Gifted Child Quarterly

http://gcq.sagepub.com/

Preservice Teachers' Perceptions and Experiences in a Gifted Education Training Model

Nancy J. Bangel, Sidney M. Moon and Brenda M. Capobianco
Gifted Child Quarterly 2010 54: 209 originally published online 3 May 2010
DOI: 10.1177/0016986210369257
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/54/3/209

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

National Association for Gifted Children

Additional services and information for Gifted Child Quarterly can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://gcq.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/54/3/209.refs.html

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by elena burciu on April 11, 2011

Preservice Teachers Perceptions

and Experiences in a Gifted
Education Training Model

Gifted Child Quarterly

54(3) 209221
2010 National Association for
Gifted Children
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0016986210369257
http://gcq.sagepub.com

Nancy J. Bangel1, Sidney M. Moon2, and Brenda M. Capobianco2

Abstract
With the prevalence of gifted students in general education classrooms, all teachers will be responsible for providing appropriate
programming for them, resulting in a need for training in the education of the gifted to be introduced at the preservice level. In
this study, the researchers investigated the effectiveness of a combined intervention strategy for preservice teachers, consisting
of a course in the education of the gifted and an accompanying 9-week practicum, in increasing participants understanding of
the characteristics and needs of gifted students. Through semistructured interviews, participants perceptions of the effects
the interventions had on their understanding of gifted students characteristics and needs were examined. The findings
from the interviews were triangulated with classroom observations, lesson plans, and participant responses to the Survey
of Practices with Students of Varying Needs. Participants perceived an increase in their understanding of the needs and
characteristics of gifted students through participation in the interventions as well as increased confidence in their general
teaching abilities. Implications of the study for teacher education and future research are discussed.
Keywords
preservice, preservice training, gifted training, practicum
Over the past few decades, researchers have confirmed the
existence of specific academic needs of gifted students
(Feldhusen & Kolloff, 1986; VanTassel-Baska, 2003). Rese
archers have documented that these needs can be met if educators, charged with the academic development of gifted
students, are given proper training (Hansen & Feldhusen,
1994). However, because of reductions in funding for gifted
programming and the structure of inclusive classrooms (reference), large numbers of gifted students are receiving most,
if not all, of their academic instruction in the standard classroom with teachers who are not trained in gifted education.
As Feldhusen (1997) observed more than a decade ago:
Some teachers undoubtedly can acquire those skills
and understanding through their own practical experiences working with talented youth in the classroom.
However, the daily demands of serving youth with a
wide variety of ability and achievement levels and a
diversity of interests, learning styles, and motivations,
as well as the American tendency to focus on lowachieving or problem students, make it less likely
that teachers will take time to study the special needs
and characteristics of highly talented youth and determine how best to facilitate their learning. (p. 547)
Therefore, the question becomes how to provide training to
all teachers concerning the needs of gifted students.

Historically, training in gifted education has been offered

at the graduate level but few elementary teachers choose gifted
education as their area of concentration when pursuing a
masters degree. As a result, most training in gifted education
is offered to elementary teachers through in-service workshops that have been found to result in minimal change in
participants classroom strategies (Reis & Westberg, 1994).
To prepare all teachers to meet the needs of gifted students
in the general classroom, it may be appropriate to provide
instruction in gifted education for elementary teachers at the
preservice level.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness
of two training strategies in increasing preservice teachers
understanding of the needs of gifted students. The participants were undergraduates in an elementary education program who volunteered to teach in a Saturday enrichment
program and agreed to participate in an associated course for
1

Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, IN, USA

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

Corresponding Author:
Nancy J. Bangel, Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, 2101
Coliseum Blvd, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, USA
Email: bangeln@ipfw.edu

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by elena burciu on April 11, 2011

210

Gifted Child Quarterly 54(3)

credit. More specifically, the training strategies were (a) a

practicum in association with the Saturday enrichment program and (b) an online course specifically designed to introduce concepts in gifted education.
This study was part of an ongoing program of research on
professional development in gifted education at the preservice
teacher level (Bangel, 2004; Bangel et al., 2006). Results
from the first cohort of participants in this program of
research had indicated that the participants perceived an
increase in their understanding of the needs and characteristics of gifted students through their participation in both the
online course and the practicum. These results encouraged
the design of a new study with an increased number of participants from different cohorts and an additional method for
data collection. Because the first study suggested that the intervention had had a positive effect on teaching self-efficacy,
this study included a design component to provide a more
in-depth investigation of the perceived effect of the intervention on the self-confidence of novice teachers. In the current
study, three cohorts of students were included and, following
the intervention period, the participants levels of confidence,
when working with students with special needs, were ass
essed utilizing the Survey of Practices with Students of
Varying Needs (Moon et al., 1999).
This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. Do preservice elementary teachers perceive a change
in their understanding of the needs and characteristics of gifted children:
a. Due to their participation in the online course?
b. Due to their participation as instructors in the
Saturday enrichment program?
2. In what ways does participation in the combined
intervention strategies influence the confidence of
preservice teachers in their ability to meet the needs
of gifted and talented learners?

Literature Review
This study draws from two lines of related literature: (a) teacher
training in education for the gifted and (b) practicum-style
training. What follows is an overview of these literatures.

Teacher Training in Education for the Gifted

Researchers have documented the unique characteristics and
specific needs of gifted students (e.g., Feldhusen, 1986, 1991;
Feldhusen & Ruckman, 1988; Howell & Bressler, 1988;
VanTassel-Baska, 1988, 2003). These needs include learning
activities that are challenging, involve greater depths of inquiry,
and incorporate opportunities for students to develop advan
ced products grounded in real-world issues. It is further
acknowledged that these needs can be addressed if educators
charged with the academic development of gifted students
are given proper training (Feldhusen, 1997; Hanninen, 1988;

Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994). In fact, several authorities in

the field of gifted education maintain that all educators working with gifted students should receive adequate training in
the characteristics and needs of gifted students to best meet
their specific needs (Copenhaver & McIntyre, 1992; Cramer,
1991; Cross & Dobbs, 1987; Feldhusen, 1997; Gallagher,
2000; Hansen & Feldhusen, 1990; Parke, 1989; Toll, 2000).
However, Archambault et al. (1993) found in their study of
almost 4,000 third- and fourth-grade teachers that 61%
reported receiving no professional training in gifted education. This results in the majority of gifted students spending
most of their academic careers in standard classrooms where
their needs may not be met due to a lack of teacher training
(Archambault et al., 1993; Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns,
& Salvin, 1993; Westberg & Daoust, 2003). This shortage of
training could be remedied if teachers received coursework
in the education of the gifted during their preservice teacher
education programs (Moon & Rosselli, 2000). Furthermore,
it is proposed that the opportunity to practice these competencies should be incorporated into practica (Feldhusen,
1985, 1997; Whitlock & DuCette, 1989).

Need for Practicum-Style Training

Lecture-style courses are often found to be inadequate in providing procedural knowledge and the information presented
in these courses does not connect with the practicum experiences that the teacher education candidates encounter (Kagan,
1992). In addition, Kagan (1992) found that novices must
progress through various stages of development and, as a
result of their inadequate knowledge concerning classroom
procedures, they begin to plan instruction designed, not to
promote learning, but to discourage misbehavior (p. 145).
Kagan noted that student teachers come into teacher education programs with a critical lack of knowledge about pupils
and stressed that the only way to acquire this knowledge is
through the direct interaction with pupils. It is this growing
knowledge of pupils that Kagan believes is needed to challenge and change prior beliefs that student teachers bring to
the experience.
In addition, Feldhusen and Huffman (1988) and Sisk (1975)
argued that practical experience is essential for teachers of
gifted students to incorporate needed competencies into their
teaching. In a 3-year study of knowledge acquisition in gifted
education by preservice teachers, Tomlinson et al. (1997)
noted the increasing support for direct instructional intervention to enhance the awareness of instructional elements.
Copenhaver and McIntyre (1992) concurred and noted that
if teachers are to be effective they need course work and
[italics added] involvement with gifted and talented students
prior to teaching them in mainstream placements or special
programs (p. 153). Dettmer (1993) further recommended
that, in addition to specific coursework that addresses the
needs and characteristics of gifted students, teacher education
candidates experience these techniques in their methods courses.

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by elena burciu on April 11, 2011

211

Bangel et al.
This study was designed to assess preservice teacher perceptions of a training model based on these recommendations.

Method
An intervention model was developed that reflected bestpractices supported in gifted education as well as general education literature, such as scaffolding instruction and connecting
to a practicum. Participants were undergraduates in an elementary education program who had chosen to enroll in a
gifted education course and teach in a Saturday enrichment
program. Qualitative research methods were employed to
collect data from semistructured interviews (see the appendix for interview protocol) conducted with participants postintervention. These interviews were used to determine the
participants perceptions of the effect the interventions had
on their understanding of gifted students characteristics and
needs. To increase our confidence in the findings from the
interviews, interviews were triangulated with classroom obser
vations, lesson plans, and participant responses to the Survey
of Practices with Students of Varying Needs (Moon et al.,
1999). What follows is a detailed description of the context
of this study, the participants, the curriculum used within the
program, the respective interventions, and the methods.

Site and Context

This study was conducted at a large, doctoral-degree granting university of approximately 38,000 students, about 2,000
of which are enrolled in undergraduate teacher education
programs each year. Educational experiences for preservice
elementary teachers at this institution were realized through
a sequential series of courses taken in six credit blocks that
provided pedagogical knowledge, with accompanying field
experiences that applied to the classroom coursework. Participants were to have completed the first three blocks of
coursework, which would have resulted in their completion
of a minimum of three field experiences, prior to volunteering for the enrichment program.
The Saturday enrichment program that served as the practicum experience for the participants provided accelerated
and enriched learning experiences in mathematics, science,
technology, engineering, humanities, and the arts to K-8
youth who have been identified as having high academic ability (Feldhusen, 1991; Feldhusen & Ruckman, 1988; Wood &
Feldhusen, 1996). The Saturday program involved small (12
student average) multi-age classes that ran for 2 hours each
of nine Saturday mornings.

Curriculum
Saturday enrichment program instructors were responsible for
developing the curriculum for their courses with guidance from
the Saturday program coordinators. The Purdue Three Stage
Model (PTSM; Feldhusen & Kolloff, 1986, 1988; Moon,

Feldhusen, & Dillon, 1994; Moon, Kolloff, Robinson, Dixon,

& Feldhusen, in press) was used as the framework for curriculum and classroom activity development. PTSM Stage I
activities involve the introduction of key curriculum concepts in addition to short activities developed to build divergent and convergent thinking skills. Stage I activities were
used at the beginning of each enrichment unit as well as
throughout the 9-week program. As the sessions progressed,
gifted students were introduced to more complex creative and
problem-solving Stage II activities that were more studentdirected. Throughout the 9-week session, P-12 students were
also guided by their instructors in Stage III independent
learning processes. The students showcased their independent research activities on the last Saturday of the program.
Each participant in this study was responsible for creating and
teaching a 9-week enrichment unit that followed this general, PTSM curriculum format.

Selection of Participants
Purposeful sampling was used in the selection of participants (Patton, 2002). All participants were first-time instructors in the Saturday enrichment program to reduce exposure
to prior knowledge of gifted students gleaned from a previous teaching experience. They were also undergraduates in
the elementary education program who had chosen to enroll
in the online gifted education course. Fifteen undergraduates matched the criteria with three choosing not to participate. This resulted in the selection of 12 participants over
three semesters. Participant background information can be
found in Table 1.

Interventions
Course: Introduction to Gifted Education. A 16-week under
graduate course based on the NAGC-CEC Standards (Kitano,
Montgomery, VanTassel-Baska, & Johnsen, 2006) was deve
loped to introduce preservice teachers to the characteristics
and needs of gifted students as well as teaching strategies
appropriate for addressing the unique needs of these students.
Participants in the undergraduate course were required to
complete the following:
Forty-five readings (articles and handouts) covering
major aspects of gifted education, such as characteristics and needs of gifted students, differentiating
curriculum, program models, and so on
Nine 2-hour sessions per week instructing highability learners
Weekly online discussions and reflections concerning issues with high-ability learners
Two videotapes of themselves teaching during the
practicum, which were edited by the instructor;
20-minute segments of the videotapes were viewed
and commented on by all course participants

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by elena burciu on April 11, 2011

212

Gifted Child Quarterly 54(3)

Table 1. Participants Background Information

Name

Blocka

Cohortb

Hallie

F4

Aquatic biology

3/4

Mother was a teacher; Did not

participate fully in online course

Sally

IV

F4

Dynamic earth

1/2

Leslie
Patty

IV
V

F4
F4

Human anatomy
Experimental chemistry

3/4
3/4

Block III spent in Russia; Cadet

teacher in HS
Biology course TA
Mother was an aide in an elementary
classroom

Kim
Linda

III
IV

F4
S5

Newtons physics
Experimental chemistry

3/4
3/4

Karen

IV

S5

Body power

K/1

Kylie

VI

S5

Round the world math

P/K

Greta
Rena

VI
IV

F5
F5

Kitchen chemistry
Spanish

P/K
1/2

Lauren

III

F5

Mathemagicians

1/2

Sara

F5

Computer presentations

1/2

Class

Grade

Comments

Cadet teacher in HS; only partial

interview; Did not participate fully
in online course
Saturday program course assistant
twice prior to teaching
Did not participate fully in online
course
Wanted to add g/t licensure
Parents in education; Did not
participate fully in online course
Saturday course assistant once prior
to teaching
Technology course TA

Note. All names are pseudonyms.

a. Block III = second semester sophomore; Block IV = first semester junior; Block V = second semester junior; Block VI = first semester senior.
b. F4 = Fall 2004; S5 = Spring 2005; F5 = Fall 2005.

Practicum. The preservice teachers in the online course

were given an opportunity to apply newly acquired knowledge by serving as instructors in a Saturday enrichment program. They were responsible for developing and delivering
an enrichment unit to a class of 8 to 18 high-ability students
for 2 hours each of nine Saturday mornings, or a total of 18
hours of instruction.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected three times, at the end of each 9-week
Saturday enrichment session. Five participants in the Fall
2004, three participants in the Spring 2005, and four participants in the Fall 2005 met all criteria and provided data segments from four sources. The four data sources included (listed
chronologically as they were produced) the following:
1. Nine lesson plans created by the participants for use
in their Saturday enrichment class, which were used
by the researchers to determine the strategies that
participants believed were appropriate for gifted
students.
2. Teacher Observation Forms (TOF; Hansen, 1988),
two observations per participant completed by
specialists in the field of gifted education, which
were used by the researchers to determine the

participants actual use of appropriate strategies in

their classrooms.
3. Interviews, one from each participant, conducted
after the conclusion of the Saturday enrichment session, which the researchers used to evaluate the participants (a) prior experiences with gifted education,
(b) training in gifted education, (c) confidence in
adjusting curriculum to meet the needs of gifted
students, and (d) overall understanding of gifted
students characteristics and needs.
4. Responses to the Survey of Practices with Students
of Varying Needs, which the researchers used to
evaluate the participants (a) confidence in meeting
the needs of gifted students and (b) intended use of
strategies appropriate for gifted students.
The use of multiple sources and participants allowed for
making comparisons and examining the data at a dimensional
level (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
The amount and frequency of each of these sources of data
are summarized in Table 2. Interviews were used to determine the participants perceptions regarding their understanding of gifted education acquired during their participation in
both the online course and teaching in the Saturday enrichment program (See Table 3). The interviews were also used
to explore the participants perceptions of their confidence in

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by elena burciu on April 11, 2011

213

Bangel et al.
Table 2. Frequency and Amount of Data Sets
Observations (Teacher
Observation Forms)

Lesson Plans
Frequency
Amount

Throughout intervention
Nine per participant

Throughout intervention
Two per participant

Interviews

Surveys

Postintervention
One per participant

Postintervention
One per participant

Table 3. Data Sets Used To Answer Each Research Question

Research Question
1a.Do preservice elementary teachers perceive a change in their
understanding of the needs and characteristics of gifted children
because of their participation in the online course?
1b.Do preservice teachers perceive a change in their understanding
of the needs and characteristics of gifted children because of their
participation as instructors in the Saturday enrichment program?
3.In what ways does participation as teachers in the Saturday
enrichment program influence the confidence of preservice
teachers in their ability to meet the needs of gifted and talented
learners?

meeting the needs of their gifted students. To further examine the translation of these perceptions into the participants
practices in the classroom, the participants lesson plans and
observations of their teaching provided further evidence as
to their understanding of the needs of their students. In addition, the Survey of Practices provided an additional resource
to substantiate the participants interview responses regarding their confidence level and growth. In the next section,
each of these data sources is described in more detail.
Lesson plans. Lesson plans were written by the participants with the assistance of a curriculum coordinator, an
online course instructor, and/or a Saturday program coordinator. In addition, a curriculum coordinator was employed
during the time that two of the three cohorts (Fall 2004 and
Spring 2005) were involved with the Saturday enrichment
program.
Saturday enrichment program instructors are coached to
develop lessons based on the Purdue Three-Stage Model that
are at an appropriate pace and development level for highability students. This generally results in lessons that are at
least two grade levels above the students current grade level
in school. Higher level thinking skills and complex problemsolving activities are emphasized with curriculum culminating in an independent project on the final Saturday. Lesson
plans for all nine Saturdays were collected from each participant to be evaluated as to the appropriateness of the curriculum for high-ability students.
Observations. As part of normal Saturday program procedures, program staff observed all instructors for 20 to 40
minutes to provide feedback on their teaching and to ensure

Interviews

Lesson Plans

Observations
(Teacher
Observation Forms)

Surveys

a high quality of programming. First time instructors were

observed at least twice during the 9-week experience,
whereas all others were observed once. As a result of the fact
that all participants in this study were first-time teachers, they
were observed twice during the 9-week practicum by the
gifted specialists. They were observed by two different specialists, once at the beginning and once toward the end of
their practicum.
Evaluations of the instructors use of appropriate curriculum and teaching practices for gifted students were conducted
and subsequently recorded on the TOF (Hansen, 1988). The
TOF was developed for use in the evaluation of classroom
instruction for gifted students. The TOF contained items
under the following headings (with part/whole correlation
coefficients as determined by Hansen, 1988, all at .64 or
above): Subject matter differentiation, Clarity of teaching,
Motivational techniques, Pace of instruction, Opportunity
for self-determination of activities by student, Student involvement in a variety of experiences, Interaction between teacher
and student, Opportunity for student follow-through of activities outside class (homework), Emphasis on higher level
thinking skills, Emphasis on creativity, Lesson plan design,
and Use of teaching and learning aids. Each section is a combination of items rated on a 5-point scale (1 = not satisfactory,
2 = needs some improvement, 3 = average, 4 = high, 5 =
outstanding, and an option for not observed) and three to
six checklist items that relate to the scaled item. In addition, three areas were included for comments by the obs
erver: teachers strengths, suggestions for improvement, and
additional comments.

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by elena burciu on April 11, 2011

214

Gifted Child Quarterly 54(3)

Following each observation, one copy of the completed

TOF was given to the Saturday program instructor to provide
timely, direct feedback to the instructor on their observed
teaching practices. Such feedback was intended to elicit
reflective practices on the part of the instructor resulting in a
continuation of strategies beneficial to the students in the
classroom and adjustments to less desirable strategies. In
addition, one copy of the completed TOF was given to the
Saturday program coordinator as well as one to the researcher
to collect data on the participants classroom practices.
Observers were selected based on their knowledge and
experience with gifted students and included practicing teachers in gifted programs, graduate students in gifted education,
and two international scholars involved with gifted education. Prior to the first session of the Saturday program, new
observers were given copies of the TOF to familiarize themselves with it. On the first Saturday of each program, all
observers view one classroom, record their observations, and
meet to discuss their findings and compare their perceptions
of the teachers strategies and how they were recorded.
Interviews. One interview (~45 minutes in length) was
conducted with each participant following the practicum to
assess participants perspectives of their understanding of
gifted students and their ability to teach them. Interviews
were audiotaped by the lead researcher with the participants
knowledge for later transcription. The 2-week, postintervention period provided the participants with time to reflect on
their experiences.
An interview guide was used to ensure that the same basic
lines of inquiry were pursued with each participant (Patton,
2002) while at the same time providing freedom to expand
within the predetermined subject areas or topics. Interview
questions covered such topics as prior exposure to gifted education in the participants personal and professional lives, the
participants perception as to whether participation in the interventions changed their understanding of gifted students, and
what types of strategies they used in the classroom and why.
Survey of Practices with Students of Varying Needs. The Survey of Practices with Students of Varying Needs (SOP) was
developed by the NRC/GT (National Research Center on the
Gifted and Talented) staff at the University of Virginia to
assess attitudes and beliefs about academically diverse learners and instructional techniques that would be appropriate to
meet their needs. In the current study, the SOP was administered at the end of the practicum and online course, providing yet another method for triangulating the participants
perceptions of their confidence in meeting the needs of gifted
students. Four questions concerning gifted students in Part III
and the techniques and practices listed in Part IV were evaluated separately for each participant to determine perspectives
on appropriate classroom strategies in GT classrooms.
Part III deals specifically with the preservice teachers
confidence level in meeting the needs of diverse students
in the classroom. Eight statements address the respondents

confidence in meeting the needs of diverse learners with

four statements dealing specifically with the needs of gifted
students. These four statements were the following:
Adapting my lessons to meet the needs of gifted
learners
Accommodating varying levels of ability in my class
Individualizing instruction to meet the needs of
gifted learners
Identifying gifted students
Responses to these four questions were reviewed and com
pared with participant interview responses to questions dealing
with their confidence before and after the interventions.
Part IV lists 14 individual techniques, activities, and ins
tructional strategies that may be used with diverse learners.
These practices include ability grouping, activities to enhance
creativity, cooperative learning, curriculum compacting, drill
and practice, higher level thinking activities, independent
study, individual instruction, interdisciplinary activities, learning centers, problem-solving activities, projects, values training, and workbook exercises. Three columns are provided,
one each for gifted students, average students, and special
education students. Respondents are instructed to indicate
with a check mark for which group of students they feel the
strategy is appropriate. They are also instructed to not mark
any strategy with which they are not familiar. The responses
offered by each of the research participants were reviewed
and compared with their responses to interview questions
concerning their understanding of gifted education, their lesson plans, and their classroom observations to determine if
the strategies were understood and used by the participant.
Trustworthiness and credibility. To ensure trustworthiness
of the data, a second researcher was enlisted to code small
sections of each interview and TOF. When variations were
found, the differences were discussed and evaluated and
agreement was reached. The use of check-coding also brought
forward a few categories that were not clearly defined and
needed further refinement (Patton, 2002).
Evidence of the participants understanding of the needs
of gifted students was recorded through the analysis of their
perceptions (interviews) as well as their lesson development
(lesson plans) and delivery (observations of teaching). The
participants lesson plans as well as the TOFs used to record
the participants teaching practices were evaluated with the
use of the same coding system as the interviews. Triangulation of results was conducted through a comparison of these
results to the participants interview responses to determine
an overall level of understanding of gifted students (Miles &
Huberman, 1994).
Last, all the findings from these participants were compared (Miles & Huberman, 1994) with the results found in
the first study (Bangel, 2004; Bangel et al., 2006) to determine if the same assertions would be found for both groups.

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by elena burciu on April 11, 2011

215

Bangel et al.
Table 4. Categories With Corresponding Properties and
Dimensions
Category

Properties and Dimensions

Prior experience in
Special accommodations
elementary through high Programming structures
school
Programming rationale
Programming effectiveness
Sources of information
Sources for content
Sources for strategies
Reasons for selection
Effectiveness of sources
Impact of the online
Impact of the online course
course and teaching
Impact of teaching
experience on
Understanding gained through
understanding
experience
Structure considerations
Strategies for curriculum
Strategies chosen
development
Understandings gained
Changes in strategies over time
Identification of
Prior beliefs
exceptional students
Academic behaviors
Social behaviors
Rationale for selection
Understanding gained
Level of training in gifted
Perception of prior training
education
Reaction to lack of training
Confidence
Rating of confidence
Impact of experience on confidence
Area of change in confidence
Reason for change in confidence
Realistic teaching
Comparisons with other teaching
experience
experiences
Characteristics of real teaching
experience
Impact of real teaching experience
Transferability to standard Aspects that could be transferred
classroom
Opportunities to use in standard
classroom
Reaction to use in standard
classroom
Perceived need to transfer to
standard classroom
Interactions with parents
Interactions with parents of students
Reaction to interactions
Purdue Three-Stage Model Use of PTSM
(PTSM)
Value of PTSM
Value of experience
Reaction to overall experience
Value to professional development

Findings
Overview of Categories and Assertions
The interview responses produced several categories across
interviews that were identified through their properties and
dimensions (see Table 4). These categories were used to generate themes that were found across participants. Several
themes emerged from the data, such as, participants perceived

(a) a lack of prior experience and training with high-ability

students in their teacher education program, (b) an overall
increase in their knowledge of gifted students through the
online course and the practicum, (c) an increase in their confidence in their teaching abilities, and (d) that teaching in the
program was a more realistic and worthwhile teaching experience than their previous field experiences Themes were
then investigated to determine if the evidence justified an
assertion. Themes were collapsed, deleted, and rephrased
until there were four assertions that were well-supported by
the data. These four assertions and the evidence for them are
presented in the next section.

Assertions
Assertion 1: Participants perceived an increase in their
knowledge of the needs and characteristics of gifted
students through participation in the online course
and the practicum.
When questioned as to the impact the online course and/
or practicum had on their understanding of the needs of gifted
students, participants commented on the understanding of
gifted students gained through the interventions. For example,
Kim reported that
[The online course] really brought light to a lot of things
that were happening that I didnt know why or couldnt
pinpoint what it was, so . . . I think it made me more
observant . . . and I think that helped because I can
teach individual kids better . . . it helped me understand.
And Greta expressed the view that There have just been a
lot of things that Im like, Wow. The light bulb has come
on in my head. In addition, Sally commented that [The
Saturday program] changed my understanding of teaching
altogether just because we are able to look at it and realize
that instruction definitely needs to be differentiated. We
cant just teach one, to one learning style and one ability.
Kylie also commented that I didnt know [about] teaching
gifted kids, I didnt know what to do . . . in a regular
classroom . . . and having this experience will help . . .
greatly in the future. Furthermore, Sara recounted that it
opened a whole new door to me . . . I didnt really know
anything about gifted education before I started the Saturday
[program]. From the participants comments, it would appear
that offering a didactic online course in combination with a
practical teaching experience enabled the teachers to better
understand their classroom experiences with gifted students
and improved their understanding and instruction with these
students.
Somewhat surprisingly, several participants commented
that they now realized they might have gifted students in their
regular classrooms. For instance, Linda commented that

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by elena burciu on April 11, 2011

216

Gifted Child Quarterly 54(3)

Table 5. Participants Confidence Levels at the Beginning and End of the Online Course and Saturday Sessions
Name

Beginning

End

Name

Beginning

End

Greta
Kim
Karen
Hallie
Kylie
Lauren

Very low
2
5 or 6
8
8
1

Got better
8
8
A little higher
8
5

Linda
Patty
Leslie
Sally
Rena
Sara

NA
6
6
6 or 7
Scared
3 or 4

NA
9
9
8
More confident
7

I do realize now that I could have kids like this in my

own classroom and . . . It was just really interesting
because then you realize, wow, I could have these
kids mixed in with my regular students . . . you have
to find special things for them, maybe a little higher
level to keep them engaged and keep them involved
and still actually learning. So it was just the realization
that you could have these kids in your classroom and
kind of get their different ideas.
According to many of the participants, this realization that
they would have gifted students with high abilities in their
classrooms was a new revelation to them. Although it has
often been presumed that preservice teachers are aware of
the presence of gifted students in the inclusive classroom, these
responses suggest an unexpected lack of such awareness and
provide further rationale for gifted education at the preservice
level.
These findings are consistent with the first study conducted in this research program (Bangel, 2004; Bangel
et al., 2006). The participants in the first study also perceived an increased awareness and understanding of gifted
students through participation in the online course as well as
teaching in the practicum.
Assertion 2: Participants perceived an increase in their
confidence level over the intervention period, both
as it applied to gifted education and in respect to their
general teaching abilities.
Participants were asked to rate, on a scale from 1 to 10,
their confidence in adjusting instruction for high-ability
students at the beginning and again at the end of the online
course and Saturday sessions. Their responses are presented
in Table 5. As can be seen from the table, most participants
perceived an increase in their confidence from the beginning
of the intervention until the end with such comments as by
the end I got pretty comfortable with it (Lauren) and Sara
now felt pretty comfortable with [developing curriculum for
her students in the program]. The participants also indicated
that they were also more aware of what they did not know
about gifted students through such comments as I feel like
I know a lot more than I did when I started. I still feel like

I have a ton to learn (Rena) and Lauren noted that she has
a lot more to learn. Karen remarked that her knowledge has
improved but I feel like I still need to be in the classroom
and be with these kids in order to get these strategies down.
At this point in their development it is encouraging to note
an increased awareness on their part as to the differentiated
needs of their gifted students.
In addition to increased confidence in their teaching abilities, participants also indicated an increase in confidence
concerning their upcoming student and regular classroom
teaching experiences gained through these opportunities.
Karen commented she was not as afraid of taking on a
classroom of 20 as I was before and I am more confident in
my lessons, my lesson making abilities, and development
abilities and things like that. It definitely helped me out. I am
not scared to go into a classroom next spring and be frozen
in front of a class. Patty declared that this experience makes
me feel a lot more confident [about student teaching] . . . its
almost like Ive started already and Sally remarked that
now when I go out next year and I graduate, Ill feel a lot
more comfortable going into my classroom . . . than I would
have if I wouldnt have done this. Overall responses from
the participants indicate a perceived decrease in nervousness and increase in confidence over the intervention period.
As with the participants of the second study, those in the
first study indicated that these experiences increased their
confidence due to having had what they perceived to be a
more realistic classroom experience.
Assertion 3: Participants perceived teaching in the
Saturday program as a more realistic teaching experience than their field experiences.
The participants often credited their increase in confidence
to the fact that this was the first time they had been com
pletely in charge of their own class. Karen spoke persuasively
as she compared her experience in the GT practicum with her
previous teaching experience in the teacher education program
by saying,
[F]ield experience is nothing like . . . I mean to have
your own classroom, and your decisions and youre
doing it, youre making decisions, youre planning,

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by elena burciu on April 11, 2011

217

Bangel et al.
youre deciding what you want to do is a lot more
overwhelming than you think. Yeah, you go in [to a
field experience classroom] and teach a lesson, but that
is one lesson of the day. Thats not . . . two hours of
time of these children who are paying to come to your
classroom, it is a lot of pressure and I think it definitely
gives me that advantage of the teaching . . . Its just,
I cant even describe it, it was definitely a learning
experience for me as far as learning what it is to be a
teacher and what it is to plan and what it is to put a
classroom together I guess. I think anyone who hasnt
done that should do it at least once or at least work
closely with someone who is, because I think it gives you
a lot more of an insight as to what it is to be a teacher.
Sally discussed her training and how she had gotten into the
program because she

awareness of the needs of gifted students, but also to increase

their professional development in terms of the general education
classroom.
Assertion 4: Participants considered these interventions
to be valuable learning experiences.
The participants stated the interventions, and particularly
the teaching experience in the Saturday program, were worth
their time and effort. Leslie related that
in [the Saturday program], I think I realized, you know,
this is all me. I cant depend on this other person to
help me out. And I was able to locate resources to
develop a good lesson plan to teach them . . . I was
pretty excited at my own ability.
The bottom line, according to Kylie, is that

wanted something that would give me more experience in the classroom and this is way beyond anything
that I could have expected just because, I mean, we
dont have another person pretty much breathing down
our necks telling us how to do it. Were in charge of
our own classroom and were able to learn, even if its
through sometimes the mistakes that we make . . . we
were able to . . . get to know some of the families and
we were able to do everything . . . I just thought it was
really neat. Like being able to just develop our entire
curriculum and have somebody there if we had questions but we didnt have to do it a certain way. We
could . . . do it the way we felt comfortable.
Similarly, Hallie explained that
it was a lot more worthwhile . . . as a teacher because
it was my classroom and I could try things and I wasnt
at the mercy of someone else saying, well you have
45 minutes to get this concept taught, have fun, then
turn it right back over to me. I really got to know my
kids and how they thought and what would work and
what didnt work and how I needed to structure things.
Whereas in field experience, its really good to get out
into an actual school where we are going to be teaching, but it is very artificial in that we just come in for a
little bit and then we leave. There is less continuity and
ownership of it.
As noted in Assertion 2, the participants in the first phase
of this study also provided ample evidence to determine that
this experience was perceived to be different than the standard
field experiences in which they had participated because it
was more realistic and allowed the participants to create
their own classroom environment. This was perceived in
both studies to be a valuable experience that increased their

the best part for the preservice teacher is that the whole
time, I wanted to graduate, and I wanted to have my
own classroom . . . [This was] my own classroom, its
all mine, the whole thing, from start to finish, I did it
all. Thats why I think its great that they have this
opportunity to do that.
As Sally recounts,
[A]s college students, [we] are looking for ways to
expand our experiences while were still learning . . .
Ive told a lot of people about the program and told
them I think its something everybody should look into
if theyre a preservice teacher . . . It gives you just a
whole new step up.
In summary, a somewhat unexpected finding was that the
opportunity to teach a 9-week enrichment unit in a Saturday
program provided a type of pedagogical learning that was
valuable to preservice teachers because it simulated an
authentic teaching situation. A Super Saturday classroom
was a microcosm of a typical P-12 classroom. Teaching in
Super Saturday provided an opportunity for novice teachers
to practice classroom management, curriculum development,
parent relations, and other skills that usually are not developed
until student teaching or beyond.

Discussion
Researchers have extensively documented the unique needs
of gifted students (Feldhusen & Kolloff, 1986; VanTasselBaska, 2003) as well as the fact that these needs can be met
if educators are given proper training (Hansen & Feldhusen,
1994). In addition, it has been shown that teachers with training have a more favorable attitude toward their gifted students

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by elena burciu on April 11, 2011

218

Gifted Child Quarterly 54(3)

(Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994; Megay-Nespoli, 2001; Tomlinson

et al., 1994). However, Archambault et al. (1993) found that
more than 60% of their sample of third- and fourth-grade
teachers received no staff development related to gifted education. It has also been found that in-service staff development
opportunities that have been provided do not provide adequate training in gifted education (Reis & Westberg, 1994).
With in-service training reportedly inadequate to nonexistent, it would be surmised that training in gifted education
should be located within the preservice level. However,
researchers have found that typical teacher education candidate programs do little to prepare teachers to meet the needs
of gifted learners (Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994; Tomlinson
et al., 1994). Participants in the prior study (Bangel, 2004;
Bangel et al., 2006) as well as in this study upheld this conclusion when expressing the belief that their teacher education program lacked training in gifted education. This lack of
training in gifted education on the part of in-service and preservice teachers has resulted in the needs of gifted students
not being met in the classroom (Archambault et al., 1993;
Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993). Therefore, in order that all teachers are adequately trained in gifted
education, we would advocate that teacher education candidate
programs expand to include coursework in gifted education.
Moreover, many researchers (e.g., Copenhaver & McIntyre,
1992; Starko & Schack, 1989; Tomlinson et al., 1997; Westberg
et al., 1993) promote incorporating a practicum-style element into education coursework. It is surmised that lecturestyle instruction alone is inadequate in providing preservice
teachers with the opportunity to transfer knowledge into
practice. In support of this concept, Starko and Schack (1989)
observed that successfully completing a task lead to higher
self-efficacy concerning that task. Taking into account certain aspects of this program model such as (a) the scaffolding
provided through support personnel, (b) information provided
through the online course, (c) small class sizes, and (d) narrowed ability range, it was surmised that the participants
would be successful in their first teaching experience with
gifted students leading to an increase in their confidence in
teaching gifted students. In fact, it was found in both phases
of this program of study that all participants indicated a continuation or an increase in their confidence to teach. Once
again clarification is made that the environment, though perceived by the participants as realistic, was far removed
from the realities of the normal classroom and, as such, this
increased confidence must be seen as a small step forward in
their professional development.
In summary, the fact that gifted students have specific
needs that can be met by teachers trained in gifted education
has been extensively documented. However, little has been
done to provide preservice and in-service teachers with the
knowledge needed to provide an adequate education for their
gifted students. In addition, the chosen model of programming is critical to the success of the in-service and preservice
teachers ability to use the knowledge provided. Practicum

opportunities are necessary for the successful transfer of

knowledge into practice. Findings from both the first phase
and the current phase of this study indicate that this model
of teacher training was successful in providing preservice
teachers with a means of advancing their pedagogical and
professional knowledge in both general as well as gifted
education.

Limitations of This Study

This study was limited by several factors. First, the criteria
for participant selection limited the number and diversity of
participants available for study. In this study, emphasis was
placed on selecting participants that were elementary education majors, first-time instructors, and enrolled in the online
course. As a result, this limited not only the sample size but
also the gender and ethnic diversity among the participants
(predominantly White Caucasian women).
The second factor that limited the study was that there
was no comparison group., Also, although the nature of the
Saturday classrooms, specifically having small class sizes
and a more limited range of student abilities than a general
classroom, provided an environment conducive to scaffolding the participants experience, these same qualities may
also make the overall teaching experience more artificial and
less transferable to the general classroom.
Although these limitations were present in the current study,
steps were taken to ensure greater credibility. Variability
between the cohorts was increased by selecting three groups
over a 2-year period. During this time, each cohort of participants was exposed to a different instructor for the online
class and the first cohort had a different curriculum coordinator than the past two cohorts. Peer debriefing was employed
to ensure the trustworthiness of the results. In addition, an
additional researcher read through and coded several sections of transcripts. Researchers then met to discuss the coding results and categorization of the codes.

Implications of This Study

Little research has been conducted concerning the introduction of preservice teachers to gifted education. Historically,
the belief has been that teachers of the gifted must have
experience in the classroom before they can understand the
complexities of these diverse students. However, gifted students will be in all general education classrooms, making it
imperative that teacher training programs introduce the pedagogical knowledge needed to meet gifted students needs.
This study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of
one style of training that could be employed to introduce preservice teachers to gifted education.
Studies comparing trained and untrained teachers have
consistently shown that training in gifted education provided
educators with the knowledge necessary to meet the needs of
gifted students in the classroom and resulted in a more

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by elena burciu on April 11, 2011

219

Bangel et al.
favorable attitude toward their gifted students (Hanninen, 1988;
Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994; Megay-Nespoli, 2001; Tomlinson et al., 1994). With all participants voicing the opinion
that their professional training in gifted education was limited
and at least two of the participants entering this study with
admittedly negative feelings toward gifted education, the impact
this type of program can have on the overall experience for
the gifted student in the classroom can be far-reaching.
Although the researcher went into this program of research
to evaluate the effectiveness of this training model on imp
roving preservice teachers understanding of gifted students,
an additional result has been an overall increase in the participants professional growth. Results indicate the participants confidence and skills increased through the opportunity
to teach in what they perceived as a more realistic classroom
setting, albeit a classroom that was very limited in realism.
Additional studies using other select groups of students, for
example, special education, hearing impaired, learning disabled, content specific (e.g., math, science), and so on, could
also provide comparison data to evaluate the effectiveness of
the overall model of training presented in this study in promoting the understanding of preservice teachers.
To substantiate the findings of this study, additional groups
should be examined under similar circumstances. As this and
other Saturday programs are ongoing, additional first-time
teachers should be evaluated as to their understanding of
their students needs. In addition to the preservice teachers
explored in this study, graduate students and in-service teachers could also be studied to determine their perceptions.
Also, the current study evaluated the effectiveness of one
specific model. It would be wise to compare other models
and individual components of this model, that is, the course
and the opportunity to personally provide instruction for
high-ability students, to help determine what is necessary for
preservice teachers to come to an understanding of the needs
of gifted learners. Would a course in gifted education be sufficient? Would a field experience specifically focused on
gifted students implemented during the coursework of most
preservice training programs yield similar results? Are these
introductory opportunities sufficient?
Last, these participants should be followed into the standard classroom to determine the long-term effect of the perceived increase in understanding of gifted students found in
this study. Although participants voiced the belief that this
experience bolstered their understanding of gifted students,
it would be necessary to evaluate their teaching in their
future classrooms to determine whether any benefits are truly
realized for their gifted students.

Conclusion
Hansen and Feldhusen (1994) found that teachers trained
in gifted education provided curriculum that better met the
needs of their high-ability students. The participants in this
study illustrated through words and actions they had increased

their awareness of the needs and characteristics of gifted students through the interventions provided. Findings generated
through the responses provided by the participants indicated
that this model of teacher training was successful in providing preservice teachers with a means of advancing their
general pedagogical knowledge as well as increasing their
awareness of the needs of their gifted students.
It is hoped that this research will extend our knowledge
and effectiveness of teacher training, not only as it pertains
to gifted education, but also in terms of general education.
As the participants viewed this experience as a means of
advancing their professional development, the model presented in this study could have applications in many other
areas of study as well as being a possible model for introducing preservice teachers to the real-world classroom.

Appendix
Interview Protocol
Other experiences:
1. In what ways have you, a friend, or a family member experienced receiving special instructional
provisions designed to meet individual needs or
interests?
2. Other than during EDPS 490, what advice or instruction have you been given about adjusting your lessons to accommodate differing of student needs?
3. What strategies, if any, have you tried in your field
experiences to make your instruction appropriate
for a range of students?
Impact of interventions:
4. How do you feel about your understanding of the
needs of gifted students and about teaching to meet
those needs?
4.1. How do you believe participation as an instructor in Super Saturday changed your understanding? Your teaching abilities?
4.2. How do you believe participation in EDPS
490 changed your understanding? Your teaching abilities?
5. How did you decide what to do each Saturday in
your class? Did this change over the nine weeks?
5.1. I noticed in your lesson plans (observations)
that you _____. Tell me why you chose that
particular strategy.
5.2 Tell me a bit about your students responses
to ____ strategy. How do you think it worked?
5.3. Did you have a student in your class who
you think may have been ahead of the other

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by elena burciu on April 11, 2011

(continued)

220

Gifted Child Quarterly 54(3)

Appendix (continued)
students in the class? What makes you think
that student was ahead? How did you handle
that?
5.4. What would you do differently if you were to
teach this Super Saturday class again? Why?
5.5. How do you think you will use any strategies
you learned through this experience in your
regular classroom?
6. At the start of this semester, how would you have
rated your confidence in adjusting instruction for
gifted or highly able students? needs How would
you rate your confidence now?
7. Is there anything else you would like to tell me
about your experience with Super Saturday and
EDPS 490?

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.

References
Archambault, F. X., Jr., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W.,
Zhang, W., & Emmons, C. L. (1993). Classroom practices used with
gifted third and fourth grade students. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 16, 103-119.
Bangel, N. (2004) Growth as a professional through teaching in
Super Saturday. Unpublished masters thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Bangel, N., Enersen, D., Capobianco, B., & Moon, S. M. (2006).
Professional development of preservice teachers: Teaching in
the Super Saturday Program. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 29, 339-361.
Copenhaver, R. W., & McIntyre, D. J. (1992). Teachers perception
of gifted students. Roeper Review, 14, 151-153.
Cramer, R. H. (1991). The education of gifted children in the United
States: A Delphi study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 84-91.
Cross, J. A., & Dobbs, C. (1987). Goals of a teacher training program for teachers of the gifted. Roeper Review, 9, 170-171.
Dettmer, P. (1993). Gifted education: window of opportunity. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 37, 92-94.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1985). The teacher of gifted students. Gifted Education International, 3, 87-93.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1986). The Purdue Three-Stage Enrichment Model
for gifted education at the elementary level. In. J. S. Renzulli
(Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the

gifted and talented (pp. 153-179). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1991). Saturday and summer programs. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp.
197-208). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). Educating teachers for work with talented
youth. In: N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of
gifted education (pp. 547-555). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Huffman, L. (1988). Practicum experiences in
an educational program for teachers of the gifted. Journal for
the Education of the Gifted, 12(1), 34-45.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Kolloff, P. B. (1986). The Purdue three-stage
enrichment model for gifted education at the elementary level.
In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems & models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 126-152). Mansfield
Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Kolloff, P. B. (1988, January/February). A threestage model for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 14-18.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Ruckman, D. R. (1988). A guide to the development of Saturday programs for gifted and talented youth. Gifted
Child Today, 11, 56-61.
Gallagher, J. J. (2000). Unthinkable thoughts: Education of gifted
students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 5-12.
Hanninen, G. E. (1988). A study of teacher training in gifted education. Roeper Review, 10, 139-144.
Hansen, J. B. (1988). The relationships of skills and classroom
climate of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN.j
Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1990). Off campus training of teachers of the gifted: A program model. Gifted International, 6, 54-62.
Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and
untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly,
38, 115-121.
Howell, H., & Bressler, J. (1988). Research on teaching styles of
teachers of the gifted. Roeper Review, 10, 144-146.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice
and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62,
129-169.
Kitano, M., Montgomery, D., VanTassel-Baska, J. L., &
Johnsen, S. K. (2006). Using the national gifted education
standards for preK-12 professional development. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Megay-Nespoli, K. (2001). Beliefs and attitudes of novice teachers
regarding instruction of academically talented learners. Roeper
Review, 23, 178-182.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moon, S. M., Feldhusen, J. F., & Dillon, D. R. (1994). Long-term
effects of an enrichment program based on the Purdue threestage model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 38-48.
Moon, S. M., Kolloff, P., Robinson, A., Dixon, F., & Feldhusen, J.
F. (in press). The Purdue three-stage model. In J. S. Renzulli, J.

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by elena burciu on April 11, 2011

221

Bangel et al.
Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert, & C. A. Little (Eds.),
Systems & models for developing programs for the gifted and
talented (2nd ed.) pp. 289-321. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative
Learning Press.
Moon, S. M., & Rosselli, H. C. (2000). Developing gifted programs. In
H. A. Hemilyr, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.),
International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 499-521).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Moon, T. R., Callahan, C. M., & Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The
effects of mentoring relationships on preservice teachers attitudes toward academically diverse students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 56-62.
Parke, B. N. (1989). Educating the gifted and talented: An agenda
for the future. Educational Leadership, 46, 4-5.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reis, S. M., & Westberg, K. L. (1994). The impact of staff development on teachers ability to modify curriculum for gifted and
talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 127-135.
Sisk, D. (1975). Teaching the gifted and talented teachers: A training model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 19, 81-88.
Starko, A. J., & Schack, G. D. (1989). Perceived need, teacher efficacy, and teacher strategies for the gifted and talented. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 33, 118-122.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Toll, M. F. (2000). The importance of teacher preparation programs
to appropriately serve students who are gifted. Understanding
Our Gifted, 12, 14-16.
Tomlinson, C. A., Callahan, C. M., Tomchin, E. M., Eiss, N.,
Imbeau, M., & Landrum, M. (1997). Becoming architects of
communities of learning: addressing academic diversity in contemporary classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63, 269-282.
Tomlinson, C. A., Tomchin, E. M., Callahan, C. M., Adams, C. M.,
Puzzat-Tinnin, P., Cunningham, C. M., . . . Imbeau, M.
(1994). Practices of preservice teachers related to gifted and
other academically diverse learners. Gifted Child Quarterly,
38, 106-114.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1988). Curriculum planning and development.
In J. VanTassel-Baska, J. Feldhusen, K. Seeley, G. Wheatley,
L. Silverman, & W. Foster (Eds.), Comprehensive curriculum
for gifted learners (pp. 23-52). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Content-based curriculum for highability learners: An introduction. In J. VanTassel-Baska &
C. A. Little (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high-ability
learners (pp. 1-23). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. J.

(1993). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for
the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120-146.
Westberg, K. L., & Daoust, M. E. (2003). The results of the replication
of the classroom practices survey replication in two states. National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter, Fall, 3-8.
Whitlock, M. S., & DuCette, J. P. (1989). Outstanding and average
teachers of the gifted: A comparative study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 15-21.
Wood, B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1996). Creating special interest programs for gifted youth: Purdues super Saturday serves as successful model. Gifted Child Today, 19, 22-25, 28-29, 40-42.

Bios
Nancy J. Bangel is an assistant professor of educational psychology in the School of Education at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne. Her research interests focus on the preservice
and in-service teachers understanding of gifted children as well as
issues involving gender and the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) disciplines as they apply to gifted children. She is active in the National Association for Gifted Children
as well as a guest speaker for parent groups for gifted children.
Sidney M. Moon is professor of gifted, creative, and talented studies and associate dean for learning and engagement in the College
of Education at Purdue University. She has been involved in the
field of gifted, creative, and talented studies for more than 25 years.
In that time, she has contributed more than 75 books, articles, and
chapters to the field. Her most recent book is The Handbook of
Secondary Gifted Education. She is active in the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) where she has served as Chair of
the Research and Evaluation Division, a member of the Board of
Directors, and Chair of the Bylaws Committee. Currently, she is the
Association Editor for NAGC. Her research interests include talent
development in the STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), underserved populations of gifted students, and personal talent development.
Brenda M. Capobianco is an associate professor of science education and engineering education (courtesy) in the College of
Education at Purdue University. Her research interests include
teacher action research as well as issues of gender, culture, and
identity in science and engineering education. She serves as an
associate editor of the Journal of Science Teacher Education and
has publications in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
Educational Action Research, and the Journal of Women and
Minorities in Science Education.

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by elena burciu on April 11, 2011