View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Lifting Learning Experiences: Supporting Change in Teacher Practice over Time

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Lifting Learning Experiences: Supporting Change in Teacher Practice over Time
Language: English
Authors: Catherine A. Little (ORCID 0000-0001-6720-943X), Rebecca L. O'Brien (ORCID 0009-0009-4250-1712)
Source: Gifted Child Today. 2026 49(1):30-47.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2026
Sponsoring Agency: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) (ED), Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program
Contract Number: S206A170030
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: Elementary Education
Early Childhood Education
Kindergarten
Primary Education
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Intermediate Grades
Descriptors: Elementary School Teachers, Kindergarten, Grade 1, Grade 2, Grade 3, General Education, Regular and Special Education Relationship, Faculty Development, Workshops, Capacity Building, Gifted Education, Teacher Improvement, Program Descriptions, Minority Group Students
DOI: 10.1177/10762175251381367
ISSN: 1076-2175
2162-951X
Abstract: General education teachers often have limited background in recognizing and responding to advanced academic potential in the classroom. This often may mean that advanced learners experience little instruction that provides them with appropriate levels of challenge. Professional learning opportunities and instructional resources reflecting best practices in gifted education can support classroom teachers in challenging all learners and looking for learners who would benefit from more advanced instruction. Project LIFT engaged classroom teachers at grades K-3 in a professional learning initiative supporting their capacity to recognize and respond to high-potential behaviors. Teachers collaboratively developed and implemented inquiry-focused, standards-based lessons in reading and mathematics. Classroom observations demonstrated increases over time on key indicators of academic rigor and classroom discourse.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1491990
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEyAdtLxdpI-yB4Oje7IGU9AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMmvHnlN-rVlX5cRWAIBEICBmye9IH2zmCOsLey5iR25iRVLgiaJhC8N-XDBwDKk4TMoDf7bJ6jaQGJaA-gSYlDjc2i7Y781tNnnJFRO_tyhPfkpcbQuVcYfXxphIXxy38e-JS8G5PRf0X56oZSTW_VgYycRslM4OToR2DRmOAOsfzdAU72xZxxsmHPsJ3l2yw5unXdoQRX09XdYBaX0R3xXdj9mMBBsRz0dZCPa
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0190206211;gct01jan.26;2025Dec15.05:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0190206211-1">Lifting Learning Experiences: Supporting Change in Teacher Practice Over Time </title> <p>General education teachers often have limited background in recognizing and responding to advanced academic potential in the classroom. This often may mean that advanced learners experience little instruction that provides them with appropriate levels of challenge. Professional learning opportunities and instructional resources reflecting best practices in gifted education can support classroom teachers in challenging all learners and looking for learners who would benefit from more advanced instruction. Project LIFT engaged classroom teachers at grades K-3 in a professional learning initiative supporting their capacity to recognize and respond to high-potential behaviors. Teachers collaboratively developed and implemented inquiry-focused, standards-based lessons in reading and mathematics. Classroom observations demonstrated increases over time on key indicators of academic rigor and classroom discourse.</p> <p>Keywords: classroom observations; professional learning; advanced learners; Javits program; inquiry learning</p> <p>The results of the study demonstrate that project participation contributed to some change in teacher practice over time."</p> <p>In elementary schools across the country, learners who demonstrate performance above grade level spend most of their classroom time in general education settings ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref1">37</reflink>]), often working with teachers with limited preparation in recognizing and responding to the needs of advanced learners ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref2">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref3">42</reflink>]). These learners are likely to spend their school days engaging with grade-level expectations and curricular materials, even if their performance demonstrates their readiness for something more advanced ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref4">32</reflink>]). This issue is, in part, grounded in gaps in professional preparation and in-service learning for the teachers responsible for responding to these students' needs in the classroom.</p> <p>General education classroom teachers tend to have limited preparation in gifted education, yet they are often an important gateway for student access to advanced programming in districts incorporating teacher referral or ratings as part of identification systems ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref6">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref7">25</reflink>]). This issue is particularly salient with students from traditionally underserved groups, whose high potential may emerge in ways that differ from what many teachers expect ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref8">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref9">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref10">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref11">40</reflink>]). Even when teacher nomination or ratings are not a part of an identification system, classroom teachers' understanding of advanced learners and their needs matters for the instructional support those teachers are providing daily to learners. General education teachers may have limited knowledge and confidence in how to differentiate for gifted learners, including the use of gifted-focused teaching materials ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref12">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Project LIFT (Learning Informs Focused Teaching) was an initiative funded by the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program of the U.S. Department of Education. The project was designed to support general education classroom teachers in recognizing and responding to high academic potential in early grades, with a focus on using evidence-based instructional practices emphasizing higher-level thinking to provide the context for students to demonstrate and develop advanced potential. The project reflects the importance of giving all young students opportunities to respond to challenging tasks, such that teachers may recognize and respond when students are ready for something more advanced ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref13">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref14">43</reflink>]). Part of the project was designed to encourage teachers to look for advanced behaviors during their regular, standards-based instruction, and not just in activities specifically designed to connect with gifted program identification. In response to the guiding parameters of the Javits Program, the project was intended (a) to develop information to support schools in strengthening identification and services for gifted learners, especially those from traditionally underserved populations, and (b) to provide professional learning experiences for educators relevant to increasing access to advanced learning opportunities for all students.</p> <p>The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of Project LIFT, including the professional learning approach used, the products developed and implemented, and project findings and implications. The paper also describes some of the successes and challenges of implementing the project, including how the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted it yet also enabled innovative approaches to making the project work in altered circumstances. Overall, we aim to demonstrate how the project was able to support teacher growth and change, contribute to resources available for supporting advanced learning, and evaluate varied approaches to professional learning and classroom observation in more and less traditional contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0190206211-2">Project Goals and Implementation</hd> <p>Project LIFT was informed by previous work with the Young Scholars Model ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref15">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref16">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref17">20</reflink>]), an approach to developing schools' capacity to increase access and opportunity for their high-potential students from underserved populations through a combination of elements including nontraditional identification measures, focus on professional learning, and use of evidence-supported, gifted-focused methods and materials. More broadly, the project reflects prior research emphasizing that, to draw out and nurture advanced potential, teachers need to engage students in learning experiences that allow high-potential behaviors to emerge ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref18">43</reflink>]) and then respond accordingly with follow-up instruction at appropriate levels of challenge ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref19">36</reflink>]). Thus, the project emphasizes the value in using instructional materials as a catalyst for change in perceptions and practice ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref20">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref21">44</reflink>]), though it is difficult to untangle the effects of professional learning and those of specific instructional materials.</p> <p>The project was also grounded in literature on effective approaches to professional learning and supporting teacher change. These emphases include active and collaborative learning, coherence across multiple aspects of teachers' work, and sustained attention over time ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref23">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref24">45</reflink>]), as well as the importance of incorporating opportunities for teachers to try out new approaches and materials with their own learners as part of the professional learning experience ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref25">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>The primary goals of the project were as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • To enhance teacher understanding of the types of behaviors that may be indicative of high potential in the primary grades, particularly in underserved populations.</item> <p></p> <item> • To promote teacher capacity to support advanced-level learning through engagement with materials that promote student discourse, higher-level thinking, and demonstration and development of high-potential behaviors.</item> <p></p> <item> • To support student achievement in core content areas through instructional approaches that emphasize discourse, higher-level thinking, and other key evidence-based practices.</item> </ulist> <p>We pursued these goals through professional learning involving collaborative development and use of resources that emphasized higher-level thinking in activities that all learners could access. We also wanted to highlight both the importance of early intervention to support access to talent development and advanced learning ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref26">30</reflink>]) and the often limited support for advanced learning opportunities in the early grades. Thus, we focused the project initially on grades 1–3, eventually also including several kindergarten teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0190206211-3">Professional Learning and Lesson Implementation</hd> <p>The professional learning component of the project included formal learning activities during a structured summer workshop and follow-up activities through implementation of resources, reflection on implementation, and a second summer workshop. The initial summer workshop activities focused on the following major emphases:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • Developing shared language around what high-potential behaviors might look like in the classroom, including both "teacher-pleasing" and "non-teacher-pleasing" behaviors ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref27">15</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> • Developing familiarity with six strategies for supporting critical and creative thinking in classroom activities: visualization, questioning, point of view, decisions and outcomes, divergent thinking (fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration), and encapsulation.</item> <p></p> <item> • Collaborating to develop standards-based, inquiry-oriented lessons in reading and mathematics that incorporated the strategies noted above.</item> <p></p> <item> • Embedding elements of tiered instruction into lessons to support differentiation for students showing a need for more scaffolding or more challenge.</item> </ulist> <p>This ambitious volume of content was primarily organized around collaborative development of lessons, which all used an inquiry approach grounded in the 5E model originally developed in science education ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref28">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref29">4</reflink>]). An outline of workshop elements appears in Figure 1. Teachers worked in grade-level teams, identifying standards for focus, selecting strategies to enhance expectations for student thinking, and using project-developed sample lessons as a guide. Each team drafted one reading and one math lesson for their grade level.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1.Outline and explanation of professional learning workshop components.</p> <p>Following the summer workshop, the project team worked to shape and finalize the lessons developed by the teachers. We then distributed lesson plans and associated classroom materials. The teachers were asked to implement six lessons (three reading and three mathematics) over the course of the following academic year. Project team members observed lesson implementation, and teachers were asked to respond to a reflection form describing their experience with implementation of each lesson (see Appendix A). The reflection form included general questions about what worked well or not so well but also questions about the student behaviors teachers observed that might indicate advanced potential, the kinds of questions students asked, and how students responded to the challenges presented by the lesson activities.</p> <p>After this year of implementation, teachers returned for a second summer workshop, in which they debriefed their experiences and worked together to revise their lessons from the previous summer and/or to develop additional lessons. They then engaged in a second year of implementation and reflection, again with observations from the project team.</p> <p>The project team facilitating the professional learning workshops and support for lesson development included three individuals, all with advanced degrees in gifted education and each also with specialization in a relevant area. One team member is a professor in literacy education, one in early elementary mathematics education, and the third in gifted education with specific background in curriculum development and instructional implementation.</p> <hd id="AN0190206211-4">Timeline Turbulence: Recruitment, Adjustments, and the COVID-19 Pandemic</hd> <p>In the original project design, teachers were intended to participate in the project over the course of a little over two years. The timeline included baseline data collection in the spring of a given year, an initial professional learning workshop in the summer, ongoing data collection and teacher reflection throughout the next academic year, a second summer workshop, and an additional academic year of data collection and teacher reflection. Teachers agreed to participate in the project with an understanding that they might be assigned to a treatment group, which would follow the timeline described and use project materials, or a comparison group, which would not participate in the professional learning activities or receive project resources initially, but would have the opportunity to engage as a follow-up treatment group at a later time. Teachers in the comparison group were observed conducting lessons on the same standards that the treatment group teachers were addressing through project lessons.</p> <p>The project was intended to engage two cohorts in the experience. Early recruitment challenges resulted in an adjustment that the project team conducted recruitment on an ongoing basis, and the project ended up with four cohorts of teachers instead of two, with smaller groups entering the project each year and overlapping with one another. A total of 54 teachers participated in the observation portion of the project reported here; more information about participating teachers is provided later in the paper.</p> <p>Project activities experienced substantial interruption when the COVID-19 pandemic began. When schools closed in March 2020, two groups of teachers were participating, one completing their first year of implementation and the other completing their second. A third group was just beginning baseline data collection. The project team made the following initial adjustments when the scope of the interruption for that academic year became clear:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • Paused all data collection for the 2019-2020 academic year.</item> <p></p> <item> • Shifted the summer workshop to an online context.</item> <p></p> <item> • Determined that the summer 2020 workshop would only include the teachers scheduled for their second workshop. The newer group of teachers was asked to wait until the following spring to begin participation, because no baseline classroom observations had yet been conducted.</item> </ulist> <p>Ultimately, given the extended nature of the pandemic and its disruption to school activities, several other aspects of the project also had to shift:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • All professional learning for the remainder of the project took place in an online context. The content and emphasis on team-building and collaboration remained the same, just conducted in a virtual environment instead of in person. Thus, professional learning workshops occurred in person for the first two years of the project (2018–2019) and then online for all subsequent years (2020–2023).</item> <p></p> <item> • All classroom observations shifted from in-person to video-based observations. Teachers were asked to place a camera in the classroom and to wear a lapel microphone to conduct project lessons. Project team members later observed the recorded lessons.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0190206211-5">Project Materials</hd> <p>During the summer workshop, teachers worked collaboratively to develop, pilot, and revise lesson plans reflecting the key project components of focusing on standards, embedding critical and creative thinking strategies, and incorporating support for students needing additional scaffolding and/or additional challenge. All lessons were organized using the 5E model ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref31">4</reflink>]), an inquiry-oriented approach including five segments: Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, Evaluate. Originally developed and widely used in science education, the 5E model encourages students to explore and develop ideas and questions about a concept based on their experiences and initial exposure to it, and then to deepen their engagement through further investigating those ideas and questions. In this approach, students are "hooked" into the lesson (Engage) and offered opportunity to Explore based on their current understanding; this initial exploration connects to more overt instruction with active student contribution (Explain). There is then additional pursuit of understanding through the Elaborate/Extend section, followed by wrap-up and synthesis in the Evaluate portion (see [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref32">11</reflink>], for further discussion of the application of the model to the project).</p> <p>All lessons linked directly to specific standards from the Common Core State Standards ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref33">28</reflink>]) at the relevant grade levels. The project team encouraged teachers to focus on how grade-level standards fit within overarching standards (i.e., the Anchor Standards in English Language Arts and the Domain Standards and Standards for Mathematical Practice in Mathematics). This was intended to support teachers in incorporating the differentiation described above. We also provided text resources representing a diverse range of topics, authors, characters, and themes, which combined with the overall structure of the lessons to encourage cultural responsiveness and relevance of the activities to students from diverse backgrounds.</p> <p>The project team developed one prototype lesson per subject per grade level (total of 6) at the beginning to serve as models. Teacher teams went on to develop 40 additional lessons, 20 in each subject area. Grade level distribution varied, with the largest group of participating teachers and thus the largest group of lessons at grade 2. The final collection of resources includes 16 grade 3 lessons, 18 grade 2 lessons, 10 grade 1 lessons, and two kindergarten lessons.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref34">3</reflink>]</p> <p>The goal each year was for treatment teachers to implement and reflect on six lessons, three per content area, with their entire class. They were asked to pay attention to students' response to the lessons, including whether students they expected or did not expect showed evidence of advanced potential. The teachers were also encouraged by the lesson structure to provide differentiation based on observed needs, including providing additional scaffolding and/or additional challenge. Guidance for this differentiation was built into the lesson plans, primarily through building in scaffolding and challenge to the "Elaborate/Extend" portion of the lesson. This portion generally included a "Target Task" and an alternative/replacement version of the target task that provided additional challenge, as well as suggestions for ways to offer more support for students who needed it.</p> <p>Teachers' combined implementation of the materials yielded 296 trials of the resources, with an average of about 9 lessons per teacher. All the lessons but two were implemented at least once during the project, with an average of 6.4 implementations per lesson. Teachers' reflection form responses, shared with all teachers without individual attribution, and their own recollections informed lesson revisions during the summer institute each year.</p> <p>Sample outlines of one reading and one mathematics lesson are provided in Figures 2 and 3. All lesson materials developed for Project LIFT are available on the project website (lift.uconn.edu).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2.Outline of sample reading lesson from Project LIFT.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3.Outline of sample mathematics lesson from Project LIFT.</p> <hd id="AN0190206211-6">Observation Study</hd> <p>The project sought to document aspects of teacher change over time in both (a) their understanding of advanced learners and their needs and (b) their use of strategies for supporting higher-level thinking, discourse, and differentiation during classroom instruction. Thus, data collection for the project included interviews with teachers, rating scales on students, teacher reflection forms, and classroom observations. This paper primarily reports on the classroom observation component of the study, which addressed the following research questions: Do teachers show change over time (baseline to post-baseline) in their instructional practices, as measured by two observation instruments? What differences are evident in observed instructional practices between Project LIFT treatment teachers and comparison teachers?</p> <p>Documenting the effects of professional learning is complicated by the conceptual and practical distance between specific professional learning activities and measures of change in teacher behavior or change in student achievement or growth ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref36">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref37">24</reflink>]). Frequently, effects of professional learning are evaluated with satisfaction or perception data among participants, which may or may not link to changes in practice or measures of student outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref38">19</reflink>]). Repeated observation using validated measures is one solution to documenting changes in practice ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref39">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref40">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref41">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>As noted, teachers participated as treatment or comparison group teachers, and the overall project used a quasi-experimental design with teachers from participating schools assigned to one group or the other at the school level. Initially these assignments yielded approximately even numbers of teachers in the two groups. However, attrition from both groups, and the comparison group especially, resulted in uneven distribution throughout the project.</p> <hd id="AN0190206211-7">Participants</hd> <p>Recruitment for participants initially focused on districts with high populations of students from traditionally underserved backgrounds in one state in the northeastern United States. Once the project shifted to include remote professional learning and video-based observations, we added recruitment of districts in a northwestern state. A total of 54 teachers from 12 schools across eight school districts participated in the observation portion of the study.</p> <p>Most (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref42">6</reflink>) of the districts were in a state in the northeast. These included one large urban district, one small urban district, three rural districts, and one suburban district. Both urban districts, the suburban district, and one of the rural districts served higher percentages of students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds than the state average, ranging from 45%–60% (state average 36% at the beginning of the project; economically disadvantaged determined using free/reduced lunch eligibility as a proxy). The two urban districts also served higher percentages of Hispanic students (26–45%) and higher percentages of multilingual learners (10–16%) than the state averages (25%, 7%). In this state, identification of gifted learners is required in state policy but not specifically enforced, and services are not required in policy. No specific endorsement or certification in gifted education is required for teachers. At the time of the study, two of the participating districts had gifted programs in place, but services did not begin until after the grade levels involved in this study.</p> <p>Of the two districts in the northwest, participating schools also served percentages of students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds at levels at or above the state average (44–80%; state average about 50%). In this state, gifted identification and services are required. An endorsement in gifted education is available in the state but not required for teachers working with gifted students.</p> <p>Of the 54 teachers in the observation study, 33 were in the treatment group and 21 in the comparison group. The project collected minimal demographics on participating teachers. Two teachers identified as male and the rest were female, and we did not collect race/ethnicity data. One teacher had completed an advanced certificate in gifted education, and three reported completing one to two courses in the field; all others reported no or minimal professional learning in gifted education. A summary of teachers by grade level appears in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1. Participating Teachers by Grade Level, Project Cohort, and Condition.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Grade Level</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Cohort 1 (2018)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Cohort 2 (2019)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Cohort 3 (2021)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Cohort 4 (2022)</th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Total</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Treat.</th><th align="center">Comp.</th><th align="center">Treat.</th><th align="center">Comp.</th><th align="center">Treat.</th><th align="center">Comp.</th><th align="center">Treat.</th><th align="center">Comp.</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Grade 3</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">14</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Grade 2</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">24</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Grade 1</td><td align="char" char=".">4</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">13</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Kindergarten</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Totals</td><td align="char" char=".">13</td><td align="char" char=".">12</td><td align="char" char=".">6</td><td align="char" char=".">5</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="char" char=".">4</td><td align="char" char=".">6</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">54</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> Dates refer to the teachers' year of entry into the project. "Treat." refers to the treatment group, and "Comp." refers to the comparison group.</p> <hd id="AN0190206211-8">Data Sources</hd> <p>Classroom observations were conducted using two instruments: the Instructional Quality Assessment (IQA; [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref43">2</reflink>]) and the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS [K-3]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref44">34</reflink>]). The IQA contains a set of 4-point rubrics for rating Academic Rigor (degree to which the lesson is challenging for students) and Accountable Talk (the quality of instructional discussions) in either mathematics or reading ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref45">22</reflink>]). An additional set of rubrics focuses on Clear Expectations and Self-Management for Learning. Prior studies have indicated that the IQA is sensitive to change resulting from teachers' participation in professional learning experiences ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref46">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref47">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>The IQA has demonstrated good interrater reliability in reading and mathematics. The average agreement across all rubrics was 86.4% in reading and 81.8% in mathematics ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref48">22</reflink>]), with a range of 70%–100% agreement for the individual rubrics. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref49">22</reflink>] calculated Cronbach's alphas to investigate the consistency of the rating scales, and results yielded an alpha of.92 for the mathematics rubrics and.76 for the reading rubrics. The IQA rubrics show promise for measuring meaningful differences in students' learning opportunities ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref50">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the current study, although all rubrics of the IQA were scored for the relevant content area for each observation, we focus only on the Accountable Talk and Academic Rigor rubrics here to reflect the focus areas of the project on supporting classroom discourse and challenging learning opportunities for students. Using the Accountable Talk rubrics, observers evaluate what percentage of students participate in lesson discussions; the degree to which the teacher asks academically relevant questions, presses students for explanation of their ideas, and links student contributions to one another to advance the discussion; and the degree to which students provide evidence to support their contributions and link their comments to what other students have said. These Accountable Talk rubrics have the same emphases for both reading and mathematics.</p> <p>The Academic Rigor rubrics differ more between the content areas. Using the reading rubrics, observers evaluate the rigor of a text of focus within a discussion, the depth of the discussion as facilitated by the teacher, and student use of textual evidence in their contributions. Using the mathematics rubrics, observers evaluate the potential and implementation of a task for supporting depth in mathematical understanding and the ways in which students provide explanations for their use of strategies and procedures to respond to a task or problem. A list summarizing the main focus of each of the rubrics appears in Appendix B.</p> <p>The CLASS (K-3) ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref51">34</reflink>]) is a systematic observational tool with ten dimensions separated into three domains: Emotional Support (dimensions are positive climate, negative climate, teacher sensitivity, regard for student perspective); Classroom Organization (behavior management, productivity, instructional learning formats); and Instructional Support (concept development, quality of feedback, language modeling). These dimensions are backed by developmental research that cites student-adult interaction as the primary mechanism for student development and learning ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref53">29</reflink>]). CLASS can be used to ascertain what the average student experiences within specific lessons and classroom settings, as it requires observers to consider the appropriate curriculum strategies, learning environments, and relational strategies that help (or hinder) students' learning ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref54">46</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref55">33</reflink>] examined the three domains used in the CLASS framework through a confirmatory factor analysis and found that the three-domain structure fits the natural variation in classrooms. Observers score each dimension using a 7-point scale, determining the classroom quality in each dimension to be low (1–2), moderate (3–5), or high (6–7). CLASS protocols for observer training include two days with a certified trainer and a follow-up assessment to ensure reliable scoring with agreement of 90% with master-coded videos; those who complete the follow-up successfully are considered reliable coders ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref56">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>For purposes of the current study, although all dimensions of the CLASS were observed and scored, we focus only on the Instructional Support domain for our analysis. This is because of the focus of the project on examining teachers' instructional practices aimed at supporting higher-level thinking and discourse.</p> <hd id="AN0190206211-9">Data Collection and Analysis</hd> <p>Observers included graduate research assistants and other project staff who had engaged in collaborative training and practice in the use of the rubrics. All observers were formally certified as reliable coders with the CLASS.</p> <p>During the first part of the project (2018–2020), all observations were scheduled with teachers and conducted in person, with two people observing each lesson. During the later portion of the project (2021–2023), all observations were conducted via recorded video; teachers recorded and uploaded their lessons, and two members of the research team conducted observations with each video.</p> <p>Several studies have examined video-based versus in-person observations (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref57">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref58">13</reflink>]). These studies have found reasonably high correlations between live and video-based observations, though they also suggest the need for further research on the relationships of these approaches ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref59">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref60">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref61">8</reflink>]) and cautions around trying to use the modes interchangeably ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref62">13</reflink>]). In this study, the Covid-19 pandemic initially necessitated the switch from in-person to video-based observation, but we maintained the video format for the remainder of the project to prevent too much change in format.</p> <p>Observers completed all observations independently, using both instruments, and then met to reach consensus scores. Ratings were highly consistent across observers; using CLASS guidelines defining agreement as within less than one standard deviation, more than 90% of scores showed initial agreement prior to consensus discussions. Only consensus scores were used in the analysis.</p> <p>Lessons showed a wide range in length, from 20 to 120 minutes. Some lessons also extended across multiple days. Following guidelines of the CLASS instrument, any lesson that went over 45 minutes was split into two observation sessions, and lessons that went past 75 minutes were split into three sessions. Lessons occurring across multiple days were also split into separate observation events based on day. Consequently, the number of <emph>observation events</emph> exceeds the number of <emph>lesson events.</emph> We collected a total of 747 observations, or an average of approximately 14 observations per teacher. However, there was a wide range of observations per teacher because of varied lengths of participation, attrition, and longer and shorter lessons; the number of observations per teacher ranged from 2 to 36.</p> <p>Observation data were analyzed using SPSS software. We conducted preliminary analyses to examine whether assumptions were violated. Then we reviewed descriptive information and ran <emph>t</emph> tests. We classified observation scores into the broad categories of <emph>baseline</emph> and <emph>post-baseline.</emph> We averaged baseline scores and post-baseline scores for each teacher and compared them, using <emph>t</emph> tests for this initial analysis to get an initial determination of change over time. We then used multiple regression analyses to assess the ability of two variables (i.e., treatment/comparison condition and baseline/post-baseline) to predict observation results.</p> <hd id="AN0190206211-10">Results</hd> <p>We collected a total of 747 observation events, including 530 with treatment teachers and 217 with comparison teachers. There were 105 baseline observation events (42 comparison and 63 treatment) and 642 post-baseline observation events (175 comparison and 467 treatment). Table 2 outlines the descriptive data for the rubrics by group (i.e., baseline observations and post-baseline observations for teachers in the treatment and comparison groups). Only the rubrics used in the analyses are included.</p> <p>Table 2. Descriptive Results—CLASS and IQA Observations.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Rubrics</th><th align="center" colspan="3">Comparison-Baseline</th><th align="center" colspan="3">Comparison-Post Baseline</th><th align="center" colspan="3">Treatment-Baseline</th><th align="center" colspan="3">Treatment-Post Baseline</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left" colspan="13">CLASS</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Concept dev.</td><td align="char" char="."><bold>42</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>3.27</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>0.92</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>175</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>3.02</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>0.80</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>63</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>3.24</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>0.86</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>467</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>3.72</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>0.79</bold></td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Quality of feedback</td><td align="char" char=".">42</td><td align="char" char=".">3.52</td><td align="char" char=".">1.03</td><td align="char" char=".">175</td><td align="char" char=".">3.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.78</td><td align="char" char=".">63</td><td align="char" char=".">3.60</td><td align="char" char=".">0.90</td><td align="char" char=".">467</td><td align="char" char=".">3.64</td><td align="char" char=".">0.85</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Language modeling</td><td align="char" char=".">42</td><td align="char" char=".">3.34</td><td align="char" char=".">1.08</td><td align="char" char=".">175</td><td align="char" char=".">3.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.82</td><td align="char" char=".">63</td><td align="char" char=".">3.51</td><td align="char" char=".">1.03</td><td align="char" char=".">467</td><td align="char" char=".">3.86</td><td align="char" char=".">0.92</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="13">IQA - reading</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R1</td><td align="char" char=".">18</td><td align="char" char=".">3.68</td><td align="char" char=".">0.45</td><td align="char" char=".">65</td><td align="char" char=".">3.63</td><td align="char" char=".">0.52</td><td align="char" char=".">19</td><td align="char" char=".">3.63</td><td align="char" char=".">0.68</td><td align="char" char=".">126</td><td align="char" char=".">3.70</td><td align="char" char=".">0.51</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R2</td><td align="char" char=".">20</td><td align="char" char=".">2.45</td><td align="char" char=".">0.83</td><td align="char" char=".">76</td><td align="char" char=".">2.47</td><td align="char" char=".">0.79</td><td align="char" char=".">30</td><td align="char" char=".">2.65</td><td align="char" char=".">0.78</td><td align="char" char=".">220</td><td align="char" char=".">2.74</td><td align="char" char=".">0.71</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R3</td><td align="char" char=".">18</td><td align="char" char=".">1.82</td><td align="char" char=".">0.66</td><td align="char" char=".">75</td><td align="char" char=".">1.59</td><td align="char" char=".">0.55</td><td align="char" char=".">28</td><td align="char" char=".">1.89</td><td align="char" char=".">0.55</td><td align="char" char=".">212</td><td align="char" char=".">1.96</td><td align="char" char=".">0.78</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R4</td><td align="char" char=".">21</td><td align="char" char=".">2.83</td><td align="char" char=".">0.81</td><td align="char" char=".">76</td><td align="char" char=".">2.87</td><td align="char" char=".">0.82</td><td align="char" char=".">32</td><td align="char" char=".">2.98</td><td align="char" char=".">0.87</td><td align="char" char=".">220</td><td align="char" char=".">2.95</td><td align="char" char=".">0.81</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R5</td><td align="char" char=".">21</td><td align="char" char=".">2.67</td><td align="char" char=".">0.75</td><td align="char" char=".">75</td><td align="char" char=".">2.57</td><td align="char" char=".">0.82</td><td align="char" char=".">32</td><td align="char" char=".">2.71</td><td align="char" char=".">0.89</td><td align="char" char=".">217</td><td align="char" char=".">2.70</td><td align="char" char=".">0.81</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Rigor_R1</td><td align="char" char=".">19</td><td align="char" char=".">1.92</td><td align="char" char=".">0.63</td><td align="char" char=".">71</td><td align="char" char=".">2.08</td><td align="char" char=".">0.69</td><td align="char" char="."><bold>30</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>1.95</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>0.75</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>203</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>2.56</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>0.53</bold></td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Rigor_R2</td><td align="char" char=".">20</td><td align="char" char=".">2.58</td><td align="char" char=".">0.67</td><td align="char" char=".">73</td><td align="char" char=".">2.49</td><td align="char" char=".">0.75</td><td align="char" char=".">28</td><td align="char" char=".">2.54</td><td align="char" char=".">0.90</td><td align="char" char=".">202</td><td align="char" char=".">2.73</td><td align="char" char=".">0.68</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Rigor_R3</td><td align="char" char=".">18</td><td align="char" char=".">2.50</td><td align="char" char=".">0.69</td><td align="char" char=".">74</td><td align="char" char=".">2.45</td><td align="char" char=".">0.81</td><td align="char" char=".">28</td><td align="char" char=".">2.55</td><td align="char" char=".">0.85</td><td align="char" char=".">208</td><td align="char" char=".">3.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.69</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="13">IQA - mathematics</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R1</td><td align="char" char="."><bold>16</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>3.13</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>1.02</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>65</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>3.58</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>0.70</bold></td><td align="char" char=".">20</td><td align="char" char=".">3.78</td><td align="char" char=".">0.38</td><td align="char" char=".">120</td><td align="char" char=".">3.74</td><td align="char" char=".">0.48</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R2</td><td align="char" char="."><bold>19</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>2.55</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>0.72</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>78</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>2.23</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>0.72</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>30</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>2.52</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>0.80</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>201</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>2.90</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>0.71</bold></td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R3</td><td align="char" char=".">15</td><td align="char" char=".">1.80</td><td align="char" char=".">0.77</td><td align="char" char=".">70</td><td align="char" char=".">1.79</td><td align="char" char=".">0.74</td><td align="char" char="."><bold>26</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>1.73</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>0.72</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>201</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>2.11</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>0.83</bold></td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R4</td><td align="char" char=".">20</td><td align="char" char=".">2.73</td><td align="char" char=".">0.82</td><td align="char" char=".">79</td><td align="char" char=".">2.61</td><td align="char" char=".">0.71</td><td align="char" char=".">30</td><td align="char" char=".">2.98</td><td align="char" char=".">0.86</td><td align="char" char=".">201</td><td align="char" char=".">3.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.71</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R5</td><td align="char" char=".">20</td><td align="char" char=".">2.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.69</td><td align="char" char=".">78</td><td align="char" char=".">2.35</td><td align="char" char=".">0.82</td><td align="char" char="."><bold>30</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>2.58</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>0.80</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>201</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>2.90</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>0.72</bold></td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Rigor_R1</td><td align="char" char=".">21</td><td align="char" char=".">2.69</td><td align="char" char=".">0.64</td><td align="char" char=".">79</td><td align="char" char=".">2.80</td><td align="char" char=".">0.70</td><td align="char" char=".">31</td><td align="char" char=".">2.90</td><td align="char" char=".">0.82</td><td align="char" char=".">201</td><td align="char" char=".">3.71</td><td align="char" char=".">0.50</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Rigor_R2</td><td align="char" char=".">21</td><td align="char" char=".">2.79</td><td align="char" char=".">0.51</td><td align="char" char=".">79</td><td align="char" char=".">2.58</td><td align="char" char=".">0.74</td><td align="char" char="."><bold>31</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>2.76</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>0.73</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>201</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>3.19</bold></td><td align="char" char="."><bold>0.59</bold></td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Rigor_R3</td><td align="char" char=".">16</td><td align="char" char=".">2.56</td><td align="char" char=".">0.51</td><td align="char" char=".">66</td><td align="char" char=".">2.20</td><td align="char" char=".">0.85</td><td align="char" char=".">23</td><td align="char" char=".">2.67</td><td align="char" char=".">0.96</td><td align="char" char=".">187</td><td align="char" char=".">2.78</td><td align="char" char=".">0.69</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note.</emph> Rows in bold text showed statistically significant differences from baseline to post-baseline scores. IQA rubrics are organized by content area (Reading or Math) and include Accountable Talk (Talk) and Academic Rigor (Rigor). Rubrics in each section of the IQA are numbered. Thus, in the Reading section, Rigor_R1 refers to Reading Academic Rigor Rubric 1. CLASS was used with all lessons. IQA rubrics were used as appropriate to the content area. On the IQA, a rating of "not applicable" is possible; N/A ratings are not calculated into the score, yielding the varied numbers of observations on different rubrics.</p> <p>On the CLASS, all mean scores for both the treatment and comparison groups at baseline and post-baseline fell between 3 and 4 on the 7-point scale. On the IQA rubrics for Reading, means generally fell between 2 and 3 on the 4-point scale, with a few exceptions. On the first Accountable Talk rubric (Talk_R1), which focuses on percent of students participating, scores showed high means above 3.5 for both groups in both time points. On the third Accountable Talk rubric (Talk_R3), which focuses on how consistently students link their comments to other students' comments in discussion, means for both groups at all time points were below 2. On the first Academic Rigor rubric (Rigor_R1), baseline means for both groups were just below 2; however, it should be noted that this rubric, unlike all the others on the IQA, is scored on a 3-point scale instead of a 4-point scale. On the IQA rubrics for Mathematics, again most means fell between 2 and 3 on the 4-point scale, again with a few exceptions. On the first Accountable Talk rubric (Talk_R1), which parallels the reading one in its focus on percent of students participating, mean scores exceeded 3 at all time points for both groups. On the third Accountable Talk rubric (Talk_R3), which also parallels reading and focuses on students' linking of comments to other students' comments, mean scores were below 2 except in the treatment group post baseline. Additionally, for the first two Academic Rigor rubrics in mathematics (Rigor_R1 and Rigor_R2), which focus on the potential for and implementation of the task in engaging students in understanding mathematical concepts, procedures, and relationships, the treatment group showed mean scores over 3 at post baseline.</p> <p>The variances of baseline observations for the treatment and comparison groups were not statistically significantly different from one another at the.05 level for any of the outcomes of interest, with the exception of the mathematics Academic Rigor rubric 3 (Rigor_R3 under IQA-Mathematics), which focuses on student discussion following introduction of a task and showed greater variance in the treatment than the comparison group. The independent samples <emph>t</emph> tests comparing the mean scores between the treatment and comparison baseline observations showed that only one rubric, Mathematics Accountable Talk rubric 1 (Talk_R1 under IQA-Mathematics), which focuses on percentage of students participating, showed a statistically significant difference favoring the treatment group. Thus, overall, there were minimal differences between observation scores for the treatment and comparison groups at baseline.</p> <p>We conducted additional <emph>t</emph> tests comparing baseline and post-baseline scores for each group. In a number of these analyses, the assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated, likely due to the substantial size difference between the number of observation events in the baseline and post-baseline categories. In the comparison group, three rubrics showed significant differences between baseline and post-baseline with no violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variance: Concept Development on the CLASS, <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib215" id="ref63">215</reflink>) = −1.769, <emph>p</emph> <.05; Mathematics Accountable Talk rubric 1 (Talk_R1 under IQA-Mathematics), <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref64">79</reflink>) = 2.123, <emph>p</emph> <.05; and Mathematics Accountable Talk rubric 2 (Talk_R2 under IQA-Mathematics), <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref65">95</reflink>) = −1.747, <emph>p</emph> <.05. For two of these (Concept Development and Talk_R2), mean scores decreased from baseline to post-baseline, while for the other (Talk_R1), mean scores increased (see Table 2). Results from these <emph>t</emph> tests appear in Table 3.</p> <p>Table 3. Comparison Group Rubrics: Significant Differences Baseline to Post-baseline.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Rubric</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Baseline</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Post-Baseline</th><th align="center" colspan="2"><italic>t</italic> Test for Equality of Means</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M(SD)</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M(SD)</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>df</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left" colspan="7">CLASS</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Concept dev.</td><td align="char" char=".">42</td><td align="char" char="(">3.27 (0.92)</td><td align="char" char=".">175</td><td align="char" char="(">3.02 (0.80)</td><td align="char" char=".">1.769*</td><td align="char" char=".">215</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="7">IQA-mathematics</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R1</td><td align="char" char=".">16</td><td align="char" char="(">3.13 (1.02)</td><td align="char" char=".">65</td><td align="char" char="(">3.58 (0.70)</td><td align="char" char=".">−2.123*</td><td align="char" char=".">79</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R2</td><td align="char" char=".">19</td><td align="char" char="(">2.55 (0.72)</td><td align="char" char=".">78</td><td align="char" char="(">2.23 (0.72)</td><td align="char" char=".">1.747*</td><td align="char" char=".">95</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 <emph>Note.</emph> IQA rubrics are organized by content area (Reading or Math) and include Accountable Talk (Talk) and Academic Rigor (Rigor). Rubrics in each section of the IQA are numbered. Thus, in the Reading section, Rigor_R1 refers to Reading Academic Rigor Rubric 1. Results provided here show statistically significant differences with no violation of assumptions of homogeneity of variance. Full results of all <emph>t</emph> tests are available upon request.</item> <item>4 *<emph>p</emph> <.05.</item> </ulist> <p>For the treatment group, six rubrics showed statistically significant differences between baseline and post-baseline scores without violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variance: Concept Development on the CLASS, <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib528" id="ref66">528</reflink>) = −4.519, <emph>p</emph> <.001; Reading Academic Rigor rubric 1 (Rigor_R1 under IQA-Reading), <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib231" id="ref67">231</reflink>) = −5.545, <emph>p</emph> <.001; three of the Mathematics Accountable Talk rubrics (Talk_R2 under IQA-Mathematics, <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib229" id="ref68">229</reflink>) = −2.679, <emph>p</emph> <.01; Talk_R3 under IQA-Mathematics, <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib225" id="ref69">225</reflink>) = −2.258, <emph>p</emph> <.05; Talk_R5 under IQA-Mathematics, <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib229" id="ref70">229</reflink>) = −2.173, <emph>p</emph> <.05); and the second Mathematics Academic Rigor rubric (Rigor_R2 under IQA-Mathematics), <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib230" id="ref71">230</reflink>) = −3.709, <emph>p</emph> <.001). In all of these comparisons, the mean scores (see Table 2) increased from baseline to post-baseline. Results from these <emph>t</emph> tests appear in Table 4.</p> <p>Table 4. Treatment Group Rubrics: Significant Differences Baseline to Post-baseline.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Rubric</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Baseline</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Post-Baseline</th><th align="center" colspan="2"><italic>t</italic> Test for Equality of Means</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M (SD)</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M (SD)</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>df</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left" colspan="7">CLASS</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Concept dev.</td><td align="char" char=".">63</td><td align="char" char="(">3.24 (0.86)</td><td align="char" char=".">467</td><td align="char" char="(">3.72 (0.79)</td><td align="left">−4.519***</td><td align="char" char=".">528</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="7">IQA-reading</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Rigor_R1</td><td align="char" char=".">30</td><td align="char" char="(">1.95 (0.75)</td><td align="char" char=".">203</td><td align="char" char="(">2.56 (0.53)</td><td align="left">−5.545***</td><td align="char" char=".">231</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="7">IQA-mathematics</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R2</td><td align="char" char=".">30</td><td align="char" char="(">2.52 (0.80)</td><td align="char" char=".">201</td><td align="char" char="(">2.90 (0.71)</td><td align="left">−2.679**</td><td align="char" char=".">229</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R3</td><td align="char" char=".">26</td><td align="char" char="(">1.73 (0.72)</td><td align="char" char=".">201</td><td align="char" char="(">2.11 (0.83)</td><td align="left">−2.258*</td><td align="char" char=".">225</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R5</td><td align="char" char=".">30</td><td align="char" char="(">2.58 (0.80)</td><td align="char" char=".">201</td><td align="char" char="(">2.90 (0.72)</td><td align="left">−2.173*</td><td align="char" char=".">229</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Rigor_R2</td><td align="char" char=".">31</td><td align="char" char="(">2.76 (0.73)</td><td align="char" char=".">201</td><td align="char" char="(">3.19 (0.59)</td><td align="left">−3.709***</td><td align="char" char=".">230</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 <emph>Note.</emph> IQA rubrics are organized by content area (Reading or Math) and include Accountable Talk (Talk) and Academic Rigor (Rigor). Rubrics in each section of the IQA are numbered. Thus, in the Reading section, Rigor_R1 refers to Reading Academic Rigor Rubric 1. Results provided here show statistically significant differences with no violation of assumptions of homogeneity of variance. Full results of all <emph>t</emph> tests are available upon request.</item> <item>6 *<emph>p</emph> <.05. **<emph>p</emph> <.01. ***<emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> </ulist> <p>We then conducted an ANOVA and multiple regression analysis using the composite variable of condition (treatment/comparison) and time (baseline/post-baseline) to predict rubric scores. Eight of the rubrics demonstrated statistically significant results with no violation of homogeneity of variance assumptions; these results appear in Table 5. Regression analysis supports that a significant amount of the between-group difference for four of these (Mathematics Accountable Talk Rubrics 2 and 4 and Reading Accountable Talk Rubrics 2 and 3) could be predicted by condition. For each of these rubrics, mean scores for the treatment group were higher than those for the comparison group. For the remaining four rubrics (Math Accountable Talk Rubrics 3 and 5 and Reading Academic Rigor Rubrics 1 and 3), a significant amount of the between-group difference could be predicted by both condition and time, again favoring the treatment group and demonstrating an increase in scores over time.</p> <p>Table 5. Statistically Significant ANOVA Results Using Condition and Time to Predict Rubric Scores.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left">Rubric</th><th align="center"><italic>F</italic> Ratio</th><th align="center"><italic>df</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left" colspan="4">IQA-reading</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R2</td><td align="char" char=".">2.905</td><td align="char" char=".">3,342</td><td align="char" char=".">0.035</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R3</td><td align="char" char=".">5.061</td><td align="char" char=".">3,329</td><td align="char" char=".">0.002</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Rigor_R1</td><td align="char" char=".">20.667</td><td align="char" char=".">3,319</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Rigor_R3</td><td align="char" char=".">14.187</td><td align="char" char=".">3,324</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="4">IQA-mathematics</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R2</td><td align="char" char=".">16.748</td><td align="char" char=".">3,342</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R3</td><td align="char" char=".">4.364</td><td align="char" char=".">3,308</td><td align="char" char=".">0.005</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R4</td><td align="char" char=".">11.529</td><td align="char" char=".">3,326</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Talk_R5</td><td align="char" char=".">14.059</td><td align="char" char=".">3,325</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>7 <emph>Note.</emph> IQA rubrics are organized by content area (Reading or Math) and include Accountable Talk (Talk) and Academic Rigor (Rigor). Rubrics in each section of the IQA are numbered. Thus, in the Reading section, Rigor_R1 refers to Reading Academic Rigor Rubric 1. Results provided here show statistically significant results with no violation of assumptions of homogeneity of variance. Full ANOVA results are available upon request.</p> <hd id="AN0190206211-11">Discussion of Observation Results</hd> <p>The results of the study demonstrate that project participation contributed to some change in teacher practice over time, as indicated by scores on the two observation instruments. The two groups of teachers showed similar scores at baseline across almost all of the observation rubrics, even demonstrating similar results for high-scoring items (the Accountable Talk rubric 1 [participation] in both reading and math) and lower-scoring items (the Accountable Talk rubric 3 [students' linking] in both reading and math). In examining change over time separately in the two groups, the treatment group saw positive change in scores on more rubrics than the comparison group. The additional analyses demonstrated that condition predicted post-baseline scores for several rubrics on the IQA and that both condition and time predicted scores on additional rubrics. Notably, there were significant differences in post-baseline scores favoring the treatment group on the rubrics focused on teacher linking (rubric 2) and students' linking (rubric 3) in both reading and mathematics, potentially suggesting that the project influenced this important aspect of classroom discourse for participating teachers.</p> <p>There is no way to separate the effect of the instructional materials used in these lessons from the professional learning in which teachers engaged, particularly as related to the academic rigor of the task as designed and the emphasis on questions and discussion. The project team specifically encouraged the development of challenging lessons that incorporated critical and creative thinking through questioning, and the structure of the 5E model includes an emphasis on interaction and discussion because of the inquiry focus. Meanwhile, the workshop activities emphasized a focus on responding to high potential behaviors with additional challenging questions and tasks, as well as engaging students in discussions. The results indicate that these components of professional learning and resources, in some combination, influenced teacher use of practices supporting student engagement with discourse and rigorous learning activities.</p> <p>The use of repeated classroom observations to document these changes provides a context for exploring patterns over time and for multiple teachers across grade levels. Thus, the study contributes to efforts to document changes in practice and to link those to professional learning activities, instructional resources, and student experiences and outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0190206211-12">Limitations</hd> <p>A number of limitations affect the interpretation of results of the study. One limitation is the substantial difference in size between the treatment and comparison group, compounded by the larger attrition specifically from the comparison group and the much larger number of observation events for the treatment group. This limitation underscores caution in making claims about the influence of the project on teacher practice. Another limitation is that the nature of the project made it prohibitive to keep observers from knowing whether they were observing treatment or comparison group teachers at any point past baseline, because the treatment teachers were using the same resources and comparison teachers were not. We used multiple observers and reliability checking to try to address this issue, but we must acknowledge its potential influence on scores. A third limitation is the shift from in-person observations to video-based observations halfway through the project, thus changing the context for data collection. In this paper, we have combined all observations based on earlier analyses demonstrating similar patterns within the two sets (in-person and video-based). Further, because only the teacher wore a microphone and the cameras were stationary, some aspects of the video-based lessons were unobservable. This was especially influential on certain items on the observation instruments, notably the student-focused Accountable Talk items. Finally, the nature of the project makes it impossible to discern whether changes in teacher practice resulted from the professional learning activities or specifically from the use of project-specific resources.</p> <hd id="AN0190206211-13">Project Contributions and Implications</hd> <p>Project LIFT contributes to the conversation around the importance of encouraging general education teachers to engage with practices and resources relevant to gifted education ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref72">12</reflink>]). Results of the observation study showed benefits of sustained professional learning combined with instructional materials in encouraging changes in practice linked to discourse and academic rigor. The dual focus of the project on helping teachers look for behaviors indicating high potential and using instructional approaches designed to elicit and respond to such behaviors encouraged teachers to deepen their understanding of what academic potential might look like across a range of learning experiences. Further, the project resulted in a set of materials that have been piloted and revised based on classroom use.</p> <p>The project also demonstrated some of the challenges of conducting implementation research in schools, resulting in caution around interpretation of the findings and also lessons learned for further research. From the beginning of the project, the team faced difficulty recruiting schools and teachers, in part because of the expectation to use instructional materials outside of the district-approved curriculum, even though the instructional time required for project activities was fairly minimal in the scope of an overall school year. Additionally, the timing of the project in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on schools was a substantial challenge. The sustained participation of one group of teachers through the most disruptive period of the pandemic, as well as the willing engagement of teachers whose entire relationship with the project team was a virtual one, are testaments to the motivation and commitment of these teachers.</p> <p>Beyond the formal observation results reported, additional evidence of the project's influence on participating teachers emerges from some of their comments on anonymous evaluation surveys collected by our project evaluator. Teachers spoke to both how the project influenced the way they look at their students and how the experience affected their instructional practice:</p> <p>I feel as though I was able to learn a lot about what to look for in students displaying high potential.... This was also revealing as some of the students who are not the typical strong readers/writers/mathematicians were identified as students who demonstrated high potential. (Evaluation survey response, winter 2020)</p> <p>For me, paying attention to the various high potential behaviors was eye opening. I think as teachers, we tend to think explicitly about the learning target and whether or not the majority of the class reached the target goal. This philosophy forces you to slow down and look for specific potential that you may miss if you are not in tune with these behaviors. (Evaluation survey response, summer 2022)</p> <p>Similarly, teachers shared responses regarding the use of the instructional approaches and resources of the project:</p> <p>I liked the fact that questioning is incorporated into the lesson. The questioning helps students discover answers, and insights are produced. There were a lot of AHA moments, especially with Math. (Evaluation survey response, spring 2022).</p> <p>Learning how to create lessons that were student centered and engaging was a benefit of this program. The 5E model lends well to subject areas beyond science. It was also important to learn to pay attention to the individual characteristics of each child and determine their strengths using the different behaviors as a guide. I also think it is beneficial to learn about the way I can engage students and build on their thinking using questioning. (Evaluation survey response, summer 2022).</p> <p>The project findings and teacher responses provide several useful implications for practice. First, engagement in collaborative, reflective professional learning focused on specific aspects of instruction can demonstrate observable benefits for teacher practice. The combination of the professional learning workshop, implementation of materials, and consistent reflection showed evidence of positive influence on teacher practice. Second, use of an inquiry-focused approach that encourages exploration and student engagement in discussion promotes discourse and academic rigor. The 5E model, combined with the integration of critical and creative thinking strategies, pre-written questions, and planned differentiation, contributed to positive change in classroom practice. Third, there are benefits to the development of shared language around behaviors that may indicate advanced potential, and efforts to link such behaviors directly to instructional activities support teachers in recognizing and responding to learners in need of more challenge. The teachers found the attention to high-potential behaviors and use of materials reflecting gifted education approaches to be useful in helping them recognize and respond to the learners in their classrooms. These three components of Project LIFT might serve as models for other professional learning and resource development initiatives to support professional growth and challenging, engaging learning experiences for all children.</p> <hd id="AN0190206211-14">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors are pleased to acknowledge many individuals who contributed to the project described here as project staff, graduate assistants, and content experts. These individuals supported the project through facilitating professional learning, conducting observations, and otherwise ensuring successful implementation of project activities. We acknowledge the following individuals: Dr. Susan Carroll, Dr. Alexandra Cascio, Dr. Rachael Cody, Dr. Janine Firmender, Dr. Elizabeth Fogarty, Dr. Kelly Kearney, Dr. Shana Lusk, Dr. Shelby Masse, Shannon McDonald, Dr. Sarah Miller, Lisa Muller, and Dr. Clarisa Rodrigues. We also acknowledge all of our teacher participants, without whom the project would not have been possible.</p> <hd id="AN0190206211-15">Ethical Approval</hd> <p>The project was approved by the University of Connecticut Institutional Review Board, protocol H18-036. All participating teachers signed informed consent forms in hard copy or electronic format. All parents of students in participating teachers' classes received parental notification forms and could opt out of having any data on their students shared with the research team.</p> <hd id="AN0190206211-16">ORCID iDs</hd> <p>Catherine A. Little https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6720-943X</p> <p>Rebecca L. O'Brien https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4250-1712</p> <hd id="AN0190206211-17">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>Data are not shared in a public data repository. De-identified summary data may be available upon request to the corresponding author.*</p> <hd id="AN0190206211-18">Appendix</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0190206211-19">Appendix A</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0190206211-20">Teacher Reflection Form Questions</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Identification of specific lesson, date of implementation, length of lesson</item> <p></p> <item> 2. What modifications, if any, did you make to the lesson?</item> <p></p> <item> 3. What other modifications might you make if you were to teach the lesson again?</item> <p></p> <item> 4. What went well during the lesson?</item> <p></p> <item> 5. What did not go well during the lesson?</item> <p></p> <item> 6. How well did the lesson elicit the high-potential behaviors that were expected based on the lesson documents?</item> <p></p> <item> 7. Please describe specific examples of student demonstration of high-potential behaviors (expected ones or unexpected ones) during the lesson.</item> <p></p> <item> 8. When you saw high-potential behaviors in students, were they the students you expected to show these behaviors or students you did not necessarily expect to show them (or both)?</item> <p></p> <item> 9. How did you respond to students displaying high-potential behaviors (e.g., follow-up questioning, regrouping, extension activities)?</item> <p></p> <item> 10. During the lesson, what was a question or task that yielded the most interesting responses from students?</item> <p></p> <item> 11. What questions did students raise during the lesson?</item> <p></p> <item> 12. In what ways did one or more students experience productive struggle with this lesson?</item> <p></p> <item> 13. Please add any further questions or comments about your implementation of the lesson.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0190206211-21">Appendix B</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0190206211-22">Summary of Rubric Emphases – IQA</hd> <p> <emph>Accountable Talk Rubrics</emph> (abbreviated in tables as Talk_Rx where x = number of the rubric).</p> <p>Rubric 1: Participation (percent of students participating; rubric scores focus on ranges of percent of students participating during lesson).</p> <p>Rubric 2: Teacher's Linking (teacher connecting speakers' contributions to each other through recapping/revoicing; rubric scores focus on consistency and frequency of teacher linking and degree to which teacher explains connections).</p> <p>Rubric 3: Students' Linking (students connecting speakers' contributions to each other; rubric scores focus on consistency and frequency of student linking and degree to which students explain connections).</p> <p>Rubric 4: Asking (teacher use of questions; rubric scores focus on consistency of teacher use of academically relevant questions and efforts to press students for evidence and explanations).</p> <p>Rubric 5: Providing (student responses and contributions to discussion; rubric scores focus on consistency of student use of evidence and reasoning to support their claims).</p> <p> <emph>Academic Rigor Rubrics – Reading</emph> (abbreviated in tables as Rigor_Rx where x = number of the rubric).</p> <p>Rubric 1: Rigor of the text (rubric scores focus on the degree of "grist" or substance in the text that is the focus of discussion, defined by aspects such as theme, character development, and writer's craft).</p> <p>Rubric 2: Discussion (teacher guidance for student engagement with text; rubric scores focus on the depth of the discussion as guided by the teacher and students' use of evidence from text to support contributions).</p> <p>Rubric 3: Lesson activity (demands of the learning task; rubric scores focus on the degree to which learning tasks guide students to engage with underlying meaning of a text and to support ideas with evidence).</p> <p> <emph>Academic Rigor Rubrics – Mathematics</emph> (abbreviated in tables as Talk_Rx where x = number of the rubric).</p> <p>Rubric 1: Potential of the task (potential for the task to engage students in deeper mathematical understanding; rubric scores focus on the degree to which the task has potential to engage students in complex thinking or creating meaning versus application of procedures).</p> <p>Rubric 2: Implementation of the task (response/engagement from students with the task; rubric scores focus on the degree to which students engage in complex thinking or creating meaning versus application of procedures).</p> <p>Rubric 3: Student discussion following task (rubric scores focus on the degree to which students engage in explanations of their strategies, ideas, and procedures and make connections to mathematical ideas following their work on a task).</p> <ref id="AN0190206211-23"> <title> Note </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref52" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref43" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The project was funded by the United States Department of Education Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program, PR/Award Number S206A170030.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref28" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Three kindergarten teachers entered the project in its last two years with an understanding that they would implement grade 1 lessons with modifications. In the summer workshop before their final year, they developed one reading and one math lesson that directly addressed kindergarten standards.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0190206211-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Bell C. A., Gitomer D. H., McCaffrey D. F., Hamre B. K., Pianta R. C., Qi Y. (2012). An argument approach to observation protocol validity. Educational Assessment, 17(2-3), 62–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2012.715014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boston M. (2012). Assessing instructional quality in mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 76–104. https://doi.org/10.1086/666387</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bybee R. W. (2014). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Personal reflections and contemporary implications. Science and Children, 51(8), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/sc14_051_08_10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref29" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bybee R. W., Taylor J. A., Gardner A., Van Scotter P., Powell J. C., Westbrook A., Landes N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. BSCS, 5, 88–98. https://bscs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/bscs_5e_full_report-1.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Callahan C. M., Moon T. R., Oh S. (2014). National surveys of gifted programs: Executive summary. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Virginia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref42" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Candela A. G., Wonsavage F. P., de Araujo Z., Otten S. (2022). Rethinking classroom data collection. In Lischka A. E., Dyer E. B., Jones R. S., Lovett J. N., Strayer J., Drown S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the forty-fourth annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education. Middle Tennessee State University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref60" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Casabianca J. M., McCaffrey D. F., Gitomer D. H., Bell C. A., Hamre B. K., Pianta R. C. (2013). Effect of observation mode on measures of secondary mathematics teaching. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(5), 757–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413486987</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref57" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Curby T. W., Johnson P., Mashburn A. J., Carlis L. (2016). Live versus video observations: Comparing the reliability and validity of two methods of assessing classroom quality. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(8), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915627115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref35" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Desimone L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Desimone L. M., Garet M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers' professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 252–263. https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v7i3.515</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fogarty E. A., Firmender J. M., Little C. A. (In press). Not just for science: Using the 5E instructional model to engage young children's thinking in mathematics and reading. Gifted Child Today.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilson C. M., Gallagher S., Connors T. W., Pereira N., Dash L. O., Little C. A. (2024). Universal educator preparation in gifted education[Framing paper]. National Association for Gifted Children.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gridley N., Bywater T. J., Hutchings J. M. (2018). Comparing live and video observation to assess early parent-child interactions in the home. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(6), 1818–1829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1039-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guskey T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3/4), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harradine C. C., Coleman M. R. B., Winn D.-M. C. (2014). Recognizing academic potential in students of color: Findings of U-STARS∼PLUS. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213506040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill H. C., Beisiegel M., Jacob R. (2013). Professional development research: Consensus, crossroads, and challenges. Educational Researcher, 42(9), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13512674</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horn C. V. (2015). Young scholars: A talent development model for finding and nurturing potential in underserved populations. Gifted Child Today, 38(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514556532</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horn C. V., Little C. L., Maloney K. N., McCullough C. A. (2021). Young scholars model: A comprehensive approach for developing talent and pursuing equity in gifted education. Prufrock Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kalinowski E., Gronostaj A., Vock M. (2019). Effective professional development for teachers to foster students' academic language proficiency across the curriculum: A systematic review. AERA Open, 5(1), 2332858419828691. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419828691</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Little C. A., Adelson J. L., Kearney K. L., Cash K., O'Brien R. (2018). Early opportunities to strengthen academic readiness: Effects of summer learning on mathematics achievement. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738052</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LoCasale-Crouch J., DeCoster J., Cabell S., Hamre B., Downer J., Pianta R. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE). (2012). Variation in teachers' instructional interactions within two interventions: Associations with intervention responsiveness and teacher/classroom characteristics. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. Corpus ID: 142861781. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530499.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matsumura L. C., Garnier H. E., Slater H. C., Boston M. D. (2008). Toward measuring instructional strategies "at-scale.". Educational Assessment, 13(4), 267–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190802602541</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBee M. T., Peters S. J., Miller E. M. (2016). The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(4), 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216656256</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McChesney K., Aldridge J. M. (2019). A review of practitioner-led evaluation of teacher professional development. Professional Development in Education, 45(2), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1452782</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCoach D. B., Peters S., Gambino A. J., Long D., Siegle D. (2024). Who are we measuring? Teacher effects in gifted and talented teacher rating scales. Exceptional Children, 90(4), 422–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029241247035</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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(1), 65–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320903300104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moon T. R., Brighton C. M. (2008). Primary teachers' conceptions of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(4), 447–480. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2008-793</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. https://corestandards.org/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neergaard L., Smith T. (2012). Comparing beginning teachers' instructional quality growth on subject-specific and global measures. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED535664</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olszewski-Kubilius P., Clarenbach J. (2012). Unlocking emergent talent: Supporting high achievement of low-income, high-ability students. National Association for Gifted Children. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537321.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelatti C. Y., Dynia J. M., Logan J. A., Justice L. M., Kaderavek J. (2016). Examining quality in two preschool settings: Publicly funded early childhood education and inclusive early childhood education classrooms. Child and Youth Care Forum, 45(6), 829–849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-016-9359-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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 school year above grade level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217701834</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta R. C., Hamre B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09332374</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta R. C., La Paro K. M., Hamre B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system™: Manual K-3. Paul H. Brookes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pratt A., Logan J. (2014). Improving language-focused comprehension instruction in primary-grade classrooms: Impacts of the let's know! experimental curriculum. Educational Psychology Review, 26(3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9275-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson A., Adelson J. L., Kidd K. A., Cunningham C. M. (2018). A talent for tinkering: Developing talents in children from low-income households through engineering curriculum. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siegle D., Hamilton R., McCoach D. B., Gubbins E. J., Callahan C. M., Long D. A. (2019). What really happens in gifted education: A portrait of three states. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanulis R. N., Little S., Wibbens E. (2012). Intensive mentoring that contributes to change in beginning elementary teachers' learning to lead classroom discussions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.08.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Supovitz J., Sirinides P. (2018). The linking study: An experiment to strengthen teachers' engagement with data on teaching and learning. American Journal of Education, 124(2), 161–189. https://doi.org/10.1086/695610. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/26542687">www.jstor.org/stable/26542687</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swanson J. D. (2006). Breaking through assumptions about low-income, minority gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swanson J. D. (2016). Drawing upon lessons learned: Effective curriculum and instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse gifted learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 172–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216642016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tyner A. (2024). The broken pipeline: Advanced education policies at the local level. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/broken-pipeline-advanced-education-policies-local-level</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> VanTassel-Baska J., Johnson D., Avery L. D. (2002). Using performance tasks in the identification of economically disadvantaged and minority gifted learners: Findings from project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620204600204</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> VanTassel-Baska J., Xuemei Feng A., Brown E., Bracken B., Stambaugh T., French H., McGowan S., Worley B., Quek C., Bai W. (2008). A study of differentiated instructional change over 3 years. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(4), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208321809</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wei R. C., Darling-Hammond L., Adamson F. (2010). Professional development in the United States: Trends and challenges. Phase II of a three-phase study. Executive summary. National Staff Development Council.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilcox-Herzog A., McLaren M., Ward S., Wong E. (2013). Results from the quality early childhood training program. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 34(4), 335–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2013.845635</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Catherine A. Little and Rebecca L. O'Brien</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Catherine A. Little, PhD, is a Professor in Giftedness, Creativity, and Talent Development at the University of Connecticut. Recently, she has been project director for Project SPARK, Project LIFT, and Project Focus, which are Javits-funded initiatives supporting teachers in recognizing and responding to advanced academic potential. Her research interests include professional learning, differentiation of curriculum and instruction for advanced learners, and questioning practices.</p> <p>Rebecca L. O'Brien, PhD, is the Associate Dean of the School of Education and Associate Professor of Teacher Education at Whitworth University in Spokane, WA. She received her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology with a concentration in Giftedness, Creativity, and Talent Development from the University of Connecticut. Her work primarily focuses on identifying and encouraging high potential in students from diverse backgrounds, improving teacher preparation, supporting in-service teacher learning and instruction, and aligning assessments to instruction.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib215" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib528" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib231" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib229" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib225" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib230" firstref="ref71"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1491990
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Lifting Learning Experiences: Supporting Change in Teacher Practice over Time
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Catherine+A%2E+Little%22">Catherine A. Little</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6720-943X">0000-0001-6720-943X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rebecca+L%2E+O'Brien%22">Rebecca L. O'Brien</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4250-1712">0009-0009-4250-1712</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Gifted+Child+Today%22"><i>Gifted Child Today</i></searchLink>. 2026 49(1):30-47.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) (ED), Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: S206A170030
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+2%22">Grade 2</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+3%22">Grade 3</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+2%22">Grade 2</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+3%22">Grade 3</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22General+Education%22">General Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Regular+and+Special+Education+Relationship%22">Regular and Special Education Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Workshops%22">Workshops</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Capacity+Building%22">Capacity Building</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gifted+Education%22">Gifted Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Improvement%22">Teacher Improvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Descriptions%22">Program Descriptions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minority+Group+Students%22">Minority Group Students</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/10762175251381367
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1076-2175<br />2162-951X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: General education teachers often have limited background in recognizing and responding to advanced academic potential in the classroom. This often may mean that advanced learners experience little instruction that provides them with appropriate levels of challenge. Professional learning opportunities and instructional resources reflecting best practices in gifted education can support classroom teachers in challenging all learners and looking for learners who would benefit from more advanced instruction. Project LIFT engaged classroom teachers at grades K-3 in a professional learning initiative supporting their capacity to recognize and respond to high-potential behaviors. Teachers collaboratively developed and implemented inquiry-focused, standards-based lessons in reading and mathematics. Classroom observations demonstrated increases over time on key indicators of academic rigor and classroom discourse.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1491990
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1491990
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/10762175251381367
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 30
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Kindergarten
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 1
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 2
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 3
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: General Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Regular and Special Education Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Workshops
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Capacity Building
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gifted Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Improvement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Descriptions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Minority Group Students
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Lifting Learning Experiences: Supporting Change in Teacher Practice over Time
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Catherine A. Little
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rebecca L. O'Brien
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1076-2175
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2162-951X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 49
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Gifted Child Today
              Type: main
ResultId 1