Gifted and Talented Strengths: Strength 1): Mathematical gifts can be transformed into talents (Australian Curriculum Assessment

& Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2014; Gagne, 2003). Implications for teaching and learning: Through personalised learning, active pedagogy, curriculum enrichment, compacting and extension, a student's giftedness can be fostered and encouraged to support in-depth conceptual mathematical learning (ACARA, 2014, Gagne, 2003; Koshy, 2012). In Gagne's (2003) Differentiated Model of Gifted and Talented, teachers can act as environmental catalysts and support intrapersonal catalyst descriptors such as self management and motivation (Gross, 2005a; New South Wales Department of Education & Training [NSW DET], 2009). Strength 2): Gifted and talented students [GTS] in mathematics possess strong abilities for conceptual learning (Koshy, 2012). Implications for teaching and learning: Behaviours may include (Koshy, 2012; Sheffield, 1994): The ability to generalise and visualise patterns and relationships Thinking flexibly, fluently and ease of transfer of learning Creative, analytic, reasoning and deductive problem solving skills Strategies for strength 1) & 2): Teachers must foster mathematical abilities by enriching and extending their mathematical experiences through using models of differentiation (Koshy, 2012; NSW DET, 2009; Queensland Department of Education, Training and Employment [QLD DETE], 2012). (NSW DET, 2009). This requires strong-content pedagogical knowledge and explicitly understanding the connections between mathematical concepts within the development continuum for learning progression (Macleod, 2005) Examples include: 1. Blooms (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives to support higher order thinking and conceptual understanding using analysis, synthesis and evaluation forms of mathematical questioning within an inquiry approach (Koshy, 2012; Smutny & von Fremd, 2011). When explicit, scaffolded and planned, questions of this cognitive level forms part of enriching mathematic classrooms (Koshy, 2012). 2. Maker's (1982) model on differentiation of content, process, product and learning environment. Application would include providing a multi-level inquiry problem solving culture (Kim, 2006; Koshy, 2001), with more abstract content and avenues for acquiring content (using ICT) and using flexible processes supportive of different paced learners (NSW DET, 2009; QLD DETE, 2012). 3. William's (1993) Cognitive and Affective interaction model to support a differentiated

inquiry-based mathematical classroom situated in divergent and creative thinking (Macleod, 2005; NSW DET, 2009). 4. Sullivan, Mousley & Zevenbergen's 'Planning model' (2006) including extending prompts. Furthermore, teachers should develop metacognition skills through mathematical thinking diaries (Koshy, 2012), use open tasked investigations (NSW DET, 2007; Van Tassel-Baska, 2005) and engage in concept mapping and curriculum compacting by identifying outcomes, pre-testing outcomes and eliminating repetition (Kim, 2006; Macleod, 2005; NSW, DET, 2009). Gifted and Talented Difficulties: Difficulty 1): GTS vary in domains of giftedness, characteristics, level of abilities and achievement. They arise from diverse backgrounds, within all cultures, socio-economic levels and geographic locations (ACARA, 2014; Gross, 2005a). Students may also camouflage their gifts for peer acceptance (Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee, 2001). Implications for teaching and learning: The heterogeneous nature of GTS has direct implications for identification (ACARA, 2014; Macleod, 2005; Merrick & Targett, 2005; Sheffield, 1994). Many GTS are non-identified or misidentified (Diezmann, Lowrie, Bicknell, Faragher & Putt, 2004), leading to disengagement when their needs are not met (Munro, 2006; Smutny & Fremd, 2004) and prohibiting teachers to be true catalysts of transformation (Gagne, 2003). There are also limitations to all forms of testing for identification (Merrick & Targett, 2005) and for specific gifts, such as spatial abilities (Diezmann & Watters, 2000). Strategies: Teachers must: Use multiple/diverse measures such as quantitative (standard and off level tests) and qualitative (parent and teacher nominations and observations) and aware of their limitations (Macleod, 2005; NSW DET, 2007; Sheffield, 1994). Be knowledgeable in valid and reliable testing for mathematical gifts instead of competency skills and understandings (Niederer, Irwin, Irwin & Reilly, 2003). Ensure all students experience equitable provisions for identification, for example mathematical discourse considerations for English as second language students (QLD, DETE, 2012).

Difficulty 2): The diverse and specific affective implications for GTS (Gross, 2005b). Implications for teaching and learning: Affective considerations are important (Gross, 2005b). Research indicates teacher misconceptions and attitudes directly influence self concept and mathematical potential (Diezmann & Watters, 2002) and that these 'attitudes' are indicative of their professional development (Plunket, 2000; Smutney & Fremd, 2011). GTS also require affective support when scaffolding to deal with challenging mathematical tasks (Koshy, 2012) and Gagne (2003) argues that motivation is an intrapersonal catalyst for gift transformation. Specific affective considerations include the label 'gifted' and its correlating fear of failure (Siemon et al., 2011), perfectionism, isolation and over excitabilities (Macleod, 2005; NSW DET, 2009; Smutney & Fremd, 2011;VanTassel-Baska, 2003). Strategies: Teachers must form collaborative partnerships with the student, family and professional mentor to develop affective based strategies specific for each student, rather than adopting a generic approach which can produced both positive and negative affective factors for different students (Macleod, 2005). This may include professional development such as the federal Gifted Education Professional Development Package (Gross et al., 2005), so teachers understand and can identify specific affective considerations. Teachers should use interviews formal/informal, mood/mathematical journals and observations during mathematical experiences in varying complexities, and groupings to inform affective teaching strategies (Macleod, 2005; Siemon et al., 2011; Silverman, 1994). References: Australian Curriculum, Assessment & Reporting Authority. (2014). Gifted and talented students. Received from: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/StudentDiversity/Gifted-andtalented-students Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: Longmans, Green & Co. Chaffey, G. (2005). Module Four. Underachievement in Gifted Students. Early Childhood. Received from: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/26080/200508070000/www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/docu ments/Gifted_talented_education_module4_Early_Childhood_pdf.htm Gross, M.U.M., Merrick, C., Targett, R., Chaffey, G., Macleod, D., & Bailey, S. (2005). Gifted Education Professional Development Package. Received from: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/26080/200508070000/www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/Gifte d_Education_Professional_Development_Package.htm

Diezmann, C.M., Lowrie, T., Bicknell, B., Faragher, R., & Putt, I. (2004). Catering for exceptional students in mathematics. In B. Perry, G. Anthony, & C. Diezmann. (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2000-2003 (pp. 175-195). Sydney: MERGA. Diezmann, C.M., & Watters, J.J. (2000). Identifying and supporting spatial intelligence in young children. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(3), 299-313. Diezmann, C.M., & Watters, J.J. (2002). Summing up the education of mathematically gifted students. In Proceedings 25th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 219-226). Received from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/1506/1/1506.pdf Damarin, S. (2000). The mathematically able as a marked category. Gender and Education, 12(1), 69-85. Gagn, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.).(pp. 60-74). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gross, M.U.M. (2005a). Module One. Understanding Giftedness. Early Childhood. Received from: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/26080/200508070000/www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/docu ments/Gifted_talented_education_module1_Early_Childhood_pdf.htm Gross, M.U.M. (2005b). Module Three. Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Students. Early Childhood. Received from: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/26080/200508070000/www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/docu ments/Gifted_talented_education_module3_Early_Childhood_pdf.htm Koshy, V. (2012). Teaching Mathematics to Able Children. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Macleod, B. (2005). Module Five. Curriculum differentiation for gifted students. Early Childhood. Received from: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/26080/200508070000/www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/docu ments/Gifted_talented_education_module5_Early_Childhood_pdf.htm Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed. Merrick, C., & Targett, R. (2005). Module Two. The identification of Gifted Students. Received from: Curriculum http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/26080/200508070000/www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/docu ments/Gifted_talented_education_module2_Early_Childhood_pdf.htm Niederer, K., Irwin, R.J., Irwin, K. C., & Reilly, I. L. (2003). Identification of mathematically gifted students in New Zealand. High Ability Studies, 14(1), 71-84. New South Wales, Department of Education and Training. (2007). A Primary Experience Meeting the needs of gifted students in Mathematics; St Ives North Public School. Received from: http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/policies/gats/assets/pdf/csmth23 accsi.pdf

New South Wales, Department of Education and Training. (2009). Gifted and talented Education; Teachers workshop 2009; Curriculum Differentiation in the Mathematics KLA. Retrieved from: http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/policies/gats/assets/pdf/mat_wsh op_book.pdf Queensland Department of Education, Training and Employment. (2012). Supporting information: Gifted and talented students. Retrieved from: http://education.qld.gov.au/curriculum/framework/p-12/docs/supporting-info-giftedtalented.pdf Siemon, D., Beswick, K., Brady, K., Clark, J., Faragher, R., & Warren, E. (2011). Teaching Mathematics: Foundations to Middle Years. Australia: Oxford University Press Smutny, J.F., & von Fremd, S.E. (2011). Teaching advanced learners in the general education classroom: doing more with less!. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press. Williams, F. E. (1993). The cognitive-affective interaction model for enriching gifted programs. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 461-484). Highett, Vic: Hawker Brownlow Education. Kim, S. (2006). Meeting the Needs of Gifted Mathematics Students. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 11(3), 27-32. Retrieved from: http://search.informit.com.au.elibrary.jcu.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=15183380380 6103;res=IELHSS> ISSN: 1326-0286. [cited 31 Mar 14]. Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee (2001). The education of gifted children. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Sheffield, L. (1994). The development of gifted and talented mathematics students and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards. Connecticut: The National Research Centre on the Gifted and Talented. Sliverman, L.K. (1994). Affective curriculum for the gifted. In J. VanTassel-Baska. (Ed). Comprehensive Curriculum for Gifted Learners (2nd ed.). (pp.325-346). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Received from: http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/Articles/counseling/co5.pdf Sullivan, P., Mousley, J., & Zevenbergen, R. (2004). Describing elements of mathematics lessons that accommodate diversity in student background. In M. Johnsen Joines & A. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 257265). Bergen: PME. NSW Department of Education and Training. (2009).Teachers workshop 2009: gifted students teacher differentiation. Received from: http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/policies/gats/assets/pdf/mat_wsh op_book.pdf Williams, F.E. (1993). The cognitive-affective interaction model for enriching gifted programs. In J.S. Renzulli. (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 461-484). Highett, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow.