This study examined teacher beliefs regarding research-based practices in gifted education and how these beliefs or other barriers influenced the implementation of practices in their classroom. An online survey was sent to gifted education teachers in a large suburban district. The teacher belief statements were developed based on the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards. Although a majority of the teachers agreed with the research-based belief statements, fewer implemented the practice in their classrooms frequently. If they did implement the practice, they perceived positive student outcomes. Teachers did identify these obstacles related to implementation: limited resources, training, skill level, and the school system curriculum.
AdamsC. M.CotabishA.RicciM. C. (2014). Using the next generation science standards with gifted and advanced learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
2.
BrullesD.SaundersR.CohnS. J. (2010). Improving performance for gifted students in a cluster grouping model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 327-350.
3.
CaseyK. M. A. (2000). Mentors’ contributions to gifted adolescents’ affective, social, and vocational development. Roeper Review, 22, 227-231.
4.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM. U. M. (Eds.) (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa. Retrieved from http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/nd_v1.pdf
5.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.MarronM. A.CastellanoJ. A.ClinkenbeardP. R.RogerK.SmithD. (2010). Guidelines for developing an academic acceleration policy: National Work Group on Acceleration. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 180-203.
6.
ConleyD. T.GoldmanP. (1995). Reactions from the field to state restructuring legislation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31, 512-538.
7.
DixonF. A.YsselN.McConnellJ. M.HardinT. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 111-127. doi:10.1177/0162353214529042
8.
GentryM.FugateC. M. (2013). Cluster grouping options: Total school cluster grouping. In CallahanC. M.DavisH. H. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education (pp. 212-225). New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
GoreeK. K. (2011). An exploratory study of the factors that influence pre-service teachers’ instructional practices with diverse students (Doctoral Dissertation, Baylor University, Waco, TX). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/handle/2104/8262
10.
HébertT. P.OlenchakF. R. (2000). Mentors for gifted underachieving males: Developing potential and realizing promise. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 196-207.
11.
Hertberg-DavisH. L.BrightonC. M. (2006). Support and sabotage: Principals’ influence on middle school teachers’ responses to differentiation. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 90-102.
12.
Hughes-LynchC. E.KettlerT.Shaunessy-DedrickE.VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2014). A teacher’s guide to using the common core state standards with gifted and advanced learners in the English language arts. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
13.
JohnsenS. K. (2014). Focusing on challenges that influence gifted education programs. Tempo, 35(2), 6-15.
14.
JohnsenS. K.ClarenbachJ. (2017). Using the national gifted education standards for Pre-K-Grade 12 professional development. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
15.
JohnsenS. K.KaulC. R. (2016). Texas GT teachers’ beliefs and practices survey: Supporting advocacy efforts. Tempo, 37(1), 6-18.
16.
JohnsenS. K.RyserG. R.AssoulineS. (2014). The practitioner’s guide for using the common core state standards for mathematics. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
17.
JohnsenS. K.SheffieldL. J. (Eds.). (2013). Using the common core state standards for mathematics with gifted and advanced learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
18.
JohnsenS. K. (Ed.). (2012). NAGC Pre-K-Grade 12 gifted education programming standards: A guide to planning and implementing high-quality services. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
19.
KaplanS. N. (2014). Emphasizing the uncommon about the common core state standards. Gifted Child Today, 37, 126-127.
20.
KaulC. R.JohnsenS. K. (2016, February). Texas teachers of gifted children: A report on teacher beliefs, practices, results, and barriers (Report Submitted to the Texas Association for Gifted and Talented). Austin, TX: Author. Retrieved from https://www.txgifted.org/files/TAGT%20Beliefs%20Presentation.pdf
21.
KulikJ. A.KulikC. L. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 415-428.
22.
KulikJ. A.KulikC. L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77.
23.
LatzA. O.Speirs NeumeisterK. L.AdamsC. M.PierceR. L. (2009). Peer coaching to improve classroom differentiation: Perspectives from project CLUE. Roeper Review, 31, 27-39.
24.
Learning Forward. (2011). Standards for professional learning. Oxford, OH: Author.
25.
Learning Forward. (2015). Powerful designs for professional learning (3rd ed.). Oxford, OH: Author.
26.
McIntryeE.KryleD. W. (2006). The success and failure of one mandated reform for young children. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1130-1144.
27.
MissettT. C.BrunnerM. M.CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.AzanoA. P. (2014). Exploring teacher beliefs and use of acceleration, ability grouping, and formative assessment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 245-268.
28.
MoonT. R. (2009). Myth 16: High-stakes tests are synonymous with rigor and difficulty. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 277-279.
29.
MoonT. R.BrightonC. M. (2008). Primary teachers’ conceptions of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 447-480.
30.
National Association for Gifted Children, & The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2015). 2014-2015 state of the states in gifted education: Policy and practice data. Washington, DC: Author.
31.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). NAGC Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards: A blueprint for quality gifted education programs. Washington, DC: Author.
32.
PleissM. K.FeldhusenJ. F. (1995). Mentors, role models, and heroes in the lives of gifted children. Educational Psychologist, 30, 159-169.
33.
PresseyS. L. (1949). Educational acceleration: Appraisals and basic problems (Ohio State University Studies, Bureau of Educational Research Monograph No. 31). Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
34.
RogersK. B. (2007). Lesson learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382-396.
35.
SouthernW. T.JonesE. D. (2004). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM.U.M. (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 5-17). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa. Retrieved from http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/nd_v1.pdf
36.
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.
37.
SwansonJ. D. (2016). Drawing upon lessons learned: Effective curriculum and instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse gifted learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 172-191.
38.
VanTassel-Baska. (2010). The efficacy of academic acceleration for gifted minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 189-208.
39.
VanTassel-Baska. (Ed.). (2013). Using the common core state standards for English language arts with gifted and advanced learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
40.
ZimmermanJ. (2006). Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do about it. NASSP Bulletin, 90, 238-249.
