Teaching and learning are part of a complex interaction between teachers and students. Educational leaders cannot improve the teaching and learning process without quality measurement of effective teaching. One way to capture this complex interaction is by using structured observations. However, the extant literature on classroom observation instruments in the field of gifted education is limited. For that reason, a systematic search was undertaken to identify the observation instruments for assessing instructional practices used with gifted and talented students. In this article, eight observation instruments were identified: (a) Rating Scale of Significant Behaviors in Teachers of the Gifted, (b) Kulieke’s adaptation of the Rating Scale of Significant Behaviors in Teachers of the Gifted, (c) Teaching Observation Form (TOF; also known as Purdue Observation Form), (d) Classroom Practices Record (CPR), (e) Classroom Practices Record–Form VA (CPR-Form VA), (f) Classroom Instructional Practices Scale (CIPS), (g) Classroom Observation Scales–Revised (COS-R), and (h) Differentiated Classroom Observation Scale (DCOS). The instruments are described in terms of developmental process, purpose, and any reliability and validity evidence reported. This systematic search has shown the need for a new observation instrument that is comprehensive and closely tied to professional standards.
American Psychological Association. (2014). Assessing and evaluating teacher preparation programs. Washington, DC: Center for Psychology in Schools and Education.
2.
CassadyJ. C.Speirs NeumeisterK. L.AdamsC. M.CrossT. L.DixonF. A.PierceR. L. (2004). The differentiated classroom observation scale, Roeper Review, 26, 139-146. doi:10.1080/02783190409554259
3.
CohenL.ManionL.MorrisonK. (2013). Research methods in education (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
EvertsonC.BurryJ. (1989). Capturing classroom context: The observation system as lens for assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 2, 297-320.
5.
FeldhusenJ.HansenJ. (1987). Selecting and training teachers to work with gifted in a Saturday program. Gifted Education International, 4, 82-94. doi:10.1080/15332276.1986.11672709
6.
FeldhusenJ.HansenJ. (1988). Teachers of the gifted: Preparation and supervision. Gifted Education International, 5, 84-89. doi:10.1177/026142948800500206
7.
FeldhusenJ. F.HuffmanL. E. (1988). Practicum experiences in an educational program for teachers of the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 34-35. doi:10.1177/016235328801200106
8.
FrickT.SemmelM. (1978). Observer agreement and reliabilities of classroom observational measure. Review of Educational Research, 48, 157-184. doi:10.3102/00346543048001157
9.
GiesenP.SirotnikK. (1979). The methodology of classroom observation in a study of schooling (Technical Report No. 5). Los Angeles: Graduate School of Education, University of California at Los Angeles.
10.
GoreeK. K. (2011). An exploratory study of the factors that influence pre-service teachers’ instructional practices with diverse students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Baylor University, Waco, TX.
11.
HansenJ. B. (1988). The relationship of skills and classroom climate of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
12.
HansenJ.FeldhusenJ. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 115-121. doi:10.1177/001698629403800304
13.
Hertberg-DavisH. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and is sufficient: Classroom teachers have the time, the skill, and the will to differentiate adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 251-253. doi:10.1177/0016986209346927
14.
HunsakerS. L.NielsenA.BarlettB. (2010). Correlates of teacher practices influencing student outcomes in reading instruction for advanced readers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 273-282. doi:10.1177/0016986210374506
JohnsenS. K. (2011). NAGC pre-K–grade 12 gifted education programming standards: A guide to planning and implementing high-quality services. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
17.
JohnsenS. K.HaenselyP. S.RyserG. R.FordR. F. (2002). Changing general education classroom practices to adapt for gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 45-63. doi:10.1177/001698620204600105
18.
JohnsenS. K.ThompsonL. (2014). An observation report of fourth grade cluster classrooms in Waco ISD. Waco, TX: WISD
19.
JohnsenS. K.ThompsonL.ScalzoR.FarahY. (2013). A follow-up observation report of elementary cluster classrooms in Waco ISD. Waco, TX: WISD
20.
JohnsenS. K.WiselyL. W.FearonD. (2012). An observation report of elementary cluster classrooms in the Waco ISD. Waco, TX: WISD.
21.
KaneT.KerrK.PiantaR. (2014). Designing teacher evaluation systems: New guidance from the measures of effective teaching project. Charlottesville, VA: John Wiley.
22.
KarnesF. A.BeanS. M. (2005). Methods and materials for teaching the gifted. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
23.
KitanoM. (2008). National standards for preparation of teachers of the gifted: History and implications for preK-12 school. In KitanoM.MontgomeryD.VanTassel-BaskaJ.JohnsenS. K. (Eds.), Using the national gifted education standards for preK-12 professional development (pp. 1-7). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
24.
KitanoM.MontgomeryD.VanTassel-BaskaJ.JohnsenS. K. (Eds.). (2008). Using the National Gifted Education Standards for PreK-12 professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
25.
KuliekeM. J. (1986). The role of evaluation in inservice and staff development for educators of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 140-144. doi:10.1177/001698628603000311
26.
MarshallC.RossmanG. B. (2010). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
MartinsonR. A.WienerJ. (1968). The improvement of teaching procedures in gifted elementary and secondary school students (Research Report No. 6-1244). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED024185.pdf
PetersS. J.GatesJ. C. (2010). The teacher observation form: Revisions and updates. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 179-188. doi:10.1177/0016986210369258
32.
PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (2014). Research in giftedness and gifted education: Status of the field and considerations for the future. Exceptional Children, 80, 390-406. doi:10.1177/0014402914527244
33.
RobertsJ. L. (2008). Teachers of the gifted and talented. In KarnesF. A.StephensK. R. (Eds.), Achieving excellence: Educating the gifted and talented (pp. 246-261). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
34.
RyserG. R.JohnsenJ. K. (1996). An overview of effective practices with gifted students in general education settings. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 379-404. doi:10.1177/016235329601900402
35.
SandersW. L.RiversJ. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future students’ academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Researcher and Assessment Center.
36.
SimpsonM.TusonJ. (2003). Using observations in small scale-research: A beginners’ guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
TomlinsonC. A.CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.TomchinE. M.LandrumM.ImbeaM.. . . EisN. (1995). Preservice teacher preparation in meeting the needs of gifted and other academically diverse students. Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
38.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2004). Assessing classroom practice: The use of a structured observation form. In VanTassel-BaskaJ.FengA. X. (Eds.), Designing and utilizing program evaluation for gifted program improvement (pp. 87-107). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
39.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.AveryL. D.O’NeillB. (1997). Making evaluation work: One school district’s experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 124-131. doi:10.1177/001698629704100402
40.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.AveryL.StruckJ.FengA.BrackenB.DrummondD.StambaughT. (2003). The William and Mary Classroom Observation Scales–Revised (COS-R). Williamsburg, VA: Center for Gifted Education.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.QuekC.FengA. X. (2006). The development and use of a structured teacher observation scale to assess differentiated best practice. Roeper Review, 19, 84-92. doi:10.1080/02783190709554391
43.
WenglinskyH. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NY: Educational Testing Service.
44.
WestbergK.ArchambaultF.Jr.DobynsS.SlavinT. (1992). Technical report for the classroom practices study: An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
45.
WestbergK.DobynsS.ArchambaultF. (1990). The training manual for the Classroom Practices Record. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
