Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling
(USC Thesis Other)
Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 1
Teachers’ Knowledge of Gifted Students and their Perceptions of Gifted Services in Public
Elementary Schooling
by
Kimberly Anne Klopfer
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2018
Copyright 2018 Kimberly Anne Klopfer
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 2
Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the 10 women who agreed to participate in this study
and share their practices, insights, personal work, and professional reflections with me. Without
their openness, sincerity, and deep candor, this study would not have been possible. It is their
voices and experiences I aim to capture and disseminate in this dissertation.
Additionally, I would like to acknowledge this dissertation committee for their support,
wisdom, and guidance throughout this process. Specifically, I am grateful to Dr. Sandra Kaplan
for her continued encouragement in my pursuit of gifted education. She inspires me to learn
about and practice the field of gifted education to the best of my abilities. Dr. Mora-Flores
represents the teacher-educator I strive to be and has shown me how to communicate large
concepts and complicated research to in-service teachers in realistic, attainable ways. She
inspires a continual desire to hone my teaching skills to benefit all teachers. Dr. Samkian has
been unwavering in her support of my progress, the completion of this dissertation, and most
importantly my own personal learning. Each tiny step of this endeavor has provided me with new
learning as both and educator and a student. She inspires me to succeed as a student and an
educator. These women are truly exceptional educators and I am grateful for every learning
opportunity I have had with each of them.
I would also like to acknowledge the excellent professors of the USC’s Rossier School of
Education whom I have had the opportunity to learn and grow from. Dr. Pugash, Dr. Rousseau,
Dr. Samkian, Dr. Mendoza, Dr. Marsh, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Slayton, Dr. Carbone, and Dr. Hinga
have all taught me more than just learning objectives on a syllabus and how to complete this
degree. They have taught me how to invest in my own knowledge and critically examine the
field of education from multiple perspectives. Their guidance, along with so many other faculty,
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 3
staff, and USC personnel, have provided me with an amazing educational journey which has
greatly impacted my choices as an elementary educator in California’s public school system.
Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge all of my classmates, Wednesday night cohort,
TEMS cohort, writing partners, and Trojan peers who have positively affected my educational
outcomes. Working with, and learning from, these amazing educators has helped define who I
want to be as an educational leader and inspired me to complete this momentous task. The
collaboration and comradery enriched my learning and created lasting memories. I will be
forever thankful for the amazing welcome into the Trojan Family.
And finally, I must acknowledge my personal loved ones including my friends and
family. The support, encouragement, and patience they have given me throughout the last four
years have ensured my success with this enormous feat. I must respectfully thank the elder
women in my family who, both either willingly or unknowingly, lent their names to this study to
represent the voices of the 10 educators whose voices are embodied in this research. It seemed
fitting to offer pseudonyms of the 10 educators that symbolize the strength, leadership, and
perseverance that has been taught and passed down to me by way of my female lineage. And
most significantly, I would like to thank my parents, Ken and Lenne Klopfer, who have
supported both my personal educational journey and my work as an elementary educator. Since
my early childhood, my parents provided experiential learning opportunities throughout my
education which have shaped who I am as a person, teacher, global citizen, educational leader.
Their dedication to my accomplishments has been relentless over the years. The unwavering
confidence, counsel and belief in me from my parents has been instrumental in the successful
completion of my dissertation and guaranteed I would succeed in the greatest challenge I have
ever undertaken.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 4
Table of Contents
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 10
Background of the Problem 11
Statement of the Problem 15
Purpose of the Study 17
Significance of the Study 19
Organization of the Study 20
Chapter Two: Literature Review 22
Gifted Students 23
Who Are Gifted Students 24
Academic Needs of Gifted Students 32
Social-Emotional Needs of Gifted Students 38
Differentiation 47
Differentiation of Instruction and Curriculum 49
Service Models for Gifted Students (Environment) 56
Types of Gifted Education Models 56
Effects of Service Models 59
Perceptions of Service Models 65
Teacher Education for Gifted Education 68
Importance of Teacher Education for Gifted Education 69
Gifted Education for Preservice Teachers 72
Gifted Education for In-Service Teachers 76
Conceptual Framework 82
Summary 86
Chapter Three: Methods 88
Sample 88
Settings 89
Participants 91
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols 94
Interviews 94
Document Collection 99
Data Analysis 99
Limitations and Delimitations 101
Credibility and Trustworthiness 103
Ethics 106
Chapter Four: Findings 109
Teacher Education for GATE 109
Sources of Professional Knowledge 110
GATE Certificate 111
District Offered Trainings 115
Additional Resources 120
Other Trainings 121
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 5
Experience 125
Research 130
Teacher Credentialing Programs 134
Perceptions of GATE Education 134
Desire for GATE Education 135
Implementation 135
Collaboration 136
More Training 138
Commitment to GATE Education 140
Time 140
Financial Cost 141
Policies about GATE Education 144
District Requirements 144
Participant Beliefs about GATE Polices 146
Service Model Setting 150
Self-Contained GATE Classrooms 155
Setting Description 155
Instructional Strategies/Differentiation 156
Perspectives 164
Setting 164
Differentiation 167
Heterogeneous Cluster Model 169
Setting Description 169
Instructional Strategies/Differentiation 172
Perspectives 182
Homogenous Cluster Model 190
Setting Description 190
Instructional Strategies/Differentiation 193
Perspectives 197
1-3 GATE Students 200
Setting Description 200
Instructional Strategies/Differentiation 204
Perspectives 206
Pullout 210
Setting Description 210
Supplemental Instruction During the Day 210
Afterschool Programs 211
Field trips for GATE Students 214
Instructional Strategies/Differentiation 214
Perspectives 217
Summary of Service Model Settings 221
Teacher Knowledge and Implementation of GATE Services 221
Academic Needs 222
Challenge 223
Depth and Complexity Prompts 224
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 6
Enrichment 226
Acceleration 228
Skipping Grades/Alternative Classes 229
Compacting 234
Novelty/Creativity 237
Additional Needs 241
Determining Academic Need 243
Definitions of Giftedness & Philosophy 245
Summary 246
Chapter Five: Discussion 248
Summary of Findings 249
GATE Professional Learning 250
Implementation of GATE Services 251
Knowledge Regarding GATE Students 254
Conceptual Framework with Findings Alignment 255
Implications for Practice 257
Recommendations for Future Research 261
Conclusions 264
References 267
Appendix A Interview Protocol A 278
Appendix B Interview Protocol B 287
Appendix C Interview Protocol C 292
Appendix D Document Catalog 294
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 7
List of Tables
Table 1: GATE educational sources per participant 111
Table 2: Additional sources of information for GATE Education per participant 121
Table 3: Service model setting by participant and district 152
Table 4: Differentiation techniques by method: Self-contained GATE 157
Table 5: Differentiation techniques by method: Heterogeneous cluster model 173
Table 6: Differentiation techniques by method: Homogenous cluster model 193
Table 7: Differentiation techniques by method: 1-3 GATE students 204
Table 8: Identified academic needs of GATE learners 222
Table 9: Additional areas of need for GATE learners 242
Table 10: Assessments used to determine the academic needs of GATE learners 243
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 8
List of Figures
Figure A: Conceptual framework 84
Figure B: GATE certificate portfolio from Suffield USD 114
Figure C: Shared GATE resources 129
Figure D: Flexible seating chart 163
Figure E: Leveled reading rubric 176
Figure F: Birthday party math extension assignment 179
Figure G: District GATE education plan, Rocky Hill USD 180
Figure H: GATE instructional materials 194
Figure I: Implementation of Depth and Complexity Prompts 225
Figure J: Math enrichment activity 235
Figure K: Conceptual framework with current findings 256
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 9
Abstract
Gifted education in California, known as gifted and talented education (GATE), is the set of
intentional educational practices designed to address the needs of high ability, intellectually
exceptional and/or specifically talented students. There are several common organizational
models for classroom grouping implemented in California for GATE students that are intended
to provide and create differentiation for GATE students at the classroom level. The academic
needs of GATE students vary, and teachers must determine which instructional services to
provide for their GATE students and how to implement those GATE specific services. The
purpose of this qualitative study was to examine what teachers know and think about the
academic needs of elementary GATE students, explore the instructional services they choose to
provide for GATE students based on those needs, and analyze how their professional knowledge
and perspectives regarding GATE education may be related. The sample included 10 elementary
teachers of GATE students from five school districts in various GATE instructional settings in
Southern California. Participants were interviewed and documents/artifacts were collected and
analyzed. Findings demonstrate dissemination of GATE professional knowledge into teachers’
instructional choices and those decisions are related to student need. This study can benefit the
field of gifted education and teacher education programs by examining the context for how
teachers of GATE students gain professional knowledge, make instructional choices based on
their understanding of the academic needs of GATE students. Additionally, this study may
provide conceptual and contextual knowledge for teachers of gifted students.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 10
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Education is in an era of accountability coupled with a national desire for educational
equity across all types of student populations. School reforms in such an era call for high quality
instruction for all learners (Tomlinson et al., 2003). Currently, teachers are faced with
heterogeneous classrooms, comprised of diverse learners with varying needs. Student
populations within the same classroom may include any combination of English language
learners (ELLs), gifted or high ability students, students with disabilities (SWDs), students with
learning differences who have Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), and/or students who are
standard English learners (SELs), all of whom range in ability and grade level performance.
Within each of these groups, too, there is variation. For example, within the subgrouping of
gifted learners, there is variety and a range of academic needs which includes grade-level content
and instruction and consideration for more complex, faster paced, less structured learning
activities. With such diverse needs, how do teachers ensure high quality instruction for all? And
with the increased pressure to focus attention on students most in need of teachers’ help (i.e.,
ELLs, SELs, SWDs), how do teachers balance their efforts so as to serve the distinct needs of the
gifted students in their class while simultaneously addressing the needs of the other learners?
Gifted students need teachers who have knowledge about educating gifted students and
who understand their distinct needs. Teachers who can make appropriate instructional decisions
based on those needs and their educational context and then determine how to implement
services for those gifted students. Given the fact that gifted students’ educational needs vary, the
educational problem being addressed in this study is the need for teachers to know about gifted
education and to determine which instructional services to provide for those students.
Additionally, this study explores how teachers subsequently implement those services within the
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 11
confines of school and district structures. This is a problem worth examining, because according
to the National Association for gifted children there are approximately 3-5 million gifted
students in the United States (National Association for Gifted Children, Gifted Education in the
U.S., para. 1), and their educational needs and achievements are just as important as all students
educated in the school system.
Gifted education in the United States is the intentional educational practices designed to
address the needs of exceptionally talented students. The terms gifted, gifted and talented
education (GATE), or gifted and talented (GT) are common terminology for describing students
or educational programs of those students who possess advanced ability in thinking,
achievement, intelligence, or specialized talents compared to their age level peers. Services refers
to the curricula, instructional techniques, programs, and policies provided by teachers, schools,
and school districts. This chapter will present the topic and address the background of the
problem, a statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the significance of the study, and
how the study will be organized.
Background of the Problem
The current system of public education in the United States is looking for ways to close
the achievement gap and improve education for all students. Because of the variety of
stakeholders (teachers, parents, administrators, and students) at all levels of education (local,
district, state, and federal), there are many differing opinions on how to go about closing the
achievement gap stemming from many different perspectives. Accountability and closing the
achievement gap seem to be the systemic focus in the current educational system. But the
educational system and society at large have not been able to recognize that equity and
excellence can both be achieved in our education system (Jolly, 2009).
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 12
In Failing Our Brightest Kids: The Global Challenge of Educating High-Ability Students,
Finn and Wright (2015) take on the significance of the issue. Finn and Wright discussed how
federal education laws mandated a systematic focus on low-achieving students during the era of
the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. The subsequent Race to the Top initiative, championed
by the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, in 2009, continued to encourage schools to direct
attention and funds to the five percent of the lowest performing schools and students.
“Government policy effectively marginalizes them [gifted students] as among the (few) pupils
the school does not have to worry about” (Finn & Wright, 2015, p. 16). The authors suggest that
the education system has only been focused on improving assessment scores of students who are
the farthest behind, and it has forgone an effort to boost the performances of all students. “It is
not that the United States lacks smart children; it’s that such kids aren’t getting the education
they need to realize their full potential” (Finn & Wright, 2015, p. 11).
But with a centralized focus on ensuring the most at risk students succeed and that
students of marginalized populations perform at the same rates as more privileged student
populations, often high ability students are forgotten (Beisser, 2008). Beisser’s (2008) policy
paper outlined some of the consequences of the federal education NCLB Act. Specifically, there
is ambivalence towards gifted students because society believes gifted students are highly
intelligent and have the capability to succeed on their own. That line of thought includes the
notion that gifted students do not need further support (Beisser, 2008). Jolly (2009) articulated
that NCLB was intended to ensure all students are served academically, but in actuality the
resulting focus on accountability and guaranteeing that all students meet minimum proficiency
requirements on standardized assessments left little space for attending to the needs of gifted
students.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 13
Larsen, Griffin, and Larsen (1994) conducted a quantitative study to ascertain public
opinion regarding gifted education. They surveyed 1,000 random adults about their perceptions
regarding specialized programs for gifted students. Results showed there is a strong public
support for gifted programing as long as the programs did not distract or take away anything that
is offered to struggling or average learners. The researchers concluded that gifted educators
should emphasize that all students’ needs should be met and that differentiation is necessary to
guarantee that outcome (Larsen et al., 1994). In other words, society supports educating gifted
learners if those serviced to do not take any opportunity away from other subgroups of learners.
In the United States, some skills and activities like music or sports have universal
backing and there is an accepted perception that the children who excel in these areas will be
favored and acknowledged for their successes. However, that same mindset does not apply for
those children who espouse intellectual talents and abilities above their age level peers. Delisle
and Galbraith (2002) take up the question of elitism in gifted education and stated,
For some reason we have yet to understand fully, gifted athletes are served well in our
school with nary a hint of ‘elitism’ attached to the special provisions provided for them.
But a class for gifted students selected to participate in a special program matched to their
intellectual abilities is viewed as suspect by many people- including many educators-
who consider this separation of gifted students as being harmful to the democratic nature
of our schools. (Delisle & Galbraith, 2002, p. 139).
So why is it that some people view accommodations for students with high intellectual abilities
as elitist? True equity in education would include provisions for each student and every student
to reach his or her fullest potential, regardless of subgrouping or standardized assessment
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 14
measure. Delisle and Galbraith (2002) would argue that such provisions would not be elitist, but
would rather espouse true equity of education
In spite of unsteady favor for supporting gifted education, the fact remains that gifted
students represent approximately 3-5% of the student population of the United States (McClain,
& Pfeiffer, 2012) and should be educated appropriately. Gifted student characteristics span a
range of behaviors inclusive of high academic performance, social emotional development,
varied learning styles, and environments. When gifted students are not provided the educational
opportunities necessary to meet their diverse needs, the results can be underachievement, social
stigmas, or social and emotional difficulties (Cross, 1997). This is an inadequate way to educate
such students and does not meet the intent of NCLB as was described by Jolly (2009).
There is no federal law or mandate to ensure education of the gifted in the same way that
students with disabilities are served (Wiskow, Fowler, & Christopher, 2011). But when the
national focus is equity and accountability for struggling students and there is declining public
support for gifted programs, it is difficult to determine if gifted students’ needs are actually being
attended to or even met. Tannenbaum (2002) stated in an interview about gifted programs that
our nation’s gifted programs might actually be provisional. In that, there might not be any hope
of permanence or creation of lasting educational imperatives, and when gifted programming falls
out of favor, policy makers may see gifted services as electives which are at risk of facing
obsolescence (Kay, 2002).
Reis and Renzulli (2010) conducted a systematic review of literature on gifted education
and reported on six major themes. The purpose was to determine if gifted education was still
necessary or relevant in the current educational system. Reis and Renzulli concluded that
longitudinal research has shown the benefits of gifted education for gifted students and with the
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 15
prevalence of underachievement, gifted education is very necessary to meet the needs of gifted
learners. Furthermore, gifted education is a prevalent field within our educational system and
gifted students have the right to be educated according to their specific needs.
Statement of the Problem
The manner in how schools and districts choose to organize the classroom make-up of
students and teachers can have tremendous effect on student growth and performance. Not all
districts implement the same curricula or programming structure for gifted students. The range of
services for gifted students differs from district to district and state to state. Additionally, how
services are chosen and implemented also varies at the state, district, school, and teacher levels.
In California, gifted education is referred to as gifted and talented education or simply
GATE. Education code in California states that districts should develop a policy and program for
GATE education, GATE students should be identified, and those students should receive GATE
services (California Department of Education, 2017, History of legislation, para. 2). However,
the education code allows districts to determine how to identify students as GATE and which
GATE services to provide to which students. Furthermore, districts determine what type of
education and training the teachers of GATE students must have and they determine how much
funding to allocate to such GATE programs.
In 2014, the state of California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) legislation
altered the structuring of educational funding and allowed districts to make their own budget
decisions and financial allocations based on student need for some categorical programs
(California Department of Education, 2017, History of legislation, para. 3). GATE categorical
programs were included in this legislative restructuring of educational funding. Although the
state provides recommended standards for GATE programs (California Department of
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 16
Education, 2005), the California Department of Education leaves these decisions for the
stakeholders to the districts. But the current climate of education does not always support GATE
services or directing public funds for GATE services (Beisser, 2008). Not all stakeholders see the
value in allocating funds to higher performing students or see clear benefits in directing funds to
the GATE population. Young and Balli (2014) cited that some schools in California have
canceled after-school GATE programs due to budget constraints, leaving the majority of GATE
differentiation, instruction, and enrichment to fall on the shoulders of general education
classroom teachers.
Potentially, stakeholders do not fully understand the benefits and potential outcomes of
GATE services, or what GATE students face when their needs are unaddressed. Cross (2014)
stated that the “single greatest threat to the psychological well-being of gifted students is the
mismatch between the school’s curriculum and the student’s need” (p. 264). Our educational
school system has malnourished our gifted youth by “robbing” them of “intellectual
nourishment” (Cross, 2014, p. 264). Cross called for ensuring that gifted students are challenged,
encouraged to reach their potential, and taught using a rigorous curriculum with the latest
pedagogy. If this does not occur, gifted students are “at serious risk for longer-term
underachievement, problems with self-concept, reduction in agency, increase in self-doubt”
(Cross, 2014, p. 265) or dropout. This can eventually lead to underemployment which affects the
psychological well-being of gifted students as adults.
Seeley (2004) suggested that educators flip their perspective on underachievement and
should look at underachieving gifted students as an “at-risk” population (p. 2). Educators must
recognize that school environments can put gifted students at risk of not meeting their full
potential, or worse. Educators can take steps to prevent underachievement or school failure
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 17
(Seeley, 2004). When gifted students do not perform to their expected abilities, often the term
underachievement is used because it is believed that students could be achieving more.
However, even if educators want to provide differentiated services for gifted learners,
they may have the necessary knowledge or skills. VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh (2005)
acknowledged that gifted students may easily be passed over if their teachers are not cognizant
of their specific needs or do not possess the skills needed to plan for those needs. VanTassel-
Baska and Stambaugh also outlined five factors that make differentiation of services for gifted
learners difficult for educators: 1) a lack of service mandates, 2) lack of understanding of
potential services, 3) philosophical impediments of teachers’ perceptions toward educating gifted
learners, 4) the requirement of advanced, above grade level, learning activities, and 5) the
amount of differentiation that is actually required. Therefore, if gifted students’ needs are to be
adequately addressed, their teachers must be trained in the philosophy regrading gifted
education, differentiation techniques and implementation strategies, and the significance for the
gifted learners of how these elements interact in the classroom. Additionally, these teachers must
also perceive the need to do so. In other words, there must be some level of belief in the
importance of the provision of gifted services.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to gain a deeper understanding of the perceptions teachers
of elementary GATE students in Southern California have regarding the needs of their GATE
learners and the specific services provided to those students to meet those needs. The study
investigated what teachers know about GATE education and what they know about the academic
needs of their GATE students. It explored how teachers gain that knowledge and from which
sources. Additionally, the study focused on how teachers determine which GATE services they
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 18
will provide given their context and knowledge and how those services unfold as differentiation
within their given academic setting. Finally, the study considered the perceptions those teachers
have on the implementation of GATE services for students within their respective settings.
In order to contextualize the teachers’ perceptions, this study also examined school
districts’ public records and GATE policies involving services for identified GATE students in
relation to the decisions teachers make regarding the instruction of their GATE learners.
Listening to teachers and how they make instructional decisions regarding their GATE students
was a central part of the study. Additionally, teacher created documents and artifacts were
analyzed to further examine the nature and context of instructional choices. The study solicited
the rationale behind the teachers’ choices and the knowledge which led to those decisions, as
well as how the context either facilitated or impeded their ability to implement GATE services in
appropriate ways.
The study focused on public, K-12 school districts in the Los Angeles area who were
providing GATE services in different ways. The research questions that guided the study are:
1) How are teachers of elementary gifted students gaining knowledge about the academic
needs of their gifted students?
2) How does the knowledge elementary teachers have gained about the academic needs of
their gifted students shape their instructional choices and the gifted services
implemented?
3) What are elementary teachers’ perceptions regarding how the gifted services
implemented meet the academic needs of their gifted students?
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 19
Significance of the Study
Gifted education is often overlooked and gifted students may not be getting the schooling
they need. With such great variation in the implementation of gifted services, gifted programs
probably vary in success, student achievement, and stakeholder approval. Bain, Bourgeois, and
Pappas (2003) surveyed teachers to determine if theoretical concepts in gifted education were
evident in services teachers provided to gifted students. Their findings revealed that what
teachers knew about gifted education did not necessarily trickle down into the classroom or the
services they provided for gifted students. About half of the 50 respondents did not use any of
the models of gifted education they identified in the questionnaire. Bain et al. (2003) specified
that qualitative researchers might investigate the topic further by examining lesson plans that
may be able to show evidence of gifted education theory. Responding to this recommendation,
the study took on a similar purpose to Bain et al.’s (2003) research and looked at their question
in a slightly different way. It examined how teachers are gaining knowledge about the needs of
GATE learners and the potential services teachers may implement in the classroom. Then the
study investigated why teachers choose specific GATE services and their opinions about those
choices.
This study is significant because it highlights why GATE education is important and
what benefits it affords GATE students. It also demonstrates how teachers attempt to provide
equity and excellence for GATE learners within their specific contexts. There are thousands of
teachers in our school system whose responsibility is to educate GATE learners. Hearing their
voices, thoughts, and decisions about their instructional choices could benefit other teachers of
GATE learners, as well as, provide insight for teacher education programs. Data could facilitate
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 20
teachers, administrators, parents, and educational stakeholders to advocate for the needs of
GATE and subsequently, all learners.
Organization of the Study
The first chapter presented information on the background of gifted education. It
identified the problem central to this study and why that problem is significant. The purpose of
the study was also described and what the study aims to achieve.
Chapter two reviews current literature on empirical studies in three main areas. First,
chapter two discusses who gifted students are and the definition of giftedness. It also presents
specific academic and social emotional needs of gifted students. The second topic focuses on
differentiation. The definitions of differentiation are presented along with instructional and
curricular differentiation techniques that are recommended for gifted students. Additionally,
differentiation of environment is discussed as how districts group gifted students and create
service models for differentiation. The definitions of multiple services models, the strengths and
weakness of those models, and perceptions of the different service models is presented. Current
research on the effects of different service models for gifted education is also examined. The
third significant topic of the literature review is teacher education for gifted education and looks
at the importance of teacher education for gifted education, how gifted education currently is
studied in preservice teacher education, and research on gifted education for in-service teachers.
Chapter two concludes with a conceptual framework that relates the three key topics: gifted
students, differentiation, and teacher education for gifted education. The conceptual framework
was used to drive the methods for the study.
Chapter three presents the research methods for this qualitative study. It describes
information on the sample, both setting and participants. It conveys the data collection methods
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 21
that were employed and how that data was analyzed. Then it identifies limitations and
delimitations for the study. Finally, chapter three discloses issues of trustworthiness, credibility
and ethics concerning the study.
Then chapter four displays and discusses findings from the study organized by three
themes which emerged during data analysis: teacher education for GATE, service model settings,
and implementation of GATE services. Finally, chapter five discusses a summary of the findings,
presents a revised conceptual framework which aligns with the findings of this study, discusses
implications for practice, makes recommendations for further research, and conveys the
conclusions of the study.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 22
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter will review current, seminal, and historical research on gifted students and
their needs, differentiation, and teacher preparation for the education gifted learners. In
combination, these three topics present a comprehensive look at gifted education to help set the
stage for a study on what teachers know about gifted students and what their perceptions are of
the implementation of the services meant to meet their needs. Then a conceptual framework will
be outlined, serving as the lens for the study. The research questions are:
1) How are teachers of elementary gifted students gaining knowledge about the academic
needs of their gifted students?
2) How does the knowledge elementary teachers have gained about the academic needs of
their gifted students shape their instructional choices and the gifted services
implemented?
3) What are elementary teachers’ perceptions regarding how the gifted services
implemented meet the academic needs of their gifted students?
The studies and prominent researchers in the field of education that are discussed in this
literature review use a variety of terms when describing gifted education and its specific students
including: high ability, gifted and talented, talents, high achieving, gifted and talented education
(GATE), and giftedness. Often, the terms used to define gifted students and education by
researchers have slightly different meanings. Those meanings align with local, regional, and state
education policies and principles about gifted education (McClain & Pfeiffer, 2001). For clarity
purposes, the term gifted will be used to encompass all such references throughout this study.
However, when describing work by individual researcher(s), the specific terminology used by
those researchers will reflect the terms within their work. Honoring those discrepancies is
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 23
warranted as terms can identify philosophy and denote population differences within gifted
education. The term gifted in the research questions implies any and all reference to students,
teachers, administrators, services, policies, curriculum, etcetera involving educating gifted
learners. This is intended to be an inclusive classification which avoids discriminating between
definition inconsistencies or philosophical differences.
The purpose of this literature review is to use relevant research, theories, and scholarly
work in the field of gifted education to demonstrate the need for pursuing the answers to the
above mentioned research questions. In the field of gifted education, many researchers go on to
publish textbooks and curriculum for gifted education. Often those publications become
background research for theoretical and empirical work. In this literature review, empirical work
and theoretical pieces will be designated as such to assist in understanding publication sources
and the hierarchy of literature within the field of gifted education.
Literature about gifted students demonstrates the various needs gifted students have.
Examining the complexity and breadth of differentiation techniques for gifted education will
reveal the instructional choices teachers can potentially make in order to meet the needs of their
gifted students. And understanding the role teacher education plays in the implementation of
gifted services will reveal the significance that teachers’ understanding about gifted education
has on how gifted students are educated.
Gifted Students
Gifted students exhibit a variety of characteristics, abilities, and traits that have been
studied throughout the last century. Additionally, gifted students have specific academic and
social-emotional needs. Although not all gifted students are the same, research has shown that
gifted students have similar qualities. This section will define giftedness and then present
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 24
significant and current research concerning the academic and social-emotional needs of gifted
students. In order to understand what knowledge teachers have about the needs of their gifted
learners, it is necessary to first identify and outline the needs of gifted students currently known
in the field of education.
Who Are Gifted Students
Traditionally the term “gifted” signified a child who was deemed highly intelligent via an
extremely high intelligence quotient (IQ) determined from an intelligence test (Hollingworth,
1926). But since the work of Hollingworth, those ideas and definitions have been scrutinized by
educators, researchers, and policy makers (McClain & Pfeiffer, 2001). As society advances, so
do the capabilities of humans and our understanding of what we know to be true. The fields of
education and gifted education are no different; the professional literature and current
perceptions are advancing and shifting to fully comprehend the totality of educating students
with specific, and often exceptional, abilities. In that, there is not a current consensus on what it
means to be “gifted.” However, there are prominent researchers in the field of education who
have added significantly to our understanding of giftedness.
Leta Hollingworth is often credited as a pioneer in gifted education; she was one of the
first researchers to define giftedness and emphasize the importance of educating gifted students
in the mid 1920’s. Hollingworth (1926) referenced Terman’s (1926) definition which identified
students as “intellectually gifted” using traditional intelligence tests like the Stanford-Binet
Intelligence Scales. Students who scored within the top 1% of the population, with an
approximate IQ score of 130 or higher, were considered gifted at that time. Essentially, high
intelligence identified via IQ tests was the indicator of giftedness at that time.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 25
Using that IQ based definition of giftedness, Hollingsworth (1926) set out to describe
traits, characteristics, interests, family history, development and even potential curriculum
suggestions for this particular group of students based on the work and observations of
educational researchers, including her own, conducted in the 1920s. In her description of gifted
children, Hollingsworth noted that gifted students rated higher than average ability students in
leadership, nervous stability, and espoused the essential character traits exhibited by desirable,
constructive citizens. Hollingworth noted that gifted students are often underestimated by
themselves and their parents. Additionally, gifted students display a strong desire to interact and
socialize with peers of their own mental age. While the field of gifted education has expanded its
definitions of giftedness to include more that intelligence or IQ scores, Hollingworth articulated
a foundation for understanding gifted children and their characteristics.
But intelligence was not the only attributed of gifted children documented by
Hollingworth. Hollingworth (1926) observed that gifted students’ exceptionalities include more
than high intellect or academic aptitude. Furthermore, Hollingworth recognized that gifted
students are often skilled in multiple areas and can use their intellect to easily perform highly in
multiple areas. Hollingworth acknowledged that gifted students could have strengths in some
areas and weaknesses in others. Today this can be observed when a highly gifted student excels
beyond their age-level peers in mathematics or algebraic thinking, but struggles to read at grade
level. Moreover, gifted students possess certain skills, which Hollingworth called “special
talents.” A gifted learner may demonstrate superiority at a particular skillset in a sphere other
than intellect or academic superiority. Such special talents identified at that time included music,
drawing, mathematics, and mechanics. Hollingworth concluded that students with such talents
must be nurtured and educated intentionally and specifically because “when a child combines
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 26
intellectual superiority with a special talent of high degree, there exists the basis for eminent
achievement in the special field” (Hollingworth, 1926, p. 218). This was the groundwork for
definitions of giftedness which include talent, creativity, and incorporation of artistic and
leadership abilities. Subsequently, researchers and educators have studied and theorized about
gifted students and the field of gifted education using Hollingsworth’s seminal work as a
foundation.
While using intelligence tests to determine high intellectual ability was the standard
definition and identification means in gifted education for decades after Hollingsworth’s work,
research and theory about giftedness did continue and deviate from a purely intelligence based
definition. After Sputnik and President Kennedy’s Space Race proclamation, the need for
educating highly productive and intelligent citizens, especially in the content areas of science and
mathematics, came to the forefront of gifted education and channeled financial resources and
significant attention to the field of gifted education (McClain & Pfeiffer, 2001). In 1971, the U.S.
Commissioner of Education, Sydney Marland, acknowledged and defined gifted education in the
US Office of Education report to Congress. Marland’s (1972) defined giftedness in federal policy
as:
Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally qualified
persons who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high performance.
These are children who require differentiated educational programs and/or
services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order
to realize their contribution to self and society.
Children capable of high performance include those with demonstrated
achievement and/or potential ability in any of the following areas, singly or in
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 27
combination: (1) general intellectual ability, (2) specific academic aptitude, (3)
creative or productive thinking, (4) leadership ability, (5) visual or performing
arts, (6) psychomotor ability. (Marland, 1972, pp. I-3 - I-4).
Passow (1981) noted that the psychomotor ability section of this definition was eventually
deleted from the definition. However, Passow cautioned gifted educators that how a school or
district operationally defines giftedness should have implications for how students are identified
as gifted and what services and differentiation would then need to be provided for those students.
Commonly known today as “The Marland Report,” that definition of giftedness still permeates
district and state gifted education policies today. And while this definition began to deviate from
purely intelligence based definitions of giftedness, researchers at the time had much to develop
and understand about giftedness.
In his theoretical work based on research of the mid twentieth century, Tannenbaum
(1986) stated that giftedness “refers to the powers of the mind as they become actualized in rare
and precious human performances or products” (p. 26). Tannenbaum believed that giftedness
encompasses more than an IQ score because IQ scores limit one’s talents to the realm of
academics. The definition of giftedness should include both skills and talents that are
implemented to either produce new ideas, theories, products, technologies, and etcetera or
perform (arts, music, recitations, etc.) in such a manner that impresses and astonishes the
audience in unforgettable ways. Tannenbaum cautioned that for children, the label “giftedness”
could theoretically be categorized as “potentially” gifted, as children have not yet displayed all
of their products or performances and have not necessarily “manifested” as gifted adults.
Specifically, children with such gifts still must develop and grow into their future gifted selves to
fully actualize their identified potential. He outlined five factors that must be present in some
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 28
way to display evidence of a “truly gifted” child: “(a) superior general intellect, (b) distinctive
special aptitudes, (c) the right lending of non-intellective traits, (d) a challenging environment,
and (e) the smile of good fortune at crucial periods of life” (Tannenbaum, 1986, p. 49).
Moreover, Tannenbaum stressed that all five elements must be present in some way for the
actualization of superiority or excellence in any given activity. And finally, Tannenbaum
theorized that, “creativity should be conceptualized as interchangeable with giftedness”
(Tannenbaum, 1986, p. 49) because those who can create new things are innovative, rather than
simply reflective of old and reused ideas.
At the same time, Joseph Renzulli (1986) noted that definitions of giftedness would
indeed be used by educators and policy makers in determining identification practices and
programming policies. Renzulli’s criticism of the Marland (1972) report noted that the definition
lacked motivational (non-intellective) factors associated with gifted learners and that it is often
misused and misinterpreted by educators and policy makers. While the definition recognized six
factors of giftedness, most practitioners focused primarily on the elements pertaining to
intellectual abilities in the definition. Renzulli stated that Marland should have been more
explicit in the definition by explaining the value and existence of all factors. Therefore, Renzulli
called for a shift away from IQ testing as the sole defining measure of giftedness and theorized
that gifted individuals display three specific factors in some combination. He called this model
the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness. In such, gifted individuals have: 1) above average
ability, 2) task commitment, and 3) creativity. When the rings are overlapped, there is a small
section that contains all three elements. All three must be looked at for identification of gifted
students, rather than emphasizing on component over another.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 29
Within Renzulli’s (1986) Three Ring Conception of Giftedness theory, an above average
ability can be explained as general ability and/or specific ability. General ability is when one can
process information, utilize abstract thought, and integrate experiences across situations or
content. This is typically measured on standardized tests. Specific ability denotes capabilities in
domain specific subject matter and is transferable to real-world applications. These aptitudes
typically have a specific range within a specialized field. Specific abilities regularly include
performance based fields like choreography or fashion design. Often a general ability, such as
mathematics, overlaps with or is demonstrated via a specific ability like calculus. Additionally,
the term “above average” should be taken as “well above the average mean,” with potential to
perform in the top 15-20%. Later in his career, Renzulli (2002) added to this concept and
described gifted students as having the ability to think abstractly and retrieve information rapidly
by sorting the relevant from the irrelevant.
Another essential component to Renzulli’s (1986) Three Ring Conception of Giftedness
theory is that students also exhibit task commitment. The task commitment traits include,
endurance, self-confidence, perseverance, hard work, or dedicated practice. It is seen as one’s
ability to become extremely committed to his or her work. It is an extremely focused form of
motivation. Task commitment is not easy to measure quantifiably, but Renzulli believed strongly
that these characteristics are evident in gifted individuals. Along with above average ability and
task commitment, gifted students also display an amount of creativity. His argument stems from
researching prominent people of great success or acclaim in any given field. Those innovators
are often referred to as genius or gifted because of their creative contributions. Although
creativity is extremely hard to measure, divergent thinking is a defining characteristic of gifted
individuals.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 30
As research and definitions surrounding gifted education continued to develop, policy
makers also varied in their approach to gifted education. McClain and Pfeiffer (2001) studied
state educational gifted policies, practices, and definitions and found significant discrepancies
from state to state. By using the Department of Education websites for each state and by
conducting telephone interviews with the gifted coordinator or education representative from
each state, the researchers gathered data in a seven item response survey. Some states had no
definition or gifted policy or gifted coordinator at all. Furthermore, the differences in gifted
education polices involve differences in: (a) implementation and services practices, (b)
identification methods and giftedness definitions, and (c) educational settings. While McClain
and Pfeiffer did not seek out to define giftedness, they did determine how each of the 50 states
defined giftedness for their state. Of the 50 states’ definitions, 90% of the definitions for
giftedness included the term intelligence, 78% of the definitions included high achievement, 56%
incorporated specific talent areas (i.e. arts), 54% contained creativity, 30% of the states had
definitions that involved leadership or leadership abilities, and 3% included motivation in their
definition of giftedness. McClain and Pfeiffer also noted that 48% of states had made some
change to their giftedness terminology or definition within the decade preceding their study.
McClain and Pfeiffer concluded that a consensus of giftedness and its categories does not exist
amongst educators or policymakers across the United States. A clear limitation to this study is
that it encompassed state level data and cannot verify which definitions were actually
implemented at the local district levels within each state. However, it is telling that the official
public definitions of giftedness are so varied and that the range of different ideologies is used
throughout the nation is so extensive. Moreover, as there is no federal mandate for gifted
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 31
education (Wiskow, Fowler, & Christopher, 2011), consensus regarding the definition of
giftedness is also nonexistent.
The California Department of Education website classifies gifted and talented education
under “specialized programs” (California Department of Education, n.d.). In 1980, California
enacted Assembly Bill 1040 to establish gifted education throughout the state, titled: Gifted and
Talented Education (GATE). Assembly Bill 1040 stipulates that each local district should define
their own criteria for GATE identification and determine the services they wish to provide for
GATE students. The bill states that service should expand past intellectually gifted students to
include talents in the specific areas of leadership, creativity, visual and performing arts, and
specific academic ability (California Department of Education, 2017, History of legislation, para.
1). Moreover, local districts must develop and organize a GATE program that includes
“differentiated learning experiences within the regular school day” and establish a categorical
funding formula for GATE learners (California Department of Education, 2017, History of
legislation, para. 2). As this study will focus on teachers of California GATE students, it is
valuable to know the current operational definition and regulations on GATE education.
Although Hollingworth, Passow, Tannenbaum, and Renzulli are not the only researchers
to study and define giftedness, they do represent seminal theories and spent much of their careers
advocating for gifted education. And as McClain and Pfeiffer (2001) demonstrated, much of the
historical work in this field can be seen throughout gifted educational policy across the United
States. Prevailing definitions of giftedness comprise in some singular or combination of the
traits: intelligence, high achievement, creativity, leadership abilities, special talents, and
motivation. Additionally, each district and/or state determines how to identify students who
fulfill their definition of giftedness. However, this study did not focus on how GATE students
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 32
are identified. Rather it ascertained what teachers think about how they intend to meet the needs
of GATE students after they have been identified and how those teachers cultivate giftedness
within their GATE identified students. At the forefront of GATE education is the notion that:
“The conception of the nature of giftedness and talent is at the heart of all planning efforts”
(Passow, 1981, p. 9).
Academic Needs of Gifted Students
Gifted students have potential for high academic success. But that success is often
dependent on how educators nurture individual talent and ability. This section will discuss
research on the academic needs of gifted learners. The academic needs of students focus on
instructional strategies, pedagogies, or resources that advance academic learning based on
student characteristics and data. This study defines meeting students’ academic needs as any
action, instructional decision, or curricular adoption that can help, promote, motivate, or ensure a
student is able to reach his or her academic potential or learn more effectively.
In order to meet the academic needs of their gifted students, teachers should actively and
strategically organize their instructional plans with those needs in mind. Passow (1994) called for
creating a rich learning environment that includes both group activities/cooperative learning
scenarios and individual/independent study. The learning environment must also guide the
student toward developing his or her talents by ensuring motivation, task commitment, and the
acquisition of necessary skills and knowledge. Moreover, that learning environment should offer
opportunities for gifted students to practice the skills required for excelling in their areas of talent
and encourage gifted students in the pursuit of such activities which will nourish their potential.
Enrichment in the specific areas of talent each gifted students displays is crucial in nourishing
the talents of gifted students. In today’s educational climate, Passow’s proclamation for gifted
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 33
education seems trivial, as teachers are expected to meet the needs of all their students. However,
Passow’s comments came at a time when differentiation was not highly common in the
classroom and differentiating instruction for a specific group of students could have been viewed
as special treatment.
As Passow (1994) emphasized enrichment activities for gifted education, Renzulli’s
(1984) theoretical work outlines what that might look like at the school-site level. Renzulli
(1984) proposed a model for educating gifted students via enrichment practices using what he
called The Triad/Revolving Door Model. Renzulli wanted to focus on integrating identification
of gifted students with the gifted programing. As described by Cutler (2009), Renzulli’s
Triad/Revolving Door Model contains three tiers of enrichment. Type I Enrichment involves
students choosing topics of study and then augmenting their general knowledge on that particular
topic. Type II Enrichment specifies instructional approaches and methods which facilitate higher
level thinking amongst the high ability students. And Type III Enrichment calls for the
application of real world problems or scenarios that can be investigated in small groups. Students
then progress from one level of enrichment to the next based on their drive to investigate deeper
into a specific topic. In this sense, enrichment can be individualized to meet the abilities and
interests of each learner. Furthermore, the enrichment provided in The Triad/Revolving Door
Model employs many elements of Passow’s (1994) rich learning environment like cultivating
talent, motivation, and specialized instructional focus.
Additionally, it should be made clear that advocating for the academic needs of gifted
students is not intended to be at the expense of the needs of un-identified learners. Tomlinson
(2005) emphasized that good curriculum and instruction for gifted students is good curriculum
and instruction for all students, and vice-versa. Moreover, gifted students have a large range of
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 34
academic needs and the instructional and curricular choices made by their teachers cannot be
formulaic. Gifted learners vary in learning preferences and academic interests, as well as specific
abilities, disabilities, home environments, attention abilities, and socioeconomic statuses. But
given that gifted students have a high cognitive aptitude and fast learning speed, the instructional
practices and curriculum must take those traits into account. When looking at students who
perform well above their grade-level peers, understand abstractions easily, master content or
skills rapidly, or desire to investigate topics deeply, Tomlinson stipulated the instructional
delivery and or curriculum content must be adjusted to meet students’ (any students’) needs.
Tomlinson advocated for challenge, appropriate pacing, and assisting in developing student
passion.
While good teaching is characterized by meeting students where they are and moving
them through their zones of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978), this dissertation’s focus is
on the needs of gifted students in particular. Gifted students, for example, need to be challenged
and taught at an accelerated pace compared to their general education peers (Tomlinson, 2005).
One such form of acceleration is curriculum compacting. Curriculum compacting can be used to
accelerate instruction by allowing for students to advance through curriculum, content, and/or
basic skills at a faster, more efficient, rate than their peers (Renzulli, 1984). Curriculum
compacting allows more time for enrichment activities (Cutler, 2009; Dooley, 1993; Renzulli,
1984). When implemented, curriculum compacting involves the teacher documenting when a
child has mastered a basic skill. Then instead of assigning more practice activities for the given
skill, the student is offered enrichment activities that are challenging, motivating, and potentially
of a higher interest to the student (Cutler, 2009). This can then increase the amount of time or
services a teacher or school can provide to the high ability students overall (Renzulli, 1984).
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 35
Current research in the field of gifted education has looked specifically at the perceptions
and preferences of gifted students regarding academic instruction. Kanevsky (2011) examined
the preferences of gifted learners and non-identified students to examine the learning preferences
of gifted students from previous research and compare those preferences to non-identified
students. In the quantitative study, 646 students in grades 3-8 completed the Possibilities for
Learning questionnaire. Of the total student sample, 64% of the students were identified gifted
and received 1-3 hours a week of pull-out instruction for students “recognized as intellectually,
spatially, creatively, or academically gifted (SIG)” (Kanevsky, 2011, p, 283). Results showed
that SIG students responded similarly to non SIG students in many ways; most students reported
to wanted choice of work partners, topic, and self-pacing. Additionally, most students of both
groups disliked student led teaching, independent seating, teacher selected partners, working
with groups whose members learn faster or slower pace than them, or having to share work with
other aged students. However, SIG students did articulate preferences more drastically than non
SIG students in the areas of pursuing their own topics, wanting to understand interconnections
between topics or subject areas, desire for complex and challenging problems and content, being
allowed to find creative solutions to challenging problems, working with others (but not always)
and access to genuine, expert knowledge. SIG student differences were also seen in their
preferences to learn with students who worked at a similar pace and not want to wait for others to
catch up. Therefore, Kanevsky (2011) concluded that SIG learners corroborated findings from
previous research on gifted education which indicated that gifted students learn faster and think
in more complex ways than non-gifted peers. Renzulli (1984) asserted that regular classrooms
are often unchallenging for gifted learners because they master skills quickly. Thusly, the
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 36
academic needs of gifted students also include more challenging work, complex problem
solving, and a need for acceleration or faster pacing.
Current research on acceleration has shown positive outcomes for student learning.
Steenbergen-Hu and Moon (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of the effects of acceleration on the
social-emotional development and the academic achievement of high-ability learners. The
analysis included 38 studies completed between 1984 and 2008. The study confirmed that
acceleration has positive effects on the academic achievements for high-ability students. The
results indicated that high-ability learners can benefit from both long-term and short-term
acceleration and those benefits include performance on standardized tests, GPAs, status of
universities the students attended, career status, college grades, and degrees obtained. Moreover,
the researchers also concluded that high-ability learners who receive acceleration have social-
emotional outcomes that are equal to or surpass those of non-accelerants. Those social-emotional
outcomes can specifically be seen in the areas of “self-concept, self-esteem, self-confidence,
social relationships, participation in extracurricular activities, and life satisfaction” (Steenbergen-
Hu & Moon, 2010, pp. 1). Based on this meta-analysis, acceleration could be taken as a vital
academic need for gifted students.
Another empirical study involving acceleration for gifted students was conducted in
China. Duan, Shi, and Zhou (2010) studied how individuals’ existing knowledge may increase
processing speed. They conducted a quantitative study by testing the reaction times and
processing speeds of gifted children at different ages who attended regular classes and of
students who were in structured accelerated gifted programs in China. Results showed that each
age group performed faster than the younger age groups and that gifted students in the
accelerated programs performed faster than the gifted students not in the accelerated programs.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 37
In China, accelerated gifted programs entail elementary students completing the elementary
curriculum in four years, where all other students complete elementary school in six years.
Although the study was small and looked to test processing speed hypotheses, the results have
implications for the academic needs of gifted students. Specifically, gifted students can and do
flourish in accelerated programs or academic situations. Moreover, Duan et al.’s (2010) study
suggests that gifted students in accelerated programs can transfer that acquired knowledge to
other domains sooner than age-level peers who do not receive formal acceleration. Therefore, in
order to provide the right learning environment that Passow (1994) describes, providing
formalized acceleration could also help meet the academic needs of gifted students (Dooley,
1993).
Tomlinson (2005) stated that teachers must be cognizant of three factors when changing
the pace of curriculum. First, teachers must be incessantly observant of student mastery and
overall content understanding in order to discern when students need more practice or when they
can move on to the next level. Renzulli (1984) advised teachers to this as well. Second, teachers
should look for any gaps in knowledge that may occur as topics are covered at faster rates. And
lastly, gifted students my sometimes need to move at a slower rate as well. This can happen
when a child becomes engrossed in a topic or project but does not have the requisite skills
necessary to continue at the level he or she desires. But most importantly, Tomlinson (2005)
emphasized that when making instructional or curricular choices for gifted learners, teachers
should always respond to the individual learning capacities of the learner.
In summary, the literature about the academic needs of gifted students emphasizes
challenge, acceleration, curriculum compacting, enrichment, and cultivation of individual talent
as valuable methods of meeting the academic needs of gifted students. However, these academic
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 38
needs are interrelated. Curriculum compacting is a process teachers implement in order to
provide acceleration and/or enrichments and/or challenge for gifted learners. All of these
instructional choices should originate from the individual students and their specific talents.
Social-Emotional Needs of Gifted Students
In addition to academic need, social-emotional factors strongly influence the ability of
gifted students to hone and excel in their respective areas of gifts or talents. For this study,
social-emotional needs are defined as factors that may affect the emotional well-being of healthy,
happy, and secure students. Social relates to how the learner interacts with others including
family, peers, teachers, or parents. The emotional aspect relates to the child’s feelings or beliefs.
Because gifted students have a high intellectual capacity, they often are more mature that their
age-level peers (Cross, 1997). With that maturity comes potentially negative consequences.
Cross (1997) presented prominent aspects of the social-emotional needs of gifted students
based on psychological and social aspects associated with their giftedness. In her theoretical
work, Cross established that all students have basic needs and that the students are children first.
Subsequently all learners have endogenous needs based on their individual characteristics and
exogenous needs that stem from how the learners interact with their environment. Cross
indicated two distinct elements that differentiate gifted students from their nongifted peers. First,
they have the capacity to comprehend concepts and topics well above what is considered typical
for their age. Also, giftedness is an invisible trait and can often be invisible to those who
surround gifted children. Keeping these to attributes in mind may be essential for those who
work with gifted students.
Cross (1997) also discussed many vulnerabilities gifted students face while they are at
school. Cross noted that gifted students feel vulnerable in specific situations. One example is
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 39
when assessment results are returned to the class and their peers discuss the results. Another
example Cross discussed is when gifted students must decide between spending time with peers
for social activities or staying with their teachers for extra credit. In these periods of social
interaction, gifted students often engage in specific coping behaviors to help them manage their
feelings. The five main behaviors gifted students implement are: truth, placate, cop-out, cover-
up, and lie. Gifted learners will alter their coping strategy depending on their interpretation of the
social expectations of the situation. Additionally, gifted students spend a large amount of their
own energy, time, and anxiety focused on surviving these social scenarios.
Cross (1997) also highlighted many potential negative consequences gifted students are
sometimes faced with. When discussing the research of Coleman (1985), Cross (1997) described
the stigma of giftedness paradigm (SGP) where gifted adolescences typically have three basic
emotional reactions towards others. 1) Gifted students desired to have normal interactions with
others, 2) as others learn about their giftedness, gifted students are treated differently, and 3)
gifted students discover how to manage their social interaction which will then offer them social
leeway with their peers. Cross acknowledged that gifted students are very aware of their
giftedness, usually from an early age, and they learn quickly of undesirable social outcomes that
stem from how others treat them once their giftedness is known. Most critically, Cross outlined
possible negative effects for gifted students who struggle with this stigma: underachievement,
depression, and sometimes suicide. Therefore, understanding the social-emotional needs of
gifted students is imperative to ensure the health and well-being of these students.
Another social-emotional need of gifted students is that they have different social
perceptions than non-gifted students. Field et al. (1998) compared the feelings and attitudes of
gifted students to non-gifted students in their quantitative study on social, emotional, and
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 40
cognitive factors. The purpose of their study was to use a homogenous sample from the same
school, as much of the previous research on the psychological characteristics of gifted students
was contradictory and/or make comparisons to non-gifted students across studies. The sample
included 224 high school freshman, 62 of whom were identified gifted by IQ score of 132 or
higher. These students completed several questionnaire scales in the areas of social support, risk-
taking behavior, family and peer intimacy, depression, self-esteem, and family responsibilities.
The results illustrated that gifted students reported having stronger intimacy with their friends,
take on less family responsibilities, and have higher perceptions of risk-taking than their non-
gifted peers. Additionally, gifted students reported having the same or higher self-esteem and the
same or higher social skills than their non-gifted peers. Limitations to this work include self-
reporting measures and, potentially, the use of non-piloted scales. However, this small study
does highlight that gifted students’ attitudes and feelings differ from their non-gifted peers. Even
without stipulating to why those differences occur, educators of gifted students should recognize
that gifted students do have similar feelings to each other that are statistically different from
other students. Moreover, understanding that close peer relationships combined with earlier
separation from family structure can put adolescents in danger of succumbing to peer pressures
or engage in high-risk behaviors.
Self-perceptions of students can have an impact on the social-emotional health and their
academic outcomes. Ritchotte, Suhr, Alfurayh, and Graefe (2016) compared psychosocial factors
of non-identified high achieving students with identified gifted students to determine if gifted
services may benefit high achieving students’ self-perceptions. The purpose of the study was to
determine if gifted programming can meet the needs of unidentified high ability students’ by
comparing students’ self-perceptions. Two hundred three students in grades 4-7 completed the
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 41
School Attitude Assessment Survey-Revise, of which, 36% of the students were identified gifted.
Ritchotte et al. (2016) found that the gifted students in this study held higher academic self-
perceptions than their non-identified peers. Although self-report data collection does have
limitations, there are implications for gifted students’ social-emotional needs. If gifted students
perceive they have high academic abilities and are aware of their potential, educators must meet
their academic needs to ensure student success. Given the cited literature, if an individual’s
academic outcomes do not match their perceived individual abilities, low self-esteem or
decreased self-efficacy could result in gifted learners.
In another study involving student perceptions, Lister and Roberts (2011) completed a
meta-analysis of 40 studies from 1978 to 2004 which compared the self-concepts and perceived
competencies of gifted and non-gifted students. Results revealed that gifted students have a
higher perceived competence and a higher global self-concept. Moreover, the difference in
perceived academic ability augmented with students’ age. So as gifted students progress through
school and mature, their perceived awareness of their talents heightens and solidifies.
Shaunessy, McHatton, Hughes, Brice, and Ratliff (2007) interviewed students to
understand the experiences of bilingual gifted and general education Latino/a students. The
researchers interviewed 16 middle school students, eight of whom were identified as gifted.
Shaunessy et al. (2007) noted that although both gifted and general education students spoke
English and Spanish, the gifted students spoke English more frequently and implemented code
switching and code mixing during the focus group discussions. The findings included many
differences between the two groups’ sentiments about school. Specifically, the gifted students
expressed an understanding of their own giftedness and understood clearly when they were
above grade level or learned at faster rates than their general education peers. The gifted students
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 42
also recognized when teachers supported them or had confidence in them, and the students
appreciated when they were grouped with peers who had similar academic abilities. The gifted
students focused on academic outcomes more that the general education students and expressed
anxiety regarding those outcomes. The gifted students also shared they liked when their teacher
let them study from textbooks independently because they felt their teachers trusted them. While
these perceptions of gifted students are diverse, they highlight the voices of gifted learners.
Cross’s (2002) theoretical work on myths about the social and emotional needs of gifted
students offers insight into the social-emotional needs of gifted students. One such myth
perpetuated by teachers, administrators and parents is that gifted students should be with students
their own age. Research shows that gifted students need to be with peers of similar intellectual
abilities (Coleman & Cross, 2001). Moreover, gifted students do not need to spend the entire
school day in classrooms with heterogeneous, same-age peers. Cross (2002) stated that gifted
students spend time in heterogeneous grouping during other times of the day and life (i.e. sports,
clubs, church, community events). But their emotional requirement to spend academic time with
classmates that challenge them and learn at a similar pace should supersede the assumption that
gifted students must learn with same-age peers.
Not only do gifted students care about the peers they learn with, they also have shown
preferences to the teachers they learn from. Dorhout (1983) sought to determine the preferences
of academically gifted students and if their teachers perceived their students having those
preferences. In this quantitative study, 279 academically gifted students and 110 teachers of
academically gifted students completed the Preferred Instructor Characteristics Scale and a three-
way factorial analysis of variance was implemented to analyze the data. Analysis showed that
students’ perceptions differed greatly from what teachers perceived student perceptions to be.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 43
This implies a need for teachers of gifted students to have training or professional development
in gifted students and their needs. The data also uncovered specific student preferences. Firstly,
students preferred academic conditions which promoted intellectual pursuits. Secondly, the
students desired teachers who possess a strong personal-social orientation. In that, gifted students
need teachers who understand and empathize with their students, and who can impart a caring
nature and develop positive relationships with their students (Dorhout, 1983). Although this
study is limited because of its small scale, it represents initial research on the relationship
between understanding the social-emotional needs of gifted students and the instructional
choices of teachers.
Learning preferences and styles may also play a role in gifted students’ achievement. In
this regard, learning preferences and styles refer to environment, emotionality, sociological
needs, and physical needs (Rayneri, Gerber, & Wiley, 2003). Rayneri et al. (2003) administered
Learning Style Inventories (LSI) to high achieving and underachieving middle school students.
They discovered that some learning preferences, including dim lighting or kinesthetic learning,
were more prevalent amongst low performing gifted students. Although this study contained a
population of 80 students, Rayneri et al.’s study indicated that student learning preferences may
affect student perception of learning. Furthermore, if gifted students are themselves identifying
educational preferences, educators may need to consider those differences as having potential
effect on student achievement.
Davalos and Griffin (1999) conducted a qualitative study to learn about how teachers
individualize instruction in their rural classrooms and the impact the individualization has on
gifted learners. Using an in depth, case study approach, the researcher conducted approximately
200 hours of classroom observations, spent over 150 hours observing teachers while they were
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 44
being trained, and interviewed six gifted fifth graders from multiple rural sites throughout the
prolonged time in the field. All of the students reported academic fulfillment during the times
their teachers had individualized instruction for them. However, the students shared varying
degrees of satisfaction based on the levels and types of individualization their teachers provided.
One student, who claimed to receive little individualization, expressed feelings of boredom and
frustration. She wanted to investigate topics of personal interest at advanced levels. Another
student disclosed that he was excited when the teacher changed his seating. He was then able to
interact with another student who shared similar advanced interests and capabilities. Davalos and
Griffin’s findings shed light on the thoughts of young gifted learners. Those voices corroborate
the work of Renzulli (1986) and Passow (1994) in that the students are asking for challenge.
Furthermore, the social-emotional results of educational scenarios that do not meet those
academic needs are boredom and frustration as self-reported by the students.
Additionally, when gifted students’ social-emotional needs are not met underachievement
could be the result. There is strong evidence to show that about 15 % to 40% of identified gifted
students may not be achieving their fullest potential and performing below their academic
abilities (Figg et al., 2012). McCoach, and Siegle (2003) defined underachievement as the
relation between the expected academic achievement to actual achievement; where the first was
defined by the gifted identification method, and the second was associated with grades and
teacher evaluations (McCoach & Siegle, 2003). Underachievement as the achievement gap
between expected and actual performance is a definition used by many researchers today
(Rayneri et al., 2003)
Researchers in the field of gifted education have tried to determine factors that may
influence or cause underachievement in gifted students. McCoach and Siegle (2003) examined
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 45
the differences between gifted achievers and underachievers quantitatively. Using 178 gifted
high school students, McCoach and Siegle (2003) administered the School Attitude and
Assessment Survey-R (Reis & McCoach, 2000) which was created to quantify five factors of
underachievement: motivation and self-regulation, academic self-perceptions, attitudes towards
teachers and classes, goal valuation, and attitudes toward school. The sample was grouped by
high achievers (students whose GPA was 3.75 or higher and who were in the top 10% of their
class) and underachievers (students whose GPA was less than 2.5 and who were in the bottom
half of their class). McCoach and Siegle (2003) noted that the high achieving group comprised of
an almost equal male to female ratio, while the male to female ratio of underachievers was 3
females to 1 male. The statistical analysis of the School Attitude and Assessment Survey-R
established very little difference amongst the two groups in the areas of academic self-
perceptions. Gifted achievers also presented slightly higher scores in the areas of attitudes
towards teachers and attitudes toward school. The largest statistical differences between the high
achieving and underachieving student groups occurred in the factors of goal valuation and
motivation/self-regulation. These results challenged previous, qualitative, research that
underachievers have low academic self-perceptions. McCoach and Siegle claimed that the higher
perceptions in the attitudes towards teachers and school might be related to the high goal
valuation factor. As such, students who agree with the goals of the school may be inclined to
have higher success with school goals which would also manifest as higher attitudes towards
teachers and the school, as well as, higher achievement. Additionally, McCoach and Siegle were
able to use the factors of goal valuation and motivation/self-regulation to correctly identify
achievement status of gifted students (high achievement or underachievement) with 81,8%
accuracy. This study only looked at personal characteristics of underachievement and did not
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 46
consider other factors of underachievement like ADHD, medical conditions, learning disabilities,
or psychological or emotional issues. Despite this limitation, this study has implications for
educators of gifted students and specifically, underachieving gifted students. Educators should
ascertain the individual goals of gifted students and determine if those goals align with school
goals.
Although Reis and McCoach (2000) categorized underachievers along 25 dimensions
according to previous research, they noticed one consistency amongst underachievers was that
they are all different. They stated, “Attempting to define overarching psychological constructs to
describe gifted underachievers is virtually impossible. Underachievers are a diverse population”
(Reis & McCoach, 2000, p. 158). Although similarities between high and low achieving gifted
students have been recognized, each individual underachieving gifted student may have unique
factors contributing to his or her underperformance. Having a common definition of
underachievement and understanding similar characteristics of underperforming gifted students
will give way to further understanding of the topic. However, the heart of the issue is how to
counteract underachievement. The current research infers that the causes of gifted
underachievement are abundant, diverse, and unique to each individual student. Therefore,
ensuring that gifted students’ social-emotional needs are met might actually guarantee that their
academic needs are met as well.
Differentiation
One of the clearest ways to meet the needs of all students, including gifted learners, is to
differentiate instruction, curriculum, and/or service model. Washburne (1953) proposed that
teachers of diverse classrooms must adapt their instructional techniques to best meet student
interest and ability differences that are inevitable in non-homogenous classrooms. Washburne
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 47
highlighted a realistic dilemma educators faced at the time. Classrooms are not comprised of
homogenous students who are of the same age, mental age, and academic abilities. Washburn
identified that in any given classroom, there might be a grade span of four academic years in
arithmetic, spelling, reading abilities, as well as, mental age (the age of child maturity, not their
years since birth). In a time when educators sought out new, innovative ways to improve
education and curriculum, this posed a very tough problem. Washburne also stated that ability
grouping, universal promotion, grouping by mental age, and flunking had proven unsuccessful in
solving the problem. He suggested that teachers take three steps in their instructional practice: 1)
identify the core skills or knowledge student must gain, 2) assess the students to determine if and
when they are ready for a specific topic, and 3) provide time each day for individualized work
and practice. This framework became the foundation of what is now called differentiated
instruction.
Differentiation is an instructional practice consciously and purposefully implemented by
teachers. Tomlinson et al. (2003) stated that today’s classrooms are filled with a high variety of
learners which pose complex pedagogical dilemmas for their educators. That being said,
Tomlinson et al. argued that teachers must focus on student variations according to individual
readiness, interest, and learning profiles. Teachers provided access to the curriculum via
differentiation by arranging access points, learning tasks, and student work products that are
designed specifically for individual student needs (Watts-Taffe et al., 2012).
Teachers must think carefully about their students in order to differentiate effectively.
VanTassel-Baska (2015) highlights that diversity amongst students regarding culture, intellect,
language and cognition will create different rates of learning which means teachers must
customize the curriculum to find an optimal match between individual learners and their
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 48
readiness levels. In looking for that ‘optimal match’, teachers must consistently assess student
readiness and ability (Tomlinson et al., 2003). Teachers can provide challenging, small group
work for all learners, including gifted students, that is slightly above what Vygotsky (1978,
1986) labeled their “zone of proximal development” (ZPD). Tomlinson et al. (2003) describe
ZPD as a point of academic readiness where a student cannot work independently at a specific
level, but can be successful at that point with scaffolding or support from the teacher. Teachers
must know a given student’s ZPD and purposely assign tasks and give instruction at that level.
Mastery of tasks and content in the ZPD will create proficiency and learning for the student.
Consequently, that student’s ZPD will rise and the student will advance in his or her learning.
Differentiation “is not an instructional strategy” (Tomlinson, 2000, p. 3), but rather a way
of organizing teaching and thinking about learning. Furthermore, differentiation is a way to
modify the curriculum and the standards to meet the needs and interests of the students.
Differentiation may include varying the content (what is taught), the process (how it is taught),
or the products (outcomes or assessments) (Sisk, 2009). Along with content, process, and
product, the environment must also be considered as an element of education that can be
differentiated (Watts-Taffe et al., 2012).
Differentiation has a significant role in today’s diverse classrooms which is essential in
meeting the disparate needs of students. In their literature review of differentiation, Tomlinson et
al. (2003) assert hallmark differentiation should: 1) be proactive, not reactive, 2) be flexible and
use student grouping configurations, 3) have varied materials for individual and small group use,
4) include variable pacing, 5) be knowledge centered, and 6) be learner centered. By
purposefully and strategically attending to these attributes, teachers can create and implement
effective differentiated instruction for all their learners. Tomlinson (1999) stipulated that if our
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 49
educational system is going to be successful in its pursuit of equity and excellence,
differentiation or personalized instruction, is necessary to ensure all heterogeneous classrooms
include high-quality instruction and curriculum designed to maximize the capacity of every
student. Since teachers and schools are held accountable to the learning and academic outcomes
of every student, it behooves teachers and schools to use instructional practices, such as
differentiation, to guarantee the success of all of their students.
This section will review relevant studies and literature regarding differentiation for gifted
students that focus on process and content. It will then examine the empirical research on
different programing models that constitute the differentiated learning environments
implemented in school districts to provide services for gifted students.
Differentiation of Instruction and Curriculum
Tyler (1949) wrote that curriculum and instruction must begin with the interests and
needs of the student while simultaneously meeting the needs of society and academics.
Instruction and curriculum go hand-in-hand. Although differentiation of instruction (process) and
curriculum (content) are two separate dimensions of differentiation, they often interact (Watts-
Taffe et al., 2012). Process speaks to how the students learn and the instructional techniques
implemented by the teacher like scaffolding or modeling. Content is what the students are
learning such as subject matter, literary text, or discussion topic. To differentiate the content of
what students are learning, the teacher can alter subject matter, level of content, or even topic
choice. Researchers discussed in this literature review often speak to both instruction and
curriculum concurrently, therefore both instruction and curriculum will be included in this
section.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 50
Tomlinson (2000) suggested that differentiation is how we can make the curriculum more
accessible to our diverse learners. Certain instructional practices are designed to foster a more
individualized approach to how educators deliver the content of their instruction. Watts-Taffe et
al. (2012) suggested flexible and strategic student grouping, explicitly making connections
between content areas and students’ personal experiences, and supporting student independence.
Additionally, Watts-Taffe et al. (2012) stated that the four elements of differentiation do not act
independently, and an instructional decision in one area can often affect the other dimensions as
well. But most importantly, when teachers decide to differentiate the manner in which they
teach, they must do so with the students’ abilities and interests in mind (Tomlinson, 2003).
In order to meet the varied instructional needs of gifted students, differentiating how
teachers deliver reading instruction is a key element of meeting those needs. Firmender, Reis,
and Sweeny (2013) conducted a quantitative study to identify the span of student reading
achievement across schools to help educators better organize for differentiation of instruction
and content. Students’ reading comprehension and reading fluency levels in grades 3-5 from five
different elementary schools were used in this study. The five elementary schools were purposely
chosen to represent a large variety of geography, socioeconomic status, urban/suburban/rural
settings, and student achievement. The demographics of the 1,149 students in the study varied in
race, language, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity. Some of the participants were identified as
gifted. Scores were analyzed for each classroom, grade level within each school and each grade
level across the five schools. Researchers traveled to all five elementary schools and
administered the Iowa Test of Basic Skills reading comprehension test and an oral reading
fluency test to all 3-5
th
grade classrooms and then conducted descriptive statistics. Firmender et
al.’s (2013) findings show that elementary students within any given grade or classroom have an
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 51
extremely diverse set of reading levels. Additionally, in the oral reading fluency, scores
demonstrated percentiles from 1 to 99
th
compared to the national fluency percentiles. Firmender
et al.’s results are in line with other studies on the reading ability ranges for homogeneous and
heterogeneous classrooms. The recommendation is for educators to differentiate the reading
content and reading instruction, use flexible grouping, and utilize/implement curriculum
compacting in order to meet the needs of all learners, including gifted students. Firmender et al.
concluded that a “one-size-fits-all approach is not an appropriate instructional approach in
today’s diverse reading classrooms” (2013, p. 12).
While flexible grouping and curriculum compacting are common means of differentiating
instruction, the use of independent study can offer teachers of gifted students another effective
means to meet the academic needs of their students. Powers (2008) wanted to investigate the
relationship between using independent study and student choice using real-world situations as
motivation for student learning. Powers (2008) conducted qualitative research on the use of
independent study with 20 seventh grade social studies students with high-academic abilities
and/or the need for differentiated instruction. Students completed reflections during each phase
of the independent study and questionnaires about the independent study process. Some of the
students and two social studies teachers were also interviewed. All of the participants had
positive perceptions about the independent study process. The study confirmed the previous
work of other researchers in that gifted students excel when given a) choice in their academics,
b) the opportunity for independent study, and c) real-world connections to the topic of study.
Powers (2008) concluded that her research is a great example of Tomlinson’s (2004) belief that
gifted education should be synergetic and is a shared responsibility of teacher and student.
Although the study was small, the overwhelming student support demonstrates the possibility of
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 52
student achievement when curricular and instructional choices are made to meet the needs of
gifted learners.
A clear trait of gifted students is the varied pace at which gifted students learn and
acquire new knowledge (Kanevsky, 2011).Teachers of gifted students can determine the
appropriate speed at which to deliver instruction and then consider using acceleration as an
effective means of differentiating instruction for gifted learners. Steenbergen-Hu and Moon
(2010) conducted a meta-analysis of the 1984-2008 research of 38 primary studies. In their
examination of past studies on acceleration, Steenbergen-Hu and Moon (2010) concluded that
acceleration has a positive impact for academics and slightly positive impacts on social-
emotional outcomes of gifted students. A noted limitation to this meta-analysis included a mixed
or absent definition of acceleration from the studies examined. Therefore it is hard to determine
which types of acceleration may lead to the beneficial academic and social-emotional outcomes
discussed.
Gifted instruction must include acceleration and enrichment to meet the needs and foster
the talent of gifted students (Assouline, Colangelo, Heo & Dockery, 2013; Dooley, 1993;
VanTassel-Baska, 2015). One method for enabling acceleration is to implement curriculum
compacting. Dooley (1993) described curriculum compacting as when a student masters basic
skills and knowledge via accelerated and enriching activities. Reis and Renzulli (1992) outlined a
definition for curriculum compacting and conducted empirical research on the implementation of
curriculum compacting in 465 classrooms. Reis and Renzulli studied three treatment groups of
teachers who implemented curriculum compacting and received escalating levels of professional
development on curriculum compacting. There was a fourth group of teachers who served as a
control group in which no curriculum compacting occurred. Overall, the findings showed that
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 53
about 40-50% of the curriculum was compacted for the targeted students in at least one content
area. While the teachers had eliminated up to 50% of their traditional curricula, no drop in
achievement scores was shown. Moreover, scores in science for those who received a compacted
curriculum in science went up. Reis and Renzulli sorted the replacement activities teachers were
able to implement from the compacted curriculum into three categories: acceleration,
enrichment, and “other” (peer tutoring, correcting paper, collaborative activities, teacher tasks,
etc.). Reis and Renzulli reported that 95% of the teachers used enrichment as a replacement
activity for the time gained from compacting. Reis and Renzulli identified three phases to
curriculum compacting that are necessary to ensure success: 1) list/identify learning goals, 2)
assess current student mastery levels, and 3) replace unneeded skills or activities with
acceleration or enrichment choices. Finally, Reis and Renzulli concluded that curriculum
compacting is meant to be an adaptable tool that can be used at any grade level or with any
subject area. Therefore, as teachers assess students’ needs and interests, curriculum compacting
is a valid option for meeting the diverse learning needs of gifted students.
If curriculum compacting is implemented, enrichment is a beneficial instructional
replacement for gifted students. Reis, McCoach, Little, Muller, and Kaniskan (2011) studied how
differentiated literacy instruction using the Renzulli’s Schoolwide Enrichment Model-Reading
(SEM-R) (2002) positively affected reading fluency scores and reading compression. SEM-R is
an enrichment modeled for reading using three phases of 1) exposure, 2) differentiated training
in thinking and process skills, and 3) investigations of self-selected topics with the intent of
peeking student interests and reading enjoyment (Reis et al., 2011). In a similar study, Reis and
Boeve (2009) conducted a mixed methods study also looking at SEM-R and its effect regarding
gifted student literacy and achievement. Reis and Boeve concluded that SEM-R increased the
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 54
reading fluency of the gifted students, but they attribute some of the success to specific strategies
that challenged and engaged the students. Those activities include: high-interest texts, quiet
space, reflection, student choice regarding text, and individual attention and praise for reading
challenging texts. These studies demonstrated that teachers can differentiate literacy instruction
by purposefully engaging gifted students by using high-interest and self-selected texts.
Specifically, the teachers enriched the curriculum with literature that addresses student interest
and ability which Tomlinson (1999) stated is essential to differentiation.
While acceleration, curriculum compacting, and enrichment may attend to gifted
students’ ability to learn quickly and prevent boredom, adding challenge to the curriculum also
attends to the academic needs of gifted learners. Kaplan (2007) created a model for adding depth
and complexity to any curriculum. Teachers can focus their questioning techniques on eight
specific areas that can add depth to a student’s understanding about a particular topic. Those
areas include language of the disciplines, details, patterns, trends, unanswered questions, rules,
ethics, and big ideas. Learners can delve deeper into a topic or investigation by thinking about
and exploring the content through the lens of these categories of depth. Additionally, the teacher
can apply three strategies that focus on complexity to that questioning technique. The categories
of complexity are interdisciplinary relationships, different perspective, and changes over time.
Complexity is critical to gifted learners as it train them to understand content and its relationship
with time, perspective and across content areas. When infused in the curriculum, those 11
dimensions of depth and complexity bring any topic to a challenging level and helps maintain the
interest of all students. Moreover, all students participating in questioning and discussions
involving these elements of depth and complexity further their own critical thinking capabilities.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 55
For students who desire to be engaged, think in abstract ways, or understand a topic more in
depth, the use of Kaplan’s (2007) Depth and Complexity Prompts can meet those learning goals.
However, teachers must be cognizant of their students’ mental age, maturity levels, and
how to process the new and detailed curriculum they receive via gifted services. Kaplan (2008)
cautions educators who differentiate curriculum for gifted students to ensure that there is also an
understanding of how curricular elements are viewed in real life situations. While differentiating
a particular curriculum according to interests, needs, or abilities may help meet the academic
needs of gifted students, teachers must also explicitly teach their gifted students how to apply
that knowledge in other situations or contexts. Without this overt instruction as to various
curricular applications, gifted students may find themselves experiencing unwanted or negative
outcomes in social situations. Those negative outcomes are the same situations that Cross (1997)
discussed as producing avoidance behavior. An example would be a gifted student trying to
apply high-end, academic language during informal social settings like lunchtime. Potentially his
or her peers may find this boring, intrusive, or annoying and respond to the student in a rejecting
manner that has negative social-emotional consequences for the student. Kaplan (2008)
advocates that teachers should integrate understanding the potential outcomes of specific content
or skills when applied in new contexts.
Just as a teacher should be explicit in curriculum application, he or she should also be
deliberate with text selection so that it is a purposeful element in differentiating instruction for
gifted learners. VanTassel-Baska (2015) suggested teachers use judicious selection of off-level
texts, vary the genres, and utilize classical texts. Different genres can allow for different reading
purposes like close reading, literature appreciation, and intellectual discussions with peers. Just
as Hollingworth (1926) suggested the use of biographies in the 1920s to foster talent, other
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 56
genres and literary texts can undoubtedly expand the curriculum for gifted learners. In a
classroom differentiation with text may look like this: the fourth grade class reads the Sarah,
Plain, and Tall as a group. All students engage in grade level discussions about the story and cite
evidence from the text to support character development based on setting. A group of gifted
students may then be assigned to research how women were perceived during the 1800s and
what life for women typically was like and compare and contrast Sarah’s character to that
perception. The gifted learners may then create a multimedia project involving courage or
persistence to display their understand (VanTassel-Baska, 2015).
A final instructional strategy that ensures gifted student achievement is to use real-world
problems that engage gifted students. Dooley (1993) believed that highly talented and gifted
students need “opportunities to investigate real-life problems and [are] essential components of a
differentiated curriculum for gifted learners” (Dooley, 1993, p. 550). Such problem based
learning can motivate, engage, and inspire gifted learners to participate in school, as well as,
become advocates for their communities.
Service Models for Gifted Students (Environment)
In addition to differentiating the curriculum and instruction, educators are able to
differentiate the learning environment for gifted students. One aspect of environmental
differentiation involve how to group gifted students and where to provide services to meet their
needs. Often this type of differentiation s determined at the school site or in district policy on
how to implement gifted services within the district or school.
Types of gifted education models. There are four primary service models for how to
group gifted students and organize class structures with the intent of meeting the needs of gifted
students: pullout classes, cluster grouping models, self-contained programs, and honors classes
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 57
(Brulles & Winebrenner, 2011). Brulles and Winebrenner (2011) defined the models of gifted
education, the purposes of those models, and how they are used within a school site. In their
commentary, Brulles and Winebrenner also discussed the salient elements of each service model
and potential drawbacks were also disclosed.
According to Brulles and Winebrenner (2011), pullout programs can vary from school-to-
school or district-to-district. The intention of pullout classes is to offer enrichment activities or
instruction to gifted students as specific times throughout the school day or week. This can be
equated to resource specialist program (RSP) teachers for special education that support learners
at certain times of the day. Brulles and Winebrenner warn that this model can be costly because
additional “gifted teachers” or specialists are needed, and general education teachers may
become complacent to challenging their gifted students because they assume the gifted teacher
will provide that service.
Self-contained programs were designed to educate high achieving learners who often
perform far above grade level (Brulles & Winebrenner, 2011). This program might be a self-
contained class within a given school or in a magnet program. Brulles and Winebrenner (2011)
stated that these programs often serve the highly gifted and allow for academic growth beyond
their grade-level peers. A limitation of this model is the focus on the profoundly gifted, often to
the exclusion of high ability students. Also, the classrooms may not display diversity in terms of
SES or ethnicity. This type of program is open to criticism along the lines of elitisms and can be
perceived as an inequitable program.
A third common form of servicing gifted learners is to provide honors classes or content
replacement (Brulles & Winebrenner, 2011). In this model, high achieving gifted students may
take a course above grade level or in a content area that differs from their grade level peers.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 58
Additionally, students may be regrouped by ability to form such courses. Sometimes gifted
students may take these classes outside of school or at home and be taught by a trained educator
of gifted education. This type of model may be used at the secondary level and be seen as a form
of acceleration. Brulles and Winebrenner (2011) acknowledge that differentiation in the
classroom may not occur in these classes. Moreover, honors teachers typically have extensive
knowledge in their subject area and may not be trained in gifted education. However, Brulles and
Winebrenner noted that parents and students have reported enjoying these courses for academic
and social reasons.
Finally, Brulles and Winebrenner (2011) described the cluster grouping model and its
potential weaknesses. Cluster grouping is when identified gifted students in a particular grade
level are assigned the same teacher in a relatively heterogeneous classroom. Often high
achieving, non-identified students, are also placed in the same class which allows teachers to
focus on a narrower set of academic abilities. However, Brulles and Winebrenner warn that these
scenarios can lead to parents of students in other classrooms to criticize the lack of academic
leadership in their child’s classroom and believe that their class is not as good. Additionally,
administrators of such programs need to supervise cluster teachers to ensure they are providing
the challenge and enrichment their gifted students need to ensure success and integrity of the
program. Sometimes this model is called the Schoolwide Cluster Grouping Model (SCGM)
when it is done in totality for a grade level and at all grade levels. Brulles and Winebrenner
added that the SCGM is a low cost method of meeting the needs of gifted learners because
special personnel are not required.
When looking at service models for gifted students, it will not be likely that one specific
program will work for all gifted students (Brulles & Winebrenner, 2011). However, Brulles and
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 59
Winebrenner (2011) do include a list of attributes a successful gifted program must have:
interactions with like-minded peers, flexible grouping, curriculum and instruction that is
purposefully differentiated, constant academic progress, continuity of support services, and
teachers who have specific schooling in gifted education. When all of these elements are present
in a gifted education program, the needs of the students will be met.
Effects of service models. There has been much research in the field of gifted education
to promote and justify one particular program model over another. However, this literature
review is not designed to identify which is better, rather to provide background on the strengths
and potential weaknesses of different service models. Empirical studies involving specific
service models will be discussed. While not all service models have been empirically studied,
extensive focus during the past two decades has fallen on cluster grouping of gifted students in
heterogeneous classrooms. Some studies compare the effects to the general education student
population, while others compare to no service model. The intention of this next section is to
show what gifted services look like when implemented in schools and districts. As Tannenbaum
(1998) discussed the elitism debate concerning gifted education, these studies may bring light to
what is actually happening in today’s schools.
While choosing to cluster gifted students into the same classroom may be a decision for
the school site or district, teachers with gifted students in their classes must also make
instructional choices to differentiate accordingly. Assouline, Colangelo, Heo, and Dockery
(2013) conducted a quantitative study of high-ability students to determine how often students
received different instructional delivery models in mathematics, language arts, and science. The
study used 6,280 gifted students, primarily from Florida and Iowa in grades 4-6 during the 2005,
2006, and 2009 academic years. Students completed a 12-item self-report survey on how
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 60
instruction is usually delivered to them for each subject. Then the students took the eighth grade
level, multiple choice EXPLORE test in English, reading, science, and mathematics. By testing
gifted students far beyond their grade level, educators can determine the readiness levels of the
students. This process determines “who is ready for more challenge and in which areas”
(Assouline et al., 2013, p. 142). Assouline et al. (2013) found that the majority of students in
their study reported being taught the same material, in the same manner and in the same
classrooms as their peers. This finding implies that many high-ability students are not receiving
an accelerated curriculum or high-level content that is necessary for meeting their needs. The
limitations, as discussed by Assouline et al. included student self-reporting, a limited number of
survey items with limited choices, and a non-representative student sample. Specifically, 97% of
the participants came from Iowa or Florida, and the results may be different state-to-state.
Moreover, student self-report, (especially with children under 12) has the potential for participant
error or misunderstanding. Aside from these limitations, this study implies that many gifted
students are not getting or not perceiving to receive the instruction that they believe they should.
The implications of this study are that if we want to serve the needs of gifted students,
differentiation is necessary and educators must do so decisively and explicitly.
Cluster grouping is a common service model adopted by districts that offers services to
gifted students without large costs (Brulles & Winebrenner, 2011). Some may say grouping
gifted students within the same classroom is inequitable for the non-identified, average-ability
students at the same school site. Oakes (1987) provided evidence that tracking students is not
beneficial to student outcomes or success. However, Matthews, Ritchotte, and McBee (2013)
specified that clustering gifted students, sometimes known as ability grouping, has a different
connotation in the context of gifted education. Others may say cluster grouping does not do
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 61
enough to meet the needs of those clustered gifted students. Brulles, Saunders, Cohn (2010)
conducted a quantitative case study in Arizona to discover if identified gifted students perform
better in mathematics if they are in a classroom with a cluster of gifted students or simply in a
heterogeneous classroom. Brulles et al. (2010) were able to make comparisons between two
groups of gifted students because not all students in the district were assigned to cluster-grouped
classrooms. In this study, 772 gifted students participated in a pre and post mathematics
assessment during the 2006-2007 school year. Seventy-two percent of the students were assigned
to cluster-grouping classrooms with teachers who were trained in teaching gifted students and
who regularly attended professional development for gifted students. 28% of the students were in
regular instruction classrooms that did not implement the cluster-grouping model. A benchmark
mathematics assessment was developed based on the Arizona state mathematics standards. The
assessment was field tested and an item analysis was done before a final test was created. The
students were given the same assessment two times: first as a pre-assessment in August 2006 and
then as a post-assessment in May 2007. The researchers looked at the percentage of
improvement each student made from the pre to post assessments to determine the amount of
growth made by the student, that year, in their instructional classroom model. The limitations of
this study include lack of generalizability and a large number of variables that could attribute to
the results. Brulles et al. (2010) found that students in the cluster classes had a higher level of
learning than gifted students in the non-cluster classrooms. In this sense, providing the service of
clustering gifted students into the same classroom does show that it meets the academic needs of
gifted students.
In keeping the concerns of equity of education in mind, cluster grouping has be criticized
because it appears to track some students while excluding others. Gentry and Owen (1999)
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 62
conducted a longitudinal, mixed methods study to ascertain how cluster grouping for gifted
students was implemented in regards to variables within a small, rural district in Iowa. The
participant sample consisted of 198 students from two successive academic years (2000 and
2001). The researchers used quantitative methods to determine student performance statistics and
control for variables like SES and gender. Then, Gentry and Owen conducted interviews with
teachers and administrators from the treatment school. Overall, teachers from the treatment
school believed that the increased number of high achieving students in grades three to five was
due in some part to the cluster grouping. Specifically, when the highest achievers were removed
from the other classes at the same grade level, the average and low achiever gained more
confidence and improved significantly. The teachers felt that the cluster grouping made it easier
for them to meet the needs of individual students. When comparing the treatment school with
flexible cluster grouping and identification to a similar school without the cluster grouping, the
students from the treatment school out-performed the comparison and made larger academic
gains on the state standardized test. 79% of the teachers and all of the administrators from the
treatment school felt this achievement was due to the specific academic range they applied when
creating class grouping in combination with between class grouping for specific subjects
(reading or math). By specifying a performance range and adhering to it, teachers believed they
could better meet the academic needs of their students. While Brulles and Winebrenner (2011)
cautioned that cluster grouping may lead to complacency of differentiation, Gentry and Owen
(1999) revealed thoughtful grouping and program integrity can benefit all students in a SCGM.
Since the advent of No Child Left Behind, even more scrutiny has fallen on gifted
programs as society has focused on equity for all students, especially those who fall behind.
Opponents of ability grouping have stated that ability grouping impedes the academic growth of
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 63
general education students (Oakes, 1987). In direct response to this claim Matthews, Ritchotte,
and McBee (2013) conducted a quantitative empirical study to determine the effects of cluster
grouping on the academic outcomes of both gifted students and general education students in the
Southeastern United States. Student test scores in reading and math on the Measures of
Academic Progress (MAP) computer-adaptive, standardized assessment were analyzed using a
piecewise multilevel growth model. For mathematics, all students in the study showed significant
growth in mathematics achievement. However, the growth was seen in the year following the
school-wide cluster grouping of gifted students. Like studies conducted by Gentry and Owen
(1999) and Pierce et al. (2011), general education and gifted students both showed gains in
achievement after cluster grouping was implemented. However, both previous studies (Gentry &
Owen, 1999; Pierce et al., 2011), involved data collection over multiple years and focused on
longer implementation times. Therefore, Matthews et al. (2013) concluded that the positive,
lasting academic outcomes from cluster grouping may take longer than one year to manifest.
Even though no statistically significant gains were demonstrated in reading, the findings
indicated that academic achievement in reading should not be used as a concern against school-
wide cluster grouping as no long-term harm to reading ability was seen from either group.
Although these findings did not show the same magnitude of growth that Gentry and Owen
(1999) did, the researchers believed this related to small sample size and setting. Moreover,
Matthews et al. (2013) did conclude ability grouping does not harm general education students’
academic outcomes.
While empirical evidence has been discussed to show a lack of negative effects towards
typical education students, Pierce et al. (2011) examined the effects of cluster grouping in
combination with a specific math curriculum designed to support gifted students. Pierce et al.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 64
conducted a quantitative study that examined data from 2 years of a 6-year program that was
intended to augment the academic achievement of gifted students. The participants were 3
rd
grade students who were placed in cluster grouped classrooms consisting of 3-10 gifted students.
Teachers were expected to implement a tiered mathematics program with integrity and teach
three replacement math units in algebra, geometry, and probability. The results indicated that
teacher intentionality toward the program, grouping practice, and curriculum materials all
significantly affected the programmatic intervention. The tiered curriculum proved to be strong,
showing academic gains for all students when teacher implemented it with fidelity. Moreover,
gifted students showed the most advancement over time. Furthermore, the non-identified
students in the cluster grouped classrooms also displayed positive outcomes which is consistent
with Gentry & Owen’s (1999) findings. The researchers concluded, “Clustering provides an
educational context that not only supports, but implicitly mandates, differentiated instruction for
all learners” (Pierce et al., 2011, pp. 591).
In thinking about all programing services models, some researchers wonder if one has
more benefits than others. Specifically, how do the programing models meet the academic and
social-emotional needs of gifted learners? Delcourt, Cornell, and Goldberg, (2007) conducted
quantitative research to gain a greater comprehension of the affective and cognitive outcomes of
students in gifted programs across different grouping arrangements. Four grouping service
models were compared in the study: 1) within-class programs, 2) pullout programs, 3) separate
class programs, and 4) special school programs. The study implemented a quasi-experimental
design with pre-and post-assessment of multiple groups that took place over a two year period.
Using program type as the independent variable, cognitive and affective outcomes were the
dependent variables. Delcourt et al., (2007) found that across program types there were
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 65
significant statistical differences in all areas of student academic achievement. There were no
significant statistical differences across program types for the affective outcomes of self-
perception or intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. Overall, students in pull-out programs, separate
schools, and separate classes demonstrated higher cognitive achievement than gifted students in
within-class programs or no programs. The researchers attributed these differences potentially to
content units not found in the regular curriculum and the encouragement of student investigation,
both of which were absent from within-class programs. Additionally, although students in the
separate class model displayed high academic achievement, they also exhibited the low
perception of achievement, acceptance by peers, and attitudes towards learning. The implications
of the study include the validity of gifted programs in enhancing the academic achievement of
gifted students, regardless of race, and that programs should be monitored and considered
carefully along the lines of both cognitive and affective outcome for gifted students.
Perceptions of service models. While the previous empirical studies looked at the
student outcomes from service models, other researchers have focused on the perceptions and
choices of gifted students and their families. Young and Balli (2014) wanted to hear parent and
student perspectives on how gifted services provided in different service models met the
educational needs of gifted learners in grades 4-7. The researchers interviewed 27 identified
GATE students who had been enrolled in their school GATE program for at least two years and
25 parents. The students attended differing GATE program models: neighborhood elementary or
intermediate school, GATE magnet schools, or an International Baccalaureate (IB) program at a
neighborhood school. Using Renzulli’s (2002) three-ring conception model as a lens, Young and
Balli (2014) focused their research questions, protocol items, and coding on Renzulli’s (2002)
three traits of gifted learners: high ability, task commitment, and creativity. Results indicated that
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 66
creativity was standard in the GATE magnet schools, while students from the neighborhood
school had less opportunity for creativity and the chance was inconstant. Some of the
neighborhood schools implemented homogenous clustering, but not all. A student from one such
school expressed feeling bored at school when his class moved at a slower pace than he learned.
Another student described completing routine work without a lot of enrichment. A parent from a
neighborhood school described the assignments as lacking enrichment. Specifically, GATE
assignments were left up to the teachers and often the teachers assigned more of the same work,
rather than accelerated or enriching content. Brulles and Winebrenner (2011) warned of exactly
this occurrence. Overall, Young and Balli (2014) reported three findings from their qualitative
study: “(a) the crucial nature of differentiated instruction for gifted students, (b) the reticence
among parents to transfer their children from neighborhood public schools to GATE magnet
schools, and (c) the impact of funding cuts on gifted education” (Young & Balli, 2014, pp. 244).
While researchers and educators of the gifted have their own perceptions, Young and Balli
(2014) have highlighted a different set of perspectives that may not directly align with national
educational goals or the same educational outcome planned by schools and their educators
In some settings, gifted services are provided as a self-contained program within a larger
school. Matthews and Kitchen’s (2007) empirical work on student and teacher perceptions was
designed to ascertain the working relationships between school-within-a-school gifted programs
and their larger school counterparts. In a case study involving questionnaires, interviews, and
observations of three school-within-a-school programs, the researchers sought to understand the
perceptions of gifted students, non-program students, and teachers regarding program strengths,
weaknesses, and interactions amongst key stakeholders. The participants included 471 students
(227 gifted, 244 non-gifted) and 59 teachers from three programs whom all completed
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 67
questionnaires. Based on teacher interest within their questionnaire results, teachers were then
selected for follow up, open-ended interviews. There was overwhelming agreement from all
participants that some students benefit from more challenging programs, while others need less
rigorous environments. Many students within the gifted programs reported peer groups as a
strength of their program which Matthews and Kitchen specified aligns with gifted researchers’
claim that high-ability leaners need social interaction with like-minded peers (Cross, 1997).
Here, students’ voices depicted the social-emotional need to interact with peers who learn at
faster rates and those voices also support the clustering of gifted students at the program level.
While Cross (1997) warned educators of the underachievement of gifted students, some
researchers have sought to determine how pervasive that population is and if gifted services may
prevent underachievement. Matthews and McBee (2007) conducted a quantitative study to
examine the relationship between educational environment and the underachievement of gifted
students. The purpose was to establish a description of gifted students regarding their
achievements, self-concepts, attitudes about school, and motivations to achieve which was absent
from the literature. Matthews and McBee also wanted to explore the relationship between the
underachievement of gifted students and their educational environments. 540 high achieving
high school students who participated in the talent search summer program were chosen based on
scoring in the 95
th
percentile or higher in both their current grade level standardized test score
and their seventh grade standardized test score. Students completed the School Attitude
Assessment Survey-Revised to examine their attitudes toward school. Behavior reports that
faculty completed during the program were categorized and coded to examine student behavior.
Additionally, evaluations from program instructors were used to look at academic performance
during the summer program. The findings showed that 9% of the gifted student population
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 68
displayed behaviors of underachievement with motivation/self-regulation being a significant
indicator of learning behaviors during the summer program. Moreover, Matthews and McBee
could not predict student performance based on student school performance or attitudes towards
school suggesting that underachievement is pliable and could potentially change often and/or
quickly. The study implies and corroborates findings that less than 10% of gifted students face
underachievement and more studies could be done to establish a baseline rate of
underachievement. The limitations of the study include a specific sample group that may not be
generalizable to all gifted students and that the sample did not include a significant percentage of
students requesting financial aid. However, Matthews and McBee concluded that curricular
modifications can potentially be an effective method of combating underachievement of gifted
students.
This section examined the definition of differentiation and how it can be used to
individualize the content, process, and/or environment for gifted students. Additionally, student
outcomes were studied to determine the effects of various service models typically provided for
gifted students in the United States. Also, student and family perspectives were gathered to
understand how gifted programing is interpreted by those whom it is intended to support. The
following section will look at current research in the field of teacher education for gifted
education to establish current practices and need in educating teachers who work with gifted
students.
Teacher Education for Gifted Education
The research on giftedness, the needs of students, and differentiation is quite extensive.
But how does that knowledge translate into the classroom practices of teachers of gifted
students? This section reviews current research in teacher education pertaining to the need for
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 69
educating teachers about gifted education. The realm of teacher education can in separated into
two categories: education for preservice teachers and education for in-service teachers. In this
sense, teachers need education and training before they enter the classroom, usually during a
teacher certification program. Additionally, after teachers are already working they need to
continue their professional learning to hone and further develop their teaching craft, as well as,
keep up with changes and research in the field of education (Opfer & Peddler, 2011; Webster-
Wright, 2009). This section will discuss empirical work concerning the importance of teacher
education for gifted education, both preservice teacher education involving the preparation to
teach gifted students and in-service teacher education for continued professional growth in the
area of teaching gifted students.
Importance of Teacher Education for Gifted Education
A common myth about gifted education is that teachers of gifted students are experts in
understanding the social-emotional needs of gifted learners (Cross, 2002). Cross (2002) dispelled
that myth that everyone in the field of gifted education is an expert on the social and emotional
needs of gifted learners. Cross drew attention to the small size of the field of gifted education.
Although many educators, coaches, parents, and administrators who work with gifted students
can describe gifted students and give anecdotal evidence from their own experiences, that does
not imply those adults are specifically learned in gifted education or have the expertise of
educators who specialize in gifted education. Because Cross recognized not every teacher of
gifted students is an expert in gifted education, there is a necessity for ensuring teacher
awareness and understanding about gifted education.
One of the earlier researchers to examine the need for teachers to understand gifted
education was Albert Dorhout. Dorhout (1983) used empirical evidence to suggest the need for
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 70
educating teachers in the realm of gifted education. Dorhout (1983) set out to study the learning
preferences of academically gifted students and determine if their teachers knew what those
learning preferences were. Both gifted elementary and secondary students, as well as their
teachers, completed the Preferred Instructor Characteristics Scale to identify the favored
cognitive-intellectual and personal-social preferences. The result showed that many teachers’
responses involving student learning preferences did not actually match up with what the gifted
students identified as their preferences. Dorhout made a strong claim that student learning
preferences should be met in some way to provide the most fruitful learning environments.
Therefore, if the teachers of gifted students are not aware of those preferences, they cannot
reasonably meet learning needs. Moreover, Tomlinson (2005) clearly stated that teachers of
gifted students must make instructional and curricular choices based on the interests and needs of
their students and Dorhout’s (1983) work supports the need for teachers to learn more about their
gifted students and their needs.
Another early study involving what in-service teachers know about their gifted students
also speaks to the need for teacher education regarding gifted education. Copenhaver and
McIntyre (1992) wanted to generate more data about teachers of gifted students. They conducted
a small quantitative study on teachers’ perceptions of gifted students. In this study, 85 in-service
teachers taking the class “Curriculum Development for Gifted Students” completed an open-
ended questionnaire on their perceptions of giftedness and gifted students. The teachers
perceived negative traits of gifted students as an indication of student frustration. An example of
this may be when a gifted student acts out in class and is disruptive because he or she is bored
with the slow pace of the class. Additionally, elementary educators were more likely to point out
negative characteristics or traits of gifted students than secondary teachers. Copenhaver and
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 71
McIntyre (1992) believed that elementary teachers described more negative behaviors of their
gifted students due to the heterogeneous nature of elementary classrooms compared to a more
homogeneous atmosphere in content and ability specific secondary classrooms. Findings also
showed that experienced teachers of gifted learners displayed significant differences in this study
than teachers who were less experienced. Moreover, the differences in teachers’ responses also
seemed to be associated with the grade level taught and the quantity of professional development
in gifted education the teacher had taken. This study is limited by its small sample size and is
only generalizable when adjoined with existing knowledge in gifted education. However, the
study implies a need for teachers of gifted students to receive specific coursework or training in
the field of education which is consistent with the findings of Cross (2002) and Dorhout (1983).
As Cross (2002) used the term “expert in gifted education”, it is important to understand
some districts in the United States employ “gifted experts” who have extensive training in gifted
education, as well as, experience teaching gifted students. The “gifted experts” often have taught
in homogeneous gifted classrooms or self-contained gifted schools. Moreover, their role is to
help determine curriculum, programing choice, service implementation and direct district policy
for gifted education. When Cross (2002) refers to experts in gifted education, she means
educators who perform these types of duties or current researchers in the field of gifted
education. During the past 15 years, with the rise of No Child Left Behind legislation and the
societal debates regarding the need for gifted education (Tannenbaum, 1998), many districts
have defunded gifted education and taken these expert positions away (Beisser, 2008). With less
support at the district level for in-service teacher development and guidance, there is a definite
need for teacher education regarding gifted students. Cross (2002) believed that as the field of
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 72
gifted education grows, gifted students would benefit from working with educators who
specialize in gifted education.
Gifted Education for Preservice Teachers
Preservice teachers are defined as adult students completing a teacher certification
program, adult students completing field work or student teaching for teacher certification,
and/or college students planning to major in education or enroll in a teaching credential program
who take undergraduate courses in education, psychology, or similar subjects to prepare for
teacher certification programs. The term novice teacher implies a newly credentialed teacher
who has less than two years of teaching experience. The following section focuses on current
research specifically involving preservice or novice teachers.
Bain, Bliss, Choate, and Sager Brown (2007) conducted empirical research with
preservice teachers and collected examples of undergraduate beliefs on gifted education. The
focus was specifically regarding service delivery, egalitarian or elitist elements of gifted
education, and the need for gifted education. Bain et al. (2007) administered the Attitudes and
Perceptions of Giftedness 50-item survey to 285 preservice teachers and focused on the ten items
which centered on school-related needs of gifted learners. The results showed that the
undergraduate students favored gifted services provided in general education settings, supported
interactions of gifted students with students of differing intellectual abilities, and preferred
inclusive, egalitarian gifted services overall. 76% of participants believed that gifted learners can
excel exclusive of services for gifted students. However, as stated in the above section, many in
the field disagree with this notion and support some kind of individualized services for gifted
students (Tannenbaum, 1998; Tomlinson, 2002). Therefore, Bain et al. (2007) concluded that
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 73
preservice teachers do need specific instruction regarding the needs of gifted students based on
empirically sound practices.
This explicit instruction for both preservice and novice teachers is also critical because of
what we know about teachers new to the field. As Grossman and McDonald (2008) and Sleeter
(2000-2001) demonstrate, new teachers entering the field of teaching often mirror the ways they
were taught. Even though novice teachers have completed teaching certification programs, they
typically revert back to their old mindsets of what teaching is, and do not always implement the
practices taught in their certification programs. This issue is further exacerbated if preservice
education doesn’t explicitly teach the skills necessary to teach students with different abilities.
Preservice teachers must overtly be taught about the needs of gifted students and how to meet
those needs in a general education classroom, just like they should be taught about the needs of
other kinds of students and how best to teach them.
Berman, Schultz, and Weber (2012) conducted empirical research to determine how
teachers in different stages of their career and training view gifted and talented (GT) learners.
Berman et al. (2012) compiled qualitative data from open-ended questionnaires completed by in-
service GT teachers, preservice teachers with some field work involving GT students, and
preservice education students to discern how each group of teachers viewed GT students.
Berman, Schultz, and Weber (2012) found that life experience had a strong influence on
teachers’ preconceptions on GT students. Preservice education students and preservice teachers
initially held many misconceptions regarding GT students including lack of need for gifted
education and GT students will “get it” on their own. These findings are consistent with the work
of Bain et al. (2007). The results also revealed that preservice teachers’ perceptions changed as
they gained experience working with GT students. Specifically, these preservice teachers began
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 74
to realize that GT students have a lot of needs and the preservice teachers were concerned about
the level of work they would need to do in order to meet those needs. Berman et al. (2012) also
concluded that GT education training needs more emphasis in general education teacher training
programs if GT students will continue to be serviced in general education classrooms (i.e. cluster
grouping model). Since the financial cutbacks to gifted education (Beisser, 2009), more districts
are adopting the cluster grouping model which means more gifted students will be taught in
general education classrooms. Therefore, including training on gifted learners in teacher
certification programs is becoming a necessity.
Another empirical study explored preservice teachers who completed field work with
gifted students (Chamberlin and Chamberlin, 2010). Chamberlin and Chamberlin (2010) studied
23 preservice teachers completing field work for a mathematics and sciences methods course.
The preservice teachers worked with gifted third through six graders on problem-solving
activities. The preservice teachers worked with the students during three, one-hour sessions over
the span of six weeks. The preservice teacher kept pre and post journals that were reviewed by
the researchers and were the data for the study. The preservice teachers were not given any
formal instruction on gifted students. Chamberlin and Chamberlin (2010) found similar results to
Bain et al. (2007) and McCoach and Siegle (2007) regarding notions of elitism in gifted
education. Specifically, preservice teachers did discuss concerns about segregating gifted student
away from other students and about potential for exclusivity in a homogenous classroom
comprised of all gifted students. Chamberlin and Chamberlin (2010) suggested that preservice
teachers be exposed to multiple service models for grouping gifted students to allow preservice
teachers to discover the benefits and drawbacks of different grouping arrangements. Results also
showed that preservice teachers did acquire knowledge is relation to instructional pedagogy for
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 75
gifted students. Preservice teachers did articulate they wanted to create challenging problems that
would interest the gifted students. The preservice teachers did understand that they needed “to
know the students” when choosing suitable activities and problems. Additionally, the preservice
teachers reflected that the gifted students were all quite different and their needs were also
different. While Chamberlin and Chamberlin noted that the preservice teachers did think to and
attempted to differentiate instruction for the gifted students, and their understanding of the
variety of differentiation techniques exhibited a basic understanding of pedagogy differentiation.
Chamberlin and Chamberlin recommended that the methods class cover more pathways to
differentiation and what that may look like in a classroom. Overall, this study confirms that
preservice teachers can and do attempt to implement ideas and philosophies taught during
teacher credentialing programs, but more content and experience regarding how to teach and
differentiate for gifted students would be beneficial.
Troxclair (2013) also studied preservice teachers’ attitudes towards giftedness using
Gagné and Nadeau’s (1991) Opinions About the Gifted and Their Education attitude scale. The
purpose was to determine if current myths about giftedness and gifted education were prevalent
to preservice teachers who had not had any formal experience or training in gifted education.
Troxclair’s (2013) findings were similar to McCoach and Siegle (2007) and Bain et al. (2007).
Specifically, the preservice teachers held contradictory opinions. Although most participants
believed in gifted education and that gifted students should have their needs met, many
participants also believed that educators have greater responsibility to struggling students. They
believed gifted students already have enough favors in the system, or that schools already
adequately meet the needs of gifted students. Troxclair (2013) concluded that current societal
myths about gifted education are prevalent to preservice teachers, and these future teachers need
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 76
education on how to accelerate content within general education classrooms and research-based
information regarding gifted students.
In examining how teachers develop pedagogy that meets the needs of their students, Joffe
(2001) conducted a case study of a novice teacher of gifted students. Using multiple semi-
structured interviews with one teacher, Joffe (2001) sought to ascertain how that teacher
metacognitively made instructional choices. The participant was a new, eager teacher who was
asked to teach in the magnet program for gifted students. Although the teacher did not have
specific training or experience with gifted students, she was given the position based on positive
perceived abilities, being known as a good teacher, and her willingness to learn quickly in the
new position. Joffe found that the participant quickly learned about academic and social-
emotional characteristics of the gifted students and would use that understanding to make
pedagogical choices. The novice teacher was flexible, observer her students, and made choices
based on those interpretations. The novice teacher also developed a pedagogy for working with
gifted students through her openness to change and implement a trial and error approach to her
teaching. Although quite small in number, this descriptive case study illuminates how one
teacher learned on the job and worked to use that learning to meet her students’ needs.
Gifted Education for In-Service Teachers
There has been research that examines what current teachers of gifted students know,
think, and believe about gifted education. In-service teachers are educators that are currently
practicing teachers and work at school sites. Their knowledge, training, and years of experience
can vary, as well as their knowledge, training, and years of experience with gifted students or
providing gifted services. In this area of study researchers often specify teaching experience
when describing participants if it is relevant to their research question.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 77
Current empirical research has focused on what in-service teachers know about gifted
students. McCoach and Siegle (2007) examined indicators of teachers’ perceptions and attitudes
of gifted students and gifted education. The purpose of their quantitative study was to expand
current knowledge involving teachers’ attitudes on gifted education to determine if teacher
education in the field of gifted education had any effect on perspective towards gifted education
or self-perceptions of giftedness. In this study, 262 randomly selected teachers (nationally)
responded to the Opinions About the Gifted and Their Education attitude scale (Gagné and
Nadeau, 1991) and the Self Perceptions as Gifted scale created by McCoach and Siegle (2007).
Both of these surveys were mailed to participants. McCoach and Siegle found that teacher
education and training regarding gifted education and students did not affect their perceptions
about gifted education. While this surprised the researchers, McCoach and Siegle noted their
findings are consistent with the body of research in this area, as the research implies mixed
results. The eight studies involving teacher training in gifted education and their attitude towards
gifted education discussed by Begin and Gagne (1994) showed mixed results; three studies found
no relationship between training and attitude and five studies did find a relationship. McCoach
and Siegle found there was a positive relationship between teacher education in gifted training
and the self-perceptions of their own giftedness. Limitations of the study included a low response
rate (17.5%), the variability in gifted education training was high, the term “gifted” was hard to
define, and the instrumentation encompassed a limited number of factors. McCoach and Siegle
concluded that further research on the relationship between gifted education training and teacher
attitudes regarding gifted education is needed, as their results troubled them.
In addition to teacher attitudes towards gifted education and gifted learners, there has also
been research on specific methods and programs for training teachers about gifted education.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 78
Folsom (2006) presented a theoretical framework for implementing the Teaching for Intellectual
and Emotional Learning (TIEL) model. Folsom cited that gifted students’ academic needs
require complex thinking, opportunities for creativity, higher-order thinking activities and noted
that the TIEL may help teachers meet those needs. The model is used to blend thinking
operations with qualities of character. Although, it is designed to help novice teachers learn how
to engage in complex teaching, the TIEL model can assist educators with varying experience
levels in blending intellectual education with social-emotional elements. The model helps
teachers understand metacognitions and how to discuss thinking and learning with students.
Folsom’s purpose was to borrow the strategies trained gifted educators must implement in order
to meet gifted students’ needs and share those practices with general education teachers.
However, the TIEL model is useful for all teachers. Since many districts implement a cluster
grouping model that lies within the general education classroom, training in-service and
preservice teachers in this educational approach may be beneficial for all students, both gifted
and non-gifted.
As discussed previously, there are many ways teachers can differentiate or individualize
in order to meet the needs of their students. Davalos and Griffin (1999) conducted qualitative
research observing and interviewing rural teachers to discern their ability to differentiate
according to gifted students’ style, pace, and level. Results indicated that although all of the
teachers did individualize instruction for their gifted students, they did so to differing degrees
and not to the greatest magnitude. Davalos and Griffin concluded that teachers must a)
personally recognize the benefits of differentiating instruction, b) be motivated to implement
differentiation with fidelity, c) be agreeable to relinquishing control of learning to the students,
d) acquire the appropriate training and knowledge of implementation of differentiation
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 79
techniques, e) participate in shared learning and academic responsibility, f) fully comprehend the
social-emotional and academic needs of gifted students, and g) be prepared to and capable of
meeting those needs. Hertberg-Davis (2009) commented on the need for general education
teachers to be well versed and trained in differentiation techniques in order to be successful in
meeting the needs of gifted students. Additionally, Tomlinson (2005) spoke about students and
teachers adopting a shared responsibility of classroom differentiation and instructional choices.
Although Davalos and Griffin (1999) studied many aspects of the teachers’ knowledge, their
conclusions have strong implications for educating teachers of gifted students.
In many school districts, identification for gifted education starts with a referral from the
general education teacher. As such, it’s important to explore what identifying teachers know
about gifted students, and whether they need teacher education about what to look for. Research
has shown that teachers sometimes don’t identify those students who should be identified.
Elhoweris (2008) set out to study how students’ socioeconomic status (SES) effects teachers’
abilities to recommend or refer students for gifted programs. In this study, 207 teachers observed
a vignette of a fourth grader who exhibited characteristics of giftedness. The teachers were
divided into two groups. Each group watched nearly identical vignettes that differed only in the
SES of the child depicted: one coming from low-middle class SES and the other showing a child
of upper-middle class SES. The teachers were asked two questions: 1) should the student be
referred for gifted testing? and 2) should the student be placed directly into gifted services?
Results indicated that the higher SES student was recommended for referral and recommended
for placement at a higher rate than the lower SES student. This data indicates a need for teachers
who make identification choices to be culturally sensitive. Teachers also may need training in
cultural awareness and or critical reflection as described by Gay and Kirkland (2003).
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 80
Another study that focused on teacher identification of gifted students involved
experienced teachers of gifted learners. Speirs Neumeister, Adams, Pierce, Cassady, and Dixon,
(2007) examined the perceptions of gifted program teachers of minority students to ascertain
their opinions as to why minority underrepresentation occurs. Speirs Neumeister, et.al. (2007)
established that experienced gifted teachers had a very narrow definition of giftedness, and did
not know how giftedness could manifest in minority students. The teachers equated these trait
discrepancies to a mismatch in program and sometimes affected actual gifted identification or
program placement. This evidence corroborates Elhoweris’ (2008), in that teachers’ viewpoints
regarding the capabilities and potential giftedness of minority students may warrant further
professional development or education concerning gifted education for underrepresented
students (Speirs Neumeister, et.al., 2007). Additionally, more professional development is
needed for teachers of gifted students or those who are required to identify potential gifted
students (Harradine, Coleman, & Winn’s, 2014; Michael-Chadwell, 2011; Speirs Neumeister, et
al., 2007).
It is also relevant to discuss what teachers do, not just what their perceptions and
knowledge are. Hong, Greene, and Higgins (2006) conducted quantitative research to examine
classroom teachers’ instructional practices and understand if those practices were useful for
teaching gifted learners. Hong et al. (2006) designed, tested, revised, and validated the
Instructional Practice Questionnaire (IPQ) that encompassed the three domains: cognitive,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal. The purpose was to determine if the IPQ was a valid measure of
instruction for each of the three human development domains. The final survey was administered
to 144 general education teachers and 67 GATE resource room teachers. The results showed that
the three domains were interrelated and shared some common traits in student development,
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 81
however the intersection of these characteristics was more prevalent for the GATE teachers. The
study was limited by the self-reported nature of the survey and attempts were made by the
researchers to advocate for honesty in responses. Hong et al. (2006) concluded that the IPQ
could be a beneficial instrument for professional development and could help teachers
investigate instructional practices for each domain.
When thinking of the qualities a teacher of gifted students must possess, the question of
the teacher’s intelligence and giftedness has been the subject of research as well. Rosemarin
(2013) authored a short literature review on the topic. They reported that some researchers like
Davis and Rimm (1998) believed teachers of gifted students should most definitely be gifted
themselves. Rosemarin (2013) also discussed studies that described the characteristics of
teachers who teach gifted learners and what those characteristics should be. Rosemarin (2013)
concluded that teachers of gifted students should have certain skills or characteristics that
warrant successful implementation of gifted services or understanding of gifted characteristics.
Those traits include emotional intelligence to empathize with and diagnose the social-emotional
temperament of gifted students and overall intelligence to ensure the ability to challenge students
and understand their thinking abilities. While this work may be poignant to some, it offers
insight into the temperament of educators who work with gifted learners.
Finally, as in many professions, standards exist for members to adhere to and embody to
ensure professionalism and integrity of practice. VanTassel-Baska and Johnsen (2007) laid out a
set of teaching standards for the field of gifted education. The work included contributions from
a comprehensive, national range of professionals and the content was shaped by responses to
public comments. The purpose of the work was to identify and publicize a standard knowledge
base and skill set deemed essential to teaching gifted children. The ten standards encompass the
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 82
realms of pedagogy, educational theory for gifted education, management techniques, and
research. Attention is paid to social-emotional issues, learning environments, planning, learning
differences, collaboration, ethics and professionalism, and assessment. Although VanTassel-
Baska and Johnsen’s (2007) standards have been mentioned some research since that time, no
studies have directly looked at how teachers acquire the knowledge encompassed in the
standards or how this information disseminates into the instructional services for gifted students.
The teacher education standards for gifted education offer a starting point to understanding this
study’s first research on what teachers know about gifted education. These standards may offer a
base for the conceptual framework and protocol items regarding tea
Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework allows researchers to convey how they organize, think, and
theorize about the literature reviewed in combination with the researchers’ own world view and
prior experiences (Maxwell, 2013). This section includes a concept map displaying how the
study is framed. The concept map visually organizes how this study will take the literature
presented about gifted students, differentiation for gifted students and teacher education for
gifted education and apply it to my study. A description of the map will detail the theorized
relationships between the core concepts that will ultimately help to shape the inquiry to answer
the research questions.
As a public elementary school teacher of 16 years, my worldview on how teachers think
and do their jobs in part shapes the conceptual framework for this study. Specifically, I believe
that the vast majority of teachers want to help and educate children and do so in a manner which
they believe adds benefit to their students. The majority of teachers work hard, instruct the best
they can, and put a lot of effort into their jobs. Different teachers may be better at teaching
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 83
different subjects, assessing student need, learning new instructional techniques and applying
those techniques, or relating to students. Regardless of the skill, teachers want their students to
learn. However, teachers make instructional choices differently.
This study examined various elements of GATE education that surround teachers,
including how and where they attain GATE professional development and how they use that
knowledge to make instructional decisions for their GATE learners. The study also investigated
how the teachers make sense of how GATE services relate to their specific instructional
contexts. The research questions also examine their perceptions of the implementation of GATE
services and how that may or may not affect GATE learners. Figure A is a concept map that
shapes how I see the key concepts in this area of focus as well as how I see these concepts
related to one another.
The three boxes along the top are factors that might ultimately influence how teachers
meet the academic needs of their GATE students through various forms of differentiation. Each
set of factors relate to the presented literature and are thought of as “categories of input.” The left
box, Teacher Knowledge, lists potential ways that teachers obtain information and knowledge
about GATE services, students, and education which this study intends to discover. This includes
their experiences with their credential program preparation, professional development pertaining
to gifted education, trainings, and their experience in gifted education. The center box, Gifted
Students, itemizes specific information teachers may need to know about their GATE students in
order to make appropriate instructional choices and provide suitable differentiation. This can
include academic and social-emotional needs, areas of giftedness, and specific talents. The right
box, Context, depicts elements of the specific educational setting that may affect teachers’
beliefs or instructional choices. These elements may include district policies, service model
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 84
setting, the identification methods employed, and the programmatic definition of giftedness. The
service model setting may include cluster grouping, pull-out classes, or self-contained
classrooms or schools (Brulles & Winebrenner, 2011).
Figure A
Conceptual Framework
Teacher Knowledge
Credential Program
Professional
Development
Training
Experience
T e ac h e r s’ Thinking
Processes &
Perceptions
Gifted Students
Academic Needs
Social-Emotional
Needs
Areas of Giftedness
Specific Talents
Gifted Services Provided
Differentiation Determined (i.e. acceleration, enrichment, rigor)
Context
District Policies
Service Model Setting
Identification Methods
Definition of
Giftedness
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 85
Arrows point away from these three “categories of input” towards the center thinking
cloud. This conceptual framework views these as inputs that may affect teachers’ thinking
processes and which might interact with teachers’ perceptions and beliefs. The arrows represent
the path “knowledge” takes, or could take, in potentially shaping teachers’ perceptions and
instructional decisions. The thought cloud represents the teacher, his or her thought processes,
and what is happening inside his or her head. This includes contemplation about potential
instructional options and perceptions about the outcomes of those decisions for GATE students.
I contend that every person takes information in, considers the information in his or her
own manner and time frame, and subsequently makes instructional decisions. Additionally, the
instructional decisions and perceptions of those decisions exist within the setting and context. On
the map, the thought cloud creates an output which is depicted by the small thinking bubbles
leading to the resulting instructional decisions and differentiation. Those potential choices are
depicted in the box along the bottom of the concept map extrapolated from the literature review.
Those choices are the differentiation services the teacher has control over and determines. The
outputs for teachers of GATE students are how the teachers elect to differentiate content,
process, and product (Sisk, 2009) specifically for their gifted students as discussed in chapter
two. This could include, but is not limited to, acceleration, enrichment, rigor, or independent
study.
This concept map also relates back to the research questions which are driving this study.
Specifically, the left box along the top of the concept map contains the knowledge inputs that
relate directly to the sections of this literature review on teacher education for gifted education
and gifted students. Teachers shared their experiences and knowledge to help me understand
what they know and how they gained that information. They talked about their personal
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 86
knowledge on GATE education and their knowledge about their gifted students’ needs. Hearing
these accounts helped answer the first research question. The second and third research questions
regarding teachers’ instructional choices and their perceptions regarding those instructional
choices are represented by the thinking cloud and the resulting outputs in the bottom box.
Hearing how teachers described and made sense of this process highlights why teachers choose
to provide certain services to meet the needs of GATE learners. Additionally, it shows what
teachers think about the choices they make. What happens inside the thinking cloud varies from
person to person, as all humans think differently and because different contexts may affect
decision making differently. Therefore, identifying why teachers make certain instructional
choices for their GATE students and what drives their decision making process was explored.
Renzulli (2002) stated the ultimate goal of a program for gifted learners is for the
philosophy of giftedness to match with the identification methods and the services provided to
the gifted students. When this concept is considered in combination with my worldview on
teacher effort, an understanding is gained as to how teachers of GATE students negotiate their
responsibility to meet the needs of all of their learners.
Summary
This chapter outlined and discussed historical and current research on gifted education.
First, research on gifted students was examined to understand what giftedness is and what the
academic and social-emotional needs are for gifted students. Second, differentiation was defined
in general terms. How teachers can differentiate their instruction and curriculum was explored
using both theoretical work and current empirical research. Then how environmental
differentiation at the program level is implemented in various settings was also defined and
examined. Third, literature on teacher education for gifted education was also discussed.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 87
Implications for both preservice and in-service teachers were divulged. Finally, a conceptual
framework was presented that displayed potential interactions of these three broad topics that
ultimately shape teacher choice with respect to providing services for gifted students. The next
chapter will outline the research approach, sampling, methods of the study, and the ways in
which I attempted to maximize credibility and trustworthiness in my study’s findings.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 88
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
This chapter focuses on the research methods of the study and how the research was
conducted. The research questions helped determine choices made about sampling including the
settings and the participants. This chapter then discusses how the data were collected and
analyzed for the study. Subsequently the limitations and delimitations, my efforts to maximize
credibility and trustworthiness, and any ethical issues involving the execution of this study are
acknowledged and reviewed.
Maxwell (2013) stated that research questions should both focus the study in relation to
the conceptual framework and guide the methods of the study. This study sought to answer the
following research questions which stem from the literature review and conceptual framework:
1) How are teachers of elementary gifted students gaining knowledge about the academic
needs of their gifted students?
2) How does the knowledge elementary teachers have gained about the academic needs of
their gifted students shape their instructional choices and the gifted services
implemented?
3) What are elementary teachers’ perceptions regarding how the gifted services
implemented meet the academic needs of their gifted students?
Sample
This study analyzed how teachers in Southern California make instructional choices
when they teach GATE students as well as how they perceive those choices to affect their GATE
students. The center of the study was how teachers gain GATE knowledge, the choices they
subsequently make based on that knowledge, and their perceptions of GATE services. This study
sampled varied educational settings of GATE learners with the purpose of exploring how those
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 89
contexts interact with teachers’ choices and teachers’ perceptions about how the GATE services’
provided to GATE learners are able to meet the needs of that subpopulation, elementary GATE
learners.
Settings
The settings for this study included seven public elementary schools within five school
districts that serve elementary GATE students. Purposeful maximum variation sampling
(Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002) was utilized according to GATE service model setting (SMS) to
collect data from the widest range of contexts as possible. As stated in the conceptual framework
section of chapter two, the teachers are situated within district contexts, and these contexts might
shape how GATE services are determined and implemented at the classroom level in regards to
content and process. Concentrating on the different SMSs for GATE education, I located
teachers from multiple public school districts whose teaching assignments employ a variety of
GATE service model grouping strategies. California Education Code regarding GATE education
states that local education agencies, like school districts, determine how to provide differentiated,
educational services for gifted students (California Department of Education, 2017, History of
legislation, para. 2-4). Districts determine which GATE service model to implement based on
their own organizational policies and population criteria. At this time, multiple service models
for GATE student grouping are used throughout southern California schools.
Therefore, in order to hear from teachers who work in a variety of GATE service models,
I collected data from different school districts. The data from only one district could have limited
the types of SMSs to be examined. Moreover, I specifically chose districts that utilize the most
common service models for GATE students as described by Brulles and Winebrenner (2011).
Those models included cluster grouping, self-contained programs (whole class/magnate school),
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 90
and pullout classes (either during the day or after school). Brulles and Winebrenner also
described class or content replacement as a typical service for GATE students. However, as those
replacement services are more appropriate for middle or high school students, I did not seek out
any elementary teachers teaching GATE learners in that service model setting. Additionally, I
searched for teachers who work in contexts that do not use programmatic grouping as a specified
service for GATE learners. Although Brulles and Winebrenner did not study this particular
grouping of gifted students, from my experience as a public elementary teacher of GATE
students I do know that some schools do employ this low-numbers service model. I defined this
GATE service model as classrooms with 1-3 GATE students.
Another variation in setting that I considered was student population demographics. This
study did not specifically focus on the ethnicity, culture, financial background, primary language,
or current achievement of GATE students. In answering the research question two, I wanted to
understand how any given teacher of any and all GATE students thinks about GATE services
and why he or she choose to utilize particular differentiation methods. For example, I aimed to
learn why a teacher might choose acceleration over enrichment, or how specific student talents
shapes the enrichment of the curriculum as an instructional choice and how the teacher
implements that enrichment. Patton (2002) stated that the patterns which transpire from diverse
settings or scenarios could be critical to understanding shared experiences or dimensions of
specific phenomena. Therefore, I intentionally looked for settings that offered variety in the
typical educational population demographics of ethnicity, culture, financial background, primary
language, or current achievement of GATE students. The settings sampled included schools from
both high, medium, and low socio-economic populations, a variety of ethnic backgrounds, and a
range of student achievement outcomes. Accordingly, the sampling was purposeful in that it was
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 91
diverse. When sampling, I did not purposely search for any particular demographic nor exclude
any demographic, rather I included many demographics.
According to Merriam (2009), convenience sampling is done based on availability, time,
cost, and location. Based on convenience, I chose locations that were easily accessible in terms
of scheduling time and locality. As a current, practicing elementary school teacher, taking time
away from my students was not an option for my scheduling abilities. Therefore, I concentrated
my sampling efforts to find sites in the Los Angeles county and Orange county areas so I could
conduct most of the interviews after my work day or on weekends. However, the first
requirement was always to ensure the purposeful maximum variation detailed above.
Participants
As seen in the literature review, there is a lot of variety in services for GATE students.
Hearing as many voices as possible assisted in understanding how teachers of GATE students
make their instructional choices within a variety of GATE service model contexts. Maxwell
(2013) and Merriam (2009) both articulate that a qualitative researcher must be purposeful when
selecting a sample so as to learn as much as possible from that sample. Therefore, the
participants were selected using purposeful sampling (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). By
applying maximum variation for setting, in combination with purposeful sampling for
participants, I obtained a wide range of viewpoints and perspectives. I purposely wanted a varied
participant sample to uncover as many perspectives as possible.
I employed a purposeful sampling technique (Patton, 2002) to ensure information-rich
illustrations regarding the research questions. Following Merriam’s (2009) recommendation to
explicitly state the criteria for purposeful sampling, the participants were chosen based on the
following criteria: 1) elementary school teacher and 2) teaching in a GATE service model
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 92
determined by the school or district. In my recruitment efforts, I discovered teachers who serve
their school sites as “GATE Coordinators”. These elementary educators had an extensive number
of years of experience teaching GATE students and, at the time of the study, worked with GATE
learners outside of the classroom within the context of the overall school setting. Based on their
experiences and after six months of difficulty with recruitment, I decided to expand the criteria
and include these participants in the sample due to their numerous years teaching GATE learners
and their experiences with a variety of GATE service models. The sampling criteria was then
expanded to include an “and/or” option 3) a self-identified teacher of GATE students with many
(three or more) years of experience teaching elementary GATE students.
During the recruitment of potential participants, I used both network sampling and
snowball sampling (Merriam, 2009) to connect to potential participants via educator networks,
conferences, and personal communication. I sought out teachers of GATE students by talking
with teachers of GATE students as well as administrators, program specialists, GATE specialists
and coordinators. I also accessed my personal network of educators across the region in all areas
of education in hopes of gaining introductions and contact with potential participants.
Additionally, I purposely connected with unfamiliar elementary teachers at conferences and
professional development meetings to increase my own educator network and meet potential
participants. Subsequently, I hoped those potential participants might lead me to find more
participants. Throughout the recruitment process, I applied the purposive, maximum variation
sampling ideals to select participants. During networking and recruitment communication, I
screened potential participants simply for teachers who work with GATE students and for which
specific GATE service model context they currently taught. Nonetheless I did not encounter any
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 93
potential participants who did not meet the sample criteria. No potential participant was denied
due to repetitive sampling.
However, I did encounter difficulty in participant recruitment and spent eight months
recruiting participants to complete the sample. Gaining traction in meeting potential participants
and then securing participant interest and subsequent scheduling became unpredictable. Upon
responding with initial interest, participants took 4-10 weeks (or longer) to schedule their first
interview. Five interested potential participants who displayed interested and corresponded their
intent to participate never scheduled and interviewed at all.
The final participant sample included 10 public elementary school teachers in Southern
California who currently teach identified GATE students or serve as the site GATE coordinator.
The group consisted of 10women with teaching experience ranging from 5-38 years in the
classroom. Three pairs of participants taught at the same school. Two participants filled each of
the following GATE service model identifiers: 1) 1-3 GATE students per class, 2) cluster
grouping with one GATE cluster per grade, 3) cluster grouping with multiple GATE cluster
groups per grade (magnate and school choice organizations), 4) self-contained GATE
classrooms, and 5) school site GATE coordinator. However, the six participants have worked in
or had experience with multiple service model settings throughout their years teaching GATE
students. Additionally, five participants had experience with pullout-type programs or activities
intended to provide services to GATE learners outside of the regular classroom. Although I
intended to sample teachers who solely taught in the pullout model, I only encountered one such
teacher working in Kern County. Even though this was out of the convenience determined
sample area, I did attempt to include the teacher in the study. However, the teacher did not
respond to requests for participation.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 94
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols
The purpose of a study and its research questions should drive what type of data are
collected and how (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Qualitative researchers focus on
understanding and meaning using an inductive process (Merriam, 2009). Merriam (2009) also
stated a key feature of qualitative research is to gain understanding from the perspective of the
participants regarding the topic of study. The objective of this study was to gain a deeper
understanding into what and how teachers gain and use knowledge regarding their GATE
students, as well as, how they perceive these choices meet the needs of their students. Therefore,
to answer the research questions about teacher knowledge, how that knowledge informs their
practice, and their subsequent perceptions, qualitative data collection was appropriate for
learning detailed accounts of those educator perspectives. And while another purpose of my
study was to explore how the teachers make instructional choices, which could be examined
using observations, I extrapolated from teachers’ own reports of their practices rather than
conducting direct observations. Recognizing that triangulation is an important way to increase
the credibility of one’s qualitative findings, however, (Maxwell, 2013), I sought out other ways
to provide additional context. In order to supplement the teachers’ self-reported descriptions of
the choices they make and district determined services, I collected documents that might shed
light on their instructional practice and examined public GATE program websites for each of the
five districts. As such, this study gathered data from teacher interviews and collecting and
analyzing documents.
Interviews
To understand teachers’ perceptions, one must listen to teachers and engage them in
discussing their viewpoints. Conducting interviews as a form of data collection is important
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 95
because it would not be possible to observe educator perceptions (Merriam, 2009; Weiss, 1994).
Therefore, the research questions pointed to using interviews as a data collection method.
Additionally, Weiss (1994) stated that interviews provide an opportunity for depth and
development which is central in qualitative research. In order to understand what teachers are
thinking and how they make their instructional choices regarding their GATE students, depth
was necessary in all of the interviews conducted.
I utilized a semi-structured approach for the interviews (Merriam, 2009). Weiss (1994)
described the interactions between researcher and participants as a working research partnership.
Getting to know my participants, evoking trust and candor, and building rapport was necessary
for them to open up and share deeply. I conversed casually and used small-talk and ice breakers
as Bogdan and Biklen (2007) suggested to develop rapport with the participants in hopes that
they would trust me and open up to me during the interviews. This was important because I met
many participants in person for the first time at the time of the initial interview. Another reason I
chose a semi-structured interview approach was because I wanted the ability to ask probing
questions (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). I wanted the format to seem more conversational for the
participants, while still directly addressing the research questions. As such, a semi-structured
protocol was necessary. To fully understand what their perceptions are and how they make
instructional choices, I made the interviews feel like a conversation between two colleagues, not
a mechanical, structured questionnaire read by an unknown, formal researcher.
Determining the questions for the interview took careful consideration. Patton (2002)
suggests the questions be open ended, neutral, singular, and clear. Additionally, Merriam (2009)
recommended avoiding leading, double barreled, or yes-no closed ended questions. Drawing
from the research in the literature review in combination with the conceptual framework, I
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 96
determined the specific questions and protocol arrangement. Weiss (1994) and Merriam (2009)
discussed the weight that the nature and format of the interview has on the data one can elicit.
Bogdan and Biklen (2007) specified the importance of probing questions in the process, as well.
Therefore, the interview protocol included an introduction, demographic questions about teacher
education, experience, and education regarding GATE knowledge, and classroom demographics.
The protocol also included content questions relating to the literature on GATE instructional
practices and education. Topics from the literature included differentiation, creativity,
enrichment, acceleration, subject specific instructional choices, specific student scenarios, and
perspectives on policy and implementation. I added potential probing questions underneath each
question that I could ask participants and transitions I could use as the interview progressed. The
protocol contained language for participants to discuss teacher created documents and to share
openly about their beliefs and about each topic area. Each protocol ended with a closing
including my appreciation and permission for potential member checks (Merriam, 2009). Refer
to Appendices A, B, and C for the entire interview protocols. Furthermore, I thought teachers
would more willingly agree to multiple, shorter interviews if their time in each interview is
respected and concise. Because teachers’ schedules are hectic and fast-paced, I considered
smaller time amounts would make scheduling and facilitation easier for the participants.
Ultimately, 10 teachers of GATE elementary students were interviewed for this study.
The initial goal was to interview three teachers from four different GATE service model contexts
(cluster grouping, only 1-3 GATE students, self-contained class or school, and pull-out and
service model settings). Creswell (2014) discussed the importance of prolonged time in the field.
I conducted multiple interviews with each participant because I wanted to ensure I got an in
depth understanding of what teachers know and think. Also, multiple interactions with each
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 97
participant assisted with building rapport (Maxwell, 2013: Weiss, 1994) which led to deeper
conversations and furthered trust. As participants shared their ideas and stories, my interests
were sparked and follow-up questions naturally arose. This resulted in interviews which were
very conversational in nature. Then, I reviewed my interview notes in between interviews to
determine some individualized protocol items for each participant (Merriam, 2009) that focused
on gaining more knowledge about specific literature topics and specific to the participant.
The interviews were conducted at a time and location convenient for the participants. The
location of data collection varied by participant. I met with participants based on their schedules,
which often determined location availability. The interview settings included personal homes,
offices, and classrooms. When it was necessary, I obtained permission from site administrators to
conduct interviews at their school site. However, many participants wanted to meet at off-site
locations, as well. One follow up interview was conducted via phone at the participants’ request.
Email and text messaging was used to conduct member checks and verify unclear data from the
interviews with all 10 participants.
With participant permission that I obtained at the beginning of each session, I recorded
each interview with an audio recording app on my phone. I wanted to ensure integrity of the
participants’ voices and be able access the data after the interview is over, as suggested by
Merriam (2009) and Weiss (1994). I took notes on the interview protocol, which Merriam (2009)
calls “observer comments” as I conducted interviews. I knew that if I tried to record the
participants’ answers by hand, I would not be able to make observer comments efficiently or
even at all. Since I used a semi-structured interview protocol, I made follow-up protocol
decisions throughout the interview without worrying about writing down every word I heard.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 98
Recording allowed me to think, react, and fully participate in the dialogue I had with each
participant without the loss of data.
I interviewed each participant twice for approximately one hour per interview. Therefore
the interview protocol was divided into two parts: A and B. Interview A lasted about 60 minutes
for most participants, while Interview B lasted between 45-60 minutes per participant. Based on
participant availability, one participant completed Interview A and Interview B over three shorter
30-40 minute blocks of time using the same protocols that ran back to back. Although this
comprised of three sessions, her participation constituted two interviews based on the protocol
used. Additionally, one participant completed Interviews A and B in the in the spring/summer of
2017. However, in the fall of 2017 her service model setting changed at her site. With her
permission, she participated in a third 25 minute interview (see Appendix C for this protocol) in
February, 2018, regarding changes to her instructional practices and perceptions. The total length
of the 21 combined of Interviews A, B, and C from all 10 participants was 1,181 minutes (19
hours, 42 minutes). Following each interview, most participants engaged me in conversation
about their classrooms, shared documents and student work samples, inquired about the study
and GATE education in general, which allowed me to naturally develop further rapport with
each participant.
I also created audio reflections immediately after the interviews. Bogdan and Biklen
(2007) stated that data analysis can begin while the researcher is still in the field. These reflective
memos assisted me while analyzing data and helped pinpoint poignant elements of the interviews
that had initially instigated analysis. Additionally, these audio-memos helped me reflect on what
I heard and provided a focus for the data analysis.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 99
Document Collection
In addition to the semi-structured interviews with teachers, I analyzed both public and
personal documents as defined by Merriam (2009). Public documents consisted of district GATE
program websites and related links, downloadable PDFs, and resources. I found and examined
these public records of each district’s GATE program. I searched for each definition of
giftedness, identification means for GATE, and the possible service models implemented in each
district.
Additionally, I asked participants to view and photograph their plan books, lesson plans,
and/or teacher created materials related to GATE instruction. Although a teacher’s plan book
does not reveal what actually happens in a classroom, it does show what the teacher intends to do
in the classroom and the choices she or he is making in planning the instruction. I wanted to
specifically look for evidence of differentiation methods for GATE education as described in the
conceptual framework that could be used to triangulate data from the participant interviews. How
teachers create and write lesson plans can exhibit how they think about their students’ needs, the
abilities of their students, and how differentiation may take place in a lesson. I was careful when
asking for photographs or photocopies of these documents and ensured that no student work was
shared with identifying information. Keeping these records confidential was necessary for
participant privacy and I disclosed confidentiality statements both verbally and in writing when I
obtained permission to audio-record, photograph, and collect documents.
Data Analysis
I had the audio recording of each interview professionally transcribed using a web based
transcription service. I wanted to ensure accuracy of the transcription and to ensure the entire
recordings were transcribed. To secure participant confidentiality and protect this data, the audio
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 100
files were kept on an external flash drive and were locked with all other data from the study.
After I received each transcription, they were printed in their entireties and collated with the
corresponding interview protocol for complete analysis in combination.
I analyzed data in an approach similar to Bogdan and Biklen’s (2007) description. I read
through the transcripts and documents, coded for potential themes (Merriam, 2009) using a priori
codes. I had written questions and notations regarding emerging themes and participant emotions
or reactions during the interviews on a printed interview protocol. I used those observer
comments made on protocols during the interviews to ensure my “in-the-moment” ideas were
analyzed in conjunction with the a priori codes established from the literature review. Then, I
listened to the audio memos I created for myself after each interview to determine any further
emerging themes from the data.
The data analysis process was systematic and deliberate. I imported all 21 transcripts into
the coding software ATLAS.ti. I used the software to create the a priori codes and codes for the
initial emerging themes based on the first reading of the transcripts and the observer’s comments.
As I worked with the codes and data within the coding program, further themes and codes
emerged. I utilized the analytic tools suggested by Corbin and Strauss (2008) to ensure coding
fidelity and considered the data from multiple aspects. These techniques included: questioning,
making comparisons, word meanings, the flip-flop technique, using personal experience, looking
at language, interpreting emotions, and/or searching for the negative case (Corbin & Strauss,
2008). I looked at repeated terminology to see if usage was consistent across participants and
coded for language or evidence that emerged based on my experiences teaching GATE students.
Applying these analytic tools allowed me to discern themes, create descriptive data, and
delineate my findings.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 101
As I finalized coding the interview transcripts, I began to systematically analyze the
documents that I collected. In all, 93 artifacts were shared by participants. The artifacts were
shared via hard copy, pictures taken of charts, work samples, or documents unable to be
photocopied, and email. The artifacts included lesson plans, student work, handouts from
professional development, classroom charts/posters, bulletin boards, portfolios, scholarly
articles, district created documents, and student work assignments. I cataloged all of the artifacts,
coded them based on themes derived from the body of documents, and gave a short description
of the relevance of each artifact. The catalog of the artifacts can be seen in Appendix D.
While analyzing the interview and document data to determine themes, I simultaneously
reviewed the five GATE program websites of each district represented by the 10 participants. I
used the public websites to triangulate data from the participants.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study was limited by time and participant availability. I entered the field in May as
many teachers were conducting standardized state testing and finalizing their grades and
classrooms to end the school year. Many potential participants declined to participate based on
the time of their academic year. Also, recruitment was slow and unsteady as summer vacations
began. Potential participants were hard to reach and responses often took weeks throughout the
summer. When fall approached, potential participants declined to participate as the beginning of
the year is another busy and hectic time for teachers. Because I asked to interview participants
for two blocks of time, teacher availability was difficult. Some potential participants did agree to
participate, but never followed through with actually scheduling any interview times or dates.
Other potential participants declined and stated they did not believe they had enough experience
or knowledge to be of use to the study. Overall, recruitment was cumbersome throughout the
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 102
nine months in the field. Due to the difficulties of recruitment, the final participant sample may
not include the maximum variation originally desired. Three pairs of participants came from the
same school sites. Although the data provided by each pair was different from their site partner
and used for data triangulation, it did reduce the total number of school sites and potentially
school districts.
Furthermore, the final participant sample may be limited in the types of teachers who
were willing to be interviewed for this study. Specifically, not all teachers are interested or feel
comfortable discussing or reflecting on their practice or feel comfortable to do so with an
unfamiliar researcher. The participants who did agree to participate in the study may be more
confident in the GATE knowledge or practices or the sample may be reflective by nature and
more willing to participate. Therefore, the final participant sample may not convey perceptions,
practices, and knowledge of any given GATE educator.
Another limitation of the study is that it is not generalizable. Qualitative research does
not warrant large scale data collection nor is it generalizable to all contexts (Creswell, 2014;
Maxwell, 2013). My participant sample was small: 10 teachers. However, the sample size for
each service model setting was actually only 2-3 participants. Additionally, I did expand the
criteria to include elementary educators who used to teach in GATE classrooms but currently
work with GATE students in other capacities. Although the final sample did consist of all female
participants, male teachers were contacted as well. Two male teachers did express interest in the
study; one ultimately failed to schedule an interview and one withdrew because he felt, “Since I
only have 1 GATE student I do not have any information to contribute to your study.” Overall,
the sample size was small and did not include any male participants, which limits its ability to
generalize across contexts and teachers.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 103
A delimitation of the study is that the research design did not include observations. The
data collection methods relied heavily on multiple interviews and a structured, systematic
document review. Observations could have been beneficial for data triangulation. Specifically,
observations might have allowed me to see if the differentiation teachers described in their
interviews was reflected in what they do in the classroom. However, as a practicing classroom
teacher, it is necessary for me to fulfill my responsibilities to my current students and work
obligations. Therefore, classroom observations for this study were not feasible given my current
employment situation. Instead of observations, then, I used documents and artifacts, in
combination with district websites, to help triangulate the interview data and show the intended
differentiation and instructional choices discussed during the interviews.
Another delimitation of this study is the focus on elementary teachers. I chose this group
because the expectations for differentiation are highest in elementary school, as students and
courses help create more homogenous grouping in middle and secondary school. Although the
empirical studies discussed in the literature review ranged from elementary to middle to high
school students, teachers, and gifted programs, each context had implications for each study.
However, each study focused on only one age range of education. Because of my background is
in elementary education, I chose elementary teachers for the sample so that I would have
background knowledge during the interviews. This allowed me to adapt the semi-structured
interview protocol within the interview and allow me to relate findings more readily.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
As the primary instrument in qualitative researcher (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013), I
must be cautious and transparent about credibility and trustworthiness. To ensure credibility, I
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 104
used member checks, rich data, maximum variation, and triangulation (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam,
2009).
Because the voices of the respondents created rich, descriptive stories of teacher choices
and decision making, I used member checks to increase validity. Merriam (2009) described
member checks as a means of ascertaining feedback from the participants as findings emerge.
Maxwell (2013) called this respondent validation. By interviewing participants multiple times
and reading observer comments between interviews, I was able to direct the follow-up interview
protocols to address the emerging findings. I contacted participants via phone, text, and email
with follow up questions when needed. I also conducted a third interview with a participant to
understand if and how her perspectives may have changed when her GATE service model setting
changed. Additionally, I sought feedback from some participants regarding my findings to ensure
that the emerging findings were aligned with participants’ perceptions. I wanted to ensure that
my interpretation of the data was accurate.
Maxwell (2013) and Merriam (2009) suggested the use of rich, descriptive data. Using
audio recordings and verbatim transcripts allowed me to describe what the teachers thought very
clearly and paint a picture of what they described was happening in their minds as they made
instructional choices. The purpose of multiple interviews was to gain a deeper understanding of
how teachers gain knowledge and how they make decisions from that knowledge. The interview
protocol was quite reflective for teachers and required them to share personal and specific
thought processes related to how they carry out their role as an educator. Therefore, my
descriptions of the participants’ thoughts and thought processes are detailed, multifaceted, and
illustrative so that the research questions are answered with credibility.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 105
I purposely sought maximum variation in the settings I chose to increase credibility. I
looked at teachers of GATE students holistically, not as teachers who have different jobs in
different gifted contexts. Merriam (2009) stated that maximum variation is “purposely seeking
variation in sample selection to allow for a greater range of application of the findings by the
consumers of the research” (pp. 229). In this sense I purposely searched for the widest ranges of
experiences in GATE education so that the reader can see how a teacher in any particular GATE
setting may think or make instructional decisions. Additionally, using rich, descriptive examples
while discussing themes in chapter four shows the reader how GATE educators think about their
GATE students and how they reported supporting them.
I used triangulation to verify and enrich the data from participant interviews, public
school district websites relating to GATE programing, and personal documents and artifacts
given to or shared with me. While reviewing district information on GATE education, I
triangulated data regarding what participants know about GATE students, the potential needs of
GATE learners, and service model implementation. I also analyzed teacher created documents,
student work samples, articles, teaching aides and professional development materials shared by
the participants to triangulate the data involving the choices teachers make in relation to the
perceived needs of their GATE students and their personal instructional choices involving
differentiation. I used this information to augment the descriptions of both the participants’
educational experiences and the differentiation techniques discussed in the literature review and
presented by the participants.
As the instrument of research (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013), I must be clear and
transparent with my audience. This builds my credibility with the reader and depict my
trustworthiness. Creswell (2014) discussed the importance of reflexivity when trying to build
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 106
trust with the audience of your research and disclose biases. Therefore I must be transparent
about my personal background and experience in relation to this study and the topic of GATE
education. I have taught in Title 1, public elementary schools for 16 years in two large urban
districts in southern California. For 15 of those years, I taught in the same town working
primarily with English language learners. I have worked with GATE students for the past 10
years. Some years I taught under various service model settings discussed in this study:
heterogeneous cluster grouping, homogenous cluster grouping, 1-3 GATE students, and site
specific clustering as determined by the site administrator. Before starting my doctoral studies in
2014, I completed a GATE certificate program in from the University of Irvine Extension
Program and attended minimal professional development led by my district on GATE education.
My passion for working with gifted students, coupled with my understanding that the needs of
gifted students are diverse, inspired the topic of this study. Moreover, I wanted to speak with
other GATE teachers and hear from them how they navigate their contexts, comprehend the
needs of their gifted students, and successively make instructional choices regarding their gifted
students. Although I may have opinions regarding the specific topic of this study, I intentionally
sought out to hear and understand the opinions of other teachers. I have been cognizant of my
own background and opinions throughout this study and deliberately recognize them, as not to
allow them to shape the data I gathered or the findings I am presenting. I am making my resume
and experience clear to this audience so that my intentions, motivation, and purpose is
understood.
Ethics
Although Maxwell (2013) believed ethics should be embedded through the research
design, there were potential ethical issues not mentioned yet in this section. I obtained participant
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 107
consent for interviews, audio recording, shared documents, and photographs of documents and
work. I also obtained permission for access to settings when required. Furthermore, I followed
all protocols set out in California Educational Code and by the University of Southern
California’s Institutional Review Board.
Merriam (2009) described the ethics involved with using documents in qualitative
research. With this in mind, I have ensured the public documents I reviewed are public and I
accessed them via public websites that did not require passwords or employee login information.
I do note the limitations of this during data analysis in chapter four, as some of my interests and
analysis could not be completed based on password-protected pages. I do not source specific
documents from public websites as not to identify and specific districts or the teacher
participants. Additionally, the participant consent form included permission to photograph or
photocopy documents and artifacts from the participants, all of which has been kept secure and
confidential.
An ethical issue relating to GATE content is one of educational integrity. Merriam (2009)
stated that ethical issues may arise in qualitative research in the dissemination of data. When
discussing instructional practices and research-tested methods of education, people can often
conclude what must or should be done. In reality, public school settings do not always exist in
the world of the ideal. They exist amongst human beings, who are imperfect. Public schools
function in a world of bureaucracy and accountability, in a world where jobs are needed and
personal philosophy may not supersede job efficiency or execution. Teachers have to make
hundreds of decisions a week, or even a day. They must account for the needs of 20-40 students,
the parents of those students, the administrators, the district, their colleagues, and themselves.
Often those needs are at odds with each other and teachers must navigate that space the best they
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 108
can. As disclosed in my worldview in the conceptual framework, I honestly believe the majority
of teachers want to do their best and help as many students as they can. Moreover, I did not seek
to hold teachers accountable for their instructional choices or find the perfect method for
educating gifted children. Rather, I wanted to hear about and describe how teachers make
instructional choices based on their knowledge coupled with the daily happenings of their job
and specific classroom settings.
As the participants shared their knowledge and understanding about GATE education and
differentiation, they may have also disclosed their choices not to implement services or their
perceived inability to implement specific GATE services they know are beneficial. They may
have disclosed beliefs regarding equity of instruction that people outside of those contexts may
not understand. However, I took this into consideration at the onset of the study and recognize
that the topic of instructional choices may be a sensitive area for some participants. I purposely
cultivated a positive and effective participant/researcher relationships and do not/did not pass any
judgement of the participants. I was not, as Merriam (2009) stated, a judge of the participants I
interviewed. I simply listened to, interpreted, and disseminated what they knew, thought, and
disclosed about their perceptions, reported actions, and knowledge.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 109
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
This chapter discusses the findings derived from data analysis of 21 participant
interviews, 92 shared artifacts, and five GATE program websites. This study sought to answer
the following research questions:
1) How are teachers of elementary gifted students gaining knowledge about the academic
needs of their gifted students?
2) How does the knowledge elementary teachers have gained about the academic needs of
their gifted students shape their instructional choices and the gifted services
implemented?
3) What are elementary teachers’ perceptions regarding how the gifted services
implemented meet the academic needs of their gifted students?
The final sample consisted of 10 participants from five districts and seven schools. Eight are
current classroom teachers and two are serving as GATE coordinators for their school sites after
teaching GATE learners for at least 6 years.
The findings of this study are derived from 21 interviews with teacher participants, 92
documents/artifacts provided by participants, and five district GATE websites and accompanying
linked webpages and PDFs from those GATE homepages. Upon data analysis, themes emerged
in the categories of: teacher education for GATE, instructional choices and differentiation
implementation based on classroom settings, and teacher understanding of GATE students’ and
their needs.
Teacher Education for GATE
The participants in this study provided insight about how they gained knowledge about
GATE students, their academic needs, and how best to provide instruction to meet those needs in
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 110
a variety of ways. It was important to ask how they came to know about GATE in order to
provide context for what they reported doing to support these students and to ask their
perceptions of the program and their role in it. Teacher participants were asked about their
teacher certification programs, attainment of a GATE certificate, professional development
experiences, and specifically where they gained knowledge about the academic needs of GATE
learners. Participants were also asked about their perceptions of those learning experiences and
the value they felt those experiences had on their teaching practices and instructional choices.
This section will describe the findings regarding the sources from which teachers gained
knowledge about the academic needs of GATE students, for what reasons, and their perceptions
about that knowledge and those professional learning experiences.
Sources of Professional Knowledge
Participants were asked about where and how they gained knowledge about GATE
education and GATE learners. Participant responses aligned in the following categories: GATE
certificate, district trainings, additional trainings and resources, and teacher credential program.
For this study, the word “training” denotes any formal professional development setting where
participants attended for the purpose of professional learning. Table 1 depicts sources where
participants gained knowledge of GATE education in formal professional development settings.
The table shows each of the 10 participants in relation to four key sources of GATE knowledge:
GATE certificate, district training, formal outside professional development, and teacher
credential program. The table identifies whether teachers did (yes) or did not (-) gain knowledge
about GATE education from each of the four sources. This section will describe the participants’
accounts of those learning opportunities within the areas of GATE certificate, district training,
additional resources, and teacher credential programs.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 111
Table 1
GATE Educational Sources per Participant
Participant
GATE
Certificate
(source)
District Training
Formal Outside
Professional
Development
Teacher
Credential
Program
Anne - - - -
Beverly - Very little - -
Doreen Enrolled
(university)
Very little Yes -
Elizabeth Yes (university) Yes Yes -
Frances Yes (district) Yes Yes -
Gena Yes (university) Yes Yes -
Helen Yes (district) Yes Yes -
Karen - Yes Yes -
Marie - Yes - -
Sharon Yes (district) Yes - -
GATE certificate. The term “GATE certificate” denotes the completion of a program of
study involving GATE topics. There are several universities, online programs, and school
districts that offer coursework on GATE topics and subsequently a GATE certificate. After a
participant completes the program requirements, that program states he or she has completed a
GATE certificate. Program requirements vary slightly from program to program. Currently in the
state of California, the GATE certificate gets formally added onto the teaching credential as
licensed through the State of California Commission on Teacher credentialing as a supplemental
authorization (State of California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2017).
In this study, five of the 10 participants have sought out and achieved a GATE certificate.
Three participants (Sharon, Frances, and Helen) obtained their GATE certificate through each of
their districts’ GATE certification programs. Elizabeth and Gena obtained their GATE certificate
through online extension programs at California State University Fullerton and University of
California San Diego, respectively. Doreen enrolled in a GATE certification program at
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 112
University of Southern California in between our two interview dates and has since started
coursework.
Different districts have different policies regarding attainment of a GATE certificate. In
Suffield USD, teachers who teach GATE students must have or be working toward a GATE
certificate as reported by all three participants in this study who work in that district. Helen had
not taught GATE students before her GATE training and acknowledged, “My principal moved
me into that position with the stipulation of you'll go through the certification.” Suffield USD
accepts a GATE certificate from a certified GATE program or allows teachers to take courses in
the district’s GATE certification program. The district provides training and coursework to earn
a district GATE certificate and the program schedule and requirements are available on the
district’s GATE program website. Teachers may also attend certain GATE conferences or
trainings in the Southern California area to satisfy some of the hours/coursework. All three
teachers from Suffield USD stated that when teachers are new to GATE classrooms, they must
begin taking course work towards a GATE certificate. This information, gleaned from interview
data was also available from the district’s public GATE education website.
The GATE certificate program in Suffield USD is comprehensive and multifaceted.
Helen completed the Suffield USD program which included 45 hours of coursework and a
portfolio as specified on the district’s public GATE education website. She accomplished that in
one year and said, “That was like 48 hours of class time and then creating a teacher portfolio. I
did that over one year.” Frances also completed the same district GATE certificate in one year.
Frances explained, “But I took maybe four or five courses at a time when people were expected
to take one. I was on the fast, accelerated tract.” Frances also commented that most teachers in
the district do not work that quickly. Teachers may complete the courses at their own pace. As
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 113
long as teachers of GATE students are enrolled in at least one district course they are satisfying
the district requirement for training and can be assigned to GATE classrooms or assigned GATE
students.
Frances shared the portfolio she created during her district certification program with me.
Her portfolio contained reflections, topics address with student work samples and teacher created
posters/materials, and a copy of her GATE certificate presented by the district. When asked why
she thought the district’s program was such an intensive certification program Frances
responded, “Because our district believes in the GATE program. They want certificated teachers.
Our district's big on the right teacher for the right kids with the right documentation. It wants to
support its teachers do what’s best for them.” While this is Frances’ perception of her district’s
certification program, it also depicts a sense of pride in her work. Frances’s portfolio depicts a
strong body of work involving learning on the part of the teacher and her GATE students. Figure
B shows two pictures of her portfolio. The one on the left is of the entire binder. The pages
sticking out the side are projects and student work samples. The picture on the right shows the
first tab with the table of contents. This lists the key GATE strategies and professional growth
topics she acquired from the Suffield USD GATE certificate. A clear connection between GATE
research and classroom implementation is evident in her portfolio which represents her district’s
focus on professional development in the area of GATE instruction and knowledge.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 114
Figure B
GATE Certificate Portfolio from Suffield USD
Wallingford USD is another district that offers its own GATE certification for its GATE
teachers. According to the Wallingford USD’s GATE webpage, this GATE certification program
requires 30 hours of professional and lesson development with a focus on implementation.
Starting in 2017-2018, teachers must recertify with the district every three years by taking a
second differentiation course or topic specific module of the teacher’s choosing. Sharon started
her GATE certificate through her district after she realized she had GATE students on her roster.
She explained, “It wasn't until I started having GATE students in my classroom that I started
noticing that the district was offering classes on GATE certification. I took classes so I could
know how to service the students in my classroom.” In Wallingford USD, certification classes
are during the summer. Sharon explained, “It was during the summer that I took it. It was
probably a week long or more in the summer, like six hours every day until you got the
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 115
certification.” She also stated that she recertified through her district as well and, “You have to
renew every couple of years.” Wallingford USD has a shorter requirement for the GATE
certificate, but mandatory “upkeep” in maintaining current professional development in GATE
education by requiring recertification every three years. When discussing her recertification,
Sharon noted, “I know that as I've had to re-certify a couple of times now, each time I go to the
re-certification, the information becomes more tangible. I'm able to actually use it more as I
understand more going.” In that, Sharon clarified that the process of renewal is beneficial to her
own learning, understanding, and growth as a GATE educator. While there is limited
accountability to GATE certification or renewal, this renewal process is unlike Suffield USD,
where once the more extensive GATE certificate is earned, the process is considered complete.
Moreover, GATE certificates earned via university programs resemble the program in Suffield
USD. Once the certificate requirements are complete, the teacher has earned a GATE certificate
and no recertification is necessary.
District offered trainings. In addition to offering professional development that leads to
a GATE certificate, districts offer learning opportunities for teachers about GATE education.
Districts offer professional development about GATE education for their all of their teachers and
some districts require continual professional development for GATE education for teachers who
actively teach GATE students. Nine of the 10 participants from four of the five districts reported
their district offered training on GATE education for teachers on a volunteer basis. The GATE
websites for three districts (Suffield USD, Tolland USD, and Wallingford USD) each detailed
extensive programming and varied learning opportunities for teachers. As discussed previously,
Suffield USD and Wallingford USD detailed course offerings, topics, dates, and requirements for
their district’s GATE credential. Those classes can be taken for a GATE certificate or piecemeal
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 116
for increased individual professional learning. Tolland USD offers robust, varied, and multiple
pathways for teachers to gain professional development regarding GATE education. Tolland
USD’s website documented learning opportunities for teachers online, in person training, school
site based professional development, annual GATE conferences, and courses to obtain a GATE
certificate. Although the websites for Rocky Hill USD and Portland USD were analyzed for
evidence of professional development opportunities for teachers, evidence could not be obtained
via public pages. Potentially the availability for training is promoted or advertised by other
means or through sites that require employee logins.
Nine out of the 10 participants reported they had attended or were given the opportunity
to attend district provided training. Seven participants conveyed positive outcomes after
attending district provided GATE training. Marie, Karen, and Elizabeth all have attended their
district’s annual GATE conference on multiple occasions. The conference has 1-2 keynote
speakers each year and then there are break-out workshops for teachers to learn in smaller
settings. Marie stated, “Some of those conferences that we go to have really interesting topics,
keynotes. About the downfalls of technology and how that interacts with kid's brains and brain
development.” Karen remembered attending workshop sessions multiple times with the same
two presenters. She described their workshops as giving pertinent information to her work.
Karen commented, “I always choose to go to them because they have practical, hands on,
applicable. Here's how we can meet the needs of kids.” The district’s annual GATE conference
allows teachers to choose topics and varies the content year to year. Wright (2009) speaks to the
need of changing our viewpoint of professional development towards continued professional
learning by putting a “focus on learning with a shift of emphasis from passive development to
active learning” (Webster-Wright, 2009, p.713). While Karen stated she chose specific
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 117
presenters because they give, “practical, hands on, applicable” information, this implies more of
a passive learning focus described by Webster-Wright. However, Karen’s primary focus is
applicability of implementation and transforming her GATE practices for the long term which
would imply lasting professional learning.
Not all of the participants described positive experiences with the GATE training
provided by their districts. Specifically, two of the nine teacher participants who discussed
district training shared discouraging accounts of district provided training. No evidence from the
Rocky Hill USD website could be found regarding GATE professional development
opportunities. When asked if her district offers weekend or after school learning opportunities for
teachers, Doreen did disclose that the district does offer classes during the summer. She noted,
“They usually have a one day training in the summer, and it's always on a day that I haven't been
able to make it.” She further explained how her district offers small trainings during weekly
staff professional development time. However, the GATE information is presented to all
teachers, even if they don’t have GATE learners. Doreen described what the training during staff
development time at her school is like.
It was like an introduction to the depth and complexity prompts, because our
administration is trying to encourage everyone to use those, but I didn't feel like there
was a lot of support. A lot of teachers felt like, oh, my gosh, this is just one more thing.
Not really seeing it as something that can enhance what they're already teaching…
For example, the pictures that I sent you were from a 45 minute segment that they added
onto our staff meeting. Since all of the teachers at our school, not all of us teachers work
with GATE students, I just feel like they're not very engaged. There's just a few of us that
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 118
are asking questions, wanting to talk. Everyone else is kind of just looking at their watch,
can't wait until this is over, and why do we have to stay 45 minutes extra for this training.
That type of training becomes distracting to Doreen because not all teachers want to learn
the information about GATE instructional strategies, even though the district is trying to
encourage all teachers to use them with their students. Trivette, Dunst, Hamby, and O’Herin,
(2009) assert adult learners need their professional development to be related to or relevant to
themselves or their position for any lasting learning to occur. As Doreen’s colleague did not find
the training relevant to them, they became distracting during the professional development
sessions and did not want to engage with the topic at all. So while her district did offer some
education for teachers regarding GATE education, it did not offer Doreen an adequate source of
information for her personal instructional needs and interests.
Beverly was also not as positive about the district provided trainings. She described the
obstacles she faced with being able to access the district offered training. Beverly’s principal
suggested she attend some trainings a few years back and helped her enroll. However, due to
personal time constraints and the costs, Beverly was unable to attend very much professional
development. Beverly discussed her difficulties at attending and getting training.
I attempted to register into these programs, free programs, through the district that [my
principal] would recommend. But every time she would try and I would try, it was full or
wasn't available anymore. Instead, whenever workshops came up, I would attend a couple
here or there. Not much. The only other route was to go into a university format and
financially… I couldn't afford it.
In Beverly’s statement, one can hear the frustration that trainings within her reach financially
were not actually available to her. While she seemed motivated to want to gain more knowledge
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 119
of GATE students and their needs, there were constraints on her ability to do so. Beverly does
work in a very large district. As described earlier, the Tolland USD webpage currently offers
many opportunities and pathways for training. However, Beverly was initially discouraged by
limited spaces and availability for in person training. At the time, Beverly believed her only
other option was to pay for training at an outside university. Nonetheless, Beverly was able to
attend some district provided training and noted that it was not very helpful to her. She
expressed, “I remember it was kind of, I don't know, it was kind of out there for me. I couldn't
really wrap my mind around it.” Due to her inexperience with GATE education, the topics were
beyond her current level of GATE knowledge. When she did go, she noted that she felt
overwhelmed and much less prepared than the other teachers. She did not see a direct application
to her classroom and did not know how to apply that knowledge. She may not currently be aware
of the availability for online training. While Trivette et al. (2009) state professional development
must be relevant and personal to adult learners, Beverly may not yet even understand what is
relevant to her for GATE professional growth because she feels so new and unversed. The
limited training she did attend, therefore, was not beneficial because she could not relate at that
point in time to the topics.
In addition to ongoing professional development, training opportunities offered by
districts can amount to the completion of a GATE certificate. Three of the five districts accepted
the district training courses as a pathway to earn a GATE certificate. Based on participant self-
report and document analysis, participants from Suffield USD and Wallingford USD completed
enough coursework to achieve a GATE certificate though their district. Although no teachers
from Tolland USD obtained a GATE certificate from their district, the district’s GATE website
detailed the professional development opportunities for its teachers regrading GATE education
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 120
and it did offer a pathway to GATE certification in conjunction with the University of San Diego
Extension program.
The findings regarding district provided professional development about GATE
education are mixed. While most districts offer professional development opportunities, teachers
in this study made use of those opportunities in varied ways. Moreover, the accessibility and
usability to the knowledge varied by participant across districts based on classroom setting and
individual knowledge attainment. Instructional choices made by teacher participants and the
relationships to the settings they teach in are discussed later in this chapter.
Additional resources. District provided training and GATE certificate programs were
not the only sources of GATE knowledge for teacher participants in this study. Teachers reported
learning about GATE students, instructional practices and GATE education from a variety of
other sources. Some of the sources were formal settings like professional conferences and
independent trainings. Other sources of information were much more informal like observations,
colleagues, and experiences. Table 2 identifies where participants reported gaining knowledge
about GATE education and students. The five sources of GATE knowledge discussed by the
teacher participants are listed in the column headings. Each participant is listed and a “Yes” in
specific source columns denotes they spoke about gaining GATE knowledge from that source.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 121
Table 2
Additional Sources of Information for GATE Education per Participant
Participant
USC Summer
Institute
CAG
Conferences
Experience
Parent of
GATE Child
Colleagues
Anne - - Yes - Yes
Beverly - - - Yes Yes
Doreen Yes - - - -
Elizabeth Yes Yes Yes - -
Frances - Yes Yes - -
Gena - Yes - - -
Helen Yes Yes - - -
Karen Yes - Yes Yes Yes
Marie - - Yes Yes -
Sharon - - - - -
Other trainings. Besides university or district credentialing programs, many participants
sought out education on their own outside of their district. Six of the 10 participants reported
attending outside conferences or professional development about GATE education. These
activities were often sought out and paid for by the teachers themselves. Although no
participants discussed why they attended out-of-district trainings specifically, the topics taught at
these trainings did differ from the topics discussed and the times these training were offered
differed from district offered training as well.
There were some commonalities amongst the participants regarding the outside training
they had attended. Four participants mentioned attending the University of California’s Summer
Gifted institute. Doreen described how she has been a few times and really found the institute
beneficial. The first time she attended she went on her own. About the USC training, Doreen
stated, “At the USC training there was more depth in teaching me the prompts and explaining the
background of where those prompts even come from. Understanding that there are GATE
standards and expectations. From my district, I never received that.” This comment and her use
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 122
of “I never received that” points to the need to seek out varied opportunities for learning. Doreen
did not believe any opportunities provided by her district were beneficial. Moreover, she valued
the USC Summer GATE Institute because she learned about GATE topics, like the GATE
program standards, that she since has deemed essential knowledge. Doreen has since brought
other GATE colleagues to the USC Summer Gifted Institute and enrolled in USC GATE
certificate program.
Additionally, Karen discussed that the USC institute was her first formal training about
GATE education. When asked why she initially decided to go to training, Karen responded,
I went, because my own child is GATE. I think, at that time, I thought this [GATE
education] is a bunch of B.S. So I wanted to know more about how it's qualified and what
does it mean? And what are the ways to really support them? So, I went both as a parent,
and as a teacher.
Karen, like Doreen, found the USC Summer Gifted Institute offered key information that
teachers of GATE students need. Karen described how she learned about GATE at the USC
institute and what helped her understand the concepts better:
When Kaplan spoke, and she was explaining how she initially established the different
criteria for GATE. And then she established the different norms for GATE. And then she
established the different standards for GATE. I was like, holy junk, this lady really knows
her stuff. Right? So, listening to her I was like, okay, I really need to pay close attention
to what she was saying. And then, the next part was to go and observe a teacher teaching
with GATE kids. And so, I got the theory in the morning, and then I got to go see it
applied in the afternoon. So that was super powerful. And it gave me really tangible
things to look for, and how to adapt the lessons, and how to modify. So, it could be the
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 123
same lesson that all the kids are doing, but they all could be approaching it from totally
different perspectives. And I don't think I would have gotten that if I hadn't heard from
Kaplan first, in the morning. And then I've seen Kaplan, probably nine or 10 times.
Karen detailed how theory and observation were combined in such a way that she could really
understand the elements of GATE education that she previously may never have considered.
Roegman and Riehl (2015) describe pre-service teachers engaging in the practice of “rounds” in
a similar fashion to medical students completing rounds in their field work. While the
observation model at the USC Summer Gifted Institute do not mimic “rounds”, it does offer
teachers a similar opportunity. And when key notions of Trivette et al.’s (2009) emphasis for
personally meaningful professional development is combined in this setting, Karen’s learning
experience became quite significant. Not only was the delivery powerful, but it was meaningful
to Karen. Moreover, her initial negative ideas regarding the purpose and nature of GATE
education were realigned. She began to see the true needs of GATE students and the work
educators and researchers do to help meet those needs. Karen continued attending training at the
USC Summer Institute after that.
The USC Summer Gifted Institute was not the only common professional development
experience reported by participants. Four participants discussed attending annual conferences
hosted by the California Association of the Gifted (CAG). Elizabeth discussed her role as a
presenter and participant. She worked with two colleagues from another site to create a
presentation for the conference. Elizabeth described the experience in the following way:
I actually was a presenter for three sessions. We had to do three sessions of presentation.
I worked with two other women and we presented on how to challenge your gifted
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 124
students in a non-gifted classroom. And it was basically a matter of a PowerPoint
presentation and some handouts that gave lots of ideas.
When we finished with our contribution to the conference we actually went around to
several other presenters. I gathered up some information at those about new materials
that were out. I don't think I purchased it because it was too expensive. But there was an
opportunity for setting up literally like a pocket panel in your room that had to do with
historical events, and connecting them to current events that are happening and
connecting them to scientific things that are taking place.
Elizabeth gained knowledge from this experience as both a presenter and a participant. As a
presenter, she collaborated with other elementary GATE teachers to share their knowledge and
practices with other GATE teachers. She presented ideas to share with other teachers about
challenging GATE learners in classrooms that are not self-contained GATE settings. Moreover,
by attending the conference as a presenter, Elizabeth was able to attend many other
presentations. She enjoyed seeing the other presenters and gathering ideas for her classroom. For
financial reasons, Elizabeth would not have been able to attend the training as a participant
alone. Therefore, her work as a presenter allowed her access to learning experiences out of her
scope which she valued.
Frances, Helen, and Gena have also attended the CAG conference. Their district’s GATE
education course website does state that teachers can count attendance at CAG or the USC
Summer Gifted Institute as part of their required 45 hours for their GATE certificate. About the
CAG conferences, Gena said, “I've always loved the CAG trainings. Ones I've gone to have been
really, really good. Sometimes I'll hear the speaker and go, ‘Oh, God. I'd love to just work with
them for a day’." Moreover, when asked if anything stands out from the CAG conferences,
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 125
Helen said, “The independent study was a good one at the CAG conference.” Helen is referring
to a session she attended about the use of independent study with GATE learners which was
described by Powers (2008) in the literature review. Then, Frances described the difference
between the district courses and the CAG conferences as the relationship of knowledge and the
application of knowledge. Frances said,
Their purposes were different. So when I took my classes, they're almost like methods
classes for GATE with the district. So they are the classes that I need in order for me to
get my GATE certificate. That was their purpose. So it's knowing. It's introducing Icons
for depth and complexity. What they are, defining them, and then how we'll implement
them.
When you go to a conference, it's massive. It is application times 10 of what to do. It's
brilliant because it teaches the GATE teacher to extend as much as possible, which you
may not get in a beginning methods type course.
The value of the CAG conference is seeing the macro view of GATE education and what is
happening in the field currently. It offers the ability to meet many teachers and researchers from
a variety of districts and educational organizations. All four participants shared favorable views
regarding the California Association of the Gifted conferences and learning experiences gained
from their attendance. Moreover, topics described by the participants relate directly to current
literature in GATE education. Therefore, conferences like the USC Summer Gifted institute and
CAG may be a reliable source for teachers of current research regarding GATE education.
Experience. Many teachers spoke of non-academic means of learning about the needs of
their GATE students. One such source of learning involved the participant’s role as a parent.
Beverly and Karen both mentioned they have GATE identified children and learned about GATE
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 126
needs based on behaviors of their children. Karen shared that the identification of her daughter
prompted her to seek out specific knowledge about GATE education. Marie also indicated that
her role as a parent helped her understand GATE students.
Another finding from participant interviews was that teachers learned about GATE
students and their needs via time spent with GATE students. Five teachers stated they gained
knowledge about the needs of their GATE students from their experience working with GATE
learners. Frances had worked as an instructional coach before transitioning into the role of a
GATE teacher. She described going into many classrooms and working with GATE students.
She talked about her time as a coach and said, “If I went into classroom, GATE students are
there. Working with GATE kids and making sure kids didn't get a homogeneous spoon-fed
curriculum. Trying to meet kid's needs from the start has been the game, right? Individualization,
right?” After her work as a coach, Frances pursued her GATE certificate through her district and
went back to the classroom as a GATE teacher. When asked how she came to gain knowledge
about GATE learners, Anne stated, “Just experience with them in my class. Last year when I
started, I had a GATE student in my class and I'm like, ‘Oh, what is this? What does this
mean?’” Anne, who admittedly had very little formal training in GATE education, recalled her
initial understanding of GATE learners which included no clear communication from her school
or district. Rather, Anne discovered that one of her students thought more creatively and
accomplished tasks much faster than the rest of her class. Anne only came to recognize GATE
students and her talents via observation, not through any formal training or school
communication. This speaks directly to Dorhout’s (1983) conclusion that teachers of gifted
students should have training that includes understanding the learning preferences of gifted
students.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 127
Similarly, Karen, Marie, and Elizabeth also stated that their experiences over time
working with GATE students helped them understand and gain knowledge about the needs of the
GATE students. Each of them have been working with GATE students for 7-18 years. Marie has
spent her entire teaching career teaching and working with GATE learners. While experience is
not a formal educational setting, these women clearly believed spending time with GATE
students offered them key knowledge and insight into making instructional choices to meet
students’ needs.
Aside from parenting and time with GATE students, three participants stated they learned
about GATE students from collaborating with and observing colleagues. After Beverly returned
from one of her district trainings, she turned to Elizabeth for help with the terminology. She
stated,
When I was in those classes, I felt like a lot of teachers already had that prior knowledge
and they knew a lot of what they were talking about. I was still really just learning it.
[Elizabeth] did try going over some of the pillars or whatever they were. I tried, but it
was new to me. I think I didn't have enough practice to really get comfortable.
While Beverly expressed insecurity for her self-perceived lack of knowledge, she displayed
initiative to learn and grow as a teacher. Moreover, she knew that Elizabeth, who has had more
training and experience with GATE education could be a valuable resource for her knowledge
attainment. Thus, a learning-centered teacher is able to extend beyond the formal opportunities
for training by seeking out more knowledgeable colleagues to help deepen one’s knowledge.
Additionally, if Beverly and Elizabeth work at a site where collaboration is encouraged or is the
norm, teachers may rely on each other as a source of professional learning and personal growth.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 128
Similarly, Anne also stated that she learned about GATE students by “Just talking to my
teacher partners and things like that, they were able to explain, ‘Okay, well, this is what it is and
this is what you're going to have to do.’” Not only did Anne learn about her GATE students and
their potential needs, her colleagues also assisted her with preparing to make instructional
choices to meet those needs. Doreen shared similar experiences. She stated, “I’ve received
nothing from my district. Very little. All of the effective and interesting GATE resources have
come from teachers. Either from my staff or teachers from other schools in the districts, and we
just end up sharing.” While explaining some of the documents she shared with me, Doreen
shared how her colleagues have been the most helpful in gaining resources to use in the
classroom. Figure C depicts one set of resources she was given and utilizes often. It is a front and
back reading guide that aligns Depth and Complexity Prompts (Kaplan, 2007) to key grade level
reading standards. It promotes student choice, critical thinking, and independence. It was coded
for both Depth and Complexity (D&C) and teacher education (Teacher Ed.) because it can be a
useful tool for teachers who are first learning to use this GATE instructional tool. However, the
sharing of these teacher resources speaks to the importance of collaboration in schools, and the
value gained through teachers sharing and teaching each other.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 129
Figure C
Shared GATE Resources
Additionally, Karen described how she learned about differentiation by observing two
colleagues. She explained,
What prepared me for working with GATE kids, was talking with [my colleague]. I
mean, honestly, going and observing her teach a lesson. And then go in and observe
[another colleague] teach a lesson. You know, both trying to differentiate for GATE. And
seeing one very successful; and one totally flop. So that, for me, made it really, really,
really, really, really clear.
Karen remembered clearly how observations of her colleagues helped her know exactly what to
and what not to do. Karen also had reported that the differentiated lessons she observed at the
USC Summer Gifted Institute were beneficial to her understanding of how to differentiate for
GATE learners, she also found observing teachers she knows quite meaningful. But at her own
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 130
site, she was able to draw upon her personal relationship and knowledge of her colleagues to
help discern effecting instruction for GATE learners. Just as the self-reported knowledge
attainment from experience, teachers valued the professional growth that they attained from their
peers and other GATE teachers.
The participants in this study did not think about gaining understanding about GATE
students or instructional practices solely in terms of formal training or courses. They have
specifically drawn upon their roles as GATE parents, time spent with GATE identified students,
and informal collaboration with colleagues as a valuable knowledge source for their own
learning. Participants like Anne, who has received no formal training, relied on the informal
experiences for all of her knowledge. Similarly, Doreen utilized the informal experiences out of
necessity, as she did not have another means to gain the knowledge she needed. Karen, on the
other hand, used informal learning with colleagues to solidify her understanding of formal
training concepts. As depicted in Table 2, six of the 10 participants expressed that they have
acquired GATE knowledge and increased their understanding of GATE learners via less formal
means. Therefore, this study’s finding shows a range of learning conditions for teachers that do
not include established training situations.
Research. In addition to formal training and informal experiences, participants revealed
that they sought out GATE related knowledge independently, as well. Three of the participating
teachers discussed their personal pursuit of GATE information for various reasons. Marie sought
out information when she was working with a highly gifted student. After contacting her
district’s GATE office and receiving little help, Marie conducted formal research on her own on
how to meet the needs of her very advanced learner. Marie shared copies of research she
references often. See Appendix D for a catalog of artifacts analyzed in this study. She also shared
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 131
her file of GATE research with me. She had many empirical studies, published papers, and
sections of published books copied and on hand in her office. The some of the topics included
differentiation, student grouping, service model setting, brain development, traits of gifted
children, and underachievement of GATE learners. The pages were worn on many documents
and look well used. While analyzing these documents, it is evident that she uses this information
when working with parents and teachers.
Marie also shared that as a GATE coordinator, she finds research and articles to share
with parents about GATE education. While discussing her district training, Marie revealed,
All that the specifics about brain development, to me, I'm very interested in it. I read
about that on my own. So, when they talk about that at conferences, that spurs my desire
to know more and then I will find other books to read about that same topic. And then
being able to explain to parents how brains develop and how that affects gifted children
and why we don't necessarily know who's gifted in kindergarten, in first grade, and how
that process actually occurs in children's brains.
As a classroom teacher, and now as a GATE coordinator, Marie has to communicate with
parents of GATE learners. The information she has learned through independent research has
assisted her in that task. Marie shared a pamphlet on underachievement she shares with parents.
She commented that having materials available for parents is helpful when communicating about
GATE students. GATE themes and topics evidenced in the research she shared were also
revealed throughout the transcripts of her interviews. For example, she shared articles about
underachievement in GATE students and four out of 19 underachievement codes were contained
in Marie’s transcripts, more than any other participant. In one such statement Marie explained,
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 132
Some of the kids that were gifted were kids who did not produce much. We have that
problem where we've got kids who were the ready learners and things came really easily
to them. Then in fourth and fifth grade things started getting harder. They didn't have
confidence in what they were doing. Other kids were catching up to them. They quit
trying, because they were afraid of failure.
Her description of underachievement was more nuanced than other participants and contained an
overarching understanding of how GATE students feel. In her current role as a coordinator, she
interacts will all the GATE students at her GATE magnate school. Additionally, because of the
GATE magnate classification, the school has a vested interest to identify students earlier (first
and second grade) and may base more GATE identifications on readiness, rather that high
achievement outcomes. Overall, her quick access to her documents, combined with correlation
between her interviews and the documents demonstrate her knowledge attainment for GATE
includes formal research. A few of the articles Marie shared were previously discussed in the
literature review of this study. Marie’s interest in GATE education and ability to seek out needed
knowledge is evident in the resources she shared and how she described using them.
Similarly, Beverly took it upon herself to seek out knowledge she needed about GATE
learners to help her meet the needs of her students. While Beverly did not describe much in
person training, she did mention, “I’ve read literature, you know?” When asked about what she
learned or what stood out to her, she described what she gained from her self-study.
I mean just to identify different behaviors of some of these children. I mean, in my mind,
I don't know, I just felt like my lack of knowledge before was ‘They’re a GATE student.
They’re intelligent and they're going to be a certain way.’ And it's not the case at all.
They are all different. Some kids are super anal, organized and some are sporadic, you
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 133
know. They don't like the structure. They just like to have their own thing. Some conform
to structure, and some don't. And that's what I had a hard time with at the beginning. It's
like, you're so smart, yet you're so messy. You're so disorganized.
It took me awhile to kind of realize, okay, they each have their unique ways of learning.
You know and it's not boxed in this nice little box. It's just not the way it works. That was
a struggle for me at the beginning and now, I think, gradually even I don't think I'm the
best GATE teacher. I don't have the proper training, I don't feel like I still have the proper
training. I feel like I can address certain things a little bit better, because I understand
them as an individual. They're not all the same. Each GATE child is different, and I have
to see it that way too.
While Beverly did not disclose the literature she specifically gained this knowledge from, she
very clearly described what she learned and how it has benefited her as a teacher of GATE
students.
Moreover, Gena brought up her use of formal publications as a source of information.
Gena said, “The California Association for the Gifted also has a publication. So I just do a lot of
reading online about whatever I see online.” In addition to attending district classes, university
courses, and CAG conferences, Gena continues to seek out additional information pertaining to
GATE education. This shows that she does not limit her own pursuit of knowledge to formal
attendance at professional development sessions and that she actively engages in her own
professional learning and growth. Furthermore, these descriptions of self-study and independent
research depicts how teachers seek out the information they need about their GATE learners in
order to improve their practice.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 134
Teacher credentialing programs. A clear finding from this study is that preparation for
GATE teaching did not exist in teacher education programs or credential work for any of the 10
participants. All participants reported having no formal education or coursework during their
credential program about GATE learners or education. When asked about any training or
education received about GATE students before starting her first full-time position, Helen stated,
“None. They touched on it a few times in a college course, like a capstone course, but no gifted
training.” Two other participants had similar responses implying they had very minimal exposure
to GATE information. When asked the same question, Elizabeth remembered, “I believe I took
one course on general gate-related instruction. Basically differentiated instruction on a very
general level.” Additionally, Sharon stated that, “No, we were always taught about
differentiation in the classroom, but not specifically what kind of characteristics or observations
to look for in a GATE student and how to push them further.” While three participants stated that
the idea of GATE education related to the concept of differentiation, no clear knowledge or
learning was actually acquired during their credentialing programs. All 10 participants clearly
stated that their teacher certification program did not include any specific coursework about
GATE learners or prepare them to teach GATE student. At most, teachers were told they would
need to differentiate their instruction to meet the needs of their students, whatever those needs
are.
Perceptions of GATE Education
Participants were asked about their perspectives about the quality and value of their
professional development on GATE education. They were asked how the learning experiences
regarding GATE education assisted them with meeting the academic needs of their GATE
learners and how and which topics were most beneficial. While teachers described their
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 135
professional learning about GATE education, themes emerged depicting a desire for more
education, a commitment to increasing their own knowledge, and policies regarding professional
development about GATE education.
Desire for GATE education. This study found there is a willingness and desire amongst
the participants to attain new and further knowledge about GATE education and GATE students.
Teachers shared the types of training they wanted and what would be most beneficial to them as
teachers of GATE students. Participants described their desire for professional learning along the
themes of training that specifically addressed ease of implementation, collaboration, and more
training.
Implementation. Teachers wanted training that focuses on direct implementation of
knowledge gained. Teachers were less concerned about theory and research and more about how
to put the concepts into practice right away. Gena said that the GATE courses in her district are
good because it “helps with my understanding of our delivery model.” By delivery model, Gena
was speaking about the classroom setting. She taught in a classroom with only GATE learners.
She also stated, “Just give me the concrete examples. Give me the depth and complexity icons,
but tell me how I can disseminate that to my kids. I want it to be as concrete as possible. Lots of
examples, lots of hands-on.” The topics she learned about in the district classes were easy to
implement right away with her students because she was taught how to implement the concepts
within the “delivery model” she was teaching. The training offered by her district was directly
related to her classroom setting so it was seen as being applicable. Again, attending professional
development that has specific value and personal relevance to the participant will ensure the best
learning outcomes for the teacher participant (Trivette et al., 2009).
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 136
Karen is another teacher who expressed a desire for professional development that is
immediately applicable. When discussing her district’s annual GATE conference, Karen said, “I
always choose to go to them [the presenters] because they have practical, hands on, applicable,
‘Here's how we can meet the needs of kids.’" Each year Karen had to sign up for break-out
sessions by topic. She chose the same two presenters because of the applicability of their
presentations. Karen then shared that she implemented that knowledge and incorporated it into
her practice easily.
Conversely, teachers discussed the same desire in the sense that too much theory or
research is not what they want or need. Helen, for example, said, “It was a little too theory
driven. There wasn't as much stuff to bring back to my class, I felt.” When talking about the
training GATE teachers should have, Helen also stated,
We have some trainers come here and it's a little too high level. Teachers who are new to
having GATE kids in their class need a handful of strategies to go back to the classroom
tomorrow to put into effect tomorrow to get those kids going. A lot of times we're kind of
talked at.
In this description, Helen shares that she wants tangible and applicable knowledge from the
training she attends and is less concerned with the concepts behind the instructional approaches.
The theme of implementation applicability and ease of use was apparent when teachers shared
their beliefs about teacher training for GATE education.
Collaboration. While teachers reported learning about GATE students via collaboration
with colleagues which was previously discussed in this chapter, many participants reported a
desire for intentional collaboration as a means of professional development. Teachers want to
collaborate with other GATE teachers, not just grade level colleagues. They want to be able to
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 137
learn from each other about GATE instruction and implementation. In Rocky Hill USD, Doreen
expressed a desire to work with colleagues across grades 3-5 in order to create a stronger school-
wide GATE program. I asked Doreen about the opportunities she has to network and collaborate
with her GATE peers. She responded,
We don't. I wish we did. I would really like, we would really like to because there are like
seven of us. We would really like to have some of our collaboration time that we have
during our staff development. We have early release day once a week, but we never do
[get to collaborate together]. They never give us that time. We always have an assigned
agenda from the district, and either we have to meet with our grade levels or we have to
meet as a whole staff.
While time is set aside for teachers to work together, Doreen wished she had the opportunity to
meet with other GATE teachers at her site, not just grade level teams. In order to collaborate she
expressed being proactive and finding other times to communicate. Doreen added,
So we end up just talking in the hallway, talking after school really quickly, or somebody
shares something with somebody who shares something. Now with Google Docs it's nice
because we can all kind of share. We also put together a Google Classroom where we just
drop stuff in. Post stuff just for the teachers so that we can download those resources. So
technology has helped in that sense.
Despite Doreen wanting official, school sanctioned time for collaboration with GATE
colleagues, she displayed an initiative to make that happen on her own time when the school did
not provide it.
Additionally, when asked about what type of training she would want to further her
GATE knowledge, Beverly said she would want to know,
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 138
How to ask for help. Find a mentor that can guide your instruction. To me, that's
important. I think I can find lessons on my own, but it's seeing it done that's different. It's
different reading it. But if you got to watch it and see it in action, then you can say, ‘Oh,
okay. I can do that.’ I can read a book. I can read an article, but it's different. I'm the type
of person that I need to see it myself so I can then internalize it and then practice it, fail,
perhaps, but practice it and eventually succeed.
Beverly was aware of what is most beneficial to her professional learning and it involves
working with and observing other GATE teachers. While Doreen wanted planning time with her
GATE peers, Beverly wanted time to learn from her peers’ experiences just as Karen described
doing with her site colleagues. Evaluated as a group, these perspectives show that teachers
valued their colleagues’ knowledge and expertise. Additionally, these teacher participants want
to learn from the peers, not just formal professional development settings.
More training. A clear theme that emerged from the data was that participating teachers
wanted more GATE education. Not only have the teacher participants acquired knowledge from
a variety of sources, they recognized that they can and want to learn more about GATE
educational practices and on how to meet the needs of their GATE learners. When asked what
helps teachers meet the needs of GATE students, Beverly responded,
The training, the exposure to other teachers who are good at what they do in the
classroom. And just be resourceful I guess, going out there and looking for resources,
finding things that you have seen or heard other teachers do who have GATE students.
Asking if you don't know.
Beverly believed that if she is exposed to teachers who are recognized for positive outcomes
teacher GATE learners, she may be able to learn from them. Also, by stating that one should go
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 139
out and search for additional resources, Beverly expressed that more GATE knowledge would be
beneficial for teachers of GATE students. Then when asked about the barriers she faces in
meeting the needs of GATE students, Beverly stated, “Not enough training.” Beverly believed
that training is an essential element of teaching GATE students appropriately. Throughout her
interviews, Beverly shared that she does not know enough about GATE education. She was also
hesitant about participating because she believed she did not know enough about teaching GATE
to be a part of the study. Despite her personal insecurities about her own knowledge or teaching
practices, Beverly is willing and eager to learn more about GATE education to improve her
abilities to teach GATE students.
Anne also specifically stated she wanted more training from her district. At the time of
this study, Anne only had one GATE student in her class, and as a newer teacher, struggled to
find information and training regarding GATE education. Anne stated,
They don't give you a heads up or any kind of training in terms of GATE students. So
maybe just a half a day PD for all new teachers entering the district that year. ‘Hey, you
know what? We don't have specific GATE classes, so you may or may not encounter a
GATE student in your class, and this is what we expect.’ That would be really nice to
know.
Anne shared that she had limited training in GATE education, and she believed her district
should take on more responsibility and share expectations with the teachers who may have
GATE students in their classes. She wished she had more training and knowledge about how to
help meet their needs. When asked if she could attend any type of GATE training and why, Anne
replied, “I would start at the basics, because I really don't know a lot about it at all. I'm just
winging it as I go, which is unfortunate. But basic training on some ideas on the strategies to
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 140
help.” Anne was not even clear on what type of training or about what topics she needed. But she
was clear that she needed more education and was willing to learn.
While Anne and Beverly had the least experience based on years working with GATE
students and total number of GATE students served, they also had attended the least amount of
formal training. As such, the finding that participants wanted yet more training should be
contextualized by this important characteristic. Additionally, both Anne and Beverly reported
alternative means of learning about GATE students (parenting, experiences with students and
colleagues). And probably because of their lack of experience compared to the other participants,
they both shared the strongest desire for more training and knowledge about GATE education
and GATE students. This depicts a clear desire to learn more and increase their respective
effectiveness as educators of GATE learners.
Commitment to GATE education. Another theme regarding teacher’s perceptions of
their attainment of knowledge was a commitment on their part to seek out and expand their
knowledge base. This commitment was evident in the amount of time teachers dedicated to their
own education and the financial cost they incurred in the process.
Time. To meet the training requirements or attend training on their own volition, teachers
attended training on their own time. While the certification programs in Wallingford USD and
Suffield USD are free for the teachers, they do require a lot of time and work on the part of the
teacher. Both Helen and Frances recalled completing the 45 hours of required coursework
mandated to earn their GATE certificate. Sharron reported, “Lots of classes for [the
certification]. I remember it was during the summer. It was probably a week long or more in the
summer, like six hours every day until you got the certification.” Not only did Sharron have to
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 141
spend a large number of hours completing her district classes, she had to do it during the summer
during her vacation time. When discussing her district provided training, Elizabeth shared,
“They didn't offer very many. It was hard to get into them. It was always limited space. If it was
a Saturday opportunity if you could work it into your schedule.” Elizabeth detailed the
difficulties of attending district training which she had to overcome. She would need to give up
time on the weekends and rearrange her schedules in order to attend training. The time teachers
spent seeking out professional development was often time they were not “on the clock.” Their
willingness to seek these opportunities out despite the burden on their personal lives shows a
commitment on these teachers’ part to learn more about GATE education.
Financial cost. Teachers pay for all their out-of-district trainings themselves and some of
their district conferences, as well. Six of the 10 participants reported attending trainings in which
they incurred a personal financial cost. When asked if she had to pay for the district conferences,
Marie said, “The one in December we always had to pay a couple of hundred bucks because they
have decent speakers come.” Similarly, when asked if she paid for conferences, Frances noted,
“Conferences, absolutely. District classes, no.” Therefore, if teachers chose to attend these
learning opportunities, they had to use personal funding to do so.
Occasionally teachers were able to get the school site to pay for training or a substitute
teacher, but this was not common. When asked if she paid for all the conferences and out-of-
district training she attended, Karen noted, “At this school everything is on me. Nothing is paid
for. However, I always time it where I'm in the first because the first two people from your
school site are free. Then the next people have to pay.” She explained that the large district
conference that Marie and she attend each year is only free for the first two teachers at each site.
Any other teachers who register after that must pay a fee. Therefore, Karen has to be very
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 142
proactive about registration so she does not have to pay. Karen also added, “I paid for the USC
[institute] one summer; [my school] paid for one summer. So, I would say about half has been on
me, and about half has been on the school site.” However, when her school had paid for the USC
Summer Gifted Institute, she was working at a school designated by her district as a School for
Advanced Studies (SAS). According to the Tolland USD GATE programing website, some
schools are designated SAS schools and are an alternative GATE magnet programs. SAS schools
have eight key program features which distinguish them from GATE magnate schools or
neighborhood schools with SMS differentiation. One of the provisions includes having teachers
skilled in GATE instruction and budget fidelity to GATE education for those teachers. This is in
clear alignment with the CA GATE program standards (California Department of Education,
2005). So while Karen has had some of her training paid for while working at a previous site, she
must be proactive in her current position to ensure she can have conferences fees paid for
because only two teachers’ attendance is subsidized. Karen was the only participant to speak of
any training subsides.
Not only do teachers have to incur the cost of the training or conferences, they
sometimes have to incur the cost of a substitute teacher or use their personal time to have the
substitute paid for. About the difficulties to attending district training, Elizabeth also noted it
sometimes came down to, “Whether or not the principal wanted to pay for a substitute to be
away for a day.” She noted that her principal, “never paid for sub days.” Similarly, Doreen
described the first time she went to the USC Summer Gifted Institute. She stated, “The first time
I went by myself. I took my own sub day. Admin said, ‘We cannot pay for it. But if you
definitely need to go, you can just get a sub.’ So I went on my own.” After attending the first
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 143
year, the following year Doreen wanted all the GATE teachers at her site to attend together.
Doreen described the lengths she and her colleagues went through to gain permission.
When I did go to the USC training, the summer institute, we as teachers, really had to
fight to go. Admin said, ‘No.’ We said, ‘Why not?’ We even asked PTA to fund part of
it, and we were scrawling for subs. There was another training that day in our district, so I
was actually asking other teachers, ‘Could you please give up your subs? Please, can you
just give up your sub, if ... Can I have your sub? Can you go to the MAP training another
day?’ We did go, because at least they actually switched with us.
Doreen had to coordinate with teachers to ensure there were enough substitutes to cover their
classes while they were gone and barter with colleagues to share substitutes and trade training
days. The dedication Doreen had to her personal education and professional growth was
evidenced in the effort she made so attend beneficial professional development with her
colleagues. Given that the site leader had already communicated the policy that the district will
not pay for a sub day if she wants to go, Doreen’s commitment to learning more about GATE is
what propelled her to take initiative and go the lengths necessary to make it happen for a group
of teachers.
In addition to paying for the conferences or trainings themselves, if teachers went to
training during the summer, on weekends, or after school, they were not paid for their time.
When asked if her district pays for them to attend the trainings or give any compensation,
Elizabeth blunted replied, “No.” When asked the same question, Frances responded, “Nope.” No
teacher participants in the study reported being paid for attending training during non-contract
hours.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 144
The participants in this study revealed their dedication to professional growth in the area
of GATE education through their dedication and commitment to attaining new knowledge and
attending learning opportunities at a personal cost. Teachers gave their personal time, unpaid
time, money, and used personal days in order to attend training and seek the knowledge about
GATE education they needed. This demonstrated their commitment to their profession, the
quality of their teaching, and desire to meet the needs of their GATE learners.
Policies about GATE education. In asking participants about their perspectives on
teacher education and training for GATE education, specific themes emerged regarding districts’
policies and the participants’ perceptions about those policies. Specifically, each district has its
own policy on the amount of professional development required by teachers who teach GATE
students. Simultaneously, participants were clear on their beliefs that teachers of GATE learners
must have GATE specific training if teaching GATE students.
District requirements. Each district had different rules regarding teacher training and
education related to working with GATE learners. The policies ranged from requiring a GATE
certificate to continued professional development over time. Only one of the five districts,
Suffield USD, represented in this study required a GATE certificate for teachers who teach
GATE students. As reported by all three participants from Suffield USD, Suffield USD required
a GATE certificate or to be taking district GATE courses for teachers in GATE designated
classrooms. Wallingford USD’s website also has information and requirements about the
district’s GATE certification program, but the language of the website simply denotes what
teachers must do to become certified. It does not specify if a certification is required. About the
district requirements or policies regarding GATE certification, Sharon stated,
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 145
It is voluntary to get certified. Some students who are GATE identified are not
necessarily paired with a GATE certified teacher because there may not be a GATE
certified teacher at that grade level. It is not a factor that is highly considered.
However, when asked if or how teachers are held accountable to become GATE certified Sharon
said, “There is no accountability. The GATE coordinator at the district level sends out an e-mail
reminding teacher of the opportunity to get trained and encourages reverifications. But there is
no accountability policy.” Moreover, Sharon worked at a school site with approximately only six
GATE students in the entire school site. She knew that teachers at her site do not actually have a
GATE certificate.
Similarly, the Rocky Hill USD website recommended its teachers take the district courses
and complete the district GATE certificate if working with GATE students, but Doreen did not
state if a certificate is required. And like Wallingford USD, Rocky Hill USD only offered classes
in the summer which Doreen had stated, “She was never able to attend.” Furthermore, Doreen
did discuss how she voluntarily registered for GATE certificate classes through the USC
program and not her district program. She did so for her, “own personal growth,” because
administrators at her site do not consider GATE certificates when determining student
placement. In lieu of requiring a GATE certificate, one district represented required continual
professional development. As reported by Marie and Karen, Tolland USD required 16 hours of
professional development in GATE education annually. However, the method of accountability
varied by site and personnel. Marie noted that part of her role as the GATE coordinator was to
ensure teachers fulfilled the 16 hour requirement. Karen stated, “For the last seven years I've
been attending GATE conferences, and gifted trainings offered through the district at least three
times a year trying to get my 16 hours for my GATE certification every year.” In this context,
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 146
Karen means the 16 hour district requirement. Marie must certify each year that all the GATE
teachers have completed the 16 hours. Conversely, Elizabeth and Beverly, who work at another
school in the same district did not mention the 16 hour requirement at all. This may signify that
the neighborhood schools or the site GATE coordinators in Tolland USD may not value the 16
hour requirement or specifically hold teachers of GATE students accountable to meeting that
requirement.
While four of the five district GATE websites had links to professional development
opportunities and mentioned training in some manner, the policies regarding teacher education
requirements were not publicly available. However, it is clear from nine of the 10 participants
that there is an expectation of GATE related training, regardless of how individual districts
oversee and inforce their individual requirements.
Participant beliefs about GATE policies. Teachers were asked what formal training or
education about GATE education they believe teachers of GATE students should have. The
participants’ responses were clear that training should be present. While it was not clear how her
district held teachers accountable for attending training or attaining a district GATE certificate,
Sharon stated, “They have to go to training. So, if they have GATE students in their class, if
they've been assigned that cluster, then there has to be mandatory training to go with it.” She
believed that training should be mandatory for teachers who teach GATE students. Also Sharon
thought that teachers need to go to professional development opportunities so they can learn. She
added, “Some is better than none.” To the same question Karen responded similarly and simply
said teachers, “Need to go.”
Some teachers’ beliefs about training for GATE go a step further than simply ensuring
teachers attend professional development for GATE education. Frances responded to the same
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 147
question that teachers must “become GATE certified.” Then when discussing common
misunderstandings site stakeholders have about of GATE education, Frances explained that other
teachers
Don't know what we've been trained to do to get our certificate. They don't know the
work that was put behind it or the hours spent in professional development. So they don't
understand why certain teachers get to do it. So when you're in a district where any
teacher gets to teach GATE and there's no conditions behind it, that gets really airy-fairy.
I mean… like anybody can teach GATE. Really? Okay, I agree with that. Anybody can
teach GATE if you're willing to get trained in what the stakeholders of GATE need. Until
you understand that, I think you're unfit.
She expressed her beliefs quite strongly and perceived untrained GATE teachers to be “unfit.”
Elizabeth also believed teachers should continue to advance their studies and try to earn a GATE
certificate. Elizabeth stated, “I felt like I got a really good education working on my certification,
and that I learned a lot from it. I brought a lot with me to the classroom. But I think they should
be working towards it.” Elizabeth deemed formal training to be beneficial to classroom practices
and made for better GATE teachers. Elizabeth also expressed that teachers should attend
conferences and stay up to date with current practices.
Regardless of policy or regulation, Doreen expressed similar views to Elizabeth. Doreen
believed certification and continued formal training each year is essential. She said,
I think that we should all be certified or have some kind of requirement with consistent
professional development. I've gone to the Summer Institute twice, and I still am
struggling, I still feel like I don't have this down. I need to do more. I can do more. I want
to talk to more teachers. Every year I try to increase my understanding, how I’m working
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 148
with my students, and even my own grasp of the [GATE] standards. I see other teachers
here get clusters of [GATE] students that have not been trained in the last few years, are
not certified, and they still have those students. Some of these students, I saw move up
from second to third to fourth. Now they're in fifth and I don't feel like they are getting
that consistency.
Doreen recognized how hard she worked to increase her GATE knowledge and application of
that knowledge with her students each year. Additionally, she recognized that not all GATE
students have teachers who continually keep up with professional development and new research
or trends. She directly related teacher education to instruction and learning for GATE students
when she believed that students are not getting the “consistency.” When she referred to not
having a “grasp” of the GATE “standards,” she means that she feels that she still has more to
learn even though she has attended more training that other teachers of GATE students who do
not provide a consistent GATE curriculum for their students. Doreen believed that professional
learning must be up to date and that professional development needs to occur regularly.
In addition to the belief that teachers should attend GATE training, there was concern
about the cost of mandatory training on the part of the teacher. In regards to the financial costs of
training, Doreen said, “it would be great if the district would pay for some of the training.”
Moreover, Beverly had discussed how financial issues have affected her ability to complete more
training. Beverly said, “If they want you to teach GATE children, they should give you the
proper training.” She then added,
They should send you to or pay for your tuition to go. If I could have afford it, I would
have paid it because I know there's universities that do offer that. Teachers are always
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 149
willing to learn, but, sometimes, that doesn't happen because that means more money out
of our pocket, and some of us just can't do that.
Beverly believed that districts should give you the training and pay for the tuition. Furthermore,
districts should provide a financial means so teachers can keep learning. In other words, Beverly
believed that districts need policies in place to make financial support possible so that the
teachers are able to get the GATE training they need to support their students.
Another viewpoint about teacher education was in the delivery of sharing GATE
knowledge. Doreen thought GATE teachers should meet regularly with other GATE teachers at
the site and other schools. While this study already discussed how teachers desire to collaborate,
Doreen believed that collaboration should be a part of the district’s professional development
policy. She thought that there should be a GATE curriculum specialist active on the site to give
demonstration lessons, to work with students and teachers, and to assist with planning. Doreen
believed that an ideal GATE program should help teachers share resources and put good GATE
resources on a district website. Helen also suggested additional staff to meet the needs of GATE
learners. Helen compared training for special education to training about GATE education and
stated, “With the RSP kids they lay out the modifications, the accommodations. This is what you
need to do. But with the GATE kids, it’s ‘just challenge them.’ It'd be great to have a GATE
resource teacher.” In this sense, these teachers thought a GATE specific specialist on site would
be beneficial for the teachers of GATE learners. The value of a GATE coach would be
tremendous to teacher education and assist with implementation, as well as knowledge
acquisition.
Lastly, Marie considered her GATE professional development to be very important since
taking the role as GATE coordinator. Marie commented that GATE professional development
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 150
has really helped her the most in this particular position. Specifically, understanding her district’s
position on GATE education and sharing with parents is essential. She noted, “The programing is
confusing” so she believed district trainings are a critical part of succeeding in her role. She
explained that training about differentiation and motivating individuals is most helpful for
teachers in the classroom. Marie also thought there should be a lot more training in the teacher
credential programs and that teachers need to have on the job training. She stated that without
GATE training, “You’ll never ‘know it’.” She believed “you’re always learning, searching.”
Overall, this study found that teachers of GATE students acquire knowledge about GATE
education and GATE students from a variety of formal and informal sources. Additionally,
teachers’ perceptions regarding training and professional learner depicted a desire for more
education, a commitment to their education, and agreement that professional development for
teachers of GATE learners is necessary and should be more explicitly supported through district
policies.
Service Model Setting
Along with how teachers acquire GATE knowledge, this study sought out teachers’
perspectives on how GATE knowledge shapes the instructional choices made regarding GATE
learners. A large decision regarding GATE services involves classroom composition of students.
This study found that classroom make-up and grouping of GATE students, or service model
settings (SMS), vary from district to district and from school to school. The SMS practices are a
service for GATE learners each district intentionally provides for GATE learners. The SMS and
how GATE students are grouped are a type of educational program that is designed to assist in
meeting the needs of GATE students. Sometimes the SMS is determined at school site level and
at other times by the district. The SMSs described by the 10 participants in this study do not
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 151
precisely reflect the four SMS descriptions discussed by Brulles and Winebrenner (2011) in the
literature review of this study. This study set out to collect data on four of Brulles and
Winebrenner’s SMSs, but actually collected data regarding five specific SMSs. The largest
delineation from Brulles and Winebrenner is in how districts create and organize classrooms
with clusters of GATE learners. Therefore, this study will disaggregate data and discuss findings
regarding two distinct clustering settings. Furthermore, this study identifies the five SMSs as: a)
self-contained GATE, b) heterogeneous cluster model (multiple classes with clusters of GATE
students per grade), c) homogeneous cluster model (all GATE students per grade clustered in one
class), d) 1-3 GATE students, and e) pullout activities.
Moreover, the SMSs identified and discussed in this study represent current (2017)
school site practices regarding SMSs and reflect the needs of those sites based on their specific
GATE population, district identification practices, community understanding of GATE services
and implementation decisions. Some districts utilize multiple SMSs throughout their districts
based on the needs of individual school sites. Some SMSs were identified on district GATE
websites, but participants were not sampled to represent every SMS implemented by every
school district. For example, Tolland USD’s website identifies three different school-choice
options for GATE students, one of which is differentiated classroom instruction in the students’
neighborhood school. Then within that neighborhood school setting, Tolland USD identifies four
different cluster model options individual sites might use based on site-specific decisions.
Moreover, this study did not seek out participants from all SMS model options, as the sample
was purposely not district specific. Therefore, the five SMSs described in this study are not the
only SMSs found throughout the southern California region nor are they the only SMSs currently
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 152
servicing GATE learners by the districts represented. Rather, the five SMSs are more common
and participant representation was unproblematic.
Table 3
Service Model Setting by Participant and District
Self-
Contained
GATE
Heterogeneous
Cluster Model
Homogeneous
Cluster Model
1-3 GATE
Students
Pullout
Activities
Current
SMS
Helen
Gena
Doreen
Karen
Marie*
Elizabeth
Frances
Anne
Beverly
Sharon*
Previous/
Additional
SMS
Experience
Frances Gena
Marie
Beverly
Sharon
Karen
Elizabeth Anne
Beverly
Elizabeth
Karen
Marie
Sharon
Districts
Represented
Suffield Rocky Hill
Tolland
Suffield
Suffield
Tolland
Portland
Tolland
Portland
Tolland
Wallingford
*Out of the classroom position, serving as GATE Coordinator
The participant sample included teachers who currently work in the five identified SMSs.
Seven participants shared knowledge and perspectives regarding multiple SMSs based on their
work experience. Refer to Table 3 for a representation of participants, their SMS experiences,
and contributing interview data by SMS. Table 3 identifies the five SMSs settings across the top
of the table. The current SMS of each of the 10 participants is found in the first section. Names
of participants who shared knowledge, experiences, and perceptions about other SMSs are
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 153
denoted in the section horizontal set of groupings. The third horizontal section details the
districts from which data for each SMS was collected.
Class composition is an element of the learning environment in that how the student
demographics are organized affect the classroom cultures and organization. Differentiation of the
classroom environment is a means to meet the needs of GATE learners (Watts-Taffe et al.,
2012). In conversations with GATE teachers, descriptions of the SMS teachers currently work in
and/or had previously worked in depict how GATE students are grouped by their school site.
Descriptions of each SMS paints a picture of the demographics, potential student need,
organizational structures, and policies surrounding these five settings. These descriptions are
intended to be representational of the current settings the teachers work in with the understanding
that specific demographic numbers can fluctuate year-to-year. These descriptions are
representational of the trends of student organization and class composition.
Teacher participants also shared information about the instructional choices they make to
meet the academic needs of their GATE learners. Participants were asked about instructional
choices in a variety of ways including: open ended questions, hypothetical teaching scenarios,
and direct questions about specific academic needs of GATE learners based on the literature
presented in chapter two of this study. Participants were also asked about how they implement
differentiation for their GATE students. Teacher participants were also asked how they
differentiate in the areas of instruction, content, product/assessment and environment as
discussed by Sisk (2009) and Watts-Taffe et al. (2012). Findings show that teacher participants
in different settings make varied instructional choices and alter their decisions for a variety of
reasons. Additionally, this study found that those instructional choices are associated with the
participants’ individual GATE knowledge, related professional development, and SMS. These
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 154
choices are categorized under Instructional Strategies/Differentiation and describe the
instructional strategies participants described implementing with the purpose of differentiating
for their GATE students.
During the interviews with participants, themes also emerged regarding the teachers’
perspectives on the SMSs and how those SMSs meet the needs of GATE learners. Teachers
understand the contexts they teach in, which in turn, affects their knowledge and experiences and
perceptions. Teachers’ beliefs about the SMSs are shaped by the setting/organization they work
in, the challenges they face, and how the teacher believes she should support her students. Issues
of equity, fairness, and meeting student need were brought up by the participants in this study.
Participants were asked to share their perceptions regarding challenges about their SMS,
the benefits of the SMS specifically for GATE learners, and their overall perceptions about
which SMSs are most beneficial to GATE learners. Teachers were also asked about GATE
programing and if they believed it does a disservice to non-GATE students. Many teachers had
both positive and negative perceptions about the SMS they work in. Some participants chose not
to speak about their SMSs or give their perspectives about any SMSs in which they did not have
direct experience. Themes about the SMSs emerged regarding instructional practices, grouping
and classroom composition, identification practices, and equity for all students. This section will
illustrate the perceptions of teachers according to the five SMSs and reveal their beliefs about
how grouping students is related to instruction, identification, and/or issues of equity.
In this section, participant setting descriptions, implementation of services and
perspectives about the implementation of services provided to GATE learners and will be
organized by the five SMSs. Within each SMS section, the findings regarding what each GATE
SMS looks like demographically and how it is organized by the individual school sites and/or
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 155
districts are described first. Then each section will outline the instructional choices teachers
shared based on how they have identified the academic needs of their GATE learners and share
how the participants differentiation along Sisk (2009) and Watts-Taffe et al.’s (2012) four areas
of differentiation. Additionally, teachers’ perspectives about the GATE services provided in the
specific SMS are discussed. The participants in this study described their settings, explained the
instructional choices they make for their GATE learners, and shared perspectives on how the
polices and implementation practices involving SMSs affect students. The following five
“vignettes” are organized by SMS and were shaped from participant interview data, documents
shared by participants, and analysis of district GATE websites. Each SMS vignette will provide:
(a) a setting description, (b) the instructional strategies and differentiation determined by the
teachers, and (c) relevant participant perspectives.
Self-Contained GATE Classrooms
Setting description. In this setting, the school site places all of the identified GATE
learners in a given grade level in the same classroom. Only teachers from Suffield Unified
School District (USD) represent this SMS. Suffield USD requires teachers of these GATE
classrooms to be GATE certified via a university program or their own, in house, district classes
and training program.
Helen has 32 of 35 students identified as GATE in her current 4
th
grade classroom.
Although her GATE numbers to not currently total 100% GATE learners, the remaining students
are of high ability and undergoing GATE identification. The three unidentified students recently
passed the district’s first level of screening for GATE identification. Helen stated that they, “are
taking the GATE test and I have no doubt they'll pass it”. So for all intents and purposes, this
teacher’s classroom is considered to be self-contained GATE classroom. There are no students in
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 156
this classroom with identified learning disabilities, and the only IEPs in this classroom are for
students who require services for speech, not learning disabilities. No students are currently EL
learners. The class consists of 23 girls and 12 boys. Helen reported no students in her classroom
have significant behavior needs. Helen stated that she has rarely has students with behavior
needs in this setting because “the class moves so fast and they have so much to do, that there is
not enough time for fooling around”.
Gena also has taught in a self-contained SMS for three years. She teaches grade 3 and her
GATE students are identified at the end of second grade. Therefore, when students enter her
class, they are receiving GATE services for the first time typically within 3-6 months of GATE
identification. She has 30 students, all of whom are identified GATE. None of her students are
EL learners or considered to have second language needs. Two students presented behavior
needs. Four students had IEPs for ADHD or speech and language. But as seen in Helen’s
classroom, no students had IEPs for diagnosed learning disabilities. For the first time in her third
year of teaching a self-contained GATE class, Gena has seen a difference in student academic
ability. Three students were performing much lower than the group and required significant
differentiation needs compared to the rest of the class. Gena noted
Instructional strategies/differentiation. Helen and Gena shared how they differentiate
instruction according to instruction, content, product/assessment, and environment. Table 4
details the differentiation they described. The four differentiation techniques are listed in the first
column under method. The two participants represent each of the following columns. How each
participant described their use of differentiation for each technique is briefly described below
their respective names and corresponds to the differentiation method on the left.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 157
Table 4
Differentiation Techniques by Method: Self-contained GATE
Differentiation
Method
Gena Helen
Instruction •more of a facilitator
•less direct instruction
•not a lot of direct instruction
•facilitator
•focus on small groups who need it
Content •keeps them motivated
•not “stuff and fluff”
•let kids ask the questions
•student choice
•not a lot because of standards
•incorporate novels
•extension activities
•entire curriculum
Product/Assessment •self-selected product
choice
•product choice for S.S projects
•student created product menu
Environment •uses outdoor patio for
student work time
•flexibility
•“organized chaos”
•freedom of autonomy for self-directed
learning/choices
•flexible seating
In the self-contained GATE SMS, teacher participants reported using a lot less direct
instruction and saw the role of the teacher to be a facilitator. About implementation of such
facilitation practices, Helen stated, “I feel like I'm more of a facilitator of the classroom as
opposed to being like the expert who knows everything.” Gena also said,
I'm not a big stand in front of the class and lecture kind of person. I realized even more so
with my GATE kids because they don't want that. So I really try to pull back from the
instructor role to be more of a facilitator and letting kids do a lot more discovery kinds of
things. Giving them the materials they need for sure. But also just teaching them how to
look through the materials and find what they're looking for.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 158
Additionally, this SMS model included a content focus that extends students’ thinking and often
goes beyond grade level standards or requirements. Helen discussed students moving beyond the
grade-level week stories in the district provided language arts program. She shared, “I can see it
in them and that they're bored. They don't want to read the weekly story in our literature series.
They want to get into a novel.” The self-contained GATE SMS also focused on teacher
implementation of extension menus and creating autonomy via student choice of product,
activity, and classroom seating.
While discussing about how they differentiate by the four differentiation dimensions,
both Helen and Gena expanded on specific differentiation practices they apply in their
classrooms which are unique to their practice. Gena’s main approach to differentiation is student
grouping and focusing on student interest via student choice. Helen focused on compacting to
provide small group instruction and above grade-level enrichment. She also implemented
flexible, alternative seating to allow from student choice and focus.
When asked about successful techniques used to address student need, Gena strongly
responded with “grouping.” She explained, “It's just a lot of grouping. It’s organized chaos.”
Gena detailed how she uses grouping for instruction and stated,
It's just different groupings. I tell my kids, ‘just because you're in group one doesn't mean
you're always going to be in group one. It means you're in group one because these are
your needs. And group one doesn't mean you're the best, it just means you're in this group
because you're with people who maybe have similar needs.’ But not always. I don't
always group by high-medium-low. I do mix it up, too. That way they're with people who
can maybe push them a little farther.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 159
Gena stressed that the composition of student groups is flexible, and she alternates student
grouping often based on student need. Moreover, she was cognizant of student self-esteem and
purposely directs students not to think about groups by ability, rather by teacher-determined
student need. While Gena’s entire class is identified as GATE, providing opportunities for small
group collaboration shows that Gena’s practice aligns with Cross’s (1997) recommendation that
gifted students have opportunities to interact both socially and academically together. Moreover,
by considering and purposely addressing group composition to the class, Gena displayed concern
for the self-esteem issues gifted student display that derives from the relationship between
student performance and desired outcomes as discussed by Ritchotte et al. (2016).
Gena also discussed her use of extension menus and providing students challenge and
self-selected activities. Gena shared four different documents which included extension menus
and lessons she uses with her students. These included homework menus, science activities and
lessons, and a math extension lesson. In addition to activity choice, Gena allows for selection of
content as well, especially in subject like social studies or science. She described on subject
interest driven activity:
I do a lot more of letting them select what they're interested in. Say we're learning about
Native Americans in California. I give them a wealth of information and let them pick [a
focus] within that [larger topic]. Maybe you want to pick a tribe. Maybe you want to pick
transportation. I had a kid last year who was obsessed with all kinds of different ways of
getting around. So I let him [pick transportation]. He actually worked with a little group
on transportation and on the different ways groups got around within California. So he
didn't have to just pick one tribe, he could look at all the tribes and say well this group
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 160
used boats and this group had runners. So I think that it’s not just standing in front of the
class and lecturing.
In this example, Gena gave her class a choice which California tribe they wanted to focus on for
their project. One student’s interest of transportation fell outside of the general topic of
California tribes. To capitalize on student interest, Gena allowed the student to focus on
transportation and he created a project that related multiple California tribes to their methods of
transportation. By adopting student choice and creating self-selected activities and assignment
focus, Gena is implementing the instructional techniques of individualization and providing
challenge which Davalos and Griffin (1999) highlighted gifted students desire. Moreover,
Tomlinson (2003) stated good differentiation occurs when the teacher focuses on student
variation. Here that variation is student interest.
Helen’s main approach to differentiation is using compacting to accelerate the curriculum
for some students while offering smaller group instruction for those who need it. Helen pretests
her students each week by giving them the end of week or lesson test. Helen continues grade
level instruction in small groups with the students whose pretests depicted a need for instruction.
If students “compact-out” they move on to individual extension work within that same subject.
From there students have options. “They're given a depth and complexity choice board based on
non-fiction text. They have to do a tic-tac-toe and pick any three. They must go through the
middle. They keep their own compact journal to keep that work in.” Helen shared a copy of the
tic-tac-toe board which is titled “Depth & Complexity Non-Fiction Reading Response Choice
Board.” The directions for students are clear and it allows for a lot of student choice while also
allowing the teacher to direct instructional focus by mandating the completion of the middle
square. Each square on the board aligns to a different Depth and Complexity Prompt (Kaplan,
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 161
2007) and has a picture of the corresponding icon. Students choose three tasks, cut them out, and
glue them into their notebooks. Students can then complete the tasks on their own. Helen does
collect and look at the notebooks throughout the year. Overall, Helen’s implementation of
curriculum compacting follows Dooley’s (1993) description of how teachers can use curriculum
compacting with gifted learners.
Helen uses acceleration with content to also meet students’ needs. For social studies or
science, Helen is able to completely change her method of instruction. When asked about
differentiation for other subject areas, Helen responded, “In social studies, there's differentiation
because it's [our class is] different from the other classes. But in here they're all kind of doing the
same thing. So it's applying a different GATE strategy depending on what content we're doing.”
Helen differentiated the content from other fourth grade classes at her site because her students
typically master content quickly. Rather than focusing on reading from the textbook, taking
notes, and building vocabulary, Helen described her practice as, “The social studies book is not a
big laborious process. I teach social studies and science in more of a discussion style as opposed
to me talking, [students] taking notes and I having to explain what words mean.” Helen said she
uses the instructional strategies that she learned in GATE classes from her district to provide
instruction in the form of GATE instructional strategies for the entire class. She identified using
strategies like Universal Themes, Think like a Disciplinarian, and Depth and Complexity
Prompts (Kaplan, 2007). Helen’s depiction of how she uses acceleration and challenge correlates
directly to Steenbergen-Hu & Moon’s (2010) and Kanevsky’s (2011) descriptions of how gifted
learners prefer complex/challenging work and fast pacing.
Helen also has adopted a recent technique call flexible and alternative seating in her
classroom. Flexible seating is when students have the option to sit in different seats. Alternative
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 162
seating includes uncommon classroom arrangements. Helen implements a combination of both.
Helen has a group of six desks very low to the floor where students can sit on pillows. She also
has a group of six standing desks with a pull down foot bar that allow students to work from a
standing position. There are two sets of six desks that students can use alternative seats like yoga
balls, stools, or camp chairs. Another table arrangement contain only two desks with “Bouncy
Bands” (trademarked item) that allow students to tap and jiggle their feet without making any
noise. Helen shared pictures of her seating chart, rotation rules, and seat picking policy and rules.
Figure D is a picture of all the seating options in the class. The numbers on the chart indicate
which student picked that seat for the day. At the end of each day, Helen uses a rotating lottery
system to let students choose where they will site the following day. Helen was asked to describe
the flexible and alternative seating in her classroom:
Well, they are in groups of six, but on any given day, there might only two people in an
area. So it's not like they have to be in a group of six. They sit wherever they want.
There's some days there's nobody on the yoga balls, and that's fine. I want them to work
wherever they're comfortable, and some kids like to be on the floor pillow when it comes
time to reading. And some kids, when they're writing, they want to be standing. So
they've started to kind of figure that out. They can even sit on the floor if they want. Most
of them stay there [the seat] for the whole day. But you'll see the kids who start at the
standing desks occasionally on the ground working on a lap desk. Then they pop back up.
This is my first year doing it. We're still at the beginning of it. I have a system so each
kid gets to pick first a different day. Then they move down the chain and so on. At the
end of the day, they pick their seat where they're going to start the next morning. [If they
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 163
want to move during the day,] during recess they can pull their number down they can
pick whatever seats are open.
Helen was the only teacher in the study that has implemented the relatively new practice of
flexible and alternative seating. As she described it, the open seating allows for student choice of
seat, student grouping, location in the classroom, and learning environment. While Watts-Taffe
et al. (2012) did discuss how classroom environment can be a viable means of differentiation,
this newer approach does focus on student need, choice, and interest.
Figure D
Flexible Seating Chart
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 164
Perspectives. The teacher participants in the self-contained GATE classroom SMS
shared perspectives about this setting. Their perceptions aligned along the themes of setting and
differentiation.
Setting. Both teachers in this SMS conveyed that self-contained GATE classrooms are
beneficial to GATE students and assist teachers in meeting the academic needs of their GATE
learners. However, their beliefs are not wholly positive about this SMS.
Overall, the perceptions about the benefits of a self-contained GATE classroom were that
the SMS is aligned appropriately to the needs of GATE learners. When asked which SMS is
most beneficial to GATE learners, Gena said, “I think self-contained. But that's so biased for me
because that's really all I've done. Where I've had all 30 kids were identified, and that's all I
know.” Gena admitted that she has not taught in any other SMS and that the lack of other
experience may slant her perception.
Similarly, Helen shared her beliefs on teaching in the self-contained GATE classroom,
but Helen articulated why she considered this SMS to be so beneficial to her GATE learners.
Helen shared,
I love teaching with this population of kids. I love it. I think we're able to push things to a
higher level because we don't have to deal with kids who aren't getting it or kids who are
lower or kids who are a behavior problem. You know? We're kind of this little bubble of
some really cool stuff happening.
She sees a clear instructional advantage for GATE students because she extends the curriculum
for the entire class. However, Helen simultaneously shared that removing all GATE learners
from the remaining grade level populations does create issues of equity for other classrooms.
Helen stated:
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 165
However, it is tough on my colleagues because we are also dealing with a four, five
combo. So, you pull out the GATE kids from the 4th grade mix and then you pull out the
next highest, good kids for the combo and then what's left is those that really struggle for
those other two classes. That's where you have your RSP kids and you have your lower
kids and you have your behavior problems.
Helen’s perceptions demonstrate how the school site has to manage the needs of multiple types
of learners. While Helen truly enjoys working with the GATE population because of the type of
teaching and learning she is a part of, she was also aware of how whole-class GATE grouping
can affect the school site and other classrooms. The school site grouped students into classrooms
using a hierarchical system. First the GATE students were clustered at each grade level into one
classroom per grade. Then, as student numbers required a combination class of 4
th
and 5
th
graders, attention was given to the make-up of that classroom next. When Helen stated, “Good
kids for the combo,” she specifically meant independent learners who could be placed in that
combination class because they have the ability to work without constant direct supervision from
the teacher. Helen recognized that the remaining student population at both 4
th
and 5
th
grades
consisted primarily of struggling students with more intensive instructional needs when she
stated, “It is tough on my colleagues.” The school typically places independent workers and well
behaved students in combination classes where teachers teach students from two grade levels. So
while Helen recognized that her GATE students really benefit from the instructional advantages
of a high-paced classroom, the remaining population of teachers and students may have more
difficult contexts due to their classroom composition.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 166
Furthermore, Helen had reported earlier that she does not have any students with
significant behavior needs which she here equated to potentially slowing down the group. When
discussing the perceived benefits of a self-contained GATE classroom, Helen specified, “I
haven't had to have a behavior system because they're busy. We have no time for nonsense
because we're so busy.” Her belief was that the faster paced curriculum and classroom
environment is somehow a deterrent or a solution for some students whose behavior requires
extra teacher attention and distracts from class progression.
Additionally, Helen spoke to the perception that GATE education does a disservice to
non-identified students. When asked about this, Helen did not believe that to be true. She noted
that it may discourage a small population of non-GATE students, but there were no clear
inequities at her school site because her class is “similar to other classes.” She worked at a high
income, high performing school. Very few students struggled significantly at the school. The
GATE classroom did not get any more funding, curriculum, technology, or resources that other
classrooms did not get. So Helen believed that there is no particular advantage for GATE
students over non-GATE students.
While a self-contained GATE classroom may benefit the learning of GATE students,
issues of GATE identification and classroom placement were also discussed. Gena has been
teaching the self-contained model for three years. Her concerns about this setting involve her
district’s recent modification of identification practices and the effect on class composition. Gena
stated, “My first year that I did self-contained, all 30 [students] were identified. Those kids were
all really, really what I would consider GATE identified. They were really sharp.” But Gena
went on to describe that the traits and characteristics of her GATE students has changed in the
past year. She commented, “This year I had [some] kids that were really, really low kids. Low
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 167
kids that compared to my years of not teaching GATE. These kids would have still been my low
kids.” Gena noted a significant change in the academic abilities of her GATE population from
one year to the next. Specifically, now students are not performing at the accelerated rates she
saw four years ago when she first started teaching in a self-contained GATE classroom. “My first
year was amazing. Those kids were all very, very bright. Very gifted. Last year's class I would
consider more of a normal class, with my highs, my mediums, my lows.” Gena’s experience with
self-contained GATE classrooms included a uniform composition of highly bright and high
achieving GATE students. Although she is not sure how the identification process changed, she
knows that after it changed, she started getting a larger range of student ability. Gena’s district
completes GATE identification in second and fourth grades, and as a third grade teacher she is
mostly not a part of that process. With the change in class composition resulting from varied
abilities of identified GATE learners, Gena described the need for more differentiation.
Firmender et al.’s (2013) described the difficulties of mixed abilities and wide ranges of student
abilities on instructional differentiation. Therefore, the increased range in student ability resulted
in more differentiation on the part of Gena and her instructional choices had to change to meet
the new, more diverse, student need.
Differentiation. While the teacher participants shared the perceived advantages of a self-
contained GATE classroom, they also disclosed the challenges they have faced with
implementing differentiation and their instructional choices. The participants were asked about
the difficulties they encounter when differentiating their instruction. Helen discussed the
challenges she faces with differentiation. She stated that,
The hardest time I have is probably the ELA because it's a lot of work having to find the
higher level passages and not step on the toes of the next grade level. [The leveled
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 168
readers] sometimes aren't that complex. You know, just got some more words in there.
It's kind of like I’m always finding materials and feel like I'm always kind of doing
something different. That's about the toughest.
Helen explained how teachers from higher grades, including the middle school, give her a hard
time if she tries to read novels with her GATE class that they typically teach. Finding appropriate
reading material to meet the needs of her GATE learners is a real struggle for Helen. Moreover,
none of her colleagues understand her dilemma because their class composition is completely
different. However, VanTassel-Baska (2015) suggested that teachers must be judicious when
selecting of off-level texts. VanTassel-Baska recommended that teachers vary the genres or
utilize classical texts. While Helen expressed frustration with the dilemma of finding texts she
believes are complex enough for her GATE learners, her knowledge of alternative means of
adding complexity to her ELA curriculum may not include this concept.
While language arts is difficult for Helen due to instructional materials and vertical
articulation, she finds math to be the easiest for differentiation. Helen stated,
Math's the easiest. Because I've kept the last math series, the last couple of them, and
depending on the lesson, they'll have good challenge activities that come with it. I just put
them right on to that. And I have an advanced problem solving program that they can
always work on, too.
To Helen, managing the materials is the qualifying factor in her ability to differentiate for her
GATE students. Because she has a lot of challenging resources in math, Helen thought
differentiating for math is easier. Finding age-level, above grade-level reading materials creates a
challenge for Helen. Helen’s obstacles to differentiation delineate from her ability to plan and
utilize resources.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 169
Gena’s perceptions about implementing a differentiated curriculum are unrelated to
Helen’s. As described above, Gena uses flexible grouping for a lot of her differentiation. She
discussed how student behavior and maturity are the hardest obstacle for her to effectively
differentiate. Gena said,
I just think their abilities sometimes to work in groups makes it sometimes hard, where I
kind of am hoping they'll be a little more independent. Maybe some aren't ready to be
independent, or some just want to argue and be the boss all the time and have a hard time
letting go. Behavior sometimes gets in the way. I did have a couple little kiddos last year
who had a really hard time working in groups, behavior wise.
As Gena is a third grade teacher, she provides GATE instruction to the youngest and newly
identified GATE learners. Her differentiation practices are affected by the maturity of her
students and their ability to collaborate effectively together. While Cross (1997) suggested that
GATE students have opportunities to learn from one another, Gena found this practice to be
challenging due to her specific students and their capabilities of independent work. Since her
students are still young (only in third grade), their ability to cooperate and effectively work in
groups is still developing.
While the perceptions shared by the teacher participants in the self-contained GATE
classroom SMS are positive, the participants also shared difficulties with this SMS and issues of
inequity this SMS presents for the entire school community.
Heterogeneous Cluster Model
Setting description. In this setting, school sites disperse the number of identified GATE
students evenly into the number of classrooms at a given grade. The classrooms are meant to be
created proportionally with consideration for numbers of GATE students, EL learners, students
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 170
with IEPs, gender, and students needing additional behavioral support. In this model, the school
sites intend to have classrooms of heterogeneous learners where all classrooms are comprised
uniformly. Two school sites from two districts are represented in this study’s findings.
Karen and Marie work at a GATE magnet school in Tolland USD. The magnate school is
on the same campus as the neighborhood school, however students are transferred over to the
magnate program when they are identified GATE. Additionally, the program takes the siblings
of GATE students and what Marie calls “ready learners” who are performing at or above grade
level in K-2 grades. Therefore, the GATE magnate program does not have 100% GATE
identified students. The school site clusters GATE students into equal groups per grade level and
places GATE learners in every classroom. They also distribute students evenly by ability,
ethnicity, and number of siblings to create heterogeneous classrooms.
Karen teaches a fifth grade class. Six of her 24 students are GATE learners. There are no
students with IEPs, but two students have a 504 behavior support plan. The 504 is an educational
plan that creates accommodation for students based on behavior, not academic ability. The
students in her room have ADHD and receive extended time, reduced work load, and large print
accommodations. None of her students are identified as EL learners, however 16 students speak
at least two languages. Several of her students were EL learners in lower grades, but have
reclassified as English proficient through the district reclassification protocols. Karen’s
classroom is very ethnically diverse. She has students performing above, on, and below grade
level in both mathematics and language arts.
Doreen also works at a school with multiple clusters of GATE students in each grade.
Like the magnate school, Doreen does not work at a neighborhood school. Rather, her site is
what Rocky Hill USD calls a “school choice” school. That means any families throughout the
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 171
district can apply for a spot at the school. Spots are dispersed via lottery. Parents are responsible
for transportation and there is no bussing. Additionally, students and families must meet school
wide expectations of attendance, homework completion, and uniform policy. Students and
families can lose their place at the school if they do not maintain satisfactory participation in
these areas.
Doreen’s third grade classroom consisted of 30 students; 15 students are girls and 15
students are boys. 12 of the 20 students are identified GATE; six GATE students are girls and six
GATE students are boys. All of her students were identified in second grade from the Naglieri
intelligence test. There are 19 EL learners in the class whose primary language is Spanish or
Vietnamese; six of the GATE students are EL learners. Two students have significant behavior
needs, and they are both identified GATE. There are no students with IEPs and Doreen stated,
“That's something admin decided last school year. In the GATE clustered classes, RSP students
are not mixed with the GATE clustered classes.” However, unlike Karen and Marie’s school that
equally distributes GATE students across all classrooms, Doreen’s school only has two classes
per grade level with GATE clusters. This results in four classrooms at each grade level that do
not have GATE students but may have RSP students.
Sometimes school sites implement multiple SMSs based on GATE enrollment. Gena and
Helen’s school site typically implements the “self-contained” model, but the school is changing
their program towards a cluster model due to increasing numbers of GATE students. Gena has
worked in a self-contained GATE classroom with 30 identified 3
rd
graders for the past three
years. After her two interviews for this study, she began teaching in a heterogeneously grouped
cluster classroom because the number of identified GATE students in her grade is greater than
maximum class size of 30. Gena conveyed in her first interview that the principal held a meeting
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 172
with all the parents of the identified second GATE students to determine what SMS the school
should employ the following year. Based on parent input, the school chose to split the GATE
students into equal numbers across the grade level. Helen commented on the same decision and
specified that the district GATE coordinator would have preferred the school to adopt a model
similar to Doreen’s school where two classes would contain a larger GATE cluster each. This
programing decision by the principal demonstrates that the school site stakeholders and
administration have a larger say in SMS that the district office.
Gena agreed to participate in a third interview, seven months after her first interview, to
discuss her instructional practices and perceptions after teaching five months in the cluster model
setting. See Appendix C for the interview protocol used for the third interview. She described her
classroom demographics for the heterogeneous cluster model class in the new school year. There
are 30 students in her class, nine of which are identified GATE. There are 36 GATE third
graders at the school split evenly amongst four classroom teachers. The other three teachers had
to enroll in GATE coursework this year. There are no EL learners in the class. The only student
with a significant behavior need is identified GATE and high functioning autistic. The student
has a one-on-one teaching assistant at all times. The student does have an IEP for speech services
and autism. Three additional students have IEPs for speech services, one of which is also
identified GATE. Gena stated that the other three third grade classrooms are mixed
heterogeneously in a similar manner. The other three third grade teachers had never taught
GATE students before and have since started taking district GATE classes.
Instructional strategies/differentiation. Four teacher participants (Doreen, Karen,
Marie, and Gena) representing three districts (Rocky Hill USD, Tolland USD, and Suffield USD)
shared instructional choices they make in a heterogeneous cluster model setting. All four
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 173
participants implemented different differentiation techniques and discussed their differentiation
choices. Table 5 displays how three teacher participants who currently teach in the
heterogeneous cluster model SMS differentiate based on instruction, content,
product/assessment, and environment. Gena’s responses to these questions were depicted in
Table 4.4 because she taught in that SMS during her interview.
Table 5
Differentiation Techniques by Method: Heterogeneous Cluster Model
Differentiation
Method
Doreen Karen Marie
Instruction •pulling small
groups
•level of scaffolding
•predicting in math
(challenge)
•small group work
(reinforce or extend)
Content •leveling articles
from Readworks.org
•number sets (challenge)
•cross curricular
connections
•online research
•student choice
Product/Assessment •"restaurant menu"
for book reports
•rubric for genius
hour
•choice of product
•rubrics
•rubrics
•open-ended
assignments
Environment •none
(wants to learn)
•different desks/tables for
organization
•grouping levels
•technology
•go outside
In the heterogeneous cluster model SMS, all teacher participants reported utilizing
leveled rubrics to provide differentiation of product/assessment for their students. All teacher
participants also discussed the use of leveled student groups to provide differentiated instruction.
Doreen implements a highly structured differentiation model of leveled, small group
instruction. She uses a flexible grouping strategy to provide small group instruction to meet the
various needs of all of her students. When asked about the most essential elements of her GATE
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 174
training she implements the most, Doreen replied, “Depth and complexity prompts and
differentiating with that. I feel like I am really consistent with working in small groups with my
GATE identified students.” She meets with the GATE students during workshop time and stated,
“I work with my intervention students a lot more, like daily. I really force myself to work with
my GATE identified students like every other day.” During her small group workshop time,
Doreen must attend to the needs of all her learners. As described in this setting description, there
is a very diverse range of learning abilities in her class. But when working with her GATE
groups, Doreen focuses on the academic needs specific to GATE learners.
When I have the kids in the small group, the GATE students, I will definitely go over the
prompts more. Or I'll extend a lesson that we already did. Sometimes I'm just checking
for understanding. It's all so new to them. This is the first year that they've even seen this
type of questioning or depth in their curriculum.
Doreen does recognize that her students are third graders and have only recently been identified
as GATE. She does have to cultivate what that means for her GATE learners which can still
include remediation at times. Doreen also checks for understanding with the GATE students and
will pull them with intervention groups, as well, if needed. She purposely keeps the groups
flexible as to attend to each student’s needs as she deems necessary. When asked what assisted
her in implementing the Depth and Complexity Prompts (Kaplan, 2007), Doreen replied,
A lot of my own observations. I can see that some of the students, especially our GATE
identified ones, they totally look like they're not engaged sometimes. They look like they
need more or their responses were totally different. I really felt that in a small group they
really need further discussion or something different or different questioning.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 175
From Doreen’s description, she utilizes many GATE instructional strategies including having
GATE students work together (Cross, 1997), evoking complexity, (Dooley, 1993; Kanevsky,
2011), questioning techniques to deepen and extend student thinking (Kaplan, 2007). She also
recognizes that her GATE learners have academic needs that are both remedial and beyond
compared to other students. She uses informal observations and student work to guide her
grouping decisions and she is cognizant of meeting the academic needs of her GATE leaners.
While Doreen differentiates her instructional delivery through the use of small group
instruction and the Depth and Complexity Prompts (Kaplan, 2007), Karen implements
differentiation for language arts through the use of leveled rubrics for both reading and writing.
The school implements both Reader’s and Writer’s Workshop. In these programs, content is
differentiated using leveled texts and multiple levels of rubrics. Karen shared four reading
rubrics from the program with me and described how she uses them to meet student need. Karen
stated,
I think the rubrics are my saving grace. Because no matter where my kid is, I have a
rubric all the way from 2nd grade up to 6th grade. So for my lowest kids I can bring them
up. And for my highest kids I'm giving them a whole year ahead.
There are leveled rubrics for both reading and writing. The students use the rubrics to self-assess
and determine their next learning goals. Figure E shows a reading rubric from a student’s reading
notebook. Karen teaches grade five and levels 3-6 can be seen in the rubric. The reading skills
correspond to grade level standards. Like Doreen, Karen must attend to a wide range of student
ability as discussed by Firmender et al. (2013). Moreover, her district identifies GATE students
based on seven different categories and students are often determined gifted in a specific subject
like language arts or math specifically, not necessarily both. That identification practice results in
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 176
GATE students performing on or above grade level in some subjects and potentially below grade
level in others. The Reader’s and Writer’s Workshop program, as adopted by the entire school
of heterogeneous GATE clusters, assists teachers by differentiating the content and giving
students access to multiple levels of curriculum.
Figure E
Leveled Reading Rubric
Rather than change the curriculum with different levels of texts or assignments, Marie
approaches differentiation for math by varying the complexity of her math lessons. Marie
described the use of “number sets” to assist her with differentiation for math. Marie shared a
number set document which was three pages of a math assignment. At first all three pages
looked identical. She explained that the problems are basically the same. However, she purposely
and selectively changes the numbers to create complexity and rigor to her assignments. When
discussing how she understands GATE students’ academic needs and Marie said,
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 177
Having to come up with ways to keep kids challenged. And having a range in the
classroom of kids who were still struggling because they might be really good in
language arts but not necessarily in math. I had to have multiple sets of numbers for
problems and then have another extension where more complexity was added in to keep
them interested.
Marie explained that she can meet the needs of multiple student ability ranges with the same
assignment and ensure all students are mastering the same skills. This can be beneficial if
teaching whole-group direct instruction or in ensuring that all students are receiving instruction
for all standards. Now as the site coordinator, Marie has shared this practice with her colleagues,
and Karen has also used this differentiation technique with her students.
While some teachers in this SMS focus their differentiation on instruction or content,
Gena adds an element of student choice and extension to her differentiation practices. Gena
reported that she does use flexible grouping more often now in the heterogeneous cluster
grouping model. She stated, “I do have my GATE kids working together quite often so that they
can bounce ideas off of each other.” But she noted that her groups are flexible based on student
need. Gena shared that to determine need she still uses compacting as a strategy and also
explained how her use of compacting has increased in her new SMS. She commented, “I've
gotten really good at compacting because my kids who are compacting out, they become a
group.” Gena clarified that this helps her create homogenous flexible groups which was an
instructional differentiation strategy Firmender et al. (2013) suggested to assist with instruct
students across wide ranges of reading abilities. Gena uses the compacting strategy most often in
mathematics. After the students “compact out,” as described by Reis and Renzulli (1992), she
provides students with enrichment pages from the district math program or an extension menu.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 178
Gena described a real-world math problem project she assigned to students who
compacted out during a math unit. Gena shared a blank student assignment of one such extension
project. Figure F is a picture of the blank assignment pages. The activity consisted of five pages
and had students focus on many aspects of planning a birthday party. The project activities
included questions to drive planning of the party, the usage of math skills to manage a budget,
and a reading passage with associated comprehension skills to have students think critically
about their planning choices. One of the pages was titled “Plan a Party Creative Extension
Ideas.” It listed 14 extension activities across all subjects to further extend the project and
connect ideas across the curriculum. The activities included creating a playlist, writing thank you
cards, creating an electronic slideshow of pictures from the party, or researching birthday
celebration practices around the world. This project incorporates many aspects of instruction for
GATE learners including offering student choice, providing real-world problems, making
connections across the curriculum, extension or enrichment of the curriculum, developing
creativity and opportunities for deep and critical thinking as discussed by Dooley (1993).
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 179
Figure F
Birthday Party Math Extension Assignment
Doreen implements the use of two additional means of ensuring her GATE students are
receiving suitable instruction which stem from the district’s GATE curriculum office.
Specifically, Doreen implements and promotes “Genius Hour” with her students and she must
compete a GATE report card for each of her GATE identified students. Figure G shows what the
additional page added onto the trimester progress reports for each GATE student. The
educational plan has four categories including student attributes, GATE content understanding,
subjects of differentiation instruction, and differentiated strategies/techniques implemented. In
the first two sections, Doreen must provide a grade. In the last two sections she checks which
subjects and which strategies she provided differentiation for that students. All of the strategies
were discussed in the literature review of this study.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 180
Figure G
District GATE Education Plan, Rocky Hill USD
The second unique strategy shared by both Doreen and Karen is the implementation of
“Genius Hour.” Doreen shared a copy of the student directions, assignment sheets, and parent
packet which totaled 34 pages. From this document, her implementation with her third graders is
on a similar level to a science fair project. Doreen gives her students a few months to complete
the independent study. She meets with her GATE learners weekly, “Mostly at recess or during
lunch as it’s hard to find time during the day.” She discusses the assignment with parents during
the first parent conference period and lays out the program and the expectations. The packet is
standard across the district and teachers of GATE students are encouraged to implement this
resource and program. When asked if could design any program for GATE, Karen described
Genius Hour. Karen’s description was a little different than Doreen’s implementation plan.
Karen stated,
Genius hour is a time where your GATE kids really get to go deep into any subject they
want. And you can have it be very informal or you can have it be more formalized. I've
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 181
tried both. So, you have 6 weeks to investigate whatever your topic is, what you're
responsible for is at the beginning, is to tell me what you're going be doing, and at the
end is to give me some product. And what you do in between is completely up to you.
But [the students] know that I'm going to be asking them about what they're doing. And
the end, it is their job to share that information with everybody else in this room. So that
they may become passionate about it. And at the next 6 week cycle if they want to delve
deeper into that, go ahead. But at the end of that 6 weeks, I'm still going to expect some
kind of product out of them.
Or, a more informal [way] where the kids just have this hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, whatever
you can give them, where they just delve deep into it and there's no accountability. Of
course I'm a product person, a task person, so I tend to go the 6 week route. But I've done
both and both have definitely benefited kids. You just have to watch out for your
underachievers because your underachievers are going to be like, ‘I don't have to do
anything in that open format’ That would be the definite program I would use and would
implement and I think would benefit all kids.
Essentially, Genius Hour is an independent study of a self-selected topic. Doreen was the only
participant to describe her implementation of structure independent study. While Karen did know
what it was, and did disclose that she had used it, Karen never mentioned independent study as a
type of differentiation she provides for her GATE students. Helen had recalled she had training
on independent study, but noted it prompted her to change how she conducts research projects
with all of her students, who are all GATE learners. Doreen’s usage is quite similar to Powers’
(2008) description of possible uses and advantages of implementing independent study with
gifted students. Helen may use different terminology because she assigns the project to all her
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 182
students and focuses more on offering student choice. On district created individual GATE
Educational Plan which Doreen completes three times a year, there is a section for Independent
Study. Moreover, Doreen (and Karen), have smaller quantities of GATE students and this
method of “independent” differentiation may be more warranted based on student need.
In heterogeneous cluster model classrooms, the teachers attend to a wide range of needs
which aligns with Firmender et al.’s (2013) findings that classrooms with gifted clusters have
wide ranges of student reading ability. All four participants from this SMS shared differentiation
practices supported by the literature. Moreover, all four participants disclosed that they must
attend to a range of academic needs and implement differentiation based on trying to meet
student need.
Perspectives. Five teacher participants who spoke about the heterogeneous cluster model
shared perceptions similar and dissimilar to the participants’ beliefs about the self-contained
GATE classroom SMS. Participants discussed challenges and advantages to having clusters of
GATE students in a heterogeneously mixed classroom. They also revealed their ideas about how
the class composition affects their instructional choices.
One aspect of the heterogeneous cluster model SMS is student abilities across the class
can be diverse and vary greatly. Doreen described the challenge of diverse ability ranges that she
faces while working in GATE clusters. When asked about the misunderstandings other
stakeholders have about GATE education, Doreen expressed that others think teaching GATE is
easier. In describing this misconception, she described the challenge of a wide student ability
range which is a direct result of the heterogeneous cluster grouping policy. Doreen stated,
Because they're not all GATE students, I have students reading at first grade. So I feel
like there's a huge challenge. They don't see that there's a challenge, how we have this
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 183
huge gap. Some of them are reading 7th grade material and some are struggling with 1st
grade Lexile level texts. I didn't even mention, there's EL levels across the board.
The wide range of reading ability in the classroom presents a challenge to instruction for
teachers. Doreen’s classroom aligns with Firmender et al.’s (2013) description of extremely
diverse set of reading levels and reading ability ranges for homogeneous and heterogeneous
classrooms. Doreen recognizes that her class is heterogeneously mixed which results in a wider
range of student ability than other teachers. And while she has readers performing far above
grade level, she also has students that struggle and read far below grade level. This wide range
does pose a challenge to the teachers who teach in this setting.
Because of the wide range of student abilities Sharon described how attention to
instruction and the ability to differentiate for a range of student abilities becomes crucial for
teachers in this SMS. When discussing how school form cluster classrooms, Sharon believed,
“more thought needs to be put into how GATE classrooms are grouped.” She believed students
should be spread out across the grade level. But she noted consideration should be made about
student placement according to teacher abilities. Sharon specified,
I don't believe in putting them all in one classroom, so I think spacing them out among
classrooms is good. But I think it definitely needs to be with a teacher who is able to
differentiate for them whether or not they have GATE certification or not, but one that is
truly committed to helping those students move and advance forward.
Sharon thought that GATE students should be placed into classrooms where the teacher is able to
differentiate for the GATE students and advance them forward. This should be regardless of if
the teacher has a GATE certificate. So while Sharon wouldn’t advocate for a self-contained
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 184
SMS, she also saw the challenges of heterogeneous grouping without the ability to appropriately
differentiate.
Even with the education and dedication to differentiating for GATE students that Sharon
spoke of, teaching in this setting can still be difficult. During Gena’s third interview specifically
about her challenges with heterogeneous cluster model, Gena candidly revealed some drawbacks
to clustering she has now discovered. Gena said bluntly, “Well, I don't feel like I'm meeting
everybody's needs.” She then went on to share, “Well, I just feel like I don't always get to my
higher students because I'm trying to get my lower students to get to some sort of mastering
something. It's been rough, I mean, honestly.” Gena expressed her frustration of having such a
diverse ability range in one classroom. Coming from three years of teaching a self-contained
GATE class, the new range of student ability was quite new for Gena. Moreover, before she
started teaching in the all-GATE classroom, she taught regular education in the same site. That
meant her general education class also had a smaller range of student ability. Although she had
been trained extensively to meet the needs of GATE students and provide appropriate learning
experiences for her GATE learners, she had realized how challenging that can be while also
trying to meet the needs of struggling learners.
Despite the challenges this SMS poses to instruction, participants believed this model
also offered advantages for the class as a whole. When asked if GATE education does a
disservice for non-identified students, Doreen did not believe that it did. She stated it was not
true for her class because non-identified students “get a lot” from the Depth and Complexity
prompts (Kaplan, 2007), class discussions, and exposure and opportunities for critical thinking.
Doreen explained, “I feel like they get so much from our discussion. From the use of the
prompts, even though I do differentiate, they have a lot of opportunity and they're exposed to
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 185
more critical thinking, for example.” She uses these instructional strategies with all her students,
not just the GATE students, and she perceived all students in her classroom benefiting from this
instruction. Even though the wide ability range poses a challenge, other students actually benefit
from that varied ability levels.
Gena communicated a similar stance. When first asked which SMS is best for GATE
students, Gena, who only had experience with self-contained GATE classrooms at the time
stated, “Self-contained, but that’s all I know.” Gena had stated during her initial two interviews
that she was curious how the cluster model setting would unfold in her class and if help the
achievement of non-identified students. She stated,
I feel like clustering is good if it really does raise the bar for the other kids. I'm really
hoping that that's what's going to happen this year, is that it'll raise the bar. I teach to the
high. I always have taught to the high. Not that I didn't just ignore my low kids. I still
work really hard to meet their needs, as well. But I feel like teaching to the high,
everybody's exposed. Everybody's hearing all of that great thinking, and realizing that
there's more than one way to come at a problem.
This statement shows that Gena was in agreement with Doreen’s instructional philosophy. The
non-GATE students may benefit from the thinking abilities and class discussions that they
participate in with GATE students. Gena further explained,
When I think about collaborative conversation, which is huge in my district. For kids that
aren't GATE to be able to listen to someone who is GATE and hear who they think. I'm
hoping that they see there are really unique ways of looking at things. Maybe that'll help
trigger them to go, ‘Oh, what about this? That makes me think of something interesting
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 186
and unique that maybe I didn't think of before.’ I'm just hoping it raises the bar for
everybody. Fingers crossed.
Before Gena even taught in a cluster setting, she began to think about how the class composition
could benefit other students. Her outlook about her teaching in a new SMS, which was not her
choice or decision, came across as optimistic and positive. Moreover, Gena recognized that there
may be advantages to a cluster classroom model.
Another advantage to clustering GATE learners disclosed by the participants was the
opportunity for GATE students to learn from each other. Teacher participants shared their
perceptions about clustering GATE students together. When discussing classroom composition
of her cluster groups over the years, Karen disclosed her beliefs about the quantity of GATE
learners in a cluster. She stated, “Some years I had about four [GATE students] because there
was only eight GATE kids [in the grade]. So, at that point, in my mind, it's better to keep those
eight together.” Therefore, depending on the total number of GATE students at the site and
grade, having multiple heterogeneous cluster classroom may not be the best choice. Karen
supposed that a larger cluster is better than a smaller cluster of GATE learners. Sharon had a
similar viewpoint. When asked what teachers need to meet the academic needs of their GATE
students, Sharron asserted, “Just being [together], which goes back to clustering. Being with
other peers who are GATE identified so they have someone that they can think with who is on a
like-minded wavelength with them. I think is really important.” Sharon’s perspective aligns with
Cross’s (1997) belief that GATE students should be provided with opportunities to learn from
one another and interact intellectually with each other. Looking at Sharon and Karen’s
viewpoints together, the participants’ thinking involves benefits of clustering in combination
with purposefully grouping. Specifically, they are in favor of clustering GATE students to meet
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 187
the needs of the GATE learners, but consideration for the grade as a whole should also be taken
into account. Creating three classrooms with four GATE learners may not be as beneficial as one
classroom with 12 GATE students. This scenario, balancing the number of GATE learners for a
cluster, was studied by Brulles and Winebrenner (2011) and Gentry and Owen (1999). Doreen
and Sharon’s perspectives highlight that cluster grouping may lead to complacency of
differentiation (Brulles & Winebrenner, 2011), Gentry and Owen (1999) posed that purposeful
grouping and program integrity can benefit all students in cluster model SMS.
Gena shared her viewpoint regarding the number of GATE students assigned to a GATE
cluster class. When asked about the difficulties to teaching in this heterogeneous cluster model,
Gena replied, “I just don't feel like I'm reaching everybody. And I do group them so that they're
kind of sponging off of each other. So I do have my GATE kids working together quite often so
that they can bounce ideas off of each other. But I just don't always feel like they're given enough
of them to do that. I wish I had like 18 of them so that there would be more flexibility within that
group.” Gena was in agreement with Karen. She, too, believed that a larger number of GATE
learners would help with instruction and still allow GATE students to benefit from working
together. Specifically, Gena chooses to group her GATE students together when possible to
allow them to share ideas and grow from each other, as Cross (1997) suggests. However, she
does not always group GATE learners together simply because they are identified GATE. As
previously discussed, Gena’s grouping decisions are based on student need and are flexible.
After teaching in the cluster setting for six months, Gena was able to reflect on her
previous statements regarding clustering GATE students and the implications for the class as a
whole. Gena had discovered some additional positive changes to her instructional practices
related to the cluster classroom. She stated, “But what I have gotten better at is differentiating for
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 188
their needs as far as like tier-ing assignments. So I've been doing a lot more tiered assignments
than I ever have.” While Gena had expressed frustration with differentiation due to the wider
range in student ability as previously discussed by Doreen, Gena was also able to see changes to
her instructional choices. In addition to improving her ability to create tiered assignments, Gena
also shared she utilizes curriculum compacting with all of her students, not just the GATE
learners. When discussing how her instructional practices have changed since teaching in a
cluster classroom, Gena noted, “And it's interesting because I've been opening up my compacting
to everyone in the class. And some of my kids who are compacting out, like for math, for
example, are not always my GATE students.” Before transitioning to the new SMS, Gena had
not been certain which GATE instructional practices she would continue to implement in the
cluster class. But compacting has been positive for all learners. She added, “So that's been really
interesting, because it's been that my high and average kids now are getting that [compacting].”
Although Gena predicted non-identified students may benefit from working with GATE learners,
she did not previously consider that non-identified students might also benefit from traditional
GATE instructional techniques like compacting. Moreover, compacting has provided her non-
GATE learners an opportunity to participate in enrichment and extension activities.
Gena was then asked for a second time if GATE education does a disservice to non-
identified students. Her response at first mirrored her initial response six months prior, but then
she did vary her thoughts from her first set of interviews. In her mixed response Gena stated,
I just disagree. I don't think it does a disservice. Although, I mean, now that I've been
doing this cluster model, I do see how being in a mixed environment has helped some of
my average and high [performing] kids. Like I said, now they've had that opportunity to
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 189
compact out. And so in that respect, I mean, I guess I would agree, because otherwise
they may not have ever had that opportunity.
While Gena recognized the benefits of a self-contained GATE classroom, she does see benefits
for non-identified students as well, and as the above quote demonstrates, she is conflicted but
open to changing her perspective. Specifically, she uses the compacting strategy with the entire
class and non-identified students are benefiting from that practice. Therefore, if those students
were in a classroom with a teacher not trained or not implementing the practice of compacting,
then those non-identified students would not be getting the best education for their needs.
But when asked if anything was easier for her or her GATE students in the cluster model
SMS, Gena frankly responded, “No.” Then when asked which SMS is most beneficial to GATE
learners, Gena answered, “I feel like, having done both, I really feel like having straight GATE
was better.” She clarified her response and added, “I think it was better for them [GATE
learners] to be in an environment with their like-minded peers, and I just think they got better
instruction.” She compared her current instructional practices to her previous three years in a
self-contained GATE classroom. “I was able to move at a faster pace, we were able to go a lot
deeper with things. I feel like as much as I've tried to go deeper with things, I've been very
surface-y this year.” While Gena had adapted her instructional practices to meet the changing
student need, she communicated the downside for GATE learners in an academically diverse
classroom. Specifically, she admitted the difficulty in providing complexity and deeper
enrichment for her GATE learners. Her varied perspectives indicate there may not be one
outlook to SMS. Specifically, the heterogeneous cluster model has both positive and negative
outcomes depending on which student population is prioritized or the purpose of the GATE
program and services overall.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 190
Overall, the perceptions shared by the teacher participants working in the heterogeneous
cluster model SMS were varied. Differentiation is more difficult for the teachers in this setting
than the self-contained GATE classroom SMS which aligns with Brulles and Winebrenner’s
(2011) findings that cluster grouping may lead to unsuccessful differentiation. However, the
school community and classroom as a whole may benefit from having diverse student
perspectives and learning opportunities due to shared thinking and discussion from students with
complex thinking and deep learning needs (GATE). Moreover, participants who displayed favor
for clustering students believed that a larger number of GATE learners is preferable to a smaller
group as it can help facilitate differentiation and condense the ability level span of students in the
class.
Homogenous Cluster Model
Setting description. Schools that implement this model place all the identified GATE
students in a current grade level in the same classroom with the same teacher. Some
consideration for the remaining portion of students is based on the number of GATE learners in
the cluster. Schools will often place other high achieving students in the class or try to make the
GATE cluster homogeneous in relation to student achievement. Implementing this SMS involves
the ratio of GATE students to total grade level population and total number of classes in the
grade level. Furthermore, classroom make-up also relates to district policies on class size.
In Suffield USD, these cluster classrooms are called “GATE/Excel.” High achieving
students at the same grade level are placed with all of the identified GATE students in the same
grade level. When teaching in this model in Suffield USD, Frances reported she had no students
with IEPs, no students with second language needs, nor any students with significant behavior
issues in her classroom was organized using this structure. Frances did discuss that her class had
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 191
the ability to move through content material at increased rates compared to other classes at her
grade level because the non-identified students where mostly high achieving students already
performing at or above grade level.
At Elizabeth’s school in Tolland USD, the GATE cluster classroom was described a little
differently according to student demographics than the homogeneous cluster classroom in
Suffield USD. Just as in Suffield USD, all identified GATE students in a given grade are
assigned to the same teacher. Moreover, other high-achieving or high-ability students are also
placed in the same classroom. However, unlike Rocky Hill USD, the district and school site do
not necessarily consider the group to be a faster-paced, accelerated classroom. In Elizabeth’s
school, these homogeneous cluster classrooms will have students with IEPs, specific behavior
needs, and potentially EL learners based on grade level needs and the teacher’s language
certification. Elizabeth stated the number of EL learners has in recent years been very minimal or
none based on how the district groups EL learners according to the district Master Plan for
English Language Learners. Specifically, Tolland USD is currently grouping all EL learners in
each grade into the same classroom. If a student is identified GATE but is also and EL learner,
the school site must place the child into an EL designated classroom before considering GATE
placement. A GATE EL learner can be placed in the GATE cluster classroom only if the parent
requests so formally in writing to the school site and explains why that placement will be more
beneficial than an ELL designated classroom. This portrays a district emphasis on EL students
and their needs over the potential GATE needs of the same students.
While Elizabeth noted she can sometimes cover instructional content faster than her
grade level peers due to the concentration GATE students, she does not always have that
opportunity. The number of GATE students in her class ranges from 6-20 each year in a class of
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 192
about 30 students. Additionally, she will get students with IEPs based on learning disabilities and
about 2-5 students with behavior needs each year. Usually the students with behavior needs are
Elizabeth’s GATE students. Furthermore, in Tolland USD, students can be identified GATE is a
single subject area like math or language arts. This means a student might display extreme gifts
and abilities in math, but not be considered GATE for language arts. The district identifies
students according to six different “identification categories” and Elizabeth usually sees four
different GATE identification types at her site: a) intellectual ability (based on the OLSAT-The
Otis-Lennon School Ability Test), b) high achievement ability (based on standardized test scores
and report card grades), c) specific academic ability for mathematics (based on standardized
mathematics scores), and d) specific academic ability for language arts (based on standardized
ELA scores). Elizabeth did share this document which describes all seven areas of GATE
identification for Tolland USD. Elizabeth commented that although she has a cluster of GATE
students each year, their needs vary drastically from student-to-student because their areas of
giftedness depict a range as well.
Instructional strategies/differentiation. Two teacher participants from two different
districts described current instructional practices in a homogenous cluster model setting. Table 6
displays these participants’ differentiation choices according to instruction, content,
process/assessment, and environment.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 193
Table 6
Differentiation Techniques by Method: Homogenous Cluster Model
Differentiation
Method
Elizabeth Frances
Instruction
Content
•pre-determined questions
•texts based on interest
•challenge in science by
doing in different order
•grouping consideration
•advanced problems
•enrichment from math program
Product/Assessment •choice of product or
presentation
•choice of topic
•menus
Environment •seating arrangements
•grouping
•face forward/teacher
•GATE visual aids
•students can move and sit where
comfortable
Frances implements many GATE strategies learned from her GATE credential through
her district. With a high number of GATE students, combined with high achieving non-identified
students, her class can move at a fast rate. This is similar to Helen and Gena’s reporting on the
acceleration of their self-contained GATE classes. She implements strategies to promote critical,
deep thinking supported in some GATE professional development like Think Like a
Disciplinarian, Scholarly Behaviors, Depth and Complexity Prompts (Kaplan, 2007), and
Thinking Maps (Hyerle, 2004). Frances shared 11 artifacts, nine of which displayed evidence of
promoting the activities with students she attained from her GATE knowledge professional
development. These artifacts included charts on the wall, lessons plans to promote extension
(Renzulli, 1986) and incorporate student choice and interest (Reis et al., 2011). The two images
on the top row of Figure H display two pictures of a two-sided homework extension sheet that
incorporates choices, multiple subject areas, the Depth and Complexity Prompts (Kaplan, 2007)
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 194
on the top. The bottom left picture in Figure H is of a student guide to help relate Depth and
Complexity Prompts (Kaplan, 2007). The bottom right picture is a student reference guide that
relates the Depth and Complexity Prompts (Kaplan, 2007) to Thinking Maps (Hyerle, 2004).
Figure H
GATE Instructional Materials
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 195
In addition to GATE strategies she learned through her profession development, Frances
is well versed in kinesthetic approaches to teaching. Frances described how she uses
differentiation to meet the needs of all her learners and stated, “It's important to meet the needs
of a kid's social, mental, teaching style. VAK is an enormous area that I think helps differentiate,
in addition to all the curriculum needs. Which is what most people focus on to differentiate.” She
stated VAK is, “Visual, auditory, kinesthetic.” Not only does she differentiate her curriculum,
she uses VAK to differentiate her instructional delivery model. She uses kinesthetic, auditory,
and physical (kinesthetic) techniques to engage all learners at their individual need. For example,
when teaching students to write a five sentence paragraph she has them say each sentence out
loud and hold up a finger for each. Each sentence has a category based on the type of writing
(topic sentence, cause/effect, text evidence, etc.) Then the child physically puts each finger
across their arm as they call out the type of sentence and rephrase their own words before they
write. By utilizing VAK techniques when teaching something, she is differentiating for each
child by accessing multiple modalities. Frances believes this benefits all of her students,
including the GATE learners. Kirschner and van Merriënboer (2013) believed that the theory of
learning styles and determining students’ learning styles was unsupported by research. Their
argument demonstrated that students cannot accurately determine their own learning style and
teachers should assess cognitive abilities rather than learning preferences to promote more
effective learning. Frances has been teaching for over 38 years and may not be knowledgeable
about this more current research. However, her implementation of VAK does not access the
learning preferences or styles of her elementary students, rather it provides instruction with the
intention of influencing many modalities, which she believed helps her students.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 196
In Frances’s “GATE/Excel” class, she also noted that she implements acceleration as
often as she can. She stated,
I try to accelerate everybody. I told you before everybody is gifted. I accelerate as
quickly as I can. As a teacher, you are not God. You do not get to dictate at what speed
kids master anything. What I do know is there has got to be massive practice cycles and I
don't care who it's for.
Along with VAP, Frances again reported her differentiation is intended to meet the needs of all
of her students. She stated “everybody is gifted” throughout her interviews and implements
differentiated curriculum, activities, and instructional choices aligned with GATE literature with
her entire class.
While Frances’s class contained a higher percentage of GATE learners coupled with
purposefully placed high achieving students, Elizabeth’s class make-up is more diverse than
Frances. She does not use acceleration as holistically as Frances because her class is more varied
in academic ability. The practice that differentiated Elizabeth from the other teacher participants
was purposeful, thoughtful reflection. Throughout her interviews, Elizabeth described many
instances that she engaged in reflection about her students, their needs, and what instructional
practices she could implement to meet her students’ needs. The word “reflect” was coded nine
times across her two interviews. Elizabeth shared, “I do a lot of journaling. So I'm constantly
reflecting on, ‘What did we do today? How well did it go? What do I need to do to change my
instruction for tomorrow?’” She did this often because she believed that is how she can best
serve all her students. That reflection guides her ability to differentiate for all her students. In her
follow up interview, Elizabeth was asked to give more details about how she differentiates to
meet the needs of her diverse learners, including her GATE students. She said,
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 197
Every year when I introduce the icons of depth and complexity at the beginning of the
school year because I believe that critical thinking skills, which is what those icons
represent, are imperative to good learning. I think that the more you can expose a child to
and push them toward the idea of critical thinking and thinking outside the box, and
looking at things from multiple points of view, it can do nothing but benefit them. So, as I
introduce those every year I've adjusted, and revamped, and tweaked my presentation of
those icons and how we work with them and what we use them for, so that every year I
feel like I'm honing my skills as a teacher, not just for gifted students but for all my
students.
Overall, Elizabeth focused on how she differentiates for all of her students. She implements
projects and presentation often. She offers students opportunities to present material or meet the
requirements of her assignments in different ways if needed for individual students. Davalos and
Griffin (1999) sound that gifted learners like individualization and challenge. Elizabeth provides
those opportunities for her students, regardless of GATE identification.
Perspectives. Frances believes that the GATE/Excel model is really beneficial to GATE
and high achieving students. When asked about which classroom setting is the most beneficial
for GATE students, Frances replied, “The most beneficial setting for GATE learners is to be with
other GATE children and with a qualified person in the front of the room.” Then when she asked
about her perceptions on the declining GATE population in her classes and what that means for
students, Frances said, “It is too difficult to meet the GATE child's needs.” Frances believed that
the amount of academic growth gained in a class grouping with higher numbers of GATE
students can be extensive. She gave an example of an extensive Weather Convention she held
with her highly populated GATE class one year:
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 198
The year before, I did a convention in the auditorium on weather. The kids designed their
own science experiments to show earthquakes, blizzards, weathering, and you name it.
They designed their own things. We videotaped these things. We put it into a slide-show.
We showed it in the auditorium. They had all these slides of information on top of it. And
they linked things to each other’s YouTube videos so we could see it in the world. It was
a convention, literally.
I could not do that the very next year. When you are meeting the needs you are
differentiating instruction for kids that are already very low. Those students need so much
direction, behavior monitoring, program, and differentiation that you are not
differentiating for three groups or four groups. You're differentiating for six to eight
groups.
When asked about the difference in numbers of GATE and high achieving classes in the second
year, Frances noted, “The group could be anywhere from two students to six to eight students in
a room of 35. It waters down the possibilities of where they might go with things. I'm sorry, it
does. That is my experience.” Like Gena, she has taught in highly accelerated GATE classrooms
with high percentages of GATE learners, and she has taught in GATE classes with lower
numbers of high achieving students and GATE students. This narrative may align with Assouline
et al.’s (2013) findings regarding how gifted students perceive their instruction. Assouline et al.
found that student believed they were being taught the same material, in the same manner and in
the same classrooms as their peers. While Frances did not describe what her students felt, she did
acknowledge that the composition of her class from year to year did affect how she was able to
provide services for her GATE students. As previously discussed, Gena also noted the change in
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 199
her instructional choices when she changed SMSs and had a smaller percentage of GATE
students in her classroom.
Elizabeth espoused similar beliefs to Frances. Elizabeth has experience with cluster
grouping, one class per grade. She has also had only 1-2 GATE learners on her roster before.
Additionally, Elizabeth has taught at a school that let her organize and teach afterschool pullout
programs and her own, self-created, after school GATE program. She also worked in situations
where GATE students were pulled out during the day for academic GATE instruction for subject
areas. Her district identifies GATE learners by subject area. She believes that the cluster model
can allow the teacher to group GATE students effectively by subject area talent so that she can
provide small group instruction based on student need. She also believes GATE clusters should
be taught by a teacher who has training and interest in challenging GATE learners. When asked
about her thoughts on cluster grouping, Elizabeth responded,
I can see reasons for having all of my students be with one teacher in a gifted cluster.
Hopefully with somebody who is certificated to teach it and is willing to go the extra
miles to teach it. Because you have to find ways to challenge each individual student
based on their talents and their struggles.
Like Frances, Elizabeth perceived GATE professional development necessary if you are working
with cluster GATE students. However, she conversely believed, “Kids that are not in the GATE
cluster don't necessarily, in my opinion, get the same opportunities.” Elizabeth added, “I can see
where clustering is beneficial. I can also see where it's detrimental.” This corroborates what
Frances described when she discussed the implementation of the Weather Convention. Other
students in the same grade at her site did not get those academic opportunities. Moreover, those
opportunities were not implemented with GATE learners when the student ability range widened
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 200
in her class compositions. Matthews et al. (2013) found that clustering GATE learners is not
tracking and that clustered GATE learners have high achievement than non-clustered GATE
students. However Elizabeth displayed concern for students not in the cluster which may imply
she has never received any professional development regarding the benefits of clustering for
GATE students.
Beverly sometimes has larger numbers of GATE students in her class. She described that
one year she noticed an attitude of superiority the GATE students expressed because they were
in the “known gifted cluster.” Being the only class of 3-5 classes with GATE learners, the
students ascertain that one class is designated as a GATE classroom (even though the number of
GATE learners is less than 50% of the class). Although she works with her GATE students to
combat that sense of elitism, she said she typically sees this behavior from her GATE learners.
The teacher participants who teach in the homogenous cluster model SMS conveyed concerns
for of equity of education across their student populations. Although the literature review shared
Matthews et al.’s (2013) findings that did conclude ability grouping does not harm general
education students’ academic outcomes, public perception of equity might not align with current
research in the field of GATE education.
1-3 GATE Students
Setting description. Sometimes teachers have only a few GATE students in their
classroom. I am categorizing this SMS as 1-3 GATE students per class and findings from this
study suggest that school sites that have low numbers of identified GATE students throughout
the school or within a given grade level cannot group students in any other manner. Sometimes a
school will put all two or three GATE learners in the same classroom or the school may spread
out the GATE students. The teacher participants shared that the school sites do not necessarily
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 201
group all of the GATE students in a given grade together. Anne, Sharon, and Beverly all
mentioned that there were other GATE students in the school in the same grade level in the same
year when they also had 1-3 GATE students in their classrooms.
Anne has one GATE student in a sixth grade class of 21 students. Four students have
IEPs and 14 students are EL learners. The ability range of her students is high, medium, and low,
but the class primarily consists of struggling students. Anne believes the two sixth grade classes
were organized to create two heterogeneous groups with attention to gender, student behavior,
and student interactions. Anne also shared she was not sure how teachers were assigned to
classrooms with GATE learners, and she stated, “I am not sure why the one GATE student in
this grade was put in my class,” as she had no experience teaching GATE students before.
Sharon works at school with a GATE population similar to Anne’s. Sharon currently
works in an elementary school with an extremely low population of GATE students. She
estimated about 6 of 250 students are currently identified as GATE learners at her site. She stated
that no thought is put into how GATE students placed into classrooms. Sharon added, “I'm not
even sure if the students themselves know they're GATE identified.” Because the numbers of
GATE students are so low, there is little emphasis from the school community on GATE
education. If students are not aware that they have been identified as a GATE learner, no adults
in those students’ lives are sharing that information with them or explaining what it means.
Beverly is another educator who often has only a few GATE learners in her class each year.
Beverly has two GATE students, one student with an IEP, one student with significant behavior
needs who had been tested for GATE, and no EL learners. Beverly’s class consisted of students
with a range of abilities and academic outcomes. Her school places most identified GATE
students in Beverly’s third grade classroom.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 202
GATE identification affects the student composition in Beverly’s classroom. In Beverly’s
school, the number of identified GATE students at the beginning of grade three typically ranges
from 1-4 students, and those students are usually put with the same teacher, Beverly. The school
site puts other advanced learners or students with the potential to be identified as GATE into her
classroom with the other 1-3 GATE learners. Therefore, the number of GATE students in her
class often changes throughout the year as more students are identified from the various
identification categories. Beverly started the school year with two GATE learners, but she is in
the process of submitting identification paperwork to Tolland USD to potentially identify 2-4
more GATE learners. Beverly takes an active role in GATE identification and explained, “I have
one pending to submit paperwork for her. Another one [student] just got tested last month for
GATE identification. And I have another student who we have to submit paperwork for.” By the
end of each year, the numbers of GATE students often increases to 3-5. This practice is repeated
each year. Beverly says usually more students become identified in the beginning of 4
th
grade
after they leave her class. As more students are identified each year, the school continues to
cluster the GATE learners and keep them in the same class each year. The school also groups
other high achieving students with the GATE cluster in grades 3-5 as described by Elizabeth
previously in the homogenous cluster model section.
This school site does review the district policies on how GATE students are grouped into
classrooms. According to Tolland USD’s GATE programming website, the district has four
different clustering models for neighborhood elementary schools and three specific whole-school
programing options for GATE learners. However, the district’s “Cluster Model IV” describes
that school sites may determine how to utilize GATE clusters based on site-specific needs. Upon
analyzing the different programing options, the site utilizes the option to determine programming
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 203
and SMS based on student numbers and site related factors. To that extent, GATE classrooms at
earlier grade levels, like Beverly’s third grade, often embody the 1-3 GATE student SMS. But as
more students are identified GATE over the years, the school then implements the homogenous
cluster SMS.
Although Beverly’s school does intend to cluster GATE students, it does not always
happen at Beverly’s grade level. This year Beverly’s classroom demographics of GATE students
changed slightly from previous years due to an expanding dual-language program at the school
site. Two students in the dual-language program were identified as GATE learners at the end of
second grade. However, the students were kept in the dual-language program rather than
transitioning them into the general education classroom and placing them with the mini-GATE
cluster. When asked if there were any third grade GATE students in other classes, Beverly said,
Yes, every teacher has maybe one or two depending. Some of them are in the dual
language program. But every year there's always at least one or two besides my class that
are in other classrooms. Whether it's because they chose to be placed in that class or they
were identified after [the beginning of the year] by the teacher.
Beverly was not completely aware of why other GATE students were not in her class. She noted
that some GATE learners may be in the dual-language program, or were not yet identified at the
previous year when classes were formed, or potentially parent choice. Therefore, Beverly teaches
in a classroom of 1-3 GATE students, which the school site considers a cluster classroom.
Moreover, GATE identification is not necessarily the primary focus when placing students into
classrooms and parents do not always prioritize GATE services for their children. Beverly’s site
does have more GATE learners and the SMSs are adjusted each year based on GATE population
and parent input.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 204
So while Beverly has a limited number of GATE students, the school does purposely
group the GATE learners together. This grouping is unlike Anne and Sharon’s school sites. Both
Anne and Sharon’s school sites have far fewer GATE learners overall than Beverly’s school.
Also Anne and Sharon’s school sites do not make classroom placement choices purposely for
clustering GATE students.
Instructional strategies/differentiation. Two teacher participants from two different
districts illustrated their instructional practices for limited numbers of GATE learners. Anne and
Beverly teach in the classroom and must differentiate their instruction to meet the academic
needs of only one or two GATE students. Table 7 identifies the differentiation choices Anne and
Beverly implement according to differentiation method.
Table 7
Differentiation Techniques by Method: 1-3 Gate Students
Differentiation Method Anne Beverly
Instruction
Content
•groups
•technology for research
to then share out to class
•(none given)
•types of questions
•students explain thinking
Product/Assessment •rubrics with different
points
•requirements and
expectations
•makes explain why and how you
know, higher expectation from
GATE
Environment •choose seat
•after school GATE class
•grouping
•seating/standing flexibility
When discussing differentiation practices, both participants said they utilize flexible
grouping to meet the needs of their GATE learners. Additionally, both participants also revealed
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 205
that they use varied levels of scaffolding, or lack of scaffolding, to differentiate for their GATE
students.
Anne is judicious about the types of GATE instruction and curriculum to assign her only
GATE learner. She is cautious about giving singular work. If she were to attend GATE training
in the future, she may consider training on implementing independent study. If she could learn
how to approach a program like Genius Hour, as described and shared by Doreen, she may be
able to do both. She may also consider implementing a program like that will her entire class and
differentiation the tasks or instruction delivery to meet the needs of all her learners at the same
time. Anne shared 22 lesson plans with me which all focused on differentiating outcomes or
rigor for her learners. While none of the lesson plans included specific notations for her GATE
student, they do display evidence of careful planning and consideration.
Beverly uses varied questioning and strategies to differentiation instruction for her GATE
learners. She described how she utilizes this instructional method with students:
If I have student A and then student B. Student A is gifted, student B isn't. I just
know that a certain question, that the way I present it, Student A will understand. I
don't have to break it down a different way. They'll understand almost instantly
what I'm trying to ask, and they'll analyze it or give me an answer. Versus person
B, I would have to explain it a different way to them or ask them in a different
way so they can understand. The same level of thinking, but in a different way.
Beverly noted that she gets to know her students so she can automatically know which questions
to ask which students. She added, “You know what kids are going to answer to what, respond to
what questions, and others, the type of question they can respond to more successfully.”
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 206
Based on the participants’ descriptions of their instructional choices, a teacher in this
SMS may want to be cognizant of Assouline et al.’s (2013) conclusion that the majority of
students in their study reported being taught the same material, in the same manner and in the
same classrooms as their peers. With such low numbers of GATE learners, teachers may
consider being overt with their differentiation choices to ensure GATE learners perceive their
academic needs are being met.
Perspectives. Two participants shared their perspectives about classrooms with only 1-3
GATE students. While Anne and Beverly both self-reported limited education regarding GATE
students and GATE instructional practices, they revealed a desire to meet the needs of their
GATE learners.
Anne supported the idea of more grouping for GATE students. In Anne’s class,
she has only one GATE learner and most of her students are performing below grade
level. When asked what she thought about the setting for her students, Anne stated that
because the student ability range in her classroom is very significant, it does not seem fair
to both her higher achieving and lower performing students. When discussing SMS, Anne
described the following:
I feel like a lot of my students are low. So, I feel like it's not really very fair on either the
kids that are low or the kids that are high. Then the poor ones in the middle just seem to
get overlooked in every which way. Because you're trying to get these guys and pull them
along with you and then sometimes you forget to like push the higher students to achieve
more. So the little ones in the middle kind of just get somewhat lost in the shuffle a little
bit.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 207
I would prefer if maybe all the higher kids go to one class and the lower kids go into
another class. Then there's not much of a spread so the teacher can really focus. But it
doesn't seem to happen that way. I have a kid in here who is reading at first grade level.
And then I have ones that are really advanced that are more than capable of more. How
do I catch everybody? So it's a juggling act from day to day I find.
Anne admitted candidly that she has no specific training on GATE education (as shown
previously in Table 1) or significant training on differentiation. She is also the newest teacher to
the profession with three years in the classroom. However, as a sixth grade teacher, she reported
the widest range of student reading ability. While Firmender et al. (2013) found similar ranges in
student reading ability, Anne may not know how to provide differentiated instruction to support
all of her students.
Anne spoke about the challenges of differentiating for just one GATE learner. She has a
small grade level team of two teachers and they plan together. But at no time does she and her
colleague specifically plan for the instruction of the small number of GATE students (1-3) in
their grade level. When asked what helps teachers meet the needs of their GATE students, Anne
replied, “Time for planning, especially since the numbers of GATE students are so low.” She not
only recognized that planning for a diverse student need is difficult, she knew that to become
more effective she needs more time.
Along with challenges to instructional planning and differentiation, classrooms or schools
with low numbers of GATE students face challenges in meeting the academic needs of their
GATE learners. Anne also believes that GATE students may not be getting equity in their own
education. She stated,
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 208
I feel they're being underserviced at the minute. I know funding gets cut, and education
just gets cut, and cut, and cut, and so they're, again, kind of lumped in. I know they used
to have GATE classes, where all the GATE students would go to those classes. And they
kind of do it once a week. But they talk all the time about equity and making sure
everyone has access to the education that they deserve and reaching their potential. But it
always seems to be more focused on those that aren't at standard. But they're not looking
at the students that are gifted and talented, and need to be challenged in other ways.
Anne believes GATE students are being underserviced because they have academic needs that
she believes are not a focus of her district. She perceives that education is currently focused on
lowest performing students, those who “aren’t at standard.” She has not received training for
GATE education (as depicted in Table 1) and is very removed from after-school programs for
GATE learners. Moreover, she has stated that she needs more time for planning and
understanding how to differentiate for her GATE student. Since the organizational focus, funding
priorities, and professional development opportunities are focused on meeting the needs of
struggling students, Anne perceived that teachers of GATE students must work on their own to
meet the needs of their GATE learners.
Furthermore, Sharon spoke about a drawback of a small GATE population within one
school site. Larger numbers of GATE students often result in more attention or services. And
conversely, low numbers of GATE students can result in limited services. Sharon said, “Where
there are larger numbers, there will tend to be more action taken to support those students,
whereas right now the numbers are so low, you tend to forget them, to be honest.” She also
perceives that low numbers of GATE students in a school or classroom can result in losing sight
of the academic needs of the GATE students by the administration and/or teachers. Moreover,
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 209
like Anne, Sharon believes the needs of GATE students are being “forgotten” due to a school-
wide or district-wide focus on lower performing students. Sharon cautioned,
If we don't service these students, we’re going to lose them in the shuffle. We tend to
really focus more on our low-performing students who are struggling. Most definitely, we
need to dedicate time and resources to that, but we also have to really nurture the
brightest, these talents that they have or else they’ll just get lost in the shuffle.
She understands that GATE students need their talents nurtured and honed or we as educators
risk failing these students. As previously discussed, there is no accountability for teachers to get
any GATE training nor do administrators consider if teachers have GATE certificate when
placing students. And similar to Anne’s perceptions, the low-performing students receive more
attention from the administrator and district. Sharon believed that the GATE students may get
“lost in the shuffle” or overlooked. Sharon thought the loss of focus may be potentially due to
lower accountability based on a smaller number of parents. She reasoned that if there are less
GATE parents at a school site, there could be decreased education about GATE services for
parents and less parent involvement in GATE programing. She noted, “When the parents’ voices
speak up, people tend to listen more, as well.” With diminished accountability coming from the
parents, the administration can lose focus, at the school level, on meeting GATE students’
academic needs and ensuring GATE services are implemented appropriately.
Another telling sign of the perceived difficulties of this SMS is Anne’s response to the
question about the best way to meet the academic needs of GATE students. To that question,
Anne simply responded, “A GATE classroom.” This speaks to the challenges teachers face when
they must meet the needs of such a small number of diverse learners. The unequal ways that
GATE students are provided services as Sharon described about the GATE population being
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 210
forgotten can be understood from this statement. Anne believed that grouping GATE
learners together is a better way to meet their academic needs because of her personal
struggles with differentiating for her student and lack of time to plan for such extensive
differentiation.
Pullout
Setting description. No participants in this study are employed as a full-time, pullout
GATE teacher. However, five participants (Anne, Beverly, Sharon, Elizabeth, and Karen) have
worked with GATE students in a pullout capacity or spoke about a pullout program offered at
their school sites for GATE students currently or in previous years. Participants from multiple
service model settings described the pullout programs as an additional GATE service provided
for their students by their school sites. Interview data described the programs and services for
GATE learners that fall into the categories of: (a) supplemental instruction during the day, (b)
afterschool programs, and (c) field trips for GATE learners.
Supplemental instruction during the day. Teachers who currently serve as GATE
coordinators provided evidence for this GATE service. As they are not assigned a classroom of
students, their out-of-classroom role allows them to work with GATE students during school
hours. Sharon described pulling GATE students out of the classroom a few times a year. She
designed curriculum and activities for GATE instruction. She would meet with GATE learners
from multiple classrooms to explain the long-term projects and activities the students would
complete. After the lessons/projects were explained to GATE students, they were expected to
finish them on their own with classroom teacher support. Sharon then gave the curriculum and
project directions to the teachers and supported the general education teachers in assisting the
GATE students to complete the advanced level projects.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 211
Marie also works as a GATE coordinator for her school site. In that role she supports
teachers with GATE instruction and curriculum. She taught in the heterogeneous cluster model
SMS for six years before transitioning to the coordinator role. However based on school and
classroom need, she can support classroom teachers with pull-out instruction. Her school site
implements the heterogeneous cluster model SMS, and in second grade there is still a minimal
amount of identified GATE learners. Marie described working with a group of advanced second
graders in math. She taught math to the group of second graders for most of the school year. In
this setting she was able to provide advanced level math instruction to the learners who were
ready and who were beyond the scope of their regular classrooms. This also allowed the
classroom teacher to focus her math instruction on a small range of student ability.
Afterschool programs. Five teacher participants spoke about afterschool programs
currently being offered to GATE students or programs that were offered to GATE learners in the
past. Anne mentioned that her school offered an afterschool program of all the GATE learners at
the site. It was run by an outside, off campus program. No school-site teachers taught the
program or were involved in its implementation. Only the designated GATE coordinator was
involved with implementation. Although Anne mentioned this program’s existence multiple
times in both interviews as a service for GATE learners, she was unable to share much about the
program. Anne believed it was designed to provide extension activities and/or enrichment for
GATE learners. She said it was the only clear service provided to GATE learners from the
district.
A similar afterschool program to the one described by Anne is offered in Wallingford
USD. Sharon briefly discussed the district’s “innovation club” which is offered at all school sites
with GATE students. Sharon stated that innovation club,
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 212
Is like a science club. Anytime you have a school that has a GATE population, even
though it's as minimal as the number of students at my school, you are assigned a
certificated teacher to teach the innovation club. It's open to say 20-some students, but
priority goes to GATE students.
Sharon’s role of GATE coordinator includes making sure GATE families are aware of the
opportunity to participate in this GATE service. Like in Portland USD, the program is organized,
implemented, and paid for by the district and implemented at multiple sites.
In Tolland USD, some schools create their own afterschool programs to provide services
for GATE learners. The possibility of this program option was stated on the district’s GATE
programing website. Although currently not at the same school site, Elizabeth and Karen
previously worked together at a different site. Their previous school provided afterschool
instruction for GATE students prior to 2005. During that time, the school did not purposely
cluster GATE learners. Instead, the service provided for GATE students was an after school
extension program. Elizabeth stated this was the “only GATE instruction” provided for GATE
learners at the school site. Each year school would ask teachers who had interest in working with
GATE learners to teach an after school class, one day a week for 4-5 weeks. Teachers were not
paid to stay after school to teach these classes. Five teachers were involved, and each teacher
focused on a different content area. The subjects included art, finance, and aerospace research
and were determined by the teacher. The program was optional and free for GATE learners and
required parent permission. Elizabeth believed student turn out related to student interest in the
specific topic being addressed by that teacher. Some “topics” had higher turnout than others,
although teachers tried to choose topics students would enjoy. Karen stated the program
enrollment fluctuated and eventually the school site discontinued the program.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 213
While the school-run program no longer exists, a similar afterschool GATE program was
described by Elizabeth and Beverly. At her current site, Elizabeth created her own after school
program to create challenge for her GATE students who learned in a cluster setting. This after
school program was available to any students in the school, grades 2-4, who were identified
GATE. Typically, second graders are identified at the end of second grade in their school, so
very few second grade students attended each year. Her program was voluntary for GATE
students. Elizabeth was not paid for her time after school and was given a nominal amount of
“about $50” from the school’s budget for supplies. The class offered studies outside and beyond
grade level curriculum and standards. During Beverly’s interview she stated that Elizabeth
provides after school instruction for GATE students and noted her students, “Liked it,” because
they felt challenged working with other GATE students.
Elizabeth described the project from last year’s program. The curriculum focused on
bridge building and construction. Students engaged in research, questioning/inquiry, drawing and
design, load bearing testing, and constructing their design. The group consisted of 3-5
th
graders,
was evenly mixed by gender, and had a positive turn out each week. Elizabeth attributed the high
attendance rate to student interest in learning about topics not covered directly in the regular
school curriculum. Moreover, this program displays Elizabeth’s growth and learning in her own
understanding of GATE needs through her ability to choose topics that address student interest.
She has previously shared that the 2003-2005 program had low attendance when students were
not interested in the topics offered and subsequently ensured she chose curricular content of high
student interest. Unlike the afterschool model from 2003-2005 previously discussed and the
programs at Anne and Sharon’s schools, Elizabeth runs this program by herself. The school site
administration is relatively uninvolved and the district has no involvement at all.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 214
Field trips for GATE students. Two schools provide enrichment services specifically for
GATE learners in the form of field trips for GATE students. Sharon connected her work of
pulling out GATE students for specialized projects with field trip experiences designed for the
GATE students. At her previous site which had a large number of GATE students, she was
responsible for organizing the field trips. She described the program and said, “I would be in
charge of organizing the field trips for the GATE students. Organizing the pre and post lessons,”
She would give the GATE students pre and post trip lessons about the field trips she organized.
Sharon added, “We used to take them to you know all the museums like the Getty, the Natural
History museum, or the science museums. Anywhere that offered interesting learning
opportunities.” The school site would fund the buses for the trips and parents would pay for any
admission prices needed. This service was provided to GATE students at a school with many
identified GATE learners that implemented a clustering model.
The school site that Elizabeth and Beverly work uses its limited GATE funds to offer a
field trip for all identified GATE students each spring. Therefore, about 40 GATE students from
grades 2-5 go on a field trip each spring. The trip is always to a local university or college and is
intended to promote a desire to attend university and inspire life-long learning. Both Elizabeth
and Beverly have led this trip for the students and school site before. The purpose is to expose
the GATE students to university campuses in the hopes of inspiring their continued academic
growth.
Instructional strategies/differentiation. Three teacher participants spoke to current
instructional practices in a pullout setting. Elizabeth teaches a free, optional afterschool GATE
class for any of the third through fifth grade GATE students at her site. Marie supports math
instruction for a small group of GATE second graders who are beyond their class in
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 215
mathematics. Sharon provides pullout instruction and lessons for the small number of GATE
learners of various grade levels at her site. While pull out classes are not a common role that
teacher participants of this study have as their primary job function, this study found evidence of
instructional choices and differentiation for GATE learners in this setting. All three of the
teacher participants perform these pullout instructional methods to provide challenge for GATE
students above what the regular classroom teacher delivers.
Elizabeth described the after school GATE program she runs each year. She said, “It
challenges them in ways that they can't possibly be challenged in the classroom, because there
just isn't enough time.” As a cluster teacher, she recognized it was difficult to provide enough
challenge for her GATE learns. So Elizabeth started her own program at her current site to offer
challenging activities for any GATE learners who wanted to participate. Elizabeth described the
unit she taught about engineering and design:
They studied, designed and built bridges. They had to do some research. So there was
reading involved and technical language. They had to do some drawing to design what
their bridge was going to look like. They had to understand structural makeup and weight
bearing load and that kind of thing. They had to look into that and be able to explain to
me why they were building it the way they were and why they were using the materials
they were using. Then they were given the materials to the best of my ability to provide
those materials. They actually built mini models of bridges. Then they tested each other’s
bridges out using washers, and coins, and stuff like that.
Elizabeth described the program as “optional” for “third, fourth and fifth graders.” The program
is designed to provide challenge, tap into student interest, and offer opportunities for student
collaboration amongst GATE learners.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 216
Just as Elizabeth’s afterschool program is designed to provide rigor and complexity for
GATE learners, Marie makes instructional choices for her pullout math class to create challenge
for her GATE students. Marie shared math lessons she created for her advanced second grade
math group. She discussed how she focuses on student interest to engage learners in real world
problem solving. One such document she shared included baseball statistics and word problems
that required multiple steps and critical thinking applications. Marie explained, “Last year I had a
boy who was very into baseball. I thought, let me use the stance of all the teams, he's a Cubs fan.
We did graphing with the American league teams and the national league teams.” By working
with a small number of students each day, Marie can really get to know her students and learn
how to motivate them. Marie added, “Trying to use problems that relate to things that the kids
are interested in usually helps.” Just as Elizabeth took student interests into account when
determining content and curriculum, Marie uses student interest to motivate her GATE learns to
extend their thinking and work beyond what was already easy for them.
In a similar GATE coordinator position to Marie, Sharon tries to support classroom
instruction for the small number of GATE learners at her site. She said, “I give them some sort of
challenge myself when I notice that the teacher isn't doing it. And because that seems to happen
a lot, and the numbers are small here, I can do that.” There are only about 6-7 GATE students in
total at Sharon’s current site. Because the students come from different classrooms and grade
levels, Sharon will pull them out of class together for supplemental challenge and enrichment.
She explained,
I would organize all the activities, and I would give [the lesson plans] to the teachers. I
would always have a meeting with all the GATE students, tell them what it meant to be
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 217
GATE, and why they were going to be given a certain curriculum so that they were aware
all of their participation in it.
Sharon described the activities as small projects of independent study similar to Powers’s (2008)
use of independent study for gifted students. Sharon assigned the work to the students and
followed up with them during additional pullout meetings. Her intent was to provide challenging
opportunities and differentiation that was not provided by the general education teacher. All
three participants work in a pullout capacity with the intent of meeting the academic needs of
GATE students at their respective school sites across grade levels and complete this instruction
in addition to their assigned duties.
Perspectives. Teachers’ perspectives regarding the pull out SMS varied. Two teachers
spoke favorably about the concept of a pullout resource teacher. Three participants shared their
viewpoints on afterschool programming for GATE students. Additionally, one participant
expressed concern about the equity of specialized programs provided only for GATE students.
While Helen does not currently teach in a pullout setting, she did see the benefit to
having a teacher on site to specifically teacher GATE learners. When asked if she could design
any program for GATE education, Helen stated,
It would be great if at each site, maybe not each site but sites like ours that have a big
population of gifted students, that there's a resource teacher for them. The model is going
to be [at this school] where they [the GATE students] are all split up in all the classes. So
just like the RSP kids are getting pulled out to get their needs met, how can we develop
some sort of pull out? I know they used to have them because my mother-in-law did it
back in the 70s in LA. They would pull those kids out.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 218
While Helen does not have any personal experience with GATE resource teachers, she does have
the largest number of GATE students in this study. She also consistently has the largest
percentage and number of GATE learners each year compared to the other participants in this
study. Her school site is transitioning to the heterogeneous cluster model setting because the
numbers of GATE students per grade exceeds a full classroom. Helen expressed her concern for
the potential diminishing effectiveness of a self-contained SMS and believed a GATE resource
teacher could be an option to assist sites with high numbers of GATE students in meeting the
academic needs of their GATE learner.
Karen also had a similar perspective to Helen regarding additional instructional support
for GATE learners. When asked which SMS is most beneficial for GATE learners Karen gave
two models for her response. One of the models she favored was a pull out model. Karen
explained,
I would say the RSP model where they're implementing genius hour in that RSP model.
And there are opportunities for them to do all content areas in that RSP model. So, maybe
we do four weeks of math, we do four weeks of science, we do four weeks of social
studies so that the kids understand that ‘you're not just smart as a mathematician, you're
not just smart as a reader. But we're going to develop you as a whole.’
Karen’s idea included using a pull out teacher for enrichment in all content areas. Unlike Helen’s
approach to a pull out teacher which is to support teachers due to a changing program, Karen
thought about a pull out teacher as an additional GATE resource to further support GATE
instruction. Both Karen and Helen saw a pull out teacher as a potential asset to GATE instruction
and positive outcomes for GATE students.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 219
While Karen and Helen spoke to the benefits of a potential pullout program, Beverly
shared her perspectives on the current afterschool GATE program at her site. Beverly teaches at
the same site as Elizabeth and mentioned Elizabeth’s afterschool program. Beverly supported the
program and spoke of promoting the program for her GATE learners. About Elizabeth’s
afterschool program, Beverly stated, “They look forward to it. The kids look forward to being
challenged. Not that they weren't challenged in the classroom, but there was a whole group
where they were all challenged at the same time and they liked it.” Beverly saw this program as
an opportunity for the GATE students across the school to interact and receive instruction that is
atypically from the daily routines of the general education classroom. Beverly added, “I think if
the school can provide a program like that for the kids there's nothing wrong with it. At our
school, I don't think we've ever had a whole group cluster, an entire class of gifted GATE
students.” Not only did Beverly support student attendance, she also saw a benefit to her GATE
learners. She recognizes that the GATE students benefit from working and learning together
which Cross (1997) advocated for to support gifted learners. While the school does not have self-
contained GATE classes, Beverly supported the afterschool program which provides all GATE
instruction which challenges her students.
Like Beverly, Sharon supported afterschool programs for GATE students and encouraged
parents and students to participate. Sharon stated, “When those opportunities like innovation club
or things like that come up, where it's really targeted towards GATE students, I really just make
sure that they’re aware of it.” Sharon encouraged the idea of afterschool clubs or programs
because they can provide challenge for GATE students.
However, Sharon did not express the same support for the field trip program she used to
organize at her previous site. Regarding the GATE field trips, Sharon said,
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 220
After that whole fiasco, it’s like it has to be done in the classroom. It has to be taken care
of in the classroom. Yes, it's another thing for a teacher to take care of, but otherwise, the
way I was doing it, the way that I was being pushed to do it, it was wasn't fair. It gave the
GATE kids a sense of entitlement and it just wasn't right.
Sharon believed that differentiation and GATE instruction needs to be provided in the classroom
by the general education teacher. She thought that having a program specifically for GATE
students was unfair to non-identified students. Furthermore, Sharon further shared concerns
about equity and said, “It caused huge problems because the students who were not [identified]
GATE were really hurt that they couldn’t go on these special trips. I've been wanting to toss out
that whole idea out the window because of that disparity.” While Sharon endorsed the
afterschool innovation club, she did not agree with the reasoning behind the GATE-only field
trips. Since the innovation club was help after school it was optional for students. The school
funded and developed field trips took place during the school day and were only for identified
GATE learners. Non-identified students were excluded from participating. She saw the
detrimental effect it had on the remaining school population and felt the trips were unfair. When
asked about the advantages or disadvantages of the different SMSs, Sharon noted, “A
disadvantage of the [setting] where I said I pull them out was that it was very exclusionary. I felt
it was very exclusionary.” While Sharon is a participant who has experience with three SMS
models, heterogeneous cluster, 1-3 GATE students, and various pullout programs, her
understanding of multiple SMSs offer a distinct perspective. The participant perspectives
regarding pullout activities for GATE students highlight both needs and concerns for GATE
education. Specifically, these activities can offer opportunities that the classroom teacher or SMS
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 221
may be unable to provide. However, these opportunities must be implemented with care in
respect to equity for all students.
Summary of Service Model Settings
The SMSs described by the 10 participants offer understanding about how schools choose
to place GATE students into classrooms and their districts’ policies involving GATE services.
These descriptions are intended to show what these classrooms look like demographically,
challenges the teachers in these classroom may face, and provide a context for the instructional
choices these GATE teachers make on a daily basis. An overall finding in this study is that
teachers take the knowledge they have gained from professional learning experiences related to
GATE education and apply it to their specific students and the needs of their GATE learners with
integrity and commitment to all of their students, regardless of GATE identification.
Additionally, teachers of classrooms with a higher percentage of GATE learners typically
implemented more GATE instructional strategies while teachers in classrooms with lower
percentages of GATE students had to rely more on differentiation practices to meet the needs of
their GATE learners. Moreover, teachers with the fewest numbers of GATE learners expressed
more insecurity about not meeting the academic needs of their GATE students than teachers with
higher number of GATE students.
Teacher Knowledge and Implementation of GATE Services
While instructional choices varied from setting to setting, there were overarching themes
found in this study related to the implementation of GATE services that did not correspond
specifically to SMS. Themes regarding how teacher participants think about and implement
services for their GATE students emerged in the areas of understanding of GATE academic
needs, determining academic needs, and definitions of giftedness. The findings in this section
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 222
will include what teachers do, how they think, and their perspectives on those choices,
irrespective of SMS.
Academic Needs
This study asked both open-ended questions and topic specific questions about the
academic needs of GATE students. Follow-up questions regarding what teachers do to meet the
academic needs they identified were also asked. Table 8 depicts participants’ responses to the
open-ended question, “what are the academic needs of GATE learners?” The table lists the
academics needs either discussed in the literature review or given a responses by the participants.
The middle column reveals how many participants gave that response to the open ended
question. The last column clarifies with participant gave that response. Responses not linked to
literature specifically about the academic needs of GATE learners are identified with an asterisk
(*).
Table 8
Identified Academic Needs of GATE Learners
Academic Need Quantity Participants
Challenge 10 All
Acceleration 4 Gena, Helen, Karen, Marie
Collaboration with GATE Students* 3 Anne, Gena, Sharon
Student Interest* 3 Anne, Helen, Marie
Problem Solving 2 Anne, Beverly
Enrichment 1 Gena
Less Scaffolding* 1 Anne
Creativity 0
Independent Study 0
*not listed as an academic need in the literature review
While participants did share instructional choices and differentiation techniques that do
meet many of the academic needs listed in Table 8, their initial responses to this open-ended
question may reveal insights related to GATE professional development. Both “Student Interest”
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 223
and “Collaboration with GATE Students” were discussed in the literature review under social-
emotional needs (Cross, 1997). The fact that three participants stated each of these elements as
academic needs may indicate that teachers do not differentiate between academic and social-
emotional needs when it comes to their GATE learners. Moreover, the response “Less
Scaffolding” was given by Anne, the participant with the least amount of training specifically
about GATE education. Potentially with more training, Anne might recognize that GATE
students do need teaching and assistance from teachers which comes from a variety of GATE
centered strategies. Simply providing less instruction or modeling is not needed identified from
the current body of literature on gifted education.
After participants were asked to openly share about the academic needs of GATE
learners. Participants were also asked needs-specific questions and what they would do in
hypothetical teaching situations to elicit deeper responses. Topics, as derived from the literature
review and the California Department of Education’s Recommended Standards for Programs of
Gifted and Talented Students (California Department of Education, 2005) included the areas of
challenge, enrichment, acceleration, creativity and are discussed below. Participants gave a
variety of additional responses concerning the academic needs of GATE learners which are
detailed under additional needs. Themes emerged in each of these areas that were inclusive of all
SMSs.
Challenge. Although the California Department of Education’s Recommended Standards
for Programs of Gifted and Talented Students states that a GATE curriculum should focus
“primarily on depth and complexity of content [in addition to] advanced or accelerated pacing of
content and novelty” (California Department of Education, 2005, Recommended standards for
programs, p. 4), teacher participants in this study used the terms “challenge” or “rigor” to denote
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 224
depth and/or complexity interchangeably. No clear distinction between the two terms was
discernable from participant responses. When asked open-endedly to name the academic needs
of GATE learners, all 10 participants cited “challenge” as a need for GATE learners, as shown in
Table 8.
When describing how they provide challenge, the participants’ instructional choices
included questioning techniques, the use of Kaplan’s (2007) Depth and Complexity Prompts,
providing less scaffolding, and providing tiered assignments. Sharon said,
They need to be more challenged. I think they're bored with the regular curriculum. They
either learn it really fast, and so they're just sitting there and sometimes it comes out as
misbehavior. So yeah, I think they're just bored in class and they think so much deeper
and quicker than their other peers that they disengage if not challenged properly.
Sharon expressed that students need challenge and gave her perception as to why this is vital to
their learning. She believed that GATE learners can become bored when they are not challenged
because of their abilities to think at faster rates and in more depth than their peers. She also
expressed that GATE students who are not challenge can become bored and disengaged in their
learning.
Depth and complexity prompts. When asked to share documents related to GATE
instruction, six of the nine participants who gave documents shared items related to the Depth
and Complexity Prompts (Kaplan, 2007). During their interviews, nine of the 10 teacher
participants spoke about their use of Depth and Complexity Prompts with their GATE learners
and/or all of their students. Five participants provided documents which were coded specifically
for Depth and Complexity coded as “D & C” on the Document Catalog in Appendix D. These
documents came in many forms including: teacher created charts, posters on the wall, student
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 225
work samples of “Depth and Complexity Frames”, handouts for student references, extension
menus related to using the Depth and Complexity Prompts (Kaplan, 2007), and handouts relating
the prompts to Thinking Maps. Thinking Maps were developed by David Hyerle, Ed. D. and
provide eight graphic and visual organizers that correspond with eight fundamental thinking
processes (Hyerle, 2004). Figure I shows two examples of how participants implement the use of
the Depth and Complexity Prompts (Kaplan, 2007) in their classrooms. The picture on the left is
a chart Doreen created and uses to promote complex thinking for writing. The picture on the
right is an extension menu Helen uses when students complete work. Student can choose which
Depth and Complexity Prompts (Kaplan, 2007) to focus on and extend their thinking in relation
to the fiction texts they are currently working on that week.
Figure I
Implementation of Depth and Complexity Prompts
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 226
Enrichment. Renzulli (1986), believed that enrichment is a means to provide deeper
learning of any given topic or subject for gifted learner. Teacher participants were specifically
asked how they utilize enrichment for their GATE learners. The participants’ responses were
quite varied. Three teacher participants said they use the “enrichment” or “beyond” sections of
their program materials. When discussing her utilization of enrichment materials, Gena described
the resources and stated,
It's going a little beyond the basic information. I'm looking at my math books. Being able
to use the enrichment book. Sometimes we're given extra resources. A lot of times those
are the books that stay on the shelf that other people [teachers] maybe don't use. But I
really use my enrichment books. Last year [we were given] supplemental materials that
came with our reading books. There's an: ‘at level,’ ‘below grade level,’ and ‘beyond
level.’
Elementary schools adopt language arts and math curricula for teachers to utilize that are
standards based and designed to meet the needs of a variety of learners. Included in program
materials are differentiated supplemental books or activities specifically designed to provide
challenge for students already working at grade-level and who may benefit from more
challenging work with the same skill or topic. Beverly stated, “When I had a larger cluster of
GATE students, I would do the enrichment lessons when we do small groups.” Her use of
enrichment program materials is more dependent on student numbers. When she said, “had a
larger cluster” she was referring to years she had larger numbers of GATE students. This implies
that she potentially does not use program enrichment materials when she has smaller numbers of
GATE students in her class. This also indicates that she uses these lessons with students in small
groups, as opposed to assigning students these activities to complete on their own. Anne,
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 227
Beverly, and Gena all shared that they use these materials to provide enrichment for their
students.
In addition to program materials, teacher participants described the intentional use of
activities to provide challenge as a means of enrichment. The instructional activities varied
greatly across the participants, but all included a focus on providing meaningful activities to
challenge students’ thinking or deepen student understanding. Marie and Beverly give
challenging math problems to GATE learners. Beverly explained, “We would do enrichment
groups. I do a lot of brain teasers with them. They like those challenge activities while the rest
would do their regular morning business. They liked those brain teasing activities that I would
give them.” Beverly called the challenge problems “brain teasers” and assigns more “challenge”
morning activities to the students who are ready for the challenge. Marie stated that she has the
students create their own problems and she, “tries to ‘stump’ the kids with challenging
problems.” Karen described the use of visuals, posters, and multiple subject-specific resource
notebooks she uses with her students.
The participants in this study gave additional examples of how they provide enrichment
for their GATE learners. Again, their execution of enrichment included many subjects and
diverse thinking on the part of the instructor. Sharon mentioned pull-out programs like
“innovation club” as a source of enrichment. Anne said she tries not to give “extra” work. Rather
she assigns “different” work so that her GATE students don’t respond negatively to the “extra”
work. Anne was very cognizant of the social implications that “extra” work might have on her
only GATE student. Furthermore, Gena was quite creative in her application of enrichment.
Gena described her use of home activities and technological platforms like google classroom or
internet based research. Frances pointed out that in her classroom for ELA, her students choose
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 228
their own pathway, also called an extension menu, which is already enriching the curriculum.
She also shared that she used extension games, similar to Beverly’s challenge problems, to
challenge students.
Initially, Doreen was unfamiliar with the term enrichment. After providing her a simple
definition and some examples of what enrichment might look like, she stated she calls that
“extension.” Doreen then described that she adds writing prompts onto social studies projects to
have her GATE learners extend their thinking. Not all students are assigned the additional
writing prompts which elicit depth and complexity to student thought processes. And Elizabeth
was quite thoughtful and explicit in her response. She explained that she pulls in real world and
current events to relate to science. She also uses more current literature and has students see how
it apply to classic literature. The usage of realistic problems is exactly the type of curriculum
Dooley (1993) stated is necessary for gifted learners. While the participants’ implementation of
enrichment activities varied greatly, the purpose behind each learning task was similar: to
provide rigor for their students within the same subject and/or skill area. This concept aligns
directly with Renzulli’s (1986) purpose of enrichment for gifted students. Moreover, how these
teacher participants use enrichment to provide differentiation falls in line with Reis et al.’s
(2011) claim that gifted students need high-interest, self-selected activities. Many of the
participants reported enrichment tasks that provide both high-interest and/or self-selected
activities for their GATE students.
Acceleration. As described in the literature review, acceleration for GATE students can
take place in the classroom by providing instruction at a faster rate or by placing students in a
higher class or grade level. Acceleration, or “advanced or accelerated pacing of content and
novelty” (California Department of Education, 2005, Recommended standards for programs, p.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 229
4), is another key component of a GATE curriculum. This study found themes across participant
responses in the areas of skipping grades and in compacting.
Skipping grades/alternative classes. All participants reported that they did not believe
skipping grades was a positive option for GATE students. Three participants shared that skipping
grades could potentially work for some students in some situations. However, all participants felt
that even though a very advanced GATE student may be ready academically for the content of
another grade level, the social aspects of grade skipping would be a determining factor. Beverly
stated, “It just depends on the child, because they might be academically ready but not socially
ready.” The participants were concerned about the maturity levels of GATE students not
matching their peers in a new grade level.
Anne was a participant who displayed initial openness to the idea of moving to a higher
grade level and shared her deliberation on the issue of skipping grades. She reasoned,
I think that should be an opportunity for students that are at or exceeding in their grade
level. If they're already coming in, and they're academically high, and mature enough to
handle a jump into a higher class, then they shouldn't be held back. I don't think that's
right.
But, the flip side of that is if you have younger kids, and you're bumping up a grade level,
are they mature enough to be able to handle being with an older group of students?
Especially if they get to kind of this age [6
th
grade], where social media's huge and their
social life starts taking off. Would it be beneficial for them to be with older students? It's
hard to say. But I definitely think they should be given the opportunity. If they're going to
sit in the class and be bored because they already get it, then that's not servicing them at
all.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 230
While Anne initially believed the concept of grade skipping may be beneficial to a GATE
learner, she also recognized potentially negative outcomes to the child socially as he or she
continues with his or her education. As discussed earlier in this chapter, Anne felt strongly that
GATE students should be grouped together and that their teachers should have additional
training to support their academic needs. Potentially, Anne’s initial enthusiasm for grade
skipping delineates from her recognition of the needs of GATE learners and the disparities she
encounters when trying to provide services for her limited number of GATE students.
Conversely, some participants were quite adamant against the practice. Gena gave a
specific example and shared,
It’s definitely a situational thing. We had a student last year whose parents really wanted
him to skip, and he's a profoundly gifted student. But I don't think it's socially
appropriate. It wasn't in his case. I just think there's so much that happens in that 10
months that they're with us that's above and beyond just being a GATE or not GATE. Just
socially being part of a group of peers that are your own age that are interested in the
same things you are. I think if I had to blanket statement this I think it's a bad idea.
Although Gena began with, “It’s definitely a situational thing,” she recognized that her beliefs
actually sway towards not supporting grade skipping at all. As Gena thought about and described
a specific instance where parents wanted their child to skip a grade, Gena described that school is
also about interacting and learning from age-similar peers.
In addition to the social factors of grade skipping, there are issues of how younger
students handle complex academics above their maturity level. Karen responded as a teacher and
a parent. She stated,
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 231
I am totally in favor of it educationally, but I am completely against it emotionally. I
think that children need to have that childhood experience.
One of the conversations that we have at [our school] a lot is how our kids could read at a
higher level in a lower grade, but they're not emotionally or socially prepared to
understand the characters there. Therefore, we have to limit them. In 3rd grade we don't
let them go past level T. Because books past T have all of these complex things that 3rd
graders are not prepared for.
So I then translate that into kids who graduate from college at 13 - are they ready for all
those things? And have they learned to practice adulting when they're in college? No. So
our school system is set up for more than just gaining knowledge, and if you want to do
that, do it at homeschool. But don't put them in an environment where they have to
interact with peers because they're not going to be comfortable. They're going to be
exposed to things that they shouldn't.
As a parent, I would never allow that. Like my daughter was supposed to go to a high
school but she took geometry as an 8th grader. I did not want her, a 13 year old, in a
classroom as with 16 year old boys. I didn't want that so I said, ‘Absolutely not. You're
going take algebra again.’ Because I'm completely opposed to her being exposed to
things she's not ready for yet.
At Karen’s school, students read books at their independent reading level based on letters A-Z.
The later the letter, the more complex and challenging the book. She described how her school as
made a specific policy for advanced readers to protect them from reading material that is written
for older students (grades 5-8). By limiting the book levels, the teachers are protecting younger
students from themes, topics, language, and character behaviors that the students are not old
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 232
enough for. This issue was also seen when Helen had reported trouble finding texts that meet her
students’ reading and maturity levels. Specifically, the she noted that more complex books do not
contain subject matter appropriate for third or fourth graders. And as previously discussed,
VanTassel-Baska (2015) advocated for thoughtful implementation of above grade level text.
Moreover, if VanTassel-Baska’s consideration is employed, as Karen’s school does school-wide,
teachers can provide both age-appropriate texts and a complex ELA curriculum
Additionally, Karen brought up the long-term issues involving grade skipping.
Specifically, what happens to the student when they attend high school or college at an early
age? Karen believed that the public schooling process includes both academic and social
outcomes. When students skip grades, they are missing the opportunities to interact with their
age peers and may be entering situations where they are not mature enough to handle the social
situations. She believed so strongly in this concept that she insisted on her own daughter
repeating math classes in high school so that her daughter was not exposed to older students at a
younger age.
In lieu of officially skipping a grade, attending class or lessons in a different grade was
brought up as an alternative means of acceleration for GATE students. One teacher participant
said teachers can make use of their colleagues to help teach students at a higher level. Sharon
described when she used to teach in a heterogeneous cluster model how she would sometimes
ask a colleague from a higher grade level to give instruction to her GATE learners. While
describing how her understanding of differentiation has changed since she first started teaching
GATE students, Sharon said, “Maybe there's different ways, I can either compact it or I can put
them in a classroom, another classroom, that's maybe a higher grade.” This was the only time
Sharon mentioned compacting. However, she did discuss the use of higher grade levels to meet
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 233
subject specific advanced needs during her other interview. When discussing how she might help
a GATE student who is far above grade level in math, Sharon said,
I might discuss with a teacher who is a grade level above me to see if it's possible for that
particular student to maybe attend his or her class for that subject. It takes coordination,
totally, but I'd have to see if that child can go to that other team, my colleague’s
classroom for math instruction.
While this response was for a hypothetical scenario, it demonstrates Sharon is willing to think
openly about how to provide accelerated instructional choices for her GATE students. Sharon did
not state whether she has actually used this method of acceleration in the past. However, in a
different statement, Sharon did reveal that having students attend lessons from teachers in
alternate grade levels may be more commonplace. She stated,
At the school that I was at before, where we had a lot of GATE students, a lot of times it
was coordinating with the teacher above to see if the child could go into that classroom.
That was the easiest way, sometimes, to help that child be challenged and accelerate their
growth in that subject.
In this statement, Sharon implies that sharing students between teachers may have been a
typically means to provide above-grade level instruction for accelerated students. This method
does allow for a GATE student to spend most of their instructional time in a classroom with age-
level peers, but also receive advanced instruction in a specific subject area.
The teacher participants displayed understanding of both academic and social-emotional
needs of GATE learners in these responses. While teachers like Karen or Anne are open to the
idea that grade skipping may have educational value for GATE students, for all 10 participants,
the social factors outweigh the academic benefits. Additionally, Sharon’s willingness to
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 234
collaborate with colleagues from alternate grade levels to provide content instruction at
significantly higher levels may be a valid means of meeting the academic needs of small
numbers of GATE learners or far above grade level compared to their classmates.
Compacting. Compacting, as described by Renzulli (1984) and Reis and Renzulli (1992)
is when teachers conduct pre-assessments to determine which skills students already know. Upon
analyzing data from the pre-assessments, teachers can then eliminate skills from their curriculum
in order to accelerate and/or enrich instruction involving specific skills on topics. This study
found that four teacher participants mentioned the word compact or compacting during their
interviews. Three of those four participants work in Suffield USD teaching in the all-GATE SMS
and the homogeneous cluster model SMS. The participants described their specific uses of
compacting and how they implemented the practice.
When asked how they implement acceleration for GATE students into their practice, both
Helen and Gena responded with “compacting.” Both teachers shared that they give the end of
lesson or week assessment before teaching. Then they assign grade-level and challenge work as
needed to individual students and/or groups. About her compacting practice, Gena stated, “I
pretest everyone, and then those that are able to go a little deeper or a little farther do.” Helen
explained her compacting practice in detail.
I do a lot of compacting in math and ELA. With the pre-tests the students compact out. In
ELA I have a compacted group and then a group that stays with me for the week doing
small group instruction. For math, that's a daily compacting out. So I'll usually have like
some kids compact out. Then everybody [else] is working with me during the lesson.
Then as kids get it, they're free to kind of remove themselves from the group and work
independently.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 235
By giving weekly (for ELA) and daily (for math) pretests, Helen determines which students need
direct instruction with her and which students will work independently on enrichment materials.
Figure J
Math Enrichment Activity
Helen further explained what she does when students “compact out.” In math she
typically has students complete the independent practice pages in their math books. Helen shared
a math notebook she entitled “Brain Power Math” she created for students who complete math
assignments quickly. The notebook includes challenging problem solving activities to extend or
enrich the math curriculum. Figure J displays a sheet with extension math problems students may
choose. The students then cutout their problem and paste it into their own extension notebooks
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 236
where the students complete the work. It is also created to allow for student choice and self-
selection of topics or problems. For ELA Helen stated, “With ELA, I create different
assignments for those kids who have already grasped that week's concept. Or doing the same
kind of concept with like a higher level text.” In this manner, she provides more challenging
work in ELA for the students who already understand the language arts skills that have been
taught during that week. In its entirety, Helen’s implementation of compacting aligns directly
with Renzulli’s (1984) original description and vision of compacting.
While the process of compacting was well-described and utilized by the teacher
participants in Suffield USD, one participant did display evidence of careful implementation.
Frances, who taught in an accelerated GATE homogeneous cluster model with a high number of
GATE learners also discussed her usage of compacting. However, Frances cautioned about the
use of compacting and said,
Well, they can compact out. You give assessment first and then see what they need and
what they don't need. That's tricky business because before common core came, it was
easier when it was the pick A, B, C, D type of answers. That's not really the way we think
of it anymore. You have to show multiple ways. That is GATE within itself, showing
multiple ways. And so, when they don't have those skills, when they just get to the
algorithm answer, you've got to be very careful that you're not compacting them out too.
Frances has seen a declining number of GATE students in her homogeneous cluster model
classroom over the past several years. She also recognizes that the rigor Common Core has
brought to the education system has affected how a teacher might think about compacting
students out of certain skills or topics. Through this insight, Frances demonstrates the type of
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 237
reflective practice teacher must have when implementing compacting that Tomlinson (2005)
detailed.
Sharon was the only other participant to mention compacting. She only used the phrase
while discussing how her understanding of differentiation has changed since her initial
differentiation training during her credential program. She stated, “I learned that there are many
different ways to differentiate. I can either compact it or I can put them in another classroom
that's a higher grade or give them independent study work where they have to complete
projects.” Sharon did not give any more information as to how often she used compacting when
teaching or how or if she share this strategies with the teachers of GATE students in she school.
She simply mentioned that she now knows it is an approach to differentiate to meet student need.
The majority of compacting data for this study came from the participants with the
highest number of GATE learners. Therefore, compacting may potentially be seen as a strategy
to implement with larger populations of GATE students or taught specifically to these teachers
because they have a high population of GATE learners in their classrooms. Or since the majority
of data regarding compact came from teachers in the same district and classrooms with the
highest percentages of GATE learners (60-100%), teachers from other districts or SMSs with
smaller populations of GATE students have not been taught about compacting or have not
chosen to utilize compacting in their classrooms.
Novelty/creativity. As shown in Table 4.8, no teacher participants stated that creativity
was an academic need for GATE students. But teacher participants were asked what developing
creativity meant to them for their GATE learners and how they develop creativity for their
GATE students. California’s Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented
Students cites novelty as “unique and original expressions of student understanding” (California
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 238
Department of Education, 2005, Recommended standards for programs, p. 4). Based on that
definition of novelty, teacher participants shared a variety of ways they promote creativity in
their GATE learners.
Teacher participants incorporate student choice into instructional activities as a means to
develop creativity. All nine participant who shared documents gave artifacts that were coded for
student choice and/or student interest. In discussing how to develop creativity, the participant
responses were diverse and showed insight into many facets of their understanding of their
students. Anne shared, “I really do try and come up with different ways for students to express
their thoughts and opinions. I [call them] little one pagers. We do comic book strips. We do
presentations.” Marie expressed a similar idea about allowing students to present their learning.
Marie said she offers the students a choice and would explain it to students like this:
‘We're going to study this one thing. But you get to choose whether you want to do
something oral, written, visual. Something through dance or write a rap, a song, or
whatever that is going to demonstrate your learning about the topic.’ And just give them
full creative freedom.
These are two examples of how the participants think about creating opportunities for cultivating
novelty with their students.
In addition to choice of presentation or work product, which Sisk (2009) would denote as
differentiation of product, participants discussed providing novelty in other ways, as well.
Beverly takes an all-encompassing approach to develop creativity. She said,
Developing creativity. There's no wrong answer. You just go with it. You stand by
something. You just go with it. If it's art, writing, just not being afraid of showing what
they know and standing by it. For me, that's what creativity means, just not following a
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 239
model. If I give them a sample, don't use my sample. Build on that. Create something
from there. Just be inventive. Be different.
Beverly encourages her students to take risks and be confident in having a unique approach that
is purposefully different than hers or others’. For third graders, following the teacher’s model is
still quite normal. Beverly encourages her GATE students to step away from that mindset and
foster a sense of self and ownership over the work product.
Another perspective on developing creativity looks at the types of learning opportunities
teachers provide their students. Doreen’s approach included, “Developing their creativity [goes
beyond] teaching them the content and making sure they have an understanding. [It is] then
giving them the opportunity to extend and giving them open-ended questions and open-ended
tasks.” Helen took a similar approach and stated developing creativity is about, “Allowing them
to use kind of their creative strengths to show their understanding of content.” Both of these
teachers considered the content they were required to teach in relation to promoting novelty in
their students.
While all 10 of the participants discussed developing creativity in relation to all learners,
not just GATE students, Marie responded with specific consideration for GATE learners. Marie
noted that not all GATE students are creative or talented in the arts. She stated, “Not all of the
GATE students are creative. Or creativity doesn't come easily. And they're like, ‘Oh, I hate that
stuff.’ It is like, ‘Well, you've just got to do it. Just try. Try something.’” Her response included a
need to make creative activities mandatory for GATE learners so that they do not only rely on
their strengths but also develop individual areas of need. This perspective highlights her
consideration for all aspects of education GATE children, not just their identified talents. In
Marie’s district, GATE identification falls under seven different areas, including the arts. She
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 240
appears to recognize that while some GATE students have specific talents, their teachers must
also be willing to cultivate all skills, not only the ones which are source of strength in GATE
learners. Ritchotte et al. (2016) noted that if a gifted individual’s academic outcomes do not
match his or her perceived individual abilities, low self-esteem or decreased self-efficacy could
result. An example of this could be if the child perceived he or she is excellent in math but
perform unsatisfactorily in math. However, the reverse may also be significant to note. In this
scenario, Marie is concerned with how her GATE learners perceive their artistic and/or creative
abilities as a deficit or weakness. By ensuring they have opportunities for novelty, Marie may be
ensuring that the GATE learners do not rely only on their strengths and move away from the
topics or skills are more difficult for them in order to avoid the low self-efficacy described by
Ritchotte et al.
Elizabeth also discussed using creativity intentionally to support the academic needs of a
GATE student. She described a scenario in which a student had extensive artistic abilities, but
had difficulty with many other content areas. Elizabeth described the situation:
I had a young man two years ago who was off the charts in art. Could draw anything for
you. When he painted it was beautiful. When he sketched, it was gorgeous. But he was
below grade level in every other academic subject. He was not comprehending. He would
read a book three times and not be able to tell you what was in it and not be able to take
the test on it.
Then I asked him to demonstrate what he had read in the form of something like a comic
strip. What happened first, what happened next, what happened after that? And all of a
sudden this kid was able to pass three comprehension tests in a row because he was able
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 241
to visually demonstrate to me what he had learned. And by visually demonstrating it he
committed it to memory.
It was like an ‘ah-ha’ for me! I wish I had realized that at the beginning of the year when
I really could have been of benefit to this kid with everything. Because I didn't realize it
until too late in the year to really give him enough opportunities to demonstrate
everything that was going on in his head in every single academic category.
Then I met with his mom multiple times and we came up with several opportunities for
him to demonstrate his understanding of things using art.
In this scenario, Elizabeth capitalized on her student’s artistic interests and abilities to increase
his comprehension and academic understanding in other subject areas. McCoach and Siegle
(2003) concluded, “That the key features that distinguish gifted achievers from gifted
underachievers are the goals they set for themselves and the effort they put forth to achieve those
goals” (p. 151). Here Elizabeth was able to assist an underachieving GATE student by realigning
the goals of her assignments to correspond with the motivation and learning goals of her student.
In this case, his was displaying artistic ability.
Overall, the teacher participants in the study did disclose a variety of instructional
choices and learning activities they use to foster creativity. Moreover, individual participants
share unique methods of using creativity to either assist in mastering grade level skills or to
ensure GATE students do not only rely on their strengths when approaching academic tasks.
Additional needs. In addition to the academic needs of challenge, enrichment,
acceleration, novelty/creativity, the teacher participants described additional needs they
considered significant to assisting their GATE learners. Table 9 exhibits the variety of additional
areas of need for GATE learners the teacher participants identified. The left column details the
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 242
area of need teachers gave to the open-ended question, “What are some academic needs of your
GATE learners?” The middle column expresses the quantity of participants who gave that
answer. And the third column identifies which participant provided that response.
Table 9
Additional Areas of Need for GATE Learners
Area of Need Quantity Participants
Motivation (pushed to succeed) 3 Anne, Elizabeth, Karen
Social Emotional Needs 3 Karen, Marie, Sharon
Writing Skills 2 Doreen, Frances
Reading Comprehension 1 Doreen
Independence 1 Doreen
Below Grade Level 1 Gena
Technology 1 Beverly
Open/malleable Curriculum 1 Helen
Environment (ability to move often) 1 Beverly
While this study centered on the academic needs of elementary GATE learners, it is important to
note that eight responses regarding academic needs could be considered a social or emotional
need. As shown in Table 9, those responses are shown as “Independence” (1), Motivation (3),
Social Emotional Needs (3), and Environment (1). Though it is unclear if the participants did not
think to focus their social-emotional answers only on academics, this may indicate that these
teachers do not differentiate between academic and social-emotional needs for students.
Additionally, six open-ended responses regarding the academic needs of GATE learners could
apply to any student: Below Grade Level (1), Writing Skills (2), Reading Comprehension (1),
Open Curriculum (1), and Technology (1). These responses may indicate that the participants do
not identify a differentiation in academic needs for their students based on GATE identification.
Or this could indicate that that teachers are aware that GATE learners do perform below grade
level and their academic needs include improvement in content areas.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 243
Determining Academic Need
Teacher participants described a variety of assessment strategies they utilized to
determine the academic needs of their GATE students. Table 10 presents the participants’
responses to the open-ended questions “How did you know that this was an academic need?” and
“How do you determine what those academic needs are?” The range of answers given are listed
in the left column. The center column shows the quantity of participants who gave that response.
And the right column depicts which participants give that response.
Table 10
Assessments Used to Determine the Academic Needs of GATE Learners
Types of Assessments Quantity Participants
Informal Observations 7 Beverly, Doreen, Elizabeth, Gena, Karen,
Marie, Sharon
Formative Assessments 7 Anne, Gena, Doreen, Marie, Karen,
Sharon, Beverly
Pre-assessments 7 Anne, Beverly, Doreen, Gena, Helen,
Karen, Marie
Formal Assessments (district) 5 Anne, Doreen, Elizabeth, Gena, Sharon
Know the Students & their Interests 5 Anne, Doreen, Elizabeth, Karen, Marie
Student Behavior/Actions 4 Helen, Karen, Sharon, Marie
Compacting 2 Gena, Helen
Information from Previous Teachers 1 Gena
Small Group Student Meetings 1 Karen
Reflection 1 Elizabeth
Coursework 1 Elizabeth
All teacher participants in this study focused on understanding their students’ interests
and their students’ abilities as a key decision factor in implementation of GATE services. In
addition to the five participants who answered getting to know their students and their interests
to the open-ended assessment questions, all 10 participants described the practice of “tapping
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 244
into student interests” throughout the course of their interviews while making instructional
choices for their students.
While all teacher participants expressed a desire to meet their students’ needs, five
participants identified knowing the students and their interests. Four participants disclosed they
assessed student need via student behaviors. Marie was one participant who cited and gave data
on both means of assessing GATE learners’ academic needs. When asked how you can
determine that your GATE students might need to be challenged, Marie explained what she has
done in the past:
By giving them different problems and seeing how they respond. One kid may just want
the fast, quick and easy to show how smart he is. The minute he gets stumped by
something he loses interest right away. Whereas the kid who really likes the challenge is
going to take something on. I had a kid say, ‘Can I take this after recess with me?’
‘You want to take a math problem after recess? How interesting?’ Whereas other kids
they just want to be done with it and turn it in. I notice how they respond to different
things that are presented to them.
Marie allows students to display their interests through their level of participation, while
simultaneously taking note of her students’ behaviors and reactions to the problems she presents
them. This is a very deliberate use of observation, understanding student interest, and
interpreting student behavior which Marie described as a method she uses to ascertain the needs
of her students.
The findings display that the teacher participants in this study reported specific means of
assessment to determine student need. Moreover, they reveal a distinct focus on specific students
and their needs, as opposed to overarching conceptions of predetermined student need. The
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 245
participants described the consistent and varied use of assessment and related instructional
choices to their own student data.
Definitions of Giftedness & GATE Philosophy
Passow (1981) believed that gifted education should align with the philosophical base of
the program. As previously discussed, the various SMSs displayed distinct GATE services
provided for GATE learners. All participants were asked what GATE meant and how they define
giftedness, and all participants shared their personal definition of giftedness. No participants
stated that gifted meant “gifted and talented education.” Rather that response was only given
when asked, “What does GATE mean?”
Teachers described giftedness via student behaviors and observable actions. Sharon
described her philosophy and expressed, “My philosophy. They’re a really unique group of
students, not your run-of-the-mill kids that just think differently. They are our future inventors.
We need to make sure we don't lose them.” The definitions varied and aligned with identification
methods from the participants’ individual districts. Teachers did describe traits of giftedness.
Those traits varied significantly amongst all participants and related to teacher experiences with
specific students and the specific education taken about GATE education. Some teacher
participants expressed insecurity about not having a definition or clear understanding. However,
if the participants’ personal definitions of gifted do not directly equate to the general definition
of the term GATE, this incongruence may imply teachers personal philosophies do not align with
the gifted programs within which they teach.
Karen repeated this phrase multiple times throughout her interviews: “GATE doesn’t
mean more and it doesn’t mean faster.” However, to Helen, that is exactly what her depiction of
her school’s GATE program did. Helen focused her instruction on acceleration and covering
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 246
more content than other fourth grade classes. Karen focused on providing opportunities at each
students’ ability level and pushing students to think deeper about the topics at hand. That is also
evidenced by her philosophy when she stated, “My philosophy is to take them from where they
are, find out where their strengths are, and to let those strengths grow. But also bolster up the
strengths that they are missing so that they can continue to succeed.”
The notion that giftedness is solely related to high achievement did not exist amongst most
participants’ conceptions of giftedness. Sharon stated, “There is a difference between giftedness
and excelling academically.” Anne’s philosophy of gifted education encompassed all learners
when she stated, “I honestly just think that every child has the capacity to learn, and it's up to us
to facilitate them getting to where they need to be.” And Doreen stated, “I think it is still teaching
the curriculum and content that's required, but adding that depth and complexity and rigor that
our GATE students can handle. Also, encouraging their creativity and the gifted skills and
abilities that they have.” Overall, the participants believed that giftedness does not only apply to
GATE identified students. Nine participants disclosed that they implement activities for their
GATE learners with their entire class. An example of such thinking was displayed by Frances as
she repeatedly shared, “All students have gifts.” All participants expressed interested in meeting
the needs of all of their learners on did not always differentiate between specific GATE
strategies and instructional choices for the rest of their students.
Summary
This study found themes around teacher education for GATE, differentiation practices
and perceptions aligned to service model setting, and overarching beliefs and practices across
GATE classroom settings. Teachers with more professional development regarding GATE
education reported implementing more GATE services. Teachers with less training shared that
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 247
they wanted more and they want to provide the most appropriate education for all their students,
including their GATE learners. Participants were dedicated to their own pursuit of knowledge,
even though it took a personal toll or cost.
Patterns of differentiation and instructional choice by the participants were found within
each SMS. Moreover, individual SMSs presented different challenges for teachers and effects for
students. Teachers’ perceptions regarding GATE services also aligned with SMS and how
districts identify GATE learners.
The participants in this study were acutely aware of the needs of their students and
knowledgeable of specific needs related to the GATE population. They assessed student need
often and in a variety of ways. They consistently discussed how they used the student data they
assemble to make instructional choices and alter their teaching practices if necessary. Teachers
were well versed in the concepts of acceleration and providing rigor and complexity for their
GATE students. Teacher participants also attend to developing creativity for GATE students and
offering novelty in the curriculum.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 248
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The purpose of the study was to share the voices and insights of current practitioners in
the field of elementary GATE education in Southern California. The study sought to discern how
and why teachers pursue professional knowledge pertaining to GATE education and what that
learning entailed. In that, the study wanted to reveal the sources of the GATE learning
opportunities and the GATE topics about which current elementary school practitioners were
learning.
Additionally, the study identified how teachers implemented the knowledge they gained
in the form of instructional choices made and GATE services provided for elementary GATE
learners. The intention was to uncover what practitioners know about the academic needs of
GATE students and hear what the teachers do to meet those identified needs. Accordingly, the
objective was to explore how teachers determine which GATE services (in the form of
instructional strategies and differentiation) they provided given their context and their GATE
knowledge, and to consider how those GATE services unfold as differentiation within their given
academic setting. Furthermore, the study intended to hear and contextualize the perceptions those
teachers have regarding GATE practices and services in their respective settings.
In order to accomplish this purpose, the study set out to interview practitioners of
elementary GATE services and examine teacher created artifacts related to their GATE
instructional practices and their respective district’s GATE programing public websites.
Listening to teachers and how they make instructional decisions regarding their GATE students
was a central intention of the study. Document analysis of teacher created documents and public
websites was expected to help verify instructional choices and contextualize specific educational
contexts and settings, given the omission of observational data collection methods. I wanted to
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 249
gain understanding into the rationale behind the teachers’ choices, what knowledge led to those
decisions, and their perceptions of how the context either facilitated or impeded teachers’
abilities to implement GATE services in appropriate ways. The research questions that guided
the study were:
1) How are teachers of elementary gifted students gaining knowledge about the academic
needs of their gifted students?
2) How does the knowledge elementary teachers have gained about the academic needs of
their gifted students shape their instructional choices and the gifted services
implemented?
3) What are elementary teachers’ perceptions regarding how the gifted services
implemented meet the academic needs of their gifted students?
To answer the research questions, this study collected interview data from 10 elementary
practitioners from five public, K-12 school districts in Southern California who provide GATE
services to elementary GATE students. It also examined related documents to help contextualize
what teachers shared. This chapter will discuss four concepts regarding outcomes of this study.
First, it will summarize the findings and present a revised conceptual framework applying the
stated findings to the previous conceptual model. Second, it will proffer implications for practice
in the field of gifted education and teacher education. Then it will make recommendations for
future research in the fields of public education, GATE education, and teacher education. Last
this chapter will present the conclusions for this study.
Summary of Findings
In answering the research questions, the findings from this study are interrelated and
align to the categories of GATE professional learning, implementation of GATE services, and
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 250
knowledge about GATE students. This section summarizes the findings within these three
categories. The section also provides a revised conceptual framework that uses the discussed
findings as they connect to the original conceptual framework as a means to organize, present,
and synthesize the findings from this study.
GATE Professional Learning
Different districts have different policies regarding teachers’ professional development
about GATE education and which teachers teach GATE students. Some of those policies relate
to teachers’ attainment of GATE professional development. Participant attendance in GATE
professional development was varied among the group of participants. There was a relationship
between the amount of GATE professional development acquired and GATE teaching
experience. Specifically, teachers who taught GATE students longer or taught more GATE
students each year recounted attending more GATE professional development opportunities,
attained more GATE certificates, and personally pursued further GATE knowledge. Within that
group of participants, all teachers in this study welcomed the idea of more education regarding
GATE students and GATE instructional strategies. Specifically participants conveyed a desire
for additional training specific to strategies and lessons they can implement with GATE learners
to assist with differentiation and time for collaboration with other GATE teachers both within
and outside of their respective school sites. The two participants with the least amount of GATE
professional development had the fewest numbers of GATE students. Their desire for more
GATE training was the strongest and included an appeal for their districts to provide the training
for this knowledge acquisition because time and money for a personal pursuit of GATE
knowledge was not possible for them.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 251
Although participants described numerous GATE learning opportunities and
achievements, GATE professional development did come at a cost to the participants.
Specifically, all participants reported attending trainings at some type of personal expense to
themselves. Those costs included giving up personal time that was unpaid, giving up substitute
days (if they were even allowed to attend during the regular school calendar/day), and/or paying
financial costs of attendance.
Despite the drawbacks, teacher participants displayed initiative and dedication to their
own pursuit of GATE related knowledge with the purpose of meeting their GATE students’
needs. Teacher participants attended GATE professional development from multiples sources
including: GATE training conducted by their district (90%), completion of a GATE certificate
(50%), university coursework (50%), and attending formal, out-of-district GATE trainings or
conferences (60%). In addition to formal GATE professional development, teachers gained
knowledge from experiential sources including colleagues, being a parent of a GATE child, and
experience interacting with GATE students. While 70% of the participants conveyed insecurity
for not knowing or implementing more differentiation for their GATE students, all participants
expressed desire for further GATE training and professional learning despite the obstacles or
personal costs incurred.
Implementation of GATE Services
At the time of the study, participants were providing GATE services within five distinct
service model settings (SMS) which provide services for GATE learners. These settings are
similar to, but differ somewhat from Brulles and Winebrenner’s (2011) descriptions for SMSs
for gifted learners. The specific SMSs found to be currently in practice were:
a) self-contained GATE
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 252
b) heterogeneous cluster model (multiple classes with clusters of GATE students per grade)
c) homogeneous cluster model (all GATE students per grade clustered in one class)
d) 1-3 GATE students
e) pullout activities
Settings A-D are current classroom placements or school-determined classroom settings for
elementary GATE students. The pullout SMS provides services in a variety of ways outside of
the general education classroom including during and after school. No participant in this study
was employed for the sole purpose of providing pullout activities for GATE students, but three
participants did speak to providing pullout services at the time of their interview. Three
additional participants discussed knowledge of pullout activities at their sites for GATE students
participating in such activities at their current and/or previous school sites.
Regardless of position or SMS, all teachers implemented elements of knowledge gained
from GATE professional development depending on SMS. Teachers with more GATE education
had a larger variety of instructional strategies and methods to choose from when determining
how best to meet their students’ needs. However, teachers with the most professional learning in
this field also taught in the most GATE learners and in SMSs with higher ratios of GATE
learners to the general education student population. Specifically, in this study, the percentage of
GATE learners related to the quantity and perceived quality of GATE professional development.
This also related to which instructional strategies were utilized with GATE students and how
differentiation occurred. Specifically, the participants in this study used their GATE knowledge
to make instructional choices based on their setting, number of GATE learners in the class, and
student need.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 253
Furthermore, within each SMS, common GATE practices could be identified. The
classrooms with the highest percentages of GATE students focused on accelerating the
curriculum using compacting (Renzulli, 1986; Reis & Renzulli, 1992) and enriching content via
challenge, depth and student interest. The classrooms with varying pockets of GATE learners
relied on grouping strategies to promote collaboration, differentiated content, activities, and/or
outcomes. The settings with the fewest numbers of GATE students focused on student choice
and interests, personal interactions with the teacher, and specific opportunities for rigor. While
the participants who worked with the fewest GATE learners did have the least formal
professional learning opportunities about GATE education, their interest in learning how to
differentiate most effectively were not diminished. Participants implemented services aligned
with their own GATE knowledge and the needs of their students.
In examining the instructional choices participants made by SMS, this study also found
that teachers work in varying service model settings. Eighty percent of participants in this study
described experiences working in two or more SMSs. This demonstrates that the nature of GATE
elementary education is not static and teachers do not necessarily remain in one setting for their
careers. It also denotes that districts implement multiple contexts and strategies to provide
services for elementary GATE students and those practices are malleable.
The variation in SMS also led to differences in participants’ perceptions about SMSs and
their benefit to GATE learners. While the contexts of the participants did differ, so did their
perspectives on implementation of GATE instructional strategies and differentiation. Settings
with smaller populations of GATE learners reported wider ranges of students’ reading abilities,
which aligns with Firmender et al.’s (2013) findings that diverse sets of reading levels and
reading ability ranges exist in gifted cluster classrooms. This ability range was reported as a
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 254
challenge for differentiation and a need for further professional development to learn effective
means of meeting the wide range of needs.
Knowledge Regarding GATE Students
Teachers in this study discussed how they provide instruction for challenge, enrichment,
acceleration, and novelty. Challenge activities included adding both depth and complexity to
instruction and curriculum. Furthermore, 90% of the participants have utilized Kaplan’s (2007)
Depth and Complexity Prompts in some manner during instruction. The level and extent of
practice varied by participant and so did their level of professional development regarding the
prompts. Enrichment was provided for GATE learners by using more complex texts,
beyond/extension activities from district math and ELA program materials, school sponsored
pullout programs for GATE students, and interest driven learning activities.
Acceleration occurred through the implementation of compacting in similar means as
described by Renzulli (1984) and Reis and Renzulli (1992). None of the participants believed
grade skipping was a reasonable means for acceleration with elementary GATE students. Two
participants spoke to the use of alternative grouping or classroom participation within alternate
grade levels for specific subjects as a means to accelerate the curriculum for individual or small
groups of GATE learners. However, the subject of alternative classes was not discussed with all
participants, rather it was an instructional choice mentioned in relation to the topic of
acceleration and not a common practice. And novelty, or promoting unique and creative
expression, was not a clear focus of instruction or differentiation to meet the needs of GATE
learners. While participants did give examples of how they tried to develop creativity, most
participants took a while to answer these questions and had to think about this practice.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 255
Teachers described utilizing many forms of varied assessment to determine student need.
Some of those assessments were formal and included items like district and state assessments,
pre-assessment from program materials, and teacher created formative assessments. Participants
also described employing informal assessments like student observations, interacting with
students, and getting to know students’ interests via surveys and learning activities. There was a
noticeable amount of data throughout each participants’ interview indicating these teachers focus
on individual needs and individual students. They do not make assumptions about their students’
abilities or the abilities of the GATE learners.
Conceptual Framework with Findings Alignment
After reviewing the conceptual framework created from the literature review and
comparing it with the findings of this study, findings were organized into similar themes from
the original conceptual framework: teacher knowledge, gifted students, and context. Figure K is
the revised conceptual framework that depicts this study’s findings within the original mindset of
the framework. Based on the findings, the current input boxes have been renamed as: sources of
GATE knowledge, factors of setting, and determining student need. On the top left, the box
entitled Sources of GATE Knowledge, displays the sources of GATE knowledge the teacher
participants described. The top center box, titled Factors of Setting, lists the factors within each
context that the findings show related to outcomes. The top right box, titled Determining Student
Need, outlines the findings regarding how teachers understand their GATE students.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 256
Figure K
Conceptual Framework with Current Findings
Sources of GATE
Knowledge
•District Training
•University Coursework
•GATE Credential
•Gifted Conferences
•Experience
•Parent of GATE Child
•Colleagues
T e ac h e r s’ Thinking
Processes and
Perceptions
Determining Student
Need
•Informal Observation
•Formative Assessments
•Pre-Assessments
•Formal (District
Mandated)
Assessments
•Know Student Interest
•Student Behaviors
& Actions
j
GATE Services Provided
Differentiation In: Attention To: Strategies Implemented:
•Instruction •Acceleration •Flexible Grouping
•Content •Novelty/Creativity •Enrichment/Extension
•Product •Challenge •Providing Student Choice
•Environment •Student Interest & Need •Teaching Critical Thinking
Factors of Setting
•Service Model
•GATE Population Size
•District Policy
•Range of Student
Ability
•Identification Methods
& Gifted
Definitions
•
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 257
The black arrows still point from the boxes which are input sources towards the thinking
cloud in the center. The thinking cloud represents what is happening inside the teacher’s mind.
The factors from the top all interact inside the teacher’s head to form perceptions and
instructional choices. The bottom box delineates the instructional choices reported by the
participants in the study. Teachers reported varying types of differentiation, instruction to
provide attention to GATE needs, and GATE strategies they implement to meet the needs of
their GATE students.
While the original conceptual framework had inputs related to teacher knowledge, gifted
students, and context, the revised conceptual framework uses the words of the participants and
findings from the study. Specific sources of teachers’ GATE knowledge was revealed and
reflected in the revision. The context was realigned to share the specific factors from the SMS
that related to teachers’ outputs as instructional choices. And the area of gifted students was
reframed to show the specific means teachers determined the needs of their GATE learners.
Additionally, the outputs along the bottom were revised from predicted differentiation based on
literature of gifted education to represent what teachers in the study said they actually do and
think about when providing instruction for their GATE students. The graphic design represents
my conceptual understanding of how teachers make instructional decisions, and the modified
conceptual framework uses that lens to exhibit the key findings from this study.
Implications for Practice
This study reveals the relevance and need for expanding teachers’ knowledge about
GATE education and GATE learners. Every participant conveyed a desire to learn more about
GATE practices and how they can better serve their GATE learners. Within each SMS,
participants obtained professional development on GATE education in alignment with their
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 258
respective districts’ policies and increased their knowledge to better serve/teach their GATE
students. Furthermore, 80 percent of the participants self-instigated to increase their GATE
knowledge on a voluntary basis with the intent to better serve their students. In some instances, if
the participants refused to attend training, accountability policies may have triggered potential
changes to future classroom demographics (i.e. he or she would not have GATE students placed
in their classrooms), however participants reported that such policies are seldom and casually
enforced. Therefore, this study has implications for either clearer accountability measures
involving teacher education for GATE or increased GATE professional development for all
teachers. If all general education teachers receive education about students with disabilities, why
don’t all teachers participate in GATE practices, as well?
None of the participants in this study reported any GATE training or coursework during
their teacher credential programs. While 30% reported learning about differentiation when
completing their teaching credential, no specific information about GATE instruction was taught
at that time. While two participants were credentialed outside of the U.S. or prior to 2008, such
little preservice teacher education regarding differentiation for gifted students has significant
implications for teacher credential programs in California and throughout the United States. All
of the participants in this study had to seek out information and GATE professional development
to better meet the needs of their GATE learners. Without any cursory education about this
population during the credentialing process, all of the participants in this study taught GATE
students for some period of time without specialized training or knowledge. Therefore,
knowledge about GATE students, their characteristics, and their academic needs should be
formally taught to both preservice and in-service teachers.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 259
While this study did not concentrate on district GATE policies, the data on SMS
perceptions may be related to district identification polices and gifted definitions. Moreover,
participants were more versed in understanding academic student needs than district polices and
philosophies. Passow (1981) said gifted education should align with the philosophical base of the
program. Therefore, districts may consider how they disseminate critical gifted philosophical
ideologies, purposes of their GATE programing, and intentions of GATE identification means
and GATE definitions. As McClain & Pfeiffer (2001) found that these elements vary across the
country and districts, it may be critical for teachers’ perceptions of the GATE programs they
teach in to have that information clearly conveyed to and understood by all participating
teachers.
In addition, all participants cited challenge as an academic need for GATE learners, but
other needs discussed in the literature were not identified by all participants when asked in an
open-ended format. However, all teachers were able to describe instructional practices that
address the needs described in the literature review and including in the Recommended
Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented Students (California Department of Education,
2005). This indicates a potential need for increased collaboration and shared vocabulary
development throughout the field of GATE education. McDonald, Kazemi, and Kavanaugh
(2013) studied the core practices and pedagogies of teacher education and found a need for
increased communication, a common language, and understanding across components and
settings within teacher education. In a similar fashion, the findings in this study convey a need
for a common language to disseminate through GATE professional development for in-service
teachers. Multiple terminologies and definitions were used by both the participants and myself
for the same elements throughout this study. Examples include: enrichment/extension,
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 260
challenge/depth/complexity/rigor, and novelty/creativity. Increased education for both preservice
and in-service teachers regarding a shared terminology, or a common “GATE” language may
prove useful for the field of gifted education as a whole.
Moreover, this study did not specifically ask participants about the distinction between
instructional strategies or instruction regarding their knowledge or practices. Many participants
described specific strategies they use to provide differentiated instruction for GATE students.
However, it was not clear if the participants understood the differences between the two:
instruction (pedagogy) vs. instructional strategy. While this study did not focus on determining if
elementary teachers understand this difference, the findings reveal a potential misunderstanding
regarding how instruction and instructional strategies are related for both general education and
instruction for GATE learners.
Furthermore, while these implications relate to teachers of GATE students, they also
exhibit a need for change regarding site administrators and district policy makers. Policies
regarding GATE professional development and GATE student placement into classrooms are
enacted by school administrators and created at the district level. But if administrators do not
fully understand the purpose of those policies or how they benefit GATE students, it is easier for
administrators to overlook or dismiss the policies altogether. Dissemination of identification
practices and program philosophies should not just be shared with specific teachers, but
administrators as well. This can assist with overall GATE program implementation at the school
level and help administrators understand the instructional decisions and differentiation options
for teachers of GATE students. If administrators understood the GATE population, its
characteristics, as well as the program purposes and identification methods, there could be
increased funding and attention paid for GATE learners and GATE programing. As California’s
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 261
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) (California Department of Education, 2017, History of
legislation, para. 3) puts GATE funding in local district control, district and school site
administrators must be interested in allocating funds for GATE programs and students in order to
fund such programs. Including administrators in the dissemination of GATE related knowledge
is central for these implications of practice.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study did not include observations to determine how teachers actually implemented
the practices they discussed. Future research could include the use of observations to determine
how teachers differentiate in the classroom and what “in-the-moment” instructional choices
teachers make regarding their GATE learners. Such research could include comparative analyses
of what GATE services and differentiations practices look like in each service model setting.
Moreover, the study did not set the primary focus on issues of equity between student
populations. However, some participant perceptions do raise the question of the equity
surrounding each setting, each set of instructional choices, and potential beliefs aligned with a
deficit mindset. For example, some participants used words like “low” vs. “high” students and
“good” vs. “bad” students without problematizing the use of this language. Additionally, one
participant mentioned her discomfort with the potential for excluding non-identified GATE
students and how this is unfair to this portion of the school community. While Matthews et al.
(2013) found that GATE cluster grouping is not the same as tracking students (Oakes, 1986).
Further research could add to, corroborate, or alter the previous findings, looking for ways that
GATE education might be similarly deleterious to tracking. Specifically, each SMS in this study
raised issues of equity for different subsets of populations. Research could examine how districts
and/or specific sites determine which SMS to implement and which stakeholder population
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 262
drives that decision. While participants in highly populated GATE settings shared that those
specific demographics facilitate greater acceleration and higher student performance outcomes,
smaller communities may perceive this model as elitist or negative for non-GATE students.
Research might explore how sites and districts adapt to changes of GATE population size and
examine how the implementation of GATE services changes in those SMSs. Future research
could also explore how district philosophies shape the kinds of models being implemented and
explore ways that teachers might be positioned to serve ALL students, irrespective of GATE
status.
All participants discussed the role of student grouping during their conversations with
me. While many methods and purposes were shared, Helen’s use of seating to provide
differentiated environments for all of her learners is a topic for future examination. Helen’s
providing lap desks, standing tables, balance balls and pillows for students’ seating options are
examples of alternative seating. In that, they are not the typical student seat (desk and chair)
found in classrooms. Helen’s implementation using rotations and student choice to alter where
students sit each day is an example of flexible seating. In such, the seat assignments are flexible
and change from day-to-day. The topics of alternative and flexible seating have surfaced via
education blogs and social media articles since 2015. However, no peer reviewed empirical
research regarding this alternative and/or flexible seating was found to corroborate Helen’s usage
of this practice. While Helen’s implementation highlights many facets of student environment
that are beneficial to student learning (Rayneri, Gerber, & Wiley, 2003), future research on the
topic of alternative and flexible seating is recommended for use with all students including
GATE populations.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 263
Additionally, Frances brought up the subject of teacher adaption of instructional practices
in relation to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). While the philosophy driving CCSS is
to increase critical thinking and problems solving for the entire U.S. student population, the
instruction to teach CCSS may align or correspond to GATE instructional practices and
differentiated learning activities. Researchers may investigate if any of the practices discussed in
this study are effective means of teaching CCSS to all students. All 10 participants in this study
shared that they believe what they implement with their GATE learners is also appropriate for
use with all of their students. Such an investigation could look at usage or perceptions of GATE
practices in teaching CCSS and GATE practices implemented with all learners and whether or
not teachers understand why such instructional strategies are beneficial to both GATE and
general education learners.
Participants from each district mentioned interactions with a GATE Coordinator, but
more attention in how GATE polices and philosophies are disseminated to GATE teachers via
this position or other district stakeholders could have implications for GATE professional
learning for in-service teachers. The role of GATE coordinator is included in the California
Department of Education’s Recommended Standards for Programs of Gifted and Talented
Students and states that, “A coordinator is in place with experience and knowledge of gifted
education” (California Department of Education, 2005, Recommended standards for programs,
p. 6). While the GATE Program standards do mention the role of GATE coordinator and also
suggest such a person should be knowledgeable and experienced in gifted education, districts are
free to adopt and adhere to these recommendations as they deem necessary. Future research
could explore how districts utilize the role of GATE coordinator and to what capacity the GATE
coordinator positions align with either the Recommended Standards for Programs of Gifted and
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 264
Talented Students and/or overall GATE program implementation. Moreover, the relationship
between GATE coordinator and both site and district administrators could be examined to
discern what and how GATE information and policies are communicated to and understood by
administrators.
Teacher participants identified many elements of social-emotional considerations as an
academic need for GATE students. This study did not focus on what teachers know about the
social-emotional needs of GATE learners or how they make instructional choices to meet those
needs. But the participants’ understanding of student need does not reveal a discrepancy between
academic or social-emotional need. Therefore, future research could look at this topic and how
different SMSs assist or hinder the social-emotional well-being of GATE learners.
Conclusions
This study examined how elementary school teachers are gaining knowledge about the
needs of GATE learners and the potential GATE services teachers may implement in the
classroom to meet the academic needs of their GATE students. The study also investigated why
teachers choose specific GATE services in the forms of instructional strategies and differentiated
instruction, and analyzed their opinions about those choices. The findings demonstrate that
instructional choices are related to service model setting, teacher education, and individual
student need. While the study looked at how services are implemented and perceived within
Southern California, the findings are relevant to any gifted program in the United States that
identifies and provides instruction for gifted learners. Because this study provides descriptions of
how teachers determine how to implement the instructional strategies gained from professional
development in gifted education, it can provide insight to any educator of gifted education.
Moreover, Gallagher (2015) outlined the infrastructures needed for educational programing for
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 265
gifted students and included differentiated curricula, preparation of educators of the gifted, long
range programmatic planning, and continued research and evaluation in this area. These same
concepts are seen throughout this study. Adhering to Gallagher’s call for infrastructure and
support, findings from this study may assist educators of gifted students in that appeal.
Moreover, this study and its findings can offer preservice teachers or in-service teachers new to
working with gifted learners a lens into what current practitioners of gifted education do, think,
and believe. While this study did not examine the effectiveness of how GATE services are
implemented, it did demonstrate that these specific educators of elementary GATE learners care
about their effectiveness as teachers and take steps in order to serve their students.
Because gifted education can be overlooked and gifted students may not be getting the
schooling they need, this study is significant because it highlights why gifted education is
important and what benefits it affords gifted students. Additionally, this study demonstrates how
teachers attempt to provide excellence of instruction and equal learning opportunities for
learners, including gifted students, within their specific contexts. There are implications for the
field of teacher education in both preservice teacher credentialing programs and professional
development practices for in-service teachers about gifted education. There are thousands of
teachers in our school system whose responsibility is to educate gifted schoolchildren. Hearing
the voices, thoughts, and instruction decisions of current GATE practitioners in Southern
California could benefit other teachers of gifted students, both in California and across the
United States, and provide insight for teacher education programs. Moreover, the findings of this
study regarding how instructional services are implemented within different SMSs may be useful
in educating the parents and families of GATE children and other school-site stakeholders about
meets the needs of GATE learner or about program decisions related to SMS.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 266
While qualitative research is not generalizable by nature, the findings of this study do
have implications for current issues in gifted education at the national level. Every child deserves
high quality education that reflects recognition of and adherence to his or her individual needs.
Children who are identified with specific gifts or talents are just as deserving of that endeavor.
Teachers should be provided opportunities to learn how best to meet their needs so that they can
provide high quality instruction that supports gifted learners. And in doing so, knowledge and
education about gifted education is required so that teachers provide instruction, content,
activities, and an environment that the current field of gifted education deems appropriate and
best suited for children with gifted traits and abilities.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 267
References
Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Heo, N., & Dockery, L. (2013). High-ability students’
participation in specialized instructional delivery models: Variations by aptitude, grade,
gender, and content area. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(2), 135-147.
Bain, S. K., Bliss, S. L., Choate, S. M., & Sager Brown, K. (2007). Serving children who are
gifted: Perceptions of undergraduates planning to become teachers. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 450-478.
Bain, S. K., Bourgeois, S. J., & Pappas, D. N. (2003). Linking theoretical models to actual
practices: A survey of teacher in gifted education. Roeper Review, 25(4) 166-172.
Beisser, S. R. (2008). Unintended consequences of No Child Left Behind mandates on gifted
students. Forum on Public Policy, 1-13. Retrieved from:
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1099437.pdf.
Berman, K. M., Schultz, R. A., & Weber, C. L. (2012). A lack of awareness and emphasis in
preservice teacher training Preconceived beliefs about the gifted and talented. Gifted
Child Today, 35(1), 19-26).
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brulles, D, Saunders, R, & Cohn, S. (2010). Improving performance for gifted students in a
cluster grouping model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24(2), 327-350.
Brulles, D., & Winebrenner, S. (2011). The schoolwide cluster grouping model Restructuring
gifted education services for the 21
st
century. Gifted Child Today, 34(4), 35-46.
California Department of Education (2005). Recommended standards for programs for gifted and
talented students. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/gt/index.asp
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 268
California Department of Education (2017). Laws & regulations History of legislation, state
laws, and regulations related to implementation of GATE programs. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/lw/
California Department of Education (n.d.). Gifted & talented education Information and
resources related to the implementation of Gifted and Talented Education (GATE).
Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/
Chamberlin, M. T., & Chamberlin, S. A. (2010). Enhancing preservice teacher development:
Field experiences with gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(3),
381-416.
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2001). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development,
guidance, and teaching. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Copenhaver, R. W., & McIntyre, D. J. (1992). Teachers’ perception of gifted students. Roeper
Review, 14(3), 151-153.
Corbin, J, & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Cross, T. L. (1997). Psychological and social aspects of education gifted students. Peabody
Journal of Education, 72(3 & 4), 180-200.
Cross, T. L. (2002). Social/emotional needs: Competing with myths about the social and
emotional development of gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 44-45 & 65.
Cross, T. L. (2014). Social emotional needs The effects of educational mal nourishment on the
psychological well-being of gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 37(4), 264-265.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 269
Cutler, C. (2009). Gifted students and the triad/revolving door model in the regular classroom.
Contemporary Education, 68(1), 57-60.
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1998) Education of the gifted and talented (4th ed.). New York:
Allyn and Bacon.
Davalos, R., & Griffin, G. (1999). The impact of teachers’ individualized practices on gifted
students in rural, heterogeneous classrooms. Roeper Review, 21(4), 308-314.
Delcourt, M., Cornell, D., & Goldberg, M. (2007). Cognitive and affective learning outcomes of
gifted elementary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 359-381.
Delisle, J., & Galbraith, J. (2002). When gifted kids don’t have all the answers How to meet their
social and emotional needs. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.
Dooley, C. (1993). The challenge: Meeting the needs of gifted learners. The Reading Teacher,
46(7), 546-551.
Dorhout, A. (1983). Student and teacher perceptions of preferred teacher behaviors among the
academically gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(3), 122-125.
Duan, X., Shi, J., & Zhou, D. (2010). Developmental changes in processing speed: Influence of
accelerated education for gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2), 85-91.
Elhoweris, H. (2008). Teacher judgment in identifying gifted/talented students. Multicultural
Education, 15(3), 35-38.
Field, T., Harding, J., Yando, R., Gonzalez, K., Lasko, D., Bendell, D., & Marks, C. (1998).
Feelings and attitudes of gifted students. Adolescence, 33(130), 331-342.
Figg, S. D., Rogers, K. B., McCormick, J., & Low, R. (2012). Differentiating low performance
of the gifted learner: Achieving, underachieving, and selective consuming students.
Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(1), 53-71.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 270
Finn, Jr., C. E., & Wright, B. L. (2015). Failing our brightest kids The global challenge of
educating high-ability students. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Firmender, J. M., Reis, S. M. & Sweeny, S. M. (2013). Reading comprehension and fluency
levels ranges across diverse classrooms: The need for differentiated reading instruction
and content. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(1), 3-14.
Folsom, C. (2006). Making conceptual connections between gifted and general education:
Teaching for intellectual and emotional learning (TIEL). Roeper Review, 28(2), 79-87.
Gallagher, J. J. (2015). Political issues in gifted education. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 38(1), 77-89.
Gagné, F., & Nadeau, L. (1991). Brief presentation of Gagné and Nadeau’s attitude scale
“Opinions about the gifted and their education.” Unpublished manuscript, University of
Quebec, Montreal, Canada.
Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in
preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), pp. 181-187.
Gentry, M., & Owen, S. (1999). An investigation of the effects of total school flexible cluster
grouping on identification, achievement, and classroom practices. Gifted Child Quarterly,
43(4), 224-242.
Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching
and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184-205.
Harradine, C. C., Coleman, M. R., & Winn, D. C. (2014). Recognizing academic potential in
students of color: Findings of u-stars-plus. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 24-34.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 271
Hertberg-Davis, H. (2009). Myth 7: differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to
gifted programs and is sufficient Classroom teachers have the time, the skill, and the will
to differentiate adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 251-253.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1926) Gifted children Their nature and nurture. New York, NY: The
MacMillan Company.
Hong, E., Greene, M. T., & Higgins, K. (2006). Instructional practices of teachers in general
education classrooms and gifted resource rooms: Development and validation of the
instructional practice questionnaire. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(2), 91-103.
Hyerle, D. (2004). Thinking Maps® as a transformational language for learning. Retrieved from
https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/6577_hyerle_ch_1.pdf
Joffe, W. S. (2001). Investigating the acquisition of pedagogical knowledge: Interviews with a
beginning teacher of the gifted. Roeper Review, 23(4), 219-226.
Jolly, J. L. (2009). A resuscitation of gifted education. American Educational History Journal,
36(1), 37-52.
Kanevsky, L. (2011). Deferential differentiation What types of differentiation do students
want? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 279-299.
Kaplan, S. (2007). Differentiation by depth and complexity. In W. Conklin & S. Frei
(Eds.) Differentiating the curriculum for gifted learners. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell
Education.
Kaplan, S. N. (2008). Curriculum consequences: If you learn this, then... Gifted Child
Today, 31(1), 41-42.
Kay, S. I. (2002). An interview with Abraham J. Tannenbaum Innovative programs for the gifted
and talented. Roeper Review, 24(4), 186-190.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 272
Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends
in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169-183.
Larsen, M. D., Griffin, N. S., & Larsen, L. M. (1994). Public opinion regarding support for
special programs for gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17(2), 131-
142.
Lister, K., & Roberts, J. (2011). The self-concepts and perceived competencies of gifted and
non-gifted students: a meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,
11(2), 130-140.
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, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Matthews, D., & Kitchen, J. (2007). School-within-a-school gifted programs: Perceptions of
students and teachers in public schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 256-271.
Matthews, M. S., & McBee, M. T. (2007). School factors and the underachievement of gifted
students in a talent search summer program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 167-181.
Matthews, M. S., Ritchotte, J. A., & McBee, M. T. (2013). Effects of schoolwide cluster
grouping and within-class ability grouping on elementary school students’ academic
achievement growth. High Ability Studies, 24(2), 81-97.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
McClain, M. C., & Pfeiffer, S. (2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States
today: A look at state definitions, polices, and practices. Journal of Applied School
Psychology, 28(1), 59-88.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 273
McCoach, B. D., & Siegle, D. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students
from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 144-154.
McCoach, B. D., & Siegle, D. (2007). What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted? Gifted
Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246-255.
McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanaugh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of
teacher education: A call for common language and collective activity. Journal of
Teacher Education, 64(5), 378-386.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Michael-Chadwell, S. (2011). Examining the underrepresentation of underserved students in
gifted programs from a transformational leadership vantage point. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 34(1), 99-130.
National Association for Gifted Children (n.d.). Gifted education in the U.S. Retrieved from
http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/gifted-education-us
Oakes, (1986). Beyond tracking. Educational Horizons, 65(1), 32-35.
Opfer, V. D., & Peddler, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of
Educational Research, 81(3), 376-407.
Passow, A. H. (1981). The nature of giftedness and talent. Gifted Child Today, 25(1), 5-10.
Passow, A. H. (1994). Growing up gifted and talented: Schools, families and communities.
Gifted Education International, 10(1), 4-9.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 274
Pierce, R. L., Cassady, J. C., Adams, C. M., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Dixon, F. A., & Cross, T.
L. (2011). The effects of clustering and curriculum on the development of gifted learners’
math achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(4), 569-594.
Powers, E. A. (2008). The use of independent study as a viable differentiation technique for
gifted learners in the regular classroom. Gifted Child Today, 31(3), 57-65.
Rayneri, L. J., Gerber, B. L., & Wiley, L. P. (2003). Gifted achievers and gifted underachievers:
The impact of learning style preferences in the classroom. The Journal of Secondary
Gifted Education, 14(4), 197-204.
Reis, S. M. & Boeve, H. (2009). How academically gifted elementary, urban students respond to
challenge in an enriched, differentiated reading program. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 33(2), 203-240.
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(3), 152-170.
Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. A., Muller, L. M., & Kaniskan, R. B. (2011). The effects
of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five
elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 462-501.
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992). Using curriculum compacting to challenge the above-
average. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 51-57.
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of
current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 308-317.
Renzulli, J. S. (1984). The triad/revolving door system: A research-based approach to
identification and programming for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(4),
163-171.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 275
Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for
creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of
giftedness (pp. 53-92). New York Cambridge University Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Emerging conceptions of giftedness: Building a bridge to the new century.
Exceptionality, 10, 67-75.
Ritchotte, J. A., Suhr, D., Alfurayh, N. F., & Graefe, A. K. (2016). An exploration of the
psychosocial characteristics of high achieving students and identified gifted students:
Implication for practice. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(1), 23-38.
Roegman, R., & Riehl, C. (2015). Playing doctor with teacher preparation: An examination of
rounds as a socializing practice for preservice teachers. International Journal of
Educational Research, 73, 89-99.
Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about education the gifted and talented. A synthesis of the
research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382-396.
Rosemarin, S. (2013). Should the teacher of the gifted be gifted? Gifted Education International,
30(3), 263-270.
Shaunessy, E., McHatton, P. A., Hughes, C., Brice, A., & Ratliff, M. A. (2007). Understanding
the experiences of bilingual, Latino/a adolescents: Voices from gifted and general
education. Roeper Review, 29(3), 174-182.
Seeley, K. (2004). Gifted and talented students at risk. Focus on Exceptional Children, 37(4), 1-
8.
Sisk, D. (2009). Myth 13: The regular classroom teacher can “go it alone”. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 53(4), 269-271.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 276
Sleeter, C. E. (2000-2001). Epistemological diversity in research on preservice teacher
preparation for historically underserved children. Review of Research in Education, 25,
209-250.
Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., Pierce, R. L., Cassady, J. C., & Dixon, F. A. (2007).
Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving
diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 479-537.
State of California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2017). Specialist Instruction
Credentials (CL-529 5/12). Retrieved from https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-
source/leaflets/cl529-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=b4d3353a_0
Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Moon, S. M. (2011). The effects of acceleration on high-ability learners:
A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 39-53.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Giftedness: A psychosocial approach. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E.
Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 21-52). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1998). Programs for the gifted: To be or not to be. Journal for the Education
of the Gifted. 22(1), 3-36.
Terman, L. M. (1925).Genetic studies of genius, Vol I. Stanford University Press.
Tomlinson, C. a. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational
Leadership, 57(1), 12-16.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences: Standards-based teaching and differentiation.
Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6-11.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper Review,
26(4), 188-189.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 277
Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students. Theory
into Practice, 44(2), 160-166.
Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K.,
Conover, L. A., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student
readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of
literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2/3). 119-145).
Trivette, C. M., Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D., & O’Herin, C. E. (2009). Characteristics and
consequences of adult learning methods and strategies. Research Brief, 3(1), 1-33.
Troxclair, D. A. (2013). Preservice teacher attitudes toward giftedness. Roper Review, 35(1), 58-
64.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2015). Common core state standards for students with gifts and talents.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 47(4), 191-198.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Johnsen, S. K. (2007). Teacher education standards for the field of gifted
education A vision of coherence for personal preparation in the 21st century. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 51(2), 182-205.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted
learners in the regular classroom. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 211-217.
Vogl, K. & Preckel, F. (2014). Full-time ability grouping of gifted students: Impacts on social
self-concept and school-related attitudes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 51-68.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 278
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans. & Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Washburne, C. W. (1953). Adjusting the program to the child. Educational Leadership, 138-147.
Watts-Taffe, S., Laster, B. P., Braoch, L., Marinak, B., Connor, C. M., & Walker-Dalhouse, D.
(2012). Differentiated instruction Making informed teacher decisions. The Reading
Teacher, 66(4), 303-314.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York: The Free Press.
Wiskow, K., Fowler, V. D., & Christopher, M. M. (2011). Active advocacy: Working together
for appropriate services for gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 34(2), 20-25.
Young, M. H., & Balli, S. J. (2014). Gifted and talented education (GATE) Student and parent
perspectives. Gifted Child Today, 37(4), 236-246.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 279
Appendix A
Interview Protocol A
Protocol Outline for “Teachers’ Knowledge of Gifted Students and their Perceptions of Gifted
Services in Public Elementary Schooling”: Interview 1
Participant:
Date & Time:
Introduction
I’d like to thank you for agreeing to be a part of my study. I truly appreciate your
generosity with your time today by taking part in this interview because I know your time is
valuable. This interview should take about one hour. Is that time frame still ok with you?
Firstly, I would like to offer you some background about the purposes of my study. I am
completing my dissertation at the Rossier School of Education at USC. The topic is on teacher
knowledge about the academic needs of GATE students and their perspectives about the services
they provide to meet the academic needs of their GATE students. This study aims to hear what
teachers know, how they gain that knowledge, and then the instructional choices the teachers
make based on that knowledge. Along with interviewing elementary GATE teachers, I will also
be analyzing teacher created documents and your district’s GATE policies.
I am interested in hearing the stories and thinking process of other elementary teachers of
GATE students. I am meeting with teachers from different GATE service models that affect how
students are grouped in classrooms and provided resources from the school. Different GATE
settings include cluster grouping, whole-class GATE grouping, pull-out classes, or no specific
GATE grouping that results in only 1-2 GATE students. Do you have any questions for me at
this point?
Please understand that my role here today and throughout this process is that of a
researcher. I am not here to evaluate you, any teachers, or any students. I will not be making any
judgements about you as a teacher or your abilities to make instructional choices for your
students. My sole purpose is to hear your thoughts and learn how GATE teachers make choices
for their students. Our conversations are confidential and your name and school will not be used
in my final dissertation.
If you are interested, I would be happy to share my findings and final dissertation with
you after the study is completed. Do you have any (other) questions at this point?
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 280
I have brought an audio recorder so that I can accurately record your responses today.
The recording is for my use only so I can accurately capture what you say. All audio recordings
will also be kept confidential. It is here to help me ensure accuracy of my findings. Would it be
ok with you if I record the conversation?
Thank you. Would it be ok with you if we start the interview now?
Setting the Stage: Teacher Education
Great, let’s begin. I would like to start by asking you about your background and education in
teaching.
1) Can you please describe how you became credentialed?
a. What schools did you attend?
b. Where did you do your student teaching?
c. When did you complete your credential?
2) Originally, how were you hired by your current district?
3) How many years have you been teaching?
a. What grade levels have you taught?
b. For how many years each?
c. What positions have you had during your time here?
d. What other teaching experiences have you had?
4) What, if any, training or education did you have about GATE students BEFORE you
started your first full time teaching position?
a. Tell me about that training. What did you learn?
b. What did you think about the training’s ability to teach you what you needed to
know about GATE students?
c. How did it prepare you to teach GATE students?
5) What education about GATE students or GATE instruction have you had SINCE you
started working as a full time teacher?
a. Tell me about that training. What did you learn?
b. What did you think about the training’s ability to teach you what you needed to
know about GATE students?
c. How did it prepare you to teach GATE students?
d. Repeat 5-5c as necessary.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 281
6) Is there any other way that you have come to learn about GATE students in addition to
what you have shared with me so far? Please be as specific as possible.
7) How did you come to teach GATE students currently?
8) Describe the process your school goes through to assign teachers to classes where there
are GATE student?
a. How is teacher GATE education factored into the decision, if at all?
b. How is teacher experience with GATE students factored into this decision, if at
all?
Setting the Stage: Classroom Make-up and Service Model
Thank you for sharing the story of your education with me and how you came to learn about and
teach GATE students. Now I am going to ask you a few questions about your current teaching
setting.
9) I would like to start with the make-up of your current classroom. Can you please give me
background on the students in your classroom?
a. Grade?
b. Student ages?
c. Percentage or number of students identified GATE?
d. Students who are not GATE?
10) Can you elaborate about the students who require special academic consideration?
a. Or for students with IEPs?
b. …For students with behavior needs?
c. ...For students with second language needs?
d. ...For GATE students?
e. ...For any other classification or reason?
11) How does your district or school determine which teachers teach in GATE classrooms
with similar make-ups/service structure to yours?
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 282
12) How long have you been teaching in this type of GATE setting (cluster, self-contained,
etc.)?
13) What are your thoughts about this type of setting?
14) Are there any other GATE settings you have worked in? Can you describe those settings
or classrooms as well?
15) What are your thoughts about these types of settings you have mentioned?
Heart of the Interview (1): Gifted Definitions
16) If someone was to ask you what GATE means, what would you say?
a. Where does this definition come from?
17) What does GATE mean to you?
18) What is your personal definition of giftedness?
19) How does your district define giftedness?
20) How does your school define giftedness (if different from the district)?
21) How are GATE students identified in your district? Please describe the process as
specifically as possible. Can you provide a specific example of a student who was
identified for GATE?
22) What role do you have in GATE identification for your district or school?
23) Is that role the same for all teachers at your school site? How is it different for others?
24) Heart of the Interview (2): Knowledge of Academic Needs
25) What are some academic needs of GATE students?
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 283
a. Can you describe how a teacher would know that this was a need for a student?
b. What would the student be saying?
c. What would the student be doing?
26) Can you think of any other academic needs, maybe that you are aware of but have not
encountered personally?
a. Can you describe how a teacher would know that this was a need for a student?
27) How did you learn that these were academic needs of GATE students?
a. How did your credential program prepare you to know the needs of GATE
students, if at all?
b. How did in service professional development prepare you to know the needs of
GATE students, if at all?
28) Now, thinking about your current GATE students or those from last year, what are some
academic needs they have?
29) Can you provide an example of a time when _____________ these needs were
demonstrated in your class?
a. What was the student doing?
b. What was the student saying?
c. How did you learn of __________________ (this particular need)?
d. (Repeat 27-27c as necessary).
30) How did you know that this was an academic need?
31) How do you determine what those academic needs are?
a. Can you provide a specific example of how you identified the academic needs of
one of your current students?
32) Can you please elaborate on ___________ when determining the academic needs of your
GATE students?
33) Can you describe your use of “assessments” in determining the academic needs of your
students, if at all?
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 284
a. Which of those assessments are district created or mandated?
b. How do you use these district assessments?
c. Which assessments are self-created?
d. How did you develop these self-created assessments?
e. How do you use these self-created assessments?
f. What is your reasoning behind the use of these assessments?
34) Is there anything else you would like to add about your understanding of GATE students’
academic needs or how you have gained that knowledge?
Heart of the Interview (3a): Meeting Academic Need
The conversation so far has focused on the needs of GATE students. I would now like you to
think about the instructional choices you make to meet the needs of your GATE students that you
just shared with me.
35) First, if someone was to ask you what the term differentiation means, what would you
say?
36) How did you first learn about differentiation?
a. In what context did you learn about it?
b. What do you remember was said about it?
c. Has your definition of differentiation changed since that time?
d. If yes, what has prompted the change in definition in your mind?
37) Generally speaking, what is best way to differentiate to meet students’ needs?
a. Can you describe what that would look like in a classroom?
b. What would students be doing?
c. What would the teacher be doing?
d. What would students be saying?
e. What would the teacher be saying?
38) What are some other ways to differentiate to meet students’ needs?
39) Now thinking about your own practice, how do you generally differentiate?
a. Can you describe what that looks like in your classroom?
b. What would your students be doing?
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 285
c. What would you be doing?
d. What would your students be saying?
e. What would you be saying?
f. Can you provide a recent example of differentiation in your class?
g. What did you do?
h. What were the students doing?
40) How does differentiation look in different subject areas for GATE students?
a. English language arts
b. Math
c. Art
d. Science
e. Social Studies
f. Other subjects
41) Some people would say that it’s easier to differentiate for GATE students in some
subjects and not in others. How would you respond to this statement?
a. What subjects, if any, are easier for you to differentiate for your GATE students?
Why?
b. Can you provide a specific example where differentiation for your GATE students
was facilitated?
c. What subjects, if any, are harder for you to differentiate for your GATE students?
Why?
d. Can you provide a specific example where differentiation for your GATE students
was hindered?
Differentiation can occur in instruction, content, product/assessment, and/or environment. In this
next part of the interview, I would like for you to think about and elaborate on each of these. I
would love it if you could share what you do and why you make those choices.
42) First, how, if at all, do you differentiate instruction for GATE learners?
a. Can you provide a specific example of a recent time when you differentiated your
instruction to meet the academic needs of your GATE learners?
b. What subject was it in?
c. What did you do?
d. What were the students doing?
e. What was the ultimate goal of the instruction?
43) How, if at all, do you differentiate content for GATE learners and why?
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 286
a. Can you provide a specific example of a recent time when you differentiated the
content to meet the academic needs of your GATE learners?
b. What subject was it in?
c. What did you do?
d. What were the students doing?
44) How, if at all, do you differentiate product or assessment for GATE learners and why?
a. Can you provide a specific example of a recent time when you differentiated your
assessment to meet the academic needs of your GATE learners?
b. What subject was it in?
c. What did you do?
d. What were the students doing?
e. What was the ultimate goal of the assessment?
45) How, if at all, do you differentiate environment for GATE learners and why?
a. Can you provide a specific example of a recent time when you differentiated the
environment to meet the academic needs of your GATE learners?
b. What did you do?
c. What were the students doing?
d. What was the ultimate goal of this differentiation?
46) How do you ensure you are meeting the academic needs of your GATE students?
a. What steps do you take to hold yourself accountable to meeting their needs, if
anything?
b. How do you seek out support to make sure you are meeting the needs of your
students, if at all?
c. How do you keep track, if at all, of how you are meeting their needs?
47) Do you have any lesson plans, rubrics, assignments, or notations in you plan book that
depict what you are describing?
48) Would you be willing to share those with me… either let me photograph or make a
photocopy?
49) Also, would you be willing to look through some of your teacher created materials that
you created specifically with the intention to differentiate for your GATE students. Can
you share those with me next time? (I am not asking for you to make anything, rather
share what you have already made.)
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 287
Final Question
50) Is there anything else you would like to express or want me to know regarding your
experiences or training in GATE education, your experiences in learning about GATE
students, or how you differentiate to meet students’ needs?
Closing
I would like to thank you very much for your time and candor today. Your openness and
willingness to share is greatly appreciated. I am going to listen to our conversation a few times
before our second interview. I hope to gain a deeper understanding about your individual
practice and instructional choices regarding GATE students. Are you still ok with having another
interview of approximately 30 minutes? We can conduct the conversation on the phone if that
works best for you schedule.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 288
Appendix B
Interview Protocol B
Protocol Outline for “Teachers’ Knowledge of Gifted Students and their Perceptions of Gifted
Services in Public Elementary Schooling”: Interview 2
Participant:
Date & Time:
Introduction
I’d like to thank you again for agreeing to meet/talk with me a second time. I truly
appreciate your generosity with your time today by taking part in this interview. I do recognize
your time is valuable. This second interview should take about one hour. Is that time frame still
ok with you?
Thank you so much for your openness and sincerity during the first interview. I have
listened to our previous conversation and I am curious to know more about some of the things
you shared with me. I am going to ask you a few follow-up questions to topics we discussed last
time to gain a deeper understanding of what you are thinking. I am also going to ask you some
questions about new topics related to GATE education that I am interested in which came up
from that last interview.
Please remember that my role here today and throughout this process is that of a
researcher. I am not here to evaluate you or any students. I will not be making any judgements
about you as a teacher or your abilities make instructional choices for your students. My sole
purpose is to hear your thoughts and make sense of how GATE teachers make instructional
choices for their students and why. Our conversations are confidential. Your name and school
will not be used in my final dissertation.
If you are interested, I would be happy to share my findings and final dissertation with
you after the study is completed. Do you have any (other) questions at this point?
I have brought an audio recorder so that I can accurately record your responses today.
The recording is for my use so I can accurately capture what you say. All audio recordings will
also be kept confidential. It is here to help me ensure accuracy of my findings. Would it be ok
with you if I record the conversation?
Thank you. Would it be ok with you if we start the interview now?
Setting the Stage: Teacher Education
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 289
1) During our last interview, you mentioned that you received _____________ GATE
training. In your mind, which of your personal educational experiences about GATE
education has been the most helpful when you work with GATE students?
2) Can you elaborate on that and tell me why it was the most beneficial?
3) Of these trainings, from which one have you incorporated the most into your practice?
a. Can you provide an example of what you have taken from the trainings more
specifically?
b. What do you think facilitated you incorporating the learning into your practice?
4) What do you perceive to be the most important things teachers of GATE students should
know about GATE students’ academic needs?
5) What do you perceive to be the most important things teachers of GATE students should
know about how to meet these academic needs?
6) If you could impart knowledge to other school site stakeholders (general education
teachers, administrators, or district staff) about GATE students, what would be the most
essential elements of teaching GATE students you would want these stakeholders to
understand?
7) What typical misunderstandings do those stakeholders who do not directly work with
GATE students have about GATE students?
8) Can you elaborate on those ideas or why those are misunderstandings?
9) What typical misunderstandings do those stakeholders who do not directly work with
GATE students have about GATE education?
10) Can you elaborate on those ideas?
11) TBD based on previous interview…
Heart of the Interview (3b): Meeting Student Need
Now I would like you to think back to our discussion about meeting students’ needs. I had asked
you about differentiation and choices you make to meet the academic needs of your GATE
students.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 290
12) During our last conversation you said you typically ______________ to differentiate and
meet GATE student needs. How successful do you believe that practice to be?
a. How do you know that it is successful?
b. Why do you think it’s successful?
c. Can you provide a specific example of when it was successful?
d. What are some challenges to using this approach?
e. What are some benefits of using this approach?
Next I am going to describe some teaching scenarios. Please explain in as much detail as
possible what you would do if you were the teacher in the situation and why.
13) You have a GATE student who loves math and excels quite easily in everything related
to mathematics. However, he or she is completely dis-interested in language arts
including reading and especially writing. Although the student is far above grade level in
math, he or she is struggling to read and write on grade level. Please explain what you
would do as this child’s teacher.
14) The district has informed all elementary schools that they are adopting a particular
language arts or math program. You attend all of the training and believe you have
learned the program well. But you deem the program is not designed or able to meet the
needs of your GATE students. What do you do? How do you do it? And why?
15) One of your GATE students has extraordinary creative/artistic ability. However, the
student struggles to perform at grade level in most academic areas. How do you explain
these student outcomes to the parents and/or the student? What instructional choices will
you make regarding this student? What would you do?
Thank you for your insight into those hypothetical teaching scenarios. Now I will ask you some
questions about meeting specific academic needs of GATE students.
16) What does developing creativity mean in the context of GATE students?
a. Can you provide some specific examples?
17) How do you develop creativity in you GATE students?
18) What are some consequences for GATE students if their academic needs are not met?
a. What are the short term effects on GATE students of their academic needs not
being met?
b. What are the long term effects on GATE students of their academic needs not
being met?
19) What is your personal experience with ______________ types of situations?
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 291
20) How, if at all, do you implement the use of acceleration for GATE students?
21) How, if at all, do you use enrichment for GATE students?
22) TBD based on previous interview…
Heart of the Interview (4): Teacher Perceptions
We’ve been discussing how to meet the needs of GATE students. Now I’d like to shift the
conversation towards your opinions and perceptions. Here I am going to ask that you are as
honest as you feel comfortable. I truly want to know what you believe based on your years of
experience working with GATE students.
23) What would you say is your philosophy of GATE?
a. Some people would say that GATE only serves to discourage other students who
have not been identified as gifted. How would you respond to this statement?
24) What do you believe is the best way to meet the academic needs of your GATE learners?
Can you provide a specific example that demonstrates why this is the best way?
25) What helps teachers meet the needs of their GATE students? Can you provide a specific
example that demonstrates how this helped teachers?
26) What are the barriers in meeting the needs of GATE learners? Can you provide a specific
example that demonstrates why these are important challenges to consider.
27) What do you believe GATE teachers must know or understand to be effective teachers of
GATE students?
28) What formal training or education about GATE education do you believe teachers of
GATE students should have? ...why do you think that?
29) If you could design any program - regarding GATE education at your school or district,
what would it be? Describe what you would include in this program.
30) If you could design a policy regarding GATE education at your school or district, what
would it be? Describe what you would include in this policy.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 292
31) What formal setting or “service model” for GATE students to you believe is most
beneficial for GATE learners? Why?
32) Do you think GATE students should skip grade levels? Why or why not and in which
situations?
33) TBD based on previous interview…
34) Final Question
35) We’ve discussed your perceptions about implementing GATE services and GATE
programming. Is there anything else you would like me to know about your personal
beliefs regarding GATE education?
36) Were you able to find and bring any (more) teacher created materials to share with me
today?
Great! I hope it is okay with you if I ask you a few questions about the documents you are
sharing today.
37) Can you please describe these documents?
a. Why did you chose to share this document?
b. What was your reason for creating it?
c. Is this a typical document that you create?
i. If yes, why?
ii. If no, why is it atypical?
d. How you share these documents with other GATE teachers?
e. Repeat 38a-38d with as many documents as the participant brings.
Closing
Thank you so much for all the time you have given me and sharing your thoughts with
me. Your input is very helpful and will add great value to my finding for my dissertation on
GATE services and teacher knowledge. As I review my notes, your interviews, and your
___________ (documents), would it be okay with you for me to call or email you if I have any
further questions?
Thank you again for your time.
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 293
Appendix C
Interview Protocol C
Member Check Protocol: Teacher G regarding new Service Model Setting
Thank you for participating in this short follow-up interview. It should take less than 10 minutes.
I deeply appreciate your time, generosity, and openness. Just as before, our conversations are
confidential. Your name, school, and district will not be used in this study. Also, would it be
okay with you for me to record this conversation, just as before? Do you have any questions
before we begin?
1) Teacher Education
Did your credential program give you any training of GATE students? If yes, what topics or
concepts?
How about your induction/BTSA/credential clearing process/program?
2) Delivery Model
You mentioned a few times the phrase "delivery model" that your district uses... what might you
have meant by that?
What does delivery model mean to you?
Can you give some examples of delivery models?
Do you think that means the GATE setting/service model... i.e whole GATE classes???
3) Service Model Setting: Cluster A: even across grade level
What is your class’s current demographics? (grade, gender, # of students, # of GATE, IEPs,
Behavior, ELL, ethnicity?
Is this the same or different from the entire grade level?
How has this changed from the previous 3 years?
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 294
How is it different than the self-contained model?
How is your differentiation different?
What are any difficulties or challenges of clustering using this setting?
Is anything easier with this model?
How is the community reacting to this setting?
“What setting to you think is more beneficial for GATE learners? And why
How do you feel now about the statement, “GATE education does a disservice to those who are
not identified GATE?”
Do you have a preference for service model setting? If so, what and why? Please explain.
What are your current perceptions on the identification practices in your district now?
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 295
Appendix D
Document Catalog
Participant Artifact
# of
Pages
Code(s) Relevance/Description
Anne 22 Various Lesson Plans 100+
Student Choice
Student Interest
Differentiation
Various lesson plans and formats showing all
content areas and inter relation of subject
matter. Many lessons are project or unit based.
A total of 22 documents than 100 pages in all.
Some elements of differentiation, student
choice and/or student interest. Not specifically
created for GATE, but is intended to meet
student need
Beverly *No documents provided
Sharon
District Identification
Pathways
1 Identification
shows 3 pathways for ID: passing CogAT7
high achievement or creativity
District IEP- GATE 5
Differentiation
Student Choice
1 page of directions, fill out with student &
teacher, identifies areas of strength and
challenge, allows students to set own
differentiation goals and meta-cognate about
progress
Karen
Reading Self-Assessment
Rubrics
4 Differentiation
multiple rubrics for reading skills, pasted in
student notebooks, spans 4 levels
Student Projects 3
Student Choice
Differentiation
Student Work, subject matter projects (social
studies), shows about 12 projects
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 296
Participant Artifact
# of
Pages
Code(s) Relevance/Description
Elizabeth
After School GATE
Program Plan
11
Teacher Ed
Student Interest
Student Choice
Plan for after school class. Objectives writing
for some of the days with individual choice,
attention to all subject areas
Student Work Samples 3 Student Interest
student work from after school GATE class on
bridge building
Group Project: History 1 Student Interest
Small group project on a specific article with
multi-subject activities to follow
District Identification
Memos
6 Identification
parent consent forms, parent referral checklist,
7 areas of identification with definitions,
Helen
Tic-Tac-Toe menu board:
Depth & Complexity Non-
Fiction Reading Response
Choice Board
1
D&C
Student Choice
activity choice, depth, enrichment
D&C Icon Charts 2 D&C posters of the icons on the walls
Brain Power Math 4 Differentiation
problem solving activities and notebook for
early finishers
Flexible Seating System 3 Student Choice
cup of colored popsicle stick, chart on the wall
of seating choices, Excel chart color coded to
sticks to ensure rotation fairness
Winter Artwork 3 Creativity art project, multiple steps, student work
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 297
Participant Artifact
# of
Pages
Code(s) Relevance/Description
Gena HW menu spelling 1 Student Choice
(pick 1 of many) 3 times, student choice of
activities
Science extension menu 1 Student Choice
rubric set, students choose how to present their
knowledge, half sheet with 2 /page
Science Rotation Menu 1 Student Choice activity choice, creativity, product choice
Birthday Party Math
Extension Project
5
Student Choice
Enrichment
critical thinking skills, activity choices,
extending math for students who compact out
TABs Observation Form 1
Identification
Gifted Traits
teachers fill out for students who passed level 2
screening, no definition of GATE given or
program description given to the teacher, shows
10 "traits"
TABs Training Guide 28
Teacher Ed
Identification
Gifted Traits
Presentation handouts of new TABs
identification theory and meanings, given by
site GATE coordinator to rest of GATE
teachers at the site.
GATE Services School Site
Plan
2 Teacher Ed
survey for GATE teachers, develop areas of
strength and growth opportunities across the
site, instructional models and approaches to
learning are listed
Scholarly Attitudes 1 Teacher Ed poster with all 11 traits of scholarly attitudes
Universal Themes 1 Teacher Ed
poster with definition and 3 themes: Change,
community, adaptation
Talk Moves posters 1 Teacher Ed
in color, shows rules, purpose, and 7 talk moves
(waiting, repeating, agreement/disagreement,
adding on, say more, reasoning, re-voicing)
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 298
Participant Artifact
# of
Pages
Code(s) Relevance/Description
Gena
(continued)
D&C pre-Printed Frame 1 D&C critical thinking skills
Ring of D&C Icons 2
D&C
Teacher Ed
Ring with all D&C prompts on individual cards
D&C Prompt cards 1
D&C
Teacher Ed
7x4 inch colored cards along board, 1st set of
11 prompts
D&C Prompt large posters 2
D&C
Teacher Ed
Copied on Colored paper, all 19 prompts with
name/icon with explanation sheet to explain
what they are
Doreen
D&C Reading Response
Sheet
2
D&C
Teacher Ed
critical thinking, student choice, scaffolding
Student "Agendas" with
reference sheets
8
D&C
Teacher Ed
Cover, school wide SMART rules, thinking
maps, math references, transitional words,
D&C icons and explanations
D&C Chart for Reading
Response
1
D&C
Teacher Ed
teacher created by hand, marker & chart paper,
has fill in the blank sections for students to
follow along with Reading Response sheet
D&C Prompt charts 3
D&C
Teacher Ed
1 page color sheet of all D&C prompts hung up
in classroom
Student work with D&C
Frames
4 D&C
Teacher created charts in combination with
student created D&C frames, also see
"Scholarly Attitudes" posters above
Scholarly Attitudes 3 Teacher Ed
Bright green 1 page sheets of key scholarly
attitudes
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 299
Participant Artifact
# of
Pages
Code(s) Relevance/Description
Doreen
(continued)
District GATE Report Card 2
Differentiation
Teacher Ed
4 sections: 2 graded for student attributes (6
areas) and GATE content understanding
(products). 2 areas to show services for subject
areas (4 subjects) and differentiation strategies
(D&C, acceleration, compacting, enrichment,
independent study). Checked if service was
provided that trimester. Page 2 give explanation
of grades and marks
Genius Hour Packet 34
Student Choice
Independent
Study
parent packet with information on genius hour,
tips to get started, critical thinking prompts,
step-by-step guides to completing the project
Library Book Leveling
Chart
1 Student Choice
Library is color coded by AR level. Students
can choose books by their level based on color
coding system
Growth Mindset Bulletin
Board
1 Student Interest
school wide promotion of growth mindset, co-
arranged by participant
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 300
Participant Artifact
# of
Pages
Code(s) Relevance/Description
Frances HW extension menu 2
D&C
Student Choice
connects Icons and thinking maps, every
subject area, student choice & interest,
D&C Icon to Thinking
Map Reference
Guides
2
D&C
Teacher Ed
aligns depth and complexity icon prompts with
specific thinking maps for student reference
and assignments
D&C Concept Formation:
Inductive Reasoning
Response Sheet
1
D&C
Teacher Ed
critical thinking skills
D&C Icons and
descriptions
1 D&C posters on wall with descriptions and questions
Thinking Maps 1 Critical Thinking
picture of Thinking Maps with words
"investigate, invent, create" hung on the wall
State Vacation Project 3 Student Choice
plan a trip to a state, entertainment, cost, hotel,
food, etc.
Models of Instruction
Reference Guide
1 Teacher Ed
instructional models & purposes, used for PD
or for planning
8 Keys of Excellence 1 Teacher Ed
large "keys" on wall, promotes this thinking in
classroom
Guide to Gate Certification 10 Teacher Ed
packet from a training, steps to completion,
steps for portfolio, rubrics for teachers, intro to
4 GATE areas of differentiation
Advanced Organizer:
Differentiation Strategies
3
Teacher Ed
Differentiation
a teacher can use this to understand different
differentiation strategies, could be a checklist,
used in a PD or for planning
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 301
Participant Artifact
# of
Pages
Code(s) Relevance/Description
Frances
(continued)
GATE Certification
Portfolio
200+
Teacher Ed
D&C
Student Choice
Student Interests
Differentiation
Divided into 5 tabs: Scholarliness,
differentiation, D&C, Extension \ Menus,
Think Like a Disciplinarian. Each section has
handouts for implementation, lesson plans,
student work, teacher created posters, photos
and/or reflections by the teacher. Also included
a copy of the GATE certificate from the district
Marie
Extension Math Problems:
Baseball
1
Enrichment
Student Interest
motivated a student who was very interested in
baseball to complete more challenging, deeper
thinking problems
Homework Assignments 4 Student Interest
optional assignments, student interest, 2
examples of 2 page assignments
Differentiated Math
Number Sets
3 Differentiation
same word problem with 3 different versions of
number sets, increasing difficulty
Independent Study Pack 6
Student Choice
Student Interest
work organizer for independent work, copy
write Kaplan, USC 2007
Article: C. J. Mills & W. G.
Durden
6 SMS
"Cooperative Learning and Ability Grouping:
An Issue of Choice
Article: K. M. Teno 7 SMS
"Cluster Grouping Elementary Gifted Students
in the Regular Classroom: A Teacher's
Perspective" from Gifted Child Today
Article: J. Van Tassel-
Baska
5 SMS
"Educational Decision Making on Acceleration
and Grouping"
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 302
Participant Artifact
# of
Pages
Code(s) Relevance/Description
Marie
(continued)
Article: D. Brulles and S.
Winebrenner
11 SMS
"The Schoolwide Cluster Grouping Model:
Restructuring Gifted Education Services for the
21st Century"
Article: S. Winebrenner &
B. Devlin
9 SMS
"Cluster Grouping of Gifted Students: How to
Provide Full-Time Services on a Part-Time
Budget"
Article: M. Gentry & S. V.
Owen
20 SMS
"An Investigation of the Effects of Total School
Flexible Cluster Grouping on Identification,
Achievement, and Classroom Practices"
set of enlarged D&C icons 3 D&C
Teacher created/enlarged to use icons in
classroom
Parent Handout:
Underachievement
2
Parents
Underachievement
back-to-back handout describing key behaviors
of underachievement and potential
interventions
Article: J. Whitmore 3
Underachievement
Gifted Traits
"Education of the Gifted Child"
Article: Reis & McCoach 5
Underachievement
Gifted Traits
"Underachievement in Gifted Students"
Article: Schuler 4
Underachievement
Gifted Traits
"Perfectionism in Gifted Children and
Adolescents"
Article: Neihart 5
Underachievement
Gifted Traits
"Delinquency and Gifted Children"
Article: 'Perfectionism' in
Supporting Gifted Children
3 Gifted Traits
what it looks like, how a perfectionist thinks,
acts, feels (Helping Gifted Children Soar: A
Practical Guide for Parents & Teachers)
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 303
Participant Artifact
# of
Pages
Code(s) Relevance/Description
Marie
(continued)
Article: 'Stress' in
Supporting Gifted Children
5 Gifted Traits
from (Helping Gifted Children Soar: A
Practical Guide for Parents & Teachers)
Article: 'Friendships' and
'self-Esteem' in Supporting
Gifted Children
3 Gifted Traits
from (Helping Gifted Children Soar: A
Practical Guide for Parents & Teachers)
Article: "The Rage of
Gifted Students"
3 Gifted Traits from Gifted Child Today, no author
Article: 'Depression' in
Supporting Gifted Children
3 Gifted Traits
from (Helping Gifted Children Soar: A
Practical Guide for Parents & Teachers)
Article: Examining Claims
about Gifted Children and
Suicide
3 Gifted Traits from (About Gifted Children)
Article: Overexcitability
and the Gifted
5 Gifted Traits
by S. Lind, describes overexcitabilities. From
(sengifted.org)
Article: Moon 5 Gifted Traits
"Gifted Children with Attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder"
Article: 'Asperger's
Disorder' in Ideational and
Anxiety Disorders
6 Gifted Traits
from (Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnoses of
Gifted Children and Adults)
Article: M. Neihart 'Gifted
Children with Asperger's
Syndrome'
8 Gifted Traits
from (Twice-Exceptional and Special
Populations of Gifted Students)
Article: S. Renzulli, "The
Irony of 'Twice-
Exceptional'"
2 Gifted Traits 2005, from (Gifted Education Communicator)
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 304
Participant Artifact
# of
Pages
Code(s) Relevance/Description
Marie
(continued)
Article: L. K. Silverman
'Asynchronous
Development'
4 Gifted Traits brain development in gifted children
Article: A. Valdes-
Rodriguez
4 Gifted Traits in Cookiemag.org, April 2006, autism
Article: L. S. Kaplan 1990 8 Gifted Traits
"Helping Gifted Students with Stress
Management"
Article: G. T. Betts & M.
Neihart
6 Gifted Traits profiles of Gifted students
Gifted/Talented Programs
"Understanding
Differentiation"
30
Gifted Traits
Differentiation
Teacher Ed
District program/professional development for
GATE from 2000
Article: "What is
Differentiation?"
6
Differentiation
Teacher Ed
from Gifted Child Today 2015
District handouts on GATE
services
12
Differentiation
Teacher Ed
District policy memo on potential
differentiation services for GATE, differences
between gifted learner and bright child, (2000)
Article: J. Van Tassel-
Baska
4
Differentiation
Teacher Ed
"Differentiated Curriculum Experiences for the
Gifted and Talented"
Professional Development
Packet
30
Differentiation
D&C
Teacher Ed
Gifted Traits
Agenda and handouts for a whole day
professional development session and "Meeting
the Needs of Gifted Learners Through
Differentiation". Topics include: gifted
learners, differentiation, depth & complexity
prompts, flexible grouping, learning centers,
and multiple intelligences
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF GATE SERVICES 305
Participant Artifact
# of
Pages
Code(s) Relevance/Description
Marie
(continued)
Gifted/Talented Programs
News
8 Teacher Ed
District Bulletin, 2004-2005, all areas of
GATE instruction
Article: K. B. Rogers 14 Teacher Ed
"Lessons Learned about Education the Gifted
and Talented: A Synthesis of the Research on
Educational Practice"
District GATE Bulletin 11 Teacher Ed
2004, program options for GATE,
informational guide, district policy,
differentiation suggestions
Bloom's Taxonomy
reference sheet
1 Teacher Ed
a cheat-sheet for actions/verbs that correspond
to the 6 components of Bloom's Taxonomy
District "Goals and
Objects" for GATE
44 Teacher Ed District policy regarding GATE from 2001
Suggested Reading List for
Parents
2
Teacher Ed
Parents
district website print-out of suggested reading
and GATE terminology specifically for
parents of GATE students
Agenda Notes from GATE
Parent Meeting
3
Teacher Ed
Parents
Questions and responses to parent concerns
from school site GATE parent meeting: GATE
identification, emotional needs. Funding,
enrichment, curriculum, field trips, school site
specific issues
Totals 92 Documents
806+
pages
14 Codes
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Gifted education in California, known as gifted and talented education (GATE), is the set of intentional educational practices designed to address the needs of high ability, intellectually exceptional and/or specifically talented students. There are several common organizational models for classroom grouping implemented in California for GATE students that are intended to provide and create differentiation for GATE students at the classroom level. The academic needs of GATE students vary, and teachers must determine which instructional services to provide for their GATE students and how to implement those GATE specific services. The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine what teachers know and think about the academic needs of elementary GATE students, explore the instructional services they choose to provide for GATE students based on those needs, and analyze how their professional knowledge and perspectives regarding GATE education may be related. The sample included 10 elementary teachers of GATE students from five school districts in various GATE instructional settings in Southern California. Participants were interviewed and documents/artifacts were collected and analyzed. Findings demonstrate dissemination of GATE professional knowledge into teachers’ instructional choices and those decisions are related to student need. This study can benefit the field of gifted education and teacher education programs by examining the context for how teachers of GATE students gain professional knowledge, make instructional choices based on their understanding of the academic needs of GATE students. Additionally, this study may provide conceptual and contextual knowledge for teachers of gifted students.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions
PDF
Teachers’ perceptions and implementation of instructional strategies for the gifted from differentiation professional development
PDF
Relationships between teachers' perceptions of gifted program status and instructional choices
PDF
Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study
PDF
Teachers’ perceptions of strategies and skills affecting learning of gifted 7th graders in English classes
PDF
Identifying young gifted children
PDF
Technology as a tool: uses in differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted learners
PDF
Pre-service teacher educator perceptions on preparing novice teachers for high quality teaching of K–12 students
PDF
Teachers' choices of curriculum and teaching methods and their effect on gifted students' self-perceptions
PDF
Elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and how they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices: two case studies
PDF
How teacher preparation programs prepare White teachers to teach in urban school settings
PDF
Lack of support for gifted students in the United States
PDF
4th space teaching: incorporating teachers' funds of knowledge, students' funds of knowledge, and school knowledge in multi-centric teaching
PDF
Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction
PDF
A school's use of data-driven decision making to affect gifted students' learning
PDF
Differentiated culturally relevant curriculum to affirm identity for gifted African American students
PDF
Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge
PDF
Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy
PDF
Inadvertent evangelisms (or not): teachers’ views on religion, religious beliefs, positionality and presence and their influence on their curricular choices in the classroom
PDF
Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement
Asset Metadata
Creator
Klopfer, Kimberly Anne
(author)
Core Title
Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/30/2018
Defense Date
06/20/2018
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
differentiation,Gate,GATE policy,GATE services,Gifted Education,instructional choices,instructional grouping,instructional strategies,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,service model setting,Teacher education,teacher perceptions, teacher knowledge,teacher preparation
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Samkian, Artineh (
committee chair
), Kaplan, Sandra (
committee member
), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (
committee member
)
Creator Email
cheerios97@aol.com,kklopfer@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-41549
Unique identifier
UC11671733
Identifier
etd-KlopferKim-6569.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-41549 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-KlopferKim-6569.pdf
Dmrecord
41549
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Klopfer, Kimberly Anne
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
differentiation
GATE policy
GATE services
instructional choices
instructional grouping
instructional strategies
professional development
service model setting
teacher perceptions, teacher knowledge
teacher preparation