Fluent Essays

Assignment required as below steps  1. Literature Review - Rough Draft 2. Literature Review - Final Version 3. Reference Section for the Final Literature Review Section 4. Definition of Terms Assignment Must Include: 8 pages long needed. APA style References Double space. Final Submission for above assignment. Review your Articles and Article Abstracts (from Residency) and the Final Version of the Literature Review section. Based on the Articles, Article Abstracts, and Final Version Literature Review, create your own Definition of Terms section. Submit your completed Definition of Terms document by the Tuesday, August 18th due date Topic Distinguished Proficient Apprentice Novice Articles Information is gathered from multiple, research-based article sources. Multiple opinions on the research topic are reviewed. 12-15 articles are included. Information is gathered from multiple, research-based article sources. 10 articles are included. Information is gathered from multiple sources. 5-8 articles are included. Information is gathered from a single source. Topic Well organized, demonstrates logical sequencing and structure. Thought process flows for reader comprehension. Details about article selection are present including search engines, search terms and inclusion criteria. Well organized but demonstrates illogical sequencing and a lack of structure and flow. Details about article selection are present. Ideas are stated but there is no train of thought flow Lacks structure and organization of thoughts Introduction A descriptive introduction leads the reader into the research literature review and the purpose of the review is stated and rationalizes the need for the review. Main discussion points are identified. Research question is identified. An introduction leads the reader into the research literature review and the purpose of the review is stated and rationalizes the need for the review. Research question is identified. An introduction leads the reader into the research literature review An inadequate introduction is present. Background, History, Conclusion Detailed conclusions are reached from the evidence offered. Evidence is proposed from different views on the research topic. Writer’s view is clearly expressed. Detailed conclusions are reached from the evidence offered. Evidence is proposed from different views on the research topic. Conclusions are reached from the evidence offered. Conclusions are not reached from the evidence offered. Details Anthropomorphism is avoided, Post graduate level writing is used to guide reader through ideas and information, 10-15 peer-reviewed sources are used, 7-10 pages are written. Post graduate level sentences and paragraphs are used and there are no grammatical errors present. Correct APA citations are used. Anthropomorphism is mostly avoided. 10 peer-reviewed sources are used. 7 pages are written. Post graduate level sentences and paragraphs are used and there are no grammatical errors present. Mostly correct APA citations are used. Anthropomorphism is not avoided. 8 peer-reviewed sources are used. 5-6 pages are written. Less than 8 resources are used. Less than 5 pages are written. Literature Review Rubric Excerpt from Gifted Learners in the Education Accountability Era by DeAnna R. Miller, Revised using APA Manuel 7th Edition Chapter 2: Literature Review This study sought to describe both the amount of and type of accommodated instruction that gifted students receive in their classrooms in a four-school district consortium in rural Kentucky. As a descriptive qualitative case study, this study sought to describe the education of gifted students in the educational Accountability Era based on the perspective of the teachers drawing from these teachers’ lived teaching experiences in meeting the needs of gifted learners in their classrooms. In this four-school district consortium, if the evidence provided by this study is not deemed acceptable by the teachers and administrators in meeting the needs of gifted learners, then this study served as a platform to initiate change in the gifted education opportunities in regular, mixed ability classrooms. The researcher aimed to provide a precise description of gifted learners’ education in order for teachers and administrators to have criteria on which to base changes in their gifted education program. This study describes the educational accommodations being provided to gifted learners from the perceptions of teachers. Documentation A review of literature was completed in order to determine what is currently known about the relationship between the NCLB, the Waiver, gifted education and teacher perceptions. The majority of resources for the review of the literature were found using ProQuest, Ebsco Host, Gale Academic OneFile, Northcentral University Library and Google Scholar research databases. Gifted education program standards and teacher perceptions were researched in order to gain understanding on the impact of educational laws and gifted education, No Child Left Behind, the No Child Left Behind Flexibility Waiver, gifted student and high achieving student assessment. Various phrases and terminology appeared in the initial research such as “differentiated instruction”; “truly left behind”; “consequences for gifted education”; “state determined proficiency levels”; “teacher perceptions”; “NCLB Waiver”; and “bringing all students to proficiency”. These phrases were used to determine the themes of this brief review of literature. Teacher perceptions of gifted education in the classroom were included in the literature review in order to review the research previously conducted on this topic due to the importance of teacher perception in this study. Table 1 Research Databases Used for Review of Literature Search Engine Number of Resources Obtained Ebsco Host 20 Gale Academic OneFile 17 Google Scholar 26 NorthCentral University Library 4 ProQuest 101 Brief Historical Overview of the No Child Left Behind Act Americans can pride themselves on the idea of equality and this is especially true in an education system which offers equal opportunity for all students (Aske et al., 2013). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed in 1965 in an effort to provide equality in education throughout the United States and has been reauthorized on a five-year basis since its inception (Husband & Hunt, 2015; Tavakolian & Howell, 2012). This law called for both an elementary and secondary education for all children. The law required funding to schools for teacher training, programs and materials for education. With the subsequent enactment of the No Child Left Behind improvements in student achievement was expected. The NCLB Act was finally enacted as a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Brighton et al., 2015; Tavakolian & Howell, 2012). The NCLB Act brought about radical changes that the education field had not seen with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Aske et al., 2013; Ravitch, 2011; Tavakolian & Howell, 2012). The NCLB Act required all states to not only define a level of proficiency for state mandated achievement tests but also required states to implement a plan that would bring all students to that proficiency level (Aske et al., 2013; Husband & Hunt, 2015). Schools were required to notify parents if the classroom teacher was not deemed “highly qualified” by the state (Croft et al., 2016). This was requirement was not present in the previous Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The NCLB Act was the dawning of the Accountability Era that currently drives schools in the United States. When the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was signed into law in January 2002, bipartisan support saw this federal legislation as a pathway to improving the American education system. NCLB introduced America to accountability in a way that had not previously been seen (Ravitch, 2011). The law called for accountability through a variety of means: improved assessment scores, an enhanced focus on reading and math, and an urgent call for all students to reach the proficient achievement level on assessments with the level of proficiency to be determined by individual states. The Act had a commendable intention of closing the achievement gap between the lower scoring students and the higher scoring students (Brighton et al., 2015; Jhang, 2011; McNeal, 2012; Samuel & Suh, 2012). American educators cautiously accepted the challenge to improve education based on these mandated changes. NCLB called for all schools to make annual improvements for all students on a continual basis until 100\% of the student population scored at the proficient level (Husband & Hunt, 2015; McNeal, 2012; Samuel & Suh, 2012). The NCLB Act demanded proficiency levels of achievement to be met by all students on state accountability tests regardless of a student’s ability level or diagnosed disabilities (Aske et al., 2013; Jhang, 2011; Ravitch, 2011; Samuel & Suh, 2012). The proficiency level of each school would be determined by student scores on an annual assessment. K-12 Schools were charged with showing an increase each year over the previous year’s assessment scores (Hargrove, 2013; McNeal, 2012; Samuel & Suh, 2012; Tavakolian & Howell, 2012). This increase was expected to be continued until all students scored at the proficient level. The NCLB Act did not set a level of proficiency but instead required all states to determine proficiency levels for their schools (McNeal, 2012; Samuel & Suh, 2012). In Kentucky, achievement levels were changed to measure as Distinguished (90\% or higher), Proficient (70-89\%), Apprentice (60-69\%) and Novice (below 60\%). This meant that with NCLB, the goal was to move all students’ scores in all tested areas to the 70\% or higher (Kentucky Department of Education, 2015). America’s educational accountability basis turned from curriculum to testing (Hargrove, 2013; Ravitch, 2011). This was a rigorous goal for all schools, but especially for schools with a high number of at-risk students. The NCLB Act enforced school accountability with several measures that was new to education (Husband & Hunt, 2015, U.S. Department of Education, 2015, Popham, 2013). In 2002, K-12 schools were required to only employ “highly qualified” teachers order to bring high quality instruction into American classrooms through faculty members (Gishey, 2013). These highly qualified teachers were required to use instructional strategies and materials that had shown research-based success. The result of this process resulted in a commercialized promotion of brands. A teacher gained the status of “highly qualified” by earning a state awarded certification as a teacher, passing the teaching exam, such as the PRAXIS, chosen by the state teacher certification organization or have a college degree with a major in the subject area that they are teaching (Kentucky Department of Education, 2015; U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Until this new requirement brought on by the NCLB Act, teachers were considered as qualified educators by earning the certification requirements in the state in which they were employed (Gishey, 2013). The NCLB Act’s intention of the “highly qualified” teacher status in the legislation was for schools to have quality teachers, which when coupled with research based teaching strategies and materials, would improve student achievement and therefore close the gap between struggling students and high achieving students (Buchanan, 2015; Gishey, 2013). The new term of “highly qualified” did not sit well with teachers who felt that they were highly qualified upon earning a teaching certificate (Croft et al., 2016). Most studies agreed, at the time of implementation and even now as the evidence of the NCLB Act is criticized, that the NCLB legislation was arguably the most significant educational legislation to surface in the last forty years (Croft et al., 2016; Dee & Jacob, 2010; Husband & Hunt, 2015). Unintended results in gifted education and also other education groups quickly surfaced due to the NCLB Act (Husband & Hunt, 2015). The No Child Left Behind Act was intended to raise education standards by holding all schools responsible for the performance of every student (Jhang, 2011; McNeal, 2013; Tavakolian & Howell, 2012); however, Husband and Hunt (2015), Pinder, (2013), and Samuel and Suh (2012) have all suggested that it could have held back students with rigid measures. As the regulations for the NCLB Act were implemented, Pinder (2013) found that teachers saw their attention being focused on students who were close to achieving the proficient level but even more on the lower level students who had a very small chance of ever achieving proficiency on assessments. Because of the perceived punitive character of this federal law, educators struggled to meet their testing targets (Husband & Hunt, 2015; Pinder, 2013; Tavakolian & Howell, 2012). As they focused their time and attention to meeting the proficient achievement level for all students, many schools had reduced instructional time for the arts, history, sciences, civics, foreign languages, physical education, literature, and geography. The instructional time was devoted to preparing students for the state tests in basic skills (Husband & Hunt, 2015; Ravitch, 2011). Dee et al. (2010) completed a study that linked an improvement in math scores for fourth grade students to the No Child Left Behind Act. Supporters of NCLB took this opportunity to spread the good news. Unlike any other educational legislation to date, NCLB started out with a goal. The Act mandated that all of America’s students be proficient in reading and math by the year 2014 (Husband & Hunt, 2015; McNeal, 2013; Ravitch, 2011). Any school not meeting this rigorous goal —one never reached by any nation in the world — faced a series of sanctions imposed by the NCLB Act. As 2014 drew closer, tens of thousands of schools were determined as failures, thousands of educators were fired, and schools that were once the anchors of their communities were closed due to the sanctions enforced by the NCLB Act (Black, 2015; Husband & Hunt, 2015; McNeal, 2013; Ravitch, 2011). Ravitch (2011) declared that the once promising NCLB was turning into a timetable for the destruction of public education. Changes had to be made to ensure the success of American education (Ravitch, 2011). States put much effort into the plans prepared to implement the rigorous demands of the NCLB Act and waited for approval or a request for amendments from the United States Department of Education. On June 10, 2003, Kentucky was granted conditional approval by the United States Department of Education of Kentuckys state plan for implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act’s requirements. To date Kentucky has selected and implemented goals that were shared with those of the NCLB Act including high expectations for all students; rigorous student performance standards tied to annual assessments in grades 3-8; multiple assessments tied to the core content; school accountability; student and school performance information to parents in the form of school report cards; and, a goal of proficiency in 12 years by the year 2014 (Kentucky Department of Education, 2011). Kentucky’s plan for meeting Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) did not mention gifted education and did not propose changing gifted education throughout the state in order to promote gifted learners (Kentucky Department of Education, 2011). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that drives special education, which is the educational umbrella that gifted education falls under, does not mention gifted education in the legislation (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Two studies completed by the Thomas D. Fordham Institute on high-achieving students in the era of the No Child Left Behind Act brought about much discussion between the original NCLB Act and gifted education. The authors of the first study examined achievement trends for high-achieving students that were found to be stagnant (Loveless et al., 2008). The second study reported on teachers’ views of how schools serving high-achieving students in the era of NCLB (see Teacher Perceptions of Gifted Education section of Literature Review.) Loveless et al. reported that scores from students in the bottom ten percent of achievement have made continuous progress in the content areas of reading and math on fourth grade assessments and in the content area of mathematics on eighth grade assessments between 2000 and 2007 but this was not found true for students at the upper ten percentile. Students at the top 10\% of achievement made minimal gains in those seven years (Loveless et al., 2008). The trend of large achievement growth for struggling students and minimal, if any, achievement growth for high ability students has been the pattern since the introduction of accountability programs with the NCLB Act affecting the largest number of schools because of the federal mandate brought on by the enactment of this law (Bui et al., 2012; Loveless et al., 2008; Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2015). Many supporters of gifted education blamed the lack of focus on this particular group of students on the federal legislation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Stephens and Riggsbee (2007), Husband and Hunt (2015), and Samardzija and Peterson (2015) provided studies which argued that gifted students lose their passion for education as they become bored waiting for opportunities to be challenged in the classroom while the educational focus is placed on the lower level learners due to the NCLB Act. The present study, Gifted Education in the Accountability Era, provided qualitative data showing the quantity and types of challenging opportunities provided to gifted students in a rural public educational setting. Not everyone interested in public education projects negative feelings about the NCLB Act. Despite growing grumbles about NCLB, high stakes testing intensified once President Obama took office (Au & Gourd, 2013). The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, issued a report that reviews the progress made under the NCLB Act (Zimmer, et al., 2007). The Rand Corporation recommended for change in the NCLB Act but gave examples of how this federal legislation was producing positive results. Recommendations included promoting more uniform academic standards to eliminate inconsistency across states such as the adoption of the National Common Core Standards, promoting more uniform teacher qualification requirements so that states will set high standards for teachers, and setting more appropriate student improvement targets that incorporate growth (“Exploring Ideas in Gifted Education,” 2011). Ravitch (2013) found evidence contrary to this. Ravitch (2013) argued that achievement gaps had unexpectedly increased since the implementation of an accountability system which was based primarily on test scores. Ravitch (2013) described the treatment of gap category children as punitive rather than equally inclusive by the Accountability Era. Despite the negativity that NCLB drew, this legislation changed education to expose large achievement gaps between sub-groups based on gender, race and income in comparison to the general student population. Low achieving student sub-groups were recognized as being underserved and the national called for improvement (Nelson-Royes, 2013; Spellings, 2014). Although the NCLB Act was not implemented with absolute effectiveness, the attention on education was now drawn nationwide (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). The NCLB Act was scheduled to be reauthorized in 2007, but that did not happen (Howell, 2015). The NCLB Act hung in the air for two (2) years until President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that included a stimulus program for education. Out of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act came the competitive Race to the Top funding for schools (Croft et al., 2016). The reauthorization of NCLB fell out of focus as educators competed for billions of dollars in Race to the Top money but the requirements of the NCLB Act still lingered over schools causing the stress of accountability for administrators, teachers, students and parents to remain (Howell, 2015). Now that important issues had been discovered during NCLB, it was time to make improvements to the law that was driving education in the United States. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act Waiver With every year that passed without a reauthorization of NCLB, frustration grew among educators tied to the requirements still in place by the 2002 law (Black, 2015; Howell, 2015; Husband & Hunt, 2015). In February 2012, Kentucky was one of ten states that received approval from the U.S. Department of Education for a Waiver that excused the state from the requirements of the NCLB Act (Kentucky Department of Education, 2015; Rodriguez, 2014; U.S. Department of Education (USDE), 2015). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act flexibility, more commonly known as the NCLB Waiver, called for detailed plans from the applying state. The Waiver had to include plans to not only reduce achievement gaps between student sub-groups but close the existing gaps (USDE, 2015). The Waiver had to include a plan to increase the quality of instruction that would be provided to all students and increase achievement outcomes for all students (Black, 2015; Husband & Hunt, 2015, Pinder, 2013). The Waiver held on to the American dream of equality for all as the plan was required to demonstrate how the state would increase equity in all schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Not only did the Waiver call for more rigor in areas of improvement already addressed in the NCLB Act, it called for a new area of improvement with the introduction of highly qualified teachers. Teachers felt the pressure that they experienced with the NCLB Act continue as the Waiver required that teachers would not only be evaluated by their supervisor but also in their effectiveness (Black, 2015; Pinder, 2013; Popham, 2013). The Waiver introduced the use of state-mandated test results for teacher evaluation and to determine schools to be successful (Au & Gourd, 2013; Black, 2015; Croft et al., 2016; Popham, 2013). The accountability of teachers became tied to the achievement of their students’ performance on a standardized test (Black, 2015; Croft et al., 2016; Popham, 2013). Teacher accountability would allow the public to point fingers at successful teachers and non-successful teachers based on their effectiveness at increasing student performance (Black, 2015; Croft et al., 2016). According to Dr. Terry Holliday, Commissioner of Education for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky’s Waiver included even more rigorous requirements that would prove successful in closing the achievement gap and preparing all students for a college education or career (Kentucky Department of Education, 2011). In 2014, Kentucky received an extension of their original waiver (Kentucky Department of Education, 2015; Rodriguez, 2014; USDE, 2015). Kentucky reached for the reputation of being an educational leader a second time despite the rigorous demands of the Waiver. With the demands of the Waiver, K-12 education became a system that evaluates student achievement results rather than a system that considers the equal interests of all students (Aske et al., 2013; VanTassel-Baska, 2012; Wiggan, 2014). Teachers felt pressure to put student test scores in their frontline of focus due to the test scores of students being reflective in teacher evaluations under the NCLB Waiver (Black, 2015; Croft et al., 2016; Pinder, 2013; Popham, 2013). Brighton et al. (2015) found that teachers did not always feel comfortable with the changes to the evaluation system due to causes outside of the school system that often affect student achievement such as poverty and student disabilities. Teacher unions voiced displeasure with the changes in the Waiver (Prescher & Werle, 2014). The unions were especially displeased with the decisions affecting teacher evaluation (Prescher & Werle, 2014). Public opinion of education was not improved by the Waiver but instead questioned more frequently. The Future of the Accountability Era On December 10, 2015, President Obama signed the bipartisan supported bill titled Every Student Succeeds Act into law in order to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). The Every Student Succeeds Act will be enacted during the 2017-2018 school year. This legislation will bring about many welcome changes to the NCLB era. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, individual states will be allowed to choose their own achievement goals and interventions for accountability improvements. Decisions on what content areas students will be tested in, what grade level high school students are test in and how to improve any areas of concern will be made at the state level. States will experience a sense of accountability freedom as long as four predetermined goals are included in the state’s accountability plan (Klein, 2015). Three of these four goals will ensure that accountability is here to stay. The first requirement for a state’s accountability plan was that at least one goal focused on students scoring proficiency on the accountability test. The test will be chosen at the state level. All students in grades three through eight must be tested in the content areas of mathematics and reading annually and at least one time in high school. ESSA will require schools and districts to report on sub-groups of students as they did during NCLB (Klein, 2015). Teachers are hesitant to not conform to the drive to increase test scores. To do so can result in low evaluations and put the teacher at risk of losing his job (Black, 2015; Croft et al., 2016; Mintrop, 2012; Pinder, 2013). The NCLB Act called for schools that failed to meet annual goals on a persistent schedule undergo sanction options. One of the sanctions required the school to release faculty members and administrators that were deemed responsible for the school’s continuous failure (McNeal, 2012). Although tenured faculty members normally are assured employment, the NCLB Act did not take tenure into consideration when corrections for school failure had to be made. Both supporters and critics alike can agree that accountability demands quickly bring changes in education (Mintrop, 2012). Accountability is on the forefront of topics when education is discussed. Henderson, Peterson, and West (2016) found that using accountability data to score teachers’ performances is the largest issue discussed when the Accountability Era was considered by Congress in 2015. Spellings (2014) argued that successful schools with high student achievement growth depend on the accountability demands of mandated assessments. Yet the public does not seem to agree with this practice. Henderson et al. (2016) reported that based on recent surveys the public’s support of teachers has declined in recent years. Schools, school district and states are continuously striving to make gains in accountability scores. Even as the NCLB Act became a thing of the past, the Accountability Era that was created by this legislation lingers. My study, Gifted Education in the Accountability Era, provided qualitative data of teachers’ perspectives about how the stress of accountability influences the quantity and types of best practice opportunities that they provide for gifted students in their classrooms. Gifted Students’ Characteristics and Needs Although there are between three to five million gifted students in the United States, identification procedures of gifted students vary from state to state and even from school district to school district (National Association for Gifted Children, 2015). The development of gifted education programs occurred in the 1920s and identification of a gifted student was determined by using the score from an intelligence test, such as the Stanford-Binet IQ test (Missett & McCormick, 2014; National Association for Gifted Children, 2015; Seedorf, 2014). Many states and individual school districts now use a Norm Referenced Test score as only a portion of the evidence gathered to identify a student as gifted / talented. There seems to be two different views on the identification of gifted students: one group who thinks that giftedness is solely intellectual and therefore should be identified with an IQ test score and another group that thinks that giftedness should include talents such as leadership and creativity in addition to intelligence and this status should be identified with a variety of evidence that adequately indicated the talent (Esquierdo & Arreguin-Anderson, 2012; Schmitt & Goebel, 2015). Schmitt and Goebel suggested that a mixture of identification methods be used to appropriately identify gifted students in order to prevent a gifted learner from being overlooked by use of a single method. Each state has the authority to consider whatever means of identification that is determined to be sufficient. There is a federal definition of gifted students that is currently located in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It defines gifted as students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities. (USDE, 2015) Gifted students are viewed as the students who require accommodated educational services beyond the normal education due to their high academic ability in order for them to realize their full potential and most students are identified as gifted or talented at the elementary school level (Colangelo & Wood, 2015a). Often when these gifted students who were identified in elementary school enter middle and high school, teachers do not see gifted traits in these students and question their identification. Regardless of the manner in which students were identified as gifted, teachers tend to notice specific characteristics that are common among these high ability students. The most common characteristic of gifted children is their advanced cognitive ability (Baudson & Preckel, 2013; Preckel & Vock, 2012). Gifted students benefit from being challenged and motivated through their schoolwork. The challenge of an activity drives the interest of many gifted students and motivates them to persevere (Repinc & Juznic, 2013). Research has found that motivation in students is an important factor in increasing their academic talents (Ahmad et al., 2014). Gifted students deem work that is not a challenge to them to be busy work. Gifted students view busy work as a waste of time (Cooper, 2012). When gifted students do not feel challenged by instruction or educational content, they often feel like it is not worth their time to participate. Some gifted students feel that even if they do not know the material that they can manage their way through it without much effort if the content is not challenging for them. Students who felt that they are valuable to the class and that they are believed in are more likely to be a motivated learner (Ford, 2015; Mammadov & Topçu, 2014). Students were successful when they embrace challenges and could foresee how the challenge would benefit them in the future (Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2015). This was a good example of the importance for a teacher to know and inspire her students on an individual basis. Teachers must know the academic ability of each student in order to accomplish this task. When gifted students do not perform throughout the school year at the level at which they performed on achievement assessments for the purpose of gifted identification, they are sometimes referred to as an underachieving student (Ritchotte et al., 2015). Some gifted students who are underachievers not only have problems with motivation but also with their social status. Common characteristics of underachieving gifted students are being a perfectionist, being over active or being socially isolated from peers (Cooper, 2012). Male students often show more signs of underachievement than female students. This onset of underachievement frequently occurs around the age of puberty. These students do not have a diminished level of intelligence but … Example of Definition of Terms Definition of Key Terms Ability Grouping. Ability grouping is a modification strategy where the assignment of students by classroom or group is based on student performance in order to encourage intellectual growth (Catsambis & Buttaro, 2012). Accelerated Learning. Accelerated learning is the process of moving through an educational program at an advanced rate that matches the cognitive ability and motivation of the student (Missett, Brunner, Callahan, Moon, & Azano, 2014; Siegle, Wilson, & Little, 2013). Accountability Era. The accountability era is the current time in education where much emphasis is focused on achievement scores and test accountability for students, teachers, schools and districts. The accountability era began with the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Mosley, Boscardin, & Wells, 2014). Aptitude. Aptitude is defined as “an inclination to excel in the performance of a certain skill” (National Association for Gifted Children, 2010, p. 1). Asynchrony. Asynchrony is the term used to describe the advanced rates of growth which gifted students often show in the areas of intellect and emotion (National Association for Gifted Children, 2010). Bubble Kids. The term “bubble kids” refers to students who are just below the proficiency score or just above the proficiency score on accountability exams. Teachers tend to focus on bubble kids to either move them to the proficient level or keep them above the proficient level for the purpose of accountability measures (Gonzalez & Firestone, 2013). Cluster Grouping. The grouping of gifted students in a heterogeneous classroom based on their educational characteristics is referred to as cluster grouping (Thompson, 2011). Differentiation of Instruction. Differentiation of instruction occurs when an instructor modifies the lesson or curriculum in order to meet the needs of a student. Sometimes the accommodation made to the educational content is done in order to lessen the rigor and sometimes accommodations are made to strengthen the rigor (Kamarulzaman, Azman, & Zahidi, 2015; Mason, 2011; Resch, 2014). ESSA. Every Student Succeeds Act. The Every Student Succeeds Act was signed by President Obama on December 10, 2015 in order to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Act. This is the federal law that ensures education for all children in the United States (U. S. Department of Education, 2015). G/T. Gifted and Talented Education. Gifted and Talented Education as defined in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is “students who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities” (Kentucky Department of Education, 2011). A student may be formally identified in the 4th grade. Once a student is identified as gifted the student remains a gifted identified student until they graduate from high school. Evidence from three assessment materials must be provided for a student to be identified as gifted with at least one of the evidence pieces being a score in the 9th stanine of a NRT assessment. The National Association of Gifted Children estimates that there are currently three to five million academically gifted children in the United States (National Association for Gifted Children, 2010, p. 1). KAGE. Kentucky Association for Gifted Education. The Kentucky Association for Gifted Education is the advocacy organization for gifted studies in the Commonwealth of Kentucky (KAGE, 2015). NAEP. National Assessment of Educational Progress. The National Assessment of Educational Progress is viewed by many as a report card for education in the United States. This organization published information about students’ performance in general and also by subject area (Summers, 2014). National Association for Gifted Children. The National Association for Gifted Children is the advocacy organization for gifted children in the United States (National Association for Gifted Children, 2015). National Association for Gifted Children Pre-K--Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards. The gifted program standards recommended by the National Association for Gifted Children include six standards: learning and development, assessment, curriculum planning & instruction, learning environments, programming, and professional development. The 2010 programming standards were developed with input from a variety of stakeholders. An increased focus on diversity and collaboration is present in the document (National Association for Gifted Children, 2015).  No Child Left Behind. In 2001, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was amended by Congress to be the No Child Left Behind Act otherwise known as Public Law 107-110. This law is often referred to as NCLB, pronounced ‘nicklebee’ (Husband & Hunt, 2015). No Child Left Behind Flexibility Waiver. In 2013, President Obama allowed NCLB waivers more formally recognized as Elementary and Secondary Education Act flexibility. This flexibility plan, commonly referred to as the NCLB Waiver, allowed schools to be excused from the requirements of NCLB but only if the states’ waiver standards encouraged rigorous standards such as college and career readiness for all students (Derthick & Rotherham, 2012). Rate of Acquisition. The rate of acquisition in education is an indication of how quickly a student can demonstrate that he understands the new learning (VanTassel-Baska (A), 2013). Rate of Retention. The rate of retention in education is an indication of how well a student can retain the initial learning after a period of time (VanTassel-Baska, 2013). A peer-reviewed electronic journal. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. Permission is granted to distribute this article for nonprofit, educational purposes if it is copied in its entirety and the journal is credited. Volume 14, Number 13, June 2009 ISSN 1531-7714 A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review Justus J. Randolph Walden University Writing a faulty literature review is one of many ways to derail a dissertation. This article summarizes some pivotal information on how to write a high-quality dissertation literature review. It begins with a discussion of the purposes of a review, presents taxonomy of literature reviews, and then discusses the steps in conducting a quantitative or qualitative literature review. The article concludes with a discussion of common mistakes and a framework for the self-evaluation of a literature review. Writing a faulty literature review is one of many ways to derail a dissertation. If the literature review is flawed, the remainder of the dissertation may also be viewed as flawed, because “a researcher cannot perform significant research without first understanding the literature in the field” (Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 3). Experienced thesis examiners know this. In a study of the practices of Australian dissertation examiners, Mullins and Kiley (2002) found that, Examiners typically started reviewing a dissertation with the expectation that it would pass; but a poorly conceptualized or written literature review often indicated for them that the rest of the dissertation might have problems. On encountering an inadequate literature review, examiners would proceed to look at the methods of data collection, the analysis, and the conclusions more carefully. (Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 6) Given the importance of literature reviews in both dissertations and journal articles, it may be surprising that so many of them are faulty. Boote and Beile (2005) claim that “the dirty secret known by those who sit on dissertation committees is that most literature reviews are poorly conceptualized and written” (p. 4). Further, dissertations and theses are not the only types of publications that suffer from poor literature reviews. Many literature reviews in manuscripts submitted for publication in journals are also flawed—see Alton-Lee (1998), Grante and Graue (1999), and LeCompte, Klinger, Campbell, and Menck (2003). Given that so many literature reviews are poorly done, it is surprising there is not more published information on how to write a literature review. Boot and Beile (2005) write, Doctoral students seeking advice on how to improve their literature reviews will find little published guidance worth heeding. . . . Most graduate students receive little or no formal training in how to analyze and synthesize the research literature in their field, and they are unlikely to find it elsewhere. (p. 5) Not only is there a lack of published information to guide writers of literature reviews, the labor intensive process of writing one compounds the problem. Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996) estimate that completion of an acceptable dissertation literature review will take between three and six months of effort. The purpose of this guide is to collect and summarize the most relevant information on how to write a dissertation literature review. I begin with a discussion of the purposes of a review, present Cooper’s (1988) Taxonomy of Literature Reviews, and discuss the steps in conducting a quantitative or qualitative literature review. A discussion of common mistakes and a Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol 14, No 13 Page 2 Randolph, Dissertation Literature Review framework for the self-evaluation of literature reviews concludes the article. Purposes for Writing a Literature Review Conducting a literature review is a means of demonstrating an author’s knowledge about a particular field of study, including vocabulary, theories, key variables and phenomena, and its methods and history. Conducting a literature review also informs the student of the influential researchers and research groups in the field. Finally, with some modification, the literature review is a “legitimate and publishable scholarly document” (LeCompte & colleagues, 2003, p. 124). Apart from the above reasons for writing a review (i.e., proof of knowledge, a publishable document, and the identification of a research family), the scientific reasons for conducting a literature review are many. Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996) argue that the literature review plays a role in: • delimiting the research problem, • seeking new lines of inquiry, • avoiding fruitless approaches, • gaining methodological insights, • identifying recommendations for further research, and • seeking support for grounded theory. Hart (1998) contributes additional reasons for reviewing the literature, including: • distinguishing what has been done from what needs to be done, • discovering important variables relevant to the topic, • synthesizing and gaining a new perspective, • identifying relationships between ideas and practices, • establishing the context of the topic or problem, • rationalizing the significance of the problem, • enhancing and acquiring the subject vocabulary, • understanding the structure of the subject, • relating ideas and theory to applications, • identifying the main methodologies and research techniques that have been used, and • placing the research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments. (p. 27) Another purpose for writing a literature review not mentioned above is that it provides a framework for relating new findings to previous findings in the discussion section of a dissertation. Without establishing the state of the previous research, it is impossible to establish how the new research advances the previous research. Taxonomy of Literature Reviews An effective method to begin planning a research review is to consider where the proposed review fits into Cooper’s (1988) Taxonomy of Literature Reviews. As shown in Table 1, Cooper suggests that literature reviews can be classified according to five characteristics: focus, goal, perspective, coverage, organization, and audience. In Table 1, each characteristic is listed on the left, with the levels of the characteristics on the right. In the paragraphs that follow, each of these literature review characteristics are described in more detail. Focus The first characteristic is the focus of the review. Cooper (1988) identifies four potential foci: research outcomes, research methods, theories, or practices or applications. Literature reviews that focus on research outcomes are perhaps the most common. In fact, the Educational Resources Information Center (1982, p. 85) defines a literature review as an “information analysis and synthesis, focusing on findings and not simply bibliographic citations, summarizing the substance of the literature and drawing conclusions from it” (italics mine). The Educational Resources Information Center suggests that, in terms of a developing a research rationale, an outcomes-oriented review may help identify a lack of information on a particular research outcome, thus establishing a justifiable need for an outcome study. Methodological reviews concentrate on research methods—Cooper’s second focus category. In a methodological review, research methods in the chosen field are investigated to identify key variables, measures, and methods of analysis and inform outcomes-oriented research. The methodological review is also helpful to identify methodological strengths and weaknesses in a body of research, and examine how research practices Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol 14, No 13 Page 3 Randolph, Dissertation Literature Review differ across groups, times, or settings. Methodological reviews, combined with outcome reviews, may also identify ways in which the methods inform the outcomes. A methodological review may also lead to sound rationale that can justify proposed dissertation research, if it turns out that the previous research has been methodologically flawed. Table 1. Cooper’s Taxonomy of Literature Reviews Characteristic Categories Focus Research outcomes Research methods Theories Practices or applications Goal Integration (a) Generalization (b) Conflict resolution (c) Linguistic bridge-building Criticism Identification of central issues Perspective Neutral representation Espousal of position Coverage Exhaustive Exhaustive with selective citation Representative Central or pivotal Organization Historical Conceptual Methodological Audience Specialized scholars General scholars Practitioners or policymakers General public From “Organizing Knowledge Synthesis: A Taxonomy of Literature Reviews,” by H. M. Cooper, 1988, Knowledge in Society, 1, p. 109. Copyright by Springer Science + Business Media. Reprinted with permission of Springer Science + Business Media. A review of theories, Cooper’s third focus, can help establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, and to what degree the existing theories have been investigated. A theoretical review is appropriate if, for example, the dissertation aims to advance a new theory. In terms of the research rationale, a theoretical review can help establish a lack of theories or reveal that the current theories are insufficient, helping to justify that a new theory should be put forth. Finally, literature reviews can be focused on practices or applications. For example, a review might concentrate on how a certain intervention has been applied or how a group of people tend to carry out a certain practice. In terms of a research rationale, this fourth type of review can help establish a practical need not currently being met. While a dissertation review typically has a primary focus, it may also be necessary to address all or some of the foci mentioned above. For example, a review with an outcomes-oriented focus would likely also deal with the methodological flaws that might affect an outcome. An outcomes-oriented review may also deal with theories related to the phenomenon being investigated and introduce the practical applications of the knowledge that will ultimately be gained from the dissertation. Goal The goal of many reviews is to integrate and generalize findings across units, treatments, outcomes, and settings; to resolve a debate within a field; or to bridge the language used across fields. Meta-analysis, for example, is an often-used review technique in which the primary goal is to integrate quantitative outcomes across studies. In other reviews the goal may be to critically analyze previous research, identify central issues, or explicate a line of argument within a field. A dissertation review often has multiple goals. If the dissertation is solely a review, the author may be primarily interested in integration, but it also may be necessary to critically analyze the research, identify central issues, or explicate an argument. However, if a dissertation author is using the literature review to justify a later investigation, the goal will place more emphasis on critically analyzing the literature, perhaps to identify a weakness and propose to remedy that weakness with dissertation research. Either way, the author must integrate reviews to present the reader with the big picture. Without integration, the map of the research landscape would be as large as the research landscape itself. Perspective In qualitative primary research, review authors often decide to reveal their own preexisting biases and discuss how those biases might have affected the review. Or, as is often the case in quantitative primary research, authors can attempt to take a neutral perspective and present the review findings as fact. The perspective taken depends largely on whether the review is conducted in the Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol 14, No 13 Page 4 Randolph, Dissertation Literature Review quantitative or qualitative traditions. Since secondary research (i.e., review research) methods parallel primary research methods, it makes sense for the author of a qualitative review to follow the qualitative tradition and reveal biases and the author of a quantitative review to follow the quantitative tradition and claim a neutral position. This decision will be dictated by the particular case. Coverage Deciding how wide to cast the net is a critical step in conducting a review. Cooper proposes four coverage scenarios. In an exhaustive review, the reviewer promises to locate and consider every available piece of research on a certain topic, published or unpublished. However, finding every piece of research could take more time than is available. The key to the exhaustive review is to define the population in such a way that it is bounded and the number of articles to review is manageable. Cooper (1988) calls this an exhaustive review with selective citation. For example, the reviewer might choose only to look at articles published in journals, but not conference papers; however, a theoretical reason to exclude conference papers is advised. A third coverage approach is to consider a representative sample of articles and make inferences about the entire population of articles from that sample. However, random sampling is far from foolproof. A perhaps more certain approach is to gather evidence that demonstrates that the representative sample is actually representative. The most sound approach may be to do both. Cooper’s fourth article selection approach is to take a purposive sample in which the reviewer examines only the central or pivotal articles in a field. The key here is to convince the reader that the selected articles are, in fact, the central or pivotal articles in a field, and just as importantly that the articles not chosen are not central or pivotal. Organization There are many formats in which to organize a review. Three of the most common are the historical format, the conceptual format, and the methodological format. In the historical format the review is organized chronologically. Clearly, this is preferred when the emphasis is on the progression of research methods or theories, or on a change in practices over time. A second common organizational scheme is built around concepts. For example, the review may be organized around the propositions in a research rationale or, in a theoretically-focused review, organized according to the various theories in the literature. Finally, the literature review can be organized methodologically, as in an empirical paper (i.e., introduction, method, results, and discussion). In some cases, it may be most effective to mix and/or match these organizational formats. For example, the reviewer might begin with an introduction, define the method, and present the results in a historical or conceptual format, then move on to the discussion of results. This organizational format is often used in meta-analytic reports. Audience The final characteristic of Cooper’s (1988) Taxonomy of Literature Reviews is audience. For a dissertation, the supervisor and reviewers of the dissertation are the primary audience. The scholars within the field that the dissertation relates to are the secondary audience. Avoid writing the dissertation literature review for a general, non-academic audience. What constitutes a good book is probably not what constitutes a good dissertation, and vice versa. How to Conduct a Literature Review Take a look at the list below. Does it look familiar? It could be a step-by-step guide on how to conduct primary research, but in fact it describes the stages of conducting a literature review (see Cooper, 1984). 1. Problem formulation 2. Data collection 3. Data evaluation 4. Analysis and interpretation 5. Public presentation If one thing must be realized about conducting and reporting a literature review it is that the stages for conducting and reporting a literature review parallel the process for conducting primary research. With a few modifications, what one knows about conducting primary research applies to conducting secondary research (i.e., a literature review). The key components are (a) a rationale for conducting the review; (b) research questions or hypotheses that guide the research; (c) an explicit plan for collecting data, including how units will be chosen; (d) an explicit plan for analyzing data; and (e) a plan for presenting data. Instead of human participants, for example, the units in a literature review are the articles that are reviewed. Validity and reliability, the same issues that apply to Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol 14, No 13 Page 5 Randolph, Dissertation Literature Review primary research, also apply to secondary research. And, as in primary research, the stages may be iterative and not necessarily completed in the order presented above. Table 2, from Cooper (1984), is a framework to guide the completion of the four research stages of a literature review. On the left, the table identifies the general characteristics of each research stage: the research questions asked, the primary functions of each stage, the procedural differences that may lead to differing conclusions, and the potential sources of invalidity at each stage. For each of the characteristics, the remaining columns of the table pose key questions to guide the review writer in: problem formation, data collection, data evaluation, analysis and interpretation, and public presentation. Following sections discuss in more detail the steps Cooper (1984) suggests for conducting a literature review. Problem formulation (for the literature review) Once the appropriate type of review has been identified (see Cooper’s taxonomy in Table 1), the focus shifts to problem formulation. In this step the reviewer decides what questions the literature review will answer and Table 2. The Research Stages in Conducting a Literature Review Research stage Stage Characteristics Problem formation Data collection Data evaluation Analysis and interpretation Public presentation Research questions asked What evidence should be included in the review? What procedures should be used to find relevant evidence? What retrieved evidence should be included in the review? What procedures should be used to make inferences about the literature as a whole? What information should be included in the review report? Primary function in review Constructing definitions that distinguish relevant from irrelevant studies. Determining which sources of potentially relevant sources to examine. Applying criteria to separate “valid” from “invalid” studies. Synthesizing valid retrieved studies. Applying editorial criteria to separate important from unimportant information. Procedural differences that create variation in review conclusion 1. Differences in included operational definitions. 2. Differences in operational detail. Differences in the research contained in sources of information. 1. Differences in quality criteria. 2. Differences in the influence of non-quality criteria. Differences in the rules of inference. Differences in guidelines for editorial judgment. Sources of potential invalidity in review conclusions 1. Narrow concepts might make review conclusions less definitive and robust. 2. Superficial operational detail might obscure interacting variables. 1. Accessed studies might be qualitatively different from the target population of studies. 2. People sampled in accessible studies might be different from target population of people. 1. Nonequality factors might cause improper weighting of study formation. 2. Omissions in study reports might make conclusions unreliable. 1. Rules for distinguishing patterns from noise might be inappropriate. 2. Review-based evidence might be used to infer causality. 1. Omission of review procedures might make conclusions irreproducible. 2. Omission of review findings and study procedures might make conclusions obsolete. From “Scientific Guidelines for Conducting Integrative Research Reviews,” Review of Education Research, 1984, 52, pg. 293. Copyright 1984 by Sage Publications. Reprinted with permission of Sage Publications. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol 14, No 13 Page 6 Randolph, Dissertation Literature Review determines explicit criteria to dictate the inclusion, or exclusion, of an article included in the review. At this point it is important to make a distinction between literature review questions (i.e., questions that can be answered by reviewing the secondary research) and empirical research questions (i.e., questions that can be answered only through primary research). The literature review is the primary source of the empirical research question (Randolph, 2007c). Problem formation begins with the determination of the questions that will guide the literature review. These questions should be influenced significantly by the goal and focus of the review. For example, if the goal of the review is to integrate research outcomes, then a meaningful research question might be: From the previous literature, what is the effect of intervention X on outcomes Y and Z? If the goal is to critically analyze the research methods used in previous literature, questions might include: What research methods have been used in the past to investigate phenomenon X? and What are the methodological flaws of those methods? If the literature review focus is on theories and the goal is to identify central issues, then a legitimate research question might be: What are the central theories that have been used to explain phenomenon X? At this point it is wise to search for literature reviews that may have already answered these or related questions. The second step in problem formation is to explicitly determine the criteria for inclusion and exclusion. In other words, determine which articles will be included in the review and which articles will be excluded. The particular criteria are influenced by the review’s focus, goals, and coverage. Below is an example of the criteria for inclusion and exclusion used in a review of the research on the use of student response cards (Randolph, 2007b): Studies were included in the quantitative synthesis if they met each of the following criteria: 1. The study reported means and standard deviations or provided enough information to calculate means and standard deviations for each condition. 2. The use of write-on response cards, preprinted response cards, or both was the independent variable. 3. Voluntary single-student oral responding (i.e., hand raising) was used during the control condition. 4. The study reported results on at least one of the following dependent variables: participation, quiz achievement, test achievement, or intervals of behavioral disruptions. 5. The report was written in English. 6. The data from one study did not overlap data from another study. 7. The studies used repeated-measures-type methodologies. 8. For separate studies that used the same data (e.g., a dissertation and a journal article based on the same dataset), only the study with the most comprehensive reporting was included to avoid the overrepresentation of a particular set of data. (pp. 115-116) The inclusion/exclusion criteria should be explicit and comprehensive enough so that any article that comes to light could be included or excluded solely based on those criteria. Further, the criteria should include enough detail so that two people, given the same set of articles, would identify virtually the same subset of articles. In fact, in reviews where reliability is essential, such as when an entire dissertation or thesis is a review, researchers often recruit other individuals to test the reliability of the inclusion/exclusion system, then compare the resultant subsets to reveal inconsistencies, revising the criteria accordingly. It is likely that creating a valid set of inclusion/exclusion criteria will require considerable trial and error pilot testing. Often, ambiguities in the criteria will result in articles that are inadequately omitted. Recursively pilot-testing the criteria is time-consuming, but much less so than starting over after much data have been painstakingly collected and analyzed. Data collection The goal of the data collection stage is to collect an exhaustive, semi-exhaustive, representative, or pivotal set of relevant articles. As in primary research, the researcher of secondary data must not only devise a systematic plan for data collection, he or she must accurately document how the data were collected. The reviewer is advised to describe the data collection procedure with such detail that, theoretically, other reviewers following the same procedures under the same conditions would find an identical set of articles. The data collection process often begins with an electronic search of academic databases and the Internet. (Because relevant databases vary within fields, I will not discuss them here.) When these searches are conducted, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol 14, No 13 Page 7 Randolph, Dissertation Literature Review careful, accurate records must be kept of the date of each search, the databases searched, the key words and key word combinations used, and the number of records resulting from each search. In my experience, electronic searches lead to only about ten percent of the articles that will comprise an exhaustive review. There are several approaches to locate the remaining 90\%. The most effective method may be to search the references of the articles that were retrieved, determine which of those seem relevant, find those, read their references, and repeat the process until a point of saturation is reached—a point where no new relevant articles come to light. When electronic and reference searching is exhausted, the reviewer is advised to share the list of references with colleagues and experts in the field to determine if they detect any missing articles. Sending a query to the main Listserv of experts in the relevant field, with a request that they identify missing articles, is often effective to yield additional references. It is also advisable to share the final list of potentially relevant articles with dissertation supervisors and reviewers, as they, too, may be aware of additional relevant literature. The data collection process can stop when the point of saturation is reached, and the reviewer has sufficient evidence to convince readers that everything that can reasonably be done to identify all relevant articles has been diligently undertaken. Of course, it is likely that new articles will come to light after the data collection period has concluded. However, unless the new article is critically important, I suggest leaving it out. Otherwise, the reviewer may have to open the floodgates and start anew the data collection process. Now the reviewer must devise a system to further cull the collected articles. For example, to separate the potentially relevant from the obviously irrelevant studies, the reviewer might read every word of every electronic record, just the abstract, just the title, or some combination. Whichever method is chosen, the reviewer is advised to accurately document the process undertaken. When the obviously irrelevant articles have been identified and discarded, the reviewer can begin to determine which of the remaining articles will be included in the literature review. Again, when reliability is critical, it is common for two or more other qualified individuals to determine which articles in the new subset meet the criteria for inclusion and exclusion to estimate and consider the level of interrater agreement. (Neuendorf [2002] provides a thorough discussion of methods to quantify interrater agreement.) When the reviewer is satisfied that the final subset of relevant articles is complete, the data evaluation stage can begin. Data evaluation In the data evaluation stage the reviewer begins to extract and evaluate the information in the articles that met the inclusion criteria. To begin, the reviewer devises a system for extracting data from the articles. The type of data extracted is determined by the focus and goal of the review. For example, if the focus is research outcomes and the goal is integration, one will extract research outcomes data from each article and decide how to integrate those outcomes. As the data are evaluated, the reviewer is advised to document the types of data extracted and the process used. Because it requires extensive detail, this …