Classroom Practices Survey (CPS)- 2017R
The Classroom Practices Survey (CPS: Archambault et al., 1993) was developed to evaluate teachers’ use of differentiated educational practices with “average” and “gifted” youth. Since its development, CPS has been used in research in gifted education (e.g., Gentry, Rizza, & Owen, 2002; Stamps, 2004) to understand how educators meet the learning needs of individual students with average and high ability in regular classrooms. The original survey contained 39 items to which teachers responded using a 6-point scale from never to more than once a day, measuring the frequency of instructional practices being used with students. This first version of the CPS measured teachers’ self-report use of the following sub-scales: Questioning and Thinking, Providing Challenges and Choices, Reading and Writing, Curriculum Modifications, Enrichment Centers, and Seatwork.
Although CPS has been used by researchers to assess teachers’ use of differentiation strategies in classrooms with students at “average” and “gifted” ability levels, limited psychometric evidence of its validity exists, which may affect the implications of findings of studies using CPS. Additionally, after examining the current literature on differentiation strategies, teacher preparation standards (CCSSO, 2013; NAGC, 2013), some of the CPS sub-scales and items may no longer be relevant for today’s classrooms. This is partially because Archambault et al. (1993) developed CPS using the literature and knowledge based on differentiation practices in the early 1990s, and recommended instructional practices have been changed significantly since then.
CPS-2017R is the revised version of CPS. The six-point response scale is still used; however, on this revision, teachers are asked to respond to their practices concerning student achievement levels, something more observable by teachers than ability level. On it the respond to each item for students who achieve at “low to below average,” “average,” and “above average to high” levels.The revised instrument has 40 items grouped under four sub-scales: Questioning and Thinking, Providing Challenges and Choices, Reading and Writing, and Curriculum Modifications. Of the 40 items, 23 items were from the original instrument. Pereira, Tay, and Maeda (2018) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the revised instrument. CFA yielded fit indices of .853 (CFI) and .078 (RMSEA) for low to below average-achieving group, .867 and .079 for average-achieving group, and .889 and .077 for above average to high-achieving group. These fit indices were adequate but deviated from suggested cut-off values for good fit (e.g. Brown (2014) suggested a CFI cut-off value of .95 or greater for a good fitting model), so additional revisions may be necessary. Internal consistency estimates of the data for the four factors ranged from 0.81 to 0.94 for the three groups.
Original Instrument: Classroom Practices Survey (CPS: Archambault et al., 1993)
Resources
Archambault, F.X. Jr., Westberg, K.L., Brown, S., Hallmark, B.W., Emmons, C., & Zhang, W. (1992). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Zhang, W., & Emmons, C. L. (1993). Classroom practices used with gifted third and fourth grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 103-119. doi: 10.1177/016235329301600203
Brown, T. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guiford Press.
Pereira, N., Tay, J., & Maeda, Y. (November, 2017). Revised Classroom Practices Survey: An instrument to collect information on differentiated educational practices. Session presented at the 64th Annual Convention of the National Association for Gifted Children. Charlotte, NC.
Pereira, N., Tay, J., & Maeda, Y. (August, 2018). Revised Classroom Practices Survey: An Instrument to Collect Information on Differentiated Educational Practices. Session presented at the 16th Conference of the European Council for High Ability. Dublin, Ireland.
Click Download to access the instrument
