Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

General education teachers often have limited background in recognizing and responding to advanced academic potential in the classroom. This often may mean that advanced learners experience little instruction that provides them with appropriate levels of challenge. Professional learning opportunities and instructional resources reflecting best practices in gifted education can support classroom teachers in challenging all learners and looking for learners who would benefit from more advanced instruction. Project LIFT engaged classroom teachers at grades K-3 in a professional learning initiative supporting their capacity to recognize and respond to high-potential behaviors. Teachers collaboratively developed and implemented inquiry-focused, standards-based lessons in reading and mathematics. Classroom observations demonstrated increases over time on key indicators of academic rigor and classroom discourse.

Keywords

classroom observations professional learning advanced learners Javits program inquiry learning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bell

C. A.

Gitomer

D. H.

McCaffrey

D. F.

Hamre

B. K.

Pianta

R. C.

(2012). An argument approach to observation protocol validity. Educational Assessment, 17(2-3), 62–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2012.715014

Boston

(2012). Assessing instructional quality in mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 76–104. https://doi.org/10.1086/666387

Bybee

R. W.

(2014). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Personal reflections and contemporary implications. Science and Children, 51(8), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/sc14_051_08_10

Bybee

R. W.

Taylor

J. A.

Gardner

Van Scotter

Powell

J. C.

Westbrook

Landes

(2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. BSCS, 5, 88–98. https://bscs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/bscs_5e_full_report-1.pdf

Callahan

C. M.

Moon

T. R.

(2014). National surveys of gifted programs: Executive summary. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Virginia.

Candela

A. G.

Wonsavage

F. P.

de Araujo

Otten

(2022). Rethinking classroom data collection. In Lischka

A. E.

Dyer

E. B.

Jones

R. S.

Lovett

J. N.

Strayer

Drown

(Eds.), Proceedings of the forty-fourth annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education. Middle Tennessee State University.

Casabianca

J. M.

McCaffrey

D. F.

Gitomer

D. H.

Bell

C. A.

Hamre

B. K.

Pianta

R. C.

(2013). Effect of observation mode on measures of secondary mathematics teaching. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(5), 757–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413486987

Curby

T. W.

Johnson

Mashburn

A. J.

Carlis

(2016). Live versus video observations: Comparing the reliability and validity of two methods of assessing classroom quality. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(8), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915627115

Desimone

L. M.

(2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140

10.

Desimone

L. M.

Garet

M. S.

(2015). Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 252–263. https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v7i3.515

11.

Fogarty

E. A.

Firmender

J. M.

Little

C. A.

(In press). Not just for science: Using the 5E instructional model to engage young children’s thinking in mathematics and reading. Gifted Child Today.

12.

Gilson

C. M.

Gallagher

Connors

T. W.

Pereira

Dash

L. O.

Little

C. A.

(2024). Universal educator preparation in gifted education [Framing paper]. National Association for Gifted Children.

13.

Gridley

Bywater

T. J.

Hutchings

J. M.

(2018). Comparing live and video observation to assess early parent-child interactions in the home. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(6), 1818–1829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1039-y

14.

Guskey

T. R.

(2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3/4), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512

15.

Harradine

C. C.

Coleman

M. R. B.

Winn

D.-M. C.

(2014). Recognizing academic potential in students of color: Findings of U-STARS∼PLUS. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213506040

16.

Hill

H. C.

Beisiegel

Jacob

(2013). Professional development research: Consensus, crossroads, and challenges. Educational Researcher, 42(9), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13512674

17.

Horn

C. V.

(2015). Young scholars: A talent development model for finding and nurturing potential in underserved populations. Gifted Child Today, 38(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514556532

18.

Horn

C. V.

Little

C. L.

Maloney

K. N.

McCullough

C. A.

(2021). Young scholars model: A comprehensive approach for developing talent and pursuing equity in gifted education. Prufrock Press.

19.

Kalinowski

Gronostaj

Vock

(2019). Effective professional development for teachers to foster students’ academic language proficiency across the curriculum: A systematic review. AERA Open, 5(1), 2332858419828691. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419828691

20.

Little

C. A.

Adelson

J. L.

Kearney

K. L.

Cash

O’Brien

(2018). Early opportunities to strengthen academic readiness: Effects of summer learning on mathematics achievement. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738052

21.

LoCasale-Crouch

DeCoster

Cabell

Hamre

Downer

Pianta

Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE) . (2012). Variation in teachers’ instructional interactions within two interventions: Associations with intervention responsiveness and teacher/classroom characteristics. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. Corpus ID: 142861781. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530499.pdf

22.

Matsumura

L. C.

Garnier

H. E.

Slater

H. C.

Boston

M. D.

(2008). Toward measuring instructional strategies “at-scale.”. Educational Assessment, 13(4), 267–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190802602541

23.

McBee

M. T.

Peters

S. J.

Miller

E. M.

(2016). The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(4), 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216656256

24.

McChesney

Aldridge

J. M.

(2019). A review of practitioner-led evaluation of teacher professional development. Professional Development in Education, 45(2), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1452782

25.

McCoach

D. B.

Peters

Gambino

A. J.

Long

Siegle

(2024). Who are we measuring? Teacher effects in gifted and talented teacher rating scales. Exceptional Children, 90(4), 422–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029241247035

26.

Miller

E. M.

(2009). The effect of training in gifted education on elementary classroom teachers’ theory-based reasoning about the concept of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(1), 65–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320903300104

27.

Moon

T. R.

Brighton

C. M.

(2008). Primary teachers' conceptions of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(4), 447–480. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2008-793

28.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers . (2010). Common core state standards. https://corestandards.org/

29.

Neergaard

Smith

(2012). Comparing beginning teachers' instructional quality growth on subject-specific and global measures. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED535664

30.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Clarenbach

(2012). Unlocking emergent talent: Supporting high achievement of low-income, high-ability students. National Association for Gifted Children. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537321.pdf

31.

Pelatti

C. Y.

Dynia

J. M.

Logan

J. A.

Justice

L. M.

Kaderavek

(2016). Examining quality in two preschool settings: Publicly funded early childhood education and inclusive early childhood education classrooms. Child and Youth Care Forum, 45(6), 829–849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-016-9359-9

32.

Peters

S. J.

Rambo-Hernandez

Makel

M. C.

Matthews

M. S.

Plucker

J. A.

(2017). Should millions of students take a gap year? Large numbers of students start the school year above grade level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217701834

33.

Pianta

R. C.

Hamre

B. K.

(2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09332374

34.

Pianta

R. C.

La Paro

K. M.

Hamre

B. K.

(2008). Classroom assessment scoring system™: Manual K-3. Paul H. Brookes.

35.

Pratt

Logan

(2014). Improving language-focused comprehension instruction in primary-grade classrooms: Impacts of the let’s know! experimental curriculum. Educational Psychology Review, 26(3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9275-1

36.

Robinson

Adelson

J. L.

Kidd

K. A.

Cunningham

C. M.

(2018). A talent for tinkering: Developing talents in children from low-income households through engineering curriculum. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738049

37.

Siegle

Hamilton

McCoach

D. B.

Gubbins

E. J.

Callahan

C. M.

Long

D. A.

(2019). What really happens in gifted education: A portrait of three states. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

38.

Stanulis

R. N.

Little

Wibbens

(2012). Intensive mentoring that contributes to change in beginning elementary teachers’ learning to lead classroom discussions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.08.007

39.

Supovitz

Sirinides

(2018). The linking study: An experiment to strengthen teachers’ engagement with data on teaching and learning. American Journal of Education, 124(2), 161–189. https://doi.org/10.1086/695610. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26542687

40.

Swanson

J. D.

(2006). Breaking through assumptions about low-income, minority gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000103

41.

Swanson

J. D.

(2016). Drawing upon lessons learned: Effective curriculum and instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse gifted learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 172–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216642016

42.

Tyner

(2024). The broken pipeline: Advanced education policies at the local level. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/broken-pipeline-advanced-education-policies-local-level

43.

VanTassel-Baska

Johnson

Avery

L. D.

(2002). Using performance tasks in the identification of economically disadvantaged and minority gifted learners: Findings from project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620204600204

44.

VanTassel-Baska

Xuemei Feng

Brown

Bracken

Stambaugh

French

McGowan

Worley

Quek

Bai

(2008). A study of differentiated instructional change over 3 years. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(4), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208321809

45.

Wei

R. C.

Darling-Hammond

Adamson

(2010). Professional development in the United States: Trends and challenges. Phase II of a three-phase study. Executive summary. National Staff Development Council.

46.

Wilcox-Herzog

McLaren

Ward

Wong

(2013). Results from the quality early childhood training program. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 34(4), 335–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2013.845635

Lifting Learning Experiences: Supporting Change in Teacher Practice Over Time

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References