Practices employed by participating teachers to differentiate the curriculum for the gifted

students in their class

Frank Davies

A dissertation submitted in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of

Master of Gifted Education

The Flinders University of South Australia

1

February 2002CONTENTS

Abstract..................................................................................2

Chapter 1: Literature review............................................3

Introduction.........................................................................3

Curriculum differentiation approaches................................8

Content differentiation for gifted students........................11

General principles for design of curricular processes.......17

Differentiation of process..................................................20

Differentiation of curricular products................................21

Differentiation of the learning environment......................23

Current practice................................................................26

Chapter 2: Research Design...........................................30

Theoretical perspective.....................................................30

Method..............................................................................31

Conclusion.........................................................................45

Chapter 3: Findings........................................................46

The sites............................................................................46

Findings.............................................................................48

Chapter 4: Discussion and conclusion...........................70

Environment......................................................................70

Curriculum content............................................................71

Teaching and learning process..........................................73

Products.............................................................................74

2

References......................................................................80

3

Abstract

This research is a qualitative, descriptive, and intrinsic case

study that investigates how four participating primary school

teachers differentiated the curriculum for the gifted students

in their classes. Within the literature on the education of the

gifted, there is a consensus of opinion that gifted students

require specialised provision to meet their learning needs.

This research examines the measures used by the

participating teachers to provide specifically for the gifted

students. It concludes that these students can benefit from

the same excellent teaching practices that are optimal for all

other learners. It contrasts a teacher-directed approach to

curricular delivery in which the teachers are responsible for

modifying curricular content, process and product and the

learning environment to meet the particular needs of gifted

individuals, with a student-centred approach in which all

students – including the gifted learners – are responded to

individually. The research concludes that, within the

constraints of a regular classroom, it is probably too

demanding to superimpose on a regular curriculum another

set of methods for the gifted students alone, as is required in

a teacher-directed model, but that within a student-centred

approach, the gifted students can be provided for

appropriately within the same frame as all other students.

4

Chapter 1

Literature review

INTRODUCTION

The main question that is raised in this research is ‘What

practices are participating teachers using to differentiate the

curriculum for the gifted children in their classes?’ Piirto

(1999) quotes James who comments that the education of

academically talented students has often been left to the

whims and prejudices of those who think that cream will rise

to the top and that these students do not need anything

special. James challenges planners of curricula for gifted

students to plan carefully and well so that what is planned is

appropriate and defensible.

Various authors have recommended a range of measures.

Some commentators would suggest that one of the most

powerful contributors to successful differentiation for gifted

students is the teacher. According to these writers, teachers’

personal characteristics play a large part in encouraging or

facilitating gifted students to engage effectively with the

curriculum (Feldhusen 1985; Maltby 1983; Merlin 1994;

Shaughnessy & Stockard 1996; Stanish 1994; Van Tassel-

Baska 1996). Others would suggest that appropriate provision

for gifted students must take into account their special

learning needs (Burton-Szabo 1996; Eyre 1997; Montgomery

1983, 1996; Parke & Ness 1988; Ramos-Ford & Gardner

1997; Van Tassel-Baska 1989; Winebrenner 2000). Others

5

expand this concept by highlighting the provision of

appropriate curricular content, processes, products and

learning environment (Borland 1989, 1996; Maker 1986;

Sawyer 1988; Shore and Delcourt 1996; Tomlinson 1995a,

1996, 1998, 1999b; Tomlinson & Kalbfleisch1998; Van Tassel-

Baska, 1989, 1994, 1997; Winebrenner 2000). Research into

these measures, however, is sparse and that which is

available is often carried out on small or unrepresentative

samples of gifted students (Freeman 1998).

DEFINITION OF GIFTEDNESS

In discussing a definition of giftedness the first realisation is

that there is no ‘generic giftedness’. Every gifted child is

different, as is every child whose learning skills are average.

This could, in part, account for why there have been many

definitions of giftedness (Delisle 2000; Freeman 1998; Porter

1997). Early definitions of giftedness tended to have an

emphasis on high intelligence; later definitions embraced a

broader understanding to include many domains of ability

(Gross et al. 1999). More recently, some researchers have

proposed that giftedness could include significant

advancement in a domain or domains that are highly valued

within a culture or society (Kirschenbaum 1995; Porter

1999a). Because this paper will discuss gifted students,

Gross’s understanding of the concepts of giftedness (Gross et

al. 1999: 13) is helpful as it can be interpreted within a

classroom environment:

6

Gifted children have the potential for unusually high

performance in at least one area.

Gifted children have capacity to think clearly, analytically

and evaluatively which is a prerequisite for high

performance in any area.

For the purposes of this paper, the gifted will be defined

as those who demonstrate, or who show the potential to

demonstrate high levels of ability. They are also children who

have been identified by their teachers as being gifted. This

paper seeks to examine the curricular adjustments made for

these students.

CHARACTERISTICS OF GIFTED STUDENTS

There is a common theme in the literature regarding the

characteristics of gifted students. Commentators suggest that

when teachers understand and consider these characteristics

and learning needs, they can provide more appropriately for

gifted students (Braggett 1992, 1994, 1998; Delisle 1992;

Gross et al. 1999; Winebrenner 2000).

Van Tassel-Baska (1988:14-15) comments on three

fundamental differences for gifted children, which are evident

from the research:

Precocity - The capacity to learn at faster rates.

Intensity - The capacities to find, solve and act on

problems more readily.

Complexity - The capacities to manipulate abstract ideas

and make connections, and to work at multiple levels.

7

These three fundamental differences imply particular

learning needs experienced by gifted students (Eyre 1997;

Freeman 1998; Van Tassel-Baska 1989, 1994). Each

difference should be considered when planning relevant,

meaningful and powerful learning experiences for them

(Gross et al.1999; Porter 1999a; Tomlinson 1995a, 1995b;

VanTassel-Baska 1989, 1994, 1997). This requires attention

to both pace and depth of curricula (Eyre 1997; Piirto 1998;

Porter 1999a; Sparrow 1985).

Van Tassel Baska (1996:180) encourages us to bear the

following in mind when planning for and working with gifted

students:

Not all gifted students will display all of the

characteristics.

Within each characteristic there will be a range of

responses from gifted students.

These characteristics may be viewed as developmental.

Characteristics may reveal themselves only when

students engage in an area of interest.

‘The cream’ does not automatically ‘rise to the top’.

Children’s personality and environment can help or

hinder the translation of potential into performance.

It is posited that because of these characteristics gifted

students have particular learning needs (Archambault et al.

1993; Braggett 1994, 1998; Coleman & Gallagher 1995;

Knight & Becker 2000; Maker 1986; Porter 1999a; Shore &

Delcourt 1996; Starko & Schack 1989; Tomlinson 1995a;

VanTassel-Baska 1989, 1994, 1997; Winebrenner 2000). It is

8

wise to remember Van Tassel-Baska’s (1994)

recommendation that curriculum planning needs to be

modified appropriately for specific students at each stage of

their development, instead of being designed just to meet the

general behaviours of a gifted population. On that premise,

teachers need to determine what is appropriate curriculum

for these students.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES GUIDING

CURRICULUM PLANNING

Tomlinson (1999a, 1999b) advocates that successful teaching

and learning requires two elements: student understanding

and student engagement. Both understanding and

engagement are reliant on the quality of the curricular

content and processes (Maker 1986).

There are common areas that need to be included in the

curriculum for all students. These areas will now be

discussed.

Curriculum with opportunities

All students should have access to a curriculum that provides

them with opportunities to participate and to become

effectively involved with the content, process and learning

environment. Accessing this curriculum should allow them to

attain optimal levels of learning.

Provision for social and emotional requirements

Similarly it is necessary to provide for all students’ social,

emotional, and intellectual needs (Barry & King 1998; Delisle

9

1992, 2000; Shelton 2000; Silverman 1993). However some

gifted students may require additional support as they

encounter external asynchrony as well as uneven

developmental levels (internal dissonance) (Morelock &

Morrison 1996; Porter 1999a).

Explicit teaching

The explicit teaching of skills and knowledge relating to

content provides all students with an opportunity to access

the curriculum effectively (Borland 1989; Piirto 1999; Sawyer

1988; Tomlinson 1999a, 1999b; Westwood 1997). Some gifted

students need only one or two repetitions to master concepts

and skills so teachers must plan for gifted students

accordingly (Braggett 1992, 1994, 1998; Maker 1986; Piirto

1999).

Traditional content areas with a range of methods

All students benefit from the integration of traditional content

areas with various methodologies (Sapon-Shevin 1996). Piirto

(1999) encourages teachers of gifted students to ensure that

the curriculum is interdisciplinary. Use of a variety of

teaching methodologies encourages gifted students to

maximise their potential (Gross et al. 1999; Pohl 1998;

Tomlinson 1995a, 1996, 1998, 1999b, 2000; Tomlinson &

Callahan 1992).

Child-centred curricula

All students benefit from a child-centred curriculum,

incorporating their interests (Gardner 1991; Groundwater-

10

Smith et al. 1998: 76). Gifted students often value

opportunities to pursue passions and interests that contain a

problem-solving component which encourages them to use

higher order thinking skills (Braggett et al. 1996, 1997; Pohl

1997; Winebrenner 2000).

During this paper, two models will be discussed: the ‘Top

down model’ and the ‘Bottom up model’. Users of both models

claim to support the learning needs of gifted students. In the

‘Top down model’ teacher decides, drives and manages the

curriculum differentiation. This model requires teachers to

make decisions regarding curricula, based on their

professional knowledge. They are solely responsible for

meeting the learning needs of students.

In the ‘Bottom up model’ teachers facilitate the

curriculum content, process and assessment by incorporating

the learning needs and interests of the students. Whereas the

‘Top down model’ supposes that teachers know best and they

will design, deliver and assess on the basis of their

curriculum knowledge and understanding, the ‘Bottom up

model’ encourages a community of learning, where all are

interested parties and where students’ individual strengths

and needs are the basis for, not an afterthought in, planning

(Porter 2002).

CURRICULUM DIFFERENTIATION

APPROACHES

The curriculum that is provided for gifted students needs to

be appropriately differentiated and based on careful

11

assessment and analysis of the learning needs of each student

(Braggett et al. 1997). Borland (1989: 171) succinctly

comments,

Above all else, the field of the education of the gifted exists to

provide gifted students with differentiated curricula, that is,

modified courses of study designed to make the schools more

responsive to the educational needs of these exceptional

learners. This is our primary goal and our defining mission.

Teachers of gifted students are challenged to provide

relevant and academically appropriate learning experiences

that last the whole day. Often gifted students are forced to re-

learn material that they already know, and in many cases

enduring this repetitious work can lead to boredom and

disciplinary problems (Starko 1986).

Parke and Ness (1988: 197) provide helpful guidance

when considering the curricular content provisions for gifted

students:

Much of curricular decision-making and planning comes down

to a question of balance. The curriculum must be balanced to

respond to the unique learning needs of the gifted and their

unusual make-up.

While educators of the gifted are unanimous in their

endorsement of curriculum differentiation for gifted students,

other educators struggle with the ‘appearance’ of elitism.

Sapon-Shevin (1996) questions the need for differentiated

curricula for gifted students. She suggests that all groups in

12

the classroom benefit from differentiation, and that all groups

need ‘hands on’ activities that are relevant and meaningful.

Sapon-Shevin argues that no student benefits from endless

worksheets, so why are enrichment activities reserved for the

few ‘gifted students’?

Borland (1989: 192) continues the theme,

Whenever a school’s microcomputers are reserved for the

exclusive use of the gifted, whenever only the gifted are

allowed to go on field trips, whenever tryouts for the Odyssey

of the Mind team are limited to students in the ‘gifted

program’, elitism is being practiced. [sic]

Tomlinson (1995a, 1999c, 1996) agrees that some

teaching practices used for gifted students should be used for

all students. Teachers could ask the question, ‘Aren’t all

students entitled to curriculum that is rich in content and

varied in process?’ What criterion must be met before a

student is able to access learning experiences that deviate

from the ‘norm’? Although this argument appears more

philosophical than practical, it feeds the analysis of the

findings obtained in this study (-see chapter 4).

This argument aside, Van Tassel-Baska (1997: 131)

suggests that the basic curriculum needs to be tailored for

gifted students in a variety of ways. These suggestions are

supported by other commentators and include the following

aspects.

Curriculum content

Recommended content differentiation measures include:

13

provisions for acceleration and compression of content

(Reis & Purcell 1993);

integration of content by key ideas, issues and themes

(Tomlinson 1998, 1999a, 1999b);

advanced reading levels (Van Tassel-Baska 1996).

Process

Methods to differentiate teaching and learning processes

comprise:

instruction in higher-order thinking skills (Langrehr

1996; Pohl 1998; Wassermann 1987);

employment of various learning styles (Gardner 1991,

1995);

fostering collective talent development for all learners

(Renzulli & Reis 1994);

provision of opportunities for independent learning based

on student capacity and interest (Borland 1989; Sizer

1999);

use of inquiry-based instructional techniques (Tomlinson

1995a, 1996, 1999a, 1999b).

Product

Product differentiation mainly entails providing opportunities

for gifted students to develop advanced products (Renzulli &

Reis 1994; Stephens 1996).

Environment

In order to foster students’ motivation to extend their own

learning and to ensure that they feel safe about intellectual

14

risk taking, the social climate in a classroom needs to be

accepting and encouraging.

Content differentiation for gifted students

When reviewing the literature for indicators to evaluate the

quality of curricular content, the following questions emerge

for consideration (Braggett 1992, 1994, 1998; Brunner 1960,

in Maker 1986; Gross et al 1999; Hoover 1996, in Gross et al,

1999; Knight & Becker 2000; Maker & Neilson 1995; McCann

& Southern 1996; Passow 1982; Renzulli & Reis 1994; Starko

1986; Tomlinson 1995a, 1995b, 1998, 1999a, 2000; Van

Tassel-Baska 1994, 1996; Whitlock & DuCette 1989;

Winebrenner 2000).

Are the concepts being taught, of worth to an adult?

Will the child learning these concepts become a better

adult?

Do all students easily manage the content?

Is acceleration (when gifted students meet curricular

goals at an earlier age or at a faster pace than is typical)

encouraged if the students demonstrate mastery of

skills?

Does the content focus on complexity, problem solving

and does it encourage higher order thinking skills?

Are students consistently required to submit generic

products, or are negotiation and choice involved?

Are the concepts and curricular content relevant and

meaningful for the students?

15

Are the differentiation methods clearly definable in

content?

Is the teacher appropriately skilled and is he/she

interested in this content?

When curriculum differentiation takes place, three main

modifications occur - namely, acceleration, enrichment and

extension. These measures will now be discussed.

Acceleration

Borland (1989: 185) offers a concise understanding of

acceleration:

By acceleration I refer to educational provisions whereby

students meet curricular goals at an earlier age or at a faster

pace than is typical. Well known forms of acceleration include

grade skipping; early entrance to kindergarten or college;

ungraded schools; and special-progress classes, in which a

class of students completes, for example, three years’ worth of

work in two years.

Acceleration may be the one practice that is exclusively

recommended for gifted students (Sisk 1988). Porter (1999a:

179) suggests that the aims of acceleration include:

avoiding boredom and any resultant behavioural

difficulties;

the promotion of good study skills including higher-order

thinking skills and motivation;

allowing children to mix with intellectual peers.

16

The practice of acceleration incorporates the appropriate

developmental placement of a student who is learning at

advanced levels; it adjusts the pace of delivery and reception

of instruction (Borland 1989; Braggett 1994, 1998; Gross et

al. 1999; Porter 1999a; Shore & Delcourt 1996). Acceleration

facilitates the quantity of children’s learning, while

enrichment and extension focus on its quality (Borland 1989;

Braggett 1994, 1998; Porter 1999a).

Acceleration can be provided and achieved in a variety of

ways (Bentley 2000; Braggett 1992; Gross et al. 1999;

Landvogt 1997; Rogers & Kimpston 1992; Shore et al. 1991;

Starko 1986; Stanley 1976, 1996; Southern et al. 2000; Van

Tassel-Baska 1992), including:

early entrance to school;

grade skipping;

non-graded classroom (whereby the students work

through appropriate curricular materials in line with

their academic levels),

grade telescoping (allowing students to finish courses in

less time, e.g. two years instead of three);

concurrent enrolment of subjects;

subject acceleration;

mentorship (whereby a student is teamed with an expert

in a particular field of interest who guides the student).

Historically, teachers have resisted acceleration (Rogers

& Kimpston 1992; Gross et al. 1999). Arguments raised

question gifted students’ abilities to accommodate the social

and emotional challenges involved in advanced placements,

17

and also the differential physical development between the

gifted and older children (Maltby 1984). Yet there is growing

evidence to show that gifted students do adjust socially and

emotionally (Borland 1989; Gross et al. 1999; Porter 1999a;

Shore et al. 1991).

Tomlinson (1996) draws our attention also to curriculum

compacting. This is an ‘instructional strategy that can be used

by classroom teachers to modify or eliminate curricular

material that has already been mastered, or can be mastered

in a fraction of time by students of above average ability’

(Reis & Purcell 1993: 147). Curriculum compacting facilitates

the delivery of curricular content at a faster pace to reflect

gifted students’ more efficient learning. Porter proposes

three phases of curriculum compacting: first, identifying the

goals and outcomes of a given activity; second, determining

who can already achieve those goals; third, providing

extension activities instead (Porter 1999a: 186). Westberg

(1995) gives a practical example from a fifth-grade student,

who is explaining curriculum compacting in his classroom:

We take a pre-test on a chapter and if we get better than 90

percent score, we don’t do that chapter. We move ahead a

chapter or do other things with it or sometimes we do different

work. I don’t have to do math I already know. I get to skip that

part of it.

It is particularly powerful that a fifth grader is able to

give an account of curriculum compacting and how it

conceptually benefits him. Curriculum compacting has

18

relevance and meaning for him, and thus he is able to apply

the principles in becoming an independent learner,

embracing responsibility for his progress. (Gross et al 1999;

Reis & Purcell 1993; Reis et al 1993, 1998; Reis & Renzulli

1992; Shore et al. 1991; Starko 1986).

When moving gifted students through the content quickly

(that is, by using acceleration), they will necessarily be

exposed earlier to more varied educational experiences

(enrichment) (Braggett 1994, 1998).

Enrichment

Enrichment is a second method for differentiating content.

Braggett (1994: 79) explains enrichment and extension

activities as:

activities that are really designed to broaden and develop

children’s experiences without going into much depth

(enrichment activities) …and other activities that are designed

to deepen and develop. More usually it is a mixture of both

with the emphasis changing from time to time.

Thus, enrichment refers to a broad provision of

resources and educational experiences related to the needs

and interests of gifted children (Braggett 1994, 1998;

Freeman 1998; Knight & Becker 2000; Porter 1999a;

Tomlinson 1995a, 1998, 1999b, 2000). Enrichment is used to

refer to curriculum as well as program delivery. It refers to

richer, more varied educational experiences, a curriculum

that has been modified or added to in some way (Schiever &

Maker 1997: 113). Under enrichment provisions, gifted

19

students are able to remain in the regular classroom and,

without obvious labelling, have access to appropriate

activities (Landvogt 1997).

The literature consistently acknowledges that all

students benefit from enrichment activities, but the gifted

especially so (Braggett 1992, 1994; Braggett et al. 1996,

1997; Gentry et al. 1999; Kerry & Kerry 1999; Moon et al.

1994; van Bavel 1994; Whybra 2000). Nevertheless, diligent

attention needs to be given to the planning of enrichment

activities so that they have relevance and meaning for

students (Borland 1989; Maker & Nielson 1996; Sawyer

1988; Schiever & Maker 1997). Stanley (1976) posits that

enrichment activities can often be worthless because they

lack academic rigour.

Extension

Extension is the third form of content differentiation. It

incorporates a deepening of curricular content (Braggett

1994, 1998; Eyre 1997; Freeman 1998; Gross et al. 1999;

Porter 1999a; Tomlinson 1995a, 1998, 1999a,1999b). The

South Australian Department for Education and Children’s

Services (DECS) released a Gifted Education policy

implementation guide which explains that extension is a

generic term incorporating a range of activities which

encourage students to extend their understanding, skills and

appreciation of a topic or concept (DECS 1996). Extension

activities might include the provision of learning centres,

resource based learning, mentors, problem solving and

summer schools.

20

Social and emotional aspects

In addition, when adjusting curricula the gifted children’s

emotional and social requirements should be catered for

(Delisle 1992; Gross 1993; Silverman 1993; Stanish 1988).

One measure to achieve this is the provision of an optimal

environment that will support them as they deal with the

social and emotional challenges that are particular to being

gifted (Delisle 1994; Gross et al. 1999; Knight & Becker 2000;

Porter 1999a; Stanish 1988, 1994; Starko & Schack 1989;

VanTassel-Baska 1989, 1994, 1997; Whitton 1997).

General principles for design of curricular

processes

The process is the way in which the curricular content is

presented to and experienced by the students and also how

the educator teaches. It is also the questions that are asked of

the students and the mental or physical activities that are

expected by the educator. It involves students’ participation

and thought processes. The differentiation of processes can

be teacher directed, negotiated with students or a

combination. While curriculum content is a quantitative

aspect, curriculum process is qualitative (Gross et al. 1999;

Maker 1982; Tomlinson 1998, 1999a, 1999b).

Developing thinking skills

To modify appropriately the curricular processes for gifted

students, teachers can modify the level or type of thought

processes required (Maker 1982, 1989). This involves

assisting students to use higher-order thinking skills as well

21

as using lower-level thinking, as appropriate. When this

happens gifted students are not merely acquiring knowledge,

but they are effectively using knowledge.

There are many classification systems of thinking skills.

The most commonly used is the Taxonomy of Educational

Objectives proposed by Bloom (1956). This is a hierarchical

taxonomy where each level is dependent on the previous one

to lay a foundation. The lower levels of thinking processes

are:

knowledge;

comprehension;

application;

and the higher-order thinking skills comprise:

analysis;

synthesis;

evaluation.

Maker (1982: 36) outlines other classifications which

emphasise strategies for use rather than acquisition of

information.

Maker and Nielson (1986) recommend teaching

techniques that help to develop thinking skills and that

support students in their progression from one level or stage

of cognitive development to the next. As well as the

development of higher levels of thinking skills Ristow (1988)

suggests that the explicit teaching of thinking skills also

improves the creativity skills of students.

The above techniques are generally those labelled

‘process’ or ‘how to think’ activities. These strategies are

22

crucial, given that the defining characteristic of giftedness is

advanced thinking (Porter 1999a). When students store

knowledge without thought or process, that knowledge is at

best merely a ‘collection of miscellaneous facts’ (Wassermann

1987: 463).

Maker (1982, 1989) reports that research shows that

teachers are a major player in students’ performance in this

area. Students will rise to their teachers’ expectations. If

teachers ask low-level thinking questions, they will receive

low-level thinking responses; if teachers ask questions that

involve synthesis, evaluation and analysis, they are more

likely to receive responses reflecting those higher-order

thinking processes (Schlichter 1988). However, Richetti and

Sheerin (1999) purport that most questioning strategies used

by teachers do little to help students integrate their thinking.

These writers suggest that lower-level thinking processes do

not encourage students to use logic or to build a well-

considered conclusion. Richetti and Sheerin believe that a

fundamental flaw may lie in that the questions have their

origin within the teacher and not the students.

In teaching thinking skills, educators need to keep their

focus on meaningful content; it is not enough merely to teach

these skills, they must be integrated with appropriate

curriculum content (Borland 1989, 1997; Coleman 1995;

Nisbet 1990; Sawyer 1988; Schlichter 1988; Tomlinson 1996,

1998; Tomlinson & Kalbfleisch 1998).

23

Motivation

Motivation of gifted students to engage in the learning

activity and to benefit from it is another key aspect of

teaching and learning processes. There is much discussion

regarding the role that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation play

within gifted children. Intrinsic motivation is where one is

motivated by the task itself and engages in behaviour in the

absence of an external reward (Mares 1994; McNabb 1997);

extrinsic motivation is originated by anything outside of the

task or the person. Researchers have found that, in general,

intellectually gifted children have higher intrinsic motivation

than students who have not been identified as gifted

(Hoekman et al. 1999).

The concept of motivation has been widely discussed by

educators and gifted education commentators and many

would agree that motivation is the difference between

potential and performance (McNabb 1997). The following are

reasons why gifted students might not realise their potential.

As schoolwork becomes harder some students might

believe that they lack the necessary study skills and thus

fall ‘behind’.

Students whose self-esteem flows from their outward

show of giftedness might give up when they cannot

always shine.

Schoolwork that is below their capabilities or is

monotonous will result in loss of motivation.

Students who are required to work consistently in groups

with no intellectual peers can become unmotivated

24

(Grambo 1994; Hoekman et al. 1999; Mares 1994;

McNabb 1997; Porter 1999a).

This implies that teachers could effectively support their

gifted students by being aware of these needs and providing

appropriately for them.

Differentiation of process

Tomlinson comments (1999a: 16):

differentiated instruction must dignify each learner with

learning that is ‘whole,’ important and meaning making. The

core of what the students learn remains relatively steady. How

the student learns – including degree of difficulty, working

arrangements, modes of expression, and sorts of scaffolding –

may vary considerably. Differentiation is not so much the

‘stuff’ as the ‘how’. If the ‘stuff’ is ill conceived, the ‘how’ is

doomed.

When differentiating curricular processes the teacher

might modify the level of thinking required, the pace of

content taught, the type of approach used.

These areas are broad and fairly general. Specifically,

teachers need to incorporate some, if not all, of the following

features to ensure effective differentiation of processes. The

differentiation of curricular processes needs to (adapted from

Maker & Neilson 1986; Porter 1999a):

be facilitated by a teacher who interacts positively with

students;

25

encourage students to be active in their learning, where

students combine negotiating curricula, with acceptance

of the conceptual development map of the teacher;

emphasise and encourage higher order thinking skills

and to facilitate the problem solving of problems that

were ‘worth solving’;

provide content that incorporates problem solving and

open ended activities that are concept, not topic, based;

require students to take initiative in using a variety of

study methods. This would incorporate independent

learning, collaborative partnerships and small group

learning;

provide activities that offer a range of sensory

experiences and various learning styles.

The methods used to differentiate the curricular

processes are a means to an end. The curriculum wealth does

not lie in the processes themselves but within their ability to

facilitate engagement of high-quality learning (Borland 1989,

1996; Maker 1986; Shore et al. 1991; Tomlinson 1995a,

1995b, 1999a; Van Tassel Baska 1994, 1997).

Differentiation of curricular products

Tomlinson (2000: 43) defines curriculum product as:

a vehicle through which a student shows (and extends) what

he or she has come to understand and can do as a result of a

considerable segment of learning.

26

Students create curricular products in response to the

learning tasks presented, the resources available and their

own skills and abilities. Products can demonstrate gifted

students’ learning at advanced levels as they move beyond

typical research activities to the development of individual

talents and curiosities and the presentation of their findings

to appropriate audiences (Winebrenner 2000).

Curricular products are integrally linked with the

assessment of student progress; therefore it is crucial to

ensure that the product that is required by the assessor and

created by the student is truly reflective of student progress.

This requires the teacher to include a variety of product

options, with each option having the potential to provide

rigour and meaning for students. Gross et al. (1999: 43)

recommend that for gifted students it is especially important

that these products address a real problem or concern rather

than be simple summations of content. Ideally products

should clearly demonstrate a genuine application of problem-

solving skills and use of higher-order thinking ability, instead

of a mere acquisition of knowledge (Maker 1986). Equally the

presentations should be to a ‘real audience’ (Renzulli & Reis

1994).

The following are steps that a teacher could take to

ensure effective product development (adapted from Borland

1989, 1997; Kettle et al. 1998; Stephens 1996; Tomlinson

1999b).

Provide learning experiences and content that have

academic rigour and that will engage students.

27

Provide a classroom where negotiation is encouraged.

Clearly communicate and negotiate what students need

to produce to demonstrate that they understand and

what they can now do as a result of the work undertaken.

Provide a variety of possible curricular product formats.

Provide resources, support and scaffolding for high-

quality success, ‘inservice’ students in research skills,

provide a mentor for students to discuss their ideas, and

negotiate time lines.

Provide variation in response to differences in student

readiness and learning profiles.

Differentiation of the learning environment

Traditionally the learning environment has been teacher

directed and driven. The teacher would decide on seating

arrangements, timetables, what and how work would be

displayed, and the teacher would also be entirely responsible

for the curriculum programme in the classroom (Barry & King

1998). In this learning environment, students and in

particular gifted students had to adapt to survive.

Teachers can facilitate and implement differentiation of

the learning environment by considering some of the aspects

of learning needs previously raised in this paper. Gifted

students have more possibility of accessing the curriculum

effectively when they are in an environment that is (Berger

1991; Braggett 1992, 1998; Clark 1998; Delisle 2000;

Grambo 1994; Sparrow 1985; Tomlinson 1995a, 1998, 1999a,

1999b; Westberg 1995; Winebrenner 1992):

28

a physically safe place;

a pleasant place to be (clean, bright, and organised);

supportive of risk taking.

In examining appropriate differentiation of the learning

environment, we cannot ignore the pivotal role that the

teacher exercises within the learning environment. The

teacher is an important variable in any learning environment

(Clark 1997; Maker 1986; Seeley 1979, 1989). Van Tassel-

Baska (1994:65) supports this view:

One can build great curriculum designs and structure

meaningful clusters of activities that have relevant content,

process and concept outcomes specified that would still be

totally ineffective with gifted learners. Why? Because the piece

of the puzzle that is still missing is the instructional glue - the

processes and strategies employed by a good teacher to make

the curriculum come alive and work in the classroom setting.

Smith (1971 cited by Maddux et al. 1985: 160) identified

two emphases in research on the impact of teachers: one

highlights teacher personality and attitudinal variables and

the other emphasises cognitive variables. Feldhusen (1985)

noted that much of the research thus far has focussed on:

personal and psychological characteristics of the teacher

of the gifted;

behaviours that set excellent teachers of the gifted apart

from other teachers;

competencies which the teacher ought to possess;

the design of in-service training;

29

the professional capabilities of teacher trainers.

Maddux and his colleagues (1985) consulted with gifted

students and asked them to rate the characteristics of

effective teachers. This was achieved by asking them to write

about their favourite and least favourite teacher. Fifty-four

descriptors were produced and then a team of experts in the

field of gifted education was asked to sort them according to

headings (Personal/social characteristics, cognitive

characteristics and creative characteristics). These

descriptors were then returned to students in the form of

question triads. Each triad included three sentences, each of

which had a different descriptor from each of the headings.

Students were asked to grade each sentence in the triad

according to importance.

The researchers found that gifted students valued highly

the following teacher characteristics:

Personal/social characteristics

friendliness

confidence in students

sense of humour

Cognitive characteristics

knowledge of subject taught

imagination

teaching of useful information

Creative characteristics

open class discussions

30

treatment of students as adults

organised teaching

In the research conducted by Knight and Becker (2000),

students were asked to comment on various topics that

included positive aspects about their ‘best’ teacher, how they

learnt best, and what motivated them. The positive aspects

reported were as follows:

fairness

encourages and supports all students in the class

good sense of humour

makes learning fun

aims to challenge students

shares the same interests/activities as mentors

It needs to be remembered that these lists generated by

gifted students might not be representative of all students,

but they are indicative of the need for balance. The teacher

needs to be able to deliver meaningful content and learning

activities in a creative and respectful way, while developing

strong, enjoyable relationships. This is good teaching practice

that is applicable for both gifted and average students.

CURRENT PRACTICE

The measures just reviewed are well-recognised within the

field of the education of the gifted. However, their

implementation in classrooms is thought to be rare. On this

issue, there is little empirically researched data (Archambault

et al. 1993; Westberg & Archambault 1997; Westberg et al.

31

1993; Westberg et al. 1997). The National Research Center

on the Gifted and Talented (in U.S.A.) conducted two studies

of regular classroom practices during 1990-1993. To date,

this has been the largest research project collecting data on

classroom practice. The two studies consisted of a survey

(Archambault et al. 1993) and an observational study

(Westberg et al. 1993).

The Classroom Practices Survey, which randomly

sampled over 7000 grade three and four teachers about their

classroom provision for gifted students found (Archambault et

al. 1993: 110) that most teachers reported making ‘only

minor modifications’ to the curriculum to meet the needs of

gifted students.

The second study was the Classroom Practices

Observation Study, which entailed semi-structured

observations conducted in 46 third or fourth grade

classrooms. This study focussed on the extent to which gifted

students received modifications in curricular activities,

materials, and student-teacher verbal interactions in the

classroom. The authors of this research attained similar

findings to those arrived at by surveying teachers – namely:

that little differentiation in the instructional and curricular

practices is provided to gifted and talented students in the

regular classroom.

Westberg et al. (1993: 139)

In Australia, the Regular Classroom Practices Survey

was conducted (Whitton 1997). This research methodology

32

paralleled the survey study conducted by Archambault and

colleagues (1993). This survey enquired into the classroom

practices and provision for gifted students of 606 teachers

(drawn from Government, Catholic and Private schools). The

findings concurred with the USA research that only minor

modifications were being made in classrooms for gifted

students. Whitton (1997) noted that teachers who did provide

for gifted students often primarily used open-ended

discussions and asked open-ended questions and questions

that required gifted students to demonstrate reasoning and

logical thinking. While this is valuable for gifted students,

Whitton (1997) makes the point that these strategies are not

unique for gifted students.

There are researchers, though, who do believe that

gifted students are having their learning needs met in the

classroom. Kerry and Kerry (1997, 1999, 2000) purport that

teachers are differentiating the curriculum for gifted

students, but that it is within their contextualised

understanding. These researchers found that teachers did not

accept the blanket advice given in gifted education texts in

regard to recommended methods of differentiation; in fact

they viewed these with scepticism. The teachers took only the

advice that was relevant for their gifted students. The

researchers concluded, therefore, that teachers understood

the ‘advice’ through the filter of their own experience and

that, while some teachers may appear not to be following the

dogma of the gifted education experts, they are in fact

33

differentiating the curriculum in a way that is uniquely

appropriate for their class.

Smith and Chan (1998) surveyed 166 teachers from 23

Catholic schools, and found that the teachers had high levels

of understanding regarding the learning needs of gifted

students. Smith and Chan also found that a large percentage

of the teachers reported consistently differentiating the

curriculum to meet those needs.

Similarly, Rash and Miller (2000) surveyed 135 teachers

regarding their classroom practices. The participating

teachers all reported consistently using appropriate

methodology, meeting the learning needs of their students.

These teachers were specifically employed as teachers of

gifted students, and all had specific and explicit training in

gifted education.

Delisle (1994, 2000) also supports the view that

differentiation is taking place to a large extent in schools,

refuting the 1994 U.S.A. federal report on gifted education

which declares that U.S. schools are not serving gifted and

talented students. Delisle (1994: 32) bases his opinion on his

extensive contact with schools, gifted educators and his long

involvement in gifted education. Delisle is possibly one of the

few world-renowned commentators who is still teaching

gifted students each week and so his comments cannot be

dismissed when coupled with his rich experience in gifted

education (Delisle 1998). Nevertheless, it must be noted that

these comments are based on anecdotal evidence rather than

on a representative sample.

34

From the findings of these studies it would appear that

gifted students are being catered for inconsistently at best,

and barely at all, at worst (Borland 1989, 1996; Eyre 1997;

Knight & Becker 2000; Landvogt 1997; Moltzen 1998;

Winebrenner, 2000; Young & Tyre 1992). The findings imply

that teachers lack a thorough understanding of the need of

gifted students for curriculum differentiation, or that there

are some blocks to the implementation of differentiation

measures. This could be the result of inadequate teacher

education training that leaves new teachers insufficiently

equipped to cater for the needs of gifted students (Carrington

& Bailey 2000; Cashion & Sullenger 2000; Gear 1979;

Hansen & Feldhusen 1994; Tomlinson et al. 1994; Tomlinson

1996).

CONCLUSION

This chapter has reviewed the learning needs and

characteristics of gifted students. Methods for appropriate

differentiation of curriculum content, process and product

have been outlined. The role of the teacher in differentiation

of the learning environment has also been acknowledged.

This review informs the present research in its examination of

the curriculum differentiation measures being employed by

participating teachers. In order to draw conclusions on this

issue, an appropriate research method is crucial. This will

now be described.

35

Chapter 2

Research design

A research design is the logic that links data to be collected

(and the conclusions to be drawn) to the initial questions of

study .

Yin (1994: 18)

The research design is a plan for guiding the process of

collecting, analysing and interpreting observations, so that

the research moves from its original questions to some

conclusions (Yin 1994). A sound research design becomes a

blueprint for the ‘action plan’ of the research to be

undertaken. It will include what questions to ask, what data

are relevant and how to analyse the results (Yin 1994). It

presents a logical sequence that connects the empirical data

to the study’s initial research questions and, ultimately, to its

conclusions (Yin 1998). At the same time, it preserves design

flexibility (Marshall & Rossman 1999).

When deciding upon a research design, it is imperative

to allow research questions to determine the research genre

that is used (Janesick 1998; Yin 1998). This will now be

described.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

This study adheres to a constructivist paradigm, which Crotty

(1998: 42) describes as:

36

the view that all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful

reality as such, is contingent upon human practices, being

constructed in and out of interaction between human beings

and their world, and developed and transmitted within an

essentially social context.

Constructivism empowers the researcher and

participants to work together, rather than independently of

each other, to develop knowledge. Through this interaction,

participants demonstrate how they perceive their role and the

researcher observes and interprets these responses,

according to his or her understanding (Guba & Lincoln 1998).

Constructivism contends that a researcher approaches a

study with a theoretical base and assumptions already

established and that it is thus naïve to claim that research is

objective (Borland 1990). This subjectivity is not only

inevitable but is also desirable: ‘You should bring your own

prior, expert knowledge to your case study’ (Yin 1994: 124,

original emphasis). The researcher’s values provide a frame

of reference which drives research questions and how the

resulting data are understood (Stake 1995, 1998).

In the constructionist view, meaning is not discovered

but constructed. Constructivists believe in an inductive

approach to research where theory is developed from the

data (Guba 1990) and understanding is the ultimate goal

rather than prediction and control of outcomes (Guba &

Lincoln 1998).

37

METHOD

This research is a qualitative, descriptive, and intrinsic case

study. To follow is an explanation for each choice.

The first characteristic of this case study is that it is

qualitative. This research is qualitative as opposed to

quantitative because it focuses on understanding the complex

interrelationships involved in the case whereas quantitative

researchers have looked for explanation and control (Bouma

2000; Stake 1995). It is also qualitative because of the case

and sites. The case is the differentiation of the curriculum and

the sites are classrooms.

The second characteristic of this case study is that it is

descriptive in that it seeks to document and describe a

phenomenon of interest. This is in contrast (Marshall &

Rossman 1999; Yin 1994) with an exploratory case study,

which seeks to develop pertinent hypotheses and propositions

for further inquiry; and an explanatory case study that asks

‘how’ and ‘why’ questions and seeks to provide explanations.

The third characteristic of this case study is that it is

intrinsic. This means that researchers become interested in a

particular case or situation. Interest in the case is driven not

because by studying it we learn about other cases or about

some general problem, but because we need to learn about

that particular case.

Salient features of this qualitative case study are that it

took place using naturalistic inquiry in a naturalistic setting

(Merriam 1988), and it was holistic, looking at the larger

38

picture of providing appropriately for gifted students

(Janesick 1998; Stake 1995, 1998).

Yin (1998: 230) suggests that when embarking on a case

study, at least two key ingredients are required:

The capability to deal with diversity of evidence. This

study uses direct observation, documentation (policies)

and informal interviews.

The ability to articulate research questions and

theoretical propositions. The research questions need to

direct the research project and will determine research

design. The more ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions are used, the

more relevant a case study is.

Site selection

The researcher needs to consider where to observe, when to

observe, whom to observe and what to observe. In short,

sampling in field research involves the selection of a research

site, time, people and events.

Burgess (1982: 76, cited by Merriam 1988: 47)

Stake (1995) states that when selecting research sites, it is

useful to choose sites that will maximise what we can learn.

He also suggests that our time as researchers is often limited

so it is appropriate to select sites that are easy to get to and

hospitable to our inquiry (Stake 1995: 4). The site

requirements for this research are that:

all the sites are classrooms;

all the classrooms have at least one student whom the

teacher considers to be gifted;

39

all the gifted students are in middle primary (grades 3-5).

Four schools were selected: two were in the Adelaide

metropolitan area and two in rural/semi rural areas.

Data collection methods

Each site was visited a maximum of five times, spending two

to three hours in observation at each visit. In the first school,

observation times totalled 11 hours; in the second and third

schools, approximately 10 hours; and in the fourth school

approximately 9 hours. Each site was visited in term three of

2001.

Stake (1995) claimed that one of the principal

qualifications of qualitative researchers is experience. The

qualitative researcher benefits from knowing, understanding

and recognising good sources of data. Through the literature

review, the questions that evolved and my experience as an

educator, my eyes were sharpened to observe indicators of

curriculum differentiation for gifted students.

Data collection techniques

The techniques used in this study were naturalistic

observation, conversations with the teachers and reviewing

documentation. These will now be discussed.

Naturalistic observation

Marshall and Rossman (1999: 107) define observation as ‘the

systematic noting and recording of events, behaviours, and

artifacts in the social setting chosen for study’. Bouma (2000:

40

180) states that naturalistic observation emphasises ‘the

value of unobtrusive examination of real life situations in

order to reduce the error introduced into studies by

researcher bias and measurement effects’.

In this research non-participant observation methods

were used, whereby observations were conducted with

minimal interaction with students and teachers. The rationale

for choosing this form of observation was to obtain a clear

picture of the practices that the participating teachers were

using to differentiate the curriculum for the gifted students in

their classes, without altering the classroom dynamics more

than necessary. During observation visits it was possible to be

an observer and to observe recurring patterns of behaviour

and relationships (Marshall & Rossman 1999).

After each observation time was taken for reflective and

analytical noting (Glesne 1999). This was a time to write up

observations and interpretations formally, and to make short-

and long-term plans for the next visit.

Conversations with teachers

When subjects or informants talk, their utterances are not

taken as more or less accurate or authentic reports about

circumstances, conduct, states of mind, or other reportables.

Instead, the talk is considered as the very action through

which local realities are accomplished.

Holstein and Gubrium (1988: 143)

Qualitative researchers need to look for clarification of the

case as well as multiple views of the case (Stake 1995). This

41

was achieved by informal discussions and clarifying

conversations with teachers, which took place in the staff

room. These discussions permitted progressive focusing and

were semi-structured, which is defined by Kvale (1996: 5-6)

as ’an interview whose purpose is to obtain descriptions of

the life world of the interviewee with respect to interpreting

the meaning of the described phenomena’. Through it the

researcher can gain participants’ insights into their practice.

Within a semi-structured interview, there is flexibility for

changes of sequence of questions, topics and forms of

questions (Kvale 1996). As suggested by Merriam (1988:78-

79) the types of open-ended questions include:

experience/behaviour questions aimed at eliciting the

participating teacher’s experience in differentiating the

curriculum for gifted students;

opinion/value questions to ascertain what informants

believe works effectively for gifted students in their

classes;

feeling questions aimed at understanding the teachers’

emotional response to teaching gifted students;

knowledge questions aimed at the teachers’

understanding of the theories of appropriate

differentiation of curricula;

background/demographic questions that detailed their

training, years of experience in working with gifted

students.

42

Reviewing documentation

Except for studies of preliterate societies, documentary

information is likely to be relevant to every case study topic.

This type of information can take many forms and should be

the object of explicit data collection plans.

Yin (1994: 81)

The reviewing of documents can be unobtrusive and

illuminating. Documents provide a rich insight into the beliefs

and values of the participants and of the culture of the site

(Marshall & Rossman 1999). The documentation that was

sought and considered in this research included:

policies on provision for gifted students formulated

within the school;

policies formulated outside of the school (eg. DETE), or

in conjunction with a school board relating to the

appropriate provision for gifted students;

professional development notes/ articles written by the

participating teachers;

participating teachers’ teaching programmes (aims and

objectives);

programmes that were embraced by the participating

teachers, and implemented within the classroom or

school eg. Tournament of the Minds etc.;

newspaper articles relating to provision for gifted

students in the classroom.

Stake (1995: 68) advises that:

43

gathering data by studying documents follows the same line of

thinking as observing or interviewing. One needs to have one’s

mind organized, yet be open for unexpected clues.

The schools’ internal gifted education policy establishes

what the staff are hoping to achieve with gifted students. The

DETE gifted education policy requires adherence by DETE

schools and therefore should be in use within classrooms. As

teachers share their daily/weekly preparation programmes it

enables the researcher to understand explicit considerations

and provision for gifted students.

One advantage of reviewing documentation is that it can

be validated easily (Marshall & Rossman 1999). Nevertheless,

the research questions and the case need to have priority

when choosing and reviewing documentation: one needs to

ask whether the documentation contains pertinent

information or insights and whether it can be acquired in a

reasonably practical yet systematic manner (Merriam

1988:105).

Data recording formats

Observation is a research tool when it (1) serves a formulated

research purpose, (2) is planned deliberatively, (3) is recorded

systematically, and (4) is subjected to checks and controls on

validity and reliability.

Kidder (198lb: 264, cited by Merriam 1988: 88)

The following variety of formats to record data were used:

44

‘user friendly’ observation sheets, which highlighted

particular areas for observation;

class floor plans, which were drawn during observation

visits;

informal clarifying interviews with teachers (notes were

taken at the time and transcribed more fully at a later

date);

reflective journal recorded impressions, patterns, and

progressive focussing questions to ask;

All of these resulting documents were stored in a secure

and lockable location and remained confidential during and

after the research project. Any electronic data has been

password protected.

Data analysis

Data analysis involves organising what you have seen, heard,

and read so that you can make sense of what you have learned.

Working with the data, you describe, create explanations, pose

hypotheses, develop theories, and link your story to other

stories. To do so you must categorise, synthesise, search for

patterns, and interpret the data you have collected.

Glesne (1999: 130)

Early and ongoing analysis allows researchers to form

generalisations and interpret what they see and hear (Glesne

1999; Stake 1995). As the research progressed there was a

need to develop a coding system to categorise the data

(Bouma 2000; Stake 1995). Burns (2000: 432) explains that

45

coding involves classifying material into themes, issues,

topics, concepts and propositions. Throughout the research

recurring themes and categories were consistently looked for.

This led to consistent ‘progressive focussing’ (Burns 2000;

Stake 1995) whereby as issues and questions emerged, they

were incorporated and allowed to redirect focus for

subsequent observations.

Based on Merriam’s (1988: 125-6) advice, it was

determined that there were sufficient data to conclude

observations when:

data sources had been exhausted;

data saturation had been reached (that is, very little new

data were being generated);

patterns and regularities had emerged;

over-extension had been achieved (new data being

researched are far from the research questions).

Formal analysis began with initial coding of ‘clumps’ of

data. This helped to identify concepts or main ideas. The

‘clumps’ required further re-coding involving classifying and

sorting the data contained therein (Glesne 1999).

During this research common threads emerged as

teachers performed their role as educators. Consistency was

expected, but distinctiveness was also looked for (Stake 1995,

1998).

RESEARCH ISSUES

Researchers must demonstrate credibility and integrity to

enable readers to have confidence in the research. There is a

46

need for research to be accurate and logical (Stake 1995).

This will be assisted if qualitative researchers apply Patton’s

three questions (Patton 1990, cited by Janesick 1998):

What techniques and methods were used to ensure the

integrity, validity, and accuracy of the findings?

What does the researcher bring to the study in terms of

experience and qualifications?

What assumptions undergird the study?

There need to be criteria for judging the integrity of

research, which focuses on the trustworthiness of results. To

maintain integrity, the researcher needs to establish and

maintain correct operational procedures (Stake 1995). It

takes three forms:

credibility (internal validity);

dependability (reliability); and

transferability (external validity).

Credibility (internal validity)

Validity deals with how the research findings match reality:

do they capture what is really there? Credibility is achieved

when a study conveys faithful descriptions of the experience

being studied.

A qualitative study is credible when it presents such faithful

descriptions or interpretations of a human experience that the

people having that experience would immediately recognize it

from those descriptions or interpretations as their own.

Guba and Lincoln (1981, cited by Sandelowski 1986: 30)

47

Credibility can be safeguarded through the following

means (Bouma 2000; Burns 2000; Glesne 1999; Marshall &

Rossman 1999; Merriam 1988; Stake 1995, 1998; Yin 1994,

1998):

spending the time needed at each site;

using a variety of data collection techniques as a means

of triangulation;

representing, through observations, both typical and non-

typical events;

looking for other explanations for observed events;

being aware of and minimising any bias. Researchers

need discipline and correct protocols to ensure that the

interpretations of observations do not depend on mere

intuition or possible prejudice;

ensuring that documentation, protocols and methodology

provide an opportunity for this case study to be reviewed

and similar conclusions to be drawn (Merriam 1988;

Stake 1995). This can be ensured by careful application

to sound procedures, and by planning that someone will

want to repeat the case study.

This study employed the following strategies to ensure

credibility.

Use of natural setting. This ensures that the results

reflect reality more accurately than in an artificial

setting.

Triangulation enables the researcher to spread widely

the net for evidence (Merriam 1988) in order to gain as

complete a picture as possible of the case being studied.

48

Triangulation is ’the application and combination of

several research methodologies in the study of the same

phenomenon’ (Denzin in Keeves 1997: 318).

Triangulation overcomes many of the problems

connected with using a single research method.

This research employed triangulation through

naturalistic observation, documentation research and

unstructured interviews using progressive focussing. As the

only researcher in the case study, I practised ‘member

checking’ on a regular basis. Member checking requires

taking data and interpretations back to the participants, first,

to ensure that they are being properly represented and,

second, to ask if the results are plausible, thus providing

validation. It also reminds the researcher to reflect upon the

need for both accuracy and alternative explanation (Glesne

1999; Merriam 1988; Stake 1995; Yin 1994, 1998).

Dependability (reliability)

The second criterion for assessing the integrity of research is

the study’s dependability or reliability. In contrasting

reliability (a positivist concept) with dependability (a

constructivist concept) it is noted that reliability is a quest for

precision whose attainment can threaten validity. This is

because an outside researcher cannot fully comprehend the

meaning behind the subject’s behaviour. In recording and

categorising the data the researcher may only observe and

interpret the behaviour. Dependability acknowledges that

researchers’ observations and findings will be unique to

49

themselves, because of what they bring into the research.

While the aim is for different researchers to have similar

observations and findings, dependability also has an emphasis

upon meaning (Yin 1994).

Reliability must also incorporate meaning as well as

accuracy. To safeguard dependability the researcher needs to

document the steps, by which data were collected and

interpreted. In this way a subsequent researcher can follow

the original researcher’s path and meaningfully assess the

original conclusions.

A second method to safeguard dependability is to ensure

that no data are lost through carelessness or bias (Yin 1994).

A constructivist perspective accepts that there will inevitably

be bias. Nevertheless, as the researcher in this study, I was

diligent in recognising my bias (as to what I considered to be

appropriate provision for gifted students) and used

triangulation, member checking and progressive focusing to

offset any personal perspective. This has been termed

disciplined subjectivity and incorporates self-monitoring by

researchers. It involves researchers being aware of their

assumptions; guarding against value judgements in data

collection and analysis; and preserving raw data to provide

evidence of the conclusions drawn (Marshall & Rossman

1999).

Reactivity is a threat to reliability. It occurs when

participants alter their behaviour in reaction to being

observed. In this case study the participating teachers might

have changed their usual teaching practices while being

50

observed. This is an issue because the observations require

usual practice to gain an effective gauge of the curriculum

differentiation that is provided for the gifted students at each

site. To help overcome this potential difficulty, the following

strategies were employed.

When making initial contact with the teacher, value

judgements regarding provision for gifted students were

avoided. Discussion was limited to practical

requirements for observation and to the formalities of

the ethical aspects of the research. While observing in

the classroom, I avoided drawing attention to myself and

I refrained from entering into conversations regarding

teaching methodologies and teaching strategies.

Progressive focusing through informal discussions

enabled confirmation of usual practice.

Considering both typical and atypical events, such as the

weather, school commitments etc. (Sandelowski 1986).

Using multiple sources of data.

Elimination of the reactivity of the students was achieved

through the teacher initially explaining my role to the

students. I was explained as one who is learning about how

teachers teach and how students learn. In remaining an

observer and not actively initiating any form of interaction

with the students, intrusion was minimised.

Reactivity is also likely to be minimal because

entrenched customs and practices built up over years alter

little with the presence of an observer (Burns 2000).

51

Transferability (External validity)

The third criterion for assessing the integrity of research

findings is their transferability or generalisation. This refers

to the extent that the original study can be applied to other

similar settings. Merriam (1988: 177) suggests strategies to

enable transferability. These include:

Provide rich, thick descriptions so that anyone else

interested in transferability has an appropriate base of

information on which to judge whether the research sites

are similar in important respects to other sites.

Employ cross-site analysis, thus broadening the

transferability of the findings. Case studies are not best

suited to producing generalisations, but they can

produce what Stake (1995: 8) calls ‘particularisations‘.

Research ethics/protection of participants

In discussions of the rights of research participants, privacy is

generally the foremost concern. Participants have a right to

expect that when they give you permission to observe and

interview, you will protect their confidences and preserve their

anonymity.

Glesne (1999:122)

Ethics refer to the researcher’s moral duty and

obligation to do what is right, just and good rather than what

is expedient, convenient or practical (Porter 1999b). It is

imperative that research does not disadvantage or harm any

of the participating subjects. Respect for participants needs

52

to be demonstrated by ensuring their informed consent to

participation, safeguarding their confidentiality, and if

possible providing some professional enrichment to them in

return for their participation.

This research was approved by the Flinders University

Ethics Committee and also by the D.E.T.E. Ethics Committee.

Confidentiality has been successfully maintained. Participants

were assured that all data collected, coded and discussed

would be kept in a secure, lockable safe location. Pseudonyms

were used in the write up of this report.

In the ethics application for Flinders University, I

included introductory letters, consent forms and assurances

of full and complete confidentiality. All participants were

aware of the research intentions and that participation in the

research was voluntary. Participants were given the

opportunity to withdraw from the study at any time.

CONCLUSION

This section has outlined the research design and my

awareness of and application to correct and appropriate

research procedures and protocols. I have also highlighted

safeguards for credibility and practices regarding

confidentiality issues. Having thus outlined the method of this

research, I now turn to detailing its findings.

53

Chapter 3

Findings

THE SITES

Data were collected at four DETE state schools within

Adelaide, South Australia during the third term in 2001. All

observations were taken in middle primary classrooms

(grades 3-5).

Teacher A: ‘Chris’

This DETE school was in a rural part of Adelaide. The school

has a SHIP policy in place. It is a small school that boasts an

excellent reputation for caring for students and for

supporting their learning. The staff attends professional

development outside of their school. The teacher whom I

observed (Chris) has consistently attended professional

development in the area of education of gifted learners. This

teacher has also built up a substantial personal library of

books in the area.

Chris taught a grade 3/4/5 class with at least one highly

gifted student (assessed by a psychologist using the WISC-III)

and several who were moderately gifted or high achievers.

These students had been assessed using indicators as

provided by the DETE ‘Understanding Giftedness’

implementation policy guidelines.

54

Teacher B: ‘Lee’

This DETE school was in a semi-rural part of Adelaide. Lee

has attended SHIP (Students with High Intellectual Potential)

cluster meetings and has seen, bought, read, and used a

variety of SHIP related books. There is no ratified SHIP policy

currently in use in the school.

Lee taught a grade 5 class that had two highly gifted

students one of whom had been assessed by a psychologist

using the WISC-III. This teacher also used the indicators, as

provided by the DETE ‘Understanding giftedness’

implementation policy guidelines, for identifying gifted

students.

Teacher C: ‘Kerry’

This DETE school was in the metropolitan area of Adelaide.

The school has a SHIP policy in place. The teacher (Kerry)

has attended many professional development sessions, and

has built a substantial personal library in the field of teaching

gifted students.

Kerry taught a grade 5 class and had several identified

gifted students. They had been identified in previous years

through the school’s SHIP policy processes. Identification

methods included Slosson assessment, Raven’s matrices and

indicators as provided by the DETE ‘Understanding

giftedness’ implementation policy guidelines.

55

Teacher D: ‘Pat’

This DETE school was in the metropolitan area and has a

strong commitment to SHIP practices. This was evidenced by

an active SHIP policy and whole school scope and sequence

policy. This teacher (Pat) actively seeks out professional

development both locally and interstate, connected with

providing appropriately for gifted students.

Pat had five gifted students in the classroom who had

been identified in previous years, through the school’s SHIP

policy processes. Identification methods included Slosson

assessments, Raven’s matrices and indicators as provided by

the DETE ‘Understanding giftedness’ implementation policy

guidelines.

FINDINGS

As reported in chapter 1, to differentiate the curriculum

appropriately for gifted students, teachers need to modify

aspects of the learning environment, the curriculum content,

the teaching and learning processes and the curriculum

product.

I shall now report on which curriculum differentiation

methods were observed in the four schools.

Differentiation of the learning environment

With respect to differentiation of the learning environment for

gifted students, the literature overviewed in chapter 1

concluded that an effective learning environment for all

students provides:

56

a physically safe and pleasant place;

encouragement of satisfying relationships in the

classroom (student-student and student-teacher);

celebration of students’ achievements.

All students require these environmental features. It

would be inequitable if only gifted students were provided

with this environment. Therefore a safe environment ceases

to become a matter of curriculum differentiation only for

gifted students and becomes an issue of good teaching

practice for all students. When this safe learning environment

is provided in a classroom, a variety of student needs are met,

including those of the gifted students. Nevertheless, to

extend themselves gifted students need to feel safe about

taking intellectual risks. In some of the classrooms observed

there was differentiation on that dimension. There were some

environmental curriculum differentiation measures e.g.

advanced placement used for the gifted students.

I shall now discuss my observations of the curriculum

differentiation of the learning environment with the

understanding that explicit curriculum differentiation of the

learning environment did not occur for only the gifted

students.

A physically safe and pleasant place

In some classrooms when teachers were late in returning to

class after recess or lunch tension amongst students often

developed. Without a teacher present, the students frequently

harassed each other and the classroom atmosphere was one

57

of shouting and put-downs. Some students were pushed and

badgered by others, which limited their physical safety. Most

of the participating teachers prevented this from happening

by ensuring punctuality.

Noise levels

The teachers accepted various noise levels within their

classrooms. Two of the teachers observed had various noise

levels throughout the day. The learning activity often

determined the acceptable noise level. One teacher insisted

on very quiet work for most of the day and another teacher

tolerated a high level of noise.

In the ‘quiet’ classroom students were expected to work

quietly and not to engage with each other. Students who

talked during work time were challenged by the teacher and

told that they were disturbing others who wanted to work.

The teacher indicated that they were there to learn and

learning meant working quietly.

For gifted students who were also conformist, this might

be a safe environment. For the gifted student who wanted to

probe, ask questions, wrestle with issues interactively or use

a variety of learning modes, this would not have been a

suitable environment.

Harassment

High noise levels were not always an indication of a safe and

supportive learning environment. In one classroom where the

noise was at a high level, many students consistently laughed

at, shouted at, and harassed each other. The teacher did not

58

think that it was excessively loud, neither did the teacher

recognise the harassment that took place. In this class I

observed a gifted student who joined in a classroom

discussion by responding to a question asked by the teacher.

This student gave an excellent response but was then laughed

at by other students. This was not addressed by the teacher

and the gifted student did not contribute anything further for

the rest of that lesson, but was ‘off task’, engaged in

doodling.

To foster academic risk-taking for all students the

learning environment must be a safe place to experiment and

make mistakes. There was a stark contrast between the four

classrooms, with two characterised by frequent harassment

between students, high noise levels or the total absence of

conversation. The other two classrooms appeared to be ‘safe’

classrooms where students demonstrated respect and

tolerance for each other. It was in these two classrooms that

most other curriculum differentiation measures were

employed.

Facilitation of satisfying relationships in the classroom

Each day at school, children work to maintain and establish

interpersonal relationships, strive to develop social identities

and a sense of belongingness, observe and model standards for

performance displayed by others, and are rewarded for

behaving in ways that are valued by teachers and peers. Quite

often, children who succeed in these social endeavours are

also the most successful students.

59

Wentzel (1999: 76)

Some teachers encouraged strong relationships in their

classrooms by modelling explicit social skills with students.

These teachers consistently:

listened while other people spoke;

used appropriate language for the age of the students;

employed humour that did not exploit students;

moved around the classroom, rather than communicating

with students only from the teacher’s desk;

engaged in individual conversations as well as whole

class discussions;

asked questions for clarification, so that the teacher was

aware of students’ present understanding;

shared personal, but appropriate, experiences, thoughts

and feelings;

modelled conflict resolution skills;

used students’ names when talking with them.

The teachers who encouraged strong relationships within

the classroom took extra care to make eye contact with

students and when students were speaking to them they

stopped what they were doing and gave the student their full

attention. They also had fun with students. They joined in

with jokes, they laughed out loud and smiled often.

As a possible natural consequence of the teachers’

modelling of strong social skills, students in their classes

enjoyed strong relationships with each other. This was

evidenced by:

60

students smiling and laughing with each other

appropriately;

students supporting each other in learning tasks;

students asking relevant, open-ended questions when

their peers were presenting information to the class;

students valuing each other’s work by making positive

comments about work displayed or presented (students

were seen to be respectful of other student's work, and

of other property generally);

students being comfortable about working in small

collaboration groups.

Pat’s students were explicitly celebratory of each other

and of group achievements, while Chris’s students focussed

on strengths within individual relationships more than in a

whole class identity. Strong collaborative relationships were

especially evidenced in these classrooms.

In classrooms where strong supportive relationships

between students and the teacher were not explicitly

modelled or encouraged, the following incidents were

observed:

Consistently, as the teacher spoke to the class when

either teaching or giving instructions, many students

appeared not to be listening. They had turned their backs

to the teacher, and were having private conversations

and were off task. Many students demonstrated that they

did not value the teacher by not giving their full attention

as the teacher spoke. The students who did give

61

attention were those who were in closest proximity to the

teacher.

The teacher did not frequently engage in personal

conversations with students. Conversations were often

task related or related to behaviour management.

Teachers returning after recess or lunch would begin by

giving instructions for the learning task at hand. No

‘personal’ preparatory dialogue was entered into with

students.

Some of the teachers observed appeared not to enjoy

strong relationships with students and possibly as a

consequence their students lacked strong relationships with

each other. This could adversely impact on gifted students

who could be expected particularly to benefit from strong

relationships especially from intellectual peers.

Celebration of students’ achievements

The celebration of students’ achievements provides

acknowledgement, encouragement and motivation and

contributes to a positive learning environment (Tomlinson

2001). Celebration can be demonstrated in various ways

including the showcasing of students’ skills and talents, and

the positive ambience within the classroom.

The presentation of student achievements

There were contrasts between the physical displays in the

classrooms observed. Some were a blaze of colour and

texture and others were quite bland and void of a sense of

62

students celebrating their achievements. In Chris’s classroom

there was overwhelming sense of celebration in the

achievements displayed. The work was predominantly created

by students. It was significant that all eight areas of the

curriculum were displayed. These displays were presented at

a level where students could access and view them. There

was a clear sense of the teacher and students valuing this

work. Classrooms that appeared visually vibrant and

interesting, generally had a high level of student involvement

in displays. Students were involved in choosing what was

displayed and how and they also had an opportunity to display

things that interested them in particular. This would support

gifted students who might have a passion that other students

do not share, but that the gifted students would still like to

have celebrated.

Some classrooms were bright, but the displays were

explicitly teacher driven. The teacher chose what was

displayed, how and where it was displayed. Some of the

displays had been there for a long time and there was little

evidence of the displayed work being useful in present

learning activities.

Engagement in learning activities

Indicators of a safe and positive learning environment include

the quality of students’ application to learning tasks. In two of

the classrooms, students consistently demonstrated a high

level of engagement in learning activities. The engagement

from students:

was consistent;

63

was often student initiated and driven;

often involved collaboration;

resulted in high quality learning experiences for

students;

was acknowledged and encouraged by the teacher.

A stable framework existed within these classrooms for

gifted students to work at their own pace with a minimum of

distraction.

During classroom observations I did not see evidence

that gifted students were exclusively provided with

curriculum differentiation of the learning environment. All

students thrive in a safe and positive learning environment.

What makes these environmental factors especially

significant for gifted students, as I shall argue in chapter 4, is

that the remaining aspects of teaching cannot be

differentiated in a non-conducive setting. This is supported by

Callahan (1996: 160), ‘It is extremely difficult to build a

strong differentiated curriculum on a weak basic curriculum’.

Differentiation of the curriculum content

The field of the education of the gifted exists to provide gifted

students with differentiated curricula, that is, modified courses

of study designed to make schools more responsive to the

educational needs of these exceptional learners. This is our

primary goal and defining mission.

Borland (1989:171)

64

In discussing the differentiation of curriculum content for

gifted students, the literature concludes that effective

differentiation of curriculum content for gifted students

provides:

curriculum content based upon learning needs of gifted

students;

acceleration, extension and enrichment activities;

negotiation and choice within curriculum content for the

student.

Some of the teachers participating in this research did

plan specifically for gifted students. In discussions with the

researcher, they indicated that there was a wide spectrum of

learning needs in their classroom, but that no one group took

preference. They clearly indicated that they considered gifted

students to have particular learning needs that needed to be

identified and catered for. In their discussion with me,

without listing these succinctly, the teachers recognised

many of the characteristics listed in chapter 1 - namely:

gifted students’ ability to learn faster with less

repetitions;

gifted students’ ability to think abstractly, creatively and

complexly;

gifted students’ ability to solve complex problems.

These teachers indicated that one way that they had

learnt how to teach gifted students was by working with and

relating to them. Although professional development sessions

and books had supported these teachers, it was their gifted

65

students who had taught them the relevance of the

professional development:

I know that if I don’t give challenging material to Bill, then he

disturbs everyone else. He needs a challenge because he

thinks a lot quicker than anyone else does.

Chris

These teachers had interpreted research about the

learning needs of gifted students and synthesised it with the

learning needs of their particular gifted students, thus

anticipating and providing for those needs. This was

demonstrated by their ability to plan relevant learning

activities, which incorporated academic rigour. One teacher

suggested that it was like having a family where one person

had special dietary needs: you needed to find common areas

and not make that person feel left out but at the same time

there was not a lot of room for compromise. Ultimately it

might mean that the whole family has to change its diet in

some way to accommodate the person with special needs.

Provision for acceleration and enrichment

Several teachers consistently incorporated acceleration and

extension opportunities in the following ways:

They worked with small groups to accelerate gifted

students.

They provided students with a wide variety of skill

development activities.

They encouraged gifted students in acceleration and/or

enrichment.

66

They encouraged gifted students to ‘see the bigger

picture’ and to respond accordingly with student initiated

projects.

They used a wide selection of appropriately linked

resources. Learning tasks were often crafted together to

create an holistic approach to the curriculum content

being taught.

They incorporated student interests and skill levels into

the majority of learning activities. This incorporation

often took the form of consulting students as a class or

individuals to gain feedback.

In some classrooms the supportive atmosphere

encouraged acceleration and enrichment. If a gifted student

decided to develop the learning activities further, there was

support from class members to do so. This differentiated the

curriculum by providing not only differentiation in content,

but also by facilitating social and emotional support from

peers.

Two of the teachers did not demonstrate any provision

for acceleration. One teacher in particular consistently had

the whole class working on the same material in the same

amount of time. This class mainly worked in silence. When

‘enough’ people had finished that signalled finishing time for

the whole class.

Streaming

Some teachers used streaming to differentiate curriculum

content. Streaming took place, as different groups within the

67

same classroom would work on curriculum content that

varied in levels of complexity. This variation mainly focussed

around a slow group, an average group and a bright group.

These groups were set and there were no opportunities for

movement between the groups. The focus appeared to be on

the provision of, and progression through, various levels of

curriculum content and not on meeting the learning needs of

gifted students. This was demonstrated by a teacher whose

aim was to get ‘through the curriculum content book’, yet no

mention was made of the importance of meeting the learning

needs of the gifted students.

Providing negotiation and choice for the student

While this section can also relate to ‘process’, I have linked it

with curriculum content to illustrate that curriculum content

can be enriched for gifted students, through negotiation and

choice of the curriculum content.

Two of the classroom teachers actively and consistently

sought to negotiate and offer choice of curricular content; two

did not. One of the teachers negotiated curriculum content

by:

encouraging and asking the questions: ‘Why do we come

to school?’ ‘What are our roles and responsibilities as

teachers and students?’. This enabled gifted students to

understand the relevance of learning tasks;

consistently engaging with students to understand their

thoughts, viewpoints and understanding;

encouraging students to think divergently, plan, and

propose changes. This might involve students in

68

justifying why they should study something different

from everyone else.

Another teacher facilitated choice and negotiation by:

communicating and discussing the rationale of the

curriculum content to be covered. Students were invited

to share their ideas that were based on a conceptual

development. The key principles were outlined by the

teacher, but the path to get there was negotiated with

the students; and

consistent provision of a selection of activities around a

theme.

Differentiation of curricular processes

Process or methodology is the way educators teach and

involves the way material is presented to children, the

questions asked of them, and the mental or physical activities

expected from them.

Maker (1982: 35)

In discussing the differentiation of curricular processes

for gifted students, the literature concludes that effective

differentiation of curricular processes for gifted students

provides:

higher-order thinking skills and appropriate teaching

methodologies that facilitate the solving of problems that

are ‘worth solving’;

69

negotiation and choice for the students within the

curriculum process;

enhancement of gifted students’ motivation.

In observing the differentiation of curricular processes,

particular attention was paid to the following indicators:

Was there use of appropriate methodologies (e.g.

Bloom’s Taxonomy) for gifted students in the

classrooms?

How were gifted students offered choice and negotiation

within the curriculum process?

What evidence was there of motivation within the

curriculum process for gifted students?

The observations pertaining to each of these indicators

will now be discussed.

Appropriate methods

At least two teachers consistently used a wide variety of

methods and strategies. These included:

higher-order thinking skills (Bloom’s Taxonomy);

problem-solving activities;

development of critical thinking skills;

de Bono’s six hats;

open-ended questioning that incorporated higher-order

thinking skills and problem solving;

Gardner’s multiple intelligences;

training students to think logically, combining cause and

effect;

the thinkers’ keys (Tony Ryan);

70

working collaboratively in intellectual peer groups;

working independently.

Sharing rationale with students

Two teachers consistently introduced learning activities by

sharing the rationale for the learning activities. Students in

these classrooms had opportunity to understand the reasons

for the choice of curriculum content and the methodologies

used. These teachers also took the time to explain the

teaching methodologies that were used in the classroom, e.g.

When students were introduced to Bloom’s Taxonomy the

teachers also discussed who Benjamin Bloom was and how he

came to develop his taxonomy.

In both of these classrooms there was consistent

evidence of these methodologies in use. The teachers

understood the principles of the various methodologies and,

through discussions with the researcher, verbalised reasons

for using them. The main reasons given were that gifted

students need choice and negotiation, interesting problems to

solve and that when given these, students are empowered.

Chris was very aware of the needs of gifted students for

complexity and also used Renzulli’s Triad Model. This was

done in response to a gifted student who expressed a need to

solve ‘real problems’.

One of the teachers taught in a school that embraces

Pohl’s (1998) scope and sequence for developing school

policies relating to teaching thinking skills, which is a whole

school programme. Each year level is committed to explicitly

71

teaching a particular skill/methodology which sequentially

builds on the previous skills and methods taught.

In two of the classrooms, students appeared to be highly

skilled in the use of these methodologies. Students discussed

methods during classroom discussion and then were able to

work with these methodologies with little assistance from the

teacher. This possibly resulted in greater engagement by

students in learning activities and, in turn, probably

accounted for the lower incidence of behavioural problems in

these classrooms.

The other two teachers did not incorporate as many

strategies into their classroom practice. There was an

occasion in one classroom where a Bloom’s Taxonomy activity

book was on display and a student who finished early was told

to go on with an activity from this book. It was clear from the

student’s response that he had never seen the book before

and had no idea how to approach the activities in it. In

another classroom there was evidence of occasional group

work, some free choice of activities and limited design work

activities that encouraged creative problem solving and

lateral thinking.

Choice and negotiation

Negotiation was a key word for the curriculum process in two

of the classrooms. Through specific teaching, students were

becoming highly skilled in communication and negotiation.

Students were not able to do ‘whatever they wanted to do’,

instead, they needed to be able to justify their differentiation

proposal. This could be as simple as having a conversation

72

with the teacher or it might mean putting together an action

plan to present to the teacher, or jointly framing an action

plan with the teacher. In both of these classrooms there was

a predominant culture of ‘planning together’. Students

consistently had input into curricular processes by

negotiating with the teacher.

A third teacher provided little choice or negotiation

within the curriculum process for students and the fourth

teacher provided even less. Students in both these classes

were expected to complete the learning activities provided by

the teacher in the style required by the teacher. In the latter

classroom, a student began to discuss with the class one of

the answers that the teacher had provided for a previously

asked question. The teacher first of all told the student off for

not putting up his hand to speak and then cut him short by

bluntly reinforcing the original answer that was provided. No

discussion was entered into. The student put his head down

and didn’t attempt to join in for the rest of the lesson.

Motivation

Motivation in this context is understood to be the process by

which gifted students involve themselves and engage with the

learning activities. It is suggested that a moderate to high

level of engagement is at least necessary (but not sufficient)

for a level of success for the student.

A high percentage of students in the classrooms where

the teacher practised differentiation of the curriculum

process appeared to be consistently highly motivated. This

was demonstrated by:

73

a lack of behavioural problems;

high levels of engagement in learning activities;

active participation in whole class feedback sessions;

high level of relational interaction with peers and

teacher;

positive body language consistently displayed by

students;

students verbalising the rationale behind learning

activities;

students taking opportunities to extend themselves in the

learning activities;

students enthusiastically choosing and completing

activities;

students supporting each other academically, socially

and emotionally.

When the differentiation of curricular processes was

facilitated, students appeared to experience a higher level of

satisfaction in the classroom. They worked within an

atmosphere of encouragement, support and challenge.

Students actively participated in motivating each other.

Teachers as facilitators

In two of the classrooms, there was evidence of both intrinsic

and extrinsic motivation being employed within the

classroom. In the other two classrooms, the environment was

not conducive to the development of intrinsic motivation in

students. These latter teachers appeared to employ few

74

processes that encouraged students’ engagement with the

curriculum content.

Differentiation of curriculum product

Products (output) are a natural result of the content (input)

and are the end result of processes used to develop

knowledge. Although output cannot be separated entirely from

input and process, most people rely heavily on products to

evaluate students and to evaluate the effectiveness or validity

of an educational program.

Maker and Nielson (1996: 135)

Effective differentiation of curricular products for gifted

students provides:

curricular products that are integrally linked with the

assessment of student progress;

relevance of products in connection with the content and

processes;

negotiation and choice in designing curriculum products.

In observing the differentiation of curricular products,

particular attention was paid to the following indicators:

the assessment and evaluation procedures for gifted

students;

relevance of products in connection with the content and

processes;

choice for students in product design and presentation.

75

The observations on each of these indicators will now be

discussed.

Assessment and evaluation procedures

The teachers in this study used a variety of assessment and

evaluation procedures, some were generic and suitable for all

students, some were explicitly employed for the assessment

of gifted students:

the teacher travelled the room as gifted students worked,

providing extension;

a wide variety of assessment procedures was used and

negotiated with students;

teachers documented acceleration and extension

progress for gifted students;

students peer assessed each other and commented on

other students’ work;

teachers used assessment that encouraged and required

academic rigour from the gifted student;

teachers made use of pre-tests for gifted students, to

ascertain their learning needs;

teachers provided assessment of work that required real

solutions for real problems and was presented to real

audiences;

teachers provided opportunities for intellectual peers to

work together and be assessed;

teachers integrated higher-order thinking skills into

assessment requirements;

76

Two teachers used all the above measures, while the

third teacher employed peer assessment, assessment of work

that provided real solutions to real problems, opportunities

for peers to work together and higher-order thinking

processes. The fourth teacher used only collaborative work

and higher-order thinking.

Two of the teachers used a wide variety of assessment

and evaluation procedures that incorporated the learning

needs of gifted students. These were built into the planning

stage and adjusted if necessary. Students were consulted and

given opportunities to have input into the assessment

process. These teachers both drew links between the learning

needs of their gifted students, the curricular content and

processes used and the need for the assessment to be a

sequential part of the learning process for gifted students.

Teachers’ evaluation of the next step for gifted students

Assessment of students’ achievements needs to be authentic

with a clear rationale. Given the specific and sometimes

complex learning needs of gifted students the assessment and

evaluation processes must provide a plan for ‘the next steps’

to be taken. In Chris’s class the assessment was not the finale

for the student in that the information gained from the

assessment facilitated the next step. Therefore Chris was

consistently able to provide appropriately for the gifted

students in the classroom. Pat reflected many of these same

practices and consistently demonstrated that the assessment

of curricular products was an integral part of the learning

process both for the students and the teacher. Pat carefully

77

consulted and negotiated assessment requirements with

students, and then developed assessments that gave gifted

students an opportunity to showcase what they could do, as

opposed to some other teachers who assess on a deficit basis

(assessing to find out what students don’t know).

Other participating teachers tried to meet with students

to challenge and encourage them. The intention was there

and occasionally it was demonstrated but it appeared to be a

reactive approach. As students indicated that they needed

help the teacher would respond. Some teachers would also

formally mark work, as it was handed in.

Relevance of product to curricular content and processes

One indicator of the relevance of curricular products is the

demonstration of a student’s comprehension, application, and

evaluation of the curricular content and processes, as

reflected through the product. Some teachers used the

assessment of the curriculum product to determine the

relevance of the curriculum differentiation and also to provide

a sequential pathway for future direction for the gifted

students. They consistently facilitated curricular products

that fully integrated key concepts of the work that had been

completed by students. This helped the assessment to have

meaning and relevance for gifted students. One teacher

worked with a gifted student in assessing his product from a

learning task. The student spoke about the product and the

teacher asked specific questions, which facilitated the student

to confidently demonstrate his knowledge, skill development

and his progress in understanding the curriculum content.

78

The teacher used this information to determine future

activities and goals for this student.

Other teachers mainly focussed upon bookwork as the

curriculum product. The bookwork represented the

comprehension of the students; to deduce whether or not

they had understood the material taught. The products were

often the same and seemed to bear little relevance to the

learning activities. This possibly inhibited the gifted students

from seeing the holistic rationale for the learning activity.

When gifted students understand the interconnection

between the curriculum content, process and product, they

are in a better position to develop independent learning skills.

Choice for students in product design and presentation

Some gifted students were consistently provided with, and

challenged to create a wide range of curricular products.

These included the following:

making and presenting ‘Big Books’;

making and presenting games;

making posters to display;

creating 3D structures;

completing worksheets;

presenting workbooks;

engaging in class debates;

creating word searches and puzzles;

completing work in exercise books;

production of a range of art and craft activities,

combining different textures and mediums, combining

and synthesising many of the curriculum areas;

79

music and drama presentations.

In other classrooms, students were provided with a

limited choice and negotiation of curriculum product. These

choices tended to be in the areas of technology and craft. In

one of the classrooms I did not observe any student

opportunities for choice or negotiation of curriculum product.

An equally important element, in addition to choice about

product design, is students’ ability to provide a rationale for

their choice. A key element of curriculum product in two of

the classrooms focussed on students having choice in their

curriculum product and equally important, students

understanding the rationale behind their choice. e.g. why

choose to create a poster over a model? What integral benefit

does each curriculum product afford? The students were able

to make independent decisions about the use of materials as

well as having a choice of curricular products. Students were

also able to make decisions about the use of classroom

resources, without always having to check with the teacher.

Students were trusted to use their judgements because the

teacher had spent time training them to become responsible

and trustworthy.

When teachers incorporated negotiation and choice in

the curriculum product, gifted students demonstrated more

ownership over these. This sometimes meant that more care

and attention to detail was given in developing the product.

These students spoke enthusiastically about their products

and wanted them to be on display. This was in contrast to

students in other classes who were not offered choice and

80

negotiation. In their case the curriculum product was teacher

driven and in effect owned by the teacher. I did not see or

hear any evidence of satisfaction that these students may

have had in their products.

CONCLUSION

The findings reported here paint two contrasting pictures. In

two of the classrooms there was an atmosphere of conformity

in which the teacher strongly directed the curriculum

content, process, product and learning environment for the

students. In contrast, in the remaining two classrooms

students were encouraged to negotiate learning tasks and to

become involved in the differentiation of the curriculum.

81

Chapter 4

Discussion and conclusion

As reported in chapter 1, it is an accepted canon of

curriculum differentiation for gifted students that aspects of

the environment, curriculum content, teaching and learning

processes and products need to be individualised for gifted

students. I shall now discuss each aspect in turn.

ENVIRONMENT

It is self-evident that for children to feel safe in extending

themselves to take intellectual risks and to explore the

curriculum, they must be in a learning environment that is

emotionally safe and supportive. The classrooms in this study

differed enormously on this aspect. The students in two

classrooms appeared to be happy and supportive of each

other. Observations that demonstrated this interpretation

include:

The teachers purposefully took time to talk with

students. They maintained eye contact and took the time

to listen to students.

The teachers consistently responded to students

respectfully and with positive body language.

Students consistently spoke and responded positively

with each other. There was a definite ‘culture’ in the

classroom that generated tolerance.

82

Students celebrated other students’ successes. The ethos

of the classroom community appeared to focus on

collaboration and not competition.

Students in the other two classrooms appeared to

experience a less safe environment. Observations that

demonstrated this interpretation include:

Some students in one of the classrooms repeatedly

engaged in ‘bantering’ with each other that focused on

negative aspects e.g. body shape, style of clothes worn

and the quality of work produced. This appeared to

create tension amongst students.

One of the teachers imposed a high expectation for ‘quiet

work’. As a consequence students did not have

opportunities to work collaboratively in offering support

or encouragement.

Both teachers rarely engaged in personal conversations

with students. These teachers ‘taught the class’.

The conclusion is that, while all students will suffer in

suboptimal environments, the gifted students will be less

likely in these settings to reach the heights that otherwise

would be possible for them.

CURRICULUM CONTENT

Effective curriculum differentiation facilitates depth and

complexity appropriate to the students’ learning abilities

(Winebrenner 2000). In attempting to provide appropriately

for gifted students, teachers can design enjoyable and

83

exciting learning tasks, that lack substantial content rigour

(Borland 1989; Sawyer 1988; Tomlinson 1998, 1999a, 1999b).

On this issue, Borland (1989: 174) comments on many of the

faddish programs that are offered to gifted students but

which lack meaningful content:

There is no logical consistency between the students and their

intellectual needs, on the one hand, and the demands of the

curriculum on the other.

Sawyer (1988: 8) goes as far to assert that ‘it is robbery

of the gifted merely to teach them how to learn without

teaching something worth learning’.

Tomlinson (1999a) demonstrates this point effectively by

discussing two teachers: one who is ‘teacher directed’ and

the other who allows the students to be driven by their

interests. Tomlinson suggests that true differentiation of the

curriculum fails to eventuate in either classroom. One

classroom has academic rigour and the other student

engagement. According to Tomlinson (1999a: 14):

Successful teaching requires two elements: student

understanding and student engagement. In other words

students must really understand, or make sense of, what they

have studied. They should also feel engaged in or ‘hooked by’

the ways that they have learned.

Tomlinson presents a third teacher who is facilitating

student understanding and engagement by effectively

differentiating the curriculum for gifted students (1999a: 14):

84

Ms. Cassell has planned her year around a few key concepts

that will help students relate to, organise, and retain what they

study (in history). She has also developed principles or

generalisations that govern or uncover how the concepts work.

Further, for each unit, she has established a defined set of

facts and terms that are essential for students to know to be

literate and informed about the topic. She has developed

essential questions to intrigue her students and to cause them

to engage with her in a quest for understanding.

The format as used by this teacher reflects good teaching

practice and could be provided for all students. As the

curriculum content is appropriately differentiated, the

learning needs of all students (and especially the gifted

students) will be met. The scope and sequence expectation of

the ‘required’ curriculum will also be fulfilled.

TEACHING AND LEARNING PROCESS

Teachers of the gifted have been advised by the expansive

literature on the subject to teach higher-order thinking skills.

However, unless this is in response to the students’ needs, it

represents different curriculum content rather than

differentiated content. Some schools have provided the

‘teaching of thinking skills’ in a particular time slot on a given

day. This limited provision renders the skills not so much

processes that the children can employ throughout their

learning, but content to be learned for that brief lesson.

Two of the participating teachers in this study facilitated

choice for students. They provided a wide range of activities

85

not only for gifted students, but also for other students.

Gifted students benefited, as did other students. These

teachers embedded within their teaching practice an

emphasis upon strong relationships with their students. These

relationships appeared to provide students with

encouragement to take intellectual risks. This was

demonstrated by positive interactions that occurred between

teacher and students. During observation, students were

relaxed about making choices and, although the observation

periods employed in this study were limited, students

appeared to make appropriate choices.

The third teacher provided limited choice for students.

This provision mainly focussed on learning activities within

the arts. This teacher needed to focus on behaviour

management issues that consistently arose between students.

This might explain why a ‘teacher directed’ approach was

adopted.

The fourth teacher basically provided the same material

for all students. Students attempted the material at the same

time, and when ‘enough’ students had finished the exercise,

the teacher moved on to the next learning activity. Students

in this classroom appeared to be driven by the teacher and

their goal was to complete the learning activities. They were

thus predominantly externally motivated and showed less

intrinsic interest in the learning tasks offered to them.

86

PRODUCTS

As suggested by Stephens (1996) very little is written for

teachers to help them assist their students in developing

high-quality products. This was reflected in some of the

observed classrooms. Some of the required products (e.g.

worksheets) were not clearly linked to the curriculum content

or process and their purpose was ambiguous. Products should

represent more than mere acquisition of new knowledge; they

should convey a genuine application of synthesis and analysis

(Maker 1996). If possible the products should address real

problems, and be presented to a real audience (Gross et al.

1999; Maker 1996; Reis & Renzulli 1992; Winebrenner 2000).

None of the participating teachers differentiated the

curriculum product exclusively for gifted students. Two

teachers encouraged all students to negotiate and contribute

to the choice of meaningful products linked with the learning

activity. This enabled the gifted students to fully develop

concepts and ideas thus encouraging their motivation and

exploration. It also invited average learners to do the same.

The other two teachers, to varying degrees, prescribed the

curriculum products expected from students. These same

products were expected from all students with variance of

teacher expectation on student achievement. Consequently,

the teachers’ focus was on the external presentation of the

curriculum product and not on the student. Grant and

Piechowski (1999: 8) develop this idea further:

We are questioning an emphasis on achievement and success,

which leads to measuring a child’s worth in terms of his or her

87

accomplishments, rather than on the basis of the child’s

inherent worth…Emphasis on products rather than on

discovery of the child’s inner agenda hooks us back to

evaluating children on externals. Tests may be replaced by

portfolios, but nothing changes in our values - they are still

yoked to externals rather than to the inherent worth of each

person.

Teachers’ emphasis on discovery was demonstrated

when they consulted and negotiated curricular products with

students, which in two of the classrooms was particularly

evident for the gifted students.

CONCLUSION

In summary, on the above dimensions, none of the

participating teachers in this study made adjustments to their

programmes exclusively for the gifted students. This is not

unexpected, given the finding reported in chapter 1 that little

curriculum differentiation occurs in schools (Archambault et

al. 1993; Westberg 1995; Westberg & Archambault 1997;

Westberg et al. 1993; Westberg et al. 1997). On the other

hand, one might have expected some level of differentiation in

this study, given that all the participating teachers had

received training in education of the gifted.

Having said that, the findings cannot be generalised to

all of these teachers’ teaching time, as observation for this

study was of limited duration. Second, the constructivist

perspective of this study does not seek generalisation, as

discussed in chapter 2, but rather transferability of findings

88

where this seems warranted. This is a judgment made by the

reader.

However, the findings raise questions about the accepted

lore of curriculum differentiation. Borland (1989: 172) draws

to our attention that ‘curriculum differentiation is a

descriptive phrase, not an evaluative one’, explaining that

when the curriculum is differentiated, this merely means that

it is different, but this does not give indication as to the

quality or appropriateness of the curriculum.

In terms of ‘difference’, as just discussed, there was very

little adjustment made for the gifted students by any of the

teachers in this study. However, Borland’s concept of

appropriateness can be used to explain the findings in a less

orthodox manner. Two of the teachers used what could be

called a child-centred or bottom-up approach to designing

and delivering curricula to all students (see figure 1). In this

approach, the teachers were sensitive to the children’s

abilities and learning needs and they responded accordingly.

In attempting to meet the needs of each individual student in

this way, the gifted learners were similarly catered for

appropriately.

Thus, curriculum differentiation can be taken to mean

not so much ‘doing it differently’ for the gifted learners but

facilitating individualisation of the curriculum for all learners.

This inclusive approach will necessarily result in meeting the

needs of the gifted.

In contrast, the remaining two teachers used what could

be termed a teacher-directed or top-down approach to the

89

design and delivery of the curriculum (see figure 2). They

determined what was to be taught and how it would be

assessed. Perhaps because the onus was on them entirely to

plan and deliver material to the children, there was little

flexibility for them to adjust their programme in response to

the

students’ individual needs, including those of the gifted

learner.

90

91

Identify

students’ needs

students’

strengths

testing and

assessing

Top down model

Figure 1.

(Teacher as the

expert)

Design

curriculum

Deliver the

curriculum

Assess the

curriculum

Figure 2.

(Teacher as

facilitator, with a

student focus)

Deliver the

curriculum

Negotiate the

curriculum

with students

Safe learning

environment

Bottom up model

So, what has emerged from this study is that curriculum

differentiation does not mean ‘doing it differently’ or ‘doing

something different or better’ for only the gifted children but

instead being sensitive to gifted children's present learning

needs, and responding to these as appropriate. This possibly

renders somewhat redundant the advice that gifted students

need specific teaching approaches: they need good teaching

that is in tune with their needs, just as does any student.

That their needs are different is, of course, accepted.

However, the finding that teachers can use similar processes

for the delivery of curricula to gifted and average learners

means that catering for gifted children does not have to

become an ‘add-on’ or extra responsibility. Neither is it a

luxury, but instead involves the usual teaching skills of

responding to students’ needs (Braggett et al. 1996; Braggett

et al. 1997; Pohl 1997; Sapon-Shevin, 1996; Tomlinson 1995a,

1996, 1999a, 1999b; Tomlinson & Kalbfleisch 1998).

Acceleration, then, could be seen to be the only

curriculum differentiation method that is exclusive to gifted

learners. However, if teachers worked from a child-centred

model, there could be arguments that, in terms of curriculum

delivery alone, acceleration would not be as necessary as it is

in a teacher-directed model. Nevertheless, the composition of

the peer group might still require the employment of

accelerative measures for social reasons.

Educators of the gifted are told that they must do

something unique to cater for these children’s unique needs.

92

However, this study, restricted as it is, and the larger studies

of Archambault and Westberg (Archambault et al. 1993;

Westberg 1995; Westberg & Archambault 1997; Westberg et

al. 1993; Westberg 1997) all found the same thing, namely,

that teachers seldom differentiate the curriculum exclusively

for gifted students. This includes teachers with qualifications

in gifted education. One could assume from the consistency of

such findings that this is because it is not possible, within the

constraints of the classroom, to single out for special

treatment any individual or subgroup. A child-centred

approach does not require this, it requires simply that

teachers respond to individual children and thus use the same

programming framework for all.

Throughout the literature relating to teaching is the

theme of relationships whereby teachers not only respond to

children’s present needs but also inspire them to take the

leap towards new insights and skills. It is arguable that

everybody, at some time in their life, has been inspired and

motivated by another person to achieve their best. This

person is often a teacher. People are the best teachers, not

programmes and not curricular models. The curriculum is not

just what is taught, but is also the transactions that take

place between the students and the teacher (Barry & King

1998).

Gifted students, and in fact all students, require and

deserve high quality education. When education focuses on

meeting current learning needs with curricula that are

rigorous and meaningful and occurs in a safe learning

93

environment, all students - including the gifted - will be

nurtured and nourished.

94

References

Archambault, F.X., Jr., Westberg, K.L., Brown, S.W.,

Hallmark, B.W., Zhang, W. & Emmons, C.L. (1993).

Classroom practices used with third and fourth grade

students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2),

103–119.

Barry, K. & King, L. (1998). Beginning teaching and beyond.

(3rd ed.) Sydney: Social Science Press.

Bentley, R. (2000). Curriculum development and process in

mainstream classrooms. In M.J. Stopper (Ed.), Meeting

the social and emotional needs of the gifted and talented

children (pp. 12-36). London: David Fulton.

Berger, S.L. (1991). Differentiating the curriculum for gifted

students. ERIC Digest # E510. ERIC Clearinghouse on

Handicapped and Gifted Children Reston, VA.

http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_ Digests/ed342175.

Bloom, B.S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives

– the classification of educational goals, Handbook 1:

Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

Borland, J.H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs

for the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press.

Borland, J.H. (1990). Postpositivist inquiry: Implications of

the ‘new philosophy of science’ for the field of education

of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(4), 161-167.

(1996). Gifted education and the threat of irrelevance.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(2), 129-147.

95

(1997). Evaluating gifted programs. In N. Colangelo &

G.A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education. (2nd ed.)

(pp. 253-266). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Bouma, G.D. (2000). The research process (4th ed.)

Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Braggett, E.J. (1992). Pathways for accelerated learners.

Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow Education.

(1994). Developing programs for gifted students.

Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow Education.

(1998). Gifted and talented children and their education.

In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.) Educating children with

special needs. (3rd ed.) (pp. 229-283). Sydney: Prentice

Hall.

Braggett, E.J., Day, A. & Minchin, M. (1996). Differentiated

programs for secondary schools. Melbourne: Hawker

Brownlow Education.

(1997). Differentiated programs for primary schools.

Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow Education.

Burns, R.B. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4th

ed.). Sydney: Longman.

Burton-Szabo, S. (1996). Special classes for gifted students?

Absolutely. Gifted Child Today, 19(1), 12-15.

Callahan, C.M. (1996). A critical self-study of gifted

education: Healthy practice, necessary evil, or sedition?

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19 (2), 148-163.

Carrington, N.G. & Bailey, S.B. (2000). How do pre-service

teachers view gifted students? The Australasian Journal

of Gifted Education, 19(1), 18-22.

96

Cashion, M. & Sullenger, K. (2000). Contact us next year:

Tracing teachers’ use of gifted practices. Roeper Review,

23(1), 18-21.

Clark, B. (1997). Growing up gifted. (5th ed.) Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Merrill.

Clark, C. (1998). The professional development of teachers

working with more able learners. Gifted Education

International, 12(3), 145-150.

Coleman, M.R. (1995). Let’s give students something to think

about. Gifted Child Today, 18(6), 32–33.

Coleman, M.R. & Gallagher, J.J. (1995). Appropriate

differentiated services: Guides for best practice in the

education of gifted children. Gifted Child Today, 18(5),

32-33.

Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research.

Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Delisle, J.R. (1992). Guiding the social and emotional

development of gifted youth. New York: Longman.

(1994). National report misses some important issues for

educators of gifted and talented students. Gifted Child

Today, 17(1), 32-33.

(1998). Once a teacher… Gifted Child Today, 21(5), 18-

19.

(2000). Once upon a mind: The stories and scholars of

gifted child education. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace

and Company.

Department for Education and Children’s Services. (DECS).

(1996). Understanding giftedness. Adelaide: DECS.

97

Eyre, D. (1997). Able children in ordinary schools. London:

David Fulton.

Feldhusen, J.F. (1985). The teacher of gifted students. Gifted

Education International, 3(2), 87-93.

Freeman, J. (1998). Educating the very able: Current

international research. London: Office for Standards in

Education.

Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind. New York: Basic

Books.

(1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences: myths and

messages. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), 200-209.

Gear, G. (1979). Teachers of the gifted: A student’s

perspective. Roeper Review, 1(3), 18-20.

Gentry, M., Moran, C. & Reis, S.M. (1999). Expanding

enrichment program opportunities to all students. Gifted

Child Today, 22(4), 36-48.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An

introduction (2nd ed.) New York: Longman.

Grambo, G. (1994). Putting control in the student’s hands.

Gifted Child Today, 17(6), 24-25.

Gross, M.U.M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. London:

Routledge.

Gross, M.U.M., Sleap, B. & Pretorious, M. (1999). Gifted

students in secondary schools: Differentiating the

curriculum. Sydney: GERRIC.

Groundwater-Smith, S., Cusworth, R. & Dobbins, R. (1998).

Teaching: Challenges and dilemmas. Sydney: Harcourt

Brace.

98

Guba, E.J. (Ed.) (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage Publications.

Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1998). Competing paradigms in

qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln

(Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 195-

220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hansen, J.B. & Feldhusen, J.F. (1994). Comparison of trained

and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 38(3), 115–121.

Hoekman, K., McCormick, J. & Gross M.U.M. (1999). The

optimal context for gifted students: A preliminary

exploration of motivational and affective considerations.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(4), 170-193.

Holstein, J.A., & Gubrium, J.F. (1988). Phenomenology, ethno-

methodology, and interpretative practice. In N.K. Denzin

& Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) Strategies of qualitative inquiry.

(pp. 137-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Janesick, V.J. (1998). The dance of qualitative research

design: Metaphor, methodolatry, and meaning. In N.K.

Denzin, & Y.S.Lincoln (Eds.) Strategies of qualitative

inquiry (pp. 35-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Karnes, F.A., Stephens, K.R. & Whorton, J.E. (2000).

Certification and specialised competencies for teachers

in gifted education programs. Roeper Review, 22(3), 201-

202.

99

Keeves, J. (1997). Educational research, methodology, and

measurement: An international handbook. (2nd ed.) New

York: Pergamon.

Kerry, C.A. & Kerry, T. (2000). The effective use of school

time in the education of the most able. The Australasian

Journal of Gifted Education, 9(1), 33-40.

Kerry, T. & Kerry, C.A. (1997). Teaching the more able:

Primary and secondary compared. Education Today,

47(3), 11-16.

(1999). The dangers of differentiation. Gifted Education

International, 13(3), 239-242.

Kettle, K.E., Renzulli, J.S. & Rizza, M. G. (1998). Products of

mind: Exploring student preferences for product

development using My Way…An expression style

instrument. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(1), 48-56.

Kirschenbaum, R.J. (1995). An interview with Howard

Gardner. In R. Fogarty & J. Bellanca (Eds.) Multiple

intelligences: A collection. (pp. 3-24). Melbourne:

Hawker Brownlow Education.

Knight, B.A. & Becker, T. (2000). The challenge of meeting

the needs of gifted students in the regular classroom:

The student viewpoint. Australasian Journal of Gifted

Education, 9(1), 11-17.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative

research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Landvogt, J. (1997). Teaching gifted children: Developing

programs for schools. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow

Education.

100

Langrehr, J. (1996). Thinking chips for thinking students.

Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow Education.

Maddux, C.D., Samples-Lachmann, I. & Cummings, R.E.

(1985). Preferences of gifted students for selected

teacher characteristics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(4),

160-163.

Maker, C.J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted.

Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems.

(1986). Integrating content and process in the teaching

of gifted students. In C.J. Maker (Ed.), Critical issues in

gifted education: Defensible programs for the gifted.

(pp.151-162). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

(1989). Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic

minorities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Maker, C.J. & Neilson, A.B. (1995). Teaching models in

education of the gifted (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

(1996). Curriculum development and teaching strategies

for gifted learners (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Maltby, F. (1983). Teacher-pupil and teacher-gifted pupil

interaction in first and middle schools. Gifted Education

International, 2(1), 11-18.

(1984). Gifted children and teachers in the primary

school. London: Falmer.

Mares, L. (1994). Ad majorem apple pie gloriam – motivating

the gifted. In A. Simic & C. McGrath (Eds.) Developing

excellence: Potential into performance. (pp. 47-50).

Adelaide: Australian Association for the Education of the

Gifted and Talented (AAEGT).

101

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (1999). Designing qualitative

research. (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. Thousand Oak, CA:

Sage.

McCann, M. & Southern, F. (1996). Fusing Talent: Giftedness

in Australian classrooms. Adelaide: Australian

Association for the Education of the Gifted and Talented

(AAEGT).

McNabb, T. (1997). From potential to performance:

Motivational issues for gifted students. In N. Colangelo &

G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.)

(pp. 408-415). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Merlin, D.S. (1994). A few good people – surround yourself

with good people. Gifted Child Today, 17(2), 14–19.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A

qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Moltzen, R. (1998). Maximising the potential of the gifted

child in the regular classroom: A professional

development issue. Gifted Education International, 13(1),

36-45.

Montgomery, D. (1983). Teaching the teachers of the gifted.

Gifted Education International, 2(2), 32-34.

(1996). Educating the able. London: Cassell.

Moon, S.M., Feldhusen, J.F., & Dillon D. (1994). Long-term

effects of an enrichment program based on the Purdue

three-stage model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 38-48.

102

Morelock, M.J. & Morrison, K. (1996). Gifted children have

talents too: Multi-dimensional programmes for the gifted

in early childhood. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow

Education.

Nisbet, J. (1990). Teaching thinking: An introduction to the

research literature. Spotlights, 26, 1-6.

Parke, B.N. & Ness, P.S. (1988). Curricular decision-making

for the education of young gifted children. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 32(1), 196-199.

Passow, A.H. (1982). Differentiated curricula for the

gifted/talented: Committee report to the National/State

Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and Talented.

Ventura County, CA: Office of the Superintendent of

Schools.

Piirto, J. (1999). Talented children and adults. (2nd ed.)

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Pohl, M. (1997). Teaching thinking skills in the primary years:

A whole school approach. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow.

(1998). Gifted students and teacher attitudes.

Unpublished Masters thesis. Adelaide: The Flinders

University of South Australia.

Porter, L. (1997). A proposed model describing the realisation

of gifted potential. The Australasian Journal of Gifted

Education, 6(2), 33-43.

(1999a). Gifted young children: A guide for teachers and

parents. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

103

(1999b). Behaviour management practices in child care

centres. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Adelaide:

University of South Australia.

(2002). Educating young children with additional needs.

Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Ramos-Ford, V. & Gardner, H. (1997). Giftedness from a

multiple intelligences perspective. In N. Colangelo &

G.A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.)

(pp. 54-66). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Rash, P.K. & Miller, A.D. (2000). A survey of practices of

teachers of the gifted. Roeper Review, 22(3), 192-194.

Reis, S.M. & Purcell, J.H. (1993). An analysis of content

elimination and strategies used by elementary classroom

teachers in the curriculum compacting process. Journal

for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2), 147-170.

Reis, S.M. & Renzulli, J.S. (1992). Using curriculum

compacting to challenge the above average. Educational

Leadership, 50(2), 51-57.

Reis, S.M., Westberg, K.L., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F.,

Herbert, T., Plucker, J., Purcell, J., Rogers, J. & Smist, J.

(1993). Why not let high ability students start school in

January? The curriculum compacting study (Research

Monograph 93106). Storrs, CT: The National Research

Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Reis, S.M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J.M. & Purcell, J. H.

(1998). Curriculum compacting and achievement test

scores: What does the research say? Gifted Child

Quarterly, 42(2), 123-129.

104

Renzulli, J.S. & Reis, S.M. (1994). Research related to the

schoolwide enrichment triad model. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 38(1), 7-20.

Richetti, C. & Sheerin, J. (1999). Helping students ask the

right questions. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 58-62.

Ristow, R. (1988). The teaching of thinking skills. Gifted Child

Today, 11(2), 44-46.

Rogers, K.B. & Kimpston, R.D. (1992). Acceleration: What we

do vs. what we know. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 58-

61.

Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative

research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3) 27-37.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1996). Including all students and their

gifts within regular classrooms. In W. Stainback & S.

Stainback (Eds.) Controversial issues confronting special

education: Divergent perspectives. (2nd ed.) (pp. 69-80).

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Sawyer, R.N. (1988). In defense of academic rigor. Journal for

the Education of the Gifted, 11(2), 1-19.

Schiever, S.W. & Maker, C.J. (1997). Enrichment and

acceleration: An overview and new directions. In N.

Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted

education. (2nd ed.) (pp. 113-125). Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

Schlichter, C.L. (1988). Thinking skills instruction for all

classrooms. Gifted Child Today, 11(2), 24-29.

105

Seeley, K. E. (1979). Competencies for teachers of gifted and

talented children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,

3(1), 7-13.

Seeley, K. E. (1989). Facilitators for the gifted. In J.

Feldhusen., J. Van Tassel-Baska & K. Seeley (Eds.),

Excellence in educating the gifted. Denver, CO: Love.

Shaughnessy, M.F, & Stockard, J.W. (1996). Gifted children’s

teachers’, and parents’ perceptions of influential factors

on gifted development. Gifted Education International,

11(2), 76-79.

Shelton, C.M. (2000). Portraits in emotional awareness.

Educational Leadership, 58(1), 30-33.

Shore, B.M., Cornell, D.G., Robinson, A. & Ward, V. (1991).

Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical

analysis. New York: Teachers College Press.

Shore, B.M. & Delcourt, M.A.B. (1996). Effective curricular

and program practices in gifted education and the

interface with general education. Journal for the

Education of the Gifted, 20(2), 138-154.

Silverman, L.K. (1993). A developmental model for counseling

the gifted. In L.K. Silverman (Ed.) Counseling the gifted

and talented. (pp. 51-78). Denver, CO: Love.

Sisk, D.A. (1975). Teaching the gifted and talented teacher: A

training model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 19(1), 81-88.

(1988). Point-counterpoint education: Acceleration: The

bored and disinterested gifted child: Going through

school lockstep. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,

11(4), 5-18; 32-38.

106

Sizer, T.R. (1999). No two are quite alike. Educational

Leadership, 57(1), 6-11.

Smith, S.R. & Chan, L.K.S. (1998). The attitudes of Catholic

primary school teachers towards provision for gifted and

talented students. Australasian Journal of Gifted

Education, 7 (1), 29-41.

Southern, T.W., Jones E.D., & Stanley, J.C. (2000).

Acceleration and enrichment: The context and

development of program options. In K.A. Heller, F.J.

Monks, R.J. Strenberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.),

International handbook of research and development of

giftedness and talent (2nd ed.) (pp. 387-405). Oxford,

UK: Pergamon.

Sparrow, A. (1985). Some practical ideas for meeting the

needs of the gifted child in the classroom. Gifted

Education International, 3(1), 65–70.

Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

(1998). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.)

Strategies of qualitative inquiry. (pp. 86-110). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stanish, B. (1988). The giving book. Carthage: Good Apple.

(1994). Keeping teaching alive. Gifted Child Today, 17(1),

27-31.

Stanley, J.C. (1976). Identifying and nurturing the

intellectually gifted. Phi Delta Kappa, 58(3), 234-237.

(1996). Educational trajectories: Radical accelerates

provide insights. Gifted Child Today, 19(2), 18-19.

107

Starko, A.J. (1986). Meeting the needs of the gifted

throughout the school day: Techniques for curriculum

compacting. Roeper Review, 9(1), 27-33.

Starko, A.J. & Schack, G.D. (1989). Perceived need, teacher

efficacy, and teaching strategies for the gifted and

talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(3), 118-122.

Stephens, K.R. (1996). Product development for gifted

students: Formulation to reflection. Gifted Child Today,

19(6), 18-20.

Tomlinson, C.A. (1995a). How to differentiate instruction in

mixed ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

(1995b). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle

school: One school's journey. Gifted Child Quarterly,

39(2), 77-87.

(1996). Good teaching for one and all: Does gifted

education have an instructional identity? Journal for the

Education of the Gifted, 20(2), 155-174.

(1998). For integration and differentiation choose

concepts over topics. Middle School Journal, November.

(1999a). Mapping a route toward differentiated

instruction. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 12-17.

(1999b). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the

needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA. ASCD.

(1999c). Leadership for differentiated classrooms. The

School Administrator, October.

(2000). Reconcilable differences?: Standards-based

teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership,

58(1), 6-13.

108

(2001). When good grades are bad: How can teachers

help parents keep a balanced view of achievement?

Gifted Education Communicator, 32(1), 40-42.

Tomlinson, C.A., & Callahan C.M. (1992). Contributions of

gifted education in a time of change. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 36(4), 183-189.

Tomlinson, C.A. & Kalbfleisch, M.L. (1998). Teach me, teach

my brain: A call for differentiated classrooms.

Educational Leadership, 56(3), 52-55.

Tomlinson, C.A., Tomchin, E.M., Callahan, C.M., Adams, C.M.,

Pizzat-Tinnin, P., Cunningham, C.M., Moore, B., Lutz, L.

& Roberson, C. (1994). Practices of pre-service teachers

related to gifted and other academically diverse learners.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 106-114.

Tomlinson, S. (1986). A survey of participant expectations for

inservice in education of the gifted. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 30(3), 110-113.

van Bavel, S. (1994). Developing an enrichment curriculum.

In A. Simic & C. McGrath (Eds.) Developing Excellence:

Potential into performance. (pp. 134-139). Sydney:

Australian Association for the Education of the Gifted and

Talented Council (AAEGTC).

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1988). Comprehensive curriculum for

gifted learners. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

(1989). Appropriate curriculum for gifted learners.

Educational Leadership, 6(6), 13-15.

(1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners.

(2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

109

(1996). The process of talent development. In J. Van

Tassel-Baska, D.T. Johnson & L.N. Boyce (Eds.),

Developing verbal talent (pp. 3–22). Boston, MA: Allyn

and Bacon.

(1997). What matters in curriculum for gifted learners:

Reflections on theory, research and practice. In N.

Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted

education. (2nd ed.) (pp.126-135). Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

(2000). Theory and research on curriculum development

for the gifted. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Monks, R.J. Sternberg

& R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of

research and development of giftedness and talent (pp.

345-366). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Wassermann, S. (1987). Teaching for thinking: Louis E. Raths

revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(6), 460-466.

Wentzel, K.R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and

interpersonal relationships: implications for

understanding motivation at school. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 91(1), 76-97.

Westberg, K.L. (1995). Meeting the needs of the gifted in the

regular classroom: The practices of exemplary teachers

and schools. Gifted Child Today, 18(1), 27-30.

Westberg, K.L. & Archambault, F.X., Jr. (1997). A multi-site

case study of successful classroom practices for high

ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(1), 42-51.

Westberg, K.L., Archambault, F.X., Jr. & Brown, S.W. (1997).

A survey of classroom practices with third and fourth

110

grade students in the United States. Gifted Education

International, 12(1), 29-33.

Westberg, K.L., Archambault, F.X., Jr., Dobyns, S.M. & Salvin,

T.J. (1993). The classroom practices observation study.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2), 120-146.

Westwood, P. (1997). Commonsense methods for children

with special needs. (3rd ed.) New York: Routledge.

Whitlock, M.S. & DuCette, J.P. (1989). Outstanding and

average teachers of the gifted: A comparative study.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(1), 15-21.

Whitton, D. (1997). Regular practices with gifted students in

grades 3 and 4 in New South Wales, Australia. Gifted

Education International, 12, 34-38.

Whybra, J. (2000). Extension and enrichment programmes: A

place I could fit in. In M.J. Stopper (Ed.), Meeting the

social and emotional needs of gifted and talented

children. (pp. 37-49). London: David Fulton.

Winebrenner, S. (1992). Teaching gifted kids in the regular

classroom. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Press.

Winebrenner, S. (2000). Gifted students need an education

too. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 52-56.

Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research, design and methods.

(2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

(1998). The abridged version of case study research –

design and method. In L. Bickman & D.J. Rog (Eds.),

Handbook of applied social research methods. (pp. 229-

259). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

111

Young, P. & Tyre, C. (1992). Gifted or able?: Realising

children’s potential. Buckingham, UK: Open University

Press.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to all the teachers and students who made

this research possible.

Thank you Jill for your support and help with all things

pertaining to the computer. I marvel at your abilities!

Thank you Dr. Louise Porter for sharing your wisdom,

experience and skills. You are a true friend and

colleague.

112

Thank you my darling children, Sophie, Lucy, Noah

and Charlotte for encouraging and supporting me

even though I often absent.

Finally thank you Tanya for being you. You made this

happen in so many different ways.

113