
programs and trained classroom teachers that are both aimed at helping gifted
students fulfill their potential.
Key Findings – Differentiated Instructional Choices
Both sets of findings indicated that all of the teachers differentiate the core
curriculum for their gifted students. The most commonly reported approaches to
differentiating the content from both the surveys and the interviews were the use of
depth and complexity content prompts, and themes and generalizations. Critical and
creative thinking skills were also reported as being commonly used in teaching, such
as in research/projects and in questioning techniques during classroom discussions.
The two most common reasons for differentiating the curriculum, as reported on the
surveys, were that the teachers felt more professionally stimulated in using these
approaches, and that they felt it was more academically rigorous for gifted students.
In addition, during the interviews, the teachers stated that they didn’t differentiate the
curriculum only for their cluster of gifted students; instead, they delivered
differentiated curriculum for all of their students in the classroom, finding that all
students benefited from the content modifications – in other words, “the spill-over”
effect. Moreover, from both sets of data, teachers indicated that the California
Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented Students (SBE,
2001, Rev. 2005) was a significant influence in their decision to differentiate their
curriculum for the gifted students.
There appeared to be an inconsistency between the two sets of data
concerning lesson design. Whereas results from the online survey indicated that
165
teachers preferred to design their own modified curriculum rather than follow the
teachers’ guide or prescribed curriculum, interviews indicated that several of the
teachers felt that they had to follow the prescribed curriculum due because their
administrators expected them to do so, but that they also modified curriculum for
their gifted students.
The teachers also reported that they differentiated instruction by using small
and homogeneous groups. Such practices, experience told them, provided the
opportunity to deliver more rigorous learning experiences for their students and that
all students benefited from the targeted instruction that small and homogeneous
grouping practice provided.
Interpretation/Discussion
The teachers in this study differentiated their instruction using the
recommended methods proposed in the GATE State Standards. The teachers,
according to the reported demographics, had received GATE training and several of
them held certificates of endorsement in gifted education. Given the expansive
geographic region represented in the study, the teachers demonstrated a common
understanding of curricular and instructional differentiation methods that are
supported by the California Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted and
Talented Students (SBE, 2001, Rev. 2005). This finding attested to the guiding role
that gifted programming plays in provide direction for teacher professional
development and challenging curriculum and instruction, as suggested by the
166
literature of the field (NAGC, 2009; Reiss, 2008; Gallagher, 2002; Clark, 1982;
Passow, 1955).
In addition, the online survey data suggested that there was little or no
expectation to differentiate curriculum and instruction from the participants’ district
and/or school administrators. This was further corroborated by the interviews in
which most teachers indicated that, despite low expectations from their principals to
do so, they still differentiated their curriculum and instruction by using GATE
strategies. What the administrators did expect, however, was the teachers’ use of
instructional strategies geared towards preparing students for high-stakes testing.
Several teachers reported that they taught the test preparation strategies, in addition
to using gifted differentiation strategies, in order to meet job performance
expectations – not because they necessarily felt such strategies were beneficial for
gifted students. Similar to the teachers in the Scott, Callahan and Urquhart (2009)
study, many of the teachers in this study felt the demands of current political
contexts, such as using curricular pacing guides, did much to curtail their ability to
make their own pedagogical decisions. However, unlike the teachers in the Scott,
Callahan and Urquhart (2009) study, most of the teachers in this study did not feel
these contextual demands inhibited their decision to use differentiated methods in
their classrooms.
Consistent with Bandura’s (1986) premise that “Much of [people’s] behavior
is motivated and regulated by internal standards and self-evaluative reactions to their
own actions” (p. 20), these teachers found a sense of stimulation in teaching their
167
gifted students using methods that they believed, from experience and extensive
training, to be best for academic development. Teachers gave further evidence of
this phenomenon in their interviews, coming most alive when they talked about
delivering their differentiated lessons and watching the positive reactions of their
students and the results in their work. Thus, Bandura’s (1986) assertion that, “An
act, therefore, includes among its determinants, self-produced influences” (p. 20) is a
plausible argument for the teachers’ use of gifted differentiation methods, despite the
fact that doing so was not because of the principals’ expectations.
Finally, Bandura’s (1986) philosophical framework, Triardic Reciprocal
Causation, had vast implications for this study. Similar to what Bandura (1986)
espoused, there seemed to exist a constant interplay between personal,
environmental, and behavioral factors which had some level of influence upon the
teachers’ decisions to plan and deliver appropriately differentiated curriculum and
instruction for their gifted students. At times, environmental factors, such as gifted
program status, the current political context, and administrators’ expectations, played
a prominent role. At other times, what the teacher believed to be the best decision
for the students was an important factor. And in further instances, the teachers’
actions and ensuing results from those actions played a prominent role. Thus,
Bandura’s (1986) framework served the researcher well as a theoretical lens in
examining the relationship between potential influences such as program status upon
teachers’ curricular and instructional decision-making.
168
Limitations and Future Studies
There were some limitations that emerged during the course of this study that
should be noted. First, measuring people’s beliefs, attitudes and perceptions, as
found by expert educational researchers (Rueda and Garcia, 1996; McCoach and
Siegle, 2007), was difficult to do. Factors such as current contexts, professional
experiences, or even the types of instruments used in the study may have had
significant impact on teachers’ perceptions. As these expert researchers pointed out,
beliefs “are not directly observable and must be inferred” (p. 312). The researcher in
this study made every effort to portray the teachers’ perceptions about the gifted
program at their schools with accuracy. Thus, it was important to ascertain that the
study’s participants had gifted programs at their schools—a “significant predictor
related to attitudes towards the gifted,” according to McCoach and Siegle (2007).
However, behaviors reported by the teachers on the surveys and in the interviews,
such as using differentiated curricular and instructional approaches, were not directly
observed. A recommendation for future studies would be to conduct classroom and
site observations as part of mixed methods study that examines the relationship
between program priority and differentiated teaching practices to ascertain validity
of the participant’s perceptions of these variables.
The small size of the population (n=15) prohibits any generalizing of the
results. In addition, the teachers in this study were members of the California
Association for the Gifted, a professional association of teachers, administrators and
parents. Though the participants self-selected to participate anonymously in the
169
online survey and then in follow-up interviews, it is possible that the sample
population had a more informed understanding of gifted children and gifted
education than most general education classroom teachers. Future studies should be
conducted on the perceived effects of program status on curricular and instructional
choices that include a larger population size of teachers with more diverse teaching
experiences, teaching assignments, and training. Such a study conducted within the
State could provide a larger picture of the relationship between the perceived status
and priority of gifted programs and teachers’ choices to differentiate instruction for
gifted students in California.
Finally, administrators’ instructional expectations emerged as a significant
factor in this study. It was apparent that superintendents’ and principals’ level of
support played a vital role in developing and sustaining gifted education and
programming. It would be beneficial to study administrators’ perceptions and beliefs
about giftedness and the value of gifted programs since they are in the position to
facilitate or inhibit the opportunities afforded to gifted children in schools.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between teachers’
perceptions of program status and their curricular and instructional decisions for
teaching the gifted students in their classrooms. In doing so, the researcher hoped to
illuminate the value of gifted programming in the State of California because these
programs assure that gifted students’ cognitive and affective needs are met within
our schools.
170
Gifted programs, among many other program elements, provide support for
teacher and administrator training that focuses on best methods and practices for
meeting the unique learning needs of gifted students. Presently, California’s policies
and statutes pertaining to gifted education are permissive and school districts have
been given flexibility to redirect their allocated GATE funds to other areas of fiscal
demands within the district. In consequence, many gifted programs have
experienced a reduction of fiscal resources, resulting in the uneven implementation
of the program’s components. Many school districts have taken what Tomlinson
(2009) called the “patch-on” approach to gifted programming and are “falling short
of quality educational practice” (p. 254).
The conclusions from this study demonstrated that there are many teachers of
the gifted in California who are aware that there have been fiscal reductions to their
gifted programs and that these reductions have had a negative impact on several
facets of their GATE programs. The primary program areas that have been affected
are teacher professional development opportunities, program implementation and
classroom resources. The question that arises in light of the findings from this study
is how will California assure its gifted students that in future years they will continue
to have access to trained teachers who understand their unique learning needs? Just
as the teachers in this study have had specialized training in teaching the gifted,
future teachers will also need such training.
However, it was also determined during the course of this study that, despite
the fiscal reductions, these teachers of gifted students remained steady in their
171
commitment to provide challenging differentiated curriculum and instruction that
they have found beneficial, not only for the gifted students, but for all students in
their classrooms. These findings were not seen just in isolated areas of California;
they were seen in the expansive geographic regions of the state, whether it be urban,
suburban or rural. These concomitant findings may be suggesting that while the
fiscal status of gifted programming has been experiencing a decline in recent years,
this low status may have impelled a change in our focus from providing services that
are dependent upon financial resources to teaching with a sense of moral obligation
to meet the needs of all students, regardless of external factors.
Thus, it is this researcher’s hope that educational decision-makers for
California’s gifted students find this study informative and useful in assuring that, in
their desire to provide excellent and appropriate educational opportunity for all
students, that they consider the unique learning needs of the gifted.
172
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Zhang, W., &
Emmons, C. L. (1993). Classroom practices used with gifted third and fourth
grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 103-119.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Bonney, D. (2010, March 3). CEC policy insider. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from
CEC (Council for Exceptional Children):
http://cecblog.typepad.com/policy/gifted-and-talented/
Brown, E., Avery, L., VanTassel-Baska, J., Worley, B., & Stanbaugh, T. (2006).
Legislation and policies: Effects on the gifted -A five-state analysis of gifted
education policies. Roeper Review, 29(1), 11-23.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Website.(2007). Retrieved June 24,
2010, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/
California State Board of Education. (2001, Rev. 2005). Recommended program
standards for gifted and talented students. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from
California Department of Education: www.cde.ca.gov
Callahan, C. & Caldwell, M. (1997). A practitioner's guide to evaluating programs
for the gifted. Washington D.C.: National Association for Gifted Children.
Cambridge dictionaries online. (2010). Retrieved April 15, 2010, from
http://dictionary.cambridge.org
Clark, B. (1998). Growing up gifted, Fourth Ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Clark, B. (1997). Social ideologies and gifted education in today's schools. Peabody
Journal of Education (72), 81-100.
Clark, B., Gosfield, M., Grey, T, Hubbard, R, Kaplan, S., & Steinitz, V. (1996).
Meeting the challenge: A guidebook for teaching gifted students. n.c.:
California Association for the Gifted.
Clendening, C. P. and Davies, R. A. (1980). Creating programs for the gifted: A
guide for teacher, librarians, and students. New York: R.R. Bowker
Company.
173
Colangelo, N. & Davis, G. (1991). Handbook of gifted education. Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Cooper, C. (2001). The No Child Left Behind law: Is it leaving bright children
behind? Parenting for High Potential, 14-16.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2010, March 10). Policy insider. Retrieved
March 13, 2010, from CEC: http://cecblog.typepad.com/policy/gifted-and-
talented/
Cox, J., Murray, C., & Warm, A. (2003). Conducting research using web-based
questionnaires: Practical, methodological and ethical considerations. Social
Research Methodology. 6 (3), 167-180.
Creswell, J. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Dettmer, P. (1985). Attitudes of school role groups towards learning needs of gifted
students. Roeper Review (7), 253-257.
Equity and opportunity threated by growing national "excellence gap". (2010,
January 15). Retrieved March 15, 2010, from IU Newsroom:
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/13291.html
Equity and opportunity threatened by growing national "excellence gap". (2010,
February 4). Retrieved March 23, 2010, from Indiana University News
Room: http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/13291.html
Fox, L. (1979). Practices for the gifted and talented: An overview. In A. H. Passow,
The gifted and talented: Their education and development. The seventy-eight
yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 104-126).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Fox, L. (1979). Programs for the gifted and talented: An overview. In A. H. Passow,
The gifted and the talented: Their education and development (pp. 104-
1126). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fullan, M. G. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. New
York: Farmer Press.
174
Gallagher, J. (2002, June). Society's role in educating gifted students: The role of
public policy. Retrieved August 12, 2010, from National Research Center on
the Gifted and Talented:
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rm06212/rm06212.pdf
Gallagher, J. (1975). Teaching the gifted child (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon,
Inc.
Gentry, M. D. (1999). Promoting student achievement and exemplary classroom
practices through cluster grouping: A research-based alternative to
heterogeneous elementary classrooms (RM99138). Storrs, CT: The National
Research Center for Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
Gifted education laws and regulations. (2009, Decemeber 4). Retrieved March 10,
2010, from California Department of Education:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/lw/
Good, T. L. & Brophy, J. E. (1987). Looking in classrooms. New York: Harper &
Row.
Help and FAQ's. (2010). Retrieved April 12, 2010, from National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards:
http://www.nbpts.org/help_and_faqs/portfolio/other_certificate_areas#2383
Johnsen, S. K., Haensly, P. A., Ryser, G. R., & Ford, R. F. (2002). Changing general
education classroom practices to adapt for gifted students. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 46(1), 45-63.
Kaplan, S. N. (2009, June 9). Educ 792 class lecture. Los Angeles, University of
Southern California.
Kaplan, S. N. (2009). Myth 9: There is a single curriclum for the gifted. Gifted Child
Quarterly (53)4, 257- 258.
Kaplan, S. N. (1974). Providing programs for the gifted and talented: A handbook.
Ventura, CA: Office of the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools.
Kaplan, S. N. (2004). The spill-over effect: An advocacy strategy. Gifted Child
Quarterly (27)1, 48-49.
Kaplan, S. N. (1986). Qualitatively differentiated curricula. In C. J. Maker, Critical
Issues in Gifted Education (pp. 121-134). Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers.
175
Kirschenbaum, R. J. (1998). Interview with Dr. A. Harry Passow. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 42(4), 194-199.
Loveless, T. (2008, June 18). High-achieving students in the era of no child left
behind. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from Brookings:
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/0618_nclb_loveless
Maker, J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen
Systems Corporation.
Marland, S. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented. Vol 1. Report to the
Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education.
Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing.
McCoach, B. & Siegle, D.. (2007). What predicts teachers' attitudes towards the
gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly (51)3, 246-255.
Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook, 2
nd
Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
NAGC-CEC Teacher preparation standards in gifted and talented education. (2008).
Retrieved April 14, 2010, from National Association for Gifted Children:
http://www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/Information_and_Resources/NCATE_sta
ndards/final%20standards%20(2006).pdf
National Association for Gifted Children. (2000). Pre-K - grade 12 gifted program
standards. Retrieved March 18, 2009,
http://www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/Information_and_Resources/Gifted_Prog
ram_Standards/K-12%20programming%20standards.pdf
National Association for Gifted Children. (2009). 2008-2009 State of the nation in
gifted education. Retrieved June 12, 2010 from
http://www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/Information_and_Resources/State of the
States 200 8-2009/2008-
09%20State%20of%20the%20Nation%20overview.pdf
Passow, A. H. (1986). Curriculum for the gifted and talented at the secondary level.
Gifted Child Quarterly (30)4, 186-291.
Passow, H. A. (1982). Differentiated currricula for the gifted/talented. Ventura, CA:
Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Office.
Patton, M. Q. (1981). Practial evaluation. Beveryly Hills, CA : Sage.
176
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N. & Song, R. (2010). Mind the (other)gap: The growing
excellence gap in K-12 education. Bloomington: Center for Evaluation and
Educational Policy: Indiana University.
Purcell, J. (1993). The effects of the elimination of gifted and talented programs on
participating students and their students and their parents. Gifted Child
Quarterly 37(4), 177-187.
Purcell, J. (1994). The status of programs for high ability students. Storrs, CT: The
National Research Center for the Gifted.
Purcell, J. & Lippien, J. (1998). “Building bridges between general practioners and
educators of the gifted: A study of collaboration”. In C. A. Tomlinson (Ed.),
Differentiation for gifted and talented students (pp. 117-132). Washington,
D.C. & Thousand Oaks, CA 91320: National Association for the Gifted and
Corwin Press.
Reis, S. (2004). Series introduction. In C. A. Tomlinson (Ed.), Differentiation for
gifted and talented students (pp. ix-xxxiv). Washington, D.C. & Thousand
Oaks, CA 91320: National Association for the Gifted and Corwin Press.
Reis, S. (2008). Research that supports the need for and benefits of gifted education.
n.c.: The National Association for Gifted Children.
Reis, S. & Westberg, K. (1994). The impact of staff development on teachers’
ability to modify curriculum for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child
Quarterly 38(3), 127-135.
Reis, S., Westberg, K., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, E., Hebert, T., Plucker, J., Purcell,
J., Roger, J., & Smist, J. (1996). Why not let high ability students start school
in January? The curriculum compacting study (Research monograph 93106).
Storrs, CT: National Research Center on Gifted and Talented.
Renzulli, J. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible
programs for the gifted and talented. Whethersfield, CT: Creative Learning
Press.
177
Robinson, A. (2008). Chapter 44: Teacher characteristics. In M. W. Gosfield, Expert
approaches to support gifted learners: Professional perspectives, best
practices and postivie solutions (pp. 669-679). Minneapolis: Free Spirit
Publishing, Inc.
Robinson, A. (2009). Myth 10: Examining the ostrich: Gifted services do not cure a
sick regular program. Gifted Child Quarterly (53)4, 259-261.
Rogers, K. Grouping the Gifted: Myths and Realities (2008). In M. W. Gosfield
(Ed.) Expert approaches to support gifted learners: Professional
perspectives, best practices, and positive solutions (pp.72-85).
Minneapolis: Free Spirit Pulblishing, Inc.
Ross, P. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Government Printing
Office.
Rueda, R. & Garcia, E. (1996). Teachers' perspectives on literacy assessment and
instruction with language-minority students: A comparative study. The
Elementary School Journal 96(3), 311-332.
Salkind, N. J. (2008). Statistics for people who think they hate statistics. Los
Angeles: Sage.
SB 4 X3 summary. (2009, February 14). Retrieved November 10, 2009, from Bill
Analysis: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-
0050/sbx3_4_cfa_20090215_133535_asm_floor.html
Scott, T. P., Callahan, C. M., & Urquhart, J. (2009). Paint-by-number teachers and
cookie-cutter students: The unintended effects of high-stakes testing on the
education of gifted students. Roeper Review, 31, 40-52.
Smyth, J., Dillman, D., Christian, L. M., & Stern, M. (2006). Comparing check-all
and forced-choice question formats in web surveys. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 70(1), 66-77.
Sorensen, H & Hallinan, S. (1986). Effects of ability grouping on growth in
academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal 23(4), 519-
542.
Specialist instruction credentials. (2009, January). Retrieved April 20, 2010, from
State of California Commission on Teacher Credentialing:
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl529.pdf
178
Standards in gifted and talented education. (2008). Retrieved April 14, 2010, from
National Association for Gifted Children:
http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=1863
Starko, A. J. (2008). Teacher preparation. In M. W. Gosfield (Ed.), Expert
approaches to support gifted learners: Professional perspectives, best
practices, and positive solutions (pp. 681-694). Minneapolis: Free Spirit
Pulblishing, Inc.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational
perpectives. New York: MacMillan.
Tomlinson, C.A. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle school: One
school’s journey. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(2), 77-87.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability
classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Introduction to differentiation for gifted and talented
students. In C. Tomlinson, Differentiation for gifted and talented students;
Essential readings in gifted education (pp. xxiii-xxxiv). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press and the National Association for Gifted Children.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2008). Differentiated instruction. In J. Plucker & C. M. Callahan
(Eds,) Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research
says (pp. 167-177). Waco, TX: Free Spirit Press.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2009). Myth 8: The "patch-on" approach to programming is
effective. Gifted Child Quarterly (53)4, 254-256.
Tucker, J. (May 02, 2010). School funding leaves gifted students behind. SFGate.
Retrieved September 9, 2010 from http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-05-
02/news/20882800_1_gifted-students-joseph-renzulli-talented-education
U.S. Office of Education. (1976 ). Program for the gifted and talented. (41) 18665-
18666.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2006). A content analysis of evaluation findings across 20
gifted programs: A clarion call for enhanced gifted program development.
Gifted Child Quarterly, (50)3, 199-215.
179
Ward, V. (1980). Differential eduation for the gifted: A perspective through a
retrospective. (Vol. 2). Ventura, CA: Ventura County Superintendents of
Schools Office.
Ward, V. S. (1961). Educating the gifted. An axiomatic approach. Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E. Merrill.
Westberg, K. L., & Archambault, F. X. (1997). A multi-site case study of successful
classrom practices for high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(1),
42-51.
Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. J. (1993). The
classroom practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted 16, 120-146.
180
APPENDIX A
ONLINE SURVEY
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California
The Relationship between Teacher Perception of Program Status
and Pedagogical Choices in Teaching the Gifted
Semi-Structured Interview
(Patton, 2002, p. 344-347)
Interviewee: Date:
Circle all that apply: Start Time:
Classroom Teacher, Site Administrator End Time:
District Administrator, GATE Program
Introduction:
Thank you for responding to this survey. My name is Kathy Apps and as a doctoral
student at USC, I am conducting research in the field of gifted education. The
purpose of this study is to explore the relationship, if any, between the pedagogical
choices that classroom teachers of the gifted make and the influences upon those
choices such as the perception of the value of the program, prior experience and
professional development. The results of this survey will be used to provide a picture
of California’s gifted programs and help us facilitate decisions for California made
by policymakers for California’s gifted children.
We will begin with some background information and then we will move into a set
of standardized questions about the Gifted and Talented Education Program in your
district and school. After that, we will spend a little time talking about your own
classroom and professional development experiences. In the end, you will have the
opportunity to add any other information you would like to share that is related to the
study. Please answer candidly and feel free to elaborate upon your answers in order
to help me completely understand your responses. You may find that some of the
questions’ content will sound similar to the questions that you answered in the online
questionnaire; because of the anonymity of the responses to that instrument, I am not
aware of how you answered. Please know that there will be no identifiable
information obtained in connection with this study. Your name, address or other
identifiable information will not be collected. You will be identified only by Subject
letter (such as A, B, C, and so forth.) All recorded information will be kept
confidential and will be coded in during its analysis and reporting.
211
Your answers will provide crucial information to this study’s process. The results of
this survey will be used to provide a picture of California’s gifted programs and help
us facilitate decisions for California made by policymakers for California’s gifted
children. Do you have any questions before we begin?
At this time I would like to request your verbal consent to continue with this
interview. I will begin recording now (start audio recorder). Do you (Subject letter)
give your verbal consent to participate in this interview, with the understanding that
no personal identifiable information will be used in this study? (Subject will
answer). Thank you for your consent. We will now begin the interview (or, “thank
you for your time, this concludes our discussion” should the subject elect not to
participate in the interview).
Research Question: Is there a relationship between the perceptual status of a gifted
program at school and district levels, and the teachers’ curricular and pedagogical
choices to educate the gifted students?
Theoretical Framework: Social Cognitive Theory based on Bandura’s Triadic
Reciprocality. (Actions result from an interplay of environment, behavior and
cognition)
Research
Question
Element
Question
Type (Patton,
2002) Questions and Topical Probes
Demographic
& Background
Questions
Knowledge
and
Qualifying
Questions (in
bold)
If answers are
“no” to the
qualifying
questions, the
interview will
be concluded
and participant
will be
thanked.
Q1. Do you have a GATE Program in your
district? (yes/no will suffice at this time. We will go
into detail later in the interview on this topic)
Q2. Do you have a GATE Program at your
school? (yes/no)
Q3. Are you aware of the effects of the State’s
fiscal crisis on the GATE program in your district?
(yes/no)
Q4. Have there been apparent effects of this fiscal
crisis on the GATE program at your district? At
your school? (yes/no)
Q5. What kind of district is it in which you teach?
(e.g., rural, urban, suburban)?
Q6. How many years have you been teaching overall?
Q7. How many years have you been teaching GT?
212
Q8. What type of GT Program is it in which you
teach? (magnet school; regular classroom, regular
classroom with a cluster group of gifted students;
pullout program; special day class; special school for
the gifted in a district)
Q9. Do you hold any degree, certificate or
endorsement in gifted ed? If so, please describe what
it is and from where it was given.
Program (at the
District level)
Knowledge
Opinion
Opinion
Q2. Let’s begin with the bigger picture of the GATE
(GT) Program at the District level. Without telling
me the name of the district in which you work,
please describe how the GT program in your district is
structured at the district level?
• Program Coordination
• Funding
• Professional Development for GT teachers
• Integration with other programs such as
Curriculum and Instruction; EL or Special Ed
• State Approval (cleared for how many years
Q3. What is your opinion of how your district
supports differentiated curriculum and instruction for
gifted students (such as depth, complexity, novelty
and acceleration)?
• What reason(s) can you give for your answer?
• What does this support look like (what forms
does it take)?
• What are the benefits or consequences due to
this level of support?
Q4. Given the current fiscal crisis in California, to
what level and in what ways, if any, do you think this
has impacted the GT Program in your district?
• What have been the consequences of this
impact, particularly for students and teachers?
213
Program (at the
site level)
Opinion
Knowledge
Knowledge
Feelings
Feelings
Q5. Overall, how important or how much of a
priority, in your opinion, is the GT Program in your
district?
• What indicators do you base your assessment
upon?
• In comparison to other programs (e.g., EL,
Special Education, Title I, etc.)?
• In comparison to past years?
• What are the consequences of this status for
teachers and students ?
Q6. You have given me a good picture of the GT
Program at the District level. So, now let’s talk about
the GT Program at your school. Again, without using
the name of your school, tell me some basic
background information that demonstrates the
structure of the GT Program at your school (such
as…)
• Program coordination
• Administrative groupings
• Teacher collaboration
• Professional development for GT teachers
• GT Parent support
Q7. What do you believe to be the current level of
support for the gifted program at your school in terms
of
• Administrative support (please give indicators
for your answer)
• Staff support (what indications are there?)
• Funding/Financial Support for GT program
resources and teachers professional
development (what indicators are there?)
• Previous year(s) support (indicate why)
• Levels of support for other programs within
the school (e.g. Title I, EL, Special Ed)
Q8. How do you feel about the level of support for
Gifted Education at your school?
• To what degree do you feel this level of
support will affect your teaching of gifted
students? Can you provide examples?
Q9. What is it like to be a teacher at your school?
• What is like to be in a certain group, like
teachers of who have the gifted kids?
214
Differentiated
Curriculum
and
Instruction
Factors in C&
I Decision-
making
Sensory
Opinion
Feeling
Knowledge
Okay, I have a pretty good understanding about the
level of importance and support of the total GT
program at your school. Now, I would like to turn to
curriculum and instruction in the classrooms at your
school in relation to GT students and their teachers.
Let’s say that I am a new teacher and the principal has
assigned me to a class with a few identified gifted
students in it. In preparation, I ask to observe some of
the other GT teachers to get some ideas to teach my
class.
Q10. In walking through classrooms that have GT
students, what would I see, if anything, that indicated
a differentiated curriculum and instruction (in terms of
depth, complexity, novelty or acceleration)?
• What would be the most predominant
example?
• What other instructional focus strategies
might I see used?
Q11. To what degree do you feel that the school
administration supports differentiation of curriculum
and instruction for gifted students?
• What does this support look like? (e.g. verbal,
tangible, clear or vague)
Q12. To what degree do you feel that this support
affects your own planning and instruction for the
gifted students in your class?
• What are your reasons for your response?
Q13. What factors do you take into consideration
when planning lessons for your GT class/students?
• CA Curriculum Standards
• CA GATE Standards regarding differentiation
• District pacing chart and benchmark testing
• Administration expectations (explain what
they are)
• Time
• Funding
• Experience
215
Role
Play/Sensory
Opinion
Feelings
Opinion
Role Play
Q14. Let’s say that again I am a new teacher assigned
to a class with a few GATE students and I visit your
classroom. Describe what evidence of differentiation
of curriculum and instruction I would see
• In a lesson you are teaching
• In how your classroom is set up
• In the student work on display
Q15. In what ways do you think that your experience
in teaching gifted students influences your curricular
and instructional planning?
Q16. Do you feel that the administration’s level of
support for a particular program influences your
teaching?
• Please provide examples.
Q17. Based on your professional experience, what
are the optimal conditions for a teacher to
appropriately teach his/her gifted students?
• Do you feel that such conditions exist at your
school?
• What are some “barriers” or inhibitors for GT
teachers at your school?
• What about AYP & API? How do they affect
conditions?
Q18. Let’s say that your administrator has told you
that he will be observing your class that has a cluster
of 7 GT students. This administrator has been
stressing the use of repetition drills and workbook
practice in order to prepare low performing students
for the CST tests. You overheard him/her recently in
the principal’s office having a discussion about the
low priority GATE holds in the current fiscal crisis.
What is he/she going to observe during your lesson?
Q19. So, overall, on a scale of 1-5, (5 being
strongest) how would you rate the impact of
administration priorities on your planning of
curriculum and instruction for your gifted students?
• Please explain your rating.
216
Q20. Overall, on a scale of 1-5, how would you rate
the impact of the GATE program on your planning of
curriculum and instruction for your gifted students?
• Please explain your rating.
Ending
Thank you. Before we conclude this interview, do
you have any final thoughts that you would like to
add that you think is important in this discussion?
Thank you for your time. This concludes this
interview.
217
APPENDIX C
CODING SAMPLE USING ATLAS ti
218
APPENDIX D
FINAL CODE LIST
Super
Codes/Nodes Sub-Codes/Nodes
Program Value –
District Level:
State Fiscal Crisis
has negative
effects on GATE
Program
• Perceives lack of resources
• No funding/drastically reduced professional development
• Highly committed to GATE but with little or no funding
• GATE not affected by fiscal crisis
Program Value –
Site Level: State
Fiscal Crisis has
negative effects on
GATE Program
• Perceives lack of resources for GATE at the sites
• Differentiation exists but with no funds to support it
Program Value –
District Level
• Perceives GATE as low district priority/ program will run
itself/students will be fine
• Perceives students needs as low district priority
• “Patchwork Program” – lacks consistency of implementation
• Perceives that other programs take priority
• Perceives that low achievement and testing is the priority
• Perceives low GATE program status affects curricular choices
like AP
• Perceives lack of administrative support led to gifted students
exiting district/school
• Perceives GATE as high priority
• Perceives no fiscal effects
• PD is required to keep GATE certificate – supported by district
• Perceives gifted is inclusive of special needs populations
Program Value –
Site Level
• Perceives program lacks consistency of design implementation
• Perceives “Shoestring” efforts to train teachers
• Perceives other programs are seen as primary focus
• Perceives low achievement/testing is primary focus
• Perceives staff apathy/resentment
• Perceives low principal support
• Perceives staff support
• Perceives some degree of principal support
• Perceives GATE Program exists at site level/ not at district
level
• GATE is seen as inclusive of special needs
219
Curriculum and
Instruction –
Internal Factors
• Holds self up to professional standard
• Not really concerned with principal’s judgment
• Lack of support doesn’t affect teaching; depends on experience
to guide
• “Lighthouse Keeper” attitude
Curriculum and
Instruction –
External Factors
• Feels that administration’s expectations has some level of
effect on teaching
• Perceives that fidelity to prescribed curriculum is a priority; no
differentiation for gifted students
• Perceives that differentiation is minimal or non-existent
• Cares but feels unempowered
• Feels lack of support affects teaching
• Doesn’t differentiate; GATE standards not considered
• Strong support for differentiation exists
• Administration supports GATE strategies as good for all
students
• Perceives that there is a GATE team that works together
Types of
Differentiation
Non-Types of
Differentiation
• Depth and Complexity
• Novelty
• Acceleration
• Problem-Based Learning
• Compacting
• Enrichment
• Questioning Techniques
• Flexible Grouping
• Independent Study
• Based on readiness levels
• Based on student interest
• Field Trips
• Prescriptive Curriculum
• High-Stakes Test Prep
220
APPENDIX E
AREA CODE MAP OF CALIFORNIA REPRESENTING GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
WITHIN THE STUDY
Source: http://www.nanpa.com/area_code_maps/ac_map_static.html
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This mixed-methods study examined the relationships between teachers' perceptions of gifted program status and their curricular and instructional choices in teaching the gifted students in their classrooms. The research design included the use of data from two different sources: an anonymous online survey and semi-structured follow-up interviews. Two major findings from the study were: (1) Teachers in the study perceived that gifted education held low fiscal and priority status in their districts and/or schools, (2) The study’s teachers continued to provide differentiated curriculum and instruction for their gifted students, even though the gifted programs in their schools held low priority or status.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions
PDF
Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling
PDF
Teachers' choices of curriculum and teaching methods and their effect on gifted students' self-perceptions
PDF
Teachers’ perceptions of strategies and skills affecting learning of gifted 7th graders in English classes
PDF
An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?
PDF
Actual and ideal instructional practices in California high school gifted geometry education
PDF
Teachers’ perceptions and implementation of instructional strategies for the gifted from differentiation professional development
PDF
The elements of a differentiated curriculum for gifted students: transfer and application across the disciplines
PDF
How teacher participation in the identification process impacts the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted programs
PDF
Relationship of teacher's parenting style to instructional strategies and student achievement
PDF
Gifted Spanish speaking English learners' participation in advanced placement programs
PDF
Technology as a tool: uses in differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted learners
PDF
Enacting ideology: an examination of the connections between teacher ideology, classroom climate, and teacher interpretation of student behavior
PDF
The role of principal leadership in achievement beyond test scores: an examination of leadership, differentiated curriculum and high-achieving students
PDF
Lack of support for gifted students in the United States
PDF
What is the relationship between self-efficacy of community college mathematics faculty and effective instructional practice?
PDF
Factors that influence the identification of elementary African American students as potentially gifted learners
PDF
Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice
PDF
Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching
PDF
Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement
Asset Metadata
Creator
Apps, Kathleen Ann
(author)
Core Title
Relationships between teachers' perceptions of gifted program status and instructional choices
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
01/24/2011
Defense Date
12/14/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
differentiated curriculum and instruction,gifted program,OAI-PMH Harvest,status
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Kaplan, Sandra N. (
committee chair
), Baca, Reynaldo R. (
committee member
), Malloy, Courtney (
committee member
)
Creator Email
apps@usc.edu,knbapps@socal.rr.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3622
Unique identifier
UC1125686
Identifier
etd-Apps-4060 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-438820 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3622 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Apps-4060.pdf
Dmrecord
438820
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Apps, Kathleen Ann
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
differentiated curriculum and instruction
gifted program
status