04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Students’ Experiences and Views on Co-Teaching: A Systematic Review
Vasilis Strogilos1, Margaret King-Sears2, Eleni Tragoulia3, Anastasia Toulia4
1University of Southampton, United Kingdom; 2George Mason University; 3University of Crete; 4University of Thessaly
Presenting Author: Strogilos, Vasilis;
Tragoulia, Eleni
Context:
Following the international inclusion movement, co-teaching between special and general educators has appeared as one approach to the education of students with and without disabilities in the general education classroom (Strogilos et al., 2017). Co-teaching consists of general and special educators partnering to plan, deliver, and assess instruction in a general education class where, together, they teach students with and without disabilities (Friend et al., 2010). Research on co-teaching has extensively grown in the last decades, due to the increasing number of schools which are educating students with disabilities in co-taught classrooms.
Research on co-teaching has focused on its process and impact and especially the use of co-teaching models by the two educators. Seminal studies on co-teaching noted that during co-teaching both educators should be responsible for ‘instructional planning and delivery, assessment of student achievement, and classroom management’ (Nevin at al., 2008, p. 284), and highlighted that educators’ collaboration is paramount in responding to students’ needs (Thousand et al., 2006). Cook and Friend (1995) proposed a number of co-teaching models that co-teachers can select to group their students and to deliver instruction: one teacher leading while the other assists or observes (one-teach, one-assist/ observe/ circulate); both educators share the planning and delivering of instruction by each leading instruction (team teaching), the two teachers dividing students in half (parallel or alternative teaching); and dividing students in stations (station teaching).
Systematic reviews on co-teaching:
The last 20 years a number of reviews have been published mainly to describe teachers’ views on co-teaching (Iacono et al., 2021; Paulsrud & Nilholm, 2020; Scruggs et al., 2007; Solis et al., 2012; Strogilos et al., 2023; Van Garderen et al., 2012) or their students’ academic outcomes (King-Sears et al., 2021; Stefanidis et al., 2023). Only one review describes students’ perception on co-teaching (Wagner et al., 2023), which focuses on the identification of contextual variables surrounding co-teaching and some of its benefits and challenges. In some countries (e.g., England; DfE, 2015), the law requires the involvement of students with disabilities in decisions pertaining their education to empower a historically silenced group. Although the concept of ‘student voice’ has received increased attention, their participation in research studies depends on adult researchers’ perspectives on students’ ability to exercise influence upon their social world (Christensen & Prout, 2005). Students with and without disabilities who are educated in co-taught classes can provide valuable feedback about these experiences, which can be useful for not only researchers but for co-teachers and other school personnel striving to set up effective co-taught classes (e.g., Embury & Kroeger, 2012). Indeed, as more researchers establish lines of research that include students with and without disabilities in their studies (e.g., Leafstedt et al., 2007; Ronn-Lijenfeldt et al., 2023), students are important contributors about what does and does not promote their learning when co-taught.
A systematic review on students’ views on co-teaching to synthesise all the different themes that have appeared in research studies is currently missing. The main aim of the present systematic review is to describe students’ views about a plethora of features that contribute towards students’ academic and social success in co-taught classrooms and to highlight valuable implications for policy, practice and research to improve co-teaching. The review is guided by the following research questions: What are the views of students with and without disabilities about co-teaching? What improvements can be made on co-teaching based on students’ feedback?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo identify studies, we undertook computerised searches in EBSCO, ERIC, Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO, OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson), Open Dissertations, ProQuest Dissertations and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. The search dates were between June 2023 and January 1990. We used the search terms: “coteach*”; “co-teaching”; “cooperative teaching”; “co-operative teaching”; “team teaching”; and “collaborative teaching” with the boolean operator “or” between the terms to search related titles, abstracts and keywords. “Calls to the field” for unpublished studies via social media and emails to organisations (e.g., AERA). References in eligible articles were hand-searched. Two authors independently examined titles, abstracts, and full texts. The inter-rater reliability for determining eligible studies was 87%. Another author scrutinised discrepancies to 100% consensus.
Eligible criteria included: (a) original published or unpublished studies with primary data from students with and/or without disabilities in co-taught classrooms; (b) K-12 grades; (c) students received instruction from general and special educators as co-teachers; (d) in English; (e) when other participants in the study (e.g., parents, teachers), data from the students were disaggregated. Exclusion criteria included: (a) research with student data that was about inclusion but not about co-teaching; (b) data from others (e.g., co-teachers) was aggregated with the student data such that disaggregation could not occur; (c) students were preservice teachers rather than in K-12 grades; (d) general and special educators as part of a larger team working together but not co-teaching; (e) research featuring student’s academic achievement (e.g., standardized tests) only; (f) research in which co-teaching appeared in the findings but was not in the research aims/questions; and (g) studies which featured students responding to social validity surveys, with queries about aspects of a newly implemented intervention. For studies which featured other participants (e.g., co-teachers), only the portion featuring students was included.
There were 15,203 records identified from the search; 8,758 were excluded due to repetition. The 6,445 records remaining were screened by title and abstract. After excluding non-related articles, full-text search occurred for 179 studies, with 68 considered eligible. Each study was reviewed for quality using either the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool/checklist (CASP, 2018) for qualitative studies, or the checklist to assess quality of survey studies (Protogerou & Hagger, 2020). Findings included descriptive statistics and correlations from surveys, and themes from interviews and other qualitative methods. We employed thematic analysis (Braun et al., 2019) to elicit themes from the primary studies and to produce a narrative synthesis.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOur preliminary analysis elicited eight main themes about students’ views on co-teaching: Models of co-teaching, prevalence, and student preferences; the roles of co-teachers and their collaboration; student feelings; academic learning; social participation; behaviour management; belonging; and self-efficacy. Students with and without disabilities believe that co-teaching has an overall positive academic and social impact on all students. Many students with and without disabilities reported important academic benefits from both teachers. When the co-taught class was not the place they were learning best, this was attributed to teachers’ insufficient collaboration, lack of individual support for students with disabilities, or the lack of academic challenges for students without disabilities. Students with and without disabilities also reported positive views on their social participation in the co-taught classrooms, especially in relation to friendships.
Other important findings include the prevalence of the “one teach, one assist/drift/observe” model and students’ preference for a variety of co-teaching models; students’ satisfaction that special educators can support all students and not just students with disabilities; and students’ view that when there is a low level of co-teachers’ collaboration occurring, this creates frustration and leads to low academic benefits. In addition, most students expressed positive feelings about having two teachers, noting that co-teaching can be fun. However, some students with disabilities were confused and frustrated when the material was difficult or when co-teachers were speaking simultaneously. Also, some felt stigmatised when the special educator was constantly working near their desk. The few studies that examined students’ belonging and self-efficacy reported high levels for both attributes and, in some cases, positive associations between them and student academic progress.
Based on the above, we intent to discuss the following: improvements on co-teaching, factors related to findings, cautions about future research, and implications for policy and practice.
ReferencesCritical Appraisal Skills Programme. (2018) CASP qualitative checklist. Retrieved 10 January 2023, from
https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018.pdf
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16
Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 9-27.
Iacono, T., Landry, O., Garcia-Melgar, A., Spong, J., Hyett, N., Bagley, K., & McKinstry, C. (2021). A systematized review of co-teaching efficacy in enhancing inclusive
education for students with disability. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-
15.
King-Sears, M. E., Stefanidis, A., Berkeley, S., & Strogilos, V. (2021). Does co-teaching improve academic achievement for students with disabilities? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 34, 1-20.
Nevin, A. I., Cramer, E., Voigt, J., & Salazar, L. (2008). Instructional modifications, adaptations, and accommodations of coteachers who loop: A descriptive case study.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 31(4), 283-297.
Paulsrud, D., & Nilholm, C. (2020). Teaching for inclusion–a review of research on the cooperation between regular teachers and special educators in the work with students
in need of special support. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 27(4). 541-545
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional children, 73(4), 392-
416.
Stefanidis, A., King-Sears, M. E., Strogilos, V., Berkeley, S., DeLury, M., & Voulagka, A. (2023). Academic achievement for students with and without disabilities in co-taught classrooms: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102208
Strogilos,V., King-Sears, M., Tragoulia, E., Voulagka, A., Stefanidis, A. (2023). A Meta-Synthesis of Co-Teaching Students With and Without Disabilities. Educational Research
Review. 38, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100504
Strogilos, V., Tragoulia, E., Avramidis, E., Voulagka, A., & Papanikolaou, V. (2017). Understanding the development of differentiated instruction for students with and without disabilities in co-taught classrooms. Disability & Society, 32(8), 1216-1238.
Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (2006). The many faces of collaborative planning and teaching. Theory into practice, 45(3), 239-248.
Van Garderen, D., Stormont, M., & Goel, N. (2012). Collaboration between general and special educators and student outcomes: A need for more research. Psychology in the Schools, 49(5), 483-497.
Wagner, M. L., Cosand, K., Zagona, A. L., & Malone, B. J. (2023). Students’ Perceptions of Instruction in Co-Teaching Classrooms: A Systematic Literature Review and Thematic Analysis. Exceptional Children. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029231220
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Do We Have to Rethink Inclusive Pedagogies for Secondary Schools? A Critical Systematic Review of The International Literature
George Koutsouris, Nicholas Bremner, Lauren Stentiford
University of Exeter, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Koutsouris, George;
Bremner, Nicholas
This presentation builds on the findings of a critical systematic review that aimed to explore understandings and applications of inclusive pedagogies in the secondary school. We argue that inclusive pedagogies are complex and multifaceted and are also often conflated with other pedagogic approaches and discourses (for example, ‘differentiated learning’ and ‘student voice’), without a clear indication of what makes a particular pedagogy ‘inclusive’.
The fragmentation of inclusion is particularly evident in the different ways it is translated into pedagogic applications and decisions. Inclusive pedagogies are often conceptualised as both a set of strategies that aim to ensure access to learning for all students and as value principles that reflect particular views on inclusion; this is why they tend to be approached in diverse ways (Florian & Spratt, 2013; Lewis & Norwich, 2004). We use ‘pedagogies’ rather than ‘pedagogy’ in this presentation to acknowledge this complexity.
The inherent contradiction of many influential approaches to inclusive pedagogies (with one example being Florian & Spratt, 2013) lies in the desire to respond to individual learner differences while avoiding treating students differently; it is difficult to imagine how both can be achieved at the same time. The basis of this assumption is an association between the recognition of difference and stigmatisation or isolation. This echoes the so-called dilemma of difference perspective on inclusive teaching in that recognising student difference might lead to stigmatisation; however, failing to recognise difference could lead to loss of opportunities and restrictions to participation. This dilemma involves the clashing of values that differentiation and inclusion are seemingly based on—especially if inclusion is seen to be about emphasising commonality and downplaying difference (Norwich, 2013).
Another tension associated with inclusive pedagogies is with regards to the role of student voice in inclusion. Student voice offers unique opportunities for education, but it is also a contested matter and can be reduced to tokenism, the side-effect of a neoliberal drive for increased emphasis on consumer choice (Charteris & Smardon, 2019). Such arguments are also present in debates around educational ‘buzzwords’ such as student-centred learning (SCL). For example, the notion of ‘power-sharing’ between teacher and student has been shown to be the least supported and/or practical aspect of SCL (Bremner, 2021a, 2021b), with many constraints to implementation (Sakata et al., 2022).
These tensions and challenges, however, are not always acknowledged in the literature. Finkelstein et al. (2021), for example, discuss inclusive pedagogies as a set of practices organised across five themes: collaboration and teamwork, determining progress, instructional support, organisational practices, and social, emotional and behavioural support. The assumption is that ‘an inclusive teacher should essentially be competent in [these] five areas’ (p. 755). These five themes were also used by Lindner and Schwab (2020) in their systematic literature review that explored differentiation and individualisation in inclusive teaching.
In this presentation, we are particularly interested in secondary school as the focus on particular curricular areas and subjects, additional pressures for teachers and students derived from assessment and exams, and fewer opportunities for collaboration between teachers as a result of the compartmentalisation of the curriculum can make the implementation of inclusive pedagogies more challenging than at primary level (Hargreaves, 2005; Schwab et al., 2022).
This presentation, therefore, explores the following research questions:
- How are inclusive pedagogies in the context of the secondary school conceptualised in the research literature?
- With what other approaches do they overlap and what is the significance of this?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis systematic literature review ‘speaks to’ and builds on two previous literature reviews: one on inclusive practices (Finkelstein et al., 2021) and one on individualisation and differentiation (Lindner & Schwab, 2020). These reviews focus largely on mapping instructional and organisational practices that are conducted ‘in the name’ of inclusion, such as the provision and adaptation of materials and resources—as Lindner and Schwab assert, the ‘didactic method’ (p. 17) of teaching. This review instead takes a theoretical and discursive approach and explores the different ways in which inclusive pedagogies are understood by scholars, conceptualised, linked (or not) to theory and practice, and related to other discourses. This facilitates a deeper consideration of inclusion as an academic and practical field, including potentially shared and competing ideals and understandings. We also consider critically whether a systematic literature review can be an appropriate methodological approach to examine such a fragmented concept, in a context where systematic literature reviews are often seen as a ‘gold standard’ and have a growing presence in educational research (Haddaway et al., 2017).
We developed a comprehensive search strategy following an initial scoping of the topic area and conducted the search in November 2022. We used the following databases, with search terms cross-searched in the title and abstract fields: British Education Index, Education Research Complete, ERIC, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Australian Education Index, and Web of Science.
We refined our search results according to SCImago Journal Rankings, retaining those texts falling in Quartile 1 in at least one discipline as an indication of quality and rigour.
Following the database search, results were combined into an Endnote X9 Library and duplicates were removed. The three authors (NB, GK, LS) conducted a pilot stage of title and abstract screening using the inclusion criteria with 25 texts to agree on screening decisions. We finally decided to include 13 papers - a number much smaller than initially expected.
We developed a data charting form specifically for this review. The data charted included first author, date, country, journal, study design, methods, sample, school discipline/subject under focus, how inclusive pedagogies are conceptualised, theoretical underpinnings and overlapping pedagogical discourses. This process was completed by all three authors, following a pilot stage on several texts.
The texts were coded for both semantic and latent content relating to ‘inclusion’ and ‘inclusive pedagogies’, using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAlmost all the included articles linked inclusive pedagogies to theoretical ideas, and, despite some commonalities (e.g. empowering student voice), there was fragmentation when it comes to how inclusive pedagogies were conceptualised and linked to practice. Inclusive pedagogies were also largely seen to be about all students (student diversity) and less about students with disabilities - and, even in the latter case, distinctions between ‘mainstream’ and ‘special’ were often challenged. Given this focus on students, it is then surprising that student perceptions of inclusive pedagogies were found to be still very little explored. Tensions associated with inclusion (e.g. between a focus on commonality/ difference or between attitudes/ practice) were to some extent acknowledged, but not in all cases. In addition, approaches to inclusive pedagogies were filtered through the lenses of particular subjects (e.g. music and PE) and were interpreted and re-imagined serving subject-related priorities and purposes. Inclusive pedagogies were also associated with other approaches seen as sharing similar philosophies and purposes; differentiation, UDL, co-teaching and SCL.
Overall, we had the feeling that there was no clear direction for inclusive pedagogies either in terms of theory or practice, a paucity of new ideas with ‘established’ ways of thinking being recycled and little desire to engage with the tensions and struggles of inclusion. The findings also question the usefulness of systematic reviews in exploring fragmented topics, like inclusion/ inclusive pedagogies. It may be that to explore inclusion more flexible narrative review designs, such the one adopted by Thomas and Macnab (2022), might be able to capture more nuanced ideas, expansive terminology used, and a wider range of points of view. This though also requires a deeper engagement with inclusion and its tensions that is often less evident in much of the current literature base.
ReferencesBraun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597.
Bremner, N. (2021a). The multiple meanings of ‘student-centred’ or ‘learner-centred’ education, and the case for a more flexible approach to defining it. Comparative Education, 57(2), 159–186.
Bremner, N. (2021b). What is learner-centered education? A quantitative study of English language teachers' perspectives. TESL-EJ, 25(2), 1–28.
Charteris, J., & Smardon, D. (2019). The politics of student voice: Unravelling the multiple discourses articulated in schools. Cambridge Journal of Education, 49(1), 93–110.
Finkelstein, S., Sharma, U., & Furlonger, B. (2021). The inclusive practices of classroom teachers: A scoping review and thematic analysis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(6), 735–762.
Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2013). Enacting inclusion: A framework for interrogating inclusive practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(2), 119–135.
Haddaway, N. R., Land, M., & Macura, B. (2017). A little learning is a dangerous thing: a call for better understanding of the term ‘systematic review’. Environment International, 99, 356–360.
Hargreaves, A. (2005). Extending educational change. International handbook of educational change. Springer.
Lewis, A., & Norwich, B. (2004). Special teaching for special children? Pedagogies for inclusion: A pedagogy for inclusion? Open University Press.
Lindner, K. T., & Schwab, S. (2020). Differentiation and individualisation in inclusive education: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–21.
Norwich, B. (2013). Addressing tensions and dilemmas in inclusive education: Living with uncertainty. Routledge.
Sakata, N., Bremner, N., & Cameron, L. (2022). A systematic review of the implementation of learner-centred pedagogy in low-and middle-income countries. Review of Education, 10(3), e3365.
Schwab, S., Sharma, U., & Hoffmann, L. (2022). How inclusive are the teaching practices of my German, Maths and English teachers? — Psychometric properties of a newly developed scale to assess personalisation and differentiation in teaching practices. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(1), 61–76.
Thomas, G., & Loxley, A. (2022). Deconstructing special education and constructing inclusion (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Thomas, G., & Macnab, N. (2022). Intersectionality, diversity, community and inclusion: Untangling the knots. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(3), 227–244.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
The Gifted and Talented Education Landscape in the United Arab Emirates: A Comprehensive Review
Ayman Massouti1, Mohammad Al Rashaida2, Ghanem Jaser Mohammad Al Bustami1, Mohammad Ali Fteiha1, Ashraf Khalil3
1Abu Dhabi University, United Arab Emirates; 2United Arab Emirates University, United Arab Emirates; 3Zayed University, United Arab Emirates
Presenting Author: Massouti, Ayman;
Al Rashaida, Mohammad
This review examines the landscape of gifted and talented education (GTE) in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) by exploring theoretical frameworks, models, assessment tools, and teacher professional development initiatives. Studies published within the last 15 years (2008-2023) addressing various educational systems, including those of Finland, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Singapore, were analyzed. This review highlights the need for a multifaceted approach to GTE in the UAE, including a robust theoretical model, inclusive policies, effective assessment methods, and ongoing stakeholder collaborations. Addressing the identified challenges and implementing effective strategies can help gifted and talented learners in the UAE achieve their full potential and meaningfully contribute to society.
Gifted and Talented Education (GTE) continues to face complex theoretical and practical challenges in the context of international inclusive education policy. These challenges are related to teacher preparation to support gifted learners, the adoption of assessment tools, and contemporary models to identify and support gifted and talented learners in the K-12 system. GTE is related to the education of students who excel in one or more of the following areas: However, scholars in this field have not agreed on a common definition (Al Ghawi, 2017; Elhoweris et al., 2022; Garces-Bacsal et al., 2023; Ismail et al., 2022). For instance, the Ministry of Education of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) defines gifted and talented learners as those who express “outstanding ability, or a great deal of willingness in one or more areas of intelligence, creativity, or academic achievement or special talents and abilities such as oratory, poetry, drawing, handicrafts, sports, drama, or leadership capacity” (UAE Ministry of Education, 2015, p. 20). Particularly in the UAE, students with special education needs were educated in separate schools and centers under the segregation model until the enactment of federal law no. 29 in 2006 (Gaad, 2010). The 2006 law emphasized the right to educate all learners, including those who were gifted. However, in 2009, the 2006 law was amended, reflecting a new philosophical perspective toward educating all learners together in the mainstream classroom (Ministry of Social Affairs, 2006, 2009). This amendment was followed by various policies and initiatives across the UAE, such as the development of gifted and talented students’ skills in 2008 by the Ministry of Education and the School for All initiative in 2010, along with various ministerial resolutions implemented for the same purpose.
Our project consists of two phases. In the first phase, we will conduct a comprehensive literature review to understand the current state of gifted and talented education in the UAE. This will involve reviewing relevant research studies and analyzing documents such as policies and models. The second phase involves conducting interviews and focus groups with various stakeholders, including decision-makers, parents, teachers, and principals who work with gifted and talented students. This proposal specifically focuses on the first phase for conducting a comprehensive literature review. The aim of this study is to thoroughly examine the existing research and literature on GTE in the UAE and globally. By conducting a detailed literature review, we seek to gain a deep understanding of the current state of GTE and identify key trends, gaps, and best practices.
To achieve the objective of this study, we have chosen a semi-systematic literature review methodology, as proposed by Snyder (2019). This approach allows us to examine the existing body of research on Gifted and Talented Education both in the UAE and globally. By doing so, we aim to develop an advanced model for GTE specifically tailored for the UAE context.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedSeveral electronic databases, including PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest (all databases), PubMed, Science Direct, and ERIC, were queried to ensure a comprehensive search across various disciplines and fields. To capture a wide range of relevant studies, a combination of free-text terms with truncation and Boolean operators was used. The search terms included "gifted," "talented," and "Gifted and Talented Education." By employing these terms, the aim was to retrieve studies that specifically addressed GTE research. In addition to electronic database searches, cross-referencing was implemented to enhance the comprehensiveness of the search. The reference lists of identified studies were reviewed to identify any additional relevant sources that may not have been captured in the initial database search.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
This review focuses on studies published within the last 15 years (2008-2023) that address the following areas related to gifted and talented education (GTE): theoretical frameworks, models, assessment tools, and teacher professional development. Studies were included from diverse educational settings, including Finland, the United Kingdom, USA, and Singapore, to provide a broader understanding of GTE practices globally. Excluded studies were those published outside the timeframe, not relevant to the identified areas of focus, lacking a focus on GTE, or conducted outside of an educational context. This carefully curated selection ensures the review remains focused and relevant, while still allowing for the inclusion of influential and significant studies in the field of GTE.
Data extraction
Studies that met the inclusion criteria will be summarized in terms of (a) author, (b) study location, (c) participants (number and ages in years), (d) purpose, (e) study design (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods), (f) key findings, (g) limitations, and (h) implications for practice and research. This information will be displayed in a table.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
The systematic literature review conducted provided valuable insights into GTE in the UAE. The review has served as a foundation for developing a more nuanced understanding of GTE in the UAE context, informing the development of a theoretical model that aligns with current GTE practices in UAE schools, and establishing a framework for inclusive education policies that address the evolving needs of gifted and talented learners in the digital age.
It has been recognized that gifted and talented learners, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status, require educational resources tailored to their unique characteristics. However, students from diverse cultural backgrounds or those living in poverty may face limited opportunities to improve their skills and may not perform well on standardized tests. To address this, it is crucial for teachers in GTE to seek guidance and mentorship from experienced multicultural specialists, particularly in the UAE, to better understand students' differences and provide the necessary support and quality teaching that meets their needs.
The review has highlighted the importance of intrinsic characteristics and the social environment, including the classroom, school, and family, as key factors influencing the academic motivation of all children, including those with high intellectual ability. It has also revealed that many students in GTE are being overlooked, leading to systematic disparities and segregation among students who may otherwise be identified as gifted and could benefit from gifted education services.
Furthermore, the review has identified the reliance on ability assessment tests as the sole tool for identification in GTE, despite warnings from research studies about the limitations of this approach. The findings emphasize the need for strategic planning, effective policies, and collaboration among educational institutions, government entities, and industry stakeholders in the UAE to address these challenges and ensure the development of gifted and talented education.
ReferencesSelected References
Aboud, Y. Z. (2023). Evaluating gifted students’ perceptions of the characteristics of their effective teachers. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1-11. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1088674.
AlGhawi, M. A. (2017). Gifted education in the United Arab Emirates. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1368891–https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1368891
Carman, C. A., Walther, C. A. P., & Bartsch, R. A. (2018). Using the cognitive abilities test (CogAT) 7 nonverbal battery to identify the gifted/talented: An investigation of demographic effects and norming plans. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752097
Ecker-Lyster, M. & Niileksela, C. (2017). Enhancing gifted education for underrepresented students: Promising recruitment and programming strategies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216686216
Elhoweris, H., Alhosani, N., Alsheikh, N., Bacsal, R.-M. G., & Bonti, E. (2022). The impact of an enrichment program on the Emirati verbally gifted children. Journal of Intelligence, 10(3), 68–. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030068
Gaad, E. (2010). Inclusive education in the Middle East. Routledge.
Garces-Bacsal, R. M., Alhosani, N. M., Elhoweris, H., & Tupas, R. (2023). A diverse social and emotional learning booklist for gifted learners and advanced readers. Roeper Review, 45(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2022.2145397
Garn, A. C., Matthews, M. S., & Jolly, J. L. (2010). Parental influences on the academic motivation of gifted students: A self-determination theory perspective. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210377657
Grissom, J. A. & Redding, C. (2015). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1), 233285841562217–. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175
Ismail, S. A. A., Alghawi, M. A., & AlSuwaidi, K. A. (2022). Gifted education in United Arab Emirates: Analyses from a learning-resource perspective. Cogent Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2034247
Knowledge and Human Development Authority (2019). Implementing Inclusive Education: A Guide for Schools. KHDA: United Arab Emirates.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research (104), 333–339.
Ministry of Social Affairs (2006). Federal Law no 29 of 2006 in respect of the rights of people with special needs. UAE. Retrieved from: http://www.msa.gov.ae/MSA/EN/pages/Rules.aspx
Ministry of Social Affairs (2009). Federal Law No 14 of 2009 on the Rights of People with Special Needs. UAE. Retrieved from: http://www.msa.gov.ae/MSA/EN/pages/Rules.aspx .
Stambaugh, T. & Ford, D. Y. (2015). Microaggressions, multiculturalism, and gifted individuals Who are Black, Hispanic, or low income. Journal of Counseling and Development, 93(2), 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00195.x
|
