Assessing Teacher Beliefs Regarding Research-Based Practices to Improve Services for GT Students

Abstract

This study examined teacher beliefs regarding research-based practices in gifted education and how these beliefs or other barriers influenced the implementation of practices in their classroom. An online survey was sent to gifted education teachers in a large suburban district. The teacher belief statements were developed based on the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards. Although a majority of the teachers agreed with the research-based belief statements, fewer implemented the practice in their classrooms frequently. If they did implement the practice, they perceived positive student outcomes. Teachers did identify these obstacles related to implementation: limited resources, training, skill level, and the school system curriculum.

Keywords

gifted education beliefs research-based practices evaluation

“ACCORDING TO THE TEACHERS WHO AGREED WITH THE BELIEFS STATEMENT, THE MOST IMPLEMENTED PRACTICE WAS ABILITY GROUPING WITH 48% IMPLEMENTING THIS PRACTICE WEEKLY.”

Research-Based Practices

Research-based practices in gifted education have been identified in the Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards (National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC], 2010). These standards include current knowledge about empirically supported instructional practices that improve the performance of gifted and talented (GT) students. Prominent among these practices are ability grouping, assessment, differentiation, acceleration, and collaboration.

Ability Grouping

The most frequently cited elementary gifted programming model is homogeneously grouping gifted students (NAGC & The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted [CSDPG], 2015). Frequently, students identified as gifted are cluster grouped within a classroom, across classrooms during a specific time for instruction in a specific subject area, or within a section of a course (e.g., gifted section of an Advanced Placement [AP] or honors course). Positive effects of grouping like-ability students together, however, are enhanced when the curriculum and instruction are tailored to each student within the group because of individual differences related to readiness, interests, and pacing (Brulles, Saunders, & Cohn, 2010; Gentry & Fugate, 2013; Missett, Brunner, Callahan, Moon, & Azano, 2014; Rogers, 2007).

Assessment

Formative, ongoing, or summative assessments provide important information related to (a) student readiness, (b) flexible grouping, (c) curriculum differentiation, and (d) the overall effectiveness of instructional practices (Johnsen, 2014; Kaplan, 2014; Moon, 2009). For gifted students, these assessments often need to be above level to identify gaps in knowledge and skills and have the sensitivity to assess more sophisticated products and performances to show individual growth.

Differentiation

National resources developed to differentiate math, science, and English language arts for GT students emphasize a variety of research-based practices: pacing according to individual rates of learning, adding depth and complexity to lessons, assigning student research in areas of interest, and providing different learning experiences (Adams, Cotabish, & Ricci, 2014; Hughes-Lynch, Kettler, Shaunessy-Dedrick, & VanTassel-Baska, 2014; Johnsen, Ryser, & Assouline, 2014; Johnsen & Sheffield, 2013; VanTassel-Baska, 2013). Implementation of these practices enhances student performance in both cognitive and affective areas.

Acceleration

Acceleration is defined as an instructional intervention based on “progress through an educational program at rates faster or at ages younger than conventional” (Pressey, 1949, p. 2). It may take many forms such as continuous progress, curriculum compacting, early entrance, AP, grade skipping (Southern & Jones, 2004) and may be used in all content areas (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004, 2010). Meta-analytic studies show acceleration’s positive effects on GT students’ achievement and attitudes toward school (Kulik & Kulik, 1982, 1992). Most researchers agree that integrating accelerative strategies into the curriculum is essential for GT students (Colangelo et al., 2010; NAGC, 2010).

Collaboration With Others

Collaboration among teachers, parents, and mentors play a crucial role in the development of a student’s gifts and talents (Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011). Teachers need to communicate with families regarding their gifted child’s strengths and needs and to structure mentorships, so that students are exposed to the knowledge base and operations in a domain (Casey, 2000; Pleiss & Feldhusen, 1995). Mentoring should begin early and continue throughout the school years. It is particularly critical for students who are underachievers (Hébert & Olenchak, 2000).

Effects of Beliefs on Implementing Research-Based Practices

All of these practices are important in building a gifted education program that serves gifted students with a wide range of individual differences. However, even if teachers are aware of these research-based practices in gifted education, they may not translate them into their classroom learning experiences. One of the reasons for the limited implementation of best practices is teachers’ beliefs. Researchers have suggested that it is difficult to modify or change deeply held belief structures (Conley & Goldman, 1995; McIntrye & Kryle, 2006; Zimmerman, 2006). If there is incongruence between professional beliefs and the teaching strategy, the teacher will not incorporate the practice into their daily classroom practices (Moon & Brighton, 2008). For example, teachers begin their teaching career with preconceived beliefs based on their observations, how they were taught, and field experiences (Goree, 2011). All of these beliefs are difficult to modify. Moreover, teachers’ beliefs about their own abilities to implement the practice (Dixon, Yssel, McConnell, & Hardin, 2014) and their beliefs about students’ abilities (Missett et al., 2014) also affect implementation. For example, Dixon et al. (2014) reported that some teachers did not differentiate because they were not comfortable with their own knowledge of teaching particular content areas and could not be flexible in adjusting their lessons—they lacked self-efficacy or beliefs about their ability to differentiate. Teachers were also less likely to differentiate if they had an orientation toward the whole class rather than individual students in the class (Missett et al., 2014). It is clear that exploring educators’ beliefs is essential to improving teaching practices because certain beliefs must be embraced for successful differentiation for GT students (VanTassel-Baska, 2010).

Other Barriers to Implementing Research-Based Practices

Other reasons for not implementing best practices in gifted education are teachers’ knowledge and skills (Johnsen, 2014; NAGC & CSDPG, 2015), resources and administrator support (Hertberg-Davis & Brighton, 2006), and district curriculum and policies (Latz, Speirs Neumeister, Adams, & Pierce, 2009). Teachers may not be aware of the characteristics and needs of gifted students as well as research-based instructional practices as national reports indicate that the majority of general education teachers have not received any gifted education training as part of their undergraduate program or professional development (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015). In addition, teachers need resources and time to implement differentiation such as above-level curriculum, assessments, and other materials for personalizing their instruction. Swanson (2016) reported that a powerful curriculum can transform teaching and teachers. Finally, school district and administrator support are critical in implementing education programs and services (Hertberg-Davis & Brighton, 2006). Teachers in schools where principals provide time, support, and human and material resources are more likely to implement differentiation practices. However, school districts that require teachers to use the same curriculum with strict pacing guides and close monitoring by administrators limit the teachers’ ability to provide for students who have needs for above-level curriculum and faster pacing.

Aside from our previous research (Johnsen & Kaul, 2016; Kaul & Johnsen, 2016), we are unaware of other research that has described the relationships between teacher beliefs, the frequency of implementation, perceived student outcomes, and perceived barriers to implementation. Our previous research, however, included participants recruited through a state gifted advocacy group newsletter. Arguably, those respondents may have represented a group of educators that was more knowledgeable about gifted education practices and had greater vested interest. In contrast, this study examined the perspectives of teachers from a large school district and is, therefore, likely to be more representative of educator beliefs, perceptions, and practices.

Method

Purpose of the Study

Research Question 1: What percentage of gifted education teachers agree with research-based gifted education practices?

Research Question 2: How often do gifted education teachers implement these research-based gifted education practices?

Research Question 3: What student outcomes do they perceive as resulting from implementing these practices?

Research Question 4: If practices are not implemented, what are the perceived barriers?

Context for the Study

This suburban Texas school district contacted the authors regarding a district-wide evaluation to examine its gifted education program. The District enrolls more than 35,000 students from diverse backgrounds: White (33%), African American (30%), Hispanic (26%), Asian (7%), and Other (4%). The District has 23 elementary schools (K-4), six intermediate schools (5-6), six middle schools (7-8), six high schools, and three campuses with alternative options. Learning opportunities for gifted students are provided in the four foundation curricular areas, the arts, leadership, and creativity. In Grades 1-4, identified gifted students are served in cluster classrooms. Intermediate and middle school gifted students are organized in cluster groups within Pre-AP classes/teams. In high school, gifted students are served through Pre-AP and AP classes for college advancement and concurrent college enrollment.

Respondent Characteristics

Initially, 839 teachers responded to the survey. After dropping all respondents who did not respond to a minimum of three questions or who did not have experience working with GT students, the remaining 682 teachers were included in this study. At least one teacher responded from every school in the District. Of those that responded to demographic questions, 35% were teachers in elementary schools, 22% from intermediate schools, 17% from middle schools, and 26% from high schools. The majority of the teachers (73%) had been employed by the school district for 4 or more years. Ninety-two percent of teachers had 4 or more years of teaching experience, with 67% having taught gifted students for 4 or more years. Almost three fourths of the teachers taught gifted students in general education classes. More than one fourth of the teachers were teaching in Pre-AP classes (35%) followed by AP classes (11%), and cluster classrooms (9%; see Table 1). Eighty-six percent of teachers responded that they had completed the required 30-clock hours in gifted education, with 80% of teachers answering that they had received, at a minimum, their 6-hr annual update. Although 10% indicated they had an undergraduate course and 12% had a graduate course in gifted education, not one teacher indicated earning a graduate degree in gifted education.

Table 1.

Gifted Program Models

Program models	Teachers teach in this model (n = 494; %)
General education	74
Pre-AP classes	35
AP classes	11
Cluster classroom	9
Multigrade classes	3
Pull-out	2
School-wide enrichment	2
Resource room	1
Gifted only classes	1
Other^a	6

Note. AP = Advanced Placement; GT = gifted and talented; ESL = English as a second language; ELL = English language learners.

Other included Friday GT Club, GT advisory, ESL, ELL, intervention, inclusion, library, self-contained, or previous GT experience. As respondents could check all responses that apply, percentages may sum to more than 100%.

Instrument

The online survey and teacher belief statements were developed based on the NAGC (2010) Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards. The beliefs included statements related to grouping, assessments, differentiation, acceleration, and collaboration (see Table 2 for the alignment between the NAGC standards and the teacher beliefs). Each of the 13 question sets began with a belief statement. If the teachers reported that they agreed with the belief statement, they were then asked to indicate how frequently they used the practice. If teachers indicated a belief in the practice but applied the practice less than once a month, they reported barriers to implementation; if they used the practice one or more times a month, they were asked to indicate their perception of student outcomes. These outcomes were derived from the NAGC programming standards (Johnsen, 2012). Participants who did not agree with a certain belief were automatically skipped to the next belief question. Participants also had opportunities to add comments following each of the 13 question sets. Prior to implementing the survey, the staff of the Texas Association for Gifted and Talented and over 10 educators serving gifted students piloted the instrument and provided feedback. Their comments were used in the revision of the final survey instrument (Johnsen & Kaul, 2016; Kaul & Johnsen, 2016).

Table 2.

Alignment of Teacher Beliefs With NAGC (2010) Pre-K-Grade 12 Programming Standards

I believe . . .	Related NAGC standard
Grouping
Gifted and advanced students benefit from working together in small groups with other gifted or high-ability peers.	1.3.1, 4.2.2, 5.1.3
Assessments
Above-level formative, ongoing, and summative assessments are useful for gifted and advanced students’ knowledge, skills, and/or abilities.	2.4.1, 2.4.3, 3.1.5
Rubrics need to be used to assess gifted and advanced students’ products and performances.	2.4.2
Differentiation
Gifted and advanced students benefit from conducting independent research geared to their specific interests.	1.7.1, 3.3.3, 5.1.4
Gifted and advanced students should have different learning experiences than their non-GT peers.	1.2.1, 1.6.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.5, 5.1.2
Gifted and advanced students benefit from flexible pacing appropriate to their abilities, knowledge, and skills.	3.1.6
Gifted and advanced students benefit from curriculum content that has more depth and complexity than the standard curriculum.	3.1.3, 3.1.4
Gifted and advanced students benefit when they are asked to create products that are matched to their abilities and interests.	1.7.1, 3.3.3
Acceleration
Gifted and advanced students benefit from doing above-level work.	1.6.1, 3.1.4, 5.1.1
Gifted and advanced students benefit when they are allowed to accelerate in above-grade level content based on their individual progress.	1.6.1, 3.1.5, 3.16, 5.1.1
Gifted and advanced students benefit when placed with students in higher-grade levels as needed for acceleration within their areas of talent.	1.6.1, 5.1.1
Collaboration with others
Gifted and advanced students benefit when a mentor or tutor provides personalized instruction in their areas of talent.	1.4.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2, 5.1.4
It is important for teachers and parents/guardians to work together, or collaborate, to address the strengths and needs of their gifted students.	1.5.1, 2.1.2, 2.4.5, 5.3.1

Note. NAGC = National Association for Gifted Children; GT = gifted and talented.

Procedures

The school district’s research department sent an email to teachers that described the purpose of the survey and included the survey link. If a responding teacher indicated that he or she did not have experience working with GT students, no further data were collected. All of the survey questions were disseminated via Qualtrics using an anonymous online link that could not be traced back to any specific individual. The school district provided opportunities for participation over a 3-week period toward the end of the 2017 school year. Participants had an option of responding or not responding to each question on the survey and were not required to complete the survey.

Data Analysis

The data from the survey were summarized using descriptive statistics. Qualitative comments were examined by noting common themes across teachers using an inductive technique. With this technique, we began with factual elements as a base, interpreted the related facts, described generalizations based on these interpretations, and finally identified some possible relationships. These relationships were then used to explain similarities and differences.

Results

The results are organized around teachers’ agreement with the belief statements, how often they implemented the education practices, and then, depending on their responses, their perceptions of student outcomes and perceived barriers.

Beliefs Regarding Gifted Education Practices

More than 90% of teachers agreed with eight of the beliefs: creating products that matched abilities and interests (97%), grouping gifted students together (96%), adding depth and complexity to the curriculum (95%), collaboration with parents/guardians (95%), above-level work (94%), acceleration in above-level content based on individual progress (93%), independent research related to interests (93%), and flexible pacing (90%). While still, a majority of the respondents, fewer teachers, agreed with statements related to the benefits of a mentor (88%), using above-level formative, ongoing, and summative assessments (88%); using rubrics for assessment of students’ products and performances (84%); using different learning experiences for gifted and advanced students (80%); and placing students in higher-grade levels based on areas of talent (75%) (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Beliefs Regarding Research-Based Practice and Frequency of Implementation of Practices

Practice	Teachers agree^a	Practice: never (%)	Practice: rarely (%)	Practice: monthly (%)	Practice: weekly (%)
Ability grouping
Ability grouping	96% (n = 428)	16	14	23	48
Assessments
Above-level assessments	88% (n = 386)	32	25	30	13
Rubrics	84% (n = 371)	18	25	42	15
Differentiation
Independent research geared to interests	93% (n = 405)	29	37	23	10
Different learning experiences	80% (n = 345)	22	25	28	24
Flexible pacing	90% (n = 398)	26	20	28	26
Curriculum with more depth and complexity	95% (n = 420)	18	17	31	35
Products matched to interests	97% (n = 423)	18	31	35	16
Acceleration
Above-level work	94% (n = 416)	18	18	32	32
Acceleration based on individual progress	93% (n = 416)	29	20	30	20
Higher grade level by subject	75% (n = 325)	67	10	11	12
Collaboration with others
Teacher/parent collaboration	95% (n = 430)	33	38	19	9
Mentor/tutor instruction	88% (n = 390)	67	15	9	9

Only teachers who agreed with the practice were asked to indicate frequency of implementation in the classroom.

Implementation Frequency of Gifted Education Practices

According to the teachers who agreed with the beliefs statement, the most implemented practice was ability grouping with 48% implementing this practice weekly (see Table 3). The next most frequently implemented research-based practices were adding depth and complexity to the curriculum (35%), having students do above-level work (32%), using flexible pacing (26%), providing different learning experiences (24%), and acceleration in above-level content based on individual progress (20%).

In spite of personally agreeing with the practices, less than 20% of the teachers implemented the remaining practices on a weekly basis. Those practices that were rarely or never used by teachers were implementing independent research geared to the student’s interest (66%), collaborating with parents (71%), placing students in higher-grade levels to work within their areas of talent (77%), and providing mentors or tutors to personalize instruction (82%).

Beliefs Regarding Student Outcomes

Teachers who frequently implemented practices were asked to identify possible outcomes they observed in their students. For the most part, if teachers implemented the practice frequently, they believed it had positive student outcomes. For example, with the most highly implemented practice—ability grouping—60% to 83% of teachers who used the practice more than once per month perceived specific positive student benefits (see Table 4). However, variations existed in terms of the type of outcome and the percentage of teachers who perceived positive results. As an example, the second highest implemented practice—adding depth and complexity to the curriculum—had similar positive outcomes to ability grouping that related to student interest (73% vs. 67%) and higher quality products (66% vs. 69%) but also included different positive outcomes related to higher level questions (70%) and classroom engagement (78%; see Table 5). Moreover, teachers perceived all of the student outcomes that related to ability grouping more positively (60%-83%) than those related to depth and complexity (19%-78%). Perhaps, the differences in the ranges of teachers’ perceptions toward these practices (i.e., ability grouping vs. depth and complexity) related to the degree of implementation and therefore observable effects on students. Cluster grouping may have been more consistently implemented, whereas depth and complexity was left to individual campuses and teachers who may or may not have had professional development in this specific area of curricular differentiation. Therefore, immediate effects on student performance might have been more observable with grouping like-ability peers than with the uneven implementation of a differentiation strategy. Interestingly, although very few teachers accelerated students to a higher grade level by subject (n = 72), they perceived the practice as having positive student outcomes (see Table 6). Given these and similar results with other practices, it would seem that when teachers implement research-based practices, they generally perceive positive student outcomes, especially, when the practice relates to ability grouping and acceleration.

Table 4.

Perceived Student Outcomes for Ability Grouping

As a result of ability grouping, GT/advanced students . . .	Teacher (n = 303)^a (%)
Developed/strengthened peer relationships with other group members.	83
Produced group products of a higher quality.	69
Demonstrated greater interest or passion for learning.	67
Demonstrated persistence in solving difficult problems in ability groups.	65
Learned to advocate for themselves within the ability grouping.	61
Demonstrated greater leadership within their ability groups.	60
Became more aware of their strengths and needs.	60

Note. GT = gifted and talented.

Teachers who reported specific practice more than one time per month. As respondents could check all responses that apply, percentages may sum to more than 100%.

Table 5.

Perceived Student Outcomes for Adding Depth and Complexity to the Curriculum

As a result of providing deeper or more complex curriculum content, GT/advanced students . . .	Teacher (n = 274)^a (%)
Became more engaged in the classroom.	78
Demonstrated greater interest or passion for learning the subject.	73
Asked higher-level questions.	70
Produced more advanced or higher quality products.	66
Demonstrated improvement on above-level testing.	37
Demonstrated improvement on district benchmark tests.	34
Earned a higher score on the state test than the previous year.	19

Note. GT = gifted and talented.

Teachers who reported specific practice more than one time per month. As respondents could check all responses that apply, percentages may sum to more than 100%.

Table 6.

Perceived Student Outcomes for Acceleration to a Higher Grade Level by Subject

As a result of acceleration to higher grade by subject, GT/advanced students . . .	Teacher (n = 72)^a (%)
Became more engaged in the classroom.	79
Demonstrated greater interest or passion for learning the subject.	71
Became more aware of their strengths and needs.	71
Produced more advanced or higher quality products.	69
Demonstrated improvement on above-level testing.	51
Demonstrated improvement on district benchmark tests.	43
Earned a higher score on the state test than the previous year.	32

Note. GT = gifted and talented.

Teachers who reported specific practice more than one time per month. As respondents could check all responses that apply, percentages may sum to more than 100%.

Barriers to the Implementation of Best Practices

For teachers who rarely or never implemented practices, they were asked to identify barriers that may have prevented them from implementing best practices in their classrooms. Overall, the most frequently cited barriers were “lack of resources” (19%-52%) followed by “lack of training to implement” or “I did not know how to do this” (17%-31%).

At least 30% or more of the teachers cited a lack of resources as the greatest obstacle to using a mentor or tutor to personalize instruction (52%), different learning experiences (40%), above-level assessments (37%), above-level work (34%), independent research (33%), accelerating the content (32%), deeper or more complex curriculum (31%), and placing students in a higher-grade level in their area of talent (30%). Teachers mentioned in their comments: “Teachers do not implement differentiation with fidelity across the district at the elementary level as it depends on what the cluster teacher develops individually” and, similarly, “As a GT/Cluster teacher at the elementary level, I see the need for more established expectations and guidelines for the GT program as well as practical strategies and resources given from the district. Right now they are both the same, and differentiation is left to the teacher who, may or may not choose to do.” This GT cluster teacher’s perspective was supported by other teachers’ comments: “I lack time to add these kinds of assignments”; “Too many gen ed students need support. I do not have resources or staff to help meet everyone’s needs.” In terms of accessing above-level resources, teachers commented, “I teach 4th grade, and we do not have 5th grade on our campus.”

Approximately 30% of the teachers who rarely or never implemented above-level assessments or provided a mentor or tutor for GT also wanted more professional development to implement these practices. As one teacher commented, “I truly feel that our GT teachers on our campus need more training and resources provided to them especially K-2.” Related to training of GT teachers, one teacher said, “The PD opportunities during the district curriculum conference never even have enough spaces for the amount of GT certified people in our district who are needing to get their updates.” In their comments, some teachers showed a misunderstanding of the practice (e.g., “I only have kindergarten students so I don’t do independent research geared to interests” and “we don’t accelerate because we don’t have a higher grade level at my school”). Others showed a lack of awareness of the practice (e.g., “mentors not available on the campus”) and for acceleration (e.g., “it’s simply something that hasn’t been done”).

Teachers also viewed some practices as “not supported by the district curriculum”; these were flexible pacing (27%), acceleration in above-level content based on individual progress (24%), above-level work (24%), deeper and more complex curriculum (21%), mentor instruction (21%), different learning experiences (20%), independent research geared to interests (19%), above-level assessments (17%), and products matched to interests and abilities (17%). In their comments, teachers noted the district’s focus: “I need to work with intervention groups and focus on those with accommodations” and “As a teacher in [the district], I am required to spend 50 minutes per day on students performing below grade level and have no time for students performing on or above level. Intervention is geared toward lower performing students.” Others mentioned how they adapted the required curriculum: “I prepared what (the) district required and matched to grade level [standard], then let students advance as possible.”

Other comments identified barriers related to time (e.g., “I did not want to do the extra work” and “time constraints limit differentiation”), energy (e.g., “I never took the initiative”), and a more limited role (e.g., “homeroom teachers do parent communication”).

Discussion

We were pleasantly surprised that teachers’ overwhelmingly affirmed their agreement with all 13 research-based practices for working with GT students (see Table 3). More than 90% of teachers agreed with the beliefs related to eight of the research-based practices. Of the remaining five, more than 75% of teachers agreed to statements related to benefits of a mentor, different learning experiences, use of assessments, including rubrics, and placing students in higher grade levels in their talent area. Although educators who were members of the Texas Association for Gifted and Talented (TAGT) also indicated very high levels of agreement for all the practices (84%-99%; Johnsen & Kaul, 2016), we hypothesized that perhaps these high levels of agreement may have reflected, at least in part, the views of educators who were active members in the state’s professional organization and who were motivated to take the optional survey. It was, therefore, unexpected to find that teachers in this study responded similarly (within 5% of agreement) for 10 of the practices. Support for the remaining three practices differed only slightly from the previous sample: mentor/tutor instruction (88% vs. 95%), flexible pacing (90% vs. 98%), and placement with higher grade level students (75% vs. 84%). In other words, both groups agreed that these practices were important.

Beliefs, however, may not always lead to action. Although the district teachers reported similar levels of agreement with educators associated with the advocacy group (Johnsen & Kaul, 2016) for these best practices, we observed greater differences in the frequency of implementation of such practices between the samples. For example, the sample of educators who were members of the TAGT were nearly two to three times more likely to report weekly implementation of each practice. The respondents in this study were most likely to implement only ability grouping (48%) and add depth and complexity to the curriculum (35%) on a weekly basis. Teachers in this study were also more likely to report that they never implemented a practice, in spite of just indicating their agreement with the same practice. For example, district educators who reported never implementing practices ranged from 16% (ability grouping) to 67% (placement in a higher grade level by subject). It became more apparent from the survey that teachers who supported the practices also perceived significant barriers, which prevented their implementation. These barriers essentially related to three areas: lack of resources and time, district support, and limited professional learning opportunities.

Resources

Teachers tended to implement practices where they might be able to use the district’s current curriculum that required fewer additional resources. For example, the general education curriculum could be adapted by using features related to depth and complexity (e.g., enhancing vocabulary of the learning experience, identifying unanswered questions, and so on). However, tailoring instruction to individual student’s strengths and needs often requires above-level, formative and ongoing assessments. Teachers may not have the knowledge, skills, or time to develop their own assessments, which then decreases the likelihood that practices related to assessment information will be implemented (i.e., different learning experiences, acceleration based on individual progress). Teachers need to be provided with alternative assessments that are above level to determine what a gifted student knows and does not know within a domain. Once assessment information is available, teachers then need to have above-level materials, technology, and other resources to differentiate the curriculum in both general and gifted education classrooms. As one teacher noted, “I have never been given any enrichment or advanced academic material. I have a cluster of GT students in a pre-AP class who can’t keep up with them. So, they do not get many opportunities for advanced academics due to the rest of the class [sic] pace.” In terms of mentoring in areas of individual areas of talent, teachers appeared to be unaware of this option and did not have any knowledge of mentors that might be available. Resources would be needed at both the district and campus level for identifying and developing mentors.

District Support

In addition to needed resources, the teachers perceived that the school district created some barriers for providing services to GT students, particularly related to priorities, scheduling, and curriculum. For example, teachers felt that they needed to spend more of their time on underperforming students instead of gifted students. As one teacher commented,

To be honest, they (gifted) [sic] students are pushed aside and forgotten about so that we can focus on the students that are struggling. I worry that the GT students get bored and tend to act out because of the fact that they are not challenged.

Another challenge appeared to be related to the district schedule. At least one school in the district appeared to follow a master schedule that incorporated a daily, 1-hour block of time when interventions occurred. As one teacher said, “Using this time as the only time for differentiated instruction does not provide instructors with ample time to differentiate for all 4 core content areas.” Teachers also felt limited by the district curriculum. One teacher elaborated the limitations:

Teachers are expected to follow district pacing guides at all times including elementary GT cluster classrooms. Administrators monitor lesson plans and conduct curriculum walks where all classes are expected to be learning the same [standards] at the same time. Some administrators require all teachers on the grade level to follow the exact same lesson plan, activities, etc. This is not best practice for individual GT students that may pre-test or compact out of content. Administrators and teachers of the gifted need training on the differences between a GT student’s needs and the general population and what this may look like in a cluster elementary classroom.

Other respondents mentioned the lack of consistent curricular expectations and guidelines for the gifted program. In addition to more flexibility of curriculum, district-wide support for the GT program is needed to address individual student’s talents and needs.

Professional Learning Opportunities

It is clear from the survey that more professional learning is needed for both teachers and administrators. Limited professional learning was selected as a barrier to implementation by 17% to 31% of the participants for each practice. Surprisingly, 11% to 19% of the participants indicated they did not feel confident in implementing any of the practices in their classrooms. One of the major areas where professional learning appears to be needed relates to the development and use of formative, ongoing, and summative assessments. This area is foundational to other practices related to acceleration, differentiation, grouping, monitoring individual progress, and development of each student’s talents. In their comments, respondents also mentioned a need for professional learning in other areas, not only for teachers but also for administrators:

Because of limited professional development, one teacher mentioned, “Students are not given the opportunity test out of curriculum in which they have already mastered. They are not provided with choices of GT activities to do in the classroom. They aren’t even encouraged to complete an independent project suited for GT students.”

“I think extra training is needed for administration on most campuses. For example, my principal needs training on best practices for GT students and state requirements for GT students. She still insists all students must be doing the exact same assignment at the same time in all classes on that grade level. The only time we are allowed to provide any service to out GT students is during intervention time.”

“More training specific to fine arts courses (visual, music, etc.) is needed.”

Because of the uneven implementation of practices, professional learning will need to be tailored to individual campuses and groups such as GT cluster teachers, AP and pre-AP teachers, general education and special education teachers, parents, and administrators.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The survey not only identified areas for improvement in the district’s overall gifted program but was also used as a tool for communicating research-based practices and professional learning needs for teachers and administrators. In addition to improvements needed to address state guidelines, the following areas related to the beliefs survey were ultimately shared with the district’s School Board.

The Curriculum Needs to Allow for Acceleration in a Student’s Area of Talent

Teachers need to have access to above-level curriculum and use preassessments and other types of formative assessments to match the curriculum to an individual student’s strengths and needs.

A Comprehensive, Sequenced, and Challenging Set of Services and Curriculum Need to be Offered in Each Student’s Area of Talent

As each gifted student might exhibit a different talent, students who are gifted in one area such as math or the arts need to receive more personalized program services and a curriculum that consistently develops their abilities beginning in kindergarten through Grade 12.

The Curriculum Needs to Develop the Knowledge and Skills Necessary for Designing Sophisticated Products or Performances in the Student’s Area of Talent

A learning progression that incorporates the various components of independent study (e.g., research questions/problem, methods, product/performance development) and related rubrics need to be developed from K-12. Mentors are particularly helpful in engaging students in authentic practices and in developing and/or evaluating products or performances.

Teachers and Staff Need to Receive Professional Development in Differentiation of the Curriculum

Given the qualitative comments by teachers, the Advanced Academics Department might want to not only provide professional development in specific differentiation practices but also design differentiated learning activities (K-12) that might serve as examples for teachers and be included in a bank of online resources. They also will need above-level and alternative assessments to use at each grade level and in each course.

Professional Learning Activities Need to be Ongoing and Tailored to Each Educator’s Needs

If teachers are aware of best practices in gifted education, teachers are more likely to be able to identify their professional development needs, develop a plan to meet their needs, and evaluate whether or not the professional learning activity met their needs and affected student outcomes.

Professional Development Activities Need to be Evaluated to Determine Their Effectiveness in Improving Curriculum and Services to Gifted Students

Along with the NAGC’s standards (see Johnsen & Clarenbach, 2017), the Learning Forward’s seven Standards for Professional Learning might be used to guide these efforts and examine outcomes (Learning & Forward, 2011, 2015)

In a recent follow-up to this survey, the Director of the Advanced Academics program mentioned that they had created a timeline and were in the process of implementing changes in their district.

Limitations

As with any research, limitations are associated with the selected methodology. As teacher participation was voluntary, it is possible that participating teachers may not be representative of all the teachers in the district but may have a bias toward those with a greater personal investment in gifted education or who have stronger opinions. The length of the survey may have also contributed to teachers’ not responding completely to the survey, with 35% answering some questions and then failing to complete the entire survey. Potentially the noncompleters would have a different pattern of responding. Moreover, with respect to the beliefs section, participants were provided different questions depending on their response. For example, if a participant indicated disagreement with a particular belief, he or she was not asked any further questions about the belief, so information including reasons for disagreement, frequency of implementation, obstacles to implementation, or potential student outcomes were not collected.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Susan K. Johnsen

Bios

Susan K. Johnsen, PhD, is professor emerita of the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. She has written three tests used in identifying gifted students and author of more than 250 publications related to gifted education. She is past president of The Association for the Gifted (TAG) and past president of the Texas Association for Gifted and Talented (TAGT). She has received awards for her work in the field of education, including NAGC’s President’s Award, CEC’s Leadership Award, TAG’s Leadership Award, TAGT’s President’s Award, and TAGT’s Advocacy Award.

Corina R. Kaul, PhD, teaches in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. She received her BS degree from the University of Oregon and her master’s and doctoral degrees from Baylor University. Her current research interests focus on 2e students, GT program evaluation, gifted English language learners, low-income gifted students, first-generation gifted students, teachers of gifted students, and the affective needs of gifted learners.

References

Adams

C. M.

Cotabish

Ricci

M. C.

(2014). Using the next generation science standards with gifted and advanced learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Brulles

Saunders

Cohn

S. J.

(2010). Improving performance for gifted students in a cluster grouping model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 327-350.

Casey

K. M. A.

(2000). Mentors’ contributions to gifted adolescents’ affective, social, and vocational development. Roeper Review, 22, 227-231.

Colangelo

Assouline

S. G.

Gross

M. U. M.

(Eds.) (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa. Retrieved from http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/nd_v1.pdf

Colangelo

Assouline

S. G.

Marron

M. A.

Castellano

J. A.

Clinkenbeard

P. R.

Roger

Smith

(2010). Guidelines for developing an academic acceleration policy: National Work Group on Acceleration. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 180-203.

Conley

D. T.

Goldman

(1995). Reactions from the field to state restructuring legislation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31, 512-538.

Dixon

F. A.

Yssel

McConnell

J. M.

Hardin

(2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 111-127. doi:10.1177/0162353214529042

Gentry

Fugate

C. M.

(2013). Cluster grouping options: Total school cluster grouping. In Callahan

C. M.

Davis

H. H.

(Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education (pp. 212-225). New York, NY: Routledge.

Goree

K. K.

(2011). An exploratory study of the factors that influence pre-service teachers’ instructional practices with diverse students (Doctoral Dissertation, Baylor University, Waco, TX). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/handle/2104/8262

10.

Hébert

T. P.

Olenchak

F. R.

(2000). Mentors for gifted underachieving males: Developing potential and realizing promise. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 196-207.

11.

Hertberg-Davis

H. L.

Brighton

C. M.

(2006). Support and sabotage: Principals’ influence on middle school teachers’ responses to differentiation. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 90-102.

12.

Hughes-Lynch

C. E.

Kettler

Shaunessy-Dedrick

VanTassel-Baska

(2014). A teacher’s guide to using the common core state standards with gifted and advanced learners in the English language arts. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

13.

Johnsen

S. K.

(2014). Focusing on challenges that influence gifted education programs. Tempo, 35(2), 6-15.

14.

Johnsen

S. K.

Clarenbach

(2017). Using the national gifted education standards for Pre-K-Grade 12 professional development. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

15.

Johnsen

S. K.

Kaul

C. R.

(2016). Texas GT teachers’ beliefs and practices survey: Supporting advocacy efforts. Tempo, 37(1), 6-18.

16.

Johnsen

S. K.

Ryser

G. R.

Assouline

(2014). The practitioner’s guide for using the common core state standards for mathematics. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

17.

Johnsen

S. K.

Sheffield

L. J.

(Eds.). (2013). Using the common core state standards for mathematics with gifted and advanced learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

18.

Johnsen

S. K.

(Ed.). (2012). NAGC Pre-K-Grade 12 gifted education programming standards: A guide to planning and implementing high-quality services. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

19.

Kaplan

S. N.

(2014). Emphasizing the uncommon about the common core state standards. Gifted Child Today, 37, 126-127.

20.

Kaul

C. R.

Johnsen

S. K.

(2016, February). Texas teachers of gifted children: A report on teacher beliefs, practices, results, and barriers (Report Submitted to the Texas Association for Gifted and Talented). Austin, TX: Author. Retrieved from https://www.txgifted.org/files/TAGT%20Beliefs%20Presentation.pdf

21.

Kulik

J. A.

Kulik

C. L.

(1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 415-428.

22.

Kulik

J. A.

Kulik

C. L. C.

(1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77.

23.

Latz

A. O.

Speirs Neumeister

K. L.

Adams

C. M.

Pierce

R. L.

(2009). Peer coaching to improve classroom differentiation: Perspectives from project CLUE. Roeper Review, 31, 27-39.

24.

Learning Forward. (2011). Standards for professional learning. Oxford, OH: Author.

25.

Learning Forward. (2015). Powerful designs for professional learning (3rd ed.). Oxford, OH: Author.

26.

McIntrye

Kryle

D. W.

(2006). The success and failure of one mandated reform for young children. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1130-1144.

27.

Missett

T. C.

Brunner

M. M.

Callahan

C. M.

Moon

T. R.

Azano

A. P.

(2014). Exploring teacher beliefs and use of acceleration, ability grouping, and formative assessment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 245-268.

28.

Moon

T. R.

(2009). Myth 16: High-stakes tests are synonymous with rigor and difficulty. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 277-279.

29.

Moon

T. R.

Brighton

C. M.

(2008). Primary teachers’ conceptions of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 447-480.

30.

National Association for Gifted Children, & The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2015). 2014-2015 state of the states in gifted education: Policy and practice data. Washington, DC: Author.

31.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). NAGC Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards: A blueprint for quality gifted education programs. Washington, DC: Author.

32.

Pleiss

M. K.

Feldhusen

J. F.

(1995). Mentors, role models, and heroes in the lives of gifted children. Educational Psychologist, 30, 159-169.

33.

Pressey

S. L.

(1949). Educational acceleration: Appraisals and basic problems (Ohio State University Studies, Bureau of Educational Research Monograph No. 31). Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.

34.

Rogers

K. B.

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

35.

Southern

W. T.

Jones

E. D.

(2004). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In Colangelo

Assouline

S. G.

Gross

M.U.M.

(Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 5-17). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa. Retrieved from http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/nd_v1.pdf

36.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Worrell

F. C.

(2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3-54.

37.

Swanson

J. D.

(2016). Drawing upon lessons learned: Effective curriculum and instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse gifted learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 172-191.

38.

VanTassel-Baska . (2010). The efficacy of academic acceleration for gifted minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 189-208.

39.

VanTassel-Baska . (Ed.). (2013). Using the common core state standards for English language arts with gifted and advanced learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

40.

Zimmerman

(2006). Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do about it. NASSP Bulletin, 90, 238-249.