Few academic interventions for gifted students have generated more empirical support than acceleration and ability grouping, and formative assessment is advocated as a tool that educators can use to appropriately integrate accelerative practices and ability grouping into the classroom. However, the empirical support for accelerative practices, ability grouping, and formative assessment does not always translate into practice. This qualitative study sought to explore how teacher expectations about student ability influenced teacher use of accelerative practices, ability grouping, and formative assessment. The findings indicate that the availability and use of formative assessments, coupled with high teacher expectations about student ability, support teacher use of best practices in pacing and grouping strategies.
AndradeH. L.CizekG. J. (2010). Handbook of formative assessment. New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
AzanoA. P.CallahanC. M.MissettT. C.BrunnerM. M. (2014). Understanding the experiences of gifted education teachers and fidelity of implementation in rural schools. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25, 87–99.
3.
AzanoA. P.MissettT. C.CallahanC. M.OhS.BrunnerM. M.FosterL. F.MoonT. (2011). Exploring the relationship between fidelity of implementation and academic achievement in a third-grade gifted curriculum: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 693–719.
4.
BerningerV. W.VaughanK. B.AbbottR. D.AbbottS. P.RoganL. W.BrooksA. . . . GrahamS. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 652–666.
5.
BlackP.WiliamD. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 5, 7–74.
6.
BraddockJ. H.II. (1990). Tracking the middle grades: National patterns of grouping for instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 445–449.
7.
BrullesD.SaundersR.CohnS. J. (2010). Improving performance for gifted students in a cluster grouping model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 327–350.
8.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, The University of Iowa.
9.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.MarronM. A. (2013). Evidence trumps beliefs: Academic acceleration is an effective intervention for high-ability students. In CallahanC. M.Hertberg-DavisH. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 164–175). New York, NY: Routledge.
10.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.MarronM. A.CastellanoJ. A.ClinkenbeardP. R.RogersK. . . . SmithD. (2010). Guidelines for developing an academic acceleration policy. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 180–203.
11.
EricksonE. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 68–120). New York, NY: Macmillan.
12.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
13.
GagnéF. (2011). Academic talent development and the equity issue in gifted education. Talent Development & Excellence, 3, 3–22.
14.
GentryM. (2014). Cluster grouping. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 109–117). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
15.
GentryM.FugateC. M. (2013). Cluster grouping programs and the total school cluster grouping model. In CallahanC. M.Hertberg-DavisH. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 212–225). New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
HoogeveenL.van HellJ. G.VerhoevenL. (2009). Self-concept and social status of accelerated and nonaccelerated students in the first 2 years of secondary school in the Netherlands. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 50–67.
17.
HughesG. B. (2010). Formative assessment practices that maximize learning for students at risk. In AndradeH.CizekG. (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 170–198). New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
KaplanS. N. (2001). Layering differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. In KarnesF. A.BeanS. M. (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (pp. 107–131). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
19.
KulikJ. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
20.
KulikJ. A. (2003). Grouping and tracking. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 268–281). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
21.
LeeS. Y.Olszewski-KubiliusP.PeternelG. (2010). The efficacy of academic acceleration for gifted minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 189–208.
22.
MaxwellJ. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
23.
MoonT. R.BrightonC. M. (2008). Primary teachers’ conceptions of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 447–480.
NiehartM. (2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping: Recommendations for best practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 330–341.
26.
PassowA. H. (1996). Acceleration over the years. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
27.
PiekJ. P.BaynamG. B.BarrettN. C. (2006). The relationship between fine and gross motor ability, self-perceptions and self-worth in children and adolescents. Human Movement Science, 25, 65–75.
28.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 308–317.
29.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (2003). Conception of giftedness and its relation to the development of social capital. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 75–87). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
30.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (2010). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A focus on student strengths and interests. Gifted Education International, 26, 140–157.
31.
RobertsG. I.SieverJ. E.MairJ. A. (2010). Effects of a kinesthetic cursive handwriting intervention for grade 4–6 students. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64, 745–755.
32.
RogersK. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382–384.
33.
ShuteV. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.
34.
SilberglittB.HintzeJ. (2005). Formative assessment using CBM-R cut scores to track progress toward success on state-mandated achievement tests: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 304–325.
35.
TomlinsonC. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
36.
TomlinsonC. A. (2005). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students. Theory Into Practice, 44, 160–166.
37.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2010). The efficacy of academic acceleration for gifted minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 189–208.
WoodS.PortmanT. A. A.CigrandD. L.ColangeloN. (2010). School counselors’ perceptions and experience with acceleration as a program option for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 168–178.
