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 2002
CONTENTS

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  teacher­directed 

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 

student­centred 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 student­centred 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   Tassel­Baska 

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; 

Ramos­Ford   &   Gardner   1997;   Van   Tassel­Baska   1989;   Winebrenner 

2000).   Others   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 

5
Delcourt   1996;   Tomlinson   1995a,   1996,   1998,   1999b;   Tomlinson   & 

Kalbfleisch1998; Van Tassel­Baska, 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:
• 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 

6
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   Tassel­Baska   (1988:14­15)   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.

These   three   fundamental   differences   imply   particular   learning 

needs   experienced  by   gifted   students  (Eyre   1997;   Freeman  1998;  Van 

Tassel­Baska 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.

7
• 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; VanTassel­Baska 1989, 1994, 1997; Winebrenner 2000). It is wise to 

remember Van Tassel­Baska’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.

8
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 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   (Sapon­Shevin   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).

9
Child­centred curricula

All   students   benefit   from   a   child­centred   curriculum,   incorporating 

their interests (Gardner 1991; Groundwater­Smith et al. 1998: 76). Gifted 

students often value opportunities to pursue passions and interests that 

contain a problem­solving 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   assessment   and 

analysis   of   the   learning   needs   of   each   student   (Braggett   et   al.   1997). 

Borland (1989: 171) succinctly comments,

10
 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 re­learn 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   decision­making   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 make­up.

While educators of the gifted are unanimous in their endorsement 

of   curriculum   differentiation   for   gifted   students,   other   educators 

struggle with the ‘appearance’ of elitism. Sapon­Shevin (1996) questions 

the need for differentiated curricula for gifted students. She suggests 

that all groups in the classroom benefit from differentiation, and that all 

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

Sapon­Shevin 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, 

11
 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 Tassel­Baska (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:
• 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 Tassel­Baska 1996).

Process

Methods to differentiate teaching and learning processes comprise:
• instruction   in   higher­order   thinking   skills   (Langrehr   1996;   Pohl 

1998; Wassermann 1987);
• employment of various learning styles (Gardner 1991, 1995);

12
• 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   inquiry­based   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 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?

13
• 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?
• 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 special­progress 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:

14
• avoiding boredom and any resultant behavioural difficulties;

• the   promotion   of   good   study   skills   including   higher­order 

thinking skills and motivation;
• allowing children to mix with intellectual peers.

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 Tassel­Baska 1992), including:
• early entrance to school;

• grade skipping;

• non­graded   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).

15
 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,   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 fifth­grade 

student, who is explaining curriculum compacting in his classroom:

We take a pre­test 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 relevance and meaning for him, and 

16
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 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, 

17
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.

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; 

18
Porter 1999a; Stanish 1988, 1994; Starko & Schack 1989; VanTassel­Baska 

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 higher­order 

thinking   skills   as   well   as   using   lower­level   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;

19
 and the higher­order 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   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 low­level thinking questions, 

they will receive low­level thinking responses; if teachers ask questions 

that involve synthesis, evaluation and analysis, they are more likely to 

receive   responses   reflecting   those   higher­order   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 lower­level thinking 

processes do  not encourage students to use  logic  or  to build a well­

20
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).

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   self­esteem   flows   from   their   outward   show   of 

giftedness might give up when they cannot always shine.

21
• 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   (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;

22
• 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.

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 

23
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 

problem­solving skills and use of higher­order 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.
• 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   high­quality 

success, ‘inservice’ students in research skills, provide a mentor 

for students to discuss their ideas, and negotiate time lines.

24
• 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):
• 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 Tassel­Baska (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 

25
 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 in­service training;

• 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. Fifty­four 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.

26
 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

• 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 

27
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 well­recognised 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. 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 1990­1993. 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 semi­structured 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 student­teacher verbal interactions in the classroom. The authors of 

28
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   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   open­ended   discussions   and   asked   open­ended 

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 

29
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   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 

world­renowned   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.  

From   the   findings   of   these   studies   it   would   appear   that   gifted 

students are being catered for inconsistently at best, and barely at all, at 

30
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.

31
 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:

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.

32
 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).

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 

33
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 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.

34
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;
• all the gifted students are in middle primary (grades 3­5).

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 

35
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:   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 non­participant 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 long­term plans for the 

next visit.

36
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   was   achieved   by 

informal discussions and clarifying conversations with teachers, which 

took place in the staff room. These discussions permitted progressive 

focusing and were semi­structured, 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 semi­structured interview, there is 

flexibility   for   changes   of   sequence   of   questions,   topics   and   forms   of 

questions (Kvale 1996). As suggested by Merriam (1988:78­79) the types 

of open­ended 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;

37
• background/demographic  questions  that  detailed  their  training, 

years of experience in working with gifted students.

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.

38
 Stake (1995: 68) advises that:

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:
• ‘user   friendly’   observation   sheets,   which   highlighted   particular 

areas for observation;
• class floor plans, which were drawn during observation visits;

39
• 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   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.

40
 Based on Merriam’s (1988: 125­6) 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;

• over­extension 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 

re­coding 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 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?

41
 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)

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 non­typical 

events;
• looking for other explanations for observed events;

42
• 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. 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 

43
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 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 self­monitoring by researchers. It involves researchers 

44
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   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.

45
 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).

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 cross­site 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 

46
participants   needs   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.

47
 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 3­5). 

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   WISC­III)   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.

Teacher B: ‘Lee’
This   DETE   school   was   in   a   semi­rural   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.

48
 Lee taught a grade 5 class that had two highly gifted students one 

of whom had been assessed by a psychologist using the WISC­III. 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.

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.

49
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:
• a physically safe and pleasant place;

• encouragement   of   satisfying   relationships   in   the   classroom 

(student­student and student­teacher);
• 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. 

50
 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   of   shouting   and   put­downs.   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. 

51
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   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   risk­taking   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. 

52
 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:
• students smiling and laughing with each other appropriately;

53
• students supporting each other in learning tasks;

• students asking relevant, open­ended 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 

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.

54
• 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   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 

55
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;

• 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

56
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)

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;

57
• 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 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.

58
• They provided students with a wide variety of skill development 

activities.
• They   encouraged   gifted   students   in   acceleration   and/or 

enrichment.
• 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 same classroom 

59
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   justifying   why   they 

should study something different from everyone else.

Another teacher facilitated choice and negotiation by:

60
• 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:
• higher­order   thinking   skills   and   appropriate   teaching 

methodologies   that   facilitate   the   solving   of   problems   that   are 

‘worth solving’;
• 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?

61
• 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:
• higher­order thinking skills (Bloom’s Taxonomy);

• problem­solving activities;

• development of critical thinking skills;

• de Bono’s six hats;

• open­ended questioning that incorporated higher­order thinking 

skills and problem solving;
• Gardner’s multiple intelligences;

• training students to think logically, combining cause and effect;

• the thinkers’ keys (Tony Ryan);

• 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, 

62
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 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 

63
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   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.

64
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:
• 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. 

65
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 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;

66
• choice for students in product design and presentation.

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   pre­tests   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   higher­order   thinking   skills   into   assessment 

requirements;

Two teachers used all the above measures, while the third teacher 

employed   peer   assessment,   assessment   of   work   that   provided   real 

67
solutions to real problems, opportunities for peers to work together and 

higher­order   thinking   processes.   The   fourth   teacher   used   only 

collaborative work and higher­order 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   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).

68
 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.   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 

69
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;
• 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.

70
 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   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 

71
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.

72
 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 self­evident 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.
• Students   celebrated   other   students’   successes.   The   ethos   of   the 

classroom community appeared to focus on collaboration and not 

competition.

73
 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   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.

74
 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):

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 

75
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 higher­order 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 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 

76
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.

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

help   them   assist   their   students   in   developing   high­quality   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 

77
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 

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.

78
 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 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  child­centred  or  bottom­up  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 teacher­directed or top­down approach to the design and delivery of the 

79
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.

80
Top down model Bottom up model

(Teacher as facilitator, 
(Teacher as the expert)
with a student focus)

Deliver the curriculum
Design curriculum

Negotiate the 
curriculum 
Deliver the curriculum with students

Identify
Assess the curriculum 
students’ needs

students’ strengths

testing  and 

Safe learning 

environment

Figure 1. Figure 2.

81
 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 ‘add­on’ 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;   Sapon­Shevin,   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 child­centred model, there could be arguments 

that, in terms of curriculum delivery alone, acceleration would not be as 

necessary   as   it   is   in   a   teacher­directed   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. However, this study, 

restricted as it is, and the larger studies of Archambault and Westberg 

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

82
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 environment, all students ­ including the gifted ­ will be 

nurtured and nourished.

83
 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. 12­36). 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), 161­167.

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

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

         (1997). Evaluating gifted programs. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis 
(Eds.) Handbook of gifted education. (2nd ed.) (pp. 253­266). Boston, 

MA: Allyn and Bacon.

84
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. 229­283). 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.

Burton­Szabo, S. (1996). Special classes for gifted students? Absolutely. 
Gifted Child Today, 19(1), 12­15.

Callahan, C.M. (1996). A critical self­study of gifted education: Healthy 
practice, necessary evil, or sedition? Journal for the Education of the  

Gifted, 19 (2), 148­163.

Carrington,   N.G.   &   Bailey,   S.B.   (2000).   How   do   pre­service   teachers 

view gifted students?  The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education,  

19(1), 18­22.

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

teachers’ use of gifted practices. Roeper Review, 23(1), 18­21.

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

Merrill.

85
Clark, C. (1998). The professional development of teachers working with 
more able learners. Gifted Education International, 12(3), 145­150.

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), 32­33.

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), 32­33.

         (1998). Once a teacher… Gifted Child Today, 21(5), 18­19.

         (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.

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), 87­93.

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), 200­209.

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

Review, 1(3), 18­20.

86
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), 24­25.

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.

Groundwater­Smith,   S., Cusworth,   R.  & Dobbins,   R. (1998).  Teaching:  

Challenges and dilemmas. Sydney: Harcourt Brace.

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. 195­220). 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), 170­193.

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.   137­158). 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

87
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.   35­54).   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), 201­202.

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), 33­40.

Kerry,  T.  &  Kerry,  C.A.  (1997).   Teaching   the  more  able:  Primary   and 
secondary compared. Education Today, 47(3), 11­16.

         (1999).   The   dangers   of   differentiation.  Gifted   Education  

International, 13(3), 239­242.

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), 

48­56.

Kirschenbaum, R.J. (1995). An interview with Howard Gardner. In R. 
Fogarty & J. Bellanca (Eds.)  Multiple intelligences: A collection. (pp. 

3­24). 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), 11­17.

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

interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

88
Landvogt,   J.   (1997).  Teaching   gifted   children:   Developing   programs   for  

schools. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow Education.

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

Hawker Brownlow Education.

Maddux,   C.D.,   Samples­Lachmann,   I.   &   Cummings,   R.E.   (1985). 

Preferences of gifted students for selected teacher characteristics. 
Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(4), 160­163.

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.151­162). Austin, TX: Pro­Ed.

         (1989).  Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities.  Austin, 

TX: Pro­Ed.
Maker, C.J. & Neilson,  A.B. (1995).  Teaching  models in education of the  

gifted (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro­Ed.

         (1996).  Curriculum   development   and   teaching   strategies   for   gifted  

learners (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro­Ed.

Maltby, F. (1983). Teacher­pupil and teacher­gifted pupil interaction in 
first and middle schools. Gifted Education International, 2(1), 11­18.

         (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. 47­50).  Adelaide: Australian Association for the 

Education of the Gifted and Talented (AAEGT).
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (1999).  Designing qualitative research. (3rd 

ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

89
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. 408­415). 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: Jossey­Bass.

Moltzen, R. (1998). Maximising the potential of the gifted child in the 
regular   classroom:   A   professional   development   issue.  Gifted  

Education International, 13(1), 36­45.

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

Education International, 2(2), 32­34.

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

Moon, S.M., Feldhusen, J.F., & Dillon D. (1994). Long­term effects of an 

enrichment   program   based   on   the   Purdue   three­stage   model. 

Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 38­48.

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

Multi­dimensional   programmes   for   the   gifted   in   early   childhood. 

Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow Education.

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

literature. Spotlights, 26, 1­6.

90
Parke,   B.N.   &   Ness,   P.S.   (1988).   Curricular   decision­making   for   the 
education   of   young   gifted  children.  Gifted   Child  Quarterly, 32(1), 

196­199.

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), 33­43.

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

Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

         (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.

Ramos­Ford,   V.   &   Gardner,   H.   (1997).   Giftedness   from   a   multiple 

intelligences   perspective.   In   N.   Colangelo   &   G.A.   Davis   (Eds.) 

Handbook   of   gifted   education  (2nd   ed.)   (pp.   54­66).   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), 192­194.

91
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), 147­170.

Reis,   S.M.   &   Renzulli,   J.S.   (1992).   Using   curriculum   compacting   to 
challenge the above average. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 51­57.

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), 123­129.

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

enrichment triad model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 7­20.

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

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

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

11(2), 44­46.

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

what we know. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 58­61. 

Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. 
Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3) 27­37.

Sapon­Shevin, 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. 69­80). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

92
Sawyer,   R.N.   (1988).   In   defense   of   academic   rigor.  Journal   for   the  

Education of the Gifted, 11(2), 1­19.

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. 113­125). Boston, MA: 

Allyn and Bacon.

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

Gifted Child Today, 11(2), 24­29.

Seeley, K. E. (1979). Competencies for teachers of gifted and talented 
children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 3(1), 7­13.

Seeley, K. E. (1989). Facilitators for the gifted. In J. Feldhusen., J. Van 
Tassel­Baska & 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), 76­79.

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

Leadership, 58(1), 30­33.

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), 138­154.

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

gifted. In L.K. Silverman (Ed.) Counseling the gifted and talented. (pp. 

51­78). Denver, CO: Love.

93
Sisk, D.A. (1975). Teaching the gifted and talented teacher: A training 
model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 19(1), 81­88.

         (1988). Point­counterpoint education: Acceleration: The bored and 
disinterested gifted child: Going through school lockstep.  Journal  

for the Education of the Gifted, 11(4), 5­18; 32­38.

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), 29­41.

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. 387­405). 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.   86­110).   Thousand   Oaks,   CA:   Sage 

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

         (1994). Keeping teaching alive. Gifted Child Today, 17(1), 27­31.

Stanley, J.C. (1976). Identifying and nurturing the intellectually gifted. 
Phi Delta Kappa, 58(3), 234­237.

94
         (1996).   Educational   trajectories:   Radical   accelerates   provide 
insights. Gifted Child Today, 19(2), 18­19.

Starko,   A.J.   (1986).   Meeting   the   needs   of   the   gifted   throughout   the 
school day: Techniques for curriculum compacting. Roeper Review,  

9(1), 27­33.

Starko, A.J. & Schack, G.D. (1989). Perceived need, teacher efficacy, and 
teaching   strategies   for   the   gifted   and   talented.   Gifted   Child  

Quarterly, 33(3), 118­122.

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

Formulation to reflection. Gifted Child Today, 19(6), 18­20.

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), 77­87.

         (1996). Good teaching for one and all: Does gifted education have 
an   instructional   identity?  Journal   for   the   Education   of   the   Gifted,  

20(2), 155­174.

         (1998).   For   integration   and   differentiation   choose   concepts   over 

topics. Middle School Journal, November.

         (1999a).   Mapping   a   route   toward   differentiated   instruction. 

Educational Leadership, 57(1), 12­17.

         (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?:   Standards­based   teaching   and 

differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6­13.

95
         (2001). When good grades are bad: How can teachers help parents 
keep   a   balanced   view   of   achievement?  Gifted   Education  

Communicator, 32(1), 40­42.

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

education in a time of change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 183­189.

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 pre­service teachers related to gifted and other 
academically diverse learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 106­114.

Tomlinson, S. (1986). A survey of participant expectations for inservice 
in education of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(3), 110­113.

van Bavel, S. (1994). Developing an enrichment curriculum. In A. Simic 
&   C.   McGrath   (Eds.)  Developing   Excellence:   Potential   into  

performance.  (pp. 134­139). Sydney: Australian Association for the 

Education of the Gifted and Talented Council (AAEGTC).
Van Tassel­Baska, J. (1988).  Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. 

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
         (1989).   Appropriate   curriculum   for   gifted   learners.  Educational  

Leadership, 6(6), 13­15.

         (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. (2nd ed.) Boston, 

MA: Allyn and Bacon.

         (1996). The process of talent development. In J. Van Tassel­Baska, 
D.T. Johnson & L.N. Boyce (Eds.),  Developing verbal talent  (pp. 3–

22). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

96
         (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.126­135). 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. 345­366). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Wassermann, S. (1987). Teaching for thinking: Louis E. Raths revisited. 
Phi Delta Kappan, 68(6), 460­466.

Wentzel,   K.R.   (1999).   Social­motivational   processes   and   interpersonal 

relationships: implications for understanding motivation at school. 
Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 76­97.

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), 27­30.

Westberg, K.L. & Archambault, F.X., Jr. (1997). A multi­site case study of 
successful   classroom   practices   for   high   ability   students.  Gifted  

Child Quarterly, 41(1), 42­51.

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

classroom practices with third and fourth grade students in the 
United States. Gifted Education International, 12(1), 29­33.

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), 120­146.

Westwood, P. (1997). Commonsense methods for children with special needs.  

(3rd ed.) New York: Routledge.

97
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, 34­38.

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.   37­49).   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), 52­56.
 
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.   229­259).   Thousand   Oaks,   CA:   Sage 

Publications.

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

Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

98
 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.

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.

99