Matching Items (1,067)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

Description
The State of Arizona mandates that students with superior intellect or abilities, or identified gifted students, receive appropriate gifted education and services in order to achieve at levels commensurate with their intellect and abilities. Additionally, the State of Arizona adopted the Arizona College and Career Ready Standards (AZCCRS) initiative. This

The State of Arizona mandates that students with superior intellect or abilities, or identified gifted students, receive appropriate gifted education and services in order to achieve at levels commensurate with their intellect and abilities. Additionally, the State of Arizona adopted the Arizona College and Career Ready Standards (AZCCRS) initiative. This investigation explores if, according to the perceptions of gifted educators, the AZCCRS support a gifted mathematic curriculum and pedagogy at the elementary level which is commensurate with academic abilities, potential, and intellect of these mathematically gifted students, what the relationships are between exemplary gifted curriculum and pedagogy and the AZCCRS, and exactly how the gifted education specialists charged with meeting the academic and intellectual needs and potential of their gifted students interpret, negotiate, and implement the AZCCRS.

This study utilized a qualitative approach and a variety of instruments to gather data, including: profile questionnaires, semi-structured pre-interviews, reflective journals, three group discussion sessions, and semi-structured post interviews. The pre- and post interviews as well as the group discussion sessions were audiotape recorded and transcribed. A three stage coding process was utilized on the questionnaires, interviews, discussion sessions, and journal entries.

The results and findings demonstrated that AZCCRS clearly support exemplary gifted mathematic curriculum and practices at the elementary level, that there are at least nine distinct relationships between the AZCCRS and gifted pedagogy, and that the gifted education specialists interpret, negotiate, and implement the AZCCRS uniquely in at least four distinct ways, in their mathematically gifted pullout classes.
ContributorsDohm, Dianna (Author) / Carlson, David L. (Thesis advisor) / Barnard, Wendy (Committee member) / Moses, Lindsey (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
156154-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
How hard should the books be in elementary small-group reading? This study explored text difficulty for bilingual students reading below grade level in third grade. Using a convergent parallel mixed methods design, I used qualitative methods to analyze students’ engagement and discussion during small groups and single case design to

How hard should the books be in elementary small-group reading? This study explored text difficulty for bilingual students reading below grade level in third grade. Using a convergent parallel mixed methods design, I used qualitative methods to analyze students’ engagement and discussion during small groups and single case design to evaluate students’ fluency and reading comprehension after reading and discussing texts in small groups.

Six Spanish-English bilingual students, split into two groups of three, participated in twelve, 30-minute, small-group reading sessions. Students in Group 1 read approximately one year below grade level, and students in Group 2 read approximately a year and a half below grade level. In six of the twelve sessions, students read and discussed texts matched to their reading levels, and in the other six they read and discussed texts one year ahead of their reading levels. I assigned matched and difficult texts across the twelve days by blocked randomization.

I analyzed video transcripts of each session to understand students’ engagement (focus of engagement, strategies, and interaction) and discussion (inferential vs. literal responses, instances of verbal participation). At the end of each session, students reread and retold the book the group had read and discussed that day to produce a fluency (words correct per minute) and comprehension (ideas correctly retold) score.

Findings were complex and revealed that different levels of texts have both advantages and drawbacks. Key findings included: For fluency, half of the students benefited from matched texts. The other half read difficult texts with similar fluency to matched texts. For comprehension, text difficulty did not matter for anyone except one student, and for him it only had an effect on 3 of 12 days. Group 2 engaged much more with texts and ideas in difficult books and with pictures in matched books. Group 1 had more inferential/interpretive responses with matched texts, and Group 2 had more inferential and interpretive responses with difficult texts. Most students participated evenly regardless of the difficulty of the text under discussion. However, two students talked more when discussing matched texts.
ContributorsKelly, Laura Beth (Author) / Jimenez-Silva, Margarita (Thesis advisor) / Moses, Lindsey (Thesis advisor) / Restrepo, Laida (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018