Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Teachers influence student development through their perceptions, expectations, and instructional practices. Further, teachers’ reflections on practice reveal aspects of their perceptions of students and their understanding of how their actions influence student achievement. In this study, we sought to explore (a) how teachers see themselves as influencing student behaviors; and (b) changes in these perceptions before and after professional learning concerning the development of high potential. Using data collected from a Javits-funded research project, we completed an interpretive qualitative study, using thematic analysis to analyze interviews with 16 participants over multiple timepoints. Guided by our research questions, interviews were coded, with categories and themes refined collaboratively. Findings indicate that teachers perceived themselves to cultivate student potential in three ways: through (a) classroom environments, (b) their own perceptions, and (c) their instructional practices. We discuss implications of these findings regarding the development of student potential and provide suggestions for future research.

Keywords

professional learning high potential teacher perceptions teacher beliefs thematic analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akgül

(2021). Teachers’ metaphors and views about gifted students and their education. Gifted Education International, 37(3), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429421988927

Babad

(2009). The social psychology of the classroom. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203872475

Bandura

Adams

N. E.

(1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(4), 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01663995

Begeny

J. C.

Eckert

T. L.

Montarello

S. A.

Storie

M. S.

(2008). Teachers’ perceptions of students’ Reading abilities: An examination of the relationship between teachers’ judgements and students’ performance across a continuum of rating methods. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.43

Betts

(2016, July 20). Gifted education standards to guide teaching and deepen student learning. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/gifted-education-standards-guide-teaching-and-deepen-student-learning .

Bong

Skaalvik

E. M.

(2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021302408382

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brigandi

C. B.

Weiner

J. M.

Siegle

Gubbins

E. J.

Little

C. A.

(2018). Environmental perceptions of gifted secondary students engaged in an evidence-based enrichment practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218758

Burgess

Greaves

(2013). Test scores, subjective assessment, and stereotyping of ethnic minorities. Journal of Labor Economics, 31(3), 535–576. https://doi.org/10.1086/669340

10.

Bybee

R. W.

Taylor

J. A.

Gardner

Van Scotter

Powell

J. C.

Westbrook

Landes

(2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Office of Science Education, National Institutes of Health. https://fremonths.org/ourpages/auto/2008/5/11/1210522036057/bscs5efullreport2006.pdf

11.

Caelli

Ray

Mill

(2003). Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200201

12.

Callahan

C. M.

(2009). Myth 3: A family of identification myths: Your sample must be the same as the population. There is a “silver bullet” in identification. There must be “winners” and “losers” in identification and programming. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 239–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346826

13.

Callahan

C. M.

Moon

T. R.

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

14.

Century

(2023). The power of teachers’ perceptions. Phi Delta Kappan, 104(6), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217231161540

15.

Clinkenbeard

P. R.

(2012). Motivation and gifted students: Implications of theory and research. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 622–630. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21628

16.

Creswell

Poth

(2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.

17.

Desimone

Porter

A. C.

Garet

Yoon

Birman

(2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024002081

18.

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

19.

Desimone

L. M.

Garet

M. S.

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

20.

Dimitriadis

(2012). Provision for mathematically gifted children in primary schools: An investigation of four different methods of organizational provision. Educational Review, 64(2), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.598920

21.

Elliott

Timulak

(2005). Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research. In Miles

Gilbert

(Eds.), A handbook of research methods for clinical and health psychology (pp. 147–159). Oxford University Press.

22.

Ennis

C. D.

(1998). Shared expectations: Creating a joint vision for urban schools. In Brophy

(Ed.), Advances in research on teaching. Expectations in the classroom (Vol. 7, pp. 151–182). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

23.

Fiedler

E. D.

Lange

R. E.

Winebrenner

(1993). In search of reality: Unraveling the myths about tracking, ability grouping, and the gifted. Roeper Review, 16(1), 4–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199309553525

24.

Fraser

B. J.

(2000). Instructional environment. In Kazdin

A. E.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 308–311). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/10519-124

25.

Garet

Porter

Desimone

Birman

Yoon

(2001). What makes professional development effective? Analysis of a national sample of teachers. American Education Research Journal, 38(3), 915–945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915

26.

Garet

Wayne

Stancavage

Taylor

Eaton

Walters

Doolittle

(2011). Middle school mathematics professional development impact study: Findings after the second year of implementation (NCEE 2011-2024). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

27.

Garet

M. S.

Cronen

Eaton

Kurki

Ludwig

Jones

Uekawa

Falk

Bloom

Doolittle

Zhu

Sztejnberg

Silverberg

(2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early Reading instruction and achievement. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

28.

Gentry

Gray

Whiting

G. W.

Maeda

Pereira

(2019). Access denied/System failure: Gifted education in the United States: Laws, access, equity, and missingness across the country by locale, title I school status, and race. http://journal.um-surabaya.ac.id/index.php/JKM/article/view/2203.

29.

Gersten

Dimino

Jayanthi

Kim

J. S.

Santoro

L. E.

(2010). Teacher study group: Impact of the professional development model on Reading instruction and student outcomes in first grade classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 694–739. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209361208

30.

Gilson

C. M.

Polly

Strong

K. W.

(2022). Talented teachers’ perceptions of an intensive summer symposium and the need for differentiated professional learning. Journal of Advanced Academics, 33(4), 636–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X221119493

31.

Good

T. L.

Nichols

S. L.

(2001). Expectancy effects in the classroom: A special focus on improving the Reading performance of minority students in first-grade classrooms. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_6

32.

Guskey

T. R.

(2014). Planning professional learning. Educational Leadership, 71(8), 10–16.

33.

Haller-Gryc

(2022). When teachers are the gatekeepers of gifted and talented programs: Potential factors for English learners’ underrepresentation and possible solutions. Journal of English Learner Education, 14(1), 1–24. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/jele/vol14/iss1/4 .

34.

Hattie

Fisher

Frey

Gojak

L. M.

Moore

S. D.

Mellman

(2016). Visible learning for mathematics, grades K-12: What works best to optimize student learning. Corwin.

35.

Hill

C. E.

Knox

(2021). Series forward. In Elliott

Timulak

(Eds.), Essentials of descriptive-interpretive qualitative research: A generic approach (1st ed., vii–viii). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000224-000

36.

Hong

Greene

Hartzell

(2011). Cognitive and motivational characteristics of elementary teachers in general education classrooms and in gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986211418107

37.

Kaplan

Maehr

M. L.

(2007). The contribution and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 141–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9012-5

38.

Kennedy

M. M.

(2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800

39.

Layder

(1998). Sociological practice: Linking theory and research. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209946

40.

Lewis

K. D.

Novak

A. M.

(2019). Identifying and supporting culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse gifted learners: Guiding teachers through the four zones of professional learning. In Novack

Weber

(Eds.), Best practices in professional learning and teacher preparation: Vol. 2. Special topics for gifted professional development (pp. 133–157). Prufrock Press.

41.

Lichtman

(2013). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide (3rd ed.). Sage.

42.

Little

(2018, August 6). Rethink peer tutoring by gifted learners. UConn Today. https://today.uconn.edu/2018/08/op-ed-rethink-peer-tutoring-gifted-learners/.

43.

Little

C. A.

O’Brien

(2026). Lifting learning experiences: Supporting change in teacher practice over time. Gifted Child Today, 49(1), 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175251381367

44.

Maguire

Delahunt

(2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 9(3), 3351–3365. https://doi.org/10.62707/aishej.v9i3.335

45.

Matheis

Kronborg

Schmitt

Preckel

(2017). Threat or challenge? Teacher beliefs about gifted students and their relationship to teacher motivation. Gifted and Talented International, 32(2), 134–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2018.1537685

46.

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

47.

Mechtenberg

(2009). Cheap talk in the classroom: How biased grading at school explains gender differences in achievements, career choices and wages. The Review of Economic Studies, 76(4), 1431–1459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00551.x

48.

Merriam

S. B.

Grenier

R. S.

(2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

49.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.

50.

Mosley

(ed) (2013). Interview research in political science. Cornell University Press.

51.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2019). Pre-K-Grade 12 programming standards. https://www.nagc.org/sites/ default/files/standards/Intro2019.Programming.Standards.pdf.

52.

National Association for Gifted Children and Council for Exceptional Children - The Association for the Gifted. (2013a). NAGC/CEC-TAG Advanced standards in gifted education teacher preparation. https://assets.noviams.com/novi-file-uploads/nagc/pdfs-and-documents/Advanced_Standards_in_Gifted.pdf.

53.

National Association for Gifted Children and Council for Exceptional Children - The Association for the Gifted. (2013b). NAGC/CEC-TAG teacher preparation standards in gifted and talented education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562612.pdf.

54.

National Association for Gifted Children. (n.d.). Myths about gifted students. https://nagc.org/page/myths-about-gifted-students.

55.

Novak

A. M.

Jones

K. D.

(2021). Gatekeepers in gifted: A case study of the disproportionality of gifted black youth in elementary programs. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 24(2), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458920976736

56.

Nowell

L. S.

Norris

J. M.

White

D. E.

Moules

N. 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

57.

O’Connor

Joffe

(2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220

58.

Patrick

Kaplan

Ryan

A. M.

(2011). Positive classroom motivational environments: Convergence between mastery goal structure and classroom social climate. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023311

59.

Peters

S. J.

Rambo-Hernandez

Makel

M. C.

Matthews

M. S.

Plucker

J. A.

(2019). Effect of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in gifted education. AERA Open, 5(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848446

60.

Philipsen

Tondeur

Pareja Roblin

Vanslambrouck

Zhu

(2019). Improving teacher professional development for online and blended learning: A systematic meta-aggregative review. Education Technology Research and Development, 67(5), 1145–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09645-8

61.

Ritzema

E. S.

Deunk

M. I.

Bosker

R. J.

(2016). Differentiation practices in grade 2 and 3: Variations in teacher behavior in mathematics and Reading comprehension lessons. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 51(2), 50–72. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26446202

62.

Rogers

K. B.

(2006). A menu of options for grouping gifted students. Prufrock Press.

63.

Rosenthal

Jacobson

(1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

64.

Rubie-Davies

C. M.

(2008). Teacher expectations. In Good

T. L.

(Ed.), 21^st Century education: A reference handbook (pp. 254–264). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412964012.n27

65.

Rubie-Davies

C. M.

(2010a). Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of high- and low-expectation teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X101601

66.

Rubie-Davies

C. M.

(2010b). Teacher expectations and perceptions of student attributes: Is there a relationship? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X466334

67.

Rubie-Davies

C. M.

Flint

McDonald

L. G.

(2012). Teacher beliefs, teacher characteristics, and school contextual factors: What are the relationships? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 270–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02025.x

68.

Rubie-Davies

C. M.

Peterson

E. R.

Sibley

C. G.

Rosenthal

(2015). A teacher expectation intervention: Modelling the practices of high expectation teachers. Contemporary Education Psychology, 40, 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.003

69.

Saldaña

(2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.

70.

Siegle

Gubbins

E. J.

O’Rourke

Langley

S. D.

Mun

R. U.

Luria

S. R.

Little

C. A.

McCoach

D. B.

Knupp

Callahan

C. M.

Plucker

J. A.

(2016). Barriers to underserved students’ participation in gifted programs and possible solutions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(2), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216640930

71.

Siegle

Hook

T. S.

Wright

K. J.

(2024). Confronting the gordian knot: Disentangling gifted education’s major issues. Gifted Child Quarterly, 68(3), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862241239617

72.

Speirs Neumeister

K. L.

Adams

C. H.

Pierce

R. L.

Cassady

J. C.

Dixon

F. A.

(2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 479–499. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2007-503

73.

Südkamp

Kaiser

Möller

(2012). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027627

74.

Szymanski

Shaff

(2013). Teacher perspectives regarding gifted diverse students. Gifted Children, 6(1), http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/giftedchildren/vol6/iss1/1 .

75.

Thornberg

Charmaz

(2014). Grounded theory and theoretical coding. In Flick

(Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 153–169). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.n11

76.

Timmermans

A. C.

de Boer

van der Werf

M. P. C.

(2016). An investigation of the relationship between teachers’ expectations and teachers’ perceptions of student attributes. Social Psychology of Education, 19, 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-015-9326-6

77.

VanTassel-Baska

(2009). Myth 12: Gifted programs should stick out like a sore thumb. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 266–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346938

78.

Weber

C. L.

Mofield

E. L.

(2023). Considerations for professional learning supporting teachers of the gifted in pedagogical content knowledge. Gifted Child Today, 46(2), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175221149258

79.

Worrell

F. C.

Dixson

D. D.

(2022). Achieving equity in gifted education: Ideas and issues. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 79–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211068551

80.

Wycoff

Nash

W. R.

Juntune

J. E.

Mackay

(2003). Purposeful professional development: Planning positive experiences for teachers of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Today, 26(4), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2003-116

Developing Student Potential: Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References