University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

EXPERTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON THE APPLICATION AND RELEVANCY OF
DEPTH AND COMPLEXITY TO ACADEMIC DISCIPLINES OF STUDY

by

Joanna L. Lauer

______________________________________________________________

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 Joanna L. Lauer

ii
DEDICATION
To my husband, who knows what it took to accomplish this dissertation and
whose support I could not have written it without.
To my daughters, Whitney and Audrey, who gave this work purpose and
meaning. May you each do something in your life that makes you as proud of
yourselves as this has made me.
To my parents, who actively supported me in various ways throughout this
process. Your actions remind me that the strength of parents’ love never wanes.
And finally, to my grandfather, Robert Swensson, and my closest friend,
Candace Tift.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express sincere appreciation to my committee chair and
personal mentor, Dr. Sandra Kaplan, whose words and scholarly work always inspire
me. Her dedication to gifted learners is unwavering. I aspire to follow in her
footsteps.
I would also like to express appreciation for my friends and colleagues who
have shared this journey with me. Paige McCord, Jenni Krogh, and Kim Dodds, are
educators who continue to make significant differences in the field of education. I
am honored to have them as close friends.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abstract viii
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose and Significance of Study 5
Conceptual Framework 6
Research Questions 8
Overview of Methodology 8
Assumptions 9
Limitations Imposed on Researcher 9
Delimitations 9
Definition of Terms 10
Chapter 2: Literature Review 12
Depth and Complexity 12
Curriculum and Instruction 16
Disciplines of Study 22
Expertise 27
Conclusion 35
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 36
Research Questions 37
Research Design 37
Population and Sample 38
Sampling Strategies 40
Instrumentation 43
Limitations and Assumptions 44
Pilot Studies 45
Data Collection 46
Data Analysis 47

v
Chapter 4: Findings 50
Research Question 1: Application of Depth and Complexity 52
Research Question 2: Relevancy to the Discipline 93
Summary of Findings 101
Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications 104
Research Findings and Conclusions 106
Practical Implications and Recommendations 113
Recommendations for Future Research 115
References 118
Appendices 127
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 127
Appendix B: Use of Absolute Terms to Indicate High Relevancy 130
by Scientists
Appendix C: Use of Absolute Terms to Indicate High Relevancy 131
by Social Scientists

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Concepts of Depth 15
Table 2.2: Prompts of Complexity 15
Table 2.3: Standards for Authentic Instruction (as adapted by Stepien 20
& Stepien)
Table 3.1: Participant Demographic Overview 39
Table 3.2: Scholarly Foci of Expert Participants 42
Table 3.3: Instrument Summary Table 47
Table 4.1: Number of Disciplinarians Explicitly Commenting on 69
Purposes for Depth and Complexity
Table 4.2: Sternberg’s (2003) Definitions for Experts’ Methods of 83
Thinking and Emerged Themes from the Study
Table 4.3: Relevancy of Depth and Complexity across Disciplines 95
Table 4.4: Use of Absolute Terms to Indicate High Relevancy by 96
Professors of English and Literacy
Table 4.5: Use of Absolute Terms to Indicate High Relevancy by 97
Mathematicians
Table 4.6: Labeling of Relevancy of Depth and Complexity Concepts 100

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Represented Disciplines of Study 40
Figure 4.1: Relationship between Language of the Discipline to other 73
Concepts of Depth and Complexity
Figure 4.2: Relationship between Unanswered Questions and Multiple 75
Perspectives
Figure 4.3: Relationship between Rules, Ethics, and Change Over Time 78
Figure 4.4: Relationship between Details, Trends and Multiple 81
Perspectives to Change Over Time

viii
ABSTRACT
Depth and Complexity a set of prompts or concepts, represented an approach
to curriculum differentiation for gifted students, that originated from a California
Department of Education (1994) document describing educational needs for gifted
students. Derived from three sources: (1) a review of Advance Placement curriculum
and assessment, (2) a study of California Golden State Exam requirements, and (3)
conventional wisdom about the accelerated needs of gifted students and the nature of
academic disciplines, the prompts of Depth and Complexity have been integrated as
a G.A.T.E. standard (CDE, 2005). While they were designed to create learning
experiences that nurture excellence and develop expert-practice among gifted
students, a study demonstrating how the 11 prompts of Depth and Complexity were
relevant and applicable to academic disciplines had yet to be conducted. Findings
from this study explored the concepts of Depth and Complexity and described their
relationship to the academic disciplines.
This qualitative study of experts’ scholarly work provided content validity for
the use of the concepts of Depth and Complexity as a viable approach to differentiate
curriculum for gifted students. Experts across academic disciplines qualified for
participation in this study based on a set of criteria: 1) they possessed a terminal
academic degree, and 2) had at least 10 years of experience in a respective field. A
multi-level interview protocol was used to gather information for analysis and
yielded responses about the relationships of the concepts of Depth and Complexity to
academic disciplines. The results of the study indicated that the concepts of Depth

ix
and Complexity were applicable for and relevant to academic experts and their
disciplinary work. The significance of this study lies in the implication that the
concepts of Depth and Complexity were therefore an appropriate and authentic
means to facilitate content knowledge in the study of the disciplines for gifted
students.

1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
People possessing expertise in a field of study have the ability to make
significant contributions to our society. In October 2004, findings from The
International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium reduced the number of
identified human protein-coding genes to 20,000-25,000, surprising many scientists
who believed large quantities of human genes indicated genetic complexity (The
Human Genome Project Information, 2008). In September 2008, physicists
completed the Large Hadron Collider, a particle accelerator designed to recreate
conditions occurring just after the Big Bang, expected to revolutionize
understandings ranging from the organization of atoms to the vast nature of the
universe (European Organization for Nuclear Research, 2008). On March 6, 2009,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientists launched Kepler,
a spacecraft whose mission it will be to monitor 100,000 stars similar to the sun for
the next four years, in hopes of identifying habitable, Earth-sized planets capable of
sustaining life (NASA, 2009). In 2008, University of Maryland professor Carmen
Reinhart and Harvard professor Kenneth Rogoff determined that financial crises are
protracted affairs that have ripple effects on asset prices, the economy, and
government finances (NBER Working Paper #13882, 2008). Requisite to findings
and accomplishments such as these are the domain-specific work of experts in the
science and social science disciplines. The complex, evolving nature of the
disciplines they study require those who make discoveries like these to engage in

2
rigorous intellectual endeavors over an extended period of time. Leading scientists
and social scientists have accomplished years of education and experience, resulting
in high-levels of expertise. Their ability to think analytically, practically, and
creatively about the discipline they study distinguish them from less-knowledgeable
others (Sternberg, 2003). Education that prepares individuals for work within these
disciplines ensures the continuing development of our modern society (Hunt, 1995).
President Obama (2009) recognizes our country’s need to educate its youth wisely,
saying, “By 2016, four out of every ten new jobs will require at least some advanced
education or training” (Obama, 2009). The educational reform the President has
outlined in his recent educational agenda demands “innovation and excellence in
America’s schools” in order to accomplish this (Obama, 2009).
Several national research organizations have found that the quality of
instruction delivered to students in the classroom is significant to student
achievement (NAGC, 2009; NCATE, 2008; NCTAF, 2003; Haycock, 1998). The
central call of the 2007 report of the National Commission on Teaching and
America’s Future (NCTAF) is for highly-qualified, caring, and competent teachers to
staff the schools of our nation (NCTAF, 2003). One of the criteria for a highly-
qualified teacher, according to NCTAF (2003) is the ability to assist students in
achieving high standards. The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)
joins this national call for high-quality education in America (NAGC, 2009).
According to NAGC, challenging educational experiences for students include
acceleration of instruction, in-depth study, a high degree of complexity, and

3
advanced content (NAGC, 1994). Teachers should have an awareness of, and the
ability to respond to, the various needs and abilities of all students (NAGC, 2004).
Gifted students, they contend, are a population that poses a particular challenge in
this regard (NAGC, 2004).
The state of California defines a gifted learner as having “demonstrated or
potential abilities” indicating high performance capability (California Department of
Education, 2005). Research studies have found that gifted students are experiencing
inadequate and inappropriate education in schools. (NAGC, 2004, Swiatek and
Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2003). While it is a common myth that gifted children
automatically grow into creative, eminent adults, experts in gifted education
(Freeman, 2001, Winner, 1996,) aver the falsity of this notion and identify several
factors that contribute to their successes and failures (Cross, 2004, Winner, 1996).
Some researchers argue that, as a society, we incur a collective loss from not
preparing students capable of high-performance to contribute their abilities
(Freeman, 2001, Winner, 1996). It is the responsibility of educators to develop
knowledge and ability within students that prepare them for their future, in
whichever area they pursue (NAGC, 2004, NCTAF, 2003). In our current,
industrialized world, education plays a critical role in the development of highly
accomplished people (Becker, 2002).
As Dewey (1902) and Counts (1975) suggest, education that supports
democratic, social, and lifelong learning provides a foundation of understanding
critical to becoming a productive member of society. Educators are responsible for

4
providing rigorous learning experiences for students, especially those with high
potential and unique abilities (NAGC, 2009). Abilities, Sternberg (1998) suggests,
are evidences of developing expertise. Knowledge is being exchanged around the
world every day that advances disciplines of study in new directions (Pea & Brown,
2008; DTI/DfEE, 2001), and the consequences of schools not preparing our youth to
reach high-levels of knowledge and understanding are serious (Obama, 2009). As
Avis (2002) states, the future contributors to society, our own human capital, should
be afforded the opportunity to keep pace with the rapidity of social and economic
change (Avis, 2002).
Statement of the Problem
Many approaches to differentiate curriculum for learners who are gifted exist,
although they vary in their level of relevance to academic disciplines. As Tomlinson
(2008) asserts, students can become powerful learners only if what they are learning
is powerful. Curriculum that is of high quality emphasizes complex concepts,
principles and the central ideas of a discipline (Stepien & Stepien, 2006; Tomlinson,
2008). Depth and Complexity is an approach to differentiate curriculum that was
partly derived from the central concepts of a discipline (personal communication,
Kaplan, S., 2/28/10). It originated from the California Department of Education
(CDE, 1994) framework, and was first described as a “thinking curriculum,” because
it increased the level of academic challenge for gifted and high-ability students.
Elementary and secondary educators of gifted students, primarily in California,
utilize Depth and Complexity today as a set of 11 concepts, also referred to as

5
prompts, that elicit open-ended thinking and reasoning about the study of the
disciplines.
Since its inception, Depth and Complexity has become increasingly used as
an approach to differentiate curriculum among educators of students who are gifted.
The California State Board of Education (2005) recommended a focus on depth and
complexity as a means to differentiate content, and gifted programs must implement
this and other facets of differentiation in order to receive funding (CSBE, 2005).
How to effectively facilitate depth and complexity of learning was a topic that
remains under study in gifted education, and while educators continued to utilize
Depth and Complexity’s 11 prompts as an approach to differentiation, the degree to
which there is data to support their relevance and applicability to academic
disciplines was yet to be articulated. Findings from this study explored each of the
concepts of Depth and Complexity and described their relationship to the academic
disciplines of science, social science, math, and English. This study attempted to
provide verification of the assumptions about the relationship of the prompts of
Depth and Complexity to facilitate the study of the disciplines.
Purpose and Significance of Study
The purpose of this study was to validate the relevance of Depth and
Complexity to academic disciplines of study and discuss subsequent implications for
gifted education. Analysis of gifted students, research on learning, and conventional
wisdom about disciplines of study influenced the conceptualization of the eleven
concepts of Depth and Complexity (personal communication, Kaplan, S., 2/28/10).

6
Also referred to as prompts, many educators of gifted students use them as an
approach to differentiate curriculum across content areas. Depth and Complexity was
to afford students who are gifted the opportunity to think and reason at an intellectual
level appropriate for their unique ability (CDE, 1994). The prompts increase the
level of challenge for students in the classroom; and, as proposed in this study,
closely relate to the methods of thinking facilitated by experts in academic
disciplines.
Intellectual contributions made by experts in a discipline require high-levels
of reasoning that are similar to the type of thinking elicited by students through the
use of Depth and Complexity. This study retrospectively examined the use of Depth
and Complexity as a relevant means of acquiring and applying knowledge by experts
in various academic disciplines. Findings from this study generalize to the field of
gifted education. The significance of this study lay in the revelation that the concepts
of Depth and Complexity were applied by and relevant to the work of academicians
in various disciplines. Depth and Complexity is therefore considered an authentic
means by which content knowledge should be facilitated for learners with unique or
high ability.
Conceptual Framework
Sternberg’s Theory of Successful Intelligence
To practice a task for the sake of practice, and for no end, as Dewey (1916)
related, is futile. Aligned with this notion, Sternberg (2003) suggested the idea that
conventional methods of schooling create “pseudo-experts” among students whose

7
abilities in a subject area do not match the work and type of thinking needed to solve
real-world problems within it. If we wish to teach expertise to students, Sternburg
(2003) stated that two things are required: (1) to have the students perform tasks (or
meaningful simulations of them) that experts accomplish within a discipline; and (2)
teach them the methods of thinking that experts perform when executing their work.
The methods of thinking that experts perform comprised Sternberg’s (2003) theory
of successful intelligence. Successful intelligence involves thinking analytically,
creatively, and practically- ways characteristic of those who possess expertise in a
discipline. According to Sternberg (2003), these methods of thinking were defined as
the following:
1. Teaching for analytical thinking means encouraging students to analyze,
critique, judge, compare and contrast, evaluate and assess.
2. Teaching for creative thinking means encouraging students to create,
invent, discover, “imagine if,” “suppose that,” and predict.
3. Teaching for practical thinking means encouraging students to apply, use,
put into practice, implement, employ, and render practical what they
know. (p. 5).
Tomlinson, Kaplan, Renzulli, Purcell, Leppein, and Burns (2002) agreed that
curriculum should provide opportunities to think authentically about a discipline of
study. They noted that curriculum should move students from novice toward expert
levels of performance in the disciplines and guide them in the acquisition of
fundamental skills (Tomlinson et al., 2002). According to Dewey (1916), subject

8
matter and skills, or methods, within a discipline should be a “single continuous
interaction” (p.4). He defined method as “the effective treatment of material,” and
asserted that it should utilize the material “with a minimum of waste of time and
energy” (p.2). Intelligence in future society will include the ability to solve problems
and think critically about the world (Brown & Lauder, 2000). To develop expertise,
students need to be afforded learning experiences that ask them to engage in
authentic practice within a discipline.
Research Questions
1. How do experts utilize the prompts of Depth and Complexity in the
facilitation of research and application of knowledge within their field?
2. How are the prompts of Depth and Complexity relevant to the study of
academic disciplines?
Overview of Methodology
Methodology employed by this study was of a qualitative nature, designed to
gather detailed information from experts in the disciplines of math, history, language
arts, and science. Criteria for the qualification of the sample population was
synthesized from research on expertise and is listed as follows: (1) Experts must
possess a terminal degree related to their field and (2) Experts must have at least 10
years of experience in their field of study. Experts, also referred to as
“disciplinarians” in the present study, were interviewed to determine the application
and relevance of the prompts of Depth and Complexity to disciplines of
mathematics, English, science, and social science. This method of research yielded

9
data for deductive reasoning about Depth and Complexity that validated it as an
authentic means to facilitate content knowledge for students who are gifted.
Assumptions
All procedures used in this study were done with ethical considerations and
according IRB standards. It was assumed that participants in this study responded to
interview questions to the best of their knowledge and ability, regardless of their
familiarity of Depth and Complexity as an approach to differentiate instruction in K-
12 education. It is understood that alternative factors may have influenced experts’
responses on the survey, such as years of experience in their discipline and personal
bias towards certain concepts of Depth and Complexity that related to their particular
area of research.
Limitations Imposed on Researcher
Chain sampling was employed to identify experts who met the criteria set
forth by research on expertise. Due to the nature of the proposed method of
sampling, the researcher was limited by the inability to select disciplinarians in a
random manner. Qualitative data gathered was limited to the number of experts
willing to participate in the study and to the disciplines they belonged to.
Delimitations
Data collection from expert disciplinarians may not be generalizable to all
disciplinarians in a field. It is recognized that experts become highly specialized in
their research and that personal perspective likely played a role in the information

10
they provided about Depth and Complexity. Data collected for quantitative analysis
for this study may not be generalizable to a wider population of disciplinarians.
Definition of Terms
Academic Discipline: Fields with departments, graduate programs, and
professional associations (Burker, 2003).
Authentic Learning: Acquiring integrated and useful subject-matter
knowledge in a manner that is similar to ways in which it is encountered in the
outside world (Ormrod, p.265).
Authentic Assessment: An assessment requiring students to use the same
competencies, or combinations of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, that they need to
apply in the criterion situation in professional life (Gulikers, Bastiaens, &
Kirschner).
Community of Practice: Groups of people who share a concern or a passion
for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly
(Wenger, n.d.).
Critical Thinking: “The intellectually disciplined process of actively and
skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating
information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection,
reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.” (National Council for
Excellence in Critical Thinking, 1987).

11
Depth and Complexity: A set of 11 prompts that differentiate curriculum for
gifted and learners with high-ability according to key concepts that are inherent to
academic disciplines (personal communication, Kaplan, S., 2/28/10).
Differentiation: Modifications in curriculum and instruction necessary to
support students with academically diverse needs (Tomlinson, 2003).
Disciplinarian: A person whose research and contributing knowledge pertain
to a particular field of study.
Expertise: Characteristics, skills, and knowledge that distinguish experts
from novices and less experienced people (Ericsson, 2006, p.3).
Gifted individual: someone who shows, or has the potential for showing, an
exceptional level of performance in one or more areas of expression (NAGC, 2008).
Higher-Level Cognitive Processes: Doing something fairly complex with
that what an individual is learning- perhaps actively studying it, applying it to a new
situation or problem, using it to create a new product, or critically evaluating it
(Ormrod, p.265).
Community of Practice: Groups of people who share a concern or a passion
for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly
(Wenger, n.d.).

12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Several topics pertained to the nature of this study and was explored in this
literature review. First, information about Depth and Complexity was provided as a
foundation of understanding for this study. A description of the origin of Depth and
Complexity and how it has evolved was included, along with a description of each of
its prompts. Second, an overview of curriculum and instruction, as it relates to
differentiation for gifted learners, was provided. The structure of an academic
discipline was also included: its common features and specific attributes. Finally, the
notion of expertise was examined through seminal and recent research and theory.
Debates that exist within the field of study, namely, what facilitates expertise and
whether aspects of it are innate or nurtured through practice and experience were
presented. The synthesis of the literature serves as a comprehensive review of the
topics presented and explored in this study.
Depth and Complexity
As stated in the California State Board of Education’s Recommended
Standards for Programs for Gifted Students (2005), differentiated curriculum that is
responsive to the needs of gifted students “focuses primarily on depth and
complexity of content, advanced or accelerated pacing of content, and novelty” (p.
4). When aligned with content, standards, or subject matter, the California
Department of Education (1994) posited that concepts of Depth and Complexity

13
increased the level of challenge for students in the classroom and afforded high-
ability learners the opportunity to think and reason at appropriate intellectual levels.
Depth and Complexity originated in 1994 with the intention of providing
guidance for implementing content standards adopted by the State Board of
Education. It was designed to promote high-level, open-ended reasoning and
acquisition of content for gifted learners (CDE, 1994). A gainful educational
movement occurred in the mid-nineties from traditional concepts of American
instruction, (i.e. small-step learning occurring through practice and repetition), to a
core curriculum known as the thinking curriculum, whereby excellence was nurtured
and expert-practice was promoted (CDE, 1994). Characteristics of the thinking
curriculum were: (1) meaning is central, and (2) multiple solutions are expected
(CDE, 1994). Resnick (1999) claimed that students with no opportunity for exposure
to a thinking curriculum perform poorly on assessments of reasoning or problem
solving. In order to create ability, she suggested that we design schools in which
intellectual rigor and a thinking curriculum permeate learning experiences during
every school day for all students (Resnick, 1999). Academic rigor in a thinking
curriculum is curriculum designed around major concepts of disciplines of study that
students need to know at a deep level (Resnick, 1999). Teaching should engage
students in active thinking about disciplinary concepts on a regular basis (Resnick,
1999).
The prompts of Depth and Complexity were derived from key concepts that
exist within the structure of a discipline. Burker (2003) defined a discipline as having

14
several, common features, one being a common vocabulary and set of concepts. The
prompts of Depth and Complexity include: details, patterns, trends, rules, language
of a discipline, ethics, big ideas, unanswered questions, change over time, multiple
perspectives, and interdisciplinary relationships. These concepts unify disciplines of
study, in that they exist in the basic structure of all academic disciplines; yet
individually, examples of these concepts define a discipline as purely unique.
Depth and Complexity is used as an approach to support students whose
latent abilities emerge as a result of challenging learning experiences. The amount of
depth and complexity of coverage on a particular topic is one of the most important
curricular decisions educators can make (Renzulli, 1988). Specifically, Depth refers
to studying content from the concrete to the abstract, the familiar to the unfamiliar,
or the known to the unknown (CDE, 1994). Generally accepted principles of gifted
education assert the need for curriculum that addresses thinking skills, abstract
concepts, high-level content and interdisciplinary studies (NSSE Yearbook, 1958;
Passow, 1982). Depth and Complexity prompts students to examine a topic by
initially identifying facts, then determining underlying concepts, and finally, relating
the generalizations, theories and principles that govern to the topic of study. Along a
continuum, the prompts of Depth can be represented in the manner illustrated in
Table 2.1.

15
Table 2.1: Concepts of Depth

Specific Language of a
Discipline
Vocabulary particular to a field of study
Details One of several items of information
Patterns A repetitive occurrence
Trends A tendency during a period of time
Rules Governing principles, that which provides order or structure
Ethics Standards of moral behavior

Unanswered
Questions
Questions yet to be answered in a field of study
General Big Ideas Generalizations or theories

Complexity initiates student thinking about relationships between and among
ideas in a discipline. It prompts students to connect concepts and identify
interdisciplinary relationships. For gifted learners, the goal is to extend the core
curriculum through the study of issues, problems, or themes. This may include the
examination of changes that have occurred within the content over time, comparing
multiple perspectives on a topic, or describing relationships that exist between
particular disciplines. Prompts of Complexity are illustrated in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Prompts of Complexity

Change Over Time Multiple Perspectives Interdisciplinary Relationships
Examining differences,
transformations and alterations
across a period of time.
Viewpoints, opinions
relative to background
or culture.
Relationships, parallels, or
commonalities between or
across fields of study

16
According to the National Association for Gifted Children (1994),
appropriate and challenging learning experiences for gifted students include in-depth
study and a high degree of complexity. Prompts of Depth and Complexity were
created to facilitate this type of differentiated instruction by providing students and
educators key concepts that are authentic to and inherent in disciplines of study.
Renzulli (1998) noted that every field of knowledge is built upon basic principles
and key concepts. Identifying these concepts for the purpose of facilitating high-
levels of knowledge for gifted students provides for comprehension, information
processing, and communication of information that is representative of the essence
of the field (Renzulli, 1988).
Curriculum and Instruction
Origins of Differentiation
In 1971, in response to a congressional mandate for a status report on gifted
education, Marland (1971) issued a landmark study that was to (a) determine the
extent to which programs for gifted students are necessary, (b) show which Federal
education assistance programs were being used to meet the needs of gifted learners,
(c) evaluate those programs, and (d) recommend new programs, if needed, to meet
the needs of this student population. Marland (1971) determined that differentiated
instruction was indeed useful in meeting the needs of gifted students, yet it found
that it was a very low priority for Federal, State and most local levels of government.
The results of his study evidenced the need for action by the U.S. Department of
Education to eliminate the “widespread neglect” of gifted students in the nation’s

17
schools (p. xii). A differentiated educational program, as defined by the Marland
Report (1971), had three distinct characteristics:
1. A differentiated curriculum that denotes higher cognitive concepts and
processes.
2. Instructional strategies that accommodate the learning styles of the gifted
and talented and curriculum content.
3. Special grouping arrangements which include a variety of administrative
procedures appropriate to particular children, i.e. special classes, honor
classes, seminars, resources rooms, and the like.
The characteristics of a differentiated curriculum described in the Marland
Report (1971) are not unlike those being suggested by leading experts in gifted
education today. Dixon (2008) proposes systematic tailoring of curriculum that
incorporates higher order thinking skills. Moon (2008) supports authentic contexts
where students are afforded opportunities to demonstrate sophisticated
interdisciplinary understanding. Tomlinson (2008) claims that recent uses of the term
“differentiation” are referring to the adaptation of content, process, product, affect,
and learning environment in response to student readiness. When the U.S.
Department of Education (1993) issued their more recent report on the status of the
nation’s schools, one of its recommendations for improvement called for the
expansion of educational programs that incorporated advanced materials. A common
thread throughout school reform efforts expresses awareness of the needs to address
gifted students’ abilities.

18
Concerns about Education
Many abiding concerns exist about the current state of education and how it
relates to gifted education. Secondary school curricula were said to have been
“homogenized, diluted, and diffused” to the point where it lacked a coherent focus
(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Studies of elementary
school programs have criticized curriculum for its lack of academic rigor (U.S.
Department of Education, 1993). Political concerns about equity prevent academic
acceleration for highly capable students (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, n.d.). In
sum, there is lack of understanding and awareness at certain levels about what is
considered appropriate curriculum for gifted students.
Depending on public financial support and political climate, curriculum has
vacillated between the goals of equity and the goals of academic excellence (McNeil,
1996). In the 1950’s, a national curriculum reform movement was generated in
response to the Russian-launched satellite Sputnik. In fear of falling behind, the
United States enlisted the nation’s leading scholars to design curriculum that would
reflect what leading experts believed was crucial to the education of students. Fifty-
three separate curriculum projects were funded by the National Science Foundation
that featured laboratory practices and methods of discovery mirroring academic
inquiry practices used by experts in major academic fields. Though reform
movements shifted away from this emphasis in the 1970’s and 1980’s, there were
educational experts who maintained their beliefs about the value of knowledge-
discovery. These experts recommended teaching concepts, attitudes and

19
methodology of selected disciplines in order to develop thinking persons (McNeil,
1996).
Authentic Learning
Authentic learning experiences have been described as those that utilize
integrated subject-matter knowledge in a way that is consistent with how it is
encountered in the outside world (Ormrod, 2008). Standards for authentic instruction
designed to offer authentic learning experiences have emerged from the examination
of instructional practices and classroom environments. In a quest to identify concepts
that produce higher-order thinking with a deep understanding of how the world
operates, Newmann and Wehlage (1993) researched practices that produced
authentic achievement. During their investigations, three criteria were defined to
identify authentic achievement: (1) students constructing meaning and producing
knowledge, (2) students using disciplined inquiry to construct knowledge, and (3)
students producing discourse, products, and performances that had value and
meaning beyond success in school (Newmann & Wehlage, 1993). From this
research, five standards for authentic instruction were formulated as a measurement
tool. Table 2.3 illustrates Stepien and Stepien’s (2006) adaptation of Newmann and
Wehlage’s (1993) original work.

20
Table 2.3: Standards for Authentic Instruction (as adapted by Stepien & Stepien)

Standard Standard Defined
Higher-order
thinking
Students manipulate information and ideas in ways that
transform their meaning and implications. They synthesize,
generalize, explain, or arrive at conclusions.
Depth of
Knowledge
Students understand complex, central ideas of topics or
disciplines. They construct arguments, solve problems, or
construct explanations.
Connectedness to
the world
Students connect with the larger social context within which
they live. They address real-world problems or use personal
experiences as a context for applying knowledge.
Substantive
conversation
Students engage in considerable, non-scripted interaction on
ideas; They share higher order thinking, raise questions, or
dialogue coherently on each other’s ideas.
Social Support Students experience high expectations, respect, and inclusion.
All students are asked to take intellectual risks, show respect,
and receive assistance in reaching expectations.

Recognizing the impossible feat of trying to delve deeply into all disciplines,
McNeil (1996) offered three suggestions to determine which disciplinary knowledge
to administer curriculum with: (1) comprehensiveness with respect to ways at
arriving at or justifying truth or knowledge, (2) social utility- the usefulness of the
discipline for all citizens, and (3) prerequisite knowledge- the importance of certain
disciplines as a basis for others or for subsequent education (p. 79). Hirst (1974)
offered an alternative approach, proposing four criteria for determining which
discipline was of most worth in implementing curriculum: (1) certain concepts are
peculiar to the form (for example, gravity, acceleration, and hydrogen are concepts

21
unique to the physical form); (2) each form has a distinct logical structure by which
the concepts can be related; (3) the form, by virtue of its terms and logic, has
statements or conclusions that are assessable; and (4) the form has methods for
exploring experience and testing its statements.
Based on Hirst’s (1974) criteria, disciplines, or forms of knowledge, most
relevant to curriculum were: mathematics, physical sciences, knowledge of persons,
literature and the fine arts, morals, religion and philosophy (McNeil, 1996). Learning
curriculum that was based on underlying principles of a discipline permitted
generalizations, made knowledgeable useful and transferable to other contexts, and
facilitated memory by allowing the learner to connect facts (Bruner, 1977). Schwab
(1965), for example, built a curriculum around the information-processing systems
of an academic discipline. His Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) taught
students to process information using techniques similar to those of research
scientists (Schwab, 1965). To assist students in understanding the nature of science,
the BSCS familiarized students with the methods of biology while, at the same time,
introduced them to the basic facts of the discipline. Curricula such as this, that relates
to the basic structure of an academic discipline, is considered authentic learning, as it
applies subject-matter knowledge in a way that is consistent with the outside world.
Authentic Assessments and Instruction
Gulikers, Bastiaens and Kirschner (2004) conducted a review of the literature
on authentic assessments, on authenticity and assessments in general, and on student
perceptions of authentic assessment concepts. Five dimensions of authentic

22
assessments were identified: (1) the assessment task, (2) the physical context, (3) the
social context, the assessment result or form, and (4) the assessment criteria
(Gulikers, Bastiaens, & Kirchner, 2004). They noted that consequences may exist,
however, for “lower-level learners” who “may not be able to deal” with the
authenticity of a complex professional situation (Gulikers, Bastiaens, & Kirchner,
2004, p.76). To ameliorate this situation, they suggested educators create a “criterion
situation,” an abstraction of real professional practice, that might be more attainable
for lower ability students (Gulikers, Bastiaens, & Kirchner, 2004) Lave and Wenger
(1991) disagree with abstracting learning experiences, however. They contended that
to learn, one should not replicate the performances of others; rather the learner
should become a full participant in a community of practice (Lave and Wenger,
1991). They asserted “questions of learning” should be addressed within the
developmental cycles of a learning community, and that this created a diagnostic tool
for determining needs of those within it (Lave and Wenger, 1991).
Disciplines of Study
Structures have both rules and resources (Giddens, 1984). According to
Burker (2003), disciplines are defined by their administrative structures. Fields with
departments, graduate programs, and professional associations are considered
disciplines (Burker, 2003). Changes have been occurring within traditional
disciplines of study; growth in knowledge has led to disciplinary fragmentation into
sub-disciplines. Clark (1996) asserted that this type of growth and increase in

23
complexity has been the most important, yet most overlooked, influence affecting
institutes of higher education.
Growth within a discipline can be measured by the increase in the number of
departments in universities, the types of courses offered, the number of disciplinary
associations, numbers of journals and articles published, and the number of
commonly accepted research topics (Becher, 2001). New fields developed from
older ones and gradually gained independence through established methodological
practices, theoretical frameworks, and sets of internal divisions (Becher, 2001).
Some characteristics of a discipline that served as a foundational understanding for
this literature review include: (a) a discipline has a past, present, and a future, (b) it
possessed a common vocabulary with specified terms that facilitate precise
communication, (c) a set of key questions that guide inquiry exist within it, (d)
methods and strategies for interpretation are utilized, and (e) shared understanding of
what counts as evidence is commonly understood (Buker, 2003).
Along with growth, disciplines of study have experienced some decline.
Clark (1997) and Henkel (2000) noted that physics and chemistry, in their pure
forms, have experienced difficulty in recruiting students. To counteract this
phenomenon, universities began to offer alternative types of degrees that require less
specialist knowledge and increased market attraction. Changes within disciplines
resulted in the restructuring of power, influence and resource-allocation; yet reflected
changing demands of the population it served and the conditions they existed in.

24
Structure of a Discipline
Various taxonomies have been derived from observations of how researchers
operate in the exploration of their fields (Becher, 1987; Biglan, 1973; Kolb, 1981;
Whitley, 1984). These provided an organizational structure and way of
conceptualizing disciplines by how they differed from each other. Biglan’s (1973)
research surveyed academics to discover how they perceived characteristics of
knowledge fields. He categorized his findings into the following three dimensions:
hard vs. soft, pure vs. applied, and life system vs. non-life system.
Conversely, Kolb (1981) studied disciplines from the perspective of the
learner. He categorized academic fields into two categories: abstract and concrete,
and then added a second dimension: active and reflective (Kolb, 1981). In aligning
his disciplinary conceptualization with Bilgan’s (1973), he wrote:
When academic fields are mapped on this two-dimensional space, a four-fold
typology of disciplines emerges. In the abstract reflective [hard pure]
quadrant are clustered the natural sciences and mathematics, while the
abstract-active [hard applied] quadrant includes the science-based
professions, most notably the engineering fields. The concrete-active [soft
applied] quadrant encompasses what might be called the social professions,
such as education, social work, and law. The concrete-reflective quadrant
[soft pure] includes the humanities and social sciences. (Kolb, 1981)

Discipline of History
As a discipline of study, history is unique for many reasons. It is known for
its enormous diversity of subject matter, far beyond that of other disciplines (Lemon,
1995). Histories are related to the history of something, and therefore, imply a
specified approach. The content of what is studied often determines the approach of

25
the historian. Historians are known for studying things of the past. This general sense
indicate the broad nature of the subject matter of a historian. As Lemon (1995)
described, integrity is assured, no matter what the topic, so long as it belongs to the
past.
Studying history involves the examination of something not occurring in the
present, and therefore is not known of immediately. This necessitates a method of
approach to knowing that is distinct from that which we employ to understand the
things that are present. This aspect of history distinguishes it from other disciplines.
Historians employ specific methodology to problem-solve. Events or situations that
have passed mean that historians can only know of them second-hand. To this end,
the essential technique of an effective historian is to draw inferences. Inferences
historians make can differ in strength and speculation. They vary in credibility
according to the number of independent variables supporting them (Lemon, 1995).
Implications for Gifted Education
Utilizing the basic structures of various types of disciplines, gifted students
can be guided towards developing expertise. Both experts in a discipline and gifted
students share common characteristics such as passion, curiosity, and intensity
(Gallagher, 2006). When a relationship is illustrated between qualities inherent to a
gifted individual and qualities that scientists possess, Tobias (1990) suggested that
interests might be ignited among students with the potential to make significant
contributions to the science community.

26
Lave and Wenger (1991) noted, however, that what is commonly reproduced
in schools in an effort to produce learning is knowledge about a discipline, rather
than knowledge from within it. They maintained that “teaching curriculum,”
curriculum structured by a teacher in an effort to create learning experiences, was
mediated by an “external view of what knowing is about” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p.
97). A result of this phenomenon was that the reproduced community of practice,
within which students learned about physics, for example, was not a community of
physicists, but a community of “schooled adults” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 97.)
Providing students with the tools to enter the world of science authentically was
dependent upon teachers’ careful planning; and teachers have indicated that though
this type of planning involves more work, the resulting student learning is rewarding
(Gallagher, 2006).
Bruner maintained that for one to develop a conviction, or an intentional
state, one must participate in the symbolic systems of a culture. According to Bruner
(1990), symbolic systems constituted a special type of communal tool kit, “whose
tools, once used, make the user a reflection of the community” (p. 11). He asserted
that culture shapes human life and the human mind and gives meaning to action by
“situating its underlying intentional states in an interpretive system” (Bruner, 1990,
p. 34). Patterns inherent in the culture’s symbolic systems included language and
discourse modes (Bruner, 1990). Though Gallagher (2006) argued, “all the tools in
the world will do an expert no good without an idea to pursue” (p. 429), Lave &

27
Wenger (1991) suggested that language is a tool that plays a central role in
developing a community of practice.
Expertise
Expertise has been studied and conceptualized over time in many ways.
Beginning with Galton’s (1869/1962) theory about the hereditary factors producing
eminence, expertise has been attributed to innate qualities since the origin of its
study. Ceci and Williams (1999) acknowledged the controversy in psychology over
the concept of heritability and defined heritability as “the portion of variability in a
trait (such as intelligence) that resulted form differences in heredity” (p. 4). Nearly
all researchers concurred that human traits are jointly determined by nature and
nurture; where they diverged is in their assumptions about the relative contributions
of each (Ceci & Williams, 1999). In order to derive a working definition of expertise
that established criteria for this study, an examination of pertinent literature was
explored. Approaches to studying expertise were detailed, theories and models were
presented, domains of expertise were compared, and mediating expertise was
addressed. Significant contributions to the study of expertise offered insight into
what facilitates achievement of high-levels of content knowledge within an
individual.
Nature vs. Nurture Debate
The long-standing debate in the literature on expertise argued whether people
were born with qualities that ultimately lead to expertise, or whether expertise was a
result of practice and experience within a particular domain. Galton (1869/1962) was

28
the first to suggest that man’s natural abilities were derived from inheritance. He
noted patterns in men who were gifted in that they possessed insight into new
conditions and the power to deal with them (Galton 1869/1962). His findings
strengthened his own assumptions about the nature of intellect and confirmed his
theory that hereditary traits leading to genius were unaffected by the environment.
His research led him to develop mental tests that differentiated people’s cognitive
capacities. From these tests, came the common practice of using psychometric
assessments to identify students applying to professional school academies who were
most likely to reach the highest level of competence. During the 20
th
century,
Galton’s hypothesis that experts’ superiority could be generalized across multiple
domains began to be disproved. Djakow, Petrowski, and Rudik, (1927) conducted a
study that found that chess players’ expert memory was confined to the
memorization of chess positions and did not transfer to other types of materials. Doll
and Mayr (1987) concluded that IQ could not be used as a distinguishing factor in
determining which individuals would be the best chess players, and Taylor (1975)
discovered that IQ could not predict most successful scientists and artists.
Ericsson and Lehmann (1996) attributed exceptional ability to deliberate
practice. From laboratory analyses of experts and expert performance, they
determined that expertise could not be predicted from measurements of basic mental
capacities. They found that superior performance did not necessarily transfer outside
of a narrow area of expertise, and differences between experts and less-proficient

29
individuals almost exclusively reflected abilities acquired from lengthy training
(Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996).
Howe, Davidson, & Sloboda (1998) also claimed that there was little or no
basis for innate ability. They asserted that when researchers use the term “talent,”
they often are predicting or explaining an individual’s performance, rather than
describing it (Howe et al., 1998). Several aspects of human variability determined
patterns of ability. Howe et al. (1998) summarized them as the following: (1) prior
knowledge, (2) attentiveness, concentration, and distractibility, (3) interests and
developed preferences, (4) motivation and competitive nature, (5) self-confidence,
(6) alternative aspects of personality and temperament, (7) levels of enthusiasm and
energy, and (8) anxiety and fatigue (Howe et al., 1998). Within the literature on
expertise, some researchers suggested that high-levels of expertise were not attained
without substantial practice, and others attributed human variability as contributing
factors to developing expertise (Howe et al., 1998; Ericsson and Lehmann, 1996).
Ericsson, Prietula and Cokely (2007) recently asserted that rigorous research
on expertise demonstrates “consistently and overwhelmingly” that experts are made,
not born (p. 1). They said that the journey to superior performance necessitated
“struggle, sacrifice, and honest, often painful self-assessment” (Ericsson, et al., 1997,
p.1). According to the literature, expertise requires a minimum of ten years to
develop. Within that that period of time, deliberate practice must be employed.
According to Ericsson et al. (2007), deliberate practice entails considerable, specific,

30
and sustained efforts to do something that is beyond the range of one’s current
ability.
Approaches to Studying Expertise
Chi (2006) offered two approaches to the study of the characteristics of
expertise. Absolute expertise, she referred to as those viewed as having “greater
minds,” domain-general heuristics, and greater memory capacity (Pascual-Leone,
1970; Simonton, 1977). The underlying assumption about absolute expertise was
that exceptional ability stemmed from chance and unique innate talent (Simonton,
1977). This approach studied small numbers of exceptional people and the
characteristics that distinguished them from the general population.
Relative expertise, Chi (2006) noted, is an approach that views expertise as a
level of proficiency that novices can achieve. According to this view, experts are
more knowledgeable than novices as a result of their application of study (Chi &
Bassok 1989) and deliberate practice (Ericsson, Chapter 38; Ericsson, Krampe, &
Tesch-Romer, 1993; Weisberg, 1999). Terms “novice” and “expert” referred to a
general sense, or a range of ability and experience. The goal for those who view
expertise as relative is to understand how experts nurtured their expertise. If methods
of developing expertise can be identified, then studies can pursue ways of
transferring this knowledge to the development of the abilities of novices.
Theories and Models of Expertise
Models have been developed by researchers and theorists that define
expertise in various ways. Some of them derived insight gained from the nature vs.

31
nurture debate. Gardner (2006) described intelligence as a computational capacity
originating in human biology and psychology. He suggested that intelligence implies
problem-solving capabilities and the ability to create products that were relevant to a
cultural community or setting. Problem-solving ability enabled an individual to
define situative-specific goals and identify successful paths to reach them. The
design of a culturally relevant product involved the capture and transmission of
knowledge, or the communication of feelings, beliefs, or conclusions (Gardner,
2006). Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence (MI) theory maintains that there are eight
intelligences that all normal human beings possess. These intelligences work in
concert, and expertise in a domain requires a combination of several of them. In MI
theory, intelligences are innate, yet experiences and culture nurture them in infinite
amounts of ways (Gardner, 2006).
Simonton (2008) has recently identified a positive relationship between
exceptional giftedness in childhood and adult achievement. Utilizing a definition of
giftedness as “precocity gauged by accelerated expertise acquisition and performance
(p. 9)”, Simonton’s (2008) multiple-regression analyses on a sample of 291 eminent
African Americans indicated that adulthood eminence and creative achievement
were positively correlated with early signs of giftedness. Though he maintained that
further research is required before a giftedness-genius relation should be generalized
beyond majority-culture samples, theoretically he established an impressive
developmental continuity (Simonton, 2008). His work provided evidence for the

32
belief that high-levels of expertise can be predicted in domain-specific precocious
behaviors.
Sternberg (2003) took a broader perspective on intelligence and expertise.
His theory of successful intelligence had four definitions:
1. Intelligence is defined in terms of the ability to achieve success in life in
terms of one’s personal standards, within one’s sociocultural context.
2. One’s ability to achieve success depends on capitalizing on one’s
strengths and correcting one compensating for one’s weaknesses.
3. Balancing abilities is achieved in order to adapt to shape, and select
environments.
4. Success is attained through a balance of analytical, creative and practical
abilities,
(Sternberg, 2003, p. 43)
Conceptions of expertise offered a basis of understanding for educators to
consider when desiring to develop expertise among high-ability learners.
Mediating Expertise
Mediating expertise is an important factor to consider when desiring to
develop abilities within gifted students. When facilitating learning experiences,
teachers must be adept at facilitating instruction with conscious awareness of where
a student lies on a continuum of understanding about a content area (Hansen, 2000).
If the goal is to assist students in reaching the maximum level of understanding that

33
they are capable of, then knowledge of how to mediate levels of expertise is
significant.
A well-informed coach may accelerate the learning process by offering
constructive feedback. “Real experts are extremely motivated students who seek out
such feedback (Ericsson et al., 2007). Coaches should assist in the development of
awareness within the individual of self-coaching tendencies. Ultimately it should be
a goal for every expert to develop their ability to coach themselves. The ability to
self-coach, or self-direct, relies on some form of intuition. “Informed intuition,”
Ericsson et al. (2007) said, is the result of years of deliberate practice. Deliberate
practice involved two kinds of learning: improving the skills an individual already
has, and extending the reach and range of possessed skills (Ericsson et al., 2007).
This requires a dedicated concentration and can therefore only be employed for
limited amounts of time. Time should be spent well and with concentrated effort,
rather than on mindless repetitions of practice (Ericsson et al., 2007).
Another important facilitator of developing expertise was thinking about
practice. Ericsson et al. (2007) observed that when a course of action is unsuccessful,
expert players returned to their prior analysis in order to analyze what went wrong
and how to avoid future errors. This was characteristic of expertise. Experts were
found to have a developed, natural sense of intuition that ultimately assisted in their
practice. It was also found to lead to setbacks, however, if it was relied upon
exclusively. In dealing with atypical scenarios, some experts lost the ability to

34
recognize intuition bias. If not practiced, the ability to analyze a situation and work
through to an appropriate response was lost.
Endsley (2006) suggested that a critical attribute facilitating expertise was
mental. “Superior situation awareness” allows an individual to excel beyond what is
considered normal and it involves understanding the context and anticipating future
events (Endsley, 2006). She defined situation awareness (SA) as “the perception of
the concepts in the environment within a volume of time and space, the
comprehension of their meaning and the projection of their status in the near future”
(Endsley, 2006, p. 634). Situation awareness is comprised of three levels: level of
perception, level of comprehension, and level of projection (Endsley, 2000). Novices
in a domain often experience difficulty in perceiving important information in a
given situation. The likelihood of them forming an incorrect picture of a situation is
much higher than that of experts. Likewise, novices have a more difficult time
critically thinking about a situation, or comprehending it in a meaningful way. At the
highest level of situation awareness, anticipating future events for a novice was
extremely demanding. Experts, however, often possessed a better ability to project
from current events in order to make decisions about a situation.
Zimmerman (2006) examined the role of self-regulatory processes in the
development of expertise. He claimed that expertise requires self-regulation of three
personal concepts: covert cognitive and affective processes, behavioral performance,
and environmental setting (Zimmerman, 2006). Though expertise requires domain-

35
knowledge and technical skill, self-regulatory processes assisted an individual in
acquiring knowledge and skill more effectively (Zimmerman, 2006; Ericsson, 2007).
Conclusion
Each of these research areas helped to shape the intent of the present study. In
assessing content validity for a strategy commonly used to differentiate content for
gifted learners, it was necessary to provide information about the strategy itself,
differentiation as a whole, and gifted education. Additionally, since Depth and
Complexity originated from conventional wisdom about the nature of academic
disciplines, it was logical to provide information on the history and structure of them.
Finally, the conceptual framework for this study indicates that through the
development of practical, analytical, creative, and wise thinking, educators may be
able to teach expertise to students. Assuming this is valid, a basis of understanding
about expertise was required. This review of literature served as a backdrop of
information that highlighted the most essential aspects of this study.

36
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
With bodies of knowledge evolving at a rapid rate, how best to prepare
students of today to make a contribution to tomorrow’s society is an abiding concern
among educational experts (Hunt, 1995; Pea & Brown, 2008). For knowledge to be
useful, what occurs in the classroom should relate to concerns of society and the
surrounding world (Tomlinson et al. 2002). Educators are pressed with the task to
engage students in rigorous intellectual curriculum that prepares them for their
future. Tyler (1949) contended that sources most useful in gathering information for
the design of curriculum objectives include the individual learner, the subject matter,
and society. He recognized that subject matter, identified as an academic discipline,
ventures beyond basic knowledge and skills. When seeking information from a
discipline, Tyler (1949) noted that it involves particular ways of thinking, critical
interpretation, and emotional response. Sternberg (2003) also asserted that certain
methods of thinking are characteristic of experts in a discipline. These enduring
components of a learning experience are relevant to today’s academic climate. It has
been shown that the manner in which students are educated has the power to
facilitate or inhibit students’ ability to make a difference in academic areas beyond
their formal classroom experience (Skilton-Sylvester, 2003). Those we educate will
contribute to fields where their intellectual abilities will be further tested and
expanded, and it is an educator’s critical role to provide the foundational building
blocks for this experience (NCTAF, 2003).

37
Many types of differentiation strategies are utilized to increase the level of
challenge in the content areas for students identified as gifted. Depth and Complexity
is an approach that is being increasingly practiced by educators of gifted students in
California. Intended to serve as a guide for the California curriculum frameworks,
Depth and Complexity offers a means by which the common core curriculum “might
be differentiated to meet the different needs of different types of learners” (CDE,
1994). As more educators become familiar with Depth and Complexity and begin to
implement it, the need to validate Depth and Complexity’s relevance and application
across disciplines is increasing. This research study determined the relevance and
application of Depth and Complexity to various disciplines of study, according to
experts who specialize in them. The results of findings from this study suggest the
ability of Depth and Complexity to facilitate high-level, authentic knowledge of a
discipline for gifted students.
Research Questions
1. How do experts utilize the prompts of Depth and Complexity in the
facilitation of research and application of knowledge within their field?
2. How are the prompts of Depth and Complexity relevant to the study of
academic disciplines?
Research Design
This is a qualitative study examining the applicability and relevance of Depth
and Complexity to academic disciplines. It is considered applied research, as it
contributes knowledge that will assist educators in understanding the nature of a

38
problem (Patton, 2002), the “problem” of how to authentically and effectively
differentiate curriculum for gifted learners. This study contributes to existing
knowledge in education about appropriate curriculum and instruction for gifted
students.
The sample population for this study was selected based on a set of criteria
rooted in the literature on expertise. Participants were identified using four different
methods of sampling: chain, criterion, stratified-purposeful, and variation, and were
solicited for participation once it was determined they met the criteria set forth in the
study. In-depth interviews were conducted that probed experts’ perspectives on
Depth and Complexity and the relationship between its eleven concepts to their
discipline. Data was deductively analyzed for generalizable patterns about the
application and relevancy of the concepts of Depth and Complexity to a discipline.
Population and Sample
Qualitative inquiry typically focuses on carefully selected, purposefully small
samples of a population (Patton, 2002). While the population for this study included
all individuals possessing expertise in a discipline, a narrower sample was pre-
determined based on the literature on expertise. One seminal finding from the study
of expertise was the codification of what is known as the Ten-Year Rule. The Ten-
Year Rule was substantiated in many domains and implies that to reach the highest
level of performance and ability in a domain, individuals must cultivate the
development of their talents for at least a 10-year period (Weisberg, 2006).
Anchored in this finding, the criteria for the sample population of this study are: 1)

39
Experts will have at least 10 years experience in their respective field, and 2) Experts
will possess a terminal degree in their field of study. Patton (2002) asserts that
criterion sampling provides quality assurance for research that is conducted. Table
3.1 illustrates the experts’ experiences that meet the criteria for this study. The
sample of experts was identified with the intention to provide content validity for
Depth and Complexity as applicable and relevant to each of their academic
disciplines

Table 3.1: Participant Demographic Overview

Disciplinarian Gender Education
Years of
Experience Published Current Profession
Organic
Chemist
Male Ph.D., UCLA
Stanford fellow
36 Yes Retired Professor of
Chemistry
Oncologist Male M.D., Yale University
Yale fellow
21 Yes Retired Medical
Practitioner
Horticulturalist Male Ph.D, University of
Wisconsin
N/A Yes Retired Research
Plant Breeder
Anthropologist Female Ph.D., in anthropology 34 Yes Adjunct Professor of
Anthropology
Former Director of
Museums
Russian
Historian
Female Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley 25 Yes Professor of History
European
Historian
Male Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley 35 Yes Professor of History
Professor of
English
Female Ph.D., Yale 21 Yes Professor of English
Professor of
Literacy
Female Ph.D., USC 16 Yes Adjunct professor
Mathematician Male Ph.D., Purdue
Honorary Ph.D.s: Purdue
University, Universite de
Caen, Michigan
Technological University
Guggenheim Fellow
43 Yes Distinguished
Professor:
Economics,
Mathematics
Professor (Courtesy),
Logic & Philosophy
of Science
Statistician Female Ph.D., USC N/A Yes Senior Researcher

40
Once the homogeneous sample of 10 experts was identified, the sample
population was further stratified by discipline. Two-to-three experts in the following
disciplines: mathematics, science, language arts, and history were desired to provide
a balanced representation of academia. Ultimately, the experts interviewed for this
research represented more specific academic disciplines, and this is illustrated in
Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Represented Disciplines of Study

Sampling Strategies
Sample of Experts:
• Chain Sampling: Experts for the sample were selected by questioning
individuals who were familiar with disciplinarians working at various
universities, well known for their knowledge and contributions to a
particular field. Key names were identified and solicited for participation

41
in the sub-sample, and once identified, were researched to determine if
they met the outlined criteria for the study.
• Criterion Sampling: Following the chain sampling, experts were selected
to participate in the research phase of this study once it was verified that
they met the outlined criteria. Patton (2002) notes that criterion sampling
is a strategy that is common to quality assurance efforts.
• Stratified Purposeful Sampling: Once the homogeneous sample of
experts had been identified, the sample was further stratified by
discipline. Two-to-three experts were identified from the following
disciplines: English, mathematics, science, and social science.
• Variation Sampling: This strategy was selected for the purpose of
capturing and describing patterns in the data that cut across a great deal of
variation. Though the expert-participants have in common that they meet
the criteria proposed by this study, the specific disciplines to which they
contribute their scholarly work are quite varied. Additionally, their
research topics and scholarly foci demonstrate very high levels of
specificity. Though a great deal of heterogeneity can be a problem for
some research studies, variation sampling possesses an inherent strength.
For this type of sample, themes take on added significance because they
emerge out of great variation. Patton (2002) states, “Any common
patterns that emerge from great variation are of particular interest and
value in capturing the core experiences and central, shared dimensions of

42
a setting or phenomenon” (p. 235). Table 3.2 organizes the various
scholarly foci of the expert-participants in this study. As is evidenced, the
research and experience of the 10 experts in this study cover a wide range
of topics and are highly specified. This made the patterns in the findings
in this study particularly notable.

Table 3.2: Scholarly Foci of Expert Participants

Disciplinarian Scholarly Foci
Organic Chemist Surfactant chemistry
Horticulturalist Vegetable seed research
Turf grass research
Oncologist Radiation oncology
Heterotopic bone formation following hip and major joint injuries
Anthropologist Circular and forced migration of indigenous people in the Venezuela Amazon
Museum work
Russian Historian Soviet culture
American-Soviet interactions
European Historian European women’s history
Europe in the 20
th
century, emphasis on Germany
Films of the 50’s
Gender studies
Professor of English Shakespeare
Renaissance studies
Critical and political theory
Professor of Literacy Early childhood education
Bilingual education
Literacy
Mathematician Astronomy
Economics
Dynamical systems
Newtonian N-body problem
Voting and decision theory
Social choice
Micro-econ
Dynamics in econ and behavioral sciences
Evolutionary games
Statistician Statistics
Educational governance
Methodology

43
Instrumentation
In an effort to determine the applicability and relevance of Depth and
Complexity to various academic disciplines, interviews were employed with the
expectation of yielding in-depth information about relationships between Depth and
Complexity and various disciplines of study. Patton (2002) comments that the
quality of data obtained through an interview is greatly dependent on the skill of the
interviewer. Due to the significance of data collection, efforts were made to ensure
validity of the interview processes that was employed by the researcher for this
study.
The instrument used to collect data from the sample population of experts
reflects a combination of an informal conversational interview, guided approach and
a standardized format. This combined strategy offered the interviewer both strict
guidelines and some flexibility in probing the experts about their background and
rationalization and thinking about Depth and Complexity. The standardized format
occurred in the early section of the interview, where experts were questioned about
their professional experiences as a scholar in relation to the set-forth criteria of the
study. Beginning questions were written out in detail to be certain that each expert
was asked the same questions, in the same way, thus providing continuity (Patton,
2002).
The second section of the interview process included key questions about
specific concepts of Depth and Complexity. Though questions were specified on the
interview protocol, it became apparent that as experts became more comfortable

44
speaking about Depth and Complexity and how it related to their discipline, they
oftentimes began to discuss a prompt of Depth and Complexity that had not yet been
formally introduced by the researcher yet. As this occurred in the interviews, the
researcher began to adjust the order of the prompts that were being probed, allowing
for a more free-flowing, conversation to take place. Patton (2002) notes that during
conversational interviews, the interviewer is “free to go where the data and
respondents lead” (p. 343). A strength of this informal interview method is
opportunity it offers for “flexibility, spontaneity, and responsiveness to individual
differences” (Patton, 2002, p. 343). For the data it revealed, this approach for the
second section of the interview was appropriate.
The final section of the expert interview, reflecting a guided approach, asked
the expert-participants to sort the prompts of Depth and Complexity based on two
different criteria: most-to-least utilized in their scholarly work, and most-to-least
relevant to the experts’ discipline as a whole. The interview guide was prepared to
ensure that the same “basic lines of inquiry were pursued” with each participant
(Patton, 2002, p. 343); yet the guide was open-ended enough to allow opportunity for
the interviewer to ask questions that further illuminated the topic under study.
Limitations and Assumptions
Limitations for the interview protocol included experts’ lack of knowledge
about the prompts of Depth and Complexity. While it was assumed that all experts
had a basic understanding of each of the eleven concepts, since they originated from
conventional wisdom about a discipline, experts still requested confirmation about

45
their understanding of the concepts, seemingly in order to ensure they were
responding appropriately to the protocol. Limitations also included: differences in
the experts’ perceptions about the generalizability of Depth and Complexity to their
discipline as a whole, and personal bias towards prompts that relate more to their
specific areas of research and expertise within the discipline. The conversational
approach for the interview protocol allowed for opportunity to discuss prompts of
Depth and Complexity at further length, to ensure clarification of the information
offered. The concepts of Depth and Complexity, their definitions, and their iconic
representation were provided as a reference for the interviewees.
Pilot Studies
To ensure validity of the instruments for this study, a pilot study was
conducted on a population of experts who were not included in the sample for this
study. The interview protocol was shared with a panel of experts in gifted education
who assisted the researcher in assessing content validity, determining whether all
necessary concepts were included in the interview, and construct validity,
determining whether the interview could accurately capture the participants’
understanding and perceptions of Depth and Complexity, of the protocol. The
experts consulted for the pilot study provided professional opinion regarding the
appropriateness of the questions prompted in the interview. Conducting a pilot study
enabled the researcher to modify the interview guide prior to its implementation with
the sample population of experts.

46
A second, one-on-one pilot study was conducted with a practicing veterinary
scientist who possessed a terminal degree in her field. The researcher conducted the
interview, recorded it, and evaluated the data it revealed in order to further improve
the revised interview protocol. Refinements were made according to the
effectiveness the protocol was found to have in revealing information directly related
to the research questions in this study.
Data Collection
Interviews were the sole method of gathering information for this study.
Standardized questions were posed to the sample population of experts in order to
yield in-depth responses about the relevance and application of Depth and
Complexity to various disciplines.
Interviews of experts took place between January and February of 2010.
Efforts were made to conduct interviews in a location that was most comfortable to
those being interviewed; however, the researcher reserved the right to conduct
interviews via the phone if geographical location or scheduling conflicts arose within
the time allotted for interviews. Interviews were expected to last between 50-90
minutes and were recorded and later transcribed by a professional. Notes taken by
the researcher during the interview supplemented the data collected. Table 3.3
provides a summary of the instrumentation and purposes for data collection for this
study.

47
Table 3.3: Instrument Summary Table

Instrument
Section Instrument Approach Purpose
Part One Standard Interview
Approach
Identify qualifications as an expert
Part Two Conversational/
Guided Interview
Approach
Gather insight into the application of Depth
and Complexity to the specific work of a
disciplinarian
Part Three Sorting Activity Elicit the experts’ perspective on the
relevance of Depth and Complexity to the
discipline as a whole and identify
frequency of use by the expert,

Data Analysis
Qualitative deduction and analysis transforms data into findings (Patton,
2002). Though no formula exists for this process, guidelines were followed that
assisted the researcher in identifying significant patterns in the data and constructing
a framework for communicating the essence of what the data suggested.
Data analysis began with simple organization in order to “get a sense of the
whole” (Patton, 2002, p. 440). All verbatim transcriptions, the essential raw data for
qualitative analysis, were divided and categorized by the three sections of the
interview protocol. Following this, the second section of each of the interviews was
categorized by the concepts of Depth and Complexity. Content analysis was
employed as a sense-making strategy that resulted in the articulation of patterns, and
ultimately themes. After an initial deductive approach was taken to affirm the

48
application and assess the relevancy of Depth and Complexity to the disciplines,
inductive reasoning revealed two additional patterns: 1) that concepts of Depth and
Complexity were often interrelated by the experts and 2) Depth and Complexity
served specific purposes for experts in their scholarly work. Examples of the patterns
and themes that resulted from the content analysis will be explored in depth in
chapter four.
A typology is a system of classification that divides aspects of information
into parts along a continuum (Patton, 2002). Illuminating a typology involves the
recognition of distinctions between the parts along an identified continuum and
requires an in-depth analysis of content. Distinctions were identified in this study
among perceptions of relevancy of Depth and Complexity to the disciplines. The
illustrated endpoints used for analysis were “most relevant” and “least relevant.”
Patton (2002) describes typologies as being built on illustrated endpoints, or ideal-
types, rather than on a discrete set of categories. He notes that the language of a
group of people reveal what is important to them and from this, labels may be
ascribed from the analysis of what was communicated (Patton, 2002). Labels used to
identify categories pertaining to relevancy of Depth and Complexity concepts to the
disciplines were: “high” “medium,” and “low.” Once labels have been identified
from analysis, Patton (2002) explains the next step is to articulate the characteristics
that distinguish one piece of information from another. For the present study, a
concept of Depth and Complexity was labeled as “high” if an expert used an absolute
term or phrase such as “always,” “every day,” or all the time,” when describing their

49
frequency of use of the concept. Contrary to this, a phrase such as, “I rarely use this
one” resulted in an element of Depth and Complexity being categorized as “low.”
When experts described a concept as “somewhat relevant” or made comments
similar to “this is important, but it is not something I considered on a regular basis,”
it was labeled as “medium.”
Chapter four will organize the data and summarize the findings of the present
study. Experts provided substantial information that was analyzed inductively and
deductively in order to determine relevant patterns. As these patterns emerged, it
became particularly important that the sample population of experts was (1) selected
based on a common criteria, and (2) varied in their scholarly foci. It offered the
researcher a solid foundation from which to generate themes. The following chapter,
organized by research question, will provide context for, evidence for, and
interpretation of each of the significant findings in this study.

50
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was two-fold. Firstly, the intent of the research was
to identify ways in which experts applied the concepts of Depth and Complexity to
their scholarly work, and secondly, it was designed to assess the relevancy of Depth
and Complexity to the academic disciplines. Qualitative research methods were
employed to accomplish this task.
A variety of sampling strategies enabled the researcher to identify a
population of experts who qualified for participation in the study and adequately
represented the disciplines of science, social, science, English and mathematics. Two
criteria defining academic expertise were established for the study, one drawing from
seminal findings in the literature. Experts for this study had at least 10 years of
experience in their field and also possessed a terminal degree. Accompanying the
criterion sampling, the researcher employed a chain sampling approach to identify
experts who would meet the criteria set forth by the study and provide information-
rich data. Chain sampling identifies people of interest from individuals who are
familiar with cases that would be considered effective interview subjects (Mugo,
n.d.). Through chain sampling, a sample population of 10 experts was identified that
the researcher stratified by general academic discipline (science, social science,
English, and mathematics) and further stratified by their more-specific area of
expertise (organic chemistry, oncology, horticulture, anthropology, Russian history,
European history, English, literacy, mathematics and statistics). Variation sampling

51
was the final strategy utilized. Selected for the purpose of describing patterns in the
data that cut across a great deal of variation, Patton (2002) asserts the inherent
strength of this strategy as enabling the researcher to capture shared dimensions
across a diversity of interests.
Questions posed to experts from the interview protocol reflected a multi-level
approach. Those related to experts’ backgrounds and experiences were standardized
in an attempt to provide continuity across interviews. Prompting about the
application of Depth and Complexity to the discipline demonstrated a combination of
a conversational and guided approach, thus allowing the researcher to follow the
natural flow of information that was being provided and adjust the order in which the
concepts of Depth and Complexity were discussed, when necessary. Lastly, the
experts were asked to sort the concepts of Depth and Complexity according to most-
to-least relevant to their discipline as a whole and most-to-least frequently used for
their scholarly work.
Data retrieved for the study was coded and analyzed using both a deductive
and an inductive approach. Deductive content analysis meant that the data was
analyzed from the existing framework of the research question. Specifically, the
researcher was looking for evidence of application and relevancy of Depth and
Complexity to each of the disciplines. Inductive analysis enabled patterns to emerge
out of the data through the researcher’s interactions with it (Patton, 2002). This
allowed for two more findings to surface. Sternburg’s (2001, 2003) theory of
successful intelligence and balance theory of wisdom provided a lens through which

52
the findings of this study were viewed. The data and findings yielded from this
research study will be explored in further detail in the present chapter.
Research Question 1: Application of Depth and Complexity
The primary purpose for the first research question was to determine the
ways in which experts apply Depth and Complexity to their field of study. If found
applicable to academic disciplines by experts in a field, it can be generalized that
Depth and Complexity is an authentic means to differentiate academic content for
learners who are gifted. To reach this end, experts in the sample population were
asked to identify examples of each of the prompts of Depth and Complexity that
were unique to their discipline and are be expected of an expert in their field to
know. In the following, immediate section, evidence of the application of each the
concepts of Depth and Complexity to various academic disciplines will be provided,
along with an interpretation of what the evidence suggests.
Following this, two additional themes that emerged the data will be
explicated: (1) explicitly stated purposes for Depth and Complexity, and (2)
connections between the concepts of Depth and Complexity, made by the experts.
Language of the Discipline
Language of the discipline is defined as the academic language utilized by
experts in a field that is highly specific and unique to the field of study. It includes
terms that the average layperson or novice is often not familiar with. Examples of
language of the discipline were offered by each of the disciplinarians. Some of these
were listed according to categories that the experts shared of their own accord. The

53
statistician, for example, shared types of statistical analyses as language of her
discipline. These included: ANOVA, MANOVA, and MANCOVA (personal
communication, 2/12/10). She also communicated levels of measurement as
language of her discipline. These she stated as: nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio
(personal communication, 2/12/10). The organic chemist described chemical
reactions, nucleophilic substitution and electrophilic subsitution, as language of his
discipline (personal communication, 1/19/10). The oncologist offered two types of
rays: X-rays and gamma rays, explaining that X-rays are man-made and gamma rays
are naturally occurring (personal communication, 1/29/10). Of interest to note about
these responses is that they substantiate research on expertise claiming that experts
have a tendency to organize information and are often more adept at accomplishing
this than novices (Rymarchyk, n.d.).
While some of the experts categorized their lists of vernacular, others offered
individual words, and defined them in a context. The horticulturalist offered
vernalization as language of his disicpline and defined it as “a certain amount of cold
treatment… that shifts the metabolism of the plant into a reproductive phase”
(personal communication, 1/30/10). The oncologist defined synchronized cell death
as “a termination point, [or a] programmed cell death” and commented that medicine
has “thousands” of words qualifying as language of the discipline (personal
communication, 1/29/10). The professor of English described prosody as “the study
of metrics” (personal communication, 2/10/10). Additional terms or phrases that
were justified as language of a discipline by experts included: iambic pentameter,

54
return sweep, automaticity, equilibrium, homotopic, parameter, benzene,
stereochemistry, gamma ray, rogue, bolting, ethnocentrism, reciprocity,
redistribution, kinship, historiography, genome (personal communication, 1/19, 1/29,
1/30, 1/31, 2/11, 2/10, 2/7, 2/8, 2/12/10).
Details
Details are the basic facts, or specific parts of information that experts in a
discipline are expected to be familiar with. Experts were questioned during data
collection about what details are significant to their discipline and are commonly
known by experts in their field. Details were articulated in a myriad of ways,
depending on the discipline and the expert. The horticulturalist shared that details an
expert in his field would know would include some of the traditional methods for
commercial hybrid seed production (personal communication, 1/30/10). He stated
that there were a substantial amount of “little techniques” that an individual entering
the field to do modern, high-tech laboratory research would need to understand
(personal communication, 1/30/10). The statistician commented that having an
understanding of details related to statistical procedures enables her to perform
disciplinary functions pertinent to her work. She stated:
In order to engage in the craft, in order to do the statistical procedure and be
effective, you need to know about properties of data. You need to know about
the assumptions of the various types of analyses, and part of it is just being
able to chose the right analysis. (personal communication, 2/12/10)

The Russian historian commented that when she reads an essay or a book by
a fellow historian in the field, she looks for evidence that the writer has read “all of

55
the relevant books and articles on the topic… that they have actually dealt with the
nitty-gritty of historical research” (personal communication, 2/11/10). This points to
details as relevant to broaden the knowledge base of an individual in a discipline.
The professor of English stated that an expert in her field would be familiar with
books that had been published in English during the time when Shakespeare wrote,
the religious controversies that were debated during his time, and the specific
relationships that existed between England and other parts of Europe (personal
communication, 2/10/10). While the horticulturalist’s and the statistician’s responses
to details had more to do with assisting the expert in performing a disciplinary
function, the professor of English and the Russian historian intimated that knowledge
of details contributes to an enhanced understanding of a research topic.
Patterns
Patterns were applicable for the experts and their disciplines. Some experts
relayed patterns that exist in the content of what they study. The professor of English
shared that literature genres, figures of speech, recurrent themes, and plot structures
existed as patterns in her field (personal communication, 2/10/10). The
anthropologist described human interaction and languages as patterned and stated
that this was relevant to the work that she executed (personal communication,
1/31/10). The professor of literacy also identified patterns as applicable to her
discipline in that experts commonly study the way children learn to read. What was
first evidenced about patterns, in relation to experts and their work, was that

56
disciplinarians study many types of patterns. Patterns are inherent in the content of
what they study.
Secondly, the data showed that patterns were viewed and utilized by experts
as evidence to support claims. The oncologist, for example, stated that patterns exist
in the presentation of disease (personal communication, 1/29/10). This statement
suggests that patterns in the presentation of disease help elucidate treatments that he,
as a medical practitioner, might administer. The professor of literacy cited students’
performances on standardized tests as a pattern (personal communication, 2/7/10).
To justify a course of action, experts in education or literacy may use this type of
pattern as evidence. The statistician explained the importance of patterns in the
triangulation of data in this way:
What we’re looking at, at the end of the day when we analyze our data and
we pull it all together, and this becomes really important with mixed
methods, is that we’re looking for repetition. We’re looking for
triangulation. I’m looking to see that [in] the survey that I gave to the
teacher, I’m seeing the same patterns with the survey I gave to the principals.
I’m looking for ways that things are different or the same, looking for
patterns, and I’m triangulating the data that I have, and so that’s the pattern.
(personal communication, 2/12/10)

This seems to suggest that patterns provided evidence for the statistician that the data
she collects support the goal of the overall study she is executing. In a summary
statement, the statistician said, “The patterns let us know that something is going on”
(personal communication, 2/12/10). Patterns are applicable to the experts’ disciplines
of study, but in addition to this finding, it was evidenced that patterns are commonly
used as evidence to justify a claim or a course of action.

57
Trends
Trends were identified by the experts as having an ability to impact a field.
Trends, referred to by some experts as “fads,” seemed to have a negative association
for some of the experts. To illustrate this, commentary from the anthropologist is
provided:
There’s always fads, and even in museum work. Every year or two years they
have a theme, and you’re supposed to follow the theme and you’re supposed
to do all this stuff, and it applies to very large museums that have a large
staff. Small museums very seldom have any participation in it because they
don’t have the resources to engage in the kind of activity they’re asked to
engage in. (personal communication, 1/31/10).

Communicating a similar, somewhat negative response, to the concept of trends, the
statistician shared this:
Well, we have these things that become very in vogue and then they’re not so
much in vogue. We see this a lot with student achievement test scores for
example. This idea of value-added measurement is very in vogue. Everybody
wants to do it; it’s really cool. You know, in 10-15 years it won’t be in vogue
any more. I don’t know. I mean it’s like HLM, Hierarchical Linear
Modeling, which I don’t know how to do, actually was like the hippest thing
since anything if you talked about it five to 10 years ago. I don’t know that it
is now. (personal communication, 2/12/10).

These responses suggest that trends elicit particular types of responses from
individual experts and that the responses can be negative. When communicating that
a trend in medicine is that young doctors are becoming more mechanistic, episodic,
and concerned about litigation, the oncologist followed his statement with, “and
these are all bad things“ (personal communication, 1/29/10). This suggests that
experts recognize trends as being negative or as having a negative effect on their
field.

58
The articulation of trends was not consistently negative across all of the
experts’ responses, however. Over half of the experts described trends that they did
not express any particular feelings towards or negative reactions to. Two experts
communicated trends within their field that were or have been influenced by outside
sources. The horticulturalist elaborated on a movement in our country towards
naturally cultivated fruits and vegetables and explained that this has lead to a trend in
the growth of older heirloom varieties that are more flavorful and suitable for local
gardening. (personal communication, 1/30/10). The professor of English shared that
the events that transpired on September 11, 2001 in our country had a large impact
on how Shakespeare and his plays were examined (personal communication,
2/10/10). What may be interpreted from this evidence is that trends can be generated
from within or outside of a field, and that trends may elicit favorable or unfavorable
responses by other experts.
Rules
In the interview protocol, three definitions of rules were offered to the
experts: (1) regulations governing action or procedure, (2) customary practice, and
(3) exercise of authority. Three disciplinarians, the mathematician, the professor of
English, and the professor of literacy related rules to publishing and facilitating
research at universities (personal communication, 2/10/10, 2/8/10, 2/7/10). The
mathematician described rules pertaining to research in mathematics as:
It has to be good, it has to be new, and it has to be rigorous, has to be
accurate in other words. But that’s just a question of excellence. (personal
communication, 2/8/10)

59
In reference to rules of scholarship at a university, the professor of literacy
explained:
Universities have them too, because professors have to have tenure. In order
for them to get tenure, they have to have publications, so [they] have to make
sure that what [they’re] writing about is publishable. (personal
communication, 2/7/10).

Another pattern that arose in application of rules to a discipline was that the
social scientists all addressed them in reference to power or authority. This is not
surprising, considering the focus of their respective disciplines. The Russian
historian explicitly stated, “if you’re studying power, you’re studying rules”
(personal communication, 2/11/10). The European historian elaborated on power,
commenting:
I think you’re always wondering about who’s got power and why. So, the
question “Where does power lie?” is important. And then, how power
articulates itself, whether it’s through extra legal measures or legal measures,
what the combination of the two is, who gets to make the rules, what are the
basis for enforcing rules, [and] how do you assess the extent of compliance
[is also important.] (personal communication, 2/11/10)

It is evident from the data that the experts applied the concept of rules in ways that
were most meaningful to them. For some, rules about publishing research were
offered, whereas for others, rules in content of what they researched were articulated.
Unanswered Questions
Each of the experts was able to apply unanswered questions to their
discipline. Questions applicable to science included: “How are electrons conducted
in biological membranes?” “How do cells know to differentiate during human
development?” and “What knowledge from plant breeding transfers over to human

60
genetics?” (personal communication, 1/19/10, 1/29/10, 1/30/10). Questions that
applied to social sciences were: “Does our language determine our perceptions?”
“What did people in history really think about their lives?” and “If, in resisting
attempt to regiment vision, have you actually engaged in resistance to national
socialism?” (personal communication, 1/31/10, 2/11/10). An unanswered question
from the mathematician was, “Can you find all the possible paradoxes that may
occur in voting procedures?” (personal communication, 2/8/10). The professor of
English provided the following unanswered question: “Did the reformation end?”
(personal communication, 2/10/10).
While unanswered questions were clearly demonstrated as applicable to each
of the disciplines, what was also noted among the data was that unanswered
questions were used by two different disciplinarians to examine consequences that
were related to the discipline. The anthropologist articulated unanswered questions in
this manner:
What is the value of trying to maintain a specific cultural system? Should
you let that cultural system be wiped out in exchange for the dominant
cultural system, and are we losing something as human beings as a whole if
we lose languages? I think they said 2,000 languages a year are lost. So, do
we lose cultural knowledge? Do we lose some aspect of humanness? How
much should be expended and how much money and energy and time should
be expended to maintain a language that has 250 speakers? (personal
communication, 1/31/10)

Here, the anthropologist utilized unanswered questions to evaluate ethical aspects of
her field. Similarly, the professor of literacy offers unanswered questions that imply
an underlying ethical issue in her field. She states:

61
What are the consequences of high-stakes testing? What are the
consequences of not having bilingual education? Does that create more
racism because now there’s validation that one language is better than
another? Are you creating low self-esteem for people that feel like there’s
something about themselves that’s not valued? (personal communication,
2/7/10)

The pattern in the finding suggests that experts use unanswered questions to evaluate
actions of a society. This may also suggest that disciplinarians have unique
perspectives on critical topics related to society and the world. Due to their high-
levels of knowledge, the questions they ask have been shown to be unique, yet
significant.
Ethics
Ethics was defined in the present study as a moral conviction related to a
perspective of right vs. wrong. Participants were asked if and how ethics would be
applied to their field and while each expert offered an example, one notable pattern
surfaced that will be described in detail in this section. Ethics was described by four
experts as being relative to a context. It may be expected that the social scientists
would describe ethics as being relative to a particular historical context. The
European historian described how he taught authoritarian regimes to his students and
stated:
We should put ourselves in that position [the position of those who were
affected by authoritarian regimes] and think through carefully what the
constraints are on people’s ability to express oppositional positions or
morality in the face of immorality. (personal communication, 2/11/10)

The anthropologist commented that she also advises students to remain neutral when
studying actions of people that deal with morality. When offering an example of how

62
ethics applies to her discipline, she mentioned that cultural groups make decisions
that some people might deem “unethical,” but to the cultural group itself, actions
may be taken for various economic reasons as opposed to moral ones (personal
communication, 1/31/10). What was most interesting, however, is that a scientist
made similar points about relativity in relation to ethics. The oncologist relayed this
story about his opinions on judging a medical practitioner’s actions:
My approach is, it should be required that you be judged by peers. How can
someone who’s never been fatigued and frightened… going to judge
somebody who has? Somebody who is safe and secure in Washington DC or
in New York City cannot judge what somebody did in Iwo Jima. No way.
(personal communication, 1/29/10).

What was significant about these findings is that they are similar, yet they cross
between two, very different academic disciplines. An interpretation as to the reasons
for this might be that the more understanding an individual has, the more relative his
or her perspective becomes.
Big Ideas
Experts offered a myriad of theories, principles, and natural laws that related
to their respective disciplines. No patterns seemed to exist between them in the data,
as they were all highly specific; however, a few examples will be provided as
evidence that big ideas were applicable across the disciplines. The professor of
English listed the following theories that were common to the discipline of English:
deconstruction, psychoanalysis, and reception theory (personal communication,
2/10/10). She defined deconstruction as, “looking at systems of meaning inside
plays, where they break down, enter into contradiction with each other, or are

63
unstable in some way” (personal communication, 2/10/10). The horticulturalist
referred to “Mendel’s genetics” as a principle that experts in his field rely on
(personal communication, 1/30/10). It states that a hybrid plant will generally revert
back to ¼ female, ¼ male, and ½ of the hybrid (personal communication, 1/30/10)
The organic chemist described “various classes of compounds and the reactions they
undergo” as principles of organic chemistry, (personal communication, 1/19/10).
Other, less formal big ideas were provided by the rest of the experts but will not be
delineated here as no patterns were noted as relevant between them.
Multiple Perspectives
Multiple perspectives were described as “different points of view” to the
experts during the interviews. Experts were asked if and how they played a role in
their field and a strong pattern emerged between the responses. Multiple perspectives
were depicted as enhancing understanding of experts across all of the major
disciplines: science, social science, English and mathematics. The statistician
described using multiple perspectives in order to verify truth (personal
communication, 2/12/10). She stated that in any given setting, there are “multiple
people, multiple perspectives, and multiple opinions that bring to light whatever that
truth is” (personal communication, 2/12/10). The mathematician described using
multiple perspectives as enabling him to find answers to problems in math. He
commented, “Well, I’ve looked at it from this approach, and I can’t find it, [so] I’ll
just look at that approach. It’s constantly going on.” (personal communication,
2/8/10). The oncologist, while not utilizing perspectives to arrive at “truth,” did

64
describe them as purposeful for corroborating knowledge between experts in the
medical practice. Within his community, a tumor board comprised of surgical,
medical, and radiation oncologists, neurosurgeons, orthopods, gynecologists, general
surgeons, urologists and gastroenterologists, would meet to discuss treatments of
various patients (personal communication, 1/29/10). He stated that they would
“discuss [treatments] and everybody would put in their point of view” (personal
communication, 1/29/10). The European historian also alluded to different
perspectives in history being useful to teach empathy (personal communication,
2/11/10). While each of these experts provided different examples for the application
of multiple perspectives to their discipline, it was evident that they used this concept
of Depth and Complexity for a similar, general purpose: to enhance understanding of
themselves or others.
A second pattern found in the data on multiple perspectives was that they had
the ability to present themselves as conflicting. This was articulated by the chemist,
the professor of English and the professor of literacy, The organic chemist conveyed
that professional disagreements about the interpretation of chemical facts surfaced in
his field during his career, sometimes at a low level and sometimes at a very high
level of academia (personal communication, 1/19/10). He described an example of
scholarly work that was contested for a lengthy period of time in professional
journals in chemistry. The professor of English related the concept of multiple
perspectives to characters in Shakespeare’s plays. Illustrating that they varied in age,
gender, social classes, proper names, and interests, she commented, “drama is about

65
the conflict” (personal communication, 2/10/10). Finally, the professor of literacy
described two opposing approaches to education in her field that evidenced further
conflict between varied perspectives (personal communication, 2/7/10). It can be
interpreted from this data that multiple perspectives serve the purpose of enhancing
understanding of experts in a field and that it was possible for them to be in conflict
with one another.
Change Over Time
The experts offered detailed descriptions for how their disciplines have
changed over time. From these, two patterns emerged. Both the oncologist and the
horticulturalist cited changes in technology as being significant to their field. The
oncologist described a time, during the beginning of his practice, when CT scans
were new to the field and explained that the medical practitioner used to have to
prove that a worthwhile case was had in order to get one (personal communication,
1/29/10). “Now,” he stated, they have things that are instantaneous; they are able to
basically blend information from PET scans, MRI’s, and CT scans” (personal
communication, 1/29/10). The horticulturalist also related change over time to
changes in technology that applied to his field. When describing the role technology
has played in the development of his field, he noted:
It’s a big change in my field of horticulture and plant breeding from the older
days of working in the fields and with the plans hands-on, to now working in
a laboratory with sophisticated technology and trying to adapt and develop
new and theoretically more improved, more disease-resistant, or more
productive food crops. You’ll find a high percentage of the people working
these days that have no idea how to grow a crop of cantaloupe or to raise a
field of broccoli or how carrot seeds are produced, and so forth. They have

66
the technology, the laboratory experience, but not any of the outside farming
experience. (personal communication, 1/30/10)

Both of these examples imply that changes in technology have made significant
impacts in the field of science.
A similarity was also noted between the organic chemist’s and the
statistician’s response to the application of change over time to their discipline. Both
of them mentioned that over time, their field has become more interdisciplinary. The
organic chemist explained:
When I first started, interdisciplinary relationships were not very important,
and they became more and more important over time. In fact, I think there’s
some funding agencies that look unfavorably on research proposals that are
narrowly defined. They like to see a broadening out of the relationships
between the various areas. (personal communication, 1/19/10).

The statistician relayed a personal story to illustrate how her field has become more
interdisciplinary over time. When seeking a chair-person for her dissertation, she
pitched the idea of executing a mixed-methods study to several faculty members.
One, in particular, said to her, “Just be good at one. Be an expert in one. Don’t try to
do both.” (personal communication, 2/12/10). Contrasting that perspective what is
happening now in the field of research, she commented:
What’s happening now is that mixed methods is so much more important…
It’s not divided like it used to be, so it’s changed that way. [There are] more
partnerships between the two fields. (personal communication, 2/12/10)

The pattern between the statistician and the organic chemist’s response to
change over time is significant because it crosses the disciplines of science and math.

67
While they explained that interdisciplinary relationships have become more valued
over time, the data they provided was specific to their own individual fields.
Interdisciplinary Relationships
Interdisciplinary relationships were described to the experts as “relationships
between fields of study.” Experts were questioned about how knowledge from
various other disciplines applied to their own and each of them provided a specific
response. No significant patterns were found between the responses of the experts in
this section, other than interdisciplinary relationships were found to be applicable to
each of the disciplines. Some experts substantiated this by articulating how their own
personal knowledge of other academic disciplines influenced their work, and others
simply described other disciplines that “overlapped” with their own (personal
communication, 1/19/10, 1/30/10, 2/12/10). For the most part, interdisciplinary
relationships were identified between similar fields under the same major academic
discipline (personal communication, 2/8/10, 1/19/10, 1/29/10, 1/30/10, 1/31/10,
2/11/10).
Summary
Responses of the experts relating to the application of Depth and Complexity
to their discipline were synthesized and assembled in tables in the appendix. They,
along with the detailed narratives described in this section of the paper provide
sufficient evidence to assert the following generalization: the prompts of Depth and
Complexity are applicable to the fields of organic chemistry, horticulture, oncology,
anthropology, Russian history, European history, English, education, mathematics,

68
and statistics. Patterns between the responses were noted when two or more
disciplinarians intimated similar purposes for the application of a concept. Patterns
were noted as “highly significant” when they crossed between two of the four,
general academic disciplines of science, social science, English and mathematics.
Noted from the data in regards to the application of Depth and Complexity, was the
specific nature of the information offered. This substantiates that the sample
population of experts would indeed qualify as a variation sample. Most pertinent to
this study, however, is that all of the 11 concepts of Depth and Complexity were
applicable to the disciplines of the experts.
Purposes for Depth and Complexity
Though the interview protocol did not specifically ask the sample population
to provide specific purposes of the concepts of Depth and Complexity, a major
theme that emerged during data analysis was that the prompts of Depth and
Complexity served multiple and varied purposes for the disciplinarians. The experts
expressed purposes for the prompts in both explicit and implicit manners, though
only for purposes for Depth and Complexity that were explicitly stated were coded
by the researcher. All experts commented on the explicit purposes of at least three
concepts of Depth and Complexity and half of the experts offered explicit purposes
for as many as eight of the concepts. The following disciplinarians offered the
highest number of purposes for Depth and Complexity: the horticulturalist, the
professor of literacy, and the statistician. Table 4.1 displays the total number of

69
disciplinarians offering an explicit purpose for the concepts of Depth and
Complexity.

Table 4.1: Number of Disciplinarians Explicitly Commenting on Purposes for Depth
and Complexity

Depth and Complexity
Number of disciplinarians, out of 10, offering
an explicit purpose for the prompts
Trends
Multiple Perspectives
8
Language of the Discipline
Details
Big Ideas
7
Patterns 6
Unanswered Questions
Interdisciplinary Relationships
4
Rules
Change Over Time
3
Ethics 2

Purposes for Considering Trends
Trends and Multiple Perspectives were described by the most number of
disciplinarians as having an explicit purpose for disciplinary work. As an in-depth
description of the explicitly stated purposes for multiple perspectives was provided
in the previous section, the explicitly stated purposes for trends will be detailed here.
One repetition that occurred within the experts’ responses for trends was that they

70
enabled disciplinarians to remain current, or relevant, from the perspective of people
both within and outside the discipline. The organic chemist, for example, asserted
that trends were important for getting funded for further research. He explained that
trends were “always in the back of his mind,” and he pondered where they would
lead him in his work (personal communication, 1/19/10). The horticulturalist stated
that if one does not pay attention to trends, seed companies would “end up without
customers” (personal communication, 1/30/10). The professor of English offered the
following response when asked about trends within her field:
I think they keep us fresh and keep us looking outside and not only inside
[our discipline…] It is often a negative word for people, but I see it more as
renewing literary study [from] generation to generation, in response to
changing world situations. (personal communication, 2/10/10)

Trends were identified by three different disciplinarians as serving the explicit
purpose of keeping abreast of changing times and changing knowledge within the
discipline. As described by the experts, this enabled them to maintain relevancy in
the work that they accomplish.
Purposes for Considering Language of the Discipline, Details, and Big
Ideas
Language of the Discipline, Details and Big Ideas followed closely behind
with 7 out of the 10 experts commenting on an explicit purpose they serve. Over half
of the expressed explicit purposes of Language of the Discipline involved
communication. The organic chemist described the purpose for the language of
chemistry in this way, “Naming compounds is not an end to itself, but you’ve got to

71
know how to name things to be able to logically discuss them” (personal
communication, 1/19/10). The oncologist describes the purpose of the language of
oncology as to increase efficiency. He informally stated, “When you’re with folks
who are all in that same discipline, you can speak this jargon, and it’s a shortcut”
(personal communication, 1/29/10). Both the professor of English and the
mathematician stated that details in their discipline serve a similar purpose. While
the professor of English stated that details provide evidence, the Mathematician
commented that they establish, or support, proofs in mathematics (personal
communication, 2/8/10). An explicit purpose for Big Ideas, as described by the
horticulturalist, was that he relied on them to produce results. He articulates:
Trueness to type is a heritable character. In other words, the offspring reflect
their parent’s characteristics. That would be in the open-pollinated, or self-
pollinated, or the older heirloom varieties [of plants]. Not with a hybrid.
[With] a hybrid, the offspring will revert back generally, according to
Mendel’s genetics, into ¼ female, ¼ male, and ½ of the hybrid. That would
be a principle you would rely on. (personal communication, 2/30/10)

A variety of other purposes for Depth and Complexity were explicitly stated
in the data, the rest of them unique to the scholarly work, discipline, or concept itself.
Interestingly, ethics had a low quantity of explicitly expressed purposes. A reason for
this could be that morals and ethical behavior are less-discussed topics within a
discipline.
Connections Between Concepts of Depth and Complexity
A careful analysis of the data collected from the sample population on the
applicability of Depth and Complexity to the discipline revealed certain patterns

72
about the interconnectedness of the concepts. A connection was coded in the data
when three or more references between two or more concepts of Depth and
Complexity were made by an expert. As experts in a discipline spoke about one
element of Depth and Complexity, oftentimes they would identify another.
Statements were made such as this one by the professor of literacy: “Language of the
discipline is important because knowing the different terms is vital to being able to
understand these big ideas and the details” (personal communication, 2/7/10). The
professor of English commented that the big ideas in her discipline, “have to be
generated in relationship to details and patterns” (personal communication, 2/10/10).
Similarly, the anthropologist claimed, “in order to test a hypothesis, you have to get
details; and to get those, you have to find out what the rules of interaction are”
(personal communication, 1/31/10). Explicit statements about relationships between
the concepts of Depth and Complexity were an unexpected, yet substantiated, pattern
identified during research analysis.
Language of the Discipline to Various other Prompts
The connection most frequently made between concepts of Depth and
Complexity was the use of Language of the Discipline to describe other concepts.
What occurred often that demonstrates this phenomenon was that the experts would
be explaining the application of an element of Depth and Complexity (other than
Language of the Discipline) to their field and then refer back to Language of the
Discipline by stating something similar to: “that would be another one of those
technical terms” or simply, “that’s another term” (personal communication, 2/11/10,

73
1/30/10). At times, they would make light of the specific technical terms they used.
The horticulturalist, when relating Unanswered Questions to cytoplasmic male
sterility, stated, “What that mouthful translates [to is,] you have certain breeding
lines that are only female” (personal communication, 1/30/10). Language of the
Discipline was found to be connected to the broadest range of other concepts of
Depth and Complexity because it was used to explain information about the
discipline by the experts. The relationship between Language of the Discipline and
the rest of the concepts of Depth and Complexity is illustrated in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Relationship between Language of the Discipline to other Concepts of
Depth and Complexity

74
Unanswered Questions and Multiple Perspectives
Several connections were made by the experts between unanswered questions
and multiple perspectives. The commentary seemed to suggest that disciplinarians
have various ways in which they approach ambiguity. When asked about
unanswered questions in the field of mathematics, the mathematician stated, “every
single mathematician has a different answer (personal communication, 2/8/10). His
response implies that to a question in mathematics, there can be multiple solutions or
multiple ways to arrive at a single solution. With regard to historical unanswered
questions, the European historian shared:
I think what historians do is they answer the questions differently. I could
say, [sic] here’s this unanswered question, I’ve come up with an answer.
Then, I’d go be on a scholarly panel where somebody else will have a
different answer to the question. (personal communication, 2/11/10)

Along the same vein, the professor of English communicated that there are many
unanswered questions about Shakespeare’s life. She said that scholars apply various
lens to Shakespeare through their work in attempts to answer them. She described it
in this way:
We know very little about Shakespeare’s life, so in my field, I would say
that’s a big X, which that is very generous because he can be whoever you
want him to be. I mean, obviously, there are checks and balances, but there’s
the Catholic Shakespeare, the working class Shakespeare, there’s the
republican-meeting kind of democratic Shakespeare, there’s the monarchical
Shakespeare…so people really construct Shakespeare out of the dramatic
evidence. (personal communication, 2/10/10).

The mathematician, the Russian historian, and the professor of English made
connections between unanswered questions and multiple perspectives. Each

75
suggested that perspectives represented an approach to identifying answers in their
disciplines. The anthropologist made the final, noted connection. She, when asked to
relate multiple perspectives to her field, she offered unanswered questions to
illustrate them. She commented:
If you talk about evolutionary anthropologists who study early human beings
and evolution, you’ll find that there are different points of view even within
that field… Did the jaw change and the brain change at the same time?
What’s the significance of that? When did we learn to assemble? (personal
communication, 1/31/10).

This instance in the data illustrates the interconnectedness between multiple
perspectives and unanswered questions. To discuss one, four out of five
disciplinarians were compelled to describe the other. Figure 4.2 depicts the
relationship between these two prompts of Depth and Complexity.

Figure 4.2: Relationship between Unanswered Questions and Multiple Perspectives

76
Rules, Ethics, and Change Over Time
The disciplinarians articulated several connections between rules, ethics, and
change over time; a portrayal of this relationship can be seen in Figure 4.3. The
anthropologist stated that uses a diagram with students that shows the relationship
between laws, ethics and morals (personal communication, 1/31/10). The Russian
historian mentioned that she asks her students to examine five different Soviet
constitutions to see that they are very much a “product of their individual time and
they change very much over the course of the Soviet Union (personal
communication, 2/11/10). Both of these examples involve the use of two of these
concepts concurrently by a disciplinarian in the attempt to transfer knowledge to
students in a university setting.
The professor of literacy and the professor of English referred to rules that
have changed over time in their discipline. The professor of literacy referred to
“rules of thinking” when she spoke about educators’ emphases on spelling, grammar
and perfectionism (personal communication, 2/7/10). She shared her belief that these
instructional approaches have the ability to impair students’ fluency, automaticity,
and free-flowing thought, which discloses her own opinion on the ethical practice of
these “rules of thinking” (personal communication, 2/7/10). The professor of English
stated that in her field, experts try to determine how justice is established in a play.
In recognizing conflict among characters, she said they attempt to judge which
character is right or wrong (personal communication, 2/10/10). Not only does this

77
illustrate the application of rules to the study of English literature, but it suggests the
examination of rules from a perspective of ethics.
Finally, three disciplinarians brought up questionable, or unethical, behavior
by other disciplinarians in their field and related this information to both rules and
change over time. The relationship between these concepts is illustrated in Figure
4.3. The organic chemist described ethics as an of-interest topic in his field currently,
because there have been instances where data had been manufactured and then
printed in refereed publications (personal communication, 1/19/30). He shared a
specific account of scholarly work that was brought into question and attempted to
be reproduced, after being published in the highly respected journal, The Chemical
and Engineering News. The oncologist also noted that there were disciplinarians in
his field that were practicing less-than-ethically. When discussing how rules applied
to his discipline, he commented that, over time and through experience, experts
appropriately learn how to modify rules and practices of the discipline. A downside
of this is that he has noticed people “cutting corners,” which he says can be
disastrous (personal communication, 1/29/10). He stated:
People know the rules, but the question is, what guarantees that you don’t
break the rules? …I guess there are two types of people; those who know the
rules and think that allows them the opportunity better to skirt the rules, and
those who look at the rules, decide if the rules are good and just, and then
will internalize the rules and follow them. (personal communication,
1/29/10).

This describes an overlap between rules, change over time, and ethical practice. The
horticulturalist also provided a disciplinary-specific account of practice that was

78
considered unethical. He described it in this way: “You can imagine there are lots of
tricks that have been played through the years” (personal communication, 1/30/10).
One account he offered was of a seed grower, who would purchase tens of thousands
of pounds of seed from the government that was considered worthless because of
low germination and therefore significantly reduced in price. He would heat it in the
oven so that it had zero germination and then blend it with a particular crop of his
own that had a very high-germination percentage. When the seed had reached just
about 85% germination, the requirement of the Federal Seed Trade Act for sale, he
would then sell it back to the government for 20 dollars a pound, making a profit at
taxpayers’ expense. This is the first example from the horticulturalist of rules being
unethically broken. The second involved growing a particular type of crop that was
given two names, depending on the stage it was harvested at. Giving two names to
one variety, he stated, “may be trivial, but [it] points to morality, and ethics, and so
forth” (personal communication, 1/30/10).

Figure 4.3: Relationship between Rules, Ethics, and Change Over Time

79
Relationship between Details, Trends and Multiple Perspectives to Change
Over Time
A last example of multiple concepts of Depth and Complexity overlapping in
the data involved discussions of details, trends, and multiple perspectives and their
relationship to change over time. When referring to details, the Russian historian
mentioned that an expert in her discipline would be able to talk about how the
different stages of Soviet cultural development changed over time (personal
communication, 2/11/10). The professor of literacy, when discussing details related
to student development, shared that, “over time, after they’ve had many, many
different experiences,” children come to conclusions about written language that
encourage development and progress (personal communication, 2/7/10). The
statistician mentioned that experts in her field would be expected to know details
about software used to run data because, “nobody’s doing this by hand anymore”
(personal communication, 2/12/10). Each of these three examples indicates an
awareness of details that change over time.
Trends was the concept of Depth and Complexity that had the highest
number of repetition in connection to change over time. Four different
disciplinarians discussed change over time when offering an example of trends
during their interview. The organic chemist articulated the connection in this way:
Research is ever changing. Say you start off in an area and you begin to learn
the area in practice in the laboratory and you get some results in your
research and those results lead to new questions that are interesting… Your
research will go in the interesting directions that are exposed by the current
research. (personal communication, 1/19/10).

80
The anthropologist described trends as possibly having a negative impact on the field
at any given time during the history of the discipline. She communicated:
In the anthropological field, there’s always somebody who wants to be a big
man or a big woman, and they come up with this grandiose theory, and they
get followers and that kind of stuff. Some of it is interesting theoretically and
has value… My experience is, I always had to be really careful of that,
because you can get caught up with a specific person or a specific trend and
miss out on other stuff and not have access to other individuals. (personal
communication, 1/31/10).

The professor of literacy simply compared trends from when she entered her field to
those that exist now. This was consistent with the finding that disciplinarians link
trends to change over time. Most explicit to this finding was the statistician’s
comment: “To the extent that I am interested in change over time…then I become
interested in trends” (personal communication, 2/7/10).
Multiple perspectives was another prompt that seemed to go hand-in-hand
with change over time, and sometimes, trends. The oncologist noted a trend over
time to rely more on localized chemotherapy and radiation. This was brought up
during his discussion of multiple perspectives. In ranking Depth and Complexity in
order of relevance to his discipline, he combined multiple perspectives with trends
and stated, “I would put these together with change over time, because the
perspectives are not static. They change with increased information, different
controlled studies, [and] results” (personal communication, 1/29/10). The Russian
historian explicitly stated a relationship between multiple perspectives and change
over time in this way:

81
I think we’re interested in multiple perspectives, and I see another way of
looking at that as trends. At least in historiography, what other historians
write, we’re interested in the trends, the kind of schools of thought and how
they change. (personal communication, 2/11/10).

Sufficient evidence was noted in the data to establish a relationship between details,
trends, multiple perspectives, and change over time. An illustration of this
relationship has been exhibited in Figure 4.4. Though additional connections
between concepts of Depth and Complexity were noted, those deemed significant for
mention in this chapter were those identified as having three or more references by
disciplinarians.

Figure 4.4: Relationship between Details, Trends and Multiple Perspectives to
Change Over Time

82
Relationship between Depth and Complexity and Sternberg’s (2003)
Theory of Successful Intelligence and Balance Theory of Wisdom (2001)
It was evident form the data on the application of Depth and Complexity that
experts apply the concepts for varied purposes. What also became evident, when an
inductive approach was taken to further analyze the data, was that many of the
methods of thinking that were elicited by the concepts of Depth and Complexity
correlated to the conceptual framework identified for this paper. Sternberg’s (2003)
Theory of Successful Intelligence includes practical, analytical, creative thinking,
and his balance theory discusses the significance of wisdom as a method of thinking
for experts. Utilizing this as a lens, it became apparent that Depth and Complexity
facilitates each of the types of thinking described the theory, but to varying degrees.
For the purpose of comparison and analysis, Table 4.2 is provided that correlated the
emerged themes in the study and Sternberg’s definitions for the 4 methods of
successful thinking employed by experts. This table will be explained in more
specific detail in the following four sections.

83
Table 4.2: Sternberg’s (2003) Definitions for Experts’ Methods of Thinking and
Emerged Themes from the Study

Method of
Thinking Sternberg’s Definition Emerged Themes from the Study
Practical Applying, using, putting into practice,
implementing, employing, rendering
practical
• Perform a Function
• Enhance Understanding
• Transfer Knowledge
• Support a Claim
• Order
Analytical Analyzing, critiquing, judging,
comparing and contrasting, assessing
• Analyze
• Evaluate
• Compare
Creative Creating, inventing, discovering,
imagining, supposing, predicting
• Predict
• Create
Wise Recognizing diverse points of view,
utilizing knowledge for common good,
rendering important judgments,
thinking rightly, soundly, and justly
• Detect Bias
• Contextualize
• Remain Relevant

Practical thinking
As described in Figure 4.2, four themes were identified as eliciting practical
thinking from the sample population of experts. Performing a disciplinary function,
enhancing understanding, supporting a claim, and transferring knowledge all
incorporated one or more of the following thinking skills described by Sternberg
(2003): apply, use, put into practice, implement, employ, render practical. Several
examples of this relationship existed in the data. “Performing a function” was
indicated most often as a purpose for the use of Depth and Complexity. The
horticulturalist, for example, explained that his knowledge of entomology became
useful when controlling for particular pests. He stated:

84
…Entomology is a very important… I had a great love of insects from high
school and then on through my agricultural sciences degree… The little
cucumber beetle, Diabrotica, that’s the vector… of bacterial wilt of cucumber
being spread in a field. If you control that little beetle, you’ll control the wilt
that could spoil your crop of cucumber seed. (personal communication,
1/30/10).

He elaborated by also saying his knowledge of chemistry was valuable to his work:
Every week we would be mixing up different chemicals to spray, whether it
was gibberellins, or the ethrels, or certain pesticides or growth regulators, or
even nutrient sprays. Having a background in chemistry was vital there.
(personal communication, 1/30/10).

This data shows that the horticulturalist rendered practical his interdisciplinary
knowledge for the purpose of controlling pests and mixing chemicals.
The statistician described big ideas as enabling her to perform a significant
function in her field. She concluded that the “whole reason why we do something
statistical is to generalize (personal communication, 2/12/10). She went on to say,
“When we want to say something is true based on the sample that we have, …we
want to be able to generalize to a larger population. That’s the whole point. (personal
communication, 2/12/10). She also highlighted the importance of unanswered
questions as a motivating factor for statisticians to attain better and closer estimates
in their analyses (personal communication, 2/12/10). Attaining an accurate estimate
for a statistician is an example of a function being performed within the discipline
and it requires application of knowledge, and therefore would be what Sternberg
(2003) describes as practical thinking.
The professor of literacy described ethics as purposeful for preparing future
educators for the discipline. Preparing future disciplinarians is a function common to

85
fields of study and commonly performed. The professor of literacy noted that for
educators to be prepared, they must understand some of the ethical issues that arise
from working with diverse populations (personal communication, 2/7/10). This
describes the application of practical knowledge to achieve that end.
The oncologist utilized knowledge of patterns to perform a specific function
within his discipline. He stated:
[When a] person comes in, I take a history. My history will show a pattern, I
would say with 95% effectiveness. It’s a pattern of presentation of disease;
it’s a pattern of human behavior. So, people who smoke only and people who
drink only may have an elevation of cancers to the oral cavity, but people
who smoke and drink, they have a lot. (personal communication, 1/29/10)

From his knowledge of patterns in the presentation of disease, the oncologist was
able to take more accurate histories as part of his scholarly work. Taking a history
was a specific function he was expected to perform.
Using Depth and Complexity to transfer knowledge also required practical
knowledge of the discipline. The European historian stated that he used Multiple
Perspectives as a “basis for discussion” with students (personal communication,
2/11/10). He employed his use of historical knowledge to generate discussion. The
professor of English referred to Interdisciplinary Relationships as useful when
transferring knowledge of Shakespearean literature. She stated:
If I am going to talk about religious allusions or narrative structures borrowed
from the Bible in Shakespeare, I have to know something about the
Reformation and what the status of these narratives was. (personal
communication, 2/10/10).

86
The organic chemist identified rules as necessary to describe compounds in his
discipline. Because compounds have three-dimensional characters, he noted that you
“can’t show a picture of it, but you can in words, based upon rules, communicate
exactly what it corresponds to” (personal communication, 1/19/10). Several
disciplinarians suggested that they utilize concepts of Depth and Complexity to
communicate information about their field. The communication of knowledge
required implementation of practical knowledge in every circumstance.
Analytical thinking
Analytical thinking involves critiquing, judging, comparing and contrasting,
and assessing. It was described by several disciplinarians as a result of using
concepts of Depth and Complexity. The oncologist, anthropologist, Russian
historian, and European historian described instances where they needed to compare
information and the prompts of Depth and Complexity played a central role in this.
The oncologist detailed a “tumor board” that existed in the community where
he practiced. It served the purpose for sharing interdisciplinary knowledge with a
group of professionals. He explained that the following experts contributed
knowledge to this board: radiologists, surgical oncologists, medical oncologists,
radiation oncologists, neurosurgeons, orthopods, gynecologists, general surgeons,
urologists, and gastroenterologists. In his words, the oncologist stated:
And, I mean, we used to argue every which way… We would discuss, and
everyone would put in their point of view. And medicine is dynamic in the
sense that there’s different literatures and different belief systems. (personal
communication, 1/29/10).

87
The purpose of the tumor board was to discuss the “best way” to treat a problem
(personal communication, 1/29/10). To accomplish this, interdisciplinary
information was compared and consequently analyzed. The Russian historian
analyzed information by comparing articles related to history. She stated:
I had a discussion in my class today and they read four different articles and I
asked them to figure out how to make a pattern. How would you relate these
four articles to someone? How would you interrelate them…? (personal
communication, 2/11/10)

The European historian also utilized the analytical thinking skill “compare” when he
described asking his students to identify structural similarities between art and
politics in Germany during the 1920’s (personal communication, 2/11/10). Finally,
the anthropologist explicitly stated that she regularly compares the difference
between the rules, laws and statutes of our social system to cultures that possess a
“kin structure” that determines what people can and cannot do (personal
communication, 1/31/10). From the data, it was apparent that experts in the
following disciplines utilized rules, patterns, and interdisciplinary information when
making comparisons: oncology, anthropology, and history.
Two additional, analytical thinking skills were coded in the data: judging and
assessing. “Evaluate” emerged as a theme that was correlated to the skill of
assessing. The professor of literacy utilized the thinking skill “evaluate” when
considering unanswered questions. One of the questions she identified was, “What
are the consequences of not having bilingual education?” (personal communication,
2/7/10). She stated that she was curious to know the answer to this, despite the fact

88
that it may not be answerable. In her work, she pondered the idea that not having this
type of education might encourage racism due to “validation that one language is
better than another” (personal communication, 2/7/10). Her consideration of both
these questions, one being primary and the other secondary, prompt evaluation in her
scholarly work.
In addition to the oncologist’s detailed use of the analytical skill “making a
judgment,” the professor of English suggested a manner in which she renders
judgment in her scholarly work. She references rules as the catalyst for making
judgments:
I mean, there’s a lot of law in literature work in Shakespeare’s studies, a lot
of study of rules and how they evolve, civil versus ecclesiastical courts,
conflict among characters, how do you determine which character is right or
wrong, how is justice established within a play, those sorts of things.
(personal communication, 2/10/10).

Judging, evaluating, and comparing involve analytical thinking and along with being
a component of Sternberg’s Theory of Successful Intelligence, they were also shown
to be prompted by Depth and Complexity. This is important to the findings in this
study.
Creative thinking
As described by Sternberg (2003), creative thinking involves inventing,
discovering, imagining, supposing, and predicting. Two types of examples were
coded in the data as demonstrated by experts in this study when utilizing Depth and
Complexity: create and predict. A pattern that was identified across the data on
unanswered questions was that they prompted the experts to consider, or predict,

89
additional unanswered questions as research unfolded. The oncologist stated that the
reason he entered into his field was that he predicted forty years later, the
unanswered questions would be resolved (personal communication, 1/29/10). The
Russian historian commented:
We don’t know what people really thought about their lives. There are
diaries, but in some ways that’s already mediated, that you don’t know why
they were writing a diary or who they expected to read the diary. So, yeah,
history is filled with unanswered questions. History writing, in some ways, is
attempting to answer those questions for which we have sources, but there are
a million things we have no sources for at all. (personal communication,
2/11/10).

Historical research that analyzes and reviews multiple sources in an attempt to
resolve ambiguity necessitates the thinking skill “predicting.” The mathematician
asserted that his work consistently prompts him to work with ambiguity, and
therefore make predictions. He stated that he “starts off” with major results founded
by established mathematicians and then asks himself, “why they are true, …why is
this so, what’s going on?” (personal communication, 2/8/10). This indicates a high
degree of prediction prompted by the unanswered questions in his discipline.
The other emerged theme found in the data, was straightforward and directly
related to creative thinking. Several of the disciplinarians indicated the need to
“create” in their scholarly endeavors. The mathematician cited multiple perspectives
as a lens that he uses to examine his own. He described his “view” as one that
identifies issues in the real word and then attempts to find mathematical constructs to
explain them (personal communication, 2/8/10). He explicitly states, “I find it more
interesting if I can find a problem whereby no mathematical construct exists, so I can

90
create one” (personal communication, 2/8/10). Similarly, the horticulturalist
described the use of concepts of Depth and Complexity as fruitful in creating new
knowledge for his discipline. As described in a previous section, he utilized
interdisciplinary knowledge to create the following solutions to apply to plants:
gibberellins, ethrels, growth regulators, nutrients, or pesticides (personal
communication, 1/30/10). He also described the use of patterns as enabling him to
create a mechanism for commercially producing a hybrid breed of parsley (personal
communication, 1/30/10). Instances whereby experts expressed their ability to
generate new knowledge or make predictions in their field were coded as creative
thinking.
Wise thinking
Certain instances in the data depicted “wise” thinking by the disciplinarians.
As Sternberg (2001) describes, wise thinking translates into recognizing diverse
points of view, utilizing knowledge for a common good, rendering important
judgments, and thinking “rightly, soundly, and justly.” He claims wisdom is the use
of successful intelligence towards the attainment of a common good (Sternberg,
2003). Evidence of this type of thinking was exemplified in the data collected from
experts. The anthropologist’s unanswered questions suggested use of disciplinary
knowledge to render important judgments. In pondering these questions: “What is
the value of trying to maintain a specific cultural system? Should you let a cultural
system be wiped out in exchange for the dominant cultural system?” it is indicated
that anthropologists consider the value of and consequences when deciding whether

91
to maintain a cultural system, or allow it to become extinct. Similarly, the
anthropologist offered the question, “Do we lose some aspect of humanness?” when
referring to the fact that 2,000 languages in the world are lost every year (personal
communication, 1/31/10. An unanswered question related to this particular
anthropological issue was, “How much money and energy and time should be
expended to maintain a language that has 250 speakers?” (personal communication,
1/31/10). Each of these unanswered questions indicates thinking that is directed
towards a common good.
Contextualizing was a significant theme that emerged from the data provided
by the experts. Due to the fact that involved recognizing, and attempting to
understand at a deep level, diverse perspectives, it was coded as wise thinking. The
European historian described his approach to teaching authoritarian regimes when
asked how ethics applied to his discipline. It was evident the information he provided
that when he addressed ethical situations in relation to this topic, his desire was for
students to contextualize facts and consider perspectives other than their own. He
states:
My basic shtick to teaching authoritarian regimes is that they can only
function with widespread complicity… People emigrate, people take political
positions and express discontent that has consequences, so some people are
voting with their feet or voting with their conscious and paying the price.
This is not a critique of those who didn’t protest. In fact, it’s a kind of sense
of wonder at people who do; but some do, which means that those who don’t
did have a choice and didn’t take it. So, we should put ourselves in that
position and think through carefully what the constraints are on people’s
ability to express oppositional positions, or morality in the face of morality.
(personal communication, 2/11/10).

92
He followed this up by mentioning that, when considering multiple
perspectives, he finds it useful to teach historical empathy. To accomplish this, he
asks students to “think themselves” into a period of history by assuming a
personality; and, from this he assigns “point of view assignments” (personal
communication, 2/11/10). The diverse points of view that this Depth and Complexity
prompt elicits, the European historian uses as bases of discussion for his students
(personal communication, 2/11/10).
The Russian historian referred to Multiple Perspectives, when discussing
research accomplished by historians. She shared:
The historian him or herself has a perspective that works itself out in the way
that the history is written and therefore hundreds of people can write about
the same topic and they’re not going to write the same thing, even if they use
the same sources. (personal communication, 2/11/10).

This suggests a particular need for historians to think “rightly, justly and soundly”
(Sternberg, 2003). The fact that perspectives influence the manner in which history is
written about means that recognizing and minimizing bias holds importance for the
discipline. “Detecting bias” was a second theme that emerged from the interviews
that was coded as wise thinking. The horticulturalist communicated that while a
perspective used to exist in the field that improving yields of corn or wheat or soy
beans through the use of a specific approach was beneficial, studies were completed
to show that this may not, in fact, have been the case (personal communication,
1/30/10). The research, he declared, had been subjected to a bias toward the

93
pharmaceuticals or chemical company’s point of view, (personal communication,
1/30/10).
“Remain relevant” was the last emerged theme that was categorized as wise
thinking. Evidence of how Depth and Complexity was employed to accomplish this
end was described in a previous section, however, an explanation will be provided as
to why this was considered thinking wisely. “Remaining relevant” often involved
consideration of perspectives other than the disciplinarian’s own. In order to remain
relevant to those who purchased seed, for example, the horticulturalist needed to be
aware of the desires of the consumer, society, and the needs of the world at large.
The oncologist suggested that change over time prompted him to maintain an
awareness of how technology was improving the practice of oncology (personal
communication, 1/29/10). He needed to do this in order for him to be able to offer
the most effective treatment possible to his patients. Remaining relevant to others
necessitated an awareness of others’ points of view and resulted in the utilization of
knowledge for a common good; it was for these reasons that this theme was
considered wise thinking.
Research Question 2: Relevancy to the Discipline
The final facet of research for this study asked the experts to order the
concepts of Depth and Complexity according to most-to-least relevant to their
discipline and most-to-least frequently used in their discipline. The purpose for this
section of the interview protocol was to reveal information that would offer a basis
of comparison between the concepts of Depth and Complexity. Following the sorting

94
activity, experts were invited to comment on the rationale they utilized to order the
concepts of Depth and Complexity.
A typology categorizes information along a continuum and is used for the
purpose of analysis (Patton, 2002). Creating the typology for this portion of the
research involved recognizing distinctions in the comments made by the experts
between the frequency of use and perceptions of relevancy of the concepts of Depth
and Complexity in their respective disciplines. The illustrative endpoints identified
for this typology were “most relevant” and “least relevant.” Table 4.3 offers a
comprehensive look at the labels assigned to each element of Depth and Complexity
according to the analysis of the data revealed by the experts. Labels ranged from
“high,” where the expert expresses certainty about the relationship between the
concept and the discipline, “medium,” where the expert indicates a possible
relationship between the concept and the discipline, and “low,” where the expert
suggests a specifically low level of relevancy between the concept and the discipline.
Experts were grouped according to their discipline in order to view commonalities
between their responses.

95
Table 4.3: Relevancy of Depth and Complexity across Disciplines

Science Social Studies English Mathematics

Organic Chemist
Oncologist
Horticulturalist
Anthropologist
Russian Historian
European Historian
Professor of English
Literacy Educator
Mathematician
Statistician
Language of the Discipline H H M H L H H H H H
Details H H H H H H H L H H
Patterns H H L H H H H L H H
Trends M M H H H H H H N/A H
Rules H H M H H H H H M H
Unanswered Questions M M M H H H H L H M
Ethics H H H H M H M M H H
Big Ideas H H M H H H H H H H
Multiple Perspectives M H H H H H H H H M
Change Over Time H M M H H H H M H H
Interdisciplinary Relationships H H M H H M H L N/A M

A theme that emerged among the data that was labeled as “high,” was the use
of absolute terms to describe the relevancy of Depth and Complexity to a discipline.
In examining the rationale used to justify their ranking, phrases such as, “every day,”
“all the time,” “constantly,” “absolutely,” “always,” and “most important,” surfaced
over half of the time. Tables 4.4 and 4.5 illustrate the use of these terms by the
professor of English, the professor of literacy, the mathematician, and the statistician.
Appendix B and appendix C provide examples of the absolute terms used by the
scientists and social scientists.

96

Table 4.4: Use of Absolute Terms to Indicate High Relevancy by Professors of
English and Literacy

Professor of English Professor of Literacy
Language of the
Discipline
“I use language of the
discipline all the time.”
“You have to know the language.
Everybody’s going to be talking about
the language of the discipline.”
Details “You always start with
the detail and you look for
the pattern.”

Patterns “Patterns are very
important… [They] are
constant.”
“Everybody’s going to be thinking
about patterns.”
Trends “You do need to understand the trends
in order to understand what’s currently
going on.”
Rules “[Teachers] have to know the rules.”
Unanswered
Questions
“You’re always going to
unanswered questions on
some level.”

Ethics
Big Ideas “Certainly, in what I do,
theories are very
important.”
“Everybody’s going to be thinking
about big ideas.”
Multiple
Perspectives
“Multiple perspectives are
certainly important.”
“You absolutely have to know the
perspectives.”
Change Over Time “[This is] crucial,
totally.”

Interdisciplinary
Relationships

97

Table 4.5: Use of Absolute Terms to Indicate High Relevancy by Mathematicians

Mathematician Statistician
Language of the
Discipline
“There are unique
vocabularies…everywhere.”

Details “Every single math professor
has to check those details.”

Patterns “Everywhere, everywhere.
Patterns are some of the things
mathematicians live by.”
“We’re constantly looking at
data for [patterns.]”
Trends
Rules
Unanswered
Questions
“So, unanswered questions,
there everywhere.”
“[This is] the whole reason why
we exist.”
Ethics “I have to have trust when
somebody tells me something is
true.”
“I think [ethics] is the most
important piece.”
Big Ideas “The whole reason we do
something statistical is to
generalize… It’s all about
principles and theories.”
Multiple
Perspectives
“A lot of my work, in terms of
applying it to other areas, I just
use constantly.”
“This is at the heart of
everything a researcher does.”
Change Over
Time
Mathematics changes. It’s
changing constantly. Constant,
constant, constant.”

Interdisciplinary
Relationships

98
There were several instances in the data where the experts used figurative
language to describe a high degree of relevancy. When asked about the relevancy of
language of the discipline to his disciplinary work, the oncologist replied, “That’s
sort of like breathing. You don’t have to think about it” (personal communication,
1/29/10). The organic chemist noted that the language of chemistry “becomes second
nature” (personal communication, 1/19/10). The oncologist used figurative language
to indicate a high degree of relevancy of rules to his discipline when he described
them as being “in the fabric” of his scholarly work (personal communication,
1/29/10). The European historian identified change over time as “the name of the
game” when describing his purpose as an academician. He also stated that he’d be
“out of business if there weren’t unanswered questions” (personal communication,
2/11/10). Finally, the statistician described multiple perspectives “at the heart of
everything a researcher does” (personal communications, 2/12/10). Figurative
language emerged as a pattern of description for experts to indicate high degree of
relevancy of Depth and Complexity.
Table 4.6 displays results of the analysis of each Depth and Complexity
concept. Of note, details, patterns, and big ideas were identified by the most experts,
nine out of 10, as having the highest degree of relevancy across the disciplines.
Language of the discipline, rules, and multiple perspectives were labeled as “high”
by eight out of 10 experts, and trends, ethics and change over time followed closely
behind, being designated as “highly relevant” by seven out of the 10 experts. Both
interdisciplinary relationships and unanswered questions were labeled as “high” by

99
only half of all the disciplinarians. A pattern emerged in the data as to why this was
so. Three disciplinarians indicated that unanswered questions in their discipline were
not a daily consideration for them, and therefore played less of a relevant role in their
lives. These disciplinarians suggested that unanswered questions were more removed
from their immediate responsibilities as a disciplinarian and that time spent in
reflection of them could be construed as time wasted. The oncologist, for example
said, “unanswered questions, the big questions, philosophical and otherwise that’s
wonderful, but day in and day out I had lots of immediate little problems to deal
with, so the unanswered questions, the secret of the universe would have to wait”
(personal communication, 1/29/10). The professor of English described the relevance
of unanswered questions in this way: “It may be underneath what we’re doing,
giving it a certain resonance and urgency, but we never address it directly, because
then we’d never get anything done and it would all be kind of vague” (personal
communication, 2/11/10). Furthermore, the Russian historian mentioned that, as
historians, “part of our work is moving away from the questions that we can’t
answer. We don’t want to try to be pursuing a project that’s impossible” (personal
communication, 2/11/10).

100
Table 4.6: Labeling of Relevancy of Depth and Complexity Concepts

Number of Disciplinarians
Response
not Given Low Medium High
Language of the Discipline 0 1 1 8
Details 0 1 0 9
Patterns 0 1 0 9
Trends 1 0 2 7
Rules 0 0 2 8
Unanswered Questions 0 1 4 5
Ethics 0 0 3 7
Big Ideas 0 0 1 9
Multiple Perspectives 0 0 2 8
Change Over Time 0 0 3 7
Interdisciplinary Relationships 1 1 3 5

Table 4.6 arranges the data in order for conclusions to be drawn about the
number of concepts of Depth and Complexity that were designated for each category
by the experts. Of note anthropologist rated all 11 concepts of Depth and
Complexity as “highly relevant.” To corroborate her sorting she stated, “I include
every single one of them all the time, in everything I do. I would never leave any of
them out. I use every single one of them when I teach” (personal communication,
1/31/10). Similarly, although not as absolute, the statistician commented that
“they’re all sort of relevant” when explaining her rationale for the sort (personal
communication, 2/12/10). Despite identifying the least number of concepts in the
high category, the horticulturalist also noted, “At any one point, they could all be

101
critically important” (personal communication, 1/30/10). Three out of ten
disciplinarians commented on the relevancy of concepts of Depth and Complexity as
a whole.
Summary of Findings
The results of this study provide content validity to justify the use of Depth
and Complexity as a means to facilitate learning that is both relevant to the
disciplines and true to how experts conceptualize their scholarly work. First, it was
found that all prompts of Depth and Complexity, as proposed by the CDE (1994),
were applicable to the academic disciplines researched in this study: organic
chemistry, oncology, horticulture, anthropology, Russian history, European history,
English, literacy, mathematics, and statistics. Highly specific examples, and in many
cases, several examples were offered by the experts to justify this finding. Data
revealed the ability of the experts to relate each concept of Depth and Complexity to
their discipline.
A subsequent finding to the applicability of Depth and Complexity to the
disciplines was that relationships exist between them. Experts explicitly and
implicitly expressed connections between certain prompts. Highest relationships
were found between Language of the Discipline and the rest of the various prompts;
unanswered questions and multiple perspectives; rules, ethics, and change over time;
and details, trends, multiple perspectives and change over time. This suggests that
concepts of Depth and Complexity may not be used solely in isolation in order to
achieve scholarly outcomes. It also supports Donovan and Bransford’s (2005)

102
assertion that connected knowledge is organized around the foundational ideas of a
discipline.
A third finding from this study indicated that the prompts of Depth and
Complexity serve varied and specific purposes for experts in a field. These, too,
emerged in both explicit and implicit ways in the data. Articulated purposes for
Depth and Complexity were synthesized and then categorized according Sternberg’s
(2001, 2003) theory of successful intelligence and balance theory of wisdom.
Sternberg (2001, 2003) outlines four types of thinking that experts utilize: practical,
analytical, creative, and one that he suggests they should use more frequently, wise.
Concepts of Depth and Complexity were found to facilitate practical, analytical,
creative, and wise thinking to varying degrees.
In response to the second research question for this study, Depth and
Complexity was found to have a high degree of relevancy to the disciplines and to
the work that disciplinarians accomplish. The majority of the experts used absolute
terms to describe the relevancy of the prompts to their discipline. Some of these
terms included: “always,” “everywhere,“ “all the time,” and “constantly.” Each
prompt was described as “highly relevant” by at least half of the interviewed experts.
Details, patterns and big ideas were found to have the highest degree of relevancy to
the discipline, with language of the discipline, rules, and multiple perspectives
following closely behind. The high degree of relevancy to the discipline provided the
strongest argument for content validity for Depth and Complexity. Due to the high
degree of rare or elusive knowledge of a discipline that experts are identified as

103
having (Chi, 2008) the sample population was able to provide valuable insight into
the relationship between Depth and Complexity and academic disciplines.
Chapter five will describe implications for the education of gifted students,
differentiation, and authentic instruction. Specifically the chapter will detail how the
findings of the present study may impact the field of gifted education.

104
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Our current president, in his most recent inaugural address, expressed an
urgency to invest in the skills and education of the American people (Obama, 2010).
To initiate educational reform, he has launched a national competition to reform our
schools because, in his words, “the best anti-poverty program is a world-class
education” (Obama, 2010). Constitutionally, education is identified as a basic human
right, and yet, still today, the United States’ system is rife with inequality. One such
overlooked population of students whose needs are often overlooked is those
identified as gifted.
Simonton (2008) suggests, educational programs designed specifically for
populations of students who are gifted may legitimately be viewed as an investment
in our nation’s future. Considering researchers in gifted education are finding gifted
programs significantly lacking in rigor and appropriateness for the students they
serve (NAGC, 2004, Swiatek and Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2003), attention is being
drawn to ameliorate this unfortunate situation. Siemer (2009) has published
commentary on the negative impact the federal government’s No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB) has had on students identified as gifted. She notes, “the laudable goal of
closing the achievement gap between our lowest-achieving and highest-achieving
students should not be met by allowing the students with the highest ability to be
lowered” (p. 560). She goes on to predict the possibility that high-ability students
may be ones able to make inroads on issues of urban poverty and globalization

105
(Siemer, 2009). The question remains, however, as to the most effective way to
appropriately educate students who are gifted.
The National Association for Gifted Children supports and develops
educational practices able to respond to needs of gifted students from diverse
cultures and socioeconomic groups. Striving to improve the quality of education for
all, it recognizes the ability of differentiated curriculum as a means to “respect and
celebrate the variation found… in students” (NAGC, 2008). Tomlinson (2007)
claims that differentiation requires educators to understand the key concepts,
principles, and skills of a discipline. These, she notes, should be presented to
students in ways that cause those who are gifted to “wonder and grasp, and extend
their reach” (Tomlinson, 1997).
This study was created to assess content validity for Depth and Complexity
as an approach to differentiation that is applicable and relevant to the study of
academic disciplines. Though its eleven prompts were derived from a review of
Advance Placement curriculum and assessment, a study of California Golden State
Exam requirements, and conventional wisdom about the accelerated needs of gifted
students and their need to study the disciplines (personal communication, Kaplan, S.,
2/28/10), interviewing experts across disciplines offered a discipline-centered
perspective into the relevancy of these prompts to gifted education specifically and
education generally. Theory behind content validity recognizes experts as having an
awareness of “nuances in the construct that may be rare or elusive” of those
belonging to a novice (Rymarchyk, n.d.). Accounting for this, the sample population

106
of experts in this study was interviewed in an attempt to gain insight into the
following research questions:
1. How do experts utilize the prompts of Depth and Complexity in the
facilitation of research and application of knowledge within their field?
2. How are the prompts of Depth and Complexity relevant to the study of
academic disciplines?
This chapter will offer a brief summary and detail the findings of this study
related to the application and relevancy of Depth and Complexity to the disciplines
of organic chemistry, oncology, horticulture, anthropology, English, literacy,
Russian history, European history, mathematics, and statistics. It will explain
subsequent findings related to the interconnectedness between the concepts of Depth
and Complexity, as well as their purpose in eliciting the methods of thinking
articulated by Sternberg’s (2003) theory of successful intelligence and balance
theory of wisdom (2001). Suggestions for educational practice will be included,
followed by recommendations for future research.
Research Findings and Conclusions
Application and Relevancy of Depth and Complexity to Disciplines of Study
Findings
The two main aspects of the research sought to measure the applicability and
relevancy of the concepts of Depth and Complexity to academic disciplines. Experts
were asked to provide specific examples of the prompts of Depth and Complexity as
they pertain to (1) their disciplinary work or (2) their discipline as a whole.

107
Following this, they were asked to rank the concepts in order of most-to-least
relevant to their work and discipline. The evidence as to the applicability of Depth
and Complexity to the disciplines was straightforward and precise: the concepts of
Depth and Complexity were relatable to all disciplines represented by the experts in
this study. Experts’ examples of the application of each Depth and Complexity
prompt ranged in quantity, but all offered at least one. No prompt was stated as
“inapplicable” by any of the 10 experts.
Findings regarding relevancy of Depth and Complexity to the disciplines as
perceived by the sample population also demonstrated conclusive results. A
majority of the experts’ responses about the relevancy of Depth and Complexity
were categorized as “high,” with a small minority identified as “low.” Eight-to-nine
out of ten disciplinarians ranked language of the discipline, details, patterns, rules,
big ideas, and multiple perspectives as most relevant for their work. The remaining
concepts of Depth and Complexity, trends, unanswered questions, ethics, change
over time, and interdisciplinary relationships, were ranked as “highly relevant” by
five-to-seven disciplinarians. No element of Depth and Complexity was said to have
low relevancy by more than one disciplinarian. These results indicate a high degree
of relevancy between Depth and Complexity and the disciplines represented by this
study.
Conclusions
Experts have been characterized as possessing general information-
processing capabilities as well as in-depth knowledge of specific domains

108
(Cianciolo, Matthew, Sternberg & Wagner, 2006). Because of this, experts in
academic disciplines were solicited to provide content validity for concepts of Depth
and Complexity for this study. Due to the previously described findings, it is
concluded that the concepts of Depth and Complexity is authentic to academic
disciplines, and therefore appropriate to utilize as a means to differentiate content for
students who are gifted.
The National Association for the Gifted (2009), as well as the California
Association for the Gifted (n.d.) and the California Department of Education (2009),
suggest the addition of depth and complexity to learning experiences as a means to
differentiate content. CAG defines depth as, “a process of thought that seeks to
understand concepts and generalizations through the analysis of the rules and
principles that support the larger idea” (CAG, n.d.) They claim that adding depth,
means providing opportunities for learners who are gifted to discover details and
identify patterns and trends that lead to the formulation of unanswered questions
(CAG, n.d.). Conversely, complexity is defined as, “the quality or process of
thinking that combines many ideas or parts to develop complicated and interrelated
wholes” (CAG, n.d.) Gifted students striving for complexity are to find multiple
approaches to problem solving across the disciplines, over time, and from different
perspectives (CAG, n.d.).
Examples of concepts of Depth and Complexity given by each of the
disciplinarians in this study support the belief that experts, who problem solve at
high intellectual levels, incorporate each of these concepts when facilitating

109
scholarly work. In medicine, for example, where the domain of expertise requires an
extensive and dynamic knowledge base (Norman, Eva, Brooks, & Hamstra, 2006),
the oncologist ranked eight out of the eleven prompts of Depth and Complexity as
“highly relevant.” Strategies for managing the cognitive load on working memory
have been found to be necessary for writers, as well (Kellogg, 2006). The professor
of English purported that all but one of the concepts of Depth and Complexity were
relevant to her disciplinary work. Research on expertise has demonstrated experts’
unique ability to master challenges in their field with increasing levels of difficulty
(Ericsson, 2003). It is concluded from the evidence in this study that concepts of
Depth and Complexity apply and are relevant to the intellectual challenges experts
confront in their discipline.
Connections between Concepts of Depth and Complexity
Findings
A subsequent pattern that emerged from the data in this study indicated
interconnectedness between concepts of Depth and Complexity. Unanswered
questions and multiple perspectives were found to have a reciprocal relationship, for
example. Several experts intimated that differing perspectives represented
approaches that are taken to identify answers to major questions in their discipline.
Conversely, the anthropologist described unanswered questions as a catalyst for
emerging perspectives on a topic. Language of the discipline was evidenced across
the majority of responses to each of the other ten concepts of Depth and Complexity.
This suggests a strong relationship between language of a discipline and the rest of

110
the prompts. Rules, ethics, and change over time were related to each other in the
data by experts, as well. Experts commented on changes various rules undergo over
periods of time and the ethical nature of some of the rules themselves. Disciplinary-
specific examples of the convergence of these three prompts were offered by seven
of the 10 experts. Finally, connections were made between details, trends, and
multiple perspectives and change over time. Several instances in the data
demonstrated experts’ awareness of details, trends, and perspectives changing over
time, and this emerged as a significant pattern.
Conclusions
Donovan and Bransford (2005) point out experts’ desire for emphasis on
“connected knowledge” that is organized around foundational concepts of a
discipline. Research shows that where novices see separate pieces of information,
experts often perceive organized sets of ideas (NRC, 2005; Chi, 2006). Experts’
associations between the concepts of Depth and Complexity and to their disciplinary
knowledge would suggest these assertions are valid. It can be concluded from the
findings in this study that disciplines contain large bodies of organized information
and that disciplinarians possess a common vocabulary that facilitates precise
communication (Buker, 2003). Along a similar vein, shared understanding exists
between experts as to what constitutes evidence according to their discipline (Buker,
2003). This is supported by the patterns found in the data for this study.

111
Identified Purposes for Depth and Complexity
Finding 1
An unexpected finding from the research was that concepts of Depth and
Complexity served various purposes for disciplinarians. Patterns in the data pointed
to the fact that Depth and Complexity assist experts in the following: performing a
function, analyzing information, enhancing understanding, transferring knowledge,
making predictions, evaluating, comparing, supporting a claim, detecting bias,
creating, ordering information, contextualizing, and remaining relevant to those both
inside and outside of the discipline.
Conclusions
Several instances in the literature suggested a need for learners to utilize
conceptual “tools” (Bruner, 1990; Gallagher, 2006; Lee, 2005). A “communal
toolkit,” as defined by Bruner (1990) is comprised of the symbolic systems of a
culture, whereas Lave and Wenger conceptualize it as the language that plays a
central role in a community of practice. Lee (2005) describes tools as those which
enable learners to think clearly about the kind of evidence needed to support a
particular claim. It is concluded from the myriad of specific purposes that the
disciplinarians communicated in this study, that Depth and Complexity is a
conceptual “toolkit.”
Finding 2
The purposes for concepts of Depth and Complexity, articulated by the
experts in this study, were found to have a direct correlation to Sternberg’s (2003)

112
theory of successful intelligence. The theory of successful intelligence identifies
three methods of thinking that may assist in the creation of future experts: practical,
analytical, and creative (Sternberg, 2003). Sternberg’s (2001) balance theory of
wisdom suggests that experts should also demonstrate thinking that would be
classified as wise. The types of thinking elicited by concepts of Depth and
Complexity for the experts correlated with the findings of Sternberg’s (2001, 2003)
theories.
Conclusions
Conclusions that can be drawn from this finding indicate that Depth and
Complexity elicits a broad range of thinking. The National Council for Excellence in
Critical Thinking (1987) extols the benefits of critical thinking and recognizes the
seminal role it has played in the emergence of academic disciplines. Research has
also been cited that suggests the integration of critical thinking skills within authentic
learning contexts assists with the transfer of critical thinking to other areas of life
(Ormrod, 2008). Experts in the field of gifted education repeatedly have expressed
the need for students who are gifted to be afforded the opportunity to think at high-
levels (CAG, 2005; NAGC, 2008; Sternberg, 2003; Tomlinson et al., 2002). Depth
and Complexity, as concluded by this study, not only prompts critical thinking, but it
elicits thinking that is practical to the discipline, analytical, creative within the
context of a discipline, and wise.

113
Practical Implications and Recommendations
Several implications exist as a result of the findings in this study. The fact
that the concepts of Depth and Complexity facilitate thinking about a discipline that
experts identify as relevant, validates it as an approach to teach content related to the
academic disciplines in the K-12 arena. Resnick (1999) asserts that teaching should
engage students in active thinking about disciplinary concepts on a regular basis.
Utilizing integrated content similar to ways it is encountered in the world constitutes
authentic learning (Ormrod, 2008). Stepien and Stepien (2006) outline five standards
for authentic instruction, one of which they identify as “higher order thinking.” This
particular standard purports that students should “synthesize, generalize, explain, or
arrive at conclusions” in order to derive meaning from a learning experience (Stepien
and Stepien, 2006). These functions of higher-order thinking were closely aligned
with the purposes, described by the experts, for the concepts of Depth and
Complexity. Depth and Complexity was found to be a catalyst for experts desiring to
contextualize, support a claim, enhance understanding, evaluate, detect bias, analyze,
predict, order, transfer knowledge, perform a function, compare, and remain relevant
to others within and outside of their discipline. Because concepts of Depth and
Complexity were found to hold significant purposes for the work of disciplinarians,
it should be recommended for use to educators desiring to develop higher order
thinking skills among learners in their classroom.
A second implication for concepts of Depth and Complexity is that it should
be considered a comprehensive “set” of ideas that may be offered to students to

114
investigate academic subject matter. The National Research Council (NRC, 2005)
claims that identifying “a set of enduring, connected ideas” is a critical task for
teachers, curricula developers, teacher preparation institutions, and groups involved
in developing subject-matter standards for students and teachers (p. 16). They note
that little attention has been given to concepts that support understanding of
disciplines (NRC, 2005). While this illustrates how concepts Depth and Complexity
were intended to be used (personal communication, 2/28/10), the purpose of this
study was to provide data to support or contest this claim. Based on the qualitative
data offered by disciplinarians describing the application of concepts of Depth and
Complexity to various fields, it is evident that these concepts are a set of connected
ideas, both applicable and relevant to academic disciplines.
Passow (1982) states that curriculum content for gifted learners should be
organized to include elaborate, complex, and in-depth study of “major ideas,
problems, and themes.” One of the requisite skills in designing curriculum,
according to Tyler (1949), is deciding what the “organizing threads” will be.
Implications from this study suggest that use of concepts of Depth and Complexity is
a viable means to integrate knowledge and may therefore serve as an organizing
thread when planning curriculum for learners who are gifted. A significant pattern in
the data pointed to the connections experts’ made between concepts of Depth and
Complexity. Considering that an important aspect of mastering concepts is
understanding how they are related to each other (Ormrod, 2008), concepts of Depth

115
and Complexity have implications for being able to accomplish this task with gifted
learners.
Finally, an implication for this study lies in the in the notion that novices are
less able to organize information than experts (NRC, 2005; Chi, 2006). If true, then
concepts Depth and Complexity offer the opportunity for educators to begin to assist
novices towards higher levels of sense making. Ericsson et al. (2007) assert,
“Genuine experts not only practice deliberately but also think deliberately.”
Concepts of Depth and Complexity provide a coherent structure that, when applied
to a broad base of facts, enable students to proceed with a method for organization
and categorization of information. This initiates deliberate thinking about content. A
direct benefit of this is that it facilitates methods of thinking that Sternberg (2003)
purports is characteristic of experts in a discipline. As Sternberg’s (2003) theory of
successful intelligence and balance theory of wisdom describe, experts think
practically, analytically, creatively, and wisely. As evidenced by the findings in this
study, concepts of Depth and Complexity facilitate each of these modes of thought to
various degrees. It is concluded, therefore, that when applying concepts of Depth
and Complexity to the study of the disciplines, gifted students are being prompted to
think in similar ways that disciplinarians to when engaging in research and scholarly
work.
Recommendations for Future Research
1. The findings from the present study offer content validity to the concepts
Depth and Complexity. A logical follow-up to this study would be one that seeks to

116
determine student outcomes as a consequence of using the concepts of Depth and
Complexity. Quantitative methods should be employed in order to gain broader and
more substantial insight into how experts in English, mathematics, science and social
science apply the concepts of Depth and Complexity.
2. It is necessary to gain insight into the various ways educators of students
who are gifted facilitate teaching of the concepts of Depth and Complexity. One of
the risks of suggesting the concepts of Depth and Complexity to be used as a “set of
connected ideas” when teaching academic disciplines is that it may be utilized in a
mechanistic way (Lee, 2005). Findings from this study do not imply that simply
applying Depth and Complexity means learning is differentiated appropriately for
students who are gifted. As with other approaches for improved educational practice,
it is not that you apply them, it is how you apply them that makes significant
difference.
3. Repeatedly in the literature, metacognition as a means to improve
performance and understanding, was emphasized (NRC, 2005; Feltovich et al, 2008;
Zimmerman, 2008). A recommendation for future research is to examine the roles
that concepts of Depth and Complexity play in metacognitive thinking. This would
have implications for the development of characteristics of expertise among students.
4. This study included a sample population whose areas of expertise covered
a broad array of content. A suggestion for further study would be to identify experts
whose research focuses on content more precisely relevant to either elementary,

117
middle school, or secondary standards for education. The benefit to this would lie in
the specificity of information it would provide.

118
REFERENCES
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). (2008).
Educating Students in a Changing World (ASCD Position Statement 2008).
Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/research_a_topic/21stcenturylearning.aspx.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (2009). 21st Century
Learning, Retrieved June 5, 2009, from
http://www.ascd.org/research_a_topic/21stcenturylearning.aspx.

Avis, J. (2002). Social capital, collective intelligence, and expansive learning:
Thinking through the connections. Education and the economy. Brittish
Journal of Educational Studies, 50(3), 308-326.

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.).
Philadelphia: SRHE and Open University Press.

Becher, T. (1987). The disciplinary shaping of the profession, in B.R. Clark (ed.),
The Academic Profession, Berkeley, University of California Press, pp. 271-
303.

Becker, G. S., (2002) The age of human capital: In E. P. Lazear (Ed.), Education in
the twenty-first century (pp. 3-8). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.

Betts, G. T., & Neihart, M. (1988). Profiles of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 32(2), 248-253.

Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different scientific areas,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 57 (3): 261-275.

Brown, P. & Lauder, H. (2000). Human capital, social capital, and collective
intelligence, in Baron, S., Field, J. and Schuller, T. (Eds) (2000) Social
Captital, Critical Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. (1977). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Burker, E. (2003). Is women's studies a disciplinary or an interdisciplinary field of
inquiry? NWSA Journal, 15(1).

119
California Association for the Gifted. (n.d.) A glossary: Common terms related to
gifted education. Retrieved on April 22, 2010, from:
http://www.cagifted.org/associations/7912/files/CAGGlossary.pdf

California Association for the Gifted (n.d.) California Association for the Gifted: A
position paper. Retrieved on April 22, 2010, from:
xhttp://www.cagifted.org/associations/7912/files/position03GLRC.pdf.

California Department of Education, California Association for the Gifted. (1994).
Differentiating the core curriculum and instruction to provide advanced
learning opportunities. Sacramento, CA:

California Department of Education. (2005). Gifted and Talented Education
Resource Guide. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/gt/documents/guidebook.doc.

California State Board of Education. (2005). Recommended standards for programs
for gifted and talented students. Retrieved on August 8, 2009 from:
http://www.cagifted.org/associations/7912/files/gate05standards.pdf.

Carlson, A. (2002). Authentic learning: What does it really mean?. Retrieved August
14, 2009, from
http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/showcase2001/authentic_learning.htm

Chi, M. T. (2006). Chapter 2: Two approaches to the study of experts’
characteristics. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R.
Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert
Performance (21-30). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, B. (1997). Small worlds, different worlds: the uniqueness and troubles of
American academic professions. Daedalus, 126 (4): 21-42.

Clark, B. (1996). Substantive growth and innovative organization: New categories
for higher education research, Higher Education, 32: 417-430.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. (n.d). A nation deceived: Executive
summary. Retrieved August 17, 2009, from
http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/Nation_Deceived/Executive_Summary.a
spx.

Counts, G. S. (1975). Some notes on the foundations of curriculum-making.
Curriculum Theory Network, 4(4), 281-294.

120
Cross, T. L. (2004). On chance and being gifted. Gifted Child Today, 27(2), 18-20.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of
education. New York: The Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1902). The school as social center. The Elementary School Teacher, 3(2),
73-86.

Dictionary.com (2009). Wisdom. Retrieved from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wisdom.

Dixon, F. A. (2006). Chapter 12- Critical thinking: A foundation for challenging
content. In F. A. Dixon & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The Handbook f Secondary
Gifted Education (pp. 323-341). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Djakow, Petrowski, & Rudik. (1927). Psychologie des Schachspiels [Psychology of
chess]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Doll, J., & Mayr, U. (1987). Intelligenz und Schachleistung- eine Untersuchung an
Schachexperten. [Intelligence and achievement in chess: A study of chess
masters]. Psychologische Beitrage, 29, 270-289.

DTI/DfEE. (2001). Opportunity for all in a world of change. (London, HMSO).

Endsley, M. R. (2006). Chapter 36: Expertise and situation awareness. In K. A.
Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The
Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (633-651). New
York: Cambridge University Press.

Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Chapter 1: An introduction to Cambridge handbook of
expertise and expert performance: Its development, organization, and
content. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman
(Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (3-
19). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ericsson, K. A., Prietula, M. J., & Cokely, E. T. (2007). The making of an expert.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from
http://www.coachingmanagement.nl/The%20Making%20of%20an%20Exper
t.pdf.

Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance:
Evidence on maximal adaptations on task constraints. Annual Review of
Psychology, 47, 273-305.

121
European Organization for Nuclear Research. (2008). The Large Hadron Collider.
Retrieved from http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html

Freeman, J. (2001). Gifted children grown up. London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd.

Galton, F. (1869/1962). Hereditary Genius. (Originally published in 1869).
Cleveland: The World Publishing Company.

Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York: Basic Books.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H. et al. (1994) The new production of
knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.
London: Sage.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gulikers, J. T., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional
framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 52(3), 67-86.

Hansen, J. B. (2000). The ideal teacher for highly gifted students. Mensa Research
Journal, 43(Winter), 14-23.

Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters… A lot. Thinking K-16, 3(2), 3-14.

Henkel, M. (2000). Academic identities and policy change in higher education.
London: Jessica Kingsley.

Hertzog, N. B. (2003). Impact of gifted programs from the students perspectives.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 131-143.

Hirst, P., P. (1974). Knowledge and the curriculum. London: Routledge.

Howe, M. J., Davidson, J., & Sloboda, J. (1998). Innate talents: Reality or myth?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 399-442.

Human Genome Project Information. (2008). How Many Genes are in the Human
Genome? Retrieved from
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/genenumber.sht
ml.

Hunt, E. B., (1995). Will we be smart enough? New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

122
Kellog, R. T., (2006). Chapter 22: Professional writing expertise. In K. A. Ericsson,
N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge
Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (389-402). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, P. J., (2005). Putting principles into practice: Understanding history. National
Research Council of the National Academies,. How Students Learn. (P. 31-
78). Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

Marland, S. P. (1971). In Education of the gifted and talented- Volume one: Report
to the congress of the united states by the commissioner of education.
Washington D. C: U.S. Commission of Education.

Moon, T. R. (2008). Chapter 4- Alternative Assessment. In J. A. Plucker & C. M.
Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: What the research says
(pp. 45-55). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Mugo, F. W. (n.d.). Sampling in research. Retrieved May 12, 2010, from
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/tutorial/Mugo/tutorial.htm

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (2009). Kepler Mission: A
Search for Habitable Planets. Retrieved from http://kepler.nasa.gov/about/.

National Association for Gifted Children, (1994). Differentiation of curriculum and
instruction, Position Statement. Retrieved on August 8, 2009 from:
http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=387.

National Association for Gifted Children (2008). Teacher preparation and program
services/standards. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from:
http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=1863&terms=depth+and+complexity.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983, April). A nation at risk:
The imperative for educational reform. Retrieved August 17, 2009, from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html.

123
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (2007). Building a 21st
century U.S. education system (2007). In B. Wehling (Ed.), Forward (pp. 12-
13). Washington DC: National Commission on Teaching and America's
Future.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2008, February).
Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation
Institutions. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from:
http://ncate.org/public/unitStandardsRubrics.asp?ch=4.

National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking. (1987). Presentation at the 8
th

Annual Conference on Critical Thinking and Educational Reform. Retrieved
on August 14, 2009 from
http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/define_critical_thinking.cfm

National Research Council of the National Academies, (2005). How Students Learn.
Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

National Society for the Study of Education (1958). Education for the gifted (57
th

Yearbook). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction.
Educational Leadership, 50 (7), 8-12.

Norman, Eva, Brooks, and Hamstra, (2008). Chapter 19: Expertise in medicine and
surgery. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman
(Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (21-
30). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Obama, B., (2010). Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address.
Retrieved April 22, 2010, from The White House: Office of the Press
Secretary, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-
state-union-address.

Obama, B., (2009). Taking on Education. Retrieved on July 17
th
, 2009, from The
White House- Blog, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/10/Taking-on-
Education/.

Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Educational psychology: Developing learners (6th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Passow, A. H. (1982). Differentiated curricula for the gifted/talented. Ventura, CA.
Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and Talented.

124
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pea, R., Brown, J. S. (2008) Series forward. In Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (Eds.).
Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Pfeiffer, S. I. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for students who are gifted: What
the experts say. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 161-169.

Reinhard, C., Rogoff, K., (2008). This time is different: A panoramic view of eight
centuries of financial crises. NBER Working Paper #13882. Retrieved on
August 8, 2009 from: http://www.nber.org/papers/w13882.

Renzulli, J. S. (1998). The multiple menu model for developing differentiated
curriculum for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(3), 298-
309.

Resnick, L. B. (1999, June). Making America smarter. Education Week, p. 1.

Rymarchyk, G. (n.d.) Validity. Retrieved on April 22, 2010, from:
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/tutorial/Rymarchk/rymar2.htm

Schwab, J. (1965). Biological sciences curriculum study: Biology teachers’
handbook. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Siemer, S. (2009). Bored out of their minds: The detrimental effect of No Child Left
Behind on gifted children. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy,
539(22), 539-560

Simonton, D. K. (2008). Childhood giftedness and adulthood genius: A
historiometric analysis of 291 eminent African Americans. The Gifted Child
Quarterly, 52(3), 243-256.

Simonton, D. K.. (2006). Chapter 18: Historiometric methods. In K. A. Ericsson, N.
Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook
of Expertise and Expert Performance (319-338). New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Skilton-Sylvester, P. (2003). Less like a robot: A comparison of change in an inner-
city school and a fortune 500. American Educational Research Journal,
40(1), 3-41.

125
Stepien, W. J., & Stepien, W. C., (2006). Chapter 15- “Pulling the cat’s tail in social
studies and history classrooms. In F. A. Dixon & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The
Handbook f Secondary Gifted Education (pp. 393-426). Waco, TX: Prufrock
Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Abilities are forms of developing expertise. American
Educational Research Association, 27(3), 11-20.

Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Why schools should teach for wisdom: The balance theory of
wisdom in educational settings. Educational Psychologist, 36(4), 227-245.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). What is an "expert student?". Educational Researcher, 32(8),
5-9.

Strain, M. (1998). Towards an economy of lifelong learning: Reconceptualising
relations between learning and life. British Journal of Educational Studies,
46(3), 264-277.

Swiatek, M., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2003). Elementary and middle school
students participation in gifted programs: Are gifted students underserved?
Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 118-130.

Taylor, I. A. (1975). A retrospective view of creativity investigation. In I. A. Taylor
and J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity. (pp. 1-36). Chicago, IL;
Aldine Publishing Co.

Tomlinson, C. (1997). The do's and don'ts of instruction: What it means to teach
gifted learners well. Instructional Leader. Retrieved April 24, 2010

Tomlinson, C. A., (2008). Chapter 12- Differentiated Instruction. In J. A. Plucker &
C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: What the research
says (pp. 167-177). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Tomlinson, C. (2008). The differentiated school: Making revolutionary changes in
teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom”
Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

126
Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Renzulli, J. S., Purcell, J., Leppien, J., & Burns, D.
(2002). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop high potential and
challenge high-ability learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Tyler, R., (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

U. S. Department of Education (1993, October). National excellence: A case for
developing America's talent. Retrieved August 17, 2009, from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/DevTalent/part2.html#Part2e.

Weisberg, R. W.. (2006). Chapter 42: Modes of expertise in creative thinking:
Evidence from case studies. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich,
& R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert
Performance (761-787). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children. New York: Basic Books.

Whitley, R. (1984). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford,
Clarendon Press.

127
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Interviewee: Start Time:
Date: End Time:

Introduction:

The purpose of this study is to evaluate an approach to differentiation that was
adopted by the California Board of Education and is integral to the California GATE
Standards (2001; 2005). Depth and Complexity is comprised of a set of 11 prompts
that stimulate inquiry and assimilation of subject matter and range in the intellectual
activity they require: from simple to complex and from concrete to abstract thinking.
This approach is utilized by teachers today to promote high-level, open-ended
reasoning from students identified as gifted.

Information from this interview will attempt to identify the relevance and
applicability of these prompts to an authentic discipline of study.

You will be asked to consider the relationship of eleven prompts of Depth and
Complexity to your discipline as a whole as well as to your specific work. You will
be asked to evaluate the degree to which you consider each of the prompts relevant.
Provided for your reference, will be an explanation of each of the prompts. First,
however, I’d like to gather some information about you and your area of expertise.

Part 1: Background Information

Introduction/Background/Expertise

What is/was your professional title? (Title)
Please describe the education and any specialized training you’ve received in
preparation for the work that you/have done. (Ericsson, 2006) (Degree)
How many years have you been working of have worked in this field?
(Weisburg, 2006). (Years of experience)
Describe any research experience you have. (Research background)
What type of professional experiences have you been engage in during the
course of your career? (Professional experience)
What sort of university affiliation have you had? (University)
Please describe any specific areas of expertise you feel you have developed
through deliberate practice or study.

128
Part 2: Application of Depth and Complexity to the Discipline

1. One characteristic of a discipline is that it possesses specific vocabulary or terms
that the average layperson might not be familiar with. What are some examples of
the language of your discipline?
• What terms do you think would qualify as “highly specific” and are
somewhat unusual to our everyday common language?

2. Details are known as the basic facts or specific pieces of information that form a
complex whole. Examples of details might have to do with dates, people, places,
parts, functions, etc. What details from your discipline, or intricate pieces of
information, would be expected of experts in your discipline to be familiar with?

3. A pattern is something that has repetition. This can refer to characteristic traits
of a person (teenagers, for example) or animal (German Shepherds), or a natural or
chance marking, configuration or design. What are some examples of patterns that
exist in your discipline?
• Where are there examples of repetition in your discipline?

4. There are three definitions of the term “rules” that I would like to share with you,
and then I’ll ask if these bring to mind examples that relate to your discipline.
1. a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, or procedure: the
rules of chess.
2. the customary or normal circumstance, manner, practice, etc.: the rule
rather than the exception.
3. reign of office: during the rule of George III
4. a prescribed mathematical method for performing a calculation or solving
a problem.
What are some examples of rules that exist in your field?

5. A trend describes a general tendency or an inclination towards something during a
particular period of time. What trends exist or have existed in your field?
• What is something that has gathered momentum or popularity over a
period of time?

6. What are some unanswered questions in your field? What is ambiguous or
unknown? What are people in your discipline continuing to try to research or
discover?

7. What are some of the ethical issues or concerns that exist or are being debated in
your field?
• What is an example of controversy, that revolves around ethical practice
in your field?

129
8. Examples of a big idea would be a generalization, theory, principle, or law. What
are some examples of these in your discipline?

9. How do multiple perspectives, or differing points of view, play a role in your
discipline?

10. What relationship does your discipline have to other disciplines?
• What background knowledge from other disciplines would an expert in
yours be expected to have?

11. What are some examples of significant changes that have taken place over
time in your discipline? How has your field evolved?

Part 3: Relevancy of Depth and Complexity

For this last section, I am going to ask you to assess these prompts according to
criteria. After you have sorted them, please explain your reasoning aloud (Feltovich,
Prietula, & Ericsson, 2006).

1) Please categorize the prompts of Depth and Complexity according to
frequency of use. Which do you ponder most frequently, which do you
ponder on a somewhat frequent basis, and which you ponder least
frequently.
o What reasons can you offer as to why this may be?
o How would you define “frequent”?

2) Please place the prompts along a continuum of most-to-least relevant to your
work. Explain your organization.

Part 4: Closing Statements

Do you have any closing statements or questions for me? Is there anything we
haven’t covered that you think might be relevant to this study or the relationship
between the prompts and your discipline? Thank you for your time!

130
APPENDIX B
USE OF ABSOLUTE TERMS TO INDICATE HIGH RELEVANCY BY
SCIENTISTS
Organic Chemist Oncologist Horticulturalist
Language of the
Discipline
“That’s [used] every
day.”

Details “That’s [used] every
day.”
“They were the things
we dealt with all the
time, everyday.”
“I would almost
certainly think that
modern day researchers
in agriculture would be
aware of these…”
Patterns “Patterns, again, that’s
[used] every day.”
“…patterns of [patient
care], they were the
things we dealt with all
the time, every day.”

Trends
Rules “You’re depending
upon the ability to
describe compounds
and chemical reactions
according to rules
basically every day.”

Unanswered
Questions

Ethics “Ethics, now that’s
there all the time,
implicitly implied all
the time.”
“I would say ethics
underpin everything.”

Big Ideas “Your thoughts
always embody
these…”

Multiple
Perspectives

Change Over
Time
“That’s always there
in the back of your
mind.”

Interdisciplinary
Relationships
“That’s where it is
these days.”
“It’s subtle, but its all
there.”

131
APPENDIX C
USE OF ABSOLUTE TERMS TO INDICATE HIGH RELEVANCY BY
SOCIAL SCIENTISTS
Anthropologist Russian Historian European Historian
Language of the
Discipline

Details “We’re spending all of
our time [crafting
narratives out of a
“bunch of facts.”]
Patterns “I never stop talking about
[patterns].”
“Everybody
studies patterns.”
“I think you’re
constantly inviting
students to make
comparisons over
time… and them you’re
looking for similarities.”
Trends “Well, there’s trends in
everything.”

Rules “All cultures have structure.” “I think you’re always
wondering about who’s
got power and why.”
Unanswered
Questions

Ethics “This always comes up when
we talk about sex or marriage.”
“I would say ethics
underpin
everything.”

Big Ideas
Multiple
Perspectives
“All the time. I mean, the
literature is full of it.”

Change Over
Time
“In anthropology, we always
take something like from the
Kung bushman up to the
present and do the examples of
how cultural systems change,
depending on their size and
complexity.”
“We’re always
trying to show
change over time.”

Interdisciplinary
Relationships
“[History] overlaps
with everything.”

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Depth and Complexity a set of prompts or concepts, represented an approach to curriculum differentiation for gifted students, that originated from a California Department of Education (1994) document describing educational needs for gifted students. Derived from three sources: (1) a review of Advance Placement curriculum and assessment, (2) a study of California Golden State Exam requirements, and (3) conventional wisdom about the accelerated needs of gifted students and the nature of academic disciplines, the prompts of Depth and Complexity have been integrated as a G.A.T.E. standard (CDE, 2005). While they were designed to create learning experiences that nurture excellence and develop expert-practice among gifted students, a study demonstrating how the 11 prompts of Depth and Complexity were relevant and applicable to academic disciplines had yet to be conducted. Findings from this study explored the concepts of Depth and Complexity and described their relationship to the academic disciplines.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice

PDF

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

PDF

A comparative study of novice and veteran teachers in response to principal initiated efforts to cultivate a positive school culture

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The operationalization of excellence in teaching and scholarship: the role of the academic dean in the school of education

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of programs, practices, and strategies on student academic performance: a case study

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

A case study about the implied and perceived messages sent by one teacher through instruction for academic and behavioral expectations of students

Asset Metadata

Creator Lauer, Joanna L. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 05/28/2010

Defense Date 05/10/2010

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

Tag academic disciplines,authentic learning,depth and complexity,differentiation,Gifted Education,OAI-PMH Harvest,prompts

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kaplan, Sandra N. (committee chair), Keim, Robert G. (committee member), Pensavalle, Margo T. (committee member)

Creator Email jblake99@aol.com,wahoos1@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3102

Unique identifier UC1427915

Identifier etd-Lauer-3574 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-338373 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3102 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Lauer-3574.pdf

Dmrecord 338373

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lauer, Joanna L.

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