University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The effects of the models of teaching on student learning

(USC Thesis Other)

The effects of the models of teaching on student learning

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE EFFECTS OF THE MODELS OF TEACHING ON
STUDENT LEARNING

by

Jennifer Krogh

_________________________________________________________

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

August 2010

Copyright 2010 Jennifer Krogh

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge several individuals who have offered support
and guidance in my efforts to fulfill the requirements of the doctorate program and
to complete this dissertation study. First, I would like to recognize my professional
mentor and dissertation chair, Dr. Sandra Kaplan, for sharing her extensive
knowledge and expertise in curriculum and instruction, as well as her profound
passion for the field of gifted education. Second, I would like to thank my
committee members, Dr. Robert Keim and Dr. Margo Pensavalle, for offering
valuable input and support on my path to completion of this process. Third, I would
like to thank my dissertation cohort for providing valuable information and insights
as we traveled together on this journey. I must thank my parents, Sally and Curt, for
encouraging me to persevere through the challenges of the past three years and for
continually supporting me in my decision to pursue this degree. I am also grateful
for my mother, who willingly babysat for endless hours throughout my coursework
and research. Lastly, I could not have accomplished this process without the love
and patience of my husband, Peter, and our children, who provided me with a
constant source of strength and inspiration throughout this doctoral program.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ii
List of Tables v
List of Figures viii
Abstract ix
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study
Statement of the Problem
Research Questions
Significance of the Study
Conceptual Frameworks
Methodological Overview
Assumptions
Limitations
Delimitations
Definitions
1
10
14
14
16
20
22
22
23
23
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
Learning
Motivation for Learning and Decision-Making
The Gifted Learner
Differentiation
Models of Teaching
Metacognition
Gaps in Current Literature
Conclusion
26
26
28
34
42
49
73
76
77

Chapter 3: Research Methods
Overview
Research Questions
Definitions
Nature of the Study/Research Design
Sample and Population
Instrumentation
Pilot Study
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Ethics

78
78
82
82
83
84
87
91
92
93
95

iv

Chapter 4: Research Findings
Overview
Findings by Research Question
Summary of Findings

96
96
100
160
Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications
Overview of the Study
Research Findings and Conclusions
Practical Implications and Suggestions
Limitations of the Study
Recommendations for Future Research

166
168
169
196
200
201
References

203
Appendices
Appendix A: Student Survey
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Appendix C: Coding Scheme: Student Analysis of Models of
Teaching
Appendix D: Coding Scheme: Reasons for Selected Method of
Learning

220
232
237

239

v

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Student Response to Selected Method of Learning (Mathematics) 101
Table 4.2: Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Mathematics)
103
Table 4.3: Non-Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Mathematics)
104
Table 4.4: Student Response to Selected Method of Learning (Social
Science)
107
Table 4.5: Chi-Square Test (Social Science) 109
Table 4.6: Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning (Social
Science)
110
Table 4.7: Non-Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Social Science)
110
Table 4.8: Student Response to Selected Method of Learning (Science) 114
Table 4.9: Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Science)
115
Table 4.10: Non-Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Science)
116
Table 4.11: Student Response to Selected Method of Learning (Language
Arts)
119
Table 4.12: Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Language Arts)
121
Table 4.13: Non-Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Language Arts)
121
Table 4.14: Composite Student Responses to Model of Teaching Syntax 126
Table 4.15: Student Responses to Model of Teaching Syntax (Direct
Instruction I)
126
Table 4.16: Student Responses to Model of Teaching Syntax (Direct
Instruction II)
127

vi

Table 4.17: Student Responses to Model of Teaching Syntax (Group
Investigation I)
127
Table 4.18: Student Responses to Model of Teaching Syntax (Group
Investigation II)
128
Table 4.19: Student Responses to Model of Teaching Syntax (Advance
Organizer I)
128
Table 4.20: Student Responses to Model of Teaching Syntax (Advance
Organizer II)
129
Table 4.21: Gifted Student Responses to Selected Method of Learning for
Independent Study
135
Table 4.22: Non-Gifted Student Responses to Selected Method of Learning
for Independent Study
135
Table 4.23: Composite Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of
Learning
144
Table 4.24: Composite Non-Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of
Learning
145
Table 4.25: Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning (Group
Investigation)
148
Table 4.26: Non-Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Group Investigation)
148
Table 4.27: Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Advance Organizer)
152
Table 4.28: Non-Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Advance Organizer)
152
Table 4.29: Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning (Direct
Instruction)
155
Table 4.30: Non-Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Direct Instruction)
155

vii

Table 4.31: Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Randomized Process)
158
Table 4.32: Non-Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Randomized Process)
158

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Syntactical Relationship Between Models of Teaching and
Independent Study
72
Figure 4.1: Primary Reason and Explanations for Selected Method of Learning 147
Figure 5.1: Relationship Between Advance Organizer and Gifted
Characteristics
177
Figure 5:2: Relationship Between Concept Attainment and Gifted
Characteristics
177
Figure 5.3: Relationship Between Direct Instruction and Gifted Characteristics 178
Figure 5.4: Relationship Between Group Investigation and Gifted
Characteristics
178

ix

ABSTRACT
This study sought to explore the degree to which students’ interactions with
the models of teaching influence learning. The purposefully sampled population
consisted of gifted and non-gifted students in grades 2-5 from an urban school
district in Southern California who were participants in a research project awarded
to the University of Southern California and funded through the U.S. Department of
Education’s Jacob K. Javits Grant (PR #S26A040072). A mixed methods approach
was employed to analyze data obtained from existing primary research, as well as
from recently attained secondary research. The findings from this study provided
information regarding the effects of learning with the models of teaching.
Specifically, the results offered evidence related to the following: (a) student
preferences for learning a defined content area using a model of teaching and the
related reasons for their choice, (b) students’ ability to recognize the syntax or
sequence of learning as it relates to the models of teaching, (c) the relationship
between previous learning with the models and students’ capacity to transfer their
knowledge of learning to self-directed independent study, and (d) the validation of
how the models of teaching facilitate the knowledge of learning to learn.
The data indicated that gifted and non-gifted students chose to learn
specified content areas through a specific model of teaching, and that the perceived
interest offered by the models was the primary influence related to their choices.
Statistically significant findings were found related to gifted and non-gifted
students’ preferences for learning in the social science discipline. Previous learning

x

with the models of teaching equipped both gifted and non-gifted students with the
ability to recognize the procedural knowledge of learning-to-learn as it related to the
selected models of teaching. The comparative analysis of gifted and non-gifted
students revealed patterns related to their ability to transfer previous learning with
the models of teaching to new contexts. The findings revealed that both 4
th
and 5
th

grade gifted students could more readily transfer their learning from the models of
teaching to self-directed independent study when compared to their non-gifted peers
and 3
rd
grade gifted students. Most students who were able to transfer their
knowledge to new contexts selected to conduct the process of independent study
using the group investigation model of teaching.
Many of the study’s findings were supported by the theoretical purposes of
the models of teaching and were aligned with the theorists’ perspectives on learning
and motivation. Implications were offered regarding educational policy and teacher
education. Through this study, it is recommended that the models of teaching be
integrated into classroom instruction, as well as into pre-service and in-service
teacher education programs. Although this type of pedagogy will increase the
effectiveness of learning for all students, it is deemed to be necessary for gifted
learners in order to assist in developing their potential.

1

CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Learning, as defined in Webster’s Dictionary (1997), represents the
acquisition of knowledge or skill through study, experience or instruction. Although
learning is a universal process, not all methods of learning are identical. Throughout
life, one will participate in numerous types of learning experiences that yield
varying results. When considering the relationship between the learning process and
instruction, teachers must employ a variety of approaches in order to prompt
different types of learning (Brophy, 1987; Ellis, 2007; Gagne, 1985) since students
acquire knowledge through different means. Instructional principles set forth by the
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) (1992)
state, “The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to
encourage students’ development of critical thinking, problem solving, and
performance skills” (p. 20). Additionally, California’s Teacher Performance
Expectations (TPE) assert that in order to make content accessible for students,
teachers need to “vary instructional strategies according to purpose and lesson
content” (2003, p. 7). It is, therefore, of paramount importance that teachers utilize a
broad range of pedagogical approaches to facilitate learning in the classroom.
Teachers fulfill an essential role in student learning. Recognizing this,
pedagogy must seek to develop a student’s ability as a learner and as an active
acquirer of knowledge, as opposed to a passive acquirer of information (Andre &
Windschitl, 2003; Betts, 1996; Renzulli, 1977). A primary goal of teaching is to

2

develop autonomous learners, and the manner in which teaching is conducted has a
great impact on students successfully developing this ability (Betts, 1996; Joyce,
Weil & Calhoun, 2009). A skillful educator is one who has a clear understanding of
pedagogical skills and principles and who possesses the ability to correctly diagnose
a situation and to decide upon the appropriate instruction (Good, Biddle & Brophy,
1976; Lemlech, 2006; Ormrod, 2006). Current perspectives of learning focus upon
educators’ understandings and thinking processes as a means to develop as expert
teachers (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006). Research demonstrates that effective teachers
possess and utilize four types of knowledge: (a) knowledge of content – having a
comprehensive understanding of the topics to be taught (Shulman, 1986);
(b) pedagogical content knowledge – presenting content in a manner that is
understandable for students (Shulman, 1986); (c) general pedagogical knowledge –
utilizing general instructional principles, regardless of content area (Borko &
Putnam, 1996; Shulman, 1986); and (d) knowledge of learners and learning –
awareness of characteristics and the learning needs of students (Borko & Putnam,
1996). Utilization of these understandings and skills enables teachers to make
informed decisions on how to best guide students in their acquisition of the
curriculum (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006).
A teacher’s decisions and actions in the classroom can either facilitate or
impede the learning process (Doyle, 1983; Lemlech, 2006). Research on effective
teaching proves the value of implementing and using a variety of instructional
strategies (Ellis, 2007; Gagne, 1985; Moore, 2005; Ormrod, 2006). In order to

3

promote a deep understanding of content, however, it is essential that educators
have the ability to select and utilize strategies that are proven to be most effective
for different learning objectives (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006; Tomlinson, 2001).
Weinstein and Mayer (1986) state that the main goals of classroom teachers are to
determine (a) what students should be able to do as a result of learning and
(b) which strategies students should use to learn. Therefore, educational decisions
should be based upon evidence regarding effective classroom practices, as well as
on theoretical understandings of how children learn (Lemlech, 2006; Ormrod,
2006).
How teaching is conducted has a significant impact on students’ abilities to
understand the learning process or, in other words, learning how to learn (Joyce,
Weil & Calhoun, 2009). Implementing instructional strategies and using models of
teaching are two distinct approaches to facilitate learning. Instructional strategies
are broad approaches to instruction that are applied in various content areas and can
be employed to achieve a range of learning objectives (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006).
The use of questioning, visual imagery, mnemonics, graphic organizers and thinking
maps are examples of instructional strategies that teachers employ in the classroom.
While these strategies may assist students in reaching specified learning objectives,
“there must be more consciousness of the kinds of thinking that needs to be done
and more engagement of students in genuine problem solving, inventing, and
critical appraisals” if educators are to assist students in improving thought processes
(McNeil, 1996, p. 105). The models of teaching are explicit approaches to teaching

4

that have the following specific characteristics: (a) they are intended to aid students
in acquiring a thorough understanding of content matter while using higher order
thinking skills; (b) they are characterized by a specific syntax that helps learners
reach objectives; (c) they are aligned with learning theory; and (d) they are
supported by theories of motivation (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006; Joyce, 1985). In
contrast to the disjointed learning offered by instructional strategies, in which the
process of learning is often composed of independent and/or unrelated segments, the
models of teaching offer students a sequence of experiences that facilitate, while
simultaneously drawing students attention to, the learning process. Although the
terms instructional strategy and model of teaching may often be used
interchangeably, they will be referred to as two distinctly different entities for the
purpose of this study.
According to Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009), “Models of teaching are
really models of learning” (p. 6). When educators utilize a model of teaching with
students, they not only assist students in understanding content, but they also teach
them the process of thinking and learning. The models of teaching enhance critical
thinking and allow students to gain increased control over both content and the
learning process (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009; McBride, Gabbard & Miller, 1990).
These models present students with a diversity of learning environments that are
responsive to varying needs and learning styles (Ellis, 1979; Joyce, Weil &
Calhoun, 2009; Maker & Neilson, 1995b). In addition to teaching students how to

5

think, the enriched learning environments presented by the varied models also
contribute to higher cognitive functioning (Diamond, 2001).
Using models of teaching to deliver content provide learners with a means to
master specific learning processes that will increase students’ abilities to learn more
readily and effectively in the future (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009). Learning
through a model of teaching is supported by Piaget’s (1929) idea that over time
children develop increasingly sophisticated and integrated schemes when learning.
Schemes are a collection of related actions or thoughts that are used repetitively in
response to settings in order to foster the development of increasingly complex and
logical thought processes (Ormrod, 2006). The models of teaching present students
and teachers with a series of related actions and behaviors in order to generate a
particular learning outcome (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009). As such, the models of
teaching are the schemes through which students develop thought processes for
learning. Additionally, Thelen (1960) posits that learning how to think relates to the
models of teaching and orientation of knowledge through which learners grasp and
comprehend ideas and, subsequently, apply and extend autonomy and captaincy of
self as a thinker. Taba (1963) contends that when a learner has developed an
organizing scheme for his own cognitive processes and is aware of the relationship
of the learning task to a particular experience, then “he is in a position to continue
these processes on his own” (p. 313). Thus, utilizing the models of teaching as
organized schemes for thinking assists students in developing the knowledge of
learning how to learn.

6

The use of sequential thinking processes provided by the implementation of
the models of teaching can be contrasted with a teacher’s use of isolated
instructional strategies that often focus specifically on subject matter and fail to
improve students’ processes of how to learn. Learning through this manner
precludes students from experiencing and understanding how the steps of learning
are related. Instruction that is limited to the use of these isolated strategies reflects a
type of “kaleidoscope quality,” offering students isolated pieces of knowledge
without demonstrating connections or developing essential understandings (McNeil,
1996). Noting these differences, educators must be able to determine appropriate
and effective methods of instruction for student learning (Marzano, 2003).
Gifted students are one of the many groups of learners who have
characteristics which require academic opportunities that will appropriately develop
and challenge their capabilities. It is understood that all students require effective
instruction; however, “one size does not fit all” (Tomlinson, 2001). Student
diversity encompasses variations in intelligence and personal characteristics, as well
as differences related to gender, ethnicity and culture (Ormrod, 2006). Gifted
students are a heterogeneous group with varying needs and abilities, while
concurrently sharing common characteristics with non-gifted students. However,
distinctive learning differences do exist between how gifted and non-gifted students
learn (Clark 2002; Gallagher, 2000; Winner, 1996). According to the California
Association for the Gifted (CAG) (2003), gifted students often exhibit differential
patterns for thought processing and, thus, require opportunities that allow them to

7

analyze their own learning processes. Understanding that the delivery of instruction
can have a significant role in facilitating learning about learning (Joyce, Weil &
Calhoun, 2009), it is imperative that gifted students have access to instruction that
contributes to their understanding of the learning process. In his seminal research,
Torrance (1965) states, “One of the most promising curriculum frontiers for
educating gifted children is self-initiated learning” (p. 41). Furthermore, Maker and
Nielson (1995b) assert that “designing activities that help gifted students develop
self-regulatory learning strategies is an effective and productive way to help highly
able students” (p. 21). Knowing that all learners are unique individuals with varying
abilities and interests, it is essential for educators to respond to both individual and
group differences when deciding upon and implementing effective instruction.
The federal government presented the needs of the gifted learner in the
Marland Report (1972) as “children who require differential educational programs
and/or services beyond those provided by the regular school program in order to
realize their contribution to both self and society” (p. 2). Additionally, the California
Department of Education states that gifted learners are in need of differentiated
opportunities for learning that are commensurate with their respective abilities and
talents (Education Code Section 552200-552212). Thus, the underlying assumption,
given the existence of the Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) Program, is that
gifted students need to be exposed to a stimulating curriculum and challenging
instruction.

8

Gifted students are capable of high performance and should have a strong
desire to excel. However, unchallenged students are unmotivated students (Pintrich
& Schunk, 2002). Motivation to learn is affected by classroom factors, such as
patterns of interaction and instruction (Alexander & Schnick, 2008; Ames, 1992).
Boredom or lack of motivating challenges for gifted students may be the primary
cause of their tendency to lose positive attitudes toward school (Feldhusen & Kroll,
1991; Gallagher, Harradine & Coleman, 1997; Robinson, 2006). Consequently,
gifted students may cease to value or develop their abilities and interests (Vernon,
Adamson & Vernon, 1977; Rimm, 1995). Some of these students may even
confront the system by refusing to complete assignments that are considered too
easy and/or by simply “dropping out with dignity” (Reis, 1998). Viewpoints that
lack such intrinsic or extrinsic benefits toward school cause the gifted learner to
underachieve, thus failing to develop his or her true potential (Delisle, 2004;
McCoach & Siegle, 2003; Reis & McCoach, 2000). But student perspectives can
change, and motivation is the key for positive changes. Students who are motivated
enjoy what they do and believe what they are doing will provide valuable results
(Hunter & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003; Siegle, 2004). Therefore, teachers must make
learning not only pertinent, but also effective.
For gifted learners, differentiated instruction should (a) relate to their unique
characteristics; (b) include higher-order, abstract thinking opportunities;
(c) facilitate the development of critical thinking and inquiry methods; and (d) offer
necessary arrangements to enable them to realize their potential (Maker & Nielson,

9

1995a). Kaplan (1974) asserts that differentiation for the gifted student should
include an elaboration of the procedures through which learning opportunities are
presented. Therefore, differentiation of instruction can be successfully achieved
through the use of the models of teaching. These models provide educators with a
repertoire of instructional opportunities through which they can appropriately
differentiate the learning environment according to student needs. Lacking
appropriate modifications to the learning environment, “opportunities are restricted
and the gifted students cannot develop their abilities effectively” (Maker & Nielson,
1995a, p. 23). Models of teaching provide complex intellectual environments that
consist of challenging tasks, complex ideas and sophisticated approaches to
learning, all of which are necessary when instructing gifted students (Maker &
Nielson, 1995b). Further, the models of teaching assist students in understanding the
process of how to learn (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006). Students will not only
understand how to build knowledge, but will become cognizant of “how to learn,
creating more strategies for learning, and how to use them” (Joyce, Weil &
Calhoun, 2009, p. 20). Providing novel and alternative approaches to learning, while
facilitating the development of metacognitive skills, is the type of instruction needed
by gifted learners and, at the same time, proves to be beneficial to non-gifted
learners (Gray, 2004; Hertzog, 2003).
It is paramount that teachers consider student characteristics and knowledge
in order to offer instruction at the appropriate levels of challenge. The challenge
and/or ease of an assignment, as well as the interest or familiarity with a specified

10

learning task, may affect student engagement in the learning process. In the
classroom, learning experiences should be commensurate with students’ current
capabilities, acknowledging that challenging activities facilitate cognitive growth
(Alexander & Schnick, 2008; Caine & Caine, 1997; Ormrod, 2006). Studies of the
brain indicate that students learn best when participating in a context that provides
moderate challenges (Bess, 1997; Vygotsky, 1978). Thus, when a learning task is
too simple, it restrains a learner’s opportunity to develop his or her thinking
processes. Furthermore, educators have the capability to pique students’ interests by
the manner in which information is presented (Dewey, 1938; Renzulli, 1977;
Ormrod, 2006). Understanding students’ interests can significantly increase
achievement, attention and learning in the classroom (Shirey, 1992; Terman, 1925).
Students desire instruction that includes variety and novelty, as opposed to tasks that
are routine or familiar (Brophy, 1987; Moore, 2005; Ormord, 2006). Therefore,
providing experiences that offer both challenge and interest can significantly
increase student engagement in the learning process. Consequently, teachers are
confronted with the task of determining and utilizing appropriate models of teaching
as a means to not only deliver content, but also as a means to teach students how to
think (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009).
Statement of the Problem
Since the inception of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (2002),
“concerns about equity of instruction and achievement appear to override concerns
about raising the academic bar” (McCoach & Siegle, 2007, p. 246). However,

11

presenting students with equal opportunities for learning does not necessitate that
every student should simultaneously be working on an identical task or with the
same level of accomplishment (Kaplan, 2007). Gifted students are essentially the
ones “left behind” due to NCLB’s shift of focus from educating the individual to
measuring the performance of the group (Clarenbach, n.d.; Cooper, 2007b). In Many
Children Left Behind, Meier, Kohn, Darling-Hammond, Sizer and Wood (2004)
advocate that pedagogy must be differentiated, but that teaching to a standardized
assessment model hinders such differentiation. All children possess the ability to
increase their knowledge and skills; however, the processes by which students most
effectively learn vary. All students, including the gifted, need an academic
experience that offers a level of challenge that is aligned with their respective
intellectual capabilities.
Dewey (1938) asserts that learning is a result of a student’s interaction with
an environment. In the classroom, employed pedagogical practices provide students
with a specific type of learning environment and “when the environment is properly
modified, greater opportunities are afforded to its inhabitants” (Maker & Nielson,
1995a, p. 23). Instruction is contingent, in a large part, upon the decisions a teacher
makes in a classroom environment (Lemlech, 2006). Educators can and should
nurture and facilitate the development of giftedness by offering a challenging
learning environment that builds upon student talents and capabilities (Clark, 1997;
Maker & Nielson, 1995a; Renzulli, 1977). However, patterns of behavior, as well as

12

societal forces, may both influence and restrict how a teacher addresses learning and
instruction (Putnam & Borko, 2000).
Experts in the field of education have long disputed the difference between
an exceptional and an equitable academic experience (Thelen, 1960; Gallagher,
1994). While all students should have equal access to information, this access is not
directly correlated with attaining equal results (Kaplan, 2007). Many teachers aim to
meet the needs and cultivate the potential of students within their classrooms;
however, they must not overlook the needs of their gifted students. If gifted students
possess sufficiently different characteristics (e.g., learning and thinking styles,
intellectual and social needs, motivational traits and creativity) compared to that of
their same-age peers – thereby warranting program identification – then “the
curriculum must be built around the characteristics that make the program
necessary” (Maker & Nielson, 1995a, p. 7). It is an educator’s responsibility to
ensure that every student learns new content each day, realizing that it is the most
able – rather than the least able – who will learn less new material than any other
group (Winebrenner, 1992).
It is difficult to motivate and engage gifted learners when schools fail to
present instruction at sophisticated levels of thought beyond what is considered to
be age-appropriate (Clark, 1997). Teachers often do little to modify instruction in
order to meet the needs of the gifted student and only present tasks that are often
perceived as tedious and monotonous (Tomlinson, 1999; Westberg, Archambault,
Dobyns & Slavin, 1993). Research indicates that gifted students frequently tolerate

13

boredom and/or lack of challenge throughout their educational experiences, often
leading to feelings of intellectual isolation (Delisle, 2004). As such, many experts in
the field of gifted education are concerned by the lack of intellectually-stimulating
instruction and by the belief that many gifted students are simply “marking time” in
school (Burden & Byrd, 2007).
Content must be presented in a manner that is meaningful for all types of
learners. For gifted students, differentiation provides a “pathway appropriately
aligned to their potential while they are learning the common standards-based
objective articulated for all students” (Kaplan, 2007, p. 18). According to the CAG
(2003), differentiation is defined as making modifications in “complexity, depth,
pacing, and selecting among, rather than covering all, the curriculum areas” (p. 59).
It is, thus, imperative that gifted students be provided with instruction that has been
purposefully designed and implemented by the teacher and that offers progressive
challenges (Feldhusen & Kroll, 1991; Rogers, 2007). Maker and Nielson (1995b)
assert that curriculum for the gifted learner be “qualitatively different from the
program for all students” (p. 3). But the common misconception that gifted students
achieve on their own can have detrimental effects on the instructional decisions a
teacher makes for gifted students in the classroom (Clark, 1997). Many educators
simply become “blind to high ability,” believing that these students are guaranteed
success and should “not be further assisted by special school measures” (Cropley &
McLeod, 1986). However, Clark (1997) posits that the limitations in effectively
educating gifted learners arise from “a lack of accurate knowledge, not a lack of

14

commitment to children” (p. 81). If teachers are to educate this population of
students in a manner appropriately aligned with their intellectual needs, it then
becomes essential to educate teachers as to the needs of gifted learners.
Research Questions
This study will focus on three specific questions to ascertain the learning
preferences of gifted students, as well as their respective understandings of various
models of teaching (direct instruction, advance organizer, concept attainment and
group investigation).
1. How do gifted and non-gifted students’ preferences for a specific model of
teaching to learn a defined content area relate to the reasons (challenge, level
of difficulty, interest or familiarity) for their choice?
2. How does learning with models of teaching affect gifted and non-gifted
students’ recognition of the procedural knowledge of learning-to-learn?
3. How does previous learning with the models of teaching transfer to facilitate
gifted and non-gifted students’ preferences for the process to conduct a self-
selected topic of independent study?
Significance of the Study
Student motivation for learning can be linked to the type of instruction
offered in the classroom (Ames, 1992). Effective educators have the ability to offer
pedagogy and research-based practices that both engage students and facilitate
learning (Cooper, 2007). The models of teaching provide a specific type of learning
environment for students that is supported by formal research and grounded in

15

learning theory (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009). Facilitating learning through the
models of teaching emphasizes a deep understanding of content, while promoting an
awareness of the thinking process (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006).
Students must not only learn thoughts on ideas, they must be presented with
thoughts about “how to think” with ideas (Thelen, 1960, p. 35). It is essential that
students have the opportunity to process and to apply skills in order to effectively
transfer the process of learning to novel situations. Flexible thinking and appropriate
application of prior knowledge are essential to successfully function in today’s
world (Hoh, 2008). Equipping students with the knowledge of how to apply and
transfer learning to future academic studies, as well as to the outside world, should
be the primary objective for classroom teachers at all grade levels (Ormrod, 2006).
Utilizing the models of teaching will assist educators in developing
meaningful learning experiences that enhance both knowledge of content and the
process of learning, while providing students with the skills of how to successfully
transfer the learning process to new contexts. How teaching is conducted
significantly influences students’ abilities to educate themselves on the learning
process, and the models of teaching provide students with specific models for
learning (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009). In order to develop into consciously
powerful and independent thinkers, students must be provided with systematic
models that will offer engagement in learning both content and process (Pritchard,
1994). The models of teaching offer this systematic approach for learning how to
learn.

16

The ability to transfer learning and confront novel situations in an efficient
manner has been cited as one of the hallmarks of giftedness (Sternberg & Davidson,
1986). Examining gifted students’ perceptions of learning within the context of a
model of teaching will provide gifted programs with information regarding
instruction and student motivation. It is anticipated that this study will illuminate the
value of utilizing models of teaching when instructing students and will specifically
highlight the transfer of the learning process to one’s own academic and personal
endeavors. Additionally, this study may encourage a re-evaluation of currently
employed instructional methodologies for teaching not only gifted students, but all
students as well. The information gleaned will provide educators with the
knowledge of how they can appropriately challenge students by utilizing various
models of teaching, thus increasing student motivation to learn in school, while
concurrently promoting the development of students as life-long learners. This data
will expand perspectives on the true purpose of instruction to assist students in
determining aspects of their own education as they develop into independent,
autonomous learners (Betts, 1996).
Conceptual Frameworks
The conceptual framework provides the theoretical foundation for the
perspectives set forth in this study. As previously mentioned, this study specifically
focuses on learning through the models of teaching. Therefore, it was appropriate to
select three conceptual frameworks due to the alignment between learning theory
and the theoretical underpinnings of the various models of teaching. The ideas set

17

forth by a constructivist and/or an information processing viewpoint directly
connect to the models of teaching employed in this study (advance organizer, direct
instruction and group investigation). The models of teaching are supported by
theories of motivation (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006), in addition to enhancing
knowledge related to this study’s investigation of the reasons students select specific
methods of learning over others.
Constructivism
Constructivism is a theoretical learning perspective that focuses on how
students learn to collaborate with peers in order to reconstruct current
understandings, assume the role of “inquirers” and increase their learning
capabilities (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009). The theory emphasizes the active role
of the learner in building knowledge and understanding. In support of this theory,
Vygotsky (1978) proposes that learning is a social phenomenon and emphasizes the
value of social interaction and discussion to enhance learning. According to Dewey
(1938), teachers must nurture the active side of the child by creating interest and
utilizing valuable experiences (Lemlech, 2006). A teacher can facilitate curiosity
and interest by delivering instruction in a manner that permits students an
opportunity to ask questions and discover new information. Additionally, learners
can derive meaning by collaborating with others and by making connections with –
and amending – prior understandings, while using a variety of contexts to learn
content (Moore, 2005).

18

Ormrod (2006) posits that students may construct knowledge through a
variety of approaches, such as (a) providing opportunities for experimentation;
(b) sharing experts’ perspectives; (c) emphasizing conceptual understanding;
(d) promoting classroom dialogue; (e) presenting activities unique to a discipline;
(f) scaffolding instruction; and (g) developing a community of learners. A teacher’s
role in a constructivist classroom is that of facilitator. Instruction will focus on
understanding facts in relation to concepts and posing open-ended questions to
enable exploration of different topics. Constructivist teachers actively encourage
students to consistently assess how a lesson is affecting their understanding, thereby
helping students to become “expert learners.” In essence, students become cognizant
of how to learn.
Information Processing Theory
The perspective of cognitive psychologists is that learning theory
concentrates on the system of how learners think about new information. This
perspective identifies how individuals acquire, convert, store and apply knowledge
(Dembo, 1994). Central tenets to this theory are that (a) people are discerning with
respect to what they process and learn; (b) meaning is constructed by the learner,
rather than being a direct effect of the environment; (c) prior knowledge comprises a
major role in the meaning that learners construct; (d) increased capacity evolves
with age for progressively more sophisticated cognitive processes; and (e) people
are actively engaged in their own learning (Ormrod, 2006). The information
processing theory emphasizes the role of an active learner and the importance of

19

memory and metacognition to assist learning. Learning processes greatly impact
student achievement, and educators “shouldn’t leave the development of these
strategies to chance” (Ormrod, 2006, p. 48). Teachers frequently complain that
students memorize content, easily forget previously-taught concepts and fail to
connect prior learning to current situations (Dembo, 1994). However, approaching
learning from an information processing perspective will provide students with the
understandings and skills as to how to study and learn.
Motivational Theory
Examining motivation augments one’s understanding of the factors
influencing student achievement. “Children’s motivation to learn lies at the very
core of achieving success in schooling” (Weinstein, 1998, p, 81). Motivated
students tend to learn content in depth, persist through challenging classroom
learning tasks, cause few behavioral problems and possess positive perspectives of
school (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006; Stipek, 1996). Understanding the origin of
motivation can, in turn, enable one to make necessary instructional modifications
resulting in increased student motivation and achievement.
“Our goal as teachers should be to maximize students’ motivation to learn”
(Eggen & Kauchak, 2006, p. 37). Teachers should not wait for students to become
motivated, but should ignite motivation through instructional decisions (Dembo,
1994). Knowing that students are intrinsically motivated by a challenging
curriculum (Lepper & Hodell, 1989), it is imperative that teachers provide
instruction aligned with student needs. Instruction that is too far above or too far

20

below a student’s readiness level causes frustration and boredom (Delisle, 2004;
Winner, 2000). However, when students are provided with opportunities that are
appropriate to their abilities, needs and interests, they are more likely to stay
engaged by the learning process (Matthews & Foster, 2005). Intrinsically motivated
learners demonstrate persistence in their activities (Hidi, 1990; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Furthermore, an intrinsic motivation to learn leads to high levels of intellectual
engagement with content matter (Ames & Archer, 1988; Pintrich & Garcia, 1992).
Methodological Overview
An in-depth study utilizing a mixed methods approach was employed to
determine the effect of the models of teaching when instructing students. The
primary entity for this study was gifted and non-gifted students in grades 2-5 from
diverse linguistic, economic, and cultural backgrounds in urban school districts.
These students were participants in an existing research project led by Dr. Sandra
Kaplan and funded through the Department of Education’s Jacob K. Javits Grant
(PR/# S26A040072). The primary source of data was provided from existing
research attained from the Javits Models of Teaching Grant. Following the
culmination of a sequence of learning experiences prescribed by the grant, both
gifted and non-gifted students were presented with a student survey (Appendix A)
that consisted of forced-choice and closed-ended questions relating to learning
through the use of the models of teaching (advance organizer, concept attainment,
direct instruction and group investigation). The data from this survey was

21

quantitatively analyzed and addressed the first two research questions of the current
study.
In order to augment the above data, a secondary study was conducted
utilizing a comparative analysis of gifted and non-gifted students. The population of
students for the secondary research was purposefully sampled from the same
population of students used in the primary research – those who are participants in
the Javits Models of Teaching Grant. To further examine the effect of the models of
teaching on student learning, the secondary research involved the researcher
administering an interview (Appendix B), consisting of both fixed-response and
open-ended questions, to a small population of gifted and non-gifted students in
grades 3-5. The interview provided information related to a student’s ability to
transfer previous learning with the models of teaching to new contexts, such as
conducting an independent study. This secondary research also sought to develop
understandings as to the reasons why students selected specific models of teaching
when conducting a self-directed learning experience.
The data from this interview was analyzed utilizing a qualitative approach
and addressed the third research questions of the current study. The interview
responses aimed to identify a relationship between the primary and secondary
research regarding student understanding of the models of teaching. More
specifically, the responses provided data to determine if previous learning with the
models of teaching affects students’ abilities to transfer their knowledge when
conducting research on a self-selected topic of study. The content validity of the

22

student interview utilized for the secondary research was conducted through
assessment by a field of experts in gifted education. These experts offered
perspectives and suggestions based on their knowledge of the models of teaching, as
well as their experiences teaching gifted and non-gifted students. A pilot study was
conducted with gifted students who had been instructed through the varied models
of teaching in order to further assess reliability of the student survey.
Assumptions
This study was conducted under the assumption that the selected group of
gifted and non-gifted students utilized the survey in a responsible and serious
manner, demonstrated honesty in their respective answers and expressed themselves
with intellectual maturity. It is also assumed that the measurement instruments
resulted in comprehensive statements regarding student preferences for the
employed models of teaching in the various disciplines, as well as student
understanding of those models. Further, it is assumed that the selected groups of
gifted students not only possess opinions regarding their academic needs, but that
they can also communicate their opinions effectively.
Limitations
The sample of gifted students utilized for research purposes was limited to
those participating in the Javits Models of Teaching Grant awarded to Dr. Sandra N.
Kaplan by the U.S. Department of Education. Information regarding the frequency
of instruction utilizing the models and how well the students’ teachers have utilized
the various models of teaching in the classroom was not available. Additionally, the

23

gifted students’ breadth of experience for learning content within the context of a
model of teaching is unknown.
Delimitations
Delimitations regarding the researcher’s ability to generalize the conclusions of this
study include:
• Gifted learners are a heterogeneous group of students who do not exhibit
identical characteristics.
• Only specific populations of students attending school, who are a part of the
Javits Models of Teaching Grant, were included in the study.
Definitions
Authentic Learning: Acquiring integrated and useful subject-matter knowledge in a
manner that is similar to methods in which it is encountered in the outside world
(Ormrod, 2006).
Challenge: A situation in which a learner believes that success is possible with
sufficient effort (Ormrod, 2006).
Content/Process/Product: Elements of curriculum, wherein content is the
knowledge or skills to be learned, process is the way content is learned, and product
is the outcome of learning such as written reports, illustrations, performances, or
debates (CAG, 2003, p. 65).
Curriculum: Identifies the content standards adopted by the State Board of
Education (California Department of Education, n.d.).

24

Differentiation: The modification of the 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 (CAG, 2003, p. 67).
Gifted and Talented Individual: A label given to identify students who, because of
their unique and advanced abilities, need special education services to ensure their
academic, social and emotional growth and development (CAG, 2003, p. 68).
Higher-Level Thinking: Thinking that involves going well beyond information
specifically learned (e.g., analyzing, applying or evaluating) (Ormrod, 2006).
Instruction: Explains the instructional program for students, including the services
and support offered for students with special needs, and the procedures for assessing
student progress toward the content standards (California Department of
Education, n.d.).
Learning to Learn: The development of strategies or learning sets as a result of
engagement in active processes or learning; possessing the ability to pursue and
persist in learning (Joyce, 1985).
Metacognition: Knowledge and beliefs about one’s own cognitive processes and
one’s resulting attempts to regulate those cognitive processes in order to maximize
learning (Ormrod, 2006).
Models of Teaching: Depict a learning environment in which students acquire
information, ideas, skills, values, manners of thinking, and means of expressing
themselves. The models teach students how to learn (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009).

25

Pedagogical Knowledge: The deep knowledge regarding the processes and practices
or methods of teaching and learning. This type of knowledge requires an
understanding of cognitive, social, and developmental theories of learning and how
they apply to students in the classroom (Borko & Putnam, 1996; Shulman, 1986).
Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The knowledge of pedagogy that is applicable to
the teaching of specific content. The manner in representing and formulating subject
matter that makes it comprehensible to others (Shulman, 1986).
Transfer: A phenomenon in which something a student has learned at one time
facilitates learning or performance during a subsequent situation (Ormrod, 2006).

26

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This literature review encompasses both seminal and current research
pertaining to the process of learning. It describes theoretical perspectives on
learning and motivation, with a specific focus given to gifted students. This Chapter
highlights the characteristics and related educational needs of gifted learners and
incorporates a particular emphasis on differentiation of instruction through
describing various models of teaching. It also details how the varied models of
teaching can be utilized as a means of assisting students in attaining the skills of
autonomous learners. The review of the literature consists of the following
categories: learning, motivation, gifted learners, differentiation, the models of
teaching and metacognition.
Learning
Learning can be defined as a process through which behavior is modified or
changed due to an experience (Dembo, 1994). However, different perspectives exist
regarding which type of learning process and experience should be employed in the
classroom. According to Dewey (1938), teachers must nurture the active side of the
child by creating an environment based upon interest and utilizing valuable
experiences. Dewey was an advocate for pedagogy that considered students’
experiences, while providing opportunities for active learning experiences. Piaget
(1928) argues that children are curious by nature and often search for information to
construct understandings of the world. He proposes that, over time, children develop

27

increasingly advanced schemes or groups of similar actions and/or thoughts based
upon the types of learning experiences they encounter. Further, Piaget promoted the
use of relating and applying new information to prior learning in order to effectively
develop one’s learning process. Vygotsky (1962) emphasized the importance of
enhancing a child’s cognitive development through purposeful and systematic
interactions with adults. He described the significant influence of society and culture
on one’s intellectual development and proposed the idea that thinking processes
originate from social interactions. Although specific details of each of the above
perspectives may differ, they all possess similar viewpoints acknowledging that
children are able to actively construct their knowledge and understandings of the
world through participating in meaningful and varied types of learning experiences.
Understanding learners and the process of learning is “arguably the most
important knowledge a teacher can have” (Borko & Putnam, 1996, p. 675). Ormrod
(2006) posits that teachers are most effective when they clearly understand how
academic tasks and lessons contribute to students’ academic and personal growth.
When considering the relationship between the learning process and instruction,
teachers must use a variety of approaches in order to prompt different types of
learning (Gagne, 1985) since students do not acquire knowledge in identical
manners. Instructional principles set forth by the Interstate New Teacher
Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC, 1992) state, “The teacher
understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students’
development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills” (p. 20).

28

Additionally, California’s Teacher Performance Expectations (TPE) asserts that in
order to make content accessible for students, teachers need to “vary instructional
strategies according to purpose and lesson content” (p. 7). Thus, it is essential to
provide today’s diverse population of students with a variety of instructional
methodologies in order to facilitate successful learning opportunities for all learners.
Motivation for Learning and Decision-Making
Each day, learners make a multitude of decisions regarding their
participation in class, such as whether to follow instructions, engage in learning
activities and/or put forth an appropriate level of effort (Byra & Jenkins, 1997).
According to Yates and Palatano (1999), a decision is defined as a choice made in
the context of a variety of cognitive actions, with the aim being to create a
satisfactory result. The decisions students make in school are influenced by certain
motivational factors, such as self-efficacy, interest and challenge. These factors may
contribute to a student’s goal attainment, persistence in activity and expended
energy and enthusiasm toward a learning task (Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura,
1989; Pintrich, et al., 1993). Improved student learning, Deci and Ryan (1985)
contend, results from instruction that considers personal preferences, interest and
challenge. Thus, students are motivated to think and learn by pedagogy that is
relevant to their characteristics and related needs.
Motivation plays a significant role in student learning and behavior. It
“energizes, directs, and sustains behaviors; it gets students moving, points them in a
particular direction and keeps them going” (Ormrod, 2006, p. 365). However,

29

examination is often directed to the impetus of such motivation. Internal and
external factors can be directly related to a learner’s motivation. Students who are
intrinsically motivated engage in activities and are eager to learn new information
due to interest (Ormrod, 2006). Often, students begin their academic careers with
high intrinsic motivation that slowly begins to wane due to an increased amount of
extrinsic factors (grades, graduation, etc.) and tasks perceived as boring or highly
structured (Larson, 2000). It is understood that intrinsic engagement is influenced
by one’s thoughts of self-efficacy and determination. Self-efficacy can be defined as
a judgment regarding confidence in one’s ability to achieve (Bandura, 1977).
Pintrich and Schunk (2002) contend that beliefs of self-efficacy influence behavior,
choice and persistence in an activity. Intrinsic motivation is also influenced by one’s
self-determination. When students maintain a sense of autonomy over the decisions
they make, they increase the probability of becoming engaged in learning, as well as
transferring skills and knowledge to outside contexts (Deci & Ryan, 1992; Hardre &
Reeve, 2003).
Motivation and engagement in the learning process can be influenced by
student interest. Interest refers to a student’s affinity, curiosity and/or passion for a
particular topic or skill (Burden & Byrd, 2007). Interest, a form of intrinsic
motivation, increases student attention to a learning task and can significantly
influence achievement and cognitive engagement (Shirey, 1992; Terman, 1925). It
affects how students select and persist at learning tasks (Hidi, 1990). Educators have
the capability to pique students’ interests, and possibly stimulate enduring personal

30

interests, by the manners in which information is presented (Ormrod, 2006;
Renzulli, 1977). Generating student interest can be achieved through a variety of
methods. Research by Krapp, Hidi and Renninger (1992) suggests that there are
three approaches to address interest in the classroom – personal interest, contextual
interest and psychological interest (a result of context). Furthermore, inclusion of
novelty and variety (Brophy, 1987; Lepper & Hodell, 1989), connections to
personal lives (Anand & Ross, 1987), or active participation (Andre & Windschitl,
2003; Renzulli, 1977) can affect student interest in subject matter. High interest
permits students to easily activate prior knowledge, therefore, improving memory
and learning (Dewey, 1938; Tobias, 1994; Van Tassel-Baska, 1988). Thus, student
learning may be significantly enhanced when interest is considered.
Furthermore, students who are intrinsically motivated often choose to pursue
and persist through challenging work (Deci, 1992). According to Czikszentmihalyi
and Nakamura (1989), a challenge is a situation in which a learner believes that
success is possible with a sufficient amount of effort. In the classroom, learning
experiences should be commensurate with the students’ current capabilities, given
that challenging activities facilitate cognitive growth (Ormrod, 2006). Knowledge is
best attained, Vygotsky (1978) believed, when students work slightly above their
comfort zone of learning – into cognitive dissonance – in order to inspire
intellectual growth (zone of proximal development). As a result, when students
work within their zone of proximal development, they are thinking and learning
within a range that provides appropriate challenge. Consequently, “if the learning

31

experience involves the kind of behavior which the student is not yet able to make,
then it fails in its purpose” (Tyler, 1949, p. 67).
Accomplishing tasks perceived as challenging influences learners’ self-
efficacy, as well as the likelihood of pursing such learning in the future
(Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 1989). Brain research by Caine and Caine (1997)
contends that challenge, as well as classroom environments that encourage
intellectual risks, enhance complex learning. Moreover, employing challenging
tasks to maximize cognitive growth is in accordance with Resnick’s (1998)
perspective on learning that environments composed of rigorous learning
opportunities create thinkers. Resnick (1998) states that “in every subject, at every
grade level, the curriculum must include a commitment to a knowledge core, high
thinking demand, and active use of knowledge” (p. 5). Attainment of challenging
tasks conveys to learners that they are increasing their competency, which raises
self-efficacy and increases the likelihood of learners aiming to accomplish future
academic challenges (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).
Student interest and engagement in the learning process can be enhanced by
challenging, rather than easy, tasks (Danner & Lonky, 1981). When a learning task
is too simple, it restrains a learner’s opportunity to develop his or her thinking
processes. Delisle (2004) contends that when students are confronted with tasks
perceived as too easy, it can result in feelings of intellectual isolation and can begin
to cause underachievement. Correspondingly, a learning task that is perceived as too
difficult can result in a learner ceasing to try. Tomlinson (1999) states that students

32

who continually experience failure will lose their motivation to learn, while those
that experience success too easily will also lose their motivation for learning.
Alexander and Schnick (2008) indicate that learning occurs best when tasks provide
challenge and are appropriately aligned with ability levels. Therefore, teachers must
consider student characteristics and knowledge in order to offer instruction at
appropriate levels of challenge.
Self-efficacy and motivation may be further influenced by familiarity with a
learning task. Scaffolding through repetition develops students’ self-efficacy, as
they are able to accomplish tasks with increasing independence (Vygotsky, 1978).
However, Moore (2005) suggests that “students desire variety, action, excitement
and novelty” (p. 384). Students prefer, Moore argues, learning opportunities that are
new as opposed to learning tasks that are routine or familiar. Similarly, Alexander
and Schnick (2008) posit that effective learning experiences include tasks that are
novel or somewhat discrepant from expectations. Learning, Piaget (1929) contends,
is a continuous process of moving through the states of equilibrium and
disequilibrium. Piaget posits that when students encounter disequilibrium, or
cognitive dissonance, they are led to assimilate new knowledge, leading to changes
in thinking. Research by Sullivan (1967) indicates that when a student’s equilibrium
is reinstated, he or she is at an increased intellectual level. Therefore, opportunities
for learning are improved when students are presented with new methods and/or
environments for thinking. Understanding that schools aim to increase students’

33

intellectual capacities, Dembo (1994) posits that cognitive progress is dependent
upon entering into the “area of the unknown in order to learn” (p. 355).
The decision of students to engage and persist in learning activities may
further be influenced by their specific goal orientation. One’s goal orientation can
significantly affect the learning that occurs in the academic arena (Ames, 1992;
Hidi, 1990). Students who exhibit a mastery goal orientation desire to learn new
information or attain new skills, while those who exhibit a performance goal
orientation are more focused on displaying high ability for the sake of how it may
be perceived by others (Ormrod, 2006). Thus, it can be said that the learning
decisions of mastery goal oriented students are intrinsically motivated, whereas the
choices of those students with a performance goal perspective are driven by external
factors. Consequently, students with a mastery goal orientation are more likely to
select challenging activities that enhance learning and increase one’s self-worth. On
the other hand, students who work from a performance goal perspective tend to
avoid tasks perceived as challenging due to the fear of failure (Ames, 1992; Wentzel
& Wigfield, 1998). Students who possess mastery goals select and persist with
challenging learning tasks due to personal enjoyment, thus exhibiting intrinsic
motivation to learn. While all students have qualities that evoke curiosity in the
process of learning (Piaget, 1928), gifted students possess specific characteristics
that result in high motivation to think and learn in challenging and novel manners.

34

The Gifted Learner
Defining the Term
Defining the term gifted is a complex task. Although many definitions have
been provided from a variety of sources and perspectives, a single and clear
definition does not exist. The federal definition of giftedness stated below, and as
identified by the Marland Report (1972), continues to be used as the foundation on
which many states and local districts formulate their respective definition of
giftedness. The Marland Report states:
Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally qualified
persons who, by virtue of outstanding abilities, are capable of high
performance. These are children who require differential educational
programs and/or services beyond those provided by the regular school
program. Children capable of high performance include those with
demonstrated achievement and/or potential ability in any of the following
areas, singularly or in combination: general intellectual ability, specific
academic aptitude, creative or productive thinking, leadership ability, visual
and performing arts, and psychomotor ability. (p. 2)
The Marland Report was influential to the field of gifted education in that it noted
discrepancies between student ability and academic opportunities provided in
school. The report posited that children who exemplify capabilities in one or more
specifically identified categories should be provided with specific educational
services with a focus to nurture those capabilities. The Marland Report definition
includes not only intelligence, but recognizes giftedness in nonacademic areas as
well. However, in 1988 a number of states deleted the psychomotor abilities
category from their definition (Shaunessy, 2003). While the Marland Report has
served as the basis for defining giftedness and identifying related intellectual needs,

35

additional definitions and descriptions of these learners have been developed that
further enhance understandings in the field of gifted education.
The Jacob K. Javits Act offers federal grants for educational programs
directed towards gifted minority and economically challenged children. Javits
defines giftedness as children who provide evidence of high performance
capabilities in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, and/or leadership capacity
(National Association for the Gifted, 2008a). Additionally, the National Association
for Gifted Children (2008b) posits that a gifted individual is someone who
demonstrates, or has the potential for demonstrating, an exceptional level of
performance in one or more areas of expression.
The United States Department of Education (1993) considerably expands the
extent to which gifted programs include minority students. Basing their definition
on the federal Javits Gifted and Talented Education (1988), the United States
Department of Education (USDE) states the following:
• Gifted learners are children and youth with outstanding talent who perform
or show the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of
accomplishment when compared with others of their age, experience, or
environment.
• These children and youth exhibit high performance capability in the
intellectual, creative, and/or artistic areas, possess an unusual leadership
capacity, or excel in specific academic fields. They require services or
activities not ordinarily provided by the schools.

36

• Outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural
groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor.
While many and varied perspectives exist related to defining giftedness, the
common thread inherent in each descriptor is the consensus that gifted students are a
unique group of learners with specific capabilities and unique and corresponding
needs. However, debate exists regarding the specific types of educational
experiences that should be presented to this population of learners.
Equitable Versus Exceptional Education

The belief that all students, including the gifted, have the right to instruction
commensurate to their needs is the foundation on which public education was built.
Gifted students, like all students, should be afforded every learning experience our
educational system can make available. However, experts in the field of education
have long disputed the difference between an exceptional and an equitable academic
experience (Gallagher, 1994). McCoach and Siegle (2007) assert that since the
inception of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (2002), “concerns about equity
of instruction and achievement appear to override concerns about raising the
academic bar” (p. 246). Many educators believe grade-level proficiency is an
appropriate learning goal for students, which fails to correspond with the identified
potential of gifted learners (Kaplan, 2007). In addition, Cooper (2007b) contends
that gifted students are essentially the ones “left behind” due to NCLB’s shift of
focus from educating the individual to measuring the performance of the group.

37

According to Clarenbach of the National Association for Gifted Children
(NAGC)(n.d.), the primary concern for advocates of gifted education is the
strategies inherent in NCLB’s work against high-achieving students. Clarenbach
suggests that “the punitive nature of the law forces local school leaders all too often
to make resource choices to address the needs of one group of students – those
performing below ‘proficient’ on a statewide test – at the expense of students
already performing above the proficient level” (“More questions than answers: No
child left behind”, n.d.). In the book, Many Children Left Behind, Meier et al. (2004)
advocate that pedagogy must be differentiated, but teaching to a standardized
assessment model hinders such differentiation. Correspondingly, Kaplan (2007)
asserts that presenting students with equal opportunities for learning does not
necessitate that every student should simultaneously be working on an identical task
or at the same level of accomplishment. Cooper (2007b) claims that No Child Left
Behind diminishes opportunities for high ability students to practice and develop
critical thinking skills, such as analysis, synthesis, evaluation/or and complex
problem solving. Opportunities to use and develop the aforementioned higher-level
thinking skills are commensurate with the innate characteristics of gifted students.
Thus, effective pedagogy for the gifted learners must consider specific
characteristics and related intellectual needs.
Characteristics and Related Needs

Cognition is a significant aspect of gifted development. Ormrod (2006)
asserts that students with advanced cognitive development possess high intrinsic

38

motivation, are persistent and demonstrate a strong commitment to certain tasks,
especially those that are self-selected. Renzulli (1977) suggests that gifted behaviors
are a product and interaction of three characteristics – high creativity, high task
commitment and above average intellectual ability. Additionally, Winner (1996)
proposes that children identified as gifted differ from the norm in that they are
highly motivated, exceedingly independent and have a propensity to be more
introverted and introspective. Gallagher (2000) suggests that this population of
students has the ability to learn faster, remember more, process information more
effectively and generate more innovative and unusual ideas than that of their same
age peers. Similarly, Hoh (2008) states that gifted children possess specific
cognitive characteristics (e.g., abstraction, generalization, superior memory and
efficient mental coordination) that affect their speed of learning and reasoning.
Consideration must be given to the attributes of gifted students when
designing and presenting learning opportunities commensurate with their needs.
Torrance (1965) posits that teachers of the gifted should not be solely focused on
helping these students acquire information, but should also be concerned about the
types of individuals their students are becoming. For example, what kind of thinking
do these students engage in? Can these students direct their own goals and initiate
their own learning? Do these students relate similar experiences together to draw
conclusions? (Torrance, 1965). Gifted students possess a great amount and diversity
of knowledge and can often employ highly creative methods for applying this
knowledge (Clark, 2002). They possess high reasoning abilities, are able to easily

39

consider implications or alternatives of ideas and can identify connections and
meaning (Maker & Nielson, 1995a). Acknowledging this, learning environments
must align with, and build upon, the cognitive characteristics and needs of gifted
learners in order to facilitate appropriate growth and development.
The fact that gifted students’ cognitive and affective processes for learning
differ from other students requires that their instruction “must be not only different,
but qualitatively different from the general education curriculum” (Cooper, 2007, p.
16). Hertzog’s (2003) study on gifted students’ perceptions of learning found that
students were highly engaged when presented with a variety of types of instructional
strategies, including group work, choices and hands-on learning experiences. In
contrast, research by Gallagher, Harradine and Coleman (1997, as cited in
Gallagher, 2000), found that gifted students’ perception of courses emphasized
redundancy and low-level thought processes. Accordingly, Tomlinson (1999) posits
that gifted students are often assigned an increased quantity of work related to skills
they have already mastered and that they also are often asked to serve as peer tutors
for less-able students.
Motivation and the Gifted Learner
Motivation to learn is affected by classroom factors, such as patterns of
interaction and instructional strategies (Alexander & Schnick, 2008; Ames, 1992).
Generally, gifted students should demonstrate high intrinsic motivation (Gottfried &
Gottfried, 1996). However, Pintrich and Schunk (2002) contend that unchallenged
students become unmotivated students. Torrance (1965) states, “the most

40

fundamental cause of low motivation for learning is failure to give students a chance
to use what they learn as tools in their thinking” (p. 30). Boredom or lack of
motivating challenges for gifted students, according to Feldhusen and Kroll (1991),
as well as Gallagher, Harradine and Coleman (1997), may be the primary cause of
their tendency to lose positive attitudes toward school. Consequently, gifted students
may cease to value or develop their abilities and interests (Adamson, 1977; Rimm,
1995). Reis (1998) contends that some may confront the system by refusing to
complete assignments that are too easy and/or by “dropping out with dignity.”
“The relationship between instruction and student motivation is dynamic,
and teachers need to see their instructional strategies and styles, as well as content,
as critical variables affecting achievement and motivation” (Hertzog, 2003, p. 140).
It is difficult to motivate and engage gifted learners when schools fail to present
instruction at sophisticated levels of thought beyond what is considered to be age-
appropriate (Clark, 1997). Research by Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns and Slavin
(1993) indicates that teachers often do little to modify instruction in order to meet
the needs of the gifted student and present tasks often perceived as tedious and
monotonous. Substantial research in the field of gifted education contends that
gifted students frequently tolerate boredom and/or lack of challenge throughout their
school experiences, often leading to feelings of intellectual isolation (Delisle, 2004;
Feldhusen & Kroll, 1991; Gallagher, Harradine & Coleman, 1997). A resulting
concern among advocates of gifted education is the scarcity of intellectually-

41

stimulating instruction and the thought that many gifted students are simply
“marking time” in school (Burden & Byrd, 2007).
Furthermore, interest can have a considerable influence on motivation.
Terman’s (1925) seminal research found that interest serves a significant role in
school achievement. Opportunities for learning, Vygotsky (1978) claims, should
address student differences, including interest and prior understandings. A
component of Renzulli’s Enrichment Triad Model (1977) focuses specifically on
designing enjoyable learning experiences for students. That is, experiences that
incorporate and build upon interest (Type III Enrichment). According to Renzulli
(1999), learning through this means fosters independence and engagement by
accounting for student ability, interest and learning style. He suggests that
enjoyment of learning should be constructed and assessed with as much concern for
cognitive growth as possible (Renzulli, 1999). However, Robinson (2006) posits
that attributes of giftedness may result in decreased motivation and
underachievement due to the fact that gifted students “meet too few challenges that
match their interests and vision” (p. 264). Because interest relates to topics or
activities individuals find particularly engaging or intriguing (Ormrod, 2006), it
contributes to one’s intrinsic motivation. Therefore, presenting students with
instruction related to interest can directly enhance motivation, thus improving
learning.

42

Differentiation
While interest may be a means to meet the varied needs of learners in a
classroom, differentiation promotes the use of multiple approaches to learning based
upon diverse student needs. One of the primary objectives of schooling is to provide
students with the skills that will widen the breadth of learning environments to
which they can relate (Joyce, n.d.). Students who arrive at school advanced beyond
grade-level expectations “require equity of opportunity to grow from their points of
entry” with educators who will “ensure that their potential does not languish”
(Tomlinson, 1999, p. 21). The core of much educational discourse has been related
to varying perspectives aimed at identifying appropriate learning opportunities for
the gifted. The California State Standards for Gifted and Talented Education states
that “a differentiated curriculum is to be in place, responsive to the needs, interests
and abilities of gifted students” (California State Board of Education, 2005). The
California Association for the Gifted further suggests that the primary purpose of
differentiation in a gifted program is to offer challenges for the gifted learner.
The term differentiation refers to adapting curriculum and instruction in
order to meet the academically diverse needs of students (Tomlinson, 1999).
Effective differentiation relies on teachers’ understanding of how to implement
curriculum and instruction in appropriate manners (VanTassel-Baska & Brown,
2007, p. 342). Curriculum and instruction, Tomlinson et al. (2009) posit, should be
aligned with a student’s readiness level and student interest and be presented
through an effective mode of learning for all learners. Curriculum can be generally

43

defined as the content that a teacher or school plans to teach; it is “what” students
are expected to learn (Rogers, 2002). Differentiated curriculum, Gallagher (2000)
contends, is the modification of the content, skills or learning environment from the
basic curriculum. Subsequently, “how” curriculum is taught refers to instruction,
including delivery and process modifications (Rogers, 2002). Differentiation of
instruction, Tomlinson (2001) asserts, entails focusing attention on challenging the
needs of an individual or a group of students, rather than the more typical pattern of
delivering instruction as though all students in the classroom have the same abilities
and interests. The academic environment encountered in school settings offers
specific types of learning experiences, and “when the environment is properly
modified, greater opportunities are afforded to its inhabitants” (Maker & Nielson,
1995a, p. 23).
Differentiated Curriculum
Although most teachers aim to meet the needs and cultivate the potential of
students within their classrooms, they must not overlook the needs of their gifted
students. If gifted students possess sufficient differences (i.e., learning and thinking
styles, intellectual and social needs, motivational traits, and/or creativity) compared
to that of their same-age peers, thereby warranting program identification, then “the
curriculum must be built around the characteristics that make the program
necessary” (Maker & Nielson, 1995a, p. 7). But, according to Renzulli (1994), the
common source driving curriculum development is textbook content. Appropriate
education for gifted students should align curriculum with their advanced

44

intellectual needs and capabilities. As Matthews and Foster (2005) state, “the best
programs for gifted learners differentiate for them by providing a flexible range of
educational options” (p. 108).
The significance of gifted education is dependent upon an appropriate
curriculum specifically designed to meet the needs of the gifted learner. One of the
primary objectives of gifted education programs is to “go beyond memory,
knowledge and understanding of facts” (Maker & Nielson, 1995a, p. 38). Tomlinson
and Eidson (2003) state that an essential principle of a differentiated classroom is to
“ensure that curriculum is coherent, important, inviting and thoughtful” (p. 13).
Since gifted students typically perform above the norm, they must be given the
opportunity and academic support to maximize their capabilities. Kaplan (2007)
asserts that differentiated curriculum aims to assist all students to meet common
ends, but permits gifted learners to “have a pathway appropriately aligned to their
potential” (p. 18). However, the components of an appropriately differentiated
curriculum for gifted learners are contingent upon varying concepts supported and
provided by researchers in the field of gifted education.
Enhanced learning opportunities for the gifted can be provided through
numerous avenues. Gifted students, themselves, are a heterogeneous group of
learners. Numerous perspectives exist related to what constitutes appropriate
learning opportunities for gifted students. Strip and Hirsch (2000) argue that a
differentiated curriculum should meet students’ developmental and academic
readiness through independent learning, problem solving, open-ended tasks and

45

higher-level thinking. Tieso (2003) suggests that a differentiated curriculum for
gifted students should include the enhancement of existing units of study by
reorganizing and intensifying content, as well as by the connection of a unit to other
disciplines of study.
Van Tassel-Baska (1994) states that three somewhat distinct curriculum
models have proven to be successful with gifted learners – concept, content-mastery
and process. Organizing curriculum through a conceptual approach aligns with
differentiating the methods in which information can be appropriately modified for
gifted learners. Differentiation through the epistemological concept model refers to
meaning-based exploration of key concepts in which curriculum is organized by
themes and ideas (Maker & Nielson, 1995a). This perspective aligns with Taba’s
(1962) seminal work, Curriculum and Practice, which highlights the different
categories of knowledge; e.g., fact, concept, principle, skill, attitude, problem
solving, transfer and application (Tomlinson et al., 2002). Correspondingly, Bruner
(1960) asserts that the transfer of learning and understanding of abstract concepts
and generalizations can be fostered when curriculum is organized around key
concepts or ideas. However, the contemporary work of Erickson (2002) cautions
that “curriculum structures still reflect narrow designs that anchor thinking in
shallow waters” (p. 158). Erickson posits that student performance will decline to a
level of mere topics and facts if curricular designs are not reframed to foster
conceptual understandings, thus supporting deeper and complex thinking. In support
of this premise, the California Department of Education (1994) asserts that the core

46

curriculum of the State’s frameworks fosters a variety of complex thinking
processes through a “content-rich” curriculum that engages learners with concepts,
principles and themes that define the disciplines.
Van Tassel-Baska (1994) further asserts that curriculum can be
differentiated for gifted learners through a content-mastery approach, which can be
achieved by rapid movement through content. Maker and Nielson (1995b) contend
that for gifted learners the assimilation and accommodation tasks and the frequency
of the rotation between these tasks must differ from the norm. The accelerated pace
of instruction involves speeding up the rate of presentation of information in order
to match the significantly faster learning rate of intellectually gifted students
(Rogers, 2002). The strengths of this approach, as posited by Maker and Nielson
(1995a), are evidenced through quick mastery of content, assessment of proficiency
and continuous student progress. However, these researchers also identify
disadvantages, such as a ceiling on how far content can be advanced, along with
unanswered questions about the constancy of learned information, a high level of
stress often experienced by gifted students and the limitations of a prescribed
curriculum (Maker & Nielson, 1995a). Finally, Van Tassel-Baska (1994) posits that
curriculum for gifted learners be differentiated through the process model. Process
refers to the mind’s intellectual procedures, such as problem solving, creative
thinking, critical thinking, reasoning, analyzing and evaluating. Differentiation
through this manner emphasizes research and information processing skills and
views learners as investigators of problems (Maker and Nielson, 1995b). Proponents

47

of the process model favor an integration of content and process and contend that
the integration be pertinent to the needs and interests of gifted students (Maker &
Nielson, 1995a). This curricular approach aligns with Renzullli’s (1977) Enrichment
Triad Model in which students seek to identify and solve problems which can be
specifically differentiated for gifted learners by implementing process modifications
through higher levels of thinking, open-endedness and discovery (Renzulli, 1977;
Renzulli & Reis, 1985).
Differentiated Instruction
While curriculum informs educators on what to teach, instruction informs
educators on how to teach. How teaching is conducted has a significant impact on
students’ abilities to educate themselves on the learning process (Joyce, Weil &
Calhoun, 2009). Differentiating instruction refers to a perspective of teaching with
the goals of “honoring each student’s learning needs and maximizing each student’s
learning capacity” (Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003, p. 3). Moore (2005) defines
differentiated instruction as a teaching theory based upon the premise that
instructional approaches should vary and be modified in relation to diverse student
needs in the classroom. The purpose of differentiating instruction, Lemlech (2006)
contends, is to “provide equal access to developmentally appropriate learning
experiences through multiple pathways to a common goal” (p. 35). Moreover,
Tomlinson (2000) asserts that differentiated instruction suggests the manner in
which educators can make curriculum “work best” for all learners with varying
needs.

48

In its recommended Standards for Gifted and Talented Programs (2001), the
California Department of Education contends that districts develop differentiated
“instructional models and strategies that are aligned with and extend state academic
content standards and curriculum frameworks” (p. 4). However, research indicates
that gifted students frequently tolerate boredom and/or lack of challenge throughout
their school experiences, often leading to feelings of intellectual isolation (Delisle,
2004; Feldhusen & Kroll, 1991). Moore (2005) posits that instruction is not
differentiated when “assignments are the same for all learners and the adjustments
consist of varying the level of difficulty of questions for certain students, grading
some students harder than others, or letting students who finish early play games for
enrichment” (p. 63). Consequently, many in the field of gifted education are
concerned by the lack of intellectually-stimulating instruction and by the thought
that many gifted students are simply “marking time” in school (Burden & Byrd,
2007).
Lemlech (2006) states that instruction may be differentiated through
modifying the process, or instructional means, by changing the model of teaching
and assisting students in constructing meaning in a variety of manners utilizing
varied skills. Employing models of teaching as a means to differentiate instruction
facilitates an integration of content and thinking processes. Maker and Nielson
(1995b) assert that many models of teaching modify process due to their emphasis
on “higher levels of thinking and on development of creative or divergent thought
processes” (p. 19). Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009) argue that using models of

49

teaching to deliver content provides learners with a means to master specific
learning processes that will increase the learners’ ability to learn more readily and
effectively in the future (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009). Moreover, Tomlinson et al.
(2002) posit that analytical, critical and creative thinking skills require students to
“do something” with new information – to recognize it and manage it intellectually.
In other words, it is essential that students have the opportunity to process and apply
skills in order to effectively transfer the process of learning to novel situations. This,
as argued by many educational researchers, can be accomplished through the
models of teaching.
Models of Teaching
Dewey (1929) asserts that learning is a result of a student’s interaction with
an environment. “A model of teaching is a description of a learning environment”
(Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009, p. 24). Maker and Neilson (1995b) define teaching
models as structural frameworks that provide guidelines for creating specific
learning activities and environments. Eggen and Kauchak (2006) describe models of
instruction as explicit approaches to teaching that have the following specific
characteristics:
1. Intended to aid students in acquiring a thorough understanding of content
matter while using critical thinking skills.
2. Characterized by a specific syntax that helps learners reach objectives.
3. Aligned with learning theory.
4. Supported by theories of motivation.

50

Furthermore, Maker and Nielson (1995b) posit that teaching-learning models share
and possess the following specific distinguishing features:
1. Identified purpose or area of concentration.
2. Underlying explicit and implicit assumptions regarding the characteristics of
learners and the teaching-learning process.
3. Guidelines for developing specific day-to-day learning experiences.
4. Definite patterns and requirements for learning activities.
5. Body of research surrounding development or evaluation of
effectiveness (p. 1).
A variety of instructional models exists that exhibit the above features. Additionally,
Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009) assert that models of teaching posses a sound
theoretical foundation, have been practiced over time, can be adjusted to learning
styles of students – as well as curriculum – and are supported by research that
confirms the capacity to achieve learning.
According to Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009), how teaching is conducted
has a significant impact on students’ abilities to educate themselves on the learning
process, and the models of teaching provide students with specific models for
learning. When educators utilize a model of teaching with students, they not only
assist them in understanding content, but they teach students the processes of
thinking and learning. This theory of learning is supported by Piaget’s (1929) idea
that children develop increasingly sophisticated and integrated schemes over time.
As previously mentioned, schemes are a collection of related actions or thoughts

51

that are used repetitively in response to settings in order to foster the development of
increasingly complex and logical thought processes (Ormrod, 2006). Additionally,
Taba (1963) contends that when a learner has developed an organizing scheme for
his own cognitive processes and is aware of the relationship of the learning task to a
particular experience, then “he is in a position to continue these processes on his
own” (p. 313), thus facilitating a transfer of learning.
The models of teaching present students with varied types of learning
environments (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009), while offering a critical and complex
means of learning (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006). Diamond’s (2001) research on the
brain indicates “there are measurable benefits to enriching an individual’s
environment” (p. 14). Specifically, Diamond found that the cerebral cortex, the area
associated with higher cognitive functioning, is more receptive than other parts of
the brain to environmental enrichment and can be significantly shaped by
experiences. Furthermore, learning through the models of teaching can be supported
by Sternberg’s (1985) perspective on the three types of intelligence – componential,
experiential and contextual. Componential intelligence identifies the mental
components in analytic thinking; experiential intelligence relates to how individuals
confront new situations; and contextual intelligence refers to the environment in
which intelligence functions (Dembo, 1994). According to Sternberg (1985),
ideally, all three types of intelligence are used in conjunction. The models of
teaching provide a means for students to practice and use Sternberg’s defined types
of intelligence. They foster componential intelligence through organizing and

52

applying new learning (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006; Maker & Nielson, 1995b) and
promote experiential and contextual intelligence through the transfer of the process
of learning to novel situations (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009).
Models of teaching facilitate cognition related to thinking, problem-solving
and intellectual development (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006). Using models of
instruction to teach content will provide a learner with an avenue to master specific
learning processes, in addition to increasing his or her ability to learn more readily
and effectively in the future (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009). The models of teaching
enhance critical thinking and allow students to gain increased control over both
content and the learning process (McBride, Gabbard & Miller, 1990). In order to
develop into consciously powerful and independent thinkers, students must be
provided with a systematic model that will offer engagement in learning both
content and process (Pritchard, 1994). The models offer this systematic approach for
learning how to learn. Additionally, the models of teaching present students with a
diversity of learning environments that are responsive to varying needs and learning
styles (Ellis, 1997).
Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009) have classified many of the models into
four families based upon common perspectives regarding teaching and learning –
information-processing, social, personal and behavioral systems. The information-
processing models facilitate a student’s ability to gain and organize information,
identify problems and enhance concepts while acquiring the vocabulary and
language to effectively convey them. The social models of teaching concentrate on

53

forming learning communities and cooperative relationships in the classroom. These
models help to develop valuable methods of interaction and norms that promote
academic rigor. The personal models seek to organize learning so students develop a
better understanding of self and their responsibility for their own education. The
behavioral systems models focus on adjusting behavior in response to feedback
and/or evaluation. Although many different models of teaching are associated with
each of the families, this review of literature will focus specifically on five teaching
models – direct instruction, advance organizer, group investigation, concept
attainment and independent study.
Direct Instruction
In order to promote a deep understanding of content, it is essential that
educators have the capability to select and utilize strategies that are most effective
for different learning objectives (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006). Educational decisions
should be based on evidence regarding effective classroom strategies, as well as on
theoretical understandings of how children learn (Ormrod, 2008). Research during
the 1970’s and early 1980’s indicated that use of a structured curriculum, with direct
or active involvement by the teacher, resulted in increased learning in comparison to
students taught through more individualized or discovery learning methods
(Lemlech, 2006; Rosenshine, 1983). Grounded in the behavioral family of learning
(Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009), this type of instruction is referred to as direct
instruction or explicit instruction. The direct instruction model of teaching
originates from (1) the research and theory of teacher effectiveness; (2) Bandura’s

54

(1989) social cognitive theory with an emphasis on modeling for the acquisition of
behaviors; and (3) Vygotsky’s (1978) perspective of the effect of social interaction
on learning (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006).
Direct instruction is exemplified by large-group instruction, teacher
direction, frequency of practice and academic focus of the lesson (Lemlech, 2006).
Similarly, Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009) identify the features of the model as
possessing an academic focus; a high degree of teacher control; a high expectation
for student progress; a system of time management; and an atmosphere with a fairly
neutral effect. Eggen and Kauchak (2006) state that the direct instruction model
“uses teacher explanation and modeling combined with student practice and
feedback to reach concepts and procedural skills” (p. 292). The purpose of this
model, Ormrod (2006) contends, is to acquire a well-defined body of knowledge
and skills and should be used when students require substantial guidance and
practice in order to learn successfully. Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009) assert the
primary goals of direct instruction are to maximize student learning time and the
facilitation of independence in learning. Utilization of the direct instruction model
of teaching necessitates defined roles for both the teacher and student. Joyce, Weil
and Calhoun (2009) state that it demonstrates a:
pattern of teaching that consists of the teacher’s explaining a new concept or
skill to students, having them test their understandings by practicing under
teacher direction (that is, controlled practice), and encouraging them to
continue to practice under teacher guidance (guided practice). (p. 369)
As mentioned previously, this model is built upon research of teacher effectiveness.
Rosenshine (1979) contends that employing this model requires that the teacher

55

control instructional objectives, student resources and the pace of instruction. Due to
the model’s strong reliance on teacher-directed behavior, student success in learning
new content is significantly influenced by the “thoroughness and quality” of a
teacher’s presentation and teacher-led practice (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009,
p. 369).
In conjunction with research on teacher effectiveness, the development of
the direct instruction model was further influenced by Bandura’s social cognitive
theory, as well as Vygotsky’s emphasis on learning through a social means. Social
cognitive learning theory proposes that learning occurs from observing the
behaviors of another person (Ormrod, 2006). “The direct instruction model
incorporates the benefits of modeling by having teachers demonstrate (model) the
steps involved in learning a skill or the thinking involved in classifying examples of
concepts” (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006, p. 293). Proponents of social cognitive theory
suggest that learning through observation assists students in quickly attaining new
behaviors through demonstration or modeling (Ormrod, 2006). Additionally, Eggen
and Kauchak (2006) suggest that a majority of the efficacy of the direct instruction
model is dependent on the interaction between teacher and student. Aligned with
Vygotsky’s (1978) perspective on the effectiveness of scaffolding and learning
within one’s zone of proximal development (Ormrod, 2006), instructional support
from teachers is necessary to assist student learning.
Direct instruction is, as the name suggests, a “direct” method for teaching
skills and/or concepts. According to Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009), the model is

56

composed of five phases of activity – orientation, presentation, structured practice,
guided practice and independent practice. Orientation involves the statement of the
learning objective and the connection of prior learning or existing knowledge to the
new content (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009; Lemlech, 2006). Eggen and Kauchak
(2006) state that “prior knowledge provides hooks for new learning, allowing
students to connect new information to what they already understand” (p. 296).
During the presentation of the lesson, the teacher explains the new concept or skill
while providing demonstrations and examples (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009).
Lemlech (2006) emphasizes the importance of the teacher explicitly modeling new
content through the use of concrete objects and/or illustrations and verifying student
understanding by posing clarification questions. Joyce, Weil and Calhoun state that
the structured practice involves the teacher clearly leading students through
examples. During structured practice, Lemlech (2006) contends, it is “essential that
the teacher ask specific factual questions and elicit student response” (p. 88). The
next step in the model’s syntax is guided practice. Guided practice permits students
to practice the skill or concept with teacher support (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009;
Lemlech, 2006). It is in this step of the model that roles begin to change. Eggen and
Kauchak (2006) assert that the teacher’s role changes from information provider and
model to that of coach, and the students shift from receiver of information to
assessing understanding through additional practice. When the teacher evaluates and
determines that students are ready to work independently, the final practice –
independent practice – occurs. During this time, students work independently

57

through application of new knowledge and skills. Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009)
state, “the purpose of independent practice is to reinforce the new learning to ensure
retention as well as to develop fluency” (p. 373).
Direct instruction offers a traditional approach to learning through
behavioral means. Rosenshine (1985) suggests that instruction may be differentiated
to meet the varied needs of students; e.g., increased or reduced reviews and practice.
Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009) assert that the design of the model is intended to
“generate and sustain motivation through pacing and reinforcement” (p. 374).
However, Lemlech (2006) argues that this model may not be appropriate for all
types of learners. A student who exhibits a self-directed style of learning can
become frustrated during direct instruction. Lemlech further contends that “high-
achieving, task-oriented students appear to do worse in direct instruction,” whereas
lower-ability students appear to benefit from the structured environment provided
by the model (p. 88-89). Thus, it is essential for teachers to consider the needs of the
learners within a classroom when deciding upon instructional delivery.
Advance Organizer
In contrast to the distinct and specific skills demonstrated and taught through
the direct instruction model, the advance organizer promotes the idea of learning
that is organized through abstract concepts and generalized ideas. Educational
psychologist, David Ausubel, emphasized the importance of organized information
in long-term memory to assist further learning in his book, The Psychology of
Meaningful Verbal Learning (1963). Ausubel believed meaningful verbal learning

58

occurs when the ideas in a new schema are linked to each other and to earlier
established schemas. In other words, learning becomes meaningful when new ideas
are connected to prior experiences and/or knowledge. Additionally, Ausubel further
asserted that the following three aspects specifically influence meaningful verbal
learning: (1) how curriculum content is organized; (2) how the mind processes new
information; and (3) how teachers apply the above ideas when presenting new
content to students (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009). Ausubel’s interest and research
of meaningful and efficient learning led to the development of the advance
organizer model of teaching.
The purpose of the advance organizer model is to improve students’
cognitive structures; that is, student understanding of content and how that
knowledge is structured and organized (Ausubel, 1963). Ormrod (2006) defines an
advance organizer as a verbal or graphic introduction that presents the general
organizational framework of the content and assists students in organizing and
interrelating learned information. Correspondingly, Eggen and Kauchak (2006)
identify advance organizers as verbal or written statements presented at the
beginning of a lesson which serves to both preview and structure new material while
connecting it to existing schemas. Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009) posit that the
major concepts and/or propositions of a discipline or area of study should provide
the foundation for the organizer. In essence, advance organizers structure learning
and permit students to perceive new content “in advance,” while considering its
relationship to what they already know.

59

According to Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009), the above model of teaching
belongs to the information-processing family. Ausubel posited that one’s mind is
similar to an information processing system – “a hierarchically organized set of
ideas that provides anchors for information and ideas and serves as a storehouse for
them” (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009, p. 251-252). This system of information
experiences continuous motion as new learning occurs and accommodations within
the system transpire. Lemlech (2006) states that in order to facilitate students’
processing skills, it is necessary for the teacher to plan the lesson, present the
organizer and confirm that students comprehend the structure of the lesson. To
fulfill the model’s objective, it is essential for the teacher to organize and present
lessons in a manner that provides students with “ideational anchors” to already
available concepts (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009, p. 252).
Using Ausubel’s perspectives on learning, Joyce and Weil (1996) developed
the syntax for the advance organizer model of teaching (Lemlech, 2006). This
model consists of three phases of activity – the presentation of the advance
organizer, the presentation of the learning task and the strengthening of cognitive
organization (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009). The presentation of the organizer
includes stating the objectives of the lesson, presenting the organizer and
encouraging awareness of related prior knowledge. According to Joyce, Weil and
Calhoun (2009), “the chief feature of an organizer is thus that it is at a higher level
of abstraction and generality than the learning material itself. This higher level of
abstraction is what distinguishes organizers from introductory overviews” (p. 257).

60

Following this first step, Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009) assert that the presentation
of the learning task occurs in the form of lectures, collaborative discussions, audio-
visuals, experiments or texts. Additionally, they contend:
The organization of the learning material needs to be made explicit for the
students so that they have an overall sense of direction and can see the
logical order of the material and how the organization relates to the advance
organizer. (p. 257)
The final step of the advance organizer model involves strengthening students’
cognitive organizations. With the goal of “anchoring new material in the students’
existing cognitive structures,” Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009) posit that the
activities employed during this phase of learning seek to promote: (1) integrative
reconciliation; (2) active reception learning; (3) critical approach to content; and
(4) clarification (p. 257). Lemlech (2006) suggests that the teacher initiate
interactive dialogue among students and encourages self-monitoring of learning
through questions and clarification.
It is clear, despite its structure, that this model focuses on the active role of
student as learner. The advance organizer model of teaching facilitates the effective
attainment of new knowledge and increases students’ capabilities for future learning
by teaching students how to think and make learning meaningful. However, Dembo
(1994) posits that utilizing advance organizers to teach content does not always
result in increased learning. He states, “they appear to be most useful when the
information is poorly organized or when the learners lack prerequisite knowledge or
abilities” (p. 121). Conversely, Lawton’s (1977) research on developing thinking
abilities indicates that the use of an “intellectual structure,” such as those espoused

61

by the advance organizer model, augments the likelihood that students will learn
those structures and the related thinking processes associated with them, and that
they will retain an increased amount of information. These findings align with
Ausubel’s intention for creating the model to facilitate meaningful and efficient
learning of content.
Group Investigation
The sharing of ideas and construction of knowledge is a central tenet to the
group investigation model of teaching. Learning through group investigation can be
conceptualized as “a dynamic, reciprocal process embedded in social, cultural,
physical and psychological environments” (Maker & Nielson, 1995b, p. 199). This
model aims to integrate the structure and dynamics of the democratic process with
the method of academic inquiry (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009). The intent of the
model parallels Dewey’s (1938) perspective that intellectual development is
fostered through active learning, and inquiry is fostered through social participation.
Additionally, group investigation’s strong emphasis on social interaction and
collaboration to develop personal meaning aligns with Vygotsky’s (1978) socio-
cultural theory that highlights the significant role of social interaction and language.
This social theory is particularly crucial in the learning of students from diverse
backgrounds (Au, 1998, 2006; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Furthermore, Sharan and
Sharan (1976) place emphasis on the model’s opportunities for complex cooperative
learning, enhanced self-efficacy and respect for students’ unique abilities. Thelen
(1960) asserts that this inquiry model of teaching aims to foster the development of

62

a classroom democracy in which students address problems, construct knowledge
and become progressively effective as a social group.
Inquiry learning promotes student investigation of a problem with an
emphasis on the process. Thelen (1960) states, “the heart of the method of group
investigation is to arrange things in such a way that the students have the experience
of creating a group dedicated to the furtherance of inquiry” (p. 147). Furthermore,
Thelen contends that learning through the group investigation model allows students
to assume the roles of inquirers to develop, test and reflect on ideas. In alignment
with the tenets of inquiry learning, Moore (2005) asserts that the success of learning
through this means is not contingent upon attainment of a pre-determined
conclusion, but instead depends on the opportunities provided for students to apply
themselves and develop their own conclusions. Learning through inquiry is
important, Lemlech (2006) argues, because it allows students to become immersed
in the discovery of concepts, testing beliefs and organizing new knowledge.
Additionally, Maker and Nielson (1995b) assert that when students utilize the
processes of inquiry they are actively constructing ideas and knowledge, which
parallels the work of practitioners in a discipline.
The models of teaching belonging to the social family, as put forth by Joyce,
Weil and Calhoun (2009), emphasize human beings’ social nature – how it is
learned and how social interaction can enhance academic learning. Thus, the models
combine and seek to develop social behavior and academic or intellectual skills.

63

Thelen (1960) asserts that the development of knowledge is a result of participation
in the social order:
The great bulk of knowledge transmitted in schools is legitimized by the
assumption that people must and do participate (whether or not they know or
like it) in the social order; and they have no choice about this. Motivation for
classroom learning should be high when the learner perceives that the
restrictions and freedoms in the group are determined by his own state of
knowledge and skill. One would expect motivation to be greatest when
“rules” and “learnings” reinforce one another and when increased autonomy
can be earned through the gaining of skill, sophistication, intellectual
penetration, or other facets of competence. (p. 80-81)
A type of social order or classroom culture is created by the combination and
interaction of teacher and students. Working within this supposition, Thelen
contends, the teacher influences the emerging social order toward inquiring when
students assume the role of investigator. Thus, through the use of group
investigation, students in a class form a type of democracy that confronts problems
and acquires knowledge, while becoming an efficient and effective social group
(Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009).
The group investigation model of teaching permits students to assume the
role of inquirers as they work together to identify a problem for study and,
subsequently, to collaborate to develop conclusions. According to Joyce, Weil and
Calhoun (2009), this model is composed of six phases of learning: (1) encounter
with puzzling situation; (2) exploration of reactions to the situation; (3) formulation
of study task and organizer for study (problem definition, role, assignments, etc.);
(4) independent and group study; (5) analysis of progress and process and
(6) recycle activity. The problem or puzzlement is the primary source for student
inquiry and, to create this, students must add an awareness of self and a desire for

64

personal meaning (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009). Lemlech (2006) advises choosing
a problem that is relevant and appropriate to students’ developmental level in order
to initiate student interest to fulfill their role as inquirers. The fifth phase of the
model asks students to report findings in order to disseminate information and assist
students’ presentation skills. This phase of learning allows students to increase
competence and autonomy; they are encouraged to “go beyond the information
itself” and consider the audience to create a presentation that is informative and
interesting (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006, p. 114). During the final phase of the model,
students reflect on the learning process and evaluate its conclusion in relation to its
original purpose, with the cycle repeating itself with either a new problem or a
problem that resulted from the previous investigation (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun,
2009).
This type of learning incorporates various thinking skills and processes in
that “students collect data from a variety of sources, communicate with each other,
discuss the implications of their data in terms of group goals, clarify ideas, and
negotiate meaning” (Maker & Nielson, 1995b, p. 209). Research by Sharan and
Hertz-Lazarowitz (1980) indicates that the greater social complexity initiated by this
model resulted in increased achievement of more complex learning goals, as well as
increased learning of information and basic skills. Additionally, Hertz-Lazarowitz,
Sharan and Steinberg (1980) found that “behavior patterns established through
cooperative learning experiences were found to transfer and operate in contexts and
situations other than those found in classrooms” (p. 222). Group investigation

65

assists students in developing research skills, responding to open-ended tasks,
creating new ideas, constructing products that challenge existing perspectives and
participating in socially constructed projects (Maker & Nielson, 1995b). Through
this model of teaching, students not only gain knowledge of content, but begin to
understand themselves as inquirers who create and guide their own efforts to learn
(Thelen, 1960).
Concept Attainment
Similar to the group investigation model of teaching, concept attainment
provides an opportunity for open-ended thinking and organization of data. A
concept is a mental grouping or categorization of objects or events that share
common characteristics (Ormrod, 2006). Erickson (2002) defines a concept as an
organizing idea or mental construct that is timeless, universal, abstract and broad,
represented by one or two words and whose examples share common attributes.
Eggen and Kauchak (2006) suggest that concepts help simplify our world by
permitting thought in terms of categories. When teaching, Kitano and Kirby (1986)
propose that the primary purpose of exposing students to concept development is to
assist learners in developing and clarifying key concepts that are essential to
subsequent formulations of generalizations. Erickson (2002) contends that when
designing curriculum and instruction, it is important to “ensure that students develop
an increasing fund of critical content knowledge and conceptual understanding”
(p. 47). Moreover, Erickson posits that a conceptual focus contributes to

66

interdisciplinary learning so that schools are able to attain higher-level curricular
and cognitive integration.
The idea of organizing content through basic concepts and ideas originates
from the work of Bruner (1960) and Taba (1962) (Maker & Nielson, 1995b). Taba
supported the idea of developing thinking skills to ensure cognitive growth and
disagreed with the common assumption that students must first accumulate factual
knowledge prior to beginning to think about this knowledge (Maker & Nielson,
1995b). Additionally, Bruner (1966) examined the manners in which individuals
categorize, form and gain concepts. These educators concluded that the concept
attainment model of teaching offers a system for educators to guide and assist
students in their ability to effectively develop conceptual understandings.
Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009) include the concept attainment model of
teaching as part of the information-processing family of models. These researchers
assert that the models in this family seek to help individuals improve the manner in
which information is processed. Eggen and Kauchak (2006) contend that the
primary objective of this model is to develop critical thinking that assists students in
applying the scientific method (e.g., make observations, form hypotheses, gather
data to test hypotheses, modify or form new hypothesis, gather additional data and
assess hypotheses to form final conclusions) to any discipline area. Maker and
Nielson (1995b) propose that the concept attainment model assists in the
development of openness and flexibility in thinking and improved processes for

67

developing and organizing data. Students can generalize this learning to new or
novel situations.
Concept attainment is based on the perspective of cognitive psychologists
that one of the most effective means to learn a concept is by observing examples of
it (Lemlech, 2006; Moore, 2005). It relates to the investigation and listing of
attributes used to distinguish exemplars from non-exemplars in varying categories
(Bruner, Goodnow & Austin, 1967). This model facilitates students’ abilities to
develop concepts, while providing practice with critical thinking by forming and
testing hypotheses (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006). Concept development, Maker and
Nielson (1995b) argue, is believed to be the foundation for cognition on which all
other processes depend.
According to Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009), the concept attainment model
of teaching is composed of three phases: (1) presentation of data and identification
of the concept; (2) testing attainment of the concept; (3) analysis of thinking
strategies. Phase one involves the presentation of examples and non-examples,
student comparison of attributes, development of hypotheses and identification of a
definition according to the presented attributes (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009;
Lemlech, 2006). The determined definition or description of the concept, however,
will not be confirmed during this phase. The second phase of the model asks
students to categorize unlabeled examples. The teacher confirms student hypotheses
and that students are able to generate their own examples of the concept (Joyce,
Weil & Calhoun, 2009; Lemlech 2006). Lastly, students have the opportunity for

68

metacognition and reflection. During this third and final stage of learning, students
begin to analyze their employed strategy for attaining the concept and, with
increased exposure to this model over time, begin to compare the effectiveness of
different strategies (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009).
The above strategy for learning “provides a sequential method for helping
children use the observable data in their own experience as a starting point for
developing their own conclusions and generalizations” (Maker & Nielson, 1995b, p.
239). When utilizing this model, Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009) assert that
educators should direct students’ attention to concept analysis and thinking
strategies and should encourage the merits of employing varying thinking strategies,
as opposed to promoting one superior strategy. Promoting metacognition is an
important aspect of this model. Eggen and Kauchak (2006) assert that encouraging
students to reflect on their own thinking assists them in recognizing that their
thinking processes have value beyond the classroom. Furthermore, Joyce, Weil and
Calhoun (2009) claim that the strategies inherent in the concept attainment model
“nurture an awareness of alternative perspectives, a sensitivity to logical reasoning
in communication and a tolerance of ambiguity” (p. 122).
Independent Study
A primary goal of education is to develop autonomous learners. Betts (1996)
posits that instruction should focus on developing a student’s ability as a learner,
rather than merely serving the role of student. An autonomous learner is defined as
an individual who possesses the capability to develop, implement and evaluate his

69

or her own learning (Betts, 1985). Independent study is based upon the need to
personalize learning and assist students in becoming autonomous learners. A pure
form of self-directed learning, Moore (2005) defines independent study as an
educational activity that is conducted by an individual with little or no guidance.
Similarly, Coleman (1985) suggests that independent study involves the learner
pursing a topic of interest under appropriate, but minimal, supervision and
emphasizes the joint responsibility of both teacher and student. The amount of
teacher involvement, Maker and Nielson (1995a) contend, is dependent upon
students’ familiarity with the process of learning and their ability to access relevant
resources, rather than on the topic itself.
Kaplan and Gould (2002) assert that learning through independent study
fosters development of learning-to-learn skills, while mirroring how individuals
pursue interests and knowledge in the world. Correspondingly, Reis and Schack
(1993) stress the importance of teaching students how professionals learn to work in
specific disciplines and how this process will foster the development of students
becoming independent investigators (Maker & Nielson, 1995a). Kaplan and Gould
(2002) argue that independent study should be a viable part of every student’s
education because it seeks to: (1) develop independence and responsibility;
(2) master research skills; (3) provide students the ability to perceive their own
learning behaviors; and (4) offer an alternative instructional means to teach content.
It is important for educators to invest the time to effectively develop
students’ skills in the discovery of areas of true interest (Renzulli, 1977).

70

Independent study provides students the opportunity to conduct an in-depth
examination of a topic of interest while focusing on the student’s specific needs
and/or learning style (Strip & Hirsch, 2000). Kaplan and Gould (2002) assert that
utilizing independent study permits students to pursue a topic of interest while
becoming proficient in thinking, research and learning-to-learn skills. Also,
according to Kaplan and Gould (2002), students navigate through six steps of
learning when conducting an independent study.
The steps of learning when conducting an independent study are:
1. Select a topic of study.
2. Define a set of questions or areas of interest that will prompt study of the
selected topic.
3. Collect varied resources to answer questions and extend comprehension of
selected topic.
4. Gather and organize information to summarize findings.
5. Present findings in a cogent manner.
6. Assess learning and performance through the independent study experience.
Independent study is an instructional model that can benefit all learners in
developing research and learning-to-learn skills while pursuing a topic of interest.
Many researchers in the field of gifted education argue that this form of learning is
imperative for gifted students. In his seminal research, Torrance (1965) states, “One
of the most promising curriculum frontiers for educating gifted children is self-
initiated learning” (p. 41). Maker and Nielson (1995a) contend that, because of their

71

unique characteristics, gifted students “need freedom to choose topics to study,
methods to use in the process of manipulating and transforming information, the
type of products to create and the context of the learning environment in which to
pursue their studies” (p. 120). They argue that modifying instruction through the use
of independent study fosters gifted students’ success to other learning environments
and provides a means to build upon interests and motivation (Maker & Nielson,
1995a). Renzulli (1977) further posits that the primary objectives for guiding the
appropriate education of the gifted is to assist students in (1) structuring realistic
problems aligned with student interests; (2) acquiring necessary methodological
resources and investigative skills; and (3) identifying outlets for student products.
However, Maker and Nielson (1995a) caution that although many gifted learners
exhibit characteristics necessary for a self-directed approach to learning, “these
students still lack the experience to manage complete freedom without preparation”
(p. 124). Thus, it is essential to assist students in developing the capability to
structure and direct their own learning experiences so they are equipped with the
knowledge and skills to become autonomous learners.
Relationship Between Models of Teaching and Independent Study
The models of teaching are essentially models for learning (Joyce, Weil &
Calhoun, 2009). In other words, the models aim to equip students with the
knowledge of learning-to-learn. The varied learning processes presented through the
models of teaching enhance students’ capabilities to successfully conduct
independent learning experiences (Joyce, 1985; McBride, Gabbard & Miller, 1990).

72

As such, learning with the models presents students with the knowledge of how to
apply the learning process when engaged in self-directed study, such as an
independent study. Figure 2.1 illustrates the specific syntactical connections
between the models of teaching and independent study.
Figure 2.1: Syntactical Relationship between Models of Teaching and
Independent Study

SYNTAX
Independent Study

I. Select a
topic of
study.
II. Define a
set of
questions/
areas of
interest to
prompt
study of the
topic.
III. Collect
varied
resources to
answer
questions/
extend
comprehension
of topic.

IV. Gather and
organize
information to
summarize
findings.

V. Present
findings in a
cogent manner.
VI. Assess
learning and
performance
through the
independent
study
experience.
Model
Group
Investigation

Exploration
of reactions
to a
situation.

Formulation of
study task and
organizer for
study.
Study/research. Report findings
to disseminate
information.
Reflect on the
learning
process.
Advance
Organizer

Presentation
of abstract
idea to
stimulate
inquiry.
Investigation
of new
content.

Investigation
of new content.
Presentation of
the learning
task/organization
of learning
material.
Application
of organizer
to real-world.
Concept
Attainment
Comparison of
data.
Description of
concept.
Analysis of
thinking
strategies.

Direct
Instruction
Application of
skill/
Independent
Practice.
Check for
understanding
of
skill/strategy.

73

The information in Figure 2.1 demonstrates connections between the syntax
offered by varied models of teaching and the independent study process. The entries
provide evidence of the relationship between the models of teaching and the process
of independent study. For example, when students explore personal reactions, in the
form of self-defined questions, to a particular situation through the group
investigation model, they are honing the skills of observation and developing
research questions, similar to those expected in an independent study. These skills
can then be transferred to the act of defining a set of questions as it relates to
independent study. However, the entries within the table suggest that certain models
of teaching, such as group investigation and advance organizer, more readily
connect to the process of independent study when compared to the direct instruction
and concept attainment models. Nonetheless, it is evident that learning with the
above models of teaching have the potential to influence students’ abilities to
successfully conduct the process of self-initiated research, such as independent
study.
Metacognition
While independent study permits students to structure and direct their own
learning experiences, they must be equipped with the knowledge of how to think
about and reflect on their learning processes. “Thinking is the method of intelligent
learning, of learning that employs and rewards the mind” (Dewey, 1916, p. 147).
Students attend school to not only learn content, but to understand processes for
thinking and learning. Reflective thinking or reasoning, Dewey asserts, is a

74

necessary component of learning, and schools must strive to develop students’
ability to think. Metacognition relates to learners’ knowledge and perspectives
regarding their own cognitive processes, as well as their efforts to regulate their
cognitive processes to maximize learning (Ormrod, 2006). According to Dembo
(1994), metacognitive strategies assist learners in planning, monitoring and
regulating their own cognition. Learning how to think, Thelen (1960) posits, relates
to the methods and orientation of knowledge through which one grasps and
comprehends ideas and, subsequently, applies and extends one’s own autonomy and
direction of self as a thinker. Thus, if students understand and know how to learn,
they will develop into autonomous learners.
An individual may employ varying strategies when thinking about or
reflecting on the learning process. Dewey (1916) argues that to think effectively one
must have had experiences that will provide resources for future learning endeavors.
To begin developing the “tools” for learning, Dembo (1994) posits, “students must
change their perceptions of their role in learning from simply recording and
memorizing information to generating understanding of information” (p 140).
Ormrod (2006) contends that in order to be an effective learner, one must engage in
self-regulated learning behaviors such as planning, flexible use of learning
strategies, self-monitoring and self-evaluation. Similarly, Moore (2005) asserts that
metacognitive skills include examining one’s progress of learning, correcting errors,
analyzing the efficacy of learning strategies and modifying learning behaviors when
necessary.

75

The ability to transfer learning and confront novel situations in an efficient
manner has been cited as one of the hallmarks of giftedness (Sternberg & Davidson,
1986). A review of research on self-regulation and metacognition by Maker and
Nielson (1995b) illustrates that “designing activities that help gifted students
develop self-regulatory learning strategies is an effective and productive way to help
highly able students” (p. 21). Furthermore, research conducted by Alexander et al.
(1995) and Risemberg and Zimmerman (1992) indicates that the gifted learner is
more likely to employ a variety of both simple and complex strategies for learning
and to carry out those strategies in a more effective manner than their same-age
peers. Thus, Maker and Nielson (1995b) contend that gifted students need
interactive experiences to learn essential strategies for self-regulation.
Correspondingly, Gray (2004) asserts that providing novel and alternative
approaches to learning, while facilitating the development of metacognitive skills, is
the type of instruction needed by gifted learners and, at the same time, proves to be
beneficial to non-gifted learners.
Flexible thinking and appropriate application of prior knowledge are
essential to successfully function in today’s world (Hoh, 2008). Equipping students
with the knowledge of how to apply and transfer their learning to future academic
studies, as well as to the outside world, should be the primary objective for
classroom teachers at all grade levels (Ormrod, 2006). “As students become more
skilled at using metacognitive strategies, they gain confidence and become more
independent as learners” (Moore, 2005, p. 321). Therefore, teaching students in a

76

manner that facilitates the transfer of skills and learning strategies enables students
to become autonomous, life-long learners.
Gaps in Current Literature
Effective educators have the ability to offer pedagogy and research-based
practices that both engage students and facilitate learning (Cooper, 2007). The
models of teaching provide a specific type of learning environment for students that
is supported by formal research and grounded in learning theory (Joyce, Weil &
Calhoun, 2009). Facilitating learning through the models of teaching emphasizes a
deep understanding of content, while promoting an awareness of the thinking
process (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006). However, the review of literature provides
evidence reflecting a lack of research related to gifted students’ preferences for
specific models of teaching to learn specific content areas, as well as research
illustrating student abilities to recognize the procedural knowledge of the varied
models of teaching. The aforementioned research does provide evidence that gifted
students have the capability to self-regulate and transfer their learning (Alexander &
Schnick, 2008; Sternberg & Davidson, 1986,). Current literature, however, does not
specify how previous learning of the models of teaching transfers in a manner to
facilitate gifted students’ prescribing to and utilizing a self-selected topic of
independent study.

77

Conclusion
Appropriate learning opportunities for the gifted student have been the
source of much educational discourse in the field. Although the majority of research
on gifted education concurs that gifted learners require differentiated curriculum and
instruction, the perspectives on how to effectively differentiate vary. The models of
teaching provide a differentiated learning environment that can be adjusted to the
needs of students and the standards to be taught (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006; Joyce,
Weil & Calhoun, 2009). Additionally, the models of teaching assist students in
understanding the process of how to learn. Learning through the models of teaching
can enhance students’ skills, conceptual knowledge, cognitive structures, social
interactions and metacognitive skills.

78

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS

Overview

Learning is a direct effect of a student’s interaction with an environment
(Dewey, 1929). Instruction is contingent, in a large part, upon the decisions a
teacher makes in the classroom. It can have a significant role in facilitating active
learning for all students, including the gifted. Gifted students are a heterogeneous
group with varying needs and abilities, while concurrently sharing common
characteristics with non-gifted students. However, distinctive learning differences
exist between how gifted and non-gifted students learn. Gifted students often
possess accelerated and flexible thought processes, as well as an early ability to use
and form conceptual frameworks. They tend to exhibit differential patterns for
thought processing and, thus, require opportunities that allow them to analyze their
own learning processes (CAG, 2003). Understanding these characteristics, it is vital
that instruction for the gifted nurture and facilitate their development through a
manner aligned with their talents, capabilities and needs (Clark, 1997). The models
of teaching offer students particular types of learning environments that provide
systematic methods to achieve specific learning processes while learning content in
an advanced manner (Joyce, 1985; Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009).
Educational decisions should be based on evidence regarding effective
classroom strategies, as well as theoretical understandings of how children learn
(Lemlech, 2006; Ormrod, 2006). Successful educators have the capability to offer

79

pedagogy and research-based practices that both engage students and facilitate
learning (Cooper, 2007). Effective differentiation requires “knowledge of the
student, selection of the strategy for differentiation, and selection of the appropriate
instructional approach” (California Department of Education, 1994, p. 10). For the
gifted student, differentiation provides a medium for educators to instruct students at
a level commensurate with their potential (Kaplan, 2007). It has been determined
that differentiation for the gifted student involves acceleration of content and
increased depth, complexity and novelty of instruction (CAG, 2003). Differentiation
through this perspective can be achieved by delivering content within a model of
teaching, which facilitates a deep and complex understanding of content, while
providing students with varied strategies for learning how to learn (Joyce, 1985).
Student motivation for learning can be linked to the type of instruction
offered in the classroom (Ames, 1992). Due to their characteristics, gifted students
have particular learning needs for which curriculum and instruction should be
differentiated (Gallagher, 2003; VanTassel-Baska, 2005). Limited challenges
presented to gifted students cause boredom and may be the primary influence of
their proclivity to lose positive attitudes toward school (Feldhusen & Kroll, 1991;
Winner, 2000). On the other hand, motivated students enjoy school and the process
of learning (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006; Siegle, 2004; Stipek, 1996; Weinstein, 1998),
and students are motivated by the opportunity to think in diverse manners (Moore,
2005; Ormrod, 2006). The various models of teaching provide students with a
diversity of learning environments that offer information related to content, as well

80

as providing a means to teach students the processes for understanding how to think
and learn (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006; Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009).
This study sought to impart further understandings to an existing research
project directed by Dr. Sandra Kaplan and funded through the Jacob K. Javits Grant.
The Javits Models of Teaching Grant (2006) was designed to develop specific
teacher expertise for the purpose of raising the achievement levels of gifted students
representing diverse linguistic, economic, cultural and academic abilities. The
objectives of the project were as follows:
1. Develop teachers’ competencies to teach advanced content understandings
that appropriately challenge gifted students in one or all of the disciplines of
mathematics, science, social studies and language arts.
2. Develop the pedagogical or instructional skills of teachers to use a variety of
researched models of teaching in order to affect more sophisticated teaching
and learning.
Therefore, the purpose of this secondary study was to promote the implementation
of diverse instructional methodologies based on student needs. More specifically,
this study aimed to ascertain the effects of the models of teaching on gifted students,
in addition to determining the degree to which pedagogical choices affect the
students’ ability to understand the process of learning and to then transfer this
knowledge to new contexts. It was anticipated that the study would emphasize and
support the value of utilizing models of teaching when instructing students. The
study aimed to provide evidence regarding the effectiveness of using the models of

81

teaching as a system for teaching students how to think and learn. Additionally, it
sought to highlight the students’ ability to transfer the learning process to academic
and personal endeavors.
Through examining gifted students’ perceptions of learning within the
context of a model of teaching, gifted programs will be provided with information
regarding specific instructional approaches, student motivation and the transfer of
learning. This data will assist educators in creating meaningful learning experiences
that enhance the gifted students’ understanding of content and the process of
learning, as well as increasing their capabilities to apply prior learning to novel
situations. This study may also promote a re-evaluation of currently employed
instructional methodologies for teaching not only students within the gifted
population, but all students as well. In addition, the data from this study will present
educators with the knowledge as to how they can appropriately challenge students
by utilizing specific models of teaching, thus increasing students’ motivation to
learn in school while – at the same time – promoting the development of students’
learning-to-learn skills. Consequently, this information will enhance understandings
on the primary purpose of instruction; that is, to assist students in becoming
independent, autonomous learners (Betts, 1996).

82

Research Questions
In order to ascertain the learning preferences of gifted students, as well as
their understandings of various models of teaching (advance organizer, concept
attainment, advance organizer and group investigation), this study focused on the
following three specific questions:
1. How do gifted and non-gifted students’ preferences for a specific model of
teaching to learn a defined content area relate to the reasons (challenge, level
of difficulty, interest and familiarity) for their choice?
2. How does learning with models of teaching affect gifted and non-gifted
students’ recognition of the procedural knowledge of learning-to-learn?
3. How does previous learning of the models of teaching transfer to facilitate
gifted and non-gifted students’ preferences for the process to conduct a self-
selected topic of independent study?
Definitions
Models of Teaching: Depict a learning environment in which students acquire
information, ideas, skills, values, manners of thinking, and a means of expressing
themselves. The models teach students how to learn (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009).
An in-depth perspective of the varied models of teaching is discussed in Chapter 2.
Below is a review of the models of teaching utilized in this study and their intended
purpose.
• Advance Organizer: Use of an abstract idea to both preview and structure
new learning while connecting it to existing schemes

83

• Concept Attainment: Facilitates ability to develop concepts, while providing
practice with critical thinking by forming and testing hypotheses
• Direct Instruction: Uses teacher explanation and modeling, combined with
student practice, to learn skills and strategies
• Group Investigation: Integrates the structure of the democratic process with
the method of academic inquiry
• Independent Study: Fosters development of thinking, research and learning-
to-learn skills while pursuing a topic of interest
In addition to the aforementioned models of teaching, the student survey and
interview included the choice of a randomized process for learning. In contrast to
the models of teaching, a randomized process of learning is defined as an
unstructured activity that is not underscored by pedagogical principles or related to
learning theory.
Nature of the Study/ Research Design
This research study is considered to be applied research. It focuses on human
and societal problems with the goal of contributing knowledge that will improve
understanding of the problem (Patton, 2002). This study is secondary to the primary
research funded by the United States Department of Education Jacob K. Javits
Gifted and Talented Students Education Program. This program aims to improve the
capability of elementary and secondary schools to meet the special education needs
of gifted and talented students (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). The primary
focus of the program is to serve students who are traditionally underrepresented in

84

gifted and talented programs, particularly economically disadvantaged, limited
English proficient (LEP), and/or disabled students, to help decrease the serious gap
in achievement among certain groups of students at the highest levels of
achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Furthermore, applied research
carries the potential for informed decision-making (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). It
provides information that allows “human beings to more effectively control their
environment” (Patton, 2002, p. 217). The data presented in this study will provide
educators with information related to methods in which they can change and
improve the learning environment offered to all students.
A mixed methods research approach was employed through the use of a
student survey (primary research) and student interview (secondary research) in
order to determine student perceptions related to learning experiences presented
through specific models of teaching. As aforementioned, the primary research and
associated pilot study for this project were conducted through the Javits Models of
Teaching Grant (PR/# S26A040072), utilizing a comparative analysis of gifted and
non-gifted students in grades 2-5. A secondary examination of gifted and non-gifted
students was conducted to augment the aforementioned data through the use of a
student interview.
Sample and Population

The primary entity for this study was a pre-existing sample of gifted and
non-gifted students who were participants in a longitudinal research project led by
Dr. Sandra Kaplan and financed through the Jacob K. Javits Grant. As the

85

participants of this grant during the 2008-2009 school year, these students were
from an urban school district – primarily Title I schools – enrolled in grades 2-5
who represented diverse linguistic, economic and/or cultural backgrounds. The
second grade students involved in the study were first-year participants, while the
students in grades 3-5 had all participated in this grant for a minimum of at least one
previous year. Secondary research was conducted employing the strategy of
purposeful sampling. Qualitative data analysis typically utilizes relatively small
samples that are purposefully selected (Patton, 2002). The gifted students
participating in the Javits Models of Teaching Grant were purposefully chosen as
the sample for this study due to the grant’s focus on delivering instruction through
using models of teaching. For this secondary research, a smaller population of 31
gifted and non-gifted students in grades 3-5 was sampled from the same population
of students used in the primary research.
Gifted students are a group of students who, because of their unique and
advanced abilities, require special educational services to ensure that their academic,
social and emotional needs are met (CAG, 2003). The specific school site utilized
for this secondary research was a School for Advanced Studies (SAS) in the Los
Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) that had previously participated in the
Javits Models of Teaching Grant. SAS Programs in the district are designed for
students identified as gifted, highly gifted and/or students who exhibit superior
academic achievement (LAUSD, 2009). The gifted and non-gifted learners utilized
in the secondary research were students in heterogeneous classes with at least a

86

cluster of students identified as gifted by the school district. Although the non-gifted
students who participated in the secondary research had not been formally identified
as gifted by the district, their inclusion in the school’s SAS Program indicates that
they exhibit traits of high academic achievement.
As previously stated, the students in the Javits Models of Teaching Grant
received instruction through the use of researched models of teaching by educators
who were participants of the aforementioned research grant. These educators
received professional development training on differentiation for gifted learners
aligned with California’s Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted and
Talented Students. As participants of the grant, the teachers followed an explicitly
designed curriculum that reinforced the goals and objectives of the Javits Grant.
More specifically, teachers of this grant received knowledge of how to differentiate
instruction through a study of the disciplines, big ideas, and depth and complexity,
with a specific emphasis on the models of teaching (direct instruction, advance
organizer, group investigation). This population of educators had all volunteered to
participate and signed commitments to uphold the particular tasks outlined explicitly
by this grant, including teaching specifically-designed lessons and participating in
lesson observations. A volunteer can be defined as a person who chooses to act in
recognition of a need, with an attitude of social responsibility (Ellis, 2007). Thus,
the teachers participating in this grant were educators who were committed to
improving the learning process for all students in their classrooms.

87

Instrumentation
To determine the effect of the models of teaching on gifted students, a
student survey (Appendix A) was utilized as the primary research instrument for this
study. The Project Director of the Grant, Dr. Sandra Kaplan, created this survey for
the specific purpose of evaluating the effects of the models of teaching. The grant
has utilized this measurement tool for the past three years. While the reliability and
validity of this instrument were not available, the survey has provided consistent
data that has been instrumental in assessing the objectives of the Javits Models of
Teaching Grant.
The student survey consisted of two sections composed of both forced-
choice and closed-form questions relating to the students’ perceptions of the models
of teaching. The first section of the survey asked students to read a succinct
statement related to a perceived learning experience in specific content areas
(mathematics, social studies, science and language arts). The students were asked to
choose the lesson format through which they would most enjoy learning the
proposed content. The choice of lessons was based on four models of teaching
(advance organizer, concept attainment, direct instruction and group investigation)
and one randomized learning process. Upon selecting the preferred lesson or model
of teaching, students were asked to specify the reason they chose the selected
lesson. They were asked to indicate their reasons by placing a checkmark next to
one or more of the following choices: it is interesting; it is challenging; it is like
what we always do; and/or it is easier.

88

The above four choices, related to student preferences for learning, are
aligned with motivation theory. Students who are intrinsically motivated engage in
activities due to interest and are often eager to learn new information (Ormrod,
2006). Interest increases student attention to a learning task (Shirey, 1992) and
affects how students select and persist at these tasks (Hidi, 1990). Students who are
intrinsically motivated often choose to pursue and persist through challenging work
(Deci, 1992). Accomplishing tasks perceived as challenging, rather than easy,
influences learners’ self-efficacy, as well as the likelihood of pursing such learning
in the future (Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 1989; Danner & Lonky, 1981). When
students are confronted with tasks perceived as too easy, it can result in feelings of
intellectual isolation and can begin to cause underachievement (Delisle, 2004).
Furthermore, self-efficacy and motivation for learning can be developed by
scaffolding through repetition, as students increase their capability to accomplish
tasks with increasing independence (Vygotsky, 1978). As such, the survey
responses provided information related to student preferences for a model of
teaching to learn a specific content area and the reasons for those preferences.
The second part of the student survey examined if learning with the models
of teaching affect gifted and non-gifted students’ recognition of the procedural
knowledge of learning-to-learn. When students learn how to learn, they develop
strategies and learning sets that enable them to pursue and persist in learning (Joyce,
1985). Part II of the student survey provided data directly related to students’ ability
to recognize the procedural knowledge related to the syntax of the models. The

89

survey asked students to read a question specifying the content area or focus of the
lesson to which they were responding. Specifically, students were asked how they
would choose to learn about each content area. In order to answer the questions,
students were asked to identify which “learning-to-learn” strip they would select to
study the perceived learning of each particular content area. The survey presented
three “learning-to-learn” strips that illustrated various arrangements of the syntax of
a specific learning process for a model of teaching through graphic and written
orientations (direct instruction, advance organizer and group investigation) related
to the perceived learning of a particular content area. The survey responses
permitted the explicit examination of the students’ ability to correctly identify the
syntax of various models of teaching
The instrument utilized for the secondary research required the researcher to
administer an interview (Appendix B) consisting of standardized, open-ended and
fixed- response questions to a small population of gifted and non-gifted students in
grades 3-5. A standardized open-ended interview is composed of carefully worded
and arranged questions with the intention of guiding each respondent through the
same sequence of questions and asking each respondent the same questions with
essentially the same words; however, the respondent supplies his or her own words,
thoughts and insights in answering the questions (Patton, 2002). In comparison, the
questions and responses in a fixed-response interview are determined in advance,
and the data can be directly compared and clearly aggregated (Patton, 2002). The
students were presented with a hypothetical situation in which they would be

90

conducting an independent study. Independent study is an instructional model that
permits students to self-select a topic of investigation. Once the students identified
their respective topic, they were asked to choose from a selection of four processes
for learning, three of which represented the models of teaching students had prior
experience with through their participation in the grant (direct instruction, advance
organizer and group investigation) and one randomized learning process. Upon
selecting their preferred process for learning, students were presented with a set of
pre-determined questions related to the specific syntax of their chosen model of
teaching (e.g., Why do you think it is necessary to first practice with help before you
do your work on your own? Why is it important to observe or examine something
carefully? Why is it important to think about what you already know when learning
about something new?). The students were also asked their reason for selecting their
particular process for learning and were also asked to respond with one of the
following prompts utilized during the primary research: it is interesting; it is
challenging; it is familiar; or it is easier. Upon selection of a reason for choosing a
particular model of teaching, the researcher presented students with a set of
standardized, pre-determined questions that provided information on student
perspectives related to their choices (e.g., What does it mean if something is
challenging? What is an example of something that is challenging? How is Lesson
A, B, C or D challenging?).
The interview responses sought to augment the primary research related to
student understanding of the models of teaching. Further, the information from the

91

interview aimed to determine if previous learning with the models of teaching
affected gifted students’ abilities to transfer their knowledge when conducting
research on a self-selected topic of study. The content validity of the student
interview utilized for this secondary research was conducted through assessment by
a field of experts in gifted education. These experts offered perspectives and
suggestions based upon their knowledge of the models of teaching, as well as their
experiences teaching gifted and non-gifted students.
Pilot Study
The researcher conducted a pilot study of the student survey utilized during
the secondary research. The objective of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility
of the instrument. The pilot study was conducted in the winter of 2009. The student
population used for this study paralleled the population that was utilized in the
secondary research. The population consisted of gifted students, in grade 5, who had
received instruction through the models of teaching, but who were not participants
in the Javits Grant. The students were chosen to participate by one of the
aforementioned expert teachers who had previously validated the content of the
instrument. Four (4) fifth grade gifted students – three girls and one boy – were
selected to participate in the study due to their past learning experiences with
teachers who utilized the models of teaching. The researcher followed the student
interview protocol while conducting the student interview. Students took
approximately 15 minutes to complete the interview. The four (4) students

92

responded appropriately to the questions, indicating that the set of pre-determined
questions were clearly presented.
Data Collection
The data from the primary research, as part of the Javits Model of Teaching
Grant, was collected from the student survey that was administered to gifted and
non-gifted students in grades 2-5 during the 2008-2009 school year. The teachers of
the respective students administered and collected the survey. The process for
attaining data for the secondary research was performed through a fixed-response
interview. “Interviews are used to gather information regarding an individual’s
experiences and knowledge” (Best & Kahn, 1998, p. 255). A specific school site
was chosen from those participating in the grant, and the population selected for the
secondary research was gifted and non-gifted students sampled from the same
population of students used in the primary research – those who were previous
participants in the Javits Models of Teaching Grant. Parental consent was acquired
prior to interviewing the students, and an appropriate time to conduct the interview
was decided upon with the students’ respective teachers.
Upon receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the
interview protocol, the researcher conducted the interviews in February of 2010 at
the student’s home school site. At the beginning of the interview process, parents
and students were provided with a brief overview of the purpose of the study, the
research procedures, the possible discomforts and the safeguards for confidentiality.
“The preferred method for data collection is to record – via a tape recorder – the

93

interview if the respondent is willing” (Best & Kahn, 1998, p. 255). As such, with
the approved permission of the participating parents and students, the interviews
were audio-recorded in order to ensure the accurate collection and analysis of data.
The students were provided an opportunity to ask questions related to the research.
On the day of the interviews, the researcher had asked the students to provide
written consent if they agreed to participate in the study’s interview process. Upon
receiving written consent, the interview began. The student interviews lasted about
15 minutes each and consisted of approximately 10 questions. The researcher took
detailed notes and audio-recorded each interview. These recordings were then
professionally transcribed.
Data Analysis
In order to assess the students’ preferences for learning and their
understanding of the models of teaching, both quantitative and qualitative methods
were employed. The data received from the student survey was quantitatively
analyzed in accordance with the stipulations set forth by the Javits Models of
Teaching Grant. The data from the student surveys was analyzed through the use of
descriptive statistics and chi-square analysis. A cross-tabulation was performed for
students in grades 2-5 in order to determine similarities and/or differences related to
preference for, and knowledge of, varied models of teaching (advance organizer,
concept attainment, direct instruction and group investigation) and giftedness.

94

The content and data collected from the interviews were qualitatively
analyzed. According to Patton (2002), content analysis consists of “identifying,
coding, categorizing, classifying and labeling the primary patterns in the data”
(p. 463). Consequently, the researcher was able to recognize consistencies within a
large amount of information. This descriptive phase of data analysis develops the
groundwork for the “interpretative phase when meanings are extracted from the
data, comparisons are made, creative frameworks for interpretation are constructed,
conclusions are drawn, significance is determined, and, in some cases, theory is
generated” (Patton, 2002, p. 465). Recurring patterns in the data were identified, and
a system of coding was developed. Codes were selected due to their alignment with
both the primary (student survey) and secondary (student interview) research. For
example, the four codes used to analyze student perspectives on how the models of
teaching assisted in the learning process were the four methods of learning
presented in the interview (group investigation, advance organizer, direct instruction
and a randomized process) (Appendix C). In addition, the coding scheme used to
analyze the reasons students selected specific methods of learning were the reasons
presented by both the student survey and student interview – challenge, interest,
familiarity and ease (Appendix D). This system of coding permitted the researcher
to identify patterns, as well as to compare gifted and non-gifted perspectives, related
to learning with the models of teaching.

95

Ethics
“Becoming involved in measurement issues is a serious undertaking. The
results reflect on people and how they are viewed” (Kurpius & Stafford, 2006, p.
164). In order to assure that research methods conform to ethical guidelines, most
private and governmental funding agencies require review committees to advise
academic investigators on appropriate research procedures prior to the awarding of
grants (Best & Kahn, 1998). Research for this study was conducted in accordance
with the provisions set forth by the Javits Model of Teaching Grant. This grant has
been under the leadership of Dr. Sandra Kaplan for several years. As Director, Dr.
Kaplan has laid the foundation for the knowledge base of the participating teachers,
as well as the learning to be experienced by the participating students. The data
accumulated as a result of this study, as well as recognition for the contribution to
the field of education, will be directed toward the grant.

96

CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS

Overview

The objective of this study was to research and analyze the effects of
pedagogy on student learning. More specifically, the research was designed to
examine the degree to which students’ interactions with the models of teaching
influence their choices for learning and to determine if these models equip students
with the knowledge of how to transfer the learning process to new contexts, as well
as from one model of teaching to another. The following three research questions
directed the examination and interpretation of the data and findings: a) How do
gifted and non-gifted students’ preferences for a specific model of teaching to learn
a defined content area relate to the reasons (challenge, level of difficulty, interest
and familiarity) for their choice? b) How does learning with the models of teaching
affect gifted and non-gifted students’ recognition of the procedural knowledge of
learning-to-learn? c) How does previous learning with the models of teaching
transfer to facilitate gifted and non-gifted students’ preferences for the process to
conduct a self-selected topic of independent study?
In order to determine student perceptions related to learning experiences
presented through specific models of teaching, a mixed methods approach, utilizing
both quantitative and qualitative analysis, was employed. The study’s primary
research was conducted through the Javits Models of Teaching Grant (PR/#
S26A040072). As such, gifted and non-gifted students in grades 2-5 were presented

97

with a student survey that consisted of forced-choice and closed-ended questions
relating to learning through the use of the four models of teaching (advance
organizer, concept attainment, direct instruction and group investigation). The
survey responses were quantitatively analyzed and provided information related to
student preferences for a model of teaching to learn a specific content area and their
related perceptions of the learning experience. Furthermore, the survey responses
permitted the examination of the students’ ability to correctly identify the syntax of
various models of teaching (advance organizer, direct instruction and group
investigation), indicating the degree to which students are able to recognize the
procedural knowledge of learning-to-learn related to each model of teaching.
In addition, a secondary analysis of a smaller population of gifted and non-
gifted students in grades 3-5 was conducted to augment the aforementioned data
through the use of a student interview. Employing qualitative research methods, this
interview consisted of standardized, open-ended and fixed-response questions that
were composed of carefully worded and arranged questions with the intention of
guiding each respondent through the same sequence and asking each respondent the
same questions with essentially the same words as utilized in the primary research.
However, each respondent supplied his or her own words, thoughts and insights in
answering the questions (Patton, 2002). The interview responses supported the
primary research related to student understanding of the models of teaching. It also
provided data to determine the effect to which previous learning with the models of

98

teaching influenced gifted and non-gifted students’ abilities to transfer their
knowledge when pursuing an independent study on a self-selected topic.
This study’s findings are organized and clearly presented in the present
Chapter. The student survey (Appendix A) responses obtained from the primary
research were collected in relation to preferred models of teaching (advance
organizer, concept attainment, direct instruction and group investigation), in
addition to one randomized process of learning for specific content areas
(mathematics, social science, science, language arts) (Tables 4.1-4.13). For the
purpose of this study, and in contrast to the models of teaching, a randomized
process of learning is defined as an unstructured learning activity that is not
underscored by pedagogical principles and/or related to learning theory.
Furthermore, student responses were compiled in relation to the syntax of three
models of teaching (advance organizer, direct instruction and group investigation)
(Tables 4.14-4.20). Lastly, the student interview sample (Appendix B) responses
were assembled in relation to their preferred models of teaching (advance organizer,
direct instruction and group investigation), in addition to one randomized process of
learning for a self-directed study (Tables 4.21-4.32).
In order to analyze the results of the student survey, as well as the student
interview, descriptive statistics were utilized. The data from the student survey was
further analyzed using chi-square tests of significance to evaluate survey responses.
A qualitative analysis of responses from the student interview was also conducted in
order to identify patterns in the data.

99

The following four definitions relate to student perceptions of the varied
methods of learning as presented on the study’s student survey and during the
study’s student interview process. The selection of these categories is aligned with
motivation theory. Students who are intrinsically motivated engage in activities due
to interest and are often eager to learn new information (Ormrod, 2006). Interest
increases student attention to a learning task (Shirey, 1992) and affects how students
select and persist at these tasks (Hidi, 1990). Furthermore, students who are
intrinsically motivated often choose to pursue and persist through challenging work
(Deci, 1992). Accomplishing tasks perceived as challenging influences learners’
self-efficacy, as well as the likelihood of pursing such learning in the future
(Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 1989).
Interest: A process of learning that evokes a student’s affinity, curiosity and/or
passion for a particular topic or skill (Burden & Byrd, 2007).
Challenge: A process of learning in which a learner believes that success is possible
with sufficient effort (Ormrod, 2006).
Familiar: A process of learning that is often utilized.
Ease: A process of learning that does not require effort (Webster’s
Dictionary, 1997).
As explained in Chapter 3, the primary population for this study was a pre-
existing sample of gifted and non-gifted students who were participants in a
longitudinal research project led by Dr. Sandra Kaplan and financed through the
Jacob K. Javits Grant. As the participants of this grant during the 2008-2009 school

100

year, these students were from an urban school district – primarily Title I schools –
enrolled in grades 2-5 who represented diverse linguistic, economic and/or cultural
backgrounds. The second grade students involved in the study were first-year
participants, while the students in grades 3-5 had all participated in this grant for a
minimum of at least one previous year. Secondary research was conducted
employing the strategy of purposeful sampling. Qualitative data analysis typically
utilizes relatively small samples that are purposefully selected (Patton, 2002). The
gifted students participating in the Javits Models of Teaching Grant were
purposefully chosen as the sample for this study due to the grant’s focus on
delivering instruction through using varied models of teaching. This secondary
research utilized a smaller population – 31 gifted and non-gifted students in grades
3-5 – from the same population of students used in the primary research.
Findings by Research Question
Research Question 1
The study’s first research question examined the relationship between gifted
and non-gifted students’ (grades 2-5) preferences for a model of teaching to learn a
specific content area and the reasons (challenge, level of difficulty, interest and
familiarity) for their choices. The data obtained from Part I of the student survey,
utilized during the study’s primary research, specifically addressed this question.
Part I of the student survey asked students to choose their preferred method of
learning (advance organizer, group investigation, direct instruction, concept
attainment or a randomized process of learning) for a specific standards-based

101

learning experience in a defined content area. Students were asked which lesson
they would choose to learn about topics related to mathematics, science, social
science and language arts. The results of this student lesson selection are illustrated
in Tables 4.1-4.13. Chi-square analysis was utilized to determine if there was a
relationship between giftedness and the models of teaching students prefer when
learning.
Learning Preferences for the Discipline of Math
The first question of the student survey asked students which method of
learning they would choose to use when learning in the mathematics discipline.
Specifically, students were asked how they would choose to learn about
measurement. The responses of both gifted and non-gifted students, in grades 2-5,
are shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Student Response to Selected Method of Learning (Mathematics)
Method of Learning Students
Gifted Non-Gifted Total
Advance Organizer Frequency
(Percent)

4
(8.5%)
3
(9.4%)
7
(8.9%)
Concept Attainment Frequency
(Percent)

2
(4.3%)
2
(6.3%)
4
(5.1%)
Direct Instruction Frequency
(Percent)

24
(51.0%)
18
(56.3%)
42
(53.2%)
Group Investigation Frequency
(Percent)

17
(36.2%)
9
(28.0%)
26
(32.8%)
Total Frequency
(Percent)
47
(100%)
32
(100%)
79
(100%)

102

The data revealed that more than half of the students selected the direct instruction
model of teaching as their preferred method of learning about measurement. That is,
53.2% of the total students chose the direct instruction model of teaching to learn
math. Comparing the responses of gifted and non-gifted students, the data indicated
that the slight majority of gifted (51%) and non-gifted (56.3%) students selected the
direct instruction model to learn about measurement. The findings further revealed
that the group investigation model of teaching followed direct instruction in
students’ preferences for learning about measurement. Specifically, 32.8% of the
total students stated their preferred method of learning about measurement was the
group investigation model. Analysis of giftedness illustrated that 36.2% of gifted
and 28% of non-gifted students chose this model in answering the survey question
related to learning the skill of measurement. Less than 10% of the students, both
gifted and non-gifted, selected either the advance organizer or concept attainment
models as a means for learning about measurement. Chi-square analysis revealed no
statistical significance related to giftedness and preference for a method of learning
as it relates to the mathematics discipline.
Reasons for Lesson Selection in the Discipline of Math
Upon selection of their preferred method of learning, students were then
asked to identify the reasons (challenge, interest, familiarity, ease) for their choices.
For example, did the students believe their chosen method of learning was
challenging, interesting, familiar or easy? The survey instrument permitted students
to select “one or more” reasons related to their choice of a specific lesson. As a

103

result, the unit of analysis, which is the student, would be changed due to the fact
that the students might be counted more than once. Therefore, a statistical analysis
could not be performed to find an association between giftedness and their
perceptions of the models of teaching. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 illustrate the reasons
gifted and non-gifted students chose their selected methods of learning when
working in the mathematics discipline.
Table 4.2: Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Mathematics)
Reasons for Selection

Method of
Learning
Challenge Interest Familiar Ease

Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)

Total
Advance
Organizer
1
(16.7%)
4
(66.6%)
0
(0.0%)
1
(16.7%)
6
(100%)
Concept
Attainment
2
(50.0%)
2
(50.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
4
(100%)
Direct Instruction

0
(0.0%)
10
(30.3%)
10
(30.3%)
13
(39.4%)
33
(100%)
Group
Investigation

10
(37.0%)
12
(44.5%)
5
(18.5%)
0
(0.0%)
27
(100%)

104

Table 4.3: Non-Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Mathematics)

Reasons for Selection

Method of
Learning
Challenge Interest Familiar Ease

Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)

Total
Advance
Organizer
1
(12.5%)
3
(37.5%)
2
(25.0%)
2
(25.0%)
8
(100%)

Concept
Attainment
0
(0.0%)
2
(50.0%)
0
(0.0%)
2
(50.0%)
4
(100%)
Direct Instruction

1
(3.4%)
3
(10.4%)
10
(34.5%)
15
(51.7%)
29
(100%)
Group
Investigation

5
(38.5%)
6
(46.1%)
1
(7.7%)
1
(7.7%)
13
(100%)

Reasons for Selecting Direct Instruction (Mathematics). As stated
previously, the majority of students selected to learn the proposed mathematics
content through the direct instruction model. When asked their reason for selecting
direct instruction, the majority response for gifted (39.4%) and non-gifted (51.7%)
students was attributed to ease. Following ease, gifted students were equally divided
in their reasons for choosing to learn through direct instruction. That is, 30.3% of
gifted students attributed their choice to the familiarity of the learning process, and
30.3% of these students believed direct instruction offered an interesting means to
learn. Similarly, many non-gifted students (34.5%) felt direct instruction was a
familiar method of learning, however only 10.4% of these students considered direct
instruction to be an interesting learning process. No gifted students and only one

105

non-gifted student (3.4%) perceived the direct instruction model to be a challenging
method of learning.
Reasons for Selecting Group Investigation (Mathematics). The data revealed
that the group investigation model of teaching was the students’ second most
preferred method (32.8%) when learning about measurement. Most of the gifted and
non-gifted students believed the group investigation model of teaching provided an
interesting manner to learn about measurement. That is, 44.5% of the gifted and
46.1% of the non-gifted students who selected the group investigation model
perceived it as an interesting means to learn. Following interest, many gifted and
non-gifted students selected the group investigation model due to the perceived
challenge presented by this method for learning. For example, 37% of the gifted and
38.5% of the non-gifted students believed this model of teaching offered challenge.
No gifted students and only one non-gifted student (7.7%) viewed group
investigation as offering an easy method for learning.
Reasons for Selecting Concept Attainment (Mathematics). As stated
previously, less than 10% of the gifted and non-gifted students preferred the concept
attainment model of teaching when learning about measurement. However, the
gifted students that did select to learn measurement through the concept attainment
model (4.3%) were equally divided in their reasons for selecting this model due to
the presented challenge (50%) and/or interest (50%) of the model. The non-gifted
students who preferred to learn about measurement through the concept attainment
model were equally divided in their beliefs that this model offered an interesting

106

(50%) and/or easy (50%) method for learning. Neither the gifted nor non-gifted
students considered the concept attainment model to be a familiar method of
learning.
Reasons for Selecting Advance Organizer (Mathematics). Similar to the
findings related to the concept attainment model, only 8.9% of the students selected
to learn math utilizing the advance organizer model of teaching. However, the data
demonstrated that interest was the students’ primary reason for selecting the
advance organizer model. For example, most of the gifted (66.6%) and a smaller
population of the non-gifted students (37.5%) who selected to learn about the skill
of measurement utilizing the advance organizer model of teaching believed this
model to offer an interesting means to learn. For gifted students, these findings were
followed by equally divided perspectives related to challenge (16.7%) and ease
(16.7%), while the non-gifted students were equally divided in their views of the
model as familiar (25%) and easy (25%). Only 12. 5% of the non-gifted students
considered the advance organizer to be challenging.
Learning Preferences for the Discipline of Social Science
Following mathematics, the student survey asked students about learning
experiences in the social science discipline. Specifically, students were asked how
they would like to learn about people and how they live. The responses of gifted and
non-gifted, in grades 2-5, are illustrated in Table 4.4.

107

Table 4.4: Student Response to Selected Method of Learning (Social Science)
Method of Learning Students
Gifted Non-Gifted Total
Advance Organizer Frequency
(Percent)

15
(30.0%)
3
(9.4%)
18
(22.0%)
Concept Attainment Frequency
(Percent)

11
(22.0%)
16
(50.0%)
27
(32.9%)
Group Investigation Frequency
(Percent)

18
(36.0%)
10
(31.2%)
28
(34.1%)
Randomized Process Frequency
(Percent)

6
(12.0%)
3
(9.4%)
9
(11.0%)
Total Frequency
(Percent)

50
(100%)
32
(100%)
82
(100%)
The above findings revealed that most gifted and non-gifted students would prefer
to learn about this topic utilizing either the group investigation (34.1%) or concept
attainment (32.9%) models of teaching. Explicit examination of giftedness related to
learning with the group investigation model did not indicate a large difference in
students’ preferences. That is, 36% of the gifted and 31.2% of the non-gifted
students chose to learn about people and how they lived with the group investigation
model of teaching. However, a greater difference in choice of lesson was revealed
when comparing gifted and non-gifted student preferences to learn about this topic
with the concept attainment model. An increased number of non-gifted students
preferred this model compared to that of the gifted students. Specifically, 50% of
the non-gifted students selected this model, while only 22% of the gifted students
chose to learn utilizing the concept attainment model of teaching.

108

The advance organizer model of teaching was selected as the means to learn
about people and how they lived by 22% of gifted and non-gifted students; however,
more than three times as many gifted students preferred the advance organizer when
compared to non-gifted students. For example, 30% of the gifted and only 9.4% of
the non-gifted students favored learning with this model. In addition to the choice of
the three models of teaching (advance organizer, concept attainment and group
investigation), this question contained one randomized process of learning to serve
as a diversion to the students. This process of learning was referred to as random
due to the fact that it did not follow a systematic method of learning, such as those
inherent in the models of teaching. The least amount, or 11%, of the total number of
students chose this randomized process to learn about the social science discipline,
with only 12% of the gifted and 9.4% of non-gifted students selecting this method
of learning.
Chi-square analysis yielded a statistically significant relationship between
giftedness and student preference for a model of teaching as it relates to the social
science discipline – x
2
(3, N=82) = 8.68, p = .034. Although gifted and non-gifted
students seemed to choose the group investigation model to an equal extent, it was
apparent that non-gifted students were much more inclined to select the concept
attainment model, with a greater degree of gifted students choosing to learn through
the advance organizer model of teaching. However, as previously stated, since the
student survey offered multiple responses to the same question, statistical tests to
examine student perceptions for their preferred model of teaching were not possible.

109

Although chi-square analysis yielded statistical significance related to the
preferences of gifted and non-gifted students for certain models of teaching when
learning in the social science discipline, the reasons for these differences could not
be ascertained. Table 4.5 illustrates the chi-square findings.
Table 4.5: Chi-Square Test (Social Science)
Pearson Chi-Square Value df Asymp. Sig
(2-sided).
8.679 3 .034

Based upon the odds ratio, gifted students were more than three times as likely (3.2
times) than non-gifted students to select the advance organizer, and non-gifted
students were more than twice as likely (2.3 times) as gifted students to select the
concept attainment model of teaching when learning in the social science discipline.
Reasons for Lesson Selection in the Discipline of Social Science
Following the pattern of response for the first question, once students
selected their preferred method of learning, they were asked to identify the reasons
(challenge, interest, familiarity, ease) behind their choice. Tables 4.6 and 4.7
illustrate gifted and non-gifted students’ reasons for selecting specific methods of
learning when working in the social science discipline.

110

Table 4.6: Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Social Science)
Reasons for Selection

Method of
Learning
Challenge Interest Familiar Ease

Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)

Total
Advance
Organizer
9
(41.0%)
11
(50.0%)
1
(4.5%)
1
(4.5%)
22
(100%)
Concept
Attainment
3
(18.8%)
7
(43.8%)
2
(12.5%)
4
(25.0%)
16
(100%)
Group
Investigation

4
(14.3%)

13
(46.4%)
5
(17.9%)
6
(21.4%)
28
(100%)
Randomized
Process
4
(44.4%)
5
(55.6%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
9
(100%)

Table 4.7: Non-Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Social Science)
Reasons for Selection

Method of
Learning
Challenge Interest Familiar Ease

Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)

Total
Advance
Organizer
2
(66.7%)
1
(33.3%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
3
(100%)
Concept
Attainment
6
(18.8%)
14
(43.8%)
3
(9.4%)
9
(28.0%)
32
(100%)
Group
Investigation

4
(26.7%)
6
(40.0%)
2
(13.3%)
3
(20.0%)
15
(100%)
Randomized
Process

2
(40.0%)
1
(20.0%)
2
(40.0%)
0
(0.0%)
5
(100%)

111

Reasons for Selecting Group Investigation (Social Science). The data in
Table 4.4 indicates that 34.1% of gifted and non-gifted students selected to learn
about people and how they lived with the group investigation model of teaching.
When asked their reason for selecting group investigation, the majority response for
gifted (46.4%) and non-gifted (40%) students was attributed to interest. Following
interest, 21.4% of gifted students considered this model to be an easy method for
learning. The remaining gifted students selected the group investigation model due
to familiarity (17.9%), while only 14.3% of the students considered this model to be
a challenging method of learning. While non-gifted students demonstrated
similarities to the gifted population in that most (40%) also believed group
investigation to be an interesting means to learn, differing perspectives subsequently
appeared. Unlike the gifted students, some non-gifted students chose the group
investigation model due to the perceived challenge offered by the model. For
example, 26.7% of the non-gifted student population considered the model to be
challenging. However 20% of non-gifted students expressed an opposing viewpoint
in that they believed group investigation presented an easy method for learning.
Only 13.3% of the non-gifted students considered the group investigation model to
be a familiar method of learning.
Reasons for Selecting Concept Attainment (Social Science). The data in
Table 4.4 reveals that gifted and non-gifted student preferences for learning social
science content through group investigation are followed closely by the concept
attainment model. That is, 32.9% of the students preferred to learn about the social

112

sciences utilizing concept attainment. The data illustrated comparable perspectives
of gifted and non-gifted students related to learning with this model. Paralleling the
aforementioned findings of the group investigation model, most of the students
subsequently chose to learn through concept attainment due to interest. For
example, an equal percentage of gifted (43.8%) and non-gifted (43.8%) students
believed this model to offer an interesting method of learning. Following interest,
25% of gifted students and 28% of the non-gifted students considered concept
attainment to present an easy process for learning. On the other hand, an equal
percentage of gifted (18.8%) and non-gifted (18.8%) students attributed their lesson
selection due to the perceived challenge presented by this model. Only 12.5% of the
gifted and 9.4% of the non-gifted students considered learning through the concept
attainment model to be familiar.
Reasons for Selecting Advance Organizer (Social Science). Less than a
quarter (22%) of gifted and non-gifted students selected to learn social science
content utilizing the advance organizer model of teaching. However, half (50%) of
the gifted students that chose to learn about people and how they live through this
model perceived this as an interesting method of learning. These findings were
followed closely by 41% of gifted students that perceived that the advance organizer
offered a challenging means to learn. The large majority (66.7%) of the non-gifted
students who selected to learn through the advance organizer model believed the
model to be challenging, which was followed by 33.3% of those who perceived the
advance organizer as interesting. Only a small percentage of gifted and non-gifted

113

students selected the advance organizer due to either familiarity or ease.
Specifically, 4.5% of the gifted and none the non-gifted students indicated that
learning with the advance organizer was either a familiar or easy process for
learning.
Reasons for Selecting the Randomized Process (Social Science). Only 11%
of the gifted and non-gifted students chose to learn about people and how they live
through the proposed randomized process for learning. Just over half (55.6%) of the
gifted students attributed their lesson selection to the perceived interest of the
model, which was followed closely by 44.4% of the same group who attributed their
selection to the perceived challenge offered by the model. Many of the non-gifted
students who selected this random process were equally divided in their
perspectives that this process was challenging (40%) or familiar (40%), with only
20% considering this process for learning to be interesting. None of the gifted
students believed the randomized learning process to be interesting and none of the
gifted, as well as non-gifted, students considered this an easy method of learning the
proposed content.
Learning Preferences for the Discipline of Science
The student survey also asked students their preferred method of learning
related to the discipline of science. Specifically, students were asked how they
would like to learn about the topic of weather. The responses of gifted and non-
gifted students, in grades 2-5, are illustrated in Table 4.8.

114

Table 4.8: Student Response to Selected Method of Learning (Science)
Method of Learning Students
Gifted Non-
Gifted
Total
Advance Organizer Frequency
(Percent)

10
(20.0%)
9
(28.0%)
19
(23.1%)
Group Investigation Frequency
(Percent)

7
(14.0%)
6
(18.8%)
13
(15.9%)
Randomized Process Frequency
(Percent)

4
(8.0%)
2
(6.3%)
6
(7.3%)
Concept Attainment Frequency
(Percent)

29
(58.0%)
15
(46.9%)
44
(53.7%)
Total Frequency
(Percent)
50
(100%)
32
(100%)
82
(100%)
The data revealed that more than half (53.7%) of the gifted and non-gifted students
preferred to learn about the topic of weather through the concept attainment model
of teaching. Explicit examination of giftedness related to learning with the concept
attainment model revealed that 58% of the gifted and 46.9% of the non-gifted
students preferred to learn about weather utilizing this model. The data in Table 4.8
also indicates that a total of 23.1% of both gifted and non-gifted students preferred
to learn science content utilizing the advance organizer model. Specifically, 20% of
the gifted and 28.1% of non-gifted students favor learning with this model of
teaching. The group investigation model was preferred by a total of 15.9% of both
the gifted and non-gifted students. Analysis of giftedness related to this model
indicated that 20% of the gifted and 28% of the non-gifted students selected to learn
about science with the group investigation model. A small percentage (7.3%) of the

115

total students (gifted and non-gifted) chose to learn science utilizing the proposed
randomized process for learning, with only 8% of the gifted and 6.3% of the non-
gifted students demonstrating a preference for this method of learning. Chi-square
analysis revealed no statistical significance related to giftedness and preference for a
method of learning as it relates to the discipline of science.
Reasons for Lesson Selection in the Discipline of Science
Once again, the survey asked students to identify their reasons for choosing
their preferred method of learning. Tables 4.9 and 4.10 demonstrate gifted and non-
gifted students’ reasons for selecting specific methods of learning when working in
the discipline of science.
Table 4.9: Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning (Science)
Reasons for Selection

Method of
Learning
Challenge Interest Familiar Ease

Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)

Total
Advance
Organizer
6
(37.5%)
6
(37.5%)
1
(6.3%)
3
(18.7%)
16
(100%)
Concept
Attainment
14
(31.8%)
20
(45.5%)
4
(9.1%)
6
(13.6%)
44
(100%)
Group
Investigation

1
(10.0%)
4
(40.0%)
4
(40.0%)
1
(10.0%)
10
(100%)
Randomized
Process
1
(20.0%)
1
(20.0%)
1
(20.0%)
2
(40.0%)
5
(100%)

116

Table 4.10: Non-Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning (Science)
Reasons for Selection

Method of
Learning
Challenge Interest Familiar Ease

Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)

Total
Advance
Organizer
4
(30.8%)
6
(46.2%)
2
(15.3%)
1
(7.7%)
13
(100%)
Concept
Attainment
5
(20.0%)
9
(36.0%)
6
(24.0%)
5
(20.0%)
25
(100%)
Group
Investigation

4
(36.4%)
4
(36.4%)
2
(18.2%)
1
(9.0%)
11
(100%)
Randomized
Process

2
(66.7%)
1
(33.3%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
3
(100%)
Reasons for Selecting Concept Attainment (Science). The findings in
Table 4.8 provide evidence that the majority (53.7%) of gifted and non-gifted
students preferred to learn the discipline of science, specifically the topic of
weather, utilizing the concept attainment model of teaching. Once again, interest
was a key factor related to learning with the models of teaching. When asked their
reasons for selecting concept attainment, most of the gifted (45.5%) and non-gifted
(36%) students considered this model of teaching to be interesting. However, the
data indicated that gifted students were more influenced by the challenge presented
by this model of teaching than non-gifted students. For example, 31.8% of gifted
students selected concept attainment due to the presented challenge of this method
of learning, while only 20% of non-gifted students chose this model based on the
perceived level of challenge. Only 13.6% of gifted students perceived the concept

117

attainment model as an easy process of learning, while 20% of non-gifted students
expressed this same perspective related to ease. A larger majority of the non-gifted
students (24%), compared to gifted students (9.1%), considered this to be a familiar
process of learning.
Reasons for Selecting Advance Organizer (Science). Following the students’
strong preference for learning with the concept attainment model, 23.2% of the
gifted and non-gifted students selected to learn about weather through the advance
organizer model of teaching. While gifted students were equally divided in their
perceptions of the model being challenging (37.5%), as well as interesting (37.5%),
a larger percentage of non-gifted students (46.2%) considered the advance organizer
to be an interesting process for learning. This was followed by the finding that
30.8% of the non-gifted students attributed their choice of the model due to its
perceived challenge. While 37.5% of gifted students perceived the advance
organizer model as a challenging process for learning, 18.7% of these students
believed the models presented an easy learning process. Only 7.7% of non-gifted
students attributed their lesson selection to ease. A small percentage of gifted (6.3%)
and non-gifted (15.3%) students considered the advance organizer model of
teaching to be a familiar process for learning.
Reasons for Selecting Group Investigation (Science). Group investigation
was selected as the preferred process of learning by 15.9% of gifted and non-gifted
students. Gifted students were equally divided in their perception that this model
was an interesting (40%) and/or familiar (40%) process of learning. While 36.4% of

118

non-gifted students also recognized group investigation as an interesting process for
learning, only 18.2% attributed their lesson selection to familiarity with the learning
process. A larger majority (36.4%) of non-gifted students believed the model to be
challenging, in comparison to only 10% of gifted students who considered this
learning process presented a challenge. Only a small percentage of students believed
this model offered an easy process to learn. Specifically, 10% of the gifted and 9%
of the non-gifted students selected group investigation due to the perceived ease of
learning in the discipline of science.
Reasons for Selecting the Randomized Process (Science). The proposed
randomized process to learn about science included reading a textbook chapter,
listening to the teacher describe the information and then writing a report. Very few
students selected to learn about weather through this process for learning. For
example, only 8% of gifted and 6.3% of non-gifted students indicated they preferred
to learn through this means. Although only a small population of gifted and non-
gifted students chose to learn though this process, the findings revealed opposing
viewpoints related to this type of learning. A large amount, or 40%, of the gifted
students perceived this learning process as easy, while the majority (66.7%) of non-
gifted students considered this learning process to be challenging. The data further
revealed that following the perception of ease, gifted students were equally divided
in their perspectives of this process being challenging (20%), interesting (20%)
and/or familiar (20%). While 33.3% of non-gifted students considered this

119

randomized process of learning to be interesting, none of the students believed this
process to be familiar or easy.
Learning Preferences for the Discipline of Language Arts
The last question in Part I of the student survey asked students about
learning in the language arts discipline. Specifically, students were asked how they
would want to learn about characters in a story. The responses of both gifted and
non-gifted students, in grades 2-5, are reflected in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11: Student Response to Selected Method of Learning (Language Arts)
Method of Learning Students
Gifted Non-Gifted Total
Advance Organizer Frequency
(Percent)

11
(22.0%)
4
(12.5%)
15
(18.3%)
Concept Attainment Frequency
(Percent)

13
(26.0%)
5
(15.6%)
18
(22.0%)
Group Investigation Frequency
(Percent)

13
(26.0%)
15
(46.9%)
28
(34.1%)
Randomized
Process
Frequency
(Percent)

13
(26.0%)
8
(25.0%)
21
(25.6%)
Total Frequency
(Percent)
50
(100%)
32
(100%)
82
(100%)
Examining the composite data, most gifted and non-gifted students selected to learn
about characters in a story utilizing the group investigation model. That is, 34.1% of
the total students preferred this model, with 26% of gifted and 46.9% of non-gifted
students choosing to learn the discipline of language arts with the group

120

investigation model of teaching. However, the data indicates that gifted students
were close to being equally divided in their preferences for a model of teaching
when studying language arts. For example, 26% of gifted students chose to learn
with the group investigation, concept attainment or randomized process of learning,
while 22% of the students indicated a preference for the advance organizer.
Analysis of non-gifted student responses related to learning in this discipline
yielded varied results. The findings indicated that, following group investigation,
25% of non-gifted students would prefer to learn with the proposed randomized
process of learning. The remaining 15.6% of non-gifted students selected the
concept attainment model to learn about language arts content, while 12.5% of this
same population preferred to learn through the utilization of the advance organizer.
Chi-square analysis revealed no statistical significance related to giftedness and a
preference for a method of learning as it relates to the language arts discipline.
Reasons for Lesson Selection in the Discipline of Language Arts
Again, the survey asked students to identify their reasons for selecting their
preferred method of learning. Tables 4.12 and 4.13 demonstrate gifted and non-
gifted students perceptions related to their selected methods of learning when
working in the language arts discipline.

121

Table 4.12: Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Language Arts)
Reasons for Selection

Method of
Learning
Challenge Interest Familiar Ease

Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)

Total
Advance
Organizer
4
(26.7%)
9
(60.0%)
0
(0.0%)
2
(13.3%)
15
(100%)
Concept
Attainment
7
(29.2%)
10
(41.7%)
3
(12.5%)
4
(16.6%)
24
(100%)
Group
Investigation

5
(25.0%)
9
(45.0%)
4
(20.0%)
2
(10.0%)
20
(100%)
Randomized
Process
6
(28.6%)
10
(47.6%)
3
(14.3%)
2
(9.5%)
21
(100%)

Table 4.13: Non-Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Language Arts)

Reasons for Selection

Method of
Learning
Challenge Interest Familiar Ease

Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)

Total
Advance
Organizer
4
(100%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
4
(100%)
Concept
Attainment
0
(0.0%)
4
(57.1%)
1
(14.3%)
2
(28.6%)
7
(100%)
Group
Investigation

2
(8.3%)
7
(29.2%)
9
(37.5%)
6
(25.0%)
24
(100%)
Randomized
Process

5
(35.7%)
4
(28.6%)
2
(14.3%)
3
(21.4%)
14
(100%)

122

Reasons for Selecting Group Investigation (Language Arts). As
demonstrated in Table 4.11, most of the gifted and non-gifted students selected to
learn about characters in a story by utilizing the group investigation model. Student
responses indicated that 45% of gifted and 37.5% of non-gifted students selected
group investigation based on the perceived interest offered by the model. However,
most (37.5%) non-gifted students perceived this model as a familiar method of
learning, with only 20% of gifted students sharing this same view. Further
comparison of gifted and non-gifted student perspectives related to this model
demonstrated that 25% of gifted students chose to learn through the group
investigation model due to its perceived challenge, while only 8.3% of non-gifted
students based their selection on this same view. Furthermore, 25% of the non-
gifted student population perceived this model as an easy method of learning,
compared to 10% of gifted students who held the same beliefs.
Reasons for Selecting the Randomized Process (Language Arts). A quarter
(25.6%) of gifted and non-gifted students selected to learn the proposed language
arts content by employing the randomized process for learning. Almost half (47.6%)
of the gifted students selected this method of learning due to its perceived interest,
while only 28.6% of non-gifted students held this same view. Most of the non-gifted
students (35.7%) chose this process due to its perceived challenge, as did 28.6% of
gifted students. While many non-gifted students perceived this learning process as
challenging, 21.4% of this same population also viewed it as an easy method of
learning. A small percentage (9.5%) of gifted students believed the proposed

123

randomized process of learning presented an easy process to learn. Gifted and non-
gifted students expressed equal perspectives related to familiarity of this learning
process. That is, 14.3% of both gifted and non-gifted students selected this method
of learning based on familiarity.
Reasons for Selecting Concept Attainment (Language Arts). Some (22%) of
the gifted and non-gifted students chose to learn about characters in a story by
utilizing the concept attainment model of teaching. Of the students who preferred
learning with this model, many believed it offered an interesting method of learning.
For example, 41.7% of gifted and 57.1% of non-gifted students indicated that the
concept attainment model was interesting. While 29.2% of gifted students perceived
this model as challenging, none of the non-gifted students shared this belief.
Conversely, 28.6% of non-gifted students considered this model of teaching to be
easy, while only 16.6% of gifted students possessed this view. A small percentage
of gifted (12.5%) and non-gifted (14.3%) students selected the concept attainment
model due to familiarity with this method of learning.
Reasons for Selecting Advance Organizer (Language Arts). The advance
organizer model of teaching was selected by 18.3% of gifted and non-gifted
students related to learning in language arts. While the larger majority (60%) of
gifted students selected this model due to its perceived interest, none of the non-
gifted students expressed the same viewpoint. In fact, 100% of the non-gifted
students considered the advance organizer to be a challenging means to learn. Some
(26.7%) of the gifted population of students held this same perspective regarding

124

challenge, while 13.3% believed the advance organizer model to offer an easy
method of learning.
Research Question 2
The study’s second research question sought to determine if learning with
the models of teaching affect gifted and non-gifted students’ recognition of the
procedural knowledge of learning-to-learn. When students learn how to learn, they
develop strategies and learning sets that enable them to pursue and persist in
learning (Joyce, 1985). Part II of the student survey provided data directly related to
this research question. The survey asked students to read a question specifying the
content area or focus of the lesson to which they were responding. Specifically,
students were asked how they would learn about each proposed content area. In
order to answer the questions, students were asked to identify the “learning-to-
learn” sequence they would choose. The survey presented three “learning-to-learn”
sequences that illustrated various arrangements of the syntax of a specific learning
process for a model of teaching through graphic and written orientations (direct
instruction, advance organizer and group investigation) related to the perceived
learning of a defined content area.
Syntax can be defined as a systematic and orderly arrangement (Webster’s
Dictionary, 1997). The student survey presented the syntax of the direct instruction
model as follows: (1) observe how to do something; (2) practice once with lots of
help; (3) practice twice with some help; and (4) practice three times on your own.
The syntax presented for the group investigation model of teaching was as follows:

125

(1) observe something; (2) ask questions about what you see; (3) research to find out
information; (4) discuss your findings with others; and (5) ask new questions you
have. Lastly, the syntax for the advance organizer, as presented in the student
survey, was as follows: (1) meet an unclear idea; (2) think about what I already
know; (3) research new information; and (4) think how to apply it. The survey
responses permitted the explicit examination of the students’ ability to correctly
identify the syntax of various models of teaching, therefore fulfilling the intention of
the varied models of teaching – to teach students how to learn.
The results of this section of the student survey are shown in Tables 4.14-
4.20. These tables provide a comparative analysis of gifted and non-gifted student
responses. The data, as seen in the aforementioned tables, indicates that the majority
of students, both gifted and non-gifted, were able to successfully identify the syntax
of the three models of teaching (advance organizer, direct instruction and group
investigation). However, chi-square analysis revealed no statistical relationships
between gifted and non-gifted students and their ability to correctly identify the
syntax of the models of teaching. The findings do provide evidence that previous
learning with the models of teaching does affect both gifted and non-gifted students’
recognition of the procedural knowledge of learning-to-learn.

126

Table 4.14: Composite Student Responses to Model of Teaching Syntax
Students
Model of Teaching Gifted Non-Gifted Composite
Correct Total Correct Total Correct Total
Advance Organizer
(2 survey questions)

Frequency
(Percent)
77
(76.2%)
101
(100%)
47
(71.2%)
66
(100%)
124
(74.3%)
167
(100%)
Direct Instruction
(2 survey questions)

Frequency
(Percent)
98
(96.0%)
102
(100%)
62
(95.3%)
65
(100%)
160
(95.8%)
167
(100%)
Group Investigation
(2 survey questions)

Frequency
(Percent)
75
(73.5%)
102
(100%)
54
(71.2%)
66
(100%)
129
(76.8%)
167
(100%)

Table 4.15: Student Responses to Model of Teaching Syntax (Direct Instruction I)
Survey Question Students
Gifted Non-Gifted Total
How would you learn to
compare and contrast
two different stories?
Answer A Frequency
(Percent)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Answer B

Frequency
(Percent)
2
(3.9%)
0
(0.0%)
2
(2.4%)
Answer C
(Correct)
Frequency
(Percent)
49
(96.1%)
33
(100%)
82
(97.6%)
Total Frequency
(Percent)
51
(100%)
33
(100%)
84
(100%)

127

Table 4.16: Student Responses to Model of Teaching Syntax (Direct Instruction II)
Survey Question Students
Gifted Non-Gifted Total
How would you learn to
simplify a fraction?
Answer A
(Correct)
Frequency
(Percent)
49
(96.1%)
29
(90.6%)
78
(94.0%)
Answer B Frequency
(Percent)
0
(0.0%)
1
(3.1%)
1
(1.2%)
Answer C Frequency
(Percent)
2
(3.9%)
2
(6.3%)
4
(4.8%)
Total Frequency
(Percent)
51
(100%)
32
(100%)
83
(100%)

Table 4.17: Student Responses to Model of Teaching Syntax (Group Investigation I)
Survey Question Students
Gifted Non-Gifted Total
How would you learn
about the following
region in California?
Answer A Frequency
(Percent)
8
(15.7%)
4
(12.1%)
12
(14.3%)
Answer B
(Correct)
Frequency
(Percent)
37
(72.5%)
29
(87.9%)
66
(78.6%)
Answer C Frequency
(Percent)
6
(11.8%)
0
(0.0%)
6
(7.1%)
Total Frequency
(Percent)
51
(100%)
33
(100%)
84
(100%)

128

Table 4.18: Student Responses to Model of Teaching Syntax
(Group Investigation II)
Survey Question Students
Gifted Non-Gifted Total
How would you learn
about the following
group of people?
Answer A Frequency
(Percent)
5
(9.8%)
5
(15.2%)
10
(11.9%)
Answer B
(Correct)
Frequency
(Percent)
38
(74.5%)
25
(75.8%)
63
(75.0%)
Answer C Frequency
(Percent)
8
(15.7%)
3
(9.1%)
11
(13.1%)
Total Frequency
(Percent)
51
(100%)
33
(100%)
84
(100%)

Table 4.19: Student Responses to Model of Teaching Syntax (Advance Organizer I)
Survey Question Students
Gifted Non-Gifted Total
Read the big idea:
Change can be positive
or negative.
Answer A Frequency
(Percent)
1
(2.0%)
2
(6.1%)
3
(3.6%)
Answer B Frequency
(Percent)
12
(23.5%)
7
(21.2%)
19
(22.6%)
Answer C
(Correct)
Frequency
(Percent)
38
(74.5%)
24
(72.7%)
62
(73.8%)
Total Frequency
(Percent)
51
(100%)
33
(100%)
84
(100%)

129

Table 4.20: Student Responses to Model of Teaching Syntax
(Advance Organizer II)
Survey Question Students
Gifted Non-Gifted Total
How would you prove
the big idea:
Patterns allow for
prediction.
Answer A Frequency
(Percent)
5
(10.0%)
5
(15.2%)
10
(12.0%)
Answer B Frequency
(Percent)
6
(12.0%)
5
(15.2%)
11
(13.3%)
Answer C
(Correct)
Frequency
(Percent)
39
(78.0%)
23
(69.7%)
62
(74.7%)
Total Frequency
(Percent)
50
(100%)
33
(100%)
83
(100%)

Interpretation of the data shown in Tables 4.14-4.20 indicates that the
majority of both gifted and non-gifted students were able to correctly identify the
syntax related to the three models of teaching (advance organizer, direct instruction
and group investigation). This section of the survey consisted of six questions which
asked students to identify the “learning-to-learn” strip for each of the above models
of teaching. The survey utilized two questions related to each model of teaching.
Examination of gifted and non-gifted students’ responses related to the composite
results of each model of teaching revealed that 95.8% of the total number of
students correctly identified the process of learning related to the direct instruction
model of teaching, 76.8% of the total students correctly identified the learning
procedure for the group investigation model and 74.3% of the total students
correctly identified the process of learning related to the advance organizer model of
teaching. This data provides evidence that both gifted and non-gifted students could

130

successfully identify the direct instruction model of teaching more readily, when
compared to the group investigation and advance organizer. Although the advance
organizer seems to have presented the most challenge for all students, the margin
between group investigation and advance organizer was minimal (2.5%). As stated
previously, the findings reveal no statistical differences in the students’ ability to
attain the knowledge of learning how to learn as it relates to giftedness. However,
the overall findings conclude that learning with the models of teaching does affect
both gifted and non-gifted students’ ability to recognize the procedural knowledge
of learning-to- learn, as it relates to the aforementioned models of teaching. The
following section of this Chapter will discuss findings pertaining to each of the
models of teaching as it relates to the study’s second research question.
Direct Instruction
Comparing the results in Tables 4.14-4.20, the data reveals that the direct
instruction model of teaching possesses the greatest likelihood for permitting
students to recognize the procedural knowledge for learning-to-learn. That is, 95.8%
of the total number of students was able to correctly identify the learning process
related to this model. Two survey questions asked about using this model to learn
about content related to the language arts and mathematics disciplines. The students
were asked what steps they would take to learn the skills of comparing and
contrasting and simplifying fractions, respectively. Almost all (97.6%) of the gifted
and non-gifted students were able to correctly identify the learning process related
to this model when asked how they would learn the skill of comparing and

131

contrasting. Explicit examination of gifted and non-gifted students’ responses
revealed that 96.1% of gifted students correctly identified the syntax of this model,
while 100% of non-gifted students were able to do so related to the skill of
comparing and contrasting. Additionally, when asked how students would learn the
skill of simplifying fractions, 94% of the students (gifted and non-gifted) correctly
identified the process for learning related to the direct instruction model of teaching.
Analysis of giftedness illustrates that 96.1% of gifted and 90.6% of non-gifted
students could appropriately recognize the syntax of the model.
Group Investigation

The results of the student survey demonstrated that 76.8% of gifted and non-
gifted students were able to correctly recognize the procedural knowledge for
learning-to-learn as it relates to the group investigation model of teaching. The
survey contained two questions related to learning with this model, both
representing learning experiences in the social science discipline. Both questions
demonstrated similar results. The majority (78.6%) of gifted and non-gifted students
were able to identify the correct syntax when asked how they would learn about a
California region, and 75% of these same students successfully recognized the
correct process for learning when asked how they would learn about a group of
people. When comparing the composite responses of gifted and non-gifted students
related to this model, 73.5% of the gifted and 71.2% of the non-gifted students
could successfully identify the syntax of group investigation. As previously stated,

132

no statistical relationships were found between the students’ abilities to recognize
the learning processes and giftedness.
Advance Organizer
In addition to the direct instruction and group investigation models, the data
in Tables 4.14-4.20 demonstrates that the majority of students were also able
recognize the procedural knowledge of learning-to-learn as it relates to the advance
organizer model of teaching. Specifically, 74.3% of the total students were able to
identify the syntax of the advance organizer model. The perceived experience
described in the student survey presented students with learning related to a big
idea. Namely, the questions asked students how they would prove the following two
big ideas: “change can be positive or negative” and “patterns allow for prediction.”
Analysis of student responses related to proving the idea that “change can be
positive or negative” revealed that 73.8% of the total number of gifted and non-
gifted students successfully recognized the procedural knowledge of the model. The
comparison of gifted and non-gifted student responses for this specific question
indicated a very marginal difference. That is, 74.5% of gifted and 72.7% of non-
gifted students correctly identified the syntax of the advance organizer. Examination
of the second question related to the advance organizer yielded similar results.
When proving the big idea that “patterns allow for prediction,” 74.7% of the total
number of students were able to recognize the procedural knowledge of the model.
Once again, only a slight difference was apparent in comparing the responses of
gifted and non-gifted students. Namely, 78% of gifted and 69.7% of non-gifted

133

students successfully identified the procedural knowledge of learning as it relates to
the advance organizer model.
Research Question 3

The third research question in this study asked how previous learning of the
models of teaching transferred to facilitate gifted and non-gifted students’
preferences for conducting a self-selected topic of independent study. Similar to all
other models of teaching, independent study has a sequential and systematic
procedure for learning. The learning procedure of the independent study model is as
follows: (1) select a topic of study; (2) define a set of questions or areas of interest
that will prompt study of the selected topic; (3) collect varied resources to answer
questions and extend comprehension of selected topic; (4) gather and organize
information to summarize findings; (5) present findings in a cogent manner; and
(6) assess learning and performance through the independent study experience.
During the interviews, students were presented with a hypothetical situation
in which they would be conducting an independent study. Students were asked to
choose their preferred method of learning from a selection of four procedures that
could be defined as a syntax for conducting an independent study. Three of these
procedures represented the models of teaching (direct instruction, advance organizer
and group investigation) and one represented a randomized learning process. The
survey responses permitted the examination of students’ ability to transfer their
knowledge of learning with the models of teaching to the new learning context of
independent study.

134

Students’ preferred learning processes for conducting an independent study
are shown in Tables 4.21 and 4.22. These two tables provide a comparative analysis
of gifted and non-gifted student responses. The data set represents a limited number
of non-gifted students due to the fact that the school site utilized for the secondary
research was a School for Advanced Studies (SAS) in the Los Angeles Unified
School District (LAUSD). SAS schools are designed for students identified as
gifted, highly gifted and/or students who exhibit superior academic achievement
(LAUSD, 2009). Therefore, there was a limited number of students in the
classrooms who had not been formally identified as gifted by the LAUSD.
Consequently, statistical analysis to question 3 was not performed.

135

Table 4.21: Gifted Student Responses to Selected Method of Learning
for Independent Study
Method of Learning 3
rd
Grade

4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade Total
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)

Advance Organizer 2
(28.6%)
2
(20.0%)
1
(12.5%)
5
(20.0%)

Direct Instruction 1
(14.2%)
2
(20.0%)
1
(12.5%)
4
(16.0%)

Group Investigation

2
(28.6%)
6
(60.0%)
6
(75.0%)
14
(56.0%)

Randomized Process

2
(28.6%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
2
(8.0%)

Table 4.22: Non-Gifted Student Responses to Selected Method of Learning
for Independent Study

Method of Learning 3
rd
Grade

4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade Total
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)

Advance Organizer 1
(33.3%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
1
(16.7%)

Direct Instruction 0
(0.0%)
1
(50.0%)
1
(50.0%)
1
(16.7%)

Group Investigation

0
(0.0%)
1
(50.0%)
1
(50.0%)
2
(33.3%)

Randomized Process

2
(66.7%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
2
(33.3%)

136

Examination of the data shown in Table 4.21 indicates that the preferred
learning process for the majority of gifted students in grades 3-5 was the group
investigation model of teaching. That is, when conducting a self-selected topic of
independent study, 56% of the gifted students in grades 3-5 chose the group
investigation model as their preferred process for learning. Responses of gifted
students indicated that the advance organizer was preferred by 20% of this group of
students, followed by direct instruction at 16% and the randomized process for
learning at 8%.
Analyzing the aggregate scores according to grade level, 60% of 4
th
grade
and 75% of 5
th
grade gifted students preferred to conduct an independent study
through the use of the group investigation model of teaching. The 4
th
and 5
th
grade
student responses indicated an equal preference for the advance organizer and direct
instruction models of teaching. Conversely, examination of the 3
rd
grade student
responses did not reveal a significant preference for a specific model of teaching.
Data gleaned from the 3
rd
grade responses revealed that 28.6% of the gifted students
equally preferred the group investigation model, the advance organizer model or the
randomized process for learning, followed by 14.2% of this same population
preferring direct instruction.
Table 4.22, which illustrates the non-gifted student responses, does not
indicate a significant preference for a specific method of learning. Non-gifted
student responses indicate that 33.3% chose either group investigation or the
randomized process of learning, followed by 16.7% selecting either the advance

137

organizer or direct instruction models as their preferred method of learning when
conducting a self-selected topic of independent study. Dissecting the aggregate
scores according to grade level reveals that 66.7% of non-gifted 3
rd
grade students
chose the randomized process for learning, with the remaining 33.3% of these
students selecting the advance organizer. The data also reports that the 4
th
and 5
th

grade students were equally divided in their choices, with 50% of non-gifted
students choosing group investigation and the remaining 50% choosing direct
instruction as their preferred method of learning when conducting a self-selected
topic of independent study.
The data represented in Tables 4.21 and 4.22 demonstrates a discrepancy
between the responses of gifted and non-gifted students and their ability to transfer
previous learning with the models of teaching to a self-selected topic of independent
study. The majority of gifted students (56%) chose group investigation as their
preferred method of learning a self-selected topic of interest. In contrast, the
responses of non-gifted students did not illustrate a clear majority favoring one
method of learning over another. For example, 33.3% of the non-gifted students
chose group investigation and 33.3% of this same population chose the randomized
process for learning.
Student Analysis of the Models of Teaching
In order to gain insights into the students’ thoughts and perspectives on
different methods of learning, a qualitative analysis of the data obtained from the
student interviews was conducted. Upon selection of a specific method for learning

138

(advance organizer, group investigation, direct instruction or the randomized
process), students were asked a set of pre-determined questions related to their
response. These questions sought to determine the knowledge and understanding
students possessed regarding the varied models of teaching. Once students selected
a particular method of learning, they were asked to describe the manner in which
their preferred method of learning enhanced the learning process. For example,
students were presented with the question, “How do these steps help you learn?”
In order to qualitatively analyze the content of the research related to
students’ perspectives of the different methods of learning, a system of coding was
employed. According to Patton (2002), content analysis consists of “identifying,
coding, categorizing, classifying and labeling the primary patterns in the data”
(p. 463). Consequently, a system of coding was developed and consistencies within
a large amount of data became apparent. The coding scheme for the students’
analysis of the varied models of teaching (Appendix C) was developed according to
the methods of learning discussed in the student interview process (group
investigation, advance organizer, direct instruction and a randomized process). As
students described how the selected method of learning helped them to learn,
responses were coded under the specified method of learning. Subsequently,
analysis of the responses revealed emerging patterns. For example, when students
stated that the examination of pictures and photographs assisted in the learning
process for the group investigation model, the data was grouped into the pattern of
responses identified as “visuals” related to the specified mode of teaching. All

139

subsequent responses related to the use of illustrations or pictures were classified
under this code. Analysis of the findings revealed patterns related to student
perspectives on the learning objectives of the varied models of teaching. Students’
statements support the over-arching goals of the models to teach students how to
think (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009), as well as affirming the learning purposes
related to the varied models.
Group Investigation. When examining responses of the students who
chose group investigation as their preferred method of learning, identifiable patterns
emerged. Many students, both gifted and non-gifted, noted that the availability of
resources (books, websites and pictures) helped them gain information. Statements
that support this pattern include that “looking at pictures and videos helps you get to
know what you’re learning” and “pictures give you ideas.” These statements align
with Thelen’s (1960) assertion that the learning achieved through group
investigation is “illuminated by reading, by personal investigation, and by
consultation with experts” (p. 82). Additionally, some students who chose the group
investigation model recognized how the steps and organization of the model helped
them to learn. These students were able to verbalize how the model’s syntax helps
students by equipping them with the knowledge of how to transfer prior learning
with the group investigation model to new contexts. For example, one student
stated, “You learn more about your topic, so if you like what you did, then you
could think of another topic that you want to do, and you could do it. It just helps
you learn.” Another student’s comment referred to how one moves through the steps

140

of the model, stating that “this will keep going on and on with different things.”
Student perspectives related to the transferability of the group investigation model
align with Hertz-Lazarowitz, Sharan and Steinberg’s (1980) findings that “behavior
patterns established through cooperative learning experiences were found to transfer
and operate in contexts and situations other than those found in classrooms”
(p. 222). Students were able to transfer their understanding of the learning process
due to the cooperative learning opportunities presented by the research portion of
the group investigation model.
Advance Organizer. Advance organizers are verbal or written statements
presented at the beginning of a lesson which serve to both preview and structure
new material while connecting it to existing schemas (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006).
When conducting the student interviews, a universal generalization – also referred
to as a big idea – was utilized as the advance organizer when discussing this
particular method of learning. The majority of gifted students who selected the
advance organizer model of teaching noted that the big idea utilized in the model
assists in the learning process. This perspective supports Ausubel’s (1963)
supposition that meaningful learning is influenced by how curriculum is organized
and how the mind processes new information (Ausubel, 1963). Furthermore, the use
of an “intellectual structure,” such as a big idea utilized in the survey, augments the
likelihood that students will learn those structures and the related thinking processes
associated with them (Lawton, 1977). In alignment with Pintrich and Schunk’s
(2002) perspective that choice of activity, effort and persistence is affected by one’s

141

self-efficacy, one gifted student commented that the big idea “helps me learn
because I know what the topic is, what to do and how to research it.” This student’s
comments affirm his or her confidence in learning through this model of teaching;
that is, he or she knows “what to do and how to research it,” thus proving one’s
beliefs of self-efficacy. Interestingly, the one non-gifted student who chose the
advance organizer was not initially able to verbalize how the model helps students
learn. However, when prompted through questioning, the student did remark that the
big idea helps a student learn “by picturing it.” Other gifted students described the
transferability of the big idea and their ability to prove it across disciplines. For
example, a student detailed how the advance organizer helps him or her “learn more
about this big idea and now I know more about this big idea. I could use it more. I
would use that big idea to relate to my science and, like, the subjects that I am
doing.”
Direct Instruction. Upon examining the thoughts of all the students who
chose the direct instruction model of teaching as their preferred method of learning,
patterns emerged that can be related to Vygotsky’s (1978) perspective on the
effectiveness of scaffolding. The large majority of gifted and non-gifted students
indicated that having someone’s assistance increased the learning process and
contributed to them being able to work independently. These students attributed
their success in the learning process to the collaborative learning provided through a
“more knowledgeable other” (MKO), which is a significant aspect of learning from
a social perspective and refers to any person who has a superior level of ability

142

related to a task or process (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2009). For example,
one student commented that this model helps them learn because “someone is there
to help you and then you’re going to practice it with them and then you’ll be ready
to do it on your own.” Similarly, another student remarked, “I’ll practice it with
them and it will help me a lot better [sic]. Then they’ll let me do one on my own
and, if I get it, then I’ll know what to do.” Student responses related to learning with
this model are consistent with the intention of the direct instruction model to
facilitate student understanding through the use of observation, demonstration and
repeated opportunities for supported practice (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006; Ormord,
2006), thus increasing student efficacy towards the desired skill.
Randomized Process. Compared to the models of teaching (group
investigation, advance organizer and direct instruction), the randomized process for
learning presented during the student interviews received the least amount of gifted
student preferences for learning, while an equal number of non-gifted students chose
both the randomized process and group investigation methods of learning. All of the
student responses, both gifted and non-gifted, provided evidence that students
believed this particular process helped them to learn due to the fact that the teacher
was telling them what to do. However, differences existed in the reasons why the
students believed having the teacher tell them what to do helped them learn. The
gifted students who chose this method of learning referred to the certainty of
obtaining the correct information. In alignment with Tomlinson’s (2002) perspective
that gifted students possess a great desire for self-efficacy, one gifted student stated

143

that it is was helpful for the teacher to tell students what book to read because “I
know for sure that’s going to give me the information I need” and because “the
book will have all the answers.” Conversely, the pattern in non-gifted student
responses revealed that this process for learning was an “easier” way of learning
and/or of getting a “better grade.” They believed that when a teacher tells them what
to do, it would improve the ease of the task and their opportunity for a better grade.
Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
Paralleling the data from the primary research, the student interview asked
students to state their reason for selecting a particular process for learning. Students
were asked to respond with the following prompts utilized during the primary
research: it is interesting; it is challenging; it is familiar; it is easier. Student
responses were qualitatively analyzed employing a system of coding (Patton, 2002).
The coding scheme (Appendix D) used to analyze student reasons for their selected
method of learning was developed according to the response choices contained in
both the primary (student survey) and secondary (student interview) research. The
four codes utilized for this analysis were challenge, interest, familiarity and ease.
For example, students were asked why they perceived a particular method of
learning as interesting. Thus, responses to the question were coded as “interest.”
Furthermore, any additional student comments that related to personal enjoyment of
a learning experience were also classified under this code. This system of coding
permitted the researcher to identify patterns, as well as to compare gifted and non-
gifted perspectives, related to learning with the models of teaching.

144

Tables 4.23-4.33 illustrate the reasons gifted and non-gifted students in
grades 3-5 chose a specific model of teaching as their preferred method of learning
when conducting a self-selected topic of independent study. Once again, key
patterns emerged related to student preferences for the models of teaching, including
their specified perceptions related to utilizing the models when learning
independently.
Table 4.23: Composite Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
Total Population: 25 students
Reasons for Selection
Method of
Learning
Challenge Interest Familiar Ease

Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Advance
Organizer
0
(0.0%)
3
(25.0%)
0
(0.0%)
2
(100%)
Direct
Instruction
0
(0.0%)
2
(16.7%)
2
(25.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Group
Investigation

2
(66.7%)
6
(50.0%)
6
(75.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Randomized
Process

1
(33.3%)
1
(8.3%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Total 3
(12.0%)
12
(48.0%)
8
(32.0%)
2
(8.0%)

145

Table 4.24: Composite Non-Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of
Learning
Total Population: 6 students
Reasons for Selection
Method of
Learning
Challenge Interest Familiar Ease

Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Advance
Organizer
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
1
(100%)
Direct
Instruction
0
0.0%)
1
(20.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Group
Investigation

0
(0.0%)
2
(40.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Randomized
Process

0
(0.0%)
2
(40.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Total 0
(0.0%)
5
(83.3%)
0
(0.0%)
1
(16.7%)
When deciding upon the preferred method of learning for a self-selected
topic of study, the data in Tables 4.23 and 4.24 indicate that the primary influence
on choice of learning for both gifted and non-gifted students in grades 3-5 was
attributed to interest. For example, 48%, or 12 out of 25, of the total number of
gifted students who participated in the secondary research indicated that their
chosen method of learning provided an interesting manner in which to learn. Of the
48% of gifted students who stated the perceived learning experience was interesting,
50% found the group investigation model of teaching to be an interesting method of
learning, while 25% indicated that learning with the advance organizer model of
teaching was interesting. Of the remaining gifted students who considered interest a
factor for choosing a particular method of learning, only 16.7% selected the direct

146

instruction model, with one student (8.3%) stating that the randomized process for
learning offered an interesting means to learn.
In alignment with the above data, the primary reason non-gifted students
selected their chosen method of learning when conducting a self-selected topic of
study was also attributed to interest. Specifically, 83.3% of the participating non-
gifted students indicated that they perceived their selected process of learning as
interesting. Of the 83.3% of the non-gifted students who considered their chosen
process of learning to be interesting, 40% selected the group investigation model.
This percentage was equal to the 40% of the non-gifted students who felt that the
randomized process for learning also provided an interesting manner in which to
learn. The remaining 20%, or one student, of the participating non-gifted students
felt that the direct instruction model of teaching provided an interesting learning
experience.
In order to obtain insights related to students’ thoughts on the presented
methods of learning, as well as why students believed specific methods for learning
(advance organizer, direct instruction, group investigation and a randomized process
for learning) were either challenging, interesting, familiar or easy, additional
qualitative analysis of the student interview was conducted. Upon stating their
perception for the chosen method of learning, students were presented with a set of
pre-determined questions related to their response. These questions sought to gain
knowledge and understanding regarding student beliefs related to their chosen
method of learning. For example, students were asked, “How is this lesson

147

challenging?” or “Why is this an interesting way to learn?.” Figure 4.1 provides a
summary of the primary reasons both gifted and non-gifted students selected a
particular method of learning, as well as the main explanations related to their
reasoning.
Figure 4.1: Primary Reason and Explanations for Selected Method of Learning
Gifted Non-Gifted
Primary Reason Explanation Primary Reason Explanation
Method of
Learning

Group
Investigation
Interest

Familiarity
Visuals, Websites,
Present Learning

Research and then
Present Learning
Interest Visuals,
Websites, Present
Learning

Advance
Organizer
Interest Big Ideas Ease Access Prior
Knowledge
Direct
Instruction
Interest

Familiarity
Assistance of
Another

Teach/Practice
Sequence
Interest Assistance of
Another
Randomized
Process
Challenge
Interest
Written Report
Gaining New
Knowledge
Interest Gaining New
Knowledge
As stated previously, the interview process permitted students to identify
their perspectives of their preferred learning method when conducting an
independent study. The data in Tables 4.25 and 4.26 illustrates gifted and non-gifted
students’ (grades 3-5) reasons for selecting the group investigation model of
teaching.

148

Table 4.25: Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Group Investigation)
Total Students: 14
Method of
Learning
3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade

Total
Reason Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)

Frequency
(Percent)

Group
Investigation

Challenge 0
(0.0%)
1
(16.7%)
1
(16.7%)
2
(14.0%)

Interest 2
(100%)
3
(50.0%)
1
(16.7%)
6
(43.0%)

Familiar 0
(0.0%)
2
(33.3%)
4
(66.6%)
6
(43.0%)

Ease 0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)

Table 4.26: Non-Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Group Investigation)
Total Students: 2
Method of
Learning
3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade

Total
Reason Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)

Frequency
(Percent)

Group
Investigation

Challenge 0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Interest 0
(0.0%)

1
(100%)
1
(100%)
2
(100%)
Familiar 0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Ease 0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)

149

The two central perspectives of students who chose the group investigation model of
teaching as their preferred method of learning were attributed to interest and
familiarity. That is, 43% of gifted students who selected group investigation
perceived it as an interesting means to learn, and 43% of these gifted students who
chose the model did so due to familiarity with the learning process. The remaining
14% of the gifted students chose the group investigation model due to the challenge
presented by this method of learning. All of the non-gifted students (100%) who
selected the group investigation model considered this model as an interesting
method of learning. None of the students, gifted and non-gifted, perceived the group
investigation model as an easy process of learning.
Examination of the data according to grade level reveals that all (100%) of
the participating 3
rd
grade gifted students believed the group investigation model to
be interesting. Similarly, all (100%) of the 4
th
and 5
th
grade non-gifted students
considered group investigation as offering an interesting means to learn. Exactly
one-half (50%) of the 4
th
grade gifted students who selected this model perceived it
as interesting, followed by their familiarity (33.3%) with this process of learning.
The data related to the 5
th
grade responses indicated that 66.6% of gifted students at
this grade level perceived the group investigation model as a familiar learning
process, followed by 16.7% of this same population who considered the model to be
either interesting or challenging.
The majority of gifted students who acknowledged that the group
investigation model provided an interesting means to learn attributed their choice to

150

the fact that the model allowed them to examine visuals and websites and/or
promoted the sharing of learning at the lesson’s culmination. For example, one
student commented that examining pictures before you research is interesting
because it helps you “figure out what you are going to learn.” When asked why this
method of learning was interesting, another gifted student remarked, “You get to
talk to your friends and research on websites.” These perspectives provide evidence
that active participation in learning increases student interest in the learning process
(Andre & Windschitl, 2003; Renzulli, 1977). The response of one of the non-gifted
students aligns with the above findings, while the other non-gifted student stated
that the steps of the group investigation model were interesting “because they’re
more independent,” which correlates with Thelen’s (1960) perspective that this
model of teaching allows students to begin to understand themselves as inquirers
who create and guide their own efforts to learn.
In addition, many (43%) of the gifted students who selected the group
investigation model indicated that it was a familiar method of learning due to the
pattern of researching, followed by the process of sharing information. For example,
one student remarked, “usually after we research, we have to share it with others,”
while another commented that “usually, whenever I do a report on something, I go
on the Internet and I look up pictures. I check out books at the library and then, at
the end of all that, I share it in front of the class.”
The remaining data related to the group investigation model demonstrates
that 14% of gifted students selected group investigation due to the challenge the

151

model offers. Students believed the model presented challenges as a result of
needing to navigate resources, as well as the time necessary to carry out this process
of learning. Interestingly, none of the students interviewed, including both gifted
and non-gifted, believed the group investigation model of teaching presented an
easy method for learning.
Of the total number of gifted and non-gifted students interviewed for the
secondary research, 19% of the students selected the advance organizer model of
teaching as their preferred method of learning when conducting a self-selected topic
of study. The data in Tables 4.27 and 4.28 illustrates gifted and non-gifted students’
(grades 3-5) perceptions of learning with the advance organizer model of teaching.

152

Table 4.27: Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Advance Organizer)
Total Students: 5
Method of
Learning
3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade

Total
Reason Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)

Frequency
(Percent)

Advance
Organizer

Challenge 0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)
Interest 0
(0.0%)
2
(100%)
1
(100%)

3
(60.0%)
Familiar 0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)
Ease 2
(100%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
2
(40.0%)
Table 4.28: Non-Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Advance Organizer)
Total Students: 1
Method of
Learning
3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade

Total
Reason Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)

Frequency
(Percent)

Advance
Organizer

Challenge 0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Interest 0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Familiar 0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Ease 1
(100%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
1
(100%)

The primary reason gifted students chose to learn with the advance organizer model
of teaching was attributed to interest. That is, 60% of the gifted students who
selected this method of learning thought it was an interesting method for learning.
The remaining 40% of gifted students who selected to conduct an independent study

153

with the advance organizer considered the model provided an easy method of
learning. Correspondingly, 100% of the non-gifted students who selected the
advance organizer did so due to ease of learning. Patterns in the data revealed that
only 3
rd
grade students, both gifted and non-gifted, believed the advance organizer
model to be easy, while the 4
th
and 5
th
grade students perceived it as an interesting
method of learning. Neither challenge nor familiarity were factors related to student
perceptions of the advance organizer model of teaching.
All of the students (4
th
and 5
th
graders) who stated that the advance organizer
was interesting attributed their reasoning to learning with the universal
generalization or big idea. As stated previously, an advance organizer can be a
written or verbal statement presented at the beginning of a lesson which serves to
both preview and structure new material while connecting it to existing schemas
(Eggen & Kauchak, 2006). When conducting the student interviews, big ideas such
as “systems are made up of parts that work together” and “relationships are
purposeful” were utilized as the advance organizer. The researcher selected a big
idea for each student that related to his or her chosen topic of independent study.
According to Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009), “the chief feature of an organizer is
thus that it is at a higher level of abstraction and generality than the learning
material itself” (p. 257). Big ideas provided students with a high level of abstraction
and generality, which invoked interest in the learning process. Student comments
provided evidence of their beliefs that learning with a big idea offers an interesting
learning experience. For example, one student stated that the big idea “helps you get

154

deeper inside [sic] of what you’re reading.” Another student remarked, “The big
idea is interesting to me because if I already know about it, then when I research
new things about it, it makes it more and more interesting as I learn more and more
about it.”
The advance organizer model of teaching was believed to be an easy method
of learning by 40% of gifted students, as well as the one non-gifted student, who
chose this model to conduct a self-selected topic of study. All of these 3
rd
grade
students suggested that the advance organizer offered an easy process for learning
due to the model’s emphasis on prior knowledge. According to Joyce, Weil and
Calhoun (2009), this model of teaching aims to provide students with “ideational
anchors” to already available concepts (p. 252). Thus, students are adding to their
existing cognitive structure by reflecting on previous learning prior to the
accumulation of new content. The students demonstrated an awareness of the
model’s intent, with one student stating, “You could just read the big idea and think
about what you know. Then you find some new information and you prove the big
idea.”
Analysis of the total number of students, both gifted and non-gifted, who
participated in the secondary research revealed that 16% of the participating
students selected the direct instruction model as their preferred method of learning a
topic of self-selected interest. The findings in Tables 4.29 and 4.30 demonstrate the
3
rd
-5
th
grade gifted and non-gifted students’ reasons for selecting the direct
instruction model of teaching.

155

Table 4.29: Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Direct Instruction)
Total Students: 4
Method of
Learning
3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade

Total
Reason Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)

Frequency
(Percent)

Direct
Instruction

Challenge 0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Interest 1
(100%)

0
(0.0%)
1
(100%)
2
(50.0%)
Familiar 0
(0.0%)

2
(100%)
0
(0.0%)
2
(50.0%)
Ease 0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Table 4.30: Non-Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Direct Instruction)
Total Students: 1
Method of
Learning
3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade

Total
Reason Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)

Frequency
(Percent)

Direct
Instruction

Challenge 0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Interest 0
(0.0%)

1
(100%)
0
(0.0%)
1
(100%)
Familiar 0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Ease 0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)

The gifted students’ responses indicated a strong preference for the direct
instruction model based on interest and familiarity. That is, 50% of gifted students
believed the model offered an interesting means to learn, while 50% of this same
group considered the model to present a familiar process for learning. The one non-

156

gifted student who selected the direct instruction model of teaching attributed his or
her choice to interest. Neither the gifted students nor the non-gifted student believed
the direct instruction model to be either challenging or easy.
The data related to students who affirmed the direct instruction model as an
interesting method for learning illustrates a clear pattern. Specifically, all of the
student responses, including both gifted and non-gifted perspectives, indicated that
having another person help you learn is interesting. For example, when asked why
this method of learning was interesting, a student replied that “there’s someone
there to help you.” These findings are consistent with Bandura’s (1989) social
cognitive theory that emphasizes the use of modeling for the acquisition of
behaviors, as well as Vygotsky’s (1978) perspective regarding the positive effect of
social interaction on learning. Responses of both gifted and non-gifted students
provide evidence to support the perspective that the direct instruction model is
interesting due to the social interaction (guided practice) and support provided by
this model.
The data in Table 4.29 indicates that 50% of the participating gifted students
perceived the direct instruction model as a familiar process of learning. All of these
respondents were 4
th
grade gifted students who had, for the most part, experienced
two previous years of learning in the Javits Models of Teaching Grant. None of the
non-gifted students believed this model of teaching to be familiar. When asked how
this method of learning was similar to what they do in class, the students referred to
the structure of how instruction is delivered in their respective classrooms. For

157

example, one student commented, “The teacher examples [sic] it on the board, and
then she re-teaches, like, she practices it with us. Then the other practice is for
homework, so we usually do that on our own.” Student perspectives regarding the
familiarity of the direct instruction model may also be attributed to the fact that the
direct instruction method of learning is represented in numerous commercially
available teaching programs (Binder & Watkins, 1990). Thus, the students may have
encountered this method of learning more often when compared to other models of
teaching.
When combining the total number of gifted and non-gifted students who
participated in the secondary research, the data revealed that 13% of the
participating students selected the randomized process of learning as their preferred
method when conducting a topic of self-selected interest. The findings in Tables
4.31 and 4.32 illustrate 3
rd
-5
th
grade gifted and non-gifted students’ reasons for
selecting the proposed random process of learning.

158

Table 4.31: Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Randomized Process)
Total Students: 2
Method of
Learning
3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade

Total
Reason Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)

Frequency
(Percent)

Randomized
Process

Challenge 1
(50.0%)

0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
1
(50.0%)
Interest 1
(50.0%)

0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
1
(50.0%)
Familiar 0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Ease 0/
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Table 4.32: Non-Gifted Student Reasons for Selected Method of Learning
(Randomized Process)
Total Students: 2
Method of
Learning
3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade

Total
Reason Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)
Frequency
(Percent)

Frequency
(Percent)

Randomized
Process

Challenge 0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Interest 2
(100%)

0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
2
(100%)
Familiar 0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Ease 0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)

Interestingly, only 3
rd
grade students, from both the gifted and non-gifted
populations, selected this process to learn. That is, none of the 4
th
or 5
th
grade
students preferred the randomized process for learning when conducting an
independent study. The 3
rd
grade gifted students identified this process of learning

159

as equally challenging and interesting. In other words, 50% of the 3
rd
grade gifted
students selected challenge, and the other 50% of this group of gifted students
selected interest related to their beliefs about learning through this process. The data
related to the non-gifted students indicates that all, or 100%, of the students believed
this model to be an interesting method for learning. Familiarity and ease were not
factors related to student perceptions for this process of learning.
Analysis of both gifted and non-gifted student responses indicates that the
majority of 3
rd
grade students, who believed this method of learning to be
interesting, attributed their interest to the fact that they would be gaining new
knowledge about their chosen topic. These findings are consistent with Piaget’s
(1928) perspective that children are naturally curious and are often eager to search
for information to construct understandings of the world. For example, one student
commented, “It’s interesting because I get to read a lot and I really like to read and
find out more stuff. So that way, I’m more full of knowledge.” Additionally, another
student remarked that this random process was interesting because “maybe you’ve
never done a report on that thing before.” Yet another 3
rd
grade student believed this
model to be challenging due to a report that was to be written at the lesson’s
culmination. In comparing the responses of gifted and non-gifted students, the data
revealed that all non-gifted students believed this process of learning to be
interesting, while the gifted students were equally divided in their perspectives that
this learning process was either interesting or challenging.

160

Summary of Findings
The results of this study offered insights related to the effects of student
learning through the use of the models of teaching. Specifically, knowledge was
gained regarding (1) student preferences for models of teaching when learning
content and their related reasons for selecting the models, (2) student abilities to
correctly identify the systematic procedure related to varied models of teaching and
(3) student capabilities to transfer their knowledge of the models to self-directed
study. A detailed summary of these findings is listed below.
First, the data from the student survey indicated students preferred to learn
content through a model of teaching and that they appeared to possess an
understanding of the varied purposes of the models of teaching. For example, almost
all students – both gifted and non-gifted – selected a model of teaching to learn the
proposed content over the randomized process for learning. In effect, students were
able to identify the intention of the models to offer a systematic approach to learning
(Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009). In most instances, the randomized process was the
least preferred method of learning. However, the one exception occurred in the
discipline of language arts where one-quarter of both gifted and non-gifted students
selected this process as a means to learn about characters in a story. Moreover,
students’ selections of the models to learn defined content areas aligned with the
varied theoretical purposes of the models of teaching. For example, the fact that
more than one-half of gifted and non-gifted students selected the direct instruction
model to learn the skill of measurement is consistent with the purpose of the model

161

to offer students a logical sequence to learn skills and strategies (Stein, Carnine &
Dixon, 1998).
Second, student responses from the survey revealed statistically significant
differences between gifted and non-gifted students’ preferences for a model of
teaching when learning a defined content area. That is, when asked about learning in
the social science discipline, the data indicated that non-gifted students were more
inclined to select the concept attainment model, with a much greater degree of gifted
students choosing to learn about the social science discipline through the advance
organizer model of teaching. For example, more than three times as many gifted
students preferred the advance organizer when compared to non-gifted students and
these students were twice as likely as gifted students to select the concept attainment
model when learning about the social sciences. These results demonstrated that the
discipline of social science significantly influenced gifted and non-gifted
preferences for learning with specific models of teaching – that is, advance
organizer and concept attainment, respectively. As such, the data supports the
findings that gifted students possess differential learning abilities and preferences
when compared to non-gifted students (Gallagher, 2000; Winner, 1996).
Third, patterns emerged regarding student reasons for selecting to learn with
the varied models of teaching. Interest was the foremost reason for which gifted and
non-gifted students related their reasons for selecting specific models of teaching.
Ormrod (2006) proposed that students who are intrinsically motivated engage in
activities and are eager to learn new information due to interest. However, the one

162

exception to this pattern related to the direct instruction model. For instance, when
students selected to learn through either the advance organizer, concept attainment
and/or group investigation models, their primary reasons for learning through these
means were attributed to interest. On the other hand, the primary reason both gifted
and non-gifted students chose to learn with the direct instruction model was due to
ease, followed by familiarity and then interest.
Fourth, the results of the student survey further indicated that all students,
both gifted and non-gifted, were able to successfully recognize the procedural
knowledge of learning-to-learn as it related to three models of teaching – advance
organizer, direct instruction and group investigation. That is, the majority of
students were able to correctly identify the syntax of each of the three models.
According to Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009), how teaching is conducted has a
significant impact on students’ abilities to educate themselves on the learning
process, and the models of teaching provide students with specific models for
learning. These findings provide evidence that previous learning with the models of
teaching, as shown by participation in the Javits Models of Teaching Grant, does
affect both gifted and non-gifted students’ recognition of the procedural knowledge
of learning-to-learn. The survey data demonstrated no significant differences
between gifted and non-gifted students’ abilities to recognize the learning process of
the varied models of teaching.
Fifth, data from the student interviews revealed that a discrepancy exists
between gifted and non-gifted students’ ability to transfer previous learning with the

163

models of teaching to a self-directed learning context. Specifically, when
conducting a self-selected topic of independent study, the preferred learning process
for the majority of gifted students was the group investigation model of teaching,
followed by the advance organizer. The least preferred method of learning for this
population was the proposed randomized process for learning. The evidence that
gifted students more readily transferred their learning experiences to different
contexts aligns with Sternberg and Davidson’s (1986) perspective that the ability to
transfer learning and confront novel situations in an efficient manner has been cited
as one of the hallmarks of giftedness. Conversely, the responses of non-gifted
students did not reveal a significant preference for a model of teaching when
conducting an independent study. In fact, many of the non-gifted students did not
choose to learn with a model of teaching, but instead chose the randomized process
as their preferred method of learning.
Sixth, differences were found related to gifted students’ abilities to transfer
previous learning with the models of teaching to a self-selected topic of study within
their respective grade levels. For example, the large majority of 4
th
and 5
th
grade
gifted student responses revealed a preference for utilizing the group investigation
model of teaching when conducting an independent study. In contrast, the responses
of third grade students did not yield a significant preference for a specific model of
teaching. For instance, the 3
rd
grade gifted students’ preferences for a method of
learning were equally divided among the group investigation, advance organizer and
the randomized process for learning. When compared to the 3
rd
grade gifted and

164

non-gifted students, the 4
th
and 5
th
grade gifted students had a greater number of
experiences with the models of teaching. The effect of experiences relates to
Dewey’s (1916) argument that to think effectively one must have had experiences
that will provide resources for future learning endeavors. In support of this notion, it
can be concluded that the increased number of experiences with the models of
teaching enhanced student abilities to effectively transfer their knowledge of
learning to new contexts.
Seventh, patterns emerged related to gifted and non-gifted students’ thoughts
on how the varied models of teaching facilitated the learning process. Many of these
findings aligned with the theoretical rationales and intents of the models. For
example, aligned with Vygotsky’s (1978) perspective on the effectiveness of
scaffolding, the large majority of students who selected the direct instruction model
indicated that having someone’s assistance increased their learning process and
contributed to them being able to work independently. Additionally, students were
able to recognize the systematic learning presented through the models of teaching
(Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009) and described how the attributes of the models
equipped them with the knowledge of how to transfer learning to new contexts.
Finally, a noteworthy relationship was found between the primary and
secondary research. The data from the student interview (secondary research)
supported the data from the student survey (primary research) in relation to
students’ reasons for selecting the varied models of teaching. That is, the key reason
both gifted and non-gifted students selected specific methods of learning was due to

165

interest. Hidi (1990) posited how interest affects how students select and persist at
learning tasks. For example, consistent with the notion that a characteristic attribute
of the model is that it evokes student interest (Sharan & Sharan, 1990), the majority
of gifted students selected group investigation due to the interest the model was
perceived to offer. Generally, the gifted and non-gifted students held the same
perspectives related to interest and the models of teaching. For example, the
majority of gifted and non-gifted students attributed the interest of the group
investigation model to the act of examining visuals and websites and being able to
present one’s information at the lesson’s culmination.
Chapter 5 will present implications related to the models of teaching, student
motivation and preferences for learning, as well as the influence of the models of
teaching to provide students with the knowledge of how to learn. Explicitly,
Chapter 5 will discuss how the findings from the study may impact the field of
gifted education and the learning opportunities presented to gifted students.

166

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
United States Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan (2009), recently stated
that “the quality of our work force and the intellectual breadth and depth of our
future leaders is directly related to the quality of education we provide today.” In
efforts to drive school reform at the national level, the Obama Administration has
offered competitive “Race to the Top” grants that encourage school reform based on
curriculum that “fosters critical thinking, problem solving and the innovative use of
knowledge to prepare students for college and career” (White House, 2010, para. 4).
The President has further emphasized the role of schools to support and engage
students in becoming "inventors and builders of things, not just consumers"
(Duncan, 2009). Therefore, schools must focus on developing students’ abilities as
learners and active acquirers of knowledge, as opposed to passive acquirers of
information (Andre & Windschitl, 2003; Betts, 1996; Renzulli, 1977). But to think
effectively, one must participate in experiences that will provide resources for future
learning endeavors (Dewey, 1916).
A primary goal of teaching is to develop autonomous learners, and the
manner in which teaching is conducted has a great impact on students successfully
developing this ability (Betts, 1996; Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009). As Borko and
Putnam (1996) point out, understanding learners and the process of learning is
“arguably the most important knowledge a teacher can have” (p. 675). The
instructional principles set forth by the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and

167

Support Consortium (INTASC, 1992) assert that teachers utilize a variety of
instructional strategies to encourage students’ development of critical thinking and
problem solving. Additionally, California’s Teacher Performance Expectations
(TPE) asserts that in order to make content accessible for students, teachers need to
“vary instructional strategies according to purpose and lesson content” (p. 7). Thus,
it is essential to provide today’s diverse population of students with a variety of
instructional methodologies in order to facilitate successful learning opportunities
for all learners. But in order to facilitate consciously powerful thinkers, teachers
must present students with thoughtful, long-term instruction through systematic
models for thinking (Pritchard, 1994). With a goal of teaching students how to think
and learn, teachers must establish instructional practices that are used on a regular
basis (Joyce, 1985).
Education is the civil rights issue of our generation, and equality of
opportunity is at the center of America's social structure (Duncan, 2009).
Recognizing this, all students must be provided with a high-quality education,
including the gifted. With the current focus and efforts to improve low-performing
students, the needs of our most capable learners are often ignored (Cooper, 2009).
The National Association for the Gifted’s State of the States Report (2009) indicates
there is a noticeably insufficient national commitment to gifted students, which, if
unattended, will result in a nation ill-prepared to contend with the next generation of
innovators and ill-prepared to compete in the global economy. Generally, gifted
students exhibit more independence, intrinsic motivation and flexibility when

168

compared to their non-gifted peers (Clark, 2002). The gifted learner exhibits
differential thought processes (CAG, 2003), thus requiring modified curriculum and
instruction (Kaplan, 1979; Maker & Nielson, 1995a). Lacking appropriate
modifications to the learning environment, “opportunities are restricted and the
gifted students cannot develop their abilities effectively” (Maker & Nielson, 1995a,
p. 23).
Overview of the Study
This study aimed to demonstrate the effects of learning with the models of
teaching. Specifically, the study sought to ascertain the pedagogical preferences of
gifted students, as well as their respective understandings of the various models of
teaching. The research questions that directed this study were the following:
1. How do gifted and non-gifted students’ preferences for a specific model of
teaching to learn a defined content area relate to the reasons (challenge, level
of difficulty, interest or familiarity) for their choice?
2. How does learning with models of teaching affect gifted and non-gifted
students’ recognition of the procedural knowledge of learning-to-learn?
3. How does previous learning with the models of teaching transfer to facilitate
gifted and non-gifted students’ preferences for the process to conduct a self-
selected topic of independent study?
To address the above questions, a mixed methods approach was employed.
Quantitative analysis was conducted with the primary source of data which was
provided from existing research attained from the Javits Models of Teaching Grant.

169

Following the culmination of a sequence of learning experiences prescribed by the
grant, both gifted and non-gifted students were presented with a student survey that
consisted of forced-choice and closed-ended questions relating to learning through
the use of the models of teaching (advance organizer, concept attainment, direct
instruction and group investigation). Qualitative analysis was then completed
through a secondary study utilizing the same population of students. This research
involved the use of an interview, consisting of both fixed-response and open-ended
questions, given to a small population of gifted and non-gifted students. The
information from both the student survey and student interview provided data to
determine the effects of the models of teaching on student learning.
Research Findings and Conclusions
Overview of Findings
• The majority of gifted and non-gifted students selected to learn a specified
content area through a model of teaching, as opposed to a randomized
process for learning.
• While learning in the social science discipline, non-gifted students were
more inclined to select the concept attainment model, while a much greater
degree of gifted students chose to learn through the advance organizer model
of teaching.
• Most students, regardless of giftedness or content, attributed their choice of
learning to the perceived interest the selected method of learning offered.

170

• The majority of gifted and non-gifted students perceived three out of four
models of teaching (advance organizer, concept attainment and group
investigation) as interesting and/or challenging methods for learning.
• Many gifted and non-gifted students viewed the direct instruction model of
teaching as an easy and/or familiar method of learning.
• Previous learning with the models of teaching equipped gifted and non-
gifted students with the ability to recognize the procedural knowledge of
learning-to-learn as it related to the examined models of teaching.
• Both 4
th
and 5
th
grade gifted students could more readily transfer their
learning from the models of teaching to outside contexts when compared to
their non-gifted peers and the 3
rd
grade gifted students.
• The majority of gifted students selected to conduct the process of
independent study using the syntax of the group investigation model of
teaching.
Research Question 1
The study’s first research question sought to determine a relationship
between gifted and non-gifted students’ preferences for a model of teaching and the
reasons for their stated preferences.
Findings
The first major finding from the study survey relates to students’
recognition, utilization and understanding of the varied models of teaching. The
majority of gifted and non-gifted students selected a model of teaching, rather than a

171

randomized process, through which to learn the proposed content. In most instances,
the randomized process was the least preferred method of learning. However, the
one exception occurred in the discipline of language arts where one-quarter (25.6%)
of both gifted and non-gifted students selected this process as a means to learn about
characters in a story. Moreover, the data indicates that students understood the
intention of the models, specifically direct instruction, as more than one-half
(53.2%) of both the gifted and non-gifted populations selected this model to learn
about the skill of measurement in mathematics.
Statistically significant differences were found when examining gifted and
non-gifted student preferences for a model of teaching while learning a specified
content area. When learning in the social science discipline, the data indicated that
non-gifted students were more inclined to select the concept attainment model, with
a much greater degree of gifted students choosing to learn about the social science
discipline through the advance organizer model of teaching. Gifted students were
more than three times (30% compared to 9.4%) as likely to select the advance
organizer model of teaching over non-gifted students. In addition, the non-gifted
students were more than two times (50% compared to 22%) as likely to choose to
learn the social sciences content with the concept attainment model over the gifted
students. The remaining three questions that related to learning in the language arts,
science and math disciplines revealed no significant differences in student
preferences for specific models of teaching and giftedness.

172

Another finding derived from this study relates to students’ perceptions
regarding the models of teaching. When asked their reasons for selecting the varied
methods of learning the four content areas, the findings revealed that, regardless of
the proposed content or giftedness, students most attributed their choice of learning
to the perceived interest the selected method of learning offered. Interest, followed
by challenge, were the foremost perceptions to which both gifted and non-gifted
students related their reasons for selecting specific models of teaching. However,
the one exception to this pattern related to the direct instruction model. For instance,
when students selected the advance organizer, concept attainment and/or group
investigation models, their primary reasons for learning through these means were
attributed to interest. On the other hand, the primary reason both gifted and non-
gifted students chose to learn with the direct instruction model was due to ease,
followed by familiarity and then interest. No gifted students and only one non-gifted
student perceived the direct instruction model as challenging.
Conclusions
These findings lend credence to the value of learning with the models of
teaching over a period of time. Joyce (1985) proposes that in order to teach students
how to think and learn, teachers must establish practices that are used on a regular
basis. Furthermore, Pritchard (1994) discusses the value of enhancing student
thinking through “careful and long-term” systematic instruction (p. 2). As
participants of the Javits Models of Teaching Grant, these students had been
instructed with the varied models of teaching on a regular basis. They, therefore,

173

possessed the capability to identify and select the models of teaching, as opposed to
the randomized process for learning, to learn content. Further, it is apparent that
these students possessed an understanding of the models’ intents, specifically the
direct instruction model. The fact that more than one-half (53.2%) of gifted and
non-gifted students selected the direct instruction model to learn the skill of
measurement is consistent with the purpose of the model which is to offer students a
logical sequence to learn skills and strategies (Stein, Carnine & Dixon, 1998).
The findings revealed significant differences related to giftedness and the
models of teaching that students prefer when learning in the social science
discipline. However, no significant association was found between giftedness and
student preferences for the models of teaching in the disciplines of mathematics,
science and language arts. While gifted students possess differential characteristics
when compared to their same age peers (Clark, 2002; Gallagher, 2000; Winner,
1996), the data suggests that these characteristics do not necessarily result in
different perspectives related to the type of learning experiences that students enjoy.
However, the findings do reinforce the idea that instructional modifications
frequently recommended for gifted students are often appropriate for most students
(Maker & Nielson, 1995a). In addition, the data is consistent with Joyce, Weil and
Calhoun’s (2009) supposition that consistent learning with the models of teaching,
as these gifted and non-gifted students experienced, permits all students to learn
more effectively and more powerfully.

174

Lastly, the findings related to the students’ reasons for selecting specific
models of teaching are supported by motivation theory. Specifically, students who
are intrinsically motivated choose to pursue and persist through tasks perceived as
challenging and/or interesting (Deci, 1992; Hidi, 1990; Ormrod, 2006).
Additionally, student interest and engagement in the learning process are enhanced
by challenging tasks (Danner & Lonky, 1981). Students with a mastery goal
orientation, who demonstrate interest in the learning process (Ormord, 2006), are
more likely to select challenging activities that enhance learning and increase one’s
self worth. While challenge increases student motivation (Deci, 1992), interest
increases student attention to a learning task and can significantly influence
achievement and cognitive engagement (Hidi, 1990; Shirey, 1992; Terman, 1925).
Interest, Pintrich and DeGroot (1990) found, is positively correlated with deeper
processing strategies, as well as critical thinking – characteristics commonly found
among gifted students (Clark, 2002; Winner, 1996).
Three out of four models of teaching (advance organizer, concept attainment
and group investigation) were selected by gifted and non-gifted students due to their
perceived interest and/or challenge presented by the varied models. However, the
majority of gifted and non-gifted students who chose to learn with the direct
instruction model of teaching did so because it was perceived to offer an easy
method for learning. The findings related to learning through the direct instruction
model are also supported by theories of self-efficacy and motivation. The
motivational aspects of self-efficacy can be significant as students consider potential

175

outcomes of varied actions and respond in manners they believe will produce the
outcomes they value (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). When self-efficacy is high, learners
choose to engage in tasks that facilitate their skills (Bandura, 1997). As such,
scaffolding through repetition develops students’ self-efficacy, which enables them
to accomplish tasks with increasing independence (Vygotsky, 1978). The design of
the direct instruction model of teaching is intended to “generate and sustain
motivation through pacing and reinforcement” (Joyce, Weil and Calhoun, 2009, p.
374). The nature of the direct instruction model facilitates student understanding
through the use of observation, demonstration and repeated opportunities for
supported practice (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006; Ormord, 2006), thus increasing
student efficacy towards the desired skill.
The statistically significant association found between giftedness and the
models of teaching when learning in the social science discipline offers evidence to
support the concept that gifted students do possess differential learning preferences
when compared to non-gifted students (Gallagher, 2000; Winner, 1996).
Conversely, the findings revealed no significant differences between giftedness and
the models of teaching when learning in the disciplines of math, science or language
arts. In addition, the study’s data indicated that both gifted and non-gifted students
perceived learning with the models of teaching as interesting and/or challenging.
Evidence is provided that also underscores the belief that learning through the
environment offered by the models of teaching is beneficial for all learners (Joyce,
Weil & Calhoun, 2009).

176

Although the learning offered by the models of teaching is appropriate for
the majority of learners (Maker & Nielson, 1995a), the thinking required by the
varied models aligns with the unique characteristics of gifted learners. The context
offered by the models of teaching allows for appropriate modifications of the
learning process, thus facilitating the effective development of gifted students’
abilities (Maker & Nielson, 1995a). Gifted students generally demonstrate high
reasoning and problem solving abilities, as well as the capacity to generalize, view
relationships and ask searching questions (“Giftedness and the gifted,” 1990). Thus,
an appropriately complex learning environment for gifted students should include
“challenging tasks, complex ideas and sophisticated methods,” such as those offered
by the varied models of teaching (Maker & Nielson, 1995a, p. 9). Therefore, while
learning with the models of teaching is beneficial for all students, it can be
concluded that it is the type of learning responsive to gifted students.
Figures 5.1-5.4 illustrate the specific relationship of gifted characteristics
(CAG, 2003) to the syntax of the models of teaching (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun,
2009). The information in the figures indicates that the advance organizer, group
investigation and concept attainment models of teaching require thinking processes
which underscore the intellectual characteristics of gifted learners. In comparison,
the types of thinking necessitated by the direct instruction model presents a weaker
alignment. Gifted students possess accelerated thought processes, abstract thinking
and high verbal abilities. In addition, they are more able to process and generalize
information in comparison to their peers (CAG, 2003). Understanding these traits, it

177

is logical that syntax related to the direct instruction model of teaching does not
provide an optimal match for gifted learners.
Figure 5.1: Relationship Between Advance Organizer and Gifted Characteristics
Syntax of Model Gifted Characteristics

High
verbal
ability
Processes
information
at many
levels
Accelerated
pace of
thought
processes
Readily
generalizes
information
Views
unusual
relations
Thinks in
abstract
terms
I. Presentation of
abstract idea to
stimulate inquiry

X X X X X
II. Practice with prior
knowledge

X X X X X X
III. Application of the
organizer

X X X X X X
IV. Presentation of the
learning task

X X X X X X
VI. Application to real
world
X X X X X X

Figure 5.2: Relationship Between Concept Attainment and Gifted Characteristics
Syntax of Model Gifted Characteristics

High
verbal
ability
Processes
information
at many
levels
Accelerated
pace of
thought
processes
Readily
generalizes
information
Views
unusual
relations
Thinks in
abstract
terms
I. Presentation/
comparison of data and
identification of
concept

X X X X X X
II. Testing attainment
of concept

X X X X X
III. Analysis of
thinking strategies

X X X X X

178

Figure 5.3: Relationship Between Direct Instruction and Gifted Characteristics
Syntax of Model Gifted Characteristics

High
verbal
ability
Processes
information
at many
levels
Accelerated
pace of
thought
processes
Readily
generalizes
information
Views
unusual
relations
Thinks in
abstract
terms
I. Orientation and
connection to prior
knowledge

X
II. Demonstration

X
III. Structured
Practice

IV. Guided Practice

X X
V. Independent
Practice
X X X

Figure 5.4: Relationship Between Group Investigation and Gifted Characteristics
Syntax of Model Gifted Characteristics

High
verbal
ability
Processes
information
at many
levels
Accelerated
pace of
thought
processes
Readily
generalizes
information
Views
unusual
relations
Thinks in
abstract
terms
I. Exploration of
reactions to a situation

X X X X X
II. Formulation of
study task

X X X X
III. Study/research

X X X X X X
IV. Report findings

X X X X X X
V. Reflect on learning
process
X X X X X X

179

Research Question 2
This study’s second research question inquired how previous learning with
the models of teaching (shown through the Javits Models of Teaching Grant)
affected gifted and non-gifted students’ recognition of the procedural knowledge of
learning-to-learn.
Findings
When examining students’ abilities to successfully recognize the procedural
knowledge of learning-to-learn as it related to three models of teaching (advance
organizer, direct instruction and group investigation), the data revealed that the
majority of students, gifted and non-gifted, were able to correctly identify the syntax
of each of the three models. No statistical differences were found between gifted
and non-gifted students and their recognition of the varied syntaxes related to the
models of teaching. While the majority of students were able to identify the
appropriate syntax for the group investigation and advance organizer models, almost
all (95.8%) of the gifted and non-gifted students were able to correctly identify the
procedural knowledge related to the direct instruction model of teaching.
Conclusions
These findings support Piaget’s (1929) idea that, over time, children develop
increasingly sophisticated schemes when learning. As discussed in Chapters 1 and
2, schemes are defined as a set of related acts or thoughts that are used repetitively
in response to settings in order to facilitate the development of increasingly complex
and logical thought processes (Ormrod, 2006). It is understood that the models of

180

teaching present students with a sequence of related actions and thoughts (schemes)
when learning (Joyce, 1985; Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009). According to Taba
(1963), when learners develop an organizing scheme for their own cognitive
processes and are cognizant of the relationship of the learning task to a defined
experience, they are then able to accomplish these processes independently. The
research findings reinforce the idea that once students form an organizing scheme –
in this instance related to a model of teaching – they can independently execute the
learning process. Due to the fact that the students who completed the survey were
participants in the Javits Models of Teaching Grant, they had received instruction
through the utilization of these varied models of teaching. As a result, they were
repetitively presented with these schemes for learning over time. Consequently, the
students, both gifted and non-gifted, had developed the necessary organizing
scheme to be able to recognize the procedural knowledge for learning how to learn.
Furthermore, the findings support the central tenets of the information
processing theory of learning. This perspective focuses on the specific manners in
which learners mentally think about and process new information (Ormrod, 2006).
The models of teaching present students with a systematic means for acquiring
specific learning processes which increases the students’ capabilities to learn more
readily in the future (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009). Therefore, the models offered
the means through which students could think about the process of learning.
Practice, a form of rehearsal, assists students in effectively processing, organizing
and storing information in memory (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Due to their

181

involvement with the Javits Models of Teaching Grant, the students had the
opportunity to practice the skills of learning-to-learn over time through instruction
utilizing the models of teaching.
The majority of both groups of students were able to correctly identify the
learning-to-learn procedure related to each of the three models of teaching.
Although gifted students have distinctive learning differences when compared with
their non-gifted peers, the data indicates that giftedness does not necessarily
influence a student’s capability to learn how to learn. Due to their characteristics,
gifted students require opportunities to analyze their learning processes (CAG,
2003; Clark, 2002). Experts in the field of gifted education posit that this population
of learners should be presented with environments that cultivate their ability to learn
independently (Maker & Nielson, 1995b; Torrance, 1965). As such, learning
through the models of teaching facilitates this mastery of specific learning processes
(Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009) needed by the gifted student. While learning
through this means is necessary for the gifted student, the research findings provide
evidence to support the belief that learning with the models of teaching essentially
benefits all students in their efforts of learning how to learn (Joyce, Weil &
Calhoun, 2009; Maker & Nielson, 1995a).
As stated previously, this study’s findings indicated that the large majority of
both gifted and non-gifted students demonstrated the capability to recognize the
procedural knowledge related to the direct instruction model. The purpose of the
direct instruction model is to teach skills and strategies in a teacher-directed manner

182

(Stein, Carnine & Dixon, 1998). The model has consistently provided evidence to
support increased academic achievement, self-esteem and problem-solving abilities
when compared to any other mainstream approach to teaching (Watkins, 1988). Due
to its empirical track record and consistent results, “A number of large-scale
programs built around direct instruction have been directed at economically poor,
low achieving children” (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009, p. 374). The direct
instruction method of learning is represented in numerous commercially available
teaching programs (Binder & Watkins, 1990). Although the students in the Javits
Models of Teaching Grant received instruction through this model of teaching, the
above information leads to the conclusion that this method of learning was not new
for students. The large percentage of gifted and non-gifted students who correctly
identified the syntax of this model could be a result of greater use of this model of
teaching throughout the students’ academic careers, as well as their experiences as
learners in the grant. The increased experiences with the model could positively
affect students’ high capability to successfully recognize the process for learning
(Joyce, 1985) as it relates to the direct instruction model of teaching.
Group investigation focuses on the learner as inquirer who works to develop
and, subsequently, answer research questions with a focus on the process for
learning (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009). This process for learning permits students
to not only gain knowledge of content, but to begin to understand themselves as
inquirers who create and guide their own efforts to learn (Thelen, 1960). As
participants in the Javits Models of Teaching Grant, the students had been offered

183

learning experiences through this model of inquiry and were thus able to recognize
its specific process for learning. These findings are supported by Hertz-Lazarowitz,
Sharan and Steinberg’s (1980) supposition that “behavior patterns established
through cooperative learning experiences were found to transfer and operate in
contexts and situations other than those found in classrooms” (p. 222).
The study’s findings related to recognizing the procedural knowledge of the
advance organizer model of teaching aligned with the model’s intention. The
advance organizer aims to facilitate the effective attainment of new knowledge by
teaching students how to think and make learning meaningful, while increasing
students’ capabilities for future learning (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009). The
advance organizer model was created from the perspective that meaningful learning
is influenced by how curriculum is organized and how the mind processes new
information (Ausubel, 1963). Furthermore, the use of an “intellectual structure,”
such as a big idea utilized in the survey, augments the likelihood that students will
learn those structures and the related thinking processes associated with them
(Lawton, 1977).
The findings of this second research question permit one to conclude that
learning with the models of teaching, specifically advance organizer, direct
instruction and group investigation, provides both gifted and non-gifted students
with the knowledge of learning-to-learn. Experience with the types of learning
environments presented by the models of teaching fulfilled the fundamental intent

184

of all of the models; that is, to teach students how to think and learn (Joyce, Weil &
Calhoun, 2009).
Research Question 3
This study’s third and final research question was designed to determine if
previous learning with the models of teaching transfers to facilitate gifted and non-
gifted students’ learning preferences when conducting a self-selected topic of
independent study.
Chosen Methods of Learning
Findings. When presented with the hypothetical situation of conducting an
independent study, the majority of 4
th
and 5
th
grade gifted students chose to learn
through the group investigation model of teaching. Following their stated
preferences to study independently through the syntax of group investigation, the
students selected to learn through either the advance organizer or direct instruction
models. None of the 4
th
or 5
th
grade gifted students selected to conduct an
independent study through the proposed randomized process for learning. The
responses of the 3
rd
grade gifted students did not reveal a strong preference for a
specific model of teaching when conducting an independent study. These 3
rd
grade
gifted students were equally divided in their perspectives on the four choices (three
models of teaching and one randomized process for learning), and no patterns were
found in their responses. Similarly, the responses of the 3
rd
-5
th
grade non-gifted
students did not yield a significant preference for a specific model of teaching when
conducting an independent study.

185

Conclusions. The study’s findings that gifted students more readily
transferred their learning experiences with the models of teaching to different
contexts align with Sternberg and Davidson’s (1986) perspective that the ability to
transfer learning and confront novel situations in an efficient manner has been cited
as one of the hallmarks of giftedness. Additionally, the data supports research
conducted by Alexander et al. (1995) and Risemberg and Zimmerman (1992) that
indicates the gifted learner is more likely to employ a variety of both simple and
complex strategies for learning and to carry out those strategies in a more effective
manner than their same-age peers (Alexander & Schnick, 2008). Considering the
above points, as well as the study’s findings, it can be concluded that gifted students
possess a greater likelihood of employing complex strategies for learning and are
more able to transfer previous learning to new contexts when compared to their non-
gifted peers.
The findings related to gifted students’ preferences for learning with the
group investigation model support Hertz-Lazarowitz, Sharan and Steinberg’s (1980)
findings that “behavior patterns established through cooperative learning
experiences were found to transfer and operate in contexts and situations other than
those found in classrooms” (p. 222). Students in the Javits Models of Teaching
Grant received cooperative learning experiences through the group investigation
model and, as the findings indicate, transferred these experiences to the new context
of learning through independent study. The findings from the study’s student
interview illustrated that students, most notably the gifted, were motivated to select

186

a method of learning that included opportunity for independent, autonomous
learning. These findings correlate with Thelen’s (1960) perspective that this model
of teaching allows students to begin to understand themselves as inquirers who
create and guide their own efforts to learn. Understanding that gifted students
possess differentiating characteristics such as varied interests, curiosity, persistence
and goal-directed behavior (CAG, 2003), their stated preferences for learning
through this means is logical.
The differences between the 3
rd
grade gifted student responses and the 4
th

and 5
th
grade gifted student responses could be attributed to the factor of time. The
3
rd
grade students utilized for the secondary research had only completed one year
as participants in the Javits Models of Teaching Grant. Therefore, this group of
gifted students had limited exposure to learning content with the various models of
teaching when compared to the 4
th
and 5
th
grade gifted students in the grant. The
effect of experiences relates to Dewey’s (1916) argument that to think effectively
one must have had experiences that will provide resources for future learning
endeavors. Pritchard (1994) emphasizes the resultant value of enhancing student
thinking through “careful and long-term” systematic instruction (p. 2). Familiarity
with a learning experience can promote a sense of self-efficacy, and one’s self-
efficacy can influence choice of activity, effort and persistence (Pintrich & Schunk,
2002).

187

Analysis of Chosen Method of Learning
Findings. Upon selecting a specific method of learning, students were asked
about their beliefs regarding how the processes of their chosen method for learning
helped them to learn. The findings indicated no significant differences in the
thoughts and perspectives between gifted and non-gifted students. All of the
participating gifted and non-gifted students were able to communicate how their
preferred model of teaching helped them to learn. Many of the students viewed their
learning from a broader perspective, acknowledging the entire process and/or the
transferability of the process as contributing to their learning. However, students
also defined specific steps in each model of teaching that assisted their learning, and
identifiable patterns emerged related to their perceptions. For example, while
learning with the group investigation model, the majority of gifted and non-gifted
students believed that the many and varied resources (e.g., books, websites,
pictures) fostered their learning process. Many students pointed out that the big idea
utilized in the advance organizer contributed to their learning. The majority of gifted
and non-gifted students indicated that having someone’s assistance helped to
facilitate their learning in the direct instruction model of teaching. The students who
selected to learn through the randomized process for learning indicated that having
the teacher tell them what to do enhanced their learning process. The gifted students
who selected this method of learning were motivated by the certainty of obtaining
the correct information, while the non-gifted students emphasized the ease of the
learning process and improved grades.

188

Conclusions. Generally, the above findings are supported by the theoretical
purposes of the models of teaching. Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009) propose that
the models of teaching are “models of learning” in that they provide students with
the capabilities to “learn more easily and effectively in the future” (p. 6). Data from
the present study corroborates this view in that students described the transferability
of the learning processes provided by the models, specifically group investigation
and advance organizer. Students’ statements support the over-arching goals of the
models to teach students how to think (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009), as well as
affirming the learning purposes related to the varied models. The data related to the
transferability of the group investigation model to new contexts align with Hertz-
Lazarowitz, Sharan and Steinberg’s (1980) findings that “behavior patterns
established through cooperative learning experiences were found to transfer and
operate in contexts and situations other than those found in classrooms” (p. 222).
Students were able to transfer their understanding of the learning process due to the
cooperative learning opportunities presented by the research portion of the group
investigation model. Further, the study’s findings affirm the advance organizer’s
intent to provide effective attainment of new knowledge, while also increasing
students’ capabilities for future learning by teaching students how to think and make
learning meaningful (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009).
When asked how the varied models of teaching assist in the learning
process, students identified specific steps in each of the models. As previously
stated, the majority of gifted and non-gifted students believed the varied resources

189

facilitated their learning when participating in a group investigation. Learning
through this means aims to integrate various thinking skills and processes by having
“students collect data from a variety of sources, communicate with each other,
discuss the implications of their data in terms of group goals, clarify ideas, and
negotiate meaning” (Maker & Nielson, 1995b, p. 209). Furthermore, Thelen (1960)
contends that the learning achieved through group investigation is “illuminated by
reading, by personal investigation, and by consultation with experts” (p. 82).
Students’ responses, related to learning with the advance organizer model of
teaching, indicated that most students believed the big idea helped them to learn.
These findings support Ausubel’s (1963) perspective that meaningful verbal
learning occurs when the ideas in a new schema are linked to each other and to
earlier established schemas. Utilization of the big idea permitted students to connect
previous learning to new information. In order to present new material effectively,
students’ existing structures must be strengthened by “giving them concepts that
govern the information to be presented to them,” such as a big idea (Joyce, Weil &
Calhoun, 2009, p. 250). Furthermore, students indicated that having someone help
them, when learning through the direct instruction model of teaching, facilitated
their learning. These findings, related to direct instruction, coincide with Bandura’s
(1989) social cognitive theory and the perspective that observation assists students
in quickly attaining new behaviors through demonstration or modeling (Ormrod,
2006). Success in learning through this means is contingent upon the “thoroughness
and quality” of the teacher’s explanations (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009, p 369).

190

Although the randomized process was the least chosen method for
conducting an independent study, both gifted and non-gifted students who selected
this process believed the steps would help them to learn. Most indicated that having
the teacher tell them what to do facilitated their learning. In other words, these
students were motivated to learn based on their teachers’ directives. The non-gifted
students’ lesson selections were influenced by the perceived easier learning process
and improved grades. They believed that when a teacher tells them what to do, it
will improve their opportunity for a better grade. Connecting these perspectives to
motivation theory, Maehr (1992) and Pintrich and Schunk (2002) contend that
students who adopt a performance goal orientation, compared to a mastery goal
orientation, relate success and effort to earning high grades, often avoiding problem
solving and critical thinking opportunities. Maehr and Anderman (1993) posit that
these students may not think about what they learn, but will instead seek shortcuts
or quick payoffs, such as good grades and an easier learning process.
The gifted students who selected the randomized learning process attributed
their reasoning to the certainty, and related ease, of the learning process. Examining
gifted students’ characteristics, Tomlinson (2002) states that “one of the greatest
affective needs of many bright kids is one we seldom identify or address; that is, the
need for self-efficacy” (p. 7). In other words, gifted students have a strong desire to
be successful in their learning. Tomlinson contends that if a gifted student
encounters success with little challenge, they may become addicted to “easy
success” (p. 7). Consequently, these gifted students may begin to fear and/or avoid

191

challenge, which can be observed by a student preferring a teacher to tell them what
to do rather than making their own decisions when learning. Generally, gifted
students should demonstrate high intrinsic motivation (Gottfried & Gottfried, 1996).
However, Pintrich and Schunk (2002) contend that unchallenged students become
unmotivated students. As a result, gifted students may cease to value or develop
their abilities and interests (Adamson, 1977; Rimm, 1995). According to Robinson
(2006), when gifted students meet too few challenges that match their interests, it
can result in academic laziness or they may simply “turn off” (p. 265).
Reasons for Preferred Method of Learning
Findings. The data indicated that, similar to the results of the primary
research, the majority of students, regardless of giftedness, attributed their choice
for a method of learning to interest. While the data related to the non-gifted
students’ responses did not reveal additional patterns following interest, the data
from the gifted students’ responses demonstrated that they selected a specific
method of learning due to interest, followed by the familiarity of a learning
experience.
Conclusions. These findings can be related to and supported by motivation
theory. Specifically, students who are intrinsically motivated choose to pursue and
persist through tasks perceived as challenging and/or interesting (Deci, 1992; Hidi,
1990; Ormrod, 2006). Further, the perceived context of learning (Krapp, Hidi &
Renninger, 1992) and/or the possibility for active participation (Andre &
Windschitl, 2003; Renzulli, 1977) contribute to student interest towards a task. The

192

findings indicated gifted students’ lesson choices were also influenced by the
familiarity with the learning experience. These findings are consistent with the
belief that self-efficacy and motivation may be further influenced by familiarity
with a learning task. Scaffolding through repetition develops students’ self-efficacy,
as they are able to accomplish tasks with increasing independence (Vygotsky,
1978). Additionally, students with high self-efficacy are more likely to exert effort
and persist at a task when they have the necessary requisite skills (Pintrich &
Schunk, 2002).
Analysis of Reasons of Preferred Methods of Learning
Findings. Upon selecting a reason for choosing a specific method of
learning, students were asked why they believed their chosen learning process was
either interesting, challenging, familiar or easy. Student responses were coded
according to their choices (interest, challenge, ease, familiarity) and patterns
emerged in the data related to these four categories. Nominal differences existed
related to the responses of gifted and non-gifted students and their perspectives of
learning with the models of teaching.
Most of the gifted and non-gifted students believed the group investigation
model offered an interesting means to learn. They attributed this interest to the
visuals and websites students could utilize to research information, as well as the
process of presenting their findings at the conclusion of their independent study.
Additionally, many gifted students recognized the process of researching and
sharing information as a familiar learning process in their classrooms. None of the

193

student respondents considered the group investigation to be an easy method of
learning.
Gifted and non-gifted students’ perspectives demonstrated differences
related to learning with the advance organizer model of teaching. The majority of
gifted students believed the advance organizer model presented an interesting means
to learn because of the utilization of big ideas as the organizer. In contrast, many
non-gifted students considered the advance organizer to be an easy method of
learning due to the opportunity of accessing prior knowledge. None of the gifted and
non-gifted students believed the advance organizer offered a challenging or familiar
means to learn.
The majority of gifted and non-gifted students who were interviewed for the
secondary research felt the direct instruction model of teaching offered an
interesting means to learn. Both gifted and non-gifted students attributed their
interest in the learning process to the assistance of another individual included in
this model of teaching. Additionally, many gifted students identified the direct
instruction model as a familiar method of learning due to the “teach and then
practice” sequence of learning. Neither gifted nor non-gifted students considered the
direct instruction model to be challenging or easy. These findings conflict with the
findings related to the primary research in which the majority of gifted and non-
gifted students believed this model of teaching offered an easy method of learning.
Lastly, both gifted and non-gifted students considered the proposed
randomized process as an interesting means to learn. They believed the idea of

194

reading and gaining new knowledge from this learning process was interesting.
Further, some students believed this process of learning to be challenging due to the
written report included at the end of the learning sequence.
Conclusions. The findings related to learning with the group investigation
model of teaching are consistent with the tenets of the model. For example, the
model facilitates student-directed learning, problem solving and inquiry (Joyce,
Weil & Calhoun, 2009), all of which require the students’ active participation in
learning, thus increasing their interest in the learning process (Andre & Windschitl,
2003; Renzulli, 1977). In addition, the findings related to gifted students who
considered the “research and presentation” learning sequence to be familiar can be
linked to motivation theory. Student choice of the group investigation model implies
these students possessed a high self-efficacy in their ability to learn through this
method, which supports Pintich and Schunk’s belief that self-efficacy directly
influences choice of activity.
As stated previously, gifted students believed the big ideas utilized in the
advance organizer models provided an interesting means to learn. According to
Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009), “the chief feature of an organizer is thus that it is
at a higher level of abstraction and generality than the learning material itself”
(p. 257). Big ideas provided students with a high level of abstraction and generality.
The fact that gifted students believed the use of big ideas to be interesting is quite
logical. The need for abstract thinking and utilization of higher-order thinking skills
(generalizing) can be directly related to the cognitive characteristics of gifted

195

learners (CAG, 2003). Further, many non-gifted students attributed the ease of
learning with the advance organizer to the act of accessing prior knowledge when
learning. According to Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2009), this model of teaching aims
to provide students with “ideational anchors” to already available concepts (p. 252).
Thus, students are adding to their existing cognitive structure by reflecting on
previous learning prior to the accumulation of new content.
The advance organizer model of teaching provides students with appropriate
learning experiences by presenting the opportunity to reflect on, and then add to,
existing cognitive structures (Ausubel, 1963).
The findings related to learning with the direct instruction model of teaching
are consistent with Bandura’s (1989) social cognitive theory that emphasizes the use
of modeling for the acquisition of behaviors, as well as Vygotsky’s (1978)
perspective regarding the positive effect of social interaction on learning. Responses
of both gifted and non-gifted students provide evidence to support the perspective
that the direct instruction model is interesting due to the social interaction and
support provided by the model. Additionally, many gifted students believed this
method of learning to be familiar. These findings are supported by the fact that the
direct instruction method of learning is represented in numerous commercially
available teaching programs (Binder & Watkins, 1990). Thus, the students may have
encountered this method of learning more often when compared to other models of
teaching.

196

Many gifted and non-gifted students perceived the randomized process as
interesting. The students who selected this process for learning were interested in
the new knowledge they would gain from reading and writing. These findings are
consistent with Piaget’s (1928) perspective that children are naturally curious and
are often eager to search for information to construct understandings of the world.
Practical Implications and Suggestions
Based on the results from this dissertation study, several implications and
recommendations are offered for educational policy and teacher education related to
the use and implementation of the models of teaching. Educational policy must
address the use and effect of prescribed curriculum programs on gifted learners and
the benefits of utilizing the models of teaching with all students. The field of teacher
education should consider integrating the models of teaching into pre-service and
in-service development programs, in addition to enhancing teacher knowledge
related to the effective teaching of the gifted student.
Policy Implications
The ability to learn and make sense of new information, as opposed to
specific knowledge, is needed to effectively succeed in a rapidly changing world
(Gough, 1991). Facilitating learning through the models of teaching instills a deep
understanding of content, while simultaneously promoting an awareness of the
thinking process (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006; Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009). Data
from the present study supports the assertion that the models of teaching assist
students, both gifted and non-gifted, in learning how to learn. Not only did learning

197

through the models of teaching assist students in learning-to-learn, but learning
through these means contributed to motivation and interest in the learning process.
While teachers may be challenged to cultivate student interest in all content areas,
motivation can be generated through the means in which content is presented
(Ames, 1992). Knowing that student interest contributes to higher achievement
(Hidi, 1990; Shirey, 1992; Terman, 1925), attention should be given to both district
and schools’ strict adherence to prescribed instructional programs, which limit
teachers’ opportunities to present learning through the varied models of teaching.
Policies which promote the use of a scripted instructional program as a means to
effectively teach students must re-evaluate the true intention of school; that is, to
teach students what to think or how to think. In order to create effective thinkers, it
is imperative that students be presented with learning through the models of
teaching.
The ubiquitous use of and reliance on scripted curricular programs limit the
potential of gifted learners. Distinctive learning differences exist between how
gifted and non-gifted students learn, such as advanced patterns for thought
processing and reasoning, as well as enhanced skills for learning, retention and
independent work (Clark, 2002; Gallagher, 2000; Winner, 1996). Prescribed
curricular programs limit the thinking of students who “possess skills and strategies
for learning different from those of average students” (Maker & Nielson, 1995b, p.
25). Understanding that the delivery of instruction can have a significant role in
facilitating learning about learning (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2009), it is imperative

198

that gifted students have access to instruction that contributes to their understanding
of the learning process. Additionally, determining appropriate pedagogy to meet the
unique characteristics of gifted learners necessitates opportunities for self-directed
learning (CAG, 2003; Renzulli, 1977). Torrance’s (1965) seminal work found that
“one of the most promising curriculum frontiers for educating gifted children is self-
initiated learning” (p. 41). If schools are to foster the development and growth of
gifted students, it is important that national and state standards for gifted programs
promote the inclusion of instruction that utilizes the models of teaching, as well as
opportunities for self-directed study. Learning through these means will provide
gifted learners academic environments that align with their characteristics and
related intellectual needs, as well as cultivate individuals who are equipped with the
skills to think critically and learn independently.
Teacher Education Implications
Teacher effectiveness has been identified as one of the most influential
factors in student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Haycock, 1998; Pecheone
& Chung, 2006). A skillful educator is one who has a clear understanding of
pedagogical skills and principles and who possesses the ability to correctly diagnose
a situation and decide upon the appropriate instruction (Good, Biddle & Brophy,
1976). “Teacher learning ought not to be bound and delivered, but rather activated”
(Wilson & Berne, 1999, p. 194). Teaching education standards set forth by INTASC
and the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)
conceptualize teaching as a complex activity that subsists in a reciprocal

199

relationship with student learning, as opposed to the perspective that teaching is the
act of implementing set formulas regardless of student characteristics (Darling-
Hammond, 2006). Utilizing the models of teaching permits educators to present
students with varied and appropriate types of learning environments based on
student needs. It would be valuable for pre-service teacher education programs to
integrate the models of teaching into current methods courses. This would assist
pre-service teachers in analyzing and planning content-based lessons through the
lenses of the various models of teaching. In addition, in-service professional
developments should offer information related to teaching and learning with the
models. Teachers must gain knowledge of how to plan lessons with the models of
teaching while utilizing mandated curricular programs. It would further benefit in-
service teachers to develop collaborative communities (Little, 2002) and/or lesson
study (Chokshi & Fernandez, 2005) opportunities in which they could plan, teach
and reflect on the implementation of the models of teaching with colleagues. When
educators participate in sustained, collaborative learning grounded in the curriculum
they teach, in addition to focusing on pedagogy and student work, positive changes
in teacher practice and student achievement occur (Wiley & Yoon, 1995).
Equipping pre-service and in-service teachers with specific knowledge of
effective pedagogy for gifted students will enable them to approach instruction with
an increased focus on student needs for all learners. Blending the knowledge of
general education with education for the gifted will permit faculty and schools to
determine where system overlaps exist and will, additionally, assist the teaching

200

profession in developing a common methodological framework (Bellamy et al.,
2002). Educators of the gifted could gain both knowledge and confidence in
teaching gifted learners with the models of teaching through the use of collaborative
professional development opportunities wherein educators share knowledge, support
one another and develop expertise to advocate for the appropriate instruction for
gifted learners (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). The use of reflective
dialogue to analyze why certain models of teaching are appropriate for certain
learners could enhance teacher understanding of the models and could effectively
meet the needs of a diverse student population. In turn, these types of professional
development experiences could result in improved instruction for all learners in the
classroom, including gifted students. This structure of teacher education would
facilitate an improved focus towards meeting the needs of all learners in the
classroom.
Limitations of the Study
While conducting the research for this study, several important limitations
existed. First, the student survey utilized for this study had been developed and
administered as part of the Javits Models of Teaching Grant. Therefore, the
researcher was not able to provide input related to the design of the survey. Second,
a small, pre-existing sample of students was utilized for this study’s secondary
research which was based upon previous participation in the aforementioned grant,
thus precluding the generalization of this data. Third, the population used in the
student interview was composed of gifted and non-gifted students; however, all of

201

the students were from an SAS school in the LAUSD. Although the non-gifted
students had not been formally identified as gifted, they could be described as high
achieving by inclusion in the school’s program. Therefore, the comparison of gifted
and non-gifted students may not precisely reflect the non-gifted population. Fourth,
although the participating students were purposefully sampled from previous
participation in the grant, the process employed for selecting the students within this
population was at the discretion of the school administrator. Students were selected
with the intent of providing a balanced student population related to gender, grade
level and ethnicity. Fifth, the degree of teacher knowledge and experience
employing the varied models of teaching were not available. The students’ breadth
of experiences with the models of teaching may have affected their ability to apply
their knowledge of learning to other contexts.
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on this study’s methodology, findings and limitations, several
recommendations for future research are presented herewith. First, in order to gain
further insights into the effects of learning with the models of teaching, it would be
beneficial to include an instrument that permits students to independently arrange
the syntax of the models of teaching. In addition, students could actually participate
in self-directed learning. They could arrange their method of learning and, upon
completion, reflect on the effectiveness or challenges of their chosen process for
learning. These recommendations would provide supplementary data related to
previous learning with the models of teaching and with the students’ ability to

202

transfer their knowledge of learning-to-learn as it relates to the models. Secondly,
additional research is needed to determine the effects of learning with the models of
teaching and with gifted underachievers. This study found that gifted students were
motivated to learn due to the high interest provided by the models of teaching. As
such, it would be advantageous to examine the effects of utilizing the models with
gifted underachievers to determine if the presentation of the interest, through the
models of teaching, influences student achievement. Lastly, the data in this study
indicated that the amount of time learning with the models affects students’ ability
to transfer their knowledge of learning-to-learn. Additional research is needed to
substantiate the quantity of learning experiences involving the models of teaching
that are necessary to provide students with a knowledge of learning processes that
they can successfully transfer to new contexts.

203

REFERENCES

Alexander, J.M., & Schnick, A.K. (2008). Motivation. In J.A. Plucker and C.M.
Callhan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education, (pp. 423-
447). Waco: Prufrock Press Inc.

Alexander, J.M., Carr, M., & Schwanenflugel, P.J. (1995). Development of
metacognition in gifted children: Directions for future research.
Developmental Review, 15, 1-37.

Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. U.S.
Office of Education: Research Grant DEH023T80023, Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services.

Anand, P., & Ross, S. (1987). A computer-based strategy for personalizing verbal
problems in teaching mathematics. Educational Communication and
Technology Journal, 35, 151-162.

Andre, T., & Windschitl, M. (2003). Interest, epistemological belief, and intentional
conceptual change. In G.M. Sinatra & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional
conceptual change (pp. 173-197). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Au, K. (2006). Culturally responsive instruction as a dimension of new literacies.
Retrieved June 5, 2005, from
http://readingonline.org/newliteracies/au/index.html.

Au, K. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students
with diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(33), 298-316.

Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York:
Grune & Stratten, Inc.

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.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 82(2), 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American
Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

204

Baron, J., & R.V. Brown. (1991). Teaching decision making to adolescents.
Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.

Begin, J., & Gagne, F. (1994). Predictors of attitudes toward gifted education: A
review of the literature and blueprints for future research. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 17, 161-179.

Bellamy, T., Fowler, S., Hale, R., Koroby, C., Pugach, M., Shaker, C., Shanely, D.,
& Ying, R. (2002). Preparing teachers to work with students with
disabilities possibilities and challenges for special and general teacher
education: A white paper of the American association of colleges for teacher
education focus council on special education. Washington, DC: American
Association of Colleges of Teacher Education.

Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myth, fraud, and the
attack on America’s public schools. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Bess, J. (1997). Teaching well and liking it: Motivating faculty to teach effectively.
Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Best, J.W., & Kahn, J.V. (1998). Research in education (8
th
ed). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.

Betts, G. (1996). Facilitating life-long learners in the regular classroom: Years P-12.
Our Gifted Children, 3(5), 2-7.

Betts, G. (1985). The Autonomous Learner Model for the gifted and talented.
Greely, CO: Autonomous Learning Publications and Specialists.

Binder, C., & Watkins, C. L. (1990). Precision Teaching and Direct Instruction:
Measurably superior instructional technology in schools. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 3(4), 74-96.

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (2
nd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. (p. 673-708). New York:
Macmillian.

Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to
learn. Educational Leadership, 45(2), 40-48.

205

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

Bruner, J. S. (1966) Toward a theory of instruction, Cambridge, Mass.: Belknapp
Press.

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

Bruner, J., Goodnow, J.J., & Austin, G.A. (1967). A study of thinking. New York:
Science Editions.

Burden. P.R., & Byrd, D.M. (2007). Methods for effective teaching: Promoting K-
12 student understandings (4
th
ed). Boston: Pearson.

Byra, M., & Jenkins, J. (1997). Learner Decision Making in the Inclusion Style of
Teaching. Chicago, Illinois: American Educational Research Association.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 407389).

California Association for the Gifted and California Department of Education.
(1994). Differentiating the core curriculum and instruction to provide
advanced learning opportunities. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.

California Association for the Gifted. (2003). Meeting the challenge: A guidebook
for teaching gifted students. (2
nd
edition). Whittier, CA: California
Association for the Gifted.

California Code of Regulations, CCR Section 3840.

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 State Board of Education. (2001). Recommended Standards for Programs
for Gifted and Talented Students. In California Department of Education.
Retrieved November 11, 2007, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/re/.

Caine, R., & Caine, G. (1997). Education of the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum.

Chokshi, S., & Fernandez, C. (2005). Reaping the systemic benefits of lesson study:
Insights from the U.S. The Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9), 674-680.

206

Clarenbach, J. (n.d.). More questions than answers: No child left behind. Retrieved
October 7, 2009, from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=1256.

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

Clark, B. (2002). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home
and at school (6
th
ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Clark, B. (2005). Solving the problems of assessment and evaluation: Or how to get
to where you need to go with gifted learners. Gifted Education
Communicator, 36(1), 23-27.

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

Coleman, L.J. (1985). Schooling the gifted. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Collins, J. (1982). Self-efficacy and ability in achievement behavior. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New York.

Cooper, C.R. (2007a). The politics of defensible gifted education: How to avoid a
train wreck. Gifted Education Communicator, 38(2), 15-16.

Cooper, C. R. (2007b). The no child left behind law: Is it leaving bright children
behind? Parenting for High Potential.

Cropley, A., & McLeod, J. (1986). Preparing teachers of the gifted. International
Review of Education. 32(2), 125-136.

Czikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (1989). The dynamics of intrinsic
motivation: A study of adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research
on motivation in education: Vol. 3. Goals and cognitions. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary
programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

207

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.

Danner, F.W., & Lonky, E. (1981). A cognitive-developmental approach to the
effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation. Child Development, 52, 1043-
1052.

Deci, E.L. (1992). The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: A self-
determination theory perspective. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp
(Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.

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

Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1992). The initiation and regulation of intrinsically
motivated learning and achievement. In K.A. Boggiano & T.S. Pittman
(Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective.
Cambridge, England. Cambridge University Press.

Delisle, J. (2004). Comfortably numb: A new view of underachievement. California
Association for the Gifted’s Gifted Education Communicator, 35(4), 17-20.

Dembo, M.H. (1994). Applying educational psychology (5
th
ed). New York:
Longman.

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

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

Diamond, M.C. (2001). Response of the brain to enrichment. New Horizons for
Learning: News from the Neurosciences, Retrieved September 24, 2009,
from www.newhorizons.org/neuro/diamond_brain_response.html.

Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159-199.

Duncan, A. (2009). Economic Security and a 21st Century Education: Secretary
Arne Duncan's Remarks at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Education and
Workforce Summit. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education:
http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/11/11092009.html.

208

Eggen, P.D. & Kauchak, D.P. (2006). Strategies and models for teachers: Teaching
content and thinking skills (5
th
ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

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

Ellis, A. K. (2007). Teaching & learning elementary social studies (8
th
ed). Boston:
Pearson Education, Inc.

Erickson, H.L. (2002). Concept-based curriculum and instruction: Teaching beyond
the facts. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc.

Feldhusen, J.F., & Kroll, M.D. (1991). Boredom or challenge for the academically
talented in school. Gifted Education International, 7, 80-81.

Gagne, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4
th
ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.

Gallagher, J.J. (1994). Current and historical thinking on education for gifted and
talented students. In P. O’Connell-Ross (Ed.), National excellence: A case
for developing America’s talent. An anthology of readings (pp. 83-107).
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Gallagher, J.J. (2000). Unthinkable thoughts: Education of gifted students. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 44, 5-12.

Gallagher, J.J., Harradine, C.C., & Coleman, M.R. (1997). Challenge or boredom?
Gifted students’ views of their schooling. Roeper Review, 19, 132-141.

Giftedness and the gifted: What’s it all about? (1990). Retrieved January 15, 2010,
from http://www.nagv.org/index.asp.

Good, T., Biddle, B. & Brophy, J. (1976). Teachers make a difference. New York:
Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

Good, T., & Brophy, J. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9
th
ed.). New York:
Longman.

Goodlad, J. I. (2004). A place called school (20
th
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gottfried, A.E., & Gottfried, A.W. (1996). A longitudinal study of academic
intrinsic motivation in intellectually gifted children: Childhood through early
adolescence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 179-183.

209

Gough, D. (1991). Thinking about thinking. Research Roundup, 7(2), 3-8.

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

Hardre, P.L., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of rural students’ intentions
to persist in, versus drop out of, high school. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95, 347-356.

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

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, 72, 97-104.

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

Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning.
Review of Educational Research, 60, 549-571.

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

Hollingworth, L.S. (1931). The child of very superior intelligence as a special
problem in social adjustment. Mental Hygiene, 29, 3-16.

Hollingworth, L.S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ, Stanford-Binet origin and
development. Yonkers, NY: World Book.

Hunter, J.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). The positive psychology of interested
adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 27-35.

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (1992). Model
standards for beginning teacher licensing, assessment and development: A
resource for state dialogue. Retrieved February 12, 2009 from
www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/corstrd.pdf.

210

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

Joyce, B., Weil, M.,& Calhoun, E. (2009). Models of teaching (8th Edition). Boston:
Pearson.
Kanevsky, L., & Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding
boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26, 20-28.

Kaplan, S.N. (1974). Providing programs for the gifted and talented: A handbook.
Ventura: CA: Superintendent of Schools.

Kaplan, S.N. (1979). Inservice training manual: Activities for developing
curriculum for gifted/talented. Ventura, CA: Superintendent of Schools.

Kaplan, S.N. (2007). Differentiating curriculum: The moral imperative. Gifted
Education Communicator, 38(2), 17-18.

Kaplan, S.N., & Gould, B. (2002). Independent study. Calabasas, CA: Educator to
Educator.

Kitano, M., & Kirby, D.F. (1986). Gifted education: A comprehensive view. Boston:
Little Brown and Company.

Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (1992). Interest, learning, and development.
In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in
learning and development (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

Larson, R.W. (2000). Toward an integrated theory of adolescent ego development:
The “new look” at adolescent egocentrism. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 63, 562-571.

Lawton, J.T. (1977). Effects of advance organizer lessons on children’s use and
understanding of the causal and logical “because.” Journal of Experimental
Education, 46(1), 41-46.

Learning. (1997). In V. Neufeldt (Ed.), Webster’s New World Dictionary (769, 3
rd

ed.). New York: Macmillian, Inc.

Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2010, April). at Learning-Theories.com.
Retrieved April 1st, 2010 from http://www.learning-theories.com.

211

Lemlech, J.K. (2006). Curriculum and instructional methods for the elementary and
middle school (6
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Inc.

Lepper, M., & Hodell, M. (1989). Intrinsic motivation in the classroom. In C. Ames
& R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 73-
105). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice:
Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 18, 917-946.

Los Angeles Unified School District. (2009). E-Choices: LAUSD program choices.
Retrieved February 18, 2010, from
http://echoices.lausd.net/Other/OtherChoices.aspx.

Maehr, M.L. (1992). Transforming school culture to enhance motivation. Paper
presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Maehr, M.L., & Anderman, E.M. (1993). Reinventing schools for early adolescents:
Emphasizing task goals. Elementary School Journal, 93, 593-610.

Maker, J.C., & Nielson, A.B. (1995a). Curriculum development and teaching
strategies for gifted learners (2
nd
ed.). TX: Pro-Ed., Inc.

Maker, J.C., & Nielson, A.B. (1995b). Teaching models in education of the gifted
(2
nd
ed.). TX: Pro-Ed., Inc.

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

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools. Alexandria VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Matthews, D.J. & Foster, J.F. (2005). Being smart about gifted children: A
guidebook for parents and educators. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

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.

McCoach, D.M. & Siegle, D. (2003). The structure and function of academic self-
concept in gifted and general education samples. Roeper Review, 25, 61-65.

212

McCoach, D.M., & Siegle, D. (2007). What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the
gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246-255.

McEwan, E. K., & McEwan. P.J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.

McNeil, J. (1996). Curriculum: A comprehensive introduction (5
th
ed). New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Meier, D., Kohn, A., Darling-Hammond, L., Sizer, T.S., & Wood, G. (2004). Many
children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our
children and our schools. Boston: Beacon Press.

Mergendoller, J., Marchman, B., Mitman, A., & Packer, M. (1988). Task demands
and accountability in middle-grade science classes. Elementary School
Journal, 88, 251-265.

Moore, K.D. (2005). Effective instructional strategies: From theory to practice.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2008a). Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented
Students Education Act. Retrieved June 12, 2009, from
http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=572.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2008b). Frequently asked questions.
Retrieved June 2, 2009, from http://www.nagc.org/index2.aspx?id=548.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2009). State of the states in gifted
education: National policy and practice data. The Council of State Directors
of Programs for the Gifted.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2008, February).
Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation
Institutions. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from
http:www.ncate.org/public/unitStandardsRubrics.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education: The standard of
excellence in teacher preparation. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from
http://www.ncate.org.

Ormrod, J.E. (2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners. (5th edition).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

213

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

Pechone, R., & Chung, R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education: The performance
assessment for California teachers (PACT). Journal of Teacher Education,
57(1), 22-36.

Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. New York: Harcourt Brace.

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

Pintrich, P.R., Marx, R.W. & Boyle, R.A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change:
The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the
process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.

Pintrich, P.R., & Schunk, D.H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research
and applications (2
nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice
Hall.

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

Putnam, R., & 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.

Reis, S.M. (1998). Underachievement for some, dropping out for others. ITAG
News, Iowa Talented and Gifted Association Newsletter, 23(4), 12-15.

Reis, S.M., & McCoach, D.B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students:
What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 152-
170.

Reis, S. M., & Schack, G. D. (1993). Differentiating products for the gifted and
talented: The encouragement of independent learning. In J. Maker (Ed.)
Critical issues in education of the gifted, Vol. III. Rockville, MD: Aspen
Publishers, Inc.

Renzulli, J. S. (1977). Enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible
programs for gifted and talented. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.

214

Renzulli, J. S. (1999b). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop
it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
23, 3-54.

Renzulli, J.S., & Reis, S.M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A
comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield, CT: Creative
Learning Press.

Resnick, L.B. (1998). Making America smarter. Retrieved July 16, 2009, from
http://www.fortworthisd.org/math/Documents/MakingAmericaSmarter.pdf.

Rimm, S. (1995). Why bright kids get poor grades and what you can do about it.
New York: Crown Trade.

Risemberg, R., & Zimmerman, B.J. (1992). Self-regulated learning in gifted
students. Roeper Review, 15, 98-101.

Robinson, N.M. (2006). Counseling issues for gifted students: More issues? Special
issues? In California Association for the Gifted (Eds.). Expert approaches to
support gifted learners: Personal perspectives, best practices, and positive
solutions (pp. 263-268). Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.

Rogers, K.B. (1991). The relationships of grouping practices to the education of the
gifted and talented learner. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the
Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: Matching the program to the
child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

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

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

Rosenshine, B.V., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M.C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3
rd
ed.). New York: Macmillian.

215

Rueda, R., & Dembo, M. (1995). Motivational processes in learning: A comparative
analysis of cognitive and sociocultural frameworks. In M. Maehr & P.
Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Culture,
Motivation, and Achievement (Vol. 9). (Pp. 255-289). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American
Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

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

Siegle, D. (2004). Living up to their potential: Strategies for promoting
achievement-oriented students. Gifted Education Communicator, 35(4), 31-
35.

Shaunessy, E. (2003). State policies regarding gifted education Gifted Child Today
26(3): 16-21.

Sharan, S., & Hertz-Lazarowtiz, R. (1980). Academic achievement of elementary
school children in small group versus whole-class instruction. Journal of
Experimental Education, 48(2), 120-129.

Sharan, S. & Sharan, Y. (1976). Small-group teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology Publications.

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

Shirey, L. (1992). Importance, interest, and selective attention. In Renninger, K.A.,
Hidi, S. & Krapp, A. (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development
(p. 281-296). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

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.

Sternberg. R.J. (1985). Human abilities: An information-processing approach. New
York: Freeman.

216

Sternberg, R.J., & Davidson, J. E. (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Stipek, D. (1996). Motivation and instruction. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.),
Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 85-113). New York: Macmillian.

Strip, C.A & Hirsch, G. (2000). Helping gifted children soar: A practical guide for
parents and teachers. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Sullivan, E.V. (1967). Piaget and the school curriculum: A critical appraisal
(Bulletin No. 2). Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

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

Taba, H. (1967). Teacher’s handbook for teaching elementary social studies. Palo
Alto: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and physical traits
of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning,
and Schooling in Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thelen, H.A. (1960). Education and the human quest. New York: Harper Brothers.

Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational
Research, 64, 37-54.

Tomlinson, C.A. (1999). Differentiating instruction: Responding to the needs of all
learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

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

Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability
classrooms. (2
nd
edition). Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C.A. (2002). Invitations to learn. Educational Leadership, 60(1), 6-10.

217

Tomlinson, C.A., & Eidson, C.C., (2003). Differentiation in practice: A resource
guide for differentiating curriculum grades 5-9. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

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.

Torrance, E.P. (1965). Gifted children in the classroom. New York: The Macmillian
Company.

Tieso, C.L. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore. Roeper Review,
6(1), 29-36.

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

United States Department of Education. (1993). National Excellence: A Case for
Developing America’s Talent. Retrieved July 20, 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 July 20, 2009,
from http://www.ed.gov/programs/javits/index.html.

Watkins, C. L. (1988). Project Follow Through: A story of the identification and
neglect of effective instruction. Youth Policy, 10(7), 7-11.

Weinstein, R. (1998). Promoting positive expectations in schooling. In N. Lambert
& B. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through
learner-centered education (pp. 81-111). Washington D.C.: American
Psychological Association.

Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. F. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In
Winrock, M. (ed.) Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd ed. New York:
Macmillian pp 315-327.

Wentzel, K.R., & Wigfield, A. (1998). Academic and social motivational influences
on students’ academic performance, Educational Psychology Review, 10,
155-175.

218

Westberg, K., Archambault, F., Jr., Dobyns, S., & Slavin, T. (1993). The classroom
practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2),
120-146.

White, E.G. (2007). Are we leaving behind students with gifts? Gifted Education
Communicator, 38(2), 13.

White House. (2010). Education. Retrieved April 5, 2010, from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education.

Wiley, D., & Yoon, B. (1995). Teacher reports of opportunity to learn: Analyses of
the 1993 California learning assessment system. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 17(3), 355-370.

Winebrenner. S. (1992). Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom.
Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.

Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: BasicBooks.

Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist, 55,
159-169.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1988). Curriculum design issues in developing curriculum for
the gifted. In J.F.J. VanTassel-Baska, K. Seeley, G. Wheatly, L. Silverman,
& W. Foster (Ed.), Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (pp. 53-
76). Needhan Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1994). The national curriculum development projects for high
ability learners: Key issues and findings. In N. Colangelo, S.G. Assouline, &
D.L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent Development: Proceedings from the 1993
Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent
Development, p. 19-38. Dayton: OH: Ohio Psychology Press.

Van Tassel-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.

Vernon, P. E., Adamson, G., & Vernon, D. (1977). The psychology and education of
gifted children. Boulder, CO: Viewpoint.

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

219

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. (Original work published in 1939).

Yates, J.F., & A.L. Patalano. (1999). Decision making and aging. In Processing of
medical information in aging patients: cognitive and human factors
perspectives, ed. D.C. Park, R.W. Morrell and K. Shifren, 31-54. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.

220

APPENDIX A
STUDENT SURVEY
2008-2009 Javits Student Survey

Name: _____________________
Teacher: _____________________
School: _____________________
Grade: _________

Part 1

Directions for Part 1:

Read the following questions on each page of
Part 1. Then circle the lesson you would most
enjoy. Finally, check the boxes at the bottom of
the page to share why you chose the lesson.

USC Javits 2009

221

Which lesson would you want to learn? Why?

To learn about measurement I would want to…

I chose lesson _____ because: (choose one or more)
 It is challenging
 It is interesting
 It is like what we always do
 It is easier

Lesson A

• Watch the teacher measure
• Practice measuring different
things
Lesson B

• Look at different
measurement tools
• Ask questions
• Research to find the answers
to the questions
• Share ideas
Lesson C

• Prove the statement: objects
can be measured
differently
• Research and measure
different things

Lesson D

• Look at different
measurement tools
• Decide how and why they are
alike and/or different

222

Which lesson would you want to learn? Why?

To learn about people and how they live I would want to

I chose lesson _____ because: (choose one or more)
 It is challenging
 It is interesting
 It is like what we always do
 It is easier

Lesson A

• Look at pictures of different
groups of people
• Ask questions
• Research to find the answers
to the questions
• Share ideas
Lesson B

• Listen to the teacher talk
about different groups of
people
• Write a report
Lesson C

• Prove the statement: People
live in different ways
• Research using pictures
& textbooks
• Discuss ideas

Lesson D

• Look at pictures of people in
different groups
• Decide why and how these
groups of people are alike
and/or different

223

Which lesson would you want to learn? Why?

To learn about weather I would want to…

I chose lesson _____ because: (choose one or more)
 It is challenging
 It is interesting
 It is like what we always do
 It is easier

Lesson A

• Look at different
pictures of weather
• Ask questions
• Research to find the
answers to the questions
• Share ideas

Lesson B

• Read about a textbook
chapter
• Listen to the teacher
describe the information
• Write a report
Lesson C

• Prove the statement:
Weather constantly
changes
• Research using pictures
and textbooks
• Discuss ideas

Lesson D

• Look at pictures of
different types of
weather
• Decide why and how the
weather changes

224

Which lesson would you want to learn? Why?

To learn about characters in a story I would want to…

I chose lesson _____ because: (choose one or more)
 It is challenging
 It is interesting
 It is like what we always do
 It is easier
Lesson C
• Look at pictures of the
characters in the story
• Decide why and how the
characters are alike
and/or different

Lesson D
• Prove the statement:
characters share
common traits
• Read the story
• Discuss ideas
Lesson A
• Read a story in a book
• Answer the teacher’s
questions
• Do a worksheet about
the character in the story
Lesson B
• Look at pictures of the
characters in the story
• Ask questions
• Read the story to answer
the questions
• Share ideas

225

Part 2

Directions for Part 2:

Read the question at the top of each page.
Underneath each question are three “learning-
to-learn” strips. They show how to learn using a
pattern of pictures. Look at all the patterns.
Circle the best pattern that shows how you
would study the answer to the question.

226

How would you learn how to compare and
contrast two different stories?
Observe How To
Do Something
Practice Once With
Lots of Help
Practice Twice
With Some Help
Practice Three Times
On Your Own
Practice Three
Times
On Your Own
Practice Once With
Lots of Help
Practice Twice
With Some
Help
Practice Once With
Lots of Help
Practice Twice
With Some
Help
Practice Three Times
On Your Own
Observe How To
Do Something
Practice
Once With
Lots of
Help
Practice
Twice
With
Some
Help
Practice
Three
Times
On Your
Own
Observe
How To
Do
Something
Observe
How To
Do
Something

227

How would you learn about the following
region in California?

Research to
find out
information
Observe
something
Ask new
questions you
have
Ask questions
about what you
see
Discuss your
findings with
others
Research to find
out information
Observe
something
Ask new
questions you
have
Ask questions about
what you see
Discuss your
findings with others
Research to find
out information
Observe
something
Ask new
questions you
have
Ask questions about
what you see
Discuss your
findings with
others

228

Read the big idea:

Research New
Information

Meet an
Unclear Idea
Think What I
Already
Know

Think How
to Apply It
Research New
Information

Meet an Unclear
Idea
Think What I
Already Know

Think How to
Apply It
Research New
Information

Meet an Unclear
Idea
Think What I
Already Know

Think How to
Apply It

229

How would you learn how to simplify a
fraction?

4 1
8 2

=
Observe
How To
Do
Something
Practice Once
With
Lots of Help
Practice Twice
With Some
Help
Practice Three
Times
On Your Own
Practice
Three Times
On Your
Own
Practice
Twice
With Some
Help
Observe
How To
Do
Something
Practice
Once With
Lots of
Help
Practice
Twice
With Some
Help
Practice
Three Times
On Your
Own
Practice
Once With
Lots of
Help
Observe
How To
Do
Something

230

How would you learn about the following group
of people?

Research to
find out
information
Observe
something
Ask new
questions you
have
Ask questions
about what you
see
Discuss your
findings with
others
Research to find
out information
Observe
something
Ask new
questions you
have
Ask questions about
what you see
Discuss your
findings with
others
Research to find
out information
Observe
something
Ask new
questions you
have
Ask questions about
what you see
Discuss your
findings with others

231

How would you prove this big idea:

Research New
Information

Meet an
Unclear Idea
Think What I
Already
Know

Think How
to Apply It
Research New
Information

Meet an Unclear
Idea
Think What I
Already Know

Think How to
Apply It
Research New
Information

Meet an Unclear
Idea
Think What I
Already Know

Think How to
Apply It

232

APPENDIX B

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Teacher: _______________________ School: ________________________

Grade: _________ Identified Gifted: ________

Introduction: Today we are going to be talking about conducting, or doing, an
independent study. What do you think that means? Think about the meaning of
the two words – independent and study. What do you think an independent study
is?

When conducting an independent study, you are able to choose a topic that you
would like to learn more about. Once you choose a topic, you then ask questions
and begin to research your topic. The last step of an independent study is to
share your findings with others.

1. Question: If you were to conduct an independent study in which you were
able to choose the topic that you would like to study, what topic would you
choose? What are you interested in or what would you like to learn more about?
(Opinion)

Student Response: Will vary according to interest. (Students will record their
chosen topic on an index card.)

Dialogue/Explanation: Now that you have selected a topic of study, I would
like you to think about how you would conduct your study. What steps or what
process would you take to learn about your topic and to answer your questions?
I have four different ideas for how you might conduct your study to learn more
about your topic. Let me take you through each idea or lesson option. I will tell
you what it would sound like for each lesson choice. After I read the different
choices, I would like you to think about what best represents the steps you
would take to conduct your independent study. Does that make sense to you? Do
you have any questions?

(Researcher will present students with written descriptions of four lessons on
large construction paper; i.e., models of teaching – direct instruction, group
investigation, advance organizer and a non-model example. Researcher will
read each lesson to the students.)

233

* The statements or big ideas presented in Lesson C will be determined
according to each student’s topics. The big ideas will be pre-determined and pre-
printed on cards so that the researcher may insert the one which is appropriate to
the selected topic (e.g., Systems are made up of different parts that work
together. Relationships are purposeful. Change can be positive or negative.)

2. Question: Which of these lesson options would you choose in order to learn
more about your topic? (Behavior)

Student Response: Students will choose one of the following lesson options:
Lesson A, Lesson B, Lesson C, Lesson D

Lesson A
• First, I will go to someone and ask them to show me how to ask a research
question and how to find the answer.
• Next, I will ask them to practice it with me.
• Then I will be ready to do my work on my own.
Lesson B
• First, I will look at pictures and try to find videos on websites about my topic.
• After looking at the pictures and/or watching the videos, I will write down the
questions I have about my topic.
• Next, I will go to the library to collect resources (books, articles, etc.) about
my topic.
• Then I will share my findings with others.
Lesson C*
• First, I will read the big idea: __________________(will vary according to
topic).
• I will think about this big idea and what I already know about my topic.
• Next, I will research new information on my topic to see how it relates to the
statement that _______________(as stated above).
Lesson D
• First, my teacher will tell me what book to read for my topic.
• Next, my teacher will tell me how many questions to ask and where to find
the answers.
• Then I will write a report.

234

3. Question: (Upon the selection of a particular topic, the researcher will ask
students the following sub-questions related to the steps of their preferred model
of teaching.)

Lesson A:
• Do you think the first step of this lesson is important? (Opinion)
--Why is demonstrating or having someone show you how to do
something important to you?
--What is an example of something your teacher has demonstrated for
you in order to help you learn?
--How does it make you feel when you don’t have someone show you
how to do something before trying it?
• Do you think it is helpful to practice first with help before you do your
work on your own? (Opinion)
--Why is this helpful?
--Why do you feel it’s not okay to make mistakes?
• How do these steps help you learn? (Opinion)

Lesson B:
• Do you think it is helpful to observe or examine something (such as
pictures or a video) before learning about it? (Opinion)
--Why is this helpful?
--Why would you observe something first before asking questions about
it?
• What is the purpose of sharing information? (Opinion)
--Do you like sharing in small groups or in front of your whole class?
--Do you like sharing your ideas in class? Why?
--Why do you think that you don’t enjoy sharing your ideas in class?
--Have you had an opportunity to share something in your classroom
this year? What did you share?
• How do these steps help you learn? (Opinion)

Lesson C:
• What do you think is meant by a “big idea?” (Opinion)
• Why is it important to think about what you already know when learning
about something new? (Opinion)
--How does it make you feel, as a scholar, when you think about or
reflect on what you already know?
• How do these steps help you learn? (Opinion)

235

Lesson D:
• How does it feel when your teacher makes the decisions for you versus
you making your own decisions (e.g., which books to read, how to share
your learning, such as writing a report)? (Affective)
--Has this happened in your classroom? How often?
--What is helpful about having your teacher tell you what to research
and where to find the research?
• Which part of this lesson makes you feel the most comfortable? Why?
(Affective)
• How do these steps help you learn? (Opinion)

Student Response: Will vary

4. Question: Have you ever conducted an independent study before? If yes, can
you describe to me what you did?

Student Response: Will vary

Dialogue/Explanation: I am going to ask you some questions that have to do
with four words that students use to describe the things they do at school. One
word is challenging (display card with word written on it). Challenging means
that you are testing your abilities in an experience that is demanding, meaning it
is not too simple for you, and offers an exciting or thought-provoking time for
learning. Another word is interesting (display card with word written on it).
Interesting means that you really want to learn more about a topic and that you
are excited to learn. The third word is familiar (display card with word written
on it). If something is familiar it is not new. It is similar to something you have
already experienced or completed. The last word is easier (display card with
word written on it). Easy means that something is simple or does not require
much effort.

5. Question: Which of the following choices relates to the reason you chose this
particular lesson option to learn about your topic? (Opinion)

Student Response: Researcher will present students with the following four
choices: It is challenging. It is interesting. It is like what we always do (It is
familiar). It is easier.

236

6. Question: Upon selection of a reason, the researcher will ask students follow-
up questions related to their choice as illustrated below.

Challenging: What does it mean if something is challenging? What is an
example of something that is challenging? How is Lesson Option ____
challenging? (Opinion)

Interesting: What does it mean if something is interesting? What is an example
of something that is interesting? How is Lesson Option __ interesting?
(Opinion)

What we always do: How is this lesson similar to what you always do in class?
(Opinion)

Easier: What does it mean if something is easy? What is an example of
something that is easy? How is Lesson Option ___ easier? (Opinion)

Student Response: Will vary

237

APPENDIX C

CODING SCHEME:
STUDENT ANALYSIS OF MODELS OF TEACHING

Student Interview: Gifted / Non-Gifted
“How do these steps help you learn?”

Group
Investigation
Advance
Organizer
Direct Instruction Randomized
Process

GRADE 3
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
GRADE 4
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response

238

GRADE 5
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response

Patterns of Response
Group
Investigation
Advance Organizer Direct Instruction Randomized Process
3
rd

Grade
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4
th

Grade
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5
th

Grade
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*Results were recorded and analyzed from the provided student responses.

239

APPENDIX D

CODING SCHEME:
REASONS FOR SELECTED METHOD OF LEARNING

Student Interview: Gifted / Non-Gifted

GROUP INVESTIGATION
“How are these steps…(challenging, interesting, familiar or easy)?”

Challenge Interest Familiarity Ease
GRADE 3
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
GRADE 4
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response

GRADE 5
Student Response
Student Response

240

Student Response
Student Response

Patterns of Response
Challenge Interest Familiarity Ease
3
rd

Grade
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4
th

Grade
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5
th

Grade
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*Results were recorded and analyzed from the provided student responses.

241

Student Interview: Gifted / Non-Gifted

ADVANCE ORGANIZER
“How are these steps…(challenging, interesting, familiar or easy)?”

Challenge Interest Familiarity Ease
GRADE 3
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
GRADE 4
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response

GRADE 5
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response

242

Patterns of Response
Challenge Interest Familiarity Ease
3
rd

Grade
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4
th

Grade
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5
th

Grade
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*Results were recorded and analyzed from the provided student responses.

243

Student Interview: Gifted / Non-Gifted

DIRECT INSTRUCTION
“How are these steps…(challenging, interesting, familiar or easy)?”

Challenge Interest Familiarity Ease
GRADE 3
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
GRADE 4
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response

GRADE 5
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response

244

Patterns of Response
Challenge Interest Familiarity Ease
3
rd

Grade
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4
th

Grade
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5
th

Grade
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*Results were recorded and analyzed from the provided student responses.

245

Student Interview: Gifted / Non-Gifted

RANDOMIZED PROCESS
“How are these steps…(challenging, interesting, familiar or easy)?”

Challenge Interest Familiarity Ease
GRADE 3
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
GRADE 4
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response

GRADE 5
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response
Student Response

246

Patterns of Response
Challenge Interest Familiarity Ease
3
rd

Grade
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4
th

Grade
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5
th

Grade
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*Results were recorded and analyzed from the provided student responses.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study sought to explore the degree to which students’ interactions with the models of teaching influence learning. The purposefully sampled population consisted of gifted and non-gifted students in grades 2-5 from an urban school district in Southern California who were participants in a research project awarded to the University of Southern California and funded through the U.S. Department of Education’s Jacob K. Javits Grant (PR #S26A040072). A mixed methods approach was employed to analyze data obtained from existing primary research, as well as from recently attained secondary research. The findings from this study provided information regarding the effects of learning with the models of teaching. Specifically, the results offered evidence related to the following: (a) student preferences for learning a defined content area using a model of teaching and the related reasons for their choice, (b) students’ ability to recognize the syntax or sequence of learning as it relates to the models of teaching, (c) the relationship between previous learning with the models and students’ capacity to transfer their knowledge of learning to self-directed independent study, and (d) the validation of how the models of teaching facilitate the knowledge of learning to learn.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching

PDF

The influence of teacher characteristics on preference for models of teaching

PDF

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

PDF

Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

"Thinking in the middle" what instructional approaches are employed by urban middle school teachers to effect changes in African American students' learning outcomes and performances?

PDF

The relationship between learning style and student satisfaction in the Problem Based Learning Dental Program at the University of Southern California

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Aligning educational resources and strategies to improve student learning: effective practices using an evidence-based model

PDF

Lack of support for gifted students in the United States

PDF

The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within an elementary school in a centrally managed school district: a case study

PDF

Beginning teachers' perceptions of effective practices used by their mentor

Asset Metadata

Creator Krogh, Jennifer (author)

Core Title The effects of the models of teaching on student learning

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 06/09/2010

Defense Date 05/10/2010

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

Tag gifted students,independent study,interest,learning to learn,models of teaching,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,student preferences,transfer of learning

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (counties)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email jennikrogh@gmail.com,jkrogh@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3114

Unique identifier UC1159461

Identifier etd-Krogh-3582 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-335556 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3114 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Krogh-3582.pdf

Dmrecord 335556

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Krogh, Jennifer

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