The Implications Of A High Academic Ability Learning .

University of Central FloridaSTARSElectronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-20192013The Implications Of A High Academic Ability LearningEnvironment On Third Grade Gifted Students' AcademicAchievement In Florida Public SchoolsJulie CadyUniversity of Central FloridaPart of the Educational Leadership CommonsFind similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etdUniversity of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.eduThis Doctoral Dissertation (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been acceptedfor inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For moreinformation, please contact STARS@ucf.edu.STARS CitationCady, Julie, "The Implications Of A High Academic Ability Learning Environment On Third Grade GiftedStudents' Academic Achievement In Florida Public Schools" (2013). Electronic Theses and Dissertations,2004-2019. 2519.https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/2519

THE IMPLICATIONS OF A HIGH ACADEMIC ABILITY LEARNINGENVIRONMENT ON THIRD GRADE GIFTEDSTUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN FLORIDA PUBLIC SCHOOLSbyJULIE A. CADYB. S. Park University, 1989B. S. University of North Dakota, 1997M. S. University of Central Florida, 2002A dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirementsfor the degree of Doctor of Educationin the Department of Teaching, Learning and Leadershipin the College of Educationat the University of Central FloridaOrlando, FloridaSpring Term2013Major Professor: Barbara Murray

2013 Julie A. Cadyii

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this two year study was to investigate the implications of a high academicability learning environment on the achievement scores of third grade gifted students whoattended the Florida Brevard County Public School System. Learning environment was definedby the students’ academic ability level, whether high academic ability or heterogeneousacademic ability, and for this study was the independent variable. Academic achievement, asmeasured by the 2011 and the 2012 Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test 2.0 (FCAT 2.0)Mathematics and Reading Developmental Scale Scores (DSS), was the dependent variable.Other student data such as gender and socioeconomic status were also collected and used alongwith classroom structure to examine the extent to which third grade gifted students’ reading andmathematics performance could be predicted. Random samples of students were drawn from thethird grade gifted student population attending Florida Brevard County Public School System inthe 2010-2011 and the 2011-2012 school years.Using an independent samples t-test, analysis of the 2011 FCAT 2.0 Reading andMathematics found a statistically significant difference in both the students’ FCAT 2.0Mathematics and the students’ FCAT 2.0 Reading achievement test scores based on theclassroom structure. Specifically, there was enough evidence to support the claim that thirdgrade gifted students who learned in a homogeneous high academic ability learning environmentscored significantly higher on reading and mathematics standardize tests than did third gradegifted students who learned in a heterogeneous academic ability learning environment.Approximately 14% of the variance in reading and mathematics scores could be accounted for byclassroom structure. However, different results were found with the 2012 FCAT 2.0iii

Mathematics and Reading scores. The results from the 2011-2012 school year indicated thatthere was not a significant difference in mean reading and mathematics scores between thirdgrade gifted students who learn in a homogeneous high academic ability learning environmentand third grade gifted students who learn in a heterogeneous academic ability learningenvironment.The recommendations include that subsequent studies incorporate a wider range of gradelevels, perhaps even include methods of instructional delivery, types of gifted services provided,and teachers’ years of experience. In addition, recommendations are that future studies addressthe academic performance of high academic ability non-gifted students who learn inhomogeneous high academic ability classroom environments verses those who learn inheterogeneous academic ability classroom structures.iv

This research is dedicated to my parents, George and Frances Klein. First, in lovingmemory of my mother, Frances Fern Klein, who was my best friend, my confidante, and thoughphysically she will not end this journey with me, her loving spirit remains with me andstrengthens my determination. And second, to my father, George Edward Dell Klein, who isalways a staunch supporter of my many endeavors, and who through the entire doctoral programhas given me financial and moral support. I could not have done it without them.v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSLet us think of education as the means of developing our greatest abilities, because ineach of us there is a private hope and dream which, fulfilled, can be translated into benefit foreveryone and greater strength for our nation. John F. KennedyIt is with feelings of great gratitude that I acknowledge and give thanks to my family,friends, colleagues, and dissertation committee for their inspiration, advice, and support.To my best friend, Francine Wilson, who provided spiritual support and inspired me topersevere in times of hardship and turmoil.To my fiancé, Richard Ley, who has kept me grounded and helped me stay focused to thetask at hand.To my family, who from beginning to end, inspired me to fulfill my dreams and providedme with laughter, joy, and unconditional love.To my teammates and colleagues, who gave endless encouragement and displayedabundant confidence in my success.To my dissertation committee, Dr. Barbara Murray, Dr. Kenneth Murray, Dr. RosemaryeTaylor, and Dr. Becky Lynn Spadaccini for providing the guidance, recommendations, anddirection that allowed me to complete my dissertation. Thank you!vi

TABLE OF CONTENTSLIST OF FIGURES . xiLIST OF TABLES . xiiiLIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS . xivCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION . 1Theoretical Framework . 3Statement of the Problem . 6Purpose of the Study . 7Significance of the Study . 7Research Questions . 8Delimitations . 9Limitations . 10Assumptions . 10Definition of Terms . 11Summary . 15Organization of the Study . 15CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE . 17Definition of Giftedness . 18vii

History of Gifted Learning . 22Legislation Affecting Gifted Learners . 26Gifted Student Research . 31Academic Gender Differences. 39Socioeconomic Status and the Gifted . 42Gifted Instructional Environments . 43Learning Options for Gifted Students . 46Heterogeneous Academic Ability. 48Homogeneous High Academic Ability. 51Summary . 54CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY . 58Research Design . 58Population. 58Sample . 59Methods of Data Collection . 59Instrumentation. 60The Reading FCAT 2.0 . 61The Mathematics FCAT 2.0 . 62Research Questions . 63viii

Data Analysis . 64Summary . 64CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF DATA . 66Descriptive Statistics . 66Population . 66Sample . 68Findings . 68Research Question One . 69Research Question Two . 77Research Question Three . 84Research Question Four. 94Summary . 104CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 106Summary of the Study . 106Discussion of the Findings . 109Research Question One . 109Research Question Two . 111Research Question Three . 113Research Question Four. 114ix

Implications for Practice . 115Recommendations for Future Research . 117Conclusion. 118APPENDIX A IRB REVIEW . 120APPENDIX B DISTRICT APPROVAL LETTER . 122APPENDIX C MULTIPLE REGRESSION TESTING FOR ASSUMPTIONS SUMMARYFOR 2011 AND 2012 FCAT 2.0 READING . 124APPENDIX D MULTIPLE REGRESSION TESTING FOR ASSUMPTIONS SUMMARYFOR 2011 AND 2012 FCAT 2.0 MATHEMATICS. 126REFERENCES . 128x

LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1: Triadic Model of Social Cognitive Theory’s Reciprocating Interaction . 4Figure 2: Boxplots of Students’ 2011 Developmental Scale Scores for Reading . 70Figure 3: Normal Q-Q Plot of Homogeneous Classroom Structure Students’ 2011Developmental Scale Scores for Reading . 71Figure 4: Normal Q-Q Plot of Heterogeneous Classroom Structure Students’ 2011Developmental Scale Scores for Reading . 72Figure 5: Boxplots of Students’ 2012 Developmental Scale Scores for Reading . 74Figure 6: Normal Q-Q Plot of Homogeneous Classroom Structure Students’ 2012Developmental Scale Scores for Reading . 75Figure 7: Normal Q-Q Plot of Heterogeneous Classroom Structure Students’ 2012Developmental Scale Scores for Reading . 76Figure 8: Boxplots of Students’ 2011 Developmental Scale Scores for Mathematics . 78Figure 9: Normal Q-Q Plot of Homogeneous Classroom Structure Students’ 2011Developmental Scale Scores for Mathematics . 79Figure 10: Normal Q-Q Plot of Heterogeneous Classroom Structure Students’ 2011Developmental Scale Scores for Mathematics . 80Figure 11: Boxplots of Students’ 2012 Developmental Scale Scores for Mathematics . 81Figure 12: Normal Q-Q Plot of Homogeneous Classroom Structure Students’ 2012Developmental Scale Scores for Mathematics . 82Figure 13: Normal Q-Q Plot of Heterogeneous Classroom Structure Students’ 2012Developmental Scale Scores for Mathematics . 83xi

Figure 14: Normal Q-Q Plot of Unstandardized Residual - Students’ 2011 Developmental ScaleScores for Reading . 85Figure 15: Histogram of Unstandardized Residual - Students’ 2011 Developmental Scale Scoresfor Reading. 86Figure 16: Normal Q-Q Plot of Unstandardized Residual - Students’ 2012 Developmental ScaleScores for Reading . 90Figure 17: Histogram of Unstandardized Residual - Students’ 2012 Developmental Scale Scoresfor Reading. 91Figure 18: Normal Q-Q Plot of Unstandardized Residual - Students’ 2011 Developmental ScaleScores for Mathematics. 95Figure 19: Histogram of Unstandardized Residual - Students’ 2011 Developmental Scale Scoresfor Mathematics . 96Figure 20: Normal Q-Q Plot of Unstandardized Residual - Students’ 2012 Developmental ScaleScores for Mathematics. 100Figure 21: Histogram of Unstandardized Residual - Students’ 2012 Developmental Scale Scoresfor Mathematics . 101xii

LIST OF TABLESTable 1 Prevalence of Giftedness . 32Table 2 Population Demographic Information. 67Table 3 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Demographic and Class FactorsPredicting 2011 FCAT Reading DSS (N 479). 87Table 4 Model Interpretations of the Independent Variables . 89Table 5 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Demographic and Class FactorsPredicting 2012 FCAT Reading DSS (N 444). 92Table 6 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Demographic and Class FactorsPredicting 2011 FCAT Math DSS (N 479) . 97Table 7 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Demographic and Class FactorsPredicting 2012 FCAT Math DSS (N 444) . 102Table 8 Multiple Linear Regression Testing For Assumptions Summary for 2011 and 2012FCAT 2.0 Reading . 125Table 9 Multiple Linear Regression Testing For Assumptions Summary for 2011 and 2012FCAT 2.0 Mathematics . 127xiii

LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONSDSSDevelopmental Scale ScoresEAHCAEducation for All Handicapped Children ActELLEnglish Language LearnersFCAT 2.0Florida Comprehe

attended the Florida Brevard County Public School System. Learning environment was defined by the students’ academic ability level, whether high academic ability or heterogeneous academic ability, and for this study was the independent variable. Academic achievement, as measured by the 2011 and the 2012 Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test 2.0 (FCAT 2.0) Mathematics and Reading .