University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Effects of the prompts of depth and complexity on gifted and non-gifted students

(USC Thesis Other)

Effects of the prompts of depth and complexity on gifted and non-gifted students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
EFFECTS OF THE PROMPTS OF DEPTH AND COMPLEXITY
ON GIFTED AND NON-GIFTED STUDENTS

by

Kimberly M. Dodds

____________________________________________________________

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

August 2010

Copyright 2010 Kimberly M. Dodds
DEDICATION
“The most inspirational man I knew only reached his
potential by helping a child reach his own” – Mitch Albom

To my parents…

I came across this quote while reading recently and immediately knew
I would write it again someday to share my gratitude.

Near or far, you are my source of inspiration. Thank you for your love,
friendship and guidance in helping me to reach my potential.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people I would like to thank for their endless support and
encouragement which contributed to making this dissertation possible. First to my
faculty advisor, Dr. Sandra Kaplan whom I respect as a mentor and expert in the
field of gifted education-thank you. Your passion for learning and love for children
is something I have admired now for 15 years. The encouragement and guidance
you provided during my study was and will always be greatly appreciated. Dr.
Robert Keim and Dr. Lucy Hunt, my committee members, thank you. I will forever
be grateful for the patience and insight you selflessly shared with me. Then, to the
members of my thematic cohort- thank you. I will forever treasure the laughter and
invaluable encouragement we shared with each other morning, noon, night or
somewhere in between! Finally to my family and friends-thank you. Your love and
friendship provided me with encouragement every step of the way. Lastly, I must
thank my dad, whose pride in me fills the room. Thank you for never doubting my
ability to achieve this goal.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures viii
Abstract ix
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review 20
Chapter 3: Methodology 39
Chapter 4: Research Findings 55
Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications 112
References 128
Appendices 137
Appendix A: Depth and Complexity Post Test 137
Appendix B: Student Interview Protocol 141
Appendix C: Teacher Interview Protocol 144
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Prompts of Depth and Complexity 5
Table 2. Prompts of Depth and Complexity 34
Table 3. Gender 42
Table 4. Grade 42
Table 5. Gifted Status 43
Table 6. Ethnicity 43
Table 7. ELL 44
Table 8. Free and Reduced Lunch 44
Table 9. Demographic Descriptors of Participants 56
Table 10. Paired Samples Statistics of Pre-Post Test for Special Words 58
and Details and Patterns
Table 11. Paired Samples Statistics for Pre and Post Test for Special 59
Words and Details
Table 12.1. Language of the Discipline in a Picture Descriptive Statistics 61
Table 12.2. Multivariate Tests 61
Table 12.3. Tests of Within-Subjects Contrast 62
Table 13.1. Details in Picture Descriptive Statistics 64
Table 13.2. Multivariate Tests 65
Table 13.3. Tests of Within-Subjects Contrast 65
Table 14.1. Patterns in a Picture Crosstab 67
Table 14.2. Chi-Square Tests 68
Table 15.1. Point of View in a Picture Crosstab 69
v
Table 15.2. Chi-Square Tests 70
Table 16.1. Ethics in Picture Crosstab 71
Table 16.2. Chi-Square Tests 72
Table 17.1. Big Idea in Picture Crosstab 73
Table 17.2. Chi-Square Tests 74
Table 18.1. Language of the Discipline in Folktale Descriptive Statistics 75
Table 18.2. Multivariate Tests 76
Table 18.3. Tests of Within-Subjects Contrast 76
Table 19.1. Details in Folktale Descriptive Statistics 77
Table 19.2. Multivariate Tests 78
Table 19.3. Tests of Within-Subjects Contrast 78
Table 20.1. Patterns in a Folktale Crosstab 80
Table 20.2. Chi-Square Tests 80
Table 21.1. Point of View in Folktale Crosstab 81
Table 21.2. Chi-Square Tests 82
Table 22.1. Ethics in Narrative Crosstab 83
Table 22.2. Chi-Square Tests 84
Table 23.1. Big Idea in Narrative Crosstab 85
Table 23.2. Chi-Square Tests 86
Table 24. How Well Students Like When Their Teacher Uses the 91
Prompts of Depth and Complexity
Table 25. Student Perceptions of the Prompts of Depth and Complexity 94
as it Relates To Interest
vi
Table 26. Student Perceptions of the Prompts of Depth and Complexity 97
as it Relates To Being Helpful
Table 27. Student Perceptions of Depth and Complexity as it Relates 100
to Challenge
Table 28. Summary of Findings: Highest Response Patterns for Student 110
Perceptions of Depth and Complexity as Helpful, Challenging,
Interesting
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. How Well Students Like When the Teacher Uses the Prompts 91
of Depth and Complexity
Figure 2. Student Perceptions of the Prompts of Depth and Complexity 94
as it Relates to Interest
Figure 3. Student Perceptions of the Prompts of Depth and Complexity 97
as it Relates to Being Helpful
Figure 4. Student Perceptions of the Prompts of Depth and Complexity 100
as it Relates to Challenge
Figure 5. Gifted Status, Grade Level Dependent Associations between 104
Depth and Complexity and the Disciplines
viii
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to understand how the prompts of depth and
complexity affect gifted and non-gifted student understanding across the disciplines
and was performed to (1) provide validation of the prompts in relationship to student
acquisition of subject matter and (2) determine how the prompts of depth and
complexity were related to student perceptions of challenge, interest and use. Two
questions guided this investigation. The researcher explored how the prompts of
depth and complexity affect gifted and non-gifted student learning across the
disciplines. The researcher also examined gifted and non-gifted student perceptions
of the prompts of depth and complexity specific to challenge, interest and use.
In this mixed methods study, the primary source of data collection was
quantitatively collected in the form of a pre-post test created as part of the Jacob K.
Javits Models of Teaching Grant (PR# S26A040072). The primary study utilized a
pre-post test to determine student understanding of the prompts of depth and
complexity in relation to a social studies event and a language arts narrative.
Participants included 88 gifted and non-gifted students from grades 3-5 from an
elementary school in an urban school district located in Los Angeles, California.
The secondary analysis was designed to augment the information collected during
the primary study. To achieve this, interviews were conducted to examine student
and teacher perceptions of utilizing the prompts of depth and complexity across the
disciplines as they relate to the concepts of challenge, interest and use. Participants
for the secondary analysis included 30 students, chosen from the primary study.
ix
x
Three teachers were also purposefully selected. Data were analyzed using several
statistical measures and content analysis.
The findings revealed that (1) the prompts of depth and complexity positively
affected gifted and non-gifted students understanding across the disciplines; (2)
gifted student understanding was greater than non-gifted student understanding and
(3) gifted and non-gifted students perceive the prompts of depth and complexity to
be helpful, interesting and challenging. This research study provides validation of
the prompts of depth and complexity as a means to promote increased student
learning and understanding across the disciplines.

CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction: Statement of the Problem
In response to an ever changing global society, building on timeless ideals,
and philosophical and pedagogical theory, the field of gifted education continues to
advocate for the academic and affective rights of the gifted learner. According to the
National Association for Gifted Children (1994), it is believed that education in a
democracy must show respect for the uniqueness of all people, the cultural diversity
in our society and the similarities and differences in learning characteristics found
within in any group of learners. Defined by both the National Association for Gifted
Children (NAGC) (1994) and the California Association for the Gifted (CAG) (2001,
Rev. 2005), clearly articulated standards for programs for the gifted have been
established to ensure gifted students are provided appropriate and challenging
learning experiences.
The seminal work of Tyler (1949), as explained in Basic Principles of
Curriculum and Instruction state, “if an educational program is to be planned and if
efforts for continued improvement are to be made, it is very necessary to have some
conception of the goals that are being aimed at” (p.3). As a result, educational
objectives become the criteria by which materials are selected, content is outlined,
instructional procedures are developed and tests and evaluations are prepared.
In the state of California, as defined by the California State Department of
Education, Recommended Program Standards for Gifted and Talented Students,
1
Section 3, Curriculum and Instruction (2001, Rev. 2005) it is expected that a
differentiated curriculum is in place, that is responsive to the needs, interests, and
abilities of gifted students and therefore “focuses primarily on depth, complexity of
content, advanced or accelerated pacing of content, and novelty (unique and original
expressions of student understanding)” (CDE, 2001, Rev. 2005, p. 4). Such
standards ensure that the core curriculum, currently embodied in California’s
curriculum framework, often described as a ‘thinking curriculum’ will engage
students in a content rich curriculum that “engages them with the concepts,
principles and themes that define each discipline” (CDE, 1994, p. 5). Appropriate
differentiation, as defined by NAGC (1994), “allows for increasing levels of
advanced, abstract and complex curriculum that are substantive and that respond to
learner’s needs” resulting in a modification of the core curriculum and instructional
practices based on student readiness and interests (p. 1). Differentiation as defined
by NAGC (1994) may include: (1) acceleration of instruction, (2) in-depth study, (3)
a high degree of complexity, (4) advanced content, and/or (5) variety in content or
form (NAGC, 1994).
To better understand the means by which students gain access to depth and
complexity of content and thought, it is important to consider the ways in which the
prompts of depth and complexity, as defined by the Recommended Standards for
Gifted and Talented Programs (CDE, 2001, Rev. 2005), affect gifted and non-gifted
student learning across the disciplines. It is necessary to identify the significance of
prompts as a means to provide access to curriculum that fosters increased subject
2
matter understanding and furthers students’ ability to employ higher levels of critical
and creative thinking. It is also important to understand how depth and complexity
contributes to expertise and the potential development of motivation, retention and
understanding the curriculum. Finally, with the goal of engaging students in learning
experiences that promote depth, complexity, acceleration and novelty, purposeful
consideration needs to be provided to the types of learning opportunities afforded to
students as well as the means by which student learning is prompted, or scaffolded to
make maximal (CDE, 2001, Rev. 2005; Dixon & Moon, 2006; Ormrod, 2008).
Depth and Complexity
While depth and complexity is explained in many different ways when
describing differentiation, the concepts of depth and complexity are common to most
definitions. Over time, depth and complexity (Table 1) has been defined both
conceptually and visually and promote differentiated curriculum by stimulating the
depth to which a student explores a topic of study and the complexity or intricacies
of the subject matter studied specific to issues, problems and themes within, between
and across disciplines (CDE, 1994). The prompts of depth and complexity facilitate
the differentiation of the core curriculum and provide a means to focus both teacher
and student attention on “increasingly more difficult, divergent and abstract qualities
of knowing a discipline or area of study” (Kaplan, 2005, p. 116). As defined, depth,
“refers to approaching or studying something from the concrete to the abstract”
(CDE, 1994, p. 12). Depth reveals information and new knowledge related to an
area of study enabling students to examine topics by fact, concepts, generalizations
3
and theories related to the study (CDE, 1994). It encourages students to recognize
patterns, trends, and rules found within the curriculum, often revealing unanswered
questions and big ideas. Moving from the simple to the complex, the use of depth
facilitates student learning along a continuum of factual to conceptual understanding.
Responding to the various levels of skill, knowledge, or interest, differentiated
curriculum often increases student understanding of the core curriculum by
modifying the complexity of the study (CDE, 1994). “Complexity involves making
relationships between and among ideas, connecting other concepts, and layering- a
why/how interdisciplinary approach that connects” the disciplines (CDE, 1994, p.
14). Complexity includes identifying and understanding different perspectives,
noting relationships over time and making interdisciplinary connections.
Complexity enables students to understand how context affects people, places and
events which add to their understanding of the core curriculum. Finally, an integral
attribute of depth and complexity is the metacogntive process that results from
students making meaning of such intricate ideas by examining their own thinking or
the thinking of their peers (CDE, 1994).
4

Table 1. Prompts of Depth and Complexity

Dimensions of Depth

Language of the
Discipline

Language of the
Discipline refers to
learning the specific
specialized and
technological terms
associated with a
specific area of
study or discipline.

Details

Details refer to the
learning of the
specific attributes,
traits, and
characteristics that
describe a concept,
theory, principle and
even a fact.

Patterns

Patterns refer to
recurring events
represented by
details.

Trends

Trends refer to the
factors that influence
events.

Unanswered
Questions

Unanswered
questions refer to
the ambiguities and
gaps of information
recognized within
an area or discipline
under study.

Rules

Rules refer to the
natural or human-
made structure or
order of things that
explain the
phenomena within
an area of study.

Ethics

Ethics refer to te
dilemmas or
controvercial issues
that plague an area
of study or
discipline.

Big Idea

Big ideas refer to the
generalizations,
principles, and
theories that
distinguish
themselves from the
facts and concepts of
the area or discipline
of study.

5

Table 1, Continued

Dimensions of Complexity

Related Over Time

Over time refers to the
understanding of time as an
agent of change and
recognition that the passage
of time changes our
knowledge of things.

View from Different
Perspectives

Points of view refer to the
concept that there are
different perspectives and
that these perspectives alter
the way ideas and objects
are viewed and valued.

Across Disciplines

Disciplinary connections
refer to both integrated and
interdisciplinary links in the
curriculum. Disciplinary
connections can be made
within, between and among
various areas of study or
disciplines.

Note: Adapted from Differentiating the Core Curriculum and Instruction to Provide
Advanced Learning Opportunities, by S. Kaplan (California Department of Education and
California Association for the Gifted), 1994, University of Southern California.
6
Prompts
Differing in type due to learning objective, content, student interests and
ability, prompts facilitate explanation and provide students with the scaffold or aid
necessary for elaboration (Bastick, 1999; Boyle & Peregoy, 1990; Weisberg, 1970).
Prompts have been found to activate and build on prior knowledge, engage students
in meaningful learning tasks, increase knowledge acquisition and ultimately elicit
increased student learning and understanding (Risko & Alvarez, 1982; Boyle &
Pergoy, 1990). While varied in nature, visual and/or verbal prompts facilitate
learning across disciplines, grade-level, gender and/or ethnicity (Bastick, 1999;
Boyle & Peregoy, 1990; Weisberg, 1970; Risko & Alvarez, 1982; Kim, Grabowski
& Sharma, 2004). Represented by imbedded definitions, graphic, syntactic or
semantic cues, and advance organizers, research indicates that prompts improve
recall, content understanding, summarizing skills and knowledge acquisitions across
disciplines (Bastick, 1999; Herron, C., Hanley, J., & Cole, S., 1995). Visual
teaching tools have been found to not only foster and encourage lifelong learning,
but also provide a common visual language in classrooms and schools that transcend
curriculum and instruction (Weisberg, 1970; Thinking Maps, Retrieved 4/01/09 from
www.thinkingmaps.com). As noted in educational psychology, signals built into a
lesson or presentation through print or verbal cues can draw students’ attention to
important points and help students to encode material visually as well as verbally
(Omrod, 2008). Prompts have been found to develop student’s ability to
independently transfer thinking skills to content learning across the disciplines,
7
developing the skills requisite for lifelong learning (Thinking Maps, Retrieved
4/01/09 from www.thinkingmaps.com). The contemporary focus on thinking maps
and graphic organizers serve as prompts too which supports the use of depth and
complexity as a means “to focus both teacher’s and student’s attention on
increasingly more difficult, divergent and abstract qualities of knowing a discipline
or area of study” (Kaplan, 2009, p.115).
The consistent integration of prompts into curriculum and instruction provide
students with “experiences that give him an opportunity to practice the kind of
behavior being implied by the objective” (Tyler, 1949, p.65). Consistent use of
conceptual prompts, visual tools, and other forms of prompts have been found to
transcend the disciplines and enable students to learn curricular objectives more
efficiently and effectively, with greater retention (Weisberg, 1970; Thinking Maps,
Retrieved 4/1/09 from www.thinkingmaps.com). Providing tools that can be used
across the disciplines promotes thematic interdisciplinary instruction and cognitive
development leading to sophisticated means for acquiring and understanding
information (Thinking Maps, Retrieved 4/1/09 from www.thinkingmaps.com). Such
findings highlight the significance of utilizing prompts as a tool to attain educational
objectives that foster analytical explanation while facilitating and expanding
conceptual and curricular knowledge (Risko , V. & Alcvarz, M., 1982; Herron, C.,
Hanley, J. & Cole, S., 1995). Furthermore, prompts increase the complexity of a
study by providing students with experiences, responsive to their needs that foster
8
reflective analytical, creative and practical thinking, exemplifying the traits of
expertise (Chini, Retrieved from www.newfoundations.com/Gallery/Sternberg.html).
Expertise as conceptualized by Sternberg suggests that motivation, thinking
skills, metacognition and learning develops as “individuals move from novice to
expert in a given human endeavor” (Dixon & Moon, 2006, p. 20). Paralleling the
principles of differentiating curriculum to foster depth and complexity, teaching
students the skills requisite of experts means teaching children to think in “ways
experts do when they perform these tasks” (Sternberg, 2003, p.5). The research of
Robert Sternberg (2003) and others advocate the importance of students being
provided curriculum and instruction that will elicit the types of knowledge and
expertise needed “for real world thinking inside or outside of the academic
disciplines of school”(p.5). As such, educators must teach children to think in ways
that are distinctive of experts in the various disciplines. Thereby, emphasizing the
importance of providing students with opportunities to engage in tasks or meaningful
simulations as experts, across the various disciplines that are designed specifically to
develop the skills necessary to think analytically, creatively, and practically
(Sternberg, 2003, p.5).
Challenge, Interest and Use
“Gifted education pedagogy has often been suggested as a means for general
school improvement” (Gentry, Rizza & Owen, 2002, p. 146). Increased attention to
the need for what is known as challenge in U.S. schools has been widely
acknowledged and called for; however, in many classrooms, such challenge is often
9
missing, leading to frustrated students who, due to boredom, do not reach their
potential (Gentry, Rizza & Owen, 2002). Time and again it is asserted that gifted
students are bored in school, unchallenged and it is reported that little differentiation
of curricula and instruction takes place for gifted students in the classroom (Gentry,
Rizza, & Owen, 2002; Van Tassel-Baska, 2006). For gifted students to be
adequately challenged, they must regularly be afforded opportunities to go beyond
what is traditionally offered in the classroom (Douglas, 2004). The availability of a
wide range of curricular opportunities for developmentally advanced students is
important (Mattews & Foster, 2006).
Challenge, interest, choice and enjoyment are central to learning and
motivation (Gentry, Rizza & Owen, 2002). There are numerous means for offering
an appropriately challenging educational experiences for the gifted which may
include differentiated curriculum and instruction, independent study, inquiry,
advanced or accelerated pacing and/or the use of varied resources (Douglas, 2004;
CDE, 2001, Rev. 2005). While provided high quality differentiated instruction, for
education to be meaningful, enabling gifted students to make choices is essential
(Douglas, 2004). Providing students with choice, based on their interest and
perceived ability has been identified as a leading motivational tool for encouraging
learning (Gentry & Springer, 2002). Further, student choice and value for engaging
in a task as it relates to challenging activity and curriculum of interest has been found
to promote creativity, cognitive flexibility and persistence (Van Tassel-Baska, 2006;
Douglas, 2004; Gentry, Rizza & Owen, 2002).
10
When students are engaged through challenge, interest, and choice, learning
becomes both enjoyable and productive (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Schiefele, 1991). As
noted by experts in the field, greater value for student and teacher perceptions of
these concepts can positively influence the attainment of increased student
motivation and ultimately facilitate overall student achievement (Douglas, 2004,
Gentry, Owen & Rizza, 2002). However, “too often students are not asked, nor are
their perceptions considered, in both educational practices and educational research”
(Genrty, Rizza & Owen, 2002 p. 145). With students as central to the learning
process, increased attention to students perceptions of curriculum and instruction as
they relate to the concepts of challenge, interest, time and use is paramount to
creating an environment that demonstrates responsive teaching, reflects shared
power and nurtures student responsibility for meaning making (Preckel, Goetz,
Pekrun, Kleine, 2008; Douglas, 2004; Matthews & Foster, 2006).
Research Questions
1. How do the prompts of depth and complexity affect gifted and non-gifted
student understanding of various content areas?
2. How are gifted students use of the prompts of depth and complexity
affected by the concept of challenge, interest and use?
Theoretical Framework
The sociocultural perspective is defined as a “theoretical perspective
emphasizing the importance of society and culture in promoting cognitive
development (Ormrod, 2008). Considered to be the father of this philosophy,
11
Vygotsky, explored how students construct meaning. Similar to Dewey, Vygotsky
believed that the human condition is based on social interaction and that everyday
activities of a child are integral in the educational process (Glassman, 2001). Both
believed “in order for a society to progress, it must cultivate the individual,
sometimes at the expense of the present social organization” (Glassman, 2001, p.5).
With a focus on activity, the importance of everyday activities of the child in the
educational process is imperative (Glassman, 2001). It was Vygotsky’s belief that
the role of the educational process is to prepare children for more complex activity in
the larger social community and that a mentor or teacher is integral in facilitating the
learning process (Jaramillo, 1996).
Vygotsky believed “social experience shapes the ways of thinking and
interpreting the world” and that cognition occurs in social settings (Jaramillo, 1996,
p. 135). He proposed that children learn very little from completing tasks they can
already do independently. Instead, he believed children develop primarily by
“attempting tasks they can accomplish only with assistance and support-that is, when
they attempt tasks within their zone of proximal development” (Ormrod, 2008, p.42).
The learner therefore constructs meaning by building on prior knowledge, mental
structures, beliefs and previous experiences (Jaramillo, 1996). Hands on learning
activities, based on interest are paramount to providing students with learning
experiences that enable them to socially negotiate meaning in the context of a
complex learning environment. Application of the constructivist theory includes: (1)
encouraging students to talk themselves through challenging tasks; (2) providing
12
cognitive tools that students can use to make challenging tasks attainable; (3) present
students with some tasks that they can complete successfully with assistance; (4)
provide sufficient scaffolding that enables students to complete challenging tasks
successfully; (5) organize students to work in small groups to accomplish complex,
multifaceted tasks; (6) engage students in mature activities that are customary to
their culture; and (7) provide students the time necessary to practice expert roles and
behaviors through play (Ormrod, 2008).
The constructivist learning environment is an optimal format for the teaching
and learning of gifted students (Dixon & Moon, 2006). Within this environment,
characteristics of gifted students are considered in appropriate curriculum planning
and implementation and include the following common elements:
1. complex, challenging learning environments and authentic tasks;
2. social negotiation and shared responsibility as part of learning;
3. multiple representations of content;
4. understanding that knowledge is constructed; and
5. student-centered instruction (Snowman & Biehler, 2000, as cited in
Dixon and Moon, 2006, p. 372).
To better understand the ways in which the prompts of depth and complexity
affect student understanding across the curriculum, the sociocultural perspective of
Vygotsky will serve as a framework for analysis. Tyler’s (1949) rationale for
learning objectives and educational goals will also provide an additional lens for
analysis.
13
Methodological Design
School settings are fluid and dynamic and therefore add to the difficulty of
conducting research (Van Tassel-Baska, 2006). As further noted by Van Tassel-
Baska (2006), research methodologies in the field of education must be a mix of
“strong quantitative and qualitative designs that help us understand the complex
phenomena we are studying at a deeper level” (p.340). To understand how the
prompts of depth and complexity affect gifted and non-gifted student understanding
of content in grades 2-5, this study has been designed as a mixed-method design, and
will rely on both qualitative and quantitative measures. The study will also seek to
determine how students’ use of the prompts of depth and complexity are affected by
the concept of challenge, interest and use.
The sample population included three teachers and approximately 88 students
from an urban school district in Southern California. The population was chosen due
to their commitment to and participation in a Jacob K. Javits Grant Project (PR #
S206A040072). The teachers in the sample group, through their participation in the
grant, all received inservice teacher education specific to utilizing the prompts of
depth and complexity while teaching. The professional development enabled the
teachers to learn the prompts of depth and complexity in the context of models of
teaching and differentiation. Some of the participating teachers received pre-service
teacher education, prior to participating in the grant related to the prompts of depth
and complexity. All students in the sample group were therefore familiar with using
the prompts of depth and complexity while learning content.
14
The primary study and data collection was a pre and post test that was created
as part of the Jacob K. Javits Grant (PR # S206A040072). The test was comprised
of two parts: (1) a pictorial prompt representing a social studies concept and (2) a
folktale narrative representing literature. Through an open ended response, each
assessment measured student understanding of the content as it related to the
prompts of language of the discipline, details, patterns, point of view, ethics and big
idea. A secondary study for data collection was personal interviews of selected
students and teachers from the sample group. Following a predetermined protocol to
ensure reliability, the interviews enabled the researcher to gather detailed, qualitative
data to better understand how the prompts of depth and complexity affect student
understanding of the content as well as how they relate to students conceptions of
challenge, interest and use. The student interview protocol consisted of nine
questions. Five questions were forced choice response as measured by a likert scale,
one question was a rank order of use across the disciplines, and the final three
questions asked students to relate the prompts of depth and complexity in the content
areas of science, social studies and language arts specific to their perception of
challenge, interest and use. Each question allowed for further elaboration of the
selected answer choice. The teacher interview protocol consisted of thirteen
questions which allowed for both forced choice and open ended response. The intent
of the teacher interview was to augment and draw parallels between student
responses and teacher perceptions.
15
Assumptions
• It is assumed that as participants in the Jacob K. Javits (PR
#S206A040072) the teachers and students who comprise the experimental
group engage in lessons that utilize the prompts of depth and complexity
on a regular basis and are therefore familiar with using the prompts in
lessons and tasks.
• It is assumed that the students are in a learning environment that supports
the consistent use of the prompts.
• It is assumed that the students have prior learning related to the content
being measured in the assessments.
• It is assumed that the information gleaned from the assessment is an
accurate representation of student understanding of the content being
assessed.
• It is assumed that the one-on-one interviews with students and teachers
will provide the researcher the opportunity to ask questions to determine
the level to which the prompts facilitate differentiated learning
experiences and how the prompts are perceived to support student
learning across the disciplines.
Limitations
• The study, as part of a federal grant award, may present limitations
related to the predetermined sample population, and predetermined
measurement tool.
16
• The ways in which the prompts are defined, understood and utilized could
present additional limitations to the study.
• The teachers in the classroom represent various levels of expertise which
may serve as a limitation to the study.
• Institutional and/or personal factors, such as pacing charts and prescribed
curriculum, teaching philosophy, cluster grouping and/or proficiency
expectations for all may serve as inhibitors.
Delimitations
• This research project, as part of the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented
Students Education Act of the U.S. Department of Education (PR #
S206A040072) will support the research efforts of a grant awarded to the
University of Southern California.
• This study has been designed to augment the research and educational
philosophy of the federal program that specifically targets gifted and
talented students.
• Not all participants have been formally educated (preservice or inservice)
to teach the gifted.
• Not all participants have been formally educated (preservice or inservice)
to utilize the prompts of depth and complexity.
Definition of Terms
Challenge: Situation in which a learner believes that success is possible with
sufficient effort (Ormrod, 2008).
17
Complexity: The quality or process of thinking that combines many ideas or
parts to develop complicated and interrelated wholes by making connections with
other ideas and showing the relationship(s) between concepts (California Association
for the Gifted, 2003).
Constructivism: Theoretical perspective proposing that learners construct,
rather than absorb, a body of knowledge from their experiences (Ormrod, 2008).
Depth: A process of thought that seeks to understand concepts and
generalizations through the analysis of the rules and principles that support the larger
idea (Califronia Association or the Gifted, 2003).
Differentiated Curriculum: Modification of the curriculum to meet the unique
needs of learners. Modification is dependent on the individual needs of the students
and may include modification of depth, complexity, pacing and content (California
Association for the Gifted, 2003).
GATE Standards: Clearly articulated goals and objectives created to ensure
the academic and affective needs of the gifted are addressed. The standards
articulate the expected components of a gifted education program specific to:
program design, identification, curriculum and instruction, social and emotional
development, professional development, parent and community involvement
(California Association for the Gifted, 2002).
Gifted Student: a student enrolled in a public elementary or secondary school
who is identified as possessing demonstrated or potential abilities that give evidence
of high performance capability, EC Section 52201[a] (Education Code).
18
Interest: Perception that an activity is intriguing and enticing; typically
accompanied by both cognitive engagement and positive affect (Ormrod, 2008).
Prompts: Conceptual or visual tool that help learners build connections to
prior knowledge in order to engage in problem solving and meaningful learning
(Bush, 2006).
Time: Amount of time that students are actively engaged in a learning
activity (Ormrod, 2008).
Use: Method or manner of employing or applying something (Webster’s
Dictionary, 1997).
19
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Research in the field of gifted education continues to evolve and reflects the
needs of society. To understand how the prompts of depth and complexity promote
understanding of the curriculum for gifted and non-gifted students, the purpose of
this literature review is to provide theoretical perspectives reflective of seminal and
contemporary research specific to: (1) gifted education; (2) differentiated curriculum;
(3) prompts; and (4) the constructivist learning theory as it relates to differentiation
and the concept of scaffolding student understanding.
Gifted Education Over Time
For over a century, reform efforts have been made by researchers, educators,
parents and political leaders to put in order academically challenging and appropriate
educational opportunities for the gifted (Passow, Goldberg, Tannenbaum, & French,
1955). These efforts; however, have been met with support and opposition. The late
1800’s reflected a time when, equal educational opportunity for America’s school
children meant identical educational opportunity; therefore, initial attempts to meet
the needs of the gifted were isolated and lacking in popularity (Passow, Goldberg,
Tannembaum, & French, 1955).
The turn of the century brought about increased endeavors by schools to
afford gifted students enriching academic programs that provided advanced subject
matter and enabled gifted students to study the disciplines at a more accelerated pace
(Passow, Goldberg, Tannembaum, & French, 1955). Recognizing the potentially
20
socially detrimental consequences of gifted students not interacting with their age
level peers, programs in the 1920’s and 1930’s shifted from a focus on acceleration
to instead favor curricular modification in the form of enrichment within the school
experience. During the mid 1900’s the studies and educational experiences of
Hollingsworth and Terman contributed greatly to the notion of adjusting school
programs to the needs of the intellectually gifted and it was at this time that they
began their seminal research studies on gifted students ( Jolly & Kettler, 2008;
Passow, Goldberg, Tannenbaum & French, 1955).
Despite the growth of interest and attention toward providing more suitable
educational experiences and services, schools were still not adequately meeting the
complex challenge of most appropriately educating the gifted (Passow, Goldberg,
Tannenbaum & French, 1955). While those who believed in gifted education
already knew the importance of nurturing the academic interests and abilities of
gifted students, the launch of Sputnik I brought the potential capital of the gifted
student into prominence (Karnes & Nugent, 2002). Out of fear of losing world
power, and the eventual defeat of democracy, the “one-size-fits-all approach” to
learning was reconsidered. Consequently, millions of dollars were hustled into U.S.
public schools to improve the low levels of instruction provided in science and math,
and in some situations, highly gifted students were “spirited away to special schools
and given heavy doses of new curricula that were developed by leading educators
and scientists (Delisle, 1999, p. 31).
21
Although education was experiencing change due to the social and political
context of the time, in 1961, Virgil Ward, who would soon become known as the
“grandfather of differential education for the gifted,” wrote Education for the Gifted:
An Axiomatic Approach which was “one of the first to conceptualize characteristics
of gifted education as different from education for all students” (Hertzog, 1998, p.
214). It was Ward’s belief that “the education of the gifted child and youth should
emphasize enduring methods and sources of learning, as opposed to a terminal
emphasis upon present states of knowledge” (Ward, 1961, p. 156). He advocated
that “learning should be conceived as the continuous, on-going acquisition of data
pertinent to problem situations, not as a set of given facts which, it is hoped will
apply to problems that arise subsequently in the life career” (Ward, 1961, p. 156).
His work was fundamental to the re-examination of curriculum as an enriching
experience, based on broad principles that would prepare students with the
knowledge and critical thinking necessary to respond to the demands made upon
them in a “dynamic world of material and social change” (Ward, 1961, p.7). He
believed it was the responsibility of teachers and counselors of gifted to take their
roles seriously and to teach children in ways that were respectful to their differential
emotional and cognitive needs. It was then that he believed true learning could occur
(Delisle, 1999).
Despite the contributions of the many experts who advocated for the
education of the gifted, the mid 1970’s and 1980’s were met with state and national
reports. The Marland Report (1972) raised awareness of the “serious inadequacies in
22
education for America’s most bright and talented students” and A Nation at Risk
(1983), challenged many areas of practice within American education (Jolly and
Kettler, 2008, p. 429). From the reports however, came a resurgence of interest in
the livelihood of gifted children in public schools (Delisle, 1999). An outcome of
this increased attention was the presentation of guiding principles to differentiation,
by Passow (1982), which included:
1. The content of curricula for the gifted/talented should focus on and be
organized to include more elaborate, complex, in-depth study of major
areas, problems and themes that integrate knowledge with and across
systems of thought;
2. Curricula for the gifted/talented should allow for the development and
application of productive thinking skills to enable students to
reconceptualize existing knowledge and /or generate new knowledge;
3. Curricula for the gifted/talented should enable them to explore constantly
changing knowledge and information and develop the attitude that
knowledge is worth pursuing in an open world;
4. Curricula for the gifted/talented should encourage exposure to, selection
and use of appropriate and specialized resources;
5. Curricula for the gifted/talented should promote self-initiated and self-
directed learning and growth;
23
6. Curricula for the gifted/talented should provide for the development of
self-understandings and the understanding of one’s relationship to
persons, societal institutions, nature and culture; and
7. Evaluations of curricula for the gifted/talented should be conducted in
accordance with prior stated principles, stressing higher-level thinking
skills, creativity, and excellence in performance and products (Passow,
1982, p. 7-10 as cited in Hertzog, 1998, p. 214).
As evidenced over time, designing learning experiences for gifted students
cannot be accomplished through “’one size fits all’ programming or simple
administrative edict” (Stepien & Stepien, 2006, p. 399). Because gifted students,
similar to other learners, represent a diverse population, meeting the needs of the
gifted involves significant curricular and instructional modification specific to the
varying abilities and interests of individual learners (Stepien & Stepien, 2006).
Designing curriculum and instruction that ensures students are provided
opportunities to broaden and develop their knowledge and skills through appropriate
and challenging learning experiences has led to the creation of clearly articulated
program standards by both the National Association for Gifted Children (1994) and
the California Association for the Gifted (2001, Rev. 2005) (California Department
of Education, 1994).
Often, gifted students learning is more advanced than their grade level peers
requiring modification of the curriculum to provide a high level of depth, complexity
and acceleration in their learning (CAG, 2003). To ensure gifted student experience
24
appropriate differentiation, in California, the California Recommended Standards for
Programs for Gifted and Talented Students Section 3: Curriculum and Instruction
explain that “districts are to develop differentiated curriculum, instructional models
and strategies that are aligned with and extend the state academic content standards
and curriculum frameworks. The differentiated curriculum is related to theories,
models, and practices from the recognized literature in the field (EC 52206[a] and
52206[b]) (California Department of Education, 2005, p. 4). Within this section,
minimum standards for districts to receive one-year approval of their GATE plan
include:
1. The differentiated curriculum facilitates gifted students in their ability to
meet or exceed state core curriculum standards.
2. The differentiated curriculum provides for the balanced development of
critical, creative, problem solving and research skills, advanced content
and authentic and appropriate products.
3. The differentiated curriculum focuses primarily on depth and complexity
of content, advanced or accelerated pacing of content and novelty (unique
and original expressions of student understanding).
4. The differentiated curriculum facilitates development between ethical
standards, positive self-concepts, sensitivity and responsibility to others
and contributions to society.
5. The differentiated curriculum is scheduled on a regular basis and is
integral to the school day.
25
6. The differentiated curriculum is taught with appropriate instructional
models.
7. The differentiated curriculum is supported by appropriate materials and
technology. (California Department of Education, 2005, p. 4)
Differentiation
A common term used in the field of gifted education is differentiation
(Gubbins, 1994). The concept of the term however, is not particular to the gifted and
is regularly used in many ways by experts and practitioners throughout the field of
general and special education to explain how the general curriculum and supporting
instruction can be modified (Kaplan, 1986; Linn-Cohen & Hertzog, 2007). The
frequent use of the term often leads to ambiguity, highlighting the importance of
educators and advocates of the gifted in working together to articulate the meaning
of differentiation as it relates to high-ability, gifted student populations (Linn-Cohen
and Hertzog, 2007).
Literature in the field of gifted education has become replete with definitions
and descriptions of differentiation (Gubbins, 1994). As explained by Tomlinson
(2008), differentiation has been used in varied ways by experts such as Kaplan
(1994) and Ward (1980) to include modifications of curriculum and instruction
appropriate to the needs of gifted learners. More recently, she explains, the term has
taken on more broad meanings to include modification of curriculum and instruction
to serve academically diverse students (Tomlinson, 1999). Differentiation includes
modification of content, process, product and learning environment in order to
26
design educational experiences that ensure appropriate learning experiences that may
vary in acceleration, depth, complexity and/or degree of novelty (California
Department of Education, 1994; Tomlinson, 2008).
Differentiation requires a continuing reexamination of what students learn,
how they learn, and who is responsible for the what and how” (California
Department of Education, 1994, p. 9). Numerous students who are identified as
gifted spend considerable portions of their school time in heterogeneous classrooms;
yet, research indicates that fewer than 20% of gifted students are appropriately
challenged while in school (Tomlinson, 2008; CAG, 2004). In many districts and
schools throughout the state, “standards, tests and accountability programs are
today’s favored tools for raising overall academic achievement” (Resnick, 1999, p.
1). Curriculum typically developed in accord with local, state and/or organizational
standards, does not provide advanced standards or learning opportunities that support
the attributes of gifted students (Betts, 2004). At times, the increased desire to
achieve equity and higher achievement ignores the relationship between students
being provided challenging, interdisciplinary curriculum and instruction and
significantly higher test performance (Resnick, 1999; Rogers, 2007). By contrast,
the core curriculum embodied in California’s curriculum framework, often described
as a “thinking curriculum,” has been designed to bring into practice the principles of
differentiation. Utilization of the principles provides content rich curricular
experiences that challenge all students, including the advanced, to engage in the
search for meaning by integrating prior knowledge and skills to develop critical
27
thinking across disciplines, topics and concepts (California Department of Education,
1994).
Thematically rich and challenging curriculum is the heart of education for the
gifted (Rakow, 2008). Gifted learners have an insatiable appetite for increased
knowledge and enjoy opportunities for problem solving and exploration (CAG,
2004; Rakow, 2008). Providing students rich, stimulating learning experiences is
integral to the teaching and learning of the gifted (Passow, Goldberg, Tannembaum,
& French, 1995). Differentiation through the modification of curriculum content,
learning processes and products can provide challenge and engages students with
opportunities for deeper understanding (Rakow, 2008; Passow, Goldberg,
Tannembaum, & French, 1955). Enriched curriculum, as described by Passow,
Goldberg, Tannembaum & French (1955), can expose gifted students to a greater
variety of subject matter, creative areas and problems that are of concern providing
students greater depth of experience.
Differentiation as it relates Challenge, Interest and Use
Rooted in educational psychology, the concepts of challenge, interest and use
as they relate to student choice are commonly associated with motivation theory and
expectancy value (Omrod, 2008; Patrick, Gentry & Owen, 2006). The cognitive
process related to the theories emphasizes the relationship between students’
thoughts, perceptions and beliefs about themselves, the subject matter or activity,
and the learning context or situation (Pintrich &Schunk, 2002). While it is easy to
assume that gifted students will have successful scholastic experiences, “because- by
28
definition- they learn and understand things more quickly than their age-mates do”
school accomplishment is not guaranteed and in fact motivation plays a critical role
in student success (Robinson, Zigler & Gallagher, 2000 as cited by Patrick, Gentry &
Owen, 2006, p. 165). As noted, many gifted students are eager to grow their
competencies, embrace challenge and opportunities for development, and search for
experiences that enable them to realize their academic and personal potential
(Patrick, Gentry & Owen, 2006). However, giftedness does not guarantee self-
regulation skills and/or confidence in learning new skills (Patrick, Genrty, & Owen,
2006).
Designing educational experiences for gifted students requires the careful
planning and implementation of strategies and methods that foster authentic
instruction that elicit higher-order thinking and a deep understanding of central ideas
or topics of the disciplines (Stepien &Stepien, 2006). Few will dispute that requiring
gifted students to do more of the same kind of task that has already been mastered, is
neither stimulating nor challenging (Passow, Goldberg, Tannembaum, & French,
1955). Many gifted students seek to realize their academic and personal potential
and the concepts of challenge, interest and use all contribute to student motivation
and increased learning capacity (Patrick, Gentry & Owen, 2006).
Challenge involves a situation in which a learner believes that success is
possible with sufficient effort (Ormrod, 2008). As defined, challenge occurs within a
situation where students believe they can probably achieve success with a
significant; yet, reasonable amount of effort (Omrod, 2008). Regardless of whether
29
they are in a gifted or regular classroom, gifted students thrive in situations where
they have appropriate challenges (Patrick, Gentry & Owen, 2006). Sufficient
challenge provides opportunities for students to learn to work hard, experience
frustration, and welcome future challenge without fear of failure (Patrick, Gentry, &
Owen, 2006). Challenging tasks; however, must be accompanied by opportunities
for scaffolded learning where challenging tasks are adjusted to students so as to
enable them to work within a learning context that is not so difficult to cause
frustration, but not too simple to cause boredom (Patrick, Gentry & Owen, 2006).
Choice in challenge involves uncertain success over easy tasks, expending effort,
persistence and the need to utilize cognitive and self regulatory strategies (Dai, 2000;
Malpass et. al., 1999). With value for challenge, gifted students are “more likely to
be resilient to setbacks, and develop the persistence and tenacity needed for future,
more difficult accomplishments” (Patrick, Gentry & Owen, 2006, p. 182).
Gifted students seek challenge, they value ownership and they thirst for
opportunity to have choice in areas of interest where they can delve more deeply into
their own studies. Students who are identified as gifted, or who have high ability
must be challenged at high levels of cognitive value in order for maximum learning
outcomes to be achieved (Dixon, 2006). If students are not afforded appropriately
differentiated learning opportunities, they may “languish in boredom in school and
fail to develop their talent” (Dixon, 2006, p. 326). Quality differentiation however,
provides students with sufficiently challenging experiences that can develop mastery,
increased competencies and ultimately expertise (Subotnik and Jarvin, 2005).
30
Differentiation based on student interest yields positive impacts on learning
and has been found to increase student motivation and productivity (Amabile, 1983;
Torrance, 1995; Hebert, 1993; Renninger, 1990; Tobias 1990, as cited in Tomlinson,
2008). Students who are provided choice in learning opportunities and are able to
pursue their own interests during their curricular studies are more likely to connect
their current studies with their future personal goals which has been found to be an
effective predictor for curricular and academic success (Csikszentmihaly et al.,1993,
as cited in Tomlinson, 2008). A teacher therefore, as a facilitator of learning, plays a
key role in providing choices and helping students develop the skills necessary to
appropriately select meaningful and challenging learning experiences (Douglas,
2004). By doing so, teachers can help students “become more than passive
recipients of our teaching” and regularly employ responsive pedagogy that connects
content with students’ experiences, backgrounds and interests (Douglas, 2004, p.
223; Tomlinson, 2008).
Practitioners and researchers alike understand that the teaching and learning
process takes time. Increasingly complex levels of thinking require that students are
given the time necessary to explore topics and concepts in depth (CDE, 1994).
Making available a wide range of curriculum options for gifted students who
demonstrate academic strength necessitates adaptations be made to the curriculum
specific to the use of varied resources and time essential for exploration and meaning
making (Matthews and Foster, 2006; Douglas, 2004). With this understanding,
students need to be afforded learning experiences that provide them with the time
31
essential to put forth the sustained effort need for meaning making through analysis,
collaboration and metacognition (CDE, 1994).
Gifted students have the potential to become producers of knowledge rather
than simple consumers (Betts, 2004). Research suggests positive gains from teachers
who provide differentiation based on learner readiness, student interest and need(s)
(Tomlinson, 2008). In this sense, learning experiences match the students varying
needs and have been found to maximize challenge and heighten motivation while
fostering increased movement toward autonomy and learning success for gifted
students (Linn & Shore, 2008). For some, success is only possible when this occurs
as it is within student readiness and interest that learners can experience independent
and self-directed learning that is appropriately challenging and personally useful
(Betts, 2004). Teachers therefore need to create differentiated learning experiences
that promote in-depth, complex thinking and learning curriculum that is
appropriately responsive to the concepts of challenge, interest and time.
Depth and Complexity
Depth and complexity, as exemplified in Table 2, has been defined both
conceptually and visually to promote differentiated curriculum by increasing the
depth to which a student explores a topic of study and the complexity or intricacies
of the subject matter studied specific to issues, problems and themes within, between
and across disciplines (CDE, 1994). “The articulation of depth and complexity as
two means by which the content element in the learning experience equation could
be modified” was the result of the 1994 Javits Grant-fundend collaborative work
32
conducted by the California Department of Education and the California Association
for the Gifted (Kaplan, 2005, p. 111). The use of depth and/or complexity as a
means to alter the core curriculum enables gifted students to participate in
meaningful learning experiences without being penalized for demonstrating prior
knowledge, or accelerated or advanced understanding of the core curriculum.
Instead, the prompts of depth and complexity enable one to further develop their
understanding in a more complex, sophisticated manner, suitable for their advanced
needs, interest and/or ability (Kaplan, 2005).
As defined, depth, “refers to approaching or studying something from the
concrete to the abstract” (CDE, 1994). Depth reveals details and new knowledge
related to an area of study enabling students to study topics by fact, concepts,
generalizations and theories related to the inquiry. Inquiry to support depth during
curricular learning encourages students to recognize patterns, trends, and rules found
within the curriculum, which often leads students to discovery of unanswered
questions and big ideas. Moving from the simple to the complex, the use of depth
facilitates students learning along a continuum of factual to conceptual
understanding.
33
Table 2. Prompts of Depth and Complexity

Dimensions of Depth
Iconic Prompt Prompt Definition

Language of the
Discipline
• terms specific to an area of study
• specialized vocabulary
• language used by experts in a field

Details • attributes, features, characteristics
• defining elements
• elaborations
• embellishments

Patterns • recurring elements, events, factors
• ordering and predicting events, factors
• motifs, designs

Rules • structure
• implicit and explicit factors, causes,
effects
• organizational elements

Trends • ongoing factors, influences
• factors of cause and effect
• persistent changes over time
• general direction in which something
tends to move

Unanswered
Questions
• unclear ideas or information
• unknown, unproven or incomplete
information
• areas yet to be explored

Ethics • dilemmas, controversies
• value-laden ideas
• elements of bias, prejudice,
discrimination

Big Ideas • generalizations, principles, theories
• overarching general statements or rules
• general principles derived from
inductive reasoning (from detailed
facts)
34
Responding to the various levels of skill, knowledge, or interest,
differentiated instruction often increases student understanding of the core
curriculum by modifying the complexity of the study (CDE, 1994). “Complexity
involves making relationships between and among ideas, connecting other concepts,
and layering- a why/how interdisciplinary approach that connects” the disciplines
(CDE, 1994, p. 14). Complexity includes identifying and understanding different
perspectives, noting relationships over time and relating concepts across disciplines.
Studies that include the prompts of complexity foster critical thinking that goes
beyond the why’s and “how’s” to instead probe the “for what purposes” and the “to
what consequences” types of wonderings that lead to theoretical and interdisciplinary
understanding (Ward, 1961). Lastly, an integral attribute of depth and complexity is
the responsive process by which teachers and students co-construct knowledge
through critical thinking and metacognition (CDE, 1994).
Prompts
To aid students in meaning making, and to engage them in the metacognitive
process of learning to learn, prompts are frequently used (Bush, 2006). Represented
by pictures, key words, scripts, auditory passages or advance organizers, prompts
have shown to improve recall, understanding and knowledge acquisition across the
disciplines (Herron, Hanley and Cole, 1995; Bastick, 1999). Varying in type,
prompts facilitate explanation and provide students with the scaffold or aid necessary
for elaboration and understanding (Boyle & Peregoy, 1990). Used as visual or
graphic organizers, prompts have shown to activate schema, build on prior
35
knowledge and facilitate comprehension of text based in formation (Perez-Prado,
n.d; Bastick, 1999). The use of visual teaching tools, such as prompts, enables
teachers to engage students in learning experiences where content can be learned
more effectively and more efficiently (Thinking Maps, Retrieved 4/1/09 from
www.thinkingmaps.com).
As a means to differentiate instruction, prompts, when used as a scaffold,
elicit the following: (1) meaningful conversations about content; (2) discourse
patterns; (3) modeled expectations; (4) support for student learning at a level slightly
beyond student competence; and (5) temporary support that may be removed when
the student is ready to work without them (Boyle & Peregoy, 1990). Additionally,
active use of prompts by students has been found to be responsive to student interest
and need (Risko & Alvarez, 1982). The flexibility and multiple ways in which
prompts can be used promotes thematic interdisciplinary instruction and cognitive
development leading to more sophisticate ways to acquire and interpret information
(Risko & Alvarex, 1982; Thinking Maps, Retrieved 4/1/09 from
www.thinkingmaps.com).
Constructivism
The constructivist classroom, as explained by Dixon & Moon (2006) allows
for the characteristics of the gifted to be considered when appropriately planning
curriculum and instruction. Common to the constructivist classroom are the
following elements:
36
1. Complex, challenging learning environments and authentic tasks;
2. Social negotiation and share responsibility as part of learning;
3. Multiple representations of content;
4. Understanding that knowledge is constructed; and
5. Student-centered instruction. (Snowman & Biehler, 2000 as cited in
Dixon, 2008, p. 372).
The constructivist approach to learning asserts that knowledge is not fixed
and that meaning is made through a constructive, active process of learning (Ormrod,
2008). Building on prior knowledge is central to the constructivist viewpoint,
therefore experience, activity, inquiry, and scaffolding are perceived as integral in
the learning of new information. Evidence of these principles is essential to
appropriately supporting differentiation for gifted students.
Responding appropriately to students through differentiation enables teachers
to organize learning tasks ranging in complexity from simple to sophisticated,
thereby allowing students to demonstrate their unique understandings and abilities to
work at a higher level (CDE, 1994). With the role of the teacher as that of a
facilitator of learning, learning experiences within the constructivist learning context
are purposefully planned to build on the prior knowledge, beliefs and experiences of
the students (Glassman, 2001). In this setting, there is interdependence between
teacher and student which empowers students to be responsible for their learning.
As a result, students are provided a variety of learning opportunities to construct
meaning while working within the areas they find to be of interest and of challenge
37
(Dixon & Moon 2006). Ultimately, the role of the teacher is to develop students as
experts as it is in this conception that students are provided opportunities to
determine their own content, process, and products (Betts, 2004).
Conclusion
A chief goal of gifted and talented education is the development of the gifted
student as a self-directed, independent, life-long learner (Betts, 2004). As
documented over time, the history of gifted education is rich with events and people
that have advocated for the appropriate education of gifted children for decades
(Karnes & Nugent, 2002). This includes the creation of the California
Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented Students (CDE,
2001, Rev. 2005). Such standards are in place to ensure teachers provide
challenging and worthwhile tasks for their students that foster maximum engagement
and academic rigor (Dixon and Moon, 2006).
While research specific to the prompts of depth and complexity is minimal,
the purpose of this research project was to determine how the prompts of depth and
complexity, as defined, help to promote gifted student understanding across the
disciplines. It was also anticipated that the study would enable the researcher to
understand how the concepts of challenge, student interest, and use affect student use
of the prompts. Consequently, the purpose of this literature review was to explain
the varying factors that contributed to the rising concern of creating learning
experiences for gifted students that are not only differentiated, but more importantly
reflect in-depth study and complex thought across the disciplines.
38
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
During a time when student success is determined by individual or group
mastery of grade level standards measured by standardized test outcomes, one must
not lose sight of the fact that high quality curriculum and instruction for all students,
the gifted in particular, matters and perhaps begs the questions “What’s worth
learning? When’s the best time to learn it? and Who needs to learn it? (Rakow,
2008). “Contrary to widespread belief, these students cannot ordinarily excel
without assistance” (Marland, 1972, p. 42). A good program for the gifted increases
student involvement and interest in learning through the “reduction of the irrelevant
and redundant” (Marland, 1972, p. 42) and provides students the opportunity to
participate in learning experiences that are not only challenging, but also engaging
and responsive to the cultural diversity present in our society (Hertzog & Linn-
Cohen, 2007; NAGC, 1994). Understanding this, research efforts specific to gifted
education are imperative.
“Applied researchers work on human and societal problems” (Patton, 2002,
p. 216). With an interest in helping people understand the nature of a problem in
order to intervene, and more effectively control the environment (Patton, 2002), the
purpose of this applied research study was to: (1) determine how the prompts of
depth and complexity affect gifted and non-gifted student achievement across the
disciplines, and (2) understand how gifted students use of the prompts of depth and
39
complexity are affected by the concepts of challenge, interest and use. The findings
of this study will contribute to an existing research project, directed by Dr. Sandra
Kaplan (2005), and funded through the Jacob K. Javits Models of Teaching Grant
(PR # S26A040072). The project, which was designed to develop teacher expertise
for the purpose of raising the achievement levels of gifted students representing
diverse linguistic, economic, cultural, and academic abilities, aims to develop
teachers’ competencies to teach advanced content, appropriately challenging, to
gifted students in one or all of the curricular disciplines through differentiated
curriculum that employs the models of teaching and the prompts of depth and
complexity.
The Research Questions
1. How do the prompts of depth and complexity affect gifted and non-gifted
student understanding of content areas?
2. How are gifted students use of the prompts of depth and complexity
affected by the concepts of challenge, interest and use?
Research Design
This study was designed as a mixed methods study following the principles
of applied research which enabled the researcher to “expand the scope and breadth of
a study by using different methods in different components” (Miles & Huberman,
1994, p. 41). The purpose of this two-phase mixed methods research study was to
determine the curricular effects of utilizing the prompts of depth and complexity
with both gifted and non-gifted students. Utilizing data acquired from the primary
40
study of the Models of Teaching Grant (PR #S26A040072), quantitative research
data provided information to better understand the relationship between an
independent variable, of 88 gifted or non-gifted students from an urban school
district in Southern California, and a dependent variable, depth and complexity
utilized in context across the disciplines. The knowledge gained through the primary
study was further explored in a secondary analysis. In the second phase, qualitative
interviews were conducted with 30 students who participated in the primary study as
a means to better understand student perceptions of the prompts of depth and
complexity as they relate to the concepts of challenge, interest and use. The
interviews also allowed the researcher to better understand how the prompts of depth
and complexity are utilized by students across the disciplines (Cresswell, 2009).
One-on-one interviews were also conducted with three teachers to further support the
data collected from the students.
The primary source of data collection was quantitatively collected in the form
of a pre and post test (Appendix A) created as part of the Jacob K. Javits Models of
Teaching Grant (PR #S26A040072). One-one-one interviews, following an
interview guide “that lists the questions or issues that are to be explored in the course
of an interview” provided qualitative data and served as a secondary source of data
collection (Patton, 2002, p. 343). Purposeful sampling allows for the selection of
information rich cases and can yield insights and in-depth understanding rather than
broad, empirical generalizations (Patton, 2002). This method was specifically
41
chosen to enable the researcher to gather “information-rich cases whose study will
illuminate the questions under study” (Patton, 2002, p. 230).
Subjects and Sampling
The initial study, funded through the Javits Models of Teaching Grant (PR
#S26A040072) included 14 elementary school teachers and approximately 350
students from grades two through five; however, for the purposes of this research
study, the data utilized for the primary quantitative analysis was representative of 88
students (Table 3) in grades two through five who attend an elementary school in an
urban school district located in Southern California (Table 4).

Table 3. Gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Female 43 48.9 48.9 48.9
Male 45 51.1 51.1 100.0
Total 88 100.0 100.0

Table 4. Grade

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 2 2
nd
Grade 19 21.6 21.6 21.6
3 3
rd
Grade 39 44.3 44.3 65.9
4 4
th
Grade 30 34.1 34.1 100.0
Total 88 100.0 100.0
42
The classrooms studied were comprised of mixed ability students, but
contained clusters of identified gifted learners (Table 5). As noted in Table 6, there
was reasonable distribution of ethnicity. Zero students were classified as English
Language Learners (ELL) (Table 7), and some students did receive free and reduced
lunch (Table 8).

Table 5. Gifted Status

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Gifted 54 61.4 61.4 61.4
Non-Gifted 34 38.6 38.6 100.0
Total 88 100.0 100.0

Table 6. Ethnicity

Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid African American 6 6.8 6.8 6.8
Asian/Pacific
Islander
11 12.5 12.5 19.3
Caucasian/White 40 45.5 45.5 64.8
Hispanic/Latino 28 31.8 31.8 96.6
Other/Bi-racial 2 2.3 2.3 98.9
Unknown 1 1.1 1.1 100.0
Total 88 100.0 100.0
43
Table 7. ELL

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 88 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total 88 100.0 100.0

Table 8. Free and Reduced Lunch

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 59 67.0 67.0 67.0
Yes 29 33.0 33.9 100.0
Total 88 100.0 100.0

Students in the sample group received instruction from teachers who were
participating in the Javits Models of Teaching Grant (PR #S26A040072). Through
on-going professional development and on-line and/or on-site mentorship, each of
the participating teachers received inservice teacher education specific to
differentiated instruction related to the models of teaching and the prompts of depth
and complexity. Therefore, each participating teacher was expected to utilize the
prompts consistently during the delivery of curriculum and instruction. The level of
expertise demonstrated by the participating teachers was be dependent upon factors
such as, years of service, years participating in the Javits Grant and type of pre-
service teacher preparation received prior to beginning the grant project.
44
Data Collection
To assess students’ understanding of content, pre and post tests (Appendix A)
were created by the project director and served as a primary source for analysis. The
assessments were administered to all students by their classroom teacher. Pre-tests
were administered in the fall of 2008 and post-tests were administered in the spring
of 2009. To ensure reliability, each assessment was coded by two raters utilizing a
rubric created by the project director. Each rater was well versed in utilizing the
prompts of depth and complexity and was therefore deemed qualified for the
evaluation. Once coded, the data from the pre-post test was analyzed, by a research
firm, using parametric statistical measurements in the form of T-Tests and
ANOVA’s. Non-parametric measurements of chi-square were also performed.
One-on-one interviews were held in February, 2010 and served as a
secondary method of research. The subjects were 30 gifted and non-gifted students
who had previously participated in the pre-post test evaluation. The purpose of the
interview discussions was to determine student perceptions the prompts of depth and
complexity as they relate to their understanding of the curriculum. To ensure
consistency and reliability, following a predetermined interview protocol (Appendix
B) that was comprised of nine questions, the researcher took notes while engaging in
conversation with the students and audio recorded all statements. Each interview
was conducted at school, during the school day, in a location familiar to the students.
Upon completion, each student interview was transcribed by an outside source. The
data from each interview was then analyzed using quantitative analysis of a
45
combination of parametric and non-parametric statistical measurements which
included chi-square, t-tests, frequency counts and ANOVA’s. Coding of student
responses enabled the researcher to complete qualitative data analysis that revealed
patterns and trends within student responses that added to knowledge attained
through quantitative analysis. This data enabled the researcher to draw conclusions
that reflect student perceptions of the prompts of depth and complexity across the
disciplines as they relate to the concepts of use, interest and challenge.
One-on-one interview were also conducted with the classroom teachers
whose students were included in the interview process. Interviews were conducted
in February and followed a predetermined interview protocol (Appendix C). While
the researcher took notes on the interview protocol, the personal conversations were
audio recorded and transcribed by an outside source upon conclusion of the
interview. The information noted by the interviews was coded to note patterns
which enabled the researcher to form generalizations specific to teacher perceptions
of how the prompts of depth and complexity affect student learning. This data was
used to augment the findings of the student data.
Research Procedure/Methodology
Mixed methods research is an approach that combines quantitative and
qualitative forms of data collection and analysis. “Thus, it is more than simply
collecting and analyzing both kinds of data; it also involves the use of both
approaches in tandem so that the overall strength of a study is greater than either
qualitative or quantitative research” (Cresswell, 2009, p. 4). Designed as a mixed
46
methods study, this study enabled the project director and researcher to assess how
the prompts of depth and complexity affect student understanding of the core
curriculum.
The use of pre and post test data provided the researcher with quantifiable
data that measured student application of the prompts of depth and complexity in
various disciplines. Personal interviews conducted with students, purposefully
chosen due to their participation in the grant project, provided the researcher with
additional quantifiable data and qualitative information specific to student perception
and use of the prompts of depth and complexity. In addition, one-on-one interviews
were conducted with the teachers of those students who interviewed as part of the
process. The methods were determined to ensure the greatest and most accurate
amount of data could be collected.
Pre-Post Tests
Pre and Post tests (Appendix A) were administered during the fall of 2008
and spring of 2009 to all students involved in the Javits Models of Teaching Grant
(PR # S26A040072). Each student was provided with both a visual prompt and
piece of literature to direct their response utilizing the prompts of depth and
complexity. In both the pre and post tests students were asked to list specific
vocabulary, note details, identify patterns, name a point of view, name an ethical
issue and provide examples of big ideas connected to social studies and language arts
concepts. Criteria established by the project director specific to quality and accuracy
of students' responses were used by the project director and outside experts when
47
evaluating each of the open-ended assessments. To minimize investigator bias and
ensure systematic data collection, multiple coders were used to establish validity and
reliability (Patton, 2002). As part of the Javits Grant, the information collected was
analyzed by an independent research company to determine the correlation between
the dependent variables of depth and complexity and independent variables of gifted
and non-gifted status.
Interviews
Personal interviews with students and teachers selected from the grant were
also conducted. As recommended by Clark and Estes (2002) interviews are one of
the best ways to identify beliefs and perceptions. While conducting the interview,
the researcher followed an interview guide. The interview guide allowed the
researcher to “build a conversation within a particular subject area, to word questions
spontaneously, and to establish a conversation style but with the focus on a particular
subject that has been predetermined” (Patton, 2002, p. 343).
Students who participated in the grant were selected for the interviews.
During the month of January, thirty student interviews were conducted enabling the
researcher to meet with students representing grades 3-5. The purpose of the
interview was multifaceted. For all students, it enabled the researcher to learn how
the students used the prompts in a context other than the pre-post test. It also
allowed the researcher to determine how the students’ use of the prompts was
affected by the concepts of challenge, interest, and/or use. Finally, meeting with the
selected students enabled to researcher to ask questions specific to the students’
48
perceptions of how the prompts of depth and complexity influenced their ability
meet or exceed grade level standards across the disciplines (CDE, 2005).
The information gleaned provided the researcher with rich quantitative and
qualitative data to note patterns of student responses as they related to student
perceptions of the prompts of depth and complexity to specific curricular disciplines,
as a curricular scaffold as well the relationship between the prompts and the concept
of academic challenge, interest and use (Appendix B). The combination of
quantitative and qualitative data that was collected allowed for triangulation, further
enabling the researcher to better explain and support the relationship between the
prompts of depth and complexity and student understanding across the disciplines.
Interviews enable a researcher “to collect the views of people who must close
the performance gap” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 105). One-on-one interviews were
conducted in January with the teachers whose students who were part of the primary
and secondary study sample population. Following a predetermined protocol, the
one-on-one interview conducted by the researcher enabled the researcher to learn
how the participating teacher viewed the prompts of depth and complexity as a tool
for facilitating and increasing student understanding of the grade level curriculum
(Appendix C). The information gleaned from the interview provided the researcher
with additional data to identify patterns and trends leading to the formation of
generalizations specific to the significance of the prompts of depth and complexity
and student understanding.
49
Timeline
• Fall 2008: Sites administer pre test to students
• Spring 2009: Sites administer post test to students
• April 2009: Develop rubric for pre-post-test with Dr. Kaplan
• April 2009: Practice scoring data- test rubric
• May 2009: Score pre-post test
• June 2009: Score pre-post test
• July 2009: Send pre-post data to independent research company
• August 2009: Develop interview protocol for teachers
• August 2009: Develop focus group protocol for students
• January 2010: Pilot interview protocol with GATE cluster teachers in
NMUSD
• January 2010: Pilot interview group protocol with students from GATE
cluster classrooms in NMUSD
• February 2010: Modify interview group and interview protocol and re-
administer
• February- March 2010: Conduct interviews with selected students
• February-March 2010: Conduct interviews with selected classroom
teachers
• March 2010: Analyze interview data
• March-June 2010: Draw conclusions
50
Data Analysis
Multiple forms of data analysis were possible as a result of this mixed
methods research study. A sequential explanatory strategy was used to collect and
analyze quantitative data in a first phase of research followed by the analysis of
qualitative data that was used to add to the initial quantitative findings (Cresswell,
2009). Once numerical coding of the pre-post examinations to identify the number
of correct answers given by students was completed by a committee of experts
formed by the project director, an outside research firm conducted a variety of
statistical analysis of the outcomes. To determine how the prompts of depth and
complexity affect gifted and non-gifted student understanding of the content
assessed, parametric statistics of t-tests and anova’s were conducted to provide the
researcher with paired sample statistics and within subject contrast of pre-post test
results. Descriptive statistics, repeated measures analysis of variance and a
generalized linear model were performed to understand how the six prompts of depth
and complexity assessed affected gifted and non-gifted student understanding of the
content assessed.
The second phase of research was completed by the researcher in the form of
personal interviews. “Qualitative researchers tend to collect data in the field at the
site where participants experience the issue or problem under study” (Cresswell,
2009, p.175). In the natural setting of the student’s school, 30 student interviews
were conducted. Each interview followed a protocol that consisted of both forced
choice questions as well as open response. Each interview was audio recorded and
51
upon completion, transcribed by an outside source. The same methods were applied
while conducting three teacher interviews. Following the traditional approach in the
social sciences, the researcher allowed codes to emerge during the process of data
analysis (Cresswell, 2009). This was considered to be inductive analysis. The data
collected from the student interviews provided the researcher with quantitative and
qualitative data specific to student perceptions of the prompts as they relate to the
concepts of (1) usefulness, (2) interest, (3), helpfulness, and (4) challenge. A chi-
square analysis was conducted to assess significant associations between student
perceptions of the prompts across the disciplines as they relate to challenge, use and
interest.
Ultimately, the triangulation of methods enabled patterns and trends across
disciplines and grade levels to emerge. Most importantly, the information learned
provided the researcher with answers to the following questions:
1. How do the prompts of depth and complexity affect gifted and non-gifted
student understanding of content areas?
2. How are gifted students use of the prompts of depth and complexity
affected by the concepts of challenge, interest, time and use?
Validity and Confidence
Several means to ensure validity and confidence were planned and
implemented. As a mixed methods research design, that utilized qualitative and
quantitative measures, validity was established through the use of multiple sources
for data collection and triangulation. Each assessment tool was pilot-tested to ensure
52
clarity and appropriateness. Validity and reliability of the quantitative data, pre-post
assessments, was ensured through professional data analysis provided by an
independent research company. This enabled the researcher to carefully analyze the
data to report quantitative findings and identify patterns and trends that emerged
between the mixed methods. “The challenge of qualitative analysis lies in making
sense of massive amounts of data” (Patton, 2002, p. 432). While there are no
formulas for determining significance, no ways to perfectly replicate the researcher’s
thought process, or straightforward tests to be applied for validity or reliability, it is
important for researchers to do their very best with their “full intellect to fairly
represent the data and communicate what the data reveal given the purpose of the
study” (Patton, 2002, p. 433). To ensure accuracy of the qualitative data collection,
each interview was conducted during the school day, in the familiar location on the
school site. Each interview was tape recorded and notes taken during the interview
protocol were supported by the further transcription of each interview. The combined
data collection allowed the researcher to create a color coded system for analysis of
the transcripts (Cresswell, 2009). This process enabled the researcher to draw
conclusions upon the identification of patterns and trends that emerged during the
coding process.
Pilot Study
Prior to the start of this project, the pre and post-tests were previously
reviewed and modified through a pilot study under the guidelines of the current
Models of Teaching Javits Grant (PR #S26A040072). The additional components for
53
data collection, which included the student and teacher interview questions, were
pilot tested to measure feasibility and usability of each instrument. Each pilot study
took place in January 2010. The students selected for the pilot study were not part of
the Javits Grant study; however, they represented gifted and non-gifted students who
were situated in a gifted cluster classroom configuration. The students selected were
involved in an academic program that consistently utilized the prompts of depth and
complexity across the disciplines. As a result, each student in the pilot study was
familiar with and comfortable using the prompts of depth and complexity while
learning the core, grade level curriculum. The researcher also conducted one-on-one
interviews with selected teachers to test the interview questions and data collection
instrument that would be used with the teachers in the research study. The teachers
selected were the teachers of the students with whom the student interviews were
held. Each was considered a qualified subject due to their level of understanding of
differentiation and the prompts of depth and complexity. Notes were taken by the
researcher throughout the pilot study and modifications were made to each
instrument as necessary. Once adjustments were made, the study was pilot tested
again with the same students and teachers in preparation for implementation with the
grant participants.
54
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Introduction
This study was conducted in order to understand how the prompts of depth
and complexity affect gifted and non-gifted student understanding across the
disciplines. As illustrated by Table 2, found in chapter one, the prompts of depth and
complexity can be represented by pictures and/or words and serve as a catalyst for
inquiry (Kaplan, Guzman, & Tomlinson, 2009, p.14). The eleven prompts stimulate
understanding and “are used to define the elements that make up the principles of
differentiation for gifted and high-ability students” (Kaplan, Guzman & Tomlinson,
2009, p.14). The research employed quantitative and qualitative measures to attain
information utilizing three instruments: (1) pre-post test; (2) student interview
protocol; and (3) teacher interview protocol. The pre-post test was created as part of
the Jacobs Javits Models of Teaching Grant (PR #S26A040072), awarded to the
University of Southern California, and served as a primary source of data collection.
Secondary sources of data collection which included the student and teacher
interview protocol were developed by the researcher to augment the data acquired
from the primary study. The sample population for each measure represented gifted
and non-gifted students in grades 2-5 from an elementary school in the largest urban
school district in Los Angeles, California (Table 9). Student participation in the
grant project ranged from one to five years; therefore, all students were conversant in
the prompts of depth and complexity. Two of the three teachers had also been
55
participants in the grant project and had received continued education specific to the
models of teaching and depth and complexity. The one teacher who did not
participate in the grant did consistently utilize the models of teaching and the
prompts of depth and complexity in her classroom.

Table 9. Demographic Descriptors of Participants

Independent Variables N Percent
Pre-Post Test Participants 19 21.6
2
nd
Grade 39 44.3
3
rd
Grade 30 34.1
4
th
Grade
Student Interview Participants
3
rd
Grade 10 33.3
4
th
Grade 11 36.7
5
th
Grade 9 30.0
Teacher Interview Participants
3
rd
Grade 1 33.3
4
th
Grade 1 33.3
5
th
Grade 1 33.3
56
Findings by Research Question
Phase 1: Primary Analysis
Research Question 1
The study’s first research question examined how the prompts of depth and
complexity affect gifted and non-gifted student understanding of content areas.
Designed as a mixed methods research study, a pre-post test to measure student
understanding of content as it related to six prompts of depth and complexity was
administered to students and served as the primary source of data collection and
analysis. The test included two parts: the first, represented by a picture related to
social studies content of child labor, and the second, a folktale narrative were
designed to measure student understanding of two content areas (Appendix A). For
each question, the students were asked to demonstrate their understanding of the
content presented as it related to: (1) special words/language of the discipline; (2)
details; (3) patterns; (4) point of view; (5) ethical idea; and (6) big idea. Students
recorded their responses in blank boxes provided for each prompt of depth and
complexity. One word was written per box.
Upon completion of several statistical measures which included paired
sample statistical analysis of t-tests, multivariate analysis, descriptive analysis, chi-
square and f-tests, it was learned that both gifted and non-gifted student
understanding improved as a consequence of utilizing the prompts of depth and
complexity. Such findings support the notion of the spillover effect, whereby gifted
57
and non-gifted student understanding of curriculum increases due to differentiated
instructional experiences (DiMartino & Miles, 2004).
Student Understanding Specific to Specific Vocabulary (Language of the Discipline)
and Details

Table 10. Paired Samples Statistics of Pre-Post Test for Special Words and Details
and Patterns

Mean N
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Pair
1
p1_ 1.1 Special words to describe
the picture: Pre
2.40 83 1.710 .188
p1_1.2 Special words to describe
the picture: Post
3.41 83 1.907 .209
Pair
2
p2_1.1 Details to describe the
picture: Pre
2.39 83 1.599 .176
p2_1.2 Details to describe the
picture: Post
2.90 83 1.785 .196
Pair
3
n1_ 1.1 Special words to describe
the folktale: Pre
2.76 80 1.715 .192
n1_ 1.2 Special words to describe
the folktale: Post
3.29 80 2.194 .245
Pair
4
n2_1.1 Details to describe the
folktale: Pre
2.10 80 1.588 .178
n2_1.2 Details to describe the
folktale: Post
2.36 80 1.766 .197
t-test; p=picture; n-narrative
58
Table 11. Paired Samples Statistics for Pre and Post Test for Special Words and
Details

Mean t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Pair
1
p1_ 1.1 Special words to describe
the picture: Pre
-1.012 -3.967 82 .000
p1_1.2 Special words to describe
the picture: Post

Pair
2
p2_1.1 Details to describe the
picture: Pre
-.518 -2.168 82 .033
p2_1.2 Details to describe the
picture: Post

Pair
3
n1_ 1.1 Special words to describe
the folktale: Pre
-.525 -1.632 79 .107
n1_ 1.2 Special words to describe
the folktale: Post

Pair
4
n2_1.1 Details to describe the
folktale: Pre
-.262 - .961 79 .339
n2_1.2 Details to describe the
folktale: Post

Table 10 reflects the knowledge gained through a paired sample statistical
analysis of a t-test. This table indicates that while the findings do not demonstrate
significance as determined by a value less than .05, there was overall improvement
between the pre and post test for special words and details for the social studies
picture item and folktale narrative item. As evidenced by the data, the greatest
amount of improvement between pre and post test outcomes was found with student
59
understanding as it related to special words, also commonly referred to as language
of the discipline, to describe the picture and narrative. A pretest mean score of 2.40
correct and a post test mean score of 3.41 correct demonstrated improved student
understanding (1.01) using special words to describe the picture. Additionally, a
pretest mean score of 2.76 correct and a post test mean score of 3.29 also indicated
improved student understanding (0.53) of the narrative specific to special words used
to describe the folktale. Additional paired sample statistical analysis (Table 11) of
the pre and post test data for special words and details to describe the picture and
folktale narrative further support the positive effects of utilizing depth and
complexity to improve student understanding and indicated significant findings, at a
value of less than .05. Prompts, visual and verbal, help students to activate
knowledge and aid in comprehension (Risko & Alvarez, 1982). The utilization of
graphic organizers like the prompts of depth and complexity, help to make the
content more meaningful and easier for students to understand (Bastick, 1999).
60
Student Understanding Specific to Language of the Discipline in a Picture

Table 12.1. Language of the Discipline in a Picture Descriptive Statistics

Gifted Mean Std. Deviation N
p1_ 1.1 Special words to
describe the picture: Pre
1 Gifted 2.70 1.657 50
2 Non-Gifted 1.94 1.713 33
Total 2.40 1.710 83
p1_1.2 Special words to
describe the picture: Post
1 Gifted 3.38 1.817 50
2 Non-Gifted 3.45 2.063 33
Total 3.41 1.907 83

Table 12.2. Multivariate Tests

Effect

Value F
Hypothesis
df
Error
df Sig.
prepost Pillai’s Trace .182 18.082 1.000 81.000 .000
Wilks’ Lambda .818 18.082 1.000 81.000 .000
Hotelling’s Trace .223 18.082 1.000 81.000 .000
Roy’s Largest Root .223 18.082 1.000 81.000 .000
Prepost
*gifted
Pillai’s Trace .031 2.617 1.000 81.000 .110
Wilks’ Lambda .969 2.617 1.000 81.000 .110
Hotelling’s Trace .032 2.617 1.000 81.000 .110
Roy’s Largest Root .032 2.617 1.000 81.000 .110
61
Table 12.3. Tests of Within-Subjects Contrast

Source prepost
Type III Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Source F Sig
prepost Linear 47.897 1 47.897 18.082 .000
prepost *
gifted
Linear 6.933 1 6.933 2.617 .110
Error
(prepost)
Linear 214.561 81 2.649

The first prompt of depth and complexity that students were asked to respond
to was related to special words to describe the picture. This is also known as
language of the discipline. Increased student understanding of language of the
discipline for the picture prompt was evident as is provided in the data presented in
Tables 12.1-12.3. Table 12.1 illustrates mean growth of .68 correct for gifted
students and mean growth 1.51 correct for non-gifted students between pre and post
test for special words to describe the picture. A multivariate analysis of the same
data, including parametric analysis of ANOVA, illustrated by Table 12.2 and Table
12.3, showed significant findings where p=<.05 for non-gifted students (p=.000).
Through descriptive statistical analysis and multivariate tests of pre and post test
achievement for both gifted and non-gifted students, it was apparent through
increased output by gifted and non-gifted students that the integration of depth and
complexity, specific to language of the discipline positively affected student learning
outcomes.
62
The findings support the notion of a spillover effect as it has been found that
effective approaches for differentiation “can be successfully implemented within the
regular classroom, to the benefit of all children, through curriculum practices
appropriate to each child’s development” (Smutney, Walker, & Meckstroth, 1997, p.
2). In addition, the use of prompts, as explained by cognitive psychology, aids in the
thinking and understanding associated with content (Bush, 2006). Meaning depends
not only upon a sign, but also upon an “interpretant- a representation of the world in
terms of which the sign-referent relationship is mediated” (Bruner, 1990, p.69).
Similarly parallel to the use of literacy scaffolds, as described by Boyle and Peregoy
(1990), student understanding of specific vocabulary helps facilitate successful
encounters with new content.
Student Understanding Specific to Details in a Picture
Tables 13.1-13.3 illustrate through descriptive statistics, multivariate tests
and within subject contrast of gifted and non-gifted student understanding of details
in a picture prompt. This explains the outcomes for the second question presented on
the pre-post test for the students. This question asked students to list details to
describe the picture prompt. Mean growth based on pre and post test data, as
demonstrated in Table 13.1, indicates increased understanding for both gifted and
non-gifted students. Gifted student understanding increased from a pretest mean
score of 2.62 correct to a post test mean score of 3.18 correct, yielding a mean
growth of .56. Non gifted student understanding increased from a pretest mean
number correct of 2.03 to a post test mean number correct of 2.48. This indicated a
63
mean score improvement of .45. The same pre-post data was also analyzed using
multivariate tests which included Pillai’s Trace, Wilks’ Lambda, Hotelling’s Trace
and Roy’s Largest Root. It was learned from the pre-post analysis that significant
findings (p=<.05) were found for the non-gifted (p=.042). The test within subjects
contrast affirmed the previously described findings for gifted and non-gifted student
understanding of details in a picture and reflected significant outcomes (p=<.05) for
non-gifted students with a p value of .042. Following the tenants of differentiation, it
is evident in the data presented that when teachers engage students in learning
experiences that integrate a variety of activities and materials to increase the
difficulty and/or complexity of the content, student understanding and skill
development increases (Smutney, Walker & Meckstroth, 1997).

Table 13.1. Details in Picture Descriptive Statistics

Gifted Mean Std. Deviation N
p1_ 1.1 Details in the
picture: Pre
1 Gifted 2.62 1.665 50
2 Non-Gifted 2.03 1.447 33
Total 2.39 1.599 83
p1_1.2 Details in the
picture: Post
1 Gifted 3.18 1.535 50
2 Non-Gifted 2.48 2.063 33
Total 2.90 1.785 83
64
Table 13.2. Multivariate Tests

Effect
Value F
Hypothesis
df
Error df Sig.
prepost Pillai’s Trace .050 4.266 1.000 81.000 .042
Wilks’ Lambda .950 4.266 1.000 81.000 .042
Hotelling’s Trace .053 4.266 1.000 81.000 .042
Roy’s Largest Root .053 4.266 1.000 81.000 .042
Prepost
*gifted
Pillai’s Trace .001 .046 1.000 81.000 .831
Wilks’ Lambda .999 .046 1.000 81.000 .831
Hotelling’s Trace .001 .046 1.000 81.000 .831
Roy’s Largest Root .001 .046 1.000 81.000 .831

Table 13.3. Tests of Within-Subjects Contrast

Source prepost
Type III Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Source F Sig
prepost Linear 10.231 1 10.231 4.266 .042
prepost *
gifted
Linear .111 1 .111 .046 .831
Error
(prepost)
Linear 194.251 81 2.398

Student Understanding of Patterns in a Picture
The third question included in the assessment asked students to identify a
pattern in the picture prompt. Using a crosstab analysis (Table 14.1) to understand
gifted and non-gifted student learning outcomes, it was evident that all students
improved in their understanding. As described in the crosstab, 29 gifted students
65
(59.2%) and 8 non-gifted students (25%) earned scores of correct-correct. These
findings demonstrated that twice as many gifted than non-gifted students correctly
answered the question. 12 gifted students (24.5%) and 12 non-gifted students
(37.5%) earned scores of incorrect-correct. 6 gifted students (12.2%) and 5 non-
gifted students (15.6%) earned scores of correct-incorrect and 2 gifted students
(4.1%) and 7 non-gifted students (21.9%) earned scores of incorrect-incorrect.
Looking more specifically at the positive learning outcomes, the combined findings
for post test scores of correct indicated 61 (75.3%) of the students, both gifted and
non-gifted, accurately answered the patterns in a picture prompt post test question.
These findings support the belief that “all children have a right to learn every day in
class” and compliment work of Weinbrenner related to cluster grouping, which
enables gifted and non-gifted students consistent opportunities for learning
challenges (Weinbrenner, 1992, p.127).
Table 14.2 provides, through a chi-square analysis, additional data related to
student understanding of patterns in the picture prompt. While the findings were not
significant as determined by a p value less than .05, there appeared to be an
association (p=.008) between gifted status and answering the question correctly. As
also noted by the findings presented in Table 14.1, the greatest amount of difference
was found with gifted students correctly answering the question and non-gifted
answering incorrectly. Gifted students present an array of characteristics. Johnsen
(2004) explains several attributes gifted students present specific to the disciplines
and affect domains. Specifically related to social studies, gifted students have been
66
found to organize and sequence ideas in preparation for writing and speaking.
Additionally, they often have original and creative ideas (Johnsen, 2004). As proven
in increased student understanding by gifted students, the prompts of depth and
complexity help to facilitate the learning essential for gifted students. Teachers
therefore must provide gifted students with opportunities for their characteristics to
be demonstrated (Johnsen, 2004).

Table 14.1. Patterns in a Picture Crosstab

1.00
Correct-
Correct
2.00
Correct-
Incorrect
3.00
Incorrect-
Correct
4.00
Incorrect-
Incorrect Total
Status 1 Gifted Count 29 6 12 2 49
% within
gifted
59.2% 12.2% 24.5% 4.1% 100.0%
2 Non-
Gifted
Count 8 5 12 7 32
% within
in gifted
25.0% 15.6% 37.5% 21.9% 100.0%
Total Count 37 11 24 9 81
% within
gifted
45.7% 13.6% 29.6% 11.1% 100.0%
67
Table 14.2. Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 11.737 3 .008
Likelihood Ratio 12.098 3 .007
Linear-by-Linear Association 10.975 1 .001
N of Valid Cases 81
a. 2 cells (25%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 3.56.

Student Understanding of Point of View in a Picture
The fourth question on the assessment asked students to identify point of
view in the picture prompt. Crosstab analysis (Table 15.1) of gifted and non-gifted
student outcomes indicated that more students, both gifted and non-gifted,
demonstrated increased understanding than decreased understanding. The data
presented in Table 15.1 identified lower numbers of achievement than previous
analysis of the other prompts of depth and complexity. As described in the crosstab,
19 (38%) of the gifted students earned scores of correct-correct as did 9 (27.3%) of
the non-gifted students. Eleven (22.0%) of the gifted and 9 (27.3%) of the non-
gifted earned scores of correct-incorrect. Fourteen (28.0%) of the gifted students
earned scores of incorrect-correct and 10 (30.3%) of the non-gifted earned scores of
incorrect-correct. Six (12.0%) of the gifted students and 5 (15.2%) of the non-gifted
students earned scores of incorrect-incorrect. Overall, 28 (33.7%) of the students
earned scores of correct-correct, 20 (24.1%) of the students earned scores of correct-
incorrect, 24 (28.9%) of the students earned scores of incorrect-correct and 11
68
(13.3%) of the students earned scores of incorrect-incorrect. The data indicated that
greater numbers of students earned correct scores than incorrect scores, but did not
show significance (p=<.05) as determined by the chi-square analysis presented in
Table 15.2. Differentiated learning opportunities are designed address different
readiness levels and areas of interest (Tomlinson, 1995). Overall increased
understanding by all students supports the importance of differentiated instruction as
it provides experiences where struggling learners are able to grasp powerful ideas
while also encouraging “advanced learners to expand their understanding and
application of key concepts and principles” (Tomlinson, 1995, p.2).

Table 15.1. Point of View in a Picture Crosstab

1.00
Correct-
Correct
2.00
Correct-
Incorrect
3.00
Incorrect-
Correct
4.00
Incorrect-
Incorrect Total
Status 1 Gifted Count 19 11 14 6 50
% within
gifted
38.0% 22.0% 28.0% 12.0% 100.0%
2 Non-
Gifted
Count 9 9 10 5 33
% within
in gifted
27.3% 27.3% 30.3% 15.2% 100.0%
Total Count 28 20 24 11 83
% within
gifted
33.7% 24.1% 28.9% 13.3% 100.0%
69
Table 15.2. Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.093 3 .779
Likelihood Ratio 1.106 3 .776
Linear-by-Linear Association .662 1 .416
N of Valid Cases 83
a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 4.37.

Student Understanding of Ethics in a Picture
Students’ ability to identify ethical issues presented in a picture prompt was
the next question assessed. The data presented in the crosstab (Table 16.1) revealed
a trend in student performance. As reflected in Table 16, while both gifted and non-
gifted students showed increased performance output on the post test, gifted students
outperformed the non-gifted in earning correct scores specific to identifying ethics in
the picture prompt. This pattern was reflected in 19 (38.0%) gifted students earning
scores of correct-correct and 4 (12.1%) non-gifted students earning scores of correct-
correct. Seventeen (34.0%) of the gifted students earned scores of incorrect-correct
and 15 (45.5%) of the non-gifted students earned scores of incorrect-correct. The
total number of gifted students who earned correct post test scores was 36 (72%)
contrasted by 19 (57.6%) of the non-gifted earning correct post test scores.
Moreover, 14 (28%) gifted and 14 (42.4%) non-gifted did not answer the post test
question specific to ethics in the picture prompt correctly. The chi-square test did
not reveal significant data where p=<.05. Overall, the gifted students scored higher
70
than the non-gifted. The findings identify a relationship between gifted student
understanding of the curriculum and their innate attributes.
Common characteristics of the gifted, as described by the California
Association for the Gifted (2003) include: (1) idealism and a sense of justice, which
appear at an early age; (2) earlier development of an inner locus of control and
satisfaction; (3) advanced levels of judgment; and (4) high expectations of self and
others, which often lead to high levels of frustration with self, others and situations
(p. 39). As reflected in the gifted student ability to relate the content assessed to the
depth and complexity prompt of ethics, gifted individuals commonly “perceive
greater levels of complexity in the world around them, and they find this complexity
interesting and meaningful” (Delisle & Galbraith, 2002, p.63).

Table 16.1. Ethics in Picture Crosstab

1.00
Correct-
Correct
2.00
Correct-
Incorrect
3.00
Incorrect-
Correct
4.00
Incorrect-
Incorrect Total
Status 1
Gifted
Count 19 10 17 4 50
% within
gifted
38.0% 20.0% 34.0% 8.0% 100.0%
2 Non-
Gifted
Count 4 8 15 6 33
% within in
gifted
12.1% 24.2% 45.5% 18.2% 100.0%
Total Count 23 18 32 10 83
% within
gifted
27.7% 21.7% 38.6% 12.0% 100.0%
71
Table 16.2. Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.357 3 .061
Likelihood Ratio 7.875 3 .049
Linear-by-Linear Association 6.394 1 .011
N of Valid Cases 83
a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 3.98.

Student Understanding of Big Idea in a Picture
The final question for the picture prompt measured student understanding
related to a big idea. Both a crosstab analysis (Table 17.1) and a chi-square test
(17.2) were conducted. The findings of both reflected the same pattern that was
emerging in the previously described findings, where gifted students were more
likely to earn correct scores on both the pre and post tests while the non-gifted were
more likely to earn scores of incorrect-incorrect. As presented in the crosstab (Table
17.1), 19 (38.0%) gifted students and 4 (12.1%) non-gifted students earned scores of
correct-correct. Further analysis revealed that 3 (6%) gifted students and 1 (3.0%) of
the non-gifted students earned scores of correct-incorrect, whereas 16 (32.0%) of the
gifted and 10 (30.3%) of the non-gifted earned scores of incorrect-correct. Finally,
the crosstab data for big idea in the picture prompt showed that 12 (24.0%) of the
gifted students and 18 (54.5%) of the non-gifted students earned scores of incorrect-
incorrect. The results of the chi-square analysis (Table 17.2) reflected significant
findings where p was equal to less than .05 (p= .016). Overall, the data presented in
72
Tables 17.1 and 17.2 enabled the researcher to conclude that gifted students
demonstrate greater understanding of big ideas within the picture prompt, but
brought attention to the fact that the greatest percentage of gifted and non-gifted
students, 36.1% (N=30), answered the question incorrectly.
Teaching for understanding, according to Tomlinson, Brimijoin, & Narvaez
(2008) engages students in high quality curriculum which focuses on teaching for
learning. Providing a context for students to become powerful learners necessitates
teaching for understanding and emphasizes the concepts, principles and essential
understanding of a discipline (Tomlinson et al., 2008). Such practices are responsive
to the diverse needs of gifted students and support the common need for gifted
students to understand and expand upon big ideas which match their cognitive ability
(Dixon & Moon, 2006).

Table 17.1. Big Idea in Picture Crosstab

1.00
Correct-
Correct
2.00
Correct-
Incorrect
3.00
Incorrect-
Correct
4.00
Incorrect-
Incorrect Total
Status 1 Gifted Count 19 3 16 12 50
% within
gifted
38.0% 6.0% 32.0% 24.0% 100.0%
2 Non-
Gifted
Count 4 1 10 18 33
% within
in gifted
12.1% 3.0% 30.3% 54.5% 100.0%
Total Count 23 4 26 30 83
% within
gifted
27.7% 4.8% 31.3% 36.1% 100.0%
73
Table 17.2. Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 10.318 3 .016
Likelihood Ratio 10.776 3 .013
Linear-by-Linear Association 9.782 1 .002
N of Valid Cases 83
a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 1.59.

Student Understanding of Language of the Discipline in a Narrative
The second portion of the pre-post test measured student understanding of the
prompts of depth and complexity as they related to a narrative text. After reading a
short folktale, the students were asked to relate their understanding of the narrative to
the following prompts: language of the discipline, details, patterns, point of view,
ethics and big idea.
The first question asked of the students was specific to language of the
discipline. Tables 18.1-18.3 illustrate student understanding of the narrative as it
related to language of the discipline. Descriptive statistical analysis (Table 18.1)
indicated both gifted and non-gifted students increased their understanding of the
content specific to language. Gifted student understanding increased from a pretest
mean score correct of 2.57 to a post test score of 3.20 correct, which reflected a mean
growth of .63. Non-gifted student understanding increased from a mean pretest
score of 3.06 correct to a post test mean score of 3.42 correct which reflected a mean
growth of .36. Interestingly, gifted student understanding showed the greatest
74
improvement, but fell below the mean score correct by the non-gifted. The findings,
as further illustrated by multivariate tests (Table 18.2) and tests of within subject
effects (Table 18.3) did not show significant findings where the p value was equal to
less than 05.
To verify the importance of providing differentiated curriculum for all
students, the data presented support the notion of a “spillover effect.” The “spillover
effect” is the belief that student achievement will rise for all students “if they are
challenged with curriculum using the concepts of depth and complexity coupled with
proper scaffolding” (Gray, 2008, p. 151).

Table 18.1. Language of the Discipline in Folktale Descriptive Statistics

Gifted Mean Std. Deviation N
p1_ 1.1 Special words to
describe the picture: Pre
1 Gifted 2.57 1.443 49
2 Non-Gifted 3.06 2.065 31
Total 2.76 1.715 83
p1_1.2 Special words to
describe the picture: Post
1 Gifted 3.20 2.010 49
2 Non-Gifted 3.42 2.487 31
Total 3.29 2.194 83
75

Table 18.2. Multivariate Tests

Effect

Value F
Hypothesis
df Error df Sig.
prepost Pillai’s Trace .028 2.213 1.000 78.000 .141
Wilks’ Lambda .972 2.213 1.000 78.000 .141
Hotelling’s Trace .028 2.213 1.000 78.000 .141
Roy’s Largest Root .028 2.213 1.000 78.000 .141
Prepost
*gifted
Pillai’s Trace .002 .175 1.000 78.000 .677
Wilks’ Lambda .998 .175 1.000 78.000 .677
Hotelling’s Trace .002 .175 1.000 78.000 .677
Roy’s Largest Root .002 .175 1.000 78.000 .677

Table 18.3. Tests of Within-Subjects Contrast

Source prepost
Type III Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Source F Sig.
prepost Linear 9.258 1 9.258 2.213.141
prepost * gifted Linear .733 1 .733 .175 .667
Error (prepost) Linear 326.242 78 4.183
76
Student Understanding of Details in a Narrative
The second prompt assessed for the narrative portion of the test measured
student understanding related to details in the folktale. Again, descriptive statistical
analysis (Table 19.1), multivariate tests (Table 19.2) and tests of within subject
effects (Table 19.3) were conducted. In the data presented (Table 19.1) gifted
students demonstrated a slight mean improvement (.43); however the non-gifted
showed no improvement as the mean score for non-gifted did not change between
pre and post test. The multivariate tests (19.2) and tests of within subject effects
(Table 19.3) did not indicate significant findings where p=<.05. “Temporary
frameworks that offer students access to the meanings and pleasure of print” are
described by Boyle & Peregoy (1990) as literary scaffolds (p. 194). Understanding
key details and patterns is essential to the development of effective literacy skills
which provide the basis for comprehension (Boyle & Peregoy, 1990).

Table 19.1. Details in Folktale Descriptive Statistics

Gifted Mean Std. Deviation N
p1_ 1.1 Details to describe
the narrative: Pre
1 Gifted 2.08 1.512 49
2 Non-Gifted 2.13 1.727 31
Total 2.10 1.558 83
p1_1.2 Details to describe
the narrative: Post
1 Gifted 2.51 1.647 49
2 Non-Gifted 2.13 1.945 31
Total 2.36 1.766 83
77
Table 19.2. Multivariate Tests

Effect

Value F
Hypothesis
df Error df Sig.
prepost Pillai’s Trace .007 .581 1.000 78.000 .448
Wilks’ Lambda .993 .581 1.000 78.000 .448
Hotelling’s Trace .007 .581 1.000 78.000 .448
Roy’s Largest Root .007 .581 1.000 78.000 .448
Prepost
*gifted
Pillai’s Trace .007 .581 1.000 78.000 .448
Wilks’ Lambda .993 .581 1.000 78.000 .448
Hotelling’s Trace .007 .581 1.000 78.000 .448
Roy’s Largest Root .007 .581 1.000 78.000 .448

Table 19.3. Tests of Within-Subjects Contrast

Source prepost
Type III Sum
of Squares df
Mean
Source F Sig.
prepost Linear 1.744 1 1.744 .581 .448
prepost * gifted Linear 1.744 1 1.744 .581 .448
Error (prepost) Linear 234.000 78 3.000

Student Understanding of Patterns in a Narrative
Student understanding of patterns in the folktale narrative was the third
question assessed. As was done with the previous analysis of patterns in a picture
prompt, crosstab analysis of pre-post learning outcomes (Table 20.1) and chi-square
tests were conducted for patterns found in the folktale narrative. The pre-post
crosstab data (Table 20.1) identified 26 (53.1%) of the gifted students and 5 (16.1%)
78
of the non-gifted students earned scores of correct-correct. Six (12.2%) of the gifted
students and 8 (25.8%) of the non-gifted students earned scores of correct-incorrect.
Twelve (24.5%) of the gifted students and 14 (45.2%) of the non-gifted students
earned scores of incorrect-correct. Lastly, 5 (10.2%) of the gifted students, and 4
(12.9%) of the non-gifted students scored incorrect-incorrect. Overall however, the
greatest percentage was found with students earning correct post-test outcomes
which was equal to 57 students (71.3%) contrasted by 23 (28.8%) of the students
who earned incorrect post test outcomes. This data presented significant findings
and revealed a new pattern. In the crosstab data of incorrect-correct outcomes
presented in Table 20.1, greater post test understanding by non-gifted students
emerged, raising the question of why are the gifted students not demonstrating the
benefit of increased understanding specific to the prompt of patterns within the
narrative folktale?
Renzulli and Reis (1989) as explained by Reis (2008) have found that
conventional instruction in the area of reading is not beneficial to talented readers.
While there is modest specificity found about the type of reading comprehension
strategies that should be provided to gifted students, Fehrenbach (1991) suggests that
there are differences in the kinds of reading strategies used by gifted readers
compared to their non-gifted peers. Talented readers, as explained by Reis (2008)
“need appropriately challenging instruction and curricular content that helps them
make continuous progress in reading” (p. 655).
79
Table 20.1. Patterns in a Folktale Crosstab

1.00
Correct-
Correct
2.00
Correct-
Incorrect
3.00
Incorrect-
Correct
4.00
Incorrect-
Incorrect Total
Status 1 Gifted Count 26 6 12 5 49
% within
gifted
53.1% 12.2% 24.5% 10.2% 100.0%
2 Non-
Gifted
Count 5 8 14 4 31
% within
in gifted
16.1% 25.8% 45.2% 12.9 100.0%
Total Count 31 14 26 9 80
% within
gifted
38.8% 17.5% 32.5% 11.3% 100.0%

Table 20.2. Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 11.298 3 .010
Likelihood Ratio 12.050 3 .007
Linear-by-Linear Association 6.551 1 .010
N of Valid Cases 80
a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 3.49.

Student Understanding of Point of View in a Narrative
Student understanding of point of view in the folktale narrative was the
fourth item assessed in the pre-post measure. Crosstab analysis (Table 21.1) and chi-
square tests (Table 21.2) were conducted. The findings indicated that gifted students
earned outcomes of correct at a higher rate than the non-gifted. This was evidenced
80
by 23 (46.9%) of the gifted earning scores of correct-correct and 15 (30.6%) of the
gifted earning scores of incorrect-correct compared to 7 (22.6%) of the non-gifted
students earning scores of correct-correct and 10 (32.3%) of the non-gifted students
earning scores of incorrect-correct. The chi-square test of significance (Table 21.2)
did not identify findings of a significant value where p=<.05.
While reading for meaning, gifted students as well as non-gifted students are
expected not merely to accept the information that is presented, but instead are
required to make judgment (Gallaghar, 1975). The findings of students ability to
relate the prompt of different points of view to the narrative exemplifies the
importance of engaging students in interpretive reading, a complex habit of mind,
“which enables readers to develop cognitive processes and elaborate their ideas and
understanding” (Great Books Foundation, 1999, p.7).

Table 21.1. Point of View in Folktale Crosstab

1.00
Correct-
Correct
2.00
Correct-
Incorrect
3.00
Incorrect-
Correct
4.00
Incorrect-
Incorrect Total
Status 1 Gifted Count 23 7 15 4 49
% within
gifted
53.1% 12.2% 30.6% 8.2% 100.0%
2 Non-
Gifted
Count 7 10 10 4 31
% within
in gifted
22.6% 32.3% 32.3% 12.9 100.0%
Total Count 30 17 25 8 80
% within
gifted
37.5% 21.3% 31.3% 10.0% 100.0%
81
Table 21.2. Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.333 3 .096
Likelihood Ratio 6.447 3 .092
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.209 1 .137
N of Valid Cases 80
a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 3.10.

Student Understanding of Ethics in a Narrative
The fifth question presented to students assessed their understanding of an
ethical issue related to the folktale narrative. The crosstab analysis (Table 22.1)
illustrated the greatest discrepancy between gifted and non-gifted student learning
outcomes. The data indicated that 20 (40.8%) of the gifted students earned scores of
correct-correct, compared to 4 (12.9%) of the non-gifted students who earned scores
of correct-correct. Ten (20.4%) of the gifted students and 11 (35.5%) of the non-
gifted students earned scores of correct-incorrect. When looking at scores of
incorrect-correct, it was noted that 14 (28.6%) of the gifted students and 11 (35.5%)
of the non-gifted students demonstrated improvement. The smallest numbers of
students was found in the incorrect-incorrect category which includes 5 (10.2%) of
the gifted students and 5 (16.1%) of the non-gifted. In summary, the data presented
did however indicate a greater percentage of overall correct scores by 49 students
(61.3%) compared to 31students (38.8%) who answered the question incorrectly.
82
Talented readers demonstrate advanced ability to understand various types of
text (Reis, 2008). Analyzing text to identify ethical issues related to the topic
requires students to demonstrate the ability to interpret meaning and draw
conclusions. Doing so allows students to engage with the text and compels them to
put to use cognitive processes such as drawing inferences, making comparisons, and
constructing meaning (Great Books Foundation, 1999). Instructional and curricular
differentiation which offers student interaction with appropriately challenging
literature is essential for effective student learning.

Table 22.1. Ethics in Narrative Crosstab

1.00
Correct-
Correct
2.00
Correct-
Incorrect
3.00
Incorrect-
Correct
4.00
Incorrect-
Incorrect Total
Status 1 Gifted Count 20 10 14 5 49
% within
gifted
40.8% 20.4% 28.6% 10.2% 100.0%
2 Non-
Gifted
Count 4 11 11 5 31
% within
in gifted
12.9% 35.5% 35.5% 16.1% 100.0%
Total Count 24 21 25 10 80
% within
gifted
30.0% 26.3% 31.3% 12.5% 100.0%
83
Table 22.2. Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.399 3 .060
Likelihood Ratio 7.968 3 .047
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.914 1 .048
N of Valid Cases 80
a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 3.88.

Student Understanding of Big Ideas in a Narrative
The final question asked of students assessed their ability to relate the
folktale narrative to a big idea. While a chi-square test of significance (Table 23.2)
conducted specific to this question did not reveal significant findings, the data
presented in the crosstab analysis (Table 23.1) revealed new findings. When
analyzing the data for students answering the question correctly, both gifted and non-
gifted student outcomes were the lowest yet to be identified, for pre-post analysis
with only 32 students (40.1%) answering the question correctly. Consequently, a
greater number of students (48) earned scores of incorrect. This was seen with 11
(22.4%) of the gifted students and 2 (6.5%) of the non-gifted students scoring
correct-correct. Ten (20.4%) of the gifted students and 9 (29.0%) of the non-gifted
students scored correct-incorrect, 12 (24.5%) of the gifted students and 7 (22.6%) of
the non-gifted students scored incorrect-correct and 16 (32.7%) of the gifted students
and 13 (41.9%) of the non-gifted students scored incorrect-incorrect. The findings
suggest that identifying the prompt of big ideas is most challenging to students.
84
Linn and Shore (2008) ask, “should the teaching of critical thinking skills be
domain specific, domain general, or both?” (p. 160). The ability of students to make
connections across disciplines supports the opinion of both. Davis and Rimm (1998)
contends that critical thinking should be taught as a study of its own, while also
functioning as an integral part of other subjects across the curriculum. Current trends
noted in research indicate that “average and above-average readers could pass
pretests on basal comprehension skills before the material was covered” (Reis, 2008,
p. 658). These findings suggest that students may be spending time in school
completing work that they already know. Rather than asking students to complete
more of the same, differentiation of content, process or product is necessary to
provide appropriate curriculum and instruction for gifted and non-gifted students
(Braveman, 2009).

Table 23.1. Big Idea in Narrative Crosstab

1.00
Correct-
Correct
2.00
Correct-
Incorrect
3.00
Incorrect-
Correct
4.00
Incorrect-
Incorrect Total
Status 1 Gifted Count 11 10 12 16 49
% within
gifted
22.4% 20.4% 24.5% 32.7% 100.0%
2 Non-
Gifted
Count 2 9 7 13 31
% within
in gifted
6.5% 29.0% 22.6% 41.9% 100.0%
Total Count 13 19 19 29 80
% within
gifted
16.3% 23.8% 23.8% 36.3% 100.0%
85
Table 23.2. Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.065 3 .258
Likelihood Ratio 4.470 3 .215
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.652 1 .199
N of Valid Cases 80
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 5.04.

Phase 2: Secondary Analysis
Research Question 2
One-on-one interviews with a smaller sample of gifted and non-gifted
students (30), selected from the primary study were conducted to augment the
findings of the initial study. The student interviews were conducted at the school site
and were approximately 10 minutes in length. The interview protocol (Appendix B)
consisted of nine questions which included both forced choice response as well as
open ended dialogue. The questions asked were:
1. Do you like when your teacher uses the prompts of depth and complexity
when he/she is teaching a lesson? If you had to rate how well you like
using the prompts, how would you? Very much, somewhat, not very
much? Explain.
2. Do you find it interesting when your teacher asks you to use the prompts
of depth and complexity when you are completing your work? If you had
86
to rate the level of interest you feel, how would you? Very interesting,
somewhat interesting, not interesting? Explain.
3. When do you use the prompts of depth and complexity? In what subject
do you use them the most? Reading, math, science, social studies, other?
4. Do you find the prompts to be helpful when you are learning something
new or completing your work? If you had to rate the helpfulness of the
prompts, how would you? Very helpful, somewhat helpful, not helpful.
Explain.
5. Do you think the prompts of depth and complexity make the curriculum
challenging? If you had to rate the level of challenge that the prompts
provide, how would you? Very challenging, somewhat challenging, not
challenging. Explain.
6. Do you ever use the prompts of depth and complexity when you are not
in school? All of the time, some of the time, not at all. Explain.
7. While studying social studies topics such as Indians, cities, history or
maps, what would you: (1) find most useful to learn about; (2) find to be
interesting to study; (3) think would be most challenging? (students were
directed to select from the 11 prompts of depth and complexity)
8. While studying language arts topics such as poetry, plays, science fiction
or story structure, what would you: (1) find most useful to learn about; (2)
find to be interesting to study; (3) think would be most challenging?
87
(students were directed to select from the 11 prompts of depth and
complexity)
9. While studying life science topics such as plants, cells or ecology, what
would you : (1) find most useful to learn about; (2) find to be interesting
to study; (3) think would be most challenging? (students were directed to
select from the 11 prompts of depth and complexity)
Upon transcription of each interview by an outside source, the data collected
was hand-coded by the researcher and frequency tables were created. This enabled
the researcher to identify new patterns as well as support the findings of the initial
quantitative findings described in phase one of the primary study. Patterns emerged
during the coding process and lead to the creating of the following codes: (1) focus,
meaning sense making, increased understanding, clarity and explanation; (2)
connection, meaning students could relate to prior knowledge, find proof or recall
information; (3) overuse-boring; (4) confusing, meaning students didn’t understand
intended use by the teacher; and (5) challenging, meaning the curriculum was made
more difficult. Bar graphs (Figures 1-4) and frequency tables (Tables 24-27) were
created to describe the findings. The findings suggested that the older the student,
the more they found the prompts of depth and complexity to be helpful, interesting
and/or challenging. For questions seven through nine of the interview, chi-square
test analysis was used to test for significant associations between gifted status and
responses to questions seven through nine. The initial analysis was done without
stratifying subjects by grade level in order to maximize the analyzable sample size,
88
increasing power assessing significant associations overall. An experiment-wide
level of significance (alpha) of 0.10 was selected to assess for trends rather than for
critically significant differences. As a result, a trend emerged which identified an
age dependent effect. This finding paralleled the outcomes of the forced choice
interview questions analyzed as frequency and percentile counts. The data presented
in this portion of the study was analyzed to answer the second research study
question: How are gifted and non-gifted students use of the prompts of depth and
complexity affected by the concepts of challenge, interest and use?
Student Perceptions of Teacher Use of Depth and Complexity
The first question asked during the interview was Do you like when your
teacher uses the prompts of depth and complexity when he/she is teaching a lesson?
If you had to rate how well you like using the prompts, how would you? Figure 1
illustrates student responses by grade level. Visually, it was identified that fourth
and fifth grade students liked when their teacher used the prompts of depth and
complexity more than the third grade students. It was also apparent that only one
third grade student disliked when their teacher used the prompts of depth and
complexity. Table 24 presents the frequency of response by grade which indicated 3
(30%) third grade students, 6 (55%) fourth grade students and 6 (67%), fifth grade
students liked it very much when their teacher used the prompts of depth and
complexity. Six (60%) third grade, 5 (45%) fourth grade and 4 (33%) fifth grade
student responded with somewhat like using the prompts. Only one third grade
student (10%) did not like it very much when their teacher used the prompts of depth
89
and complexity. The data presented indicated the same number of students (15)
selected that they like when their teacher used the prompts of depth and complexity
very much or somewhat. Furthermore, the data indicated that 90% of the third grade
students, and 100% of the fourth and fifth grade students very much like or
somewhat like when their teachers used the prompts of depth and complexity.
Student perceptions of how well they like when their teacher used the
prompts elicited qualitative codes related to providing focus, relate-proof-
connections, challenge and confusion of teacher choice. When responding to the
question, one student commented, “I like using the depth and complexity a lot,
because it tells- it gives me a starting topic to start with.” Another student
responded, “Wow, I’d say somewhat. Because sometimes you can learn new things
with them, and sometimes you just know.” Similarly, a student said, “I would say
somewhat, because I like how my teacher explains how we can use them in different
ways. And if I had to rate how well I like using the prompts, I would say that I like
to use them, but it kind of depends on my mood, because sometimes they get boring
after a while.” The comments made by the students support, the work of Vygotsky
and his explanation of the zone of proximal development. His belief was that
students learn very little when asked to perform tasks they can already do without
assistance. He proposed student learning is greatest when students are engaged in
experiences they can accomplish with some assistance and support (Ormrod, 2008).
90
Figure 1. How Well Students Like When the Teacher Uses the Prompts of Depth
and Complexity

Table 24. How Well Students Like When Their Teacher Uses the Prompts of Depth
and Complexity

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Total
Grade N % N % N % N %
Third 3 30% 6 60% 1 10% 10 100%
Fourth 6 55% 5 45% 0 0% 11 100%
Fifth 6 67% 4 33% 0 0% 10 100%
91
Student Perceptions of Depth and Complexity as it relates to Interest
The second question asked during the interview was Do you find it
interesting when your teacher asks you to use the prompts of depth and complexity
when you are completing your work? If you had to rate the level of interest that you
feel, how would you? Illustrated by Figure 2 below, it is evident that the greatest
number of response lies in the categories of “very interesting” and “somewhat
interesting.” As explained in Table 25, 3 (30%) of the third grade students, 5 (45%)
of the fourth grade students and 5 (56%) of the fifth grade students found the
prompts of depth and complexity to be “very interesting” while 5 (50%) of the third
grade, 5 (45%) of the fourth grade and 4 (40%) of the fifth grade students selected
“somewhat interesting.” Three students found the prompts not to be interesting; 2
(20%) in third grade and 1 (9%) in fourth grade. The data indicates that more
students found the prompts to be interesting than not. The data also suggests that
higher interest is found with the older students.
Interest-based differentiation as explained by Tomlinson (2008) is linked to
productivity, student motivation and student achievement. When describing the
attributes of gifted students, Renzulli (1977) explains that one of the more influential
traits of a high ability student is their high level of task commitment or intrinsic
motivation to perform in an area of interest. Connecting student interest within the
curriculum is an excellent means to provide opportunity for students to exercise their
creativity while developing their understanding of various topics studied (Renzulli &
Reis, 1997).
92
When asked if they find it interesting when their teacher uses the prompts of
depth and complexity common themes of relating across disciplines for increased
understanding, different than the norm and focus emerged. Student confusion of
teacher use of the prompts and level of challenge were also common. One student
responded that the prompts were very interesting “because whenever we use the
icons, like we do these flipbooks we have to compare and contrast using these icons.
And you can find like a trend between these two people, or you could find like
something very different between them, using a perspective.” Another said, “I find it
interesting when she asks us to use it in subjects besides language arts that we
wouldn’t think we would use it in. And I think it’s very interesting, very interesting
how we can use them to see how the math problem has changed over time.” In
contrast, other students found the prompts to be somewhat interesting “because
sometimes it’s hard and isn’t that interesting when it’s hard.” To ensure maximum
student learning outcomes, opportunities for high-interest tasks must be included for
the gifted to allow for the experience of intrinsic motivation and the enjoyment of the
learning process (Burney, 2008).
93
Figure 2. Student Perceptions of the Prompts of Depth and Complexity as it Relates
to Interest

Table 25. Student Perceptions of the Prompts of Depth and Complexity as it Relates
To Interest

Very
Interesting
Somewhat
Interesting
Not Very
Interesting Total
Grade N % N % N % N %
Third 3 30% 5 50% 2 20% 10 100%
Fourth 5 45% 5 45% 1 9% 11 100%
Fifth 5 56% 4 44% 0 0 9 100%
94
Student Perceptions of Depth and Complexity as it relates to being Helpful
To understand student perceptions of the prompts as being helpful, each
student was asked: Do you find the prompts to be helpful when you are learning
something new or completing your work? If you had to rate the helpfulness of the
prompts, how would you? The findings presented in Figure 3 and Table 26 clearly
indicate that more students, across the grades, find the prompts to be helpful than not
helpful. This data presented the choice of “very helpful” as the predominate
preference selected by students across the grade levels (20). The data also showed all
third grade students find the prompts to be helpful and none selected “not-helpful”
which is a new pattern within the grade level response. As explained in Table 26, 7
(70%) of the third grade students, 6 (55%) of the fourth grade students and 7 (58%)
of the fifth grade students selected “very helpful” as their response. Six (30%) of the
third grade students, 4 (36%) of the fourth grade students, and 2 (22%) of the fifth
grade students selected “somewhat helpful” while one fourth grade student (9%) and
none of the third or fifth grade students selected “not helpful.”
Assisting students to focus was a common thread for student response related
to the prompts as being helpful. For example, one student commented, “I think it is
somewhat helpful because it helps you want to know that thing. It makes you want
to focus on that subject and so you can learn more and more about it until you finally
get it.” Similarly, a student explained the prompts were very helpful by responding in
the following manner, “I’d say they were very helpful. Again, I say this a lot, it
categorizes things, categorizes my thoughts.” Another code that emerged during the
95
analysis relate such as proof or a means to make connections within or across
disciplines. As explained by one student when asked about the prompts being
helpful, she said, “Well, they’re helpful because like if you had let’s say a big idea,
then you would have to find like ways to understand it, like examples to understand
the big idea. Like if you had a big idea of change can lead to conflict, you would
have ethics go with it. So the ethics would be your example or multiple perspectives.
But mostly it’s just like details.” Student assertions were confirmed with teacher
responses related to the helpfulness of the prompts by comments such as, “I think it
does help them, and I think that as they’re learning the material, they are thinking of
the prompts. They are looking at the prompts and thinking of the content in different
ways. So like more depth or more complex. They can come up with different ideas
as we are learning content and the prompts help them do that. “Prompts explained
by the students and their teachers, serve as a focus, or means to relate understanding
or to make connections parallels the work of Boyle & Peregoy (1990) who describe
prompts as a scaffold that provide access to curriculum. Encouraging students to
access prior knowledge where they “relate new ideas to things students already know
and believe about the world” is known to assist students in the learning process
(Ormrod, 2008, p. 194).
96
Figure 3. Student Perceptions of the Prompts of Depth and Complexity as it Relates
to Being Helpful

Table 26. Student Perceptions of the Prompts of Depth and Complexity as it Relates
To Being Helpful

Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful Total
Grade N % N % N % N %
Third 7 70% 6 30% 0 0% 10 100%
Fourth 6 55% 4 36% 1 9% 11 100%
Fifth 7 78% 2 22% 0 0% 9 100%
97
Student Perceptions of Depth and Complexity as it relates to Challenge
Student perception of the prompts of depth and complexity as being
challenging was learned by the researcher asking: Do you think the prompts of depth
and complexity make the curriculum challenging? If you had to rate the level of
challenge that the prompts provide, how would you? As illustrated by Figure 4, this
question led to a new pattern in student response which is much more varied. The
data presented indicated that students responses from all grade levels fell into all
three categories and for the first time, the choice of “somewhat challenging” was the
predominate response. The choice of “very challenging” was the least commonly
selected response. Table 27 explains that one student from each grade level selected
“very challenging” as their answer choice, contrasted by 7 (70%) of the third grade
students, 6 (55%) of the fourth grade students and 6 (67%) of the fifth grade students
who selected “somewhat challenging.” Lastly, 2 (20%) third grade students, 4 (36%)
of the fourth grade students and 2 (22%) of the fifth grade students selected “not
challenging” as their response.
Challenge and choice are rooted in educational psychology and are related to
motivation theory (Ormrod, 2008). The absence of challenging curriculum leads to
boredom and frustration which serve as obstacles for students to reach their potential
(Gentry, Rizza & Owen, 2002). Challenging inquiry-based instruction as advocated
by Beamon (1997) is an essential component of helping to develop in-depth student
thinking. When discussing challenge as it relates to student use of depth and
complexity, themes of focus, usefulness, relationships across disciplines and content
98
emerged. For some students, having used the prompts for several years, they did not
identify the prompts as challenging, but rather what “they do” to learn. For example,
one student said they did not find the prompts challenging “because we do it a lot
and we get a lot of practice out of it.” However, others identify the prompts as being
somewhat challenging and explain, “like it depends on which one it is, so I think it is
somewhat challenging.” When prompted further to elaborate the student explained,
“Well like some of them. Like big ideas, or trends and rules. Those are the harder
ones.” Finally students identified depth and complexity as being very challenging
“because sometimes I’ll be thinking like, well how could this be, like how could this
relate to this subject, like in what way? Sometimes it seems like it’s so off topic, like
why would you say that, but then after I really look at it and I think about it for a
long time, I say, oh, now I get why this would be with that.”
Teacher explanation of their perception of how the prompts of depth and
complexity relate to the concept of challenge paralleled the comments of the students
and included responses such as, “I don’t want to say highly challenging, but I think it
is challenging. It could be highly challenging for some of my students. It depends
on the kids. For some of my kids, it’s definitely challenging. There’s some kids that
struggle with it. But for some kids, they get it. So that would be hard to say. So I
would just say challenging.” Another responded, “I think it is what the teacher
makes it for them. Like I think that, like I was saying details is a real easy one for
them to fall back on. So is that challenging? … I want you to get more in depth like
how does that detail affect that person… you have to really kind of engage them on
99
that.” Reflecting the principles of differentiation, the teacher responses exemplify the
need to craft responsive learning experiences dependent upon the readiness level of
the students (Tomlinson, 2003).

Figure 4. Student Perceptions of the Prompts of Depth and Complexity as it Relates
to Challenge

Table 27. Student Perceptions of Depth and Complexity as it Relates to Challenge

Very
Challenging
Somewhat
Challenging
Not
Challenging Total
Grade N % N % N % N %
Third 1 10% 7 70% 2 20% 10 100%
Fourth 1 9% 6 55% 4 36% 11 100%
Fifth 1 11% 6 67% 2 22% 9 100%
100
Questions 7-10 assessed student use of the eleven prompts of depth and
complexity across the disciplines of social studies, language arts and science as they
relate to their perceptions of challenge, interest, and use. For each question, students
were presented a content specific learning situation. They were then asked select the
prompts of depth and complexity that they found to be most helpful to the study,
interesting to study and challenging to study. Students were directed to choose as
many or few as they found appropriate and provided a rationale for their selection.
As previously explained, chi square analysis was conducted to analyze the data
collected. Due to the small sample size (N=30) an experiment-wide level of
significance (alpha) of 0.10 was selected to assess for trends rather than critically
significant differences. In the unstratified sample, significant associations were
noted for gifted status for question 8: student use of details in language arts where
p=.053; question 8: student perception of rules providing challenge in language arts
where p=.003; question 9, student interest of across disciplines in science where
p=.042 and question 9 challenge of big idea in science. No other associations were
deemed at the 0.10 level.
In order to explore the possibility of grade-level dependent associations, the
sample was then stratified according to grade level. A chi-square procedure was
then performed on the stratified sample. Associations deemed significant at the 0.10
level are presented in Figure 5. As illustrated in Figure 5 and described by the data
presented below, it is evident that one significant association was seen at grade 3;
five were noted at grade 4; and twelve were noted at grade 5. This dramatically
101
increasing number of significant associations indicates a strong experience-
dependent effect, most likely attributable to an increasing effectiveness of the
prompts of depth and complexity as the student’s experience with them increases.
Significant findings where p= .011 was identified specific to gifted status in
third grade and the use of big ideas when learning social studies. Associations were
also identified between gifted status in fourth grade and the use of details in social
studies (p=0.26), use of details in language arts (p=.026), interest of big ideas in
language arts (p=.087), rules as challenging in language arts (p=.001), and challenge
of ethics in science (p=.087). The greatest association between gifted status and
depth complexity as it related to student use, interest or challenge was found within
the fifth grade. The data indicated significant findings of student interest across
disciplines in social studies (p=.047), interest of ethics in language arts (p=.047),
challenge of trends in language arts (p=.003), challenge of rules in language arts
(p=.047), interest of language of the discipline in science (p=.047), interest of details
in science (p=.047), interest of big ideas in science (p=.047), interest of relating over
time in science (p=.073), interest in science across disciplines (p=.047) and challenge
of big ideas in science (p=.047).
Qualitative response by teachers of the sample population further support the
statistical findings presented. When asked the question, “What is your perception of
how the students perceive the prompts of depth and complexity? Do you think they
like them?” the classroom teacher responded, “I don’t think they know any different
at this point, especially since they have had them now for probably since second
102
grade, first grade, I would think at this point. So I think it’s just natural for the, I
don’t think they dislike them. To me, I think, especially with this group, they like
organization and it’s one more what for them to be organized.” In addition, when
asked, “What are some of the reasons that you choose to use the prompts or not to
use the prompts?” another teacher responded, “I think it has just become part of the
language. So I’m not saying I am going to choose this or I am going to choose the
other. It’s just part of… It’s a habit now. It didn’t used to always be, but now it is.
So it just comes to me as I’m going along and teaching when they come up. And
now even the kids are speaking in that manner, also which is kind of cool.”
The findings presented are commensurate to the psychological knowledge of
learning and how humans learn to think (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2000). Learning,
as defined, is a dynamic process that involves social processes that lead to students
internalizing learned skills and strategies that can be useful in future learning
experiences (Burney, 2008). While people demonstrate different points of view
related to what should be learned in school, it has been learned that “basic facts and
information have little or no potential for transfer to new situations” (Ormrod, 2008,
p. 455). Instead, it is known that students benefit most from acquiring higher level
problem solving and/or critical thinking skills, and general habits of mind (Ormrod,
2008). Allowing students to make connections between previously learned
information and newly acquired understanding is essential for the learning process
(NRC, 2008). As students get older their knowledge base becomes increasingly
organized and integrated (Ormrod, 2008). Gifted students, as explained by Rogers
103
(2002) tend to use critical thinking skills more frequently and appropriately, even
without direct instruction, yet they “tend to benefit significantly more from such
skills training when it is offered” (p. 283). The utilization of the prompts of depth
and complexity by gifted students across grade levels also parallel what is known
about developing habits of mind and the effects of teachers creating responsive
learning environments (Au & Kawakami, 1994).

Figure 5. Gifted Status, Grade Level Dependent Associations between Depth and
Complexity and the Disciplines

Teacher Interview Responses
Teacher interviews were conducted with three classroom teachers and
followed a predetermined protocol (Appendix C). Each teacher was purposefully
104
selected because of their understanding of differentiation and their role as gifted
cluster classroom teacher of the students interviewed. Together they represented
third, fourth and fifth grade. Each teacher was conversant in utilizing the prompts of
depth and complexity. The third and fourth grade teachers had been part of the
initial phase of the Models of Teaching Project and had participated in the Javits
Models of Teaching Grant (PR # S26A040072) for four years. The fifth grade
teacher had not participated in the grant, but consistently utilized the prompts of
depth and complexity while teaching.
The teacher interview protocol consisted of thirteen questions which included
forced choice and open ended response. The purpose of the interview was to provide
the researcher with a contextual understanding of the student’s learning environment
and to augment the responses provided by the students. Consequently the questions
asked paralleled the questions asked of the students. Teacher response patterns were
similar to each other and also proved to be similar to the student responses.
When asked how frequently the teachers used the prompts, each responded
daily. Reasons for why they choose to integrate the prompts of depth and
complexity all reflected a pattern of automaticity. The third grade teacher had this to
say, “It’s a habit now. It didn’t used to always be, but now it is. So it just comes to
me as I’m going along and teaching, when they come up. And now even the kids are
speaking in that manner which is kind of cool.”
Teacher responses about how they believed the students perceived the
prompts also indicated a pattern of being a habit. Their comments included, “I don’t
105
think they know any different at this point, especially since they’ve had them now
for probably since second grade, first grade, I would think at this point. So I think it
is just natural for them. I don’t think they dislike them. To me, I think especially
with this group, they like organization and its one more way for them to be
organized.” and “… it’s part of the class, it’s nothing different…”
Forced choice questions about the teacher’s perceptions of how the students
perceived the prompts of depth and complexity as being helpful, interesting and
challenging were also similar and included responses that considered the effects how
the responses to the questions would all be different because of the varied differences
among their students. The majority of the responses to the forced choice questions
included the role of the teacher and their influence on student use and consequential
perception of the prompts related to the concepts of challenge, interest and use. “It
depends upon the kids. For some of my kids, it’s definitely challenging. There’s
some kids that struggle with it. But for some kids they get it. So that would be hard
to say. So I would say challenging if you were to like spin it out.”
The qualitative data acquired from the teachers provided anecdotal evidence
of the prompts of depth and complexity used as a visual or graphic organizer become
a habit of mind and activate schema to facilitate learning (Perez-Prado, n.d; Bastick,
1999; Ormrod, 2008). The findings also suggest the use of depth and complexity as
a prompt provides direction or focus and facilitate explanation which creates a
scaffold for student understanding (Boyle & Pergoy, 1990). Lastly, as discussed by
Rogers (2002) gifted student interest and preference for methods of learning affects
106
student motivation and different perceptions of learning, which were also a theme in
teacher response patterns.
Summary of Findings
Developed in response to the need to appropriately differentiate the
curriculum for gifted and advanced learners, the 11 prompts of depth and complexity
as defined in Table 2 “provide a prompt to probe or investigate content” and served
as the catalyst for this research study” (Kaplan, 2009, p. 111). The intent of this two-
phase, mixed methods research project was (1) to obtain quantitative results from a
purposeful sample of 88 elementary age subjects participating in the Javtis Grant,
Models of Teaching Research Project (PR #S26A040072) awarded to the University
of Southern California and (2) conduct one-on-one interviews with a fewer students
and their teachers to augment the quantitative findings of the primary study. In the
first phase a pre and post test, created by the project director, was used to identify
how the prompts of depth and complexity affect gifted and non-gifted student
understanding in two content areas, social science and reading/language arts. In the
second phase, interviews were conducted to gain an understanding of how students
perceive the prompts of depth and complexity as they are utilized across the
disciplines and relate to the concepts of challenge, interest, and use.
This study examined gifted and non-gifted students who attend an elementary
school in a large urban school district in Southern California. The primary study was
comprised of 54 gifted students and 34 non-gifted students. The gender of the
sample was nearly equal with 43 female and 45 male students. Nineteen students
107
were in second grade, 39 students were in third grade, and 30 were in fourth grade.
The secondary study was comprised of a smaller sample selected from the primary
study. Conducted one year after the administration of the pre-post test, the students
sampled for the interview process included 10 third grade students, 11 fourth grade
students and 9 fifth grade students. There was reasonable distribution of ethnicity
and none were classified as English Language Learners. Three teachers were also
interviewed and were selected to provide information to augment the knowledge
acquired by the researcher from the students. The teachers were selected because of
their participation in the grant or due their role as teacher of the students sampled in
the secondary study.
Several statistical measures were conducted to answer research question one:
How do the prompts of depth and complexity affect gifted and non-gifted student
understanding of the various content areas? Included, were paired sample statistical
analysis of t-tests, multivariate analysis, descriptive analysis, chi-square and anova
repeated measure of analysis. The analysis enabled the researcher to conclude that
both gifted and non-gifted student understanding improved as a consequence of
utilizing the prompts of depth and complexity.
Quantitative and qualitative analysis of student interviews were conducted to
answer research question two: How are gifted students use of the prompts of depth
and complexity affected by the concept of challenge, interest and use? Student
response to forced choice questions specific to their perceptions of the prompts of
depth and complexity as they related to the concepts of challenge, interest, and use
108
enabled the researcher to determine that students were more likely to find the
prompts to be challenging, interesting and useful than not challenging, not interesting
or not helpful. As previously described, bar graphs (Figures 1-4) and frequency
tables (Tables 24-27) were created to describe the findings.
Table 28 provides a summary of findings to describe the greatest percent
response pattern of student response for their perceptions of the prompts of depth and
complexity as interesting, helpful and challenging. The study found student
perceptions of the prompts being helpful yielded the highest outcomes with 7 (70%)
of the third grade students, 6 (55%) of the fourth grade students and 7 (58%) of the
fifth grade students selected “very helpful” as their response. Somewhat interesting
was the most frequent choice of students demonstrated by 5 (50%) of the third grade
5 (45%) of the fourth grade and 4 (44%) of the fifth grade selecting somewhat
interesting as the choice. The lowest outcomes were related to student perception of
the prompts as challenging. One student from each grade level selected “very
challenging” as their answer choice, contrasted by 7 (70%) of the third grade
students, 6 (55%) of the fourth grade students and 6 (67%) of the fifth grade students
who selected “somewhat challenging.”
109
Table 28. Summary of Findings: Highest Response Patterns for Student Perceptions
of Depth and Complexity as Helpful, Challenging, Interesting

Third Grade Fourth Grade Fifth Grade
N % N % N %
Somewhat Interesting 5 50% 5 45% 4 44%
Very Helpful 7 70% 6 55% 7 78%
Somewhat Challenging 7 70% 6 55% 6 67%

Qualitative explanation provided by each student to support their responses
led the researcher to inductively identify patterns and ultimately develop codes for
student responses which were: (1) focus, meaning sense making, increased
understanding, clarity and explanation; (2) connection, meaning students could relate
to prior knowledge, find proof or recall information; (3) overuse-boring; (4)
confusing, meaning students didn’t understand intended use by the teacher; and (5)
challenging, meaning the curriculum was made more difficult. The data acquired
from the forced choice questions of the interview suggested that the older the
student, the more they found the prompts of depth and complexity to be helpful,
interesting and/or challenging. Chi square analysis was used to determine the
significant associations between gifted students and their responses to questions 7-9
which assessed student application of the prompts of depth and complexity in the
content areas of social science, language arts and science. The data was assessed to
identify trends rather than critically significant differences. Chi square analysis
110
revealed increased numbers of significant findings at the fifth grade level indicating
an experience dependent effect which is illustrated in Figure 5.
The quantitative findings of the secondary study paralleled the pattern
identified within the forced choice response of the interview which suggested the
older the students the more they found the prompts of depth and complexity to be
helpful, interesting or challenging. Ultimately, triangulation of the data collected
through the primary and secondary study enabled the researcher to determine that (1)
the prompts of depth and complexity positively affected gifted and non-gifted
students understanding across the disciplines; (2) gifted student understanding was
greater than non-gifted student understanding and (3) gifted and non-gifted students
perceive the prompts of depth and complexity to be helpful, interesting and
challenging.
111
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Purpose of Study
“What the teacher does and what the students do have powerful influences on
learning and the quality of classroom life” (Anctil, Hass, & Parkay, 2006, p.271). As
explained by Tyler (1949) one must consider how the needs of the learner are
affected by the various influences that shape education. Such factors include the
perspectives of the scholars in the field, societal influence(s) and the diverse
academic and affective needs of the learner themselves. Increased student learning
outcomes as determined by summative test results currently drive curricular and
instructional decisions in the field of education. Increased accountability as
determined by national mandates, state standards and district objectives has reshaped
curricular and instructional decisions in schools across the nation. A force in this
pattern is the changes in educational emphasis proposed by the Obama
Administration. While reports indicate that NCLB has been successful in increasing
the achievement of students considered at-risk, such reform efforts have not
addressed the needs of the gifted (Wood, Portman, Cigrand & Nicholas, 2010). The
narrowing of the curriculum and instructional practices is one of the unintended
consequences of the federal statute (Moon, 2009). According to the National
Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) policy in the form of NCLB has had a
detrimental effect on gifted education (Pluckner, Burroughs & Song, 2010). In fact,
research conducted by the Fordham Institute indicates that “students in the 90
th

112
percentile made minimal educational gains from 2000-2007” (Wood, Portman,
Cigrand & Nicholas, 2010, p.170).
Concerns for academically challenging and appropriate educational
opportunities have been central to reform in the field of gifted education for years
(Passow, Goldberg, Tannenbaum, & French, 1955; Ward, 1961; Moon, 2009). As
articulated by the Parallel Curriculum (Tomlinson, et al., 2001), the importance of
providing students with differentiated learning experiences that afford gifted students
with the opportunity to work with rich and rigorous curriculum to bring about
student potential and in depth understanding is not a new concept; yet is a critical
necessity. The consistent integration and utilization of the prompts of depth and
complexity is one way to appropriately differentiate the core curriculum (Kaplan,
2009).
Purpose
The purpose of this research study was to determine the curricular effects of
utilizing the prompts of depth and complexity across disciplines for gifted and non-
gifted students. The data gathered focused on these research areas:
• How do the prompts of depth and complexity affect gifted and non-gifted
student understanding of content areas?
• How are gifted and non-gifted students use of the prompts of depth and
complexity affected by the concepts of challenge, interest and use?
113
Methodology
Pre-post tests and interview methodology were used to investigate the
research questions. This was associated with the research efforts of a grant awarded
to Dr. Sandra Kaplan at the University of Southern California under the Jacob K.
Javits Gifted and Talented Educational Act of the U.S. Department of Education (PR
# S206A040072). A primary and secondary study was conducted to complete this
research study. The data obtained for the primary study was achieved through
purposeful sampling of 88 gifted and non-gifted students in grades 2-5 from a large
urban school district in Southern California. The composition of the sample included
the following number of students: 19 (21.6%) second grade, 39 (44.3%) third grade
and 30 (34.1%) fourth grade. A smaller sample, selected from the primary study was
used for the secondary study which was conducted one school year after the primary
data was collected. The composition of the secondary study included the following
number of students: 10 (33%) third grade, 11 (36.7%) fourth grade, 9 (30.0%) fifth
grade. The secondary study also included a sample of teachers who were
participants of the Javits Models of Teaching Grant (PR# S206A040072). The
teachers also served as the classroom teachers of the students sampled in the
secondary study. One teacher from each grade level, third, fourth and fifth was
represented.
The data collection included a pre-post test, student interview and teacher
interview. Data collection for the primary study included a pre-post test created by
the project director, Dr. Sandra Kaplan for the Models of Teaching Grant (PR #
114
S206A040072). The purpose of the pre-post test was to measure student
understanding of a social studies event and genre in language arts as they related to
the prompts of depth and complexity. A picture was used to stimulate student
response for the social studies event and a folktale narrative was used to simulate
student response in language arts. The pre-post test was administered during the
2008-2009 school year. Data collection for the secondary study included student and
teacher interviews created by the researcher. The student and teacher interview
questions were developed in the fall of 2009 and were used to augment the
information acquired by the pre-post test.
Multiple forms of data analysis were completed as a result of this mixed
methods research study. An outside research firm conducted a variety of statistical
analysis of the pre-post outcomes. The analysis utilized parametric statistics of t-
tests and anova repeated measures of analysis which provided the researcher with
paired sample statistics and within subject contrast of pre-post test results.
Descriptive statistics and multivariate tests of Pillai’s Trace, Wilks’ Lambda,
Hotelling’s Trace and Roy’s Largest Root Data were also conducted. Repeated
measures of analysis and variance through an anova provided information that
allowed the researcher to determine how the six prompts of depth and complexity
assessed affect gifted and non-gifted student understanding of the content assessed.
The second phase of research was conducted by the researcher in the form of
personal interviews. Thirty student interviews were conducted during the school day
at the children’s school. Each interview followed a protocol that consisted of both
115
forced choice as well as open response questions. Each interview was audio
recorded and upon completion, transcribed by an outside source. Hand coding of the
transcripts was completed by the researcher. Inductive analysis of the information
enabled the following themes to emerge: (1) focus, meaning sense making, increased
understanding, clarity and explanation; (2) connection, meaning students could relate
to prior knowledge, find proof or recall information; (3) overuse-boring; (4)
confusing, meaning students didn’t understand intended use by the teacher; and (5)
challenging, meaning the curriculum was made more difficult. The data collected
from the student interviews provided the researcher with both quantitative and
qualitative data specific to student perceptions of the prompts as they related to the
concepts of (1) usefulness, (2) interest, (3) helpfulness, and (4) challenge. Statistical
analysis in the form of chi-square enabled the researcher to determine the
relationship between the application of the prompts of depth and complexity across
the disciplines related to student perception of use, interest and challenge. The same
methods were applied while conducting three teacher interviews. Coding of the
teacher interview revealed response patterns related to (1) habits of mind and (2)
different perspectives of students. Triangulation of the mixed methods enabled
patterns and trends across disciplines and grade level to emerge.
Key Findings
Question 1
Question: How do the prompts of depth and complexity affect gifted and
non-gifted student understanding of various content areas?
116
Findings: Research question one found that both gifted and non-gifted
students demonstrated overall improvement between pre and post test outcomes.
Paired sample tests, descriptive statistics, multivariate tests and chi-square analysis
found values at the significant level. On average, gifted student outcomes were
higher than the non-gifted.
Discussion: The use of cluster grouping, where high-ability learners may be
homogeneously grouped within in a particular class requires a differentiated
approach to the teaching and learning process. With this grouping pattern, it is
incumbent upon teachers of the gifted to appropriately differentiate learning
experiences (Tomlinson, Brimijon & Narvaez, 2008; Delcourt, Cornell & Goldberg,
2007). The findings for question one exemplified the concept of a spillover effect
which describes the influence of differentiated learning experiences to provide
challenge and academically rigorous curriculum for all members of the class (Kaplan
et. al., 2009).
Articulated in standards set forth by both the National Association for Gifted
Children (1994) and The California Association for the Gifted (CDE, 2001, Rev.
2005), the integration of gifted education into the general education program
promotes the exchange of ideas and practices to improve learning for all students.
Positive spillover effects of gifted programming are a consequence of the view that
the integrated gifted education programming services parallel the core curriculum
and become part of what is known as the layered curriculum (Kaplan et al., 2009;
Kaplan as cited in Karnes and Bean, 2009). The differentiated curriculum layer, as
117
explained by Kaplan (2009), utilizes the prompts of depth and complexity to
“facilitate gifted students’ ability to delve into the content and increase their
understanding” (p. 115).
The meaning of knowing as explained by Simon (2000) “has shifted from
being able to remember and repeat information to find and use it (as cited in NRC,
p.5). Making available a wide range of curriculum options for gifted students who
demonstrate academic strength necessitates the application of differentiation based
on learner readiness, student interest and need(s) (Tomlinson, 2008). The use of
prompts, such as depth and complexity, guide student learning and help to develop
the skills and concepts most appropriate to the world in which they live (Postman, as
cited by Bush, 2006).
Question 2
Question: How are gifted students’ use of the prompts of depth and
complexity affected by the concept of challenge, interest and use?
Findings: The findings for research question two indicated positive
relationships between gifted and non-gifted students’ perceptions of depth and
complexity as they relate to challenge, interest and use. Student response patterns at
the fifth grade level revealed an experience dependent effect. Qualitative analysis of
student interview responses indicated that overall, all students responded positively
when their teachers used the prompts of depth and complexity. Fourth grade
students (55%) and fifth grade students (56%) chose they prefer for their teachers to
use the prompts of depth and complexity and responded by selecting “very much” as
118
their response. The greatest number of students who found the prompts of depth and
complexity to be very interesting while learning were found again in fourth grade
(45%) and fifth grade (56%). Student perceptions of the prompts as they related to
being “very helpful” were relatively even across the grade levels with 70% in third
grade, 55% in fourth grade and 78% in fifth grade selecting the response of “very
helpful.” Student perception of the prompts of depth and complexity as being
challenging led to a different pattern in student response evidenced by 70% of the
third grade, 55% of the fourth grade and 67% of the fifth grade students choosing
“somewhat challenging” as their response. The findings of “somewhat challenging”
reflected a different response pattern for the fourth and fifth grade students. Prior to
this question, the predominate response made by the fourth and fifth grade students
followed a pattern of selecting “very” as the indicator of importance.
Statistical analysis of chi-square was conducted to assess significant
associations. The analysis indicated significant associations between gifted student
use of the prompts in various content areas and revealed a unique pattern within
gifted student response which indicted a strong experience dependent effect. As
reflected in an increase in number of significant associations at the fifth grade level
the findings suggested that the effectiveness of the prompts of depth and complexity
increases with experience.
Discussion: The purpose of differentiation is to engage students in
appropriately challenging learning experiences. It is expected that differentiation
provides access to curriculum for all students as a means to develop their content
119
knowledge, critical thinking and problem solving skills. Utilizing depth and
complexity as a means to differentiate curriculum stimulates advanced students’
thinking abilities and compliments the work of Sternberg and the development of
expertise (Cooper, 2009). When describing the importance of students developing
critical and creative thinking abilities, Sternberg (2003) explains that not only does
teaching students to think critically, creatively and analytically result in students
outperforming their grade equivalent peers on assessments, but doing so also “allows
children to encode material in a variety of ways” (p. 6). Encoding of prompts
provides a cognitive schema for students that can be applied to learning in varied
contexts which parallels the findings presented by gifted students when utilizing the
prompts of depth and complexity. The experience dependent effect identified in the
study may suggest that over time, students become conditioned to access the
curriculum through the use of the visual and verbal prompts. This enables students to
develop critical and analytical thinking skills essential to approach the study of
subject matter in more advanced and complex ways (Bush, 2006).
As articulated in the Recommended Program Standards for Gifted and
Talented Students, the differentiated curriculum employed in classrooms with gifted
students is to focus “primarily on depth and complexity of content, advanced or
accelerated pacing of content and novelty (unique and original expression of student
understanding) (CDE, 2001, Rev. 2005, p. 4). To appropriately meet the needs of
gifted students, and to nurture their cognitive ability, it is important they be afforded
challenging learning experiences (Matthews & Foster, 2006). The findings, specific
120
to gifted students, highlight the importance of gifted programs utilizing the most
current findings in research, effective curriculum strategies and educational practices
necessary to develop and maintain classroom opportunities for advanced students
who may need more depth and complexity in instruction (NAGC, 1994).
Implications for Future Research
While research specific to the effectiveness of utilizing depth and complexity
is limited, this research study clearly indicates that depth and complexity is a tool for
learning utilized by students and teachers, but more importantly positively affects
student learning outcomes.
In a time when mastery of curriculum through the delivery of prescriptive
methods is predominate proponents of gifted education need to “become strong
voices for a balanced system that emphasizes assessment for learning with
assessment for accountability purposes” (Moon, 2009, p.279). As explained by
Sternberg (2003) research studies have found that students who are taught in ways
that emphasize critical thinking, practical thinking and creativity outperform students
who are not afforded such opportunities. These findings were evident in multiple
choice examinations and performance assessment (Sternberg, 2003). Further
research to understand the relationship between utilizing the prompts of depth and
complexity and student understanding of grade level content standards would be
recommended.
Expertise requires one to acquire, store and utilize knowledge that consists of
facts, formulas, principles and ideas of a domain (Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005). Often,
121
“the qualities common in experts- passion, curiosity, intensity- are also common
among gifted students” (Gallaghar, 2006, p. 433). Gifted students are often prone to
creating new ideas, asking questions and have a strong desire to learn (Gallaghar,
2006). Many gifted students are eager to nurture their competence, experience
challenge and achieve their potential (Patrick, Gentry & Owen, 2006). A significant
increase in student application of the prompts of depth and complexity across the
disciplines was identified in the fifth grade, which leads one to question the reasons
for the difference between grade level outcomes. Are the findings indicative of
students developing expertise over time? Are the findings indicative of what is
known from educational psychology and learning theory about how students learn?
Over time, when used consistently, do student begin to integrate the prompts of
depth and complexity as a habit of mind? These questions could lead to
recommendations for further research.
Recommendations
It can be argued that high quality curriculum can serve as a catalyst for the
emergence of talent, but curriculum planning must be deliberate (Jarvis, 2009).
National and state program standards for gifted education have expectations that
schools develop educational programming for gifted learners that is integrated with
the core curricula but is appropriately differentiated (NAGC, 1994; CDE, 2001, Rev.
2005). As participants in the Javits Grant Models of Teaching Research Project
(PR# S206A040072) the subjects of this research study were committed to
consistently and deliberately engaging students in learning experience which utilized
122
the prompts of depth and complexity within the core curriculum. The experience of
the teacher participants in the grant project exemplified the countless research which
describe how a teachers’ professional knowledge and experience make an important
difference in student learning (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003). When reflecting
on student use of the prompts and the subsequent learning outcomes, one teacher had
the following to say, “I think it’s really fun when you get them to combine them. I
mean that’s I think when it’s more effective at least for them. Like I was saying, I
have seen these before, so to really make them think of the patterns in ethics, that’s
where I’m having more fun- to get them to be a little more creative.”
Effective utilization of the prompts of depth and complexity necessitates the
importance of continued education specific to developing teacher competency as a
curriculum developer. Thematically rich and challenging curriculum is the heart of
education for the gifted (Rakow, 2008). Gifted learners have an insatiable appetite
for increased knowledge and enjoy opportunities for problem solving and
exploration (CAG, 2004; Rakow, 2008). Providing students rich, stimulating
learning experiences is integral to the teaching and learning of the gifted (Passow,
Goldberg, Tannembaum, & French, 1995). During a time however, when
prescriptive curriculum often drives pedagogical and curricular decision for
classroom instruction, it is recommended that schools throughout the state and nation
provide preservice as well as inservice teachers with opportunities for education
specific to gifted education and differentiation. Knowledge of how to craft
responsive learning experience to address the diverse needs of all students, would
123
equip teachers with the knowledge and skills necessary to engage students in
appropriately challenging learning experiences. Consequently, it would be
recommended that curriculum which utilize the prompts of depth and complexity to
accelerate student learning be developed and serve as a parallel curriculum to
support core curricular materials. It would be further recommended that the National
Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) approved Preparation
Standards in Gifted Education be implemented at the preservice and inservice levels.
Consistent expectations of what all teachers of the gifted should know, understand
and be able to do, as defined by the standards, is imperative for the academic and
affective success of gifted students.
Deciding what criteria should be used to identify giftedness is complicated
and remains intractable in the field (Hoh, 2008). Articulated by the Recommended
Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented Students (CDE, 2001, Rev. 2005),
the identification of gifted students is expected to be equitable, comprehensive and
ongoing. In California, referrals can be made by teachers and/or parents and “all
children are eligible for the nomination process regardless of socioeconomic,
linguistic or cultural background and/or disabilities” (p. 3). The standards also
articulate the responsibilities of the school district to create and implement both
traditional and nontraditional means for assessment and procedures for searching for
gifted students (CDE, 2001, Rev. 2005). Explained by Miller (2008), the use of
multiple methods for identification analyzed by Delisle & Renzulli (1982) concluded
that above-average, not just exceptional students should be able to take part in
124
different types of enrichment models of services for the gifted. The knowledge
acquired from this study offers a new possibility for utilizing the prompts of depth
and complexity as a means of formative assessment to identify gifted and non-gifted
students who would benefit from accelerated curricular experiences which develop
complex thinking patterns (Sousa, 2003). It would therefore be recommended that
increased understanding and critical thinking ability evoked from utilizing the
prompts of depth and complexity become a means of formative assessment for
recognizing the importance of providing differentiation for gifted and non-gifted
students.
Conclusion
“Many things can wait. Children cannot. Today their bones are being
formed, their blood is being made, their senses are being
developed. To them we cannot say tomorrow.
Their name is today.” --Gabriela Mistral

The examination of the curricular effects of gifted and non-gifted students
utilizing the prompts of depth and complexity across disciplines enabled the
researcher to investigate an aspect of differentiation that has been previously limited
in study. The results of the mixed methods research identified: (1) positive learning
outcomes for gifted and non-gifted students and (2) an age dependent effect for
gifted students at the fifth grade level. The findings support the consistent
integration and utilization of the prompts of depth and complexity by teachers and
students which is greatly attributed to the innovative curricular and instructional
experiences afforded to the teachers and students who have been committed to
125
participating in Jacob Javits Models of Teaching Grant (PR# S206A040072)
awarded to Dr. Sandra Kaplan at the University of Southern California.
Described as part of the differentiated curriculum layer, the prompts of depth
and complexity “have been named to focus the teacher’s and student’s attention on
increasingly more difficult, divergent and abstract qualities of knowing a discipline
or area of study” (Kaplan, 2009). An integral component of high quality curriculum,
the prompts of depth and complexity affords students learning experiences that are
culturally relevant, appropriately challenging and inclusive of all learners (Jarvis,
2009). Depth and complexity as a means to foster increased student understanding
within and across the disciplines support the seminal and contemporary ideals of the
scholars in the field of gifted education, educational psychology and curriculum
theory.
The findings of this research study compliment the research of Tomlinson
(2008) which suggests positive student learning gains from teachers who provide
differentiation based on learner readiness, student interest and need(s). Similarly, the
results of this study reflect the benefit of designing learning experiences that match
the varying needs of students as a means to maximize challenge, heighten motivation
and foster increased movement toward autonomy and academic success for gifted
students.
Gifted education and the pedagogy utilized within the field has long been
scrutinized, evaluated and judged. The effects of such attention have proven to be
both positive and negative. In a time when student excellence is measured by
126
minimum competency, reflected through standardized tests of basic skills, all must
be reminded that focusing too firmly on minimum competency will not automatically
lead to excellence (Plucker, Burroughs & Song, 2010. Good teaching matters. The
differentiation of curriculum and instruction can serve as the vehicle for addressing
student needs (Tomlinson, 2003). Commonly referred to as the “spillover effect”,
Kaplan (2004) explains the concept as demonstrating “the reciprocity among
educational programs or the means by which one program can share content and
pedagogy to enhance another program” (p.48). Acceleration of knowing and
differentiation for all students to effectively maximize their learning are imperative;
yet often underutilized (Plucker, Burroughs & Song, 2010). The research findings
presented in this study clearly reflect the importance of engaging students in learning
opportunities that utilize the prompts of depth and complexity to promote greater
curricular understanding by students.
127
REFERENCES
Alexander, P. (2003). The development of expertise: the journey from acclimation
to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32 (8).

Anctil, E., Hass, G. & Parkay, F. (2006). Curriculum Planning: A contemporary
Approach. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Beamon, G.W. (1997). Sparking the thinking of students, ages 1-14: strategies for
teachers. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Bestick, T. (1999). An investigation of Ausubel’s assumptions that students use
instructional objectives and advance organizers. Paper Presented at the
European Conference for Research and Instruction.

Betts, G. (2004). Fostering autonomous learners through levels of differentiation.
Roeper Review 26(4), 190-191.

Boyle, O., & Peregoy, S. (1990). Literacy scaffolds: Strategies for first and second-
language readers and writers. The Reading Teacher, 44(3).

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning: Four lectures on mind and culture. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Braveman (2004). Two, four, six, eight, let’s all differentiate: Differential education,
yesterday, today and tomorrow. Retrieved August 10, 2009 from:
http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/differentiated/bravmann.htm

Burney, V.H. (2008). Applications of social cognitive theory to gifted education.
Roeper review, 30(2), 130.

Bush, G. (2006). Learning about learning: From theories to trends. Teacher
Librarian, 34(2), 14-18.

CA State Board of Education. (2001, Rev. 2005). Recommended Standards for
Programs for Gifted and Talented Students. In California Department of
Education. Retrieved October, 12, 2008 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/re/.

California Association for the Gifted (2003). Meeting the Challenge: A Guidebook
for Teaching Gifted Students. California Association for the Gifted.

California Department of Education and California Department of Education. (1994).
128

California Education Code 52201

Chini. retrieved from www.newfoundations.com/gallery/sternberg.html

Cohen, R.L., & Hertzog, N. (2007). Unlocking the GATE to differentiation: A
qualitative study of two self-contained gifted classes. Journal for the
education of the gifted, 31(2), 227-280.

Cooper, C. R. (2009). Myth 18: It is fair to teach all children the same way. Gifted
child quarterly, 53(4). 283.

Clark, R.E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting
the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed
methods approaches (3
rd
Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Dai, D.Y.(2000). To be or not to be (challenged), that is the question: Task and ego
Orientation among high-ability, high-achieving adolescents. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 68, 311-330.

Darling-Hammond, L. and Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply
policy for education: The right way to meet the ‘highly qualified teacher’
challenge. Educational policy analysis archives, 11 (33).

Davis, G.A., & Rimm, S. B. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented (4
th
ed.).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M., (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in
human behavior: New York, Plenum.

Delisle, J.R. (1999). A millennial hourglass: gifted child education’s: Sands of time.
Gifted Child Today, 22(6), 26-32

Delisle, J. &Galbraith, J. (2002). When Gifted Kids Don’t Have All the Answers:
How to Meet Their Social and Emotional Needs. Free Spirit Publishing:
Minneapolis, MN.

Differentiating the core curriculum and instruction to provide advanced learning
Opportunities. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.

129
DiMartino, S., & Miles, S. (2004). Equity in the classroom. Principal Leadership,
5(4).

Dixon, F. (2008). Critical Thinking: A foundation for challenging content. The
Handbook of Secondary Education. Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press

Dixon, F., & Moon, S.(Eds.) (2006). The Handbook of Secondary Gifted Education.
Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.

Douglas, D. (2004). Self Advocacy: Encouraging students to become partners in
differentiation. Roeper Review, 26(4), 223-228.

Fehrenbach, C.R. (1991). Gifted/average readers: Do they use the same reading
strategies? Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 125-127.

Gallaghar, J. (1975). Teaching the Gifted Child (2
nd
ed.). Allyn and Bacon, Inc.:
Boston, MA.

Gentry, M., Rizza, M., & Owen, S. (2002). Examining perceptions of challenge and
choice in classrooms: The relationship between teachers and their students
and comparisons between gifted students and other students. Gifted Child
Quartely, 46, (2), 145-155.

Glassman, M. (2001). Dewey and Vygotsky: Society, experience and inquiry in
educational Practice. Educational Researcher, 30(4), 3-14

Goodlad. J. (1984). A place called school (20
th
ed.). New York: McGraw- Hill

Gossfield, M. (ed.) Expert Approaches to Support Gifted Learners: Professional
Perspectives, Best Practices and Positive Solutions. Free Spirit Publishing
Inc: Minneapolis, MN.

Gray, M. (2004). The “spillover effect: The power of gifted teaching strategies for an
entire staff. In California Association for the Gifted and Gosfield, M.W.
(Eds.). Expert Approaches to support gifted learners (pp. 151-157).
Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.

Gubbins, J. (1994). When differentiated becomes disconnected from curriculum.
Retrieved March 16, 2009, from
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/newletter/winter94/wintr941.html

Guerrero, M., & Villamil, O. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2
peer Revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68.
130
Great Books Foundation (1999). An Introduction to Shared Inquiry: A Handbook
for Junior Great Books Leaders. Great Books Foundation: Chicago, IL.

Herron, K., Hanley, J., and Cole, S. (1995). A comparison study of two advance
organizers For introducing beginning foreign language students to video. The
Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 387-395.

Hertzog, N. (1998). Open-ended activities: Differentiation through learner responses.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(4), 212-227.

Hoh, P. (2008). Cognitive characteristics of the gifted. In J.A. Plucker and C.M.
Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education, (pp. 57-83). Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press, Inc.

Jarmillo, J. (1996). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and contributions to the
development of Constructivist curricula. Education, 117 (1), 133-140

Jarvis, J. (2009). Planning to unmask potential through responsive curriculum: The
“famous five” exercise. Roeper Review, 31(4), 234-241.

John-Steiner, V. & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and
development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4),
191-206.

Johnsen, S. (Ed.)(2004). Identifying Gifted Students: A Practical Guide. Proofrock
Press: Waco, Texas.

Johnsen, S. (Ed.)(2004). Identifying Gifted Students: A practical guide. Proofrock
Press: Waco, Texas.

Johnsen, S. & Kendrick, J. (eds.) (2005). A Gifted Child Today Reader: Teaching
Strategies in Gifted Education. Proofrock Press: Waco, Texas.

Jolly, J., and Kettler, T. (2008). Gifted education research 1994-2003: A disconnect
between priorities and practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
31(4), 427-506.

Kaplan, S. N. (1994). Differentiating the core curriculum and instruction to provide
advanced learning opportunities. California Department of Education and
California Association for the Gifted. pp. 1-26.

Kaplan, S. N. (2004). The spillover effect: an advocacy strategy. Gifted Child Today,
27(1), 48-49
131

Kaplan, S. N. (2008). Curriculum consequences: If you learn this, then…Gifted
Child Today, 31(1), 41-42.

Kaplan, S. N. (2009). Following the national trend for advocacy. Gifted Child Today,
32(4), 64-65.

Kaplan, S. N. (2009). Layering differentiated curricula for the gifted and talented. In
Karnes, F., & Bean, S. (Eds.). Methods and Materials for Teaching the
Gifted (pp107-135). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Kaplan, S., Guzman, I., Tomlinson, C. (2009). Using the Parallel Curriculum Model
in Urban Settings: Grades K-8. Corwin: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Karnes, F., and Nugent, S. (2002). Influential people in gifted education. Gifted
Child Today, 25(4), 60-62.

Kim, K. Grabowski, B. L. & Sharma, P. (2004). Designing a classroom as a learner-
centered learning environment prompting students' reflective thinking in K-
12.: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology. Chicago, IL: (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED485059).

Linn, B, & Shore, B. (2008). Critical thinking. In critical issues and practices in
gifted Education: What the research says. Plucker, J. and Callahan, C. (Eds.).
Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Maker, J. (1982). Curriculum Development for the Gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen
Publication.

Maker, J. (1986). Critical Issues in Gifted Education: Defensible Programs for the
Gifted. Rockville, MD: Apen Publication.

Marland, S. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of
the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC:
U.S. Office of Education.

Malpass, J.R., Oneil, H.F., & Hovevar, D. (1999). Self-regulation, goal orientation,
self efficacy worry, and high stakes math achievement for mathematically
gifted high-school students. Roeper Review, 21, 281-288.

Matthews, D. & Foster, J. (2006). Mystery to mastery: Shifting paradigms in gifted
education. Roeper Review, 28(2), 64
132

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M., (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2
nd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications Inc.

Miller, L.S. (2004). Promoting sustained growth in the representation of African
Americans, Latinos, and Native American’s among top students in the United
States at all levels of the education system (Research Monograph No. 04190).
Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of
Connecticut.

Moon, T. R. (2009). Myth 16: High stakes tests are synonymous with rigor and
difficulty. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 277-278.

National Association for Gifted Children (1994). Differentiated instruction: A
position paper. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from www.nagc.org

National Association for Gifted Children (2008). Retrieved June 13, 2009, from
http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=468

National Research Council (2000). How people learn: Brain mind experience and
school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

National Research Counctil (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics and
science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Ormrod, J. (2008). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners (6
th
ed.).
Pearson: Columbus, Ohio.

Patrick, H., Gentry, M., Owen, S. (2006). Motivation and gifted adolescents, In
Dixon, F. & Moon, S. (Eds.). The Handbook of Secondary Education
(pp.393-426). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Inc.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research design and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications

Passow, H., Goldberg, M., Tannenbaum, A., French, W. (1955). Planning for
talented youth. Teacher’s College of Columbia.

Perez-Prado, A. (nd). Access: Building literacy through learning.

Pintrich, P.R., & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 33-40.
133

Pintrich, P.R. & Schunk, D.H. (2002). Motivation in education. Theory, research
and Applications (2
nd
ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Plucker, J., Burroughs, N., & Song, R. (2010). Mind the (other) gap: The growing
excellence gap in k-12 education. Center for Evaluation and Education
Policy, Indiana University.

Preckel, F., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Kleine, M. (2008). Gender differences in gifted
and average ability students: comparing girls and boys achievement, self-
concept, interest and motivation in mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52,
146.

Rakow, S. (2008). Standards-based v. standards-embedded curriculum: Not just
semantics! Gifted Child Today, 31(1), 43-49.

Reis, S. (2008). Talented readers. Included in Plucker, J.A. & Callahan, C.M. (Eds.)
Critical Issues and Practices in Gifted Education. Prufrock Press, Waco,TX.

Resnick, L. (1999). Making America Smarter. Education Week.

Renzulli, J. (1977). The enrichment model: A guide for developing defensible
programs for the gifted and talented. Creative Learning Press: Mansfield
Center, Conn.

Renzulli, J., & Reis, S. (1997). The school wide enrichment model: a how to guide
for educational excellence (2
nd
ed.). Creative Learning Press: Mansfield
Center, Conn.

Risko, V., & Alvarez, M. (1982). Thematic organizers: Application to remedial
reading. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Reading
Forum.

Robinson, N.M., Ziegler,E., & Gallagher, J.J. (2000). Two ends of the normal curve:
Similarities and differences in the study of mental retardation and giftedness.
American Psychologist, 55, 1413-1424.

Rogers, K. (2007). Re-forming gifted education: Matching the program to the child.
Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Rogers, K. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A
synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly
51(4), 382-396.
134

Rosselli, H. (1998). From Passow to Gardener: Curricular for talent development.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(3), 245-252.

Smutney, J.F., Walker, S. Y., & Meckstroth, E.A. (1997).Teaching Young Children
in the Regular Classroom. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.

Schiefele, U. (1991). Interests, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist,
26, 299-323

Steipen, W., & Stepien, W. (2006). Pulling the cat’s tail in social studies and history
classrooms. In Dixon, F. & Moon, S. (Eds.). The Handbook of Secondary
Education (pp.393-426). Waco, TX.

Subotnik, R.E., & Jarvin, L. (2005). Conceptions of giftedness ( 2
nd
ed.), Sternberg,
R. & Davidson, J. (Eds). New York: University Press.

Sousa, D.A. (2003). How the gifted brain learns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.

Thinking Maps Inc. What are thinking maps? Retrieved April 1, 2009, from
http://thinkingmaps.com//htthinkmap.php3

Tomlinson, C.A. (1995). Differentiated Instruction for Advanced Learners in the
Mixed-Ability Middle School Classroom. Eric Digest #E536, October, 1995.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to Differentiate in Mixed-Ability Classrooms.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C.A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom:
Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. VA: ASCD

Tomlinson, C.A., Brimijoin, K., & Narvaez, L. (2008). The Differentiated School:
Making Revolutionary Changes in Teaching and Learning. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.

Tomlinson, C., Kaplan, S., Renzulli, J., Purcell, J., Leppien, J., Burns, D., et al.
(2009) The Parallel Curriculum: A Design to Develop Learner Potential and
Challenge Advanced Learners (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: National
Association for Gifted Children & Corwin

Tyler, R. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
135
Smutney, J., Walker, S., Meckstroth, E. (1997).Teaching Young Gifted Children in
the Regular Classroom: Identifying, Nurturing and Challenging Ages 4-9.
Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.

Sternberg, R. (2003). What is an expert student? Educational Researcher, 32(8).

Sternberg, R. (2007). Who are the bright children? The cultural context of being
and acting Intelligent. Educational Researcher, 36(3).

Subotnik, R. and Jarvin, L. (2005). Beyond Expertise: Conceptions of giftedness as
great Performance. (in R. Sternbergs and J.E. Davidson, conceptions of
giftedness)

Tomlinson, C., Brimijoin, K., Narvaez, L. (2008). The Differentiated School:
Making Revolutionary Changes in Teaching and Learning. ASCD:
Alexandria, VA.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Feldhusen, J., Seeley, K., Wheatley, G., Silverman, L., Foster,
W. (1988) Comprehensive Curriculum for Gifted Learners. Needham
Heights: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2006). Secondary affective curriculum and instruction.

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.

Ward, V. (1961). Education for the gifted: an axiomatic approach. Columbus, Ohio:
Merrill Books, Inc.

Weisberg, J. (1970). The use of visual advance organizers for learning earth science
concepts. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the National Association for
Research in Science Education.

Weinbrenner, S. (1992). Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom. Minneapolis,
MN: Free Spirit
136
APPENDIX A
DEPTH AND COMPLEXITY POST TEST

137

138

139

140
APPENDIX B
STUDENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education
Curricular Effects of Utilizing the Prompts of Depth and Complexity
Across the Disciplines for Gifted and Non-Gifted Students

Interview Guide (Patton, 2002, p. 343)
Present student with each question (printed on large paper and laminated for
multiple use). Each student is to read along with the researcher as she reads aloud
each research question. The student will then be prompted to provide a response
based on the closed ended choices presented. Answers will be recorded by the
researcher on the researcher’s copy of the interview guide. Student responses will
also be tape recorded to ensure researcher reliability.

Student: (Predetermined/Pre-coded Student Identification Number)
Grade:
Start Time: End Time:
141

Question: Response:
Do you like when your teacher uses
the prompts of depth and complexity
when he/she is teaching a lesson? If
you had to rate how well you like
using the prompts, how would you?
Explain

Very Much Somewhat Not Very
Much

Do you find it interesting when your
teacher asks you to use the prompts of
depth and complexity when you are
completing your work? If you had to
rate the level of interest you feel, how
would you? Explain

Very
Interesting
Somewhat
Interesting
Not
Interesting

When do you use the prompts of
depth and complexity? In which
subject do you use them the most?

Reading Math Science Social
Studies
Other

Do you find the prompts to be helpful
when you are learning something new
or completing your work? If you had
to rate the helpfulness of the prompts
how would you? Explain.

Very Helpful Somewhat
Helpful
Not Helpful

Do you think the prompts of depth
and complexity make the curriculum
challenging? If you had to rate the
level of challenge that the prompts
provide, how would you? Explain

Very
Challenging
Somewhat
Challenging
Not
Challenging

Do you ever use the prompts or the
concepts related to the prompts when
you are not in school? Explain

All of the
Time
Some of the
Time
Not at All

142
Present student with a study statement (printed on large paper and laminated for multiple
use). Each student is to read along with the researcher as she reads aloud each study
question. The student will then be prompted to select the element of depth or complexity that
best answers the question(s) asked by the researcher. Answers will be recorded by the
researcher on the researchers copy of the interview guide by using a highlighter to color in
the prompts of depth and complexity that correspond to the student responses. Student
responses will also be tape recorded to ensure researcher reliability.

Study Statement Depth/Complexity

While studying social studies
topics such as Indians, cities,
history or maps, what would you:
• find most useful to learn
about?
• find to be interesting to
study?
• think would be most
challenging?
Useful

Interesting

Challenging

While studying language arts
topics such as poetry, plays,
science fiction or story structure
what would you:
• find most useful to learn
about?
• find to be interesting to
study?
• think would be most
challenging?
Useful

Interesting

Challenging

While studying life science topics
such as plants, cells, or ecology,
what would you:
• find most useful to learn
about?
• find to be interesting to
study?
• think would be most
challenging?
Useful

Interesting

Challenging

143
APPENDIX C
TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education
Curricular Effects of Utilizing the Prompts of Depth and Complexity Across the
Disciplines for Gifted and Non-Gifted Students

Interview Guide (Patton, 2002, p. 343)

Present teacher with their own copy of the interview protocol. Each teacher is to
read along with the researcher as she reads aloud each research question. The
teacher will then be prompted to provide a response based on the question asked.
Answers will be recorded by the researcher on the researcher’s copy of the interview
guide. Teacher responses will also be tape recorded to ensure researcher reliability.

Name: __________________
Grade: ____
Question: Response:
How long have you
participated in the grant?

I year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years

How frequently do you use
the prompts of depth and
complexity?

Do you use one or more
prompt more frequently than
another? If so, which?

Do you find you choose to
implement one or more of the
prompts in one content area
more than another?

Reading/
Language
Arts
Math Science Social
Science
Other

What are some reasons you
choose to or not to utilize the
prompts?

144
145
Do you feel the prompts of
depth and complexity affect
student understanding ? How
so, what have you noticed?

How would you describe the
impact of depth and
complexity in facilitating
student understanding

Very Effective Somewhat
Effective
Not Effective

Based on your experience do
you feel the prompts scaffold
student learning? How so,
why?

What is your perception of
how students perceive the
prompts?

Have you noticed a change in
student understanding because
of the prompts? Explain

Which prompts do you find
most effective in aiding in
students meeting or exceeding
grade level standards?

Details Patterns Language
of the
discipline
Rules

Change over
time
Big Idea Different
Points of
View
Ethics

Interdisciplinary
connections
Unanswered
Quest
Trends

What is the relationship
between depth and complexity
and student challenge?

Highly
Challenging
Somewhat
Challenged
Not Challenging

What is the relationship
between depth and complexity
and student Interest?

Highly
Interested
Somewhat
Interested
Not Interested

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study was conducted to understand how the prompts of depth and complexity affect gifted and non-gifted student understanding across the disciplines and was performed to (1) provide validation of the prompts in relationship to student acquisition of subject matter and (2) determine how the prompts of depth and complexity were related to student perceptions of challenge, interest and use. Two questions guided this investigation. The researcher explored how the prompts of depth and complexity affect gifted and non-gifted student learning across the disciplines. The researcher also examined gifted and non-gifted student perceptions of the prompts of depth and complexity specific to challenge, interest and use.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Experts’ perspectives on the application and relevancy of Depth and Complexity to academic disciplines of study

PDF

The elements of a differentiated curriculum for gifted students: transfer and application across the disciplines

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

Differentiated culturally relevant curriculum to affirm identity for gifted African American students

PDF

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

PDF

The effects of the models of teaching on student learning

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The placement and participation of gifted African American students in advanced academic services: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Factors that influence the identification of elementary African American students as potentially gifted learners

PDF

Cross-case analysis of the use of student performance data to increase student achievement in California public schools on the elementary level

PDF

Gifted Spanish speaking English learners' participation in advanced placement programs

PDF

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

PDF

Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching

PDF

The role of principal leadership in achievement beyond test scores: an examination of leadership, differentiated curriculum and high-achieving students

PDF

Technology as a tool: uses in differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted learners

PDF

Critical reflection among marriage and family therapy students: an examination of cognitive complexity and content

PDF

The impact of learning communities on the retention and academic integration of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution

Asset Metadata

Creator Dodds, Kimberly M. (author)

Core Title Effects of the prompts of depth and complexity on gifted and non-gifted students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 07/26/2010

Defense Date 06/28/2010

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

Tag complexity,curriculum,depth,depth and complexity,differentiation,gifted and non-gifted students,Gifted Education,OAI-PMH Harvest,spillover effect

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (city or populated place)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kaplan, Sandra N. (committee chair), Hunt, Lucy (committee member), Keim, Robert G. (committee member)

Creator Email kdodds@susd.org,kimmydodds@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3221

Unique identifier UC1422937

Identifier etd-Dodds-3995 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-354383 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3221 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Dodds-3995.pdf

Dmrecord 354383

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Dodds, Kimberly M.

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