DIFFERENTIATED TEACHING APPROACH TO SUPPORT HIGHLY ABLE STUDENTS IN MIXED CLASSROOMS

Yuliati -(1),

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15294/lc.v6i2.2410


(1) Semarang State University

Abstract

Issues about fulfilling needs of highly able students have been discussed since some years ago. Most highly able students along with their outstanding potential are considered as important aspects of a country’s bright future. Their innate gifts which are outstanding need to be nurtured appropriately in order to meet success in their future life. Providing positively supporting environment is essential for them (Tomlinson, 1996). It is inevitable that those highly able students spend most of their time at schools. The support or provision for highly able students is generally far from enough since it is usually given by schools in terms of highly able counselors or learning support for highly able students (Waters et al, 2003). Hardly do schools provide highly able students with challenges within the subjects or curriculum enrichment. Meanwhile, possibility to adjust curriculum by using differentiated teaching approach in order to meet their need is possible. In this paper, I analytically describe the reasons or justification of giving special supports to highly able students in general mixed classrooms. Some components on how to adjust curriculum to meet or fulfill highly able students’ needs are also revealed. This differentiated teaching approach, even though mostly intended to support highly able students, is also beneficial for other students in the classrooms.

Keywords

differentiated teaching approach, highly able students, mixed classrooms

Full Text:

PDF

References

A report for the Council of Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA). 2006. Gifted and talented children in (and out) of the classroom.

Archambault, F., Westberg, K., Brown, S., Hallmark, B., Zhang, W., & Emmons, C. 1993. Classroom practices used with gifted third and fourth grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,16 (2), 13-28.

Baden, S. M. and C.H. Major. 2004. Foundation of Problem Based Learning. New York: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Batterham, R..2000. The Chance to Change. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Bloom. B. 1985. Developing Talenti in Young People. New York: Ballentine.

Callahan, C. 1990. A commissioned paper on the performance of high ability students on national and international tests. Unpublished paper, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. 1985. Educating able learners: Programs and promising practices. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R., & Tesch-Romer, C. 1993. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406.

Fox, L. H. 1981. Identification of the academically gifted. American Psychologist, 36, 1103-11.

Gagné, F. 1991. Toward a differentiated model of giftedness and talent. In N. Colangelo, & G. A Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 65-80). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hoh P. 2005. The Linguistic Advantage of the Intellectually Gifted Child: An Empirical Study of Spontaneous Speech. Roeper Rev., Spring, 27(3): 178-185.

Hall, T., Strangman, N., and Meyer, A. 2003. Differentiated Instruction and Implications for UDL Implementation. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum (NCAC): the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs

Maker, J. 1982. Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Corporation.

National Research Council. 2000. How People Learn.: Brain, mind, experience, and school.Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Ness, B. & Latessa, E. 1979. Gifted children and self-teaching techniques. Directive Teacher, 2, 10-12.

Parke, B. 1989. Gifted students in regular classrooms. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Pfeiffer, S. I. 2002. Identifying Gifted and Talented Students: Recurring Issues and Promising Solutions. Journal of Applied School Psychology. 19 (1), 31-50 .

Reis. S. M., Kaplan, S. N, Tomlinson, C. A., Westbert, K. L, Callahan, C. M., & Cooper, C. R., 1998. How the brain learns, A response: Equal does not mean identical. Educational Leadership, 56, (3).

Rose, D., & Meyer, A., 2000a. Universal design for individual differences. Educational Leadership, 58(3), 39-43.

Tannenbaum, A. J. 1989. Gifted children: Psychological perspectives. New York: Macmillan.

Tannenbaum, A. J. 1997. The meaning and making of giftedness. In Colangelo, N. & Davis, G. A. (Eds). Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 27-42). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Tomlinson, C. 1995b. Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle school: One school's journey. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 77-87.

Tomlinson, C. 1996. Good Teaching for One and All: Does gifted education have an instructional identity. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 20.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Allan, S. D. 2000. Leadership for Differentiating Schools and Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A., 2001. How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. 155-174.

VanTassel-Baska, J. 1998. Excellence in educating gifted & talented learners (3rd ed.). Denver: Love Publishing Co.

Van Tassel-Baska J. 2000. The on-going dilemma of effective identification practices in gifted education. The Communicator, Vol. 31.

Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Hardvard University Press.

Watters, J. J., and Diezmann, C. M. 2003. The gifted student in science: Fulfilling potential. Australian Science Teachers Journal 49(3):46-53.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License