KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists / 2026 / Volume: 14 Issue: 3

The Gifted Pedagogies and Practices Scale (GPPS): A validation study of an equity-embedded tool for professional learning

Angela M. Novak(East Carolina University)
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-09-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The GPPS offers gifted professionals a validated tool for assessing professional learning needs, identifying the knowledge-practice gap to support targeted professional learning in equity-centered gifted education.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:In a QUAL + QUANT exploratory sequential mixed-methods design, I followed a three-phase plan to develop and validate the Gifted Pedagogies and Practices Scale (GPPS), designed to measure educators’ self-reported gifted knowledge/practice (K/P) across equity-embedded stems.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:In phase one (qualitative), I conducted thematic analysis of eight artifacts (observation forms, scales, standards), generating an initial item pool (kstem = 47) of K/P pairs in phase two (mixed methods).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The GPPS offers gifted professionals a validated tool for assessing professional learning needs, identifying the knowledge-practice gap to support targeted professional learning in equity-centered gifted education.
🔬Tür:Laboratuvar & Saha Deneyi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:scale development · gifted and talented education · culturally sustaining pedagogy

Abstract

In a QUAL + QUANT exploratory sequential mixed-methods design, I followed a three-phase plan to develop and validate the Gifted Pedagogies and Practices Scale (GPPS), designed to measure educators’ self-reported gifted knowledge/practice (K/P) across equity-embedded stems. In phase one (qualitative), I conducted thematic analysis of eight artifacts (observation forms, scales, standards), generating an initial item pool (kstem = 47) of K/P pairs in phase two (mixed methods). I refined the scale through expert peer debriefing and content validity review (kstem = 43, n = 7) as well as a pilot study (kstem = 27, n = 25) using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In phase three (quantitative), I conducted iterative EFA (four rounds, n = 39, 60, 76, 157) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; n = 327) for validation. The final EFA resulted in the 20-item scale (40 K/P pairs) and a three-factor model—gifted and talented curricular and whole child support; equity and access; and culturally sustaining identification and accommodations—with positive factor loadings and excellent model fit on the CFA. With high reliability across EFA (α = .986) and CFA (α = .988) samples, I tested a second-order model and bifactor indices; both supported a single general factor. Results indicate that the three factors cohere around a unified culturally sustaining gifted instruction construct. The GPPS offers gifted professionals a validated tool for assessing professional learning needs, identifying the knowledge-practice gap to support targeted professional learning in equity-centered gifted education.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Novak, A. M. (2026). The Gifted Pedagogies and Practices Scale (GPPS): A validation study of an equity-embedded tool for professional learning. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, Volume: 14 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.2018220

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (80)

  1. Artiles, A. J., & Kozleski, E. (2016). Inclusive education's promises and trajectories: Critical notes about future research on a venerable idea. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(43), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.1919
  2. Bahar, A. K. (2021). Will we ever close the gender gap among top mathematics achievers? Analysis of recent trends by race in Advanced Placement (AP) exams. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 44(4), 331-365. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532211044540
  3. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191
  4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
  5. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
  6. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M., & Tsai, Y.- M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133-180. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345157
  7. Bianco, M., & Leech, N. L. (2010). Twice exceptional learners: Effects of teacher preparation and disability labels on gifted referrals. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(4), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406409356392
  8. Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
  9. Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Shavelson, R. J. (2015). Beyond dichotomies: Competence viewed as a continuum. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000194
  10. Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 11(6) Article 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
  11. Brennan, A., & Gorman, A. (2023). Leading transformative professional learning for inclusion across the teacher education continuum: lessons from online and on-site learning communities. Professional Development in Education, 49(6), 1117–1130. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2023.2238717
  12. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
  13. Castellano, J. A., & Chandler, K. L. (2022). Identifying and serving diverse gifted learners: Meeting the needs of special populations in gifted education. Routledge.
  14. Cauce, A. M., & Gordon, E. W. (2012). Toward the measurement of human agency and the disposition to express it. Gordon Commission on the Future of Educational Assessment.
  15. Cochran-Smith, M., & Keefe, E. S. (2022). Strong equity: Repositioning teacher education for social change. Teachers College Record, 124(3), 9-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681221087304
  16. Cokley, R. K. & Crumb, L. (2021). #Blackgirlmagic: The (mis)education of gifted black girls from economically disadvantaged, rural communities. In C. R. Chambers & L. Crumb (Eds.). African American rural education: College transitions and postsecondary experiences (pp. 67-83). Emerald Publishing Ltd.
  17. Cole, M., & Cole, S. (1996). The development of children. Scientific American.
  18. Comstock, M., Litke, E., Hill, K. L., & Desimone, L. M. (2023). A culturally responsive disposition: How professional learning and teachers' beliefs about and self-efficacy for culturally responsive teaching relate to instruction. AERA Open, 9(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221140092
  19. Corwith, S., Johnson, S. K., Lee, C-W. Cotabish, A., Dailey, D., Guilbault, K. (2019). 2019 Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards. http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/intro%202019%20Programming %20Standards.pdf
  20. Council for Exceptional Children-The Association for the Gifted. (2013). Initial gifted education professional preparation standards. https://exceptionalchildren.org/standards/intial-gifted-education-professional- preparation-standards?srsltid=AfmBOoo8chfosuxATv3uR81L6ZGuBQcSD21jrMqpidxTzDHLARu9Xn50
  21. Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
  22. DeVellis, R. F. & Thorpe, C. T. (2022). Scale development: Theory and applications (5th ed.). Sage.
  23. De Winter, J., Dodou, D., & Wieringa, P. A. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(2), 147–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170902794206
  24. Dinçer, S. (2019). Investigation of the gifted education self-efficacy of teachers work with gifted students. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 6(3), 167-174. https://izlik.org/JA36BL82KH
  25. Dixon, H. (2011). The problem of enactment: The influence of teachers' self-efficacy beliefs on their uptake and implementation of feedback-related ideas and practices. Assessment Matters, 3, 71-92. https://doi.org/10.18296/am.0091
  26. Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(2), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214529042
  27. Dueber, D. (2021). BifactorIndicesCalculator: Bifactor indices calculator (Version 0.2.2) [Computer software]. Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BifactorIndicesCalculator
  28. Dweck, C., Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2014). Academic tenacity: Mindsets and skills that promote long-term learning. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
  29. Epskamp, S. (2026). semPlot: Path diagrams and visual analysis of various SEM packages' output (Version 1.2.0) [R package]. https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.semPlot
  30. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.
  31. Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082- 989X.9.4.466
  32. Ford, D. Y. (2010). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students (2nd ed.). Prufrock Press.
  33. Frye, C. (2025). Including twice exceptional content for teacher candidates. Ohio Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), Article 4.
  34. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
  35. Goings, R. B., & Ford, D. Y. (2018). Investigating the intersection of poverty and race in gifted education journals: A 15-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217737618
  36. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
  37. Hajloo, N. (2014). Relationships between self-efficacy, self-esteem and procrastination in undergraduate psychology students. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 8(3), 42–49.
  38. Hsiao, Y. (2015). The culturally responsive teacher preparedness scale: An exploratory study. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 8(4), 241-250. https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v8i4.9432
  39. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  40. Johnsen, S. K., VanTassel-Baska, J., Robinson, A., Cotabish, A., Dailey, D., Jolly, J. L., Clarenbach, J., & Adams, C.M. (2015). Using the National Gifted Education Standards for teacher preparation. Prufrock Press. [Standards: https://exceptionalchildren.org/standards/intial-gifted-education-professional-preparation-standards? srsltid=AfmBOoo8chfosuxATv3uR81L6ZGuBQcSD21jrMqpidxTzDHLARu9Xn50]
  41. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
  42. Kennedy, D. M., Banks, R. S., & Grandin, T. (2011). Bright not broken. Jossey Bass.
  43. Kitano, M., Montgomery, D., VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnsen, S. K. (Eds.). (2008). Using the national gifted education standards for preK-12 professional development. Corwin Press.
  44. Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805-820. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032583
  45. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
  46. Lofton, R. (2024). Plessy's tracks: African American students confronting academic placement in a racially diverse school and African American community. Race Ethnicity and Education, 27(5), 559-578. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2021.1924141
  47. Maddux, J. E., & Kleiman, E. M. (2016). Self-efficacy: A foundational concept for positive clinical psychology. In A. M. Wood & J. Johnson (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Positive Clinical Psychology (Ch. 7). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118468197.ch7
  48. McClam, R. S., Caroleo, S. A., Shelton, A., Cruz, R. A., & Aramburo, C. M. (2026). Measuring self-efficacy for equity- centered teaching: A scale development and evaluation study. AERA Open, 12(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584261436768
  49. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
  50. Novak, A. M. (2022). Not white saviors, but critical scholars: The need for gifted critical race theory. In J. Nyberg & J. Manzone (Eds.). Creating equitable services for the gifted: Protocols for identification, implementation, and evaluation (pp. 246-262). IGI Global. https://www.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8153-7.ch016
  51. Nicpon-Foley, M., & Lin, C. R. (2022). Identifying and providing instructional services for twice- exceptional students. In J.A. Castellano & K. L. Chandler (Eds). Identifying and Serving Diverse Gifted Learners (pp. 188-200). Routledge.
  52. Oral, E. (2017). Examination of pre-school teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and self-efficacy regarding gifted education. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 5(4), 49-58. https://izlik.org/JA32HB78YL
  53. Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85-100. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77
  54. Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.
  55. Peters, S. J. & Gates, J. C. (2010). The teacher observation form: Revisions and updates. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(3), 179-188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210369258
  56. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  57. R Core Team. (2026). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.6.1) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
  58. Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
  59. Revelle, W. (2026). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (Version 2.6.5) [R package]. Northwestern University. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
  60. Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045
  61. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
  62. Rusconi, L., & Squillaci, M. (2023). Effects of a universal design for learning (UDL) training course on the development teachers’ competences: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 13(5), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050466
  63. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
  64. Siwatu, K. O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23,(7), 1086-1101. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.011
  65. Stambaugh, T. and Ford, D.Y. (2015). Microaggressions, Multiculturalism, and Gifted Individuals Who Are Black, Hispanic, or Low Income. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93, 192-201. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556- 6676.2015.00195.x
  66. Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99-103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18
  67. Stucky, B. D., & Edelen, M. O. (2015). Using bifactor analysis in scale construction. In S. P. Reise & D. A. Revicki (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment (pp. 211– 240). Routledge.
  68. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
  69. Tortop, H. S. (2014). Examining the effectiveness of the in-service training program for the education of the academically gifted students in Turkey: A case study. Journal for the Education of the Young Scientist & Giftedness, 2(2), 67-86. https://doi.org/10.17478/jeysg.201429023
  70. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher-efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(01)00036-1
  71. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944-956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003
  72. van Lissa, C. J. (2026). tidySEM: Tidy structural equation modeling (Version 0.2.10) [R package]. https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.tidySEM
  73. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2012). Analyzing differentiation in the classroom using the COS-R. Gifted Child Today, 35(1), 43-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217511427431
  74. Wah, J. N. K. (2025). Decoding structural equation modeling. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 27(1) Article 369092. https://doi.org/10.4018/JCIT.369092
  75. Waitoller, F. R., & Thorius, K. A. K. (2016). Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and Universal Design for Learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for dis/ability. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 366-389. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-86.3.366
  76. Watkins, M. W. (2018). Exploratory factor analysis: A guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 44(3), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807
  77. Westberg, K. L., & Daoust, M. E. (2003). The results of the replication of the classroom practices study. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/newsletters/fall032/
  78. Wickham, H., & Bryan, J. (2026). readxl: Read Excel files (Version 1.5.0) [R package]. https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.readxl
  79. Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., D'Agostino McGowan, L., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T. L., Miller, E., Bache, S. M., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D. P., Spinu, V., Takahashi, K., Vaughan, D., Wilke, C., Woo, K., & Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
  80. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127