Content uploaded by Alena Letina
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alena Letina on Oct 03, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE
JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 281–300, September 2021
USING DIFFERENTIATION STRATEGIES FOR GIFTED
PUPILS IN PRIMARY SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASSES
Potrjeno/Accepted
14. 12. 2020
Objavljeno/Published
30. 9. 2021
A
LENA
L
ETINA
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Teacher Education, Zagreb, Croatia
C
ORRESPONDING AUTHOR
/K
ORESPONDENČNI AVTOR
alena.letina@ufzg.hr
Keywords:
gifted pupils,
differentiation, primary
school science class,
development of pupils’
competences
Ključne besede:
nadarjeni učenci,
diferenciacija, začetno
poučevanje naravoslovja,
razvoj študentskih
kompetenc
UDK/UDC
376-056.45:5
Abstract/Izvleček The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which
gifted pupils receive differentiated instruction in primary school science
classes, which of the differentiated instruction strategies are used by teachers
and how often. The survey sample included 134 primary school teachers.
The results show that teachers frequently use questioning and thinking
activities but make only minor modifications in the regular curriculum to
meet the needs of gifted pupils. Gifted pupils rarely engage in activities such
as providing challenges and choices, differentiated reading and writing
assignments, individually set work, activities involving curriculum
modification, and enrichment centres.
Uporaba strategij diferenciacije za nadarjene učence pri začetnem poučevanju
naravoslovja
Namen raziskave je bil ugotoviti, v kolikšni meri so nadarjeni učenci vključeni v
procese diferenciacije v začetnem poučevanju naravoslovja, katere strategije
diferenciranega poučevanja učitelji izvajajo in kako pogosto. V raziskavo je bil vključen
vzorec 134 učiteljev v osnovni šoli. Rezultati raziskave kažejo, da učitelji najpogosteje
uporabljajo zasliševalne postopke za razvijanje študentskega mišljenja, vendar v redni
učni načrt vnesejo le manjše spremembe, da bi zadovoljili potrebe znanstveno
nadarjenih študentov. Nadarjeni učenci so redko vključeni v dejavnosti, kot so
zagotavljanje izzivov in izbire, uporaba različnih bralnih in pisnih nalog, individualno
delo, dejavnosti v katerih so vključene spremembe učnega načrta in dejavnosti v
obogatitvenih centrov.
DOI https://doi.org/10.18690/rei.14.3.281-300.2021
Besedilo /
Text © 2021 Avtor(ji) / The Author(s)
To delo je objavljeno pod licenco Creative Commons CC BY Priznanje avtorstva 4.0 Mednarodna.
Uporabnikom je dovoljeno tako
nekomercialno kot tudi komercialno reproduciranje, distribuiranje,
dajanje v najem, javna priobčitev in predelava avtorskega dela, pod pogojem, da navedejo avtorja
izvirnega dela. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
282
REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE
JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
Introduction
Differentiated instruction is a process in which a teacher, having analysed the
specific needs of each pupil within a heterogeneous classroom, adapts the
curriculum and activities to their individual needs (Tomlinson, 2001). This process
involves allowing pupils to learn in several different ways in accordance with their
abilities (Munro, 2012). Such an approach to instruction contrasts with traditional
teaching methods, in which all activities are adapted to the “average and medium
pupil”, while ignoring pupils’ individual characteristics (Table 1).
Table 1. Comparing traditional and differentiated classrooms
Traditional classroom
Differentiated classroom
Teaching
and learning
strategies
Dominance of whole-class
instruction.
Multiple teaching and learning strategies are used.
Flexible grouping and regrouping of pupils
according to instructional objectives and in
response to pupils’ needs (Munro, 2012).
Learning
focus
Learning focus is on mastery
of facts and skills out-of-
context.
Emphasis on understanding key concepts and
application of essential skills in the real-life
context (Huebner, 2010).
Learning
assignments
Emphasis on using single
option assignments.
Emphasis on using multi option assignments. The
contrast is in the depth and complexity of tasks
(Munro, 2012).
Pupils’
interests
Interests are less frequently
assessed. Instruction is driven
by the curriculum content
coverage.
Incorporate pupils’ interests to increase their
motivation for learning and to maximize
individual potential (Tomlinson, 2001).
Assessment
and
evaluation
Assessment usually takes
place at the end of learning to
see the results.
Implement multifaceted, continual assessment to
guide instructional decisions and focus pupils’
learning goals. Provide a variety of opportunities
for the pupil to demonstrate knowledge and skills
(Hall, Strangman and Mayer, 2007).
Questions
Dominance of convergent
questions and development
of convergent thinking.
Dominance of open-ended questions and
encouragement of divergent thinking (Munro,
2012).
Learning
centres
Learning centres are not
typically used.
Forming learning centres and multiple activities
to learn similar material in a variety of ways
(Huebner, 2010).
Gifted pupils
Pupils who have already
mastered the learning content
wait until the rest of the class
catches up.
Pupils who have already mastered the learning
content work on “challenge assignments” in
order to deepen their understanding (Kim, 2016).
A. Letina: Using Differentiation Strategies for Gifted Pupils in Primary School Science Classes
283
Conversely, differentiated instruction attempts to bring the learning and teaching
process closer to pupils with different learning abilities who belong to a single class.
The main purpose of this process is to enhance the productivity of each pupil and
foster their development and individual success (Hall, Strangman, and Mayer, 2007).
Previous research studies have shown that differentiated instruction is usually
achieved by adapting both the teaching content and the learning process, as well as
the final product, i.e., the manner in which pupils demonstrate the competences they
have acquired during the learning process (Huebner, 2010; Tomlinson and
Strickland, 2005; Munro, 2012). In the teaching process, differentiated instruction
begins with identifying individual differences among pupils. Differentiated
instruction also includes focusing on basic knowledge and skills related to the
currently taught content; identifying pupils’ various learning styles, differences in
their prior knowledge, levels of interest, degree of activity, and participation in the
teaching process; flexible grouping of pupils according to their interests, topic at
hand and possibilities; and continuous monitoring of pupils’ progress, as well as
adjusting the teaching content, learning and teaching process and learning product
to the needs of pupils. It also involves recognizing pupils who are capable of going
above and beyond the intended teaching content by means of enrichment activities,
i.e., identifying gifted pupils who need an appropriate level of challenge and support
to develop their full potential (Wallace, Bernardelli, and Molyneux, 2012).
There is no single definition that can precisely describe giftedness. Different
researchers have developed specific definitions of giftedness that include thinking,
learning styles and function of the brain, giftedness as a genetic trait, giftedness as
the result of creativity, and intrapersonal attributes such as identity development and
self-awareness. These definitions try to move away from the traditional definition of
giftedness as high intelligence defined by IQ tests, an approach that has been
criticized as static. Other definitions are built on a multidimensional understanding
of giftedness. Renzulli's (2012) three-ring conception of giftedness postulates three
clusters of characteristics in gifted children: above-average ability, creativity, and task
commitment. Gagne (2004) distinguishes between gifts (aptitude) and talent
(performance), encompassing a wide range of possible areas in which children can
demonstrate capability and emphasizing the transition between gifts and talent and
environmental influences. Mönks (1992) describes giftedness as a combination of
inherent potential and environmental factors.
284
REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE
JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
Schmitt and Goebel explain that the term gifted and talented students, means “those
students who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as
intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields,
and who need services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to
fully develop those capabilities” (Schmitt and Goebel, 2015, p. 429). These students
are characterized by quicker and more efficient learning and thinking at a higher level
than other kids of their age. Morelock (1996) defines giftedness as a form of
development and talent – a “multi-level potential for domain-specific creative
productivity which can be fostered through appropriate identification and
environmental support”. Children with exceptional achievement or potential in one
or more areas are considered gifted. Gifted pupils “achieve exceptionally high levels
of attainment in all or some aspects of the curriculum demands in school science or
undertake some science-related tasks at a level of demand well above that required
at their current curricular stage” (Taber, 2010, p. 9). They show strong curiosity
about things and phenomena around them, and often ask many questions. They are
able to handle abstract concepts, enjoy challenging problems and have creative and
investigative ideas. They demonstrate high interest in investigating scientific
phenomena and show ability to make connections between scientific concepts and
observed phenomena. The concepts of gifted and talented are commonly used
together, but some definitions show that there is a subtle difference between
giftedness and talent, as giftedness talks about potential abilities whereas talent talks
about present abilities that can be demonstrated or performed (Da Costa and Lubart,
2016).
The main methods that foster the development of gifted pupils in general include
differentiation, extra-curricular amplification - i.e., curriculum enrichment,
acceleration, and grouping of gifted pupils. Each of these methods specifically
contributes to meeting the needs of gifted pupils and developing their abilities.
Extracurricular amplification and curriculum enrichment refer to an intervention in
both the learning content and the learning process which aims to enhance the
competences of gifted pupils within regular classes and allow maximum
development of their abilities (Southem and Jones, 2004).
Acceleration is most commonly described as an educational intervention model in
which pupils progress rapidly through educational programmes at a younger age than
usual.
A. Letina: Using Differentiation Strategies for Gifted Pupils in Primary School Science Classes
285
It can be partial, i.e., used for specific subjects only, or complete, which involves an
accelerated progression through the educational system based on pupils’ specific
abilities (Southem and Jones, 2004). The advantages of this approach are that it
improves gifted pupils’ personal motivation, academic performance and mental
habits, and helps meet their emotional needs and reduce their sense of isolation,
while the disadvantages include social and emotional difficulties and possible
occurrence of gaps in pupils’ knowledge and skills (Petrovich, 2005; Rogers, 2002).
Despite the observed disadvantages, acceleration is considered the most efficient
strategy for enhancing the achievements of gifted pupils and improving their
motivation (Colangelo, Assouline and Gross, 2004). Therefore, it is recommended
that it be combined with other methods that foster the development of gifted pupils
(Davis and Rimm, 2004).
Grouping of pupils according to their specific abilities contributes to academic
performance, development of critical thinking and creativity in gifted pupils (Rogers
and Span, 1993). One of the advantages of grouping pupils by ability is that it allows
teachers to focus on meeting the needs of gifted pupils and on tailoring activities to
suit their specific abilities. A possible disadvantage of this method is the emergence
of elitism and negative attitudes among other pupils towards such grouping, as well
as a loss of self-esteem among pupils who have not been identified as gifted.
Based on all the above, it can be concluded that none of the existing strategies aimed
at meeting the needs of gifted pupils is ideal, which is why it is recommended to
combine several different methods when working with gifted pupils. Moreover, it is
worth mentioning that curriculum enrichment and differentiation are generally
considered the most acceptable strategies for fostering the development of gifted
pupils, given that both methods can have a positive impact on the development of
competences among both gifted pupils and all other pupils in an education system.
Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) emphasize that gifted pupils require alternative
forms of work that allow them to develop their knowledge and skills and perform
at a higher, more challenging level. Especially convenient for this purpose are tasks
that can be solved in several different ways (Tomlinson and Imbeau, 2010), thus
supporting different learning styles. High-quality differentiated instruction will allow
pupils to showcase their comprehension of the acquired knowledge and abilities that
they have developed in different ways during the teaching process.
286
REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE
JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
In terms of the assessment process, this means that the mark a pupil receives should
reflect what the pupil knows, understands and is able to do, instead of what he/she
is like in comparison with his/her peers.
Research conducted so far has shown that teachers lack sufficient knowledge about
gifted pupils (Chan and Yuen, 2015; Cheung and Hui, 2011), and that they usually
do not implement differentiated instruction to meet the needs of different pupils
(Yuen, Westwood, and Wong, 2005; Wan, 2015). Such results are devastating,
considering that a meta-analysis of research dealing with the effects of differentiated
instruction in the teaching process has shown that differentiated instruction has a
positive impact on academic achievement by talented pupils and on their socio-
emotional development (Kim, 2016). Furthermore, research by Stavroula, Leonidas
and Mary (2011) shows that pupils who are exposed to differentiated instruction
achieve better results than those who learn in traditional classrooms.
Despite that, teachers often resist differentiated instruction because they lack the
competences to implement it (Tomlinson, Callahan, Tomchin, Eiss, Imbeau and
Landrum, 1997). Sometimes even the content of in-service teacher training
programs is deficient in the area of education for gifted and talented pupils (Kukanja
Gabrijelčič, 2014).
Although more recent study programmes at teacher education faculties emphasize
the need to implement differentiated instruction, they often fail to teach prospective
teachers how it should be done. The lack of competences among future teachers to
conduct this extremely important process is correlated with practical implementation
of differentiated instruction. An analysis of future teachers’ lesson plans in the study
conducted by Skribe Dimec (2013) showed insufficient presence of elements of
differentiated instruction in primary science education, as well as a lack of
differentiation elements in the majority of teaching materials for primary-level
science.
Although many teachers emphasize the importance of differentiated instruction and
advocate the need to implement it, their teaching methods do not coincide with their
beliefs. Another problem is that differentiated instruction requires much longer
preparation for the teaching process. There is also the misconception that
differentiated instruction cannot be implemented because of the traditional methods
used to assess pupils’ achievements. The biggest challenge for the implementation
of differentiated instruction is the teachers’ lack of confidence in their own ability to
implement it properly (Hawkins, 2009).
A. Letina: Using Differentiation Strategies for Gifted Pupils in Primary School Science Classes
287
Moreover, teachers often raise concerns that differentiated instruction would benefit
only some pupils. However, this concern is unjustified, as research shows that
properly implemented differentiated instruction benefits all pupils (McQuarrie,
McRae and Stack-Cutler, 2008).
There are, however, certain disadvantages to differentiated instruction. The main
weakness is the lack of unique guidelines for its implementation (Huebner, 2010),
which stems from the differences in structure of each individual school class.
Furthermore, differentiated instruction involves additional pressure on teachers to
provide support for pupils with special needs, which is usually only provided by
experts. In addition, the process cannot take place only once, but needs to be
repeated continuously over a lengthy period of time, which requires patience and
persistence from teachers (Tomlinson, 2001). Furthermore, some pupils might need
much more support than a competent teacher is able to provide during the
differentiated instruction process (Tomlinson et al. 1997).
When implementing differentiated instruction for gifted pupils, teachers will develop
more complex learning activities for such pupils (Huebner, 2010). The emphasis is
placed on inquiry-based learning, during which a pupil can experience the joys and
frustrations of creative productivity. Through appropriate differentiated instruction
methods, gifted pupils are presented with additional challenges to help maintain their
interest and attention, and appropriately develop their abilities. Only by being
presented with such challenges can gifted pupils develop persistence, curiosity and
intellectual risk taking (Tomlinson, 2001).
When working with gifted pupils in primary school science classes, the goal is to
support the development of an advanced level of understanding and knowledge, the
development of self-regulated learning, commitment to the task, self-esteem and the
sense of creative accomplishment in such children. During the differentiated
instruction process, teachers will help pupils understand their abilities, interests and
learning styles.
Maker’s model (1982) suggests that a curriculum which best supports gifted learners’
skills should be differentiated in the key areas of content, process, product and
learning environment (Figure 1).
288
REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE
JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
Figure 1. Maker`s (1982) model of the differentiated curriculum for highly able pupils
Research methodology
Research objective
This paper presents the results of a study to determine whether teachers in the first
four grades of elementary school implement differentiated instruction for gifted
pupils in primary school science classes, which of those differentiated instruction
techniques they implement and how frequently.
Hypotheses
H(1) Teachers frequently (once a week) implement all differentiated instruction
techniques for pupils who are gifted at natural sciences in primary school science
classes.
H(2) Teachers use differentiated instruction techniques more frequently when
working with gifted pupils than with other pupils in primary school science classes.
•How pupils demonstrate their
learning
•engage pupils in solving real life
problems to show application of
their learning
•provide authentic feedback on
pupils` products
•encourage pupils to create
original ideas and products
•Attitudes and perceptions
in the classroom
•student centred
•open
•tolerant
•negotiating
•celebrating learning
•How pupils learn
•problem solving and critical
thinking
•engage pupils in investigation or
advanced work
•provide more open-endend
tasks and creative thinking
•allow pupils to go deeper into
their work
•adjust to differing styles of
learning
•encourage freedom of choice
•What pupils learn
•broaden current curriculum
level
•engage pupils in more
abstract concepts
•replace content with more
complex, advanced material
•introduce pupils to more
advanced research skills
Content Process
Product
Environ-
ment
A. Letina: Using Differentiation Strategies for Gifted Pupils in Primary School Science Classes
289
H(3) There is no statistically significant difference in the frequency of
implementation of specific differentiated instruction techniques in primary school
science classes.
Research instruments, variables and data processing
For the purpose of this research, a questionnaire was developed that was modelled
on a similar questionnaire by Archambault et. al. (1993). The statements from this
questionnaire were partially modified and adapted to the peculiarities of teaching
science in primary school. Before using the instrument, a pilot study was conducted
on a smaller, targeted sample for the purpose of testing it. After that, any ambiguities
within the instrument were removed, allowing it to be used in research on a larger
sample.
The questionnaire consists of three sections. The purpose of the first section was to
collect demographic data on respondents and to establish whether they had
participated in any courses or professional training during their teaching career that
dealt with the topic of working with gifted pupils.
The second part of the questionnaire was aimed at determining how often the
respondents implement differentiated instruction when working with gifted pupils
and with other pupils in primary school science classes. This section of the
questionnaire comprised a scale consisting of 38 items (statements) divided into six
subscales related to several different groups of differentiated instruction techniques
used to encourage the development of gifted pupils: (1) Asking questions and
developing higher-order thinking; (2) Offering challenges and choices; (3)
Differentiated tasks, which include reading and writing; (4) Changes in the
curriculum; (5) Learning Enrichment Centres; (6) Individual work in pupils’ work
stations. Teachers provided their own assessments of the frequency of
implementation of these techniques using a six-point Likert scale (1=never, 2=very
rarely (once or twice a semester), 3=rarely (once a month), 4=occasionally (2 or 3
times a month), 5=often (once a week), 6=always (in every class)). The dependent
research variable is the frequency of implementation of differentiated instruction
techniques for gifted pupils in primary school science classes. Independent variables
are a program concept and the context of learning (lower grades of primary
education and primary science classes).
290
REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE
JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
The following statistical measurements and data processing procedures were used:
descriptive statistics to determine basic statistical indicators in interpreting research
results, a t-test to compare the mean of a continuous variable in two different groups
and ANOVA for comparison of mean values of the variable in more than three
groups.
Respondents
The study was conducted by means of a survey, and the sample included teachers of
lower (first to fourth) grades of elementary school (N=134). The sample
predominantly included female respondents (97%), whereas in terms of qualification
level there was an equal representation of respondents with graduate level
qualifications (56%) and undergraduate level qualifications (44%). In terms of years
of service, the respondents were divided into six groups. The first group comprised
respondents with 0 to 5 years of service (20.9%); the second group comprised those
with 6 to 10 years of service (14.9%); the third group comprised those with 11 to 15
years of service (23.1%); the following group were teachers with 16 to 20 years of
service (9.7%), then those with 21 to 25 years of service (19.4%), and finally those
with 25 or more years of service (11.9%). For the question whether teachers had
participated in any professional development course or training dealing with the
topic of instruction for gifted pupils during their teaching career, the respondents
were divided into those whose answer to that question was affirmative (30.6%) and
those whose answer was negative (69.4%).
Results and discussion
The differentiated instruction methods most frequently used by teachers when
working with gifted pupils in primary school science classes, in the group of
techniques based on asking questions and developing higher-order thinking, are
shown in Table 2.
A. Letina: Using Differentiation Strategies for Gifted Pupils in Primary School Science Classes
291
Table 2. Techniques based on asking questions and developing higher-order thinking
Items
M
SD
I achieve the educational outcomes related to thinking skills which are
defined by the curriculum.
4.51
1.68
I encourage critical thinking and creative problem solving in science classes.
4.47
1.59
I encourage pupils to ask more complex questions in science classes.
4.01
1.62
I encourage pupils to discuss the given issue among themselves.
4.0
1.45
Total
4.28
1.41
The total arithmetic mean of teachers’ answers to this group of questions is M=4.28;
SD=1.41, which indicates that these differentiated instruction techniques are
implemented occasionally (2 or 3 times a month) in science classes. Higher-order
questions develop pupils’ critical thinking skills and help pupils to apply, analyse,
synthesise and evaluate information, instead of simply reproducing facts. Taylor et
al. (2003) emphasize that pupils whose teachers use questions at a higher cognitive
level reach higher levels of knowledge, while Hus and Legvart claim (2016) that
questions and cognition development are strongly connected. Therefore, it is very
important to incorporate these instruction techniques into everyday teaching
practice, instead of using them only a few times a month.
Educational equality requires providing each pupil with challenges that meet their
abilities (Davidson, Davidson, and Vanderkam, 2004). The highest and the lowest
arithmetic mean values in the group of differentiated instruction techniques based
on offering challenges and choices to gifted pupils are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Techniques based on offering challenges and choices
Items
M
SD
I prepare pupils for participation in natural science competitions.
1.82
1.48
I suggest additional sources of knowledge to pupils during science
class (journals, encyclopaedias, children’s books etc.).
3.29
1.34
I suggest that the pupil attend science class in a higher grade.
1.44
1.20
I bring additional sources of knowledge (journals, encyclopaedias,
children’s books etc.) to science class and encourage pupils to use
these in their work.
3.37
1.48
Total
2.68
1.04
292
REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE
JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
The total arithmetic mean of teachers’ answers to this group of questions is M=2.68;
SD=1.41, which indicates that these differentiated instruction techniques are rarely
implemented in science classes. Gifted pupils in primary science are more engaged
and can fulfil their potential when teachers set high expectations, along with
assignments and activities that challenge them appropriately (Council of Curriculum,
Examinations and Assessment [CCEA], 2006). Challenging problems help gifted
pupils to “cultivate their high-level thinking skills, while also providing opportunities
to advance their metacognitive skills, feelings of ownership, motivation, and
engagement levels” (Matsko and Thomas, 2014, p. 160)). Absence of these
instruction techniques can have a negative influence on gifted pupils’ motivation for
learning, which is why they need to be implemented more frequently in practice.
The highest and the lowest arithmetic mean value in the group of differentiated
instruction techniques based on task assignments that involve reading and writing
are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Techniques based on task assignments that involve reading and writing
Items
M
SD
I use more complex texts about certain topics which require
higher-order thinking in science classes.
2.90
1.45
I require pupils to write a report on a given topic in science classes.
3.04
1.32
In science classes I give pupils the task of writing a presentation
about a book they have read.
1.82
1.02
In science classes the pupil is given the task of writing an essay on a
topic assigned by the teacher, in which the pupil needs to present
or explain the given topic in a creative manner.
1.94
1.00
Total
2.44
1.02
The total arithmetic mean of teachers’ responses to this group of questions is
M=2.44; SD=1.02, which indicates that these differentiated instruction techniques
are very rarely implemented in science classes (1 or 2 times a year). Independent
reading and writing assignments offer opportunities for developing fluency as well
as practice with comprehension strategies and decoding skills (Clay, 1991). At the
same time, there should be some opportunity for pupil choice, since pupils can often
read materials above their instructional reading level if they are interested in and
excited about a specific topic (Ancrum and Bean, 2008).
A. Letina: Using Differentiation Strategies for Gifted Pupils in Primary School Science Classes
293
This is a demanding procedure that requires good reading skills and orientation in
written texts, which is not yet fully developed in pupils aged 7 to 10. This is probably
why teachers only rarely apply this differentiation technique in their teaching
practice.
The highest and lowest arithmetic mean values in the group of differentiated
instruction techniques based on changes to the curriculum are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Techniques based on changes to the curriculum
The total arithmetic mean of teachers’ responses to this group of questions is
M=2.84; SD=1.06, which indicates that these differentiated instruction techniques
are rarely implemented (once a month) in science classes. An effective curriculum
for pupils who are gifted is essentially a basic curriculum that has been modified to
meet their needs. It can be modified in content, process, product expectations or
learning environment. Both content and learning experiences can be modified
through acceleration, compacting, variety, reorganization, flexible pacing, and the
use of more advanced or complex concepts and abstractions. On the other hand,
modification of the process can include restructured activities, more intellectually
demanding for highly able pupils. They need to be challenged by questions that
require a higher level of response and stimulate inquiry, active exploration, and
discovery. Activities should meet pupils’ interests and encourage pupils’ self-directed
learning. Also, the learning environment should encourage pupils’ creativity, inquiry
and independence, and needs to be pupil-centred and receptive.
Items
M
SD
I use pre-tests to assess pupils’ prior knowledge of a specific teaching
unit or teaching content and change the curriculum accordingly.
2.31
1.62
I eliminate and do not use the curriculum content that pupils have
already mastered well.
1.87
1.09
In science classes we analyse and study teaching content that is more
complex and more demanding for pupils.
3.66
1.09
In science classes I use different teaching methods for pupils who are
able to learn the teaching content more quickly.
3.47
1.42
Total
2.84
1.06
294
REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE
JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
The total arithmetic mean of teachers’ responses in this group of differentiation
techniques is not satisfactory and shows that the respondents’ teaching practice does
not meet the needs of gifted pupils in primary school science classes.
The highest and the lowest arithmetic mean values in the group of differentiated
instruction techniques based on enrichment centres are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Techniques based on enrichment centres
The total arithmetic mean of teachers’ answers to this group of questions is M=2.73;
SD=1.06, which indicates that these differentiated instruction techniques are rarely
implemented (once a month) in science classes. Enrichment centres enhance a
pupil's educational experience and allow participants to meet their interests. Pupils
are working on subject matter in more depth or breadth. This technique can be easily
implemented in the classroom by grouping pupils with similar abilities to complete
activities at their learning levels or be organized as an extra-curricular activity for
gifted pupils. The main purpose is highlighting the talents of gifted pupils and
investing in their abilities to motivate their creativity.
The highest and the lowest arithmetic mean values in the group of differentiated
instruction techniques based on individual work of gifted pupils at their workstations
are shown in Table 7.
Items
M
SD
In science classes I allow pupils a certain amount of time to pursue their
own particular interests in the field of natural sciences.
3.31
1.32
During science classes I organize workstations in the classroom and
encourage pupils to use these and perform various activities.
3.03
1.54
I sometimes work on science curriculum content with pupils even after
class.
2.05
1.25
I include pupils in extracurricular activities related to natural sciences.
2.15
1.32
Total
2.73
1.06
A. Letina: Using Differentiation Strategies for Gifted Pupils in Primary School Science Classes
295
Table 7. Techniques based on individual work of gifted pupils at their work stations
The total arithmetic mean of teachers’ answers to this group of questions is M=3.30;
SD=1.05, which indicates that these differentiated instruction techniques are rarely
implemented in science classes, with a mild tendency towards occasional
implementation. Individual work forms an important part of effective provision for
gifted and talented pupils. Individualized learning offers the pupil the possibility of
working on his/her own research topics, encourages him/her to make decisions
about the domains of learning, supports him/her in working efficiently in a manner
best suited to his/her needs and motivates him/her for self-regulating learning
(Kelemen, 2010). It is relatively easy to apply in everyday teaching practice, so the
frequency of its use is slightly higher compared to other differentiation techniques.
By comparing the arithmetic mean values of respondents’ answers regarding the
frequency of implementation of various differentiated instruction techniques in
science classes, in some subscales we can establish that most differentiated
instruction techniques are rarely implemented, which is why the first hypothesis
(H1), which posited that teachers frequently implement all differentiated instruction
techniques for gifted pupils, is rejected.
Table 8 shows the results of testing the statistical significance of differences in the
frequency of implementation of specific groups of differentiated instruction
techniques for gifted and other pupils in science classes in mixed-ability classes.
Items
M
SD
In science classes I use worksheets to help develop pupils’ basic skills.
3.47
1.31
In science classes I use worksheets enriched with additional material for
the development of pupils’ specific skills.
2.91
1.24
I instruct pupils to use computers in science classes.
3.47
1.55
Total
3.30
1.05
296
REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE
JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
Table 8. Statistical significance of differences in the frequency of implementation of specific groups of
differentiated instruction techniques for gifted and other pupils in science classes
Pupils
M
SD
t-test
p
Asking questions and developing
higher-order thinking
gifted
4.28
1.41
-1.19
0.24
others
4.45
0.96
Offering challenges and choices
gifted
2.68
1,04
0.46
0.64
others
2.62
0.81
Task assignments that involve
reading and writing
gifted
2.44
1.02
1.14
0.25
others
2.31
0.84
Changes to the curriculum
gifted
2.84
1.06
-0.21
0.83
others
2.86
0.85
Enrichment centres
gifted
2.73
1.06
0.45
0.65
others
2.68
0.88
Individual work
gifted
3.30
1.05
-1.06
0.29
others
3.41
0.70
According to the data shown in Table 8, it can be concluded that there is no
statistically significant difference in the implementation of differentiated instruction
techniques for gifted and other pupils in a mixed-ability class, i.e., that the
differentiated instruction techniques are equally frequently implemented for both
groups of pupils. Hence, the second hypothesis (H2), which posited that teachers
implement differentiated instruction techniques more frequently when working with
gifted pupils than with other pupils in science classes, is also rejected. This finding
is satisfactory because differentiated instruction in a heterogeneous school class
should be available to all pupils, since it encourages them to be as successful as
possible in the educational process. The problem, however, is that the identified
frequency of implementation of various differentiated instruction techniques is
relatively low, which is why the lack of a significant difference in the frequency of
implementation is not particularly noteworthy.
In order to determine the difference in the frequency of implementation of specific
differentiated instruction techniques among gifted pupils, we conducted the
ANOVA test (Table 9).
A. Letina: Using Differentiation Strategies for Gifted Pupils in Primary School Science Classes
297
Table 9. The difference in the frequency of implementation of specific differentiated instruction
techniques among gifted pupils
Sum of squares
df
Mean square
F
p
Between groups
297.49
5
59.49
47.80
0.00
Within groups
993.29
798
1.25
Total
1290.79
803
According to the data shown in Table 9, we notice that the significance level is
p=0.00 with regard to testing the difference in the frequency of implementation of
specific differentiated instruction techniques when dealing with gifted pupils, which
is why we can establish that there is a statistically significant difference in the
frequency of their implementation. By means of a post hoc Tukey test, we have
established that there are significant differences between most differentiated
instruction techniques. Thus, in science classes, the frequency of using questioning
techniques to develop pupils’ thinking skills is statistically more significant than the
frequency of using all other differentiated instruction techniques. Moreover, the
frequency of having pupils do individual work at workstations is statistically more
significant than the frequency of implementing the methods of offering challenges
and choices, assigning differentiated tasks that involve reading and writing, changing
the curriculum and Learning Enrichment Centres. Therefore, the third hypothesis
(H3), which posited that there is no statistically significant difference in the
frequency of implementation of specific differentiated instruction techniques in
science classes, is also rejected.
Conclusion
Based on the results of this research, it can be concluded that the majority of teachers
rarely (once a month) implement most of these differentiated instruction techniques
in primary school science classes. The only technique that is more frequently
implemented is the technique of asking questions, whose aim is to develop pupils’
thinking skills. Such findings confirm the results of earlier studies (e.g., Yuen et al.,
2016; Wan, 2015). This situation in the teaching practice is particularly concerning
because it means that in elementary education, there is no adequate support for the
development of pupils gifted at natural sciences.
300
REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE
JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
This is particularly unfavourable because gifted pupils need to be identified as early
as possible in the course of their education so that their potential can be developed
as soon as possible. Here, however, we should also emphasise some limitations of
the research. Namely, some education experts (Stevenson and Stigler, 1992) believe
that teaching practice needs to be directly observed in order to be assessed more
precisely. They also emphasise that the research questions in the questionnaire can
only partially clarify teacher behaviour, while direct observation of their teaching
could help determine the difference between efficient and inefficient practice. This
is further supported by research conducted by Burstein, McDonnell, Van Winkle,
Ormseth, Mirocha and Guiton (1995), according to which the coincidence between
teachers’ self-assessment of their practice and their actual practice is only 40-60%.
That is why the findings of this study will be tested in a future research study based
on observation of teachers’ teaching practice and methods in primary school science
classes. Moreover, the results of this study raise the question why differentiated
instruction techniques are not implemented frequently enough in actual teaching
practice. One reason for this might be insufficient development of teachers’
competences to implement differentiated instruction. Therefore, it is important to
include training in practical implementation of differentiated instruction strategies in
formal initial teacher training programmes, which would allow teachers to acquire
the appropriate competences and implement them in their teaching practice with
more confidence, more efficiently and more frequently. It would also be necessary
to organize various forms of high-quality professional development courses for
teachers who already work in the education system, to allow them to understand the
importance and function of differentiated instruction, and to use these strategies
more frequently, thus promoting the appropriate development of gifted pupils.
Differentiation should become a constant and systematic practice in classrooms, not
an occasional event.
Because only a few research studies dealing with the use of differentiation have been
conducted in Croatia, and there is a lack of appropriate guidelines for implementing
this method in teaching practice, the research findings presented in this paper help
identify current educational practices and suggest that there is a need to improve
those aspects of teaching practice related to the development of gifted pupils.
Moreover, the theoretical overview, which emphasizes the importance of
differentiation, can contribute to its popularization and lead to more frequent
implementation of this method in teaching practice. The findings of this study
A. Letina: Using Differentiation Strategies for Gifted Pupils in Primary School Science Classes
301
should encourage teachers to use appropriate differentiation methods more
frequently to facilitate the development of gifted pupils’ potential.
This study could also serve as an incentive towards further studies of the efficiency
of differentiation for the development of competences among gifted pupils, as well
as those that will determine how teacher training programmes can affect the
development of teacher competences that are necessary for the implementation of
differentiation methods in primary school science classes.
References
Ancrum, J. W., and Bean R. M. (2008). Differentiated Reading Instruction: What and How, Reading
Horizons, 48(2), 133–146.
Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C. L., and Zhang, W.
(1993). Regular Classroom Practices with Gifted Pupils: Results of a National Survey of
Classroom Teachers. The University of Connecticut Storrs, Connecticut.
Burstein, L., McDonnell, L. M., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha J., and Guitton G. (1995).
Validating National Curriculum Indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Chan, S. and Yuen, M. (2015). Teachers’ beliefs and practices for nurturing creativity in pupils:
perspectives from teachers of gifted pupils in Hong Kong. Gifted Education International, 31(3),
200–213.
Cheung, H. Y. and Hui, S. K. F. (2011). Competencies and characteristics for teaching gifted pupils: a
comparative study of Beijing and Hong Kong teachers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(2), 139–148.
Clay, M. (1991). Becoming Literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., and Gross, M. (Eds.) (2004). A Nation Deceived: How schools hold back
America’s brightest pupils (pp. 109-117). Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa
Council of Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) (2006). Gifted and Talented Children
in (and out) of the Classroom. Retrieved from https://giftedphoenix.files.wordpress.c-
om/2012/11/gifted_children_060306.pdf (Accessed: 25. 5. 2020.)
Davidson, J., Davidson, B., and Vanderkam, L. (2004). Genius Denied: How to stop wasting our
brightest young minds. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks
Davis. G. A., and Rimm, S. (2004). Education of the Gifted and Talented. Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability
Studies, 15, 119–147.
Hall, T., Strangman, N., and Meyer, A. (2007). Differentiated Instruction and Implications for UDL
Implementation. NCAC Effective Classroom Practice Report.
Hawkins, V. J. (2009). Barriers to Implementing Differentiation: Lack of Confidence, efficacy and
preserverance. NERA Journal, 44(2), 11–16.
Huebner, T. (2010). Differentiated Learning. Educational Leadership, 67, 79–81.
Hus, V., and Legvart., P. (2016). Using questions as a tool for encouraging higher thinking processes
in a social science class, Školski vjesnik: časopis za pedagogijsku teoriju i praksu, 65(2), 211–226.
Kelemen, G. (2010). A personalized model design for gifted children’ education, Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 2, 3981–3987.
Kim, M. (2016). A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Enrichment Programs on Gifted Pupils, Gifted Child
Quarterly, 60(2), 102–116.
Kukanja Gabrijelčič, M. (2014). Država, učitelj in delo z nadarjenimi učenci: med poslanstvom in
odgovornostjo, Journal of Elementary Education, 7(1), 83–97.
Maker, C. J. (1982). Teaching Models in the Education of the Gifted, Pro-Ed, Austin, TX.
300
REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE
JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
Matsko, V. and Thomas, J. (2014). The problem is the solution: Creating original problems in gifted
mathematics classes. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(2), 153–170.
McQuarrie, L., McRae, P., and Stack-Cutler, H. (2008). Differentiated Instruction Provincial Research
Review. University of Alberta. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://www.assembly.ab.c–
a/lao/library/egovdocs/2008/aled/168784.pdf (Accessed: 25. 5. 2020.)
Morelock, M. J. (1996). On the nature of giftedness and talent: Imposing order on chaos, Roeper Review,
19(1), 4-12. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199609553774 (Accessed: 25. 5.
2020.)
Mönks, F. J. (1992). Development of gifted children: The issue of identification and programming. In:
F. J. Mönks and W. A. M. Peters (Eds.), Talent for the future. Proceedings of the ninth world
conference on gifted and talented children (pp. 191–202). Assen: Van Gorcum.
Munro, J. (2012). Effective strategies for implementing differentiated instruction [Paper presentation].
2012 - School Improvement: What does research tell us about effective strategies? Retrieved
from https://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference/RC2012/27august/14 (Accessed: 7.
6. 2020.)
Pereira Da Costa, M. and Lubart, T. I. (2016). Gifted and talented children: Heterogeneity and
individual differences, Anales de Psicología, 32(3), 662–671.
Petrovich, G. (2005). Gifted and Talented Education. University of Michigan.
Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st
century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150–159.
Rogers, K. (2002). Grouping the gifted and talented. Paper Review, 24, 103–107.
Rogers, K. B., and Span, P. (1993). Ability grouping with gifted and talented pupils: research and
guidelines. In: K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, and A. H. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 3–28). Oxford, Pergamon Press.
Schmitt, C., and Goebel, V. (2015). Experiences of high-ability high school students: A case study.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(4), 428–446.
Skribe Dimec, D. (2013). Diferenciacija pri poučevanju naravoslovja v prvem in drugem vzgojno
izobraževalnem obdobju osnovne šole, Journal of Elementary Education, 6(2-3), 193–211.
Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D. (2004). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In Colangelo, N.,
Assouline, S. G., Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s
brightest pupils (Vol. 2, pp. 5–12). Retrieved from http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/Nat–
ion_Deceived/ND_v2.pdf (Accessed: 25. 5. 2020.)
Stavroula, V. A., Leonidas, K., and Mary, K. (2011). Investigating the Impact of Differentiated
Instruction in Mixed Ability Classrooms: It’s [sic] impact on the Quality and Equity
Dimensions of Education Effectiveness. Paper presented at the International Congress for
School Effectiveness and Improvement. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticschol–
ar.org/2105/2d28179d01df264cad4e9d015c19c6361256.pdf (Accessed: 10. 6. 2020.)
Taber, K.S. (2010). Challenging gifted learners: general principles for science educators; and
exemplification in the context of teaching chemistry, Science Education International, 21(1), 5–30.
Taylor, B. M., Peardon, P. D., Peterson, D. S., Rodriguez, M. C. (2003). Reading Growth in High-
Poverty Classrooms. The Influence of Teacher Practices that Encourage Cognitive
Engagement in Literacy Learning. The Elementary School Journal, 104(1), 3–28.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). Differentiated Instruction in the Regular Classroom: What Does it Mean?
How Does it Look? Understanding Our Gifted, 14(1), 3–6.
Tomlinson, C. A. and Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A. and McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction: Understanding by
Design. ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A. and Strickland, C. A. (2005). Differentiation in Practice: A resource guide for
differentiating curriculum, grades 9–12. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A., Callahan, C., Tomchin, E., Eiss, N., Imbeau, M., and Landrum, M. (1997). Becoming
Architects of Communities of Learning. Exceptional Children, 63(2), 269–282.
A. Letina: Using Differentiation Strategies for Gifted Pupils in Primary School Science Classes
301
Wallace, B., Bernardelli, A., and Molyneux, C. (2012). TASC: Thinking actively in a social context. A
universal problem-solving process: a powerful tool to promote differentiated learning
experiences. Gifted Education International, 28(1), 58–83.
Wan, S. W. Y. (2015). Differentiated instruction: Hong Kong prospective teachers’ teaching efficacy
and beliefs. Teachers and Teaching, 22(2), 1–29.
Yuen, M., Westwood, P., and Wong, G. (2005). Meeting the needs of pupils with specific learning
difficulties in mainstream classrooms. International Journal of Special Education, 20(1), 67–76.
Yuen, M., Chan, S., Chan, C., Fung, D. C. L., Cheung, W. M., Kwan, T., and Leung, F. K. S. (2016).
Differentiation in key learning areas for gifted pupils in regular classes: A project for primary
school teachers in Hong Kong. Gifted Education International, 34(1), 36–46.
Author
Dr. Alena Letina
Assistant professor, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Teacher Education, Savska cesta 77, 10000
Zagreb, Croatia, e-mail: alena.letina@ufzg.hr
Docentka, Univerza v Zagrebu, Učiteljska fakulteta, Savska cesta 77, 10000 Zagreb, Hrvaška, e-pošta:
alena.letina@ufzg.hr
