Best Practices in Professional Learning and Teacher Preparation in Gifted Education (Vol. 1): Methods and Strategies for Gifted Professional Development

AUTHORS

Introduction

This book is the first volume of a three-book series related to professional learning and teacher preparation in gifted education. Volume 1 focuses on methods and strategies for gifted professional development. Volume 2 explores professional learning strategies for special topics in gifted education. Volume 3 provides professional learning strategies for teachers of the gifted in the content areas. The purpose of this series is to present various topics supporting strategies and best practices in teacher training, focusing on identifying and meeting the needs of gifted learners, as outlined and required in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) for Pre-K–grade 12 administrators and supervisors, coordinators of gifted programs, Pre-K–grade 12 educators and teachers of the gifted, and other stakeholders in the field. These books continue the discussions started in Using the National Gifted Education Standards for Pre-K–Grade 12 Professional Development (Johnsen & Clarenbach, 2017) and offer expert suggestions for exemplary practices that maximize professional learning.

Novak sets the stage for this volume with a review of ESSA and the professional development standards set forth by the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) and Learning Forward in Chapter 1. She provides a review of the literature and synthesis of research-based best practices in strategies for professional learning with a comparison to the definitions set forth by legislation and standards.

In the second chapter, Brigandi and Miller provide a tale of three teachers. The reader is offered insight into three different professional learning experiences through a scenario approach, comparing common professional learning experiences to the research and examining pitfalls of different approaches. The authors also offer specific recommendations for practice.

Reflection is the focus of the third chapter, in which Slade describes the use of reflective practice in pushing the shift from professional development to professional learning. The reader will gain insight into the research basis for reflection and how reflection can be incorporated into strategies already in play in the professional learning field. Finally, Slade describes the benefits of reflection for both the teacher and the student.

The fourth chapter describes professional learning strategies that are commonly used and provides empirical support and recommendations for professional learning experiences. Novak and Lewis explore both online and in-person professional development tools, comparing each example to the research and legislation supporting the need for professional learning that should be sustained, encourage collaboration and reflection, and offer the chance for teachers to put their knowledge into practice.

McIntosh proposes a metaphorical haberdashery in Chapter 5, pushing the reader to compare research-based practices in professional learning to three distinct hats. Through imagery and a touch of allegory, McIntosh considers fundamentals of professional learning, how it can be differentiated, and evaluative practices to ensure its success. Examples are offered throughout the chapter that can be integrated into a school- or district-level professional learning plan.

In the sixth chapter, Gilson focuses on the research-based best practice of differentiation for gifted students and overlays this with professional learning. Drawing on research from the fields of gifted education, professional development, and adult education, Gilson offers five strategies for differentiated professional learning.

In Chapter 7, Weber, Boswell, and Behrens suggest using case studies as a tool for professional learning. The authors describe the steps in analyzing a case study and provide research support for the case study process. Readers are provided an example of a case study complete with a scenario related to implementing a districtwide plan for professional learning, discussion questions, activities, extensions, and resources.

Croft presents a model of professional learning for an all-too-common teacher in her chapter on the sole practitioner. Setting the stage with research on professional learning, Croft suggests the use of the QUEST model for sole practitioners, in which teachers use a structured reflection approach to analyze and apply information to current practices and policies. Chapter 8 provides a teacher, district leader, or principal a structure for a personal professional learning experience.

Chapter 9 presents a team approach to professional learning focusing on a coteaching relationship. Fogarty and Tschida present research on the coteaching model and showcase the use of coteaching as a professional learning approach. Readers will gain knowledge about the seven kinds of coteaching strategies with scenario-based examples and instructions on how to apply the practices to gifted classrooms.

The teaching field is rife with 21st-century skills, and so is the 10th and final chapter, where Cavanaugh, Kelley, and McCarthy synthesize key research-based approaches to building gifted educator capacity and present ways to implement new technologies as a part of a collaborative learning practice. Topics discussed include digital action research, communities of practice, and professional learning communities.

As you read through these chapters, you will notice a shift in terminology from professional development to professional learning; this is purposeful, as it reflects an ideological shift in practice to research-based strategies that align with professional standards and the legislative mandates found in ESSA. In this volume, authors from various fields of education and gifted education offer ideas related to multiple facets of professional learning, with each topic grounded in theory, while providing practical suggestions to enhance and support the implementation of these learning opportunities in schools and districts.

References

Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114–95. (2015).

Johnsen, S. K., & Clarenbach, J. (Eds.). (2017). Using the national gifted education standards for pre-k–grade 12 professional development (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

CHAPTER 1

What Works in Professional Learning for Educators of the Gifted:

Findings From Research and Legislation

Angela M. Novak

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, 1969), the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015), defined gifted students as

students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities.

Until ESSA, little federal legislation existed beyond a definition. In ESSA, provisions regarding the use of Title II funds for professional development referenced educating teachers on the identification and needs of gifted and talented students. Although experts in the field have long avowed the need for increased training in gifted and talented education for all teachers, the new legal emphasis brings this necessity to the forefront of state- and district-level professional learning plans. This chapter will discuss the implications of this legislation on districts and states, research in teacher change and professional learning strategies, and the need for focused professional learning on the topic of gifted learners.

Overview

Legislation and standards provide the foundation for the future of professional development in the field. ESSA (2015) is the law, the legal why, with the theoretical why having long been established. Standards are the how. In guiding future professional development for gifted learners, it is important to take two sets of standards into account: national gifted education standards and Learning Forward’s Standards for Professional Learning.

ESSA and Gifted Education

ESEA (1969) provided a federal definition and monies for the Jacob K. Javits fund, a grant for research purposes. Its reauthorization, ESSA (2015), includes requirements for Title II professional development funds. States that apply for these federal funds are required to indicate how the educational agency will increase the proficiency of teachers, principals, or other school leaders in the identification of (among other categories of learners) students who are gifted and talented. Local education agencies that apply for Title II funds are required to provide within their professional development plans how they intend to address the learning needs of (among others) gifted and talented students, specifically training in identification and in the instructional practices to meet the needs of the students. Moreover, the legislation offers specific examples of advantageous practices in gifted education, including early entrance into kindergarten, dual or concurrent enrollment, acceleration, enrichment, and curriculum compacting.

Gifted Programming Standards

In 2010, the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) published the Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards. A result of more than 2 years of research, collaboration, and revision, the standards set the stage for the best practices in quality gifted programming. Professional development is one of the six categories used; the others are learning and development, assessment, curriculum and instruction, learning environments, and programming. Table 1.1 includes the professional development standards, which are first laid out with student outcomes, including talent development, socio-emotional development, lifelong learners, and ethics. Professional development practices can be measured by these studentoutcomes. The second column includes evidenced-based practices in professional development, arranged to address each of the student outcomes. NAGC recommended sustained professional development presented in a variety of topics with ongoing support, presented in different ways with rich materials available for use, and incorporating self-assessment.

Table 1.1

National Gifted Education Standards: Standard 6: Professional Development (NAGC, 2010, p. 8)

Learning Forward Standards

Learning Forward (2011), a professional organization devoted to quality professional learning in education, outlined characteristics of professional learning with the goals of successful teaching, raising student success markers, and supportive leadership. Learning Forward made a distinction between professional development and professional learning; the first implying the inservice for all teachers approach grounded in the leader’s expertise, and the latter referring to a targeted, sustained approach that involves educators as active participants on their continuum of growth. The Learning Forward standards incorporate many of the same ideas as the NAGC standards, but instead of being organized by student outcome, they are organized into aspects of the professional learning experience. Learning Forward advocated for sustained and supportive data-driven collaborative learning communities that utilize well-developed resources, are aligned with student and educator performance outcomes, take place within a research-based learning design, and are facilitated by skilled leaders. Table 1.2 describes each of these standards.

Table 1.2

Learning Forward Standards (Learning Forward, 2011)

ESSA and Professional Development Standards

Several of the commonalities in standards espoused by NAGC (2010) and Learning Forward (2011) are part of the federal definition of professional development. ESSA includes six criteria in its legislative definition; professional development should be sustained, intensive, collaborative, job-embedded, data-driven, and classroom-focused (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Combs and Silverman (2016) defined these criteria further as:

• Sustained: taking place over an extended period; longer than one day or a one-time workshop.

• Intensive: focused on a discreet concept, practice or program.

• Collaborative: involving multiple educators, educators and coaches or set of participants grappling with the same concept or practice and in which participants work together to achieve shared understanding.

• Job-embedded: a part of the ongoing, regular work of instruction and related to teaching and learning taking place in real time in the teaching and learning environment.

• Data-driven: based upon and responsive to real time information about the needs of participants and their students.

• Classroom-focused: related to the practices taking place during the teaching process and relevant to instructional process. (p. 15)

An analysis by Combs and Silverman (2016) indicated that 80% or more of the trainings studied in the last 5 years were not aligned with this definition. This study is not the first claim that the widely used systems of professional development are ineffective. In a study comparing U.S. teachers to global educators, less than half of teachers found professional development useful; the highest marks were given to content-specific training activities, with almost 60% of teachers describing the professional development as useful (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009). When studying the relative ineffectiveness of professional development, Guskey (2002) indicated that the programs fail because two major issues are ignored: teacher motivation and the change process.

Teacher Change and Professional Learning

The goal of professional development is a change in teacher practice and belief in order to have an impact on student affect and learning. Guskey’s (2002) research in the field of professional development suggested a need to consider the process of teacher change prior to delving into professional development. He described that an oft used, yet misguided, strategy is to attempt to change teacher beliefs so that teachers will then change their classroom activities and behaviors in order to have an impact on student learning. Guskey’s research indicated that the steps of teacher change should be ordered differently—that this change in belief only occurs when teachers see the students change:

According to the model, significant change in teachers’ attitudes and beliefs occurs primarily after they gain evidence of improvements in student learning. These improvements typically result from changes teachers have made in their classroom practices, a new instructional approach, the use of new materials or curricula, or simply a modification in teaching procedures or classroom format. The crucial point is that it is not the professional development per se, but the experience of successful implementation that changes teachers’ attitudes and beliefs. They believe it works because they have seen it work, and that experience shapes their attitudes and beliefs. Thus, according to the model, the key element in significant change in teachers’ attitudes and beliefs is clear evidence of improvement in the learning outcomes of their students. (pp. 383–384)

Based on this model, Guskey (2002) suggested three principles for effective professional development. First, recognize that change is a process that is both difficult and gradual, requiring additional work, time, and energy on the part of the teacher. Second, provide teachers with regular feedback on the progress of student learning; this feedback shows the teachers that their efforts bear fruit in the form of student success. Without this positive feedback, new practices are disregarded before teacher beliefs are changed. Finally, in planning for professional development, it is imperative to provide follow-up, support, and pressure. As change in teacher belief occurs after the change in student performance, fidelity in this implementation is necessary and requires support and focused pressure to implement beyond the initial training. The principles Guskey outlined are echoed in years of research on professional development in education, including specific research completed on the field of gifted education.

Themes in Professional Learning

Research studies and subsequent literature reviews have identified best practices in professional learning (Archibald, Coggshall, Croft, & Goe, 2011; Combs & Silverman, 2016; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Gulamhussien, 2013; Hardee, Duffin, & PEER Associates, 2013; Nishimura, 2014; Troxclair, Shaunessy-Dedrick, & Mursky, 2017; Wycoff, Nash, Juntune, & Mackay, 2003). A synthesis of the literature in the field of gifted and regular education produced six themes that are reflective of the standards and legislative mandate: Effective practices in professional learning are goal-aligned and data-driven; are sustained; are collaborative and reflective;