University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Lack of challenging curriculum for minority students of diversity in early childhood education

(USC Thesis Other)

Lack of challenging curriculum for minority students of diversity in early childhood education

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 1

Lack of Challenging Curriculum for Minority Students of Diversity
in Early Childhood Education

by

Shayna Markwongnark

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

December 2019

Copyright 2019 Shayna Markwongnark
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Kaplan, my chair, Dr. Manzone, and Dr. Mora Flores my
committee members for guiding and supporting me throughout this journey. Thank you for
believing in me and allowing me to complete the adventure.
To my editor, Ms. Marie Painter, thank you for your unwavering assistance in this
writing process. Your kindness and patience will forever be in my heart.
To my first-born son, Shaun, my inspiration and motivation. Thank you for happily
spending all of your childhood with me on this journey. The endless hours in libraries and side-
by-side homework completions have bound us in an experience few parents and child have. You
pushed me when I felt like giving up and helped me find the strength to keep going. Shaun, you
are wise beyond your years and know, without your encouragement, support, and selflessness, I
would not have been able to accomplish this dream. I will forever be thankful to you for all your
love. I hope I have inspired you and taught you to dream big dreams too no matter what! I love
you son.
To my love, Quincy, my foundation. Thank you for sharing in this long journey with me.
Through the laughs, the tears, the doubt, one thing was always certain that you would ensure I
showed up and finished strong. When the road got rough you always knew how to put life back
into perspective and reassure me that I would in fact be triumphant. No one can calm life’s
storms for me like you, with such ease and grace. We are in fact the dynamic duo. Thank you
for your unconditional love and support, I love you.
To my baby, Zeus, my joy. You have such a significant place on this journey. You sat
with me in every single class, put up with late nights studying and working, all while in my
womb. This is our accomplishment my baby boy, and one day I will tell you all about how you
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 3
have already attended Graduate school at USC. You have brought me such joy and laughter
during your short time on this planet so far. Your sheer will to accomplish anything you set your
mind to reminds me of your grandfather, John. For that I thank you. You make me and
everyone in our home smile and remind us to live and be present in every moment. You truly are
the gift that keeps on giving. May you go on to accomplish all your wild dreams and find
happiness in all you choose to do. I love you Zeus.
To my family and friends, I thank you all for your love and support throughout these
years. You have helped me to arrive here and I will never forget the kindness you have shown
me and my family. Thank you all.

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 4
Dedications
“What you think, you become. What you feel, you attract. What you imagine, you create.”
-Buddha

This dissertation is dedicated to my mother and father, Estela and Somchai.

You both allowed me to think and grow so freely every day of my life. You loved me in
such a way that made me feel bold, brave, and unique. Most importantly you nurtured,
supported, and protected my imagination until I was ready to fly on my own and fight for my
dreams. This accomplishment is not mine but ours. Your sacrifice, love, and devotion was the
wind beneath my wings. Thank you, I love and miss you both.

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 5
Table of Contents
List of Tables .....................................................................................................................10
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................11
Abstract ..............................................................................................................................12
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .............................................................................13
Background of the Study .............................................................................................15
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................19
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................20
Research Questions ......................................................................................................23
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................24
Limitations and Delimitations......................................................................................26
Definition of Terms......................................................................................................27
Organization of the Study ............................................................................................32
Chapter Two: Review of Literature ...................................................................................33
Underrepresentation of Latino and Black, Low Income, Students in Gifted
Programs (Why it is an Issue Macro View) ...........................................................33
Introduction ............................................................................................................33
Evidence .................................................................................................................34
Conclusions Drawn ................................................................................................35
Early Childhood Education and Teaching to the Test (What is Currently
Happening in Early Education) ..............................................................................36
Introduction ............................................................................................................36
Evidence .................................................................................................................37
Conclusions Drawn ................................................................................................41
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 6
Is Inquiry-Based Learning the Best Method for Young Advanced Learners?
What Does Research Tell Us? ...............................................................................41
Introduction ............................................................................................................41
Evidence .................................................................................................................46
Conclusions Drawn ................................................................................................47
How and what are Teachers being Taught to Teach Advanced Young
Learners and Why Does It Matter? ........................................................................47
Introduction ............................................................................................................47
Evidence .................................................................................................................49
Conclusions Drawn ................................................................................................50
Theoretical Framework and Models ......................................................................52
Brief History of Curriculum in Early Childhood Education ............................53
Origin of Study ................................................................................................53
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................55
Constructivism .......................................................................................................55
Elements of the Curriculum Framework................................................................56
Activities and Experiences .....................................................................................57
Creating the Physical Environment .......................................................................58
The Role of the Educator .......................................................................................58
Present what Others Say about the Theory ............................................................59
Summary ......................................................................................................................60
Chapter Three: Methodology .............................................................................................62
Introduction-Purpose of the Study ...............................................................................62
Research Questions ......................................................................................................66
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 7
Methodology ................................................................................................................67
Sample and Population ................................................................................................70
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................71
Data Collection ............................................................................................................73
Data Analysis ..............................................................................................................74
Chapter Four: Findings ......................................................................................................76
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................77
Methodology ................................................................................................................80
Research Questions ......................................................................................................81
Participants and Sites ...................................................................................................82
Instrument ....................................................................................................................85
Type .......................................................................................................................85
Administration .......................................................................................................86
Data Collection ............................................................................................................89
Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................88
Findings per Research Question ..................................................................................90
Research Question #1 ............................................................................................90
Theme 1: Individualized Lesson Ends and Extensions....................................91
Theme 2: Appropriate Questioning .................................................................97
Summary ........................................................................................................103
Research Question #2 ..........................................................................................104
Theme 1: Play-Based, Open-Ended Learning Centers ..................................104
Theme 2: Time Restrictions Due to Test Preparation ....................................107
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 8
Summary ........................................................................................................109
Research Question #3 ..........................................................................................110
Theme 1: Lack of Preparation........................................................................110
Theme 2: Confidence from Experience .........................................................113
Summary ........................................................................................................117
Summary of the Chapter ............................................................................................118
Chapter Five: Discussion .................................................................................................121
Introduction ................................................................................................................121
Background of the Problem .................................................................................121
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................122
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................123
Research Questions ..............................................................................................125
Methods................................................................................................................126
Discussion of Findings ...............................................................................................128
Key Finding #1 ....................................................................................................129
Key Finding # 2 ...................................................................................................131
Key Finding # 3 ...................................................................................................133
Implications for Practice ............................................................................................136
Curriculum Development.....................................................................................137
Environmental Design and Implementation ........................................................139
Teacher Education ...............................................................................................141
Recommendations for Research ................................................................................142
Conclusion .................................................................................................................145
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 9
References ........................................................................................................................146

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 10
List of Tables
Table 1: Mindshifting—Five transitions in thinking ..............................................21
Table 2: Epistemological origins of inquiry-based learning ..................................43
Table 3: Levels of criticality .................................................................................60
Table 4: Mindshifting—Five transitions in thinking ..............................................62
Table 5: Characteristics of qualitative and quantitative research ..........................68
Table 6: Survey question analysis..........................................................................72
Table 7: Mindshifting—Five transitions in thinking ..............................................78
Table 8: Teacher participant grade level breakdown .............................................83
Table 9: Teachers’ years of credentialed teaching experience for all
participants ..............................................................................................84
Table 10: Survey question analysis........................................................................86
Table 11: Relationship between research questions and data collection
instruments .............................................................................................88
Table 12: Teachers Perceptions of Advanced Student Characteristics ..................96
Table 13: National standards for gifted learners, student outcomes, and
evidence-based practices ......................................................................116
Table 14: Connections between research questions, themes, and literature ........119
Table 15: Mindshifting—Five transitions in thinking ..........................................124
Table 16: Alignment of research question with key findings, and literature .......128
Table 17: Alignment of implications, key findings, research questions,
and literature .......................................................................................136
Table 18: Typology of inquiry learning guidance ...............................................144
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 11
List of Figures
Figure A: Three-ring conception of giftedness ......................................................32
Figure B: Blooming butterfly.................................................................................97
Figure C: Blooming orange ...................................................................................98
Figure D: Percentage of readiness of student teachers to work with gifted
students ................................................................................................112

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 12
Abstract
This study used the constructivist approach from the Piaget and Vygotsky’s (Pound, 2006)
perspective of constructing knowledge. The purpose of the study was to learn how early
education teachers perceive to be able to use a curriculum and create an ambiance that ensures
they design high-quality early childhood learning environments that develop talent and potential
and respond to emergent abilities for young learners. The participants were Kindergarten
through second grade teachers from Reina Trinity Unified School District and Achieve Charter
School. An electronic survey and in-person interviews were used in order to collect data which
was analyzed and led to themes that emerged from responses of the participants. The study
hosted three key findings: (1) teachers challenge students they perceive as gifted by ensuring the
students have an individualized learning experience. Teachers reported making an
individualized learning experience possible by offering individualized lesson ends, lesson
extensions, and asking students appropriate questions; (2) teachers acknowledged they design
their classroom environment to enable the use of play-based, open-ended learning centers that
promote challenging educational opportunities for the students; and (3) at the start of their
professional career, teachers felt they had a lack of preparation to meet the curricular and
instructional needs of gifted students, although after years of hands-on experience they became
confident in being able to provide a high-quality individualized education to their students.

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 13
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
In education, there are often programs introduced that are well intended to match the
needs of all students whom require them, but at times those programs only serve a particular
population of students. Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) is one of those programs.
GATE was initially created in order to bring a challenge and serve advanced students who
needed a more differentiated form of curriculum and instruction than their academically on-
grade-level peers. However, over time GATE students have been shown to mostly be White,
middle or upper-class students, and the low income, minority students are not taking part in the
programs (Grantham, 2003).
In particular, low income, Latino and Black boys are being negatively affected by the
lack of educator referrals to these programs and inequity of instruction (Shorter, 2014). Years
into their schooling these minority boys are dropping out of school or being labeled as special
education due to their “bad behaviors” (Shorter, 2014).
Research has found that advanced or gifted students that are not challenged result in
hosting negative experiences (Coulton & Pandey, 1992). For children who are raised in a low
income family household, but also in the midst of concentrated poverty, negative outcomes could
be amplified (Coulton & Pandey, 1992).
Knowing this reality, it is important to understand the etiology of these outcomes for
gifted youths growing up in these impoverished neighborhoods (Young, Young, & Ford, 2017).
However, this vulnerable population has been described as hard-to-reach and is consequently
understudied (e.g., Hatchett, Holmes, Duran, & Davis, 2000; Kerkorian, Traube, & McKay,
2007; Pottick & Lerman, 1991). Therefore, what educators understand regarding students
learning and development is lacking in comparison to what educators understand regarding less
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 14
vulnerable populations. Even what educators do know about this population receives uneven
treatment; an example: while educators know that poverty and minority status are associated
with special academic needs associated with disabilities, race, class, and disproportionality,
educators know much less about the special needs of minority and high poverty students who are
academically gifted (O’Connor & Fernandez, 2006).
The issue might stem from early childhood education, in this case specifically
kindergarten through second grade (Birdsall & Correa, 2007). The lack of challenging early
childhood curriculum in classrooms of Latino and Black low income students initiate an
achievement gap for these students in their early years which may lead to the same population
not being identified as gifted in later years and rather being labeled as exhibiting special
education needs students (Birdsall & Correa, 2007). Teachers do not appear to have the training
or knowledge of how to elicit students’ potential abilities at their young age. Leading to teachers
not identifying diverse students in later years to GATE (Ford, D. Y., 1998).
Currently, most kindergarten through second grade (K-2) curriculums are based on basic,
rote, skill memorization education, and do not focus on developing students’ strengths and
potential (Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016). This study addressed how teachers and their institutions of
learning use curriculum and environment in these students’ first years of education to avoid the
negative circumstances some advanced students find themselves in later years. Negative
circumstances are referring to missed educational opportunities such as referral and participation
in GATE programs, or even in some cases being incorrectly labeled as special education students
(Birdsall & Correa, 2007). Research has shown that most GATE programs host majority White
students while special education programs host majority Latino and Black students (Birdsall &
Correa, 2007).
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 15
Background of the Study
Giftedness exists in all populations regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, linguistic, and
socioeconomic status (Baldwin, 2004; Besnoy, Dantzler, Besnoy, & Byrne, 2016; Ford, D.,
2007; Peters & Gentry, 2010; U. S. Department of Education, 1993; VanTassel-Baska, 2007;
VanTassel-Baska & Johnson, 2007). While it has been established that giftedness exists across
all populations, there is a disproportionate representation of minorities and low-SES students in
gifted programs across the United States (Birdsall & Correa, 2007). There are many difficulties
with identifying giftedness in children, but the lack of universal agreeance for what is the actual
definition of a gifted child is perceived by some as a main one (Dole, Bloom, & Doss, 2017).
For this study, J. Renzulli’s (1978a) definition of gifted will be used. Renzulli defined gifted
behaviors rather than gifted individuals; gifted behavior is composed of three components:
Gifted behavior consists of behaviors that reflect an interaction among three basic clusters of
human traits, above-average ability, high levels of task commitment, and high levels of
creativity. Individuals capable of developing gifted behavior are those possessing or capable of
developing this composite set of traits and applying them to any potentially valuable area of
human performance (Renzulli, J. S., & Gaesser, 2015). “Persons who manifest or are capable of
developing an interaction among the three clusters require a wide variety of educational
opportunities and services that are not ordinarily provided through regular instructional
programs” (Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, 1997, p. 8).
Another being Latino and Black low-income boys are consistently underrepresented in
gifted programming in comparison to their White affluent peers (Grissom, Rodriguez, & Kern,
2017). Lastly, is the varying degree to which a child’s natural ability (nature) interacts with the
same child’s environment (nurture) (Bolland, Bolland, Tomek, Devereaux, Mrug, & Wimberly,
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 16
2016). Ethical processes in which to analyze or test if young learners who are born into specific
types of environments and are not given the opportunity to develop their skills do not develop
their giftedness or reach their potential (Barbour, N., 1992). However, research stated that young
learners that are born in poverty lack critical supports to overcome adverse environmental
obstacles (Olszewski ‐Kubilius, Grant, & Seibert, 1994). Schools and the curriculum they
provide for gifted students is an additional support for these students, perhaps just as important
as support from family (Olszewski ‐Kubilius et al., 1994).
Some researchers, found that gifted students may actually be predisposed to antisocial
behavior, more susceptible to negative peer influence, and at greater risk of being negatively
influenced by home and/or school cultural contexts (Mahoney, 1980). However, other
researchers identified characteristics associated with being gifted (e.g., good problem-solving
skills, insightfulness, intellectual prowess) as protective against antisocial and other risk
behaviors (Kitano & Lewis, 2005). Research showed that characteristics such as good problem-
solving skills, insightfulness, and intellectual prowess protect gifted students from participating
in risky behaviors; that is, gifted students may either be too intelligent to participate in delinquent
activities or too smart to get caught (Kitano & Lewis, 2005). However, these portrayals of how
gifted students avoid negative behavioral outcomes do not necessarily apply to inner-city
neighborhoods, where risk behaviors (and factors generating them) are common and in some
cases normative (Haushofer & Fehr, 2014). Thus, gifted students living in such neighborhoods
face challenges not typically found in more affluent neighborhoods, and schools where they
spend the most time of their young lives has a responsibility to ensure they are being educated
ethically (Renzulli, J. S., & Gaesser, 2015).
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 17
The lack of access to an effective, challenging, early educational program for current
Latino and Black male student populations in urban schools represent a problem of equity
(Zhbanova, Rule, & Stichter, 2015). This is a problem in the schools because the lack of a
strong, challenging, early education curriculum is reducing students’ exposure to challenging
curricular opportunities, causing students to drop out of school, and causing some high achieving
students to host bad behavior in school due to boredom (Boyce et al., 1997). A recent report by
the Gates Foundation gave a survey to high school drop outs regarding the reasoning for their
dropping out (Birdsall & Correa, 2007). Approximately 47% responded that a major factor in
their decision was that the courses were not interesting and engaging. This response was
particularly prominent with students who had high GPA’s (Birdsall & Correa, 2007).
There are a number of students who show advanced potential and are above grade level
standards, yet, teachers do not know how to instruct these children nor identify them. Even
where there is a defined program for advanced learners, the teachers are consistently not
referring the Latino and Black students to be tested for gifted programs at a comparable rate as
they are referring White students (Mazzoli Smith & Campbell, 2016). This problem affects the
schools’ missions to help all students achieve to their highest potential regardless of their low
income status or hindrances (Page, 2000).
An analysis of solutions for this significant impediment requires we look at the root of
the problem, in this case, early education curriculum and the educators that deliver the
instruction. Looking at early education from a broader perspective we find that policy makers,
administrators, and parents often do not agree on what is the best way to educate our youngest
advanced learners (Jones, 2009). The high controversy on what is the best pedagogy for the
children causes little overall change to occur. Change must occur in the students’ education for
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 18
the achievement gap to close, and it must be from the start of their educational journey in
kindergarten (Lee, M. D., 2015).
In early childhood classrooms, giftedness manifests itself as potential and needs to be
stimulated. It is important to note that advocating for appropriate curriculum and instruction for
advanced young learners is not the same as advocating for early identification of giftedness
(Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016). This study focused on how teachers can offer challenging curriculum
to the students and how teachers are able to make the transition from rote memorization and
worksheet instruction to developmentally appropriate instruction that will pull out students’
underlying potential.
With standardized testing, the age that students are being taught to the test is getting
younger and younger. Today in kindergarten, some students at ages four and five are being
asked to sit in front of a computer and take a three-hour standardized test to gauge their
intellectual abilities (Feeney & Freeman, 2014). Educators and their leaders are not focusing on
how best to reach their young learners, due to pressure to maintain their positions and schools
out of program improvement (Feeney & Freeman, 2014). Play-based learning is looked at as a
waste of time since the outcomes are not a scalable score and definitely not one that can be tested
in a generalizable manner (Pinkham, Kaefer, & Neuman, 2012). Educators need to be given a
mind shift in understanding how young children learn and provided the tools to make this
transition from the focus on teaching to the test to teaching to develop the students’ potential in
their classrooms with confidence. Teaching children how to learn does not mean more
worksheets, more didactic teaching, or acceleration of basic academic skills (Pramling-
Samuelsson & Fleer, 2009). Vygotsky would state that children start their learning through play
(Thomas, L., Warren, & DeVries, 2011). Through play, children learn beyond their proximal
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 19
zone of development and push their thinking (Nicolopoulou, Barbosa de Sá, Ilgaz, &
Brockmeyer, 2010).
Statement of the Problem
Irrespective of the literature, stating that inquiry-based learning facilitates development of
students’ potential best at early ages, teachers are not convinced (Riley & Jones, 2010). Some
teachers might believe this as true but lack the knowledge to create an activity-based learning
environment for their students (Lohmander & Samuelsson, 2015). The problem stands in that
educators do not have the theoretical nor practical knowledge regarding pedagogy that will help
them reach their young learners (Thomas, L., et al., 2011). It is critical that teachers plan and
implement curriculum aligned to the sophistication young children express in their play,
discussions, contexts for eliciting creativity, and critical thinking (Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016).
Curriculum that challenges young learners is not a modern idea. It was introduced to education
by ideas stemming from Dewey, Vygotsky, and Piaget (Pound, 2006). However, some current
educators do not have the tools or training to deliver teaching in line with this differentiating
curriculum (Flanigan, 2012). The teachers that are given the research findings or activity-based
model of curriculum, sometimes lack training on how to best implement it in their classrooms
(Killion, 2009). This is especially true for teachers whose demographic is low income, minority
students that have cultural differences and lack training in culturally responsive pedagogy
(Ricketts, 2014). Creating a shift from the traditional standards-based pedagogy to the inquiry-
based pedagogy is a difficult endeavor for teachers, especially novice ones (Tuitele, 2010). Pre-
service programs are not preparing teachers to go into urban schools and create environments
that foster individual student’s potential (Killion, 2009). Rather curriculums are teaching
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 20
teachers to teach to tests or worse to only focus on failing or below-basic scoring students
(Gardner, W., 2008).
Kaplan and Hertzog (2016) stated that three critical beliefs and values shape the
framework for early childhood gifted pedagogy:
1. All children should have provisions for challenge.
2. Challenge provides recognition for teachers and students of their strengths, needs, and
their interests.
3. Teachers who create contexts to recognize strengths, needs, and interests respond to
the variance in levels of readiness among learners. (p. 137)
In order to be able to achieve this type of environment in the classroom, teachers need to
have the training and knowledge of how to implement it across diverse cultures and learners.
Not only do teachers and teacher educators need to have the knowledge of play-based learning,
but they need a clear understanding of how to differentiate for each learner. Educators need to
be taught how to transition from preparing students to pass a standardized test to facilitating a
student’s educational journey to help foster unique potential within each student in order to have
equitable education for young learners. Teachers additionally need practical knowledge of what
the learning environment should be to foster critical thinking in these young learners.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to investigate how early education teachers, specifically
kindergarten through second grade, perceive (a) how to use a framework that facilitates the
design of high-quality early childhood learning environments and challenging curriculum to
develop talent and potential, and (b) respond to emergent abilities as research shows is best for
young learners. The third criteria for this pedagogy stated that teachers who create contexts to
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 21
recognize strengths, needs, and interests respond to the variance in levels of readiness among
diverse learners. Five focal points of transition have been identified in literature and are listed in
Table 1.

Table 1
Mindshifting—Five Transitions in Thinking
Transitions Definitions
Transition 1 Transition from standardized to non-traditional methods to discern the
potential, talent, and/or emergent aptitude of young students in the early
years.

Transition 2 Transitions from educators “waiting for potential to be displayed” to setting
the conditions and situations that require and possibly demand the expression
of a young child’s potential, talent, and/or emerging aptitude.

Transition 3 Transition to place greater emphasis on inquiry-based curriculum and
instruction necessitates the presentation of open-ended situations or contexts
that are germane to activate and acknowledge prior knowledge, create an
interest in the acquisition of new knowledge and understanding of an identity-
oriented self-directed style, and appreciation for learning and personal
success.

Transition 4 Transitions to define multiple means, and both fixed and individualized ends
to lessons and units of study are necessary.

Transition 5 Transition by teachers to assess the differences between what they believe
young students are able to learn versus considering what these children are
actually capable of learning.

Source: (Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016, p. 137)

This study focused on studying teachers’ perception regarding the shift through
Transition 2: Transitions from educators “waiting for potential to be displayed” to setting the
conditions and situations that require and possibly demand the expression of a young child’s
potential, talent, and/or emerging aptitude;” and Transition 3, “Transition to place greater
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 22
emphasis on inquiry-based curriculum and instruction necessitates the presentation of open-
ended situations or contexts that are germane to activate and acknowledge prior knowledge,
create an interest in the acquisition of new knowledge and understanding of an identity-oriented
self-directed style, and appreciation for learning and personal success” (Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016,
p. 137). These transitions not only create a shift in the teacher’s mind, but also change the
concept of who owns the responsibility of the learning that needs to occur. This new frame of
thinking changes the idea that the student is the one that needs to demonstrate special abilities
before they are taught using differentiated instruction, to the idea that the teacher needs to ensure
their pedagogy elicits the young student’s potential, talent or emerging aptitude of some sort
(Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016).
In many children, a pattern of gifted behaviors and/or advanced performance can be seen
as early as pre-school; however, classroom modifications for gifted students altering the pace,
depth, or complexity of instruction are rarely implemented in pre-school and early-elementary
classrooms (Robinson, 2002; Stainthorp & Hughes, 2004). Thus, the early educational
experiences of many young gifted children provide limited challenge and hinder their cognitive
growth rather than exposing learners to an expansive, engaging learning environment
(Tomlinson et al., 1997). This problem may be intensified among traditionally underserved
populations of young gifted students including culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse
learners, as well as children from poverty because in many cases additional resources for
providing enriched learning experiences in homes and communities are also limited (Robinson et
al., 2002; Scott & Delgado, 2005). The problem at hand speaks to the issue that varied and
uneven physical, social, emotional, and cognitive growth can make identification of young
learners’ strengths, skills, and interests, and the subsequent provision of individualized
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 23
instruction difficult for those without formal training in acceleration and differentiation of
curriculum and instruction (Gross, 1999; Smutny & von Fremd, 2009). Therefore, many young
learners are not receiving the quality of curriculum and instruction that would help them reach
their highest potential (Tomlinson et al., 1997).
While identification of young advanced learners is vital to future success of American
youth, the issue in early education is larger (Kaplan, 2008). All young learners should have the
opportunity to display their abilities and responsibility and should be shifted to the teacher and
school institution in regard to creating a space for the students to be able to grow and be
challenged (Haensly & Lee, 2000). Advocating for appropriate curriculum and instruction for
advanced young learners is not the same as advocating for early identification of giftedness
(Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016). Hosting the appropriate curriculum, environment, and ensuring
teachers deliver pedagogy that is responsive to their learners is essential (Kaplan & Hertzog,
2016). Today teachers are being pushed to teach to the standardized tests and ensure basic skills
are mastered and demonstrated in traditional paper pencil manners (Feeney & Freeman, 2014).
The pressures are as early as kindergarten with preschool to be included in the near future at this
rate (Feeney & Freeman, 2014). Teachers do not have the theoretical nor practical knowledge on
how to plan curriculum and construct an environment inclusive of learning experiences that
promote and encourage the opportunities to display diverse traditionally underserved students’
abilities (Berman, Schultz, & Weber, 2012).
Research Questions
1. What are teachers’ perceptions regarding the types of challenges teachers need to embed
in the curriculum in order to meet the needs of diverse students who exemplify advanced
abilities in the early K-2 years?
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 24
2. What are teachers’ perceptions regarding materials that are designed in the classroom
environment (learning centers) that would most promote challenging educational
opportunities for diverse students who exemplify advanced abilities in the early K-2
years?
3. To what degree do teachers perceive that they have the professional knowledge to meet
the curricular and instructional needs of diverse students who exemplify advanced
abilities in the early K-2 years?
This study attempted to answer these questions in hopes to lead to an understanding of
what young learners have a right to and need to experience the following:
● challenging and content-rich curriculum that promotes both critical and creative thinking
across all academic disciplines including reading, math, science, and the arts (Robinson
et al., 2002; Smutny & von Fremd, 2009)
● opportunities to build advanced literacy skills (Gross, 1999; Stainthorp & Hughes, 2004)
● ample and varied materials including but not limited to technology, print material, and
manipulative resources (Barbour & Shalilee, 1998; Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1995;
Clark, 1995)
● instructional strategies that foster an authentic construction of knowledge based on
exploration, manipulative resources, and experiential inquiry (Barbour & Shalilee, 1998;
Clark, 1995; Katz & Chard, 1993).
Significance of the Study
Significance of the study was to gain more in-depth and specific knowledge as to what
and how teachers perceive how to teach young learners to receive challenge and rigor out of their
early education, specifically kindergarten through second grade. This study will add to the data
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 25
on how to accomplish teaching advanced young learners in a deeper, meaningful, manner and
attempt to close the gap of identification in later years (Nelson, Jackson, Kennedy, & Burner,
2012). Research into identification of gifted, early childhood students of minority groups
through classroom activities is lacking (Shepard, 1993). A focus in the United States on students
with learning challenges and a lack of awareness in educators concerning the needs of early
childhood advanced students are significant to highlight (Ford, D. Y., 1998).
Young minority advanced children are presently an underserved population (Ford, D. Y.,
1998). The concern for meeting the needs of these children is evident in recent funding
initiatives. The dilemmas involved in serving young, possibly gifted children may best be solved
by giving better training to those who educate them first, kindergarten through second grade
teachers and their educators. Research tells us that teachers are not receiving proper training in
their preservice programs to challenge students in early childhood education (Hypolite, 2013).
An example of the possible positive outcome of attempting to generalize the complexity
of early childhood education is Project Bright IDEA, which stands for Interest Development
Early Abilities. North Carolina has expanded an early childhood program that “trains teachers in
how to encourage the same characteristics in their students that gifted people are believed to
possess, such as flexibility, persistence, and an ability to grasp larger concepts” (Samuels, 2005,
p. 5). Project Bright IDEA demonstrated growth in grades K-2 students in language arts and
mathematics. Students are asked to find the “big ideas” behind every lesson and instructed to
use intelligent behaviors. Students who participated in the project scored in the 80th percentile
in reading on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, compared with the 39th percentile for students who
were not in the special program. Teachers also claimed that the program taught them to think
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 26
conceptually about every lesson and to design activities that get children thinking in depth
(McKeachie & Kaplan, 1996).
Diverse student learning needs across cognitive, psychosocial, communicative, and motor
domains has increased the challenges for teachers to enhance student outcomes (Coleman &
Gallagher, 2015). Inclusive education is the progression of providing all students with equitable
educational opportunities; this is one of the obstacles faced by teachers (Navarro, Zervas, Gesa,
& Sampson, 2016). How to best prepare early education teachers to meet the magnifying
classroom diversity is a quandary for educators around the world as “teachers are being asked to
do more for less” (Lucas & Frazier, 2014, p. 91). Educators need to be armed with the means
necessary to address student diversity within their classrooms (Lucas & Frazier, 2014). This
study will assist in clarifying the perception that current in-service teachers have with regards to
the use of challenging curriculum in early childhood education and how to implement it.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations to this study stand with the integrity of the teacher surveys. There is no
manner in knowing if the responses from the teachers on the surveys are in reality actual valid
and true responses. The researcher cannot control what the teachers view on certain terms
encompassing such as perspective on what a diverse learner is or what teachers view as hands-on
learning and that being viewed as inquiry play-based learned verses it being actual project-based
learning. Additionally, a researcher cannot account for teachers’ prior knowledge or lack thereof
regarding the concepts at hand. Teachers’ world views and personal differing epistemology also
cannot be held accountable for influencing the manner in which they respond to the questions.
Lastly, the widespread understanding of what advanced learners look like in early childhood
education stands as a mixed-opinion issue.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 27
Definition of Terms
• Above Average Ability - Above-average ability can be defined in two ways: general
ability and specific ability. General ability refers to the capacity to process information,
integrate experiences that result in appropriate and adaptive responses in new situations,
and engagement in abstract thinking. Verbal and numerical reasoning, spatial relations,
memory, and word fluency are examples of general ability. Specific ability is the
capacity to acquire knowledge, skill, or competence to perform in a specialized area. For
example, the skills of an archaeologist or mathematician would be considered specific
ability skills. For the purpose of this model, above-average ability will be used to
describe the upper ranges of performance or potential in either or both general or specific
ability. In general, we consider this to be the top 15% to 20% of performance in any
given area or human endeavor. It is important to point out that in the cases of both
general and especially specific abilities, I am not referring to those manifestations of
ability that are only measured by tests. As we move up the scale of complexity in
manifestations of human performance and potential, it becomes much more difficult to
reduce complex abilities to precise numerical documentation. (Renzulli, J. S., 2002)
• Advanced Young Learner - Student showing above-average abilities in one or more areas
of academic, art, leadership, or creativity. Students who exhibit high levels of task
commitment in comparison to their peers.
• Axial Coding - “A set of procedures whereby data are put back together in new ways
after open coding, by making connections between categories. This is done by utilizing a
coding paradigm involving conditions, context, action/interactional strategies and
consequences” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 96).
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 28
• Creativity - The third cluster of traits that characterizes gifted persons consists of factors
that have in the past been lumped together as creativity. It is not uncommon to see the
words gifted, genius, and highly creative persons used interchangeably and
synonymously. In this model, the term creative refers to someone who is recognized for
his or her creative accomplishments or persons who have a facility for generating many
interesting and feasible ideas. It is important to consider that the inclusion of creativity
creates a problem because of the relationship of creativity measurements and creative
accomplishments. Given that creativity tests may not measure all dimensions of
creativity, it is necessary to focus attention on alternative methods to assess this complex
manifestation of human behavior (Renzulli, J. S., 2002).
• Diverse Learner - Students of low income background who are traditionally underserved
and marginalized.
• Early Childhood Education - Early Childhood Education is a branch of education theory
which relates to the teaching of young children (formally and informally) up through the
age of eight (birth through Grade 3) (National Association for the Education of Young
Children, 1982). Although, in this study the focus is on kindergarten through second
grade and when the term is used this is what is meant.
• Gifted - J. Renzulli (1978b) defined gifted behaviors rather than gifted individuals, and
gifted behavior is composed of three components: Gifted behavior consists of behaviors
that reflect an interaction among three basic clusters of human traits, above-average
ability, high levels of task commitment, and high levels of creativity. Individuals capable
of developing gifted behavior are those possessing or capable of developing this
composite set of traits and applying them to any potentially valuable area of human
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 29
performance. Persons who manifest or are capable of developing an interaction among
the three clusters require a wide variety of educational opportunities and services that are
not ordinarily provided through regular instructional programs. (Renzulli, J. S., & Reis,
1997, p. 8)
• Mindshifting—Five Transitions in Thinking -
Transition 1: Transition from standardized to non-traditional methods to
discern the potential, talent, and/or emergent aptitude of young
students in the early years.
Transition 2: Transitions from educators “waiting for potential to be
displayed” to setting the conditions and situations that require
and possibly demand the expression of a young child’s
potential, talent, and/or emerging aptitude.
Transition 3: Transition to place greater emphasis on inquiry-based
curriculum and instruction necessitates the presentation of
open-ended situations or contexts that are germane to activate
and acknowledge prior knowledge, create an interest in the
acquisition of new knowledge and understanding of an
identity-oriented self-directed style, and appreciation for
learning and personal success.
Transition 4: Transitions to define multiple means, and both fixed and
individualized ends to lessons and units of study are necessary.
Transition 5: Transition by teachers to assess the differences between what
they believe young students are able to learn versus
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 30
considering what these children are actually capable of
learning. (Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016, p. 137)
• Open Coding - “The process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing,
and categorizing data” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 61).
• Standardized Test - A test that is administered and scored in a consistent, or “standard,”
manner. Standardized tests are designed in such a way that the questions, conditions for
administering, scoring procedures, and interpretations are consistent and are administered
and scored in a predetermined, standard manner. Any test in which the same test is given
in the same manner to all test takers, and graded in the same manner for everyone is a
standardized test (Popham, 1999).
• Task Commitment - The second cluster of traits that is consistently found in creative and
productive persons constitutes a refined or focused form of motivation that I have called
task commitment. Whereas motivation is usually defined in terms of a general energized
process that triggers responses in organisms; task commitment represents energy brought
to bear on a particular problem (task) or specific performance area. The terms that are
associated with task commitment are perseverance, endurance, hard work, practice, and
the confidence in one’s ability to engage in important work. Once again, these
manifestations of task commitment are the result of opportunities, resources, and
encouragement that are provided within the context of stimulating and interest-related
learning situations (Renzulli, J. S., 2002).
• The Three Ring Conception - Research on creative and productive people has
consistently shown that although no single criterion should be used to identify giftedness,
persons who have achieved recognition for their unique accomplishments and creative
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 31
contributions possess three groups of traits. These traits are above-average ability, task
commitment, and creativity (see Figure A). These clusters of traits work together, and
although the clusters may vary in size within the context of a given performance
situation, no one particular cluster is of greater importance than the others. It is also
important to point out that, whereas general ability tends to remain constant over time,
specific abilities, task commitment, and creativity are functions of contextual situations.
We develop our task commitment and creativity as a result of being involved in
challenging situations in which we have an existing or emerging interest. The
developmental nature of task commitment and creativity means that we should not use
these traits as prerequisites for gaining entrance to special services. Rather, we should
give larger groups of young people opportunities to explore new and interesting material
and determine degrees of follow-up services based on the emergence of creative ideas
and task commitment (Renzulli, J. S., 2002).

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 32

Source: (Renzulli, J. S., & Gaesser, 2015)
Note: The hounds tooth background represents the inter- action between personality and environment that
gives rise to the three-ring concept.

Figure A: Three-ring Conception of Giftedness

Organization of the Study
The researcher reached out to superintendents and directors of participating elementary
schools and asked them to send out an electronic version of the survey. Teachers were then able
to submit their responses from their computers and responses were recorded in google forms.
Participating teachers were informed that their identities would be kept confidential from not
only the public but from their administrators as well. The data was then analyzed and themes
created among the differing responses of the teachers. It was anticipated that teachers would
give examples and reasoning behind their choices and successes with their students. This
information then led to a list of best practices that other teachers in need can utilize and have at
their disposal.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 33
Chapter Two: Review of Literature
Several concepts are important to highlight in the development of this study. Four major
areas were explored and analyzed in regard to the literature and what is already known and what
is not known.
The first area touched on the evidence that currently exists which explains the consistent
underrepresentation of low income Latino and Black young males in gifted programs and how
one of the root problems for this issue begins in early childhood education. The second area
illustrated what the literature teaches us in regard to what teachers are currently using in their
classrooms in terms of a formal curriculum, pedagogy, and the impact that standardized testing
has on the teachers’ instruction of grades kindergarten through second grade. Third, exploration
took place with support of the literature to determine if inquiry-based learning is most effective
and best suited for young advanced learners, even though the literature does not show how to get
teachers to transition from traditional curriculum to inquiry-based or play-based curriculum.
Fourth, literature was reviewed on how teachers are being taught to teach advanced young
learners of diverse backgrounds in grades kindergarten through second grade. In an effort to
understand what we need to learn from the study and be able to replicate or host best practices
for other teachers in other schools across the country, theoretical frameworks and models used in
support of the study were addressed, followed by a summary of the information presented.
Underrepresentation of Latino and Black, Low Income,
Students in Gifted Programs (Why it is an Issue Macro View)
Introduction
Gifted Latino and Black young males are an underrepresented population in gifted
education. Research suggested that the root of the inequity begins in their early years of
education, kindergarten through second grade (Franklin, 2009). Latino and Black low-income
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 34
students are being unfairly left out of opportunities that they have a right to experience, such as
participation in gifted programs due to reasons outside of their own control. There are many
factors that contribute to the lack of teacher referrals for this subgroup of students to gifted
programming in schools such as teacher bias and differing criteria for identification. Lack of
teacher ability to recognize and elicit potential in all students is a salient issue due to the
straightforward prejudice this presents in itself. Additionally, a study found that even in
preschool this subgroup of students lacked access to taking a test to be qualified to receive
services for participation in gifted programming in comparison to their White peers. The
reasoning behind the lack of access pointed mostly to the lack of information given to the
students’ parents regarding testing procedures, qualifications, and availability of the test (Lu &
Weinberg, 2016).
Evidence
An insistent dilemma in education is the underrepresentation of Black and Latino
students in gifted education and advanced placement courses. Research has highlighted the most
underrepresented of the two subgroups is the Black students (Jenkins, 1936). Even when Black
students demonstrated high intelligence test scores they still were not formally identified as
gifted or referred to participate in the gifted programming or advanced placement courses and
programs of their schools. It has been well over 70 years that educators not only have been
aware of but have been disturbed with the knowledge of the inequity the minority students face
as they are consistently passed upon for opportunities. During this specific time span, the
amount of reversal or change in underrepresentation has shown incremental progress. It is
possible that the lack of progress is due to the minimal database on gifted minority students,
specifically culturally diverse students. About a decade ago D. Y. Ford et al. (2008) found that
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 35
over the past two decades educational trends always showed underrepresentation for Black,
Latino, and American Indian students and Black students’ underrepresentation is increasing at
the highest rate in comparison to the other minority groups.
In addition, as the free- and reduced-lunch population increased, the percent of the
minority students tended to decrease in the participation of the gifted programs. The findings
from Folsom’s (2006) study could be interpreted to suggest that there are no consistent
identification processes in public education. These findings continue to support previous studies
mentioned as well as D. Y. Ford (2003) and Kitano and Landry (2001) that gifted minority
students are severely underrepresented in public schools and are not identified at the same rate
that is consistent with the general student population (Ford, D. Y., et al., 2008).
Conclusions Drawn
The underrepresentation of the minority students mentioned above in a low resourced
district only exacerbates the inequity existing for the subgroups. As stated previously, lack of
knowledge creates an additional hurdle for the parents of the students to overcome. Parents feel
even more perplexed by the pending reality that there is in fact no guarantee that their children
will be challenged in the manner that they need to be in a regular classroom, especially one
where meeting testing requirements takes precedent to that of individualized learning for each
student. Parents reported to Natalie Jansorn, the director of gifted programs at the Jack Kent
Cooke Foundation, that they feel concerned and do not know where to turn (Fleming, 2013).
The gap in representation between White students and their Latino and Black peers is
consistently an educational issue of equity and instruction. Furthermore, researchers found that
action decisions need to take place by policy makers regarding the underrepresentation of the
student subgroup or the inequities will only continue to exist and further impact not only the
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 36
gifted field but all educational routes the students will face (Franklin, 2009). The study also
stated a commitment to developing talent in the early elementary school years for students,
especially students from diverse, low socioeconomic backgrounds, is a viable option and
reassured readers that it ought to be pursued and encouraged by all (Franklin, 2009).
Early Childhood Education and Teaching to the Test
(What is Currently Happening in Early Education)
Introduction
In the near past, educators in early childhood education have been in route to create
standards, practices, curriculum, and teaching strategies that enhance the learning of all students
(Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992, 1995). Many educators in early
childhood education have been attempting to battle the constant push down of skills and content
into the early years of a child’s education by formatting and reconstructing a universal position
of what in fact is developmentally appropriate and what is not (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).
The conclusions that the educators arrived to came to be a resource for everyone to measure and
compare and contrast their own practices. Specifically, in regard to guidelines for interactions
with families, procedures for assessment and teaching strategies; however, content for
curriculum was never clearly defined.
This section of the review surrounds the idea that teachers in kindergarten through second
grade are focusing on teaching to a test and using mostly published programs rather than
adapting to individualization of their students and the different needs they hold. Teachers use the
programs as a script and do not allow much time for inquiry-based or play-based learning. They
are not currently using pedagogy that elicits the potential of their advanced young learners. This
review showed through the literature that current teaching practices are not in the best interest of
the whole child and especially not in that of the advanced, diverse, young learners in
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 37
kindergarten through second grade. Some teachers are using differentiated models, but literature
is lacking in what these teachers are using as their curriculum, what kind of environments they
create, and how they are implementing the curriculum and creating the environments in their
classrooms that host students of low income, diverse backgrounds, and needs. Therefore, why
this study is needed.
Evidence
In the book, High Stakes, Children, Testing and Failure in American Schools, the authors
Johnson and Johnson (2002) left their professorships to become fourth grade teachers in Redbud,
Louisiana. They taught 611 students of which 95% qualified for free lunch and these students
were required to pass the Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP) or the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills at the end of the year. The authors explained that every start of the school year
teachers are obligated to gather together and focus on 326 English language objectives. The
teachers are also given a study guide of sorts that correlates with what the LEAP test will cover.
In the book, a district official was quoted to state, “You must teach to mastery all the objectives
that will be tested on the LEAP. Skip the others until after the tests next March. We have no
time to teach fluff” (Johnson & Johnson, 2002, p. 41).
At the culmination of the book there is a summary of recommendations which point to
several concrete concerns (Gardner, D., 2007). Authors pointed out that testing has ultimately
altered how classrooms are run and arts, problem solving, creativity, and the happiness that
comes with learning and exploring is sacrificed (Johnson & Johnson, 2002). Johnson and
Johnson (2002) reflected on their experience and stated that teachers are ignoring subjects such
as science, social studies, art, drama, and music while they attempt to keep up with the demands
of covering content that might be on the state tests. The authors also stated, “State legislatures,
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 38
boards of education and school district authorities must back off from their commitment to raise
test scores at the expense of providing children a well-rounded, well-grounded education across
the curriculum” (Johnson & Johnson, 2002, p. 203).
In another popular book, Standardized Minds, the author Peter Sacks (1999) illustrated
his disapproval of high-stakes testing. Not only did he note that he believes the testing is causing
narrowing of curriculum, but also stated that in several of his research findings teachers are
heavily pressured to, in fact, narrow the curriculum they use in order to ensure students are
prepared for the standardized tests. A specific case in North Carolina was presented where a
math teacher was teaching using the Socratic Method to engage the students about graphical
analysis and the director of teacher development observed the math teacher doing so. The
director informed the teacher that her responsibility did not stand in using seminars with the
students, her responsibility stood in ensuring the end of the year test scores increased for the
students. In the statement, the director implied that the Socratic method which used inquiry-
based learning was not going to help the student increase their scores on the North Carolina End
of Grade Tests.
In the same text, Sacks (1999) spoke of a teacher in an elementary school that was
pressured into moving away from using project-based learning to teach her students and steer
towards a route that would better ensure students would do well on the standardized test. The
fault cannot only be placed on big government from the top because Sacks’ research found that
both parents and school officials alike agreed that students should focus their time on content
that was going to be covered on the Stanford 9, the standardized test used at that time by Boston
schools.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 39
At the same school, teachers felt pressured to abandon creating a dinosaur archaeology
project that integrated lessons in science, mathematics, writing, and art. Sacks highlighted that
researchers have found many detrimental effects of large scale standardized testing,
“(1) oversimplify what’s taught in school; and (2) to severely constrict what is taught to only
those items most likely to appear on an upcoming standardized test” (Sacks, 1999, p. 128).
D. Gardner (2007) conducted a research in order to analyze the manner in which
instructional practices of teachers with students in grades kindergarten through second grade
have been affected by standardized testing. The study found that these teachers and their peers
felt the need to teach to the test, meaning teaching the content that they knew the students needed
to know in order to do well in third grade where the testing would begin. Findings suggested
these teachers have indeed changed their classroom practices as a result of the testing demands.
Most of the data strongly suggested that teachers were frustrated and skeptical about the effects
of the tests on instructional practices. Specific findings included the following: (a) these teachers
feel a strong need to prepare students for the tests which begin in third grade; (b) use of activity
centers in the classroom has decreased since the inception of the testing; (c) use of published
programs for instruction has increased; (d) the amount of assigned written work varies among
teachers; (e) teachers use ability grouping or individualized instruction to help bring all students
to a level of achievement required by the tests; (f) non-tested areas of the curriculum are being
sacrificed; (g) frustration and stress, related to the tests, are common among teachers; (h) the
curriculum has been “pushed down,” i.e., material previously taught at one grade level is now
being taught at least one grade level earlier; and (i) teachers question the developmental
appropriateness of many practices they currently feel pressured to use.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 40
Teachers in grades kindergarten through second grade are being told that writing
development needs to happen in a deeper manner in order to help solidify early literacy skills and
prepare the students for later writing abilities and literacy success in general. A study examined
how five kindergarten through second grade teachers perceived, implemented, and reflected on
writing instruction in their classrooms (Korth et al., 2017). Researchers found two meta themes
within the study–opportunities and obstacles. While opportunities were present, the obstacles
were not lacking and should not be ignored. The implications for K-2 preparation and
professional development was also discussed (Korth et al., 2017).
A study conducted by Elder-Hurst (2012) illustrated that implementation is deterred
when professional development is general or vague in nature and it does not allow for teachers to
learn, practice, and collaborate with one another. Elder-Hurst’s study showed that
implementation in the classroom is enriched when teachers receive feedback and opportunities to
observe peers, question each other, and have a clear understanding. Also, that complete
implementation is a long process and takes time. Furthermore, the study highlighted that
implementation is efficient when leadership is supportive and lends an ear to the concerns and
needs of the teachers. With teachers feeling extreme pressure to do well on the standardized
tests, implementation of play-based curriculum that will demand major change and transitions
will be taxing. It is important to provide a school climate where risk taking, and innovation is
not only allowed but encouraged. Creating a culture of such allowances will increase teachers’
self-efficacy and continue to help them stay excited and engaged to continue to learn and make
the transitions in their teaching (Elder-Hurst, 2012).

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 41
Conclusions Drawn
To synthesize the current ambiance in early childhood education is to highlight that
students are not receiving instruction or enough opportunities to enhance and bring forth their
potential abilities. Specifically, in regard to students in kindergarten through second grade, the
research tells educators that young children benefit from using play- and inquiry-based learning.
Top down pressure place obstacles in educators’ paths and create difficult spaces for innovation.
Educators who are teaching to the test, evidence shows, might be doing so for fear of losing their
jobs and pay. Nevertheless, the students are the ones who are losing educational opportunities.
Is Inquiry-Based Learning the Best Method for Young Advanced Learners?
What Does Research Tell Us?
Introduction
Inquiry-based instruction in early childhood education is becoming a prominent style of
choice among educators looking for ways to differentiate learning environments for their
students. Didactic methods can promote rote learning of facts in a decent learning environment;
inquiry-based learning is intended to facilitate the learner’s ability to find, evaluate, and
manipulate information. Learners’ ability to think critically about information, ability to explore
and develop solutions, and ability to communicate in oral and written form is enhanced with
inquiry-based instruction (Malone, 2008). Although the vital nature of basic knowledge is noted
in this form of instruction, an emphasis is put on the qualitative aspects of thinking and learning
(Dewey, 1933; Fink, 2003; McKeachie, 1999; Meyers, 1986; Wales, Nardi, & Stager, 1987;
Weast, 1996).
The historical nature of inquiry-based instruction stems from an attempt by Boud (1985)
and Barrows (1986), two strong supporters of the approach, who outlined a broader set of
characteristics of problem-based learning. Both researchers argued that problem-based learning,
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 42
which in literature is sometimes used as a synonym for inquiry-based learning, should be seen as
learning that has a number of differing forms. Boud stated that the main ideal in inquiry-based
learning is that it is student and problem centered, the most important of the two being student
centeredness. Boud (1985 as cited in Savin-Baden & Major, 2004) outlined eight other
characteristics:
(1) an acknowledgement of the base of experience of learners;
(2) an emphasis on students taking responsibility for their own learning;
(3) a crossing of boundaries between disciplines;
(4) an intertwining of theory and practice;
(5) a focus on the processes rather than the products of knowledge acquisition;
(6) a change in the tutor’s role from that of instructor to that of facilitator;
(7) a change in focus from tutors’ assessment of outcomes of learning to student self-
assessment and peer assessment;
(8) a focus on communication and interpersonal skills so that students understand that in
order to relate their knowledge, they require skills to communicate with others, skills that
go beyond their area of technical expertise.
The epistemological origins of inquiry-based learning illustrated in Table 2, although
different in perspective, all have some type of connection in their own way to the method of
inquiry-based instruction.

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 43
Table 2
Epistemological Origins of Inquiry-Based Learning
Epistemology Description
Naturalism Developing knowledge through questioning
Metaphysics Critiquing knowledge through reason
Rationalism Deductive reasoning to examine impressions
Empiricism Scientific observation and discovery
Phenomenologicalism Individual perception of knowledge
Positivism Notions of social justice emerge
Existentialism Driving to become an independent thinker
Postmodernism The individual and society

Currently, the view of inquiry-based, learner-centered instruction has been induced by the
thoughts of noted developmental theorists and philosophers such as Locke (1692), Kant (1803),
Mill (1878), Dewey (1913, 1933), Whitehead (1929), Bruner (1960), and Piaget (1963). Inquiry-
based instruction has been traditionally used to teach several differing subjects, including math,
science, and literacy. All of which were taught within differing disciplines as well, such as
business, medicine, chemistry, philosophy, and teacher education. The age or grade level of the
learners also varies greatly from preschool to higher education. Inquiry-based instructional
strategies are varied in nature but can include styles labeled as problem-based learning, case-
method instruction, active learning, activity-based instruction, project-based learning, team-
based learning, situated learning, anchored instruction, and discovery learning. The essence of
inquiry-based learning is that it is learner centered; inquiry-based instruction allows the learner
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 44
to self-construct through active engagement of the learners’ environment (Albanese & Mitchell,
1993).
The research supports heavily the abundance of benefits for the method of instruction
(Bransford, Sherwood, Hasselbring, Kinzer, & Williams, 1990; Challis, 2000; Entwistle, 1985;
Fink, 2003; Glasser, 2001; Groat & Musson, 1995; Malone, 2008; Savin-Baden & Major, 2004;
Thomas, J. W., 2000). According to the literature cited, features associated with this form of
instruction include:
• Flexibility
• Variety
• Challenge
• Authenticity
• Amenability to individual learning styles
• Hands-on/activity-based
• Acknowledgement of individual
• Research-to-practice orientation
• Meaningful
• Autonomy/self-direction
• Choice
• Promotion of deep-learning
• Supportive of individual wants, interests, and needs
• Engaged context for learning perceptions and intuition
• A foundation of trust (Malone, 2008, p. 533)

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 45
Central strategies for promoting these features in the instructional context include:
• Reflection
• Access to multiple/varied ‘‘tools’’
• Asking questions to expand knowledge
• Use of inductive or deductive reasoning to solve problems
• Engaging in dialogue
• Active examination, exploration, inquiry, and observation
• Instructor response (Malone, 2008, p. 533)
Finally, purported benefits of such instruction include:
• Increased self-awareness
• Ownership
• Personal responsibility
• Promotion of critical thinking
• Enhanced self-efficacy, confidence, and independence
• Increased motivation/interest
• Integration of existing perceptions with experience
• Acquisition, retention, and transfer of knowledge
• Adaptation of instruction to learner rather than forcing learner to fit instruction
• Alignment with Bloom’s Taxonomy
• Promotion of significant learning
• Support of basic human needs including competence, choice, enjoyment
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 46
• Development of writing and research skills
• Support of an orientation toward learning and mastery (Malone, 2008, p. 534)
Evidence
When inquiry-based instruction is compared to didactic instruction, research showed
there is limitation in the ability to promote acquisition, retention, or transfer of knowledge.
Traditionally speaking, didactic instruction was not designed to facilitate the development of
critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Ultimately, didactic instruction does not motivate
learners to acquire new concepts of knowledge or change their attitudes regarding differing
aspects of themselves or their learning (Bain, 2004; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Fink,
2003; Huba & Freed, 2000; Langone, Malone, & Clinton, 1999; Langone, Malone, Stecker, &
Greene, 1998; Savin-Baden & Major, 2004; Thomas, J. W., 2000).
The features discussed previously and benefits of learner-centered, inquiry-based
instruction has the potential to facilitate students’ ability to manipulate information for analytical
use more freely. Learners are better able to apply skills and think critically about the knowledge
that they have self-constructed (Bain, 2004; Dewey, 1933; Fink, 2003; McKeachie, 1999;
Meyers, 1986; Savin-Baden & Major, 2004; Wales et al., 1987; Weast, 1996). Ultimately
research found that when using inquiry-based instruction with other methods of teaching such as
Personal Learning Plans the method supports “(a) the college standards for performance related
to foundation knowledge, inquiry, collaboration, leadership, diversity, technology, and
assessment; (b) the constructivist philosophy of the early childhood program; and (c) the
preferred learning styles reported by many students” (Malone, 2008, p. 533). Malone (2008)
noted that 58% of the students reported “active experimentation/doing” as their preferred method
of learning and 27% reported “reflective observation/watching” as the preferred method.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 47
On the other hand, inquiry-based learning faces challenges as well. The concern of what
exactly counts as a problem and the complexity of inquiry design presents possible obstacles for
educators. Educators use different sources to create environments where their students can
construct learning. Regardless, in every approach educators take there are still questions to be
answered and conclusion to arise. The literature illustrated that several issues exist and the most
important concern is how the students use the problems or activities and if the students are being
encouraged to use different types of knowledge and capabilities. Additionally, is the debate
regarding if the students are being motivated to keep constructing knowledge (Savin-Baden &
Major, 2004). Further discussion regarding contrasting viewpoints will be illustrated in this
study.
Conclusions Drawn
The research showed that constructivist approach to education is at its core about being
student centered. Although the method is not perfect, the benefits that are exemplified thus far
through the use of the constructivist method seem to outweigh the good from the bad. However,
the concern that remains is how teachers are to use the constructivist method when they lack the
knowledge, skills, and training to effectively execute the desired teaching environment. This
study will help gain insight into the teachers’ perceptions and choice making that can possibly be
generalizable to other teachers and students desiring to adopt the method in early childhood
education.
How and what are Teachers being Taught to Teach
Advanced Young Learners and Why Does It Matter?
Introduction
In this topic, how teachers are taught to teach advanced young learners in grades
kindergarten through second grade will be explored. Explanation of the importance on ensuring
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 48
preservice teachers are prepared with both the theoretical and practical knowledge to teach the
students and also reasoning behind why it needs to happen in education now (DeBoer, 2007).
Teachers are facing so many challenges currently in education that the rate of teachers leaving
the profession is astonishing especially in underserved communities where resources are low and
needs are high (Farris-Berg, Dirkswager, & Junge, 2013). In addition to the teaching challenges
the teachers are facing, they are also lacking training on how to have a culturally relevant
pedagogy (Zhu & Zeichner, 2013). US schools will continue to become learning spaces where
an increasingly homogeneous teaching population (mostly White, female, and middle class) will
come into contact with an increasingly heterogeneous student population primarily students of
color, and from low income backgrounds (Howard, 2003) with the research showing Black and
Latino students constitute the largest ethnic minority groups in US schools. The academic
underachievement of many African American and Latino students has been abysmal for decades.
The number of students from these two groups in regard to special education and emotionally
disturbed percentages is extreme. They represent 50% of all students labeled mentally retarded.
On the other hand, when it comes to gifted programs and AP programs, the Black and Latino
students are not referred at the same rate as their White peers (Howard, 2003).
Teachers need to understand that racially diverse students bring in cultural capital into the
teachers’ classroom that is often much different than the norm. Currently, teachers are not being
exposed to learning how to deeply reflect on their own positionality and how that affects their
teaching of the young children in their classrooms. Novice teachers are entering the classroom
with an inadequate arsenal of tools in regard to satisfying the needs of young advanced learners.
The results of this study will illustrate a suggestion as to what teachers should have an
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 49
opportunity to learn in order to better serve their students’ needs and how to implement the
concepts.
Evidence
Teachers are not being adequately prepared to teach advanced young learners once they
arrive to the classroom. Teachers are even less prepared to teach the subgroup of advanced
young learners who are minority, low income, and hold diverse needs (Lambeth & Smith, n.d.).
Due to the lack of both theoretical and practical knowledge that teachers have in regard to what
possible gifted students need in their early years of education, coupled with pressure to prepare
all students no matter their needs for standardized tests, teachers’ self-efficacy is suffering
leading to teachers leaving the school site for one with more resources or the teachers reach
levels of frustration so high that they decide to leave the profession all together. Losing novice,
young, energetic teachers who are filled with idealistic and innovative perspectives on how to
engage and make a difference in students’ lives is a tragedy in itself.
Currently teachers find themselves having to make difficult choices regarding what and
how to teach with little concrete information. A study conducted by Nichols, Zellner, Willson,
Mergen, and Young (2005) generated findings that teachers reported use of selected reading
instructional strategies and methods was influenced by the following: (a) workshops attended,
(b) district curriculum policy, (c) teacher implementation of targeted reading strategies,
(d) teachers’ perceptions of their own instructional efficacy, and (e) teachers’ perceptions of
students’ academic needs and performance. The findings illustrated what was previously
mentioned regarding teachers only using published and scripted curriculum based on their own
perceptions of what they know how to teach and based on what they think that their students
need. This is not an equitable or sound manner in which to choose and implement curriculum for
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 50
any students because of the bias that comes along with personal teacher reflection. Additionally,
published curriculum is not a one-size-fits-all product yet is being delivered to all as if it is.
Inquiry-based learning inserted here would aid in all of the concerns because the teacher
becomes a co-thinker with the student and aids in their learning guiding them and attempting to
elicit their potential rather than pre-diagnosing what they need to learn and filling their bucket
using possible deficit thinking. Therefore, teachers need to be explicitly taught how to teach the
subgroup of advanced young learners and teacher educators should not only focus on early
childhood education as a whole.
Conclusions Drawn
Desimone (2011) and Harrison (2015) found possible criteria for successful, professional
development. The steps are (a) teachers experience professional development, (b) the
professional development increases teachers’ knowledge and skills, changes their attitudes and
beliefs, or both, (c) teachers use their new knowledge, skills, attitudes and beliefs to improve the
content of their instruction, their approach to pedagogy, or both, (d) the instructional changes
that the teachers introduce to the classroom boost their students’ learning. However, the research
does not explain in such clear steps how to measure accurately and efficiently that the steps are
in fact occurring. Which leads to issues of implementation after any professional development
takes place. This study attempted to find how teachers decide to use certain curriculum over
others and how they implement it. Once gathered, an analysis of how the information can be
made generalizable in order to help teacher educators set up other teachers for success with
advanced young learners will be discussed.
In an effort to support reasoning as to the possible added benefits of teaching teachers
how to teach advanced young students, a study that found the situation to be one where all
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 51
students gain not only advanced or gifted students will be highlighted. Findings from Dodds’
(2010) study revealed that when teachers taught using inquiry-based learning and deeper-
thinking model to their students both gifted and non-gifted students benefited. The study found
the following: (a) the prompts of depth and complexity positively affected gifted and non-gifted
students’ understanding across all disciplines; (b) gifted student understanding was greater than
non-gifted understanding, and (c) gifted and non-gifted students perceive the prompts of depth
and complexity to be helpful, interesting, and challenging. This research gave confirmation that
prompts of depth and complexity are successful in promoting increased student learning and
understanding across all of the disciplines (Dodds, 2010).
Current teachers’ perceptions illustrate that general education teachers do not feel they
host the time, skills, training, or resources to teach students with differing needs. The application
of systematic research synthesis procedures to 28 studies of general education teachers’ attitudes
toward inclusion of students that required special instruction of some sort indicated that, overall,
about two-thirds of the teachers support inclusion. However, the varying of the support was as
mentioned previously due to lack of confidence in being able to meet the student’s needs
(Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996).
Education researchers recommend that future research be completed on how teachers are
to apply and implement successfully specific strategies into their classrooms. The study looked
at K-12 teachers and the content they learned while in the program but continued to state that
there needed to be more insight on how to implement the practices and strategies the teachers
learned once they entered their classrooms. Therefore, the survey given to the teachers in this
current research asking about their implementation will help gather more information regarding
their reasoning and processes.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 52
Theoretical Framework and Models
Curriculum can at times carry different definitions depending what country, or even what
part of a country, one is focused on. Traditionally, curriculum was defined as a course of study
(Andarvazh, Afshar, & Yazdani, n.d.). However, according to some researchers, a more useful
definition is the planned interaction of pupils with instructional content, materials, resources, and
processes for evaluation (Couchenour & Chrisman, 2016). Couchenour and Chrisman (2016)
also found that curriculum correlates with educational objectives for students, but this definition
clearly embraces educational practices and even assessment. Indeed, one might simply define
curriculum as what takes place in education (Couchenour & Chrisman, 2016).
When it comes to early childhood education, curriculum has gained double meaning, that
of educational model (Chaillé, 2016). Reasoning behind this concept could lie in that early
childhood education has never been extremely rooted in the frame of thought that has a teacher-
directed instruction based on math, reading, and writing. The practices that the educators should
take as well as the content that should be covered were and still are open for debate. One side of
the argument states the content should focus on literacy and math, while the other side of the
argument states that the content should cover social and emotional skills, habits of mind, and
physical skills. Educators also argued educational practices should focus on the transmission of
knowledge from teacher to students, or if the teacher should only behave as a facilitator of
knowledge that the children elicit from activities. Many early childhood curriculum developers
take various stances in regard to the different arguments posed and continue on to develop
models that align with the specific argument (Chaillé, 2016).

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 53
Brief History of Curriculum in Early Childhood Education
Traditionally speaking, first grade is the start of formal schooling set around the age of 6
years old around the world, with some countries recently differing in ages. Educators set the
stance that this is when children were to start learning to read, write, and learn math. Here is
where early childhood education was to differ from traditional school and curriculum developers
felt the need to establish some changes (Schweinhart, 2016).
A man named Frobel invented the idea of kindergarten with the idea that it would be a
garden in which children could play and there was born what some noted as the first early
childhood curriculum model in 1837 in Germany (Couchenour & Chrisman, 2016). Many
individuals felt that children playing held little value when it came to learning. Froebel made it
the core piece of kindergarten curriculum and believed it was the way in which to prepare the
child for later learning in future schooling. Froebel invented materials that he named Gifts such
as cubes, balls, and tablets and held Occupations such as materials for writing, drawing, and
painting. There were activities that were hosted in the form of games, songs, and storytelling
(Dodd-Nufrio, 2011). Beyond Froebel, came Montessori in 1907 and that was followed by many
other models that were developed to be in line with Head Start which was to be used in the
United States starting in 1965 (Couchenour & Chrisman, 2016). Head Start ensured that there
existed a written plan with sound child development principles; and included goals for children’s
development and learning, experiences, staff and parent roles, and materials as well a standard
curriculum (Schweinhart, 2016).
Origin of Study
In early childhood education, the main concepts about learning have come from the
teachings of John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, Maria Montessori, and Lawrence
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 54
Kohlberg to name a few. For this study, the focus was on the constructivist approach which will
be discussed in depth. The theory is relevant to this study because the method of inquiry-based
learning and the transitions that researchers are attempting to help teachers achieve are based on
the ideas that stem from constructivist approach.
In general, curriculum is offered as that which society values and states to be worth
knowing. Shaklee, Barbour, Ambrose, and Hansford (1997 as cited in Dodd-Nufrio, 2011)
stated that it is designed to gather learners and bring them together into a process that capitalizes
on their prior knowledge while engaging them in activities and experiences that prompt new
learning. They go on to state the constructivist approach proposes that children learn by
interacting in their environment as active agents who build, or construct, personal understandings
of their experiences (Shaklee et al., 1997).
Learning is looked upon as a steady, continued process as well as one that is interactive.
Shaklee and colleagues stated teacher, student, and environment are working together in the
process of meaning making. Shaklee et al. (1997) went on to highlight that the teacher operates
from an understanding of the child’s perspective while developing curriculum, instructional
strategies, and assessment procedures. The teacher relinquishes the task of covering curriculum
via frontal teaching and provides ample opportunity for exploring, examining, and discussing in
a wide variety of venues (Shaklee et al., 1997).
Transformational curriculum is a step beyond integrated curriculum and is aimed to look
across content areas all at once in order to be able to provide a spiral of increasing depth of
knowledge. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC, 1982)
only provided a set of principles for curriculum development but did not state what to teach
(Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992, 1995). This is the reasoning behind transformational
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 55
curriculum and adding the layer of children’s interest rather than only hosting the traditional path
that teachers would take in creating thematic planning (Katz, L., & Chard, 1989). The message
that NAEYC was attempting to present is that curriculum is a dynamic process rather than a
package. What was referred to as dynamic are the elements such as students’ needs, cultures,
and interests of the children in the learning environment. In recent times, early childhood
education has been inspired by the team of teachers from Reggio Emilia, a small town in Italy.
L. Katz and Chard (1989) found that the impact this approach has can be linked to positive
curriculum development for young gifted children. Hendrick (1997) explained that Loris
Malaguzzi, the developer of this approach, drew upon the great educational philosophers of our
century, particularly those subscribing to social constructivism, to create a vision for educating
children. Integral to the notion of social constructivism is the process of reflecting, revisiting,
and refining one’s knowledge individually and socially. In other words, children are co-
constructors of their own knowledge, requiring more than internal, solitary cognitive processing
(Hendrick, 1997).
Theoretical Framework
Constructivism
The version of the theory that was used in this study is Constructivist theory that
considers learning as a process in which individuals learn and construct new knowledge based on
their previous experiences. This theory calls for learning to not be linear and rather a complex
process where reconstruction rather than transmission of knowledge takes place (Lin, 2015).
Although Constructivist theory is often discussed in comparison with other learning theories
such as behaviorist theory and cognitive theory that were presented by B. F. Skinner and Edward
Thorndike, it adds the layer of not only the learners’ active role in the learning process but also
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 56
highlights the knowledge that a learner brings into the new learning (Lin, 2015). The theory
focuses on cognitive processes in which learners develop their own new knowledge built upon
what they already knew. This current study will be anchored through the perspective of the
theory presented by Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. Vygotsky is well known for the theory of
the zone of proximal development (ZPD). ZPD defined in the distance between a learner’s
actual level of development and the level of possible development when guided by adults or
peers (Lin, 2015).
Piaget (1963) introduced the four stages in a child’s cognitive development:
• sensorimotor (birth to 2 years old),
• preoperational (2 to 7 years old),
• concrete operational (7 to 11 years old), and
• formal operational (roughly ages 11 to approximately 15 to 20 years old).
Piaget (1963) stated that these four stages are not exclusive of each other, nor are they
static. Therefore, it is vital for educators to exemplify the proper rhythm of the learners and
follow the flow of the learner. Throughout the different stages, a learner develops object
permanence, symbolic thought, hierarchical classification, and abstract and systematic thinking
step by step (Lin, 2015).
Elements of the Curriculum Framework
Many who have different foci including the work of Reggio Emilia and the Project
Approach have expressed curriculum that follows the Constructivist method. However, even
though there are many different types of methods that fall under Constructivism they all share
the same values, which are deep respect for the young learners, understanding that each child
brings knowledge with them from the start, and acknowledging and enthusiastically embracing
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 57
diversity of perspectives and experiences. An underlying element is that the child is capable and
competent. Educators who follow the method believe teaching the child has to include actively
supporting and facilitating the learning rather than only transmitting knowledge. Another
element underlying constructivist curriculum is that the goal of the educational experience is not
the gaining of information, but the ability to deeply and critically think and for the child to be
able to collaborate and respectfully work with others (Lin, 2015).
An additional facet to consider is the different types of knowledge that children create.
Piaget presented, but Constance Kamii elaborated in regard to early childhood education stating
there are three types of knowledge–physical, logical-mathematical, and social. Physical
knowledge is empirical and observable; logico-mathematical knowledge is in one’s head and is
applied to the empirical world, and social/arbitrary knowledge. The first two, physical and
logico-mathematical knowledge, are constructed by the child through interaction with the world.
The third, social knowledge, cannot be constructed and must be transmitted to the child; for
example, the particular names of things or practices unique to the child’s culture (Lin, 2015).
Activities and Experiences
When educators think about curriculum through the lens of Constructivism, there is a
continuum between child-directed and teacher-directed activities and experiences. The version
of the theory that was used in this study formulates that a dynamic interaction between the
teachers and the learners must take place. The educators are to be observant and reflect
constantly with ensuring that they are incorporating activities based on what the child needs.
Generally speaking, the child has many different ways to interact with materials as well as many
different opportunities. The opportunity in the experience is clear and requires little explanation
by the teacher, although often an introduction is offered that is nondirective but could include
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 58
discussion of any issues for children to consider when engaged. The experiences and activities
presented to the learners should be structured depending on the intentions of the teacher.
Nevertheless, the preparation of the activities is thoughtful, thorough, and with specific intent.
However, at the same time they are flexible, with the willingness to change direction when the
educator considers the child’s actions and interests (Lin, 2015).
Creating the Physical Environment
Researchers showed that the physical environment is a primary element of the
Constructivism curriculum. The design is created with intent to support the students’ exploring
and experimental needs. As stated previously, flexibility is also combined within the structure of
the design in comparison to a traditional classroom where desks are set up in rows facing the
teacher who is directing the lessons. This is the opposite of the environment that Constructivist
view would call for as the students cannot use different spaces to learn in different ways.
Additionally, the materials that are chosen for use in the classroom are selected with great intent
and have a meaningful purpose behind them. Thinking about the physical environment also
includes ensuring that it supports the classroom culture that is a part of the curriculum (Lin,
2015).
The Role of the Educator
An educator that follows constructivist pedagogy plays a dynamic role in the
environment. The educator models inquiry themselves to all of the students through the
instruction itself. Seemingly the educator is one that probes and asks questions and poses
problems for all of the children to think deeply about. The educator builds alongside the students
as a co-thinker and learner. The educator reflects on the experiences and ensures to adapt or
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 59
enhance the activities throughout based on the observations made of the students’ interactions
with the environment and each other (Lin, 2015).
Overall, the version of constructivism that was used in this study is grounded in the
theoretical perspectives of Piaget and Vygotsky, entailed a broad and complex view of
curriculum; creating the physical and social environment, blending thoughtful and extensive
planning with flexibility based on careful observations of children, engaging in dialogue and
collaboration, co-learning, and co-researching, between and among the children and teachers
(Lin, 2015).
Present what Others Say about the Theory
Hendrick (1997) found some concerns with inquiry-based learning in that educators do
not have an exact model to replicate the method with their students. Educators are not entirely
clear as to what is a proper problem or activity to pose to students. Furthermore, the question
becomes ‘Is the problem solving in one student or class generalizable to others?’ A deeper
concern sits with the results research highlighted that show transferring knowledge and skills is
less frequent and more difficult than is generally believed. The studies were in psychology and
medicine fields and researchers found that transfer from one context to another was difficult to
prove (Savin-Baden & Major, 2004). Designing inquiry-based curriculum for diverse students
and differing age groups with differing abilities has also presented an obstacle for some
educators. The lack of information and research to illustrate proven models of the curriculum
approach hinders the confidence some educators have to present the students with the
nontraditional teaching method that is Constructivism. Lastly, educators assumed that children
learn to think more critically on their own naturally with time, but studies have found this to not
be the case. Savin-Baden and Major (2004) noted the different levels of criticality as shown in
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 60
Table 3. Educators are not always scaffolding the process to their students making for a false
sense of accomplishment led by assumption (Savin-Baden & Major, 2004).

Table 3
Levels of Criticality
Year Level of Criticality Features Type of Problem
1 Critical thinking Development of
autonomy
Use reasoning,
analysis, and
synthesis
Task focused, but
enables student to
both develop
personal autonomy
and also work
collaboratively

2 Critical thought Collective learning
and action
Critical dialogue
Moral problems that
demand learning
with and through
the team: dialogic
learning

3 Critique Criticism of the
discipline
Taking a stance
towards knowledge
Problems of
complexity that
encourage students
to critique the
knowledge of the
discipline and
contest the
discipline itself
Source: Savin-Baden and Major (2004, p. 30)

Summary
In summary, the literature informed that underrepresentation of minority students can
stem from lack of challenging curriculum in early childhood education leading to several issues
such as underrepresentation in gifted programs or dropping out of school all together.
Additionally, it was exposed that teachers are not referring these culturally diverse students at the
same rate as White students. There are many factors that contribute to the lack of teacher
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 61
referrals for this subgroup of students to gifted programming in schools such as teacher bias,
differing criteria for identification, but lack of teacher ability to recognize and elicit potential in
all students is a salient issue due to the straightforward prejudice this presents in itself. Many
young people who have not had appropriate educational opportunities may not perform at
superior levels through no fault of their own. Therefore, a good school program should be
responsible for providing under identified students with challenging and stimulating
opportunities, resources, and experiences that will serve as vehicles for transforming potential
into performance (Renzulli, J. S., 2002).
Teachers in the current climate are teaching to the standardized tests that they are being
evaluated on rather than focusing on the students’ individual needs and exporting their potentials
using challenging curriculum and inquiry-based learning methods. Literature explained that
teachers find difficulty applying the Constructivist method of teaching in their classrooms due to
lack of exposure to best practices in their pre-service programs. Therefore, even if the teachers
know the findings of the literature stating numerous benefits of inquiry-based learning, their lack
of training hinders their motivation to make the shift from didactic teaching to guiding students
to construct their own knowledge. This study will help researchers and educators understand the
perceptions and reasoning behind teacher’s curricular choices in early education classrooms. It
is important to mention and repeat that the “spark plug,” which may ignite creativity, is a result
of the types of experiences we provide to young people (Renzulli, J. S., 2002).

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 62
Chapter Three: Methodology
Introduction-Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to learn how early education teachers, specifically
kindergarten through second grade teachers, perceive to be able to use a curriculum and create an
ambiance that ensures they design high-quality early childhood learning environments that
develop talent and potential and respond to emergent abilities for young leaners. One of the
criteria presented by researchers for this effective method of teaching states that teachers who
create contexts to recognize strengths, needs, and interests respond to the variance in levels of
readiness among learners. This study focused on what current teachers in low income, diverse
communities are doing in their classroom and how they are choosing to implement their
pedagogical choices. This study will add to the research in highlighting how teachers perceive
their use of curriculum to implement positive change in their classrooms that is in line with play-
based learning. Five focal points of transition have been identified in research and are listed in
Table 4.

Table 4
Mindshifting—Five Transitions in Thinking
Transition Process
Transition 1 Transition from standardized to non-traditional methods to discern the
potential, talent, and/or emergent aptitude of young students in the early
years.

Transition 2 Transitions from educators “waiting for potential to be displayed” to
setting the conditions and situations that require and possibly demand the
expression of a young child’s potential, talent, and/or emerging aptitude.

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 63
Table 4 (Cont’d)
Transition Process
Transition 3 Transition to place greater emphasis on inquiry-based curriculum and
instruction necessitates the presentation of open-ended situations or
contexts that are germane to activate and acknowledge prior knowledge,
create an interest in the acquisition of new knowledge and understanding
of an identity-oriented self-directed style, and appreciation for learning and
personal success.

Transition 4 Transitions to define multiple means, and both fixed and individualized
ends to lessons and units of study are necessary.

Transition 5 Transition by teachers to assess the differences between what they believe
young students are able to learn versus considering what these children are
actually capable of learning.

Source: (Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016, p. 137)

This study aimed to learn how teachers make the shift through Transition 2: Transitions
from educators “waiting for potential to be displayed” to setting the conditions and situations that
require and possibly demand the expression of a young child’s potential, talent, and/or emerging
aptitude; and Transition 3: Transition to place greater emphasis on inquiry-based curriculum and
instruction necessitates the presentation of open-ended situations or contexts that are germane to
activate and acknowledge prior knowledge, create an interest in the acquisition of new
knowledge and understanding of an identity-oriented self-directed style, and appreciation for
learning and personal success. Additionally, the study attempted to understand why teachers
choose to make the transitions. The transitions not only create a shift in the teacher’s mind, but
also changes the idea of who owns the responsibility of the learning that needs to occur. This
new frame of thinking changes the idea that the student is the one that needs to demonstrate
special abilities before they are taught using differentiated instruction of some sort, to the idea
that the teacher needs to ensure their pedagogy elicits the young students’ potential, talent, or
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 64
emerging aptitude of some sort (Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016). By surveying the teachers in this
particular community regarding their choices as well as their reasoning and motivation behind
their choices, new knowledge will be gained as to teacher perspectives and abilities to
successfully implement a play-based pedagogy in low income, diverse communities. This
information is currently lacking in regard to early childhood education and while there are
studies on the matter, teacher opinion as with most literature is absent. This study highlights
what is currently working for teachers in early childhood education as well as how they perceive
to make the learning environment work with their specific student demographic.
It is important to note that this study is important due to the possible benefit gained from
information gathered from it and its ability to aid other educators in being able to set up young
students for a positive educational career in their later years. In many children, a pattern of
gifted behaviors and/or advanced performance can be seen as early as pre-school; however,
classroom modifications for gifted students altering the pace, depth, or complexity of instruction
are rarely implemented in pre-school and early-elementary classrooms (Robinson, 2002;
Stainthorp & Hughes, 2004). Therefore, the early years of education for children are vital to
their success in their academic futures.
Currently it is known that the early educational experiences of many young advanced
children are lacking challenge, and this takes away from their cognitive growth instead of
ensuring learners are subjected to an engaging and capacious learning environment (Robinson,
2002; Scott & Delgado, 2005). These concerns are exacerbated for students from traditionally
underserved populations including culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse learners, and
especially children from poverty because these children are even more so lacking resources in
both their school and home (Robinson, 2002; Scott & Delgado, 2005).
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 65
Research stated that teachers today are lacking formal education in acceleration and
differentiation of curriculum and instruction (Gross, 1999; Smutny & von Fremd, 2009) which
could lead to similar issues of inequity that were discussed previously. Additionally, when
students host varied and uneven emotional and cognitive growth these same teachers that lack
formal training on eliciting potential from all students at young ages can find it difficult to
identify that the students are in fact gifted. Therefore, the results of this study will help discover
how teachers are successfully exploring the play-based method with their students and ensuring
the students have a rich and engaging environment where they can grow and learn.
While identification of young advanced learners is vital to future success of American
youth, the issue in early education is larger. All young learners should have the opportunity to
display their abilities and responsibility should be shifted to the teacher and school institution in
regard to creating a space for the students to be able to grow and be challenged. Advocating for
appropriate curriculum and instruction for advanced young learners is not the same as advocating
for early identification of giftedness (Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016). Hosting the appropriate
curriculum, environment, and ensuring teachers deliver pedagogy that is responsive to their
learners is essential. Today teachers are being pushed to teach to the standardized tests and
ensure basic skills are mastered and demonstrated in traditional paper-pencil manners (Feeney &
Freeman, 2014). The pressures are as early as kindergarten with preschool to be included in the
near future at this rate (Feeney & Freeman, 2014). Teachers do not have the theoretical nor
practical knowledge on how to plan curriculum and construct an environment inclusive of
learning experiences that promote and encourage the opportunities to display diverse
traditionally underserved students’ abilities (Berman et al., 2012).

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 66
Research Questions
1. What are teachers’ perceptions regarding the types of challenges teachers need to embed
in the curriculum in order to meet the needs of diverse students who exemplify advanced
abilities in the early K-2 years?
2. What are teachers’ perceptions regarding materials that are designed in the classroom
environment (learning centers) that would most promote challenging educational
opportunities for diverse students who exemplify advanced abilities in the early K-2
years?
3. To what degree do teachers perceive that they have the professional knowledge to meet
the curricular and instructional needs of diverse students who exemplify advanced
abilities in the early K-2 years?
This study attempted to answer these questions in hopes of leading to an understanding of
what young learners deserve and need to experience the following:
● challenging and content-rich curriculum that promotes both critical and creative thinking
across all academic disciplines including reading, math, science, and the arts (Robinson,
2002; Smutny & von Fremd, 2009)
● opportunities to build advanced literacy skills (Gross, 1999; Stainthorp & Hughes, 2004)
● ample and varied materials including but not limited to technology, print material, and
manipulative resources (Barbour & Shalilee, 1998; Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992,
1995; Clark, 1995)
● instructional strategies that foster an authentic construction of knowledge based on
exploration, manipulative resources, and experiential inquiry (Barbour & Shalilee, 1998;
Clark, 1995; Katz, L., & Chard, 1989)
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 67
Methodology
The main goal of all research is to fill a knowledge gap, a gap in understanding (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). There is a lack of research that holds the perceptions of in-service teachers in
kindergarten through second grade who teach low income students of diverse needs.
Additionally, the gap in knowledge presents questions that need answers where quantitative
methods would not be adequate. Questions that are raised regarding meaning, making, and
subtleties that quantitative designs cannot adhere to. Denzin and Lincoln (2008 as cited in
Stickler & Hampel, 2015), for example, stated, “qualitative research is a situated activity that
locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make
the world visible” (p. 384). Qualitative research is the study of things in their natural settings,
attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to
them (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In comparison to quantitative research where data in numeric
forms are the consensus and examining what is already present is the focus (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). A more concise definition that is favored by researchers is by Van Maanen (1979):
Qualitative research is “an umbrella term covering an array of interpretive techniques which seek
to describe, decode, translate, and otherwise come to terms with the meaning, not the frequency,
of certain more or less naturally occurring phenomena in the social world” (p. 520). Qualitative
research is interested in understanding the meaning people have constructed; that is, how people
make sense of their world and the experiences they have in the world (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
In similar fashion to our sample population of teachers chosen, the researcher in this study
attempted to create meaning from the perceptions the teachers submitted in the surveys they
took.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 68
The methodology chosen for this study is in line with the results that the researcher was
exploring. A qualitative study was used to complete the research. A qualitative study allows for
the researcher to examine the perspectives of teachers in the classroom and gain knowledge of
the complexity that comes with differing individual perspectives. Qualitative studies aim to
provide illumination and understanding of complex psychosocial issues and are most useful for
answering humanistic ‘why?’ and ‘how?’ questions. This study explored the perceptions that
teachers have regarding choices made in their own classrooms to engage children in learning
experiences. A quantitative study would not allow for the researcher to be able to adequately
explore the perceived successes and decisions made by each teacher in their classrooms through
a survey used as an instrument for data collection.

Table 5
Characteristics of Qualitative and Quantitative Research
Point of Comparison Qualitative Research Quantitative Research
Focus of research Quality (nature, essence) Quantity (how much, how
many)

Philosophical roots Phenomenology, symbolic
interactionism, constructivism

Positivism, logical
empiricism, realism
Associated phrases Fieldwork, ethnographic,
naturalistic, grounded,
constructivist

Experimental, empirical,
statistical
Goal of investigation Understand, description,
discovery, meaning,
hypothesis generating

Prediction, control,
description, confirmation,
hypothesis testing
Design characteristics Flexible, evolving, emergent Predetermined, structured
Sample Small, nonrandom,
purposeful, theoretical

Large, random
representative

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 69
Table 5 (Cont’d.)
Point of Comparison Qualitative Research Quantitative Research
Data collection Researcher as primary
instrument, interviews,
observations, documents

Inanimate instruments
(scales, tests, surveys,
questionnaires, computers
Primary mode of analysis Inductive, constant
comparative method

Deductive. statistical
Findings Comprehensive, holistic,
expansive, richly descriptive

Previse, numerical
Source: Merriam, S. & Tisdell, E. 2016, p. 19

In Table 5, the differences between Qualitative and Quantitative studies are listed for ease
of visual interpretation. One area to highlight is that Qualitative studies draw from the
philosophies of constructionism, phenomenology, and symbolic interactionism; qualitative
researchers are interested in how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their
worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences. It is aligned with the framework of
Constructivist theory that is the foundation of the study. The overarching focus of qualitative
research is to accomplish an understanding of how individuals make sense out of their lives,
delineate the process (rather than the outcome or product) of meaning-making, and describe how
people interpret what they experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study aimed to learn and
make meaning of teachers’ decision making. Researchers such as Patton (1985) showed that
qualitative research is an attempt to be able to understand different situations in their own
uniqueness as part of a whole in a certain context and the interactions of the individuals there.
This type of meaning making is a conclusion in itself, there is no attempt to try to predict what is
going to happen in the situation–rather to understand what is happening in that specific setting.
Furthermore, what it means for the participants to be included in that setting and what their lives
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 70
are like and what meaning they are constructing themselves. The main concept that is important
to point out is understanding the phenomenon from the participants’ perspectives and not from
the perspective of the researchers. This is sometimes referred to as the emic or the insider’s
perspective versus the etic or the outsider’s view.
Sample and Population
Educators know that there is a current push for standardized testing in early childhood
education; this study will explore a school that upholds the need for standardized testing but
houses teachers that perceive they allow students to construct knowledge through inquiry or
play-based learning in their classrooms. Homogeneous sampling is the purposive sampling
technique that was chosen for this study in aiming to achieve a homogeneous sample that can
correlate with the research questions at hand. The reason homogeneous sampling was chosen is
because the researcher aimed to address specific perspectives of a particular group of interest and
examine it in detail. The focus was early education teachers of kindergarten through second
grade at a high-needs urban elementary charter school as well as the entire Reina Trinity Unified
School District1 of public school kindergarten through second grade teachers.
The value in learning more about this specific sample population stands in the possible
new information that can be acquired regarding how to best serve students who are traditionally
underserved and who come from traditionally underserved communities. If the conclusions of
the study inform positive strategies and information that is generalizable to other similar
environments, then children in other similar underserved communities can benefit from the
gained knowledge regarding early childhood education. Even if some argue that generalizability
is difficult to host because of the diversity of each community, best practices could emerge from

1 Pseudonym being used
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 71
the study results and those can become a resource for a novice teacher or a veteran teacher
seeking new tools for their practice.
Instrumentation
This study used a survey and in-person interviews to grasp individual, teacher-perceived
success in their classrooms and reasoning behind their choices. The reason a survey was selected
for this study is because a text box in a survey with open ended questions allows the respondents
to provide a unique answer. Additionally, this approach allows respondents to have the freedom
to say exactly what they think in regard to the topic being questioned. This provides the
researcher with exploratory data that may reveal unforeseen concerns, or comments that were not
thought about prior to. In concluding data analysis, the researcher will be able to use this
information to support the hard numbers collected in the survey if needed. It is often found in
research that these quotes from respondents create more powerful and meaningful data than
many percentages and numbers. Qualitative research has been found to help gain in-depth
information about people’s underlying reasoning and motivations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In
this study educators are searching for exactly this, the perspectives of teachers and how they feel
they have aided their students in learning with setting up specific learning environments and
using curriculum. Qualitative research is defined as any form of information collection that is
meant to describe, but not predict, as in the case of quantitative research (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Therefore, qualitative research is more desirable for this study than a quantitative
approach along with instruments in line with the qualitative approach.
The survey was sent out electronically and had a total of 24 questions. There were a
variety of different types of questions included: hypothetical, opinion, visual aid scenarios, and
descriptive. In the survey, questions 1-3 and 6-8 were background questions which allowed for
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 72
data to be gathered regarding experience and perceptions in general. Questions 13, 14, 15, 16,
and 17 aided in understanding teachers’ perceptions in regard to curriculum and how they feel
with regard to embedding challenges; these questions helped to answer Research Question One.
Questions 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, and 23 were tied to Research Question Three and they
helped to gain insight to teachers’ perspective regarding teachers’ professional knowledge.
Questions 10, 11, 12, 18, and 19 aided in answering Research Question Two in an effort to allow
teachers to reflect and construct meaning regarding their practices and reasoning behind their
choices, content as well as pedagogical knowledge. Question 24 was an open space for
participants to be able to express any thoughts that came to fruition through the completion of the
survey or feedback for the researcher.
In addition to the survey, interviews took place with six randomly selected teachers from
Achieve Charter School and from an elementary school in Reina Trinity Unified School District.
The interviews allowed for further data collection and deeper analysis made possible for the
researcher to gain understanding of the perceptions of the educators at the sites. Interviews
helped in clarifying any underlying statements or questions that existed. The interviews took
place once with each of the randomly selected teachers.

Table 6
Survey Question Analysis
Research Question Survey Questions Reasoning
Research Question #1
What are teachers’ perceptions
regarding the types of challenges
teachers need to embed in the
curriculum in order to meet the needs
of diverse students who exemplify

13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Aids in understanding
teacher’s perceptions in
regard to curriculum and
how they perceive the
challenges that

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 73
Table 6 (Cont’d.)
Research Question Survey Questions Reasoning
advanced abilities in the early K-2
years?

Research Question #2
What are teachers’ perceptions
regarding materials that are designed
in the classroom environment
(learning centers) that would most
promote challenging educational
opportunities for diverse students
who exemplify advanced abilities in
the early K-2 years?

10, 11, 12, 18, 19
embedded; the questions
help answer research
question number 1.

Allow teachers to reflect
and construct meaning
regarding their practices
and reasoning behind their
choices, content as well as
pedagogical knowledge
and gather data to answer
research question number
2.
Research Question #3
To what degree do teachers perceive
that they have the professional
knowledge to meet the curricular and
instructional needs of diverse students
who exemplify advanced abilities in
the early K-2 years?

4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21,
22, 23

Help gain insight to
teachers’ perspective
regarding teachers’
professional knowledge
and answer research
question number 3.

Data Collection
Data for this study was collected in the form of an electronic survey. The surveys were
given to teachers in grades kindergarten through second grade at the selected elementary schools.
The researcher reached out to the Superintendent of Reina Trinity Unified School District2 and
the Director of Achieve Charter School for approval of the dissemination of the survey. The
survey was sent to the teachers by the administrators and their responses were electronically
submitted to me. Teachers were informed that they will be kept in complete anonymity for this
study in hopes to receive honest and timely responses. This method of data collection brings the
value of honesty to this study since research shows that individuals tend to be more transparent

2 Pseudonym being used
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 74
when they are anonymous in nature rather than face to face. The surveys were distributed in the
fall season of the year when most teachers are refreshed from the summer break and more
willing to sit and give in-depth responses to the survey questions. Administrators were asked to
grant the teachers time during their work day to complete the surveys so that the teachers did not
have to spend time out of their personal time to complete it. Once the data was received, it was
stored in a secure laptop with hacking protections and no public use.
The interviews took place after the surveys had been returned in order to learn which
teachers were interested in participating. From that list a random selection occurred; interviews
were voice recorded only, with the permission of the participants and school board. The
interviews were then transcribed and ready to analyze.
Data Analysis
Flick (2014) described the process of data analysis as “the classification and
interpretation of linguistic (or visual) material to make statements about implicit and explicit
dimensions and structures of meaning-making in the material and what is represented in it”
(p. 5). This informed the researcher that meaning making of individual responses with a
specific, yet open lens, was necessary. Research stated that qualitative data analysis is
primarily inductive and comparative. Therefore, for this study the constant comparative
method of data analysis that was first posed by Glaser and Strass (1967) as the means for
developing grounded theory was used for inspiration (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally,
data was coded as best and clearly as possible using Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) guidelines.
First, the researcher used open coding to find themes and followed up the analysis with Axial
coding in order to make connections. Ultimately, the data influenced what sampling was
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 75
needed next to gather new data from; other researchers can pick up where this study concluded
in order to find further research findings to help the field of early childhood education.
As mentioned previously, survey questions 1-3 and 6-8 were background questions
which allowed for data to be gathered regarding experience and perceptions in general.
Questions 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23 are tied to Research Question Three and they
helped gain insight to teachers’ perspective regarding teachers’ professional knowledge.
Questions 10, 11, 12, 18, 19 aided in answering Research Question Two in an effort to allow
teachers to reflect and construct meaning regarding their practices and reasoning behind their
choices, content as well as pedagogical knowledge. Questions 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 aided in
understanding teachers’ perceptions in regard to curriculum and how they perceive the
challenges that are embedded; the questions helped to answer Research Question One.
Question 24 was an open space for participants to be able to express any thoughts that came to
fruition through the completion of the survey or feedback for the researcher. The data returned
by participants was analyzed through the lens of a Constructivist framework. Data collected
from the interviews was analyzed as well and was placed into according themes of congruence.
Themes attempted to be created in regard to teachers’ perspectives of instances where critical
thinking skills, individual and collaborative construction of knowledge, and transfer of
knowledge had taken place. These observations and testimonies align with the lens that this
study was conducted upon and measured by the Constructivist method.

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 76
Chapter Four: Findings
Teachers do not seem convinced that inquiry-based learning facilitates the development
of students’ potential best at early ages (Riley & Jones, 2010). While some early childhood
educators believed this to be true, some have a lack of knowledge on how to create an activity-
based learning environment for their students (Lohmander & Samuelsson, 2015). Many
educators do not have the theoretical or practical knowledge regarding pedagogy that will help
them respond to their young learners (Thomas, L., et al., 2011). It is critical that teachers plan
and implement curriculum aligned to the sophistication young children express in their play,
discussions, contexts for eliciting creativity, and critical thinking (Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016).
Curriculum that challenges young learners is not a modern idea. It was presented to education
by ideas stemming from Dewey, Vygotsky, and Piaget (Pound, 2006). However, some current
educators do not have the tools or training to deliver teaching in line with this concept of
differentiating the curriculum (Flanigan, 2012). The teachers that are given the research findings
or activity-based model of curriculum sometimes lack training on how to best implement it in
their classrooms (Killion, 2009). This is particularly true for teachers whose demographic is low
income, minority students that have cultural differences and lack training in culturally responsive
pedagogy (Ricketts, 2014). Creating a shift from the conventional standards-based pedagogy to
the inquiry-based pedagogy is a difficult endeavor for teachers, especially novice ones (Tuitele,
2010). Pre-service programs are not training teachers to go into urban schools and create
environments that foster individual student’s potential (Killion, 2009). Rather, curriculums are
expecting educators to teach to tests or worse to only focus on failing or below-basic scoring
students (Gardner, W., 2008).
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 77
According to Kaplan and Hertzog (2016), three critical beliefs and values shape the
framework for early childhood gifted pedagogy:
1. All children should have provisions for challenge.
2. Challenge provides recognition for teachers and students of their strengths, needs, and
their interests.
3. Teachers who create contexts to recognize strengths, needs, and interests respond to
the variance in levels of readiness among learners. (p. 137)
In order to achieve this type of environment in the classroom, teachers need to have the
training and knowledge of how to implement activity-based curriculum across diverse cultures
and learners. Not only do teachers and teacher educators need to have the knowledge of play-
based learning, but they need a clear understanding of how to differentiate for each diverse
learner. Educators should be taught how to transition from preparing students to pass a
standardized test to facilitating a student’s educational journey that fosters unique potential
within each student in order to provide equitable education for young learners. Teachers
additionally should have practical knowledge regarding how the learning environment should be
constructed to foster critical thinking in these young learners. The data from this study may be
able to suggest teachers’ perceptions that are recognized as successful in their ability to provide
currently diverse activity-based classrooms.
Purpose of the Study
The pedagogical perceptions of kindergarten through second grade teachers were
investigated to determine: (a) how to use a framework that facilitates the design of high-quality
early childhood learning environments and challenging curriculum to develop talent and
potential, and (b) respond to emergent abilities as research shows is best for young learners. The
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 78
third criterion for the pedagogy stated that teachers who create contexts to recognize strengths,
needs, and interests respond to the variance in levels of readiness among diverse learners. Five
focal points of transition have been identified in literature and are listed in Table 7.

Table 7
Mindshifting—Five Transitions in Thinking
Transitions Definitions
Transition 1 Transition from standardized to non-traditional methods to discern the
potential, talent, and/or emergent aptitude of young students in the early
years.

Transition 2 Transitions from educators “waiting for potential to be displayed” to setting
the conditions and situations that require and possibly demand the expression
of a young child’s potential, talent, and/or emerging aptitude.

Transition 3 Transition to place greater emphasis on inquiry-based curriculum and
instruction necessitates the presentation of open-ended situations or contexts
that are germane to activate and acknowledge prior knowledge, create an
interest in the acquisition of new knowledge and understanding of an identity-
oriented self-directed style, and appreciation for learning and personal
success.

Transition 4 Transitions to define multiple means, and both fixed and individualized ends
to lessons and units of study are necessary.

Transition 5 Transition by teachers to assess the differences between what they believe
young students are able to learn versus considering what these children are
actually capable of learning.

Source: (Kaplan & Hertzog (2016, p. 137)

The concept of Kaplan and Hertzog’s (2016) Mindshifting illustrated in Table 7 identifies
five transitions in thinking as noted. Transition 1 shifts from standardized to non-traditional
methods to discern the potential, talent, and emergent aptitude of young learners followed by
four additional transitions which vary in degree of responsibility of learning and
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 79
individualization in the education process. Each transition enables both educators and learners to
improve the strategies in which learning occurs at different stages.
This study focused on examining teachers’ perception regarding the shift through
Transition 2: Transitions from educators “waiting for potential to be displayed” to setting the
conditions and situations that require and possibly demand the expression of a young child’s
potential, talent, and/or emerging aptitude;” and Transition 3, “Transition to place greater
emphasis on inquiry-based curriculum and instruction necessitates the presentation of open-
ended situations or contexts that are germane to activate and acknowledge prior knowledge,
create an interest in the acquisition of new knowledge and understanding of an identity-oriented
self-directed style, and appreciation for learning and personal success” (Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016,
p. 137). These transitions not only create a shift in the teacher’s mind, but also change the
concept of who owns the responsibility of the learning that needs to occur. This new frame of
thinking changes the idea that the student is the one that needs to demonstrate special abilities
before they are taught using differentiated instruction to the idea that the teacher needs to ensure
their pedagogy elicits the young student’s potential, talent, or emerging aptitude of some sort
(Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016).
In many children, a pattern of gifted behaviors and/or advanced performance can be seen
as early as pre-school; however, classroom modifications for gifted students that alter the pace
and depth, or complexity of instruction are rarely implemented in pre-school and early-
elementary classrooms (Robinson, 2002; Stainthorp & Hughes, 2004). Thus, the early
educational experiences of many young gifted children provide limited challenge and hinder
their cognitive growth rather than exposing these learners to an expansive, engaging learning
environment (Tomlinson et al., 1997). This problem may be intensified among traditionally
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 80
underserved populations of young gifted students including culturally, linguistically, and
ethnically diverse learners, as well as children from poverty because in many cases additional
resources for providing enriched learning experiences in homes and communities are also limited
(Robinson, 2002; Scott & Delgado, 2005). The problem speaks to the issue that varied and
uneven physical, social, emotional, and cognitive growth can make identification of young
learners’ strengths, skills, and interests, and the subsequent provision for individualized
instruction, difficult for those without formal training in acceleration and differentiation of
curriculum and instruction (Gross, 1999; Smutny & von Fremd, 2010). Therefore, many young
learners are not receiving the quality of curriculum and instruction that would help them reach
their highest potential (Tomlinson et al., 1997). Presenting the appropriate curriculum,
environment, and ensuring teachers deliver pedagogy that is responsive to their learners is
essential (Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016). As stated previously, this study aimed to learn the
perceptions of successful early childhood educators and their strategies for instruction so in turn
other educators and their students may benefit from best practices.
Methodology

The main goal of all research is to fill a knowledge gap, a gap in understanding (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). There is a lack of research that describes the perceptions of in-service teachers
in kindergarten through second grade who teach low income students of diverse needs.
Qualitative research is defined to provide the meaning people have constructed. Qualitative
research helps to describe how people make sense of their world and the experiences they have
in the world (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In similar fashion to the sample population of teachers
chosen, the researcher in this study attempted to create meaning from the perceptions the
teachers submitted in the surveys and the responses they gave during interviews.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 81
A qualitative study was used to complete the research. A qualitative study allows for the
researcher to examine the perspectives of teachers in the classroom and gain knowledge of the
complexity that comes from differing individual perspectives. Qualitative studies aim to provide
illumination and understanding of complex psychosocial issues and are most useful for
answering humanistic ‘why?’ and ‘how?’ questions. This study explored the perceptions that
teachers have regarding choices made in their own classrooms to engage children in learning
experiences. This study aimed to learn and make meaning of teachers’ decision making.
Researchers, such as Patton (1985), showed that qualitative research is an attempt to be able to
understand different situations in their own uniqueness as part of a whole in a certain context and
from the interactions of the individuals there. This type of meaning making is a conclusion in
itself. There is no attempt to try to predict what is going to happen in the situation. The purpose
is to understand what is happening in that specific setting. Furthermore, the purpose is to
discover what it means for the participants to be included in that particular setting and what
meaning are they constructing themselves. The main concept is understanding the phenomenon
of early childhood education from the participants’ perspectives and not from the researcher’s
perspective. This is sometimes referred to as the emic or the insider’s perspective versus the etic
or the outsiders view.
Research Questions
The study attempted to learn responses to the following three questions:

1. What are teachers’ perceptions regarding the types of challenges teachers need to embed
in the curriculum in order to meet the needs of diverse students who exemplify advanced
abilities in the early K-2 years?
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 82
2. What are teachers’ perceptions regarding materials that are designed in the classroom
environment (learning centers) that would most promote challenging educational
opportunities for diverse students who exemplify advanced abilities in the early K-2
years?
3. To what degree do teachers perceive that they have the professional knowledge to meet
the curricular and instructional needs of diverse students who exemplify advanced
abilities in the early K-2 years?
Participants and Sites
This study researched schools that upheld the importance for standardized testing but
staff classrooms with teachers that perceive they allow students to construct knowledge through
inquiry or play-based learning in their classrooms. Homogeneous sampling is the purposeful
sampling technique that was chosen for this study to achieve a homogeneous sample that can
correlate with the research questions at hand. The reason homogeneous sampling was chosen is
because the researcher aimed to address specific perspectives of a particular interest group to
examine in detail. In this case, the focus is early age education teachers of kindergarten through
second grade who teach at a high-needs, urban elementary charter school, Achieve Charter
School, as well as the Reina Trinity Unified School District of public school kindergarten
through second grade teachers. Achieve Charter School was selected for this study because it is
a high-needs elementary school that has classrooms of kindergarten through second grade with
the majority of its population being socioeconomically disadvantaged (96.5%), Latino (96.8%)
students. Achieve Charter School has historically and consistently illustrated ability to achieve
success with innovation and change in teaching techniques that have led to successful student
learning. The school is ranked 77% higher than comparable schools in the same area. Reina
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 83
Trinity Unified School District also hosts primarily socioeconomically disadvantaged (74%),
Latino (79%) students. Both the charter school and public-school teachers have been able to
consistently demonstrate above grade-level results with their students regardless of their
students’ needs and diverse backgrounds.
A total of 17 teachers’ perspectives are included in this study from both Achieve Charter
School and Reina Trinity Unified School District combined. The breakdown of how many
teachers participated in the study are illustrated in Table 8. Under the survey section in Table 8,
the total 17 participants are listed. Of the 17 participants who completed the survey, six
participants also agreed to complete the interview process.

Table 8
Teacher Participant Grade Level Breakdown
PARTICIPATION
INSTRUMENT GRADE K GRADE 1 GRADE 2
Survey Only 4 (1C, 3D) 4 (2C, 2D) 3 (2C, 1D)
Survey and
Interview

2 (1C, 1D) 2 (2D) 2 (2D)
Note: C-Charter School teacher (Achieve Charter School); D-District School teacher (Reina Trinity Unified
School District)

From kindergarten, four total teachers responded to the survey: one from Achieve
Charter School and three from Reina Trinity Unified School District. Out of the participating
kindergarten teachers, two participants agreed to complete the interview and the survey; one
participant from Achieve Charter School and the other from Reina Trinity Unified School
District. In the first-grade group, a total of four participants responded to the survey with two
from Achieve Charter School and two participants from Reina Trinity Unified School District.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 84
A total of two first-grade teachers from Reina Trinity Unified School District participated in
the interview and survey. In the second-grade group, three participants completed the survey
only; two from Achieve Charter School and one from Reina Trinity Unified School District. In
the second-grade grouping, two participants from Reina Trinity Unified School District
completed the interview and the survey.
While there were two different sites, the teachers’ perspectives have been analyzed and
coded as one homogeneous sampling due to the selection criteria of participants as follows:
(a) an early childhood educator of grades kindergarten through second grade, (b) teach full
time at a high-needs elementary school with predominantly socioeconomically disadvantaged
Latino student population, and (c) use inquiry-based learning in their classrooms.
The average participants’ class size are as follows. Kindergarten 22 students, first
grade 21 students, and second grade 21 students. Teachers held a range of experience levels,
which are highlighted in Table 9. Out of all 17 participants that participated in the survey,
10/17 or 58.8% held 0-4 of experience, 4/17 or 23.6% held 5-10 years of experience, and 3/17
or 17.7% held 11-24 years of experience. Of the six interviewed participants, 5/6 or 83% held
5-10 years of experience and 1/6 or 16.6% held 11-24 years of experience, illustrated in
Table 9.

Table 9
Teachers’ Years of Credentialed Teaching Experience for All Participants
0-4 YEARS 5-10 YEARS 11-24 YEARS
Survey 58.8% 23.6% 17.7%
Interview 83.0% 16.6%

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 85
This study examined the reasons teachers have been able to exhibit success teaching
young learners using an inquiry-based approach in their classroom activities. A clearer
understanding regarding why some teachers are able to demonstrate success with this population
regardless of the students’ marginalization, because they are low income minority students, and
why some teachers are not able to demonstrate success with the same population will be
answered in this study.
The significance in learning more about this sample population may be related to the
possible significant information that can be attained regarding how to best serve students who are
traditionally underserved and who come from traditionally underserved communities. If the
conclusions of the study inform positive strategies and information that is generalizable or can be
replicated to an extent to other similar environments, then children in other similar underserved
communities can benefit from the gained knowledge regarding early childhood education. Even
if some argue that generalizability is difficult to determine because of the diversity of each
community, best practices could emerge from the study results and those can become a resource
for a novice teacher or a veteran teacher seeking new tools for their practice.
Instrument
Type

This study used an electronic survey and in-person interviews to grasp individual,
teacher-perceived success in their classrooms and their reasoning behind their choices. A survey
was used as the instrument due to research explaining that participants respond more honestly
when able to do so anonymously rather than face to face with an individual. However,
interviews helped to clarify any questions and gave deeper understanding of teachers’
perceptions on the topics as well. This provided the researcher with exploratory data that
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 86
revealed unforeseen concerns, and comments that were not stated previously. It is often found in
research that these quotes from respondents create more powerful and meaningful data than
many percentages and numbers (Creswell, 1994; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative research
has been found to help gain in-depth information about people’s underlying reasoning and
motivations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The perspectives of teachers and how they feel they
have aided their students in learning by establishing specific learning environments and
curriculum was studied. When combined, both survey and interview data gave a profound
illustration of early childhood educators’ perceptions.
Administration
The survey was sent out electronically with a total of 24 questions. Table 10 illustrates
the connection to the research questions for the survey and reasoning behind their selection for
the survey.

Table 10
Survey Question Analysis
Research Question Survey Questions Reasoning
Research Question #1
What are teachers’ perceptions
regarding the types of
challenges teachers need to
embed in the curriculum in
order to meet the needs of
diverse students who
exemplify

13, 14, 15, 16, 17
Aids in understanding
teachers’ perceptions in regard
to curriculum and how they
perceive the challenges that
are embedded; the questions
help answer research question
number 1.
advanced abilities in the early
K-2 years?

Research Question #2
What are teacher’s perceptions
regarding materials that are
designed in the classroom
10, 11, 12, 18, 19 Allow teachers to reflect and
construct meaning regarding
their practices and reasoning
behind their choices of content
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 87
Table 10 (Cont’d.)
Research Question Survey Questions Reasoning
environment (learning centers)
that would most promote
challenging education
opportunities for diverse
students who exemplify
advanced abilities in the early
K-1 years?

as well as pedagogical
knowledge and to gather data
to answer research question
number 2.
Research Question #3
To what degree do teachers
perceive that they have the
professional knowledge to
meet the curricular and
instructional needs of diverse
students who exemplify
advanced abilities in the early
K-2 years?

4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20,
21, 22, 23

Help gain insight regarding
teachers’ perspective of
teachers’ professional
knowledge and answer
research question number 3.

The survey hosted a variety of different types of questions including hypothetical,
opinion related, visual aid scenarios, and descriptive narrative. In the survey, questions 1-3 and
6-8 are background questions which allowed for data to be gathered regarding experience and
perceptions in general. Questions 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 aided in understanding teachers’
perceptions in regard to curriculum and how they feel with regard to embedding challenges; the
questions helped to answer Research Question One. Questions 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, and
23 are supportive of Research Question Three and they helped gain insight to teachers’
perspective regarding teachers’ professional knowledge. Questions 10, 11, 12, 18, and 19 aided
in answering Research Question Two in an effort to allow teachers to reflect and construct
meaning regarding their practices and reasoning behind their choices of content as well as
pedagogical knowledge. Question 24 is an open space for participants to be able to express any
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 88
thoughts that came to fruition through the completion of the survey or feedback for the
researcher.
In addition to the survey, six interviews took place with teachers from Achieve Charter
School and from Reina Trinity Unified School District. The interviews allowed for further data
collection. A deeper analysis was made possible with the data as the researcher was able to gain
understanding of the perceptions of the participants. Interviews helped to clarify any underlying
statements or questions that existed. The interviews took place at the participants’ school site
and lasted 60 minutes with each of the teachers. Both instruments, the survey with open-ended
questions and the interview, presented questions that supported possible findings for the three
research questions in the study. Table 11 illustrates the connection between the two instruments
and the research questions.

Table 11
Relationship between Research Questions and Data Collection Instruments
RESEARCH
QUESTION 1
RESEARCH
QUESTION 2
RESEARCH
QUESTION3
Survey Question #13
Question #14
Question #15
Question #16
Question #10
Question #11
Question #12
Question #18
Question #19
Question #4
Question #5
Question #9
Question #10
Question #11
Question #12
Question #20
Question #21
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 89
Table 11 (Cont’d.)
RESEARCH
QUESTION 1
RESEARCH
QUESTION 2
RESEARCH
QUESTION 3
Question #22
Question #23
Interview Question #4
Question #7
Question #11
Question #5
Question #6
Question #12
Question #1
Question #2
Question #3
Question #8
Question #9
Question #10

Data Collection
Data for this study was collected in the form of an electronic survey. The survey was
given to teachers in grades kindergarten through second grade at the selected elementary schools.
The survey was sent to the teachers by the administrators and their responses were electronically
submitted to the researcher. The interviews took place after the surveys were returned in order to
ascertain which teachers were interested in participating as volunteers. All six of the teachers
that agreed to participate in the interview were interviewed by the researcher in person at the
teachers’ school site.
Data Analysis
Flick (2014) described the process of data analysis as “the classification and
interpretation of linguistic (or visual) material to make statements about implicit and explicit
dimensions and structures of meaning-making in the material and what is represented in it”
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 90
(p. 5). This informed the researcher that meaning making of individual responses with a
specific, yet open lens, is necessary. Creswell (1994) stated that qualitative data analysis is
primarily inductive and comparative. Therefore, for this study the constant comparative
method of data analysis that was first posed by Glaser and Strass (1967) as the means for
developing grounded theory was used for inspiration (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally,
data was coded as best and clearly as possible using Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) guidelines.
First, the researcher used open coding to find themes and followed the analysis with axial
coding in order to make connections. Ultimately, the data findings suggested in this section
influence what sampling is needed subsequently to gather new data. Researchers may extend
research where this study concludes in order to find further discoveries to aid the field of early
childhood education. The findings from the data were analyzed by individual research
questions and supported by themes within each research question.
Findings per Research Question
Research Question #1
What are teachers’ perceptions regarding the types of challenges teachers need to embed
in the curriculum in order to meet the needs of diverse students who exemplify advanced
abilities in the early K-2 years?
From the analysis of all the participants’ (17) responses in both the surveys and
interviews, three central themes regarding teachers challenging students emerged:
(1) individualized lesson ends and lesson extensions, (2) appropriate questioning, and (3) time
allotment. While the themes go hand in hand in the overarching umbrella of inquiry-based
learning, each theme has a unique set of nuances worth noting and discussing. Participants
(15/17, 88%) stated they focused an abundant amount of attention on all three themes in order to
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 91
ensure they were embedding challenge into the curriculum for all of their learners in their
classrooms. Following is a presentation and discussion of the findings for each theme along with
reference to what the literature states.
Theme 1: Individualized lesson ends and extensions. The participants (16/17, 94%)
repeatedly stated they embedded challenges in the curriculum by allowing students to create
meaning of what the content meant to the students as individuals. Teachers shared that by
allowing choice in the process and end product of the lesson, students experienced individualized
instruction and were engaged in a much more in-depth learning experience in comparison to
when teachers would request in the same process and end product for all students. Kindergarten
teacher, Ms. Smith’s reasoning during an interview highlights best the explanation.
I try to ensure that I always give an opportunity to my students to show me what they
know, even if that means, you know, something different than what I was expecting.
You know my students’ culture is different than my own or even more different from my
own schooling experience when I was their age . . . so I try to make sure that I allow for a
chance for them to create their own meaning of what the curriculum content is. I do this
by giving guided individualized ends to the lessons or lesson extensions for what most
call “super-fast finishers.” This is not at all more work, but it is more in-depth work. It
allows for students to exercise and think on a more critical level than they would when
the worksheet is just there sitting in front of them to fill out. Culture is really important
in this as well because sometimes when students do not have dominance of the English
language they are confused for not being as intellectually gifted as they actually are. For
ex., if we as a class read a story about Little Red Riding Hood, I would allow students to
tell me in their own way what they learned from the story, like what was meaningful to
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 92
them. Sure, I want them to learn the moral of the story and elements of writing etc. but if
Sarah who just joined our class from Mexico and does not have dominance of the English
language yet, wants to share her cultures version of Little Red Riding Hood and then
explain to us the moral of the story, and even help compare and contrast similarities and
differences via an oral presentation instead of written or illustrated as suggested by the
curriculum, then I more than encourage her to do so. The entire class has now gained so
much from her presentation and she’s even made my job easier because she modeled so
many things to my students. Such as how to give an oral presentation and what same and
different mean and so on. Sarah’s self-esteem is now through the roof too! I can go on
and on about the benefits . . .
Ms. Smith stated that by giving her student, Sarah, freedom to choose an end product for
the lesson at hand, the student and her peers benefit from learning not only more content but in a
deeper manner as well. Teachers, and especially early childhood educators, often have a wide
range of levels, backgrounds, and personalities in their classrooms. Therefore, they are often
able to accommodate for the individual needs and cultures of their students as well. Once a
couple of months have passed, teachers can make general observations quickly such as, “75% of
my students are on grade level and the remaining are above” or “when those four are together,
they role play so well during our language arts lesson maybe I should try it for math for
example.” These insights inform the process of differentiation. Level of mastery, learning
styles, interests, and cultural, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds—all affect how children engage
in the learning process and what teachers can do to meet their educational needs (Smutny & von
Fremd, 2010).
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 93
Psychologists and educational scientists seem to unite on the notion that student
involvement is key to successful learning (e.g., Freeman et al., 2014). First grade teacher
Ms. Hernandez’ explanation illustrates the finding that the participants highlighted regarding
lesson extensions. Participants stated that allowing a space for extended learning to take place at
the culmination of lessons is an organic way to make students active agents in their own learning
process and help them think on a deeper, more significant level.
They [first grade students] are eager to learn if you let them. There can be a lot of
complaining that they can’t sit still, or they don’t listen well, or they don’t like school.
But I disagree with them [other teachers] and all of those notions. I’ve been doing this a
long time [24 years] and I have never come across a 6- or 7-year-old kiddo that refused or
doesn’t want to learn. We, as their guides, must help them and more importantly let them
investigate the topics and learn based on what is interesting to them. Extending the
lesson to other subjects or content even makes the process and product as well more
interesting to them . . . I also make sure to teach them to think as a master in that
discipline we are studying would think while going about their investigating. Everyone
thinks young learners are not able to do this, but they can, and they do . . . we just need to
give them a chance and teach them how to go through the layers of their own thinking.
They all really just want, and I would go as far to say need an opportunity to dive deeper
into the content in a way that inspires them not you [the teacher]. (Ms. Hernandez)
Inquiry-based methods, in short, enable students to learn about a topic through self-
directed investigations. When students attempt to think like a disciplinarian, they engage with
the content on a deeper level (Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016). By “acting like a scientist,” students
not only learn science content but also science processes which both are included in the
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 94
curriculum standards of many countries worldwide (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004; Achieve,
2010). Ms. Hernandez’ statement regarding “thinking like a master in the field” was a finding
that many 16/17 (94%) of the participants similarly mentioned. The significant presence of the
theme may suggest it to be, in part, responsible for the positive learning outcomes in the
participants’ classrooms.
Ms. Hernandez stated in her interview that some educators believe that younger students
are not able to think critically on their own nor be able to create meaning individually. Ms. Kim,
a second-grade teacher, agreed that young learners are able to think critically and make meaning.
Ms. Kim’s response in the survey represented the general consensus of the group of participants
when she expressed her reasoning behind choosing to adhere to a constructivist style of teaching
her students. Not only did Ms. Kim also report that she relied heavily on differentiation and
individualized projects to ensure her students are challenged and learning but she took ownership
of her responsibility in the matter.
I differentiate and challenge my students by ensuring I have integrated opportunities for
them to take risks in their own thinking and go where maybe I have not told them to go
with their thinking yet. This can be scary for me as a teacher because of all the top-down
pressure that comes with ensuring I cover what will be on the state tests . . . surprisingly
when I let the students lead and explore they are able to conclude the lessons in a playful,
creative, and many times simpler manner than I even thought of. The students go where I
don’t think of going and everyone benefits from their self-led learning not just
themselves . . . It’s my job to make sure that my lessons are well planned out in advance
to ensure I give them enough information and resources to be able to do the exploring
that they want to do . . . whether that be setting up stations with appropriate books and
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 95
resources on the topic or access to computers for research, or art supplies to express
themselves in their own unique way. It’s all interrelated, and learning is for sure
happening through these extensions of the lesson. It also frees me up to reteach the
students who are still struggling with lower-level understanding of the topic. (Ms. Kim)
Drawing on the work of Piaget (2011 as cited in Castaño), a “constructivist” or
“developmental” model is centered on how children construct their understanding of the world
through continuous contact with and adaptation to their environment. Like Ms. Hernandez and
the study’s participants, in a classroom where differentiation takes place, the teacher plays a key
role in anticipating student-learning needs and in guiding the process of thinking, applying, and
inventing. Teachers become active mediators in the learning process (Feuerstein, Rand,
Huffman, & Miller, 1980; Vygotsky, 1962) designing learning experiences based upon the
children’s cognitive, social, and physical development as well as their creative and imaginative
life. It was suggested that this kind of educational program for young learners’ highlights play,
exploration, risk-taking, and creative problem solving (Smutny & von Fremd, 2010). Early
childhood educators care as much about content as do those in the middle and upper grades, but
their accomplishment with younger children depends on their being able to respond to substantial
differences in growth, development, and experience. In many primary classrooms, children
advance at their own rate and teachers create simple structures for monitoring progress and
assessing strengths and weaknesses (Cummings & Piirto, 1998). Research tells us similarly to
the findings in this study, the successful teachers actively extend, engage, question, affirm, and
challenge children as they “construct” knowledge (Cummings & Piirto, 1998, p. 383).
The participants’ responses gave criteria that drove them as teachers to perceive students
to be advanced and in need of more individualized lesson ends and extensions. The criteria
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 96
descriptions fit into five general categories: engagement, cognitive, affective, competitive, and
other. Teachers shared that the students often demonstrated to be great problem solvers and
enjoyed being challenged often. For example, when students were given a problem-solving
assignment the teacher would expect to see more advanced solutions and many different types of
solutions for the same problem. It was noted that although the students were competitive with
each other the students also supported their peers. Table 12 demonstrates a visual of the
characteristics teachers shared for each category.

Table 12
Teachers Perceptions of Advanced Student Characteristics
Category Characteristic Displayed by Student
Engagement
• If not challenged student may become off task or bored.
• Significantly more focused on assignment on a deeper level
than grade level peers
• Excited to be challenged

Cognitive
• Exhibit higher level critical thinking abilities
• Abstract thinking
• Advanced contributions
• Beyond grade level understanding
• Complex thinking
• Strong problem solving ability

Affective
• High motivation
• High interest
• High creativity
• Excitement when challenged

Competitive
• Often enjoyed challenge games against peers or even
teacher
• Desire to be the best both individually and among group
• Strong desire to “win” (solve problem first)

Other
• Appear to be off task but in reality, are exploring beyond
lesson
• Highly creative
• Solve problems in more ways than one often
• Prefer to work alone (some)
• Strong language ability
• Strength in one subject but not in all subjects (some)

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 97
Theme 2: Appropriate questioning. The majority of the participants (16/17 or 94%)
significantly stated, on multiple occasions and on both instruments, that questioning was one of
the strategies used to embed challenges in the classroom curriculum. Participants asserted the
positive impact questioning held in their classroom success. Theme 2 arose and was evident in
both surveys and interviews with second grade teacher; Ms. Rupp’s narrative was exemplary
with relationship to the groups point of view,
I think educators for the most part are very aware of how important interactions are
between teacher and student, but what I don’t think many are aware of is how important
appropriate questioning is . . . when I say appropriate questioning, I mean questioning
that triggers the different thinking skills on varied levels of Blooms Taxonomy. If you
look at my cute charts (Figure B and Figure C), you can see the levels I aim for and most
importantly the students can see in a child friendly manner as well. I want them to hear
the language far before they are expected to be able to use it on their own. I think I am
giving them the building blocks or foundation if you will to be able to create meaning and
use these strategies in later grades.”

Source: Provided by Ms. Rupp and photo courtesy of Langwitches, 2011 (Bloom’s Taxonomy and iPad Apps,
para. 1)

Figure B: Blooming Butterfly
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 98

Source: Provided by Ms. Rupp and photo courtesy of Langwitches, 2011 (Bloom’s Taxonomy and iPad Apps,
para. 1)

Figure C: Blooming Orange

Research implied a fundamental lesson content ought to cover the standards of learning
set by the school district and state educational standards (Lee, Y., 2017). However, students in
the class could be utterly unfamiliar with the concepts in a lesson. Some students may have
partial mastery and some students may already be familiar with the content before the lesson
begins. Teachers are able to differentiate for the differing levels of students by designing
activities and experiences that cover various levels of Blooms taxonomy. Blooms Taxonomy is
a classification of levels of intellectual behavior going from lower-order thinking skills to higher-
order thinking skills. The six levels are: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing,
evaluating, and creating (Lee, Y., 2017). Y. Lee’s (2017) research supported Ms. Rupp’s
reasoning and differentiation strategies. Students who are unfamiliar with a lesson could be
required to complete tasks on the lower levels: remembering and understanding. Students with
some mastery could be asked to apply and analyze the content, and students who have high
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 99
levels of mastery could be asked to complete tasks in the areas of evaluating and creating. Ms.
Rupp also explained what appropriate questioning is to the researcher,
I believe the essence of inquiry-based learning is in the student’s participation,
processing, and evaluation of learning experiences. We [teachers] can go about it so
many different ways to creating an inquiry-based lesson, but this is what I like to follow
[Ms. Rupp drew the following on a piece of paper:]

This (graph) makes it super easy for me to follow and look back at while I am both
designing lessons and even during our classroom discussions and brainstorming sessions.
The start of the sequence I feel is vital, asking the right questions. They should be open
ended, and help the student go through the levels of Blooms so they can arrive at create,
you don’t just start at create. It’s a sort of scaffolding . . . leveling of the questions
themselves. I use the “pizza” example when I’m explaining it to my student teachers.
Ms. Rupp claimed her reasoning behind the questioning came in part from Starr
Sackstein’s (2016), The Power of Questioning: Opening up the World of Student Inquiry.
Following is an excerpt from the book where the “pizza example” Ms. Rupp described was
mentioned,
It’s important for teachers to have an understanding that the taxonomy is not a
smorgasbord of questions where the instructor selects from a menu of levels of
complexity. In order to reach a level of “higher order” thinking, a student must be able to
Pose a real
question
Find
resources
Interpret
Information
Report
Findings
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 100
go through the important sequence of thinking. This journey can be facilitated through
the use of carefully sequenced questions posed during instruction.
For example, a question is posed intending to reach the “create” level of Bloom’s
Taxonomy, such as: “Can you create a pizza box for an optimal shaped pizza?” In order
for the student to exercise the thinking intended at this level, he/she must have some
mathematical understanding at lower levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Level 1 is Remembering. In order to ensure the pizza box is big enough for the
pizza to fit into it, the student must be able calculate the area of whatever shape he/she
selects as optimal. Recalling the area of a rectangle, circle, or even a hexagon would be
necessary in order to “create” his/her pizza box.
Level 2 is Understanding. When selecting the optimal pizza shape for the box,
the student must have an understanding of shapes, identify their traits, and be able to
compare the benefits of one shape over another. For example, he/she might enjoy the
crust of a pizza and therefore seek to select a pizza shape with the maximum perimeter
for the area. Therefore, a basic understanding of area and perimeter is necessary.
Level 3 is Applying. At this stage, the student is ready to take his/her
understanding of area, perimeter, shapes, and pizza and apply it in order to identify which
shape meets his criteria. Here’s where the calculations occur, and comparisons can be
made that flow into Level 4, Analyzing.
Level 4 is Analyzing. As the student analyzes his/her options for the optimal
pizza shape, he/she uses information he/she is applying and can dissimilate each result of
the applications conducted in Level 3. Using that information, the student can then
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 101
provide the pros and cons for multiple pieces of data that can be evaluated in the next
level.
Level 5 is Evaluating. Once all of the information is gathered, the student can
prioritize the data to evaluate the various pizza shapes. How much dough is needed for a
circular pizza vs. rectangular vs. hexagonal? Are there other factors that come into play
that have been excluded so far? Here the student not only evaluates information he/she
already has but also evaluates if there is any information missing that is necessary to
respond to the question.
Level 6 is Create. Now the student is able to aggregate the thinking from the
previous levels to give a true experience of Bloom’s Level 6. How does that impact the
amount of crust available for the customer, and how easy is it to build a pizza box of
various shapes? Does the shape of the box have to match the shape of the pizza? If not,
what shape of box best fits the optimal pizza shape? These questions can only be
reflected upon if the student has already gone through the previous stages.
Therefore, it is the facilitation through the stages, not simply jumping to high
levels, that cause learning and authentic cognition the way Bloom describes.
Without experiencing these levels to get to “create,” a student might simply build
a pizza box. The task of building the box itself doesn’t indicate it’s a Bloom level 6; it’s
the level of thinking or cognitive application that the student implements that labels his
thinking at the highest level. (pp. 8-9)
The “pizza example” suggested that teachers are to use questions supported by Blooms
Taxonomy to guide students through the various levels to reach Level 6. Ms. Rupp’s response to
questions regarding her strategies demonstrated how Theme 2 appears to be central to student
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 102
learning success. Starr Sackstein (2016) in the Power of Questioning stated that successful
teachers are able to grasp the psychological readiness of their students and will be able to adjust
questioning to suit accordingly. It is not enough, however, for a teacher to know the assorted
levels and ideas of questioning; the students must comprehend the implications of what is being
asked to best suit the desired information. Teachers can model this and then scaffold
accordingly, so that students ask meaningful questions that will lead to satisfying answers
(Sackstein, 2016). Sackstein went on to say that teachers should understand that by teaching
students to create questions using varying levels of the taxonomy, there are a variety of answers,
and learning will occur. Students can be inspired to delve deeper in their own inquiry when
examining discrete questions that lead to more complex levels of understanding. If we truly
want students to reach the level of creation and innovation, they need to both identify problems
and then assert the learning in a way to solve them.
Sackstein’s (2016) research implied teachers should be asking the right types of questions
at the right moments in time. Ms. Rupp shared the point that she explicitly teaches her students
to ask the right types of questions, an idea that the majority of the participants agreed was
essential,
I [Ms. Rupp] want and need them to know what kinds of questions to ask so I use
Sackstein’s criteria
1. Questions must not be yes/no.
2. Questions must use a strong/debatable verb.
3. Questions must provoke a continued conversation.
This keeps them talking to each other with me acting as the facilitator; most of the time it
works well.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 103
Nancy Cantor, president of Syracuse University, echoed this idea when she said, “The
best we can do for students is have them ask the right questions” (Leading with Questions, 2017,
College students, para. 1). Sackstein (2016) urged readers to understand students do not learn
how to ask questions through osmosis. Sackstein continued,
While there is a natural tendency for children to ask questions, the older they get, the
fewer they ask. As students get older, their questioning skills decline. Therefore, direct
instruction, specifically targeted at increasing students’ ability to build purposeful
questions at various levels, will equip them to meet the demands of their academic and
personal futures. (p. 10)
Teachers aid students by modeling and asking appropriate questions themselves (Sackstein,
2016).
Summary. Theme 1 arose from the data in this study suggesting that early childhood
educators who are successful in engaging young learners to make meaning of their learning and
think critically, rely heavily on ensuring that appropriate, varied, and flexible lesson ends and
extensions are in place for the students. Ms. Hernandez, Ms. Kim, and Ms. Smith represented
the majority of the participants when pointing out in their statements the manner in which they
attempt to ensure individualized lesson ends and extensions exist throughout their curriculum on
a daily basis. The research acknowledges the experiences and statements of the teachers. When
teachers who know their learners become aware, and sensitive to their needs, and embrace the
culture of the learners, they are better able to successfully implement differentiated instruction in
their classrooms including, but not limited to, offering opportunities for varied lesson ends and
extensions (Smutny & von Fremd, 2010).
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 104
Theme 2 developed as the majority of the participants in their surveys and interviews
stated that asking the right questions as well as teaching the students to ask the right questions
was essential to ensuring the young learners were challenged with the content presented to them.
Ms. Rupp’s responses and narrative were used in this section to highlight the overall sentiment of
the participants in regard to the value of questioning. The literature implies support for the
participants’ perspectives of their successful strategies used to aid their learners to high order
thinking (Freeman et al., 2014). Furthermore, research claimed that when using Bloom’s
Taxonomy as a tool to ensure appropriate questioning is taking place, learners begin to be able to
hold conversations among each other and self-navigate and explore the content in the curriculum
(Cummings & Piirto, 1998; Sackstein, 2016).
Research Question #2
What are teacher’s perceptions regarding materials that are designed in the classroom
environment [learning centers] that would most promote challenging educational
opportunities for diverse students who exemplify advanced abilities in the early K-2
years?
Theme 1: Play-based, open-ended learning centers. A vital perspective has been
linked with the role of open-ended play as the basis for pedagogy. According to this perspective,
open-ended play is important for young children because it provides opportunities for
exploration and discovery, necessary to support learning (White et al., 2007). Theme 1 for
Research Question 2 originated due to the majority of participants’ (16/17, 94%) consistent,
positive discussion of open-ended curriculum learning centers in their classrooms. A survey
response by kindergarten teacher Mr. Z illustrated the groups’ ideals. Mr. Z mentioned the
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 105
benefits of play-based, open-learning centers in most of his survey responses. The following was
in response to a question regarding the design of the classroom environment:
. . . classroom is set up in order to facilitate the students’ abilities to learn and work
together to create meaning through their play. The learning centers are all open-ended
and I ensure to give the students enough time to get comfortable and creative in their
centers both alone and with each other. (Mr. Z)
Research claimed in inquiry-based learning that students do not think in isolation of each
other; rather they learn together and support each student’s individual thoughts. The conditions
for optimal learning may include both physical and psychological elements (White et al., 2007).
Research claimed that a flexible classroom environment is key, incorporating various types of
furniture and arrangements to support both individual and group work. Psychologically
speaking, teachers should host a safe and supportive learning environment (Harvey & Daniels,
2009). Mr. Z is supported by research in his belief that cooperative learning should be a
necessity within each classroom, especially in the younger years (Harvey & Daniels, 2009).
Mr. Z went on to explain the possible future benefit for students who are able to work
together well, “the open play centers challenge the students to not only learn things I want them
to learn but they also learn soft skills such as collaboration, which will help them throughout
their entire life.”
Mr. Z’s claims reinforce findings by Harvey and Daniels (2009), as they claimed, “ten
years after graduation, people who had honed their teamwork skills while still in high school had
significantly higher earnings than classmates who had failed to do so (Science Daily 2008)”
(p. 10). While their key point may focus on financial reward, the true message of their statement
is that ethics—along with critical thinking—support success in the workplace.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 106
Kindergarten teacher, Ms. Gudino, reinforced Mr. Z’s and the general consensus of the
group as she shared how she structures her classroom centers.
The classroom always has centers that are easy for students to walk up and use their
imagination to learn and play. The materials are usually art supplies, blocks, sand,
sensory bins, make believe areas where they can dress up, and so on. I do not interrupt
them and hope that they get into their play enough so that they start to learn to work
together and learn skills beyond the materials they are using.
Ms. Gudino implied that her open-ended, play-based centers encourage the students to
collaborate and think critically about their learning. Research helps classify Ms. Gudino’s
strategies using play-based instruction. Three ways of thinking about children’s play can be
thought of in order to make sense of the different methods in which play-based learning can take
place (Cutter-Mackenzie & Edwards, 2013). The three include open-ended play, modeled play,
and purposefully framed play. Following are descriptions of the three methods:
1. Open-ended play: Play experiences where the teacher provides children with materials
suggestive of an environmental, sustainability concept, and with minimal engagement
and interaction allows them to examine and explore the materials as a basis for learning
about the environmental, sustainability concept;
2. Modeled play: Play experiences where the teacher illustrates, explains, and/or
demonstrates the use of materials suggestive of an environmental/sustainability concept
prior to allowing children to use the materials. Minimal adult interaction is a basis for
learning about the environmental/sustainability concept the teacher presents.
3. Purposefully framed play: Play experiences in which the teacher provides children with
materials suggestive of an environmental sustainability concept and provides
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 107
opportunities for open-ended play, followed by modeled play, and then teacher-child
interaction/engagement.
Many early childhood education teachers differentiate successfully for their diverse classroom by
having different learning centers with flexible seating as well (Cutter-Mackenzie & Edwards,
2013). Flexible seating is representative of an environment where students are free to choose
where in the classroom they would like to learn; which gives students a say in how they sit,
where they sit, and what they sit on or in. There are various types of seating spread throughout
the room. They vary in shape, height, material and motion, and may include a few traditional
choices, as well. Typically, students decide their spot on a rotation basis.
Theme 2: Time restrictions due to test preparation. The participants unanimously
(17/17, 100%) shared similar situations when responding to Research Question 2. Participants
shared that time constraints were a problem when it came to prepare their environments.
Participants stated balancing time was an obstacle when needing to prepare their students’
environments to learn while also having to accommodate for standardized State tests and school
benchmarks. The theme that arose was the lack of time to allow students to explore and think
and question due to the need to use that same time to prepare students for standardized tests.
Mr. Z highlighted the groups’ thoughts when he stated,
I have to work three times as hard to make sure my lessons and space is extra prepped
because I know that I will only have a certain amount of time for centers and one-on-one
teaching with my students; a big portion of my time is spent preparing the students for the
idolized standardized State tests. Thankfully students are still showing growth in their
learning but imagine what I could do if I didn’t need to spend time teaching them to take
the test on the computer, teach what’s on the test, and basically bore them to death.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 108
Hosting the appropriate curriculum, environment, and ensuring teachers deliver pedagogy
that is responsive to their learners was suggested to be essential. Today teachers are being
pushed to teach to the standardized tests and ensure basic skills are mastered and demonstrated in
traditional paper-pencil manners (Feeney & Freeman, 2014). The pressures to use standardized
testing is scheduled as early as kindergarten, with preschool to be included in the near future at
the current rate (Feeney & Freeman, 2014). Teachers like Mr. Z appear to be frustrated with the
situation that comes along with needing to ensure 4- and 5-year olds are masters at taking a
standardized test on the computer. The frustration is further noted by Ms. Smith in her
statement,
In the decades that I’ve been teaching the trends come and go like waves . . . one day they
[administrators] want us to teach this way, the next day it’s another. You need to find
your style and keep yourself informed of best practices. It’s the only way you’ll be able
to sleep good at night and know that your babies are all learning what they need to, in the
best way that you can teach them. The standardized tests are probably the worst thing
that has happened in all my years. For so many reasons . . . but I’m not saying they’re all
bad. I’m saying the expectations are unrealistic of my students and it really stresses out
the brand-new teachers who want to do everything right and be successful. I think that’s
why a lot of them end up leaving the profession. They just need to remember what it was
like being in the classroom and understand how much time we have in reality, not much.
Research supported the thoughts Ms. Smith and her peers shared claiming the ages to
begin standardized testing is very young, commencing in kindergarten (Feeney & Freeman,
2014). Today in kindergarten, some students at ages four and five are being asked to sit in front
of a computer and take a three-hour standardized test to gauge their intellectual abilities (Feeney
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 109
& Freeman, 2014). Educators and their leaders appear not to be focusing on how best to reach
their young learners due to pressure to maintain their positions and schools out of program
improvement (Feeney & Freeman, 2014). “A lot of the time its reported, play-based learning is
looked at as a waste of time since the outcomes are not a scalable score and definitely not one
that can be tested in a generalizable manner” (Pinkham et al., 2012).
Summary. Theme 1 illustrated the importance of having open-ended play centers in the
classroom. The study’s findings determined that participants instruct students on the principles
of responsibility and respect through play-based centers. Acknowledging they leave them open
to develop every students’ capacity to express their point of view and encourage their peers to
share their own ideas. Cooperative learning also implies inclusivity sending out the message,
“everyone is important to the democracy of thought and action” (Ms. Smith). Mr. Z,
Ms. Gudino, and Ms. Smith illustrated the thoughts of the participants urging educators to have a
prepared environment which facilitates the learning and collaboration for their students.
Theme 2 under Research Question 2 explained the frustration early childhood education
teachers are feeling because they are not able to give their students the blocks of uninterrupted
time to learn and explore due to the need for standardized test preparation. Ms. Smith
emphasized the need to restructure test preparation for younger learners in order to ensure they
are not placed in a position where expectations are not age appropriate. The research suggested
Ms. Smith’s worries were warranted by explaining the pressure administrators have to maintain
their positions and schools out of program improvement (Allison, 2010). Leading to only added
pressures of ensuring students are well prepared for state tests. Teachers reported in the study to
having limited time to prepare their learning environments because of the pressure to
accommodate for standardized testing.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 110
Research Question #3
To what degree do teachers perceive that they have the professional knowledge to meet
the curricular and instructional needs of diverse students who exemplify advanced
abilities in the early K-2 years?
A little over half of the participants (9/17, 53%) stated they believe that when they first
entered the teaching profession they lacked experience. Responses from first grade teacher,
Ms. Wong, reinforced the groups’ sentiments on the topic. The responses are highlighted in this
section along with what the current research stated on the matter. Theme 2, “confidence from
experience” came from the comments stated by many of the group participants (12/17, 70%).
The participants’ general responses were underscored by kindergarten teachers Ms. Smith and
Ms. T’s commentary on the matter followed by what the research stated.
Theme 1: Lack of preparation. Gifted and talented learners in most classroom settings
endure unchallenging curriculum, a slow pace of instruction, and a state of ignorance by many of
their general education teachers (Berman et al., 2012). These words come from researchers who
conducted a study of the level of preparation of in-service teachers to teach gifted students who
expressed dire needs during the United States financial crisis and lack of scientists, for gifted
students to be understood and their educational needs met (Berman et al., 2012). The Berman
and associate’s study hoped to explore and identify how prevalent the lack of preparation in
teacher credential programs and schools were. Findings illustrated that licensed general
educators have very little awareness, and are just beginning to realize, that gifted students have
unique needs in their classroom settings (Berman et al., 2012). Ms. Wong aligned with the
majority of the study’s participants (15) in her response:
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 111
I didn’t get any formal, explicit instruction on how to best teach gifted students. There
wasn’t a class dedicated to it in my studies when I was becoming a teacher. When I first
spotted a student, I thought was far ahead of the rest of the class, I wasn’t exactly sure
what to teach them or how to teach them, unfortunately.
Ms. Wong’s response implied that the student in her class that was far ahead of the
others, perceived to be gifted, and Ms. Wong did not feel prepared professionally to satisfy the
educational needs of that student. The study by Berman et al. (2012) hosted similar responses
from teachers,
Every time I come to class, I learn that what I have been doing to keep my gifted kids
busy might actually be keeping them from learning at a level and pace they need. Why
didn’t I learn about this in my teacher education program? (Master’s degree level
student, 2010, p. 19)
I never really spent much time thinking about what happens in the mind of a
gifted kid who is bored. I thought as the teacher, my responsibility was to keep everyone
moving along at a common pace. I know the “slow kids” need more of my time, but I
never realized the “fast kids” are just sitting there doing nothing. I don’t know why this
has never dawned on me before?! (Master’s degree level student, 2009. p. 20)
The above quotations come directly from in-service teachers working toward master
degrees in curriculum and instruction. These teachers took part in a graduate-level experience
aimed at providing awareness training for general educators regarding the nature and needs of
gifted learners. The samples are representative of more than 100 individual comments that were
shared through “minute writes” at the end of each weekly class meeting (Berman et al., 2012).
The comments supported the conclusion of Ms. Wong that many teachers felt they were not
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 112
prepared enough to effectively teach gifted learners. Ms. Wong went on to state, “ . . . it [teacher
credentialing program] taught how to help struggling learners, but the needs of gifted students
were not focused on. Maybe the general feeling is they are smart, so they’ll be fine.”
Ms. Wong’s claim underscores the responses from the group, stating the lack of
preparation either in their professional credentialing program or first-year placement that created
a burden on the teacher to navigate how to best educate gifted students. A study by Bochkareva,
Akhmetshin, Osadchy, Romanov, & Konovalova (2018) testing student teachers to determine
readiness to work with gifted children, found the following results: out of 125 student teachers
interviewed, none answered all questions correctly, which indicated a possible decrease in the
motivation and interest of student teachers to work with gifted children. The overwhelming
majority, 96 students (76.8%), gave incorrect answers to more than half of the questions, which
testified to the possible need for a quality organization of training student teachers to work with
gifted children (see Figure D).

Source: (Bochkareva, Akhmetshin, Osadchy, Romanov, & Konovalova, 2018. p. 259).

Figure D: Percentage of Readiness of Student Teachers to Work with Gifted Students
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 113
As seen from the diagram data in Figure D, the percentage of pre-service student teachers
who are not ready to work with gifted students exceeds by 3.3 times the number of student
teachers ready to work with such students.
Theme 2: Confidence from experience. Kindergarten teacher Ms. T exemplified
Theme 2: Confidence from experience with the majority of the participants’ (15/17, 88%)
responses, when she commented on her personal experience of becoming a confident teacher in
the classroom teaching gifted students.
I only felt like I knew what I was doing once I already had a few experiences teaching
students that were ahead of the rest of the bunch. I know how that sounds, it’s not fair to
the first students, I know that, but I just didn’t get any guidance before that.
Ms. T’s statement implied that only after having taught students she perceived to be
gifted students, did she have the confidence and feeling that she was in fact able to reach their
needs. Research demonstrated other teachers also felt that they would have benefited from
hosting experiences in teaching learners with special needs, such as gifted learners; explaining
that opportunities to practice in real-life settings with this population would have been beneficial
(Horne, 1985). Horne (1985) believed that preservice student teachers must have opportunities
to examine and discuss their attitudes toward working with children who have any type of
special needs. However, in a climate of political correctness, preservice student teachers may
not be forthcoming with opinions, fears, or attitudes that reveal their true feelings (Allison,
2010). It is important that future educators share and learn from one another. After completing
the field experience, one preservice student teacher from the study commented:
I feel like I’ve gotten more out of working with the special needs students this week than
I did in all of my former observations. In such a short time, I feel like I’ve really got to
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 114
know these kids and I’ve gotten more attached to them than I expected. This was such an
awesome experience and I can’t wait to work with special needs students in my own
classroom . . ., because now I know I can handle it. I was really scared of working with
them before this week. (Interview, May 17, 2007 as cited in Bain & Hasio, 2011, p. 37).
The student teachers’ comments illustrated a significant realization that in a matter of two
weeks of hands-on, real-life experiences with special needs students the student teacher learned
more than during the entire set of observations made previously. Findings suggested teachers
benefit greatly from having prior experiences in teaching students that have differing needs from
the mainstream general education student population.
Ms. Smith’s comment reinforced the idea of needing to have taught and experienced what
it is like to teach a gifted student in order to feel confident doing so.
I remember as a rookie teacher feeling completely helpless a lot of the time when I would
be faced with students who already knew all the content I was supposed to teach them.
Some came in reading while others didn’t even know their letter names. Twenty years
later, I have so many tools in my tool belt and I feel absolutely competent enough to be
able to challenge a gifted learner. Not only that, but I feel like I can help guide any child
with special learning needs of any kind, thanks to my experiences of the past with other
children similar to them of course. There just isn’t any book out there that can teach you
what experience does.
Ms. Smith fortified the understanding that teachers, especially new teachers, should have
an opportunity to teach students who have special learning needs. Teachers not only become
more comfortable knowing what to expect from such students, but they also learn from their
errors. Teachers learn from their mistakes and build upon those mistakes to ensure students
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 115
benefit from the learning experiences they are faced with (Hungerford-Kresser, Wiggins, &
Amaro-Jimenez, 2011). Old and new research explained how teachers need time in many cases
to identify their teaching style and find their inner confidence (Ernst, 1917).
Teachers shared in their responses that they measured their ability to deliver highly
effective instruction by considering state standards and national standards for gifted children.
Student outcomes and teachers’ ability to be able to meet individual students where they are was
useful in determining if they were being effective as educators. Teachers aimed to be able to
facilitate students’ independent research, to differentiate in an inclusive classroom, to build
students’ responsibility though self-directed activities, to respond flexibly with classroom time
and scheduling, to create a safe environment, to effectively use group instruction and to draw
upon a multiplicity of resources. Teachers reported feeling more confident in their teaching
abilities once they noticed the students using higher level thinking, being creative, and having
increased problem-solving abilities. One means to differentiate instruction is in response to
student readiness, interest, and learning profile (Tomlinson et al., 2003). The participants
differentiated based on the needs of student readiness. Teachers measured themselves in their
skill to challenge students at the right level such that they were not bored but not frustrated
either. While many differing responses were shared in regard to how they measured their own
success, the common among all participants was the use of the national standards for gifted
learners. Table 13 gives a visual demonstration of the standards the teachers used to guide their
students’ outcomes and their own teaching.

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 116
Table 13
National Standards for Gifted Learners, Student Outcomes, and Evidence-Based Practices
Student Outcomes Evidence-Based Practices
3.1. Curriculum Planning. Students with gifts
and talents demonstrate growth
commensurate with aptitude during the
school year.

3.1.1. Educators use local, state, and national standards to align
and expand curriculum and instructional plans.

3.1.2. Educators design and use a comprehensive and
continuous scope and sequence to develop differentiated plans
for PK-12 students with gifts and talents.

3.1.3. Educators adapt, modify, or replace the core or standard
curriculum to meet the needs of students with gifts and talents
and those with special needs such as twice-exceptional, highly
gifted, and English language learners.

3.1.4. Educators design differentiated curricula that incorporate
advanced, conceptually challenging, in-depth, distinctive, and
complex content for students with gifts and talents.

3.1.5. Educators use a balanced assessment system, including
pre-assessment and formative assessment, to identify students’
needs, develop differentiated education plans, and adjust plans
based on continual progress monitoring.

3.1.6. Educators use pre-assessments and pace instruction
based on the learning rates of students with gifts and talents
and accelerate and compact learning as appropriate.

3.1.7. Educators use information and technologies, including
assistive technologies, to individualize for students with gifts
and talents, including those who are twice-exceptional.

3.2. Talent Development. Students with gifts and
talents become more competent in multiple
talent areas and across dimensions of
learning.
3.2.1. Educators design curricula in cognitive, affective,
aesthetic, social, and leadership domains that are challenging
and effective for students with gifts and talents.

3.2.2. Educators use metacognitive models to meet the needs
of students with gifts and talents.

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 117
Table 13 (Cont’d.)
Student Outcomes Evidence-Based Practices
3.3. Talent Development. Students with gifts
and talents develop their abilities in their
domain of talent and/or area of interest.
3.3.1. Educators select, adapt, and use a repertoire of
instructional strategies and materials that differentiate for
students with gifts and talents and that respond to diversity.

3.3.2. Educators use school and community resources that
support differentiation.

3.3.3. Educators provide opportunities for students with gifts
and talents to explore, develop, or research their areas of
interest and/or talent.
3.4. Instructional Strategies. Students with
gifts and talents become independent
investigators.
3.4.1. Educators use critical-thinking strategies to meet the
needs of students with gifts and talents.

3.4.2. Educators use creative-thinking strategies to meet the
needs of students with gifts and talents.

3.4.3. Educators use problem-solving model strategies to meet
the needs of students with gifts and talents.

3.4.4. Educators use inquiry models to meet the needs of
students with gifts and talents.
3.5. Culturally Relevant Curriculum. Students
with gifts and talents develop knowledge and
skills for living and being productive in a
multicultural, diverse, and global society.
3.5.1. Educators develop and use challenging, culturally
responsive curriculum to engage all students with gifts and
talents.

3.5.2. Educators integrate career exploration experiences into
learning opportunities for students with gifts and talents, e.g.
biography study or speakers.

3.5.3. Educators use curriculum for deep explorations of
cultures, languages, and social issues related to diversity.
3.6. Resources. Students with gifts and talents
benefit from gifted education programming
that provides a variety of high quality
resources and materials.

3.6.1. Teachers and administrators demonstrate familiarity
with sources for high quality resources and materials that are
appropriate for learners with gifts and talents.
Source: National Association for Gifted Children (n.d.)

Summary. Theme 1: Lack of preparation and Theme 2: Confidence in experience,
demonstrated the present demand in education to create a shift from the traditional standards-
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 118
based pedagogy to the inquiry-based pedagogy is a difficult endeavor for teachers, especially
novice ones (Tuitele, 2010). Pre-service programs are not preparing teachers to go into urban
schools and create environments that foster individual student’s potential (Killion, 2009).
Rather, curriculums are teaching teachers to teach to tests or worse–to only focus on failing or
below-basic scoring students (Gardner, W., 2008). The teachers that were given the research
findings or activity-based model of curriculum sometimes lack training on how to best
implement it in their classrooms (Killion, 2009). This is especially true for teachers whose
demographic is low income, minority students that have cultural differences and lack training in
culturally responsive pedagogy (Ricketts, 2014). Ms. Smith and Ms. T represented the vast
majority of participants in the study who identified with the ability to reach students at their level
only after having authentic experiences with children who had special learning needs.
Summary of the Chapter

The data returned by participants was analyzed through the lens of a Constructivist
framework. A qualitative analysis was conducted using a survey and in-person interviews to
gather data. Data collected from the responses and interviews were analyzed and placed into
groups according to themes of congruence. Themes were created in regard to teachers’
perspectives of instances where critical thinking skills, individual and collaborative
construction of knowledge, and transfer of knowledge had taken place. These observations and
testimonies align with the lens that this study was conducted and measured by–the
Constructivist method. The study found that the responses from both public-school teachers
and charter-school teachers were similar in facts; therefore, the data was analyzed in unison as
one large sample group. Beyond summaries in each of the research question findings section,
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 119
Table 14 is also available for use as a visual reference. Table 14 illustrates the breakdown of
the themes underlying each research question along with research connected to it.

Table 14
Connections between Research Questions, Themes, and Literature
Research Question Themes Literature
1. What are teachers’
perceptions regarding the
types of challenges
teachers need to embed in
the curriculum in order to
meet the needs of diverse
students who exemplify
advanced abilities in the
early K-2 years?

Theme 1: Individualized
lesson ends and lesson
extensions

Theme 2: Appropriate
questioning
Smutny & von Fremd, 2010

Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016

2. What are teachers’
perceptions regarding
materials that are designed
in the classroom
environment (learning
centers) that would most
promote challenging
educational opportunities
for diverse students who
exemplify advanced
abilities in the early K-2
years?

Theme 1: Play-based, open-
ended learning centers

Theme 2: Time restrictions
due to test preparation

Feeney & Freeman, 2014

Cutter-Mackenzie &
Edwards, 2013

Harvey & Daniels, 2009

3. To what degree do teachers
perceive that they have the
professional knowledge to
meet the curricular and
instructional needs of
diverse students who
exemplify advanced
abilities in the early K-2
years?

Theme 1: Lack of
preparation

Theme 2: Confidence from
experience
Ricketts, 2014
Killion, 2009
Gardner, W., 2008

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 120
Qualitative data analysis requires the researcher to be patient and reflective in a process
that strives to make sense of multiple sources. The analytic procedure falls essentially into the
following sequential phases: organizing the data, generating categories, identifying patterns
and themes, and coding the data (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008). This study illustrated the many
similarities and several differences in the world of early childhood education, calling for a
discussion on the possible reasoning why teachers hold the perceptions that they do. Chapter
Five includes a discussion of the findings, including reasoning behind themes, implications,
and further research needed in the area.

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 121
Chapter Five: Discussion
Introduction
The underlying problems that led to the study are discussed followed by the purpose of
the study, research questions, and the methods used in the study. A summary of the findings are
stated along with the implications of the findings. In the conclusion of the chapter,
recommendations of the researcher are stated.
Background of the Problem
Majority of educators will agree an effective, high-quality education for their students is
the top priority on their list. Research indicated that some gifted students’ needs are not being
met (Birdsall & Correa, 2007). While it has been established that giftedness exists across all
populations, there is a disproportionate representation of minorities and low-SES students in
gifted programs across the United States (Birdsall & Correa, 2007). The lack of access to an
effective, challenging, early educational program for current Latino and Black male student
populations in urban schools represent a problem of equity (Zhbanova et al., 2015). This is a
problem in schools because the lack of a strong, challenging, early education curriculum is
reducing students’ exposure to rigorous curricular opportunities, causing some students to drop
out of school, and causing some high achieving students to host bad behavior in school due to
boredom (Boyce et al., 1997). Schools and the curriculum they provide for gifted students is an
additional support, perhaps just as important as support from their family members (Olszewski ‐
Kubilius et al., 1994). Therefore, students who are gifted and live in low-income neighborhoods
face obstacles not typically found in more affluent neighborhoods. Schools where students
spend a significant amount of time in their young lives have a responsibility to ensure they are
being educated ethically (Renzulli, J. S., & Gaesser, 2015).
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 122
Statement of the Problem
There are a number of students who show advanced potential and are above grade-level
standards; yet, some teachers do not know how to instruct these children nor identify them. Even
at school sites where there is a defined program for advanced learners, teachers are consistently
not referring Latino and Black students to be tested for gifted programs at a comparable rate as
they are referring White students (Mazzoli Smith & Campbell, 2016).
An analysis of resolutions for this significant impediment requires an explanation at the
root of the problem; in this case, early education curriculum and the educators that deliver the
instruction. Looking at early education from a broader perspective, it was stated that policy
makers, administrators, and parents often do not agree on what is the best way to educate our
youngest advanced learners (Jones, 2009). The controversy on what is the best pedagogy for the
children causes little, overall change to occur. Change must occur in the students’ education for
the achievement gap to close, and it must be from the start of their educational journey in
kindergarten (Lee, M. D., 2015).
In early childhood classrooms, giftedness manifests itself as potential and needs to be
stimulated. It is important to note that advocating for appropriate curriculum and instruction for
advanced young learners is not the same as advocating for early identification of giftedness
(Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016). This study focused on how teachers can offer challenging curriculum
to the students and how teachers are able to make the transition from rote memorization and
worksheet instruction to developmentally appropriate instruction that will extract students’
underlying potential.
Some teachers believed inquiry-based learning is the best method to approach early
childhood education but lack the knowledge to create an inquiry-based learning environment for
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 123
their students (Lohmander & Samuelsson, 2015). The problem exists in that some educators do
not have the theoretical nor practical knowledge regarding pedagogy that will help them reach
their young learners (Thomas, L., et al., 2011). It is critical that teachers plan and implement
curriculum aligned to the sophistication young children express in their play, discussions,
contexts for eliciting creativity, and critical thinking (Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016). Some current
educators do not have the tools or training to deliver teaching in line with this differentiating
curriculum (Flanigan, 2012). The teachers that are given the research findings or activity-based
model of curriculum, sometimes lack training on which manner to best implement the curriculum
in their classrooms (Killion, 2009). This is especially true for teachers whose demographic is
low income, minority students that have cultural differences and lack training in culturally
responsive pedagogy (Ricketts, 2014). Creating a shift from the traditional standards-based
pedagogy to the inquiry-based pedagogy is a difficult endeavor for all teachers and especially for
novice teachers (Tuitele, 2010). Some pre-service programs are not preparing teachers for urban
schools and create environments that foster individual student’s potential (Killion, 2009).
Curriculums are teaching teachers to teach to tests or worse to only focus on failing or below-
basic scoring students (Gardner, W., 2008).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate how early education teachers, specifically
kindergarten through second grade, perceive (a) how to use a framework that facilitates the
design of high-quality, early childhood learning environments and challenging curriculum to
develop talent and potential, and (b) respond to emergent abilities as research shows is best for
young learners. The third criteria for this pedagogy stated that teachers who create contexts to
recognize strengths, needs, and interests respond to the variance in levels of readiness among
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 124
diverse learners. Five focal points of transition have been identified in literature and are listed in
Table 15.

Table 15
Mindshifting—Five Transitions in Thinking
Transitions Definitions
Transition 1 Transition from standardized to non-traditional methods to discern the
potential, talent, and/or emergent aptitude of young students in the early
years.

Transition 2 Transitions from educators “waiting for potential to be displayed” to setting
the conditions and situations that require and possibly demand the expression
of a young child’s potential, talent, and/or emerging aptitude.

Transition 3 Transition to place greater emphasis on inquiry-based curriculum and
instruction necessitates the presentation of open-ended situations or contexts
that are germane to activate and acknowledge prior knowledge, create an
interest in the acquisition of new knowledge and understanding of an identity-
oriented self-directed style, and appreciation for learning and personal
success.

Transition 4 Transitions to define multiple means, and both fixed and individualized ends
to lessons and units of study are necessary.

Transition 5 Transition by teachers to assess the differences between what they believe
young students are able to learn versus considering what these children are
actually capable of learning.

Source: (Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016, p. 137)

Teachers can be taught to change their abilities to teach gifted students by introducing
possible transitions. The transitions may serve as a guide for both pre-service and in-service
teachers to further their understanding. This study focused on studying teachers’ perception
regarding the shift through Transition 2: Transitions from educators “waiting for potential to be
displayed” to setting the conditions and situations that require and possibly demand the
expression of a young child’s potential, talent, and/or emerging aptitude;” and Transition 3,
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 125
“Transition to place greater emphasis on inquiry-based curriculum and instruction necessitates
the presentation of open-ended situations or contexts that are germane to activate and
acknowledge prior knowledge, create an interest in the acquisition of new knowledge and
understanding of an identity-oriented self-directed style, and appreciation for learning and
personal success” (Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016, p. 137). These transitions not only create a shift in
the teacher’s belief, but also change the concept of who owns the responsibility of the learning
that needs to occur. This new frame of thinking changes the idea that the student is the one that
needs to demonstrate special abilities before they are taught using differentiated instruction to the
idea that the teacher needs to ensure their pedagogy elicits the young student’s potential, talent or
emerging aptitude of some sort (Kaplan & Hertzog, 2016).
Research Questions
1. What are teachers’ perceptions regarding the types of challenges teachers need to embed
in the curriculum in order to meet the needs of diverse students who exemplify advanced
abilities in the early K-2 years?
2. What are teacher’s perceptions regarding materials that are designed in the classroom
environment (learning centers) that would most promote challenging educational
opportunities for diverse students who exemplify advanced abilities in the early K-2
years?
3. To what degree do teachers perceive that they have the professional knowledge to meet
the curricular and instructional needs of diverse students who exemplify advanced
abilities in the early K-2 years?

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 126
Methods
Qualitative research is focused on understanding the meaning individuals have
constructed; that is, how individuals make sense of their world and the experiences they have in
the world (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In similar fashion to our sample population of teachers
chosen, the researcher in this study attempted to create meaning from the perceptions the
teachers submitted in the surveys and the responses they gave during interviews.
A qualitative study was used to complete the research. This study explored the
perceptions that teachers have regarding choices made in their own classrooms to engage
children in learning experiences. This study aimed to learn and make meaning of teachers’
decision making about their learning environments and teaching strategies. Researchers, such as
Patton (1985), showed that qualitative research is an attempt to be able to understand different
situations in their own uniqueness as part of a whole in a certain context and the interactions of
the individuals there. This type of meaning making is a conclusion in itself; there is no attempt
to try to predict what is going to happen in the situation–rather to understand what is happening
in that specific setting.
Data for this study was collected in the form of an electronic survey and in-person
interviews. The survey was given to teachers in grades kindergarten through second grade at the
selected elementary schools. The survey was sent to the teachers by the administrators and their
responses were electronically submitted to the researcher. The interviews took place after the
surveys were returned in order to engage the teachers who were interested to be participants in
the interview process. All six of the teachers that agreed to participate in an interview were
interviewed by the researcher in person at the school site of the individual teacher.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 127
Homogeneous sampling is the purposive sampling technique that was chosen for this
study in aiming to achieve a homogeneous sample that can correlate with the research questions.
The reason homogeneous sampling was chosen is because the researcher was aiming to address
specific perspectives of a particular group of interest and examine them in detail. In this case,
the focus was early education teachers of kindergarten through second grade who teach at a high-
needs, urban elementary charter school, Achieve Charter School3, as well as the Reina Trinity
Unified School District3 of public school kindergarten through second grade teachers.
Achieve Charter School was selected in this study because it is a high-needs elementary
school that has classrooms of kindergarten through second grade with the majority of its
population being socioeconomically disadvantaged (96.5%), Latino (96.8%) students. Achieve
Charter School has historically and consistently illustrated ability to achieve success with
innovation and change in teaching techniques that have led to successful student learning. The
school is ranked 77% higher than comparable schools in the area. Reina Trinity Unified School
District also hosts primarily socioeconomically disadvantaged (74%), Latino (79%) students,
with the only difference between the two sites being one offered charter-school teachers’
perspective and the other public-school teachers’ perspective.
A total of 17 teachers’ perspectives were included in this study from both Achieve
Charter School and Reina Trinity Unified School District combined. The breakdown of how
many teachers participated in the study were illustrated in Table 8. Of the 17 participants who
completed the survey, six of those participants also agreed to complete the interview process.
In this study, the constant comparative method of data analysis that was first posed by
Glaser and Strass (1967) as the means for developing grounded theory was used for inspiration
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, data was coded as best and clearly as possible using

3 Pseudonym being used
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 128
Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) guidelines. First, the researcher used open coding to find themes
and followed up the analysis with axial coding in order to make connections. The findings from
the data were analyzed by each research question, followed by themes that arose as a result of
each individual research question.
Discussion of Findings
This study resulted in three key findings that answered the three research questions first
posed in Chapter One. Table 16 serves as a visual representation of the alignment between
research questions, key findings, and literature. The discussion in this summary section will be
organized by research question. First the key finding that aligns with each research question will
be asserted, followed with significance of the finding, and concluded by links with current
available literature.

Table 16
Alignment of Research Question with Key Findings, and Literature
Research Question Key Finding Literature
1. What are teachers’
perceptions regarding
the types of challenges
teachers need to embed
in the curriculum in
order to meet the needs
of diverse students who
exemplify advanced
abilities in the early K-
2 years?

Key finding #1: Teachers challenge
students they perceive as gifted by
ensuring the students have an
individualized learning experience.
Teachers reported making an
individualized learning experience
possible by offering individualized
lesson ends, lesson extensions, and
asking students appropriate questions.

Smutny & von
Fremd, 2010

Lazonder &
Harmsen, 2016

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 129
Table 16 (Cont’d.)
Research Question Key Finding Literature
2. What are teachers’
perceptions regarding
materials that are
designed in the
classroom environment
(learning centers) that
Key finding #2: Teachers
acknowledged they design their
classroom environment to enable the
use of play based, open ended
learning centers that promote
challenging educational opportunities
Feeney &
Freeman, 2014

Cutter-
Mackenzie &
Edwards, 2013
would most promote
challenging educational
opportunities for
diverse students who
exemplify advanced
abilities in the early K-
2 years?

For the students.
Harvey
& Daniels,
2009

3. To what degree do
teachers perceive that
they have the
professional knowledge
to meet the curricular
and instructional needs
of diverse students who
exemplify advanced
abilities in the early K-
2 years?

Key finding #3: At the start of their
professional career teachers felt they
had a lack of preparation to meet the
curricular and instructional needs of
gifted students, although after years of
hands-on
Ricketts, 2014

Killion, 2009

Gardner, W.,
2008

Key Finding # 1
Key Finding Number One answered research question number one. It affirmed that when
teachers challenge students they perceive as gifted by ensuring the students have an
individualized learning experience. The teachers reported making an individualized learning
experience possible by offering individualized lesson ends, lesson extensions, and asking
students appropriate questions. The teacher participants (16/17, 94%) in this study, repeatedly
stated they embedded challenges by allowing students to create meaning of the content from an
individual perspective. Teachers shared that by allowing choice in the process and end product
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 130
for the lesson, students experienced individualized instruction and were engaged in a much more
in-depth learning experience. This was compared to experiences when teachers would request
the same process and end product for all students. Additionally, the majority of the participants
(16/17, 94%) significantly stated, questioning was one of the strategies used to embed challenges
in the classroom curriculum. Participants asserted that positive impact questioning helped in
their students’ successful learning outcomes.
The value of differentiated instruction is not a modern concept; however in an era of
mass education it is unique in some regions. These teachers demonstrated the positive outcomes
that can occur when education is everything but common or a one-method-for-all-students’
mentality. Ensuring the educational experience that each student receives is as unique as each
student themselves creates–a learning environment where students are motivated to take
ownership of their learning. This study’s findings are significant and may lead to innovation,
risk taking, and collaborative learning among students. The findings highlight young learners’
ability to think with depth and complexity, not only surface-level thinking. In the younger years
when students are eager to learn by nature, a classroom that not only allows for them to think
outside the box but encourages it through individualized lesson ends and lesson extensions make
for a safe learning environment. When students feel they are safe, they are willing to take risks
and ask many questions that lead to self-learning and deeper thought. Teaching the young
learners to think critically through appropriate questioning builds the self confidence and creative
ability the students are exploring.
The research supported the findings of other studies, acknowledging the various benefits
of student-centered instruction through inquiry-based learning (Malone, 2008; Savin-Baden &
Major, 2004). Inquiry-based learning is proposed to facilitate the learner’s ability to find,
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 131
evaluate, and manipulate information. Learners’ ability to think critically about information,
ability to explore and develop solutions, and ability to communicate in oral and written form is
enhanced with inquiry-based instruction (Malone, 2008). Boud (1985) stated that the main ideal
in inquiry-based learning is that it is student and problem centered. The most important of those
two concepts is the need for student centeredness. Boud (1985 as cited in Savin-Baden & Major,
2004) outlined eight other characteristics as discussed in Chapter two which align with the goals
the participants have for their own students. The essence of inquiry-based learning is that it is
learner centered; inquiry-based instruction allows the learner to self-construct through active
engagement of the learners’ environment (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993).
Key Finding # 2
Key Finding Number Two answered research question number two. Teachers in the
study acknowledged they design their classroom environment to enable the use of play-based,
open-ended learning centers that promote challenging educational opportunities for the students.
However, teachers also mentioned time restrictions did not always support the ideal
environment. Key finding number two originated as the majority (16/17, 94%) of participants’
consistent, positive discussion of open-learning centers in their classrooms. A vital, positive
perspective has been linked with the role of open-ended play as a basis for pedagogy. According
to the perspective, open-ended play is important for young children because it provides
opportunities for exploration and discovery, which are necessary for supporting learning (White
et al., 2007). Also, the participants unanimously (17/17, 100%) shared similar situations
concerning time constraints being a problem when it came to preparing their environments.
Time constraints were due to preparation for standardized state tests and school benchmarks.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 132
Teachers reported test preparation caused for a lack of time to allow students to explore, think,
and question content.
Key finding number two is valuable information for all teachers, but especially for novice
teachers or veteran teachers looking to revamp their classroom environment. While teachers
reported the need for a significant amount of preparation, the end was worth while. Students are
able to be engaged in their learning on a level that matches their individual abilities. Students are
able to learn from their peers new and innovative ideas as they play alongside and with each
other.
Research supported the findings to be beneficial for students’ learning as discussed below
(Center on the Developing Child, 2015). Executive function skills have been compared to an air
traffic control system in each of our bodies. These essential life skills help us remember
information, filter out distractions, switch gears when needed, and sustain focus over time
(Center on the Developing Child, 2015). Among the many benefits of imaginary play, one is
helping children develop these executive function skills. Children develop rules for the
imaginary scenarios they create, remember and try out complex ideas, apply the rules to the
scenarios as they go along, and regulate their own and each other’s behavior. Given the time,
children can extend imaginary play for hours.
Play-based, open-ended activities benefit the young learners’ educational experience
(Malone, 2008). When inquiry-based instruction is compared to didactic instruction, it is
demonstrated there is limitation in the ability to promote acquisition, retention, or transfer of
knowledge. Traditionally speaking, didactic instruction was not designed to facilitate the
development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Heinrichs, 2002). Ultimately,
didactic instruction does not motivate learners to acquire new concepts of knowledge nor change
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 133
their attitudes regarding differing aspects of themselves or their learning (Bain 2004; Brown et
al., 1989; Fink, 2003; Huba & Freed, 2000; Langone et al., 1999; Langone et al., 1998; Savin-
Baden & Major, 2004; Thomas, J. W., 2000).
Learners are better able to apply skills and think critically about the knowledge that they
have self-constructed (Bain, 2004; Dewey, 1933; Fink, 2003; McKeachie, 1999; Meyers, 1986;
Savin-Baden & Major, 2004; Wales et al., 1987; Weast, 1996); these skills are facilitated through
the opportunities granted in a classroom environment that hosts open-ended learning centers as
one of the activities available to them for learning. Ultimately, Malone’s (2008) research found
that when using inquiry-based instruction with other methods of teaching such as Personal
Learning Plans the method supports “(a) the college standards for performance related to
foundation knowledge, inquiry, collaboration, leadership, diversity, technology, and assessment;
(b) the constructivist philosophy of the early childhood program; and (c) the preferred learning
styles reported by many students” (Malone, 2008, p. 533; see also Boud, 1985 as cited in Savin-
Baden & Major, 2004). Malone (2008) noted that 58% of the students studied reported “active
experimentation/ doing” as their preferred method of learning and 27% reported “reflective
observation/watching” as the preferred method.
Key Finding # 3
Key Finding Number Three answered question number three. At the start of their
professional career, teachers felt they had a lack of preparation to meet the curricular and
instructional needs of gifted students, although after years of hands-on experience the same
teachers became confident in being able to provide a high quality, individualized education to
their students. Gifted and talented learners in most classroom settings endure unchallenging
curriculum and a slow pace of instruction by many of their general education teachers (Berman
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 134
et al., 2012). These harsh, but valid words, came from Berman et al. (2012) who conducted a
study of the level of preparation of in-service teachers to teach gifted students and found that the
researchers being advocates for gifted students expressed dire needs during the United States
financial crisis and lack of scientists, for gifted students to be understood and their educational
needs met (Berman et al., 2012). The Berman et al. study hoped to explore and identify how
prevalent the lack of preparation in teacher credential programs and schools actually is. Findings
illustrated that licensed general educators have little knowledge, and are only beginning to
realize, that gifted students have unique needs in their classroom settings (Berman et al., 2012).
The majority of this current study’s participants (15/17, 88%) shared similar feelings, thoughts,
and experiences where they identified not having appropriate preparation to teach gifted learners
at the start of their professional career. However, teachers (15/17, 88%) did report gaining
confidence after years of hands-on experience in the classroom with gifted students in this
current study.
This finding is essential information to the field of education because the success of a
teacher credential program ought to partially be measured on the basis of the related success or
lack of success of the teacher graduates they place in classrooms. Teacher credential programs
can learn a great amount of insight from their very own graduates. With feedback from teachers
who almost unanimously stated they felt insecure and improperly prepared to teach all of their
students at the start of their career, the program is able to reflect and only improve with the
feedback given. The program is able to make the necessary changes and fill gaps, ensuring that
the student teachers leave with a better understanding of how to meet the needs of students with
special needs of all kinds.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 135
Research asserted teachers are not being adequately prepared to teach advanced young
learners once they arrive to the classroom (Lambeth & Smith, n.d.). Teachers are even less
prepared to teach the subgroup of advanced young learners who are minority, low income, and
have diverse needs (Lambeth & Smith, n.d.). The lack of both theoretical and practical
knowledge that teachers have in regard to what gifted students need in their early years of
education creates many obstacles. The deficits mentioned, coupled with pressure to prepare all
students no matter their needs for standardized tests, affects teachers’ self-efficacy negatively
and leads to teachers leaving the school or the profession all together.
In an effort to support the possible added benefits of preparing teachers with inquiry-
based method strategies to instruct advanced young students, a study that found the situation to
be one where all students gain not only advanced or gifted students is discussed. Findings from
Dodds’ (2010) study revealed that when teachers taught using inquiry-based learning and deeper-
thinking model to their students both gifted and non-gifted students benefited. The study found
the following: (a) the prompts of depth and complexity positively affected gifted and non-gifted
students’ understanding across all disciplines; (b) gifted student understanding was greater than
non-gifted understanding, and (c) gifted and non-gifted students perceived the prompts of depth
and complexity to be helpful, interesting, and challenging. Dodds’ research gave confirmation
that prompts of depth and complexity are successful in promoting increased student learning and
understanding across all of the disciplines.
Current teachers’ perceptions illustrated that general education teachers do not feel they
have the time, skills, training, or resources to teach students with differing needs. The
application of systematic research synthesis procedures to 28 teachers of general education
teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of students that required special instruction of some sort
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 136
indicated that, overall, about two-thirds of the teachers support inclusion (Scruggs &
Mastropieri, 1996). However, the variance of the support was as mentioned previously due to
lack of confidence in being able to meet the students’ needs (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996).
Implications for Practice
Implications for practice which emerged from the study are identified in this section. The
implications for practice are linked to findings from this study. Additionally, a discussion
demonstrating how the practice could be implemented and or how a specific audience will
benefit from the recommendation will take place. References to literature will be provided when
appropriate and are presented in Table 17. Table 17 provides a visual representation of each
research implication, curriculum development concept, environmental design and
implementation, and teacher education needs. These are aligned to the key findings and the
original research questions.

Table 17
Alignment of Implications, Key Findings, Research Questions, and Literature
Research Question Key Finding Implication Literature
1. What are teachers’
perceptions regarding the
types of challenges
teachers need to embed in
the curriculum in order to
meet the needs of diverse
students who exemplify
advanced abilities in the
early K-2 years?

Key finding #1: Teachers
challenge students they
perceive as gifted by
ensuring the students have
an individualized learning
experience. Teachers
reported making an
individualized learning
experience possible by
offering individualized
lesson ends, lesson
extensions, and asking
students appropriate
questions.

Curriculum
development
-support inquiry-based
learning methods of
instruction
-teacher input included
at site level
- teacher given
freedom to modify and
develop the
curriculum to fit
students’ needs
- professional learning
community
involvement
Lambeth & Smith,
n.d.

Berman et al., 2012

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 137
Table 17 (Cont’d.)
Research Question Key Finding Implication Literature
2. What are teachers’
perceptions regarding
materials that are designed
in the classroom
environment (learning
centers) that would most
promote challenging
educational opportunities
for diverse students who
exemplify advanced
abilities in the early K-2
years?

Key finding #2: Teachers
acknowledged they design
their classroom
environment to enable the
use of play based, open
ended learning centers
that promote challenging
educational opportunities
for the students.

Design and
implementation of
environment
-enable the use of
play-based, open-
ended learning centers
- time to research,
design, prepare, and
implement
- allocate large blocks
of uninterrupted time
for student learning

Allison, 2010

Pinkham et al., 2012

3. To what degree do teachers
perceive that they have the
professional knowledge to
meet the curricular and
instructional needs of
diverse students who
exemplify advanced
abilities in the early K-2
years?

Key finding #3: At the
start of their professional
career teachers felt they
had a lack of preparation
to meet the curricular and
instructional needs of
gifted students, although
after years of hands on
experience they became
confident in being able to
provide high quality
individualized instruction
to their students.
Teacher education
-explicit instruction on
how to design, engage,
and implement
curriculum that will
meet the educational
needs of their
advanced learners
- environment where
teachers watch a
master teacher model
how to interact with
gifted students
Farris-Berg,
Dirkswager & Junge,
2013

DeBoer, 2007

Curriculum Development
Key Finding Number One stated teachers challenge students they perceive as gifted by
ensuring the students have an individualized learning experience. Teachers reported making an
individualized learning experience possible by offering individualized lesson ends, lesson
extensions, and asking students appropriate questions. The implication for practice that emerged
from this finding is curriculum development. There are many educators and agents who are
concerned with the development of curriculum. Curriculum development companies, school
districts, and teachers all have invested interest in the development of curriculum. However,
teachers are responsible for the implementation of the curriculum itself. Beyond the many
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 138
intricate levels of curriculum development, individual teacher decision making applies. The
participants in this study taught at two sites that supported inquiry-based learning methods of
instruction. The administrators allowed individual freedom to each teacher to modify and
develop the curriculum they had in order to best fit their students’ needs. The issue resides in
school districts where administrators do not support personalizing the curriculum to give gifted
students an individualized level of instruction. When no choice is granted, and guidelines are set
in stone, individual classroom teachers may be faced with the obstacle of either following
school-site guidelines or using curriculum in the best manner possible to fit their students’
individual differing needs. Many scripted curriculums focus on direct instruction and whole
group instruction reserving small group assignments for rudimentary review to ensure struggling
students are given an opportunity to catch up to their grade-level peers. Guidance on how to
individualize instruction for gifted students is sometimes ignored.
One possible resolution could be for teachers to meet through professional learning
communities at each school site and decide what their specific population of students need.
Once a general consensus is decided, it can be taken to the administrators for determination of
possible implementation at their school site. Furthermore, a unique committee with different
agents of the community, including teachers, parents, students, and administrators can be created
to allow for input in future curriculum purchases or development and utilization of current
curriculum. With community support and significant critical reflection, difficult decisions
regarding the development and use of curriculum can be decreased. A second possible
resolution can be to utilize professional learning communities to restructure the current
curriculum in use. Teachers could develop the curriculum to host inquiry-based strategies and
utilize appropriate questioning techniques discussed in this study to ensure students are
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 139
challenged at their specific level. This would avoid administrators having to make the difficult
financial decisions to (a) spend time and effort to find a predesigned curriculum that meets the
needs of their specific student population, and (b) stay within budget for curriculum materials by
not having to purchase a new one.
While it is noted that curriculum development may need to be supplemented for the
individual learner, the findings of the study leave educators with several criteria to look for in a
program for advanced learners. It would be beneficial for the program to offer opportunities for
inquiry-based learning since it is proposed to facilitate the learner’s ability to find, evaluate, and
manipulate information. Learners’ ability to think critically about information, ability to explore
and develop solutions, and ability to communicate in oral and written form is enhanced with
inquiry-based instruction (Malone, 2008). Boud (1985) stated that the main ideal in inquiry-
based learning is that it is student and problem centered. Hence the curriculum design should be
created with the student at its core. To make continuous progress in their areas of talent, gifted
students need learning experiences that extend and enrich the standards and require students to
apply complex, creative, and innovative thinking to authentic problems. A curriculum that has
specific instructional strategies and curricular materials, including modified, formative, and
summative assessments, for advanced and gifted students whose levels of learning exceed grade-
level expectations.
Environmental Design and Implementation
The second implication for practice is environmental design and implementation. This is
linked to Key Finding Number Two which stated teachers acknowledged they design their
classroom environment to enable the use of play-based, open-ended learning centers that
promote challenging educational opportunities for the students. As noted in the discussion
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 140
section of Key Finding Number Two, teachers reported having difficulties with time allocation
not only during the learning centers when students are present and learning, but also prior to and
after the activities have taken place. Having sufficient amount of time to research, design,
prepare, implement, and allocate large blocks of uninterrupted time for student learning is a
significant obstacle for classroom teachers. Standardized test preparation is acknowledged to be
the reasoning behind the impediment with lack of time. Teachers in this study worry if they
spend a large amount of time preparing and implementing their classroom environment, then
they will have lost a large amount of time in which test preparation is expected to have taken
place. Test preparation also takes time to prepare for and with a limited amount of out-of-
classroom teacher preparation time teachers are caught in an arduous position. The research
acknowledges teachers’ sentiment by explaining that not only do teachers worry but
administrators feel the pressure from the leaders of their institutions to ensure schools are left out
of program improvement (Allison, 2010) placing a large amount of focus on standardized tests.
There are instances where play-based and open-ended learning is viewed as a waste of time due
to the outcomes that do not support a scalable score and not one that can be tested in a
generalizable manner (Pinkham et al., 2012). Therefore, the question, how do teachers prepare,
design, implement, and allocate sufficient time for the students to deeply engage in their learning
while still adhering to standardized test preparation guidelines?
Encouraging a mind shift of administrators and district-level educators in which it is
understood that research shows children who are able to encounter open-ended, play-based
learning environments become good critical thinkers and problem solvers can make for a
positive change. Both qualities are desired and needed to be a “good” test taker of standardized
tests. Reflection and collaboration within the community would be able to aid the teachers and
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 141
their students in being able to find a healthy medium of allowance for open-ended learning
environments and test preparation needs. All parties involved would benefit from ensuring
teachers are well supported to be able to properly design and implement learning environments
that best suit all of their learners.
Teacher Education
Teacher pre- and in-service educational courses are the third implication for practice
which emerged from Key Finding Number Three, in which the teachers stated, at the start of
their professional career they felt they had a lack of preparation to meet the curricular and
instructional needs of gifted students; although after years of hands-on experience, they became
confident in being able to provide a high-quality individualized education to their students. The
unspoken need of specific courses where teachers are taught methods on how to meet the needs
of gifted learners emerged. Both pre-service and in-service teachers would benefit from explicit
instruction on how to design, engage, and implement curriculum that will meet the educational
needs of their advanced learners. Additionally, an environment where teachers could have the
opportunity to watch a master teacher interact with gifted students would benefit the ability of
the novice teacher to replicate methods that were modeled in a practical manner. Allowing
student teachers to gain experience in settings with students who have advanced abilities would
aid in filling the preparation gap that participants reported. The hands-on experiences would also
replicate the reports teachers made which pointed to feeling confident after years of working
with gifted students.
The importance on ensuring pre-service teachers are prepared with both the theoretical
and practical knowledge to teach gifted students and also reasoning behind why it needs to
happen in education now should be essential information to have for teacher credentialing
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 142
programs (DeBoer, 2007). Teachers are facing so many challenges currently in education that
the rate of teachers leaving the profession is astonishing especially in underserved communities
where resources are low, and needs are high (Farris-Berg et al., 2013). Giving the teachers a
better preparation before entering the classroom, as well as proper support in the first years of
their profession, could mean less teacher turn over and students who have teachers they trust and
care about.
Recommendations for Research
In this section, recommendations for research which can extend this study and help the
field of early childhood education further are introduced. A component of the discussion
demonstrates how the recommendation for research is linked to this study and how it will either
improve or extend the research. Links to literature which support or inform the
recommendations are posted when appropriate. Three recommendations are listed.
The first recommendation for research is focused on the learning environment of the
students. Research that would yield findings which give a clearer path for teachers to follow
would be helpful. For example, a resource could be a breakdown by grade level of the specific
types of open-ended activities which correlate with the National Standards for Gifted Education.
Additionally, having as a resource with guidelines on how to implement said activities in the
classroom of each grade level would aid novice and transitioning teachers with how to fulfill
their goals. This research would improve the findings of this study by giving teachers a specific
and practical model of how and what to do in their classrooms for each grade level. While
teaching styles and curriculums differ, foundational needs and strategies would easily be
adaptable. Having a database on proven possible designs and methods of implementation for
teachers to reference would cut their preparation time and give them more confidence. It is
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 143
beneficial for teachers to feel confident that they are using a design that has already been
successfully implemented and have ease of access to resources. The positive gain for best
practices in the early childhood education field would be significant. Allowing for teachers in a
large geographical region to collaborate for the benefit of their colleagues and students would be
beneficial.
The second recommendation for research is a study that explores thinking processes of
children who are perceived to be advanced in grades kindergarten through second grade. The
study’s findings may facilitate the understanding or design of a successful path to guide students
through their critical thinking journeys. Developmental research implied that younger, less
experienced learners need more explicit guidance than older learners (De Jong & Lazonder,
2014). Investigating this conjecture thus requires a framework that classifies guidance for
teachers in terms of extensiveness needed in the curriculum, and not only the identification of the
skills and activities that are involved. A potentially more appropriate typology, as shown in
Table 18, was proposed by De Jong and Lazonder (2014) who organized their framework
according to the specificity of the guidance learners need to successfully perform an inquiry.
The study could help define further by student age the manner in which teachers can facilitate the
learning of students and guide them to higher levels of thinking. A study that explores children
in grades kindergarten through second grade whose teachers perceive to be advanced could give
information to educators regarding the thinking process of the learners. Understanding how
questioning and other strategies of curriculum differentiation would aid teachers with
individualized lesson implementation for their gifted and all students. The field of early
childhood education would gain considerably from the study’s information gathered with not
only teachers but ultimately the students benefiting.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 144
Table 18
Typology of Inquiry Learning Guidance
Type of Support Basic Idea Intended Audience
Process constraints Restrict the
comprehensiveness of the
learning task
Learners who are able to perform and
regulate the basic inquiry process, but
still lack the experience to do so under
more demanding circumstances

Status overviews Make task progress or
learning visible
Learners who are able to perform the
basic inquiry process, but lack the skills
to plan and keep track of their learning
trajectory

Prompts Remind to perform an
action
Learners who are able to perform an
action but may not do so on their own
initiative

Heuristics Remind to perform an
action and suggest how to
perform that action

Learners who do not know exactly when
and how an action should be performed
Scaffolds Explain or take over the
more demanding parts of an
action

Learners who do not have the proficiency
to perform an action themselves or
cannot perform the action from memory
Explanations Specify exactly how to
perform an action
Learners who are (largely) incognizant of
the action and how it should be
performed

Source: Adapted from De Jong & Lazonder, 2014

The final recommendation for further research may bring positive gains to both pre-
service and in-service teachers. Research is needed which informs the best model of a
professional development program which helps both pre-service and in-service teachers gain
hands-on, real-life experience working and teaching gifted students. Research could answer
these questions: What specific types of courses would best inform the teachers regarding the
needs of gifted students of diverse backgrounds? and, What type of real-life training can take
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 145
place while embedding different types of curriculum and give teachers the opportunity to
experience first-hand what facilitating the learning of gifted students is like on a practical level?
Most current programs mostly focus on theoretical knowledge acquisition for pre-service
teachers (Sjöberg, 2018). Being able to practice applying the knowledge acquired is essential for
effective teaching and learning. The research findings would benefit all teachers, especially
those in their early years of teaching and definitely pre-service teachers looking to gain a better
understanding of gifted education.
Conclusion
The continued research of gifted education, specifically in early childhood, is vital to the
development of our societies’ future. Knowing in more detail how to meet the needs of our
gifted young learners can only create positive change for all. With teachers increasing critical
thinking implementation in their classroom, students’ minds evolve to achieve a deeper level of
reflection: metacognition. Teachers can better learn to use prompts that encourage young
learners to personalize knowledge through analysis. With this process of inquiry, individuals
will begin to ask themselves richer and more profound questions: What is my personal
connection to the knowledge I have acquired in the classroom? How might I have personal
influence on these topics that interest me? and, how might I even understand further insights into
these subjects? Through metacognition, we are taking students into the real world where they
begin understanding their impact with peers (Bennett, 2015). Educators begin to make
transitions and witness the gradual release of responsibility, as students independently utilize the
skills and strategies for acquiring knowledge and understanding. The moment this begins to
happen educators can know that they/we are doing our job soundly.

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 146
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, D., Duschl, R., Lederman, N., Mamiok-Naaman, R., Hofstein,
A., . . . & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives.
Science Education, 88(3), 397-419. doi:10.1002/sce.10118
Achieve. (2010). International science benchmarking report. Taking the lead in science
education: Forging next-generation science standards. Retrieved from
http:/www.achieve.org/files/InternationalScienceBenchmarkingReport.pdf
Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on it’s
outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52-81.
Allison, A. (2010). From theory to practice, and back again: Using the art of Kara Walker to
connect university curriculum and public school pedagogy. Texas Trends, 15-20.
Andarvazh, M. R., Afshar, L., & Yazdani, A. (n.d.). Hidden curriculum: An analytical definition.
Journal of Medical Education, 16(4). doi:10.22037/jme.v16i4.18061
Bain, C., & Hasio, C. (2011). Authentic learning experience prepares preservice students to teach
art to children with special needs. Art Education, 64(2), 33-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00043125.2011.11519118
Bain, K. (2004). What the best college professors do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Baldwin, A. Y. (2004). I’m Black but look at me, I am also gifted. In A. Y. Baldwin &
S. M. Reis (Eds.), Culturally diverse and underserved populations of gifted students
(pp. 1-9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Barbour, N. (1992). Early childhood gifted education: A Collaborative Perspective. Journal for
the Education of the Gifted, 15(2), 145-162.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 147
Barbour, N. E., & Shalilee, B. D. (1998). Gifted education meets Reggio Emilia: Visions for
curriculum in gifted education for young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(4), 228-
237. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629804200406
Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education,
20(6), 481-486.
Bennett, M. (2015). The invisible hand of inquiry-based learning Childhood Education, 91(5),
388-389. doi:10.1080/00094056.2015.1090854
Berman, K., Schultz, R., & Weber, C. (2012). A lack of awareness and emphasis in preservice
teacher training. Gifted Child Today, 35(1), 18-26. doi:10.1177/1076217511428307
Besnoy, K. D., Dantzler, J., Besnoy, L. R., & Byrne, C. (2016). Using exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis to measure construct validity of the traits, aptitudes, and
behaviors scale (TABS). Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(1), 3-22.
doi:10.1177/016235321 5624160
Birdsall, P., & Correa, L. (2007). Gifted underachievers: Some schools, despite having active
district GATE programs, fail to identify those gifted students who are English learners or
from low-income families. Leadership, 36(4), 21.
Bloomberg, L., & Volpe, M. (2008). Completing your qualitative dissertation a roadmap from
beginning to end. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Bochkareva, T., Akhmetshin, E., Osadchy, E., Romanov, P., & Konovalova, E. (2018).
Preparation of the future teacher for work with gifted children. Journal of Social Studies
Education Research, 9(2), 251-265. https://doi.org/10.17499/jsser.76113
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 148
Bolland, K. A., Bolland, J. M., Tomek, S., Devereaux, R. S., Mrug, S., & Wimberly, J. C.
(2016). Trajectories of adolescent alcohol use by gender and early initiation status. Youth
& Society, 48(1), 3-32.
Boud, D. (Ed.). (1985). Problem-based learning in education for the professions. Australia:
Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.
Boyce, L., VanTassel-Baska, J., Burruss, J., Sher, B., & Johnson, D. (1997). A problem-based
curriculum: Parallel learning opportunities for students and teachers. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 20(4), 363-379. doi:10.1177/016235329702000403
Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. S., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (1990).
Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix, & R.
Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology
(pp. 115-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18, 32-41.
Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs. (Rev ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education
of Young Children.
Bredekamp, S., & Rosegrant, T. (Eds.). (1992). Reaching potentials: Appropriate curriculum
and assessment for young children (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: National Association for
the Education of Young Children.
Bredekamp, S., & Rosegrant, T. (Eds.). (1995). Reaching potentials: Transforming early
childhood curriculum and assessment (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: National Association
for the Education of Young Children.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 149
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Center on the Developing Child. (2015). How to: Five steps for brain-building serve and return.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Retrieved from https://developingchild.harvard.
edu/resources/how-to-5-steps-for-brain-building-serve-and-return/
Chaillé, C. (2016). Integrating math and science in early childhood classrooms through big
ideas: A constructivist approach. Retrieved from https://htl930vwx06.storage.googleapis.
com/MDEzNzE0NTc5OQ==06.pdf
Challis, M. (2000). AMEE medical education guide no 19: Personal learning plans. Medical
Teacher, 22(3), 225-236.
Clark, B. (1995). Growing up gifted (4th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Coleman, M. R., & Gallagher, S. (2015). Meeting the needs of students with 2e: It takes a team.
Gifted Child Today, 38, 252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1076217515597274
Couchenour, D. & Chrisman, J. (Eds.). (2016). The Sage encyclopedia of contemporary early
childhood education (Vols. 1-3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. doi:10.4135/
9781483340333
Coulton, C. J., & Pandey, S. (1992). Geographic concentration of poverty and risk to children in
urban neighborhoods. The American Behavioral Scientist, 35(3), 238-257.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cummings, C., & Piirto, J. (1998). The education of talented young children in the context of
school reform. In J. F. Smutny (Ed.), The young gifted child: Potential and promise, an
anthology (pp. 380-389).
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 150
Cutter-Mackenzie, A., & Edwards, S. (2013). Toward a model for early childhood environmental
education: Foregrounding, developing, and connecting knowledge through play-based
learning. The Journal of Environmental Education, 44(3), 195-213. doi:10.1080/009589
64.2012.751892
DeBoer, B. B. (2007). Effective oral language instruction: A survey of Utah K-2 teacher self-
reported knowledge (Doctoral dissertation, Utah State University). Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/openview/41344658e1a5426f276cd02aeab411ae/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
De Jong, T., & Lazonder, A. W. (2014). The guided discovery learning principle in multimedia
learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd
ed.), (pp. 371-390). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Desimone, L. M. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan,
92(6), 68-71. doi:10.2307/25822820
Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Boston, MA: Heath and Company.
Dodd-Nufrio, A. (2011). Reggio Emilia, Maria Montessori, and John Dewey: Dispelling
teachers’ misconceptions and understanding theoretical foundations. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 39(4), 235-237.
Dodds, K. M. (2010). Effects of the prompts of depth and complexity on gifted and non-gifted
students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California). Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/openview/5178596095e04914b1a58a91a67ebb1e/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 151
Dole, S., Bloom, L., & Doss, K. K. (2017). Engaged learning: impact of PBL and PjBL with
elementary and middle grade students. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based
Learning, 11(2). doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1685
Elder-Hurst, K. (2012). An analysis of factors affecting implementation of literacy curriculum
resources in K-2 classrooms in a midwest suburban school district, (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Missouri-Kansas City). Retrieved from https://mospace.umsy
stem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/16252/ElderHurstAnaFacAff.pdf?sequence=1&i
sAllowed=y.
Entwistle, N. (1985). Styles of learning and teaching. London: David Fulton.
Ernst, E. (1917). Why some gifted experienced teachers fail. The Etude (1897-1921), 35(8).
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/128446518/
Farris-Berg, K., Dirkswager, E., & Junge, A. (2013). Trusting teachers with school success
[electronic resource]: What happens when teachers call the shots. Kim Farris-Berg and
Edward J. Dirkswager with Amy Junge. Lanham, Md.: R&L Education.
Feeney, S., & Freeman, N. (2014). Reporting classroom behavior balancing responsibilities to
children and families. YC Young Children, 69(4), 100-104.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M. B., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An
intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to
designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Flanigan, R. (2012). Blended PD emphasizes differentiated instruction; Educators say a hybrid
approach to training will help teachers differentiate instruction. Retrieved from
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/10/24/09el-blendedpd.h32.html
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 152
Fleming, N. (2013). Parents press for attention to programs for gifted students: Advocacy efforts
gain urgency amid worry of being overlooked. Education Week, 33(06), 1.
Flick, U. (2014). Mapping the field. Retrieved from http://www.ewi-psy.fu-berlin.de/einrichtun
gen/arbeitsbereiche/qualitative_sozial-_bildungsforschung/Medien/58869_Flick__The_
SAGE_HB_of_Qualitative_Data_Analysis_Chapter1_mapping-the-field.pdf
Folsom, C. (2006). Making conceptual connections between gifted and general education:
Teaching for intellectual and emotional learning (TIEL). Roeper Review: A Journal on
Gifted Education, 28, (2), 79-87. doi.org/10.1080/02783190609554342
Ford, D. (2007). Closing the achievement gap: Gifted education must join the battle. Gifted Child
Today, 34(1), 31-34.
Ford, D. Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education. The
Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 4-14.
Ford, D. Y. (2003). Desegregating gifted education: Seeking equity for culturally diverse
students. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 143-158). New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T., & Whiting, G. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students
in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 289-
306.
Franklin, R. K. (2009). A case study of a three-year pilot program on one district’s attempt to
increase the gifted identification of diverse elementary school students by having a talent
development program (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University).
Retrieved from https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3009&con
text=etd
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 153
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., Wenderoth,
M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and
mathematics. Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 111(23), 8410-8415. https:doi.org:10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Gardner, D. (2007). A qualitative study of how teaching practices in grades K-2 have changed
since the inception of North Carolina’s ABCs testing program (Order No. 3273618).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text; ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global. (304700834). Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https:
//search-proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/304700834?accountid=14749
Gardner, W. (2008). Good teachers teach to the test. The Christian Science Monitor, p. 9.
Retrieved from https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0417/p09s02-
coop.html
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
Glasser, W. (2001). Choice theory in the classroom (revised edition). New York, NY: Quill.
Grantham, T. C. (2003). Increasing Black student enrollment in gifted programs: An exploration
of the Pulaski county special school district's advocacy efforts. Gifted Child Quarterly,
47(1), 46-65. doi:10.1177/001698620304700106
Grissom, J. A., Rodriguez, L. A., & Kern, E. C. (2017). Teacher and principal diversity and the
representation of students of color in gifted programs: Evidence from national data.
Elementary School Journal, 117(3), 396-422.
Groat, A., & Musson, T. (1995). Learning styles: Individualizing computer-based learning
environments. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 3(2), 53-62.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 154
Gross, M. (1999). Inequity in equity: The paradox of gifted education in Australia. Australian
Journal of Education, 43(1), 87-103. doi:10.1177/000494419904300107
Haensly, P. A., & Lee, K. S. (2000). Gifted potential and emerging abilities in young children:
As influenced by diverse backgrounds. Gifted Education International, 14(2), 133-50.
Harrison, J. L. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions and implementation of instructional strategies for
the gifted from differentiation professional development, (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California).
Harvey, S., & Daniels, H. (2009). Comprehension and collaboration. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Hatchett, B. F., Holmes, K., Duran, D. A., & Davis, C. (2000). African Americans and research
participation: The recruitment process. Journal of Black Studies, 30, 664-675.
Haushofer, J., & Fehr, E. (2014). On the psychology of poverty. Science, 344(6186), 862-867.
doi:10.1126/science.1232491
Heinrichs, K. I. (2002). Problem-based learning in entry-level athletic training professional-
education programs: A model for developing critical-thinking and decision-making
skills. Journal of Athletic Training, 37(4 suppl), S-189-S-198.
Hendrick, J. (1997). Reggio Emilia and American schools: Telling them apart and putting them
together—Can we do it? In J. Hendrick (Ed.). Next steps towards teaching the Reggio
way: Accepting the challenge to change (2nd ed.), (pp. 38-49). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill Prentice Hall.
Horne, M. D. (1985). Attitudes toward handicapped students: Professional, peer, and parent
reactions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 155
Howard, L. (2003). Adaptive learning technologies for bioengineering education. Engineering in
Medicine and Biology Magazine, IEEE, 22(4), 58-65. doi:10.1109/MEMB.2003.1237503
Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting
focus from teaching to learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hungerford-Kresser, H., Wiggins, J., & Amaro-Jimenez, C. (2011). Learning from our mistakes:
what matters when incorporating blogging in the content area literacy classroom. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(4), 326-335. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00039
Hypolite, Q. A. (2013). A culture of underachievement: Examining the barriers to gifted
identification for learning disabled, African American male, (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Phoenix). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/6e110
c9323ac3609aa96ca0987373b79/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Jenkins, M. D. (1936). A Socio-Psychological Study of Negro Children of Superior Intelligence.
The Journal of Negro Education 5, 175-190.
Johnson, D. D., & Johnson B. (2002). High stakes: Children, testing and failure in American
schools. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers.
Jones, D. (2009). The relationship between superintendents’ beliefs about gifted education and
the placement rate of minority students in programs for the gifted (Doctoral dissertation,
Mercer University). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/3697936de69
e8bc793c3e7fa369c8e8d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y.
Kaplan, S. N. (2008). Projects: Yay or nay. (advocacy). Gifted Child Today, 31(2), 47.
Kaplan, S., & Hertzog, N. B. (2016). Pedagogy for early childhood gifted education. Gifted
Child Today, 39(3), 134-139. doi:10.1177/1076217516644637
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 156
Kant, I. (1803). Practical education. In M. S. Russo (Ed.), Education. http://www.molloy.edu/ac
ademic/philosophy/sophia/topics/phiedu/kant.htm (Accessed in 2006).
Katz, L., & Chard, S. (1989). Engaging children’s minds. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. (1993). The project approach. In J. L. Roopnarine & J. E.
Johnson, Approaches to early childhood education (2nd ed) (pp. 209-222). New York,
NY: Merrill.
Kerkorian, D., Traube, D. E., & McKay, M. M. (2007). Understanding the African American
research experience (KAARE) implications for HIV prevention. Social Work in Mental
Health, 5(3-4), 295-312.
Killion, J. M. (2009). Teacher education programs and data driven decision making: Are we
preparing our preservice teachers to be data and assessment literate? (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education). Retrieved
from http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll127/id/210607
Kitano, M. K., & Landry, H. (Eds). (2001). Instructional cases: Learning from the dilemmas of
practicing teachers. Roeper Review, 23(4), 206-07. doi:10.1080/02783190109554100
Kitano, M., & Lewis, R. (2005). Resilience and coping: Implications for gifted children and
youth at risk. Roeper Review, 27(4), 200-205.
Korth, B. B., Wimmer, J. J., Wilcox, B., Morrison, T. G., Harward, S., Peterson, N., . . . Pierce,
L. (2017). Practices and challenges of writing instruction in K-2 classrooms: A case study
of five primary grade teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(2), 237-249.
Lambeth, D., & Smith, A. (n.d.). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of culturally responsive
teacher preparation. The Journal of Negro Education, 85(1), 46-58. doi:10.7709/jnegro
education.85.1.0046
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 157
Langone, J., Malone, D. M., & Clinton, G. N. (1999). The effects of technology-enhanced
anchored instruction on the knowledge of preservice special educators. Teacher
Education Special Education, 22(2), 85-96.
Langone, J., Malone, D. M., Stecker, P., & Greene, E. (1998). A comparison of traditional
classroom instruction and anchored instruction with university general education
students. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13(4), 99-109.
Langwitches. (2011). Bloom’s Taxonomy and iPad Apps. Retrieved from
http://langwitches.org/blog/2011/08/21/blooms-taxonomy-and-ipad-apps/
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of
guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681-718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034
654315627366
Leading with Questions. (2017). What happens when students learn to ask questions? Retrieved
from https://leadingwithquestions.com/personal-growth/what-happens-when-students-
learn-to-ask-questions/
Lee, M. D. (2015). Universal design for learning in teacher preparation: Preparing for a
classroom of diverse learners (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California).
Retrieved from http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll3/id/583234
Lee, Y. (2017). East-Asian primary science curricula: An overview using revised Bloom’s
Taxonomy. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2690-4
Lin, L. (2015). Constructivist theory. In J. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational
technology (pp. 145-146). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 158
Locke, J. (1692). Modern History Sourcebook: John Locke (1632-1704): Some thoughts
concerning education. London: A. and J. Churchill. Retrieved from https://sourcebooks.
fordham.edu/ mod/1692locke-education.asp
Lohmander M. K., & Samuelsson, I. P. (2015). Play and learning in early childhood education in
Sweden. Psychology in Russia: State of Art, 8(2), 18-26.
Lu, Y., & Weinberg, S. (2016). Public pre-k and test taking for the NYC gifted-and-talented
programs. Forging a path to equity. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 36-47. doi:10.3102/
0013189X16633441
Lucas, D., & Frazier, B. (2014). The effects of a service- learning introductory diversity course
on pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward teaching diverse student populations. Academy
of Educational Leadership Journal, 18, 91-101.
Mahoney, A. R. (1980). Gifted delinquents: What do we know about them? Children and Youth
Services Review, 2(3), 315-329. doi:10.1016/0190-7409(80)90022-5
Malone, D. M. (2008). Inquiry-based early childhood teacher preparation: The personal learning
plan method. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(6), 531-542. doi:10.1007/s10643-
008-0237-4
Mazzoli Smith, L., & Campbell, R. J. (2016). So-called giftedness and teacher education: Issues
of equity and inclusion. Teachers and Teaching, 22(2), 1-13.
McKeachie, W. J. (1999). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and
university teachers (10th ed.). New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.
McKeachie, W. J., & Kaplan, M. (1996). Persistent problems in evaluating college teaching.
Paper presented at enhancing and evaluating college teaching: The key role of
administrators, faculty, and faculty developers-A national videoconference. Athens, GA.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 159
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Meyers, C. (1986). Teaching students to think critically. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Mill, J. (1878). Analysis of the phenomena of the human mind. London: Longmans, Green,
Reader, and Dyer
National Association for Gifted Children. (n.d.). Standard 3: Curriculum Planning and
Instruction. Retrieved from https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/
national-standards-gifted-and-talented-education/pre-k-grade-12-3
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1982). Early childhood teacher
education guidelines: Position statement. Author.
Navarro, S. B., Zervas, P., Gesa, R. F., & Sampson, D. G. (2016). Developing teachers’
competences for designing inclusive learning experiences. Educational Technology &
Society, 19, 17-27.
Nelson, R., Jackson, J., Kennedy, B., & Burner, K. (2012). Implementing new standards for
regular, gifted, and special education middle school teachers (Doctoral dissertation,
Walden University). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1174961896/
Nichols, W., Zellner, L., Willson, V., Mergen, S., & Young, C. (2005). What affects
instructional choice? Profiles of K-2 teachers’ use of reading instructional strategies and
methods. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(4), 437-458.

LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 160
Nicolopoulou, A., Barbosa de Sá, A., Ilgaz, H., & Brockmeyer, C. (2010). Using the
transformative power of play to educate hearts and minds: From Vygotsky to Vivian
Paley and beyond. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17(1), 42-58. doi:10.1080/10749030
903312512
O’Connor, C., & Fernandez, S. (2006). Race, class, and disproportionality: Reevaluating the
relationship between poverty and special education placement. Educational Researcher,
35(6), 6-11. doi:10.3102/0013189X035006006
Olszewski ‐Kubilius, P., Grant, B., & Seibert, C. (1994). Social support systems and the
disadvantaged gifted: A framework for developing programs and services. Roeper
Review, 17(1), 20-25.
Page, J. (2000). Reframing the early childhood curriculum. London: Routledge
Patton, J. (1985). Assessment and identification of African-American learners with gifts and
talents. (Issues in the Education of African-American Youth in Special Education
Settings). Exceptional Children, 59(2), 150-159. doi:10.1177/001440299205900208
Peters, S. J., & Gentry, M. (2010). Multigroup construct validity evidence of the HOPE scale:
Instrumentation to identify low-income elementary students for gifted programs. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 54(4), 298-313. doi:10.1177/0016986210378332
Piaget, J. (1963). The psychology of intelligence. New York: Routledge.
Pinkham, A. M., Kaefer, T., & Neuman, S. B. (Eds.). (2012). Knowledge development in early
childhood: Sources of learning and classroom implications. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Popham, W. J. (1999). Why standardized tests don’t measure educational quality. Educational
Leadership, 56(6), 8-15.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 161
Pottick, K. J., & Lerman, P. (1991). Maximizing survey response rates for hard-to-reach inner-
city populations. Social Science Quarterly, 72(1), 172-180. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/61235568/
Pound, L. (2006). How children learn [electronic resource] (How Children Learn Series).
London: Practical Pre-School Books.
Pramling-Samuelsson, I., & Fleer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Play and learning in early childhood
settings: International Perspectives, M. Netherlands: Springer.
Renzulli, J. (1978a). Applying gifted education pedagogy to total talent development for all
students. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 80-89.
Renzulli, J. (1978b). The enrichment triad model: A plan for developing defensible programs for
the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 227-33.
Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Emerging conceptions of giftedness: Building a bridge to the new century.
Exceptionality, 10(2), 67-75.
Renzulli, J. S., & Gaesser, A. (2015). A multi criteria system for the identification of high
achieving and creative/productive giftedness. Revista De Educacion, (368), 96-131.
doi:10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2015-368-290
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for
educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning.
Ricketts, M. (2014). The lived experiences of teachers in implementing differentiated instruction
in the inclusive classroom (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/openview/b92c7dfd1ee53d719bceb3906423b285/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 162
Riley, J., & Jones, R. (2010). Acknowledging learning through play in the primary grades.
Childhood Education, 86(3), 146-149.
Robinson, E. (2002). What is the school psychologist’s role in gifted education? Gifted Child
Today, 25(4), 34-37. doi:10.4219/gct-2002-78
Sacks, P. (1999). Standardized minds: The high price of America’s testing culture and what we
can do to change it. New York, NY: Perseus Publishing.
Sackstein, S. (2016). The power of questioning: Opening up the world of student inquiry.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ProQuest Ebook Central, Retrieved from
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/detail.action?docID=4206504.
Samuels, C. A. (2005). N.C. program holds promise for gifted classes. Education Week,
24(40), 5.
Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. (Eds.). (2004). Foundations of problem-based learning, New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Schweinhart, L. (2016). Curriculum and early childhood education. In D. Couchenour &
J. Chrisman (Eds.), The Sage encyclopedia of contemporary early childhood education
(Vol. 1, pp. 375-384). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Scott, M., & Delgado, C. (2005). Identifying cognitively gifted minority students in preschool.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(3), 199-210, 269-270. doi:10.1177/001698620504900302
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion,
1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59-74.
Shepard, E. K. (1993). Validity study of identification procedures for non-obvious gifted students
in Portland public schools (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 163
Shorter, R. (2014). Black early childhood teachers’ perspectives regarding the
overrepresentation of Black students in special education (Doctorial dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Sjöberg, L. (2018). The shaping of pre-service teachers’ professional knowledge base through
assessments. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(5), 604-619. doi:10.1080/0261
9768.2018.1529751
Smutny, J. F. & von Fremd, S. E. (Eds). (2009). Igniting creativity in gifted learners, K-6:
Strategies for every teacher Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Smutny, J. F., & von Fremd, S. (2010). Preparing for the journey of a differentiated classroom.
In Differentiating for the young child: Teaching strategies across the content areas,
preK-3 (pp. 7-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. doi:10.4135/9781483350592.n2
Stainthorp, R., & Hughes, D. (2004). An illustrative case study of precocious reading ability.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(2), 107-120. doi:10.1177/001698620404800204
Stickler, U., & Hampel, R. (2015). Qualitative research in CALL. Editorial. Calico Journal,
32(3), 380-395. doi:10.1558/cj.v32i3.27737
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Retrieved from
http://www.bie.org/images/uploads/general/9d06758fd346969cb63653d00dca55c0.pdf
Thomas, L., Warren, E., & DeVries, E. (2011). Play-based learning and intentional teaching in
early childhood contexts. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(4), 69-75.
Tomlinson, C., Callahan, C., & Lelli, K. (1997). Challenging expectations: Case studies of high-
potential, culturally diverse young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(2), 5-17.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 164
Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., . . .
Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest,
and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of the literature.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2-3), 119-145.
Tuitele, S. I. (2010). From cultural roots to worldview: Cultural connectedness of teachers for
native Hawaiian students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California).
Retrieved from http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll127/id/315971
U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1993). The condition
of education 1993. NCES93-290. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Van Maanen, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A preface.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 520-526. doi:10.2307/2392358
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2007). Leadership for the future in gifted education. Presidential address,
NAGC 2006. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(1), 5-10. doi:10.1177/0016986206297087
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Johnsen, S. K. (2007). Teacher education standards for the field of gifted
education: A vision of coherence for personnel preparation in the 21st century. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 51(2), 182-205. doi:10.1177/0016986207299880
Vygotsky, L, S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M. I. T. Press, and New York,
NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Wales, C., Nardi, A., & Stager, R. (1987). Professional decision-making. Morgantown, WV:
Center for Guided Design, West Virginia University.
Weast, D. (1996). Alternative teaching strategies: The case for critical thinking. Teaching
Sociology, 24, 189-194.
LACK OF CHALLENGING CURRICULUM 165
White, J., O’Malley, A., Toso, M., Rockel, J., Stover, S., Ellis, F. (2007). A contemporary
glimpse of play and learning in Aotearoa New Zealand. International Journal of Early
Childhood, 39(1), 93-105.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York, NY: MacMillan.
Young, J. L, Young, J. R, & Ford, D. Y. (2017). Standing in the daps: Examining the effects of
early gifted education on Black girl achievement in STEM. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 28(4), 290-312.
Zhbanova, K. S., Rule, A. C., & Stichter, M. K. (2015). Identification of gifted African
American primary grade students through leadership, creativity, and academic
performance in curriculum material making and peer-teaching: A case study. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 43(2), 143-156.
Zhu, X., & Zeichner, K. (Eds.). (2013). Preparing teachers for the 21st century [electronic
resource] (New Frontiers of Educational Research Series). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36970-4

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study used the constructivist approach from the Piaget and Vygotsky’s (Pound, 2006) perspective of constructing knowledge. The purpose of the study was to learn how early education teachers perceive to be able to use a curriculum and create an ambiance that ensures they design high-quality early childhood learning environments that develop talent and potential and respond to emergent abilities for young learners. The participants were Kindergarten through second grade teachers from Reina Trinity Unified School District and Achieve Charter School. An electronic survey and in-person interviews were used in order to collect data which was analyzed and led to themes that emerged from responses of the participants. The study hosted three key findings: (1) teachers challenge students they perceive as gifted by ensuring the students have an individualized learning experience. Teachers reported making an individualized learning experience possible by offering individualized lesson ends, lesson extensions, and asking students appropriate questions

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Characteristics that create a quality early learning center: An evaluation study

PDF

Lack of support for gifted students in the United States

PDF

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

PDF

Fostering and cultivating culturally empathetic early childhood educators: A curriculum for pre-service educators

PDF

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

PDF

Meaningful learning opportunities for children from low socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kindergarten

PDF

What is the relationship between early childhood teachers' training on the development of their teaching self-efficacy?

PDF

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

PDF

Perceptions of accessing Part C early intervention services

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The under-referral of African American boys to gifted programs

PDF

Utilization of accommodations for learning or other non-apparent disabilities: the influence of ableism on student behavior

PDF

An examination of a social justice teacher cohort and its capacity to support transformational professional learning

PDF

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

PDF

Perceptions of early childhood educators on how reflective supervision influences instructional effectiveness and teacher wellbeing

PDF

Reimagining professional learning for early childhood educators of color

PDF

Are students better off? An analysis of administrators’ commitment to serving transitional kindergarten students in multilingually diverse communities in Central Coast California

PDF

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

PDF

Creating a trauma-informed early childhood workforce in Los Angeles County: understanding the self-reported impact of a TIC training program

Asset Metadata

Creator Markwongnark, Shayna (author)

Core Title Lack of challenging curriculum for minority students of diversity in early childhood education

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Degree Conferral Date 2019-12

Publication Date 12/02/2019

Defense Date 12/01/2019

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

Tag challenging curriculum,diversity,Early Childhood Education,Gifted Education,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kaplan, Sandra (committee chair)

Creator Email drmarkwongnark@gmail.com,Shaunquincystinson@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-239438

Unique identifier UC11675014

Identifier etd-Markwongna-7963.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-239438 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Markwongna-7963.pdf

Dmrecord 239438

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Markwongnark, Shayna

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA