tagt final report 2016

1"|"P a g e ""

"

"

"and"

"

Report Prepared by: Corina R. Kaul & Susan K. Johnsen

February 2016

"

Texas&Teachers&of&Gifted&Children:&A&Report&on&Teacher&Beliefs,&Practices,&

Results,&and&Barriers"

2"|"P a g e ""

Table of Contents Section 1: BACKGROUND Background .............................................................................................................................. 3 Literature Review – Best Practices ......................................................................................... 4 Table 1 - Alignment of Teacher Belief Statements with NAGC and TEA Standards .......... 5 Literature Review – Teacher Beliefs & Barriers .................................................................... 7 Literature Review – Student Outcomes & In Summary ........................................................ 8 Table 2 - Alignment of Student Learning Outcomes with NAGC Standards ...................... 9 Present Research ..................................................................................................................... 10 Research Method – Survey Instrument & Flowchart of Survey Design ............................... 11 Research Method – Procedures .............................................................................................. 12 Section 2: RESULTS: TEACHER DEMOGRAPHICS Participating Teachers – Institutions & Grade Levels .......................................................... 14 Participating Teachers – Teaching Experience ..................................................................... 15 Participating Teachers – Program Types .............................................................................. 16 Participating Teachers – Professional Background .............................................................. 17 Section 3: RESULTS: TEACHER BELIEFS & PRACTICES Teacher Beliefs – By Category ............................................................................................... 19 Teacher Beliefs - Overview ...................................................................................................... 20 Teacher Beliefs - Implementation of Practices & Benefits of Implementation .................... 21 Teacher Beliefs - Barriers to Implementation ........................................................................ 22 1: Work & Communicate with Parents .................................................................................. 24 2: Curriculum with More Depth and Complexity ................................................................. 26 3: Ability Grouping ................................................................................................................. 28 4: Create Products Matched to Interests ............................................................................... 30 5: Flexible Pacing .................................................................................................................... 32 6: Above-Level Work .............................................................................................................. 34 7: Above Grade-Level Content ............................................................................................... 36 8: Independent Research ........................................................................................................ 38 9: Mentoring ............................................................................................................................ 40 10: Different Learning Experiences ........................................................................................ 42 11: Rubrics ................................................................................................................................ 44 12: Above-Level Assessment ................................................................................................... 46 13: Placement with Higher Grade Students ........................................................................... 48 Section 4: CONCLUSION Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 51 Recommendations – Improvement of Services ...................................................................... 52 Recommendations – Professional Development .................................................................... 53 Recommendations – Advocacy & Policies ............................................................................... 54 References ............................................................................................................................... 55 "" "

3"|"P a g e ""

" "While Texas mandates services for gifted students in kindergarten through grade

12, minorities and students from low-income backgrounds continue to be underrepresented in programs, resulting in declining performance among high achievers and greater disparities among groups of gifted students (Johnsen, 2015). Unfortunately, these results in the state of Texas mirror those at the national level. At the national level, high ability students from lower income backgrounds are much less likely to achieve academic excellence than their peers from more affluent backgrounds (i.e., excellence gaps) (Plucker, Giancola, Healey, Arndt, & Wang, 2015). Even more distressing is that students in the top tenth percentile have not shown progress over the last decade (Loveless, Farkas, & Duffett, 2008).

"

National research studies suggest these possible influences on the lack of progress of gifted and talented students: high stakes testing, tightly-aligned curriculum, an absence of accountability for gifted education programs, scarce resources, teacher beliefs and a limited understanding of gifted students, and misaligned program services for gifted and talented students (Education Trust, 2013; Callahan, Moon, & Oh, 2014; Gentry, 2006; Missett, Brunner, Callahan, Moon, & Azano, 2014; Moon, 2009; Moon & Brighton, 2008; Plucker, Burroughs, & Song, 2010; Plucker, Hardesty, & Burroughs, 2013; Rakow, 2008; Siegle, Wilson, & Little, 2013; Xiang, Dahlin, Cronin, Theaker, & Durant, 2011). For example, in 1993, national funding allocated to developing gifted students was insignificant; only 2 cents out of every $100 spent on education was directed to supporting gifted education. In 2007, this amount slightly increased to 3 cents for every $100 spent on education (Callahan et al., 2014). Because of this minimal funding and these excellence gaps, researchers suggest that all teachers—gifted and general education--need to use best practices when developing the talents of gifted students. If students are not challenged, they do not develop, and more importantly, they do not learn to develop a work ethic (Reis, 2014).

To examine gifted education practices in Texas, the Texas Association for Gifted and

Talented in collaboration with Baylor University conducted an online survey to identify teacher beliefs about gifted education, current gifted education practices, factors that influence practices, and possible student learning outcomes. Results from the survey will be used to (a) improve services to gifted and talented students, (b) plan future professional development opportunities, (c) organize advocacy efforts, and (d) identify state policies and future educational goals in Texas.

Background

4"|"P a g e ""

To develop the survey, we examined research related to best practices, teacher

beliefs, obstacles to implementing best practices, and student outcomes.

Best Practices The classroom practices were selected from the National Association for Gifted

Children (NAGC, 2010) Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards and the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students (TEA, 2009). These practices are evidence-based and grounded in theory, research, and practice paradigms (CEC, 2010) and were used as the basis for the teacher belief statements (see Table 1).

Ability Grouping. The Texas State Plan (TEA, 2009) requires an array of challenging learning experiences (3.1C) where GT students are ensured opportunities to work together as a group (2.2C). While grouping and specialized courses are important for gifted students’ progress, the curriculum and instruction need to be tailored to the individual student for the greatest effects (Kulik & Kulik, 1982). One of the most prevalent myths is that gifted students are a homogeneous group with the same learning needs (Callahan et al., 2014; Reis & Renzulli, 2009). This is simply not the case. “Educational equity does not mean educational sameness. Equity respects individual differences in readiness to learn and recognizes the value of each student” because “the cornerstone of education is the flexibility to recognize the needs of the individual child” (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004, p. 2, 9). According to the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted (CSDPG) and the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) national report (2013), the most frequently cited elementary school gifted programming model includes homogeneously grouped gifted students (64%) and weekly one- to four-hour pullout programs (52%). Advanced Placement was the principal model for 91% of high school respondents. Although it is unclear from the CSDPG and NAGC report the specific number of Texas school districts that use a particular delivery model, Texas reports using the general education classroom followed by cluster classroom model at the elementary level and the Advanced Placement followed by International Baccalaureate at the secondary level (CSDPG & NAGC, 2013, p.184).

Assessments. Another best practice for both gifted and general education teachers is the use of formative, ongoing, and summative assessments of student performance (Johnsen, 2014). Assessing students provides the information needed to personalize the curriculum for the student and identify areas of interest. Above-level tests and nontraditional measures such as performances and products are also necessary to identify the gaps in knowledge and skills of gifted students (Johnsen, 2014). For example, the Texas State Plan (2009) encourages the use of the Texas Performance Standards Project (3.2C) for evaluating students’ independent research projects. Teachers should use assessment data to determine student readiness for coursework, forming flexible groups, and curriculum differentiation (Kaplan, 2014; Moon, 2009).

Literature Review

5"|"P a g e ""

!Table!1!

Alignment!of!Teacher!Belief!Statements!with!NAGC!(2010)!and!TEA!(2009)!Standards!

"I!believe….!

Related&NAGC&Standard"

Related&TEA&Standard"

!

Ability'Grouping!• gifted'students'benefit'from'working'together'in'

small'groups'with'other'gifted'or'high5ability'peers.'

!1.3.1,!4.2.2,!5.1.3!

!2.2!

Assessments!• above5level'formative,'ongoing,'and'summative,'

assessments'are'useful'for'gifted'students.'• rubrics'need'to'be'used'to'assess'gifted'and'

advanced'students’'products'and'performances.'

!2.4.1,!2.4.3,!3.1.5!

!!

2.4.2!

!2.6E!

Differentiation!• gifted'students'benefit'from'working'on'independent'

research'projects'geared'to'their'specific'interests.!• gifted'students'should'have'different'learning'

experiences'than'their'typically'performing'peers.!• gifted'students'benefit'from'flexible'pacing'

appropriate'to'their'abilities,'knowledge,'and'skills.'• gifted'students'benefit'from'content'that'has'more'

depth'and'complexity'than'the'standard'curriculum.!!• gifted'students'benefit'when'they'are'asked'to'create'

products'that'are'matched'to'their'abilities'and'interests.'

!1.7.1,!3.3.3,!5.1.4!

!1.2.1,!1.6.1,!3.1.2,!

3.1.5,!5.1.2!!!

3.1.6!!

3.1.3,!3.1.4!!!

1.7.1,!3.3.3!

!2.2;!3.1.1R,!3.2!

!2.2,!3.2!

!!

2.4.1R,!2.4.2R,!3.3R!!

3.1E!!!

3.1.1R,!3.2!

Acceleration!• gifted'students'benefit'from'doing'above5level'work.!• gifted'students'benefit'when'they'are'allowed'to'

accelerate'in'above5grade'level'content'based'on'individual'progress.!

• gifted'students'benefit'when'placed'with'students'in'higher5grade'levels'as'needed'for'acceleration.!

'

!1.6.1,!3.1.4,!5.1.1!

!1.6.1,!3.1.5,!3.1.6,!

5.1.1!!

1.6.1,!5.1.1!

!2.4,!3.2!

!2.4,!3.3!

!!

2.4,!3.3!

Collaboration'with'Others'!• gifted'students'benefit'when'a'mentor'or'tutor'

provides'personalized'instruction'in'areas'of'talent.!• it'is'important'to'work'together'and'communicate'

with'parents/guardians'to'address'their'gifted'or'advanced'child’s'strengths'and'needs.!

!1.4.1,!3.3.2,!4.1.2,!

5.1.4!!

1.5.1,!2.1.2,!2.4.5,!5.3.1!

!2.3,!5.2!

!!

2.1.1.R,!3.6R,!5.2!

Literature Review

6"|"P a g e ""

Differentiation. Johnsen (2014) identified these research-based differentiation

practices: • accelerating students within the classroom and across grade levels, • pacing according to individual rates of learning, • integrating creativity through open-ended activities, • adding depth and complexity to lessons, • formulating interdisciplinary connections, • identifying themes and broad-based concepts, • using higher order questions, • assigning student research in areas of interest, and • participating in extracurricular mentorships, competitions, online courses, and

Saturday and summer programs.

The NAGC has developed national resources with examples for differentiating math, science, and English language arts curriculum for gifted and talented students (Adams, Cotabish, & Ricci, 2014; Hughes-Lynch, Kettler, Shaunessy-Dedrick, & VanTassel-Baska, 2014; Johnsen, Ryser, & Assouline, 2014; Johnsen & Sheffield, 2013; VanTassel-Baska, 2013).

Acceleration. Acceleration is defined as an instructional intervention based on “progress through an educational program at rates faster or at ages younger than conventional” (Pressey, 1949, p. 2). Colangelo et al. (2004) presented a comprehensive review of acceleration in their classic publication, A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students. This two-volume report identified 18 types of acceleration, including continuous progress, self-paced instruction, early entrance to school, curriculum compacting Advanced Placement (AP), and grade skipping (Southern & Jones, 2004). Meta-analytic studies have been conducted (Kulik & Kulik, 1982, 1992) showing acceleration’s positive effects on gifted and talented students’ achievement and attitudes toward school.

Collaboration with others. Mentoring has been shown as critical to gifted students’ affective, social and career development (Casey, 2000). In their review of the literature, Pleiss and Feldhusen (1995) suggested that mentoring experiences should begin early and be carried on throughout the school years. As students mature, the duration of the mentoring experience should lengthen. Mentoring relationships should be “structured to include both exposure to the knowledge base and operations in the field and opportunities to examine and experience the attitudes, values, work styles, and motivation of the mentor” (Pleiss & Feldhusen, 1995, p. 167). Mentors appear to be particularly critical for students who are underachievers regardless of age, environment, and socioeconomic background (Hébert & Olenchak, 2000).

Literature Review

7"|"P a g e ""

Parents also play a crucial role in the development of their child’s gifts and talents

(Bloom, 1985). Gifts and talents are usually recognized, developed, and supported by a collaboration among teachers, parents, and mentors (Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011). Knowledgeable parents can advocate for their child at school, find the best teachers and coaches to develop their child’s talents, establish a culture of thinking in their home, and mediate the transformation of competencies into expertise (Jeffrey, 2007; Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005). Therefore, it’s essential that teachers communicate with families regarding their gifted child’s strengths and needs.

Teacher Beliefs Even if teachers are aware of researched-based practices in gifted education, they

may not incorporate them into their daily classroom routines. One reason for this lack of implementation might be the incongruence between professional presuppositions/beliefs and the teaching strategy. Teachers begin their teaching career with preconceived beliefs based on observation, personal experience, and field experience (Goree, 2011). These beliefs result, at least in part, from “observing people who taught them and using this information to draw inferences about what good teaching looks like and what makes it work” (Hammerness et al., 2005, p. 367). However, exploring the beliefs of a teacher is essential because “unexplored entering beliefs may be responsible for the perpetuation of antiquated and ineffective teaching practices” (Pajares, 1992, p. 328) or serious misconceptions about instruction (Hammerness et al., 2005).

Barriers Teachers may also not implement researched-based practices because of a variety of

barriers that relate to personal, school, administrative, and/or district challenges. Lack of confidence. One personal barrier to implementation of best practice

strategies is a lack of confidence related to one’s skills for a particular task. Bandura (1986) refers to one’s belief regarding his or her ability to execute a task as self-efficacy, and he argued that this belief is the most significant predictor of behavior. If this is accurate, then teachers’ instructional choices may be related to their confidence in executing that task (Pajaras,1992).

Teacher knowledge and skills. Another personal barrier may be that gifted education teachers are not aware of the characteristics, needs, and research-based instructional best practices. CSDPG and the NAGC (2013) reported that a majority of general education teachers had not received any gifted education training as part of their undergraduate program or professional development. Texas law does not require that gifted education is included in teacher preparation programs and requires only 30 clock hours of instruction for a certificate in gifted education, which is less time than one college course (Johnsen, 2014). This time may not be sufficient to learn the practices needed to manage a more individualized classroom and to differentiate the curriculum.

Literature Review

8"|"P a g e ""

Resources. To be able to implement differentiated practices, teachers need resources—above-level curriculum, pre/post and ongoing assessments, student record systems, enrichment materials, and materials that can be used independently (e.g., self-correcting and self-directing). Oftentimes, teachers have only the curriculum for their grade level or course and do not have a bank of curricular resources that they might use to personalize their instruction for individual gifted and talented students. They also need human resources—support from individuals who are knowledgeable about gifted education and can model research-based strategies. In addition, they need time to adapt and modify the available resources for each student.

Administrator support. Leadership is critical to the implementation of gifted education programs and services (Hertberg-Davis & Brighton, 2006). The principal needs not only to have the knowledge and skills about gifted education and its importance but also to provide time, support, and human and material resources so that the teacher can implement best practices.

District curriculum and policies. Latz, Speirs Neumeister, Adams, and Pierce (2009) found that teachers may not differentiate because not using mandated curriculum might result in lower student test scores. Some schools require that each grade level or course use the same curriculum with stringent pacing guides and monitoring. These policies limit the ability of the teacher to provide for students who may have needs for above-level curriculum and faster pacing.

Student Outcomes Student outcomes were identified for each of the NAGC programming standards

(2010): learning and development, assessment, curriculum planning, gifted programming, and professional development (Johnsen, 2012). These outcomes were identified from research-based, practice-based, or literature-based studies (CEC, 2010) and used on the TAGT/Baylor survey (see Table 2).

All of this background literature (i.e., best practices, teacher beliefs, obstacles and student outcomes) was used in the design of the research method and survey and in interpreting the results.

In Summary Research has been conducted regarding effective practices with gifted students and

survey research has investigated a nationwide sample of school districts to assess gifted programming delivery methods. Furthermore, peer-reviewed articles such as Gifted Child Today (2009) have addressed multiple gifted education myths and NAGC’s (2010) Gifted Programming Standards linked specific student outcomes to each standard. However, no study has investigated the connection between gifted educators’ instructional beliefs and implementation of instructional practices, or perceived barriers to implementation, as well as perceived resulting student outcomes.

Literature Review

9"|"P a g e ""

"Table"2!Alignment!of!Student!Learning!Outcomes!with!NAGC!(2010)!Standards!

Potential&Student&Outcome&Related&NAGC&

Student&Outcome"• learned"to"advocate"for"themselves" 1.7,"4.1"

• demonstrated"persistence"in"solving"difficult"problems"" 4.1"

• learned"how"to"access"the"resources"they"need"to"learn" 1.4,"4.1"

• demonstrated"greater"leadership" 4.3"

• been"more"confident"in"developing"products"and/or"performing"in"front"of"an"audience"

4.1"

• been"more"involved"in"selfFassessment" 1.7,"4.1"

• become"more"aware"of"their"strengths"and"needs" 1.1,"1.2,"1.4,"2.4,"4.1"

• been"more"engaged"in"the"learning"activities" 4.1"

• covered"the"subject"with"more"depth"and"complexity" 2.1,"2.4,"5.1"

• covered"the"curriculum"at"a"faster"pace" 2.1,"2.4,"5.1"

• progressed"to"aboveFlevel"content" 2.4,"5.1"

• identified"new"knowledge"and"skills"they"may"not"have"learned"before" 1.6,"4.1"

• demonstrated"more"higherFlevel"thinking"" 4.1"

• asked"higherFlevel"questions" 4.1"

• a"clear"understanding"of"the"required"components"of"a"project" 3.2"

• learned"more"about"research"methods"" 3.4"

• engaged"in"independent"research"more"often" 3.4"

• scored"higher"on"postFtests"compared"to"their"preFtests"(NAGC,"2010,)." 2.5,"2.6,"3.1"

• demonstrated"improvement"on"district"benchmark"tests"in"the"aboveFlevel"subject"

2.5,"2.6,"3.1"

• earned"a"higher"STAAR"score"than"the"previous"year"in"the"aboveFlevel"subject"

2.5,"2.6,"3.1"

• demonstrated"improvement"on"aboveFlevel"testing" 2.4,"2.5,"2.6"

• performed"better"on"the"TPSP"product"criteria" 2.5,"2.6"

• produced"more"advanced"or"higher"quality"products" 2.4,"2.5,"2.6"

• participated"in"competitive"events"related"to"their"talent" 1.4,"1.6,"1.7,"5.1"

• developed"or"strengthened"peer"relationships"with"other"members"in"their"ability"groups""

1.3,"1.4,"4.2,"4.5"

• provided"clear"feedback"to"peers" 4.2,"4.5"

• developed"or"strengthened"a"relationship"with"their"mentor"or"tutor" 1.4"

• communicated"with"their"parents/guardians"about"their"progress" 1.5"

" "

Literature Review

10"|"P a g e ""

This research examined teachers’ beliefs regarding the efficacy of instructional

practices such as ability grouping, use of assessments, curriculum differentiation, acceleration, and collaboration with others. The need for this research was underscored by the fact that over 50% of the schools did not evaluate program effectiveness (Callahan et al., 2014). Additionally, findings from this research will provide data to investigate if teachers are implementing practices, reasons for the lack of application, as well as outcomes associated with implementation of the strategy. Specifically, the research question for this study include:

• What percentage of Texas K-12 teachers agree that specific research-based practices

are effective with gifted or advanced students? • How often do Texas K-12 teachers use research-based practices in gifted education

with gifted or advanced students? • What student outcomes do Texas K-12 teachers perceive as a result of implementing

specific research-based practice? • When Texas K-12 teachers support a specific research-based practice but do not use

that practice in their classrooms, what are their barriers to implementation? && &

Present Research

11"|"P a g e ""

Survey Instrument The online survey examined whether or not teachers believed in the efficacy of

specific practices with gifted students and the extent to which these practices were implemented in their classrooms. Prior to implementation, the survey was reviewed by TAGT staff and piloted by over 10 educators serving gifted students.

The survey questionnaire designed for this research was built on 13 question sets addressing teacher beliefs and practices. Each question set began with a teacher belief statement (see Figure 1) that was aligned to the NAGC (2010) and TEA (2009) Standards (see Tables 1 & 2).

• If teachers indicated a frequent use of each practice, then they were asked to indicate perceived student outcomes resulting from this practice.

• If they indicated a belief in the practice but did not frequently apply the practice, they indicated barriers to implementation.

• Participants who did not agree with a certain teacher belief were automatically skipped to the next teacher belief question.

Figure 1. Flowchart of Survey Design

The survey concluded with demographic questions to assess teachers’ institution

type, school district, grade-level, subject(s) taught, gifted programming model(s) used, years’ experience teaching as well as professional background related to gifted education.

Participants had an option of responding or not responding to each of the questions on the survey. Individual responses remain confidential and will not be reported individually. If requested by school district GT coordinators who had 10 or more participants, aggregate summaries of data will be provided.

Research Method

12"|"P a g e ""

Procedures

1. Spring/Summer 2015. Creation, review, and piloting of survey instrument.

Submitted and received approval from IRB. 2. September 2015. TAGT sent an email (with an embedded online survey link) to their

current and past members (n = 2,094) and to district coordinators (n = 479) inviting survey participation. Survey information including a link was also included in the TAGT September newsletter.

3. October 2015. Survey information including a link was included in the TAGT October newsletter. Additionally, a reminder email was sent.

4. November 2015. Survey was closed and data were analyzed. Descriptive statistics were generated.

5. December 2015. Overall aggregated research findings were presented at the TAGT annual conference.

6. Spring 2016. If requested, aggregated district data will be reported to school districts with 10 or more completed survey respondents.

Research Method

13"|"P a g e ""

Results: Teacher

Demographics

14"|"P a g e ""

"Over"500"teachers"were"included"in"analysis,"including:"

• 467"respondents"who"took"the"survey"and"provided"demographic"information"• 40"others"who"did"not"complete"demographic"section,"but"completed"at"least"75%"

(10"or"more)"of"the"teacher"belief"statement"sections"• 507"TOTAL"

Institution&Type&

Participating"teachers"represented"151"public,"charter,"and"private"schools"from"across"the"state"of"Texas.""

• 95%"(n"="444)"employed"at"135"different"public"schools"• 3%"(n"="12)"employed"at"8"different"public"charter"schools"• 2%"(n"="11)"employed"at"8"different"private"schools"

"

"

Grade&Levels&Taught*&

*As"participants"could"indicate"more"than"one"grade"level,"percentages"total"over"100%.""

• 71%"(n"="332)"teach"students"in"preFkindergarten"to"5th"grade"(elementary)"• 22%"(n"="104)"teach"students"in"6th"to"8th"grade"(middle"school)"• 16%"(n"="75)"teach"students"in"9th"to"12th"grade"(high"school)""

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""High"school"

"" " "Middle"school " "

" "Elementary

"

"

Participating Teachers

Elementary"school"

15"|"P a g e ""

Participating"teachers"are"well"seasoned,"with"74%"indicating"over"10"years"classroom"experience."However,"in"comparison,"these"educators"typically"reported"less"experience"teaching"gifted"children."

Years&Teaching&Experience&

Number"of"Years" %" n"

1"to"3"years" 5%" 21"

4"to"10"years" 21%" 96"

More"than"10"years" 74%" 336"

&&

&&

&

Years&Teaching&Experience&Gifted&

Number"of"Years" %" n"

1"to"3"years" 18%" 83"

4"to"10"years" 33%" 152"

More"than"10"years" 49%" 222"

"

"

"


16"|"P a g e ""

"The"percentage"of"gifted"students"in"the"classroom"varied."Over"80%"of"teachers"indicate"their"classes"are"comprised"of"almost"all"gifted"or"less"than"15%"gifted"students."""#%#of#Gifted#Students#in#the#Classroom## %" n!

Less"than"5%" 20%" 90"6%"to"15%" 20%" 91"16%"to"25%" 8%" 38"

26%"to"50%" 5%" 22"51%"to"75%" 4%" 19"76%"or"more" 43%" 194"

"&

Program&Types&&

Most"(47%)"of"the"gifted"delivery"method"occurs"through"pullFout"programming.""OneFthird"of"respondents"teach"at"schools"with"giftedFonly"classrooms,"and"oneFthird"deliver"gifted"education"through"general"education."PreFAP/AP"and"cluster"classrooms"were"the"next"most"frequent"delivery"methods.""""

Gifted'Program'Model" %*" n"PullFout" 47%" 221"GiftedFonly%classes" 33%" 153"General'education" 33%" 152"PreFAP#or#AP" 17%" 78"Cluster(classroom" 16%" 73"SchoolFwide%Enrichment" 8%" 39"MultiFgrade&classes" 7%" 32"Other!(see$below)" 6%" 27"Dual%credit%classes" 3%" 14"Magnet'school" 3%" 12"International*Baccalaureate®" 2%" 11"Resource(room" 1%" 4"Note.!!As"teachers"could"indicate"more"than"program"model,"percentages"total"over"100%.!Other"includes"after"school"enrichment,"gifted"school,"giftedFonly"classes,"selfFpaced/independent"study,"pushFin,"and"subject"specific"gifted."

"


17"|"P a g e ""

Overall,"most"of"responding"teachers"(86%)"had,"at"a"minimum,"obtained"their"30"clock"hours"in"gifted"education,"and"80%"of"teachers"indicated"they"had"earned"their"annual"update.""Over"37%"had"obtained"gifted"supplemental"certification"on"their"Texas"teaching"certificate.""Almost"half"had"taken"courses"in"gifted"education;"28%"had"at"least"one"graduate"level"course"in"gifted"education,"and"13%"held"a"master’s"degree"with"a"specialization"in"gifted"education."&"

Professional#Background#in#Gifted# %*# n#

•30"clock"hours"in"gifted"education" 86%" 401"

•"6"clock"hour"annual"update(s)" 80%" 373"

•"gifted"certification"on"my"Texas"teaching"certificate" 37%" 173"

•"graduate"course(s)"in"gifted"education" 28%" 131"

•"AP"professional"development"" 24%" 110"

•"undergraduate"course(s)"in"gifted"education" 15%" 73"

•"master's"degree"with"specialization"in"gifted"education"" 13%" 60"

•"IB"professional"development"" 8%" 36"

•"doctoral"degree"with"specialization"in"gifted"education" 2%" 9"

*Note.!!As"teachers"could"indicate"all"their"professional"development,"percentages"total"over"100%.!"

" "

0%"10%"20%"30%"40%"50%"60%"70%"80%"90%"100%"


18"|"P a g e ""

" "

Results:

Teacher Beliefs & Practices

19"|"P a g e ""

&By&Category&

"As"stated"previously,"each"of"the"13"question"sets"were"introduced"with"a"teacher"belief"statement."These"researchFbased"beliefs"were"aligned"to"the"NAGC"(2010)"and"TEA"(2009)"Standards"(see"Tables"1"&"2).!Belief"statements"are"grouped"according"to"category"below:""Ability&Grouping&

1. I"believe"gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"from"working"together"in"small"groups"with"other"gifted"or"highFability"peers.""

"Assessments&

2. I"believe"aboveFlevel"formative,"ongoing,"and"summative,"assessments"are"useful"in"determining"gifted"and"advanced"students’"abilities,"knowledge,"and/or"skills."

3. I"believe"rubrics"need"to"be"used"to"assess"gifted"and"advanced"students’"products"and"performances."

"Differentiation&&&

4. I"believe"gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"from"working"on"independent"research"projects"geared"to"their"specific"interests."

5. I"believe"gifted"and"advanced"students"should"have"different"learning"experiences"than"their"typically"performing"peers.""

6. I"believe"gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"from"flexible"pacing"appropriate"to"their"abilities,"knowledge,"and"skills."

7. I"believe"gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"when"teachers"provide"curriculum"content"that"has"more"depth"and"complexity"than"the"standard"curriculum."

8. I"believe"gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"when"they"are"asked"to"create"products"that"are"matched"to"their"abilities"and"interests."""

"Acceleration&

9. I"believe"gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"from"doing"aboveFlevel"work.""10. I"believe"gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"when"they"are"allowed"to"accelerate"

in"aboveFgrade"level"content"based"on"their"individual"progress."11. I"believe"gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"when"placed"with"students"in"

higherFgrade"levels"as"needed"for"acceleration"within"their"areas"of"talent."""

Collaboration&with&Others&12. I"believe"gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"when"a"mentor"or"tutor"provides"

personalized"instruction"in"areas"of"talent."13. I"believe"it"is"important"to"work"together"and"communicate"with"

parents/guardians"to"address"their"gifted"or"advanced"child’s"strengths"and"needs.""" "

Teacher Beliefs

20"|"P a g e ""

"Overview&

"Teacher"beliefs"ranked"in"order"of"teachers’"level"of"agreement"are"reported"in"the"following"table.""(The"frequency"of"implementation"for"each"practice"is"reported"in"percentages.)"Over"90%"of"respondents"indicated"their"agreement"with"the"first"ten"researchFbased"teacher"beliefs."Each"belief"will"be"described"in"further"detail"in"the"following"section.""Table"3"GT!Beliefs:!Teacher!Agreement!and!Regularity!of!Practice!

!

Belief# Agree# Practice;Weekly#

Practice;Monthly#

Practice;Rarely#

Practice;Never#

1. Work"with"Parents" 99%" 25%" 40%" 32%" 4%"

2. Deeper"and"More"Complex"Curriculum"

99%" 71%" 21%" 6%" 1%"

3. Ability"Grouping" 98%" 78%" 17%" 3%" 2%"

4. Create"Products"Matched"to"Interests"

98%" 36%" 46%" 15%" 3%"

5. Flexible"Pacing" 98%" 52%" 28%" 11%" 8%"

6. AboveFLevel"Work" 97%" 65%" 25%" 7%" 3%"

7. AboveFGrade"Content" 97%" 41%" 29%" 14%" 15%"

8. Independent"Research" 96%" 28%" 40%" 27%" 6%"

9. Mentoring" 95%" 15%" 16%" 28%" 42%"

10. Different"Learning"Experiences"

91%" 65%" 24%" 8%" 3%"

11. Rubrics"89%" 31%" 50%" 15%" 4%"

12. AboveFLevel"Assessment" 87%" 26%" 34%" 23%" 17%"

13. Placement"with"Higher"Grade"Students"

84%" 26%" 9%" 13%" 52%"

###############################Average" 94%" 43%" 29%" 16%" 12%"

Teacher Beliefs

21"|"P a g e ""

"Implementation&of&Practices&

The"implementation"of"the"practices"did"not"necessarily"follow"the"beliefs"in"the"practices"(see"Table"3)."For"example,"while"95%"of"the"respondents"believed"in"mentoring"or"tutoring,"70%"rarely"or"never"implemented"the"practice."Similarly,"almost"twoFthirds"of"the"respondents"rarely"or"never"placed"students"in"higherFgrade"levels"based"on"their"talent"area"although"84%"believed"in"the"practice."More"surprisingly,"approximately"one"third"never"or"rarely"implemented"aboveFlevel"assessment"(40%),"worked"with"parents"(36%),"allowed"students"to"conduct"independent"research"projects"geared"to"student"interests"(33%),"or"accelerated"into"aboveFlevel"content"(29%).""

On"the"other"hand,"78%"implemented"ability"grouping,"and"71%"provided"deeper"and"more"complex"curriculum"on"a"weekly"basis."Other"practices"that"the"majority"of"the"respondents"implemented"weekly"included"different"learning"experiences"(65%),"aboveFlevel"work"(65%),"and"flexible"pacing"(52%)."

"

Benefits&of&Implementation&For"each"of"the"practices"that"respondents"implemented,"they"were"able"to"identify"how"the"practices"benefitted"the"students"from"an"array"of"choices"that"included"both"academic"and"social/emotional"benefits.""

In"the"social/emotional"area,"listed"benefits"included"strengthened"peer"relationships,"learned"persistence"in"solving"problems,"became"more"confident"in"their"abilities,"increased"interest"or"passion,"learned"how"to"access"resources,"became"more"aware"of"strengths"and"needs"through"selfFassessment,"provided"clear"feedback"to"peers,"strengthened"a"relationship"with"the"mentor,"advocated"for"themselves."

Academic"benefits"included"scoring"higher"on"benchmark,"STAAR,"or"post"tests"vs."pretests;"learning"new"knowledge;"performing"better"on"the"TPSP"product;"developing"a"clear"understanding"of"the"components"of"the"project;"becoming"more"engaged"in"learning"or"in"independent"research;"demonstrating"higherFlevel"thinking"or"asking"higher"level"questions;"creating"products"of"a"higher"quality;"covering"curriculum"at"a"faster"pace"or"advancing"to"aboveFlevel"content;"covering"the"subject"with"more"depth"and"complexity;"participating"in"competitive"events;"experiencing"more"learning"activities"in"their"area"of"interest;"developing"leadership"skills;"and"sharing"their"progress"with"their"parents/guardians."&

&&& " " " " " "

Teacher Beliefs

22"|"P a g e ""

Barriers&to&Implementation&If"teachers"did"not"implement"a"practice"but"believed"in"it,"they"were"also"able"to"add"comments"regarding"barriers"to"implementation."Teacher"identified"barriers"that"might"have"prevented"their"implementing"a"practice"from"an"array"of"factors"such"as"confidence"in"my"ability;"nonsupport"by"the"teachers"at"my"campus,"campus"administrators,"district"curriculum,"district"policy"and"practices,"or"resources"(see"Table"4)."

Table"4"Factors!Preventing!Implementation!by!Percentage!of!Teachers!Who!Never!or!Rarely!Implement*!

Barrier#Never/'Rarely''n'='

Lack#confidence#

Lack#teacher#support#

Lack#administration#

support#

District#curriculum#

District#policies#

Lack#resources# Other#

Ability"Grouping"

25" 8%" 20%" 28%" 28%" 32%" 32%" 32%"

AboveFLevel"Assessments"

173" 16%" 25%" 21%" 38%" 24%" 52%" 20%"

Rubrics" 85" 24%" 8%" 4%" 18%" 2%" 22%" 38%"

Independent"Research"Projects"

158" 8%" 20%" 10%" 30%" 11%" 37%" 39%"

Different"Learning"

Experiences"48" 21%" 23%" 19%" 33%" 23%" 52%" 23%"

Flexible"Pacing"

95" 15%" 32%" 22%" 44%" 24%" 44%" 17%"

Curriculum"with"Depth"&"Complexity"

37" 8%" 27%" 16%" 43%" 22%" 43%" 24%"

Products"Matched"to"Interest"

87" 16%" 16%" 9%" 28%" 8%" 44%" 26%"

AboveFLevel"Work"

50" 14%" 24%" 20%" 44%" 22%" 46%" 8%"

AboveFGrade"Level"Content"

143" 11%" 24%" 22%" 36%" 31%" 44%" 16%"

Accelerate"Grade"by"Subject"

271" 6%" 27%" 33%" 37%" 44%" 33%" 20%"

Mentoring"or"Tutoring"

200" 6%" 11%" 11%" 14%" 15%" 43%" 11%"

Work"with"Parents"

18" 11%" 17%" 28%" 11%" 22%" 33%" 44%"

Average# " 13%" 21%" 19%" 31%" 22%" 40%" 29%"

*Note.!!As"teachers"could"indicate"more"than"one"barrier,"percentages"total"over"100%."

Teacher Beliefs

23"|"P a g e ""

&

Additional&Teacher&Comments&In"both"the"benefits"and"barriers"to"implementation"questions,"an"“other”"category"was"provided"to"allow"teachers"to"indicate"additional"results"of"implementation"or"factors"preventing"implementation.""Almost"500"additional"comments"were"entered"(see"Table"5),"which"are"summarized"under"the"corresponding"teacher"belief.""On"the"question"asking"about"perceived"results"of"using"a"particular"researchFbased"teaching"practice,"teachers"wrote"176"comments.""These"entries"were"primarily"describing"additional"perceived"positive"results"of"implementing"each"practice"that"had"not"been"included"in"the"array"of"options.""Teaching"practices"that"garnered"20"or"more"perceived"results"comments"included"doing"aboveFlevel"work"and"providing"curriculum"with"greater"depth"and"complexity"than"typically"performing"peers.""Respondents"were"also"able"to"write"factors"that"have"prevented"the"implementation"of"the"specific"teaching"practice.""In"this"section,"teachers"authored"321"comments,"almost"twice"as"many"as"had"been"made"regarding"additional"results."Two"practices"alone,"independent"research"(n"="62)"and"acceleration"of"grade"by"subject"(n"="55),"accounted"for"more"than"36%"of"the"comments.""

Table"5"Number!of!Additional!Qualitative!Comments!by!Teacher!Belief!Section!

&Result(s)&of&Practice&

Factor(s)&Preventing&Practice&

Total&Comments&

Ability"Grouping" 19" 8" 27&Above"Level"Assessment" 5" 35" 40&

Rubrics" 13" 32" 45&Independent"Research"Projects" 13" 62" 75&Different"Learning"Experience" 14" 11" 25&

Flexible"Pacing" 7" 16" 23&Curriculum"with"Depth"&"Complexity" 25" 9" 34&Create"Products"Matched"to"Interest" 14" 23" 37&

AboveFLevel"Work" 20" 4" 24&Above"Level"Content" 13" 23" 36&

Accelerate"Grade"by"Subject" 4" 55" 59&Mentoring"or"Tutoring" 14" 35" 49&Work"with"Parents" 15" 8" 23&

Total# 176# 321# 497#"

Teacher Beliefs

24"|"P a g e ""

"

TEACHER&BELIEF&–&99.0%#Agree"It"is"important"to"work"together"and"communicate"with"parents/guardians""

to"address"their"gifted"or"advanced"child’s"strengths"and"needs."&

TEACHER&IMPLEMENTATION&OF&PRACTICE&&

&SPECIFIC&STUDENT&LEARNING&OUTCOMES&(of"n!="476)"

"

""

Never"3.7%"(n!=18)"

"

SPECIFIC&OBSTACLES&(of"n!="18"who"never"implement)"

& &

4%"

44%"

54%"

60%"

64%"

74%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%"100%"

Other&

Learned&to&selfYadvocate&&

Learning&activities&in&interest&area&

More&engaged&in&class&

Awareness&of&strengths&&&needs&

Shared&progress&with&parents&

11%"

11%"

17%"

22%"

28%"

33%"

44%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

Lack&con\idence&&District&curriculum&

Lack&teacher&support&District&policies&

Lack&admin&support&Lack&resources&

Other&

4F5"times"per"week"19.6%"(n!="97)"

1F3"times"per"week"

5.1%"(n!="25)"

1F3"times"per"month"40.2%"(n!="198)"

Less"than"1"time"per"month"

31.6%"(n!=156)"

1: Work & Communicate with Parents

25"|"P a g e ""

&Communicating"with"parents"to"address"their"gifted"or"advanced"child’s"strengths"and"needs"was"the"teacher"belief"with"the"highest"level"of"agreement"(99%).""Approximately"65%"of"teachers"communicate"with"parents"at"least"once"a"month,"and"another"31%"occasionally"worked"with"parents."Parents/guardians"awareness"of"their"child’s"progress"was"the"resulting"outcome"identified"by"74%"of"teachers.""Only"4%"of"responding"teachers"indicated"that"they"never"communicated"with"parents"about"their"child’s"strengths"and"needs."Of"those,"oneFthird"indicated"the"lack"of"resources"was"a"factor"preventing"this"communication."However,"more"participants"responded"to"the"other"obstacle"category"and"included"the"qualitative"comments"listed"below."""Additional&Results&of&Working&with&Parents&(n"="15)"

• Parents"have"goals"for"GT"students"• Parents"know"their"student"better"• Parents"more"pleased"with"child’s"learning"• Students"developed"an"academic"identity"• Students"developed"better"social"skills"• Parents"understand"learning"occurs"outside"of"school"• Built"stronger"relationships"• Support"for"social/emotional"needs"• More"confidence"in"parentFteacher"teamwork"• No"change"(n!="3)"

&&Additional&Obstacles&(n"="8)&

• Parents"work"(n"="2)&• Time"&• Parents"don’t"care&• Students"are"working"on"independence&• Need"to"focus"on"the"kids"who"are"behind;"no"teacher"incentive"to"help"gifted"&• Have"not"met"with"parents"yet&

& &

1: Work & Communicate with Parents

26"|"P a g e ""

&TEACHER&BELIEF&–&98.8%#Agree&

Gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"when"teachers"provide"curriculum"content""that"has"more"depth"and"complexity"than"the"standard"curriculum.&

&TEACHER&IMPLEMENTATION&PRACTICE&

&


"

""

Less"than"1"time"per"month"6.1%"(n!="30)"

Never"1.4%"(n!="7)"

"

SPECIFIC&OBSTACLES&(of"n!="37"who"rarely"or"never"implement)"

" "

5%"

33%"

41%"

43%"

77%"

83%"

83%"

86%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

Other&Higher&STAAR&score&&

Improved&aboveYlevel&testing&improved&benchmark&tests&&

Higher&quality&products&Asked&higherYlevel&questions&Greater&passion&for&subject&


8%"

16%"

22%"

24%"

27%"

43%"

43%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

Lack&con\idence&&Lack&admin&support&

District&policies&Other&

Lack&teacher&support&District&curriculum&

Lack&resources&&




2: Curriculum with More Depth & Complexity

27"|"P a g e ""

"Teachers"overwhelmingly"agreed"that"gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"from"curriculum"containing"greater"depth"and"complexity"than"the"standard"curriculum.""Furthermore,"over"71%"indicated"implementing"this"practice"on"a"weekly"basis"and"an"additional"20%"provided"more"depth"and"complexity"at"least"once"a"month."As"a"result,"over"83%"of"those"observed"positive"student"outcomes:"students"demonstrated"more"engagement"in"class,"a"greater"passion"for"learning,"and"asked"more"higherFlevel"questions."Of"all"the"teacher"beliefs,"however,"the"greatest"number"of"written"student"outcome"comments"related"to"the"use"of"curriculum"with"greater"depth"and"complexity"(see"below).""The"remaining"7%"who"did"not"integrate"depth"and"complexity"into"their"curriculum"for"gifted"students"indicated"a"lack"of"resources"and"the"standardized"district"curriculum"as"potential"factors"inhibiting"their"implementation.""Qualitative"comments"from"teachers"about"curriculum"with"greater"depth"and"complexity"are"listed"below.""Additional&Student&Results&of&Curriculum&with&More&Depth&and&Complexity&(n"="25)&

• Enjoy"school"more"(n"="4)"• More"self"confidence,"self"esteem"(n"="2)"• Further"own"learning"outside"of"school"• Richer"educational"experience"• Embraced"challenge"with"growth"mindset"• Improved"AP"scores"• Improved"writing"ability"• Learned"more"technology"• More"apt"to"participate"in"extracurricular"activities"• Engaged"in"discussion"with"higher"level"thinking"• Dug"into"topics"• Connections"made"in"other"subjects"• Think"outside"the"box"

"• More"gifted"students"struggle"(n!="3)"

&Additional&Obstacles&(n"="9)&

• Too"many"students"(n"="2)&• Time"to"develop"assignments"(n"="2)&• Classroom"too"heterogeneous"&(n"="3)&• Time"with"the"students&• Time&

2: Curriculum with More Depth & Complexity

28"|"P a g e ""

"TEACHER&BELIEF&–&98.4%#Agree"

Gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"from"working"together"in"small"groups"with"other"gifted"or"highFability"peers."

"



"

"""

Less"than"1"time"per"month"3.2%"(n"="16)"

Never"1.8%"(n!="9)"

"

SPECIFIC&OBSTACLES&(of"n!="25"who"do"not"regularly"implement)"

" "

4%"

58%"

68%"

69%"

70%"

70%"

71%"

88%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

Other&&Advocate&for&self&

AbilityYgroup&leadership&Persistence&in&solving&problems&&Higher&quality&group&products&

Greater&passion&for&subject&Awareness&of&strengths&&&needs&Strengthened&peer&relationships&&

8%"

20%"

28%"

28%"

32%"

32%"

32%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

Lack&con\idence&&Lack&teacher&support&Lack&admin&support&District&curriculum&

District&policies&Lack&resources&&

Other&




3: Ability Grouping

29"|"P a g e ""

"Of"all"the"teaching"practices,"ability"grouping"was"the"one"that"was"implemented"by"the"highest"percentage"of"teachers"(95%)."Teachers"most"often"cited"strengthened"peer"relationships"(88%)"as"a"perceived"learning"outcome"resulting"from"this"practice.""""Although"only"5%"never"or"rarely"used"ability"grouping,"their"most"frequently"selected"reasons"were"a"lack"of"resources"and"district"policies."Other"obstacles"were"described"in"the"qualitative"comments"section.""""Qualitative"comments"from"teachers"regarding"ability"grouping"are"listed"below."&Additional&Student&Results&of&Ability&Grouping&(n"="19)&

• Enjoyment"in"learning"(n"="2)&• Enjoyed"learning"(n"="2)&• Able"to"work"at"a"higher"level&• Aware"of"emotional"needs"• Brainstormed"scholarly"endeavors&• More"compassionate&• Developed"confidence"when"meeting"challenges&• Developed"emotionally&• Developed"academically&• Challenged"to"think"at"a"deeper"level&• Avoid"disaster"of"pairing"gifted"with"lower"achieving"students&• Increased"social"skills&• Sense"of"group"belonging&

"• Annoyed"with"one"another"• Behavior"problems"• More"distracted"and"off"topic"tangents"• Continue"to"persist"that"it"is"easier"to"do"work"on"own"

&&Additional&Obstacles&(n"="8)&

• Too"few"identified"or"recognized"as"gifted"(n"="5)"• Class"was"too"heterogeneous""• Need"GT"to"guide"the"weaker"students" "

3: Ability Grouping

30"|"P a g e ""

"

TEACHER&BELIEF&–&98.2%#Agree"Gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"when"they"are"asked"to"create"products""

that"are"matched"to"their"abilities"and"interests.""&



""


Never"3.0%"(n!="15)"

"

SPECIFIC&OBSTACLES&(of"n!="87)"

"" "

3%"

25%"

32%"

33%"

74%"

76%"

79%"

86%"

87%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"


Improved&aboveYlevel&testing&&Improved&benchmark&tests&

Asked&higherYlevel&questions&Awareness&of&strengths&&&needs&

Higher&quality&products&More&engaged&in&class&

Greater&passion&for&learning&

8%"

9%"

16%"

16%"

26%"

28%"

44%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

District&policies&Lack&admin&support&Lack&teacher&support&

Lack&con\idence&&Other&

District&curriculum&Lack&resources&&




4: Create Products Matched to Interests

31"|"P a g e ""

"Asking"gifted"students"to"create"products"that"match"their"abilities"and"interests"is"a"teaching"practice"implemented"by"over"80%"of"the"teachers."Greater"passions"for"learning"and"increased"classroom"engagement"were"indicated"as"specific"student"outcomes"by"over"87%"of"these"teachers.""A"lack"of"resources"was"the"single"most"often"cited"obstacle"by"17%"of"teachers"who"did"not"apply"this"practice"on"a"regular"basis.""Qualitative"comments"from"teachers"regarding"having"students"create"products"matched"to"their"abilities"and"interests"are"listed"below."&Additional&Student&Results&of&Creating&Products&Matched&to&Interests&(n"="14)&

• Developed"confidence"in"products"and"presentations"(n!="3)"• Higher"level"of"satisfaction"(n"="2)"• Become"overcomers"who"take"risks"outside"of"giftedness/persevere"(n"="2)"• Completion"of"projects"• Improved"creativity"• Improved"sense"of"wellFbeing"• Greater"organizational"skills"• Took"ownership"for"learning"• Excited"to"share"

"• No"change"• Some"were"not"successful"with"challenge"

"Additional&Obstacles&(n"="23)&

• Time"(n"="10)"• Time"with"students"(n"="4)"• LongFterm"projects"–"complete"only"two"to"three"per"year"(n"="2)"• No"teacher"incentives"• Interdisciplinary"pullout"program"• Curriculum"requirements"Fcourse"has"certain"standards"• Teacher"did"not"set"high"enough"expectations"

" "

4: Create Products Matched to Interests

32"|"P a g e ""

"

TEACHER&BELIEF&–&97.8%#Agree&Gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"from"flexible"pacing"appropriate"

to"their"abilities,"knowledge,"and"skills."&



"

"""


Never"8.1%"(n"="40)"

&SPECIFIC&OBSTACLES&(of"n!="95)"

" "

2%"

25%"

36%"

37%"

63%"

64%"

68%"

75%"

80%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

Other&

Higher&STAAR&score&&

Higher&postYtest&scores&&

Improved&benchmark&tests&

Covered&curriculum&faster&

Progressed&to&aboveYlevel&content&

Persistence&in&solving&problems&

Greater&passion&for&subject&

Covered&subject&with&more&depth&&

15%"17%"

22%"24%"

32%"44%"44%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"


Lack&admin&support&District&policies&

Lack&teacher&support&Lack&resources&&

District&curriculum&




5: Flexible Pacing

33"|"P a g e ""

"According"to"80%"of"the"teachers"who"used"flexible"pacing"at"least"once"a"month,"teachers"perceived"the"practice"of"flexible"pacing"as"resulting"in"students’"deeper"engagement"with"the"subject,"a"greater"passion"for"the"specific"subject,"and"an"increased"ability"to"persist"in"solving"problems.""The"two"most"frequently"cited"specific"barriers"that"prevented"flexible"pacing,"as"reported"by"the"other"20%"of"teachers,"were"the"district"curriculum"requirements"and"a"lack"of"needed"resources.""Qualitative"comments"from"teachers"regarding"flexible"pacing"are"listed"below.""Additional&Student&Results&of&Flexible&pacing&(n"="7)&

• Higher"motivation/more"driven"(n"="2)"• Less"distracting"to"others"in"class"• More"engaged""• Increased"motivation"to"do"more"inFdepth"research"• Improved"research"skills"


• Time"(n"="3)"• Time"with"students"(n"="2)"• Time"to"prepare/implement"(n"="2)"• Set"curriculum"• Too"much"work"• Time"constraints"F"need"to"prepare"for"AP"testing"• Heterogeneous"classroom""• Students"not"selfFmotivated"• AP"curriculum"is"program"for"service"• Needed"to"work"with"other"students"more"than"GT"resources"

5: Flexible Pacing

34"|"P a g e ""

"

TEACHER&BELIEF&–&97.0%#Agree"Gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"from"doing"aboveFlevel"work.&

&TEACHER&IMPLEMENTATION&OF&PRACTICE&

&


"""


Never"3.1%"(n!="15)"

"

SPECIFIC&OBSTACLES&(of"n!="50"who"never"or"rarely"implement)"

" "

5%"

36%"

44%"

47%"

75%"

77%"

80%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

Other&

Higher&STAAR&score&

Improved&benchmark&tests&&

Higher&postYtest&scores&

Higher&quality&products&&

Persistence&in&solving&problems&

Greater&passion&for&subject&

8%"

14%"

20%"

22%"

24%"

44%"

46%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

Other&Lack&con\idence&&

Lack&admin&support&District&policies&

Lack&teacher&support&District&curriculum&

Lack&resources&&




6: Above-Level Work

35"|"P a g e ""

"Teachers"overwhelmingly"indicated"that"they"provided"aboveFlevel"work"to"gifted"and"advanced"students"at"least"once"a"month,"including"65%"who"offered"it"weekly."According"to"most"teachers,"student"outcomes"included"greater"passion"for"the"subject"material,"persistence"in"solving"problems,"and"the"creation"of"higher"quality"products.""Only"10%"of"teachers"reported"that"they"never"or"rarely"provided"aboveFlevel"work"to"their"gifted"students."Again,"a"lack"of"resources"and"district"curriculum"requirements"were"the"most"often"cited"barriers.""""Qualitative"comments"from"teachers"regarding"aboveFlevel"work"are"listed"below.""Additional&Student&Results&of&Above&Level&Work&(n"="20)&

• Growth"mindset/perseverance"in"work"(n!="3)&• Enjoyment"of"learning"(n!="2)&• Higher"scores"on"AP"test"(n!="2)&• More"inquisitive"&• Sense"of"empowerment&• Collaborative"problem"solving&• Demonstrated"scholarly"behavior&• Pursued"additional"learning&• Meaningful"conversations"with"family"about"learning&• Higher"STAAR"scores&• Higher"benchmark/unit"testing&• Leadership"growth&• Patience"&

&• More"struggle&


• GT"is"pullout"program"only&• Too"soon"in"year&• Time&

"""

6: Above-Level Work

36"|"P a g e ""

"

TEACHER&BELIEF&–&96.6%#Agree"Gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"when"they"are"allowed"to"accelerate"in"aboveFgrade"

level"content"based"on"their"individual"progress.&&



""


Never"15.4%"(n!="74)"

"


" "

4%"

35%"

45%"

48%"

68%"

75%"

79%"

80%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

Other&



Improved&aboveYlevel&testing&

Higher&quality&products&

Awareness&of&strengths&&&needs&



11%"

16%"

22%"

24%"

31%"

36%"

44%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"


Lack&admin&support&Lack&teacher&support&

District&policies&District&curriculum&

Lack&resources&&




7: Above Grade-Level Content

37"|"P a g e ""

"Teachers"perceived"that"students"benefitted"from"accelerating"to"aboveFgrade"level"content."In"fact,"over"75%"of"teachers"reported"students"demonstrated"greater"classroom"engagement,"increased"interest"or"passion"for"learning,"and"a"developing"understanding"of"his"or"her"strengths"and"needs.""""Almost"30%"of"teachers,"however,"never"or"rarely"provided"higher"gradeFlevel"content"for"their"gifted"students."These"teachers"most"often"indicated"limited"resources"and"district"curriculum"as"factors"preventing"this"teaching"strategy.""Qualitative"comments"from"teachers"regarding"the"provision"of"above"gradeFlevel"content"are"listed"below."&Additional&Results&of&Above&GradeYLevel&Content&(n"="13)&

• More"creative&• Fewer"behavior"problems&• Increased"selfFconfidence&• Motivation"to"learn&• “Loved”"school&• Competitive"students"are"more"driven&• Happier"learning"at"own"rate&

&• Students"decide"whether"to"fully"participate&• In"some"cases"unable"to"score"higher"on"STAAR&

"Additional&Obstacles&(n"="23)&

• No"students"needed"it"or"already"accelerated"enough"(n!="3)"• Time"(n!="4)"• Limited"time"in"GT"program"(n!="3)"• Teach"ELA"students"(n!="2)"• Time"to"develop"lessons"• Not"logistically"possible/parents"must"provide"transportation"• Need"more"technology"• Only"provide"pullout"enrichment"• New"teacher"• No"incentive"for"teacher""• Students"do"not"choose"to"work"ahead"• Have"not"tried"it"• Heterogeneous"classroom"• School"does"not"support"

" "

7: Above Grade-Level Content

38"|"P a g e ""

"

TEACHER&BELIEF&–&96.4%#Agree&Gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"from"working"on"independent"research""

projects"geared"to"their"specific"interests."

&TEACHER&IMPLENTATION&OF&PRACTICE&

&


"""


Never"5.8%"(n!="28)"

"


" "

4%"

38%"

69%"

70%"

76%"

86%"

87%"

91%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

Other&Better&TPSP&criteria&score&

Awareness&of&strengths&&&needs&Persistence&in&solving&problems&

Higher&quality&projects&Greater&passion&for&learning&Learned&research&methods&Access&needed&resources&&

8%"

10%"

11%"

20%"

30%"

37%"

39%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

Lack&con\idence&&Lack&admin&support&

District&policies&Lack&teacher&support&District&curriculum&

Lack&resources&&Other&




8: Independent Research

39"|"P a g e ""

Over"twoFthirds"of"teachers"reported"implementing"research"projects"geared"to"student’s"interests"at"least"once"a"month."Teachers"overwhelmingly"indicated"that"students"benefitted"by"learning"how"to"access"specific"resources"needed"for"learning,"learning"more"about"research"methods,"and"deriving"a"greater"passion"for"learning.""Over"32%"of"teachers"rarely"or"never"assigned"independent"research"projects."The"question"regarding"factors"preventing"assigning"independent"research"received"the"most"qualitative"comments"(n!="62)"out"of"any"survey"question."Only"6%"of"teachers,"however,"indicated"that"they"never"assigned"independent"research"projects.""Qualitative"comments"from"teachers"regarding"independent"research"projects"geared"to"student"interests"are"listed"below."&Additional&Results&of&Independent&Research&Projects&Geared&to&Interests&(n"="13)&

• Developed"enjoyment"of"learning/interest"(n"="2)"• Deeper"understanding"of"topics"(n"="2)"• Confidence"in"whole"persona"and"ability"(n"="2)"• Increased"presentation"skills"(n"="2)"• Developed"maturity"in"decision"making"• Greater"technology"skills,"computer"safety"• Learned"how"to"use"technology"creatively"• Gained"specific"skills"needed"to"complete"a"task"or"project"• Time"management"skills"


• Time"(n!=22)&• Time"constraints"related"to"specific"curriculum"(n"="11)""• Time"in"GT"program"(n!="7)&• Curriculum"prevents"(n!="7)"• Independent"study"once"per"semester"or"year"(n"="7)&• No"teacher"incentives"• TEKS"driven"curriculum"• Other"teaching"strategies"utilized"more"often"• Planned"to"do,"but"not"implemented"• Need"computer"with"internet"• Not"appropriate"for"my"age"students;"hard"to"do"in"my"subject"area""• Space"constraints"• Need"more"personnel"• Time"to"plan"• Need"more"assistance"• Don’t"want"to"overwhelm"students" "

8: Independent Research

40"|"P a g e ""

"

TEACHER&BELIEF&–&94.7%#Agree&Gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"when"a"mentor"or"tutor"provides""

personalized"instruction"in"areas"of"talent.""&&



""

Never"41.8%"(n!="200)"

"


" "

6%"

40%"

44%"

48%"

53%"

55%"

58%"

61%"

62%"

68%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

Other&Learned&to&selfYadvocate&&

Greater&leadership&among&peers&Persistence&in&solving&problems&

Higher&quality&products&Asked&higherYlevel&questions&

More&engaged&in&class&Awareness&of&strengths&&&needs.&

Mentor&relationship&&Greater&passion&for&learning&

6%"

11%"

11%"

11%"

14%"

15%"

43%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

Lack&con\idence&&Lack&teacher&support&

Other&Lack&admin&support&District&curriculum&

District&policies&Lack&resources&





9: Mentoring

41"|"P a g e ""

"Although"95%"of"teachers"agreed"that"gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"from"personalized"instruction"received"from"working"with"a"mentor"or"tutor"in"talent"areas,"over"40%"of"teachers"did"not"provide"these"individuals."The"most"commonly"selected"barrier"was"a"lack"of"resources.""""Of"the"58%"of"teachers"who"used"mentors"and/or"tutors,"over"60%"indicated"that"specific"beneficial"student"outcomes"included"a"greater"passion"for"learning,"strengthened"relationships"with"their"mentor/tutor,"and"a"greater"selfFawareness"of"strengths"and"needs.""Qualitative"comments"from"teachers"regarding"mentoring"or"tutoring"are"listed"below."&Additional&Student&Results&of&Mentoring&(n"="14)&

• More"confident"(n"="2)&• Individual"working"relationship"with"mentor"(n"="2)&• Increased"social/emotional"skills&• Acquired"new"skills"not"taught"in"school&• More"collaborative"&• Increased"selfFawareness"&• Not"quantifiable/don’t"know&(n"="2)&


• Mentors"only"for"or"more"beneficial"for"older"students;"not"appropriate"for"younger"children"(n"="5)"

• Time"in"GT"program"(n"="5)"• Time"(n"="4)"• Program"not"available"(n!="3)"• Scheduling"(n"="2)"• Lack"of"experience"as"a"teacher/never"considered"it"(n!="2)"• Campus"is"considering"(n!="2)"• No"incentive/extra"work"for"teacher"• Mentor/tutor"not"available"in"specific"area"• Tutors"focus"on"struggling"students/special"populations"• Do"not"chose"to"do"it"• Curriculum"geared"toward"STAAR"test"• Lack"resources"• Students"are"highest"grade"on"campus"• Don’t"know"individual"students"gifts"yet"• As"the"teacher"I"am"the"mentor/tutor"• Only"occurs"if"parents"set"up"• Logistics"

9: Mentoring

42"|"P a g e ""

"

TEACHER&BELIEF&–&91.1%#Agree&Gifted"and"advanced"students"should"have"different"learning"experiences""

than"their"typically"performing"peers.&&

TEACHER&IMPLEMENTAITON&OF&PRACTICE&&


""


Never"2.8%"(n!="13)"

"


" "

3%"

49%"

50%"

69%"

71%"

75%"

77%"

82%"

86%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

Other&Participated&in&competitions&

Learned&to&selfYadvocate&&More&independent&research&&

Higher&quality&products&More&engaged&in&class&

Awareness&of&strengths&&&needs&Greater&passion&for&learning&

HigherYlevel&thinking&

19%"

21%"

23%"

23%"

23%"

33%"

52%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

Lack&admin&support&Lack&con\idence&&

Lack&teacher&support&District&policies&

Other&District&curriculum&

Lack&resources&&




10: Different Learning Experiences

43"|"P a g e ""

"Over"91%"of"teachers"endorsed"different"learning"experiences"for"gifted"and"advanced"students,"and"88%"of"teachers"provided"these"experiences"at"least"once"a"month.""In"fact,"65%"of"teachers"reported"delivering"different"learning"experiences"at"least"once"a"week.""This"percentage"is"consistent"with"the"most"commonly"reported"gifted"delivery"methods"of"pullFout"and"giftedFonly"classes.""Only"9%"of"teachers"indicated"an"infrequent"use"of"different"learning"experiences"for"gifted"students."Of"those,"the"majority"(52%)"indicated"a"lack"of"resources"prevented"this"practice.""Qualitative"comments"from"teachers"regarding"the"provision"of"different"learning"experiences"are"listed"below."&Additional&Student&Results&of&Providing&Different&Learning&Experiences&(n"="14)&

• Became"more"comfortable"with"giftedness&• Believed"they"could"achieve&• Demonstrated"persistence"in"working"through"difficult"problems&• Developed"creativity,"originality,"innovation&• Greater"technology"skills&• Enjoyment"of"learning&• Increased"global"perspective&• Working"on"advocacy&


• Time"(n"="5)"• Cost"prohibitive"• Not"sure"what"to"do"• No"teacher"incentives"• GT"program"is"lacking"• Plan"to"collaborate"• All"my"students"are"gifted"

" "

10: Different Learning Experiences

44"|"P a g e ""

"

TEACHER&BELIEF&–&89.3%#Agree&Rubrics"need"to"be"used"to"assess"gifted"and"advanced"students’""

products"and"performances.&&



"""


Never"4.0%"(n!=18)"

"


"

4%"

60%"

73%"

75%"

81%"

93%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

Other&

Clear&peer&feedback&&


Product/&performance&con\idence&&

More&selfYassessment&

Understand&project&components&&

2%"

4%"

8%"

18%"

22%"

24%"

38%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%"100%"

District&policies&Lack&admin&support&Lack&teacher&support&District&curriculum&

Lack&resources&&Lack&con\idence&&

Other&




11: Rubrics

45"|"P a g e ""

""Rubrics"were"used"by"81%"of"teachers,"including"50%"who"indicated"implementing"rubrics"one"to"three"times"a"month."Over"threeFquarters"of"teachers"observed"that"as"a"result"of"using"rubrics"their"students"understood"project"components"better,"performed"more"selfFassessment,"and"demonstrated"greater"confidence"in"the"project"or"performance."""""The"remaining"19%"of"teachers"never"or"rarely"used"rubrics."Of"those"teachers,"24%"lacked"confidence"in"their"skills,"and"22%"did"not"perceive"they"had"the"necessary"resources"to"implement"the"use"of"rubrics"on"a"regular"basis."However,"38%"of"teachers"added"additional"explanations"regarding"their"barriers"to"implementation"(see"below).""Qualitative"comments"from"teachers"regarding"rubrics"are"listed"below."&Additional&Student&Results&of&Using&Rubrics&(n"="13)&

• Created"clear"expectations/understanding"of"grading"for"parents"(n"="3)&• Demonstrated/encouraged"more"creativity"(n"="2)&• More"reflective"learning&• Created"clear"expectations"&• Demonstrated"higher"level"thinking&• Experienced"less"anxiety&• Increased"autonomy&• Accountability&• Learned"how"to"create"products"within"guidelines"&• Involved"students"in"developing"outcomes&


• Time"to"create"(n!="11)"• Used"only"for"bigger"projects/products,"so"less"frequent"use"(n!="8)"• Work"is"not"always"graded"• Do"not"have"appropriate"rubric"• Used"typically"with"writing"• Not"practiced"on"my"campus"• Focused"on"other"issues"• Want"students"to"enjoy"creating"projects"and"not"have"pressure"of"grade"• Limits"creativity"with"structure"and"guidelines"• Does"not"apply"to"lessons"• Only"use"grades" "

11: Rubrics

46"|"P a g e ""

"

TEACHER&BELIEF&–&86.6%#Agree&AboveFlevel"formative,"ongoing,"and"summative"assessments"are"useful"in"determining"

gifted"and"advanced"students’"abilities"knowledge,"and/or"skills.&&

TEACHER&IMPLEMENTAITON&OF&PRACTICE&&


"""


Never"17.1%"(n!="74)"

"


"" "

3%"

34%"

45%"

52%"

61%"

62%"

75%"

76%"

78%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"


Improved&benchmark&tests&&Higher&postYtest&scores&&

Covered&curriculum&faster&&Greater&passion&for&subject&

Covered&subject&with&more&depth&&More&engaged&in&learning&&New&knowledge&&&skills&&

16%"

20%"

21%"

24%"

25%"

38%"

52%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

Lack&con\idence&&

Other&

Lack&admin&support&

District&policies&

Lack&teacher&support&

District&curriculum&

Lack&resources&&




12: Above-Level Assessment

47"|"P a g e ""

"Over"60%"of"teachers"used"aboveFlevel"formative,"ongoing,"and/or"summative"assessments"on"at"least"a"monthly"basis."Teachers"indicated"the"most"salient"student"learning"outcomes"included"learning"new"knowledge"and"skills,"deeper"engagement"in"learning"activities,"and"covering"the"subject"with"more"depth"and"complexity.""""Of"the"40%"of"teachers"who"rarely"or"never"used"aboveFlevel"assessments,"over"half"(52%)"indicated"a"lack"of"resources"was"their"greatest"barrier"to"aboveFlevel"assessment.""Qualitative"comments"from"teachers"regarding"aboveFlevel"assessment"are"listed"below."&Additional&Results&of&Using&Above&Level&Assessments&(n"="5)&

• Gained"confidence/"felt"pleasure"with"own"abilities"(n"="3)"• Took"ownership"of"own"learning"(n"="2)"• Awareness"of"own"abilities&• Teacher"collaboration"in"developing"aboveFlevel"assessments"

&• Usually"do"aboveFlevel"testing,"but"before"STAAR"we"slow"down"and"help"students"

watch"for"trick"questions"or"not"to"overthink"questions"on"their"own"grade"level"&

Additional&Obstacles&(n"="35)&• Too"little"time"in"gifted"program"(n"="10)"• Time"(n"="7)""• Gifted"program/"pullout"doesn’t"use"assessments"(n"="6)"• New"to"teaching"(n"="2)"• Use"TPSP"• GT"assessments"are"at"their"level"• Time"to"create"aboveFlevel"assessments"• Needed"time"for"students"to"create"• Team"teachers"don’t"support"• Teach"seniors"• Not"appropriate"for"students"• Not"implemented"at"the"elementary"level""• Outside"assessments"are"not"offered"regularly"• Classroom"assessment"measures"mastery"of"grade"level"content"not"aboveFlevel"

content"• No"teacher"incentive"

"

&&&

12: Above-Level Assessment

48"|"P a g e ""

&TEACHER&BELIEF&–&84.0%#Agree&

Gifted"and"advanced"students"benefit"when"placed"when"placed"with"students"in""higherFgrade"levels"as"needed"for"acceleration"within"their"areas"of"talent.&

&TEACHER&IMPLEMENTATION&OF&PRACTICE&

&


""


Never"51.8%"(n!="217)"

"


" "

3%"

39%"

48%"

59%"

68%"

77%"

78%"

78%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"

Other&



Improved&aboveYlevel&testing&


Aware&of&strengths&&&needs&



6%"

20%"

27%"

33%"

33%"

37%"

44%"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"


Lack&teacher&support&Lack&admin&support&

Lack&resources&District&curriculum&

District&policies&



1F3"times"per"month"9.3%"(n!=!39)"

13: Placement with Higher-Grade Students

49"|"P a g e ""

"Although"84%"of"teachers"believed"that"gifted"students"benefited"from"placement"with"higherFgrade"level"students"for"acceleration"in"talent"areas,"this"percentage"reflected"the"lowest"level"of"implementation"of"all"teacher"beliefs."SixtyFfive"percent"of"teachers"who"believed"in"the"practice"did"not"implement"it"within"the"past"year."District"policies"and"district"curriculum"were"indicated"by"44%"and"37%"of"the"teachers,"respectively,"as"obstacles"to"implementing"this"practice"on"their"campuses.""""Of"the"35%"of"teachers"who"placed"a"gifted"student"with"higher"grade"level"students,"over"75%"reported"these"student"outcomes"as"a"result"of"the"practice:"greater"student"engagement,"increased"passion"for"learning,"and"increased"level"of"selfFawareness"of"the"student's"strengths"and"needs.""Qualitative"comments"from"teachers"regarding"placement"with"higherFgrade"students"by"subject"are"listed"below.""Additional&Results&of&Placement&with&Students&in&HigherYGrade&by&Subject&Within&Area&of&Talent&(n"="4)&

• More"opportunities"for"challenge"(n"="2)"• More"self"confident"• Greater"comfort"with"learning"environment"and"tasks"


• Scheduling"of"classes"(n"="13)"• School"system"didn’t"support"or"just"doesn’t"happen"(n"=12)"• Did"not"need"in"past"year"(n"="12)"• Teach"highest"grade"level"on"my"campus"(n"="7)"• Size"of"classes"(n"="3)"• Lack"authority"to"make"decision"(n"="2)"• Transportation"(n"="2)"• Time"(n"="2)"• Students"can"advance"through"summer"testing"• Teach"seniors"• PreFAP/AP"program"meets"need"• Only"if"parents"insist"• Small"school"• STAAR"testing"

" "

13: Placement with Higher-Grade Students

50"|"P a g e ""

" "

Conclusion

51"|"P a g e ""

The"results"of"this"survey"indicate"strong"positive"beliefs"among"Texas"practitioners"in"gifted"education"about"each"of"the"thirteen"evidenceFbased"practices."While"at"least"84%"believed"in"each"of"the"practices,"a"smaller"percentage"were"involved"in"implementing"them.""Implementation"of"practices"weekly"ranged"from"a"high"of"78%"for"ability"grouping"to"a"low"of"15%"for"mentoring.""More"than"oneFthird"of"the"respondents"never"or"rarely"used"these"five"practices:"mentoring,"placement"in"higher"grades,"aboveFlevel"assessments,"working"with"parents,"and"independent"research.""From"the"provided"options,"the"most"frequently"chosen"barriers"across"all"of"the"practices"were"lack"of"resources"and"district"curriculum.""The"reoccurring"themes"cited"under"the"other"section"were"time,"followed"by"human"and"material"resources,"standardized"curriculum,"and"limited"system"support"at"the"campus"and/or"district"levels.""Some"comments"also"indicated"a"lack"of"understanding"of"the"practice"itself"or"a"misinterpretation"of"the"belief"(e.g.,"“I"usually"try"to"have"one"of"them"as"a"guide"for"my"weaker"student"groups”;"“I"am"a"selfFcontained"GT"pullout"so"do"not"have"assessments"to"administer”;"“A"rubric"implies"structure"and"guidelines—opposite"traits"of"creativity”;"“independent"research"is"allowed"after"we’re"assured"they"are"exceeding"the"basic"curriculum”;"“all"my"students"are"GT”"so"they"do"the"same"activities).""

Given"these"results"of"the"TAGT/Baylor"survey,"we"would"like"to"make"the"following"recommendations:"(a)"improvement"in"services"to"gifted"and"talented"students,"(b)"future"professional"development"with"school"districts"and"at"the"TAGT"conferences,"(c)"advocacy"efforts,"and"(d)"state"policies"and"future"educational"goals"in"Texas.""

"

"

"

" "

Conclusion

52"|"P a g e ""

"

Improvement of Services

1."Time!is!needed!for!services!to!gifted!and!talented!students."Not"only"is"more"time"needed"for"services"specifically"designed"to"meet"the"needs"of"gifted"and"talented"students"but"these"services"also"need"to"be"delivered"in"general"education"classes."From"the"survey,"it"appears"that"within"most"elementary"general"education"classrooms,"students"receive"the"same"curriculum"and"only"receive"specialized"curriculum"in"the"GT"program,"which"meets"once"a"week."

2."Personalized!services!for!gifted!and!talented!students."These"services"need"to"be"tailored"to"the"talents"and"abilities"of"each"gifted"student—not"a"general"program"for"all"students"identified"as"gifted.""As"an"example,"one"of"the"respondents"mentioned"that"the"GT"program"had"required"units"to"study,"which"left"little"time"for"independent"research"based"on"student"interest."

3."Acceleration."Acceleration,"which"is"widely"supported"by"empirical"research"over"the"past"thirty"years,"is"implemented"by"less"than"half"of"the"respondents."Schools"need"to"examine"their"acceleration"practices"so"that"students"can"accelerate"in"a"domain"related"to"their"talent"area"either"within"the"classroom"or"across"grade"levels."Services"need"to"be"comprehensive"and"continuous"spanning"all"KF12"grades.""

4."Flexible!curriculum.""Curriculum"in"schools"need"to"be"used"as"frameworks"or"guides"so"that"teachers"are"able"to"modify"the"content"and"pace"for"gifted"and"advanced"learners."Related"to"acceleration,"teachers"need"to"have"the"freedom"to"create"learning"progressions"for"gifted"students,"which"may"be"different"from"general"education"students."

5.!Resources."Alternative"assessments"that"are"above"level"and"have"sufficient"ceiling"need"to"be"provided"to"teachers"so"that"they"are"able"to"determine"what"a"gifted"student"knows"and"doesn’t"know"within"a"domain."Rubrics"also"need"to"be"developed"to"assess"products"and"performances"beyond"those"provided"by"the"TPSP.""Above"level"materials,"technology,"and"other"material"resources"need"to"be"provided"to"teachers"to"assist"in"differentiating"the"curriculum"in"general"and"gifted"education"classrooms."

6."Array!of!services."Schools"need"to"develop"an"array"of"services"for"gifted"and"advanced"students"from"curricular"adaptations"in"the"general"education"classroom"to"pullout"programs"based"on"students’"talents,"specialized"curriculum"in"AP"and"other"advanced"classes,"dual"credit"and"university"classes,"extracurricular"activities,"competitions,"and"mentorships."

Recommendations

53"|"P a g e ""

"

7."Research."Research"needs"to"be"conducted"on"effects"of"different"practices"that"tend"to"support"or"inhibit"gifted"and"talented"programs"(e.g.,"amount"of"time"spent"in"gifted"program"services,"research"embedded"in"the"basic"curriculum,"differentiated"curriculum"using"specific"strategies"such"as"depth"and"complexity,"differentiated"assessments,"use"of"rubrics,"implementation"of"TPSP,"acceleration).""

"

Professional Development

1."Design!and/or!use!of!assessments!and!rubrics."Practitioners"need"to"learn"how"to"design"differentiated"assessments"for"GT"and"other"students"in"their"classroom."These"assessments"can"then"be"used"as"preassessments,"within"the"teaching/learning"process,"and/or"summatively"to"determine"the"effectiveness"of"instruction."Some"professional"development"needs"to"focus"on"the"differences"between"forms"of"assessments"and"grades."

2."Managing!different!groups!and!individual!students!in!the!classroom."Practitioners"need"to"learn"how"to"manage"large"and"small"groups"and"individual"gifted"students"in"homogeneous"and"heterogeneous"settings.""

3.""Adapting!and!modifying!learning!experiences."Professional"development"is"needed"to"show"teachers"at"all"grade"levels"how"to"embed"research"within"the"basic"curriculum"and"allow"advanced"students"to"pursue"their"interests."Teachers"also"need"to"learn"how"to"teach"and"guide"students"during"the"research"process."

4."Partnerships!in!professional!development."TAGT,"schools"and"universities"need"to"partner"in"offering"quality,"researchFbased"professional"development"in"gifted"education"for"teachers,"administrators,"and"parents."

"

Recommendations

54"|"P a g e ""

"

Advocacy&

1."Programs!and!services."Stakeholders"need"to"advocate"for"an"array"of"programs"and"differentiated"services"for"gifted"and"advanced"students."

2."Educators’!professional!development.""Teachers"who"teach"gifted"and"talented"students"need"to"meet"state"requirements"and"receive"ongoing"professional"development"from"individuals"who"have"knowledge"and"skills"in"gifted"education.""They"need"to"receive"support"and"resources"from"their"school"districts"in"order"to"implement"quality"programs."Administrators"need"to"also"meet"state"requirements"and"be"aware"of"the"effectiveness"of"acceleration"practices."

3."Assessments."Assessments"need"to"be"differentiated"for"gifted"students"and"data"disaggregated"to"determine"if"gifted"and"talented"students"are"showing"growth"commensurate"with"their"abilities."

"

Policies&

1."Assessment."Encourage"policymakers"to"examine"the"effects"of"standardized"assessments"on"gifted"and"talented"students"and"create"an"accountability"system"that"challenges"all"students."This"will"require"the"disaggregation"of"data"related"to"those"students"identified"as"gifted"and"talented."

2.!Resources."Encourage"policymakers"to"invest"more"human"and"material"resources"in"programs"and"services"for"gifted"and"talented"students"from"PKF16."

3."Incentives."Provide"incentives"for"schools"that"have"more"students"performing"at"the"highest"levels"of"achievement"instead"of"capping"financial"support"to"the"top"5%."

4."Teacher!preparation."Encourage"policymakers"to"revisit"the"minimum"requirements"for"teacher"preparation"in"gifted"education"and"make"these"requirements"commensurate"with"those"in"other"special"education"fields."

We"hope"that"the"results"from"the"survey"and"these"recommendations"will"provide"opportunities"for"discussion"among"stakeholders"in"gifted"education"and"initiate"more"advocacy"efforts"on"behalf"of"gifted"education"teachers,"administrators,"gifted"and"talented"students"and"their"parents."

"

Recommendations

55"|"P a g e ""

&

Adams,"C."M.,"Cotabish,"A.,"&"Ricci,"M."C."(2014).!Using!the!Next!Generation!Science!Standards!with!gifted!and!advanced!learners."Waco,"TX:"Prufrock"Press."

Bandura,"A."(1986)."Social!foundations!of!thought!and!action:!A!social!cognitive!theory."Englewood"Cliffs,"NJ:"PrenticeFHall."

Bloom,"B."J."(Ed.)."(1985)."Developing!talent!in!young!people."New"York,"NY:"Ballantine."Callahan,"C."M.,"Moon,"T."R.,"&"Oh,"S."(2014)."National!surveys!of!gifted!programs:!Executive!

summary!2014."Charlottesville,"VA:"National"Research"Center"on"the"gifted"and"Talented,"University"of"Virginia"Curry"School"of"Education."Retrieved"from"http://nagc.org.442elmp01.blackmesh.com/sites/default/files/key%20reports/2014%20Survey%20of%20GT%20programs%20Exec%20Summ.pdf""

Casey,"K.M.A."(2000)."Mentors’"contributions"to"gifted"adolescents’"affective,"social,"and"vocational"development."Roeper!Review,!22,"227F231."

Colangelo,"N.,"Assouline,"S."G.,"&"Gross,"M."U."M."(Eds.)."(2004)."A!nation!deceived:!How!schools!hold!back!America’s!brightest!students!(Vol."1)."Iowa"City:"University"of"Iowa,"The"Connie"Belin"&"Jacqueline"N."Blank"International"Center"for"Gifted"Education"and"Talent"Development."Retrieved"from"http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/nd_v1.pdf"

Council"for"Exceptional"Children"(CEC)."(2010)."Validation!study!resource!manual."Arlington,"VA:"Author.""

Council"of"State"Directors"of"Programs"for"the"Gifted"(CSDPG),"&"National"Association"for"Gifted"Children"(NAGC)."(2013)."2012^2013!State!of!the!states!in!gifted!education:!National!policy!and!practice!data."Washington,"DC:"NAGC."

Education"Trust"(2013)."Breaking!the!glass!ceiling!of!achievement!for!low!income!students!and!students!of!color."Washington,"DC:"Author."Retrieved"from"http://www.edtrust.org/dc/resources/publications?page=1"

Gentry,"M."(2006)."No"Child"Left"Behind:"Neglecting"excellence."Roeper!Review,!29,"24F27."Goree,"K."K."(2011)."An!exploratory!study!of!the!factors!that!influence!pre^service!teachers’!

instructional!practices!with!diverse!students."Baylor"University,"Waco,"TX."ProQuest"Dissertation."

Hammerness,"K.,"DarlingFHammond,"L.,"Bransford,"J.,"Berliner,"D.,"CochranFSmith,"M.,"McDonald,"M.,"&"Zeichner,"K."(2005)."How"teachers"learn"and"develop."In"L."Darling"Hammond,"&"J."Bransford"(Eds.),"Preparing!teachers!for!a!changing"world:!What!teachers!should!learn!and!be!able!to!do!(pp."358F389)."San"Francisco,"CA:"JosseyFBass."

Hébert,"T."P.,"&"Olenchak,"F."R."(2000)."Mentors"for"gifted"underachieving"males:"Developing"potential"and"realizing"promise."Gifted!Child!Quarterly,!44,"196F207."

HertbergFDavis,"H."L.,"&"Brighton,"C."M."(2006)."Support"and"sabotage:"Principal’s"influence"on"middle"school"teachers’"responses"to"differentiation."The!Journal!of!Secondary!Gifted!Education,"17,"90F102."

HughesFLynch,"C."E.,"Kettler,"T.,"ShaunessyFDedrick,"E.,"&"VanTasselFBaska,"J."(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."

References

56"|"P a g e ""

Jeffrey,"T."(2007)."Creating"a"culture"of"thinking"and"dialogue"at"home."Gifted!Child!Today,"30(4),"21F25."doi:10.4219/gctF2007F487"

Johnsen,"S."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.&

Johnsen,"S."K."(2014)."Focusing"on"challenges"that"influence"gifted"education"programs."TEMPO,!35(2),"6F15.&

Johnsen,"S."K."(2015,"April)."Focusing!on!challenges!that!influence!gifted!education!programs.!Keynote"presentation"at"the"annual"leadership"meeting"of"the"Texas"Association"for"Gifted"and"Talented."Austin,"TX.""

Johnsen,"S."K.,"Ryser,"G."R.,"Assouline,"S."(2014)."The!practitioner’s!guide!for!using!the!common!core!state!standards!for!mathematics."Waco,"TX:"Prufrock"Press."

Johnsen,"S."K.,"&"Sheffield,"L."J."(Eds.)"(2013)."Using!the!common!core!state!standards!for!mathematics!with!gifted!and!advanced!learners."Waco,"TX:"Prufrock"Press."

Kaplan,"S."N."(2014)."Emphasizing"the"uncommon"about"the"common"core"state"standards."Gifted!Child!Today,"37,"126F127."

Kulik,"J.A.,"&"Kulik,"C."L."(1982)."Effects"of"ability"grouping"on"secondary"school"students:"A"metaFanalysis"of"evaluation"findings."American!Educational!Research!Journal,!19,"415F428.""

Kulik,"J."A.,"&"Kulik,"C."L."C."(1992)."MetaFanalytic"findings"on"grouping"programs."Gifted!Child!Quarterly,!36,"73–77."

Latz,"A."O.,"Speirs"Neumeister,"K."L.,"Adams,"C."M.,"&"Pierce,"R."L."(2009)."Peer"coaching"to"improve"classroom"differentiation:"Perspectives"from"Project"CLUE."Roeper!Review,!31(1),"27F39."

Loveless,"T.,"Farkas,"S.,"&"Duffett,"A."(2008).!High^achieving!students!in!the!era!of!No!Child!Left!Behind."Washington"DC:"Thomas"B."Fordham"Institute."

Missett,"T."C.,"Brunner,"M."M.,"Callahan,"C."M.,"Moon,"T."R.,"&"Azano,"A."P."(2014)."Exploring"teacher"beliefs"and"use"of"acceleration,"ability"grouping,"and"formative"assessment."Journal!for!the!Education!of!the!Gifted,!37,"245F268."

Moon,"T."R."(2009)."Myth"16:"HighFstakes"tests"are"synonymous"with"rigor"and"difficulty."Gifted!Child!Quarterly,!53,"277F279."

Moon,"T."R.,"&"Brighton,"C."M."(2008)."Primary"teachers’"conceptions"of"giftedness."Journal!for!the!Education!of!the!Gifted,!31,"447F480."

National"Association"for"Gifted"Children"(NAGC)."(2010)."NAGC!pre^k–grade!12!gifted!programming!standards:!A!blueprint!for!quality!gifted!education!programs."Washington,"D.C:"National"Association"for"Gifted"Children."Retrieved"from"http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/KF12%20standards%20booklet.pdf"

Pajares,"M."F."(1992)."Teachers’"beliefs"and"educational"research:"Cleaning"up"a"messy"construct."Review!of!Educational!Research,"62,"307F332."

Pleiss,"M."K.,"&"Feldhusen,"J."F."(1995)."Mentors,"role"models,"and"heroes"in"the"lives"of"gifted"children.""Educational!Psychologist,!30,"159F169."

Plucker,"J."A.,"Burroughs,"N.,"&"Song,"R."(2010,"February)."Mind!the!(other)!gap!:!The!growing!excellence!gap!in!K^12!education."Bloomington,"IN:"Indiana"University,"School"of"Education,"Center"for"Evaluation"and"Education"Policy.""

57"|"P a g e ""

Plucker,"J.,"Giancola,"J.,"Healey,"G.,"Arndt,"D.,"&"Wang,"C."(2015)."Equal!talents,!unequal!opportunities."Washington,"DC:"Jack"Kent"Cooke"Foundation."

Plucker,"J."A.,"Hardesty,"J.,"&"Burroughs,"N."(2013)."Talent!on!the!sidelines:!Excellence!gaps!and!America’s!persistent!talent!underclass."Storrs,"CT:"University"of"Connecticut,"NEAG"School"of"Education,"Center"for"Education"Policy"Analysis.""

Pressey,"S."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."

Rakow,"S."R."(2008)."StandardsFbased"vs."standardsFembedded"curriculum:"Not"just"semantics!"Gifted!Child!Today,!31(1)"43F49."

Reis,"S."M."(2014)."Major!turning!points!in!gifted!education!in!the!20th!century."Neag"Center"for"Gifted"Education"and"Talent"Development."Retrieved"from"http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/general/faculty/reis/Major_Turning_Points.html"

Reis,"S."M.,"&"Renzulli,"J."S."(2009)."Myth"1:"The"gifted"and"talented"constitute"one"single"homogeneous"group"and"giftedness"is"a"way"of"being"that"stays"in"the"person"over"time"and"experiences."Gifted!Child!Quarterly,!53,"233F235."

Siegle,"D.,"Wilson,"H."E.,"&"Little,"C."A."(2013)."A"sample"of"gifted"and"talented"educators’"attitudes"about"academic"acceleration."Journal!of!Advanced!Academics,!24,"27F51."

Subotnik,"R."F.,"&"Jarvin,"L."(2005)."Beyond"expertise:"Conceptions"of"giftedness"as"great"performance."In"R."J."Sternberg"&"J."E."Davidson"(Eds.),"Conceptions!of!giftedness!(2nd"ed.,"pp."343F357)."New"York,"NY:"Cambridge"University"Press."

Subotnik,"R."F.,"OlszewskiFKubilius,"P.,"&"Worrell,"F."C."(2011)."Rethinking"giftedness"and"gifted"education:"A"proposed"direction"forward"based"on"psychological"science."Psychological!Science!in!the!Public!Interest,!12(1)"3F54."

Texas"Education"Agency"(TEA)."(2009)."Texas!state!plan!for!the!education!of!gifted/talented!students."Austin,"TX:"Texas"Education"Agency."Retrieved"from"http://tea.texas.gov/Curriculum_and_Instructional_Programs/Special_Student_Populations/Gifted_and_Talented_Education/Gifted_Talented_Education/"

VanTasselFBaska"(Ed.)."(2013)"Using!the!common!core!state!standards!for!English!Language!Arts!with!gifted!and!advanced!learners"Waco,"TX:"Prufrock"Press.""

Xiang,"Y.,"Dahlin,"M.,"Cronin,"J.,"Theaker,"R.,"&"Durant,"S."(2011,"September)."Do!high!flyers!maintain!their!altitude?!Performance!trends!of!top!students."Washington,"DC:"Thomas"B."Fordham"Institute."Retrieved"from"http://edexcellence.net/publications/highFflyers.html"

"" "

58"|"P a g e ""

About&the&Authors&

Corina"R."Kaul,"MA,"received"her"B.S."degree"from"the"University"of"Oregon,"her"master's"from"Baylor"University,"and"is"currently"a"doctoral"student"in"the"Department"of"Educational"Psychology"at"Baylor"University"where"she"is"specializing"in"gifted"education."Her"current"research"interests"focus"on"lowFincome"gifted"students,"gifted"first"generation"students,"and"affective"needs"of"gifted"learners."She"may"be"reached"at"[email protected]."

"Susan"K."Johnsen,"PhD,"is"a"professor"in"the"Department"of"Educational"Psychology"at"Baylor"University"where"she"directs"the"PhD"program"and"programs"related"to"gifted"and"talented"education."She"is"editorFinFchief"of"Gifted"Child"Today"and"coauthor"of"The"Practitioner’s"Guide"for"Using"the"Common"Core"State"Standards"for"Mathematics,"Using"the"Common"Core"State"Standards"for"Mathematics"with"Gifted"and"Advanced"Learners,"Using"the"NAGC"PreFKFGrade"12"Gifted"Programming"Standards,"Math"Education"for"Gifted"Students,"and"more"than"250"articles,"monographs,"technical"reports,"chapters,"and"other"books"related"to"gifted"education."She"has"written"three"tests"used"in"identifying"gifted"students:"Test"of"Mathematical"Abilities"for"Gifted"Students"(TOMAGS),"Test"of"Nonverbal"Intelligence"(TONIF4)"and"Screening"Assessment"Gifted"Students"(SAGESF2)."She"is"a"reviewer"and"auditor"of"programs"in"gifted"education"for"the"Council"for"the"Accreditation"of"Educator"Preparation,"and"is"past"chair"of"the"Knowledge"and"Skills"Subcommittee"of"the"Council"for"Exceptional"Children"and"past"chair"of"the"NAGC"Professional"Standards"Committee."She"is"past"president"of"The"Association"for"the"Gifted"(TAG)"and"past"president"of"the"Texas"Association"for"Gifted"and"Talented"(TAGT).""She"has"received"awards"for"her"work"in"the"field"of"education,"including"NAGC’s"President’s"Award,"CEC’s"Leadership"Award,"TAG’s"Leadership"Award,"TAGT’s"President’s"Award,"TAGT’s"Advocacy"Award"and"Baylor"University’s"Investigator"Award,"Teaching"Award,"and"Contributions"to"the"Academic"Community."She"may"be"reached"at"Department"of"Educational"Psychology,"Baylor"University,"One"Bear"Place"#97301,"Waco,"TX"76798,"USA"or"[email protected]."

"

tagt final report 2016

Documents