Gifted education in the United Arab Emirates is a nascent field that is coming into greater visibility with corresponding governmental and institutional support over the past 15 years. Massive efforts are now being strategically put in place, which includes actively training teachers to meet the government’s aim to prioritize giftedness and innovation at all levels and sectors, so that classroom pedagogies align with said initiatives to support gifted students. However, there is limited information about how teachers perceive the efficacy of the training they have received. This research aims to highlight the voices of teachers who received professional development on teaching the gifted over a 2-year period. Research findings revealed how teachers conceptualized “innovation” in their own teaching practice with the gifted, the participants’ perceptions on program impact, and the challenges faced in implementing what they have learned in their professional development.
AhmedA.Abdalla AlfakiI. M. (2013). Transforming the United Arab Emirates into a knowledge‐based economy. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 10(2), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/20425941311323109
AlsharariN. M. (2018). Internationalization of the higher education system: An interpretive analysis. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(3), 359–381. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2017-0082
4.
AssoulineS. G.Foley-NicponM.WhitemanC. (2010). Cognitive and psychosocial characteristics of gifted students with written language disability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2), 102–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0016986209355974
5.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.W. H. Freeman and Company.
6.
BautistaA.Ortega-RuizR. (2017). Teacher professional development: International perspectives and approaches. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 343–355. https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v7i3.1020
7.
BautistaA.WongJ.GopinathanS. (2015). Teacher professional development in Singapore: Depicting the landscape. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v7i3.523
8.
BennyN.BlonderR. (2016). Factors that promote/inhibit teaching gifted students in a regular class: Results from a professional development program for chemistry teachers. Education Research International, 2016(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2742905
9.
BiancoM. (2010). Strength-based RTI: Conceptualizing a multi-tiered system for developing gifted potential. Theory Into Practice, 49(4),323–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2010.510763
BrigandiC. B.GilsonC. M.MillerM. (2019). Professional development and differentiated instruction in an elementary school pullout program: A gifted education case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 42(4), 362–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353219874418
12.
CaiY. (2017). From an analytical framework for understanding the innovation process in higher education to an emerging research field of innovations in higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 40(4), 585–616. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0023
13.
Carter AndrewsD. J.HeY.MarcianoJ. E.RichmondG.SalazarM. (2021). Decentering whiteness in teacher education: Addressing the questions of who, with whom, and how. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(2), 134–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120987966
14.
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2013). CAEP Standards. Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation
15.
CreswellJ. W.GuettermanT. C. (2021). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education Limited.
16.
DaiD. Y. (2013). How advances in gifted education contribute to innovation education, and vice versa. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of innovation education (pp. 52–67). Routledge.
17.
Darling-HammondL. (2010). Teaching for deeper learning: Developing a thinking pedagogy In AvilaA. P. C.HuiC.LinJ. H.Peng TamJ. C.LimJ. C. (Eds.), Rethinking Educational Paradigms: Moving from Good to Great. CJ Koh Professorial Lecture SeriesNo. 5 (pp. 13–18). Office of Education Research, National Institute of Education. https://www.nie.edu.sg/docs/default-source/spaq_cj-koh-series/cjkoh5_ldh_rethinking.pdf?sfvrsn=2%20
18.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (2018). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–26). SAGE.
19.
DixonF. A.YsselN.McConnellJ. M.HardinT. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214529042
EstrinJ. (2009). Closing the innovation gap: Reigniting the spark of creativity in a global economy. McGraw-Hill.
22.
EtzkowitzH. (2008). The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. Routledge.
23.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Pinter.
24.
FivesH.GillM. G. (Eds.). (2015). International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs.Routledge.
25.
FordD. Y. (2011). Multicultural gifted education (2nd ed.). Prufrock Press.
26.
FoxW.Al ShamisiS. (2014). United Arab Emirates’ education hub: A decade of development. In KnightJ. (Ed.), International education hubs: Students, talent, knowledge models (pp. 63–80). Springer.
27.
Fraser-SeetoK.HowardS.WoodcockS. (2015). An investigation of teachers’ awareness and willingness to engage with a self-directed professional development package on gifted and talented education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1),1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n1.1
28.
GobertM. T. (2019). Transformation in the English language education in the UAE. In. GallagherK. (Ed.), Education in the United Arab Emirates (pp. 113–126). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7736-5_7
29.
GunnarsdotirR. (2013). Innovation education: Defining the phenomenon. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of innovation education (pp. 17–28). Routledge.
Kaplan SayiA. (2018). Teachers’ views about the teacher training program for gifted education. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(4), 262–273.https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1180288.pdf
32.
JenE. (2017). Affective interventions for high-ability students from 1984–2015: A review of published studies. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(3), 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17715305
33.
LiebermanA.MillerL. (2011). Learning communities: The starting point for professional learning is in schools and classrooms. Journal of Staff Development, 32(4), 16–20. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ941372
34.
Ministry of Cabinet Affairs. (2015). Retrieved fromwww.uaecabinet.ae
NoonanS. J. (2013). Educating wizards: Developing talent through innovation education. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of innovation education (pp. 245–257). Routledge.
38.
PetersS. J.JollyJ. L. (2018). The influence of professional development in gifted education on the frequency of instructional practices. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45(2), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0260-4
39.
RidgeN.KippelsS.FarahS. (2017, April). Curriculum development in UAE, Policy Paper No. 18. Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation.Retrieved fromhttps://bit.ly/3kFB53V
40.
RowanL.TownendG. (2016). Early career teachers’ beliefs about their preparedness to teach: Implications for the professional development of teachers working with gifted and twice-exceptional students. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1242458
41.
RyanM.TaylorM.BaroneA.Della PescaL.DurganaS.OstrowskiK.PikaardK. (2017). Teacher as researcher, teacher as scholar, and teacher as leader. The New Educator, 13(2), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2016.1144120
42.
RyanM. G. (2018). Disrupting professional learning structures in schools by inviting teachers to design their own learning: An elementary principal conducts practitioner action research. Planning and Changing, 48(1), 43–65. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1231547
43.
SabitzerB.Demarle-MeuselH.PainerC. (2019). A COOL lab for teacher education. In Kowalczuk-WalêdziakM.Korzeniecka-BondarA.DanilewiczW.LauwersG. (Eds.), Rethinking teacher education for the 21st century: Trends, challenges and new directions (pp. 319–328). Verlag Barbara Budrich.
44.
ShavininaL. V. (2013). The fundamentals of innovation education. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of innovation education (pp. 29–51). Routledge.
45.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://www.apa.org/ed/schools/gifted/rethinking-giftedness.pdf
46.
UnalZ.UnalA. (2012). The impact of years of teaching experience on the classroom management approaches of elementary school teachers. International Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 41–60. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED533783.pdf
47.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2013). From creativity education to innovation education: What will it take? In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of innovation education (pp. 111–127). Routledge.
48.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.BrownE. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306323
49.
WelshM. E. (2011). Measuring teacher effectiveness in gifted education: Some challenges and suggestions. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(5), 750–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X11424882
50.
ZhonggenY. (2015). Blended learning over two decades. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 11(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2015070101
