Professional Development and Differentiated Instruction in an Elementary School Pullout Program: A Gifted Education Case Study

Abstract

The purpose of this longitudinal case study was to investigate the relationship between participation in professional development in Renzulli’s Enrichment Triad Model and one gifted education teacher’s knowledge and practice, with particular attention to differentiated instruction. Findings indicated that professional development increased the participating teacher’s knowledge of gifted education, her attitude toward change, and her repertoire of instructional strategies; however, it did not alter her underlying beliefs or subsequent approach to gifted education. Time span and provider support were noted as promoters of effective professional development. Conceptual blocks, teacher characteristics, and lack of time were identified as barriers that inhibited professional development–related change with regard to differentiated instruction for learners who have high academic ability.

Keywords

professional development differentiation Enrichment Triad Model academically gifted

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bajrami

(2013). The importance of differentiation in supporting diverse learners. Journal of Education and Practice, 4, 149–154. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fc93/f0fb80444f9bed589ab7a8210428cbb4d60d.pdf

Boyatzis

R. E.

(1998). Thematic analysis and code development: Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brigandi

C. B.

Siegle

Weiner

J. M.

Gubbins

E. J.

Little

C. A.

(2016). Gifted secondary school students: The perceived relationship between enrichment and goal valuation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39, 263–287. doi:10.1177/0162353216671837

Brigandi

C. B.

Weiner

J. M.

Siegle

Gubbins

E. J.

Little

C. A.

(2018). Environmental perceptions of gifted secondary school students engaged in an evidence-based enrichment practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 1–17. doi:10.1177/0016986218758

Callahan

C. M.

Moon

T. R.

(2014). National surveys of gifted programs executive summary. Charlottesville: University of Virginia, The National Research Center on Gifted. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/key%20reports/2014%20Survey%20of%20GT%20programs%20Exec%20Summ.pdf

Callahan

C. M.

Moon

T. R.

Azano

A. P.

Hailey

E. P.

(2015). What works in gifted education: Documenting the effects of an integrated curricular/instructional model for gifted students. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 137–167. doi:10.3102/0002831214549448

Campbell

J. L.

Quincy

Osserman

Pedersen

O. K.

(2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42, 294–320. doi:10.1177/0049124113500475

Casa

T. M.

Firmender

J. M.

Gavin

M. K.

Carroll

S. R.

(2017). Kindergarteners’ achievement on geometry and measurement units that incorporate a gifted education approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 52–72. doi:10.1177/0016986216671806

10.

Cassady

J. C.

Speirs Neumeister

K. L.

Adams

C. A.

Dixon

F. A.

Pierce

R. L.

(2004). The Differentiated Classroom Observation Scale. Roeper Review, 26, 139–146. doi:10.1080/02783190409554259

11.

Castle

Deniz

C. B.

Tortora

(2005). Flexible grouping and student learning in a high-needs school. Education and Urban Society, 37, 139–150. doi:10.1177/0013124504270787

12.

Clair

Adger

C. T.

(2000). Sustainable strategies for professional development in education reform. In Johnson

(Ed.), Teacher education. Case studies in TESOL practice series (pp. 29–49). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

13.

Connor

C. M.

Piasta

S. B.

Fishman

Glasney

Schatschnieder

Crowe

Morrison

F. J.

(2009). Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of child × instruction interactions on first graders’ literacy development. Child Development, 80, 77–100. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01247.x

14.

Darling-Hammond

Berry

(2006). Highly qualified teachers for all. Educational Leadership, 64, 14–20. Retrieved from http://www.csun.edu/~krowlands/Content/SED610/NCLB/NCLB%20from%202007/highly%20qualified%20teachers.pdf

15.

Delcourt

M. A. B

. (1994). Characteristics of high-level creative productivity. In Subotnik

Arnold

(Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 401–436). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

16.

Desimone

L. M.

Porter

A. C.

Garet

M. S.

Yoon

K. S.

Birman

B. F.

(2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 81–112. doi:10.3102/01623737024002081

17.

Dimitriadis

(2011). Provision for mathematically gifted children in primary schools: An investigation of four different methods of organizational provision. Educational Review, 64, 241–260. doi:10.1080/00131911.2011.598920

18.

Dimitriadis

(2016). Gifted programs cannot be successful without gifted research and theory: Evidence from practice with gifted students of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39, 221–236. doi:10.1177/0162353216657185

19.

Dreeszen

J. L.

(2010). The impact of differentiation on the critical thinking of gifted readers and the evolving perspective of the fifth grade classroom teacher (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kansas State University, Manhattan. Retrieved from https://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/2063/JudyDreeszen2009.pdf?sequence=1

20.

Edinger

M. J.

(2017). Online teacher professional development for gifted education: Examining the impact of a new pedagogical model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 300–312. doi:10.1177/0016986217722616

21.

Erickson

(1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In Whittrock

M. C.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). Old Tappan, NJ: McMillan.

22.

Ertmer

P. A.

Ottenbreit-Leftwich

A. T.

(2014). Teacher technology change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 255–284. doi:10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551

23.

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015–2016).

24.

Farkas

Duffett

(2008). High-achieving students in the era of NCLB: Results from a national teacher survey. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from http://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/20080618_high_achievers_7.pdf

25.

Firmender

J. M.

Reis

S. M.

Sweeny

S. M.

(2013). Reading comprehension and fluency levels across diverse classrooms: The need for differentiated reading instruction and content. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 3–14. doi:10.1177/0016986212460084

26.

Flett

G. L.

Blankstein

K. R.

Hewitt

P. L.

Koledin

(1992). Components of perfectionism and procrastination among college students. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 20, 85–94. doi:10.2224/sbp.1992.20.2.85

27.

Friedman

(1994). A cloak for a dreamer. New York, NY: Scholastic.

28.

Garet

Porter

Desimone

Birman

Yoon

K. S.

(2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945. doi:10.3102/00028312038004915

29.

Gavin

M. K.

Casa

T. M.

Firmender

J. M.

Carroll

S. R.

(2013). The impact of advanced geometry and measurement curriculum units on the mathematics achievement of first-grade students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 71–84. doi:10.1177/0016986213479564

30.

Gentry

Owen

S. V.

(1999). An investigation of the effects of total school flexible cluster grouping on identification. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 224–242. doi:10.1177/001698629904300402

31.

Goodnough

(2001). Changing teacher beliefs about giftedness and differentiation practices. Gifted and Talented International, 16, 115–121. doi:10.1080/15332276.2001.11672973

32.

Gross

M. U. M.

(2004). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

33.

Guskey

T. R.

(1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15, 5–12. doi:10.3102/0013189X015005005

34.

Guskey

T. R.

(2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

35.

Hébert

T. P.

(1993). Reflections at graduation: The long-term impact of elementary school experiences in creative. Roeper Review, 16, 22–38. doi:10.1080/02783199309553529

36.

Hébert

T. P.

(2011). Understanding the social and emotional lives of gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

37.

Horak

A. K.

Galluzzon

G. R.

(2017). Gifted middle school students’ achievement and perceptions of science classroom quality during problem-based learning. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28, 28–50. doi:10.1177/1932202X16683424

38.

Hruschka

D. J.

Schwartz

Cobb St John

Picone-Decaro

Jenkins

R. A.

Carey

J. W.

(2004). Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods, 16, 307–331. doi:10.1177/1525822X04266540

39.

Jolly

J. L.

(2016). Differentiated curriculum: Learning from the past and exploring the future. In Kettler

(Ed.), Modern curriculum for gifted and advanced academic students (pp. 23–36). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

40.

Kanevsky

(2011). Deferential differentiation: What types of differentiation do students want? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 279–299. doi:10.1177/0016986211422098

41.

Kanevsky

Keighley

(2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26, 20–28. doi:10.1080/02783190309554235

42.

Krathwohl

D. R.

(2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41, 212–218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

43.

Kulik

J. A.

Kulik

C.-L. C.

(1987). The effects of ability grouping on student achievement. Equity & Excellence in Education, 23, 22–30. doi:10.1080/1066568870230105

44.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

45.

Little

C. A.

McCoach

D. B.

Reis

S. M.

(2014). Effects of differentiated reading instruction on student achievement in middle school. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25, 384–402. doi:10.1177/1932202X14549250

46.

Loughran

(2010). What expert teacher do: Enhancing professional knowledge for classroom practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

47.

Maker

C. J.

(1982). Teaching models in education of the gifted. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

48.

Maker

C. J.

Schiever

S. W.

(2005). Teaching models in education of the gifted (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

49.

Matheis

Kronborg

Schmitt

Preckel

(2017). Threat or challenge? Teacher beliefs about gifted students and their relationship to teacher motivation. Gifted and Talented International, 32, 134–160. doi:10.1080/15332276.2018.1537685

50.

Mattson

(2014). Professional development vs. professional learning. Retrieved from https://drkmattson.com/2014/07/19/professional-development-vs-professional-learning/

51.

McCoach

D. B.

Gubbins

E. J.

Foreman

J. L.

Rubenstein

L. D.

Rambo-Hernandez

K. E.

(2014). Evaluating the efficacy of using pre-differentiated and enriched mathematics curricula for grade 3 students: A multi-site cluster-randomized trial. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 272–286. doi:10.1177/0016986214547631

52.

Merriam

S. B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

53.

Merriam

S. B.

(2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussions and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

54.

Merriam

S. B.

Tisdell

E. J.

(2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

55.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

56.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/24783

57.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Pre-K–Grade 12 gifted programming standards. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=546

58.

National Association for Gifted Children, & Council for Exceptional Children. (2013). Advanced standards in gifted education teacher preparation. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/Advanced%20Standards%20in%20GT%20%282013%29.pdf

59.

National Association for Gifted Children, & National Council of Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2015). 2014–2015 state of the states in gifted education. Washington, DC: Author.

60.

Netz

(2014). Gifted conversations: Discursive patterns in gifted classes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 149–163. doi:10.1177/0016986214523312

61.

Olszewski-Kubilius

(1999). A critique of Renzulli’s theory into practice models for gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 55–66. doi:10.1177/016235329902300103

62.

Patall

E. A.

Cooper

Robinson

J. C.

(2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 270–300. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.270

63.

Peters

S. J.

Jolly

J. L.

(2018). The influence of professional development in gifted education on the frequency of instructional practices. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45, 473–491. doi:10.1007/s13384-018-0260-4

64.

Peters

S. J.

Rambo-Hernandez

Makel

M. C.

Matthews

M. S.

Plucker

J. A.

(2017). Should millions of students take a gap year? Large numbers of students start the school year above grade level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 229–238. doi:10.1177/0016986217701834

65.

Petty

T. M.

Heafner

T. L.

Farinde

Plaisance

(2015). Windows into teaching and learning: Professional growth of classroom teachers in an online environment. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24, 375–388. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2014.991422

66.

Plunkett

Kronborg

(2011). Learning to be a teacher of the gifted: The importance of examining opinions and challenging misconceptions. Gifted and Talented International, 26, 31–46. doi:10.1080/15332276.2011.11673587

67.

Prochaska

DiClemente

(1983). Stages and processes of self-change in smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 5, 390–395. doi:10.1037//0022-006X.51.3.390

68.

Reis

S. M.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2015). Five dimensions of differentiation. Gifted Education Press Quarterly, 29(3), 2–9. Retrieved from https://gifted.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/961/2018/07/Five_Dimensions_of_Differntiation.pdf

69.

Reis

S. M.

Westberg

K. L.

Kulikowich

Caillard

Hébert

T. P.

Plucker

J. A.

Smidst

(1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January? The curriculum compacting study [RM93106]. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

70.

Reis

S. M.

Westberg

K. L.

Kulikowich

J. M.

Purcell

J. H.

(1998). Curriculum compacting and achievement test scores: What does the research say? Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 123–129. doi:10.1177/001698629804200206

71.

Renzulli

J. S.

(1977). The Enrichment Triad Model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

72.

Renzulli

J. S.

Reis

S. M.

(2014). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how-to guide for talent development (3rd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

73.

Saldaña

(2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

74.

Saxe

Gearhart

Nasir

N. S.

(2001). Enhancing students’ understanding of mathematics: A study of three contrasting approaches to professional support. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4, 55–79. doi:10.1023/A:1009935100676

75.

Schack

G. D.

Starko

A. J.

Burns

D. E.

(1991). Self-efficacy and creative productivity: Three studies of above average ability children. Journal of Research in Education, 1, 44–52.

76.

Shaunessy-Dedrick

Evans

Ferron

Lindo

(2015). Effects of differentiated reading on elementary students’ reading comprehension and attitudes toward reading. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 91–107. doi:10.1177/0016986214568718

77.

Siegle

Rubenstein

L. D.

Mitchell

M. S.

(2014). Honors students’ perceptions of their high school experience: The influence of teachers on student motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 35–50. doi:10.1177/0016986213513496

78.

Smith

(2015). A dynamic differentiation framework for talent enhancement: Findings from syntheses and teachers’ perspectives. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 24, 59–72.

79.

Stake

R. E.

(1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

80.

Tieso

C. L.

(2005). The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 60–89. doi:10.1177/016235320502900104

81.

Tobin

Tippett

C. D.

(2014). Possibilities and potential barriers: Learning to plan for differentiated instruction in elementary science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 423–443. doi:10.1007/s10763-013-9414-z

82.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(1997). The dos and don’ts of instruction: What it means to teach gifted learners well. Instructional Leader, 10, 1–3, 12.

83.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

84.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). American community survey: Data profile for West Virginia. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/data-profiles/2017/

85.

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Teacher professional career development. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/oii-news/teacher-professional-and-career-development

86.

VanTassel-Baska

(2005). Domain-specific giftedness: Applications in school and life. In Sternberg

R. J.

Davidson

J. E.

(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 358–376). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

87.

VanTassel-Baska

Bracken

Feng

Brown

(2009). A longitudinal study of enhancing critical thinking and reading comprehension in Title 1 classrooms. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 7–37. doi:10.1177/016235320903300102

88.

Vogl

Preckel

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

89.

Vygotsky

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

90.

Wechsler

(2014). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (5th ed.). San Antonio, TX: NCS Pearson.

91.

Wei

R. C.

Darling-Hammond

Andree

Richardson

Orphanos

(2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from https://learningforward.org/docs/default-source/pdf/nsdcstudytechnicalreport2009.pdf

92.

Wennergren

A. C.

(2014). The power of risk-taking in professional learning. In Rönnerman

Salo

(Eds.), Lost in practice. Pedagogy, education and praxis (pp. 133–151). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-722-3_8

93.

Westberg

K. L.

(2010). Young creative producers: Twenty-five years later. Gifted Education International, 26, 261–270. doi:10.1177/02614294100260031

94.

Woodcock

R. W.

(1997). The Woodcock-Johnson tests of cognitive ability—Revised. In Flanagan

D. P.

Genshaft

J. L.

Harrison

P. L.

(Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 230–246). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

95.

I.-C.

Pease

Maker

C. J.

(2015). Students’ perceptions of real engagement in active problem solving. Gifted and Talented International, 30, 106–121. doi:10.1080/15332276.2015.1137462

96.

Yin

R. K.

(2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

97.

Yoon

K. S.

Duncan

Lee

S. W. Y.

Scarloss

Shapley

(2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007—No. 033). Washington, DC: Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

98.

Yuen

Chan

Fung

D. C. L.

Cheung

W. M.

Kwan

Leung

K. S.

(2018). Differentiation in key learning areas for gifted students in regular classes: A project for primary school teachers in Hong Kong. Gifted Education International, 34, 36–46. doi:10.1177/0261429416649047