Deferential differentiation occurs when the curriculum modification process defers to students’ preferred ways of learning rather than relying on teachers’ judgments. The preferences of 416 students identified as gifted (grades 3-8) for features of differentiated curriculum recommended for gifted students were compared with those of 230 students not identified as gifted. While thinking of their favorite school subject, they responded to the 110 items on the Possibilities for Learning survey. Most and least popular items are reported in nine thematic categories (pace, collaborative learning, choice, curriculum content, evaluation, open-ended activities, expert knowledge, teacher/student relationship, and sharing learning). Self-pacing, choice of topic, and choice of workmates were most popular with students in both groups. Compared with nonidentified students, more of the students identified as gifted wanted to learn about complex, extracurricular topics and authentic, sophisticated knowledge and interconnections among ideas; to work with others some of the time; and to choose the format of the products of their learning. More students identified as gifted also disliked waiting for the rest of the class and asking for help. Overall, the groups’ preferences differed in degree rather than kind, and reflected cognitive abilities frequently cited as distinguishing characteristics of learners with high ability.
ArchambaultF. X.Jr.WestbergK. L.BrownS. W.HallmarkB. W.EmmonsC. L.ZhangW. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers (Research Monograph No. 93102). Storrs: University of Connecticut.
2.
BloomB. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
3.
BoultinghouseA. (1984). What is your style? A learning styles inventory for lower elementary students. Roeper Review, 6, 208-213.
4.
CaraiscoJ. (2007). Overcoming lethargy in gifted and talented education with contract activity packages. Clearing House, 80, 255-259.
5.
CarrollK. L. (2008). In their own voices: Helping artistically gifted and talented students succeed academically. Gifted Child Today, 31(4), 36-43.
6.
ChanD. W. (2001). Learning styles of gifted and nongifted secondary students in Hong Kong. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 35-44.
7.
CollinsM.AmabileT. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In SternbergR. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297-312). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
8.
CordovaD. I.LepperM. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 715-730.
9.
CronbachL. J. (1951). Coefficiet alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 671-684.
10.
CurryL. (1983). An organization of learning styles theory and constructs. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
11.
CurryL. (1990). A critique of the research on learning styles. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 50-57.
12.
DeweyJ. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
13.
DiezmannC. M.WattersJ. J. (2001). The collaboration of mathematically gifted students on challenging tasks. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 7-31.
14.
DunnR. S.DunnK. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A practical approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15.
DweckC. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
16.
DweckC. S. (2009). Self-theories and lessons for giftedness: A reflective conversation. In BalchinT.HymerB.MatthewsD. J. (Eds.), The Routledge international companion to gifted education (pp. 308-316). New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
EwingN. J.YongF. L. (1992). A comparative study of the learning style preferences among gifted African-American, Mexican-American, and American-born Chinese middle grade students. Roeper Review, 14, 120-123.
18.
EwingN. J.YongF. L. (1993). Learning style preferences of gifted minority students. Gifted Education International, 9, 40-44.
FredricksJ. A.AlfeldC.EcclesJ. (2010). Developing and fostering passion in academic and nonacademic domains. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 18-30.
21.
FrenchL. R.WalkerC. L.ShoreB. M. (2011). Do gifted students really prefer to work alone?Roeper Review, 33, 145-159.
22.
GallM. D. (2001). Figuring out the importance of research results: Statistical significance versus practical significance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
GentryM.GableR. K.SpringerP. (2000). Gifted and nongifted middle school students: Are their attitudes toward school different as measured by the new affective instrument, My Class Activities . . .?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 74-95.
25.
GentryM.RizzaM.OwenS. V. (2002). Examining perceptions of challenge and choice in classrooms: The relationship between teachers and their students and comparisons between gifted students and other students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 145-155.
26.
GoldsteinL. S. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the co-construction of mind. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 647-673.
27.
GoodC. (Ed.). (1959). The dictionary of education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
HlawatyH. (2009). “Lernen” and learning styles: A comparative analysis of the learning styles of German adolescents by age, gender, and academic achievement level. European Education, 40(4), 23-45.
30.
HolzmanL. (1997). Schools for growth: Radical alternatives to current educational models. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
HonigsfeldA. M. (2001). A comparative analysis of the learning styles of adolescents from diverse nations by age, gender, academic achievement level, and nationality. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 62(3-A), 969.
32.
JohnsonC.EngelhardG. (1992). Gender, academic achievement, and preferences for cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning among African-American adolescents. Journal of Psychology, 126, 385-392.
33.
JohnsonD.MaruyamaG.JohnsonR.NelsonD.SkonL. (1981). The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62.
34.
KanevskyL. (1992). The learning game. In KleinP.TannenbaumA. J. (Eds.), To be young and gifted (pp. 204-241). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
35.
KanevskyL. (1999). Tool kit for curriculum differentiation. Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: Simon Fraser University.
36.
KanevskyL.KeighleyT. (2003). To produce or not to produce: Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26, 20-28.
37.
KirkR. E. (2001). Promoting good statistical practices: Some suggestions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 213-218.
38.
KlineP. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
39.
KohnA. (1993). Choices for children: Why and how to let students decide. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 8-20.
40.
KruegerR. E.KlingK. C. (2000). Validity. In KazdinA. E. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 149-153). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
41.
LandrumT. J.McDuffieK. A. (2010). Learning styles in the age of differentiated instruction. Exceptionality, 18, 6-17.
42.
LeeM.-S.SiegleD. (2008-2009). A multilevel analysis of gifted Korean American students’ characteristics and school context effects on learning style preferences. Gifted and Talented International, 23(2)-24(1), 25-38.
43.
LevykhM. G. (2008). The affective establishment and maintenance of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. Educational Theory, 58, 83-101.
44.
LiA. K. F.AdamsonG. (1992). Gifted secondary students’ preferred learning style: Cooperative, competitive, or individualistic?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 46-54.
45.
LiA. K. F.BourqueJ. (1987). Do gifted students’ preferred learning styles match the teaching styles of their teachers?AGATE: Journal of the Gifted and Talented Education Council of the Alberta Teachers’ Association, 1(2), 2-6.
46.
MakerC. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems.
47.
MakerC. J.NielsonA. (Eds.). (1995). Curriculum development and learning strategies for the gifted (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
48.
MakerC. J.SchieverS. W. (2010). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
49.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Redefining giftedness for a new century: Shifting the paradigm. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/index2.aspx?id=6404
50.
O’BoyleM. (2008). Mathematically gifted children: Developmental brain characteristics and their prognosis for well-being. Roeper Review, 30, 181-186.
51.
OlenchakF. R. (2001). Lessons learned from gifted children about differentation. Teacher Educator, 36, 185-198.
52.
PassowA. H.FrasierM. M. (1996). Toward improving identification of talent potential among minority and disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 18, 198-202.
53.
PearlmanC. (1984). The effects of level of effectance motivation, IQ, and a penalty/reward contingency on the choice of problem difficulty. Child Development, 55, 537-542.
54.
PetersM. (1998). Learning preferences of gifted Chinese-Canadian and gifted Caucasian students. Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: Simon Fraser University.
55.
ReisS. M.WestbergK. L.KulikowichJ.CaillardF.HébertT. P.PluckerJ.. . . SmistJ. M. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January? The curriculum compacting study (Research Monograph No. 93106). Storrs: University of Connecticut.
56.
RenzulliJ. S.RizzaM. G.SmithL. H. (2002). Learning Styles Inventory–Version III: A measure of student preferences for instructional techniques–Technical and administration manual. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
57.
RenzulliJ. S.SmithL. H. (1978). The Learning Styles Inventory: A measure of student preference for instructional techniques. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
ReynoldsM. (1997). Learning styles: A critique. Management Learning, 28, 115-133.
60.
RiccaJ. (1984). Learning styles and preferred instructional strategies of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 121-126.
61.
RidingR. J. (1997). On the nature of cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 17, 29-49.
62.
RistowR. S.EdeburnC. E.RistowG. L. (1985). Learning preferences: A comparison of gifted and above-average middle grades students in small schools. Roeper Review, 8, 119-124.
63.
SaganL. L. (2010). Students’ choice: Recommendations for environmental and instructional changes in school. Clearing House, 83, 217-222.
64.
ShalawayL. (2005). Learning to teach (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Scholastic.
65.
SlavinR. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York, NY: Longman.
66.
SmithL. H.RenzulliJ. S. (1984). Learning style preferences: A practical approach for classroom teachers. Theory Into Practice, 23, 44-50.
67.
SouthernW. T.JonesE. E. (2004). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS.GrossM. (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 5-12). Iowa City: The University of Iowa.
68.
StewartE. D. (1981). Learning styles among gifted/talented students: Instructional technique preferences. Exceptional Children, 48, 134-138.
69.
StigginsR. J. (2009). Assessment for learning in upper elementary grades. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 419-421.
70.
StigginsR. J.ArterJ. A.ChappuisJ.ChappuisS. (2004). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right-using it well. Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute.
71.
TomlinsonC. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
72.
TomlinsonC. A. (2004). Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper Review, 26, 188-189.
73.
TomlinsonC. A. (2008). Differentiated instruction. In PluckerJ.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (pp. 167-177). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
74.
TomlinsonC. A.BrightonC.HertbergH.CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.BrimijoinK.. . . ReynoldsT. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 119-145.
75.
TomlinsonC. A.KaplanS.RenzulliJ.PurcellJ.LeppienJ.BurnsJ. (2001). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop high potential and challenge high-ability learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
76.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.BrownE. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 342-358.
77.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.LittleC. (Eds.). (2011). Content-based curriculum for high ability learners (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
78.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.StambaughT. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44, 211-217.
79.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
80.
VygotskyL. S. (1998). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 5): Child Psychology. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
81.
WardV. S. (1961). Education for the gifted: An axiomatic approach. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
82.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF. X.Jr.DobynsS. M.SalvinT. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curriculuar practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms (Research Monograph No. 93104). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
83.
WigginsG.McTigheJ. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson.
84.
WinnerE. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
85.
YongF. L.McIntyreJ. D. (1992). A comparative study of the learning style preferences of students with learning disabilities and students who are gifted. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 124-132.
86.
ZuckermanM.PoracJ.LathinD.SmithR.DeciE. L. (1978). On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically motivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 443-446.
