Adaptive Learning to Maximize Gifted Education: Teacher Perceptions,Practices,and Experiences

Abstract

This study explores teachers’ perceptions, strategies, and experiences integrating adaptive learning (AL) in gifted education. The results revealed that teachers regard AL as a valuable technology-driven approach to enhance quality teaching and student outcomes for all students, not just gifted learners. Teachers employ multiple strategies to implement AL and cite multiple benefits, including personalization of instruction, promoting independent learning, tailored feedback, creating stimulating learning opportunities, and streamlining evaluative procedures, especially when combined with more traditional pedagogical approaches. However, teachers also face challenges derived from insufficient training, limited access to technology, uncertainty in selecting materials, and maintaining students engaged over extended periods. Additionally, teachers are aware of potential risks to student health, relationships, and academic integrity. Findings are discussed, and implications for the effective implementation of AL in gifted education are presented.

Keywords

adaptive learning personalized learning gifted education teachers Kazakhstan

Introduction

Promoting equity and excellence at all levels of education is a top priority for educational systems to ensure that every student has opportunities for success. Both principles are desirable, possible, and compatible (Schleicher, 2014). However, only a few nations worldwide have demonstrated success in 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 classroom 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 maximize their learning (Little, 2012; Reis et al., 2021).

Multiple models and approaches have been proposed to promote academic and non-academic outcomes of gifted students. Personalized learning (PL) is an educational approach that emphasizes the use of data and technology to customize instruction and assessment to meet the unique needs, interests, and abilities of each student (Chen et al., 2021; Roberts-Mahoney et al., 2016). The goal of PL is to create a more student-centered approach to education by providing each student with the resources and support they need to achieve their full potential. PL has been long considered the cornerstone to guaranteeing that gifted and talented children obtain quality education by providing advanced education, choices, and control over their own learning (Alamri et al., 2020; Clarke, 2013; Kettler & Taliaferro, 2022; Netcoh, 2017). Incorporating technology into PL environments has produced a new development path: technology-enabled PL (Peng et al., 2019; Shemshack & Spector, 2020). A particular case of PL is adaptive learning (AL), which has emerged as a technology-enhanced personalized approach to learning that uses interactive teaching tools and effectively allocates human and mediated resources to satisfy the individual needs of each learner (Sonwalkar, 2006).

AL employs technology to provide students with a PL environment characterized by efficient, effective, engaging, and individualized learning routes (Harati et al., 2021; Shute & Zapata-Rivera, 2012). There are different forms of Adaptive Learning Systems (ALS), ranging from basic systems with predetermined rules to complex systems with machine learning algorithms (Mirata et al., 2020). Still, most ALS adhere to a similar “closed loop” fundamental design that collects data from the learner and then utilizes those data to assess the learner's progress, offer learning activities, and deliver individualized feedback (Wang et al., 2020). ALS provides the student with tailored learning opportunities adjusted in real-time to their performance in a talent developmental trajectory. For instance, it allows the learners to skip information if they are already acquainted with it and judge it as too simple or too difficult, positively impacting their educational trajectories (Morris, 2019; Sonwalkar, 2006). Because assignments are automatically assessed, students can obtain rapid feedback (Martin et al., 2020) and scaffolding as required (Taylor et al., 2021).

Scholars, practitioners, and professional organizations have long argued about the critical role of PL and technology in the education of gifted and talented students (Periathiruvadi & Rinn, 2012; Siegle, 2005) and its potential to enable, enhance, and transform gifted education (Chen et al., 2013). Indeed, PL, AL, and contemporary approaches to gifted education share common theoretical underpinnings and aspirations (Kettler & Taliaferro, 2022). Each of these approaches originates from establishing educational environments that cater to the unique needs of students using existing information. An example is the advanced academics model of gifted education (Peters et al., 2021), which prioritizes using data to tailor the complexity and pace of learning to address each student's specific needs.

Kettler and Taliaferro (2022) outline three specific criteria that AL should fulfill in relation to gifted education: firstly, technology should serve to streamline teachers’ administrative and organizational tasks; secondly, students ought to discover technology-driven learning as motivating, fostering avenues for interaction with fellow students who share comparable interests; and lastly, AL must be capable of offering an extensive array of customized learning opportunities, unrestricted by time or location.

Despite the potential advantages and rising interest of AL in the gifted classroom, its widespread use remains restricted, and research on the topic is scarce. An exception is Renzulli Learning, a web-based interactive platform designed to provide students with PL settings and enable instructors to differentiate instruction around students’ abilities, interests, and preferred modes of expression to enhance involvement and attain improved academic results (Renzulli et al., 2014). The delayed integration of AL into gifted education can be partially attributed to a transformative paradigm shift. In AL, technology takes on the role of content delivery, while the teacher's function evolves into that of a content facilitator (Kettler & Taliaferro, 2022). Specifically, Bingham et al. (2018) have delineated three critical challenges associated with the implementation of technology-based PL in schools: (1) misalignment between teacher requirements and the existing technological infrastructure within schools; (2) inadequate teacher preparation, development, and support; and (3) discrepancies in the evaluation metrics for student and school success.

In this context, the role of teachers emerges as the most crucial for the successful implementation of AL (Kettler & Taliaferro, 2022). Effective teachers can bridge the gap between technological tools and pedagogical strategies, ensuring the seamless integration of AL platforms to meet the needs of gifted students. Their expertise in understanding students’ strengths, weaknesses, and learning preferences empowers them to curate curricular content, provide meaningful guidance, and create a supportive environment that amplifies the benefits of AL.

This qualitative multiple-case study examines secondary education teachers’ perceptions, strategies, and experiences with AL approaches in gifted education in Kazakhstan. Drawing on empirical data and associated literature, we explore teachers’ perceptions about using AL in gifted education, how they implement it in their professional practice, and the perceived opportunities and drawbacks they see. The following research questions guided the study:

RQ1: How do Kazakhstani teachers conceptualize AL in gifted education?

RQ2: What strategies do they use to implement AL in gifted education?

RQ3: How do teachers experience the implementation of AL in gifted education?

Kazakhstan represents an interesting case to study teachers’ experiences with technology-based AL approaches for gifted students. After gaining independence in 1991, Kazakhstan inherited a Soviet education system emphasizing a gifted education paradigm that reflects many of the characteristics of the “whole gifted child paradigm” (Dai & Chen, 2013). These include defining giftedness as having high levels of intelligence and achievement, identifying gifted individuals through measures of performance and achievement, providing education through specialized schools with advanced curricula tailored to individual strengths, and prioritizing the development of an intellectual elite to improve social and economic welfare (Almukhambetova & Hernández-Torrano, 2020). In the present, Kazakhstan's drive to enhance human capital and increase the competitiveness of its education system led to the formation of Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS). NIS forms a network of 20 elite institutions with highly qualified specialists, which admits some of the country's most talented and academically driven studies and promotes innovative practices and knowledge sharing with mainstream schools (Yakavets, 2014). Notably, NIS has embraced PL to foster student involvement in learning and boost student achievement. To date, two models of PL have been practiced in NIS schools: accelerated learning and individual educational route models, with a recent transition towards AL (NIS, 2020a, 2020b).

Methods

This study used a holistic multiple-case study research design to explore secondary education teachers’ perceptions, strategies, and experiences using AL in gifted education in Kazakhstan due to its capacity to investigate and foster comprehension of a contemporary phenomenon (i.e., AL) in-depth and within its real-world context, where the boundaries between the phenomenon and the context might not be evident and relevant behaviors cannot be manipulated (Yin, 2018). In the present study, four specialized schools for gifted students piloting the implementation of AL constitute unique and revelatory cases worth documenting and analyzing in the context of Kazakhstan. These schools operate in all regions of Kazakhstan and implement a new intensive curriculum developed in collaboration with international experts (Makoelle, 2020). They are primarily designed for high-achieving pupils who not only perform well academically but also tend to display greater academic English аbilities and intentions to study overseas after graduation (Kuzhabekova et al., 2018). The teacher workforce also differs from that in mainstream and other schools across the country, with a higher proportion of expat teachers hired by international recruitment agencies. National teachers are also hired through a rigorous three-step selection process, including subject knowledge assessment, essay evaluation of written expression, and in-depth interviewing. The selection guarantees that NIS teachers are not only subject matter experts in their fields but also have strong communication skills to interact with a varied student population and cultivate a community of learners with a global perspective. The examination of multiple schools (i.e., cases) in the current study facilitates a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon and enhances rigor by enabling the replication of findings across diverse instances.

Participants and Procedures

The sample for this study comprised eight secondary teachers (four female, four male) purposefully selected who worked at four specialized NIS schools for gifted students located in different parts of the country (i.e., East, South-East, South, and North Kazakhstan). The sample size is consistent with recommendations for case study research in education, often suggesting that six-10 participants and three to four cases for comparison are sufficient to achieve thematic saturation (Schoch, 2020). Participants were recruited through an email invitation sent by the school principal of each school to all teachers with a request to contact the first author if they would like to participate in the study. Inclusion criteria required that participants were teaching in a specialized school for gifted students in Kazakhstan, had experience using AL with gifted students, and were willing to participate in an in-depth interview for this study. Teachers who did not meet these criteria were not eligible to participate. Each participant was assigned an alphanumeric code: P1 through P8. Table 1 provides a summary of the background information for all participants. All participants involved in the study reported being STEM teachers, with one half teaching chemistry and the other half physics. Participants’ teaching experience ranged from four to 27 years, with a mean experience of approximately 12 years. Participants provided electronic informed consent and were made aware of the background and objectives of the study, the voluntary nature of the study, their right to withdraw at any time with no personal or professional consequences, as well as the assurance of confidentiality.

Table 1.

Participants’ Demographic and Background Data.

Background	Frequency
Gender
Male	4
Female	4
Working experience
Less than 5 years	1
5–10 years	3
11–20 years	2
20+ years	2
Pedagogical level
Teacher	2
Moderator	4
Expert	2
Teaching subject
Physics	4
Chemistry	4
Adaptive learning platform
ALEKS	1
Canva	4
Both	3
Language of interview
Kazakh	5
Russian	3

Data Collection Tools

Semi-structured, in-depth interviews (Wilson, 2014) were used as a data collection instrument to gather experience, interpretations, understandings, and reactions to the phenomenon of AL in gifted education in respondents’ own words while allowing for flexibility, follow-up, and investigative inquiries. The open-ended interview questions in this study and subjected to a collaborative review procedure. The two authors took an active part in co-creating the questions and then went over each other's work. The questions were thoroughly examined from several angles during this iterative process, which improved their clarity, applicability, and suitability for the qualitative research setting. The interview protocol comprised several sections aligned with the research questions to explore (1) teachers’ conceptualizations of AL in gifted education, (2) their approaches to implementing AL with gifted students, and (3) their experiences with it in terms of challenges and opportunities. In-depth interviews were conducted in one of three participants’ preferred languages (i.e., Kazakh, Russian, or English), which was agreed with the interviewee at the beginning of the interview. Throughout the interviews, participants consistently maintained the language of their choice. The interview protocol in the three languages is available in the Supplemental File 1. All interviews were done electronically in Microsoft Teams between November 2022 and January 2023 and lasted from 29 to 42 min. The interviews were audio-recorded with the permission of the participants. A password-protected computer was used to record, store, and analyze interview materials. To ensure confidentiality, pseudonyms were given to the participants (e.g., Participant 1 [P1], Participant 2 [P2]).

Data Analysis

Interview voice recordings were transcribed and translated into English, ensuring accuracy and fidelity to the original content, and then further analyzed. An inductive, ground-up approach was implemented to the interview transcripts following Creswell (2012). The analysis process consisted of several distinct stages, each contributing to a deeper understanding of the data. The data were collected over an extended period of time and analyzed thematically, resulting in the development of a coding framework, which can be accessed in the Supplemental File 2. First, an initial exploratory analysis of the transcripts was performed. This involved multiple readings of the transcripts to gain a broad understanding of the data, organize the data, and identify key ideas. We conducted an in-depth examination of the translated transcripts, meticulously considering both the literal meaning of the language used and any linguistic nuances associated with the participants’ cultural context. Second, transcripts were segmented into smaller units and assigned codes using inductive coding. The codes were then rigorously assessed for any instances of repetition or inconsistency. Third, codes were synthesized into overarching themes to establish coherence within the dataset and identify themes that were relevant to the research questions. Fourth, a cross-case synthesis technique was used to synthesize within-case patterns while maintaining case integrity (Yin, 2018).

Reflexivity and Positionality

The first author holds a teaching position in the network of specialized schools piloting the adoption of AL for gifted education in Kazakhstan, offering an insider's perspective that enriched the contextual understanding of the phenomenon. Moreover, this facilitated access to the research sites and participants and made participants more trusting and critical towards AL. Nonetheless, the authors remained reflexive throughout the research process, acknowledging and addressing their own biases to ensure a more balanced and nuanced representation of the data. Furthermore, they recognized the potential for power dynamics given the position of the first author within the network of schools involved in the study. To mitigate this influence, they implemented various strategies, such as requesting informed consent, emphasizing voluntary participation, and ensuring confidentiality.

Findings and Discussion

Teachers’ Conceptualizations of Adaptive Learning

The findings of this study revealed that teachers articulate diverse rationales for adopting AL in their classrooms. Participants recognize AL as a contemporary pedagogical approach that enables personalized and individualized instruction, fostering optimal learning environments for gifted students while streamlining the teaching process. They lauded the AL's capacity to use artificial intelligence to determine each student's areas of strength and weakness and to modify assignments accordingly. This makes it possible for a more personalized approach to learning, which can be helpful for exceptional children who might otherwise find typical classroom techniques boring and unchallenging. Teachers also believe that implementing AL addresses individual student needs and abilities, keeps up with the latest developments in education, and improves overall educational quality. Additionally, schools have sought to prepare for distance learning or online classes to help students develop their abilities and talents and prepare them for lifelong learning. Thus, some participants acknowledge that the COVID-19 pandemic has compelled them to explore effective online learning alternatives, and they found AL to be a suitable approach. For example, P2 stated:

Well, in general, the trend of education is, of course, the spheres of adaptive education, personalized learning, and inclusion in education. Therefore, we did not have such a platform, and according to our school strategy, we began to work in this direction. We began creating our own platforms, like virtual laboratory work, virtual work, virtual subjects, and adaptive learning. [P2]

This is a positive development, as PL has been shown to increase student engagement, motivation, and achievement (Chen et al., 2021; Roberts-Mahoney et al., 2016). AL tools can provide students with tailored content, pace, and feedback based on their strengths, weaknesses, and learning preferences (Khosravi et al., 2020). Teachers can provide a more PL experience using these tools, leading to better student outcomes. Additionally, with the recognition of the importance of PL, teachers demonstrate a willingness to adapt and innovate their teaching practices to meet the evolving needs of their students.

Another important perspective among teachers was that AL holds promise as a practical approach to meeting the diverse educational needs of students, regardless of their ability level. P8 shared:

Of course, it is helpful for all students, because there is a special algorithm for it, and the information is given step by step. Children can see where they stand and what direction they should take. The teacher also teaches according to the student's ability. But here, with non-gifted children, the teacher helps to realize the potential of other children, depending on the learning goals, through the teacher's support or the zone of proximal development. [P8]

This is consistent with previous studies that found that PL through AL tools allows students to work at their own pace and receive individualized support, enabling them to achieve their full potential (Kem, 2022). Moreover, this approach recognizes that every student has unique strengths and weaknesses, learning preferences, and interests, and can benefit from tailored instruction that meets their specific needs. This is very important as this perspective challenges the traditional “one size fits all” approach to education, which can often leave many students behind. By using AL tools to provide personalized instruction, teachers can create a more inclusive and equitable learning environment that accommodates the diverse needs of all students (Taylor et al., 2021). Ultimately, this method can assist all students in developing into more independent, driven, and confident learners who are better prepared to perform in the classroom and beyond.

However, there seems to be a substantial disparity in participants’ perspectives concerning the potential utility of AL in the teaching of different subject areas. Specifically, the results revealed that half of the instructors view AL as a beneficial approach across all academic domains, while others maintain that its applicability is limited to STEM disciplines. This divide seems to be attributable to the perception among some educators that AL can be especially effective in subjects that require numerical problem-solving and short written responses, which are more commonly associated with STEM fields. For example, P5 expressed:

It is possible to integrate all subjects, although it is often more effective and suitable for subjects in the natural sciences. In those lessons, students can enter specific answers. Exact numerical responses can be evaluated. Short, written responses are also accepted. I think it's more difficult for other subjects like English or Russian language. [P5]

This finding has implications for how educators implement these approaches in the classroom. In practice, AL has been used more intensively in STEM subjects than in non-STEM subjects (Allen et al., 2016; Taylor et al., 2021), which might have contributed to the debate between educators who believe that AL can be used in any subject area and those who argue that it most applies to STEM subjects. These divergent views could also be due to differences in educators’ training, experiences, and attitudes toward technology integration, as suggested by Mishra and Koehler (2006), which underscores the complexity and diversity of technology-supported learning approaches. It is worth noting that all the teachers interviewed in this study taught STEM subjects, and therefore, some opinions might be biased, or they might not be able to recognize the value of AL in non-STEM classes. Further research across different subject areas could provide more insights into the benefits and limitations of AL.

Teachers’ Approaches to Implementing Adaptive Learning in Gifted Education

Teachers use various strategies to implement AL into gifted education. The strategies include several organizational, pedagogical, class management, curriculum, instruction, and technological approaches that reflect the complexity of teaching and learning and indicate that a holistic strategy is necessary to integrate AL effectively. For example, one teacher suggested taking advantage of students’ laptops to perform virtual lab work, while another emphasized the importance of gradually introducing AL to accommodate varying abilities. According to teachers, monitoring student progress and providing support was also crucial, and finding the right balance seems key to preventing isolation. Effective organization involves individual seating, teaching students how to use the platform, and pairing students with different assignments before individual work. Using AL in moderation was also recommended by teachers for the effective implementation of AL. Further, aligning the platform with learning goals and objectives and incorporating flipped classes and reflection approaches can enhance the learning experience based on teaching experiences. Ultimately, the teacher's mastery of material, feedback, and progress monitoring was considered vital to the success of AL, as indicated by P8:

In my opinion, it is necessary to introduce adaptive learning gradually. Because every student has certain possibilities. I believe that it is necessary to enter children who need to go beyond a certain circle. Because it is a great opportunity for gifted students and the teacher to develop the skills of certain students. [P8]

An interesting finding of this study was that all teachers recognize the importance of using AL approaches in conjunction with active learning methods rather than viewing them as a replacement for each other. In this regard, P1 claimed: “That's why we’re trying to combine adaptive learning and active learning so that students understand that they’re not isolated.” This is an important perspective, as it recognizes the value of combining the strengths of both approaches to create a more effective and engaging learning environment for students. Active learning, which involves engaging students in activities that promote critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration, has been shown to be effective in improving student outcomes (Freeman et al., 2014). However, active learning can be time-consuming and may not always accommodate the diverse needs of all students. AL can provide an alternative through personalized instruction and allow students to work at their own pace (Taylor et al., 2021).

Nevertheless, teachers seem to struggle to implement AL in their classes due to a lack of training and limited access to technology resources, as has been illustrated elsewhere (Bingham et al., 2018). For example, teachers reported that, when multiple classes attempt to use AL simultaneously, the platform's performance can slow down significantly, creating frustration and time-consuming issues for both students and teachers. Furthermore, if a student's device or operating system is outdated, they may be unable to support the AL software, leading to further complications. P2 claimed that “… it is not possible to conduct qualitatively because of the ICT possibility. That is, we have the Internet lagged, our tablets weren’t ready for this platform.”

Moreover, teachers reported conflicting opinions on the necessity of specialized training to effectively implement AL. While some contend that professional training is essential for the effective utilization of AL, as it facilitates a deeper understanding of the concept and the various available platforms, others maintain that academic knowledge and technological proficiency alone suffice for using AL without any special training. In addition, certain participants emphasize the significance of continuous support, such as support groups or communities of practice, in successfully implementing AL. P5 claimed:

For me, the disadvantage is that students and teachers still do not fully understand AL. The organizer explained to us that we, the teachers, still need support. Courses are still needed to successfully organize AL entirely in the classroom. [P5]

This is not surprising, but it does highlight a significant barrier to the efficient use of technology in gifted education. Teachers may find it challenging to incorporate AL into their teaching practices without access to the required technology and training, limiting its potential benefits. This finding emphasizes how crucial it is to close the digital gap and give teachers the tools and assistance they require to successfully use technology in the classroom (Hinostroza et al., 2016). By investing in technology resources and training programs, educators and policymakers can help ensure that teachers have the tools and knowledge necessary to leverage technology to improve student learning outcomes (Camilleri & Camilleri, 2017).

According to Kettler and Taliaferro (2022), integrating AL in gifted education should aim to improve teachers’ administrative and organizational duties. Interestingly, the teachers in our study found that AI integration created obstacles to effective teaching. They reported facing challenges managing AL platforms, particularly in selecting and organizing instructional materials on AL platforms. P5 indicated:

As for the AL in general, the only drawback I can think of right now is that the platform materials should be selected correctly. We have learning objectives to provide the student with the necessary skills, and for that, the materials should be well-selected and properly organized. This is because the student spends time and energy in the process of mastering the material, and in the end, he should get the necessary knowledge and the necessary skills. [P5]

Another aspiration of integrating AL in gifted education is to allow students to experience and discover technology-driven learning as motivating and attractive (Kettler & Taliaferro, 2022). However, teachers involved in the study found that keeping students engaged in AI environments for extended periods was the biggest challenge in implementing AI with gifted students. This may be due to the paradigm shift that AL implies for not only teachers but also students. Students who used to be passive recipients of knowledge in gifted structured environments may feel insecure about taking a more active role in their learning. This was illustrated by P1 as follows:

Well, the most important thing, let's say, the difficulty was the transition from the old to the new for me personally, and for the students, I am sure too, because our students are used to the fact that we have an ordinary combined traditional lesson. [P1]

Teachers’ Experiences with Adaptive Learning in Gifted Education

Advantages of Adaptive Learning in Gifted Education

Participants reported multiple benefits of using AL in the classroom to teach gifted students, including personalizing instruction, fostering independent learning, allowing individualized feedback, offering challenging tasks that help them prepare for academic competitions, and facilitating assessment and feedback provision.

Teachers noticed that AL facilitates the personalization of instruction by allowing students to select tasks appropriate to their skills and interests. For gifted children whom conventional classroom techniques might disengage, this is very advantageous. AL increases student engagement and motivation by letting them explore their interests and study independently. P5 highlights: “They (students) want to know more. It is deeper and faster. At this time, the technology of AL is useful because it does not hold back the student, but moves further, depending on his own pace, depending on his ability.” [P5] However, participants noticed that struggling students can also benefit from AL. These students do not feel overwhelmed or disheartened by the content they may not be ready for because they may take their time comprehending fundamental ideas before moving on to more complicated tasks.

Teachers also believe AL encourages independent learning, which is considered crucial for fostering the development of important abilities, including self-evaluation, autonomy, and decision-making. To develop a sense of ownership and responsibility for their own learning, students are encouraged to assess their progress and complete schoolwork on their own. According to teachers’ reports, this keeps students interested in learning and motivated, both of which are essential for their academic performance. Moreover, teachers acknowledge that AL can enhance metacognition –the capacity to evaluate and control one's own learning– which is crucial for success in both academic and non-academic contexts (Cortese, 2022).

Moreover, AL offers gifted students individualized feedback that helps them recognize their strengths and weaknesses. As a result, students can use their time and energy more effectively by concentrating their efforts where they need to improve. P5 stated: “The student spends time and energy in the process of mastering the material, and in the end, he should get the necessary knowledge and the necessary skills.” [P5]

All in all, these findings imply that AL has the potential to alter established traditional teaching methods and enhance gifted student performance and motivation. Additionally, by streamlining the learning process, AL can make learning more available to students with various learning needs and preferences. This is important because AL's potential to make learning more available to students with different learning needs and preferences is crucial in ensuring educational equity. Because students with different learning preferences and aptitudes are taught similarly using traditional teaching methods, some students may fall behind or become disinterested. Contrarily, AL can tailor each student's learning experience to meet their unique requirements and preferences by offering them individual feedback, resources, and activities (Wang et al., 2020). Students who struggle with particular concepts can benefit from extra support and direction, while those who pick up concepts easily can move on to harder material (Taylor et al., 2021). Therefore, PL-enhanced technology can advance equity in education by meeting each student's unique learning requirements (Roberts-Mahoney et al., 2016).

Teachers also emphasized the platform's capacity to provide gifted students with challenging material and prepare them for out-of-school events like academic Olympiads. P4 indicated:

What I liked the most was that I had students in some classes who were very talented, and I would give them the topic in advance, and they would study it beforehand. Accordingly, I was preparing complex Olympiad tasks for them. Then those students studied several topics and won an award in the national and online Olympiads. This is one advantageous side. [P4]

This highlights the advantages of AL experiences for students outside of the classroom, which can further boost their motivation and involvement in the learning process. Additionally, teachers believe that using AL to prepare students for exams and Olympiads can increase their knowledge of the subject matter and increase their chances of success. In this sense, specialized gifted schools, through the implementation of AL, help students feel highly competent and effective in their academic endeavors by giving them access to a stimulating learning atmosphere marked by a rigorous curriculum, high academic standards, and the expectation that they compete in academic Olympiads (Almukhambetova & Hernández-Torrano, 2020). This is consistent with the practice of gifted education in the context of Kazakhstan, which involves holding students to high academic standards and encouraging their participation in competitive activities.

Teachers also believe using AL to evaluate their gifted students’ learning and development is helpful. P2 suggested that: “When students are given a chance to study on their own in the platform and evaluate themselves, it seems to motivate them, so this is an advantage of AL.” [P2] As a tool for assessment, AL can also give teachers helpful information that they can use to personalize their instruction further. Indeed, AL platforms can give teachers useful data they can use to personalize their instruction and promote student learning by tracking a student's progress and highlighting areas of strength and weakness (e.g., Taylor et al., 2021).

Disadvantages of Adaptive Learning in Gifted Education

Teachers reported several drawbacks related to implementing AL in the gifted classroom. These included negative effects on student health, reduced student relationships, and threats to academic integrity.

Several teachers in the study worry that using electronic resources can negatively impact students’ health. P8 indicated: “The disadvantage is that the resources children are using are on the platform, that is, electronic tools. It affects their health, they should rest their eyes.” [P8] The potential negative effects of excessive screen time and the need to balance screen time and other pursuits are well supported by empirical research (e.g., Przybylski & Weinstein, 2017). Excessive screen time has been associated with various cognitive and developmental problems in children and teens, such as delays in language development, attention deficits, and a lower capacity for forming relationships with others (Chandra et al., 2016).

This study also highlights essential concerns among teachers regarding the potential impact of AL on school interactions. Some teachers expressed concerns that using technology and AL approaches in the classroom particularly limit the relationships between teachers and students and among students. P1 claims: “If we use only adaptive learning, then we can lose this contact here, student-student, teacher-student contact.” [P1] These concerns are valid, as research has shown that positive teacher-student and student-student relationships are critical to student engagement, motivation, and academic success (Xerri et al., 2018). Teachers provide more than just content knowledge; they also serve as role models, mentors, and sources of emotional support for their students. Similarly, peer relationships can provide social and emotional support for students and enhance their sense of belonging in the classroom community.

Finally, teachers indicated that AL could pose a significant threat to academic integrity. As P2 claims: “Academic integrity will decrease due to the absence of strict oversight; participants have unrestricted access to a wide range of resources, including online materials” [P2] Students may have access to knowledge and resources as never before, thanks to generative artificial intelligence technology. For instance, “ChatGPT is capable of writing lines of code, producing plays, stories, poetry, as well as simulated scientific content such as abstracts” (Alberts et al., 2023, p. 1). This can be a severe problem because it compromises the academic system's credibility and diminishes the accomplishments of honest students (Piascik & Brazeau, 2010). Therefore, while implementing AL in the classroom, it is crucial to have mechanisms in place to prevent cheating and preserve academic integrity.

Conclusion

The purpose of this research was to examine the perceptions, strategies, and experiences of implementing AL in gifted education by teachers in Kazakhstan. The findings reveal that participants regarded AL as a valuable technology-driven approach to enhance both teaching effectiveness and academic outcomes for students. While teachers demonstrated divergent and sometimes contradictory opinions about the suitability of AL across different subject areas, a shared belief is that it can benefit all learners, not just those identified as gifted. As such, this invites schools to expand the availability of AL resources and techniques to ensure equitable access to high-quality education for all students.

Teachers reported using various strategies to implement AL in gifted education and saw benefits in combining AL with traditional teaching approaches. Participants also identified several merits stemming from AL in gifted education. These benefits included the personalization of instruction, the fostering of autonomous learning, the provision of tailored feedback, the facilitation of intellectually stimulating learning opportunities, and the streamlining of evaluative procedures. An implication derived from this finding is the need for educational institutions to establish robust mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the impact of AL on teaching quality and student outcomes. Moreover, school policies should encourage the development and adoption of AL tools and techniques that support PL experiences, enabling students to take greater ownership of their learning.

The study revealed several challenges teachers face while incorporating AL in gifted education. These include insufficient training, limited access to technology, and uncertainty in selecting materials. To overcome these obstacles, school leaders must devote time and resources to develop initiatives that equip educators with essential skills and knowledge to integrate AL into their teaching practices efficiently. Additionally, there is a need for clear standards for the selection, organization, and creation of resources for the AL platform that align with learning objectives and cater to the specific needs of gifted students.

Two additional challenges emerged in this study. First, teachers noted a lack of motivation and student engagement as the most critical barriers to successful AL implementation. In response, educational institutions and teachers should collaborate to design engaging AL activities that address students’ abilities, interests, and preferred modes of expression. Future research could further explore the specific factors influencing student engagement in AL, contributing valuable insights to enhance its effectiveness (Kettler & Taliaferro, 2022). Second, educators expressed reservations concerning potential undesired consequences of AL, including potential implications for students’ health, diminished classroom interactions, and potential compromises to academic integrity. This highlights the need for establishing ethical guidelines for using AL, ensuring that technology-driven approaches prioritize student wellness, promote meaningful interactions, and maintain academic integrity.

In general, this study emphasizes that the role of teachers as the principal information source is evolving in the context of gifted students’ learning. These changing dynamics make it necessary for educators to consider how they may modify their approaches to act as mentors and facilitators and ensure that gifted students gain from both human and technological advancement. In this dynamic educational environment, teachers must strike a careful balance between providing personalized mentorship and technical support to assist gifted students reach their full potential.

This study has several limitations affecting the transferability of the findings. First, the purposefully selected and relatively small sample of teachers in specialized schools in Kazakhstan restricts the generalizability of the results to a broader teacher population and different educational contexts. Second, the study does not consider the perspectives of students, parents, and administrators, which could further limit the applicability of the findings to a comprehensive understanding of AL integration. Third, by exclusively including STEM teachers, the study may not accurately reflect the experiences and viewpoints of the broader gifted teacher population. Future research should address these limitations by exploring the perceptions of various stakeholders, incorporating samples of non-STEM teachers, and investigating these issues in diverse international contexts to enhance the transferability of the study.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-joa-10.1177_1932202X241253166 - Supplemental material for Adaptive Learning to Maximize Gifted Education: Teacher Perceptions, Practices, and Experiences

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-joa-10.1177_1932202X241253166 for Adaptive Learning to Maximize Gifted Education: Teacher Perceptions, Practices, and Experiences by Saltanat Mukhamadiyeva and Daniel Hernández-Torrano in Journal of Advanced Academics

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-joa-10.1177_1932202X241253166 - Supplemental material for Adaptive Learning to Maximize Gifted Education: Teacher Perceptions, Practices, and Experiences

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-joa-10.1177_1932202X241253166 for Adaptive Learning to Maximize Gifted Education: Teacher Perceptions, Practices, and Experiences by Saltanat Mukhamadiyeva and Daniel Hernández-Torrano in Journal of Advanced Academics

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This chapter is adapted from Mukhamadiyeva, S. (2023). Teachers’ experience with adaptive learning in gifted education: A qualitative case study in schools for gifted students in Kazakhstan [Master's thesis, Nazarbayev University].

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Saltanat Mukhamadiyeva

Daniel Hernández-Torrano

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

About the Authors

Saltanat Mukhamadiyeva is a teacher at the Nazarbayev Intellectual School of Physics and Mathematics in Astana, Kazakhstan, with over 15 years of teaching experience. Saltanat completed her Bachelor's degree at East Kazakhstan State University, and an M.Sc Educational Leadership in School Education at the Graduate School of Education at Nazarbayev University. Her main area of interest is gifted education, technology in education, and teaching and learning. Her main goal is to elevate the quality of teaching and learning. She is committed to fostering an inclusive, innovative, and student-centred approach to education, where teaching is a dynamic, evolving, and enriching experience that empowers learners and educators alike.

Daniel Hernández-Torrano is an Associate Professor in the Graduate School of Education at Nazarbayev University. Dr. Hernández-Torrano obtained his Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from the University of Murcia in Spain and has held research positions at the University College London (UK), Universidade do Minho (Portugal), and the University of Connecticut (USA). He teaches courses in quantitative research methodology, educational psychology, and inclusive education. His main areas of interest are gifted education, inclusive education, the role of affect and emotions in learning, and young people's well-being in education contexts.

References

Alamri

Lowell

Watson

S. L.

(2020). Using personalized learning as an instructional approach to motivate learners in online higher education: Learner self-determination and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(3), 322–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1728449

Alberts

I. L.

Mercolli

Pyka

Prenosil

Shi

Rominger

Afshar-Oromieh

(2023). Large language models (LLM) and ChatGPT: What will the impact on nuclear medicine be? European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-023-06172-w

Allen

Webb

A. W.

Matthews

C. E.

(2016). Adaptive teaching in STEM: Characteristics for effectiveness. Theory into Practice, 55(3), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1173994

Almukhambetova

Hernández-Torrano

(2020). Gifted students’ adjustment and underachievement in university: An exploration from the self-determination theory perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220905525

Bingham

A. J.

Pane

J. F.

Steiner

E. D.

Hamilton

L. S.

(2018). Ahead of the curve: Implementation challenges in personalized learning school models. Educational Policy, 32(3), 454–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904816637688

Camilleri

M. A.

Camilleri

A. C.

(2017). Digital learning resources and ubiquitous technologies in education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22, 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-016-9287-7

Chandra

Jalaludin

Woolfenden

Descallar

Nicholls

Dissanayake

Williams

Murphy

Walter

Eastwood

Eapen

(2016). Screen time of infants in Sydney, Australia: A birth cohort study. BMJ Open, 6(10), e012342. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012342

Chen

Yun Dai

Zhou

(2013). Enable, enhance, and transform: How technology use can improve gifted education. Roeper Review, 35(3), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.794892

Chen

Zou

Xie

Cheng

(2021). Twenty years of personalized language learning. Educational Technology & Society, 24(1), 205–222. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/26977868

10.

Clarke

J. H.

(2013). Personalized learning: Student-designed pathways to high school graduation. Corwin Press. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452299679.

11.

Cortese

. (2022). Metacognitive resources for adaptive learning. Neuroscience Research, 178, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2021.09.003

12.

Creswell

J. W.

(2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education, Inc.

13.

Dai

D. Y.

Chen

(2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(3), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213490020

14.

Freeman

Eddy

S. L.

McDonough

Smith

M. K.

Okoroafor

Jordt

Wenderoth

M. P.

(2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

15.

Harati

Sujo-Montes

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

16.

Hinostroza

J. E.

Ibieta

A. I.

Claro

Labbé

(2016). Characterisation of teachers’ use of computers and internet inside and outside the classroom: The need to focus on the quality. Education and Information Technologies, 21, 1595–1610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9404-6

17.

Kem

(2022). Personalised and adaptive learning: Emerging learning platforms in the era of digital and smart learning. International Journal of Social Science and Human Research, 5(2), 385–391. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v5-i2-02

18.

Kettler

Taliaferro

(2022). Personalized learning in gifted education: Differentiated instruction that maximizes students’ potential. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003237136.

19.

Khosravi

Sadiq

Gasevic

(2020). Development and adoption of an adaptive learning system: Reflections and lessons learned. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 58–64). https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366900

20.

Kuzhabekova

Soltanbekova

Almukhambetova

(2018). Educational flagships as brokers in international policy transfer: Learning from the experience of Kazakhstan. European Education, 50(4), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/10564934.2017.1365306

21.

Letina

(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

22.

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

23.

Makoelle

T. M.

(2020). Schools’ transition toward inclusive education in post-Soviet countries: Selected cases in Kazakhstan. Sage Open, 10(2), 2158244020926586. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020926586

24.

Martin

Chen

Moore

R. L.

Westine

C. D.

(2020). Systematic review of adaptive learning research designs, context, strategies, and technologies from 2009 to 2018. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1903–1929. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09793-2

25.

Mirata

Hirt

Bergamin

van der Westhuizen

(2020). Challenges and contexts in establishing adaptive learning in higher education: Findings from a Delphi study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00209-y

26.

Mishra

Koehler

M. J.

(2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

27.

Morris

T. H.

(2019). Adaptivity through self-directed learning to meet the challenges of our ever-changing world. Adult Learning, 30(2), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159518814486

28.

Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools. (2020a). 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

29.

Nazarbayev Intellectual schools research platform. (2020b) Personalized learning in the Intellectual Schools. Digest #18. https://research.nis.edu.kz/dajdzhest-18/

30.

Netcoh

(2017). Balancing freedom and limitations: A case study of choice provision in a personalized learning class. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.010

31.

Peng

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

32.

Periathiruvadi

Rinn

A. N.

(2012). Technology in gifted education: A review of best practices and empirical research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(2), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782601

33.

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

34.

Peters

S. J.

Matthews

M. S.

McBee

M. T.

McCoach

D. B.

(2021). Beyond gifted education: Designing and implementing advanced academic programs. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003233299.

35.

Pfeiffer

S. I.

(2012). Serving the gifted: Evidence-based clinical and psychoeducational practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203883587-8.

36.

Piascik

Brazeau

G. A.

(2010). Promoting a culture of academic integrity. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(6). https://doi.org/10.5688/aj7406113

37.

Przybylski

A. K.

Weinstein

(2017). A large-scale test of the goldilocks hypothesis: Quantifying the relations between digital-screen use and the mental well-being of adolescents. Psychological Science, 28(2), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616678438

38.

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

39.

Renzulli

Reis

Shaughnessy

M. F.

(2014). A reflective conversation with Joe Renzulli and Sally Reis: About the renzulli learning system. Gifted Education International, 30(1), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429413480419

40.

Roberts-Mahoney

Means

A. J.

Garrison

M. J.

(2016). Netflixing human capital development: Personalized learning technology and the corporatization of K-12 education. Journal of Education Policy, 31(4), 405–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1132774

41.

Schleicher

(2014). Equity, excellence and inclusiveness in education. In International summit on the teaching profession, Wellington, New Zealand, March 28. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264214033-en

42.

Schoch

(2020). Case study research. In Burkholder

G. J.

Cox

K. A.

Crawford

L. M.

Hitchcock

J. H.

(Eds.), Research design and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner (pp. 245–258). Sage.

43.

Shemshack

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

44.

Shute

V. J.

Zapata-Rivera

(2012). Adaptive educational systems. Adaptive Technologies for Training and Education, 7(27), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139049580.004

45.

Siegle

(2005). Six uses of the internet to develop students’ gifts and talents. Gifted Child Today, 28(2), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2005-167

46.

Sonwalkar

(2006). Adaptive individualization, the next generation of online education. On the Horizon, 16(1), 44–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120810853345

47.

Taylor

D. L.

Yeung

Bashet

A. Z.

(2021). Personalized and adaptive learning. In Ryoo

Winkelmann

(Eds.), Innovative learning environments in STEM higher education (pp. 17–34). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58948-6_2.

48.

Wang

Christensen

Cui

Tong

Yarnall

Shear

Feng

(2020). When adaptive learning is effective learning: Comparison of an adaptive learning system to teacher-led instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1808794

49.

Wilson

(2014). Interview techniques for UX practitioners. Morgan Kaufmann.

50.

Xerri

M. J.

Radford

Shacklock

(2018). Student engagement in academic activities: A social support perspective. Higher Education, 75, 589–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0162-9

51.

Yakavets

(2014). Reforming society through education for gifted children: The case of Kazakhstan. Research Papers in Education, 29(5), 513–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2013.825311

52.

Yin

R. K.

(2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB