1

Designing instruction and learning for cognitively gifted pupils

in preschool and primary school

Ton Mooij *

ITS, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

& CELSTEC, Open University of The Netherlands, Heerlen

* E-mail: t.mooij@its.ru.nl; ton.mooij@ou.nl.

2

Designing instruction and learning for cognitively gifted pupils

in preschool and primary school

Abstract

Young gifted children perform in the top ten per cent in assessments of

cognitive, social, expressive or other abilities. The study first considers

why, and how, cognitively gifted pupils in particular may face enforced

underachievement as early as in preschool. A longitudinal multilevel

model is developed to represent various types of interaction between

individual pupil variables, home variables, and early educational

variables. The theoretical model is then used to design optimal

instructional and learning conditions for gifted and other pupils from the

start of preschool. The conditions are elucidated in a set of educational,

ICT, and learning guidelines to improve play and learning practices in

preschool and primary school. Some initial experiences in implementing

the guidelines in Dutch preschools and primary schools are discussed and

compared with school conditions for pupils with emotional and social

disorders.

Keywords: cognitively gifted pupils; underachievement in

preschool/primary school; inclusive education; multilevel improvement

of early education; optimal instructional and learning conditions

3

Introduction

Every child has a specific genetic basis of potential abilities that require cognitive,

social, emotional, motor, and other types of stimulation by the environment to develop

adequately (Gagné 2011; Gallagher 1975; Mooij 1992). Diagnosis, assessment, and

identification of very high ability levels with a particular child may use different

procedures (Brown, Renzulli, Gubbins, Siegle, Zhang, and Chen 2005), which can be

influenced by statistically tail end amplifications of group average differences (Gagné

2011). Therefore, ‘giftedness’ or high ability is defined as placing in the top ten per cent

in terms of performance in the corresponding specific competences (cf. Colangelo,

Assouline, and Gross 2004; Gagné 2011; Mönks and Lehwald 1991).

Renzulli (1978, 1988) emphasised that gifted performance is based on interactions

between above-average general abilities, high levels of task commitment, and high

levels of creativity. Task commitment and expressions of creativity are closely related

to the characteristics of the environment, suggesting that the educational environment is

relevant to cognitive giftedness and its development. In this respect ‘inclusive

education’ appears to have the same implications both for exceptional pupils potentially

achieving at the highest levels and for those achieving at the lowest levels or with

specific disabilities or special educational needs (cf. De Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2011).

Sternberg and colleagues (Sternberg and Grigorenko 2002; Sternberg and Lubart

1995; Sternberg and O’Hara 2000) investigated variations in personal abilities, specific

characteristics of the environment, and rate of growth in expertise owing to successes in

learning or practising. In preschool and primary school, then, the actual instructional

and learning characteristics are relevant in promoting or challenging the motivation and

achievement of cognitively gifted pupils. Parkhurst (1922) analysed the characteristics

of regular schooling and showed that cognitively gifted pupils who are not intellectually

4

challenged during their early years at school tend to develop negative feelings towards

preschool/primary school; their consequent low level of motivation and poor work

habits lead to their becoming early underachievers (cf. Durkin 1966; Karnes and

Johnson 1991; Mooij 1992). Like other pupils, cognitively gifted pupils need to activate

their cognitive, social and emotional abilities somewhat above their actual performance

levels in order to experience authentic challenges and motivating successes in learning

(Sternberg and Grigorenko 2002).

Research shows that, at the chronological age of four, children differ by about five

to six years in their level of psychological development and actual cognitive and social

performances (cf. Keleman 2010; Mooij 2000). Compared with their age-mates, then,

cognitively gifted or highly able children may be some years ahead psychologically

(Baroody 1993; Colangelo et al. 2004). Preschool undoubtedly offers most of these

children new experiences and social situations, but children are often grouped only

according to age in regular preschool and primary school. In such groups or classroom

contexts, whether or not gifted children are under-challenged for a number of years

depends on the degree to which play and other curricula can be differentiated (Durkin

1966; Lubinski 2004). The same kind of situation may exist in curricula intended for

gifted pupils, however. A study by Purcell, Burns, Tomlinson, Imbeau, and Martin

(2002) revealed a huge gap between curricula, textbooks, and programmes designed for

gifted learners in the USA and the actual learning needs of such learners. A similar

conclusion can be drawn for other countries (cf. Lohman 1990; Mooij, Hoogeveen,

Driessen, Van Hell, and Verhoeven 2007; The Scottish Government 2009). In this

respect Gagné (2011) speaks about the ‘grade/age lockstep’ of educational systems

around the world.

5

A first research question then concerns why, and how, cognitively gifted pupils in

particular may face serious underachievement problems in preschool and primary

school. The aim is to explain the potential problems experienced by these pupils and to

understand the specific characteristics and instructional conditions that may be

conducive to psychologically adequate development and learning processes of young

gifted pupils. The second research question, consequently, concerns the theoretical

elaboration of instructional conditions that are expected to optimise the development

and learning of cognitively gifted pupils in preschool and primary school. Here the aim

is to design learning conditions optimised to meet the special needs of young gifted

pupils, either in regular preschool/primary school or in special needs programmes.

Some lessons learned in achieving such conditions in both types of school will be

discussed. Finally, the relevance of such conditions in the design of instruction and

learning for cognitively or socially low-ability pupils will be stipulated.

Explaining the problems of gifted pupils in preschool and primary

school

Personal identity dimensions

Gallagher (1975) and Mehlhorn (1988) emphasise that a person’s innate potential

abilities interact with and are influenced by the environment, thereby transforming

themselves into the personal identity dimensions in which a child expresses cognitive,

social, emotional, senso-motor and other types of performance (cf. also Magnusson and

Allen 1983). One key concept with respect to learning potentials, in particular of

cognitively gifted children, is ‘self-regulation’ (Zimmerman 2000). For example, by

using some environmental hints and cues, such children may learn to read and write

6

even before entering preschool (Byrne 1998; Durkin 1966; Mooij 1992). As a gifted

child exerts more control over his or her own learning processes in the various identity

dimensions, the degree of his or her ‘self-regulated learning competence’ will increase;

this usually motivates him or her to select and carry out more complex learning tasks

(cf. Bowerman 1978; Van den Boom, Paas, Van Merriënboer, and Van Gog 2004).

Gardner (1983) defines a theory of ‘multiple intelligences’, differentiating between

linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinaesthetic, interpersonal, and

intrapersonal intelligence. Mooij (2000) carried out quantitative research involving the

parents and teachers of 966 four-year-old children just starting preschool. He

concentrated on seven competence domains reflecting preschool practice. They concern

social interaction/communication, general cognition, language proficiency,

(preliminary) arithmetic, senso-motor level, level of emotional expressiveness, and the

child’s expected educational behaviour/motivation. The domains reflect the child’s

personal identity dimensions at the start of his or her school career. They interact with

the genetic base of the child, and the level of development levels for each one can be

used to assess his or her level of performance upon entering preschool: see Figure 1. In

terms of Gagné (2011) these identity dimensions and their assessment by parents and

teachers may indicate giftedness, or the possession and use of outstanding natural

abilities or aptitudes, in at least one ability domain.

Figure 1 about here

Home influences

Variables defining the family or home situation interact with a child’s identity

dimensions and influence their development from a very young age, as is demonstrated

in various in-depth case studies (Durkin 1966; Mooij 1992, 1994). An important home

7

variable is the degree to which the parents or care-takers stimulate and enable the child

to express him- or herself in one or more of the identity dimensions: see Figure 1.

Variety in the stimulation provided by parents or care-takers, combined with their

interest in the child’s positive development and learning experiences, are necessary for a

child to grow and develop harmoniously. The level of educational attainment at home is

important in this respect, as was shown in secondary analysis of national data to

estimate the value-added by preschools and primary schools in the Netherlands

(Roeleveld, Mooij, Fettelaar, and Ledoux, 2011). Having parents who have achieved a

higher level of education, especially the mother, makes it more likely that a gifted child

in particular will get the intellectual, social, emotional and creativity conditions that he

or she needs.

These home variables are thought to influence the development of the child’s

identity dimensions and self-regulation potentials and performance levels: see Figure 1.

Pino-Pasternak and Whitebread (2010) focus on the influence of parental behaviour on

children’s self-regulation and self-regulated learning (SRL). They refer to Moss and

Strayer (1990) to clarify that mother-child problem solving differs between gifted and

non-gifted preschoolers. Compared with mothers of non-gifted children, mothers of

gifted children encourage them to use meta-cognitive strategies significantly more

often. For example, they wait longer to provide assistance, stimulating their children’s

active participation and independent problem solving (cf. also Clark 1992; Robinson,

Burns, and Winder Davis 2009).

Preschool and primary school influences

8

Interactions in a multilevel system context

In preschool and successive school situations, individual pupil variables are

continuously affected by, and influence, environmental variables that define the

instructional and learning situations (cf. Magnusson and Allen 1983). These variables

may refer to the personal characteristics of the other pupils in class, for example, or to

the teacher’s pedagogical, managerial and teaching characteristics, or to the various play

and learning situations throughout school. At the beginning of a pupil’s school career,

his or her starting or entry-level characteristics on the identity dimensions are most

relevant as initial foci of the interactions with the environmental variables at school. In

subsequent days and weeks, a pupil’s development and learning are shaped by

simultaneous interaction processes between his or her entry-level characteristics and

educational and other characteristics at multiple levels (see Durkin 1966; Mooij 1992,

1994). The pupil’s individual cognitive, social, emotional and motivation abilities and

self-regulation capacities interact directly with the cognitive, social, emotional, and

motivation characteristics of the other children in his or her small group or class; at the

same time, the functioning of this group is influenced by the flexibility of the preschool

or primary school’s organisation of play and learning processes, the educational policy

of the school board, national standards for learning achievement, or outcomes of

international research comparing learning achievement across countries (cf. Collier

1994; Cronbach 1983; Earle 2001; Minne, Rensman, Vroomen, and Webbink 2007;

Mooij and Smeets 2009). Attending preschool and primary school thus involves

functioning individually within an all-encompassing educational system where

individual pupils may be nested within small groups, which in turn are usually nested

within classes within the schools, which are themselves nested within school boards and

districts, and so on. Different educational levels are thus hierarchically related, whereas

9

different variables at the various instructional levels may influence one another and

interact simultaneously.

Variables and interactions at pupil, small group/class, and preschool level

For a child in preschool, it is the variables at the individual, small group and/or class,

and preschool levels that have the biggest impact, relatively speaking, on its

development in terms of identity dimensions and self-regulation capacities: see Figure

1. In terms of Gagné (2011), these types of impact are relevant to develop the initial

giftedness or outstanding natural abilities into academic talents resulting from

systematic stimulation and learning. He states that talent development is characterised

by six main elements: (1) enriched curriculum; (2) clear and challenging excellence

goal; (3) selective access criteria; (4) systematic and regular practice; (5) regular and

objective assessment of progress; (6) personalised accelerated pacing.

From the perspective of learning psychology, at individual level the entry-level

characteristics of each pupil should be used as the initial criteria for giving the pupil

both individual and group level – or multilevel – instructional support in the preschool

environment (cf. Lubinski 2004; Mooij 1999a, 1999b, 2000). This requirement does not

appear to be fulfilled in regular education, as became clear also in the ‘grade/age

lockstep’ of Gagné (2011). In addition, a pupil’s cognitive information processing

capacities are important for understanding the possible causes and emergence of

potential preschool problems, particularly in cognitively gifted pupils (Overtoom 1991).

Baeten, Kyndt, Struyven, and Dochy (2010) present the outcomes of studies focusing on

factors that encourage or discourage a ‘deep approach’ to learning in school. Deep

learning refers to meaningful learning by means of pupil-centred methods intended to

foster understanding; ‘surface learning’, on the other hand, aims to have pupils

10

reproduce learning materials (cf. Marton and Säljö 1997). High ability or gifted pupils

need a deep approach to learning (Baroody 1993; Lohman 1990). They have the

capacity to grasp and understand essential information much more quickly and

effectively than other pupils, and possibly their teachers too. For a high ability pupil,

adequately differentiated levels of play and instruction, including deep-level

differentiation in the content of play and learning activities, are necessary to continue

promoting the pupil’s development and learning in the identity dimensions.

If the individual level of play or instruction in preschool is too far below a gifted

child’s abilities for a few weeks or more, the child will usually become disinterested in

preschool, try to engage in other, more challenging activities, or become disruptive and

socially isolated (Durkin 1966; Mooij 1992). Detailed or low-level instructional

learning guidance is generally suitable for novice learners or low-ability learners, but

this level of specificity holds back more autonomous and experienced learners (Lohman

1990). Kalyuga (2007) uses the term ‘expertise reversal shift’ to describe the effect

whereby knowledgeable learners do not progress when confronted with detailed

external guidance instead of minimal instruction and learning support to achieve far-

reaching outcomes. He identifies this shift in the early school years as well, stating that

‘even preschool children could be experts in solving some specific classes of tasks, for

example, paper-folding tasks’ (p. 511). The phenomenon of expertise reversal in

relation to enforced cognitive underachievement of gifted preschoolers by their

educational environment has been demonstrated in reading, writing, and mathematics

(Baroody 1993; Durkin 1966; Mooij 1999a, 1999b).

At small group level or class level, the mean performance of the pupils’

development in identity dimensions and their degree of heterogeneity, for example in

cognitive, social, emotional or motivation development levels, may block or hinder the

11

adequate development and learning of a gifted child (Colangelo et al. 2004; Gagné

2011; Mooij 1994). Mooij and Driessen (2008) carried out a secondary analysis of

national cohort data on Dutch pupils in integrated regular preschools and primary

schools. Longitudinal analyses per pupil compared language and arithmetic

achievement in 2004 with language and arithmetic achievement in 2002 for pupils

transitioning from preschool grade 2 (five years old) to primary school grade 4 (seven

years old), and from grade 4 to grade 6 (nine years old). The results showed that during

the transition from grade 2 to grade 4, the pupils scoring lowest on both language and

arithmetic in preschool grade 2 (deciles 1, 2 and 3) attained relatively higher scores in

the 2002–2004 period, whereas the pupils in deciles 6–10 had a relatively lower score in

2004. Moreover, the pupils in deciles 1 and 10 gained or lost the most, relatively

speaking. A comparable pattern emerged during the transition from grade 4 to grade 6.

Compared with the high ability pupils in grades 2–4, the high ability pupils in grades 4–

6 no longer lost as much ground. This demonstrates that the biggest hindrances,

relatively speaking, occur in the preschool period and the lowest grades of primary

school. In addition, studies of highly able pupils reveal statistically significant

relationships between changes in class characteristics and in the class teacher’s

perception of the pupil’s behaviour and functioning (Mooij and Driessen, 2008). These

results reflect the negative influences of ‘class size’, ‘age-based monitoring’, ‘class

mean performance’, and ‘non-acceleration’ on the transition of high ability pupils from

preschool (grade 2) to primary school (grade 4).

Other relevant characteristics of the class teacher concern the teacher’s attitude

or sensitivity towards the individual development of each child in the group (Durkin

1966; Jewett, Tertell, King-Taylor, Parker, Tertell, and Orr 1998). Also important are the

teacher’s degree of differentiated alertness (‘with-it-ness’) when all the children in the

12

class are engaged in playing and learning processes simultaneously (Kounin 1970) and

his or her degree of directness and clarity in class management behaviour (Kounin

1970; Meijer 2003). These teacher characteristics are in turn reflected in the disciplinary

behaviour of the pupils (Kounin 1970): see Figure 1.

At preschool and primary school level, particularly important conditions for

gifted pupils are the direct and integrated availability of curricular resources and

materials suitable for the full spectrum of development and learning levels of all pupils,

and corresponding enrichment opportunities that stimulate interest, self-regulation and

deep learning (Hodge and Kemp 2000; Gallagher, 1975). Pedagogical and flexibly

structured integration of educational materials across small groups and grades is

necessary, for all pupils.

Cross-level interactions (social comparison processes and effects)

In addition to level-specific influences as sketched in the above section, reciprocal

influences or longitudinal process interactions may exist between variables located at

different levels. A pupil will perceive the abilities, performances and achievements of

other pupils in his or her small group or class and use this information in processes of

social comparison relating his or her own efforts or results to those of the other pupils

(cf. Bowerman 1978). A positive comparison result will usually enhance the pupil’s

self-concept, motivate more learning and increase self-regulation in learning, whereas a

negative comparison result will decrease the pupil’s self-concept and lead to withdrawal

or a shift to other activities (cf. Marsh, Chessor, Craven, and Roche 1995). Davis (1966)

named this effect the ‘frog-pond phenomenon’ to indicate that, generally, a person feels

better and is more motivated when he or she is ‘a big frog in a small pond rather than a

small frog in a big pond’. However, in a regular preschool or primary class

13

characterised by age-based play and instruction and mean-based play and learning

levels, a pupil initially achieving highest on cognitive competences such as language or

(preliminary) arithmetic will encounter social isolation and educationally enforced

underachievement (Baroody 1993; Byrne 1998; Durkin 1966; Mooij 1992, 1994).

Another effect on behaviour in both high and low ability children is their developing

inattentive and disruptive behaviour (Bennathan and Boxall 1996; Kounin 1970) which

– depending on the teacher’s managerial and instructional measures – may increase the

behaviour and motivation problems of pupils initially scoring either relatively highest or

lowest on the identity dimensions. The social comparison effect has been shown to

function in ways specific to school subjects and in small groups of pupils within classes

(Van den Eeden, Terwel, and Mooij 1993).

In the course of preschool and primary school, the within-school experiences lead

to the development of a number of specific new variables that can be assessed for each

pupil (Van den Eeden et al. 1993). These school subject-specific variables concern

specific behaviour, achievement, relative achievement, feelings of competence, and a

positive or negative attitude or orientation towards the school subject: see Figure 1. For

example, research shows that specific changes in small group or class differentiation

and instruction procedures affect school subject-specific social comparison processes,

related learning activities and self-concept processes, and the corresponding

achievement outcomes (cf. Delcourt, Loyd, Cornell, and Goldberg 1994; Mooij 1987).

In addition, individually differentiated motivation processes and effects can occur

owing to simultaneous social comparison processes involving specific achievement

variables at school level (cf. Baeten et al. 2010; Bowerman 1978; Karnes and Johnson

1991; Van den Eeden et al. 1993).

14

To summarise, in regular school practice but also in educational programmes

designed specifically to support highly able or underachieving pupils, simultaneous

multilevel interactions and the corresponding social, emotional, motivational, and

cognitive effects on individual pupils can be very complex and difficult to interpret.

Longitudinal understanding and analysis (such as presented in Figure 1) are needed to

correctly perceive, explain, and reduce the possible problems of gifted pupils in regular

or special preschools or primary schools, based on information from or assessments at

different levels simultaneously (see also Butler-Por 1987; Colangelo et al. 2004; Mooij

1992). Furthermore, cognitive high ability pupils – defined as pupils who perform

cognitively in the top ten per cent – need accurate differentiation of curricula by

achievement level and deep learning, and adequate variations in individual and small-

group instruction and learning from their very first day in preschool. They should also

continue to receive support throughout preschool, primary school, secondary school and

higher by means of diagnostically adequate small group, class and school differentiation

and learning (Butler-Por 1987; Fakolade and Adeniyi 2010; Gottfried and Gottfried

1996; Renzulli and Reis 1997) so as to prevent educationally enforced

underachievement and related problems.

Optimal instructional – learning design for gifted pupils

Optimal instructional and learning conditions

Given the above information on pupils with specific educational needs, educational

programmes for cognitively gifted pupils in particular should focus on fostering

multilevel instructional and organisational characteristics conducive to high ability

pupils on the one hand, and the corresponding learning processes and outcomes on the

15

other. Paying adequate attention to self-regulation of learning in school practice (Perels,

Gürtler, and Schmitz 2005), and supporting teachers in structuring pupils’ self-regulated

learning and deep-level processing can be assumed to positively affect the self-

regulative processes and learning effects of cognitively gifted pupils in particular. The

expected effects will become stronger, and more valid ecologically, as pupils are

allowed to take more initiative and responsibility in class, given a coherent pedagogical

and instructional structure throughout the preschool or primary school (cf. Parkhurst

1922; Rozendaal, Minnaert, and Boekearts 2005; Zimmerman 2002).

At pupil level, self-regulative competence-based learning is expressed in learning

cycles consisting of the following stages: (1) estimation of the level of difficulty of one

or more learning tasks, followed by selection of tasks to be performed; (2) offering

various types of support or coaching for learning or carrying out the learning tasks; and

(3) assessment or evaluation of the learning results according to specific criteria or

norms, followed by selection of follow-up or other types of task, going back to stage (1)

in the cycle. Increasing a child’s self-regulation or learner control by providing

supporting information, or ‘scaffolding’, functions as a main prerequisite for taking the

next motivated and effective, or competent, learning steps (Brush and Saye 2001; Mooij

2008). Each learning cycle has to be integrated into the diagnostic, instructional,

managerial, and systemic aspects of the learning processes at the school.

Diagnostic, instructional, managerial, and systemic aspects of learning

Traditionally, we determine a person’s cognitive ability by administering tests that

assess different types of cognitive intelligence and lead to a score or intelligence

quotient (IQ) (Gallagher 1975; Mehlhorn 1988). Researchers, however, argue against

using only IQ tests (Hodge and Kemp 2000; Robinson and Robinson 1992; Roedell,

16

Jackson, and Robinson 1980) or achievement tests (Hoeksema 1982; Shaklee and

Handsford 1992) to determine giftedness in education. Kuo, Maker, Su, and Hu (2009)

and Walsh, Hodge, Bowes, and Kemp (2010) point out that observation and screening

by parents or carers and teachers, adequate determination of learning progress, and

portfolio assessment can all be used for a more comprehensive identification of

giftedness in educational programmes. Diagnostics may then involve one or more

parents or other coaches or experts screening a child’s performance; considering former

learning results; testing using criterion-based or norm-based instruments; and having a

teacher, coach, peer, parent, or another person provide evaluations or other types of

assessments (cf. also Brown et al. 2005).

A diagnostic task can, for example, be part of a structured set of play or learning

tasks or an ‘instructional line’ of such a set. This line may in turn be one of many sets of

instructional lines that can be combined into learning arrangements which, in

combination, form a specific curriculum. A diagnostic indicator may therefore serve as

a criterion that refers to specific curricular activities to be performed. Integrating both

criterion-based and normed indicators in instructional lines will secure adequate

differentiation and instructional support for continuous learning progress at individual,

small group and class, or school level. The most relevant curricular concepts and their

diagnostic assessment based on standardised and normed measurements specify a

‘pedagogical-didactic kernel structure’ of competence domains (cf. also Earle 2001;

Kemp 2000). Diagnostic and instructional learning aspects must be managed in order to

organise and adequately evaluate subsequent learning processes in good time for

individual pupils, small groups of pupils (cf. Kreijns, Kirschner, and Jochems 2003;

Van den Boom et al. 2004), groups or classes, schools, or higher organisational levels.

17

The corresponding managerial aim is to achieve multilevel transparency and an

optimal balance between individual and group-based learning progress and the related

assessment, given the pedagogical choices made and the budgets available. The related

systemic aspect of learning indicates that a pupil belongs simultaneously to a family,

one or more peer groups outside school, and one or more small groups or classes in the

preschool or primary school where he or she spends many hours every week. The pupil

may also have contact with youth health care professionals, for example (Black,

McCormick, James, and Pedder 2006; James, Black, McCormick, Pedder, and William

2006).

Multilevel differentiation, ICT support and strategies to optimise learning

Adequate multilevel differentiation of curricular materials and procedures is therefore

the first dimension of educational conditions that improve education and learning for

gifted and other pupils. Internet-based Information and Communication Technology

(ICT) can also assist in registering, integrating, evaluating, and reporting instructional,

learning, and evaluation processes in various ways, integrated across different learning

situations and organisational levels (Blumenfeld, Fishman, Kraycik, Marx, and Soloway

2000; Crook 1998; European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education

2001; Ely 1999; Gustafson 2002). If designed to support the diagnostic, instructional,

managerial, and systemic learning aspects referred to in the previous section, ICT can

act as the second dimension representing conditions for optimal learning (Mooij 2007;

Sinko and Lehtinen 1999). The third dimension empowers the combination of the first

two dimensions in school practice; it concerns conditional strategies to improve the

pupils’ development and learning, including self-regulation of learning. Combining

these three educational dimensions and the diagnostic, instructional, managerial, and

18

systemic learning aspects results in a pattern of guidelines for optimal learning in

flexible multilevel educational contexts: see Table 1.

Table 1 about here

In Table 1, guidelines 1.1–1.5 specify the pedagogical-didactic kernel structure of

competence domains, including the most relevant curricular concepts and their

diagnostic assessment based on both criterion measurements and standardised and

normed measurements, if possible. Competence domains may include identity

dimensions such as in Figure 1, for example, or may concern social-emotional

performance; general intelligence; language; arithmetic/mathematics; physical-medical

aspects; general psychological characteristics; and motor activities (cf. Byrne 1998;

Gallagher 1975). Diagnostic indicators must be integrated with corresponding sets of

curricular learning tasks and activities in order to build instructional lines reflecting

learning arrangements to be used by pupils. For example, a teacher can use test

information at national level to select one or more concepts/subconcepts referring to

specific skills assessed by means of a pupil monitoring test, and connect specific

criterion-based curricular tasks or school-based evaluation activities to self-made

instructional lines, resulting in specific learning arrangements for specific types of

pupil.

Guidelines 2.1–2.5 of Table 1 present Internet-based ICT support for building

and providing a pedagogical-didactic kernel structure, initially at national level. ICT

assistance can thus provide integrated assessment and evaluation procedures for all

schools, teachers and other professionals, and learners. ICT can also help structure,

enhance, and promote the use of differentiated curricular-based instructional lines and

corresponding learning and assessment procedures. Various types of users associated

with schools can then select instructional lines or create or adapt these lines to one or

19

more pupils, small groups, classes, or schools (cf. Clark and Estes 1999; Reynolds

2005).

Guidelines 3.1–3.5 of Table 1 first of all concern the screening of a pupil’s initial or

entry-level characteristics in preschool (cf. Colangelo et al. 2004; Durkin 1966). Mooij

(2000) has developed a psychometrically controlled screening procedure using the

identity dimensions in Figure 1 for both parents or carers and preschool teachers. The

procedure estimates a child’s level of competence in the seven domains by comparing

the child’s behaviour with the behaviour of same-age peers. This is a comparison most

parents can make in order to evaluate their child’s behaviour. The resulting information

can be used to check and compare the parents’ and preschool teacher’s views of the

child. The results can also be used to select and assign level-adequate play materials or

instructional lines/sublines just above the individual child’s actual competence levels, in

different areas of development or school subjects (cf. Bennathan and Boxall 1996;

Tymms, Merrel, and Henderson 2000).

From the instructional point of view, it is also important to immediately and

mutually control prosocial relationships between pupils and teachers in small groups,

classes and preschools or primary schools (Chen 2006; Skinner, Bryant, Coffman, and

Campbell 1998). Collaborative social and didactic procedures can be integrated into

instructional lines and learning arrangements in order to stimulate pupils’ prosocial

learning (cf. Chen 2006; Hepler 1998; Kaplan, Gheen, and Midgley 2002; Kreijns et al.

2003). The instructional support offered must take into account entry-level differences

between pupils with respect to competence, magnitude of learning steps, speed and

accuracy in learning, use of meta-cognitive strategies, and degree of self-regulation

during learning. From a managerial point of view, collaborative self-regulation in small

groups enables the teacher to concentrate on those pupils most in need (cf. Cameron,

20

Cook, and Tankersley 2011). Overall, by applying the guidelines in Table 1, it becomes

possible to improve each learner’s progress continually across different learning

situations and educational sectors.

Multilevel hypothesis

If gifted pupils have access from the beginning of preschool to multilevel instruction at

levels appropriate to their initial competence, as outlined in Figure 1 and Table 1, they

will effectively engage in instructionally supported and self-regulated learning

processes at their own levels. At the same time, schools and teachers will be able to

concentrate on relatively slower or less adequate learners at their own levels. Once such

educational differentiation becomes part of school practice, the traditional, age-based

preschool and primary school system will be transformed into an instructionally

supportive, ICT-based managerial system, meeting the needs of different types of pupil.

This transformation will improve the learning processes and educational careers of both

high and low ability pupils, but the high ability pupils in particular. A multilevel

hypothesis expressing this transformational expectation is formulated as follows:

As differentiation of learning materials and procedures (dimension 1),

integration by and use of ICT support (dimension 2), and strategies to

improve development and learning (dimension 3) are achieved at multiple

educational levels in preschool and primary school, multilevel

differentiation and evaluation of learning processes will improve. This will

result in better self-regulation and higher social, emotional, motivation,

and cognitive learning outcomes for pupils who initially deviated most

21

from the mean in their group or class, or their peers’ norm, in particular the

high ability pupils.

Discussion

Conclusions

The answer to the first research question clarified why, and how, gifted pupils may be

confronted with various problems of educationally enforced underachievement in

regular preschool or primary school. The theoretical elaboration took the form of a

longitudinal multilevel model: see Figure 1. It became clear that, to ensure that

cognitively gifted or high ability children remain motivated in preschool and primary

school, they need specific cognitive, motivational, emotional, and social stimulation that

fits their individual genetic basis but also their potential and actual abilities and

achievement levels, including self-regulation abilities in play and learning. Giftedness

therefore needs to be detected and supported earlier in preschool or primary school than

is usually the case (cf. also Shore 1996; Clark 1992).

The answer to the second research question described what can be done to

develop and create psychologically adequate, pedagogically and didactically optimal

instructional conditions for gifted and other pupils. One approach involves using sets of

guidelines to design differentiated educational, ICT, and learning improvement support

for different pupils (see Table 1). The theoretical assumptions underlying these

guidelines were summarised in a multilevel hypothesis concerning specific

preschool/primary school conditions and corresponding learning effects for cognitively

gifted pupils in particular.

22

The approach in Table 1 differs from the usual support activities for cognitively

gifted pupils, such as enrichment, compacting, and part-time participation of gifted

pupils in extra or plus classes. These activities are meant to offer gifted but also

underachieving pupils more challenging assignments after they have finished their

regular play and learning processes (cf. also Gagné 2011; Purcell et al. 2002). The

guidelines in Table 1, however, emphasise diagnostic stringency in both normed and

criterion-based play and learning processes, learning arrangements and extra projects,

and self-regulation from a pupil’s very first day in preschool. This may mean, for

example, that four-year-old gifted pupils function at language or math levels typical of

seven- or eight-year-old pupils in regular education, even if the gifted pupils are placed

in their age group. Enrichment and extra or plus classes only start some years later; they

have their basis in age-based education and use this basis as a reference for additional

differentiation. The support provided by extra or plus classes may result in negative

longitudinal effects for cognitively gifted pupils, however (see Mooij et al. 2007). That

is because such classes are attended by different types of pupil, such as high ability

pupils, underachieving pupils with cognitive, social, emotional or behavioural problems,

and high ability pupils who no longer have adequate learning strategies. Moreover, as

with enrichment and compacting, part-time extra support offers much too little and

comes much too late for many gifted pupils. This interpretation is in line with Colangelo

et al. (2004), Delcourt et al. (1994), Gagné (2011), and Marsh et al. (1995).

Developing inclusive preschool and primary school practice

A number of trials are being conducted at Dutch preschool and primary schools to

explore the conceptualisations, guidelines, and procedures put forward in Table 1. One

pilot is taking place in a regular preschool and another in a special education

23

programme for cognitively gifted pupils. Initial results demonstrate that, in both pilots,

this innovative approach is meeting psychological, pedagogical, and professional

problems in preschool/primary school practice at different levels. For example, teachers,

school principals and school boards may appreciate or evaluate information about high

ability and underachieving gifted pupils differently. They may perceive

underachievement as intentional pupil behaviour instead of the pupil’s adaptation to

inappropriate play, instructional, and learning processes. Positive attitudes towards, or

expertise concerning giftedness and its educational urgency are not self-evident in

preschool/primary school practice, paralleling the situation arising from the inclusion of

pupils with different types of disability (see De Boer et al. 2011). Mooij and Smeets

(2009) report about school conditions that have to be fulfilled in order to deal

adequately with children with emotional and behavioural disorders (EBD) who vary in

many respects. They concentrate on how mainstream primary schools design different

instructional situations to support pupils with EBD in practice, and how this design

could be improved to enhance positive effects on the functioning of pupils with EBD in

particular. Three sets of educational conditions seem most relevant; the instructional and

social-emotional environment, the system of detection and intervention, and the support

given to teachers and schools. Case studies at 12 mainstream primary schools in the

Netherlands show that the schools focus on providing an adequate social-emotional

environment and a corresponding system to detect and manage EBD. However, they

lack a coherent pedagogical-didactic structure to integrate diagnosis, special or

mainstream curricular levels and materials, and reliable or valid evaluation of social

learning results. In addition, they mostly lack a systematic approach to obtaining

information from and collaborating with parents and other professionals or external

agencies.

24

The actual trials for cognitively gifted pupils clarify that preschool and primary

school teachers hardly know how gifted pupils aged four or five act, function and learn

at levels typical of children some years above their chronological age. To develop

inclusive practice it is therefore very important to start screening each new pupil in

preschool, and for both parents and preschool teachers to be involved, since parents can

inform the teacher about the child’s characteristics and, if relevant, giftedness. The next

step is to clarify the distinction between curricular criterion-based and normed-based

evaluation and testing in preschool and primary school, and to combine these two

approaches in pedagogically responsible ways for different types of pupil. For example,

pupils who achieve relatively low in one or more respects, more or less average pupils,

and gifted pupils initially performing in the top ten percent. For all types of pupils,

however, education should support their talent development (cf. Gagné, 2011) which

implies that educational differentiation should match relevant pupil characteristics from

the start in preschool. The actual experiences demonstrate that this preventative

innovation to develop inclusive education for cognitively gifted pupils requires much

more practice support for preschool and primary school teachers and principals than is

presently the case (cf. also Yeung 2011; Zhang 2011).

Note on contributor

Ton Mooij is a professor of educational technology at CELSTEC (Open

University of the Netherlands, Heerlen) and an educational manager and

researcher at ITS (Radboud University Nijmegen). His main interests

concern the design, implementation and evaluation of educational

practices so as to improve cognitive, social, and emotional learning effects

in pupils of varying ability and performance.

25

References

Baeten, M., E. Kyndt, K. Struyven, and F. Dochy. 2010. Using student-centred learning

environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or

discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review 5: 243-260.

Baroody, A.J. 1993. Fostering the mathematical learning of young children. In

Handbook of research on the education of young children, ed. B. Spodek, 151-175.

New York: MacMillan.

Bennathan, M., and M. Boxall. 1996. Effective intervention in Primary Schools. Nurture

Groups. London: David Fulton.

Black, P., R. McCormick, M. James, and D. Pedder. 2006. Learning how to learn and

assessment for learning: A theoretical inquiry. Research Papers in Education 21, no.

2: 119-132.

Blumenfeld, P., B.J. Fishman, J. Kraycik, R.W. Marx, and F. Soloway. 2000. Creating

usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded projects-

based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist 35: 149-164.

Bowerman, W.R. 1978. Subjective competence: The structure, process and function of

self-referent causal attributions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 8: 45-75.

Brown, S.W., J.S. Renzulli, E.J. Gubbins, D. Siegle, W. Zhang, and C.-H. Chen. 2005.

Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted

Child Quarterly 49: 68-79.

Brush, T., and J. Saye. 2001. Defining hard and soft scaffolding in technology-enhanced

student centered learning environments. Paper presented at the conference of the

Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), November

8-10, in Atlanta, USA.

26

Butler-Por, N. 1987. Underachievers in school: Issues and intervention. Chicester:

Wiley.

Byrne, B. 1998. The foundation of literacy. The child’s acquisition of the alphabetic

principle. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Cameron, D.L., B.G. Cook, and M. Tankersley. 2011. An analysis of the different

patterns of 1:1 interactions between educational professionals and their students with

varying abilities in inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive

Education (in press). doi:10.1080/13603116.2011.580459.

Chen, K. 2006. Social skills intervention for students with emotional/behavioral

disorders: A literature review from the American Perspective. Educational Research

and Reviews 1, no. 3: 143-149.

Clark, B. 1992. Growing up gifted (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Clark, R.E., and F. Estes. 1999. The development of authentic educational technologies.

Educational Technology 39, no. 2: 5-16.

Colangelo, N., S.N. Assouline, and M.U.M. Gross. 2004. A nation deceived: How

schools hold back America’s brightest students (Volumes I and II). Iowa City, IA:

The Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education

and Talent Development.

Collier, G. 1994. Social origins of mental ability. New York: Wiley.

Cronbach, L.J. 1983. Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crook, C. 1998. Children as computer users: The case of collaborative learning.

Computers and Education 30: 237-247.

27

Davis, J.A. 1966. The campus as a frog pond: An application of the theory of relative

deprivation to career decisions of college men. The American Journal of Sociology

40: 1-10.

De Boer, A., S.J. Pijl, and A. Minnaert. 2011. Regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes

towards inclusive education: a review of the literature. International Journal of

Inclusive Education 15, no. 3: 331-353. doi:10.1080/13603110903030089.

Delcourt, M.A.B., B.H. Loyd, D.G. Cornell, and M.D. Goldberg. 1994. Evaluation of

the effects of programming arrangements on student learning outcomes: Research

Monograph 94108. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Durkin, D. 1966. Children who read early. New York: Teachers College Press.

Earle, R.S. (Ed.) 2001. Standards for the accreditation of programs in educational

communications and instructional technology (ECIT) (4th

Rev. ed., October 2001).

Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Ely, D.P. 1999. Conditions that facilitate the implementations of educational technology

innovations. Educational Technology 39, no. 6: 23-27.

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. 2001. Information and

Communication Technology (ICT) in special needs education (SNE). Author, Odense

Denmark. Retrieved from http://www.european-

agency.org/publications/ereports/information-and-communication-technology-ict-in-

special-needs-education-sne/ict_sne_en.pdf

Fakolade, O.A., and S.O. Adeniyi. 2010. Efficacy of enrichment triad and self-direct

models on academic achievement of gifted students in selected secondary schools in

Nigeria. International Journal of Special Education 25, no. 1: 10-16.

Gagné, F. 2011. Academic talent development and the equity issue in gifted education.

Talent Development & Excellence 3, no. 1: 3-22.

28

Gallagher, J. 1975. Teaching the gifted child. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gardner, H. 1983. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:

Basic Books.

Gottfried. A.E., and A.W. Gottfried. 1996. A longitudinal study of academic intrinsic

motivation in intellectually gifted children: Childhood through early adolescence.

Gifted Child Quarterly 40: 179-183.

Gustafson, K. 2002. Instructional design tools: A critique and projections for the future.

Educational Technology Research and Development 50, no. 4: 59-66.

Hepler, J.P. 1998. Social integration of children with emotional disabilities and

nonhandicapped peers in school setting. Early Child Development and Care 147: 99-

115.

Hodge, K.A., and C.R. Kemp. 2000. Exploring the nature of giftedness in preschool

children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 24: 46-73.

Hoeksema, F.M. 1982. Identifying intellectual advancement in preschools. ERIC

Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 235 923.

James, M., P. Black, R. McCormick, D. Pedder, and D. William. 2006. Learning how to

learn, in classrooms, schools and networks: Aims, design and analysis. Research

Papers in Education 21, no. 2: 101-118.

Jewett, J., L. Tertell, M. King-Taylor, D. Parker, L. Tertell, and M. Orr. 1998. Four early

childhood teachers reflect on helping children with special needs make the transition

to kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal 98, no. 4: 329-338.

Kalyuga, S. 2007. Expertise Reversal Effect and its implications for learner-tailored

instruction. Educational Psychology Review 19, no. 4: 509-539.

Kaplan, A., M. Gheen, and C. Midgley. 2002. Classroom goal structure and student

disruptive behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology 72: 191-211.

29

Karnes, M.B., and L.J. Johnson. 1991. The preschool / primary gifted children. Journal

for the Education of the Gifted 14, no. 3: 267-283.

Keleman, G. 2010. A personalized model design for gifted children’s education.

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2: 3981-3987.

Kemp, J.E. 2000. An interactive guidebook for designing education in the 21st century.

Bloomington, Indiana: Technos press of the Agency for Instructional Technology

(AIT) / Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT).

Kounin, J.S. 1970. Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

Kreijns, K., P.A. Kirschner, and W. Jochems. 2003. Identifying the pitfalls for social

interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of

the research. Computers in Human Behavior 19: 335-353.

Kuo, C.-C., J. Maker, F.-L. Su, and C. Hu. 2009. Identifying young gifted children and

cultivating problem solving abilities and multiple intelligences. Learning and

Individual Differences 20, no. 4: 365-379.

Lohman, D.F. 1990. When good programs have bad effects on good students:

Understanding mathemathanic effects in thinking skills programs. In Training van

hogere-orde vaardigheden, ed. M. J. Ippel and J. J. Elshout, 21-30. Lisse, The

Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Lubinski, D. 2004. Long-term effects of educational acceleration. In A nation deceived.

How schools hold back America’s brightest students, ed. N. Colangelo, S.G.

Assouline, and M.U.M. Gross, no. 2: 23-37. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa,

International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

30

Marsh, H.W., D. Chessor, R. Craven, and L. Roche. 1995. The effects of gifted and

talented programs on academic self-concept: The big fish strikes again. American

Educational Research Journal 32: 285-319.

Marton, F., and R. Säljö. 1997. Approaches to learning. In The experience of learning.

Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (2nd Ed.), ed. F. Marton,

D. Hounsell, and N. Entwistle, 39-58. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Magnusson, D., and V.L. Allen. 1983. Human development. An interactional

perspective. New York: Academic Press.

Mehlhorn, H.-G. 1988. Persönlichkeitsentwicklung hochbegabter [Personality

development of gifted persons]. Berlin: Volk und Wissen Volkseigener Verlag.

Meijer, C.J.W. 2003. Inclusive education and effective classroom practices. Middelfart,

Denmark: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.

Minne, B., M. Rensman, B. Vroomen, and D. Webbink. 2007. Excellence for

productivity. The Hague, The Netherlands: CPB.

Mönks, F.J., and G. Lehwald. 1991. Neugier, Erkundung und Begabung bei

Kleinkindern [Curiosity, exploration and giftedness with young children]. München:

Ernst Reinhardt Verlag.

Mooij, T. 1987. Interactional multi-level investigation into pupil behaviour, achievement,

competence, and orientation in educational situations. The Hague, The Netherlands:

Instituut voor Onderzoek van het Onderwijs.

Mooij, T. 1992. Predicting (under)achievement of gifted children. European Journal for

High Ability 3: 59-74.

Mooij, T. 1994. Begaafd in groep 1/2. Omgaan met (hoog)begaafde kinderen 1 [Gifted in

preschool. Playing and learning for the gifted 1]. De wereld van het jonge kind 22:

102-106.

31

Mooij, T. 1999a. Preventing antisocial behaviour of young children at risk. Risk

Management: An International Journal 1, no. 2: 49-61.

Mooij, T. 1999b. Integrating gifted children into kindergarten by improving educational

processes. Gifted Child Quarterly 43, no. 2: 63-74.

Mooij, T. 2000. Screening children’s entry characteristics in kindergarten. Early Child

Development and Care 165: 23-40.

Mooij, T. 2007. Design of educational and ICT conditions to integrate differences in

learning: Contextual learning theory and a first transformation step in early

education. Computers in Human Behavior 23, no. 3: 1499-1530.

Mooij, T. 2008. Education and self-regulation of learning for gifted pupils: Systemic

design and development. Research Papers in Education 23, no. 1: 1-19.

Mooij, T., and G. Driessen. 2008. Differential ability and attainment in language and

arithmetic of Dutch primary school pupils. British Journal of Educational

Psychology 78: 491-506.

Mooij, T., L. Hoogeveen, G. Driessen, J. van Hell, and L. Verhoeven. 2007.

Succescondities voor onderwijs aan hoogbegaafde leerlingen [Success conditions of

education for high ability pupils]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Radboud Universiteit,

ITS / CBO / Afdeling Orthopedagogiek.

Mooij, T., and E. Smeets. 2009. Towards systemic support of pupils with emotional and

behavioural disorders. International Journal of Inclusive Education 13, no. 6: 597-616.

Moss, E., and F.F. Strayer. 1990. Interactive problem-solving of gifted and non-gifted

preschoolers with their mothers. International Journal of Behavioral Development

13: 177-197.

32

Overtoom, R. 1991. Informatieverwerking door hoogbegaafde leerlingen bij het

oplossen van wiskundeproblemen [Information processing by gifted pupils; Solving

problems in mathematics]. De Lier, The Netherlands: Academisch Boeken Centrum.

Parkhurst, H. 1922. Education on the Dalton Plan. New York: Dutton.

Perels, F., T. Gürtler, and B. Schmitz. 2005. Training of self-regulatory and problem-

solving competence. Learning and Instruction 15, no. 2: 123-139.

Pino-Pasternak, D., and D. Whitebread. 2010. The role of parenting in children’s self-

regulated learning. Educational Research Review 5: 220-242.

Purcell, J.H., D.E. Burns, C.A. Tomlinson, M.B. Imbeau, and J.L. Martin. 2002.

Bridging the gap: A tool and technique to analyze and evaluate gifted education

curricular units. Gifted Child Quarterly 46: 306-321.

Renzulli, J.S. 1978. What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta

Kappan 60: 180-184, 261.

Renzulli, J.S. 1988. A decade of dialogue on the three-ring conception of giftedness.

Roeper Review 11: 18-25.

Renzulli, J.S., and S.M. Reis. 1997. The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide

for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Reynolds, N. 2005. The computer as scaffold, tool and data collector: Children

composing with computers. Education and Information Technologies 10, no. 3: 239-

248.

Robinson, N.M., and H.B. Robinson. 1992. The use of standardised tests with young

gifted children. In To be young and gifted, ed. P.S. Klein and A.J. Tannenbaum, 141-

170. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

33

Robinson, J.B., B.M. Burns, and D. Winder Davis. 2009. Maternal scaffolding and

attention regulation in children living in poverty. Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology 30: 82-91.

Roedell, W.C., N.E. Jackson, and H.B. Robinson. 1980. Gifted young children. New

York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Roeleveld, J., T. Mooij, D. Fettelaar, and G. Ledoux. 2011. Correctiefactoren bij

opbrengstmaten in het primair onderwijs [Correction factors in estimating the value-

added by primary schools]. Amsterdam / Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Kohnstamm

Instituut / ITS.

Rozendaal, J.S., A. Minnaert, and M. Boekaerts. 2005. The influence of teacher

perceived administration of self-regulated learning on students’ motivation and

information-processing. Learning and Instruction 15, no. 2: 141-160.

Shaklee, B.D., and S. Handsford. 1992. Identification of underserved populations:

Focus on preschool and primary children. ERIC Document Reproduction Service

NO. ED 344 406.

Shore, R. 1996. Rethinking the brain: New insights into early development. New York,

NY: Families and Work Institute.

Sinko, M., and E. Lehtinen. 1999. The Challenges of ICT in Finnish Education.

Jyväskylä, Finland: Atena.

Skinner, D., D. Bryant, J. Coffman, and F. Campbell. 1998. Creating risk and promise

children’s and teachers’ coconstructions in the cultural world of kindergarten. The

Elementary School Journal 98: 297-310.

Sternberg, R.J., and E.L. Grigorenko. 2002. The theory of successful intelligence as a

basis for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly 46, no. 4: 265-277.

34

Sternberg, R.J., and T.I. Lubart. 1995. Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a

culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.

Sternberg, R.J., and L.A. O’Hara. 2000. Intelligence and creativity. In Handbook of

intelligence, ed. R. J. Sternberg, 609-628. New York: Cambridge University Press.

The Scottish Government. 2009. Curriculum for excellence. Building the curriculum 4

skills for learning, skills for life and skills for work. The Scottish Government,

Edinburgh. Retrieved from

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/288517/0088239.pdf

Tymms, P., C. Merrel, and B. Henderson. 2000. Baseline assessment and progress

during the first three years at school. Educational Research and Evaluation 6, no. 2:

105-129.

Van den Boom, G., F. Paas, J.J.G. van Merriënboer, and T. van Gog. 2004. Reflection

prompts and tutor feedback in a web-based learning environment: Effects on

students’ self-regulated learning competence. Computers in Human Behavior 20:

551-567.

Van den Eeden, P., J. Terwel, and T. Mooij. 1993. Gruppenzusammensetzung und

Interaktion bei kooperativem Lernen in Mathemathik. In Neue Perspektiven der

Kooperation, ed. G. L. Huber, 216-232. Hohengehren, Germany: Schneider.

Walsh, R.L., K.A. Hodge, J.M. Bowes, and C.R. Kemp. 2010. Same age, different page:

Overcoming the barriers to catering for young gifted children in prior-to-school

settings. International Journal of Early Childhood 42, no. 1: 43-58.

Yeung, A.S.W. 2011. Exploring organisational perspectives on implementing

educational inclusion in mainstream schools. International Journal of Inclusive

Education (in press). doi:10.1080/13603116.2010.495792.

35

Zhang, K.C. 2011. Early childhood education and special education: How well do they

mix? An examination of inclusive practices in early childhood educational settings in

Hong Kong. International Journal of Inclusive Education 15, no. 6: 683-697.

doi:10.1080/13603110903317676.

Zimmerman, B.J. 2000. Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In

Handbook of self-regulation, ed. M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner, 13-41.

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B.J. 2002. Achieving academic excellence: A self-regulatory perspective.

In The pursuit of excellence through education, ed. M. Ferrari, 85-110. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

36

Table 1. Educational conditional dimensions, learning aspects and guidelines for

optimal learning.

Learning

aspects

Educational conditional dimensions

Differentiation of learning

materials and procedures

Integration and use of ICT

support

Strategies to improve

development and learning

Diagnostic 1.1. Identify a pedagogical-

didactic kernel structure for

different domains and

subdomains

2.1. Facilitate construction and

use of a pedagogical-didactic

kernel structure

3.1. Use a learner’s entry-level

characteristics to start

instructional lines

Instructional 1.2. Structure domains of

competence in terms of skills,

subskills and instructional lines

2.2. Enhance structuring and

flexible use of instructional

lines and learning arrangements

3.2. Create and control pro-

social relationships in and

around school

1.3. Include criterion-based and

normed indicators to evaluate

learning progress

2.3. Facilitate differential

instruction, collaborative

learning, and self-regulation

3.3. Use collaborative didactic

procedures to stimulate self-

regulation across grades

Managerial 1.4. Organise and match

flexible groups of learners and

teachers/coaches

2.4. Encourage differentiated

and multilevel evaluation of

learning progress

3.4. Concentrate teacher

coaching on those pupils most

in need of this

Systemic 1.5. Use integrated systems for

monitoring, evaluation, and

administration

2.5. Integrate instruction and

learning across different

contexts and points in time

3.5. Apply multilevel indicators

to improve instruction and

learning throughout school

37

Figure 1. Environmental home and preschool/primary school influences on a pupil’s

development (three-level model).

Personal variables

(entry-level character,

preschool)

Environmental variables

(home, school)

Personal variables

(primary school)

Genetic base

Home variables:

Identity dimensions: • Parents’ stimulation Identity dimensions:

• Social-communicative level • Parents’ education level • Social-communicative level

• General cognitive level • General cognitive level

• Language proficiency level • Language proficiency level

• Pre-arithmetic level • Arithmetic level

• Emotional-expressive level • Emotional-expressive level

• Senso-motor level Pre- / primary school variables: • Senso-motor level

• Expected educ. behav./motiv. School level: • Educational behaviour/motivation

• Integrated curricular resources

Self-regulation • Integrated enrichment possibilities Self-regulation

Small group and/or class level: School (subject) variables:

• Teacher’s child sensitivity • Behaviour

• Teacher’s with-it-ness • Achievement

• Teacher’s management • Relative achievement

• Pupils’ mean developm./achievem. • Competence

• Heterogeneity of pupils’ achievem. • Orientation

• Pupils’ disciplinary behaviour

Pupil level:

• Degree of individual instruction

• Differentiation content complexity

Interdependent relationships

Causal relationships

Figure 1.