University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Teachers’ perceptions of strategies and skills affecting learning of gifted 7th graders in English classes

(USC Thesis Other)

Teachers’ perceptions of strategies and skills affecting learning of gifted 7th graders in English classes

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF STRATEGIES AND SKILLS AFFECTING
LEARNING OF GIFTED 7
TH
GRADERS IN ENGLISH CLASSES

by

James Paul Noble

________________________________________________________________________

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

December 2010

Copyright 2010 James Paul Noble

ii

DEDICATION

“Reach up your hand...and take a star.”
-Langston Hughes

This work is dedicated to those family members, Kimberly, James and
Jessie May, that put up with me reading at dinner, carrying a computer on vacation and
generally being in isolation for the last decade. Your love and encouragement is
a continuous source of strength. I hope I can strengthen each of you as we face the rich
mosaic of life together.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Sandra N. Kaplan, a world recognized expert in
the education of gifted youngsters for her insight, guidance and patience. I would
also like to express my gratitude to Dr. Gisele Ragusa, a leader in educational
psychology for her many hours of reading endless drafts and providing much
needed guidance.
I celebrate the teachers, administrators and staff of the Los Angeles
Unified School District for their dedication, perseverance and abilities. I embrace
the mission of the district to serve all populations.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vi
ABSTRACT ix
CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 13
Research Questions 13
Significance of the Problem 14
Methodology 15
Limitations 16
Delimitations 17
Definitions 17
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 22
Introduction 22
Historic Influences on Gifted Education 23
Defining Giftedness 25
Precursors to Gifted Performance 26
How Schools Identify Gifted Students 27
Gifted Teacher and Student Motivation 31
Current Instructional Strategies, Learning Skills and Differentiated Instruction 33
Relationship Between Instructional Strategies, Learning Skills, and Differentiated
Instruction 38
Discussion of Strategies, Skills Alignment, and Differentiated Instruction 41
Teacher Perceptions 44
Factors Affecting Utilization 45
Conclusion 48

v

Chapter 3: Methodology 49
Introduction 49
Setting 51
Teacher Demographics 61
Sample and Population 61
Instrumentation 66
Data Collection 72
Role of the Researcher 74
Data Analysis 75
Chapter 4: Findings 78
Overview 78
Frequency Findings 79
Motivation Findings 97
Location Findings 116
Chapter 5: Summary and Discussion of Significant Findings 139
Discussion of Findings for Research Question 1 139
Discussion of Findings for Research Question 2 149
Discussion of Findings for Research Question 3 160
Implications of Findings 167
Recommendations for Future Study 172
BIBLIOGRAPHY 175
APPENDICES:
Appendix A: Teacher Demographics, Instructional Strategies, and
Learning Skills Survey 186
Appendix B: Informed Consent Letter 195
Appendix C: LAUSD Permission Letter 196
Appendix D: USC IRB Letters 197
Appendix E: LAUSD Grade Seven Proficiency Standards 199

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Interrelation Between Instructional Strategies, Learning Skills,
and Differentiated Instruction 40
Table 2. School Attribute Chart (2006-07 School Year) 58
Table 3. Teacher Demographic Survey Data 60
Table 4. Teacher Demographic Survey Data: Gifted Teaching Experience 61
Table 5. Student Performance and Gifted Student Population Information 63
Table 6. English Language arts CST scores for Regular and Gifted 7
th
Graders 64
Table 7. Frequency of Student Use of Identifying Similarities and Differences
and Teacher Motivation for Use 81
Table 8. Frequency of Student Use of Summarizing and Teacher Motivation for Use 83
Table 9. Frequency of Student Note Taking and Teacher Motivation for Use 85
Table 10. Frequency of Nonlinguistic Representations and Teacher Motivation
for Use 86
Table 11. Frequency of Student Use Goal Setting and Teacher Motivation for Use 87
Table 12. Frequency of Students Generating and Testing Hypotheses and Teacher
Motivation for Use 89
Table 13. Frequency of Students Using Active Learning and Teacher Motivation
for Use 91
Table 14. Frequency of Students Using Critical Reading and Teacher Motivation
for Use 93
Table 15. Frequency of Students Using Expository Writing and Teacher Motivation
for Use 94
Table 16. Frequency of Students Using Oral Communication and Teacher Motivation
for Use 96

vii

Table 17. Motivation for Using Identifying Similarities and Differences and
Perceived Contribution to Learning 98
Table 18. Motivation for Using Summarizing and Perceived Contribution to
Learning 100

Table 19. Motivation for Using Note Taking and Perceived Contribution to Learning 102
Table 20. Motivation for using Nonlinguistic Representations and Perceived
Contribution to Learning 104
Table 21. Motivation for using Goal Setting and Perceived Contribution to Learning 105
Table 22. Motivation for Generating and Testing Hypotheses and Perceived
Contribution to Learning 107
Table 23. Motivation for Using Active Learning and Perceived Contribution to
Learning 109
Table 24. Motivation for Using Critical Reading and Perceived Contribution to
Learning 112
Table 25. Motivation for Using Expository Writing and Perceived Contribution to
Learning 113
Table 26. Motivation for Using Oral Communication and Perceived Contribution to
Learning 116
Table 27. Location Where Teacher Learned Identifying Similarities and Differences
and Perceived Contribution to Learning 119
Table 28. Location Where Teacher Learned Summarizing and Perceived
Contribution to Learning 121
Table 29. Location Where Teacher Learned Note Taking and Perceived
Contribution to Learning 123
Table 30. Location Where Teacher Learned Nonlinguistic Representation and
Perceived Contribution to Learning 124
Table 31. Location Where Teacher Learned Goal Setting and Perceived
Contribution to Learning 126

viii

Table 32. Location Where Teacher Learned Generating and Testing Hypotheses
and Perceived Contribution to Learning 128
Table 33. Location Where Teacher Learned Active Learning and Perceived
Contribution to Learning 131
Table 34. Location Where Teacher Learned Critical Reading and Perceived
Contribution to Learning 134
Table 35. Location Where Teacher Learned Expository Writing and Perceived
Contribution to Learning 136
Table 36. Location Where Teacher Learned Oral Communication and Perceived
Contribution to Learning 138

ix

ABSTRACT
This study was conducted in 11 schools across 5 school districts and solicited
responses from 20 teachers. This study found a relationship between instructional
strategies appropriate for gifted students and teachers’ perceptions of contributions the
strategies made to learning. The literature review section examined the modern focus on
gifted education. This study included a cursory examination of how American gifted
students compare to the preparation and performance of their international counterparts
(Ross, 1993). The literature also provided a glimpse into what motivates gifted students.
The literature review also discussed several other selected factors such as family stability
and known effective instructional techniques for gifted students (Beck, 2001; Coleman,
2006; Corbett & Wilson, 2002; Reis, Colbert, & Hébert 2005). The literature was
examined with a focus on current instructional strategies and learning skills. The
literature established that despite teacher perceptions, given appropriate instructional
strategies, the limit for student achievement is immeasurable (Gentry & Neu, 1998). Data
analysis was facilitated by cross-tabulation using the statistical package for the social
sciences. Responses to each survey item regarding the frequency of use, motivation for
use, and location learned for each instructional strategy and each learning skill were
cross-tabulated against each other to determine positive comparisons. The teacher
responses were examined using comparative analysis because the sample size was small.
Data analysis of teacher responses was presented in tables. A large percentage (89.2%) of

x

respondents indicated that they frequently used specialized instructional strategies and
learning skills and felt these strategies contributed to gifted students’ learning. The use of
the strategies and skills were most likely representative of what gifted students in 7th
grade English classes are experiencing in the region in and around the suburbs and city of
Los Angeles.

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Underachievement of gifted students comprises a waste of academic potential
(Gallagher, 1995); therefore educators need to make sure that gifted students receive the
best possible education. According to Castellano (2004),
There is a general feeling among experts in gifted education that what is taught to
gifted students must include how a subject is presented, the process used in
teaching, alternative products that show mastery, and the pace with which content,
processes, and products are completed. (p. 2)

Changes in teacher perception are related to improved student achievement. Therefore, it
is appropriate to study the perceptions of teachers of gifted students regarding their
teaching methods in order to address what factors informed teachers’ choices of
instructional strategy in gifted classrooms (Swanson, 2006). Additional information is
needed regarding teachers’ instructional strategies to determine how the strategies inform
the use of the principles of differentiated curriculum for gifted students in 7
th
grade
English classes.
The purpose of this study was to determine what factors informed teachers’
choices of instructional strategy in gifted classrooms. In addition, the researcher
investigated the role teachers’ training opportunities played in instructional choices and
teachers’ perceptions of how instructional strategies (student learning skills) informed
their teaching practices. Finally, the researcher surveyed how teachers’ instructional
strategies informed their use of the principles of differentiated curriculum for gifted

2

students. Teachers need a special set of strategies for use with gifted students (Graffam,
2006). The use of instructional strategies and their effect on the learning of gifted
students is of concern to parents, students and educators because what is effective for
gifted students is effective for all students (Kitano & Lewis, 2007). Nationally, the gifted
are a valuable economic resource vital to maintaining the U.S.’s status in the global
economy (Konstantopoulos, Modi, & Hedges, 2001).
Background of the Problem
Graffam’s (2006) research identifies certain instructional strategies and learning
skills in use in gifted classrooms, which include movement, cooperative learning and
interest-based student-selected activities. Several other researchers confirmed the efficacy
of utilizing interest-based student-selected activities with gifted populations (Neumeister
& Finch, 2006; Peterman, 1990; Renzulli, 1992; Swanson, 2006). Additional researchers
cite specific strategies as effective in enhancing learning for the gifted population (Little,
Feng, Van Tassel-Baska, Rogers, & Avery, 2007; Van Tassel-Baska et al., 2008). For
example, interdisciplinary thematic teaching and thematic units of study are considered to
be effective strategies to use with gifted students (Graffam, 2006; Peterman, 1990; Reis
et al., 2004). The use of problem-solving strategies has also been documented as an
effective teaching technique for gifted students (Smutny, 2001b; Treffinger & Isaksen,
2005). Van Tassel-Baska, Johnson, and Boyce (1996) found linguistic and vocabulary
development to be beneficial teaching strategies for the gifted. Marzano, Gaddy, and

3

Dean (2000) argued that providing reinforcement for effort, such as praise and posting
work, is an instructional strategy that works with all students including gifted students.
Marzano et al. also advocated giving feedback about results to students so they can
improve their work, noting that this practice exerts a positive influence on students’
learning.
The strategy of cooperative learning engenders strong student engagement among
gifted students (Beck, 2001; Cox, Daniel, & Boston, 1985; Graffam, 2006; Kulik & Kulik
& Kulik, 1992; Van Tassel-Baska, 2006b). Harnessing creative thinking strategies has
also been shown to engage gifted students in the classroom (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005).
Several recognized researchers cite interdisciplinary thematic teaching as stimulating
learning in gifted populations (Graffam, 2006; Peterman, 1990; Reis et al., 2004). The
literature also describes open-ended inquiry, sometimes framed as student directed
inquiry, as a fruitful avenue of learning for the gifted (Beck, 2001; Van Tassel-Baska,
2001). Teacher-directed inquiry or inquiry in general have also been shown to exert a
positive influence on gifted learning (Beck, 2001). Acceleration of content knowledge is
widely accepted as an instructional strategy to enhance the learning of the gifted (Gross
& Van Vliet, 2005; Los Angeles Unified School District [LAUSD], 2006b; Lee &
Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006; Reis et al., 2004). Beck (2001), Castellano (2004), and Moon
(2002) agree that performance assessment is a viable technique to use when instructing
gifted students. Movement, defined as learning by doing physical and mental activities,

4

and communalism, a type of non-competitive cooperative learning, are believed to be
beneficial for gifted African American students as well (Ford, Grantham, & Miller, 2004;
Graffam, 2006). These strategies may be effective on their own, but it is also important to
note Peterman’s (1990) exhortation of teachers to combine “interdisciplinary team
teaching, interest-based activities, thematic school wide events, creative problem-solving,
and hands on experience” (p. 62) to dismantle underachievement by the gifted.
There are sets of learning skills and strategies that have been researched and
found to have benefit for the gifted population. Marzano et al. (2000) ranked a number of
strategies and skills and linked them to learning through standardized test instruments.
Homework, as a form of practice, was cast as having the effect of raising achievement
levels by one year. Other skills were credited with producing a greater boost in learning.
These researchers assert that identifying similarities and differences is a learning skill that
stimulates student learning. The related learning skills of summarizing and note taking
were also credited with stimulating student learning. Other learning skills that Marzano et
al. argued increase student learning were goal setting, generating and testing hypotheses,
and nonlinguistic representations. Active learning was a learning skill that, according to
Ares and Gorrell (2002) and Hishinuma & Nishimura (2000), enhanced learning in the
gifted population and has also shown promising results with the twice-exceptional and
the learning disabled community. The learning skills of critical reading (reading a
multiplicity of genres in a critical fashion; Wood, 2008), expository writing (Van Tassel-

5

Baska et al., 1996), and oral communication or learning to speak publicly (Chaney, 1996;
Van Tassel-Baska, 2003) were also identified as skills that increased learning in the
gifted population.
Teacher perceptions are influenced by how closely gifted students emulate
mainstream culture. The lack of similarity between the cultural backgrounds of teachers
and their culturally diverse gifted students may skew teachers’ expectations. Researchers
have established a connection between teachers’ perceptions of students with different
native languages and cultures and the students’ achievement and enrollment in gifted
programs (Mattai, Wagle, & Williams, 2010). Aside from cultural considerations, teacher
proficiency is another factor that affects perceptions of gifted students’ abilities (Miller,
2009). Teacher education programs focus primarily on remediation and special education
students rather than highly capable students. Ubiquitous teacher education problems that
ignore the congruence between teacher attitudes and student achievement are a problem
of equal weight with the over focus on remediation and special education (Mattai et al.,
2010). Teacher perceptions reflect the perceptions of the general public. This is reflected
in the fact that American society readily celebrates precocious youths with extraordinary
physical and musical talents, but not those with exceptional intellectual abilities, or at
least not to the same degree (Geake & Gross, 2008).
Past research fails to provide clarity regarding teachers’ perceptions about gifted
students (McCoach & Siegle, 2007). In the absence of a definitive criterion upon which

6

to base identification of gifted students, teachers must rely on training, stereotypes or
both. This results in teachers relying on their own bias in making educational decisions
for gifted children (Siegle & Powell, 2004) and focusing on perceived deficits rather than
strengths (Neumeister, Adams, Pierce, Cassady, & Dixon, 2007). Teacher perceptions
regarding the strength of their students’ academic potential create the atmospheric
foundation for enhanced instructional delivery (Hertzog, 2005). Teacher perceptions
cause bias in the identification of gifted students. For example, some teachers think
children with behavioral problems come from non-traditional families and are incapable
of being gifted (Neumeister et al., 2007). Teachers’ personal beliefs and assumptions are
a byproduct of mainstream culture. For example, Hodge and Kemp (2006) investigated
how teacher perceptions and subsequent treatment of gifted students might have
influenced student scores on achievement tests. Inaccurate perceptions of gifted students’
abilities increase the chance that their learning needs will not be met.
Statement of the Problem
Many researchers have studied instructional strategies and learning skills used
with gifted students (Ares & Gorrell, 2002; Chaney, 1996; Hishinuma & Nishimura,
2000; Marzano et al., 2000; Reis et al., 2004; Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996; Van Tassel-
Baska, 2003; Wood, 2008) and teacher perceptions of gifted students (Geake & Gross,
2008; Gross, 2006; Hertzog, 2005; Hodge & Kemp, 2006; Mattai et al., 2010; McCoach
& Siegle, 2007; Miller, 2009; Neumeister et al., 2007; Siegle & Powell, 2004). However,

7

the literature features few studies regarding the influence of teacher perceptions on the
use of instructional strategies. The literature did identify particular instructional strategies
and learning skills that relate to the teaching and learning of the gifted. Currently there is
a great need to conduct more research regarding instructional strategies and learning
skills teachers perceive are related to gifted students’ learning (Van Tassel-Baska et al.,
2008).
The literature related to gifted education in the area of English provides some
evidence that 7
th
grade gifted students do not regularly receive differentiated instruction
in English/language arts classrooms (Reis et al., 2004). Research based evidence suggests
that beneficial and accommodating learning arenas, that is, those featuring differentiation,
support and engender enduring creative thought (Daugherty & White, 2008).
The problem of gifted student identification is exacerbated by the way in which
teachers assess students for placement in gifted programs. One researcher states that in
middle school gifted English classes, students must read at a high rate of speed and be
able to express complex ideas in writing as well as orally (Reed, 2007). This hurdle
would exclude any gifted students who are non-native speakers of English.
Teachers’ perceptions of students exert an influence on the identification and
treatment of gifted students (Miller, 2009; Neumeister et al., 2007). Teacher perceptions
continue to cloud the educational landscape for gifted students in areas besides
identification. The perceptions of teachers and schools may become the basis of

8

educational decisions such as whether to deny or delay a student’s acceleration. This in
turn may lead to the student’s pursuit of less rigorous coursework that is not reflective of
the student’s capabilities (Gross, 2006).
One group of instructional strategies that ameliorate the problem of
underachievement is “interdisciplinary team teaching, interest based activities, thematic
school wide events, creative problem solving, and hands on experience” (Peterman, 1990
p. 62). This assertion stands in opposition to the fact that most of the activities in the
heterogeneous classroom are not differentiated to accommodate the needs of gifted
students (Westberg & Archambault, 1997). The use of open-ended inquiry, which
includes problem-based learning, is a teaching strategy that promises to reduce
underachievement in the gifted (Van Tassel-Baska, 2001). This type of inquiry-based
learning is characterized by the “investigation of an ill-structured, real world problem”
(Swanson, 2006, p. 14). Gifted students may find the aforementioned instructional
strategies more beneficial in comparison to the comparatively mundane practices more
commonly used in heterogeneous classrooms.
The use of some less-than-challenging instructional strategies is highly correlated
with underachievement. General instructional strategies that fail to challenge students
academically lead to underachievement via maladaptive student behavior (Ares &
Gorrell, 2002). The effects of underachievement manifest themselves in many
unproductive behaviors such as selective attention and lack of effort (Plucker & McIntire,

9

1996). In spite of this, teachers, as a group, fail to see the connection between a lack of
academic challenge for the gifted and student behaviors that result in underachievement
(Plucker & McIntire, 1996). Cooperative learning activities in heterogeneous groups
enhance the chances of boredom in the gifted, which results in underachievement
(Adams-Byers, Squiller, & Moon 2004). These common instructional strategies to which
gifted students are subjected may exacerbate the problem of gifted underachievement
since they do not seem to meet the needs of gifted students; 50% of gifted students fail to
actualize their potential (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).
In fact, an examination of current, common instructional strategies in the middle
school revealed that many gifted students experience instruction in reading that fails to
challenge talented readers (Reis et al., 2004). In addition there are varied attempts to
involve gifted students and regular education students in collaborative projects (Van
Tassel-Baska, 2001). One research report outlines six less than effective, instructional
methods being used in heterogeneous classrooms. The methods are collaborative
heterogeneous group work, teacher lecture, student reading to learn, worksheet
completion, classroom discussions, and hands-on activities (Corbett & Wilson, 2002).
There is disagreement regarding the usefulness of cooperative learning in groups of
students with mixed abilities. Middle school educators advocate heterogeneous,
cooperative, or collaborative strategies for every student, but educators of gifted students
espouse the benefits of homogeneous grouping for high ability learners (Sicola, 1990).

10

The middle school educator favors heterogeneous grouping for equity (Carnegie Task
Force on the Education of Young Adolescents, 1989), which stands in direct opposition
to the benefits of homogeneous grouping for gifted students (Allan, 1991). For example,
several studies have found that heterogeneous cooperative learning groups with some
gifted participants were not as effective in stimulating learning as grouping students by
ability level (Coleman, 2006; Neihart, 2007). For the gifted middle school student,
heterogeneous grouping and cooperative learning are often a source of boredom (Adams-
Byers et al., 2004). Van Tassel-Baska (2001) found that learning groups that were formed
without regard to ability impeded the ability of the gifted to explore the curriculum in
depth, which indicates that heterogeneous grouping for “equity” leads to inequity for the
gifted student. These strategies, among others, may contribute strongly to
underachievement among gifted students. Researchers such as Marzano et al. (2000) have
already identified strategies that are correlated with instructional improvement for all
students in all subject areas, to varying degrees of effectiveness. However, it is interesting
that despite a constantly growing body of research about best practices for gifted
learning, teachers persist in using instructional strategies and learning skills that
contribute to underachievement.
Other researchers have concluded that some instructional strategies are situation-
specific and more beneficial for various ethnicities. For example, Castellano (2004)
argues that gifted Hispanic youngsters who have not succeeded in attaining the

11

curriculum should receive small group and individualized instruction. Castellano further
suggests that gifted Hispanic students are more prone to garner academic skills in the
context of project-based learning. Not only is performance assessment beneficial for
gifted Hispanic students, it is also a recurring theme in general education literature
(Moon, 2002). Castellano (2004) postulates that the flexibility of performance assessment
helps gifted Hispanic students make the most of cognitive and scholarly assets by
appealing to preferred learning styles.
Regarding African Americans, Ford et al. (2004) asserted that culture exerts an
influence over preference for learning. One of these culturally preferred learning avenues,
movement, demands physical and psychological engagement with the lesson, which
facilitates learning (Ford et al., 2004; Graffam, 2006). In addition harmony and
communalism were two additional modes of instruction that favored the gifted African
American student. Harmony describes an individual’s ability to perceive non-verbal and
environmental clues and use them as a backdrop for learning. When gifted African
American students do not feel welcomed in the classroom environment or by those that
control that environment these students lose interest in learning. Communalism, another
learning venue touted to be beneficial for African American gifted students, is the
antithesis of competition, and as such does not conform to the current, standard public
school configuration. The practice of communalism requires students to work together in
social groups or teams to learn (Ford et al., 2004).

12

Certain learning strategies and skills are especially effective for enhancing gifted
students’ learning (Tretter, 2010). For example, researchers have found that strong
learning occurs when gifted students are exposed to active learning (Ares & Gorrell,
2002) and structured inquiry (Beck, 2001). The more effective classroom practices for
gifted students require more teacher preparation than others. Strategies and skills that
seem to have the greatest positive effect on gifted students include critical reading
(Wood, 2008), expository writing (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996), oral communication
(Chaney, 1996; Van Tassel-Baska, 2003), and linguistic and vocabulary development
(Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996). Gifted students seem to learn best when they are
presented with open-ended activities, and the best project-based learning tends to occur in
the context of problem-based learning (Van Tassel-Baska, 2003). Problem-based learning
is characterized by creative problem-solving where students are required to identify real
world problems, develop solutions, and create presentations. This is part of the process of
talent development (Gentry & Neu, 1998). Another effective strategy is the formation of
cooperative learning teams based on ability for the teaching of mathematics (Elmore &
Zenus, 1994; Kulik & Kulik, 1992; Rogers, 1998). It seems that gifted-appropriate
strategy must be coupled with rigorous intellectual demand to provide worthwhile
educational experiences for gifted students (Van Tassel-Baska, 2003). Although the
literature identifies several effective teaching and learning strategies, more information is
needed to define the strategies that are most effective for the gifted.

13

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to determine the factors that inform teachers’ choices
of instructional strategy use. This study will also examine how teachers’ perceptions of
instructional strategies (student learning skills) inform their instructional practices.
Furthermore, this study will identify the role teachers’ training opportunities play in
instructional choices. Finally, this study will examine how teachers’ instructional
strategies inform their use of the principles of differentiated curriculum for gifted
students.
Research Questions
This study investigated the following research questions:
1. What effect does the frequency of using these instructional strategies and
learning skills exert on teachers’ perceptions of gifted students’ learning in 7
th

grade English/language arts classes?
2. What effect does the utilization of instructional strategies and learning skills
have on the motivation of teachers of gifted students in 7
th
grade
English/language arts classes?
3. What is the effect of where the teacher learned these instructional strategies
and learning skills (location, i.e. pre-service, in-service, staff development,
university coursework, or staff development) on gifted students’ learning in7
th

grade English/language arts classes?

14

Significance of the Problem
The factors that inform teachers’ choices of instructional strategies are of great
importance, since over 50% of identified gifted students do not perform as expected
academically (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). It is critical to
find ways to address this problem in order to prevent underachievement by the gifted.
Educators must have reliable mechanisms to employ when any student begins to slip
academically, but it is especially urgent to identify the most effective instructional
strategies and skills for gifted students given their overwhelming rate of
underachievement (Swanson, 2006). Therefore it is important for educators to develop
consensus regarding the strategies that best meet the needs of the gifted learner (Van
Tassel-Baska & Brown, 2007). As articulated previously, some strategies are more
effective than others (Van Tassel-Baska, 2003).
The perception of the effectiveness of a particular educational strategy depends
upon the teacher. For example, regular middle school teachers and middle school teachers
of the gifted differ in their opinions of the use of grouping as an instructional strategy.
Gifted teachers see grouping as appropriate when groups are selected by ability; regular
education teachers, on the other hand, are generally opposed to ability-based grouping
(Coleman, 1992). The determination of what factors inform teachers’ choices of
instructional strategies would allow teachers and administrators to reliably select
strategies that are effective with their populations (Rogers, 2007). This study is

15

significant because if educators have a clear understanding of the role perceptions play in
strategy choice teachers can identify effective methods of addressing the
underachievement of gifted students.
Methodology
The population studied included 20 teachers of 7
th
grade gifted students. The
researcher determined the factors that informed teachers’ choices of instructional
strategies using a survey instrument constructed by the researcher. The survey was
designed to determine the role teachers’ training opportunities played in instructional
choices. In addition, the survey ascertained how teachers’ perceptions of instructional
strategies (student learning skills) informed their instructional practice. The survey was
also used to determine how teachers’ instructional strategies informed their use of the
principles of differentiated curriculum for gifted students. The researcher used
comparative analysis to develop a profile of effective strategies for the gifted.
Language Arts classes were chosen as the area for study because verbal
proficiency is one of the cognitive indicators of giftedness (Manning, 2006). The
researcher surveyed all the teachers of gifted 7
th
grade English classes at 11 selected
schools in five school districts: Las Altos Unified School District [USD] (Delaware
Middle School, Washington Van Winkle Middle School, Rudecinda Middle School and
Scott Middle School), Cooper City USD (Cooper City Middle School), Combe USD
(Ralph Johnson Middle School and Bridge Middle School), Farmingtown USD

16

(Farmingtown Middle School, Cesar Lechuga Middle School and Silver Middle School),
and Glasgow USD (Faye Sutherland Academy). Pseudonyms were used to name each of
the five participating school districts and school sites to protect anonymity of all study
participants. The schools are similar; for example all school schools with an API
exceeded their API growth targets for the 2004-05 school year (California Department of
Education, 2006a). Each of the selected schools is also currently engaging in Program
Improvement (PI), a process that was implemented when a school failed to make
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) beginning in the 1997-98 school year. The schools are
also different in one especially significant way; half of the selected schools failed to make
AYP in English-Language Arts while the other half made the mark (California
Department of Education, 2006b).
Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. Although an attempt has been made to
include as many instructional settings as possible, the 11 selected schools may not
represent the full diversity of gifted programs in the State of California. The demographic
profile of the individual school districts is reflective of the schools to be examined in
LAUSD (LAUSD, 2006b) but not reflective of a national perspective. The lack of a pilot
study to establish the content validity of the survey instrument is another limitation. The
fact that this study is based on the perceptions of teachers rather than empirical data
means that it is based on the values held by the responding individuals. A final limitation

17

is the variance in classroom experience of each educator (Lesaux, Kieffer, Faller, &
Kelley, 2010).
Delimitations
The ability to generalize this study’s results is challenged by several factors. First,
the small sample size poses a problem in terms of credible analysis. The fact that the
sample is drawn from only the teachers of 7
th
grade language arts students may lead to
generalizability problems when the results are applied to teachers in other grades and
academic disciplines. In addition the selected schools are all located in or adjacent to
major metropolitan centers. This may also limit the value of the findings in terms of
applicability to rural and suburban settings.
Definitions
This study utilized the following specialized terms:
• Acceleration of content knowledge. Acceleration of content knowledge refers to
moving through the curriculum at a faster pace than age-equivalent peers would
move. This is also referred to as curriculum compacting (Elliott, 2009; Gross &
Van Vliet, 2005; Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006; Reis et al., 2004).
• Active learning. Active learning is the process of student engagement with the
curriculum (Ares & Gorrell, 2002; Hishinuma & Nishimura, 2000).
• Communalism. Communalism is non-competitive, cooperative learning (Ford et
al., 2004).

18

• Cooperative learning. Cooperative learning is the exchange between students in
groups arranged to allow students to benefit from the knowledge of others while
contributing to the knowledge base (Beck, 2001; Cox et al., 1985; Graffam, 2006;
Kulik & Kulik, 1992; Van Tassel-Baska, 2006b;).
• Creative thinking strategies. Creative thinking strategies describe the process of
extending new ideas from existing information (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005;
Smutny, 2001a).
• Critical reading. Critical reading is the process of analysis coupled with decoding
and comprehending text (Reis et al., 2004; Wood, 2008).
• Expository writing. Expository writing is the process of analyzing the constituent
parts of the whole and revealing the results of the analysis to the reader (Van
Tassel-Baska et al., 1996).
• Feedback of results to students. Feedback of results to students is the act of
providing commentary or other indicators that allow students to improve their
work (Marzano et al., 2000).
• Generating and testing hypotheses. Generating and testing hypotheses is the
process of making an educated estimation and by trial and error determining if the
initial estimation was valid (Marzano et al., 2000).
• Goal setting. Goal setting is the act of establishing a benchmark for performance
(Marzano et al., 2000).

19

• Homework. Homework is the set of tasks assigned by teachers to be performed
outside of the class time (Marzano et al., 2000).
• Identifying similarities and differences. Identifying similarities and differences is
the cognitive act of detecting patterns of likeness and divergence (Marzano et al.,
2000).
• Instructional strategies. Instructional strategies are methods that can be used to
deliver a variety of content objectives. They also refer to how a course of
study/curriculum should be taught (Access Center, 2009; Tomlinson, 1999).
• Interdisciplinary thematic teaching. Interdisciplinary thematic teaching is
instruction that encompasses two or more academic disciplines, such as English
and social studies, along a theme, such as heroism or self-reliance (Graffam,
2006; Peterman, 1990; Reis et al., 2004).
• Interest-based student-selected activities. Interest-based student-selected activities
are tasks that students perform as a matter of exploring a subject of preference
(Neumeister & Finch, 2006; Peterman, 1990; Renzulli, 1992; Swanson, 2006).
• Learning skills. Learning skills are the metacognitive decisions students make to
use individual strategies to respond to the curriculum (Garofalo & Lester, 1985).
• Lecture. Lecture is the oral transmission of knowledge sometimes characterized
by examples and anecdotes (Beck, 2001; Coleman, 2006; Corbett & Wilson,
2002).

20

• Linguistic and vocabulary development. Linguistic and vocabulary development
is the enhancement of language through the introduction of new words (Van
Tassel-Baska et al., 1996).
• Movement. Movement is learning by doing physical and mental activities and can
also be referred to as hands-on learning (Ford et al., 2004; Graffam, 2006).
• Non-linguistic representations. Non-linguistic representations are symbols, visual
aids, and other objects used to communicate with out using voice or print
(Marzano et al., 2000).
• Note taking. Note taking is the process of recording important points from
instructional settings and materials in written form (Marzano et al., 2000).
• Open ended inquiry/student directed inquiry. Open ended inquiry/student directed
inquiry involves allowing students to frame questions around topics of individual
and collective interest (Beck, 2001; Van Tassel-Baska, 2001).
• Oral communication. Oral communication is the process of conveying
information linguistically (Chaney, 1996; Van Tassel-Baska, 2003).
• Performance assessment. Performance assessments are tasks that require pupils to
put together knowledge, understanding, and skill to independently address
multidisciplinary objectives (Beck, 2001; Castellano, 2004; Moon, 2002).

21

• Problem solving strategies. Problem solving strategies “enable individuals or
groups to use information about tasks, important needs and goals… to make and
carry out …decisions that will lead to meaningful outcomes or results”
(Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005, p. 348).
• Providing reinforcement for effort. Providing reinforcement for effort is the act of
providing praise such as posting work (Marzano et al., 2000).
• Structured inquiry. Structured inquiry is teacher-directed questioning (Ares &
Gorrell, 2002).
• Summarizing. Summarizing is the act of culling the essential facts from materials
(Marzano et al., 2000).
• Thematic units of study. Thematic units of study are coordinated instructional
blocks involving two or more academic disciplines focused around identified
similarities (Graffam, 2006; Reis et al., 2004; Peterman, 1990).

22

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
National interest in gifted education is cyclical and always colored by the specter
of elitism (Lolly & Kettler, 2008). This chapter begins with a cursory examination of how
gifted students in America measure up to their international counterparts in terms of
preparation and performance (Ross, 1993). The literature also reveals a uniquely
American attitude of equality balanced with the motivation to exceed other nations
(Riley, 1999), an attitude which is briefly explored in the context of the perceived
potential contributions the cultivation of the gifted can offer (Coleman & Gallagher,
1992b). The literature also provides a glimpse into what motivates gifted students. Two
of the stronger exemplars of gifted student motivation are fear of failure and need for
achievement (Neumeister & Finch, 2006). A few other selected factors such as family
stability and identified effective instructional techniques are also discussed (Beck, 2001;
Coleman, 2006; Corbett & Wilson, 2002; Reis et al., 2005). For example the literature
review focused on current instructional strategies, learning skills, and differentiated
instruction, specifically exploring the relationship between these three elements. Finally,
the literature review focuses on the perceptions of teachers involved with gifted students.
According to the literature, despite teacher perceptions the limit for gifted achievement is
immeasurable (Gentry & Neu, 1998).

23

The emphasis on and interest in the status of gifted students has demonstrated a
pattern of fluctuation over time (Lolly & Kettler, 2008). The emphasis on the education
of gifted students in America has been a sporadic rather than constant effort. The
philosophical underpinning of the differential support for the gifted has its roots in the
uniquely American paradigm of equality forged in the smelter of the Great Depression.
Even other countries that were not founded on the principle of equality and an escape
from aristocracy hold egalitarian principles that impede efforts to customize educational
experiences for the gifted (Riley, 1999). American society has rejected anything that
suggests superiority of one group over another and this is reflected in attitudes toward
gifted students (Gallagher, 1979).
Historic Influences on Gifted Education
In the American milieu, emphasis on education of the gifted has coincided with
three recent historic peaks: World War II, space exploration, and the Marland report.
War, whether conducted for technological, ideological, or physical reasons, has always
stimulated the national acceptance of accelerated learning (Colangelo, Assouline, &
Gross, 2004). Although the Second World War ended with an American declaration of
victory, shortly thereafter the Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik, the first
satellite to orbit Earth, on October 4, 1957 (Daniel & Kirshon, 1999). The five years
following the Soviet Union’s launch of the Sputnik satellite was a time of intense reaction
to this wounding of the American notion of intellectual superiority (Lolly & Kettler,

24

2008), and the U.S.’s interest in cultivating high achieving students was stimulated when
the nation realized that the Soviet Union had gained the advantage in space. The
differential polices across the states reflects the national inattention to gifted students
(Coleman & Gallagher, 1992b). The Marland report (1972) of educational inadequacies
once again refocused attention on the gifted by citing the dismal achievement of
American students when compared to their international counterparts (Lolly & Kettler,
2008).
The backdrop of American society exerted a formative influence on the
educational system. In the 1940s the U.S. was viewed as the premier superpower on
Earth. The two decisive nuclear strikes against Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki
in 1945, using technology developed by a young team of scientists and engineers,
reinforced the American scientific community as the most powerful group in the world.
The economic boon that accompanied the end of World War II legitimized the perception
that American efforts produced a greater good (Daniel & Kirshon, 1999). By the 1950s
the presumed superiority of the American educational system was shattered by an
influential event that gave birth to the realization that America is not an invulnerable
nation.
In 1954 U.S. President Eisenhower called for the development of an American
effort to beat the Russians into space. Despite the Americans’ best academic and
engineering efforts, the Russians simply beat the U.S. to the punch with their successful

25

launch of Sputnik in 1957. While the nation was still reeling from this loss, the Soviets
launched a second satellite, Sputnik II. This satellite had a dog, Laika, as the passenger.
The Soviets set two scientific records in a matter of days; they were able to put a craft in
orbit around the planet and follow that feat by putting a terrestrial life form in orbit.
These two successes followed by the dismal American failure to match these feats found
President Eisenhower dismissing the military application of the Russian victory publicly.
The Sputnik series of successful space launches created a need in the American psyche to
outperform all competitors. Although the Explorer satellite was launched soon afterwards
in 1958, it is arguable that the U.S. has never been able to erase the resulting shock and
feelings of national competitiveness, feelings that have subsequently plunged the U.S.
into a perpetual global competition for superiority (Daniel & Kirshon, 1999).
Defining Giftedness
Giftedness has been defined in may ways over the decades by diverse researchers,
but currently the term means those exhibiting high intellectual or academic ability
(Manning, 2006). Another modern interpretation of childhood giftedness is the exhibition
of potential for advanced thinking such as the consideration of abstractions and a facility
with language (Morrissey & Brown, 2009).The initial early, 1906, definitions of
giftedness from researchers like Terman were heavily concentrated on measuring IQ as
the sole determinant of giftedness (Konstantopoulos et al., 2001). A radical paradigm
shift occurred with the introduction of the Marland report (1972), which expanded the

26

definition of giftedness from general intellectual ability to incorporate specific academic
aptitudes, creativity, leadership ability, visual arts abilities, performing arts skills, and
psychomotor skills. The previously held view of intelligence as a single linear construct
had experienced a metamorphosis into a complex matrix that could not be measured by
any single test (Ross, 1993). The term gifted may be destined for retirement as current
advances in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that the term describes a
mature power rather than a developing ability. The term giftedness is aligned with the
view of intelligence as a fixed linear construct. The Javits Gifted and Talented Education
Act added another layer to the Marland report’s definition by adding comparisons
between students of the same age, experience, or environment as well as by using
language that was inclusive of all socioeconomic levels, geographic regions, and cultural
designations (Ross, 1993). It is important to realize that the characteristics exhibited by
gifted students have been defined in an evolving matrix (Konstantopoulos et al., 2001).
Precursors to Gifted Performance
The current focus on the status of the gifted is a result of the aforementioned
factors and the National Excellence Report’s (Ross, 1993) identification of less than
desirable educational conditions for gifted students (Van Tassel-Baska, 2006a). The
National Excellence Report describes the inadequate academic preparation and
performance of United States’ students in comparison to their international counterparts.
Ross (1993) cites similar data to support the lack of potential actualization of gifted

27

students in comparison to similar students in other countries. Many American elementary
and secondary students are performing below grade level when compared to students in
countries that are economic competitors of the U.S. More than 50% of gifted students
fail to meet expected levels of academic achievement (National Commission on
Excellence in Education, 1983).
Lack of a challenging curriculum, poor student work ethics, and lack of funding
are converging factors that also affect gifted education. The lack of challenge is reflected
by the fact that most gifted elementary students have mastered 35 to 40% of the content
in five core subjects prior to the first day of classes. Furthermore, gifted students seem to
exhibit poor work ethics; most gifted students self-report that they study less than one
hour daily. Underfunding further contributes to gifted students’ lack of engagement; a
national survey established that only two cents out of every $100 dollars expended on K-
12 students pays for gifted students’ supplemental experiences (Ross, 1993).
How Schools Identify Gifted Students
The effort to define the traits possessed by gifted students and appropriate ways to
respond to those students continues to evolve. Identification and placement of the gifted
is based on a different set of criteria from state to state (Coleman & Gallagher, 1992a).
California Education Code Sections 52200-52212 determine the parameters under which
each school district in California is permitted to develop local criteria to identify gifted
and talented students. California Education Code section 52201 defines as talented or

28

gifted a student who demonstrates the potential to deliver high performance in certain
areas such as intellectuality, creativity, specific academic disciplines, leadership abilities,
or talent in the performing and/or visual arts. The criteria for identification of all gifted
students in the state are based on the education code sections mentioned above. In
alignment with those sections the Las Altos Unified School District’s gifted and talented
students are identified in one or more of seven categories: intellectual ability, high
achievement ability, specific academic ability, visual arts ability, performing arts ability,
creative ability, and leadership ability (Elliott, 2009).
In the intellectual ability category the criteria for selection are students in the
second semester of kindergarten and above who demonstrate advanced reasoning ability,
superior vocabulary, rapid acquisition of a second language, advanced academic ability,
honors or recognition of outstanding accomplishments or scaled scores in the advanced
level on state-adopted criterion referenced tests. Advanced academic ability is determined
by the administration of the standardized intelligence test given by a Las Altos Unified
School District school psychologist (Elliott, 2009).
In the high achievement ability category the criteria for selection are students who
are in 3
rd
grade and above and function for three out of four consecutive years at
advanced levels in English language arts and mathematics on standardized tests. These
students must have scaled scores of 425 or above in English language arts and scaled
scores of 450 or above in mathematics. A score at or above the 85
th
percentile on

29

standardized achievement tests can also be used to qualify a student for selection. The
district uses a rule that allows a classroom grade to be substituted for one of the required
test scores. If the student is in an elementary school he/she must have a 4 in achievement
for both the second and third reporting periods. Students in secondary schools must have
two semester grades averaged to comprise a GPA of 3.5 or above in general education
classes and 3.0 or above for students in honors, advanced placement, or gifted and
talented classes. The averaged grades must be taken from the final report card (Elliott,
2009).
In the specific academic ability category the criteria for selection are students who
are in fourth grade and above with a minimum of two out of three eligible test scores in
English language arts, mathematics, science or social studies. Students must possess a
scaled score of 425 or above in English language arts or 450 or above in mathematics.
Students in grade 8 and beyond must be enrolled in algebra or higher. A score at or above
the 85
th
percentile on standardized achievement tests can also qualify the student. The
grade substitution rule applies but can only be used for the second or third year (Elliott,
2009).
In the visual and performing arts the criteria for selection at third grade and above
are students who originate, perform, produce, or respond at exceptionally high levels
either in dance, drama, music (voice), drawing or painting. The students in the visual arts
category must produce a portfolio for evaluation in a district-wide competition. The

30

talents of students in the performing arts category are assessed through a district-wide
audition (Elliott, 2009).
To qualify for the creative ability category, students in fourth grade and above
must perceive significant similarities or differences within the environment, challenge
assumptions, and produce unique alternative solutions. These students must also earn a
score of 96% or above on the gifted rating scale for creative ability, submit to portfolio
assessment, and provide documentation of outstanding ability substantiated by
community recognition and teacher evaluation. A compilation of teacher observations, a
review of the student’s cumulative record and sample work must be provided as support
for a recommendation made in this category (Elliott, 2009).
In the leadership ability category the criteria for selection of students are the
submission of portfolio assessment and documentation of outstanding ability
substantiated by community recognition and teacher evaluation. These students must
also earn a score of 96% or above on the gifted rating scale for leadership ability. A
compilation of teacher observations, a review of the student’s cumulative record and
sample work must evidence that the student influences others effectively, has advanced
problem-solving and decision-making skills, expresses ideas in oral and written forms
clearly, and shows a sense of purpose and direction (Elliott, 2009).
Beyond these specific district-created identification criteria, additional factors,
such as teacher and student motivation, also influence gifted education.

31

Gifted Teacher and Student Motivation
Student motivation is a complex, multi-determined quality. Varying family forces,
opinions, actions, and parenting methods possibly shape students’ incentives for learning
or creating original products (Albert, 1978). One researcher establishes the family as a
prime influence on student academic learning (Chan, 2005). The research about gifted
student and teacher motivation is neither definitive nor conclusive; in fact, some of it is
contradictory. For example, one researcher states that gifted students develop resilience
and are able to achieve if there is a supportive adult present. These students are able to
achieve despite some negative influence in the family (Reis et al., 2005). This assertion is
complimentary to research on teacher perceptions that indicates an educated family
background fosters the motivation for students to achieve (Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius,
2006).
Gifted students exhibit higher intrinsic motivation than their non-gifted age peers.
This intrinsic motivation is commonly manifested as task orientation, which is a mental
focus on performance (Schapiro, Schneider, Shore, Margison, & Udvari, 2009). In a
study regarding project EXCITE, a program designed to appeal to minority student
interests, parents self-reported their perception that the treatment, academic support and
individualized enrichment, enhanced the application of student motivation (Lee &
Olszewski-Kubilius, 2009). In a study regarding students’ opinions of International
Baccalaureate and Advanced Placement programs, gifted students found benefit in being

32

in groups of similarly motivated students pursuing demanding curricula (Hertzberg-Davis
& Callahan, 2008). Gifted students expressed different reasons for pursuing challenging
coursework; some did so out of interest while others became involved to open the door to
future opportunities. A group of African American students acknowledged that they
pursued Advance Placement and International Baccalaureate curricula to dispel the
stereotype that they were incapable of mastering rigorous coursework. For gifted students
residing in rural areas, the challenge of rigorous courses and the promise of university life
represented a way to escape the confines of a perceived predestination to remain in those
rural areas
,
performing tasks below their capabilities. The majority of students indicated
the reason for pursuing Advanced Placement courses and the International Baccalaureate
program was to gain advantages in the college application process (Hertzberg-Davis &
Callahan, 2008). Most of the gifted research is concentrated on what motivates gifted
students to achieve (Albert, 1978; Chan, 2005; Hertzberg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Lee &
Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006; Reis et al., 2005; Schapiro et al., 2009). The gifted research is
very thin regarding teachers’ motivation to use different instructional strategies with
gifted students.
Increasing the rate at which curriculum is delivered and the rigor of instruction
beyond what is expected for average ability students of similar physical maturity
rekindles the thirst for gifted students’ acquisition of knowledge. This reduces the tedium
and lack of enthusiasm that gifted students experience as a consequence of typical

33

instructional methods (Gross & Van Vliet, 2005). Differentiation of instruction is a
motivational mechanism that provides students with multiple avenues to improve
learning (Reis et al., 2004). Among the school districts being studied, Los Altos Unified
School District teachers are encouraged to utilize the four modes of differentiation
adopted by the district: complexity, novelty, acceleration, and depth (LAUSD, 2006a).
Over half of U.S. teachers report that they use distinctly diverse instructional strategies
when working with classes moving at an accelerated pace (Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius,
2006). The teacher motivation to withhold acceleration comes from the generally held
belief that accelerating developing talents leads to maladjustment (Muratori, Colangelo,
& Assouline, 2003). However, it has been established that the behavior and psychological
well-being of gifted individuals is not affected by exposure to acceleration (Gross & Van
Vliet, 2005).
Current Instructional Strategies, Learning Skills and Differentiated Instruction
Instructional strategies, learning skills, and differentiated instruction are the
primary vehicles for delivery of content in the classroom. Many researchers identify the
instructional strategies, learning skills, and differentiated instruction in use with complex
taxonomies. Beck (2001) identifies eight categories of differentiated instruction. The first
differentiated instructional strategy is referred to as expositive, which is most closely

34

aligned with lecture. The second differentiated instructional strategy, associative, calls for
cooperative learning experiences. Gifted students benefit when associative or cooperative
learning experiences are used (Van Tassel-Baska, 2006b). The third differentiated
instructional strategy, interrogative, requires the development of questions and the
probing of problems (Beck, 2001). The interrogative strategy or problem based inquiry
results in strong learning gains (Van Tassel-Baska, 2006b). The fourth strategy,
individualistic, calls for students to engage in independent exploration of content. The
fifth strategy, performative, is characterized by simulation. Sixth, the deliberative strategy
most commonly employs discussion as the medium for teaching. The final two strategies
are investigative and technological. These two strategies involve the use of inquiry and
multimedia. The investigative strategy differs from the interrogative strategy in that
interrogative calls for questioning students to assess understanding while the inquiry
strategy prompts students to sequentially analyze the content (Beck, 2001).
Several studies regarding the benefits of lecture have yielded conflicting results
(Beck, 2001; Coleman, 2006; Corbett & Wilson, 2002). The literature is less clear about
the role of lecture for gifted middle school students. Some researchers assert that there is
some value in exposing gifted students to lecture, while Coleman (2006) states that there
is relatively little research on lecture as an instructional method for gifted students. Some
studies, with mixed results, regard lecture as an effective manner to acquaint students
with experts in the field (Beck, 2001; Coleman, 2006; Corbett & Wilson, 2002). Students
perceive that discussion is also a method to create a learning atmosphere characterized by

35

higher order learning skills (Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006). Small group and other
cooperative learning strategies are currently employed to enhance learning for gifted
students (Cox et al., 1985; Kulik & Kulik, 1992). Professional disagreements about the
virtues of cooperative learning, center on the concept of group structure in middle school
(Schullery & Schullery, 2006). When these groups are structured as homogenous ability
clusters the gifted realize more positive gains (Van Tassel-Baska, 2006b).
Heterogeneously structured learning venues produce gains that are far less dramatic for
the high-achieving population (Van Tassel-Baska, 2001).
There is also research that finds no direct positive comparison between any single
strategy and increased student learning in the gifted (Swanson, 2006). Some
differentiated instructional strategies credited with reducing underachievement involve
students receiving instruction across the curriculum aligned to a common theme
(Graffam, 2006; Reis et al., 2004), incorporating high student-interest activities (Graffam,
2006; Hong, Greene, & Higgins, 2006), aligning school-wide events thematically
(Graffam, 2006), solving problems in a creative fashion (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005),
and providing experiences in an authentic context (Rayneri, Gerber, & Wiley, 2006). The
differentiated instructional strategy literature includes several references to the
effectiveness of problem-based learning and open-ended questions (Beck, 2001; Van
Tassel-Baska, 2001). Marzano et al. (2000) have produced a comprehensive study of
instructional strategies and learning skills that students should develop; these techniques
are effective with any of the differentiated instructional techniques employed by teachers.

36

The identification of similarities and differences, summarizing and note taking,
reinforcement for effort, and recognition are effective instructional strategies and learning
skills for all populations. Homework or skills practice, nonlinguistic representations,
cooperative learning (Beck, 2001; Cox et al., 1985; Graffam, 2006; Kulik & Kulik, 1992;
Van Tassel-Baska, 2006b), setting goals, and providing feedback (Marzano et al., 2000)
are instructional strategies and learning skills that produce enhanced learning as well.
Finally, Marzano et al. (2000) postulate that generating and testing hypotheses and
activating prior knowledge also produce gains, albeit less than some of the previously
stated learning skills.
Some instructional strategies, learning skills, and forms of differentiated
instruction have been credited with providing specific benefits to certain minority groups.
To address the need for effective instructional strategies, learning skills and differentiated
instruction, Castellano (2004) and Ford et al. (2004) performed research that examined
the academic underachievement of minority populations. Castellano (2004) found that
gifted Hispanic students are more apt to reduce underachievement when small groups and
individualized instruction are employed in the classroom. Castellano indicates that
project-based learning, as a differentiated instructional strategy, is more likely to produce
learning results for the Hispanic student population. Ford et al. (2004) advocate three
differentiated instructional strategies for improving learning for gifted African American
students: movement, harmony, and communalism. Ford and her colleagues assert that

37

gifted African American students are more likely to achieve when they are in learning
situations that require corporeal (movement) and mental involvement. To define the term
harmony, they assert that the gifted African American student needs to feel welcomed in
the learning environment. Finally, this group of researchers contends that gifted African
American students are more likely to learn when they are involved in non-competitive,
cooperative learning groups, which the researchers label communalism.
Active learning and structured inquiry are two additional differentiated
instructional strategies that benefit the learning of gifted students (Ares & Gorrell, 2002).
Active learning is credited with increasing learning across disciplines with not only gifted
and the learning disabled students but also twice exceptional students, those that are both
gifted and learning disabled (Hishinuma & Nishimura, 2000). Structured inquiry
provides students with opportunities to practice curriculum exploration. Chaney (1996),
Van Tassel-Baska et al. (1996), and Wood (2008) discuss additional beneficial teaching
strategies for the gifted. These strategies include critical reading (Wood, 2008),
expository writing (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996), oral communication (Chaney, 1996;
Van Tassel-Baska, 2003), and linguistic and vocabulary development (Van Tassel-Baska
et al., 1996). Van Tassel-Baska’s (2003) later research presents open-ended activities and
problem based learning as strategies and skills that better address the needs of gifted
learners. The use of problem-based learning has been a contributory factor in increasing
learning across diverse curriculum including social studies (Shaunessy & Page, 2006).

38

Problem based learning is successful in promoting student engagement with diverse tasks
due to students’ need to interact with one another (Patrick, Jeon, & Townsend, 2005).
Relationship Between Instructional Strategies, Learning Skills, and Differentiated
Instruction
Several references in the literature suggest a relationship between instructional
strategies, learning skills, and differentiated instruction. Kitano and Lewis (2007) cite a
considerable amount of research suggesting that instructional strategies, learning skills
and differentiated instruction for gifted students are the same as the instructional
strategies, learning skills, and differentiated instruction that increase achievement for all
students. The literature regarding instructional strategies, learning skills, and
differentiated instruction merits further exploration. The literature advocates the use of
differentiation strategies such as grade level and content area acceleration (Van Tassel-
Baska, 2001). However, as previously mentioned, a national report established that most
gifted students are not receiving the academic challenge required to generate work
products indicative of their unique capacities (Ross, 1993). Perhaps this indicates that
gifted students need the same instructional strategies used to foster higher-level thinking
skills in the general population but delivered at their own pace with a degree of
appropriate complexity (Smutny, 2001a). However, the relationship between instructional
strategies, learning skills, and differentiated instruction has a greater purpose. A primary
objective is to convince teachers of their essential responsibility to employ a wide range

39

of instructional strategies, learning skills, and differentiated instruction designed to
address the varied learning styles of their students and to support pupils to expand their
learning style preferences (Beck, 2001). This objective is further reinforced by the
statement that educators need to structure “ideal acts of learning,” where the student, the
instructor and the content are matched (Renzulli, 1992, p. 171). Gifted student learning
will improve when teacher employment of instructional strategies, learning skills, and
differentiated instruction is aligned with students’ learning styles (Renzulli, 1992).
Selected researchers have drawn connections between minority groups and optimal
learning environments that emphasize culture and learning style (Castellano, 2004; Ford
et al., 2004). Project-based learning shows the potential to transform not only lower
performing learning environments but also the professional paradigm of teachers who
have developed a belief that their students lack potential (Hertzog, 2005). Ford et al
(2004) describe a connection between the cultural and learning styles of African
Americans and underachievement. Gifted African American students may experience
underachievement as a result of mismatches between students’ learning styles and
teachers’ teaching styles.
The literature review reveals some interrelation between certain instructional
strategies, learning skills, and differentiated instruction. These interrelations are
represented graphically in Table 1.

40

TABLE 1.
INTERRELATION BETWEEN INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES, LEARNING
SKILLS, AND DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION
Instructional
Strategies and
Learning Skills
Differentiated Instruction Technique
1. Identifying
Similarities and
Differences

Interdisciplinary Thematic Teaching (Peterman, 1990, Reis et al., 2004,
Graffam, 2006)
Thematic Units of Study (Reis et al., 2004; Graffam, 2006, Peterman, 1990)
Problem-Solving Strategies (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005, Smutny, 2001a)
2. Summarizing

Lecture (Van-Tassel-Baska, 1994; Coleman, 2006; Corbett & Wilson, 2002;
Beck, 2001)
Homework (Marzano et al., 2000)
Linguistic and Vocabulary Development (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996)
3. Note Taking Lecture (Van-Tassel-Baska, 1994; Coleman, 2006; Corbett & Wilson, 2002;
Beck, 2001)
Linguistic and Vocabulary Development (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996)
4. Nonlinguistic
representations
Providing Reinforcement for Effort/such as praise & posting work
(Marzano et al., 2000)
5. Goal setting Interest-Based Student-Selected Activities (Renzulli,1992; Neumeister &
Finch, 2006; Swanson, 2006; Peterman, 1990)
Feedback of results to students so they can improve their work (Marzano
et al., 2000)
6. Generating and
testing
hypotheses
Cooperative Learning (Van Tassel-Baska, 2006b; Beck, 2001; Kulik &
Kulik, 1992; Cox et al., 1985; Schatz, 1990)
Creative Thinking Strategies (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005)
7. Active learning Interdisciplinary Thematic Teaching
(Peterman, 1990, Reis et al., 2004, Graffam, 2006)
Open-ended Inquiry – Student- directed Inquiry (Van Tassel-Baska, 2001,
Beck, 2001)
Acceleration of content knowledge
(Elliott, 2009; Gross & Van Vliet, 2005; Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006;
Reis et al., 2004),
Performance Assessment (Beck, 2001, Moon, 2002, Castellano, 2004)
Movement: Learning by doing physical & mental activity. Hands on
learning. (Ford et al., 2004)
Structured Inquiry: teacher directed inquiry (Lockwood, 1992)
Problem-Solving Strategies (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005, Smutny, 2001a)
8. Critical
Reading
Creative Thinking Strategies (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005)
Linguistic and Vocabulary Development (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996)
9. Expository
Writing
Creative Thinking Strategies (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005)
Linguistic and Vocabulary Development (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996)
10. Oral
Communication
: Learning to
speak publicly
Communalism – Non-competitive cooperative learning. (Ford et al., 2004)
Linguistic and Vocabulary Development (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996)

41

Discussion of Strategies, Skills Alignment, and Differentiated Instruction
Some conceptual understandings occur more readily in certain settings than
others. The intersection of similar concepts creates an interrelation between strategies,
skills, and certain differentiated instruction techniques. The learning skill of identifying
similarities and differences (Marzano et al., 2000) is most likely to be used with the
differentiated instructional strategy of interdisciplinary thematic teaching, thematic units
of study (Graffam, 2006; Peterman, 1990; Reis et al., 2004) and problem-solving
strategies (Smutny, 2001a; Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005).
Summarizing (Marzano et al., 2000) is most closely aligned with the
differentiation strategies of lecture (Beck, 2001; Coleman, 2006; Corbett & Wilson,
2002; Van-Tassel-Baska, 1994), homework (Marzano et al., 2000), and linguistic and
vocabulary development (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996). When the instructional
strategies of lecture and homework are employed as a part of the learning skill of
summarizing, students are required to express understanding in concise terms. Students
continue to refine their linguistic and vocabulary abilities by paring down concepts into
their essential elements.
Note taking (Marzano et al., 2000) is strongly related to two differentiation
strategies: lecture (Beck, 2001; Coleman, 2006; Corbett & Wilson, 2002; Van-Tassel-

42

Baska, 1994) and linguistic and vocabulary development (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996).
The differentiation strategy of lecture provides a venue for students to exercise note
taking skills. Linguistic and vocabulary development are modes of differentiation
facilitated by the use of note taking.
Nonlinguistic representations are matched with the differentiation strategy of
providing reinforcement for effort, such as praise and posting work (Marzano et al.,
2000). The differentiation strategy of providing reinforcement for effort creates
opportunities for students to express understanding in the form of nonlinguistic
representations.
Goal setting (Marzano et al., 2000) is aligned with the differentiation pathways of
interest-based student-selected activities (Neumeister & Finch, 2006; Peterman, 1990;
Renzulli, 1992; Swanson, 2006) and giving feedback about results to students so they can
improve their work (Marzano et al., 2000). Students are more likely to set goals when
they self-select based on personal interest the activities in which they get to participate.
Similarly, students set goals based on feedback about results.
Generating and testing hypotheses is matched with the differentiation strategies of
cooperative learning (Beck, 2001; Cox et al., 1985; Kulik & Kulik, 1992; Schatz, 1990;
Van Tassel-Baska, 2006b) and creative thinking strategies (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005).
When teachers differentiate the curriculum with cooperative learning and creative
thinking strategies students learn to generate, employ, and test hypotheses. For example,

43

when students work in groups engaged in synthesis of new materials they are much more
likely to generate and test hypotheses.
Active learning (Ares & Gorrell, 2002; Hishinuma & Nishimura, 2000) is a
ubiquitous skill that is most often paired with the differentiation strategies of
interdisciplinary thematic teaching (Graffam, 2006; Peterman, 1990; Reis et al., 2004),
open-ended inquiry or student-directed inquiry (Beck, 2001; Van Tassel-Baska, 2001),
acceleration of content knowledge (Elliott, 2009; Gross & Van Vliet, 2005; Lee &
Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006; Reis et al., 2004), performance assessment (Beck, 2001;
Castellano, 2004; Moon, 2002), movement (learning by doing physical and mental
activities; Ford et al., 2004), hands on learning (Ford et al., 2004), structured inquiry or
teacher directed inquiry (Lockwood, 1992), and problem-solving strategies (Treffinger &
Isaksen, 2005). These differentiation strategies help students to engage with the
curriculum.
Critical reading (Wood, 2008) is aligned with the differentiation techniques of
creative thinking strategies (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005) and linguistic and vocabulary
development (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996). Differentiation through creative thinking
strategies and linguistic and vocabulary development allows students to engage in the
higher-order thinking skill of creativity while continuing to grow in language facilities.
Expository writing (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996) is also aligned with the
differentiation strategies of creative thinking (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005) and linguistic

44

and vocabulary development (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996). Creative thinking and
linguistic and vocabulary development, when used to differentiate student learning of
expository writing, allows students to engage in higher-order analysis, which leads to
novel ways of expressing content.
Oral communication or learning to speak publicly (Chaney, 1996; Van Tassel-
Baska, 2003) is differentiated through communalism, which is non-competitive
cooperative learning (Ford et al., 2004) and linguistic and vocabulary development (Van
Tassel-Baska et al., 1996). Communalism was found to be a function of the cultural
orientation of African Americans (Ford et al., 2004). Linguistic and vocabulary
development, in this context, refines the oral communication skills of students.
Teacher Perceptions
The majority of the literature focuses on teacher perceptions that cause bias in
referral and identification of gifted students and teachers’ perception of the traits of
giftedness. In a study involving fourth grade teachers, it was found that some teachers
perceived that children with behavioral problems were not qualified to receive gifted
services as a result of family background (Neumeister et al., 2007). The role of the
classroom teacher is crucial to the screening of gifted students because teachers provide
the referrals and recommendations that lead to gifted student identification (Miller,
2009). The fact that teachers’ personal beliefs and assumptions are a byproduct of the
mainstream culture often puts them in the role to act as gatekeepers to prevent low

45

income and minority students from receiving the classification of “gifted” (Swanson,
2006). Underestimation of gifted students increases the danger of not meeting their
learning needs and student defiance may have masked teachers’ perceptions of gifted
students’ true abilities (Hodge & Kemp, 2006). One study identified two factors that
influence teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: teacher expertise and cultural differences
among students (Miller, 2009). Teachers may need additional experiences to solidify the
concept that culture plays a crucial role in the expression of giftedness (Neumeister et al.,
2007). Past research fails to provide clarity regarding teachers’ perceptions of gifted
students (McCoach & Siegle, 2007). In the absence of definitive criteria upon which to
base identification of gifted students, teachers must rely on training, stereotypes, or both.
This often results in teachers relying on their own discretion, which in turn gives way to
bias (Siegle & Powell, 2004) and may lead to teachers focusing on perceived deficits
rather than strengths (Neumeister et al., 2007).
Factors Affecting Utilization
The literature indicates that one factor affecting the utilization of instructional
strategies, learning skills, and differentiated instruction is the amount of time a teacher
has taught. Even when teachers have knowledge regarding instructional strategies and
skills, they have difficulty relating that knowledge into actionable steps in regards to
differentiated curriculum (Reis et al., 2004). The research revealed that enhancing
differentiated instructional strategies has a positive effect on student learning regardless

46

of the grade level or subject matter taught (Van Tassel-Baska & Brown, 2007). This trend
of improvement of instructional strategies and learning skills leading to better learning
was also shown to exist beyond the first year of program implementation and into the
second year (Van Tassel-Baska & Brown, 2007). This means that the enhancement of
instructional strategies, learning skills, and differentiated instruction provides an almost
instantaneous benefit in year one of data collection. Although there was a small sample
size, the data indicated that in the third year of the 2007 Van Tassel-Baska & Brown
study, the enhancement of instructional strategies and learning skills engendered a pattern
of improved student learning. However, this study presents a caveat in that the second
observation in the third year did not support the implication that the longer students are
taught using superior instructional strategies the greater the academic gains realized by
the students (Little et al., 2007).
Lee and Olszewski-Kubilius (2006) recommend that teachers utilize instructional
strategies, learning skills, and differentiated instruction based on three aspects of the
educational process: content taught, pacing of the class, and student characteristics. In the
study by Little et al. (2007), teachers also perceived that student learning as related to
specific instructional strategies and learning skills provided an impetus for positive
change in schools. Sometimes other factors such as teachers’ desire for freedom and
flexibility were motivators for use of instructional strategies such as structured and
teacher-directed inquiry (Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006). Another aspect of

47

considering student characteristics involves understanding whether or not the
employment of selected instructional strategies, learning skills, and differentiated
instruction has an influence on learning for individual students (Van Tassel-Baska &
Brown, 2007). In a study by Lee and Olszewski-Kubilius (2006), teachers reported using
different instructional strategies and learning skills with their accelerated classes than
they used with their regular classes. Teachers tended to use curriculum compacting and
other forms of acceleration because of a perception of greater academic ability in the fast-
paced classes. No single instructional strategy or skill was credited with increasing
student learning. Rather, the differentiated instruction of problem-based techniques led to
increased student learning (Swanson, 2006).
Another factor that shapes teacher response to instructional strategies, learning
skills, and differentiated instruction is the two to three year time frame it takes to alter
teachers’ beliefs regarding the learning benefit to students (Van Tassel-Baska et al.,
2008). Unless teachers are convinced of the efficacy of the instructional strategies,
learning skills, and differentiated instruction, their perceptions will impede the
employment of any strategy, and as the research has demonstrated, the opportunity to
learn is enhanced by the employment of differentiated instructional strategies (Joseph &
Ford, 2006). Therefore, educators must insure that the gifted population is exposed to
quality instructional strategies, learning skills, and differentiated instruction.

48

Conclusion
The literature review began with a brief history of gifted and talented education in
the United States, drawing a picture of the societal forces that have shaped both America
and modern education. The literature review continued with a general examination of the
definition of gifted, which segued into the definition of gifted as established by the
California Education Code; this is the basis for the identification of gifted students in the
state of California as well as in one of its largest school districts, the Las Altos Unified
School District. The literature review briefly examined the relationship between
motivation and education. The use of the constructs of instructional strategies, learning
skills, and differentiated instruction were scrutinized through the literature review, which
established a relationship between these three concepts. The literature review concluded
with an examination of previous research regarding teacher perceptions and the issues
affecting teacher utilization of instructional strategies, learning skills, and differentiated
instruction.

49

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The term “gifted” is a label that is conferred by schools, not discovered by
educators (Borland, 1989). The underachievement of gifted students constitutes a waste
of academic potential (Gallagher, 1995; Gowan, 1955) and addressing this problem is a
key priority of education professionals (Reis et al., 2005). This study examined teacher
perceptions of the relationships between instructional strategies and learning skills and
the teachers’ perceptions of student learning in gifted 7
th
grade English/language arts
classes. A secondary objective of this study was to determine the factors that affect
teachers’ utilization of instructional strategies. Teacher respondents to Renzulli’s survey
(1992) agreed that investigation of underachievement is a subject worthy of additional
research. Indeed, Ross (1993) asserted that the highest achieving American children are
achieving below their age peers in other countries. Providing a framework for the
selection of effective instructional strategies for gifted middle school students may help
educators mitigate the forces leading to gifted underachievement. The research literature
asserts that enhancing instructional strategies has a positive effect on student learning
regardless of the grade level or subject matter taught (Van Tassel-Baska & Brown,
2007). This researcher hoped that this study would identify some relationship between
teacher preference of instructional strategies and student learning in gifted 7
th
grade
English classes, and the data were used to attempt to generalize such a relationship.

50

Teachers of gifted students in 7
th
grade language arts classes were surveyed to
gather information to answer the research questions. The research questions were:
1. What effect does the frequency of using these instructional
strategies and learning skills exert on teachers’ perceptions of
gifted students’ learning in 7
th
grade English/language arts
classes?
2. What effect does the utilization of instructional strategies and
learning skills have on the motivation of teachers of gifted
students in 7
th
grade English/language arts classes?
3. What is the effect of where the teacher learned these
instructional strategies and learning skills (location, i.e. pre-
service, in-service, staff development, university coursework,
or staff development) on gifted students’ learning in7
th
grade
English/language arts classes?
The research examined the instructional strategies and skills identified by teachers
in the content area of English. The study will utilize a comparative analysis to develop a
profile of the frequency of employment of instructional strategies and the motivation for
using the strategies.

51

Setting
The setting in which instruction occurs exerts an influence on the outcome of that
instruction. The study was conducted in 11 schools across 5 school districts and solicited
responses from 20 teachers. Scott Middle School is located in the City of Carson,
California. Delaware Middle School is located a little to the south and east of Carson in a
suburb of the city of Los Angeles. Rudecinda Middle School is located in Rancho Palos
Verdes, an affluent community in the hills above San Pedro. Washington Van Winkle
Middle School, is located in the northeast corner of the Las Altos Unified School District,
near Glendale, in a suburb of Los Angeles known as Glassell Park. The Farmingtown
schools, Cesar Lechuga Middle School, Silver Middle School and Farmingtown Middle
School are located in the city of Farmingtown, an older unincorporated portion of Los
Angeles County. Ralph Johnson Middle School and Bridge Middle School are located in
Combe, an impoverished area. Sutherland Academy in the Glasgow Unified School
District is situated in an upper middle class neighborhood. Cooper City Middle School is
located in a suburban pocket of southwest Los Angeles. Three schools, Scott Middle
School, Rudecinda Middle School and Delaware Middle School, are located in Local
District 8. A fourth school, Van Winkle Middle School, is located in Local District 4. The
other schools are located in four other urban/suburban school districts. The five districts
are relatively equivalent in student demographics and socioeconomic status. All schools
are located in an urban or suburban area that is characterized by the presence or

52

proximity of population dense high-poverty microcommunities, and all are Title 1
schools, a poverty indicator (School Accountability Report Card [SARC], 2006a, 2006b,
2006c, 2006d, 2006e, 2006f, 2006g, 2006h, 2006i, 2006j, 2006k). Despite geographic
placement, the 11 schools are closely aligned in configuration and delivery of services to
gifted children as validated by conversations with the principals of each school. All
schools offer 68,040 minutes of instruction per year, which is in excess of the state
minimum of 54,000 minutes.
The neighborhood of Van Winkle Middle School is experiencing a strong period
of economic decline. The majority of homes are older smaller single-family structures.
The most prolific businesses in this area are fast food chains and coin-operated laundry
facilities. The largest business in the area is the movie studio immediately across from the
school. Most of the residents of this area work in the more affluent communities of
Glendale, Eagle Rock, and Hollywood. The majority of residents in this neighborhood
are new immigrants to this country; very few long time residents of the community
remain. Eighty-seven percent of Van Winkle students participate in the free or reduced
lunch program, an indicator of the low socioeconomic level of the school (SARC,
2006g).
Delaware Middle School is located in an area with a predominance of working
class families that, due to the current economy, find it increasingly more difficult to
create the conditions for living comfortably. The largest employer in the immediate

53

vicinity of Delaware is the sewage treatment plant. In addition to this work venue, some
parents also work for the oil refineries and the Los Angeles Harbor industry. Job
opportunities in these industries are extremely limited; therefore this school has a strong
presence of the economically disadvantaged. The immediate neighborhood of the school
is characterized by both single-family dwellings and new construction. There are a
majority of immigrant families residing near the school as evidenced by the large English
Language Learner population. Eighty-three percent of Delaware students participate in
the free or reduced lunch program, which is indicative of the rampant poverty in the
neighborhood (SARC, 2006k).
The majority of the population of the City of Carson, where Scott Middle School
is located, is comprised of blue-collar working class individuals. A commonality this city
shares with Delaware is that the largest employers are the neighboring oil refineries and
the Los Angeles Harbor. A few lucky individuals find seasonal and permanent
employment in the Home Depot Center. The neighborhood immediately surrounding
Scott Middle School is in transition; small, independently owned businesses are being
replaced by larger, franchise-style establishments. There are a number of apartments and
rapidly shrinking trailer parks inhabited by immigrant and socio-economically
disadvantaged families. There are some single-family dwellings in the city but they are
not the majority of construction. Of the 1,961 students enrolled, 1,353 students participate

54

in the free and reduced meal program, a strong poverty indicator. Over half of the entire
student body qualifies for these services (SARC, 2006c).
Rudecinda Middle School is situated at the base of the Palos Verdes Estates, an
unincorporated neighborhood in Los Angeles County. The Palos Verdes Estates are in an
older neighborhood known for affluence and picturesque views. The residents are
involved in the various industries located throughout the south bay region. Some
residents are prominent in the entertainment industry and the medical establishment.
Most students residing in the attendance area are enrolled in private schools. Aside from
the comprehensive middle school and the school for advanced studies, Rudecinda Middle
School also has a gifted magnet school. As the demographics have changed the school
has become a Title 1 school (SARC, 2006f).
Farmingtown Middle School, Silver Middle School and Cesar Lechuga are
located in Farmingtown. This is a small city with a history that stretches back to the time
when Spain owned California. The city is a result of a divided Spanish land grant. Now
the population and the demographics are reflective of that which might have been present
between 1775 and 1902 when the land was named for the spouse of the founder, Ms.
Lynne Wood (SARC, 2006d, 2006h, 2006i). The population has representatives of every
ethnic group.
The intersection of the communities of Artesia, Bellflower and Cerritos form the
backdrop for the attendance area of Faye Sutherland Middle School Academy. This

55

school is located in a suburban environment surrounded by single-family dwellings. This
does not preclude this school from being a Title 1 school based on the poverty factor. The
school is designated as a Title 1 Achieving School and a California Distinguished School
(SARC, 2006a).
Cooper City Middle School is located in an area that forms a natural division
between Los Angeles and Marina del Rey. The demographics in the community and the
school are in a state of flux. The school continues to experience an unstable student
population. The school has garnered several awards for academic achievement including
the prestigious Schools to Watch designation. The socioeconomic level of families in this
district is somewhat higher than in Los Angeles but not quite as high as Marina del Rey
(SARC, 2006e).
Ralph Johnson and Bridge Middle Schools are located in the City of Combe
bordered by Watts and Carson. This formerly affluent city is part of the County of Los
Angeles. This locale is now noted for poverty and violence. The students have some of
the poorest academic achievement in the state of California. (SARC, 2006b, 2006j).
All the schools utilize the same calendar (September-June instructional period)
and state adopted textbooks in language arts. In addition, each school has a gifted
coordinator and maintains active enrollment outreach to high ability students. This means
each school aggressively recruits gifted students for the School for Advanced Studies
(SAS) or gifted programs. Some schools use the Renzulli Learning System to address the

56

differential needs of identified gifted students. Each school has a SAS program or gifted
program, which serve the gifted population in tandem with higher achieving students
awaiting potential identification of giftedness.
All 11 schools have a relatively stable resident population that has recently
experienced conflict with the growing immigrant community. Each school is configured
to place gifted students in some mixed-ability heterogeneous regular classrooms with
clusters of gifted students. All schools have limited enrollment in honors classes. The
homogeneous grouping that is required for creating optimal learning conditions for the
gifted is a function of the SAS, although Rudecinda has a gifted magnet school (SARC,
2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2006d, 2006e, 2006f, 2006g, 2006h, 2006i, 2006j, 2006k).
At all of the schools’ populations have remained stable for the last 5 years in
terms of percentages. Ethnically each school has a predominance of Latinos, and the
English Language Learner (ELL) populations vary across schools (SARC, 2006a, 2006b,
2006c, 2006d, 2006e, 2006f, 2006g, 2006h, 2006i, 2006j, 2006k). These 11 schools, with
the exception of Sutherland Academy, are identified by the State of California as needing
improvement. The schools have been in PI for multiple years, which is a designation
meaning the schools have not made sufficient progress across all significant subgroups on
the Academic Performance Index (API). All 11 schools feature high quality gifted
programs, but this is not reflected in the test score index. The API is a formula that calls

57

for the testing of Special Education Program students and ELLs with the same instrument
used for the general population. In fact, ELLs are tested in English.
All 11 schools had the same configuration of support personnel, except for
Sutherland Academy. There were some Assistant Principals supporting the instructional
program at each school. At most middle schools, the configuration of duties is standard;
one assistant principal is in charge of counseling services, another assistant principal is in
charge of attendance, and some middle schools have a new position in charge of
interventions due to the PI status. In addition there are two assistant principals to provide
support to the principal in the areas of instruction and discipline. Due to declining
enrollment some assistant principals have been re-assigned. Each school also has content
area support personnel assigned by the central office. These individuals work in
cooperation with the gifted coordinator to provide support to teachers to enhance
pedagogical skills.
Most of the schools were similar in the amount of teachers that were deemed
highly qualified or No Child Left Behind (NCLB) compliant in the 2006-07 school year.
There were no schools that were 100% NCLB compliant, as reported in Table 2.
However, some of the middle schools had slightly higher percentages of teachers
delivering courses that were NCLB compliant than others.

58

TABLE 2.
SCHOOL ATTRIBUTE CHART (2006-07 SCHOOL YEAR)
District School PI
Years
API # of teachers/
certified
teachers
Enrollment % NCLB vs.
% Non NCLB
Combe USD Bridge M.S.
(SARC, 2006j)
5 563 54/42 1,226 65.2%/34.8%
Combe USD Ralph Johnson
M.S.
(SARC, 2006b)
3 572 36/28 877 76.1%/23.9%
Cooper City
USD
Cooper City
M.S.
(SARC, 2006e)
1 765 75/71 1,752 85.2%/14.8%
Farmingtown
USD
Cesar Lechuga
M.S.
(SARC, 2006d)
1 614 41/33 1,033 97%/3%
Farmingtown
USD
Farmingtown
M.S.
(SARC, 2006h)
5 589 67/57 1,940 83%/17%
Farmingtown
USD
Silver M.S.
(SARC, 2006i)
1 596 57/47 1,357 94%/6%
Glasgow USD Faye Sutherland
Academy
(SARC, 2006a)
N/A 740 27/26 672 21.0%/79.0%
Las Altos USD Delaware M.S.
(SARC, 2006k)
5 638 96/72 2,134 63.5%/36.5%
Las Altos USD Rudecinda M.S.
(SARC, 2006f)
2 753 74/65 1,925 80.7%/19.3%
Las Altos USD Scott M.S.
(SARC, 2006c)
5 649 87/70 1,728 68.9%/31.1%
Las Altos USD Washington Van
Winkle M.S.
(SARC, 2006g)
5 666 85/66 1,572 53.5%/46.5%

The professional interventions for underperforming teachers exhibit slight
nuances from school to school. At each middle school, there are several interventions in
place. Upon joining the staff, all teachers, regardless of experience, are required to attend
weekly new teacher meetings during their first year of teaching at a new school. The

59

content of those new teacher meetings centers on both content and pedagogy. Some of
the pedagogical aspects of these meetings are targeted toward the categorical populations
in the school, including gifted, Title I, ELL, and Special Education. These meetings help
teachers adjust to the rigors of teaching in middle school.
Other professional interventions for teachers include administrative assignment of
conference attendance or other professional development opportunities, a peer assistance
and review program, and school structured summer institutes on various subjects. In
addition each school has the requisite responses triggered by administrative observations
including but not limited to classroom management, release time for teachers to observe
colleagues during conference periods, and the assignment of instructional coaches to
improve instructional delivery. There is also an emphasis on the role of department
chairpersons to lead lesson development and refinement.
Teacher Demographics
The researcher asked 20 teachers of gifted students in the participating schools to
complete a survey that solicited demographic data, including: school names, grade
level(s) respondents are currently teaching, total years of teaching, years of teaching
gifted students, highest degree earned, and type of teaching credential held. Table 3
presents the majority of the data collected in this survey; the data collected on teaching
gifted students are presented in Table 4. Some teachers had earned both single subject
and multiple subject credentials; these teachers were given a score of .5 in both

60

categories. Half of the responding instructors (10) had taught between 1-10 years and the
other half (10) had taught 11 or more years. The majority of teachers surveyed taught a
single grade level. However, when broken down based on years of experience, most of
the less experienced teachers taught a single grade level, whereas the more experienced
teachers were evenly distributed between teaching single and multiple grade level classes.
All of the teachers surveyed had either bachelors’ or masters’ degrees; none of the survey
participants had earned a doctorate degree. However, a greater percentage of the more
experienced teachers held masters’ degrees than the less experienced teachers. Regardless
of the amount of time these teachers had been in the profession, the majority or 65%
taught classes in a single grade, 65% possessed master’s degrees, and 77% possessed
single subject credentials.
TABLE 3.
TEACHER DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATA
Total N=20
Table 4 breaks down this same teacher demographic data in terms of the number
years participating teachers have spent specifically teaching gifted students.
Approximately half of the sampled respondents, 11 (55%) indicated they had taught

# of
years
teaching
Single
Grade
Multiple
Grade
BS/BA MA/MS Ed.D./
Ph.D.
Single
Subject
Credentials
Multiple Subject
Credentials
1-10 [10
(50%)]
8 (40%) 2 (10%) 5
(25%)
5 (25%) 0 (0%) 9 (45%) 1 (5%)
11+ [10
(50%)]
5 (25%) 5 (25%) 2
(10%)
8 (40%) 0 (0%) 6.5 (32.5%) 3.5 (17.5%)

61

gifted students for 5 or fewer years. Nine (45%) participants reported they had taught
gifted students for 6 or more years. There was similar distribution between single and
multiple grades taught as well as single and multiple credentials for the less and more
experienced teachers. However, the majority of more experienced teachers of the gifted
possessed masters’ degrees in comparison to the less experienced teachers. In the
division of teachers identified as teaching the gifted between 1 to 5 years, 35% taught
classes in a single grade and 20% taught classes in multiple grades.
TABLE 4. TEACHER DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATA: GIFTED TEACHING
EXPERIENCE

Total N=20

Sample and Population
As previously mentioned, 20 teachers participated in this study. The sample size
was small because the identified gifted students were few in number. In other words, the
schools sampled had such small gifted populations that they had very few gifted teachers.
All teachers of the gifted were asked to participate. Generally teachers must complete

# of years
of teaching
the gifted
Single
Grade

Multiple
Grade

BS/BA

MA/MS

Ed.D./
Ph.D.

Single
Subject
Credentials
Multiple
Subject
Credential
s
1-5 [11
(55%)]
7 (35%) 4 (20% ) 5
(25%)
6 (30%) 0 (0%) 8.5 (42.5%) 2.5
(12.5%)
6+ [9
(45%)]
6 (30%) 3 (15%) 2
(10%)
7 (35%) 0 (0%) 7 (35%) 2 (10%)

62

additional training to teach gifted students so this also reduced the number of potential
candidates. As the survey was limited to a single grade level and discipline, 7
th
grade
English, there were only one or two potential teachers available for survey in each of the
11 selected schools.
The academic picture of students enrolled in 11 schools is comparable but
diverse. The 2007 California Standards Test (CST) proficient or advanced scores of the
entire student body at the various schools are closely aligned for the most part but there
are some outliers. These data are represented in Table 5.
The subpopulation this study examined was the gifted population of each school,
which is smallest subpopulation in each of the schools studied. For example,
Farmingtown Middle School’s population of 178 gifted students comprises less than 10%
of the total 1891 enrolled students. These data are also represented in Table 5. The
teachers participating in this study represent institutions where 2019 total gifted students
are enrolled. As previously mentioned, teachers of gifted students in the core subject area
of 7
th
grade English provided the survey data. These teachers currently service 726
students in gifted programs.

63

TABLE 5.
STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND GIFTED STUDENT POPULATION
INFORMATION

A commonality that exists across all schools becomes evident in a close
examination of the 7th grade’s 2007 CST scores. At each of the schools studied, a
significantly larger percentage of gifted 7
th
graders earned a score of proficient or higher
on the English portion of the CST, outranking the regular 7
th
graders by at least 60
percentage points or more. For example, only 33% of the general populace of 7th grade
English students at Van Winkle Middle School scored proficient or advanced on the
English Language Arts portion of the CST, while 89% of the gifted 7
th
grade students
were proficient or advanced in English. Bridge Middle School’s 16% proficiency or
CST scores of Proficient
or Advanced
District School
English
Language Arts
Math
# of gifted
students/
total enrolled
population
Combe USD Bridge M.S. 14% 10% 19/1122
Combe USD Ralph Johnson
M.S.
12% 10% 49/796
Coooper City USD Cooper City
M.S.
51% 40% 208/1643
Farmingtown USD Cesar Lechuga
M.S.
19% 17% 136/976
Farmingtown USD Farmingtown
M.S.
18% 16% 178/1891
Farmingtown USD Silver M.S. 20% 17% 172/1324
Glasgow USD Faye Sutherland
Academy
39% 46% 54/631
Las Altos USD Delaware M.S. 22% 22% 228/2148
Las Altos USD Rudecinda M.S. 47% 41% 612/1901
Las Altos USD Scott M.S. 28% 22% 183/1687
Las Altos USD Washington Van
Winkle M.S.
30% 23% 180/1532

64

higher for regular 7
th
grade students could not be compared to the gifted students’ scores
because there were only six gifted students in 7
th
grade English, and according to the state
guidelines, populations of fewer than 10 students are too small to measure. The pattern of
the 7
th
grade gifted population scoring significantly higher on the English CST was
consistent throughout all of the schools where such scores were measurable. Table 6
presents the information for all schools studied.
TABLE 6.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS CST SCORES FOR REGULAR AND GIFTED 7
TH

GRADERS
7
th
grade CST English scores of
Proficient or Advanced District School
Regular students Gifted students
Combe USD Bridge M.S. 16% N/A
Combe USD Ralph Johnson M.S. 16% 50%
Coooper City USD Cooper City M.S. 58% 97%
Farmingtown USD Cesar Lechuga M.S. 20% 65%
Farmingtown USD Farmingtown M.S. 23% 83%
Farmingtown USD Silver M.S. 25% 77%
Glasgow USD Faye Sutherland Academy 38% 92%
Las Altos USD Delaware M.S. 31% 81%
Las Altos USD Rudecinda M.S. 49% 85%
Las Altos USD Scott M.S. 28% 85%
Las Altos USD Washington Van Winkle M.S. 33% 89%

The survey was administered to all participants late in the spring semester of the
2007-08 school year. Each school and in some cases each district had different rules for
access to staff. In Combe USD, there were no district office protocols to follow, and the
researcher made contact with the individual school principals. The principals agreed to
ask their language arts teachers of 7
th
grade gifted students to consider taking the survey.

65

The survey was delivered to each principal in this district. In Las Altos USD a central
office division must approve any outside research projects. After some study of the
proposal permission was granted. Surveys were then delivered to the selected principals
to solicit the responses of teachers of 7
th
grade gifted English classes. In Farmington
USD, the superintendent's office administered the survey. The survey was delivered to
the superintendent’s office and then distributed directly to the teachers of gifted 7
th
grade
English classes. The permission to distribute the survey in the Cooper City USD also
came from the superintendent’s office. However this school system only has one middle
school. The surveys were delivered to the principal for distribution to the teachers. In the
Glasgow USD, an administrator passed the survey on to the single teacher of gifted 7
th

grade English students. The teachers were given a deadline of one week to complete the
survey. The researcher collected the survey from each of the aforementioned contacts.
From the five districts there were 11 schools in which 20 teachers met the criteria for the
study. The 20 teachers were a heterogeneous group in terms of teaching experience,
experience in teaching the gifted, and highest degrees earned. These teachers were asked
to respond to the survey indicating the frequency with which they used selected
instructional strategies in teaching gifted students. In addition the teachers were asked to
respond to the survey identifying their motivation for using the instructional strategy and
the venue where they learned the instructional strategy.

66

Instrumentation
The survey instrument was developed from a theoretical perspective. The various
instructional strategies found in the literature theoretically provided the benefits espoused
by the writers. The works of Van Tassel-Baska (1994), Marzano et al. (2000), Renzulli
(1992) and many other educational researchers provided the information that became the
template by which the researcher created the survey items. There are 3 parts to the
researcher-constructed survey. The first section requests teacher demographic
information. The next two sections feature different literature based options to select
from. The options are designed to gain input on the motivation for use of instructional
strategies perceived to be effective in the literature, the frequency of use those strategies
as well as the location teachers learned the literature based strategies. The survey is
substantiated by reference citations for each of the strategy and skill descriptors as
illustrated below.
The instrument consisted of the three separate surveys, each with a distinct
purpose: one for teacher demographics, one for instructional strategies, and one for
learning skills. The first section of the instrument sought demographic data. The more
that was known about the background of the teachers the more likely positive
comparisons would be determined. Data regarding years of experience in general and
with the gifted population formed a rich backdrop for assessing trends that cast an
influence on teacher perceptions. Similarly fact-finding regarding teachers’ background

67

and preparation to teach gifted students led to positive comparisons about the quality of
instruction.
The second part of the teacher survey featured a listing of literature-based
instructional strategies that teachers were asked to evaluate. This part of the teacher
survey utilized a five-point Likert scale that measured the degree of self-reported
utilization of the instructional strategies culled from the literature review. The five points
on the Likert scale were as follows: hardly ever use this strategy, use this strategy once in
a while; use this strategy often; use this strategy regularly; use this strategy in nearly
every lesson. The teacher survey established which strategies teachers used most and
least often in their classrooms. The survey also asked about the teachers’ motivation for
using these strategies and where teachers learned the particular technique (see Appendix
A). Regarding motivation, teachers were asked to select the reason why they used the
strategy from the following choices: because it is a district mandate, because it is a state
mandate, as a result of interaction with peers, because it is supported by the
administration, and because in the teacher’s opinion it is of instructional benefit.
Teachers were asked to select where they learned the strategy from the following choices:
by pursuing university coursework, in professional development, at a gifted conference,
because it is purported to be effective in professional literature, and because observation
and experience has shown promise. The instructional strategies were as follows:

68

1. Interdisciplinary thematic teaching, a strategy that involves aligning
instruction to a common theme across disciplines (Graffam, 2006; Peterman,
1990; Reis et al., 2004);
2. Interest-based, student-selected activities (Neumeister & Finch, 2006;
Renzulli, 1992; Swanson 2006), which involves focusing on the content that
piques student interest;
3. Thematic units of study (Graffam, 2006; Peterman, 1990; Reis et al., 2004);
4. Open-ended inquiry/student directed inquiry (Beck, 2001; Van Tassel-Baska,
2001);
5. Providing reinforcement for effort such as praising and posting work
(Marzano et al., 2000);
6. Cooperative learning, which has been discussed in the literature for over 20
years as beneficial to gifted learning, especially in the area of mathematics
(Beck, 2001; Cox et al., 1985; Kulik & Kulik, 1992; Van Tassel-Baska,
2006b);
7. Acceleration (Elliott, 2009; Gross & Van Vliet, 2005; Lee & Olszewski-
Kubilius, 2006; Reis et al., 2004);
8. Providing feedback to students so they can improve their work (Marzano et
al., 2000);

69

9. Performance assessment and project-based learning (Beck, 2001; Castellano,
2004), which Moon (2002) viewed as umbrella strategies that helped to
develop student skills in summarizing, predicting, comparing and contrasting
while leading to a high level of student engagement, especially among
Hispanic students;
10. Movement (Ford et al., 2004), learning by doing physical and mental
activities, a hands-on approach that is especially effective when used with
African-American students;
11. Harmony (Ford et al., 2004), making students feel welcome in the learning
environment, is a strategy that is especially effective with African-American
students;
12. Communalism (Ford et al., 2004), or cooperative learning constrained by the
special circumstance of occurring in a non-competitive environment, is also
effective with African-American students;
13. Lecture, which Beck (2001) established the as the primary medium for
dissemination of content to students in many venues over a vast amount of
time. There was some ambivalence regarding the benefits of lecture in general
and as it applies specifically to middle school students. Corbett and Wilson
(2002) affirm that lecture was among the instructional strategies with the least
positive effect on gifted student learning when grouped with the general

70

education population. It is important to note, however, Coleman’s (2006)
contention that the research on the use of lecture with gifted students is too
sparse to form any conclusions;
14. Structured inquiry or teacher directed inquiry (Van Tassel-Baska, 2001);
15. Linguistic and vocabulary development (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996), a
group of instructional strategies that is credited with producing the greatest
constructive input to stimulating gifted student learning;
16. Creative thinking strategies (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005);
17. Problem-solving (Peterman, 1990); and
18. Homework or skills practice (Marzano et al., 2000).
The learning skills portion of the survey also drew from information obtained in
the literature review. This section focused on the learning skills that teachers perceived
successful students employed in both general and gifted education classes. There were 10
learning skills drawn from multiple sources in the literature. The learning skills, which
appeared in the survey were:
1. Identifying similarities and differences (Marzano et al., 2000),
2. Summarizing (Marzano et al., 2000),
3. Note taking (Marzano et al., 2000),
4. Nonlinguistic representations (Marzano et al., 2000),
5. Goal setting (Marzano et al., 2000),

71

6. Generating and testing hypotheses (Marzano et al., 2000),
7. Active learning (Ares & Gorrell, 2002; Hishinuma & Nishimura, 2000),
8. Critical reading (Wood, 2008),
9. Expository Writing (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996), and
10. Oral communication (Chaney, 1996).
The survey asked practitioners to evaluate their perceptions of these learning skills (see
Appendix A). Specifically, the survey asked teachers how frequently their students use
each skill and to what extent they believe each skill contributes to student learning.
Regarding frequency of student skill use, teachers were asked to choose from the
following five options: rarely, once in a while, often, regularly, and in every learning
situation. Regarding teachers’ perceptions about a skill’s impact on student learning,
teachers were asked to choose from the following five options: unnoticeable impact,
minimal impact, helps students achieve in an inconsistent manner, helps students achieve
most of the time, and helps students achieve consistently.
The results from the survey instruments were consolidated according to which
items received responses. In addition some consolidation was needed as the divisions
between some response categories were less than clear. For example, categories such as
“often” and “regularly” were difficult to distinguish. As a result, for the majority of the
survey questions, the responses were consolidated from the original five response

72

categories down to one or two combined response categories. These consolidations will
be discussed more specifically in the discussion of the survey findings.
Data Collection
The 7
th
grade was the first experience students had with teachers that were content
experts in a single domain; in all previous grades, students had learned content area
knowledge from teachers with multiple subject credentials. This was significant because
the 7
th
grade was the initial opportunity for students to experience instruction from a
person with a depth of knowledge in one subject rather than a person with narrow
amounts of knowledge in many subjects.
The timeframe encompassed the second semester of 7
th
grade in the 2006-07
school year. The second semester was important to the study because it allowed students
the opportunity to have experienced the gamut of instructional strategies in middle
school. The students had passed through two semesters of 6
th
grade and one semester of
7
th
grade while experiencing a variety of instructional strategies. While the English
teachers’ depth of knowledge changed from the 6
th
to the 7
th
grades, the instructional
strategies remained uniform. The research questions called for the teacher to identify
their perceptions of which skills and strategies they perceive are effective for the gifted
population.
The procedure for the study began with gaining permission from the university to
conduct research on human subjects. When this was granted, the next step was to

73

determine if it was necessary to approach the Program Evaluation and Research Branches
of the school districts involved in the study. After the five districts gave permission for
the study, the third concern was to secure permission from the principals of Delaware,
Rudecinda, Scott, and Van Winkle Middle schools. The researcher asked the
Farmingtown Unified Central Office to grant access to the principals of Farmingtown,
Silver and Cesar Lechuga Middle Schools. Sutherland Middle School’s principal was
contacted to approve of the administration of the survey., In Combe USD, the researcher
obtained permission from the principals of Ralph Johnson and Bridge Middle Schools.
After Cooper City USD permitted the study, Cooper City’s middle school principal was
solicited to help gain participation of English teachers of gifted 7
th
grade students.
The survey was given to each principal near the end of the spring semester. The
principals then passed out the surveys to the participating teachers. The teachers were
given one week to complete the survey. The principals collected the survey and notified
the researcher when they were ready for pick up. The researcher picked up the surveys
from each school with the exception of Faye Sutherland Academy; the surveys for this
school were distributed and collected by facsimile machine.
As previously mentioned, each of the 11 schools studied followed the traditional
school calendar. The 180 days of instruction occurred between September and June. The
instructional periods were separated into 8 approximately equal five-week blocks. During
the first weeks of the 2007-08 school year, permission was garnered from the selected

74

districts to study the entire pool of 7
th
grade gifted English teachers. After the seventh
five-week instructional block but before the final day of school, teachers were asked to
identify the instructional strategies and skills they believed were most effective with
gifted 7
th
grade students using the researcher-constructed survey. The seventh grading
interval or the 15-week demarcation was used for data collection so that any issues
regarding non-response were addressed in a timely manner. This allowed 5 weeks for
follow up.
Role of the Researcher
The primary role of the researcher was to gather information about the teachers of
gifted students. The researcher constructed the survey instrument for the teachers in the
11 schools. One of the more important functions of the investigator was to construct the
survey instrument and introductory letters in a fashion that encouraged respondents to
reply. The principal investigator was responsible for reviewing completed surveys to
determine frequency distribution and comparisons between instructors’ preferences and
perceptions. In addition the determination of which strategies were most likely to limit
underachievement was determined by a review of teacher responses. The researcher’s
role also involved collecting demographic data on the surveyed teachers. The researcher
was also responsible for analyzing and drawing conclusions from the gathered data.
Logistically, the researcher established contact with the various school districts’
Program Evaluation and Research Branches. The purpose of the contact was to secure

75

permission to perform the study and publish the results. Another essential role was to
contact the principals and staff of the schools, which created a willingness to complete
the surveys. The researcher was also the primary contact between the schools, principals
and their teachers. The researcher sought maximum participation in the study. The
researcher created all introductory letters and other adjunct materials.
Data Analysis
The researcher-constructed survey consisted of 83 response items. The survey had
three sections. The first section gathered teacher demographic data. The other two of the
three survey sections required responses to items drawn from the literature review. The
items in these three sections were designed to gain input on the motivation for use of
differentiated instructional strategies and skills, the frequency of use and the location
teachers encountered the strategies and skills. The survey was administered across 11
schools in five different school districts. Twenty teachers in these 11 institutions met the
participation criteria and responded to the survey. The small sample size was due in part
to the small size of the number of teachers instructing the gifted population enrolled in 7
th

grade English (SARC, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2006d, 2006e, 2006f, 2006g, 2006h, 2006i,
2006j, 2006k, 2006i).
The first part of the survey asked for basic demographic information such as the
respondent’s school, years in teaching, current grade level taught, years teaching gifted
students, degrees earned, and credentials held. The survey asked the respondents to rate

76

18 instructional strategies using a Likert-type scale. Respondents were asked why they
used the strategy, how they used the strategy, and where they learned the strategy. The
teachers’ opinions of which learning skills students employed in the instructional strategy
were also rated on a Likert-type scale. Respondents were asked to share their perception
of the extent that each skill contributes to student learning. After this determination,
teachers were requested to state how often students use this strategy.
The data were then cross-tabulated using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences 16 (SPSS). The survey responses regarding the frequency of use, motivation for
use and location learned of each instructional strategy and each learning skill were cross-
tabulated against each other to determine frequency distribution and comparisons. The
teacher responses were examined using comparative analysis because the sample size
was small. The data analysis of teacher responses was summarized and presented in
tables.
Cross-tabulations were also run to determine the relationship between teacher
perceptions and strategies and skills. Research question 1, compared the frequency of
teacher use to the perceived effect on gifted 7
th
grade students in English classes and
where the respondent learned the strategy or skill. Research question 2, considered what
effect the utilization of strategies and skills have on teacher motivation in gifted 7
th
grade
English classes. Research question 3 asked what is the effect of where 7
th
grade English
teachers of the gifted learned these instructional strategies and learning skills.

77

The research examined teacher perceptions of instructional strategies and learning
skills, as identified in the literature, in the content area of English. The study utilized
comparative analysis to develop a profile of the teachers’ perceptions of the effect of the
frequency of employment of learning skills and instructional strategies on 7
th
grade gifted
English students. Therefore the teacher needed to observe these students’ reactions to the
strategies and skills over a period of time to accurately identify the difference the
application of certain instructional strategies and learning skills exert on gifted student
learning. The data was captured near the end of the term when teachers had the
opportunity to make a judgment about the effect of the employment of instructional
strategies and skills.

78

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
Overview
This study investigated teacher perceptions of instructional strategies and learning
skills used to educate gifted 7
th
grade English students. Teacher perceptions regarding
strategies provided insight that could refine the suite of recommended instructional
practices for gifted students. Teachers needed a well-developed set of strategies to
respond to the learning styles of individual students (Graffam, 2006). The chapter reports
and discusses the results of the survey organized by research question. Once again, this
study investigated the following research questions:
1. What effect does the frequency of using these instructional strategies and
learning skills exert on teachers’ perceptions of gifted students’ learning in 7
th

grade English/language arts classes?
2. What effect does the utilization of instructional strategies and learning skills
have on the motivation of teachers of gifted students in 7
th
grade
English/language arts classes?
3. What is the effect of where the teacher learned these instructional strategies
and learning skills (location) pre-service, in-service, staff development,
university coursework, staff development on gifted students’ learning in7
th

grade English/language arts classes?

79

Frequency Findings
The frequency segment of the research survey, relevant to research question 1,
compared the respondents’ frequency of using an instructional strategy or learning skill
and motivation for using the instructional strategy or learning skill. The findings pointed
to three related strategies that teachers perceived were correlated with frequency of
student use in identifying similarities and differences and teacher motivation for having
students engage in the aforementioned strategy. The survey data regarding identifying
similarities and differences identified the teacher perception that the frequency of student
use of interdisciplinary thematic instruction, thematic units of study and problem-solving
strategies presented a roughly equivalent distribution across the two measures of
frequency (for this part of the survey, teachers responded to four out of five categories of
frequency of use: once in a while, often, regularly, and every learning situation. The
researcher consolidated the four categories into two categories: once in a while or more,
and almost used regularly). Teachers agreed that their motivation for using these
strategies was related to their perception that the strategies benefited gifted students. With
regard to students identifying similarities and differences as an aspect of interdisciplinary
thematic instruction, 30% of all participants reported that students employ the learning
skill only once in a while or more, and 40% of all participants reported that students use
this skill almost regularly. With respect to frequency of use of thematic units of study
when used with identifying similarities and differences, 20% of all participants reported

80

that students employ the skill only once in a while or more, and 20% of all participants
reported that students employ the skill almost regularly. With respect to frequency of use
of problem-solving strategies when used in identifying similarities and differences, 30%
of all participants reported that students used skill only once in a while or more, while
40% of all participants reported that students used this skill almost regularly. Ignoring
motivation, interdisciplinary thematic instruction and thematic units of study were almost
used regularly by 55% of the sample. The sampled population also reported using
problem-solving strategies regularly, again without regard to motivation. See Table 7 for
a graphic representation of the cross-tabulation between the frequency of student use and
teacher motivation to use identifying similarities and differences.

81

TABLE 7.
FREQUENCY OF STUDENT USE OF IDENTIFYING SIMILARITIES AND
DIFFERENCES AND TEACHER MOTIVATION FOR USE

The survey findings indicated there were three related strategies that teachers
perceived were correlated with frequency of student use of summarizing and teacher
motivation for asking students to engage in the aforementioned skill. Teacher perception
of the frequency of students experiencing lecture, homework and linguistic and

Motivation Strategy (N) Once in a
while or
more
Almost used
regularly
Interdisciplinary
Thematic Instruction
(20)
N (%) N (%)
Interactions with peers 3 (15%) 3 (15%)
Benefit to the gifted 6 (30%) 8 (40%)
Thematic units of
study (20)
N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
State Mandate 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
Interactions with peers 3 (15%) 2 (10%)
Support by Administration 1 (5%) 3 (15%)
Benefit to the gifted 4 (20%) 4 (20%)
Problem-Solving
Strategies (20)
N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
State Mandate 1 (5%) 0 (0%)
Interactions with peers 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
Support by Administration 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
Benefit to the gifted 6 (30%) 8 (40%)

82

vocabulary development presented a somewhat irregular distribution across the two
measures of frequency (for this question, teachers responded to four out of five frequency
categories: once in a while, often, regularly and every learning situation. The researcher
consolidated the four categories into two categories: once in a while or more and almost
used regularly). Teachers generally reported that they were motivated to use two of the
strategies (homework and linguistic and vocabulary development) because they perceived
they were of benefit to the gifted. With respect to frequency of use of lecture when used
with summarizing, 25% of the 16 responding teachers reported that students almost used
the strategy regularly. Teachers reported that their main motivation for use of lecture was
a perception that use was inspired by interactions with peers. Regarding frequency of use
of homework when used with summarizing, 36.8% of the 19 responding teachers
reported that the strategy was used almost regularly. Of the 20 responding teachers 20%
held the opinion that students experienced the strategy of linguistic and vocabulary
development as a function of summarizing only once in a while or more, while 25% of
the respondents reported that students experienced this strategy almost regularly.
Ignoring motivation, lecture was almost used regularly by 81.25% of survey takers.
Homework was almost used regularly by 74.3% of teachers when motivation was
ignored. Linguistic and vocabulary development was almost used regularly by 70% of
survey respondents when motivation was ignored. Table 8 provides a graphic

83

representation of the cross-tabulation between the frequency of student use and teacher
motivation to use summarizing.
TABLE 8.
FREQUENCY OF STUDENT USE OF SUMMARIZING AND TEACHER
MOTIVATION FOR USE
Motivation Strategy (N) Once in a while
or more
Almost used
Regularly
Lecture (16) N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 2 (12.5%)
State Mandate 0 (0%) 2 (12.5%)
Interactions with peers 1 (6.25%) 4 (25%)
Support by Administration 0 (0%) 2 (12.5%)
Benefit to the gifted 2 (12.5%) 3 (18.75%)
Homework
(19)
N (%) N (%)
State Mandate 0 (0%) 1 (5.26%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 1 (5.26%)
Support by Administration 1 (5.26%) 5 (26.3%)
Benefit to the gifted 4 (21%) 7 (36.8%)
Linguistic &
Vocabulary
Development
(20)

N (%)

N (%)
District Policy 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
State Mandate 1 (5%) 4 (20%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Support by Administration 0 (0%) 3 (15%)
Benefit to the gifted 4 (20%) 5 (25%)

The survey results revealed two strategies that teachers believed to be correlated
with frequency of student use of note taking and teacher motivation to have students
engage in that strategy. Respondent beliefs regarding the frequency of student use of note
taking produced a regular distribution across the measures of frequency, however, the

84

researcher consolidated the five response categories into two categories: once in a while
or more (rarely and once in a while) and almost used regularly (often, regularly, and
every learning situation). Teacher motivation for the use of this strategy mainly comes
from a belief that it provides a discernible benefit to the gifted. With respect to student
frequency of experience of lecture as a function of note taking, 31.25% of the 16 teacher
respondents indicated that students almost use this strategy regularly. The frequency of
use of linguistic and vocabulary development found 30% of the 20 responding teachers
thinking that gifted students almost used this strategy regularly. When motivation was
ignored, the survey findings reflect that lecture was almost used regularly by 75% of the
responding teachers. Linguistic and vocabulary development was also almost used
regularly by 75% of survey respondents when motivation was ignored. Table 9 presents
the data for the cross-tabulation between the frequency of student use and teacher
motivation to use student note taking.

85

TABLE 9.
FREQUENCY OF STUDENT NOTE TAKING AND TEACHER MOTIVATION FOR
USE
Motivation Strategy (N) Rarely or
more
Almost used
Regularly
Lecture (16) N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 2 (12.5%)
State Mandate 1 (0%) 1 (6.25%)
Interactions with peers 2 (12.5%) 3 (18.75%)
Support by Administration 1 (6.25%) 1 (6.25%)
Benefit to the gifted 0 (0%) 5 (31.25)
Linguistic &
Vocabulary
Development (20)
N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
State Mandate 1 (5%) 4 (20%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Support by Administration 1 (5%) 2 (10%)
Benefit to the gifted 3 (15%) 6 (30%)

The findings concerning nonlinguistic representations indicated teachers selected
a single strategy they felt influenced the frequency of use and teacher motivation:
providing reinforcement for effort. Teachers responded to all five response categories,
which were consolidated into two categories: once in a while or more and almost used
regularly. With respect to teachers’ use of nonlinguistic representations when used to
provide reinforcement for effort, 52.6% of the 16 teacher respondents reported using this
strategy almost regularly. In general, teachers were motivated to use nonlinguistic
representations to provide reinforcement for effort because they believed it offered a
benefit to the gifted. Providing reinforcement for effort was almost used regularly by

86

63.12% of survey takers when motivation was ignored. Table 10 provides a graphic
representation of the cross-tabulation between the frequency of use of nonlinguistic
representations and teacher motivation to provide reinforcement for effort.
TABLE 10.
FREQUENCY OF NONLINGUISTIC REPRESENTATIONS AND TEACHER
MOTIVATION FOR USE
Motivation Strategy (N) Rarely or more Almost used
Regularly
Providing
reinforcement
for effort (19)
N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 2 (10.52%)
Interactions with peers 1 (5.26%) 0 (0%)
Support by Administration 2 (10.52%) 0 (0%)
Benefit to the gifted 4 (21%) 10 (52.6%)

Teachers identified two strategies as related to the frequency of student use of
goal setting and teacher motivation for having students engage in that strategy. Teachers
responded to all five response categories, which were consolidated into two categories:
rarely or more (rarely and once in a while) and almost used regularly (regularly and every
learning situation). Teachers were motivated to use both strategies—interest-based,
student-selected activities and using feedback of results—because they perceived them to
be of benefit to gifted students. With respect to goal setting when used in the context of
presenting students with interest-based, student-selected activities, 65% of the 20 teacher
respondents reported that they used this strategy used regularly. Regarding the use of

87

feedback about results to help students to set goals, 45% of the 20 teachers indicated that
this strategy was almost used regularly. When motivation was ignored, interest-based
student-selected activities and feedback of results to students were almost used regularly
by 70% of responding teachers. Table 11 presents a graphic representation of the cross-
tabulation between the frequency of student use and teacher motivation to use goal
setting.
TABLE 11.
FREQUENCY OF STUDENT USE GOAL SETTING AND TEACHER MOTIVATION
FOR USE
Motivation Strategy (N) Rarely or
more
Almost used
Regularly
Interest-based student-
selected activities (20)
N (%) N (%)
Interactions with peers 2 (10%) 0 (0%)
Support by Administration 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
Benefit to the gifted 3 (15%) 13 (65%)
Feedback of results to
students (20)
N (%) N (%)
State Mandate 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Interactions with peers 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
Support by Administration 0 (0%) 3 (15%)
Benefit to the gifted 5 (25%) 9 (45%)

In the case of generating and testing hypotheses, the survey data indicated two
strategies that teachers felt were related to the motivation for use and the frequency with
which strategy was used. For this survey question, the five response categories were
consolidated into two categories: rarely or more and almost used regularly. With respect

88

to students generating and testing hypotheses as a function of cooperative learning, 35%
of the 20 responding teachers stated that this strategy was used rarely or more. In general,
teachers reported that they were motivated to use of cooperative learning as a venue for
students to generate and test hypotheses because it presented a discernible benefit to the
gifted. Teachers thought the frequency of students generating and testing hypotheses as
part of employing creative thinking strategies was less frequent than other strategies. Of
the 20 responding teachers, 30% felt that students generating and testing hypotheses as a
part of creative thinking strategies occurred rarely or more, while 35% of respondents
indicated that this occurred almost regularly. Ignoring motivation, cooperative learning
and creative thinking strategies were almost used regularly by 50% of the sampled
teachers when motivation was ignored. See Table 12 for a graphic representation of the
cross-tabulation between the frequency of students generating and testing hypotheses and
the teacher motivation to have students engage in that strategy.

89

TABLE 12.
FREQUENCY OF STUDENTS GENERATING AND TESTING HYPOTHESES AND
TEACHER MOTIVATION FOR USE

The findings indicated four out of six interrelated strategies and skills that were
frequently used to help students employ active learning. Teacher perceptions of the
frequency of student use of active learning presented a consistent distribution across the
two measures of frequency (rarely or more and almost used regularly). Generally,
teachers reported using most of these skills and strategies because of a perceived benefit
to the gifted; performance assessment, however, was used out of adherence to state
mandates. Sixty-five percent of the 20 responding teachers indicated that
interdisciplinary thematic instruction when used in active learning was almost used
regularly. With respect to open-ended inquiry used to support active learning, 42% of the
19 responding teachers reported this strategy was almost used regularly. With respect to

Motivation Strategy (N) Rarely or
more
Almost used
Regularly
Cooperative learning (20) N (%) N (%)
District Policy 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
Interactions with peers 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
Support by Administration 1 (5%) 3 (15%)
Benefit to the gifted 7 (35%) 5 (25%)
Creative Thinking
Strategies (20)
N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Interactions with peers 3 (15%) 1 (5%)
Support by Administration 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
Benefit to the gifted 6 (30%) 7 (35%)

90

acceleration of content knowledge as a part of active learning, 63.15% of the 19
responding teachers believed this was almost used regularly. Regarding performance
assessments as a part of active learning, 31.57% of the 19 teacher respondents indicated
this was used as a result of state mandates. Forty-five percent of the 20 teacher
respondents reported almost regularly using movement as an element of active learning.
With respect to problem-solving strategies as an integral part of using active learning,
95% of 20 responding teachers reported that this was almost used regularly. When
motivation was not considered, interdisciplinary thematic instruction was almost used
regularly by 95% of survey respondents. Open-ended inquiry, acceleration of content
knowledge, and performance assessment were almost used regularly by 94.67% of survey
respondents ignoring motivation. Movement and problem-solving strategies were used
almost regularly by 95% of the survey sample when motivation was not considered. See
Table 13 for a graphic representation of the cross-tabulation between the frequency of
students using active learning and teacher motivation for use.

91

TABLE 13.
FREQUENCY OF STUDENTS USING ACTIVE LEARNING AND TEACHER
MOTIVATION FOR USE
Motivation Strategy (N) Rarely or
more
Almost used
Regularly
Interdisciplinary
Thematic Instruction (20)
N (%) N (%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 6 (30%)
Benefit to the gifted 1 (5%) 13 (65%)
Open-ended Inquiry (19)
State Mandate 0 (0%) 1 (5.26%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 5 (26.31%)
Support by Administration 0 (0%) 4 (21%)
Benefit to the gifted 1 (5.26%) 8 (42.10%)
Acceleration of content
knowledge (19)
N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 1 (5.26%)
State Mandate 0 (0%) 2 (10.52%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 3 (15.78%)
Benefit to the gifted 1 (5.26%) 12 (63.15%)
Performance Assessment
(19)
N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 4 (21%)
State Mandate 0 (0%) 6 (31.57%)
Support by Administration 0 (0%) 3 (15.78%)
Benefit to the gifted 1 (5.26%) 5 (26.31%)
Movement (20) N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Support by Administration 0 (0%) 6 (30%)
Benefit to the gifted 1 (5%) 9 (45%)
Problem-Solving
Strategies (20)
N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
State Mandate 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Support by Administration 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Benefit to the gifted 1 (5%) 13 (65%)

92

The survey findings regarding critical reading revealed two strategies—creative
thinking and linguistic and vocabulary development—that teachers indicated were related
to frequency of student use of critical reading and teacher motivation to use critical
reading. Teacher perception of the frequency of use of creative thinking strategies and
linguistic and vocabulary development in the context of critical reading was roughly
equal in distribution across the two measures of frequency: rarely or more and almost
used regularly. In general, teachers reported using these skills and strategies out of
perceived benefit to the gifted. Fifty-five percent of the 20 teacher respondents reported
using creative thinking strategies in the context of critical reading almost regularly. Forty
percent of the 20 responding teachers reported using linguistic and vocabulary
development in critical reading regularly. Ignoring motivation, creative thinking
strategies were almost used regularly by 85% of survey takers. Linguistic and vocabulary
development were also almost used regularly by 85% of survey respondents when
motivation was ignored. See Table 14 for a graphic representation of the cross-tabulation
between the frequency of student use and teacher motivation to use critical reading.

93

TABLE 14.
FREQUENCY OF STUDENTS USING CRITICAL READING AND TEACHER
MOTIVATION FOR USE
Motivation Strategy (N) Rarely or
more
Almost used
Regularly
Creative Thinking
Strategies (20)
N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 4 (20%)
Support by Administration 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
Benefit to the gifted 2 (10%) 11 (55%)
Linguistic & Vocabulary
Development (20)
N (%) N (%)
District Policy 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
State Mandate 0 (0%) 5 (25%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Support by Administration 1 (5%) 2 (10%)
Benefit to the gifted 1 (5%) 8 (40%)

The findings regarding expository writing revealed two related strategies that
provided a frequency distribution and comparison between frequency of student use and
teacher motivation: creative thinking strategies and linguistic and vocabulary
development. In general, teachers employed these strategies because they perceived
them to be of benefit to the gifted. Teachers responded to four of the five frequency
categories, which were consolidated into two categories: rarely or more and almost used
regularly. Fifty percent of the 20 teacher respondents reported that students used creative
thinking strategies as a part of expository writing almost regularly. Thirty-five percent of
the 20 teachers reported that students engaged in linguistic and vocabulary development

94

as a part of expository writing almost regularly. Without considering motivation, creative
thinking strategies and linguistic and vocabulary development were almost used regularly
by 75% of survey respondents. Table 15 presents a graphic representation of the cross-
tabulation between the frequency of students using expository writing and the teachers’
motivation to employ this strategy.
TABLE 15.
FREQUENCY OF STUDENTS USING EXPOSITORY WRITING AND TEACHER
MOTIVATION FOR USE
Motivation Strategy (N) Rarely or
more
Almost used
Regularly
Creative Thinking Strategies
(20)
N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Interactions with peers 1 (5%) 3 (15%)
Support by Administration 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
Benefit to the gifted 3 (15%) 10 (50%)
Linguistic & Vocabulary
Development (20)
N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
State Mandate 2 (10%) 3 (15%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Support by Administration 1 (5%) 2 (10%)
Benefit to the gifted 2 (10%) 7 (35%)

The survey findings pointed to two strategies that teachers believed were related
to the frequency of students using oral communication and the motivation to use this
strategy: communalism and linguistic and vocabulary development. Although teachers
responded to all five survey categories, they were consolidated into two categories for the
purposes of analysis: rarely or more and almost used regularly. Thirty percent of the 20

95

teacher respondents reported that communalism in the context of oral communication
was almost used regularly. Teacher motivation to use this strategy was evenly divided
between interactions with peers and benefit to the gifted. Twenty-five percent of the 20
teacher respondents reported using oral communication to stimulate linguistic and
vocabulary development almost regularly. Teachers were motivated to use the strategy of
linguistic and vocabulary development as a function of oral communication because they
thought it benefited the gifted. Irrespective of motivation, communalism and linguistic
and vocabulary development were almost used regularly by 70% of respondents. See
Table 16 for a graphic representation of the cross-tabulation between the frequency of
student use and teacher motivation to have students use oral communication.

96

TABLE 16.
FREQUENCY OF STUDENTS USING ORAL COMMUNICATION AND TEACHER
MOTIVATION FOR USE
Motivation Strategy (N) Rarely or
more
Almost used
Regularly
Communalism (20) N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Interactions with peers 1 (5%) 6 (30%)
Support by Administration 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
Benefit to the gifted 4 (20%) 6 (30%)
Linguistic & Vocabulary
Development (20)
N (%) N (%)
District Policy 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
State Mandate 1 (5%) 4 (20%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Support by Administration 0 (0%) 3 (15%)
Benefit to the gifted 4 (20%) 5 (25%)

97

Motivation Findings
The motivation section of this study, relevant to research question 2, will compare
the motivation for using an instructional strategy or learning skill and respondents’
perceptions about the contribution the strategy or skill makes to learning. According to
the data analysis, teachers perceived that three related aspects of using similarities and
differences consistently enhanced learning: interdisciplinary thematic instruction,
thematic units of study, and problem-solving strategies. Generally, respondents reported
that their motivation for use stemmed from the perception that these strategies provided a
discernable benefit to the gifted student. Teachers responded to four out of five categories
of response for the survey questions related to this area of inquiry. The researcher
consolidated the responses into two categories reflecting the impact teachers felt each
strategy had on student learning: somewhat minimal (minimal impact and inconsistent
impact) and at least most of the time (most of the time and consistently helps).
Identifying similarities and differences through interdisciplinary thematic instruction was
judged to be beneficial to the gifted population by 60% of the respondents at least most of
the time. Forty-five percent of the participants reported that their motivation to use
thematic units of study while emphasizing the identification of similarities and
differences stemmed from their perception that this strategy contributed to the learning of
the gifted at least most of the time. The survey revealed 70% of respondents were

98

motivated to employ identification of similarities and differences as part of problem-
solving strategies at least most of the time due to the perception of the benefit to the
gifted.
Teachers perceived all three of the strategies to be effective when motivation was
not considered. This was reflected in the findings; 80% of respondents indicated that
interdisciplinary thematic instruction, thematic units of study, and problem-solving
strategies contributed to learning at least most of the time. See Table 17 for a graphic
representation of the cross-tabulation between the teachers’ motivation for having
students use the learning skill of identifying similarities and differences and the perceived
contribution to student learning this use creates.
TABLE 17.
MOTIVATION FOR USING IDENTIFYING SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
AND PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING
Motivation Strategy (N) Somewhat
Minimal
At least
most of the
time
Interdisciplinary Thematic
Instruction (19)
N (%) N (%)
Interactions with peers 2 (10%) 4 (20%)
Benefit to the gifted 2 (10%) 11 (60%)
Thematic Units of Study
(19)

N (%)

N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
State Mandate 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Interactions with peers 2 (10%) 2 (10%)
Support by Administration 2 (10%) 2 (10%)
Benefit to the gifted 0 (0%) 8 (45%)

99

TABLE 17, CONTINUED.
MOTIVATION FOR USING IDENTIFYING SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
AND PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING
Problem-Solving Strategies
(19)

N (%)

N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
State Mandate 1 (5%) 0 (0%)
Interactions with peers 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
Support by Administration 1 (5%) 0 (0%)
Benefit to the gifted 1 (5%) 13 (70%)

The findings revealed that teachers felt the strategies of lecture, homework and
linguistic and vocabulary development provided a benefit to the gifted in the context of
summarizing. The respondents selected three out of five available options for questions
related to these findings: unnoticeable influence, most of the time and consistently helps.
These responses were consolidated into two categories: unnoticeable influence and
consistently helps. Out of 16 respondents, 32.5% reported that lecture, when used to
stimulate summarizing, benefited gifted students at least most of the time. Sixty percent
of 19 respondents reported that using summarizing in relation to homework benefited the
gifted at least most of the time. Forty-five percent of the 20 teachers sampled perceived
that using summarizing as a way to further refine linguistic and vocabulary development
benefited the gifted at least most of the time. The motivation for the use of linguistic and
vocabulary development also derived from a perception of benefit to the gifted.

100

Teachers generally agreed that lecture, homework, and linguistic and vocabulary
development, used as methods to assist students with summarizing, substantially
contributed to gifted learning when motivation was ignored. This was substantiated by
the fact that, regardless of motivation, 87.5% of respondents indicated that the use of
lecture contributed to learning, and 90% indicated that homework and linguistic and
vocabulary development contributed to learning in the context of summarizing. This
finding is especially interesting given the literature’s indecisive stance on the benefits of
lecture as they contribute to learning. However, the findings regarding homework and
linguistic and vocabulary development did match the findings in the literature. See Table
18 for a graphic representation of the cross-tabulation between the motivation for use of
summarizing and teacher perception of its contribution to learning.
TABLE 18.
MOTIVATION FOR USING SUMMARIZING AND PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION
TO LEARNING
Motivation Strategy (N) Unnoticeably
consistent
influence
At least most of
the time
Lecture (16) N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 2 (12.5%)
State Mandate 1 (6.25%) 1 (6.25%)
Interactions with peers 1 (6.25%) 4 (25%)
Support by Administration 0 (0%) 2 (12.5%)
Benefit to the gifted 0 (0%) 5 (31.25%)
Homework (19) N (%) N (%)
State Mandate 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Support by Administration 2 (10%) 4 (20%)
Benefit to the gifted 0 (0%) 11 (60%)

101

TABLE 18, CONTINUED.
MOTIVATION FOR USING SUMMARIZING AND PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION
TO LEARNING
Linguistic &
Vocabulary
Development
(20)

N (%)

N (%)
District Policy 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
State Mandate 0 (0%) 5 (25%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Support by Administration 1 (5%) 2 (10%)
Benefit to the gifted 0 (0%) 9 (45%)

Teacher responses regarding the contribution to learning of note taking centered
around two strategies: lecture and linguistic and vocabulary development. In general,
25% of teachers were motivated to use note taking in the context of lecture because of
interactions with peers. For this survey area, teachers responded to four categories
indicating the impact they felt note taking had on gifted learning. The researcher
consolidated these four categories into two: somewhat minimal (minimal impact and
inconsistent impact) and at least most of the time (most of the time and consistently
helps). Of the 16 respondents, 25% felt note taking in the context of lecture made a
contribution to learning at least most of the time. Thirty-five percent of the 20 teachers
believed that using note taking to stimulate linguistic and vocabulary development
contributed to learning at least most of the time. The majority of teacher respondents

102

(81.25%) rated lecture-based note taking as contributing to learning at least most of the
time, without regard to motivation. The literature agreed with the high response rate,
indicating a strong contribution to learning. When motivation was ignored, 85% of
teachers perceived that note taking to stimulate linguistic and vocabulary development
contributed to learning. Table 19 presents a graphic depiction of the cross-tabulation
between the motivation for using note taking and the perception of this skill’s
contribution to learning. Teachers perceived that two related aspects, lecture and
linguistic and vocabulary development, of using note taking were contributors to
learning. However, the other strategies are not listed because teacher responses were only
on the two items.
TABLE 19.
MOTIVATION FOR USING NOTE TAKING AND PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION
TO LEARNING
Motivation Strategy (N) Somewhat
Minimal
At least most of
the time
Lecture (16) N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 2 (12.5%)
State Mandate 0 (0%) 2 (12.5%)
Interactions with peers 1 (6.25%) 4 (25%)
Support by Administration 0 (0%) 2 (12.5%)
Benefit to the gifted 2 (12.5%) 3 (18.75%)
Linguistic &
Vocabulary
Development (20)

N (%)

N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
State Mandate 1 (5%) 4 (20%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Support by Administration 0 (0%) 3 (15%)
Benefit to the gifted 2 (10%) 7 (35%)

103

The findings indicated teachers perceived providing reinforcement for effort in
the context of using nonlinguistic representations to be a contributor to learning. The
respondents were motivated to use this strategy and skill because of a perceived benefit to
the gifted. Regarding perceived contribution to learning, teachers responded to four
choice options, which the researcher consolidated into two choices: somewhat minimal
impact and impacts learning at least most of the time. Forty-five percent of the 19
teachers indicated that they use the strategy of nonlinguistic representations in the context
of providing reinforcement for effort because they believe it contributes to gifted learning
at least most of the time. Providing reinforcement for effort through the utilization of
nonlinguistic representations was reported to provide a strong effect on learning in the
literature. However, when motivation was ignored, the findings did not support this
assertion. Just over one half of the teacher sample (55%) indicated that providing
reinforcement for effort contributed to learning in the context of nonlinguistic
representations. See Table 20 for a graphic representation of a cross-tabulation between
motivation for using nonlinguistic representations and a perception of a contribution to
learning.

104

TABLE 20.
MOTIVATION FOR USING NONLINGUISTIC REPRESENTATIONS AND
PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING
Motivation Strategy (N) Somewhat
Minimal
At least most of the
time
Providing
reinforcement
for effort (19)
N (%) N (%)
District Policy 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Support by Administration 2 (10%) 0 (0%)
Benefit to the gifted 5 (25%) 9 (45%)

The findings based on 20 teacher responses indicated that there are two strategies
that exerted the greatest impact on learning in the context of goal setting: interest-based
student-selected activities and feedback of results to students. In general, most
respondents were motivated to use goal setting and interest-based student-selected
activities and feedback of results to students in the context of goal setting because of a
perceived benefit to the gifted. Regarding perceived contribution to learning, teachers
responded to four choice options, which the researcher consolidated into two choices:
somewhat minimal impact and impacts learning at least most of the time. Interest-based
student-selected activities were found to be beneficial to the gifted population by 70% of
the respondents at least most of the time. The motivation to use feedback of results to
students in the context of goal setting was perceived to be beneficial by 55% of
respondents at least most of the time. The literature describes both interest-based student-

105

selected activities and feedback of results to students as strong contributors to learning,
which was reflected in the findings. When motivation was put aside, 85% of teachers
indicated that interest-based student-selected activities and feedback of results to students
provided a contribution to learning at least most of the time in the context of goal setting.
See Table 21 for a graphic representation of the cross-tabulation between the motivation
for using goal setting and teachers’ perceptions about its contribution to learning.
TABLE 21.
MOTIVATION FOR USING GOAL SETTING AND PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION
TO LEARNING

The findings regarding generating and testing hypotheses from 19 teachers’
perceptions of contribution to learning clustered around two strategies: cooperative
learning and creative thinking strategies. Most teachers reported that they were motivated
to use each of these strategies because they believe it benefits the gifted population.
Regarding perceived contribution to learning, teachers responded to four choice options,
Motivation Strategy (N) Somewhat
Minimal
At least most of
the time
Interest-based student-
selected activities (20)
N (%) N (%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Support by Administration 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
Benefit to the gifted 2 (10%) 14 (70%)
Feedback of results to
students (20)
N (%) N (%)
State Mandate 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Support by Administration 0 (0%) 3 (15%)
Benefit to the gifted 3 (15%) 11 (55%)

106

which the researcher consolidated into two choices: unnoticeable influence and impacts
learning at least most of the time. Respondents reported that cooperative learning and
creative thinking strategies have a positive influence on gifted students when employed
as a function of generating and testing hypotheses. In fact, 31.5% of teacher respondents
reported that cooperative learning, in the context of generating and testing hypotheses,
impacted the learning of students at least most of the time. Fifty-three percent of
respondents reported that creative thinking strategies, used in the context of generating
and testing hypotheses, impacted learning at least most of the time. When motivation was
disregarded, the findings and the literature were aligned with 68.4% of teacher
respondents indicating cooperative learning strategies made a positive impact on gifted
student learning at least most of the time in the context of generating and testing
hypotheses. The literature regarding creative thinking strategies matched the survey
results as well; when motivation was not considered, 68.7% of teachers indicated that
using this strategy as a part of generating and testing hypotheses influenced learning at
least most of the time. Table 22 offers a graphic presentation of the cross-tabulation
between the motivation for generating and testing hypotheses and the perceived
contribution this exerted on learning.

107

TABLE 22.
MOTIVATION FOR GENERATING AND TESTING HYPOTHESES AND
PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING

The data from the findings indicated active learning was present in almost every
aspect of teaching and learning; therefore, as was expected, many different strategies
were successfully employed in this area. Teacher respondents identified six strategies that
were related to using active learning with the gifted: interdisciplinary thematic
instruction, open ended inquiry, acceleration of content knowledge, performance
assessment, movement, and problem-solving strategies. Teachers indicated the
motivation for use of all but one of the six strategies evolved from a perception that the
use of these strategies as aspects of active learning provided a tangible benefit to gifted
students; most of the teachers reported that they were motivated to use performance

Motivation Strategy (N) Unnoticeable
influence
At least
most of
the time
Cooperative learning (19) N (%) N (%)
District Policy 1 (5.3%) 1 (5.3%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 2 (10.6%)
Support by Administration 0 (0%) 4 (21%)
Benefit to the gifted 5 (26.3%) 6 (31.5%)
Creative thinking
Strategies (19)
N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 1 (5.26%)
Interactions with peers 3 (15.7%) 1 (5.26%)
Support by Administration 0 (0%) 1 (5.26%)
Benefit to the gifted 3 (15.7%) 10 (53%)

108

assessment in order to comply with state mandates. For this area of inquiry regarding
perceived contribution to learning, teachers responded to only three survey choices,
which the researcher consolidated into two choices: unnoticeable influence and at least
most of the time. Sixty-five percent of the 20-teacher sample indicated that
interdisciplinary thematic instruction in the context of active learning provided benefit to
the gifted at least most of the time. With respect to open-ended inquiry in the context of
active learning, 42.1% of the 19 respondents felt this impacted learning at least most of
the time. Regarding acceleration of content knowledge in the context of active learning,
63.1% of the 19 respondents felt this impacted gifted learning at least most of the time.
The strategy of performance assessment, in the context of active learning, was rated by
31.6% of the teacher respondents as providing a contribution to learning at least most of
the time. Fifty percent of the responding teachers indicated that the strategy of
movement, in the context of active learning, contributes to learning at least most of the
time. Sixty-five percent of the sampled teachers indicated that active learning using
problem-solving strategies contributes to learning at least most of the time. See Table 23
for the data from the cross-tabulation between the motivation for using active learning
and the perceptions regarding its contribution to learning.

109

TABLE 23.
MOTIVATION FOR USING ACTIVE LEARNING AND PERCEIVED
CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING
Motivation Strategy (N) Unnoticeable
influence
At least
most of the
time
Interdisciplinary Thematic
Instruction (20)
N (%) N (%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 6 (30%)
Benefit to the gifted 1 (5%) 13 (65%)
Open-ended Inquiry (19) N (%) N (%)
State Mandate 0 (0%) 1 (5.3%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 5 (26.3%)
Support by
Administration
0 (0%) 4 (21%)
Benefit to the gifted 1 (5.3%) 8 (42.1%)
Acceleration of Content
Knowledge (19)

N (%)

N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 1 (5.3%)
State Mandate 0 (0%) 2 (10.6%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 3 (15.7%)
Benefit to the gifted 1 (5.3%) 12 (63.1%)
Performance Assessment
(19)

N (%)

N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 4 (21%)
State Mandate 0 (0%) 6 (31.6%)
Support by
Administration
0 (0%) 3 (15.7%)
Benefit to the gifted 1 (5.3%) 5 (26.3%)
Movement (20) N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 2 10%)
Support by
Administration
1 (5%) 5 (25%)
Benefit to the gifted 0 (0%) 10 (50%)

110

TABLE 23, CONTINUED.
MOTIVATION FOR USING ACTIVE LEARNING AND PERCEIVED
CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING
Problem-Solving
Strategies (20)
N (%) N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
State Mandate 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Support by
Administration
0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Benefit to the gifted 1 (5%) 13 (65%)

The literature and the findings were in agreement on the roles of interdisciplinary
thematic instruction, acceleration of content knowledge, performance assessment,
movement and problem-solving as contributing to gifted student learning. When the data
is filtered to remove motivation, 95% of teacher respondents agreed with the literature
that interdisciplinary thematic instruction, movement, and problem-solving strategies as a
part of active learning have an impact on gifted student learning at least most of the time.
Again ignoring motivation, 94.7% of teachers agreed with the literature, indicating that
open-ended inquiry, acceleration of content knowledge, and performance assessment in
the context of active learning had a positive impact on gifted student learning at least
most of the time.
Teachers identified two related aspects of using critical reading to contribute to
learning: critical thinking strategies and linguistic and vocabulary development. In
general, teachers were motivated to use creative thinking strategies and linguistic and

111

vocabulary development because they perceive that they benefit the gifted population.
Teachers only responded to two of the provided survey options to indicate how much
they perceived these strategies contributed to student learning: most of the time and
consistently helps. The researcher consolidated these responses into a single category: at
least most of the time. Of the 20 teacher respondents, 65% believe that creative thinking
strategies used as a function of critical reading contribute to learning at least most of the
time. Of the 20 teacher respondents 45% believe that linguistic and vocabulary
development contribute to learning at least most of the time. When motivation was
ignored, the survey findings and the literature were in agreement about the educational
benefits of these strategies in the context of this skill. In fact, 100% of teacher
respondents indicated that the use of creative thinking strategies and linguistic and
vocabulary development in the context of critical reading produced learning at least most
of the time. See Table 24 for a graphic representation of the cross-tabulation between the
motivation for using critical reading and the teachers’ perceptions regarding contribution
to learning.

112

TABLE 24.
MOTIVATION FOR USING CRITICAL READING AND PERCEIVED
CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING

The findings regarding teacher perceptions of expository writing revealed two
related strategies, creative thinking strategies and linguistic and vocabulary development,
that positively influenced learning in the context of the aforementioned learning skill.
The majority of teachers were motivated to use these strategies because they perceived
that they provided a benefit to the gifted population when used in the context of
expository writing. Teachers only responded to two of the provided survey options to
indicate how much they perceived these strategies contributed to student learning: most
of the time and consistently helps. The researcher consolidated these responses into a
single category: at least most of the time. Sixty-five percent of the 20 teacher respondents
Motivation Strategy (N) At least
most of the
time
Creative Thinking Strategies
(20)
N (%)
District Policy 1 (5%)
Interactions with peers 4 (20%)
Support by Administration 2 (10%)
Benefit to the gifted 13 (65%)
Linguistic & Vocabulary
Development (20)
N (%)
District Policy 2 (10%)
State Mandate 5 (25%)
Interactions with peers 1 (5%)
Support by Administration 3 (15%)

113

reported that creative thinking strategies contribute to learning at least most of the time.
Linguistic and vocabulary development was also identified by 45% of the 20 teachers as
providing a substantial contribution to learning at least most of the time. Creative
thinking strategies and linguistic and vocabulary development were reported in both the
findings and the literature as contributing strongly to the academic learning of gifted
students. When motivation was not considered, 100% of teacher respondents indicated
that creative thinking strategies and linguistic and vocabulary development, in the context
of expository writing, exerted a positive influence on learning at least most of the time.
See Table 25 for a graphic representation of the cross-tabulation between the motivation
for using expository writing and teachers’ perceptions about its contribution to learning.

114
Motivation Strategy (N) At least
most of the
time
Creative Thinking
Strategies (20)
N (%)
District Policy 1 (5%)
Interactions with peers 4 (20%)
Support by Administration 2 (10%)
Benefit to the gifted 13 (65%)
Linguistic &
Vocabulary
Development (20)
N (%)
District Policy 2 (10%)
State Mandate 5 (25%)
Interactions with peers 1 (5%)
Support by Administration 3 (15%)
Benefit to the gifted 9 (45%)

TABLE 25.
MOTIVATION FOR USING EXPOSITORY WRITING AND PERCEIVED
CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING

According to the findings, teachers identified two related aspects of using oral
communication that they felt enhanced learning: communalism and linguistic and
vocabulary development. Teacher motivation for the use of at least one of those strategies
was not clearly discernible from the data. For this survey area, teachers only selected
three out of the five response options, which, for the purposes of analysis, were
consolidated into two choices: unnoticeable influence and at least most of the time. Oral
communication in the context of communalism was found by 85% of teachers to
contribute to learning at least most of the time. However teachers’ motivation for the use

115

of communalism as part of oral communication was less clear. The percentages between
peer interaction and benefit to the gifted were so close they are broken out in detail. A
subset of the sample, 35%, indicated the motivation for using communalism as a function
of oral communication was interactions with peers. On the other hand a slightly larger
subset of the sample, 40%, responded that benefiting the gifted was their motivation for
using communalism as part of oral communication. Linguistic and vocabulary
development was found to contribute to learning by 85% of teachers at least most of the
time. Teachers reported that they were motivated to use linguistic and vocabulary
development in the context of oral communication because they perceived that it
benefited the gifted. When motivation was ignored, the majority of teachers, 85%,
indicated that both communalism and linguistic and vocabulary development used as a
part of oral communication exerted a positive influence on the learning of gifted students.
Table 26 presents a graphic representation of the cross-tabulation between the motivation
for using oral communication and teachers’ perceptions regarding its contribution to
learning.

116

Table 26.
Motivation for Using Oral Communication and Perceived Contribution to Learning
Motivation Strategy (N) Unnoticeably
consistent
influence
At least
most of
the time
Communalism (20) N (%) N (%)
District Policy 1 (5%) 0 (0%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 7 (35%)
Support by Administration 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Benefit to the gifted 2 (10%) 8 (40%)
Linguistic & Vocabulary
Development (20)

N (%)

N (%)
District Policy 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
State Mandate 1 (5%) 4 (20%)
Interactions with peers 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Support by Administration 1 (5%) 2 (10%)
Benefit to the gifted 1 (5%) 8 (40%)

Location Findings
Another part of the survey, designed to address research question 3, required
teachers to identify where they learned a particular instructional strategy or learning skill.
The location portion of the study involved cross-tabulating location with perception of
contribution to learning to determine if there is any frequency distribution and
comparison between the location where teachers learned particular strategies and
teachers’ perceptions regarding how much those strategies contributed to student
learning. Teacher respondents were asked to indicate the location where they first
encountered an instructional strategy or learning skill. Teachers were asked to select from
the following locations for learning each instructional strategy or learning skill:

117

university coursework, professional development, gifted conference, because the
skill/strategy was purported to be effective or from personal observation.
The findings regarding identifying similarities and differences indicated there
were three strategies that teachers perceive to be correlated between the location where
the strategy was learned and the contribution to learning that strategy makes. Regarding
contribution to learning, teachers responded to four out of five response choices, which
the researcher consolidated into two response choices for the purpose of analysis:
somewhat minimal (minimal and inconsistent impact) and almost consistent contribution
(most of the time and consistently helps). Teacher respondents reported various venues
for learning skills and instructional strategies they currently employ with their gifted 7
th

grade English students. 36.84% of the 19 teacher respondents reported that they learned
interdisciplinary thematic instruction as a part of identifying similarities and differences
through personal observation. Of the responding teachers, 36.84%, agreed that
interdisciplinary thematic instruction as a part of identifying similarities and differences
makes an almost consistent contribution to student learning. Of the 19 teacher
respondents 26.31% reported that they learned about thematic units of study arising from
identifying similarities and differences in university coursework, while another 26.31%
indicated they learned thematic units of study as part of identifying similarities and
differences through personal observation. 78.92% of the teacher responses indicate a
belief that thematic units of study as part of identifying similarities and differences

118

provides an almost consistent contribution to learning. Of the 19 teachers, 42.10%
reported learning problem-solving strategies as part of identifying similarities and
differences through personal observation. Again most teachers, 78.93%, agreed that using
problem-solving strategies while identifying similarities and differences provided an
almost consistent contribution to learning. When location was ignored, 78.93% of
teachers reported that interdisciplinary thematic instruction, thematic units of study, and
problem-solving strategies, in the context of identifying similarities and differences
generated an almost consistent contribution to learning. See Table 27 for a graphic
representation of the cross-tabulation between the location where respondents learned
about strategies related to identifying similarities and differences and their perception of
how much those strategies contributed to learning.

119

TABLE 27.
LOCATION WHERE TEACHER LEARNED IDENTIFYING SIMILARITIES AND
DIFFERENCES AND PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING

According to the findings, teachers identified three strategies connected to
summarizing where a frequency distribution and comparison existed between the location
where the strategy was learned and the contribution to learning that strategy makes.
These three strategies were: lecture, homework, and linguistic and vocabulary
Location Strategy (N) Somewhat
Minimal
Almost
consistent
contribution
Interdisciplinary
thematic instruction (19)
N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 2
(10.52%)
4 (21.05)
Professional
Development
1 (5.26%) 3 (15.78%)
Gifted Conference 1 (5.26%) 0 (0%)
Purported to be effective 0 (0%) 1 (5.26%)
Personal observation 0 (0%) 7 (36.84%)
Thematic Units of Study
(19)
N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 2
(10.52%)
5 (26.31%)
Professional
Development
1 (5.26%) 2 (10.52%)
Purported to be effective 1 (5.26%) 3 (15.78%)
Personal observation 0 (0%) 5 (26.31%)
Problem-Solving
Strategies (19)
N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 0 (0%) 4 (21.05)
Professional
Development
2
(10.52%)
2 (10.52%)
Purported to be effective 1 (5.26%) 1 (5.26%)
Personal observation 1 (5.26%) 8 (42.10%)

120

development. Regarding these strategies’ perceived contribution to learning, teachers
responded to three out of the five available options, which the researcher consolidated
into two choices: somewhat minimal (unnoticeable influence) and almost consistent
contribution (most of the time and consistently helps). 45% of the 20 teacher respondents
learned the strategy of lecture as a means to help students use summarizing through
university coursework. Forty-five percent of the responding teachers agreed that lecture
in the context of summarizing almost consistently contributes to student learning. Sixty
percent of the 20 teacher respondents reported that they learned the strategy of homework
as a method to help students refine the skill of summarizing through personal
observation. 90% of the teacher responses expressed belief that lecture, as part of
summarizing, provided an almost consistent contribution to learning. Half (50%) of the
20 teachers reported learning linguistic and vocabulary development, as a part of
summarizing, through personal observation. When location was ignored, 90% of
respondents found that lecture, homework, and linguistic and vocabulary development in
the context of summarizing made an almost consistent contribution to learning. See Table
28 for a graphic representation of the cross-tabulation between the location where
teachers learned a strategy and their perceptions about how that strategy’s use contributes
to learning.

121

TABLE 28.
LOCATION WHERE TEACHER LEARNED SUMMARIZING AND PERCEIVED
CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING
Location Strategy (N) Somewhat
minimal
Almost consistent
contribution
Lecture (20) N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 0 (0%) 9 (45%)
Professional Development 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Gifted Conference 1 (5%) 0 (0%)
Purported to be effective 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Personal observation 1 (5%) 6 (30%)
Homework (20) N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Professional Development 1 (5% 0 (0%)
Purported to be effective 0 (0%) 4 (20%)
Personal observation 1 (5%) 12 (60%)
Linguistic &
Vocabulary
Development
(20)
N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 0 (0%) 4 (20%)
Professional Development 1 (5%) 0 (0%)
Gifted Conference 0 (0%) 3 (15%)
Purported to be effective 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
Personal observation 0 (0%) 10 (50%)

According to the findings regarding note taking, teachers identified two strategies
that exhibited comparison between the location where the strategy was learned and the
contribution to learning that strategy exerted. These strategies were lecture and linguistic
and vocabulary development. Regarding these strategies’ perceived contribution to
learning, teachers responded to three out of the five available options, which the
researcher consolidated into two choices: somewhat minimal (unnoticeable influence)

122

and almost consistent contribution (most of the time and consistently helps). Forty
percent of the responding 20 teachers indicated that they learned lecture as part of note
taking through university coursework. These teachers, 80%, also indicated that the use of
lecture as part of note taking provided an almost consistent contribution to student
learning. Thirty-five percent of the 20 teacher respondents learned linguistic and
vocabulary development as a part of note taking through personal observation and
experience. Teachers, 85%, also indicated their perception that the use of linguistic and
vocabulary development as a part of note taking produced an almost consistent
contribution to learning. When location was ignored, 85% of teachers indicated that
lecture and linguistic and vocabulary development, as a part of note taking, almost
consistently contributed to student learning. See Table 29 for a graphic representation of
the cross-tabulation between the location where teachers reported they learned each
strategy and their perception of each strategy’s contribution to learning.

123

TABLE 29.
LOCATION WHERE TEACHER LEARNED NOTE TAKING AND PERCEIVED
CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING

According to the findings, there was only a single strategy that teachers perceived
provided a comparison between the location where the strategy was learned and the
contribution the strategy made to learning: providing reinforcement for effort. Regarding
these strategies’ perceived contribution to learning, teachers responded to three out of the
five available options, which the researcher consolidated into two choices: somewhat
minimal (unnoticeable influence) and almost consistent contribution (most of the time
and consistently helps). 21.05% of the 19 teacher respondents reported that they learned

Location Strategy (N) Somewhat
minimal
Almost consistent
contribution
Lecture (20) N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 1 (5%) 8 (40%)
Professional Development 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Gifted Conference 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Purported to be effective 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Personal observation 2 (10%) 5 (25%)
Linguistic &
Vocabulary
Development
(20)
N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 0 (0%) 4 (20%)
Professional Development 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Gifted Conference 0 (0%) 3 (15%)
Purported to be effective 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Personal observation 3 (15%) 7 (35%)

124

about providing reinforcement for effort through the use of nonlinguistic representations
through personal observation and experience. Of the 19 teacher respondents, 26.31% felt
that providing reinforcement for effort through the use of nonlinguistic representations
provided a somewhat minimal impact on learning. When location was not considered,
57.87% of teachers indicated that providing reinforcement for effort in the context of
nonlinguistic representations provided an almost consistent contribution to learning. See
Table 30 for a graphic representation of the cross-tabulation between the location where
teachers reported they learned the strategy and their perceptions regarding that strategy’s
contribution to learning.
TABLE 30.
LOCATION WHERE TEACHER LEARNED NONLINGUISTIC REPRESENTATION
AND PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING
Location Strategy (N) Somewhat
minimal
Almost
consistent
contribution
Providing reinforcement
for effort (19)
N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 3 (15.78%) 3 (15.78%)
Gifted Conference 0 (0%) 1 (5.26%)
Purported to be effective 0 (0%) 3 (15.78%)
Personal observation 5 (26.31%) 4 (21.05%)

The findings relative to goal setting indicated two strategies that teachers believed
exhibited a comparison between the location where the strategy was learned and the
contribution it made to learning. These two strategies were interest-based student-
selected activities and feedback of results to students. Regarding these strategies’

125

perceived contribution to learning, teachers responded to four out of the five available
options, which the researcher consolidated into two choices: somewhat minimal (minimal
and inconsistent impact) and almost consistent contribution (most of the time and
consistently helps). Thirty percent of the 20 teachers indicated they learned to use
interest-based student selected activities in the context of goal setting through personal
observation. These teachers, 85%, also believed that the use of interest-based students
selected activities as a part of goal setting provided an almost consistent contribution to
student learning. The majority of the 20 teachers, 65%, were almost evenly split when
reporting where they learned to use feedback of results to students as a part of goal
setting. Thirty percent of respondents reported they learned skill/strategy combination
through university coursework, and 35% learned it through personal observation and
experience. When location was not considered, 85% of teacher respondents indicated that
the use of interest-based student-selected activities and feedback of results to students in
the context of goal setting produced an almost consistent contribution to learning. See
Table 31 for a graphic representation of the cross-tabulation between the location where
teachers reported they learned goal setting and their perception of goal setting’s effect on
learning.

126

TABLE 31.
LOCATION WHERE TEACHER LEARNED GOAL SETTING AND PERCEIVED
CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING
Location Strategy (N) Somewhat
minimal
Almost
consistent
contribution
Interest-Based Student-
Selected Activities (20)
N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 0 (0%) 3 (15%)
Professional Development 1 (5%) 3 (15%)
Gifted Conference 2 (10%) 4 (20%)
Purported to be effective 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Personal observation 0 (0%) 6 (30%)
Feedback of Results to
Students (20)
N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 1 (5%) 6 (30%)
Professional Development 1 (5%) 1 (5%)
Gifted Conference 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Purported to be effective 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Personal observation 1 (5%) 7 (35%)

The findings identified two strategies that exhibited a positive comparison
between the location where the strategy of generating and testing hypotheses was learned
and the impact the use of that strategy made on learning. These two additional strategies
were cooperative learning and creative thinking strategies. Regarding these strategies’
perceived contribution to learning, teachers responded to four out of the five available
options, which the researcher consolidated into two choices: somewhat minimal and
almost consistent contribution. Of the 19 responding teachers, 26.31% indicated they
learned cooperative learning in the context of generating and testing hypotheses through
university coursework. These teachers, 68.39%, also believed that using cooperative

127

learning as part of generating and testing hypotheses provided an almost consistent
contribution to student learning. Of the 19 teacher respondents, 26.31% indicated they
learned creative thinking strategies as a part of generating and testing hypotheses from
personal observation and experience. The majority of teacher respondents, 68.39%,
believed that the use of creative thinking strategies as a part of generating and testing
hypotheses provided an almost consistent contribution to the learning of gifted students.
When location was ignored, 68.39% of responding teachers indicated that cooperative
learning and creative thinking strategies in the context of generating and testing
hypotheses provided an almost consistent contribution to learning. See Table 32 for a
graphic representation of the cross-tabulation between the location where teacher
respondents self reported they learned the strategy and the perception of degree that
strategy’s use contributed to learning.

128
TABLE 32.
LOCATION WHERE TEACHER LEARNED GENERATING AND TESTING
HYPOTHESES AND PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING
Location Strategy (N) Somewhat
minimal
Almost
consistent
contribution
Cooperative learning (19) N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 0 (0%) 5 (26.31%)
Professional Development 0 (0%) 3 (15.78%)
Gifted Conference 0 (0%) 1 (5.26%)
Purported to be effective 4 (21.05%) 2 (10.52%)
Personal observation 2 (10.52%) 2 (10.52%)
Creative Thinking
Strategies (19)
N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 0 (0%) 3 (15.78%)
Professional Development 0 (0%) 2 (10.52%)
Gifted Conference 2 (10.52%) 1 (5.26%)
Purported to be effective 0 (0%) 2 (10.52%)
Personal observation 4 (21.05%) 5 (26.31%)

The findings with respect to active learning revealed six strategies that teachers
perceived were correlated between the locations where those strategies were learned and
the contributions the use of those strategies made to learning. Those six strategies were:
interdisciplinary thematic instruction, open-ended inquiry, acceleration of content
knowledge, performance assessment, movement, and problem-solving strategies.
Regarding these strategies’ perceived contribution to learning, teachers responded to
three out of the five available options, which the researcher consolidated into two
choices: somewhat minimal and almost consistent contribution. The major amount of
teacher respondents, 65%, were almost evenly divided regarding where they learned
about interdisciplinary thematic instruction as a part of active learning, 30% indicated

129

university coursework, and 35% indicated personal observation and experience. 95% of
teacher respondents agreed that the use of interdisciplinary thematic instruction as part of
active learning provides an almost consistent contribution to the learning of gifted
students. 35% of teachers reported learning open-ended inquiry as a part of active
learning from colleague reports of effectiveness; 95% of respondents believed it to
provide an almost consistent contribution to learning. The sampled teachers’ responses
revealed a perception that the use of open-ended inquiry, as part of active learning,
provided an almost consistent contribution to learning. 50% of the teachers were evenly
divided between identifying conferences and observation as venues for learning. Twenty-
five percent of teachers reported learning acceleration of content knowledge as a part of
active learning at gifted conferences, and another 25% reported learning this through
personal observation and experience. 95% of teachers held the opinion that the use of
acceleration of content knowledge, in the context of active learning, almost consistently
contributes to student learning. The largest group of the respondents, 40%, reported
learning performance assessment as a part of active learning through professional
development. An overwhelming majority of teachers, 95%, responding to the survey
indicated that performance assessment, in the context of active learning, produced an
almost consistent contribution to learning. 50% of the respondents equally identified two
areas, gifted conferences and observation, that teachers learned movement in the context
of active learning. Twenty-five percent of the respondents learned the strategy of

130

movement at gifted conferences, and another 25% reported learning the strategy through
personal observation and experience. The majority of teacher respondents, 95%, felt that
the use of movement as part of active learning produced an almost consistent contribution
to student learning. Forty percent of respondents learned problem-solving strategies as
part of active learning through personal observation and experience. 95% of teachers
reported that problem-solving strategies when used with active learning provided an
almost consistent contribution to learning. When ignoring location, 95% of teachers
indicated interdisciplinary thematic instruction, open-ended inquiry, acceleration of
content knowledge, performance assessment, movement, and problem solving, as part of
active learning, provided an almost consistent contribution to learning. See Table 33 for a
graphic representation of the cross-tabulation between the location where teacher
respondents learned the strategy of active learning and their perceptions regarding the
strategy’s contribution to learning.

131

TABLE 33.
LOCATION WHERE TEACHER LEARNED ACTIVE LEARNING AND
PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING
Location Strategy (N) Somewhat
minimal
Almost
consistent
contribution
Interdisciplinary
Thematic Instruction (20)
N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 0 (0%) 6 (30%)
Professional Development 0 (0%) 4 (20%)
Gifted Conference 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Purported to be effective 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Personal observation 1 (5%) 7 (35%)
Open-ended Inquiry (20) N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 0 (0%) 3 (15%)
Professional Development 0 (0%) 3 (15%)
Gifted Conference 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Purported to be effective 0 (0%) 7 (35%)
Personal observation 1 (5%) 4 (20%)
Acceleration of Content
Knowledge (20)
N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 0 (0%) 3 (15%)
Professional Development 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Gifted Conference 0 (0%) 5 (25%)
Purported to be effective 0 (0%) 4 (20%)
Personal observation 1 (5%) 5 (25%)
Performance Assessment
(20)
N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 0 (0%) 5 (25%)
Professional Development 0 (0%) 8 (40%)
Purported to be effective 0 (0%) 3 (15%)
Personal observation 1 (5%) 3 (15%)

132

TABLE 33, CONTINUED.
LOCATION WHERE TEACHER LEARNED ACTIVE LEARNING AND
PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING
Movement (20) N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 0 (0%) 4 (20%)
Professional Development 0 (0%) 3 (15%)
Gifted Conference 0 (0%) 5 (25%)
Purported to be effective 1 (5%) 2 (10%)
Personal observation 0 (0%) 5 (25%)
Problem-Solving
Strategies (20)
N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 0 (0%) 4 (20%)
Professional Development 0 (0%) 5 (25%)
Purported to be effective 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Personal observation 1 (5%) 8 (40%)

The findings indicated two strategies that teachers perceived shared a positive
comparison between where they learned the strategy of critical reading and the
contribution the strategy made to learning. These two strategies were creative thinking
strategies and linguistic and vocabulary development. Regarding teachers’ perceptions
about this strategy’s contribution to learning, teachers responded to two of five
categories: most of the time and consistently helps. The categories of most of the time
and consistently helps became a new category of almost consistent contribution. Of the
20 teacher respondents, 45% indicated that they learned creative thinking strategies, in
the context of critical reading, through personal observation and experience. 100% of
teacher responses revealed a belief that creative thinking strategies, used in the context of

133

critical reading, provided an almost consistent contribution to student learning. Fifty
percent of the teacher respondents reported learning linguistic and vocabulary
development, as a part of critical reading, through personal observation and experience.
100% of teachers agreed that the use of linguistic and vocabulary development, as part of
critical reading, provided an almost consistent contribution to gifted student learning.
When ignoring location, 100% of teacher respondents indicated creative thinking
strategies and linguistic and vocabulary development in the context of critical reading
provided an almost consistent contribution to learning. See Table 34 for a graphic
representation of the cross-tabulation between the location where teachers learned the
strategy of critical reading and their perceptions regarding this strategy’s contribution to
learning.

134

TABLE 34.
LOCATION WHERE TEACHER LEARNED CRITICAL READING AND
PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING
Location Strategy (N) Almost
consistent
contribution
Creative Thinking
Strategies (20)
N (%)
University Coursework 3 (15%)
Professional Development 3 (15%)
Gifted Conference 3 (15%)
Purported to be effective 2 (10%)
Personal observation 9 (45%)
Linguistic &
Vocabulary
Development (20)
N (%)
University Coursework 4 (20%)
Professional Development 1 (5%)
Gifted Conference 3 (15%)
Purported to be effective 2 (10%)
Personal observation 10 (50%)

The survey findings indicated two strategies that teachers perceived were
correlated between the location where expository writing was learned and its contribution
to student learning. These strategies were: creative thinking strategies and linguistic and
vocabulary development. Regarding these strategies’ perceived contribution to learning,
teachers responded to two of five categories: most of the time and consistently helps. The
categories of most of the time and consistently helps formed a new category of almost
consistent contribution. Of the 20 teacher respondents, 45% reported learning creative
thinking strategies, in the context of expository writing, through personal observation

135

and experience. The other responses were not significant to indicate a trend. 100% of the
teacher sample indicated the belief that using creative thinking strategies as a part of
expository writing almost consistently contributed to student learning. Fifty percent of the
sample reported learning linguistic and vocabulary development, as part of expository
writing, through personal observation and experience. The other responses were too wide
spread to show a pattern. 100% of teachers reported a strong belief that using expository
writing to stimulate linguistic and vocabulary development makes an almost consistent
contribution to student learning. When ignoring location, 100% of teachers indicated that
creative thinking strategies and linguistic and vocabulary development in the context of
expository writing provided an almost consistent contribution to learning. See Table 35
for a graphic representation of the cross-tabulation between the location where teachers
learned the strategy of expository writing and their perceptions regarding the strategy’s
contribution to learning.

136

TABLE 35.
LOCATION WHERE TEACHER LEARNED EXPOSITORY WRITING AND
PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING

The survey findings indicated two strategies that teachers perceived were
correlated between the location where teachers learned oral communication and that
strategy’s contribution to learning. These strategies were communalism and linguistic and
vocabulary development. Regarding these strategies’ perceived contribution to learning,
teachers responded to three of the five available choices: inconsistent, most of the time
and consistently helps. The researcher consolidated these into two new categories:
somewhat minimal and almost consistent contribution. Of the 19 teacher respondents,
31.57% indicated they learned the strategy of communalism as a part of oral
Location Strategy (N) Almost
consistent
contribution
Creative Thinking
Strategies (20)
N (%)
University Coursework 3 (15%)
Professional Development 3 (15%)
Gifted Conference 3 (15%)
Purported to be effective 2 (10%)
Personal observation 9 (45%)
Linguistic & Vocabulary
Development (20)
N (%)
University Coursework 4 (20%)
Professional Development 1 (5%)
Gifted Conference 3 (15%)
Purported to be effective 2 (10%)
Personal observation 10 (50%)

137

communication through personal observation and experience. 84.18% of teachers
indicated that the use of communalism, as part of oral communication, provided an
almost consistent contribution to student learning. Forty percent of the 20 teacher
respondents, learned the strategy of linguistic and vocabulary development, as it relates to
oral communication, through personal observation and experience. 85% of teachers
overwhelmingly indicated that the use of linguistic and vocabulary development in
conjunction with oral communication provided an almost consistent contribution to
student learning. When location was ignored, 84.18% of teachers reported that
communalism in the context of oral communication almost consistently contributed to
learning. Regardless of location, 85% of respondents felt linguistic and vocabulary
development in the context of oral communication almost consistently contributed to
learning. See Table 36 for a graphic representation of the cross-tabulation between the
location where respondents learned the strategy of oral communication and their
perceptions regarding this strategy’s impact on learning.

138

TABLE 36.
LOCATION WHERE TEACHER LEARNED ORAL COMMUNICATION AND
PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION TO LEARNING

Location Strategy (N) Somewhat
minimal
Almost
consistent
contribution
Communalism (19) N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 2 (10.52%) 1 (5.26%)
Professional Development 0 (0%) 2 (10.52%)
Gifted Conference 0 (0%) 4 (21.05%)
Purported to be effective 0 (0%) 3 (15.78%)
Personal observation 1 (5.26%) 6 (31.57%)
Linguistic & Vocabulary
Development (20)
N (%) N (%)
University Coursework 0 (0%) 4 (20%)
Professional Development 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Gifted Conference 1 (5%) 2 (10%)
Purported to be effective 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
Personal observation 2 (10%) 8 (40%)

139

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to establish the connections between the use of
instructional strategies and learning skills for gifted students and the instructors’
perceptions of these strategies’ and skills’ influence on the learning of gifted 7
th
grade
English/language arts students. This is especially important given that it would be useful
for teachers to have a specific, validated set of strategies to utilize with gifted students
(Graffam, 2006). This study of the use of literature based instructional strategies and the
effect this use exerts on the learning of gifted students addresses needs of educators.
Discussion of Findings for Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked, “What effect does the frequency of using instructional
strategies and skills exert on teachers’ perceptions of gifted students’ learning in 7
th
grade
English/language arts classes?” The learning skill of identifying similarities and
differences was related to the instructional strategies of thematic units of study and
thematic teaching by the California Content Standards for reading, specifically reading
1.0, word analysis, fluency and systemic vocabulary development and 3.0, literary
response and analysis. Thematic units of study and thematic teaching were related to
identifying similarities and differences through the California Content Standard for
reading 3.0. Problem-solving strategies were related to identifying similarities and
differences through California Content Standard Reading 1.0. The teacher perception of
an effect of similarities and differences exerted on gifted student learning was not strong;

140

only a little more than half of the teachers (55%), the largest statistically significant
group, identified the frequency of using identifying similarities and differences as having
an impact on student learning. This was not supported in the literature review. Marzano et
al.’s (2000) research involving identifying similarities and differences purported that it
was effective with all populations, and according to Graffam (2006), Peterman (1990),
and Reis et al. (2004), the strategy of interdisciplinary thematic teaching is effective for
learning in the gifted population. Similarly, the literature review identified thematic units
of study (Graffam, 2006; Peterman, 1990; Reis et al., 2004) and problem-solving
strategies (Smutny, 2001a; Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005) as beneficial for gifted students.
The learning skill of summarizing was related to lecture, homework, and
linguistic and vocabulary development through the California Content Standards for
writing, listening and speaking, specifically writing 1.3, use strategies of note taking,
outlining, and summarizing to impose structure on composition drafts, writing 2.5, write
summaries of reading materials, listening and speaking 1.0, deliver focused, coherent
presentations that convey ideas clearly and relate to the background and interests of the
audience, , listening and speaking 2.0, students deliver well-organized formal
presentations employing traditional rhetorical strategies (e.g., narration, exposition,
persuasion, description). Student speaking demonstrates a command of standard
American English and the organizational and delivery strategies outlined in Listening and
Speaking Standard 1.0, and listening and speaking 2.2, deliver oral summaries of articles

141

and books. The results of the study indicated that the frequency of using summarizing
exerted a strong effect (70-81.25%) on the learning of gifted students in 7
th
grade English
classes. A majority of the teachers (81.25%) almost used lecture regularly in the context
of summarizing. Homework was almost used regularly in the context of summarizing as
reported by 73.62% of teacher respondents. Seventy percent of respondents reported
using linguistic and vocabulary development almost regularly. These results somewhat
agree with the findings of the literature review. Marzano et al. (2000) identified
summarizing and homework as providing benefit to all populations, and Van-Tassel-
Baska (1994), Coleman (2006), and Beck (2001) identified lecture as effective in the
learning of gifted students. Corbett and Wilson (2002) dissented with this opinion,
claiming that lecture was less than effective for gifted students. The literature identified
linguistic and vocabulary development (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996) as effective in the
learning of gifted students. The respondents also felt that these strategies and skills exert
a strong influence on 7
th
grade gifted student learning in language arts classes.
The learning skill of note taking was related to the instructional strategies of
lecture and linguistic and vocabulary development through California Content Standards
for writing and listening and speaking, specifically writing standard 2.5, write summaries
of reading materials, and listening and speaking standards 1.4, organize information to
achieve particular purposes and to appeal to the background and interests of the audience,
1.5, arrange supporting details, reasons, descriptions, and examples effectively and

142

persuasively in relation to the audience, 1.6, use speaking techniques, including voice
modulation, inflection, tempo, enunciation, and eye contact, for effective presentations,
and 1.7, provide constructive feedback to speakers concerning the coherence and logic of
a speech's content and delivery and its overall impact upon the listener. The frequency of
using note taking exerted a strong effect on the learning of gifted 7
th
grade students in
English classes. A majority of the teachers (75%), the largest statistically significant
group, almost used lecture regularly in the context of note taking. Linguistic and
vocabulary development was almost used regularly in the context of note taking as
reported by 75% of teacher respondents to the survey. The results were aligned with the
findings of the literature review. Marzano et al. (2000) identified note taking as providing
benefit to all student populations. The review of literature found that lecture (Beck, 2001;
Coleman, 2006; Corbett & Wilson, 2002; Van-Tassel-Baska, 1994) and linguistic and
vocabulary development (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996) contributed to learning in gifted
students.
The learning skill of nonlinguistic representations was related to providing
reinforcement through California Content Standards for writing and listening and
speaking, specifically writing standard 2.2, write responses to literature and listening and
speaking standard 1.8, analyze the effect on the viewer of images, text, and sound in
electronic journalism; identify the techniques used to achieve the effects in each instance
studied. The findings indicated that the frequency of using nonlinguistic representations

143

exerted a moderate influence on learning in 7
th
grade English classes for gifted students.
Approximately two thirds of the teachers (63.12%), the largest statistically significant
group, used nonlinguistic representations almost regularly in the context of providing
reinforcement. The teacher perception regarding the use of nonlinguistic representations
was not supported in the literature. Marzano et al.’s (2000) research involving
nonlinguistic representations asserted that this strategy was effective with all populations
but the findings indicated a small amount greater than half of the teachers agreed.
The learning skill of goal setting was found to be related to interest-based student-
selected activities and feedback of results through the California Content Standards for
writing and listening and speaking, specifically writing 1.0, students write clear, coherent,
and focused essays. The writing exhibits students' awareness of the audience and
purpose. Essays contain formal introductions, supporting evidence, and conclusions.
Students progress through the stages of the writing process as needed, 1.4, identify topics;
ask and evaluate questions; and develop ideas leading to inquiry, investigation, and
research, and listening and speaking 1.0, deliver focused, coherent presentations that
convey ideas clearly and relate to the background and interests of the audience. Students
evaluate the content of oral communication, listening and speaking 1.7, provide
constructive feedback to speakers concerning the coherence and logic of a speech's
content and delivery and its overall impact upon the listener, and listening and speaking
1.8, analyze the effect on the viewer of images, text, and sound in electronic journalism;

144

identify the techniques used to achieve the effects in each instance studied. The frequency
of using goal setting exerted a strong effect on the learning of gifted 7
th
grade students in
English classes. A majority of the teachers (70%), the largest statistically significant
group, used interest-based student-selected activities almost regularly in the context of
goal setting. Seventy percent of teachers reported using feedback of results to students in
the context of goal setting almost regularly. The results reflect the information found in
the literature review. The literature identified interest-based student-selected activities
(Neumeister & Finch, 2006; Peterman, 1990; Renzulli, 1992; Swanson, 2006) as
effective when used with the gifted population. Additionally, feedback of results to
students (Marzano et al., 2000) was touted as providing a learning benefit to all students.
The learning skill of generating and testing hypotheses was related to the
instructional strategies of cooperative learning and creative thinking strategies through
the California Content Standards for writing, specifically writing standards 1.6, create
documents by using word-processing skills and publishing programs; develop simple
databases and spreadsheets to manage information and prepare reports, writing 1.7,
revise writing to improve organization and word choice after checking the logic of the
ideas and the precision of the vocabulary, writing 2.1, write fictional or autobiographical
narratives, writing 2.2, write responses to literature, and writing 2.3, write research
reports. The frequency of using the learning skill of generating and testing hypotheses did
not exert a strong effect on student learning. Only half of the teachers (50%) used

145

cooperative learning almost regularly in the context of generating and testing hypotheses.
Fifty percent of respondents reported using creative thinking strategies almost regularly
in the context of generating and testing hypotheses. This finding was not in agreement
with the results of the literature review. Cooperative learning (Beck, 2001; Cox et al.,
1985; Kulik & Kulik, 1992; Schatz, 1990; Van Tassel-Baska, 2006b) and creative
thinking strategies (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005) were reported in the literature as
effective strategies to use with the gifted population.
The learning skill of active learning was related to interdisciplinary thematic
teaching, open-ended inquiry/student-directed inquiry, acceleration of content
knowledge, performance assessment, movement, inquiry, and problem-solving strategies
through the California Content Standards for reading, writing, and listening and speaking,
specifically reading standard 3.0, literary response and analysis, writing standards 1.0,
students write clear, coherent, and focused essays. The writing exhibits students'
awareness of the audience and purpose. Essays contain formal introductions, supporting
evidence, and conclusions. Students progress through the stages of the writing process as
needed, writing 1.4, identify topics; ask and evaluate questions; and develop ideas leading
to inquiry, investigation, and research, writing 1.6, Create documents by using word-
processing skills and publishing programs; develop simple databases and spreadsheets to
manage information and prepare reports, writing 2.0, students write narrative, expository,
persuasive, and descriptive texts of at least 500 to 700 words in each genre. The writing

146

demonstrates a command of standard American English and the research, organizational,
and drafting strategies outlined in Writing Standard 1.0, writing 2.2, write responses to
literature, and listening and speaking standard 2.0, students deliver well-organized formal
presentations employing traditional rhetorical strategies (e.g., narration, exposition,
persuasion, description). Student speaking demonstrates a command of standard
American English and the organizational and delivery strategies outlined in Listening and
Speaking Standard 1.0. The frequency of using active learning exerted a strong effect on
the learning of 7
th
grade gifted students in English classes. The majority of survey
respondents, 95%, the largest statistically significant group, reported using the
aforementioned six factors of active learning almost regularly. These results supported
the facts found in the literature. The literature identified interdisciplinary thematic
teaching (Graffam, 2006; Peterman, 1990; Reis et al., 2004), inquiry (Beck, 2001; Van
Tassel-Baska, 2001), acceleration of content knowledge (Elliott, 2009; Gross & Van
Vliet, 2005; Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006; Reis et al., 2004), and performance
assessment (Beck, 2001; Castellano, 2004; Moon, 2002), movement (Ford et al., 2004),
inquiry (Lockwood, 1992), and problem-solving strategies (Smutny, 2001a; Treffinger &
Isaksen, 2005) as effective with gifted populations.
The learning skill of critical reading was related to creative thinking strategies and
linguistic and vocabulary development through the California Content Standards for
reading and writing, specifically reading 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 and writing 1.2 and 2.2. The

147

frequency of using critical reading exerted a strong effect on the learning of gifted 7
th

grade students in English classes. A majority of teachers, 85%, the largest statistically
significant group, used creative thinking strategies and linguistic and vocabulary
development in connection with critical reading almost regularly. The results were
aligned with the findings of the literature review. Wood (2008) identified the learning
skill of critical reading as providing a benefit to gifted learning. The literature identified
creative thinking strategies (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005) and linguistic and vocabulary
development (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996) as contributors to learning in the gifted.
The learning skill of expository writing was related to the instructional strategies
of creative thinking and linguistic and vocabulary development through the California
Content Standards for writing, specifically writing 1.0, students write clear, coherent, and
focused essays. The writing exhibits students' awareness of the audience and purpose.
Essays contain formal introductions, supporting evidence, and conclusions. Students
progress through the stages of the writing process as needed, writing 2.0, students write
narrative, expository, persuasive, and descriptive texts of at least 500 to 700 words in
each genre. The writing demonstrates a command of standard American English and the
research, organizational, and drafting strategies outlined in Writing Standard 1.0, writing
2.2, write responses to literature, and writing 2.3, write research reports. The frequency of
using expository writing exerted a strong effect on gifted students in 7
th
grade English
classes. A majority of survey respondents (75%), the largest statistically significant

148

group, used creative thinking strategies and linguistic and vocabulary development in the
context of expository writing almost regularly. These results were aligned with the
findings from the literature review. The literature identified expository writing (Van
Tassel-Baska et al., 1996), creative thinking strategies (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005), and
linguistic and vocabulary development (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996) as beneficial to
gifted student learning.
The learning skill of oral communication is related to the instructional strategies
of communalism and linguistic and vocabulary development through the California
Content Standards for listening and speaking and written and oral English language
conventions, specifically listening and speaking 1.0, deliver focused, coherent
presentations that convey ideas clearly and relate to the background and interests of the
audience. Students evaluate the content of oral communication, listening and speaking
1.4, organize information to achieve particular purposes and to appeal to the background
and interests of the audience, and listening and speaking 1.7, provide constructive
feedback to speakers concerning the coherence and logic of a speech's content and
delivery and its overall impact upon the listener, and written and oral English language
convention 1.0, students write and speak with a command of standard English
conventions appropriate to the grade level. This study found that the frequency of using
oral communication exerted a strong influence on 7
th
grade gifted student learning in
English classes. A majority of survey respondents (70%), the largest statistically

149

significant group, used communalism and linguistic and vocabulary development almost
regularly in the context of oral communication. These results were aligned with the
findings of the literature review. The literature review recognized oral communication
(Chaney, 1996; Van Tassel-Baska, 2003) and linguistic and vocabulary development as
effective strategies for use with gifted students. In addition the literature review identified
communalism as an effective strategy for learning in gifted African-American students
(Ford et al., 2004).
Discussion of Findings for Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked, “What effect does the utilization of instructional
strategies and skills have on the motivation of teachers of gifted students in 7
th
grade
English/language arts classes?” The learning skill of identifying similarities and
differences was related to the instructional strategies of thematic units of study and
thematic teaching by the California Content Reading Standard 3.0, literary response and
analysis. Problem-solving strategies were related to identifying similarities and
differences through California Content Standard Reading 1.0, word analysis, fluency, and
systematic vocabulary development. The responding teachers identified these skills and
strategies as exerting a strong influence on 7
th
grade gifted learning in English classes.
The majority of teachers (80%), the largest statistically significant group, were strongly
motivated to use interdisciplinary thematic instruction, thematic units of study and
problem-solving strategies in the context of identifying similarities and differences.

150

These findings were supported by the literature. Marzano et al. (2000) found that
identifying similarities and differences led to increased learning for all students. The
literature identified problem-solving (Smutny, 2001a; Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005),
thematic units of study and thematic teaching (Graffam, 2006; Peterman, 1990; Reis et
al., 2004) as techniques that contribute to gifted student learning.
The learning skill of summarizing was related to the instructional strategies of
lecture, homework, and linguistic and vocabulary development through the California
Content Standards for writing, listening, and speaking, specifically writing 1.3, use
strategies of note taking, outlining, and summarizing to impose structure on composition
drafts, writing 2.5, write summaries of reading materials, listening and speaking 1.0,
deliver focused, coherent presentations that convey ideas clearly and relate to the
background and interests of the audience. Students evaluate the content of oral
communication, listening and speaking 2.0, students deliver well-organized formal
presentations employing traditional rhetorical strategies (e.g., narration, exposition,
persuasion, description). Student speaking demonstrates a command of standard
American English and the organizational and delivery strategies outlined in Listening and
Speaking Standard 1.0, and listening and speaking 2.2, deliver oral summaries of articles
and books. The teachers identified these skills and strategies as exerting a strong
influence on 7
th
grade gifted learning in English classes. The majority of survey
respondents (90%), the largest statistically significant group, were strongly motivated to

151

use homework and linguistic and vocabulary development in the context of summarizing.
Most of the responding teachers (87.5%) were also strongly motivated to use lecture in
the context of summarizing. These findings were partially supported by the literature.
While most of the literature identified lecture (Beck, 2001; Coleman, 2006; Van-Tassel-
Baska, 1994) as contributing to the learning of gifted students, Corbett and Wilson (2002)
contended that lecture had the least effect on gifted students’ learning. However, the
literature did identify homework (Marzano et al., 2000) and linguistic and vocabulary
development (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996) as contributing to the learning of all
students.
The learning skill of note taking was related to the instructional strategies of
lecture and linguistic and vocabulary development through the California Content
Standards for writing and listening and speaking, specifically writing 1.3, use strategies
of note taking, outlining, and summarizing to impose structure on composition drafts,
writing 2.5, write summaries of reading materials, and listening and speaking 1.0, deliver
focused, coherent presentations that convey ideas clearly and relate to the background
and interests of the audience. Students evaluate the content of oral communication,
listening and speaking 1.4, organize information to achieve particular purposes and to
appeal to the background and interests of the audience, listening and speaking 1.5,
arrange supporting details, reasons, descriptions, and examples effectively and
persuasively in relation to the audience, listening and speaking 1.6, use speaking

152

techniques, including voice modulation, inflection, tempo, enunciation, and eye contact,
for effective presentations, listening and speaking 1.7, provide constructive feedback to
speakers concerning the coherence and logic of a speech's content and delivery and its
overall impact upon the listener, listening and speaking 2.0, students deliver well-
organized formal presentations employing traditional rhetorical strategies (e.g., narration,
exposition, persuasion, description). Student speaking demonstrates a command of
standard American English and the organizational and delivery strategies outlined in
Listening and Speaking Standard 1.0, and listening and speaking 2.2, deliver oral
summaries of articles and books. The responding teachers identified these skills and
strategies as exerting a strong influence on learning in gifted 7
th
grade English classes.
The majority of survey respondents (85%), the largest statistically significant group, were
motivated to use linguistic and vocabulary development in the context of note taking. A
large group of survey respondents 81.25% were motivated to use lecture in the context of
note taking. These results are largely in agreement with the literature. The majority of the
reviewed literature identified lecture as a contributor to learning (Beck, 2001; Coleman,
2006; Van-Tassel-Baska, 1994). The notable exception Corbett and Wilson’s (2002)
assertion that lecture had a negligible effect on gifted students. The literature identified
note taking (Marzano et al., 2000) and linguistic and vocabulary development (Van
Tassel-Baska et al., 1996) as contributing to learning in gifted students.

153

The motivation to use nonlinguistic representations was related to the
instructional strategy of providing reinforcement through the California Content
Standards for writing and listening and speaking, specifically writing 2.2, write responses
to literature, and listening and speaking 1.8, analyze the effect on the viewer of images,
text, and sound in electronic journalism; identify the techniques used to achieve the
effects in each instance studied. Teacher respondents did not feel these strategies and
skills contributed especially strongly to gifted student learning in 7
th
grade English
classes. A little more than half of survey respondents (57.88%), the largest statistically
significant group, were motivated to provide reinforcement for effort in the context of
nonlinguistic representations. The literature did not support this research finding.
Marzano et al. (2000) identified nonlinguistic representations and providing
reinforcement as contributors to all students’ learning.
The motivation to use the learning skill of goal setting was related to interest-
based student-selected activities and feedback by the California Content Standards for
writing and listening and speaking, specifically writing standards 1.0, students write
clear, coherent, and focused essays. The writing exhibits students' awareness of the
audience and purpose. Essays contain formal introductions, supporting evidence, and
conclusions. Students progress through the stages of the writing process as needed,
writing 1.4, identify topics; ask and evaluate questions; and develop ideas leading to
inquiry, investigation, and research, reading 1.0, word analysis, fluency, and systematic

154

vocabulary development, and listening and speaking 1.0, deliver focused, coherent
presentations that convey ideas clearly and relate to the background and interests of the
audience. Students evaluate the content of oral communication, listening and speaking
1.7, provide constructive feedback to speakers concerning the coherence and logic of a
speech's content and delivery and its overall impact upon the listener, and listening and
speaking 1.8, analyze the effect on the viewer of images, text, and sound in electronic
journalism; identify the techniques used to achieve the effects in each instance studied.
The responding teachers identified the skills and strategies as exerting a strong influence
on gifted 7
th
grade English classes. The majority of teachers, (85%), the largest
statistically significant group, were strongly motivated to use interest-based student-
selected activities and (85%) of teachers were motivated to use feedback of results to
students in the context of goal setting. This finding was supported by the literature.
Marzano et al.’s (2000) study stated that the use of goal setting and feedback contributed
to learning in gifted students. The literature review also found that interest-based student-
selected activities (Neumeister & Finch, 2006; Peterman, 1990; Renzulli, 1992; Swanson,
2006) contributed to gifted student learning.
The motivation to use generating and testing hypotheses (Marzano et al., 2000)
was related to cooperative learning and creative thinking strategies through the
California Content Standards for writing, specifically writing 1.6, create documents by
using word-processing skills and publishing programs; develop simple databases and

155

spreadsheets to manage information and prepare reports, writing 1.7, revise writing to
improve organization and word choice after checking the logic of the ideas and the
precision of the vocabulary, writing 2.1, write fictional or autobiographical narratives,
writing 2.2, write responses to literature, and writing 2.3, write research reports. Teachers
indicated they felt cooperative learning in the context of generating and testing
hypotheses made an impact on gifted student learning in 7
th
grade English classes. 68.4%,
the largest statistically significant group, of survey respondents were motivated to use
cooperative learning in the context of generating and testing hypotheses, a moderately
strong level of motivation. Similarly, an almost equal group (68.78%) indicated that they
were motivated to use creative thinking strategies in the context of generating and testing
hypotheses. The literature agreed with the research as teachers indicated that cooperative
learning in the context of generating and testing hypotheses was an effective strategy for
gifted learners. Marzano et al.’s (2000) study identified the use of generating and testing
hypotheses as contributing to the learning of all students.
The motivation to use the learning skill of active learning was related to the
instructional strategies of interdisciplinary thematic teaching, open-ended inquiry,
acceleration, performance assessment, movement/hands on learning, structured inquiry,
and problem-solving strategies through the California Content Standards for reading,
writing and listening and speaking, specifically reading 3.0, literary response and
analysis, writing 1.0, students write clear, coherent, and focused essays. The writing

156

exhibits students' awareness of the audience and purpose. Essays contain formal
introductions, supporting evidence, and conclusions. Students progress through the stages
of the writing process as needed, writing 1.4, identify topics; ask and evaluate questions;
and develop ideas leading to inquiry, investigation, and research, writing 1.6, create
documents by using word-processing skills and publishing programs; develop simple
databases and spreadsheets to manage information and prepare reports, and writing 2.0,
students write narrative, expository, persuasive, and descriptive texts of at least 500 to
700 words in each genre. The writing demonstrates a command of standard American
English and the research, organizational, and drafting strategies outlined in Writing
Standard 1.0, and listening and speaking 2.0, students deliver well-organized formal
presentations employing traditional rhetorical strategies (e.g., narration, exposition,
persuasion, description). Student speaking demonstrates a command of standard
American English and the organizational and delivery strategies outlined in Listening and
Speaking Standard 1.0. The responding teachers identified the skills and strategies as
exerting a strong influence on learning in 7
th
grade gifted English classes. The majority of
survey respondents (95%), the largest statistically significant group, were strongly
motivated to use interdisciplinary thematic instruction, open-ended inquiry, acceleration
of content knowledge, performance assessment, movement, structured-inquiry and
problem-solving in the context of active learning. The research findings were supported
by the literature. The literature identified interdisciplinary thematic teaching (Graffam,

157

2006; Peterman, 1990, Reis et al., 2004), open-ended inquiry (Beck, 2001; Van Tassel-
Baska, 2001), acceleration (Elliott, 2009; Gross & Van Vliet, 2005; Lee & Olszewski-
Kubilius, 2006; Reis et al., 2004), performance assessment (Beck, 2001; Castellano,
2004; Moon, 2002), movement/hands on learning (Ford et al., 2004), structured inquiry
(Lockwood, 1992) and problem-solving strategies (Smutny, 2001a; Treffinger & Isaksen,
2005) as effective in contributing to the learning of gifted students in the context of active
learning (Ares & Gorrell 2002; Hishinuma & Nishimura, 2000).
The motivation to use the learning skill of critical reading was related to the
instructional strategies of creative thinking strategies and linguistic and vocabulary
development through the California Content Standards for writing and reading,
specifically writing 1.2, support all statements and claims with anecdotes, descriptions,
facts and statistics, and specific examples, and writing 2.2, write responses to literature,
and reading 1.0, word analysis, fluency, and systematic vocabulary development, reading
2.0, students read and understand grade-level-appropriate material, and reading 3.0. One
hundred percent of teacher respondents were strongly motivated to use creative thinking
strategies and linguistic and vocabulary development in the context of critical reading.
The responding teachers identified the skills and strategies as exerting a strong influence
on gifted student learning in 7
th
grade English classes. The findings were supported by
the literature. Critical reading (Reis et al., 2004; Wood, 2008), creative thinking strategies
(Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005), and linguistic and vocabulary development (Van Tassel-

158

Baska et al., 1996) were identified in the literature as strategies that contribute to gifted
student learning.
The motivation to use the learning skill of expository writing was related to the
instructional strategies of creative thinking strategies and linguistic and vocabulary
development through the California Content Standards for writing 1.0, students write
clear, coherent, and focused essays. The writing exhibits students' awareness of the
audience and purpose. Essays contain formal introductions, supporting evidence, and
conclusions. Students progress through the stages of the writing process as needed,
writing 2.0, students write narrative, expository, persuasive, and descriptive texts of at
least 500 to 700 words in each genre. The writing demonstrates a command of standard
American English and the research, organizational, and drafting strategies outlined in
Writing Standard 1.0, writing 2.2, write responses to literature, and writing 2.3, write
research reports. All of the survey respondents (100%) were strongly motivated to use
creative thinking strategies and linguistic and vocabulary development in the context of
expository writing. Teachers identified these strategies and skills as contributing to the
learning of gifted 7
th
grade English students. This finding was supported by the literature.
Van Tassel-Baska et al. (1996) claimed that the use of expository writing contributed to
gifted student learning. Creative thinking strategies (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005) and
linguistic and vocabulary development (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996) were also
identified as contributing to gifted student learning.

159

The motivation to use the learning skill of oral communication was related to the
instructional strategies of communalism and linguistic and vocabulary development
through the California Content Standards for listening and speaking and written and oral
language conventions, specifically listening and speaking 1.0, deliver focused, coherent
presentations that convey ideas clearly and relate to the background and interests of the
audience. Students evaluate the content of oral communication, listening and speaking
1.4, organize information to achieve particular purposes and to appeal to the background
and interests of the audience, listening and speaking 1.7, provide constructive feedback to
speakers concerning the coherence and logic of a speech's content and delivery and its
overall impact upon the listener, and written and oral language conventions 1.0, students
write and speak with a command of standard English conventions appropriate to the
grade level. The majority of survey respondents (85%) were motivated to use
communalism and linguistic and vocabulary development in the context of oral
communication. Teachers identified these strategies and skills as contributing to the
learning of gifted 7
th
grade English students. This finding was supported by the literature.
Oral communication (Chaney, 1996; Van Tassel-Baska, 2003), communalism (Ford et
al., 2004), and linguistic and vocabulary development (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996)
were identified in the literature as contributing to the learning of gifted students.

160

Discussion of Findings for Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked, “What is the effect of where the teacher learned these
instructional strategies and skills (location, i.e. pre-service, in-service, staff development,
or university coursework) on gifted students’ learning in 7
th
grade English/language arts
classes?” Teachers reported learning the various instructional strategies from a variety of
venues. Teachers most often indicated they learned strategies attending gifted
conferences, in university coursework and through personal observation and experience.
However, the findings indicated that the location where teachers discovered an
instructional strategy was not clearly related to gifted student learning. Therefore,
additional information is required regarding the effect of where a teacher learned a
strategy on gifted student learning.
Forty percent of respondents, the largest statistically significant group, indicated
that they learned interdisciplinary thematic teaching through observation and experience,
and 30% of respondents indicated university coursework was the venue for learning. The
other 30% were spread across the other choices. The literature did not specifically
address the relationship between students’ learning and where teachers learned this
strategy, however the literature did confirm this strategy’s effectiveness with gifted
populations (Graffam, 2006; Peterman, 1990; Reis et al., 2004).
Thirty percent of respondents reported learning interest-based student-selected
activities through observation and experience, and another 30% of teachers identified

161

gifted conferences as the venue for learning. The other 40% of responses were spread out
among other choices. The literature did not address the effect of location on student
learning, however the literature did confirm this strategy’s efficacy with gifted students
(Neumeister & Finch, 2006; Peterman, 1990; Renzulli, 1992; Swanson, 2006).
Thirty-five percent of respondents, the largest statistically significant group,
stated that they learned thematic units of study in university coursework, and another
30% of teachers identified gifted conferences as the venue for learning. The remaining
35% of responses were spread across various survey choices. The literature did not
specify the effect of location on student learning, however the literature did indicate that
this strategy is effective with gifted students (Graffam, 2006; Peterman, 1990; Reis et al.,
2004).
Forty percent of respondents (the largest statistically significant group) reported
learning open-ended inquiry in professional development; the next largest statistically
significant group was 20% of teachers, who indicated that they learned this strategy
through personal observation and experience. The literature did not specifically describe
a relationship between where teachers learned a strategy and its effect on gifted student
learning, however the literature did identify open-ended inquiry as an effective
instructional strategy for gifted learners (Beck, 2001; Van Tassel-Baska, 2001).
Forty percent of responding teachers, the largest statistically significant group,
reported learning the instructional strategy of providing reinforcement through

162

observation and experience, and 30% of respondents indicated they learned this strategy
in university coursework. The remaining 30% of responses were distributed across the
range of choices. The literature did not address the relationship between where teachers
learned a strategy and its effect on student learning, but the literature did identify
reinforcement as a strategy that is effective for all student populations (Marzano et al.,
2000).
26.31% of responding teachers, the largest statistically significant group, reported
learning cooperative learning through university coursework; another 15.78% identified
professional development as the venue for learning, and the other 57.91% of responding
teachers cited various locations where they learned this strategy. The literature did not
specify the effect of location on student learning, however the literature did indicate that
this strategy is effective with gifted students (Beck, 2001; Cox et al., 1985; Kulik &
Kulik, 1992; Schatz, 1990; Van Tassel-Baska, 2006b).
Thirty percent of respondents, the largest statistically significant group, reported
learning acceleration of content knowledge through observation and experience, another
25% identified gifted conferences as the learning venue, and another 20% identified
professional development as the learning venue. The other 25% of responses were
dispersed across the other choices. The literature did not address the relationship between
where teachers learned a strategy and its effect on student learning, but the literature did
identify acceleration of content knowledge as a strategy that is effective for gifted

163

students (Elliott, 2009; Gross & Van Vliet, 2005; Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006; Reis
et al., 2004).
Forty percent of respondents, the largest statistically significant group, indicated
that they learned the instructional strategy of feedback through observation and
experience, and another 35% identified university coursework as the venue for learning.
The remaining 25% of responses were spread across the remaining choices. The literature
did not specifically address the relationship between where a teacher learned this strategy
and its effect on student learning, but the literature did identify this strategy as effective
with all learners (Marzano et al., 2000).
Forty percent of the teachers surveyed, the largest statistically significant group,
indicated that they learned the instructional strategy of performance assessment in
professional development, another 25% of teacher respondents identified university
coursework as the learning venue, and an additional 20% of teachers learned the strategy
through observation and experience. The remaining 15% of responses were dispersed
across the other survey options. The literature did not address the relationship between
where a teacher learned this strategy and student learning, but the literature did identify
performance assessment as a strategy that is effective for gifted student populations
(Beck, 2001; Castellano, 2004; Moon, 2002).
Teacher respondents reported learning movement (learning by doing physical or
mental activity and hands on learning) in a variety of venues that were all almost equally

164

represented. Of the teacher respondents, 25%, the largest statistically significant group,
identified gifted conferences as the venue for learning, 20% stated they learned the
strategy in university coursework, 20% recognized professional development as the
learning arena, and 20% reported learning the strategy through observation and
experience. The additional 15% of responses were distributed across various survey
options. The literature did not discuss the relationship between where teachers learned
this strategy and student learning, but the literature did identify movement as an effective
strategy for gifted learners (Ford et al., 2004).
Fifty percent of survey takers, the largest statistically significant group, reported
learning the instructional strategy of harmony (helping students feel welcome in the
learning environment) through observation and experience, and 25% of teachers
indicated they learned this strategy through university coursework. The remaining 25% of
responses were dispersed across the other survey choices. The literature did not
specifically address the relationship between where a teacher learned this strategy and its
effect on student learning, but the literature did identify this strategy as effective with
gifted students (Ford et al., 2004).
Thirty percent of survey respondents, the largest statistically significant group,
reported learning communalism (non-competitive cooperative learning) through
observation and experience, 20% of teachers identified gifted conferences as the learning
venue, and another 20% of teachers indicated they learned the strategy in professional

165

development. The remaining 30% of responses were distributed across the remaining
survey choices. The literature did not specify the effect of location on student learning,
however the literature did indicate that this strategy is effective with gifted students (Ford
et al., 2004).
Forty percent of survey respondents, the largest statistically significant group,
reported learning the instructional strategy of lecture through university coursework, and
35% of teachers identified personal observation and experience as the venue for learning.
The remaining 25% of responses were distributed across the other survey choices.
Although the literature did not specifically discuss the relationship between where a
teacher learned this strategy and student learning, several sources in the literature
identified lecture as an effective strategy for use with gifted students (Beck, 2001;
Coleman, 2006; Van-Tassel-Baska, 1994).
Thirty percent of teacher respondents, the largest statistically significant group,
reported that they learned the instructional strategy of structured inquiry (also known as
teacher directed inquiry) through observation and experience, 25% indicated they learned
the strategy through university coursework, and another 25% indicated they learned the
strategy through professional development. The other 20% of responses were spread
across the remaining survey choices. The literature did not specify the effect of location
on student learning, however the literature did indicate that structured inquiry is effective
with gifted students (Lockwood, 1992).

166

Fifty percent of responding teachers, the largest statistically significant group,
reported learning the instructional strategy of linguistic and vocabulary development
through observation and experience, and another 25% of teachers learned this strategy
through university coursework. The other 25% of responses were distributed across the
remaining survey choices. The literature did not address the effect of location on student
learning, however the literature did confirm the efficacy of linguistic and vocabulary
development with gifted students (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1996).
Forty percent of the surveyed teachers, the largest statistically significant group,
reported learning creative thinking strategies through personal observation and
experience, and 20% of respondents reportedly learned the strategy through gifted
conferences. The remaining 40% of responses were spread across the survey choices. The
literature did not specify the effect of location on student learning, however the literature
did indicate that this strategy was effective with gifted students (Treffinger & Isaksen,
2005).
Forty-five percent, the largest statistically significant group, of teachers reported
learning problem-solving strategies through observation and experience, 25% learned
problem-solving strategies through professional development, and 20% learned problem-
solving strategies through university coursework. The other 15% of responses were
distributed across the remaining survey responses. The literature did not specify the effect

167

of location on student learning, however the literature did indicate that problem-solving
strategies are effective with gifted students (Smutny, 2001a; Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005).
Sixty-five percent of the research sample, the largest statistically significant
group, reported learning the instructional strategy of homework through observation and
experience, 15% learned the strategy through university coursework, and another 15%
learned the strategy through professional development. The remaining 5% of responses
were distributed across the survey options. The literature did not specify the effect of
location on student learning, however the literature did indicate that homework is an
effective strategy for all students (Marzano et al., 2000).
Implications of Findings
The research findings provided implications for three major areas. The first area is
drawn from research question 1 regarding the effect of frequency of a strategy’s use on
teachers’ perceptions of gifted learning. Teacher perceptions of the use of the following
strategies did not appear to affect student learning: identifying similarities and
differences, nonlinguistic representations and generating and testing hypotheses.
Therefore, additional teacher education efforts are needed to avoid having gifted students
use these strategies. While Marzano et al. (2000) assert that the skills are effective with
all populations when used frequently, the research did not support this conclusion.
The research findings supported the frequency of use of summarizing (Marzano et
al., 2000) as contributing to gifted student learning in 7
th
grade gifted English classes.

168

Similarly, the contribution to gifted student learning of the skill of note taking (Marzano
et al., 2000) was dependent upon use. The skills of goal setting (Marzano et al., 2000)
and active learning (Ares & Gorrell, 2002; Hishinuma & Nishimura, 2000) were also
identified as contributors to gifted student learning when used frequently. The findings
reflected critical reading (Wood, 2008), expository writing (Van Tassel-Baska et al.,
1996) and oral communication (Chaney, 1996; Van Tassel-Baska, 2003) were perceived
as contributing to gifted student learning when used frequently. As a result,
administrators and education professionals should build teachers’ awareness about the
efficacy of these skills for gifted populations and encourage them to use these skills more
often.
The second area of implications are related to research question 2 regarding
motivation. Teachers overwhelmingly indicated that they were motivated to utilize the
majority of strategies and skills because the teachers perceived these skills and strategies
benefited the gifted. The university community should consider making sure teachers
become aware of the strategies and skills as a part of teacher education efforts. University
teacher education programs should feature an in depth training regarding effective
strategies and skills for teaching gifted and general education students. This will prepare
gifted students to compete in the global arena.
Currently, the majority of teacher education efforts are focused on remediation
(Stephens, 2007). There are few teacher education efforts centered on gifted issues due to

169

the cyclical nature of interest in gifted education. Based on the findings it is evident that
most teachers feel what little they have been able to learn about educating gifted students
has been done through personal observation and experience. Every district and state
should develop mechanisms to empower teachers to learn the various instructional
strategies that are in place in the modern gifted educational milieu. Districts, states and
universities should form an unprecedented partnership to address the differential needs of
the gifted learner. This country can no longer afford to place inexperienced and ill-trained
teachers with gifted classes and hope that through personal observation and experience
they will glean the techniques they need to become successful teachers of the gifted. This
hit and miss approach allows the possibility that the education community will not be
effective in helping gifted students realize their potential.
The research findings regarding teachers’ perceptions of various skills and
strategies’ contributions to learning have important implications for school
administrators. The educational community needs to have strict institutional regulation of
the prerequisites that allow assignment to the gifted classroom. There are loosely knit
groups of policies that govern the assignment of teachers to these classes that vary from
state to state (Karnes & Whorton, 1991); these policies need to be refocused on
instructional strategies and learning skills by having teachers demonstrate competence
prior to assignment. The problem of teacher assignment is further exacerbated by a

170

general lack of understanding by school principals that may have never been taught any
strategies or skills that would benefit gifted students.
The university community must take a role in demanding that teacher candidates
are well-versed in the instructional strategies required to effectively educate gifted
students. Just as there is little standardization in districts that serve gifted students, the
same lack of standardization exists in colleges and universities that prepare potential
teachers to provide instruction for all populations. Universities need to collaborate with
school districts to provide frequent, high quality learning experiences for all teachers.
University coursework, university-led gifted conferences, and university-designed
professional development need to become the sole venue for acquiring certification to
teach the gifted and acquiring effective instructional strategies for use with gifted
students.
The third area of implications is related to research question 3 regarding the
relationship between student learning and the location where teachers learned different
instructional strategies and learning skills. The findings implied the first area of need was
for employing agencies to address pre- and in-service on the job learning for teachers.
Addressing pre- and in-service on the job learning for teachers is problematic because the
Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Act of 1988 called for special programs but
did not delineate any specific requirements on the federal or state levels (U.S.

171

Department of Education, 2008). Since federal law leaves the details to individual states,
each state has a slightly different policy (Karnes & Whorton, 1991).
Teachers need to be presented with effective strategies for the education of gifted
students. This need is exacerbated by the lack of standardization across districts for
educating the gifted. As the majority of teachers in the study were only required to gain a
superficial understanding of the four modes of differentiation (acceleration, complexity,
novelty and depth), the findings regarding research question 3 point to the need for
school districts to provide intensive training and require the demonstration of competence
in effective instructional strategies and learning skills for gifted students. In one of the
largest urban school districts in the country, the Las Altos Unified School District,
teachers become qualified to instruct gifted students by attending 16 hours of professional
development for the “experienced teacher” of gifted students and 32 hours for the
“novice” teacher of gifted students (LAUSD, 2008). Other districts across the country
require only 6-12 hours of preparation. Although the state of Louisiana requires a
master’s degree, most other states require teachers of gifted students to earn only a
bachelor’s degree (Karnes & Whorton, 1991).
This lack of policy standardization reflects on the policies of state credentialing
agencies, with which teachers must comply to become and remain certified to teach
gifted students. Less than one half of all states have any requirements for certification to
teach gifted students (Karnes & Whorton, 1991). Due to the differential certification

172

options from state to state, there is a need for a prescribed standardized course of study at
the university level. Although the research indicated that the location where a teacher
learned an instructional strategy or learning skill did not exert a strong influence on
student learning, the results indicated that most teachers learned the strategies and skills
through on-the-job personal observation and experience. The research should inform
higher educational practice, since aspiring teachers of the gifted need to become
immersed in research-based effective instructional strategies and learning skills for gifted
students.
Recommendations for Future Study
In the future, there needs to be an effort and funding to expand this study to be
more inclusive of the nations’ schools, especially suburban and rural school districts,
since the current study only examines schools in or adjacent to major metropolitan areas.
Therefore it is not possible to reliably predict what effect these strategies and skills would
have on students with different characteristics. This study, performed on a national level,
might begin to bring attention to the issues surround the lack of coherent staff
development for teachers of gifted students. Future research of this kind should also
examine the preparation of the teacher to teach gifted students. An examination of teacher
preparation might also expose the fact that union contracts and human perceptions play a
part in the assignment of teachers to gifted students.

173

Legislators need to be made aware of the vast potential of the gifted; they also
need to know that the strength of the U.S. teaching force determines the realization of
potential in gifted students. Standardization of instructional strategies and skills for the
gifted would allow teachers to effectively educate all gifted students. Standardization of
instructional strategies and skills would also allow principals to effectively evaluate
teachers for assignment to gifted classes.
Another area for future study is to determine the linkage between teacher training
programs and effectiveness in teaching gifted students. If a researcher can determine a
causal relationship between university coursework or on the job training and student
learning, then public dollars might be more effectively spent. In terms of future study,
U.S. citizens need to know what legislators know about the education of the gifted. The
education community needs to provide information to government officials regarding the
needs of gifted students. This is vital information as concerned citizens attempt to
pressure governmental agencies to help in the process of improving educational
opportunities for gifted students. Dollars are never far from the political process,
therefore responsible citizens must make sure their representatives are knowledgeable
regarding gifted student needs and teacher accountability.
In conclusion, combining all responses for strategies and skills, 89.2% of teacher
respondents indicated their perception that their frequent use of instructional strategies
and learning skills contributed to learning at least most of the time. The location where

174

teachers discovered an instructional strategy or learning skill did not weigh as heavily on
gifted student learning as the teachers’ perception of the strategy/skill’s contribution to
learning. This is significant because teachers believe these strategies and skills work for
the benefit of students and therefore they are much more likely to employ them in their
classrooms. Due to the diversity of the sampled teachers, the use of the strategies and
skills were most likely representative of what gifted students in 7
th
grade English classes
are experiencing in the region in and around the suburbs and city of Los Angeles.

175

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Access Center. (2009). Archive for the “Instructional Strategies” category.
Retrieved from http://www.k8accesscenter.org/index.php/category/teaching-
learning/instructional-strategies/

Adams-Byers, J., Squiller, S., & Moon, S. (2004). Gifted student’s perception of the
academic and social/emotional effects of homogeneous and heterogeneous
grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 7-20.

Allan, S. (1991). Ability grouping research reviews: What do they really say to the
practitioner? Educational Leadership, 48(6), 60-65.

Albert, R. (1978). Observations and comments regarding giftedness, familial
influence and the achievement of eminence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22,
201-211.

Ares, N., & Gorrell, J. (2002). Middle school students’ understanding of meaningful
learning and engaging classroom activities. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 16(12), 263-278.

Beck, C. (2001). Matching teaching strategies to learning style preferences.
The Teacher Educator, 37(1), 1-15.

Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York:
Teachers College Press.

California Department of Education. (2006a). Academic Performance Index:
Standardized testing and reporting. Retrieved from
http://api.cde.ca.gov/APIBase2006/2005BaseSch.aspx?allcds

California Department of Education. (2006b). Adequate Yearly Progress. Retrieved
from
http://ayp.cde.ca.gov/reports/page2.asp?subject=AYP&level=school&submit1=su
bmit

Carnegie Task Force on the Education of Young Adolescents. (1989). Turning points:
Preparing American youth for the 21
st
century. Washington, DC: Carnegie
Council on Adolescent Development.

176

Castellano, J. (2004). Empowering and serving Hispanic students in gifted education.
In D. Boothe & J. Stanley (Eds.), In the eyes of the beholder: Critical Issues
for Diversity in Gifted Education (pp. 1-14). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Chan, D. (2005). Family environment and talent development of Chinese gifted
students in Hong Kong. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(3), 211-221.

Chaney, A. (1996). Oral communication thinking in action. In J. Van Tassel-Baska,
D. Johnson, & L. N. Boyce (Eds.), Developing verbal talent (pp. 335-349).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.) (2004). A nation deceived:
How schools hold back America’s brightest students: The Templeton National
Report on Acceleration. Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N.
Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Coleman, L. (2006). A report card on the state of research on the talented and gifted.
The Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(4), 346-350.

Coleman, M., & Gallagher, J. (1992a). Middle school survey report: Impact
on gifted students. Chapel Hill, NC: Gifted Education Policy Studies Program.

Coleman, M., & Gallagher, J. (1992b). Report on state policies related to the
identification of gifted students. Chapel Hill, NC: Gifted Education Policy
Studies Program.

Corbett, D., & Wilson, B. (2002). What urban students say about good teaching.
Educational Leadership Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, 60(1), 18-22.

Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. O. (1985). Educating able learners: Programs
and promising practices. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Daniel, C., & Kirshon, J. (Eds.) (1999). Millennium: Twentieth century day by day.
New York: Dorling Kindersley Limited DK Publishing, Inc.

Daugherty, M., & White, C. (2008). Relationships among private speech and
creativity in head start and low-socioeconomic status preschool children.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(1), 30-39.

177

Elliott, J. (2009). Assessing and identifying students for gifted and talented
programs. Los Angeles Unified School District Bulletin 269.7 Office of
Curriculum Instruction and School Support.

Elmore, R., & Zenus, V. (1994). Enhancing social-emotional development of
middle school gifted students. Roeper Review, 16(3), 182-185.

Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T., & Milner, R. (2004). Underachievement among gifted
African American Students: Cultural, social and psychological considerations.
In D. Boothe, & J. Stanley (Eds.), In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues
for diversity in gifted education (pp. 15-32). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Gallagher, J. J. (1979). Issues in education for the gifted. In A.H. Passow (Ed.), The
gifted and the talented: Their education and development (pp. 28-44).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gallagher, J. J. (1995). Education of gifted students: A civil rights issue? Phi Delta
Kappan, 76(5), 408-410.

Garofalo, J., & Lester Jr., F. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and
mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
16(3), 163-176.

Geake, J., & Gross, M. (2008). Teacher’s negative affect toward academically gifted
students: An evolutionary psychological study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3),
217-231.

Gentry, M., & Neu, T. (1998). Project High Hopes summer institute: Curriculum for
developing talent in students with special needs. Roeper Review, 20(4),
291-95.

Gowan, J. (1955). The underachieving child: A problem for everyone. Exceptional
Children, 21, 247-249, 270-271.

Graffam, B. (2006). A case study of teachers of gifted learners: Moving from
prescribed practice to described practitioners. The Gifted Child Quarterly,
50(2), 119-131.

178

Gross, M. (2006). Exceptionally gifted children: Long-term outcomes of academic
acceleration and nonacceleration. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
29(4), 404-429.

Gross, M., & van Vliet, H. (2005). Radical acceleration and early entry to college:
A review of the research. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(2), 154-171.

Hertzberg-Davis, H., & Callahan, C. (2008). A narrow escape gifted students’
perception of advanced placement and international baccalaureate programs.
The Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3), 199-216.

Hertzog, N. (2005). Equity and access: Creating general education classrooms
responsive to potential giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
29(2), 213-257.

Hishinuma, E., & Nishimura, S. (2000). Parent attitudes on the importance and
success of integrated self-contained services for students who are gifted,
learning disabled, and gifted/learning disabled. Roeper Review, 22(4),
241-250.

Hodge, K., & Kemp, C. (2006). Recognition of giftedness in the early years of
school: Perspectives of teachers, parents, and children. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 164-204.

Hong, E., Greene, M., & Higgins, K. (2006). Instructional practices of teachers
in general education classrooms and gifted resource rooms: Development
and validation of the instructional practice questionnaire. The Gifted Child
Quarterly, 50(2), 91-103.

Karnes, F., & Whorton, J. (1991). Teacher certification and endorsement in
gifted education: Past, present, and future. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35,
148-150.

Kitano, M. & Lewis, R. (2007). Examining the relationship between reading
achievement and tutoring duration and content for gifted culturally and
linguistically diverse students from low-income backgrounds. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 30(3), 295-325.

179

Konstantopoulos, S., Modi, M., & Hedges, L. (2001). Who are America’s gifted?
American Journal of Education, 109(3), 344-382.

Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73-77.

Lee, S., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2006). A study of instructional methods used
in fast-paced classes. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(3), 216-237.

Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., Faller, S., & Kelley, J. (2010). The effectiveness and ease
of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically
diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading Research Quarterly,
45(2), 196-228.

Little, C., Feng, A., Van Tassel-Baska, J., Rogers, K., & Avery, L. (2007). A study
of curriculum effectiveness in social studies. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3),
272-284.

Lockwood, A. (1992). The de facto curriculum? Focus in Change, 6, 8-11.

Lolly, J., & Kettler, T. (2008). Gifted education research 1994-2003: A
disconnect between priorities and practice. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 31(4), 427-446.

Los Angeles Unified School District. (2006a). White Middle School Accountability
Report Card. Retrieved from http://search.lausd.k12.ca.us/cgi-
bin/fccgi.exe?w3exec=sarc4&which=8487

Los Angeles Unified School District. (2006b). Assessing and identifying students
for gifted/talented programs. BUL-269.3. Office of Student Integration
Services.

Los Angeles Unified School District. (2008). Schools for Advanced Studies
demonstration sites plan, 2008-2009. Retrieved from
http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/ptl_apps.nbk_doc_info.docinfo?p_type
=D&p_doc_id=1016151

Manning, S. (2006). Recognizing gifted students: A practical guide for teachers.
Kappa Delta Phi Record, 42(2), 64-68.

180

Marzano, R., Gaddy, B., & Dean, C. (2000). What works in classroom instruction.
Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Mattai, P., Wagle, J., & Williams, J. (2010). An often-neglected issue in
consideration of gifted African American millennial students: Implications
for school planning and policy. Gifted Child Today, 32(2), 26-31.

McCoach, D., & Siegle, D. (2007). What predicts teachers' attitudes toward
the gifted? The Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246-254.

Miller, E. (2009). The effect of training in gifted education on elementary classroom
teachers’ theory-based reasoning about the concept of giftedness. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 33(1), 65-105.

Moon, T. R. (2002). Using performance assessments in the social studies
classroom. Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 53-58.

Morrissey, A., & Brown, P. (2009). Mother and toddler activity in the zone of
proximal development for pretend play as a predictor of higher child IQ.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 106-120.

Muratori, M., Colangelo, N., & Assouline, S. (2003). Early-entrance students:
Impressions of their first semester of college. Gifted Child Quarterly,
47(3), 219-238.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk.
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

Neihart, M. (2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability
grouping: Recommendations for best practice. Gifted Child Quarterly,
51(4), 330-341.

Neumeister, K., Adams, C., Pierce, R., Cassady, J., & Dixon, F. (2007). Fourth-
grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: implications for identifying and
serving gifted diverse populations. Journal for the education of the gifted,
30(4), 479-499.

181

Neumeister, K., & Finch, H. (2006). Perfectionism in high-ability students:
Relational precursors and influences on achievement motivation. The
Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(3), 238-251.

Patrick, H., Jeon, K., & Townsend, M. (2005). Reconsidering the issue of
cooperative learning with gifted students. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 29(1), 90-108.

Peterman, F. P. (1990). Successful middle level schools and the development of
programs for the gifted. NASSP Bulletin, 74(526), 62-65.

Plucker, J., & McIntire, J. (1996). Academic survivability in high potential middle
school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(1), 7-14.

Rayneri, L., Gerber, B., & Wiley, L. (2006). The relationship between classroom
environment and the learning style preferences of gifted middle school
students and the impact on levels of performance. The Gifted Child
Quarterly, 50, 104-118.

Reed, C. (2007). We can identify and serve ESOL GATE students: A case study.
Gifted Child Today, 30(2),16-22.

Reis, S., Colbert, R., & Hébert, T. (2005). Understanding resilience in diverse,
talented students in an urban high school. Roeper Review, 27(2), 110-120.

Reis, S., Gubbins, E., Briggs, C., Schreiber, F., Richards, S., Jacobs, J. K., Eckert,
R. D., & Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Reading instruction for talented readers:
Case studies documenting few opportunities for continuous progress. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 48(4), 315-338.

Renzulli, J. (1992). A general theory for the development of creative productivity
through the pursuit of ideal acts of learning. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4),
170-182.

Riley, T. (1999). A glance back before a glimpse ahead: 10 events of the past that
might just shape the future! Gifted Child Today, 22(6), 48-52.

Rogers, K. (1998). Using current research to make “good” decisions about
grouping. NASSP Bulletin, 82(595), 38-46.

182

Rogers, K. (2007). Lessons learned about educating gifted and talented: A
synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly,
51(4), 382-396

Ross, P. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Government Printing
Office. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_
01/0000019b/80/13/fc/51.pdf

Schatz, E. (1990). Ability grouping for gifted learners as it relates to school
reform and restructuring. Madison, WI: State Department of Education.
(Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED327047)

School Accountability Report Card. (2006a). ABC School Accountability Report
Card. Retrieved from
http://www.abcusd.k12.ca.us/departments/academic_services/
spec_programs/srcards/?rn=6476085

School Accountability Report Card. (2006b). Bunche School Accountability
Report Card. Retrieved from
http://www.compton.k12.ca.us/www/SchoolOps/Documents/
2006/English/Bunche_MS.pdf

School Accountability Report Card. (2006c). Carnegie School Accountability
Report Card. Retrieved from http://search.lausd.k12.ca.us/cgi-
bin/fccgi.exe?w3exec=sarcx4&which=8090

School Accountability Report Card. (2006d). Chavez School Accountability
Report Card. Retrieved from http://lynwood.schoolwisepress.com/home/
site.aspx?entity=15663&year=2007&locale=en-US

School Accountability Report Card. (2006e). Culver City School Accountability
Report Card. Retrieved from http://ccms.ccusd.org/apps/pages/
index.jsp?uREC_ID=44415&type=d&rn=8714483

School Accountability Report Card. (2006f). Dodson School Accountability
Report Card. Retrieved from http://search.lausd.k12.ca.us/cgi-
bin/fccgi.exe?w3exec=sarcx4&which=8110

183

School Accountability Report Card. (2006g). Irving School Accountability
Report Card. Retrieved from http://search.lausd.k12.ca.us/cgi-
bin/fccgi.exe?w3exec=sarcx4&which=8189

School Accountability Report Card. (2006h). Lynwood School Accountability
Report Card. Retrieved from http://lynwood.schoolwisepress.com/home/
site.aspx?entity=17528&year=2007&locale=en-US

School Accountability Report Card. (2006i). Hosler School Accountability
Report Card. Retrieved from http://lynwood.schoolwisepress.com/home/
site.aspx?entity=17527&year=2007&locale=en-US

School Accountability Report Card. (2006j). Whaley School Accountability
Report Card. Retrieved from http://www.compton.k12.ca.us/www/
SchoolOps/ Documents/2006/English/Whaley_MS.pdf

School Accountability Report Card. (2006k). Wilmington School Accountability
Report Card. Retrieved from http://search.lausd.k12.ca.us/cgi-
bin/fccgi.exe?w3exec=sarcx4&which=8490

Schapiro, M., Schneider, B., Shore, B., Margison, J., & Udvari, S. (2009).
Competitive goal orientations, quality, and stability in gifted and other
adolescents’ friendships: A test of Sullivan’s Theory about the harm
caused by rivalry. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 71-88.

Schullery, N., & Schullery, S. (2006). Heterogeneous or homogeneous groups more
beneficial to students? Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 542-556.

Shaunessy, E., & Page, C. (2006). Promoting inquiry in the gifted classroom through
GPS and GIS technologies. The Gifted Child Today, 29(4), 42-53

Sicola, P. K. (1990). Where do gifted students fit? An examination of middle school
philosophy as it relates to ability grouping and the gifted learner. Journal for
the Education of the Gifted, 14(3), 37-49.

Siegle, D., & Powell, T. (2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students
for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 21-29.

184

Smutny, J. F. (2001a). Creative strategies for teaching language arts to gifted
students (K-8). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data
/ericdocs2sql/ content_storage_01/0000019b/80/19/23/fc.pdf

Smutny, J. F. (2001b). Meeting the needs of gifted underachievers – individually!
Parenting tips. Gifted Education Communicator, 32(3), 1-4.

Stephens, K. R. (2007). Training highly qualified teachers. Duke Gifted Letter,
7(4). Retrieved from http://www.dukegiftedletter.com/
moveabletype/mt-tb.cgi/284

Swanson, J. (2006). Breaking through assumptions about low-income,
minority gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(1), 11-25.

Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom: responding to the needs
of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for supervision and
curriculum development.

Treffinger, D., & Isaksen, S. (2005). Creative problem solving: The history,
development, and implications for gifted education and talent
development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(4), 342-357

Tretter, T. (2010). Powerful approaches for enhancing deep mathematical
thinking. Gifted Child Today, 33(1), 17-26.

United States Department of Education. (2008). Jacob K. Javits gifted and
talented students education program. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/programs/javits/index.html

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners
(2
nd
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2001). Basic educational options for gifted students in
schools. Retrieved from
http://cfge.wm.edu/documents/BasicEducationalOptions.pdf

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2003). Differentiating the language arts for high ability
learners (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED640). Retrieved
from http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/eric/e640.html

185

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2006a). 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.

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2006b). NAGC Symposium: A report card on the state of
research in the field of gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(4),
339-341.

Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the
efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly,
51(4), 342-358.

Van Tassel-Baska, J., Feng, A., Brown, E., Bracken, B., Stambaugh, T., French, H.,
McGowan, S., Worley, B., Quek, C., & Bai, W. (2008). A study of
differentiated instructional change over 3 years. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(4),
297-312.

Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Johnsen, S. (2007). Teacher education standards for the field
of gifted education: A vision of coherence for personnel preparation in the 21
st

Century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 182-205.

Van Tassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Boyce, L.N. (Eds.) (1996). Developing Verbal
Talent. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Westberg, K., & Archambault, F. (1997). A multi-site case study of successful
classroom practices for high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(1),
42-51.

Wood, P. (2008). Reading instruction with gifted and talented readers: A series of
unfortunate events or a sequence of auspicious results? Gifted Child Today, 31(3),
16-25.

186

APPENDIX A: TEACHER DEMOGRAPHICS, INSTRUCTIONAL
STRATEGIES, AND LEARNING SKILLS SURVEY
PART I:

School: ________________Grade Level(s) Currently Teaching: ______________

Years you have taught: ______________ Years teaching gifted: _____________

Please check the various ways you prepared to teach gifted students.

Which degrees have you earned?

[ ] BA/BS ______________________________
Area of specialization

[ ] MA/MS ______________________________
Area of specialization

[ ] Ed.D./Ph.D. ______________________________
Area of specialization

Credential(s) Held: [ ] Multiple Subject__________________
Authorization

[ ] Single Subject ____________________
Authorization

187
Survey Key: Please
make a selection for
each instructional
strategy that reflects
why you use this
strategy.
1) A 1 means you
use this strategy
because it is
district policy.
2) A 2 means you
use this strategy
because it is a
state mandate.
3) A 3 means use
of this strategy
is a result of
interaction with
peers.
4) A 4 means you
use this strategy
because it is
supported by the
administration.
5) A 5 means you
use this strategy
because, in your
experience, it is
of discernable
benefit to the
gifted.

There are different parts to the survey. Each part includes 3 questions for each
instructional strategy and two question for each learning skill. Below you will find a
list of strategies and indicators. For the first section, please bubble the number that
corresponds with where you learned the strategy, why you use the strategy and how
frequently you use the strategy in lessons?

Instructional Strategies What motivates you to use this
strategy?
Interdisciplinary Thematic
Teaching
(Peterman, 1990, Reis, 2004,
Graffam, 2006)
1 2 3 4 5
Interest Based Student
Selected Activities
(Renzulli,1992, Neumeister,
2006, Swanson, 2006,
Peterman, 1990)
1 2 3 4 5
Thematic Units of Study
(Reis, 2004; Graffam, 2006,
Peterman, 1990)
1 2 3 4 5
Open-ended Inquiry –
Student- directed Inquiry (Van
Tassel-Baska, 2001, Beck,
2001)
1 2 3 4 5
Providing Reinforcement for
Effort/such as praise &
posting work (Marzano, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5
Cooperative Learning (Van
Tassel-Baska, 2006a, Beck,
2001, Kulik, 1992, Cox, 1985,
Schatz, 1990)
1 2 3 4 5
Acceleration of content
knowledge
(Elliot, 2006, Gross, 2005,
Lee, 2006, Reis, 2004)
1 2 3 4 5
Feedback of results to students
so they can improve their
work. (Marzano, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5
Performance Assessment
(Beck, 2001, Moon, 2002,
Castellano, 2004)
1 2 3 4 5
Movement: Leaning by doing
physical & mental activity.
Hands on learning.(Ford,
2004)
1 2 3 4 5

188
Survey Key: Please
make a selection for
each instructional
strategy that reflects
why you use this
strategy.
1) A
1
means
you

use
this

strategy

because
it
is

district
policy.

2) A 2 means you
use this strategy
because it is a
state mandate.
3) A 3 means use
of this strategy
is a result of
interaction with
peers.
4) A 4 means you
use this strategy
because it is
supported by the
administration.
5) A 5 means you
use this strategy
because, in your
experience, it is
of discernable
benefit to the
gifted.

Harmony-Helping students
feel “welcome” in the
learning environment.
(Ford 2004)
1 2 3 4 5
Communalism – Non
competitive cooperative
learning. (Ford, 2004)
1 2 3 4 5
Lecture
(Van-Tassel-Baska,1994,
Coleman, 2006; Corbett &
Wilson, 2002, Beck, 2001)
1 2 3 4 5
Structured Inquiry: teacher
directed inquiry
(Lockwood, 1992)
1 2 3 4 5
Linguistic and Vocabulary
Development (Van Tassel-
Baska, 1996)
1 2 3 4 5
Creative Thinking
Strategies (Treffinger,
2005)
1 2 3 4 5
Problem Solving Strategies
(Treffinger, 2005, Smutny,
2001)
1 2 3 4 5
Homework
(Marzano, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5

189
Survey Key: Please
make a selection for
each instructional
strategy that reflects
how often you use this
strategy.
1) A 1 means you
hardly ever use
this strategy.
2) A 2 means you
have used this
strategy once in
a while.
3) A 3 means use
of this strategy
occurs on an
often basis.
4) A 4 means you
use this strategy
regularly.
5) A 5 means you
use this strategy
in nearly every
lesson.

Instructional Strategies How frequently do you use this
strategy?
Interdisciplinary Thematic
Teaching
(Peterman, 1990, Reis, 2004,
Graffam, 2006)
1 2 3 4 5
Interest Based Student
Selected Activities
(Renzulli,1992, Neumeister,
2006, Swanson, 2006,
Peterman, 1990)
1 2 3 4 5
Thematic Units of Study
(Reis, 2004; Graffam, 2006,
Peterman, 1990)
1 2 3 4 5
Open-ended Inquiry –
Student- directed Inquiry (Van
Tassel-Baska, 2001, Beck,
2001)
1 2 3 4 5
Providing Reinforcement for
Effort/such as praise &
posting work (Marzano, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5
Cooperative Learning (Van
Tassel-Baska, 2006a, Beck,
2001, Kulik, 1992, Cox, 1985,
Schatz, 1990)
1 2 3 4 5
Acceleration of content
knowledge
(Elliot, 2006, Gross, 2005,
Lee, 2006, Reis, 2004)
1 2 3 4 5
Feedback of results to students
so they can improve their
work. (Marzano, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5
Performance Assessment
(Beck, 2001, Moon, 2002,
Castellano, 2004)
1 2 3 4 5
Movement: Leaning by doing
physical & mental activity.
Hands on learning.(Ford,
2004)
1 2 3 4 5

190
Survey Key: Please
make a selection for
each instructional
strategy that reflects
how often you use this
strategy.
1) A 1 means you
hardly ever use
this strategy.
2) A 2 means you
have used this
strategy once in
a while.
3) A 3 means use
of this strategy
occurs on an
often basis.
4) A 4 means you
use this strategy
regularly.
5) A 5 means you
use this strategy
in nearly every
lesson.

Harmony-Helping students
feel “welcome” in the
learning environment.
(Ford 2004)
1 2 3 4 5
Communalism – Non
competitive cooperative
learning. (Ford, 2004)
1 2 3 4 5
Lecture
(Van-Tassel-Baska,1994,
Coleman, 2006; Corbett &
Wilson, 2002, Beck, 2001)
1 2 3 4 5
Structured Inquiry: teacher
directed inquiry
(Lockwood, 1992)
1 2 3 4 5
Linguistic and Vocabulary
Development (Van Tassel-
Baska, 1996)
1 2 3 4 5
Creative Thinking
Strategies (Treffinger,
2005)
1 2 3 4 5
Problem Solving Strategies
(Treffinger, 2005, Smutny,
2001)
1 2 3 4 5
Homework
(Marzano, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5

191
Survey Key: Please
make a selection for
each instructional
strategy that reflects
where you learned to use
this strategy.
1) A 1 means you
learned this
strategy by
pursuing
university
coursework.
2) A 2 means you
learned to use
this strategy in
professional
development.
3) A 3 means this
strategy is used
because it was
explained at a
gifted
conference.
4) A 4 means you
use this strategy
because it is
purported to be
effective in
professional
literature.
5) A 5 means you
use this strategy
because
observation and
experience has
shown promise.

Instructional Strategies Where did you learn this
strategy?
Interdisciplinary Thematic
Teaching
(Peterman, 1990, Reis, 2004,
Graffam, 2006)
1 2 3 4 5
Interest Based Student
Selected Activities
(Renzulli,1992, Neumeister,
2006, Swanson, 2006,
Peterman, 1990)
1 2 3 4 5
Thematic Units of Study
(Reis, 2004; Graffam, 2006,
Peterman, 1990)
1 2 3 4 5
Open-ended Inquiry –
Student- directed Inquiry (Van
Tassel-Baska, 2001, Beck,
2001)
1 2 3 4 5
Providing Reinforcement for
Effort/such as praise &
posting work (Marzano, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5
Cooperative Learning (Van
Tassel-Baska, 2006a, Beck,
2001, Kulik, 1992, Cox, 1985,
Schatz, 1990)
1 2 3 4 5
Acceleration of content
knowledge
(Elliot, 2006, Gross, 2005,
Lee, 2006, Reis, 2004)
1 2 3 4 5
Feedback of results to students
so they can improve their
work. (Marzano, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5
Performance Assessment
(Beck, 2001, Moon, 2002,
Castellano, 2004)
1 2 3 4 5
Movement: Leaning by doing
physical & mental activity.
Hands on learning.(Ford,
2004)
1 2 3 4 5

192
Survey Key: Please
make a selection for
each instructional
strategy that reflects
where you learned to use
this strategy.
1) A 1 means you
learned this
strategy by
pursuing
university
coursework.
2) A 2 means you
learned to use
this strategy in
professional
development.
3) A 3 means this
strategy is used
because it was
explained at a
gifted
conference.
4) A 4 means you
use this strategy
because it is
purported to be
effective in
professional
literature.
5) A 5 means you
use this strategy
because
observation and
experience has
shown promise.

Harmony-Helping students
feel “welcome” in the
learning environment.
(Ford 2004)
1 2 3 4 5
Communalism – Non
competitive cooperative
learning. (Ford, 2004)
1 2 3 4 5
Lecture
(Van-Tassel-Baska,1994,
Coleman, 2006; Corbett &
Wilson, 2002, Beck, 2001)
1 2 3 4 5
Structured Inquiry: teacher
directed inquiry
(Lockwood, 1992)
1 2 3 4 5
Linguistic and Vocabulary
Development (Van Tassel-
Baska, 1996)
1 2 3 4 5
Creative Thinking
Strategies (Treffinger,
2005)
1 2 3 4 5
Problem Solving Strategies
(Treffinger, 2005, Smutny,
2001)
1 2 3 4 5
Homework
(Marzano, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5

193
Survey Key: Please
make a selection for
each instructional skill
that reflects to what
extent you believe the
use of this skill
contributes to
achievement.
1) A 1 means this
skill exerts an
unnoticeable
influence on
achievement.
2) A 2 means you
think this skill
exerts a minimal
impact on
achievement.
3) A 3 means the
use of the skill
helps students to
achieve in an
inconsistent
manner.
4) A 4 means the
use of this skill
helps student
achievement
most of the
time..
5) A 5 means the
use of the skill
consistently
helps students to
achieve.

Please take a moment to rank each learning skill. Below you will find a list of learning skills.
For each learning skill, please answer two questions. The first question asks the extent to
which you, as an education professional, perceive the student use of selected learning skills
corresponds with achievement? The second question inquires about the frequency with which
you as a professional observe students employing the particular skill.

Learning Skills

To what extent does the use of
this skill contribute to
achievement?
Identifying Similarities
and Differences
(Marzano, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5
Summarizing
(Marzano, 2000)

1 2 3 4 5
Note Taking
(Marzano, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5
Non Linguistic
Representations
(Marzano, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5
Goal Setting
(Marzano, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5
Generating and Testing
Hypotheses
(Marzano, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5
Active Learning
(Lockwod, 1992;
Hihinuma, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5
Critical Reading
(Van Tassel-Baska,
1996)
1 2 3 4 5
Expository Writing
(Van Tassel-Baska,
1996)
1 2 3 4 5
Oral Communication:
Learning to speak
publicly.
(Van Tassel-Baska,
1996)
1 2 3 4 5

194
Survey Key: Please
make a selection for
each instructional skill
that reflects how often
you observe use this
strategy.

1. A 1 means you have
rarely observed
students using this
instructional skill.
2. A 2 means you have
observed students
using this skill once
in a while.
3. A 3 means you
believe students
often use this skill.
4. A 4 means you
perceive students
use this skill
regularly.
5. A 5 means you
believe students use
this skill in every
learning situation.

Learning Skills

How frequently do students
use this skill?
Identifying Similarities
and Differences
(Marzano, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5
Summarizing
(Marzano, 2000)

1 2 3 4 5
Note Taking
(Marzano, 2000)

1 2 3 4 5
Non Linguistic
Representations
(Marzano, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5
Goal Setting
(Marzano, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5
Generating and Testing
Hypotheses
(Marzano, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5
Active Learning
(Lockwod, 1992;
Hihinuma, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5
Critical Reading
(Van Tassel-Baska,
1996)
1 2 3 4 5
Expository Writing
(Van Tassel-Baska,
1996)
1 2 3 4 5
Oral Communication:
Learning to speak
publicly.
(Van Tassel-Baska,
1996)
1 2 3 4 5

195

APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT LETTER
1857 Buckingham Road
Los Angeles, CA 90019
May 25, 2008

Dear 7
th
Grade English Teacher of Gifted Students:

I am writing to solicit your help with a research project. I am completing my dissertation in education
at the University of Southern California. The dissertation title is Use of Instructional Strategies, Skills
and Achievement in 7
th
Grade English Classes. I am studying the relationships between the utilization
of appropriate instructional strategies and skills for the gifted and the teacher’s perception of
achievement in gifted 7th grade English/language arts students. The realm of research on which
strategies render the most benefit to gifted education is thin to the point that the research is almost
non-existent. It is important to explore which strategies and skills teachers perceive are related to the
academic achievement level of all gifted 7
th
grade English/language arts students. In addition, I am
attempting to determine what factors affect the utilization of these instructional strategies and skills.

Thank you for taking the time to review my research project. The purpose of this anonymous, voluntary
study is to determine the relationships between the utilization of appropriate instructional strategies and
skills for the gifted and the teacher’s perception of achievement in gifted 7th grade English/language arts
students. The use of instructional strategies and its effect on the learning of gifted students is a concern to
parents, students and educators. Nationally, the gifted are a valuable economic resource vital to
maintaining our status in the global economy. The study will examine teacher perceptions of the
effectiveness of selected instructional strategies and skills for 7th grade gifted English students in order to
assess what motivates teachers to use a strategy, the frequency with which teachers use certain strategies
and the preferred location for learning.

I hope that you will not be influenced to respond by any other motivation than to further a greater
understanding of teaching and learning in the Los Angeles Unified School District. I would like to
express my gratitude should you choose to respond to any part of this survey. All responses are strictly
voluntary. All answers will be held in the strictest confidence and there will be no disclosure of any data
that identifies any respondent. All data will be used to determine trends in the population being studied.
None of your responses will be used to evaluate any aspect of the district, individual schools, classrooms
or teachers. All teacher responses will be destroyed 1 year after the completion of the research project.
Should you have any questions or require clarification of any point, I can be reached at (323) 810-1246
or (323) 936-3853. Regardless of your decision, please enjoy a treat from Starbucks!

Sincerely,

James P. Noble

If you are willing to participate and you understand that it is your right to withdraw at any time, please
sign below.

_________________________________________________________________
196

David Brewer III
Superintendent of Schools
Julie Slayton
Executive Director

APPENDIX C: LAUSD PERMISSION LETTER

Los Angeles Unified School District
Organizational Support and Accountability
333 South Beaudry Avenue, 21st Floor,
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 241-6476 Fax: (213) 241-8426

May 30, 2008

James P. Noble, Principal
Stephen M. White Middle School
22102 S. Figueroa Street
Carson, California 90745

Dear Mr. Noble:

The LAUSD Committee for External Research Review has approved your request to begin your
study entitled “Instructional Strategies and Skills.”
This action by the committee is an approval to conduct research in LAUSD. This letter does not:
 grant approval to perform interventions that affect LAUSD students. Interventions must
be approved by the local district superintendent(s), school principal(s), and/or other
senior management personnel,
 grant approval to release data. Any data access must be requested from the units of the
district responsible for the type of data being requested, under terms established by those
units under the district’s data security policies, nor
 create any obligation for district personnel, students, or parents to participate. All
participation must be completely voluntary and the confidentiality of all sources must be
maintained.

At the conclusion of your study or within a year of the date of this letter, whichever comes first,
please send an executive summary of your findings and copies of any reports to my attention. I
wish you the best of luck in your research endeavors.

Yours,

Samuel C. Gilstrap
Senior Research Analyst
Chair, Committee for External Research Review
!

!

197

APPENDIX D: USC IRB LETTERS

198

199

APPENDIX E: LAUSD GRADE SEVEN PROFICIENCY STANDARDS
Reading
1.0 Word Analysis, Fluency, and Systematic Vocabulary Development
Students use their knowledge of word origins and word relationships, as well as historical and literary context clues, to
determine the meaning of specialized vocabulary and to understand the precise meaning of grade-level-appropriate
words.
Vocabulary and Concept Development
1.1 Identify idioms, analogies, metaphors, and similes in prose and poetry.
1.2 Use knowledge of Greek, Latin, and Anglo-Saxon roots and affixes to understand content-area vocabulary.
1.3 Clarify word meanings through the use of definition, example, restatement, or contrast.
2.0 Reading Comprehension (Focus on Informational Materials)
Students read and understand grade-level-appropriate material. They describe and connect the essential ideas,
arguments, and perspectives of the text by using their knowledge of text structure, organization, and purpose. The
selections in Recommended Literature, Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve illustrate the quality and complexity of
the materials to be read by students. In addition, by grade eight, students read one million words annually on their own,
including a good representation of grade-level-appropriate narrative and expository text (e.g., classic and contemporary
literature, magazines, newspapers, online information). In grade seven, students make substantial progress toward this
goal.
Structural Features of Informational Materials
2.1 Understand and analyze the differences in structure and purpose between various categories of informational
materials (e.g., textbooks, newspapers, instructional manuals, signs).
2.2 Locate information by using a variety of consumer, workplace, and public documents.
2.3 Analyze text that uses the cause-and-effect organizational pattern.

Comprehension and Analysis of Grade-Level-Appropriate Text
2.4 Identify and trace the development of an author's argument, point of view, or perspective in text.
2.5 Understand and explain the use of a simple mechanical device by following technical directions.
Expository Critique
2.6 Assess the adequacy, accuracy, and appropriateness of the author's evidence to support claims and assertions,
noting instances of bias and stereotyping.
3.0 Literary Response and Analysis
Students read and respond to historically or culturally significant works of literature that reflect and enhance their
studies of history and social science. They clarify the ideas and connect them to other literary works. The selections in
Recommended Literature, Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve illustrate the quality and complexity of the materials to
be read by students.
Structural Features of Literature
3.1 Articulate the expressed purposes and characteristics of different forms of prose (e.g., short story, novel,
novella, essay).

200

Narrative Analysis of Grade-Level-Appropriate Text
3.2 Identify events that advance the plot and determine how each event explains past or present action(s) or
foreshadows future action(s).
3.3 Analyze characterization as delineated through a character's thoughts, words, speech patterns, and actions; the
narrator's description; and the thoughts, words, and actions of other characters.
3.4 Identify and analyze recurring themes across works (e.g., the value of bravery, loyalty, and friendship; the
effects of loneliness).
3.5 Contrast points of view (e.g., first and third person, limited and omniscient, subjective and objective) in
narrative text and explain how they affect the overall theme of the work.
Literary Criticism
3.6 Analyze a range of responses to a literary work and determine the extent to which the literary elements in the
work shaped those responses.
Writing
1.0 Writing Strategies
Students write clear, coherent, and focused essays. The writing exhibits students' awareness of the audience and
purpose. Essays contain formal introductions, supporting evidence, and conclusions. Students progress through the
stages of the writing process as needed.
Organization and Focus
1.1 Create an organizational structure that balances all aspects of the composition and uses effective transitions
between sentences to unify important ideas.
1.2 Support all statements and claims with anecdotes, descriptions, facts and statistics, and specific examples.
1.3 Use strategies of note taking, outlining, and summarizing to impose structure on composition drafts.
Research and Technology
1.4 Identify topics; ask and evaluate questions; and develop ideas leading to inquiry, investigation, and research.
1.5 Give credit for both quoted and paraphrased information in a bibliography by using a consistent and
sanctioned format and methodology for citations.
1.6 Create documents by using word-processing skills and publishing programs; develop simple databases and
spreadsheets to manage information and prepare reports.
Evaluation and Revision
1.7 Revise writing to improve organization and word choice after checking the logic of the ideas and the
precision of the vocabulary.
2.0 Writing Applications (Genres and Their Characteristics)
Students write narrative, expository, persuasive, and descriptive texts of at least 500 to 700 words in each genre. The
writing demonstrates a command of standard American English and the research, organizational, and drafting strategies
outlined in Writing Standard 1.0.
Using the writing strategies of grade seven outlined in Writing Standard 1.0, students:

2.1 Write fictional or autobiographical narratives:
a. Develop a standard plot line (having a beginning, conflict, rising action, climax, and denouement)
and point of view.

201

b. Develop complex major and minor characters and a definite setting.
c. Use a range of appropriate strategies (e.g., dialogue; suspense; naming of specific narrative action,
including movement, gestures, and expressions).
2.2 Write responses to literature:
a. Develop interpretations exhibiting careful reading, understanding, and insight.
b. Organize interpretations around several clear ideas, premises, or images from the literary work.
c. Justify interpretations through sustained use of examples and textual evidence.
2.3 Write research reports:
a. Pose relevant and tightly drawn questions about the topic.
b. Convey clear and accurate perspectives on the subject.
c. Include evidence compiled through the formal research process (e.g., use of a card catalog,
Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, a computer catalog, magazines, newspapers, dictionaries).
d. Document reference sources by means of footnotes and a bibliography.
2.4 Write persuasive compositions:
a. State a clear position or perspective in support of a proposition or proposal.
b. Describe the points in support of the proposition, employing well-articulated evidence.
c. Anticipate and address reader concerns and counterarguments.
2.5 Write summaries of reading materials:
a. Include the main ideas and most significant details.
b. Use the student's own words, except for quotations.
c. Reflect underlying meaning, not just the superficial details.
Written and Oral English Language Conventions
The standards for written and oral English language conventions have been placed between those for writing and for
listening and speaking because these conventions are essential to both sets of skills.
1.0 Written and Oral English Language Conventions
Students write and speak with a command of standard English conventions appropriate to the grade level.
Sentence Structure
1.1 Place modifiers properly and use the active voice.
Grammar
1.2 Identify and use infinitives and participles and make clear references between pronouns and antecedents.
1.3 Identify all parts of speech and types and structure of sentences.
1.4 Demonstrate the mechanics of writing (e.g., quotation marks, commas at end of dependent clauses) and
appropriate English usage (e.g., pronoun reference).

202

Punctuation
1.5 Identify hyphens, dashes, brackets, and semicolons and use them correctly.
Capitalization
1.6 Use correct capitalization.
Spelling
1.7 Spell derivatives correctly by applying the spellings of bases and affixes.
Listening and Speaking
1.0 Listening and Speaking Strategies
Deliver focused, coherent presentations that convey ideas clearly and relate to the background and interests of the
audience. Students evaluate the content of oral communication.
Comprehension
1.1 Ask probing questions to elicit information, including evidence to support the speaker's claims and
conclusions.
1.2 Determine the speaker's attitude toward the subject.
1.3 Respond to persuasive messages with questions, challenges, or affirmations.
Organization and Delivery of Oral Communication
1.4 Organize information to achieve particular purposes and to appeal to the background and interests of the
audience.
1.5 Arrange supporting details, reasons, descriptions, and examples effectively and persuasively in relation to the
audience.
1.6 Use speaking techniques, including voice modulation, inflection, tempo, enunciation, and eye contact, for
effective presentations.
Analysis and Evaluation of Oral and Media Communications
1.7 Provide constructive feedback to speakers concerning the coherence and logic of a speech's content and
delivery and its overall impact upon the listener.
1.8 Analyze the effect on the viewer of images, text, and sound in electronic journalism; identify the techniques
used to achieve the effects in each instance studied.
2.0 Speaking Applications (Genres and Their Characteristics)
Students deliver well-organized formal presentations employing traditional rhetorical strategies (e.g., narration,
exposition, persuasion, description). Student speaking demonstrates a command of standard American English and the
organizational and delivery strategies outlined in Listening and Speaking Standard 1.0.
Using the speaking strategies of grade seven outlined in Listening and Speaking Standard 1.0, students:

2.1 Deliver narrative presentations:
a. Establish a context, standard plot line (having a beginning, conflict, rising action, climax, and
denouement), and point of view.
b. Describe complex major and minor characters and a definite setting.
c. Use a range of appropriate strategies, including dialogue, suspense, and naming of specific
narrative action (e.g., movement, gestures, expressions).
203

2.2 Deliver oral summaries of articles and books:
a. Include the main ideas of the event or article and the most significant details.
b. Use the student's own words, except for material quoted from sources.
c. Convey a comprehensive understanding of sources, not just superficial details.

2.3 Deliver research presentations:
a. Pose relevant and concise questions about the topic.
b. Convey clear and accurate perspectives on the subject.
c. Include evidence generated through the formal research process (e.g., use of a card catalog,
Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, computer databases, magazines, newspapers, dictionaries).
d. Cite reference sources appropriately.
2.4 Deliver persuasive presentations:
a. State a clear position or perspective in support of an argument or proposal.
b. Describe the points in support of the argument and employ well-articulated evidence.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study was conducted in 11 schools across 5 school districts and solicited responses from 20 teachers. This study found a relationship between instructional strategies appropriate for gifted students and teachers’ perceptions of contributions the strategies made to learning. The literature review section examined the modern focus on gifted education. This study included a cursory examination of how American gifted students compare to the preparation and performance of their international counterparts (Ross, 1993). The literature also provided a glimpse into what motivates gifted students. The literature review also discussed several other selected factors such as family stability and known effective instructional techniques for gifted students (Beck, 2001

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' choices of curriculum and teaching methods and their effect on gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling

PDF

The spill over effect: an examination of differentiated curriculum designs in a heterogeneous classroom

PDF

Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching

PDF

Relationships between teachers' perceptions of gifted program status and instructional choices

PDF

No teacher left behind: an examination of beginning teachers' preconceptions and attitudes about induction

PDF

A school's use of data-driven decision making to affect gifted students' learning

PDF

Factors affecting the transfer of differentiated curriculum from professional development into classroom practice

PDF

Status of teaching elementary science for English learners in science, mathematics, and technology centered magnet schools

PDF

Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement

PDF

The impact of induction: a study of program designs and teacher quality outcomes

PDF

Teacher perceptions of Marzano's instructional strategies in traditional and virtual classrooms

PDF

Beginning teachers' perceptions of effective practices used by their mentor

PDF

English-learner representation in special education: impact of pre-referral interventions and assessment practices

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions and implementation of instructional strategies for the gifted from differentiation professional development

PDF

Embracing the intersection of giftedness and disability: examining a standalone school model for twice-exceptional learners

PDF

Taiwanese students' perceived English oral proficiency in relation to communication strategies

PDF

Actual and ideal instructional practices in California high school gifted geometry education

PDF

A comparative study of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and retention of beginning urban science teachers

Asset Metadata

Creator Noble, James Paul (author)

Core Title Teachers’ perceptions of strategies and skills affecting learning of gifted 7th graders in English classes

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/22/2010

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag 7th grade,English classes,gifted,gifted students,instructional strategies,Los Angeles,middle school,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher perceptions

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (counties)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kaplan, Sandra N. (committee chair), Pensavalle, Margo T. (committee member), Ragusa, Gisele (committee member)

Creator Email james.noble@lausd.net,james.noble1@mac.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3468

Unique identifier UC1131034

Identifier etd-Noble-3645 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-413131 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3468 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Noble-3645.pdf

Dmrecord 413131

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Noble, James Paul

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