Naama
Benny
a and
Ron
Blonder
b
aDepartment of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel. E-mail: Naama.benny@gmail.com
bDepartment of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel. E-mail: Ron.blonder@weizmann.ac.il
First published on 16th October 2017
Regular high-school chemistry teachers view gifted students as one of several types of students in a regular (mixed-ability) classroom. Gifted students have a range of unique abilities that characterize their learning process: mostly they differ in three key learning aspects: their faster learning pace, increased depth of understanding, and special interests. If gifted students are to develop their abilities and potential, and learn optimally in a regular classroom, the teaching must be adjusted to meet their special needs. Chemistry high-school curricula have built-in potential to cater to the special needs of gifted students. Chemistry learning entails laboratory work and comprehension of abstract concepts. In the classroom, the interactions between teachers and students are core events that trigger other class events. In the present study the interactions between teachers and gifted students in a regular classroom, which are specific for chemistry teaching, were studied. Two general categories of interactions with gifted students were found to be unique to the chemistry classroom: (1) interactions involving laboratory work and (2) interactions involving the challenge of teaching chemistry content. We found that since gifted students master abstract chemistry concepts quickly and with minimum scaffolding, no interactions regarding this aspect were reported. Gifted students do not need all the instruction time teachers usually devote to explaining abstract concepts in chemistry, concepts that are considered difficult for other students. The present study indicates the essential need of enhancing chemistry teachers’ knowledge regarding teaching gifted students in the chemistry classroom. This includes knowledge about how gifted students learn in general, and its adaptation to the chemistry classroom and the chemistry laboratory according to academic and curricular needs of the gifted students.
Gifted students often differ from their peers in three key points: the pace at which they learn, the depth of their understanding, and their interests (Gilson, 2009). Therefore, gifted students should have access to learning opportunities that are faster paced and more complex than what is usually available in a regular classroom (VanTassel-Baska, 2003). They should be provided with opportunities that allow them to continually use their high abilities in order to keep developing their academic skills (Burney, 2008). It is important to emphasise that if during their school years they are not provided with suitable learning tools they may not be able to utilise their high abilities (Pajares, 1996).
The challenge for regular classroom teachers is to create a learning environment where all students can fully develop their abilities and academic strengths, and be provided learning opportunities to do so (Kemp, 2006; Gilson, 2009), namely, to differentiate their instruction. Differentiated instruction, as a teaching practice, is a process of individualising curricula to better match individual and group learning needs, abilities, and styles. Differentiation includes sets of specialised learning experiences that embody different learning rates, styles, interests, and abilities (Passow, 1982). A critical aspect of planning academic activities is to meet gifted students' needs. However, it is known that differentiated instruction can be challenging for teachers’ due to: (a) the degree of differentiation required, (b) the need to provide advanced learning opportunities beyond the class curriculum, (c) an insufficient understanding of the kind of assistance the gifted student requires, (d) insufficient subject matter knowledge, and (e) teachers' attitudes and the natural antipathy of teachers toward gifted learners and their needs (VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh, 2005). When planning instruction to address the academic needs of gifted students, certain principles need to be considered. The teaching strategies adopted should relate to the instructional purposes, the curriculum, and the classroom settings; they need to be diversified and include strategies that can prompt generalisation; there is a need to balance active and passive activities and take into consideration the cognitive styles of both the teachers and learners (VanTassel-Baska, 2003).
In a previous research study (Benny and Blonder, 2016a), chemistry teachers described one of their interactions with gifted students in their regular class when a gifted student identifies a mistake made by the teacher and comments: “Excuse me, but you made a mistake…”. Several insights were gained regarding the interaction between the chemistry teacher and a gifted student. The research indicated that the teachers' response depends on both the teacher's content knowledge (mainly chemistry content knowledge) and knowledge of the learners (gifted students) and their characteristics. Mastery of content matter can facilitate teachers’ reactions to the comment with self-confidence (Blonder et al., 2014). When the teachers were not confident regarding the correct answer, they tended to stop and react in a manner that did not allow further discussion of the comment.
Teachers are aware that gifted students may have a rich content knowledge; they are able to learn the content at a high pace, and reach a high level of understanding quickly (Webb, 1993; Reis et al., 2004; Reis and Small, 2005; VanTassel-Baska, 2005; Cheung and Phillipson, 2008; Gilson, 2009). This characteristic may challenge teachers. However, for teachers that have mastered the content knowledge and who are familiar with gifted students' education, this characteristic of gifted students does not induce intimidation (Benny and Blonder, 2016a). They listen to the comment, consider it in the wide perspective of what is being discussed in class, and at times when it can contribute to the lesson, they share the comment with other students. These teachers will encourage a discussion, which gifted students as well as the other students can benefit from.
Gifted students need learning opportunities that challenge them. In order to achieve meaningful learning that enables students to develop their abilities, the teacher should create a supportive and enabling learning environment (VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh, 2005). Benny and Blonder's (2016a) research also indicated that this demand can be challenging for the teachers, especially when the teacher is facing a situation in which a student “finds” mistakes and publicly comments on them in class. Not all teachers can ignore this, and not all teachers can react with a smile or in such a way that the comment's “sting” will be reduced. Positive and fostering behaviour under such conditions can be a challenge. Teachers that give “extra points” for finding a mistake or say that “my students pay attention to what I'm writing on the board” (Teacher Z.B.8's quote in Benny and Blonder, 2016a, p. 66) use these phrases as a way to limit the negative nature of the comment and to help maintain a classroom environment that allows the teachers to continue teaching. Several teachers have developed an indifference to these kinds of comments: according to them a teacher's mistake is like a student's mistake; everybody makes mistakes. When a mistake is found, they will correct it, and nothing more (Benny and Blonder, 2016a). This behaviour allows the teachers and students to be wrong in a safe environment and correcting the mistake is part of the learning process.
The interactions studied in a previously published study focused on only one special interaction between a teacher and a gifted student in the chemistry classroom. This study raises the need for more research on the interactions between a gifted student and the chemistry teacher in a regular chemistry classroom. In the current research we focus on groups of classroom interactions between chemistry teachers and a gifted student, which are unique for the chemistry classroom. These interactions are specific for chemistry teaching: they relate to the chemistry subject matter, the chemistry classroom, and the chemistry teaching.‡ We therefore suggest the following research questions.
(2) What makes interacting with gifted students in a regular chemistry classroom distinct?
A recommended method of collecting stories of experiences is by interviewing (Creswell, 2014), and in the current research chemistry teachers are interviewed. Bear in mind that a qualitative methodology involving research that is direct in nature, such as observations, is not fruitful for collecting event stories that are meaningful to the teacher. Using interviews for collecting teachers’ stories is more effective for identifying the teacher's narrative (Chell, 2004).
CIT involves asking participants to identify events or experiences that were “critical” for some purpose. These incidents, termed interaction stories, are then pooled together for analysis, and generalisations are drawn from the commonalities of the incidents (Kain, 2004). According to this method, a story told by the teacher has to meet five main criteria. The first and most important is that the actual behaviour (teacher and student) is reported. Additional criteria are as follows: the relationships of the teacher, who tells the story, to the behaviour are clear; the relevant facts are provided; the teacher who tells the story makes a clear judgment about what makes the incident critical; and, the reasons for this judgment are clear (Tripp, 1993; Angelides, 2001).
This method employs semi-structured interviews that focused on teachers' interactions with gifted students in their classroom. During the interview, the teachers were asked to give examples of their interactions with gifted students from their own classroom. Some of the probing questions during the interview were as follows:
– Can you characterise a gifted student?
– How do you feel about the presence of gifted students in your classroom (academic, emotional, instruction, social, and affective aspects)? Can you give examples?
– How does the presence of a gifted student affect your instruction? Can you give examples?
– Do you remember the moment that you realised that you were dealing with a gifted student? What happened that caused you to realise it? Please describe it.
Each interview lasted 60–80 minutes and was audio-recorded and transcribed. All the participants' names were changed to ensure their anonymity, and they were identified by a codename.
For more details on the CIT method and the interview's probing questions, see Benny and Blonder (2016a).
In vivo coding uses a word or a short phrase taken from the actual interview transcripts. This coding method provides a natural connection between the raw data and the coding-system emerging patterns in the data (Saldaña, 2012). The code for categorisation was the triggering event, meaning the event in class that initiated the interaction. Two science education researchers analysed the data, both of whom were the authors. The first researcher recommended a list of identified interactions to the second researcher. The two researchers then reflected on them, scanned the data to find confirmatory evidence to support the findings, and continued discussing it until they had reached a consensus. Each category (each triggering event) consisted of different teachers’ responses to a common triggering event. Although the responses in each category may not be identical (different responses by different teachers), this is still consistent with the coding pattern since the in vivo code was based on the triggering event. At the end of this stage a list of interaction categories was produced. Each category consisted of several different interaction stories, sharing a common triggering event, reported by different teachers. The interactions represent teachers’ narratives about their interactions with gifted students in regular chemistry classrooms (e.g., interactions associated with instructional support, classroom organisation, and emotional support). These interactions served as general interaction categories and can represent events in any classroom; they are not specific to chemistry teaching.
A second stage categorisation process was conducted to explore chemistry teaching aspects within the general interaction categories and included the following aspects: (a) interactions that focus on the way the gifted students perform in the chemistry classroom and in the chemistry laboratory and how they challenge the teacher (e.g., advanced knowledge regarding laboratory procedures, prior experiences in school science lab work). (b) Interactions that challenge teachers’ knowledge of the chemistry content. In these interactions the triggering event occurs when the gifted student challenges the teacher's primary forte, the subject matter (e.g., gifted students ask questions the teacher had not thought about, comment on mistakes, and offer an alternative solution for a problem). After this stage of the categorisation process a list of categories was produced. The list included interactions that are specific to chemistry and represent events unique to the chemistry classroom.
In the previous research 27 different interactions were identified (Benny and Blonder, 2016a). The interactions were categorised according to the triggering event, the classroom event that set in motion an interaction with a gifted student, and was perceived by the teacher to pertain uniquely to gifted students.
The current research uses the same data used to investigate the interactions that are specific to chemistry teaching. The content of these interactions is distinctive and the interactions are based on teachers’ knowledge of chemistry content. The triggering event, unique for chemistry teaching interactions, occurs when the gifted student challenges the teacher's primary forte, the subject matter.
Interactions specific to chemistry teaching | No. of times the interaction was reported | No. of teachers who reported the interaction |
---|---|---|
a Interactions that were included in Benny and Blonder (2016a). | ||
Category a: chemistry laboratory work | ||
Chemistry laboratory instruction | 16 | 8 |
A gifted student ruins the lesson's openinga | 13 | 9 |
Social aspects of the laboratory environment | 7 | 5 |
Category b: gifted students and the challenge of chemistry content | ||
“Excuse me teacher but you made a mistake…”a | 24 | 19 |
A gifted student makes further connectionsa | 19 | 9 |
A gifted student asks a question the teacher had not thought abouta | 19 | 9 |
A gifted student proposes an alternative way to solve a problem in chemistry | 4 | 4 |
The gifted student is already familiar with the intended subject of the lesson | 7 | 7 |
This challenge was reported by the teachers as being distinct for gifted students.
(a) The teacher supports the gifted students’ original and creative ideas about how to design and perform the experiment; the teacher will allow the gifted student to investigate the idea.
“…the experiment dealt with the catalytic decomposition of hydrogen peroxide … one of the procedures includes placing a magnetic stirrer within the experiment system… he [the gifted student] came to me and said: ‘can we explore the changes with additional stirrers, not only one?’ … the amazing thing was that he took the concepts he knew… and linked them to kinetic energy… this is not trivial… students usually view kinetic energy as a concept in physics and not in chemistry, and they certainly do not rush to apply it…I told him 'wonderful, go for it'. I’m not afraid to try unexpected ideas … this is not trivial… he got amazing results, a diagram with a perfectly straight line… I didn't know what to expect. I had never before included four magnetic stirrers in this experiment…” (Teacher Y.F.22); “…he was thinking completely differently. He always asks me ‘Can I do it this way?’… he thinks about the experiments in a different way, he looks at the experiment from a broader perspective…his ideas regarding the experimental procedure are unusual, not the standard…many times it is hard for me to understand and to open my mind and to be able to see more ways to perform the experiment… I’m doing my best…the lab work with him is always challenging…” (Teacher O.B.28).
(b) The teacher discourages the gifted student from expressing original and creative ideas. Usually the teachers' explanations for discouraging the ideas are based on practicality, often citing limitations of the school's laboratory equipment and materials as the reason why the gifted students were not allowed to investigate their idea. “… he [the gifted student] told me: 'let's check the phenomenon using various external pressures; we can perform the experiment at the Dead Sea [429 meters below sea level], we can do it in Tel Aviv [50 meters above sea level], and in Jerusalem [750 meters above sea level]… the height differences are several hundred meters…' He asked my opinion… it's an original idea … a great idea, but we do not have the appropriate equipment or facilities …it was not practical… I don't think I was open enough to accept ideas such as this …” (Teacher A.R.15).
The teacher needs to address the social behavioural differences between the gifted student and the other students in the group during the laboratory work.
Teachers' responses: The first type of event reported was of gifted students' refusal to work with a group of students: “… sometimes he might say to me, ‘I don't want to work with this group’, I can see that he is uncomfortable … group work is not easy for him, he wants the work to be done as he plans and performs it … and I can see that the group is not functioning. They [the other students] do not accept this behaviour… I can see it in the interaction between him and the group…” (Teacher D.W.23).
The second type of event reported was gifted students' domination: “… I think that all the students trust him with the lab work… the lab is hard work and he can lead the group… (Teacher A.B.15); “She didn’t want to work in a group with less able students…she said that they all copy her work and do nothing to contribute or help…the other students thought that she's arrogant and consequently behaved badly towards her…I stopped that… but to tell you the truth I thought she brought this on herself…” (Teacher N.S.5); “…her idea was complicated lab work …I don’t think that the other students in the lab group understood her or the idea behind the experiment …she didn’t give up on them or on the idea; she explained the idea to them… they really appreciate her… but sometimes they feel frustrated and can say ‘how does she understand it so fast? How does she know what to do? It's not fair’… I saw her explaining to them the experiment's results and how it was connected to the subject we learned…” (Teacher A.B.15, a second interaction).
This challenge was reported by the teachers as being distinct for gifted students.
(b) The teachers proceed with the original lesson plan; they appreciate the answer but take into consideration the remaining students in class: “…it is not over. He answered, so what? …I do not have a one-student class…he can assist in teaching the subject, no problem at all…we must teach the subject for the other 35 students in class. So, it's true he answered, but I have to explain it to the others… he can take part…” (Teacher R.B.26); “…I like it a lot [when the gifted student solves the mystery of the class demonstration]… first of all, I’ll give her feedback and then we’ll start over and clarify the mystery step by step… my response encourages her [the gifted student]…” (Teacher R.K.10).
In both of those responses the teacher's response in class will be to continue with the lesson as if nothing happened; the difference lies in the learning environment. In the first response the teacher shortens the answer or even ignores the gifted students; the teacher assumes that the other students did not pay attention or understand the answer. In the second response, the teacher gives the gifted student positive feedback and then explains what just happened to the rest of the students. The response generates a good learning environment in class and encourages the gifted student to participate in the future.
(c) The teacher reprimands the gifted student participating in the class demonstration: “… he [the gifted student] shouted ‘this time it will not be ignited…I know this.' This was such a disappointment to me and everybody was mad at him … I was very disappointed and told him in class ‘why do you have to ruin the demonstration for everybody else?’ At the end of the lesson, I approached him and told him that I knew he was very smart and had a lot knowledge, but he did not have to ruin my lesson… I made it perfectly clear that in the future, if he had anything to say during a demonstration, he must ask for permission, and I would see if there was room for his comments…” (Teacher S.S.13); “… the students were disappointed… what's the point if she already gave the answer…l do not allow her to comment or answer the questions during the demonstrations…” (Teacher N.H.16).
(d) The teacher changes the lesson plan on the spot. The teacher devises new activities, examples, or questions: “… yes, in some cases the lesson that I’d planned is ruined … so I try to start over, to ask another question … I have a few tricks in my bag that I can work with…” (Teacher P.H.6).
Abstract ideas in the chemistry curricula may take time to consolidate and become sufficiently robust to serve as foundations for further learning. Therefore, with non-gifted students, key ideas may have to be introduced, and then be revisited in a range of contexts and become reinforced in the process. Gifted students would probably need less reinforcement to acquire fully consolidated basic concepts (Johnstone, 1991; Kaberman and Dori, 2009; Taber, 2010). This learning gap between gifted and non-gifted students in a regular classroom is the basis from which the next chemistry-specific interactions occur.
Five interactions with gifted students and the challenge faced by the teacher in presenting chemistry content knowledge follow: a gifted student asks a question the teacher had not thought about, a gifted student makes further connections, the gifted student is already familiar with the intended subject of the lesson, a gifted student proposes an alternative way to solve a problem in chemistry, and “Excuse me teacher, but you made a mistake…”. Those five interactions pose a challenge that was reported by the teachers as being distinct for gifted students.
Teachers' responses: Three different responses were identified: (a) the teacher is filled with admiration for the gifted students, but does not change their behaviour in class. “…this question was a surprise and was far from what I was teaching… personally, I was interested in the answer…” (Teacher A.S.3); “…he asked questions that were above the normal standard. This was something that made you ask yourself as a teacher, 'Wow, how come I hadn't thought about that? How come this never occurred to me before?' … and it is OK that someone thought about it even if it was not me. I’ll express my admiration … a positive comment and that was all during that lesson… I really appreciate him, he knows it… He is smarter than I am. I’m not intimidated by this… I think the other students in class feel the same…” (Teacher A.A.2).
(b) The teacher uses the unexpected question as leverage for further learning, as a learning opportunity for all students in class. “…questions like that… I say ‘now we’ll stop and think, we need to think together about what the answer can be. I don't always have the answer… finding the answer can take time because I was not prepared for this… this was not something I had a structured answer for in my head…” (Teacher A.A.2); “…he [the gifted student] asked about fog… this is an amazing thought about the state of matter … I stopped and said ‘let's analyse the state of fog, what do you think fog is? In what state are the fog particles? Let's try to define it‘…This discourse can go in several directions…” (Teacher A.B.26).
(c) The teacher postpones the discussion until recess or to the next lesson. “…many times I really do not understand what he is talking about… I must suddenly think of something that I haven’t thought about before… he can aggravate me; this is something I wasn’t prepared for… and I do not know how to answer… I’d say to him ‘you stumped me. I can’t answer this right now. I’ll look for the answer. We’ll talk about it next week’… I need the time…” (Teacher P.G.7); “…sometimes I really don’t know how to answer a question like that… I’ll go and read about it, I’ll go and check with my instructor [the regional chemistry instructor from the Ministry of Education]…then I’ll answer the question… (Teacher O.B.28).
Teachers' responses: Four different responses were identified: (a) The teacher praises the gifted student for making the connection but continues with the lesson as planned. “…an answer such as this I can’t ignore… I’d respond immediately… my comment can be ‘well done’, ‘good’, or something similar. And I can respond without words, with a hand gesture …’. That's it… the lesson must go on…” (Teacher R.B.26); “… and then she figured it out, all the examples dealt with gases… she connected the subject with the state of matter [the topic was taught in class a few months earlier], she took in the new information and made the connection… this is not trivial… I told her that this was very good, and that was it… We were in the middle of the lesson…” (Teacher H.E.24).
(b) The teacher invites the gifted student to contribute to the class discussion. The teacher allocates lesson time for the gifted student to present and explain the connection to the other students in class: “…he took the things we learned, the processes, and realized how this can be used in everyday life… this was something we had not discussed in class, the connection between the theory and real life… so I asked him to give a short explanation …” (Teacher A.L.16); “…… He connected a subject I had taught in class with vitamins, with the configurations of the molecules and the functional group… he was interested [in vitamins] and it was important to him… it was more advanced than what we were learning…” (Teacher S.L.21).
(c) The teacher devotes time for an in-depth discussion with the gifted student, usually after the lesson ended: “…we stayed in class after the lesson ended…we stood in front of the board and talked… he [the gifted student] checked, compared, and thought. Then I told him ‘you know what? We need to think about it to a greater extent and longer than the recess time allows …and the following week we talked about it…” (Teacher A.A.2).
(d) The teacher uses the connection to enrich the taught content and foster interest for all students in class. “… I told the class ‘now you’ll hear things we usually do not learn about because of time constraints. This goes beyond what we are learning in class’… he gave examples and made connections between what he knew, theoretical matters, and the topics learned in class. He somehow brought all those things together. They [the non-gifted students] listened and even asked questions…” (Teacher A.L.16); “…we talked about isotopes… he connected the issue to the decay of radioactive materials… the damages to the DNA… he combined them all into a big picture… it was impressive… I told him ‘can you repeat what you said?’… I wanted all the others to hear. The connection was important and I thought it was important that he should talk… He explained it … the class listened…” (Teacher A.A.1).
Teachers' responses: Three different responses were identified. (a) The teacher says that there is still more to learn about the subject: “…he can tell me ‘I already know this, I learned it in my gifted students' program’. When this happens, I say ‘OK, maybe you can learn something new in my way of teaching, maybe a new perspective …” (Teacher D.V.23).
(b) Gifted students' previous knowledge enhances the discussion and supports the learning of the whole class: “…I’m glad he already heard about what we are going to learn… he can participate more in class, he can help speed up the teaching pace for the whole class…” (Teacher A.SH.3): “… I’ll give you an example: I mentioned ‘acids and bases’ in class and she immediately knew what that meant… this prior knowledge stimulates me, it boosts me and the classroom discussion; the lesson is completely different when you have students like her in class…” (Teacher A.V.29).
(c) The teacher discerns a gap in the knowledge structure of the gifted student: “…sometimes she has heard about a topic I’m going to teach and starts to talk and show how much she knows. This knowledge is sometimes so limited… she knows the headlines, she has heard about it, but she does not really know it… In order to learn, really learn, she needs to listen and learn from her teacher… It takes time but she finally realizes that she does not really know the topic…” (Teacher P.H.6).
“…I’m not set on one solution and I always tell my students that they have my permission to solve problems in a way they think best. She [the gifted student] offered a solution that I hadn't thought was possible, but she managed to solve the problem. I said ‘Well done. Everyone, listen!' and I asked her: 'Please explain your method to the class, and please do it slowly, step by step’. She explained it, and they understood it…some of the students who had been struggling understood it …” (Teacher H.SH.14); “…it was a completely different point of view of the problem. I was set on a specific way to solve it and he [the gifted student] did it differently. True, it was a longer and indirect way to the solution, but he got the right answer…it was impressive…at first I said to myself 'what the hell is he doing?' But then I thought 'wait a minute and listen'…When I realised what he was doing, I stopped everything and told them [the other students] to listen, and gave him credit and praised him…” (Teacher Y.F.22).
(b) The teacher listens, but considers this as interfering with the problem-solving sequence and thinks that it can complicate the other students' understanding of the problem.
“…we were solving a problem about the concentration of an ion in the solution…he told me ‘I have a different way of calculating it’ and elaborated…usually I’ll listen; some students can benefit from a different way, but not always…in this problem the sequence was important so I said, ‘good that you understand and can solve it, but now let me explain it my way’. I’m the teacher; it needs to be in a sequence that everyone will understand…” (Teacher P.H.6); “…I’m solving the problem… I’m advancing according to the plan… suddenly he offers a different solution, and I understood that he thought about the problem using a completely different approach…it was important to him to show that he knows…in this group, the students wanted to learn, they told him, ‘please stop interfering, we can’t think…’ when his solution does not help the other students, I’ll stop and take the students back to my way of solving it…you see, we have a limited number of hours to learn…” (Teacher A.L.16).
(b) Taking the “sting” out of the comment. The teacher uses humour or irony to reduce the effect of the revealed mistake, and then corrects it and the lesson continues.
(c) Postponing the answer to the next lesson. The teacher listens to the student's comment and is not sure whether a mistake was made. The teacher will reply that it is possible that the gifted student is correct, but that he needs more time to check it. The teacher will announce that the issue needs time to check and that the answer will be given in the next lesson.
(d) Learning leverage. The teacher uses the student's comment about the mistake as learning leverage (e.g., for purposes such as asking the gifted student to explain his comment to the whole class, providing additional details, starting a class discussion). The teacher expands on the gifted student's comment, and thus offers the whole class an opportunity to attain deeper learning.
This interaction is further described in Benny and Blonder's paper (2016a). It includes details regarding the teachers' responses and their feelings and thoughts during the interaction, and the original citation from the interviews.
Of the 27 interactions identified in the database, 8 (29%) interactions were found to be specific to chemistry teaching. Two aspects specific to teaching the chemistry curriculum in the mixed-ability classroom were identified in the content of the interactions: chemistry laboratory work for gifted students and the challenge of chemistry content. In each of these aspects, the triggering event calls for the teachers to re-evaluate their lesson content matter and practices. In some of the described cases, the teachers need to address issues that may surpass their content knowledge, and consequently, they have to be creative in ‘real-time teaching’. The gifted student's abilities (e.g., mastering advanced content, scientific thinking, fast learning abilities, recognising patterns, and high-order thinking abilities) (Freeman, 2003; Taber 2007; Matthews, 2012) serve them well in learning chemistry, but what serves the student may also challenge the teacher (Freeman, 2003; VanTassel-Baska, 2003; VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh, 2005; Taber, 2007; 2010).
When facing differences in content and curricular aspects, teachers respond differently to the classroom events and to the triggering events of the interactions. Those different responses were noted in the interactions described in this research. We wish to stress that in order to profile these teachers' responses and their impact on gifted students' learning in a regular classroom, further research is needed.
The interactions reported here highlight an important aspect that is distinct for teaching gifted students chemistry in a regular classroom: the differences in the learning characteristics of gifted students regarding their ability to master abstract chemistry concepts. Chemistry teaching research and practice focus on teaching and learning abstract concepts because it is one of the main features in chemistry instructions (e.g., the modes of representation: macro, micro, symbol, and process (Johnstone, 1991; Dori and Hameiri, 2003; Sirhan, 2007; De Jong et al., 2013)). Teachers emphasize in their teaching the modes of representations because this is considered to be difficult in teaching chemistry (Johnstone, 1991; Dori and Hameiri, 2003; Sirhan, 2007; Taber, 2010; De Jong et al., 2013). However, this emphasis is not needed when teaching gifted students chemistry. In the chemistry classroom, as shown by the interactions, gifted students do not need all the instruction time that teachers normally devote in a regular class to explain abstract concepts in chemistry, concepts that are considered difficult for other students (Kemp, 2006; Gilson, 2009). This can explain why the issue of teaching at a different level of understanding in chemistry did not lead to interacting with the gifted student, although it receives much attention in the general literature on chemistry education (Johnstone, 1991; Taber, 2001; Levy Nahum et al., 2010; Bain and Towns, 2016).
Teachers' knowledge regarding the academic and curricular needs of gifted students. Enhancing teachers' knowledge regarding gifted students' characteristics and how to best respond to gifted students' unique behaviours will aid teachers in better interpreting and interacting with them in a regular classroom (Ngoi and Vondracek, 2004; Gilson, 2009). Benny and Blonder (2016b) conducted a professional development course. It can be used as an example for advancing teachers' knowledge regarding teaching gifted students in a regular classroom. The current research strengthens the need for professional development training of this nature. Posnanski (2002) suggested that a professional development program could improve science teachers' beliefs, and potentially change their teaching style. It is assumed that the various behaviours of the participants mutually influence each other, thus forming a behavioural loop (Lang et al., 2005). This paper highlights the need for disciplinary content to focus on professional development training. We also demonstrated the need for advanced chemistry content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge regarding how to teach gifted students in a mixed-ability classroom.
Enhancing teachers’ knowledge regarding how to teach gifted students chemistry, and enhancing their awareness, and attitudes regarding gifted students’ education need to be a part of professional development programs. In order to make changes in teachers' practice, continuous professional development programs should be provided (Loucks-Horsley and Matsumoto, 1999).
Footnotes |
† The Israeli Ministry of Education's (2004) definition for gifted and talented students: Gifted students represent the top percentile of individuals of the same age group in each of the defined areas of giftedness. In terms of IQ, children with an IQ of 135 and up are considered gifted. The areas defined as aspects of giftedness are general intellectual ability, general learning ability, artistic talent (e.g., in music, visual and performing arts, and literature), specific academic aptitude (e.g. in mathematics, computer science, science and technology, and languages), and sports. |
‡ In this study we identified several kinds of interactions that can be found in any classroom (e.g., challenging the teacher's pedagogy or classroom management skills); they will be presented and discussed elsewhere. In the current paper we will discuss only those interactions that are unique to chemistry teaching. |
§ Ten out of 27 interactions were mentioned in the previous publication (Benny & Blonder, 2016a). |
¶ For example, one of the teachers described an experiment in which 5 mL of ethanol are ignited in a 5 gallon water bottle. The alcohol burns at such a high rate that it creates an effect like a rocket engine. Water vapors that are produced in the burning reaction inside the bottle prevent the burning reaction from being repeated even if new ethanol is added. |
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 |