Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Education Research International
Volume 2016, Article ID 2742905, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2742905
Research Article

Factors That Promote/Inhibit Teaching Gifted Students in a Regular Class: Results from a Professional Development Program for Chemistry Teachers

Weizmann Institute of Science, 76100 Rehovot, Israel

Received 13 August 2015; Revised 12 November 2015; Accepted 30 November 2015

Academic Editor: Pablo Gil

Copyright © 2016 Naama Benny and Ron Blonder. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. V. H. Burney, “Applications of social cognitive theory to gifted education,” Roeper Review, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 130–139, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  2. J. Van Tassel-Baska, “Selecting instructional strategies for gifted learners,” Focus on Exceptional Children, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 1–12, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  3. F. Pajares, “Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 543–578, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. B. Eilam and H. E. Vidergor, “Gifted Israeli students' perceptions of teachers' desired characteristics: a case of cultural orientation,” Roeper Review, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 86–96, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. B. Nevo and S. Rachmel, “Education of gifted children: a general roadmap and the case of Israel,” in Creativity in Mathematics and the Education of Gifted Students, R. Leikin, A. Berman, and B. Koichu, Eds., pp. 243–251, Sense Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009. View at Google Scholar
  6. B. Clark, Growing Up Gifted: Developing the Potential of Children at Home and at School, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 7th edition, 1997.
  7. J. Freeman, “Scientific thinking in gifted children,” in Science Education: Talent Recruitment and Public Understanding, vol. 38 of Nato Science Series, pp. 17–30, IOS Press, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  8. S. K. Johnsen, “Definitions, models, and characteristics of gifted students,” in Identifying Gifted Students: A Practical Guide, pp. 1–22, Prufrock Press, Waco, Tex, USA, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  9. K. S. Taber, Enriching School Science for the Gifted Learner, Gatsby Science Enhancement Programme, London, UK, 2007.
  10. K. S. Taber, “Challenging gifted learners: general principles for science educators; and exemplification in the context of teaching chemistry,” Science Education International, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 5–30, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  11. A. H. Johnstone, “The development of chemistry teaching: a changing response to changing demand,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 70, no. 9, p. 701, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. R. M. Milgram, “Perception of teacher behavior in gifted and nongifted children,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 125–128, 1979. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. L. Goe, C. Bell, and O. Little, Approaches to Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness: A Research Synthesis, National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 2008.
  14. J. Brophy and T. L. Good, “Teacher behavior and student achievement,” in Handbook of Research on Teaching, pp. 238–375, Macmillan Publishers, 1986. View at Google Scholar
  15. D. Sisk, “Myth 13: the regular classroom teacher can ‘go it alone’,” The Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 269–271, 2009. View at Google Scholar
  16. M. E. Welsh, “Measuring teacher effectiveness in gifted education: some challenges and suggestions,” Journal of Advanced Academics, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 750–770, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  17. K. L. Westberg, F. X. Archambault Jr., S. M. Dobyns, and T. J. Salvin, “The classroom practices observation study,” Journal for the Education of the Gifted, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 120–146, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  18. A. H. Passow, “Differentiated curricula for the gifted/talented,” in Proceedings of the 1st National Conference on Curricula for the Gifted/Talented, pp. 4–20, National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and Talented, Ventura, Calif, USA, 1982.
  19. C. A. Tomlinson, Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners, ASCD, Alexandria, Va, USA, 2nd edition, 2014.
  20. S. M. Reis and J. S. Renzulli, “Using curriculum compacting to challenge the above-average,” Educational Leadership, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 51–57, 1992, http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/oct92/vol50/num02/Using_Curriculum_Compacting_To_Challenge_the_Above-Average.aspx. View at Google Scholar
  21. S. M. Reis and J. S. Renzulli, “Curriculum compacting: a systematic procedure for modifying the curriculum for above average ability students,” The Journal of the California Association for the Gifted, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 27–32, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  22. J. VanTassel-Baska and S. Wood, “The integrated curriculum model (ICM),” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 345–357, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. K. L. Westberg and M. E. Daoust, “The results of the replication of the classroom practices survey replication in two states,” The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter, Fall, 3–8, 2003, http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/newsletter/fall03/fall032.html.
  24. J. B. Hansen and J. F. Feldhusen, “Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students,” Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 115–121, 1994. View at Google Scholar
  25. J. VanTassel-Baska and T. Stambaugh, “Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom,” Theory Into Practice, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 211–217, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. B. Joyce and B. Showers, Power and Staff Development through Research on Training, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Va, USA, 1983.
  27. J. Harrison and R. Globman, Assessment of Training Teachers in Active Learning: A Research Report, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, 1988 (Hebrew).
  28. S. Loucks-Horsley and C. Matsumoto, “Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: the state of the scene,” School Science and Mathematics, vol. 99, pp. 258–271, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  29. R. Mamlok-Naaman, R. Blonder, and A. Hofstein, “Providing chemistry teachers with opportunities to enhance their knowledge in contemporary scientific areas: a three-stage model,” Chemistry Education Research and Practice, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 241–252, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. R. Blonder and R. Mamlok-Naaman, “Learning about teaching the extracurricular topic of nanotechnology as a vehicle for achieving a sustainable change in science education,” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  31. L. Darling-Hammond and N. Richardson, “Teacher learning: what matters?” Educational Leadership, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 46–53, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. C. Gräsel, C. Pröbstel, J. Freienberg, and I. Parchmann, “Fostering collaboration among secondary school science teachers,” in Studies on the Educational Quality of Schools. The Final Report on the Dfg Priority Programme, M. Prenzel, Ed., pp. 157–173, Waxmann, Münster, Germany, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  33. J. H. van Driel, A. M. W. Bulte, and N. Verloop, “The conceptions of chemistry teachers about teaching and learning in the context of a curriculum innovation,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 303–322, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  34. F. Lipowsky, “Theoretische perspektiven und empirische befunde zur wirksamkeit von lehrerfort- und -weiterbildung,” in Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf, E. Terhart, H. Bennewitz, and M. Rothland, Eds., pp. 398–417, Waxmann, Münster, Germany, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  35. A. J. Wayne, K. S. Yoon, P. Zhu, S. Cronen, and M. S. Garet, “Experimenting with teacher professional development: motives and methods,” Educational Researcher, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 469–479, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  36. M. S. Garet, A. C. Porter, L. Desimone, B. F. Birman, and K. S. Yoon, “What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers,” American Educational Research Journal, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 915–945, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. J. Feldhusen, “Educating teachers for work with talented youth,” in Handbook of Gifted Education, N. Colangelo and G. A. Davis, Eds., pp. 547–552, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, Mass, USA, 2nd edition, 1997. View at Google Scholar
  38. J. G. Geake and M. U. M. Gross, “Teachers' negative affect toward academically gifted students: an evolutionary psychological study,” Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 217–231, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. D. J. Matthews and J. F. Foster, “A dynamic scaffolding model of teacher development: the gifted education consultant as catalyst for change,” Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 222–230, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. R. S. Matthews, B. L. Smith, and J. MacGregor, “The evolution of learning communities: a retrospective,” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 132, pp. 99–111, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. C. Midgley, A. Kaplan, and M. Middleton, “Performance-approach goals: good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost?” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 77–86, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. H. Hertberg-Davis, “Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and is sufficient: classroom teachers have the time, the skill, and the will to differentiate adequately,” Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 251–253, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. J. VanTassel-Baska, “Effective curriculum and instructional models for talented students,” Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 164–169, 1986. View at Google Scholar
  44. M. Gentry, M. G. Rizza, and S. V. Owen, “Examining perceptions of challenge and choice in classrooms: the relationship between teachers and their students and comparisons between gifted students and other students,” Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 145–155, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. F. Gagne, “Perceptions of programs for gifted children: agreement on principles, but disagreement over modalities,” Journal of Special Education, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 113–127, 1983. View at Google Scholar
  46. B. Cramond and C. E. Martin, “Inservice and preservice teachers' attitudes toward the academically brilliant,” Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 15–19, 1987. View at Google Scholar
  47. R. W. Copenhaver and D. J. Mc Intyre, “Teachers' perception of gifted students,” Roeper Review, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 151–153, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  48. K. Megay-Nespoli, “Beliefs and attitudes of Novice teachers regarding instruction of academically talented learners,” Roeper Review, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 178–182, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  49. R. C. Pianta, B. Hamre, and M. Stuhlman, “Relationships between teachers and children,” in Handbook of Psychology, W. M. Reynolds and G. E. Miller, Eds., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  50. J.-E. Nurmi, “Students' characteristics and teacher-child relationships in instruction: a meta-analysis,” Educational Research Review, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 177–197, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. K. A. Ericsson, “The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, and R. R. Hoffman, Eds., pp. 683–703, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  52. J. S. Renzulli, “Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: a four-part theoretical approach,” Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 150–159, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. R. J. Sternberg and L. Zhang, “What do we mean by giftedness? A pentagonal implicit theory,” Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 88–94, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  54. R. F. Subotnik, P. Olszewski-Kubilius, and F. C. Worrell, “Rethinking giftedness and gifted education a proposed direction forward based on psychological science,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 3–54, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. J. J. Haney, A. T. Lumpe, C. M. Czerniak, and V. Egan, “From beliefs to actions: the beliefs and actions of teachers implementing change,” Journal of Science Teacher Education, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 171–187, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. M. J. Goldston and S. Nichols, “Visualizing culturally relevant science pedagogy through photonarratives of black middle school teachers,” Journal of Science Teacher Education, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 179–198, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. L. Madden, M. G. Jones, and M. Blanchard, “Shared photonarratives in an online master's course: reflection, context and community,” Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, vol. 13, no. 1, 2013, http://www.citejournal.org/vol13/iss1/science/article1.cfm. View at Google Scholar
  58. B. Hooks, Art on My Mind, New York Press, New York, NY, USA, 1995.
  59. E. G. Guba and Y. S. Lincoln, “Competing paradigms in qualitative research,” in Handbook of Qualitative Research, N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, Eds., pp. 105–117, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 1994. View at Google Scholar
  60. J. W. Creswell and V. L. Plano Clark, Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Sage, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 2011.
  61. A. Hofstein, R. Shore, and M. Kipnis, “Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: a case study,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 47–62, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. R. Blonder, M. Jonatan, Z. Bar-Dov, N. Benny, S. Rap, and S. Sakhnini, “Can you tube it? Providing chemistry teachers with technological tools and enhancing their efficacy beliefs,” Chemistry Education Research and Practice, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 269–285, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  63. A. F. L. Wong and B. J. Fraser, “Assessment of chemistry laboratory classroom environments,” Asia Pacific Journal of Education, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 41–58, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  64. S. Laine, E. Kuusisto, and K. A. Tirri, “Finnish teachers' conceptions of giftedness,” in Proceedings of the American Educational Research Association AERA 2015 Annual Meeting, Chicago, Ill, USA, April 2015.
  65. R. Blonder, S. Rap, R. Mamlok-Naaman, and A. Hofstein, “Questioning behavior of students in the inquiry chemistry laboratory: differences between sectors and genders in the israeli context,” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 705–732, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  66. R. Blonder, R. Mamlok-Naaman, and A. Hofstein, “Analyzing inquiry questions of high-school students in a gas chromatography open-ended laboratory experiment,” Chemistry Education Research and Practice, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 250–258, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus