Curriculum Differentiation’s Capacity to Extend Gifted Students in Secondary Mixed-ability Science Classes

Year 2020, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 40 - 61, 27.06.2020

Christine Ireland Terence Bowles Kimberley Brindle Susan Nikakis

https://doi.org/10.46893/talent.758527

Cited By: 6

Abstract

Investigated were differences between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of curriculum differentiation strategies to extend highly able students in mixed-ability secondary science classes. Gifted underachievement and disengage-ment is increasing in Australian schools, potentially linked to these percep-tion differences regarding curriculum differentiation. 161, Year 7 students, aged aproximately 11 years (n = 29 highly able; n = 132 non-highly able), and 43 science-trained teachers were surveyed. Examined were students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the importance and achievability of 24 curriculum differentiation strategies, within the curriculum components of content, pro-cess, product, and environment. Significant dissimilarities occurred regard-ing curriculum differentiation strategies having been achieved at least once during every work unit. In particular, some strategies requiring modification of the learning environment were considered by highly able students to be significantly less frequently achieved, compared to teachers’ perceptions. Im-plications for policy and practice were explored. Further research of curricu-lum differentiation that includes students’ perspectives is required.

Keywords

curriculum differentiation, gifted education, highly able students, non-highly able students, mixed-ability students

References

• Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, (2011). Retrieved June 10, 2018, from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/student-diversity/gifted-andtalented-students/
• Archambault, F. X., Jr., Westberg, K. L., & Brown, S. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. (Research Monograph No.931020). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
• Assouline, S. G. (2003). Psychological and educational assessment of gifted children. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 124–145). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Bailey, S. (2010). Reflections of a backseat driver. Vision, 2, 2–8.
• Berger, S. L. (1991). Differentiating curriculum for gifted students. Retrieved from June 10, 2018, from the ERIC Digest #E510.
• Benny, N., & Blonder, R. (2016). Factors that promote/inhibit teaching gifted students in a regular class: Results from a professional development program for chemistry teachers. Education Research International. Article ID 2742905. doi: 10.1155/2016/2742 905
• Beverly, P. N. (1989). Gifted students in regular classrooms. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.
• Bowles, T., & Hattie, J. (2016). Seven motivating conceptions of learning of tertiary students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 15(3), 173-190.
• Borland, J. H. (1993). Giftedness and ‘The new philosophy of science’. Understanding Our Gifted, 5(6), 11–14.
• Bracken, B. A., & Brown, E. F. (2006). Behavioral identification and assessment of gifted and talented students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24(2), 112-122.
• Browne, R. & Cook, H. (2016). 2016 NAPLAN results not good enough, says federal education minister Simon Birmingham. The Age (2016, August 3). Retrieved from: http://www.theage.com.au.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/victoria/2016-naplan-results-not-goodenough-says-federal-education-minister-simon-birmingham-20160802-gqjd8e.html
• Buckingham, J. (2016) Why Australia's PISA results are a catastrophe. Financial Review. Opinion. Retrieved from: https://www.afr.com/news/economy/why-australias-pisa-results-are-acatastrophe-20161206-gt536q
• Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A Nation Deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City: University of Iowa.
• Colangelo, N., Kerr, B., Christensen, P., & Maxey, J. (2004). A comparison of gifted underachievers and gifted high achievers. In S. Moon (Ed.), Social/emotional issues, underachievement, and counseling of gifted and talented students (pp. 119–132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (1992). Gifted high school students’ advice to science teachers. Gifted Child Today, 15, 25–26. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
• Dai, D., Swanson, J., & Cheng, H. (2011). State of research on giftedness and gifted education: A survey of empirical studies published during 1998–2010. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 126-138.
• Davis, G., & Rimm, S. (2004) Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Dettmer, P. A., Landrum, M. S., & Miller, T. N. (2006). Professional development for the education of secondary gifted students. In F. A. Dixon & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 611–648). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
• DeHaan, R. L. (2009). Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 8, 172–181. Dixon, F. A. (2006). Critical thinking: A foundation for challenging content. In F.A. Dixon & S.M. Moon, The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 323–341). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
• Emerick, L. J. (1992). Academic underachievement among the gifted: Students' perceptions of factors that reverse the pattern. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 140-146.
• Feldhusen, J. F., & Kroll, M. D. (1991). Boredom or challenge for the academically talented in school. Gifted Education International, 7, 80–81.
• Fuller, F., & Brown, O. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education. 74th yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 25–52).
• Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gallagher, S. (2006). Guiding gifted students toward science expertise. In F. A. Dixon & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 427–460). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Gagné, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 60-74). Boston, Mass: Allyn & Bacon.
• Gagné, F. (2008, April). Building gifts into talents: In Brief overview of the DMGT2.0. Retrieved June 10, 2018. from: https://indooroopillyss.eq.edu.au/Supportandresources/Formsanddocuments/Documents/policy-gifted-talented-2015.pdf Geake, J. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2008). Teachers’ negative affect toward academically gifted students: An evolutionary psychological study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3), 217–231.
• Gentry, M. (2009). Myth 11: A comprehensive continuum of gifted education and talent development services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 262–265.
• Gentry, M., & Gable, R. K. (2001). My class activities: A survey instrument to assess students’ perceptions of interest, challenge, choice and enjoyment in their classrooms. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
• Goodlad, J. L. (1966). School, curriculum, and the individual. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.
• Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric Methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Heller, K. (2005). The Munich model of giftedness designed to identify and promote gifted students. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp.147–170). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
• Hertberg-Davis, H. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and is sufficient? Do classroom teachers have the time, the skill, and the will to differentiate adequately? Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 251-253. doi: 10.1177/0016986209346927
• Hockett, J. A. (2009). Curriculum for highly able learners that conforms to general education and gifted education quality indicators. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(3), 394–440.
• Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 160–189.
• Ireland, C., & Bowles, T. (2019). Increasing unrealized potential of Australian gifted secondary students. (Manuscript in preparation).
• Jolly, J. L., & Kettler, T. (2008). Gifted education research 1994-2003 A disconnect between priorities and practice. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 427-446.
• Kanevsky, L. (2011). Deferential differentiation: What types of differentiation do students want? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 279–299.
• Kline, P. (1986). A handbook of test construction. New York, NY: Methuen.
• Kulik, J. (1993). An analysis of the research on ability grouping. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, Storrs, CT. 8-9. Retrieved July 20, 2018, from: https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/research-based_resources/kulik/
• Lamb, T. E. (2004). Learning independently? Pedagogical and methodological implications of new learning environments. In Proceedings of the Independent Learning
• Conference 2003 (pp. 1–9). Lassig, C. J. (2009a). Promoting creativity in education : from policy to practice: An Australian perspective. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition: Everyday Creativity (pp. 229–238). Berkeley, CA: The Association for Computing Machinery, University of California.
• Lassig, J. (2009b) Teachers' attitudes towards the gifted : the importance of professional development and school culture. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 18(2), 32-42.
• Long, P. (1996). Student views of differentiated education for ability differences. In W. Vialle & J. Geake, J. (Eds.), The gifted enigma, a collection of articles, 2002 (pp. 279–293). Highett, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow Education.
• Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen.
• Masters, G. (2015). Challenging our most able students. Teacher Magazine. Retrieved June 23, 2018. from https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/geoff masters/.../challenging-our-most able-students
• Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2004). The inclusive classroom: strategies for effective instruction (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
• McAlpine, D., & Reid, N. A. (1996). Teacher Observation Scales for Identifying Children with Special Abilities: Teachers' Handbook. Educational Research and Development Centre, Massey University.
• Munro, J. (2003, June). How people learn'. In Keynote presentation at the Biennial Curriculum Corporation Conference How to Teach Better (Vol. 12, pp. 243-54).
• Newhouse-Maiden, L., & Washbourne, M. (1991). Experiences in gifted education: Implications for teaching strategies for a clever country. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 16(2), 30–34.
• Piirto, J. (1992). Understanding those who create. Dayton: Ohio Psychology Press. Reis, S. M., & Burns, D. (1991). Developing a thinking skills component in the Gifted Education Program. Roeper Review, 14, 72–79.
• Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 152–170
• Renzulli, J. S. (1990). A practical system for identifying gifted and talented students. Early Child Development and Care, 63(1), 9–18.
• Rimm, S. B. (1987). Why bright children underachieve: The pressures they feel. Gifted Child Today, 10, 30–36.
• Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner: Research-based decision-making series. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
• Rogers, K. B (1998). Using current research to make ‘good’ decisions about grouping. National Association of Secondary Schools Principals Bulletin, 82(595), 38-46.
• Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382–396.
• Sellar, S., & Lingard, B.( 2013). Looking east: Shanghai, PISA 2009 and the reconstitution of reference societies in the global education policy field. Comparative Education, 49, 464-485. doi: 10.1080/03050068.2013.770943
• Shaw, M. C., & McCuen, J. T. (1960). The onset of academic underachievement in bright children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 103–108.
• Szabos, J. (1989). Bright child, gifted learner. Challenge, 34(4), 3.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Tieso, C. L. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore. Roeper Review, 26(1), 29-36.
• Tomlinson, C. A., Tomchin, E. M., Callahan, C. M., Adams, C. M., Pizzat-Tinnin, P., Cunningham, C. M., & Imbeau, M. (1994). Practices of preservice teachers related to gifted and other academically diverse learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 106–114.
• Tomlinson, C.A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and Tools for Responsive Teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for the Supervision of Curriculum Development.
• Tomlinson, C., & Moon, T. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for the Supervision of Curriculum Development.
• Tomlinson, C. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for the Supervision of Curriculum Development.
• Traxler, M. (1987). Gifted education program evaluation: A national review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(2), 107–113.
• Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1986). Effective curriculum and instructional models for talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(4), 164–169.
• Van Tassel-Baska, J., Bass, G., Ries, R., Poland, D., & Avery, L. (1998). A national study of science curriculum effectiveness with high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(4), 200–211.
• Watters, J. J., & Diezmann, C. M. (2003). The gifted student in science: Fulfilling potential. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 49(3), 46–53.
• White, S., Graham, L., & Blaas, S. (2018).Why do we know so little about the factors associated with gifted underachievement? A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 24, 55-66.
• Whitmore, J. (1980) Giftedness, conflict and underachievement. Boston, MA: Allyn and Baker.
• Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books.
• Yang, M. (2006). A critical review of research on questioning in education: Limitations of its positivistic basis. Asia Pacific Education Review, 7(2), 195–204.
• Yoon, C. H. (2009), Self-regulated learning and instructional factors in the scientific inquiry of scientifically gifted Korean middle school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 203–216.
• Ziegler, A., & Raul, T. (2000). Myth and reality: A review of empirical studies on giftedness. High Ability Studies, 11, 113-136.
• Ziegler, A., Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (2012). Shortcomings of the IQ-based construct of underachievement. Roeper Review, 34, 2, 123-132.