University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The elements of a differentiated curriculum for gifted students: transfer and application across the disciplines

(USC Thesis Other)

The elements of a differentiated curriculum for gifted students: transfer and application across the disciplines

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

1

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM FOR GIFTED STUDENTS:
TRANSFER AND APPLICATION ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES

by

Jessica A. Manzone

________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2013

Copyright 2013 Jessica A. Manzone

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

2
DEDICATION
“Those who dream by day are cognizant of many things that escape those who dream only at
night.” ~ Edgar Allan Poe

I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my family, who allowed me to dream and who
provided the unwavering support necessary to make my dream a reality. I love you all; you are
my “everything.” To Leslie, Max, Sammy, and Molly…my California family.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
From conception to submission, this dissertation was not written alone. I would like to
acknowledge the following people for their assistance, support, and guidance throughout this
process:
 Dr. Sandra Kaplan, my chair, professional colleague, mentor, and friend. She has
instilled in me a passion for inquiry; a desire not only to learn new things about
content matter and curriculum, but about myself as a person and educator. I learn
something new every time I hear Dr. Kaplan speak about curriculum for gifted
learners at a conference or explain a theory of instruction that she has sketched on a
napkin over lunch. Yet Dr. Kaplan has taught me something far more valuable then
the theories of education or curriculum…she has taught me the importance of being
generative, of questioning the status quo, and of advocating on behalf of the students
that I teach. These are the lessons that helped construct this dissertation, and these
are the lessons that will stay with me as I continue to walk my own path as a
professional educator.
 Dr. Raymond Gallagher and Dr. Kenneth Yates, my professors and committee
members. This dissertation was enhanced by the thoughtful feedback and guidance
provided by these two professors. Distinguished educators in their respectful fields,
they offered unique perspectives on the content and direction of this dissertation. I
am honored to have worked with such caring and intellectually engaging professors.
 Mrs. Debra Hirsh, Los Angeles Unified School District principal and friend. Mrs.
Hirsh works tirelessly on behalf of the students, teachers, parents, and community she
serves. Debra opened the doors of her school as a data collection site for this
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

4
dissertation. Her extensive knowledge about curriculum, instruction, and gifted
education has been invaluable in the completion of this project. I cannot thank her
enough.
 The LAUSD teachers, students, and parents who participated in this research study. I
need to thank the teachers and students who served as participants in this research and
to their parents who support the gifted programs in the LAUSD public schools.
Without these wonderful educators and students, the collection of data for this
dissertation would not have been possible.
 I would finally like to thank all of the professors I have had throughout my time in the
program. Each of you individually has provided me with the guidance and expertise
necessary to complete this dissertation. Thank you as well to my colleagues and
friends in the program. You have pushed me to “think,” to question, and to explore!
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 10
Abstract 11
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 36
Chapter Three: Methodology 77
Chapter Four: Results 99
Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications 160
References 183
Appendices 201
Appendix A: Teacher Survey 201
Appendix B: Student Survey 217
Appendix C: Student Performance Assessment 222
Appendix D: Parental Permission Form 231
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Alignment between High-Road Transfer and Gifted Learners 17
Table 1.2: Curriculum Theorists & Their Relationship to Elements of a Differentiated 19
Curriculum
Table 2.1: Characteristics of Giftedness Culled from the Body of Literature 43
Table 2.2: Alignment between Tenets of Gifted Programs and Elements of a 49
Differentiated Curriculum
Table 2.3: Examples of Differentiating the Core Content using Acceleration 51
Table 2.4: The Prompts of Depth and Complexity 53
Table 2.5: Summary of the Key Features on the Views of Transfer Theory 60
Table 2.6: Alignment of Self-Regulatory Behaviors to PFL Transfer and 21st Century 74
Skills
Table 3.1: Data Collection Procedure 82
Table 3.2: Alignment between Research Questions and Methodology 83
Table 3.3: Purposeful Sampling Criteria 86
Table 3.4: Targeted Population Sites 86
Table 3.5: LAUSD Student Demographics 87
Table 3.6: Alignment between Research Question and Data Collection Instrument 90
Table 3.7: Relationship between Research Questions and Data Collection Instruments 91
Table 4.1: Characteristics of Teacher Participants 102
Table 4.2: Self-Reported Assuredness Levels with the Elements of a Differentiated 103
Curriculum
Table 4.3: Demographic Descriptors of Student Participants 104
Table 4.4: Number of Years in the SAS Program 105
Table 4.5: Alignment of Research Question One to Teacher Survey and Supporting 106
Literature
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

7
Table 4.6: Alignment of Research Question Two to Student Survey and Supporting 108
Literature
Table 4.7: Student Options for Transfer Related to the Elements of a Differentiated 110
Curriculum
Table 4.8: Alignment of Research Question Three to Student Performance 111
Assessment and Supporting Literature
Table 4.9: Years in the SAS Program by Grade Level 114
Table 4.10: Level of Confidence by Element – Grade 4 114
Table 4.11: Level of Confidence by Element – Grade 5 115
Table 4.12: Relationship between the Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum and 118
Students’ Self-Reported Importance to Learning – Grade 4
Table 4.13: Relationship between the Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum and 118
Students’ Self-Reported Importance to Learning – Grade 5
Table 4.14: Rank Order of the Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum in Confidence 119
and Importance
Table 4.15: Frequency of Application of the Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum 122
Table 4.16: Relationship between Students’ Confidence Level & the Application of 122
Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum
Table 4.17: Relationship between Students’ Confidence Level, Frequency of 123
Application, and Perceived Importance on Learning
Table 4.18: Student Learning Preferences – Grade 4 128
Table 4.19: Student Learning Preferences – Grade 5 128
Table 4.20: Alignment between Instructional Methods and Student Learning 131
Preferences
Table 4.21: Instructional Strategies Utilized by Teachers (n=2) in the Presentation 131
of the Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum
Table 4.22: Ranking of the Instructional Strategies in the Teaching of the Elements 132
of a Differentiated Curriculum
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

8
Table 4.23: Instructional Strategies used to Introduce and Reinforce the Elements 132
of a Differentiated Curriculum
Table 4.24: Favorite School Subjects of Student Participants by Grade Level 137
Table 4.25: Students’ Perceptions of the Disciplines used by their Teacher to Introduce 138
the Elements of Differentiated Curriculum — Grade 4
Table 4.26: Teachers’ Perceptions of the Disciplines used to Introduce and Apply the 138
Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum — Grade 4
Table 4.27: Students’ Perceptions of the Disciplines used by their Teacher to Introduce 139
the Elements of Differentiated Curriculum — Grade 5
Table 4.28: Teachers’ Perceptions of the Disciplines used to Introduce and Apply the 139
Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum — Grade 5
Table 4.29: The Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum Utilized by Students in the 142
Core Content English Language Arts Task
Table 4.30: The Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum Utilized by Students in the 143
Real World Connection English Language Arts Task
Table 4.31: The Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum Utilized by Students in the 144
Core Content Social Studies Task
Table 4.32: The Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum Utilized by Students in the 145
Real World Connection Social Studies Task
Table 4.33: The Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum Utilized by Students in the 146
Core Content Science Task
Table 4.34: The Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum Utilized by Students in the 147
Real World Connection Science Task
Table 4.35: The Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum Utilized by Students in the 148
Core Content Mathematics Task
Table 4.36: The Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum Utilized by Students in the 149
Real World Connections Mathematics Task
Table 4.37: Students’ Justification for the Selection of Elements of a Differentiated 152
Curriculum – ELA Core Content and Real-World Tasks
Table 4.38: Students’ Justification for the Selection of Elements of a Differentiated 153
Curriculum – Social Studies Core Content and Real-World Tasks
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

9
Table 4.39: Students’ Justification for the Selection of Elements of a Differentiated 153
Curriculum – Science Core Content and Real-World Tasks
Table 4.40: Students’ Justification for the Selection of Elements of a Differentiated 154
Curriculum – Mathematics Core Content and Real-World Tasks
Table 5.1: Student Options for Transfer Related to the Elements of a Differentiated 162
Curriculum
Table 5.2: The Alignment between the Key Findings and the Research Questions 167
Table 5.3: The Overlap between the Research Findings and Implications for Practice 175
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

10
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: A conceptual framework for curriculum design 26
Figure 3.1: Selection procedure for study population 89
Figure 4.1: Example of the directions for a task on the Student Performance 109
Assessment
Figure 4.2: Learning preference for all student participants 129
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

11
ABSTRACT
The research regarding differentiated curriculum for gifted learners does not explain fully how
and why gifted students transfer the elements of a differentiated curriculum previously learned to
new contexts and situations. Prior research indicated that factors such as students’ self-
assuredness, the instructional strategies utilized by the teacher, and the nature of the disciplines
influenced how students learn and perform academically on school-related tasks. This study
examined the specific relationship between these factors and gifted students’ abilities to transfer
the elements of a differentiated curriculum to both core content and real-world tasks across the
disciplines. The elements of a differentiated curriculum for the gifted used in this study
included: Universal Concepts, Big Ideas, the prompts of Depth and Complexity, and Thinking
Like a Disciplinarian. This study examined how, why, when, and under what conditions gifted
students transferred 31 elements of a differentiated curriculum to accomplish a series of tasks in
English Language Arts, social studies, science, and mathematics. Forth-five fourth and fifth
grade students from a public Title I school in urban Los Angeles participated in this study. An
analysis of the data collected from Teacher Surveys, Student Surveys, and a Student
Performance Assessment provides insights into the relationships among student importance (self-
assuredness), teacher instructional decision-making, the discipline areas, and students’ transfer of
the elements of a differentiated curriculum. Additionally, patterns and themes that emerged from
students’ own reflections concerning their use of differentiated curriculum to complete tasks
were examined. The results of the data indicated that students were clearly and concretely able
to articulate their beliefs regarding (a) the importance of the elements of a differentiated
curriculum as a tool for learning, (b) their preferred method for learning and for transferring the
elements of a differentiated curriculum, and (c) the alignment between the elements of a
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

12
differentiated curriculum and the discipline areas. These results provide implications for the
development of differentiated curriculum for gifted learners, instructional strategies used to teach
gifted children, and the content presented in Teacher Education programs at both the pre-service
and in-service level.

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

13
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Importance of Transfer
Since its inception, public education in America has served a dual purpose: educating
students for participation in an economic workforce and for success in a democratic and diverse
society (Garcia, 2002). As early as 1837, Theodore Edison, Horace Mann, and others argued the
need for a national system of education to develop “intellectual training” for the modern era
(Bowles & Gintis, 1976, p. 161). Originally resulting from a societal concern “spawned by a
deadly rivalry with the Soviet Union, and existing now as a result of worldwide economic
competition,” the need to educate intellectually thinking students continually impacts our
productivity as a nation (Gallagher, 1997, p. 154). Successful participation in this modern and
competitive society however, requires the application of critical thinking, creative thinking, and
problem solving strategies. Defined by Sternberg (1997) as flexible intelligence, educational
opportunities must be provided that teach children to view issues from multiple points of view, to
capitalize on their strengths, and to generate new ideas. The adaptive and flexible use of
knowledge and skills “across a lifetime” was and still is the fundamental goal of education
(Woolfolk, 2007, p. 319).
The utilization and application of previously learned knowledge on new situations and
contexts is defined as transfer (De Corte, 2003). Two differing views on transfer theory exist in
the literature: sequestered problem solving (SPS) and preparation for future learning (PFL). The
traditional or SPS approach to transfer focuses on whether people can apply previously learned
material to a new situation (Bransford & Schwarts, 1999). Thorndike and Woodworth’s seminal
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

14
research on SPS transfer theory analyzed the ability of students to generalize discipline specific
knowledge to performance on other reasoning tasks. Under this approach, the transfer of
knowledge is assessed by the degree to which “learning skill A influences skill B” (1999, p. 57).
According to Salomon and Perkins (1989), this direct and automatic use of highly practiced
skills across a variety of situations is called low-road transfer. Characterized by extensive
practice leading to automated behaviors, examples of low-road transfer include driving many
different types of cars, or finding your gate in an unfamiliar airport (Woolfolk, 2007).
In contrast, high-road transfer involves the conscious and deliberate application of
abstract knowledge and strategies from one situation to another (Woolfolk, 2007). Bransford
and Schwarts (1999) define high-road transfer as preparation for future learning (PFL), which
focuses on an assessment of peoples’ abilities to learn in “knowledge-rich environments” (p. 68).
PFL transfer theory contends that the better prepared students are for future learning –
knowledge, resources, and strategies -- the greater the speed and quality of the transfer
(Bransford & Schwarts, 1999). Differing from the SPS paradigm concerned mostly with
whether people can generate a “finished product,” PFL transfer examines whether people are
prepared to learn to solve new problems in new situations and contexts (1999, p. 69). PFL
methodology uses cognitive tools to develop abstract principles that can be applied to many and
varied situations, and explores how people’s abilities to learn new information relate to their
learning in previous experiences. An example of PFL transfer includes applying mathematical
procedures to the design and construction of a school newspaper (Woolfolk, 2007). Theories on
transfer, although different in methodology and philosophical approach, focus on both how and
what an individual learns, and the learning environments that create the potential for this learning
to occur (Taba, 1962).
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

15
Teaching to high-road transfer and the development of life-long learning requires
educational experiences that move students beyond “knowing that -- replicative knowledge” and
“knowing how -- applicative knowledge” (Broudy, 1977, p. 12). According to Broudy (1977),
educated individuals “know with” previously acquired concepts and experiences, and engage in a
continuous process of building and reshaping understandings based upon their interactions with
the world (p. 12). The emphasis on what students can do with knowledge rather than the
individual knowledge and skills they posses are at the heart of the both the Common Core State
Standards and the 21
st
Century Skills movement (Silva, 2008).
Sternberg (2007) contends that successful people do not just posses certain intellectual
abilities, but know when, how, and under what conditions to employ them. While past research
has addressed the importance of teaching to transfer on the development of a competitive and
productive society, literature in this field is presented in broad terms, and has not specifically
documented how transfer effects various subgroups of the student population. A targeted
examination of the relationship that exists between teaching to high-road, generative transfer,
and the creation of curriculum for gifted learners has yet to be discussed.
Relevance to Gifted Learners
The ultimate goal of public education is to provide an “adequate and appropriate”
education for every student – including the gifted and talented (Passow & Tannenbaum, 1976, p.
6). Tyler (1957) and Martinson’s (1974) early work on gifted education highlighted the
connection that exists between the needs of a society and the development of an individuals’
gifts and talents. Current research conducted by Konstantopoulous, Modi, and Hedges (2001)
reiterated the importance of identifying and providing appropriate education for talented students
in maintaining high national standards of achievement, as well as “international economic
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

16
competitiveness” (p. 345). National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent
(1993), published by the U.S. Department of Education, articulated for the public as well as
those entrenched in the fields of gifted education, the harsh reality of a society lacking in
advanced skills and competences. Focused on areas such as content, expectations, time, and
teaching, the report documented how curriculum in the United States emphasized rudimentary
skills rather than higher-order processing. A compilation of several studies within the report
documented how more than half the gifted students failed to transfer knowledge and skills in
school at a level commensurate to their abilities (1993).
Although educators acknowledge the importance of these skills in the field of gifted
education, research is unclear on how and under what conditions gifted students are transferring
these skills. The gap between students’ potential to perform and their actual performance
indicates that inconsistencies exist between what educators are striving to achieve with the goal
of gifted education and what gifted students are actually able to transfer. The need to research
how, when, and under what conditions gifted students are transferring the elements of a
differentiated curriculum is essential in (a) meeting the academic, social, and developmental
needs of this unique population of students, and (b) providing them with the opportunities to
perform to the fullest extent of their potential.
According to Moon and Brighton (2008), characteristics of academically gifted learners
include the ability (a) to make connections between the known and unknown, (b) to manipulate
language, (c) to activate visual and verbal memory, (d) to develop intense curiosity, (e) to utilize
investigative problem solving strategies, and (f) to engage in abstract thinking. Direct areas of
overlap between the characteristics of gifted learners and the elements of high-road transfer, as
stated by Bransford and Schwarts (1999), are outlined in Table 1.1.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

17

Table 1.1
Alignment between High-Road Transfer and Gifted Learners
Features of High-Road Transfer Characteristics of Gifted Students
Tolerant of ambiguity
Prefers complex tasks Tolerate ambiguity
Engage in abstract thinking
Hypothesizes
Curious, searching for information Lets go of past assumptions
Make connections between the known and unknown
Willing to take risks
Thorough, exhaustive Seeks alternate perspectives
Utilize investigative problem solving strategies
Resourceful
Industrious Makes use of resources
Activate visual and verbal memory
Strives for distant goals
Persistent; persevering Sets and maintains goals
Committed to the task
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

18
The need to educate gifted students to develop their individual potential and apply the
skills of critical thinking, creative thinking, and problem solving are a matter of “life and death”
for any society, and “mankind’s ultimate capital asset” (Witty, 1976, p. 39).
According to the National Association for Gifted Children (2010), differentiated
curriculum for gifted learners must expand the core curriculum and emphasize “advanced,
conceptually challenging, complex content within cognitive, affective, social, and leadership
domains” (p. 4). The state of California has also written programmatic standards that provide
opportunities for gifted learners to demonstrate sophisticated cognitive processing skills through
four curricular tenants: acceleration, depth, complexity, and novelty. NAGC and the California
GATE standards reiterated the belief that all students should be provided with multiple
opportunities to develop their talents and engage in activities that further active the use of critical
and creative thinking skills (Baum, Emerick, Herman, & Dixon, 1989). Treffinger and
Feldhusen (1996) contend that the utilization of higher-level thinking processes play a significant
role in differentiating the curriculum for gifted learners.
Extending and elaborating the core curriculum, differentiated curriculum for gifted
learners requires that students develop the ability to make connections, to link material together
in sophisticated and new ways, and to develop relationships between seemingly unrelated events
and topics. Major curriculum theorists in the field of gifted education, and their contributions to
the elements of a differentiated curriculum necessary for the development high-road transfer and
meaningful learning are outlined in Table 1.2.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

19
Table 1.2
Curriculum Theorists & Their Relationship to Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum
Reis &
Renzulli
VanTassel-
Baska Tomlinson Kaplan Ward Passow
Depth X X X
Complexity X X X
Big Ideas X X X X X
Universal Concepts X X X X X
Critical Thinking X X X
Creative Thinking X X X
Research Skills X X X
Study of the discipline X X X X X

The purpose of creating and implementing differentiated curriculum for gifted learners is
twofold: (a) to develop talent, enhance learning, and provide students with the knowledge and
skills necessary to become independent, self-sufficient thinkers, and (b) to provide students with
the tools needed to contribute and compete in a diverse and ever-changing society (NAGC,
2010). The Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Education Act enacted by the United States
Department of Education functioned to meet this goal. The main thrust behind the Javits Act
was the identification (and service) of students traditionally underrepresented nationwide in
gifted and talented programs. The grant particularly targets students who are economically
disadvantaged, limited-English proficient, and disabled with the goal of reducing gaps in
achievement and encouraging the establishment of “equal opportunities for all students” (U.S.
Department of Education, 2008). Funding from the Javits grant provided resources for programs
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

20
that (a) facilitated the identification of students of diversity as potentially gifted learners, (b)
sustained the active participation and academic success of students who have been identified as
gifted but may not be fully utilizing their potential, and (c) fostered the further development of
gifted achieving students.
Research in the field of gifted education has documented the importance of providing
opportunities for gifted learners to engage in differentiated curriculum and higher-level thinking
skills with the goal of transferring that knowledge to new situations. Although funding from the
state as well as the national government has been provided to help fulfill this goal, the path to
determining how and under what conditions gifted learners are applying the elements of gifted
programs remains unpaved.
Statement of the Problem
According to the NAGC, gifted and high-ability learners account for over 10% of the
student population in the United States public school system. Totaling nearly three million
students nationwide, the academic needs, interests, and abilities of this unique subgroup must be
addressed from both a curricular and an instructional standpoint. Literature in the field of gifted
education was replete with the following issues: (a) the underrepresentation of minority students,
(b) high levels of gifted underachievement, (c) a loss of funding for programmatic services, and
(d) inadequate professional development for teachers and administrators of gifted students.
Missing from the abovementioned list is an understanding of how gifted students interact with,
internalize, and transfer elements of a differentiated curriculum.
Studies have shown that differentiated curricula for gifted learners have been developed
with the goal of shifting the intellectual demand of students from procedural to conceptual
learning (VanTassel-Baska, 2005). An analysis of the literature documented how elements such
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

21
as Depth and Complexity, Universal Concepts, Big Ideas, and Thinking Like a Disciplinarian
were embedded within a differentiated curriculum to activate core content material from many
and more sophisticated points of view. According to Sternberg and Davidson (2005), one of the
main thrusts behind a differentiated curriculum for the gifted is to help students transfer
knowledge, skills, and conceptual understandings between and across discipline areas. In
addition, the high-road transfer of knowledge and skills frees students intellectually to engage in
the novelty, creativity, and problem solving strategies necessary for success in a globally
competitive society.
Although the elements of a differentiated curriculum necessary for the activation of
potential in gifted learners has been well-documented in the literature, educators are making the
assumption that gifted students are able to internalize these curricular elements and transfer them
from one context to the next. Educational literature is replete with studies on the transfer of
learning, and the development of differentiated curriculum responsive to the needs, interests, and
abilities of gifted students. However, little research has been conducted on how the two function
in tandem; how gifted student select, utilize, and apply the elements of a differentiated
curriculum to accomplish tasks in various discipline areas. Specifically, it is unclear which
elements of a differentiated curriculum students used to transfer knowledge and skills between
and across the disciplines, and how students used these curricular elements complete core
content and real-world tasks. An analysis of the connection between the skill and content
elements of a differentiated curriculum for gifted students and the ability to transfer knowledge
and conceptual understandings remains unexplored in literature on gifted education.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

22
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to uncover and analyze the relationship that existed
between the elements of a differentiated curriculum for gifted learners and a students’ ability to
transfer those elements to new situations and contexts. The problem of teaching to transfer is
central to and affects all aspects of education: curriculum, instruction, assessment, and
motivation (Bruner, 1960; Taba, 1962). According to Taba (1962), the goal of individual
classroom teachers, as well as education in general, was for the content, knowledge, and skills
presented in school to “somehow be used in the individual’s later life” (p. 121). This study
addressed the void in the literature on teaching to transfer for gifted learners by: (a) acting as a
bridge that connected theoretical perspectives on the transfer of learning with pedagogical
applications of differentiated curriculum and instruction, (b) examining the instructional
strategies and contexts most conducive to facilitate student transfer of elements of a
differentiated curriculum, (c) determining the relationship that exists between students’
perceptions about the importance of transfer and their ability to utilize the elements of a
differentiated curriculum, and (d) determining the degree to which the transfer of curricular
elements states and/or demonstrate behaviors defined by self-regulated learners. This mixed-
methods study focused on how, why, and under what conditions the elements of a differentiated
curriculum (Universal Concepts, Big Ideas, Depth and Complexity, and Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian) were internalized by students, and were transferred to various situations across
the disciplines. The main thrust behind exploring the symbiotic relationship that existed between
giftedness and transfer was the understanding of how students were thinking about and
internalizing the differentiated curriculum presented to them in a school setting. The data
gathered from this study could be used to enhance the curriculum developed for gifted learners
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

23
so that it is responsive to the development of individual potential. The failure to provide this
unique population of students with curriculum responsive to their gifted and talents threatens the
cultivation of the future innovators, producers, and creative thinkers necessary to tackle the
problems plaguing society on a national and global scale (Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, &
Worrell, 2011).
The following research questions represent an area of study not yet explored in relation to
how the elements of a differentiated curriculum are transferred by gifted students to from one
situation or context to another.
1. How do gifted students perceive the importance (relevance, value) of transferring
acquired elements of a differentiated curriculum from one situation or context to
another?
2. What are the instructional strategies that facilitate gifted students’ abilities to transfer
the elements of a differentiated curriculum from one situation or context to another?
3. How do different disciplines facilitate gifted students’ abilities to transfer the
elements of a differentiated curriculum?
Conceptual Framework
The seminal work on curriculum design articulated by Taba (1962), Tyler (1949), and
Goodlad (1958) served as the conceptual framework for this research study. These researchers
studied curriculum design for over sixty years and developed theories and conceptual models
that have been tested and validated. According to Goodlad (1956), a “conceptual system” of
curriculum was a way of organizing one’s thinking about all of the components that are
important in developing a curriculum. These components include what the curriculum consists
of (content), its important elements or features, how information was organized, any influential
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

24
sources that impacted the curriculum, and the criteria by which information was translated into
instructional practice (Taba, 1962). The design of effective curriculum was built upon an
analysis of the relationship that exists between the features of a curriculum (listed above) and the
organizational conditions under which the curriculum is.
According to Tyler (1949), “intelligent” construction of curriculum began with an
analysis of three main sources: (a) the needs, interests, and abilities of the learner, (b) the
problems, practices, concerns, and values of society, and (c) the concepts and ideas of scholars or
subject specific experts (p. 3). The three sources were then filtered through psychological and
philosophical screens to create the behavioral objectives, organizational elements, learning
experiences, and assessment measures required of effective curriculum. Tyler’s (1949) rationale
for curriculum construction stressed the attention that must be given to the creation of learning
objectives that are broad enough in scope to encompass a range of learning abilities but are still
specifically measurable. Sound curriculum must also be appropriate to the needs, interests, and
abilities of the students for whom it is intended. Taba (1962) contends that effective curriculum
provides not only for the “upper and lower limits,” but offers “different qualities of depth”
according to differences in abilities (p. 422). These tenants of curriculum design represent a
“macroscopic” (Taba, 1962, p. 422) and conceptual perspective from which to view curriculum,
and served as a foundational blueprint for the linear and systematic construction of effective
curriculum for gifted learners.
The curriculum theories articulated by Tyler and Taba served as the conceptual
framework for this dissertation for two main reasons. First, these theories made clear the
selection and emphasis of the elements required in the design of effective curriculum. Although
the theories were originally developed for general curriculum (the education of all students), the
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

25
components they advocated embodied the differentiated curriculum specific to teaching gifted
learners. The differentiated curriculum under analysis in this dissertation encompassed the
components of effective curriculum design proposed by Tyler and Taba. Second, these theories
focused on the development of curriculum responsive to the needs of society, the developmental
readiness of individual learners, and the unique characteristics of core content knowledge. The
development of differentiated curriculum for gifted learners took into account the three sources
outlined in Tyler’s (1949) rationale and used them as the foundation for individualized
instruction and transfer. Using Taba’s (1962) model as a framework, this dissertation examined
the means by which gifted learners transferred the elements of a differentiated curriculum to new
situations and tasks. Figure 1.1 visually represented the conceptual framework used in this
dissertation and diagramed the relationship that exists between general curriculum, differentiated
curriculum, and transfer. The innermost circle diagramed the elements of effective curriculum
(in general) as articulated by Tyler and Taba. The multi-dimensional arrows in the center of the
figure indicated that decisions regarding any one of the elements are dependent upon decisions
made on the other three (Taba, 1962). The tenants of differentiated curriculum (acceleration,
depth, complexity, and novelty) found in the second circle extended the components of general
curriculum. The concept of transfer surrounded both types of curriculum with the understanding
that the ultimate goal of curriculum is to have students transfer knowledge and procedures
between and across contexts.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

26

Figure 1.1. A conceptual framework for curriculum design (Adapted from Taba’s (1962)
Relationship Among Curricular Elements)
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

27
Herrick (1950) contended that theories of curriculum design were useful in improving
educational programs for students when they focused on the individual parts as well as their
relationship to the entire curriculum. The data gathered from this dissertation about how
students were transferring the elements of a differentiated curriculum held implications for the
improvement, modification, and extension of curriculum designed for gifted as well as general
learners.
Importance of the Study
Merrill (2002) contended that meaningful learning is promoted when students were
engaged in solving real-world problems, when existing knowledge was activated as a foundation
for constructing new knowledge, and when new knowledge was integrated into the learner’s
world through application and transfer. Advocates of gifted education asserted that gifted
learners be provided with multiple and varied opportunities to make the connections between old
and new knowledge described above, and demonstrate their potential through the application and
extension of content knowledge, skills, and concepts. Teachers of the gifted to activate potential
are using differentiated curricular elements such as Depth and Complexity, Universal Concepts,
Big Ideas, and Thinking Like a Disciplinarian, but how these elements are internalized by
students and transferred to new situations was undetermined. This study examined how, and
under what conditions, students transferred elements of a differentiated curriculum to complete
tasks in various situations and contexts. The results of this study had implications for three main
stakeholder groups: developers of curriculum for gifted learners, teachers of both general and
gifted children, and students themselves.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

28
Curriculum Developers
In 1969, the United States Congress passed an addition to the Elementary and Secondary
Education law, providing “provisions for gifted and talented children” (Marland, 1971, p. 1).
The advisory panel stipulated that a differentiated curriculum for gifted learners denote higher
cognitive processes and concepts, include instructional strategies that maximize the learning
styles of gifted learners, and offer arrangements that extended beyond the core content (1971).
Curriculum for gifted students in the 21
st
century extended from the foundations articulated in
the Marland report, and advocated for the demonstration of potential in cognitive, affective, and
creative modalities. According to Torrance (1962), the ability to create, test, modify, and
communicate hypotheses based upon newly acquired information defined a creative and
intellectual thinker. This study attempted to identify how, and under what conditions, students
utilize specific elements of a differentiated curriculum complete discipline specific tasks. The
information garnered as a result of this study could help the developers of curriculum plan
learning experiences that maximize opportunities for student transfer. These opportunities could
impact the writing of formal curriculum (Goodlad, 1984) in the creation of educational goals,
specific learning objectives, and the sequence in which those objectives could be studied.
Simply stated, the elements of a differentiated curriculum most utilized by students to
accomplish new and unfamiliar tasks should be the same ones used by curriculum developers in
the construction of formal curriculum for gifted learners.
General and Gifted Educators
Classroom teachers make decisions about curriculum, learning, and instruction on a daily
basis. These decisions included planning and preparing for instruction, selecting strategies to
present instructional content, organizing and managing instructional materials, assessing the
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

29
attainment of instructional goals and objectives, and making instructional “provisions” that
accommodate for individual differences among learners (Burden & Byrd, 1999, p. 8). Schon
(1987) contended that the decisions made by teachers regarding the abovementioned factors are
grounded in the values, knowledge, theories, and practices they hold about curriculum and
instruction. Knowledge obtained from this study regarding how and why students were
transferring the elements of a differentiated curriculum could held two major implications for
classroom teachers. The data collected from the study could be used (a) to help teachers analyze
their own traits and behaviors (Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981) in terms of the selection and
presentation of instructional strategies, and (b) to plan, execute, and assess learning experiences
that better align with how and why students are transferring the elements of a differentiated
curriculum to solve novel problems in various situations and contexts. According to Taba
(1962), “translators” within the field of education are needed to influence educational practices,
conceptions, and ideas about curriculum and instruction (p. 75). The results of this study could
impact the ways in which classroom teachers’ function as translators of curricular elements, and
provide students with the modeling and instructional time necessary to engage in and transfer
critical, creative, and problem solving skills.
Student Constituents
According to Guilford (1968), problem solving and creative production are “intimately
connected” to learning and to the development of intelligently thinking individuals (p. 8).
Khatera (1992), extended the definitions of intellectual intelligence to include individuals who
applied reasoning, abstract thinking, inferential thinking, and problem solving strategies to the
world. The need for students to become critical and creative thinkers was well documented in
the literature. An understanding of how, and under what conditions, students are utilizing the
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

30
elements of a differentiated curriculum to critically and creatively complete tasks held several
implications for the role of the learner in the schooling process. The answers found in this
research study could help students recognize, analyze, and control the intellectual decisions they
make in regards to content, skills, and curricular strategies. According to Jones and Jones
(1998), when students were helped to understand why they are making decisions, they were
better equip to articulate and implement intellectual decisions in future contexts and situations.
In addition, the knowledge obtained from this research study could (a) help students take
responsibility for their own learning by selecting and transferring the elements of a differentiated
curriculum based upon their interest, setting, and need, and (b) validate the belief that
meaningful learning is enhanced when students have the opportunity to exercise a degree of
“choice and control” over their learning environment (Burden & Byrd, 1999, p. 281).
Research Methodology
This research study was conducted using a mixed-methods approach that included
quantitative as well as qualitative components. According to Salkind (2011), the main purpose
behind quantitative research was to generate or construct new knowledge through an
examination of cause and effect relationships. The relationship that existed between the
elements of a differentiated curriculum and the transfer of those elements to new contexts and
situations was examined. A series of closed-ended survey questions was used to determine the
degree to which students were transferring the elements of a differentiated curriculum. The data
was examined using frequency scores to indicate which discipline area(s) were most often
utilized by students in the transfer of these elements. In addition, data was analyzed in terms of a
ranked score on a Likert-type scale that indicated importance, and highlighted which elements of
differentiated curriculum students’ preferred to select when asked to complete a task. Although
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

31
the use of quantitative methodology helped determine if, and to what degree, a relationship
existed between items of a differentiated curricular and student transfer, it did not provide
information on how or why it occurred. Qualitative methods were integrated into the data
collection framework in order to address these questions.
According to Patton (2002), qualitative methodology manifested itself in research studies
through the use of open-ended questions or interviews, direct observations in the field, and an in-
depth analysis of written documents from an organization. This research study collected
qualitative data by implementing a performance-based assessment with select student
participants. An analysis of the open-ended response questions and anecdotal observations
collected from the performance-based assessment addressed perceptions of students in relation to
the value and/or importance they place on transferring curriculum elements. These anecdotal
narratives extended, and enhanced the quantitative data collected, and added a “human”
component to both the research and the results.
Limitations of the Study
This study recognized that limitations existed in the implementation of quantitative and
qualitative methodology. This study was limited in its quantitative design in that the validity and
reliability of the instrument had not been tested through the use of a pilot study. Additionally,
this study was limited in that it examined students’ transfer of differentiated curriculum elements
once, at the beginning of the school year, rather than a series of times throughout the school year.
The long-term development of students’ competencies in relation to the elements of a
differentiated curriculum was not examined. Limitations related to the research design, the data
collection instruments, and the results were presented in Chapter 3.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

32
Limitations to the qualitative data collected in this research study focused on two main
areas of concern: the truthfulness of the participants, and the development of “loaded” questions.
In qualitative methods, the researcher was more concerned with accurately representing the
experiences of the participants than with collecting valid measurements of “testable variables”
(Vishnevsky & Beanlands, 2004, p. 237). Truthfulness in qualitative research was therefore
contingent upon the accurate observations of the researcher as well as the open and honest
responses of the participants. This study was limited by the potential of the participants to
respond with what they thought the transfer of a differentiated curriculum should be rather than
what was actually occurring in the classroom. The unintentional creation of “loaded” questions
in the data collection instrument was a second limitation of this research study. Patton (2002)
contended that “preconceptions and biases” on the part of the researcher could prevent them
from creating open-ended questions that allowed participants to respond wasys that represented
“accurately and thoroughly” their point of view on the intervention and/or program (p. 21). This
study was limited by the open-ended questions written into the evaluation measure and by the
researchers’ interpretation of the responses to these questions.
Delimitations of the Study
This study focused on identified gifted students placed in gifted cluster classes with
teachers trained in differentiating the curriculum to meet their unique learning needs. This study
used purposeful sampling in order to obtain its’ program participants. Consideration for
participation in this study required that school site, teachers, and students meet the detailed
criteria outlined in Chapter 3. This study also focused on four specific elements of a
differentiated curriculum written into the California GATE standards: Universal Concepts, Big
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

33
Ideas, the prompts of Depth and Complexity, and Thinking Like a Disciplinarian. The transfer
of elements of a differentiated curriculum outside of these four was not be examined.
Assumptions of the Study
It is assumed that the following points were taken into consideration during the creation
and execution of this study:
 The study was approved by the University of Southern California’s IRB office, as
well as the IRB offices for the individual schools and/or districts utilized as data
collection site for this study.
 All participants (administrators, teachers, students, parents/guardians) in the study
responded to survey questionnaire items on their own volition and were informed of
the confidential nature of both their participation in the research study as well as their
responses on all survey questions.
 All participants (administrators, teachers, students, parents/guardians) responded
honestly to all questions and were not compensated financially or influenced
personally by the creator of this study or other data collection team members.
 Teachers and students participating in the study had varying degrees of familiarity
with the elements of a differentiated curriculum depending upon (a) the numbers of
years they have participated in the Project Linking Learning, Javits Grant program,
(b) the number of years they have spent either teaching gifted students or as a student
in a gifted program, and (c) the amount and quality of professional development
offered at their school site targeted at differentiating the curriculum for gifted
learners.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

34
 Gifted students were transferring and/or applying what they are learning between and
across the disciplines.
 Teachers operating in both general as well as gifted education were designing
learning experiences with the ultimate goal of helping students reach meaningful
learning or the teaching for transfer of knowledge, skills, and concepts.
Definition of Terms
According to Richert (1987) and Sankar-DeLeeuw (2002), definitions surrounding the
terms in gifted education operated in a constant state of flux. In order to prevent further
confusion and misinterpretation regarding the academic language of the fields of both gifted and
general education, the research-based definitions outlined below served as the foundation for the
remainder of this study.
Creative Thinking – The process by which a learner recognized gaps in information,
formulates, tests, and evaluates their hypotheses, and engaged in “divergent production” to fill
the missing elements (Torrance, 1993, p. 233). Creative thinkers are “risk takers” who are
committed to the solution of a problem or task (Renzulli et al., 1981).
Critical Thinking – Critical thinking was defined as “reasonable reflective thinking
focused on deciding what to believe or do” (Ennis, 1993, p. 180).
Curriculum – Representative of all the learning and educational goals required of
students that are planned, directed, and created by a school or institution (Tyler, 1949).
Differentiated Curriculum – Referred to tailoring the curriculum base to meet the
academic, social, and developmental needs of individual and/or groups of students.
Accommodations to the curriculum included opportunities for the acceleration of grade-level
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

35
content, depth, complexity, creative expression, flexible grouping, and challenge (VanTassel-
Baska, 2005).
Giftedness – Referred to children who, when compared with others of similar age and
experiences, demonstrated or showed the potential for performing at high levels of academic,
artistic, or creative abilities (Ford & Grantham, 2003).
Instruction – Referred to the intentional organization and implementation of events
towards a specific goal that affect the “probability of learning” (Hunter, 1984, p. 169).
Instructional Strategies – Referred to the various methods utilized by teachers to deliver
learning experiences intended to achieve a specific learning objective. Instructional strategies
ranged on a continuum from being explicit and teacher-directed to student-centered experiences
(Burden & Byrd, 1999).
Problem-Solving – Refers to creating and implementing a method for obtaining a goal
that one has never previously attempted or achieved; moving a situation from its “given state to a
goal state” (Mayer, 2002, p. 227).
Self-Regulation – Referred to the self-directed process by which a learner “transforms”
their mental abilities into task-related academic skills. Self-regulatory behaviors included
thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and implemented to achieve personal goals
(Gredler, 2009, p. 367).
Transfer – Referred to the ability of a learner to apply knowledge, skills, or procedures
learned in one context to new and different situations. Simply put, transfer addressed how prior
knowledge affects new learning (Marini & Genereux, 1995).
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

36
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Our educational system was based on the assumption that students transferred what they
had learned in one lesson to another, with the ultimate goal of graduating with a body of
knowledge and conceptual understandings that could be applied to productive careers in both
society and in the workforce. This “transfer of learning” was defined as the ability to apply or
adapt previous learning to new situations (Gupta, 2010, p. 48). According to Gupta (2010), the
success of any classroom-based instructional process or program was ultimately measured by the
degree to which the learner utilized the materials presented in the classroom in other contexts.
The need and the desire to teach for transfer was pervasive in the field of education, but its
occurrence was often assumed and taken for granted (Lightner, Bernander, & Kramer, 2008).
This dissertation sought to contribute to the body of knowledge regarding the transfer of learning
as it related specifically to elements of curriculum developed for gifted learners. The following
research questions represented an area curriculum design not yet explored in relationship to how
the elements of a differentiated curriculum were activated, applied, and transferred by gifted
students to new contexts and situations.
 How do gifted students perceive the importance (relevance, value) of transferring
acquired elements of a differentiated curriculum from one situation or context to
another?
 What are the instructional strategies that facilitate gifted students’ abilities to transfer
the elements of a differentiated curriculum from one situation or context to another?
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

37
 How do different disciplines facilitate gifted students’ abilities to transfer the
elements of a differentiated curriculum?
This chapter presented an orientation to and an analysis of the literature relevant to the
transfer of curricular elements by gifted learners. The chapter began with a general overview of
gifted learners and examined their characteristics, attributes, and features. A discussion of
differentiated curriculum followed with an examination of the components and features
necessary to meet the unique needs of gifted learners. A review of the literature surrounding
transfer theory, both generally and how it pertains to the education of gifted students was
outlined in this section. The chapter concluded with an analysis of self-regulation and its role as
an outcome of integrating the teaching for transfer into the creation of differentiated curriculum
for gifted learners.
Sources Searched
The search for seminal as well as contemporary studies included a review of online
databases, national and state organizational websites, and government legislation and archives.
Google Scholar, ERIC, JASTOR, and the University of Southern California online library were
searched using the following key terms: giftedness, high-ability learners, characteristics of gifted
children, differentiation, differentiated curriculum, differentiated instruction, meeting the needs
of gifted learners, curriculum design, and tenets of gifted programs. In addition to articles
obtained through the search engines described above, an examination of the reference lists
complied within the articles led to additional avenues of information including books, textbooks,
and reports. Theoretical as well as practical sources were included in the study to highlight the
96 year span of research related to giftedness and curriculum designed to meet the unique needs
of this subgroup of the population. This study aimed to determine how and under what
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

38
instructionally created conditions gifted students were transferring the elements of a
differentiated curriculum from one discipline to another. Based on a search of both seminal and
contemporary literature, it appeared that studies on a students’ perspective related to the
utilization, value, and transfer of elements of a differentiated curriculum are absent from the
literature. Thus, this study has the opportunity to provide a unique and innovative point of view
on the development of curriculum designed to meet the needs, interests, and abilities of gifted
learners.
Who are the Gifted?
Definitions of Giftedness
As early as 2200 B.C., people with extraordinary gifts and talents have fascinated
cultures around the world. Both the Greeks and the Chinese developed mental and physical trials
to discover their most able citizens (Renzulli, 1979). Although the recognition of above-average
performance has been a part of the fabric and the values of societies for thousands of years,
debate among educators still existed as to what constituted giftedness. According to Renzulli
(1979), definitions of giftedness exist along a continuum ranging from “conservative” to
“liberal” in scope (p. 180). Conservative definitions of giftedness typically focused on academic
performance, and limited the eligibility of participants to those who have obtained a specified
level of excellence. Lewis Terman’s (1959) definition of giftedness as “the top one percent level
in general intellectual ability, as measured by the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale or
comparable instrument” (p. 148) represented such a perspective.
Conservative definitions of giftedness posed two main problems: (a) they restricted the
type of identification to IQ or achievement testing, and (b) they narrowed the range of acceptable
performance against a standardized norm. According to Konstantopoulous, Modi, and Hedges
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

39
(2001), many scholars operating under a conservative definition of giftedness used scoring in the
“top 2-3 percent of the ability distribution” to define gifted and talented students (p. 346). The
use of a conservative definition of giftedness also gave rise to interpretation and argument over
serial-based terminology. Torrance (1965) contended that words such as “genius, extremely
gifted, highly-gifted, moderately gifted, and talented” were ambiguous and hard to define in
terms of benchmarks and cut-off scores (p. 49).
At the other end of the continuum existed liberal definitions of giftedness that aligned
with a creative-productive point of view. Sternberg and O’Hara (1999) defined six factors that
contributed to the creative-productive perspective of gifted behaviors: intelligence, knowledge,
thinking styles, personality, motivation, and the environment. These factors worked in tandem to
provide a holistic view of the individual and offered multiple entry points into meeting the
criteria as a gifted learner. Paul Witty’s (1958) recommendation that the definition of giftedness
be expanded to “consider any child gifted whose performance, in a potentially valuable line of
human activity” (p. 62) epitomized the liberal perspective. Although this perspective expanded
the range and criteria for gifted behaviors, it was not without its faults. The liberal definition of
giftedness falls prey to subjectivity and to placing a value judgment on human activity,
creativity, and motivation. The main criticism facing liberal definitions of giftedness centered on
the fact that human opinion rather than test scores determine student admittance to special
programs. According to Renzulli (1979), as the definition of giftedness extended beyond IQ-
based examinations, the measurement shifted from “precise estimates of performance” to the
qualified opinions of professionals (p. 2).
State, national, and federal organizations for the gifted and talented published definitions
of giftedness that existed somewhere in the middle between the conservative and liberal
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

40
perspectives. The United States Office of Education specified six domains of giftedness: general
intellectual ability, academic talent, creative and productive thinking skills, leadership, visual
and performing arts, and psychomotor skills. Using these domains as a guideline, the National
Association for Gifted Children offered the following definition as a middle ground between the
liberal and conservative viewpoints: “gifted individuals demonstrate outstanding levels of
aptitude or competence in one or more domains” (2010). Although dissention over the finite
definition of giftedness existed among educators in the field, researchers agreed that the
education of today’s gifted students was paramount to developing the scholars of the world
tomorrow.
General consistency existed among researchers in terms of the need to prepare gifted
learners for the future roles they will play in society. Researchers varied, as the literature review
will show, in the design of learning opportunities that allowed for the comprehension of
advanced knowledge and skills and the adaptable expertise needed to transfer that knowledge to
new situations and contexts. An analysis of the literature surrounding the definitions of
giftedness as well as the curriculum developed to meet the needs of gifted learners unearthed
questions such as (a) What are the characteristics that define gifted learners?, and (b) How might
these characteristics of giftedness facilitate the ability to transfer content, knowledge, and skills
to new contexts and disciplines?
Characteristics of Gifted Learners
Any discussion regarding the characteristics of gifted learners should begin by addressed
several key myths and misconceptions. According to Reis and Renzulli (2009), there is no more
dangerous and false a myth surrounding the characteristics of giftedness than the belief that
gifted and talented children constituted a single and homogeneous group. Research conducted
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

41
by Ross (1993), documented the ethnic, socioeconomic, cultural, and linguistic diversity that
existed among gifted children and highlighted how the gifted are represented across all areas,
rural, suburban, and urban; across all economic strata; and across all cultural, religious, and
political orientations. Differences in personal characteristics also varied among learners
identified as gifted and talented. These attributes included temperament, degree of risk-taking,
level of extraversion, and effort invested in reaching ones goals. Neihart et al. (2002)
summarized that there is no more “varied a group of young people” than those that make up the
gifted and talented population of children and adolescents (p. 1).
A second widespread myth of gifted education focused on the belief that giftedness was
fixed at birth and stays with a person over the course of their lifetime. According to Reis and
Renzulli (2009), giftedness is a developmental construct that manifests itself differently in
different students. Research by Fraiser and Passow (1994) documented common attributes of
giftedness – traits, behaviors, and characteristics repeatedly identified among gifted learners. In
general, these elements consisted of varied interests, sophisticated communication skills,
advanced use of problem-solving, a strong capacity for memory, and a developed sense of humor
(Fraiser & Passow, 1994). Although they consistently found these elements among gifted
learners, they emphasized the fact that not every student displayed every trait at all times. The
notion of giftedness as a developmental construct that manifested itself differently in different
students was widely supported (Bloom, 1985; Renzulli, 1986, Reis & Renzulli, 2009).
The research on the characteristics of gifted learners consistently articulated the belief
that specific talent may not always be reflected in academic achievement or measured by test
scores. According to Riles (1971), the characteristics of giftedness can be highlighted just as
easily on the playground as within the boundaries of a classroom. This list focused specifically
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

42
on the characteristics of gifted learners complied from the literature. It is critical to understand
who gifted students are and how they are being identified, as the instruments used in this study
targeted many of the characteristics listed above. In order to develop differentiated curriculum
for the gifted, it is essential to understand (a) what giftedness is and what it is not, (b) how
giftedness is being defined, and (c) how giftedness is exemplified in student characteristics and
dispositions.
Characteristics of gifted learners included cognitive, attitudinal, as well as behavioral
characteristics. Attitudinal and behavioral variables or “psycho-social characteristics” have been
documented in studies of achievement and talent (Konstantopolous, Modi, & Hedges, 2001, p.
348). Cognitive characteristics centered upon controls occurring within the learner themselves
(Clark, 2008). In contrast, affect and behavioral based characteristics come from sources within
and outside the child. According to Clark (2008), the development of one area of the
characteristics of giftedness did not necessarily imply high levels of development across the
other two areas. Table 2.1 complied the work of Riles (1971), Seagoe (1974), Mulhern, (2003),
and Clark (2008) and categorized the characteristics of giftedness into cognitive, affective, and
behavioral types. Although this was not meant to represent an exhaustive list, it highlighted the
characteristics common among gifted learners across the body of literature.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

43

Table 2.1
Characteristics of Giftedness Culled from the Body of Literature
Cognitive Affective Behavioral
 Advanced retention of
information
 Advanced comprehension
 Varied interests and
curiosity
 High language
development
 High verbal ability
 Advanced information
processing
 Flexible thought process
 Ability to synthesize large
amounts of information
 Continual pursuit of ideas
 Ability to make
relationships between
ideas
 Ability to generate new
solutions
 Abstract thought patterns
 Self-evaluative of work
 Sets and maintains
personal goals
 Sensitive to the emotions
of others
 Ability to be self-aware
 Heightened sense of
fairness and justice
 Development of a value
system or locus of control
 Deep emotional
connections
 High expectations for self
and others
 Advanced levels of
morality and judgment
 Leadership ability
 Recognition of societal
problems
 Heightened sensory
awareness
 Recognition of physical
capabilities
 Open to new experiences
 Creative approach in tool
selection
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

44
Many researchers observed differences in the motivation levels between gifted and non-
gifted learners. Factors such as self-confidence, independence, perseverance, and ambition
(Feldhausen & Hoover, 1986; Ford, 1996) were documented across the literature as areas of
commonality between identified gifted learners. A study conducted by Csikszentmihalyi et al.,
(1993) found that task commitment or perseverance was the most important correlate of
giftedness. Seminal studies on the characteristics of gifted learners conducted by Terman and
Oden (1959), Wittek (1973) and Renzulli (1977) advocated the inclusion of “task persistence”
and “motivation” as part of their definition of giftedness. Although the studies emphasized the
connection that existed between motivations and gifted tendencies, the link between motivation
and the elements of a differentiated curriculum were outside their purview. This study
contributed to the body of literature through an analysis of the connection between the elements
of a differentiated curriculum and gifted students’ motivation, desire, and persistence in using
those elements in different discipline areas.
The final myth to the field of gifted education was the belief that gifted students were not
at risk, that if they were “really gifted,” they would be successful in school on their own. This
belief was based on a static definition of giftedness, where intelligence is solely inherited, and
therefore does not change or develop across a person’s lifespan. Well-documented in the
literature (Clark, 2008; Reis & Renzulli, 2009) was the fact that giftedness was developed from
an interaction between genetics and environmental opportunity. The theory of a “golden
chromosome” (Reis & Renzulli, 2009, p. 235) lead many to believe that people were preordained
to be gifted and put gifted children at risk of not receiving stimulation in schools at a level
commensurate with their growth. According to Clark (2008), gifted students need to be
presented with academic and social challenges by their educational experiences at the level
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

45
congruent with their ability and development. Research conducted by Mulhern (2003) echoed
these findings and concluded that bright students in schools operating on academic levels lower
then their capabilities “become indistinguishable from their less-able classmates as the years go
on (p. 112).
In order to provide gifted learners with opportunities to activate and develop their
potential, the use of differentiated curriculum is needed. According to Kaplan (2005), the need
to differentiate the curriculum for gifted learners was based on (a) the documented academic,
social, and developmental strengths of these learners, and (b) the inadequacy of the general or
regular curriculum to meet these needs. The need for a curriculum aligned to the characteristics
of giftedness was well documented in the literature. The next section of this literature review
outlined the tenets or principles of such a curriculum and defined the elements of differentiation
used in this study.
In summary, the literature on giftedness supported the notion (a) that there is a range of
characteristics that define gifted learners, and (b) that these characteristics exhibit themselves in
a variety of ways based upon the situation and the context. Additionally, factors such as task
commitment and student motivation played a role in the definition of giftedness and in the
identification of gifted learners. The definitions of giftedness and the characteristics of gifted
individuals documented in the above section provide a foundation and a common language for
this study. This section of the literature review highlighted the need for differentiated curriculum
in provided learning opportunities for gifted students to reach as well as demonstrate their
potential. This study aimed to contribute to the literature by connecting the characteristics of
gifted learners with ability to transfer the elements of a differenced curriculum designed
specifically to meet their cognitive, affective, and behavioral needs.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

46
Differentiated Curriculum
The need to provide gifted students with experiences that differ from the regular
curriculum is well documented in the literature. In 1967, the United States Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare made recommendations on behalf of the gifted that proposed that
all schools create extensions for gifted learners focused on higher order thinking, and that
teachers develop a better understanding of the nature of gifted students and of instructional
strategies that best meet their needs. This section of the literature review extended these
recommendations (a) defined differentiated curriculum for the gifted; its key components and
tenets, and (b) examined the connection that exists in the literature between differentiated
curriculum and the goal of teaching to transfer.
What is Differentiation?
The term “differentiation” was replete in the educational literature. The concept of
differentiation was regularly used by practitioners in special, general, and gifted education to
explain how the basic or core curriculum can be modified to meet the targeted needs of a student
or subgroup of students in the classroom (Gubbins, 1994). Differentiation was used by experts
across the education spectrum to address the varying needs of learners, promote equity and
access to content, knowledge, and skills, and focus on “best-practice” instruction (Tomlinson,
2000, p. 25). Differentiation in the classroom was essential when students have academic,
social, and developmental differences that differ from those of the average student. Tomlinson
and Jarvis (2009) argue that there are potentially limitless strategies that might be embedded into
the creation of curriculum aligned to the individual needs of these learners within a classroom.
Differentiation therefore, is defined in the literature as a “framework of key principles” grounded
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

47
in educational theory rather then a “bounded set of activities” (Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2009, p.
600).
According to Gallagher (2000), differentiation referred to how changes could be made to
the basic curriculum, on a case-by-case basis to the content, the skills, the learning environment,
or the technology. Differentiating content referred to what students learn and the materials
through which the content is presented. Process differentiation referred to the modification of
instructional activities or models of teaching employed by the teacher to ensure that students
used “key skills” to analyze ideas and information (Tomlinson, 1999, p. 11). Products are the
outputs or the means by which students demonstrated what they had learned. These means of
differentiation comprise a pedagogical approach to curriculum and instruction that factor student
differences (needs, interests, abilities, learning profiles) into the design and implementation
targeted learning opportunities. A key factor of differentiation under this paradigm was that
teachers “proactively” reflect upon and address student differences, strengths, and weaknesses
through curriculum and instruction (Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2009, p. 604).
The deliberate nature of differentiated curriculum required intentional reflection on the
part of the teacher before, during, and after a learning experience. The California Department of
Education (2005) articulated the belief that differentiation required a constant “reexamination” of
what students learn, how they learn it, and who is responsible for the what and how (p. 9).
Hallmarks of a differentiated classroom included (a) the presentation of instruction through
multiple modalities, (b) the belief on the part of the teacher as well as the student that meaningful
learning involved effort and risk, (c) the flexible use of class time that made connections between
the disciplines, and (d) the grounding of learning in real world applications (Tomlinson, 2009).
Enriched, differentiated curriculum, as described by Passow, Goldberg, Tannenbaum, and
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

48
French (1955) exposed learners to a wide variety of subject matter and provide the rich and
stimulating learning experiences integral to the teaching and learning of the gifted. Tomlinson et
al. (2003) contended that differentiation must be “conceived and practiced as a reflection and
extension” of educational best practice for gifted learners (p. 27).
Research conducted by Kaplan (2009) reiterated the assertion that there is not one single
or specific curriculum to differentiate for gifted learners. Factors such as the recognition of
linguistic, cultural, academic, and economic diversities among gifted students as well as the
focus on a continuum of services for the gifted negated the design of a single curriculum.
However, the research presented nonnegotiable tenets or guiding principles of a differentiated
curriculum. According to Passow (1982) differentiated curriculum for the gifted included: (a)
content organized around the in-depth study of major areas, (b) the development and application
of higher order thinking skills that help students utilize existing knowledge in new situations, (c)
inquiry-based, real-world approaches to knowledge acquisition, (d) the use of many and varied
resources, and (e) opportunities for self-directed learning. The tenets of a differentiated
curriculum pertinent to this dissertation are described were detail below.
Tenets of a Differentiated Curriculum
As evidenced in the literature, the design of differentiated curriculum for gifted learners
cannot be accomplished through a “one size fits all programming or administrative edict”
(Stepien & Stepien, 2006, p. 399). Research-based strategies of instruction and theoretical tenets
of curriculum were woven together to create differentiated learning experiences for the gifted.
The California Association for the Gifted (2003) articulated in their standards for Gifted and
Talented Education that tenets of a differentiated curriculum should focus on four main factors:
the depth and complexity of content, the advanced or accelerated pacing of content, and the
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

49
opportunity for students to engage in novelty or unique expressions of understanding. According
to Bernal (2003), such tenets were integral to the academic development of gifted learners
because they placed less emphasis on the acquisition of knowledge and more on the use of that
knowledge. The four tenets of gifted curriculum articulated in the California GATE standards
encompassed the elements of a differentiated curriculum used in this study. Table 2.2 illustrated
the alignment between the tenets of gifted programming and the elements of a differentiated
curriculum. Each element was defined in detail in the subsequent paragraphs.

Table 2.2
Alignment between Tenets of Gifted Programs and Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum
Acceleration Depth & Complexity Novelty
 Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian
 Universal Concepts
 Prompts of Depth and
Complexity
 Big Ideas
 Aptitude (interest & student
choice)

Acceleration. Differentiated curriculum for the gifted provided learners with a well-
rounded and comprehensive learning experience that extended acceleration of content into the
acceleration of thinking. Acceleration was defined as the inclusion of critical, creative, problem
solving, and research skills into the core or basic curriculum (California Association for the
Gifted, 2003). According to CAG, differentiating the curriculum based on accelerated thinking
skills required the analysis of the questions: “Advanced content is best learned through which
critical thinking skills? and Advanced content is best demonstrated in which types of products?”
(p. 24). Accelerated strategies such as questioning techniques, inquiry, problem-based learning,
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

50
and bibliotherapy (VanTassel-Baska, 2003) utilized aspects of higher order thinking skills to
promote open-ended, interactive, and generative learning in the gifted. Research conducted by
Halpern (1998) underscored the need for differentiation through acceleration. She contended
that providing opportunities for students to engage in higher order thinking skills helped them
accomplish tasks with a “greater likelihood of success” and better prepared them for the
“unknown challenges in their future” (Halpern, 1998, p. 455).
Content could be accelerated for gifted learners using elements of a differentiated
curriculum such as the study of the disciplines (Thinking Like a Disciplinarian) and the
connection of content to Universal Concepts. Thinking Like a Disciplinarian was a method for
teaching students to approach concepts from an experts’ point of view. Introducing the study of
the disciplines exposed students to the idea that all disciplines contained their own unique
language, tools, methodology, inventions, theories, and significant contributions to society
(Mora-Flores & Kaplan, 2012). Seminal theorists such as Bruner and Dewey reiterated the
importance of curriculum that provided opportunities for students to gain abstract knowledge of
the disciplines and the connections that existed between them. Dewey (1916) contended that the
study of the disciplines helped students organize information and understand that no body of
knowledge existed individually but had larger societal implications. The “scholarly disciplines”
(Stanley & Nelson, 2012, p. 273) articulated in the literature included anthropology, economics,
geography, political science, psychology, and sociology.
Acceleration of thinking involved differentiating the core curriculum to provide challenge
and opportunities to grade-level content. The core or basic curriculum could be connected to
Universal Concepts such as power, structure, systems, change, patterns, conflict, relationships,
and order versus chaos to extend and deepen understanding. Tyler (1949) referred to such terms
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

51
as organizing principles or overarching themes that span across time and context, and “wove
together” threads from multiple discipline areas (p. 95). The shift from discipline specific to
universal big ideas and organizing principles allowed students to make connections between
topics within a discipline area as well as across general discipline bodies. Table 2.3 provided
examples of basic or core curriculum that have been differentiated using acceleration of thinking.
These examples illustrated how the analysis and application of core curriculum can differ for
gifted learners using differentiated elements such as Thinking Like a Disciplinarian and
Universal Concepts.

Table 2.3
Examples of Differentiating the Core Content using Acceleration
Core Content Standard Differentiated Learning Experience
Grade 3 Science – Students know when the
environment changes, some plants and
animals survive; others die or move to new
locations.
Differentiated Thinking Skill – Students will prove with
evidence that changes in the environment impact plants
and animals. Students will use text, maps, and pictures
to create a flow chart depicting either animal migration
or adaptation based upon an environmental change.
Grade 1 History – Students will understand
the concept of exchange and the use of
money to purchase goods and services.
Differentiation TLAD – Students will determine the
relevance of money to our society by analyzing
supply/demand from the perspectives of an economist,
a sociologist, and an agriculturalist. Students will use
text and internet resources to create an advertisement
for a good/service from the perspective of their
disciplinarian.
Grade 5 Math – Students will know and use
the distributive property in equations and
expressions with variables.
Differentiation Universal Concept – Students will prove
with evidence that PATTERNS in the distributive
property can be used to solve expressions and equations
with other variables. Students will use their math
textbooks in order to construct a proof evidencing the
applications of these PATTERNS.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

52
Depth and complexity. Differentiation using “depth” referred to an examination of a
topic by determining the facts, concepts, generalizations, principles, and theories related to it.
Approaching the study of a topic from multiple patterns of thinking helped to promote greater
detail and understanding: (a) from the concrete to the abstract and from the abstract to the
concrete, (b) from the familiar to the unfamiliar and from the unfamiliar to the familiar, and (c)
from the known to the unknown and from the unknown to the known (California Association for
the Gifted, 1994). According to CAG (2005), as students moved through the different patterns of
thinking, they formed large conceptual foundations of the subject matter. Differentiation based
on “complexity” involved moving students beyond a surface level of understanding, from an
analysis of what was intended to what was inferential. According to the CDE (1994),
complexity involved viewing the implications of a topic now and its effects overtime, and seeing
its connections and applications across the disciplines in a fluid rather than a static orientation.
Differentiating the complexity of the core or basic curriculum can be accomplished by extending
the content to the study of issues, problems, and themes. Complex thinking involved making
relationships between and among ideas, connecting those ideas to other concepts, and bridging
them across the disciplines (Ward, 1961).
Kaplan (2005) contended that the differentiation of content through the use of depth and
complexity provided opportunities for students to develop their understanding of content,
knowledge, and skills in a manner aligned with their advanced needs, interests, and abilities.
Table 2.4 outlined the key words that represent the prompts of depth and complexity.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

53
Table 2.4
The Prompts of Depth and Complexity
Depth Complexity
 Language of the Discipline
 Details
 Patterns
 Trends
 Unanswered Questions
 Rules
 Ethics
 Big Ideas
 Overtime
 Multiple Perspectives
 Interdisciplinary Connections

Novelty. According to the CDE (1994), providing advanced learners with differentiation
using novelty depended upon “students perceptions and responses” (p. 15). Differentiation
through novelty provided students with an opportunity to engage in original interpretations of the
content, to create new and original work, and to inquire into and make connections between
seemingly incongruent topics. The development of aptitude through interest-based, self-selected
learning experiences encompassed differentiation through novelty. The use of Independent
Study projects were another example of how novelty was used as a means to extend or enhance
the core curriculum. CAG (2005) contends that key words of novelty include: irony, paradox,
and metaphor. It is well documented in the literature that the use of tenets of a differentiated
curriculum (Acceleration, Depth, Complexity, and Novelty) contributed to the development of
expertise and to the development, retention, and application of the core curriculum (Dixon &
Moon, 2006).
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

54
Differentiated Curriculum and Transfer
Literature in the field of gifted education supported the belief that the goal of teaching to
transfer was essential to the design of differentiated curriculum. Virgil Ward’s (1961) seminal
text advocated that curriculum designed for gifted children (a) center around the enduring
understanding of concepts rather then a “terminal emphasis on the present state of knowledge,”
and (b) present opportunities for knowledge and skills to be applied in problem solving situations
that students can apply to situations that “arise subsequently in the life career” (p. 156). The
focus on universal concepts rather than discrete facts, on interdisciplinarity rather than separate
subjects, and on the multiple applications or uses of knowledge substantiated the connection
between differentiated curriculum for gifted learners and the desire to teach for transfer in
education.
Research conducted by Vaughn, Feldhusen, and Asher (1991) highlighted the connection
that existed between the differentiation of curriculum for gifted learners through the
implementation of higher order thinking skills and the processes that affected transfer. Their
research concluded that the spontaneous transfer of learned skills to other content areas increased
when gifted students were provided with specific and targeted extensions of the regular
curriculum. Rogers (2007) conducted an analysis of the practices used to educate gifted students
and articulated five best practices in helping gifted students reach their full potential. According
to Rogers, curriculum for the gifted provided learners with daily challenge, opportunities to work
on independent study projects, depth and complexity of content matter, socialization with like-
ability peers, and variation in the pace and delivery of subject matter. These research studies
underscored the role that differentiated curriculum played in the educational attainment of
potential for gifted learners.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

55
Research conducted by Sternberg (1986) highlighted the connection that existed between
the learner, the curriculum, and knowledge structures. Under this paradigm, gifted students
became decision-makers in their learning and participated in curriculum that emphasized the
“executive control processes” used to make intellectual decisions, select strategies to complete a
task, and reflect on the thinking process (Sternberg, 1986, p. 172). Defined as an executive
function, these metacognitive strategies helped students access knowledge structures in a myriad
of methods and contexts. These strategies were built into the design and implementation of
differentiated curriculum so that students could utilize prior or stored knowledge as a means of
making connections to newly presented information. According to Sternberg (1986), as students
mastered “problem solving and problem finding strategies,” they begin to hone the used of these
strategies and use them to “discover additional knowledge” in various domains (p. 173).
Curriculum that provided students with opportunities to practice these learning-to-learn strategies
increased the opportunities for student transfer of knowledge and skills.
A connection also existed in the literature between the teaching and mastery of thinking
skills, curriculum, and transfer. Resnick (1989) articulated that thinking skills derived meaning
from the both the content in which they are used and the context in which they are presented.
Her research showed that the most successful mastery of thinking skills occurred when
curriculum was organized around large bodies of knowledge and opportunities for student
interpretation were provided. Research conducted by Gallagher (1994) reiterated these findings
and concluded that the key to increasing students’ structures of knowledge was to provide them
with opportunities to analyze the relationships between large concepts. This he contends was the
main difference between novice learners who were “reduced to dealing with immediate
situations,” and expert thinkers who were able to use their existing knowledge base to solve
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

56
problems (Gallagher, 1994, p. 175). Gallagher asserted that providing opportunities for student
transfer began with building solid knowledge structures within a domain and encouraging
students to find the connections between knowledge structures across multiple content areas.
The literature presented above validated how differentiated curriculum designed around
universal concepts helped provide opportunities for student transfer.
In 2005, the California Department of Education published a resource guide for the
education of gifted and talented students. This document outlined the curricular and instructional
experiences commensurate to meeting the needs, interests, and abilities of gifted learners. EC
Section 52200 stated that gifted and talented pupils be provided with curriculum that develops
“self-generating problem-solving abilities” and student’s “awareness of choices to satisfying
contributions in his or her environment” (California Department of Education, 2005, p. 6). The
desire for the transfer of knowledge and skills is evidenced in the standards for curriculum and
instruction (EC 52206). At minimum, curriculum for the gifted included (a) critical, creative,
problem solving and research skills, (b) authentic products that contribute to society, (c) self-
directed learning and metacognitive reflection, and (d) opportunities for students to demonstrate
“unique and original expressions” of their understanding of concepts and skills (p. 25). Although
the CDE does not explicitly mention the idea of teaching to transfer for gifted learners, the
concept was woven throughout the programmatic standards. The literature documented how
curriculum and instruction for the gifted provided opportunities for students to see the
applications of school knowledge and skills to the real world. This bridge in essence, was
transfer.
According to Schack (1993), gifted learners possessed two main characteristics that
required the use of differentiated curriculum: (a) deep knowledge structures in many different
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

57
disciplines, and (b) a set of strategies to assist in the completion of new and difficult problems.
This section of the literature defined differentiated curriculum for gifted learners and illustrated
its key features as outlined by the California Department of Education. Tenets such as universal
concepts, big ideas, the prompts of depth and complexity, and Thinking Like a Disciplinarian
were presented as means to help student’s bridge knowledge between and across the disciplines.
Research was also presented to document how these tenets functioned as instructional strategies
that students could be used to complete tasks in different situations. The remainder of this
literature review analyzed transfer and self-regulation under the framework of a differentiated
curriculum for gifted learners.
Transfer Theory
It is clear that the issue of teaching to transfer was inextricably linked to topics such as
curriculum development and classroom instruction. An electronic library search of key words
such as “transfer,” “teaching to transfer,” and “transfer and instructional practices” uncovered a
total of 10,210 results. The first section of this literature review examined the general theories
on teaching to transfer: how both seminal and contemporary theorists defined transfer, and what
research-based methods for measuring the transfer of knowledge and skills existed in the
literature. Although a myriad of empirical studies were published on the transfer of knowledge
and skills, a more narrowed search limiting the criteria to “transfer and giftedness” returned only
96 journal articles. The second section of this literature review examined the connection that
exists between the importance of teaching to transfer and the education of gifted learners.
General Theories on Transfer
The goal of teaching to transfer was central to all education and was a focus of
educational research for over 100 years. In simple terms, the study of transfer focused on how
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

58
knowledge learned in one situation applies (or fails to apply) across other situations (Singley &
Anderson, 1989). The literature related to transfer theory documented the misconceptions that
occurred between the incorrect synonymous uses of the terms learning and transfer (Bruner,
1960; Mayer, 2002; Gupta, 2010). According to Gupta (2010), learning was defined as a change
in long-term memory resulting from a change in responses to stimuli. Transfer on the other hand
required a degree of novelty and occurred when something previously acquired influenced,
impacted, and/or affected the response to a new situation (Mayer & Wittrock, 1996; Gupta,
2010). Basically, learning required that students adjust their knowledge bank and their responses
based on new information. Transfer required that students not only adjust and change their
response patterns but also make sense of and strategically use what they have learned (Haskell,
2001; Mayer, 2002).
A general consensus existed among educational theorists regarding the definition of
transfer. However, literature on the study of transfer was fractured with different schools,
interests, and approaches. The dominant and long-standing issue in transfer research centered on
whether transfer was “specific and limited” in scope or whether it was broad and “ranges across
diverse tasks and disciplines” (Singley & Anderson, 1988, p. 2). According to Bransford and
Schwartz (1999), the traditional views on transfer focused on whether or not people could apply
something they learned to new problems or situations. Seminal studies conducted by Thorndike
in the early 1900’s and modern-day research conducted by Gick and Holyoak in 1983 aligned
with this paradigm. Both researchers assessed transfer by the degree to which skill A (estimating
the area of a square for example) influenced skill B (estimating the area of a triangle or a circle).
This type of transfer was defined as “low-road transfer” (Salomon & Perkins, 1989, p. 118),
“direct application transfer” (Bransford & Schwarts, 1999, p. 68), or “near transfer” (Gupta,
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

59
2010, p. 49) and was characterized by the reflexive and automatic use of highly practiced skills.
For example, if someone practiced parallel parking everyday for two months using many
different types of cars on a variety of city streets, they would, by the end of 60 days, be proficient
in parking most cars easily. This view on transfer argued that transfer was possible when the
elements were similar between two tasks, and when the elements were practiced in a variety of
contexts (Taba, 1962).
In contrast, the second view on transfer theory focused on generalizations rather then on
specific, highly practiced skills. Researchers defined transfer under this paradigm as “high-road
transfer” (Salomon & Perkins, 1989), “far transfer” (Gupta, 2010), or “preparation for future
learning” (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999). This view centered on the belief that transfer occurred
not through the targeted practice of similar elements, but in the development of generalizations
surrounding either the content or the strategies used to learn the content (Taba, 1962).
According to Woolfolk (2007), the key to high-road transfer was “mindful abstraction” (p. 320)
or the deliberate selection of a principle, strategy, or procedure that was not unique to one
specific problem, but could be applied to many and varied contexts. Seminal studies conducted
by Pressey (1944) and Singley and Anderson (1989) focused on how a person’s experience with
one set of skills affected their ability to learn a second set of related skills. Their research
highlighted that the degree of transfer was increased when more attention was directed to
learning the principles underlying specific processes (generalizations) rather then learning the
processes themselves. For example, high-road transfer occurred when the principles of area and
perimeter learned in a mathematics classroom were used to create a layout for the school
newspaper in a journalism class. The strategic and targeted application of abstract knowledge
learned in one situation to a variety of different situations was the main distinction between low
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

60
and high road transfer. Table 2.5 synthesized the key components of the two views on transfer
complied from seminal as well as contemporary literature.

Table 2.5
Summary of the Key Features on the Views of Transfer Theory
Low Road Transfer High Road Transfer
 Synonymous Terms: near transfer and
direct application transfer
 Key Conditions: extensive practice,
exposure in a variety of settings and
conditions, goal of making the skill
automatic, spontaneous use of the skill,
involves little reflective thinking
 Example: Using different types of
computer programs, navigating different
types of stores in a mall
 Synonymous Terms: far transfer,
preparation for future learning
 Key Conditions: focus on abstract
principles, strategic selection of skills and
processes, generalizations that can be used
across different situations, reflective
thought
 Example: Applying knowledge learned
about cost/benefit analysis in an
Economics class to analyzing a personal
relationship

Perkins and Salomon (1988) noted that the two views on transfer were integral to our
expectations and aspirations for education on three main fronts: (a) the transfer of basic skills, (b)
the transfer of knowledge, and (c) the transfer of higher order thinking skills such as critical and
creative. A routine target of schooling, the transfer of basic thinking skills focused on learning to
read and solve math problems not just for the sake of reading and solving one book or problem,
but in preparation for a wide range of reading and mathematics – tax forms, job applications,
stock market investments. The transfer of knowledge referred to how the “data base” students
developed in school affected their thinking across the academic disciplines and in the real world
(Perkins & Salomon, 1988, p. 23). For example, how does ones’ knowledge of the American
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

61
Revolution influence how we think about current events? Finally, the transfer of critical and
creative thinking skills addressed cross-context situations and involved how we interacted with
others, make important life decisions, and solve new problems. The following paragraphs
moved beyond the definition and types of transfer found in the literature (and described above)
and examined why transfer was still worrisome in education and how educators could better
teacher to transfer.
It is agreed in the literature that the goal of the schooling process was to help students
become better “thinkers,” to transfer what they are learning in the classroom to real-world
situations (Halpern, 1998, p. 451). However, there was considerable evidence to show that
weaknesses existed within the current education system in promoting thinking and reasoning in
students (Grabinger & Dunlap, 1995). According to Perkins and Salomon (1988), weaknesses in
the schooling process existed because it was being assumed that transfer takes care of itself. The
results of their research suggested that students acquired large amounts of “passive” information
and successfully transferred this knowledge when asked to respond to “direct” probes such as
multiple-choice test questions (Perkins & Salomon, 1998, p. 23). The transfer of knowledge was
not as successful when students were asked to engage in problem-solving contexts that required
the use of learned information in new situations (1988). Research conducted by Bransford et al.
(1990) reiterated these findings and stated that the basic problem with traditional instruction was
that it “often failed to produce the kinds of transfer to new problem-solving situations that most
educators wanted to see” (pp. 115-116).
In the teaching for transfer, the literature documented two concurrent goals: (a) to have
students successfully use a particular skill or strategy, and (b) to have students be able to
recognize when and how that strategy might be used in novel situations. A study conducted by
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

62
Halpern (1998) suggested that the process of identifying when and why a particular thinking skill
is appropriate is the “Achilles’ heel” of transfer (p. 453). This barrier to transfer occurred due to
the fact that recognizing the need for a particular skill or piece of knowledge involved the use of
cues or triggers to move the skill/knowledge from long-to-short term memory. In order to
engage in successful transfer, students needed to create cues from the “structural aspects” of one
learning context that could be recognized and used as a roadmap in completing new tasks
(Halpern, 1998, p. 453). Research conducted by Hummel and Holyoak (1997) reiterated these
findings and contended that teaching for transfer should make explicit the structural aspects of a
problem or situation so that they could function for students as retrieval cues for future use
across the disciplines.
In summary, the research on transfer theory was categorized into two types: low and high
road transfer. Low road transfer consisted of the repeated practice of specific skills for use in
different, yet similar contexts and situations. In contrast, high road transfer required an
understanding of the principles and generalizations that support specific cognitive processes so
that they could be strategically and purposefully used to accomplish tasks. Studies conducted by
Taba (1962), Clark and Blake (1997), Bransford and Schwartz (1999), and Mayer (2002) argued
that positive, high-road transfer was dependent upon how and what an individual learns. The
next section of this literature review examined the connection that existed between the theories
of transfer (described above) and their implications for teaching and the development of
differentiated curriculum.
Teaching for Transfer
Researchers suggested that although the goal of transfer existed in the current system of
education (Grabinger & Dunlap, 1995; Halpern, 1998; Mayer, 2002), the actuality of teaching to
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

63
transfer depended on the utilization of curriculum materials and instructional strategies that
promoted the transfer of knowledge and skills. According to Taba (1962), transfer was not
automatic and was contingent upon the extent to which a curriculum focused on basic principles,
provided opportunities for students to practice applying these principles, and developd a spiral-
based expectation that knowledge learned will be used in many and varied situations. A recent
study conducted by Gupta (2010) reiterated the impact curriculum design played on the transfer
of knowledge and skills. Gupta’s (2010) findings concluded that the construction of the
curriculum influenced student transfer through (a) the selection and sequencing of learning
experiences, (b) the context in which the principles were initially introduced, and (c) the
instructional framework in which ideas were presented. Lynton and Elman (1987) summarized
that in order to address any issue of student transfer, an analysis of instructional methods was
required.
A direct link between curriculum design, classroom instruction, and student transfer was
seen as a pattern throughout the literature. Research indicated that students were more likely to
engage in the high-road transfer of knowledge and skills when materials were presented through
active, inquiry-based pedagogical models (Woolfolk, 2007). According to Taba (1962), students
were better able to understand information, retain it longer, and use it more effectively when
provided with opportunities to discover principles and generalizations for themselves. For
decades, followers of Dewey strongly stressed the element of “self-discovery” and encouraged
students to form connections between knowledge and skills that could be applied across different
contexts. A study conducted by The Cognition and Technology Group (1993) at Vanderbilt
University found that learning was more likely to be transferred when realistic contexts and rich
learning situations were provided. It was in the development of these “activity-rich” learning
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

64
environments that students made the connections necessary to transfer knowledge and skills and
accomplished tasks across the disciplines.
The literature suggested that activity-rich learning environments aided in the
transferability of knowledge and skills by connecting classroom learning with real-world, out-of-
the-classroom situations (Halpern, 1998). According to De Corte (2003), the teacher was
instrumental constructing the day-to-day learning experiences and environments that supported
student transfer. Powerful, transfer-rich learning environments included the following criteria:
(a) the support of constructivist learning processes, (b) the development of self-regulatory
learning behaviors, (c) the inclusion of cooperative and collaborative strategies, and (d) the use
of cognitive and motivational processes. Cognitive processes such as understand, apply, analyze,
evaluate, and create were documented in the literature as essential in fostering student transfer of
learning (Mayer, 2002). Mayer (2002) contended that when the goal of instruction was to
promote transfer, teachers must write learning objective that move students “beyond the
cognitive process of remember” (p. 232).
In addition to writing learning objectives that target higher-order processes, teachers
fostered student transfer through instructional techniques such as hugging and bridging (Perkins
& Salomon, 1988, p. 28). Teachers engaged in hugging when they introduced knowledge and
skills in one setting and provided opportunities for student practice in contexts with conditions
similar to that of the original setting. Instructionally, hugging promoted the conditions for low-
road transfer. In contrast, teachers using the bridging strategy helped students better meet the
conditions for high-road transfer. Bridging allowed teachers to (a) make connections between
specific knowledge and general principles, (b) make analogies that extended beyond the
immediate context or setting, and (c) teach “broad-spectrum practices” that reached beyond their
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

65
own subject matter (1988, p. 29). The research conducted by Perkins and Salomon (1988)
concluded that the combined use of hugging and bridging “significantly fostered” student
transfer in instructional settings (p. 29).
It is clear from the literature that curriculum as well as pedagogy influenced students’
ability to transfer knowledge and skills. The learning environments that teachers created also
impacted the degree to which students organized information and develop connections between
knowledge structures. Halpern (1998) contended that the greater the number of connections
students made between new and stored information, the greater the chances that recalled and
transfer occurred. When students formed bridges between old and new information, they
developed a method of viewing situations that could be applied to future situations, problems,
and contexts. This pathway for making connections was defined as “learning-to-learn” (Boole,
1904; Taba, 1962; Dembo, 2001) and aided in (a) the creation of curriculum that produced
transfer and, (b) instructional strategies that helped teach for transfer. Considering the vast
impact of curriculum and instruction on student transfer, ways of measuring students’ ability to
develop and utilize learning-to-learn strategies must be explored.
Transfer and Gifted Learners
It is clear that teaching to transfer was an essential goal in the education of all learners.
An abundance of information related to the definitions of transfer and strategies to teach for
transfer were available in seminal as well as contemporary literature. However, research that
focused on the transfer of knowledge and skills within specific subgroups of the student
population (gifted learners) lacked the same exposure. According to Scruggs et al. (1985)
research on “learning characteristics” was an area greatly neglected in the field of gifted
education (p. 181). In a review of existing literature, Hahn (1980) concluded that “virtually no
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

66
research studies” in the field of gifted education bridge modern learning or information
processing research with giftedness (p. 20). Research conducted on the learning characteristics
of gifted learners over the next 32 years remained sparse. The following paragraphs highlighted
the studies on transfer and gifted learners that did exist in the literature and served as the
foundation on which this study was built.
It was widely documented in the literature that children identified as “gifted” differed in
some way from their grade and age level peers. How they differed in relation to learning
characteristics was an area of dissention among theorists. Although some authors suggested that
gifted students learn in a manner that was “qualitatively different” from their peers, others
disagreed with this perspective and believed that the use of learning strategies separated gifted
from non-gifted students (Scruggs & Cohn, 1983, p. 169). Scruggs and Cohn (1983) tested 29
elementary students enrolled in a summer writing program for with the goal of assessing the
relationship between the complexity of a learning strategy and performance. Their results
indicated a statistically significance relationship between the level and frequency of strategy use
and student performance on a writing task. All students in the study (gifted and non-gifted)
showed gains in verbal learning as a result of the use of learning strategies. However, the
researchers noted that the identified gifted students acquired the learning strategies at a faster rate
then their non-gifted peers, further facilitating learning and performance levels. The results of
this study held two major implications: (a) it validated the belief that the use of learning
strategies benefited all learners, (b) articulated the need to utilize learning strategies in
curriculum and instruction designed for specifically for gifted learners.
Similar studies conducted by Scruggs et al. (1985) and Levin et al. (1983) substantiated
the belief that gifted students do not learn differently then their non-gifted peers, but engaged in
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

67
more frequent and complex use of learning strategies. The results of both studies found that
gifted learners not only used learning strategies more often, but also were more able to transfer
the learning strategy introduced by the teacher to their own individual learning of new material.
According to Scruggs at al. (1985) gifted students easily transferred learning strategies between
and across content areas, learning more information on the “transfer task” then on the original
task in which the strategy was introduced (p. 184). These findings indicated that elementary-age
gifted learners had the capacity to utilize and transfer complex learning strategies to solve
problems in new situations and contexts. The documented connections between the use of
learning strategies and performance on new tasks held valuable implications (a) for the design of
differentiated curriculum, (b) for the instructional practices used to activate such curriculum for
the gifted, and (c) for developing future research on how gifted learners can transfer the elements
of a differentiated curriculum across contexts.
A study conducted by Scruggs and Mastropieri (1988) focused specifically on the ability
of gifted students to acquire and transfer elaborative learning strategies to new contexts. The
researchers defined elaborative learning strategies as “adding something to to-be-learned
information for the purpose of linking the information and facilitating later retrieval” (Scruggs &
Mastropieri, 1988, p. 153). Forty-eight academically gifted and 48 non-gifted students from two
metropolitan elementary schools participated in a series of mnemonic tests ranging from highly
teacher structured to free or independent study. Their results indicated that (a) the learning
performance of gifted learners could be enhanced with the explicit introduction of learning
strategies, (b) gifted students in the study were able to transfer the strategy introduced to aid in
the understanding of novel information, and (c) some type of “initial prompting” on the part of
the teacher was necessary in prompting the transfer of the learning strategy (p. 163). The
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

68
findings from this study eradicated the myth that gifted learners would be fine on their own and
did not require specific instruction. Scruggs and Mastropieri (1988) illustrated how the
performance of gifted learners was statistically increased when they were explicitly taught a
learning strategy and provided with multiple learning experiences and opportunities to practice
its’ use. This study documented the connection between instruction and transfer and provided a
model for future research on the specific instruction and transfer of the elements of a
differentiated curriculum.
Fundamental to the education of gifted learners was the transfer of control over learning
from the teachers to the students (Freeman, 1999). Central to this transfer was the development
of gifted students’ abilities to utilize “learning-to-learn techniques” (1999, p. 186). According to
Hamman (1998), learning strategy instruction was recognized as an effective practice in the field
of gifted education for over 30 years. Learning strategies are defined as an amalgamation of a
series of small steps designed to function as a roadmap or a set of guidelines for solving
problems. Research conducted by King-Sears (1997) and Bisland (2004) found that one of the
largest benefits of learning strategy instruction on the transfer of knowledge and skills was that it
guided students towards independent learning. Learning-to-learn strategies helped students (a)
discriminate when to use knowledge and skills in different situations, (b) development methods
for activating learned content, and (c) adapt what they know to meet the demands of new
problems and tasks (Deschler, Ellis, & Lenz, 1996). These studies underscored the belief that
education for gifted learners required more than the implementation of a differentiated
curriculum; it required specific instruction on how to think and the development of
metacognitive learning strategies.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

69
Research conducted by Shore and Kanevsky (1993) found that gifted learners were at
their most effective when they were presented with learning-to-learn strategies that included the
planning, monitoring, and evaluation of content and skills. This study also documented how
learning-to-learn dispositions such as curiosity, persistence, and confidence contributed to the
development of transfer and metacognition in gifted learners. Carr and Borkowski (1987) also
documented the connection that existed between transfer and metacognition in the education of
gifted learners. They contended that a students’ ability to generate a learning strategy and
transfer it to other tasks was dependent upon “divergent, insightful, and metacognitive” thought
processes (p. 40). Their study of 98 fifth-and-sixth grade children found that gifted learners who
developed their metacognitive thinking process were “more likely to achieve academically” then
gifted students who had not acquired such skills (Carr & Borkowski, 1987, p. 42). These studies
indicated that the development of learning-to-learn or metacognitive strategies served as a key
factor in the teaching to transfer for gifted learners.
It has been documented in the literature that teachers utilized specific instructional
strategies to provide appropriate curriculum for gifted learners. VanTassel-Baska (2003)
contended that strategies such as creative problem solving, inquiry, and problem-based learning
were crucial in delivering curricula for gifted learners, and provided the greatest opportunities for
the transfer of learning. These strategies allowed students to transfer learned knowledge and
skills to either a plan of action, larger conceptual understandings, or applications to the real
world. A study conducted by Shore et al. (1992) documented how gifted learners think in very
similar terms to professional experts and make frequent connections between what they already
know and the information provided in a current problem. The use of the abovementioned
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

70
instructional strategies evidenced how gifted students’ functioned like experts and created
generalizations and themes that connected knowledge and skills across the different disciplines.
The literature complied in this section documented the importance of teaching to transfer
in the education of gifted individuals. Inquiry-based pedagogy, creative problem solving, and
the teaching of learning-to-learn (metacognitive) strategies were articulated as essential features
of instruction in teaching to transfer. Although the research on gifted learners and transfer theory
clearly articulated the use of instructional strategies, it did not address the student transfer of
specific elements of a differentiated curriculum. This study could contribute to the body of
knowledge in this area by applying the theories on transfer and giftedness to an analysis of how,
when, and under what conditions students utilized the elements of a differentiated curriculum
(Universal Concepts, Big Ideas, prompts of Depth and Complexity) to solve new problems and
were transferring them across the discipline areas.
Self-Regulation
Bandura’s cognitive concept of self-regulation described the factors essential to “superior
performance” (Gredler, 2009, p. 367) in a domain or discipline and served as the ultimate goal
for gifted learners in the transfer of differentiated curriculum elements. A component of the
socio-cognitive theory of learning, self-regulation focused on the process by which humans
controled the factors, conditions, and contexts affecting their progression towards a
predetermined goal (Zimmerman, 2002). Self-regulation was highly correlated with academic
success (Dembo, 2001) and was influenced by three main factors: knowledge, motivation, and
self-discipline. According to Woolfolk (2007), self-regulated learners required knowledge about
themselves and how they learn, the discipline or topic under study, the task presented, many and
various strategies for learning, and the context or environment. Self-regulated learners were
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

71
motivated to learn; they were serious about completing the task, and about how they will proceed
with a course of action. Volition, will power, or the “ability of a learner to protect themselves
from distraction” (Woolfolk, 2007, p. 336) was the final factor in the relationship among self-
regulatory behaviors. Current as well as seminal research on self-regulation (Zimmerman, 2000;
Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001; Schunk, 1995) indicated how it was possible to teach the
abovementioned behaviors to students with the goal of increasing academic achievement and
transfer.
Bandura’s concept of self-regulation provided a way of examining learning from an
active rather than a passive perspective. Zimmerman (1989) contended that differences between
successful and less successful learners focused on their ability to (a) recognize the factors that
influence learning, (b) make choices among and between the skills they used to learn, and (c)
take charge and control over their own learning. The concept of self-regulation provided a lens
through which to view how content, knowledge, and skills could be taught to students with the
goal of creating independent thinkers. If the goal of education and the schooling process was the
creation of “life-long learners” (Dembo, 2001, p. 27) who can adapt to the ever-changing
demands of society, the concept of self-regulation offerred the ultimate goal for gifted learners –
students as instructional decision-makers!
Connections between the development of self-regulated learners and the characteristics of
giftedness existed in the literature. The term “locus of control” articulated the idea that a child’s
control over their learning occurred both internally or externally (Clark, 2008, p. 128).
According to Clark (2008), gifted children characteristically had been found to posses more of an
internal locus of control at a younger ages then their non-gifted counterparts. Basically, this
meant that young gifted learners could make decisions regarding their own needs and interests.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

72
Research conducted by Bar-Tal et al., (1980) highlighted the fact that gifted learners (a) obtained
a feeling of excitement from learning new material, (b) derived satisfaction from solving new
problems, and (c) had a perception of responsibility for their own learning. Clark (2008)
contended that this perception of responsibility over one’s own learning was recognized as the
“single most important condition for achievement and academic success” (p. 128).
The literature on giftedness and self-regulation articulated the importance of the learning
environment in the development of an internal locus of control. Lovecky (1992) contended that
gifted learners often exhibited strong self-determination, inner strength, and high motivation to
pursue their own goals. Curriculum that capitalized on such characteristics provided the optimal
learning environments for gifted learners (Gottfried & Gottfried, 1996). According to Clark
(2008), “personal choice” was an essential feature in the creation of learning environments for
gifted students and was critical in the development of self-regulatory behaviors (p. 130). Gifted
students should be provided with opportunities to see themselves as capable learners whose
actions create a response, rather then as helpless or passive participants in the school experience
(Clark, 2008). Research conducted by Gordon (1977) documented how this perception was one
of the foremost triggers for developing higher levels of intellectual thought.
Of the range of information related to the creation of learning environments for gifted
learners that promote the development of an internal locus of control, the literature consistently
highlighted the critical role that challenge played. In a synthesis study conducted on the practice
of educating the gifted and talented, Rogers (2007) found that significantly greater development
occurred when students were provided access to increasingly more complex knowledge and
skills. Rogers (2007) suggested that an average of one third to one half an additional year’s
growth was possible when gifted learners participated in challenging learning experiences on a
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

73
daily basis. Additional research conducted by Kulik and Kulik (1984) and Swiatek and
Lipkowski-Shoplik (2002) bolstered the connection between the presentation of a challenging
curriculum to gifted learners and their development of an internal locus of control and intrinsic
motivation.
Clark (2008) contended that the development of “self” was central in activating gifted
students’ tremendous potential (p. 141). Maslow’s (1971) seminal research defined the
development of one’s potential as self-actualization and identified several characteristics
indicative of an advanced development of one’s self. Characteristics such as self-directedness,
autonomy, and task commitment aligned with the characteristics commonly found in gifted
children. Although the goals of self-actualization and self-regulation were not explicitly stated in
most public school systems, they had for decades been part of the philosophical statements that
underscored the curriculum developed for gifted learners (Clark, 2008). Augustine (2011)
reiterated that it was the combination of motivation, the development of the self, and targeted,
challenging learning opportunities that provide the best environments for the education of gifted
learners. This study attempted to merge research in these two areas (motivation and challenge)
through an analysis of the value and importance that students place on the elements of a
differentiated curriculum to help them independently accomplish tasks across the disciplines.
According to Grabinger and Dunap (1995), the demonstration of knowledge in a single
context, domain, or content area was “not sufficient to remain competitive in a complex world”
(p. 5). The need for flexible problem solvers and individuals who could think critically,
synthesize information, and work productively with others was desired in both collegiate and
career institutions (Grabinger & Dunlap, 1995). The ability to consciously and strategically
apply abstract knowledge and/or strategies learned in one situation to another (high-road
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

74
transfer) was essential in meeting the skills outlined for 21
st
Century learning and the
development of self-regulatory behaviors. Table 2.6 outlined the connection that existed
between the characteristics of self-regulated learners, the features of high-road (PFL) transfer,
and the 21
st
Century Skills. The close, and at times, exact parallel between the three categories
underscored the importance of teaching to transfer in the development of self-regulated, 21
st

century learners and thinkers.

Table 2.6
Alignment of Self-Regulatory Behaviors to PFL Transfer and 21
st
Century Skills
Characteristics of SRB Characteristics of PFL Transfer 21
st
Century Skills
Tolerate ambiguity Work effectively in a climate of
ambiguity and changing
priorities Knowledge of learning
style
Engage in self-assessment Refine and evaluate ideas in
order to improve performance
Let go of past assumptions Use various types of reasoning
appropriate to the situation
Motivated to succeed
Seek alternative perspectives Open and responsive to diverse
perspectives
Make use of resources Manage the flow of information
from a wide variety of sources
Task Commitment
Set and maintain goals Set goals with tangible and
intangible success criteria
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

75
In summary, the development of self-regulated behaviors was essential in cultivating the
potential of identified gifted learners and in creating competitive members of a global society.
Research illustrated that learning environments were critical component in building and
strengthening gifted learners’ inherent locus of control. Inquiry-based pedagogical practices and
elements of a differentiated curriculum (defined in the above section) were implemented in the
classroom to promote self-regulation and the development of an internal locus of control in
gifted learners. Despite the relevance of implementing a differentiated curriculum on the part of
educational researchers, administrators, and teachers of the gifted, little was known about how
gifted students’ value and were utilizing such a curriculum. Additional research was needed that
emphasized the internal and personal connections that gifted students made with the elements of
a differentiated curriculum. In order to create learning environments that better promoted the
self-regulated use of the elements of a differentiated curriculum by gifted learners, information
on the degree to which gifted students value this curriculum and used it to accomplish tasks was
needed. This study attempted to contribute to the field and to the creation of more targeted
curriculum for gifted learners by gathering this information and by engaging in discussions with
gifted students about how and why they learn.
Conclusion
This study attempted to shed light on an area of differentiated curriculum for gifted
learners rarely discussed in the literature. Curriculum for gifted learners was developed, piloted,
and implemented based on sound theory surrounding (a) the characteristics of gifted learners, (b)
the tenets of gifted programming, and (c) research-based pedagogical practices or models of
teaching. However, little research was conducted to determine how gifted students, the ultimate
consumers of the differentiated curriculum, were utilizing the curriculum designed for them.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

76
The study of such a viewpoint could be an important contribution to the literature on innovative
ways to (a) better develop differentiated curriculum for gifted learners, (b) utilize
implementation strategies that better match how gifted students think, and (c) create more
effective lines of communication between teachers and gifted students in regards to their learning
needs.
Currently, research surrounding students’ value for differentiated curriculum was not
conducted. In a survey of empirical studies published during 1998-2012, researchers Dai,
Swanson, and Cheng (2011) discussed the state of research on giftedness and gifted education.
Their results indicated that out of the 1,234 entries for empirical studies published between 1998-
2010, only 63 related to curriculum developed to meet the needs of gifted learners. The general
term “differentiation” accounted for 35 entries and “instruction for the gifted” totaled 70. The
largest area of publication, with 164 entries focused on the area of self-concept and motivation.
Importantly, the researchers concluded that only 10% of the articles “cut across both
psychological and educational categories” (Dai, Swanson, & Cheng, 2011, p. 137). Their
findings suggested that the field could benefit from research that is interdisciplinary in design
and use-inspired in application. This study could contribute to the 10% of cross-disciplinary
studies by bridging the gap between curriculum, instruction, and student value.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

77
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This research study addressed the relationship that exists between the elements of a
differentiated curriculum for gifted learners (Universal Concepts, Big Ideas, Depth and
Complexity, Thinking Like a Disciplinarian) and a students’ ability to transfer those elements to
new situations or contexts. The study built upon and extended the Models of Teaching grant
(PR#S26A040072) and Project Linking Learning grant (PR#S26A090045) awarded to Dr.
Sandra Kaplan and funded by the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Education Act, U.S.
Department of Education. The main thrust behind the Javits Act was the identification (and
service) of students who were traditionally underrepresented nationwide in gifted and talented
programs. The grant particularly targeted students who were economically disadvantaged,
limited-English proficient, and disabled (academically, socially, emotionally) with the goal of
reducing gaps in achievement and encouraging the establishment of “equal opportunities for all
students “ (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Funding for the Javits grants provided
resources for programs that (a) facilitated the identification of students of diversity as potentially
gifted learners, (b) sustained the active participation and academic success of students who have
been identified as gifted but may not be fully utilizing their potential, and (c) fostered the further
development of gifted achieving students.
This research study aligned with the curricular ideas, lessons, and population outlined in
the mission and charge of the Javits Education Act, and analyzed the needs, interests, and
abilities of gifted learners from a curricular standpoint. According to the National Association
for Gifted Children (2008), gifted and high-ability learners accounted for over 10% of the
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

78
student population in the public school system. Totaling nearly three million students
nationwide, the academic, social, and developmental needs of this unique subgroup must be
addressed. An extensive review of the literature determined that gifted education
comprehensively analyzed the required elements of a differentiated curriculum from an
educators’ perspective. Missing from the research was an understanding of how gifted students
interact with, internalize, and transfer specific elements of a differentiated curriculum from one
curricular situation to another. This study contributed to the development of curriculum
designed to target the needs of gifted learners and the relationship that existed between the
implementation of a differentiated curriculum and a students’ transfer of those curricular
elements to new situations (events) and contexts (the sphere in which the event exists).
Statement of the Problem
The utilization and application of prior knowledge on new situations and contexts was
defined as transfer (De Corte, 2003). Teaching specifically to high-road transfer, or the
conscious application of knowledge from one situation to another (Woolfolk, 2007), required
that students be provided with curricular opportunities that move beyond knowing that a variety
of skills and content exist, to knowing how, when, and under what conditions they can be used.
Knowing how to think critically, creatively, and analytically were foundational tenets that define
aspects of the gifted learner. Sternberg and Davidson (2005) contended that one of the main
goals behind the development of a differentiated curriculum for gifted learners was the transfer
of knowledge, skills, and conceptual understandings between and across the disciplines. One
example was the transfer of a big idea presented in science to other content areas such as
mathematics, history, and English Language Arts. Past research documented the importance of
teaching to transfer for both general and gifted students. However, limited research existed on
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

79
exactly how gifted learners are transferring the elements of a differentiated curriculum to new
situations. Specifically, this dissertation focused on a targeted examination of how gifted
students manipulated and interacted with the elements of a differentiated curriculum to engage in
high-road transfer. Such a connection between differentiated curriculum for gifted learners and
high-road transfer has not been studied.
Research Questions
This mixed-methods study attempted to answer the research questions listed below. The
main purpose behind a mixed-methods approach to research was to capitalize on the areas of
strength inherent in both quantitative and qualitative methodology (Salkind, 2011). According to
Salkind (2011), a benefit of quantitative research was its ability to generate and construct new
knowledge through an examination of cause and effect relationships. Although the use of
quantitative methods helped determine if a relationship existed between differentiated curricular
items and student transfer, it did not, on its own, provide information on how or why the
relationship occurred. The integration of qualitative methodology into the research design
helped to answer these questions. Qualitative methods extended, elaborated, and enhanced the
numerical data collected by capturing the personal experiences, memories, thoughts, and actions
of the study participants (Patton, 2002).
Patton (2002) contended that the major challenge to conducting research was in the
development of a methodological structure to target and organize mass amounts of data. The use
of both quantitative and qualitative methods in this research study allowed for numerical patterns
in the data to emerge, and for descriptive findings to triangulate the data through trends and
themes. According to Creswell (2007), the benefits of mixed-methods research were more than
the ability to collect and analyze both types of data; it utilized both approaches in tandem so that
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

80
the overall strength of the study was “greater than either quantitative or qualitative research
alone” (p. 4).
Research Questions:
 How do gifted students perceive the importance (relevance, value) of transferring
acquired elements of a differentiated curriculum from one situation or context to
another?
 What are the instructional strategies that facilitate gifted students’ abilities to transfer
the elements of a differentiated curriculum from one situation or context to another?
 How do different disciplines facilitate gifted students’ abilities to transfer the
elements of a differentiated curriculum?
Hypotheses
Based on a review of the existing literature surrounding transfer and differentiated
curriculum, several hypotheses were developed. The research on transfer conducted by
Bransford and Schwarts (1999) and the seminal research on curriculum design articulated by
Taba (1962) shaped the belief that the transfer of curricular elements was contextual. Broudy’s
(1997) examination of applicative knowledge supported the idea that individuals successful in
transfer continuously reshaped their understandings based upon their contextual interactions with
the world. Moon and Brighton’s (2008) description of the characteristics of giftedness supported
the hypothesis that gifted learners possessed many of the criteria required for the high-road
transfer of knowledge and skills: seeking alternative perspectives, tolerating ambiguity, and
letting go of past assumptions. This study was based on the hypothesis that gifted learners were
transferring the elements of a differentiated curriculum to accomplish tasks and examined the
disciplines and instructional strategies that facilitated this transfer.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

81
Although it was hypothesized that that gifted students were transferring the elements of a
differentiated curriculum to meet accomplish core content and real-world tasks, this hypothesis
articulated the following assumptions:
 Gifted students were sufficiently taught the elements of a differentiated curriculum in
at least one or more situations, contexts, discipline areas.
 The amount of opportunities provided to gifted learners to utilize the elements of a
differentiated curriculum on their own varied between classroom teachers.
 Teachers of gifted students were designing learning experiences with the ultimate
goal of helping students reach the high-road transfer of knowledge and skills.
Design Summary
As summarized in Chapter 2, the importance of teaching to high-road transfer and the use
of a differentiated curriculum to meet the developmental, academic, social, and personal needs of
gifted learners were well documented. The California Department of Education (2005) standards
for gifted learners stated that an “advanced, interdisciplinary, and accelerated” curriculum was
crucial to targeting the characteristics of gifted students that think “more rapidly, more deeply,
and with more complexity” then their peer group (p. 25). The data collection model (described
below) was designed to sequentially and systematically target the three variables articulated in
the research questions: the elements of a differentiated curriculum instructed by the classroom
teacher, the perceptions of gifted learners related to the transfer of differentiated curricular
elements, and the contexts that best facilitate student transfer of a differentiated curriculum. The
steps for data collection and the rationale for each step were outlined in Table 3.1.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

82
Table 3.1
Data Collection Procedure
Step #1 – Background
Information
Survey the teachers of the gifted learners selected for
participation in the study to obtain background information
on: (a) how the elements of a differentiated curriculum were
presented to students, (b) the frequency of their use in the
classroom during learning experiences, and (c) the degree of
teaching prompting about how they are to be used.
Step #2 – Student Survey on
Transfer of Curricular Elements
Survey gifted learners at the school site to determine which
(a) elements of a differentiated curriculum students have
been exposed to, (b) which subject areas students learned
the elements of a differentiated curriculum, and (c) how
confident students feel using the elements of a differentiated
curriculum to help them learn new material.
Step #3 – Student Performance-
Based Assessment
Work in small groups with gifted learners to administer the
performance-based assessment and interview protocol. The
performance-based assessment will provide students with
the opportunity to use the elements of a differentiated
curriculum to analyze, understand, and interpret new
information.

This mixed-methods study included a quantitative analysis of a closed-ended survey that
measured the elements of a differentiated curriculum most often presented by teachers and
transferred by students. Qualitative data in the form of individual performance-based
assessments as well as anecdotal observations of the students added a human component to the
statistical data and highlighted the perceptions of the participants in their own words.
Specifically, the qualitative data obtained from the performance-based assessment and the
interviews extended the Likert-type questions on the close-ended survey and illuminated the
meta-cognitative process students engaged in when transferring the elements of a differentiated
curriculum. The design employed a “concurrent mixed methods” procedure that merged
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

83
quantitative and qualitative data to provide a comprehensive analysis of the research questions
(Creswell, 2007, p. 14). According to Creswell (2007), this method of research collected both
forms of data simultaneously to address process and outcome oriented questions. The alignment
between research questions and methodology are outlined in Table 3.2. The specifics of each
methodological approach were described in detail below.

Table 3.2
Alignment between Research Questions and Methodology
Research Questions Method Targeted Goal
What are the instructional strategies that
facilitate gifted students’ abilities to transfer
the elements of a differentiated curriculum
from one situation and context to another?
Quantitative Outcome
Broad numeric trends
How do gifted students perceive the
importance (relevance, value) of transferring
acquired elements of a differentiated
curriculum from one situation and context to
another?
Qualitative Process
Detailed descriptions
and views
How do different disciplines most facilitate
gifted students’ abilities to transfer the
elements of a differentiated curriculum?
Qualitative Outcome
General patterns

Quantitative Design Summary
The quantitative portion of this study included survey design and analyzed the numeric
trends of a sample population. The purpose of survey research was to generalize from a sample
population so that inferences could be made about some attitude, characteristic, or behavior of
the population at large (Babbie, 1990). Quantitative data was collected in the form of a closed-
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

84
ended questionnaire that was self-administered on the part of the teachers, and proctored in small
groups with students. The study included a statistical analysis of the survey results and measured
the degree to which students felt confident in applying the elements of a differentiated
curriculum to accomplish core content and real-world tasks. Frequency scores were examined to
determine which discipline area(s): (a) were favored by teachers in the presentation of the
curricular elements, and (b) were most often utilized by gifted students in the transfer of
curricular elements.
A simple Likert scale was used in the questionnaire to measure the elements of a
differentiated curriculum students’ preferred to use when confronted with a new task or problem.
A survey was the selected (and preferred) method of data collection for three main reasons: (a) it
allowed for the representation and organization of descriptive statistics, (b) it allowed for
inferences to be drawn from a small group of data to a larger one, and (c) it allowed for a
relationship to be reflected between two different factors: elements of a differentiated curriculum
and student transfer (Patton, 2002). Data for this study was collected in a cross-sectional
manner, at one point in time during the school year, rather than longitudinally over time.
Qualitative Design Summary
Patton (2002) contended that qualitative designs helped “tell a story” of what occurred
from the beginning to the end (p. 439). Qualitative data was captured in this study in two ways:
individual performance-based assessments conducted with students in small groups and
anecdotal observations obtained by the researcher as students were completing their assessment.
The use of multiple, qualitative data sources, allowed for themes that cut across all of the data
sources to emerge (Creswell, 2007). To support the student participants in this study, the
research was conducted in the natural environment of the school. The use of a familiar setting
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

85
helped put participants at ease, and allowed for an observation of their behavior and actions
within their natural context. The performance-based assessments were conducted with students
in small groups of 4-6 students during the regular school day. The data collected was analyzed
for the patterns, trends, and themes that emerged in response to how gifted students were
transferring the elements of a differentiated curriculum to accomplish tasks across the
disciplines.
Population & Site Locations
Patton (2002) contended that the first step in conducting research was to gain clarity
surrounding the selection, assignment, and number of participants who took part in the study. In
a true quantitative experiment, the generalizability of the study was controlled by randomly
selecting a sample representative of the population at large (Morse, 1999). This study however,
used purposeful sampling measures to obtain its program participants. In order to be considered
for participation in this study, schools, teachers, and students met the detailed criteria outlined in
Table 3.3.
Purposeful sampling was required in this study in order to meet the goals and stipulations
of the Javits grant that targeted the provision of services for students of economic, linguistic,
cultural, and ethnic diversity.
Based on the criteria listed above, a school sites was selected for participation in this
study. The school site was located in a large urban center and serviced students of one or more
forms of diversity: economic, linguistic, cultural, and religious. A combination of data from the
California Department of Education, the California Census Bureau, and the local district office
provided the details related to (a) Title I status, (b) student demographics, (c) school API and
APY scores, (d) and average family income level. Table 3.4 provided an overview of the district
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

86
and school selected for participation in the study. The unique attributes, features, and
contributions of this district and specific school site are described in further detail below.

Table 3.3
Purposeful Sampling Criteria
Schools Teachers Students
 Recognized as a School for
Advanced Studies within
LAUSD or containing a
formal GATE program
 Located in an urban center
 Documented Title 1 status
 Contains a diverse
(linguistic, cultural, ethnic)
population of students
 Approved GATE plan
 Utilizes cluster grouping
strategies for gifted learners
 Participated in a Department
of Education, Jacob Javits
grant within the last two-
eight years
 Participated in a Department
of Education, Jacob Javits
grant within the last two-
eight years
 Implements differentiated
curriculum in their
classroom to meet the needs
of gifted learners
 Receive professional
development in
differentiation and gifted
education strategies
 Teachers in grades three
through five
 Current has identified gifted
learners in their classroom
 Located within grades three
through five
 Documented “gifted” status
within the school/district
 Identified as “potentially
gifted” and is awaiting a
formal gifted referral
 Signed all required parent
permission slips

Table 3.4
Targeted Population Sites

Location
Areas of
Diversity
Gifted
Program
Level of
Experience
Dearborn
Elementary School
Northridge, CA Economic
Linguistic
Cultural
Formal Gifted
certification
Javits
participation
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

87
Los Angeles Unified School District
The Los Angeles Unified School district was the second largest school district in the
country. The district serviced over 640,000 students in grades kindergarten through twelve.
LAUSD encompassed 900 schools (elementary, middle, and high), and 564 of those schools met
the requirements for Title I status. The district was also diverse in terms of its academic,
linguistic, and cultural make-up of students. Table 3.5 provided an overview of the student
demographics in LAUSD. The district formally identified 65,543 as gifted learners and serviced
them through three different methods: (a) a central office of Gifted and Talented Education, (b)
Schools for Advanced Studies and magnet schools for gifted learners, and (c) individual
classroom teachers with professional development training and certificates in gifted education.

Table 3.5
LAUSD Student Demographics
Ethnicity Number of Students Percentage of Students
Hispanic 497,583 73.2%
African American 69,143 10.2%
Caucasian 64,204 9.5%
Asian 40,266 5.9%
American Indian/Alaskan 2,695 0.4%
Pacific Islander 2,368 0.3%
Filipino 1,279 0.2%
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

88
Dearborn Elementary School
Dearborn Elementary School (DES) is a grade K-5 school located in Northridge,
California. DES resided in Local District 1, one of eight districts contained within the Los
Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). DES was a neighborhood school that serviced a
diverse student population comprised of Caucasian, Hispanic, African American, Filipino, Asian,
and other nationalities. Families represented a wide spectrum of economic backgrounds, with
47% of the students qualifying for free and reduced lunch programs. Languages spoken within
the school and community included English, Spanish, Armenian, Tagalog, Korean, Farsi, and
Russian. Since 2004, DES has offered a School for Advanced Studies program designed to
enhance the grade-level curriculum to meet the needs of students identified as high ability or
intellectually gifted. Data collected at DES added strength to the study because it represented a
location where the teachers were specifically trained and certified in differentiating curriculum
for gifted learners, and the students were provided with many and varied opportunities to
practice these skills and concepts.
The procedure for identifying individual student participants from the selected districts
and/or schools was standardized. An invitation and cover letter detailing the rationale for and
tenets of the research was sent to the principals of the school. It is important to note that the
principal for the selected school site participated in past research projects conducted by Dr.
Sandra Kaplan, was receptive to grant programs and university-led research in her school, and
was supportive of gifted education and differentiated curriculum models. With the principals’
consent, invitations (emails & paper copy) were extended to the classroom teachers who met the
research criteria. Specifically, teachers had identified gifted students in their classroom,
implemented elements of a differentiated curriculum on a daily basis, and taught in grade levels
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

89
three through five. Teachers also agreed to complete a background questionnaire, allowed
research team members to walk-through their classrooms, and provided time for their students to
complete program requirements (survey and performance-based assessment). Once a list of
consenting teachers was established, an invitation letter was mailed home to all of the identified
gifted students in class. All students whose parents/guardians signed the required permission
slips comprised the final population of the study. See Appendix D for the parent permission slip.
The target population consisted of two classroom teachers and 45 gifted students. Figure
3.1 documented the selection procedure for study participants.

Figure 3.1. Selection procedure for study population
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

90
Instruments
This study attempted to analyze the relationship that existed between the elements written
into a differentiated curriculum and a gifted learners’ ability to transfer those elements to new
contexts and situations. Additionally, student perceptions were examined to articulate the values
and importance of the transfer of the elements of a differentiated curriculum to students’ future
learning and their development into self-regulated scholars. These elements were addressed
through a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods dictated by the research questions.
According to Patton (2002), the purposes of the research question(s) must strategically align with
the study’s purpose, intended audience, and the method of evaluation. The alignment between
the research questions and the data collection instruments were outlined in Table 3.6. Overviews
of the quantitative and qualitative data collection instruments were presented below.

Table 3.6
Alignment between Research Question and Data Collection Instrument
Research Question Instrument Methodology
What are the instructional strategies
that facilitate gifted students’ abilities
to transfer the elements of a
differentiated curriculum from one
context and situation to another?
Teacher Implementation Survey
Student Transfer Survey
Student Performance-Based
Assessment
Quantitative
Qualitative
How do gifted students perceive the
importance (relevance, value) of
transferring acquired elements of a
differentiated curriculum from one
context and situation to another?
Student Transfer Survey
Student Performance-Based
Assessment
Quantitative
Qualitative
How do different disciplines most
facilitate gifted students’ abilities to
transfer the elements of a
differentiated curriculum?
Student Performance-Based
Assessment
Qualitative
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

91
A Teacher Survey (Appendix A), a Student Survey (Appendix B), and a Student
Performance-Based Assessment (Appendix C) were used to measure three factors (research
questions) that contributed to the relationship between the elements of a differentiated
curriculum for gifted learners and the transfer of those elements to accomplish tasks: (a) the
content area disciplines used to activate the elements, (b) the instructional strategies used to
present the elements, and (c) personal relevance to the teacher and/or student. Table 3.7 outlined
the overlap between the three research questions posed in this study and the questions in the
Teacher and Student Survey.

Table 3.7
Relationship between Research Questions and Data Collection Instruments
Research Question #1 Research Question #2 Research Question #3
Teacher
Survey
Question #5
Question #6
Question #14
Question #22
Question #30
Question #38
Question #4
Question #8 & 9
Question #12 & 13
Question #16 & 17
Question #20 & 21
Question #24 & 25
Question #28 & 29
Question #32 & 33
Question #36 & 37
Question #10 & 11
Question 18 & 19
Question # 26 & 27
Question # 34 & 35
Student
Survey
Question #7 & 8
Question #12 & 13
Question #17 & 18
Question #22 & 23
Question #3
Question #6
Question #11
Question #16
Question #21
Question #2
Question #5
Question #10
Question #15
Question #20
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

92
Quantitative data related to each of these areas was obtained from the surveys in the form
of closed-ended questions and Likert scales. Anecdotal notes taken by the researcher
accompanied the Student Performance-Based Assessment. The notes extended and elaborated
the behaviors exhibited by gifted students as they manipulated elements of a differentiated
curriculum. The following were specific details of the instruments as they related to the three
areas outlined in the research questions.
Content Area Disciplines
The content area disciplines that most facilitate gifted students’ abilities to transfer the
elements of a differentiated curriculum were measured in the Teacher Implementation Survey
and the Student Transfer Survey. This section of the survey included questions related to the
alignment between the various content areas: mathematics, science, social studies, and Language
Arts, and the elements of a differentiated curriculum. These questions attempted to analyze (a)
which elements were being used in which discipline areas, (b) which discipline areas aided in the
transfer of which curriculum elements, and (c) which disciplines were the teachers using to
present the elements of a differentiated curriculum to students. Data collected from these
questions was quantitative in nature, and was used to analyze the relationship between the
responses of the teacher and the students in their classroom. Additionally, qualitative follow-up
questions regarding the content area disciplines that students felt aided in their ability to transfer
the elements of a differentiated curriculum were included in the Student Performance-Based
Assessment.
Instructional Strategies
The instructional strategies used to present the elements of a differentiated curriculum to
gifted learners were analyzed in the teacher and student survey. Specifically, these question
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

93
items measured the teachers’ use of (a) models of teaching, and (b) multiple modalities of
learning. Items addressed the means by which the elements of a differentiated curriculum were
presented to students during a lesson or series of learning activities. Questions required both
teachers and students to identify the delivery method employed by the teacher in regards to the
presentation of each element of a differentiated curriculum. The design of several of these
questions was based off of the data collection instrument developed for the Models of Teaching
grant. Data related to this research question was collected quantitatively and analyzed in terms
of frequency and percentage scores. The Student Performance-Based Assessment required
students to apply the elements of a differentiated curriculum to new content in several discipline
areas and qualitatively evidenced patterns and trends in students’ transfer of the elements.
Personal Importance
As noted in Chapter 2, personal importance was connected directly with self-efficacy and
self-regulatory behaviors. The relationship between how students value the importance of
transferring the elements of a differentiated curriculum and their actual ability to transfer the
elements was measured both quantitatively and qualitatively. Items on the Student Transfer
Survey were presented using a Likert scale that asked students to identify the value each element
of a differentiated curriculum had on their ability to learn new content. Questions in this section
of the survey were modeled after similar questions implemented in the Project Linking Learning
grant. Follow-up questions on the Student Performance-Based Assessment directly targeted how
the transfer of differentiated curriculum elements impacted student learning, why students
utilized some elements over others, and the rationale behind their instructional choices.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

94
Data Analysis
Quantitative Data Analysis
The Teacher Survey and the Student Performance Assessment served as the primary
sources of quantitative data related to the disciplines and instructional strategies that facilitated
student transfer of differentiated curriculum elements. Frequency and percentage scores were
used to determine the disciplines and instructional strategies most often used by teachers in the
delivery of these elements, and by students in the transfer of these elements. A correlation
between teacher and student responses was analyzed to determine if a relationship existed
between the method of delivery and the frequency of student transfer. Teachers completed their
survey electronically via Survey Monkey. The collected data was exported from Survey Monkey
and consolidated into an Excel spreadsheet for easy entry into SPSS. Student participants
manually completed the survey using paper and pencil methods. The researcher entered all
student responses into the SPSS system.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Qualitative data for this study was collected from the responses to the Student
Performance-Based Assessment. The primary source of qualitative data was gathered from in-
depth, individual Performance-Based Assessments and from observations while students
completed their assessment. Data from the Performance-Based Assessments was transcribed and
analyzed for reoccurring patterns, trends, and themes. According to Patton (2002), qualitative
data can be analyzed thematically by recognizing the patterns that emerge from the seemingly
random pieces of information. Key words gathered from the open-ended questions were
organized into larger themes and/or topics that aligned with the three research questions.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

95
Patterns related to how, why, and under what conditions gifted students transferred the elements
of a differentiated curriculum were generated.
Limitations
A mixed-methods approach was necessary in this study, as significant limitations existed
in the implementation of both quantitative and qualitative methodology. Although the study was
designed to maximize the reliability of the results, threats to its validity still occurred. The three
main limitations to this study were: (a) the use of invalidated data collection instruments, (b) the
purposeful selection of participants (district and school site), and (c) the researcher as an
instrument. Each of these limitations was described in detail below. It is important to note that
although these exist as limitations, they also offer strength to the study and were created with
specific intent and purpose.
Interval Validity of the Instruments
Limitations to quantitative research revolved around threats to the validity and reliability
of the data collection instrument. According to Salkind (2011), a data collection instrument was
reliable if its results could be sustained over time and across locations, and valid if it actually
measured what it was supposed to. In most cases, the process of establishing the reliability and
validity of any data collection instrument takes “years of intensive work” and numerous research
studies (Salkind, 2011, p. 122). This study acknowledged that data was collected using
internally constructed measures that had not undergone pervious pilot testing. Although the
outcomes obtained from the data collection instruments were not substantiated directly by past
research studies, it did not invalidate the findings. Precedent for the format of the data collection
instrument existed and was used successfully on previous Department of Education, Jacob Javits
grants. This study was designed to analyze the relationship between gifted students and their
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

96
ability to transfer the elements of a differentiated curriculum to accomplish tasks. To date, no
method of data collection exists that targeted all the elements of a differentiated curriculum in a
performance-based approach to analyze the degree of student transfer. This made it necessary
for the creation and implementation of such an instrument in this study.
The Purposeful Selection of Participants
In methodology, the generalizability of a study was ensured by randomly selecting a
sample (participants) representative of the population at large (Morse, 1999). The use of
purposeful sampling in this study indicated that, as opposed to random sampling, the interest lay
in analyzing only a subset of the population at large. The specific and well-defined set of criteria
for participation (detailed above) ensured (a) that participants had the prerequisite knowledge of
differentiated curriculum necessary to answer the survey questions, and (b) that they resided in
schools and/or classrooms where opportunities to practice the transfer of these skills was
provided. Although the study acknowledged that the ability to generalize the results from gifted
to general education students was compromised, the sample (n=45) population was over the
threshold necessary for determining statistical significance. This study aimed to contribute to a
deeper understanding of how curriculum developed for gifted learners was actually being utilized
and transferred by this audience. Thus, the use of purposeful sampling was required to target for
participation in this study the district, school, teachers, and students engaged in the consistent use
of the elements of differentiated curriculum.
The Researcher as an Instrument
According to Patton (2002), the researcher was the central instrument or method of data
collection in qualitative methodology. Limitations and potential areas of bias surrounding the
researcher as the instrument focused on three main areas: the truthfulness of the participants, the
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

97
development of “loaded” questions, and the “outsider status” of the researcher. In qualitative
methods, the researcher was more concerned with accurately representing the experiences of the
participants than with collecting valid measurements of “testable variables” (Vishnevsky &
Beanlands, 2004, p. 237). Truthfulness in qualitative research was therefore relative and
contingent upon the accurate observations of the researcher as well as the open and honest
responses of the participants. This study was limited by the fact that the researcher was
responsible for observing and coding the results of the Performance-Based Assessment. The
potential of the researcher to unintentionally influence the answers of the students was a
limitation to this study.
The unintentional creation of “loaded” questions in the data collection instrument was a
second limitation of this research study. Patton (2002) contended that “preconceptions and
biases” (p. 21) on the part of the researcher could prevent them from creating open-ended
questions that allowed participants to respond in a way that represented “accurately and
thoroughly” (p. 21) their point of view on the program. This study was limited by the
researchers’ interpretation of the responses on the Performance-Based Assessment. Finally, this
study was limited by the fact that in the act of observation, the researcher unintentionally
influenced the direction of the conversation (Patton, 2002). The researcher’s presence at the
school may have affected the authenticity of students’ responses to the survey and how the data
collection instruments captured their actual knowledge and transfer of the elements of a
differentiated curriculum.
Despite these limitations, the researcher as instrument added strength to the study.
Designers outside the classroom typically wrote curriculum with little follow-up as to how it was
being implemented by teachers and transferred by students to accomplish tasks. In addition, very
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

98
rarely were curriculum designers provided with the opportunity to speak directly with the
students about how they accessed the curriculum, what impact it had on their learning, and what
value felt it played in their development as a learner. The researcher as instrument in this study
was provided with such an opportunity and had the potential to collect data that could present a
research-based, students’ perspective on differentiated curriculum. The impact and influence of
the student testimony in regards to the development of more effective curriculum for gifted
learners was considered during the data analysis.
The strengths and limitations of the data collection methodology impacted the
conclusions drawn from the research questions stated at the beginning of the study. The
conclusions, findings, and impact of the research on the future development of curriculum for
gifted learners were presented in Chapter 4.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

99
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
This study examined the relationship between the elements of a differentiated curriculum
and students’ abilities to transfer those elements to new situations or contexts. Differentiation, as
defined by the literature in the field of gifted education, was a pedagogical rather then an
organizational approach to modifying or adapting the core curriculum (Tomlinson et al., 2003).
According to Tomlinson (1999) and Kaplan (2005), differentiating the core curriculum to meet
the aptitudes and academic needs of individual students within a classroom could be
accomplished by creating learning experiences that modify the basic curricular content, the
teaching methods, the resources, the thinking skills, and/or the student products. The California
Association for the Gifted and the California Department of Education (2001, 2005) articulated a
set of tenets or instructional tools necessary to differentiate the curriculum to specifically meet
the academic, social, and developmental needs of gifted learners. This list included the use of
differentiated curricular elements such as Universal Concepts, Big Ideas, Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian, and the prompts of Depth and Complexity. Research conducted by Dodds (2010)
and Javits grants Models of Teaching (PR#S26A040072) dates 2004-2010, and Project Linking
Learning (PR#S26A090045) dates 2009-2012 indicated that teachers of the gifted utilized the
elements of a differentiated curriculum in the development of their lesson plans, and were
explicitly teaching these strategies to students as a means of generating deeper understandings of
the core content. However, the degree to which students were able to utilize these elements
independently, without the prompting of their teacher, to accomplish a task in newly introduced
subject matter across various discipline areas has remained unexamined. This study attempted to
address the gap in this area of curriculum development and implementation for gifted learners.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

100
The transfer of learning occurred when information, knowledge, or skills learned in one
context are utilized successfully in other contexts or situations (Perkins & Salomon, 1992). In
today’s fast-paced, technologically driven, global society, the ability of students to transfer and
of teachers to teach for transfer was paramount. Grabinger and Dunlap (1995) contended that
simply “knowing how to use tools and knowledge in a single domain is insufficient” to remain
competitive (p. 5). Research conducted by Bransford and Schwartz (1999) validated the need for
generative knowledge and argued that the better-prepared students were for future learning, the
greater the likelihood that the transfer of knowledge and skills would occur. The challenge for
educators in the field of gifted education was to create curriculum that differentiates the core
content in ways that promote independent thinking and metacognitive practices in students. This
study attempted to analyze how the elements of a differentiated curriculum for gifted learners
were being used as metacognitive strategies to accomplish tasks in a variety of familiar and
unfamiliar situations.
Although the literature was replete with general studies on the transfer of knowledge and
skills, and definitions and applications of differentiated curriculum for the gifted, an
amalgamation of the two had not yet been examined. Thus, this mixed methods study analyzed
(a) how students transferred elements of a differentiated curriculum such as Universal Concepts,
Big Ideas, Thinking Like a Disciplinarian, and the prompts of Depth and Complexity, and (b)
valued them as contributors to their independent understanding of both previously learned and
new content. This study aimed to answer the research questions below and identify the elements
and reasons students were utilizing them as metacognitive tools for thinking and learning.
This study utilized multiple data points in an attempt to minimize the limitations and
maximize the strengths of the data collected to provide a comprehensive response to the research
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

101
questions that included both quantitative and qualitative interpretations. The research questions
analyzed in this study were:
 How do gifted students perceive the importance (relevance, value) of transferring
acquired elements of a differentiated curriculum from one situation or context to
another?
 What are the instructional strategies that facilitate gifted students’ abilities to transfer
the elements of a differentiated curriculum from one situation or context to another?
 How do different disciplines facilitate gifted students’ abilities to transfer the
elements of a differentiated curriculum?
This chapter reported the results of the study and was prefaced with an extension of the
methodology articulated in Chapter Three. A description of the participants followed to provide
a contextual understanding of the targeted population and a justification for their relevance to the
original research questions. The results were presented according to research question and
further stratified into salient and/or reoccurring themes. The chapter concluded with a summary
of the results and a discussion of how these key findings connected to the original purpose and
problems of the research study.
Methodology
Data for this study was gathered using a purposeful sampling model. The school site
was chosen based on the fact that it was (a) a public elementary school located in the urban
center of Los Angeles, (b) classified as a Title I school containing an economic, linguistic, and
culturally diverse student body, (c) designated a School for Advanced Studies (SAS) and had a
documented gifted program that spanned grades K-5, and (d) home to a principal and a set of
classroom teachers that were past participants of Javits grants programs and had received
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

102
extensive training in both gifted education and the use of the elements of a differentiated
curriculum utilized in this study.
Teacher Demographics
Two classroom teachers were purposefully selected for participation in the study from the
entire teaching staff at the school site. These teachers were chosen because they had experience
teaching gifted students and had identified gifted learners in their classroom. Table 4.1 outlines
the characteristics of Classroom Teacher A and Classroom Teacher B.

Table 4.1
Characteristics of Teacher Participants
Teacher A Teacher B
Grade Level 4 5
Number of Years in Education 20 10
Number of Years Teaching the Gifted 12 6
Number of Identified GATE Students in your
Classroom
15 17
Training Obtained Five Year grant
participant
A series of workshops
with University of
Southern California

Classroom teachers A and B were purposefully selected for participation in the study
because their principal recommended them as teachers who contained “excellent prior
knowledge” regarding the elements of a differentiated curriculum. On a Likert scale ranging
from never to often, both teachers stated that they often utilized the elements of Universal
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

103
Concepts, Big Idea, Thinking Like a Disciplinarian, and the prompts of Depth and Complexity.
Both teacher participants (n=2) asserted that they often: (a) modified the district adopted
curriculum to meet the needs of gifted learners, (b) created instructional experiences that
combined multiple elements of a differentiated curriculum, (c) utilized the elements of a
differentiated curriculum with lessons across the content areas, and (d) provided opportunities
for students to show what they know about the elements of a differentiated curriculum. Teachers
A and B also agreed that they often provided opportunities for students to practice transferring
the elements of a differentiated curriculum. Finally, teachers A and B were purposefully selected
for participation in this study due to their high level of assuredness in embedding the elements of
a differentiated curriculum in their daily teaching practice. Table 4.2 documents the levels of
self-assuredness of the teacher participants as they pertain to the elements of a differentiated
curriculum.

Table 4.2
Self-Reported Assuredness Levels with the Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum
No
Assuredness
Little
Assuredness
Somewhat
Self-Assured Quite Self-Assured
Universal
Concepts
TA = 100% TB = 100%
Big Ideas TA = 100% TB = 100%
Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian
TA = 100% TB = 100%
Depth and
Complexity
TA = 100% TB = 100%
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

104
Student Demographics
Student participants in this study were selected using purposeful sampling. Formally
identified gifted students in Classroom A and Classroom B were invited to participate and were
provided with the required consent and permission slip documents. High ability learners
awaiting the assessment to be identified as “gifted” were also asked to participate. Forty-five
students were invited to participate in the study, and 100% of the student study population
(n=45) completed 100% of the research requirements: Student Survey and Student Performance
Assessment. Table 4.3 presented an overview of the demographic descriptors of the student
participants.

Table 4.3
Demographic Descriptors of Student Participants
Identified GATE Students N Percent
Classroom A Grade 4 14 41.1%
Classroom B Grade 5 17 50.0%
High Ability Students
Classroom A Grade 4 0 0
Classroom B Grade 5 17 50%
Total Student Participants
Classroom A Grade 4 14 31.1%
Classroom B Grade 5 31 68.9%
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

105
Of interest to this study was the student participants’ longevity in the SAS (School for
Advanced Studies) program. According to Perkins and Salomon (1993), transfer was dependent
upon some degree of “local knowledge” regarding the intended transfer item. The school site
utilized in this study had an SAS program that began in kindergarten and spiraled through the
fifth grade. Students selected for participation in this study had between one and five years of
exposure to the elements of a differentiated curriculum due to their placement in the SAS
program and therefore, they were conversant in the elements of a differentiated curriculum.
Opportunities for repeated practice and exposure with the elements of a differentiated curriculum
across the grade levels included (a) teacher modeling of the individual elements, (b) asking and
answering questions using the elements, (c) completing tasks embedded with the elements, and
(d) engaging in the self-selection of elements to aid in individualized learning of the content.
Table 4.4 outlined the longevity of the student participants in the SAS program by grade level.

Table 4.4
Number of Years in the SAS Program
1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years
Grade 4 (n=14) 2 14% 1 7% 3 21% 7 50% 1 7%
Grade 5 (n=31) 2 7% 8 25% 4 13% 4 13% 13 42%

Instruments & Data Collection
Quantitative and qualitative instruments were used to provide a triangulated and
comprehensive picture of students’ abilities to transfer the elements of a differentiated
curriculum to new situations or contexts. The Teacher Survey and the Student Survey were
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

106
constructed using quantitative, Likert style questions and were reported in the form of
frequencies and percentages. The Teacher Survey was disseminated via email to the two
participating classroom teachers. The teachers placed their names on the survey and it was
cross-referenced with the surveys completed by their students. The Teacher Survey was
implemented for two main purposes: (a) to establish a baseline for the implementation of the
elements of a differentiated curriculum in the classroom, and (b) to provide a point of
comparison between the classroom teacher and the corresponding students in their class. Data
gathered from the Teacher Survey directly addressed and provided an additional means of
support to the findings generated for all research questions. Table 4.5 provided an example of
the alignment between a research question, a question developed for the Teacher Survey, and
literature in the field of education.

Table 4.5
Alignment of Research Question One to Teacher Survey and Supporting Literature
Research Question: How do gifted students perceive the importance (relevance, value) of transferring
acquired elements of a differentiated curriculum from one situation or context to another?
Teacher Survey Question Measurement Literature Support
Question #14 – I value the use of Universal
Concepts as a means of differentiating
curriculum for gifted learners.
Likert Scale:
disagree, somewhat agree,
agree, strongly agree
Dewey (1916)
Tyler (1949)
Stanley & Nelson (2012)
Question #22 – I believe that Big Ideas
facilitate and/or help students make
connections between and across the
disciplines.
Likert Scale:
disagree, somewhat agree,
agree, strongly agree
Ward (1961)
CAG (2001, 2005)
Question #30 – I witness students using the
prompts of Depth and Complexity in
disciplines other than the one I presented it
in.
Likert Scale:
disagree, somewhat agree,
agree, strongly agree
CAG (2001, 2005)
Kaplan (2005)
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

107
The Student Survey and the Student Performance Assessment were administered to small
groups of students in a pullout model. In groups of five, students met with the researcher in the
library and completed these instruments. The Student Survey and Student Performance
Assessment were pre-coded with a letter (either A or B) and a number. The letter was used to
represent the students’ classroom teacher and the number was used in place of the students’
name. The coding system ensured that the students completed the survey and performance
assessment anonymously and that no identifiable information was collected. The researcher
provided a scripted set of directions to the entire group of students. The use of scripted
directions attempted to standardize and equalize the process for all students and limited the
amount of extraneous variables affecting the data collection process. Students then worked
individually to complete both instruments. The majority of students completed their work in 35
minutes, with outliers ranging from 28 to 45 minutes. Student comments following the
completion of the data collection instruments indicated that they enjoyed being part of the
research study.
 “This was fun…I like when we get to think by ourselves.” – Student B15
 “I liked playing with the cards. It helps me to remember all of my choices.” –
Student A11
 “I want to do more activities like this. Are you coming back tomorrow?” -- Student
B30
 “It took a long time...I had to really think hard and I like to think hard.” – Student A3
The Student Survey utilized both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The survey
quantitatively gathered information regarding: (a) student demographics, (b) learning
preferences, (c) the elements of a differentiated curriculum introduced by the teacher, (d) the
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

108
method of introduction to the elements, and (e) the students’ levels of assuredness with the
individual elements. Qualitative data was collected in the form of students’ responses to open-
ended questions and focused on if and how specific elements of a differentiated curriculum
helped them learn in new situations and contexts. The qualitative data collected from the open-
ended questions aligned specifically with research question one (student importance) but
provided additional points of clarification for all research questions. A sample of the alignment
that existed between the quantitative questions in the Student Survey and the research questions
of the study is outlined below in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6
Alignment of Research Question Two to Student Survey and Supporting Literature
Research Question: What are the instructional strategies that facilitate gifted students’ abilities
to transfer the elements of a differentiated curriculum from one situations and context to
another?
Student Survey Question Measurement Literature Support
Question #3 – I prefer to learn by:
listening to my teacher, talking
with classmates, thinking by
myself, researching information,
building a model, using
technology, asking questions,
talking with an adult.
Rank Order
First, second, third, etc.
Oakland, Joyce, Horton, and
Glutting (2000).
Question #6 – How does your
teacher usually introduce
Universal Concepts?
Check the BEST Answer:
Teacher directs me HOW
Student centered – small
groups
Pictures
Technology
Gallagher (1994).
VanTassel-Baska (2003).
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

109
The Student Performance Assessment provided students with an opportunity (a) to
independently utilize the elements of a differentiated curriculum to solve problems across the
discipline areas, (b) to articulate the thinking process behind HOW they arrived at their the
instructional decisions, and (c) to justify WHY their choices helped them complete the assigned
task. The Student Performance Assessment analyzed students’ transfer of the elements of a
differentiated curriculum across two types of activities: a core content task and a connection to
the real-world. Tasks were developed based on the discipline areas of English Language Arts,
Science, Social Studies, and Mathematics. Each task required students to analyze a text excerpt,
or interpret a picture or map presented to them. Figure 4.1 provided an example of the directions
for a task in the Student Performance Assessment.

Core Content Area: English Language Arts
Look at the picture. Use the elements of a differentiated curriculum on the cards to help you
interpret what is going on in the picture.
 Universal Concepts
 Big Ideas
 Depth and Complexity
 Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian

Figure 4.1. Example of the directions for a task on the Student Performance Assessment
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

110
The task description remained consistent between the core content and real-world
examples within a discipline area. Students completed the performance assessment individually
and were provided with a set of “cards” containing 31 choices related to the elements of a
differentiated curriculum. Table 4.7 outlined the four main elements of a differentiated
curriculum and their alignment to the 31 possible choices available to students. The choices
available to the students are aligned to the California GATE standards (2005).

Table 4.7
Student Options for Transfer Related to the Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum
Universal Concepts Big Ideas
Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian
The prompts of Depth
and Complexity
 Relationships
 Power
 Order vs. Chaos
 Structure
 Systems
 Conflict
 Change
 Power can be
natural or human
constructed.
 Change is
inevitable.
 Systems have
parts that
interconnect.
 Relationships
change overtime.
 Structure follows
function.
 Geographer
 Astronomer
 Anthropologist
 Historian
 Zoologist
 Sociologist
 Economist
 Political Scientist
 Language of the
discipline
 Details
 Patterns
 Trends
 Rules
 Ethics
 Big ideas
 Interdisciplinary
connections
 Multiple
perspectives
 Overtime
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

111
Quantitative data in the form of frequencies, percentages, and means were computed to
discover the elements students selected most often in each content area task. Students were also
asked to justify their selection by determining what made them select the chosen elements over
other available options. Students selected the best answer from the following: I liked it the best,
I have had more practice with it, My teacher used it in this subject area before, I wanted to try
something new, and It was the best match for the content. Qualitative data was collected in the
form of student responses to further explain their selection. The quantitative and qualitative data
gathered from the Student Performance Assessment was used to address all research questions in
the study. A sample of the alignment that existed between the questions in the Student
Performance Assessment and the research questions of the study is outlined below in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8
Alignment of Research Question Three to Student Performance Assessment and Supporting
Literature
Research Question: How do different disciplines facilitate gifted students’ abilities to transfer
the elements of a differentiated curriculum?
Student Performance
Assessment Measurement Literature Support
Question #1 – Which
elements of a differentiated
curriculum best helped you
understand the passage?
Students could self-select one
or more of the 31 options
aligned with the four
elements of a differentiated
curriculum.
Kaplan (2009).
Kanevsky (2011).
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

112
Data for the study was gathered over the course of two school site visits. The hard copy
surveys and performance assessments completed by the students were manually entered into
Survey Monkey by the researcher. The data from all instruments was exported into Excel and
coded in SPSS. Descriptive statistics in the form of frequencies, percentages, rank order,
standard deviation, and range were tabulated to address the research questions of this study. The
information gathered from the descriptive statistics was used to make inferences or conclusions
that extended beyond the immediate data. Qualitative data in the form of open-ended student
responses was coded for reoccurring patterns, trends, and themes and was used as a means of
extension and support for the conclusions drawn from the quantitative data. The researcher
collected anecdotal notes while the students completed their individual performance assessment.
When appropriate, these notes and observations were added to the narrative descriptions of the
data as an additional pillar of support and validation.
Results by Research Question
Research Question 1
The study’s first research question examined the relationship between importance
(relevance and value) and students’ abilities to transfer the elements of a differentiated
curriculum. Specifically, this research question asked: How do gifted students perceive the
importance of transferring acquired elements of a differentiated curriculum from one situation or
context to another? On the Student Survey, students were asked to complete two consecutive
questions targeting their perceptions of the relevance of utilizing elements of a differentiated
curriculum as tools to aide in their own learning. For each of the four elements (Universal
Concepts, Big Ideas, Thinking Like a Disciplinarian, and the prompts of Depth and Complexity)
students were asked: (a) How confident do you feel using the elements of a differentiated
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

113
curriculum to help you learn?, and (b) Do you believe that the elements of a differentiated
curriculum help you learn in new situations and contexts? Students were provided with an
opportunity to describe “why or why not” as an extension to the second question for each
element.
In the Student Performance Assessment students were asked the following question at the
end of each content area task: How do you know that you have made the BEST choice in
selecting elements of a differentiated curriculum to help you learn? Students selected from these
options: (a) I like it the best, (b) I have had more practice with it, (c) My teacher uses it more
often, (d) I have used it in this subject area before, (e) I wanted to try something new, and (f) It
was the best match for the content. Students were also provided an opportunity to write their
own rationale in justification of their thinking if the items on the list did not articulate the
importance of the selected element in understanding the content.
The data gathered from these instruments identified three key themes that connected
affective responses with the cognitive ability to transfer the elements of a differentiated
curriculum: (a) exposure and practice, (b) confidence and importance, and (c) confidence and
application. An analysis of the themes collectively revealed a progression in the depth of
understanding related to the first research question. In this study, the term “confidence level” is
synonymous with “self-assuredness. Data analyzed in theme one (exposure and practice)
directly impacted and served as a foundation for the data set described in the second theme
(confidence and importance). The combined knowledge garnered from the first two themes
influenced the construction of the final, most sophisticated theme. The role of “importance”
acted as a continuous thread across all three themes, and provided the framework through which
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

114
each theme was analyzed to answer the original research question. Each of these themes,
including the relevant research and results of the study are presented below.
Theme one: exposure and practice.

Table 4.9
Years in the SAS Program by Grade Level

N Minimum Maximum Mean
Standard
Deviation
Grade 4 14 1 5 3.29 1.204
Grade 5 31 1 6 3.65 1.518

Table 4.10
Level of Confidence by Element – Grade 4 (n=14)
Not Very
Confident
Somewhat
Confident Confident Very Confident

F % F % F % F % Mean
Universal
Concept
1 7.1 0 0 9 64.3 4 28.6 3.14
Big Ideas 0 0 1 7.1 9 64.3 4 28.6 3.21
Depth and
Complexity
0 0 0 0 3 21.4 11 78.6 3.62
TLAD 1 7.1 4 28.6 5 35.7 4 28.6 2.77
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

115
Table 4.11
Level of Confidence by Element – Grade 5 (n=31)
Not Very
Confident
Somewhat
Confident Confident Very Confident

F % F % F % F % Mean
Universal
Concept
1 3.2 7 22.6 20 64.3 3 9.7 2.81
Big Ideas 3 9.7 11 35.5 9 29.0 8 25.8 2.71
Depth and
Complexity
1 3.2 4 12.9 7 22.6 19 61.3 3.42
TLAD 6 19.4 12 38.7 11 35.5 2 6.5 2.29

The tables reflected the knowledge gained through a tabulation of the frequencies,
percentages, and means of fourth and fifth grade student participants. The data indicated that as
the number of years in the SAS program increased, so did students’ levels of confidence with the
elements of a differentiated curriculum. This conclusion was validated by research conducted by
Wolfe (2001), who contended that learning was enhanced when individuals established an
emotional connection to the content. The school site selected for participation utilized a spiral-
based approach to the SAS program. Elements of a differentiated curriculum were introduced in
Kindergarten and were reinforced throughout the grade levels. According to Tomlinson (2009),
as students’ confidence levels increased in relationship to the content, they felt a sense of “power
and control” over the learning process and recognized the “significance and relevance” of it on
their work (p. 602). Finally, research conducted by Perkins and Salomon (1992) substantiated
the relationship between longevity or exposure and importance (relevance and value). Their
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

116
research contended that the longer a person was engaged in and surrounded by something, the
more “mindful” they were about how to utilize it. The data collected in this study evidenced that
there is a relationship between the amount of exposure students have with the elements of a
differentiated curriculum (number of years in SAS) and their confidence levels in using the
specific elements in new situations or contexts.
The data evidenced (Tables 4.10 and 4.11) that the greatest area of student confidence in
regards to the elements of a differentiated curriculum centered on the prompts of depth and
complexity (n=14, mean = 3.62; n=31, mean = 3.42). According to the data, 78.6% of the fourth
graders and 61.3% of the fifth grades self-reported levels of “very confident” when using the
prompts of depth and complexity in their learning. One hundred percent of the student
participants (n=41) across both grade levels indicated that their teacher introduced and reinforced
all 11 prompts throughout the school year. An analysis of the Teacher Survey validated this fact,
with 100% of the teacher participants (n=2) self-reporting that they had introduced and
continually reinforced the prompts of depth and complexity. Qualitative data from the students
and their teachers reinforced the pattern of high confidence levels regarding the depth and
complexity prompts. The data revealed that the prompts of depth and complexity were (a) the
first element of a differentiated curriculum introduced to students and, (b) the elements most
often utilized during lessons and learning experiences. In this study, the term “prompts” is
representative of the “prompts of depth and complexity” defined in Chapter 2. Themes such as:
the frequent use of the prompts, the explicit presentation of the prompts by the teacher, and the
value placed on the prompts as a tool for learning emerged as key results linking exposure to
importance. The following comments are representative of the open-ended responses found in
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

117
the Teacher and Student Survey when participants were asked to describe their confidence levels
with depth and complexity.
 “We use the prompts a lot. In this class and other grades.” – Student B31
 “Many of my teachers taught me how to use the icons. My teacher uses them too.” –
Student B25
 “I learned what the individual icons mean. Now I can use them.” -- Student A10
 “We received a lot of training on the prompts of depth and complexity. They are also
a non-negotiable element in any SAS classroom at our school.” -- Teacher B.
The literature related to transfer highlighted the relationship that existed between
exposure to knowledge and skills and their importance in transferring them across various
contexts (Perkins & Salomon, 1988; Merrienboer, Kester, & Paas, 2006). According to Perkins
and Salomon (1988), background or “local knowledge” regarding content, knowledge, and skills
was required before it can be generalized to other contexts (p. 24). In short, it was stated that
people could not transfer that which they do not know, have not been exposed to in some context
or situation, and have not practiced. The research gathered during this study validated the
connection that existed between exposure and importance. Both quantitative and qualitative data
demonstrated that students enrolled in the SAS program for multiple years had (a) a longevity of
exposure to the elements, (b) multiple opportunities to practice the elements as they moved
throughout the grade levels, and (c) developed a high confidence level for utilizing the elements
of a differentiated curriculum in varying contexts and situations. The connection between
exposure and importance documented above served as the foundation for the examination of the
relationship between confidence and value articulated in the following theme: Confidence and
Importance.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

118
Theme two: confidence and importance.

Table 4.12
Relationship between the Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum and Students’ Self-Reported
Importance to Learning – Grade 4 (n=14)
Helps me learn in new
situations
Does not help me in my
learning
F % F %
Universal Concepts 12 85.7 2 14.3
Big Ideas 13 92.9 1 7.1
Depth and Complexity 12 85.7 2 14.3
Thinking Like a Disciplinarian 11 78.6 3 21.4

Table 4.13
Relationship between the Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum and Students’ Self-Reported
Importance to Learning – Grade 5 (n=31)
Helps me learn in new
situations
Does not help me in my
learning
F % F %
Universal Concepts 26 83.9 4 12.9
Big Ideas 25 80.6 6 19.4
Depth and Complexity 30 96.8 1 3.2
Thinking Like a Disciplinarian 24 77.4 7 22.6
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

119
Table 4.14
Rank Order of the Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum in Confidence and Importance
Confidence Importance
Grade 4 (n=14) Depth and Complexity
Big Ideas
Universal Concepts
Thinking Like a Disciplinarian
Big Ideas
Depth and Complexity
Universal Concepts
Thinking Like a Disciplinarian
Grade 5 (n=31) Depth and Complexity
Universal Concepts
Big Ideas
Thinking Like a Disciplinarian
Depth and Complexity
Universal Concepts
Big Ideas
Thinking Like a Disciplinarian

The data collected evidenced the relationship that existed between students’ levels of
confidence with the elements of a differentiated curriculum and their perceptions of how
important the elements are in their learning. The tables indicated that the more confident
students felt about their knowledge of the individual elements of a differentiated curriculum, the
more they perceived it to be important in helping them learn. In the fourth grade class, 13 out of
14 students (92.9%) felt that “Big Ideas” were the most important element in helping them learn
in new contexts and situations. When correlated against the confidence indicators: (a) not very
confident, (b) somewhat confident, (c) confident, and (d) very confident, 13 out of 14 students
(92.9%) self-reported levels of confident (n=9) and very confident (n=4) in regards to Big Ideas.
It is important to note that the one fourth grade student (A5) that did not find big ideas helpful
was the same student that self-reported as “somewhat confident” using this element in their
learning. Data from the fifth grade class also validated this correlation. Thirty out of the thirty-
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

120
one (96.8%) fifth grade participants selected the prompts of Depth and Complexity as the most
important element in helping them learn. On the confidence indicator, 26 students (83.9%) self-
reported levels of “confident” (n=7, 22.6%) or “very confident” (n=19, 61.3%) using the prompts
of depth and complexity across the content areas. The data surfaced one outlier that did not fit
the pattern of high confidence, high importance to learning. Student B30 self-reported “very
confident” in terms of using the prompts of depth and complexity, but did not value them as a
tool for learning. When asked to provide a rationale for this discrepancy, B30 stated, “I just do
not like them.”
A qualitative analysis of the student responses regarding Big Ideas and Depth and
Complexity further validated the relationship between confidence and importance. Key words
such as: help, discover, and connection emerged as salient descriptors for students who were
highly confident in the use of the elements of a differentiated curriculum and found them
relevant to their learning process.
Very Confident & Important – Big Ideas
 “They help you understand lots of different things about the world.” – Student B28
 “They help me discover what different things are about.” – Student B26
 “They show me different ways of thinking and connecting information.” – Student
B25
 “They wrap-up the lesson.” – Student B18
Very Confident & Important – The prompts of Depth and Complexity
 “The prompts help explain things to me.” – Student B18
 “They point out things that I do not always see.” – Student A13
 “I can relate some prompt to everything we do.” – Student A12
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

121
 “They help me make decisions about what I am writing or reading or thinking.” –
B17
The connection between confidence level and perceived importance to learning
evidenced in this research was consistent with the current literature on transfer theory.
According to Lightner, Berander, and Kramer (2008), students attitudes towards learning
“exerted a powerful force” on the instructional strategies they chose to use (p. 60). Research
conducted by Pea (1987) and McCombs and Marzano (1990) also indicate that students’
attitudes and confidence levels affected their metacognition and their abilities to make decisions
about how they think about learning. Literature in the field of gifted education also validated the
conclusions drawn from this research study. Renzulli (1984) discussed how competence and
confidence are motives that affect how people value the task at hand. The importance and value
of a situation depends upon the degree of alignment between a person’s “internal structures and
the demands of the environment” (Renzulli, 1984, p. 11).
This literature supported the assertion that the greater a students’ level of confidence with
specific elements of a differentiated curriculum, the more they viewed the transfer of these
elements as an important facet of their learning in the completion of many and varied tasks. This
study demonstrated that confidence levels were an important indicator in the ability of gifted
students to transfer the elements of a differentiated curriculum across different content area tasks.
The final theme of the first research question was a culmination of the results of themes one and
two and documented the thread of continuity and progression from exposure to confidence to
application.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

122
Theme three: confidence and application.

Table 4.15
Frequency of Application of the Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum
Grade 4 (n=14) Grade 5 (n=31)
Universal Concepts 32 53
Big Ideas 12 26
Depth and Complexity 109 222
Thinking Like a Disciplinarian 34 92
Note: Students had 8 possible opportunities from the Student Performance Assessment to utilize the elements of a
differentiated curriculum.

Table 4.16
Relationship between Students’ Confidence Level & the Application of Elements of a
Differentiated Curriculum
Grade 4 (n=14) Grade 5 (n=31)
Confidence
Level
Confidence
Level

1 2 3 4
Frequency of
Application 1 2 3 4
Frequency of
Application
Universal Concepts 1 0 9 4 32 1 7 20 3 53
Big Ideas 0 1 9 4 12 3 11 9 8 26
Depth and Complexity 0 0 3 11 109 1 4 7 19 222
Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian
1 4 5 4 34 6 12 11 2 92
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

123
Table 4.17
Relationship between Students’ Confidence Level, Frequency of Application, and Perceived
Importance on Learning
Grade 4 (n=14) Grade 5 (n=31)
Value % Value %
Mean
Confidence
Level
Frequency
of
Application Imp. Not
Mean
Confidence
Level
Frequency
of
Application Imp. Not
Universal
Concepts
3.14 32 85.7 14.3 2.81 53 83.9 12.9
Big Ideas 3.21 12 92.9 7.1 2.71 26 80.6 19.4
Depth and
Complexity
3.62 109 85.7 14.3 3.42 222 96.8 3.2
Thinking
Like a
Disciplinarian
2.77 34 78.6 21.4 2.29 92 77.4 22.6

The data evidenced a correlation between three factors: (a) students’ confidence levels
with the elements of a differentiated curriculum, (b) the importance (relevance, value) they
believed the elements had on their learning, and (c) the number of times students utilized the
elements to accomplish different tasks. It was hypothesized that a commensurate relationship
existed between confidence, importance, and frequency of use. The results indicated that
elements such as the prompts of Depth and Complexity and Universal Concepts were positively
correlated. The mean confidence level for fourth grade student participants utilizing the prompts
of depth and complexity (n=14) was 3.62 on the confidence indicator of 4.0 (very confident).
Eighty-five percent of these students (12 out of 14) indicated that the prompts were important in
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

124
helping them learn. These two factors were positively correlated with the hypothesis, as
evidenced by the fact that fourth grade students utilized the prompts of Depth and Complexity
109 times throughout the eight tasks on the Student Performance Assessment. Data collected
from the fifth grade class mirrored that of the fourth grade. The mean confidence level for the
fifth grade student participants (n=31) was 3.42, with 96.8% (30 of 31) students indicating that
the prompts were important. Grade five students utilized the prompts of Depth and Complexity a
total of 222 times in the Student Performance Assessment. It is of interest to note that for both
classes, the mean confidence level for the prompts of Depth and Complexity was the highest of
all the elements of a differentiated curriculum.
Elements such as Big Ideas and Thinking Like a Disciplinarian (TLAD) were negatively
correlated based on the data collected during this study. For Big Ideas, fourth grade (n=14)
students self-reported a mean level of confidence of 3.21 (second highest of the elements), with
92.9% (13 of 14) believing that Big Ideas were important in their learning. However, an analysis
of the combined usage of Big Ideas indicated a frequency of 12 throughout the entire
performance assessment. Fifth grade students (n=31) indicated an average confidence level of
2.71 with 80.6% (25 of 31) believing that Big Ideas were important. As with the fourth grade,
fifth grade participants, as a collective, used big ideas a total of 26 times. The results indicated
that the relationship of use to confidence and importance was the lowest of any element across
both grade levels. These results were antithetical to the hypothesis of high confidence, high
importance, and high frequency, which stated that as a person’s level of confidence increased so
did the amount they valued and utilized something. Research conducted by Ge and Hardre
(2010) evidenced this connection between self-efficacy, importance, and strategy selection in the
learning process.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

125
The results of the data on Thinking Like a Disciplinarian evidenced a reverse pattern of
negative correlation. In both grade levels, Thinking Like a Disciplinarian was the element that
students reported to be the least important in helping them learn and the element that received the
lowest average on the confidence scale. However, the results of the Student Performance
Assessment illustrated that TLAD was the second most frequently used element. Fourth grade
students (n=14) utilized TLAD a total of 34 times. The mean confidence level was 2.77 and
78.6% (11 of 14) felt TLAD was important. The fifth grade student participants utilized TLAD a
total of 92 times throughout the performance assessment. They self-reported a mean confidence
level of 2.29, with 77.4% (24 out of 31) believing that TLAD was an important tool in helping
student learn.
The results indicated a gap in the confidence and importance levels self-reported by
students and the amount of times these elements were actually transferred to tasks in the
performance assessment. The lack of alignment between confidence, importance, and frequency
of use in select elements of a differentiated curriculum was an important indicator that emerged
from the study and was discussed in the literature. Self-efficacy was a “powerful force”
affecting the implementation of important educational decisions and was impacted by success,
failure, and use (Gallagher, 1994, p. 177). Research conducted by Eccles, O’Neil, and Wigfield
(2006) asserted that students accomplished tasks by considering two main factors: (a) whether
they have the skills (confidence level) to complete the assignment, and (b) how important
completing the task is to them. According to Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Worrell (2011),
motivation and self-efficacy played a role in how students demonstrated knowledge and skills.
Their research highlighted how gifted learners were more motivated to accomplish a task when
they valued the learning experience and believed that they could be successful. The cause of the
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

126
negative correlation of elements such as Big Ideas and Thinking Like a Disciplinarian was an
area in need of further research and discovery.
Summary of research question 1.
Research Question One examined how students’ perceptions of the importance of the
individual elements of a differentiated curriculum impacted their ability to transfer those
elements to situations or contexts. The results indicated that there was a strong connection
between a students’ self-reported confidence level and three main factors related to the transfer
of the elements of a differentiated curriculum: (a) students’ exposure to the elements of a
differentiated curriculum obtained via their years of experience in the SAS program, (b) how
important they believed the elements of a differentiated curriculum were to helping them learn,
and (c) the frequency with which students utilized the elements in various academic and real-
world environments. Students who were more self-confident in their understanding of the
elements tended to express the relevance they played in their learning and applied them more
frequently in the core content and real-world tasks.
This finding reflected three key concepts aligned with the themes articulated above: (a)
that students were able to recognize the importance of differentiated curriculum elements to their
own learning, (b) articulate their personal beliefs about the learning process, and (c) justify how
the elements of a differentiated curriculum help them achieve meaningful learning with
previously acquired and new knowledge.
Research Question 2
The intent of the second research question was to examine the instructional strategies that
aided students’ in their ability to transfer. Specifically, this research question asked: What are
the instructional strategies that facilitate gifted students’ abilities to transfer the elements of a
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

127
differentiated curriculum from one situation to another? Question three on the Student Survey
asked students to check-box how they preferred to learn. Choices included: (a) listening to my
teacher, (b) talking with my classmates, (c) thinking by myself, (d) researching information, (e)
building a model, (f) using technology, (g) asking questions, and (h) talking with an adult. This
question provided a baseline and a point of comparison between how students preferred to learn
and the instructional strategies employed by their teacher. Students were asked to rank order
their top methods for learning with the understanding that they encompassed the learning process
in general and were not specific to any one element of a differentiated curriculum.
Data gathered from the Student Survey was correlated with the data collected from their
classroom teachers via the Teacher Survey. Teachers were asked four questions in relationship
to each element of a differentiated curriculum. The Teacher Survey was used to provide a
comprehensive picture of the instruction that occurred within each classroom. This data
provided the context for students’ exposure to both the elements of a differentiated curriculum
and the instructional methods used to introduce, reinforce, and extend these elements. Questions
on the Teacher Survey included:
 What instructional strategies do you use to introduce (insert differentiated element)?
 Rank the instructional strategies in the order you feel best align with introducing
(insert differentiated element).
 Rank the discipline areas in the order you most often introduce (insert differentiated
element).
 Rank the disciplines in the order you most often apply (insert differentiated element).
The data gathered from these instruments identified two key themes related to the
instructional strategies used by students in the transfer of the elements of a differentiated
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

128
curriculum: (a) student learning preferences, and (b) teacher instructional decision-making. Each
of these themes, including the relevant research and results of the study were presented below.
Theme one: student learning preferences.

Table 4.18
Student Learning Preferences – Grade 4 (n=14)
Listening
to my
Teacher
Talking
with my
Classmates
Thinking
by
Myself
Researching
Information
Building
a Model
Using
Technology
Asking
Questions
Talking
with an
Adult
F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
Grade
4
9 64.3 10 71.4 8 57.1 8 57.1 3 21.4 8 57.1 8 57.1 2 14.3

Table 4.19
Student Learning Preferences – Grade 5 (n=31)
Listening
to my
Teacher
Talking
with my
Classmates
Thinking
by
Myself
Researching
Information
Building
a Model
Using
Technology
Asking
Questions
Talking
with an
Adult
F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
Grade
5
23 74.2 13 41.9 12 38.7 10 32.3 8 25.8 17 54.8 19 61.3 12 38.7
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

129

Figure 4.2. Learning preference for all student participants

The results indicated that students across both grade levels preferred to learn about and
with the elements of a differentiated curriculum in similar ways. The data evidenced that
methods of learning such as listening to my teacher, asking questions, and using technology were
the preferred methods for both grade levels. In the fourth grade class, 9 out of 14 students
(63.3%) preferred to learn about/with the elements of a differentiated curriculum by listening to
their teacher. Asking questions and using technology were evenly ranked, with 8 out of 14
(57.1%) selected these as their second and third preferred methods of learning. A mirroring
pattern was highlighted in the learning preferences of the fifth grade student participants.
Twenty-three out of 31 (74.2%) students ranked listening to my teacher as their preferred method
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

130
of learning. Asking questions (63.3%) was the second most popular method, and using
technology (61.3%) the third.
The asking of questions and the use of technology as preferred methods of learning were
supported by the literature in the field of gifted education. Gifted learners were naturally curious
and enjoyed participating in learning experiences that stimulated “inquiry and question asking”
(VanTassel-Baska, 2003, p. 1). According to Tomlinson (2003), successful instruction for the
gifted took into account and capitalized on students’ individual learning profiles. A learning
profile referred to a students preferred mode of learning and effected the ways in which they
interacted with and interpreted new and previously learned content (Tomlinson et al., 2003). The
use of technology as a means of meeting gifted students academic and interest-based needs was
also documented in the literature. Field (2009) studied the use of Renzulli Learning, an online
enrichment program for gifted learners in several urban school districts. The research conducted
by Field supported the results of this study that gifted learners prefer to use technology as a
means of learning and interacting with the elements of a differentiated curriculum. Tomlinson et
al. (2003) contended that the greatest academic gains are reached when a teacher utilized
instructional strategies that took into consideration and were in alignment with students’
“leaning-profile preferences” (p. 126). This assertion was analyzed in detail in Theme two.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

131
Theme two: teacher instructional decision-making.
Table 4.20
Alignment between Instructional Methods and Student Learning Preferences
Direct Instruction Group Investigation Advance Organizer
Listening to my teacher X X X
Talking with my classmates X X
Thinking by myself X
Researching information X X
Building a model X X
Using technology X X X
Asking questions X X X
Talking with an adult X

Table 4.21
Instructional Strategies Utilized by Teachers (n=2) in the Presentation of the Elements of a
Differentiated Curriculum
Direct Instruction Group Investigation Advance Organizer
Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 4 Grade 5
Universal Concepts X X X X
Big Ideas X X X X
Prompts of Depth and
Complexity
X X X X X X
Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian
X X X X
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

132
Table 4.22
Ranking of the Instructional Strategies in the Teaching of the Elements of a Differentiated
Curriculum
Direct Instruction Group Investigation Advance Organizer
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Universal
Concepts
50% 50% 100% 50% 50%
Big Ideas 100% 50% 50% 100%
Prompts of
Depth and
Complexity
100% 50% 50% 100%
Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian
50% 50% 100% 50% 50%

Table 4.23
Instructional Strategies used to Introduce and Reinforce the Elements of a Differentiated
Curriculum
Grade 4 (n=14) Grade 5 (n=31)
Introduced Reinforced Introduced Reinforced
Universal
Concepts
Direct Instruction
& Group
Investigation
Bulletin Boards,
Small Group
Activities
Direct
Instruction
Learning Centers,
Writing Prompts
Big Ideas Advance
Organizer
Bulletin Boards,
Questioning
Advance
Organizer
Bulletin Boards,
Handouts
The Prompts of
Depth and
Complexity
Direct Instruction
& Advance
Organizer
Bulletin Boards,
Class
Discussions
Direct
Instruction
Learning Centers,
Small Group
Activities
Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian
Direct Instruction Independent
Study Project
Group
Investigation
Bulletin Boards,
Writing Prompts
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

133
In order to validate the connection between student learning preference and teacher mode
of delivery, data was gathered from the classroom teachers via the Teacher Survey. This study
attempted to determine if the preferred method of instruction on the part of the teacher regarding
the elements of a differentiated curriculum was in alignment with the learning profiles of the
students in their classroom. Teachers had the option to align their delivery of the elements of a
differentiated curriculum to three different instructional models: direct instruction, group
investigation, and advance organizer. It is important to note that the teachers’ competency and
familiarity with the models was established by (a) discussions with their principal, (b) classroom
observations of their teaching, and (c) past participation in workshops and grants focused on
differentiating the curriculum for gifted learners. Table 4.20 outlined the areas of alignment
between the instructional models used by the teacher and the students’ preferred methods of
learning. An important implication of the research was the discovery that the three most
preferred methods of student learning: listening to my teacher, asking questions, and using
technology were embedded within all of the instructional strategies utilized by the teachers.
The data further evidenced a connection between the instructional strategies utilized by
the teacher and the types of opportunities provided to students to transfer the elements of a
differentiated curriculum. Teachers were asked to rank the order in which they believed the
instructional strategies (direct instruction, group investigation, advance organizer) aligned with
the teaching and learning of a specific element of a differentiated curriculum for the gifted. The
teachers ranked each instructional strategy using the scale: (a) 4 = weak alignment, (b) 3 =
moderate alignment, (c) 2 = strong alignment, (d) 1 = highly aligned. The results indicated that a
strong to high alignment existed between the direct instruction model and all four elements of a
differentiated curriculum. Both teachers ranked the direct instruction model either a 1 or a 2 on
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

134
the alignment scale against each element. Conversely, both teachers self-reported moderate to
weak alignments between the advance organizer model (inquiry) and the differentiated
curriculum elements.
The results indicated a pattern in the introduction and subsequent reinforcement of the
elements of a differentiated curriculum on the part of the teacher as instructional decision-maker.
Teachers predominantly introduced the elements of a differentiated curriculum to their students
through a direct instruction model of teaching. Both teachers implemented inquiry-based
strategies such as bulletin boards, learning centers, independent study projects, small group
activities, and class discussions as a means of reinforcing each of the elements. The fourth grade
teacher self-reported the use of the direct instruction model as the strategy most often used to
introduce differentiated elements such as Universal Concepts, the prompts of Depth and
Complexity, and Thinking Like a Disciplinarian. The fifth grade teacher self-reported the use of
the direct instruction model when introducing the elements of Universal Concepts and the
prompts of Depth and Complexity. It is important to note that the direct instruction model was
the most frequently used instructional strategy across both grade levels.
The influence of the teacher as instructional decision-maker on students’ abilities to
transfer knowledge and skills was documented in the literature. Research conducted by
VanTassel-Baska et al. (2008) highlighted the connection between the “instructional approaches”
employed by a teacher and the degree to which their students learned (p. 298). Seminal research
conducted by Shavelson and Stern (1981) on teacher-decision making articulated how the
instructional decisions employed by the teacher were determined by factors such as student
needs and the demands of the content. The use of the direct instruction model as a means of
explicitly introducing the elements of a differentiated curriculum was also validated by the
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

135
literature. The direct instruction model provided opportunities for teachers to explain and
demonstrate a new skill, have students practice the understanding of that skill in multiple
contexts, and offer feedback and suggestions for improvement (Joyce et al., 2004). Betts and
Kercher (1999) asserted that in order to become self-directed in their learning, students must be
explicitly taught the skill sets required to accomplish such thinking processes. Rogers (2007)
articulated the importance of utilizing inquiry-based, independent study projects in the
classroom. Her research contends that independent study positively impacted students’
motivation to learn and that the skills reinforced during an independent study project had the
potential to “transfer to other academic areas” (p. 386).
Summary of research question 2.
Research question two attempted to identify the instructional strategies employed by the
teacher that aided in students’ abilities to transfer the elements of a differentiated curriculum.
The results indicated that factors such as students learning preference and teachers instructional
decisions affected the experiences that students had with the elements of a differentiated
curriculum. Students were predominantly introduced to the elements of a differentiated
curriculum using a direct instruction model of teaching and were provided opportunities to
reinforce their use of the elements through inquiry-based strategies. The trend of explicit
introduction and inquiry reinforcement was evidenced in the perceptions of both the teachers and
the students. Students’ preference to learn the elements of a differentiated curriculum by
listening to their teacher was in alignment with their teachers’ preference to initially introduce
the elements of a differentiated curriculum by explicitly teaching them in a direct instruction
pedagogical practice. The research indicated a direct connection between the pedagogical
practices or instructional strategies utilized by the teacher to present new information and the
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

136
learning opportunities available for students to transfer the elements of a differentiated
curriculum.
This finding reflects four key concepts aligned with the themes articulated above: (a) that
students could articulate their preferred method of learning, (b) that teachers made conscious
decisions regarding the instruction of the elements of a differentiated curriculum, (c) that the
instructional strategies utilized by the teacher affect students learning opportunities in the
classroom, and (d) that teachers were underutilizing the various instructional strategies as means
of introducing and reinforcing the elements. The implications of this finding will be discussed in
detail in Chapter 5.
Research Question 3
The third research question examined the relationship between content area disciplines
and students’ abilities to transfer the elements of a differentiated curriculum. Specifically, this
research question asked: How do different disciplines facilitate gifted students’ abilities to
transfer the elements of a differentiated curriculum? On the Student Survey, question two asked
students to list their top three favorite school subject. This question provided a reference point
for the interest levels of students as they pertained to the academic discipline areas experienced
during the school day.
Questions 5, 10, 15, and 20 on the Student Survey asked students to self-report the
academic discipline most often used by their teacher to introduce each element of a differentiated
curriculum. Student choices included: math, science, social studies, English Language Arts, Art,
and Music. Teachers were provided with the same subject area choices and were asked to rank
the disciplines in the order they most often used them to (a) introduce, (b) reinforce, and (c)
apply a specific element of a differentiated curriculum.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

137
Table 4.24
Favorite School Subjects of Student Participants by Grade Level

Art
English
Language
Arts Math Science
Physical
Education
F % F % F % F % F %
Grade 4 (n=14) 4 28.6 0 0 5 35.7 1 7.1 4 28.6
Grade 5 (n=31) 7 22.6 6 19.4 9 29.0 7 22.6 2 6.5

Data gathered from the Student Performance Assessments was correlated with the data
collected from the Student and Teacher Survey. An analysis of the Student Performance
Assessment data provided documentation on three different aspects of student transfer: (a) which
elements of a differentiated curriculum students were able to transfer to different tasks within the
same content area, (b) which elements of a differentiated curriculum students were able to
transfer to tasks across different content areas, and (c) how students were able to justified their
use of the elements to help them accomplish both previously learned and new content area tasks.
The data gathered from these instruments identified three key themes related to how different
disciplines facilitated students abilities to transfer the elements of a differentiated curriculum: (a)
Discipline Area Alignment, (b) Intra-and-Interdisciplinary Transfer, and (c) Justification and
Rationale. Each of these themes and the relevance research results of the study are presented
below.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

138
Theme one: discipline area alignment.
Table 4.25
Students’ Perceptions of the Disciplines used by their Teacher to Introduce the Elements of
Differentiated Curriculum — Grade 4 (n=14)

Math Science
Social
Studies
English
Language
Arts Art Music
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Universal Concepts 2 14.3 5 35.7 6 42.9 14 100 1 7.1 -- --
Big Ideas 2 14.3 4 28.6 3 21.4 14 100 -- -- -- --
The Prompts of Depth
and Complexity
6 42.9 6 42.9 6 42.9 14 100 -- -- -- --
Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian
7 50 10 71.4 4 28.6 -- -- -- -- -- --

Table 4.26
Teachers’ Perceptions of the Disciplines used to Introduce and Apply the Elements of a
Differentiated Curriculum — Grade 4 (n=14)
Introduction Application
Math Sci. S/S ELA Art Mus. Math Sci. S/S ELS Art Mus.
Universal Concepts 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6
Big Ideas 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6
The Prompts of Depth
and Complexity
4 2 3 1 5 6 4 2 3 1 5 6
Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian
2 3 1 4 5 6 2 3 1 4 5 6
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

139
Table 4.27
Students’ Perceptions of the Disciplines used by their Teacher to Introduce the Elements of
Differentiated Curriculum — Grade 5 (n=31)
Math Science
Social
Studies
English
Language
Arts Art Music
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Universal Concepts 6 19.4 6 19.4 4 12.9 27 87.1 1 3.2 2 6.5
Big Ideas 5 16.1 6 16.1 30 96.8 1 3.2 -- -- -- --
The Prompts of
Depth and
Complexity
4 12.9 2 6.5 31 100 31 100 -- -- -- --
Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian
5 16.1 10 32.3 11 35.5 18 58.1 -- -- -- --

Table 4.28
Teachers’ Perceptions of the Disciplines used to Introduce and Apply the Elements of a
Differentiated Curriculum — Grade 5 (n=31)
Introduction Application
Math Sci. S/S ELA Art Mus. Math Sci. S/S ELS Art Mus.
Universal Concepts 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6
Big Ideas 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6
The Prompts of
Depth and
Complexity
4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6
Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian
4 2 1 3 5 6 4 2 1 3 5 6
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

140
The data reflected an analysis of the trends that emerged between the discipline areas
utilized by the teacher to introduce and apply the elements of a differentiated curriculum. The
results indicated a strong connection between the perceptions of the teacher and the students
regarding the discipline areas used to introduce the individual elements of a differentiated
curriculum. In the fourth grade class, 100% of the students (14 out of 14) self-reported that their
teacher utilized the English Language Arts (ELA) discipline to introduce Universal Concepts,
Big Ideas, and the prompts of Depth and Complexity. These results were consistent with the
perceptions of their teacher, who ranked ELA as the subject most often used to both introduce
and the same elements of a differentiated curriculum. An analysis of the fifth grade class
revealed both areas of alignment and discrepancy between the teacher and the students. Positive
alignments occurred between the teacher and the students regarding the elements of Universal
Concepts and the prompts of Depth and Complexity. Both groups acknowledged the use of ELA
as the discipline most often used to introduce and apply these elements. The introduction of Big
Ideas was an area of misalignment between the teachers and students. Thirty-out-of-thirty-one
students (96.8%) believed that their teacher introduced Big Ideas through the social studies
discipline. This was incongruous with the fact that their teacher ranked social studies second
behind the use of ELA.
An analysis of the data across grades four and five evidenced a pattern in the
predominant use of certain disciplines to introduce and apply the elements of a differentiated
curriculum. The results indicated that both teachers and students ranked ELA as the number one
discipline used to introduce and apply Universal Concepts, Big Ideas, and the prompts of Depth
and Complexity. Both teachers ranked social studies as the discipline most often used when
introducing and applying Thinking Like a Disciplinarian. Disciplines such as art and music were
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

141
ranked 5 and 6 by both teachers and were not listed by the students as disciplines utilized by their
teachers in the transfer of the elements of a differentiated curriculum. This is important to note
because the results uncovered a discrepancy that existed between the subjects favored by the
teacher and those listed as “favorites” by the students. Data from the Student Survey revealed
that 35.7% of the students in the fourth grades’ (n=14) listed math as one of their top three
favorite school subjects. Math was however, repeatedly ranked as the third or fourth discipline
utilized by the teacher to introduce or apply any of the elements of a differentiated curriculum.
Similar results occurred among the fifth grade class, with 29% of the students listing math in
their top three subjects. Discipline areas such as art and physical education were consistently
popular among students in both grade levels, yet were not listed as subjects utilized by either
teacher in the introduction and/or reinforcement of the elements of a differentiated curriculum.
The literature in gifted education recognized the relationship between student interest,
motivation, and academic success. Students were motivated to learn when attention and
emphasis was placed on their interests (Manning, Stanford, & Reeves, 2010). Research
conducted by Manning, Stanford, and Reeves (2010) asserted that students interests and
strengths should be at the “foundation” for curriculum designed to meet the academic, social, and
developmental needs of gifted learners (p. 147). This research supported the hypothesis that
gifted students had greater opportunities to transfer the elements of a differentiated curriculum if
learning experience were created that utilized the discipline areas favored by the students.
Mulhern (2003) also demonstrated the connection between students’ transfer of knowledge and
skills and their interest in various content area disciplines. His research documented how the
creation of learning experiences that merge reading, language, and the social sciences with art,
music, and drama provided a “means of expression and interest” in gifted learners (Mulhern,
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

142
2003, p. 115). Finally, research conducted by Sternberg and Grigorenko (2007) illustrated how
“different skills matter differently in different environments” (p. 6). They contended that
students should be provided with opportunities to utilize both new and previously acquired skill
sets in various situations and discipline areas.
Theme two: intra-and interdisciplinary transfer.
Table 4.29
The Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum Utilized by Students in the Core Content English
Language Arts Task (n=45)
Element of a Differentiated
Curriculum Specific Option Frequency Percentage
Conflict 3 6.4
Power 1 2.2
Systems 1 2.2
Universal Concepts
Order vs. Chaos 1 2.2
Big Ideas Power can be natural or
human constructed
1 2.2
Language of the Discipline 34 75.6
Details 25 55.6
Rules 7 15.6
Ethics 7 15.6
Big Ideas 6 13.5
Unanswered Questions 6 13.3
Multiple Perspectives 4 8.9
The prompts of Depth and
Complexity
Trends 1 2.2
Thinking Like a Disciplinarian Think Like a Historian 3 6.7
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

143
Table 4.30
The Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum Utilized by Students in the Real World Connection
English Language Arts Task (n=45)
Element of a
Differentiated
Curriculum Specific Option Frequency Percentage
Power 6 13.3
Change 3 6.7
Systems 2 4.4
Universal Concepts
Structure 1 2.2
Power can be natural or human constructed 1 2.2
Relationships change over time 1 2.2
Big Ideas
Structure follows function 1 2.2
Multiple Perspectives 15 33.3
Details 7 15.6
Overtime 5 11.1
Big Ideas 5 11.1
Ethics 6 13.5
Interdisciplinary Connections 3 6.7
Rules 3 6.7
Trends 3 6.7
The prompts of
Depth and
Complexity
Patterns 2 4.4
Think Like an Economist 7 15.6
Think Like a Political Scientist 4 8.9
Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian
Think Like a Historian 3 6.7
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

144

Table 4.31
The Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum Utilized by Students in the Core Content Social
Studies Task (n=45)
Element of a Differentiated
Curriculum Specific Option Frequency Percentage
Change 11 24.2
Relationships 1 2.2
Universal Concepts
Systems 2 4.4
Big Ideas Change is inevitable 2 4.4
Overtime 12 26.7
Details 10 22.2
Rules 4 8.9
Ethics 4 8.9
Trends 3 6.7
Unanswered Questions 3 6.7
The prompts of Depth and
Complexity
Patterns 2 4.4
Think Like a Historian 20 44.4
Think Like a Sociologist 4 8.9
Think Like an Anthropologist 3 6.7
Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian
Think Like a Geographer 1 2.2
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

145
Table 4.32
The Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum Utilized by Students in the Real World Connection
Social Studies Task (n=45)
Element of a
Differentiated
Curriculum Specific Option Frequency Percentage
Power 6 13.3
Change 3 6.7
Systems 3 6.7
Conflict 2 4.4
Universal Concepts
Order vs. Chaos 2 4.4
Change is inevitable 3 6.7
Power can be natural or human constructed 2 4.4
Big Ideas
Relationships change overtime 1 2.2
Ethics 11 24.4
Multiple Perspectives 10 22.2
Details 9 20.0
Overtime 4 8.9
Patterns 3 6.7
Trends 2 4.4
The prompts of Depth
and Complexity
Rules 2 4.4
Think Like an Economist 7 15.6
Think Like a Sociologist 4 8.9
Think Like an Historian 3 6.7
Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian
Think Like a Geographer 1 2.2
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

146

Table 4.33
The Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum Utilized by Students in the Core Content Science
Task (n=45)
Element of a
Differentiated
Curriculum Specific Option Frequency Percentage
Change 10 22.2
Structure 3 6.7
Universal Concepts
Systems 2 4.4
Change is inevitable 4 8.9
Power can be natural or human constructed 2 4.4
Big Ideas
Structure follows function 2 4.4
Overtime 17 37.8
Details 7 15.6
Patterns 7 15.6
Rules 3 6.7
Language of the Discipline 3 6.7
The prompts of Depth
and Complexity
Trends 2 4.4
Think Like a Geographer 6 13.3
Think Like an Anthropologist 2 4.4
Think Like a Political Scientist 1 2.2
Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian
Think Like Historian 1 2.2
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

147

Table 4.34
The Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum Utilized by Students in the Real World Connection
Science Task (n=45)
Element of a
Differentiated
Curriculum Specific Option Frequency Percentage
Structure 4 8.9 Universal Concepts
Change 3 6.7
Power can be natural or human constructed 3 6.7
Change is inevitable 1 2.2
Big Ideas
Structure follows function 2 4.4
Overtime 12 26.7
Unanswered Questions 8 17.8
Rules 2 4.4
The prompts of Depth
and Complexity
Big Ideas 1 2.2
Think Like an Anthropologist 18 40.0
Think Like a Historian 6 13.3
Think Like a Sociologist 2 4.4
Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian
Think Like Historian 1 2.2
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

148

Table 4.35
The Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum Utilized by Students in the Core Content
Mathematics Task (n=45)
Element of a Differentiated
Curriculum Specific Option Frequency Percentage
Systems 4 8.9
Structure 2 4.4
Universal Concepts
Relationships 1 2.2
Systems have parts that interrelate 4 8.9 Big Ideas
Structure follows function 3 6.7
Details 13 28.9
Rules 11 24.4
Patterns 9 20.0
Unanswered Questions 3 6.2
Big Ideas 3 6.2
The prompts of Depth and
Complexity
Language of the Discipline 1 2.2
Think Like an Economist 1 2.2 Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian
Think Like Historian 1 2.2
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

149
Table 4.36
The Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum Utilized by Students in the Real World Connections
Mathematics Task (n=45)
Element of a Differentiated
Curriculum Specific Option Frequency Percentage
Systems 5 11.1
Structure 2 4.4
Universal Concepts
Power 1 2.2
Big Ideas Systems have parts that interrelate 1 2.2
Details 11 24.4
Overtime 5 11.7
Rules 4 8.9
Interdisciplinary Connections 3 6.7
Unanswered Questions 2 4.4
The prompts of Depth and
Complexity
Patterns 2 4.4
Think Like a Geographer 23 51.1 Thinking Like a Disciplinarian
Think Like Historian 1 2.2

The Student Performance Assessment was designed to gather data in regards to how
students utilized the elements of a differentiated curriculum (a) across four different content
areas: English Language Arts, Social Studies, Science, and Mathematics, and (b) to complete
both core content and real-world based tasks within each discipline. For each task, students had
the option to select from 31 choices aligned with the four elements of a differentiated curriculum.
The results indicated that students’ usage of the elements to aid them in the completion of tasks
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

150
ranged from 17 (Real-World – Social Studies) to 12 (Real-World – Science). A combined
frequency tally across both grade levels revealed that students utilized Universal Concepts 94
times, Big Ideas, 30 time, the prompts of Depth and Complexity 346 times, and Thinking Like a
Historian 141 times. This result was important to note because it did not align with students self-
reported levels of confidence with elements such as Thinking Like a Disciplinarian. Students
reported a low level of confidence in transferring the element of TLAD, yet the results indicated
that it was the second most often used element across the grade levels. However, the prompts of
Depth and Complexity were the element most often utilized by the students and was the element
reported with the highest level of confidence. All 31 elements of a differentiated curriculum
were used by at least once to complete at least one task.
The data evidenced a difference in number and type of elements of a differentiated
curriculum students utilized to complete tasks in the various content areas. In the ELA
discipline, students predominantly utilized the prompts of Depth and Complexity to accomplish
both the core content and real-world tasks. The most prevalent prompts were language of the
discipline (75.6%), details (55.6%), and multiple perspectives (33.3%). In the real-world task,
15.6% of the students also utilized Thinking Like a Disciplinarian in combination with the
prompts of Depth and Complexity. The combined use of the prompts of Depth and Complexity
and Thinking Like a Disciplinarian is evidenced in results from the social studies discipline.
Students in both grade levels utilized overtime (26.7%), ethics (24.4%), and multiple
perspectives (22.2%). Thinking Like a Historian was used significantly in the core content social
studies task by 44.4% of the students.
The volume and variance of elements of a differentiated curriculum utilized by students
to accomplish tasks in the ELA and social studies disciplines were greater then the amounts used
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

151
in science and mathematics. Students utilized 12 elements in each of the mathematics tasks
compared to the 17 used in the ELA and social studies disciplines. The discrepancy between the
numbers of differentiated curriculum elements used by students across the disciplines was
consistent with the data that indicated teachers’ predominant use of certain content areas to
introduce and reinforce the elements.
The data evidenced a relationship between the elements of a differentiated curriculum
utilized by students to accomplish a task and the nature of the subject area discipline. The results
indicated that certain elements of a differentiated curriculum were utilized predominantly in
specific disciplines, where other elements were used across the discipline areas. The prompts of
details and patterns appeared at least once in all eight tasks on the Student Performance
Assessment. In contrast, the prompt of language of the discipline was used 34 times to complete
the tasks in the ELA discipline but was only used an additional four times in the other content
areas. Thinking Like a Historian, Anthropologist, and Geographer were heavily utilized in the
social studies and science disciplines and were rarely accessed in disciplines such as ELA and
mathematics.
Research in the field of gifted education validated the connection that existed between the
elements of a differentiated curriculum and the disciplines. According to Boyle and Peregoy
(1990), the elements of a differentiated curriculum were used to engage students in meaningful
conversations about content area disciplines and to uncover patterns that existed within the
content areas. The natural alignment between students and the nature of the disciplines is
reiterated in the research conducted by Johnsen (2004). Her research contended that gifted
students intrinsically demonstrate characteristics specific to various discipline areas. Gifted
students, for example have organized and sequenced ideas for writing, reading, and speaking
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

152
needed across the content areas. This research supports the data from this study, which
illustrated high levels of student transfer of elements such as details and patterns across the
disciplines. Finally, Tomlinson et al. (2008) argued that gifted students could not become
powerful, independent learners without engaging in curriculum that emphasizes concepts,
principles, and essential understandings of a discipline area.
Theme three: justification and rationale.

Table 4.37
Students’ Justification for the Selection of Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum – ELA Core
Content and Real-World Tasks (n=45)

I like it the
best.
I have had
more
practice
with it.
My teacher
uses it
more often.
I have used
it in this
subject
before.
I wanted to
try
something
new.
It was the
best match
for the
content.
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Core
Content
Task
3 6.7 15 33.3 3 6.7 5 11.1 3 6.7 14 31.1
Real-
World
Task
8 17.8 6 13.3 4 8.9 2 4.4 8 17.8 14 31.1
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

153
Table 4.38
Students’ Justification for the Selection of Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum – Social
Studies Core Content and Real-World Tasks (n=45)

I like it the
best.
I have had
more
practice
with it.
My teacher
uses it
more often.
I have used
it in this
subject
before.
I wanted to
try
something
new.
It was the
best match
for the
content.
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Core
Content
Task
5 11.1 2 4.4 3 6.7 8 17.8 4 8.9 21 46.7
Real-
World
Task
7 15.6 2 4.4 4 8.9 9 20.0 3 6.7 13 28.9

Table 4.39
Students’ Justification for the Selection of Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum – Science
Core Content and Real-World Tasks (n=45)

I like it the
best.
I have had
more
practice
with it.
My teacher
uses it
more often.
I have used
it in this
subject
before.
I wanted to
try
something
new.
It was the
best match
for the
content.
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Core
Content
Task
3 6.7 5 11.1 1 2.2 6 13.3 6 13.3 18 40.0
Real-
World
Task
12 26.7 2 4.4 3 6.7 2 4.4 5 11.1 17 37.8
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

154
Table 4.40
Students’ Justification for the Selection of Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum –
Mathematics Core Content and Real-World Tasks (n=45)

I like it the
best.
I have had
more
practice
with it.
My teacher
uses it
more often.
I have used
it in this
subject
before.
I wanted to
try
something
new.
It was the
best match
for the
content.
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Core
Content
Task
7 15.6 7 15.6 4 8.9 6 13.3 5 11.1 9 20.0
Real-
World
Task
5 11.1 7 15.6 1 2.2 3 6.7 8 17.8 17 37.8

Data was collected from the Student Performance Assessment to gain a deeper insight
into why students were utilizing specific prompts to aid in the completion of tasks in various
discipline areas. Students were asked to justify their selection of the elements of a differentiated
curriculum to accomplish tasks in each content area from the following options: (a) I like it the
best, (b) I have had more practice with it, (c) My teacher uses it more often, (d) I have used it in
this subject before, (e) I wanted to try something new, and (f) It was the best match for the
content. The results indicated two distinct patterns in students’ justification for the selection of
the elements of a differentiated curriculum. In all core-content area tasks except for ELA,
students self-reported the use of elements of a differentiated curriculum because they were felt it
was the best match for the content. “I have had more practice with it” was the most popular
(33.3%) justification for the core content ELA task across the grade levels. “It was the best
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

155
match for the content” was the most frequent justification for 100% of the real-world tasks
across the discipline areas. These results indicated that students were strategically utilizing the
elements of a differentiated curriculum to accomplish tasks and could justify the use of the
elements based on the discipline and the requirements of the task.
A second pattern evidenced in the data was the connection between the subject area and
students’ use of the justification: My teacher uses it more often. In disciplines such as
mathematics and science, this justification was the least utilized by students across the grade
levels. In the core content science tasks, 2.2% (1 out of 45) students selected this justification as
their rationale for utilizing the elements of a differentiated curriculum. The real-world
mathematics task evidenced similar results, with 2.2% of students self-reporting that they
selected elements of a differentiated curriculum based upon their teachers’ frequency of use.
These results aligned with other findings in this study and supported the hypothesis that teachers
were primarily introducing and reinforcing the elements of a differentiated curriculum with
English Language Arts and Social Studies content.
Qualitative data collected from the students provided another means of triangulation for
the data regarding the justification of the selection of elements of a differentiated curriculum.
Students’ responses to selecting elements of a differentiated curriculum to accomplish core
content tasks were presented below. These responses evidenced a clear connection between the
discipline area, the content material, the parameters of the task, and the belief that the element
was the best match to meet these factors. Key themes that emerged from the student responses
included: (a) the belief that specific elements help target specific understandings of the content,
(b) the use of prior knowledge in connection with the elements of a differentiated curriculum,
and (c) the use of the elements to help clarify unknown information.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

156
 “I selected details because the story had more detail in it then anything else.” –
Student B10
 “Details help me break down the story and I may understand it more.” – Student A13
 “I tried to match it best with Bill Clinton having the power to do that.” -- Student A2
 “It tells me what the history behind this is and if things are changing.” – Student B8
 “Because voting makes me think of different perspectives.” – Student A5
 “It makes sense that an economist would study this stuff.” – Student B26
 “”I know that overtime mountains become rocks and rocks become sand. It changes
overtime.” - Student B7
 “It helps me learn what is happening in the world” – Student A10
 “Because there is a rule for this math equation.” – Student B30
 “Big Ideas show you how to complete the problem.” – Student B1
 “Because the problem is a structure and you need to find out what it is.” -- Student
A11
 “The details help us find out what kind of math it is.” – Student B15
Summary of research question 3.
Research Question Three examined how different disciplines facilitated gifted students
abilities to transfer the elements of a differentiated curriculum. The results indicated a strong
connection between the discipline specific content and the selected types of differentiated
curricular elements utilized by the students in the presented tasks. Students were able to analyze
the nature of the discipline and the requirements of the task and selected the elements of a
differentiated curriculum that would best accomplish the task. The results of the data also
illustrated the alignment between the elements of a differentiated curriculum and the discipline
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

157
areas. For example, Thinking Like a Historian most aligned with the social studies disciplines,
and the use of rules in aligned with mathematical content, knowledge, and skills.
These findings reflected several factors articulated in the themes above: (a) that gifted
learners make connections between the disciplines and the elements of a differentiated
curriculum, (b) that gifted learners were impacted by the disciplines utilized by their teachers in
introducing and reinforcing the elements of a differentiated curriculum, and (c) that gifted
learners could justify their selection of elements based upon the discipline and the task.
Summary of Findings
This study was developed to gain an understanding of how students were transferring the
elements of a differentiated curriculum to new situations and discipline specific tasks. The intent
of this mixed-methods study was (a) to obtain quantitative results from a purposeful sample of
45 fourth and fifth grade students from a school site with a documented gifted program and
teachers trained in differentiated curriculum, and (b) to extend the quantitative data with
students’ own thoughts and feelings about transferring the elements of a differentiated
curriculum. Data was collected using a Teacher Survey, a Student Survey, and a Student
Performance Assessment to document how students valued the elements of a differentiated
curriculum as tools for learning, how students utilized the elements to accomplish discipline
specific tasks, and how the instructional strategies presented by their teacher impacted students’
abilities to transfer the elements of a differentiated curriculum.
The study revealed four significant findings aligned with the three overarching research
questions.
Quantitative and qualitative data were used to answer research question one: How do
gifted students perceive the importance (relevance, value) of transferring acquired elements of a
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

158
differentiated curriculum from one situations or context to another? One key finding emerged
from the data in regards to this research question. The results of this study found a direct
connection between students’ level of self-confidence and their abilities to transfer the elements
of a differentiated curriculum. The more self-confident students were in the development of
their understandings of the elements of a differentiated curriculum, the more able they were to
(a) express the importance of the elements to current and future learning, and (b) apply the
elements to the completion of core and real-world tasks.
Research question two analyzed quantitative and qualitative data to determine: What are
the instructional strategies that facilitate gifted students’ abilities to transfer the elements of a
differentiated curriculum from one situation or context to another? One key finding emerged in
regards to research question two. This study found a direct connection between the instructional
strategies utilized by the teacher and the preferred learning methods of the students. The data
evidenced that teachers’ preference for introducing the elements of a differentiated curriculum
aligned with the direct instruction pedagogical practice. This finding suggested that the types of
pedagogical practices or instructional strategies utilized by the teacher directly influenced the
format and delivery of learning experiences available for students to transfer the elements of a
differentiated curriculum.
Data gathered from the Student Performance Assessment and the Teacher Survey
addressed research question three: How do different disciplines facilitate gifted students’ abilities
to transfer the elements of a differentiated curriculum from one situation or context to another?
Two key findings emerged in relationship to research question three. The first finding
highlighted the strong connection that existed between the discipline specific content and task
and the elements of a differentiated curriculum self-selected by students to accomplish the task.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

159
The research found that students were able to understand the foundations of the discipline,
analyze the nature of the task, and select elements of a differentiated curriculum to aid in the
completion of the task. The data uncovered a relationship between the elements of a
differentiated curriculum and the unique features (language, methodology, tools, etc.) of each
discipline. The research indicated that students were able to make a strategic alignment between
nature of the discipline and the specific elements of a differentiated curriculum. The study also
found that students were able to clearly articulate a justification for their selection and
application of the elements of a differentiated curriculum to solve core content and real-world
tasks. Students were able to strategically and purposefully match the elements of a differentiated
curriculum to the discipline and the task, and could justify their reasoning to the researcher.
Ultimately, triangulation of the data collected from the various instruments enabled the
researcher to determine that (a) gifted students were able to express the importance of
differentiated curricular elements to the learning of both previously introduce and new content,
(b) students could articulate their preference for learning and their use of the differentiated
curricular elements, (c) that both teachers and students made conscious decisions regarding the
use of the elements of a differentiated curriculum, and (d) that teachers were underutilizing the
various instructional strategies or pedagogical practices as a means of introducing the elements
of a differentiated curriculum. The implications of these findings on future practice will be
discussed in Chapter 5.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

160
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of the study was to analyze the relationship between the elements of a
differentiated curriculum and gifted students’ abilities to transfer those elements to academic
new situations. A concomitant goal of the study was to examine students’ perceptions of the
elements of a differentiated curriculum: value for the elements of a differentiated curriculum as a
tool for learning, utilizing the elements of a differentiated curriculum across the discipline areas,
and reflecting metacognitively on the elements of a differentiated curriculum developed
specifically to meet their needs. In order to accomplish these goals, this study examined the
definitions, attributes, characteristics, and features of (a) transfer theory, (b) gifted learners
students and how they learn, and (c) elements of a differentiated curriculum for the gifted.
Transfer of learning is expected to occur when previously acquired knowledge and skills
influence, impact, or affect a learners’ response to a new situation or context (Gupta, 2010).
Seminal research on transfer theory conducted by Bransford and Schwartz (1999) argue that the
better-prepared students are for future learning, the greater the likelihood that the transfer of
knowledge and skills occurs. A synthesis of the literature on transfer theory highlighted the fact
that the transfer of knowledge and skills did not occur automatically within students or the
schooling process. Research conducted by Mayer (2002) documented the need to explicitly
teach to transfer and argued that the actuality of successfully teaching to transfer depended upon
the utilization of curriculum materials and instructional strategies that promoted and practiced
the use of knowledge and skills in various applications.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

161
Gifted learners were defined as individuals who demonstrated outstanding levels of
aptitude in one or more domains: academic, creativity, leadership, visual and the performing arts,
and psychomotor skills (National Association for Gifted Children, 2010). Research conducted
by Moon and Brighton (2008) articulated how gifted learners (a) made connections between
previously introduced and new material, (b) asked questions to gain a deeper understanding of
situations or contents, and (c) utilized problem solving strategies to accomplish new tasks.
Meeting the academic needs of gifted learners required the implementation of challenging
learning experiences that provided opportunities for choice, independent study, and the transfer
of knowledge and skills across the disciplines (Clark, 2008). The development and
implementation of differentiated curriculum is advocated in order to provide gifted learners with
opportunities to activate and develop their potential.
According to Gallagher (2000) and Kaplan (2005), differentiated curriculum for the
gifted refers to how changes are made to the core or basic curriculum to address the varying
needs of learners, promote equity and access to content, and utilize research-based pedagogical
practices or instructional strategies. Research in the field of gifted education underscores the
belief that there are “potentially limitless strategies” (Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2009, p. 600) utilized
to differentiate the curriculum to meet the individual needs of learners within a classroom.
However, the California Association for the Gifted and the California Department of Education
(2001, 2005) articulated a set of tenets or instructional elements necessary to differentiate the
curriculum to target the academic, social, and developmental needs of the gifted. The list
included the use of differentiated curricular elements such as: Universal Concepts, Big Ideas, the
prompts of Depth and Complexity, and Thinking Like a Disciplinarian.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

162
Table 5.1
Student Options for Transfer Related to the Elements of a Differentiated Curriculum
Universal Concepts Big Ideas
Thinking Like a
Disciplinarian
The prompts of Depth
and Complexity
 Relationships
 Power
 Order vs. Chaos
 Structure
 Systems
 Conflict
 Change
 Power can be
natural or human
constructed.
 Change is
inevitable.
 Systems have
parts that
interconnect.
 Relationships
change overtime.
 Structure follows
function.
 Geographer
 Astronomer
 Anthropologist
 Historian
 Zoologist
 Sociologist
 Economist
 Political Scientist
 Language of the
discipline
 Details
 Patterns
 Trends
 Rules
 Ethics
 Big ideas
 Interdisciplinary
connections
 Multiple
perspectives
 Overtime

Research conducted by Bernal (2003) contended that such tenets are integral to the
academic development of gifted learners because they placed less emphasis on the acquisition of
knowledge and skills and more on the strategic use of that knowledge.
The connection between the importance of teaching to transfer, the use of differentiated
curricular elements, and the education of gifted learners was documented in the literature. Virgil
Ward’s (1961) seminal work on the education for the gifted outlined how curriculum designed
for gifted learners should (a) focus on enduring understandings that could be applied to future
rather then “present state knowledge,” and (b) provide students with opportunities to practice
applying knowledge and skills in situations that “arise subsequently in the life career” (p. 156).
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

163
A National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent (1999) articulated the
importance of providing gifted learners with opportunities to engage with curriculum designed to
target problem solving, critical thinking, and the transfer of knowledge and skills. Finally, recent
publications by the California Department of Education (2005) documented how curriculum and
instruction for the gifted should provide opportunities for students to see the applications,
relevance, and value of the knowledge and skills learned in school to the real world.
The need to create learning experiences for gifted students that promote challenge,
aptitude, and transfer has been documented in the field of gifted education for over 50 years.
However, little research has been conducted to determine how gifted students transferred the
elements of a differentiated curriculum to independently accomplish new tasks in various
discipline areas. The purpose of this study was to bridge the literature on transfer and
differentiated curriculum to (a) design effective differentiated curriculum for gifted learners, (b)
utilize instructional strategies that align with how students think and prefer to transfer what they
have learned, and (c) establish open lines of communication for teachers and students as
contributing member of curriculum writing team. Data gathered focused on the following
research questions:
 How do gifted students perceive the importance (relevance, value) of transferring
acquired elements of a differentiated curriculum from one situation or context to
another?
 What are the instructional strategies that facilitate gifted students’ abilities to transfer
the elements of a differentiated curriculum from one situation or context to another?
 How do different disciplines facilitate gifted students’ abilities to transfer the
elements of a differentiated curriculum?
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

164
Methodology
This study was conducted using a mixed-methods approach. Data was collected using a
Teacher Survey, a Student Survey, and a Student Performance Assessment that integrated both
quantitative and qualitative questions. Anecdotal observations on the part of the researcher were
also used to support the three research questions. This study built upon the efforts of two
Department of Education, Jacob Javits grants awarded to Dr. Sandra Kaplan at the University of
Southern California. The grants focused on the use of models of teaching or instructional
practices as a means of presenting the elements of a differentiated curriculum to gifted learners.
The school site was selected for participation in this study because it was (a) a public elementary
school located in an urban district of Los Angeles, (b) a Title I school with an academically,
socially, and economically diverse student body, (c) labeled as a School for Advanced Studies
within the district and had a documented program for gifted learners that spanned grades K-5,
and (d) populated with teachers who participated in past grants and/or had received intensive
professional development training in the areas of differentiated curriculum and instructional
strategies for gifted learners.
Study participants were selected using a purposeful sampling method. Two classroom
teachers were chosen because they had documented longevity teaching gifted students, had prior
knowledge and experience utilizing both the elements of a differentiated curriculum and various
pedagogical practices, and had formally identified gifted learners in their classroom. Students
were purposefully sampled from the classrooms of the participating teachers. Formally
identified gifted students and high-ability learners in the queue to be assessed for a gifted
identification were invited to participate in the study. Based upon these criteria, 45 students
were utilized to complete the research outlined in this study. The composition of the participant
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

165
sample included the following number of students: 14 (31.1%) fourth graders and 31 (68.8%)
fifth graders. Students represented the following ages demographics: 6 (20%) nine-year-olds, 25
(55.5%) ten-year-olds, and 10 (22.2%) eleven-year-olds. Students selected for participation in
the study had between one and five years of exposure to the elements of a differentiated
curriculum. Study participants’ longevity in the gifted program included: 4 (8%) students with 1
year of experience, 9 (20%) students with 2 years of experience, 7 (15.5%) students with 3 years
of experience, 11 (24.4%) students with 4 years of experience, and 14 (31.1%) students with 5
years of experience.
Data was collected for the study using a quantitative Teacher and Student Survey. The
purpose of these surveys was to gather background information regarding: (a) students’ and
teachers’ familiarity with the elements of a differentiated curriculum, (b) the discipline areas
used by the teacher to introduce and reinforce the elements, and (c) the degree of students’ and
teachers’ academic comfort or self-confidence with each element of a differentiated curriculum.
The Student Performance Assessment was developed using an application-based approach. The
performance assessment used in this study was modeled after the student assessment created by
Dr. Sandra Kaplan on the Models of Teaching (PR#S206A040072) and Project Linking Learning
(PR#S206A090045) grants. The Student Performance Assessment was divided into four subject
areas: English Language Arts, social studies, science, and mathematics. Students were asked to
complete two tasks in each discipline area, a core content task and a real-world connection task.
Pictures, text excerpts, maps, and equations were used to provide students with opportunities to
transfer the elements of a differentiated curriculum across many and varied references. For each
task, students selected the elements of a differentiated curriculum they perceived facilitated their
completion of the learned and new tasks. Students completed the Student Survey and the
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

166
Student Performance Assessment in small groups of 5-6 with the researcher, and teachers
completed the Teacher Survey electronically via Survey Monkey.
Multiple forms of data analysis were completed as a result of this mixed-methods
research study. A variety of statistical measures were conducted to provide the correlation data
from students in the fourth and fifth grade classes. Descriptive statistics and multivariate tests
were utilized to provide the researcher with knowledge regarding the frequency, percentage
scores, means, and standard deviations of students’ use of the elements of a differentiated
curriculum. Multiple measures of analysis were used to determine (a) students’ level of self-
assuredness with each element of a differentiated curriculum, (b) the instructional strategies most
frequently utilized by the teacher in introducing each element, and (c) a correlation between the
elements of a differentiated curriculum and the discipline areas.
Key Findings
The data collected yielded four key findings in regards to the proposed research
questions. An overview of the alignment between the important findings of the study and the
research questions they helped to answer was provided in Table 5.2. An in-depth discussion of
each finding and the supporting literature was presented below.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

167
Table 5.2
The Alignment between the Key Findings and the Research Questions
Research
Question #1
Research
Question #2
Research
Question #3
Finding #1 – The more self-confident students
were in understanding the elements of a
differentiated curriculum, the more they valued
the transfer of the elements to their learning.
X
Finding #2 – The pedagogical practices utilized
by the teacher to introduce the elements of a
differentiated curriculum directly influenced
students’ transfer of the elements.
X
Finding #3 – Students were transferring the
elements of a differentiated curriculum by
forming strategic alignments between the
element, the discipline, and the task.
X
Finding #4 – Students were able to clearly
articulate their justification for the transfer of
specific elements of a differentiated curriculum.
X X X

Finding #1
Finding number one directly aligned and helped to answer research question one. An
analysis of the data found a direct correlation between students’ level of self-confidence with the
elements of a differentiated curriculum and the degree to which they saw it as an important tool
to aid in both current and future learning. The descriptive and inferential data evidenced that the
more confident students were with their own understandings of the elements of a differentiated
curriculum (a) the more frequently they transferred the elements to the completion of core
content and real-world tasks, and (b) the more they believed the elements were important in
helping them learn. On average, 97.7% (44 out of 45) of the students evidenced the pattern of
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

168
high confidence, high frequency of transfer, and high degree of importance with elements of a
differentiated curriculum such as: the prompts of Depth and Complexity and Universal Concepts.
This finding was reiterated in the qualitative responses a two student participants:
 “The prompts make me feel like I know how to solve a problem. It is like…I know
where to begin.” – Student B16
 “I have seen the prompts for a long time…since Kindergarten. I like them and I like
how they make me think now that I am in the fourth grade.” – Student A3.
The correlation between confidence level, frequency of use, and perceived importance
found in this study was consistent with literature in the field of gifted education. Research
conducted by Tomlinson (2009) documented how students’ confidence levels increased when
they believed in the learning process, and recognized its’ “significance and relevance” on their
growth and development (p. 602). Students with high levels of confidence on individual
elements of a differentiated curriculum utilized those elements with greater frequency then the
elements they perceived to be of less importance to their learning. McCombs and Marzano
(1990) contended that student’ attitudes and confidence levels directly influenced their
metacognition and impacted the intellectual decisions they made.
This finding suggests that students understand the importance of the elements of a
differentiated curriculum to accomplish tasks in both school and the world. This assertion is
supported by literature in the fields of educational psychology and gifted education. Sternberg
(1986) contends that gifted students possess the characteristics necessary to become decision-
makers in the learning process and can effectively select strategies required to self-complete a
task. For decades, followers of Dewey (1916) have stressed the importance of self-selection and
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

169
have encouraged students to generate connections between knowledge and skills, tasks, and the
instructional strategies relevant to aid in their completion.
The concept of self-regulation validated the findings of the first research question and
underscored the connection between knowledge use, motivation, and individual choice.
According to Woolfolk (2007), self-regulated learners were motivated to accomplish a task, were
strategic regarding their course of action, and believed that the task was important to learning.
The study found that there was a connection between how students’ perceived the importance of
the elements of a differentiated curriculum and how they strategically used them to accomplish
various tasks. Dembo (2001) contends that the goal of education is to create “life-long,
adaptable learners” (p. 27). This study supports this claim, and documents how students valued
the use of the elements of a differentiated curriculum and strategically used them as tools to
adapt in and to academic and real-world tasks, situations, and contexts.
Finding #2
Finding number two provided insight into how the instructional strategies utilized by the
teacher facilitated gifted students’ abilities to transfer the elements of a differentiated curriculum.
This finding indicated a relationship between the pedagogical practices utilized by the teacher to
introduce the elements of a differentiated curriculum and the opportunities provided for students
to transfer the elements. The data indicated that teachers were aligning the elements of a
differentiated curriculum with an instructional strategy or model of teaching. The direct
instruction model was most often used to introduce elements such as the prompts of Depth and
Complexity, Universal Concepts, and Thinking Like a Disciplinarian. The Advance Organizer
model was used to most often when presenting Big Ideas.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

170
The data found that students’ preferred methods for learning were positively aligned with
the teachers’ preferred method of delivery. Seventy-four percent of the students ranked listening
to my teacher as their preferred method of learning and 100% of the teachers (n=2) reported the
preferred use of the direct instruction model to introduce the elements of a differentiated
curriculum. The data also uncovered a relationship between the instructional strategies, the
discipline areas, and the elements of a differentiated curriculum introduced by the teacher. Both
teachers self-reported that they often introduced the elements of Universal Concepts, Big Ideas,
and the prompts of Depth and Complexity using the English Language Arts discipline. Thinking
Like a Disciplinarian was often introduced using the social studies discipline. The data found
that the discipline areas most often used by the teacher to introduce the elements of a
differentiated curriculum were the same ones utilized with more frequency by the students.
The finding that the instructional strategies selected by the teacher directly influence
students’ abilities to transfer highlighted in this study was supported by the literature. Research
conducted by Gupta (2010) reiterated the findings of this study and highlighted how the selection
of instructional strategies effected how students transferred knowledge and skills. Her research
documented how the use of instructional strategies influenced student transfer through (a) the
selection and sequencing of learning experiences, (b) the context in which the skills were
initially introduced, and (c) the instructional framework in which the ideas were practiced. The
introduction of the elements of a differentiated curriculum through instructional strategies
commensurate to student learning preference provided students with a degree of academic
comfort (Gallagher, 1981). The findings evidenced that when students’ academic comfort
increased in terms of the elements of a differentiated curriculum, so did their motivation and
frequency of use.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

171
Literature in the field of gifted education supported the findings of this study that the
strategic use of instructional strategies or pedagogical practiced increased student transfer of the
elements of a differentiated curriculum. Halpren (1998) contended that in order to engage in
successful transfer, students needed to be taught using “structural aspects of learning” that
functioned as a means of predicting solutions to tasks and problems (p. 453). Teachers in this
study frequently utilized direct instruction as a means of introducing the elements of a
differentiated curriculum, but included the use of instructional strategies such as bulletin boards,
learning centers, independent study projects, and class discussions as a means of reinforcing the
differentiated curricular elements. Research conducted by Scruggs and Mastropieri (1988)
illustrated how the performance of gifted learners increased when they were explicitly taught a
skill using a strategically selected strategy of instruction coupled with opportunities to practice
the skill in a self-directed, inquiry-based manner. The results of this study found a relationship
between the pattern of instruction and transfer.
Finding #3
Finding three helped to answer the third research question focused on understanding how
different disciplines facilitated gifted students’ abilities to transfer the elements of a
differentiated curriculum. The data revealed that students were utilizing prior knowledge of the
discipline to form strategic alignments between an element of differentiated curriculum and a
content-area task. The results indicated that students were consistently aligning specific
elements of a differentiated curriculum with specific discipline areas. The prompt of language of
the discipline (an element of Depth) was selected by 34 out of 45 students (75%) to complete
both the core content and real-world application tasks in the English Language Arts discipline.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

172
Similarly, 43 out of 45 students (95.5%) utilized the elements of Thinking Like a Historian and
an Anthropologist in the social studies tasks.
The connection between the elements of a differentiated curriculum and the discipline
areas is supported by the literature. Research conducted by Johnsen (2004) articulated the
natural alignment between skills within a discipline area. According to Mora-Flores and Kaplan
(2012), all disciplines contained their own unique language, tools, methodology, inventions,
theories, and significant contributions to society. The knowledge students gained regarding the
individual features of the disciplined allowed them to select elements of a differentiated
curriculum that best aligned with these characteristics, attributes, and features. Qualitative data
found during this study evidenced the strategic connections students made between the nature of
the disciplines and the elements of a differentiated curriculum.
 “I used language of the discipline when reading a story because you need to know the
important words in order to understand the story.” – Student B10
 “Rules are good for math because you need to know the math rule get the problem
right.” – Student B30
 “I pick Universal Concepts in social studies because they help me understand better
what is going on in the world.” – Student A10
Finding #4
The final finding of this study contributed to the understanding of all three research
questions. Data collected from an analysis of each research question led to the finding that
students were able to clearly articulate their beliefs about learning and the elements of a
differentiated curriculum. The data found that students understood and could communicate their
feelings regarding (a) the elements of a differentiated curriculum they believed to be important
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

173
tools in the development of their own learning, (b) their preferred method of learning and how
the elements of a differentiated curriculum were presented in ways that either facilitated or
negated opportunities for transfer, and (c) how and why they selected elements of a differentiated
curriculum to solve core content and real-world tasks in various discipline areas. The results
indicated that students were predominantly justifying their use of differentiated curricular
elements based on their connection to the content rather then the fact that they like it better, had
more practice with it, or saw their teacher use it more often. Qualitative data collected from
student responses validated this finding.
 “It’s more fun when I get to pick the prompts. I can use the ones that I feel with help
me do the lesson.” – Student B4
 “I like to look at what I need to do first, then decide what prompt is going to help me
do the best I can.” – Student B17
The ability of gifted students to articulate their beliefs about the learning process is
validated by the literature. Clark (2008) contended that gifted students possessed cognitive and
affective behaviors that aided in their ability to reflect upon and describe their thinking. Such
characteristics included: high verbal ability, abstract thought, and the ability to be self-aware.
Research conduced by Shore and Kanevsky (1993) documented how disposition such as
curiosity, persistence, and confidence contributed to the development of metacognition in gifted
learners. The literature argued that the ability of students to metacognitively reflect on their own
learning was a factor that separated successful and less successful learners. According to
Zimmerman (1989), successful learners (a) recognized the factors that influence their learning,
(b) made choices between the skills they used to learn, and (c) took control over their own
learning through the selection of learning-to-learn strategies.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

174
The findings in this study were supported by the use of learning-to-learn strategies as
means of developing metacognitive thinking in gifted students. Dembo (2001) defined learning-
to-learn as the bridges that students created between old and new information and the pathways
they followed to apply previously learning knowledge and skills to future situations and contexts.
Research conducted by Clark (2008) documented how “personal choice” was an essential feature
in helping gifted learners transfer information (p. 130). Gifted learners must be provided with
opportunities via instructional strategies to see themselves as capable learners. This study found
that gifted students (a) developed a personal relationship with the elements of a differentiated
curriculum, (b) actively used them as tools to complete previously learned and new tasks, and (c)
articulated their rationale for the selection of specific elements. Student B31 epitomized this
finding when discussing the prompts of Depth and Complexity: “I like my teacher, but
sometimes she picks the wrong one. I think ethics is the best, but she wants me to use
patterns…so I use patterns.”
Limitations
This study was limited by two key factors: the lack of validity and reliability of the data
collection instruments, and the small sample size. Although the data was collected using
instruments modeled from two Department of Education grants, the validity and reliability of the
instruments used in this study were not tested through the use of a pilot study. The results
generated from the data were also limited by the fact that the study examined students’ transfer
of the elements of a differentiated curriculum once, rather then over a series of reoccurring
meetings. The lack of longitudinal data could limit the generalizability of the results of this
study. This study also recognized that the results were limited by the small sample size. Data
was collected from one school site rather then from several sites representing a cross-section of
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

175
the district population. The fact that only two classroom teachers participated in the data
collection limited the points of comparison generated by the research. Finally, the results of the
study were limited by the fact that the researcher was responsible for coding and interpreting the
qualitative data. Misinterpretations and unintentional bias were possible limitations of the final
results and findings articulated in the study.
Implications for Practice
The findings of this study provide an analysis of the implications for three main areas of
practice in the field of education: (a) differentiated curriculum development, (b) differentiated
instruction, and (c) Teacher Education at both the pre-service and in-service level. Areas of
overlap between the implications for practice and the findings uncovered by this study are
outlined in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3
The Overlap between the Research Findings and Implications for Practice
Curriculum
Development Instruction
Teacher
Education
Finding #1 – The more self-confident students were in
understanding the elements of a differentiated curriculum, the
more they valued the transfer of the elements to their
learning.
X
Finding #2 – The pedagogical practices utilized by the teacher
to introduce the elements of a differentiated curriculum
directly influenced students’ transfer of the elements.
X X
Finding #3 – Students were transferring the elements of a
differentiated curriculum by forming strategic alignments
between the element, the discipline, and the task.
X
Finding #4 – Students were able to clearly articulate their
justification for the transfer of specific elements of a
differentiated curriculum.
X
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

176
Differentiated Curriculum Development
The information garnered as a result of this study could aid in the development of
differentaited curriculum for gifted learners that maximizes opportunities for student transfer.
This study found that students’ confidence levels with the elements of a differentiated curriculum
influenced how important they believed the elements were as a tool for learning. This study
documented how transfer was influenced by self-confidence, and how self-confidence was
developed as a product of repetition, success, and practice. Seminal as well as current research
in the field documented how transfer, even in academically gifted students, did not occur
automatically. Taba (1961) and Gupta (2010) demonstrated how transfer was contingent upon
the extent to which a curriculum focused on principles and provided opportunities for students to
practice applying these principles in many and varied situations.
The findings of this study advocate for the development of curriculum for gifted learners
based upon an exposure model. An exposure, or spiral-based model of curriculum would
provide gifted learners with an opportunity to (a) utilize to the elements of differentiated
curriculum in a variety of contexts, (b) create sophisticated and layered understanding of the
elements of a differentiated curriculum by utilizing a scope and sequence across the grade levels,
and (c) develop self-efficacy strategies regarding the elements of a differentiated curriculum that
transcend discipline or context specific tasks. This type of differentiated curriculum would
maximize the conditions for the transfer of learning by combining explicit teacher modeling of
HOW to use the elements of a differentiated curriculum with interest and aptitude-based
opportunities for students to self-select WHEN and WHY the elements might aid completion of
previously learned and new tasks.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

177
Differentiated Instruction
This study found that the pedagogical practices used by the teacher to introduce the
elements of a differentiated curriculum directly influenced the opportunities provided to students
to transfer the elements. This finding holds several implications for the instruction of gifted
learners. The research documents that gifted learners are characterized by their flexible thought
processes, their ability to synthesize large amounts of information, and their need to generate
relationships between ideas (Clark, 2008). Instruction for the gifted regarding the elements of a
differentiated curriculum should capitalize on and be created around the characteristics that
define gifted learners. This study found that teachers of the gifted were predominantly utilizing
the direct instruction model to introduce the elements of a differentiated curriculum. The use of
this instructional strategy at the exclusion of others might stymie rather then facilitate student
transfer. Instruction for gifted learners should utilize a variety of pedagogical practices and
should be strategically tailored to meet the academic, affective, and behavioral characteristics of
gifted learners as well as the discipline or content-related task.
This study also found that teachers were underutilizing a variety of discipline areas in
their initial instruction of the elements of a differentiated curriculum. Data evidenced the fact
that teachers predominantly introduced the elements of a differentiated curriculum in the English
Language Arts and social studies disciplines. The focus on one discipline in isolation of the
others within the boundaries of a learning experience offered a limited view of how the elements
of differentiation have applications that span the discipline areas. Instruction for gifted learners
should be created to encompass both intra-and-inter disciplinary strategies that provide
opportunities for students to make connections between the topics within a discipline as well as
across the discipline areas. Rogers (2007) contends that instruction for the gifted should provide
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

178
learners with daily challenge, opportunities to work on independent study projects, engage in the
depth and complexity of content matter, and vary in the pace and delivery of content. This study
points to the need to utilize multiple methods of instruction for gifted students to respond to the
their aptitudes and learning profiles.
Teacher Education
Although this study was conducted in an elementary school and focused on differentiated
curriculum for the gifted in the P-12 sector, it holds implications for both pre-service and in-
service Teacher Education. This study found that students were clearly able to articulate their
justification for the transfer of elements of a differentiated curriculum. This research documents
the need to educate teachers, at both the pre-and-in service level to look past their preconceived
notions of what gifted students (and children in general) are capable of producing. One of the
biggest barriers to in-service professional development is the belief on the part of the teachers
that the elements are a differentiated curriculum are “to hard” for their students to learn, and that
they cannot transfer independently these elements. The findings of this study counter that
position and advocate for the creation of in-service professional development that (a) utilizes
demonstration classrooms to combine theory with classroom practice, and (b) invites students to
participate in professional development workshops alongside their teachers (conversations with
Dr. Sandra Kaplan, 2012).
The findings in this study also hold implications for the types of courses developed and
implemented in Teacher Education programs. The requirements of many programs include
courses in human differences, which focus on recognizing variance of learning needs within a
classroom of students. The specific and unique characteristics of gifted learners are often
missing from discussions in these courses. The findings in this study document the fact that the
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

179
teaching to transfer does not occur spontaneously or automatically for gifted students. They
require instruction, through the use of differentiated curriculum, to perform to the fullest extend
of their potential. The use of various instructional strategies and the need to develop
interdisciplinary curriculum for the gifted are topics that must be embedded into the coursework
of pre-service teacher education programs.
Recommendations
Despite the potential contributions of this study to the body of literature on transfer
theory and differentiated curriculum for the gifted, four main areas warrant further research and
attention:
 The recent adoption of the Bloomfield Bill (California State Legislation, AB 2491)
will classify gifted students as a stand-along sub-group of the student population
starting in the 2014 school year. Future research could focus on the possible
implications of this bill on the instruction of the gifted learners at the classroom,
school, district, and state level. Researcher could also analyze the effects of the
Bloomfield Bill on various areas in the field of gifted education: gifted advocacy,
parents of gifted children, professional development for teachers of the gifted,
allocation of funding for gifted programs, identification criteria, and assessments for
gifted students. Future research could utilize the data collected from this study as a
justification for the need to teach to transfer for gifted learners and the implications it
holds for gifted learners as a unique sub-group of the population.
 The adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and their relationship to
the creation of differentiated curriculum for gifted learners. Dr. Sandra Kaplan and a
team of educators (inclusive of this researcher) from the California Association for
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

180
the Gifted are currently addressing the California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing to outline how differentiated curriculum for the gifted aligns with the
standards outlined in the Common Core. Future research is needed to examine how
instructional strategies related to how gifted students learn can be used to teach to
transfer using the CCSS. Future research is needed to analyze the new assessment
measures aligned with the CCSS. The performance-based instruments used in this
study could provide a foundation for the analysis of the performance-based
assessments outlined in the Common Core.
 How transfer of the element of a differentiated curriculum affect the development of
potential and the identification of gifted students using non-traditional methods. The
California Association for the Gifted and the University of Southern California are
currently researching the development of a curriculum to identify potential in young
learners (grades K-2). Future research is needed to determine the role that teaching to
transfer plays in the identification of young children. Studies could also be conducted
to examine early childhood curricula to determine the features that promote the
transfer of knowledge and skills and the best-practice instructional strategies that
could inform the piloted curriculum.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

181
Conclusion
“I know which elements I like to use. And I can tell you why I like to use them. It’s just that no
one has ever asked me before.” – Student B19

This study was conducted to bridge the research on teaching to transfer with the research
on differentiated curriculum for gifted learners. Through the use of quantitative and qualitative
data collection instructions, much was learned about (a) how gifted students value the elements
of a differentiated curriculum as a tool for learning, (b) how the instructional decisions
articulated by the teacher influenced students’ abilities to transfer the elements of a differentiated
curriculum, and (c) how the different discipline areas themselves facilitate the transfer of student
learning. Much was learned about how teachers of the gifted introduced the elements of a
differentiated curriculum to their students and how their students utilized them to accomplish
core content and real-world tasks. As the research study unfolded, it began to shed light on a
section of a much larger, much less researched puzzle: gifted learners as critical consumers of a
differentiated curriculum.
Theorists, university professors, and teacher practitioners with the best intentions of
providing opportunities for students to engage in transfer and meaningful learning usually
develop curriculum. Curriculum developed for gifted learners utilizes tenets of gifted programs
articulated by the California State Department, instructional strategies backed by data and
longevity of research, and content stipulated by our nations government. One voice remains
noticeable absent from the curriculum development table, the voice of the student; the ultimate
consumer of the curriculum. It is the hope that the findings articulated in this study provide
opportunities for future researchers to expand upon the concept of students as “partners” in the
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

182
curriculum development process and provide a platform for students to advocate for the creation
of curriculum that weaves theory and best-practice instruction with their needs, interests, and
voice.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

183
REFERENCES
Augustine, N.R. (2011). Educating the gifted. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
12(1), 1-2.
Bar-Tal, D., Kfir, D., Bar-Zohar, Y., & Chen, M. (1980). The relationship between locus of
control and academic achievement, anxiety, and level of aspiration. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 50, 53-60.
Baum, S., Emerick, L.J., Herman, G.N., & Dixon, J. (1989). Identification, programs, and
enrichment strategies for gifted learning disabled youth. Roeper Review, 12(1), 48-53.
Bernal, E.M. (2003). To no longer educate the gifted: Programming for gifted students beyond
the era of inclusionism. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 183-191.
Betts, G.T., & Kercher, J.K. (1999). The autonomous learner model: Optimizing ability.
Greenly, CO: ALPS Publishing.
Bisland, A. (2004). Using learning-strategies instruction with students who are gifted and
learning disabled. Gifted Child Today, 27(3), 52-58.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine.
Boole, M.E. (1904). The preparation of the child for science. Oxford, UK: The Clarendon
Press.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Education reform and the
contradictions of economic life. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.
Boyle, O., & Peregoy, S. (1990). Literacy scaffolds: Strategies for first and second language
readers and writers. The Reading Teacher, 44(4).
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

184
Bransford, J.D., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple
implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education,
24 (pp. 61-100). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
Bransford, J.D., Sherwood, R.D., Hasselbring, T.S., Kinzer, C.K., & Williams, S.M. (1990).
Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix and R.
Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology
(pp. 115-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Broudy, H.S. (1977). Types of knowledge and purposes of education. In R.C. Anderson, R.J.
Spiro, & W.E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 1-17).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, S.W., Renzulli, J.S., Gubbins, E.J., Siegle, D., Zhang, W., & Chen, C.H. (2005).
Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 49(1), 68-79.
Bruner, J.S. (1960). Learning and thinking. Harvard Educational Review, 29, 184-192.
Burden, P.R., & Byrd, D.M. (1999). Methods for effective teaching: Second edition. Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
California Association for the Gifted. (2002). Meeting the standards: A guide to developing
services for gifted students. CAG Press.
California Department of Education. (2005). Gifted and talented education program resource
guide, 2-56. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/gt/
California Department of Education. (2005). Recommended standards for programs for gifted
and talented students. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r12/documents/gatestandards.doc
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

185
California Department of Education and the California Association for the Gifted. (1994).
Differentiating the core curriculum and instruction to provide advanced learning
opportunities. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
Carr, M., & Borkowski, J.G. (1987). Metamemory in gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly,
31(1), 40-44.
Clark, B. (1997). Social ideologies and gifted education in today’s schools. Peabody Journal of
Education, 72(3&4), 81-100.
Clark, B. (2008). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at
school. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Clark, R.E., & Blake, S.B. (1997). Designing training for novel problem-solving transfer. In
R.D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N.M. Steel, & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Instructional design:
International perspectives, Volume I: Theory, research, and methods (pp. 183-214).
Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of
success and failure. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
CTGC (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanberbilt). (1993). Integrated media: Toward a
theoretical framework for utilizing their potential. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 12(2), 76-89.
Dai, Y.D., Swanson, J.A., & Cheng, H. (2011). State of research on giftedness and gifted
education: A survey of empirical studies published during 1998-2010 (April). Gifted
Child Quarterly, 55(2), 126-138.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

186
De Corte, E. (2003). Transfer as the productive use of acquired knowledge, skills, and
motivations. Current Directions in Psychological Research, 12, 142-146.
Dembo, M.H. (2001). Learning to teach is not enough – Future teachers also need to learn how
to learn. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 23-35.
Deschler, D.D., Ellis, E.S., & Lenz, B.K. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning
disabilities. Denver, CO: Love Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy in education. Macmillian Press.
Dixon, F., & Moon, S. (Eds.) (2006). The handbook of secondary gifted education. Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Dodds, K.M. (2010). Effects of the prompts of depth and complexity on gifted and non-gifted
students. Unpublished dissertation. University of Southern California Library.
Eccles, J.S., O’Neil, S.A., & Wigfield, A. (2005). Ability self-perceptions and subjective task
values in adolescents and children. In K. Anderson Moore & L.H. Lippman (Eds.), What
do children need to flourish? (pp. 237-249). New York, NY: Springer.
Ennis, R.H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179-186.
Feldhusen, J.F., & Hoover, S.M. (1986). A conception of giftedness: Intelligence, self concept,
and motivation. Roeper Review, 8, 140-143.
Field, G.B. (2009). The effects of using Renzulli Learning on student achievement: An
investigation of Internet technology on reading fluency, comprehension, and social
studies. International Journal of Emerging Technology, 4, 29-39.
Frasier, M.M., & Passow, A.H. (1994). Toward a new paradigm for identifying talent potential.
Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of
Connecticut.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

187
Freeman, J. (1999). Teaching gifted pupils. Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 185-190.
Ford, D.Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted black students: promising
practices and programs. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Ford, D.Y., & Grantham, T.C. (2003). Providing access for culturally diverse gifted students:
From deficit to dynamic thinking. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 217-225.
Gallagher, J.J. (1981). Another view: Making better use of research. Children and Youth
Services Review, 3(4), 403-410.
Gallagher, J.J. (1994). Teaching and learning: New models. Annual Review of Psychology, 45,
171-195.
Gallagher, J.J. (1997). Least restrictive environment and gifted students. Peabody Journal of
Education, 72(3), 153-165.
Gallagher, J.J. (2000). Unthinkable thoughts: Education of gifted students. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 44(5), 5-12.
Garcia, G. (2002). Chapter 1 (Introduction). In Student cultural diversity: Understanding and
meeting the challenge (3
rd
ed.) (pp. 3-39). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Ge, X., & Hardre, P.L. (2010). Self-processes and learning environment as influences in the
development of expertise in instructional design. Learning Environmental Research, 13,
23-41.
Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.L. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive
Psychology, 15, 1-38.
Goodlad, J.L. (1956). Three dimensions for organizing the curriculum for learning and
teaching. In Vincent Glennon (ed.), Frontiers of Elementary Education III. Proceedings
of a Conference on Elementary Education, Syracuse University Press.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

188
Goodlad, J.L. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Gordon, D. (1977). Children’s beliefs in internal-external control and self-esteem as related to
academic achievement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, 383-386.
Gottfried, A.E., & Gottfried, A.W. (1996). A longitudinal study of academic intrinsic
motivation in intellectually gifted children: Childhood through early adolescence. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 40(4), 179-183.
Grabinger, R.S., & Dunlap, C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. Alt-
J, 3(2), 5-34.
Gredler, M.E. (2009). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (6
th
Ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Gubbins, J. (1994). When “differentiated” becomes disconnected from curriculum. National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, Winter 1994. Retrieved from
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/newsletter/winter94/wintr941.html
Guilford, J.P. (1968). Intellectual factors in productive thinking: Chapter One. In M.J. Aschner
& C.E. Bish (Eds.), Productive thinking in education. New York, NY: The National
Education Association.
Gupta, M.S. (2010). Teaching to facilitate the transfer of learning. IEEE Microwave Magazine,
10, 48-59.
Hahn, W.G. (1980). Abstract memory for prose in gifted and normal students. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

189
Halpern, D.F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions,
skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4),
449-455.
Hamman, D. (1998). Preservice teachers’ value for learning-strategy instruction. Journal of
Experimental Education, 66, 209-221.
Harrison, C. (2004). Giftedness in early childhood: The search for complexity and connection.
Roeper Review, 26, 78-84.
Haskell, R.E. (2001). Transfer of learning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Heller, K.A. (2004). Identification of gifted and talented students. Psychology Science, 46(3),
302-323.
Herrick, V.E., & Tyler R.W. (1950). Toward improved curriculum theory. Supplementary
Educational Monograph No. 71. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Honig, A.S. (2001). How to promote creative thinking. Scholastic Early Childhood Today,
15(5), 34-40.
Hummel, J.E., & Holyoak, K.J. (1997). Distributed representation of structure: A theory of
analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104, 427-466.
Hunter, M. (1984). Knowing, teaching, and supervising. In P. Hosford (Ed.), Using what we
know about teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Johnsen, S. (2004). Identifying gifted students: A practical guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Jones, V.F., & Jones, L.S. (1998). Comprehensive classroom management: Creating
communities of support and solving problems (5
th
Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2004). Models of teaching (7
th
Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

190
Kanevsky, L. (2011). Differential differentiation: what types of differentiation do students
want? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 279-299.
Kaplan, S.N. (2005). Layering differentiated curricula for the gifted and talented. In F.A.
Karnes, & S.M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (2
nd
ed) (pp.
107-132). Waco, TX: Prufrock.
Kaplan, S.N. (2009). Myth 9: There is a single curriculum for the gifted. The Gifted Child
Quarterly, 53(4), 257-258.
Khatena, J. (1992). Gifted: Challenge and response for education. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock
Publishing, Inc.
King-Sears, M.E. (1997). Best academic practices for inclusive classrooms. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 29(7), 1-22.
Konstantopoulous, S., Modi, M., & Hedges, L.V. (2001). Who are America’s gifted? American
Journal of Education, 109(3), 334-382.
Kulik, J., & Kulik, C.L. (1984). Effects of ability grouping on elementary school pupils: A
meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Levin, J.R., Dretzke, B.J., McCormick, C.B., Scruggs, T.E., McGivern, J.E., & Mastropieri,
M.A. (1983). Learning via mnemonic pictures: Analysis of the presidential process.
Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 31, 161-173.
Lightner, R.L., Renander, R., & Kramer, E.F. (2008). Faculty and student attitudes about
transfer of learning. Insight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 3, 58-66.
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2008). Finger tip facts. Located from
notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/url/.../40E7CF9B252D0040E0430A0002100040
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

191
Lovecky, D.V. (1992). Exploring social and emotional aspects of giftedness in children.
Roeper Review, 15(1), 18-25.
Lynton, E., & Elman, S. (1987). New priorities for the university. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Manning, S., Stanford, B., & Reeves, S. (2010). Valuing the advanced learner: Differentiating
up. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 83,
145-149.
Marini, A., & Genereux, R. (1995). In A. McKeough, J. Lupart, & A. Marini (Eds.), Teaching
for transfer: Fostering generalization in learning (pp. 1-20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Marland, S.P. (1971). Education of the gifted and talented, Volume 1: Report to the Congress of
the United States. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Martinson, R.A. (1974). The identification of the gifted. Washington: D.C. National Institute
of Education.
Maslow, A. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York, NY: Viking Press.
Mayer, R.E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 226-232.
Mayer, R.E, & Wittrock, M.C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D.C. Berliner & R.C.
Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47-62). New York, NY:
MacMillan.
McCombs, B., & Marzano, R.J. (1990). Putting the self in self-regulated learning: The self as
agent in integrating will and skill. Educational Psychologist, 25, 51-69.
Merrill, M.D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(3), 43-59.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

192
Moon, T.R., & Brighton, C.M. (2008). Primary teachers’ conceptions of giftedness. Journal for
the Education of the Gifted, 31(4), 447-480.
Mora-Flores, E., & Kaplan, S.N. (2012). Thinking like a disciplinarian: Developing academic
language in social studies classrooms. Social Studies Review, 51, 10-15.
Morse, J.M. (1999). Qualitative generalizability. Qualitative Health Research, 9(1), 5-6.
Mulhern, J.D. (2003). The gifted child in the regular classroom. Roeper Review, 25(3), 112-
115.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2008). Information and resources. Retrieved from
http://nagc.org/index2.aspx?id=33
Neihart, M., Reis, S.M., Robinson, N.M., & Moon, S.M. (Eds.). (2002). The social and
emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX: Pufrock Press.
Oakland, T., Joyce, D., Horton, C., & Glutting, J. (2000). Temperament-based learning styles of
identified gifted and non-gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 183-189.
Passow, A.H. (1982). Differentiated curricula for gifted/talented: A point of view. In S. Kaplan,
A.H. Passow, P.H. Phenix, S. Reis, J.S. Renzulli, I. Sato, L. Smith, E.P. Torrance, & V.S.
Ward, Curricula for the gifted (pp. 1-21). Ventura, CA: National/State Leadership
Training Institute on the Gifted/Talented.
Passow, A.H., & Tannenbaum, A.J. (1976). Education of the gifted and talented. NASSP
Bulletin, 60(3), 3-12.
Passow, H., Goldberg, M., Tannenbaum, A., & French, W. (1955). Planning for talented youth.
Teacher’s College of Columbia.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Third Edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

193
Pea, R.D. (1987). Socializing the knowledge transfer problem. International Journal of
Educational Research, 11, 639-663.
Perkins, D.N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46(1),
22-32.
Perkins, D.N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning. In the International encyclopedia
of education, Second Edition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Pressey, S.L. (1944). Psychology and the new education. Harper Press.
Puustinen, M., & Pilkkinen, L. (2001). Models of self-regulated learning: A review.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45, 269-286.
Reis, S.M., & Renzulli, J.S. (2009). Myth 1: The gifted and talented constitute one single
homogeneous group and giftedness is a way of being that stays in the person over time
and experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 233-235.
Renzulli, J.S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs
for the gifted and talented. Wethersfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J.S. (1979). What makes giftedness?: Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan.
Moravia, NY: Chronicle Guidance Publications.
Renzulli, J.S. (1984). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for
promoting creative productivity. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, 68
th
. New Orleans, LA.
Renzulli, J.S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for
creative productivity. In R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of
giftedness (pp. 53-92). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

194
Renzulli, J.S., Reis, S.M., & Smith, L.H. (1981). The revolving door models: A new way of
identifying the gifted. Phi Delta Kappan, 62(9), 648-649.
Resnick, L.B. (1989). Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Galser.
Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
Richert, E.S. (1987). Rampant problems and promising practices in the identification of
disadvantaged gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(4), 149-154.
Riles, W. (1971). Principles, objectives, and curricular programs in the education of mentally
gifted minors kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: California State
Department of Education, Office of State Printing.
Robinson, A., & Clinkerbeard, P.R. (1998). Giftedness: An exceptionality examined. Annual
Review of Psychology, 49, 117-139.
Rogers, K.B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of
the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382-396.
Ross, P.O. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Salkind, N.J. (2011). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. (SPSS edition).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D.N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a
neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113-124.
Sankar-DeLeeuw, N. (2002). Gifted preschoolers: Parent and teacher views on identification,
early admission, and programming. Roeper Review, 24(3), 172-177.
Schack, G. (1993). Effects of a creative problem-solving curriculum on students of varying
ability levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 32-38.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

195
Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schunk, D. (1995). Self-monitoring of skill acquisition through self-evaluation of capabilities.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, CA.
Scruggs, T.E., & Cohn, S.J. (1983). Learning characteristics of verbally gifted students. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 27(4), 169-172.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1988). Acquisition and transfer of learning strategies by
gifted and nongifted students. Journal of Special Education, 22(2), 153-166.
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., Monson, J., & Jorgensen, C. (1985). Maximizing what gifted
students can learn: Recent findings of learning strategy research. Gifted Child Quarterly,
29(4), 181-185.
Seagoe, M. (1974). Some learning characteristics of gifted children. In R. Martinson (Ed.), The
identification of the gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: Office of the Ventura County
Superintendent of Schools.
Shavelson, R.J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments,
decisions, and behaviors. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455-498.
Shore, B.M., Coleman, F.B., & Moss, E. (1992). Cognitive psychology and the use of protocols
in the understanding of giftedness and high level thinking. In F. Monks & W. Peters
(Eds.), Talent for the Future. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
Shore, B.M., & Kanevsky, L.S. (1993). Thinking processes: Being and becoming gifted. In
K.A. Heller, F.J. Monks, & H.A. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of Research and
Development of Giftedness and Talent. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

196
Silva, E. (2008). Measuring skills for the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: Education Sector.
Retrieved November 22, 2008 from
http://www.newtechfoundation.org/press_research/MeasuringSkills_11-08.pdf
Singley, M.K., & Anderson, J.R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skills. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Stanley, W.B., & Nelson, J.L. (2012). The foundations of social education in historical context.
In R.A. Martusewicz & W.M. Reynolds (Eds.), Inside out: Contemporary critical
perspectives in education. Psychology Press.
Steipen, W., & Stepien, W. (2006). Pulling the cat’s tail in social studies and history classrooms.
In F. Dixon & S. Moon (Eds.), The Handbook of Secondary Education (pp. 393-426).
Waco, TX.
Sternberg, R.J. (1982). Intelligence applied. San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Braw, Jonanovich.
Sternberg, R.J. (1997). Successful Intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence
determine success in life. New York, NY: Plume Publishing.
Sternberg, R.J. (2007). Cultural concepts of giftedness. Roeper Review, 29(3), 160-166.
Sternberg, R.J., & Davidson, J.E. (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2
nd
ed). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2007). Teaching for successful intelligence: To increase
student learning and academic achievement (2
nd
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Sternberg, R.J., & O’Hara, L.A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed).,
Handbook of Creativity (pp. 251-272). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

197
Subotnik, R.F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F.C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and
gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3-54.
Swiatek, M.A., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2002). Elementary and middle school student
participation in gifted programs: Are gifted students underserved? Gifted Child
Quarterly, 47, 118-130.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt,
Brace, & World, Inc.
Terman, L.M. (1959). Genetic studies of genius: The gifted group of mid-life. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Terman, L.M., & Oden, M.H. (1959). Thirty-five years’ follow-up of the superior child: Genetic
studies of genius, Vol. 5. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Tomlinson, C.A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.
Pearson Publishing.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2000). Differentiated instruction: Can it work? The Education Digest, 65(5),
25-31.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and
tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C.A, Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C.M., Moon, T.R., Brimijoin, K.,
Conover, L.A., & Reynolds, T. (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(2/3), 119-145.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

198
Tomlinson, C.A., Brimijoin, K., & Narvaez, L. (2008). The differentiated school: Making
revolutionary changes in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C.A., & Jarvis, J.M. (2009). Chapter 22: Differentiation: Making curriculum work
for all students through responsive planning and instruction. In J. Renzulli et al. (Eds.),
Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. Storrs: CT:
Creative Learning Press.
Torrance, E.P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Torrance, E.P. (1965). Emerging concepts of giftedness. As cited in W. Barbe & J.S. Renzulli
(Eds.) (1975), Psychology and education of the gifted. New York, NY: Irvington
Publishers.
Torrance, E.P. (1993). Understanding creativity: Where to start? Psychological Inquiry, 4(3),
232-234.
Treffinger, D., & Feldhusen, J. (1996). Talent recognition and development: Successor to gifted
education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 181-193.
Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Tyler, R.W. (1957). Meeting the challenge of the gifted. The Elementary School Journal,
58(2), 75-82.
U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A Case for developing America’s
talent. Washington D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Jacob K. Javits gifted and talented students education
program: Legislations, regulations, and guidelines. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/javits/legislation.html
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

199
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Social and Rehabilitation Service. (1967).
The story of the White House conferences on children and youth. Washington, D.C.:
Children’s Bureau (DHEW).
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Selecting instructional strategies for gifted learners. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 36(3), 1-12.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005). Gifted programs and services: What are the nonnegotiables?
Theory into Practice, 44(2), 90-97.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A.X., Brown, E., Bracken, B., Stambaugh, T., French, H., McGowan,
S., Worley, B., Quek, C., & Bai, W. (2008). A study of differentiated instructional
change over 3 years. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(4), 297-312.
Vaughn, V.L., Feldhausen, J.F., & Asher, J.W. (1991). Meta-analyses and review of research
on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 92-98.
Vishnevsky, T., & Beanlands, H. (2004). Qualitative research. Nephrology Nursing Journal,
31(2), 234-238.
Ward, V. (1961). Education for the gifted: an axiomatic approach. Columbus, OH: Merrill
Books, Inc.
Wittek, M. (1973). Reflections of the gifted by the gifted on the gifted, grades five, six, and
seven. Gifted Child Quarterly, 17(4), 250-253.
Witty, P.A. (1958). Who are the gifted? In N.B. Henry (Ed.), Education of the gifted. Fifty-
seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: IL.
Witty, P.A. (1971). The education of the gifted and creative in the USA. In Walter Babre &
Joseph Renzulli (Eds.), Psychology and Education of the Gifted: Second Edition. New
York, NY: Irvington Publishers, Inc.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

200
Wolfe, P. (2001). Brain matters: Translating research into classroom practice. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Woolfolk, A. (2007). Educational psychology, Tenth Edition. Allyn and Bacon Publishing.
Zeichner, K.M., & Tabachnick, B.R. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education
‘washed out’ by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 7-11.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 31(1), 41-49.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Education
Psychology, 25, 82-91.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into
Practice, 41, 64-70.
THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

201
APPENDIX A
TEACHER SURVEY

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

202

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

203

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

204

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

205

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

206

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

207

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

208

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

209

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

210

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

211

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

212

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

213

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

214

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

215

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

216

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

217
APPENDIX B
STUDENT SURVEY

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

218

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

219

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

220

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

221

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

222
APPENDIX C
STUDENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

223

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

224

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

225

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

226

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

227

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

228

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

229

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

230

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

231
APPENDIX D
PARENTAL PERMISSION FORM

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

232

THE ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM

233

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Despite the vast research conducted on the elements of a differentiated curriculum for gifted learners, much is still unexamined about how gifted students are transferring these elements and are using them to accomplish previously learned and new materials. Prior research indicates that factors such as students’ self-assuredness, the instructional strategies utilized by the teacher, and the nature of the disciplines influence how students learn and perform academically on school-related tasks. This study examines the specific relationship that exists between these factors and gifted students’ abilities to transfer the elements of a differentiated curriculum to both core content and real-world tasks across the disciplines. The elements of a differentiated curriculum for the gifted used in this study include: Universal Concepts, Big Ideas, the prompts of Depth and Complexity, and Thinking Like a Disciplinarian. This study examines how, when, and under what conditions gifted students transferred 31 elements of a differentiated curriculum to accomplish a series of tasks in English Language Arts, social studies, science, and mathematics. Forty-five fourth and fifth grade students from a public Title I school in urban Los Angeles participated in this study. An analysis of the data collected from Teacher Surveys, Student Surveys, and Student Performance Assessment provide insight into the relationship between student importance (self-assuredness), teacher instructional decision-making, the discipline areas, and students’ transfer of the elements of a differentiated curriculum. Additionally, patterns and themes that emerged from students’ own reflections on their use of differentiated curriculum to complete tasks were examined. The results of the data indicate that students are clearly and concretely able to articulate their beliefs regarding (a) the importance of the elements of a differentiated curriculum as a tool for learning, (b) their preferred method for learning and for transferring the elements of a differentiated curriculum, and (c) the alignment between the elements and the discipline areas. These results hold implications for the development of differentiated curriculum for gifted learners, instructional strategies used to teach gifted children, and the content presented in Teacher Education programs at both the pre-service and in-service level.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

The spill over effect: an examination of differentiated curriculum designs in a heterogeneous classroom

PDF

Technology as a tool: uses in differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted learners

PDF

Effects of the prompts of depth and complexity on gifted and non-gifted students

PDF

The role of principal leadership in achievement beyond test scores: an examination of leadership, differentiated curriculum and high-achieving students

PDF

Differentiated culturally relevant curriculum to affirm identity for gifted African American students

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions and implementation of instructional strategies for the gifted from differentiation professional development

PDF

Experts’ perspectives on the application and relevancy of Depth and Complexity to academic disciplines of study

PDF

Factors affecting the transfer of differentiated curriculum from professional development into classroom practice

PDF

An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?

PDF

Relationships between teachers' perceptions of gifted program status and instructional choices

PDF

Actual and ideal instructional practices in California high school gifted geometry education

PDF

A curriculum to teach innovation in K-4 gifted classrooms

PDF

Identifying young gifted children

PDF

Factors that influence the identification of elementary African American students as potentially gifted learners

PDF

Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement

PDF

Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling

PDF

Literacy across the disciplines

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

Meaningful access to the Common Core for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities

Asset Metadata

Creator Manzone, Jessica A. (author)

Core Title The elements of a differentiated curriculum for gifted students: transfer and application across the disciplines

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 04/10/2013

Defense Date 03/12/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag depth and complexity,differentiated curriculum,Gifted Education,OAI-PMH Harvest,transfer

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kaplan, Sandra (committee chair), Gallagher, Raymond John (committee member), Yates, Kenneth A. (committee member)

Creator Email jmanzone@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-235252

Unique identifier UC11294825

Identifier etd-ManzoneJes-1538.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-235252 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ManzoneJes-1538-2.pdf

Dmrecord 235252

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Manzone, Jessica A.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA