Time: Thursday, 29/Aug/2024: 15:45 - 17:15 Session Chair: Ana Luísa Rodrigues |
Location: Room 015 in ΧΩΔ 02 (Common Teaching Facilities [CTF02]) [Ground Floor] Cap: 32 |
Paper
The Use of Interactive Displays in the Classroom
1Klebelsberg Központ; 2Eszterházy Károly Catholic University, Hungary
Presenting Author:The focus of our presentation is the use of smart boards in the classroom. The research was done in the frame of the programme called EFOP-3.2.4. „Development of digital competences” which is the antecedent of an RRF-1.2.1. programme called „Providing equal accessibility to digital education to students and teachers”. These two programmes are originated from recognizing the latest international trends and the needs of educational institutions as for the latest digital technology is concerned.
The research problem is to track changes indicated by central governmental development in the convergent regions of Hungary focusing on supplying them with interactive displays. Our purpose was to identify changes in Hungary compared to international trends as far as the number of interactive displays is concerned, identify possible changes in teachers’ classroom practice due to professional development trainings completed in the frame of the programme.
The research questions are:
- How is the learning environment in the least developed regions changing because of the governmental intervention including supplying schools in these regions with interactive displays?
- What are teachers’ attitudes towards the use of interactive displays?
- What are the main quantitative characteristics of the teachers’ practices regarding the use of interactive displays?
- What are the main qualitative characteristics of the teachers’ practices regarding the use of interactive displays?
The importance of digital literacy in our everyday life and in the labour market is unquestionable (Ala-Mutka 2011, Area & Pessoa 2012). The notion of digital transformation has been defined in almost every field of life. Education is also an area of digital transformation, consequently the need of change in pedagogical perspectives has become a highly important issue (European Commission 2019a, b). A great number of researches has dealt with the role of digital tools including interactive white boards and interactive displays in education and tackling challenges related to them. A meta-analysis taking and pooling research results between 2002-2011 identified seven problem areas (Shi et al, 2012). From the aspect of our research, the issue of spreading and concentration of technology takes priority. The most important question is how availability of digital tools (interactive displays) is changing due to central governmental interventions. The target populations of the researches were teachers and students whose attitudes, behaviours, expectations, feelings and other mental activities towards interactive displays were analysed.
In some cases, the procurement has been accompanied by researches, which can be identified as a continuation of researches related to the use of interactive white boards, since their introduction and spread, and professional experiences, assessment of their use are essential to professional knowledge related to interactive displays. Consequently, the need of change in professional beliefs and concepts has become apparent. The most recent studies have investigated the advantages and disadvantages of interactive displays from the students’ and teachers’ perspectives (İpek & Sözcü, 2016; Schmid & Schimmack, 2010; Sad & Ozhan, 2012; Yıldız & Tüfekçi, 2012; Yang, Yorgancı, & Terzioğlu, 2013; Warwick, Hennessy & Mercer, 2011), the internal and external factors of integrating the use of interactive displays into teaching practice (Drayton, Falk, Stroud, Hobbs & Hammerman, 2010; Stroud et al., 2014), their role in making learning more efficient (Saltan & Arslan, 2013; Saltan, 2019; Türel & Johnson, 2012; Akar, 2020).
Our research fills a gap and is unparalleled with its big sample because of the lack of researches related to interactive displays. It is based on the series of governmental actions, including procurement, installation of 3000 interactive displays, organizing professional training for teachers in the convergent regions of Hungary in 2019. Thus, we intended to contribute to the support of teachers’ conceptual change.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
Research design:
Our results are based on two big-sampled quantitative studies carried out in 2020 and 2021. During the research, we used an excavating-descriptive strategy, in which the data was collected in a two-step process. The purpose of the studies was to explore the changes after procurement of interactive displays and professional training specialised on their use.
Sampling:
The data collection took place in Hungary in two stages, in the spring of 2020 (N1=12657) and 2021 (N2=9754) in both cases during the period of classroom education. In the research, the so-called teachers working in school district-maintained institutions of the convergence region participated. Regarding the age of the respondents, the youngest respondent was 22 years old and the oldest was 79 years old at the time of the survey. The sample matched to the data of the national average, thus, it can be said to be representative of gender and age distribution. The most significant part of the responding teachers (34%) teach humanities or real subjects (28%) in the highest number of hours. The proportion of teachers who teach arts, foreign languages and sports in the highest number of hours is approximately the same (12%, 10%, 9%). 7% of the respondents have the highest number of individual sessions.
Research method:
Both measurements were done using an online questionnaire, mainly in the framework of questions containing single-choice, multiple-choice, ranking, attitude and frequency scales. The questionnaires had four parts: general questions, questions inquiring about the frequency of the use of interactive displays. Questions referring to the qualitative use of interactive displays (What are their most and least beneficial functions? Which of their functions do you prefer using? What didactic goals do you consider when using interactive displays?) The last group of questions was about trainings referring to the use of interactive displays focusing on different levels of trainings.
Data analyzation:
During the data analysis, descriptive (mean, median, mode) and mathematical statistical tests (correlation and difference tests) were used. Independents variables were the grade of students and the subjects taught, and teachers’ participation in professional trainings organized within the frame of the program. With the help of analysing the role of independent variables, we could draw a wider picture of the use of digital tools, the teachers’ methods applied during teaching and we could identify some problematic areas of development.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
As 3000 interactive displays were distributed among schools in the convergence regions, the position of Hungary in the European Union regarding the portion of interactive displays has strengthened.
Comparing the results of the two measurements, it can be said that the frequency of using the interactive display in the classroom has increased significantly over a year.
Our results give a deeper dimension to the former results (İpek & Sözcü, 2016; Schmid & Schimmack, 2010; Sad & Ozhan, 2012; Yıldız & Tüfekçi, 2012; Yang, Yorgancı, & Terzioğlu, 2013; Warwick, Hennessy & Mercer, 2011) describing the advantages and disadvantages of interactive displays pointing out new benefits and drawbacks in teachers’ point of view. Moreover, we could identify special patterns of their use. The patterns have changed depending on the grades and subjects taught by the teachers during the preiod of research. It shows how teachers try to integrate their use into everyday practice (Drayton, Falk, Stroud, Hobbs & Hammerman, 2010; Stroud et al., 2014). Furthermore, the teachers’ ICT qualification significantly influences the frequency of use and the range of functions showing the qualitative aspects of interactive display use. Among the didactic goals illustration, introduction of new teaching material, direct motivation and frontal work keep their leading position.
Comparing the results of two measurements in 2020 and 2021, we can identify manly quantitative changes in the use of interactive displays. It means that we cannot expect revulsion as a result of bigger number of available interactive displays and trainings enhancing their use. We should accept that smaller scale; mainly quantitative changes can be identified due to governmental interventions.
References
Akar, H. (2020). The effect of smart board use on academic achievement: A meta-analytical and thematic study. IJE in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 8(3), 261-273.
Ala-Mutka, K. (2011). Mapping Digital Competence: Towards a Conceptual Understanding, Publications Office of the European Union.
Area, M. & Pessoa, T. (2012). From solid to liquid: New literacies to the cultural changes of Web 2.0 Communicar. 38, 13-20.
Drayton, B., Falk, J., Stroud, R., Hobbs, K., & Hammerman, J. (2010). After installation: Ubiquitous computing and high school science in three experienced high-technology schools. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9, 1-57.
European Commission (2019a). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education – Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in schools. Luxembourg
European Commission (2019b). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education – Objective 2: Model for a ‘highly equipped and connected classroom’. Luxembourg
Mercer, S. N. Hennessy & P. Warwick (2010). “Using interactive whiteboards to orchestrate classroom dialogue,” Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 195–209.
İpek, İ., & Sözcü, Ö. F. (2016). Preferences and Attitudes for Using Interactive Whiteboards in Different Courses and Learning. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 15(1), 173-184.
Paksi, B. & Schmidt, A. (2017). Pedagógusok új infokommunikációs technológiák használatával kapcsolatos tapasztalatai és vélekedései. EDUCATIO, 26(2), 196-215.
Şad, S. N., Özhan, U. (2012). Honeymoon with IWBs: A qualitative insight in primary students’ views on instruction with interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1184–1191.
Saltan, F. (2019). The New Generation of Interactive Whiteboards: How Students Perceive and Conceptualize? PER Vol. 6(2), pp. 93-102
Saltan, F., & Arslan, K. (2013). Teachers’ Perception of Interactive White Boards: A Case Study. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 9(2), 353-365.
Schmid, E.C., & Schimmack, E. (2010). First Steps toward a Model of Interactive Whiteboard Training for Language Teachers. IGI Global, USA
Shi, Y., Yang, Z., Yang, H. H. & Liu, S. (2012). The Impact of Interactive Whiteboards on Education. ICIMCS’12, China.
Stroud, R., Drayton, B. K. & Falk, J. (2014). Interactive Whiteboard Use in High-Tech Science Classrooms: Patterns of Integration. IJET, 9(9), pp. 41–49.
Türel, Y. K., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers' Belief and Use of Interactive Whiteboards for Teaching and Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381–394.
Warwick, P., Hennessy, S., & Mercer, N. (2011). Promoting teacher and school development through co-enquiry: Developing interactive whiteboard use in a ‘dialogic classroom’. Teachers and Teaching, 17(3), 303–324.
Paper
Classroom Disruptions in Digital Settings
1Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany; 2University of Freiburg, Germany
Presenting Author:The average classroom is disrupted every 42 seconds (Wettstein & Scherzinger, 2018). Over the time of an entire day at school, teachers and students are facing up to hundreds of minor and major disruptions. Since a well-structured lesson and a less disturbed classroom are key aspects for students’ academic success (Adeyemo, 2012; Marquez et al., 2016; Talebi et al., 2015), there is an urgent need for educators worldwide to address this issue. This is especially true when facing the consequences of permanent disruptions as stress for teachers: (mental and physical) health issues (Kokkinos, 2007; Wettstein et al., 2021).
Additional to this already important matter the educational systems around the world have to deal with more and more digitization (Meinokat & Wagner, 2022). This transforms educational systems worldwide (European Union, 2020; Wohlfart & Wagner, 2023) and affects all areas of teaching in classes. Classroom Management, as “the actions teachers take to create an environment that supports and facilitates both academic and social-emotional learning” (Evertson & Weinstein, 2006, p. 4) is therefore affected as well. Dealing with disruptions, so “behavior[s] that seriously interferes with the teaching process, and/or seriously upsets the normal running of the classroom” (Infantino & Little, 2005, p. 493), is part of classroom management, but research so far is missing the impact of the digital changes on this topic.
The pandemic has shown that teaching already and in future might benefit from and in digital settings (Meinokat & Wagner, submitted). Digital settings can occur in different forms: digital enhanced face-to-face learning, online learning, or blended learning (Meinokat & Wagner, 2022). All forms can be found interdisciplinary across various subjects at schools. Research in this area so far is lacking an explicit look at the topic of classroom disruptions, rather focusing on classroom management generally, and is mostly teacher focused (Meinokat & Wagner, 2022). To generate a more complete understanding of this important research area, teaching must be investigated from different perspectives. This cumulative PhD Project is therefore addressing classroom disruptions in digital settings from multiple views and regarding various subjects, answering the following research questions:
- How is the current state of research on the topic of classroom disruptions in digital education?
- What strategies do teachers use to prevent and intervene classroom disruptions and how are they impacted by digital media?
- How do students experience the digital evolution in their classes and what are their views on classroom disruptions in digital settings?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
This cumulative PhD Project is using a mixed method approach, adapting the used approach according to earlier gathered insights and suitability. Every research design is producing a unique scientific journal article.
At the beginning, a systematic literature review according to the PRISMA statement (Moher et al., 2009) is developed to construct an overview of already existing research in this area, find further gaps in the literature and prepare future research.
Research in this area so far is teacher focused but missing the digital aspects of teaching. Therefore, a qualitative, semi-structured guideline-based interview study with expert teachers is conducted. The interviews are analyzed via qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2014). The differences between subjects, school forms and age groups of students ask for further investigation, leading to further interview studies with dedicated focus to vocational education and physical education.
To address the issue of teacher centered research, the project will then conduct research on students. The higher number of students compared to available teachers in schools makes it possible to address quantitative research, resulting in a quantitative survey with students in various agents. To address the interdisciplinary character of this project and make the findings comparable amongst the students, this part of the project focuses on the subject of mathematics.
This generates a view on the research are from multiple angles and with an interdisciplinary character while having, for the first time in research, the aspect of digitization as the focus for the look at classroom disruptions.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
The literature review (Meinokat & Wagner, 2022) shows that the terms of digital settings and classroom disruptions are not defined uniformly. Creating and systemizing definitions for these topics, international research is very teacher oriented. Expert interviews with teachers about their teaching during the pandemic in multiple subjects (Meinokat & Wagner, submitted), their teaching at (digital) learning factories in vocational schools (Meinokat & Wagner, under review), and their teaching of physical education facing the problem of refusal behavior show (Meinokat et al., submitted), that teachers are already utilizing digital media given. To address issues on various levels, teachers use their already existing behavior strategies and enhance their skillset as well as improve their strategies using the benefits of digitization in schools. With the gathered information it is possible to generate systemizations for disruptions and behavior strategies for teachers to utilize during their reflection and their own teaching. The students’ point of view, gathered through quantitative research will answer questions about different understandings of disruptions between teachers and students, will show the impact of these (mis-)understandings on the students directly, and will lay a foundation for future researcher to dwell deeper into this area. Already practicing teachers and students during teacher education will benefit from these findings, making it easier in future to understand the impact of classroom disruptions on multiple stakeholders in class and use the digital media appropriately to enhance their teaching, creating better learning outcomes for students while saving their own health.
References
Adeyemo, S. A. (2012). The relationship between effective classroom management and students’ academic achievement. European Journal of Educational Studies, 4(3), 367–381.
European Union. (2020). Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027. In Resetting education and training for the digital age. https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/digital-education-action-plan
Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Classroom Management as a Field of Inquiry. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management. Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 3–15). Routledge.
Infantino, J., & Little, E. (2005). Students’ Perceptions of Classroom Behaviour Problems and the Effectiveness of Different Disciplinary Methods. Educational Psychology, 25(5), 491–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500046549
Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(Pt 1), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X90344
Marquez, B., Vincent, C., Marquez, J., Pennefather, J., Smolkowski, K., & Sprague, J. (2016). Opportunities and Challenges in Training Elementary School Teachers in Classroom Management: Initial Results from Classroom Management in Action, an Online Professional Development Program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 24(1), 87–109.
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis. Beltz.
Meinokat, P., Gerstmaier, K., & Wagner, I. (submitted). Refusal in physical education – teachers’ strategies and utilization of digital tools. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research.
Meinokat, P., & Wagner, I. (2022). Causes, prevention, and interventions regarding classroom disruptions in digital teaching: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 4657–4684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10795-7
Meinokat, P., & Wagner, I. (under review). Classroom Disruptions and Classroom Management in Learning Factory Settings at Vocational Schools. Vocations and Learning.
Meinokat, P., & Wagner, I. (submitted). Classroom Disruptions in Digital Teaching during the Pandemic—An interview study. Frontiers in Education.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med, 6(7), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.g001
Talebi, S., Davodi, S., & Khoshroo, A. (2015). Investigating the Effective Component of Classroom Management in Predicting Academic Achievement among English Language Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 205, 591–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.09.085
Wettstein, A., & Scherzinger, M. (2018). Störungen im Unterricht wirksam begegnen. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 24(5–6), 26–32.
Wettstein, A., Schneider, S., Grosse Holtforth, M., & La Marca, R. (2021). Teacher Stress: A Psychobiological Approach to Stressful Interactions in the Classroom. Frontiers in Education, 6, 681258. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.681258
Wohlfart, O., & Wagner, I. (2023). Teachers’ role in digitalizing education: An umbrella review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(2), 339–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10166-0
Paper
Adaptive Learning to Maximize Gifted Education: Teacher Perceptions, Practices, and Experiences.
1NIS in Astana, Kazakhstan; 2Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan
Presenting Author:This study aims to explore teachers’ experiences using adaptive learning (AL) approaches in gifted education in Kazakhstan schools. This study employs a qualitative case study methodology to illustrate the phenomenon under examination and includes eight purposefully selected teacher participants who have worked and/or are working on an ALpilot project in gifted education. The results from this study may aid policymakers and school administrators in evaluating and enhancing teachers' experiences in gifted education.
Promoting equity and excellence at all levels of education is a top priority for all educational systems to ensure that all children have opportunities for success. Equity, connected to the concept of fairness, means that personal or socio-economic conditions such as ability, gender, ethnic origin, or family origin do not hinder the success of education. Fostering excellence, on the other hand, implies striving to provide quality education tailored to the different talents and needs of all students, striving to enаble each of them to reach their potential (Brusoni et al., 2014; Peters & Engerrand, 2016; Reis, Renzulli & Renzulli, 2021).
Both principles are desirable, possible, and compatible (Schleicher, 2014). However, only a few education systems around are capable of achieving both objectives simultaneously to satisfactory levels (Peters & Engerrand, 2016). As a result, the number of students who fully benefit from compulsory education is limited. This is especially true for gifted and talented students, whose clаssroom experiences are usually focused on topics they have already mastered (Letina, 2021; Pfeiffer, 2012) and too often do not have access to quality opportunities to mаximize their learning (Little, 2012; Reis, Renzulli & Renzulli, 2021).
The advancement of technology, such as Google clаssroom, Renzulli Learning, and AL systems (e.g., ALEKS, CogBooks, CANVAS) in the 21st century created various opportunities to ensure gifted learners' personalized learning, particularly through the study of pupils' learning to better serve individualized growth. Rather than additional learning material, these personalized approaches to learning promote a range of learning experiences addressing student learning needs. This incorporation of technology into personаlized learning environments has produced a new development path: technology-enabled personalized learning (Peng et al., 2019; Shemshack & Spector, 2020).
AL is considered a strаtegy for delivering personalized learning in order to provide each student with efficient, effective, engaging, and individualized learning routes (Harati et al., 2021). The benefit of AL is that the system provides the student with tailored learning opportunities аdjusted to their performance in the previous session. This approach allows the learners to skip information if they are already acquainted with it, and judge it as too simple or too difficult, which positively impacts the individual's educational trajectory (Ordov et al., 2019).
The purpose of this study is to examine and describe Kazakhstani teachers’ experiences with AL approaches in gifted education. Drawing on empirical data and associated literature, this study intends to examine how Kazakhstani teachers conceptualize AL, what their experience with the approach has been, and how they go about implementing it. By exаmining teachers' experiences, we aim to discover the obstacles they confront, the teaching strategies they find effective, the opportunities adaptive learning systems offer, as well as the limitations of AL.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
This study employs a multiple case study research design to explore teachers' perceptions of AL in gifted education. Case study research is an appropriate method for this study as it allows for an in-depth examination of a specific phenomenon, in this case, teachers' perceptions of AL in gifted education, within its real-life context (Yin, 2018). Multiple case study design was chosen for this study due to its capacity to portray a single occurrence inside or apart from a wider phenomenon while fostering comprehension. This research does not qualify as a single-case study since it involves interviews with educators from various regions of the country on their experience in implementing AL in gifted education, in one network of schools. The study focuses on teachers using AL in gifted education in Kazakhstani schools, specifically four special schools for gifted students in different regions of Kazakhstan. Participants, eight teachers with AL experience in teaching gifted students, were recruited through email invitations from school principals. The sample included four male and four female participants, comprising four chemistry and four physics teachers. Their teaching experience ranged from four to 27 years, with an average of 12 years. Inclusion criteria required that participants are teachers who had experience using AL and were willing to participate in a one-hour-long interview. Each participant provided informed consent before data collection, participated of their own will and was free to leave the study with no penalty. To address the study questions, the researcher classified themes that emerged from interview data. In addition, the data from the eight participants were collated in tables to illustrate the frequency of identified themes in accordance with the aim of the research. Following the presentation of the data for each sub-research question is a chapter summary. In addition to the researcher, the interview, which consisted of open-ended questions, was an essential component of this study. Yin (2003) states that case studies may gather data using a variety of methods, including questionnaires, interviews, observations, and written reports from the individuals. The purpose of using in-depth interviews in this study was to get a vivid picture of the participant's opinion on the study issue (Milena, Dinora & Alin, 2008). Further, semi-structured interviews allowed us to obtain a clear image of teachers’ AL experiences in gifted education while allowing for follow-up and investigative inquiries.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
The primary finding of this study is that teachers think that teachers believe that AL is a beneficial tool for all kids, not just the gifted ones. Teachers have different meanings of AL, but most of them concur that it can improve personalized learning, student-centered learning, learning experience and progress, engagement, and motivation, and learning simplification and metacognition. However, there are other issues that must be resolved, such as technological, educational, managerial, and psychological difficulties. Teachers must use a variety of strategies, including organizational, pedagogical, class administration, curriculum, instruction, and technology strategies, to maximize the possibilities of AL. The results of this research show that AL has the potential to enhance student learning outcomes and assist teachers in their instructional strategies. There are worries that artificial intelligence (AL) may replace human contact and that ties between students and teachers must be maintained. Inadequate teacher training and scarce technology resources are two obstacles to the successful deployment of AL. Overall, teachers view AL as beneficial and would encourage other educators to adopt the technology.
References
References
Brusoni, M., Damian, R., Sauri, J. G., Jackson, S., Kömürcügil, H., Malmedy, M. A. R. I. E., ... & Zobel, L. (2014). The concept of excellence in higher education. Retrieved on March, 18, 2016.
Harati, H., Sujo-Montes, L., Tu, C. H., Armfield, S. J., & Yen, C. J. (2021). Assessment and Learning in Knowledge Spaces (ALEKS) Adaptive System Impact on Students’ Perception and Self-Regulated Learning Skills. Education Sciences, 11(10), 603. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100603
Letina, A. (2021). Using Differentiation Strategies for Gifted Pupils in Primary School Science Classes. Revija za Elementarno Izobrazevanje, 14(3), 281-301. https://doi.org/10.18690/rei.14.3.281-301.2021
Little, C. A. (2012). Curriculum as motivation for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 695-705. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21621
Milena, Z. R., Dainora, G., & Alin, S. (2008). Qualitative research methods: A comparison between focus-group and in-depth interview. Analele Universităţii din Oradea, 1274.
Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools. (2020). "Annual report of the Autonomous Organization of Education "Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools", the official website of the organization. https://www.nis.edu.kz/Diana/Годовой_отчетАОО2020_1часть_ENG.pdf
Ordov, K., Madiyarova, A., Ermilov, V., Tovma, N., & Murzagulova, M. (2019). New trends in education as the aspect of digital technologies. International journal of mechanical engineering and technology, 10(2), 1319-1330.
Peng, H., Ma, S., & Spector, J. M. (2019). Personalized adaptive learning: an emerging pedagogical approach enabled by a smart learning environment. Smart Learning Environments, 6(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0089-y
Peters, S. J., & Engerrand, K. G. (2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identification of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 159-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012). Serving the gifted: Evidence-based clinical and psychoeducational practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203883587-8
Reis, S. M., Renzulli, S. J., & Renzulli, J. S. (2021). Enrichment and gifted education pedagogy to develop talents, gifts, and creative productivity. Education Sciences, 11(10), 615. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100615
Schleicher, A. (2014). Equity, excellence and inclusiveness in education. International Summit on the Teaching Profession, Wellington, New Zealand, March, 28. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264214033-en
Shemshack, A., & Spector, J. M. (2020). A systematic literature review of personalized learning terms. Smart Learning Environments, 7(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020- 00140-9
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousands Oaks. Sage. Young, LC and Wilkinson, IR (1989). The role of trust and co-operation in marketing channels: a preliminary study. European Journal of Marketing, 23(2), 109-122.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage.