This study reflects on secondary elective teachers’ perceptions of their roles in supporting academically advanced students in mixed-ability classrooms. Despite many states mandating gifted education, services and teacher training vary. The current study uses an interpretative phenomenological analytical approach, focusing on secondary elective teachers within a North Texas district. Through semi-structured interviews, the research investigates instructional differentiation, grouping, and rigor to understand how teachers address advanced learners’ needs and their overall attitudes toward gifted education. The researchers identified four themes, which highlighted teachers’ use of instructional strategies, the flexibility in elective settings to adapt learning experiences, several psychosocial characteristics of their gifted-identified students, and varying perceptions of students’ needs.
AbuN. K.AkkanatÇGökdereM. (2017). Teachers’ views about the education of gifted students in regular classrooms. Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 7(2), 87–109. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323838217_Teachers’_Views_about_the_Education_of_Gifted_Students_in_Regular_Classrooms_Turk_Ustun_Zeka_ve_Egitim_Dergisi
2.
AnyanF. (2013). The influence of power shifts in data collection and analysis stages: A focus on qualitative research interview. The Qualitative Report, 18(18), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2013.1525
3.
AshworthP. (1999). “Bracketing” in phenomenology: Renouncing assumptions in hearing about student cheating. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(6), 707–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183999235845
4.
BarbierK.StruyfE.DoncheV. (2021). Teachers’ beliefs about and educational practices with high-ability students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109(1), 103566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103566.
5.
BondieR. S.DahnkeC.ZushoA. (2019). How does changing “one-size-fits-all” to differentiated instruction affect teaching?Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 336–362. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821130
6.
BorlandJ. H. (2003).The death of giftedness: Gifted education without gifted children (pp. 105–126). Teachers College Press.
7.
BrightonC. M.HertbergH. L.MoonT. R.TomlinsonC. A.CallahanC. M. (2005). The feasibility of high-end learning in a diverse middle school (RM05210). University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
CrawfordB. F.SnyderK. E.AdelsonJ. L. (2020). Exploring obstacles faced by gifted minority students through Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory. High Ability Studies, 31(1), 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1568231
10.
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
11.
CrossT. L.CrossJ. R. (2017). Maximizing potential: A school-based conception of psychosocial development. High Ability Studies, 28(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2017.1292896
12.
DaiD. Y.ChenF. (2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(3), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213490020
13.
FischerC. T. (2009). Bracketing in qualitative research: Conceptual and practical matters. Psychotherapy Research, 19(4–5), 583–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300902798375
14.
GodorB. P. (2019). Gifted metaphors: Exploring the metaphors of teachers in gifted education and their impact on teaching the gifted. Roeper Review, 41(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1553219
15.
JohnsenS. K.KaulC. R. (2019). Assessing teacher beliefs regarding research-based practices to improve services for GT students. Gifted Child Today, 42(4), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217519862332
16.
LeungK. C. (2018). An updated meta-analysis on the effect of peer tutoring on tutors’ achievement. School Psychology International, 40(2), 200–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034318808832
McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2007). What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted?Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302719
19.
MoonT. R.TomlinsonC. A.CallahanC. M. (1995). Academic diversity in the middle school: Results of a national survey of middle school administrators and teachers (Research Monograph 95124). University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
20.
MoustakasC. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage Publications, Inc.
NowellL. S.NorrisJ. M.WhiteD. E.MoulesN. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
27.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.SubotnikR. F.WorrellF. C. (2015). Antecedent and concurrent psychosocial skills that support high levels of achievement within talent domains. High Ability Studies, 26(2), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1095077
28.
PluckerJ. A.DilleyA. (2016). Ability grouping and the socioemotional development of gifted kids. In NeihartM.ReisS. M.RobinsonN. M.MoonS. M. (Eds.) The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (2nd ed., pp. 231–240). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003238928
29.
PietkiewiczI.SmithJ. A. (2014). A practical guide to using interpretative phenomenological analysis in qualitative research psychology. Psychological Journal, 20(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.14691/CPPJ.20.1.7
30.
Reis-JorgeJ.FerreiraM.Olcina-SempereG.MarquesB. (2021). Perceptions of giftedness and classroom practice with gifted children – an explanatory study of primary school teachers. Qualitative Research in Education, 10(3), 291–315. https://doi.org/10.17583/qre.8097
31.
ReisS. M.GubbinsE. J.BriggsC. J.SchreiberF. J.RichardsS.JacobsJ. K.EckertR. D.RenzulliJ. S. (2004). Reading instruction for talented readers: Case studies documenting few opportunities for continuous progress. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(4), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800406
32.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (2009). The schoolwide enrichment model: A focus on student strengths and interests. In RenzulliJ. S.GubbinsE. J.McMillenK. S.EckertR. D.LittleC. A. (Eds.), Systems and models for developing progroms for the gifted and talented (2nd ed., pp. 323–352). Prufrock Press.
33.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (2017). Schools are places for talent development. In PluckerJ. A.RinnA. N.MakelM. (Eds.), From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice (pp. 21–42). Prufrock Press Inc.
34.
RinnA. N.MunR. U.HodgesJ. (2022). 2020–2021 State of the states in gifted education. National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. https://nagc.org/page/state-of-the-states-report
35.
RussellJ. L. (2018). High school teachers’ perceptions of giftedness, gifted education, and talent development. Journal of Advanced Academics, 29(4), 275–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X18775658
SzymanskiA.CroftL.GodorB. (2018). Determining attitudes toward ability: A new tool for new understanding. Journal of Advanced Academics, 29(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17738989
TomlinsonC. A. (2004). The Möbius effect: Addressing learner variance in schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 516–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370060601.
VoglK.PreckelF. (2014). Full-time ability grouping of gifted students: Impacts on social self-concept and school-related attitudes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513795
44.
WangH.KingR. B.McInerneyD. M. (2021). Ability grouping and student performance: A longitudinal investigation of teacher support as a mediator and moderator. Research Papers in Education, 38(2), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2021.1961293
