Pedagogy and cognitive challenge

There have been relatively few empirical studies of ‘gifted and talented’ education (the prevailing term used in the literature) and, consequently, evidence-based policy and practice are scarce. Much of the literature reflects practitioner experience rather than research based findings. The relatively few studies undertaken in the UK (eg NFER, 2003; NAGTY, 2005, EPPI, 2008; Heller-Sahlgren, 2018) either draw similar conclusions about the paucity of an evidence base or whilst purporting to look at ‘what works’ for more able learners rarely interrogate specific pedagogical approaches or school wide provision beyond the usual suspects of ‘differentiation’, enrichment, acceleration and mentoring. Even when ‘differentiation’ as a principle of practice for very able learners is a research focus there is even now scant evidence about the substance of approaches taken or their impact. The National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth (NAGTY) findings for example still ring true:

‘A principal conclusion from the review is that research into gifted and talented education has focused on structures and organisational arrangements and largely ignored the well established field of teacher effectiveness, which is more directly related to pedagogy. There is a small number of robustly conducted studies which can be used to inform policy.’ (NAGTY, 2005)

The security of the evidence base regarding teaching/learning approaches is also mitigated by the following factors:

• The focus of proposed educational provision and frequently of the research reflects conceptions of giftedness and intelligence in different cultures
• There is inconsistency of terminology and language used across the literature and amongst researchers
• Curriculum models and concepts of differentiation differ widely between countries and education systems
• The research base is international but with a particular emphasis on the US, Far East and Australasia – and relatively few extended contemporary studies
• Research into ‘challenge’, and ‘expertise development’ goes beyond the field of ‘gifted and talented/more able’ into wider pedagogical domains and even multi-disciplinary investigations, giving a complex and wide-angled perspective.

Despite the paucity and diversity of the research literature specifically related to highly able learners and the above complexity an interrogation of the broader research base into effective pedagogies and effective learning alongside is very fruitful. When we talk about teaching and learning for more able learners we often use the word ‘challenge’ in isolation, both in terms of the nature of the activities proposed and the learners targeted.  Whilst there are times when discrete and distinct learning opportunities may be appropriate for more able learners we will serve neither the needs of those already identified as high achievers nor those whose talents are as yet uncovered if teaching is disconnected from the repertoire of approaches which optimise learning for all. What NACE (2020) terms ‘cognitive challenge’ comprises approaches to curriculum and pedagogy which optimise engagement, learning and achievement for the most able learners and also for a much wider group beyond.     The most effective classrooms are those where planned, consistent and embedded high cognitive challenge approaches are available for all, tailored to suit different groups of learners. The research also indicates that there is additional positive impact on learning in classrooms which are language rich, where teachers model high level cognitive discourse and where students are given every opportunity to extend and develop their own language skills.

The educational needs of highly able learners

Earlier in this MESHGuide, we looked at the characteristics of high ability young learners. These characteristics imply a range of learning needs to be met if learners are to achieve to the best of their ability. These learning needs derive from both the demands of the curriculum and the specific learning attributes, as varied as they are, of more able learners.

Johnson (2000) held that highly able learners differed from their classmates in both the pace at which they learn and the depth of their conceptual understanding. Other research finds that highly able learners process great amounts of information over a shorter period of time, think in an abstract and complex manner, learn information quickly, seek and enjoy intellectual challenges, and often know a high percentage of the curriculum (Bleske-Rechek et al., 2004; Reis & Purcell, 1993; Rogers, 2004; Stepanek, 1999 cited in Resvisiting gifted education).

A further characteristic examined in some intriguing recent research is that of the Need for Cognition (NCF), which is a tendency among ‘gifted’ (sic) learners to “engage in and enjoy effortful, cognitive endeavors” (Meier, Vogel & Preckel, 2014 p. 39). Such students seek out challenging cognitive work and may even be mildly distressed by work perceived to be too easy.

Research into cognitive load theory (Kirshner, Sweller & Clark, 2006) has also improved our understanding of how ‘gifted’ students learn. As working memory plays a critical part in learning new information, the greater processing capacity of students with advanced abilities can help them progress faster and with greater complexity (de Jong, 2010; Baddeley, 2010). Higher working memory capacity leads to advanced intellectual functioning (Rodriguez - Naveiras et al, 2019). Cognitive load-oriented teaching strategies, such as explicit instruction and worked examples, are just as necessary for highly able students to learn new skills and content as for all students (Carroll, 1994). However, high ability students may be able to move through heavily structured learning more quickly and can then go broader and deeper into concepts and topics. A learning effect known as the ‘expertise reversal effect’ shows us that over-scaffolding can be counterproductive once students have gained expertise. Once the basics have been mastered, research suggests that it is better to transition to more independent problem-solving tasks in order to further learning (eg Pachman, Sweller & Kalyuga, 2013). 

Drawing on models of expert knowledge and performance (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996; Farrington-Darby & Wilson, 2006), various researchers including Ericsson and colleagues (Ericsson, Nandagopa & Roring, 2005, 2007; Shavinina, 2007; Sternberg, 2005) have proposed the use of the expert performance framework as a conceptual model for describing gifted knowing and thinking. This perspective provides a means for unpacking and analysing how gifted and talented students know and learn (Munro, 2010). By identifying the thinking that underpins the knowledge transformation in the transition from  novice to expert, it is possible for teachers to infer how gifted and talented students might interpret and construct an understanding of  curriculum topics.

An understanding of the attributes of high ability learners and what constitutes high achievement helps us to formulate approaches to their learning.  These approaches should acknowledge the importance of mastery of core knowledge and skills whilst prioritising pedagogies and learning opportunities which both reflect and reveal qualitative differences in the learning capacity of highly able young people.

Meeting the needs of highly able learners: cognitive challenge and curriculum to optimise learning

Cognitive research indicates that learning takes place when students’ interest and abilities are stimulated by tasks at the appropriate level of challenge (Caine & Caine, 1991). It is suggested that if tasks are not sufficiently challenging the brain does not release required amounts of the chemicals needed for learning: dopamine, noradrenalin, serotonin, and other neurochemicals (Schultz, Dayan, & Montague, 1997; Stepanek, 1999).  Kotulak’s (1996) research on the brain found that unless it was continuously challenged, it lost some of the connections that were formed from previous educational experiences. This suggests that tasks must be sufficiently challenging for all learners, including those identified as highly able, in order to enable the proper brain functioning needed for learning to occur. “When [sic] gifted students are not presented with learning experiences that are appropriate for their abilities, they lose motivation and in time can lose interest in school” (McAllister & Plourde, 2008). Brain development research suggests that the current level of intellectual development would not be maintained if students are not challenged. Sousa (2009) explained the educational needs of gifted learners based on brain functioning as unique because: they make connections faster, work well with abstractions, and generally have the deep interests found in older individuals. Consequently, they need to work with the curriculum at a more advanced level, at a faster pace, and using a variety of materials appropriate for their learning needs.

Such examples of cognitive research clearly support the need for teaching and learning adapted to students’ readiness levels, interests, and learning profiles (Tomlinson & Kalbfleisch, 1998).  Alongside wider research into effective learning for all some key principles can be elicited for learning and assessment opportunities needed to move learners into their optimal zone of academic development.

The need for differentiation/adaptation of curriculum, learning objectives, content, approaches and resources is a central tenet of much of the international ‘gifted’ research of the last twenty years - notwithstanding the paucity of detail in the literature (and research itself) of what that really looks like in the classroom (Rogers, 2007; Van Tassel-Baska, 2003). For highly able students, curriculum differentiation strategies aim to meet their learning needs by increasing the level of challenge, complexity, depth and pace (Kaplan 2009). Van Tassel-Baska’s research (2004) demonstrated that so-called gifted learners need opportunities for creative and critical thinking, problem solving and research coupled with the appropriate level of suitably challenging and complex content. The field of gifted education more widely promotes practices such as inquiry learning, critical and creative thinking skills, higher-order questioning, metacognition and the use of rich and varied curriculum materials (Tomlinson & Callahan, 1992).

Rogers’ meta-analysis of decades of research in the field of gifted and talented education, identifies five key “lessons” describing what are consistently known and understood to be key strategies for gifted students.

1. Ongoing challenge in their specific areas of talent/ability.
2. Opportunities on a regular basis for such learners to demonstrate their uniqueness individuality and to work independently in their areas of passion and ability.
3. Various forms of  ‘acceleration’  as their educational needs require (sic).
4. Opportunities for learners to socialise and to learn with like-ability peers.
5. For specific curriculum areas, delivery must be ‘differentiated’ in pace, amount of review and practice, & organisation of content presentation.

Munro (2012) provides a particularly cogent conceptualisation of ‘differentiated instruction’ for the highly able:

‘Differentiating instruction involves responding constructively to what students know. It means providing multiple learning pathways so that students can have access to the most appropriate learning opportunities commensurate with their capacity to learn. It involves matching students’ approach to learning with the most appropriate pedagogy, curriculum goals and opportunities for displaying knowledge gained (Anderson, 2007; Ellis, Gable, Gregg, & Rock, 2008). This requires the differentiation of regular curriculum.')

Teachers can differentiate their teaching more effectively when they:

• understand how their students learn and think
• are familiar with and can apply a range of teaching strategies for adapting their teaching
• can read and respond to the culture and climate in their school and classroom regarding principles and practices to meet the needs of different learners

(Munro, 2010; 2012)

More recent UK based considerations of ‘differentiation’ (eg Didau, 2017, 2020; Sherrington, 2017) look critically at more traditional models of differentiation (eg of the ‘must/should/could variety).  There is an increasing number of advocates of ‘a teach to/from the top’ approach (e.g. Mansworth, 2021) alongside ‘adaptive teaching’, a much more nuanced and flexible form of ‘differentiation’. Such approaches have the potential to minimise the ‘Pygmalion/Hawthorn’ effect, to maximise the notion of individual ‘Zones of Proximal Development’ and hence the beneficial impact on the achievement of many learners of high challenge supported by appropriate scaffolding (‘high challenge, low threshold/low threat’).

The questioning of traditional models of differentiation has gathered momentum and substance through the expansion of pedagogies such as those informed by the notions of ‘desirable difficulties’ (Bjork, 2017); the application of knowledge schema (Bartlett; Nuthall et al); principles such as liminal /threshold concepts (eg Meyer & Land) and the pervasive exploration and use of so-called metacognitive strategies (Willingham, 2010; EEF, 2021). Approaches such as the Fischer-Frey (2013) ‘gradual release of responsibility’ aim to provide frameworks allowing for devolving responsibility from the teacher to the eventual independence of the learner, a framework purporting to allow for individual differences in ability but with the aim of equipping a greater number of learners with the wherewithal to maximise their abilities. In the wider use of ‘evidence based’ approaches in schools we are seeing pedagogical and assessment repertoires for all learners germane to many of those effective in ‘gifted and talented’ provision.

Learning opportunities which provide cognitive challenge will prompt and stimulate extended and strategic thinking, analytical and evaluative processes, the means by which learners become able to understand and form complex and abstract ideas and to solve problems.

Cognitive challenge is therefore a sine qua non of providing for all learners capable of high achievement. Cognitive challenge which is distinctive, embedded and consistent is exhibited in:

• The learning opportunities in everyday classroom practice
• Curriculum organisation and design and institutional culture

Research by NACE (NACE, 2020) highlighted a third feature which could be said to be an inherent part of the curriculum delivery and teaching and learning process, what it termed ‘rich and extended talk and cognitive discourse’.

Figure 1.  Elements of cognitive challenge

Understanding cognitive challenge

Bloom (1956) described the cognitive domain using the terms knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. These descriptors have been useful to teachers in understanding the notions of different cognitive levels but they do not necessarily provide links between different levels or provide an insight into the depth of understanding needed to respond to questions. The Bloom taxonomy was later revised (Anderson, Krathwohl et al, 2001) to include both cognitive process and knowledge: remember; understand; apply; analyse; evaluate; create. This refinement created an important link between content and thought processes. These models indicate the importance of developing the cognitive skills needed to perform a task and describe the nature of the thinking processes involved at increasing levels of complexity. Three discrete skills involved are:

Attention – pupils can work on a task for a sustained period, ignore distractions and remember information while doing two things at once.

Memory – pupils can recall information from the past and remember current information while processing it.

Auditory and visual processing skills - processes of recognising and interpreting information taken in through the senses of sight and sound.

Learners will develop these skills more rapidly and learn more effectively when cognitive challenge is distinctive, embedded and consistent (NACE, 2020).

Webb (1997, 1999) used ‘depth of knowledge’ as an alternative perspective on cognitive complexity. This model builds from recall and reproduction, to basic application of skills or concepts, on to strategic thinking and finally extended thinking, as depth of knowledge becomes more sophisticated. This model relates to the depth of understanding of both the content and the scope of the activity,

The principles of ‘deep /profound learning’ elaborated by e.g. West-Burnham & Ireson (2006) and Fullan (2017) can also underpin an understanding of what constitutes cognitive challenge.

Deep learning: focused on the creation of knowledge through the demonstration of understanding; the analysis and synthesis of facts to create conceptual models and frameworks; integrating prior learning and cross-referencing to other themes and subjects; learning is active and based in relationships; emphasis on depth; assessment is formative and negotiated; content is remembered and codified. Deep learning is controlled by learner, who understands the learning process with the teacher as facilitator, mentor and co-constructor of knowledge.

Profound learning: the situation where knowledge becomes wisdom, i.e. intuitive and fundamental to the identity of the person; the capacity to create new meaning in changing situations and contexts; developing a holistic awareness of the relationship between themes, subjects, principles and practice; assessment is through personal authenticity and integrity. The teacher becomes the guide, inspiration, friend and counsellor. Profound learning has many manifestations, from learning to talk in childhood to the artistry of the concert pianist; from the skills and compassion of the nurse to the great scientific discovery; from the skill of the joiner to the creativity of the painter.

Learning involves:

1. A qualitative increase in information.

2. Learning as memorising.

3. Learning as developing skills and techniques.

4. Learning as creating understanding, seeing relationships and being aware of the processes involved.

5. Learning as creating new realities, developing wisdom and re-creating knowledge.

1, 2 and 3 may be characterised as shallow learning which can be defined as managing and memorising information. The fourth and fifth categories apply to deep and profound learning in which knowledge is created and understood through the use of higher order cognitive skills, e.g. analysis, synthesis and application. Profound learning is the extension of deep learning so that it becomes personal to the learner.

The above frameworks narrow the gap between approaches promoted in the ‘gifted’ literature and those deemed appropriate for effective learning more generally – and together provide a basis for powerful pedagogies to optimise the learning of all, including those capable of the highest achievement.

Good teachers will always exploit opportunities to adapt their teaching in response to the different needs of students. It is however through the deliberate and embedded design of cognitively challenging learning opportunities that learners will develop skills and knowledge commensurate with their abilities.

Sullivan and Mornane (2013) describe challenging  tasks as complex and absorbing problems with multiple solution pathways. An initial interesting and challenging problem can provide learners time in a “zone of confusion” (Sullivan et al, 2014:11) when they are unsure of the solution but learn to become more persistent and resilient as learners. The teacher plans “enabling prompts”  which reduce intrinsic cognitive load for those who have difficulty in responding to this initial problem. This means the problem is not simplified but may be presented differently at a lower level of complexity. Some underlying learning such as: literacy skills; semantics; contextual information, background skills or concepts may be needed to enable pupils to connect with the problem.  Once pupils develop strategies to solve the initial problems they can use extending prompts to take on greater challenge and develop greater control of their own learning. By building pupils’ problem solving skills they can solve other similar but more challenging problems if they use the same reasoning, conceptualisations and representations as the main task. Sullivan  and  Mornane go on to show that pupils learn to use multiple solution pathways with multiple steps and potentially multiple solutions. Of course ‘zones of confusion’ and problems to be solved will play out differently in different disciplines.

Myatt (2016) recognises the need for high challenge in order to develop these complex and abstract thoughts.

It is important that it is one big thing at a time, that we are prepared to go in deep to discover the gems, sifting out from the coal dust and irrelevance to distil this element of improvement.

Winstanley (2004) identified 6 ingredients of challenge.

1. Identifying the individual’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky) and creating cognitive dissonance (Piaget)

2. Injecting elements of novelty and variety into the learning experience.

3. Encouraging metacognition

4. Offering opportunities for independence and self-direction.

5. Encouraging risk-taking.

6. Providing opportunities to work with like-minded peers

Collaborative learning and problem-solving can also increase cognitive demand in the classroom. We call on higher-order thinking when solving complex problems, and it takes great metacognitive skill to work in a collaborative environment. These methods mimic how adults interact with knowledge and each other in authentic environments. We often learn because we have a question we want to answer or a skill or concept that engages our thinking, we are regularly tasked with solving problems and have to collaborate to solve those problems.

The kinds of learning activities which enable fluid movement through different levels of cognitive hierarchies include enquiry based learning and managed discussions represented by for example ‘socratic seminars/dialogues’ of which there are various models used by teachers. Shore & Chichekian (2014) throw some interesting light on enquiry as a particular and important form of cognitive challenge.

Gifted learners seek and thrive in inquiry environments, so it is especially important to examine the cognitive processes that are drawn upon in inquiry (Aulls & Shore, 2008; Clark & Shore, 2004; Robinson, Shore, & Enersen, 2006).

An inquiry model means that the traditional lists of discrete skills are no longer sufficient. We need a multidimensional array of cognitive abilities that underlie success in inquiry schools. Inquiry also varies across domains: historians, philosophers, biologists, and astrophysicists collect different kinds of evidence using very different tools to advance knowledge. Inquiry closely integrates cognition and motivation: asking good questions is a large jump in both competence and confidence beyond simply being interested in or curious about a topic ... 

Cognitive challenge was well described by Vygotsky in terms of the ‘zone of proximal development’ and by Piaget and other developmentalists in terms of ‘cognitive dissonance’. Dissonance in this sense describes sufficient challenge to ensure optimum learning.

James Nottingham's work (2007) on the 'learning pit' outlines how you create cognitive conflict or cognitive 'wobble' for learners to grapple with, encouraging deeper thinking and a sense of achievement when a solution is reached.

Figure 2.  Creating cognitive conflict

Elements of cognitive challenge (NACE, 2020)

Cognitive ability and cognitive challenge will have different features in different disciplines (and will evolve according to age and stage of learning). Research into mathematical giftedness (Nolte, 2019) provides some indications of the character of high level learning processes in mathematics. One important aspect is the so called ‘efficiency in information processing’ meaning that that the complexity of information which can be handled is an important aspect of high mathematical potential. Another aspect is speed in learning. It should be considered that students who grasp new ideas quickly do not necessarily work quickly: thinking ideas through thoroughly and reflectively needs time. In constructing challenging mathematical learning environments these aspects should be complemented by components of mathematical thinking processes.

It follows therefore that cognitive challenge in mathematics will include for example:

• problematising tasks by inserting obstacles to the solution, limiting problem information or    requiring students to use particular representations or solution strategies
• implementing mathematical investigations to encourage students to apply and create mathematical knowledge in posing and solving novel problems
• extending manipulative use to capitalise on eg visual-spatial representations and to  support higher-level thinking.

In the field of second language learning we see in the work of Cummins (1984) another example of how cognitive challenge is conceptualised. In his ‘cognitive continuum’ model he splits the kind of learning processes and activities typically at play in the acquisition of another language into four quadrants of activity within two dimensions of degree of context and degree of cognitive demand.

Cummins’ quadrants framework is a model for thinking which can be used by teachers in many subjects to think about relevance and challenge. The vertical scale moves from cognitively un-demanding tasks, those which the learners find easy, to cognitively demanding tasks, which they will find hard. The horizontal moves from tasks with a high context, for instance using material or content the learners will find familiar and relate to, to abstract concepts which are much more challenging to relate to real experience but are often the ‘Objectives’ that have been defined for them to learn.

Figure 3. Cummins’ quadrants framework

There is a strong case for unpicking the distinctive cognitive demands of different disciplines and fields of knowledge as these will inform how we design and appropriate pedagogies and learning opportunities to enable all learners, including the most able, to acquire the related skills and knowledge necessary for high level performance in those disciplines. This is a relatively unexplored area in the educational research literature but one gaining wider exposure and exploration with the advent for example in the UK of the so-called ‘knowledge rich curriculum’. Very able learners will benefit from teaching approaches underpinned by teachers’ deeper knowledge of the concepts, skills and processes inherent in gaining expertise in the disciplines of the school curriculum and necessary for designing and assessing high cognitive challenge.

Challenging language to support challenging learning

Research points to the critical role of language in high achievement. This seems self-evident but in the NACE research project (NACE, 2020) the schools in the project demonstrating consistent excellent practice and high achievement with their most able learners had a systematic and systemic approach to the development and use of high level language skills.

Language holds a pivotal role in the executive functions which are involved in advanced expertise and academic and creative achievement:

• High order cognitive abilities and processes

• Attentional control and shifting

• Inhibition

• Working memory

• Fundamental components

• Goal Selection

• Planning/Organising

• Initiation/persistence

• Flexibility/shifting

• Self-monitoring/regulation

Higher level language processes are involved in higher order cognitive activities such as inference and comprehension and indeed wider expressive communication skills. In the classroom attention therefore needs to be given to the development of higher level language processes as explicitly as to substantive subject skills and knowledge.

Vygotsky viewed intelligence as the capacity to benefit from instruction, with language having a powerful developmental role. Language is a tool for learning and an aid to understanding. It acts as a vehicle for educational development and is therefore vital for the apprehension and acquisition of knowledge.

Teachers and students use spoken and written language to communicate with each other – to present tasks, engage in learning processes, present academic content, assess learning, display knowledge and skill, and build classroom life. In addition, much of what students learn is language. In the educational context, language is paramount for comprehension, making use of knowledge and negotiating meaning.

Cognitive discourse prioritises explanatory, exploratory and cumulative talk in relation to the substantive learning focus. In the classroom teachers ask big questions and reframe those questions to encourage reflection and deeper learning. This enables pupils to use a range of learning techniques which include independent research and the use of trial and improvement methods. Myatt (2021) recognises the importance of reducing the threat often associated with high challenge. The careful choice of rich, open and high level questions and the establishment of a low threat environment opens up cognitive dialogue.

Figure 4.  Curriculum design for cognitive challenge (NACE, 2020)

The following curriculum design principles and features were observed or elicited from the research schools’ curriculum intentions, planning and practice:

(i) Advanced and complex content for the more able but not excluding those learners who

could engage and benefit. School leaders make sure they can enhance the curriculum while also addressing external expectations, statutory curriculum, and examination requirements. The topics, schemata, sequencing, and progression are overseen at a senior leadership level so that day to day management of learning provided meaningful experiences to pupils.

(ii) Leaders direct the strategies leading to organisation of learning with underlying principles directing the grouping, setting and differentiation practices seen at classroom level.

(iii) In all the project schools teaching and learning is good or better but in the best schools specific training for the education of more able and highly able pupils is in place. The schools provide a high-quality learning experience using agreed teaching strategies and a whole school model for teaching and learning. Teachers are aware of key features relating to learning approaches, knowledge acquisition and memory.

(iv) Strategies to develop metacognition sit within the planned curriculum and exist within all practice rather than as a separate facet of teaching. By planning for this through the curriculum learning can be made visible with shared criteria, pupils can develop the skills for learning and a whole school model reflects the organisational philosophy.

(v) Assessment is often viewed in isolation but when included as a part of the curriculum it can be used more effectively for the benefit of more able learners. If the curriculum begins with what pupils already know, need to know, should know, and have the potential to learn given greater freedoms. The assessment process will inform planning and practice. The use of low stakes testing reduces cognitive load and aids memory. The shared understanding of what can be learnt independently or together and what can be achieved helps pupils to regulate their learning. Pupils have the potential to move beyond the planned programme of study with support of the teacher as a learning activator. Assessment is therefore shared with pupils and used by them to give them greater autonomy.

(vi) Finally, enrichment and enhancement are planned within and beyond lessons so that potential can be uncovered, intellectual interests developed and opportunities created. The challenge for school leaders is to widen the experience of more able pupils so that they have both breadth and depth and can excel beyond the traditional classroom experience.

Curriculum design and delivery should mirror principled intentions and facilitate cognitively challenging learning opportunities at classroom and individual level for all learners and for the most able. These can be supplemented and complemented by tailored opportunities and experiences to enable learners to achieve at the highest levels. At the heart of any curriculum model is the desire to meet the needs of all learners, including the most able, and which must be matched by a pedagogical repertoire which releases potential and lifts the horizons of expectation and aspiration.

Conclusion

A contemporary account of provision to meet the needs of highly able learners would indicate that challenge for highly able learners comprises a constellation of the following factors:

• Learning activities and assessment which are motivating, engaging and intellectually demanding, promoting breadth, depth and autonomy
• Rich language environments and interactions
• Planning and curriculum approaches which prioritise high challenge, low threat and appropriate levels of access
• High expectations, understanding of barriers to learning and how to minimise them

Figure 5. Design and management of cognitively challenging learning opportunities (NACE, 2020)

Teachers who consistently provide cognitively challenging learning opportunities do so from the starting point of the learner.  It sounds obvious to say so but it is not always obvious in practice that planning for a very able learner should start from what that learner knows and can do and what the optimal learning outcome should be for a learner who can go well beyond mastery onto the upward slopes of cognitive taxonomies.  Thinking like a very able learner needs to inform the teaching of very able learners.

References /bibliography

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:

A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman

Baddeley, A. (2010)  Working Memory in Current Biology Volume 20, Issue 4, 23 February 2010, Pages R136-R140

Bailey R., Pearce G., Winstanley C., Sutherland M., Smith C., Stack N., Dickenson, M. (2008) A systematic review of interventions aimed at improving the educational achievement of pupils identified as gifted and talented. Technical report. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology Cambridge University Press

Bjork, R. A .(2017)  Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning in Wallace I & Kirkman, L (eds), Best of the Best: Progress (pp. 81-85). Carmarthen: Crown House Publishing.

Bloom, B. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Book I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David Mckay.

Caine, R. N, & Caine, G. (1991) Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Carroll, J. 2003, ‘The higher-stratum structure of cognitive abilities: Current evidence supports g and about ten broad factors’, in H Nyborg (ed.), The scientific study of general intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen (pp. 5–22), Pergamon, San Diego, CA.

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (2019), Revisiting Gifted Education, NSW Department of Education, 

Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

De Jong, T. (2010)  Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science 38(2):105-134

Didau, D. (2017) A Novice - Expert Model of Learning 

EEF (2021) Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning 

Ericsson, K. A. & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273-305.

Anders Ericsson, K.,  Nandagopal, K. &  Roring R. W. ( 2005 ) Giftedness Viewed from the Expert-Performance Perspective Journal for the Education of the Gifted Volume 28, Issue 3-4 

Ericsson, K. A., Roring, R. W., & Nandagopal, K. (2013). Giftedness and evidence for reproducibly superior performance: An account based on the expert-performance framework. In S. B. Kaufman (Ed.), The complexity of greatness: Beyond talent or practice (pp. 137–190). Oxford University Press. 

Farrington-Darby, T. & Wilson, J. (2006) The nature of expertise: A review. Applied ergonomics. 37. 17-32. 10.1016/j.apergo.2005.09.001.

Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2013) Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Fullan, M. Hill, P. & Rincón-Gallardo, S. (2017). Deep Learning: Shaking the Foundation. Ontario, Canada: Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J.

Groves M. & West-Burnham, J. (2022) So What Now? Time for learning in your school to face the future, John Catt Educational 

Heller-Sahlgren, G. (2018) What works in Gifted Education? A literature review Centre for Education Economics

Hewston, Ruth, Campbell, R J, Eyre, D, Muijs, R D, Neelands, J G A and Robinson, W (2005) A Baseline Review of the Literature on Effective Pedagogies for Gifted and Talented Students. (Occasional Paper 5). National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, Coventry.

Johnson, D.T., (2000) Teaching mathematics to gifted students in a mixed-ability classroom. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education.

Kalyuga, S. and Sweller, J. (2018) “Cognitive Load and Expertise Reversal,” in Ericsson, K. A., Hoffman, R. R., Kozbelt, A., and Williams, A. M. (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology), pp. 793–811. doi: 10.1017/9781316480748.040.

Kaplan, S. N. (2009). Myth 9: There Is a Single Curriculum for the Gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 257–258.

Kirshner, P. A . Sweller, J. &  Clark, R. E. (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work  Educational Psychologist 41 (2) pp75-86

Kotulak, R. (1998)  Inside the brain: revolutionary discoveries of how the mind works. Prev Med. 1998 Mar-Apr;27(2):246-7. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1998.0281. PMID: 9579003.

Mansworth, M. (2021) Teach to the Top: Aiming High  John Catt

McAllister, B. & Plourde, L. (2008). Enrichment Curriculum: Essential for Mathematically Gifted Students. Education.

Meier, E. Vogel, K. & Preckel, F. (2014)  Motivational characteristics of students in gifted classes: The pivotal role of need for cognition. Learning and Individual Differences, 33, 39-46.

Meyer, J.H.F. & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. Improving Student Learning - Ten Years on. 412-424.

Munro, J. (2012) Effective strategies for implementing differentiated instruction 

Munro, J. (2012) How to identify, understand and teach gifted children in

Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Rincón-Gallardo, S. (2017). Deep Learning: Shaking the Foundation. Ontario, Canada:

Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J. Retrieved from http://npdl.global/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/npdl-case_st

Fullan (2017) Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Rincón-Gallardo, S. (2017). Deep Learning: Shaking the Foundation. Ontario, Canada:

Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J. Retrieved from http://npdl.global/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/npdl-caShore, B 2 https://theconversation.com/how-to-identify-understand-and-teach-gifted-...

Myatt, M. (2016) High Challenge, Low Threat: How the Best Leaders Find the Balance

Myatt, M. (2021)   Death by Differentiation Mary Myatt Learning

NACE (2020) Making Space for More Able Learners NACE publications

Nolte, M. (Editor): Including the Highly Gifted and Creative Students – Current Ideas and Future Directions. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Mathematical Creativity and Giftedness (MCG 11)

Münster 2019

Nottingham, J. A. (2007) Exploring the Learning Pit. Teaching Thinking and Creativity, 8:2(23), 64–68. Birmingham, UK: Imaginative Minds

Nuthall, G. (2000). The Anatomy of Memory in the Classroom: Understanding How Students  Acquire Memory Processes in Classroom Activities in Science and Social Studies Units. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 247 304.

Reis, S.M., Renzulli, S.J. &  Renzulli, J.S. (2021.)Enrichment and Gifted Education Pedagogy to Develop Talents, Gifts, and Creative Productivity. Education Sciences, [online] 11(10), p.615. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100615.

Rock, M. & Gregg, & Ellis, Edwin & Gable, Robert. (2008). REACH: A framework for differentiating instruction. Preventing School Failure. 52. 31-47. 10.3200/PSFL.52.2.31-47.

Ripley, A. (2013) The Smartest Kids in the World, and How They Got that Way Simon and Schuster

Rodriguez - Naveiras et al (2019) Differences in working memory between gifted or talented students and community samples: A meta-analysis August Psicothema 31(3):255-262

Rogers, K B (2007) Lessons Learned about Educating the Gifted and Talented, a Synthesis of the Research on Educational Practice. Pp382-396 Gifted Child Quarterly 5.

https://aea11gt.pbworks.com/f/LessonsLrnd-Rogers.pdf

Schultz, W., Dayan, P. &  Montague, P. R. (1997) A neural substrate of prediction and reward. pp.1593-1599.Science, 275

V. Shavinina L. V. (2007) What Is the Essence of Giftedness? An Individual’s Unique Point of View in  Gifted and Talented International, 22:2, 35-44, DOI: 10.1080/15332276.2007.11673493

Shavinina, L. V. (2009). Innovation Education for the Gifted: A New Direction in Gifted Education. In L.V. Shavinina, (ed) International Handbook on Giftedness. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2_65

Sherrington, T. (2017)  Teaching to the Top https://teacherhead.com/2017/05/28/teaching-to-the-top-attitudes-and-str...

Shore, B. & Chichekian, T. (2014) Cognitive Characteristics of the Gifted:  reconceptualized in the Context of Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Critical Issues and Practices in Gifted Education pp 117-129 Prufrock Press

Sousa, D. A. (2009) How the Gifted Brain Learns ed 2. Corwin Press

Stepanek, J. M. (1999) The Inclusive Classroom. Meeting the Needs of Gifted Students: Differentiating Mathematics and Science Instruction in It's Just Good Teaching Series

Sternberg, R. J. (2005) Intelligence, competence, and expertise pp. 15—30 in Andrew J. Elliot A J & Dweck C S (eds.), Handbook of Competence and Motivation. The Guilford Press.

Sullivan, P. & Mornane, A .(2013) Exploring teachers' use of, and students' reactions to, challenging mathematics tasks. Mathematics Education Research Journal. 26. 10.1007/s13394-013-0089-0.

Sullivan, P. Askew, M. Cheeseman, J. Clarke, D, Mornane, A, Roche, A, Walker, N (2014). Supporting teachers in structuring mathematics lessons involving challenging tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. 18. 10.1007/s10857-014-9279-2.

Sweller, J. (2010) Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138.

Tomlinson, C. A. & Kalbfleisch, M. L. (1998) Teach Me, Teach My Brain: A Call for Differentiated Classrooms. Pp52-55 Educational Leadership, 56
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ575232

Tomlinson, C. A.  & Callahan, C. M. (1992) Contributions of gifted education to general education in a time of change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 183–189.

https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629203600403(Rogers, K.B., Gifted Child Quarterly. Fall, 2007) .https://aea11gt.pbworks.com/f/LessonsLrnd-Rogers.pdf

Van Tassel-Baska, J (2003) Curriculum Planning and Instructional Design for Gifted Learners. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Co.

Webb, N. (1997) Research Monograph Number 6: Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments on mathematics and science education. Washington, D.C.: CCSSO.

Webb, N. (1999) Research Monograph No. 18: Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states. Washington, D.C.: CCSSO.

West-Burnham, J. & Ireson, J. (2006) Leadership Development & Personal Effectiveness. National College for School Leadership.

White, K. Fletcher-Campbell, F. &  Ridley, K. (2003) What works for gifted and talented pupils 

Willingham, D. T. (2010) Why don't students like school?: a cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for your classroom  San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass

Winstanley, C. (2004) Too Clever By Half: A fair deal for gifted children . 1st edn, Trentham Books.