Gifted Students In the General Education Classroom

Meeting the Needs of Gifted Students

In the General Education Classroom

Elizabeth Jankowiak

Gifted Students In the General Education Classroom

Abstract

This paper seeks to discuss the needs of gifted students and how their needs may
be met within the general education classroom. This may be seen through a series of
evidence-based strategies and curriculum models used to differentiate instruction in order
to provide appropriate education for gifted learners. Beginning with the historical context
of gifted education, this paper will explore how it came to be and what is being done in
the present in order to educate these students. This paper also examines repercussions of
gifted students who have not had their needs met within the general education classroom
and the impact it has on society locally, nationally, and globally. Field research was
conducted in order to provide insight on what educators are doing in their classroom to
meet the needs of a population seeking a challenge.

Gifted Students In the General Education Classroom

Historical Background
Gifted education is deeply rooted within history, dating back to scholars,
philosophers, and prodigies of the creative arts such as Confucius, Plato, Socrates, and
Michelangelo. There have been individuals from within diverse cultures and eras that
made large contributions to society which had been nurtured from their giftedness
(VanTassel-Baska, 2010). These gifted individuals shared their contributions with society
and worked to harvest talent within young scholars to help them discover their potential.
According to Gallagher, one of the first known approaches for providing education to
gifted students could be seen in the apprentice model (1994). This approach can be
frequently seen during the time of the Renaissance and post-Renaissance era, which
apprentices worked to encourage and reveal the gifts of talented artists, such as Mozart
(Gallagher, 1994).
Aside from the apprentice method recognized in earlier eras, how have educators
differentiated instruction to meet the needs of their gifted students in the past? Meeting
the needs of gifted students within the educational system of our nation began to
prominently appear in the early 1900s. Urban education systems began implementing
programs for gifted students in order to identify bright young individuals. In 1918,
opportunity classes and ability grouping began to take place in Los Angeles schools. This
separated students of higher-level thinking from their slower learning peers (VanTasselBaska, 2010). During the 1930s, honors courses and extracurricular programs were
offered to gifted students; even gifted schools were established (VanTassel-Baska, 2010).
A widespread push for gifted education surfaced in the late 1950s when the Soviets
proved to have superiority in scientific fields over the United States after the launch of

Gifted Students In the General Education Classroom

Sputnik during the Cold War (Gallagher, 1994). During this time the nation began to
understand that gifted students have needs that need to be addressed in order for them to
excel and become prominent members of society with a contribution. Interests arose in
cross-aged grouping, full-time centers for gifted learners, comprehensive course offerings
across all grade levels, content-based advanced learning, social and emotional concerns
of gifted learners, and counseling for those learners (VanTassel-Baska, 2010).
Recent legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act, caused a stir in the world of
gifted education. Neal and Schanzenbach (2010) conducted a study that suggested that
after the implementation of the proficiency requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act
educators had the tendency to shift their attention mostly to students nearest the
proficiency standard as opposed to those on the further end of the spectrum (gifted and
special needs students). Due to standardized tests, there is concern that educators focus
their efforts mostly on the majority (average performing students) in order to be
considered proficient teachers (Neal & Schanzenback, 2010), or use a one-size fits all
curriculum, which appeals to the average students of that age group (Gallagher, 1994). It
is important to investigate how educators are differentiating instruction and meeting the
needs of gifted students in the general education classroom beyond the one-size fits all
curriculum.
Perceptions of Teachers and Students
There are a multitude of suggestions for how to meet the needs of gifted students,
yet there has been no definitive answer of how to meet the needs of all gifted students.
Davidson (2004) provide insight on the struggles parents, teachers, and bright individuals
face when trying to best meet the need of a gifted student Their seminal work, Genius

Gifted Students In the General Education Classroom

Denied, delves into issues dealing with socioeconomic status and the ability to be
identified as gifted, a lack of financial resources on part of the family to provide their
child with an education in a school or program for gifted students, student readiness to
accelerate well beyond their age-group, and finding support networks in order to ensure
their child gets an appropriate education based on their gift. Not every family or school
can provide for gifted students in the way the student needs, so how can educators begin
to differentiate within the general education classroom in order to include gifted
individuals?
According to Willard-Holt (2003), Education research has shown that gifted
students motivation and performance also declined in the absence of mental stimulation,
leading to underachievement (p.72). Aside from socioeconomic/financial/readiness
issues, there is the issue that there is a lack of mental stimulation in the regular classroom
for gifted students.
An observational study looked into the instructional and curricular practices used
with gifted students within a regular classroom and found that, no instructional or
curricular differentiation was found in 84% of the activities experienced by the target
gifted or high ability students (Westberg & Others, 1993, p.39). With such a low
percentage of differentiation, it is time to consider what strategies teachers can adopt in
order to increase the amount of differentiation within their classrooms.
Strategies for Differentiating Instruction
An important first step is for the teacher to determine the readiness and ability of
the student before differentiating instruction. In order to meet their needs, the teacher
must understand how the student learns best, what their interests are, and how to best

Gifted Students In the General Education Classroom

develop a curriculum suitable to these needs. According to VanTassel-Baska and
Stambaugh (2005), many educators do not feel comfortable when asked to differentiate
and modify instruction for gifted learners. In order for gifted students to learn,
curriculum modification is essential on the part of the teacher. There are several ways to
modify curriculum, and with the use of several strategies, meeting the needs of gifted
students in the classroom may not be as difficult as it sounds.
One strategy spoke of often in research is curriculum compacting. According to
Willard-Holt (2003), Curriculum compacting means streamlining what is taught to
students by first assessing their prior knowledge and then modifying or eliminating work
that has been partially or fully mastered (p.72). The pre-assessment allows teachers to
gauge what students have a more intense knowledge on the subject and therefore allows
educators to generate material that is more advanced rather than teaching what has
already been mastered. Typically there are three groups of learners that emerge from preassessments; students who are ready for advanced work, students who have partially
mastered the material, and students who had little-to-no mastery of the content (WillardHolt, 2003). Based on these groups, teachers can design and scaffold instruction within
the classroom to meet the needs of the individuals within these groups.
The idea of curriculum compacting and modifying the curriculum based on ability
leads into the discussion of another strategy referred to as ability grouping, or flexible
grouping. Willard-Holt (2003) explains that The teacher groups students according to
strength, need, or interest, and groups change frequently, sometimes in the course of a
single class session (p.73). It is important to realize that a certain group of students may
excel in language arts, but a different group of students may excel in mathematics,

Gifted Students In the General Education Classroom

therefore it is not just to assume that all gifted students share the same area of talent and
can consistently be grouped together. When researching how to meet the needs of gifted
mathematics students, ability grouping was highly praised, with results such as greater
student achievement and intellectual exchange with their peers, and teachers being better
able to cover advanced topics with an identified group of advanced learners (Kim, 2006).
However, a negative aspect of ability grouping must seriously be considered. Kims
research (2006) stated that, Gifted students when grouped according to ability within
classesreceived less than 20% of the teachers attention (p.30). Simply because a
student or group of students in considered gifted, does not mean the teacher should spend
a significantly less amount of time with these learners.
Another strategy that branches off the idea of curriculum modification is allowing
product choices. This allows students to decide what type of product they want to
produce as the result of their learning (Willard-Holt, 2003). Willard-Holt (2003) states
that, Each group addresses the same content standard, but uses different skill or arts
standard (p.74). Tucker and Hafenstein (1997) examined a classroom that used an
integrated-thematic curriculum for gifted learners, which allowed them product choices.
They argued that by implementing an integrated-thematic curriculum, it inspires
students to find personal meaning in their study by allowing them to generate their own
observations, inquiries, and investigations, paralleling the processes performed by
specialists in the field (Tucker & Hafenstein, 1997, p.196). Within this classroom that
was observed, gifted learners focused on an integrated-thematic unit on dinosaurs and
were able to have a product choice for their final project. Some students chose to write a
play, some did research and wrote up a report, some sculpted models of a dinosaur they

Gifted Students In the General Education Classroom

studied, all the while each student was immersed in learning about dinosaurs using their
area of acceleration as a final result (Tucker & Hafenstein, 1997).
Acceleration is another strategy often used for gifted students that allows them to
remain in general education classrooms, however, they are removed from their grade age
peers. Kim (2006) explains that acceleration, involves arrangements due to students
meeting existing curricular objectives at a faster than average rate or an earlier than
average age (p.28). Kim goes on to discuss acceleration in the form of grade skipping
and subject acceleration (AP courses, early college courses). In her article, Kim (2006)
speaks of a positive of acceleration by stating, It is an inexpensive option to implement
that requires little specialization training for teachers, and can be used in most
educational settings to meet the learning needs of many gifted students (p.29). She also
speaks highly of subject acceleration because this strategy seeks to provide gifted
students the differentiation they need in their field of giftedness (Kim, 2006). Both forms
of acceleration were praised by students in an emotional, social, and educational aspect.
Interview
An experienced secondary mathematics teacher gave his insight on differentiation
in the general education classroom through an interview. Mr. Dena, certified in secondary
mathematics and teaching for 19 years, currently is teaching honor pre-calculus courses
and an AP calculus course. He has had experience teaching general mathematics courses
in the past and spoke on gifted students, stating, I dont believe that differentiated
instruction is occurring quite that often in the classrooms. I believe that most teachers
teach to a homogenous group. When asked what changes need to take place to ensure a
better education for gifted students he responded, I believe honors students should be

Gifted Students In the General Education Classroom

part of an honors track. Most teachers have three teaching assignments (classes to teach),
making it difficult to differentiate instruction for different levels in each class. It would be
easier to provide these students with an enrichment period if their schedule allows.
When probed on his initial thoughts of students labeled gifted, he said, [I think] these
students may have an easier time developing a conceptual understanding of the
mathematics. They should be able to understand the material without delays (B. Dena,
Interview, September 12, 2014). His idea of giftedness is merely the beginning. We must
understand, as educators, that although gifted students may be able to understand material
without delay, we must go beyond that to provide material that challenges and encourages
higher-level thinking.
The Impact of Lack of Differentiation for Gifted Students
Why should educators be concerned about meeting the needs of gifted students?
Why not just focus on the majority? A Nation Deceived discusses how America is holding
back its brightest students by not allowing differentiation and acceleration. What impact
does this actually have? According to the authors of A Nation Deceived, When we say
no to acceleration, we are quietly and, ironically with good intentions, lowering our
national standards from excellence to baseline competence (Colangelo, Assouline,
Gross, & Iowa University, p.3). When educators cannot meet the needs of gifted students,
it is quite possible that we may be holding back the next Einstein or Mozart. Teachers
should seek to provide the most appropriate education possible in order to enhance gifted
students abilities, rather than stunt their growth and potential contributions to society.
Moore III, Ford, and Milner mentioned in an article, Implications are provided to
teachers, counselors, and others to reverse the systemic cycle of failure that is too often

Gifted Students In the General Education Classroom

prevalent among students of color in general and gifted students of color in particular
(2005, p.167). Although this statement also digs into the issue of race and giftedness, it
still stands true that there is a cycle of failure occurring as students are continually held
back from achieving their best because educators do not have the means to meet their
needs. Teachers must consider all students, and society should hope that America could
go beyond average proficiency and excel. This can all start with acknowledging that
gifted students do exist, they have needs that must be met, and educators need to
differentiate instruction in order to meet these needs.
Conclusion
Differentiating instruction will not be the answer to resolve all problems
surrounding the field of gifted education, however, it is a beginning that affords gifted
students a chance and opportunity to seek a challenge within their general education
classrooms. Educators can work to avoid many of the negative implications associated
with a lack of differentiation for gifted students by working to meet their unique and
individual needs instead of only focusing attention on the homogeneous majority
(average learner). All students have the right to learn and by implementing the researchbased strategies suggested within this paper, gifted students stand more of a chance for
success in the general curriculum. One or all of these strategies can be used to provide
the challenge that gifted students crave. It is imperative that teachers consider each
students individual needs to decide what strategies work best, whether it is curriculum
compacting, ability grouping, product choices, or acceleration. Many of these strategies
may also promote higher-level thinking and a challenge that the average and lower ability
students enjoy as well. Differentiating instruction to meet the needs of gifted learners

Gifted Students In the General Education Classroom

within the general education classroom should be a priority in all schools, because
without students who desire to learn and create, our nation may loose out on many
valuable contributions that these bright young individuals have the potential to offer.

Gifted Students In the General Education Classroom

References
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., Gross, M. M., & Iowa University, C. (2004). A nation
deceived: How schools hold back america's brightest students. The templeton
national report on acceleration. Volume 1. Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank
International Center For Gifted Education And Talent Development.
Davidson, J., & Davidson, B. (2004). Genius Denied. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster
Paperbacks.
Gagn, F., & Gagnier, N. (2004). The Socio-Affective and academic impact of
early entrance to school. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 26(3),
128-138.
Gallagher, J. J. (1994). Current and historical thinking on education for gifted
and talented students; From Office of Educational Research and Improvement:
National Excellence a Case for Developing Americas Talent; P. Ross, ED.
Kim, S. (2006). Meeting the needs of gifted mathematics students. Australian
Primary Mathematics Classroom, 11(3), 27-32.
Moore III, J. L., Ford, D. Y., & Milner, H. (2005). Underachievement among gifted
students of color: Implications for educators. Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 167177.
Neal, D., & Schanzenbach, D. (2010). LEFT BEHIND BY DESIGN: PROFICIENCY
COUNTS AND TEST-BASED ACCOUNTABILITY. Review Of Economics &
Statistics, 92(2), 263-283.
Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented:

Gifted Students In the General Education Classroom

A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4),
382-396.
Tucker, B., & Hafenstein, N. (1997). An integrated-thematic curriculum for gifted
learners. Roeper Review, 19(4), 196.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2010). The history of urban gifted education. Gifted Child Today,
33(4), 18-27.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis
of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 51(4), 342-358.