The use of a classroom observation tool to monitor differentiation strategies is described, and relevant research findings using the form are reported. The advantages for using this approach to document differentiation are discussed as are the reasons teachers may question its intent. Applications for practice include its use as a self-assessment tool to guide teaching improvement in differentiation.
AveryL. D.VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2002). The impact of gifted education evaluation at state and local levels: Translating results into action. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 153-176.
2.
BorkoH.MayfieldV.MarionS. F.FlexerR. J.CumboK. (1993). Teachers developing ideas and practices about mathematics performance assessment: Successes, stumbling blocks, and implications for professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 259-278. Retrieved from www.cse.ucla.edu/products/Reports/TECH423.pdf
3.
GaretM. S.PorterA. C.DesimoneL.BirmanB. F.YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective: Results from a national sample of teachers. American Research Journal, 38, 915-945.
4.
KennedyM. (1999). Form and substance in mathematics and science professional development. NISE Brief, 3(2), 1-7.
5.
KimballS. M. (2002). Analysis of feedback, enabling conditions and fairness perceptions of teachers in three school districts with new standards-based evaluation systems. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16, 241-268.
6.
SandersW. I.RiversJ. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future students’ academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
7.
SandersW. L.HornS. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVASS) database: Implications for educational research and evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 247-256.
8.
SulakT. N.JohnsenS. K. (2012). Assessments for measuring student outcomes. In JohnsenS. K. (Ed.), Using the NAGC pre-K-grade 12 gifted programming standards (p. 283-306). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
9.
TomlinsonC. A.CallahanC. (1992). Contributions of gifted education to general education in a time of change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 183-189.
10.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2004). Assessing classroom practice: The use of a structured observation form. In VanTassel-BaskaJ.FengA. (Eds.), Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement (pp. 87-108). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
11.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.BassG. M.RiesR. R.PolandD.AveryL. D. (1998). A national pilot study of science curriculum effectiveness for high ability learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 200-211.
12.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.LittleC. (Eds.). (2011). Content based curriculum for high ability learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
13.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.ZuoL.AveryL. D.LittleC. A. (2002). A curriculum study of gifted student learning in the language arts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 30-44.
14.
WenglinskyH. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
15.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF. X.DobynsS. M.SalvinT. J. (1993). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120-146.
16.
WestbergK. L.DaoustM. E. (2003). The results of the replication of the classroom practices survey replication in two states. The National Research Center on Gifted and Talented Newsletter, Fall, 3-8.
