University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The influence of teacher characteristics on preference for models of teaching

(USC Thesis Other)

The influence of teacher characteristics on preference for models of teaching

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE INFLUENCE OF TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS ON PREFERENCE FOR
MODELS OF TEACHING

by

Paige McGinty McCord

_______________________________________________________________

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

May 2010

Copyright 2010 Paige McGinty McCord

ii
DEDICATION

To my parents, for everything.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe a great deal of gratitude to the U.S. Department of Education Javits
Models of Teaching Grant for its financial support which provided me with the
opportunity to fulfill the requirements of the doctorate program and complete this
dissertation research. Second, I would like to acknowledge my mentor and chair, Dr.
Sandra Kaplan, for sharing with me her expertise in curriculum and instruction and
her great passion for gifted education. I am deeply thankful to Dr. Lucy Hunt, my
committee member, for her valuable input, great insight related to this process, and
always optimistic support. I am also incredibly grateful to Dr. Robert Keim, my
other committee member, for his guidance and unwavering kindness to me over the
last four years. I must thank my parents, Dale and Martha, my husband, John, and
my dear friends for their understanding and patience during this journey. Finally, I
am truly grateful to my daughter, due in May of 2010. She provided me with daily
inspiration that made this dissertation come to fruition.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures viii
Abstract ix
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 12
Research Question 13
Importance of the Study 13
Conceptual Framework 14
Methodological Design 15
Assumptions, Limitations, Delimitations 16
Definitions 17

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 19
Teacher Characteristics 19
Teacher Decision-Making 30
Curriculum and Instruction for Gifted Students 36

Chapter 3: Research Methods 64
Research Question 65
Nature of the Study/Research Design 65
Sample and Population 66
Instrumentation 71
Assumptions 76
Limitations 77
Data Collection 79
Data Analysis 81

v
Chapter 4: Findings 84
Teacher Characteristics 85
Preferences for Models of Teaching 147
Relationship between Teacher Characteristics and Models of 182
Teaching
Summary of Findings 204

Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications 210
Research Findings and Conclusions 212
Practical Implications and Recommendations 223
Limitations of the Study 231
Recommendations for Future Research 232

References 234
Appendices 256
Appendix A: Teacher Interview Guide 256
Appendix B: Participant Information Sheet 259

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Model of Teaching Overview 6
Table 2.1: Summary of Characteristics of Effective Gifted Instructors 26
Table 3.1: Participant Demographic Overview 68
Table 3.2: Sample Sub-Grouping 69
Table 3.3: Overview of Participant Teaching Experience 70
Table 3.4: Characteristics of Effective Teachers of the Gifted 73
Table 3.5: Research Timeline 80
Table 4.1: Patterns of Teacher Characteristics 87
Table 4.2: Teacher Characteristic: Insight into Needs of Gifted Students 89
Table 4.3: Teacher Characteristic: Humor 92
Table 4.4: Teacher Characteristic: Willingness to Make Mistakes 95
Table 4.5: Teacher Characteristic: Enthusiasm 98
Table 4.6: Teacher Characteristic: Culturally Responsive 101
Table 4.7: Teacher Characteristic: Hardworking 106
Table 4.8: Teacher Characteristic: Enjoy Watching Students Learn 109
Table 4.9: Teacher Characteristic: Skills to Differentiate Curriculum 114
for Gifted Students

Table 4.10: Teacher Characteristic: Student-Centered Learning 119
Table 4.11: Teacher Characteristic: Non-Threatening Learning 126
Environment

Table 4.12: Teacher Characteristic: Organization 131

vii
Table 4.13: Areas of Participant Perceived Most and Least In-Depth 135
Subject Matter Knowledge
Table 4.14: Teacher Characteristic: Life-Long Learner 138
Table 4.15: Teacher Characteristic: Creative 142
Table 4.16: Summary of Models and their Purposes 148
Table 4.17: Summary of Model Preferences 149
Table 4.18: Top Two Models Most Enjoyed 150
Table 4.19: Top Two Models Most Frequently Used 156
Table 4.20: Top Two Models Least Enjoyed 161
Table 4.21: Top Two Models Used Least Often 165
Table 4.22: Top Two Most and Least Comfortable Models 168
Table 4.23: Reasons Teachers Enjoyed and Used Models 170
Table 4.24: Characteristics With and Without Found Relationships to 183
Models of Teaching

viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Some Factors Contributing to Teacher Pedagogical 33
Judgments and Decisions
Figure 4.1: Prevalence of Self-Perceptions of Teacher Characteristics 145
Figure 4.2: Direct and Inverse Relationships Discovered Between 185
Teacher Characteristics and Models of Teaching Preference
Figure 4.3: “Thinks Creatively” Connections with Models of Teaching 187
Figure 4.4: “Has Skills to Differentiate Curriculum for Gifted Students” 190
Connections with Models of Teaching

Figure 4.5: “Is Culturally Responsive” Connections with Models of 193
Teaching

Figure 4.6: “Is Enthusiastic” Connections to Models of Teaching 195
Figure 4.7: “Is Hardworking” Connections to Models of Teaching 198
Figure 4.8: “Has Insight into the Needs of Gifted Students” Connections 200
to Models of Teaching

Figure 4.9: “Creates a Non-Threatening Learning Environment” 202
Connections to Models of Teaching

ix
ABSTRACT

The present study sought to uncover relationships between the personal
characteristics of teachers and their preferences for models of teaching. A purposeful
sample included 12 elementary instructors of heterogeneous classes with a cluster of
gifted students in urban school districts within Southern California, all of who were
participants in a grant awarded to the University of Southern California under the
Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of the U.S. Department
of Education (PR #S206A040072). Qualitative interviews provided data that
underwent theme-based content analysis. Results of the study provided insight
related to three areas: characteristics of teachers of the gifted, teacher preference and
use of models of teaching, and relationships between teacher characteristics and
pedagogical preference and use.
In addition to the presence of twelve characteristics from the original
literature on successful teachers of the gifted, two additional traits emerged in the
assessment of the participants’ traits. Considerable variance in the presence of each
studied characteristic was noted as certain traits were consistently present in the
participants, while others were exhibited at differing degrees of frequency and
intensity. Patterns in teacher pedagogical preference and use were uncovered.
Overall teacher enjoyment of models appeared to be related to the ideological
features of the model, while use was connected to practical application issues and

x
teacher level of comfort. In addition, teacher’s preferred way of thinking and
learning appeared to have a large influence on pedagogical preference and use.
Seven important connections between specific teacher characteristics and
models of teaching were discovered. Many of the relationships were logically
supported through an understanding of the trait and the models’ theoretical
underpinnings, though a few were explained through a consideration of how teachers
translate theory into practice. Implications were drawn for teacher recruitment,
placement, and education. It is suggested that teacher educators cultivate teacher
traits associated with effectiveness for gifted populations, provide educators with
strategies to overcome institutional barriers, and finally to systematically teach and
support the use of models of teaching in teacher education programs and professional
development.

1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Complex factors contribute to a successful classroom including selected
curriculum, students’ prior knowledge and home environment, resources and
funding, nutrition, parental involvement and support, prescribed educational
philosophy, and pedagogical practices (Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997). Each
aspect affects student academic success, social maturation, and emotional
development. While numerous variables influence student learning, research
conducted by Sanders & Rivers (1996) clearly shows that the teacher is often one of
the most vital and influential variables in the educational and affective development
for students.
The instructional decisions teachers make shape the learning experiences of
their students (Stronge, 2002). Research has been conducted during the last four
decades in the field of teacher pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and
behavior. Even in local districts and schools today where much of the curriculum to
be used in the classroom is chosen at the state and district level, teachers still have to
make curricular and pedagogical decisions that constantly affect their students
(Shavelson & Sterns, 1981). As such, most teacher education programs today
include statements of competencies, attributes or qualities that their graduates must
gain through the course of training and many programs follow teacher quality
standards. The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium

2
(INTASC), a group of state education agencies and national educational
organizations dedicated to the reform of the preparation, licensing, and on-going
professional development of teachers, is one example of an educational agency
which recognizes the importance of teachers for student learning and has developed
standards dedicated to assuring teacher quality. Within the state of California,
teacher programs are responsible for meeting the California Standards for the
Teaching Profession. These standards represent a developmental, holistic view of
teaching, and are intended to delineate how teachers can meet the needs of diverse
students in California (California Standards for the Teaching Profession, 1997).
The central importance of the teacher to student achievement is especially
pertinent to populations with special needs including the academically gifted (Able
& Karnes, 1994). In a survey of experts in gifted education, Renzulli (1968)
determined that the most important element in the success of programs for gifted
students was the teacher. Recently, the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) and
the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) collaborated to develop
revised, research-based standards for teacher preparation in gifted education. In
2006, these standards were adopted by The National Council of Accreditation of
Teacher Education (NCATE), the professional organization that accredits schools
and colleges of teacher education. The standards describe how teachers of the gifted
must strive to create the most effective learning environment for these academically
diverse students. The environment must offer inspiration, be conducive to high-
levels of cognitive development, and be able to provide the appropriate guidance,

3
instruction, and social and emotional support for this special population of learners
(National Association for Gifted Children & Council for Exceptional Children,
1996).
Shavelson & Sterns’ (1981) seminal work related to teacher decision-making
shows how numerous factors contribute to teachers’ pedagogical judgments and
decisions. They discuss how teachers have a large amount of information available
about their students. The sources of information range from their own informal
observations, anecdotal reports of other teachers, standardized test scores and school
records. According to Shavelson and Sterns (1981), teachers integrate this
information into judgments about student’s cognitive, affective, and behavioral states
in order to handle the information overload. These judgments are then used to make
pedagogical decisions. Shavelson, Cadwell, and Izu (1977) found that when relevant
information was available for decisions, teachers used that information; however,
when the information was not relevant for a decision, the teachers’ beliefs about
education and teaching guided their decisions. Research in gifted education also
posits that the characteristics of teachers influence their judgments, decisions, and
behaviors related to the learning experiences they provide to their gifted students
(Baldwin, Vialle, & Clarke, 2000; Bishop, 1980; Chan, 2001, Hansen & Feldhusen,
1994; Landvogt, 2001; Maddux, Samples-Lachmann, & Cummings, 1985; Milgram,
1979).
An area of teacher decision making that is highly influential on student
learning relates to decisions about curriculum and instruction. There is general

4
agreement in the field of gifted education for the need to modify regular instruction
to be responsive to the unique characteristics and behaviors of academically diverse
students (Karnes & Bean, 2009). Gallagher (2003) states that an educational
program can be altered to meet the needs of the gifted through a change in one or a
combination of the following: the learning environment, the curriculum, and/or the
methods used to teach. Changes to these factors comprise the notion of
differentiation, a term popularized by Carol Ann Tomlinson (Ellis, Gable, Greg, &
Rock, 2008). Although curriculum and instruction are commonly lumped together in
the literature on differentiation in gifted education, a distinction can be made
between the two: curriculum is what students are expected to learn, while
instruction, or pedagogy, is how the content is taught (Parkay, Anctil, & Hass, 2006).
Bruner (1996), Vygotsky (1978), and numerous other educational researchers
have noted the importance of examining pedagogical (instructional) practices in
relation to student learning. In one of his seminal essays, The Sources of a Science
Education, John Dewey (1938) described curriculum methods and instructional
options that make education more individually responsive to the learner through
adaptive modes of teaching. In contrast to standardized teaching, this instructional
differentiation allows teachers to vary models of teaching to focus on individuals’
backgrounds, talents, interests, and the nature of their past performance (Dewey,
1938). Joyce, Weil, and Calhoun (2004) explain that models of teaching describe
pedagogical sequences whereby students encounter a learning experience in
particular ways to generate specific outcomes. Each model of teaching emphasizes a

5
different way of thinking about and interacting with specific areas of the curriculum.
These differences reflect various theories of learning. For example, some models of
teaching are closely linked with the information processing system such as: Concept
Formation, Inquiry Training, Concept Attainment and Advance Organizer (Joyce et
al., 2004). Other models are more responsive to social interaction, such as Group
Investigation (Thelen, 1960). Still other models, like Direct Instruction, are aligned
with procedural understandings and behaviorist principles of learning (Palincsar,
1998; Rosenshine, 1970; Joyce et al., 2004).
The models of teaching range from teacher-directed to student-centered
whereby the intellectual responsibility and demand on the student varies as a
function of the type of model (Joyce et al., 2004). They also differ in the ways they
require students to think, investigate and/or inquire. Some models necessitate and
strengthen deductive reasoning (Ausubel, 1963, 1968) while others emphasize
inductive thinking processes (Taba 1966; Tennyson & Cocchiarella, 1986; Gagné,
1965a). Several of the models are used to teach students the process of inquiry
(Schwab, 1965; Thelan, 1960), some build the skills of convergent and divergent
thinking, while others focus on developing conceptual understanding of content
(Taba, 1966, 1967). See Table 1.1 for an overview of each model of teaching
including the relevant theorists, core model tenants, and the qualities cultivated and
enhanced by each model.

6
Table 1.1: Model of Teaching Overview

Model Major Theorist Tenants Qualities Fostered
Advance
Organizer
David Ausubel Deductive reasoning;
Increase efficiency of
information processing
Divergent
thinking;
Organization
Group
Investigation
John Dewey;
Herbert Thelen
Inquiry;
Social processes
Interest
Concept
Attainment
Jerome Bruner Inductive reasoning;
Concept development
Convergent
thinking
Concept
Formation
Hilda Taba Inductive reasoning;
Concept development;
Theory building
Creativity;
Convergent
thinking
Inquiry Training Richard Suchman Inquiry;
Inductive reasoning
Interest
Direct
Instruction
Madeline Hunter High-control;
Skill learning;
Procedural understanding;
Guided practice
Organization;
Communication

Literature in the field of gifted education stresses the need of gifted students
to have learning experiences that push them beyond procedural understanding of the
core curriculum (VanTassel-Baska & Brown, 2007). Passow (1982) describes the
guiding principle concerning curriculum development for gifted learners. He says
that curriculum content should focus on advance content acquisition and thus, “be
organized to include more elaborate, more complex and in-depth study of major
ideas, problems, and themes that integrate knowledge within and across systems of
thought” (p. 7). By using a repertoire of instructional models, each of which was

7
developed for a particular purpose, teachers can develop rich curricula and promote
advanced content acquisition (Joyce et al., 2004).
Further, well-developed education for the gifted teaches students the learning
process through learning-to-learn skills (Karnes & Bean, 2009; Feldhusen &
Treffinger, 1980). Joyce et al. (2004) point out that models of teaching are also
models of learning. When teachers use the models of instruction, they engage
students in robust cognitive and social tasks and teach students how to use them
productively. These authors describe how the models of teaching improve students’
capabilities to learn more easily and effectively in the future by directly addressing
the skills of how to learn. Understanding the process of learning allows students to
be self-directed, an essential skill for the gifted child whose full range of cognitive
needs may not be addressed in a heterogeneous classroom (Kaplan, 2003). It also
promotes the important role of research in creating lifelong, autonomous learners
(Betts & Kercher, 1999). Thus, models of teaching empower gifted students with
tools to learn themselves and provide them with differentiated learning and thinking
experiences that promote cognitive and social development.
Thomas Jefferson once said, “There is nothing more unequal than equal
treatment of unequal people.” In a democracy, all are promised no barriers will be
raised to their pursuit of happiness, health, liberty, and justice, “for it is recognized
that the fullest achievement of each of us must be encouraged not only for the
individual, but for the benefit of all” (Clark, 1997, p. 86). These two tenants
represent fundamental principles of our nation’s school system. As the

8
demographics of our nation grow increasingly more diverse, the idea of equity
becomes progressively more crucial to educational policy and planning. The
inception of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) demonstrates the broad push of the
nation toward equity for all through a well-defined accountability system. Of
particular importance in this broadly significant legislation is the focus on equitably
meeting the needs of students of diversity through highly emphasized accountability
measures (Fusarelli, 2004). Students of diversity include those with different ethnic
and racial backgrounds, physical characteristics, family status, sexual orientation,
socioeconomic status, religious and spiritual values, geographic location, and
cognitive abilities (Council for Exceptional Children, 2008).
Gifted students compose an important component of academic diversity as
their cognitive abilities can often vary greatly from the norm (Morelock, 1992). As
such, this group of students has specialized needs that must be met in public schools
today. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) were
recently analyzed and described in the Fordham Institute’s report on “High
Achieving Students in the Era of No Child Left Behind.” The authors compared how
students in the 90
th
percentile and those in the 10
th
percentile scored from 2002 to
2007. Findings indicate that while the nation’s lowest-achieving youngsters made
rapid gains from the years examined, the performance of the top students was
“languid.” Further, it is also indicated that since the introduction of NCLB, teachers
are much more likely to indicate that the struggling, not the advanced, students are
their top priority (Duffett, Farkas, & Loveless, 2008).

9
The Equal Educational Opportunity Act states that the denial of equal
educational opportunity is prohibited in the United States (20 USC Sec. 1703, 1974).
Clark (2006) points out that having equal opportunity does not mean having the same
opportunity; it means having experiences available that are uniquely appropriate for
each individual. Offering a talented artist and a brilliant mathematician the same
experiences in art and math is not equity. Rather, equity is offering them an equal
opportunity to pursue their individual goals toward excellence. Every student,
regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or socioeconomic status, has an equal right to a
quality educational experience; however, that should not be interpreted as being the
same experiences. Gifted or high-ability students, like all students, must be
challenged to meet their fullest potential, just as struggling students are challenged to
meet theirs (Tomlinson et al., 2009; Gallagher, 1975).
Giftedness resides in all cultures, economic backgrounds, and socioeconomic
groups (U.S. Department of Education, 1993; Gallagher, 1994). However, not every
school district offers services for gifted students, even though there are gifted
students in every district. In many states, only affluent districts can afford to offer
gifted education programs and services in the absence of federal and state funding
(National Association for Gifted, n.d.). In addition, some states across the nation
vary on their support of gifted education. Eight states mandate and fund gifted
education, twenty-two states mandate and partially fund programs, three states
mandate but do not provide funding, nine states recommend but do not fund gifted
programs, and eight states do not recommend or fund gifted education (Davidson

10
Institute for Talent Development, 2009). In states where gifted programming is not
mandated, local districts are left in charge of deciding if and how to service their
gifted population. Additionally, the underrepresentation of minority children in
gifted education programs is a documented problem for the educational system
(Naglieri & Ford, 2003; Ford, Baytops, & Harmon, 1997). The issue is how to help
schools and educators recognize the gifts and talent potential in students of all
backgrounds and then foster these talents in programs designed to meet their special
needs, even with a paucity of funding and in situations where there is a lack of legal
and administrative support.
Scholars and policy makers are consistently working to address this issue.
The Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act is a significant force
for this initiative. The Javits Act focuses resources on identifying and serving
students who are traditionally underrepresented in gifted and talented programs,
particularly economically disadvantaged, limited-English proficient, and disabled
students, to help reduce gaps in achievement and to encourage the establishment of
equal educational opportunities for all students (U.S. Department of Education,
2008).
Statement of the Problem
With more than three million gifted students in the United States (National
Association for Gifted Children, n.d.) and five hundred and fifty thousand in the state
of California, the special needs of this considerable population must be addressed in
the school setting. Literature in the field of gifted education is plentiful and

11
describes issues from identification procedures (Callahan, Hunsaker, Scott, Adams,
Cheryll, Moore, Sara, & Bland, 1995), to social and emotional development
(Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002), to curriculum and instructional
differentiation (Tomlinson, Kaplan, Renzulli, Purcell, Leppien, Burns, Stricklan, &
Imbeau, 2009; Van Tassel-Baska, 2004), to advocacy and policy issues (Gallagher,
1995) related to this unique group.
Studies have shown that teachers are one of the most influential factors in
gifted students’ educational experience (Vialle & Quigley, 2002). It is clear that the
decisions teachers make related to what curriculum to teach, how to teach that
curriculum, how to group students, and how to assess understanding, shape
important facets of students’ cognitive development (Westerman, 1991). Teachers
of the gifted must challenge students to develop increasingly high levels of thinking
and sophisticated understandings of the core curriculum (Nation Association for
Gifted Children & Council for Exceptional Children, 2006). Specifically, when the
teacher uses models of teaching, the students’ critical and creative thinking skills and
conceptual understanding of content are strengthened and supported (Maker &
Nielson, 1995). In addition, students gain experience with the process of learning
how to learn effectively which enables them to learn more easily and be a self-
directed learner (Joyce et al., 2004).
While much is known about the positive benefits of the models of teaching
and the important influence of teacher decision-making, little research has been
specifically conducted to connect the two concepts. Specifically, it is unclear how

12
teachers’ personal characteristics might influence the decisions they make related to
pedagogical practices. An analysis of the intersection of teachers’ perceptions about
themselves and their preferences for teaching models is an area not yet explored in
educational research.
Purpose of the Study
This study is intended to uncover relationships between teachers of a
heterogeneous group of students including a gifted cluster and their preference for
and implementation of the models of teaching. Knowledge gleaned adds to the body
of literature related to teacher characteristics and decision-making. The role of
teacher expectancy and value beliefs are two important components of many theories
of behavior motivation (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002) and inform the study of teacher
decision-making. Expectancy beliefs reflect a teacher’s beliefs about whether they
will be capable of doing a task (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2000), in this case,
implementing a model of teaching, and having success in terms of student outcomes.
The value beliefs refer to the different beliefs teachers have about the reasons they
should use the models of teaching, how they value the characteristics of gifted
students and differentiated curriculum (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2000). Thus, the
personal attributes of a teacher would influence their expectancy and value beliefs
related to the models of teaching. This qualitative study was intended to determine
how specific teacher attributes influence their pedagogical decisions related to the
models of teaching.

13
Research Question
The following question represents an area of study not yet fully explored
related to teachers of the gifted and the pedagogical decisions they make specifically
in regard to the models of teaching.
1. What personal characteristics of teachers are associated with their
preferences for and uses of particular models of teaching?
Importance of the Study
Advocates of gifted education assert that academically talented students need
a challenging curriculum and a well-trained teacher who can motivate them, as well
as challenge them to realize their full potential. The National Association of the
Gifted (n.d.) describes how gifted students, without properly trained teachers, cannot
excel to their highest potential, and often find themselves bored and frustrated in
school. According to a National Research Center on Gifted and Talented study, 61%
of classroom teachers did not receive any training in meeting the needs of gifted and
talented students (Archambault, Jr., Westberg, Brown, Hallmark, Emmons, & Zhang,
1993). A 2007 Fordham Institute report found that, while low-achieving students
have made gains under NCLB, advanced-learners are "lanquishing" and that teachers
feel they need to spend the bulk of their time with struggling students even though
they know that others in the classroom need attention as well (Duffett, Farkas, &
Loveless, 2008).
The purpose of the current study is to increase understanding about teachers
of the gifted in terms of their pedagogical preferences and uses. Many policy and

14
curriculum documents list the desirable and essential qualities of good teachers of
gifted students (Vialle & Quigley, 2002). Moving beyond a simple list of
characteristics of effective teachers of the gifted, this study seeks to determine the
relationships between these desired characteristics and the pedagogical decisions that
are influenced by teachers’ personal traits and understanding of gifted students’
needs. Determining this relationship can have implications for policy makers and
teacher education both for university programs and for school districts such as:
recruitment qualifications, curriculum modifications, and teacher placement that
provides the best student-teacher match.
Conceptual Framework
Maslow’s motivational concept of self-actualization provides a foundation
for Vialle & Quigley’s (2002) framework and a theoretical orientation for the present
study. The theory is considered part a humanism perspective that focuses on how
individuals acquire and act on emotions, attitudes, values, and interpersonal skills.
This philosophical perspective has its roots in clinical and counseling psychology
and provides insight into human mental constitution (Ormrod, 2008). According to
Maslow (1987), all humans have basic needs including physiological, safety, love
and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization needs, which are arranged in a
hierarchy. The first four needs are considered to be deficiency needs or relate to
things that an individual may lack. Deficiency needs can only be met by external
sources from one’s environment and must be satisfied to reach the final, high-level
need. This last need, self-actualization, describes how people desire to reach their

15
own full personal potential and enhance their personal growth and development.
Rather than addressing a deficiency, self-actualization is considered to be a growth
or being need (Woolfolk, 2007). According to the theory this need is never
completely satisfied; people seeking to self-actualize continually strive for further
fulfillment. Self-actualizing behaviors are intrinsically motivation as people engage
in them because doing so gives them pleasure and satisfies their desire to know more
and grow.
Maslow’s theory provides a way of examining a whole individual whose
physical, emotional, and intellectual needs are interrelated and affect one’s
motivation (Woolfolk, 2007). It provides a lens through which to view how a
teacher’s psychological characteristics influence their behavior and decision-making.
The theory offers grounding for Vialle & Quigley’s (2002) framework of teacher
characteristics and the interconnectivity to teacher decision-making. Teachers who
are the most self-actualized are likely to evince the personal-social characteristics,
intellectual-cognitive traits, and teaching approaches described by Vialle & Quigley
(2002) and act in ways to seek further realization of their own personal potential
(Ormrod, 2008), in this case teaching potential.
Methodological Design
This study uses a qualitative approach to research the interaction of teacher
personal characteristics and pedagogical practices, specifically their preference and
use of the models of teaching with gifted students. The purposeful sample
population includes 12 teachers in urban school districts within Southern California.

16
All 12 teachers were participants in a grant awarded to the University of Southern
California under the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of
the U.S. Department of Education (PR #S206A040072).
Data were collected through a standardized open-ended interview. This
approach was employed to obtain rich qualitative data related to teacher
characteristics and pedagogical decision making (see Appendix A). Probing
questions, determined in advance and at the time of the interview, were used to
provide additional insight on interviewee responses. A pilot study was conducted to
test logistics and gather relevant information about the instrument before its use.
Necessary modifications to the instruments were made following the pilot to enhance
the study’s quality and efficiency. The interviews were carried out using
Institutional Review Board approved protocols for the University of Southern
California.
Assumptions, Limitations, Delimitations
It is assumed that all procedures of this study are conducted with ethical
consideration following the IRB approved process. All participants were informed
of the confidential nature of their responses to allow for complete honesty in their
responses. Furthermore, it is assumed that all responses made by the participants
were honest and reflective of the true nature of their thoughts, feelings, perceptions,
and understandings. Because the teaching process is both complex and dynamic
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990), it is implicit that the responses provided by
participants will be contextually influenced and multifaceted in nature. In addition,

17
it is assumed that participants’ knowledge of gifted students’ specialized learning
needs and understanding of the models of teaching have been influenced and
enhanced by the professional development training that participants received during
grant dissemination.
The research question related to this study was defined by the specifications
of a federal grant award and the data analysis is responsive to the major grant
research questions. The sample of the teachers was selected only through grant
participation and was therefore predetermined through grant specifications.
Understanding the particular sample studied, subjects have gained in-depth insights
into the specialized pedagogical needs of gifted students through their participation
in the U.S. Department of Education Javits Grant (PR #S206A040072) that might
not otherwise have been attainable through a random sampling of subjects.
Importantly, the data used in this study were almost exclusively self-reported. Self-
report data may be susceptible to problems derived from memory restrictions and
perception differences (Patton, 2002). Additionally, multiple and complex variables
affect teacher decision-making (Westerman, 1991). This study does not purport to
control for these variables.
Definitions
Curriculum: Refers to a course of study, the course content, the planned
learning experiences, and the intended learning outcomes or results of instruction
(Parkay et al., 2006).

18
Cluster Grouping: A classroom composition where students are grouped in a
regular classroom and receive applicable differentiated curriculum from the regular
teacher (California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Chapter 4, Section 3840b).
Differentiation: The modifications made to curriculum to meet the unique
needs of learners. It may include modifications in complexity, depth, pacing, and
selecting among, rather than covering all, of the curriculum areas (California
Association for Gifted, 2003, p. 67).
Gifted Student: A label given to identify an individual who needs special
education services to ensure their academic, social and emotional growth and
development because of his/her unique and advanced abilities (California
Association for Gifted, 2003, p. 68).
Instruction: The intentional facilitation of learning toward some identified
learning goal (Smith & Ragan, 2005).
Models of Teaching: Pedagogical sequences that describe the learning
environment in which students acquire information, ideas, skills, values, manners of
thinking, and means of expressing themselves. Models may be used in planning
curriculum and lessons, and in designing instructional materials (Joyce et al., 2004).
Self-actualization: A term for self-fulfillment and the realization of personal
potential (Maslow, 1970).

19
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter presents an orientation to the relevant literature related to
teacher characteristics and pedagogical decision-making. It begins with a discussion
about general teacher characteristics and then details research and theory related to
teacher characteristics for gifted populations. A discussion of teacher decision-
making follows with an examination of the multiple influences on teacher
judgments, decisions, and behaviors. Last, an extensive examination of curriculum
and pedagogical issues for gifted students is described. This section delineates six
different models of teaching and includes the origin, purposes, syntax, and research
related to each pedagogical model.
Teacher Characteristics
Factors affecting the learning of students are cumbersome and complex.
However, one of the most crucial factors influencing the learning of students is the
teacher (Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997; Rakow, Airasian, & Madaus, 1978). With
significant influence on the learning environment, teachers are critical to the success
of gifted programs, and thus the success of gifted students (Renzulli, 1968). The
idea of identifying specific characteristics of outstanding teachers is not a new
phenomenon. As far back as the eighteenth century it was expected that teachers
should have special characteristics that would set them apart from other professionals
(Sanderlin, 1973). Recent research in the area of teacher education has revealed that

20
one set of special characteristics for all teachers is not necessarily appropriate or
beneficial to all students. But rather, as Brophy and Good (1986) point out, the traits
embodied in an effective teacher for one type of student (e.g. a gifted student) are not
necessarily the most important characteristics in an effective teacher for a different
kind of student.
Research in the area of general teacher education is appropriately more
plentiful than research conducted for specific populations like the gifted. Different
sources define necessary understandings, skills, strategies and temperaments for
teachers. Wise, Darling-Hammond and Berry (1987) describe how metaphorically
teachers have been compared to a variety of professions including: an artist (Eisner,
1978), a laborer (Mitchell & Kerchner, 1981), a manager (Berliner, 1984), a
bureaucrat (Wise, 1979), as well as craft persons and professionals (Lortie, 1975).
They assert that each metaphor describes a different notion of what a teacher should
do in a classroom and what characteristics effective teachers should possess (Wise et
al., 1987).
NCATE demands teacher programs ensure that new teachers have the
necessary content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge and skills to teach
(National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2008). The California
Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs) describe a set of knowledge, skills, and
abilities beginning teachers should have and be able to demonstrate in order to earn a
credential in the state (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2008).
State legislation also requires that the performance of certificated personnel be

21
evaluated every two years under a uniform objective system of assessment developed
by each local school district (Bennett, 1974). In addition, theorists and researchers
have compiled lists of qualities of effective teachers. For example, Stronge (2002)
focuses on affective characteristics of effective teachers and lists the traits of: being
caring, listening to students, understanding student concerns and questions,
informally and formally knowing the students, being fair and respectful, interacting
socially with students, promoting enthusiasm and motivation for learning, having
positive attitudes toward the teaching profession, and engaging in reflective practice
as essential for teaching.
Whitlock and DuCette (1989) note an agreement exists among researchers,
scholars, and teachers that a set of characteristics and skills can be described that
exemplify outstanding gifted education teachers. The following section will describe
issues and themes in the research literature related to characteristics of effective
teachers of the gifted.
Effective Teacher Characteristics for Gifted Students
Several methods have been used to obtain data about effective teacher
characteristics. Many past research projects studied teachers that were considered to
be effective gifted instructors as a means to extrapolated lists of effective teacher
characteristics. A second method used was to survey a large number of gifted
instructors or scholars in the field of gifted education in order to find out what they
felt constituted characteristics of effective gifted instructors. A third way used to

22
study this topic was to review lists of effective characteristics for general education
and apply them to characteristics for gifted instructors.
Measuring Effective Teachers. The process of measuring the effectiveness of
teachers is a complicated one. First, there is no specific test for either teachers or
students that can be used to measure how effective particular teachers are in the
educational process. Second, every learning situation is unique. That is, each year
different students enter a class with different backgrounds, amounts of prior
knowledge, skills and strategies, and dispositions toward learning. This makes both
cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of student achievement and learning
difficult. And third, while formal and informal observations of a teacher can be
conducted to determine the skill and strategies used by the teacher, after the
observation is over, the teacher can teach in a completely different style or manner.
Difficulties associated with measuring teacher effectiveness render problems
for studying characteristics of effective gifted instructors. Several methods,
however, have been used to ascertain data on characteristics of effective gifted
instructors. Each method has particular advantages and disadvantages. Further, the
method used for determining the gifted instructors to be studied affects the resulting
characteristics of gifted instructors described.
Two methods have been commonly used to select effective teachers. First,
students are asked to nominate teachers that they consider particularly effective or
influential. Research is then conducted on the chosen teachers. Bishop (1968) in his
commonly cited research article, “Successful Teachers of the Gifted,” used and

23
described such a process. After students were asked to select a teacher who was, “in
general, the best and most successful teacher for him-the one who made the greatest
difference in his educational career,” (pg. 153), six separate media sources were used
to extrapolate data on the individual teachers. These media included a teacher self-
report called the Teacher Characteristics Schedule (Ryan, 1960), a student
questionnaire, a personal interview, scores from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale (verbal section), scores from the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, and
all college transcripts. While these multiple measures are undoubtedly
comprehensive and lead to a useful list of teacher characteristics, the fact that
students nominated the teachers that were the “best” and who made “the biggest
difference” could possibly skew the data toward teachers who were particularly
memorable for reasons unrelated to academic growth and achievement.
The second main method for determining effective gifted instructors is to use
teacher nomination. Whitlock and DuCette (1989) used this method for arriving at a
list of characteristics of effective gifted instructors. In their study an expert panel of
scholars in the field of gifted education developed criteria they felt were important
for gifted instructors. The panel then nominated selected teachers they felt fit the
criteria previously decided upon. The nominated teachers completed a Likert scale
survey in which they rated the importance of characteristics of gifted instructors.
While the characteristics rated most important may have important implications for
the classroom, the method used to obtain these scores could have significantly
skewed the data (i.e. the panel nominated teachers that share their own opinions

24
about effective teacher characteristics). Nevertheless, the results of the study still
add to the body of information on the topic.
Alternate Methods for Measuring Characteristics. Another method used to
develop a list of characteristics and competencies of teachers of gifted learners is to
survey current gifted instructors and scholars in the field. David Chan (2001) used
this method for obtaining a list of important gifted teacher characteristics according
to Hong Kong Chinese teachers. Teachers were given a list of 25 characteristics and
14 competences and asked to rate them based on their importance to gifted
education. Fifty teachers participated voluntarily in the study, 15 of whom reported
that they had experience teaching gifted students, 32 of whom reported they had no
experience, and 3 of whom did not respond. None of the teachers had any previous
training in gifted education. Results of this study may be considered problematic, as
teachers rating the importance of characteristics for gifted students had no previous
experience or training in the field of gifted education.
Milton Gold’s (1982) work with teachers for gifted children utilized a similar
method to obtain effective teacher characteristics. Gold compiled a very extensive
list of personal traits and teaching characteristics for effective gifted instructors
though the use of personal experience, research, and other scholarly opinion. While
lists provide insight into the multifaceted competencies effective teachers must
possess, all characteristics are not necessarily derived from hard-data or testable
studies.

25
Donna Ford and Michelle Trotman (2001) developed a list of characteristics
for effective gifted instructors by adapting essential general teacher characteristics
for gifted education. Their work focused on integrating multicultural characteristics
and competencies into gifted teacher training and practice. Characteristics of gifted
educators are combined with characteristics of multicultural education teachers to list
favorable characteristics of gifted multicultural education teachers. The list of
characteristics created by these two researches certainly has implications for gifted
instruction, however, it should be noted these suggestions are not proven or tested in
conclusive studies.
Characteristics of Effective Gifted Instructors. Lists of the characteristics for
effective gifted instructors range from hundreds of items to just a few items and from
general overarching traits to very specific attributes (Miller, 2000). Not surprisingly
many characteristics of effective gifted instructors overlap with the characteristics of
general education teachers; however some critical teacher characteristics are unique
to gifted education. Gold (1982) posed an important research question in the field of
gifted teacher education, “Can one distinguish between ‘the best teachers’ and ‘the
best teachers for the gifted?’” Upon completion of his research he explained, “Since
the good teacher in general must be a paragon of pedagogic virtues, the teacher
prescribed for the gifted by various authorities, pupils, and parents, turns out to be a
paragon of paragons” (pg 414). Thus, there seems to be special qualities that set
apart exceptional gifted educators from average gifted or general educators. Table
2.1, adapted from Vialle and Quigley’s (2002) comprehensive review of the

26
literature, is a summary of the traits generally recognized as characteristics of
effective gifted instructors.

Table 2.1: Summary of Characteristics of Effective Gifted Instructors. Adapted
from “Characteristics of Effective Teachers of the Gifted” (Vialle & Quigley, 2002)

Has insight into the cognitive, social, and emotional needs
of gifted students
Possesses a sense of humor
Is willing to make mistakes
Is enthusiastic

Personal Social
Characteristics
Is culturally responsive
Has skills in differentiating the curriculum for gifted
students
Employs strategies that encourage higher level thinking
Encourages students to be independent learners
Provides student-centered learning opportunities
Acts as a facilitator or “guide on the side”
Creates a non-threatening learning environment

Teaching Strategies
& Skills
Is well organized
Possesses in-depth knowledge of subject matter
Has broad interests, often literary and cultural
Has above average intelligence
Is a lifelong learner

Intellectual-
Cognitive
Characteristics
Thinks creatively

One of the most debated topics pertaining to the characteristics of gifted
instructors is the question, does the teacher of the gifted need to be intellectually
gifted as well? And while many scholars hold their own opinion of the issue, the

27
general consensus of this matter has seen a change over time. As the idea of
intelligence has shifted in the decades from one of a strict definition to a more
inclusive one like Gardner’s (1999) Multiple Intelligence, so has the importance of
this quality in a gifted educator. Many of the more dated sources like Bishop (1968),
and Gold (1982) feel that superior intelligence is essential to an effective gifted
instructor. Gold (1982) states, “An intellectually gifted child needs a teacher who is
intellectually superior” (pg. 415). Bishop concluded, “Teachers who were successful
with mentally superior students were mentally superior themselves” (Bishop, 1968).
However, over time, studies have begun to suggest that is may not necessarily be as
imperative as it once seemed. In Whitlock and DuCette’s (1989) study, outstanding
teachers of the gifted were compared to average teachers of the gifted. A panel of
experts in the field of gifted education compiled a list of traits necessary for the
gifted educator. Missing from the list of necessary traits was superior intelligence.
Further when the teachers of outstanding gifted students were compared to average
teachers of gifted students, no difference in the teachers’ intellectual capacity was
noted. Chan’s (2001) study also found personal attributes such as being highly
intelligent less important to the profession. Although less attention is given to the
possession of this characteristic in terms of recruitment, placement, and training in
gifted education, some scholars still maintain its importance for the field (Miller,
2000).
Another change in recent times regarding characteristics of excellent gifted
instructors is a movement toward stronger multicultural characteristics and

28
competencies. This movement is reflective of an increasing ethnic diversity in the
population of gifted education. Ford and Trotman (2001) were compelled to
emphasize the importance of these “often overlooked” characteristics and
competences, as they are needed by teachers to work effectively with gifted students.
Prior to Ford and Trotmans’ studies, lists of characteristics of gifted instructors
seldom addressed the need for teachers to have multicultural skills and
competencies. Yet without these, they argue, gifted teachers would not be able to
effectively work with gifted students who are linguistically, culturally, and ethnically
diverse (Ford & Trotman, 2001).
While possessing a high level of creativity has often been an indicator of
student giftedness, the necessity of this attribute in teachers of the gifted is somewhat
debated. Many scholars believe having creativity is advantageous for teachers of
gifted and talented students. Some, like Gillian Rejskind (2000), claim that
creativity is crucial for teachers of gifted students. His latest article clearly supports
this position, “TAG [(Teachers of the Academically Gifted)] Teachers: Only the
Creative Need Apply.” Others have found it to not be such a compulsory
characteristic of effective gifted instructors (Whitlock & DuCette, 1989; Chan 2001),
but rather have emphasized other characteristics as more essential to the profession.
Certainly the possession of the attribute would not hinder a gifted instructor, as one
of their main duties is, in fact, to stimulate higher-level creative thinking in gifted
students; however, the absolute necessity of such a trait is questionable.

29
Implications for Teacher Education. Research conducted on the
characteristics of effective gifted instructors usually leads to suggestions for gifted
teacher education and training, the recruitment of teachers for the gifted, and
placement of gifted instructors in districts and schools. Several studies seek to
develop a prototype or ideal model of a gifted instructor, which could potentially
guide the decision-making processes of those charged with the important
responsibilities of educating, selecting, and guiding teachers of gifted students
(Bishop, 1968).
Questions arise over the trainability of certain characteristics. While many
programs for gifted teacher education have tried to foster characteristics and
competences of effective gifted instructors, some qualities, such as the possession of
a sense of humor are less able to be taught than others, and must be partially natural
or intrinsic to the instructor. Hansen and Feldhusen (1994) contend that personal
characteristics, more un-trainable in nature, should be used in selection criteria for
educational programs and/or districts, but teacher education programs should focus
on more teachable skills, strategies, and competencies. Chan (2001) asserts that
successful programming for the gifted depends on the support of teachers trained to
teach gifted learners.
It has long been assumed that training for instructors of the academically
gifted is actually beneficial to the gifted students (Sisk, 1975); however, Hansen and
Feldhusen (1994) felt it necessary to test this assumption. They conducted a study to
show that teachers trained in gifted education demonstrated greater teaching skills

30
and developed more positive class climates than did teachers who had no training in
gifted education. Further, students of trained gifted instructors reported greater
emphasis on higher-level thinking skills and on discussion (two particularly
beneficial strategies for gifted students), and less emphasis on lecture and grades,
than did students of untrained teachers. In fact, “gifted students were motivated to
learn for the joy of learning in classrooms with trained teachers,” proving that
teachers of the gifted can be trained to inspire motivation even though motivation is
often thought of as a less trainable quality.
Teacher Decision-Making
Carol Mill’s (2003) study of teacher background and personality style
determined that the personality types and cognitive styles of successful gifted
teachers were in many ways similar to those of gifted students. Specifically the
teachers demonstrated strong preferences for abstract and conceptual thinking.
Results from the study indicated that personality and cognitive style play an
important role in a teacher’s ability to effectively instruct gifted students (Mills,
2003). The study suggested a need to understand casual factors related to why
personality and cognitive style is important. Joyce (1969) described how
instructional decisions that teachers make arise from their “geist,” the German word
for spirit. He further defines geist as a “frame of reference” that “operates in the
minds” of teachers and is used to select educational goals and the means for going
about achieving them (p. 509). What Joyce (1969) suggests is that who teachers are

31
as people and what their personal preferences are affect their instructional decisions
in the classroom.
Teacher decision-making is a highly complex, cognitively demanding activity
(Westerman, 1991; Shavelson & Sterm, 1981). Thinking and decision-making allow
teachers to organize information and direct the behaviors that form the context for
both teaching and learning (Medley, 1981). Jackson (1968) started a paradigm shift
in education research related to decision-making when he described the complexity
of the classroom. Prior this time, most research focused solely on teachers’
observable behaviors and neglected to examine teachers’ thought processes
(Westerman, 1991). Jackson (1968) described teacher decision-making much more
broadly with an emphasis on the thinking processes. He described decision-making
as preactive, occurring before teaching, interactive, occurring during teaching, and
postactive, occurring after teaching.
Shavelson and Stern (1981) conducted a seminal review of the research
related to teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, and decisions. Based on this
research they formulated a schema of teachers’ judgments, planning decisions, and
interactive decisions (see Figure 2.1). This model of teacher decision-making is
based on the cognitive view of the human mind, which explicitly acknowledges the
existence of internal mental states and describes thinking as the process of
information processing. According to this theory, the human mind’s ability to
process information is limited. Individuals attend to specific information in the
environment and through various mental processes move it through a series of

32
memory registers: sensory, short-term, and long-term memory. Because the
capacity of the human mind for formulating and solving complex problems such as
those presented in teaching is very small compared to the “enormity of some ‘ideal’
model of rationality,” a person has to construct a simplified model of the real
situation (Shavelson & Stern, 1981, p.456). Shavelson and Stern (1981) contend that
teachers behave reasonability in making decisions in uncertain and complex
environments. According to this model, teachers integrate information about the
students, the subject matter, the classroom, and the school environment in order to
reach judgments and decisions upon which their behaviors are based.
Bruner (1965) describes how people must selectively perceive and interpret
portions of the available information due to the limitations of their information
processing system. Nisbett & Ross (1980) describe how the judgments and decisions
that people make are based on their psychological model of reality. Shavelson and
Sterns’ (1981) model of teacher decision-making demonstrates how information
about students, teachers attributions, individual characteristics of teachers, the nature
of the instructional task, and institutional constraints interact to form teacher
judgments which influence the pedagogical decisions that are made (see Figure 2.1).

33

Figure 2.1: Some Factors Contributing to Teacher Pedagogical Judgments and
Decisions. Adapted from Shavelson & Stern (1981).

34
Teacher Characteristics
Most research asserts that one or more of the characteristics of teachers
influence their decision-making and behavior. A few studies have investigated how
teachers’ decisions and/or behaviors are related to their cognitive style. For
example, Peterson, Marx and Clark (1978) found that teachers with a low conceptual
level had more planning statements dealing with factual subject matter while those
with high conceptual levels were planning at more abstract levels. Other studies
have shown how teachers’ beliefs about education and teaching guide their decision-
making. Barr’s (1975) study related to reading instruction demonstrated how
teachers who favored comprehension activities over decoding activities were more
likely to group students during basal reading instruction than for phonics instruction.
Pearson and Kamil (1978), in their study about reading instruction, found that the
teachers make different instructional decisions based on the particular instructional
model to which they adhere. For example, if teachers assumed that learning to read
was a bottom-up process, they would use this model to teach students. Joyce (1969)
contends that this can be instructionally problematic. He argues that teachers in their
“human frailty…tend to become locked into one frame of reference and select the
same kinds of objectives over and over again, and return to the same kinds of means
for achieving them” (p. 510). In his view, schools must be careful not to engender
themselves in ways that stifle “the natural pluralism” that occurs among teachers and
classrooms (Joyce, 1969, p. 510).

35
Some theorists maintain that a teacher’s personal psychosexual development
or complex set of self-concepts play a critical role in the decision-making process
(Wright, 1965; Combs, 1965). They maintain that university methods courses need
to be a place of self-study where the teachers deeply analyze themselves and their
behaviors in order to gain control over their decisions (Joyce, 1969). This self-
reflective process aligns with teacher programs that prepare teachers to become
inquirers about the world.
Expert Decision-Making
Another line of study related to teacher decision-making has focused on the
development of expertise in teaching. Study of the nature of expertise began in the
study of chess prior to its application to the field education (de Groot, 1965). More
recently, comparisons of expert and novice teachers have shown that they differ in
how they think and make decisions. For example, Gagné (1985) and Gage and
Berliner (1984) described how novices lack metacogntive and monitoring skills due
to their less well-elaborated schemas. Westerman (1991) suggests that these skills
allow expert teachers to monitor the classroom, recognize problems, and make
decisions to solve those problems.
Sternberg and Horvath (1995) have suggested a prototype view of expert
teaching. They posit that experts differ from novices in three major ways:
knowledge, efficiency, and insight. Knowledge includes both the quantity and
organization related to the content to be taught, the pedagogy, and explicit and tacit
practical knowledge related to teaching. Efficiency refers to the degree of

36
automatization, skills of utilizing their executive control (planning, monitoring, and
evaluation), and distribution of cognitive resources. Insight refers to their ability to
selectively attend to or encode information, combine that information, and compare
it to make decisions (Sternberg & Horvath, 1995). Similarly, other theorists have
stressed the importance of pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, and the
interaction of the two, pedagogical content knowledge (Berliner, 1986; Shulman,
1987) for teacher decision-making. Westerman’s (1991) study of expert teacher
decisions determined that experts and novice teachers differed in how they integrated
knowledge of students and student behavior to make decisions, and particularly how
the three states of decision-making (preactive, interactive, and postactive) were
highly related.
Berliner (2004) notes that two major characteristics that separate novices
from experts teachers. First, experts make conscious decisions about what they will
do, and second, they are able to determine what is and what is not important when
caring out their decisions (Berliner, 2004). While these decisions affect all aspects
of the schooling process, one of the most important decisions that teachers make are
those related to the type of curriculum and instruction they will provide to their
students (Maker & Nielson, 1995).
Curriculum and Instruction for Gifted Students
According to NAGC, a continuum of programming services must exist for
gifted students (National Association of Gifted Children, 2000). These services
include provisions for proper identification, appropriate social and emotional support

37
of gifted students and curricula and instruction modified to meet the needs of gifted
students. Gifted students spend the majority of their education in heterogeneous,
mixed-ability classrooms (Riley, 2009; Maker & Nielson, 1995). While this has
always been the case for gifted students, cuts in funding to gifted education and the
inclusive education movement of the 1990s (Willard-Holt, 1994) have further
supported the use of mixed-ability classrooms (Riley, 2009). In response, NAGC
standards call for the regular classroom curricula and instruction to be adapted,
modified, or replaced to meet the unique needs of gifted learners (National
Association of Gifted Children, 2000). California educational code mandates
programs for gifted and talented pupils that include differentiated opportunities for
learning commensurate with the gifted pupil’s particular abilities and talents during
the regular school day (Ed. Code #52200).
Recommended standards for gifted students in the state of California call for
school districts to develop differentiated curriculum and instructional models and
strategies that are aligned with and extend the state academic content standards and
frameworks (California State Board of Education, 2005). Curriculum and instruction
is differentiated when it is modified to respond to variance among learners in a
classroom (Tomlinson, 2000). Gallagher (2003) notes that educational programs can
be altered through changing the learning environment, the curriculum, and/or the
methods used to teach. Within his definition, the learning environment represents the
psychological and physical environment in which the learning is to occur; the
curriculum is what is learned, and the methods are the instructional techniques

38
utilized and thinking processes students are expected to use (Gallagher, 1975).
Renzulli (1977) added that curricula can also be altered through products or the end
tangible outcomes expected of children as a result of the processes used. Heacox
(2002) states that differentiation means “changing the pace, level, or kind of
instruction…in response to individual learners’ needs, styles, or interests” (p. 5).
Similarly, Tomlinson (2000) suggests that teachers can differentiate based on
students’ readiness, interests, or learning profile through four elements: altering
content (what needs to be learned), altering processes (activities to master content),
changing products (culminating projects), and modifying the learning environment
(the way the classroom looks and feels). McClure (2006) explains differentiation in
terms of personalizing learning. She describes this as involving curricula, teaching,
and school organizations that are designed to address the needs of individual
students, providing learning experiences that extend beyond the school context into
the local community and beyond, and using an approach to teaching and learning
that focuses on an individual’s potential and learning skills.
While general consensus in the field of gifted education exists around the
idea that gifted students need curriculum and instruction that is “qualitatively
different from the program for all students,” (Maker & Nielson, 1995, p. 3), scholars
within the field subscribe to different ideas as to what constitutes the most
appropriate type of differentiation for gifted students. One of the major areas of
contention in the history of curriculum development for gifted education is the
debate of acceleration versus enrichment. Enrichment generally refers to the

39
horizontal broadening of the curriculum, while acceleration references a vertical
movement through the curriculum (Riley, 2009).
Van Tassel-Baska (1998) contends that some of the most successful
curriculum models for gifted students have been developed based on acceleration
principles for advanced secondary students. Acceleration involves moving students
through fast-paced academic programs as exemplified in the International
Bacalaureate Program and College Board Advanced Placement Program (Van
Tassel-Baska & Brown, 2009). Acceleration approaches originate from the work of
Terman and Oden (1947), Pressey (1949), and early developers of rapid learning
classes. In Swiatek’s (2000) review of longitudinal studies on acceleration, positive
results of accelerated practices were found while the negative consequences such as
knowledge gaps and loss of student interests, common criticisms of opponents, were
not found in the studies. One more contemporary curricular program in particular,
The Stanley Model of Talent Identification, based on the principles of acceleration,
has conducted numerous research studies published in over 300 articles, focusing on
the benefits of acceleration for continued advanced work in an area by precocious
students (Stanley, Keating, & Fox, 1974; Van Tassel-Baska, 2007). Advocates of
this “design-down” model argue that it promotes intellectual development (Keating,
1976), significant student achievement gains (Lynch, 1992), long-term positive
impacts (Benbow & Arjmad, 1990), and readiness for college (Van Tassel-Baska &
Brown, 2009).

40
Alternatives to this perspective tend to focus on learning beyond, or in lieu
of, traditional academics. Much of the most contemporary research supports an
enriched view of curriculum development for gifted students. Curriculum based on
the principles of enrichment ascribe to a broader conception of giftedness and tends
to take into account principles of creativity, motivation, and independence as crucial
constructs (Van-Tassel Baska & Brown, 2009). Much of the enrichment-oriented
approaches to curriculum development emanated from the early work of Leta
Hollinsworth. Strongly influenced by Dewey’s progressivism philosophy, she
created curriculum units for gifted students that allowed them to discover
connections about how the world worked and the role of creative people in society
by having students study biographies and converse through group dialogues
(Hollingworth, 1926).
The Renzulli Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM), originally the
Enrichment Triad Model, is one of the most well known examples of a program
based on an enrichment philosophy. In the SEM students are provided with
experiences that move them through awareness (Type I activities), the learning of
processes (Type II activities), and the development of real world projects (Type III
activities). This model fosters freedom of choice, lack of pressure, and
individualization of rate or pace through modification in content, learning style and
teaching strategy (Renzulli, 1977). Studies conducted on these models have found
positive effects for gifted students (Starko, 1986), including those representing
underserved populations (Ford, 1999; Johnsen, 2000) and those with learning

41
disabilities (Baum, 1988). Notably, many methodology issues of these studies, such
as lack of control or comparison groups, have been pointed out by Van Tassel-Baska
& Brown (2007) and may call into question the validity of these study results.
Pudue’s Three-Stage Enrichment Model for Elementary Gifted Learners also
exemplifies enrichment differentiation. In this program, students move through a
series of stages that foster simple thinking to complex independent activities
(Feldhusen & Kolloff, 1986). Studies have documented gains in creative thinking
and self-concept using this model (Kolloff & Feldhusen, 1984), and one study
documented limited long-term gains of the program (Moon & Feldhusen, 1994;
Moon, Feldhusen, & Dillon, 1994).
The Parallel Curriculum Model takes a different approach to curriculum
enrichment through four dimensions or parallels that are employed singly or in
combination (Tomlinson, Kaplan, Renzulli, Purcell, Leppien, & Burns, 2002).
According to the curricula, these dimensions are: the core curriculum, reflective of
the national, state, and local standards; the curriculum of connections, building
interdisciplinary connections; the curriculum of practice, noting expertise of
practitioners in a discipline; and the curriculum of identity, emphasizing student self-
definition and self-understanding. While no research-based evidence of
effectiveness has been shown, several curriculum units have been produced and
widely disseminated through efforts of the NAGC (Van Tassel-Baska & Brown,
2009).

42
In all cases, advocates of gifted education agree that modifications made to
the content, process, and products should be qualitative and should incorporate
“well-thought out meaningful learning experiences that capitalize on students’
strengths and interests (Ministry of Education, 2000, p. 36). Riley (2009) and others
stress the importance of using both acceleration and enrichment in tandem, rather
than an either/or approach. The California Recommended Standards for Programs for
Gifted and Talented Students reflect this viewpoint. These standards call for
differentiation that focuses “primarily on depth and complexity of content and
advanced or accelerated pacing of content and novelty” (California State Board of
Education, 2005, p. 4). Further, these standards require “an alignment of the
differentiated curriculum with instructional strategies that promote inquiry, self-
directed learning, discussion, debate, metacognition, and other appropriate modes of
learning” (California State Board of Education, 2005, p.4) whereby both the
curriculum (content) and the pedagogy (instruction) are matched and adapted to meet
the needs of gifted students.
Fostering student self-directed learning is another major goal of gifted
education curricula and instruction (Treffiger & Barton, 1988; Treffiger, 1975).
Betts and Kercher (1999) assert that students must be taught specific skill sets in
order to become self-directed learners that include: problem-solving, organization,
creativity, decision-making, goal-setting, research, as well as computer, writing, and
studying skills. Kaplan (2009) advocates for students to learn about the structure of
disciplines through disciplinary perspectives in order to appreciate that self-directed

43
learners need essential tools to probe content without adult intervention.
Furthermore, according to the California Educational Code, curricula and instruction
for gifted students must assist students to develop self-generated problem-solving
abilities and expand each student’s awareness of choices for satisfying contributions
in his or her environment (Ed. Code #52200).
Models of Teaching
Models of teaching are a means by which instruction can be differentiated to
meet the needs of gifted students. Maker and Nielson (1995) explain that a
“teaching-learning model is a structural framework that serves as a guide for
developing specific educational activities and environment” (p. 1). Ellis (1979)
describes models of teaching as strategies based on theories (and often research) of
people who have studied how humans learn. She notes that each model consists of a
rationale, a syntax or series of steps (actions and behaviors) to be taken by the
teacher and the students, a description of the necessary support system for the
learning to occur, and a method for evaluating the students’ progress. Models can
range from abstract to concrete, theoretical to practical, comprehensive to specific,
structured to unstructured, didactic to investigative, teacher-directed to student-
centered, and simple to complex (Maker & Nieson, 1995; Van Tassel-Baska &
Brown, 2007).
Joyce et al. (2004) identified more than 80 education models of teaching from
the work of educators, psychologists, sociologists, system analysts, psychiatrists, and
others related to theoretical positions about learning and teaching. They categorized

44
them into four distinct families based on “the sources of reality” (Joyce, Weil, Wald,
Gullion, Feller, & McKibbing, 1972, p. 3) upon which theorist drew as they focused
on the learner in his environment. Each group represents a different “orientation
toward man and his universe” (Joyce et al., 1972, p. 3). While the models are not
mutually exclusive, the four major families are: those oriented toward social
relations, those which draw upon the information processing system, those that focus
on personality development, and those developed from an analysis of how human
behavior is shaped (Joyce et al., 1972).
According to Joyce et al. (2004), as students acquire information, ideas,
skills, values, ways of thinking, and means of expressing themselves through models
of teaching, they are also learning how to learn or the process of learning. As such,
these researchers call models of teaching, “models of learning,” (Joyce et al., 2004,
p. 7) noting the important long-term outcome of these instructional techniques is to
increase students’ capability to learn more easily and effectively in the future as a
result of both the knowledge and skills they have acquired and the fact that they have
mastered more learning processes.
While the models of teaching were not created specifically within the field of
gifted education, they offer teachers ways to differentiate instruction and curriculum
to meet the needs of the gifted students. The NAGC – CEC Teacher Knowledge &
Skill Standards for Gifted and Talented Education maintain that educators of the
gifted must possess a repertoire of researched-based instructional strategies to use for
individuals with gifts and talents (National Association for Gifted Children &

45
Council for Exceptional Children, 2006). Kilgore (1984) reiterates this notion. He
asserts that no one model can accomplish all types of learning for all styles and
needs. Rather, teachers must acquire a set of teaching models and know how and
when to use them in various teaching situations similar to the way that doctors must
be able to call upon a variety of treatments to help a patient (Kilgore, 1984;
Joyce,1985).
The following section of the literature review will describe the various
models of teaching included in this study.
Advance Organizer. Developed by David Ausubel (1963, 1968) the Advance
Organizer model is based on the idea that organizers should be introduced in advance
of learning new content and tasks and should be formulated so that they take into
account the ideas and concepts already existing in students’ cognitive structure.
According to the theory, the organizer acts as a teaching tool that helps to bridge,
“the gap between what the learner already knows and what he needs to know if he is
going to learn new material most actively and expeditiously” (Ausubel, 2000, p. 11).
The Advance Organizer is designed to strengthen the students’ cognitive structures
to allow students to master academic material through presentations (Joyce et al.,
2004).
Three major principles undergird this model of teaching: the important role
that student prior knowledge plays in making connections and providing a
foundation for meaning making; the benefit of using more abstract concepts or
generalized ideas related to a content area; and the fact that organizers draw on

46
relevant content knowledge in order to determine the import of prior and new
knowledge (Ausubel, 2000). The syntax of the model includes three phases. In the
first phase the Advance Organizer is presented; in the second phase, the learning task
or material that is less abstract, generalizable and more detailed is presented; in the
third phase students work to strengthen their cognitive organization through a
process known as integrative reconciliation. This model does not purport to apply to
all school learning such as rote learning, motor skills, perceptual learning, concept
formation, or problem-solving, but rather it focuses on receptive learning and
retention and deductive thinking modes (Kilgore, 1984).
Evidence presented by Ausubel and others demonstrate the model’s
effectiveness for expository learning. While Ausubel’s research has shown consistent
12 to 20 percent increase in scores for students of teachers using the model (Kilgore,
1984), other researchers report score gains up to 50 percent higher for students
taught with the model (Lawton & Wanska, 1977). Ausubel (1960) conducted an
experiment with 120 college students. Students were administered a pretest to
establish their unfamiliarity with the topic metallurgy. Students were randomly
assigned to experimental and control groups and given passages to read related to the
topic. The experimental group received a passage containing an advance organizer
or information at a higher level of abstraction, generality, and inclusiveness, while
the control group received a passage that was relevant but must less specific. The
passages were given to provide prior knowledge for both groups. Several days later,
the students were given a multiple-choice test to determine their retention of the

47
information learned. Results showed favorable effects of the Advance Organizer
model.
Later, Ausubel and Fitzgerald (1962) conducted a study on the model with
similar results. In this study, students enrolled in an educational psychology course
were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. The students were
administered a multiple-choice exam to verify a control for their level of prior
knowledge related to the experiment’s content. On two occasions the treatment
groups were given an advance organizer to study, designed to introduce them to the
material they would be learning. Control groups were also provided with a passage
to study, but it was not related to the future information. All subjects were then
given a passage with information to learn. Two days later they were tested. While
the difference between students in the treatment group with high and average prior
knowledge was negligible; there was a significant difference between the treatment
and control groups with the lesser amounts of prior knowledge. The researchers
concluded that the organizer helped students with less prior knowledge retain
previously unfamiliar information (Ausubel & Fitzgerald, 1962).
Most recently Downing (1994), studied the Advance Organizer as an
effective teaching model through a case study approach. A unit for Year 9 economic
students in Australia related to food and nutritional practices of people from various
cultures was developed, presented, and critically analyzed. It was concluded that the
advantages of using the models were in conveying, establishing and sequencing the
curriculum in an organized knowledge hierarchy that gave pupils an understanding

48
of the fundamental structure of what they were learning (Bruner, 1965). In addition,
through the connections made to prior knowledge, students were provided with
opportunity for more meaningful verbal learning (Downing, 1994). A disadvantage
of the model was noted to be the time demands for planning and organizing the
material.
The Advance Organizer model has not gone without criticism. Often
proponents of discovery methods and experienced-based teaching, find fault in the
deductive nature of the model. Barnes and Clawson (1975) reviewed 32 studies on
the Advance Organized model and concluded that the efficacy of the model had not
been established through the studies. Lawson and Wanska (1977) responded that the
critique of the model was based on poor information and interpretation of the data on
the part of the researchers, but that additional research and data were needed to
support the efficacy of the Advance Organizer model. Hartley and Davies (1976)
stated that the first conducted studies were not generalizable because the populations
studied were limited to undergraduate university students.
Ausubel (1978) accused his critics of superficiality in their review of the
methodology as well as a misinterpretation of the operational definition used in their
criticisms of Advance Organizers. He cited studies in which teachers used the
Advance Organizers as originally intended had produced favorable results in
learners’ cognitive gains and that mean learning scores increased (Kilgore, 1984).
Ausubel (1978) contended that there was no logical reason to suppose that the results
of the studies were not generalizable given the methodology used for the research.

49
More recent studies have shown mixed results in efficacy. McEneany (1990)
determined that the model had minimal effect on comprehension and recall of
information and Ruthkosky and Dwyer (1996) did not find that the strategies
fostered long-term recall. Dell’Olio (2007) suggests that other researchers have
found the Advance Organizer model to be an effective method for fostering student
learning and retention.
Concept Attainment. The origin of the Concept Attainment teaching model is
Jerome Bruner’s work, A Study of Thinking on human use of pattern recognition and
categorizing to develop concepts with which to think. According to Bruner’s theory
of concepts, humans invent categories and form concepts in order to deal with the
complex environments in which they live (Bruner, Goodnow, & Austin, 1967).
Burner suggested that humans scan items of information they receive in order to find
patterns or similarities that they cluster and label as categories. Each category is
known as a concept and is a cognitive structure that helps humans hold information
in an abstract form that they can use to help them think. Throughout their lives and
experiences, humans continually add to their old categories, modify them to fit more
information, and add new ones. As a result, through this pattern recognition and
categorization process, human beings accumulate many concepts to help them think
and communicate with others.
Bruner’s theory of concepts has been transformed into a specific teaching
model by Bruce Joyce and Marsha Weil who established a syntax that translated
Bruner’s theory into classroom application (Pritchard, 1994). The Concept

50
Attainment model is designed to develop students’ inductive thinking (McBride,
Gabbard, & Miller, 1990). Through the inductive process, students are able to learn
significant content in a subject area while at the same time learning specific thinking
skills such as observing, analyzing, hypothesizing, testing hypotheses, and engaging
in metacognition (Pritchard, 1994). In Concept Attainment, students must ascertain
the attributes of a category that is pre-established by the instructor. This happens
through comparing and contrasting examples that contain the attributes of a concept
with examples that do not contain those attributes (Joyce et al., 2004). In the Concept
Attainment model the teacher invites the students to derive a concept and presents
items labeled as positive and negative exemplars. Students compare features of the
positive and negative exemplars and develop then test hypotheses of the concept and
its critical attributes or essential features. In the second step, the teacher presents
additional unlabeled positive and negative exemplars and the students test their
concept hypotheses with the new unlabeled exemplars. Students are then asked to
modify and refine concept hypotheses as necessary. In the third step, the teacher
elicits and confirms the students’ hypothesis and provides the actual concept name, if
necessary. Students then work to generate their own positive and negative concept
exemplars. Finally, the teacher guides students in an analysis of the thinking
strategies they used. During this metacognitive process, students explain the ways in
which attributes were found, describe attribute cues and how they were integrated
into their hypotheses and discuss the range of hypotheses generated. Gagné (1965b)
suggest a similar approach to conceptual learning as do Merrill and Tennyson (1977)

51
who discuss a comparable method without an explicit description of the
metacognitive component. Joyce et al. (2004) posits that the Concept Attainment
model allows for conceptual instruction, practice with inductive reasoning, and
fosters an awareness of alternative perspectives and sensitivity to logical reasoning in
communication and “a tolerance for ambiguity” (p. 75).
Studies of student learning have confirmed the benefits of concept teaching.
Robert Tennyson and his colleagues have conducted numerous studies on conceptual
knowledge and conceptual models of teaching. In their study of 90 high school
psychology students, Tennyson and Tennyson (1977) demonstrated that the
sequencing of content elements is an important part of the instructional design for
Concept Attainment. Specifically, the study showed that when coordinate concepts
(concepts at the same level of abstraction) are taught simultaneously, student
performance is superior to situations where concepts are presented with different
levels of abstraction sequentially. Tennyson, Chao, and Youngers (1981) conducted
a study on fourth grade students at suburban elementary schools. The researchers
found that concept learning consisted of both the attainment of concepts by exposure
to clear examples and their connection to new examples combined with the
attainment of discriminatory skills through the presentation of positive and negative
exemplars. Tennyson and Cocchiarella (1986) studied the best way for third grade
students to acquire conceptual knowledge. They found that students provided with
the best examples of a concept outperformed students that were provided with a list
of attributes of that concept. They concluded that explicitly providing good

52
examples of a concept was better to promote concept acquisition than simply
providing students with a list of characteristics of that concept.
More recently, Tennyson and Bagley (1991) studied 120 undergraduate
students at the University of Saint Thomas to determine the interaction of
instructional strategies for concept learning and prior domain knowledge. Results
indicated that learners with no prior knowledge in the domain learned concepts better
with a structured model than with strategies that forced learners to freely construct
the necessary conceptual knowledge. The opposite was true for students with large
amounts of previous domain knowledge, indicating that a teacher’s understanding of
prior knowledge is important for instructional decision-making. Shrivasta (1995)
studied the effectiveness of the Concept Attainment model for teaching 7
th
grade
English students. In a controlled experiment, students were randomly assigned to a
group that received content via the Concept Attainment model or they were assigned
to a group without it. Each group was administered a pre-test and a post-test.
Results indicated a significant difference in achievement, favoring the Concept
Attainment model group.
Other studies have focused on how teachers react to the Concept Attainment
model. In a study of 26 teaching candidates, Joyce et al. (2004) found that when
candidates used the Concept Attainment model, students’ higher-level and middle-
level information processing dramatically increased during the lessons. Pritchard
(1994) found that planning for teaching with the Concept Attainment model involved
a series of steps that included: identifying and defining a significant concept,

53
analyzing its essential and defining features, and designing appropriate exemplars
from which the concept can be derived by students. Pritchard (1994) noted that
teachers must be able to holistically map their disciplines, understand the theory and
nature of concepts, and be willing to engage students in intellectual discourse.
Group Investigation. Roots of the Group Investigation model are found in
the work of John Dewey who advocated for the school to be organized as a miniature
democracy (Dewey, 1916). Group Investigation emphasizes the importance of social
interaction through the learning process (Joyce et al., 2004). Thelen built upon
Dewey’s ideas to create a specific model of teaching that combine the “form and
dynamics of the democratic process and the process of academic inquiry” (Joyce et
al., 2004, p. 219). In this model, students are organized into groups and use
democratic problem solving processes to attack academic problems. Through this
process they learn about democratic procedures and the methods of scientific
inquiry. Sharan and Sharan (1990) explain that in Group Investigations, students
take an active part in planning what and how they will study. They form groups
based on common interest in a topic to collaboratively develop a plan to research
their topic, delegate responsibilities, and carry out investigation. The group then
synthesizes its work and presents their findings to the class.
Thelan (1960) asserts that student-driven inquiry must play a key role in the
model. According to him, the inquiry process is “to initiate and supervise the
process of giving attention to something; of interacting with and being stimulated by
other people, whether in person or through their writing; and of reflection and

54
reorganization of concepts and attitudes as shown in arriving at conclusions,
identifying new investigations to be undertaken, taking action and turning out a
better product” (p. 85). The model begins when the students encounter a puzzling
situation that may occur naturally or be provided by the teacher. Sharan and Sharan
(1990) note that the puzzlement should be multifaceted to trigger a variety of
reactions from students. In the next step students explore their own reactions to the
puzzlement. Students formulate questions or select various aspects for inquiry and
organize a plan for studying the topic. Students initiate study of the topic in groups
and individually and analyze the process during the investigation. Students report
the results and repeat the process either with another confrontation or with a new
problem emerging from within the current investigation (Joyce et al., 2004; Sharan
& Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1980; Miel, 1952; Sharan & Sharan, 1990). Sharan and Sharan
(1989) maintain that the effectiveness of the model lies in the fact that students
maintain a greater amount of control over their learning compared to other teaching
methods.
Sharan and colleagues have conducted a number of large-scale experiments
investigating the effectiveness of Group Investigation. Five of their studies
examined student achievement. Generally, students in classes utilizing Group
Investigations demonstrated higher levels of academic achievement than did their
peers taught without the use of the model (Sharan & Sharan, 1990). Importantly
they repetitively found that students who experienced the model did better on
questions assessing high-level learning, although sometimes all the students

55
performed at similar levels of proficiency in this regard (Lazarowitz & Karsenty,
1989; Sharan & Shachar 1988; Sharan & Shaulov, 1989). In a study related to
pupils’ language, the researchers analyzed video-recorded discussions about topical
areas between students who had consistently been taught using the Group
Investigation model and those who had not. Students from the Group Investigation
classes used more words per turn of speech than did their peers taught using whole-
class methods (Sharan & Shachar, 1988).
These researchers also investigated the social interaction of students taught
with the Group Investigation model. They found that the model encourages
cooperation and mutual assistance among students rather than competition that was
found to be stimulated by whole-class pedagogy (Sharon & Sharon, 1990; Hertz-
Lazarowitz, Sharan, & Steinberg, 1980). In addition, this model was found to
promote positive social interaction among classmates from different ethnic groups in
the Middle East (Hertz-Lazarowitz et al., 1980; Sharan & Shachar, 1988). Hutala
and Coughlin (1991) discovered that when teachers used the Group Investigation
model to teach English and social studies, students’ analytical and organizational
skills and motivation increased as well as their communication skills, knowledge,
and competence in the subject matter. Findings also included an increase in patience
and concern for other students (Hutala & Coughlin, 1991). In another study Hutala
(1994) found that implementing Group Investigation in an interdisciplinary course of
study reduced the rate of absenteeism in classes, reduced failing and low grades by

56
20%, and improved students’ interdisciplinary connections, cooperation, motivation,
and behavior.
Studies related to teachers’ reactions to the model have been mixed. Hutala
and Coughlin (1991) documented that while implementing the Group Investigation
model in English and governance courses, teachers became frustrated with trying to
teach a topic which frequently changed and some students who were used to working
independently struggled with the cooperative grouping. Other researchers found that
teachers expressed more positive attitudes toward teaching after involvement with
teacher training and implementation of Group Investigation (Sharan & Hertz-
Lazarowitz, 1982). In Hertz-Lazarowitz and Sharchar’s (1989) study of teacher
language patterns during instruction, it was found when teachers used the Group
Investigation model, they expressed support for student initiative, encouraged
communication, gave students feedback, and praised individual students for specific
activities. When the same teachers used whole-class methods of teaching, they
tended to deliver long lectures, give students orders, ask questions that required short
responses, used collective disciplinary measures, and did not use individual praise.
Joyce et al. (1972) found in a study of teacher candidates that when candidates used
the Group Investigation model, the “teacher talk” fell 15% and students were
involved in negotiating the procedures of the lesson fifteen times more.
Concept Formation. The Concept Formation model, also known as inductive
thinking, comes from the work of Hilda Taba and is related to learning by discovery.
Learning by discovery involves the development and organization of concepts, ideas,

57
and insights, the use of inference and other logical processes to control a situation,
and the cultivation of higher mental processes that are “the central outcome of
learning” (Taba, 1963, p. 308). Concept Formation engages an inductive sequence
where learners interrelate and organize discrete bits of information to develop
abstract concepts (Taba, 1967).
The process of forming concepts is considered one of the basic forms of
cognition on which all cognitive processes depend (Verduin, 1967). Taba (1963)
defined it as consisting of three different operations: (a) differentiating the specific
properties of objects or events which involves the process of analysis, (b) grouping,
or assembling specified properties across many objects or events, and (c) labeling or
categorizing the groups. Joyce et al. (2004) explain when students engage in these
processes they are organizing data, pulling it apart, and reorganizing it in the search
of new ideas. The collection of data occurs early in the process but new data may be
added or discarded throughout the inquiry process.
The syntax of the Concept Formation model begins with students examining
or enumerating data. The students then begin to classify the data into groups based
on similar characteristics or attributes. Students are then prompted to further classify
the data; this sometimes involves reclassifying, refining, or collapsing the categories
to “gradually gain control of the data” (Joyce et al., 2004, p. 50). In the final part of
the model students build hypotheses for the categories.
Critics of the model include David Ausubel and other advocates of
presentation, deductive, and didactic models of instruction (Taba, 1963). Ausubel

58
argues that discovery learning is time consuming. He also claimed that as the
sophistication of the learning increases, the necessity for discovery learning
decreased. Taba responded to these comments by contending that inductive learning
provides “intellectual potency” and that it is the “productivity of cognitive activity”
which is one for the chief outcomes for meaningful learning (Taba, 1963, p. 313).
El-Nemr (1979) studied the teaching of biology through inquiry in high
schools and colleges. He looked at the effects of student achievement on the
development of process skills and on students’ attitudes toward science. El-Nemr
found that in inductively oriented classrooms, there were positive results on all
outcomes. Similarly, Bredderman (1983) found positive effects for inductive
teaching models for science in terms of information acquisition, creativity, and
understanding the process of science. Hillocks (1987) found that using inductive,
inquiry-oriented approaches to teaching writing produced average effect sizes of
about .60 compared to treatments that covered the same material, but without the
inductive approach. Other researchers contend that the transfer of thinking skills
from inductive lessons stimulate growth in other non-related curriculum areas (Joyce
et al, 2004). For example, Smith (1980) determined that implementation of an arts-
oriented curriculum through inductive means was correlated with gains in basic skill
areas.
Inquiry Training. The Inquiry Training model came from Richard Suchman’s
work with elementary school children in the field of scientific inquiry (Verduin,
1967). The goal of this model of teaching is to facilitate students to develop the

59
intellectual discipline and necessary skills to raise questions and search out answers
stemming from their own curiosity. Suchman’s theory has four major principles.
First, he states that students naturally inquire about something when they are
puzzled. Second, students can become conscious of and learn to analyze the
strategies they use to think. Third, new strategies can be directly taught to students
and added to their existing repertoire. Finally, cooperative inquiry serves to enhance
thinking and helps student learn that knowledge is tentative and develop an
appreciation for alternative explanations for phenomena (Suchman, 1962; Joyce et
al., 2004).
Suchman was interested in how learners respond to new encounters in the
world. He asserted that individuals have certain organizers in their mind that can be
drawn upon to bring some meaning to a new encounter. He identified four of the
organizers as: previous encounters, systems for dealing with information (like
attention functions), data, and inferences (Verduin, 1967). These organizers are built
into the syntax of the model. Like Group Investigation, the model begins with
students confronting a puzzling situation. Next the students gather data by asking
the teacher questions that must be answered with a “yes” or “no”. Students conduct
verbal or actual experiments to test answer their questions and test their hypotheses.
The last step is for students to organize the information they obtained to explain the
discrepancy from the puzzling event.
Several older studies have confirmed the use of this model of teaching with
students. Voss (1982) found that both elementary and secondary students profit from

60
the model. Schlenker (1976) found that this model increased student understanding
of science, as well as students’ skills for collecting information and analyzing it. His
study showed that it was as effective as lecture methods accompanied by laboratory
activities. Two other studies showed that the method works best when the initial
situation is genuinely puzzling and when the material to be used by the students are
instructional (Ivany, 1969; Collins, 1969).
Direct Instruction. The initial Direct Instruction model of teaching was
developed by Englemann and his colleagues in 1966 (Adams & Engelmann, 1996).
The model was developed as a comprehensive system of teaching skills that
integrates effective teaching of strategies in efficient ways (Stein, Carnine, & Dixon,
1998). The original model included three major steps: the introduction to the skill to
be learned, the presentation of the lesson, and student practice with direct feedback
(Bereiter, 1966). Rosenshine (1976) popularized the term Direct Instruction by
introducing it into his review of effective teaching practices. Later Madeline Hunter
(1980) promoted further dissemination of the model with the introduction of her
version of it, Instructional Theory into Practice.
Joyce et al. (2004) classify the model under behavioral systems due to
underlying behavioral theory upon which the model is based. Behavioral
psychologists contend that learning occurs from changes in behaviors. Underlying
the Direct Instruction model are the tenants of behaviorism including modeling,
reinforcement, feedback, and successive approximations (Joyce et al., 2004). Within
the model, teachers explain and demonstrate a new skill to a large group of students,

61
have them test their understanding by practicing under teacher supervision while the
teachers provide feedback, and finally practice with less teacher guidance with other
students and/or independently.
In the Direct Instruction model, the teacher has a high-degree of direction,
control and expectation for student performance (Joyce et al., 2004). Baumann
(1983) describes the model in the following way:
The teacher, in a face-to-face, reasonably formal manner, tells, shows,
models, demonstrates, teaches the skills to be learned. The key word here is
teacher, for it is the teacher who is in command of the learning situation and
leads the lesson, as opposed to having instruction ‘directed’ by a worksheet,
kit, learning center, or workbook. (p. 287)

While no universally accepted definition of the model exists (Baumann,
1984), generally there are five main steps of the syntax. The first step orients the
students with the framework of the lesson. Teachers’ expectations are described, the
learning tasks and objectives are explained, and student accountability is established.
The second step includes the teachers’ presentation and modeling of the skill to be
learned. The third step involves a structured practice for the students where the
teacher leads students through examples and provides specific feedback related to the
procedure. Fourth, guided practice gives students the opportunity to practice on their
own with the support of the teacher and/or another student. The lesson ends with
independent practice where the student practices the skill completely on their own
with delayed feedback. This step is designed to reinforce the learning and secure
retention (Joyce et al., 2004). Powell (1978) asserted that Direction Instruction
should not be seen as a prescriptive set of rules, but rather as a conceptual orientation

62
that values expository learning, active teaching and learning, focus, and
accountability.
Proponents of Direct Instruction maintain that it is a more effective and
efficient instructional sequence than an open or unstructured model (Dembo, 2001;
Good, 1979; Rosenshine, 1979). Empirical research associated with the model often
uncovers higher achievement gains related to persistent application to academic
tasks, teachers’ active involvement with students, well organized and structured
learning environments, and orderly classrooms (Good, 1979; Stallings & Hentzell,
1978; Watkins, 1997; Maddus, Airasian, & Kellaghan, 1989; Rosenshine, 1970,
1971, 1985). Gage (1978) determined that more structured programs based on
Direct Instruction were associated with greater student achievement. Other studies
found that increases in instructional time of the model were associated with greater
student achievement gains in different subjects across grade levels (McDonald, 1976;
Stallings, 1976; Fisher, Filley, Marliave, Cohen, Dishaw, Moore, & Berliner, 1978).
In Becker’s (1977) evaluation of a Head Start Program, the University of Oregon’s
Direct Instructional model produced more significant differences in cognitive and
affective domain measures than any of the other eight major programs studied. The
model emphasized small-group, personal, carefully sequenced instruction by a
teacher (Becker, Engelmann, Carnine, & Rhine, 1981).
Critics of the Direct Instruction model argue that it may not be well suited for
all teachers. Ebmeier and Good (1979) determined in their study of a Missouri
Mathematics Project that some teachers implemented Direct Instruction more

63
consistently and obtained better achievement than treatment teachers who did not
implement it as habitually. Others claim that the model is too restrictive and creates
“teacher-proof” curriculum (Good, 1979, p. 53). On the other hand, advocates
suggest that direction instruction has become the “whipping post in some
pedagogical camps” because it has been misinterpreted as a lecture approach,
overused by some, and wrongly maligned by others (Magliaro, Lockee, & Burton,
2005, p. 41). Good (1979) also notes that some opponents of the model contend that
it forces students to be involved at all times causing the problem of “attention
saturation” (p. 62). Rosenshine (1977) suggests that periods of space between
intensive instruction should be used to alleviate this potential problem. Finally,
some suggest that Direct Instruction is not applicable and may even be inconsistent
with the goals of certain subjects such as social studies and art, which can require
“relaxed instructional formats…with more opportunities for verbal expression and
for learning with and from peers” (Good, 1979, p. 62). Joyce et al. (2004) suggest
that Direct Instruction plays a limited but important role in a comprehensive
education program, and though it should not be used “all the time…or for all
students,” it has a “relatively solid empirical track record” (p. 313).

64
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS

This qualitative inquiry addresses the possible interaction of personal
characteristics of teachers of the gifted and their pedagogical decisions related to the
models of teaching. The study follows an existing research project directed by Dr.
Sandra Kaplan, and funded through a U.S. Department of Education Jacob K. Javits
Grant (PR/Number # S26A040072). The project was designed to develop teachers
who are capable of teaching differentiated curriculum using the models of teaching
in order to meet the following objectives:
1. To raise the level of academic achievement of culturally, linguistically,
and economically diverse students including gifted and potentially gifted
students.
2. To increase the identification of diverse students as gifted, including
students from underrepresented groups (i.e., economically disadvantaged,
limited English proficient, or disabled students).
3. To positively affect the overall quality of instruction for all students in
heterogeneous classrooms.
As aforementioned, results of this dissertation study contribute further to the body of
knowledge related to teacher characteristics and pedagogical decision-making and
have implications for education teacher recruitment, placement, and teacher
education.

65
Research Question
1. What personal characteristics of teachers are associated with their
preferences for particular models of teaching?
Nature of the Study/Research Design
The present study is considered basic research. Basic research seeks to
discover the truth about questions deemed important in a discipline. This type of
research intends to find fundamental patterns in order to make a contribution to the
knowledge in the discipline and sometimes provides knowledge that takes the form
of a theory that explains the phenomenon under investigation (Patton, 2002). A
qualitative inquiry was used as a source for grounded theory, or theory that is
inductively generated from fieldwork, that “emerges from the researchers
observations and interviews out in the real world rather than in the laboratory or the
academy,” (Patton, 2002, p. 11).
This study is follows a longitudinal, mixed-methods study with an applied
research orientation. In applied research, the source of the question is a problem or
concern experienced by people and articulated by policymakers (Patton, 2002). The
research was funded by the U.S. Department of Education Jacob K. Javits Gifted and
Talented Students Education Program which was designed to build and enhance the
ability of elementary and secondary schools to meet the special education needs of
gifted and talented students (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). The major
emphasis of the program is to serve students traditionally underrepresented in gifted
and talented programs, particularly economically disadvantaged, limited English

66
proficient (LEP), and disabled students, and to help reduce the serious gap in
achievement among certain groups of students at the highest levels (U.S. Department
of Education, 2008).
Teachers applied to become participants in the original research project in the
summer of 2004. Seventy-five teachers and their students (grades 2-5) from urban,
suburban, and rural districts participated in the project for the first academic year
(2004-2005). Each year the number of participants was narrowed due to normal
attrition in the program, as well as, purposeful narrowing by the principal
investigator. During the final academic year (2008-2009) of the five-year grant,
seven of the teachers remained and seven additional teachers were added to the grant
as a comparison group. The classrooms of these teachers contained a large portion
of economically, linguistically, and culturally diverse students, including gifted and
potentially gifted students.
Sample and Population
While the population for the study is all teachers of the gifted with
knowledge of the models of teaching, a much narrower pre-defined sample was used
to ascertain data related to teacher characteristics and the models of teaching.
Qualitative inquiry typically focuses in-depth on relatively small samples, selected
purposefully (Patton, 2002). These small samples are selected specifically as
information-rich cases that illuminate the questions under study. The fourteen
teachers who were participants in the final year of the original grant were asked to
participate in the present study. This sampling strategy is known as a criterion

67
sampling procedure in which all participants involved meet the predetermined
criterion of importance (Patton, 2002). In this case, the criteria included those
teachers who: taught traditionally underrepresented gifted and potentially gifted
students, taught in a large urban school district, and participated in the
aforementioned U.S. Department of Education Javits Research Grant (PR/Number #
S26A040072).
Twelve of those teachers agreed to be part of the information-rich sample for
this present qualitative study, while two declined to participate. All 12 teachers are
female and range in age from 25 to 53. Eleven participants in the sample are teachers
in the Los Angeles Unified School District and one teaches in Santa Ana Unified
School District. A range of years of teaching experience was present in the sample,
from 2 to 28 years. All participants are elementary school teachers from grades 2-5
in Title 1 schools. Title 1 is a Federal aid program through which schools receive
funding to provide supplemental instruction for those students who qualify. The
allocation of funds for each school is based on a legislative formula dependent upon
the distribution of low-income children and state per-pupil expenditures (20 U.S.C.
6301 et seq.). All participants teach heterogeneous mixed-ability classes with at
least a small group (cluster) of gifted students as identified by the students’ school
districts. In addition these classrooms maintained a large portion of economically,
linguistically, and culturally diverse students. See Table 3.1 for basic demographic
information related to the teacher participants.

68
Table 3.1: Participant Demographic Overview

Teacher Age Gender
Ethnicity/
Race
Years of
Teaching
Experience District Grade
Teacher 1 33 Female Filipino 11 Los Angeles Unified 2
Teacher 2 31 Female Caucasian 7 Los Angeles Unified 2
Teacher 3 53 Female Caucasian 13 Los Angeles Unified 2
Teacher 4 51 Female Caucasian 28 Los Angeles Unified 3
Teacher 5 40 Female Hispanic 16 Santa Ana Unified 3
Teacher 6 51 Female
Hispanic/
Latino
15 Los Angeles Unified 4
Teacher 7 26 Female Caucasian 3 Los Angeles Unified 4
Teacher 8 27 Female Hispanic 5 Los Angeles Unified 4
Teacher 9 25 Female Caucasian 2 Los Angeles Unified 4
Teacher 10 29 Female Caucasian 7 Los Angeles Unified 4
Teacher 11 27 Female Caucasian 6 Los Angeles Unified 5
Teacher 12 32 Female
Asian/
White
5 Los Angeles Unified 5

The twelve teacher participants are further sub-divided into two distinct
groups based on their teacher education experience related to the models of teaching.
Six of the teachers were participants in the original U.S. Department of Education
Javits Project (PR/Number # S26A040072) for five years and were thus trained to
use the models of teaching through inservice experiences. These teachers
participated in five weeklong intensive summer training institutes focusing on how to
use the models of instruction to differentiate instruction for gifted students over the
course of the five-year grant life. The remaining six teachers were added as
participants in the final year of the grant as a comparison group. These teachers

69
learned about the models of teaching as an integral part of their preservice teacher
preparation program. These participants all matriculated through the full-time
teacher education program at the University of Southern California and were
enrolled as students in at least two courses taught by the principal investigator, Dr.
Sandra Kaplan. In addition, they used the models of teaching in their student
teaching experience and were provided with consistent feedback related to model
implementation from their master teacher and/or the university supervisor. See Table
3 for a summary of the sample sub-groups.

Table 3.2: Sample Sub-Grouping

Sample
Sub-Group
Teacher Education for Models of
Teaching
Method of Training for
Models of Teaching
Teacher
Participants
Inservice Inservice preparation through
Javits Grant participation
5 weeklong summer
institutes
2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
10
Preservice Preservice preparation through
one year full-time university
based teacher education program
At least 2 semester
courses of methods
with models of
teaching
1, 7, 8, 9, 11,
12

In addition, all teacher participants have had professional development
experiences related generally to gifted and talented education and currently teach in a
classroom where at least a cluster of gifted students is identified or is in the process
of being identified. Through their participation in the U.S. Department of Education
Javits Models of Teaching Grant (PR/Number # S26A040072), all participants were

70
provided with training on how to differentiate the curriculum for gifted students
based on the Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented
Students. Most of these teachers have received numerous additional hours of
inservice training in the field of gifted education that covered topics such as the
characteristics and identification of the gifted, the needs and development of gifted
learners, instructional strategies, learning environments, and assessments for gifted
students. In addition, a few of the teacher participants hold special credentials for
gifted and talented education. See Table 3.3 for an overview of the teachers
experience in gifted education.

Table 3.3: Overview of Participant Teaching Experience

Teacher
Javits Teacher
Education
Experience
Number of
Years Teaching
Gifted Students
Approximate
Hours of
Professional
Development for
General Gifted
Education
Possession of
Special
Certificate in
Gifted
Education
Teacher 1 Preservice 11 175 no
Teacher 2 Inservice 4 400 yes
Teacher 3 Inservice 6 150 no
Teacher 4 Inservice 28 140 no
Teacher 5 Inservice 14 150 no
Teacher 6 Inservice 5 400 yes
Teacher 7 Preservice 3 100 no
Teacher 8 Preservice 5 125 yes
Teacher 9 Preservice 2 150 no
Teacher 10 Inservice 4 200 no
Teacher 11 Preservice 5 80 no
Teacher 12 Preservice 2 200 no

71
Instrumentation
Data were collected through a qualitative interviewing process. This method
of research was used to collect the rich information necessary for grounded theory
development. Interviews can yield a great deal of useful information about facts,
people’s beliefs and perspectives about the facts, feelings, motives, present and past
behaviors, standards for behavior, and conscious reactions to actions or feelings
(Silverman, 1993). The purpose of interviewing is “to allow us to enter into the other
person’s perspective” (Patton, 2002, p.341). Perceptions, preferences, behaviors, and
knowledge are key components fundamental to the research question; thus
interviewing was the most appropriate methodology for the present study.
While a standardized interview guide, titled the Teacher Interview Guide (see
Appendix A), was used during the interview process, additional scripted and non-
scripted questions were asked by the researcher to further probe relevant topics and
issues that emerged from the interview. This technique represents a combined
approach of interview instrumentation types: the standardized open-ended interview
and the conversational interview. According to Patton (2002), this kind of
combining strategy offers the interviewer flexibility in probing and determining
when it is appropriate to explore certain subjects in greater depth, or even to pose
questions about new areas of inquiry that were not originally anticipated in the
development of the interview instrument. Additionally, it can minimize potential
weaknesses inherent in instruments that are either purely conversational or purely

72
standardized (i.e. the lack of flexibility of standardized interviews, and the less
systematic approach of the conversational interview).
The Teacher Interview Guide had three distinct parts. The first part aimed at
gathering data related to the teachers’ preferences for and actual use of the models of
teaching with their heterogeneous classes. This part contains opinion and value
questions, feeling questions, and behavior questions.
The second part of the interview posed questions about the teachers’ personal
characteristics and their understanding about teaching gifted students. Vialle and
Quigley (2002) summarize the research and outlined reoccurring themes from the
literature related to the personal characteristics of effective instructors of the gifted.
Eighteen specific characteristics were identified as essential or highly desirable
including five personal-social characteristics, seven characteristics dealing with
teaching strategies and skills, and six dealing with intellectual-cognitive attributes.
See Table 3.4 for a list of these characteristics along with the relevant sources.

73
Table 3.4: Characteristics of Effective Teachers of the Gifted. Adapted from Vialle
and Quigley (2002).

Category Characteristic Sources
Has insight into the cognitive, social, and
emotional needs of gifted students
Bishop, 1968; Hansen &
Feldhusen, 1994; Whitlock &
DuCette, 1989
Possesses a sense of humor Maddux et al., 1985
Is willing to make mistakes Whitlock & DuCette, 1989
Is enthusiastic Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994;
Whitlock & DuCette, 1989

Personal
Social
Characteristics
Is culturally responsive Chan, 2001; Ford &
Trotman, 2001
Has skills in differentiating the
curriculum for gifted students
Whitlock & DuCette, 1989
Employs strategies that encourage higher
level thinking
Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994
Encourages students to be independent
learners;
Provides student-centered learning
opportunities
Whitlock & DuCette, 1989;
Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994
Acts as a facilitator or “guide on the
side”
Bishop, 1968; Whitlock &
DuCette, 1989
Creates a non-threatening learning
environment
Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994

Teaching
Strategies &
Skills
Is well organized Bishop, 1968; Maddux et al.,
1985
Possesses in-depth knowledge of subject
matter
Bishop, 1968; Hansen &
Feldhusen, 1994; Maddux et
al., 1985
Has broad interests, often literary and
cultural
Bishop, 1968
Has above average intelligence Bishop, 1968
Is a lifelong learner Bernal, 1994; Hansen &
Feldhusen, 1994
Thinks creatively Bishop, 1968

Intellectual-
Cognitive
Characteristics
Possesses excellent communication skills Bishop, 1968

74
The characteristics in this list provided a framework for analysis of the
participants’ personal characteristics. Open-ended questions were posed to teachers
to obtain general perceptions of their personal traits. These more general questions
were asked first in an attempt to lessen the potential of leading the teachers toward
specific personal traits. A checklist with additional probing questions was created
and used to investigate the specific characteristics from the literature that did not
naturally emerge in response to the general questions, as well as to elicit examples to
support the teachers’ perceptions. Some of the characteristics included in this
checklist were those that posed difficulty in soliciting responses without leading the
teachers toward a particular answer. For example, asking a teacher how intelligent
or creative she considers herself to be can be difficult to answer, as very few people
feel comfortable responding negatively to these kinds of questions. As such,
carefully worded probing questions were selected to minimize the leading of teacher
responses. Questions in this section also addressed the teachers’ knowledge about
the needs of gifted students and perceptions about what characteristics, skills, and
strategies effective educators of the gifted should possess.
The final part of the interview asked teachers to reveal thoughts about how
their personal characteristics relate to the models of teaching. The majority of the
questions in the second and third parts of the interview were aimed at understanding
the cognitive and interpretive processes of the participants as well as their
knowledge. These questions explored their opinions, judgments, and values in

75
addition to the factual information they possess relevant to the needs of gifted
students and the models of teaching.
Together the three parts of the interview provided a framework within which
participants expressed understandings in their own words about their characteristics
regarding the interaction of the models of teaching. Patton (2002) notes that
qualitative inquiry “strategically, philosophically and therefore methodologically
aims to minimize pre-determined responses” (p. 353). Thus, open-ended questions
were posed during all parts of the interview to allow the participants to select from
among their full repertoire of possible responses, those that they felt were most
salient.
Patton (2002) explains that the quality of information obtained during the
interview is largely dependent on the interviewer. As such, it was crucial that the
interview guide be crafted in coordination with content experts and that the
interviewer participate in interview training and a pilot study whereby potential
issues in the interviewing process can be noted and addressed. Interview training
took place in a qualitative methods course whereby the researcher was exposed to
rich interviewing theory, designed interview instrumentation, and conducted multiple
interviews with reflection and expert feedback. In addition, the plan for the present
research interviews (including the Teacher Interview Guide) was reviewed by an
expert in qualitative data collection and modified to ensure maximal quality data
collection.

76
Development of the Teacher Interview Guide occurred in several stages.
First, based on the relevant literature and the proposed research question, the
researcher drafted the interview question set. This guide was submitted to the
University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) as part of an
application to request research approval. The IRB review process is designed to
protect the rights and welfare of human subjects by ensuring equitable subject
selection, assuring adequate informed consent, assessing and minimizing risks, and
maintaining privacy and confidentiality (University Park Institutional Review Board,
n.d.). Next, a pilot study was conducted to determine the feasibility and usability of
the instrument by a panel of experts. Teachers selected for the pilot study were not
officially part of this research study, however, they are teachers who have been
taught and use the models of teaching in their classroom and have relevant
knowledge in the field of gifted education. Additional modifications were made to
the instruments following this stage and prior to the commencement of the official
research study.
Assumptions
Because observation alone cannot reveal feelings, thoughts, and intentions,
the process of interviewing is crucial to generating relevant and high quality
findings. According to Patton (2002) qualitative interviewing begins with the
assumption that the perspectives of others are “meaningful, knowable, and able to be
made explicit” (Patton, 2002, p. 341). In addition, it is assumed that qualitative
inquiry is fundamentally interpretive. In qualitative fieldwork, the researcher cannot

77
simply gather facts about what happened. Rather, the researcher must engage in an
active process of interpretation whereby some things are noted as significant and
others are ignored or marked as not significant (Schram, 2003). Finally, it is
assumed that interviewees can and will respond honestly to the interview questions
and that they can define their own preferences for models of teaching, evaluate their
own personal characteristics with some degree of accuracy, and verbalize the needs
of gifted students if they have that knowledge.
Limitations
First, limitations of interview data include the possibility of distorted
responses from participants due to personal bias, anger, anxiety, politics, memory
restrictions, and a “simple lack of awareness since interviews can be greatly affected
by the emotional state of the interviewee at the time of the interview” (Patton, 2002,
p. 306). When interviewers ask about past events, behaviors, and perspectives, the
interviewees must rely on their memories, which are subject to distortion based on
memory limitations, attitudes, and beliefs (Schacter, 1999; Schwartz, 1999). People
can recall what might or should have happened rather than what actually did happen.
In addition, like any self-report data, the data collected during the present study may
be slanted by participants in an effort to depict themselves and ideas in more
favorable ways to the interviewer. Further, participants in the study have interacted
with the researcher on numerous occasions including teacher education experiences
and past evaluations for the U.S. Department of Education Javits Models of
Teaching Grant (PR/Number # S26A040072), which may have affected responses

78
during interviews. Consideration of this possible limitation was addressed through a
discussion with the interviewee prior to the interview related to the goals of the
interview and confidentiality policies.
Second, due to the nature of the methodology, teacher characteristics were
assessed only through the self-perceptions of the participants and the researcher’s
perceptions based on behaviors described by the participants. While this is an initial
exploratory study, future studies with the addition of more objective measures of
teacher characteristics should follow the present dissertation study to further
substantiate findings and provide results that are more generalizable. Finding results
that are generalizable across a broad population was not the intent of the present
qualitative study. But rather, this dissertation study sought to investigate people’s
perceptions about reality to generate hypothesis and theories that can guide future
research.
Third, the participants represent a special group of teachers with unique
experiences related to the models of teaching. Each participant has had numerous
hours of professional development both related to the models of teaching, through
their participation in the grant, and teaching gifted students, through numerous
professional development experiences from the grant, professional organizations,
and their local school districts. As such, it must be recognized that they are a
specialized group and are not necessarily representative of the general population of
teachers in the field.

79
Data Collection
Data was collected during a specific time frame as suggested in the Research
Timeline Table (Table 3.5). Following instrument development and IRB approval,
each participant was contacted via telephone by the principal investigator. During
this recruitment call, the investigator explained the purposes, research question, and
interview process. The subjects were then asked if they were interested in
participating in the present study. If the teacher agreed, a meeting time and place
were arranged for the interview process. The interviews occurred in January of
2010. Every effort by the researcher was made to conduct the interview at a site
convenient to the interviewee. Each participant’s school site was a preferred location
based upon the nature of the interview, however in some cases, the interview had to
be conducted at an off campus location due to participant and/or site scheduling
conflicts and time constraints.
During the planned meeting, the researcher first provided an Information
Sheet to the participant explaining the purpose of the study, the research procedures,
potential risks and discomforts, potential benefits, and the confidentiality protocol.
See Appendix B for the Information Sheet. All subjects were asked to review the
Information Sheet and pose any questions they had related to the research. The
investigator answered any inquires related to the study overview and then asked the
subject if she felt comfortable to participate in the research. If verbal consent was
given, the interview began. All interviews lasted approximately 60 to 90 minutes
and contained twenty to thirty questions. The interviews were audio-recorded and

80
professionally transcribed. Additionally, the interviewer took notes during the
interview process to supplement the transcriptions. Table 3.5 provides a summary of
the instrumentation and timeline for data collection.

Table 3.5: Research Timeline

Phase Purpose Dates of Execution
Development of Teacher
Interview Guide
Preparation of question set to
collect data related to research
question
June - July 2009
Institutional Review Board
Approval Process
Committee review for protection
of research subjects
October - November
2009
Review of Methodology and
Instrumentation with
Qualitative Research Expert
Review of measurement tool to
ensure potential of quality data
collection
November 2009
Pilot Study with Expert Panel Determine feasibility and
usability of questions in Teacher
Interview Guide
December 2009
Teacher Interviews Date collection January - February
2010
Content Analysis Data analysis February 2010

Patton (2002) describes that “because qualitative methods are highly personal
and interpersonal…and because in-depth interviewing opens up what is inside
people-qualitative inquiry may be more intrusive and involve greater reactivity than
surveys, tests, and other quantitative approaches” (p. 407). Research for the study
was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines and protocol of the IRB at

81
the University of Southern California. As aforementioned, the Interview Guide was
submitted for IRB approval prior to carrying out the research. Prior to the data
collection, informed consent was obtained from each participant and confidentiality
of responses was ensured. Once collected, paper data were stored in a locked file-
cabinet in the researcher’s office at the university. Digital data were stored on a
password-protected computer. All data will be stored for seven years after collected
and then destroyed.
Data Analysis
Transcripts from the interviews were read and codes were developed for
assigned units of meaning based on reoccurring patterns present in the data and the
teacher characteristics provided by the Vialle and Quigley (2002) research. This
procedure, known as thematic or content analysis, involves qualitative data reduction
and sense-making efforts where core consistencies and meanings are identified from
a volume of qualitative material (Patton, 2002).
Once the patterns, themes, and categories were established through this
inductive process, the final confirmatory stage of analysis ensued whereby
hypotheses were derived from the data and grounded theory was generated. Salient
examples of data themes and patterns were noted and used to offer support to the
theory produced.
For each coded teacher characteristic, all data chunks related to that code
were aggregated. This included comments that were made directly about possession
of the teacher characteristic and also statements that evidenced possession of the

82
trait. For example, teachers were directly asked to describe their sense of humor.
Responses to that question were coded as “humor”. In addition, if a teacher, later in
the interview, described a witty comment she made to her students, it was also coded
as “humor”. Next a typology was constructed to further elucidate findings.
Typologies are classification systems made up of categories that “divide some aspect
of the world into parts along a continuum” (Patton, 2002, p.457). Unlike
taxonomies, typologies are built on ideal-types or illustrative endpoints rather than a
complete and discrete set of categories. Typologies allow the qualitative researcher
to distinguish aspects of an observed pattern or phenomenon descriptively so that
once identified and distinguished, the types can later be used to make interpretations,
and they can be related to other observations to draw conclusions (Patton, 2002).
The typology developed for the present dissertation study consisted of a
spectrum of perceived possession of each teacher characteristic from low to
moderate to high. Each teacher was assigned a rating for each teacher characteristic
based on their own self-perceptions that were expressed during the interview and the
analyst-constructed perceptions from the aggregated interview data. Literature from
the field of gifted education related to each teacher characteristic was used to define
the middle and end points of the taxonomic spectrum. These ratings took into
account both the frequency with which the code appeared, but more importantly, the
intensity of each occurrence factored into the evaluation. Teachers who were
assigned a low rating, either did not perceive themselves as possessing the trait,
perceived themselves as possessing it to a very low degree, and/or the researcher

83
perceived the teacher as either not manifesting the trait or exhibiting it to a low
degree. Teachers on the other end of the spectrum received a high rating because
they felt they possessed the trait to a high degree or the researcher found numerous
excerpts from the interview that demonstrated robust possession. Finally,
participants who did not see themselves as either strongly possessing or not
possessing the trait were assigned a moderate rating, as were those that displayed
some indication of possession but relative to the other “high” teachers, there was less
evidence of the trait being present. These ratings allowed the researcher to relate the
varying degrees of teacher characteristics to the participants’ preferences for models
of teaching.
Based on the research question, the data were examined on three planes:
patterns and trends related to teacher characteristics, themes related to model of
teaching preferences and uses, and the relationship between specific teacher
characteristics and preferences for models of teaching. Chapter 4 will describe these
findings in great detail.

84
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS

The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between the
characteristics of teachers and their preferences for certain pedagogical models.
Specifically, the research question sought to determine what personal characteristics
are associated with teacher preference and use of the models of teaching for
educating a heterogeneous group of students with a gifted cluster. Qualitative
research methods were employed through intensive interviews with twelve teachers
of the gifted.
Questions posed to participants probed their characteristics along three
dimensions suggested by the literature: personal-social characteristics, teaching
strategies/approaches, and intellectual-cognitive traits. Vialle and Quigley’s (2002)
synthesis of the characteristics essential in successful teachers of the gifted provided
a conceptual framework for the exploration of teacher attributes. Participants were
also presented with a series of questions related to their preferences for, thoughts
about, and uses of the six distinctive models of teaching: Direct Instruction,
Advance Organizer, Group Investigation, Concept Attainment, Concept Formation,
and Inquiry Training. Data were analyzed in an attempt to explore the relationship
between personal attributes and pedagogical preferences.
The data and findings will be presented in great detail in the present chapter.
Patterns related to teacher characteristics will first be described. This will be

85
followed by an explanation of common themes found related to teacher preferences
and uses of the models of teaching. Finally, the connection between personal
characteristics and pedagogical preferences will be reported and discussed.
Teacher Characteristics
The first facet of the research question relates to the personal characteristics
each teacher is thought to possess. Interviews were designed to ask questions about
teachers’ own self-perceptions and allow room for characteristic features to emerge
naturally within the discussion. For example, teachers were asked to generally
describe their personality, to relate how other people would describe their personal
traits (peers, students, principals), and they were asked to be specific about certain
traits such as, “how would you describe your sense of humor?” Additional questions
related to their teaching process and style provided areas where teachers’ personal
characteristics emerged spontaneously. For example, if teachers described a learning
sequence where they relayed a humorous story to students as part of the learning
experience, the teachers’ sense of humor was coded and substantiated. The
following sections describe patterns apparent in the data related to the sample
population’s perceived personal characteristics. These characteristics were explored
using the lens provided by Vialle and Quigley’s (2002) summary of desirable
characteristics of gifted and talented educators. However, in analyzing the data, it
became apparent that several traits not present in the literature were apparent in the
teacher interviews. Teachers were clearly hardworking and derived great enjoyment
from watching students learn.

86
Table 4.1 summarizes data results for the personal characteristics of teachers
including the two characteristic which were unique to this study. Qualitative data
was synthesized to establish a rating for each perceived teacher characteristic ranging
from “high” where the teacher clearly exemplifies and perceives themselves as
possessing the characteristic, to “low” where the teacher either does not demonstrate
possession of characteristic, manifests the characteristic at very low levels, or has
low self-perception of possession of the trait. Detailed explanation of the themes
related to each characteristic are provided. One characteristic labeled “cognitive
competencies” encompasses the traits “has above average intelligence” and “has in-
depth subject matter knowledge” from the original literature. These traits were
merged into one category and not given a rating due to the nature of the methodology
used to collect the data. In using qualitative interviewing, it was not possible to
provide for a valid or reliable way to assess intelligence and depth of subject matter
knowledge in any kind of quantitative fashion. Instead the teachers’ perceived
cognitive competencies are discussed more generally for reoccurring patterns or
themes.

87
Table 4.1: Patterns of Teacher Characteristics

Group of
Characteristic
Characteristic Number of Teachers
Low Medium High
Has insight into the cognitive,
social, and emotional needs of
gifted students
0 3 9
Possesses a sense of humor 2 7 3
Is willing to make mistakes 1 8 3
Is enthusiastic 3 6 3
Is culturally responsive 3 5 4
Is hardworking 0 6 6
Personal-Social
Characteristics
Derives great pleasure from
watching students learn
0 0 12
Has skills in differentiating the
curriculum for gifted students
2 5 5
Provides student-centered
learning opportunities
2 6 4
Creates a non-threatening
learning environment
2 3 7
Teaching
Strategies/
Approaches
Is well organized 0 4 8
Has cognitive competency N/A N/A N/A
Is a life-long learner 0 7 5
Intellectual-
Cognitive
Characteristics
Thinks creatively 4 5 3
Note. Characteristics unique to this study are shown in bold.

88
Insight into the Needs of Gifted Students
Literature in the field of gifted education purports that teachers of the gifted
must have insight into the specialized cognitive, social and emotional needs of these
students (Goodnough, 2001; Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994; Nelson & Prindle, 1992).
For example, Landovogt’s (2001) review of data from two major studies related to
teaching for talent development found that the teachers’ understanding of gifted
student’s changing cognitive and affective needs were essential to student progress
toward achieving their full potential. Sample cognitive needs of gifted students
include exposure to new and challenging ideas, in-depth exposure to a variety of
subjects and concerns, exposure to ideas at rates appropriate to the individual's pace
of learning, and freedom to pursue ideas of interest (Clark, 2007). Examples of
social and emotional needs include a teacher’s understanding of possible
asynchronous development, issues with peer relations, excessive self-criticism, and
perfectionism (Webb, 1994).
While all teachers demonstrated some insight into the cognitive, social and
emotional needs of gifted students, nine of the teachers showed substantially more
insight than the others. These nine teachers were perceived as having high insight;
the three other teachers were perceived to possess that quality moderately. No
teachers showed little insight into the needs of gifted student. See Table 4.2 for a list
of teachers in each category.

89
Table 4.2: Teacher Characteristic: Insight into Needs of Gifted Students

Low Moderate High
Teacher 4 Teacher 1
Teacher 8 Teacher 2
Teacher 9 Teacher 3
Teacher 5
Teacher 6
Teacher 7
Teacher 10
Teacher 11
Teacher 12

Many teachers expressed an understanding that gifted students need to be
offered a rigorous curriculum. For example, Teacher 2 described how the students
need to be challenged to be involved in the process of learning:
They need a challenge. They need to have to think…I think that they need to
be more involved in the learning process, rather than sitting back with the
Direct Instruction and just regurgitating back the information back to you. I
think they need to learn how to learn what they’re doing and what is the
process that they’re going through that makes them learn. (personal
communication, January 17, 2010)

Many teachers described how gifted students need variety in terms of
curriculum and pedagogy. This variety was said to create challenge, interest,
enthusiasm, and to be responsive to the many and varying needs of the different
gifted individuals. Teacher 7 explains why different pedagogical models are needed:
If you have a gifted student, they may be gifted in one area. Like they may
be gifted in math but they may really struggle in a different subject area. You
can’t expect them to be performing at 150% in every content area…I think

90
every gifted student is different and because I don’t think you can lump gifted
students as to really liking this model because X, Y, and Z. I think a gifted
student may like Group Investigation because it allows them to ask their own
questions and do their own research. I think a gifted student may like the
Advance Organizer model because it allows them to make connections
between what they already know to a big idea and to new knowledge.
(personal communication, January 12, 2010)

Other comments related to cognitive needs alluded to the importance of
motivating students and stimulating interest in the curriculum. Teacher 5 describes
the students as being “hungry for a different type of curriculum; a more creative,
more critical analytic thinking type of curriculum” (personal communication,
January 7, 2010). Teachers suggested incorporating puzzlements, problem solving,
novel experiences, research and independent study to address students’ cognitive
needs.
Teachers also addressed the affective needs of gifted students. They
discussed social issues the gifted students often have in their classroom. They
described issues of student perfectionism and aversion to risk taking. They talked
about the need to reinforce student effort rather than just innate ability. For example,
Teacher 3 noted how the gifted “need to feel appreciated. They like praise and to
know that their hard work is appreciated…recognized. Not to, uh, you’re gifted.
Right? They still put time and effort into their work” (personal communication,
January 8, 2010). She went on to note that teachers must make sure that students
continue to see a value in the schooling and learning process:
I think that [teachers] have to be motivational...You have to make it worth
their while. They can’t just be, “it’s okay, they’re going to test well for me
and I’m going to look good because I’ve got gifted kids”. Because you don’t

91
want a bunch of kids who are smart but don’t like school because they don’t
see a value in it... There has to be something in there that they see a value in
so that they’ll continue being excited about school. (Teacher 3, personal
communication, January 8, 2010)

Many teachers described the problems that gifted students often have with
relating to peers in the classroom. Some teachers provided details about how they
engage students in social activities, while others discussed how they model
appropriate classroom and societal etiquette. In addition, many of the teachers felt it
to be imperative to listen to and get to know their students on a personal level in
order to best address the students’ specialized needs. Teacher 7 provided an example
of this mentality:
I really keep things open with my kids. I really want them to be able to come
and talk to me about anything that may be going on in their lives, even if it’s
something that I necessarily don’t want to hear or want to know. I think it’s
really important to know those personal things. Like if your dad’s getting out
of jail tomorrow and you’re concerned about it, I’d like to know that kind of
thing and I’ve had that happen to me before. (personal communication,
January 12, 2010)

Less insightful comments about the needs of gifted students included surface
level understandings such as how gifted students needed to be “kept busy” or “show
off a little bit…show everybody how smart they are” (Teacher 4, personal
communication, January 21, 2010). Teacher 8 described in great detail how she
meets the majority of her gifted students’ needs by providing them with different
product choices during lessons, but she had very little discussion about the range of
social and emotional needs that students possess. She also only vaguely addressed
how she challenged students’ cognitive capacity. Overall, however, during the

92
course of the interviews, teachers cited and described many of the various needs of
their gifted students and offered examples of how they specifically address those
needs in their classroom.
Sense of Humor
Possession of a sense of humor is a trait often cited as important for teachers
of the gifted. Even studies of preferences of gifted students for their teachers often
rate this characteristic as highly desirable (Maddux, Samples-Lachmann, &
Cummings, 1985). Sense of humor can be defined as the trait of appreciating and
being able to express humor. Teachers were asked specifically to describe their
sense of humor, how it manifests itself in the classroom, and how often humor was
incorporated into their lessons. Additionally, if the teacher’s sense of humor
emerged during the interview in the form of a joke or a witty comment, it was coded
to substantiate the teacher’s sense of humor.

Table 4.3: Teacher Characteristic: Humor

Low Moderate High
Teacher 6 Teacher 1 Teacher 4
Teacher 11 Teacher 2 Teacher 9
Teacher 3 Teacher 10
Teacher 5
Teacher 7
Teacher 8
Teacher 12

93
As Table 4.3 shows, the majority (7 of 12) of the teachers received moderate
ratings in terms of their sense of humor. Three teachers demonstrated high levels of
humor while only two received the lowest rating. Teachers on the high-end perceived
themselves as very humorous and often expressed why it is important to bring humor
in the classroom and into their lessons. For example, Teacher 7 noted the importance
of a teacher’s sense of humor, “I think it is important to laugh, because if you’re not
laughing throughout the day and if you’re not having fun yourself then the kids just
fall asleep on you. It’s good for the brain” (personal communication, January 12,
2010). Half of the participants (Teachers 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 12) described their sense of
humor as “dry” or sarcastic in classroom and non-classroom settings, although a few
of the teachers felt hesitant to be sarcastic with students. Teacher 5 explained this
about her sarcastic sense of humor, “I think maybe I am, and I know that’s wrong,
but sometimes kids will say, do I need to take this home? Is there homework? I’m
like, ‘I don’t know, do you think?’” (personal communication, January 7, 2010).
Conversely, other teachers, such as Teacher 8, admitted to using sarcasm on a more
frequent basis with their gifted students because the students seemed to understand
or appreciate it.
Other participants described themselves as “silly” or “goofy”. Teacher 1
gave these examples of her silliness, “like when we were practicing songs for the
holiday program kind of dancing along with the song or whatever…I’ll do kind of
teasing jokes with the kids sometimes” (personal communication, January 8, 2010).
Teacher 2 said that she often uses humor to “not make a big deal of a mistake” and

94
also with the more mundane material, “the phonics stuff can be kind of boring, so
bringing in silly ways to remember things” (personal communication, January 17,
2010) she says is beneficial to her students’ learning. The amount of humor that
teachers used varied greatly, from one to three times a week to several times a day.
Sometimes humor was cited as integral part of lessons, a story, or a learning activity
and sometimes it was said to occur in more impromptu situations.
Teachers who were found to have less of a sense of humor tended to
described the classroom as a serious place, “I want them to understand that the
classroom is a learning environment for them” (Teacher 5, personal communication,
January 7, 2010). Teacher 12 said, “Well, my mom would always describe me as I
have [sic] no sense of humor because I’m a very serious person, because when I
work hard I’m serious and I’m very focused” (personal communication, January 11,
2010). Two participants (Teacher 6 and 12) said that they simply do not possess a
lot of humor. For example, Teacher 6 relayed:
I’m not naturally a funny person. When I see other teachers that are really
funny, I wish I was like them. So when we do say funny things or funny
things happen, it just happens naturally. But I think, oh I should say
something [humorous] and then I think, no, I better not, because then I have
to start all over or whatever. (personal communication, January 21, 2010)

The above teacher was describing how humor is never purposefully used as it often
can cause a distraction for the students and disturb the flow of learning. The
majority of the teachers, however, described that their humor does manifest itself in
the class, but is not always an integral part of the teaching/learning process.

95
Willingness to Make Mistakes
Whitlock and DuCette (1989) designed a competency model for outstanding
teachers of the gifted. One of the major competencies which they labeled
“openness” relates to the teacher’s ability to be corrected by students and to receive
and respond to student input. In their study of average and exceptional teachers of
the gifted, they noted that the best teachers for gifted students were, among many
things, willing to make mistakes in the classroom and accepted student corrections
related to those mistakes.

Table 4.4: Teacher Characteristic: Willingness to Make Mistakes

Low Moderate High
Teacher 11 Teacher 1 Teacher 3
Teacher 2 Teacher 7
Teacher 4 Teacher 12
Teacher 5
Teacher 6
Teacher 8
Teacher 9
Teacher 10

Table 4.4 provides an overview of the teachers’ ratings for this trait. Three
teachers in the present study rated as “high” in this category, are very comfortable
making mistakes in the classroom, encourage students to correct those mistakes, and

96
additionally explain that this process is integral to the learning of both the students
and the teacher. For example, Teacher 7 described:
I love it when kids point out my mistakes. I love it, because I learn from that.
Especially the students who are identified as gifted or soon to be identified as
gifted. I don’t mind that at all. If they point out a mistake then I just take it
as a learning opportunity. I have the same relationship with them.
“Sometimes I’m going to point out mistakes that you make and just take it as
a learning opportunity.” (personal communication, January 12, 2010)

Teacher 12 explained how she wants to make mistakes that are recognized
and brought to her attention because she feels strongly that constructive criticism is
integral to her improvement in pedagogy. Eight of the teachers showed moderate
willingness to make mistakes and be corrected in the classroom. Their comments
revolved around encouraging students to point out mistakes because it means that
they are “paying attention” or that it benefits all the students to have the errors
pointed out rather than having misinformation that “everyone goes along with”.
Most of the mistakes described by the teachers in the high and moderate
categories revolved around errors that occurred during a lesson such as missing a
step in the pedagogical sequence, misspelling a word, and misplacing lesson
materials. Teachers often described how they are bothered with the mistakes
initially, but then they eventually focus their attention to other things. Three of the
teachers (Teacher 1, 6, 12) described how a certain kind of mistake, involving a
student’s feeling being hurt, really bothers them; while other mistakes that occur
during the teaching process do not. These participants expressed deep concern about
offending students. Teacher 12 said:

97
Mistakes that I do care about is [sic] maybe when I say things that might
offend children or I say something that maybe they take the wrong way.
That’s when I feel really bad, because it’s affecting a child. When it affects
them personally and emotionally, which I try to be very, very cognizant [of],
so that’s why it does really hurt me, that maybe I reacted a wrong way or
maybe I said something too harsh. (personal communication, January 11,
2010)

This comment was not considered an unwillingness to make mistakes, but rather it
showed compassion for gifted students’ emotional needs and reflection on the part of
the teacher.
The two teachers who were the less willing to make mistakes described how
they experience extreme frustration when a lesson does not go as planned. Teacher
11 described how she goes back to re-teach an entire lesson, which then causes more
pressure and stress as it takes time that she feels she does not have:
I mean, there, I think the perfection gets more frustrating when it’s the
timing. I mean, having to give all those ridiculous assessments gets very
frustrating when it’s like – no, I have to go back and do this lesson because it
didn’t go the way I wanted it to. (personal communication, January 7, 2010)

The comment reflects the teacher’s discomfort with errors related to the
teaching/learning process and the pressure that time constraints exert. She went on
to describe how she can get very agitated about a situation like this and think about it
at home, for several days. While not as extreme, other teachers echoed similar
worries about the large time constraints that cause making mistakes in the classroom
to be avoided rather than embraced as potential learning experiences both for
students and for the teacher.

98
Enthusiasm
Teacher enthusiasm is considered an important characteristic of effective
teachers of the gifted (Hansen & Feldusen, 1994; Vialle & Quigley, 2002). It can
manifest itself in a variety of ways including expressing interest in one’s own work,
displaying a cheerful attitude in the face of adversity or problems, taking great pride
in student achievements, expressing positive regard for students, and feeling
disturbed when a student is underachieving (Whitlock & DuCette, 1989).

Table 4.5: Teacher Characteristic: Enthusiasm

Low Moderate High
Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 6
Teacher 9 Teacher 3 Teacher 7
Teacher 11 Teacher 4 Teacher 10
Teacher 5
Teacher 8
Teacher 12

Three teachers were perceived to be very enthusiastic, six teachers were
moderately so, and three teachers were classified as low in terms of enthusiasm (see
Table 4.5). A common theme that emerged in this category was the teachers’
passion for their job. Both teachers in the medium and high categories described
their own enjoyment and commitment to the field. One teacher explained how each
summer she gets very excited to plan for the new school year, “I’m really

99
enthusiastic…Right before school begins, I’m like, okay, I’m going to start with this
lesson, I’m going to go to my classroom and get ready, change the walls, and put
paper up” (Teacher 5, personal communication, January 7, 2010). Another teacher
described how she is incredibly passionate about her job even after teaching for a
number of years:
I like teaching. I like my kids. I like the kids in my class. I don’t have any
desire to go into administration or leave the classroom. I still love 2nd grade,
even though I’ve been doing it for a really long time. Every year I find
something that needs to be done better than the year before. (Teacher 3,
personal communication, January 12, 2010)

Many teachers described the reciprocal nature of enthusiasm. For example,
Teacher 6 described how her passion for teaching particular subject areas incites
student interest and motivation for those areas:
I think when I like something, a particular topic, and I get excited. Like
when I teach science; I love science. Actually, almost any subject. If we’re
reading a certain something and I’m liking it, I’ll show it to the kids, and I
think that gets them all excited. So when they see me be [sic] excited, it’s
contagious, I think. (personal communication, January 21, 2010)

While another teacher described how her students’ enthusiasm causes her own
excitement and interest, “When they open the computer and go, ‘wow…look at this!’
And I’ve seen it ten times, but look at this!” (Teacher 4, personal communication,
January 21, 2010). Many of the teachers described how important they think it is to
model enthusiasm about teaching and learning for their students. They described
how their own enthusiasm influences the learning process by making the content
more engaging and interesting. While a few of the most enthusiastic teachers
described themselves as “full of energy” and even “bouncy” with energy, other

100
teachers’ enthusiasm did not manifest itself through such physical, outwardly
expressions. Those teachers showed enthusiasm more through planning different
pedagogical experiences, such as using Concept Attainment lessons, bringing in
technology to make lessons more interesting for students, being fascinated to talk
with other teachers about how they teach and use different materials, working to
bring challenge and excitement to gifted students, and getting excited to take
challenging curriculum and make it accessible to their students.
All teachers showed at least a minimal level of enthusiasm for their job
although the three who were considered least enthusiastic either described
themselves as such: “I’m just not very enthusiastic” (Teacher 9, personal
communication, January 15, 2010), did not evidence much enthusiasm for their job,
did not display a cheerful attitude, or did not seem to take pride in student
achievements. For example, one teacher noted how she does not contribute to
professional conversations, “I definitely am not the one to raise my hand and
contribute…I’m definitely not the cheerleader. I’m definitely not that kind of
enthusiastic, always peppy and up-going” (Teacher 11, personal communication,
January 7, 2010).
Cultural Responsiveness
Ford and Trotman (2001) define multicultural characteristics and
competencies for teachers of gifted students. They draw from four major tenants
replete in the literature for educators of multicultural students: teacher self-awareness
and self-understanding, cultural awareness and understanding, social responsiveness,

101
and cultural sensitivity (Sue, Arrendondo, & McDavis, 1992; Irvine & Armento,
2001; Cushner, 2001; Pang, 2001). The first step in cultural responsiveness is for
teachers to be self-reflective which requires them to think seriously and critically
about their own views of cultural diversity and culturally diverse students (Pang,
2001). Second, teachers must attempt to understand the worldviews, values, and
norms of diverse students. While they do not need to adopt the same worldviews to
be culturally responsive, they must respect them as different and legitimate. Third,
culturally responsive educators attempt to increase cultural awareness and
understanding among all students, even in racially homogeneous settings (Ford &
Trotman, 2001). Fourth, teachers need to deliver more effective education to diverse
students through culturally relevant material and pedagogy, using a more holistic
teaching philosophy and culturally congruent instructional practices, and
demonstrate respect for students’ primary language (Ford & Trotman, 2001;
Landson-Billings, 1995).

Table 4.6: Teacher Characteristic: Culturally Responsive

Low Moderate High
Teacher 3 Teacher 1 Teacher 5
Teacher 4 Teacher 2 Teacher 8
Teacher 9 Teacher 6 Teacher 11
Teacher 7 Teacher 12
Teacher 10

102
A broad range of cultural responsiveness was present in the sample of
teachers interviewed. Three teachers were deemed to be low in this category, five
teachers were rated moderately culturally responsive, and four teachers were
assigned the “high” designation (see Table 4.6). Responses that indicated high
cultural responsiveness centered on the four tenants of educators of multicultural
students. Teachers who were more culturally responsive acknowledged the
important role that culture plays in the teaching and learning process. For example,
Teacher 8 said, “I think [culture] makes a huge difference. All these different
cultures learn very differently” (personal communication, January 22, 2010). While
those who were less culturally responsive claimed that culture does not have a large
impact on learning such as Teacher 4 who stated, “You know what? [Different
cultures] don’t seem to make a difference here” (personal communication, January
21, 2010). Teachers who were more responsive described using culturally relevant
curriculum, materials, and strategies. Teacher 11 described how the prescribed
curriculum seems to have “only middle-class white girls or white boys” (personal
communication, January 7, 2010) as main characters in the story selections. She
went on to describe how it is important to supplement these texts with stories of
cultures that relate to different cultural groups. Another participant, Teacher 12,
described how she chooses literature from different cultural traditions that have
common themes of humanity:
I think by reading literature showing different families, especially showing
children in different situations in different time periods. Like we are going to
read “Esperanza Rising”, which talks about a 10 year-old girl during the

103
depression who is forced to move from Mexico to California and has nothing.
Then we’re going to move to “But Not Buddy”, which is like the depression;
a little boy, he’s African American and it talks about him trying to find his
family. It talks about the band, the music, and the jazz of that time. I’d like
to also read “Number the Stars”, so talking about a little girl in Denmark
trying to help her friend escape the Nazi’s during the war. I think reading
about all of these different people shows that even though we’re different
there are some really common themes in humanity. (personal communication,
January 11, 2010)

Teachers who were considered the most responsive to culture were likely to
describe the process of self-reflection and culture awareness. For example, Teacher
7 described how she tries to learn about the cultural values and norms of behavior
and adjust to those in the classroom, just as the students learn and adjust to the norms
of school. She explained:
I think I open it up as a learning experience for everyone… I think I just try
to learn from them and learn how they interact with the teacher, what their
family and what their culture expects out of education… I think that kids are
constantly trying to adjust and relearn what’s socially acceptable in that
particular environment. I think scholarly behavior varies from region to
region and country to country, language to language, and I see that now in
my dual language classes. (Teacher 7, personal communication, January 12,
2010)

It is clear that the teacher is reflective of and open to different cultural norms and
values. The most culturally responsive teachers echoed something similar to this
sentiment. These teachers also mentioned the importance of involving the parents in
the learning process, and learning about how education is valued in the home culture.
Teachers with “moderate” and “high” cultural responsiveness often indicated
that using a variety of different teaching models and strategies is important to
meeting the varying learning styles present in their classrooms. Teacher 5 articulated

104
that the different models have different degrees of impact for different students.
Teacher 8 described how she always provides different lesson formats and options
for independent work so as to make her pedagogy responsive to student needs.
Several teachers described the importance of using techniques that support
language development for the second language learners in their classroom. While
acknowledging the role that second language development plays in the process of
education, none of these teachers went so far as to affirm their students’ native
languages or dialects, as would be the case for teachers who were considered very
culturally responsive (Ford & Trotman, 2001). This can be seen in the following
excerpt from Teacher 11’s interview:
I mean, with my Hispanic kids, I’m definitely more concerned with how am I
supporting the language development, because even though some of them are
no longer ELD, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re completely fluent.
They still need more language support...Using different communication
guides, sentence starters, different things to kind of give them stronger
models, or even who I sit with, definitely comes into play. Vocabulary,
thinking in terms of “do they have the knowledge to understand this word?”
or I have to do a lot more background-building-type things. (Teacher 11,
personal communication, January 7, 2010)

Teachers assigned the lowest rating in this category usually stated or implied
that culture does not “make a big difference” to learning. Teacher 4, in particular,
described how students in her class seem to be completely unaware of their culture
and used that to support her conjecture that she does not need to consider cultures in
the learning process. She explained:
They don’t seem to make a difference in here. When we did holiday art, I
opened up anything anybody wanted to do and my little Middle Eastern kid
picked a menorah to color and “okay, go with that”. So I don’t know if some

105
of them didn’t know what they were doing. And then I had Jewish kids who
picked a bell or whatever. (Teacher 4, personal communication, January 21,
2010)

She went on to say that only if something related to an unfamiliar culture appears in
the curriculum, would she briefly address it with her students. She gave the example
of a bar mitzvah and a baptism. This, in fact, was a common pattern from teachers
with low cultural responsiveness. They do not plan anything related to culture, but
rather, they talk about it only when “it comes up”. This can be seen in Teacher 3’s
comment, “I don’t make a big deal about it. I wouldn’t say that I necessarily do
anything – like if it happens to come up, but I don’t specifically plan for any culture”
(personal communication, January 8, 2010). Teachers who were perceived lower in
this trait were more likely to state that the time to teach about and for culture was
during Social Studies, which many of them cited as the subject area that receives the
least attention in terms of instructional time. They also seemed to focus solely on
holidays and cultural food dishes as indicators of their responsiveness to the teaching
of and for culture, rather than considering the more broad worldviews, mores, and
values significant to a culture.
Hardworking
A trait not specifically discussed by Vialle and Quigley (2002) but frequently
occurring in the literature related to effective teaching is the importance of the
teachers’ commitment to the job. Whitlock and DuCette (1989) found in their
comparative study of outstanding and average teachers of gifted students, that
outstanding teachers differed from average teachers in their level of commitment to

106
the profession. Outstanding, committed teachers have strong work ethics. They
devote significant time to work-related activities outside normal working hours,
make themselves available to students during preparation time or before and after
school, act on their own to learn or to pursue professional growth, and express a
sense of responsibility for making things happen.

Table 4.7: Teacher Characteristic: Hardworking

Low Moderate High
Teacher 1 Teacher 2
Teacher 4 Teacher 3
Teacher 8 Teacher 5
Teacher 9 Teacher 6
Teacher 11 Teacher 7
Teacher 12 Teacher 10

Each of the teachers in the study in some way revealed their commitment to
teaching. Importantly, they all were participants in the voluntary U.S. Department of
Education Javits Models of Teaching Grant (PR #S206A040072), which required
additional professional development, as well as planning and instructional time. Half
of the teachers interviewed were considered “high” in this category, while the other
half, who evinced a little less commitment were judged as “moderate” (refer to Table
4.7). The most hardworking teachers expressed their dedication to the field in
multiple ways. Many of them spoke of the passion they have for their job and their

107
students. For example, Teacher 10 compared her own dedication to her teacher
colleagues’:
I don’t think many teachers are as dedicated as I am, and I think that makes
me stand out because they come in my room and they see all of these things
that I’m doing. I also think my love makes me stand out. I think they know
that I’m not there just to get a paycheck and to have vacation. I think they
can tell that I’m genuinely interested, I like what I do, and I like the
challenge. (personal communication, January 8, 2010)

Teacher 6 and 7 also described the immense passion they possess for their
profession. Other teachers evidenced their commitment by explaining the time they
dedicate to preparation and planning. Teacher 2 explained that other teachers in her
school do not understand that having gifted students requires more planning time in
order to vary the curriculum to meet their specialized needs. She said:
Well, you definitely have to be willing to put the time in. Everybody that
doesn’t have those [gifted] kids thinks it’s just easier because they just get it
and you don’t have to change anything. So definitely being willing to put the
time in to make it higher-level, being willing to go and learn about new
things, not just continue to do what you’ve always done. (Teacher 2, personal
communication, January 17, 2010)

Several of the teachers described the long hours they spend at school preparing for
lessons, grading, communicating with families, and helping out around the school.
An extreme example of this is seen in Teacher 7’s comment:
I think I know that I’m passionate when I don’t mind getting to school at 6:30
and leaving at 6:30, when other teachers who I went through the teacher
education program with don’t do those type of hours. I don’t mind it. It
doesn’t feel like a chore to me. I just keep busy. I usually don’t go to the
lunchroom for recess or lunch because I like working through my lunches. I
just really enjoy kids and doing these things which we call educating.
(personal communication, January 12, 2010)

108
Those teachers who were rated “moderate” in this category described how
they spend extra time either before or after school planning and preparing, but it
often does not exceed more than two hours per day. For example, Teacher 3 arrives
at school at 6:30 in the morning, but “doesn’t stay after” (personal communication,
January 8, 2010) and also does not take things home on the weekends. One
participant, Teacher 11, described how she is a very efficient planner and is able to
quickly prepare lessons. Later in the interview she revealed that she often chooses
the same lesson model because it is easier to plan rather than using one of the models
with which she is less familiar. This teacher was rated moderately for this reason.
A number of teachers described the positions they held or hold at their school
or the time they devote to school matters. Teacher 2 detailed the numerous activities
she does outside of the classroom including conducting professional developments
for her teacher colleagues, being the gifted and talented coordinator, training teachers
at different locations, and working on technology at the school. Several of the
teachers are grade-level chairs at their school site and several are the school
coordinator for gifted students. Teacher 7 described how her principal always relies
on her to do things around the school that other teachers “will not do” (personal
communication, January 17, 2010). An example she gave was hosting visitors from
other districts and schools.
Enjoys Watching Students Learn
A review of the data related to the characteristics of teachers revealed a
particular trait that was perceived to be present in “high” amounts in each teacher

109
participant. While this characteristic is not specifically named in the literature for
instructors of the gifted, it was prevalent enough to merit analysis in the current
study. Each teacher possessed a strong desire for and enjoyment in watching their
students’ learning unfold and develop. It is reasonable to assume that all teachers
want their students to learn. These teacher participants would not be an exception to
that. However, it was clear that this group of teachers took great personal joy in
watching the students engage in the learning process, thinking in new and different
ways, discussing their thought processes, and applying high-level knowledge. Table
4.8 illustrates the great prevalence of this mindset in all interviewed teachers.

Table 4.8: Teacher Characteristic: Enjoy Watching Students Learn

Low Moderate High
Teacher 1
Teacher 2
Teacher 3
Teacher 4
Teacher 5
Teacher 6
Teacher 7
Teacher 8
Teacher 9
Teacher 10
Teacher 11
Teacher 12

110
During the course of the interviews, teachers on numerous occasions
described a fascination with learning about who their students were. They said that
they prefer lessons where they can see what skills the students have mastered at
independent levels. Many cited, in particular, Group Investigation as a model that
reveled to them the strong and struggling students, the students who take leadership
roles, those who are team players and those who struggle with social interactions.
Teacher 11, for example, explained her enjoyment for teaching through a student-
centered format:
I feel like I get to know more about truly how they are learning during that
instruction, because it’s so much more centered on them. You can really get
a sense of who has like the self-initiating skills [and] who kind of ends up
taking charge. (personal communication, January 7, 2010)

The teachers value the models of teaching because they allow them to see the
different needs and abilities of their gifted population.
Participants also described their satisfaction in learning about the different
interests their students possess and the joy they feel when students pursue those
interests. Teachers 1, 5, 2, and 12 preferred to use models that evoke student
interests such as a Group Investigation or Inquiry Training. Teacher 1 described that
she enjoys learning about student interests through her solicitation of their questions
during a lesson and by watching students learn about things in which they were
interested:
I think you learn about them through their questioning process. I think no
matter what, they’re learning, even if they didn’t [ask] the questions or get to
the point that [the teacher] wanted them to get at, they’re still [learning]– it’s
kind of like a win/win situation. (personal communication, January 8, 2010)

111
It is of no concern to her that the students did not learn the exact items that she had
planned for the lesson because she acknowledges that they are learning something
any way and pursuing their own interests. This process appears to give the teacher
pleasure.
Teachers also mentioned that listening to students describe their thought
processes and learning how they think gives them great satisfaction. One teacher
explained that she likes hearing students describe their misconceptions. Another
teacher said she enjoys listening to the students during metacognitive parts of
lessons. As an example, Teacher 2 described her appreciation for the ‘thinking
aloud’ involved in the Concept Attainment model:
There’s always going to be someone who wants to tell you “it’s a no” and
why they think that. I just think it’s really interesting. You hear a lot of
interesting thought processes back on why it would be a “yes” and why it
would be a “no”. (personal communication, January 17, 2010)

Student involvement and engagement in lessons seems to be pleasurable for
the teachers as well. Teachers 2, 3, and 11 enjoy watching students banter back and
forth during collaborative learning. Teacher 3 affirmed, “I love hearing their
conversations while they’re trying to [learn] – they’re negotiating” (personal
communication, January 8, 2010). Teachers 4 and 6 shared how they find joy in
watching the students conduct research. Teacher 8 said she is always excited to see
what and how her students are going to present the information they have learned.
Models of teaching that are more favored tend to be the ones where students are the

112
most interested and involved, and where the teachers feel they have the most student
participation.
Finally, teachers expressed interest in watching the students apply knowledge
that they just learned. Teacher 12 described her “favorite thing” about being a
teacher:
I think when [students] apply [knowledge] to something new, I think it’s
when you can kind of see the light bulbs go off and they understand or
they’re able to apply what they know and it makes sense to them; that’s cool.
I like that. (personal communication, January 11, 2010)

Teacher 7 asserted that her favorite part of teaching is when students learn something
new, apply it in a meaningful way, and reflect on how they had not previously
understood it before. Together, the teachers confirmed repeatedly that the joy they
experience learning about their students and watching their students learn is an
important part of who they are as a teacher.
Skills to Differentiate the Curriculum
Teachers of the gifted must have the skills to appropriately differ the
curriculum to meet the varying needs of their population of learners. Kaplan (2009)
explained how the original need to differentiate the curriculum for gifted learners
came from an understanding that the abilities of gifted students are not
commensurate with the core curriculum. In other words, the needs of gifted students
are not met by components of the regular curriculum. Rather teachers of the gifted
need to engage in a “comparative analysis between the needs, interests, and abilities

113
of gifted students and the content, process, and product components of the core
curriculum” (Kaplan, 2009, p. 107).
While many models of differentiated curriculum exist, common skills emerge
as essential for educators of the gifted. The California Recommended Standards for
Programs for Gifted and Talented Students provides a framework for the discussion
of the skills necessary for meeting the needs of this special group. According to the
standards, teachers must provide a curriculum that incorporates high-level thinking
including critical, creative, problem-solving and research skills. They must provide
students with access to advanced content and experience creating authentic and
appropriate products. The differentiated curriculum should “focus primarily on
depth and complexity of content, advanced or accelerated pacing of content and
novelty (unique and original expressions of student understanding)”, (California
State Board of Education, 2005, p. 4). Teachers must have the skills to apply
instructional strategies to promote inquiry, self-directed learning, debate, discussion,
and metacognition. They must apply theories of learning that induce abstract
thinking and understanding of big ideas of a content area. The standards dictate that
the curriculum be differentiated on a regular basis throughout the school day, taught
through a variety of models, and supported by appropriate materials and technology.
A more sophisticated teacher, according to the standards, would make sure that the
curriculum is comprehensive, utilizes a large variety of teaching and learning
patterns such as small and large group instruction, different grouping strategies,

114
teacher and student-directed learning, and opportunities for independent study
(California State Board of Education, 2005).
These standards provided the basis by which participant teachers were judged
for skills of differentiated curriculum for gifted students. While all teachers
evidenced some skill to differentiate the curriculum, some of the teachers were more
specific in the description of their strategies, included multiple and various modes of
differentiating, and seemed to meet the requirements more comprehensively than did
other teachers in the study. Five teachers received the highest mark, five received a
moderate rating, and two teachers received a low categorization for this
characteristic (see Table 4.9).

Table 4.9: Teacher Characteristic: Skills to Differentiate Curriculum for Gifted
Students

Low Moderate High
Teacher 4 Teacher 1 Teacher 2
Teacher 8 Teacher 3 Teacher 5
Teacher 6 Teacher 7
Teacher 9 Teacher 10
Teacher 11 Teacher 12

Generally, teachers seemed to understand that they need to differ the
curriculum to meet the needs of their gifted students. Many described that reading
out of the textbook is not sufficient teaching. Teacher 2 noted that colleagues at her

115
school site feel that teaching the gifted students is a much easier job than teaching
struggling students. She explains:
Everybody that doesn’t have [gifted] kids thinks it’s just easier because they
just “get it” and you don’t have to change anything. [Teachers must be]
willing to put the time in to make it higher-level, being willing to go and
learn about new things, not just continue to do what you’ve always done and
take out your January box that has all your supplies in it. (personal
communication, January 17, 2010)

It is apparent that this teacher considers the needs of her students in order to plan
curriculum and instruction. In fact, multiple comments were made by the teachers
about the fact that they do not use the textbook as it is scripted, but rather they
deliver lessons using the models of teaching, by integrating big ideas of different
disciplines, using prompts to stimulate more deep and complex thinking about the
text, and supplementing resources. For example, Teacher 11 explained how she uses
multiple resources to have students make connections between the sources and, at the
same time, meet the objectives required by the core curriculum without simply
providing more work for students:
So for social studies, I mean instead of using the textbook from the district,
[I] have the kids focus more on thinking like a historian and having them
look at primary, secondary, and fictional sources and kind of gathering
evidence from all three. So really, the kids are looking at, “okay, look, we
found this, this, and this”; kind of making the connections across. It’s a much
more creative way to get at the ultimate objective than just reading the
textbook….because it’s not just more work that they need, it’s got to be
letting them dig deeper into it about what is important to them and being able
to kind of connect it with what the standards are, what they’re expected to be
doing, but kind of pushing it above that. (personal communication, January 7,
2010)

116
Many of the teachers described the integration of critical thinking in their
pedagogical practices. Teachers cited the Advance Organizer model as a way to
have students prove with evidence; they also described how the Concept Attainment
model promotes the skills of hypothesizing and debating. Four teachers specifically
mentioned the importance of debate because, they explained, it allows students to
hear their own thinking, improve their ideas based on others’, and learn to justify
their responses. Four teachers specifically mentioned using Bloom’s Taxonomy of
Learning Domains to increase students’ cognitive skills. Other teachers described
using tiered questioning techniques to increase the level of student thinking.
Almost of all of the teachers described how they provide students with
experiences with advance content. Those who displayed the most skill seemed to
use prompts that require students to think about content with great depth and
complexity. For example, several teachers described how they ask students to think
about ethical issues related to a story or find patterns within science, social studies or
math topics. Many of the teachers described how they use universal concepts, such
as “change” or “systems”, and universal big ideas, such as “change is inevitable” to
connect interdisciplinary topics such as science and math or social studies and art.
Teachers described that they use universal concepts and big ideas because the
students need to know more than just the facts about a topic they are studying.
Participants who were perceived to be the most skilled at differentiating the
curriculum also described how they provide novel experiences for students both in
terms of exposing them to ideas beyond the core curriculum and providing them with

117
time to develop their own interests in topical areas. Teacher 5 described a
“dabbling” learning center where her students explore different topics, books, or
ideas designed to evoke curiosity. She shared, “‘one little girl said, wow, this is
great. I really love school now.’ It’s just having them experience different
curriculum” (personal communication, January 7, 2010). Multiple teachers
mentioned the use of independent study assignments whereby students learn the
process of research while learning about a topic of their own interest. Some teachers
incorporate classical works and current events into the core curriculum to enhance
student understanding of the world and provide them with experience beyond the
core curriculum. Technology was also cited as a way to provide novel and creative
experiences for gifted students.
Notably most of the teachers who had the highest skills to differentiate the
curriculum felt that teaching students the core skills and content was not sufficient to
meet their needs. Rather many times, it was mentioned that gifted students need to
learn the process of learning or learn “how to learn.” In fact, Teacher 12 described
how the Group Investigation model, in particular, teaches students the process of
learning, she said, “I think it’s very powerful. I think that it helps them take control
of their learning and it actually teaches them that they can learn anything at any time
if they can go through a set of steps to find answers to questions” (personal
communication, January 11, 2010). Other teachers described how they engage
students in metacognitive processes to help students think about how they learn.

118
As aforementioned, differences in teacher ratings were based on the
specificity of description, the amount and variation in using multiple approaches to
differentiate, and the ease with which they described themselves as differentiating.
The teachers who received the lowest rankings for this characteristic, described it as
being difficult to create and implement differentiated curriculum. They also
expressed their desire to use more differentiation in the class than they currently do.
Teacher 9 disclosed:
I know that sometimes I don’t provide them with enough opportunity to take
off. I know I don’t do that as much as I wish I could. I feel like I know what
I should do and need to do. It’s just, again, taxing upon time. I feel like if I
had the time, it would be so great, and every lesson would be that, but I have
to get back to reality. (personal communication, January 15, 2010)

The teacher demonstrates a struggle to differentiate because of time-limiting
circumstances. Finally, Teacher 8, who was perceived to be “low” in this category,
repeatedly cited using the same strategy to differentiate (offering product choices for
students) but did not describe a range of strategies that she implements to meet the
multiple needs of gifted students as described in the California Recommended
Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented Students.
Being Student-Centered
Being student-centered involves respecting students’ autonomy, providing
experiences that enable students to follow their passions and be self-actualizing, and
seeking to understand things from the students’ point of view (Grant & Piechowski,
1999). It requires teachers to incorporate the tenants of independent learning and
function as a guide rather than as an authoritarian leader. According to Whitlock and

119
DuCette (1989), teachers who promote student-centered learning describe their own
role as a facilitator, actively seek resources and materials to follow-up on student
interests, design learning experiences that are based on student interests, and
encourage the use of a variety of information seeking approaches with students. In
Davalos and Griffin’s (1999) study of teachers’ individualized practices with gifted
students in rural, heterogeneous classrooms, it was concluded that teachers promoted
learner-centered instruction when several conditions were met. Among them, the
teacher must understand the benefits of an individualized education and must be
motivated to use learner-centered techniques, the classroom teacher must be willing
to give control over learning to the students, the teacher must understand the
academic, social, and emotional needs for gifted students, and the classroom teacher
must know how to enact individualization techniques (Davalos & Griffin, 1999).

Table 4.10: Teacher Characteristic: Student-Centered Learning

Low Moderate High
Teacher 1 Teacher 3 Teacher 2
Teacher 4 Teacher 6 Teacher 5
Teacher 9 Teacher 7
Teacher 10 Teacher 8
Teacher 11
Teacher 12

120
Student-centered techniques include using learning centers, providing
multiple and various opportunities for student interaction, engaging students in
independent studies and lessons that promote student interest, engagement, and
motivation, teaching students the process of individualized research, and selecting
lesson content and models based on students’ needs and interests. Many of the
teachers interviewed provided numerous examples of ways they seek to incorporate
student-centered learning in their classroom practice. Two participants described
experiencing a struggle in providing these opportunities due to a lack of their own
comfort or time constrains caused by district mandates, testing, and other similar
variables. They were rated as “low” in this category. Six teachers were considered
to provide student-centered learning opportunities in moderate amounts, and four
teachers were considered “high” as they consistently provided learner-centered
experiences, encouraged students to become independent learners, and embraced a
role as a facilitator or guide in the learning process. Table 4.10 displays the teachers
for each category.
Consistently, teachers in the study described how capturing student interest,
motivating and engaging students in learning, and creating student excitement for
content was essential to their teaching practice. A number of them cited the different
models of teaching as providing them with ways to promote student-centered
learning. For example, Teacher 2 explained, how all of the models of teaching she
has learned, except Direct Instruction, promote more student engagement in learning:

121
Again, going back to the models, I think that [students] need to be more
involved in the learning process, rather than sitting back with the Direct
Instruction and just regurgitating back the information back to you…it just is
more teacher-directed, and I like to see them doing more than me just
standing there telling – sometimes it’s unavoidable in math or whatever, but
I’d rather them take more of the process on. (personal communication,
January 17, 2010)

Here she explained her preference for teaching models other than Direct Instruction
as they allow students to take a larger role in the learning process. Teacher 6
described how Direct Instruction is “boring” (personal communication, January 21,
2010) to her students. As such, she said that she uses any other model besides Direct
Instruction if possible. She demonstrated her feelings about learner-centered
instruction as she accounted for the interests and learning preferences of her students.
Many of the teachers cited the student-centered aspects of particular models
as reasons they use the model or enjoy teaching it. Concept Attainment was cited by
most of the teachers to encourage high-levels of participation and excitement from
the students because of its “game-like” qualities. Some teachers described it as a
particularly beneficial model to encourage student conversation. Teacher 8
explained:
The other thing too is when they’re coming up with a hypothesis, somebody
might say, “oh I think it’s nouns”, and then someone might raise their hand
and say, “well you know, jumping is not a noun, so that hypothesis doesn’t
work”, and it gets a dialogue going on with the kids. (personal
communication, January 22, 2010)

The teacher selects the model because it engages students in a debate using high-
level thinking-hypothesis testing. Other teachers cited the model Inquiry Training as
being centered on student interest. Group Investigation was another model often

122
described as and enjoyed for its student-centered nature. Teachers like learning
about student interests through the model. They also touted its ability to provide
freedom for students to pursue interests within a particular structure. Teachers
recognized it as allowing students to guide the learning process and take on
responsibilities that the students felt they did well. This was particularly the case
when teachers described assigning individual students responsibilities for the
research process such as recorder, reporter, leader, etc. Teacher 10 explained how
Group Investigation evokes interests that students pursue both within the lesson itself
and also during Independent Work Time (IWT) built into the daily schedule:
[Group Investigation is] cool because they’re guiding their own learning, and
to watch them; the research that I give them when I do give them the
research- I don’t know if their question is in there, so if their question wasn’t
answered it’s nice for them to go on their own and figure out the answer,
which I do allow during IWT and I allow them to dabble, which is fun.
(personal communication, January 8, 2010)

The same teacher articulated how Advance Organizer lessons have a student-
centered aspect as they require students to engage in thinking about a big idea,
connect it to their own prior knowledge and experiences, and then to new
information that is presented during the lesson:
Then when you show them the big idea, they like breaking apart what it is.
They try to figure out “what does this word mean?” and then the real world or
the practice – gifted kids like applying it to themselves. They like having
ownership of it. Then there’s also when you’re applying it to something new,
they like to be able to say, “hey that makes sense”, and they like to figure it
out on their own and especially for the real world. A lot of my GATE kids
say, “hey, I could bridge this idea with that big idea, or I can link”. (Teacher
10, personal communication, January 8, 2010)

123
Many of the teachers facilitate independent learning through teaching the
students the process of learning, or “learning-to-learn”. Teacher 5, for example,
describes her job as teaching her students what it means to “be a good student”
(personal communication, January 7, 2010). She explained that teaching students the
process of learning, so they can be independent learners, is more important than just
covering the facts in the California Content Standards. Another teacher emphasizes
the steps of how to learn so that students can learn even when the teacher is not
present.
Teachers skilled in providing for student-centered learning described their
role as a “guide” during many of the lessons they teach. Teacher 7 described how
she guides a Group Investigation lesson through her choice of a puzzlement.
Teacher 3 explained how she guides students during Advance Organizer lessons to
relate student prior knowledge to abstract concepts. Teacher 8 described the
relationship between her and her students as a “partnership” (personal
communication, January 22, 2010) where the banter between them propels the
student learning. Teacher 6 highlighted the importance of the teachers’ ability to be
a flexible guide during the instructional process. She explained, “So let’s say you’re
doing a lesson, but their interest is somewhere else. So being flexible and maybe
jump onto that area that the kids are interested in. So being flexible with your
teaching” (Teacher 6, personal communication, January 21, 2010). It is her
understanding that the teacher shares the responsibility of the learning process with

124
the students by being flexible enough to change the curriculum and instruction to
meet the students’ interests.
Teachers noted a variety of other ways that they foster student-centered
learning, such as using independent studies where students embark on the research
process to answer questions they select about a certain topic, student-centered
literature circles, open-ended projects, learning centers, and through the
incorporation of various resources such as current children’s magazines and primary
resources for them to explore.
Comments that reflected negatively on student-centered learning often related
to a lack of time or comfort needed to engage in these practices. Teachers who were
designated as “low” in this category often described the importance and enjoyment
for student-centered learning, but explained that they would only engage students in
the process if they perceived there to be enough time. Teacher 1, rated as “low,”
explained, “Group Investigations are great, but sometimes you don’t have the time –
if they’re not going to ask what you want them to ask, and you have to get the point
across” (personal communication, January 8, 2010). Teacher 4 explained why she
chooses a teacher-directed approach to learning more often than a student-centered
approach:
Because whatever curriculum I need to teach, I know that’s what they’re
going to get, because that’s what I’m delivering to them…The problem with
[student-centered learning] is if they don’t ask anything curriculum-wise that
you need to get across to them, then that makes it difficult, because they’re
investigating what they want but it may not necessarily be what you want.
(personal communication, January 21, 2010)

125
Teachers in the “low” category also described why they are more comfortable
with the teacher-directed models. Teacher 4 explained that she prefers teaching
Direct Instruction because of its teacher-directed nature, and how she is much less
comfortable teaching Concept Formation due to its student-centered nature:
[I prefer] Direct Instruction definitely, because I like to be in control. And
with Direct Instruction, I am in control and that’s comfortable for me…A
sage on the stage – yeah, that’s me… Some of them are harder for me, like
the Concept Formation. I think that’s where the impatience comes in. I get
impatient and I want to start giving them the answers, because you’re not
getting anywhere close to where we need to be, and I think that’s why I’m
less comfortable with that, because you do need to let go of a lot, and that’s
harder for me to do. (personal communication, January 21, 2010)

This teacher relayed that even though she understands how to do Concept Formation
lessons, and she understands how they are valuable to students, she very
infrequently, if ever, plans lessons in this model. In fact, she very infrequently
engages students in student-centered learning.
Creating a Non-Threatening Learning Environment
Hansen and Feldhusen (1994) in their study of trained and untrained teachers
of the gifted found that teachers trained in gifted education created more positive,
non-threatening learning environments for their students. These teachers created
environments where students were more able to use high-level thinking skills with
less lecturing and more discussion. Teachers who had the most positive learning
environments placed less emphasis on grades, offered opportunities for students to
learn in a variety of ways, allowed students to discuss their own ideas as they related
to class topics, and promoted study for its own sake rather than for a grade. Gifted

126
students were more motivated to learn for the joy of learning in classrooms where
teachers were trained in fostering these skills. Further, the gifted students were more
motivated to learn for intrinsic rather than extrinsic reasons (Hansen & Feldhusen,
1994).

Table 4.11: Teacher Characteristic: Non-Threatening Learning Environment

Low Moderate High
Teacher 4 Teacher 3 Teacher 1
Teacher 8 Teacher 9 Teacher 2
Teacher 10 Teacher 5
Teacher 6
Teacher 7
Teacher 11
Teacher 12

Most of the participating teachers created non-threatening learning
environments for their students in a variety of ways. Seven of the teachers obtained
the highest rank for this category, three teachers were deemed to be moderate, and
two of the twelve teachers were considered “low” in terms of creating a non-
threatening learning environment for their gifted students (see Table 4.11). Teachers
who received a designation of “high” often explained how they encourage students
to point out the teachers’ mistakes for the benefit of all. Creating an environment
where students are willing to correct a teacher requires the teacher to make the
students feel comfortable to question and challenge the teacher when appropriate.

127
One teacher described how she welcomes students to point out mistakes because it
offers a learning experience for both her and her students. Several teachers describe
their classroom environments as a “team” or “family”. Building a community of
learners helps these teachers to create a positive learning environment for students.
Teacher 7 explained, “It’s very important for them to have input and for them to feel
like they are part of building that classroom community” (personal communication,
January 12, 2010).
Teacher 12 related how she wants to learn about and connect to her students
on a personal level, beyond the academic setting. She described that she cares
deeply for each student’s well-being:
[The students] would probably say that I’m very caring. I’m very interested
in their whole being. Not just academic learning, but I want to make sure
that, “hey, did you eat breakfast this morning?” Kids that I know who don’t
eat breakfast, “go get a snack and go eat it”. I just genuinely care about these
children. I will go above and beyond and do whatever I can for these
children. I want them to be competitive with other kids. They’re urban kids
and they don’t have as much as others, so intellectually I want them to be
able to compete for a good future. I don’t know if they can express that, but I
know that they feel it and I know that they know. (Teacher 12, personal
communication, January 11, 2010)

Some teachers shared specific teaching strategies that allow their students to
feel comfortable in the learning environment. For example, Teacher 1 explained
how she provides a cue to some of the more shy students to let them know that she
will be calling on them in a few minutes. This cue provides the student with some
time to think, before she asks them to share their answer. Teacher 7 described how,
in the past year, she had a signal with one of her highly gifted students. The student

128
signaled her when he felt that he needed to be more challenged in the classroom.
The same teacher explained her openness in terms of receiving feedback from
students:
I always tell them, “I’m always trying to push you to the next level. That is
my goal. If you’re bored, please tell me. It’s open discourse here; please tell
me. If I think you’re being disrespectful, I’ll tell you.” (Teacher 7, personal
communication, January 12, 2010)

Other teachers explained that they have dispositions where students can openly
communicate with them and that they listen to their needs.
In describing their classroom management policies, teachers who created the
most positive environments were not strict disciplinarians. Teacher 5 described how
she provides a structure of expectations that makes all students feel safe but still
provides freedom within that structure. She went on to share that her management
style allows her to be serious yet compassionate and understanding. Other teachers
explained their hesitancy to use sarcasm when disciplining students, as they said it
can be perceived as very negative and hurt student feelings. Teacher 12 relayed the
difficulty for her to tell students they are not meeting her expectations and how she
chooses her words to avoid hurting the students’ feelings:
I think it’s hard when kids aren’t meeting your expectation. It’s hard to be
the bearer of bad news in a way that is caring. You can throw down the
hammer and just be rude about it or be very uncaring, but I don’t think that
helps. I’m very conscious and very, very careful of what I say when I’m
trying to discipline, when I’m trying to help some of the kids like
emotionally, I choose my words very carefully. (personal communication,
January 11, 2010)

129
This teacher described how she feels she needs to make the student aware of a
problem, so that he/she can begin to solve it, but she does this in a caring manner.
The administrators at Teacher 5’s school require that all student data, test
scores, etc. be posted on the walls of the classroom. She described how she has
continuously disagreed with this policy and refuses to uphold it in her classroom. As
renown motivational theorists Deci and Ryan (1985) suggest over emphasizing test
scores often fosters extrinsic motivation and ego-involved competition and can
decrease students’ intrinsic desire to learn. Teacher 5’s unwillingness to post
student scores is evidence of the teacher working to promote learning that is
intrinsically motivated and an environment where students are not threatened by peer
comparison. It also shows compassion for student feelings of self-worth and self-
efficacy related to achievement.
Participants receiving a low rating for this characteristic evidenced behaviors
that deter students from feeling safe in the classroom. Teacher 8 described how
many students in the school think she is “mean”. In fact, this teacher shared that she
was “feared” by other students when she was a student in high school. She described
her “secret” to management as “structure and consistency” and characterized herself
as “chastising” students that do not meet her expectations:
So if a kid comes in late, am I gonna chastise him or her? I don’t know yet,
because I don’t know what happened, and so I will take the time to ask,
“well, what’s going on, how come you’re late today, you’re never late,” or
“why are we still having this problem”. (Teacher 8, personal communication,
January 22, 2010)

130
This teacher also explained how she puts a great deal of emphasis on competition in
the classroom. Students compete in spelling bees, in math, and in physical
education. In her class, every student must compete in every competition. This can
encourage extrinsic motivation for learning and threaten students through forcing
peer comparison (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
The other participant who received the lowest rating in creating a non-
threatening learning environment considers, Teacher 4, herself to be very strict. On
several occasions she explained that the students should not treat her “like a peer”
and that rules in her classroom “must be followed”. While she stated that she tries
not to belittle or embarrass her students, she explained, “we all lose our temper once
and a while” (Teacher 4, personal communication, January 21, 2010).
The last two teachers discussed represent the exception to the participants’
overall qualities of creating positive, non-threatening learning environments for their
gifted students. The three teachers who received moderate ratings demonstrated
behaviors that showed how they strive to create a non-threatening learning
environment, but made one or more comments that seemed to detract from having a
completely positive, supporting environment for gifted students to feel comfortable
expressing their ideas freely or feeling fully comfortable to learn. Such negative
exemplars included a “no-excuse policy” (Teacher 9, personal communication,
January 15, 2010) or strict and harsh adherence to negative consequences for rule
breaking.

131
Organization
Lists of characteristics of teachers of the gifted cite being organized as an
important behavior for teachers of the gifted (Vialle & Quigley, 2002). Bishop
(1976) found that gifted students highly regarded teachers who used orderly and
systematic approaches to organizing their classroom and the learning experiences.
Organization is broadly defined as orderliness by virtue of being methodological.
This characteristic is particularly important to teachers of the gifted who must
continually and systematically differentiate the curriculum to meet the needs,
interests, and abilities of their special population of learners.
All of the teachers in the study considered themselves to be organized in the
classroom to some degree. They described areas where organization was a priority
and areas where it was less so. Altogether, eight of the teachers received the highest
mark for their organization and four teachers received a medium rating in the
category. Table 4.12 gives a tally of participants in each category.

Table 4.12: Teacher Characteristic: Organization

Low Moderate High
Teacher 1 Teacher 2
Teacher 4 Teacher 3
Teacher 6 Teacher 5
Teacher 12 Teacher 7
Teacher 8
Teacher 9
Teacher 10
Teacher 11

132
Two of the teachers who were the most organized described themselves as
somewhat “obsessive-compulsive” in their behaviors. These teachers shared that
their plan book is always completely filled out, files are color-coded, everything in
the classroom has a correct place, short-term and long-term goals are clearly
delineated, everything for a lesson is prepared ahead of time, and all of the supply
closets are organized. Those teachers who were perceived to be moderately
organized described how they are orderly in many areas of the classroom but not
necessarily in all areas of teaching. For example, they may have a fairly organized
class but also may have a pile of papers to be graded, “stuffed into a drawer”
(Teacher 1, personal communication, January 8, 2010) or forget where a stack of
handouts for a lesson is located in the classroom. One teacher explained that she has
a teaching plan for the week outlined broadly in her “head” (Teacher 10, personal
communication, January 8, 2010) but does not necessarily write it down in her plan
book.
Most of the teachers acknowledged the importance of teacher organization.
They named their own organized behaviors such as being well planned, setting and
working toward teaching and learning goals, collecting and storing student data in
orderly ways, being prepared for lessons, and delivering content to students in an
organized fashion. Several teachers alluded to the fact that they enjoy using the
models of teaching because the models provide for organized ways to teach students.
This is especially true of the Advance Organizer, Teacher 3 explained, because it
systematically leads students from prior knowledge to new understandings. Another

133
participant, Teacher 7, described how she often teaches deductively from big ideas to
facts because it provides a schema for her students to organize the information they
are learning. Several of the most organized teachers also reported how they
encourage students in their class to become organized. Many of them made folders
for student papers, designated areas in the classroom for different learning
experiences, and reinforced student effort for keeping the classroom orderly.
Cognitive Competence
Above average intelligence and in-depth knowledge of subject matter are
listed as essential traits of successful teachers of the gifted by many researchers
(Vialle & Quigley, 2002; Feldhusen, 1991; Milgram, 1979; Heath, 1997; Hansford,
1985; Hollingworth, 1942; Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994; Traina, 1999). While it is
sometimes unpopular to suggest, numerous experts in the field find it to be crucial
that teachers be at least as intelligent as the students with whom they work (Miller,
2000). In addition to intelligence, it is also suggested that teachers of the gifted have
subject matter expertise and know more than the students know in particular subject
areas (Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994; Traina, 1999; Miller, 2000). Miller (2000)
stresses the importance of these traits in that they allow teachers to be adept enough
to evaluate what the gifted student already knows, and to build upon that knowledge
in valuable ways.
While debate in the field exists related to the importance of these traits, they
remain replete in the literature on teacher characteristics for gifted students. The
qualitative methodological approach of this study limits its ability to assess or

134
measure these characteristics in quantifiable, reliable, or valid terms, and thus does
not attempt to assign a rating to these categories. Instead, patterns related to these
cognitive competences are discussed in the present section. During the data analysis,
when teachers indicated that they have extensive subject matter knowledge in a
particular area, it was assigned the cognitive competency code. Similarly, the code
was assigned if a teacher mentioned how they were identified as gifted, or have
particular proclivities for processing information, abstract reasoning, problem
solving, or learning quickly. Following are some of the patterns related to this data.
Teachers were asked in which subject areas they felt that they had the most
and least in-depth knowledge. Seven of the twelve teachers felt they had the most
extensive knowledge related to language arts: reading, writing, and grammar.
Teacher 11 obtained a master’s degree and specialized training in reading
instruction. Teachers 1 and 4 explained how they feel especially adept at writing,
specifically the narrative genres. Teachers 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 11 described their
extensive knowledge of literature and reading instruction, and Teacher 7 has a sub-
specialty in comparative literature as she studied it in and after college. Five of the
teachers described math and science to be the subject areas where they are the most
knowledgeable. Three of the teachers, Teachers 3, 5, and 6, received majors in the
hard sciences: biology and physics. The other two, Teachers 8 and 12, feel well
versed in the content and particularly adept at teaching it to their students. Teacher 8
described herself as having had a proclivity toward mathematics since she was a
child. In high school, she relayed, how she was in special advanced math classes.

135
Three of the teachers named social studies to be areas where they feel they had the
most in-depth knowledge. Teacher 11 in particular described the numerous trainings
she has attended to learn how to teach social studies in authentic and meaningful
ways to students. See Table 4.13 for a list of the subject areas where teachers felt
they had the most and least subject matter knowledge.

Table 4.13: Areas of Participant Perceived Most and Least In-Depth Subject Matter
Knowledge

Amount of
Knowledge Language Arts Science Math Social Studies
Most In-depth
Subject Matter
Knowledge
Teacher 1
Teacher 2
Teacher 4
Teacher 7
Teacher 9
Teacher 10
Teacher 11
Teacher 3
Teacher 5
Teacher 6
Teacher 8
Teacher 12
Teacher 3
Teacher 5
Teacher 6
Teacher 8
Teacher 12
Teacher 2
Teacher 4
Teacher 11
Least In-depth
Subject Matter
Knowledge
Teacher 6
Teacher 12
Teacher 8
Teacher 7
Teacher 9
Teacher 10
Teacher 11
Teacher 2
Teacher 6
Teacher 7

For subject areas where teachers felt they had the least amount of in-depth
knowledge, three named language arts, four chose science, two chose mathematics,
and one chose social studies. Teacher 12 explained that she chose language arts for

136
this category because it was very extensive to teach. She cited different facets of the
subject such as literary criticism, grammar, writing skills, spelling, reading
comprehension as overwhelming in terms of teaching and planning. Teachers 6 and
8 explained that because they were second language learners themselves, teaching
grammar and reading is more of a struggle for them. Teachers 2 and 6 both found
math to be a subject area where they always had conceptual difficulty in school.
Teacher 7 chose social studies and science as areas where she has the least in-depth
knowledge because they are not as “static” as mathematics. She explained this about
the subjects of social studies and science, “they’re constantly changing. There are
always new things that I hear on NPR or that I read that change how I teach social
studies and science” (Teacher 7, personal communication, January 12, 2010).
Teachers 8, 9, and 10, referred to themselves as “smart.” One teacher
explained that she was identified as a gifted student during her middle school years.
Teachers 2, 3, and 8 described themselves as having a “good memory.” For
example, Teacher 8 explained her memory capacity in the following excerpt:
So, I have a really good memory... I definitely remember the things I hear.
So like I can remember precise conversations from really far back. Like as
far back probably as kindergarten. I remember my last day of kindergarten.
So like if there was an auditory photographic memory, I feel like that’s what I
would have. (personal communication, January 22, 2010)

Other teachers mentioned particular thinking abilities they possess. Teacher
9 described herself as a “global thinker” because she is able to “see the big picture”
(personal communication, January 15, 2010). Teacher 7 asserted that she has
particularly fast problem-solving skills, and Teacher 5 reported that she has always

137
been able to learn things more rapidly and seemingly more easily than others. In
fact, she described how during study groups in college she usually took the role of
teacher because she was able to comprehend the material faster than the other
members of her study group.
A few other patterns relating to cognitive capacity surfaced during the
interviews. First, over a third of the teachers described themselves as being
voracious readers during their youth. In most of these cases, the teachers ended up
feeling like they had the most in-depth knowledge of language arts. Second, over
half of the teachers described themselves as being very good students: diligently
taking notes, promptly turning in assignments, participating in study groups, reading
text materials, and studying meticulously before exams. Third, very few negative
comments related to cognitive capacity were recorded during the interviews. Among
them, one teacher explained how she is slow to process information. Another
teacher described herself as not “overly intelligent” (Teacher 5, personal
communication, January 7, 2010) but that she always put forth exceptional effort.
And finally, one teacher asserted that she had to work very hard in school because it
“doesn’t come naturally” (Teacher 9, personal communication, January 15, 2010) to
her.
Life-Long Learner
There is little doubt that teachers serve as role models to their students.
When teachers of the gifted exhibit high levels of interest and engagement in
intellectual pursuit, students are more motivated to learn and excel in school

138
(Emerick, 1992). Bishop (1980) found that the most successful teachers of gifted
students had broad personal interests, often literary and cultural. Similarly, Bernal
(1994) and Emerick (1992) determined that the best teachers for this population
viewed themselves as life-long learners. Teachers with this characteristic regularly
seek information about various and diverse topics, demonstrate a personal desire to
know more, and are enthusiastic and knowledge about the world. They possess and
model the same joy of learning they desire their students to have. See Table 4.14 for
an overview of how teachers in the present study were perceived in terms of being a
life-long learner.

Table 4.14: Teacher Characteristic: Life-Long Learner

Low Moderate High
Teacher 1 Teacher 2
Teacher 3 Teacher 5
Teacher 4 Teacher 6
Teacher 8 Teacher 7
Teacher 9 Teacher 12
Teacher 10
Teacher 11

All teachers interviewed showed some evidence of possessing multiple
interests and a desire to learn, although five teachers exhibited a somewhat stronger
passion for learning new things and had more broad interests outside of the
classroom. These five teachers were perceived to be “high” in the category of life-

139
long learner, and the seven others were rated as “moderate”. Teachers with the most
evidence of being life-long learners showed numerous instances throughout the
interview of being interested in learning new and different things, being consistently
reflective about their teaching practice, and possessing passion for a broad range of
ideas, while those who were deemed as “moderate” seemed to have a more limited
set of interests and less frequently manifested their joy of learning.
A common pattern that emerged among the “high” teachers in this category
was their need to “stay current”. For example, Teacher 5 described how she reads
the latest educational research, looks up articles related to issues she is having with
students in her class, and borrows course readers from friends of hers attending
graduate school. Teacher 6 explained how excited she gets to go to professional
development (PD) seminars and professional conferences. Here she compared her
own enthusiasm and drive to learn with that of her teacher colleagues:
I like to learn new things. When I go to a PD I’m all excited. When I go to
gifted conferences, I’m all there. Sometimes, and I don’t mean all, but
sometimes you hear teachers go “ahh,” and I’m like, “why?” I’m a learner at
heart. I love to learn new things, and so I’m open to anything, even if it’s
hard. Sometimes I put myself in positions that I shouldn’t because then I
overwhelm myself, but I think that I’m a learner and I love to learn new
things…When I first started doing this I’m going, “this is hard. I don’t know
if I can do this.” But I was interested, but I didn’t feel proficient enough.
But I pushed myself and pushed myself. I worked hard and I think it takes
hard work to change. I think that some people are not willing to do that.
(Teacher 6, personal communication, January 21, 2010)

Similarly, Teacher 7 described her disappointment with the lack of professional
development offered at her school site, “In my current position, I’m not getting the
level of professional development that I was [before], so that is difficult for me,

140
because it’s part of that learning process that I miss out on” (personal
communication, January 12, 2010). Currently, along with reading many texts related
to educational research, she has applied to several graduate school doctoral programs
because she feels that she is not receiving needed intellectual stimulation and she
continually wants to learn how to better her practice.
The teachers who particularly manifested the characteristic of being life-long
learners also described the self-reflective process in which they consistently engage.
Several teachers shared questions they pose to themselves about how to enhance
their teaching skills. Two teachers described how they specifically seek out criticism
from their colleagues and administration in order to improve their craft. Teacher 11
illustrated this mentality:
I like to know if there are things that I can improve on, so I am not one to shy
away from constructive criticism or from suggestions for improvement. For
instance, if I get observed, even if it’s informal, I’ll go right away and say,
“hey, did you notice anything that I can improve on, or what could be better,”
because I just want to do good work. I want the kids to have good
experiences, so any suggestions like, “tell me”. (personal communication,
January 7, 2010)

Other teachers described thinking about ways to improve lessons when the
students do not fully meet their objectives. Several also shared that they are not
hesitant in asking more experienced teacher colleagues for help regarding how to
plan and teach particular content. While some teachers named specific areas of
interest related to seeking their own professional development such as math (Teacher
8), social studies (Teacher 11), or the incorporation of technology (Teacher 2), others
described a more expansive passion for learning (Teacher 5, 12). Teachers who were

141
assigned a higher rating named more broad and various areas of interest which they
pursue. For example, Teacher 5 described her interest in learning about new science
topics, reading non-fiction texts and biographies, educational research, and physical
endeavors (such as training to run a half marathon). As another example, Teacher 7
described her passion for art history, comparative literature-specifically turn of the
century Japanese literature, non-fiction reading, multi-medium art, graphic arts,
animals, boat restoration, and traveling abroad to learn about education
internationally.
Those that were rated more moderately for this characteristic described
themselves as not having overly broad interests. They often named a few specific
areas of interest, but did not manifest the same passion when talking about these.
For example, when asked about her interests, Teacher 3 replied, “I wouldn’t say
[they are] overly broad. I mean like I go to a museum, but it doesn’t mean that I
want to read every little thing” (personal communication, January 8, 2010). Teacher
10 described that she likes to read but that she is “really simple outside of school…I
don’t have to have a structured weekend and things like that” (personal
communication, January 8, 2010). Teacher 11 described her interests as “few” and
“specific” (personal communication, January 7, 2010); she enjoys reading and
physical activities.
Thinking Creatively
Creativity has been recognized as an important personal characteristic of
gifted educators. For example, in Rejskind’s (2000) examination of models,

142
programs, and recommended practices in gifted education, it was concluded that
effective teachers of gifted students need to be creative to develop students’
creativity. Taylor (1975) defined five levels or types of creativity that provide a
framework for identifying teacher creativity. According to the framework,
expressive creativity involves spontaneity and freedom in expression as exemplified
by spontaneous communication between students and the teacher during a successful
lesson. Technical creativity is characterized by proficiency in designing various
products such as lessons, units, learning centers. Productive creativity is evident
when students regularly achieve unexpectedly exceptional outcomes on assessments
or other measurements. Inventive creativity is the ability to apply readily available
materials or ideas to solve problems. Innovative creativity involves modifying basic
principles of established schools of thought and emergent creativity occurs when a
new paradigm is brought to the field. Rejskind (2000) noted that emergent creativity
is relatively rare and difficult to observe and record.

Table 4.15: Teacher Characteristic: Creative

Low Moderate High
Teacher 3 Teacher 1 Teacher 7
Teacher 4 Teacher 2 Teacher 10
Teacher 9 Teacher 5 Teacher 12
Teacher 11 Teacher 6
Teacher 8

143
Creativity emerged as a common pattern related to perceived teacher personal
characteristics. Each occurrence that demonstrated one of the above types of
creativity was coded, as were the teachers’ self-perceptions about possessing
creativity. A broad range of ability to think creatively was present in the data. Table
4.15 delineates the general ratings of the teachers’ abilities to think creatively based
on data from the interview. Three teachers evidenced high levels of creativity, five
teachers demonstrated moderate ability to think creativity, and four teachers
displayed low ability to think creatively. Teachers who strongly showed the trait
often described how their creativity manifested itself both inside and outside of the
classroom. Several participants described themselves as artistic, creating multi-
media forms of art. For example, Teacher 7 explained:
A project that I worked on for quite a long time and I’m actually still working
on but not as much: I have saved all of my receipts since the year 2000. I
have color coded them according to the type of purchase, the amount spent;
they’re organized by date and time. I’ve made artwork working around this
idea of consumption for a really long time, but that’s like really obsessive
compulsive and not something I tell a lot of people. (personal
communication, January 12, 2010)

The quote demonstrates the teachers’ technical creativity to produce a new and
different product, in this case, visual art. Other examples from the data focused on
how creativity manifests itself inside the classrooms. Teachers described their
ability to provide students with a variety of different kinds of learning experiences,
incorporate technology into lessons, design curriculum that requires students to make
connections between seemingly unrelated subject matter and create lessons in the

144
various models. For example, Teacher 12 described, how her creative thinking
affects her pedagogical planning:
I’m very creative with the lessons that I do. I don’t like just following what it
says in the guidebook. Guidebooks definitely guide me and I can see one
way to do it, but this is the whole trying to be a little bit different perspective.
I can’t remember the last time I taught a lesson straight out of the guidebook,
because to me it just seems so unnatural because that’s not how I get from A
to B. I have to go on my windy little path and it takes me some time, but I
get there, the kids get there. I give them a little bit more along the way.
(personal communication, January 11, 2010)

Other teachers expressed how they struggle with creative thinking and creative
endeavors. In fact, several teachers described themselves as decisively not creative,
“If [you] knew me well, [you would] know I wasn’t creative-that my best ideas come
from other people or things I’ve seen” (Teacher 4, personal communication, January
21, 2010). In another example, Teacher 4, described the difficulty she has creating
big ideas for Advance Organizer lessons:
I have a hard time with some of these; coming up with the motivation,
coming up with a new big idea. I don’t feel creative enough to do that. I can
follow somebody else’s, no problem, and then start adding to it, but I don’t
feel particularly creative. (personal communication, January 21, 2010)

Most of the exemplars of creative thinking relate to the expressive, technical,
and inventive creativity that are described by Taylor (1975). Impromptu banter
between teacher and students, doing things “differently” each year in the classroom,
creating unique bulletin boards for students, using differentiated curriculum with the
prescribed textbook series, choosing ambiguous puzzlements for Group Investigation
lessons, and creating multiple product options for students were among some of the
examples denoting the teachers’ creative thinking. Using the guidebook as scripted

145
and other teachers’ lessons, and expressing an aversion to trying new lesson types
were among the negative examples for the trait.
Prevalence of Personal Characteristics
The twelve personal characteristics analyzed in the study provide a snapshot
of the self-perceptions for these teachers of the gifted. While each teacher is a
unique combination of these traits in varying degrees, it becomes apparent when
looking across the data that certain traits are more prevalent in the interviewees than
others. Figure 4.1 provides a graphic representation of the prevalence of the self-
perceptions of the teachers.

Figure 4.1: Prevalence of Self-Perceptions of Teacher Characteristics

146
The characteristics ranged from very prevalent at a high degree to less
prevalent with more variance in degree. For example, the characteristic “derives
pleasure from watching students learn” has twelve teachers with a valuation of
“high” while the characteristic “thinks creatively” has a much smaller variance:
three teachers were “high”, five were “moderate”, and four were “low”. As can be
seen from the figure the most prevalent traits were “derives pleasure from watching
students learn”, “posses insight into the needs of gifted students”, “is hardworking”,
and “is a life-long learner”. Those that were less prevalent were “thinks creatively”,
“is enthusiastic”, “is willing to make mistakes”, and “is culturally responsive”.
Traits that were less prevalent and had more variation between participants
were particularly important in the present study which sought to examine how
specific personal characteristics relate to certain teaching model preferences.
However, it is important to note that the characteristics with the highest prevalence
might suggest the great importance of these traits for educators of the gifted. In
addition, it may suggest that people with these particular qualities are drawn to
working with gifted students or to learning about and implementing different
pedagogical models, although further research is needed to address these conjectures.
In summary, the twelve characteristics from the original literature on
instructors for the gifted were present in the self-perceptions and the researcher
assessment of the teacher participants interviewed. While some traits were exhibited
to a great extent by most of the teachers, others were present at more varying
degrees. Teachers manifesting certain traits tended to engage in similar behaviors as

147
discussed. In addition to the twelve original characteristics, two more were added
due to the great prevalence of them among the participants. Many of the teachers
were hardworking and they all expressed great pleasure from watching their students
learn. These new traits should be further examined by future research and may add
to the body of literature on characteristics of teachers with gifted students. In
addition, it may be beneficial to analyze the presence of these characteristics in
teachers who do not teach gifted students as a point of comparison.
Preferences for Models of Teaching
Teacher preferences for models of teaching were a second major area of data
collection. Teachers shared their preferences, uses, like/dislikes, comfort and
confidence in each pedagogical sequence. Major patterns emerged related to teacher
preferences and use including the popularity of particular models, specific reasons
for preferences and uses of each model, matches between the teacher’s way of
thinking and the way they prefer teaching, and their desire to provide students with
educational variety. In addition, reasons given for teacher preferences aligned with
the multiple objectives and various principles of the models as discussed in Chapter
2. Table 4.16 provides a summary of the models of teaching and their theoretical
purposes.

148
Table 4.16: Summary of Models and their Purposes

Model of
Teaching Theoretical Purposes
Advance
Organizer
Use an abstract idea to bridge learning from prior knowledge
to new information;
Promote active and expeditious learning
Group
Investigation
Teach process of inquiry;
Engage democratic problem solving process
Concept
Attainment
Develop inductive reasoning;
Teach concepts;
Teach skills: observe, analyze, hypothesize, test hypotheses,
metacognition;
Promote awareness of multiple perspectives;
Foster tolerance for ambiguity
Concept
Formation
Strengthen inductive thinking;
Advance development of abstract concepts
Inquiry Training Support development of skills and dispositions for inquiry
Direct Instruction Teach skills and strategies

The following sections describe the major patterns and themes related to
teacher preference and use of models in great detail. Figure 4.17 provides a
summary of the teachers’ preferences, uses, and comfort with the different models of
teaching. Each of these findings will be described in relation to the model tenants
and purposes.

149
Table 4.17: Summary of Model Preferences

Advance
Organizer
Group
Investigation
Concept
Attainment
Concept
Formation
Inquiry
Training
Direct
Instruction
Enjoy most 7 8 5
Use most 9 4 1 7
Enjoy least 1 7 3 4
Use least 1 1 10 5
Most Comfort 7 2 1 8
Least Comfort 1 2 9 4
Note: Top 2 Responses are indicated in Bold Font

In addition, it should be noted the teachers’ type of experienced teacher preparation
related to the models of teaching did not appear to affect model of teaching
inclination. In other words, within the participant sample, no patterns emerged that
differentiated the inservice and preservice groups in terms of their preferences for or
uses for models of teaching.
Models Most Enjoyed
Two models of teaching were the most popular choices among the teachers
interviewed when asked to choose the models they most enjoyed teaching: Group
Investigation and Advance Organizer. Eight teachers chose Group Investigation as
one of their top preferences, and seven teachers chose the Advance Organizer model.
Concept Attainment was the third choice most preferred by teachers, although only
five of them placed this model within their top two choices. See Table 4.18 for a list

150
of teachers who preferred each of the top two models (Group Investigation and
Advance Organizer).

Table 4.18: Top Two Models Most Enjoyed

Group Investigation Advance Organizer
Teacher 2 Teacher 1
Teacher 3 Teacher 2
Teacher 4 Teacher 3
Teacher 7 Teacher 5
Teacher 8 Teacher 7
Teacher 9 Teacher 10
Teacher 11 Teacher 12
Teacher 12

Five major reasons were described by teachers for preferring the Group
Investigation model. First, teachers enjoy that the model allow them to learn about
their students both in terms of interests and ability. Teachers 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, and 12 all
expressed a desire to use the model because they enjoy listening to the questions the
students pose and the topical areas the students want to investigate. Teacher 7
shared, “I think I like knowing what their genuine interests are in relation to the
puzzlement” (personal communication, January 12, 2010). Teachers 3, 8, and 11
described how the model allows them to see which students in the class are grasping
the skills of research and which students are struggling with the process. For
example, Teacher 11 stated, “you can really get a sense of who has like the self-

151
initiating skills, who kind of ends up taking charge” (personal communication,
January 7, 2010). Similarly, Teacher 3 reported, “You get to see who your strong
students are and your…struggling students” (personal communication, January 8,
2010). Teacher 11 particularly enjoys the fact that she is able to learn about how the
students are thinking and learning. She stated, “I think you learn about them through
their questioning process and you can definitely see their train of thought. You can
see the way that they perceive things” (Teacher 11, personal communication, January
7, 2010). Teachers who chose this model also enjoy watching the students’
interactions with each other, their conversations, and their ability to socially
negotiate the research process.
The second major reason given by the teachers for their Group Investigation
preference related to the student-centered aspect of the model. Eight participants,
Teachers 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 like the model because the students are in control
of their own learning. The nature of the model is learner-directed, where students
seek out answers to the questions they pose (Sharan & Sharan, 1990). The teachers
appreciate the fact that the students take responsibility for the research process.
Teacher 8 said, “I feel like I hand over their education to them” (personal
communication, January 22, 2010). Similarly, Teacher 2 explained she likes, “just
watching them gather all the information and then come back and talking about it
together…they have accomplished that, they’ve learned something and they took
charge of it themselves” (personal communication, January 17, 2010).

152
Third, teachers enjoy the model because the students are motivated, engaged,
and interested in learning. A characteristic feature of the model is that it allows for
the evocation of student interest (Sharan & Sharan, 1990). This was brought up
specifically in the interview with Teachers 3, 4, and 8. “I think the kids are a lot
more engaged because they’re investigating their own curiosities. I feel like it’s
more enjoyable all around when they’re happy about their tasks, versus begrudgingly
following directions” (Teacher 8, personal communication, January 22, 2010), stated
Teacher 8.
Fourth, consistent with the purpose of the Group Investigation model,
teachers reported enjoying it because they see value in teaching students the process
of research inquiry. Teacher 12 articulated this feeling:
I think the thing about Group Investigation is once you get over the fear of
having it be student-centered, then if the kids have a good basis of
researching and trying to find the answers to their questions, I think it’s very
powerful. I think that it helps them take control of their learning and it
actually teaches them that they can learn anything at any time if they can go
through a set of steps to find answers to questions. And it also teaches them
what good questions are. (personal communication, January 11, 2010)

Teacher 12 described how students learn the skills of research for future independent
learning. It is clear in her comment that she feels that student-centered learning can
be uncomfortable for the teacher, but her value of the model outweighs the fear of
using it.
Fifth, teachers explained that they enjoy watching the student interaction and
dynamics during the collaborative process. A major purpose of the Group
Investigation model is that students learn to use the democratic problem-solving

153
process to reflect and reorganize concepts needed to draw conclusions (Joyce et al.,
2004; Thelan, 1960). Teachers 2, 3, 9, and 11 discussed the joy they derive from
observing students engage in this interactive problem solving process. “It’s always
interesting to see what they want to know and just stand back and watch what they
do when they’re trying to gather the information and the conversations that they have
with each other” (Teacher 2, personal communication, January 17, 2010), Teacher 2
recalls. Teacher 3 similarly described her enjoyment of the student negotiation
process, “I love to hear their conversations while they’re trying to – they’re
negotiating. They’re constantly negotiating with each other, which I happen to think
is a good skill for them to know” (personal communication, January 8, 2010).
Advance Organizer was another model considered highly enjoyable to many
teachers. Reasons for this enjoyment occurred along two dimensions. First, teachers
preferred the model because they found it enhances student learning. Five teachers,
Teacher 1, 2, 7, 10, and 12, described the value they see in using a big idea as an
anchor for students’ learning during a lesson. Four participants, Teachers 2, 5, 7, and
12, specifically cited the use of student prior knowledge as enjoyable. These
rationales were consistent with the major purposes for the Advance Organizer model:
present an abstract idea to bridge learning from prior knowledge to new information
(Ausubel, 1963). Teacher 5 enjoys watching the students think during the lesson
progressing from prior knowledge, to new content, to an extension to other subject
areas. She explained:

154
I like the practice. I like how it gives the kids the organizer. It gives them a
chance to think about it and to practice before they actually involve
themselves in the actual research of what they’re looking for. So it’s a way
of organizing the information for them. (Teacher 5, personal communication,
January 7, 2010)

Teachers 10 and 12 cited the model’s ability to help students make connections
across disciplines as a reason for their preference. Teacher 10 explained how she
enjoys the process students engage in for the Advance Organizer model:
[I like] getting the kids into it and having them try and figure out what the big
idea is, but I also like the fact that [it allows] them to take a concept that they
don’t understand and then break it down into their own terms, and then apply
it to something new... Also I think this is the most applicable [model]. I’ve
had kids go home and tell their parents what they’ve learned: the big idea and
they use it in the unit. (personal communication, January 8, 2010)

Here the teacher expressed enjoyment in the learning process and how she likes that
students can apply their learning in the world. This was a commonly articulated
sentiment.
The second major reason teachers enjoy the Advance Organizer model deals
with student interest. The model seems to evoke enjoyment and motivation on the
part of the students. The model was in fact developed to provide for active and
expeditious learning (Ausubel, 2000). Five participants, Teachers 2, 3, 5, 10, and 12,
all cited this reason for enjoyment. Teacher 3 described how her students loved to
do the research involved in the model. Teacher 10 and 12 explained that the
motivation is the most enjoyable part for the model. Teacher 10 likes the challenge
of creating a motivation for the Advance Organizer lesson and then watching the
students try to “figure out what the big idea is” (personal communication, January 8,

155
2010). On the other hand, Teacher 3 gets pleasure from how much the students
enjoy working independently to find research to substantiate a big idea, “Once
you’ve trained them on the Advance Organizer you can send them back to their desk
to do the research part, and they love that. They love going to their desks and doing
that part on their own” (personal communication, January 8, 2010).
Two other reasons were given related to why teachers enjoy the Group
Investigation and Advance Organizer models the most. One teacher revealed that
she likes the Advance Organizer model because it is easy to plan and teach. Other
teachers enjoy these two models because they like the challenge of planning them.
Teacher 8, for example, said that choosing the puzzlement was pleasurable to her:
I try to pick something that is not too straightforward so that I get a variety of
questions…I want them to start thinking more outside the box…I feel like
that’s my biggest task. Like that’s my one job in the whole scheme of things.
I do provide some information for each for them, but I feel like I hand over
their education to them. (personal communication, January 22, 2010)

This participant described how she enjoys the stimulation of finding the abstract
concept meant to serve as a bridge for the student learning.
Models Most Used
Teachers also responded to questions about which models they use to teach
the most often. Advance Organizer and Direct Instruction were cited most
frequently in the teachers’ top two choices. Table 4.19 lists the teachers who chose
Advance Organizer and Direct Instruction as the pedagogical sequences they most
often implement. Nine teachers use Advance Organizer as one of the two of their
most frequent model choices and seven teachers said that they use Direct Instruction

156
as one of the two of the most frequent models. There were six major themes related
to reasons teachers most often used these models of teaching. First, coherent to the
model’s purpose, they feel it provides a logical pathway for gifted students to learn.
Second, it is relatively simple to plan. Third, it is not overly taxing on instructional
time. Fourth, the teachers feel comfortable teaching the model. Fifth, it is broadly
applicable to multiple disciplines. Sixth, the students seem to feel comfortable with
and like the model.

Table 4.19: Top Two Models Most Frequently Used

Advance Organizer Direct Instruction
Teacher 1 Teacher 2
Teacher 2 Teacher 3
Teacher 5 Teacher 4
Teacher 6 Teacher 8
Teacher 7 Teacher 9
Teacher 9 Teacher 11
Teacher 10 Teacher 12
Teacher 11
Teacher 12

Teachers 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 said that Advance Organizer is a model they
use frequently because it provides a logical plan for students to progress from a state
of not knowing about a topic to understanding it. The teachers seem to recognize
and embrace the original intent of the model structure. Teacher 11, for example,

157
called it “logical” and “organized” (personal communication, January 7, 2010).
Teacher 12 feels that it “makes sense” (personal communication, January 11, 2010)
to teach deductively, as required by the model. Teachers 6, 9, and 10 all appreciate
that it allows students to learn through connecting their prior knowledge with a big
idea, and then make connections to the “real world.” Teacher 7 and Teacher 11 use
the model the most frequently because it represents how they personally like to learn.
When Teacher 7 was asked why she uses the model often she related, “I’m sure
indirectly it’s because that’s how I prefer to learn…[the models] are all stories on
how we learn, and I think that is the storyline that makes sense to me, which is
probably why I gravitate towards it” (personal communication, January 12, 2010).
Similarly, Teacher 9 noted that she is more comfortable thinking deductively, which
causes her to be more comfortable teaching in this deductive model.
Teachers also used Advanced Organizer regularly because they consider it
relatively easy to prepare. Once the big idea is selected for the topical area, teachers
do not have to spend a great deal more of planning time for the lessons. Teacher 6
described how she used to struggle to plan big ideas appropriate for Advance
Organizer lessons, but that she has become much more comfortable and fluent in
doing so:
The Advance Organizer is simple. I don’t know, it just comes simple to me.
I think I’m getting better at coming up with the big ideas to utilize. I think
that was what I had a hard time at first is coming up [sic] with what big idea I
should use. You know, should I do a more detailed big idea? I remember
having a hard time with that at the beginning, but now it just comes much
more easier [sic]. (personal communication, January 21, 2010)

158
Teachers also use the Advance Organizer model more frequently because
they feel it is less taxing on instructional time. Currently, teachers are inundated
with strict pacing plans, school assessment schedules, and a variety of other variables
that minimize the time teachers can spend teaching certain topical areas. Teachers 2,
9, and 10 recognized Advanced Organizer as being an efficient way to teach the
content matter. Teacher 2 shared why she more frequently uses the Advance
Organizer rather than the Group Investigation model:
Group Investigations are great, but sometimes if you don’t have the time to
just – if they’re not going to ask what you want them to ask, and you have to
get the point across, then the Advance Organizer works better…So when it
comes down to time…(personal communication, January 17, 2010)

She went on to explain that this is particularly true with certain subject areas such as
science where there is a great deal of material to cover and very limited time that is
allotted to do so.
The teachers’ comfort level with the model was another reason participants
commonly use it. Teachers 6, 9, and 10 described how they have had numerous
experiences enacting the model both with feedback from observers and because they
use it habitually. Teacher 9, for example, compared Group Investigation to Advance
Organizer in terms of the stress it creates for her. She often chooses the Advance
Organizer because she is not as anxious during those lessons. Teachers also cited
student comfort as a reason that they often use the lesson model. Teacher 6
explained that her students are very comfortable with the Advance Organizer

159
sequence of learning because they have done a great deal of them. Now she
continues to use the model because the students respond positively to its syntax.
The Advance Organizer model is perceived by the participants to be very
versatile in terms of the subject areas that teachers can teach through the model.
Teacher 2, in particular, explained how the model can be used in language arts,
science, and social studies. She likes that she can use it each week to teach a new
story in language arts. In fact, many of the teachers mentioned different topic areas
across different disciplines for which they implement the model.
Direct Instruction is also used the most commonly among the participants.
According to the interviews, the most overwhelming reason for this is the
applicability of the model to teaching skill-driven mathematics lessons. Teachers
often described how they teach a series of math skills daily and how the Direct
Instruction lesson is very appropriate for that usage. In fact, the intent of the model
is to provide a logical sequence for students to learn skills and strategies (Stein,
Carnine, & Dixon, 1998). In particular, Teachers 2, 4, 9, and 12 cited the need to
teach copious math skills as the major reason they implement Direct Instruction the
most often. Two other participants, Teachers 3 and 8 noted how Direct Instruction is
important for any skill-based lesson. Teacher 8 feels that her grade level standards
are replete with skills and therefore she must use Direct Instruction often in her
classroom.

160
Teacher 4 listed three other reasons for her use of the model: her comfort
with it, the short amount of time required, and the logical sequence of the steps.
When asked why she is most comfortable with the model Teacher 4 stated:
Well…because that’s how I was trained, so that’s what I’ve been doing for
years…the steps are very simple. They make a lot of sense. They’re easy for
the kids to understand…because whatever curriculum I need to teach, I know
that’s what they’re going to get, because that’s what I’m delivering to them.
(personal communication, January 21, 2010)

Teacher 12 described Direct Instruction as what people typically think of when they
conceptualize the idea of school, “It’s what school seems to be” (personal
communication, January 11, 2010). Indeed many schools and school districts
support and promote the use of Direct Instruction as the main pedagogical sequence
to be used in the classroom.
Models Least Enjoyed
Concept Formation and Direct Instruction were cited most often as models
that are least enjoyed. Six teachers selected Concept Formation and five teachers
selected Direct Instruction as one of the top two models they least prefer to teach
(see Table 4.20).

161
Table 4.20: Top Two Models Least Enjoyed

Concept Formation Direct Instruction
Teacher 1 Teacher 1
Teacher 4 Teacher 2
Teacher 6 Teacher 5
Teacher 8 Teacher 7
Teacher 9 Teacher 10
Teacher 11

Multiple reasons were given for the lack of satisfaction with each of these
models. The purpose of the Concept Formation model is twofold: to strengthen
inductive thinking and to develop abstract concepts (Taba, 1963). As school is
commonly designed today, these two principles do not receive a great deal attention
in the standards-based curriculum and design. Teachers gave three reasons related to
their lack of enjoyment in this model: it is too difficult for the students and thus
difficult for the participants to teach, it is not comfortable for the teacher to think
inductively, and it is overly time consuming to implement.
The model is designed to cultivate higher-order mental processes in students,
which is often more cognitively demanding than the regular curriculum. Teacher 1,
4, and 8 all described the model as being “hard” or “unnatural” for the learners in
their classroom. Teacher 1 shared, “I feel like it’s hard to get the students on track
with it, and I feel like I’m pulling more out of them than is natural” (personal
communication, January 8, 2010). Here she described her feeling that students

162
struggle unnaturally with the inductive process and her own lack of comfort with
guiding the students. Similarly, Teacher 8 shared that she feels like she has to overly
lead students through the process in order to obtain her specific learning objective.
She stated, “I really have to lead them through. Because if the initial hypothesis isn’t
on target, it completely takes everybody with them. And I think that is frustrating for
me” (Teacher 8, personal communication, January 22, 2010).
The second reason that the teachers admitted for the lack of enjoyment is
their own lack of comfort with the model. Some participants, such as Teacher 6, 8,
10, and 11, feel that they have not had enough exposure and practice with the model
during their teacher education experiences. Teacher 11 shared:
I honestly think it’s partially because when I went through methods training,
we didn’t do that one as much, and I think I just didn’t apply it enough with
somebody watching me to kind of give me the feedback for it, that I never
kind of worked out those kinks. (personal communication, January 7, 2010)

Others relayed that it is very difficult for them to think inductively. Teacher
9 illustrated this mentality:
It’s hard to take separate ideas and make a one big one. I rather like taking
the big thing and doing the ideas…I think more deductively, a big idea and
then examples. I feel like I’m able to present it better that way, rather than
Concept Formation, and that I’m able to kind of guide my students through
those steps rather than Concept Formation. (personal communication,
January 15, 2010)

Her own discomfort with the inductive reasoning process makes it difficult for her to
teach using this particular model. Another comment that occurred in teachers’
rationales related to their difficulty planning with the model. Either, they cannot

163
think of content that seems appropriate to teaching with the model, or they cannot
think of examples to use inside of the model to make it function appropriately.
The third reason teachers enjoy the model less is that it seems to require more
time to implement. Teacher 4 revealed her frustration with the time required for the
model, “They have a really difficult time…they have a really difficult time coming
up with the big idea [sic]…So for me that’s the hardest. So it’s the most time
consuming and the most frustrating for me, because…they’re not getting that”
(personal communication, January 21, 2010). The process of inductive reasoning is
often more time consuming than teaching a topic using a more teacher-directed
approach. The model requires students to use inference, interrelating, organizing,
and reorganizing discrete pieces of information which is often more time consuming
than the didactic models where teachers simply present the concepts to students
(Taba, 1963). However, in more didactic models where the concepts are given to
students, the inductive reasoning processes are not elicited or strengthened.
Direct Instruction was also designated as a less enjoyable model to teach. Its
purpose is to teach skills and strategies in a teacher-directed manner (Stein, Carnine,
& Dixon, 1998). Teachers gave three major reasons for their lack of enjoyment in
the model. First, some of them disliked the teacher-directed nature of the model.
Teacher 5 explained, “I just feel that I’m doing most of the talking, and the kids are
not as involved” (personal communication, January 7, 2010). Similarly Teacher 2
said, “it’s just more teacher-directed, and I like to see them doing more than me just
standing there telling…I’d rather them take more of the process on” (personal

164
communication, January 17, 2010). The second reason some teachers dislike Direct
Instruction is that they feel that it is not “fun” to teach. One teacher found that the
students are not as involved and engaged in the lesson. Teacher 7 shared, “I feel that
I least enjoy it because the kids are so used to being taught in Direct Instruction they
almost tune out…they’re so used to being taught that way” (personal
communication, January 12, 2010). Teacher 2 also explained that she enjoys
teaching a variety of different models because before her models of teaching
training, all she used was Direct Instruction. The last reason that teachers gave for
enjoying the model to a lesser degree was that it can be difficult to plan multiple and
differing practices for the students.
Models Least Often Used
Teachers named Concept Formation and Inquiry Training as the models they
least often use in the classroom. Nine people named Concept Formation and five
people named Inquiry Training. Table 4.21 lists the teachers who selected these
models as the ones they use the least. It should be noted that additionally, one
teacher is not familiar with the Concept Formation model and four teachers have had
no experience with the Inquiry Training model in terms of education or
implementation.

165
Table 4.21: Top Two Models Used Least Often

Concept Formation Inquiry Training
Teacher 1 Teacher 3
Teacher 4 Teacher 6
Teacher 5 Teacher 10
Teacher 6 Teacher 11
Teacher 7 Teacher 12
Teacher 8
Teacher 9
Teacher 11
Teacher 12

The reasons that teachers use Concept Formation least are similar to the
reasons that the model is least enjoyed. Teachers 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12
explained that they are not as comfortable teaching this model as they are some of
the other pedagogical options. Again, guiding students through the inductive process
feels uncomfortable to many of the teachers. A few of them alluded to the fact that
inductive thinking is difficult for them and thus difficult to teach. Teacher 11
described how the inductive process does not come easily to her so she has to
constantly refer to the steps of the lesson from her teacher education notes, “That
one, it doesn’t come [naturally] – I have to pull out my methods notebooks and look
at it again” (personal communication, January 7, 2010). Another teacher feels that
she has not had enough training on the model to implement it effectively. During the
teacher education experiences, Concept Formation and Inquiry Training were two of

166
the last models taught and had substantially less time devoted to them. The teachers
also received fewer examples of the lessons for this model in the U.S. Department of
Education Javits Models of Teaching Grant (PR #S206A040072) curriculum.
As aforementioned, Concept Formation is designed to teach students the
inductive thinking process and to help them develop abstract concepts, two processes
recognized for their importance to gifted students (Klauer, 1996; Renzulli,1988).
However, teachers also cited how the students struggle with the model as a reason
for using it less often. Teachers 4 and 8 named this reason in particular. Teachers 5,
9, and 12 referred to the fact that the model is difficult to plan and one shared how
she uses an alternative model to teach the same concepts; Concept Attainment is
used because she feels more comfortable with the model’s syntax. Finally, time was
again mentioned as a reason that teachers use the model less often. They tended to
chose other models because the nature of inductive reasoning is more taxing on
teachers’ time-limited schedules.
Inquiry Training was also selected as a model least often used. The purpose
of the model is to teach students the skills and dispositions necessary for inquiry
(Suchman, 1962; Joyce et al., 2004). Teachers chose the model least often because
they feel they do not have enough training on the model (Teachers 3, 6, 10, 12) and
because it is more time consuming than other models (Teacher 11). Teacher 3
described how she does not fully understand the model and therefore uses a Group
Investigation instead of Inquiry Training:

167
The one that I think I really don’t teach is the Inquiry Training. I think that’s
just because I need to find – like that little beginning, “what is this?” But
somehow everything turns out to be a Group Investigation and not really an
Inquiry Training. It’s not because I don’t like it, it’s just that I haven’t quite
figured it out yet. (personal communication, January 8, 2010)

While the Group Investigation and Inquiry Training have similar instructional
tenants, the syntaxes of the models differ and emphasize different components of the
inquiry process. Group Investigation places a strong emphasis on collaborative
problem solving (Joyce et al., 2004) while Inquiry Training places a large emphasis
on analyzing the thinking processes necessary for the inquiry process (Suchman,
1962; Joyce et al., 2004). Teacher 11 also described using Inquiry Training less
often because it takes more instructional time than does a Group Investigation lesson.
Most and Least Comfortable Models
Teachers feel most comfortable teaching the Advance Organizer and Direct
Instruction models of teaching. Six teachers chose Advance Organizer and eight
teachers selected Direct Instruction as the models they are the most comfortable
teaching (see Table 4.22). Three reasons were shared that explained why Advance
Organizer is perceived as comfortable. All seven teachers who chose Advance
Organizer for this question said that they have had a great deal of practice and
experience with the model. Other reasons given were that the model is “easy to use”
(Teacher 11, personal communication, January 7, 2010), can be taught in many
content areas (Teachers 1 and 11) and can be short in length or long depending on
the content and the time that is available (Teacher 1).

168
Table 4.22: Top Two Most and Least Comfortable Models

Most Comfortable Least Comfortable
Direct Instruction Advance Organizer Concept Formation Inquiry Training
Teacher 1 Teacher 1 Teacher 1 Teacher 2
Teacher 2 Teacher 2 Teacher 2 Teacher 6
Teacher 4 Teacher 5 Teacher 4 Teacher 10
Teacher 5 Teacher 7 Teacher 6 Teacher 11
Teacher 7 Teacher 11 Teacher 7 Teacher 12
Teacher 9 Teacher 12 Teacher 8
Teacher 11 Teacher 9
Teacher 12 Teacher11

Direct Instruction was also selected as a model particularly comfortable to the
teachers. Teachers feel the structured flow of the lesson (Teachers 5, 11, 12) and the
applicability of its use with any content area make it easier to teach. Other teachers
feel that this model is comfortable because they use it very frequently and thus have
a great deal of experience with it (Teachers 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11). Two teachers (4 and
12) explained that it is more comfortable to teach because the students are
comfortable with it. When asked which model is most comfortable, Teacher 12
stated:
Direct Instruction, because it is so structured. I feel like even the kids know-
they latch on to the syntax of that model and they know; “okay, I’m going to
practice, I’m going to check and I’m going to practice.” It’s what school
seems to be, if that makes sense. When you think of teaching and learning
it’s obviously very teacher-centered. (personal communication, January 11,
2010)

169
Teacher 4 also revealed that because Direct Instruction was the original way she was
trained to teach, she feels the most comfortable with the model.
Teachers chose Concept Formation and Inquiry Training as the least
comfortable models to teach for the same reasons they enjoy and use the models the
least. Eight people named Concept Formation and five people named Inquiry
Training as the least comfortable models to implement (see Table 4.22). Teachers 4,
6, 9, 10, 11, and 12 feel they have not had enough training to adequately teach
Concept Formation. Teachers 4 and 11 cited their own struggle to think inductively.
Teacher 4 feels the model requires too much instructional time. Participants named
their lack of training and experience as the reason they feel least comfortable with
the model.
Differences between Model Most Enjoyed and Model Most Used
Teachers chose the Advance Organizer as a model they enjoy teaching the
most and as a model that they use the most frequently in the classroom. Different
reasons for these preferences were cited and are listed in Table 4.23. In addition,
teachers enjoy the Group Investigation model more but use the Direct Instruction
model more often. In both of these cases, major differences exist between the reasons
teachers enjoy models and the reasons they use them. This was true even when the
model preference and use was the same, as was the case for Advance Organizer. An
analysis of the rationales given for both enjoyment and use of models reveals
important patterns related to teacher preference and behavior.

170
Table 4.23: Reasons Teachers Enjoyed and Used Models

Model Enjoyed Most Model Used Most
Enhances learning through a logical
sequence
Enhances learning through a logical
sequence
Engages students – evokes interest and
enjoyment
Is less taxing on instructional time
Promotes student interaction and
negotiation
Is more comfortable for teachers
Is student-centered Has broad applicability
Challenges teacher during lesson
planning
Is simple to plan
Allows teachers to learn about their
students

Note: Bolded text indicates alignment with tenants and purposes of models

Table 4.23 summarizes the reasons teachers gave for their model preferences
and uses. Reasons for enjoying the model included: enhancing the learning through a
logical sequence, engaging students (evoking interest and enjoyment), promoting
student interaction and negotiation, and implementing student-centered learning,
challenging the teacher during lesson planning, and allowing teachers to learn about
their students. Reasons for using a models more frequently included: enhancing
learning through a logical sequence, being less taxing on instructional time, being
more comfortable to teach, having broad applicability in terms of subject matter, and
being simple to plan.

171
Enhancing learning through a logical sequence is cited as both a reason
teachers enjoy the model and a reason why they use it. For the Advance Organizer,
teachers value the logical sequence that students followed whereby an organizer (big
idea) is used to connect student prior knowledge with new information. For Group
Investigation, teachers value the model for teaching the process of inquiry and
research. For Direct Instruction, teachers value its use to teach skills and strategies.
Importantly, this was the only rationale that was given for both teacher enjoyment
and use of the Direct Instruction model.
In looking at the differences between preference and use, it becomes apparent
that the rationales teachers provided for enjoying the models were more often
consistent with the tenants and purposes of the models of teaching unlike the reasons
they provided for why they use the model more frequently. As indicated by Table
4.23 four of the six reasons teachers enjoy the models correspond with the tenants
underlying each model. These are shown in bolded text on the figure. They include:
enhancing learning through a logical sequence, engaging students through evoking
interest and enjoyment, promoting social interaction and negotiation, and being
student-centered. The remaining two reasons relate to other enjoyable aspects of the
model. Conversely, only one of the reasons given for most frequent use of the model
relates to the purpose of the model: enhancing the learning process. The other four
reasons relate more to practical implications for implementation in the classroom:
time, teacher comfort, applicability, and ease of planning.

172
These differences indicate that while teachers enjoy models based on their
ideological qualities, they use them based on practical factors related to daily
teaching. For example, even though a teacher enjoys student-centered learning, they
may feel that teacher-directed learning is a more efficient way of “covering” material
that is mandated within the district provided pacing plan. Hence they enjoy Group
Investigation, but they use Direct Instruction. Teacher 11 described this conflict:
Certain formats kind of lead themselves to more kind of branching out in
different directions, which may not have as much of a time chunk on them
[sic]. I definitely know if I only have like 20 minutes, I’m probably going to
do a quick Direct Instruction and just boom, boom, boom, boom, get it out, or
do a quick Advanced Organizer where I know the beginning and I know the
end goal and I have a pretty good idea of how much time it will take versus
some of the other ones that, you know, can take a little bit longer. And if I
don’t have time for it to really kind of go in all sorts of other directions, then
I tend to [think], “oh, it’s going to take too long, I can’t do that one”.
(personal communication, January 7, 2010)

Implications of these differences are significant for gifted students,
particularly those who are located in heterogeneous class settings. When certain
practical conditions are present such as limited instructional time or a lack of teacher
comfort with pedagogy the following questions may be asked: how are the needs of
gifted students affected? What makes teachers more or less willing to engage in
planning that is difficult for them, when the needs, interests, and ability of their
gifted student population are at stake? How should teacher educators work to
address the discrepancies between the ideological preference and the practical
choices of teachers? Implications to these questions and more will be further
discussed in Chapter 5.

173
Influence of Teacher Thinking and Learning
Literature in the field of teacher education documents the strong influences
teachers’ past learning experiences have on the ways teachers tend to instruct.
Goodlad (1982) discussed that teachers teach as they were taught during their many
years as a student. He noted that professional preparation comes “late in their own
school and is too little and too thin to separate them from what their experience has
taught them that teaching is,” (Goodlad, 1982, p. 19). Similarly, Putnam and Borko
(2000) assert that the teachers’ processes of integrating ideas and practices learned
outside of the classroom is rarely simple or straightforward and often an extremely
powerful influence that must be considered by teacher education programs. Clearly,
the influence of the teachers’ past educational experiences as well as their thinking
processes exert significant influence on their classroom practices. Data collected
from the present study support these assertions. Teachers frequently related how
their own experiences as students, as well as their preferences for thinking and
learning, affect the decisions they make related to pedagogy in the classroom. In
addition, many of them described how they foster the characteristics they possess
and value in their students through their instructional practices.
Putnam and Borko (2000) described “how a person learns a particular set of
knowledge and skills, and the situation in which a person learns, becomes a
fundamental part of what is learned,” (p.4). Teacher 4 typifies this assertion. She
rationalizes her use and enjoyment of the Direct Instruction model because it is how
she was taught, trained to teach, and what she has been “doing for years” (Teacher 4,

174
personal communication, January 21, 2010). Teacher 4 relies on her traditional
learning experiences and trainings when she educates her students. Goodlad (1982)
described this process as, “teachers failing to transcend the conventional wisdom of
their own profession” (p. 19). Conversely, while Teacher 7’s past learning
experiences have shaped her classroom instruction, she has worked to break with the
traditional practices. Here she reflects on a teacher who broke with the traditional
instructional practices:
I think that it was in sixth grade when I had the teachers who were doing
things very, very differently-a lot of inquiry training in the sixth grade. I
think that opened up my eyes to realizing that as a teacher you can make
things really fun and exciting for kids, and I think that the models of teaching
give you a framework in which to do that. I think as a teacher I’m constantly
reflecting back to my own childhood, how I was taught, and those years that
were memorable and those years that weren’t so memorable. (Teacher 7,
personal communication, January 12, 2010)

This participant’s sixth grade teacher showed her a different, more engaging way of
teaching and learning which she fosters and values in the various models of teaching.
Teacher 7 later described how important it is for her to teach using a variety of
models to meet the multiple and diverse needs of her gifted students. As seen in
these examples teachers are strongly influenced by their own experiences as
students.
Other teachers demonstrated the strong influence of their own preferred
methods of thinking and learning on their pedagogical practices. Teacher 9
explained:
I find that the models of teaching are just basically how you think. I find that
I use the Advance Organizer the most because that’s how I think. I like

175
Group Investigation as well…it’s how I think and how I like to learn. I’m
very simple to complex and concrete to abstract. I like to see the whole
before I prove that. I want to know the big picture and then find ways in
which that’s true. (personal communication, January 15, 2010)

Teacher 3 described herself as a “linear thinker” (personal communication, January
8, 2010) and how the models, because of their distinctive syntax, are very linear.
She enjoys this quality and asserted that it causes her to use the models of teaching
frequently in her classroom. Teachers 7, 9, 11, and 12 all prefer and use the
Advance Organizer model because they think deductively and the model “makes
sense.” Teacher 9 shared how she prefers the Advance Organizer for its deductive
qualities:
With Advance Organizer, which is the one that I use the most, it’s definitely
my way of thinking. You know, you’re presented with an idea. You’re
discussion it, like you relate your own experiences, your own knowledge to
it, and then you use the new things to learn more about that idea. (personal
communication, January 15, 2010)

She went on to explain why she does not enjoy or use the inductive Concept
Formation model:
Because it’s hard to take separate ideas and make one big thing. I rather like
taking that big thing and doing the ideas...I think more as in deduct a big idea
and then examples [sic]. I feel like I’m able to present it better that way,
rather than Concept Formation, and that I’m able to kind of guide my
students through those steps rather than Concept Formation...it’s hard for me
to think of examples that I could use in order to prove something, just in
general. (Teacher 9, personal communication, January 15, 2010)

Teacher 9 demonstrated how her own ability to think as the model requires of
students is a major influence on her decision to use that model. Teacher 11 similarly
described how the Group Investigation model is the process she uses to research and

176
learn about new information and therefore she feels apt to use that model with
students while she doesn’t like using the Direct Instruction model because she
“doesn’t like doing things multiple times” (personal communication, January 7,
2010). Teacher 7 uses Group Investigation because she has always preferred to learn
independently, which the model allows her students to do.
Teachers also tend to foster qualities in their students that they either possess
or value. For example, teachers who are highly organized, tend to foster that quality
in their students (Teachers 2, 11, 9). Teachers who are creative, described how they
use different instructional modes to enhance their students’ multiple intelligences
(Teacher 7, 8). Teachers who are naturally inquisitive, use models like Group
Investigation because it evokes curiosity in their students (Teacher 6, 7, 8, 12).
Teachers who consider problem-solving as an essential skill, teach their students
how to problem solve (Teacher 7, 9). One teacher explained her strong regard for
“academic freedom”, she shared, “I was the kid who would always do things a little
bit differently….My dad always said to me, ‘You should always ask why; always ask
why.’ I think I was raised in an environment that encouraged questioning” (Teacher
7, personal communication, January 12, 2010). She went on to explain how the
Group Investigation model promotes academic inquiry and freedom and thus is a
very important model for her to use with students. Another teacher described how
her value for structure and order influence the way she “runs her classroom”
(Teacher 3, personal communication, January 8, 2010). She explained:

177
I like things orderly, so I do think I have a more organized classroom with a
high standard of behavior. I do that out of fairness for all my kids. I don’t
think any one child should rule the room, and so the rules are for
everyone…And Advance Organizer takes more time than the book allots you,
than the teacher guide allots you, for a lesson. But if you’re not dealing with
behavior, you can get that in. You can’t have them go into small groups if
you’re dealing with behavior. There has to be a certain level of trust with
them, and when you’re doing these lessons there has to be a certain level of
cooperation and trust with the kids that needs to be established. I think
because of my personality, I could not work where everyone is talking and
doing the wrong thing and some kids are on the floor and some kids aren’t, I
couldn’t work in that atmosphere. (Teacher 3, personal communication,
January 8, 2010)

Teacher 10 explained an awareness of how her own personality helps her to
use models beyond what feels natural:
I think my personality gravitates towards [Advance Organizer] and my
personality doesn’t gravitate toward others, but then as a teacher you have to
step back and realize some things lend themselves to other things and even
though you’re not comfortable with it you still have to do it. (personal
communication, January 8, 2010)

Other teachers are cognizant of how “who they are” influences their behavior.
Together these examples demonstrate that who the teachers are in terms of their
values, the ways they think and learn, and the ways they were taught whether
conscious or not, exert influence on teachers’ preferences and behaviors.
Implications for teacher education are significant and may help to explain how
teachers’ patterns of thoughts and actions have become resistant to reflection or
change as described in the most recent literature on teacher education. This thought
will be further expanded in Chapter 5.

178
Need for Variety
Another common theme that occured in the teachers’ responses about their
preferences and uses of models of teaching, related to the idea that they feel the need
to use variety in their teaching practices. While one teacher (Teacher 2) shared that
she, as the teacher, needs the variety so as to make the job less tedious, she and many
of the other teachers also stated how variety is important for their students. Some
participants spoke of variety in terms of general teaching practices while others
specifically mentioned variety related to their implementation of different models of
teaching. For example, Teacher 1 described how she doesn’t always just want to do
what is in the math book or Open Court Anthology (the prescribed reading program).
She said, “I feel like I do vary what my kids are doing” (Teacher 1, personal
communication, January 8, 2010). Teacher 2 explained her more general desire to
provide variety, “I don’t like to do the same thing. You’re not going to ever come in
and find the same exact boards up every year. I’m never going to be doing exactly
the same thing” (personal communication, January 17, 2010). Other teachers
specifically mentioned the need to provide students with a variety of different
pedagogical experiences. Teacher 6 illustrated this attitude by explaining that
serious and passionate teachers seek out and learn “the best methods or the models or
pedagogy that’s out there to really affect student learning” (personal communication,
January 21, 2010).
Four major rationales were used to explain the reasons the teachers feel
variety is important for student learning. First, the participants recognize that

179
different learning styles and ways of thinking exist in the classroom, and they desire
to address those different modalities through providing variety. Teacher 1 explained
why she uses different models of teaching, “part of it is that [the students are] such
divergent thinkers and creative and you need to be able to encourage that and not
stifle [sic]” (personal communication, January 8, 2010).
A second reason given for providing variety was to promote student interest.
The Group Investigation model provides for interest through its presentation of a
puzzlement. The Advance Organizer model can pique interest through its use of an
abstract or big idea. Other models such as Concept Attainment and Concept
Formation can promote interest using different thinking processes, hypothesizing,
and testing hypotheses. Teacher 3 uses different models so that students don’t fall
into a “rut” (personal communication, January 8, 2010) of learning, or become
disinterested in the process. Similarly, Teacher 10 described how variety is
important because students need “change” to keep them engaged in the learning
process.
Third, as Teacher 8 explained, using a variety of teaching models is
important so that students learn a variety of different processes for or ways of
learning. She says this about the models:
I want them to be able to have all these ways of learning and so I try to make
it a point to use all of them, even the ones I don’t particularly love, I feel like
it provides them with a different way to learn or a different way to see
something, so it’s important to me in that way. So they each serve their
purpose. (Teacher 8, personal communication, January 22, 2010)

180
This statement is reflective of many of the teachers’ beliefs about how using the
models of teaching provides for a way to teach students the process of learning.
Teacher 12 described, “they need to become independent thinkers and learners”
(personal communication, January 11, 2010) followed by how the models of
teaching allow students to engage in this important process.
Fourth, several teachers specifically cited their use of the different models as
a way to be responsive to the variety of cultures in their class. Teacher 1 described
how she uses different models because she has students with different “personalities
that may be related to their culture or their background” which “makes it harder to
kind of stick to one style of teaching” (personal communication, January 8, 2010).
When asked how Teacher 8 meets the needs of different cultural learners in her class,
she explained that providing them with a variety of different lesson formats allows
them to practice with their preferred method of learning while also experiencing new
ways of learning.
Participants seem to provide students with variety in terms of pedagogy,
product choices, differentiated curriculum experiences, and choice during literature
circles and other learning activities. They explained that one model of teaching or
type of learning experience cannot meet the diverse needs, interests, and abilities of
their gifted students. When asked which model of teaching best matches the needs
of gifted students, Teacher 5 explained that she could not just pick one, “because the
gifted students are all different” (personal communication, January 7, 2010), she has
to use different models. Teacher 7 stated:

181
I think every gifted student is different and I don’t think you can lump gifted
students as to really liking this model because X, Y, and Z. I think a gifted
student may like Group Investigation because it allows them to ask their own
questions and do their own research. I think a gifted student may like the
Advance Organizer model because it allows them to make connections
between what they already know to a big idea and to new knowledge.
(personal communication, January 12, 2010)

The models of teaching, when used in combination, seemed to provide a way for the
participants to address the multiple and various needs of their gifted students.
In summary, a definitive pattern of teacher preference and use of particular
models was uncovered. Teachers enjoy the Advance Organizer and Group
Investigation models the most. They often cited reasons for their preferences
associated with the tenants underlying each model. They use Advance Organizer
and Direct Instruction the most frequently in the classroom. Reasons related to
model usage often revolved around the practical variables of teacher planning and
teaching (i.e. content matter, time restrictions, and comfort). The teachers least
enjoy Concept Formation due to their own lack of comfort with the model and the
Direct Instruction model because of its repetitive qualities and teacher-directed
nature. They least often use the Concept Formation and Inquiry Training models
citing their lack of comfort, lack of student comfort, lack of experience, or lack of
instructional time. Overall preference and enjoyment seemed to relate to the
ideological features of the model while use was tied to practical application issues
and teacher comfort.
Two major additional themes related to model of teaching preference and use
arose during data analysis. First, the impact of the teacher’s preferred way of

182
thinking and learning seemed to play a large role in her preferences and uses of the
different pedagogical models. Specifically many of the models that emulate the way
the participants liked to learn and think are the models they prefer to use. Second,
there was great frequency with which teachers described a desire to provide their
gifted students with a variety of instructional models to address differing needs,
interests, and abilities. Teachers seemed to acknowledge that the gifted are a very
diverse group of students and that the use of one instructional model, in isolation,
does not provide for the range of abilities and interests of this diverse population. In
addition, variety is thought to be important because teachers recognized that each
model is useful for teaching different content, ways of thinking, and/or instructional
processes.
Relationship between Teacher Characteristics and Models of Teaching
Connections between teacher traits and preferences for models of teaching
were made in order to address the research question: What personal characteristics of
teachers are associated with their preferences for and uses of particular models of
teaching? The following section describes relationships that were found between
these two entities. Data related to each teacher characteristic were compared to data
related to teacher enjoyment and actual use of each teaching model. In the case of
seven teacher characteristics, associations were found through the emergence of
particular patterns. These teacher characteristics were: “has insight into the
cognitive, social, and emotional needs of gifted students”, “has skills in
differentiating the curriculum for gifted students”, “thinks creatively”, “is

183
enthusiastic”, “creates a non-threatening learning environment”, “is culturally
responsive”, and “is hardworking”. Table 4.24 delineates the characteristics that
exhibited a relationship to a model or multiple models of teaching and those which
did not. Relationships may exist between the seven teacher characteristics that did
not reveal connections and the preferences and uses of models of teaching, although
data from the present study did not find such connections.

Table 4.24: Characteristics With and Without Found Relationships to Models of
Teaching

Characteristics with Found Relationship
to Models of Teaching
Characteristics without Found
Relationship to Models of Teaching
Has insight into the cognitive, social,
and emotional needs of gifted students
Possesses a sense of humor
Is enthusiastic Is willing to make mistakes
Is culturally responsive Derives great pleasure from watching
students learn
Is hardworking Provides student-centered learning
opportunities
Has skills in differentiating the
curriculum for gifted students
Is well organized
Creates a non-threatening learning
environment
Has cognitive competency
Thinks creatively Is a life-long learner
Note: Bold font indicates characteristics unique to this study

184
The following sections discuss the relationships discovered between the
seven characteristics with notable connections to the relevant models of teaching.
Both direct and inverse relationships were found in the data as teachers described
which models they enjoy and do not enjoy, use and do not use, and the teacher
characteristics were rated as low, medium, and high. Figure 4.2 provides an
overview of these relationships. Direct relationships, indicated on the figure with a
circle, occurred when high levels of the characteristic were associated with high
preference and/or use of the model of teaching. Inverse relationships, indicated with
an “X” on the figure, occurred when low levels of the characteristic were associated
with high preference for or use of the model or high levels of the characteristic were
associated with low use or preference for the model.
The models with the most found connections (positive and negative) to the
teacher characteristics were Group Investigation with seven realized connections and
Direct Instruction with five connections. For Concept Attainment three connections
were made, for Advance Organizer two connections were revealed, and for Concept
Formation one match was seen. There were no apparent connections of teacher
characteristics and the Inquiry Training model. These connections may suggest that
Group Investigation and Direct Instruction have stronger relationships to teacher
characteristics than do other models.

185

Figure 4.2: Direct and Inverse Relationships Discovered Between Teacher
Characteristics and Models of Teaching Preference

186
Figure 4.2 also depicts which teacher traits had the most connection (positive
and negative) to models: For “thinks creatively” five connections to models of
teaching were made and for “has skills in differentiating the curriculum for gifted
students” three model connections were apparent. The remaining five
characteristics, “has insights into the needs of gifted students”, “is enthusiastic”,
“creates a non-threatening learning environment”, “is culturally responsive”, and “is
hardworking” had two connections each. This data suggest that the ability to think
creatively and the possession of skills to differentiate curriculum may have a
stronger relationship to models of teaching use and preference.
The following sections discuss the particular links that were present in the
data. Each characteristic with a notable connection to the model of teaching
preference is described with a discussion of possible reasons for these connections.
Implications of these connections are held for Chapter 5.
Thinks Creatively and the Models of Teaching
The characteristic “thinks creatively” was found to have significant
relationships with five of the different models of teaching. Figure 4.3 shows that
creative thinking is directly related to Advance Organizer, Concept Attainment, and
Concept Formation and inversely related to Group Investigation and Direct
Instruction. More specifically, greater amounts of creativity were associated with
stronger preference for Advance Organizer and Concept Attainment. Less creative
thinking was associated with more preference for Direct Instruction and Group
Investigation and less preference for Concept Formation.

187
Figure 4.3: “Thinks Creatively” Connections with Models of Teaching

Low Moderate High
Advance Organizer

Group Investigation


Concept Attainment


Concept Formation


Inquiry Training
Direct Instruction





Figure Key:
 preference  non-preference  use  non-use
Figure 4.3 further clarifies exact connections made with this characteristic.
Teachers with the high creativity most enjoyed using Advance Organizer and least
enjoyed Direct Instruction. They also did not cite the model as one they used
frequently. Rationales given by these teachers for their preference of Advance
Organizer related to the students’ motivation during the lesson, how students work to

188
decode and understand the abstract idea, the teachers being challenged to plan the
motivation and big idea for the lesson, and the teachers’ enjoyment in watching
students apply the big idea. These explanations are directly related to the purposes
for the Advance Organizer model: to use abstract big ideas to bridge learning from
prior knowledge to new information and to engage students in active and expeditious
learning (Ausubel, 2000). The reasons given by the teachers for their lack of
preference for Direct Instruction model related to student over exposure to the model
and boredom with it.
Teachers with moderate amounts of creativity most enjoyed the Concept
Attainment model, however, they used Direct Instruction the most often. The
Concept Attainment model is built on inductive reasoning where students are asked
to hypothesize and test those hypotheses in order to learn skills (Taba, 1963).
Teachers with moderate creativity appreciate the game-like quality of the model
evoked by the testing and re-testing of hypotheses. They also enjoy “throwing the
students off” by selecting more ambiguous examples and non-examples of the
concept being learned. They explained the reason they more often use the Direct
Instruction model is that they need to teach many skills in their grade level and in the
various content areas.
Teachers with low amounts of creativity enjoy the Group Investigation model
the most, enjoy the Concept Formation model the least, and use the Direct
Instruction model the most. Reasons teachers gave for their enjoyment in the Group
Investigation model included the student-centered nature of the model, watching the

189
students work independently of the teacher, learning who the students were during
the model, and experiencing high student motivation for the lesson. Reasons given
for their aversion to the Concept Formation model, another highly inductive thinking
model (Taba, 1963), were the difficulty the teacher herself has thinking inductively
and planning the lessons, the student struggle during the lesson, and the frustration
with trying to guide the lesson. Direct Instruction is used most often by the teachers
because they are comfortable with the syntax of the model and they have many skills
to teach throughout the school year. These reasons relate to the purposes and format
of the Direct Instruction model where students learn skills through a clear
progression of demonstration to practice (Rosenshine, 1976).
In summary, it seems apparent that greater possession of the thinking
creatively characteristic is associated with the models that also require students to
think more creatively (Advance Organizer and Concept Attainment). When
participants possess less of the characteristic, they are associated with models, such
as Direct Instruction, that require less creative thinking on the part of students and
the teacher. They also expressed aversion toward the model that required high levels
of creative thinking (Concept Formation).
Differentiating Curriculum and the Models of Teaching
The teacher characteristic “has skills in differentiating the curriculum for
gifted students” was directly related to the Advance Organizer and Group
Investigation model and inversely related to the Direct Instruction model in terms of
teacher preference and use (see Figure 4.2). Three direct connections were apparent

190
upon data analysis. First, participants who were perceived as being highly skilled at
differentiating the curriculum for gifted students most often prefer the Advance
Organizer model. Secondly, these same teachers also prefer the Group Investigation
model. Third, participants who were considered the least skilled at differentiating
the curriculum to meet the needs of the gifted use the Direct Instruction model the
most in teaching. Figure 4.4 graphically displays these connections.

Figure 4.4: “Has Skills to Differentiate Curriculum for Gifted Students”
Connections with Models of Teaching

Low Moderate High
Advance Organizer

Group Investigation

Concept Attainment
Concept Formation
Inquiry Training
Direct Instruction


Figure Key:
 preference  non-preference  use  non-use

191
Again the purpose of the Advance Organizer model is two-fold: to use an
abstract idea to connect student prior knowledge to new information, and to promote
active and efficient learning (Ausubel, 2000). Teachers with great possession of the
trait gave the following reasons for preferring the Advance Organizer model: it
provides a logical way to teach using big ideas, it helps students connect new
learning with their prior knowledge, the students are particularly interested and
engaged in the model, and it provides a way for the teachers to continually assess
student learning. The connection between the purpose of the model and the
rationales is clear. These teachers preferred the model because of its underlying
intentions: active and efficient learning through using abstract ideas to connect prior
understanding to new knowledge.
The reasons given by the teachers with the greatest ability to differentiate the
curriculum for their preference of the Group Investigation model also relates to the
model’s theoretical purpose and tenants. Group Investigation is a student-centered
model based on the principals of inquiry and social negotiation (Thelan, 1960; Joyce
et al., 2004). These teachers prefer the model because it is student-centered, the
students are motivated during the lessons, the model teaches the students the process
of learning through research, it provides students with social learning experience,
and the teachers are able to learn about the students and their interests. Again, the
alignment between purpose of the model and the rationale for teacher preference is
obvious.

192
The Direct Instruction model is the most didactic of the group. It is built on
behaviorist principles of modeling, reinforcement and feedback where the teacher
has a high degree of direction and control (Joyce et al., 2004; Baumann, 1983). The
Direct Instruction model is used to teach skills and strategies. Participants who were
perceived as the least skilled at differentiating the curriculum for gifted students said
that they use the Direct Instruction model the most often in the classroom. The
following reasons were given: they are comfortable with the syntax, they use it daily
to teach math, and they feel it is a powerful way to teach skills. While skills are
necessary for all students to learn, the California Recommended Standards for
Programs for Gifted and Talented Students encompass a great deal more than simple
skill-driven lessons. It is logical then that the teachers with the least skill in differing
the curriculum for gifted students would most often use the Direct Instruction model.
Culturally Responsive and the Models of Teaching
Being culturally responsive was associated directly with the Group
Investigation model and inversely with the Direct Instruction model. Figure 4.5
shows the two specific associations that were made between the trait and these
models of teaching. Participants who were perceived as having the most cultural
responsiveness most often prefer the Group Investigation model, while those that had
the least perceived possession of the trait use the Direct Instruction model most
often.

193
Figure 4.5: “Is Culturally Responsive” Connections with Models of Teaching

Low Moderate High
Advance Organizer
Group Investigation

Concept Attainment
Concept Formation
Inquiry Training
Direct Instruction


Figure Key:
 preference  non-preference  use  non-use

Teachers with the highest possession of this trait gave several distinctive
reasons for their preference of Group Investigation. First, they like the student-
centered nature of the model. Second, they like that the model offers them insight
into who their students are in terms of personality, ability, skills, and learning style.
Third, they touted the model’s ability to teach students the skills of collaboration and
social negotiation. Not only are these rationales consistent with the purpose and
tenants of the pedagogical model, they also reflect important knowledge and skills
for multi-cultural educators: understand the nature of a diverse student population

194
and address cultural differences in student learning styles, cognitive styles, and
behavioral styles as described by Ford and Trotman (2001). Within the Group
Investigation model teachers learn about their students’ different needs, and abilities.
They guide them through the process of research and social interaction. They can
address different learning styles by providing the students with different resources in
the lesson, roles for group work, and ways of recording and reporting the data
students found. Culturally responsive teachers value these aspects of the teaching
model.
On the other hand, participants who are less culturally responsive implement
the Direct Instruction model the most in their classroom. In the Direct Instruction
sequence, teachers model a skill or strategy and lead students through a series of
progressively less guided practices until students reach independence (Joyce et al.,
2004). It is very didactic and teacher-driven in nature. The teachers who have less
perceived possession of the cultural responsiveness characteristic choose the Direct
Instruction model because they are the most comfortable teaching the model and it
allows them to teach skills from the core curriculum. Student needs and interests
were not cited as reasons teachers choose the model. It seems that these participants
make decisions based on their own comfort during instruction and what they
perceive the core curriculum to require, rather than using an understanding of their
student population to drive the pedagogical decisions they make related to teaching
the core.

195
Enthusiasm and the Models of Teaching
The trait of being enthusiastic was found to be related to two teaching
models: Concept Attainment and Group Investigation. Figure 4.6 shows how
teachers who are perceived as highly enthusiastic preferred the Concept Attainment
model while those who are “low” in enthusiasm prefer the Group Investigation
model. The connection between enthusiasm and Concept Attainment is thus direct,
while the relationship between enthusiasm and Group Investigation is more inverse
(see Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.6: “Is Enthusiastic” Connections to Models of Teaching

Low Moderate High
Advance Organizer
Group Investigation


Concept Attainment

Concept Formation
Inquiry Training
Direct Instruction

Figure Key:
 preference  non-preference  use  non-use

196
Participants who are rated as highly enthusiastic gave several reasons for
their preference of Concept Attainment: they enjoy the fun-game like quality of
model, they enjoy student excitement and engagement, particularly watching the
students dialogue about their hypotheses and finally they like surprising students
with unexpected non-examples that push them to think in non-linear, untraditional
ways. The explanations given are consistent with the nature of the model, namely to
strengthen students’ abilities to inductively reason, to teach concepts through
organizing, analyzing, hypothesizing, testing hypotheses, and to foster a tolerance for
ambiguity. The teacher’s role during this model is very active as she presents
examples, solicit hypotheses, and guides students to discover new concepts.
Teachers who were seen as possessing the least enthusiasm, most enjoy
teaching the Group Investigation model. The learner-driven nature of the model
requires less direct teacher presence and presentation and more student involvement.
The teachers’ explanations for their preferences in the model highlighted the main
role that the students play during Group Investigation lessons. These participants
enjoy watching the student work together, the fact that the model (not necessarily the
instructor) teaches the student the process of inquiry, and that the model allows
different student to take on different roles in the learning process. They did not cite
their own excitement or the student excitement during the lessons as reasons for their
preference for the model.

197
Hard-working and the Models of Teaching
All of the participants were perceived to be hardworking, although some
exhibited the characteristic more than others. The hard-working trait was directly
related to the Concept Attainment model and more inversely related to the Group
Investigation model (see Figure 4.2). Figure 4.7 shows how the most hardworking
teachers prefer Concept Attainment while those who are less hardworking prefer
Group Investigation. The main reason given by the hardworking teachers for their
enjoyment in the Concept Attainment model related to providing the students with
unexpected examples to help challenge their thinking processes. Planning a Concept
Attainment model requires a great deal of thinking and planning on the part of the
teacher. The teacher has to select examples that will strengthen the students’
inductive reasoning skills while at the same time provide clarity for the concept to be
learned. Presentation during the Concept Attainment model requires a great deal of
teacher effort during the lesson as examples must be displayed, hypotheses must be
solicited and discussed repeatedly, and the discussion surrounding the metacognitive
processes used by the students must be elicited.
Teachers who were perceived as less hardworking prefer the Group
Investigation model for its student-centered qualities. They enjoy that students work
collaboratively and take control of the learning process. Participants also enjoy
learning about their students through the questions that the students pose. While the
Group Investigation model requires some preparation in terms of selecting a
puzzlement for the lesson and finding appropriate resources, it is not as labor

198
intensive to plan as are some of the other models. Additionally, it requires less effort
on the teacher’s part to teach a Group Investigation lesson due to the model’s
learner-centered nature. The students guide the lesson through questioning and
research, while the teacher acts as a support facilitator cueing the stages of the
research process (Sharan & Sharan, 1990).

Figure 4.7: “Is Hardworking” Connections to Models of Teaching

Low Moderate High
Advance Organizer
Group Investigation

Concept Attainment

Concept Formation
Inquiry Training
Direct Instruction

Figure Key:
 preference  non-preference  use  non-use

199
Insight into the Needs of Gifted Students and the Models of Teaching
Two connections were made between the characteristic “has insights into the
needs of gifted students” and the models of teaching (see Figure 4.8). Because all
teachers were perceived to have some insight into the needs of gifted students, no
participants were determined to be low in this category. Some participants exhibited
more insight than others thus some teachers were perceived as moderate while others
were perceived as high in the category. Teachers who have insight, albeit moderate
amounts, use the Direct Instruction model the most, yet prefer the Group
Investigation model. They prefer the Group Investigation model for its student-
centered qualities. They like that the students enjoy the model, are engaged in the
lessons, and work together. They also prefer the model for its ability to teach
students the process of inquiry and because it allows them to learn about the
students’ learning. These reasons are again aligned to the purposes of the Group
Investigation model and are also reflective of the needs of gifted students.
Importantly, however, although these participants prefer the Group
Investigation model, they implement the Direct Instruction model the most. The
major reason for this, they explained, was that they need the model to teach the
standards-based skills for the grade level. In addition, one teacher explained that she
is the most comfortable teaching in this pedagogical sequence and thus she tends to
use it the most. While these teachers understand the importance of the student-
centered learning for gifted students, when it comes to practical implementation they

200
choose the model that they feels is best suited for them and the content. The
learners’ needs, interests, and abilities are left out of the decision-making process.

Figure 4.8: “Has Insight into the Needs of Gifted Students” Connections to Models
of Teaching

Low Moderate High
Advance Organizer
Group Investigation

Concept Attainment
Concept Formation
Inquiry Training
Direct Instruction


Figure Key:
 preference  non-preference  use  non-use

Creates a Non-Threatening Learning Environment and the Models of Teaching
Two connections were made between the teacher characteristic “creates a
non-threatening learning environment” and the models of teaching (see Figure 4.9).
Specifically this trait was found to have an inverse relationship to Direct Instruction
and Group Investigation. Teachers who were perceived to possess this trait least, use

201
the Direct Instruction and Group Investigation model the most in their classrooms.
Reasons teachers gave for using Direct Instruction related to the nature of the
content, specifically the use in math lessons and the need to teach many skills
throughout the year. Again, the content is used first to make the pedagogical
decision rather than the specific needs of the learners. As was previously discussed,
Direct Instruction is based on the behavioristic principles of modeling and
reinforcement with feedback (Joyce et al., 2004). With these behavioral
underpinnings it seems reasonable that the environment would be perceived to be
more threatening than one where there isn’t necessarily one correct way of doing or
knowing something.
Participants who were rated low in this category also use the Group
Investigation model most often. These teachers often described how they slightly
manipulate the model so as to make it more directed or structured. For example, one
teacher explained how she accepts certain questions from students but not others
because they are outside the scope of what she needs them to learn. Another teacher
said that she assigns presentations for her students at the end of every Group
Investigation model so as to ensure that students learn specific information and
present it to the class. Both teachers explained that their modifications to the model
are reasons they can use the model more often. These reasons are less related to the
tenants and actual purposes of the Group Investigation model (teaching students the
inquiry process through democratic problem solving) and more related to the
teachers’ self-imposed modifications to the model.

202
Figure 4.9: “Creates a Non-Threatening Learning Environment” Connections to
Models of Teaching

Low Moderate High
Advance Organizer
Group Investigation


Concept Attainment
Concept Formation
Inquiry Training
Direct Instruction


Figure Key:
 preference  non-preference  use  non-use

In summary, seven teacher characteristics were found to have important
relationships to teacher preferences and uses of the teaching models. Some of the
relationships were direct in nature meaning that the greater the possession of the trait
the more they preferred or used the teaching model. Conversely, some of the
relationships were more inverse in nature, where greater possession of the trait was
linked with less preference or use of a model or less possession of the characteristic
was connected with a stronger preference or more frequent use of the model.

203
Rationales that teachers provided for each preference and use often relate to
the theoretical underpinnings of the model. Generally the greater the possession of
each teacher characteristic, the higher the preference is for the models of teaching
that are the most aligned to meet the needs of gifted students. This is true for the
Advance Organizer model which seeks to use abstract ideas to facilitate learning, as
well as, the Concept Attainment and Concept Formation models, each of which
strengthen students’ inductive reasoning processes and the skills of hypothesizing,
testing hypotheses, tolerating ambiguity in the learning process, and allowing for the
acquisition of concepts. No connections were found between the Inquiry Training
model and teacher characteristics, however it should be noted that one third of the
participants do not feel they understand the Inquiry Training model. The Direct
Instruction model was generally associated with less possession of the characteristics
of successful teachers of the gifted. This could be related to the teacher-directed
nature of the model and the desire for teachers to focus on the skills from the core
curriculum rather than the higher-level conceptual understanding and thinking
patterns, which are important for gifted students. The Group Investigation model
was both positively and negatively related to these different traits. It was positively
related to having great insight into the needs of gifted students, possessing skills to
differentiate the curriculum and being culturally responsive. Explanations specified
by teachers who are perceived high for each of those traits were very aligned with
the principles of the model. The model was also negatively related to the
characteristics enthusiasm, hardworking, creativity, and creating a non-threatening

204
learning environment. Rationales provided by teachers for these preference and uses
seem more related to the practical aspects of the model: planning, the amount of
teacher effort necessary for implementation, or the modifications that certain
teachers make to the model itself.
Summary of Findings
The results of the study provide insight related to the characteristics of
teachers with a gifted population, teacher preferences and uses of the models of
teaching, and connections between teacher characteristics and their preference and
use of the six different pedagogical sequences. First, teachers manifested the traits of
effectual teachers of the gifted to varying degrees. Vialle and Quigley’s (2002)
summary of these characteristics provided a lens through which teacher traits were
perceived and judged. Several additional teacher personal characteristics were
discovered during pattern analysis of the interview transcripts. These characteristics
described the group of teachers as being hardworking and highlighted the great
pleasure they derive from watching their students learn. Because all participants
interviewed were perceived to manifest a moderate to high degree of these two
characteristics, it suggests a need for these new traits to be further studied and to
potentially be added to the literature related to teacher qualities.
Second, some teacher characteristics were more consistently prevalent in the
teacher participants than others. For example, while all teachers exhibited the trait
“enjoys watching students learn” to a very high degree, much less consistency was
present for the trait “thinks creatively” where some teachers’ self-perception of their

205
ability to think creatively was low while others felt highly efficacious in this regard
and provided evidence to substantiate that they were highly creative. The variation
in prevalence of characteristic may suggest that certain characteristics are more
prevalent in teachers of the gifted, some may be more significant to the education of
gifted students, and/or teachers with certain characteristics may be more drawn to
work with gifted students. Chapter 5 will expand upon these thoughts.
Third, themes emerged related to teacher preference and use of the different
pedagogical models. First, the Advance Organizer model was named by the teachers
as one that they enjoy teaching most often, use most often during their instructional
year, and have the most comfort with planning and implementing. The Concept
Formation model is enjoyed least, used least, and causes the teachers the most
discomfort to plan and implement. The reasons teachers gave for their selection of
the models were often consistent with the fundamental tenants and underlying
purposes of the models of teaching. For example, the teachers enjoy the Advance
Organizer model because they feel it provides students with a logical way of moving
from prior knowledge to new understandings through the use of an abstract idea.
Teachers feel that students’ understanding of content is enriched by the organizer
and that the model promotes active and expeditious learning as the model is designed
to do (Ausubel, 2000). The underlying principles of the Concept Formation model
also affected teacher preference and use of the model. In this case, teachers were
themselves uncomfortable with the inductive thinking required by the model (Taba,
1967) and thus the model was implemented and enjoyed less during teaching.

206
Fourth, related again to pedagogical preferences, differences were found
between teacher enjoyment and actual implementation of the models. Generally,
while the teachers enjoy the models based on their ideological qualities, they choose
to use models based on practical factors related to daily teaching. For example,
while teachers enjoy Group Investigation because it evokes student interest and
enjoyment, as well as, promotes skills of inquiry and social negotiation (Joyce et al.,
2004), they most often use Direct Instruction because it requires significantly less
instructional time and they generally feel more comfortable with the teacher-directed
syntax.
Fifth, in relationship to the teacher preferences and uses of models of
teaching, teachers repeatedly expressed a desire and need to use a variety of different
lesson models. This notion is supported in the California Teacher Performance
Expectations which assert that teachers must use a variety of instructional strategies
and models to design learning experiences for all students (California Commission
on Teacher Credentialing, 2008). Using different models allows the teachers to meet
the needs, interests, and abilities of their gifted students and to teach the range of
content, skills, and thinking processes within the state content standards and the
recommended standards for gifted and talented students. Variety was also noted as
important in that it provides teachers with stimulating pedagogical experiences, as a
few of the participants expressed.
Sixth, the study found that the influence of teacher thinking and their
preferred method of learning are significant to their preference and use of the

207
different models. Goodlad (1982) explained the powerful influence teachers’ past
experiences can have on teacher behavior. Repeatedly, teachers expressed that they
use the different models because they “make sense” to them or it is “how they
learned” in school. Conversely, many of the teachers do not enjoy the models that
require thinking processes that make them feel uncomfortable and are difficult for
them to plan. Occasionally, teachers admitted that while they recognized that their
own thinking and learning styles affect their preference for models, they try to use
pedagogy they are not necessarily comfortable with because it is beneficial for their
students. In many cases, however, the desire to meet student needs is not enough to
strongly influence many of the frequent implementation decisions they make.
Finally, important relationships were discovered between seven of the teacher
traits and five of the different models of teaching. While connections between all
thirteen of the teacher characteristics studied and the all of the models were not
found, future research with a larger sample might reveal even more connections.
The present study found both direct and inverse connections between the traits and
the models of teaching. The Advance Organizer model was found to be directly
related to teachers’ ability to think creatively and the skills they possess to
differentiate the curriculum. The Concept Attainment model was directly linked to
the characteristic “thinks creatively”, “is enthusiastic”’ and “is hardworking.” A
direct relationship was also found between Concept Formation and creative thinking.
Direct Instruction was determined to have an inverse relationship to the teachers’
having insight into the needs of their gifted students, having skills to differentiate the

208
curriculum, thinking creatively, creating a non-threatening learning environment, and
being culturally responsive to students. Group Investigation was found to have both
direct and inverse relationships to the different traits. It was directly linked to having
insight into the needs of the gifted, having skills to differentiate the curriculum, and
being culturally responsive. The model was inversely related to thinking creatively,
being enthusiastic, creating a non-threatening learning environment, and working
hard.
While some of the connections between the teacher characteristics can be
explained through the logical link between the trait and the theoretical underpinnings
of the models, other connections can be explained through an understanding of the
ways that teachers translate theory into practice. For example, while the relationship
between thinking creatively and the inductive nature of the Concept Formation is
more obvious, the inverse relationship between enthusiasm and preference for Group
Investigation is more ambiguous and may be related to how during actual
implementation, less enthusiasm is necessary for the teacher. Because of the
student-centered nature of the model as Sharan and Sharan (1990) explain the
students, rather than the teacher, take the active and major role in the Group
Investigation model.
Chapter 5 will provide implications related to teaching characteristics,
teacher preference and use of models, and the influence of specific characteristics
and selection of models of teaching. Specifically the chapter will address how the

209
findings from the research may impact teacher education and recruitment for
teachers of the gifted.

210
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

There is little argument that the teacher is one of the most influential
variables in the success of any educational program (Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Vialle
& Quigley, 2002). As Mills (2003) points out, teachers are charged daily with the
task of fostering the academic and intellectual development of the students they
teach. Able and Karnes (1994) explain how the role of the teacher in student
achievement is especially vital to populations with special needs including the
academically gifted (Able & Karnes, 1994). Gifted or high-ability students have
specialized cognitive, social, and emotional needs that must be understood and
addressed by teachers in order for them to help such exceptional students reach their
full potential (Tomlinson, et al., 2009; Gallagher, 1975). The decisions teachers
make in terms of creating the learning environment, subject matter, and instructional
methods shape the learning experiences for their students (Gallagher, 2003).
Scholars in the fields of educational psychology and gifted education have
produced sets of well-warranted assertions about the characteristics of successful
teachers. These characteristics are essential to recognize and understand because
they influence the teachers’ judgments, decisions, and behaviors related to the
learning experiences they provide for their students (Baldwin, Vialle & Clarke, 2000;
Bishop, 1980; Chan, 2001; Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994; Landvogt, 2001; Maddux,
Samples-Lachmann & Cummings, 1985; Milgram, 1979). Teachers’ traits influence

211
decisions about the kind of learning environment they create, the curriculum they
utilize and emphasize, and the pedagogy they implement to bring about learning.
Recently, Berliner (2004) cited empirical evidence that supports the idea that
teachers who are experts in pedagogy affect student achievement in positive ways.
Models of teaching are pedagogical sequences based on theory and research that
explain how individuals learn (Ellis, 1979). They provide a series of actions and
behaviors to be taken by teachers and learners to produce specific learning outcomes
(Joyce et al., 2004). Some models are designed to help students grow in terms of
creativity; some foster the development of research processes; some stimulate
inductive reasoning; some focus on expedient content acquisition; and some are used
to teach skills.
Teachers make daily pedagogical decisions about how they will teach
required curriculum. Research from the current study sought to connect certain traits
of teachers with gifted students with the decisions they make related to pedagogical
models. Specifically, the research question was, “What personal characteristics of
teachers are associated with their preferences for and uses of particular models of
teaching”? Qualitative research methods that included conducting detailed
interviews with twelve teacher participants and employing pattern analysis
techniques were utilized to address this question.
This chapter provides a brief summary and discussion of the findings related
to teacher characteristics, preferences for models of teaching, and finally, the
relationship between characteristics and model preference. It will also offer

212
suggestions for policy and practice related to teacher recruitment and placement, as
well as, those related to teacher education. Finally, recommendations for future
research will be presented.
Research Findings and Conclusions
Teacher Characteristics
Findings. The first facet of the research question relates to the personal traits
of each teacher participant. These characteristics were explored using the lens
provided by Vialle and Quigley’s (2002) summary of the desirable characteristics of
teachers for gifted students. Vialle and Quigley separated the traits into three
groups: personal-social characteristics, teaching skills and strategies, and
intellectual-cognitive qualities. While there was evidence to support the presence of
each of these teacher characteristics, the perceived manifestation of these qualities
varied substantially between participants; some teachers seemed to demonstrate
possession of a trait to high degrees while existence of the characteristic in others
was only slightly evident.
The first significant finding in this dissertation study relates to the emergence
of two additional characteristic qualities possessed by the group of teacher
participants. First, all teachers manifested the trait of being hardworking to at least a
moderate degree. Further, half of all the teachers were perceived to be exceptionally
hardworking and dedicated to their job as teachers of the gifted. In addition, all
teachers were found to derive great pleasure from watching students learn.
Examples of these two qualities repeatedly appeared in the data as teachers described

213
themselves, their feelings and knowledge about gifted students, and their
instructional practices.
A second important finding from the data on teacher characteristics relates to
the different degrees of prevalence among the traits. Several characteristics were
consistently prevalent in all teacher participants such as “derives great pleasure from
watching students learn” and “has insight into the needs of gifted students”. The
majority of teacher participants were perceived to possess these traits to a great
extent. Other traits were less consistently prevalent and thus varied more greatly
among participants. The characteristics “thinks creatively” and “is enthusiastic”
represent examples of qualities that some teachers exhibited to a great extent while
others either did not demonstrate or did not perceive themselves as possessing.
Conclusions. Broadly, these findings are supported by what researchers have
stated about characteristics of successful teachers of the gifted. As early as 1960,
Gallagher emphasized the idea that special kinds of teachers are necessary for the
proper education of academically gifted students. Different theorists and researchers
have compiled a number of lists of special traits or personal characteristics for these
teachers (Cropley & McLeod, 1986). The notion that effectual teachers of the gifted
often possess this special group of traits is supported by the fact that the specially
trained and selected teacher participants in the current study evidenced many of the
significant characteristics.
While the most recent list by Vialle and Quigley (2002) did not include the
characteristic of “hardworking”, others such as Maker (1975), and Feldhusen (1984)

214
have listed the characteristic as essential for educators of the gifted. Maker (1975)
emphasized the importance of the teacher’s willingness to put in extra time and effort
in order to meet the needs of this special population. In the thirteen studies carried
out by Hultgren and Seeley (1982), it was repeatedly found and suggested that
successful teachers of the gifted are consistently hardworking and achievement
oriented. As earlier studies have established, wide possession of the trait in the
present group of participants implies its importance for teachers of academically able
students.
The major goal of any teacher is to bring about student learning. Literature
related to motivational theory describes how teachers feel efficacious when they
think they can positively affect the learning of their students (Starko & Schack,
1989; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). It stands to reason that
teachers derive pleasure when their students experience academic success.
Participants in the present study repeatedly expressed this sentiment with great vigor.
It became apparent that “who the teachers are” is strongly shaped by their desire to
watch their students learn. According to the expectancy-value theory of motivation,
people are driven to do things for which they expect to experience success and which
they highly value (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). In the current study, the participants’
motivation to teach gifted students can be explained using the theory and an
understanding of this particular attribute. The participants expressed great value for
watching their gifted students learn and felt highly efficacious to bring about
academic learning in their students. Thus, high possession of the trait combined with

215
high efficacy for teaching gifted students might be motivators for teachers to work
with the gifted.
Some areas of research related to teacher characteristics of gifted students
seek to determine a hierarchical enumeration of specific traits. Often studies will
seek to determine which characteristics are more important for teachers to possess by
surveying gifted student preferences. For example, in separate studies Abel and
Karnes (1994) and Dorhout (1983) used the Preferred Instructor Characteristic Scale
(Krumboltz & Farquhar, 1957) and found that gifted students strongly preferred the
personal-social characteristics of their teachers. In contrast, Milgram used a similar
instrument called the Student Perception of Teachers Scale, but found in her study of
the Israeli gifted, the students demonstrated strong preferences for intellectual
qualities of teachers. Other studies examined teachers of the gifted or surveyed
experts in gifted education to determine the most essential qualities. For example,
Maker (1975) reduced a long list of desired characteristics to two essential traits: the
ability to relate to students and openness to change; subsequently (Maker 1982)
revised these traits to possession of an accepting or non-judgmental attitude and
flexibility.
The current study found a consistent prevalence of certain traits over others.
Specifically “deriving great pleasure from watching students learn”, “having insight
into the needs of gifted students”, “being organized”, “being hardworking”, and
“being a life-long learne” were consistently prevalent in the teacher sample. These
traits represent the personal-social domain, the intellectual cognitive, and teaching

216
skills and approaches (Vialle & Quigley, 2002), thus no domain of traits seemed to
be more prevalent than any other. In addition, these most common traits were
somewhat different than past lists of the most significant traits such as those defined
by Maker (1975).
Preferences and Uses of Models of Teaching
Findings. A second facet of the research question relates to teacher
preference for and implementation of pedagogical models. There were several
important findings in this area. First, there was a significant difference between
reasons that teachers preferred models and the reasons that they used them. The
reasons teachers enjoyed certain models of teaching were closely aligned with the
theoretical tenants and purposes of the model (i.e. student-centered learning,
connection of prior knowledge with abstract idea), while the reasons that they used
particular models more often revolved around practical classroom variables (i.e.
instructional and planning time, standardized assessments, subject matter to be
taught). Second, the teacher’s preferred method of thinking and learning greatly
impacted her model preference and use. For example, when teachers preferred to
learn and think deductively, they often chose the model that instructs students
deductively. Third, teachers repeatedly described how important it was for them to
use a variety of models in the classroom so as to address the differing needs of their
gifted students. Even though the participants were not always comfortable with the
different models, and some of them admitted to not using a variety often, they

217
expressed an understanding that gifted students need such a diversity of instructional
experiences.
Conclusions. Shavelson and Stern’s (1981) seminal model of factors
contributing to a teacher’s pedagogical decisions illustrates the complex factors that
converge when teachers make judgments related to pedagogy. They described how
information about students, the teacher’s attribution of probable cause of student
behavior, individual differences in beliefs among teachers, the nature of the
instructional task, and institutional constraints all influence teacher judgments and
contribute to their pedagogical decisions. Data from the present study affirms the
presence of several of these interactive factors that Shavelson and Stern (1981)
described. Participants evidenced the influence of each of these factors. They take
into account the nature of the instructional task when they prefer particular models
because of their underlying tenants. The participants consider institutional constrains
when they choose models to enact. Their individual beliefs about thinking and
learning affect the models they use and prefer. And their understanding about
students is expressed in the need to use a variety of model types.
Joyce (1979) and Shavelson and Stern (1981) also noted from their research
on teacher decision-making how teachers rarely follow the model of planning
emphasized in their teacher education experiences and that their main concern during
lessons is to maintain a smooth flow of classroom activity. They maintain that
teachers construct a simplified model of reality in order to reduce its complexity and
thus make decisions. Accordingly then, teachers behave in response to the simple

218
model of real life that they construct. Further, teachers become set in a routine of
responding to this simplified reality and do not change the routine if it seems to
function well. Thus teachers begin to make decisions or changes to the pedagogy
only if there are classroom management issues, which interrupt the activity flow
(Putnam & Duffy, 1984).
It seems that the difference between teacher preference and use of the
pedagogical models in the present study can be explained by this paradigm. While
the participants understood the ideology of the models presented in the teacher
education experiences, once in the classroom, the decisions they made related more
to maintaining the “smooth flow of classroom activity.” Teachers often did not
prefer the models that caused the students (or them) to intellectually struggle (i.e.
Concept Formation). They repeatedly used the same models (i.e. Direct Instruction
and Advance Organizer) as these seemed to “function well” with smooth activity
flow. While they preferred Group Investigation for its student centered qualities,
often it was cited as being time-consuming and did not maintain as smooth of an
“activity flow” as did the other models that became more routinized.
McKibbin and Joyce (1980) explored teacher psychological states and the
implementation of staff development. They found that a teacher’s psychological
state was extremely important to their implementation of curriculum and
instructional strategies from professional developments. The most self-actualized
teachers, according to Maslow’s hierarchy of psychological states, were the most
likely to implement different models of teaching and curriculum that most closely

219
matched their students’ needs (McKibbin & Joyce, 1980). Many of the teachers in
the present study did not implement the various models even when they valued them
and understood their importance for gifted students, perhaps suggesting that they
have not reached the self-actualizing psychological states.
In addition, Irwin and Farr (2004) studied teacher decision-making relating to
literacy instruction. They determined the importance of teachers having a
collaborative community in order to shift toward ideal, authentic models of literacy
instruction rather than worksheets and standardized programs. Many of the
participants in the present research did not view themselves as having a collaborative
community that could potentially support greater model implementation and reaffirm
the ideological importance of the models that were less often used. Thus, similar to
the teachers in Irwin and Farr’s (2004) study, these participants implemented less
ideal pedagogy in the classroom.
Goodlad (1982) observed that teachers teach as they were taught, not as they
were taught to teach. This may suggest that despite the benefits of existing research
on pedagogy in teacher education, teacher education experiences do not have a large
impact on teachers’ ultimate performance in schools (McMillan, 1985). Findings
from the present study show that the teachers’ own experiences and preferred
methods of thinking and learning do impact their preferences and uses of the models
of teaching; they often prefer and use the models that reflect the way they like to
think and learn. However, it must also be noted, that some of the teachers use
models of teaching that they never experienced as a student nor do they prefer; albeit

220
they do not use them as often as those with which they have had great experience or
reflect their preferred modes of thinking. In these cases they cited the benefit for
their student populations as reasons they used the models. This is expressed in many
of the participants’ comments about the need to use a variety of teaching models
even when they are not necessarily comfortable with them. Perhaps, the type of
teacher education experiences these teachers had with the models of teaching
allowed some of them to, at times, “transcend the conventional wisdom of their own
profession” (Goodlad, 1982, p. 19) and teach in ways that were more beneficial to
students.
Teacher Characteristics and Models of Teaching
Findings. The final part of the research question addresses the connection
between specific teacher traits and models of teaching preferences and uses.
Relationships between seven of the teacher characteristics examined and five of the
models of teaching were present in the data. The Advance Organizer model was
directly linked to the teacher’s ability to think creatively and their skills to
differentiate the curriculum for gifted students. The Concept Attainment model was
directly connected to the teacher’s perceived ability to think creatively, enthusiasm,
and a strong work ethic. A direct relationship was found between the Concept
Formation model and the teacher’s ability to think creatively. Direct Instruction was
inversely related to five of the characteristics of effective instructors of the gifted:
having insight into needs of gifted, having skills to differentiate the curriculum,
thinking creatively, creating a non-threatening learning environment, and being

221
culturally responsive. Group Investigation was directly linked to “having insights
into the needs of gifted students”, “having skills to differentiate the curriculum”, and
“being culturally responsive”, while it was inversely related to “thinking creatively”,
“creating a non-threatening learning environment”, and “being hardworking”. No
connections were made to the Inquiry Approach model, as many teachers were not
familiar with it. Connections to the other seven characteristics were also not
detected in the present study, as no definitive pattern emerged related to model of
teaching preference and teacher trait.
Conclusions. Many of the relationships found between the models of
teaching and specific teacher characteristics related quite logically to one another.
For example, the direct link found between the trait “creative thinking” and the
Concept Formation and Concept Attainment models is quite rational: induction (as
required in the models) is often the impetus of creative thinking whereby patterns are
found to create a general conclusion, statement, or idea (Taba, 1967). The link
between creative thinking and Advance Organizer can also be clearly seen in that
teacher must create or select (induce) an organizer that guides students during their
interaction with the lesson content (Ausubel, 2000). Connections between the traits
“hardworking” and “enthusiasm” and the Concept Formation model are reasonable
as well in that the model requires a great deal of effort to plan for and implement.
The teacher must strategically select exemplars and non-exemplars of concepts to
guide students in the inductive process, and they must facilitate students’
hypothesizing and testing of hypothesizing during the lesson enactment (Joyce et al.,

222
2004). These processes take a good deal of work and enthusiasm on the part of the
teacher to plan and present, as several teachers commented.
The inverse connections related to Direct Instruction also follow logically
from an understanding of the model’s tenants and purposes. Direct Instruction is
mainly designed to efficiently teach students skills (Joyce et al., 2004). It is didactic
and teacher-driven (Baumann, 1983). This model does not foster creative thinking in
students and it is not designed promote deep content acquisition necessary for gifted
students (Passow, 1982), so it stands to reason that the model is inversely related to
the teacher traits “having insight into the needs of gifted students”, “thinking
creatively” and “being skilled to differentiate the curriculum”. Further, it is based on
behaviorist principles (Joyce et al., 2004) such as modeling, positive and negative
reinforcement, and successive approximations. Such underlying components may
not allow teachers to be as culturally responsive and create environments that are
non-threatening to learners. Villegas and Lucas (2002), for example, describe how
teachers who are more culturally responsive use constructivist rather than behaviorist
principles to guide their teaching.
While some of the connections to the Group Investigation model are quite
rational and logically aligned with the underlying philosophy and tenants of the
model, others are more vague. For example, the model fosters student-centeredness,
democratic problem solving, and the teaching of inquiry (Joyce et al., 2004) all of
which relate to a teachers’ “insight into the needs of gifted students”, their “skills to
differentiate the curriculum”, and their ability to “be culturally responsive”. On the

223
other hand, an understanding of the inverse relationships to “creating a non-
threatening learning environment”, “thinking creatively”, “being hardworking”, and
“being enthusiastic” are more nebulous. These connections might be explained
through an understanding of the different ways teachers actually implement the
models of teaching. For example, because the model is exceptionally student-
centered (Sharan & Sharan, 1990), less “enthusiasm”, “creativity” and “hard work”
on the part of the teacher may be necessary for implementation. In addition, while
the model is designed promote positive social negotiation and problem solving
(Thelan, 1960), it may be that if this tenant is not fully recognized or supported by
the teachers, the “non-threatening learning environment” might be minimized.
However, teachers who strive to create a “non-threatening learning environment”
may support this aspect of the model through teaching and reinforcing appropriate
negotiation skills and by being supportive of student ideas and thoughts.
Practical Implications and Recommendations
Based on the results from this dissertation study several recommendations are
offered for educational policy and teacher education. Related to educational policy,
methods for teacher recruitment and classroom placement should be addressed,
including the development of a teacher-screening tool for teacher education
programs and school districts. Teacher education programs should consider three
major suggestions. First, they should work to strengthen and foster characteristics in
teachers associated with successful teaching of gifted students and preferences for
models of teaching. Second, they should address the practical limitations of daily

224
classroom life and provide teachers with strategies for overcoming institutional
barriers, such as teaching advocacy strategies. Third, the field of teacher education
should consider systematically and systemically teaching the models of teaching to
educators with a gifted population in addition to providing ongoing support in the
form of professional development and/or collaborative communities.
Teacher Recruitment and Classroom Placement
Just as the literature on teacher characteristics has identified no single set of
skills, attitudes, interests, or abilities that consistently discriminates between
effective and ineffective teachers (Wise, Darling-Hammond, Berry, 1987; King,
1981; Gage, 1963), no single enumeration of teacher traits for teachers of the gifted
seems to exist. Researchers in the field of gifted education have suggested that the
characteristics of successful teachers of the gifted are similar to those typically
ascribed to gifted students (Mills, 2003; Howley, Howley, & Pendarvis, 1986).
Renzulli (1992) posited that considerable effort should be taken to analyze the
learning styles of gifted students and place them with teachers who have compatible
styles. As far back as 1960, Gallagher called for teachers of academically able
children to meet certain requirements before being accepted for specialized
programs. Cropley and McLeod (1986) explained that while the appropriate form of
teacher preparation is needed, “something special must be present in the teacher
before the preparation begins” (p. 131).
Data from the present study supports the earlier assertion that teachers should
be screened before placement in special teacher preparation programs and in

225
classrooms with gifted students to ensure they are adequately prepared and able to
meet the needs of gifted students. Mulhern and Ward (1983) suggest a “profile of
the gifted teacher” that makes distinctions between personal characteristics (those
that should be present at the beginning of preparation to work with gifted students)
and professional characteristics (those that can be developed during training). Vialle
and Quigley (2002) suggested that attention be paid to selecting teachers for gifted
students with certain qualities. The development of a comprehensive screening tool
to assess teacher personal-social characteristics, teaching skills and strategies, and
cognitive-intellectual traits may offer the field of gifted education a way to screen
teacher recruits and provide teachers with appropriate placements in the classroom,
thus better ensuring that the needs of the gifted populations will be met.
It might be important to include in the screening tool two related additional
characteristic of teachers: an ability to recognize and cope with “institutional
practices” that do not support the needs, interests, and abilities of gifted students and
self-actualization. Participants in this study often indicated that institutional barriers
such as time restraints, district-mandated curriculum, and standardized-testing often
strongly influenced their decisions to implement pedagogy more so than the specific
needs of their student population. Further, research from McKibbin and Joyce (1980)
suggests teachers who are the most self-actualized will be most likely to implement
what is learned in teacher education experiences and the most likely to overcome
perceived instructional barriers and socializing school environments. The inclusion
of these variables in the screening process may help to develop a population of

226
teachers willing to make pedagogical decisions based on students needs first, even
when it means confronting institutional barriers.
Teacher Education Implications
Despite longstanding criticism of teacher education, Darling-Hammond
(2000) noted there is substantial evidence to indicate that teachers who have had
more preparation for teaching are more confident and successful with students than
those who have had little or no training. In addition, recent evidence also indicates
that reforms in teacher education that create more “tightly integrated programs” with
extended clinical preparation interwoven with coursework on learning and teaching
produce more effective teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2000, p. 166). In 2006, the
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) adopted revised
gifted education standards developed by the National Association for Gifted
Children and the Council for Exceptional Children. These standards were developed
to bring coherence to teacher education programs across the nation and help to
ensure educational quality across school districts and institutions (National
Association for Gifted Children, 2008). They focus mainly on teacher knowledge
and skills for gifted educators. Results from the present study may suggest several
other areas that should be addressed by these standards.
Fostering important teacher characteristics. First, teacher education (both
inservice and preservice training) should systematically work to strengthen and
foster characteristics associated with effective teaching of gifted students, especially
those characteristics associated with teacher preferences for models of teaching that

227
are particularly beneficial for gifted students. While not all of the personal
characteristics researched can be directly addressed through teacher education (i.e.
“enthusiasm” and “hardworking”), others can be nurtured through educational
experiences. For example, just as the skills of creatively thinking can be explicitly
taught and nurtured in students (Stanish & Eberle, 1997), it stands to reason that
teachers of gifted students can also be taught to think more creatively. Teacher
education programs can provide practice with and exposure to the necessary
inductive reasoning required by some of the models. This could potentially alleviate
the teachers’ discomfort with pedagogy requiring induction, and thus prompt more
teachers to use the models with their gifted students. Other skills such as those
needed to “differentiate the curriculum,” be “culturally responsive”, and “create a
non-threatening learning environment” can be strengthened strategically through
preservice teacher education coursework, practicum experiences, and well-designed
inservice training. Even the characteristic “being organized” can be promoted in
teacher education experiences through providing teachers with organizational
strategies for planning, creating a classroom environment, selecting curriculum,
tracking communication and other paperwork, etc. In addition, teacher experiences
may consider incorporating strategies that build teachers’ awareness of
characteristics that are beneficial to have as teachers of the gifted combine with those
strategies that can help teachers become self-aware of their own strengthens and
weaknesses related to these traits. This process may help teachers become more
reflective, have more accurate perceptions of self, and allow them to work strengthen

228
own areas of need. Importantly, those traits that are less teachable and more resistant
to change should be accounted for by using teacher recruitment and placement
techniques (Cropley & McLeod, 1986).
Addressing institutional barriers. Second, teacher education experiences for
instructors of gifted students must openly address the practical limitations and
institutional barriers that affect their pedagogical implementation. While participants
preferred models of teaching more in alignment with the needs of gifted students,
they cited issues of time constrains, district-mandated curriculum, standardized
testing, and lack of administrative support all as being strong influences on their
decisions about using particular models of teaching. As Putnam and Borko (2000)
explain, the school is a powerful environment for shaping and constraining how
practicing teachers think and act. They further describe how teachers’ patterns of
thought and action become automatically resistant to reflection or change. Darling-
Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) call for a systemic reform of professional
development to help combat the strong socializing influences of the classroom
environment. According to them, professional development must engender teachers
to reflect critically on their practice and “to fashion new knowledge and beliefs about
content, pedagogy, and learners” (p. 597). Beginning with preservice education and
continuing throughout a teacher’s career, teacher education must focus on deepening
the teacher’s understanding of the teaching processes and learning processes of the
students they teach (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). Additionally,
McKibben and Joyce (1980) suggest that teacher education experiences must build

229
environments of self-actualization where teachers strive to expand their horizons and
develop new possibilities for growth. In these environments teachers are optimistic
and see challenges as opportunities rather than threats.
Teachers of the gifted should be provided with specific strategies that can
enable them to overcome some of these institutional forces acting against the best
interests of the gifted. Teaching advocacy skills and strategies for curriculum
compacting may help teachers feel they have more time to address their gifted
students’ needs. Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) share how providing
professional development opportunities that are collaborative and involve the sharing
of knowledge among educators with a focus on teachers’ communities of practice
rather than on individual teachers may also help teachers penetrate these intuitional
barriers. Teachers can find collegial support both for fighting the strong socializing
influences of the school but also for honing their skills of pedagogical
implementation. Lesson study, the professional development technique grounded in
participant inquiry whereby teachers collaborative design, implement, reflect, and
revise lessons, is a promising practice coming out of the field of teacher education
(Fernandez & Chokshi, 2002). Use of such collaborative professional developments
with cohorts of teachers of the gifted may benefit pedagogical practices and help
teachers begin to tackle strong institutional forces.
Support for models of teaching. Third, teacher education experiences should
be systematically taught and systemically support the models of teaching for
instructors of the gifted. Literature in the field of gifted education emphasizes the

230
importance of gifted students having learning experiences that push them beyond the
procedural understandings of the core curriculum (VanTassel-Baska & Brown,
2007). By using a repertoire of instructional models, teachers can develop rich
curricula and promote advanced content acquisition (Joyce et al., 2004). Data from
the present study found that teachers must feel comfortable with the models of
teaching in order to implement them. Teachers were more likely to implement the
models of teaching with which they had the most educational experiences and
received the most feedback. This was true for both the teachers who learned the
models of teaching during their traditional preservice educational experiences and
for those who engaged in inservice training to learn the models of teaching.
Traditional teacher education experiences have been critiqued for inadequate
program time rendering it hard for teachers to learn subject matter and pedagogy, the
fragmentation of content and pedagogical coursework, and the divide between the
university and school-based training (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Exploring new
methods of professional development for teachers learning the models of teaching
may help to systematically address and systemically support use of models for gifted
populations. For example, Professional Development Schools offer a new form of
teacher preparation whereby preservice teachers work with expert practitioners while
veteran teachers renew their own professional development as they assume roles as
mentors, university adjuncts, and teacher leaders (Darling-Hammond, 2000). If used
for teacher programs specializing in gifted education, this form of professional
development may help support the ongoing research, collaboration, and

231
improvement of pedagogical practices for these students. Teachers could
systematically learn the models of teaching in their preservice experiences and then
continually improve their practices while in the classroom serving as mentors and
researchers.
Limitations of the Study
There were several important limitations in conducting the research of this
study. First, the methodological approach utilized to assess characteristics of
teachers limited the data to perceptions of teacher traits rather than quantifiable
measurements of them. Teachers’ self-perceptions along with the researcher’s
perceptions based on the how the participants described themselves and their
practices during the interview were used to analyze teacher qualities. Second, a
relatively small, predefined sample of teachers was used for the research based on
their participation in the U.S. Department of Education Javits Models of Teaching
Grant (PR #S206A040072). These teachers have specialized knowledge and
experience with the models of teaching through their participation in the numerous
formal and informal professional development opportunities related to the models of
teaching; hence the results are not necessarily generalizable to other populations.
Third, the researcher has known and been involved with the educational experiences
of these teachers through the U.S. Department of Education Javits Models of
Teaching Grant (PR #S206A040072); such a relationship could have influenced
teachers’ responses during the interview process. Fourth, the educational
experiences with the different models of teaching were unequal in terms of time

232
spent discussing and learning about each model, the number of example lessons
given for each model, and the feedback provided related to the different models of
teaching. These differences might have significantly influenced teacher preferences
and uses of the models of teaching.
Recommendations for Future Research
Several recommendations based on this study’s methodology, findings, and
limitations can be made. First, similar studies seeking to determine the relationship
between teacher characteristics and pedagogical uses and preferences should utilize
methodology that reaches beyond perceptions of characteristics to more objective
measures of the traits. An example of such methodological design is the research
conducted by Carol Mills (2003) which utilized an extensive background
questionnaire and the standardized Myers Briggs Type Inventory to assess
personality and cognitive style of effective teachers of gifted students. The use of
more objective measures is particularly needed to address the cognitive
competencies, intelligence and in-depth subject matter knowledge that the present
study was not able to address. Second, a broader sample of teachers that have been
thoroughly educated in each model of teaching could provide for more data that may
be generalizable. While qualitative data provides sources of well-grounded, rich
descriptions and explanations of phenomena within a local context (Miles &
Huberman, 1994), it does not allow for broad comparison and statistical aggregation
of data that produces a generalizable set of succinct and parsimonious findings
(Patton, 2002). Thus, further study of the phenomena with the addition of

233
quantitative methodology would be beneficial. Third, more research is needed to
substantiate which instructional methodologies are most beneficial to gifted students.
Perhaps the addition of data related to gifted student preferences for models of
teaching may inform this line of research. Currently, research being conducted in the
U.S. Department of Education Javits Models of Teaching Grant (PR #S206A040072)
will provide data related to these two particular issues.
In summary, the present dissertation study uncovered several important
relationships between the characteristics that teachers with a gifted population
possess and their preferences and uses for the models of teaching, as well as common
patterns in teacher traits and model of teaching affinity and usage. As a consequence
of the theories generated, policymakers might explore the development of a teacher
screening tool to be utilized both prior to teacher entrance in special education
programs and also to assist in teacher placement in appropriate schools and
classrooms. Teacher educators might work to cultivate positive teacher traits in their
programs, provide teachers with strategies to help overcome institutional barriers that
limit model of teaching use, and both systematically and systemically teach and
support the models of teaching in teacher education programs and school districts.
The consideration of alternative forms of professional development, such as the use
of Professional Development Schools, could be considered for this endeavor.
Finally, future research must seek to substantiate and expand upon the unique
discoveries of the present study.

234
REFERENCES

Abel, T., & Karnes, F. A. (1994). Teacher preferences among the lower
socioeconomic rural and suburban advantaged gifted students. Roeper
Review, 17(1), 52-57.

Adams, G. L., & Engelmann, S. E. (1996). Research on Direct Instruction: Twenty-
five Years Beyond Distar. Seattle, WA: Educational Achievement Systems.

Archambault, F. A., Jr., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons,
C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular Classroom Practices with Gifted
Students: Results of a National Survey of Classroom Teachers (Research
Monograph 93102). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted
and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a Difference: Teacher Efficacy and
Student Achievement (Monogram). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of
meaningful verbal learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 51, 267-72.

Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York,
NY: Grune & Stratten, Inc.

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York, NY:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Ausubel, D. P. (1978). In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the critics.
Review of Educational Research, 48(2), 251-257.

Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge: A Cognitive
View. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Ausubel, D. P., & Fitzgerald, D. (1962). Organizer, general background, and
antecedent learning variables in sequential verbal learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 53(6), 243-249.

Baldwin, A.Y., Vialle, W., & Clarke, C. (2000). Global professionalism and
perceptions of teachers of the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J.
Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and
Talent (2nd ed., pp. 565-572). Oxford: Pergamon.

235
Barnes, B. R., & Clawson, E. V. (1975). Do advance organizers facilitate learning?
Recommendations for further research based on an analysis of 32 studies.
Review of Educational Research, 45, 637-659.

Barr, R. (1975). How children are taught to read: Grouping and pacing. School
Review, 83, 479-498.

Baum, S. (1998). Enrichment program for the gifted learning disabled student. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 32, 226-230.

Baumann, J. F. (1983). A generic comprehension instructional strategy. Reading
World, 22, 284-294.

Baumann, J. F. (1984). The effectiveness of a direct instruction paradigm for
teaching main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 93-
115.

Becker, W. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged: What we
have learned from field research. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 518-543.

Becker, W., Engelmann, S., Carnine, D., & Rhine, W. (1981). The direct instruction
model. In W. R. Rhine (Ed.), Making Schools More Effective: New
Directions from Follow-Through. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Benbow, C. P., & Arjmand, O. (1990). Predictors of high academic achievement in
mathematics and science by mathematically talented students: A longitudinal
study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 430-431.

Bennett, R. A. (1974). San Diego: Accountability under the Stull Bill. Educational
Leadership, 485-487.

Berliner, D. C. (1984). The executive functions of teaching. In J. Osborn, P. T.
Wilson & R. C. Anderson, (Eds.), Reading Education: Foundations for a
Literate America. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher,
15(7), 5-13.

Berliner, D. C. (2004). Describing the behavior and documenting the
accomplishments of expert teachers. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and
Society, 24, 200-212.

236
Bernal, E. M. (1994). Finding and Cultivating Minority Gifted/Talented Students.
Paper presented at the National Conference on Alternative Teacher
Certification, Washington, D.C.

Betts, G. T., & Kercher, J. K. (1999). The Autonomous Learner Model: Optimizing
Ability. Greeley, CO: ALPS Publishing.

Bishop, W. E. (1968). Successful teachers of the gifted. Exceptional Children, 34,
317-325.

Bishop, W. E. (1976). Characteristics of teachers judged successful by intellectually
gifted, high achieving high school students. In W. Dennis & M. W. Dennis
(Eds.), The Intellectually Gifted: An Overview. New York, NY: Grune &
Stratten.

Bishop, W. E. (1980). Successful teachers of the gifted. In J. S. Renzulli & E. P.
Stoddard (Eds.), Under One Cover: Gifted and Talented Education in
Perspective (pp. 152-160). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science of student
outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53(4),
499-518.

Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In
M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York, NY:
Macmillan.

Bruner, J. S. (1965). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1967). A Study of Thinking. New
York, NY: Science Editions.

California Association for the Gifted. (2003). Meeting the Challenge: A Guidebook
for Teaching Gifted Students (2nd ed.). Whittier, CA: California Association
for the Gifted.

California Code of Regulations, CCR Section 3840.

237
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2008). The California Teaching
Performance Expectations. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/TPA-files/CandidateHandbook-
AppendixA-TPEs.pdf

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2008). The California Teaching
Performance Assessment Candidate Handbook. Sacramento, CA: California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

California State Board of Education. (2005, July). Recommended Standards for
Programs for Gifted and Talented Students. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from
www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r12/documents/gatestandards.doc

Callahan, C. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Adams, C. M., Moore, S. D., & Bland, S. C.
(1995). Instruments Used in the Identification of Gifted and Talented
Students. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Chan, D. W. (2001). Characteristics and competencies of teachers of gifted learners:
The Hong Kong teacher perspective. Roeper Review, 23(4), 197-202.

Clark, B. (1997). Social ideologies and gifted education in today’s schools. Peabody
Journal of Education, 72(3/4), 81-100.

Clark, B. (2007). Growing Up Gifted: Developing the Potential of Children at Home
and at School (7th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher
research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2-11.

Collins, K. (1969). The importance of strong confrontation in an inquiry model of
teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 69(7), 615-617.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2008, April). New Diversity Terminology.
Retrieved August 15, 2009, from
http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutCEC/Diversity/CE
CPolicies/DiversityTerminology2008.pdf

Cropley, A., & McLeod, J. (1986). Preparing teachers of the gifted. International
Review of Education, 32, 125-136.

Cushner, K. (2001). Human Diversity in Action: Developing Multicultural
Competencies for the Classroom. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

238
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher
Education, 51(3), 166-173.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support
professional development in an era of reform. The Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8),
597-604.

Davalos, R., & Griffin, G. (1999). The impact of teachers’ individualized practices
on gifted students in rural, heterogeneous classrooms. Roeper Review, 21,
308-314.

Davidson Institute for Talent Development. (2009, August 11). Gifted Education
Policies. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from
http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/StatePolicy.aspx

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in
Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Dell’Olio, J. M. (2007). Models of Teaching: Connecting Student Learning with
Standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dembo, M. H. (2001). Learning to teach is not enough: Future teachers also need to
learn how to learn. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28, 23-35.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York, NY: Macmillian.

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

Dohort, A. (1983). Student and teacher perceptions of preferred teacher behaviors
among the academically gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27, 122-125.

Downing, A. (1994, July). An Investigation of the Advance Organizer Theory as an
Effective Teaching Model. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Australian Teacher Education Association, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Duffett, A., Farkas, S., & Loveless, T. (2008). High-achieving Students in the Era of
NCLB. Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Ebmeier, H., & Good, T. (1979, April). An Investigation of the Interactive Effects
among Student Types, Teacher Types, and Instruction Types on the
Mathematics Achievement of Fourth Grade Students. Paper Presented at the
Annual Meeting of America Educational Research Association, San
Francisco.

239
Eisner, E. W. (1978). On the uses of educational connoisseurship and criticism for
evaluating classroom life. Teachers College Record, 78, 345-358.

Ellis, E., Gable, R. A., Gregg, M., & Rock, M. L. (2008). REACH: A framework for
differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 31-
47.

Ellis, S. S. (1979). Models of teaching: A solution to the teaching style/learning style
dilemma. Educational Leadership, 274-277.

El-Nemr, M. A. (1979). Meta-analysis of the Outcomes of Teaching Biology as
Inquiry. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.

Emerick, L. J. (1992). Academic underachievement among the gifted: Students'
perceptions of factors that reverse the pattern. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36,
140-146.

Equal Educational Opportunity Act § 7402, 20 U.S.C. § 1703 (1974).

Equal Education Opportunity Act, amending Education Amendments of 1974 – 20
U.S.C. Sec. 1703

Fisher, C., Filley, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., Dishaw, M., Moore, J., & Berliner, D.
(1978). Teaching Behaviors, Academic Learning Time and Student
Achievement: Final Report of Phase III-B, Beginning Teacher Evaluation
Study. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory.

Feldhusen, J. F. (1991). Full-time classes for gifted youth. The Gifted Child Today,
14(5), 10-13.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Treffinger, D. J. (1980). Creative Thinking and Problem Solving
in Gifted Education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall and Hunt.

Feldhusen, J. F. (1984, May). The Teacher of Gifted Students. Paper presented at the
International Symposium on Fostering Giftedness, Hamburg.

Fernandez, C., & Choskshi, S. (2002). A practical guide to translating lesson study
for a U.S. setting. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(2),128-134.

Ford, D. Y. (1999). Renzulli’s philosophy and program: Opening doors and
nurturing potential. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 117-124.

240
Ford, D. Y., Baytops, J. L., & Harmon, D. A. (1997). Helping gifted minority
students reach their potential: Recommendations for change. Peabody
Journal of Education, 72(3/4), 201-216.

Ford, D. Y., & Trotman, M. F. (2001). Teachers of gifted students: Suggested
multicultural characteristics and competencies. Roeper Review, 23(4), 235-
239.

Fusarelli, L. D. (2004). The potential impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on
equity and diversity in American education. Educational Policy, 18(1), 71-
94.

Gage, N. L. (1963). Paradigms for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.),
Handbook for Research on Teaching. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Gage, N. L. (1978). The Scientific Basis of the Art of Teaching. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press: Columbia University.

Gage, N. L., & Berliner, D. C. (1984). Educational Psychology. Dallas, TX:
Houghton Mifflin.

Gallagher, J. J. (1960). Analysis of Research on the Education of Gifted Children.
State of Illinois: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Gallagher, J. J. (Ed.). (1965). Teaching Gifted Students: A Book of Readings. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gallagher, J. J. (1975). Teaching the Gifted Child (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.

Gallagher, J. J. (1994). Current and historical thinking on education for gifted and
talented students. In R. P. O'Connell (Ed.), National Excellence: A Case for
Developing America's Talent. An Anthology of Readings. Washington, D.C.:
Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Gallagher, J. J. (2003). Issues and challenges in gifted education. In N. Colangelo &
G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd ed., pp. 11-23).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gagné, E. D. (1985). The Cognitive Psychology of School Learning. Boston, MA:
Little, Brown.

241
Gagné, R. M. (1965a). The Conditions of Learning. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.

Gangé, R. M. (1965b). The learning of concepts. School Review, 75, 187-196.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed. New York, NY: Basic Books.

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

Gifted and Talented Pupil Program § CA Education Code § 52200 ().

Gold, M. J. (1982). Education of the Gifted/Talented: A Perspective Through a
Retrospective. Ventura, CA: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools
Office.

Good, T. L. (1979). Teacher effectiveness in the elementary school. Journal of
Teacher Education, 30(2), 52-64.

Goodlad, J. I. (1982). Let’s get on with the reconstruction. The Phi Delta Kappan,
64(1), 19-20.

Grant, B. A., & Piechowski, M. M. (1999). Theories and the good: Toward a child-
centered gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 4–12.

de Groot, A. D. (1965). Thought and Choice in Chess. The Hague, The Netherlands:
Mouton & Co. Publishers.

Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained
teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 115-121.

Hansford, S. J. (1985, October). What it takes to be a g/t teacher. Gifted Child
Monthly, 15-17.

Hartley, J., & Davies, I. K. (1976). Pre-instructional strategies: The role of pre-tests,
behavioral objectives, overviews, and advance organizers. Review of
Educational Research, 46(2), 239–265.

Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom.
Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.

Heath, W. J. (1997). What are the most effective characteristics of teachers of the
gifted? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 411665)

242
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Shachar, H. (1989). Teachers’ verbal behavior in
cooperative and whole-class instruction. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative
Learning Theory and Research. New York, NY: Praeger Publishing Co.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Sharan, S., & Steinberg, R. (1980). Classroom learning style
and cooperative behavior of elementary school children. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 73, 97-104.

Hillocks, G. (1987). Synthesis of research on teaching writing. Educational
Leadership, 44(8), 71-82.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted Children. New York, NY: World Book.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children Above 180 IQ (Stanford-Binet): Origin and
Development. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book Company.

Howley, A., Howley, C. B., & Pendarvis, E. D. (1986). Teaching Gifted Children.
Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Huhtala, J. (1994, April). Group Investigation: Structuring and Inquiry-based
Curriculum. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of America Educational
Research Association, New Orleans.

Huhtala, J., & Coughlin, E. B. (1991). Group investigation, democracy, and the
middle east. The English Journal, 80(5), 47-52.

Hunter, M. (1980). Teach More Faster (Rev. ed.). El Segundo, CA: TIP
Publications.

Hultgren, H. W., & Seeley, K. R. (1982). Training Teachers of the Gifted: A
Research Monograph on Teacher Competencies. Denver, CO: School of
Education, University of Denver.

Irvine, J. J., & Armento, B. J. (2001). Culturally Responsive Lesson Planning for
Elementary and Middle Grades. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Irwin, J., & Farr, W. (2004). Collaborative school communities that support teaching
and learning. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20, 343-363.

Ivany, G. (1969). The assessment of verbal inquiry in elementary school science.
Science Education, 53(4), 287-293.

243
Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in Classrooms. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.

Johnsen, S. K. (2000, Summer). What the research says about curriculum. Tempo,
19(3) 25-30.

Joyce, B. (1969). Method and methods in teacher education: Geist, substance, and
form. Journal of Teacher Education, 20, 509-520.

Joyce, B. (1978-79). Toward a theory of information processing on teaching.
Educational Research Quarterly, 3(4), 66-77.

Joyce, B. (1985). Models for teaching thinking. Educational Leadership, 42, 4-7.

Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2004). Models of teaching (7th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson.

Joyce, B. R., Weil, M., Wald, R., Gullioin, C., Feller, M., & McKibbin, M. (1972).
Models of Teaching as a Paradigm for Teaching Education. New York, NY:
Teachers College Columbia University.

Kaplan, S. N. (2003). Advocacy as teaching: The teacher as advocate. Gifted Child
Today, 26(3), 44-45.

Kaplan, S. N. (2009). Layering differentiated curricula for the gifted and talented. In
F. A. Karnes & S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and Materials for Teaching the
Gifted (3rd ed., pp. 107-135). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Karnes, F. A., & Bean, S. M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods and Materials for Teaching the
Gifted (3rd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Keating, D. P. (Ed.). (1976). Intellectual Talent: Research and Development.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kilgore, A. M. (1984). Models of teaching and teacher education. In R. L. Egbert &
M. Kluender (Eds.), Using Research to Improve Teacher Education. Lincoln,
NE: Clearinghouse on Teacher Education.

King, J. A. (1981). Beyond classroom walls: Indirect measures of teacher
competence. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of Teacher Evaluation. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.

244
Klauer, K. J. (1996). Teaching inductive reasoning: Some theory and three
experimental studies. Learning and Instruction, 6, 37-57.

Kolloff, M. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1984). The effects of enrichment on self-concept
and creative thinking. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 53-57.

Krumboltz, J., & Farquhar, W. (1957). The effect of three teaching methods on
achievement and motivational outcomes in a how-to-study course.
Psychological Monographs, 71(14), 1-26.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.

Landvogt, J. (2001). Affecting eternity: Teaching for talent development. Roeper
Review, 23(4). 190-196.

Landson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy.
American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465-491.

Lawton, J. T., & Wanska, S. K. (1977). Advance organizers as a teaching strategy: A
reply to Barnes and Clawson. Review of Educational Research, 47(2).

Lazarowitz, R., & Karsenty, G. (1989). Cooperative learning and students academic
achievement, process skills, learning environment and self-esteem in tenth
grade biology classroom. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative Learning Theory
and Practice. New York, NY: Praeger Publishing Co.

Lynch, S. J. (1992). Fast-paced high school science for the academically talented: A
six-year perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 147-154.

Madaus, G. F., Airasian, P. W., & Kellaghan, T. (1980). School effectiveness: A
Review of the Evidence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Maddux, C. D., Samples-Lachmann, I., & Cummings, R. E. (1985). Preferences of
gifted students for selected teacher characteristics. Gifted Child Quarterly,
29(4), 160-163.

Maker, C. J. (1975). Training Teachers for the Gifted and Talented: A Comparison
of Models. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum Development for the Gifted. Austin, TX: Pro Ed.

245
Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1995). Teaching Models in Education of the gifted
(2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Magliaro, S. G., Lockee, B. B., & Burton, J. K. (2005). Direct instruction revisited:
A key model for instructional technology. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 53(4), 1042-1629.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2
nd
ed.). New York, NY: Harper
and Row.

McBride, R. E., Gabbard, C. C., & Miller, G. (1990). Teaching critical thinking
skills in the psychomotor domain. The Clearing House for the Contemporary
Educator in Middle and Secondary Schools, 63(5), 197-201.

McClure, L. (2006). Mainstreaming the gifted: Historical perspectives on excellence
and equity. Roeper Review, 24, 112-115.

McDonald, F. (1976). Report on Phase II of the Beginning Teacher Evaluation
Study. Journal of Teacher Education, 27(1), 39-42.

McEneany, J. E. (1990). Do advance organizers facilitate learning? A review of
subsumption theory. Journal of Research and Development in Education,
23(2), 89-96.

McMillan, C. M. (1985). Do teachers teach as they are taught to teach? American
Reading Forum Online Yearbook, 5, 85-87.

Medley, D. M. (1981). Teacher Competence and Teacher Effectiveness: A Review of
Process-product Research. Washington, D.C.: American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education.

Merrill, M. D., & Tennyson, R. D. (1977). Concept Teaching: An Instructional
Design Guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

Milgram, R. M. (1979). Perception of teacher behavior in gifted and nongifted
children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 125-128.

Ministry of Education. (2000). Gifted and Talented Students: Meeting their Needs in
New Zealand Schools. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.

Miel, A. (1952). Cooperative Procedures in Learning. New York, NY: New York
Teachers College: Columbia University.

246
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mills, C. J. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: Teacher
background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(4),
272-281.

Miller, P. (2000). Intelligence and talent. Mensa Research Journal, 43, 1-63.

Mitchell, D., & Kerchner, C. T. (1981). Collective Bargaining and the Teacher
Policy. Paper Presented at the National Institute of Education Teaching and
Policy Studies Conference.

Moon, S., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). The program for academic and creative
enrichment (PACE): A follow-up study 10 years later. In R. Subotnik & K.
D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman Contemporary Longitudinal Studies of
Giftedness and Talent (pp. 375-400). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Moon, S. M., Feldhusen, J. F., & Dillon, D. R. (1994). Long-term effects of an
enrichment program based on the Purdue Three-Stage Model. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 38, 38-48.

Morelock, M. (1992). Giftedness: The view from within. Understanding Our Gifted,
4(3), 1, 11-15.

Mulhern, J. D., & Ward, M. (1983). A collaborative program for developing teachers
of gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(4), 152-156.

Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted
minority children using the Naglieri nonverbal ability test. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 47(2), 155-160.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2000). Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Program
Standards. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from
http://www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/PDF/Standards_PDFs/k12%20GT%20sta
ndards%20brochure.pdf

National Association for Gifted Children. (2008). Teacher Preparation Standards in
Gifted and Talented Education. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from
http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=1862

National Association for Gifted Children. (n.d.). Common Gifted Education Myths.
Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=569

247
National Association for Gifted Children. (n.d.). Why We Should Advocate for Gifted
and Talented Students. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from
http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=538

National Association for Gifted Children & Council for Exceptional Children.
(2006). NAGC-CEC Teacher Knowledge and Skill Standards for Gifted and
Talented Education. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from
http://www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/Information_and_Resources/NCATE_sta
ndards/final%20standards%20(2006).pdf

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008, February).
Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation
Institutions. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from
http://www.ncate.org/documents/standards/NCATE%20Standards%202008.p
df

Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2002). The Social
and Emotional Development of Gifted Children: What Do We Know? Waco,
TX: Prufrock Press.

Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human Inferences: Strategies and Shortcomings of
Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners (6
th
ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh: A response to C.
Addison Stone’s “The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of
learning disabilities.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 370-373.

Pang, V. O. (2001). Multicultural Education: A Caring-centered, Reflective
Approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Parkay, F. W., Anctil, E. J., & Hass, G. (2006). Curriculum Planning: A
Contemporary Approach (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

248
Passow, A. H. (1982). Differentiated curricula for gifted/talented: A point of view. In
S. Kaplan, A. H. Passow, P. H. Phenix, S. Reis, J. S. Renzulli, I. Sato, L.
Smith, E. P. Torrance & V. S. Ward, Curricula for the Gifted (pp. 1-21).
Ventura, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute on the
Gifted/Talented.

Pearson, P., & Kamil, M. (1978). Basic Processes and Instructional Practices in
Teaching Reading (Report No. 7). Center for the Study of Reading,
University of Illinois.

Peterson, P. L., Marx, R. W., Clark, C. M. (1978). Teacher planning, teacher
behavior, and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
15, 417-432.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in Education (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Powell, M. (1978). Educational implications of current research on teaching. The
Educational Forum, 43, 27-38.

Pressey, S. L. (1949). Educational Acceleration: Appraisal and Basic Problems.
Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.

Pritchard, F. F. (1994). Teaching Thinking Across the Curriculum with the Concept
Attainment Model. Salisbury, MD: Salisbury State University.

Putnam, J., & Duffy, G. G. (1984). A Descriptive Study of the Preactive and
Interactive Decision Making of an Expert Classroom Teacher. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 251451)

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking
have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher,
29(1), 4-15.

Rakow, E., Airasian, P., & Madaus, G. (1978). Assessing school and program
effectiveness: Estimating teacher level effects. Journal of Educational
Measurement, 15, 15-21.

Ramsey, G. (2000). Quality Matters: Revitalizing Teaching: Critical Times, Critical
Choices: Report of the Review of Teacher Education and Training. New
South Wales: New South Wales Department of Education and Training,
Sydney.

249
Rejskind, G. (2000). TAG teachers: Only the creative need apply. Roeper Review,
22(3), 153-157.

Renzulli, J. S. (1968). Identifying key features in programs for the gifted.
Exceptional Children, 35, 217-221.

Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The Enrichment Triad Model: A Guide for Developing
Defensible Programs for the Gifted and Talented. Mansfield Center, CT:
Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184.

Renzulli, J. S. (1988). The multiple menu model for developing differentiated
curriculum for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 298-309.

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

Riley, T. L. (2009). Teaching gifted and talented students in regular classrooms. In F.
A. Karnes & S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and Materials for Teaching the
Gifted (3rd ed., pp. 631-672). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Rosenshine, B. (1970). The stability of teacher effects upon student achievement.
Review of Educational Research, 40, 647–662.

Rosenshine, B. (1971). Teaching Behaviours and Student Achievement. London:
National Foundation for Educational Research.

Rosenshine, B. (1976). Recent research on teaching behavior and student
achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 27, 61-64.

Rosenshine, B. (1977, April). New Insights and Questions from Recent Research in
Elementary School. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of America
Educational Research Association, New York.

Rosenshine, B. (1979). Content, time, and direct instruction. In A. Walberg & P.
Peterson (Eds.). Research on Teaching, Concepts, Findings and Implications.
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Rosenshine, B. (1985). Direct Instruction. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.),
International Encyclopedia of Education, Vol. 3 (pp. 1395-1400). Oxford:
Pergamon.

250
Ruthkosky, K., & Dwyer, F. (1996). The effect of adding visualization and rehearsal
strategies to advance organizers in facilitating long-term retention.
International Journal of Instruct Media, 23, 31-40.

Ryans, D. G. (1960). Characteristics of Teachers. Washington, D.C.: American
Council on Education.

Sanderlin, O. (1973). Teaching Gifted Children. New York, NY: A. S. Barnes.

Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers
on Future Student Academic Achievement: Research Progress Report.
Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and
Assessment Center.

Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and
neuroscience. American Psychologist, 54, 182-203.

Schram, T. H. (2003). Conceptualizing Qualitative Inquiry: Mindwork for Fieldwork
in Education and the Social Sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Schrenker, G. (1976). The Effects of an Inquiry-Development Program on
Elementary Schoolchildren’s Science Learning. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. New York University.

Schwab, J. (1965). Biological Sciences Curriculum Study: Biology Teachers'
Handbook. New York, NY: Wiley.

Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American
Psychologist, 54, 93-105.

Sharan, S., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1980). A group investigation method of
cooperative learning in the classroom. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperation in
Education. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press.

Sharan, S., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1982). Effects of an instructional change
program on teachers’ behavior, attitudes and perceptions. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 18(2), 185-201.

Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1990). Group investigation expands cooperative learning.
Educational Leadership, 47(4), 17-21.

251
Sharan, S., & Sharchar. H. (1988). Language and Learning in the Cooperative
Classroom. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co.

Shavelson, R. J., Cadwell, J., & Izu, T. (1977). Teachers' sensitivity to the reliability
of information in making pedagogical decisions. American Research Journal,
14, 83-97.

Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts,
judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4),
455-498.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 51, 455-498.

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk,
Text and Interaction. London: Sage.

Sisk, D. (1975). Teaching the gifted and talented teacher: A training model. The
Gifted Child Quarterly, 19(1), 81-88.

Smith, M. L. (1980). Effects of Aesthetics Educations on Basic Skills Learning.
Boulder, CO: Laboratory of Educational Research, University of Colorado.

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional Design (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Wiley Publishing.

Stallings, J. (1976). How instructional processes relate to child outcomes in a
national study of Follow Through. Journal of Teacher Education, 27(1), 43-
47.

Stallings, J., & Hentzell, S. (1978, July). Effective Teaching and Learning in Urban
Schools. Paper Presented at the National Conference on Urban Education, St.
Louis.

Stanish, B., & Eberle, B. (1997). Be a Problem-Solver: A Resource Book for
Teaching Creative Problem-solving. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Stanley, J. C., Keating, D., & Fox, L. (1974). Mathematical Talent. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.

Starko, A. J. (1986). The effects of the revolving door identification model on
creative productivity and self-efficacy. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 291-297.

252
Starko, A. J., & Schack, G. D. (1989). Perceived need, teacher efficacy, and teaching
strategies for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(3), 118-122.

Stein, M., Carnine, D., & Dixon, R. (1998). Direct instruction: Integrating
curriculum design and effective teaching practice. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 33(4), 227-234.

Stronge, J. H. (2002). Qualities of Effective Teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Suchman, R. J. (1962). The Elementary School Training Program in Scientific
Inquiry. Report to the U.S. Office of Education, Project Title VII. Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois.

Sue, D. W., Arrendondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling
competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 70, 477-486.

Swiatek, M. A. (2000). A decade of longitudinal research on academic acceleration
through the study of mathematically precocious youth. Roeper Review, 24,
141-144.

Taba, H. (1963). Learning by discovery: Psychological and educational rationale.
The Elementary School Journal, 63(6), 308-316.

Taba, H. (1966). Teaching Strategies and Cognitive Functioning in Elementary
School Children. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco State College.

Taba, H. (1967). Teachers' Handbook for Elementary Social Studies. Palo Alto, CA:
Addison-Wesley.

Taylor, I. (1975). An emerging view of creative actions. In I. Taylor & J. Getzels
(Eds.), Perspectives in Creativity. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Tennyson, R. D., & Bagley, C. A. (1991, April). Structured versus Constructed
Instructional Strategies for Improving Concept Acquisition by Domain-
experienced and Domain-novice Learners. Paper Presented at the Annual
Meeting of America Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Tennyson, R. D., Chao, J. N., & Youngers, J. (1981). Concept learning effectiveness
using prototype and skill development presentations. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 73, 326-334.

253
Tennyson, R. D., & Cocchiarella, M. J. (1986). An empirically based instructional
design theory for teaching concepts. Review of Educational Research, 56(1),
40-71.

Tennyson, R. D., & Tennyson, C. L. (1977, April). Content Structure as a Design
Strategy Variable in Concept Acquisition. Paper Presented at the Annual
Meeting of America Educational Research Association, New York.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). The Gifted Child Grows Up. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.

Thelen, H. (1960). Education and the Human Quest. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 § 20 U.S.C. § 6301
(1965).

Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades.
ERIC Digest, 1-7. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from ERIC (ED443572)

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

Traina, R. P. (1999). What makes a good teacher? Education Week, 1(20), 34.

Treffinger, D. J. (1975). Teaching for self-directed learning: A priority for the gifted
and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 19(1), 46-59.

Treffinger, D. J., & Barton, B. L. (1988). Fostering independent learning. Gifted
Child Today, 11(1), 28-30.

United States Department of Education. (1993). National Excellence: A Case for
Developing America’s Talent. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/DevTalent/toc.html

United States Department of Education. (2008, September 12). Jacob K. Javits
Gifted and Talented Students Education Program. Retrieved August 15,
2009, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/javits/index.html

University Park Institutional Review Board. (n.d.). About. Retrieved March 10,
2010, from
http://www.usc.edu/admin/provost/oprs/upirb/about/index.html#about

254
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Excellence in Educating the Gifted. Denver, CO: Love.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2004). The case for a systems approach to curriculum
differentiation. Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented, 24(1), 5-24.

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

VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2009). An analysis of gifted education
curriculum models. In F. A. Karnes & S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and
Materials for Teaching the Gifted (3rd ed., pp. 75-106). Waco, TX: Prufrock
Press.

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

Verduin, Jr., J. R. (1967). Conceptual Models in Teacher Education: An Approach to
Teaching and Learning. Washington, D.C.: American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education.

Vialle, W., & Quigley, S. (2002). Does the teacher of the gifted need to be gifted?
Gifted and Talented International, 17(2), 85-90.

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers:
Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 20-32.

Voss, B. A. (1982). Summary of Research in Science Education. Columbus, OH:
ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental
Education.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Watkins, C. (1997). Project Follow Through: A Case Study of Contingencies
Influencing Instructional Practices of the Educational Establishment.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies.

Webb, J. T. (1994). Nurturing Social-emotional Development of Gifted Children.
(ERIC Digest #E527). Reston, VA: The ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities
and Gifted Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED372554)

255
Westerman, D. A. (1991). Expert and novice teacher decision making. Journal of
Teacher Education, 42(4), 292-305.

Whitlock, M. S., & Ducette J. P. (1989). Outstanding and average teachers of the
gifted: A comparative study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(1), 15-21.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A
theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310.

Wise, A. E. (1979). Legislated Learning: The Bureaucratization of the American
Classroom. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (1987). Effective Teacher Selection:
From Recruitment to Retention. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Woolfolk, A. (2007). Educational Psychology (10
th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context
effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal
of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1),57-67.

256
APPENDIX A
TEACHER INTERVIEW GUIDE

Models of Teaching
Research Question Additional Probing Questions Purpose of Question
1. Looking at this list of models
of teaching as a reminder, which
models of teaching do you
enjoy teaching the most?
Why? What makes this model enjoyable to
teach? Are there specific parts that stand
out to you as being enjoyable? Is it more
enjoyable preparing to teach, implementing
or both?
Preferences for models of
teaching
2. Which models of teaching do
you teach the most often?
Why? What do you think causes this
disconnect?
Use of models of teaching
3. Which models of teaching do
you least enjoy teaching?
Why? What makes this model not enjoyable
to teach? Are there specific parts that stand
out to you as being not enjoyable?
Preferences for models of
teaching
4. Which models of teaching do
you teach the least often?
Why? Use of models of teaching
5. Which models of teaching to
you feel most confidant
teaching?
Why? Which model are you the most
comfortable teaching?
Preferences for models of
teaching
6. Are there any models that
you feel particularly
uncomfortable teaching?
Why? Which model makes you the most
uncomfortable? Does any particular part
cause discomfort?
Preferences for models of
teaching
* Skip to Personal
Characteristics of Teachers

7. What connection is there
between your personality and
the models you prefer?
To what extent do your personal
characteristics influence the models of
teaching you enjoy teaching most often?

How do your personal characteristics
influence your model preferences?
Can you give an example?
What connection is there between your
personality and the models you prefer?
Which of your characteristics helps you
teach __________?
Which of your characteristics inhibits your
teaching of ____________?
Perceptions about match
between personal
characteristics and
preferences for models of
teaching
8. Other than your personality,
what other factors influence
your decision to use particular
models?
Factors that influence
models of teaching
9. Which models of teaching
best meet the needs of gifted
students?
Why? What is it about _________ that
meets a need gifted students have? What
makes it a match?
Perceptions about models of
teaching and needs of gifted
students

257
Personal Characteristics of Teachers
Research Question Additional Probing Questions Purpose of Question
1. If you think about yourself
generally, how would you describe
your personality? or personal traits?
Who are you? How would you
describe yourself?
Self-perceptions of personal
characteristics
2. How would you describe your
personality with your students? (as a
teacher?)
Self-perceptions of personal
characteristics
3. How would others describe you?
Students? Fellow teachers?
Self-perceptions of personal
characteristics
4. How would your principal describe
you?
Self-perceptions of personal
characteristics
*Skip to probes on Checklist
5. What are some of your personal
interests (outside and inside the
classroom)?
How do you pursue those interests? Measure of attribute:
broad/multiple interests
6. Would you say that you have
interests in a 1 or 2 specific areas or
more broad, multiple and various
interests?
How does your curiosity manifest
itself in your life?
Measure of attribute:
broad/multiple interests
7. What subject matters that you teach
do you feel you have the most in-depth
knowledge of? the least?
Measure of knowledge: in-
depth knowledge of different
subject areas
8. What are some of the different
cultures in your classroom?
Measure of knowledge:
insight into different cultures
9. How do these cultures impact the
teaching-learning process? Or do they
make a difference?
How do you respond to different
cultures? How do you incorporate
the different cultures in your
classroom?
Measure of knowledge:
insight into different cultures
10. How confident are you teaching
gifted students?
What do you think causes that
confidence?
Measure of knowledge:
insight into gifted students’
needs
11. What do you think are the most
important characteristics for a good
educator of the gifted?
Why is __________ important for
teaching gifted children?
Measure of knowledge:
insight into gifted students’
needs
12. What are some of the needs of
gifted students?
Cognitive needs? Social needs?
Emotional needs?
How are gifted students different
than non-gifted students?
Measure of knowledge:
insight into gifted students’
needs
13. What do you feel are the most
important skills and strategies for
gifted educators?
What do these look like? Measure of knowledge:
insight into gifted students’
needs
14. How does your personality
influence your teaching?
How does your personality come
through when you teach?
Can you give me an example? How
do your traits make you different
from other teachers?
Self-perception of how
personal characteristics
influence teaching process
15. Generally, what are your greatest
strengths? Weaknesses?
What do you notice that you are
more adept at than others? Less
adept?
Self-perceptions of personal
characteristics
* Skip to # 7 on Model page

258
Checklist for Personal Characteristics
Check
Personal
Characteristic Probing Questions
Trait: Enthusiasm Would other people consider you particularly enthusiastic? Where
would they see that?
Would you consider yourself enthusiastic? How so? Where does it
manifest itself?
Trait: Sense of
Humor
How would you describe your sense of humor? Is it sporadic or all
the time? How many times in a typical week do you use humor?
Do you find that you use/have humor in your classroom? Can you
give an example?
Trait:
Organization
Would others that know you well describe you as organized?
Do you consider yourself organized?
Are there certain areas of your life/classroom where you are
particularly organized? Areas that are less organized? Examples?
Trait: Creativity Would other people that know you well describe you as creative?
How would you describe yourself in this capacity?
Are there certain areas where you are particularly creative or your
creativity really manifests itself? Are there certain areas where you
don’t really consider yourself to be “creative”?
Trait:
Communication
How would you describe your communication style?
Are there situations where you don’t feel as comfortable
communicating with others?
Does your communication style change in different settings? How
so?
Trait: Willingness
to make mistakes
Would you describe yourself as a perfectionist? And how does it
feel when you don’t feel like you are living up to that?
How do you feel when you make a mistake in the classroom? How
do you handle the mistake? What is your reaction?
Do you feel comfortable making mistakes in the classroom?
Are there certain mistakes that really bother you? Don’t bother
you? Examples?
Trait: Intelligence You have spent many years in school, how were you as a student?
Good student? Hard worker?
What do you notice that you are more adept at than others?
Are there things that you notice that you complete at a faster rate
than other people? What are these things?
Do you feel you have acute insight on particular topics that you
think others wouldn’t understand or be interested in? Like what?

259
APPENDIX B
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education;
3470 Trousdale Parkway, WPH 1004E, MC 4031
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4031
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Influence of Teacher Characteristics on Preferences for Models of Teaching
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Paige Allison
McGinty, M.S. (Principal Investigator) and Sandra Kaplan, Ed.D. (Faculty Sponsor)
at the University of Southern California, because you are a past participant in the
Javits Grant: Using Models of Teaching to Affect Student Achievement. Your
participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions
about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to participate. Please
take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to
discuss participation with your family or friends. If you decide to participate, you
will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study is intended to uncover relationships between the personal characteristics
of teachers of the gifted and their preference for and implementation of the models of
teaching. Knowledge gleaned will add to the body of literature related to effective
teaching for gifted students.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to take part in a private
interview with the Principal Investigator, Paige McGinty. The interview will last
approximately 60-90 minutes. It will take place in a location convenient to you, such
as your classroom at school. The interview will be recorded and later transcribed
and the Principal Investigator will take additional notes during the interview process.
The interview will ask questions related to your perceptions about your own personal
characteristics (i.e. creativity, sense of humor, organization) and your preferences for
different models of teaching.

260
Response to the interview questions will constitute consent to participate in the
research study.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no potential risks for the study. The only potential minimal discomfort
may be slight fatigue during the interview. Breaks will be offered. In addition,
answering questions about yourself may feel uncomfortable. If any question causes
discomfort, it can be skipped.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The purpose of the current study is to increase understanding about teachers of the
gifted. Many policy and curriculum documents list the desirable and essential
qualities of good teachers of gifted students (Vialle & Quigley, 2002). Moving
beyond a simple list of characteristics of effective teachers of the gifted, this study
seeks to determine the relationships between these desired characteristics and the
instructional decisions that are influenced by teachers’ personal traits and
understanding of gifted students needs. Determining this relationship can have
implications for policy makers and teacher education both for university programs
and for school districts such as: recruitment qualifications, curriculum
modifications, and teacher placement that provides the best student-teacher match.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
There will be no compensation or payment for participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain
confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. The data will be stored in the research office in Waite Phillips Hall on the
campus of the University of Southern California. All paper data will be stored in a
locked file cabinet in a locked office. All computer data will be stored on the
Principal Investigator’s computer which is password protected. Rivercrest Business
Services will be used to transcribe the audio interview. Once transcribed all audio
files and transcripts will be returned to the Principal Investigator. After the final
report of the data is written, all data will be stored in locked file cabinets for the
amount of time required by the Javits Federal Grant (approximately 7 years) and then
destroyed.

All data will be coded so that names will not be used to identify any of the data or
findings. No names will be used in the report created. The report will be shared with
only the dissertation committee at the University of Southern California. It may
additionally be published in the school library. Again, when the results of the
research are published or discussed, no identifiable information will be used.

261
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or
loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent
at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any
legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
the Principal Investigator, Paige Allison McGinty (pmcginty@usc.edu; 213-821-
4134) or the Faculty Sponsor, Sandra N. Kaplan, Ed.D. (skaplan@usc.edu; 213-740-
3291). The mailing address is 3470 Trousdale Parkway, WPH 1004E; MC 4031;
Los Angeles, CA 90028.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT
INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research
participant you may contact the IRB directly at the information provided below. If
you have questions about the research and are unable to contact the research team, or
if you want to talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact the
University Park IRB (UPIRB), Office of the Vice Provost for Research
Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-
5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The present study sought to uncover relationships between the personal characteristics of teachers and their preferences for models of teaching. A purposeful sample included 12 elementary instructors of heterogeneous classes with a cluster of gifted students in urban school districts within Southern California, all of who were participants in a grant awarded to the University of Southern California under the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of the U.S. Department of Education (PR #S206A040072). Qualitative interviews provided data that underwent theme-based content analysis. Results of the study provided insight related to three areas: characteristics of teachers of the gifted, teacher preference and use of models of teaching, and relationships between teacher characteristics and pedagogical preference and use.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The effects of the models of teaching on student learning

PDF

Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching

PDF

Teacher efficacy and classroom management in the primary setting

PDF

Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Factors that influence the ability of preservice teachers to apply English language arts pedagogy in guided practice

PDF

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

PDF

Beliefs and perceptions of DPRK teachers of English towards CLT instruction and factors that influence program implementation

PDF

Relationship of teacher's parenting style to instructional strategies and student achievement

PDF

Linking theory and practice in teacher education: an analysis of the reflective-inquiry approach to preparing teachers to teach in urban schools

PDF

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

PDF

Student perceptions of teacher pedagogical practices in the elementary classroom

PDF

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

PDF

Enacting ideology: an examination of the connections between teacher ideology, classroom climate, and teacher interpretation of student behavior

PDF

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

PDF

The perception of teachers’ pedagogy of technology integration: a case study of second‐grade teachers

Asset Metadata

Creator McCord, Paige McGinty (author)

Core Title The influence of teacher characteristics on preference for models of teaching

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/22/2010

Defense Date 03/25/2010

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

Tag gifted,Gifted Education,models of teaching,OAI-PMH Harvest,pedagogy,teacher characteristics,teacher preference,teachers of gifted

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email paigemcginty@gmail.com,pmcginty@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2946

Unique identifier UC1152261

Identifier etd-McCord-3573 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-313266 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2946 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-McCord-3573.pdf

Dmrecord 313266

Document Type Dissertation

Rights McCord, Paige McGinty

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu