The Australian Educational Researcher

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 473–491 | Cite as

The influence of professional development in gifted education on the frequency of instructional practices

  • Scott J. PetersEmail author
  • Jennifer L. Jolly


Gifted education teacher training, licensure, certification, and degrees are ubiquitous in the Australia and abroad, and yet whether or not such training results in changes to classroom instructional practices remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to better understand the relationship between professional development in gifted education and the practices used by educators in the classroom. Two hundred and seventy-nine respondents who had completed one of three levels of teacher professional development completed the Classroom Practice Survey (Revised). The preregistered prediction for this study, that higher levels of professional development would result in higher levels of self-reported teacher practices, was not supported by the data, thereby drawing attention to the need for more research in this area and potential revisions to gifted education teacher professional development opportunities.


Teacher training Professional development Gifted education Bayesian statistics 


  1. ACARA. (2016). Australian curriculum. Retrieved from
  2. Archambault, F. X., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36, 258–267. Scholar
  4. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL]. (2017). Australian professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from
  5. Bangel, N. J., Moon, S. M., & Capobianco, B. M. (2010). Preservice teachers’ perceptions and experiences in a gifted education training model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 209–221. Scholar
  6. Blank, R. K. (2013). What the research tells us: Common characteristics of professional learning that leads to student achievement. Journal of Staff Development, 34, 50–53.Google Scholar
  7. Clinton, J., Dinham, S., Savage, G., Aston, R., Dabrowski, A., Gullickson, A., Calnin, G., & Arbour, G. (2015). Evaluation of the implementation of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers: Final report. Melbourne, VIC: Centre for Program Evaluation, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  8. Coleman, L. J., Micko, K. J., & Cross, T. L. (2015). Twenty-five years of research on the lived experience of being gifted in school: Capturing students’ voices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38, 358–376. Scholar
  9. Cumming, J., & Mawdesley, R. (2013). Australia, quality education and the ‘best interests of the child’. Australian Journal of Education, 57, 292–309. Scholar
  10. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (2011). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 92, 81–92. Scholar
  11. Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. A. (2010). The impact of No Child Left Behind on students, teachers, and schools. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Retrieved from Scholar
  12. Diezmann, C., Watter, J., & Fox, K. (2001). Early entry to school in Australia: Rhetoric, research, and reality. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 10(2), 5–18.Google Scholar
  13. Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 111–127. Scholar
  14. Farkas, S., & Duffett, A. (2008). High achieving students in the era of No Child Left Behind: Results from a national teacher survey. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from:
  15. Firmender, J. F., Reis, S. M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2012). Reading comprehension and fluency levels range across diverse classrooms: The need for differentiated reading instruction and content. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 3–14. Scholar
  16. Fraser-Seeto, K., Howard, S. J., & Woodcock, S. (2013). Preparation for teaching gifted students: An updated investigation into university offerings in New South Wales. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 22(2), 45–51.Google Scholar
  17. Gable, A., & Lingard, B. (2016). NAPLAN data: A new policy assemblage and mode of governance in Australian schooling. Policy Studies, 37, 568–582. Scholar
  18. Gentry, M., Pereira, N., Kenney, R., Fugate, C. M., & Maeda, Y. (2017, July). Cross cultural instrumentation for gifted education research and programming: Purdue’s repository. Session presented at the 22nd World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  19. Griffin, G. A. (1983). Introduction: The work of staff development. In G. A. Griffin (Ed.), Staff development, eighty-second yearbook of the national society for the study of education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Guskey, T. R. (2014). Planning professional learning. Educational Leadership, 71, 10–16.Google Scholar
  21. Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 115–121. Scholar
  22. Hardy, I. (2009). The production of Australian professional development policy texts as a site of contest: The case of the federal quality teacher programme. The Australian Educational Researcher, 36, 73–88. Scholar
  23. Hattie, J. (2003, October). Teachers make a difference, what is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Building Teacher Quality: What does the research tell us ACER research tell us ACER Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from
  24. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 metaanalyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2014). What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting Bayes factors. Journal of Problem Solving, 7, 2–9. Scholar
  26. John, L. K., Lowenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevelance of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532. Scholar
  27. Johnsen, S. K., VanTassel-Baska, J., Robinson, A., Cotabish, A., Dailey, Jolly, J. L.,… Adams, C. M. (2015). Using the National Gifted Education Standards for teacher preparation. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jolly, J. L. (2015). The cost of high stakes testing for high-ability students. Australasian Journal for Gifted Education, 24(1), 30–36.Google Scholar
  29. Jolly, J. L. (2016). Differentiated curriculum: Learning from the past and exploring the future. In T. Kettler (Ed.), Modern curriculum for gifted and advanced academic students (pp. 23–36). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kronborg, L., & Plunkett, M. (2012). Examining teacher attitudes and perceptions of teacher competencies required in a new selective high school. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 21(2), 33–46.Google Scholar
  31. Kronborg, L., & Plunkett, M. (2013). Responding to professional learning: How effective teachers differentiate teaching and learning strategies to engage highly able adolescents. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 22(2), 52–63.Google Scholar
  32. Lakens, D., & Evers, E. R. K. (2014). Sailing from the seas of chaos into the corridor of stability: Practical recommendations to increase the informational value of studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 278–292. Scholar
  33. Lassig, C. J. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes towards the gifted: The importance of professional development and school culture. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 18(2), 32–42.Google Scholar
  34. Macqueen, S. (2012). Academic outcomes from between-class achievement grouping: The Australian primary context. The Australian Educational Researcher, 39, 59–73. Scholar
  35. Masters, G. (2017, April). How well are we learning from NAPLAN? Retrieved from
  36. McBee, M. T., & Field, S. H. (2017). Confirmatory study design, data analysis, and results that matter. In M. C. Makel & J. A. Plucker (Eds.), Toward and more perfect psychology (pp. 59–78). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  37. Miller, E. M. (2009). The effect of training in gifted education on elementary classroom teachers’ theory-based reasoning about the concept of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 65–105. Scholar
  38. Mills, M., Monk, S., Keddie, A., Renshaw, P., Christie, P., Geelan, D., et al. (2014). Differentiated learning: From policy to classroom. Oxford Review of Education, 40, 331–348. Scholar
  39. NAGC. (2015). 20142015 State of the states in gifted education: Policy and practice data. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
  40. Peters, S. J., Rambo-Hernandez, K., Makel, M. C., Matthews, M. S., & Plucker, J. A. (2017). Should millions of students take a gap year? Large numbers of students start the year above grade level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 229–238. Scholar
  41. Polesel, J., Dulfer, N., & Turnbull, M. (2012). The experience of education: The impacts of high stakes testing on school students and their families. Rydalmere, NSW: The Whitlam Institute. Retrieved from
  42. Polesel, J., Rice, S., & Dulfer, N. (2013). The impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum and pedagogy: A teacher perspective from Australia. Journal of Educational Policy, 29, 640–657. Scholar
  43. Senate Select Committee. (1988). Report on the education of gifted and talented children. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  44. Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K-12 student’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86, 849–899. Scholar
  45. Sullivan, A. M., & Morrison, C. (2014). Enacting policy: The capacity of school leaders to support early career teachers through policy work. The Australian Educational Researcher, 41, 603–620. Scholar
  46. Taylor, T., & Milton, M. (2006). Preparation for teaching gifted students: An investigation into university courses in Australia. Australia Journal of Gifted Education, 15(1), 25–31.Google Scholar
  47. TNTP. (2015). The mirage: Confronting the hard truth about our quest for teacher development. Retrieved from
  48. UNSW School of Education (n.d.a). Gifted education. Retrieved from
  49. UNSW School of Education. (n.d.b). For educators. Retrieved from
  50. Van den Bergh, L., Ros, A., & Beijaard, D. (2014). Improving teacher feedback during active learning: Effects of a professional development program. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 772–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wagenmakers, E. J. & Dutilh, G. (2016). Seven selfish reasons for preregistration. APS Observer. Retrieved from:
  52. Wagenmakers, E. J., Verhagen, J., Ly, A., Matzke, D., Steingroever, H., Rouder, J. N., et al. (2017). The need for Bayesian hypothesis testing in psychological science. In S. O. Lilienfeld & I. Waldman (Eds.), Psychological science under scrutiny: Recent challenges and proposed solutions (pp. 123–138). West Sussex: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wagenmakers, E. J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. J. J., & Kievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 632–638. Scholar
  54. Wyatt-Smith, C., Bridges, S., Hedemann, M., & Neville, M. (2008). Designing professional learning for effecting change: Partnerships for local and system networks. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Australian Association for Research in Education, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin – WhitewaterWhitewaterUSA
  2. 2.University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA

Personalised recommendations