Running head: Differentiating instruction Differentiating instruction: Beyond gifted towards...

Running head: Differentiating instruction

Differentiating instruction: Beyond gifted towards diversity

in the classroom

Maggie Man Yee LI

Differentiating instruction 2

Content

Cover……………..……………………………………………………………..………1

Content…………………………………………………….……………………………2

Abstract…………..……………………………………………..……………...……….3

Global development in response to diversity in the

classroom…………………………4-5

Current gifted education practices and responses to diversity

in Hong Kong…….……5-6

Literature review………………………..…….………………………………..….……7-16

Case analysis………………………..…….………………………………..….….……16-19

Discussion…………………………………………………………………..…….……11-18

The way forward……………………………………………………………….....……18

References………………………………………….…………………..…………..…19-26


Abstract

This paper aims to look into how Hong Kong progress in

gifted education towards the ultimate goal of inclusive

education through discussing the policies related as well as a

respective trial to design and implement differentiating

instruction in the regular classroom as a mean to cater for

diversity as well as to advance students’ intellectual

abilities. Through the expedition, the disputes surfaced allow

insights of development in gifted education, which, as part of

the initiative of inclusive education, in Hong Kong. It is

only through practice, school management and school leadership

team can make proper preparation to cater for the gifted in

the environ of that truly realized inclusion.


Differentiating instruction: Beyond gifted towards diversity

in the classroom

Overview


Global Development in response to diversity in the classroom

To address diversity in the classroom, it is essential to

look into the ideology of inclusion, which umbrellas the

progress of special education and gifted education. The idea

of inclusion, is fluid and varies around the world. Inclusive

education, of which some countries view as an approach to

response to the children with disabilities in terms of

education, especially the physical setting (Ainscow, 2008).

Internationally, Ainscow (2008) observed the idea of inclusive

education echoes the target to “eliminate social exclusion

that is a consequence of attitudes and responses to diversity

in race, social class, ethnicity, religion, gender and

ability” (Ainscow, 2008, p.16). Such notions are often adapted

in the discussions of education for students with learning

disorders or disabilities. In more recent years, inclusive

education has been extended to form a bigger picture that

taken in the concerns for another marginalized group, the

gifted. However, inclusive education is an ideology that

induces variation in understanding and practice. Thus, as

Lindsay proposed, one must consider the “conceptual and

practical issues and domain” (2003, p.3) in reviewing relevant


policies. Paralleling with the concept, gifted education, Dai

(2009) further pointed out that it is important to be aware of

the meanings of giftedness, which are closely related to the

history and culture of a given context.

Inclusive education is the brainchild of the western world,

thus carries the values of the origin; to embrace such

ideology in providing more equitable educational

opportunities, other countries, such as those from the east

must adapt and change their original education system. One of

the major challenges is that such countries must first deal

“with the current beliefs, values, and attitudes of those

involved” (Forlin, 2007). As gifted education services are

regard as part of the inclusive education, such logic applies

to the discussion hereinafter.

Current gifted education practices and responses to diversity

in Hong Kong

Although Hong Kong is an international city which is known

as the place where east meet west, progress in adopting the

inclusive ideology is stilled limited; where to stand in

gifted education is still vain. Till today, the Hong Kong SAR

government would only official committee to integration rather


than inclusive education, hence, in Hong Kong, both integrated

education and inclusion are indicators of inclusive education

(Forlin, 2007). Corresponding to gifted education, since the

publication of Education Commission Report No. 4 (ECR4)

(1990), a steady flow of investment is targeted to fuel its

progress; however, it receives far less attention from the

general public and even the education professionals until

recent years. Such problematic inconsistency international and

locally of how it had been perceived (Dowson et al, 2000),

provided an insight of why the ideology of inclusion, more

specially here, gifted education, and education reality in

Hong Kong were not connected.

The Hong Kong SAR government proclaims that education is to

ensure meeting the education needs of all students in order to

realize their potential and to maximize those potentials;

despite where their abilities lie. As integration is still

perceives as a less intense form of inclusion as selected

groups of children of disabilities could take part under the

Whole School Approach (WSA) of intergraded education scheme

(Forlin & Sin, 2010). With supports; the children were “to

follow the standard curriculum of the general schools” (Poon-


McBrayer, 2004, p.250). Inclusive education implies that the

diversity in a regular mainstream school intensify with

students not only diverse in terms of learning style but also

in terms of learning abilities, pace and even ethnic

background. Moreover, as the number of children with special

education needs (SEN) attending mainstream school increased,

one may assume children with SEN are integrating well in

mainstream schools. At September 2007, there were 9,340 and

3,620 (LECO, 2008) students with SEN attended mainstream

primary and secondary schools comparing with only 924 and 625

in 1997 (IS Department, 2007). However, the offices of the

Ombudsman Hong Kong revealed that were “cases of neglect,

refusal and discrimination against students with disability”

(Forlin & Sin, 2010, p.10).

Just like education services for children with

disabilities, the government stated that it is the

responsibilities of schools, not special school, to provide

education services that cater the special needs of gifted

students (ECR4, 1990). According to the ECR4, Hong Kong is

moving from a relatively selective system to one that is more

heterogeneous. Gifted education has a relatively short


history, system wise. After the publication of ECR4, in 1994,

the government initiated a three-year pilot project. In 1995,

the Fung Hon Chu Gifted Education Centre (FHCGEC) was set up

under the Curriculum Development Institute (CDI) to support

the project. A professional team of curriculum was established

under CDI in 1996. In 2000, the then Education Department

proposed a 3-tier framework. Furthermore, defined services for

the gifted as part of inclusion, under the notion that

“gifted” advocates a label that should be perceived as

individual learning differences (Education Department, 2000).

In 2006, the government commissioned the setting up of Gifted

Education Academy that responsible for supports including

special programs for the gifted students, training programs

for both teachers and parents. In 2012, the EDB recognized the

new qualifying structure for gifted education training and

school leadership team (EDB, 2012d). Despite of all those

initiations, the special needs of the gifted in Hong Kong were

barely addressed.

In a way, the focal point of integrated education refer to

the physical setting of having children with special

educational needs (SEN) and other school children being placed


together rather than putting focus on the quality of education

they received (Lo, 2007). Under such arrangement, those

children with SEN in a mainstream school maybe isolated and

segregated and end up conducting their studies in

“exceptional” teaching environment specially set up for them

(Lo, 2007, p.47). Whereas for the gifted, services and

programs mean additional pull-out programs outside regular

classroom as a more generic approach, inclusion, yet to be

achieved.

As an effort to promote a more just society, the Hong Kong

Government adapted a 3-tier support system for inclusion. It

is equitable to postulate that the philosophy of inclusion is

still open for progression in Hong Kong. Leaning towards the

social model of disability, Hong Kong is able to recognize the

society has to eliminate the barriers to students with special

needs in education. Although such figures suggested that in

terms of inclusion, Hong Kong is relatively behind comparing

with some other international city(LECO, 2008)., however, in

their research, Forlin and Rose pointed out that inclusive

education practice in Hong Kong is somewhat consistent with

the worldwide development (2010).


Literature review

The development of inclusive education addressing

catering for diversity in Hong Kong is a relatively well-

discussed topic. Numbers of publications had explored

different possible aspect of missing links that accepted the

progress of inclusive education in Hong Kong. Gifted education

received relatively less attention nonetheless, there are

studies included a multi-national comparative study by Zhang

and Hui (2002) Cheung and Hui (2011), concerns and sentiment

about social emotional development and affective of gifted

individuals (D. Chan, 2003a, 2003c); school partnerships by

Education Department (2000); regarding conceptions of

giftedness as well as the competencies and characteristic of

in-service teachers, beliefs and characteristics of teachers

(Cheung & Phillipson, 2008; Cheung & Hui, 2011; D. Chan,

2011;); consistency, connectedness and culture of and between

policies (Dowson et al, 2000; Phillipson et al, 2011); policy

adaptation and contextualization (Dowson et al, 2003; Person

et al, 2004) and studies of Chinese gifted students profiles

conducted by D. Chan (2004, 2006, 2008).


Differentiating instruction as response to diversity

Moving towards inclusion, a typical mainstream classroom

is gradually filled with students of the same age but

different in academic needs. Even provided with pull-out and

add-on programs, teachers, in general, need to be ready for

catering or providing heterogeneous instruction (Phillipson et

al, 2011). The above provided the most sounded rationale for

introducing pedagogies that address equity of learning

diversity to Hong Kong. Differentiated instruction is at the

very core of catering academic needs of individuals.

Internationally, there are numerous researches based on

classroom practices and pedagogy that cater needs of gifted

students. The number of well cited researches in specific

pedagogy, such as differentiation alone is vast. Researches

that support differentiation (Geisler, Hessler & Lovelace,

2009; Beecher & Sweeny, 2008; Tomlinson, Brimijoin & Narvaez,

2008; Hellman, 2007; Ferrier, 2007; Rasmussen, 2006;

Marulanda, Giralodo & Lopez, 2006; Sternberg, 1997) suggested

the feasibility of implementation and the effectiveness to

cater for gifted students in an academically diversify


classroom. However, the lack of scholarly studies of inclusive

pedagogies that cater for the gifted locally may indicate the

progress of inclusion is yet to be desired. Given that the

slow progress towards inclusion, there seems to be struggles

and contradictions in the changing process. Fullan &

Stiegelbauer suggested that various factors and processes at

different level affect reform implementation and continuation

(1991).

(E)ffective strategies for improvement require an

understanding of the process, a way of thinking that cannot

be captured in any list of steps or phrases to be followed

(Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991, p.71)

Differentiated instruction represents a proactive approach to

improving classroom learning for all students. (Tomlinson, 2001)

Teachers will have to fine-tune instruction for individual leaners.

There are different leaning options are available based on his

knowledge of varied learner needs, the chances are greater that the

learning experiences will provide an appropriate fit for many

learners. Effective differentiation will typically be proactively

planned by the teacher to be robust enough to address arrange of

leaner needs. For educators specialized to cater for SEN, the most

common differentiation strategies being used are called Response to


Intervention (RtI). RtI is a teaching and learning process using

research-based instructional practices that reflect learners’ needs,

monitor student learning progress, and modify instruction to ensure

continued growth (Heacox, 2009). The underlying assumption of RtI is

that teachers will intervene before leaners’ fails. To educators

that specialized in catering for the gifted, differentiated

instruction means strategies that actively involve students in the

learning process, therefore allow the possibilities to inspire more

rigorous and higher level thinking.

The operational definition of differentiation, similar to the

ideology of inclusion, is somewhat fluid yet gaining more and more

attention over the years. Differentiation allows students to

discover the interests and preferences in learning that enhance

their learning experiences. (Amabile, 1983, Collins, Amabile, 1999,

Bransford, et al, 2000) Students’ achievements and attitude towards

learning is heighten while teachers acted in a proactive way.

(Fisher, et al, 1980, Gardner, 1983) Whereas RtI’s three tiers

evidence-based interventions provides responses to interventions.

The tier systems are designed to provide all students access to

deeper levels of educational interventions and, as the result, there

are less referral for special education services. (Tilly, 2003,

O’Connor, 2003). Despite the aspiration for different educators,

differentiation presented a new angle to cater for diversity in a


sense that ALL students are being assessing according to “individual

goals and growth” (Tomlinson, 1995, P.80). For a long time since

industrial revolution, educators are allow to move away from

standardization and address students as unique individual with

different characters.

Differentiated instruction is not an entirely alien

concept here in Hong Kong but rather a practice that has been

adopted by local teachers subconsciously for many years;

arranging students in/ into different groups, providing

various kinds of learning activities or even as common as

asking a more abled student an open-ended question while

appointing a more challenged student to answer a yes-no

question. As Manning et al pointed out, differentiation responds

to students’ needs with equity rather than ability (2010).

Given the practicality of differentiated instruction, there is

currently no research on the topic. Scholarly researches

directly related to regular classroom practice that are

conducted in Hong Kong are rare, even when we look into

researches based on classroom practices and pedagogy that

cater needs of gifted students, which includes the total of

one study on discrepancy between believe and practice (Cheung,


Tse & Tsang, 2003); and one relevant study on classroom

practice.

Phillipson et al (2012) pointed out that the mandate of

gifted education policy is yet to be desired. Furthermore,

factors that work against implementation form a “system of

variables that interact to determine success or failure”

(Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991, p.71). Such notion, is

paralleled with Walker’s reform disconnections (2005) of which

he identified the challenges of education reforms in Hong Kong

in a big picture are due to the lack of “sufficient connection

to the reality of school life, to each other, to educative and

public perceptions and to the political and cultural context

of Hong Kong” (Walker, 2005, p.2).

When a reform is not progressing in desirable pace, one

could find it difficult to explain such situation in simple

term. In order to proceed, naming the possible missing links

could be a sensible first step. Likewise, the way to seek

understanding could be by asking the right questions. This

paper aims to discuss inclusive education as a progressive

reform and through the trial to deliver differentiated

instruction to cater for diversity come to identifying the 5


W’s; What When, Where, Who and Why to elaborate the limited

progress of implementation of inclusive education,

specifically of gifted education in Hong Kong.

Case analysis

Discussion

The following discussion focuses on gifted education

policies and inclusive education as a whole as well as

information gathered from a trial in delivering

differentiating instructions in a regular classroom in Hong

Kong, the underlying components of the trial are summarized as

in Table 1.

Table 1

Title of the

trial

program

(What)

Trial in delivering differentiating instructions

for English learning

Platform to

conduct the

trial

(Where)

3 P.6 inclusive classrooms in a Direct

Subsidized School (DSS)

Trial period 1st Term of the 2012- 2013 academic year for one


(When)

unit

Initiative

of the trial

(Why)

In respond to the diversified learning styles

and abilities of the grade

Procedures in the trial(How)

Initiated by the Special need coordinating

teacher

Supported by official from the EDB on the

advisory level

Supported by the school head and English subject

panel head

Designed by the three P.6 English teachers

(including the SENCO, English subject panel and

a teacher

Unit plan drafted and written by the SENCO

Teaching materials written by the SENCO

Delivered by the P.6 English teachers.

The selected school is a direct-subsidized, through- trainschool (primary section) with 168 students from P.1-P.6 onHong Kong Island. The school emphasis quality education aswell as all-rounded development of students. Given thebackground of the sponsoring body, the school especiallyaccent students’ understanding of Chinese culture and love ofChina with a global perspective. Table 2 shows the schoolinformation.

Table 2

Annual

school fee

HK$13,000 plus miscellaneous fees $ 1200 per year


School Ethos Double Class teacher system

Self-learning program

Moral and Civic Education lesson.

Students are nurtured to be self-disciplined

Curriculum connection between Primary and

Secondary Sections

Staff 18 teachers including the section head plus 1 TA

All of the teachers possess bachelor degree or

above with teacher training

Two of the teachers, plus the session head and

the SENCO had training to cater special education

needs

SENCO is also the Gifted Education Manager (GM)

Number of

classes

14 classes with an average of 22 students

Medium of

instruction

Mandarin Chinese and English

"3 English Days and 2 Putonghua Days" policy

Teaching

approach

Inquiry-based collaborative learning

Assessment 2 tests and 2 exams per academic year

Personal portfolio collecting records of history

of students’ development.


Formative assessment: language proficiency,

logical thinking, music, visual art, physical

performance

Informal assessment: social skills

School day

structure

Morning: exercise, class teacher time, reading,

language and culture, Mathematics, Science and

Liberal Studies

After lunch: quiet reading time, Physical

Education, Music, Art, Computer Literacy and

Extra-curricular Activities

Catering for

Student

Diversity

Whole School Approach (WSA)

Provide homework tutorials, resource allocation,

accommodations on learning, curriculum tailoring

and adaptation.

The school policy does guide clearly to student-

centre educational philosophy.

While governments around the world struggled to achieve

EFA, the Hong Kong Government is no different. At the macro

level, allocation of resources exposed that the government

lack planning to meet the local education reality and demands

to make inclusion happen. When the government attempted to

meet EFA and sync with international vision of inclusive

education as well as to respond to different voices in the


society, the government appeared not taking the exiting local

school setting into account.

In a relatively recent research about Hong Kong teachers’

stress conducted in 2006, there were in total 2,293 local

primary and secondary teachers participated in the survey.

Both primary and Secondary teachers found the workload and

time pressure most stressful comparing to 2001(HKTSRT, 2006).

Moreover, 63.2% of primary teachers found implementation of

integrated education extremely stressful, whereas 49.6 of

secondary identified the implementation of integrated

education extremely stressful. From the trial, the 3 P.6

English teachers took an extra 12 hours (comparing to regular

lesson planning sessions) for meeting between themselves and

with the official from EDB; the SENCO was responsible to draft

and write the unit plan, writing and finding suitable

materials on top of the regular duty. The manpower involved in

the trial was far beyond expectation and was perceived as

overwhelming to the teachers; meeting sessions for a regular

unit comparing to the trial unit (Three 45-mintue sessions:

Four 3-hour sessions plus three 45-minute sessions); drafting

and writing unit plan and materials for a regular unit

comparing to the trial unit (≈ 10 hours: ≈180 hours).

Whole School Approach (WSA) to integration was introduced

in 2001, given the difficult reality faced by the teachers and

adding that the origin of inclusive education ideology from

the west; Hong Kong teachers shared limited sentiment due to

their background, history and culture that extended to the

understanding of schooling, learning and teaching approach.


Within the government structure, there are different

departments responsible for the education policy and resource

allocation, including the LC, Education Bureau (EDB), Hong

Kong Examination Authority (HKEA) (HKSAR, 2011). Only in

recent years, the government commissioned an individual

organization for gifted education (Phillipson et al, 2012).

Also, the government structure limited the interdepartmental

cooperation and intra-departmental cooperation as different

department has different priority under no singular direction

to promote inclusion. During the trial, the EDB had provided

support through the official from the CDI on the advisory

level. However, as the official was appointed to promote

Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOT), her contributions in the

two key elements (Manning et al, 2010), constructing the

structure of the unit and selection of materials are limited.

In the wider context, such as on the administrative level, the

government was torn between the ’East and West’ influence;

collective versus individualistic, effort versus ability, and

holistic versus idealistic tendency (Luk, 2005).

Inclusive education stressed the importance of EFA, thus

regarded education equally important to ALL children despite

their social-economic status. At the meso-micro level, the

government wanted schools to welcome diversity, and encourage

schools to adopt WSA by providing additional resources.

Despite the government suggest gifted education services

should be provided at the whole school level, there is limited

finical support for schools to implement such proposition.

Very often, school heads and teachers found receiving funding


stressful as more funding received meant more paper work. The

EDB policy of One Curriculum for ALL put government and aided

schools in difficult situation in catering for diversity due

to limited freedom in altering curriculum. For DDS schools,

which enjoy more freedom in curriculum alteration, were

restrained by government resource allocation and self-

monitoring; they could not have access to government resource

for students with special needs under the 3-tier support (EDB,

2012b; 2012d) scheme. Such lack of monetary, professional

supports and teachers’ understandings, special arrangements,

such as withdrawals, pull-out or add-on were common,

regardless of what kind of school. It is true that DSS schools

usually employed small class teaching with only around or less

than 22 students in a class and a good number of schools in

Hong Kong, where teachers have to manage a class with maximum

37 students (primary), 40 (secondary) and to have their

students perform reasonably well in exams, “special

arrangement” for students with SEN were often employed

(Pearson et al, 2003).

To the schools, such as for principals, they had to ensure

quality education for students as required by the School

Management Indicators (SMI), allocate sufficient supports,

manage the staff and culture of the school (Law & Walker,

2005). One of the major challenges was, as Forlin and Rose

(2010) observed in delivery of special need education

services, “teachers lack professional knowledge or

understanding to meet students’ needs” (p.13). Due to limited

resources, heavy workload and lack teacher training, the


reality in schools is far from the reform demands. More

recently, institutions that provide teacher training are

required to prepare teachers with ability to cater for diverse

learners (Earle et al, 2006; Philipson et al, 2009). Many teachers

are concerns how they can work in an inclusive classroom.

As in the trial, one of the teachers that was responsible

to deliver the unit ended up cutting and changing the plan

because she lack the confident in delivering it. Indeed,

training teachers to face the challenging and task of catering

for diversity is important, responding teachers’ concerns and

needs in practice is equally important. Teachers are important

vehicle of reform policy, when they lack initiation and

understanding between the reform demands and reality, caused

reform disconnected (Dowson et al., 2000). As for students in

the inclusive classrooms, I postulate that the government had

over looked the resources needed to promote understanding of

their peers with different education needs; sufficient teacher

training to make effective of peers learning, team work and

project based learning as well as to equip ALL students to

cope with formal curriculum and social emotional development.

All in all, in reality, the government failed to show

determination in enforcing and improving learning environment,

teachers’ capacity and ability to cater for students’ academic

diversity. Segregation within the mainstream schools produced

negative effects towards students’ confidences and made

students the major victims of instrumental disconnection.


There are numbers of reform policies work against inclusive

education. For instance, the EDB introduced the Basic

Competence Assessment (BCA) in both primary and secondary

school in 2004 in order to ensure the ability of students. The

Territory System Assessment (TSA) and Pre-secondary 1 (PS1)

reflect average students’ competence, which EDB claimed would

not affect students’ allocation to secondary school (EDB,

2010a). However, in 2004, EDB decided that the PS1 result

would be partially considered as an indicator that affects

next year primary six student’s secondary school allocation.

When the policy put into effect, students with SEN became

extremely unpopular and drilling for the exams has taken a

huge chunk of the lesson time. Inclusive education should

allow individuals to learn in their preferred ways and pace by

embracing diversity. However, in order to make sure students

get into Band 1 schools, which is the key to attract primary 1

students, students in mainstream schools are very often

labeled and withdraw from the big class.

Also, school resources, such as manpower were assigned to

boost students’ performance in PS1 or TSA. Private and DSS

schools largely benefit from the through-train arrangement as

their students often go directly to the secondary section of

the school. The TSA and PS1 examination had relatively less

impact on them. Nevertheless, as Chiu and Walker (2007)

suggested, DSS school fees (as well as private schools) “are

determined largely by the school’s reputation, which is often

built on outstanding academic results” (p. 726), the influence

existed. After all, Hong Kong is a society generally highly


values the elitist system. (Chow & Sharna, 2008). As the trial

was conducted in a DSS, the teachers enjoyed a relatively

flexible time management and arrangement of lessons. Teachers

were able to rearrange the sequence of the units in order to

deliver the trial unit with sufficient time.

In the early 70s, the government first attempted to

integrate children with disabilities into mainstream. At the

same time, there was a great expansion of specialized and

segregated services; children with special needs were placed

under categories in segregated facilities. Such arrangement

was dominance until 2001 (Earle et al , 2006). Today, the

government is once again torn between the inconsistency of

where ’East and West’ influence; collective versus

individualistic, effort versus ability, and holistic versus

idealistic tendency (Luk, 2005). For instance, “For ALL” is

the core value of inclusion, but as all the government and

aided schools are to take up integrated education practice,

such practice is only recommended to private and DSS schools,

the result led to what Walker referred as, “the fact that some

policies are interpreted differently by various educational

actors further confuses implementation” (2005, p.14). Walker’s

(2005) believed reform disconnections influence the priority

of having what to be dealt with. Thus, under such logic, even

schools appreciated the importance of realizing inclusive

education, especially when allocating their resources, which

could be limited. One may doubt whether there is sufficient

resources allocated to support students with SEN and if

everyone is getting supports based on equity. In the practical


sense, it is logical that schools consider the majority of

students first and forsake the needs of the minority. This

further reflected the inconsistency at the school level and

echoed in the larger context, where disconnection of

consistency as the result of government lack national policy

in management approach in all schools that claimed they

provided inclusive education (Forlin & Rose, 2010).

In practicing differentiation, schools and individuals

might also found themselves torn between inconsistency such as

the ’East and West’ influence; collective versus

individualistic, effort versus ability, and holistic versus

idealistic tendency (Luk, 2005). For example, the alteration

of curriculum and assessment was so limited in public schools

and children with SEN in mainstream schools were expected to

follow standardized assessments with peers of their same grade

(Pearson et al, 2003), teachers are responsible to determine how

to cater for individual differences and providently ensure

most students perform reasonably well. In the trial, even

though the teachers were given the autonomy to adapt materials

from US and Australia, students’ final out-put was not

considered as part of the formal assessment. All students were

to complete the basic set exercises to ensure the “fairness”

in the formal assessment.

Even within a single school, different teachers might have

different ideas interpreting the meaning of cater for

diversity and different priority. Under such presupposition,

school leadership team member that appreciate inclusion or

diversity, such as a well-informed special education needs


coordinator (SENCO) oversee teachers’ practices might help

lead to reconnect the intellectual disconnection and

inconsistency within the school just as the teachers took part

in the trial, who experimented on the possibility to enhance

students’ learning experience .

On the professional side, schools and teachers felt that

they were not well consulted. They believed that the

government forcefully implemented integrated education without

consulting whether they were ready. Schools were forced to be

prepared and catch up with the whole reform picture in Hong

Kong. On the public side, practices in catering for diversity

have not standard (Phillipson et al, 2010). Although in recent

time, the press is more concern of the issue. As more and more

people learnt more about SEN and giftedness, however, the

public understanding and information concerning inclusive

education is far from completed.

On the public side, the media present children with SEN

or giftedness with certain orthodox images. Lack of

sensibility to promote welcoming climate of inclusion also

disconnected the meaning of WSA. General support and

understanding within the classrooms, schools and communities

were vital. Very often, students and parents were concerned of

the side effects of inclusion, such as negative influence in

the classroom (Chow & Sharma, 2008). Initiative to provide

contact and dialogues construct a health cycle to promoted

inclusion.

The way forward


Nowadays, individuals were aware of the importance to cater

for diversity so as the concept of equity over equality. Yet,

the reality is that academic performance is still the most

valued element in Hong Kong’s education system, children with

talents in areas other than academic performances are often

overlooked. The academic competitions among students as well

as schools linger (Pearson et al, 2003). As professional,

teachers should bear in mind that inclusive education, or more

specifically here, gifted education policy, is not a package

that can be imposed to any school or classroom regardless the

context.

School leadership acknowledges the disconnections or

struggles, by employing instructional leadership style.

Schools can provide levers of change by leadership style,

response, reification, participation to reduce disconnections

(Ainscow, 2005). Ainscow also suggested schools to build

common language between staff, share experiences and seek

common agenda with stakeholders to further promote success in

inclusion (2005).

Differentiated instruction represents a proactive approach to

improving classroom learning for all students (Tomlinson, 2001). It

allows teachers will to fine-tune instruction for individual

leaners. Instructions are no longer restrained, different leaning

options are available based on his knowledge of varied learner

needs, the chances are greater that the learning experiences will

provide an appropriate fit for many learners. Differentiation in

effective implementation will be proactively planned by the teacher

to be robust enough to address diversity in the classroom.


It is the quality of education that worth persuading. In

order to move forward, different stakeholder must contribute.

School leaders should empower teachers by helping them to

become more capable and positive towards inclusion; sufficient

training to support inclusion is essential (Forlin& Sin, 2010,

provides suitable and timely supports for stakeholders. In the

bigger picture, it is important that the government provide

legislation that pursues equity in learning.

References

Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. (2008). Closing the achievement

gap with curriculum enrichment and differentiation:

One school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3), 502-

530.

Chan, K. W., & Leung, M. T. (2001). Inclusive education and

life-long learning in Hong Kong: Implications for

educational development. In M. Brennan (Ed.), Education futures

and new citizenships: Proceedings of the 10th national biennial conference of

the Australian curriculum studies association (pp. 545-558). Deakin

West ACT: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.

Chan, S. (2011). Taking education seriously as reform.

Cultural Studies, 25(1), 25.


Doi: 10.1080/09502386.2011.534579 Chan, D. W. (2011).

Characteristics and Competencies of Teachers of Gifted

Learners: The Hong Kong Student Perspective. Roeper Review,

33(3), 160-169. Doi:10.1080/02783193.2011.580499

Cheung, H., & Hui, S. (2011). Competencies and Characteristics

for Teaching Gifted Students: A Comparative Study of

Beijing and Hong Kong Teachers. Gifted Child Quarterly,

55(2), 139-148. Doi:10.1177/0016986210397832

Cheng, Y. C. (2003). School leadership and three waves of

education reforms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 417-439.

Doi:10.1080/0305764032000122041

Cheng, Y. C., Mok, M. M. C. (2008). What effective classroom?

Towards a paradigm shift. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,

19(4),365-385.

Cheng, Y. C., & Walker, A. (2008). When reform hits reality:

The bottleneck effect in Hong Kong primary schools. School

Leadership & Management, 28(5), 505-521.

Doi:10.1080/13632430802499994

Chiu, M. M., & Walker, A. (2007). Leadership for social

justice in Hong Kong schools: Addressing mechanism of


inequality. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(6), 724-739.

Doi:10.1108/09578230710829900

Chow, E.W.S., Sharma, U. (2008). The attitudes of Hong Kong

Primary School Principals toward integrated education. Asia

Pacific Education Review, 9(3), 380-391.

Conference On Education for All in Europe and North America

Warsaw, Poland, 6-8 February 2000. (2008). Regional

Framework for Action Europe and North America. Retrieved

December 4, 2010 from

http://www.unesco.org/education/wef/en-leadup/regmeet_frame

_warsaw.shtm

Dowson, C., Bodycott, P., Walker, A., & Coniam, D. (2000).

Education reform in Hong Kong: Consistency, connectedness

and culture. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(24)

Dowson, C., Bodycott, P., Walker, A., & Coniam, D. (2003).

Continuing education reform in hong kong: Issues of

contextualization. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(5)

Earle, C., Forlin C., Sharma, U., Loreman, T. (2006). Pre-

service teachers’ attitudes, concerns and sentiments about

inclusive education: An international comparison of the

http://www.unesco.org/education/wef/en-leadup/regmeet_frame_warsaw.shtm

http://www.unesco.org/education/wef/en-leadup/regmeet_frame_warsaw.shtm


novice pre-service teachers. International Journal of Special

Education, 20(2), 80-93.

Evers, C. W., & Katyal, K. (2008). Educational leadership in

Hong Kong schools, 1950-2000: critical reflections on

changing themes, Journal of Educational Administration and History, 40:

3, 251 –264.

Education Bureau (EDB). (2012a). Getting Assessment Right -

The Basic Competency Assessment. Retrieved October 27, 2010

from The Hong Kong SAR Government, Education Bureau Web

site: http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=2447&langno=1

Education Bureau (EDB). (2012b). Special Education

Introduction. Retrieved December 3, 2012 from The Hong Kong

SAR Government, Education Bureau Web site:

http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeID=2378

Education Bureau (EDB). (2012c). Special Education. Retrieved

October 27, 2012 from The Hong Kong SAR Government,

Education Bureau Web site:

http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=7389&langno=1

Education Bureau (EDB). (2012d) Giftedl Education

Introduction. Retrieved December 3, 2012 from The Hong Kong


SAR Government, Education Bureau Web site:

http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeID=2378

Ferrier, Ann M. (2007). The Effects of Differentiated

Instruction on Academic Achievement in a Second-

Grade Science Classroom. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation. Walden University.

Forlin, C. (2007). A collaborative, collegial and more

cohesive approach to supporting educational reform for

inclusion in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(2), 276-

287.

Forlin, C. (2010). Developing and implementing quality

inclusive education in Hong Kong: Implications for teacher

education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(s1), 177-

184.

Forlin, C. L. (2007). Inclusive educational practices: A way

forward for Hong Kong. Chinese Education and Society, 40(4), 63-75.

Forlin, C., & Rose, R. (2010). Authentic school partnerships

for enabling inclusive education in Hong Kong. Journal of

Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(1), 13-22.


Forlin, C., & Sin, K. F. (2010). Developing support for

inclusion: A professional learning approach for teachers in

Hong Kong. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 6(1), 7-26.

Fullan, M., Stiegelbauer, S. M., & Fullan, M. (1991). The new

meaning of educational change. Toronto: Ontario Institute for

Studies in Education.

Geisler, J., Hessler, R., Gardner, R., & Lovelace, T. (2009).

Differentiated writing interventions for high-achieving

urban African American elementary students. Journal of

Advanced Academics, 20, 214-247.

Glaser, B. (1992). Emergence versus forcing: Basic of grounded theory

analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology.

Hellman, D. W. (2007). Implementing differentiated instruction

in urban, Title I schools: Effects of facilitated support

groups and program fidelity on student achievement.

Unpublished dissertation: University of South Florida.

Heung, V. (2006). Can the introduction of an inclusion index

move a system forward? International Journal of Inclusive Education,

10(4), 309-322. Doi:10.1080/13603110500430674

Hodkinson, A. (2007). Inclusive education and the cultural

representation of disability and disabled people: Recipe


for disaster or catalyst for change? An examination of non-

disabled primary school children's attitudes to children

with disabilities. Research in Education, 77(77), 56-76.

Hoi Yan, C., & Phillipson, S. N. (2008). Teachers of Gifted

Students in Hong Kong: Competencies and Characteristics.

Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 17(2), 143-156.

Hong Kong SAR Government (HK SAR). (2012). Government

structure. Retrieved Sept 26, 2012 from The Hong Kong SAR

Government Web site:

http://www.gov.hk/en/about/govdirectory/govstructure.htm

Information Service (IS) Department, Hong Kong SAR Government.

(2007). LCQ19, Assisting students with special educational

needs. Press Release. December 12, 2007.

Lam, B. H., & Yeung, A. S. W. (2005). Inclusion or exclusion?

A study of Hong Kong students' affective and social

outcomes in a mainstream classroom. Educational Research for Policy

and Practice, 4(2-3), 145-167. Doi:10.1007/s10671-005-3509-4

Lam, B. H., Phillipson, S. (2009). What are the affective and

social outcomes for low-achieving students within an

inclusive school in Hong Kong? Educational Research for Policy and

Practice, 8, 135-150. Doi:10.1007/s10671-009-9067-4


Law, L. Y. S., & Walker, A. (2005). Different values,

different ways-principal problem solving and education

reform. International Studies in Educational Administration, 33(1), 62-78.

Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative

Region (LECO). (2006a) Reply to discussion concerning

integrated education in primary and secondary school.

Retrieved October 25, 2012 from The Hong Kong SAR, The

Legislative Council Web site: http://

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr04-05/chinese/hc/sub_com/hs52/p

apers/hs520122cb2-931-2-c.pdf


Region (LECO). (2006b) Updated information on Special

Education in Selected Places. Retrieved October 25, 2012

from The Hong Kong SAR, The Legislative Council Web site:

http://library.legco.gov.hk:1080/search/Xspecial+educatio

n&SORT=D&searchscope=10/

Xspecial+education&SORT=D&searchscope=10&SUBKEY=special

%20education/1,39,39,B/

l962&FF=Xspecial+education&SORT=D&5,5,0,0


Region (LECO). (2008) Subcommittee to study issues relating


to provision of boarding places, senior secondary education

and employment opportunities for children with special

educational needs (2008). Report.

Li, A. M., Tse, A. C., & Lian, J. M. (2009). The "same"

project: Achieving "one curriculum for all" in Hong Kong.

International Journal of Whole Schooling, 5(2), 23-42.

Lian, M. J., Tse, A. C. & Li, A. (2007). Special Education in

Hong Kong: Background, contemporary trends and issues in

programs for learners with disabilities. The Journal of the

International Association of Special Education, 8 (1), 5-19.

Lo, L. N. K. (2007). The sustainable development of inclusive

education. Chinese Education and Society, 40(4), 44-62.

Luk Fong, P. Y. Y. (2005). Managing change in an integrated

school--A Hong Kong hybrid experience. International Journal of

Inclusive Education, 9(1), 89-103.

Doi:10.1080/1360311042000299766

Marulanda, M., Giraldo, P., & Lopez, L. (2006). Differentiated

instruction for bilingual learners. Presentation at Annual

Conference of the Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development, San Francisco.


Mclaughlin, M. J. & Rouse, M. (2000). Special education and

school reform in the United States and Britain. London and

New York: Routledge.

Pearson, V., Lo, E., Chui, E., & Wong, D. (2003). A heart to

learn and care? Teachers' responses toward special needs

children in mainstream schools in Hong Kong. Disability & Society,

18(4), 489-508. Doi:10.1080/0968759032000081020

Poon-McBrayer, K. F. (2004). To integrate or not to integrate:

Systemic dilemmas in Hong Kong. Journal of Special Education, 37(4),

249-256.

Potts, P. (1998). 'A luxury for the first world': A western

perception of Hong Kong Chinese attitudes towards inclusive

education. Disability & Society, 13(1), 113-124.

Doi:10.1080/09687599826948

Rasmussen, F. (2006). Differentiated instruction as a means

for improving achievement as measured by the American

College Testing (ACT). A dissertation submitted to the

Loyola University of Chicago School of Education.

Sandra Manning , Barbara “Pokey” Stanford & Stacy Reeves

(2010). Valuing the advanced learner: Differentiating up.


The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas,

83(4), 145-149. Doi: 10.1080/00098651003774851.

Siu, A., & Chi-Shing, T. (2012). Effect of Ability Grouping on

Coping Strategies and Self-esteem of Hong Kong Primary

School Students. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(3),

552-563.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). “What does it mean to be smart?”

Educational Leadership 55(7), 20-24.

Sweeting, A. (2004). Education in Hong Kong, 1941 to 2001.

Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Tomlinson, C., Brimijoin, K., & Narvaez, L (2008). The

differentiated school: Making revolutionary changes in

teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization (UENSCO). (2000). The EFA 2000 Assessment

Country Reports: United States of America. Retrieved

December 3, 2010 from United Nations, Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization, Web site:

http://www.unesco.org/education/wef/countryreports/usa/rapp

ort_2.html


Walker, A. (2005). Divided they stand, united they fall:

Reform disconnection in Hong Kong.

Walker, A. (2004). Constitution and culture: Exploring the

deep leadership structures of Hong Kong schools. Discourse,

25(1), 75-94. Doi:10.1080/0159630042000178491

Westwood, P., Wong, G. & Yuen, M. T. (2005). Meeting the needs

of students with specific learning difficulties in the

mainstream education system: Data from primary school

teachers in Hong Kong. International Journal of Special Education,

20(1), 67-76.

Wong, D., Pearson, V., Ip, F., & Lo, E. (1999). A slippery

road to equality: Hong Kong's experience of unplanned

integrated education. Disability & Society, 14(6), 771-789.

Doi:10.1080/09687599925885

Wong, R. M. H. (2010). Educational challenge: The meaning of

leadership in Hong Kong schools. International Education Studies,

3(2), 148-157.

香香香香香香香香香香香香香 (HKTSRT). (2006). 香香香香香香香香香香香香香香香「」 . 香香香香香香香香香香

2006. 1-9.

Philipson, S. N., Shi, J. & Zhang, G. (2009). Shavinina, L. V.

(ed.). International handbook


on giftedness. Part One [electronic resource] /

edited by Larisa V. Shavinina. Dordrecht :

Springer Netherlands, 2009. (pp. 1427-1461).

Running head: Differentiating instruction Differentiating instruction: Beyond gifted towards...

Documents

Transcript of Running head: Differentiating instruction Differentiating instruction: Beyond gifted towards...