University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE SPILL-OVER EFFECT: AN EXAMINATION OF DIFFERENTIATED
CURRICULUM DESIGNS IN A HETEROGENEOUS CLASSROOM

by

Terry Jean Petersen

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Terry Jean Petersen

ii
DEDICATION

To my husband Greg and daughters Melanie, Megan, and Marissa…

You have caringly given me your love
and have graciously received my love in return.
The profound fulfillment that your lives have brought me is beyond measure.

I will always be humbled and heartened
by your lovingly loyal support of my professional journey over the years.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have so many people to thank for making this dissertation possible. First
to my faculty advisor and dissertation chair, Dr. Sandra Kaplan, who imparted her
wealth of knowledge and expertise with witty professionalism throughout my
doctoral study. I was grateful and honored to be engaged in the act of collective
inquiry under her esteemed guidance. I will always be inspired by the
relentlessness of her dedication to the field of gifted education. I would also like to
extend my appreciation and gratitude to the professors who served as my
committee members: Dr. Gisele Ragusa who served as a knowledgeable resource
for my research design and to Dr. Margo Pensavalle for her reflective contributions
and review of my study.
Then, there are the members of my thematic cohort who provided
invaluable feedback on each draft of this dissertation and were cherished colleagues
throughout this professional journey: Dena Sellers who was always ready with her
laptop to serve as our group’s collective scribe and resident researcher; Rebecca
Nakagawa who encouraged the group along the way and was able to provide a
positive perspective even when the process seemed daunting; and finally, to fellow
doctoral student Georgianna Ravenna, who served as a constant source of
encouragement and support, sharing her brilliance as a writer and practitioner with
genuine kindness and thoughtfulness. She became not only a respected and trusted
colleague but also a faithful and loyal friend along the way.

iv
Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. Courtney Malloy for the clarity and
supportive assistance she provided with the qualitative analysis and to Dr. Sarah
Walker for her statistical advice. Sarah Novak’s expertise and conscientiousness
was appreciated throughout the editing process. The supportive commitment of
these three individuals proved to be invaluable during the final stages of the
dissertation process.
Finally, I would like to thank all of the elementary teachers of the gifted
(Los Angeles Unified, Santa Ana Unified, Oceanside, and Brawley School
Districts) who participated in the USC Javits Models of Teaching Grant, each of
whom were tirelessly committed to their professional development experiences in
order to improve instructional practice and affect change in their content and
pedagogical knowledge. Their participation in this research study was indicative of
and a tribute to this noble profession we share.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES viii
ABSTRACT x

CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Purpose of the Study 3
Significance of the Study 4
Research Questions 6
Theoretical Framework 7
Methodological Design 8
Assumptions 10
Limitations 10
Delimitations 11
Definition of Terms 12

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 18
Introduction 18
Social and Political Implications of
Gifted Education 18
Characteristics of a Gifted Student and a
Gifted Teacher 24
Standards-Based Core Curriculum and its
Impact on Gifted Education 30
Teacher Perception and Choice 34
Teacher Efficacy 37
Grouping Practices for Gifted and Non-Gifted
Students 42
Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum Design 48
Spill-over Between Gifted and General Education 52
Conclusion 55

vi

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHOD 57
Introduction 57
Research Questions 60
Subjects and Sampling 62
Instrumentation 64
Research Procedure 65
Pilot Study 68
Data Analysis 71
Timeline 75
Validity and Reliability 76
Conclusion 79

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 80
Introduction 80
Project Description 81
Project Population 84
Research Question One 85
Figure 1: Pictorial Representation of Definition
Preferred and Means to Spill-Over 95
Research Question Two 104
Research Question Three 120
Summary of Findings 145

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS 149
Overview 149
Purpose of Study 149
Methodology 150
Key Findings 152
Limitations 156
Implications for Future Research 158
Recommendations 162
Conclusion 164

REFERENCES 167

APPENDICES 183

Appendix A Instrument: Teacher Questionnaire 183
Appendix B Instrument: Teacher Interview 196
Appendix C Interview Script 204

vii
Appendix D Introductory Letter to Principal 210
Appendix E Introductory Letter to Participant 212
Appendix F Consent to Participate in Research 214

viii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Research Method 9

Table 2: Participant Pool 63

Table 3: Research Procedure 68

Table 4: Research Study Timeline 76

Table 5: Javits Project Demographics 83

Table 6: Experimental and Comparison Groups 85

Table 7: Prototypes to Differentiate Curriculum:
Preferred Design 90

Table 8: Protoypes to Differentiate Curriculum:
Chi Square Sub-Analysis of Definition 91

Table 9: Prototypes to Differentiate Curriculum:
Means or Strategy to Spill-Over 93

Table 10: Prototypes to Differentite Curriculum:
Chi Square Sub-Analysis of Spill-Over 94

Table 11: Participant Classroom Grouping Patterns 97

Table 12: Teacher Experience of Javits Participants 99

Table 13: Teacher Certification of Javits Participants 101

Table 14: Expertise as a Professional Educator of
Gifted Students of Javits Participants 103

Table 15: Teacher Questionnaire, Section III, Item Analysis 106

Table 16: Differentiated Curriculum and Instructional Strategies
(Inclusive Composite Group) 110

ix
Table 17: Experimental and Comparison Groups:
Primary Reasons for Choices 116

Table 18: Interview Subjects 122

Table 19: Types and Topics of Interview Questions 124

Table 20: Potential of Spill-Over Effect 129

Table 21: Differentiated Content Standard Taught
To Various Classroom Compositions 132

Table 22: Level of Expertise as a Professional Educator 136

Table 23: Level of Confidence in Decision-Making Abilities 137

Table 24: Impact of Professional Training 141

x
ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research study was to compare curriculum designs that
best represent the teacher’s definition of differentiated curriculum for gifted
students and the means by which that curriculum can spill-over and affect the
education of all learners in a heterogeneous classroom. Three broad questions
guided this investigation. The researcher explored the relationship between a
teacher’s choice of a differentiated curriculum design for gifted students and the
same teacher’s selection for all learners in a heterogeneous class. The researcher
also examined the teacher’s preference for differentiated curriculum and
instructional strategies. The researcher further studied how teacher training and the
composition of students in the class affected the teacher’s perceptions of spill-over.
The intent of this two-phase sequential mixed methods study was to obtain
quantitative results from a purposeful sample and then follow up with selected
individuals to qualitatively probe those results in depth. In the first phase, a
questionnaire was used to examine the teacher’s specific preferences for
differentiated curriculum and instructional designs and the reasons to support their
primary choice. Participants included 56 teachers of grades 2-5 students from four
Southern California school districts representative of urban, suburban, and rural
areas. In the second phase, interviews were conducted to further examine the effect
of extending or differentiating the core curriculum where class composition and
student needs, interests, and abilities varied. Participants included six subjects

xi
selected through a purposeful sampling. Data were analyzed using descriptive and
content analysis.
The findings revealed that the use of a curricular differentiation approach is
perceived by teachers to promote the quality of learning for all students. The
findings further suggested that teachers perceive many of the attributes commonly
delineated in differentiated curriculum for gifted students to correspond and spill-
over to the teaching process for students within a variety of classroom settings but
most favorably within a heterogeneous composition and/or a cluster composition
with other heterogeneous students. This research study provides a justification for
much broader conceptions of talent development of students that display a wide
variety of human abilities within a heterogeneous classroom setting.

1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Introduction

“Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational
excellence throughout the nation”
(U.S. Department of Education, 2007)

In a modern and complex society, the differences between the uneducated
person, the slightly educated person, and the highly educated person is a
phenomenal one (Gallagher, 1966). From the beginning and as it still persists
today, “the practice of gifted education has been criticized on the grounds that it is
at odds with education in a democracy and that it violates principles of equity that
are, or ought to be, paramount to our society” (Borland, 2003, 307). On the other
hand, some researchers believe that “justice is achieved not by equality of
treatment, but by equality of opportunity,” thus purporting all children be given
equal access to practices designed to meet their learning needs, including those of
the gifted (Feldhusen & Moon, 1992, 142). If our national goal is to ensure equal
access and promote educational excellence, then “we as educators had better be
ready to respond constructively to provide everyone —the fast runner, the slow,
and everyone in between — with an appropriate educational experience”
(Gallagher, 1994, 95). Some researchers assert that the artificial ceiling (Bates &

2
Munday, 2005) should be taken away to afford all students the opportunities to
reach their potential. To achieve such potentiality, the question of how to
differentiate for such diversity must be considered, and as such, it was the rationale
for this study’s importance to the educator.

Statement of the Problem

Recent literature demonstrates that gifted children themselves are diverse
(Matthews & Keating, 1995) and vary in ways in which they are gifted in terms of
their social, cognitive, and academic needs (Moon & Rosselli, 2000). Researchers
who believe that gifted students are not homogeneous find teachers having to
match the intellectual and personal needs of a gifted student on one hand while
making decisions about learning opportunities on the other (VanTassel-Baska,
Quek, & Feng, 2007). According to some current researchers, this requires
expertise, flexibility and ingenuity (Matthews & Foster, 2005a) and also often
demands dynamically responsive and scaffolded support mechanisms (Matthews &
Foster, 2005b). If such curricular and instructional decision-making for gifted
students will effect positive change, the question of any spill-over effect on
students’ learning within a heterogeneous classroom is of educational interest.
Looking at classroom pedagogical practices is important according to many
researchers (Bruner, 1996; Vgotsky, 1978) and others in the field of cognitive
science when framing education in a relational construct. According to Matsui

3
(2007), looking at “bell-to-bell and wall-to-wall” classroom practices from a
contextual setting forms and informs outcome data. While research on the quality
of spill-over is limited, this study analyzed the effects of extending or
differentiating the core curriculum so that the academic needs of all students are
met even when their interests, abilities and experiences vary within a heterogeneous
classroom.

Purpose of the Study

“Many of the attributes delineated in research in gifted education
correspond to characteristics necessary for any teaching process” (Croft, 2003,
369). According to Tomlinson (1999), effective teachers recognize student
variance and address it appropriately. In the midst of reform, inclusionary
practices, and equity (Johnsen, 1999), an important goal of educators is the
development and implementation of appropriate educational practices that motivate
and challenge all learners to achieve their potential. Because a differentiated
curriculum philosophy promotes thinking skills, it is advocated as a preferred
curriculum design for gifted students (VanTessel-Baska, et al., 2007). Used more
commonly in gifted education programs, this differentiated philosophy can be
extended to students of all ability levels to provide the opportunity for high-end
learning (Reis, 2003; CAG, 2003). Differentiation, at its best, consists of the
efforts of teachers to respond to variance among learners in the classroom

4
(Tomlinson, 2001b) in an attempt to maximize students’ individual potential. This
study will provide a theoretical piece that reflects current knowledge and
understanding of differentiation in the field of gifted education.
Researcher Borland (2003) posited: “Were we to set as our goal the
creation of schools in which curriculum and instruction mirrored the diversity that
is found in the human race, and were we to achieve this goal, the only legitimate
aim of gifted education would be achieved” (119). The purpose of this study was
to investigate differentiated curriculum designs for gifted students in a variety of
contemporary contextual settings and to examine what reasons affect the
curriculum design selected for gifted students that would also spill-over to affect all
learners in a heterogeneous classroom of economically, culturally, linguistically,
and academically diverse students.

Significance of the Study

The NAGC (National Association for Gifted Children, 1998a) posited that
education in a democracy respects the uniqueness of all individuals and, as such,
collaboration efforts to provide opportunities for gifted education to make positive
contributions among student populations of general education classrooms is
important. With the understanding that California’s schools serve the most diverse
student population in the nation (California Association for the Gifted & California
Department of Education, 1994), there is a need to study the practices of classroom

5
practitioners to determine any potential benefits of learning opportunities involving
differentiated curriculum designs for gifted and talented students which might have
causal effects on all learners in heterogeneous classrooms. Responding to the need
to serve increasingly diverse populations, Borland (2003) believes that these
changes bring a need to examine the impact of gifted programs beyond the program
itself (297).
Back in 1970, there was a congressional mandate requesting a status report
on the education of gifted and talented children. Done over thirty-five years ago
and referred to as the landmark “Marland Report” (U.S. Commissioner of
Education, 1971), this study cited the particular injustice that occurred through
apathy toward specific populations of students. The Marland Report asked:
“Aren’t special provisions undemocratic?” and then went on to stated: “If
democratic educational practice is interpreted as the same education for all, the
answer is yes. If we believe that democratic education means appropriate
educational opportunities and the right to education in keeping with one’s ability to
benefit, the answer is no” (25). Researcher Sandra Kaplan (2000) describes spill-
over as an important element in serving “the needs of a specific population, such as
the gifted, while simultaneously generalizing the value derived from attending to
this particular population to more or all other students” (21). This study is intended
to focus on the certain conditions, which precipitate a spill-over effect, and to
examine its impact on the field of gifted education as well as on education in
general.

6
Research Questions

Using descriptive quantitative results based on teachers’ perceptions as well
as qualitative comparative analysis, this study compared the curriculum examples
that best represent the teacher’s definition of differentiated curriculum for gifted
students and the means by which this curriculum can spill-over and affect the
education of all learners in a heterogeneous classroom. Using mixed methods
analysis strategies, this investigation also sought to better understand what reasons
affect a teacher’s selection of differentiated curriculum designs to achieve this
affect. Specifically, this study focused on answering the following research
questions:
1. What is the relationship between the teacher’s choice of a differentiated
curriculum design for gifted students and the same teacher’s selection of a
differentiated curriculum design to spill-over and affect all students in a
heterogeneous classroom?
2. What are the reasons affecting the teacher’s selection of differentiated
curriculum and instructional designs, appropriate for grades 2-5 gifted
students?
3. How are the teacher’s perceptions of spill-over of differentiated curriculum
designs for gifted students affected by the teacher’s training in gifted
education and the composition (or grouping) of students in a classroom?

7
Theoretical Framework

Grounded theory is meant to build on theory rather than to test theory
(Patton, 2002). While there are many different theoretical stances around which
this study could have been framed, this study was informed by Dewey’s basic
principles of learning theory. Dewey (1938) described curriculum methods and
instructional options that would make teaching more individually responsive to the
learner through an adaptive mode of teaching. In contrast to standardized teaching,
this adaptive model is focused on differentiating learning for each student through
an educational environment that maximizes learning and provides for a range of
opportunities for success. Dewey further posited that models of teaching be
adjusted to individuals focusing on their backgrounds, talents, interests, and the
nature of their past performance. So, while not a new notion, such differentiated
teaching requires deep and sophisticated knowledge about learning, learners, and
content.
Integral to this process of education is the teacher’s choices and decisions
made within the educational environment and thus the focus of this research study.
Dewey adopted what, in current terms, would be called a social constructivist view
of teaching. With social constructivism, “the focus shifts away from the teacher as
a designer of problematic environments toward that of being an intellectual leader,
a person who can get the class as a social unity interested and excited about ideas”
(Prawat, 2000, 827). Constructivist learning theory is supported by a growing body

8
of research. At the forefront of this literature is the social process of idea making
that permeates through the work of Lev Vgotsky’s designs. Vygotsky (1978)
suggested that we learn through person-to-person interactions that lead to deep
understanding. “Skillful teacher questioning that guides the social interactions in
the classroom is the mark of a master architect, clearly reflecting Vygotsky’s
thinking” (Fogarty, 1999, 77). The theoretical framework of Dewey, Vygotsky and
other social constructivists could be characterized by a teacher who “uses teaching
methods that help students develop, reflect on, evaluate, and modify their own
learning” and “negotiates possible problem solutions with students and alters
instruction accordingly” (Andrew, 2007, 163). As such, the research questions of
this research design are grounded in a social constructivist learning theory.

Methodological Design

Researchers studying teachers have documented that teaching is a complex,
often messy, interactive exchange as teachers seek to engage students in learning
new material while at the same time respond to the heterogeneous needs of children
with varied backgrounds, interest, and ideas (National Research Council, 2002).
As a mixed-method design, this study relied on both quantitative and qualitative
measures that examined differentiated curriculum designs for gifted students,
grades 2-5, and what spill-over effect they had on all learners in heterogeneous
classrooms. The purposive sample population included 56 teachers in urban,

9
suburban, and rural districts in Southern California. The primary method of data
collection included a teacher questionnaire that was used to formulate
contributions, based on teacher perception, to a spill-over effect. In addition,
teacher interviews were conducted to further focus on the teachers’ choice and
selection of differentiated curriculum designs for gifted students and its effect on
all students in a heterogeneous classroom (see Table 1). The teacher questionnaire
and teacher interviews were carried out using Institutional Review Board (IRB)
approved protocols from the University of Southern California.

Table 1. Research Method

Research Question Area Instrument Purpose
Teacher selection of
differentiated curriculum
Teacher Questionnaire Define teachers’ selection of
differentiated curriculum
and their same selection of a
curriculum design to spill-
over and affect all students
Reasons affecting teacher
selection of differentiated
and instructional designs
Teacher Questionnaire Describe reasons that
influence teachers’ selection
of differentiated curriculum
designs to spill-over and
affect all students
Teacher perception of spill-
over
Teacher Interview Examine teachers’
perceptions and philosophic
position on differentiated
curriculum designs and their
potential to spill-over and
affect all students

10
Assumptions

It is assumed that all procedures of this study were conducted with ethical
consideration, following the IRB approved process. Informing participants of the
confidential nature of their responses allowed for complete honesty on their part.
Furthermore, it was implicit that the respondents’ professional integrity would
ensure serious consideration and thoughtful inquiry to all elements of the data
collection. Because the spill-over effect is such a complex endeavor and contextual
in its execution and manner, it is understood that specific contexts would contribute
to teachers’ decisions in their attempt to address students’ academic needs.
Knowing beliefs about teaching and learning underlie any possible spill-over effect,
it was assumed that the responses and practices of the participating teachers could
have been influenced and enhanced by the professional development training that
they received in the grant dissemination.

Limitations

It should be noted that the research questions related to this study were
defined by the specifications of a federal grant award and that the data analysis was
responsive to the grant research questions. Because the study sample was
predetermined through the grant specifications, the relationship between the
researcher and the participants was limited to the teacher interview process. Under
grant provisions, some restrictions were placed on the researcher in the

11
development of instruments used for this study. Data collection procedures for the
grant were already defined adhering to the demands of the Institutional Review
Board at the University of Southern California and therefore influenced the
contextual framework of this study. Understanding the purposeful particular
sample studied, subjects may have gained in-depth insights into the phenomena of
spill-over through their participation in the Javits grant that might not otherwise
have been attainable through a random sampling of subjects.

Delimitations

This research project was linked to the research efforts of a grant awarded
to the University of Southern California under the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and
Talented Students Education Act of the U.S. Department of Education (PR
#S206A040072). It was built on research and educational philosophy of this
federal program that specifically targeted gifted and talented children. The quality
of information gathered through the teacher questionnaire and the teacher
interviews provided a wealth of data that was gathered. However, with these
qualitative techniques, generalization and interviewer bias could have influenced
participant responses. In addition, striking a balance in the findings between the
description of spill-over and analysis was difficult. With qualitative research, there
is a need to guard against the error of segregation (Wimmer & Dominick, 2003)

12
that occurs when the data is separated so far from the analysis that readers cannot
make the connection.
Generalized opinions and conclusions varied little within the participating
urban, suburban, and rural school districts thus possibly limiting any findings. It is
reasonable to believe that some of the personal biases of the teachers in this study
were reflected in the research and findings of this study. Because the study was
limited to insights as they pertained to each contextual setting, concepts were not
easily generalized. The time of year the questionnaire and interviews were
administered may have had an effect on outcomes as well as the acknowledgment
that what works well in one place under specified conditions may or may not work
elsewhere. Because the pool of participants was relatively small (approximately 44
Experimental Teachers and 12 Control Teachers), a more comprehensive
investigation involving a statistically significant population of 300 or more
participants might have rendered differing results.

Definitions of Terms

Ability Grouping — A classroom strategy used for grouping students by
need, interest, or ability. The groupings are formed and reformed to meet varied
instructional purposes (California Association for the Gifted, 2007).
Acceleration — A strategy for pacing students through the curriculum at a
rate that is commensurate with their ability and allows them to go as far and/or

13
move as fast as their interests and abilities permit (California Association for the
Gifted).
Cluster Grouping — Pupils with similar needs, interests, and/or abilities are
grouped within a regular classroom setting and receive appropriately differentiated
curriculum from the regular classroom teacher, CCR, Title 5, Chapter 4, Section
3840 (d) (California Code of Regulations).
Complexity — An interdisciplinary approach to content that involves a
process of thinking which combines many ideas or parts to develop complicated
and interrelated wholes by making connections and showing relationships between
concepts (California Association for the Gifted, 2007).
Content Standards — Specific academic knowledge, skills, and abilities that
all public schools in the state are expected to teach and all pupils are expected to
learn in each of the core curriculum areas at each grade level (California
Association for the Gifted, 2007).
Core Curriculum or Standards-Based Curriculum — Described as the
“thinking curriculum,” State Board adopted content-based standards and
curriculum frameworks in core subject-matter areas, including reading/language
arts, foreign language, history-social science, health, mathematics, physical
education, science, and the visual and performing arts encourage students to
integrate their knowledge, experience, and skills across disciplines, topics, and
concepts (California Association for the Gifted, 2007 & California Department of
Education, 1994).

14
Culturally, Linguistically, Economically Diverse Gifted and Talented Pupil
— Provisions are made for examining a pupil’s range of capacities to provide equal
opportunities for students of diverse linguistic, economic, and cultural backgrounds
with services designed to assist them in developing their potential to achieve high
levels commensurate with their abilities (California Department of Education,
1995).
Depth — The exploration of a curricular topic through a thought process
which seeks to understand concepts and generalizations by examining the facts,
principles and theories related to them (California Association for the Gifted).
Differentiated Curriculum — The modification of the core curriculum that
challenges and meets the unique needs of the gifted learner. It may include
modifications in complexity, depth, pacing, and selecting among, rather than
covering all, of the curriculum areas (California Association for the Gifted, 2007 &
California Department of Education, 1994).
Gifted and Talented Identification — Equitable, comprehensive, and
ongoing nomination/referral process that reflects the district’s definition of
giftedness and its relationship to current state criteria for students in grades
kindergarten through grade twelve … regardless of socioeconomic, linguistic, or
cultural background, and/or disabilities, EC 52202 (Education Code).
Gifted and Talented Program — An appropriately differentiated curriculum
provided by a district for identified gifted and talented pupils, EC 52201[c]
(Education Code).

15
Gifted and Talent Program Types — Four program types used most
frequently in gifted education: Within-Class Programs – provide students with
special education services while in the regular classroom such as heterogeneous or
cluster grouping; Pull-Out Programs – provide instruction in the regular classroom
but leave for a portion of day/week to attend special classes; Separate Class
Programs – provide grouping of students by ability for most or all of their
academic class work such as a homogeneous grouping; Special School Programs –
Full time instruction at a more advanced pace and/or with more thorough coverage
of content such as a special day class grouping (Gallagher, Weiss, Oglesby, &
Thomas, 1983).
Gifted and Talented Pupil — A pupil enrolled in a public elementary or
secondary school who is identified as possessing demonstrated or potential abilities
that give evidence of high performance capability, EC Section 52201[a] (Education
Code).
Gifted and Talented Standards — Unique opportunities for high-achieving
and under-achieving pupils who are identified as gifted and talented (California
Department of Education, 1995).
Gifted and Talented Teacher — A GATE teacher provides differentiated
curriculum and learning opportunities for gifted students; provides flexible
grouping within the classroom or between classrooms to provide large and small
collaborative learning opportunities with peers and with other students based on
interests or abilities (California Department of Education, 1995).

16
Heterogeneous Grouping — Heterogeneous grouping refers to grouping
students by age with no regard to differences in sex, race, ability, and achievement
(California Association for the Gifted, 2007).
High Achiever — A pupil who consistently produces advanced ideas and
products and/or attains exceptionally high scores on achievement tests (California
Department of Education, 1995).
Highly Qualified Teacher — Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), a highly
qualified teacher must have a bachelor’s degree, full state certification as defined
by the state, and demonstrate competency, as defined by the state, in each core
academic subject he or she teaches (U.S. Department of Education, 2007).
Homogeneous Grouping — Homogeneous grouping refers to grouping by
the demonstrated need, ability, or interest of the student (California Association for
the Gifted, 2007).
Instruction — The instructional program for all students, including the
support and services provided for students with special needs, and the procedures
for monitoring student progress toward standards, EC Section 52206 (Education
Code).
Models of Teaching — A structural framework that serves as a guide for
developing specific educational activities and environments (Maker & Nielson,
1995).

17
Scaffolding — An instructional strategy that provides carefully structured
and sequenced support for learning new and increasingly more difficult tasks
(California Association for the Gifted, 2007).
Self-Concept — A person’s self-perceptions and how they are formed
through experiences and interpretation of experiences with the environment
(Shavelson & Stanton, 1976).
Special-Day Class — A class totaling a minimum school day that is
composed of pupils identified as gifted and talented, is especially designed to meet
the specific academic needs of gifted and talented pupils for enriched and advanced
instruction and is appropriately differentiated from other classes in the same
subjects at the school, and is taught by a teacher who has specific preparation,
experience, personal attributes and competencies in the teaching of gifted children,
CCR, Title 5, Chapter 4, Section 3840[a] (California Code of Regulations).
Spill-over — A quality that spills over; the ready transmission or spread as
of an idea or emotion from person to person; a contagion effect from one event
setting off a chain of events; causal sequence (Lexicon Group, 2007).
Student/Teacher Self-Efficacy — Sense of competence about ability to
perform activities successfully (Omrod, 2002).
Under Achiever — A pupil that is recognized to have a discrepancy between
ability and actual academic performance. The causes of underachievement may be
social, emotional, physical or academic (California Association for the Gifted,
2007).

18
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

A considerable research base has accumulated regarding gifted education.
To navigate through this review of literature pertinent to the question of any spill-
over effect of differentiated curriculum designs to all learners in a heterogeneous
classroom, eight key areas have been identified:
1. Social and political implications of gifted education
2. Characteristics of a gifted student and a gifted teacher
3. Standards-based core curriculum and its impact on gifted education
4. Teacher perceptions and choice
5. Teacher efficacy
6. Grouping practices for gifted and non-gifted students
7. Elements of a differentiated curriculum design
8. Spill-over between gifted and general education

Social and Political Implications of Gifted Education

The issues of fairness, equity, different needs, elitism, and society’s goals
all enter into any discussion of society’s perceptions of gifted education (Clark,
1997). Based on the democratic principles of our society, the school, as an

19
extension of those political and social ideals, purports to provide an equal
educational opportunity for all children to reach their fullest potential. The
question of how we foster excellence and yet maintain equality underscores a basic
tension in American society and has major implications in terms of equal
educational opportunities for all children. All children would include those in
general education, gifted education, or special education.
Clearly, the gifted child movement has benefited from the focus on
excellence but has also, for survival purposes, needed to embrace equity (Cohen,
1996). One of the earliest analysts of American culture to recognize this dual
nature of democracy was Alexis de Tocqueville. In Democracy in America, he
observed that democracy breeds individualism (Tocqueville, 1899). The notion
that the public school should be the instrument of democracy has been deeply
rooted in our country’s social and political history (McDaniel, 2002). Early
educational leaders such as Thomas Jefferson, Horace Mann, and John Dewey,
along with later leaders like James Conant led the way to the current reformers who
have had to resolve over the years the dilemma between excellence and equity.
The Jeffersonian era brought a crusade against ignorance by espousing a country
that needed talented leaders to govern and intelligent citizens to vote (Lee, 1961).
Mann also saw education as a way to produce a moral and enlightened citizenry.
John Dewey emphasized the social goals of education as a way to heal a democracy
fragmented by the Industrial Revolution (Dewey, 1916). Conan (1959) posited that
the need of our American society was the production of highly trained specialists

20
who would keep our country competitive in the international arena. These early
educational reformers saw education as a means to address the political and social
needs of the larger society.
In giving his historical perspective on excellence and equity, McDaniel
(2002) stated: “Gifted students are an important part of our society … but all
citizens must be prepared to be productive workers and problem solvers in a
heterogeneous work force. Excellence must be a goal for all students” (113). With
that in mind, the early 1980’s brought about a proliferation of more than twenty
commissioned reports (Passow, 1984), with each of these commissions positing a
declining quality of American education. The public being served by the 1980’s
was far more diverse than the one envisioned by Jefferson, Mann, and Dewey. In
1983, A Nation at Risk reported that the “educational foundations of our society are
presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very nation
and people” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Around the
same time, J. Goodlad (1984) espoused an even bleaker belief: “American schools
are in trouble. In fact, the problems of schooling are of such crippling proportions
that many schools may not survive. It is possible that our entire public education
system is nearing collapse” (196). California’s efforts in the early 1980’s to
develop a gifted program exemplify this socio-cultural dilemma. It initially aimed
to do the following:
1. Demonstrate the diversity of available programs.
2. Identify significant attributes that make these programs work.

21
3. Illustrate the effort of a large-scale program to diversify its gifted program
population.
4. Reveal the larger social and political influences currently inhibiting the
development of gifted and talented programs (California State Department of
Education, 1979).
Based on a three-year evaluation of California’s 433 Gifted and Talented (GATE)
Program (Fetterman & Wood, 1982), the ethnographic portion of the evaluation
identified the historical roots of these charges of elitism as reflecting “a subtle
paradox in American culture … the ambivalence inherent in democracy” (9).
(Tannenbaum, 1983) further corroborated the concept of ambivalence held towards
extraordinary abilities or performances, pointing out that this paradox encouraged
extraordinary development but simultaneously limited support for it. Further
examination specifically focused attention on able learners, a group that included
the gifted and the high achiever. Referred to as the Richardson study (Cox, Daniel,
& Boston, 1985), this report on education programs argued that the educational
arena of gifted and talented education needed to become a national priority.
(Gallagher, 1979, 1986, 1988) described this love-hate relationship with the gifted
in this country as a series of political and social swings. (Cohen, 1996) posited
that:
The focus is determined by the degree to which this nation feels
threatened by outside forces (i.e., the Soviet Union’s placing
Sputnik in space in 1957), and as it searches for excellence to
resolve the crisis, it expands services to the gifted. On the other
hand, during comfortable and complacent times, the focus is more

22
on equity and equality opportunity, which results in curtailment of
service to the gifted. Of course, other aspects of the system are
affected by such political priorities — funding, legislation, and
support for gifted programs to name a few (3).

Thus, “this fundamental contradiction in American culture between individualism
and conformity provides the cultural backdrop for the political conflict surrounding
gifted and talented programs” (Fetterman, 1988, 22). In fact, there is little or no
evidence over the last forty years to refute that there has not been considerable
political, economic and social influences in gifted education. “Currently, the
literature is replete with the need to make decisions for students and design
educational opportunities that are founded on the concept of social justice,”
(Kaplan, 2004b, 59).
Leading us into the twenty-first century, there is a belief that the overriding
quest for equity has been pursued at the expense of excellence in gifted education
(Glass, 2004). In 2001, the U.S. Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) designed to improved schools for all students within that system. Passed
by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress, it was intended to “soften
bigotry of low expectations” (U.S Department of Education, 2007). In a 2005 press
release on the federal Act, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, described NCLB in these
terms:
The premise of NCLB is clear and essential. All children can
learn. Not just children from homes of privilege, children from
suburbia or children from a certain ethnic background. It also
recognizes that for too long, far too many children from ethnic
minorities, children of poverty and children with developmental
disabilities have been ill-served by the educational status quo in

23
America that all too often buries and hides the system's failure.
NCLB holds schools accountable for closing this "achievement
gap (Gov. Owens, 2005).

This law joins such landmark legislation as the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964
and the Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act of 1975 in reinforcing the
fundamental American educational policy of equity with the stated goal being that
every child has an equal opportunity to profit from education. With the approach
of the law’s reauthorization, conversations focusing on how to strengthen the Act
have been widely publicized. In the recent U.S. publication (January, 2007)
entitled Building on Results: A Blueprint for Strengthening the No Child Left
Behind Act, U.S. Department of Education Secretary Margaret Spelling, quoted
President George Bush as saying the re-authorization of this federal legislation
ensures “all students will have a better chance to learn, excel, and to live out their
dreams” (1). Gifted expert J. Gallagher posited that NCLB could provide a stage
upon which to make a case for differentiated curriculum for gifted students, for
properly trained teachers to be able to teach them, and a sophisticated evaluation
protocol to measure their advanced skills and learning (Gallagher, 2004). He
stated: “By focusing on these issues in education of gifted students, we can remind
our friends that excellence as well as equity is a legitimate goal of American
education” (123).
“To make a positive difference in what all human beings can be and how
much of their potential they can develop and enjoy, we must start by dispelling the
limiting ideologies society now holds” (Clark, 1997, 83). Researcher Glass (2004)

24
stated: “Without advanced or enriched programs, gifted students may fall short of
their potential, or worse, lose interest in school altogether. Children gain self-
confidence through intellectual challenge. The key lies in providing a range of
activities that allow all students, including gifted students, to display their fullest
abilities” (27). This study will further the dialogue on differentiated curriculum
designs for gifted students as a means to compare their perceived educational
opportunities, in terms of both equity and excellence, with all other learners in a
heterogeneous classroom.

Characteristics of a Gifted Student and a Gifted Teacher

In order to address how to best educate the gifted, one must first understand
the concept of giftedness (del Prete, 1996). High ability students have been labeled
in many ways. The scientific examination of talent was initiated in the second half
of the nineteenth century when, in 1869, Sir Francis Galton published Hereditary
Genius which was generally regarded as the first quantitative analysis of human
ability (Tannenbaum, 1983). The pioneer Binet IQ characterization of giftedness
began with Terman’s 1921 extensive study of gifted students and his subsequent
first volume of Genetic Studies of Genius that appeared in 1925 citing giftedness as
the ability to make a high score (120+ IQ) on such intelligence tests as the
National, the Terman Group, and the Stanford-Binet. Although the 1,528 ten and
eleven year old subjects whom he identified as having earned Binet IQs of 140 and

25
above came from large urban areas in California, and although the socioeconomic
class distribution of their families was not representative of that of the United
States at that time, he did maintain that whatever socioeconomic and ethnic groups
were in the general population were represented also in his gifted group (Newland,
1976). Another pioneer of gifted education is Leta Hollingworth, who conducted
both research as a clinical psychologist and as an educator. Using an
approximation of Terman’s IQ criterion, she designed and taught innovative
enrichment curriculum that has had a strong influence on educators who emphasize
enrichment in depth rather than rapid advancement (Tannenbaum, 1983). Her
study of gifted children with IQs of 180 or above, issued in 1942, remains one of
the most definitive investigations of its kind.
While the cornerstone of any gifted program is the identification and
screening process, questions regarding identification of gifted students have
lingered in the field of education for at least a half a century. Criteria do not exist
in a vacuum; they are contextual and cultural in nature (Fetterman, 1988). In 1955-
1956, personnel in the California Department of Education took on the role of the
State in exploring the notion of gifted education by planning for and encouraging
districts to make special provisions for the gifted. From 1961 to 1971,
developmental projects such as the California Project Talent (1963-1966) and a
Title V, ESEA project (1968-1969) prepared statewide frameworks on gifted
education and exemplary curriculum guides (U.S. Commissioner of Education,
1971). Theorists and researchers in the 1970’s and 1980’s proposed new

26
conceptions of giftedness and approaches to identification. The definition from a
report by the U.S. Commissioner of Education S.P. Marland, Jr. in 1971 to
Congress gives an insight to the meaning of giftedness according to the law during
that period. Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally
qualified persons who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high
performance. These are children who require differentiated educational programs
and/or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in
order to realize their contribution to self and society (U.S. Commissioner of
Education, 1971). In California, the definition of a “gifted student” at that time was
a minor enrolled in a public primary or secondary school of this State who
demonstrates such general intellectual capacity as to place him within the top two
percent of all students having achieved his school grade throughout the State or
who is otherwise identified as having such general intellectual capacity but for
reasons associated with cultural disadvantages has underachieved scholastically
(Keaster, 1968).
Another perspective (Renzulli, 1978, 1986b) ascribes to the theory that
giftedness is not a fixed ability but rather a set of behaviors (above average ability,
task commitment, and creativity) that are not necessarily born but emerge in some
people, in some areas, under certain circumstances. This shift from labeling
procedures conducted on a one-time basis to encouraging gifted behaviors in young
people through targeted behaviors with an ongoing identification basis has been a
research topic of interest to education researchers for the past thirty years. Two

27
theorists, Sternberg and Gardner, proposed expanded theories of intelligence in the
1980’s. The potential of seven different intelligences (i.e., linguistic, logical-
mathematical, spatial, musical, kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal) was
proposed (Gardner, 1983) and another concept involving three intelligences (i.e.,
componential, contextual, and experiential) was introduced (Sternberg, 1986). In
1988, Congress approved the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Student
Education Act. To date, the Javits Gifted and Talented Education Program in the
U.S. Department of Education remains the federal government’s only program
designed for the education of gifted students (Jost, 1997). In the past 19 years,
there have been no further improvements or mandates for gifted education at the
federal level.
Over the past thirty years, the range of cognitive abilities among school age
children has become vast with student diversity typifying the general education
classroom today (Tomlinson, 2004). Along with the focus on underachieving
children prompted by the federal No Child Left Behind Act, there is also a renewed
focus on gifted education and a national trend of reaching out to children
traditionally underrepresented in academically advanced classrooms (Samuels,
2007). In fact, the era of No Child Left Behind legislation is an excellent time to
re-examine the field of gifted education (Glass, 2004). In a recent Education Week
newspaper article by on gifted education, Samuels investigated the complex nature
of identifying gifted students was investigated and blamed competing definitions of
giftedness on the fact that there is no federal policy that oversees how states should

28
handle gifted education to ensure specific language for identification of groups that
typically are under-represented in the programs for gifted, such as minorities, the
poor, and students with disabilities.
While there is no definitive agreed-upon definition of what makes a student
gifted, one critical factor of gifted development is cognition (Glass, 2004).
Currently, the label “gifted” is used to indicate high intellectual or academic ability,
and “gifted education” is recognized as the educational field devoted to the study of
this student population (Manning, 2006). Research that attempts to understand the
teacher of this student population of gifted learners seems to be under-described in
the literature, according to Graffam (2006).
From Leta Hollingworth onward, this field has: (a) worked to
create clear and acceptable definitions of giftedness; (b) done
extensive work in identifying the characteristics of gifted learners;
(c) created a myriad curricula that can challenge bright minds;
(d) established clear and powerful avenues of advocacy for gifted
education; and (e) developed methodologies for teaching gifted
learners. But there has been relatively little research that attempts
to understand those who teach in the field (123).

When discussing teachers of gifted students, (Croft, 2003) wrote: “Isolating
the characteristics and competencies unique to effective teachers of the gifted is a
challenge. Many of the attributes delineated in research in gifted education
correspond to characteristics necessary for any teaching success” (560). Integral to
the process of education is the teacher, according to John Dewey (1938). All
children require good teaching. Some studies go so far as to suggest the impact of
teacher effectiveness to be stronger than school socioeconomic status, class size,

29
and students’ prior achievement levels. Researchers Wright, Horn, and Sanders
concluded: “More can be done to improve education by improving the
effectiveness of teachers than by any other single factor” (Wright, Horn, &
Sanders, 1997, 64). Standards for the teaching professional indicate that the mark
of an expert teacher is the ability to integrate students’ cognitive, affective, and
social needs into meaningful content delivered through appropriate instructional
vehicles (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 1996).
When exploring the nature and practice of teachers of the gifted, one must
identify what knowledge and skills are necessary. When asked their opinion of this
question by The Teacher Educator (Cassady & Mullen, 2001), the leading experts
in gifted education including Gallagher, Kaplan, Reis, Renzulli, Tomlinson, and
VanTassel-Baska emphasized that teachers of the gifted needed to be passionate
learners and have the ability to reflect new and changing knowledge. They need to
have a full repertoire of skills that will enable them to understand and meet the
individual learning styles of their students. Research computed by (Hansen &
Feldhusen, 1994) demonstrated how specific preparation for teaching gifted
learners is essential to teaching success in those classrooms. Therefore, in addition
to the need for the educational techniques that support the learning of all students,
there is research supporting the need for special abilities in teachers of students
who are gifted (Rogers, 1989). Rogers advocated for training in how to differ the
pace of instruction, to accelerate or go in depth in learning, and provide for
advanced content because these are common needs among gifted students. This

30
training, according to Rogers would allow teacher of gifted students to: 1) develop
high degrees of complexity and the interrelations in and among areas of content; 2)
provide novelty and enrichment; and 3) accept and extend intensity, divergence,
and creative solutions.
To that end, the Association for the Gifted and the National Association for
Gifted Children have developed and validated initial standards for professionals in
the field of gifted education (Johnsen, 2006). In revalidating the standards, 10
overarching standards were supported with 32 knowledge standards, and 37 skill
standards. These standards are the current guide for professional development of
pre-service and in-service teachers of the gifted. The recent NCLB legislation can
be used to develop advocacy efforts for gifted education (Kaplan, 2004c).
According to Kaplan, the emphasis on highly qualified teachers within the federal
legislation can actually serve as a benefit by justifying the practice of a gifted
program to require specialized professional development opportunities for teachers
of the gifted.

Standards-Based Core Curriculum and its Impact on Gifted Education

The national debate about the need for general education reform was
launched with the publication of A Nation At Risk. Among the motivations behind
this federal government’s publication of in 1983 were the desire to see more
students graduate from high school prepared for college. A Nation at Risk

31
(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) proposed that every high
school in the United States require its graduates to take “core” curriculum designed
to provide students with a foundation for success for the “after-school years” (24).
According to the publication, this foundation would consist of a set of universal
knowledge and skills that students would be able to put to good use regardless of
their specific educational or work objectives. Nearly a quarter of a century later,
although almost every state has made significant efforts to improve its education
system, a new study by the Iowa City, Iowa-based ACT Inc. (ACT, 2007)
concluded that nearly three-fourths of students who take a standard core curriculum
in high school will graduate unprepared for college. According to this recent study,
unless students seek out more demanding courses outside the core curriculum, they
are unlikely to gain the skills necessary for success in college and the global work
force.
Then, with the publication of National Excellence: A Case for Developing
America’s Talent (United Stated Department of Education/Office of Educational
Research and Improvement (USDOE/OERI, 1993), a national perspective on the
education of gifted and talented was articulated within the context of challenging
curriculum standards for all children, including the high-ability learner. This
encouraged the provision of more and better opportunities for top students to learn
more advanced materials and to move at their own pace. Of the five
recommendations in National Excellence (USDOE/OERI, 1993), two had direct
implications for curriculum and instruction in the classroom. The first called for

32
the establishment of challenging curriculum standards, suggesting that performance
standards in the core subject areas should be sufficiently high to challenge talented
and gifted students. While it was targeted for state entities, it had a clear
ramification for specific standards adopted at the local level (VanTassel-Baska,
Avery, Little, & Hughes, 2000). The second recommendation in National
Excellence (USDOE/OERI, 1993) called for the establishment of high-level
learning opportunities for high-ability students. The recommendation emphasized
the importance of accelerating the rate of learning of gifted students and the
provision of in-depth work in the core curriculum.
Each state used those recommendations as the basis of their state standards
and curriculum frameworks and reinforced a pivotal role in driving excellence
toward standards for the gifted. In California, the general standards for GATE
programs include a section on curriculum and instruction which requires that:
The district should develop differentiated curriculum, instructional
models, and strategies that are aligned with and extend the state
academic content standards and curriculum framework. The
differentiated curriculum is related to theories, models, and
practices from recognized literature in the field.
3.1 A differentiated curriculum is in place, responsive to the
needs, interests, and abilities of gifted students.
3.2 The differentiated curriculum for gifted students is supported
by appropriate structures and resources. (California Department of
Education, 1995) EC 52206(a) and 52206(b).

To aid teachers in meeting these standards, the California Department of Education
published Differentiating the Core Curriculum and Instruction to Provide
Advanced Learning Opportunities in 1994 to establish a commonly accepted

33
definition of differentiation as well as to enable parents to comprehend the
curricular tenets. This core, or thinking, curriculum can be described as having
attributes of new and inventive ways to approach learning wherein meaning is
central and knowledge and thinking are interdependent (California Association for
the Gifted & California Department of Education, 1994).
In 2001, policymakers designed a system of standards-based accountability
(NCLB). The law, which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, signaled a fundamental change in American education. Since its
inception, NCLB and its standards-based accountability (SBA) measures have
affected every public school and district in the nation. NCLB’s accountability
provisions require each state to develop content and achievement standards,
measure student progress through tests, and intervene in schools and districts that
do not meet those targets (RAND Education, 2007). While most researchers say
it’s too early to measure the NCLB law’s impact on achievement, many are
beginning to see evidence that educators are changing their behavior as a result of
both the federal law and policies that took root in the 1990’s at the onset of the
movement for higher standards and greater accountability, according to an
Education Week, March 2007 article (Hoff & Manzo, 2007). The article cited
Mr. Gamoran from the University of Wisconsin: “The big success of No Child
Left Behind so far is to galvanize attention to the challenges we face, particularly to
the challenges of inequity.” However, critics of the law such as Gary Orfeld,
Director of the Civil Rights Project at Harvard, were perceived as being concerned

34
with the central place it gives to test scores saying it shines over the professional
development and interventions that would get to the heart of elevating student
achievement for all students.

Teacher Perception and Choice

There is increasing recognition that individuals’ beliefs are often good
indicators of the decisions they make (Bandura, 1986). Seminal studies on the
formation of impressions and perceptions (Asch, 1946; Bruner, Shapiro, & Tagiuri,
1058) purported that we all enter into encounters with others with an implicit
personality theory about the structure of personal attributes wherein several
consequences arise from this. One consequence is that the characteristics we
attribute to others are the products of the expectations we bring to the situation.
Another consequence is that such theories provide us with a ready-made set of
correlations so that even when given limited information about another person, we
are prepared to go beyond the information given to a set of inferences about that
person which have a high subjective probability (Morrison & McIntyre, 1969).
Thus, according to Morrison and McIntyre, the impressions and perceptions we
form depend on, among other things:
1. The patterns of inferences we are accustomed to make.
2. Our personal tendencies toward either moderate or extreme judgments about
the attributes of others.

35
3. The choice of the salient traits from which we build upon the general
impression.
4. The sensitivity we possess toward particular observational cues.
In the face of a changing student population in public education, there is
increasing interest in teachers’ perceptions and how these affect classroom practice
(Pajares, 1992). A growing literature suggests that teachers’ beliefs affect both
their perceptions and judgments and that these in turn affect their classroom
behavior (Rueda & Garcia, 1996). Further, reflection on these belief systems is
essential in improving professional preparation and later teacher effectiveness
(Clark, 1988; Goodman, 1988). According to Clark (1988, 5), teachers are seen as
knowing, meaning-making beings whose perceptions are “eclectic aggregations of
cause-effect propositions from many sources, rules of thumb, generalizations drawn
from personal experience, beliefs, values, biases, and prejudices.”
The perception that children are born gifted and therefore can make it on
their own is a belief that most affect the perceptions of the public regarding the
gifted, and often, the actions of teachers to whom their education is entrusted
(Clark, 1997). From such a belief comes much of the antagonism by teachers
toward providing differentiated learning experiences for students. When the
practices of differentiation resemble the practices of tracking or are perceived as the
right of a teacher to establish predetermined ends for students that inhibit their
opportunities to learn, differentiation has the potential of becoming a liability to the
students it serves. The terms used also have the potential to create the very elitist

36
perceptions of gifted education that most advocates are trying to dispel (Kaplan,
2007). As a result, according to Clark, the limits to supporting the gifted student
reflect a lack of knowledge and not a lack of commitment. Attitudes of educators
toward gifted students affect, not only the students and their performance, but also
the acceptance and effectiveness of the gifted program and the morale of the school
as a whole (Dettmer, 1985).
Teachers’ perceptions of the standards, tests and students shape their
classroom actions. Up until the late 1970’s, standardized testing had few
implications for perceptions of teachers in their choices for classroom practices.
Numerous reports suggest that the increased emphasis placed on test scores results
in increased classroom strategies such as basic skills instruction and drill and
recitation (Callahan, Tomlinson, Hunsaker, Bland, & Moon, 1995). One such large
scale study done by Moon, Brighton, and Callahan in 2002 with 928,170
elementary teachers (K-8) focused on the perceptions of the consequences of
testing. A small, stratified, and purposeful sampling design of focus groups was
interviewed, revealing that what the authors concluded was substantial influences
in teachers’ instructional planning. The majority of teachers interviewed perceived
that they no longer had the time to indulge in classroom “luxuries” that emphasize
creativity, open-ended responses, and real-life application of knowledge and skills.
Instead, teachers in this study expressed a variety of emotions regarding the
schools’ emphasis on state testing raging from anger to resigned acceptance.
Although teacher perceptions and choice in instructional planning and practice

37
were contradictory, based on the data collected in this study, teachers’ actions
seemed to suggest that the most direct and efficient method to communicate the
standards to students was direct instruction in the whole-group classroom format.
According to the researchers, how teachers interpreted the meaning and
purpose of state-mandated tests influenced how they responded to them in their
individual classrooms. A prevalent pattern across classrooms and teachers was the
belief that the standards, as operated by the state assessment, were the gospel, and
most teachers felt unable to deviate from them. In many cases, this perception was
validated by school and/or district policies, along with monitored pacing guides,
having serious implications for gifted learners. Across settings, teachers in the
study readily acknowledged that gifted students were not adequately challenged.
Even with the knowledge that their gifted students had already mastered specific
standards, teachers insisted on regimented learning experiences because they felt
pressured that the gifted students do what they could to “pull up” the rest of the
student population. Moon, Brighton, and Callahan concluded, following their
research study, that teacher perceptions of standards, tests, and students shape the
choices of their classroom actions. The aforementioned teachers’ perceptions
lessened their willingness and ability to construct instructional activities for diverse
learners’ needs, inclusive of those that were gifted.
Teacher Efficacy
Teachers’ level of confidence about their ability to promote student learning
is defined as teacher efficacy (Hoy, Sweeetland, & Smith, 2002). Over the last

38
thirty years, the construct of teacher efficacy has evolved from the works of
Bandura’s social cognitive theory espousing the belief that people exercise some
level of self-control to organize their course of action to produce a given effect or
goal attainment (Bandura, 1986). He further identified teacher efficacy as a type of
self-efficacy in which people construct beliefs about their capacity to perform at a
given level of competence (Bandura, 1977). Bandura postulated four sources of
self-efficacy information: mastery experience, vicarious experience, social
persuasion, and emotional arousal. As a group, teachers experience success or
failure. The importance of a group organization is termed mastery experience and
gives a sense of collective efficacy. Vicarious experiences happen when teachers
do not rely on direct experience as their only source of information gathering but
also learn by observing others. Social persuasion is another means of influencing
teacher efficacy through professional development opportunities that can give the
extra effort that support success and persistence. Emotional arousal reinforces
basic dispositions that can affect self-efficacy or collective efficacy of an
organization (Bandura, 1977, 1986).
Teacher efficacy is context specific, according to some experts. “Teachers
feel efficacious for teaching particular subjects to certain students in specific
setting,” (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000, 482). These reserachers posit
teachers judge personal capabilities such as skills, knowledge, and strategies
balanced against weaknesses or liabilities within a particular teaching context; thus,
the interaction between strengths and weaknesses lead to judgments about self-

39
efficacy of teachers. It refers to the perceptions of teachers in their abilities to
influence student achievement or their sense of competence. Accordingly, an
important factor in the determination of a teacher’s sense of self-efficacy is
experience (Protheroe, 2008). Building on such findings, researchers in the field of
teacher education recognize mastery experiences as the most powerful efficacy
changing force and suggest mastery building experiences through thoughtfully
designed staff development activities, (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000).
Phaff (2000) conducted a study of elementary teachers who participated in study
groups discussing issues related to instruction. Participating teachers felt
themselves to be more effective after the experience and that they had implemented
subtle but powerful changes in their teaching styles and use of instructional
strategies. In another study where respondents were asked questions assessing
teacher efficacy based on professional development experiences in teacher cohorts,
three correlated factors were noted: efficacy in student engagement, efficacy in
instructional practices, and efficacy in classroom management (Tschannen-Moran
& Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
It is now generally thought that two types of beliefs comprise the construct
of teacher efficacy. The first is personal efficacy and relates to a teacher’s own
feeling of confidence in regard to his/her own teaching abilities. The second is
called general efficacy and appears to reflect a general belief about the power of
teaching to reach difficult children (Hoy, Sweetland, & Smith, 2002). During the
last fifteen years, researchers have found positive effects for what is now called

40
collective efficacy. Collective efficacy is the perception of teachers in a school that
their combined efforts will have a positive effect on student learning (Goddard,
Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000). Only one significant study on collective efficacy
has been done, according to Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy that was done in 1993 by
Bandura. In this groundbreaking study of collective teacher efficacy and student
achievement, Bandura reached two important conclusions: 1) student achievement
is significantly and positively related to collective efficacy and, 2) collective
efficacy has a great effect on student achievement than does student socio-
economic status (Bandura, 1993).
Many conducting research on teacher efficacy have developed instruments
to increase our understanding of this topic. The first was done in the mid-1970’s
by the Rand Corporation in which teachers were asked to express their degree of
agreement or disagreement with two items specific to teacher effect on student
motivation. From this early study, the concept of teacher efficacy was initiated and
many more instruments were developed to measure teacher efficacy. Shortly after
the Rand study was published, several instruments were developed that correlated
to the Rand student but never received wide acceptance. A 30 item instrument was
developed where respondents distributed 100 percentage points between two
alternatives, one stating that the event was caused by the teacher and the other
stating that the event occurred because of factors outside the teacher’s immediate
control (Guskey, 1984). Consistent with attributional theory (Weiner, 1994), four
types of causes were offered for success or failure: specific teaching abilities, the

41
effort put into teaching, the task difficulty, and luck. Another study was done about
the same time utlizing an instrument consisting of a series of vignettes describing
situations a teacher might encounter and asking the teacher to make a judgment as
to their effectiveness in handling the situation using “extremely inffective” to
“extremely effective,” (Ashton, Buhr, & Crocker, 1984) with results finding
significant correltations to the original Rand study. One of the most commonly
used and well-researched instruments used today to asses teacher efficacy is a
Likert scale developed by Gibson and Dembo (1984). Although the original scale
had 30 items (long form), a 16 item version (short form) has been found to be more
reliable. Using that instrument, researchers found that teachers with greater
efficacy worked longer with students who were struggling and that efficacy beliefs
influenced teachers’ persistence when things did not go smoothly, (Gibson &
Dembo, 1984). More recently, a multi-faceted instrument has been developed but,
to date, no reliability and validity measurement has been made available for that
instrument. It is a teacher efficacy scale with seven subscales: efficacy to
influence decision-making, efficacy to influence school resources’ instructional
efficacy, disciplinary efficacy, efficacy to enlist parental involvement, efficacy to
enlist community involvement, and efficacy to create a positive school climate
(Bandura, 1997).

42
Grouping Practices for Gifted and Non-Gifted Students

Faced with differences among the students that they attempt to teach,
educators have long struggled with ways to reduce the differences and make
teaching more effective. Depending on how teaching has been used, it has often
functioned as a mechanism for stratifying U.S. society according to social class,
ethnicity, and gender or as a vehicle for facilitating adaptation of instruction to
specific characteristics of individual students (Arnove & Zimmerman, 1999). The
most fundamental aspect of grouping practices is the division of a class into several
groups for teaching purposes influenced by the nature of the subject being taught,
the kinds of tasks to be undertaken and the basic design of the classroom (Morrison
& McIntyre, 1969). One very common way of dealing with these teaching
purposes has been to divide students into class-size groups based on a measure of
the students’ perceived ability or prior achievement, and then to design and deliver
differentiated learning experiences to each group of students. This has been a
common practice, known as tracking, in virtually every school in the nation during
the last 120 years (George, 1996).
According to Simpson (1999) when Dewey examined different social and
educational problems, he was inclined to ask the question: To what end or for what
purposes do we want to group students? Grouping without curriculum
differentiation serves only to stratify, not to educate, students ( Borland et al.,
2002). In gifted education research, the major topic is ability grouping, the practice

43
of placing children of similar academic ability together for instruction (Swiatek &
Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2003). Researchers have drawn contradictory conclusions
over the years. On one ideological pole, there are those who view ability grouping
as a major factor in contributing to social and cultural reproduction; on the opposite
pole, there are those who view grouping as a necessary and desirable means to
actualize the potential of gifted individuals but with general application for all
students (Arnove & Zimmerman, 1999). Some experts claim that gifted students
are a special segment of a heterogeneous society and, therefore, should be blended
into the regular classroom (Frey, 1993; Tolan, 1990). Others in the field believe
students with advanced mental aptitudes need to be among students of similar
intelligence to be stimulated and challenged, or their gift will cease to be (DeLisle,
1994; Feldhusen, 1991).
This literature review is specific to the research questions that relate to
“whole-, between-, and within-class” ability grouping practices as defined by
researchers in the field of gifted education (Kulik, 1992; Tieso, 2005). Kulik
suggested that there are three different kinds of grouping practices: 1) programs in
which all groups follow the same grouping practices (whole-class instruction);
2) programs in which each group follows curriculum based on its specific needs
(between-class instruction); and 3) programs that make curricular adjustments for
groups of students within a regular classroom setting (within-class instruction).
Whole-group instruction is characterized by the utilization of a traditional,
textbook-dominated curriculum (Goodlad, 1984; Reis, et al., 1993) wherein student

44
movement is at the same pace using the same methods and materials with
instruction for the entire class at the same time. The most popular between-class
grouping plan is the Joplin Plan (Floyd, 1954) that included the cross-grade
grouping of elementary students. Today, between-class grouping is used most
often to address content differentiation or acceleration for high-ability students
(Tieso, 2005). Within-class grouping practices (Kulik, 1992; Tomlinson, 2004)
group students within the same class into smaller groups for specific activities and
purposes. Typically, the teacher presents a lesson to the whole class and then
places students into small groups based on demonstrated performance, interest,
levels of prior knowledge, etc. (Renzulli, Lippen, & Hays, 2000).
A synthesis of 13 meta-analyses research studies pertaining to grouping
practices for the gifted was conducted by the Idaho State Department of Education
through a Javits Study (State Department of Education, 2004). The studies found
that while full-time ability grouping for regular instruction makes no discernible
differences in the academic achievement of average and low ability students (Kulik
& Kulik, 1884; Slavin, 1987), it does produce substantial academic gains for gifted
students enrolled full time in special day classes (Kulik & Kulik, 1884). Oakes,
(1985) concluded that no one gains academically from ability grouping and that
lower children lose a good deal of academic ground when taught in homogeneous
groups. Van-Tassel Baska (1992) advocated clear and consistent academic benefits
from grouping programs with those benefits clearest for those in higher ability

45
groups, but students in the lower groups were unharmed academically by grouping
and they gained academic ground in some grouping programs.
With the issue under debate being like-ability grouping versus mix-ability
grouping, it is important to look at the research. However, the problem is that it is
difficult to make sense of the overwhelming body of research that is out there on
grouping. In summarizing the findings of ability group research, it would be useful
to set the stage for an interpretation of the data by underscoring the caution noted in
the Effect of Ability Grouping (Goldberg, Passow, & Justman, 1966). They pointed
out that studies of ability grouping vary considerably in their range of objectives
(i.e., homogeneity, Experimental/Comparison Groups, number of students
involved, specification of curricula and teaching methods, instruments in assessing
students). If it is assumed that the variables indicated above, either independently
or in combination, affect student achievement, then not controlling for these
variables in studies of ability grouping tends to minimize the difference in variance
between or among ability groups and tends to reduce the likelihood of finding
statistically reliable differences (Esposito, 1973).
While flexibility of group composition is generally agreed to be desirable,
the social consequences of such a situation have also been documented. An
investigation by Kelley, (1951) cited evidence of likely social consequences related
to ability grouping. According to this study, students having been given an
ascribed status were likely to assess themselves and other in terms of this status,
and as the research study indicated, to over-estimate their performance and their

46
potential if they were of high status, and to underestimate these if they were of low
status. Also, many parents prefer segregated gifted classes that allow their
children, from their perspectives, to be challenged and to learn more. In
heterogeneous classes, parents see their children called upon to tutor non-gifted
students, especially with cooperative learning groups, which is not perceived as
relevant to gifted education (del Prete, 1996).
Gallagher (1966) reviewed research on the conceptually oriented curriculum
of the 1960’s and concluded that such conceptually complex materials makes
ability grouping almost mandatory. According to Gallagher, brighter students are
able to grasp such materials far more quickly and completely than their less able
peers, stating that: “virtually the only way that a wide range of ability can be
tolerated in the classroom is to teach conceptually simple materials” (1966, 16).
When considering gifted and high-ability students, appropriate grouping with
acceleration of instruction to the students’ level of readiness is needed for teachers
to create challenging classroom instructional activities for the most able students
(Feldhusen & Moon, 1992). The National Association for Gifted Children
(NAGC) stated that the development of appropriate gifted education programming
requires comprehensive services based on sound philosophical, theoretical, and
empirical support (National Association for Gifted Children, 1998b) . One of the
guiding principles of the AEGC programming criterion described “flexible
grouping of students in order to facilitate differentiated instruction and curriculum”
(p. 9, Table 3 of 7). Flexible grouping allows more appropriate, advanced, and

47
accelerated instruction that more closely aligns with developing skills of gifted
students (California Association for the Gifted). According to CAG, gifted
children may not be gifted in all academic areas; therefore grouping placements
should be flexible.
Merely grouping students in a particular setting or a particular set of
activities without, at the same time changing the content and the instructional
strategies will not yield much in the way of results (Council for Exceptional
Children, 2007). Without addressing the quality of the curriculum and instruction
that is offered, grouping is not a panacea for ensuring effective education services
(VanTassel-Baska, 1992: Benbow, 1998). Specific to the grouping programs for
gifted students that address differentiated curriculum options, there are four types.
Grouping programs in gifted education include: 1) within-class programs where
gifted students receive services while they are in the regular classroom
(heterogeneous grouping); 2) pull-out programs where gifted students receive
services in the regular classroom for most instructional purposes, but leave the
classroom for a portion of the school week in order to attend special classes with
other identified gifted students (homogeneous grouping); 3) separate class
programs where students are grouped by ability for most or all of their academic
class work (cluster grouping), and 4) special school programs (special day class
grouping) where gifted students are selected to attend due to their high aptitude in
one or more targeted areas and who, theoretically, have the benefit of full-time

48
instruction at a more advanced pace and/or more thorough coverage of content
(Cox, Daniel, & Boston, 1985).
With the debate continuing as to whether gifted students should be grouped
with normal children or taught as a different group, (Gollmar, 1995) suggested that
it may be time to free children from the limited educational confines that have been
constructed over the past decades. He thinks that many of the strategies that were
developed to meet the needs of gifted students may have value in the regular
classroom. Gollmar stated: “If nothing else, we may want to advance the way we
teach all of our students” (4).

Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum Design

As discussed earlier in this chapter, there is a belief that education in a
democracy must respect the uniqueness of all individuals. Children in today’s
schools are more diverse than ever before, varying in cultural backgrounds,
learning styles, academic readiness, and social maturity. Faced with unprecedented
demands to meet the needs of these learning characteristics within a heterogeneous
classroom, educators are responding to this diversity by advocating for
differentiation (Adams, Cassady, & Neumeister, 2004). However, some
researchers (Renzulli & Reis, 1998) believed that one of the biggest problems
facing schools is, in fact, the absence of curricular differentiation and academic
challenge for our most able students. The National Association for Gifted Students

49
(NAGC) believes that the best way to achieve excellence and equity for all students
is through differentiated educational opportunities.
In the early 1950’s, Margaret Mead, a noted anthropologist, spoke of the
gifted child in American society and the need for what she then termed
“diversified” activities. “The more diversified, the more complex the activities
within which children are encouraged to play a role the better the chance for…the
gifted child to exercise his special talent …” (Mead, 1954, 212). Referring back to
the landmark Marland Report (U.S. Commissioner of Education, 1971), a
differentiated educational program has three characteristics:
1. A differentiated curriculum that denotes higher cognitive concepts and
processes.
2. Instructional strategies which accommodate the learning styles of the gifted
and talented and curriculum content.
3. Special grouping arrangements, which include a variety of administrative
procedures appropriate to particular children, i.e., special classes, honor
classes, seminars, resource rooms, and the like (11).
Together, heterogeneous grouping and differentiated instruction create an
atmosphere of equality and caring in the classroom, and offers students a better
opportunity for success (DiMartino & Miles, 2004). The rationale underlying
differentiated instruction draws upon the contributions of theorists Jerome Bruner
and Philip Phenix. Bruner (1960) believed that inductive instruction should be the
focus of teaching and that the content could be taught to any student at any level of

50
development. Phenix (1964) suggested that content for instruction should be draw
from organized scholarly disciplines or fields of inquiry and that the teacher’s role
should be to mediate the knowledge from these disciplines so that the knowledge
has relevance and meaning to the students.
At the broadest level, differentiation refers to providing students with a
variety of strategies to understand content, to process ideas, and to develop
products (Tomlinson, 2001a). At its most basic level, teachers can differentiate at
least four classroom elements based on student readiness, interest, or learning
profile: 1) content — what the student needs to learn or how the student will get
access to the information; 2) process — activities in which the student engages in
order to make sense of or master the content; 3) products — culminating projects
that ask the student to rehearse, apply, and extend what he or she has learning in a
unit; and 4) learning environment — the way the classroom works and feels
(Tomlinson, 2001b). A recent example of how these theories have been applied to
differentiated curricular planning for gifted students is Renzulli’s Multiple Menu
Model (Renzulli, Lippen, & Hays, 2000). This curriculum design espouses a
balance between content and process, involving students as firsthand inquirers, and
exploring the structure and interconnectedness of knowledge through depth and
complexity of a discipline and its content. However, there is a lack of research on
how teachers use data to differentiate instruction (Datnow, Park, & Wohlstetter,
2006).

51
Recognizing that differentiation is perhaps easier to define than it is to
deliver, noted researchers and practitioners in the field of gifted education,
including Tomlinson, Kaplan, Renzulli and Reis, have published materials
providing teachers with models and specific strategies for differentiating their
curriculum and lessons. Curriculum design is a major component of a
differentiated curriculum policy for the gifted because it delineates key features that
comprise a worthwhile curriculum (Borland, 1989). Gallagher and Gallagher
(1994) identified four ways that curriculum can be modified to address the needs of
gifted learners:
1. Acceleration – adjusting the pace of learning.
2. Enrichment – allowing for more depth and exploration within the content
area.
3. Sophistication – bringing more complexity and abstraction to the subject.
4. Novelty – providing for learning opportunities not generally included in the
curriculum.
It requires a continuing re-examination of what students learn, how they learn, and
who is responsible for “the what” and “the how” (California Association for the
Gifted & California Department of Education, 1994). Tomlinson suggested that
these differentiated curriculum designs could be developed in the “regular
classroom” (Tomlinson, 1999). According to Tomlinson, the goal of differentiation
in the regular classroom is to ensure that this central and powerful component in
the educational lives of most students is a full partner in ensuring an appropriate,

52
high quality education based on the particular learning needs of each individual …
at its most basic level, a differentiated classroom is one in which the teacher
attempts to understand the particular needs of a learner and adapts curriculum and
instruction to be responsive to those needs (Tomlinson, 2001a).

Spill-over Between Gifted and General Education

Effective teaching is not a set of generic practices, but instead is a
set of context-driven decisions about teaching. Effective teachers
do not use the same set of practices for every lesson…Instead,
what effective teachers do is constantly reflect about their work,
observe whether students are learning or not, and, than adjust their
practice accordingly. (Glickman, 1991, 4)

The development of creative and critical thinking about cognitive skills
instruction, such as Guilford’s Structure of Intellect model (1956) and Taba’s
Teaching Strategies (1962), has received sustained attention (Renzulli, 1986a).
However, the implementation of this goal generally has been reserved for bright
students. In fact, one of the most popular models of cognitive skills, Bloom’s
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Bloom, 1956) has been divided artificially
into lower and higher order skills. The suggestion has been made (Schlichter,
1986) that average or lower intellectual ability students should focus on the lower
skills and the students of higher intellectual ability (i.e., gifted students) should
spend more instructional time using the higher order cognitive skills. Such
perceptions have subjected gifted education to a constant swinging of the political
pendulum between equity and excellence where gifted education is either loved or

53
hated (Cohen, 1996). Cohen described how the gifted child movement has clearly
benefited from the focus on excellence, but for its survival, also has needed to
embrace equity. Fearing that the pendulum is currently swinging too far towards
equity where gifted students are being served in regular classrooms, some
educators and researchers caution vigilance is needed (Kramer, 1991). However, as
Fuhrman (1994) noted, excellence has never been successfully mandated in general
education. Furhman suggested that capacity needs to be built into the system and
that gifted education programs could show the way (Fuhrman, 1994).
The term “spill-over” is best defined as an advocacy strategy that can focus
on the needs of a specific population, such as the gifted, while simultaneously
generalizing the value derived from attending to this particular population to more
or to all other students (Kaplan, 2000). She described the spill-over effect as an
intent to gather support for gifted education by demonstrating where and when it
can provide meaningful education of students in other programs. According to
(Kaplan, 2004a), relevant to the spill-over effect is the concept of reciprocity by
which one program can share content and pedagogy to enhance another program.
Kaplan espoused that positioning the spill-over effect is dependent on a sequence
of activities that are necessary in order to achieve where and when gifted education
can be demonstrated as a significant contributor with other programs.
In an effort to review the literature on spill-over, the topic of inclusion must
be addressed. At the heart of inclusion are three principles (Bates & Munday,
2005) which state that all schools must set suitable learning challenges for students,

54
actively engage in overcoming any barriers to learning, and respond to the diverse
needs of students. In doing so, there is a concern among researchers that gifted
education services might be watered.
In a 2003 publication by England’s Department for Children, Schools, and
Families, Excellence and Enjoyment: Learning and Teaching in the Primary
Years, six principles that effective teachers demonstrate include a learning climate
that: 1) sets high expectations; 2) establishes what learners already know and
builds on that knowledge; 3) structures and paces the learning experience to make it
challenging; 4) inspires learning through passion for the subject; 5) makes
individuals active partners in their learning; and 6) develops learning skills and
personal qualities (Department for Children, 2003). A leading U.S. researcher of
gifted students, J. Renzulli, espoused five similar themes deemed as “best
practices” that are recognized by many scholars: 1) talent development and
potential; 2) relevant, active, concrete, reality-based, and real-world experiences; 3)
higher level thinking skills; 4) affective and student-centered classrooms; and 5)
an equitable democratic education (Renzulli, 1995b).
It is espoused that such a differentiated curriculum design for gifted
students in regular classrooms can result in a significant advantage for their non-
gifted classmates (Milgram, 1989). In any classroom situation, other learners have
certain interests and abilities in common with gifted students, according to
Milgram. Thus, qualitatively different curriculum content selected because of its
value for a gifted student may be of great interest and benefit to other students.

55
Tomlinson and Callahan (1992) cited several contributions of gifted education to
general education. According to Reis (2003) the application of gifted program
know-how to general education is supported by the variety of research on human
abilities. This research provides a rationale for “much broader conceptions of
talent development” and “extends the pedagogy used in gifted education programs
to students who are not usually included in special programs for talented students”
(194-195).

Conclusion

Combining standards with a differentiated curriculum for highly able
learners accomplishes two goals. It provides rich and rigorous curriculum for the
gifted and it can have a ripple effect by improving instruction for all of the
students, the curricular practices of the teacher, and ultimately, the school (Gould,
2000). According to Gould, “differentiation is a way to meet the standards while
maintaining rigor and challenge in the curriculum for highly able learners that may
also have positive effects on the curriculum for all learners” (78). Agreeing, the
National Association of Gifted Children has said in its position statement that: “the
integration of gifted education programming into general education programming
promotes the exchange of ideas and pedagogy to enhance learning of all students
… with positive spill-over effects” (NAGC). However, there is concern among
some professionals that gifted education services may become watered down or

56
eliminated altogether when gifted learners, education is based on the notion that the
general education classroom is not conducive to the unique academic and socio-
emotional needs of gifted learners (Landrum, 2001). An analysis to support or
negate research on the spill-over effect was the purpose of this research project
through a study on the effect of a teacher’s choice of differentiated curriculum
designs for gifted students to spill-over and affects all students in a heterogeneous
classroom.

57
CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHOD

Introduction

Although there is no universally defined principle of inquiry, the National
Research Council that was established in 1916, with the purpose of furthering
knowledge and advising the federal government, has described the scientific
process in terms of six interrelated principles of inquiry:
1. Pose significant questions that can be investigated empirically.
2. Link research to relevant theory.
3. Use methods that permit direct investigation of the question.
4. Provide a coherent and explicit chain of reasoning.
5. Replicate or generalize across studies.
6. Disclose research to encourage professional scrutiny and critique (National
Research Council, 2002).
This research study was based on the assumption that most students of high
ability spend most of their school day in the regular classroom, particularly at the
elementary level (VanTassel-Baska, Avery, & Hall, 1997). Therefore, curriculum
reform that elevates the quality of curriculum and instruction in heterogeneous
classrooms is aligned with research in the field of gifted education (VanTassel-
Baska, Avery, Little, & Hughes, 2000). The question then becomes: “What

58
promising curriculum designs affect change for both gifted and non-gifted students
in terms of depth and endurance of student learning based on teachers’ decisions
and choices of those curriculum models?” Because gifted education has long been
innovative in developing services around challenging curriculum (Tomlinson &
Callahan, 1992), it makes sense to look to the field of gifted education for
contributions to an understanding of general education curriculum reform that
focuses on higher order thinking skills.
“Today, more than ever, student diversity typifies the general education
classroom” (Tomlinson, 2004, 28) with students having a wide range of cognitive
abilities. To that end, this research study posed the significant question of whether
there was any spill-over effect from differentiated curriculum designs for gifted
students affecting other learners in a heterogeneous classroom, by linking the
research of this study to relevant learning theory, that being social constructivism.
As with any form of interpretive research (Merriam, 1998), there was a need to
identify an ideology or theoretical framework for thinking about the research
problem (Locke, Silverman, & Spirduso, 2004). In an era of accountability, there
was a pressing need to determine the effectiveness of differentiated curriculum
designs for all learners in a heterogeneous classroom. Through an explicit chain of
data collection and analysis, it was the intent of this research study to examine
knowledge of effective curriculum designs for gifted students, in hopes that it
would provide guidance as to how to strengthen general education classroom

59
practice through a learning community grounded in constructivism, whereby
learners mediate knowledge within a social context.
This research project was linked to the research efforts of a grant awarded
to the University of Southern California under the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and
Talented Students Education Act of the U.S. Department of Education (PR
#S206A040072). Passed in 1988, the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students
Education Act is the only federal program that specifically addresses the needs of
gifted and talented children. Reauthorized in 2001 as a part of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), its ongoing purpose is to coordinate
scientifically passed research, demonstration projects, and innovative projects to
meet the special needs of gifted and talented students. It has a focus on building
and developing resources to identify and serve students that are traditionally under-
represented, particularly those that are economically disadvantaged, limited English
proficient, and disabled students, in order to help reduce the gaps in achievement
and promote equal educational opportunities.
The competitive grant awarded under the Javits Act to the University of
Southern California in 2005 was in its second year of implementation with Dr.
Sandra Kaplan as its Project Director at the onset of this research project. The
project involved the collaborative efforts of the University of Southern California,
Los Angeles Unified School District, other school districts, and the California
Association for the Gifted. The grant research project “Using Models of Teaching
to Improve Student Achievement: Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education

60
Act, Grant Award Notification S206A040072” was built on research and
educational philosophy to identify models of teaching as the intervention to affect
positively the achievement of economically, linguistically, culturally diverse 2
nd

through 5
th
grade students in urban, suburban, rural school districts. The
importance of the relationship between content knowledge and pedagogical content
knowledge for effective curriculum development, teaching, and learning was the
basis of the Javits project.

Research Questions

Questions are posed in an effort to fill a gap in existing knowledge
or to seek new knowledge, to pursue the identification of the cause
or causes of some phenomena, to describe phenomena, to solve a
practical problem, or to formally test a hypothesis. A good
question may reframe an older problem in light of newly available
tools or techniques, methodologies or theoretical (National
Research Council, 2002).

The research questions related to this study were predetermined by the
specifications of the University of Southern California Javits grantee
(S206A040072) and the data analyzed were responsive to the grant research
questions. The grant project studied the effects of formal models of teaching and
the degree to which they promote the development of teacher participants as
content masters and pedagogical experts to teach differentiated curriculum in order
to accomplish four goals:

61
1. Raise the level of academic achievement of culturally, linguistically, and
economically diverse gifted and potentially gifted students;
2. Increase the identification of “diverse gifted” and “potentially gifted diverse”
from under-represented populations;
3. Improve overall quality of instruction for all students in heterogeneous
classrooms; and
4. Affect teaching and learning of differentiated curriculum.
A major question of the federal grant research study focused on how
differentiated curriculum designs used by teachers teaching gifted students in the
regular classroom affected the education of all students in the same environment.
To further investigate this research topic, the following questions will be addressed
in this study:
1. What is the relationship between the teacher’s choice of a differentiated
curriculum design for gifted students and the same teacher’s selection of a
differentiated curriculum design to spill-over and its affect on all students in
a heterogeneous classroom?
2. What are the reasons affecting the teacher’s selection of differentiated
curriculum and instructional designs, appropriate for grades 2-5 gifted
students?
3. How are the teacher’s perceptions of spill-over of differentiated curriculum
designed for gifted students affected by the teachers training in gifted
education and the composition or grouping of students in a classroom?

62

Subjects and Sampling

With a focus on differentiated curriculum, the Javits grant research project
sought to understand the variance between what kids are all about and what schools
are all about. The project population was comprised of a large data bank of 837
students and 56 teachers who participated in the pilot study. Teacher and student
surveys, on-site, in-classroom demonstrations, lesson plan study groups, an
electronic reflection network, videotapes, and interview transcriptions were all
deliverables of the Javits project. The 56 teachers of grades 2-5 from rural
(Brawley), urban (Los Angeles Unified), and suburban (Santa Ana and Oceanside)
school districts comprised the participant sample of this research project. 44
teachers were in the Experimental Group and 12 in the Comparison Group. Upon
award of this federal grant, teachers within the contacted school districts applied to
become participants for the Experimental Group.
Teachers were selected and grouped based on a self-evaluation regarding
their knowledge of the four core content areas (e.g., math, social studies, English,
reading/language arts) and their perception of their pedagogical content knowledge
(e.g., their skills or abilities to instruct). Prior to completing the data collection
instruments for this study, ‘Experimental Teachers’ participated in differentiated
professional development experiences over a two-year period. ‘Control Teachers’
did not participate in any differentiated curriculum training (see Table 2).

63
Table 2. Participant Pool

Gender Male:
Female:
Type of School District Urban:
Rural:
Suburban:
Grade Level Second:
Third:
Fourth:
Fifth:
Type of Gifted Program Magnet:
Regular Classroom:
Regular Classroom with Cluster Group of
Gifted Students:
Pullout Program:
Special Day Classes:
Years of Teaching
Experience
General Education: (Mean Score)
Gifted Education: (Mean Score)
Highest Degree Held Masters Degree:
Doctorate Degree:
Credit Hours in Gifted
Education (Formal Training:
Course Work)
Hours: (Mean Score)

Attendance Hours in Gifted
Ed. (Informal Training:
Workshops)
Hours: (Mean Score)

Certificate in Gifted
Education
Yes:
No:
Expertise as a Professional
Educator
Novice Level 1:
Novice Level 2:
Conversant Level 3:
Conversant Level 4:
Expert Level 5:
Average time spent preparing
differentiated lessons for
gifted students
Barely any time:
½ hour to 1 hour:
1 to 2 hours:
2 to 3 hours:
More than 3 hours:

64

Instrumentation

As a pilot program, the research questions posed within the Javits research
project were central to the inquiry of this particular study with existing constructed
protocols and procedures in place for data collection. Because a pilot study allows
the researcher to try different data-gathering approaches and to observe different
activities from several trial perspectives (Wimmer & Dominick, 2003), this
research project maintained authenticity to the current study but with a goal of
creating a new body of knowledge by bridging data from the Javits research grant
to new data analysis and findings based on the specific research topic of spill-over.
The instrumentation used in the Javits grant study included two descriptive surveys
that were created under required IRB protocols (USC UPIRB #: 06-00177) and
were made available for this research project. A “Teacher Questionnaire”
completed by teacher participants and an “All About Me” survey completed by
student participants were developed and disseminated annually in partial fulfillment
of the grant requirements. The teacher and student surveys addressed a variety of
topics that pertained to gifted education. To address questions one and two of this
researchc study, the Javits approved teacher questionnaire was used as a secondary
data source. After examining the grouped frequency of the construct data of
questions one and two to determine general perceptions of Javits grant participants,
an interview protocol was developed as the primary data collection source for
research question three.

65
The teacher questionnaire, interview protocol, introductory letters to
participating school principals and selected teachers, consent form, along with an
interview script were all approved through an IRB amendment to USC-UPIRB #:
06-00177 (see Appendices B-F). The interview instrument had fifteen questions
framed in the present tense and were established in a fixed sequence. The first four
questions required dichotomous responses followed by a simulation to project a
personal response. The other eleven questions were open-ended probes to deepen
the depth of responses (Gibson, Wiggins, & Crowley, 2007). The fifteen question
protocol included behaviors, opinions, feelings, knowledge, sensory data, and
demographics as question options (Patton, 2002). A pilot study of the interview
protocol was conducted in the late fall of 2007 to test content and construct
validity.

Research Procedure

Using a two-phased sequential mixed methods design, the intent of this
study was to obtain quantitative results from a purposeful sample and then follow
up with few individuals to qualitatively probe those results in depth. The mixed-
method design included: 1) the teacher questionnaire instrument that was used as a
secondary data source for the initial quantitative analysis, and 2) the teacher
interview instrument was used as a primary data source for the qualitative research
analysis. To address question one of this study in its examination of the relationship

66
of a teacher’s choice of a differentiated curriculum design for gifted students and
the same teacher’s selection of a differentiated curriculum design to spill-over and
affect all students, Sections V and VI of the teacher questionnaire were analyzed.
Chi-square analysis was used as an inferential statistic to examine significant
differences in the type of definition preferred in differentiating curriculum between
the Experimental and Comparison Groups. Chi square analysis was also applied to
determine the significance of difference between the Experimental and Comparison
Groups for means to spill-over in differentiating curriculum. Multi-variate factors
were examined that included descriptive analysis of type of school setting, grade
level taught, type of gifted program, years of teaching experience, highest degree
held, perceived expertise as a professional educator of gifted students, and hours
per day spent on differentiated curriculum for the gifted.
To address question two, Section III of the teacher questionnaire was
analyzed using descriptive statistics to examine the teacher’s selection of
differentiated curriculum and instructional designs for gifted students in grades 2-5.
Using frequency tables, this study analyzed questionnaire responses looking for
trends specific to curriculum and instructional strategies and reasons influencing
their choice, including “challenge to students” and/or “affects all learners in the
classroom.” The benefit of such descriptive analysis is that is can fill in some of
the missing data pieces or it can raise a host of new questions regarding the data
(McEwan & McEwan, 2003).

67
To address question three, telephone interviews were used using qualitative
research methods to follow up on the quantitative data gathered from the teacher
questionnaire. The benefit of an interview is that participants can provide historical
information in a designated “place” rather than the natural field setting (Creswell,
2003). On-site interviews were considered but due to the expanse of the
geographic region covered by the participating school sites, it was considered
unfeasible and subsequently a telephone interview protocol was designed. Content
analysis allowed the researcher to identify and codify the primary patterns in the
data. (Merriam, 1998) posited that among the data gathering techniques available
to qualitative researchers, the interview is the most common. Merriam further
reveals the most common form of interview is the “person-to-person encounter in
which one person elicits information from another” (71). This method is widely
used because as (Patton, 2002) stated: “We interview people to find out from them
those things we cannot directly observe. We cannot observe how people have
organized the world and the meaning they attach to what goes on in the world. We
have to ask people questions about those things” (340-341). Using a mixed method
approach to seek answers to the research questions, the data yielded quantitative
results with qualitative trends and points of emphasis (see Table 3).

68

Table 3. Research Procedure

Research Question Instrument Inquiry Design
1. What is the relationship between the
teacher’s choice of a differentiated
curriculum design for gifted students and
the same teacher’s selection of a
differentiated curriculum design to spill-
over and affect all students in a
heterogeneous classroom?
Teacher
Questionnaire
(Sections V and
VI)
Quantitative Descriptive Statistics
using chi square
analysis
2. What are the reasons affecting the
teacher’s selection of differentiated
curriculum and instructional designs,
appropriate for grades 2-5 gifted students?
Teacher
Questionnaire
(Section III)
Quantitative

Descriptive Statistics
using trend analysis
3. How are the teacher’s perceptions of
spill-over of differentiated curriculum
designed for gifted students affected by the
teachers training in gifted education and
the composition or grouping of students in
a classroom?
Teacher
Interview
Qualitative Descriptive Statistics
using content analysis

Pilot Study

The teacher questionnaire protocol had already gone through a pilot study
under the guidelines of the Javits Grant Project after receiving IRB approval. The
teacher questionnaire was completed in the spring of 2007 with the data being
analyzed by an independent research company and reviewed by the external auditor
of the Javits research project during the summer of 2007. A pilot study of the
interview protocol was conducted in late fall of 2007. To develop and test the
adequacy of the interview protocol, content validity was determined by having two
expert teachers trained in differentiated curriculum models and serving as program
specialists in Newport Mesa Unified School District to evaluate the contents of the

69
teacher interview instrument. Both experts were also identified as demonstration
teachers for the USC Javits Grant Summer Institute, 2007. During the pilot study,
these experts checked the protocol directions and questions to determine
comprehensibility and practiced data collection. According to (Baker, 1994), the
purpose of a pilot study “can be the pre-testing or ‘trying-out’ of a particular
instrument” (182-183). The interview instrument was submitted as an amendment
to the University of Southern California Javits Grant (USC UPIRB #: 06-00177) in
the fall of 2007. The IRB approval came in February 2008 and the amended
instrument demonstrates the modifications made to the original interview
questions, which included feedback by the experts for improved reliability. In
addition, a modification was made to change from a face-to-face interview to a
telephone interview to increase the completion rate and expedite the process across
geographic areas. In making this modification, introductory letters for the
principals and teachers were created to fully explain the purpose of the study prior
to being sent to the purposive sample. These additional instruments were submitted
for IRB approval following the pilot study.
Construct validity was assessed by the Director of the USC Javits Grant,
along with three post-graduate student researchers involved in that research study.
Also known as internal structural validity, construct validity indicates the degree to
which instruments are interrelated and is concerned with the validation of the same
construct, that being a theoretical explanation for some behavior (Kurpius &
Stafford, 2006). These experts compared the relationship between the proposed

70
interview questions and the previously administered teacher questionnaire
questions to determine if the same theoretical construct existed. Attempting to
research specificity of the theory of differentiated curriculum designs and its
potential spill-over affect, it was suggested that the purposive sampling only
include participants from the Experimental Group to achieve convergent validity.
The original research design using this instrument included a sampling from both
the Experimental Group and the Comparison Group. The rationale for this
modification was that the Experimental Group all had the same professional
development and training in the theoretical construct of models of teaching while
the Comparison Group did not have any training and would therefore have no
theoretical basis from which to answer the interview questions. Careful
consideration was made to incorporate pilot study comments and suggestion into
the final instrument revisions.

Data Analysis

The teacher questionnaire protocol was completed and returned within a
stipulated time period by 56 teacher participants in the spring of 2007, including
both the Experimental Group (N=44) and the Comparison Group (N-12). The
questionnaire protocol and the subject sampling were developed and disseminated
in partial fulfillment of the Javits grant requirements. A survey design provides

71
both quantitative and qualitative description of trends, attitudes, or opinions of a
population with the intent of generalizing from the survey sample to a larger
population (Patton, 2002).
For the interview protocol, a purposeful sampling of the questionnaire
respondents representing both urban and suburban school districts was done in the
winter of 2008 to select nine teacher participants, representing 20% of the
Experimental Group that had been trained in the models of teaching as grant
recipients, to interview. Purposeful samples allow the researcher to focus on
selecting information-rich cases whose study will illuminate the issues of central
importance to the purpose of the inquiry and therefore worthy of in-depth study
(Patton, 2002). The small sampling was due to time constraints imposed by the
actual grant award as well as the doctoral dissertation time frame.
In February 2008, introductory letters were sent to the principals of those
nine teachers explaining that one and/or some of the teachers at their school site
would be invited to participate in a telephone interview as participants in the
University of Southern California Javits Models of Teaching Grant for the purpose
of gathering information about each teacher’s perceptions of differentiated
curriculum. It was further explained that an informational packet would be sent
directly to the teachers requesting consent to participate in the interview process.
Following the introductory letter to the building-level administrators, an
information packet was sent the following week by priority mail to the participant
sample members containing a letter of introduction, a “consent to participate in a

72
research study” form, an information contact sheet, and a copy of the interview
instrument. Those participants that returned the consent form were contacted and
an appointment scheduled to conduct the telephone interview. Six of the
purposeful sampling members consented to participate. Three participants did not
respond to the informational packet sent to their school sites. While the sample
size decreased to a little less than 15% of the Experimental Group, sufficient
information-rich data was collected to conduct the content analysis.
The use of a semi-structured interview protocol was used and provided a
predetermined matrix for how the researcher obtained and gathered information.
The interviews were audio-taped to further focus research on the specific aspect of
a spill-over effect. Audiotapes were analyzed using a qualitative software program,
ATLAS.ti, to develop coding categories that were used to generate key findings.
Because data collection is a selective process (Miles & Huberman, 1994),
ATLAS.ti was utilized to divide the transcribed text into chunks (phrases,
sentences, and paragraphs), and then codes were attached to those chunks. From
those initial codes, the researcher looked for connections linking different parts of
the transcribed database using the software to develop higher-level codes. Miles
and Huberman (1994) point out that a researcher who uses a qualitative software
system can make procedures more systematic and explicit and permits flexibility
and revision in the data analysis. By assembling the transcribed text data first by
topics specific to each question, the reseracher was able to sort the interviewee
responses using a presassembled list of A priori first-level coding procedures.

73
Through this preliminary organizing scheme, the reseracher identified the most
descriptive wording from those topics and categories were created. Then using an
open coding process, the researcher reduced the list of categories by grouping
topics by patterns that related to each other, and interrelationships were then
developed within a theoretical model. This type of qualitative research strategy is
called grounded theory (Creswell, 2003) in which generated catagories of
information are selected and positioned within a larger theoretical perspective.
Because each interviewee had previously completed a teacher
questionnaire that included questions on the phenomenon of spill-over, the
interview process brought clarity and specificity to their perception of the research
topic. The interview questions included A Priori and open-ended questions, some
of which were simulation questions that were presented to hone in on relevant
responses specific to spill-over while at the same time allowing the interviewee to
create a personal context by requiring them to visualize the situation to be
described. A graphic organizer was used to facilitate the visualization for each
simulation setting (See Appendix B). By asking the person being interviewed to
imagine himself or herself in the situation about which the interviewer is interested,
this role-playing format deepens answers and enhances the quality of responses
(Patton, 2002). The interview focused on how teachers provided all students within
the project classrooms equal access to the differentiation strategies, how advanced
content related to teachers development as an emerging “content expert,” and how

74
the acquired models of teaching substantiated or disputed the potential spill-over
effect to non-gifted students using qualitative content analysis.
Using content analysis as described by Merriam (1998) provided the
researcher a systematic procedure for describing the content of communications
from the transcribed interviews. Patton (2002) further described content analysis as
identifying, coding, categorizing, classifying, and labeling the primary patterns in
the data. Following the audio-taped interviews, the text data was transcribed. An
initial coding scheme was used to analyze the core content of the interviews to
determine what was significant, based on the research questions. To further
analyze the data, (Rubin & Rubin, 1995) provided guidelines for coding qualitative
data in which the researcher put into one category all the material that speaks to one
theme or concept using grounded theory. From this, a detailed interpretation of the
research was made.
Data that pays attention to how teachers teach is both “authentic and usable
because it is powerfully framed in stories that form a depiction rather than a
description. (Matsui, 2007) purported that authentic data requires context by
providing cues and clues about what took place in a given situation. “Qualitative
inquiry means going into the field — into the real world of programs, organizations
— and getting close enough to the people and circumstances there to capture what
is happening” (Patton, 2002). This form of descriptive qualitative research (Berg,
1997) puts the researcher in the middle of the topic under study; the researcher goes
to the data rather than the other way around. It also emphasizes studying an issue

75
or topic from the participants’ frame of reference. Validity in the qualitative study
was maintained by using triangulation, or multiple source of data collection, and
examining evidence from the data for emerging findings and themes (Creswell,
2003; Merriam, 1998).

Timeline

The methodology process for this study was conducted during the fall of
2007 and winter of 2008. Upon being informed in August 2007, of having
successfully passed the Doctoral Qualifying Examination, the researcher completed
the Human Subject Curriculum Basic Course through the Collaborative
Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) in September 2007. The IRB process for the
teacher interview protocol was conducted in October/November of 2007 with
content validity being carried out in November 2007, for development and test
adequacy of the research instrument. A pilot study of the interview protocol was
conducted in early December of 2007. Following the pilot study, revisions were
made. Once the Javits project data became available in December, 2007, the
researcher began an examination of the primary data gathered through the teacher
questionnaire and initiated a quantitative analysis for research Questions One and
Two. January and February of 2008 were spent reviewing all data analysis and
summarizing findings. The researcher then conducted the teacher interviews in
February 2008 and had each subject session audio-taped for qualitative content
analysis. Analysis for research question three was done in March of 2008. The

76
dissertation for this research study was defended in April 2008, with the final
submission to USC completed in May, 2008 (see Table 4).

Table 4. Research Study Timeline

TIMELINE AUG./SEPT.
2007
OCT./NOV.
2007
DEC.
2007
JAN. /FEB.
2008
MAR./APR/MAY
2008
Qualifying
Exam
CITI
Certification
X
IRB Approval
Content
Validity
X
Pilot Study

X
Interviews
Data Analysis
Findings
Summary
X
Dissertation
Defense
Revisions
Submission
Process
X

Validity and Reliability

The dictionary defines research as “careful, patient, systematic, diligent
inquiry or examination in some field of knowledge, undertaken to establish facts or
principles” (McKechnie, 1983). At all times during the data collection, analysis,
and reporting process, the researcher adhered to the guidelines for ethical conduct
under the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of the U.S.
Department of Education (PR #S206A040072) and the University of Southern

77
California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Validity in this mixed methods
study was established by using triangulation, multiple sources of data, and
examining the evidence from this data to confirm findings as well as to investigate
trends and themes (Creswell, 2003) in an attempt to measure what was supposed to
be measured, that being a spill-over effect. The secondary data source, the teacher
questionnaire, was used for the quantitative analysis. The primary data source, the
teacher interview, was used for the qualitative analysis.
Through the use of multiple data collection methods, the likelihood was
lessened that the researcher would jump to conclusions based on insubstantial
evidence (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). While generalization was a potential
problem in terms of reliability for this study, the researcher scrutinized the data
analysis to such a degree as to demonstrate its veracity. Using the general-to-
specific principle of explanation, the researcher specified: 1) which parts of one
variable; 2) were related to which parts of another variable; 3) through which
mediating processes; and 4) with which salient interactions to determine the
essential ones (Shadish, 1995). The investigation of this research study did not set
out to prove a particular perspective.
On the contrary, through quantitative descriptive analysis coupled with
qualitative content analysis, its purpose was to find ways to explore new
information, to seek gaps and to look for trends regarding the relationship between
the teacher’s perception and choice of a differentiated curriculum design for gifted
students and the same teacher’s selection of a differentiated curriculum design to

78
spill-over and affect all students in a heterogeneous classroom. Reliability is the
degree to which measures are free from error and therefore yield consistent results.
The analysis was carried out with concern for consistency and stability to the
degree that both instruments measured the same thing but in different situations.
During this data collection process, the role of the researcher brought an
experiential frame of reference. As an educator in the public school system for 33
years, the researcher had 23 years of teaching experience having taught every grade
level from kindergarten through sixth along with another 10 years in district and
site administration. During the duration of this study, the researcher was a
principal of a Title I, Program Improvement elementary school and dealt daily with
both students and teachers and the choices and perceptions they shared. According
to research experts (Dana & Dana, 1995):
As the primary instrument in qualitative inquiry is the researcher, it
is essential that the researcher understand not only the nature of the
qualitative inquiry, but the beliefs, values and life experiences that
the researcher brings to the act of the research. It is through the
researcher’s interpretive lenses that the data are collected and
analyzed. This is in opposition to the way many people intuitively
view research. It would not be uncommon to hear that all
researchers, no matter which techniques they employ, should enter
the field tabula rasa, without lugging along any previous ideas,
convictions, or premises. This assertion is absurd as it is
impossible for any human being to exist in a meaningful way
without any conception (2).

Throughout the years of interactions, the researcher of this study developed a set of
personal and professional beliefs and convictions that, as Dana and Dana explained,

79
had a natural influence in the choice of research question, the inquiry, and the
conclusions that were made.

Conclusions

In summary, the population of this study was linked to participants in the
USC Javits Grant. This study used two instruments, a teacher questionnaire and a
teacher interview, to conduct a mixed-method research design. The secondary data
source was a teacher questionnaire that was predetermined under the guidelines of
the USC “Models of Teaching” Javits Grant and was completed in the spring of
2007 with data becoming available to the researcher in the fall of 2007. This
teacher questionnaire was conducted with 56 teachers, which included both the
Experimental Group (N=44) and the Comparison Group (N=12). Descriptive
statistics were used to analyze the data in examining the practices of differentiated
curriculum in heterogeneous classrooms with a teachers’ choices made for gifted
students and their perception of its spill-over effect to other students. Chi square
tests of significance were used to scrutinize the questionnaire responses for
question one, while frequency tables were used to examine question two. The use
of a telephone interview as a form of primary instrumentation was completed in the
winter of 2008 by a stratified purposeful sampling of the Javits participants (N=6)
to validate the quantitative data analysis. Results of findings were completed in the
spring of 2008.

80
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS

Introduction

This study examined the extent to which teachers of the gifted used differentiated
curriculum designs to spill-over and affect all learners in a heterogeneous
classroom. Descriptive and content analysis were used to explore trends between
the teacher’s perception and choice of a differentiated curriculum design for gifted
students and the same teacher’s selection of a differentiated curriculum design to
spill-over and affect all students in a heterogeneous classroom. Researchers who
believe that gifted students are not homogeneous find teachers having to match the
intellectual and personal needs of a gifted student on one hand while making
decisions about learning opportunities on the other (VanTassel-Baska, Quek, &
Feng, 2007). According to some current researchers, this requires expertise,
flexibility and ingenuity (Matthews & Foster, 2005a) and also often demands
dynamically responsive and scaffolded support mechanisms (Matthews & Foster,
2005b). If such curricular and instructional decision-making for gifted students
will effect positive change, the question of any spill-over effect on students’
learning within a heterogeneous classroom is of educational interest.
Through a two-phase sequential mixed method design, two instruments
were utilized. A teacher questionnaire, developed by the project director of the

81
USC Javits Grant was used as a secondary data source to address questions one and
two of this research study. A teacher interview protocol was developed as the
primary data source for question three of this study. Using this mixed method
approach, the data yielded quantitative results with qualitative trends and points of
emphasis. Research question one focused on the teachers’ selection of
differentiated curriculum and their same selection of a curriculum design to spill-
over and affect all students followed by question two that described reasons
influencing teachers’ selection of a differentiated curriculum design to spill-over
and affect all students in a heterogeneous classroom. Question three examined
teachers’ perceptions of their philosophic position on differentiated designs and
their potential to spill-over and affect all students and how these perceptions were
influenced by teacher training and class composition.

Project Description

This project was part of a Jacob K. Javits grant (PR/Award#s206A040072)
awarded to Sandra N. Kaplan, the project director, at the University of Southern
California by the U.S. Department of Education. The research questions related to
this study were defined by the specifications of the federal grant award and the data
analysis was responsive to the grant research questions. The project was comprised
of teachers from four Southern California school districts representative of urban,
suburban, and rural areas. Location was the most unique feature distinguishing

82
these districts. According to the Javits grant, each shared common attributes
reflective of most Southern California school districts: academic, linguistic,
cultural and economic diversity with expectations to meet stipulated API scores as
shown in Table 5.
To achieve urban, suburban, and rural diversity, four geographic areas of
Southern California were solicited. In the 2006-2007 school year, seven schools
from Los Angeles Unified School District represented Los Angeles County. Two
participating schools from Santa Ana Unified School District and four from
Oceanside School District were located in Orange County. One school in Brawley
represented Imperial County. The 2006-2007 project schools had Free and
Reduced Lunch demographics that ranged from 25% to 94%. English learner
populations were from 2% to 76%. API scores fluctuated from a lowest score of
553 to a highest score of 849. Gifted and Talented student populations at each
school site ranged from 3% of the school’s total population to 28% of the school’s
total population (California State Department of Education, 2008).

83
Table 5. Javits Project Demographics
2006-2007 Javits Project Demographics

Free/Reduced
Lunch
English
Learners
Gifted &
Talented
API

Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Urban
School A 92% 58% 9% 710
School B 43% 17% 28% 837
School C 94% 53% 15% 693
School D 25% 16% 20% 849
School E 90% 64% 13% 716
School F 91% 59% 11% 779
School G 66% 25% 23% 818
Santa Ana, Orange County, Urban
School H 90% 37% 9% 553
School I 89% 76% 6% 722
Oceanside, Orange County, Suburban
School J 93% 70% 11% 683
School J 51% 34% 12% 742
School L 41% 2% 3% 812
School M 48% 23% 11% 811
Brawley, Imperial County, Rural
School N 69% 27% 7% 726

84
Project Population

The sample population of Javits Grant participants was solicited under the
direction of the project director by the site principal, the GATE Coordinator, or
colleagues in accordance with policies governing the means by which teachers
could volunteer to become involved in professional activities. The delineation of
expectations for roles of participants in the project were presented to interested
teachers. Individuals had an opportunity to submit their application for
participation in the Experimental Group. All teachers who submitted applications
met the criteria for inclusion in the project and understood that they had a two-year
commitment that ended in June 2007. Attrition during the two-year period was
nominal; the majority of teachers decided to remain in the project for the 2007-
2008 school year. A small Comparison Group was selected from participating
schools for the Javits pilot study. Table 6 describes the sampling.
The composition of the participant pool (Experimental and Comparison
Groups) included the following grade levels taught: 3.8% first grade, 17.0%,
second grade, 41.5% third grade, 18.9% fourth grade, 17.0% fifth grade, and 5.7%
sixth grade. The Experimental Group consisted of 19 teachers from Los Angeles, 7
from Santa Ana, 10 from Oceanside, and 8 from Brawley for a total of 44 subjects.
The Comparison Group consisted of 4 teachers from Los Angeles, 6 from Santa
Ana, 1 teacher from Oceanside, and 1 from Brawley.

85
Table 6. Experimental and Comparison Groups

Research Question One

Overview

The first research question examined the relationship between the teacher’s
choice of a differentiated curriculum design for gifted students and the same

School District 2
nd
Grade

3
rd
Grade

4
th
Grade

5
th
Grade

Total
Experimental Group
Los Angeles 3 8 5 3 19
Santa Ana - 4 2 1 7
Oceanside 3 3 1 3 10
Brawley 2 5 0 1 8
Total 44
Comparison Group
Los Angeles 2 1 1 4
Santa Ana 1 2 3 6
Oceanside 1 1
Brawley 1 1
Total 12

86
teacher’s selection of a differentiated curriculum design to spill-over and affect all
students in a heterogeneous classroom. Sections V and VI of the teacher
questionnaire (see Appendix A) were used to determine this relationship. The
Experimental and Comparison Groups of the Javits grant comprised the purposeful
sampling for this question (N=56). This group was selected purposefully to focus
in depth on those subjects that had received training in gifted education and had a
classroom composition that included both gifted and non-gifted students. The
intent was to examine specific sections of the teacher questionnaire to learn more
about a teacher’s preferred definition of differentiation and a curriculum design that
best represented a spill-over effect. Spill-over was described in the teacher
questionnaire as “the means by which a differentiated curriculum for gifted
students can spill-over and affect the curriculum for all learners in a heterogeneous
classroom.”

Data Sample

A purposeful sampling of teachers (N=56) from urban, suburban, and rural
districts in Southern California completed the teacher questionnaire. These
subjects were purposefully selected for their participation in the grant research
project “Using Models of Teaching to Improve Student Achievement: Javits Gifted
and Talented Students in Education Act” and included 44 teachers in the
Experimental Group and 12 teachers in the Comparison Group, as previously
represented by Table 6. The 56 teachers taught grades 2-5 in either a cluster group

87
setting or heterogeneous setting. Prior to completing the questionnaire, the
Experimental Group had participated in the involvement of models of teaching over
a two-year period through the grant’s specifications. The Comparison Group had
not participated in any of the training from the Javits Grant.

Instrumentation

While the eight-page Javits teacher questionnaire (see Appendix A)
addressed a variety of topics, only Sections V and VI of the instrument were
included in this question’s analysis. Descriptive statistics were utilized as a
inferential method of reporting data for each statement of results (Galvan, 2006).
In these two sections of the questionnaire, subjects were asked to make a forced
choice to represent: first, a curriculum example that best represents their definition
of differentiated curriculum for advanced and gifted students; and then second, a
curriculum example that best represents the means by which a differentiated
curriculum for gifted students can spill-over and affect the curriculum for all
learners in a heterogeneous classroom.
The forced choice format asked a question and then presented the subject
with alternative responses. The subject was forced to choose the response that best
answered the question. In both Section V and VI of the teacher questionnaire, the
question was asked and then followed by seven alternatives that were each
represented as a written response and supported by a pictorial representation of that
response. Both verbal and non-linguistic representations were given for each

88
alternative to diffuse any lack of curriculum knowledge on the part of the subjects
(Schulman, 2002). According to Schulman in his “Table of Learning,” such critical
reflection on one's practice and understanding leads to higher-order thinking in the
form of a capacity to exercise judgment in the face of uncertainty and to create
designs in the presence of constraints and unpredictability. For each section (V and
VI), the seven alternatives were the same both in their verbal and non-linguistic
representation:
1. Replace the core with a curriculum differentiated for gifted students.
2. Replace only parts of the core curriculum students know with curriculum
differentiated specifically for them.
3. Parallel teach the core curriculum and differentiated curriculum for gifted
students.
4. Design a differentiated curriculum for gifted students inclusive of the core
curriculum.
5. Add curriculum for gifted students to the core curriculum only when
needed.
6. Design a new curriculum for gifted students completely ignoring the core
curriculum.
7. Teach only the core curriculum to gifted students.
As evidenced by all seven alternative responses, the relationship was between a
subject’s choice of a differentiated curriculum proto-type selection for

89
accommodating gifted students in a heterogeneous classroom and its spill-over
effect to the entire class.

Data Collection

The questionnaire was developed, disseminated, and later collected by the
research project director. It examined a variety of topics that pertained to gifted
education and was administered annually each spring in partial fulfillment of the
grant guidelines. Appendix A represents the teacher questionnaire that was
administered to the 56 Javits subjects in the spring of 2007. The data from that
questionnaire became available to the researcher in the fall of 2007 and served as a
secondary data source to address Question One of this study.

Data Analysis

Sections V and VI of the teacher questionnaire were used to demonstrate
participant responses to verbal and pictorial referents of differentiated curriculum.
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data of these two sections using
frequencies and percentage. Chi square tests of significance were used to scrutinize
the questionnaire responses for the Experimental and Comparison Groups. Further
analysis was done with frequency and percent tables to examine types of gifted
programs, teacher experience, teacher certification, and teacher expertise to
examine the extent of teacher training that represented the purposeful sampling for
Question One.

90
Findings

In Section V, subjects had to determine their best definition of differentiated
curriculum for gifted students. Given seven alternative prototypes, Table 7
displays the responses made in Section V of the teacher questionnaire by the
Experimental and Comparison Group subjects. Both verbal and non-linguistic
representations were given in a forced choice format.

Table 7. Prototypes to Differentiate Curriculum: Preferred Design
Definition Preferred
Experimental
Group
Experimental
Group
Comparison
Group
Comparison
Group

Alternatives
(frequency) (percent) (frequency) (percent)
Replace parts of the core
curriculum with differentiated
curriculum
1 2.4% . -
Replace the parts of the core
curriculum students know
- - - -
Parallel teach core and
differentiate curriculum
3 7.3% - -
Design a differentiated curriculum
inclusive of the core curriculum
37 90.2% 11 100%
Add curriculum for gifted to core
curriculum when needed
- - - -
Design a new curriculum for
gifted completely ignoring the
core curriculum
- - - -
Teach only the core curriculum to
the gifted
- - - -

91
Both the Experimental Group (N=41) and comparison group (N-11) for this
question selected the design of a differentiated curriculum inclusive of the core as
the most preferred definition of the differentiated curriculum responsive to gifted
students. 90.2% of the Experimental Group and 100% of the Comparison group
selected that response. Tomlinson suggested that differentiated curriculum designs
could be developed in the “regular classroom” (Tomlinson, 1999) to achieve a
spill-over effect. Table 8 demonstrates chi square analysis was then used as an
inferential statistic to examine significant differences in the type of definition
preferred to differentiate curriculum between the Experimental and Comparison
Groups in Section V responses.

Table 8. Prototypes to Differentiate Curriculum: Chi square Sub-analysis
of Definition
Definition Preferred
Experimental
Group
Control
Group

Alternatives
(frequency) (frequency)
χ² df p
Replace parts of the core curriculum
with differentiated curriculum
1 - 1.34 2 .05
Parallel teach core and differentiate
curriculum
3 -
Design a differentiated curriculum
inclusive of the core curriculum
37 11
Chi square test for Table 8: χ
2
(2) = 1.34, ns
(2) = degrees of freedom, based on a p < .05 significance level.

92
Not all respondents answered every question. Because many of the definitions
were not selected by any of the participants, a 2x3 contingency table was
constructed with group type in the column and “replace parts of the school
curriculum,” “parallel teach core and differentiated curriculum,” and “design a
differentiated curriculum inclusive,” included as rows, respectively. An unadjusted
chi square formula was then applied to the frequencies in each cell, resulting in a
chi square statistic of χ
2
(2) = 1.34, ns. This value did not reach the critical level of
significance at p <. 05 levels. However, it is important to note that for small
expected frequencies, chi square statistics can sometime become unreliable
(Creswell, 2003). Also, the small sample size, n=52, decreases the power to find
significant effects.
Following a preferred definition to differentiate curriculum, the subjects
were then asked in Section VI of the teacher questionnaire to select the curriculum
example best representing the means by which a differentiated curriculum for
gifted students could spill-over to all learners. Because gifted education has long
been innovative in developing services around challenging curriculum (Tomlinson
& Callahan, 1992), looking to the field of gifted education for contributions to an
understanding of general education curriculum reform that focuses on higher order
thinking skills was the general intent of this question. The forced choice format
was utilized again in Section VI to ask a question and then present the subject with
alternative responses. The seven alternatives were the same both in their verbal and
non-linguistic representation as in Section V of the teacher questionnaire. Table 9

93
provides a representation of how participants scored the prototypes to differentiate
curriculum as a means or strategy to spill-over to affect all learners for Section VI.

Table 9. Prototypes to Differentiate Curriculum: Means or Strategy to
Spill-over

Means to Spill-Over
Experimental
Group
Experimental
Group
Control
Group
Control
Group

Alternatives
(frequency) (percent (frequency) (percent)
Replace parts of the core curriculum
with differentiated curriculum
1 2.5% - -
Replace the parts of the core
curriculum students know
- - - -
Parallel teach core and differentiate
curriculum
4 10% 2 18.2%
Design a differentiated curriculum
inclusive of the core curriculum
35 87.5% 8 72.7%
Add curriculum for gifted to core
curriculum when needed
- - - -
Design a new curriculum for gifted
completely ignoring the core
curriculum
- - - -
Teach only the core curriculum to
the gifted
- - - -

Both the Experimental and Comparison Groups selected a prototype
depicting a differentiated curriculum for gifted students inclusive of the core
curriculum. 87.5% of the Experimental Group and 72.7% of the Comparison
Group selected this response. Chi square analysis was applied to determine the

94
significance of difference between the Experimental and Comparison Groups for
means to spill-over in differentiating curriculum in Section VI (see Table 10).
Table 10. Prototypes to Differentiate Curriculum: Chi square Sub-analysis of
Definition
Definition Preferred
Experimental
Group
Control
Group

Alternatives
(frequency) (frequency)
χ² df p
Replace parts of the core curriculum
with differentiated curriculum
1 2.5 1.15 2 .05
Parallel teach core and differentiate
curriculum
4 10
Design a differentiated curriculum
inclusive of the core curriculum
35 87.5

Chi square test for Table two: χ
2
(2) = 1.15, ns
(2) = degrees of freedom, based on a p < .05 significance level

Only prototypes that were endorsed by at least one subject were included in
the chi square analysis which resulted in a 2x3 contingency table with group as the
column and “replace parts of the school curriculum,” “parallel teach core and
differentiated curriculum,” and “design a differentiated curriculum inclusive,” as
the rows, respectively. An unadjusted chi square formula was then applied to the
frequencies in each cell, resulting in a chi square statistic, χ
2
(3) = 1.15, ns. This
value did not reach the critical level of significance at the p <. 05 levels, leading the

95
researcher to conclude that the Experimental and Comparison Groups did not
significantly differ in their preferences. A pictorial representation of the curriculum
prototype that best represented both the preferred definition of differentiated
curriculum for advanced and gifted students and the curriculum prototype that best
represented the means by which a curriculum example could spill-over is displayed
in Figure 1 (see Appendix A, Section V-VI).

Figure 1. Pictorial Representation of Definition Preferred and
Means to Spill-Over

Curriculum
For Gifted
CORE CURRICULUM
Design a differentiated curriculum for gifted
students inclusive of the core curriculum

96
One hundred percent of both the Experimental and Comparison Groups selected
this curriculum design to describe their preferred definition of differentiated
curriculum. In addition, 87.5% of the Experimental Group and 72.7% of the
Comparison Group selected this same curriculum example as the best prototype
that best represented the means by which a differentiated curriculum for gifted
students could spill-over and affect the curriculum for all learners in a
heterogeneous classroom.
Figure 1 illustrated the dominance of the differentiated curriculum for gifted
students as a means or strategy to spill over to affect all learners. Support for the
choice of a preferred curriculum prototype to best define differentiation and
represent a spill-over effect were further analyzed based on: 1) classroom
composition; 2) years of experience; 3) prior education; and, 4) efficacy. Important
to research question one of this study was the fact that there are many grouping
patterns to accommodate the gifted. As defined by the California Association for
the Gifted (CAG), homogeneous grouping is a method for assigning students by the
demonstrated need or ability based on a commonality of the students’ intellectual,
academic, and/or affective needs. Special Day Classroom is a grouping method
that provides a program structure for a self-contained GATE classroom. According
to responses on the teacher questionnaire, none of the 52 gifted programs
represented in this study contained homogeneous groupings or special day classes.
Heterogeneous grouping is a method for assigning gifted and non-gifted students
by same age/grade level range. Cluster grouping is a method for assigning a group

97
of gifted students and other heterogeneously grouped students to the same
classroom to work together during the academic school day. Table 11 represents
the participant classroom grouping patterns.
Table 11. Participant Classroom Grouping Patterns

Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Homogeneous Grouping
Valid
Missing
Total
No
System
48
5
53
90.6
9.4
100.0
100.0 100.0

Heterogeneous Grouping
Valid

Missing
Total
No
Yes
Total
System
43
5
48
5
53
81.1

9.4
90.6
9.4
100.0
89.6
10.4
100.0
89.6
100.0
Cluster Grouping
Valid

Missing
Total
No
Yes
Total
System
6
42
48
5
53
11.3
79.2
90.6
9.4
100.0
12.5
87.5
100.0
12.5
100.0

Table 11 (continued).

98

Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Special Day Class Grouping
Valid

Missing
Total
No
Total
System
48
48
5
53
90.6
90.6
9.4
100.0
100.0 100.0

The vast majority of the gifted programs represented in this study were
either heterogeneously grouped (9.4%, N=5) with both identified gifted and non-
gifted students or were cluster grouped (79.2%, N=42) with both identified gifted
students and other heterogeneously grouped students. 9.4% (N-5) of questionnaire
respondents did not identify. Given these demographics, responses to question one
indicated that subjects from cluster grouped classrooms and heterogeneous grouped
classrooms selected to “design a differentiated curriculum inclusive of the core
curriculum” to best represent a preferred definition and means to spill-over in their
classroom settings where student abilities ranged from gifted to non-gifted students.
Together, heterogeneous grouping and differentiated instruction create an
atmosphere of equality and caring in the classroom, and offers students a better
opportunity for success (DiMartino & Miles, 2004).
Also important to question one of this study was how the teacher’s
perception of spill-over of differentiated curriculum designs for gifted students
were affected by their experience in gifted education. Merely grouping students in

99
a particular setting or a particular set of activities without, at the same time having
the pedagogical knowledge to change the content and the instructional strategies
will not yield much in the way of results (Council for Exceptional Children, 2007).
Table 12 demonstrates the demographics responses given at the beginning of the
teacher questionnaire.

Table 12. Teacher Experience of Javits Participants

N Mean Std.
Deviation

Years of General Education
Teaching Experience

Years of Gifted Education Teaching
Experience

Credit hours in university courses in
gifted education

Workshop or conference hours in
gifted education

Time spent preparing each day for
lessons for gifted students

51

49

41

48

49

14.57

7.92

18.34

138.88

2.57

9.214

6.633

37.854

174.651

.791

Subjects indicated that they had a mean of 14.57 years of general education
teaching, 7.92 years of gifted education teaching, 18.34 credit hours in university
courses in gifted education, 138.88 workshop hours, and spend a mean of 2.57

100
hours per day preparing lessons for gifted students. Also, certification of
participants was considered relevant to the study. 43.4% (N-23) had obtained a
Master’s Degree and 1.9% (N-9) had obtained a doctorate. In terms of specialized
training, 43.4% (N-23) had received some form of certification or endorsement in
gifted education: 37.7% (N-20) having university certification, 11.3% (N=6)
having district certification, and 39.6% having CAG certification (See Table 13).
Finally, teacher efficacy was important to research question one as it related
to this study’s constructivist framework of learning and teaching. Constructivist
teacher educators have relied on a five-stage paradigm of teacher expertise
(Berliner, 1987). This novice-to-expert model, which is attributed to Berliner, has
five stages from novice to expert. Table 14 examined subject responses to their
perceived level of expertise as a professional educator.
When asked to rate their level of expertise as a professional educator of
gifted students on a Likert scale (1-5) from novice to expert, 54.7 (N=29) of the
participants deemed themselves conversant (value level 3) while 28.3% (N=15)
deemed themselves conversant-expert (value level 4). In making any
interpretations from the data gathered in question one, it was essential to have a
theory of the learner as well as the settings and experiences (Desforges, 1995).

Table 13. Teacher Certification of Javits Participants
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent

101
Master’s Degree
Valid

Missing
Total
Yes
No
Total
System

23
24
47
6
53
43.4
45.3
88.7
11.3
100.0
48.9

51.1

100.0
48.9

100.0
Doctorate Degree
Valid

Missing
Total
Yes
No
Total
System
1
40
41
12
53
1.9
75.5
77.4
22.6
100.0
2.4
97.6
100.0
2.4
100.0
Certificate or Endorsement in Gifted Education
Valid

Missing
Total
Yes
No
Total
System
23
25
48
5
53
43.4
47.2
90.6
9.4
100.0
47.9
52.1
100.0
47.9
100.0

Table 13 (Continued).

Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent

102
University Certificate or Endorsement
Valid

Missing
Total
Yes
No
Total
System
20
5
25
28
53
37.7
9.4
47.2
52.8
100.0
80.0
20.0
100.0
80.0
100.0
District Certificate or Endorsement
Valid

Missing
Total
Yes
No
Total
System
6
19
25
28
53
11.3
35.8
47.2
52.8
100.0
24.0
76.0
100.0
24.0
100.0
CAG Certificate or Endorsement
Valid

Missing
Total
Yes
No
Total
System
21
4
25
28
53
39.6
7.5
47.2
52.8
100.0
84.0
16.0
100.0
84.0
100.0
Finally, teacher efficacy was important to research question one as it related
to this study’s constructivist framework of learning and teaching. Constructivist
teacher educators have relied on a five-stage paradigm of teacher expertise
(Berliner, 1987). This novice-to-expert model, which is attributed to Berliner, has

103
five stages from novice to expert. Table 14 examined subject responses to their
perceived level of expertise as a professional educator.

Table 14. Expertise as a Professional Educator of Gifted Students by Javits
Participants

Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Novice
Novice-Conversant
Conversant
Conversant-Expert
Expert
Total
System

2
3
29
15
2
51
2
53
3.8
5.7
54.7
28.3
3.8
96.2
3.8
100.0
3.9
5.9
56.9
29.4
3.9
100.0
3.9
9.8
66.7
96.1
100.0

When asked to rate their level of expertise as a professional educator of gifted
students on a Likert scale (1-5) from novice to expert, 54.7 (N=29) of the
participants deemed themselves conversant (value level 3) while 29.3% (N=15)
deemed themselves conversant-expert (value level 4). In making any

104
interpretations from the data gathered in question one, it was essential to have a
theory of the learner as well as the settings and experiences (Desforges, 1995).

Research Question Two

Overview

Question two examined the teachers’ selection of specific curriculum and
instructional strategies and the reasons that influenced their choice using the data
from Section III of the teacher questionnaire (see Appendix A). The Experimental
and Comparison Groups of the Javits grant comprised the purposeful sampling for
this question (N=56). The intent of question two was to analyze the teacher’s
specific preferences for differentiated curriculum and instructional designs using
their pedagogical content knowledge and to examine the reasons to support their
primary choice (Shulman, 2002). In Shulman’s seminal work, pedagogical content
knowledge was described as a form of practical knowledge used by teachers to
guide their actions in highly contextualized classroom settings (Shulman, 1986,
1987). Important to question two was the theoretical framework of constructivism
in teaching and learning. For Dewey, any theory of practice finds its full meaning
only as it is put into practice and gains its verification as it is tested there (Dewey,
1938).

Data Sample

105

As the Javits research grant participants completed all sections of the
teacher questionnaire, the purposeful sampling remained the same for this question.
The 56 teachers of grades 2-5 from rural (Brawley), urban (Los Angeles Unified),
and suburban (Santa Ana and Oceanside) school districts comprised the subject
sample. There were 44 teachers in the Experimental Group and 12 in the
Comparison Group.

Instrumentation

Using the forced choice format again in Section III of the teacher
questionnaire, all subjects in the inclusive composite group were first asked to
make a choice between two differing curriculum and instructional strategies. Using
their pedagogical content knowledge, subject were asked to select from defined
areas of focus including the: 1) curriculum source; 2) differentiated curriculum
elements; 3) content; 4) organizational structure; and 5) grouping patterns. Table
15 represents an item analysis of Section III of the teacher questionnaire as
representative of the California State Standards for Gifted and Talented Students
and supported by the California Department of Education published Differentiating
the Core Curriculum and Instruction to Provide Advanced Learning Opportunities
(CDE, 1994).

Table 15. Teacher Questionnaire, Section III, Item Analysis

106
Areas of Focus Number of
Item
Curriculum and Instructional Strategies
1. Creating own lessons or following teacher’s guide of
prescribed curriculum
6. Related to interests of students and meet needs/abilities of
gifted or related to standards-based text or district
curriculum
Curriculum
Source
13. Teaching small groups or allowing student independent
study
4. Teaching basic skills or teaching critical thinking skills
11. Teaching creative thinking skills or teaching basic skills
Differentiated
Curriculum
Elements
12. Teaching the basic prompts of who, what, when, etc. to
seek information or teaching the prompts of depth and
complexity to seek information
5. Teaching basic facts and concepts or teaching universal
concepts and big ideas
Content
7. Teaching traditional knowledge in each subject area or
teaching generalizations, principles, theories across
disciplines
8. Teaching many different topics across various disciplines
or teaching a single discipline
Organizational
Structure
10. Teaching single subjects separately or teaching all subjects
connected to a theme or universal concept.
2. Teaching small homogeneous groups or teaching entire
heterogeneous class
3. Teaching in heterogeneous small groups or teaching whole
class heterogeneous groups
Grouping
Patterns
9 Teaching advanced and gifted students or teaching
average students or teaching struggling students

For each decision within the set of curriculum and instructional strategies, the
subjects were then asked to identify the reason for their choice. The seven reasons
included:
1. expediency (time);
2. previous experience dictated that this worked best;

107
3. expectations of the district or school;
4. just because … I don’t have a reason for the choice;
5. challenge to students;
6. relationship to expectations or needs of the gifted; and
7. affected all learners in the classroom.

Data Collection

The teacher questionnaire protocol was completed and returned within a
stipulated time period by the 56 teacher participants in the spring of 2007,
including both the Experimental Group (N=44) and the Comparison Group (N-12).
The questionnaire protocol was developed and disseminated in partial fulfillment of
the Javits grant requirements. A survey design provided quantitative description of
trends, attitudes, or opinions of a population with the intent of generalizing from
the survey sample to a larger population (Patton, 2002). The data from that
questionnaire became available to the researcher in the fall of 2007 and served as a
secondary data source to address Question Two of this study to find out about
participants’ specific preferences for differentiated curriculum and instructional
designs and the reasons for their choice.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data in examining Section III
of the teacher questionnaire. Percentage tables were used to analyze responses of a

108
teacher’s selection of curricular and instructional strategies and the reasons
influencing that selection. The data was analyzed first by looking at the entire
purposeful sampling (N=56) and then a comparative analysis was done to examine
the choices made by the Experimental Group (N=44) compared to the choices
made by the Comparison Group (N=12).

Findings

Research question two focused on reasons affecting the teacher’s selection
of a differentiated curriculum and instructional designs, appropriate for grades 2-5
gifted students. Section III of the teacher questionnaire was used to examine those
reasons. According to Tomlinson (2001a), the goal of differentiation in the regular
classroom is “to ensure that this central and powerful component in the educational
lives of most students is a full partner in ensuring an appropriate, high quality
education based on the particular learning needs of each individual … at its most
basic level, a differentiated classroom is one in which the teacher attempts to
understand the particular needs of all learners and adapts curriculum and instruction
to be responsive to those needs,” (6).
In Section III of the questionnaire, teachers indicated their choice of
preference among thirteen sets of curriculum and instructional strategies. Then,
subjects were asked to identify the reason that most influenced their choice. Seven
stated reasons were displayed from which teachers made their primary choice. Of
particular interest were those responses that indicated the reasons of “challenge to

109
students” and/or “affects all learners in the classroom” as highlighted in Table 16
providing a rationale for a spill-over effect.

110
Table 16. Differentiated Curriculum and Instructional Strategies (Inclusive Composite Group)

Teacher Questionnaire, Section III, Methods of Teaching
Reasons influencing teacher selection
#

Curriculum and Instructional Strategies
Expectancy Works best
from
previous
experience
School
Expecta
-tions
Just
because
Challenge
to
students
Related to
giftedness
Affects all
students
1. Own Lesson
76%
Using teachers guide
24%

2%

6%

18%

18%

20%

36%
2. Teaching small
homogeneous
groups
42%
Teaching entire
heterogeneous class
57.4%

18%

6%

6%

10%

8%

52%
3. Teaching small
heterogeneous
groups
20.8%
Teaching the whole
heterogeneous class
79.2%

26%

4%

6%

6%

4%

52%
4. Teaching basic
skills
18%
Teaching critical
thinking skills
82%

4.1%

4.1%

14.3%

2%

24.5%

32.7%

111
Table 16 (continued).

Reasons influencing teacher selection
#

Curriculum and Instructional Strategies

Expectancy Works best
from previous
experience
School
Expecta-
tions
Just
because
Challenge
to students
Related to
giftedness
Affects all
students
5. Teaching basic
facts & concepts
33.3%
Teaching universal
concepts & big ideas
66.7%

4.1%

4.1%

14.3%

2%

24.5%

18.4%

32.7%
6. Teaching areas
that interest the
gifted
49%
Teaching standards-
based district curriculum
51%

4%

48%

6%

24%

18%
7. Teaching
traditional
knowledge in
subjects
36.7%
Teaching big ideas across
disciplines

63.3%

6%

24%

2%

20%

8%

40%
8. Teaching topics
across the
disciplines
85.7%
Teaching in a single
discipline
14.3%

10.2%

8.2%

12.2%

2%

20.4%

8.2%

38.6%
9. Teach Advanced
students
81.3%
Teach
average
students
10.4%
Teach
Struggling
Students
8.3%

2%

2%

2%

9.8%

5.9%

17.8%

25.5%

112
Table 16 (continued).

Reasons influencing teacher selection
#

Curriculum and Instructional Strategies

Expectancy Works best
from previous
experience
School
Expecta-
tions
Just
because
Challenge
to students
Related to
giftedness
Affects all
students
10. Teaching subjects
separately
34.7%
Teaching all subjects
connected by universal
concept
65.3%

10%

10%

14%

2%

12%

12%

40%
11. Teaching critical
thinking
58.3%
Teaching basic skills
41.7%

6.3%

22.9%

2.1%

27.1%

6.3%

35.4%
12. Teaching basic
prompts
16.3%
Teaching
depth/complexity
prompts
83.7%

4.2%

12.5%

29.2%

14.6%

39.6%
13. Teaching small
groups
48.9%
Teaching independent
study
51.1%

8.2%

8.2%

6.1%

16.3%

20.4%

40.8%

113
The composite group gave priority to curriculum and instructional strategies that
were differentiated by design and indicated a preference for students’ abilities.
Specific correlation between the teacher’s selections and the reasons for their
choices are as follows:
1. The teachers’ responses indicated that the majority of them gave greater value
to creating their own lesson (Item 1-76%) rather than using the teacher’s
guide or prescribe curriculum (Item 1-24%). The most prevalent reason for
their choice indicated, “affects all learners” (36%).
2. The teachers gave greater priority to teaching the entire (Item 2) or whole
(Item 3) heterogeneous class (Item 2-57.4% and Item 3-79.2%) than they
gave to teaching in small heterogeneous (Item 3-20.8%) or small
homogeneous (Item 2-42%) groups. The most prevalent reasons for their
choices were similar for both Items 2 and 3; “affects all learners.”
3. Teachers valued critical (Item4-82%) and creative thinking (Item11-58.3%)
over teaching basic skills (Item4-18% and Item 11-41.7%). Teachers gave
priority to critical versus creative thinking skills when both were juxtaposed
to basic skills. Two factors were revealed as contributors to the selection of
critical and creative thinking skills over basic skills: (1) “affects all learners”
(Item 4-32.7% and Item 11-35.4%); (2) challenge to students (Item 4-32.7%
and Item 11-27.1%). It should be noted that teachers gave equal value to the
rationales of “affects all students” and “challenge to students” when they
gave greater value to critical versus basic skills teaching.

114
4. The teaching of universal concepts and big ideas were given high value (Item
5-66.7%; Item 7-63.3%). “Affects all students” was the selected choice to
explain both items (Item 5-32.7% and Item 7-40%). However, the second
choices explaining their preference of universal concepts and big ideas over
basic facts and concepts or traditional knowledge differed. Item 5 identified
“challenge to students” (27.5%) as the reason for the selection whereas Item 7
identified “expectations of the district” (24%).
5. The priority for allowing students to get involved in a self-directed
independent study (51.5%) and teaching in small groups (48.9%) were
explained by their “affect on all learners” in the classroom (40.8%).
6. Eighty-three percent of the teachers stated that they value teaching the
prompts of depth and complexity to seek information (83.7%) over teaching
the basic prompts of who, what, when, etc. to seek information (16.3%). Two
explanations were given for the priority they assigned these items: (1) “affects
all learners” 36.9%; and (2) “challenge to students” 29.2%.
7. Teaching across the discipline (85.7%) received more emphasis than did
teaching in a single discipline (14.3%). Both “affects all students” (38.6%)
and “challenge to students” (20.4%) were given as the reasons to support the
selection of across-discipline teaching.
Through the efforts of the Javits Grant, the Experimental Group in this
research study were provided professional development experiences that included
classroom demonstrations, situational practice, coaching, feedback, teacher-

115
developed lessons, and annual summer institute training on the implementation of
models of teaching to affect student achievement. Inclusive of the Javits grant was
the framework for developing content and pedagogical knowledge of the program
participants. By providing a set of curriculum and instructional strategies to
stimulate their judgments about teaching, a comparative analysis was done to
evaluate the decisions made by the Experimental Group and the Comparison Group
(see Table 17). This data was used to reinforce the theoretical framework of
constructivism using pedagogical content knowledge (Dewey, 1938; Shulman,
2002; Vgotsky, 1978).

116
Table 17. Experimental and Comparison Groups: Primary Reasons
for Choices
Curriculum and Instructional Strategies Challenge to students Affects all students
Exp/Com
(%)
Exp/Com
(%)
Exp
(%)
Com
(%)
Exp
(%)
Com
(%)

Own lesson

Using teachers guide

17.5

18.2

37.5

27.3

1
82.5 54.5 17.5 45.5

Teach small
homogeneous
groups
Teach entire
heterogeneous class

7.5

18.2

55.0

36.4
2
35.1 63.3 64.9 36.4

Teach small
heterogeneous
groups

Teach the whole
heterogeneous class

7.3

0.0

53.7

40.0

3
21.1 18.2 78.9 81.8

Teach basic
skills

Teach critical
thinking skills

37.5

10.0

32.5

30.0

4
12.5 45.5 87.5 54.5

Teach basic
facts &
concepts

Teach universal
concepts/big ideas

30.8

9.1

30.8

36.4

5

26.3 54.5 73.7 45.5

117
Table 17 (continued).

Curriculum and Instructional Strategies Challenge to students Affects all students
Exp/Com
(%)
Exp/Com
(%)
Exp
(%)
Com
(%)
Exp
(%)
Com
(%)

Teach areas that
interest the gifted

Teach
standards-
based
curriculum

0.0

0.0

20.0

9.1

6
47.5 54.5 52.5 45.5

Teach traditional
knowledge in
subjects

Teach big Ideas
across
disciplines

27.5

0.0

40.0

36.4

7
28.2 63.6 71.8 36.4

Teach topics across
the disciplines

Teach a single
discipline

23.1

18.2

41.0

27.3

8
92.3 63.8 7.7 36.4

Teach advance
students

Teach average
students

Teach
struggling
students

17.1

9
84.6 70.0 10.3 10.0

10

Teach subjects
separately

25.6 63.8

Teach all
subjects
connected by
universal
concept
74.4 36.4

17.5

0.0

42.5

27.3

118
Table 17 (continued).

Curriculum and Instructional Strategies Challenge to students Affects all students
Exp/Com
(%)
Exp/Com
(%)
Exp
(%)
Com
(%)
Exp
(%)
Com
(%)

Teach critical
thinking

Teach basic skills

28.9

11
60.5 45.5 39.5 54.5

18.2

36.8

27.3

Teach basic
prompts

Teach depth & complexity
prompts

35.9
12
7.7 45.5 93.3 54.5

10.0

43.6

20.0

13

Teach small
groups

47.5 60.0

Teach independent study

52.6 40.0

17.9

18.2

41.0

36.4

Given an array of curriculum and instructional strategies, it was the intent of
the researcher to examine the preference for differentiated curriculum and
instructional strategies and reasons to support the primary choice of subjects in the
Experimental Group who were participants in the Javits “Models of Teaching”
grant training to those subjects in the Comparison Group who had received no grant
training. Their responses yielded the following findings that included “challenge to
students” and/or “affects all students” by the Experimental and/or Comparison
Group. Proving supporting reasons for these choices are as follows:

119
1. Both favored “creating own lesson” to “using the teachers guide” for different
reasons. The Experimental Group indicated that “affects all students” guided
their decision while the Comparison Group said their choice was in accord
with “district, state expectations.”
2. The Comparison Group favored teaching small homogeneous groups over
teaching the entire heterogeneous group because they viewed it as “affecting
all students” and “meeting district, school expectations.” However, when
asked whether they favored teaching small groups versus whole
heterogeneous class, they responded more affirmatively to teaching whole
heterogeneous class, giving the reason that it “affected all students.”
3. Both the Experimental and Comparison Groups gave greater priority to
teaching critical thinking skills rather than basic skills and both groups
indicated the rationale for their selection was based on “affects all students,”
as well as “related to gifted.” The Experimental Group stated that “challenge
to students” also defined their selection. The Experimental Group identified
“affects all students” and “challenge to students” as the reasons for the
decision while the Comparison Group identified “affects all students” and
“district, school expectations” as the rationales for their choices.
4. The Experimental Group placed greater emphasis on “teaching universal
concepts and big ideas” whereas the Comparison Group identified “teaching
basic facts and concepts” as their choice. Both groups identified “affects all

120
students” as a reason for their selection and the Experimental Group also
defined “challenge to students” as an impetus for their decision.
5. A major difference was noted between the Experimental and Comparison
Groups regarding the priority given to teaching “basic prompts” such as who,
what, when, etc. versus the “depth and complexity prompts.” The
Experimental Group valued the “depth and complexity prompts” more than
did the Comparison Group. Whereas the Experimental Group stated that the
reason for their choice was “affects all students” and “challenge to students,”
the Comparison Group justified their value for the “basic prompts” by stating
that they “district, school expectation.
Given the choice of seven reasons from which to support their selection of a
particular curriculum and instructional strategies for gifted students, the teacher
respondents emphasized the reason “affects all learners” regardless of the priority
given to any given teaching method.

Research Question Three

Overview

The third research question examined how the teacher’s perceptions of
spill-over of differentiated curriculum designs for gifted students were affected by
the teacher’s training in gifted education and the composition (grouping) of
students in a classroom where interest, needs, and abilities vary. To extend the

121
understanding of data gathered from the teacher questionnaire, open-ended semi-
structured teacher interviews were conducted with a purposeful sampling of
teachers from the Javits Experimental Group (N=6). This relatively small sample
was selected purposefully to focus in depth on information-rich cases whose study
illuminated the issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry and
therefore worthy of in-depth study (Patton, 2002). The interviews helped to
triangulate data for this study. The intent was to also learn more about why
teachers perceive differentiated curriculum designs to have the means by which to
spill-over and affect all learners as well as the extent to which their training in the
Javits Grant and their classroom composition impacted those perceptions.

Data Sample

Based on convenience, a purposeful sample of teachers (N=9) was selected
to solicit for interviews. This represented twenty percent of the Javits Experimental
Group. In February 2008, introductory letters were sent to the principals of those
nine teachers explaining that one and/or some of the teachers at their school site
would be invited to participate in a telephone interview for the purpose of gathering
information about each teacher’s perceptions of differentiated curriculum. It was
further explained that an informational packet would be sent directly to the teachers
requesting consent to participate in the interview process. Following the
introductory letter to the building-level administrators, an information packet was
sent to the sample pool the following week by priority mail. Each packet contained

122
a letter of introduction, a consent to participate in a research study form, an
information contact sheet, and a copy of the interview instrument (see Appendices
C-F). Six subjects returned their consent form while three did not respond. Table
18 describes the interview sample.

Table 18. Interview Subjects

Grade Level Class
Composition
School
Setting
School
API

Interview
Duration
(Min./Sec.)
Interviewee A
3rd Cluster Suburban 742 16.24
Interviewee B
5
th
Heterogeneous Urban 722 21.57
Interviewee C
2
nd
Cluster Suburban 811 26.39
Interviewee D
5
th
Cluster Urban 779 19.41
Interviewee E
5
th
Heterogeneous Suburban 683 21.06
Interviewee F
4
th
Cluster Urban 722 18.25

Three of those six subjects taught in urban settings and three taught in suburban
areas. There were no participants from a rural school district. Grades two through
five were represented in this sampling with three fifth grade teachers, one fourth
grade teacher, one third grade teacher, and one second grade teacher. Four of the
subjects had a cluster class composition while the other two had a heterogeneous
grouping. The API scores for the six school sites ranged from a low of 683 to a

123
high of 811. For comparative measure, the average API score in grades 2-6 for
2006-2007 in California was 761 (California State Department of Education, 2008).

Instrumentation

• The researcher developed an instrument that included behaviors, opinions,
feelings, knowledge, sensory data, and demographics as question options
(Patton, 2002). A pilot study of the interview protocol was conducted in
late fall of 2007 to test content and construct validity. The interview
instrument had fifteen questions framed in the present tense and were
established in a fixed sequence (see Table 19). The first four questions
required dichotomous responses but followed with role-playing simulation
to create a personal context. The other eleven questions were open-ended
probes to deepen the depth of responses (Gibson, Wiggins, & Crowley,
2007).

124
Table 19. Types of Topics in Interview Questions
Topic Type
Question
Number
Interview Question
1 Differentiated content standard to a
homogeneous group
2 Differentiated content standard to a
heterogeneous group
3 Differentiated content standard to a cluster
group
Behaviors:
What a person has done
or is doing
4 Differentiated content standard to a special day
class group
5 Philosophical position on the potential of spill-
over
Opinions/Values:
What a person thinks
about the topic
6 Factors determining curriculum design selection
for gifted students to spill-over to affect all
learners
7 Confidence in decision making for lesson
design and models of teaching

8 Level of efficacy in teaching differentiated
curriculum designs
9 Relationship between challenging gifted
students and all other learners
Knowledge:
To get facts about the
topic
10 Differentiated elements that best provides for a
spill-over effect
11 Perceptions of differentiated curriculum
Sensory:
What people have seen,
touched, heard, tasted,
or smelled
12 School-wide interest in models of teaching and
differentiation
13 Level of expertise as a professional educator
14 Time spent preparing for differentiated lessons
each
Background:
Demographic questions

15 Amount of training and how it has affected
perceptions of

125

The interview questions focused on how teachers provided all students
within the project classrooms equal access to the differentiated strategies, how
advanced content related to a teacher’s development as an emerging “content
expert,” (Schulman, 2002) and how the acquired models of teaching substantiated
or disputed the potential spill-over effect to non-gifted students.
• Questions 1-4 utilized graphic organizers (see Appendix B) to facilitate the
visualization of a particular classroom composition and the interviewee was
asked to imagine himself or herself in that setting. By asking the person
being interviewed to imagine himself or herself in the situation about which
the interviewer is interested, this role-playing format deepens answers and
enhances the quality of responses (Patton, 2002).
• Questions 5-8 dealt with opinions, values, feelings, and emotions. Before
starting this phase of the interview, the researcher reviewed how the “spill-
over effect” had been described in the teacher questionnaire that each
subject had taken the year before. It was defined in the questionnaire as the
“means by which a differentiated curriculum for gifted students can spill-
over and affect the curriculum for all learners in a heterogeneous
classroom.”
• Questions 9 and 10 asked subjects to define their relationship between
gifted and all other learners in their classroom to determine their knowledge

126
of specific elements of a differentiated curriculum design that would best
provide a spill-over effect.
• Questions 11 and 12 were sensory questions aimed at perceptions of others
about differentiation and evidence of school-wide interest based on
involvement in the Javits grant.
• Questions 13 through15 provided background information about each
participant for comparison purposes.

Data Collection

The interview investigation was conducted in several phases. First, the
protocol was designed and the sample selected. After receiving IRB consent forms
to participate and be audio-taped and text transcribed, subjects were contacted to
schedule the telephone interview. The researcher placed the telephone call to the
interviewee at the agreed upon time and place. All interviews were conducted after
school or in the evening using a digital voice recorder in late February and early
March 2008. Each interview began by asking permission to put the subject on
speakerphone and begin audio-recording. This allowed the researcher the
opportunity to both record the interview as well as take field notes for back-up.
Adhering to the interview script (see Appendix C), each telephone interview was
conducted with little deviation from the protocol. The interviews varied from
16:24 to 26.39 minutes in length. Each interview was transcribed verbatim with
IRB approval to use as direct quotations.

127

Data Analysis

All data were organized and managed using ATLAS.ti, a qualitative
analysis software program. A data management system such as this one provided a
systematic means to store, code, retrieve, compare, and link data (Patton, 2002). A
combination of A priori and open coded analysis was utilized. The data was
compiled by applying an initial set of codes based on a review of literature and
open-coding. From those initial codes, the reseracher looked for connections
linking different parts of transcribed data. Then open coding was used by the
researcher to identify concepts as they were discovered in the text data (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). Additional codes were created as necessary. Through this
preliminary organizing scheme, the researcher identified the most descriptive
wording from those topics and catagories were created. The researcher further
collapsed codes as needed and investigated trends and themes. Interrelationships
were then developed using grounded theory (Cresell, 2003).

Findings

The interview instrument included fifteen questions (see Appendix B). The
questions focused on how teachers provided all students within the project
classrooms equal access to the differentiation strategies, how advanced content
related to teachers development as an emerging pedagogical content expert, and
how the acquired models of teaching substantiated or disputed the potential spill-

128
over effect to non-gifted students. From the 15 questions that used behaviors,
opinions, feelings, knowledge, and sensory data, 74 initial codes were established
from the transcribed text using a qualitative software tool, ATLAS.ti. These codes
were collapsed and 10 discernable catagories were found. The category labeled
miscellaneous was further analyzed and collapsed. From the remaining catagories,
patterns were coalesced into three themes: 1) Impact of Philosophical Beliefs,
2) Impact of Teacher Efficacy, and 3) Impact of Professional Development.
I. Impact of Philosophical Beliefs
a. Potential of Spill-Over
b. Grouping Practices
c. High Expectations
2. Impact of Teacher Efficacy
a. Teacher Efficacy
b. Teacher Perceptions/Other Teacher Perceptions
c. Social Justice/Equal Access
3. Impact of Professional Development
a. Curriculum Designs
b. Instructional Strategies
c. Professional Development/Teacher Training
Impact of Philosophical Beliefs
The first theme dealt with the philosophy and values expressed by the
interview subjects. Within that theme, three pervasive catagories were discerned.

129
One was their strong philosophical view in the potential for a spill-over effect.
Second was how all of the inteview subjects valued grouping practices to obtain a
spill-over effect. Third, each of the subjects valued a responsibility to maintain
high expectations for all of their students.
Most important to this research study on differentiated curriculum and
instructional designs was the potential for a spill-over effect and the first catagory
to be examined. All six subjects were unanimous in their philosophical belief that a
spill-over effect was evident in all classroom groupings of students (see Table 20).
According to Kaplan (2004a), relevant to the spill-over effect is the concept of
reciprocity by which one program can share content and pedagogy to enhance
another program.

Table 20. Potential of Spill-Over Effect

Potential for Spill-Over Effect
Frequency
(N)
Percent
(%)
Yes 6 100%
No 0 0%

The responses from the six subjects indicated that rich and rigorous
curriculum for the gifted had the potential to spill-over and positively affect all
learners within a heterogenous setting. This philosophy concurs with researchers
who espouse improving instruction through differentiation for gifted student as

130
having the additional potential to positively impact the curriculm of all learners.
According to Gould (2000), “the ripple effect” improves instruction for all of the
students, the curricular practices of the teacher, and ultimately, the school.
Agreeing, the National Association of Gifted Children has said in its position
statement that: “the integration of gifted education programming into general
education programming promotes the exchange of ideas and pedagogy to enhance
learning of all students…with positive spill-over effects,” (NAGC). The interview
subjects shared a similar position as reflected in their responses.
Sample Responses for the Potential of Spill-Over
Teacher A: I think the potential for spill-over is very great.

Teacher B: I absolutely support it [spill-over] 100%. I have a
heterogeneous class and I witness spill-over everyday in my classroom.

Teacher C: My philosophy is always to be engaging all levels of kids
because spillover will happen if you provide the opportunity.

Teacher D: My expectation is that there will always be a spill-over effect.
Kids who aren’t typically gifted are just as engaged in the information and
spill-over is evident when I use a differentiated lesson in my cluster class.

Teacher E: After years of worksheets, I have students in my classroom that
are totally disengaged because they haven't been exposed to differentiated
curriculum. These students don't know how to think critically. They ask,
"What do you mean, I have to think? Where is my worksheet?" This is
where a heterogeneous classroom is a great place to achieve spillover using
differentiated lessons.

Teacher F: I strongly believe there is a spill-over effect. I’ve seen it in
practice in my classroom.

In addition to their belief that spill-over happens in their classroom, when
asked in the interview if they would teach a content standard that had been

131
differentiated to be academically rigorous and challenging to different classroom
compositions, subjects valued the need to challenge their students (see Table 21),
regardless of grouping and/or classroom compositions. Differentiating content
standards to all ability groups was a prevalent philosophy among the six interview
subjects. This philosophical stance aligns with a publication by the United States
Department of Education/Office of Educational Research and Improvement
(USDE/OERI, 1993) that stated a national perspective on the education of the
gifted and talented was articulated within a similar context of challenging
curriculum standard for all all children, including the high-ability learner.

132
Table 21. Differentiated Content Stand Taught to Different Classroom
Compositions

Differentiated Content Standard That is
Challenging and Rigorous
Frequency
(N)
Percent
(%)
Homogeneous Composition
Yes 6 100%
No 0 0%
Heterogeneous Composition
Yes 6 100%
No 0 0%
Cluster Composition
Yes 6 100%
No 0 0%
Special Day Class Composition
Yes 6 100%
No 0 0%

When given four simulation questions, one hundred percent of the
interviewees stated that they would teach a content standard that had been
differentiated to be academically rigorous and challenging for each classroom
setting: homogeneous, heterogeneous, cluster, and special day groupings. Because

133
a differentiated curriculum philosophy promotes thinking skills, it is advocated as a
preferred curriculum design for gifted students (VanTessel-Baska 2003). A shared
belief of all six interviewees with gifted education programs, this differentiated
philosophy is advocated as an extension to students of all ability levels to provide
the opportunity for high-end learning, as reflected in their responses and validated
by supporting research (Reis, et al., 1995; CAG, 2003).
Sample responses of Grouping Practices
Teacher A: I just don't find it a huge obstacle to differentiate a lesson for
any group of students while maintaining rigor and challenge. I may vary
the pace or shelter the content to make it more accessible but if students
aren't challenged, they aren't motivated to achieve.

Teacher B: Having a differentiated curriculum design makes the difference
between the excitement in higher level learning that gifted kids get excited
about versus disengaged apathetic ones who are subjected to boring, low-
level worksheets. It is can be something that really excites them and could
be what really pulls them in.

Teacher C: Even though I sometimes try to modify for my kids who are
perhaps my strugglers, I want to give them, at least the same exciting
content of a lesson that I would give to my high level thinkers.

Teacher D: It doesn't matter if your homogeneous ability level puts you in
the top, middle, or bottom group, everyone needs to be interested and
motivated through differentiated standards.

Teacher E: They [my students] aren't all identified gifted but really latch
onto differentiated standards because of their interest and challenge. Why is
that? I think kids enjoy learning when it is motivating and interesting and it
allows them to talk, think, and interact with one another. I believe these
kids are given a structure to learn in a natural way that really stimulates
them academically, especially in a mixed ability classroom.

Teacher F: Just because their skill level doesn't show it, I would never say
that they are not gifted. Even if the homogeneous group was a low ability
group, I would still teach a standard that is academically challenging. I

134
think in doing so you might be able to find some children that might not
otherwise be looked upon as gifted but indeed might have some gifted
qualities.

Indeed, literature does suggest that teachers’ beliefs affect both their
perceptions and judgments and that these in turn affect their classroom behavior
(Rueda & Garcia, 1996). Further, reflection on these belief systems is essential in
improving professional preparation and later teacher effectiveness (Clark, 1988;
Goodman, 1988). According to Clark (1988, 5), teacher are seen as knowing,
meaning-making beings whose perceptions are “eclactic aggregations of cause-
effect propositions from many sources, rules of thumb, generalizations drawn from
personal experience, beliefs, values, biases, and prejudices.”
The six subjects interviewed all stated (100%) that it was their
responsibility to hold high expectations for their students thus the third discerable
catagory in their philosophy and values statements. Embedding within that
philosophical stance were statements that “kids learn from kids” and “kids achieve
when motivated.” Five of the six subjects stated that “all kids can learn.” All six
teachers stated that they had “high expectations” for student learning and
achievement. All six expressed that it was their responsibility to challenge all of
their students, regardless of gifted or non-gifted status. The interviewee sample
responses below align with the theoretical framework of constructivists such as
Dewey (1938) and Gardner (1961).

Sample Responses of High Expectations

135
Teacher A: High expectations allow exposure and opportunity for all.
Wanting to challenge and engage the students through differentiated models
of design is important for all groups. It doesn't matter if you are teaching EL
students, lower ability students, average, or high ones; every child needs to
be challenged.

Teacher B: My expectation is that all students can be challenged. Every
child just needs to be pushed a little. I just don't find it a huge obstacle to
differentiate a lesson for any group of students while maintaining rigor and
challenge. I may vary the pace or shelter the content to make it more
accessible but if students aren't challenged, they aren't motivated to achieve.

Teacher C: When you have expectations and challenge your students, they
will rise to the occasion no matter how you group them. It doesn't matter if
your homogeneous ability level puts you in the top, middle, or bottom
group, everyone needs to be interested and motivated through differentiated
standards.

Teacher D: I think that again, given the opportunity, some students can just
get that little light bulb from what someone else says or does. When you
raise the bar, they strive. The level of expectation needs to be high all.

Teacher E: All children need to be challenged and just because all the
students in your class aren't GATE doesn't mean that they don't have the
intelligence or that they wouldn't benefit from being pushed a little further

Teacher F: When you have high expectations and challenge your students,
they will rise to the occasion no matter how you group them. I've always
firmly believe that for many children they won't quote, unquote, act gifted
unless they are taught gifted. I guess I would say that I treat all kids as if
they are gifted.

Impact of Teacher Efficacy
The second theme that emerged through data collection was the impact of
teacher efficacy. Within that theme, the three catagories of teacher efficacy, teacher
perceptions, and equal access occurred. Three questions on the interview protocol
dealt specifically with teacher efficacy. Two questions determined confidence in

136
decision-making abilities in teaching specific differentiated curriclum and
instructional designs while another question asked subjects to rank their level of
expertise as a professional educator. An important factor in the determination of
teacher efficacy is experience in terms of a teacher’s sense of competence or as
Bandura (1986), a leader in the development of self-efficacy theory, calls
performance accomplishments. Table 22 demonstrates a performance level, as self-
reported by the interview subjects on a Likert level of expertise.

Table 22. Level of Expertise as a Professional Educator

Confidence Level
Frequency
(N)
Percent
(%)
Novice 0 0%
Conversant 3 49.5%
Conversant/Expert 3 49.5%
Expert 0 0%

All interview subjects considered themselves conversant (N=3) to
conversant/expert (N=3). None considered themselves as a novice or as an expert.
While confident in making curricular and instructional decisions, all six subjects
indicated that they spent anywhere from an hour to over two hours a day preparing
differentiated lessons. Table 23 further demonstrates the interviewee’s level of
efficacy when deciding on curriculum designs and specific models of teaching. All

137
subjects (N=6) were unanimous regarding the confidence level of their decision-
making abilties. As cited by researchers Hoy, Sweetland, and Smith (2002),
teachers’ level of confidence about their ability to promote student learning is
defined as teacher efficacy.

Table 21. Level of Confidence in Decision-Making Abilities

Confidence Level
Frequency
(N)
Percent
(%)
Curriculum Designs
Very Confident 1 16.5%
Confident 5 82.5%
Somewhat Confident 0 0%
Specific Models of Teaching
Very Confident 0 0%
Confident 6 100%
Somewhat Confident 0 0%

In a study on teacher efficacy (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001),
similar results were found where respondents were asked questions based on
professional development opportunities and three correlated factors were noted:
efficacy in student engagement, efficacy in instructional practices, and efficacy in
classroom management.

138
Sample Responses for Teacher Efficacy
Teacher A: I'm comfortable choosing which model of teaching to use with
my class. There are certainly some models I'm more comfortable with than
others and I probably tend to default to those more than others. But I do
reach out and try some that I'm not quite as comfortable with if I feel that
they are appropriate for the teaching situation.

Teacher B: Models of teaching determine the best match to the standards. I
am reasonably confident using differentiated content standards with my
heterogenous group of students.

Teacher C: As we all know, we must teach standards, standards, standards.
But, I think, because of the push for trying to teach all of the standards or
being asked to emphasize only those areas that are on the STAR test, we
don't think we can deviate. I am confident to make my decisions based on
the level of the students. For me, models of teaching determine the best
match to the standards.

Teacher D: I am confident that differentiated curriculum works, it is having
enough confidence in my practice to be able to plan and organize the
lessons for each particular content area. I take a look at what it is that I'm
going to be teaching and then determine how best to differentiate it.

Teacher E: I am confident in my decision-making abilities to select both a
curriculum design for a given standard and models of teaching.

Teacher F: I’m growing in confidence and I’d say it has to do with my
training.

Building on such findings, researchers in the field of teacher education
recognize mastery experiences as the most powerful efficacy changing force
(Protheroe, 2008). It refers to the perceptions of teachers in their abilities to
influence student achievement or their sense of competence. Following that line of
thought, another interview question dealt with teachers’ own perceptions and their
opinion of other teachers’ perceptions. Defined as collective efficacy by
researchers (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000), the interviewees responded

139
that they perceived their combined efforts to have a positive effect on student
learning and thus emerged as the second category within the teacher effficacy
theme.
Sample Responses for Teacher Perceptions/Other Teacher Perceptions
Teacher A: It has really changed my perceptions about what all of my kids
can do if given a challenging curriculum.

Teacher B: It has really affected my perceptions about differentiation or
belief in the spill-over effect but, more importantly, it has dramatically
improved my knowledge of the models of teaching.

Teacher C: I feel that it is imcumbent upon me to differentiate no matter
what the level of ability my students display. In terms of other teachers
here, there is growing schoolwide interest in the Javits grant as we share
with other teachers.

Teacher D: Perceptions only change with knowledge, which is why I feel
fortunate to have had the Javits trainng.

Teacher E: The Javits grant has helped to sustain change at our school.
Perceptions change when we learn new things and keep abreast of
curriculum and instructional strategies. We are very fortunate to have
access to this strong professional development.

Teacher F: Without training, there is no buy-in. We are talking about depth
and complexity for student learning. I think we must realize that is true for
how teachers learn best, too.

In a groundbreaking stud7 on collective efficacy, Bandura (1993) reached
two important conclusions from his research: 1) student acheivement is
significantly and positively related to collective efficacy and, 2) collective efficacy
has a great effect on student achievement than does student socio-economic status.
The six interviewees shared comments voicing social justice through equal access
opportunties. This was the third category within the teacher efficacy theme.

140
Sample Responses for Social Justice/Equal Access
Teacher A: It doesn’t matter if students are similar ability or mixed-ability.
Everyone has some giftedness even if his or her skill level doesn’t show it.
A differentiated curriculum design works to the collective whole in a
hterogeneous class by making kids reach out to one another. It stretches all
of them to think through their exchange of ideas.

Teacher B: If you are teaching EL students, lower ability students, average,
or high students, every child needs to be challenged.

Teacher C: I absolutely believe all student in the class benefit from rigor
and challenge, especially with a mixed ability group.

Teacher D: I guess I would say that I treat all kids as if they are gifted.
Because you don’t know if they are gifted or not. Just because they are not
identified does not mean they aren’t gifted, number one. And number two,
sometimes, they aren’t given the opportunity to show that they can be
challenged and succeed.

Teacher E: Just because a student’s skill level doesn’t show it, I would still
teach a standard that is academically challenging. They all deserve equal
access to a rigorous curriculum.

Teacher F: All children need to be challenged and just because all of the
students in your class arent’ GATE doesn’t mean that they don’t have the
intelligence or that they wouldn’t benefit from being pushed a little further.
It doesn’t matter if your homogeneous ability level puts you in the top,
middle, or bottom group, everyone needs to be interested and motivated.

Impact of Professional Development
A third recurring theme expressed through the interviews was the impact of
professional development. Within that theme, three catagories were discerned:
curriculum designs, instructional strategies, and teacher training. Several of the
questions in the interview instrument pertained specifically to their Javits training
and focused on teachers as emerging pedagogical content experts. There is
increased emphasis in the field of educational research on the importance of teacher

141
education that fosters the combining of theory and practice in local situations
creating networks to learn from both individual and collective experiences
(Shulman, 1998). A strong tie linking professional development to teacher efficacy
was expressed by the six interviewees, as evidence by Table 24.

Table 24. Impact of Professional Training

Training
Frequency
(N)
Percent
(%)
Professional Development linked to
values
3 49.5%
Professional Development tied to
efficacy
6 100%
Professional Development outside of
Javits
4 66%
Professional Development from Javits 6 100%
Professional Networking 2 33%

Being linked to the research efforts of the Javits “Models of Teaching to
Affect Student Acheivement” grant awarded to the University of Southern
California, this study was built on research and educational philosophy defined by
the grant specifically targeting gifted and talented children and focusing on the
academic affect of models of teaching. Inclusive of the Javits grant was the
framework for developing content and pedagogical knowledge through

142
professional development opportunities that included classroom demonstrations,
situational practice, coaching, feedback, teacher developed lessons, and annual
summer institute training.
Validating their responses from an earlier teacher questionnaire, all six
interviewees (100%) cited professional development training focused on
curriculum designs and instructional strategies as both impacting the quality of
their teaching and their students’ understanding. This data reinforces the
theoretical framework of constructivism using pedagogical content knowledge
(Dewey, 1938; Shulman, 2002; Vgotsky, 1978). Also supporting the impact of
professional development of curricular and instructional designs are researchers
Wright, Horn, & Sanders (1997) who posit that improving the effectiveness of
teachers is a greatest single factor in affecting academic achievement of students.
As defined by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1996), the
mark of an expert teacher is the ability to integrate students’ cognitive, affective,
and social needs into meaningful content delivered through appropriate curriculuar
and instructional designs.
Sample Responses on Curriculum Designs and Instructional Strategies
Teacher A: I’m comfortable choosing models of teaching. It has helped me
develop what thinking skills can be emphasized with each curriculum
design.

Teacher B: My training has provided a way for me to better approach a
difficult content standard. It can be challenging and rigorous but I have
ways now to present the standards that allow the students to make the
connections themselves.

143
Teacher C: Through the high-powered curriculum designs I’ve been
provided through the Javits training, joined with all the powerful
instructional strategies I now have has made me a better classroom teacher,
both for GATE and non-gifted students.

Teacher D: Before my professional training, I didn’t know anything about
the models of teaching and so it is quite different now in how I present
differentiated lessons. It influences my instructional decisions and the
curriculum design I choose for a given subject or lesson.

Teacher E: Like anything else, it takes practice, practice, practice so the
coaching really helps. It has opened my eyes to more specific ways to do a
lesson. Being able to guide them more through a very specific format. I
like that. The repetition of the curriculum design encourages thinking. It
actually teaches them about thinking. It has made me go into more than just
the curriculum but more into teaching the students about scholarly thinking.

Teacher F: I got myself involved in professional development training from
day one. This Javits grant has really shaped the kind of teacher that I have
developed into. The support of sustained and ongoing training has
definitely impacted my teaching practices these past two years.

These statements affirm the teachers’ choices and decisions within the
educational environment as being integral to the process of education. So while not
a new notion (Dewey, 1938), it does emphasize the importance of professional
development necessary to attain deep and sophisticated knowledge about learning,
learners, and content. All six subjects also stated that their efficacy was improved
by their professional development training and specifically cited their participation
in the Javits “Models of Teaching” grant. Four subjects also mentioned other
trainings that they had participated in through district and outside sources as
another means for gaining confidence in classroom settings with gifted and non-
gifted students. Three subjects linked their philosophical beliefs to their
professional development experiences. Two interview subjects expressed a desire

144
to have greater opportunities to network with fellow Javits participants to
strengthen their professional learning community.
According to Oxford (1997), the key to differentiated instruction in any
classroom is professional development. Agreeing, researcher Gallagher (2004)
concurs by validating that the potential of good professional development has been
evidence many times. Having participated in in-depth training in models of
teaching to affect student achievement, the Javits interviewees supported this
assertion.
Sample responses for Impact of Professional Development
Teacher A: Before the Javits Program I didn't know anything about the
models of teaching and so it is quite different now in how I present lessons.
It has dramatically improved my teaching knowledge.

Teacher B: It [the Javits training] has really changed my perceptions about
what all of my kids can do if given a challenging curriculum. You hear
about new ways to improve teaching, no matter if it is for the gifted or non-
gifted, and you just want to learn how to do your job better.

Teacher C: I basically have been involved in the Javits grant since my
second year in the classroom. It has really shaped the kind of teacher that I
have developed into. Ever since I’ve started the training, I’ve believed that
all children will reap the benefits of gifted strategies.

Teacher D: As we all know, we must teach standards, standards, standards.
But, I think, because of the push for trying to teach all of the standards…we
don’t think we can deviate. Perceptions only change with knowledge,
which is why I feel fortunate to have had the Javits training.

Teacher E: Most of the teachers at my school don’t see it [differentiated
curriculum designs] working for them. They think differentiation is just
another passing fad. I think it is because they haven’t really tried it much so
haven’t seen the benefits.

Teacher F: The extensive training that I’ve received and the application of
that training on a dialy basis in the classroom has provided a way for me to

145
better approach a difficult content standard. The Javits grant has made me a
better classroom teacher, both for GATE and non-gifted students.

Summary of Findings

The intent of this two-phase sequential mixed methods study was to obtain
quantitative results from a purposeful sample of 56 subjects from the University of
Southern California “Models of Teaching” Javits Grant and then follow up with six
individuals from that sample to probe those results in depth using qualitative
analysis. In the first phase, a teacher questionnaire was used to address the
relationship between a defined differentiated curriculum design to a perceived spill-
over specific to teaching methods and rationale. In the second phase, interviews
were conducted to further examine the effect of extending or differentiating the
core curriculum where class composition and student needs, interests, and abilities
vary.
This study examined four school districts that shared common attributes
reflective of most Southern California school districts: academic, linguistic,
cultural and economic diversity. Subject and State demographics were analogous.
The vast majority of the gifted programs represented in this study were either
heterogeneously grouped (9.4%, N=5) with both identified gifted and non-gifted
students or were cluster grouped (79.2%, N=42) with both identified gifted students
and other heterogeneously grouped students. The Experimental Group was
comprised of 44 participants and the Control Group was comprised of 12

146
participants. The composition of the participant pool (Experimental and Control
Groups) included the following grade levels taught: 3.8% first grade, 17.0%,
second grade, 41.5% third grade, 18.9% fourth grade, 17.0% fifth grade, and 5.7%
sixth grade. Study participants had a mean of 14.57 years of general education
teaching and 7.92 years of gifted education teaching. When asked to rate their level
of expertise as a professional educator of gifted students on a Likert scale (1-5)
from novice to expert, 54.7 (N=29) of the participants deemed themselves
conversant (value level 3) while 28.3% (N=15) deemed themselves conversant-
expert (value level 4).
For Research question one, frequency data were examined to determine the
relationship between the teacher’s choice of a differentiated curriculum design for
gifted students and the same teacher’s selection of a differentiated curriculum
design to spill-over and affect all students in a heterogeneous classroom. Both the
Experimental and Comparison Groups selected the design of a differentiated
curriculum inclusive of the core as the most preferred definition of the
differentiated curriculum responsive to gifted students. Following a preferred
definition to differentiate curriculum, participants were asked on the teacher
questionnaire to select the curriculum example best representing the means by
which a differentiated curriculum for gifted students could spill-over to all learners.
Both the Experimental and Comparison Groups selected a prototype depicting a
differentiated curriculum for gifted students inclusive of the core curriculum. as the
most effective means to spill-over to all students. Chi square analysis was then

147
used as an inferential statistic to examine differences between the Experimental and
Comparison Groups for question one and found no significant difference.
For Research Question Two, this study used trend analysis to analyze what
reasons affected the teacher’s selection of a differentiated curriculum design,
appropriate for grades 2-5 gifted students and the same teacher’s belief that it
would spill-over and affect all learners in a heterogeneous classroom using their
pedagogical content knowledge. Eighty-three percent of the teachers stated that
they value teaching the prompts of depth and complexity to seek information
(83.7%) over teaching the basic prompts of who, what, when, etc. to seek
information (16.3%) explaining that it: (1) “affects all learners” 36.9% and (2)
“challenge to students” 29.2%. An examination of the Experimental Group versus
the Comparison Group responses to the methods of teaching and their
corresponding rationale for selecting one method over another yielded that both
favored “creating own lesson” to “using the teachers guide” for different reasons.
The Experimental Group indicated that “affects all students” guided their decision
while the Comparison Group said their choice was in accord with “district, state
expectations.” The Comparison Group favored teaching small homogeneous
groups over teaching the entire heterogeneous group because they viewed it as
“meeting district, school expectations;” however, when asked whether they favored
teaching small groups versus whole heterogeneous class, they responded more
affirmatively to teaching whole heterogeneous class, giving the reason that it
“affects all students.”

148
For Research Question Three, this study used teacher interviews with a
purposeful sampling of teachers as a systematic way of examining how teacher
perceptions of spill-over of differentiated curriculum designed for gifted students
were affected by teacher training in gifted education and the composition (or
grouping) of students in a classroom. A qualitative method of content analysis was
utilized to interpret findings (Miles & Huberman, 1994). When given four
simulation questions, one hundred percent of the interviewees stated that they
would teach a content standard that had been differentiated to be academically
rigorous and challenging for each classroom setting: homogeneous, heterogeneous,
cluster, and special day groupings. Several general trends were discernable,
specific to the spill-over effect. All participants perceived a potential for spill-over
of differentiated curriculum designs for gifted students to affect all learners in a
heterogeneous classroom. There was also unanimous consensus that all models of
teaching provided a spill-over effect in any group setting.

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Overview

149

“All that is valuable in society depends upon the opportunity
for development accorded an individual.” -- Albert Einstein

To achieve such potentiality, the question of how to differentiate for such
diversity must be considered, and as such, it was the rationale for this study’s
importance to the educator. In an era of school reform efforts such as the Federal
No Child Left Behind Act, educators are seeking ways to improve academic
achievement of all children. Because gifted education has long been innovative in
developing services around challenging curriculum with depth and complexity
(Tomlinson & Callahan, 1992), it makes sense to look to the field of gifted
education for contributions to general education curriculum reform. If indeed such
curricular and instructional decision-making for gifted students will effect positive
change, the question of any spill-over on students’ learning within a heterogeneous
classroom is of educational interest.

Purpose of Study
The purpose of this research study was to compare curriculum designs that
best represented the teacher’s definition of differentiated curriculum for gifted
students and the means by which that curriculum could spill-over and affect the
education of all learners in a heterogeneous classroom. The data gathered focused
on these research areas:

150
• The relationship between the teacher’s choice of a differentiated curriculum
design for gifted students and the same teacher’s selection of a
differentiated curriculum design to spill-over and affect all students.
• The reasons affecting the teacher’s selection of differentiated curriculum
and instructional designs, appropriate for grades 2-5 gifted students.
• The teacher’s perceptions of spill-over of differentiated curriculum designed
for gifted students and how those perceptions are affected by the teacher’s
training and composition of students in their classroom.

Methodology
Questionnaire and interview methodology were used to investigate the
research questions. This study was linked to the research efforts of a grant awarded
to the University of Southern California under the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and
Talented Students Education Act of the U.S. Department of Education (PR
#S206A040072). The grant project studied the effects of formal models of teaching
and the degree to which they promote the development of teacher participants as
content masters and pedagogical experts to teach differentiated curriculum. A
purposeful sampling of 56 teachers of gifted students in grades 2-5 was used in the
study representing four Southern California school districts representative of urban,
suburban, and rural areas. Location was the most unique feature distinguishing
these districts. The composition of the participant pool (Experimental and
Comparison Groups) included the following grade levels taught: 3.8% first grade,

151
17.0%, second grade, 41.5% third grade, 18.9% fourth grade, 17.0% fifth grade,
and 5.7% sixth grade.
The data collection included a teacher questionnaire and a teacher
interview. A teacher questionnaire was used as a secondary data source and a
teacher interview protocol was developed as the primary data collection tool. The
Javits approved teacher questionnaire was examined to address questions one and
two of the research project. The interview instrument was developed to gather data
for the investigation of question three of this study. The teacher questionnaire was
predetermined under the guidelines of the USC “Models of Teaching” Javits Grant
and was completed in the spring of 2007 by 56 grant participants representing both
the Experimental Group (N=44) and the Comparison Group (N=12). A set of
interview questions were developed in the fall of 2007 and conducted with a
purposeful sample (N=6) drawn from the Experimental Group only in the winter of
2008.
Descriptive measures were used to analyze the data in examining the affects
of teacher choice and selection of differentiated curriculum designs for gifted
students as well as teacher perceptions of a spill-over effect within a heterogeneous
classroom. Using a mixed method approach to seek answers to the research
questions of this study, the findings yielded quantitative results with qualitative
trends and points of emphasis. Frequency distribution tables were used to examine
the data generated from the questionnaire constructs. Chi square analysis was
applied to determine the significance of difference between the Experimental and

152
Comparison Groups. A data analysis software system was utilized to capture the
content of the interviews. Open coding was used, verified, and collapsed to
examine commonalities, themes, and trends.

Key Findings
Question One
Question: What is the relationship between the teacher’s choice of a
differentiated curriculum design for gifted students and the same teacher’s selection
of a differentiated curriculum design to spill-over and affect all students in a
heterogeneous classroom?
Findings: Research question one found that both the Experimental and
Comparison Groups selected the design of a differentiated curriculum inclusive of
the core as the most preferred definition of the differentiated curriculum responsive
to gifted students. In addition, both the Experimental and Comparison Groups
selected a prototype depicting a differentiated curriculum for gifted students
inclusive of the core curriculum. as the most effective means to spill-over to all
students. Chi square analysis found no significant difference between the
Experimental and Comparison Groups responses.
Discussion: In an effort to deepen the understanding of the phenomena of
spill-over, the findings while revealing no statistical significance between the
Experimental and Comparison Groups, do make an argument for substantive
significance by examining the prevailing definition of differentiated curriculum and

153
the teacher’s selection of a differentiated curriculum design for gifted students and
non-gifted students. The advocacy efforts for a differentiated curriculum for gifted
students have long been recognized as having substantive results (Kaplan, 2008).
Supported by other research in the area of gifted education (Jost, 1997), these
findings found that teachers of gifted students perceive a strong relationship
between many of the attributes delineated in research for gifted education to the
characteristics necessary for the teaching process of all students.
Question Two
Question: Which factors affect the teacher’s selection of a differentiated
curriculum design, appropriate for grades 2-5 gifted students, while representing a
simultaneous belief that it will spill-over to affect all learners in a heterogeneous
classroom?
Findings: For research question two, the majority of teachers (83.7%) stated
that they valued teaching the prompts of depth and complexity to seek information
over teaching the basic prompts with the most prevalent factor influencing their
selection being “affects all learners.” Both the Experimental and Comparison
Groups (82%) preferred teaching critical thinking skills over teaching basic skills
while (76%) favored “creating own lesson” to “using the teachers guide” but for
different reasons. The Experimental Group indicated that “affects all students”
guided their decision while the Comparison Group said their choice was in accord
with “district, state expectations.” Teaching across the discipline (85.7%) received
more emphasis than did teaching in a single discipline 14.3%). Both “affects all

154
students” and “challenge to students” were given as factors supporting the teachers’
responses.
Discussion: Gifted education has always been a laboratory for general
education (Council for Exceptional Children, 2007). For example, the teaching of
critical thinking skills began in gifted education in the 1950’s but has recently been
adopted in regular, heterogeneous classrooms. The application of instructional
strategies and curriculum methods for gifted programs into general education is
supported by a wide variety of research on student abilities (Gardner, 1983;
Kaplan, 2004a; J. S. Renzulli, 1986a; Sternberg, 1986). Renzulli espouses that all
students should have more opportunities “to develop higher order thinking skills
and to pursue more rigorous content and first-hand investigative activities than
those typically found in today’s dumbed-down textbooks” (Renzulli, 1995a, 17).
Question Three
Question: How are the teacher’s perceptions of spill-over of differentiated
curriculum designs for gifted students affected by the teacher’s training in gifted
education and the composition (or grouping) of students in a classroom?
Findings: Data gathered from interviews of a purposeful sample of the
Experimental Group revealed three discernable themes: 1) impact of philosophical
beliefs, 2) impact on teacher efficacy, and 3) impact of professional development.
All subjects (100%) perceived a potential for spill-over of differentiated curriculum
designs for gifted students to affect all learners in a heterogeneous classroom.
There was also unanimous consensus that all differentiated curriculum and

155
instructional designs provided a spill-over effect in any group setting. 100% of
subjects expressed that professional development was tied to their self-efficacy and
all rated themselves as conversant to expert in their level of expertise as an educator
of gifted students.
Discussion: Such findings support the beliefs of experts with a broad
variety of perspectives (Renzulli, 1978; Sternberg, 1978; Tannenbaum, 1983).
Maintaining that all students should have opportunities to develop higher-level
thinking skills and pursue more rigorous and challenging content, the interviews
reflected the democratic ideals set forth in literature review as both a viable and
useful way to develop the talent potential in the entire student population (Clark,
1997: Conan, 1959; Dewey, 1916; Passow, 1984). The findings of research
question three indicate that a common ground may be achieved by taking a closer
look at the teachers’ choice and selection of differentiated curriculum designs for
gifted students that would spill-over and affect all non-gifted students in a
heterogeneous classroom.

Limitations

Being linked to the research efforts of the Jacob K. Javits “Models of
Teaching to Affect Student Achievement” grant awarded to the University of

156
Southern California, it should be noted that the research questions related to this
study were defined by the specifications of the “Request for Proposal Stipulations”
in the The Federal Register. This study was built on research and educational
philosophy defined by the grant specifically targeted for gifted and talented
children. While the Javits grant was focused on the academic affect of models of
teaching, a concommitment to this study was an investigation of teacher
perceptions of differentiated curriculum and instructional designs for gifted student
that would have the potential to spill-over and affect all learners in a heterogeneous
classroom were studied. Because spill-over is complex and contextual, it was
understood that specific contexts contributed and influenced teachers’ decisions
about differentiation and its spill-over effects.
This study followed guidelines for design and sampling based on grant
specifications and required a lengthy IRB process. As such, the researcher was
limited by timeline constraints during the data collection and data analysis phases
of the dissertation process. The statistical treatment of the Javits grant looked at
comparisons using frequencies and percentages as opposed to statistical differences
because uneven cases in the study wouldn’t lend themselves to that treatment. This
research study was bound, to a large degree, by that data source.
In addition, because this study used the purposeful sampling from the grant,
the sampling for this research study was limited to a small and relatively
homogeneous group sample making it difficult to generalize. A larger sample for
both the teacher questionnaire and the teacher interview would improve reliability

157
and validity. In particular, the subjects selected for the primary data source, the
interview, were limited to a convenience sampling of those teachers available and
willing to participate within the dissertation timeline. Results from this study could
be extended with a larger sample size.
Data collection procedures for the grant were already defined and therefore
influenced the framework of this study. While the interview instrument had been
assessed through a pilot study and the Institutional Review Board of the University
of Southern California, some of the questions proved to be limited in their ability to
gather rich text data. More questions in general were needed with a greater
emphasis on probes specific to addressing the three research questions of this study.
To address the topic of spill-over, more focus questions examining the relation of
theory to practice would be useful in the data collection phase for any future
research.
In terms of the scope of the research design, this study was also limited to
knowledge about teacher perceptions of the spill-over effect using differentiated
curriculum designs for gifted students with non-gifted students. The researcher
relied on teacher perceptions of the spill-over effect obtained through questionnaire
and interview instruments rather than observed behaviors in the classroom. As
such, the relationship between the researcher and the study subjects were limited to
the teacher interview process. The study did not indicate whether these teachers’
perceptions are consistent with their classroom practice. Nor did this study suggest

158
how, or if, such differences would result in increased or decreased student
performance.

Implications for Future Research

It is important that as educators in the field of gifted education, a critical eye
be taken when making decisions about research because it often presents
conflicting directions. The practicing professional who is trying to make
reasonable decisions in creating a quality program for gifted students is often faced
with the dilemma in light of varied options offered by the experts (Callahan &
Moon, 2007). There are many social and political implications for gifted education
polarizing the advocates and experts on how to best educate the country’s gifted
students. There are some researchers who believe that special programs for the
gifted ultimately benefit all students by introducing new teaching techniques that
generally raise the quality of instruction and value in heterogeneous classrooms
(Gallagher, 2004; Kaplan, 2000; Reis, 2003; Renzulli, 1978, 1995; Tomlinson
1999, 2004). Other researchers posit that gifted children have special distinct needs
which require a need for complexity and sophistication at an accelerated rate of
learning (Clark, 1988, 1997; Frey, 1993; Feldhusen, 1991).
What is known is the inequity of gifted students in this country. The
Department of Education has estimated that about three million youngsters
nationwide are enrolled in gifted classes of some sort. Based on statistical
projections from a 1992 questionnaire of school districts by the Department of

159
Education’s Office of Civil Rights (U.S. Department of Education, 1994), whites
were said to comprise 68% of the total school population but 77% of those enrolled
in gifted and talented programs. Blacks accounted for 16% of the total school
population, but only 9% of the gifted classes. Hispanics were 12% of the total
enrollment but only 6% of the students in gifted programs. While many critics of
gifted education say that special programs for gifted students benefit only a small
minority of students and divert resources and political support from broader
educational reform, advocates of gifted and talented education contend that schools
are failing in their responsibility to help their brighest students achieve their full
potential. Implications, then, for future research must include studies for the sole
purpose of obtaining descriptive in-depth understanding to the complexities of this
research topic. Of particular value would be educational research “delving deeply
into processes such as studying teachers’ ability to differentiate instruction for
gifted students and the factors that interact to enhance or inhibit application of the
principles of differentiation,” (Callahan & Moon, 2007, 312).
Following that same line of logic in qualitative and quantitative research
would be future investigative studies in teacher preparation, certification, and
professional development. Inclusive of the Javits grant was the framework for
developing content and pedagogical knowledge (Shulman, 2002) of the program
participants. Grounded in a theoretical framework of Dewey (1916, 1938) and
Vygotsky (1978), as well other social constructivists, a teacher is characterized as
one who “uses teaching methods that help students develop, reflect on, evaluate,

160
and modify their own learning” and “negotiates possible problem solutions with
students and alters instruction accordingly,” (Andrew, 2007, 163). By providing a
set of instructional options to stimulate their judgments about teaching and to
promote change in teaching practices, the findings of this study demonstrated
improved efficacy in the instructional decisions made by the members of the
Experimental Group. If extensive professional development experiences such as
the Javits grant could have such positive impact on the quality of curriculum in
school, evidenced by improved curricular and instructional decisions not just for
gifted students but have a spill-over effect for all students, then further research into
state and federal policies regarding professional development, certification, and
preparation must be addressed.
While curriculum and instructional designs were examined in this study,
content standards were not specifically addressed. During a period of time in
education where standards-based instruction and accountability are at the forefront,
further research in the development of standards is needed that can be tied to the
improvement of academic achievement of each individual child. While there is a
need for uniform standards, both by nationwide and by individual states, at the
center of all educational reform should be the measurement of individual student
progress. Curent legislation under No Child Left Behind provides a federal law
that promotes uniform statewide education standards but it is argued against by
opponents who feel that the standards are focused on the lowest-performing

161
students and that they “dull student and teacher creativity by limiting what students
learn,” (Carnevale, 2007, 13).
Supporting the notion of teaching a content standard that is differentiated to
be academically rigorous and challenging in terms of acceleration, depth,
complexity, and/or novelty, participants in this study concluded that setting high
expectations for all students created the greatest potential for a spill-over effect.
According to Sparks (1999), high expectations for student learning require changes
not only in the instruction but significant alternations in curriculum and assessment.
As such, there is also a need for development of assessment tools that allow us to
track and accumulate information on student learning. More research is needed to
provide diagnostic information that can guide the finite processes of teaching and
learning in particular knowledge domains (Carnevale, 2007). More rigorous
curriculum standards without improved curricular designs and teacher training of
those designs effectively negate any potential value that new standards may have
for improving academic achievement. Future research calls for a paradigm shift
from a focus on teaching to the learning process and the learner.
Finally, this study did not examine the impact of funding for gifted
education; however, when discussing the course of gifted education in this country,
the issue of how to fund gifted programs is always a topic of discussion.
According to an article published recently in Education Week, staff writer Christina
Samuels stated that a government announcement published in their Jan. 14, 2008
edition of The Federal Register informed grant seekers in a “notice of proposed

162
priority” as to what types of programs the government would be likely to pay for
through the Jacob. K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program
(Samuels, 2008). Financed at $7.5 million for 2008, the Department of Education
indicated that it is looking for programs that will “scale up” and evaluate models
designed to increase the number of students from under-served populations. The
priority suggested, according to proponent Jane Clarenback, director of public
education for the National Association of Gifted Children in Washington, that the
department is looking for programs that use gifted education teaching strategies to
improve results for all students. Given the potential of a spill-over effect evidenced
in this study, future research should focus on these “scale up” efforts to maximize
the benefits of intervention strategies designed for gifted students to determine their
effectiveness in improving student achievement of all students.

Recommendations
While this study examined teachers’ perceptions of spill-over, a
recommendation for continued research on the concept of actual talent development
is necessary. In doing so, it will require that we apply the knowledge of gifted
education to total school improvement and that we “strive to include traditionally
underrepresented groups of students whose potentials are manifested,” (Renzulli,
1995a, 6). The best of what we have learned about education for the gifted should
become the best for everybody according to a joint publication by the California
Association for the Gifted and the California Department of Education (1994).

163
Looking into the field of gifted education for contributions to an understanding of
general education curriculum reform that is focused on higher order thinking skills
is needed. While there is a wide range of research on human ability (Bloom, 1985;
Gardner, 1983, Renzulli 1986b, Sternberg, 1988), there is justification for broader
research towards talent development for all learners.
Clearly, the results of this study also demonstrated the potential impact of
differentiated curriculum and instructional designs for gifted students and their
simultaneous spill-over effect to affect all learners when delivered through
professional development over time. Given the effectiveness of professional
development as a means to bridge the gap between curriculum designs for gifted
students and its contagion effect on non-gifted students, it is recommended that
professional development be implemented using the “soundness of constructivism
as a framework for teacher education,” (Oxford, 1997, 37). The key to
differentiated instruction in any classroom is professional development. As gifted
students spend most of their day in regular classroom settings as indicated by
Gallagher (2004), teachers who do not have the background or experience to meet
the needs of their gifted learners provide little to no differentiated curriculum or
instruction (Archambault, et al., 1993). The potential of any good professional
development practices has been evidenced many times. In a U.S. Department of
Education 2001 questionnaire that examined professional development driven by a
clear, coherent strategic plan, 37 percent of teachers who participated in “more than
eight hours” of professional development described as “in-depth” perceived that it

164
had improved their classroom teaching “a lot” (Parsad, 2001). As vocalized by the
subjects in this study’s interview process, it is critical for all teachers to receive
training in differentiated instruction to meet the needs of all learners in a
heterogeneous classroom.

Conclusion

By examining the relationship between teacher selection of
curriculum and instructional designs for gifted and its simultaneous spill-over
within a heterogeneous classroom, it was the intent of the researcher to bring focus
within the scholarly community upon its effect and potential for ensuring equal
access to education for all students through a challenging curriculum. The term
“spill-over” is best defined as an advocacy strategy that can focus on the needs of a
specific population, such as the gifted, while simultaneously generalizing the value
derived from attending to this particular population to more or to all other students
(Kaplan, 2000). Many experts in gifted education espouse a differentiated
curriculum design for gifted students in regular classrooms will result in a
significant advantage for their non-gifted classmates (Milgram, 1989). Agreeing,
the National Association of Gifted Children has said in its position statement that:
“the integration of gifted education programming into general education
programming promotes the exchange of ideas and pedagogy to enhance learning of
all students … with positive spill-over effects” (NAGC, 1).

165
In linking the research to relevant theory, it is important to remember that
much of science is fundamentally concerned with developing conceptual
frameworks that can help to explain a phenomenon. Theories are “nets cast to
capture what we call the world…we endeavor to make the mesh ever finer and
finer” (Popper, 1959, 139). In the case of this study, the theory of social
constructivism drove the research questions, the use of a mixed-method approach,
and the interpretation of findings.
While generalized theoretical understanding was a goal, the researcher also
sought to achieve a deeper understanding of the particular events or circumstances
that led to a teacher’s selection and choice of a differentiated curriculum model that
was designed for gifted students in the hope that it would also spill-over and affect
all learners within a heterogeneous classroom setting. Through the interview
process, the researcher recorded and interpreted the perspectives and experiences of
six teachers of gifted students in grades 2-5 with the intent of capturing “their
voices and their visions-their authority, knowledge, and wisdom” (National
Research Council, 2002). While it is important not to over-generalize across
situations and events, such personal perspectives create a link between the science
of educational theory and the decision-making art of teaching.
The participants in the study described their decision-making selection and
choice of differentiated curriculum designs that they used to provide high level
learning opportunities that affected all students in a mixed-ability setting. In
summary, the findings revealed that the use of a curricular differentiation approach

166
was perceived by teachers to promote the quality of learning for all students.
Further, the research results suggested that teachers perceive many of the attributes
commonly delineated in models of teaching for gifted students to correspond and
spill-over to the teaching process for students within a variety of classroom
settings, most favorably with a heterogeneous composition. While the results were
based on curricular practices that have their origins in programs for gifted students,
this study was designed for application to general education by analyzing the effect
of extending or differentiating the core curriculum where student needs, interests,
abilities, and experiences vary. This research study provided a justification for
much broader conceptions of talent development of students that display a wide
variety of human abilities within a heterogeneous classroom setting.

167
REFERENCES

ACT. (2007). Rigor at risk: Reaffirming quality in the high school core
curriculum [Electronic Version]. Retrieved June 28, 2007 from
www.act.org.

Adams, C. M., Cassady, J. C., & Neumeister, K. L. (2004). The differentiated
classroom observation scale. Roeper Report, 26(3). 139-146.

Andrew, L. (2007). Comparison of teacher educators' instructional methods with
the constructivist ideal. The Teacher Educator, Vol. 42, No. 3(Winter 2007.
157-184.

Archambault, F., Westberg, K., Brown, S., Hallmark, B., Zhang, W., & Emmons,
C. (1993). Classroom practices used with gifted third and fourth grade
students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2). 103-119.

Arnove, R. F., & Zimmerman, E. (1999). Dynamic tensions in ability grouping: A
comparataive perspective and critical analysis. Educational Horizons,
77(3). 120-127.

Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal
Social Psychology, 41. 258-290.

Ashton, P., Buhr, D., & Crocker, L. (1984). Teachers' sense of efficacy: A self- or
norm-referenced construct? Florida Journal of Educational Research, 2(1).
29-41.

Baker, T. L. (1994). Doing Social Research, 2nd edition. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill, Inc.

Bandera, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2). 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2). 117-148.

168
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY. W. H.
Freeman and Company.

Bates, J., & Munday, S. (2005). Able, gifted, and talented. New York, NY:
Continuum International Publishing Group.

Benbow, C. P. (1998). Grouping intellectually advanced students in instruction
(Vol. Love Pub.). Denver, CO.

Berg, B. (1997). Qualitative research methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Berliner, D. (1987). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher,
15(7). 5-13.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook. New York,
NY: David McKay, Publisher.

Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY:
Ballantine Books.

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

Borland, J. H. (2003). The death of giftedness: Gifted education without gifted
children. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking Gifted Education. New York
and London, Teachers College, Columbia University: Teacher's College
Press.

Borland, J. H., Horton, D., Subotnik, R. F., Chen, S. J., Freeman, C., Goldberg, S.,
et al. (2002). Ability grouping and acceleration of gifted students. The
Roeper Review, 24(3). 100-177.

Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Bruner, J., Shapiro, D., & Tagiuri, R. (1958). Person perception and interpersonal
behaviour. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

CAG. (2003). Gifted learners in the regular classroom [Electronic Version].
California Association for the Gifted: A Position Paper. Retrieved
February 13, 2007 from http://www.cagc.org.

169
California Association for the Gifted. A Glossary: Common terms related to gifted
education [Electronic Version], 1-31. Retrieved February 24, 2007 from
http://www.cagifted.org.

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

California Code of Regulations. Title 5, Chapter 4, Section 3840 [Electronic
Version]. Retrieved February 15, 2007 from http://www.cde.ca.gov.

California Department of Education. (1995). Gifted and talented education
resource guide. Sacramento, CA: Bureau of Publications.

California State Department of Education. (1979). Principles, objectives, and
curricula for programs in the education of gifted and talented pupils:
Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: California State
Department of Education.

California State Department of Education. (2008). Testing and accountability
[Electronic Version]. Retrieved March 18, 2008 from www.cde.ca.gov.

Callahan, C., & Moon, T. (2007). Sorting the wheat from the chaff: What makes
for good evidence of effectiveness in the literature in gifted education? The
Gifted Child Quarterly (Vol. 51, Iss. 4). 305.

Callahan, C. M., Tomlinson, C. A., Hunsaker, S. L., Bland, L. C., & Moon, T. R.
(1995). Instruments and evaluation designs used in gifted programs (No.
Report No. 95132). Storrs, CT.

Carnevale, A. P. (2007). No child gets ahead. Education Week.

Cassady, J., & Mullen, L. (2001). A legacy of promise: Reflections, suggestions,
and directions from contemporary leaders in the field of gifted education.
The Teacher Educator, 36. 167-184.

Clark, B. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation:
Contributions of research on teacher thinking. Educational Researcher, 17.
7-12.

Clark, B. (1997). Social ideologies and gifted education in today's schools.
Peabody Journal of Education, 73(3-4). 81-100.

170
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and
practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in
Education, 24. 249-305.

Cohen, L. M. (1996). Mapping the domains of ignorance and knowledge in gifted
education. Reoper Review, 18(F/Mr '96). 183-189.

Conan, J. B. (1959). The American high school today: A first report to interested
citizens. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Book Company.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2007). Grouping practices [Electronic Version].
CEC Position Statement. Retrieved July 5, 2007 from www.cec.sped.org..
Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. (1985). Educating able learners: Programs and
promising practices. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approach (2nd ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Croft, L. J. (2003). Teachers of the gifted: Gifted teachers. In N. Colangelo & G.
Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Allyn
and Bacon.

Dana, F., N.;, & Dana, T., M. (1995). Wholistic perspectives on the teaching in
qualitative research method. American Education Research Association, 94.
1-22.

Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2006). Achieving with data: How high-
performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary
students. Los Angeles, CA: The University of Southern California.

del Prete, T. (1996). Asset or albatross? Gifted Child Today, 19(Mr/Ap). 24-25.

DeLisle, J. (1994). The top 10 statements that should never again be made by
advocates of gifted children. Gifted Child Today, 17(2). 34-35.

Department for Children, S., and Families;. (2003). Excellence and enjoyment:
Learning and teaching in the primary years. London, England: DfES.
Desforges, C. (1995). How does experience affect theoretical knowledge for
teaching? Learning and Instruction, 5. 385-400.

Dettmer, P. (1985). Attitudes of school role groups toward learning needs of gifted
students. Roeper Review, 7. 253-257.

171
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

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

Education Code. California Laws and Regulations, Sections 52200-52212
[Electronic Version]. Retrieved February 16, 2007 from www.cde.ca.gov.

Esposito, D. (1973). Review of Educational Research. 43, 2. 163-179.

Feldhusen, J. F. (1991). Full-time classes for gifted youth. Gifted youth. Gifted
Child Today, 14(16). 10-12.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Moon, S. M. (1992). Grouping gifted students: Issues and
Concerns. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2).

Fetterman, D. M. (1988). Excellence and equality: A qualitatively different
perspective on gifted and talented education. Albany, N.Y.: State
University of New York Press, Albany.

Fetterman, D. M., & Wood, C. T. (1982). Case study methodology for the
evaluation of the gifted and talented education program. Unpublished
manuscript, Mountain View, CA.

Floyd, C. (1954). Meeting children's reading needs in the middle grades. The
Elementary School Journal, 55. 99-103.

Fogarty, R. (1999). Architects of the intellect. Educational Leadership, 57(3).
76-78.

Frey, C. P. (1993). Meeting the affective needs of gifted students. Gifted Child
Today, 16(3). 34-35.

Fuhrman, S. H. (1994). Legislatures and educational policies. The Goveranance of
Curriculum: ASCD. 30-55.

Gallagher, J. J. (1966). Teaching gifted students. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon,
Inc.

172
Gallagher, J. J. (1979). Issues in education for the gifted. In A. H. Passow (Ed.),
The gifted and the talented: Their education and development. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.

Gallagher, J. J. (1986). Equity vs excellence: An educational drama. Roper Review,
8.

Gallagher, J. J. (1988). Our love/hate affair with gifted children. Gifted Children
Today, 11(1). 55-57.

Gallagher, J. J. (1994). A retrospective view: The Javits Program. Gifted Child
Quarterly, Vol. 38(No. 2). 95-96.

Gallagher, J. J. (2004). No Child Left Behind and Gifted Education. Roeper Report,
26(3). 121-123.

Gallagher, J. J., Weiss, P., Oglesby, K., & Thomas, T. (1983). The status of gifted-
talented education: United States survey of needs, practices, and policies,
Leadership Training Institute. Los Angeles, CA.

Galvan, J. L. (2006). Writing Literature Reviews. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publisher.
Gardner, J. J. (1983). Frames of Mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.

George, P. S. (1996). What's the truth about tracking ability grouping really???
An explanation for teachers and parents. Gainsville, FL: Teacher Education
Resources.

Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 76(4). 569-582.

Gibson, S., Wiggins, S., & Crowley, C. (2007). Transcription and computer
assisted qualitative data analysis [Electronic Version]. Retrieved March 19,
2008 from www.itsnpsy/york.ac.uk/docs/ppt.

Glass, T. F. (2004). What gift? The reality of the student who is gifted and talented
in public school classrooms. Gifted Child Today, 27(4). 25-29.

Glickman, C. (1991). Pretending not to know what we know. Educational
Leadership, 48. 4-10.

Goddard, R.D., Hoy, W.K., & Hoy, A.W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its
meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American
Educational Research Journal, 37(2). 479-507.

173
Goldberg, M. L., Passow, A. H., & Justman, J. (1966). The effects of ability
grouping. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Gollmar, S. (1995). Reflection on the future of gifted education. Georgia
Association of Gifted Children, Spring. 1-4.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Goodman, J. (1988). Constructing a practical philosophy of teaching: A study of
preservice teachers' professional perspectives. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 4. 121-137.

Gould, H. C. (2000). Can we meet standards and encourage teachers to differentiate
for the highly able? NASSP Bulletin. 74-78.

Gov. Owens, B. (2005). No Child Left Behind Press Release [Electronic Version].
Retrieved May 16, 2007 from
www.colorado.gov/governor/press/may05/sb050.html.

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

Guskey, T.R. (1987). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy.
Journal of Educational Research, 81(1). 41-47.

Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained
teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38. 115-121.

Hoff, D. J., & Manzo, K. K. (2007). Bush claims about NCLB questioned.
Education Week.

Hoy, W.K., Sweetland, S.R., & Smith, P.A. (2002). Toward an organizational
model of achievement in high schools: The significance of collective
efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1). 77-93.

Johnsen, S. (1999). The top 20 events in gifted education. Gifted Child Today, Vol.
22, No. 6. 7.

Johnsen, S. (2006). New national standards for teachers of gifted and talented
students. Gifted Child Today, 29(3).

174
Jost, K. (1997). Educating gifted students: Are U.S. schools neglecting the
brightest young? CQ Researcher, Vol. 7(12).

Kaplan, S. (2000). New rhetoric requirements. Gifted Child Today, 23(4). 20-21.

Kaplan, S. (2004a). Advocacy the spillover effect: an advocacy strategy. Giflted
Child Today, 27(1).

Kaplan, S. (2004b). Using their words to support our advocacy efforts. Gifted Child
Today, 27(3). 59-65.

Kaplan, S. (2004c). Where we stand determines the answers to the question: Can
the No Child Left Behind Legislation be beneficial to gifted students?
Roeper Report, 26(3). 124-125.

Kaplan, S. (2008). Curriculum Consequences: If you learn this, then... Gifted Child
Today, 31(1). 41.

Keaster, C. W. (1968). The mentally gifted minor program; Report of a study by the
Division of Special Schools and Services [Electronic Version]. Retrieved
October 17, 2007 from www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal.

Kelley, H. H. (1951). Communication in experimentally created hierachies. Human
Relations, 4. 39-56.

King, G., Keohane, R., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific
inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kramer, R. H. (1991). The education of gifted children in the United States: A
delphi study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35. 84-91.

Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the reserach on ability grouping: Historical and
contemporary perspectives. The National Research Center on the Gifted
and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. l. (1884). Effects of accelerated instruction on students.
Review of Educational Research(54). 409-425.

Kurpius, S. E., & Stafford, M. E. (2006). Testing and measurement: A user-
friendly guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Landrum, M. S. (2001). An evaluation of the catalyst program: Consultation and
collaboration in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(139).

175
Lapadat, J., & Lindsay, A. (1999). Transcription in research and practice: From
standardization of technique to interpretive positioning. Qualitative Inquiry,
5(1). 64-86.

Lee, G. C. (1961). Crusade against ignorance: Thomas Jefferson on education.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Lexicon Group. (2007). Dictionary.Com [Electronic Version]. Retrieved January
18, 2007, from http://www.dictionary.com.

Locke, L. F., Silverman, S. J., & Spirduso, W. W. (2004). Reading and
understanding research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.

Maker, J. C., & Nielson, A. B. (1995). Teaching Models in the Education of the
Gifted. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc.

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

Matsui, B. (2007). Bell-to-bell and wall-to-wall: The first tier of interventions!
Paper presented at the Conference of the National Staff Development
Council. Retrieved January 16, 2008 from www.nsdc.org/conference 07.

Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2005a). Being Smart About Gifted Children: A
Guidebook for Parents and Educators. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential
Press.

Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2005b). Dynamic scaffolding model of teacher
development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(3). 223-229.

Matthews, D. J., & Keating, D. P. (1995). Domain specificity and habits of mind:
An investigation of patterns of high-level development. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 15. 319-343.

McDaniel, T. R. (2002). Mainstreaming the gifted: Historical perspective on
excellence and equity. Reoper Review, 24(3). 112-114.

McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What's good,
what's not, and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Corwin Press, Inc.

176
McKechnie, J. L. (1983). Webster's new universal unabridged dictionary. New
York: Simon & Schuster.

Mead, M. (1954). The gifted child in the American culture today. Journal of
Teacher Education, 5. 211-214.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case student applications in
education (Second Edition ed. Vol. Jossey-Bass Publishers). San Francisco,
CA.

Miles, S., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

Milgram, R. M. (1989). Teaching gifted and talented learners in regular
classrooms. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher.

Moon, S. M., & Rosselli, H. C. (2000). Developing Gifted Programs. In F. J. M. In
K. Heller, R.J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.) (Ed.), International
Handbook for Giftedness and Talent (2nd ed.). 499-521. Oxford, England.

Morrison, A., & McIntyre, D. (1969). Teachers and Teaching (Vol. Penguin
Books, Ltd.). Baltimore, MD.

National Association for Gifted Children. (1998a). Collaboration between gifted
and general education programs [Electronic Version]. NAGC Position
Statement, pp. 1-3. Retrieved February 2, 2007 from www.nagc.org.

National Association for Gifted Children. (1998b). Gifted education programming
criterion: Program design description [Electronic Version]. Retrieved June
15, 2007 from www.nagc.org.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1996). NBPTS Professional
Standards [Electronic Version]. Retrieved June 3, 2007, from
www.nbpts.org/the_standards.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington,
D.C.: National Academic Press.

Newland, T. E. (1976). The gifted in socioeducational perspective. Englewood
Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

177
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure in inequality. New Haven,
CT: University Press, Yale.

Olson, L. (1992). Fed up with tinkering, reformers touting systemic approach.
Education Week.

Omrod, J. E. (2002). Cognitive factors in motivation. Educational Psychology:
Developing Learners, (4th ed.). 388-425.

Oxford, R. (1997). Constructivism: Shape-Shifting, Substance, and Teacher
Education. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(1). 35-66.

Pajares, M. D. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a
messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62. 307-332.

Parsad, B. (2001). Teacher preparation and professional development: 2000
[Electronic Version]. National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved
February 15, 2008 from nces.ed.gov/pubs2001.

Passow, A. H. (1984). Reforming schools in the 1980s: A critical review of the
national reports. New York, NY.

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

Pfaff, M.E. (2000). The effects on teacher efficacy of school based collaborative
activities structured as professional study groups. Paper presented at the
Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans.

Phenix, P. H. (1964). Realms of meaning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Basic
Books.

Prawat, R. S. (2000). The two faces of Deweyan Pragmatism: Inductionism versus
Social Constructivism [Electronic Version]. Teachers College Record, No.
4. 805-840. Retrieved December 30, 2007 from
vnweb:hwwilsonweb.comlibproxy.usc.edu.

Protheroe, N. (2008). Teacher efficacy: What it is and does it matter? National
Association of Elementary School Principals, 87(5). 42-45.

178
RAND Education. (2007). How educators in three states are responding to
standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind [Electronic
Version]. Research Brief, Monograph 589. Retrieved June 28, 2007 from
www.rand.org/events/2007/06/12/.

Reis, S. M. (2003). Reconsidering regular curriculum for high-achieving students,
gifted underachievers, and the relationship between gifted and regular
education: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kukikowich, J., Caillard, F., & Plucker, J. (1993).
Why not let high ability students start school in January? The curriculum
compacting study. Stamford, CT: University of Connecticut.

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi
Delta Kappan, 60(3). 180-184.

Renzulli, J. S. (1986a). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted
and talented. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press, Inc.

Renzulli, J. S. (1986b). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental
model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sterberg (Eds.), Conceptions of
giftedness (Vol. University Press). Cambridge, England.

Renzulli, J. S. (1995a). Building a bridge between gifted education and total school
improvement. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented,
University of Connecticut, RBDM 9502(January 1995). 3-18.

Renzulli, J. S. (1995b). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop
it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
23. 3-54.

Renzulli, J. S., Lippen, J., & Hays, T. (2000). The multiple menu model: A
practical guide for developing differentiated curriculum. Mansfield Center,
CT: Creative Teaching Press.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1998). Talent development through curriculum
differentiation. NASSP Bulletin, 82. 61-74.

Rogers, K. (1989). Training teachers of the gifted: What do they need to know?
Roeper Report, 11. 145-150.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing
data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

179
Rueda, R., & Garcia, E. (1996). Teachers' perspectives on literacy assessment and
instruction with language-minority students: A comparative study. The
Elementary School Journal, 96(3). 311-332.

Samuels, C. A. (2007, April 11). States seen renewing focus on education of gifted.
Education Week.

Samuels, C. A. (2008). Advocates Worry Gifted Funding Veering Off Course.
Education Week.

Sarason, S., B. (1990). The Predictable Failure of School Reform. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Schlichter, C. (1986). Talents unlimited: Applying the multiple talent approach in
mainstream and gifted programs. In Systems and models for developing
programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning
Press, Inc.

Schulman, L. (2002). Making diffferences: A table of learning. Change, 34(6).

Shadish, W. R. (1995). The logic of generalization: Five principles common to
experiments and ethnographies. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 23(3). 419-428.

Shavelson, R. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self concept: Validation of construct
interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46. 407-411.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2). 4-14.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57(1). 1-22.

Shulman, L. (2002). Making diffferences: A table of learning. Change, 34(6).

Simpson, D. J. (1999). John Dewey's view of grouping: A democratic perspective.
Educational Horizons, 77(3). 128-133.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary
schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research(57).
293-336.

180
Sparks, D. (1999). A national plan for improving professional development:
NSDC.

State Department of Education, I. (2004). Javits study: Grouping practices for the
gifted [Electronic Version]. Retrieved April 10, 2007 from
http://www.sde.idaho.gov/GiftedTalented/docs/reserach/GroupingPractices.
htm.

Sternberg, R. S. (1986). In R.S. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of
giftedness. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. S. (1988). Mental government: A theory of intellectual styles and
their development. Human Development, Vol. 31. 197-224.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

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

Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted Children: Psychological and education
perspectives. New York, NY: MacMillan.

Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk Hoy, A.W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing
an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7). 783-805.

Tieso, C. (2005). The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on
achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted(29). 60-89.

Tocqueville, A. d. (1899). Democracy in America (H. Reeves, Trans. Vol. II). New
York, NY: D. Appleton and Company.

Tolan, S. (1990). Helping your highly gifted child. ERIC Digest (E477).

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of
all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001a). Differentiated instruction in the regular classroom:
What does it mean? How does it look? [Electronic Version].
Understanding our Gifted, 14. 3-6.

181
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001b). ERIC Digest: Differentiation of Instruction in the
Elementary Grades.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Differentiation in diverse settings. School Administrator,
61(7). 28-33.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1992). Contributions of gifted education to
general education in a time of change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36. 183-189.

U.S. Commissioner of Education. (1971). Education of the gifted and talented:
Report to the Congress of the United States [Electronic Version]. Retrieved
July 15, 2007 from www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICportal.

U.S Department of Education. (1994). 1992 Elementary and sceondary school civil
rights compliance report: Reported and projected enrollment data for the
nation [Electronic Version]. Retrieved July 14, 2007 from www.ed.gov.

U.S Department of Education. (2007). Building on results: A blueprint for
strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act [Electronic Version]. Retrieved
Janury 4, 2008 from www.ed.gov.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Building on Results: A Blueprint for
Strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act. In M. Spellings, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Education (Ed.) (pp. pp. 1-16): Washington, D.C.: ED
Pubs, Education Publications Center.

U.S. Department of Education/Office of Educational Research Institute. (1993).
National excellence: A case for developing American talent [Electronic
Version]. Retrieved July 15, 2007 from www.ed.gov.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1992). Educational decision making in acceleration and
grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly (36). 68-72.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Avery, L. D., & Hall, D. (1997). Focus on the future: An
evaluation of Ohio gifted programs. Williamsbury, VA: College of William
and Mary.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Avery, L. D., Little, C., & Hughes, C. (2000). An evaluation
of the implementation of curriculum innovation: The impact of the William
and Mary analysis on schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
23(2). 224-272.

182
VanTassel-Baska, J., Quek, C., & Feng, A. X. (2007). The development and use of
a structured teacher observation scale to assess differentiated best practice.
Roeper Report, 29(2). 84-93.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2003). Mass media research. Belmont, Ca:
Thomson Wadsworth.

Weiner, B. (1994). Integrating social and personal theories of achievement striving.
Review of Educational Research, 64. 557-573.

Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context
effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1997. 57-67.

183
Appendix A
Instrument: Teacher Questionnaire

The Spill-over Effect:
An Examination of Differentiated Curriculum
In A Heterogeneous Classroom

A Study for the University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
By
Terry Petersen
Doctoral Candidate

Teacher Questionnaire

184
DIRECTIONS: Please check or write your responses in the spaces provided.
Female School District: ____________________
Male Type of School District:
Urban
Rural
Suburban
Grade Level(s) you teach: __________________________
Type of Gifted Program:
Magnet school
Regular classroom
Regular classroom with a cluster group of gifted students
Pullout program
Special day classes
Years of Teaching Experience: _____________________ general education
_____________________ gifted education
Highest Degree Held:
Masters Degree Yes No
Doctorate Degree Yes No
Approximate number of credit hours of study in formal university courses
in gifted education: ______
Approximate number of workshop or conference attendance hours in gifted
education: _________

185
Certificate or endorsement in gifted education: Yes No
If yes, from: University District CAG
Place an “X” on the continuum to indicate how you would estimate your expertise
as a professional educator of gifted students.

Novice Conversant Expert
On average, how long do you spend preparing each day for the next day’s differentiated
lessons for gifted students?
barely any time
½ hour – 1 hour
1 – 2 hours
2 –3 hours
> 3 hours

186
Section I
DIRECTIONS: In the items which are included in this questionnaire you are
asked to reflect on your choices. You may see or feel that many of the choices are
difficult since all or none of the items may apply to you. However, we ask you to
make a single choice for each item under each discipline. For each of the four areas
below (skills, content, product, assessment), place a 1 under items you most
emphasize; place a 2 under items that receive the least emphasis in the teaching of
each discipline.

If you do not teach this discipline, please write N/A in the box of that
discipline.

Lang.
Arts
Social
Studies
Math Science Art Music Computers/
Technology
Basic

Critical &
Creative

Skill Mastery
Research

Core or basic
facts and
general
concepts

Universal
Concepts

Big Ideas,
Theories,
Generalizatio
ns, Principles

Content Acquisition
Prompts of
Depth/
Complexity

Work
authentic to
the discipline

Projects such
as murals,
plays, etc.

Product
Self-selected
independent
study

Standard
(i.e., tests)

Assessment
Performance
-based (i.e.
rubrics,
portfolios)

187
Math
Section II
DIRECTIONS: Place an X in the box beneath the curricular pattern that best
represents the way you teach the standards-based or core curriculum content

Teaching the various
subjects separately
Teaching the various
subjects connected by a
universal theme
Teaching the subjects in an
interdisciplinary manner to
prove and/or verify a big idea
related to a universal concept
Change

Language
Arts
Social Studies
Science
Example: relationship between
social studies and science – How
people live (social studies) and
regional animals and plants where
people live (science)

Integrating the various subjects

188
Section III

DIRECTIONS:

• For each item below, first read each of the pairs of teaching methods given in
the numbered left-hand column.
• Select the method in each pair to which you give most priority or assign most
value. Check your response.
• Then, select a single rationale that best explains your choice from the listing in
the right-hand column.

Teaching Methods Rationale
1. Creating your own lesson

or
Following the teacher’s
guide or prescribed
curriculum
expediency (time)
previous experience dictates this works
best
expectations of the district, school, etc.
just because . . . I don’t have a reason
for the choice
challenge to students
relationship to expectations or needs of
the gifted
affects all learners in the classroom
2. Teaching in small
homogenous groups

or
Teaching the entire
heterogeneous class
expediency (time)
previous experience dictates this works
best
expectations of the district, school, etc.
just because . . . I don’t have a reason
for the choice
challenge to students
relationship to expectations or needs of
the gifted
affects all learners in the classroom
3. Teaching in heterogeneous
small groups

Or

Teaching the whole class
heterogeneous group
expediency (time)
previous experience dictates this works
best
expectations of the district, school, etc.
just because . . . I don’t have a reason
for the choice
challenge to students
relationship to expectations or needs of
the gifted
affects all learners in the classroom

189
Teaching Methods Rationale
4. Teaching basic skills such
as: define, identify, compare

or
Teaching critical thinking
skills such as: judging with
criteria, prove with evidence
expediency (time)
previous experience dictates this works
best
expectations of the district, school, etc.
just because . . . I don’t have a reason for
the choice
challenge to students
relationship to expectations or needs of
the gifted
affects all learners in the classroom
5. Teaching basic fact and
concepts

or
Teaching universal and big
ideas
expediency (time)
previous experience dictates this works
best
expectations of the district, school, etc.
just because . . . I don’t have a reason for
the choice
challenge to students
relationship to expectations or needs of
the gifted
affects all learners in the classroom
6. Teaching areas that interest
the students and meet their
needs and abilities as gifted
individuals

or
Teaching the standards-
based, text material, or
district curriculum
expediency (time)
previous experience dictates this works
best
expectations of the district, school, etc.
just because . . . I don’t have a reason for
the choice
challenge to students
relationship to expectations or needs of
the gifted
affects all learners in the classroom
7. Teaching traditional
knowledge in each subject
area
or
Teaching generalizations,
principles, theories across
the disciplines
expediency (time)
previous experience dictates this works
best
expectations of the district, school, etc.
just because . . . I don’t have a reason for
the choice
challenge to students
relationship to expectations or needs of
the gifted
affects all learners in the classroom

190
Teaching Methods Rationale
8. Teaching many different
topics across the various
disciplines
or
Teaching in a single
discipline
expediency (time)
previous experience dictates this works
best
expectations of the district, school, etc.
just because . . . I don’t have a reason for
the choice
challenge to students
relationship to expectations or needs of
the gifted
affects all learners in the classroom
9. Teaching advanced and
gifted students
or
Teaching average students
or
Teaching struggling
learners
expediency (time)
previous experience dictates this works
best
expectations of the district, school, etc.
just because . . . I don’t have a reason for
the choice
challenge to students
relationship to expectations or needs of
the gifted
affects all learners in the classroom
10. Teaching single subjects
separately
or
Teaching all subjects
connected to a theme or
universal concept
expediency (time)
previous experience dictates this works
best
expectations of the district, school, etc.
just because . . . I don’t have a reason for
the choice
challenge to students
relationship to expectations or needs of
the gifted
affects all learners in the classroom
11. Teaching creative
thinking skills such as:
redesign, combine
or
Teaching basic skills such
as: compare, identify the
main idea
expediency (time)
previous experience dictates this works
best
expectations of the district, school, etc.
just because . . . I don’t have a reason for
the choice
challenge to students
relationship to expectations or needs of
the gifted
affects all learners in the classroom

191

Teaching Methods Rationale
12. Teaching the basic
prompts of who, what,
when, etc. to seek
information

or
Teaching the prompts of
Depth and Complexity to
seek information
expediency (time)
previous experience dictates this works
best
expectations of the district, school, etc.
just because . . . I don’t have a reason for
the choice
challenge to students
relationship to expectations or needs of
the gifted
affects all learners in the classroom
13. Teaching in small groups

or
Allowing students to get
involved in a self-directed
independent study
expediency (time)
previous experience dictates this works
best
expectations of the district, school, etc.
just because. . . I don’t have a reason for
the choice
challenge to students
relationship to expectations or needs of
the gifted
affects all learners in the classroom

Section IV

DIRECTIONS: Read each of these philosophies of education. Identify the one
you feel most reflects your own philosophy.

The primary mission of school is to develop students who have well-developed
basic skills and understanding of the fundamental ideas related to the standard
topics in the disciplines.
The primary mission of school is to develop the students’ self-concept and
affective abilities.
The primary mission of school is to develop knowledgeable and productive
citizens who will realize their individual potential.

192
Section V

DIRECTIONS: Which of these curriculum examples BEST REPRESENTS
YOUR definition of DIFFERENTIATED curriculum for advanced and gifted
students? Place an “X” in the one box that best represents your response.
(Note: = core curriculum of each discipline = curriculum for advanced
and gifted)

Replace the core with a
curriculum differentiated for
gifted students

Replace only parts of the
core curriculum students
know with curriculum
differentiated specifically
for them

Parallel teach the core
curriculum and
differentiated curriculum for
gifted students

Design a differentiated
curriculum for gifted
students inclusive of the
core curriculum
Curriculum
for gifted
CORE
CURRICULUM
CORE
Curriculum
for gifted
Curriculum
for gifted
CORE
CURRICULUM
Curriculum
for gifted
CORE
CURRICULUM

193

Add curriculum for gifted
students to the core
curriculum only when
needed

Design a new curriculum
for gifted students
completely ignoring the
core curriculum

Teach only the core curriculum to gifted students

CORE
CURRICULUM
Curriculum
for gifted
CORE
CURRICULUM

194
Section VI

DIRECTIONS: Which of these curriculum examples BEST REPRESENTS the
means by which a differentiated curriculum for gifted students can SPILL-OVER
and AFFECT the curriculum for ALL learners in a heterogeneous classroom?
Place an X in the one box that best represents your response.

Replace the core with a
curriculum differentiated for
gifted students

Replace only parts of the
core curriculum students
know with curriculum
differentiated specifically for
them

Parallel teach the core
curriculum and
differentiated curriculum for
gifted students

Design a differentiated
curriculum for gifted
students inclusive of the
core curriculum
Curriculum
for gifted
CORE
CURRICULUM
CORE
CURRICULUM
Curriculum for
gifted
Curriculum
for gifted
CORE
CURRICULUM
Curriculum
for gifted
CORE
CURRICULUM

195

Add curriculum for gifted
students to the core
curriculum only when
needed

Design a new curriculum
for gifted students
completely ignoring the
core curriculum

Teach only the core curriculum to gifted students

CORE
CURRICULUM
Curriculum
for gifted
CORE
CURRICULUM

196
Appendix B
Instrument: Telephone Interview

The Spill-over Effect:
An Examination of Differentiated Curriculum
In A Heterogeneous Classroom

A Study for the University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
By
Terry Petersen
Doctoral Candidate

Telephone Interview

197
Gifted/Non-Gifted
Heterogeneous
Gifted
Special Day Class
Questions 1 through 4: Simulation Questions
This illustration shows four different classrooms settings that are typical of many
schools. The “x’s” represent gifted students and the “0’s” represent the non-gifted
students. I’m going to ask you to imagine yourself in each one of these classroom
settings that have different groupings of gifted and non-gifted students. The
question I ask will be the same in each setting.

A content
standard that is
differentiated
Non-Gifted
Homogeneous

A content
standard that is
differentiated
Cluster Gifted
A content
standard that is
differentiated
A content
standard that is
differentiated

198
Question 1
Imagine yourself in this classroom with a homogeneous grouping of
students with similar abilities; however, there are no identified gifted students in
this classroom. You are asked to teach a content standard that is differentiated in
terms of acceleration, depth, complexity, and/or novelty. Would you teach this
content standard that has been differentiated to be academically rigorous and
challenging to this group of students?
Filter question: If so, why?
Filter question: If not, why not?
Filter question: What factors influence your decision?

Homogeneous grouping is a method for assigning students by the demonstrated
need or ability based on a commonality of the students’ intellectual, academic,
and/or affective needs.
A content
standard that is
differentiated
Non-Gifted
Homogeneous

199
Question 2
Imagine yourself in this classroom with a heterogeneous grouping of
gifted and non-gifted students who are the same age/grade level range. You are
asked to teach a content standard that is differentiated in terms of acceleration,
depth, complexity, and/or novelty. Would you teach this content standard that has
been differentiated to be academically rigorous and challenging to this group of
students?
Filter question: If so, why?
Filter question: If not, why not?
Filter question: What factors influence your decision?

Heterogeneous grouping is a method for assigning gifted and non-gifted students
by age with no regard to demonstrated ability or level of knowledge.

Gifted/Non-Gifted
Heterogeneous

A content
standard that is
differentiated

200
Question 3
Imagine yourself in this classroom with a cluster grouping of identified
gifted students and other heterogeneously grouped students. You are asked to teach
a content standard that is differentiated in terms of acceleration, depth, complexity,
and/or novelty. Would you teach this content standard that has been differentiated
to be academically rigorous and challenging to this group of students?
Filter question: If so, why?
Filter question: If not, why not?
Filter question: What factors influence your decision?

Cluster grouping is a method for assigning a group of gifted students to the same
classroom to work together during the academic school day.

Cluster Gifted
A content
standard that is
differentiated

201

Question 4
Imagine yourself in this special day classroom where all of the students are
identified as gifted. You are asked to teach a content standard that is differentiated
in terms of acceleration, depth, complexity, and/or novelty. Would you teach this
content standard that has been differentiated to be academically rigorous and
challenging to this group of students?
Filter question: If so, why?
Filter question: If not, why not?
Filter question: What factors influence your decision?

Special Day Classroom is a grouping method that provides a program structure for
a self-contained GATE classroom.

Gifted
Special Day Class

A content
standard that is
differentiated

202

Questions 5 through 15: Open-Ended Questions

Question 5
What is your philosophical position on the potential of a spill-over effect?

Question 6
In your opinion, what factors determine the curriculum design you select for
gifted students that would also spill-over to affect all learners in the same
classroom?

Question 7
How confident are you in your decision-making abilities to select a:
a. curriculum design for a given content lesson?
b. specific model of teaching to instruct the curriculum?

Question 8
How do you feel about your level of efficacy in teaching the various
differentiated curriculum designs such as depth, complexity, universal concepts and
big ideas, or thinking like a disciplinarian?

Question 9
How do you define the relationship between challenging gifted student and
all other learners in a classroom?

Question 10
What are the elements of a differentiated curriculum design that you select
for gifted students that you think best provides for a spill-over effect?

203

Question 11
How would you describe teacher’s perceptions of differentiated curriculum?

Question 12
What evidence, if any, have you noticed regarding school wide interest or
improvement regarding models of teaching and differentiation based on your
involvement in the grant?

Question 13
How would you describe your level of expertise as a professional educator
of gifted students?

Question 14
On average, how long do you spend preparing each day for the next day’s
differentiated lessons for gifted students?

Question 15
How has the training that you have received through your participation in
this grant program affected your perceptions and experiences of differentiation and
models of teaching and its affects on all students in your classroom?

204
Appendix C
Interview Script

Introduction Script:
•Hello. This is Terry Petersen. Is this name of participant? Thank you for
making yourself available for this telephone interview. I appreciate you allowing
me to ask some questions that will provide valuable information for my research
study. As you know, I’m working with Dr. Kaplan on a Javits federal grant
program on gifted education of which you are a participating teacher.
•Using information gathered from a teacher questionnaire that you
completed last spring, I’d like to ask you some follow up questions to two sections
in that questionnaire that pertained specifically to my research topic of
differentiated instruction and spill-over effect. Because the first four questions
have illustrated classroom settings, I have provided a copy of the interview protocol
for you. Do you have that copy in front of you now?
•Good, let me start by reviewing some information with you.
•None of the questions that I ask today will have a right or wrong answer,
rather, my questions will be open-ended to allow me to learn more about the
decisions and choices you make in your classroom.

205
•You have given prior permission for this interview to be audio-taped. In a
moment, I will begin audio-taping. I will start the interview by asking you to state
your name, the grade you teach, and the school where you work. Then I will
proceed with a set of fifteen questions, some of which will have additional probing
prompts for you to respond to. The interview will take us approximately twenty
minutes to complete.
• Before we begin, do you have any questions that you would like to ask
me?
• OK, good. Let’s get started.
• Please state your name, your school, and the grade you teach.
• Let’s start with some simulation questions. Please look at the first page of
the interview document.

Simulation Questions
• This illustration shows four different classrooms settings that are typical of
many schools. The “x’s” represent gifted students and the “0’s” represent the non-
gifted students. I’m going to ask you to imagine yourself in each one of these
classroom settings that have different groupings of gifted and non-gifted students.
The question I ask will be the same in each setting.
Q1. Imagine yourself in this classroom with a homogeneous grouping of
students with similar abilities; however, there are no identified gifted students in
this classroom. You are asked to teach a content standard that is differentiated in
terms of acceleration, depth, complexity, and/or novelty. Would you teach this
content standard that has been differentiated to be academically rigorous and
challenging to this group of students?

206

Homogeneous grouping is a method for assigning students by the
demonstrated need or ability based on a commonality of the students’ intellectual,
academic, and/or affective needs.

Filter question: If so, why?
Filter question: If not, why not?
Filter question: What factors influence your decision?

Q2. Imagine yourself in this classroom with a heterogeneous grouping of
gifted and non-gifted students who are the same age/grade level range. You are
asked to teach a content standard that is differentiated in terms of acceleration,
depth, complexity, and/or novelty. Would you teach this content standard that has
been differentiated to be academically rigorous and challenging to this group of
students?

Heterogeneous grouping is a method for assigning gifted and non-gifted
students by age with no regard to demonstrated ability or level of knowledge.

Filter question: If so, why?
Filter question: If not, why not?
Filter question: What factors influence your decision?

Q3. Imagine yourself in this classroom with a cluster grouping of
identified gifted students and other heterogeneously grouped students. You are
asked to teach a content standard that is differentiated in terms of acceleration,
depth, complexity, and/or novelty. Would you teach this content standard that has
been differentiated to be academically rigorous and challenging to this group of
students?

Cluster grouping is a method for assigning a group of gifted students to the
same classroom to work together during the academic day.

Filter question: If so, why?
Filter question: If not, why not?
Filter question: What factors influence your decision?

Q4. Imagine yourself in this special day classroom where all of the
students are identified as gifted. You are asked to teach a content standard that is
differentiated in terms of acceleration, depth, complexity, and/or novelty. Would
you teach this content standard that has been differentiated to be academically
rigorous and challenging content to this group of students?

207

Special Day Classroom is a grouping method that provides a program
structure for a self-contained GATE classroom.

Filter question: If so, why?
Filter question: If not, why not?
Filter question: What factors influence your decision?

•Now I’d like to ask you some open-ended questions that will value your
opinion and your perceptions. Before we begin this set of questions, let me review
how the “spill-over effect” is described in the teacher questionnaire you took last
spring. In the questionnaire it was defined as “the means by which a differentiated
curriculum for gifted students can spill-over and affect the curriculum for ALL
learners in a heterogeneous classroom.”

Ready for the next set of questions?

Opinions/values Questions
Q5. What is your philosophical position on the potential of a spill-over
effect?

Q6 In your opinion, what factors determine the curriculum design you
select for gifted students that would also spill-over to affect all learners in the same
classroom?

Feelings/emotions Questions
Q7. How confident are you in your decision-making abilities to select a:
a. curriculum design for a given content lesson?
b. specific model of teaching to instruct the curriculum?

Filter question: That’s really interesting. Tell me more about your
choice and selection of a given model or design.

208

Q8. How do you feel about your level of efficacy in teaching the various
differentiated curriculum designs such as depth, complexity, universal concepts and
big ideas, or thinking like a disciplinarian?

Knowledge Questions
Q9. How do you define the relationship between challenging gifted
students and all other learners in a classroom?

Q10. What are the elements of a differentiated curriculum design that you
select for gifted students that you think best provides for a spill-over effect?

Filter question: Tell me more about why you believe these design
elements affect a spill-over effect?

Sensory Questions
Q11. How would you describe teachers’ perceptions of differentiated
curriculum?

Q12. What evidence, if any, have you noticed regarding school-wide
interest or improvement regarding models of teaching and differentiation based on
your involvement in the grant?

Background Questions
Q13. How would you describe your level of expertise as a professional
educator of gifted students?

Q14. On average, how long do you spend preparing each day for the next
day’s differentiated lessons for gifted students?

Q15. How has the training that you have received through your
participation in this grant program affected your perceptions and experiences of
differentiation and models of teaching and its affects on all students in your
classroom?

209
•That was the last one. I have enjoyed this opportunity to talk with you and
appreciate the time you’ve given to share your expertise. Your responses will be
valuable to both my dissertation study as well as to the Javits study currently
underway.
•As a token of appreciation for your time and commitment to this research
study, I would like to send you a $25 gift card to Border’s Books. What address
would you like me to send that to? Thank you.

210
Appendix D
Introductory Letter to Principal

The Spill-over Effect:
An Examination of Differentiated Curriculum
In A Heterogeneous Classroom

A Study for the University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

Principal’s Name
School Name
School Address

211
Dear Principal,
As participants in the USC Javits Models of Teaching Grant, ______ of your
teachers are being invited to participate in a telephone interview, which should take
about 20 minutes, to gather information about his/her perceptions of differentiated
curriculum. A copy of the interview protocols are attached for your perusal.
Information obtained from this interview will remain confidential and will conform
to the existing IRB approval (UP-06--0177) of the federal grant. As a participant,
each teacher will receive a $25 gift card to Border’s Books as a token of
appreciation for his/her participation upon completion of the interview.

Participation in this study will provide the opportunity to further examine the
relationship between a range of models of teaching and learner outcomes with the
expressed desire to enhance instructional practices for practitioners of differentiated
curriculum designs. Should you have any questions, you may contact me directly
at (949) 456-5390 as the student investigator or Dr. Sandra Kaplan, USC Javits
Grant Director, at (213) 740-3291.

An informational packet is being sent directly to the teachers and should be arriving
at the school within a few days. Upon his/her consent, I will contact each teacher
to arrange for a convenient time for the telephone interview. All interviews must
be completed by March 7th. I look forward to working with your teachers and
thank you, in advance, for your support and participation in this follow-up study.

Sincerely,

Terry Petersen
tjpeters@usc.edu

212

Appendix E
Introductory Letter To Participants

The Spill-over Effect:
An Examination of Differentiated Curriculum
In A Heterogeneous Classroom

A Study for the University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

Participant Name
School Name
School Address

213
Dear Teacher of Gifted Students,
To fulfill requirements for a Doctor of Education degree at the University of
Southern California, I am conducting research to examine the use of differentiated
curriculum for gifted students to determine the extent of any possible spill-over to
all learners in an elementary heterogeneous classroom setting. Dr. Sandra Kaplan,
Associate Professor of Clinical Education, is my faculty advisor. She may be
contacted at (213) 740-3291.
As a participant in the USC Javits Models of Teaching Grant, you are
invited to participate in a telephone interview, which should take about 20 minutes,
to gather information about your perceptions of differentiated curriculum. A copy
of the interview protocol is attached for your perusal. Information obtained from
this interview will remain confidential and your identity will be anonymous in data
results. As a participant, you will receive a $25 gift card to Border’s Books as a
token gift upon completion of the interview.
Participation in this study will provide the opportunity for this researcher to
examine the relationship between a range of models of teaching and learner
outcomes with the expressed desire to enhance instructional practices for
practitioners of differentiated curriculum designs.
Please complete and fax the signed consent form and contact information
sheet as soon as possible. I will then contact you to arrange for a convenient time
for the telephone interview. I look forward to speaking with you and thank you, in
advance, for your participation.

Sincerely,

Terry Petersen
Phone: (949) 456-5390
Fax: (949) 858-8835
tjpeters@usc.edu

214
Appendix F
Consent to Participate in Research

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Ed.D. Program
Waite Phillips Hall, Room 802
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4038

*******************************************************************

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

The Spill-Over Effect: An Examination of Differentiated
Curriculum Designs in a Heterogeneous Classroom

215

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Terry Petersen, M.S.
(student investigator) and Sandra Kaplan, Ed.D. (faculty sponsor) from the School
of Education at the University of Southern California because you are an
elementary teacher of grade levels 2, 3, 4 or 5 and work(ed) with GATE students.
The results of this study will contribute to the partial fulfillment of a Doctor of
Education degree at the University of Southern California by the student
investigator. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you
either are or have been a participant in the USC Javits Models of Teaching Grant
under the direction of Project Director, Sandra Kaplan, Ed.D. You must be at least
18 years of age to participate. A total of eleven subjects will be selected to
participate from the USC Javits Models of Teaching Grant participant group. Your
participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask
questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether or not to
participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You
may also decide to discuss it with your family or friends. If you decide to
participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will be given a copy of this
form.

216
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study is designed to gather new information regarding the relationship
between the teacher’s perception and choice of a differentiated curriculum design
for gifted students and the same teacher’s selection of a differentiated curriculum
design to spill-over and affect all students in a heterogeneous classroom.

PROCEDURES

If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things:
You will participate in a telephone interview of approximately 20 minutes in
duration. The interview will be scheduled at your specified date and time. Fifteen
open-ended questions will be asked. The interview will be audio-taped. You can
still participate in this research study if you do not wish to be audio-taped. Your
responses will be coded and analyzed by the student investigator.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS

There are no inherent risks involved in your participation in this study.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY

You will not benefit from this research study. Participation in this study will
provide the opportunity for educational practitioners to examine the relationship

217
between a range of models of teaching and learner outcomes to enhance
instructional practices.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

As a participant, you will receive a $25 gift card to Border’s Books as a token gift.

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The investigators of this research do not have any financial interest in the sponsor
or in the product being studied.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. Research data will be released to the USC Rossier School of Education
dissertation committee, with Sandra Kaplan, Ed.D. serving as chair. During the
research study, the audiotapes will be stored in a locked file cabinet and the data
stored on a password-protected computer by the student investigator. Personal
information will be coded by demographic variables to prevent access by
unauthorized personnel and stored on a password-protected computer. After the

218
study has been completed, the data and audiotapes will be stored for three years in
the office of the faculty sponsor in a locked file cabinet/password protected
computer and then destroyed. When the results of the research are published or
discussed in conferences, no information will be included that would reveal your
identity.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL

You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION

Your alternative is to not participate.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS

You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as
a study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the
research team to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the

219
research staff can not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of
the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
faculty sponsor and Associate Professor of Clinical Education, Sandra Kaplan,
Ed.D., at the University of Southern California, 837 West Downey Way, Stonier
Hall 330, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1147, (213) 740-3291.

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT

I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have
been given a chance to ask questions. My questions have been answered to my
satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of
this form.

□ I agree to be audio/video-taped/photographed
□ I do not want to be audio/video-taped/photographed
Subject can still participated in the research study if they are not audio-
taped.

220

Name of Subject

Signature of Subject Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the subject and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and
freely consents to participate.

Name of Investigator

Signature of Investigator Date

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this research study was to compare curriculum designs that best represent the teacher's definition of differentiated curriculum for gifted students and the means by which that curriculum can spill-over and affect the education of all learners in a heterogeneous classroom. Three broad questions guided this investigation. The researcher explored the relationship between a teacher's choice of a differentiated curriculum design for gifted students and thesame teacher's selection for all learners in a heterogeneous class. The researcher also examined the teacher's preference for differentiated curriculum and instructional strategies. The researcher further studied how teacher training and the composition of students in the class affected the teacher's perceptions of spill-over.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A curriculum to teach innovation in K-4 gifted classrooms

PDF

The effects of the models of teaching on student learning

PDF

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

PDF

The influence of teacher characteristics on preference for models of teaching

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of classroom social environment on motivation and engagement of college early entrant honors students

PDF

An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?

PDF

Effects of individualized professional development on the theoretical understandings and instructional practices of teachers

Asset Metadata

Creator Petersen, Terry Jean (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 07/30/2008

Defense Date 04/28/2008

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

Tag differentiated curriculum designs,Gifted Education,grouping practices,OAI-PMH Harvest,social constructivisim,spill-over effect

Place Name California (states)

Language English

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

Creator Email tjpeters@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1454

Unique identifier UC198562

Identifier etd-Petersen-20080730 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-101458 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1454 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Petersen-20080730.pdf

Dmrecord 101458

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Petersen, Terry Jean

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