Article

E x p lo rin g T e a c h e r B eliefs and U s e o f A c c e le ra t io n , A b ility G ro u p in g , and F o rm a tiv e A s s es s m e n t

Journa l fo r th e E ducation o f th e G ifte d

2014, V o l. 37 (3 ) 2 4 5 -2 6 8

© T h e A u th o r(s ) 2 0 14

R ep rin ts and perm iss ions:

sagepub.com /journa lsP erm iss ions.nav

D O I: 10.1 17 7 /0 16 2 3 5 3 2 14 5 4 1326

jeg.sagepub.com

(S)SAGE

Tracy C . M issett1, M arguerite M. Brunner2, Carolyn M. Callahan2, Tonya R. M oon2, and A m y Price A zano3

AbstractFew academ ic in terventions fo r gifted students have generated m o re empirical support than acceleration and ability grouping, and fo rm ative assessment is advocated

as a to o l th a t educators can use to appropriate ly integrate accelerative practices and

ability grouping in to th e classroom . H o w e v e r, th e em pirical support fo r accelerative

practices, ability grouping, and form ative assessment does n o t always translate into

practice. This qualitative study sought to exp lo re h ow teacher expectations about student ability influenced teacher use o f accelerative practices, ability grouping, and

fo rm ative assessment. T h e findings indicate th a t the availability and use o f form ative

assessments, coupled w ith high teach er expectations about student ability, support teacher use o f best practices in pacing and grouping strategies.

Keywordsacademic acceleration, grouping, d ifferentiation, educational interventions, evidence- based practice

Few academic interventions for gifted students have generated more empirical support than acceleration and ability grouping (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004; Colangelo, Assouline, & Marron, 2013; VanTassel-Baska, 2010; Wood, Portman,

'Marshall University, Huntington, W V, USA U n ive rs ity o f Virginia, Charlottesville, USA ^Virginia Tech, School o f Education, Blacksburg, USA

C o r r e s p o n d in g A u t h o r :

Tracy C. Missett, Sweet Briar College, 21 I D oro thy Sales Building, Sweet Briar, VA and Special Education Program, Marshall University, 11 I Jenkins Hall, One John Marshall W ay, Huntington, W V 25755, USA. Email: tmissett@sbc.edu

246 Journal for the Education o f the Gifted 37(3)

Cigrand, & Colangelo, 2010). Increased achievement with little or no adverse impact on affective outcomes for gifted students has been documented consistently in research on these practices (Hoogeveen, van Hell, & Verhoeven, 2009; Niehart, 2007; Rogers, 2007). Consequently, educators of the gifted are encouraged to implement accelerative practices, including those that adjust the pace of instruction to match students’ capa­bilities (Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Petemel, 2010; Wood et al., 2010), and to use ability-based grouping in their gifted programs as part of a broad range of practices that differentiate curriculum and instruction for gifted students (Gentry & Fugate, 2013; VanTassel-Baska, 2010).

Formative assessment is considered a tool that educators can use to appropriately integrate accelerative practices and ability grouping into the classroom. According to Tomlinson (1999), formative assessment provides educators with data to support immediate decisions regarding grouping and pacing for optimal learning conditions. Furthermore, recognizing that a group of gifted students is not homogeneous, but rather heterogeneous in terms of both aptitude and achievement, Gagne (2011) recom­mended teacher use of formative assessment to facilitate decision-making in the use of acceleration practices. In combination, formative assessment, ability grouping, and acceleration are practices that provide strategies to create learning opportunities matched to the learning needs of the heterogeneous population of gifted students.

The empirical support for accelerative practices, ability grouping, and formative assessment does not always translate into practice. For example, accelerative and abil­ity grouping practices are not consistently adopted and are, in some cases, resisted by educators and policy makers (Brulles, Saunders, & Cohn, 2010; Colangelo et al., 2013; Wood et al., 2010). Moreover, because the literature on formative assessment as a tool for informing the use of accelerative practices and ability-based grouping in the gifted education classroom has only recently emerged, many teachers may be unaware of the benefits of its use or the ways these practices can be used interactively to adjust instruction effectively (Gagne, 2011). Mistaken assumptions that grouping of gifted students creates a homogeneous group may also result in rejection of the need for formative assessment and/or differentiation within a group of identified gifted students.

A recently developed model for curricular differentiation, called the CLEAR (Challenge Leading to Engagement, Achievement and Results) Curriculum model, served as the basis for the development of two units differentiated for gifted third- grade students. The theoretical and pedagogical underpinnings of the model were based on the assumption that any group of gifted students is heterogeneous in achieve­ment and aptitude and that curriculum should be differentiated accordingly. A study of this model through the implementation of two language arts units has been carried out in a project titled “What Works in Gifted Education (WWIGE)” (Azano et al., 2011). As described more fully in the “Method” section, the units based on the CLEAR Curriculum model integrate strategies for adjusting pace, ability grouping, and forma­tive assessment. The scope of the WWIGE study includes the examination of the impact of the curricular units on learning for gifted third-grade students. It also includes data collection designed to uncover the beliefs and experiences of teachers

Missett et al. 247

that affect their use of recommended instructional strategies including, among others, accelerated or “personalized” pacing, ability grouping, and formative assessment— the focus of the research reported here.

B est P ra c tic e s in G ifte d E d u ca tio n

In 2010, the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) reissued the Pre-K- Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards (the Standards). The Standards reflect cur­rent knowledge of best practices, which are empirically supported educational practices based on the characteristics of gifted students. These student characteristics include, among others, the ability to proceed through curriculum at an adjusted or accelerated pace (Colangelo et al., 2010) and a preference for working with other students with matched abilities and readiness levels (to be grouped by ability; Kulik, 1992; Renzulli & Reis, 2010).

Ability-based grouping, accelerative practices, and formative assessment are included as recommended practices in the Standards (NAGC, 2010). Specifically, the Standards advocate “a variety of [gifted] programming options such as acceleration in varied grouping arrangements . . . to enhance students’ performance in cognitive and affective areas” (NAGC, 2010, p. 7), and educators are encouraged to “pace instruc­tion based on the learning rates of students with gifts and talents” as appropriate (NAGC, 2010, p. 4). The Standards also state that assessments, including formative assessments, constitute integral components of gifted classrooms to infonn and “adjust instruction and planning, and to enhance learning progress” (NAGC, 2010, p. 2).

Accelerated, or Personalized, Pace o f Instruction

Acceleration broadly refers to faster academic progress that matches the “level, com­plexity, and pace of the curriculum to the readiness and motivation of the student” (Colangelo et al., 2004, p. xi). Although acceleration is often associated solely with more radical academic interventions such as grade-skipping and early entrance, it can and should be utilized in a variety of ways (Colangelo et al., 2004; Colangelo et al., 2013; NAGC, 2010). For purposes of this study, acceleration refers more narrowly to “personalized pacing” (Gagne, 2011, p. 7), or to adjustments in the pace of progress through a curriculum, based on the demonstrated readiness level and skill of the stu­dent. Personalized pacing strategies can be achieved effectively through curriculum compacting and flexible grouping strategies designed to meet the range of student skills, needs, and readiness levels within a classroom (Brulles et al., 2010; Rogers, 2007; VanTassel-Baska, 2010). The greatest gains in student achievement from per­sonalized pacing are noted when the curriculum is differentiated (Colangelo et al., 2010; Gentry & Fugate, 2013).

When and how to utilize accelerative strategies are matters of some debate in the field of gifted education. Renzulli and Reis (2003) as well as Passow (1996) suggested that acceleration best addresses clearly sequential content areas including math and foreign languages, whereas enrichment is most appropriate in content areas such as

248 Journal for the Education o f the Gifted 37(3)

literature or history that are more amenable to manipulations of breadth and depth and where assessments tend to be product oriented. Colangelo et al. (2004) and VanTassel- Baska (2010), however, contended that acceleration constitutes an appropriate aca­demic intervention for gifted students in all content areas, and they recommended a variety of accelerative strategies designed to adjust the pace of instruction to meet the readiness levels of gifted learners.

For purpose of this study, enrichment broadly refers to broadening the scope of the curriculum beyond what is typically covered and/or increasing the depth of content studied (Renzulli & Reis, 2003). Enrichment in the context of rich curriculum allows students to analyze the layers of a discipline or content by going from concrete to abstract concepts and from familiar to unfamiliar academic experiences (Tomlinson, 2005). It is distinguished from repeating material already taught and learned and from those classroom activities that fail to provide students with opportunities to address advanced issues and content (Renzulli & Reis, 2003).

Although some researchers prefer one strategy over the other, most agree that some degree of integrating accelerative strategies into curricula for gifted learners is essen­tial (Colangelo et al., 2010; NAGC, 2010; Renzulli & Reis, 2010). For example, Renzulli and Reis (2010) proposed to develop traditional academic gifts using curricu­lum compacting, acceleration, and differentiated instruction as complimentary instruc­tional strategies with academic enrichment in the Schoolwide Enrichment Model. Similarly, in the differentiation of instruction model, Tomlinson (2005) stated,

We tend, in school, to pace curriculum with grade level performance in mind. Just as it is the case that some students will require additional time to develop proficiency with the essential knowledge, understanding, and skill of a unit, some students will also require less time. We often refer to that as acceleration of learning. In fact, for very bright students, that pace is not an accelerated one. To the contrary, it is the comfortable pace of learning for those particular students. Adjusting the pace of learning, however, serves high-ability learners well when it occurs in the context of high-quality curriculum and instruction, (p. 163)

Despite the research base supporting achievement gains using accelerative strate­gies (Hoogeveen et al., 2009) without adverse psychological consequences (Niehart, 2007; Rogers, 2007), acceleration remains underutilized (Colangelo et al., 2004; Colangelo et al., 2013; VanTassel-Baska, 2010; Wood et al., 2010). One reason offered for the underutilization of accelerative practices in the gifted education classroom is that teachers do not expect most students, including gifted students, to be ready for a faster pace of instruction (VanTassel-Baska, 2010). Flowever, gifted students’ readi­ness for an adjusted pace of instruction often belies these low expectations of student ability (Azano et al., 2011).

Ability Grouping

Ability grouping refers to the grouping of students of the same ability or according to their demonstrated performance or readiness level. Grouping gifted learners by ability

Mssett et al. 249

effectively facilitates a number of differentiated educational goals including broaden­ing, accelerating, and extending a curriculum (Gentry, 2014). Ability grouping can take a number of forms, including within-class grouping, between-class grouping, and cross-grade grouping. For purposes of this study, ability grouping refers to within- class groupings of students based on their demonstrated ability or readiness for pro­ceeding through a differentiated curriculum (Kulik, 2003; Rogers, 2007). Because the use of this strategy is often based on demonstrated readiness as an indicator of ability, ability grouping emphasizes adjusting the pace and content of instruction to match individual student needs (Brulles et al., 2010). Unlike tracking, this type of grouping practice is intended to be “flexible” so that students may move in and out of these groups based on demonstrated performance and readiness, which may change over time (Gentry & Fugate, 2013). Typically, formative assessment is used to determine the readiness level of students so that within-class ability groupings can be estab­lished. These groups are fluid in that the assessments may indicate that changes in groups or pace are warranted at different times within a unit of study or when a unit of study is complete.

Research investigating the impacts of ability grouping shows gains in student achievement as compared with classrooms where such grouping practices are not used. Specifically, seminal meta-analyses conducted by Kulik (1992, 2003) and the Johns Hopkins Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools (Braddock, 1990) reported comparatively greater gains in achievement in studies of within-class ability grouping. However, more recent research shows these gains to be greatest when grouping by ability is implemented in the context of a differentiated curriculum (Brulles et al., 2010; Niehart, 2007; Rogers, 2007).

Form ative Assessm ent

To plan instruction that maximizes learning and then effectively gauge student learn­ing, teachers are encouraged to use formative assessments at regular intervals through­out a unit of study (Andrade & Cizek, 2010). Formative assessment is defined as assessment for learning within a unit of study where the outcomes guide instruction without associated rigid quantifiers such as grades. More specifically, formative assessments are used to provide data for teachers to make immediate planning deci­sions regarding pace, readiness, and scaffolding needs of students. The principal intent is to gauge readiness along a continuum to inform teacher practice (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Gagne, 2011). Hughes (2010) identified a variety of assessment formats, both formal and informal, and including exit cards, journal entries, and discussions with students, as a means of providing formative feedback teachers can use as a basis for decision-making in the instructional process. Gagne (2011) recommended using for­mative assessments in classrooms for gifted students to address “the need to maintain the students’ pace at the cutting edge of their learning capacity” (p. 7).

A meta-analysis of studies of formative assessment by Black and Wiliam (1998) supported the use of formative assessment for improving achievement outcomes in the general student population. Based on their results, Black and Wiliam derived guide­lines for effective formative assessment: The assessment must be conducted during a

250 Journal for the Education o f the Gifted 37(3)

unit of instruction, it must focus on identifying strengths and weaknesses of students in comprehension and/or in application of the subject matter, and formative assess­ment should be used to make adjustments in the curriculum to improve learning prior to the unit summative assessment. Formative assessments should also produce data relating to measurable attributes of learning within a unit, data on the performance level achieved by a student on that attribute, and data that allow the teacher to identify gaps in knowledge or skills. Finally, the assessment process should provide direction for using the information to lessen the identified gaps in knowledge or skills.

More recent literature confirms the conclusions of Black and Wiliam (1998). Silberglitt and Hintze (2005) found that student achievement measured by state stan­dardized reading tests increased when teachers provided reading interventions based on formative assessments administered at intervals during the school year. L. S. Fuchs and Fuchs (1986) found similar results for the use of formative assessments with stu­dents identified as having a handicapping condition. Although formative assessment has been recommended in gifted classrooms as a means of providing information about higher levels of achievement (Gagne, 2011), most research describes its benefits for underperforming students in areas where extra support or reinforcement is needed (Shute, 2008; Wiliam, 2006), leaving a gap in understanding about the effectiveness of formative assessment for improving the learning of high-achieving students.

The Research-Based C urriculum and the C ontext

The research described here is embedded in the larger WWIGE study investigating effective curriculum for gifted students. More specifically, WWIGE examines the impact of two units in language arts/reading on the achievement of third-grade gifted students in self-contained and pull-out gifted classrooms. One unit focuses on poetry and one on expository, nonfiction text and research skills. The units are based on a synthesis of three well-known models in gifted education: (a) Tomlinson’s (1999) Differentiated Instruction Model, (b) Reis and Renzulli’s (2010) Schoolwide Enrichment Model, and (c) Kaplan’s (2001) Depth and Complexity Model. The syn­thesized models were integrated into the CLEAR Curriculum model, which incorpo­rates best practices in gifted education. Additional details of the WWIGE study have been described previously in Azano et al. (2011) and Azano, Callahan, Missett, and Brunner (2014).

Although both the poetry and research units were designed to proceed at a pace commensurate with the characteristics of gifted learners and incorporate highly chal­lenging material, both are differentiated to challenge gifted and talented learners with varying skills, interests, and readiness levels. Principles of differentiation, such as for­mative assessment, appropriate challenge and pacing, and flexible grouping, are applied throughout the units. Each unit of study (poetry and research) includes four formative assessments to be completed by students within the 15 (research) and 19 (poetry) lesson units. These assessments are provided to teachers as part of the WWIGE curriculum materials. Each assessment addresses content and concepts recently taught and/or yet to be taught, and the unit materials provide instructions and resources for

M/ssett et al. 251

differentiation based on student performance and individual readiness levels so that teachers can tailor subsequent lesson(s) to meet learner needs. For example, the assess­ments include exit cards designed to assess the level of understanding on given con­cepts leading to subsequent grouping criteria, multiple-choice items, and fdl-in-the-blank items for the poetry units and journal entries and exit cards for the research emits. An example of a short-answer prompt for poetry is “Give several exam­ples of how poets use language in special ways.” An example journal entry for the research unit is “How does what you already know about a topic [your prior knowl­edge] help you in getting more information about it?”

Although the impact of the units has been assessed using standards-based assess­ments and structured performance assessments (Azano et al., 2011), other important dimensions for study are the way teacher beliefs affect their use of best practices embedded within the units in the areas of personalized pacing and ability grouping, and how formative assessment informs the use of these practices. Specifically, the fol­lowing questions are addressed in this study:

1. How do the beliefs of teachers of third-grade gifted students shape their use of accelerative strategies within the context of a specific language arts curriculum that provides for those strategies?

2. How do the beliefs of teachers of third-grade gifted students shape their use of ability-based grouping?

3. How do the beliefs of teachers of third-grade gifted students shape their use of formative assessment within the context of their language arts classroom?

4. How are formative assessment data used by teachers of gifted third-grade students?

M e th o d

The researchers used interpretivist methods and techniques (Erickson, 1986) for the primary purpose of understanding the experiences and beliefs of the participants and how these beliefs and expectations influenced their use of personalized pacing, ability- based grouping strategies, and formative assessment (Azano et al., 2011).

Participants

A national sample of school districts was solicited from nominations by state directors of gifted education, a list of collaborative school districts associated with the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, announcements at regional and national organization professional conferences, and names of districts provided by the develop­ers of the instructional/curricular models included in the CLEAR Curriculum model. For schools and teachers who agreed to participate after their district nomination, the study used a cluster-randomized design where pull-out or self-contained classrooms were randomly assigned to experimental or control conditions with students nested within classrooms. In cases where teachers taught multiple classrooms in different

252 Journal fo r the Education o f the Gifted 37(3)

schools or where multiple classrooms for gifted students were housed in a single school, those classrooms were assigned to the same condition to avoid possible diffu­sion of treatment effect. As a result of this design, more teachers ultimately were assigned to the treatment group.

The participants for this study consisted of teachers in both control and treatment groups. Teaching assignments ranged from resource room assignments to full-time classrooms for gifted students. For the first cohort during the 2009-2010 school year, participants in the experimental group included 55 teachers across 10 states, and 32 teachers led classrooms that served as the comparison group. Researchers observed and interviewed 96% of teachers in the experimental condition at least once; 67% were observed and interviewed on three separate occasions. Researchers observed and interviewed 30% of teachers in the control groups at least once, with 6 control teachers being interviewed twice. Between the two groups, 150 observations and 133 inter­views were analyzed from the first cohort.

In the second cohort of the study during the 2010-2011 school year, teachers from the first cohort (both experimental and control) were invited to participate as experi­mental group teachers. Thus, the second cohort included some teachers who continued participation with different groups of third-grade students. Additional schools were also recruited across the nation for participation. Teachers new to the study for the 2010-2011 year were randomly assigned to either the experimental or treatment group under the same cluster group conditions described above. Sixty-one teachers partici­pated in the experimental group; 21 teachers participated in the control group. Because continuing teachers were placed in the treatment condition, there were again more classrooms in the treatment condition. Between these two groups, 45 interviews and 57 observations were analyzed. Of these, 10 control teachers were interviewed at least once.

Data Collection

Qualitative sources of data collected from teachers included long-term, intensive par­ticipant interviews and observations in a field setting. For experimental teachers, observations occurred while they implemented the CLEAR curriculum units and were recorded on a semistructured protocol. The observation protocol enabled researchers to record teacher decision-making relative to issues of fidelity (both those areas in which teachers were adhering to the CLEAR curriculum lessons as written and those in which they deviated from the lessons as written). Observations were followed by interviews using a semistructured interview protocol. The interview protocol was also designed to solicit teacher decision-making relative to issues of fidelity. Examples of interview questions include the following: “Can you tell me what modifications, if any, you are aware of that were made in the lesson?” and “Do you feel your modifica­tions helped you succeed in achieving the goal of the lesson? Why?” The observation and interview protocols also included direction for notations regarding teacher utiliza­tion of the accelerative pacing strategies, ability grouping arrangements, and forma­tive assessments set forth in the units.

M/ssett et at. 253

For control teachers, observations were recorded on a semistructured protocol designed to note the type and quality of instructional strategies used in the areas of learning environment (including grouping strategies), content (including varied assessments), process (including personalized pacing), and product, and to ensure that control group teachers were teaching for equivalent standards-based language arts goals. Following each observation, participants were interviewed using semistruc­tured interview protocols designed to provide data regarding the instructional choices teachers made and to uncover teacher beliefs and experiences that informed their prac­tices. Examples of questions included on the protocol are as follows: “Flow does assessment inform your instruction? (Do you use formative assessments on a regular basis to inform instruction? Do you modify student instruction based on assessment data?)” and “On a typical day, how do you structure class? (How much time do you spend on group instruction? How much time are students in groups? Independent work, etc.?).” All interviews were recorded and transcribed.

Data Analysis

Data analysis occurred in two phases. For the first phase, the data corpus (observations and interviews) from the first cohort was read by a research team using an inductive method of analysis seeking tentative ideas about categories and relationships in the data (Azano et al., 2011; Maxwell, 2005). The research team included two research scientists with doctoral degrees in education and three graduate research assistants pursuing doctorates in gifted education. Each member of the research team partici­pated in data collection and analysis training with principal investigators of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Moreover, the team members were experienced educators with specialty areas in gifted education, special education, qualitative methodology, and/or reading instruction.

The first phase of the data review yielded codes related to the overall degree to which teachers’ beliefs about student ability influenced their implementation of lesson for their third-grade gifted students (Azano et al., 2011). To achieve coder agreement, research team members independently coded the interview transcripts and observa­tions of three teachers. Team members then met to compare the application of codes and to refine their understanding about code applicability. The team divided the remaining data for coding with frequent interaction and feedback across the team. This exercise was repeated until coders aligned on the application of the codes. Periodically, the data were recoded by a different team member to check for consistent coding. In all, three iterations of the coding process were required to reach interrater reliability of .90. All initial categories synthesized the observational and corresponding interview data. This allowed the researchers to compare observations with interviews to better understand stated beliefs about students and use of specific instructional strategies embedded within the intervention.

Two members of the research team then reviewed the coded data corpus from the first cohort with a focus on areas of interest to this study. The second reading yielded a more specific set of beliefs and expectations that influenced the degree to which

254 Journal fo r the Education o f the Gifted 37(3)

teachers utilized personalized pacing, ability grouping, and formative assessment to differentiate instruction to meet the needs and readiness levels of gifted learners in their classrooms. These categories of teacher beliefs and experiences (grouping prac­tices, pacing practices, and formative assessment) became the initial codes imposed on the data.

The researchers next compared additional data from the second cohort with the initial findings and codes. To promote coder agreement, they independently coded the interview transcripts of three experimental teachers and two control teachers. They compared the application of codes, refined their understanding about code applicabil­ity, and sought confirming and disconfirming evidence of themes. This process led to the development of subcodes used to further delineate the initial coding categories; these subcodes became the final codes as the data became saturated. For example, the team observed that broad beliefs and expectations of student ability seemed to influ­ence teacher use of personalized pacing, ability grouping, and formative assessment. If teachers did not use ability grouping or personalized pacing, they often stated beliefs that reflected an orientation toward the whole class rather than individual students in the class. However, when teachers described the reasons for using personalized pac­ing, ability grouping, and formative assessment, they often described beliefs about students reflecting an individual student orientation. The following analytic memoran­dum, which a member of the team created during data analysis to capture her thoughts, reflects this analysis;

I have noticed that teachers who do not use personalized pacing and ability grouping strategies often seem to base these choices on an overall group orientation that leads to a “one size fits all” method of instruction. For example, they’ll often say “my students just weren’t getting it” when they explained why they repeated material or slowed the pace of instruction for the whole class. Or, they’d say “these kids just want to have fun and they all want to hear from each other” when using whole group rather than ability grouping.Or, “I have to form groups in a way that makes it possible to maintain order in my class.”It’s as if in these instances they are oriented to the class as a unit rather than seeing students as individuals in the unit.

These types of beliefs resulted in the development of subcodes for the overall grouping and pacing codes. The final coding scheme for the grouping and pacing data is reflected in Table 1.

During this second phase when looking for confirming and disconfirming data related to the initial codes, the team also determined that the availability of formative assessments often enhanced experimental teacher use of ability grouping and person­alized pacing. Thus, through an inductive process, the research team developed a more refined set of codes to reflect more differentiated beliefs and experiences as specifi­cally informed by formative assessment (Maxwell, 2005). These codes are presented in Table 2. Then, for each item coded, the symbols (+), (-), and (~) were added to indicate whether the teacher followed the formative assessment procedures as described in the unit (+), if the teacher did not use the formative assessment data as indicated in the unit (—), or had a mixed application, where the teacher only partially

Missett et al. 255

T a b le I . Codes and Subcodes fo r Q ualita tive Data Analysis on Grouping, Pacing.

Codes Subcodes Subcode description

Grouping practices (GP): C ooperative model Teacher believes tha t higherTeacher expectations and (GP-C) ability students should be placedbeliefs about students in a group w ith lo w e r abilityinfluence the grouping students fo r purpose o f coaching,strategy selected. O ften mentoring, and assisting. (Individualbeliefs and expectations orien ta tion)re flect e ither a group Readiness level (GP- Teacher believes tha t groups shouldorien ta tion o r individual RL) be form ed according to readinessstudent o rien ta tion level o f individual students.

(Individual orien ta tion)Fun, enjoym ent Teacher believes th a t groups should

(GP-F) be form ed based on w hat teacher believes w ill be m ost engaging o r fun fo r students. (G roup o rien ta tion)

Personalities (GP-P) Teacher believes th a t groups should be form ed based on personality o f children to ensure students get along. (G roup orien ta tion)

Pacing practices (P): Teacher Personalized pacing Teacher believes tha t the pace atbeliefs and expectations (P-RL) which a student proceeded throughabout students influence curricu lum should be based on theinstructional pace. O ften individual readiness level. (Individualbeliefs and expectations orien ta tion)re flect e ither a group Slowest learners Teacher believes th a t the paceorien ta tion o r individual (P-SL) o f instruction fo r all students instudent o rien ta tion class should be adjusted to tha t o f

slowest learner(s). Pace the same fo r all students. (G roup o rienta tion)

Fun (P-F) Teacher adjusts the pace o f instruction fo r all students based on w hat she believes w ill be m ost fun. (G roup o rienta tion)

followed the guidelines as set forth in the unit (~). An example of adherence to the indicated guidelines (+) would be administration of the formative assessment as indi­cated and student assignment to groups based on the data. An example of an action assigned as no adherence (-) would be altering the groups indicated by the formative assessment data because the teacher felt certain personalities would not work well together, thus changing some students’ placement. A mixed application mark (~) might have indicated a teacher who only partially carried out the subsequent assignment based on formative assessment data. For instance, she may have disagreed with having children work independently on an assigned task, but kept students at the level where

256 Journal for the Education o f the Gifted 37(3)

Table 2. Codes and Subcodes fo r Qualitative Data Analysis on Formative Assessment.

Codes Subcodes Subcode descriptions

Group (GRP): Group GRP-P Grouping choices fo r formativecomments reflected Personality assessment data influenced byteacher beliefs about how personalitiesand where students should GRP-LG Small groups generated from formativebe placed Large group assessment data disregarded in favor

o f moving the class together as one group

GRP-D Differentiation choices based onDifferentiation formative assessment data

Structure (STC): Structure STC-I/F Use o f formative assessment as eithercomments reflected Informal vs. formal an informal way to gain informationteacher perceptions of assessment fo r further challenge o r support o rwhat is appropriate and as a formal assessment fo r a gradenecessary fo r th ird graders STC-A Appropriateness of form at used

Appropriateness of commented upon by teachersformat regarding the tasks required by

the students and the connection between formal assessment and subsequent lesson activities

STC-FLX Modifications and planning affected byFlexibility formative assessment

Ability (TPA): Ability TPA-G Beliefs o f typical third-grade abilitycomments reflect teacher General influence formative assessment dataperceptions o f student TPA-I Beliefs of unique characteristics ofability Individual individuals influence formative

assessment data

they performed, allowing them to work in groups to complete the assignment despite the indication in the curriculum for independent work.

FindingsGenerally speaking, the data analysis yielded findings showing that, for both control and experimental groups, teacher beliefs and expectations about student abilities influ­enced the extent to which they utilized personalized pacing, ability grouping, and for­mative assessment in their language arts instruction. These beliefs and expectations also informed the instructional orientation a teacher would adopt. That is, if teachers broadly believed their students to be capable of advanced work but with varying degrees of readiness, their instructional choices were generally oriented toward indi­vidual student needs and readiness levels. In turn, teachers with an individual student orientation typically seemed more likely to use personalized pacing, ability grouping, and formative assessment. However, if teachers believed that their students were less

M/ssett et al. 257

able to comprehend and master advanced work or to work at their own level of readi­ness, their instructional choices were more generally oriented toward their perceptions of group needs. In turn, teachers with a group orientation seemed to use personalized pacing, ability grouping, and formative assessment less frequently. The findings fur­ther indicate that the availability and use of formative assessments facilitate an indi­vidualized student orientation, which supports the use of best practices in pacing and grouping strategies. Because many control teachers lacked formative assessments in the context of their regular language arts instruction, it appears that the availability of gifted curricula specifically integrating formative assessments aids in the use of pacing and grouping strategies appropriate for gifted learners.

Grouping Strategies

As revealed in the codes, teachers broadly made decisions about how their students should be grouped based on several beliefs—beliefs about the perceived readiness levels of students in a classroom, beliefs about the perceived personalities within the classroom, beliefs about the perceived desires of students to have fun during instruc­tion, and beliefs about how collaboration among students at different readiness levels might produce learning for all students. With the exception of grouping strategies based on beliefs about individual readiness levels, these teacher beliefs suggest that teachers often base grouping strategies on beliefs about the needs of the classroom as a whole rather than the needs of individual students.

R eadiness levels. One set of beliefs articulated by some teachers was that students should be grouped according to their individual ability and readiness levels. These beliefs, indicated by a G-RL code, revealed an instructional orientation directed toward individual student needs. For example, one teacher in the control group placed chil­dren in literacy groups according to their Lexile scores. Another control teacher placed children in spelling groups based on their spelling level as indicated by district assess­ments. The availability of assessment data indicating student readiness levels facili­tated these grouping choices. In these instances, the teachers expressed beliefs that instructional practices should be oriented toward the individual readiness levels of each student in the class.

Fun. Another belief articulated by some teachers regarding grouping strategies was that groups should be formed to ensure that all students have fun during instruction. These beliefs, indicated by a G-F code, reflect an instructional orientation directed toward the class as a whole rather than toward individual student needs or levels of readiness. For example, one teacher in the experimental condition declined to utilize a paired grouping strategy provided in the unit. Instead, she modified that portion of the lesson to whole-group instruction where all students were doing the same activity at the same time. When asked about the basis for her whole-class grouping choice, this teacher said that she felt this strategy would be more “upbeat for excitement” that would help students “get their minds firing” (Teacher interview, October 4,2010). Still

258 Journal for the Education o f the Gifted 37(3)

another teacher offered a similar belief about students needing to have fun with peers to learn. In lieu of an activity in which students selected and worked on poems of their own choice, this teacher utilized a whole-class grouping strategy to look at poems. As a rationale underlying this grouping choice, the teacher said,

We do poems as a group to have some fun. That really helps the children figure out what we’re doing better, to have experience writing as a group together so they don’t necessarily have to come up with it on their own ideas. They build off each other. (Teacher interview, March 8,2010)

Both of these statements reflect the expectation that students leam better in a whole- class group involved in activities the teacher believed to be fun.

Personalities. Another belief articulated by some teachers was that students should be grouped according to their personalities, as teachers perceive this grouping strategy improves class dynamics. These beliefs, indicated by a GP code, revealed an instruc­tional orientation directed toward group needs rather than individual student needs. One teacher explained her use of such personalities-based grouping strategies as follows:

Because a lot of times, especially in this class, I have some dominant personalities, and then I have some kids who will not do anything. So when I’ve had to put them in groups I’ve put them in groups often enough where I had to keep a balance. I’ve just found that there are certain kids who just don’t work well together and even if they have the same ability they just butt heads and they don’t accomplish anything. So they weren’t necessarily ability-based or even interest-based. They were more personality-based and based on who I thought would mesh and come to more of a consensus than I’ve seen in the past. (Teacher interview, November 16, 2010)

Again, grouping choices based on student personalities suggest the belief that improved classroom management promotes the completion of work and classroom management more than ability-based grouping.

Collaboration. Several teachers grouped students according to what they believed to be a “collaborative” model. In these instances where data received a GC code, teachers expressed the belief that higher achieving students should be grouped with lower achieving students to increase the comprehension and achievement of the lower achieving students. For example, one control teacher stated that she

would have a mixed-abilities group where you would put the higher, faster kids with some of the more struggling students and allow the kids who were picking it up more quickly to model and work with the students who were struggling. (Teacher interview, May 18, 2011)

Another teacher stated a similar belief:

Missett et al. 259

Sometimes I do my groups by heterogeneous combinations where I’ve got some higher readers and some lower readers. You know we do a lot of cooperative learning and [students] helping each other out. And you might understand this, but [higher students] help explain it to someone who maybe doesn’t understand. (Teacher interview, May 9, 2011)

In these instances, the teachers seemed to orient their instructional practices toward individual learners who the teachers believed to be less able, but not toward individual students who were comparatively more advanced or who had demonstrated mastery of relevant skills and content knowledge.

P ac in g P ractices

Teacher decisions about pacing showed similar themes as those found in teacher beliefs about grouping strategies. As revealed in the codes, teachers made decisions about the pace at which their students should proceed through the curriculum based on a variety of beliefs— beliefs about the perceived readiness levels o f individual students in a classroom, beliefs about the perceived desires o f students to have fun during instruction, and beliefs about pacing instruction according to the need(s) o f the slowest learner(s). With the exception o f pacing strategies based on beliefs about individual readiness levels, these beliefs suggest that some teachers base pacing strategies on beliefs about the needs o f the classroom as a whole rather than on the needs of indi­vidual learners.

R e a d in e s s leve ls . As revealed in the codes, teachers in both the experimental and con­trol groups generally based their instructional strategies related to personalized pacing on the beliefs and expectations they held for students overall. When teachers articu­lated beliefs and expectations oriented toward individual students, they tended to allow students to proceed through a curriculum based on individual readiness levels. In other words, more personalized pacing was incorporated in these instances. These data received the P-RL code. For example, one teacher in the experimental condition expressed the belief that some o f her students needed additional support in using ency­clopedias. In response to this belief, she adjusted the pace o f instruction for those students by adding a mini-lesson while other students proceeded through the unit according to their readiness levels. When explaining this choice, she stated,

I found that a lot of students needed more guidance, they just don’t have a lot of experience with reading an encyclopedia, you know, so those kids needed a little mini lesson on how an encyclopedia is kind of set up and organized and how we read it. The research strategy really helped with that but I think they needed more time to practice. So some of them spent a lot of time sitting with me and we would read their nonfiction text and do the insert and do the note cards together while the others kept going. (Teacher interview, November 19, 2010)

This choice suggests that the teacher based her pacing choice on the individual readiness levels o f her students.

260 Journal for the Education o f the G ifted 3 7 (3 )

S low est lea rne rs . Some teachers adjusted the pace of instruction to that of the slowest learners. These instructional choices were based on the expressed belief that all stu­dents required repetition of material already taught before moving forward. These data received the P-SL code. For example, when asked for her rationale for repeating a lesson for the whole class, one teacher said, “They don’t retain a lot of information from one class to the next. I usually have to reteach or at least give a good review of the previous lesson before we can move on” (Teacher interview, October 4, 2010). Another example of the P-SL code often occurred during that part of the poetry lesson when students are asked simply to discuss with a partner the imagery that is conjured from the reading of a poem. Here, many experimental teachers adopted the practice of having an in-depth whole-group discussion of the poem and slowing the pace of instruction for all based on the stated belief that none of the students understood the poem enough to proceed with the lesson. One teacher stated,

Well, the first poem The Fish asked for students to talk to one another about it, and I felt like it didn’t really get into the appreciation of the poem. And kids didn’t understand the poem, so we really got into what the language meant, and trying to get this picture, and I think that they then could understand the words better, and it made the poem more meaningful to them, and a personal experience. They didn’t understand the beard . . . they heard the words, but they didn’t understand what that meant to the poem, and so 1 felt like with each of the poems, we needed to slow down. (Teacher interview, October 13, 2009)

Generally, these beliefs lacked data that supported the need to repeat material and slow the pace of instruction for all students. Thus, in these instances, it appeared that teachers expected all students to access and master learning in the same way at the same time.

Even when teachers recognized that most students had mastered the material taught and were ready to move forward in a unit or lesson, some continued to adjust the pace of instruction to the pace of the slowest learner. For example, one teacher stated that in a class of 16 students, she had one who “struggled with his meds” and “needed con­stant redirection.” When asked how this student’s needs impacted instruction, the teacher responded that they “took away from the class because [she] had to slow things down for him” (Teacher interview, October 5, 2010).

Fun. As with instructional choices affecting ability grouping, some teachers paced instruction based on what they believed would provide the most “fun” for students. These beliefs were coded P-F. Data receiving this code reflected beliefs and expecta­tions that students learn best when the pace of instruction is adjusted for all students to allow fun activities assumed to be enjoyed by all. For example, in response to a ques­tion about modifying the pace of a lesson in the experimental poetry unit, one teacher said,

Students need to have fun in order for them to understand and follow exactly what you’re saying. Now I follow your plan but I also then show them generally an easier poem. I

Missett et al. 261

have a wide variety of poetry books for children and then I’ll find one that has the same style and mode as the one you’re showing. It’s just more enjoyable. (Teacher interview, November 10, 2009)

Again, these beliefs appear to produce instructional practices oriented toward the need of the group to have fun rather than to the needs of individual students within the class.

F o rm a tiv e A sse ssm e n t

The emergent codes outlined in Table 2 reflect teachers’ choices in using formative assessment data into a context of learner needs and their action upon the information given to them. That is not to say that they decided to use the data to support learner needs, but rather they respond along a continuum ranging from “no intervention” to “addressing specific learner needs.” The constructivist approach allowed for the con­text of formative assessment to be analyzed to inform the field of gifted education about emerging themes of teachers’ perception of the prescriptive nature of formative assessment.

Data analysis uncovered common themes expressed by teachers regarding forma­tive assessments and their perceived benefits and limitations. Grouping issues, struc­ture of the content and delivery of formative assessment, and perceptions of student ability were the most prominent themes that influenced instructional practice.

G roup ing . The first major theme that emerged was grouping, along with the subthemes of personalities and preference for whole-group instruction.

P ersona lities. The focus of grouping issues centered on student personalities. Teach­ers often added this component to formative outcome data when putting students together for follow-up assignments. Teachers’ placement of students in groups was influenced by student qualities of leadership and ability to cooperate. Teachers com­mented upon being proactive in creating situations where students could leam without distraction or conflict. Other comments tied to group placement regarded maturity and gender. Not all follow-up activities based on formative assessment data required group work; however, some teachers opted to have students sit with their placement group, and some chose to allow collaboration despite the guidelines to have students work independently. When these modifications were made, teachers often included notions of social interactions in their decision-making.

W h o le -g ro u p in s tru c tio n . Moving the class through as a whole group was another choice that affected the intended use of formative assessment data. Some teachers stood by a belief that student ability level was about the same across the gifted class­room, and therefore, differentiation by ability or interest was not necessary. Others chose to keep all class members working on the same material at the same time so that students would not “miss out” on anything.

262 Journal fo r the Education o f the Gifted 37(3)

D if fe re n tia t io n b y g ro u p . However, another component tied to grouping was differ­entiation. As formative assessment is a tool by which teachers can form learning levels for differentiated instruction, this idea surfaced in the data with regularity. Teachers expressed an appreciation for the formative assessments as they provided opportuni­ties for teachers to implement differentiation. Some teacher comments included a bit of surprise that individual students did not always end up at the same level. Others commented that the formative assessments made differentiating easy, offering oppor­tunities for both support and challenge where needed. A teacher in the experimental condition in the poetry unit offered the following observation regarding the usefulness of formative assessment for differentiating by ability:

When we did the formative assessment at the very beginning, where the students were working with abstract and concrete nouns, that one was extremely helpful. I felt like that one really gave the students who were ready for something more a challenge, that they were able to succeed with finding the language in The Fish, but they were also still being challenged. And I felt it gave the students support, you know, it helped me identify who needed more support and help, so I could really target those groups. (Teacher interview, May 10, 2011)

Findings from the control group data showed that formative assessment appears to help grouping strategies. For example, some control teachers used Lexile scores to group student literature circles by ability. However, of the teachers who chose not to differentiate instruction, the reason typically related to the teacher’s sense that students needed to move through the material together.

S tru c tu re . The second major theme that emerged was structure. Issues arising here included formal versus informal assessment, appropriateness of format, and flexibility.

F o rm a l a n d in fo rm a l assessm ent. In some districts, grades were required. Conse­quently, some experimental teachers created their own formal assessments based on the formative assessments in the units. For several teachers in the study, student jour­nal responses gave them an avenue through which they could assess the students’ level of comprehension and provided information that allowed teachers to fill in any gaps in understanding of the material.

F o rm a t. In regard to structure, the issue of writing ability arose. Some teachers asked if there could be more options to gain information about student understand­ing as some children have difficulty with expressing their thoughts on paper. Others commented that the journal format is not always “kid friendly” and may not serve as a reliable medium to gauge understanding. Some teachers felt that the variety of formats helped them see variations in comfort level tied to student engagement.

F lex ib ility . Teachers also commented on the flexibility afforded by the formative assessments. With the material in place, planning became easier for some. Others

M/'ssett et al. 263

chose to model review material on the formative assessments. Positive comments regarding the fluid and flexible grouping results were also made as teachers noted that formative assessment can be a daunting task requiring much planning and preparation time.

S tu d e n t ab ility . Last, perceptions of student ability influenced the use of formative assessment data. Some teachers made broad generalizations about third graders and what they can and cannot do. When this perception arose, teachers had either chosen not to give the formative assessment or had modified the recommended follow-up activity. Preconceived notions about certain students also affected student placement. In one instance, an English language learner was placed in a lower level than where results of the assessment indicated he should be placed, as the teacher believed that he could not do the more difficult activity. Another teacher moved a student up a level, stating that the child would have been “bored” doing the activity her assessment score indicated as appropriate. Some choices to move students down a level were based on the teachers’ perceptions that more support was needed rather than on assessment data. Several stated that they were surprised where children placed, and in following guidelines for follow-up activities, noted that children had been placed appropriately.

D is c u s s io n

As evidenced by the analysis of teacher observations and interviews, the findings from this study suggest that, notwithstanding the empirical literature supporting the benefits of ability grouping and personalized pacing, some teachers in gifted third-grade class­rooms do not consistently utilize these best practices in language arts instruction. Instead, it appears that teacher beliefs about students and their capabilities are often reflected in an orientation toward either individual student needs or group needs. When teachers express beliefs and expectations that are oriented toward individual students and their specific readiness levels, teachers use best practices in the areas of ability grouping and personalized pacing. Thus, students are grouped and proceed through a unit or curriculum according to their readiness levels. The exception to this conclusion appears to occur when teachers are oriented toward the “slowest” learners in the class and slow instruction for all to accommodate those learners.

However, when teachers express beliefs and expectations that are oriented toward students in the classroom generally and what is perceived to be the readiness level of the classroom as a whole, teachers do not as readily utilize personalized pacing or abil­ity grouping. Rather, students are grouped and proceed through a unit or curriculum in a way that is lock step or “one size fits all.” In those instances, little differentiation occurs and best practices give way to what teachers believe is in the interest of the class generally, that is, what is fun, collaborative, and likely to improve classroom management in dealing with diverse personalities. The failure or reluctance by some teachers to utilize best practices related to ability grouping and personalized pacing occur even for some teachers in the context of implementing a research-based curricu­lum with integrated tools for using these best practices. This research is consistent

264 Journal fo r the Education o f the Gifted 37(3)

with other studies suggesting that teacher beliefs and expectations about student abil­ity influence instructional choices (Azano et al., 2011; Moon & Brighton, 2008).

However, the availability and purposeful use of formative assessments appear to enhance the utilization of personalized pacing or ability grouping and to promote an orientation toward individual student readiness levels. This appears to be particularly true where there is an effective structure for formative assessments and where teachers perceive their gifted students to constitute a heterogeneous group. Clearly, the beliefs teachers bring with them regarding gifted student ability affects choices they make in the classroom. The formative assessments embedded in the research units were designed to provide the necessary data for differentiation and to facilitate best prac­tices in the areas of grouping and personalized pacing. Some control teachers had other formative assessments available to them. Many teachers utilized the formative assessments and the data they produced appropriately for purposes of differentiation. However, not all teachers followed the guidelines provided, relying instead on set beliefs about the typical third-grade gifted student. When this “typical” student became the norm from which decisions about learning opportunities were made, students reaching toward either end of the readiness level spectrum missed out on best learning practices. These findings support the conclusion that professional development designed to inform teachers on how formative assessments can and should be utilized to enhance differentiation in the areas of individualized pacing and ability grouping should be offered.

The varying formats used for formative assessments present a larger issue. One of the units in this study uses just one type, the written journal response, for all four assessments. Teachers noted that some students expressed frustration regarding the writing process. Research has shown that children who have difficulty writing under­take a more complex cognitive task when they are asked to demonstrate knowledge in written form, resulting in greater cognitive load because the brain is operating two conflicting processes (Beminger et al., 1997; Piek, Baynam, & Barrett, 2006; Roberts, Siever, & Mair, 2010). Thus, more varied types of formative assessment may have afforded opportunities for struggling writers to demonstrate conceptual understanding and may have provided better information from which teachers could have made deci­sions about use of best practices. Further study into the effects of the writing aspect of formative assessment tied to student conceptual understanding when using formative assessments is warranted. This might prove to be particularly important for students who are both gifted and who have disabilities affecting their learning.

The formative assessments in the poetry unit were more varied, including multiple- choice exit slips, listing prompts, and short-answer prompts where full sentences were not required. Further research on the types of formative assessments used, tied to out­come data, may shed some light on the overall effectiveness of differentiation based on the format used in the formative assessment. Also, connections to subsequent activ­ities based on the same or similar format used in the formative assessment could be examined. For example, if the purpose of the formative assessment is to determine student understanding of poetic structure, specific prompts tied to the forthcoming concepts might prove more informative than a general request for students to write

Missett et al. 265

what they know about poetic structure. In other words, the structure of the formative assessment could offer more opportunity for students to display knowledge of specific concepts tied to the broader theme.

ImplicationsFrom these findings, we conclude that a continuing need exists in the gifted education classroom to promote understanding of the variation among identified gifted learners, to encourage the use of personalized pacing and ability grouping through the develop­ment of formative assessment, to provide teachers with sufficient structure for the use of formative assessment, and to educate teachers on how formative assessment can be used to adapt instruction to reflect best practices. It appears likely that when given a mechanism for integrating accelerative and grouping strategies, teachers’ instruction will more likely conform to what the literature shows is most appropriate for highly able students. There is also a need to develop a better understanding about differentia­tion in which type of formative assessment to use. It appears that formative assess­ments will provide the most useful information when they are tailored to learning profiles of diverse students and when they mirror the type of learning that will ulti­mately be gauged.

LimitationsThese findings of the study are derived from a study where specific questions about formative assessment were not part of the interview protocol; only observations that chronologically matched the lessons utilizing formative assessment provided data for this research. The questions regarding teacher perceptions and use of formative assess­ments emerged from the data corpus after data had been collected. Similarly, specific questions regarding teacher beliefs about accelerative strategies were not in the inter­view protocol, the inclusion of which may have limited or provided additional confir­mation of the conclusions drawn. Future study can incorporate the themes presented here to more fully explore issues surrounding the use of personalized pacing and for­mative assessment with gifted students.

Finally, formative assessment under the theoretical framework indicated here—that it is a construct used by teachers to inform future teaching—does not take into account students’ decision-making about their learning. Assessment for learning is a construct that utilizes student interaction with the outcome data, and is a term that is sometimes blended with formative assessment. Because gifted students do display autonomy in learning, future studies that address this factor could be helpful in understanding how learners themselves use feedback.

A u th o rs ’ N o te

At the time of this study, Tracy C. Missett, Marguerite M. Brunner, Carolyn M. Callahan, Tonya R. Moon and Amy Azano were affiliated with the Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, Curry School of Education, University of Virginia. Tracy C. Missett is now

266 Journal for the Education o f the G ifted 3 7 (3 )

at Department o f Education, Sweet Briar College, as well as Department of Special Education, College of Education, Marshall University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt o f the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department o f Education, through Grant R305A060044 to the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

ReferencesAndrade, H. L., & Cizek, G. J. (2010). Handbook o f formative assessment. New York, NY:

Routledge.Azano, A. P., Callahan, C. M., Missett, T. C., & Brunner, M. M. (2014). Understanding the

experiences of gifted education teachers and fidelity of implementation in rural schools. Journal o f Advanced Academics, 25, 87-99.

Azano, A. P., Missett, T. C., Callahan, C. M., Oh, S., Brunner, M. M., Foster, L. F., & Moon, T. (2011). Exploring the relationship between fidelity of implementation and academic achievement in a third-grade gifted curriculum: A mixed-methods study. Journal o f Advanced Academics, 22, 693-719.

Beminger, V. W., Vaughan, K. B., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Rogan, L. W., Brooks, A .,.. .Graham, S. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 89, 652-666.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 5 ,1 -1 A.

Braddock, J. H., II. (1990). Tracking the middle grades: National patterns of grouping for instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 445-449.

Brulles, D., Saunders, R., & Cohn, S. J. (2010). Improving performance for gifted students in a cluster grouping model. Journal fo r the Education o f the Gifted, 34, 327-350.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, The University of Iowa.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Marron, M. A. (2013). Evidence trumps beliefs: Academic acceleration is an effective intervention for high-ability students. In C. M. Callahan & H. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals o f gifted education: Considering multiple per­spectives (pp. 164—175). New York, NY: Routledge.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., Marron, M. A., Castellano, J. A., Clinkenbeard, P. R., Rogers, K., . . .Smith, D. (2010). Guidelines for developing an academic acceleration policy. Journal o f Advanced Academics, 21, 180-203.

Erickson, E. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook o f research on teaching (pp. 68-120). New York, NY: Macmillan.

M/ssett et at. 267

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199-208.

Gagne, F. (2011). Academic talent development and the equity issue in gifted education. Talent Development & Excellence, 3, 3-22.

Gentry, M. (2014). Cluster grouping. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 109-117). Waco, TX: Pruffock Press.

Gentry, M., & Fugate, C. M. (2013). Cluster grouping programs and the total school cluster grouping model. In C. M. Callahan & H. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals o f gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 212-225). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hoogeveen, L., van Hell, J. G., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Self-concept and social status of accelerated and nonaccelerated students in the first 2 years of secondary school in the Netherlands. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 50-67.

Hughes, G. B. (2010). Formative assessment practices that maximize learning for students at risk. In H. Andrade & G. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook o f formative assessment (pp. 170-198). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kaplan, S. N. (2001). Layering differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. In F. A. Karnes & S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (pp. 107-131). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis o f the research on ability grouping: Historical and contem­porary perspectives. Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Kulik, J. A. (2003). Grouping and tracking. InN. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 268-281). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Lee, S. Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Petemel, G. (2010). The efficacy of academic accelera­tion for gifted minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 189-208.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Moon, T. R., & Brighton, C. M. (2008). Primary teachers’ conceptions of giftedness. Journal for the Education o f the Gifted, 31, 447-480.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). NAGC Pre-K-Grade 12 gifted programming standards. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/ProgrammingStandards.aspx

Niehart, M. (2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping: Recommendations for best practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 330-341.

Passow, A. H. (1996). Acceleration over the years. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Piek, J. P., Baynam, G. B., & Barrett, N. C. (2006). The relationship between fine and gross motor ability, self-perceptions and self-worth in children and adolescents. Human Movement Science, 25, 65-75.

Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 308-317.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2003). Conception of giftedness and its relation to the develop­ment of social capital. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook o f gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 75-87). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2010). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A focus on student strengths and interests. Gifted Education International, 26, 140-157.

Roberts, G. I., Siever, J. E., & Mair, J. A. (2010). Effects of a kinesthetic cursive handwriting intervention for grade 4—6 students. The American Journal o f Occupational Therapy, 64, 745-755.

268 Journal for the Education o f the Gifted 37(3)

Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382-384.

Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review o f Educational Research, 78, 153-189. Silberglitt, B., & Hintze, J. (2005). Formative assessment using CBM-R cut scores to track

progress toward success on state-mandated achievement tests: A comparison of methods. Journal o f Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 304-325.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs o f all learners.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students. Theory Into Practice, 44, 160-166.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2010). The efficacy of academic acceleration for gifted minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 189-208.

Wiliam, D. (2006). Formative assessment: Getting the focus right. Educational Assessment, 11, 283-289.

Wood, S., Portman, T. A. A., Cigrand, D. L., & Colangelo, N. (2010). School counselors’ perceptions and experience with acceleration as a program option for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 168-178.

A uthor Biographies

Tracy C. Missett is an assistant professor in the Department of Education at Sweet Briar College and adjunct faculty member in the College of Education at Marshall University. She teaches undergraduate courses in special education and literacy development, and graduate courses in gifted and special education. She previously was a graduate research assistant at the University of Virginia in the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Fler research interests include twice-exceptionality, creativity, and teacher expectations.

Marguerite M. Brunner, a doctoral student in gifted education at the University of Virginia, has experience working with gifted students in various settings. Her research interests include differentiated instruction, identification of gifted students, and mentoring programs for gifted children and their families.

Carolyn M. Callahan holds a PhD in the area of educational psychology with an emphasis in gifted education. At the University of Virginia, she developed the graduate program in gifted education and the summer and Saturday program for gifted students. She served as director of the University of Virginia National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented for 18 years, and is a principal investigator for the What Works in Gifted Education (WWIGE) study.

Tonya R. Moon teaches courses in research design, was a principal investigator for the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, is a principal investigator for a research grant focused in the area of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and elemen­tary teachers and students, and is past chair of the NAGC Research & Evaluation Network and past president of the Virginia Educational Research Association.

Amy Price Azano is an assistant professor o f adolescent literacy at Virginia Tech where her research focuses on rural gifted education, place-based pedagogy, and the literacy needs of rural youth. Prior to her current position, she was a researcher and project manager on the WWIGE study at the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented at the University of Virginia.

Copyright of Journal for the Education of the Gifted is the property of Sage Publications Inc.and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv withoutthe copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, oremail articles for individual use.