Running Head: THE SELF-EFFICACY OF THE SELF-SELECTED 1

Effects of the G/T Waiver Program on the

Academic Self-Efficacy

of the “Self-Selected” G/T Student

Calvin Lee

Centennial High School

Ms. Robyn Page

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Calvin Lee, G/T Intern-

Mentor, Centennial High School. Contact: slee4848@inst.hcpss.org

Abstract
THE SELF-EFFICACY OF THE SELF-SELECTED 2

Gifted and Talented program (G/T) classrooms have undergone a noticeable change in the past

few years. The number of G/T students has risen dramatically, and processes such as the G/T

waiver program allows statistically non-G/T students (“self-selected” students) to enroll in the

G/T programs. Such heterogeneity in classrooms has often proven detrimental to the academic

performance of the statistically qualified G/T students (“placed” students). This paper explores

the effects self-selection into the G/T program can have on the self-selected student’s academic

self-efficacy. Self efficacy is one’s belief that one can do something. Review of literature will

show that damage to academic and other domains of self-efficacy is detrimental to the student’s

academic performance and trajectory. A questionnaire was created for both students and teachers

to clearly represent that factors that affect self-efficacy are happening in the classroom. The

findings supported the researcher’s hypothesis that the G/T environment damages the self-

efficacy of self-selected students through peer and instructor interaction. Implications of research

and possible solutions are discussed.

Effects of the G/T Waiver Program on the

Academic Self-Efficacy
THE SELF-EFFICACY OF THE SELF-SELECTED 3

of the “Self-Selected” G/T Student

Coming in from the top of the elementary-school-hierarchy, a daunting new level of

education sparks anxious aspirations in the fast-growing brains of the pre-adolescent student.

Middle school is often a student’s first foray into Gifted and Talented (G/T) program and its

content classes, an opportunity for academically advanced students to learn course material

above their grade level curriculum. These students are placed into the G/T program by the

CogAT, a standardized test used to determine a student’s G/T aptitude. However, a growing

number of “self-selected” students also populate this program. These students enter by an

appeals system through the waiver program, whereby parents can appeal to administrators about

their child’s G/T enrollment. Chapter 13A.04.07 of the Gifted and Talented Education COMAR

states that parents of students rejected from the G/T program can appeal to the school

administrator for enrollment into the G/T program. Placed into full effect the school year of

2017-18, parent initiation of the G/T placement review has significantly increased the number of

“self-selected” G/T content class students in middle schools around the county. While a growing

body of existing research has shown that the presence of often less academically inclined self-

selected students is detrimental for the education of exceptional placed students in G/T or like

programs, little research shows the impacts G/T programs can have on the less academically

inclined group of students (Petrelli, 2011). The purpose of this paper is to inform the reader that

G/T self-selection can damage a student’s academic self-efficacy through interactions with

placed G/T peers and G/T curriculum trained teachers, and in turn how low academic self-

efficacy can damage the future of the student. The interactions that self-selected students will

have with placed G/T peers and G/T curriculum teachers will injure their academic self-efficacy

and lead to its long-term damage, and subsequently also to their self-concept, mental health, and
THE SELF-EFFICACY OF THE SELF-SELECTED 4

aspirational/expectational educational trajectory. The current G/T waiver program must be

replaced with one that is based on empirical evidence, judged by multiple teachers and

administrators with scrutiny, and consented by the student being appealed who fully understands

what they will face in the G/T program.

Review of Literature

The self-selected G/T student finds his/herself in an academically heterogeneous

classroom. Most, if not all G/T content classes contain both placed and self-selected (waived)

students (R. Page, personal communication, 2018). In such an environment, it is only natural that

a student will begin to notice that he/she is either far ahead or falling behind his/her peers in the

class. Such social comparison is one of the leading social factors in the development of

intellectual and academic efficacy in schooling environments (Bandura, 1994). Self-selected

students will compare themselves to their placed peers by upwards social comparison, meaning

that they will view their peers as far above themselves. Research shows that any type of social

comparison in the classroom is significantly related to the academic self-concept (one’s general

beliefs about oneself, sometimes in particular domain) of a student (Rogers, Smith, & Coleman,

1978). As self-efficacy is one of the defining factors in self-concept, it can be deduced that social

comparison is also related to self-efficacy in the academic and intellectual domains. Therefore,

when self-selected students are placed in an environment of extreme upwards social comparison,

they are at risk of damage to their academic self-efficacy.

Self-selected students may also start to compare themselves to students like themselves.

These students may start to realize that there are other students who also fall behind and struggle

in their G/T classes. By model similarity, the creation of models from those who are similar to

oneself, if students perceive that under-performing students are similar to themselves because of
THE SELF-EFFICACY OF THE SELF-SELECTED 5

their similar grades and outcomes, students will start to believe that they lack intellectual

competence and may not even attempt the task (Schunk, 1987). Inversely, students may perceive

a great dissimilarity between themselves and their placed peers, and further feel incompetent and

unmotivated. This perceived incompetence does direct damage to a student’s self-efficacy. The

impacts of model similarity will be even more prevalent in a middle school classroom because

preadolescents and adolescents are more prone to perceiving similarities and are new to many

tasks they may have to do (Schunk, 1987).

Once students categorize themselves into such groups of “smart” and “not smart,”, they

will become increasingly similar to one another in their peer network groups, groups categorized

by academic competence in the schooling environment (Schunk, 1987). Becoming more similar

will increase the effects of model similarity within the group, making the effects on self-efficacy

even more significant over time (Cairns, Cairns, & Neckerman, 1989). Furthermore, while good

peer network groups provide motivation for the student, unmotivated peer groups, such as the

group of low-efficacy self-selected students, will have detrimental impacts on the motivation and

efficacy of the members of the group over time. Peer network groups can also influence the

general choices a member makes (Dweck & Goetz, 1978). Through opportunities and

observations, students can lead and support one another in their assignments and tasks. However,

they can also do the opposite, lowering the self-efficacy and subsequently the performance of the

overall group (Dweck & Goetz, 1978). Therefore, peer comparisons and interactions can

significantly affect and have detrimental impacts on the self-efficacy of the self-selected student

in a academically heterogeneous classroom.

Teachers and instructors also play an important role in the development of academic self-

efficacy (Bandura, 1994). Middle school teachers in Howard County are aware of the new
THE SELF-EFFICACY OF THE SELF-SELECTED 6

waiver program in the G/T enrollment process, and many of the G/T content class teachers have

been teaching before the waiver program was implemented (R. Page, personal communication,

2018). Because of this, they may attribute a student’s struggle with classroom material and

activity with self-selected status (Pretzlik, 2003). This has been seen often when G/T content

teachers of Burleigh Manor Middle School have contacted the G/T Resource teacher, Ms. Robyn

Page, to ask whether a student was placed or self-selected when they have had their suspicions

(R. Page, personal communication, 2018). Though it is evident these judgements are being made,

the significant number of teachers who do not inquire of a student’s placed or self-selected status

poses the dangerous threat of teacher suspicions and mis-judgements that are not corrected. For

example, if a teacher begins to believe a placed student is self-selected, he/she may treat them

differently, resulting in either damage to student self-efficacy or the student not being given the

educational resources he/she needs. However, even if teachers are correct in their suspicions, the

resulting reactions may negatively affect the self-selected students. Many professionals believe

that it is not their responsibility to teach both self-selected and placed students the G/T

curriculum while also ensuring that both groups will succeed. Research has shown that doing so

is both extremely difficult and damaging to placed G/T students (Petrilli, 2011). However, the

resulting lowering of teacher-self-efficacy can damage the self-efficacy of the self-selected

students, and even their academic performance (de Boer, Bosker, & van der Werf, 2010).

Because of the tenuous relationship between teacher and student self-efficacies, teachers must be

cognizant of the diversity of their classroom and must be explicitly aware of where each student

stands in relation to his/her classmates.

Overly committed teachers may also see it as their responsibility to nurture these self-

selected students even in the G/T environment. Instead of treating the self-selected students in
THE SELF-EFFICACY OF THE SELF-SELECTED 7

the same way as placed students, they may give them them extra instructional and emotional

support and attention. Self-selected students may grow too accustomed to this special care, and

feel that they do not have a responsibility to complete tasks without their teacher. These students

will develop no personal academic self-efficacy if the teacher’s balance between special attention

and holding students accountable is not in equilibrium (Doménech-Betoret, Fernando, et al.,

2017). Instructors must recognize that while careful instruction may seem to be the single and

most direct cause of academic achievement, it is primarily and more importantly a factor in

influencing a student’s academic self-efficacy, which then most directly affects academic

achievement (Doménech-Betoret, Fernando, et al., 2017). However, because this effect can go

with both ways depending on the teacher’s balance of their own and their students responsibility

in the educative/learning process, they must take special care not to tip the scales and produce a

misguided and overly-dependent student.

It must also be recognized, however, that this issue is not the fault of teachers. The G/T

curriculum does not accommodate for self-selected students. It is not known if the training G/T

content teachers receive prepares them to make amends to classroom organizational and

instructional techniques to ensure the success of both placed and self-selected students, but the

practices that are often implemented by teachers can conversely damage self-efficacy and

subsequently academic achievement in self-selected students. Undifferentiated response, where

placed and self-selected students are taught and interacted with exactly the same, is detrimental

not only to groups grouped by intelligence such as the placed and self-selected groups, but to

students overall grouped by interest, learning profile, etc (Tomlinson et. al, 2003). Ability

grouping within the classroom to handle the heterogeneity of intelligence levels only result in a

more competitive and comparing classroom environment (Petrilli, 2011). Both undifferentiated
THE SELF-EFFICACY OF THE SELF-SELECTED 8

and differentiated responses to the heterogeneous G/T classroom tend to ignore the lower-ranked

group whether intentional or not (Bandura, 1994). Both are faulty in a polar heterogeneous

classroom, and because in this case the lower-ranked group is often the self-selected students, it

is evident that the curriculum does not make amends to such classroom environments.

Damages to self-efficacy directly impact a student’s self-confidence as well, and lower

self-confidence in the academic domain will further detriment academic self-efficacy, and impair

the ability to recover from damages to self-concepts (Bandura, 1994). The academic self efficacy

of students who are not prepared to face both school environment changes and increasingly

challenging academic tasks, like the transitioning sixth grade self-selected student, will decline

over the course of their schooling, and their academic reputation will begin to form for

themselves and for their peers and teachers (Schunk & Pajares, 2001). Their perceived academic

reputation cannot be easily changed, and will affect their academic choices (Bandura, 1994).

Only by collective efficacy in the academic community of the student can this academic

reputation be repaired and improved (Bandura, 1994). However, because self-selected students

are not often made to move down to a more suiting level, the collective efficacy is not only

nonexistent, but is negative, and therefore only further damages the student.

A student with low academic self-efficacy will also experience higher vulnerability to

mental illnesses and will find it harder to deal with and recover from the effects of mental illness

(Carpinello, Knight, Markowitz, & Pease, 2000). Since middle school students are transitioning

through adolescence, experiencing symptoms of puberty, and are adjusting to new educational

environments, they are already at a higher risk of mental illness than other periods of life

(Bandura, 1994). If self-selected students are further exposed to the pressures of extreme

academic comparison and significant damage to academic self-efficacy through the G/T
THE SELF-EFFICACY OF THE SELF-SELECTED 9

classroom will only increase the sense of inefficacy in a confused and distressed adolescent.

Research shows that high school steadily lowers self-efficacy in most students (Schunk &

Pajares, 2001). Exposing students to such damages in their self-efficacy as early as the sixth

grade will debilitate their ability to develop and grow not only their academic self-efficacy but

also their efficacy in other domains as they adjust to the new demands of a new stage in life.

Early on negative experiences in the classroom will also harm the expectational and

aspirational educational goals of the self-selected student. Research has found that self-efficacy

is a significant factor in college-related educational goals, both expectations and aspirations,

along with more obvious factors such as academic achievement (Akin & Radford, 2018). In an

educational period where students begin to seriously take into consideration their college goals

and career plans through their self-perceived expectations, positive self-efficacy is imperative in

the student reaching for not only their expectations but also highest aspirations. A damaged or

misrepresentative academic self-efficacy will severely impair the student’s ability to make

accurate judgements on their college and career goals, blocking many possibilities for the student

(Gibbons & Borders, 2010). Students with positive and representative self-efficacy will not only

accurately set college and career goals by their self-perceived expectations, but will also aim

higher for their aspirations when making such plans and goals.

Research Methods and Data Collection

Gaining approval for data collection was a very difficult process. Due to codes that

existed for Middle School students, surveying students was not a possibility. The planned teacher

survey, which originally was to ask direct questions about the G/T program and the waiver

process, was rejected because of the presence of bias and weak results it would gain due to

teacher implicit bias. Though many versions of the survey was made, each trying to completely
THE SELF-EFFICACY OF THE SELF-SELECTED 10

negate bias, all of these electronic surveys were rejected due to the possibility of bias and

confusion due to the existence of the survey itself. After speaking with administrators and

mentors a focus group among BMMS was decided on as the method of data collection.

In order to completely nullify bias, the focus group questions centered around “student

learning behaviors,” and asked broad guiding questions asking about “student work completion,”

“student motivation,” “student engagement,” and “lesson pacing” in the classroom. The problem

that arose then was that answers to these questions would barely support the claims in this paper.

However, during the discussion teachers tended to gravitate towards answers that attributed

differing student learning behaviors to “level,” meaning G/T, On-grade, etc. The word

“homogeneous” was even mentioned once, referring to an English classroom.

Ten Burleigh Manor Middle School staff members volunteered to partake in the focus

group, with teachers from each subject represented, as well as Orchestra and Visual arts teachers.

Questions to be asked were chosen by the direction of discussion off of the first question.

Comments directly pertaining to the research matter, to peer relationships, teacher relationships,

heterogeneity in classrooms, were recorded, and the relationships of such comments across levels

and subjects were analyzed. Many comments were not related to the research, and those were not

recorded. Additional meetings with one teacher and administrator were also held to gain further

opinions. Through the meeting with the administrator, direct questions and a conversation about

the G/T waiver program was had.

Data was analyzed by comparing and contrasting comments and answers made and given

by different teachers. Reactions to and levels of agreement to certain single comments were also

taken into account in measuring the significance and relatability across subjects for each

comment. Because the questions did not directly lead to any of the research claims, the bringing-
THE SELF-EFFICACY OF THE SELF-SELECTED 11

up of any comment directly relating to the research off of a question or discussion topic was also

regarded as significant.

Results and Data Analysis

Teacher answers to the questions were mixed and complex. Mostly they varied across

subject and level. The results did not vary across academic and creative subjects. Assessment of

student engagement levels varied across subject, level, grade level, and time of day. The general

consensus though was that G/T students (majority--therefore most likely both waived and

unwaived) were more likely to finish their work in all subject classes.

Peer engagement was reinforced as imperative to individual student success. In all level

classes and subjects, discussions and peer reinforcement were increased student commitment,

which then lead to student success. Negative peer interactions were not discussed, and all peer

interactions were discussed in positive light. Therefore support for the impact of peer

engagement in G/T classrooms was weak. Also, lesson planning and pacing was not directly

affected in one way by the engagement level of students. Inquisitiveness of engaged students in

some classes increased lesson time, while quick understanding of engagement students decreased

lesson time in other classes. A comment was made that in smaller class sizes the lower

denominator rose, but was deemed improbable for BMMS due to large class sizes. This comment

showed that Howard County’s larger schools would have less success with heterogeneous

classrooms, as experienced by a teacher who had taught at multiple schools, however, it should

be noted that this comment was not fully agreed upon, and many attributed lesser success to the

lack of community buy-in to such practices.

Teacher interaction and attention was also reinforced as one of the most important

defining factors of deciding student engagement in learning and completing work. Much of the
THE SELF-EFFICACY OF THE SELF-SELECTED 12

lack of engagement and attention was attributed not to individual students but to change in social

behaviors of student, the internet, and gaming on cellular devices. It was agreed upon that often

in larger classes the lowest common denominator of student academically was ignored by the

instructor due to their often bad behavior and lack of engagement. It was made clear that in some

cases there was no effort made to correct these behaviors or reach out to the student, and

methods were suggested.

An important discussion that arose from the issue of “increasing student engagement”

was the possibility of offering challenges to get students interested. However, it was decided

upon that difference in subject made it impossible to become a standardized process for all

subjects. A program for science classroom exists that challenges students to get them interested

in G/T level programs, but ELA and Math subjects did not believe that it would work for their

subjects, arguing that teaching different levels of science was akin to teaching different shades of

blue, while other subjects varied much more across levels. It was agreed upon by teachers that

though heterogeneous classrooms designed to make the lowest common denominator succeed

would work, but with smaller class sizes and community buy-in.

Clear that the heterogeneity of classrooms in many schools posed a problem, the

conclusion was drawn tentatively from the results of the focus group that, as one teacher

recommended, more levels of classes were needed to accomodate for aspirational students who

could take a challenge but not keep up in a G/T classroom. Before taking measures to establish

such a program, a lesson plan and other such public education measures were created to first

build community buy-in for such a process, for community buy-in was something teachers

deemed imperative for changes to happen. The lesson spanned an in-depth background of the

origin of the waiver process, the implications that were drawn from the research, and possible
THE SELF-EFFICACY OF THE SELF-SELECTED 13

solutions. Possible solutions that exist, other than an amending of the waiver process to become

stricter and increasing community awareness of the implications, was a separate level of class for

“Aspirational Learners,” where, like the program one teacher called “The Stretch,” would

challenge students who wanted to reach the G/T level but were not ready yet for its

commitments. Similar in level to Above-grade, the course would increase interest rather than

knowledge and meaningful workload rather than just difficulty to prepare a student for the G/T

environment. The course would be made for each subject to account for the existing disparities.

Additionally, funding and awareness of G/T Seminar programs will seek to be increased.

Through lessons given to both parents and their students, these measures will be advocated and

community buy-in will be established.

Discussion and Conclusion

The results and implications claimed in this research apply for larger Howard County

schools and are still tentative. Because of the nature of the data collection and analysis,

conclusions and results gained in this paper are extremely surface level and should not be taken

for fact, though literature review and interviews were able to show that they lead to truth.

However, it should be acknowledged that the issues introduced in this research exist and are not

exclusive to larger Howard County Schools. Measures must be taken, not only in educational

institutions, but also with communities, parents, and students themselves. It should be noted also

that the G/T waiver process is a fundamental part of the G/T program that was designed to

increase diversity in the program, and has seen some success, and therefore should not be

completely abolished or made any more difficult for those underrepresented groups who are

qualified to be in G/T programs. The group that this research is targeting is those who are not

qualified (by standardized scores and teacher evaluations) but pushed into the G/T program by
THE SELF-EFFICACY OF THE SELF-SELECTED 14

parent initiation of the placement process.

The Gifted and Talented Program is an amazing opportunity for the exceptional to receive

the education that keeps them intrinsically interested and motivated in their education. However,

with the entry of a large body of self-selected G/T students into these programs, both tested and

self-selected students are being negatively affected, the latter more than the former. These self-

selected students are often parent-enrolled (R. Page, personal communication, 2018). Parents

may only want for their child to also receive the head-start that G/T students may get with their

advanced curriculum. However, this forced placement into an advanced program subjects the

student to damages to their academic self-efficacy, which then impacts their future academic

career, having the opposite effect than what the self-selecting parents intend. However, the

appeals process in itself cannot be abolished, for it provides opportunities of enrollment to

underprivileged and under-represented groups (often ethnic and economic) into the GT program.

Therefore, the current appeals system of G/T program entry in Howard County Public Schools

must be amended. The appeal process must be changed so that the parent must provide empirical,

non-anecdotal evidence to a student’s giftedness. This appeal then must be judged with extreme

scrutiny by the G/T Resource teacher, administrators, and a panel of the student’s past teachers to

decide if a student has both the ambition and the academic inclination to succeed in the G/T

program. During this process the student must also be given full briefing as to the nature of the

G/T program (its requirements, challenges, and consequences) and must provide his/her own

consent to the appeal, without parent intervention. Parents, teachers, and administrators must

recognize the special needs each student has so that each student can succeed at his or her own

pace. A program designed to give a head-start to academically aspirational students should not

also debilitate its less academically inclined students, even if masked by the attractive and
THE SELF-EFFICACY OF THE SELF-SELECTED 15

progressive guise of inclusion. It is a pressing issue that is we must take on now, for the

betterment of not only the lives of self-selected students, but also for the betterment of our

tumultuous world that these students will have to face, armed with only their education.
THE SELF-EFFICACY OF THE SELF-SELECTED 16

Appendix

Teacher Focus Group Discussion Guide/Questions

Good afternoon, my name is Calvin Lee, a current junior at Centennial High School in the G/T
Intern-Mentor program. I am doing research on student learning behaviors in middle school, and
would like to get a better understanding of the student behaviors both inside and outside the
classroom that teachers see. All the information gathered in this survey will be used only for my
G/T Intern-Mentor class research project. Your identity will be kept completely anonymous.

Teachers will be asked to identify the class(es) they teach, the level of the class(es), and how
long they have been teaching.

These questions are a guide to questions that can/may be asked during the focus group.
1. Are students in your classes engaged in learning?
a. Work completion
b. Homework completion
c. Project completion
d. Quality of work
e. Full capacity of student
f. Motivation
2. Identify student learning behaviors that you have seen make students succeed.
3. Identify student learning behaviors that you have seen impede student success.
a. What constitutes academic success of a student in your classroom?
b. What earns an A?
4. What makes a student engaged in the learning process?
5. What makes a student disengaged from the learning process?
6. How does student engagement quicken or impede pacing/lesson implementation?
a. Attentive students asking more questions
b. Distracted students needing assistance
c. Is there enough time to implement each lesson with the usual level of student
engagement in your classroom?

Teachers will be asked follow up questions pertaining to their answers on these questions.

References

Akin, Imani, and Leondra Radford. "Exploring The Development Of Student Self-Esteem
THE SELF-EFFICACY OF THE SELF-SELECTED 17

And Resilience In Urban Schools." Contemporary Issues in Education Research, vol. 11, no. 1,

2018, pp. 15-22.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.) Encyclopedia of human

behaviour (Vol.4, pp.71-81). New York: Academic Press.

Available:http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/BanEncy.html

Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., & Neckerman, J. J. (1989). Early school dropout:

Configurations and determinants. Child Development, 60, 1437-1452.

Carpinello, S. E., Knight, E. L., Markowitz, F. E., & Pease, E. A. (2000). The

development of the Mental Health Confidence Scale: A measure of self-efficacy in individuals

diagnosed with mental disorders. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 23(3), 236-243.

de Boer, H., Bosker, R. J., & van der Werf, M. P. C. (2010). Sustainability of teacher

expectation bias effects on long-term student performance. Journal of Educational Psychology,

102(1), 168-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017289

Doménech-Betoret, Fernando, et al. "Self-Efficacy, Satisfaction, and Academic

Achievement: The Mediator Role of Students' Expectancy-Value Beliefs." Front Psychol, 18 July

2017. National Center for Biotechnology Information, doi:[10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01193].

Accessed 14 Dec. 2018.

Dweck, C. S., & Goetz, T. (1978). Attributions and learned helplessness. In J. Harvey, W.

Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (pp. 157-179). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gibbons, Melinda M., and L. DiAnne Borders. “A Measure of College-Going Self-

Efficacy for Middle School Students.” Professional School Counseling, vol. 13, no. 4, 2010, pp.

234–243. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/42732953.

THE SELF-EFFICACY OF THE SELF-SELECTED 18

Page, R. (2018). Personal interview.

Petrilli, Michael J. "All Together Now?" Education Next, Winter 2011, pp. 49-55.

Education Next. Accessed 26 Oct. 2018.

Pretzlik, Ursula. "Teachers' implicit view of intelligence predict pupils' self-perception as

learners." Cognitive Development, vol. 18, no. 4, October-December 2003, p. 579-599,

doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.09.008. Accessed 4 Jan. 2019.

Rogers, C. M., Smith, M. D., & Coleman, J. M. (1978). Social comparison in the

classroom: The relationship between academic achievement and self-concept. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 70(1), 50-57.

Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of

Educational Research, 57, 149-174.

Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin,

K., … Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating Instruction in Response to Student Readiness,

Interest, and Learning Profile in Academically Diverse Classrooms: A Review of Literature.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2–3), 119–145.

https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320302700203