School improvement efforts often focus on students who perform below grade level. These improvement efforts typically focus on improving instruction, often through a framework and professional development. The question remains, how do students who are gifted and talented respond to this type of instruction? We observed 48 students in their classrooms, interviewed them, and then held focus groups to gain their perspectives on the instructional framework being implemented. The students suggested that teacher modeling was valuable, that group work should include accountability, and that homework should be reasonable. They had mixed views on the importance of a clearly stated learning target and did not experience any small group instruction. Recommendations for school improvement that are inclusive of students who are gifted are included.
BettsJ. R. (2009). The San Diego blueprint for student success: A retrospective overview and commentary. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14, 120-129.
2.
BrownT. (1996). The phenomenology of the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 115-150.
3.
BrozoW. G. (2006). Tales out of school: Accounting for adolescents in a literacy reform community. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49, 410-418.
4.
CooperH. M. (2006). The battle over homework: Common ground for administrators, teachers, and parents (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
5.
CoreyD. L.PhelpsG.BallD. L.DemonteJ.HarrisonD. (2012). Explaining variation in instructional time: An application of quantile regression. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 146-163.
6.
CorrentiR.RowanB. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in three comprehensive school reform projects. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 298-338.
7.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
8.
CroccoM. S.CostiganA. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability: Urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42, 512-535.
9.
DaveyB. (1983). Think aloud: Modeling the cognitive processes for reading comprehension. Journal of Reading, 27(1), 44-47.
10.
DeeT.JacobB. (2011). The impact of no Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 30, 418-446.
11.
DukeD. L.JacobsonM. (2011). Tackling the toughest turnaround: Low-performing high schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 34-38.
12.
EpsteinR. A.PiankoD.SchnurJ.WynerJ. (2011). Are we lifting all boats or only some?Education Next, 11(3), 46-53.
13.
FisherD.FreyN. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
14.
FisherD.FreyN.LappD (2011). Coaching middle-level teachers to think aloud improves comprehension instruction and student reading achievement. The Teacher Educator, 46, 231-243.
15.
GilesD. (2010). Developing pathic sensibilities: A critical priority for teacher education programmes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1511-1519.
16.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine.
17.
HillH. C.RowanB.BallD. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371-406.
18.
KaftanJ. M.BuckG. A.HaackA. (2006). Using formative assessments to individualize instruction and promote learning. Middle School Journal, 37(4), 44-49.
19.
KerryD.ArmourK. (2000). Sport sciences and the promise of phenomenology: Philosophy, method, and insight. Quest, 52(1), 1-17.
20.
KlassenR. M.KrawchukL. L. (2009). Collective motivation beliefs of early adolescents working in small groups. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 101-120.
21.
LevineT. H. (2005). What research tells us about the impact and challenges of smaller learning communities. Peabody Journal of Education, 85, 276-289.
22.
MarshJ. A.McCaffreyD. F. (2011). What are achievement gains worth—To teachers?Phi Delta Kappan, 93(4), 52-56.
McNultyR. J.QuagliaR. J. (2007). Rigor, relevance and relationships. School Administrator, 64(8), 18-24.
25.
NeumanW. L. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
26.
O’BrienD. G.StewartR. A.MojeE. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442-463.
27.
RampeyB. D.DionG. S.DonahueP. L. (2009). The nation’s report card: Long-term trend 2008 (National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2009479. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
28.
SantaC. M. (2006). A vision for adolescent literacy: Ours or theirs?Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49, 466-476.
29.
SimonsenB.LittleC. A.FairbanksS. (2010). Effects of task difficulty and teacher attention on the off-task behavior of high-ability students with behavior issues. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 245-260.
30.
SlavinR. E. (1996). Cooperative learning in middle and secondary schools. Clearing House, 69, 200-204.
31.
SlavinR. E. (1999). Roots and wings program. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 74-79.
32.
SwensonL. M.StroughJ. (2008). Adolescents’ collaboration in the classroom: Do peer relationships or gender matter?Psychology in the Schools, 45, 715-728.
33.
Van ManenM. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York: State University of New York Press.
