University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

FACTORS AFFECTING THE TRANSFER OF DIFFERENTIATED
CURRICULUM FROM PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT INTO
CLASSROOM PRACTICE

by

Misook A. Park

__________________________________________________________________

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

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Misook A. Park
ii
DEDICATION
To my husband, Dan, whose ongoing love and understanding have made this
journey possible.
To my parents, Soong-Un and Sun-Hee, whose love and belief in me always
made me strive for excellence.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Sandra Kaplan, my committee
chair; LaShawn Moore, my colleague and friend, who was my partner during this
journey; and Stefanie Holzman: my mentor, friend, and cheerleader, who always
reminded me that there was always a light at the end of the tunnel.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii

Acknowledgments iii

List of Tables vi

List of Figures viii

Abstract ix

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 6
Significance of the Study 7
Research Questions 7
Overview of the Methodology 8
Procedure 8
Delimitations 9
Limitations 10
Assumptions 10
Definition of Terms 10

Chapter 2: Literature Review 13
The Need to Study Professional Development and Gifted
Education 13
Theoretical Framework for Professional Development 22
Models of Professional Development 34
Professional Development and Gifted Education 40
Considerations for Heterogeneous Classrooms 46
Content of Professional Development for Teachers in Gifted
Education 50
Overview of Depth and Complexity 55

Chapter 3: Methodology 55
Research Design 57
Sample and Population 58
Procedure 58
Instrumentation 61
Analysis 65
Pilot Study 66

v
Chapter 4: Analysis of the Data and Interpretation of the Findings 68
Background 68
Methodology 69
Analysis 70
Professional Development Experiences 71
Professional Development Demographics 73
Summary of Teachers’ Responses 95
Depth and Complexity Prompts to Differentiate Curriculum 96
Summary of Teachers’ Use of Depth and Complexity Prompts 121
Summary of Findings 122

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations 125
Methodology 126
Procedure 126
Instrumentation 127
Analysis 130
Summary and Discussion of Key Findings 131
Conclusions 135
Implications for Professional Development 136
Recommendations for Further Research 137

References 140

Appendices
Appendix A 146
Appendix B 148
Appendix C 155

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Six Essential Features of Effective Professional Development 24
Table 2: Multiple Intelligences 28
Table 3: Effect Size for Training Outcomes by Training Components 38
Table 4: NAGC Principles of Professional Development 42
Table 5: Educational Level 73
Table 6: Years of Teaching 74
Table 7: Years of Teaching in Gifted Education 75
Table 8: Professional Development Related to Gifted Education 77

Table 9: Environment Setting Offered 79
Table 10: Environment Setting Preferred 79
Table 11: Motivation Setting Offered: Type of Learning Most Often
Provided 80
Table 12: Motivation Setting Preferences: Type of Learning Most Often
Preferred 81
Table 13: Learning Dynamic Offered 82
Table 14: Learning Dynamic Preferred 83
Table 15: Time of Day Professional Development Offered 84
Table 16: Time of Day Professional Development Preferred 85
Table 17: Professional Development Experiences with Depth and
Complexity Prompts 87
Table 18: Response to Depth and Complexity Value Statements 88
Table 19: Evaluation of Learning during Professional Development 91
vii
Table 20: Evaluation of Instructors during Professional Development 91

Table 21: Open-Ended Responses Regarding Professional Development
Experiences 93
Table 22: Observations of Classrooms A-K on the Use of Depth and
Complexity Prompts 100
Table 23: Summary of Classroom Observations 116
Table 24: Relationship between Professional Development and Classroom
Application 118

Table 25: Effects of Instructors and Application of Depth and Complexity
Prompts 120

viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: TIEL model of staff development 54

ix
ABSTRACT
This urban district-wide study of teachers in gifted and talented programs in
grades three through eight explored factors contributing to the transfer of knowledge
learned in professional development into classroom practice. Evidence from a
questionnaire and observations of participants provided insight into teachers’
preferences for the types of professional development they received and how to
maximize their learning in these settings. District-sponsored sessions were
motivated primarily by the introduction of new ideas and strategies, most often
matched teachers’ preferences, and were the primary type of professional
development that participants attended.
The results indicated that the factors related to professional development
opportunities did not influence the degree to which teachers transferred depth and
complexity prompts to differentiate content for gifted learners. Teachers were more
successful in the isolated implementation of these prompts than in the integration of
the prompts to differentiate content across subject areas. The participants indicated
that professional development should include more demonstration lessons and
follow-up sessions that would support the implementation of depth and complexity
prompts in their classrooms.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
To achieve America’s educational goals, it is important that qualified
teachers are recruited, prepared, and supported in every school (National Research
Council, 1999). Continual professional development is an expectation in all
professions, and teachers are expected to continue learning even after they receive a
credential. Renewal and reissuing of a California teaching credential requires the
completion of 150 clock-hours of professional growth activities pre-approved by a
professional growth advisor during a five-year period (Commission on Teacher
Credentialing, 2006).
The initial training for a multiple subjects credential is designed to provide
training in the content necessary for teaching in all subject areas in a self-contained
classroom (California Teaching Credential). Such training is often not grade level
specific, nor is it necessarily designed for teaching populations other than general
education. For example, pedagogy offered by a university teacher education program
should prepare the candidate to teach in any self-contained classroom, from
elementary through secondary general education.
In any mixed ability classroom, there is a range of learning needs, and a
generalized teacher education may not meet the needs of all students. In a
heterogeneous classroom, different instructional strategies are needed to meet the
learning needs of all students (Abdal-Haqq, 1998; Tomlinson, 2000a). Traditionally,
differentiated instructional strategies focus on struggling students, such as English
2
Language Learners, children of poverty, and special education students (Gallagher,
2004). Nearly all efforts towards reform are aimed at helping students who are
identified as at-risk, and instructional practices reflect the demands on teachers to
cover many topics, but with no depth (Callahan, Tomlinson, Reis, & Kaplan, 2000).
For example, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is a comprehensive law designed
to ensure quality education for all students, particularly those at risk, but there are
unintended consequences for gifted students (Gallagher, 2004). If teachers regard
content standards as checklists of what to teach, then the depth of a discipline is lost,
and students will likely fail to see the meaning of their learning (Moon & Callahan,
2001). It is equally important for gifted students to receive a strong instructional
program because, without effective instruction, they, like struggling students, will
not learn to their potential (Burns & Purcell, 2001).
Many teachers with heterogeneous classrooms, including clusters of gifted
students, do not differentiate for gifted learners because they either have not had
adequate training to meet the gifted students’ needs or have participated in staff
development, but have not implemented their training in practice (Gallagher, 2004).
The results of a national survey on teachers’ demographics indicated that 61% had
received no staff development in the area of gifted education (Archambault et al.,
1993). One implication of this study is that new approaches for training teachers to
attain skills are necessary to meet the needs of gifted students in their classrooms.
Meeting the needs of homogeneously grouped gifted students is challenging.
3
However, in cluster classrooms with general ability and gifted learners, teaching
becomes even more challenging (Gallagher, 2004).
Ineffective teaching has adverse effects on all learners, especially gifted
learners (Abdal-Haqq, 1998). The lack of challenge is the most commonly identified
cause for classroom boredom in gifted students (Gallagher, Harradine, & Coleman,
1997; Kanevsky & Keighley, 2003). Research by Archambault et al. (1993)
indicated that only a small number of teachers offer differentiation in their
classrooms. Classroom work is associated with boredom when students copy,
memorize, and regurgitate facts they already know (Abdal-Haqq, 1998). Thus, it is
important that Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) cluster teachers receive
adequate training in differentiated teaching and applying this knowledge in
classroom practices.
In one study, observers in 46 classrooms found that, in 84% of activities,
high-achieving students were asked to do the same work as students who achieved at
mean levels (Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993). Other research
investigated why many teachers do not offer differentiation. In a survey of randomly
sampled third and fourth grade teachers in public and private schools, 54% of
responding teachers indicated that they had no background or training in meeting the
needs of gifted learners (Archambault et al., 1993). Passow (1955) stated that, in
terms of ability, equality of educational opportunity does not mean identical
opportunity. “Where ability is concerned, equality consists of providing equally well
for all kinds of levels of individual differences” (p. 165). This means that if all
4
students are doing the same work, creating the same product, or reading from the
same level textbook, the educational needs of some students are not being met
(Archambault et al., 1993).
Background of the Problem
The policy statement of the National Association for Gifted Children
(NAGC) articulates instructional practices that make an impact on the education of
gifted learners. NAGC has published professional development standards based on
the belief that all children deserve the highest quality of instruction possible. The
NAGC’s four guiding principles state that gifted learners are entitled to be educated
by professionals who: (a) have specialized preparation in gifted education, (b) have
expertise in appropriate differentiated curriculum and instructional methods, (c) are
given opportunities for involvement in ongoing professional development, and (d)
possess exemplary personal and professional traits (NAGC, 2000).
Research is beginning to identify key features of professional development
programs that effect change in teaching practices. A study of more than 1,000
districts found that every additional dollar spent on developing teachers netted
improvements in student achievement greater than when spent on any other school
resource (National Research Council, 1999). Effective professional development is
considered by most to be a strategy for accomplishing any achievement goal, and
teachers are the most important element in implementing professional development
practices in classrooms (Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, & Gallagher, 2002). Without
5
specific professional development, teachers have a tendency to use strategies that
reflect their personal beliefs and experiences (Karnes & Shaunessy, 2004).
Professional development can have a major impact on educational outcomes.
A one-size-fits-all approach to professional development, often adopted in the past
by schools and school districts, will do little to foster teacher learning (Goodnough,
2005). When professional development is unfocused and ineffective, there is little
change in teaching practices (Sparks & Hirsh, 2000). Basically, professional
development practices in general education throughout the country are limited in
nature, degree, and scope and tend to be regarded by many teachers as irrelevant and
a waste of time (Westberg et al., 1998; Wycoff, Nash, Jutune, & Mackay, 2003).
Despite the importance of continuing professional development, teachers do not
always regard the notion of teacher training with enthusiasm (Wycoff et al., 2003).
Conventional approaches to staff development (i.e., workshops, lectures, and
demonstrations) seem to show little evidence of transfer to classroom practice. In
conversations with classroom teachers and regular participants of professional staff
development, it was found that “sit and get workshops” are inefficient, ineffective,
and unproductive (Abadiano & Turner, 2004).
Specifically within gifted education, many districts do not evaluate the
impact of professional development practices (Westberg et al., 1998). Only a very
small portion of a school district’s total professional development funds is spent on
gifted and talented topics (Gubbins, Westberg, Reis, Donnocenti, & Tieso, 2002).
6
For gifted students to actualize their potential, teachers must change what and how
they teach.
Effective professional development is critical, especially within the context
of standards-based reform in public education (Odden et al., 2002). Joyce and
Showers’ (1995) research demonstrated that the types of staff development in which
teachers participate affect the implementation of new learning. Few teachers make
meaningful transitions between what was learned in training and its implementation
in the classroom (Wycoff et al., 2003).
Effective professional development that is based on pertinent components
can improve teachers’ learning opportunities, causing them to be more likely to
transfer the conceptual knowledge gained from professional development into
operational practices in the classroom (Joyce & Showers, 2002). The future of gifted
education relies heavily on training teachers to be highly effective agents of learning
opportunities for gifted learners (Reis & Westberg, 2004).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to determine the extent to which professional
development elements affect the implementation of differentiated content using
depth and complexity prompts in the classroom. A second purpose was to determine
how teacher preferences with respect to professional development correlate with the
implementation of differentiated content in the classroom.

7
Significance of the Study
Four specific groups can benefit from this study: teachers, professional
development personnel of current and future teachers, administrators, and students.
Gifted students will be the ultimate beneficiaries. Teachers may benefit from this
study because it will provide them with a rationale for continuous professional
development and illuminate how professional development can better inform their
instructional practices.
Professional development personnel who instruct current and potential
teachers also may benefit from this study because they need to understand both the
need for quality instruction in professional development settings and how to meet the
needs of the teachers who teach gifted students in heterogeneous classrooms. Staff
developers can consider how to best prepare their educational experiences for GATE
teachers, specifically addressing ways to differentiate curriculum.
Administrators may benefit from this study because they are involved in
choosing the nature and scope of staff development for their teachers. This study also
may benefit them in hiring and choosing staff to teach in gifted education.
Research Questions
1. What are teachers’ responses to specific professional development
experiences provided to differentiate curriculum for gifted learners?
2. To what degree are depth and complexity prompts to differentiate grade
level content for gifted students utilized in the classroom?

8
Overview of the Methodology
This study used a descriptive approach with a mixed design to determine
teachers’ preferences for professional development experiences and transfer of
differentiated content in the classroom using depth and complexity prompts. Two
instruments were used to gather data for this study. The first instrument was a four-
part questionnaire for teachers to complete. The researcher convened meetings at
school sites and distributed the questionnaire to volunteers who had attended at least
two professional development experiences within the previous 18 months. This
yielded data related to the participants’ demographic characteristics, learning
preferences, and their responses to the features of a professional development
experience focused on teaching differentiated content appropriately to responsive
gifted students.
The second instrument was a rubric created to evaluate participants’ teaching
four lessons, recorded on videotape. Teachers were purposefully sampled based on
their current classroom settings in heterogeneous classrooms with clusters of
identified gifted students in grades three through eight. The researcher recruited
participants to volunteer for videotaped observations once they had completed the
questionnaire.
Procedure
A large urban unified school district in California was selected for this study
because they provided a district-supported professional development plan for
teachers of gifted children. The criteria used to select this school district included: (a)
9
unified and urban that provided a GATE program that offered professional
development in gifted education for teachers, (b) had an approved GATE
application, and (c) supported professional development that reinforces GATE
standards emphasizing differentiated content with depth and complexity.
The researcher contacted the GATE coordinator for the district by letter to
recruit her assistance in identifying schools and teacher participants for this study.
The researcher then recruited volunteers at meetings at school sites that had
heterogeneous classrooms with clusters of gifted students, and professional
development training centers in the district. Participants in the study were expected
to complete a questionnaire and to participate in four videotaped observations.
Delimitations
Data collection for this study was conducted over a three- to four-month
period at selected schools in a single urban district. Data consisted of self-reporting
assessments and videotaped observations. It should be noted that other factors in a
district might affect professional development practices and implementation of
practice in heterogeneous classrooms, such as administrative support, frequency of
professional development experiences offered through the district, and teachers’
access to resources that assist in their facilitation of a differentiated curriculum.
Limitations
This study gathered qualitative data using questionnaires and videotaped
observations. It was conducted in one urban school district, and the results might not
be applicable to other districts. Additionally, some gifted learners are placed in
10
special day classrooms or participate in pullout programs, and the results of this
study might not generalize to these programs.
Assumptions
The district in this study sponsors differentiation, and teachers want to meet
the needs of gifted students. The teachers in this study are assumed to be
implementing gifted education through differentiated curriculum practices.
Definition of Terms
Cluster grouping is a method for organizing a heterogeneous classroom by
assigning a group of students with similar needs, interests, or abilities to the same
group.
Content/process/product are elements of a curriculum, in which content is the
knowledge or skills to be learned, process is the way content is learned, and product
is the outcome of learning, such as written reports, illustrations, performances, or
debates.
Critical thinking is the use of analytical thinking for purposes of decision-
making. This includes the development of specific attitudes and skills, such as
analyzing arguments and points of view, understanding different perspectives, and
reaching sound conclusions.
Depth and complexity refer to the quality or process of content that seeks to
understand concepts and generalizations through the analysis of the rules and
principles that support the larger idea and combines many ideas or parts to develop
complicated and interrelated wholes.
11
Depth and complexity prompts are used to initiate content acquisition through
the use of visual representations that indicate 11 ways to think: eight for depth and
three for complexity.
Differentiation is the modification of the curriculum to meet the unique needs
of learners. It may include modification of elements of the curriculum, such as
thinking skills, content, resources, and product, as well as modifications in
instruction, such as pacing.
GATE standards are a collection of standards related to gifted education, in
which parental involvement, funding, and programs are designed to meet the needs
of gifted learners.
General education students are those who have not been identified as gifted
or with special needs.
Gifted and talented students is a label used to identify students who, due to
their unique and advanced abilities, need special educational services to ensure their
academic, social, and emotional growth and development (California Education
Code 52201 and Section 52202).
Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) is a California state categorical
program that permits, but does not require, services for gifted students.
Heterogeneous grouping is the practice of mixing students of varying
abilities, interests, or ages in academic classes.
12
Independent study is a strategy that allows students to follow individual or
self-selected areas of interest and specific aptitudes by designing and implementing
their own study plans.
Learning style refers to a perspective regarding the learning mode or learning
environment most favored by an individual (Dunn & Dunn, 1999).
Multiple intelligences refer to a perspective that advocates that intelligence
should not be reduced to a single construct and asserts that there are at least eight
distinct intelligences with a biopsychological potential to process information
(Gardner, 1993).
Peer grouping is a grouping practice that indicates voluntary or assigned
matching of students by shared characteristics such as age, ability, need, or interest
to make teaching and learning more effective.
13
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

A literature review was conducted to examine the research on theory and
practice in the areas of professional development, learning preferences, and gifted
education, all of which are relevant to this study. The review of the literature
includes the following: (a) elements of professional development, (b) knowledge of
gifted education, (c) the gap that exists between professional development and gifted
education, (d) the theoretical model for this study, (e) the analysis of professional
development in gifted education, and (f) the content of professional development for
teachers in heterogeneous classrooms with clusters of gifted learners.
The Need to Study Professional Development and Gifted Education
Professional Development
NCLB is a comprehensive law designed to ensure quality education for all
students and, in particular, those at risk. This law has affected every aspect of
education, sometimes with unintended consequences (Gallagher, 2004). For instance,
the focus on test preparation has reduced the opportunity for authentic learning
experiences (Renzulli, Gentry, & Reis, 2004). Many teachers have put their
curriculum aside in favor of test preparation. This has perpetuated the misguided
assumption that test performance equates with learning (Gallagher, 2004). If
professional development is consistent with policy, it is more effective when the
signals sent by policies reinforce, rather than contradict, each other (Odden et al.,
2002).
14
Generally, professional development practices in general education
throughout the country are limited in nature, degree, and scope and tend to be
regarded by many teachers as irrelevant and a waste of time (Westberg et al., 1998;
Wycoff et al., 2003). When teachers’ needs are not assessed beforehand, and varying
levels of knowledge and skill are not considered, the training is perceived as having
little value or transferability to the teacher. Despite the importance of continuing
professional development, teachers do not always accept the notion of teacher
training with enthusiasm (Wycoff et al., 2003), and teachers in some districts do not
have the opportunity to engage in high quality professional development (Darling-
Hammond, 2004).
For example, school districts spend less than half of 1% of their resources on
professional development; this compares to 8-10% in business corporations (Darling-
Hammond, 1994). Many teachers see their position in the classroom as a job, not as a
profession. The U.S. has no real system in place to ensure that teachers get access to
the kinds of knowledge they need to help all students of varying abilities to succeed
(Darling-Hammond, 1997). Access to quality professional development is necessary
for teachers to learn theory and to apply it to practice.
Translating theory into practice is difficult. Unfortunately, in the U.S., most
districts offer only “hit and run” workshops, and most teachers do not regularly
participate in staff development practices (Gubbins et al., 2002; Renzulli, 1999). The
relationship between professional development and student learning is complex, but
it is not a random process (Westberg et al., 1993; Guskey & Sparks, 2002). The lack
15
of investment by districts in teaching teachers how to understand curricula and how
to teach students is a function of the factory model (Darling-Hammond, 1994).
Teachers must understand the content they are teaching and use a wide range of
techniques to bring the content to the level of their students (Darling-Hammond,
2004). Teacher expertise affects all the tasks of teaching, but this is especially true
when teachers must meet the needs of a range of learners and where there are
clusters of gifted learners in a heterogeneous classroom.
Teachers tend to use strategies that reflect their own beliefs and personal
experiences, which is why effective professional development is essential and critical
(Darling-Hammond, 1997; Odden et al., 2002). As education moves forward and
requires change, teachers’ previous learning experiences create resistance, especially
in terms of implementing new concepts presented at staff development. Few teachers
make meaningful transitions between what was learned in training and its
implementation in the classroom. The most widely used presentation style—lecture
without active participation from students—is the least favored within professional
development (Wycoff et al., 2003).
Gifted Education
Sections 52200-52212 of the California Education Code describe the Gifted
and Talented Pupil Program, including a definition of gifted learners, the abilities
that show high performance capability, state regulations, and funding. The intent of
the Education Code is to improve the quality of existing programs for gifted and
talented learners and to provide programs to meet their learning needs (Section
16
52200). The Legislature indicates that programs for gifted and talented learners
should include:
1. Differentiated opportunities for learning, matched with the gifted and
talented learner’s particular abilities and talents.
2. Alternative learning environments in which gifted and talented learners can
acquire skills and understanding at advanced ideological and creative levels,
matching their potential.
3. Elements that help gifted and talented learners develop sensitivity and
responsibility to others.
4. Elements that help to develop a commitment in gifted and talented learners
to constructive ethical standards.
5. Elements that assist gifted and talented learners to develop self-generating
problem-solving abilities to expand each learner’s awareness of choices for
satisfying contributions in his or her environment.
6. Elements that help gifted and talented learners develop realistic, healthy
self-concepts (Section 52200).
Overall, the legislature finds that it is in the public interest to support
opportunities in the schools of California for high-achieving learners who are
identified as gifted and talented (Section 52200). According to California state
standards, all children are eligible for the nomination process for gifted and talented
identification, regardless of socioeconomic, linguistic, or cultural background or
disability. The nomination and referral process is ongoing and includes all K-12
17
students. School staff, including counselors, psychologists, and teachers, must
therefore receive training and information about the referral process, including the
characteristics of gifted learners. The GATE coordinator and certificated personnel
make the final determinations regarding individual student eligibility for the
program.
The demonstrated or potential abilities that give evidence of high
performance capability are defined by each school district governing board, in
accordance with regulations established by the State Board of Education. Section
52202 of the Education Code defines the abilities that show high performance
capability. According to the Code, each district shall use one or more of the
following categories to define high performance capability: (a) intellectual, (b)
creative, (c) specific academic or leadership ability, (d) high achievement, (e)
performing and visual arts talent, or (f) any other criterion that meets the standards
set by the State Board of Education. An outcome of the Education Code is that
adequate resources must be provided for all learners, especially gifted learners, to
develop their potential.
Students identified as gifted and talented must have access to the core
curriculum; however, the strategies used to meet the needs of this population of
students also must be differentiated. Research indicates that the cognitive demands
of textbooks have declined, and teachers often use whole-class teaching practices
that may include grade-level sequencing of the curriculum, division of instruction in
each subject matter into units, and group pacing, in which the whole class is moved
18
through the same curriculum at the same pace (Archambault et al., 1993). Yet, as per
the Educational Code, curriculum modification is necessary to meet the needs of
gifted and talented students in regular classroom settings (Reis & Westberg, 1994).
The broad range of skills encountered when working with gifted learners requires a
repertoire of developed techniques (Hord, 1994). However, there is not a perfect
match between available jobs teaching gifted students and teachers with appropriate
qualifications (Darling-Hammond & Ball, 1999; Renzulli, 1999).
Teachers must possess knowledge in areas relevant to gifted education to
facilitate learning in high ability students, instead of overlooking their learning
needs. However, nearly all education reform is aimed at improving students who are
identified as at risk, and instructional practices reflect the demands on teachers to
cover many topics but with little depth (Callahan et al., 2000). The time has come to
focus on students with high abilities in the heterogeneous classroom.
Gaps in the Research
Research findings indicate that teachers without specific training in gifted
education are less effective in meeting the educational needs of gifted learners
(Gallagher et al., 1997). For example, Westberg et al.’s (1993) observational study of
46 third and fourth grade classrooms identified the curricular and instructional
practices used in the classroom for gifted learners and determined whether the
presence of a gifted education program can change practices in the general education
classroom with gifted clusters. Using the Classroom Practices Record (CPR), an
observational instrument developed by Westberg, Dobyns, and Archambault (1993),
19
the extent to which gifted learners received differentiated instruction through
modification of curricular activities, materials, and interaction with the teachers was
documented. To compare curricula and instruction provided to gifted learners in the
heterogeneous classroom, two students, one gifted and one mean-ability student,
were selected as target students for each observation for 92 days.
The results of the analysis indicated that the targeted gifted students in each
classroom received a limited amount of differentiation in reading, language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies instruction. Across all subject areas, no
instructional or curricular differentiation was found in 84% of the activities
experienced by the targeted gifted or high ability students. In classrooms with formal
gifted programs, the targeted gifted students received no differentiation in 84.1% of
the activities, and in schools with no formal gifted programs, the targeted gifted
students received no differentiation in 84.4% of the activities, a non-significant
difference.
Westberg et al.’s (1993) study emphasized the responsibility of classroom
teachers when teaching gifted students in heterogeneous classrooms. Its results
suggest that support personnel in gifted education at the district level should provide
assistance to classroom teachers. School districts should provide professional
development opportunities to classroom teachers to help increase their awareness of
the needs of gifted learners and to provide them with specific ways to meet those
needs. “Because preservice training for teachers on these topics is nonexistent or
woefully inadequate in most college or university programs, comprehensive in-
20
service training must be provided by school districts” (p. 43). Although the study
demonstrated the need for differentiated curricula and instruction, it did not explain
how a classroom teacher could acquire the relevant knowledge.
Teachers who have not been educated with respect to meeting the needs of
their gifted learners have great difficulty making a significant impact on the learning
experiences of this specialized group of students. Special emphasis on the training of
teachers of the gifted is recommended in gifted education (Hansen & Feldhusen,
1994). Academically talented students not only receive little differentiation of
curriculum, but they also spend significant amounts of time with schoolwork they
already have mastered (Archambault et al., 1993).
Meeting the needs of gifted students with wide ranges of abilities requires
teachers to be aware of those needs. Many teachers do not offer differentiation or
other strategies for gifted learners because they have not had relevant training or
have received some training, but have not put into practice the strategies they have
learned during staff development (NAGC, 1994).
In a national survey of elementary school teachers, the National Research
Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT) found that 61% of teachers had no
training in teaching high ability students (NAGC, 1994). Only 5% of the teachers in
another study were able to incorporate new models of teaching (i.e., concept
attainment and inductive reasoning) presented during professional development,
without assistance (Joyce & Showers, 1995).
21
The more teachers know about differentiated strategies, the more they can
address the needs of their high ability learners (Winebrenner, 1994). In addressing
these issues related to improving teaching practice, Guskey (1986) suggested that
staff development and other professional development efforts are not influenced by
teachers’ perceptions and attitudes, but rather that perceptions and attitudes change
as teachers implement new practices and observe the outcomes.
Teachers need to be aware that mixed-ability classrooms contain students
who are at the greatest risk of learning the least (Winebrenner, 1994). One
suggestion is to differentiate the curriculum to allow groups of students to work on
separate projects. Another is to provide a wider menu of options for gifted learners’
needs, including opportunities for acceleration, cluster grouping, and independent
projects (p. 9). The key element is the teacher. Most teachers have little or no
background with gifted learners and few strategies to meet their learning needs
(Gallagher et al., 1997).
High ability learners will not learn to their potential if appropriate teaching is
not provided (Reis et al., 1998). The more knowledge teachers have about
differentiated methods and strategies, the more they will be able to adequately
address all their students’ needs (Gallagher et al., 1997). Therefore, those who are
most qualified to teach gifted learners are those who have participated in a gifted
education professional development program (NAGC, 1994).

22
Theoretical Framework for Professional Development
Professional development and staff development are terms used
interchangeably (Hord, 1994). Professional development can be defined by a variety
of factors, such as attending classes and workshops, planning with other classroom
teachers, receiving coaching, reading professional journals, and observing effective
classroom teaching (Hord, 1994). Effective professional development is defined as
that which produces change in teachers’ instructional practices (Odden et al., 2002).
Effective practices, from which adults learn best, include reflection, questioning
assumptions, and receiving accurate feedback from peers and/or mentors. Trainers
must have recent, real-world experiences, and must explore current educational
trends to meet the learning needs of the teachers they serve (Guskey & Sparks, 1991;
Wycoff et al., 2003).
Professional development for teachers, administrators, and other faculty is
essential in school reform efforts (Kent, 2004; Sparks & Hirsh, 2000). Effective
professional development makes the connection between subject matter and
pedagogy and provides teachers with opportunities to learn. Professional
development is a teacher’s opportunity to learn. It is influenced by many factors,
categorized into three groups: (a) content characteristics, (b) process variables, and
(c) context characteristics (Guskey & Sparks, 2002).
Content characteristics are the “what” or the subject matter of professional
development: the content. New knowledge, skills, and a deeper understanding of
content should be the focus of staff development.
23
Process variables are the “how” aspect of professional development. This
area focuses not only on the types and forms of learning activities, but also how they
are planned, organized, and carried out (Guskey & Sparks, 2002). Examples of
alternative forms of professional development include focused study groups, action
research, and coaching (Joyce & Showers, 1995).
Context characteristics include the “who,” “when,” “where,” and “why” of
professional development, everything except the content and process of delivery.
Contextual aspects of the educators involved in professional development include the
environments in which they work and the students they serve (Guskey & Sparks,
2002). Professional development also can involve the credibility and practicality of
change required to transfer the practices being offered in training into the classroom
(Fullan, 1993; Guskey & Sparks, 2002). Contextualizing professional development
involves taking account of the system, culture, and organization in which the
professional development is to take place; it also could include local policies and
statewide accountability programs (Guskey & Sparks, 2002). Other aspects of
context might include who is attending professional development opportunities,
where the meetings occur, the time of day, and the purpose of the teachers’
participation. The evidence of effective professional development is classroom
practice. Teachers’ knowledge and practices are the immediate and most significant
indicators of success of professional development activities (Guskey & Sparks,
2002).
24
Other theoretical frameworks exist, but all components can be categorized
into content, process, and context, which provide the theoretical framework for this
study. Odden et al. (2002) offered another framework for professional development.
They identified six essential features for effective professional development that
influence teaching practices (Table 1).
Table 1
Six Essential Features of Effective Professional Development
Feature Definition
Form of activity Training received in a school-based and job embedded
form
Duration of activity Effective training must be continuous, ongoing, and
long-term
Collective participation Training organized around groups of teachers over time
Content focus Focusing on subject matter knowledge and how students
learn
Active learning Opportunities to work directly on incorporating new
techniques into classroom practices
Coherence to standards
and goals
Aligning professional development to content standards,
teacher learning goals, and student learning needs

Within the theoretical framework of this study, form of activity, duration of
activity, collective participation, and coherence to standards and goals are context
variables, while active learning addresses the process component of professional
development. Content focus is the subject matter of the content characteristics of the
theoretical model.
25
The relevance of form and duration of activities, as well as actively learning
together, implies that effective professional development includes some initial
learning, as well as considerable longer-term work in which teachers incorporate
new methodologies into their actual classroom practices (Odden et al., 2002).
Guskey (1986) suggested that professional development must have goals related
simultaneously to improving student achievement and to enhancing teachers’ quality
of instruction.
Effective professional development incorporates constructivist approaches to
teachers and learning (Darling-Hammond, 1997). Only teachers who are both
knowledgeable in content areas and skillful in teaching methods can be effective in
meeting diverse students’ needs in a heterogeneous classroom. A traditional, single
in-service meeting concerning a new approach will not be sufficient to change
practices currently used by teachers (Renzulli, 1999; Wycoff et al., 2003). It is a
popular belief that professional development influences teachers’ attitudes and
beliefs first and then influences their practices (Guskey, 1986). In fact, a single in-
service session on new information will not be sufficient to change classroom
practices; hence, there will be no change in attitudes or beliefs (Matthew & Foster,
2005).
Follow-up after initial training is important for teachers to discuss their
experiences of transferring new knowledge into classroom practices (Wycoff et al.,
2003). This implies that processing the content learned in professional development,
whether subject matter, context, or process, takes time. The more teachers know
26
about effective teaching strategies, the more they can provide integrated and
meaningful learning experiences for their gifted learners (Kanevsky & Keighley,
2003).
For professional development to be effective there must be meaningful
analysis of learning and the opportunity to work directly on incorporating new
techniques into classroom practices (Odden et al., 2002). Because a traditional,
single meeting in-service “workshop” on a new approach will not be sufficient to
change practices currently used by teachers, it is important for teachers to see their
own learning as essential to practice (Wycoff et al., 2003).
In many instances, staff developers do not consider teachers to be learners. It
is most important that staff developers play many roles to ensure that all the needs of
the teachers are met (Killion & Harrison, 1997; Wycoff et al., 2003). This means that
highly effective professional development must be school-based and embedded into
teachers’ classroom practices focused on student learning (Darling-Hammond,
1997). Well prepared and fully trained teachers can provide more integrated and
meaningful learning experiences for their students (Begoray & Slovinsky, 1997).
Studies of Professional Development
The content of professional development within general education is defined
by the K-12 content standards. Currently, no studies focus primarily on the subject
matter content of professional development; rather, they focus on the process of
professional development as it affects the learner and the contexts in which
professional development opportunities are conducted.
27
One of the best-known process types for delivery of professional
development is multiple intelligences. Gardner (1993) defined intelligence as the
“biopsychological potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural
setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a culture” (pp. 33-
34). For a potential to be identified as intelligence, it must meet eight criteria:
1. It must be rooted in the brain, so that there is potential of isolation by brain
damage (e.g., head injury can cause impairment in linguistic ability).
2. It must have an evolutionary history from which abilities can be traced
back to early ancestors who exhibited that potential.
3. There must be an identifiable core operation or set of operations that are
linked to that potential.
4. The potential must have susceptibility to being encoded in a symbol
system (e.g., written language, drawings, equations).
5. It must possess a distinct path to develop expertise in ability (e.g., training
musicians with well developed musical intelligence).
6. It can have prodigies, idiot savants, and other exceptional people.
7. There is support from experimental psychological tasks that is distinct
from other abilities.
8. There is support from psychometric findings.
This perspective states that there are at least eight distinct intelligences that bring
understanding to the complex issues of learning and human intelligence (Table 2).
28
Table 2
Multiple Intelligences

Intelligence Definition
Linguistic Sensitivity to spoken and written language, the
ability to learn languages, and the capacity to
use language to accomplish certain goals.
Logical-mathematical Capacity to analyze problems logically, carry
out mathematical operations, and investigate
issues scientifically.
Spatial Potential to recognize and manipulate patterns
of wide space as well as patterns of more
confined areas.
Kinesthetic Potential of using one’s whole body or parts of
the body to solve problems or fashion
products.
Musical Skill in performance, composition, and
appreciation of musical patterns.
Interpersonal Person’s capacity to understand the intentions,
motivations, and desires of other people, and
consequently, to work effectively with others.
Intrapersonal The capacity to understand oneself, to have an
effective working model of oneself, including
one’s own desires, fears, and capacities, and to
use such information effectively in regulating
one’s own life.
Naturalistic The potential for discriminating among plants,
animals, rocks, and the world around us, as
used in understanding nature, making
distinctions, identifying flora and fauna.

Linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences are the ones typically
valued in school and are necessary for anyone who regularly takes state or district
29
tests. The next three intelligences (spatial, kinesthetic, and musical) are particularly
notable in the arts. The personal intelligences address the role of a person’s
emotional life and its alliances with affective factors (Gardner, 1996).
Gardner noted that, even though the multiple intelligences perspective is
consistent with empirical evidence, it has not been subjected to strong experimental
studies. Within the field of education, applications of the theory have been revised
many times “in light of actual classroom experiences” (Gardner, 1993, p. 33).
Because intelligences are the kinds of constructs that they are, it is not possible to
assess an individual intelligence or intelligences with any degree of reliability
(Gardner, 1996). Denig (2004) suggested that, even without the existence of a strong
research base, there is support for the concept of multiple intelligences. Despite the
lack of research in support of multiple intelligences, many schools implement this
perspective as part of their staff development; however, there is little evidence that
this type of process teaching increases teacher knowledge of professional
development content.
Engstrom and Danielson (2006) studied a school district that implemented a
professional development program with a focus on learning about multiple
intelligences, as well as implemented classroom practices based on that perspective.
The staff development committee (SDC), which met monthly over a school year,
was composed of the district’s curriculum director, one site principal, two teachers
from each of the district’s four schools, and one community member.
30
A focused writing survey and interview were used to code the teachers’
responses, according to the development levels of use described in the Concerns-
Based Adoption Models (CBAM) Stages of Concern. The findings revealed that
more than one-half of the teachers reported that the collaborative partnership
between the district and the local university played a role in their efforts to continue
to learn about multiple intelligences. The participants appreciated the interactive,
peer-coaching nature of the multiple intelligences seminar sessions. Many of the
teachers reported that the multiple opportunities for engaging in professional growth
allowed them to have ownership over their learning. This study led to additional
insights about multiple intelligences and transfer of learning to classroom practices
(Engstrom & Danielson, 2006).
However, none of the 30 teachers who participated in the professional
development seminars/workshops designed to implement multiple intelligences in
classroom practice changed their instructional methods. Most of the participants
indicated that the main strength of a multiple intelligences approach to instruction
was that it recognized a diversity of learners (Engstrom & Danielson, 2006).
The study indicated that professional growth is a developmental process in
which teachers need ongoing support as they transfer their learning about a new
theory or skill into classroom practice (Engstrom & Danielson, 2006). The seminar
course fostered collegiality among the participants, which they indicated was a
source of support for their continued learning. However, the only component that the
SDC implemented in their staff development design was demonstration or modeling.
31
Providing participants with practice, providing feedback, and the coaching
component were not included in the district’s staff development model.
Another perspective that focuses more on the learner than on the staff
developer is Dunn and Dunn’s (1991) 21 learning styles. The construct of learning
styles, proposed by Dunn and Dunn, posits that people are not necessarily intelligent
because they have potential, talent, or innate ability, but rather because they can
demonstrate intelligence in the manner in which they perceive, comprehend, adapt to
new situations, learn from experience, demonstrate mastery over complexity, solve
problems, critically analyze, and make productive decisions. Their model addresses
21 elements, classified into environmental, emotional, sociological, physiological,
and psychological categories.
The environmental category is composed of four elements:
1. Sound: some learners require absolute quiet to learn, while others do best
with music or other background sound.
2. Light: some learners require bright lighting to concentrate, whereas others
require a softer and more focused light.
3. Temperature: some learners require warmth, while others require a cooler
environment.
4. Design: some prefer more formal seating, whereas others prefer casual,
informal seating.

32
The emotional category is also composed of four elements:
1. Motivation: some learners are eager to begin learning something new or
difficult, while others need to be challenged by someone else to begin.
2. Persistent: some learners remain focused on an academic task until it has
been completed, whereas others need to be reminded to complete the task at hand.
3. Responsibility: some do what is required, while others do the opposite of
what they are supposed to do.
4. Structure: some rely on the directives of teachers or peers to provide
structure for a task, whereas others determine their own structure for completing a
task.
The sociological category is composed of six elements:
1. Self: some learners perform best when studying alone.
2. Pair: some prefer to study in pairs with a peer.
3. Peers: some prefer to study with a group of peers.
4. Team: some prefer to study with a large group of peers.
5. Adult: some prefer to work with an adult.
6. Varied: some function in varied ways, whereas others learn best in a single
pattern.
The physiological category is composed of four elements:
1. Perceptual: some learn best by hearing (auditory), reading or seeing
(visual), manipulating items with their hands (tactual), or moving around while
concentrating (kinesthetic).
33
2. Intake: some learners require a drink or something to eat, while others
ignore food and drink when concentrating on new or difficult material.
3. Time: some prefer to concentrate in the morning, others in the early or late
afternoon, and still others the evening.
4. Mobility: some sit and concentrate for long periods of time without much
movement, while others require the ability to move about.
The psychological category is composed of three elements:
1. Global-analytic processors: global processors learn best through an initial
overview of the content or concept, to develop an understanding of how the content
relates to them, before they can focus on the facts related to it, while analytics learn
in a step-by-step sequence, first examining the facts and then building gradually
towards an understanding of the concept.
2. Hemisphericity: some learners tend to employ a style that uses the right-
hand-side of the brain, while others use a left-hand-side pattern when concentrating
on new information.
3. Impulsive-reflective: some learners reach conclusions by going through a
thorough process, whereas others reach conclusions quickly.
Within the theoretical framework of this study, each learning style category
addresses either process variables or context variables. Sociological, physiological,
and psychological categories comprise process variables, and environmental and
emotional categories comprise contextual variables. Aspects of time and mobility are
34
contextual variables of professional development, although it initially appears that
they belong to the physiological process variable category.
Each learner has a primary learning style and can be taught how to capitalize
on that style. Most learners also have a secondary style, which can be used to
reinforce initial learning effectively (Denig, 2004). Although both Gardner (1993)
and Dunn and Dunn (1999) challenge educators to change the manner in which they
teach, the models differ from one another.
Gardner (1996) emphasizes the need to change instruction to capitalize on
students’ abilities, whereas Dunn and Dunn (1999) advocate changing instruction to
capitalize on students’ learning styles. In other words, the multiple intelligences
principle addresses what is taught (product), while the learning styles principle
addresses how content is taught (process). Through a process orientation, any content
can be mastered when taught in a way consistent with students’ strengths. It is
important to note that there is little experimental research on multiple intelligences,
whereas there is a strong research basis for learning styles (Denig, 2004).
Models of Professional Development
Joyce and Showers’ Model
Research into professional development provides insight into the efficacy of
training components, levels, and especially combinations of professional
development components. Most staff developers would agree that the purpose of
professional development is to make changes in practices, skills, behavior, and
understanding (Hord, 1994). A large and dramatic increase in the transfer of training
35
occurs when coaching is added to an initial professional development experience
comprised of theory explanation, demonstrations, and practice (Joyce & Showers,
2002). Teachers involved in peer coaching perceive the learning experience received
in new skills to be applicable, which increases the likelihood that it will influence
their practice (Gubbins et al., 2002).
The first five levels or components of the Joyce and Showers’ (1995) model
are: (a) presentation of theory or description of a new skill, (b) demonstration or
modeling of the new strategy or skill, (c) initial practice in a simulated setting, (d)
providing structured and open-ended feedback, and (e) coaching.
The first level, presentation of the new skill or behavior, is typically less than
two hours in length, and is delivered to a passive audience. The desired outcome at
this stage is the transference of knowledge, which can be accomplished in a single
session. The second level adds demonstration or modeling of the new strategy.
Delivery of this level also does not require audience participation.
In the third level, initial practice, the audience participates by trying out the
new skill, typically in a workshop session in which the setting is simulated and
protected for optimal practice. The fourth level provides immediate feedback
regarding the initial practice in a structured and open-ended format. The fifth and
final level provides follow-up coaching to the participant who experienced the
professional development experience and is now applying the new idea or skill in the
classroom.
36
Bush (1984) studied the efficacy of these five levels by examining the
contribution of each level towards the transfer of skills or behaviors into classroom
practice. He found that when participants were given only the first level, only 10% of
the participants transferred the skill to the classroom. When the second level was
included, 2-3% more participants transferred the new skill. When the third level of
practice was added, another 2-3% of transfer occurred. When the fourth component
of feedback was included, a further 2-3% transfer occurred. Therefore, when four
levels were included, a total of 16-19 participants out of 100 were able to transfer the
new skill to the classroom.
When the fifth level, coaching, was added to the professional development
process, however, up to 95% of the participants transferred the new skill into
classroom practice. Fullan (1991) stated that there is an assumption that teachers can
actively transfer their learning into implementation without a substantial amount of
assistance from their professional development experience, but we see that coaching
affects the transfer of skills for a large number of participants (Hord, 1994).
Bennett (1987) sought to establish a database that would provide direction for
the design, implementation, and evaluation of staff development programs. Meta-
analysis was used to synthesize experimental research into training practices in both
preservice and in-service teacher education, with the emphasis on the latter. This
study examined the effectiveness of staff development procedures related to
teachers’ attitudes, knowledge and skill acquisition, and transfer of training to
classroom practice.
37
Bennett (1987) used a five-step process to integrate research. The first step
was the specification of three questions: (a) what are the effects, individually and in
combination, of the procedures employed in teacher training? (b) are the procedures
of teacher training differentially effective for different types of skills? and (c) do
contextual variables interact with or predict the effectiveness of training? In the
second step, a literature search was conducted to identify and obtain research
relevant to the questions. The third step involved delimiting the scope of the study,
including the establishment of criteria that studies had to meet to be included in the
analysis. In the fourth step, data were analyzed by statistical procedures that
permitted integration and interpretation of results, and then the results were
presented in step five. The effect sizes for training outcomes by training components
are presented in Table 3.
38
Table 3
Effect Sizes for Training Outcomes by Training Components
Training Outcomes

Training Components and
Combinations

Knowledge

Skill
Transfer of
Training
Information .63 .35 .00
Theory .15 .50 .00
Demonstration 1.65 .26 .00
Theory and demonstration .66 .86 .00
Theory and practice 1.15 .00
Theory, demonstration, and
practice
.72 .00
Theory, demonstration,
practice, and feedback
1.31 1.18 .39
Theory, demonstration,
practice, feedback, and
coaching
2.71 1.25 1.68

The results indicated that information-only or theory-only treatments have
minimal effects on teacher attitudes, knowledge, skill, and transfer. Theory,
demonstration, and practice combined resulted in an effect size of approximately .72
for skill acquisition, whereas theory, demonstration, practice, and feedback
combined resulted in an increased effect size of 1.18. The combination of theory,
demonstration, practice, and feedback resulted in meaningful effects for skill
acquisition, but minimal effects for transfer of training. The addition of on-site
39
coaching to these four training elements significantly increased utilization of newly
learned skills and strategies in classroom instruction.
When skill is the desired outcome of training, the advantage of the
combinations is clear: when in-class coaching is added to theory in professional
development, the effect size is considerably greater than when using theory or
demonstration alone (Joyce & Showers, 1995). The gradual addition of components
does not appear to affect the transfer, unless coaching is added to the initial staff
development experience. This shows a significant increase in effect size, to 1.68.
The levels of transfer represent a continuum from level 1 (low, imitative use)
to level 5 (high, executive control). Level 1 represents the types of lessons selected
for observation, which are often simple and concrete examples of class
demonstrations (Joyce & Showers, 1995). Level 2 indicates mechanical use or
horizontal transfer, in which practice of the learned teaching strategy increases, but
there is little variation in types of implementation, and complex examples of other
models of teaching learned during professional development continue to be missing
from teacher practice. Level 3 indicates a routine level of transfer in which certain
activities, types of lessons, and objectives become identified with specific models of
teaching. Level 4 transfer is called integrated use. Level 5 transfer is designated
executive control and is characterized by the teacher’s complete understanding of the
theories that underlie the various models of teaching learned, their comfort level with
appropriate use of various models, and their ability to select specific models within
and across subject areas (Joyce & Showers, 1995).
40
It is also important to note that another variable that correlated well with
implementation success was the presence of an administrator who held and
communicated a vision and pushed the staff to implement the vision, thereby
improving practice (Folsom, 2006). When administrators support professional
learning communities by providing professional development opportunities to meet
their learning needs, collaboration takes place between peers and a coach who
participates in the collaboration process (Kremenitzer & Myler, 2006).
Professional Development and Gifted Education
Policy statements issued by NAGC take the form of position statements that
address issues concerning practices for the education of gifted and talented learners.
The core belief is that gifted and talented children deserve the highest quality
instruction possible and that such instruction will only occur if teachers can provide
appropriate learning experiences (NAGC, 1994). NAGC presents the competencies
that teachers of gifted and talented learners must possess:
1. A knowledge and valuing of the origins and nature of intelligences,
including creative forms of intelligences.
2. A knowledge and understanding of the cognitive, social, and emotional
characteristics and needs of gifted and talented learners from diverse populations.
3. A knowledge of and access to advanced content.
4. An ability to develop a differentiated curriculum appropriate to meet the
needs and interests of gifted and talented learners.
41
5. An ability to create an environment in which gifted and talented students
can feel challenged and safe to explore and express their uniqueness.
The policy statements of NAGC (2000), which also relate to professional
development standards, are presented in Table 4. NAGC policy statements indicate
that gifted learners are entitled to be served by professionals who have specialized
preparation in gifted education, have expertise in appropriate differentiated content
and instructional methods, and are involved in ongoing professional development.
There are a few studies of professional development specifically concerning gifted
education which are discussed below.
42
Table 4
NAGC Principles of Professional Development
Guiding Principles Minimum Standards Exemplary Standards
1. A comprehensive staff
development program must be
provided for all school staff
involved in the education of
gifted learners.
All school staff must be made
aware of the nature and needs
of gifted students.
Teachers of gifted students
must attend at least one
professional development
activity a year designed
specifically for teaching gifted
learners.
All school staff should be
provided ongoing staff
development in the nature and
needs of gifted learners, and
appropriate instructional
strategies.
All teachers of gifted learners
should continue to be actively
engaged in the study of gifted
education through staff
development or graduate
degree programs.
2. Only qualified personnel
should be involved in the
education of gifted learners.
All personnel working with
gifted learners must be
certified to teach in the areas
to which they are assigned,
and must be aware of the
unique learning differences
and needs of gifted learners at
the grade level at which they
are teaching.
All specialist teachers in gifted
education must hold or be
actively working towards
certification in gifted
education.
Any teacher whose primary
responsibility for teaching
includes gifted learners, must
have extensive expertise in
gifted education.
All personnel working with
gifted learners should
participate in regular staff
development programs.
All specialist teachers in gifted
education should possess a
certification/specialization or
degree in gifted education.
Only teachers with advanced
expertise in gifted education
should have primary
responsibility for the education
of gifted learners.
3. School personnel require
support for their specific
efforts related to the education
of gifted learners.
School personnel must be
released from their
professional duties to
participate in staff
development efforts in gifted
education.
Approved staff development
activities in gifted education
should be funded at least in
part by school districts or
educational agencies.
4. The educational staff must
be provided with time and
other support for the
preparation and development
of the differentiated education
plans, materials, and curricula.
School personnel must be
allotted planning time to
prepare for the differentiated
education of gifted learners.
Regularly scheduled planning
time should be allotted to
teachers for the development
of differentiated educational
programs and related
resources.
43
Dynamic Scaffolding Model
The dynamic scaffolding model (DSM) of teacher development proposes that
a gifted education consultant is an effective way to help meet gifted learners’
learning needs. As resource consultants, these specially trained teachers can share
expertise, instructional materials, and other resources with classroom teachers. Such
opportunities provide scaffolding for teachers as they acquire expertise in gifted
education and, at the same time, create networks of ongoing support (Matthews &
Foster, 2005). This is a way for teachers to be given opportunities for scaffold
learning in workshops, to receive ongoing and targeted mentorship, and to acquire
professional liaisons (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Matthews & Foster, 2005).
The DSM model was designed to help both gifted learners and teachers in
training and support to experience optimal engagement in learning. The
implementation of DSM in the Matthews and Foster (2005) study required a full-
time consultant with expertise in gifted education. The consultant conducted three
professional learning workshops, each of which lasted five hours and involved
approximately 80 educators (teachers and administrators), each of whom attended
one or more of the three sessions. The sessions were designed to provide a variety of
learning opportunities, during which interaction between the participants was
prompted by material concerning understanding giftedness, strategies to meet their
needs, and programming options. Follow-up components required teachers to go
back into the classroom within a specific time period and implement one or more
learning strategies presented at the workshops. Teachers were asked to submit
44
written reflections of their experiences, and the consultant provided follow-up
consultations with each of the teachers on a one-to-one basis at their schools.
Teachers also were given the opportunity to work with the consultant on an
individual basis at their convenience.
The success of this model is clearly linked to the commitment and the
competence of the specialist who works with teachers (Moon & Rosselli, 2000). The
consultant in this study had been a teacher of gifted students, completed a doctorate
in gifted education, and had co-written a book on giftedness (Mathews & Foster,
2005).
The DSM is a model that facilitates teachers’ acquisition of necessary
expertise for teaching diverse gifted learners. It can generate increased know-how
and establish momentum to springboard teachers into recognizing their need for
ongoing professional development (Matthews & Foster, 2005). DSM encourages the
idea of resource consultants, not only to be “teachers on wheels,” with materials to
share, but also to provide meaningful learning experiences with scaffolding
measures.
The essential components of scaffolding in the DSM model include engaging
the learner (teacher), establishing relevant goals, diagnosing the learners’ needs,
providing tailored assistance, encouraging goal-directed motivation, providing
ongoing feedback, creating an environment of risk taking, and assisting with
independence and internalization (Guskey & Sparks, 2002; Matthews & Foster,
2005). This form of implementation makes an impact in two ways: teachers benefit
45
from learning using this approach and they are provided with a modeled experience
that encourages them to implement this process with their own students (Matthews &
Foster, 2005).
Gifted learners are diverse and vary in the ways in which they are gifted. This
is why DSM provides opportunities for coaches to help teachers by taking a
proactive role (Matthews & Foster, 2005). Traditionally, the gifted education
specialist was called in to work directly with gifted learners in the classroom. Here,
in contrast, the consultant becomes the advisor and is available to provide
collaboration and support to ensure that both teachers’ and students’ needs are met.
Although the DSM model demonstrates the importance of a consultant as a coach for
the classroom teacher following professional learning opportunities, it does not
address how all teachers of gifted students can be provided such one-on-one, tailored
assistance.
Peer coaches in gifted education can formulate individualized professional
development plans and use these as tools to help create specialized learning for
teachers. Such plans allow educators to set their own goals and increase the
likelihood that intended results in their teaching practices will occur. Coaching of
any kind has emerged as a way to involve teachers in decision-making and goal
setting in their development as effective educators (Karnes & Shaunessy, 2004). For
instance, Costa and Garmston (1994) noted that cognitive coaching can assist in
improving teacher effectiveness. Cognitive coaching is nonjudgmental, relies on
trust, facilitates mutual learning, and enhances growth towards working
46
independently with others. A coaching relationship might exist among fellow
teachers, administrators, and teachers or among administrative peers.
Joint work allows collaboration at a deeper level and might include planning,
problem solving, curriculum development, and assessing the progress of students
(Gubbins et al., 2002). Teachers of gifted learners can observe each other teaching in
a mentorship context and reflect upon teaching practices, as observations and
meaningful reflections are interdependent (Folsom, 2006). Mentoring offers teachers
of gifted learners a vehicle to achieve their professional development learning goals
(Gubbins et al., 2002).
Considerations for Heterogeneous Classrooms
Education provided by the district should include specific strategies for
meeting gifted learners’ needs. While the relationship between professional
development and student learning is complex, it is not a random process (Guskey &
Sparks, 2002; Westberg et al., 1993).
Within heterogeneous classrooms, there are inadequacies in the
implementation of complex educational practices with respect to meeting the needs
of gifted learners (Folsom, 2006). All students need to learn and increase their levels
of achievement. Whole-group, one-size-fits-all approaches rarely offer the
adaptations necessary to meet the needs of diverse learners (Reis, Gentry, &
Maxfield, 1998).
Meeting the needs of gifted students with a wide range of abilities requires
teachers to be aware of those needs. Many teachers do not offer differentiation and
47
other strategies for gifted learners, either because they have not had the necessary
training or because they have received some training, but have not put the strategies
that they learned during staff development into practice (NAGC, 1994). In a national
survey of third and fourth grade teachers, NRC/GT found that 61% of teachers had
no training in teaching high-ability students (NAGC, 1994).
Research findings indicate that people without training in gifted education are
less effective in meeting the educational needs of gifted learners (Gallagher et al.,
1997). For example, in Gallagher et al.’s (1997) study, 871 gifted students in
heterogeneous classes from nine school districts in North Carolina were surveyed
about their perceptions of their academic classes and, in particular, whether they
believed that their classes were challenging. Generally, in elementary, middle and
high school, mathematics classes challenged them, due to the types of problems and
projects. Other subjects were found to be less challenging by the students. The
student participants’ responses presented their experiences and added a qualitative
perspective to the survey, which brought insight to the activities they experienced in
their classrooms.
Many students responded that the activities needed to “be hands-on and less
of copying notes” (Gallagher et al., 1997, p. 5). Other students responded that some
science experiments already had been done in previous years and reported that they
did not like being “held up by some slower people” (p. 3). Some students reported
that it would be better to work with similar students in certain classes “because they
usually took the subject more seriously and wanted to learn” (p. 3). Overall, this
48
study revealed recurring themes of boring, repetitive classrooms, which spanned all
grade levels (Gallagher et al., 1997). The strongest themes were that gifted learners
waited for other students to catch up, had to sit through additional lessons of
mastered content, had teachers who did not allow them to move or move to other
topics, and got into trouble because of the extra time they had in class.
In Westberg et al.’s (1993) observational study, 46 third and fourth grade
classrooms were studied to see whether and how teachers met the needs of their
gifted students in general education classrooms. The purpose was to identify the
curricular and instructional practices used for gifted learners in the classroom and to
determine whether the presence of a gifted program could change practice in the
general education classroom with gifted clusters.
Using the CPR, Westberg et al. (1993) documented the extent to which gifted
learners received differentiated instruction through modifications in curricular
activities, materials, and interactions with teachers. To compare curricula and
instruction provided to gifted learners in a heterogeneous classroom, two students,
one gifted and one mean in each class, were selected as target students for each
observation of 92 days.
The results of the study indicated that the targeted gifted students in each
classroom received a limited amount of differentiation in reading, language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies instruction. No instructional or curricular
differentiation was found in 84% of the activities experienced by the targeted gifted
or high-ability students across all content. In classrooms with formal gifted
49
programs, the targeted gifted students received no differentiation in 84.1% of the
activities. In schools with no formal gifted programs, the targeted gifted students
received no differentiation in 84.4% of the activities, a non-significant difference.
The recommendation from this study was that district-level gifted education
personnel should provide assistance to classroom teachers. School districts should
provide professional development opportunities to classroom teachers to increase
their awareness of the needs of their gifted learners and to provide them with specific
ways to meet the gifted students’ needs (Westberg et al., 1993). “Because preservice
training for teachers on these topics is nonexistent or woefully inadequate in most
college or university programs, comprehensive in-service training must be provided
by school districts” (p. 43). Although this study shows the necessity for
differentiated curricula and instruction, it does not explain how a classroom teacher
can acquire such knowledge.
Although some districts do provide professional development opportunities
for teachers in gifted education, as professional development money is generated by
gifted education topics, it is evident that not enough time or money is spent on
relevant professional development, as little differentiation in instructional and
curricular practices is observed in classrooms with gifted learners (Westberg et al.,
1993). Many districts do not take into account the needs of individual faculty
members when designing professional development in gifted education. Moreover,
because gifted education faculty rarely provides professional development training to
others, peer or collegial coaching is seldom or never used and professional
50
development practices in gifted education are limited in nature, degree, and scope
(Westberg et al., 1998).
Content of Professional Development for Teachers
in Gifted Education
To meet the needs of their gifted learners, teachers must change what and
how they teach (Karnes & Shaunessy, 2004). Through effective professional
development, based on components pertinent to improving teachers’ learning
opportunities, teachers are more likely to transfer the conceptual knowledge gained
from professional development into operational classroom practice. The future of
gifted education relies heavily on training teachers to be effective agents of learning
opportunities for gifted learners. Meeting the learning needs of gifted learners is
critical, and teachers must be conscientious about planning and implementing
effective teaching techniques, especially in the heterogeneous classroom (Gallagher,
2004).
Results-based staff development that is framed around the personal learning
goals of teachers increases the likelihood that teachers will investigate topics related
to the needs of gifted learners (Gubbins et al., 2002). Teachers learn in the same
ways as do students, by studying, doing, reflecting, collaborating, and observing
(Hord, 1994). Within the context of standards-based educational reform, providing
effective professional development is crucial to changing what and how teachers
teach and how students learn (Odden et al., 2002). Providing content specific to
51
teaching in a heterogeneous classroom with clusters of gifted learners gives teachers
access to such knowledge.
To meet the needs of their gifted learners, teachers must have knowledge of
differentiating curricula. Gifted students demonstrate characteristics that need to be
considered when developing effective educational programs (Little & Ellis, 2003). In
general education, the curriculum is typically organized according to grade levels.
When teachers differentiate the curriculum for the gifted, they must move to a higher
level of expectation with respect to content, process, and concept demands
(VanTassel-Baska, 2003). The qualities that define differentiated curricula for the
gifted, including acceleration, complexity, depth, challenge, and creativity, provide
guidelines for reviewing standards and making appropriate modifications when
differentiating curricula for gifted students (Little & Ellis, 2003; VanTassel-Baska,
2001).
Teachers must adapt their teaching to meet the needs of their gifted learners.
In particularly, the curricular level for gifted learners must be adapted to their need
for depth and complexity (VanTassel-Baska, 2003). One such element of
differentiation is the choice of instructional strategies. This does not imply that
strategies should necessarily be designed specifically for gifted learners, but rather
that strategy use should be linked to the nature and level of the curriculum being
addressed (VanTassel-Baska, 2003).
Other aspects of differentiation for the gifted relate to challenges provided
through careful selection of materials for use in the classroom and project work such
52
as problem-based learning (VanTassel-Baska, 2003). Appropriate materials, such as
resources for scientific inquiry, must support the learning demands and challenges of
gifted learners. “The project work must be assessed as to whether or not the work is
sufficiently challenging and promotes creativity” (p. 3).
Meeting the learning needs of gifted students is critical, and teachers must be
conscientious in planning and implementing effective teaching techniques
(Gallagher, 2004). The learning activities that teachers plan must have active
engagement, allow students to collaborate with others, encourage inquiry, and have
the teacher be the guide, not the sole dispenser of knowledge (Kanevsky & Keighley,
2003). This constructivist approach allows students to formulate their own learning
in a variety of ways.
For instance, if teachers differentiate curriculum and instruction,
opportunities are provided for students to work at varied levels through enrichment
groups, compacting, and independent studies (Tomlinson, 2000b). Enrichment
groups or clusters provide unique opportunities for students to work together based
on interests and abilities. Such clusters provide inductive learning centered on
interest. Everything the students do is directed towards completing a product or
providing a service allowing them to apply what they have learned (Gentry, Moran,
& Reis, 1999; Renzulli, 1994). Curriculum compacting involves giving students the
opportunity to demonstrate mastery of specific content and then allowing them to
move on to other learning activities, such as pursuing independent study in an area of
interest (Winebrenner, 1994).
53
Teachers must be the primary agents of instruction and scaffolding. The more
teachers know about effective teaching strategies, the more they can provide
integrated and meaningful learning experiences for their gifted learners. Teachers
who offer differentiated curricula and instruction, tailored to meet the needs of their
gifted learners, view students as individuals, with their own skills, interests, styles,
and talents (Reis, et. al., 1998).
As students assume roles as investigators, writers, artists, or participants in
any other discipline, they become engaged in their own learning and respect teachers
whose teaching practices reflected a sincere curiosity for their interests (Kanevsky &
Keighley, 2003; Renzulli et al., 2004). It is clear that there must be a focus on
effective professional development in gifted education. In mixed-ability classrooms,
teachers who are trying to empower at-risk students are unlikely to perceive that their
gifted learners have any pressing needs (Winebrenner, 1994). Teachers must be
aware that, in mixed-ability classrooms, students who are at the greatest risk of
learning the least are those who already know the content (Winebrenner, 1994).
An element of content that teachers can learn from is the Teaching for
Intellectual and Emotional Learning (TIEL) model. TIEL is another model that
provides a framework for staff developers to present content in differentiated
curricula and which teachers can use as a reference. The TIEL model scaffolds
foundation learning by providing a visual reminder to teachers that teaching and
learning includes intellectual components with moral and socio-emotional
components (Folsom, 2006), and assists teachers by preparing them to understand
54
the components of teaching and learning environments in which gifted learners
thrive (Folsom, 2006).
Five operations form the lower half of the TIEL design wheel: cognition,
memory, evaluation, convergent thinking and production, and divergent thinking and
production. The top half of the design wheel lists qualities of character in a gifted
learner: appreciation, mastery, ethical reasoning, empathy, and reflection. The
components of both the top and bottom halves of the wheel represent a balanced
approach to meeting the needs of gifted learners (Figure 1).

Figure 1. TIEL model of staff development.

TIEL provides a common language for teachers to discuss teaching, develops
pedagogical characteristics for teaching gifted learners, promotes complex learning,
Ethical
reasoning
Mastery Empathy

Appreciation QUALITIES Reflection
OF CHARACTER

THINKING Divergent
Cognition OPERATIONS thinking and
production

Memory Convergent
thinking and
Evaluation production
55
and helps to raise awareness of the intellectual and socio-emotional needs of gifted
learners (Folsom, 2006).
When TIEL was implemented in four New York City public schools,
teachers who participated in the professional development of the design wheel
understood the content and product needs of their gifted learners. However, the
teachers did not understand their own thinking processes prior to the implementation
of classroom practices. Pedagogy discussed during the professional development
included differentiation, higher-order thinking, and inquiry. Discussion was
necessary because a gap existed between theoretical concepts and the
implementation of complex educational practices necessary to meet the needs of
gifted learners in the regular classroom (Folsom, 2006).
Folsom (2006) found that teachers have not been adequately trained to think
effectively for themselves; their planning of lessons showed a lack of complex
learning, metacognition, and reflection. The study demonstrated how professional
development intervention using TIEL changed teachers’ thinking and practices.
There is a need to understand the teaching of thinking in classrooms because, when
teachers are not prepared, complex teaching practices do not occur.
Overview of Depth and Complexity
Depth is the process of thought that seeks to understand concepts and
generalizations through the analysis of the rules and principles that support the larger
idea. In the context of gifted learning, the goal is explore a curricular topic in greater
detail and, therefore, at a greater level of understanding. A common need of gifted
56
students is to be able to explore a subject at a deeper level of understanding by
finding the principles and facts that make up its generalizations and concepts.
Meeting this need for depth in thinking allows gifted learners to discover
details and identify patterns and trends. This process leads to the formulation of
unanswered questions and the understanding of overarching ideas (California
Association of the Gifted, 2003). Using prompts that model and promote depth of
thought in the curriculum can be grounded in real-world issues that students need to
know (VanTassel-Baska, 2003).
Complexity is the quality or process of thinking that combines many ideas or
parts to develop complicated and interrelated wholes. In the context of gifted
learning, the goal is to extend content through the study of issues, problems, or
themes, beyond the initial layer of the core curriculum. A common characteristic of
gifted students is to seek complexity in their thinking and to understand complex
concepts and generalizations at a more sophisticated level. Making connections with
other ideas, showing the relationships between concepts, and introducing
understanding from perspectives other than the students’ own can meet this need.
Such experiences require students to find multiple solutions across disciplines, over
time, and from different perspectives (California Association of the Gifted, 2003).
57
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents a description of the research design, sample,
instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis process of the study. The study
had two purposes. The first purpose of the study was to investigate the factors that
facilitate the transfer of differentiated content (depth and complexity) learned from
professional development experiences into the classroom. The second purpose was to
relate teachers’ learning preferences for professional development to the actual
professional development they experienced.
Research Design
A descriptive approach with a mixed design was used for the analysis of
elements of the district’s professional development opportunities to differentiate
content (depth and complexity) for gifted learners, teachers’ learning preferences
concerning professional development experiences, and the degree of transfer or
application of the practices to differentiate content into the classroom. A
questionnaire was developed for teachers to determine their learning preferences in a
professional development setting and their evaluation of at least two professional
development experiences within each school year. Video recordings of the teachers’
performances in the classroom, exemplifying their ability to differentiate content
using depth and complexity, were assessed using a rubric to determine the degree to
which they transferred the knowledge gained in the professional development setting
to their own classrooms. Observation notes were taken to note the subject matter
58
being taught, number of students, seating arrangements, teachers’ proximity to
students, groupings, date, and the time of each lesson.
Sample and Population
The criteria used to select a school district included: (a) unified and urban
that provided a GATE program that offered professional development in gifted
education for teachers, (b) had an approved GATE application, and (c) supported
professional development that reinforces GATE standards emphasizing differentiated
content with depth and complexity. A large urban school district (K-12) located in
Southern California was selected because it supports professional development plans
for teachers of gifted children.
Forty teachers were recruited for the study based on the following criteria: (a)
volunteered to participate, (b) teach in third to eighth grades, (d) teach in a
heterogeneous classroom with cluster groups of identified gifted students, and (d)
participated in at least two professional development opportunities, each of which
emphasized differentiating content with depth and complexity.
Whether individual teachers were working towards earning a certificate to
teach in gifted education, as well as total years of teaching experience, were factors
analyzed in this study. Teachers might be attending professional development
concerning gifted education to earn a certificate not mandated by the state.
Procedure
Prior to engaging participants for the study, the GATE coordinators from the
school district were contacted by email, followed by a scheduled appointment, to
59
recruit their assistance in identifying schools and teacher participants for the study.
The coordinators provided a list of schools that had heterogeneous classrooms with
clusters of gifted learners, the names of the classroom teachers and administrators at
each site, and a list of classroom teachers who had participated in professional
development activities within an academic year. The researcher convened meetings
at school sites with administrative approval and at the end of professional
development sessions to recruit volunteers who had attended at least two
professional development experiences during the previous 18 months.
The length of each meeting ranged from 15 to 30 minutes for participants
who met the criteria, allowing time for the introduction of the meeting and recruiting
participants. The additional time was allotted for participants who had consented to
participate to complete a consent form if they wished to participate, complete the
questionnaire, and to schedule a possible time for observations if they volunteered to
be videotaped teaching lessons using depth and complexity prompts. At the
beginning of each meeting, the researcher introduced herself as a graduate student
studying the factors affecting the transfer of differentiated curriculum from
professional development into classroom practice. A consent form was passed out to
explain the components of the study and to note participation was strictly voluntary.
Those teachers who chose to stay remained for the rest of the meeting. The
researcher collected the completed questionnaires at the end of each meeting.
Soliciting participants for the study involved multiple procedures. First, all
participants who volunteered in the study were expected to complete a questionnaire.
60
Next, through convenience sampling, a subset of teachers volunteered to be
videotaped teaching four differentiated-content lessons. Once participants completed
the questionnaire and consented to participate in the videotaping of their lessons, and
after receiving consent forms from their students to be video recorded, the researcher
scheduled times for participants to teach four lessons, one in each content (language
arts, science, social studies, and math) during a period no longer than three months
from the completion of the questionnaire. The researcher provided a video camera
and videotapes, used for the observations in the study. Prior to the lesson, the
researcher set up the video camera. Once the lesson was recorded, the lesson was
observed on the tape and scored against a rubric created by the researcher.
The scored each videotaped lesson with the rubric as follows: (a) made a note
on the rubric the objective of the lesson, (b) listened for and watched evidence of
accurate use of depth and complexity prompts (i.e., did the teacher say big idea when
he or she was looking for patterns?), (c) listened for and watched evidence of
integration of the prompts in the lesson, (d) observed teachers’ behavior for evidence
of consistent and confident use of the prompts, (e) listened for and observed
evidence of students’ familiarity and application of the prompts from related to the
objective of the lesson and during guided and independent practice, (f) took
observational notes on the back of the rubric to capture specific examples of the
lesson that would aid in the evaluation of the lesson, and (g) used the data gathered
to evaluate the lesson on the rubric.

61
Instrumentation
Questionnaire
The researcher created a questionnaire, based on the literature review, which
concerned elements of professional development. The questionnaire was developed
based on four areas: professional demographics, professional development
experiences, the use of depth and complexity prompts to differentiate content, and
the evaluation of instructors and learning. After the participants consented to
participate in the study, the questionnaire was distributed, completed, and returned to
the researcher during the course of a single meeting. The researcher collected data
from the questionnaire by recording the responses of the participants in the following
areas: (a) demographic characteristics of the participants, (b) learning preferences of
the participants, and (c) features of professional development experiences in which
they had participated, with a focus on teaching differentiated content to
accommodate gifted students. Relevant features of professional development
experience included: (a) structure or format, (b) instructional practice, (c) content
and presentation, and (d) emphasis on the gifted learner.
In part one of the questionnaire, participants were asked to indicate their
professional demographics. Questions included educational background, teaching
experiences, the programmatic setting in which they teach in the GATE program,
and the types of professional development sessions on gifted education they
experienced during the 18-month assessment period, including: (a) highest degree
held, (b) number of years teaching, (c) number of years teaching in the GATE
62
program, (d) programmatic setting for teaching the gifted, (e) estimated number of
professional development sessions on gifted education attended during the previous
18 months, and (f) types of professional development opportunities related to gifted
education over the previous 18 months and the number of times participants thought
they were engaged professional development.
In part two of the questionnaire participants were asked about their
preferences for learning within a professional development setting (i.e., environment,
motivation, learning dynamics, and time of day). Participants were asked to indicate
their views on depth and complexity prompts in the classroom in part three of the
questionnaire and, in part four, were asked to assess their professional development
experience in five areas:
1. Elements that represent participants’ professional development experiences
related to learning depth and complexity.
2. How participants view a typical way to use depth and complexity to
prompt content expertise.
3. The value of depth and complexity prompts as linguistic or vocabulary
prompts.
4. Whether depth and complexity prompts are best used to ask questions of
gifted students or to develop tasks for gifted students.
5. Whether depth and complexity prompts are best used in specific content
areas: language arts, math, science, and social studies.
63
Participants also were asked to indicate their perceptions of professional
development experiences, under the following categories: differentiated content,
skills, instructional practices, presentation, and emphasis of use. Participants were
asked at the end of the questionnaire to write additional comments about their
professional development experiences in learning depth and complexity prompts. All
comments were qualitatively analyzed for patterns.
Rubric
A rubric was created by the researcher, based on the literature review, which
contains elements of professional development and policy statements issued by
NAGC that take the form of position statements that deal with issues concerning
practices used in the education of gifted and talented learners. The application of
depth and complexity prompts to differentiate a lesson was an observable behavior
that could be measured for this study. This second instrument used a 3-point rubric
scale for analysis of the videotaped differentiated-content lessons, under four
categories: fidelity, integration, teacher comfort, and student responsiveness.
Observation notes taken recorded the number of students in the class, seating
arrangements, teachers’ proximity to the students, subject being taught, time, and
student responsiveness.
The first category, fidelity, focused on the accurate use of depth and
complexity prompts to differentiate content in a lesson in relationship to specific
definitions of depth and complexity prompts as referenced in California Department
of Education and NAGC. Each lesson was scored through a 3-point Likert scale, for
64
which 1 = inaccurate use of depth and complexity prompts, 2 = not consistently
correct use of depth and complexity prompts, or 3 = true to theory in the use of depth
and complexity prompts.
The second category in the rubric was integration. Integration is the teachers’
ability to infuse depth and complexity with standards-based content. Integration was
scored through a 3-point Likert scale, for which 1 = depth and complexity prompts
were an addendum to the lesson, 2 = depth and complexity prompts were partially
integrated with the content, or 3 = depth and complexity prompts were totally
integrated with the content.
Teacher comfort was the third category in the rubric. This refers to the
perceived familiarity of teachers with depth and complexity. Opportunities to work
directly on incorporating new knowledge into classroom practice require levels of
teaching comfort. Teacher comfort was selected as a category of evaluation because
it is one of the essential features for effective professional development that
influence teaching practices (Odden et al., 2002). Again a 3-point Likert scale was
used, for which 1 = teacher displays discomfort (“seems to be doing something
without understanding”), 2 = teacher is not consistent in the use of depth and
complexity prompts to differentiate the lesson, or 3 = teacher appears confident in
the use of depth and complexity prompts to differentiate the lesson.
The last category in the rubric was student responsiveness. This is defined as
the ways that students respond to depth and complexity within the lesson. Student
responsiveness is the extent to which students are engaged in active learning during a
65
lesson because recurring themes such as being bored and having to wait for other
students to catch up were reported (Gallagher et al., 1997). Once again, a 3-point
Likert scale was used, for which 1 = students appear new to learning with depth and
complexity prompts, 2 = students appear to have some knowledge of learning with
depth and complexity prompts, or 3 = students appear they seem to be familiar and
have ownership in using depth and complexity prompts in their learning.
A teacher could receive a range of 4-12 points for each lesson, based on this
rubric. A teacher earning a total of 10-12 points for one differentiated-content lesson
was recorded as proficient in the application of depth and complexity prompts in the
classroom. A teacher earning a total of 7-9 points for one lesson was recorded as
partially proficient in the use of depth and complexity prompts. A score of 4-6 points
on the rubric indicated that the teacher was not proficient in use of depth and
complexity prompts to differentiate a lesson. The rationale for the scaling of the
rubric resulted in equal intervals between proficient, partially proficient, and not
proficient scores. Because the participants were told to teach a lesson using depth
and complexity prompts to differentiate content, all participants would receive no
less than the minimum possible score.
Analysis
A descriptive, mixed study research design was used because the collection
and analysis of data involved the integration of data between the two instruments.
Questionnaires, rubrics, and observational notes were used to collect data.
Quantitative data for closed-ended questionnaire items were analyzed using
66
descriptive statistics with composite mean scores, frequencies, and standard
deviations for items used for comparisons. Analysis of the data collected required
descriptive statistics to study the relationship between professional development
elements offered, as well as the application of depth and complexity prompts to
differentiate a lesson in the classroom. A data table was completed, with the goal of
conducting a descriptive statistical analysis. Qualitative data from observation notes
were coded according to major themes and analyzed for patterns.
Coding the Rubric
As noted above, the rubric had four categories: fidelity, integration, teacher
comfort, and student responsiveness. The scale was coded from left to right (from 1
to 3), based on the rubric score. For example, if a participant scored “1” in the
category of fidelity, this was coded as “1”. The mean of the rubric scores was coded
as “m” for mean.
Pilot Study
The questionnaire and the rubric were piloted, with a goal of establishing
content and construct validity by a group of teachers prior to implementation of the
study. The researcher convened a panel of experts of four classroom teachers with
common characteristics: (a) were currently teaching in gifted education, (b) had
experienced a series of professional development opportunities focused on
differentiated content related to depth and complexity, (c) were knowledgeable about
actively integrating the use of depth and complexity prompts to differentiate content,
and (d) had taught a minimum of four years in gifted education.
67
The panel of experts completed a questionnaire for content validity (to
determine whether the correct elements were present in the questionnaire) and
construct validity (to determine whether the questionnaire could accurately capture
the participants’ experiences). Once the researcher videotaped herself teaching a
lesson using depth and complexity prompts to differentiate the content in each
content area, the same panel of experts assessed the lesson using the rubric created
by the researcher. Conducting a pilot study allowed the researcher to modify the
instruments used in the study. As a result of the pilot study, the categories and scale
of the rubric were deemed appropriate. As recommended by the panel, the researcher
added an open-ended question at the end of the questionnaire to provide an
opportunity for participants to contribute any additional comments, based on
evidence from the pilot study.

68
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA AND INTERPRETATION
OF THE FINDINGS
This chapter presents the analysis of the data related to the two research
questions. The study was designed to determine the extent to which professional
development elements affect the implementation of differentiating content using
depth and complexity prompts in the classroom. An additional purpose of the study
was to determine how teacher preferences correlate with the implementation of
differentiated content.
Background
Professional development can be defined by a variety of factors, such as
attending classes and workshops, planning with other classroom teachers, receiving
coaching, reading professional journals, and observing effective classroom teachers
teach (Hord, 1994). Odden et al. (2002) offered a framework for professional
development and identified six essential features for effective professional
development: (a) form of activity, (b) duration of activity, (c) collective
participation, (d) content focus, (e) active learning, and (f) coherence to standards
and goals. Form of activity, duration of activity, collective participation, and
coherence to standards and goals are context variables, while active learning
addresses the process component of professional development. Five of the six
features of professional development identified by Odden et al. (2002) were
69
evaluated in this study and included form of activity, collective participation, content
focus, active learning, and coherence to standards and goals.
Depth and complexity prompts are the catalyst or process of thought that
stimulate or activate the investigation of content in any subject area. Using depth and
complexity prompts promotes understanding of the core content at a higher level.
Appendix A presents the depth and complexity prompts, their visual representations,
and their definitions as used in this study.
Methodology
Sample and Population
The criteria used to select a school district for the study included districts that
were: (a) unified and urban, (b) had an approved California Department of Education
Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) application, and (c) provided professional
development that reinforces GATE standards emphasizing differentiated content
with depth and complexity. A large urban unified school district in Southern
California was selected because the district supports professional development plans
for teachers of gifted children and met all the proposed criteria. The type of school,
including calendar, year-round, or traditional, was noted.
Through convenience sampling, the participants for this study consisted of 40
classroom teachers from 12 schools. In total, 32 female and 8 male teachers
completed the questionnaire between October and December 2006. Participants were
recruited based on the following criteria: (a) volunteered to participate, (b) taught in
grades three through grade eight, (c) taught in a heterogeneous classroom with
70
cluster groups of identified gifted students, and (d) had participated in at least two
professional development opportunities that emphasized differentiated content with
depth and complexity.
The participants came from six elementary schools and six middle schools.
Of the participants, 31 were elementary school teachers and 9 were middle school
teachers. A subset of 11 of the 40 participants who completed the questionnaire
volunteered to be observed teaching differentiated lessons using depth and
complexity prompts. All observations were completed by January 2007.
Collection Procedures
A researcher-developed questionnaire (Appendix B) was used to determine
teachers’ learning preferences in professional development settings and their
evaluation of at least two professional development experiences within each school
year. Additionally, a researcher-developed observation rubric was used to evaluate
and to determine teachers’ ability to differentiate content using depth and complexity
prompts (Appendix C). Teachers were evaluated based on four categories: fidelity,
integration, teacher comfort, and student responsiveness. Observation notes included
number of students, seating arrangements, subject matter, and time.
Analysis
This study utilized a mixed methods design as an analytical approach and
required the integrated analysis of data gathered by two instruments: the
questionnaire and the observation rubric. The use of these instruments enabled the
researcher to: (a) engage in a broad based study and analysis of the district’s
71
professional development opportunities and elements used to appropriately
differentiate content (depth and complexity) for gifted learners, (b) determine
teachers’ learning preferences with respect to professional development experiences,
and (c) determine the degree of transfer or application to the classroom of practices
to differentiate content using the prompts.
According to Dunn and Dunn (1999), most people have learning-style
preferences, but these preferences differ significantly. Such preferences relate to the
ways people begin to concentrate on, process, internalize, and retain new and
difficult information. Dunn and Dunn’s construct of learning styles posits that people
are not necessarily intelligent because they have potential, talent, or innate ability,
but rather because they can demonstrate intelligences in the manner in which they
perceive, comprehend, adapt to new situations, learn from experience, demonstrate
mastery over complexity, solve problems, critically analyze, and make productive
decisions. Their model addresses 21 elements, classified into environmental,
emotional, sociological, physiological, and psychological categories. The aspects of
professional development used in this study were environmental (seating
arrangements), emotional (motivation), sociological (self, pair, peer, team, and
varied groupings), and physiological (time).
Professional Development Experiences
The questionnaire consisted of four parts. In part one, participants were asked
to indicate their educational background, their number of years of teaching, the
number of years they had taught in gifted education, the type of programmatic
72
setting in which they taught (a cluster of gifted students or a special day class of only
gifted learners), and the type and frequency of the professional development
experienced during the 18-month assessment period from June 2005 to December
2006.
In part two, participants were asked to indicate how professional
development was provided to them based on four elements: environment,
motivation, learning dynamic (learning in groups, pairs, or alone), and time of day.
The participants also were asked to indicate their own preferences for the same four
elements of professional development.
In part three, participants were asked how they learned to differentiate
content using depth and complexity prompts, as well as how much they valued depth
and complexity prompts as tools for classroom teaching. The participants indicated
how much they agreed to statements about depth and complexity prompts on a 4-
point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”
In part four, participants were asked to evaluate the instructors for the
professional development sessions they experienced during the 18-month assessment
period, based on three categories: (a) the quality with which the instructors taught
participants to differentiate grade level content using depth and complexity prompts,
(b) the quality with which the needs of the gifted learner were emphasized during the
sessions, and (c) the quality with which the instructors related the professional
development to content standards. Participants also were asked to evaluate how well
they learned the content that was delivered during the professional development
73
sessions, using the same categories used to rate their instructors: 1 = “excellent, ” 2 =
“good,” 3 = “fair,” and 4 = “unsatisfied.”
Professional Development Demographics
As noted above, data collected from part one of the questionnaire concerned
the participants’ educational experience, including years of teaching, years of
teaching in the gifted education program, the type of programmatic setting in which
they taught, and the types of professional development experienced during the 18-
month assessment period. The participants’ educational backgrounds are presented in
Table 5. The results indicate that over half (57.5%) of the participants had earned a
graduate degree.
Table 5
Educational Level
Degree Earned f %
Bachelor of Arts 14 35.0%
Bachelor of Science 3 7.5%
Master of Science 1 2.5%
Master of Arts 21 52.5%
Doctorate in Education 1 2.5%

Table 6 presents participants’ total years of teaching. The years of teaching
were not limited to the district of study. Rather, the item on the questionnaire
accounted for years of teaching that some teachers may have experienced prior to
working in the district.
74

Table 6
Years of Teaching
Years f %
1-3 years 1 2.5%
4-6 years 9 22.5%
7-10 years 14 35.0%
11-13 years 6 15.0%
14 or more years 10 25.0%

The results in Table 6 indicate that participants are experienced classroom
teachers. Three-quarters (75%) of the participants had been teaching between 7 and
14 years, and one-quarter (25%) had been teaching for less than 7 years. Participants
also were asked to indicate how many years they taught in gifted education. The
results indicated the majority of teaching experiences of the participants had not been
in the area of gifted education (Table 7).
75
Table 7
Years of Teaching in Gifted Education
Years f %
1-3 years 15 37.5%
4-6 years 14 35.0%
7-10 years 6 15.0%
11-13 years 1 2.5%
14 or more years 1 7.5%

Taken together, the results presented in Tables 6 and 7 demonstrate that, as
years of teaching experience increased, years of experience in gifted education
decreased. Greater than two-thirds (72.5%) of the participants had taught fewer than
seven years in the gifted program in the district. This indicates that participants were
fairly new to teaching in gifted education. There is a common belief that “younger”
teachers (i.e., teachers just entering the profession) are more open to innovation than
are older, more experienced teachers (Joyce et al., 1982). Joyce et al., however,
found no relationship between years of teaching experience and the willingness to
engage in professional growth.
Ball and Cohen (1999) noted that teaching requires improvising,
conjecturing, experimenting, and assessing all of which require time to reflect and
develop practice. Therefore, it was important to collect the range of teaching
experiences in gifted education. Almost all (95%) of the participants indicated that
76
they were attending professional development opportunities leading towards district
certification.
Participants were asked to indicate the types of professional development
opportunities in gifted education in which they had participated during the 18-month
assessment period. The researcher determined that a period of 18 months, from
summer (June 2005) to the beginning of the following school year (December 2006),
was suitable to assess professional development opportunities because training
sessions were offered throughout the year to accommodate teachers who taught
either in a year-round school or in a school with a traditional-year schedule.
Table 8 presents the types of professional development sessions that were
indicated on the questionnaire and included school-based, online, district sponsored,
California Association for the Gifted (CAG) conferences, Orange County Council
(OCC) GATE conferences, and the University of Southern California (USC) Teacher
Institute Demonstration School. Participants were asked to select all the types of
professional development that they attended during the 18-month assessment period.
It is important to note that the district provided separate facilities that were off
campus for professional development sessions. Those sessions were identified as
“district sponsored,” while “school-based” professional development opportunities
were provided on school sites. Online courses were not offered through the district
during the assessment period.
77
Table 8
Professional Development Related to Gifted Education
Professional Development
Activities

f

%

Mean

SD
District-sponsored 39 41.5% 12.07 9.76
School-based 20 21.3% 4.40 4.63
CAG conference 17 18.1% 2.77 2.59
OCC GATE conference 15 16.0% 1.43 .85
USC teacher institute
demonstration school
2 2.1% 1.00
.00
Online courses 1 1.1% 13.00 --

During the assessment period, district sponsored sessions were the primary
source of professional development, with a mean of 12.07 (SD = 9.76), while school-
based sessions, with a mean 4.40 (SD = 4.63), were another frequently attended type
of session. There was more variability in the number of participants in district-
sponsored sessions than school-based sessions. These data suggest that attending
district-sponsored professional development was a typical activity of teachers within
gifted education in the district. Because only one teacher indicated participating in
online courses, this might indicate that this type of professional development is not
readily available in the district. The hours of attendance and the types of sessions
could be counted towards GATE certification. These results support Burke’s (1997)
findings that content taught in professional development settings should be included
78
in several alternative services so that participants can use those formats that are most
responsive to their learning styles.
Data collected regarding the educational background of the participants
revealed that teaching experience in gifted education was less than their overall
teaching experience. Many of the participants were teachers in a heterogeneous
classroom, with a wide variety of learners. The variability in the number of
professional development sessions attended by the participants suggested that they
were seeking review of teaching differentiated content or more depth in regard to
how to differentiate content for their gifted learners.
Professional Development
Participants were asked to indicate, on part two of the questionnaire, the
quality of professional development elements (i.e., environmental setting,
motivation, learning dynamic, and the time of day) during their actual professional
development experiences and how those elements closely matched their preferences.
Environmental setting. The differences between the environmental setting
preferences of the participants and the types of setting most often provided during
professional development were analyzed. Table 9 presents participants’ responses to
the types of environmental settings that they felt were most provided during the
assessment period. One participant did not respond to this item, which accounts for
the total being 39, not 40.
79
Table 9
Environment Setting Offered
Setting f % Valid %
Theater type seating 13 32.5% 33.3%
Classroom-type
seating

26

65.0%

66.6%

The results in Table 9 indicate that 66.6% of participants felt that classroom-
type seating was often provided during professional development opportunities. This
means that tables and chairs were in a grouped seating arrangement, rather than
teachers facing forward in theater-type seating.
Table 10 presents teachers’ preferences for environment settings. It is
important to note there were two participants who did not respond to this item on the
questionnaire, making the total 38.
Table 10
Environment Setting Preferred
Setting f % Valid %
Theater type seating 12 30.0% 31.5%
Classroom type
seating

26

68.4%

42.1%

Of the teachers, 42.1% preferred classroom-type seating arrangements, and
often the room set-up matched the participants’ seating preferences. Participants who
preferred classroom-type seating indicated that the professional development
80
sessions they attended matched their preferences, while 31.5% of participants who
preferred theater-type seating received the seating arrangements that matched their
preferences. The data suggest that the environmental settings of the professional
development sessions they experienced during the assessment period matched
teachers’ environmental preferences.
Motivation. Participants were asked to identify their preferences for the types
of learning that motivate them, as well as the types of learning that they thought were
most frequently provided in their professional development experiences. Factors
such as intrinsic motivation play a significant role in the learning process (Alexander
& Murphy, 1998). Table 11 presents the type of motivational setting most often
provided during professional development. It is important to note that two
participants did not respond to this item, making the total 38.
Table 11
Motivational Setting Offered: Type of Learning Most Often Provided
Type of Learning f % Valid %
Introduction of new ideas 14 35.0% 36.8%
New strategies 13 32.5% 34.2%
New materials 6 15.0% 15.8%
Existing materials 5 12.5% 13.2%

As can be seen in Table 11, motivated by “introduction of new ideas” was the
most prevalent type of motivation, with 14 responses, closely followed by motivated
by “new strategies.” This means that professional developers determined that
81
learning new ideas and strategies was important to further the teachers’ knowledge
of content and its application in the classroom. Other types of learning strategies
such as motivating teachers by new ideas and the use of existing materials may not
have been as important to offer during professional development.
Participants were asked to indicate the type of learning that they prefer during
professional development sessions (Table 12). It should be noted that two
participants did not respond, making the total 38.
Table 12
Motivational Setting Preferences: Type of Learning Most Often Provided
Type of Learning f % Valid %
Introduction of new ideas 21 52.5% 55.3%
New strategies 9 22.5% 23.7%
New materials 5 12.5% 13.9%
Existing materials 3 7.5% 8.3%

Regarding preferences motivated by “new strategies” received 21 responses,
over twice as many as motivated by “introduction of new ideas.” As such, the results
indicate that 55.3% of participants preferred to learn new strategies in the
professional development opportunities they experienced during the 18-month
assessment period.
Taken together, the results in Tables 11 and 12 portray a disparity between
teachers’ preferences to learn and the type of learning provided during professional
development. The data suggest that learning new instructional strategies was a
82
primary motivation for teachers, even though the type of learning provided during
the professional development experience did not consistency match this preference.
This could mean teachers were not receiving their preferred learning dynamics
during professional development opportunities. Thus potentially resulting in lower
levels of understanding the content presented. When teachers are exposed to
professional development that does not meet their learning needs, only the motivated
teachers can be expected to evidence significant gains (Tyler, 1999).
Learning dynamics. Participants were asked to indicate the type of learning
situation most often provided and the learning situation that most reflected their
preferences to learn. Table 13 presents the results for the type of learning situations
offered. One participant did not respond to this item, making the total 39.
Table 13
Learning Dynamic Offered
Learning Dynamic f % Valid %
Flexible grouping 17 42.5% 43.6%
Team of peers 17 42.5% 43.6%
Alone 3 7.5% 7.7%
Pairs with a peer 2 5.0% 5.1%

The results presented in Table 13 indicate that the type of learning dynamic
that was most often provided for teachers was a team of peers and flexible grouping.
83
This means that the majority of professional development opportunities during the
18-month assessment period allowed teachers to learn and work collaboratively.
Table 14 displays teachers’ preferences to learn during professional
development opportunities. One participant did not respond to this item, making the
total 39.
Table 14
Learning Dynamic Preferred
Learning Dynamic f % Valid %
Flexible grouping 21 52.5% 53.8%
Alone 9 22.5% 23.1%
Team of peers 7 17.5% 17.9%
Pairs with a peer 2 5.0% 5.1%

In regard to preference, teachers preferred flexible grouping (21 responses),
followed by 9 who preferred to learn alone. Opportunities to learn collaboratively
aligned with 53.8% of the participants which indicated a match between what was
preferred and what was offered. When required to listen or to do work with others, it
is believed learning becomes critical because some learners need to pace their
learning and to process material alone or perhaps with a single peer (Dunn & Dunn,
1999). Data from Table 14 suggests otherwise. Participants may have retained
knowledge gained during professional development experiences due to the close
match of preference to learn in a group.
84
Time of day professional development was offered. Participants were asked to
indicate the time of day professional development was most often provided and their
preferences for when they would prefer to attend professional development
opportunities. The options for time of day were mornings, after school (between 4:00
and 6:00 p.m.), all day, Saturdays, and evenings (between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m.). Table
15 presents the time of day professional development was most frequently offered.
One participant did not respond to this item, making the total 39.
Table 15
Time of Day Professional Development Offered
Time of Day f % Valid %
After school hours 37 92.5% 94.9%
All day during school hours 1 2.5% 2.6%
Evenings 1 2.5% 2.6%
Saturdays 0 0% 0%
Mornings 0 0% 0%

Of the participants, 94.9% indicated professional development opportunities
were most frequently provided after school hours during the 18-month assessment
period. This would indicate that other times of the day were not usually offered for
teachers to attend professional development in the district.
Table 16 presents teachers’ preferences for time of day to attend professional
development. One participant did not respond to this item on the questionnaire,
making the total 39.
85
Table 16
Time of Day Professional Development Preferred
Time of Day f % Valid %
Mornings 20 50.0% 52.6%
After school hours 12 30.0% 30.8%
All day during school hours 4 10.0% 10.3%
Saturdays 2 5.0% 5.2%
Evenings 1 2.5% 2.6%

Research indicates that individuals with strong time-of-day preferences
perform significantly better when learning opportunities match those preferences
(Freeley, 1984). However, Tables 15 and 16 reveal a disparity between the time of
day professional development was usually offered and teachers’ preferences. The
results show that 94.9% of the participants indicated that professional development
opportunities were usually offered after school hours, even though 52.6% of the
participants indicated that they preferred to learn during the morning. This is
common because there are factors that prohibit teachers from attending sessions
during school hours, such as difficulty releasing teachers from their classrooms
without interrupting coherent instruction for their students.
Participants who indicated that professional development was offered during
after-school hours noted the introduction of new strategies as the primary motivation
for the session. Therefore, the time of day during which professional development
was scheduled did not significantly influence the quality of the experience. Even
86
though professional development opportunities were not frequently offered during
teachers’ preferred time of the day, they still valued the training (Dunn & Dunn,
1999).
The results of the analysis of professional development indicated a difference
between the types of professional development offered and teachers’ preferences.
Despite this disparity, the participants attended multiple professional development
sessions during the 18-month assessment period, especially sessions that were
district-sponsored or provided at school sites.
Professional Development Experiences and Depth and Complexity
Part three of the questionnaire asked participants about specific details of
their professional development experiences, including how they learned to
differentiate content using depth and complexity prompts. Participants also were
asked to indicate the number of times they were shown how to differentiate content
using depth and complexity prompts. Multiple responses were recorded. Many
sessions offered throughout the district were follow-up sessions, and teachers were
allowed to attend multiple times to gain mastery of what was presented. Such
sessions after initial training allow teachers to discuss their experiences as they apply
new knowledge in their classrooms (Wycoff et al., 2003).
The participants were asked how they learned to differentiate content using
depth and complexity prompts. Table 17 is a multiple response table and presents the
results related to how the participants learned to apply depth and complexity prompts
to differentiate a lesson.
87
Table 17
Professional Development Experiences with Depth and Complexity Prompts
Professional Development Experience f %
Learned by technology 2 3.5%
Learned as it was presented as new material 22 71.0%
Learned as it was presented as mastery material 9 29.0%

The results in Table 17 indicate that 31 teachers attended multiple sessions to
learn the uses of depth and complexity prompts. The range of attendance was 1-20
sessions, with a mean of 6 (SD = 4.54). Of the responses, 71% indicated that
learning how to differentiate content using depth and complexity prompts was new
material for them. The results also showed that there were multiple professional
development sessions on depth and complexity prompts available to teachers.
Professional development included the use of technology, presentation of
new material, and presentation of material previously mastered. The use of
technology was not described as a primary tool for presenting depth and complexity
prompts. Only 4% of participants indicated that they learned through technology
(overhead projectors or PowerPoint presentations), and it was not a contributing
factor to motivation. Therefore, the majority of the participants did not identify
technology as an important factor in their learning.
Participants’ views on depth and complexity prompts. Participants were
asked to respond to four value statements regarding the use of depth and complexity
prompts, as well as two statements regarding their beliefs concerning how they are
88
best used and in which content areas they are best applied. Participants were asked to
respond using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5
(“strongly agree”). Table 18 shows responses to the value statements.
Table 18
Responses to Depth and Complexity Value Statements
Value Statement f Mean SD
Depth and complexity is a way to prompt content
expertise
39 4.18 1.05
Depth and complexity prompts are valuable to gifted
students to pursue independent study interests
40 4.15 1.00
Depth and complexity prompts provide a guide to
challenge gifted students to exceed the standards
40 4.53 .78
Depth and complexity prompts are essential tools to
promote higher levels of knowledge
40 4.35 .83

The results presented in Table 18 indicate that, in general, all participants
agreed with the use of depth and complexity prompts in the classroom. The
statement with the highest mean, 4.53 (SD = .78), concerned the use of depth and
complexity prompts to guide gifted students to exceed the standards. This high mean
suggests that teachers generally believed in the use of depth and complexity prompts
in their classroom to help with content acquisition.
Overall, teachers agreed that the use of the prompts is essential to promoting
higher levels of knowledge by providing guidance to their students when pursuing
independent study interests and content expertise. These results support Dunn and
Dunn’s (1999) findings that participants need to believe that what is being offered
89
during professional development has value. Teachers generally believe that gifted
students should be given opportunities to accelerate their learning (Archambault et
al., 1993).
In addition to asking participants to respond to four value statements
regarding the use of depth and complexity prompts, they also were asked to respond
to two statements regarding their beliefs concerning how such prompts are best used
and the content areas in which they are best applied. The participants were asked to
select an option that represented their belief in how best to use depth and complexity
prompts as an instructional tool. The options were: (a) depth and complexity prompts
are best used to ask questions to gifted students and (b) depth and complexity
prompts are best used to develop tasks for gifted students. Of the participants, 60%
indicated that depth and complexity prompts are best used to assist in the
development of tasks for gifted students, instead of using the prompts to ask
questions of gifted students.
Participants also were asked to indicate the content area in which they believe
that depth and complexity prompts are best applied. Of the four content areas
presented (language arts, science, social studies, and math), only areas were selected.
Of the participants, 58% indicated that depth and complexity prompts are best used
in language arts, while 35% indicated that social studies is the best content area for
the use of depth and complexity prompts. The preference for language arts may be
due to the fact that the subject of language arts encompasses reading and writing.
The other possibility is that teachers attended professional development sessions in
90
which the instructors modeled the application of the depth and complexity prompts
using primarily language arts examples.
Evaluation of Professional Development Experiences
Participants were asked to indicate, in part four of the questionnaire, how
well they learned to differentiate content using depth and complexity prompts and
how well their instructors taught during the 18-month assessment period. Evaluations
included three categories: (a) differentiating content using depth and complexity
prompts, (b) emphasizing the needs of the gifted learner, and (c) relating professional
development to content standards, in science, math, social studies, and language arts.
Evaluating their instructors and themselves as learners was based on the participants’
interpretation of the categories on the questionnaire and may have led to subjectivity
based on unconscious bias (Patton, 2002). Neutrality and impartiality are not easy
stances to achieve, and every participant and researcher brings preconceptions and
interpretations to any study, despite of methods used (Denzin, 1989). Table 19
presents the results of the participants’ evaluation of their learning of the information
presented during professional development.

91
Table 19
Evaluation of Learning during Professional Development
Learning f Mean SD
Differentiated content with depth and complexity 39 3.13 .80
Emphasis on the gifted learner 38 3.00 .84
Related professional development to content
standards
38 2.68 .66

Evaluation of the instructors and the learning. The participants were
instructed to choose two letter grades: one to rate the instructors of their professional
development experiences and one to rate their personal learning of the information
presented. The letter grade A represented “excellent,” B indicated “good,” C
indicated “fair,” and D represented “unsatisfied.” The letter grades were coded from
one to four, with A = 4 and D = 1. Instructors’ evaluations are presented in Table 20;
there with one or two participants who did not respond to this item, making the total
38 or 39.
Table 20
Evaluation of Instructors during Professional Development
Evaluation f Mean SD
Differentiated content with depth and complexity 39 3.51 .64
Emphasis on the gifted learner 38 3.32 .81
Related professional development to content
standards
38 3.00 .77

92
Teachers rated their instructors as “good” or “excellent” in all three
categories related to depth and complexity prompts: (a) differentiating the content,
(b) emphasizing the needs of the gifted learner, and (c) relating the professional
development to content standards. Overall, participants gave a “good” to “excellent”
evaluation of their instructors and their learning. Instructors received the highest
mean in the category of differentiating the content using the prompts, 3.51 (SD =
.64), just as participants evaluated themselves the highest in the same category, with
a mean of 3.13 (SD = .80).
As seen in the evaluations of instructors and of the learning, the lowest
ratings were in the categories of emphasizing the needs of gifted learners and relating
the professional development to content standards. The lowest evaluation of
instructors and of the teachers’ learning was in the category of relating professional
development to content standards, with a mean of 3.00 (SD = .77) for instructors and
2.68 (SD = .66) for learning. These results may indicate there was a preference for
one content area to apply the depth and complexity prompts over another.
Open-Ended Responses
Of the 40 participants who completed the questionnaire, 15 provided
additional comments about their professional development experiences in regard to
depth and complexity prompts. Comments were organized into categories based on
similar comments about their learning experiences. Table 21 presents participants’
comments in three categories: positive, reflection, and suggestions.

93
Table 21
Open-Ended Responses Regarding Professional Development Experiences
Positive Comments Reflective Comments Suggestions
GATE professional
development at district level
is typically useful,
interactive, and supportive of
teachers.
I’m grateful for all of the
opportunities in my district.
The GATE office has superb
opportunities for
professional growth relating
to differentiation.
Our district has a fantastic
program for GATE
certification. Each session
I’ve attended I come away
with strategies to implement
with content standards.
Showing examples of
student work was helpful
I have had excellent learning
experiences and I think depth
and complexity can benefit
all students, not just gifted.
Our GATE office has
provided every possible
opportunity that is needed
for a teacher o be fully
trained as a GATE
certificated teacher. Quite
frankly, they have their act
together. There could not be
a more efficiently run GATE
program that provides as
much GATE professional
development as this district.
I still don’t completely
understand differentiation.
At one point it seemed like
the application of SDAIE
strategies at another it
seemed like common sense,
good teaching, and yet it
seemed like individualization
of instruction based on
student needs.
I find myself that I really
need time to fully understand
what has been taught. If I
don’t go over my notes the
next day or tow and really
think about what was taught
then I lose some
comprehension if I “go
back” to that notebook a
month later lets say. I have
notes from workshops that
I’ve taken that I don’t
remember or understand
because I didn’t do this or
that.
I teach EXCEL and I have
only had two days of training
this summer. I haven’t
implemented the learning in
my classroom yet.
I am still working on
implementing depth and
complexity fully
I have only gone to a few in-
services on GATE. I do not
have any experiences
teaching GATE. I am just
starting this program.
Professional development for
gifted should cover many
areas not just depth and
complexity.
Few workshops are available
for middle school science.
The quality of workshops at
my site is rather low and not
specific to a content area.
It would have been great to
have had someone model all
this stuff for me or at least
planned with me.
I think I’d like to see the
different was depth and other
teachers in various subject
areas use complexity.
Maybe see if my grade level
would be interested in
exploring depth and
complexity during grade
level meetings.
I think the GATE office
should provide coaches or
mentor type people to make
sure that I’m doing this right.

94
The range of responses varied, and due to the limited sample of responses,
generalizations were not made as a result of the analysis. The comments made by
the participants revealed similarities in their experiences, thoughts, and suggestions.
Some teachers, who had positive learning experiences during the professional
development sessions, commented that the learning opportunities regarding
differentiation with the prompts were interactive and helpful. They also commented
that the GATE office provided support to its teachers and was effective in providing
frequent professional development opportunities. This means that these teachers had
positive learning experiences with depth and complexity prompts.
Teacher also offered their comments on their learning experiences. A
common theme was the need for additional time to process, plan, and reflect on what
teachers had learned. There was a sense of urgency conveyed in their comments,
perhaps because these teachers felt that they do not have “ownership” of what they
learned and, as such, did not feel comfortable implementing their learning.
Suggestions also were found in response to the open-ended response portion
of the questionnaire. These suggestions included the need for more professional
development for middle school teachers, coaches or mentors should be available for
demonstration lessons, planning suggestions, and offer feedback. A few teachers
suggested that professional development should focus on areas other than depth and
complexity prompts, such as high quality workshops in different content areas.
Based on all the comments made, it would appear that the professional development
sessions as it was provided did not meet the needs of all teachers. Although some
95
teachers wrote positive comments about their learning experiences, the majority of
the comments concerned needing additional time for mastery prior to
implementation, as well as additional support from peers, mentors, and professional
development instructors.
Summary of Teachers’ Responses
In summary, participants’ preferences with respect to room arrangements,
motivation, learning dynamics, and time of day of professional development
experiences did not significantly influence how they viewed themselves as learners.
Most often, the room arrangements and motivational preferences matched the
participants’ preferences for professional development. District-sponsored
professional development sessions were often motivated by the introduction of new
ideas and strategies.
Research indicates that individuals have unique patterns for learning new and
difficult information based on their preferences (Dunn & Dunn, 1999). Participants
indicated that flexible grouping and working with a team of peers were often
provided during professional development settings, and almost half of the teachers
preferred to work in groups. With regard to when professional development sessions
were provided, there was a disparity between what was offered and what teachers
preferred. Despite this difference, almost all of the teachers in the study indicated
that the sessions were motivating because the training introduced new strategies and
ideas.

96
The majority of the participants gave a positive response to the importance of
meeting the needs of gifted learners by differentiating content with depth and
complexity prompts. Content expertise, the pursuit of independent study, challenging
gifted learners, and promoting higher levels of knowledge were important to the
participants, and they felt that the use of depth and complexity prompts was an
effective strategy to meet the needs of their gifted learners.
Depth and Complexity Prompts to Differentiate Curriculum
Classroom Observation
Participants were recruited based on the following criteria: (a) volunteered to
participate, (b) taught in grades three through eight, (c) taught in a heterogeneous
classroom with cluster groups of identified gifted students, and (d) had participated
in at least two professional development opportunities that emphasized differentiated
content with depth and complexity prompts. The participants came from six
elementary schools and six middle schools. Of the participants, 31 were elementary
school teachers, and 9 were middle school teachers.
Additionally, 11 agreed to the observation portion of the study, including 3
third grade teachers, 3 fourth grade teachers, 1 sixth grade teacher, 3 seventh grade
teachers, and 1 eighth grade teacher. The goal of the observations was to record
evidence of the application of depth and complexity prompts to differentiate grade
level content in the classroom, based on the four categories of the rubric: fidelity,
integration, teacher comfort, and student responsiveness.
97
Fidelity refers to the teacher’s accurate use of depth and complexity prompts
during the lesson. Teachers must understand the content they are teaching and use a
wide range of teaching techniques to bring the content to the level of their students
(Darling-Hammond, 2004).
Integration refers to the incorporation of depth and complexity prompts
within the lesson content. Studies have documented that better transfer of learning
occurs when higher order thinking skills are embedded in subject matter (Perkins &
Salomon, 1989).
Teacher comfort refers to the confident and consistent use of depth and
complexity prompts to differentiate a lesson. Teachers of gifted students need to be
comfortable with asking questions and receiving diverse responses. They also must
be prepared for students who are knowledgeable about the subject that is taught, so
as to give guidance beyond the regular curriculum (VanTassel-Baska, 1992).
Student responsiveness refers to how the students react, learn, and take
ownership of the depth and complexity prompts. When planning an appropriate
curriculum and lessons, the precocity, intensity, and complexity of gifted learners
must be taken into consideration (VanTassel-Baska, 2003). Students’ advanced
development in school-related curricular areas, their responsiveness, and their
engagement in higher-level thinking must be considered by classroom teachers.
After the researcher received the completed student consent forms, a video
camera was placed in a corner at either the front or the back of the classroom to
record as much as possible of the classroom environment, the teacher’s area of
98
lesson delivery, student participation when using depth and complexity prompts, and
dialogue between the teacher and students. Videotaping and observational notes were
taken to record the subject matter, subject matter being taught, teacher location with
respect to the students, use of depth and complexity prompts articulated by the
teacher, grouping of students, and the number of students during the observation.
Next, the researcher reviewed the videotape and evaluated the lesson against
the rubric, based on observable teacher and student behaviors, and completed a
comparison between what was observed and the descriptors on the rubric. Once
scored, the participants’ responses on the questionnaire and the results from the
rubric were analyzed to determine the presence of any relationships or patterns.
To analyze the data, qualitative categories were created based on the
literature review and the data. These categories were created to assist with answering
the research questions. Both deductive and inductive methods were utilized.
Deductive methods allowed analysis of the data through the use of categories from
the rubric created for this study. Inductive methods allowed for the analysis of
patterns present in the data. “Discovery and verification mean moving back and forth
between induction and deduction, between experience and reflection on experience,
and between greater and lesser degrees of naturalistic inquiry” (Patton, 2002, p. 67).
Utilizing deductive and inductive methods allowed for better analysis of the data.
Deductive analysis requires existing data to be analyzed based on an existing
framework (Patton, 2002). “Inductive analysis involves discovering patterns, themes,
99
and categories in one’s data” (p. 453). Data were coded based upon the following
categories from the rubric developed for this study:
1. Fidelity, which included the inaccurate use of depth and complexity icons
by the teacher during the lesson.
2. Integration, which included the use of depth and complexity prompts as an
addendum to the content taught in the lesson.
3. Teacher comfort, which included teachers displaying discomfort and
apparently using the prompts without understanding.
4. Student responsiveness, which included lack of ownership in the
understanding and application of depth and complexity prompts to help facilitate
their learning.
Some of the codes for fidelity and integration included depth and complexity
icons, prompts, incorporation, and addendum of the prompts. After coding the data,
the categories were used for analysis.
Table 22 shows the results from the 11 sets of observations. More detailed
observation notes for Classrooms A-K are presented after the table.

100
Table 22
Observations of Classrooms A-K on the Use of Depth and Complexity Prompts

Class

Fidelity of the
Prompts

Integration of the
Prompts
Teacher Comfort
with Using
Prompts

Student
Responsiveness
A

Accurate use Prompts were an
addendum to the
lesson.
Teacher seemed
uncomfortable.
Lack of ownership.
B

Accurate use Prompts were an
addendum to the
lesson.
Teacher seemed
uncomfortable
when delivering
lesson.
Lack of ownership.

C Inaccurate use Teacher read a
Native American
story aloud for 35
minutes and asked
students at the end
to share details they
heard.

Teacher told
students to look for
rules and patterns in
math, but did not
have a teaching
objective, modeling,
or guided practice.
Teacher appeared
to be comfortable
when instructing
students to look
for rules and
patterns.

The lesson was
delivered whole-
group instruction.
No active
participation from
the students.
Students sat still
during the entire
read aloud.
Students were
asked to write a
summary of what
they heard.

Students were not
able to use the
prompts to discuss
what they learned
in math.
D Inaccurate use Not consistent using
the prompts:
appeared to have
been added on
during the lesson to
explain a math
problem.
Sense of lack of
comfort when
prompts were
added on during
the explanation of
the problem.
Students were not
using the prompts
in their
explanations, even
when grouped
heterogeneously.

Table continues.
101
Table 22 (continued)

Class

Fidelity of the
Prompts

Integration of the
Prompts
Teacher Comfort
with Using
Prompts

Student
Responsiveness
E

Taught by
reading
directly from
the teachers’
guides during
the
observations
Did not use the
prompts during all
the lessons.
Teacher appeared
comfortable not
using the prompts
during the lesson.
Students
completed
worksheets in math
and in Language
Arts after lesson.
Two students slept
during first 30
minutes of lesson.
Awoke in time to
complete
worksheet.
F Inaccurate
use
Prompts were an
addendum to the
lesson.
Teacher appeared
comfortable in the
inaccurate use of
the prompts.
Lack of ownership.
G Accurate use Prompts were used in
the objective
statement, but during
the lecture and not in
the rest of the Power
Point slides. The
teacher did not refer
to the prompts to
redirect discussion.
Teacher appeared
confident that
prompts were
included in Power
Point slides, but
did not refer to
them, which may
indicate lack of
confidence.
Students were
grouped to
complete the same
task but did not use
the prompts during
their independent
work.
H Inaccurate
use
Prompts were
addenda to the lesson
and were
spontaneously used,
even though it was
not part of the
teaching objective.
Teacher appeared
tense when the
prompts were
added
spontaneously
and was relying
on a menu for
students from
which to work.
Students were not
asked to use the
prompts until
teacher passed out
a menu of
activities from
which they were to
select a project
after completing
their notes.

Table continues.

102
Table 22 (continued)

Class

Fidelity of the
Prompts

Integration of the
Prompts
Teacher Comfort
with Using
Prompts

Student
Responsiveness
I Accurate use Prompts appeared to
be added on the
prompts as an
addendum to the
objective, and were
not used throughout
the lesson.
Teacher appeared
confident that
prompts were
included in the
Cornell note-
taking format for
student to
complete an
activity, but was
not consistent.
Students did not
complete Cornell
notes using the
prompts until the
worksheet passed
out: “look for
details, events that
changed over time
. . . ”

J Accurate use

Prompts were an
addendum to the
lesson.
Teacher not
inconsistent with
application.
Lack of ownership.

K

Accurate use Prompts were an
addendum to the
lesson.
Teacher
inconsistent with
application.
Lack of ownership.

The following observation notes, taken in the classrooms and while watching
the videotapes of Classrooms A-K, include the lessons taught by the participants and
the behavior of their students.
Classroom Observations Notes
Classroom A. The teacher in Classroom A was a third grade teacher who had
over 20 years of teaching experience. He had been teaching less than one year in the
gifted program and attended at least five professional development sessions in the
district during the assessment period. The desks for his 20 students (12 girls and 8
boys) were in groups of four around the center of the classroom. At the center of the
classroom was a rug where his students would sit for whole group instruction. This
103
teacher earned a mean of 9 on the rubric. This indicates that he was partially
proficient in the use of depth and complexity prompts in the classroom.
During his observations (language arts, math, and social studies, the teacher
began his lesson with direct instruction, while sitting on the carpet. He discussed the
teaching objective and purpose of the lesson and then used an advanced organizer at
the front of the room, with his students sitting on the carpet in a circle. He modeled
the use of the advanced organizer with these depth and complexity prompts and their
icon representations: language of the discipline, big idea, and details. He used the
icon symbols instead of writing out the words “big idea” and so forth on the
advanced organizer, and he expected his students to do the same during the
independent practice in their groups.
For instance, he stated, “Scholars, your job is to be able to explain the big
idea of these shapes, explain how these shapes are related to each other using the
language of the discipline, and support your ideas with details.” After the
instructions and modeling guided practice was completed, he had students sit in
groups of four and complete the advanced organizer. The students understood the
task because they completed the advanced organizer, but they did not use the
prompts while working together. All the groups worked on the same tasks, and there
was inconsistent use of the depth and complexity prompts by the teacher and by the
students. This teacher was accurate in the use of the depth and complexity prompts,
but the prompts were not used to differentiate the content.
104
Classroom B. The teacher in Classroom B was a third grade teacher who had
been teaching in the district for eight years. She had been teaching in the gifted
program for seven years and had attended two professional development sessions
during the 18-month assessment period. The desks for her 20 students (10 girls, 10
boys) were in a theater-type setting, where the students were seated in rows facing
the front of the room. There were two rows of six desks each in the back of the room,
a row of four desks facing the center of the room on the left side of the room, and a
row of four desks facing the center of the room on the right side of the room. The
teacher taught from the front of the room, behind her desk, using an overhead
projector. This indicated that her whole group instruction was conducted while the
students were at their desks.
The teacher was accurate in the use of depth and complexity prompts, and
she was always confident when using them to differentiate content. She earned a
mean of 10 on the rubric, which indicated that she was proficient in the use of depth
and complexity prompts to differentiate content in the classroom. Her students
appeared to have some knowledge of learning with depth and complexity prompts,
and she would partially integrate them into the content.
During all four of the observations (science, math, language arts, and social
studies), the teacher properly used the depth and complexity prompts, and she
appeared confident in using them to differentiate content. Even though she began all
her lessons in the whole group, she then had students work in pre-assigned groups of
four, with each group having a different task to do. For instance, one group looked
105
for details that either proved or disproved the idea that Native Americans had to
change over time as their habitat changed, while another group had to think from the
perspective of Native Americans from different regions of California about how they
would gather food and build shelter.
Classroom C. The teacher in Classroom C also was a third grade teacher. She
had been teaching for 10 years, and had been teaching in the gifted program for less
than a year. She attended three professional development sessions during the 18-
month assessment period. The desks for her 20 students (11 girls, 9 boys) were in
groups of four in the center of the room. There was a carpeted area at the side of the
room, with a whiteboard easel.
During two observations (math and social studies), the teacher lectured from
the front of the room for a mean of 45 minutes, while her students sat at their desks.
There was no active participation from her students and no differentiation in the
content. For example, the teacher asked her students to listen for important details
while she read aloud a Native American folktale for approximately 35 minutes. The
students did not take notes, and she did not provide additional prompts. She then
asked her students to write a summary of what they had heard. This teacher earned a
mean of 9 on the rubric, which indicated that she was not proficient in the use of
depth and complexity prompts.
Classroom D. The teacher in Classroom D was a fourth grade teacher who
had been teaching for six years and also had been teaching in the gifted program for
six years. This teacher had attended between four and six professional development
106
sessions during the 18-month assessment period. The desks for her 30 students (16
girls, 14 boys) were in five groups of six desks each. The teacher taught from the
front of the room, using an overhead projector, during both of her lessons. She
earned a mean of 8.5 on the rubric, which indicated partially proficient use of depth
and complexity prompts.
This teacher’s math lesson consisted of reviewing math problems that
required multiple steps and was conducted in a whole group. The use of depth and
complexity prompts appeared to have been added on during the lesson and was not
fully integrated; the teacher was not as consistent in using them when she was
explaining a math problem. As a result, her students were inconsistent in using them
while solving the math problems and in their explanations.
The teacher’s rubric score during her reading comprehension lesson showed
that she was proficient. She asked her students to “think like an economist” while
they were reading certain text selections within their group. The students were
grouped according to reading level, and each group was responsible for certain tasks
during their group investigation. Each group was given the same task of deriving the
big idea from the text about small business that they were reading, but the texts were
at a different reading level for each group. Each group was able to report their
findings to the rest of the class using the depth and complexity prompts that the
teacher modeled at the beginning of the lesson.
Classroom E. The teacher in Classroom E was a third grade teacher who had
over 15 years of teaching experience. She had been teaching for less than one year in
107
the gifted program and had attended at least two professional development sessions
in the district during the assessment period. The desks for her 28 students (16 girls
and 12 boys) were in groups of four and six in the center of the classroom. The
teacher taught from the front of the room, using an overhead projector. She earned a
4 on the rubric for all four observations. This indicates that she was not proficient in
using depth and complexity prompts to differentiate content.
During every lesson she taught, the teacher read directly from the teacher’s
guide. For example, she used the overhead projector to explain how to solve math
problems, but she did not use any depth and complexity prompts during the entire
lesson. She also did not ask her students to use the prompts. During the lesson, two
students fell asleep while she was lecturing and woke up 30 minutes later, before the
rest of the class began to solve problems on a worksheet.
Classroom F. The teacher in Classroom F was a fourth grade teacher who
had over 13 years of teaching experience, and had been teaching for five years in the
gifted program. She had attended two professional development sessions during the
18-month assessment period. The desks for her 30 students (14 girls and 16 boys)
were in groups of four, six, and eight. The teacher taught from the front and the back
of the room, using the whiteboard, and all her lessons involved her students working
either with their peers in the table groups or in pre-assigned groups. Her mean rubric
score was 10. This indicates that she was proficient in using depth and complexity
prompts to differentiate content. Her students appeared to understand how to use the
prompts in their learning.
108
For example, during the math lesson, the students took notes using the depth
and complexity icons when defining a decimal, using knowledge they had learned
from other chapters. The students used an advanced organizer to help them analyze
the concept with the others at their table. The teacher modeled part of the advanced
organizer (she referred to it as a frame), recalling the relationship between decimals
and fractions. The students were able to choose which depth and complexity icons
they wanted to use to guide their thinking during discussions and note taking. They
actively participated by using depth and complexity prompts in their discussion and,
as a result of sharing their ideas, each table was able to define what a decimal was in
the students’ own way.
Classroom G. The teacher in Classroom G was a sixth grade English teacher
who had been teaching in the gifted program for over seven years. He had attended
between four and six professional development sessions during the 18-month
assessment period. The desk arrangements for his students varied with each
observation. For the Socratic seminar, the desks were arranged with an inner and
outer circle. During his lesson involving a character analysis activity, the desks were
in rows, for which the left and right sides of the room faced each other, with a path in
between for the teacher to walk through. During direct instruction, the desks were
evenly arranged on the left and the right sides of the room, facing the front, where
there was a PowerPoint presentation by the teacher. The teacher had 35 students per
period, and each class period had students grouped based on their abilities. During
two of the three periods, this teacher taught in the morning, using clusters of gifted
109
students, while one period involved students all identified as gifted, but who were
also grouped according to ability.
The teacher in Classroom G earned a mean of 8 on the rubric, indicating that
he was partially proficient in the use of depth and complexity prompts in the
classroom. For example, one of his teaching objectives was that his students would
analyze how the perspectives of characters contributed to plot development in a
story. Depth and complexity prompts were used to some degree by the teacher; they
were mentioned in his objective statement, but not during his lecture or in the rest of
his PowerPoint slides.
During the activity of filling out an advanced organizer (plot diagram), the
students appeared to have some knowledge of the prompts when the teacher was
delivering his presentation, but neither the teacher nor the students used them during
the class discussion in reference to the plot diagram or during the completion of the
graphic organizer. The teacher proceeded to give his students independent work
involving writing a five-paragraph essay that examined how the different
perspectives of the characters contributed to the development of the story’s plot,
using details from the plot diagram as evidence.
During another class period, the teacher gave the whole class the same task,
when he prompted his students to discuss the question: “What are the origins,
contributions, converging ideas, parallel thoughts, and paradoxical issues about the
Pledge of Allegiance that lead people to think liberty is something you teach or that
justice is something you give.” Even though this opening question was integrated
110
with the prompts, the teacher did not use them to differentiate or redirect the
discussion, nor did the students use the prompts during their conversation. The
students were grouped based on ability, but the lessons were not differentiated. Each
group completed the same task and was asked to generate the same product at the
end.
Classroom H. The teacher in Classroom H was a seventh grade history
teacher who had been teaching for five years and had been teaching in the gifted
program for four years. He had attended between 11 and 13 professional
development sessions during the 18-month assessment period. The desks for his 32
to 35 students were in rows on each side of the room, arranged to face the other side
of the room, with an aisle for the teacher to walk between the desks. There was a
podium at the end of the aisle at the front of the room. Students from each period sat
in alphabetical order, starting from the first row closest to the door. At the beginning
of each period, the students read the objective of the day on the whiteboard and then
waited for the next set of directions. After the attendance was taken, the teacher
proceeded with the lesson.
The teacher earned a mean of 9 on the rubric. All of his lessons were
delivered in a whole group format, and the students remained at their desks during
the entire class period. There were a couple of times when the teacher asked the
students to turn to a partner close to them to share an idea, but the tasks and the
products were the same for all students. The teacher’s history lessons were either
closure lessons to end a unit or introduced student choice projects. The depth and
111
complexity prompts used by the teacher were addenda to the lessons; they were
added at spontaneous moments and were not written on the board along with his
objectives. The students were not encouraged to use the prompts until the teacher
passed out a menu of student activities from which they were to select a project to
work on after they had completed taking notes from the lecture. An example of a
student activity was: “Compare and contrast significant characteristics of medieval
West African trade kingdoms as seen from the perspective of each author.” Even
though the lessons were not differentiated, the student menu offered a selection of
activities from which students could choose.
Classroom I. The teacher in Classroom I was a seventh grade English teacher
who had been teaching for ten years in the district, all in the gifted program. She had
attended between 11 and 13 professional development sessions on gifted education
during the 18-month assessment period. The desks for her 27 to 32 students were in
rows, divided into three sections: four rows of four desks in the middle of the room
facing forward, five rows of four desks on the left side of the room facing the center,
and five rows of four desks on the right side of the room facing the center. The
teacher was able to move across the room between the sections of desks. The
students sat in alphabetical order. This teacher scored a mean of 8 on the rubric,
which indicated that she was partially proficient in applying depth and complexity
prompts in the classroom.
A teaching objective for one lesson was that, once the students were given a
set of Cornell notes, they would be able to demonstrate the ability to define terms of
112
characterization and apply these terms to a core literate novel with key and iconic
statements. The teacher was proficient in integrating depth and complexity prompts
when modeling Cornell note taking. However, the worksheet that was given to the
entire class had the same structure and the same and depth and complexity prompts.
The format of the notes the students were given to complete was “fill in the blank.”
For example, “___________ characters play a large role, ___________ characters
play a small one.” This format asked students to look for details, events that changed
over time, motives, and big ideas. The students did not complete the notes the way
that the teacher had modeled earlier, however. Using the notes they had taken, the
students generated test questions individually until the end of the class period.
During another observation, the teacher wrote the following objective on the
board: “Given a pattern, language of the discipline, parallels, and big ideas on the
PowerPoint, the learner will demonstrate the ability to recall key concepts from the
nonfiction unit by completing a Jeopardy game.” The teacher appeared to have added
depth and complexity prompts as an addendum to the activity by writing the
objective on the board this way. The students appeared to have some knowledge of
learning with depth and complexity prompts, even when the content or activity was
not differentiated. Teams of students were formed based on seating proximity and
competed for group points. Each correct answer earned a group a point. A sample
statement from the Jeopardy game created by the teacher was: “A nonfiction text
structure whose patterns include key words such as ‘counter,’ ‘claim,’ or ‘debate.’
Name the text structure.”
113
Classroom J. The teacher in Classroom J was another seventh grade history
teacher, who had been teaching for three years. She had been teaching in the GATE
program for two years and had attended between 11 and 13 professional
development sessions during the 18-month assessment period. The desks for her 32
students were in rows, with half of the desks on the left side of the room, and the
other half of the desks on the right, with each half of the room facing each other.
This teacher earned a mean of 10 on the rubric, indicating that she was
proficient in using depth and complexity prompts to differentiate content in the
classroom. She was confident in applying prompts, was accurate in using them,
integrated them in the content, and her students appeared to have ownership of the
prompts.
One lesson concerned the introduction of concentric circles of understanding,
used in relation to the history of China. The teacher used a PowerPoint presentation
to show her students how concentric circles of understanding are a sophisticated way
to reinforce understanding at a higher level of knowledge. She emphasized that this
type of learning reinforces interdisciplinary thinking, an example of a depth and
complexity prompt. She then instructed her students to think from different
perspectives because this would enable them to make connections with what they
already knew and to understand how knowledge can be layered.
The students worked individually and in groups during the guided practice
portion of the lesson. They were able to use the prompts within their conversations
with others and with the teacher. First, they identified a key term: isolation. Next,
114
they made connections between the term and themselves, as well as the world. Then,
they integrated the term “isolation” into the time period they were studying and
discussed how that term made an impact on the economy, government, and science
in China. Finally, the students were asked to write a quick paragraph in response to a
question posed by the teacher at the end of the lesson: “Is isolation possible today?
Would it be beneficial or detrimental to a nation?” Some groups of students were in
need of guidance from the teacher during the lesson, while others were not. The
groups of students worked at their own pace, but all of them were able to write a
reflection at the end of the class.
Another example of proficient application of depth and complexity prompts
in the classroom by this teacher occurred during an inductive reasoning activity
about the rise and spread of Islam. Each student was given the same graphic
organizer, containing prompts such as: “What are the details that support the
expansion of Muslim rule?” “What were some of the generalizations the people of
Islam lived by?” The class was divided into groups, predetermined by the teacher,
and was allowed to use resources to gather information about the topic. At the end of
the lesson, each group presented their findings. Almost all of the groups of students
used depth and complexity prompts while they were presenting, indicating that many
of the students in her class had ownership of the prompts.
Classroom K. The teacher in Classroom K was an eighth grade English
teacher who had been teaching for four years, all in the gifted program. She had
attended at least 14 professional development sessions during the 18-month
115
assessment period. The desks for her 35 students were arranged in columns of five,
at an angle towards the front of the room. There also were four columns of three
desks on the right side of the room, four columns of three desks on the left side of the
room, and two additional rows of desks at the back of the room, with three desks in
each row. This teacher earned a mean of 10 points on the rubric during the
observation, indicating that she was proficient in the use of depth and complexity
prompts in the classroom.
During one observation, the teacher had students complete an inductive
reasoning activity, in which they were required to produce generalizations about
examples of power from a book they had previously read. The students were given
yellow Post-It notes to record details about instances of power from the novel. The
students worked individually as they were writing and sorting their notes, based on
commonalities. The teacher then divided the students into groups, based on seating
proximity. The researcher then realized that the students were not sitting at their
desks in alphabetical order, but had been seated close to students with similar
abilities. This allowed the teacher to provide more guidance for certain groups and to
check the progress of the group work in others. By the end of the activity, all the
groups had completed the task and were able to share the generalizations with which
they had come up. Table 23 presents a summary of classroom observations in
relation to the categories of the rubric.

116
Table 23
Summary of Classroom Observations
Categories General Findings
Fidelity

Generally teachers were accurate in the use of depth and
complexity prompts in the lesson, however they were not used
to differentiate the lesson in regards to delivery and tasks
assigned to students. Some depth and complexity prompts were
used more than others.
Integration

Teachers partially integrated depth and complexity prompts in
the content. Many of the prompts were an addendum to the
lesson a reactive statement instead of planning according to
ability. Almost all teachers during the observation used a depth
and complexity prompt in the objective, but did not refer to it
throughout the lesson.
Teacher
Comfort

Overall teachers were inconsistent with application of the
prompts to differentiate a lesson. They did not appear confident
with the application of depth and complexity prompts
throughout the lesson. Some teachers appeared confident in the
use of some of the prompts more than others.
Student
Responsiveness

Overall there were inconsistent use of depth and complexity
prompts by the students in the classroom. With exception for
two teachers, the rest of the participants gave all their students
the same tasks at the same level to finish. Some of the tasks
given by teachers did not meet the objective based upon the
activities students were asked to complete.

General findings show that teachers were accurate in the use of depth and
complexity prompts in the classroom: however, they only partially integrated the
prompts of depth and complexity into the content. The inconsistent integration of the
prompts contributed to the inconsistent use of these prompts by the students during
the lesson.

117
Relationship Between Professional Development and Classroom Application
The participants’ responses regarding how professional development was
provided, how they learned how to utilize depth and complexity prompts, how well
they evaluated their learning and professional development instructors, and their
evaluation scores on the rubric were collected and analyzed. The purpose was to
identify the elements of professional development that influenced how well
participants applied depth and complexity prompts to differentiate content in the
classroom. (Note that part one of the questionnaire collected only demographic data
and was not included in the analysis.)
Participants were asked to indicate professional development elements most
frequently offered in professional development settings during the 18-month
assessment period. The responses as well, as their rubric scores from the
observations, were analyzed and are presented in Table 24. An analysis to compare
the mean for each category on the rubric with the time of day professional
development opportunities were most frequently offered during the 18-month
assessment period could not be completed. Professional development was only
offered to teachers during after-school hours, so there was no basis for comparison.

118
Table 24
Relationship between Professional Development and Classroom Application

Fidelity

Integration
Teacher
Comfort
Student
Responsiveness

Element f Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Environment

Theater-
type seating
4 2.38 .95 1.50 .71 2.38 .75 1.88 .63
Classroom-
type seating
6 2.54 .46 2.00 .71 2.25 .63 1.79 .46
Motivation
New ideas 6 2.75 .42 1.83 .82 2.38 .77 1.83 .52
New
strategies
2 2.38 .53 1.75 .35 2.38 .18 2.00 .00
Using
existing
materials
1 1.00 -- 1.00 -- 1.50 -- 1.00 --
Learning
dynamic

Alone 1 3.00 -- 2.33 -- 3.00 -- 2.67 --
Team of
peers
5 2.35 .86 1.60 .65 2.05 .80 1.60 .65
Flexible
grouping
5 2.60 .42 2.00 .79 2.55 .37 2.05 .11

Note. Teacher observation ratings were coded: 1 = not proficient, 2 = partially
proficient, and 3 = proficient.
119
The means within each category were similar, with little variance between
them. This indicates that there was no significant relationship between each
professional development element and the extent of observed classroom application.
For instance, for participants who indicated that professional development
sessions provided teachers with a team of peers, the mean rubric score for fidelity
was 2.35 (SD = .86), and for flexible grouping, under the same category of fidelity,
it was 2.60 (SD = .42). This indicates that the type of learning dynamic provided in
professional development did not affect how accurately teachers differentiated
content using depth and complexity prompts. The same pattern continued with other
professional development elements in all categories during the 18-month assessment
period.
Classroom Application of Depth and Complexity Prompts and Quality of Instructors
The following results pertain to the participants’ ability to apply depth and
complexity prompts to differentiate content and whether this was affected by the
level at which they evaluated their instructors according to each category on the
questionnaire: (a) differentiated the content using depth and complexity prompts, (b)
emphasized the needs of the gifted learner, and (c) related professional development
to content standards. Their responses were analyzed according to how well teachers
differentiated content using depth and complexity prompts from the rubric. The
results are presented in Table 25.

120
Table 25
Relationship between Instructors and Application of Depth and Complexity Prompts

Fidelity

Integration
Teacher
Comfort
Student
Responsiveness

Categories of
Evaluation f Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Differentiated
content

Excellent 8 2.50 .71 1.93 .73 2.47 .51 1.84 .55
Good 1 2.75 -- 1.50 -- 2.25 -- 2.00 --
Fair 1 2.00 -- 1.00 -- 1.00 -- 1.50 --
Emphasis on the
gifted learner

Excellent 6 2.42 .80 2.00 .84 2.54 .56 1.96 .51
Good 3 2.75 .25 1.67 .29 2.25 .25 1.67 2.89
Unsatisfactory 1 2.00 -- 1.00 -- 1.00 -- 1.50 --
Related
professional
development to
content standards

Good 7 2.54 .42 1.93 .67 2.21 .59 1.82 .43
Fair 3 2.33 1.15 1.50 .87 2.50 .87 1.83 .76

Note. Rubric scores were coded: 1 = not proficient, 2 = partially proficient, and 3 =
proficient.
These results indicated a similar pattern showing little variance in the
evaluations of the observations regarding the elements of professional development
121
elements. As presented in Table 25, the similarity of the means within each category
of the rubric meant that there was little variance. For instance, when evaluating the
instructor on how well he or she emphasized the needs of the gifted learner within
the category of fidelity, participants who evaluated their instructors as “excellent”
received a mean of 2.42 (SD = .80), “good” 2.75 (SD = .25), and “unsatisfactory”
2.00 from the observations. There was no significant relationship between the
quality of instructors and the extent of observed classroom application of depth and
complexity prompts.
With regard to the application of depth and complexity prompts, the
similarity of the means for each category meant that there was little variance. Thus,
professional development elements (i.e., environmental settings, motivation, and
learning dynamics) did not influence the application of depth and complexity
prompts to differentiate content in the classroom. Analysis of the data indicated that
teachers were more successful in the accurate use of depth and complexity prompts
to differentiate the lesson than in integrating the prompts in the content. As a result,
students appeared new to learning with depth and complexity prompts and did not
appear to have ownership in using the prompts in their learning.
Summary of Teachers’ Use of Depth and Complexity Prompts
Overall, participants partially transferred the application of depth and
complexity prompts to differentiate content during the observations. Professional
development elements were considered in this study as possible factors influencing
how well depth and complexity prompts are applied to the classroom. The results
122
revealed that the degree of application of depth and complexity prompts in the
classroom were similar within each category of environment, motivation, and
learning dynamics (i.e., groupings).
The effectiveness of professional development instructors also was studied.
The quality of instructors did not affect the degree to which teachers applied depth
and complexity prompts to differentiate a lesson. How successful the instructors
were in differentiating the content, emphasizing the needs of gifted learners, and
relating the professional development to content standards did not significantly
influence the transfer of the prompts to differentiate content in the classroom. A
pattern similar to the effects of professional development elements emerged in regard
to the effect of the quality of instructors.
Summary of the Findings
Teachers’ Responses to Professional Development
The data collected from the questionnaire revealed that the participants’
teaching experience in gifted education was less than their overall teaching
experience. Many of the participants indicated they were attending district sponsored
professional development opportunities to earn district certification.
The results show that 94.9% of the participants indicated that professional
development opportunities were usually offered after school hours. This is because
there are factors that prohibit teachers from attending sessions during school hours,
such as difficulty releasing teachers from their classrooms without interrupting
coherent instruction for their students. Some teachers may have chosen to attend
123
conferences such as those held by CAG and OCC GATE for additional learning
opportunities. Participants also indicated that flexible grouping and working with a
team of peers were often provided during professional development settings, and
almost half of the teachers preferred to work in groups.
The majority of the participants indicated a positive response to the
importance of meeting the needs of gifted learners by differentiating content with
depth and complexity prompts. Content expertise, the pursuit of independent study,
challenging gifted learners, and promoting higher levels of knowledge were
important to the participants, and they felt that the use of depth and complexity
prompts was an effective strategy to meet the needs of their gifted learners.
Participants’ preferences with respect to room arrangements, motivation,
learning dynamics, and time of day of professional development experiences did not
influence how they viewed themselves as learners. Most often the room
arrangements and motivational preferences matched the participants’ preferences for
professional development. The relationship between motivation and professional
development setting indicated that district-sponsored sessions were often motivated
by the introduction of new ideas and strategies.
Teachers’ Use of Depth and Complexity Prompts
Overall, as found through the observations, there was partial transfer in the
application of depth and complexity prompts to differentiate content. Professional
development elements were considered in this study as possible factors influencing
how well depth and complexity prompts were transferred to the classroom. The
124
degree to which teachers transferred what they learned from professional
development was similar, despite differences in the types of professional
development sessions.
The effectiveness of professional development instructors also was studied.
The degree to which teachers differentiated content using depth and complexity
prompts was similar within each category of the rubric, despite differences in how
teachers evaluated the instructors. How successful the instructors were in
differentiating the content, emphasizing the needs of gifted learners, and relating the
professional development to content standards did not affect the transfer of the
prompts to differentiate content in the classroom.

125
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter provides a summary of key findings and a discussion of the
results. The chapter begins with a restatement of the purposes of the study, research
questions, methodology, procedure, and analysis. The chapter concludes with
implications and recommendations for future research.
Many teachers with a heterogeneous classroom, including clusters of gifted
students, do not differentiate content for gifted learners because they either have not
had adequate training to meet the gifted students’ needs or have participated in staff
development, but have not implemented their training in practice (Gallagher, 2004).
This study was designed to determine the extent to which professional development
affects the implementation of differentiated content using depth and complexity
prompts in the classroom. An additional purpose was to determine the relationship
between teacher characteristics and the implementation of differentiated content. The
research questions for this study were:
1. What are teachers’ responses to specific professional development
experiences provided to differentiate curriculum for gifted learners?
2. To what degree are depth and complexity prompts to differentiate grade
level content for gifted students utilized in the classroom?

126
Methodology
Sample and Population
The criteria used to select a school district for this study included districts
that were: (a) unified and urban, (b) had an approved California Department of
Education GATE application, and (c) provided professional development that
reinforces GATE standards emphasizing differentiated content with depth and
complexity. A large urban and unified school district in Southern California was
chosen because the district supports professional development plans for teachers of
gifted children and met all the proposed criteria.
The sample consisted of 40 classroom teachers from 12 schools. Participants
were recruited based on the following criteria: (a) volunteered to participate, (b)
taught in grades three through eight, (c) taught in a heterogeneous classroom with
cluster groups of identified gifted students, and (d) participated in at least two
professional development opportunities that emphasized differentiated content with
depth and complexity. The participants came from six elementary schools and six
middle schools, of whom 31 participants were elementary school teachers, and 9
were middle school teachers. Of the 40 teachers who completed the questionnaire, 11
were observed teaching differentiated lessons using depth and complexity prompts.
These 11 were the only participants who consented to be observed for the study.
Procedure
The GATE coordinators from the school district were contacted to recruit
their assistance in identifying schools and teacher participants for this study. The
127
researcher convened meetings at school sites and at professional development
sessions to recruit volunteers who had attended at least two professional
development experiences within the previous 18 months.
Expectations of the participants in the study were that they complete a
questionnaire and participate in four videotaped observations of differentiated
content lessons using the researcher-designed rubric. After receiving consent forms
for videotaping students during lessons, the researcher videotaped four lessons, one
in each content area, during a period of less than three months. Participants were
purposefully sampled based on their responses to the questionnaire.
Instrumentation
Questionnaire
The questionnaire was used to collect data related to the participants’
demographic characteristics, learning preferences, and features of professional
development experiences focused on teaching differentiated content to accommodate
gifted students. Such features of professional development experiences included their
structure or format, instructional practice, content, and presentation.
The questionnaire consisted of four parts. Part one of the questionnaire asked
participants to indicate their educational background, years of teaching experience,
and years of teaching in gifted education. Participants also indicated the type of
programmatic setting in which they were teaching (a cluster of gifted students or a
class of only gifted learners) and the type and frequency of professional development
during the 18-month assessment period of June 2005 to December 2006.
128
Part two of the questionnaire asked participants to indicate the manner in
which professional development was offered to them, based on four elements:
environment, motivation, learning dynamic (learning in groups, pairs, or alone), and
time of day. In addition to questions regarding how professional development was
offered, the participants were asked to indicate their own preferences with respect to
the same four aspects of professional development.
Part three of the questionnaire asked participants to indicate the manner in
which they learned to differentiate content using depth and complexity prompts and
the degree to which they valued depth and complexity prompts as teaching tools in
the classroom. Part four of the questionnaire asked participants to evaluate the
instructors of their professional development sessions during the 18-month
assessment period, according to the extent to which they taught how to differentiate
grade level content using depth and complexity prompts, to which the needs of the
gifted learner were emphasized during the session, and to which the instructors
related the professional development to content standards. Participants also were
asked to evaluate how well they learned the content that was delivered during the
professional development sessions, using the same categories with which their
instructors were rated.
Participants were asked at the end of the questionnaire to write additional
comments about their professional development experiences in learning depth and
complexity prompts. All comments were qualitatively analyzed for patterns.

129
Rubric
The second instrument used in the study was a 3-point observation rubric that
evaluated teachers in their classroom based on three categories. The first category,
fidelity, refers to the accuracy of the differentiated lesson and was scored on a scale
of 1 (inaccurate use of depth and complexity prompts), 2 (not consistently correct
use of depth and complexity prompts), or 3 (true to theory in the use of depth and
complexity prompts). Observation notes taken during and while watching the
videotapes of the teachers’ lessons were used to determine their ability to
differentiate content using depth and complexity and were analyzed according to
four categories: fidelity, integration, teacher comfort, and student responsiveness.
The second category, integration, is the teacher’s ability to infuse depth and
complexity with standards-based content. Integration was scored on a scale of 1
(depth and complexity prompts were an addendum to the lesson), 2 (depth and
complexity prompts were partially integrated with the content), or 3 (depth and
complexity prompts were totally integrated with the content).
Teacher comfort was the third category and refers to the perceived familiarity
of teachers with depth and complexity. The scale for this rubric was 1 (teacher
displays discomfort, “seems to be doing something without understanding”), 2
(teacher is not consistent in the use of depth and complexity prompts to differentiate
the lesson), or 3 (teacher appears confident in the use of depth and complexity
prompts to differentiate the lesson).
130
The final category, student responsiveness, concerns how students responded
to depth and complexity within lessons. The scale was 1 (students appear brand new
to learning with depth and complexity prompts), 2 (students appear to have some
knowledge of learning with depth and complexity prompts), or 3 (students appear to
be familiar and have ownership in using depth and complexity prompts in their
learning).
In combination with observation notes and rubric scores, the maximum
number of points possible on the rubric for one lesson was 12, and the minimum was
4 points. A teacher earning a total of 10-12 points for one differentiated content
lesson was considered to be proficient and to have transferred depth and complexity
from professional development experiences into the classroom. A teacher with a total
score of 7-9 points for a lesson was considered partially proficient in the use of depth
and complexity prompts in a differentiated lesson, while a teacher with a total score
of 4-6 points for a lesson was considered to be not proficient.
Analysis
This study utilized a mixed method approach because it required the
collection and analysis of data integrated between two instruments: the questionnaire
and the observation rubric. Questionnaires, rubrics, and observational notes were
used to collect data. Quantitative data, generated by closed-ended questionnaire
items and rubric, were analyzed using descriptive statistics with composite mean
scores, frequencies, and standard deviations. The qualitative data, generated by
observational notes, were analyzed for themes and patterns of behavior. The
131
purposes of using these instruments were to engage in a broad based study and
analysis of the district’s professional development used to appropriately differentiate
content (depth and complexity) for gifted learners, to study teachers’ learning
preferences with respect to professional development, and to determine the degree of
transfer into classroom practices to differentiate content using the prompts.
Summary and Discussion of Key Findings
This study examined elements of professional development and the degree to
which teachers apply what they have learned in professional development regarding
differentiating content using depth and complexity prompts to the classroom. The
quantitative data suggest the following key findings:
1. The majority of the participants’ teaching experiences were not in gifted
education. Of the 40 participants, 70% had taught between one and six years in
gifted education. These results may explain why many of the participants attended
sessions regarding depth and complexity prompts multiple times during the 18-
month assessment period. This supports the notion that attending a single session on
new information will not be sufficient to change classroom practices (Matthew &
Foster, 2005). The teachers’ responses to their professional development experiences
indicated that professional development was necessary for them to gain an
understanding of differentiation to meet the needs of their gifted learners. The results
indicated that professional growth is a developmental process for which teachers
need ongoing support as they transfer their learning about a new theory or skill into
classroom practice (Engstrom & Danielson, 2006).
132
2. The 41.5% of participants who attended district-sponsored sessions
indicated that the sessions were often motivated by the introduction of new ideas and
strategies. Their preferences with respect to room arrangements, learning dynamics,
and time of day did not influence how effective the teachers saw themselves as
learners, as Dunn and Dunn (1999) have suggested.
3. The majority of the participants indicated that content expertise, the pursuit
of independent study, and prompting higher levels of thinking were important to
them. Of the participants who indicated their preferences to apply depth and
complexity prompts, 68% indicated that depth and complexity prompts were best
used to assist in the development of tasks for gifted students rather than to ask
questions of them. The results demonstrated findings that teachers’ awareness that
whole-group instruction rarely offered the adaptations necessary to meet the needs of
their diverse learners (Reis, Gentry, & Maxfield, 1998).
4. Participants also were asked to indicate the content area in which they
believed depth and complexity prompts were best applied. Of all the content areas,
58% of the participants indicated that depth and complexity prompts were best used
in language arts. The preference for language arts may be due to the modeling of
differentiating using depth and complexity prompts conducted during professional
development sessions. Preferences for differentiating particular rather than all
content areas in the training setting could lead to less effective teachers to meet the
educational needs of gifted learners (Gallagher et al., 1997).
133
The quantitative and qualitative data, based on the videotaped observations of
the 11 teachers, suggest the following key findings:
1. Overall, there was little transfer by teachers in differentiating content
utilizing depth and complexity prompts. The use of the rubric and observation notes
revealed that teachers were accurate in the use of depth and complexity prompts in
the lesson; however, they did not use the prompts consistently to differentiate the
lesson in regard to tasks assigned to students. Some depth and complexity prompts
were used more than others. This may be due to teachers being familiar with certain
prompts more than others, as some noted on the open-ended portion of the
questionnaire. These findings support research that within a heterogeneous
classroom, there are inadequacies in the implementation of complex educational
practices with respect to meeting the needs of gifted learners (Folsom, 2006). As
Bush’s (1984) studies of transfer showed, lack of monitoring and demonstration
lessons of the curriculum may be factors contributing to teachers partially integrating
depth and complexity prompts in the content. Further, many of the prompts were an
addendum to the lesson. Almost all teachers used a depth and complexity prompt in
the objective, but many did not refer to them during the lesson. As a result, there was
inconsistent use of depth and complexity prompts by the students in the classroom.
2. The quality of instructors in professional development sessions did not
affect the success with which participants integrated depth and complexity prompts
into content, how accurately they applied prompts, or how responsive students were
during lessons. Based on the rubric scores, there was little variance between how
134
well instructors were evaluated. This indicated little differentiation of lessons,
despite how well the instructors were evaluated by the participants. The best trainers,
working with powerful content, may find little success or receptivity in school
climates and teacher attitudes that are not motivated for change (Joyce & Showers,
2002). Despite the importance of continuing professional development, teachers do
not always regard the notion of teacher training with enthusiasm (Wycoff et al.,
2003). These results support what many teacher educators and staff developers have
suspected: transfer of learned knowledge and skills is not guaranteed unless training
designers plan for content and structure (Joyce & Showers, 2002).
3. Transfer to the classroom was minimal when professional development
consisted of only information and theory. The results indicated that it was not
difficult for teachers to understand differentiation with the use of depth and
complexity prompts from professional development experiences. Nevertheless,
translation into classroom practice was inconsistent. Some participants wrote
additional comments on the questionnaire indicating that professional development
sessions that provided only information rather than modeling were not enough.
Elements such as observing demonstration lessons and receiving a mentor or a coach
were examples teachers gave of experiences that would have been helpful to assist
them to apply what they had learned to the classroom (Bush, 1984; Engstrom &
Danielson, 2006; Joyce & Showers, 2002). Professional development that only
“tells” teachers what to do will fall significantly short of effective transfer
(Tomlinson, 2000b).
135
Conclusions
The key findings from these data suggest the following conclusions:
1. The way professional development and its elements were offered did not
affect implementation. Preferences with respect to professional development factors,
such as environmental setting and quality of instructor, did not make a significant
impact on the transfer of what was learned to classroom practice, as Dunn and Dunn
(1999) had noted.
2. The results suggested that the amount that teachers were expected to learn
to meet the needs of their gifted learners affects their comfort level. Meeting the
learning needs of all of their students requires teachers to differentiate content, and
teachers must possess such knowledge to be effective in the classroom (National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, 1994; Winebrenner, 1994).
3. The participants in the study understood depth and complexity prompts in
isolation, but were inconsistent when integrating the prompts for differentiation. The
participants were accurate in the use of depth and complexity prompts during
lessons, but did not appear to be comfortable with differentiating lessons with regard
to delivery and the tasks assigned to students. Many of the prompts were used as an
addendum to the lesson, and were mostly reactive statements instead of pre-planning
according to ability. During the observations, almost all teachers used depth and
complexity prompts in their lesson objectives, but did not refer to them during the
lessons. Teachers without specific training in gifted education are less effective in
meeting the educational needs of gifted learners (Gallagher et al., 1997).
136
Implications for Professional Development
The findings of this study suggest that school districts must study the
effectiveness of the professional development they provide for their teachers in terms
of student achievement. Professional development opportunities that include
demonstration lessons for teachers to observe each other and be provided with
immediate feedback would help teachers transfer and develop skills to help meet the
needs of all their learners (Costa & Garmston, 1994; Guskey & Sparks, 2002; Karnes
& Shaunessy, 2004). If additional professional development elements, such as
demonstration lessons and mentoring, were components that all teachers in the study
had received, the findings may have been different (Bennett, 1987; Joyce &
Showers, 2002). Professional development that is differentiated for teachers must be
considered because not all teachers possess the same levels of knowledge and
experience (Gubbins et al., 2002).
GATE coordinators and administrators must work together to provide
adequate support for teachers in their classrooms and during professional
development opportunities. Many teachers do not offer differentiation or other
strategies for gifted learners either because they have not had the necessary training
or because they have received some training, but have not put the strategies into
practice (NAGC, 1994). Administrators, department chairs, and other support staff
must hold their teachers accountable for providing meaningful learning opportunities
for their gifted learners (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Supporting teachers through a
mentoring program could provide them with peer coaching opportunities, in which
137
they receive feedback, demonstration lessons, and reflections on their teaching
practices (Folsom, 2006).
Time must be provided for teachers to rethink and recreate the content they
teach, to ensure that their materials and their classroom environment meet the needs
of their students (Odden et al., 2002). Differentiating curriculum allows teachers to
modify their teaching methods, resources, learning activities, and student products as
a means to address the needs of individual students and maximize their learning
opportunities. The participants in the study appeared to have added depth and
complexity prompts as an addendum, rather than fully integrating them within lesson
content. Additionally, impediments to effective differentiation may stem from
teachers’ perspectives (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Odden et al., 2002).
Teachers need to be aware that mixed-ability classrooms contain students
who are at the greatest risk of learning the least. This is due to the common belief
that the individual needs of students can be met if teachers plan a single lesson for all
of their students in the classroom and then attempt to adjust “on the spot”
(Winebrenner, 1994). If teachers are expected to change their current thinking with
respect to how they differentiate content for their students, they will need time to
dialogue with others and to experiment with ways of reorganizing their materials and
their classroom environment (Joyce & Showers, 2002)
Recommendations for Future Research
1. This study focused on teachers in one urban school district. Thus, further
research should use a larger sample of participants from other districts and from a
138
larger geographic area in Southern California. Including participants who teach other
grades may provide additional information about how professional development to
differentiate curriculum using depth and complexity prompts can be conducted.
2. This study analyzed teachers’ experiences with professional development
and collected data regarding their preferences for these elements. A study can be
performed to determine whether there is a statistically significant relationship
between teachers’ preferences for elements of professional development and the
application of these elements in the classroom. In this regard, Dunn and Dunn’s
(1999) 21 learning styles focused more on the learner than on the staff developer.
3. This study analyzed a subset of only 11 teachers who were willing to
participate in the videotaped observations of teaching in their classrooms.
Encouraging teachers to be videotaped as part of professional development
experiences could lead to more participants in another study and increase the sample
size of such observations. Additionally, the observational data could include a wider
range of teaching abilities, which would provide additional insight into transfer and
application.
4. This study focused on the professional development elements offered and
the preferences for those elements by the participants. Further research should
determine the types of instructional practices that support the proficient and
intentional behaviors of teachers when learning to differentiate content, as well as
determine the types of accountability measures used to ensure that teachers are
transferring what they learned in professional development settings to the classroom.
139
Bennett’s (1987) study established a database to provide direction for the design,
implementation, and evaluation of staff development programs. One national survey
conducted by NRC/GT in 1994 found that 61% of third and forth grade teachers had
no training in teaching high-ability students. It would be useful to conduct another
national survey to study whether this situation has improved.
5. This study focused on teachers who already had completed a teacher
credential program and were currently teaching in a classroom. Further research
could investigate whether there is a difference in the consistency of differentiating
content by teachers who possess a multiple-subject or a single-subject credential and
whether there is effective transfer from what is taught in preservice education
courses to the classroom.
140
REFERENCES
Abadiano, H. R., & Turner, J. (2004). Professional staff development: What works?
New England Reading Association Journal, 40(2), 87.

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Constructivism in teacher education: Considerations for
those who would link practice to theory. Washington DC, MD:
Clearinghouse Teaching and Teacher Education. (ERIC Document No. ED
426986)

Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (1998). The research base for APA’s learner-
centered psychological principals. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs
(Eds.), Issues in school reform: A sampler of psychological perspectives on
learner-centered schools. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.

Archambault, F. X., Jr., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C.,
& Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom teachers. Storrs, CT, University of
Connecticut: The National Research Center on the Gifted.

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. J. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners
toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-
Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession:
Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Begoray, B., & Slovinsky, K. (1997). Pearls in shells: Preparing teachers to
accommodate gifted low-income populations. Roeper Review, 20, 45-49.

Bennett, B. (1987). The effectiveness of staff development training practices: A meta-
analysis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.

Burke, K. (1997). Responding to participants’ learning style during staff
development. The Clearing House, 70(6), 294-301.

Burns, D. E., & Purcell, J. H. (2001). Tools for teachers: Five useful tools help
teachers make sense of the standards, design classroom activities and
assessments, and differentiate achievement levels. Educational Leadership,
59(1), 50-52.

Bush, R. N. (1984). Effective staff development. In Far West Laboratory, Making
our schools more effective: Proceedings of three state conferences. San
Francisco, CA.

141
California Association for the Gifted. (2005). Glossary of terms. Retrieved 2005,
from www.cagifted.org

Callahan, C. M., Tomlinson, C. A., Reis, S. M., & Kaplan, S. N. (2000). TIMSS and
high-ability students: Message of doom or opportunity for reflection? Phi
Delta Kappan, 81(10), 787-790.

Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Inquiring into the knowledge base of
teaching and learning. In A. L. Costa & R. J. Garmston (Eds.), Cognitive
coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools (pp. 174-187). Norwood,
MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). The current status of teaching and teacher
development in the United States. Background paper prepared for the
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1-33.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality
teaching. New York: National Commission on Teaching.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Inequality and the right to learn: Access to qualified
teachers in California’s public schools. Teachers College Record, 106(10),
1936-1966.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Ball, D. L. (1999). What can policymakers do to support
teaching to high standards? CPRE Policy Bulletin, Consortium for Policy
Research in Education: Philadelphia, PA.

Denig, S. G. (2004). Multiple intelligences and learning styles: Two complementary
dimensions. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 96-111.

Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1999). The complete guide to the learning styles inservice
system. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Engstrom, M. E., & Danielson, L. M. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of an on-site
staff development model. The Clearing House, 79(4), 170-173.

Folsom, C. (2006). Making conceptual connections between gifted and general
education: Teaching for intellectual and emotional learning (TIEL). Roeper
Review, 28(2), 79-87.

142
Freeley, M. E. (1984). An investigation of the relationships among teachers’
individual time preferences, in-service workshop schedules, and instructional
techniques, & the subsequent implementation of learning style strategies in
participants’ classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. John’s
University, New York, NY.

Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Fullan, M. G. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform.
Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.

Gallagher, J. J. (2004). No Child Left Behind and gifted education. Roeper Review,
26(3), 121-123.

Gallagher, J. J., Harradine, C. L., & Coleman, M. R. (1997). Challenge or boredom?
Gifted students’ views on their schooling. Roeper Review, 19, 132-136.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic
Books.

Gardner, H. (1996). Probing more deeply into the theory of multiple intelligences.
NASSP Bulletin, 80(583), 1-7.

Gentry, M., Moran, C., & Reis, S. M. (1999). Expanding enrichment program
opportunities to all students. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 22(4), 36-48.

Goodnough, K. (2005). Fostering teacher learning through collaborative inquiry. The
Clearing House, 79(2), 88-92.

Gubbins, E. J., Westberg, K. L., Reis, S. M., Donnocenti, S. T., & Tieso, C. L.
(2002). Implementing a professional development model using gifted
education strategies with all students. Washington, DC: The National
Research Center on the Gifted.

Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change.
Educational Researchers (Educational Research), 15, 5-12.

Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1991). What to consider when evaluating staff
development. Educational Leadership, 49(3), 73-75.

143
Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (2002). Linking professional development to
improvements in student learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained
teachers of gifted students, The Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 115-123.

Hord, S. (1994). Staff development and change process: Cut from the same cloth.
Issues About Change, 4(2). [Electronic copy]. Retrieved 2005, from
http://sedl.org/change/issues/issues42.html

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development:
Fundamentals of school renewal (2
nd
ed.). New York: Longman.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development
(3
rd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Kanevsky, L., & Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding
boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26(1), 20-28.

Karnes, F. A., & Shaunessy, E. (2004). The application of an individual professional
development plan to gifted education. Roeper Review, 27(3), 60-64.

Kent, A. M. (2004). Improving teacher quality through professional development.
Education, 124(3), 427-435.

Killion, J., & Harrison, C. (1997). The multiple roles of staff developers. Journal of
Staff Development, 18(3), 33-44.

Little, C. A., & Ellis, W. T. (2003). Aligning curricula with content standards. In J.
VanTassel-Baska & C. A. Little (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high-
ability learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2005). A dynamic scaffolding model of teacher
development: The gifted education consultant as catalyst for change. The
Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(3), 222-229.

Moon, T. R., & Callahan, C. M. (2001). Classroom performance assessment: What
should it look like in a standards-based classroom? NASSP Bulletin, 85, 48-
57.

National Association for Gifted Children. (1994). Position statement. Retrieved
2005, from www.nagc.org
144

National Association for Gifted Children. (2000). Standards. Retrieved 2005, from
www.nagc.org

National Research Council. (1999). Starting out right: A guided to promoting
children’s reading success. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gallagher, H. A. (2002). A cost
framework for professional development. Journal of Education Finance, 28,
51-74.

Passow, A. H. (1955). Talented youth: Our future leaders. Teachers College Record,
57, 167-171.

Perkins, D., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context bound? Educational
Research, 18, 16-25.

Reis, S. M., Gentry, M., & Maxfield, L. R. (1998). The application of enrichment
clusters to teachers’ classroom practices. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 21(3), 318-334.

Reis, S. M., Kaplan, S. N., Tomlinson, C. A., Westberg, K. L., Callahan, C., &
Cooper, C. (1998). Equal does not mean identical. Educational Leadership,
53(3), 74-77.

Reis, S. M., & Westberg, K. L. (2004). The impact of staff development on teachers’
ability to modify curriculum for gifted and talented students. In C. A.
Tomlinson (Ed.), Differentiation for gifted and talented students (Vol. 5, pp.
39-55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talented development: A comprehensive plan for
total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Reflections, perceptions, and future directions. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 23(1), 125-146.

Renzulli, J. S., Gentry, M., & Reis, S. M. (2004). A time and a place for authentic
learning. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 73-77.

Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (2000). A national plan for improving professional
development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

145
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000a). Differentiation of instruction in elementary grades.
Champaign, IL: Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC
Document No. ED 443572)

Tomlinson, C. A. (2000b). Differentiated instruction: Can it work? The Education
Digest, 65(5), 25-31.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1992). Planning effective curriculum for gifted learners.
Denver: Love.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2001). Curriculum planning and instructional design for gifted
learners. Denver: Love.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners: An
introduction. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. J. (1993). An
observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted
and talented students in regular classrooms. University of Connecticut,
Storrs.

Westberg, K. L., Burns, D. E., Gubbins, E. J., Reis, S. M., Park, S., & Maxfield, L.
R. (1998). Professional development practices in gifted education: Results of
a national survey. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.

Winebrenner, S. (1994). How gifted kids can survive in “inclusion” classrooms.
Understanding Our Gifted, 6(6), 1-11.

Wycoff, M., Nash, W. R., Jutune, J. E., & Mackay, L. (2003). Purposeful
professional development: Planning positive experience for teachers of the
gifted and talented. Gifted Child Today, 26(4), 34-64.
146
APPENDIX A: DEPTH AND COMPLEXITY ICON CHART

Depth Icon Definition Prompts / Examples
Language of
the Discipline

What vocabulary terms are specific to
the content or discipline?
Tools Jargon Icons
Acronyms
Special Phrases
Terms Slang
Abbreviations
Details

What are the defining features or
characteristics? Find examples and
evidence to support opinions and ideas.
Parts
Factors
Attributes
Variables
Distinguishing Traits
Patterns

What elements reoccur? What is the
sequence or order of events? Make
predictions based on past events.
Predictability
Repetition
Unanswered
Questions

What information is unclear, missing,
or unavailable?
What evidence do you need? What has
not yet been proven?
Missing Parts
Incomplete Ideas
Discrepancies
Unresolved Issues
Ambiguity
Rules

What structure underlies this subject?
What guidelines or regulations affect
it? What hierarchy or ordering
principle is at work?
Structure
Order
Reasons
Organization
Explanation
Classification
“Because . . . ”
Trends

Note factors (social economic,
political, geographic) that cause events
to occur. Identify patterns of change
over time.
Influence
Forces Direction
Course of Action
Compare, Contrast,
and Forecast
Ethics

What moral principles are involved in
this subject? What controversies exist?
What arguments could emerge from a
study of this topic?
Values Morals
Pro and Con
Bias Discrimination
Prejudice
Judging
Differing Opinions
Point of View
Right and Wrong
Wisdom

147

Big Ideas

What theory or general statement
applies to these ideas? How do these
ideas relate to broad concepts such as
change, systems, chaos vs. order, and
so forth? What is the main idea?
Draw Conclusions
Based on Evidence
Make Generalizations
Summarize
Theory
Principle
Main Idea
Across the
Disciplines

Relate the area of study to other
subjects within, between, and across
disciplines.
Connect
Associate
Integrate
Link Ideas
Cross-Curricular Study
Changes
Over Time

How are elements related in terms of
the past, present, and future? How and
why do things change? What doesn’t
change?
Connecting Points in
Time
Examining a Time
Period
Compare and Contrast
Different
Perspectives

How would others see the situation
differently?
Different Roles and
Knowledge
Opposing Viewpoints
Long Beach Unified School District GATE Handout used with permission by Dr.
Sandra Kaplan, Associate Professor from the University of Southern California.
148
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE

TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

CODE: ____________________________ DISTRICT: _________________________

SCHOOL: __________________________ GRADE CURRENTLY TEACHING: ____

………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

PART ONE
Directions: Place an X on the information in the box that best describes you

1. Highest degree held

BA BS MS MA EdD/
PhD

2. Number of years teaching

1-3 4-6 7-10 11-13 14+

3. Number of years teaching in the GATE/EXCEL program

1-3 4-6 7-10 11-13 14+

4. Programmatic setting for teaching the gifted (Place a X on the programmatic structure or
type of educational setting that applies to you)

[ ] Regular classroom with cluster group of gifted students
[ ] Homogeneous class of gifted students/Special Day
[ ] After School Program
[ ] Pull-Out Program within the school day
[ ] Saturday Program

5. Estimated number of professional development sessions on gifted education attended during
the past 18 months:

1-3 4-6 7-10 11-13 14+

149
6. Types of professional development opportunities related to gifted education attended during
from June 2005 to December 2006. Please check all that apply and provide the number of
times you think you have engaged in each type.

[ ] School-based: _____
[ ] On-line course: _____
[ ] District sponsored: _____
[ ] California Association for the Gifted (CAG) conference: _____
[ ] Orange County Council of the Gifted (OCC GATE) conference: _____
[ ] University of Southern California Teacher Institute Demonstration School: _____

150
PART TWO
LEARNING DATA
Identify your preferences for learning within a professional development setting under each of the
following categories. Place one X on the item that best applies to your learning preferences for
each category.

Environment
Which type of setting most reflects your
preference to learn?
Which type of setting has been most
frequently provided during professional
development?
[ ] Theater-type seating
(participants all face the front)
[ ] Theater-type seating
(participants all face the front)
[ ] Classroom-type seating
(tables and chairs in grouped
seating arrangements)
[ ] Classroom-type seating
(tables and chairs in grouped
seating arrangements)

Motivation
What type of learning is most motivating to
you?
What type of learning do you think is
frequently provided to you by the district?
[ ] Motivated by introduction to
new ideas
[ ] Introduction to new ideas
[ ] Motivated by new strategies to
implement known content
[ ] New strategies to implement
known content
[ ] Motivated by new materials to
teach new ideas
[ ] New materials to teach new
ideas
[ ] Motivated by using existing
materials in new ways
[ ] Using existing materials in new
ways

Learning Dynamics
Which of these situations most reflects your
preference for learning?
Which situation is most often provided
during professional development?
[ ] Alone [ ] Alone
[ ] Paired with a peer [ ] Paired with a peer
[ ] Team of peers:
___ collaborative
___ cooperative
___ heterogeneous
___ homogeneous
[ ] Team of peers:
___ collaborative
___ cooperative
___ heterogeneous
___ homogeneous
[ ] Flexible grouping
(working in a large group some
time, small group some time,
and alone some time)
[ ] Flexible grouping
(working in a large group some
time, small group some time,
and alone some time)
151
Time of Day
Which part of the day do you prefer for
learning?
Which part of the day is professional
development most frequently offered?
[ ] Mornings [ ] Mornings
[ ] After school
(afternoon, between 4 PM and
6 PM)
[ ] After school
(afternoon, between 4 PM and
6 PM)
[ ] All day during school [ ] All day during school
[ ] Saturdays [ ] Saturdays
[ ] Evenings
(after school, between 7 PM
and 10 PM)
[ ] Evenings
(after school, between 7 PM
and 10 PM)

Elements of the learning preferences from Denig, S. J. (2004). Multiple intelligences and learning
styles: Two complementary dimensions. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 96-111.
152
PART THREE
Part A
Directions: Put an X on the choices that represent your professional development experiences to learn
to differentiate content using depth and complexity.

[ ] Learned in about ______ times in different settings
(number)

[ ] Learned by technology
[ ] Learned as it was presented as:
___ New material
___ Mastery material

Part B
One of the major areas to differentiate content is to use the dimensions or prompts of Depth and
Complexity (GATE standards, California Department of Education, 2001, 2005). Read and respond to
each question about the use of depth and complexity by placing an X that best matches your response.

1. Depth and complexity is a way to prompt content expertise:
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

2. Depth and complexity prompts are valuable to gifted students to pursue an independent
study interest.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

3. Depth and complexity prompts provide a guide to challenge gifted students to exceed the
standards
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

4. Depth and complexity prompts are essential tools to promote higher levels of knowledge
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
153

5. Depth and complexity prompts are best used to: (select one)

[ ] Ask questions to gifted students
[ ] Develop tasks for gifted students

6. Depth and complexity prompts are best used in: (select one)

[ ] Language Arts
[ ] Math
[ ] Science
[ ] Social Studies
154
PART FOUR
ASSESSING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCES

Rate your overall experience of professional development you have attended concerning differentiated
content using depth and complexity prompts within the last 18 months. Place a letter grade in the box
to rate the instructor of the professional development experience and one to rate yourself as learning
the material:

A B C D
Excellent Good Fair Unsatisfied

ITEM INSTRUCTOR LEARNER
1. Differentiating
content:
(depth and
complexity)

Teaching Learning
2. Emphasis on the gifted
learner

Teaching Learning
3. Relating professional
development to
content standards:
(Science, Math, Social
Studies, Language
Arts)

Teaching Learning

Do you have any comments you would like to add about your professional
development experience?

155
APPENDIX C: OBSERVATION RUBRIC
CATEGORIES FOR ANALYSIS
Fidelity Inaccurate use of
depth and complexity
prompts

1

Not consistently
correct use of depth
and complexity
prompts

2
True to the theory in
the use of depth and
complexity prompts

3
Integration Depth and complexity
prompts were an
addendum to the
lesson

1

Depth and
complexity prompts
were partially
integrated within the
content

2
Depth and
complexity prompts
were totally
integrated with the
content

3
Teacher Comfort Teachers displays
discomfort—“seems to
be doing something
without
understanding”

1
Teacher is not
consistent with the
use of depth and
complexity prompts
to differentiate the
lesson

2
Teacher appears
confident in the use
of depth and
complexity prompts
to differentiate the
lesson

3

Student
Responsiveness
Students appears brand
new to learning with
depth and complexity
prompts

1
Students appear to
have some
knowledge in
learning with depth
and complexity
prompts

2
Students appear to
be familiar and have
ownership in using
depth and
complexity prompts
in their learning

3

NAME: ___________________________ GRADE: __________

SCHOOL: _________________________ DATE: ___________

SUBJECT: ________________________ TIME: ___________

GROUPING: ______________________

TOTAL POINTS: __________________

[10-12 points = proficient use; 7-9 points = partially proficient in use; 4-6 = not proficient in use]

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This urban district-wide study of teachers in gifted and talented programs in grades three through eight explored factors contributing to the transfer of knowledge learned in professional development into classroom practice. Evidence from a questionnaire and observations of participants provided insight into teachers' preferences for the types of professional development they received and how to maximize their learning in these settings. District-sponsored sessions were motivated primarily by the introduction of new ideas and strategies, most often matched teachers' preferences, and were the primary type of professional development that participants attended.

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

Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Efficacy drivers that aid teacher professional development transfer

PDF

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

PDF

Application of professional learning outcomes into the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

The effects of the models of teaching on student learning

PDF

What are the relationships among program delivery, classroom experience, content knowledge, and demographics on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy?

PDF

A professional development program evaluation: teacher efficacy, learning, and transfer

PDF

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

PDF

The influence of teacher characteristics on preference for models of teaching

PDF

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

PDF

An evaluation study of effectiveness of continuous professional development in Ethiopia

PDF

Principals' perceptions of their ability, as school leaders, to apply learning from district-provided professional development

PDF

Investigating the enactment of professionald development practices in a high performing secondary school setting: a case study examining the purpose, process, and structure of professional development

Asset Metadata

Creator Park, Misook A. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Curriculum

Publication Date 07/31/2010

Defense Date 03/14/2008

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

Tag differentiated curriculum,Gifted Education,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development

Language English

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

Creator Email mpkimura@lbusd.k12.ca.us

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1465

Unique identifier UC1235989

Identifier etd-Park-20080731 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-98440 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1465 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Park-20080731.pdf

Dmrecord 98440

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Park, Misook A.

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu