Beyond Content: An Exploration of Teachers’ Practices for Supporting Academically Advanced Students in Elective High School Classrooms

Abstract

This study reflects on secondary elective teachers’ perceptions of their roles in supporting academically advanced students in mixed-ability classrooms. Despite many states mandating gifted education, services and teacher training vary. The current study uses an interpretative phenomenological analytical approach, focusing on secondary elective teachers within a North Texas district. Through semi-structured interviews, the research investigates instructional differentiation, grouping, and rigor to understand how teachers address advanced learners’ needs and their overall attitudes toward gifted education. The researchers identified four themes, which highlighted teachers’ use of instructional strategies, the flexibility in elective settings to adapt learning experiences, several psychosocial characteristics of their gifted-identified students, and varying perceptions of students’ needs.

Keywords

gifted education secondary electives differentiation teacher effectiveness phenomenology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abu

N. K.

Akkanat

Gökdere

(2017). Teachers’ views about the education of gifted students in regular classrooms. Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 7(2), 87–109. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323838217_Teachers’_Views_about_the_Education_of_Gifted_Students_in_Regular_Classrooms_Turk_Ustun_Zeka_ve_Egitim_Dergisi

Anyan

(2013). The influence of power shifts in data collection and analysis stages: A focus on qualitative research interview. The Qualitative Report, 18(18), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2013.1525

Ashworth

(1999). “Bracketing” in phenomenology: Renouncing assumptions in hearing about student cheating. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(6), 707–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183999235845

Barbier

Struyf

Donche

(2021). Teachers’ beliefs about and educational practices with high-ability students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109(1), 103566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103566 .

Bondie

R. S.

Dahnke

Zusho

(2019). How does changing “one-size-fits-all” to differentiated instruction affect teaching? Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 336–362. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821130

Borland

J. H.

(2003). The death of giftedness: Gifted education without gifted children (pp. 105–126). Teachers College Press.

Brighton

C. M.

Hertberg

H. L.

Moon

T. R.

Tomlinson

C. A.

Callahan

C. M.

(2005). The feasibility of high-end learning in a diverse middle school (RM05210). University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

College Advisor. (n.d.). Understanding passion projects. https://www.collegeadvisor.com/resources/passion-projects/

Crawford

B. F.

Snyder

K. E.

Adelson

J. L.

(2020). Exploring obstacles faced by gifted minority students through Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory. High Ability Studies, 31(1), 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1568231

10.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.

11.

Cross

T. L.

Cross

J. R.

(2017). Maximizing potential: A school-based conception of psychosocial development. High Ability Studies, 28(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2017.1292896

12.

Dai

D. Y.

Chen

(2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(3), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213490020

13.

Fischer

C. T.

(2009). Bracketing in qualitative research: Conceptual and practical matters. Psychotherapy Research, 19(4–5), 583–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300902798375

14.

Godor

B. P.

(2019). Gifted metaphors: Exploring the metaphors of teachers in gifted education and their impact on teaching the gifted. Roeper Review, 41(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1553219

15.

Johnsen

S. K.

Kaul

C. R.

(2019). Assessing teacher beliefs regarding research-based practices to improve services for GT students. Gifted Child Today, 42(4), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217519862332

16.

Leung

K. C.

(2018). An updated meta-analysis on the effect of peer tutoring on tutors’ achievement. School Psychology International, 40(2), 200–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034318808832

17.

Matusevich

M. N.

O’connor

K. A.

Hargett

M. V. P.

(2009). The nonnegotiables of academic rigor. Gifted Child Today, 32(4), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621750903200412

18.

McCoach

D. B.

Siegle

(2007). What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302719

19.

Moon

T. R.

Tomlinson

C. A.

Callahan

C. M.

(1995). Academic diversity in the middle school: Results of a national survey of middle school administrators and teachers (Research Monograph 95124). University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

20.

Moustakas

(1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage Publications, Inc.

21.

National Association for Gifted Children, & Council for Exceptional Children. (2013). NAGC – CEC teacher preparation standards in gifted and talented education. National Association for Gifted Children. https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/national-standards-gifted-and-talented-education/nagc-cec-teacher-0

22.

National Association for Gifted Children, & Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). Knowledge & skill standards in gifted & talented education for all teachers. National Association for Gifted Children. https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/national-standards-gifted-and-talented-education/knowledge-and

23.

National Association for Gifted Children. (n.d.). Guiding questions to apply the pre-k to grade 12 gifted programming standards. https://nagc.org/page/Guiding-Questions-to-Apply-the-Pre-K-to-Grade-12-Gifted-Programming-Standards

24.

Neihart

Reis

S. M.

Robinson

N. M.

Moon

S. M.

(2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children. What do we know? Prufrock Press.

25.

Novak

Jen

(2024). The editorial word: Trustworthiness. Journal of Advanced Academics, 35(4), 718–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X241288384

26.

Nowell

L. S.

Norris

J. M.

White

D. E.

Moules

N. J.

(2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

27.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Subotnik

R. F.

Worrell

F. C.

(2015). Antecedent and concurrent psychosocial skills that support high levels of achievement within talent domains. High Ability Studies, 26(2), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1095077

28.

Plucker

J. A.

Dilley

(2016). Ability grouping and the socioemotional development of gifted kids. In Neihart

Reis

S. M.

Robinson

N. M.

Moon

S. M.

(Eds.) The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (2nd ed., pp. 231–240). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003238928

29.

Pietkiewicz

Smith

J. A.

(2014). A practical guide to using interpretative phenomenological analysis in qualitative research psychology. Psychological Journal, 20(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.14691/CPPJ.20.1.7

30.

Reis-Jorge

Ferreira

Olcina-Sempere

Marques

(2021). Perceptions of giftedness and classroom practice with gifted children – an explanatory study of primary school teachers. Qualitative Research in Education, 10(3), 291–315. https://doi.org/10.17583/qre.8097

31.

Reis

S. M.

Gubbins

E. J.

Briggs

C. J.

Schreiber

F. J.

Richards

Jacobs

J. K.

Eckert

R. D.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2004). Reading instruction for talented readers: Case studies documenting few opportunities for continuous progress. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(4), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800406

32.

Reis

S. M.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2009). The schoolwide enrichment model: A focus on student strengths and interests. In Renzulli

J. S.

Gubbins

E. J.

McMillen

K. S.

Eckert

R. D.

Little

C. A.

(Eds.), Systems and models for developing progroms for the gifted and talented (2nd ed., pp. 323–352). Prufrock Press.

33.

Renzulli

J. S.

Reis

S. M.

(2017). Schools are places for talent development. In Plucker

J. A.

Rinn

A. N.

Makel

(Eds.), From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice (pp. 21–42). Prufrock Press Inc.

34.

Rinn

A. N.

Mun

R. U.

Hodges

(2022). 2020–2021 State of the states in gifted education. National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. https://nagc.org/page/state-of-the-states-report

35.

Russell

J. L.

(2018). High school teachers’ perceptions of giftedness, gifted education, and talent development. Journal of Advanced Academics, 29(4), 275–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X18775658

36.

Smith

J. A.

Flowers

Larkin

(2012). Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. Sage Publications.

37.

Szymanski

Croft

Godor

(2018). Determining attitudes toward ability: A new tool for new understanding. Journal of Advanced Academics, 29(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17738989

38.

Texas Administrative Code, No. 89.2. (2015). https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/laws-and-rules/sboe-rules-tac/sboe-tac-currently-in-effect/ch089a.pdf

39.

Texas Education Agency. (2024). Texas state plan for the education of gifted/talented students . https://tea.texas.gov/academics/special-student-populations/gifted-and-talented-education/v2-gt-state-plan-2024.pdf

40.

Texas Education Agency. (n.d.). Subject areas . https://tea.texas.gov/academics/subject-areas

41.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2004). The Möbius effect: Addressing learner variance in schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 516–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370060601 .

42.

Troxclair

D. A.

(2013). Preservice teacher attitudes toward giftedness. Roeper Review, 35(1), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.740603

43.

Vogl

Preckel

(2014). Full-time ability grouping of gifted students: Impacts on social self-concept and school-related attitudes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513795

44.

Wang

King

R. B.

McInerney

D. M.

(2021). Ability grouping and student performance: A longitudinal investigation of teacher support as a mediator and moderator. Research Papers in Education, 38(2), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2021.1961293