Differentiated Instructions for High Ability Diverse Learners A

Differentiated Instructions for High Ability Diverse Learners A Case Study in a Secondary School in Singapore 8 TH Asian Conference on Education, Kobe Japan Date: 21 OCT 2016 Presented by: Ms Tan Yen Chuan Specialist Raffles Girls’ School Singapore

Presentation Outline Introduction of Raffles Girls’ School (RGS) and Centre of Pedagogical Research and Learning (Pe. RL) Research Purpose and Context Definition of terms & Literature Review Methodology Key Findings Enablers and Challengers Recommendations & Policy implications Knowledge Sharing

Raffles Girls’ School (Secondary) VISION To aspire, strive and dare to be active creators of a better age for all MISSION Nurturing the high ability girl to be a leader who will realise her talents in service of nation and community

Milestones 137 years in education 32 years in gifted education 23 years of independence 12 years of Raffles Programme

Raffles Programme Modelled on exemplary gifted education principles and practices Seamless curriculum from Years 1 to 6 (ages 13 to 18) to stretch and nurture gifted and talented learners Develop the whole person: Person, Thinker, Leader, Pioneer Develop students in 5 key domains ◦ ◦ ◦ Cognitive Character and Leadership Community and Citizenship Sports and Health Arts and Aesthetics

Student Profile RGS students come from more than 100 primary schools in Singapore Top 5% of the primary school cohort Age: 13 to 16 years old (RGS); 17 to 18 (RI) Each student brings with her gifts and talents in different academic, sports, arts and other domains Diverse multi-cultural pupil population

Centre for Pedagogical Research and Learning (Pe. RL) Launched in August 2010 with the aim of engendering a culture of informed practice in the school Hone the Reflective Practitioner to optimise student learning Provides training and consultancy to educational institutions which are practitioneroriented and mindful of school context Emphasises the Asian context

Centre for Pedagogical Research and Learning (Pe. RL) Pe. RL’s aspiration Ø Generating an Asian Discourse ØCollaboration with educational institutions in Asia Examples of Workshops 1. Teach Less Learn More 2. The Design of a Performance Task 3. Use of Critical Thinking Tools and Strategies 4. Workshop on Practitioner Inquiry 5. Thinking Like an Assessor: Design of Formative Assessment 6. Role of Formative Assessment in 21 st. C Education

Knowledge Sharing Annual Open Classroom Share research at conferences In house staff publication Good Practice Day Practitioner-oriented workshop Biennial Symposium

Centre for Pedagogical Research and Learning (Pe. RL) Pe. RL’s aspiration Ø Generating an Asian Discourse ØCollaboration with educational institutions in Asia Examples of Research 1. A case study on factors influencing teachers’ readiness in embarking on Practitioner Inquiry: Teachers’ motivations and challenges (2012 -13) 2. Differentiated instructions for high ability diverse learners in a regular classroom: a case study in an independent school (2014 -15) 3. Evaluating Teacher Practice in a Whole School Curriculum Framework: The Role of Professional Learning Communities (2015 -16)

Differentiated Instructions (DI) for High Ability Diverse Learners A Case Study in a Secondary School in Singapore Ms Tan Yen Chuan Specialist Raffles Girls’ School Singapore

Definition of terms Differentiated instruction is the planned process of ensuring that the students’ readiness level, interests and preferred mode of learning is taken into consideration when deciding the learning content, learning process and the product. This is with the intent of maximizing the potential of each learner through meeting the needs of the varied learners (Tomlinson, 2004). Principles of effective differentiation: Students and teachers are collaborators in learning. Teachers in differentiated classes understand the need to help students take increasing responsibility for their own growth. Self-directed learning (SDL) is defined as “any increase in knowledge, skill, accomplishment, or personal development that an individual selects and brings about by his or her own efforts using any method in any circumstances at any time. ” (Gibbons, 2002) DI is complementary to SDL

Raffles Girls’ School Admits the top 5% of the cohort, through Primary School Leaving Exam: 1600 pupils Offer Direct School Admission for specific domains Offers curriculum based on Gifted Education principles Has a diverse student population: multi-cultural

Characteristics of high-ability/gifted learners Ability to learn at faster rates; Ability to make connections & manipulate abstract ideas; Capacity to find, solve & act on problems more readily ◦ J. Van Tassel-Baska (1986) RGS provides curriculum differentiation for learners who are especially gifted in a particular discipline.

Teaching & Learning Focus RGS adopts the Integrated Curriculum Model (ICM) by Joyce Van. Tassel-Baska (1986, 1995, 2012) The ICM is intended for gifted learners and has 3 dimensions:

The Singapore Model Gifted/ High Ability pupils follow the regular curriculum and take the same examinations as those in the mainstream, but with - additional subjects - greater depth - exposure to varied learning experiences such as project work

Raffles Girls’ School (RGS) ~ Core Competency of a Teacher Differentiated Instruction (DI) is a RGS Core Competency that complements Self-Directed Learning (SDL). ◦ Students are at different levels of readiness for SDL ◦ Requires differentiated support e. g. timely interventions, coaching, & formative feedback (Wilka and Cohen, 2014). ◦ Data-driven differentiated instruction remains at the heart of a self-directed approach (Freeland, 2014).

Research Purpose Two years have passed since DI was the school focus in 2013 - a timely review To understand how teachers plan & implement differentiated instruction (DI) to address the needs of high ability diverse learners in the classroom To understand the enablers and their challenges faced by teachers when implementing DI.

ACROSS STUDIES Teachers do not differentiate much or appropriately without interventions (but think they do). ◦ hold misunderstandings about what differentiation is. . . ◦ often feel that they are differentiating when they are not. High stakes testing is an inhibitor to changing teacher behavior to focus on individual needs and differentiate Two Decades of Research on Differentiation: What Do We Now Know? Catherine M. Brighton, Ph. D. & Tonya R. Moon, Ph. D A Cliff Notes Summary of Some of Our Research NRC/GT @ UVA

RGS School Context (with ref to Gifted Education curriculum review) Curriculum differentiation: Raffles Academy (RA) ◦ Cater to students with special talents and passions with the aim to develop their distinct ability. ◦ Students chosen for the Academy will be pulled from their regular classes for up to a maximum of two subject areas for Secondary 3 and 4. ◦ Given opportunity to accelerate and advance their learning Only involves a small population of the especially gifted, per subject. Only offered in upper level & capped at 2 (due to the demanding nature of the advanced classes).

RGS School Context (with ref to Gifted Education curriculum review) Implication: ◦ Many learners who would be capable of engaging in advanced course materials & assignments but are learning the standard curriculum. A need to intensify the efforts to address the individual needs of advanced learners, nonadvanced learners and underachievers in the regular classroom ◦ through differentiated instruction so that they will feel appropriately challenged and be engaged in their learning.

Teachers’ belief system and understanding/ proficiency matters Teachers who have undergone more staff development show no increase in the use of differentiation strategies for gifted learners (Westberg & Daoust, 2003). Teachers might have different understanding on the use of the new strategy (Gene E Hall & Hord, 2006). ◦ Teachers might refer their teaching strategy as DI, but what actually happens in the classroom might be very different.

Teachers’ belief system and understanding/ proficiency matters Many teachers tend to “teach to the middle” (Haager & Klingner, 2005) ◦ Pressure to complete curriculum ◦ Expectations to ensure students to perform well in standardized test

Research Question 1. 2. General question: How do teachers use differentiated instruction to address the needs of diverse high ability learners in a classroom? ” Guiding questions: How do teachers plan and implement differentiated instruction in a classroom? What are the enablers and challenges that teachers perceived in using differentiated instruction?

Significance Input to design staff development programs address concerns & challenges Support teachers in developing competency in Differentiated Instruction (DI) Input for designing standard-based practice for DI ◦ DI matrix

Tomlinson’s model

Methodology Case study Qualitative (intensive description & analysis) ◦ Lesson observations (COS-R, DCOS, Assessing Classroom Differentiation Form) ◦ Pre and post lesson observations interviews ◦ Unit plans and lesson plans ◦ Other school documents (school policy, GE curriculum review, DI induction materials etc. ) Triangulation of data to provide an in-depth understanding on how teachers use differentiated instruction in a classroom.

Data collection Method 1 to 1 Interview (1 to 1) for 60 minutes Lesson Observation (55 min) (lesson plan and unit plan). -Pre interview (15 min). -post interview (15 min). Number of participants per department 3 -4 teachers 2 out of 4 (based on interview & availability) *managed to visit 5 • Each Department: 3 -4 teachers (min 2 yrs experience, NIE trained, undergone DI induction). • Departments: English, Mathematics, Science, Humanities, Languages • Total sampling size: 18 (reached saturation point)

Guiding Research Questions 1. 2. How do teachers plan and implement differentiated instruction in a classroom? What are the enablers & challenges that teachers perceived in using DI?

1. How do teachers plan and implement differentiated instruction in a classroom?

What works? 31

Key Findings (+) There is evidence of good DI practices (aligned to principles of differentiation), e. g. : 1. Data-driven: Conscious use of diagnostic & ongoing assessments. 2. Use of flexible grouping based on the understanding of students.

Example 1: Data-driven (+) M 9 recognises that DI is Data-driven: “the strength is I’m able to collect relevant data to ascertain where my students are”. . So that I can cater lesson according to their needs”. • Ongoing assessment: “we have to test them along the way to see where they are” • Continuous Learning: “communicate with the senior teachers in my department …I get to hear from them”. • Ø Examples of other teachers using diagnostics tests: M 3 used the VIEW profiling to differentiate according to students learning profiles. M 5 constructed a knowledge map to assess prior knowledge. M 8 used a short quiz at the start of the unit.

Example 2: Flexible grouping(+) M 9 differentiates lesson to suit ability level through flexible grouping: ◦ Ability was diagnosed based on previous assessment results. ◦ Students were grouped by ability: High, Middle, Low ◦ 3 sets of questions with differing levels of complex variables are used.

Key Findings (+) There is understanding that DI should be a planned process to anticipate & respond to different needs of students. There is evidence of DI elements infused into unit lesson plans through the Ub. D (Understanding by Design) framework

Key Findings (+) • Teachers tend to differentiate by readiness and students’ interest. • 4 common modus operandi below. Students’ Readiness 61% Students’ Interests 35% Diff Process : 69% Diff Content: 67% Diff Content: 31% Diff Product: 33% … because I’m quite exam-focused, so I would go by readiness” (M 18) L. S 4%

Areas for Improvement 37

Key Findings (-) Teachers tend to focus on advanced learners & underachievers with regards to readiness level. ◦ Most teachers diagnosed readiness based on academic results but less of socio-emotional needs and prior knowledge. Needs of the middle group (the majority) might not be sufficiently addressed. ◦ This may seem logical and practical, but knowledge of the needs of students in the middle group is lacking and they ceased to be recognized as individual learners. ◦ “Maybe there are the middle ability groups which have been lumped into the 2 ends of spectrum” (M 8).

Micro differentiation is Not enough (-)

Micro differentiation is Not enough (-) Ø Differentiation choice. is not just about offering - Teacher provided two case studies on a topic. Students are free to select the case study – “it was a good idea to give them something differentiated by content, differentiated by interest” (M 5). - M 15 used content differentiation by providing enriched content for students who may be interested, but “I’m quite sure that none of them went to have a look”. Ø Differentiation is about understanding and responding to students’ needs - “Usually we do this (advanced content) because there are higher ability students. . We just want to keep them occupied, in a way make their learning time a bit more fruitful” (M 7). - Teacher only asks a few complex qns to higher ability students during class discussion (M 1).

Micro differentiation is Not enough (-) Differentiation is not simply adding more or less work. High ability students to do 10 more than others (M 11) We “give extra questions for the higher able” (M 7) Simply adjusting the quantity of an assignment will generally be less effective than adjusting the nature of the assignment to match student needs as well (Tomlinson, 2001)

2. What are the enablers & challenges that teachers perceived in using DI?

Enablers towards using DI in the classroom Belief system and teachers’ understanding 43

Key Findings Understanding the rationale of DI and having compelling reasons for using DI is an enabler ◦ e. g. teachers’ quotes: ◦ “address learning needs” ◦ “all students are different” ◦ “keeps students more engaged, especially higher ability ones” ◦ “Can be more targeted remediation”

Challenges 45

Key Findings Teachers should be given more mentoring & more exemplars on the application of DI in their discipline. ◦ Request for subject specific DI exemplars/ real life successful examples by several teachers ◦ “If I can have some mentor to actually teach, really to evaluate. to say ‘is this really DI’” (m 3).

Key Findings Teachers need time to consolidate what they have learnt. ◦ “you all conduct quite a lot of workshops, like the DI workshop. . . I mean for the general knowledge, I know. I’m looking to have, more interested to have that kind of workshop and cater to the subject, for example. Also maybe can provide that kind of sound literature paper, or maybe videos, teachers can just look at their own subject area. Because sometimes we know the general thing, but we don’t know how to apply to teaching. Then if we can have more examples from the local area then will be much better. “(m 12)

Challenges Unfamiliarity with DI vocabulary. Lack of confidence in using DI as there are not enough subject specific examples. - Whether DI will help to achieve curriculum objectives (different for different levels) “Is what I’m doing a DI? ”(m 10) “Whether what I do is considered DI“(m 3) they give you a definition (what is DI ) and you know the definition. But how do you operationalize the definition. That’s where the problem is. (m 5) Extra planning is required. ◦ “We get jaded because so little time to think about things sometimes. We fall back on the same strategy. ” (M 5)

Challenges Over-reliance on SA scores as a form of diagnosis “our first PPA was in Term 2. So without the first PPA, it is not easy to determine whether the student is high ability or not” (M 11) ◦ Ability can be mis-diagnosed. ◦ Use of past test scores may not be reliable when they measure a different set of skills and knowledge from the unit that is being taught. “I made wrong judgment about ability. I may feel a certain topic is not difficult, when I give it to that group of students, they actually feel that it is quite difficult. So there can be wrong judgment” (M 16)

Recommendations 50

Recommendations Ø Conscious articulation of DI meta-language in a school. Ø Emphasis of DI principles ◦ Diagnostic testing is required. ◦ Planning is essential ◦ Effective and Ongoing assessment of learner needs is necessary. ◦ Flexible grouping means that the teacher uses many different group configurations over time, and students experience many different working groups and arrangements (Tomlinson, 2001).

Recommendations • Differentiation is more than having a lot of DI strategies, it is a way of thinking about teaching and learning (it is philosophy) • Must be responsive to students’ needs. • Understanding that DI is not individualization • Differentiation does not presume different tasks for each learner, but rather just enough flexibility in task complexity, working arrangements and modes of learning expression that varied students find learning a good fit much of the time. (Tomlinson, 2000)

Recommendations Ø School must provide support to teachers for consolidation & collaboration • To steer DI conversation during Professional Learning Communities. • To evaluate impact of DI practice through research. Ø Adopt a Differentiated approach for Professional Learning • E. g. Department DI champions, Clinics, Open classroom demonstration, Unit plan exemplars & videos etc. Ø Systemic efforts • Leaders of different levels have key roles to play in planning, implementing, & assessing the progress towards expert teaching.

Policy Implications 54

DI Research: School-wide Impact Input to Staff Development Program Ø Differentiated approach to professional learning Ø Two clinics organised in 2016: Focus on examples of applications and principles of DI

DI Research: School-wide Impact Consistent use of standard-based framework (Ub. D) to plan for differentiated instruction. Allow teachers to: Ø differentiate the knowledge and skills to meet the needs of students; and, Ø identify appropriate classroom activities to differentiate

DI Research: School-wide Impact Development of a Teacher Competency Matrix Ø Domains highlight key elements of DI Ø Attainment bands reflect the progression of competency development ØMakes learning target visible – help teachers to identify where they are in their professional devt Ø help teachers identify professional development priorities and improve

Knowledge Sharing 58

Knowledge Sharing Publication: Sharing of research in Sing. Teach, Sep 2016 “High-ability Learners are not Homogenous” Sing. Teach aims to bridge research and classroom practice www. facebook. com/Sing Teach/

Knowledge Sharing - To share thoughts and ideas about classroom teaching with fellow professionals - Refer to RGS Pe. RL Edublog at https: //rgsperl. wordpress. com/

Limitations Number of lesson observations is half of originally planned because of reasons such as: ◦ Scheduling ◦ Teachers said lessons are not suitable for DI. ◦ Preparing for exams The main data source are interviews and unit plans. Lesson observations are generally for triangulation.

RGS Pe. RL Research Team Ms Tan Yen Chuan, Specialist Mr Azahar M Noor, Specialist Ms Masturah Abdul Aziz, Senior Executive, Research Mrs Mary George Cheriyan – , Deputy Principal, Pe. RL and Community Engagement We Would Like To Thank RGS staff who were involved in the study 06/11/2020 62

Concluding Remarks 63

“RGS Pe. RL’s research is driven by questions and gaps that arise from actual classroom practices and the findings are ploughed back into tangible outcomes” Mrs Mary George Cheriyan Director, Pe. RL

“Schools of the future will need both teachers and researchers, and people who combine both roles, as happens at Raffles Girls’ Schools and systems need to be constantly testing new techniques to continuously invent best practices, with the system acting as a forum for sharing and scaling these best practices. ” Sir Michael Barber Chief Education Advisor at Pearson

References Algozzine, B. , & Anderson, K. M. (2007). Tips for teaching: Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 51(3), 49 -54. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(2), 357. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to" the social psychology of creativity. ": Westview press. Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331367. Ary, D. , Jacobs, L. C. , Razavieh, A. , & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to Research in Education: Wadsworth Publishing. Bailey, J. P. , & Williams-Black, T. H. (2008). Differentiated instruction: Three teachers’ perspectives. College reading association yearbook, 29, 133 -151. Beecher, M. , & Sweeny, S. M. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment and differentiation: One school's story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3), 502 -530. Bloom, B. S. , Mesia, B. B. , & Krathwohl, D. R. (1964). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (two vols: The Affective Domain & The Cognitive Domain). New York. David Mc. Kay. Bransford, J. D. , Brown, A. L. , & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: National Academy Press. Brighton, C. M. , Hertberg, H. L. , Moon, T. R. , Tomlinson, C. A. , & Callahan, C. M. (2005). The Feasibility of High-end Learning in a Diverse Middle School. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Cassady, J. C. , Neumeister, K. L. S. , Adams, C. M. , Cross, T. L. , Dixon, F. A. , & Pierce, R. L. (2004). The Differentiated Classroom Observation Scale. Roeper Review, 26(3), 139. Chapman, C. , & King, R. (2005). 11 Practical Ways to Guide Teachers toward Differentiation (and an Evaluation Tool). Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 20 -25. Clark, B. (2014). Growing Up Gifted: Developing the Potential of Children at School and at Home : Pearson Education. Collins, M. A. , & Amabile, T. M. (1999). I 5 motivation and creativity. Handbook of creativity, 297. Doyle, W. , & Ponder, G. A. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8(3), 1 -12. Evertson, C. M. (1989). Classroom management for elementary teachers : Prentice Hall. Ferrier, A. M. (2007). The effects of differentiated instruction on academic achievement in a second-grade science classroom.

References Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory 1. High ability studies, 15(2), 119 -147. Gallagher, J. J. (2002). Gifted education in the 21 st century. Gifted Education International, 16(2), 100 -110. Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences : Basic books. Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons (Rev. ed. ). New York, NY: A Member of the Perseus Books Group. Gibson, V. Differentiating Instruction: Making It Happen in Classrooms. Goddard, Y. , Goddard, R. , & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. The Teachers College Record, 109 (4), 877 -896. Grigorenko, E. L. , & Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Styles of thinking, abilities, and academic performance. Exceptional children, 63(3), 295 -312. Gross, M. (2000). Issues in the cognitive development of exceptionally and profoundly gifted individuals. International handbook of giftedness and talent, 179 -192. Gualbertus, E. , & Made, R. (2013). THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION AND ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION ON STUDENTS’WRITING COMPETENCY. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, 1. Haager, D. , & Klingner, J. K. (2005). Differentiating Instruction in Inclusive Classrooms: The Special Educator's Guide : Pearson/A and B. Hall, G. E. (1974). The Concerns-Based Adoption Model: A Developmental Conceptualization of the Adoption Process Within Educational Institutions. Hall, G. E. , Dirksen, D. J. , George, A. A. , & Laboratory, S. E. D. (2006). Measuring Implementation in Schools: Levels of Use. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Hall, G. E. , & Hord, S. M. (1984). Analyzing What Change Facilitators Do The Intervention Taxonomy. Science Communication, 5(3), 275307. Hall, G. E. , & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes : Pearson/Allyn & Bacon Boston. Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating Instruction" in the Regular" Classroom: How To Reach and Teach All Learners, Grades 3 -12. Hertberg-Davis, H. L. , & Brighton, C. M. (2006). Support and Sabotage Principals’ Influence on Middle School Teachers’ Responses to Differentiation. Prufrock Journal, 17(2), 90 -102. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of educational research, 60 (4), 549 -571. Hidi, S. , Anderson, V. , Renninger, K. , Hidi, S. , & Krapp, A. (1992). Situational interest and its impact on reading and expository writing. The role of interest in learning and development , 215 -238. Hidi, S. , & Berndorff, D. (1998). Situational interest and learning. Paper presented at the Interest and learning. Proceedings of the Seeonconference on interest and gender. Kiel: IPN-Schriftenreihe. Howard, P. J. (2000). The owner's manual for the brain: Everyday applications from mind-brain research : ERIC.

References Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Alexandria, VA. Johnsen, S. (2003). Adapting instruction with heterogeneous groups. Gifted Child Today, 26(3), 5 -5. Johnsen, S. K. , Haensly, P. A. , Ryser, G. R. , & Ford, R. F. (2002). Changing general education classroom practices to adapt for gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(1), 45 -63. Joseph, S. (2013). Differentiating instruction: Experiences of pre-service and in-service trained teachers. Kaplan, S. (1986). The grid: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted. Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented, 180 -193. Knobel, R. , & Shaughnessy, M. (2002). Reflecting on a conversation with Joe Renzulli: About giftedness and gifted education. Gifted Education International, 16(2), 118 -126. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1): Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212 -218. Kulieke, M. J. (1986). The role of evaluation in inservice and staff development for educators of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(3), 140 -144. Lewis, S. G. , & Batts, K. (2005). How to Implement Differentiated Instruction? Adjust, Adjust: North Carolina Project Begins with Encouragement from Administrators. Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 26 -31. Lou, Y. , Abrami, P. C. , Spence, J. C. , Poulsen, C. , Chambers, B. , & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 66(4), 423 -458. Maker, C. , & Nielson, A. B. (1996). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners : ERIC. Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted: Pro-Ed. Mc. Carthy, B. (1980). The 4 MAT system: Teaching to learning styles with right/left mode techniques : Excel Barrington, Ill. Mc. Leod, J. , Fisher, J. , & Hoover, G. (2003). The key elements of classroom management: Managing time and space, student behavior, and instructional strategies : ASCD. Miles, M. B. , & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook: SAGE Publications. Moon, T. R. , Tomlinson, C. A. , & Callahan, C. M. (1998). How Well Are We Addressing Academic Diversity in the Middle School? Middle School Journal, 29, 3 -11. Muthomi, M. W. , & Mbugua, Z. K. (2014). Effectiveness of Differentiated Instruction on Secondary School Students Achievement in Mathematics. International Journal of Applied, 4(1). Punch, K. F. (1998). Introduction to Social Research: SAGE Publications.

References Santangelo, T. , & Tomlinson, C. A. (2009). The application of differentiated instruction in postsecondary environments: Benefits, challenges, and future directions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20 (3), 307 -323. Selby, E. C. , Treffinger, D. J. , Isaksen, S. G. , & Lauer, K. (2002). VIEW: An assessment of problem-solving style. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning. Smutny, J. F. , & Blocksom, R. H. (1990). Education of the Gifted: Programs and Perspectives: ERIC. Sousa, D. A. (2006). How the brain learns: SAGE Publications Ltd. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence : CUP Archive. Sternberg, R. J. , & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American psychologist, 52(7), 700. Sternberg, R. J. , Torff, B. , & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998). Teaching triarchically improves school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 374. Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated Instruction: A Research Basis. International Education Journal, 7(7), 935 -947. Sylwester, R. (2003). A biological brain in a cultural classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Tieso, C. (2001). Curriculum: Broad brushstrokes or paint‐by‐the‐numbers? The Teacher Educator, 36 (3), 199 -213. Tomlinson, C. , Callahan, C. , Tomchin, E. , Eiss, N. , Imbeau, M. , & Landrum, M. (1997). Becoming architects of communities of learning: Addressing academic diversity in contemporary classrooms. Exceptional children, 63(2), 269 -282. Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences: Standards-based teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6 -13. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). Differentiated Instruction in the Regular Classroom: What Does It Mean? How Does It Look? Understanding Our Gifted, 14(1), 3 -6. Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Point/counterpoint: Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper Review, 26(4), 188 -189. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). Differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners : Ascd. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners, 2 nd Edition : Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C. A. , Brimijoin, K. , & Narvaez, L. (2008). The differentiated school: Making revolutionary changes in teaching and learning : ASCD. Tomlinson, C. A. , & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom: ASCD. Tomlinson, C. A. , & Mc. Tighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction & understanding by design: Connecting content and kids : ASCD. Torrance, E. P. (1995). Insights about creativity: Questioned, rejected, ridiculed, ignored. Educational Psychology Review, 7(3), 313 -322.

References Van Tassel‐Baska, J. , Quek, C. , & Feng, A. X. (2006). The development and use of a structured teacher observation scale to assess differentiated best practice. Roeper Review, 29(2), 84 -92. Van. Tassel-Baska, J. (1986). Effective curriculum and instructional models for talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(4), 164 -169. Van. Tassel-Baska, J. (2006). A content analysis of evaluation findings across 20 gifted programs: A clarion call for enhanced gifted program development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(3), 199 -215. Van. Tassel-Baska, J. (2012). Analyzing Differentiation in the Classroom Using the COS-R. Gifted Child Today, 35(1), 42 -48. Van. Tassel-Baska, J. , & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 211 -217. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes : Harvard university press. Wade, S. E. , & Adams, R. B. (1990). Effects of importance and interest on recall of biographical text. Journal of Literacy Research, 22 (4), 331 -353. Westberg, K. L. (1993). An Observational Study of Instructional and Curricular Practices Used with Gifted and Talented Students in Regular Classrooms. Research Monograph 93104. Westberg, K. L. , Archambault, F. X. , Dobyns, S. M. , & Salvin, T. J. (1993). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2), 120 -146. Whalan, F. (2012). Collective Responsibility: Redefining What Falls Between the Cracks for School Reform: Redefining what Falls Between the Cracks for School Reform: Springer. Willard-Holt, C. (2003). Raising expectations for the gifted. Williams, F. (1986). The cognitive-affective interaction model for enriching gifted programs. Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented, 461 -484. Wolfe, P. (2001). Brain matters. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods : SAGE Publications.

Thank youありがとう CONTACT INFORMATION Centre of Pedagogical Research and Learning Raffles Girls’ School 20 Anderson Road Singapore 259978 DID: (+65) 68387851 Fax: (+65) 62353731 Web: www. rgsperl. edu. sg Email: rgs. perl@rgs. edu. sg FILIAE MELIORIS AEVI