The Extent, Nature and Effectiveness of Planned Approaches in ...

practices are re-iterated in the perceived barriers to effective practice in gifted and talented educationin New Zealand (see for example, Riley, 2003; Keen, 2001, 2002a, 2003).Does professional development and teacher education in gifted education make a difference? Afew studies have answered this question. This review of the literature located two New Zealand-basedaction research studies exploring professional development models for regular classroom teachers(Meuli, 1997; Strang, 2001). Meuli introduced a collaborative consultative model which uses aconsulting teacher to deliver in-service training in gifted education to two teachers. Through diaries,interviews and questionnaires, the teachers involved provided feedback regarding this approach toprofessional development. Meuli concluded that the model met the needs of the teachers and hadperceived positive effects upon their classroom practice. However, she warns, the cost and timecommitments of such an approach could prove difficult barriers to overcome.Strang’s (2001) research was similar. Using an action research model, she acted as a ‘professionalfriend’ to three regular classroom teachers with the aim of assisting them in becoming more reflectivepractitioners as they implemented differentiated practices for gifted and talented students. Sheconcluded that there was a need for more professional development programmes in gifted education inNew Zealand. Strang outlines several critical elements: schoolwide collaboration; school-based andneeds-driven provisions; further exploration of the ‘critical friend’; and collaborative focus groupapproaches to professional development.Plunkett and Harvey (1995) found from their study of 100 teachers (50 control and 50 interest group) asignificant difference in the confidence levels of teachers with specialised training with regard toidentification of, and curriculum provision for gifted and talented students compared to teachers withregular training. They also found that teachers who have an interest in the education of the giftedperceived a greater need for specialised training in this area. It is argued that postgraduate training isthe most effective manner for ensuring that the needs of gifted and talented students are met.Overseas, other studies related to the effectiveness of professional development in gifted and talentededucation are reported. For example, Sullenger and Cashion (2000) report the findings of a follow-upstudy of 50 Canadian teachers who attended an intensive four-week summer institute on gifted andtalented education. One year after their attendance, the participants indicated little perceived change oreffect upon their teaching or beliefs regarding gifted and talented students. Many indicated that theresearchers should contact them in a year’s time. Interestingly, two years after their professionaldevelopment experiences, the teachers reported that the strategies for gifted and talented students werebeing implemented in their classrooms, and that their attitudes and beliefs regarding these students hadpositively changed. As the authors conclude, “… the amount of time needed to implement and becomecomfortable with new teaching approaches and strategies is vastly underestimated” (p. 22).Hansen and Feldhusen (1994) found teachers with specialised training were more effective thanteachers without such training. The study included a total of 82 teachers, 54 trained in gifted educationand 28 untrained. The teachers trained in gifted education demonstrated greater teaching skills anddeveloped more positive class climates than did teachers who had no training in gifted education.Students of teachers trained in gifted education reported greater emphasis on higher level thinkingskills and discussion.Copenhaver and McIntyre (1992) report the findings of a study which investigated the perceptions ofgiftedness held by 85 teachers who were enrolled in a postgraduate course in gifted education inrelation to their years of experience and professional development in the field. Significant differenceswere found: more experienced teachers readily identified negative behaviours associated withgiftedness, whereas those with less experience viewed these as signs of bad behaviour rather thangiftedness; and primary school teachers were more apt to identify these negative behaviours than theirsecondary school counterparts but did so in a way potentially detrimental to their students. The authorscall for more teaching level-specific professional development opportunities in pre- and in-serviceeducation, as well as a focus upon the potential manifestation of negative characteristics associatedwith giftedness and talent.156