Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

We evaluated the psychometric properties of the Classroom Practices Survey–Revised (CPS-R) when used with students achieving at low, average, and high levels. A total of 739 teachers completed CPS-R for students in their classrooms. Results showed improvement in the reliability of CPS-R across all achievement levels when compared with its previous version. Internal consistency estimates for the four factors were higher for the high-achieving students (α = .84–.94) compared with estimates for students who achieve at average (α = .83–.92) and low (α = .81–.90) levels. Model fit of the data was in the acceptable range across all achievement levels. However, model fit indices for the high-achieving group were slightly better than for the average- and low-achieving groups. Results support the practical value of CPS-R as a tool to assess teachers’ use of differentiation strategies.

Keywords

Classroom Practices Survey differentiated instruction instrument revision validity reliability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

Pierce

(2006). Differentiating instruction: A practical guide to tiered lessons in the elementary grades. Prufrock Press.

Al-Lawati

F. A. K.

Hunsaker

S. L.

(2007). Differentiation for the gifted in American Islamic schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 500–518. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2007-501

Archambault

F. X.

Westberg

K. L.

Brown

Hallmark

B. W.

Emmons

Zhang

(1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Belfi

Goos

De Fraine

Van Damme

(2012). The effect of class composition by gender and ability on secondary school students’ school well-being and academic self-concept: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 7(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.09.002

Bentler

P. M.

(1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.400

Brown

T. A.

(2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258.

Brulles

Saunders

Cohn

(2010). Improving performance for gifted students in a cluster grouping model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(2), 200–216. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ910197.pdf

Byrne

B. M.

(2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.

10.

Coubergs

Struyven

Vanthournout

Engels

(2017). Measuring teachers’ perceptions about differentiated instruction: The DI-Quest instrument and model. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.02.004

11.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013, April) Interstate teacher assessment and support consortium InTASC model core teaching standards and learning progressions for teachers 1.0: A resource for ongoing teacher development. https://ccsso.org/resource-library/intasc-model-core-teaching-standards-and-learning-progressions-teachers-10

12.

Deunk

M. I.

Smale-Jacobse

A. E.

de Boer

Doolaard

Bosker

R. J.

(2018). Effective differentiation practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education. Educational Research Review, 24(2018), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.002

13.

DiStefano

Liu

Jiang

Shi

(2018). Examination of the weighted root mean square residual: Evidence for trustworthiness? Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(3), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1390394

14.

Geldhof

G. J.

Preacher

K. J.

Zyphur

M. J.

(2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19, 72–91.

15.

Gentry

(2013). Cluster grouping. In Callahan

C. M.

Plucker

(Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 107–115). Prufrock Press.

16.

Gentry

Paul

K. A.

McIntosh

Fugate

C. M.

Jen

(2014). Total school cluster grouping and differentiation: A comprehensive research-based plan for raising student achievement and improving teacher practices. Prufrock Press.

17.

Grimes

K. J.

Stevens

D. D.

(2009). Glass, bug, mud. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 677–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909000914

18.

Hora

M. T.

(2015). Toward a descriptive science of teaching: How the TDOP illustrates the multidimensional nature of active learning in postsecondary classrooms. Science Education, 99(5), 783–818. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21175

19.

Hora

M. T.

Ferrare

(2014). The teaching dimensions observation protocol (TDOP) 2.0. Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison. http://tdop.wceruw.org/

20.

Howard

G. S.

Ralph

K. M.

Gulanick

N. A.

Maxwell

S. E.

Nance

D. W.

Gerber

S. K.

(1979). Internal invalidity in pretest-posttest self-report evaluations and a re-evaluation of retrospective pretests. Applied Psychology Measurement, 3(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167900300101

21.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.

22.

Hyson

M. C.

Hisch-Pasek

Rescorla

(1990). The classroom practices inventory: An observation instrument based on NAEYC’s guidelines for developmentally appropriate practices for 4- and 5-year-old children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5(4), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2006(90)90015-S

23.

Kaplan

(2009). Layering differentiated curricula for the gifted and talented. In Karnes

F. A.

Bean

S. M.

(Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (3rd ed., pp. 107–136). Prufrock Press.

24.

Kelchtermans

(2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self-understanding, vulnerability, and reflection. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875332

25.

King

(2010). Factors associated with inclusive classroom teachers’ implementation of differentiated instruction for diverse learners (Publication No. 3433402) [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Tennessee State University.

26.

Konstantinou-Katzi

Tsolaki

Meletiou-Mavrotheris

Koutselini

(2013). Differentiation of teaching and learning mathematics: An action research study in tertiary education. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(3), 332–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2012.714491

27.

Latz

A. O.

Speirs Neumeister

K. L.

Adams

C. M.

Pierce

R. L.

(2008). Peer coaching to improve classroom differentiation: Perspectives from project CLUE. Roeper Review, 31(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190802527356

28.

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(4), 384–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14549250

29.

McCoach

D. B.

Gubbins

E. J.

Foreman

Rubenstein

L. D.

Rambo-Hernandez

K. E.

(2014). Evaluating the efficacy of using predifferentiated and enriched mathematics curricula for Grade 3 students: A multisite cluster-randomized trial. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(4), 272–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214547631

30.

McDonald

R. P.

(1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

31.

Minner

DeLisi

(2012). Inquiring into science instruction observation protocol (ISIOP): Data collection instrument. Education Development Center.

32.

Moon

Tomlinson

C. A.

Callahan

(1995). Academic diversity in the middle school: Results of a national survey of middle school administrators and teachers (Research Monograph 95124). National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/953/2015/04/rm95124.pdf

33.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.).

34.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). 2010 pre-K-Grade 12 gifted programming standards. http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/K-12%20programming%20standards.pdf

35.

National Association for Gifted Children, & Council for Exceptional Children. (2013). NAGC—CEC teacher preparation standards in gifted and talented education. http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/NAGC-%20CEC%20CAEP%20standards%20%282013%20final%29.pdf

36.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

37.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 results: Policies and practices for successful schools, PISA (Vol. 2). OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en

38.

Pereira

Tay

Maeda

Gentry

(2019). Differentiation as measured by the Classroom Practices Survey: A validity study updating the original instrument. Learning Environments Research, 22, 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09284-z

39.

Piburn

Sawada

(2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP): Reference manual [ACEPT technical report]. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED447205

40.

Pierce

Cassady

Adams

Neumeister

Dixon

Cross

(2011). The effects of clustering and curriculum on the development of gifted learners’ math achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(4), 569–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321103400403

41.

Pozas

Letzel

Schneider

(2020). Teachers and differentiated instruction: Exploring differentiation practices to address student diversity. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 20(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12481

42.

Prosser

Trigwell

(1997). Relations between the perceptions of teaching and approaches to teaching. Educational Psychology, 67(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01224.x

43.

Reis

S. M.

McCoach

D. B.

Little

C. A.

Muller

L. M.

Kaniskan

R. B.

(2011). The effects of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 462–501. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210382891

44.

Reis

S. M.

Renzulli

(2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.012

45.

Reis

S. M.

Burns

D. E.

Renzulli

J. S.

(1992). Curriculum compacting: The complete guide to modifying the regular curriculum for high ability students. Prufrock Press.

46.

Renzulli

[Ed.]. (1986). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. Creative Learning Press.

47.

Roberts

J. L.

Inman

(2009). Strategies for differentiating instruction: Best practices for the classroom. Prufrock Press.

48.

Roiha

A. S.

(2014). Teachers’ views on differentiation in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Perceptions, practices and challenges. Language and Education, 28(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2012.748061

49.

Santangelo

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2012). Teacher educators’ perceptions and use of differentiated instruction practices: An exploratory investigation. Action in Teacher Education, 34(4), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.717032

50.

Schmitt

(1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350

51.

Schwartz

C. E.

Sprangers

M. A. G.

(2014). Response shift. In Michalos

A. C.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 5542–5547). Springer.

52.

Simpkins

P. M.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Scruggs

T. E.

(2009). Differentiated curriculum enhancements in inclusive fifth-grade science classes. Remedial and Special Education, 30(5), 300–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508321011

53.

Smith

M. K.

Jones

F. H. M.

Gilbert

S. L.

Wieman

C. E.

(2013). The classroom observation protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. Life Science Education, 12(4), 618–627. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154

54.

Suprayogi

M. N.

Valcke

Godwin

(2017). Teachers and their implementation of differentiated instruction in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.020

55.

Tavakol

Dennick

(2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

56.

Tieso

(2005). The effects of curricular differentiation with between- and within-class grouping. Journal for the Education for the Gifted, 29(1), 60–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320502900104

57.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2014). Differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. ASCD.

58.

Tomlinson

C. A.

Jarvis

(2009). Differentiation: Making curriculum work for all students through responsive planning and instruction. In Renzulli

J. S.

Gubbins

E. J.

McMillen

K. S.

Eckert

R. D.

Little

C. A.

(Eds.), Systems and models for developing pro- grams for the gifted and talented (pp. 599–628). Creative Learning Press.

59.

Trigwell

Prosser

(2004). Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0007-9

60.

VanTassel-Baska

Avery

Struck

Feng

Bracken

Drummond

Stambaugh

(2003). The William and Mary Classroom Observation Scales–Revised. Center for Gifted Education, The College of William and Mary-School of Education. https://education.wm.edu/centers/cfge/resources/instruments/index.php

61.

VanTassel-Baska

Stambaugh

(2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_5

62.

Wainwright

C. L.

Flick

L. B.

Morrell

P. D.

(2003). Development of instruments for assessment of instructional practices in standards-based teaching. Journal of Mathematics and Science: Collaborative Explorations, 6(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.25891/NTKY-AX16

63.

Walkington

Arora

Ihorn

Gordon

Walker

Abraham

Marder

(2011). Development of the UTeach observation protocol: A classroom observation instrument to evaluate mathematics and science teachers from the UTeach preparation program (UTeach Technical Report 2011-01). UTeach Natural Sciences, University of Texas at Austin. https://utop.uteach.utexas.edu/

64.

Wieman

Gilbert

(2014). The Teaching Practices Inventory: A new tool for characterizing college and university teaching in mathematics and science. Life Science Education, 13(3), 552–569. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-02-0023

65.

C. Y.

(2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes (Publication No. 3066425). [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.11 MB

Validity Evidence for the Revised Classroom Practices Survey: An Instrument to Measure Teachers’ Differentiation Practices

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material