The main purpose of this qualitative study was to examine and describe the differentiation strategies implemented in 4th- and 5th-grade gifted classrooms, both self-contained, at a public elementary school located in California. This study documented, described, and captured the daily practice of two teachers and the teaching and learning experiences that occurred in a self-contained gifted program. Findings illuminated strategies teachers used to challenge and engage students. An emphasis on integrated units, student choice, and firsthand experiences characterized the curriculum in the gifted program. Teachers said they had more autonomy and academic freedom to differentiate curriculum for individual students than their colleagues who were teaching in the general education classrooms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BogdanR.BiklenS. (1998). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods.Boston: Allyn & Bacon
2.
California Association for the Gifted. (n.d.). Position statement: A glossary. Retrieved September 4, 2002, from http://www.cagifted.org
3.
California Department of Education. (2005). Gifted and talented education resource guide [Brochure].Sacramento, CA: Author
4.
CsikszentmihalyiM (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience.New York: Harper Perennial
5.
DeweyJ (1938). Experience and education.New York: Macmillan
6.
GallagherJ. J.HarradineC.ColemanM. (1997). Challenge or boredom: Gifted students' view on their schooling. Roeper Review,19, 132–136
7.
GallagherJ. J. (2000). Unthinkable thoughts: Education of the gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly,44, 5–12
8.
GentryM.RizzaM. G.GableR. K. (2001). Gifted students' perceptions of their class activities: Differences among rural, urban, and suburban student attitudes. Gifted Child Quarterly,45, 115–128
9.
HertzogN. B. (1998). Open-ended activities: Differentiation through learner responses. Gifted Child Quarterly,42, 212–227
10.
Hillside School District. (2003). [District GATE survey]. Unpublished raw data
11.
HollingsworthP. L.JohnsonD.SmithS. (1998). An evaluation study of interdisciplinary active learning. Roeper Review,20, 273–276
12.
HughesL (1999). Action research and practical inquiry: How can I meet the needs of the high-ability student within my regular education classroom?Journal for the Education of the Gifted,22, 282–297
13.
JacobsH. H. (1989). The growing need for interdisciplinary curriculum content. In JacobsH. H. (Ed.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Decision and implementation (pp. 1–11. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
14.
KaplanS (1986). The grid: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted. In RenzulliJ. (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 182–193. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press
15.
National Association for Gifted Children. (1994). Differentiation of curriculum and instruction position statement. Retrieved May 11, 2002, from http://www.nagc.org
16.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principals and standards.Reston, VA: Author
17.
NoddingsN (1992). The challenge to care in schools.New York: Teachers College Press
18.
PassowA. H. (1982). Differentiated curricula for the gifted/talented. In KaplanS.PassowH.PhoenixP.ReisS.RenzulliJ.SatoI. (Eds.), Curricula for the gifted (pp. 4–20. Ventura, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute
19.
ReisS. M.GentryM.MaxfieldL. R. (1998). The application of enrichment clusters to teachers' classroom practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,21, 310–334
20.
ReisS. M.PurcellJ. H. (1993). An analysis of content elimination and strategies used by elementary classroom teachers and the curriculum compacting process. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,16, 147–170
21.
ReisS. M.WestbergK. L. (1994). The impact of staff development on teachers' ability to modify curriculum for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly,38, 127–135
22.
RobinsonB.ShoreB. M.EnersenD. L. (2007). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide.Waco, TX: Prufrock Press
23.
RothenbergD (1994). Interdisciplinary curriculum in the middle school. Middle School Journal,25(4), 61–65
24.
ShoreB. M.KanevskyL. S. (1993). Thinking processes: Being and becoming gifted. In HellerK. A.MönksF. J.PassowA. H. (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 133–147. Oxford, England: Pergamon
25.
StarkoA. J. (1986). The effects of the revolving door identification model on creative productivity and self-efficacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs
26.
TomlinsonC. A. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle school: One school's journey. Gifted Child Quarterly,39, 77–87
27.
TomlinsonC. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
28.
TomlinsonC. A. (2000a). Differentiated instruction: Can it work?The Education Digest,65(5), 25–31
29.
TomlinsonC. A. (2000b). How to differentiate instruction: Reconcilable differences? Standards-based teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership,58(1), 6–11
30.
TomlinsonC. A. (2003). Differentiation in practice: A resource for differentiating curriculum.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
31.
TomlinsonC. A.BrightonC.HertbergH.CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.BrimijoinK. (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
32.
TomlinsonC. A.KaplanS. N.RenzulliJ. S.PurcellJ.LeppienJ.BurnsD. (2002). The parallel curriculum model: A design to develop high potential and challenge high ability learners.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
33.
WardV (1961). Educating the gifted: An axiomatic approach.Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Books
