• Esther LevensonEmail author
  • Hagar Gal


This paper considers studying changes in teachers’ perspectives regarding the teaching of mathematically talented students learning in heterogeneous classes. We investigate these changes through a case study of Rona, a teacher who participated in the professional development program “From One End to the Other” held in The David Yellin College of Education, Israel. The analysis focuses on 3 categories of change: awareness, practice, and self-efficacy. The results concerning Rona, 1 of the participants, demonstrate a rise in awareness of talented students, a change in the ways of meeting the needs of these students, and a rise in self-efficacy regarding the teaching of talented students. Moreover, it was found that changes in 1 category are interwoven with changes in the other categories.


awareness change heterogeneous class mathematically talented students practice professional development self-efficacy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aitken, J. & Mildon, D. (1991). The dynamics of personal knowledge and teacher education. Curriculum Inquiry, 211, 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Applebaum, M., Freiman, V., & Leiken, R. (2008). Views on teaching mathematically promising students. In V. Freiman & A. Rejali (Eds.), Proceedings of Topic Study Group 6 of the 11th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 69–79). Monterrey, Mexico.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, D., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
  6. Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E. & Perlwitz, M. (1992). A follow-up assessment of a second-grade problem-centered mathematics project. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 483–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diezmann, C. M. & Watters, J. J. (2000). Catering for mathematically gifted elementary students: Learning from challenging tasks. Gifted Child Today, 23(4), 14–19.Google Scholar
  8. Diezmann, C. & Watters, J. (2001). The collaboration of mathematically gifted students on challenging tasks. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25(1), 7–31.Google Scholar
  9. Diezmann, C. & Watters, J. (2002). Summing up the education of mathematically gifted students. In B. Barton, K. C. Irwin, M. Pfannkunch & M. J. Thomas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 219–226). Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  10. Dimitriadis, C. (2010). Developing mathematical giftedness within primary schools: A study of strategies for educating children who are gifted in mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brunel University, Uxbridge, London, UK.Google Scholar
  11. Even, R. (1999). The development of teacher leaders and inservice teacher educators. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Even, R. & Karp, A. (2008). Mathematical creativity and giftedness in teacher professional development. In R. Leiken (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Creativity in Mathematics and the Education of Gifted Students (pp. 441–443). Haifa, Israel.Google Scholar
  13. Even, R., Karsenty, R. & Friedlander, A. (2009). Creativity and giftedness in teacher professional development. In R. Leikin, A. Berman & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 309–324). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M, L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V., Empson, S. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children's thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 403–434.Google Scholar
  15. Gal, H. (2005). Identifying problematic learning situations in geometry instruction, and handling them within the framework of teacher training, Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  16. Gal, H. (2011). From another perspective—training teachers to cope with problematic learning situations in geometry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78(2), 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gal, H. & Levenson, E. (2008). From one end to the other: Instruction of mathematically talented students in mixed-ability classes. In R. Leiken (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Creativity in Mathematics and the Education of Gifted Students (pp. 323–328). Haifa, Israel.Google Scholar
  18. Ghaith, G. & Yaghi, M. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 451–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gross, M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hackenberg, A. (2010). Mathematical caring relations: A challenging case. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(3), 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hill, H., Ball, D., & Schilling, S. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.Google Scholar
  22. Holton, D., Cheung, K.-C., Kesianye, S., de Losada, M. F., Leikin, R., Makrides, G., Meissner, H., et al. (2009). Teacher development and mathematical challenge. In E. Barbeau & P. Taylor (Eds.), Challenging mathematics in and beyond the classroom. The 16th ICMI Study (pp. 205–242). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Koshy, V., Ernest, P. & Casey, R. (2009). Mathematically gifted and talented learners: Theory and practice. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(2), 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Leikin, R. (2004). Towards high quality geometrical tasks: Reformulation of a proof problem. In M. J. Hoines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 3 (pp. 209–216). Bergen, Norway.Google Scholar
  26. Leikin, R. (2011). Teaching the mathematically gifted: Featuring a teacher. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 11(1), 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leikin, R. & Stanger, O. (2011). Teachers’ images of gifted students and the roles assigned to them in heterogeneous mathematics classes. In B. Sriraman & K. H. Lee (Eds.), The elements of creativity and giftedness in mathematics (pp. 103–118). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lénárt, I. (2008). Gifted and non-gifted students and teachers. In E. Velikova & A. Andžāns (Eds.), Proceedings of the Discussion Group 9 of the 11th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 69–79). Monterrey, Mexico.Google Scholar
  29. Levenson, E., Tirosh, D. & Tsamir, P. (2009). Students’ perceived sociomathematical norms: The missing paradigm. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(2–3), 83–95.Google Scholar
  30. Mason, J. (1998). Enabling teachers to be real teachers: Necessary levels of awareness and structure of attention. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1, 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Middleton, J. A. (1995). A study of intrinsic motivation in the mathematics classroom: A personal constructs approach. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 254–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Milgram, R. M. (1989). Teaching gifted and talented learners in regular classrooms. Springfield, IL: Thomas.Google Scholar
  33. Mingus, T. & Grassl, R. (1999). What constitutes a nurturing environment for the growth of mathematically gifted students? School Science and Mathematics, 99(6), 286–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reed, C. (2004). Mathematically gifted in the heterogeneously group mathematics classroom: What is a teacher to do? Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(3), 89–95.Google Scholar
  35. Reis, S. M. & Renzulli, J. (2004). Current research on the social and emotional development of gifted and talented students: Good news and future possibilities. Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sarikaya, H., Cakiroglu, J. & Tekkaya, C. (2005). Self-efficacy, attitude and science knowledge. Academic Exchange Quarterly, Winter, 2005.Google Scholar
  37. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  38. Sowder, J. (2007). The mathematical education and development of teachers. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 157–223). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Shayshon & Tesler (2008). Does it make a difference? Studying the impact of teachers’ program aimed at meeting mathematically talented students’ needs. In R. Leikin (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference Creativity in Mathematics and the Education of Gifted Students (pp. 217–221). Haifa, Israel.Google Scholar
  40. Sriraman, B. (2003). Mathematical giftedness, problem solving, and the ability to formulate generalizations. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 151–165.Google Scholar
  41. Tirosh, D. & Graeber, O. A. (2003). Challenging and changing mathematics teaching classroom practices. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 643–687). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.The David Yellin Academic College of Education, JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations