Content uploaded by Gregor Torkar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gregor Torkar on Apr 01, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uror20
Roeper Review
ISSN: 0278-3193 (Print) 1940-865X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uror20
Science and Technology Education in Slovenian
Compulsory Basic School: Possibilities for Gifted
Education
Gregor Torkar, Stanislav Avsec, Mojca Čepič, Vesna Ferk Savec & Mojca
Juriševič
To cite this article: Gregor Torkar, Stanislav Avsec, Mojca Čepič, Vesna Ferk Savec
& Mojca Juriševič (2018) Science and Technology Education in Slovenian Compulsory
Basic School: Possibilities for Gifted Education, Roeper Review, 40:2, 139-150, DOI:
10.1080/02783193.2018.1434710
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1434710
Published online: 13 Apr 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 134
View Crossmark data
Science and Technology Education in Slovenian
Compulsory Basic School: Possibilities for Gifted
Education
Gregor Torkar, Stanislav Avsec, Mojca Čepič, Vesna Ferk Savec, and Mojca Juriševič
The article presents an analytical overview of the science and technology curriculum from the
viewpoint of the inclusive approach adopted toward gifted education in Slovenian basic
education. The main research question concerns how the current curriculum fits the learning
needs of gifted students. For the purposes of the study, 16 compulsory and elective syllabi of
science and technology school subjects were identified and qualitatively analyzed, and the role
of activity days was examined within the target framework. The results show a rather weak
operationalization of recommendations for gifted education in defined learning objectives and
standards in the syllabi. Moreover, it was found that elective school subjects in science and
technology are poorly represented in students’overall selection of elective school subjects. In
addition, activity days offer numerous possibilities for the implementation of the general
recommendations for teaching the gifted.
Keywords: curriculum, elementary school, gifted, qualitative research, science, teacher train-
ing, technology
“Is the current curriculum provision really challenging and
developing these learners?”
—(Taber, 2007)
Slovenian elementary and lower secondary education is orga-
nized in a single structure 9-year basic school experience for
students aged 6 to 14 years. It is mandatory, 99% public, and
state financed. There is no formal special education system for
gifted students at the basic education level, with the exception
of music and dance education, which are offered optionally to
gifted students in parallel to compulsory basic education
(Taštanoska, 2015).
This characteristic of the national basic education system is
probably due to the strong influence of the egalitarian heritage, a
feature that Slovenia shares with other Central European states in
the broader sociopolitical context. There are, however, certain
legislative traces from past decades indicating that Slovenia did
not completely overlook the problem of gifted education on the
level of basic education, in addition to which there is a reason-
ably rich history of extracurricular and/or outside-school
activities for gifted youth, such as competitions, fellowships,
camps, and more (Juriševič,2011,2012b). For example, the
Elementary School Act of 1980 did, in fact, dictate various
forms and methods of provision that were particularly suited to
more able students, primarily within the framework of the
extended curriculum (i.e., the possibility to attend additional
classes, facultative subjects, and various interest activities). In
the Elementary School Act of 1996, gifted students were again
highlighted but along with other groups of students with special
needs. Furthermore, the document anticipated certain adapta-
tions within the mandatory curriculum, but these provisions
were not unified on a national level, nor were they monitored
or evaluated. Finally, in the Act Amending the Elementary
School Act of 2011, adapted after the publication of the new
White Paper on Education in the Republic of Slovenia
(Juriševič,2011), gifted students are conceptually separate
from other groups of students with special needs. It is assumed
that this legislative change resulted from a deeper understanding
on the professional level of the fact that the learning and progress
of gifted students, both within and outside school, above all
require challenges or different forms of learning support
(Juriševič,2011,2012a). Specifically, gifted students are defined
as “students who demonstrate a high, above average ability in
thinking, or who attain extraordinary achievements in particular
areas of learning, in the arts or in sport”(Act Amending the
Accepted 5 December 2017.
Address correspondence to Mojca Juriševič, University of Ljubljana,
Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia.
E-mail: mojca.jurisevic@pef.uni-lj.si
Roeper Review, 40:139–150, 2018
Copyright © The Roeper Institute
ISSN: 0278-3193 print / 1940-865X online
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1434710
Elementary School Act of 2011, Article 11). In the same article,
there is a further explanation of expectations regarding provision
for gifted students:
The school must ensure such students appropriate conditions
for education by adapting content, methods and forms of work
to them, and by enabling their inclusion in additional classes,
other forms of individual and group support and assistance,
and other forms of provision. ( Act Amending the Elementary
School Act of 2011,Article11)
With the aforementioned documents, Slovenia places itself
among those European states that emphasize the principle of
inclusivity in elementary education of the gifted. In other
words, the state implements a “mixed”or “integrative”
approach to gifted education; education of the gifted largely
takes place in an integrated way within the framework of the
mandatory and extended curriculum (European Agency for
Development in Special Needs Education, 2009; Eurydice,
2006;Juriševič,2011,2012a;Mönks&Pfluger, 2005).
Generally, like other countries, Slovenia is still seeking the
most effective types of provisions and teaching strategies in
order to realize the established goals and legislative
expectations.
AN OVERVIEW OF EDUCATION FOR THE GIFTED
IN SLOVENIAN BASIC SCHOOL
In the last 15 years, the problem of identifying and teaching the
gifted within basic education in Slovenia has been approached
in a more systematic way than before (Juriševič,2011), being
addressed on the basis of a program document entitled,
Concept: Identification of and Work with Gifted Students in 9-
Year Basic School (Žagar, Artač,Bezič, Nagy, and Purgaj, 2011;
Žagar, 2012). On the national level, this document suggests and
directs how schools should identify gifted students and ensure
the learning conditions for the development of their outstanding
potential or talent through the school curriculum (see Figure 1).
Within the framework of this document, students are nominated
as potentially gifted at the end of Year 3. Subsequently, in Year
4, those who were nominated are involved in a further process
of identification. In order to be identified as gifted, a student
must be ranked in the top 10% in at least one of three measures:
(a) in an intelligence test (i.e., the Raven’s Progressive Matrices
(RPM) or Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children test), (b) in a
test of creativity (i.e., the The Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking [TTCT] or Test of Creative Thinking Drawing
Production [TCT-DP]), or (c) teachers’assessments of a stu-
dent’sgiftednessinaspecific domain (i.e., learning, literature,
drama, fine arts, music, film, technology, sport, or leadership).
As the final step, a meeting is organized with the student’s
parents, in order to inform them about the results of the identi-
fication procedure and to discuss the outcomes. After students
have been identified as gifted, the school is expected to create a
personalized curriculum for each of them. This includes provi-
sion during regular classes as well as other supplementary
activities (Tab le 1).
The main advantage of the described system of identify-
ing and teaching the gifted in mandatory school is that it
marks the beginning of the establishment of nationally uni-
fied and systematically planned gifted education in accor-
dance with the recognized learning needs of gifted students
on the basis of an integrated pedagogical approach to teach-
ing with elements of inclusivity. The system does, however,
have some major shortfalls (Juriševič,2009,2011,2012a,
2012b;Žagar, 2012), including the disproportionately large
amount of professional attention devoted to the procedure of
identification in comparison to provision for gifted students.
Thus, most relevant to the present discussion is the issue of
teaching the gifted within the framework of the compulsory
curriculum, specifically, in accordance with the syllabi for
both compulsory and elective subjects, as well as certain
other activities included in the compulsory curriculum (i.e.,
in the cases of science and technology education these are
activity days). The recommendations listed in Koncept
(Žagar et al., 1999; see also Table 1) are undoubtedly
valid for gifted education (Devetak & Glažar, 2014), but
they are established on a very abstract and general level,
without more detailed implications regarding the
Year 1
age 6
Year 2
age 7
Year 3
age 8
Year 4
age 9
Year 5
age 10
Year 6
age 11
Year 7
age 12
Year 8
age 13
Year 9
age 14
OBSERVATION AND INDIVIDUALIZATION
(1) NOMINATION
Criteria: school performance, outstanding achievements, competitions,
hobbies, opinions delivered by the teacher or school counseling service
(2) IDENTIFICATION
Criteria: teachers’ assessment of giftedness, ability tests,
creativity tests
(3) NOTIFICATION OF PARENTS AND THEIR
OPINIONS
INDIVIDUALIZED LEARNING PROGRAMS
FIGURE 1 Gifted education in Slovenia according to the document Koncept: Odkrivanje in Delo z Nadarjenimi Učenci v Devetletni OŠ[Concept:
Identification of and Work With Gifted Students in 9-Year Elementary School], Žagar et al., 1999, Retrieved from http://www.zrss.si/pdf/SSD_nadarjeni%
20koncept.pdf
140 G. TORKAR ET AL.
characteristics of particular subject matter, such as in
science and technology education.
It is, however, extremely important to employ more spe-
cific (subject domain–related) teaching strategies to effec-
tively teach gifted students. For instance, Gilbert and
Newberry (2007) recommended that teachers adopt
activities providing more challenging science classes for
their gifted students:
●Appropriate tasks that provide a personal challenge
and are interesting for the students and relevant to
their own lives, such as climate changes, local
TABLE 1
Recommended Types of Provision for Gifted Students and Activity Providers
Year Forms and Activities Providers
1–3 Internal differentiation
Individual tasks for students
Individualized instructions
Collaborative learning and other forms of group work
Special homework
Activity days
a
Interest activities
a
Acceleration
Additional instruction
Teachers
Teachers in extended school
School counselors
Mentors (from school and outside)
Librarian
School Board members
Music schools and other public art schools
4–6 Internal differentiation (the forms are the same as for younger students)
Flexible grouping
Additional instruction
Individualized programs
Pull-out programs
Enrichment programs (Saturday school, etc.)
Sport and art sections
Interest activities
Activity days
a
Creative workshops
Research camps
Preparation for competitions
Social skills development programs
Personal and emotional development programs
Acceleration
Counseling for students and their parents
Teachers
School counselors
Mentors (from school and outside)
Librarian
National Institute for Education in the Republic of Slovenia members
School Board members
Music schools and other public art schools
7–9 Internal differentiation (the forms are the same as for younger students)
Flexible grouping
Additional instruction
Individualized programs
Pull-out programs
Partial external differentiation (Years 8 and 9)
Elective subjects
Seminar papers
Research papers
Sport and art sections
Enrichment programs
Interest activities
Activity days
a
Creative workshops
Research camps
Preparation for competitions
Social skills development programs
Personal and emotional development programs
Acceleration
Counseling for students and their parents
Career counseling
Teachers
School counselors
Mentors (from school and outside)
Librarian
National Institute for Education in the Republic of Slovenia members
School Board members
Music schools and other public art schools
a
The activities are planned for all students in the school.
Note. Data from Žagar et al., 1999, pp. 7–8. Retrieved from http://www.zrss.si/pdf/SSD_nadarjeni%20koncept.pdf
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION IN SLOVENIAN SCHOOL 141
environmental problems, healthy nutrition, medical
innovations, and the use of technology and new
materials.
●An appropriate learning environment that supports
students’creativity in designing their own research
strategies for research problems that are as open as
possible.
●A familiarity with the nature of science, so that stu-
dents understand the history, research methods, and
significance of scientific knowledge.
●The explicit use of analogies that enable students to
recognize similarities between, and patterns in, the
analogies and scientific phenomena that are as yet
unknown to them.
●The explicit use of visualization that facilitates the
formation of internal and external representations of
scientific phenomena and develops the ability to
manipulate demanding mental models.
Tab er (2007) proposed some basic principles of good
practice in teaching science to the gifted. First, teaching
for the gifted should have significant and “deep”content,
with a focus on understanding concepts (rather than mem-
orizing facts), and should provide opportunities to engage
the student in conceptual exploration in depth and over
time. Second, it is important to enable gifted students to
experience effective learning, organized around the
inquiry approach, where they take the role of investiga-
tors examining authentic problems and situations. Third,
higher-level thinking in science should be emphasized
through questioning that enables gifted students to
analyze and synthesize (e.g., providing students with
opportunities for interdisciplinary connections) or evalu-
ate information, preferably while modeling authentic,
scientific thinking. Teaching for gifted students also
should encourage them to develop metacognitive abilities
and self-regulation. This can be achieved by offering
students a choice of tasks and activities and letting them
take the lead in setting agendas. Next, gifted students can
be set tasks producing authentic products, and their find-
ings can be reported to an interested audience. It is
recommended that a variety of teaching strategies be
used when working with gifted students. Last but not
least, it is suggested that the pace of learning new mate-
rial should be rapid, thus saving time for later reflection
on and integration of learning.
Aims of the Study
Taber (2007, p. 9) stated that the fundamental question
regarding teaching gifted students should be “Is the current
curriculum provision really challenging and developing
these learners?”The present study attempts to contribute
to answering this key question. A content analysis of the
basic school curriculum and syllabi for various science and
technology subjects was performed, including an analysis of
activity days, which are a compulsory part of the curricu-
lum. The main aim was to review and evaluate how national
and transnational recommendations for gifted education are
implemented in the curriculum of basic education in
Slovenia for science and technology. The research questions
were as follows:
1. What types of knowledge/learning objectives do the
syllabi for science and technology subjects comprise?
2. What are the recommendations for gifted education in
the syllabi analyzed?
3. Do the syllabi for these subjects allow teachers pro-
fessionally autonomous teaching instructional
practice?
METHOD
The primary data sources for the analysis were syllabi for
science and technology subjects in basic schools. There
were a total of 16 syllabi (Ministrstvo za izobraževanje,
znanost in šport Republike Slovenije, n.d.): 7 for compul-
sory school subjects—that is, Environmental Studies,
Science and Technology, Science, Biology, Chemistry,
Physics, and Design and Technology—and an additional 9
for elective subjects; that is, Woodworking; Chemistry
Experiments; Artificial Material Processing; Metalworking;
Astronomy: Sun, Moon, and Earth; Organisms in the
Natural and Artificial Environment; Robotics in
Technology and Engineering; Chemistry in Everyday Life;
and Plants and Humans. Currently valid versions of the
syllabi were used, all of which have a similar structure
(i.e., definition of subject matter, general learning goals,
learning objectives, standards of knowledge, and teaching
recommendations) and are approximately 50 pages long,
although they differ in the depth and extent of their content.
Theresearchapproachemployedtocarryoutthestudywas
organized into three main steps and was performed by five
experts from the fields of biology, chemistry, physics, technol-
ogy, and educational psychology (i.e., the authors of the present
article). In the first step, syllabi were collected for compulsory
and elective school subjects, being downloaded directly from the
website of the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the
Republic of Slovenia. For the elective subjects, it was decided to
only analyze the most frequently implemented elective science
and technology subjects (selected by more than 10% of schools)
in the 2015–2016 school year (see Tabl e 2),inordertogaina
clearer and more realistic picture of the issue. On our written
request, data for the 2015–2016 school year were provided by
the Ministry. The second step included the selection of reason-
able criteria for the review and evaluation of the selected syllabi,
as follows:
142 G. TORKAR ET AL.
1. The subject’s compulsory and optional learning
objectives.
2. Guidelines for individualization and differentiation
related to gifted education.
3. Recommendations for teaching practice.
The third step involved an expert meeting in order to discuss
the content of the chosen criteria and to reach the optimal
consistency of agreement in this regard.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Science and Technology School Subjects for Gifted
Students
In the transition to 9-year compulsory basic school in the
late 1990s, science and technology education in Slovenia
was revised and organized in the manner represented in
Figure 2. Science and technology subject matter is included
FIGURE 2 Science and technology subjects in Slovenian basic school.
TABLE 3
School Subjects Related to Science and Technology for Basic School
in Slovenia
Quantitative Data
Learning
Objectives
Optional Learning
Objectives
School Subject
Total
Hours Year
Hours
per
Year fff(%)
Environmental
Studies
315 1 105 171 4 2.3
2 105
3 105
Science and
Technology
210 4 105 202 45 22.2
5 105
Science 175 6 70 191 25 13.1
7 105
Biology 116 8 52 187 NA NA
964
Chemistry 134 8 70 98 5 5.1
964
Physics 134 8 70 218 30 13.8
964
Design and
Technology
140 6 70 142 30 21.1
735
835
Note. NA = not available.
TABLE 2
Elective Science and Technology School Subjects Executed in the
2015–2016 School Year (Subjects From Deciles II–VI Shaded in
Grey)
Elective School Subject
No. of
Schools
No. of
Students
Proportion of All
Schools (%)
Woodworking 236 2852 52.2
Chemistry Experiments 235 3730 52.0
Artificial Material Processing 97 1193 21.5
Metalworking 76 868 16.8
Astronomy: Sun, Moon, and
Earth
75 847 16.6
Organisms in the Natural and
Artificial Environment
63 835 13.9
Robotics in Technology and
Engineering
61 736 13.5
Chemistry in Everyday Life 60 833 13.3
Plants and Humans 45 515 10.0
Stars and Space
a
41 503 9.1
Electronics With Robotics
a
35 417 7.7
Astronomy: Telescopes and
Planets
a
33 419 7.3
Electrical Engineering
a
31 366 6.9
Protection Against Natural and
Other Disasters
a
29 362 6.4
Human Life on Earth
a
29 393 6.4
Exploring Home Town and
Environmental Protection
a
19 261 4.2
Exploring Organisms in the
Local Environment
a
18 236 4.0
Drawing in Geometry and
Design & Technology
a
15 136 3.3
Chemistry in the Environment
a
14 196 3.1
Genetics
a
8 93 1.8
Agricultural Work
a
8 99 1.8
Beekeeping
a
6 70 1.3
Environmental Education II
a
6 79 1.3
Projects in Physics and
Environmental Protection
a
6 60 1.3
Environmental Education I
a
5 55 1.1
Environmental Education III
a
5 61 1.1
Exploring the Local
Environment
a
4 89 0.9
Modern Agriculture
a
4 58 0.9
Agricultural Economy
a
1 16 0.2
Projects in Physics and
Technology
a
1 10 0.2
a
Elective Science and Technology school subjects were selected by less
than 10% of schools in the 2015–2016 school year and therefore were not
included in further analysis.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION IN SLOVENIAN SCHOOL 143
in various school subjects, which are interconnected both
vertically and horizontally: in their content and teaching
approaches (cf. Taštanoska, 2015).
Tab l e 3 provides cumulative quantitative data on sub-
jects related to science and technology for all 9 years of
basic school. Different school subjects have a different
time allocation for each specific year. Each subject is
divided into topics and subtopics, which are further
divided into rather precise learning objectives that are
classified as compulsory or optional. Optional learning
objectives are to promote higher order thinking skills by
enhancing student understanding of the connections
between disciplinary content/areas and practices and by
fostering their competence to make informed decisions.
Because the present study is focused on gifted students,
special attention was devoted to the analysis of optional
learning objectives. It should be noted that all science and
technology syllabi suggest that teachers use professional
autonomy in selecting 20% of additional subject content.
Suggestions for this content are given in optional learning
objectives. The last three columns in Table 3 show the
cumulative number of learning objectives, the cumulative
number of optional learning objectives, and their shares
expressed in percentages. The Ministry of Education,
Science and Sport nominated teams of experts for the
preparation of subject matter. Although the general con-
tent was well defined in advance—for example, learning
objectives, recommendations for teaching practice, (mini-
mal) standards, and more—the form remained flexible,
and each team actually decided to use a slightly different
form of syllabus. Therefore, the data given in Table 3 are
extracted from the syllabi and organized to provide the
same information for each school subject. Some differ-
ences do, however, remain. For example, the biology team
of experts decided not to give optional learning objectives
explicitly, instead leaving them to the teacher’s autono-
mous choice as a supplement to all of the compulsory
learning objectives (optional learning objectives are there-
fore marked as NA). Furthermore, some subjects (i.e.,
Environmental Studies, Science and Technology, and
Science) are interdisciplinary.
In all of the syllabi for compulsory science and technology
school subjects, gifted students are highlighted as one of the
groups of students for which individualization should take
place. In the subchapter of the syllabi titled “Instructions for
Individualization,”it is stated that there is a need to adapt
teaching approaches to the abilities and other characteristics
of the students. The very nature of science and technology
subject matter, as established by the syllabi, requires students
to utilize and demonstrate both their declarative (knowing that)
and procedural (knowing how) knowledge. Wellington (2000)
emphasized that science education is not just about learning
facts but rather about process skills: learning to observe, mea-
sure, hypothesize, predict, and evaluate findings. Scientific
facts may be forgotten, but there will be an understanding to
know how to investigate further as the need arises, as well as
an ability to do so (Thomas, 2009).
Next is a brief analytical description of each science and
technology school subject, followed by a description of types
of optional learning objectives identified in the syllabi. As
mentioned earlier, science and technology school subjects are
vertically and horizontally interconnected. Environmental
Studies is the first subject in school related to science and
technology (Years 1–3). The most important overall learning
goal of the subject is an understanding of the environment. In a
narrower sense, the subject involves becoming familiar with
facts, designconcepts, and connections, leading to knowledge,
understanding, and the application of knowledge about the
natural and social environment. In the next stage (Years 4–5),
students deepen their knowledge and experience in the subject
Science and Technology. This school subject is focused on the
development and upgrading of basic scientific and technolo-
gical knowledge, skills, and attitudes, thus enabling students to
solve various everyday situations and issues related to science
and technology. From this stage on (Years 6–9), science and
technology is divided into five school subjects. In the last 3
years of compulsory school (Years 7–9), students should select
at least two subjects from a list of elective school subjects.
Science education is represented in the subjects Science
(Years 6–7), Chemistry (Years 8–9), Physics (Years 8–9), and
Biology (Years 8–9). The main goal of the school subject
Science is to develop students’understandings of natural phe-
nomena and laws, which are the basis for understanding the
interaction of organic and inorganic nature and relationships
between the structure, characteristics, and functions of natural
systems. This subject is then divided into three more specialized
subjects: Chemistry, Physics, and Biology. Chemistry considers
topics such as atomic structure, the periodic table of elements,
chemical bonding, chemical reactions, acids, bases and salts,
organic chemistry (hydrocarbons, polymers, organic oxygen
compounds, organic nitrogen compounds), and stoichiometry.
Physics considers topics including light, space, mechanics
(kinematics, forces, pressure, density and buoyancy, Newton’s
laws, work, and energy), thermodynamics (temperature, heat,
and internal energy), and electromagnetism (electric current,
energy and magnetic force), and Biology considers topics such
as the characteristics of life, principal biological concepts,
energy and matter in living systems, the structure and function
of living systems on different organizational levels, heredity,
genetics, evolution, adaptations to environments, ecology, tax-
onomy, and biodiversity. Technology education is presented
with Design and Technology subject matter (Years 6–8). The
design and technology curriculum consists of four intercon-
nected areas: technical/technology assets, material working
and processing technology, work organization, and economics.
The subject considers topics including paper, wood, artificial
materials, electrical engineering, and metals, and all of these
topics are interrelated with technical drawing. The cognitive
demands of design and technology are imposed through real-
world design challenges. Design and Technology subject matter
144 G. TORKAR ET AL.
provides holistic development for both cognitive and psycho-
motor abilities, as well as fostering a positive attitude toward the
social and natural environment.
The majority of science and technology syllabi also include
optional learning objectives, which represent up to 22.2% of
the learning objectives (see Tabl e 3). Three types of optional
learning objectives were identified, aimed at extending content
matter (e.g., optional learning objectives that provide more
examples of natural phenomena in real-life situations), deepen-
ing the cognitive level (e.g., in learning about hydrocarbons,
one optional learning goal suggests introducing the concept of
isomerism and developing students’abilities to differentiate
between examples of chain and position isomers), and acquir-
ing additional process skills (e.g., planning changes and
improvements to performed experiments). In the case of
Biology, optional learning goals are not specifically defined
in the subject matter; however, it is stated that the teacher
should use his or her 20% teaching autonomy to integrate the
most recent discoveries and problems and to elaborate on
existing compulsory learning objectives. Despite the fact that
optional learning objectives provide teachers with ideas on
how to support gifted students, the majority of Science and
Technology school subjects do not provide enough specific
content-related instructions on how to adapt teaching to the
learning needs and abilities of gifted students. However,
almost all compulsory learning objectives enable the elabora-
tion of topics in various ways to accommodate the outstanding
potential of gifted students. Therefore, addressing the needs of
such students should not be limited to optional learning objec-
tives alone; teachers have an opportunity to differentiate syl-
labus topics with regard to students’abilities and to relate the
topics to issues from everyday life situations, the history of
science, recent discoveries, and more, thereby making the
topics more challenging and interesting for gifted students.
Elective school subjects (offered to students in Years
7–9, 35 hours per subject) strongly promote the differentia-
tion and individualization of the learning and training pro-
cesses. They enable students to realize their potential
through increased access to real-world situations, with a
teacher who can extend learning into the zone of gifted
students’cognitive and motivational proximal development
(cf. Brophy, 1999). Work with gifted students is not expli-
citly highlighted in the syllabi for elective school subjects;
however, in the description of the subjects, it is stated that
attending an elective subject means upgrading and expand-
ing the knowledge and experience acquired by students
during compulsory science and technology subjects. It is
emphasized that important learning goals include linking
theory and practice, acquiring skills, and guidance for career
development. A total of 112 elective school subjects were
executed in the 2015–2016 school year, including 30
Science and Technology subjects. The data in Figure 3 are
divided into deciles, with “I”representing school subjects
selected by less than 10% of schools and “X”representing
subjects selected by more than 90% of schools. The largest
number of school subjects executed by schools in the
2015–2016 school year fall into the lowest decile; these
school subjects were executed by 44 or fewer schools out
of 452 schools. The lowest decile also includes 70% of all
Science and Technology subjects. There are no Science and
Technology subjects among the elective subjects selected by
most schools (IX, VIII, VII). The higher deciles mainly
include subjects from the fields of physical activity and
sports, as well as foreign languages. The following is a
brief description of selected Science and Technology elec-
tive school subjects.
The two most frequently selected Science and
Technology subjects are in decile VI: Woodworking
(52.2%) and Chemistry Experiments (52%).
Woodworking subject matter is framed with learning objec-
tives stating that students should be able to design wooden
artifacts; create and use technical drawings and technology
documentation/elaboration; use various methods of wood pro-
cessing; discover basic technological and wood properties;
measure with suitable measurement devices, tools, and aids;
operate various woodworking machines; differentiate between
different machine and hand tools; manage the workflow of
various machines; critically and logically organize an ergo-
nomic workplace and the entire work process; apply proper
safety regulations at work; recognize their own abilities,
strengths, and weakness; make informed decisions; and criti-
cally compare their artifacts with others.
In the subject Chemistry Experiments, students learn
about chemical safety, develop their experimental skills,
and learn about experimental work procedures.
Specifically, they should be able to state hypotheses;
observe and describe changes; learn by trying; collect and
write experimental observations and results; explain and
present observations and results; and recognize
FIGURE 3 Science and technology (S&T) and all elective school sub-
jects executed in the 2015–2016 school year in deciles.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION IN SLOVENIAN SCHOOL 145
interdependence and correlations between theory and the
everyday environment.
One Science and Technology subject is in decile III:
Artificial Material Processing. In this subject, students
shape and manipulate various plastics, rubber, textiles,
leather, and other man-made materials. Heat processing
and machining technology are used to create artifacts, and
students are familiarized with both craft and industrial pro-
duction work. Using criterion-based design and teacher
guidance, students are able to produce complex shaped
composites, as material with well-planned and designed
properties, taking into account stress and strength con-
straints. In addition, 3D print technology is widely used in
Slovenian schools to create complex artificial thermoplastic
products and artifacts. This encourages students with high-
level creativity as well as gifted divergers.
In Metalworking subject matter, students can create,
shape, and manipulate different metals as elements, com-
pounds, or alloys. In order to be enrolled in the subject,
students must already be acquainted with technological
knowledge and skills and must possess mature work habits.
In Metalworking, students manipulate and reshape various
semiproducts such as wires, profiles, and plates, either using
various machines and tools or by heat (thermal processing).
In the subject Organisms in the Natural and Artificial
Environment, students learn about the basic needs of living
organisms and gain the ability to better integrate biotic and
abiotic factors. They recognize that major events with the
potential to harm the balance of nature, such as the intake of
various toxic substances, nonnative organisms, and changes
in the temperature regime, can be fatal for organisms. Special
attention is paid to the ethical aspects of breeding organisms
and to the development of responsible handling of organisms.
In the subject Astronomy: Sun, Moon, and Earth, students
learn about the Sun as a source of energy, shadows, and shade;
observation of the Moon; the relief of the Moon and Earth;
sizes and distances; rotation and revolution of the Moon and
Earth; the crescent Moon; and other related phenomena.
Students are encouraged to build an Earth–Moon–Sun model
in order to learn about orbiting.
In the subject Robotics in Technology and Engineering,
students learn using the various direct manipulation envir-
onments of Lego Mindstorms and Fischertechnik. Students
work in a context with real-world robotic problems, includ-
ing design, construction, programming, testing, and optimi-
zation, and teachers scaffold student learning by asking
questions, providing feedback, elaborating on experiences
and information, and resolving problems.
The subject Chemistry in Everyday Life consists of three
modules: “Competing of Compounds”(chromatography),
“The World Without Color Would Be Boring”(natural
dyes), and “Chemistry Smells Good As Well”(essential
oils). Students become familiar with chemistry as one of
the fundamental fields of science, crucial in solving pro-
blems in various areas, from food, textile, pharmaceutics,
cosmetics, and other industries, to medicine and agriculture.
The subject presents an opportunity for students to evaluate
the role of chemistry in the development of art and fashion,
as well as to develop their attitude toward the environment
and toward changes in society.
In the subject Plants and Humans, students deepen and
broaden their awareness of the interdependence of humans
and plants. They learn about the importance of plants in
human life and forge a positive attitude toward them.
Students are usually less interested in plants than animals;
the subject therefore aims to highlight and recognize the
importance of this form of life and to emphasize the impor-
tance of the protection of plants and their habitats. At the
same time, students learn that plants have always been a
direct or indirect source of food, health, security, and more.
Teaching Approaches With Gifted Education
Thomas (2009) emphasized that teaching science is particu-
larly challenging in terms of enabling all students to achieve
their full potential. Lessons for gifted students should not
just mean more of the same but should instead provide
students with more challenging activities, thus encouraging
them to apply their knowledge and skills. The aim of
science instruction is to inspire students to start asking
“what if?”and to be actively involved in the learning
process, promoting not just a hands-on approach but also a
minds-on approach (Wellington, 2000).
Dynamic reconfigurations have taken place in theories of
learning, the mind, and knowledge. Such changes have led
to arguments suggesting that classroom instruction needs to
be centered around students’active learning and must take
into account students’prior knowledge as a significant
factor affecting learning. Furthermore, the focus of students’
work should transcend the declarative to include procedural
and strategic knowledge; that is, it should activate students’
abilities to reason and reflect metacognitively on their own
learning and on the construction and evaluation of scientific
knowledge (Duschl & Osborne, 2002).
An examination of recommendations for teaching prac-
tice in the science and technology syllabi showed that
science education policy in Slovenia has (on the declarative
level) implemented these changes. In syllabi for science and
technology compulsory school subjects, it is stated that, in
order to achieve the learning outcomes foreseen in science
and technology subjects, the teacher must provide a creative
learning environment and authentic learning settings that
enable student discovery, research, and learning, as well as
the development of critical thinking and responsibility.
It is also stated that instruction should be based on
inductive approaches, with student-centered activities
aimed at both deepening and expanding knowledge, as
well as mastering skills. Abstract conceptualization should
be practiced with experimenting, modeling, and technical
construction sets, in order to achieve higher levels of
146 G. TORKAR ET AL.
conceptual learning and creative production.
Individualization and differentiation of student learning
must be ensured throughout the entire learning cycle, from
planning and organization, to operation and assessment, and
must consider the individual characteristics of the students.
Differentiation refers to the provision of different learn-
ing activities, whereby the teacher must be flexible within
the whole curriculum, providing learning opportunities for
gifted and other students. Gifted students could be given
more challenging activities, increased workload at a faster
pace, or different learning material.
Elective Science and Technology school subjects are
mostly centered on project-based learning, but other
approaches also serve as a supplement to teaching, such
as experimenting, fieldwork, problem solving, and coop-
erative learning. The subject matter of elective school
subjects is more open and flexible, thus providing more
opportunities for individualization and differentiation, as
well as for the inclusion of informal and nonformal edu-
cation. This means more interaction with a particular
institution, community, or outside-school environment
(e.g., museum, researcher, engineer). In the particular
case of environmental education, Palmer and Birch
(2003) stress the importance of informal education,
including communication and information, that results
from living and interacting in a particular locality and
community, from newspapers, television, radio, and
other forms of media, to “events”in an individual’slife
and the wider world, as well as interaction with other
people and the natural world.
In addition to compulsory and elective school subjects,
basic schools in Slovenia have to organize activity days
(culture, science, sports, and technology days). The con-
cept of activity days was approved in 1998 (The National
Curriculum Council, the Council of Experts of the
Republic of Slovenia for General Education, 1998), and
activity days have been integrated into all years of the
basic school curriculum. Each school year, teachers orga-
nize three science days and three (Years 1–3) or four
(Years 4–9) technology days for their students. Each
science or technology day has a duration of five 45-
minute periods. Science and technology days are orga-
nized as an open learning system with a nonformal
curriculum.
Open learning refers to activities that either enhance
learning opportunities within formal education systems or
broaden learning opportunities beyond formal education
systems (D’Antoni, 2009), and it is not limited to class-
room teaching methods. Activity days play an important
role in terms of integration of cross-curricular skills and
upgrading students’knowledge with practical experience.
Moreover, gifted students can be challenged to do more
complex tasks and use a wider range of information,
which is unconventional in the ordinary classroom envir-
onment. A recent study of Slovenian gifted students’
academic motivation revealed that they lack active, coop-
erative, authentic, and meaningful learning (Juriševič,
2012a). In science and technology days, professionals
from industry (e.g., engineers) or various research insti-
tutes (e.g., researchers) often take part in teaching. Gifted
students in particular can benefit from interactions with
such individuals and can satisfy their curiosity regarding
various topics. These encounters also provide opportu-
nities for long-term collaboration, whereby a researcher
can take over co-mentorship of a gifted student in his or
her school research project.
CONCLUSIONS
Many researchers of gifted and STEM education (e.g.,
Olszewski-Kubilius, 2009; Robinson, Dailey, Hughes, &
Cotabish, 2014; Rogers, 2007; Sumida, 2013; Taber, 2007;
Tirri, 2012; VanTassel-Baska, 2015; VanTassel-Baska, Bass,
Ries, Poland, & Avery, 1998; VanTassel-Baska & Brown,
2007) provide evidence that the proper development and
implementation of curricular and instructional strategies that
challenge and enhance the learning outcomes of gifted
students is at the heart of effective programming for gifted
education services. In Slovenia, emphasis is placed on the
principle of inclusivity in the basic education of the gifted.
This raises the key question of how gifted education is
implemented in the curriculum of compulsory basic school in
Slovenia. The present research focused especially on science
and technology education for gifted students. To summarize,
the analysis of existing curricula and syllabi showed that
science and technology education is well implemented hori-
zontally and vertically in terms of both content and teaching
approaches (i.e., in all of the seven compulsory school subjects
for science and technology education). The content analysis of
subject matter showed that the content develops, expands, and
deepens throughout the 9 years of basic education. Moreover,
after the first 5 years of interdisciplinary school subjects (i.e.,
Environmental Studies, Science and Technology), subjects
devoted to specific disciplines are gradually introduced (first
the subjects Science and Design and Technology and later the
subjects Biology, Chemistry, and Physics).
In all of the syllabi for compulsory Science and Technology
school subjects, gifted students are highlighted as one of the
groups of students for whom individualization should be imple-
mented. However, this declarative statement in favor of gifted
education is not well operationalized in learning objectives and
standards. Nevertheless, according to recommendations for tea-
chers in the syllabi, they can exercise 20% autonomy in select-
ing additional subject content, which could be a suitable way to
enhance the efficacy of science and technology education for
gifted students in basic school. Teacher autonomy is thus a
prerequisite for the successful individualization and differentia-
tion of teaching or working with gifted students; Slovenian
teachers themselves report that they still have a lack of
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION IN SLOVENIAN SCHOOL 147
knowledge and ideas for motivating the gifted and for preparing
didactic adaptations in accordance with their needs during reg-
ular instruction (Juriševič,2012a).
With the exception of one syllabus, all of the syllabi for
compulsory science and technology subjects provide sugges-
tions for optional learning objectives intended to promote
higher order thinking skills by enhancing student understand-
ing of the connections between disciplinary content areas and
practices and fostering their competence to make informed
decisions. The analysis identified three types of optional learn-
ing objectives aimed at extending content matter, deepening
the cognitive level, and acquiring additional process skills. In
addition, the high significance of elective school subjects
(offered to students in Years 7–9) was acknowledged in
science and technology education for gifted students, because
these subjects strongly promote differentiation and individua-
lization of the learning and training process and enable stu-
dents to achieve their potential through increased access to
real-world situations. In the description of the elective science
and technology subjects, it is stated that taking the subject
means upgrading and expanding the knowledge and experi-
ence that students have acquired during compulsory subjects.
Unfortunately, elective science and technology subjects have
to “compete”with other elective subjects offered to students,
especially subjects from the fields of physical activity and
sports and foreign languages. In practice, many basic schools
offer limited or no elective science and technology school
subjects to their students. An examination of recommendations
for teaching practice in science and technology syllabi showed
that the science education policy in Slovenia has (on the
declarative level) implemented the internationally accepted
transition of classroom instruction, which recommends stu-
dent-centered learning focused on procedural and strategic
knowledge. However, the next step should be to investigate
the implementation phase, which is crucial for efficient science
and technology education.
Last but not least, science and technology days (activity
days), which are part of the curriculum throughout all years
of basic school education, present an excellent opportunity
for gifted students in science and technology education,
because these days are organized as an open learning system
aimed at integrating cross-curricular skills and upgrading
student knowledge with practical experience. Activity days
also provide a good platform for cooperation with indivi-
duals and organizations outside the school environment,
which can benefit gifted students in particular; for example,
school research projects and co-mentorship (cf. Juriševič,
2012a; Lyons, 2006).
Based on these analyses, it is evident that the tea-
cher’s role is crucial for the realization of curricula in
schools. It is therefore important to systematically and
continuously support the professional development of
teachers in gifted education (VanTassel-Baska, 2017). It
is also important that education students—future teachers
—acquire basic knowledge regarding how to work with
the gifted in their subject areas during their teacher pre-
service training.
REFERENCES
Act Amending the Elementary School Act, OG RS 87/11, 40/12 (2011).
Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in
education: Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and
activities. Educational Psychologist,34,75–85. doi:10.1207/
s15326985ep3402_1
Elementary School Act, OG SRS 5/80, 29/86, 31/86 corr. (1980).
Elementary School Act, OG RS 81/06 (1996).
D’Antoni, S. (2009). Editorial: Open educational resources: Reviewing
initiatives and issues. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance,
and e-Learning,24,3–10. doi:10.1080/02680510802625443
Devetak, I., & Glažar, S. A. (2014). Spodbujanje učnega razvoja nadarjenih
pri naravoslovju [Fostering the development of gifted students in
science]. In M. Juriševič(Ed.), Spodbudno učno okolje: Ideje za delo z
nadarjenimi v osnovni šoli [Stimulating learning environment: Ideas to
work with gifted students in elementary school] (pp. 175–187).
Ljubljana, Slovenia: Pedagoška fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumen-
tation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education,38,
39–72. doi:10.1080/03057260208560187
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2009).
Gifted students: A survey of educational policy and provision. Retrieved
from http://www.tehetsegpont.hu/dokumentumok/gifted.pdf
Eurydice. (2006). Specific educational measures to promote all forms of
giftedness at school in Europe: Working document. Retrieved from http://
www.indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_file/eurydice/Specific_measures_gifted
ness_EN.pdf
Gilbert, J. K., & Newberry, M. (2007). The characteristics of the gifted and
exceptionally able in science. In K. S. Taber (Ed.), Science education for
gifted learners (pp. 15–31). London, England: Routledge.
Juriševič,M
.(2009). Odkrivanje in delo z nadarjenimi učenci v šoli: Stanje
in perspektive [Identification and provision for gifted students in school:
Current situation and perspectives]. Psihološka Obzorja,18, 153–168.
Juriševič,M.(2011). Gifted education. In J. Krek & M. Metljak (Eds.),
White paper on education in the Republic of Slovenia 2011 (pp.
329–367). Ljubljana, Slovenia: Zavod Republike Slovenije za Šolstvo.
Juriševič,M.(2012a). Nadarjeni učenci v šoli [Gifted students in school].
Ljubljana, Slovenia: Pedagoška fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani.
Juriševič,M.(2012b). Prispevki psihologije k razumevanju nadarjenosti in
obravnavi nadarjenih v Sloveniji: Uvod [The contributions of psychol-
ogy towards a better understanding of giftedness and gifted education in
Slovenia: Introduction]. In M. Juriševič& B. Stritih (Eds.), Posvetovanje
Vloga psihologa v vzgoji in izobraževanju nadarjenih, 27. 1. 2012,
Ljubljana, Pedagoška fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani [Conference on
the role of a psychologist in the education of gifted students, January
27, 2012, Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana] (pp.
9–17). Ljubljana, Slovenia: Pedagoška fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani.
Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: Students’
experiences of school science in their own words. International
Journal of Science Education,28, 591–613. doi:10.1080/
09500690500339621
Ministrstvo za izobraževanje, znanost in šport Republike Slovenije. (n.d.).
Posodobljeni učni načrti za obvezne predmete [Updated syllabuses for
compulsory subjects]. Retrieved from http://www.mizs.gov.si/si/delovna_
podrocja/direktorat_za_predsolsko_vzgojo_in_osnovno_solstvo/osnovno_
solstvo/ucni_nacrti/posodobljeni_ucni_nacrti_za_obvezne_predmete/
Mönks, F. J., & Pfluger, R. (2005). Gifted education in 21 European
countries: Inventory and perspective. Retrieved from http://www.bmbf.
de/pubRD/gifted_education_21_eu_countries.pdf
148 G. TORKAR ET AL.
The National Curriculum Council, the Council of Experts of the Republic
of Slovenia for General Education. (1998). Dnevi dejavnosti [Activity
days]. Retrieved from www.mizs.gov.si/fileadmin/mizs.gov.si/…/os/
…/Dnevi_dejavnosti.pdf
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2009). Special schools and other options for gifted
STEM students. Roeper Review,32,61–70. doi:10.1080/
02783190903386892
Palmer, J. A., & Birch, J. C. (2003). Education for sustainability: The con-
tribution and potential of a non-governmental organisation. Environmental
Education Research,9,447–460. doi:10.1080/1350462032000126104
Robinson, A., Dailey, D., Hughes, G., & Cotabish, A. (2014). The effects
of a science-focused STEM intervention on gifted elementary students’
science knowledge and skills. Journal of Advanced Academics,25, 189–
213. doi:10.1177/1932202X14533799
Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and
talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted
Child Quarterly,51, 382–396. doi:10.1177/0016986207306324
Sumida, M. (2013). Emerging trends in Japan in education of the gifted: A
focus on science education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,36,
277–289. doi:10.1177/0162353213493534
Taber, K. S. (2007). Science education for gifted learners? In K. S. Taber
(Ed.), Science education for gifted learners (pp. 1–14). London, England:
Routledge.
Taštanoska, T. (Ed.). (2015). The education system in the Republic of
Slovenia. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Ministry of Education, Science and
Sport of the Republic of Slovenia.
Thomas, J. (2009). Teaching different abilities; teaching different pupils. In
T. Liversidge, M. Cochrane, B. Kerfoot, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Teaching
science. Developing as a reflective secondary teacher (pp. 1–14).
London, England: Sage.
Tirri, K. (2012). What kind of learning environment supports the learn-
ing of gifted students in science? In A. Ziegler, C. Fisher, H. Stoeger,
& M. Reutlinger (Eds.), Gifted education as a lifelong challenge:
Essays in honour of Franz J. Mönks (pp. 13–24). Münster,
Germany: LIT Verlag.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2015). Differentiation in action: The Integrated
Curriculum Model. Revista De Educación,368, 225–244. doi:10.4438/
1988-592X-RE-2015-368-296
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2017). Considerations in curriculum for the gifted. In
S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA
handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 349–370). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G., Ries, R., Poland, D., & Avery, L. D. (1998).
A national study of science curriculum effectiveness with high ability
students. Gifted Child Quarterly,42, 200–211. doi:10.1177/
001698629804200404
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. (2007). Towards best practice: An
analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education.
Gifted Child Quarterly,51,342–358. doi:10.1177/0016986207306323
Wellington, J. J. (2000). Teaching and learning secondary science. London,
England: Routledge.
Žagar, D. (2012). Metodologija odkrivanja nadarjnih učencev v Sloveniji:
Zakaj tako in kaj spremeniti [The methodology of identification of gifted
students in Slovenia: Why do it and what has to be changed]. In M.
Juriševič& B. Stritih (Eds.), Posvetovanje Vloga psihologa v vzgoji in
izobraževanju nadarjenih, 27. 1. 2012, Ljubljana, Pedagoška fakulteta
Univerze v Ljubljani [Conference on the role of a psychologist in the
education of gifted students, January 27, 2012, Ljubljana, Faculty of
Education, University of Ljubljana] (pp. 19–26). Ljubljana, Slovenia:
Pedagoška fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani.
Žagar, D., Artač, J., Bezič, T., Nagy, M., & Purgaj, S. (2011). Koncept:
odkrivanje in delo z nadarjenimi učenci v devetletni OŠ[Concept:
Identification of and work with gifted students in 9-year elementary
school]. Retrieved from http://www.mizs.gov.si/fileadmin/mizs.gov.si/
pageuploads/podrocje/os/devetletka/program_drugo/Odkrivanje_in_
delo_z_nadarjenimi_ucenci.pdf
AUTHOR BIOS
Gregor Torkar, PhD, is an associate professor of biological education in the Faculty of Education, University of
Ljubljana, Slovenia, where he teaches undergraduate and postgraduate courses in biological didactics and environ-
mental education. His current research is focused on biodiversity education, education for sustainable development,
gifted education, and the use of eye-tracking technology in science education. E-mail: gregor.torkar@pef.uni-lj.si
Stanislav Avsec, PhD, works as an assistant professor for teaching and learning strategies in technology and
engineering education in the Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. He works as a manager,
researcher, teacher, and trainer for several EU-funded projects. He is an active researcher in technology and
engineering education, educational technology, inventiveness, and environmental science and management. E-mail:
stanislav.avsec@pef.uni-lj.si
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION IN SLOVENIAN SCHOOL 149
Mojca Čepič, PhD, Full Professor for general physics and physics education, is an expert in the methodology of
teaching physics through inquiry-based learning. She has been leading several research projects on the introduction of
new fundamental physics results into all levels of education and its application for the identification of gifted students.
The approach is focused on students who come from underprivileged circumstances and are less skilled in regular
school tasks. She has been the Head of the Department of Physics and Technology for several years and currently
leads the Institute for Science and Arts at the Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana. E-mail: mojca.
cepic@pef.uni-lj.si
Vesna Ferk Savec, PhD, is an associate professor in chemical education in the Faculty of Education at the University of
Ljubljana, Slovenia. Her current research focuses on the use of ICT-supported visualization in teaching and learning of
chemistry, project-based learning, and the relevancy of chemistry education. E-mail: vesna.ferk@pef.uni-lj.si
Mojca Juriševič, PhD, is an associate professor of educational psychology in the Faculty of Education of the
University of Ljubljana. Her main research interests are motivation to learn, teachers’professional development, and
studies in giftedness and gifted education. She is founder and the head of the faculty’s Centre for Research and
Promotion of Giftedness and a member of the Council of the European Talent Support Network. Mojca Juriševičis
the author of the chapter on gifted education in the White Paper on Education in the Republic of Slovenia, published
in 2011, and a 2012 book titled, Gifted Students in Slovenian School. She is a national delegate of the World Council
for Gifted and Talented Children. E-mail: mojca.jurisevic@pef.uni-lj.si
150 G. TORKAR ET AL.