Investigating the status of highly able students through the lens of the Lebanese national policy and the mathematics and science centralized curricula and textbooks

Maya Antoun 1 * , Rayya Younes 2, Sara Salloum 3
More Detail
1 Department of Education, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, University of Balamand, Koura, LEBANON
2 Department of Social and Educational Sciences, School of Arts and Sciences, Lebanese American University, Beirut, LEBANON
3 Department of Teacher Education, Patton College of Education, Ohio University, Athens OH, USA
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp. 215-233.
Published Online: 24 October 2022, Published: 01 April 2023
OPEN ACCESS   812 Views   462 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)


Very few Lebanese students have been able to perform at the highest level in mathematics and science in TIMSS, leading to the belief that current curricula and/or pedagogies are not supporting our highly able students to realize their potentials. In this research, we investigate how the national Policy documents and the mathematics and science centralized curricula, and textbooks address the needs of highly able students. Teachers’ perceptions and role in providing for the educational needs of highly able is also examined. Through qualitative methods, the following data sources were used to address the research aim: policy document analysis, curriculum analysis, and teacher interviews. Findings indicated no specific policy for highly able students in Lebanon and little evidence of curricular provisions and attention to the needs of highly able learners in the mathematics and science national curricula and textbooks. The resultant data also provided important insights into the limited knowledge of teachers in the area of supporting highly able learners. The findings of the current study will inform the efforts of the policy makers and the Ministry of Education faced with the challenge of effectively educating their most able students.


Antoun, M., Younes, R., & Salloum, S. (2023). Investigating the status of highly able students through the lens of the Lebanese national policy and the mathematics and science centralized curricula and textbooks. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 215-233.


  • Adlam, E. (2007). Differentiated instruction in the elementary school: Investigating the knowledge elementary teachers possess when implementing differentiated instruction in their classrooms [Master’s thesis, University of Windsor].
  • al Aliyawinata, T. T., Utari, E., & Mahrawi, M. (2021). The effect of discovery learning on students’ higher-order thinking skills. International Journal of Biology Education Towards Sustainable Development, 1(1), 1-9.
  • Aldahmash, A., Mansour, N. S., Al-Shamrani, S. M., & Al-Mohi, S. (2016). An analysis of activities in Saudi Arabian middle school science textbooks and workbooks for the inclusion of essential features of inquiry. Research in Science Education, 46(6), 879–900.
  • Al-Hroub, A. (2022). Gifted education in Lebanon: Re-examining the role of educational and learning capitals. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2073644.
  • Al-Hroub, A., & El Khoury, S. (2018). Introduction to giftedness in Lebanon. In S. El Koury, & A. Al-Hroub (Eds.), Gifted education in Lebanese schools integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 1-8). Springer.
  • Antoun, M. (2022). The relation between teachers’ background and school type and their perceptions of the gifted and gifted education. Gifted and Talented International.
  • Antoun, M., Kronborg, L., & Plunkett, M. (2020). Investigating Lebanese primary school teachers’ perceptions of gifted and highly able students. Gifted and Talented International, 35(1), 39-57.
  • Antoun, M., Plunkett, M., & Kronborg, L. (2022). Gifted education in Lebanon: Time to rethink teaching the gifted. Roeper Review, 44(2), 94-110.
  • Ayyash-Abdo, H., Bahous, R., & Nabhani, M. (2009). Educating young adolescents in Lebanon: An international look at educating young adolescents. In S. Mertens, V. Anfara, & K. Roney (Eds.), The handbook of research on middle level education series (pp. 25-46). Information Age Publishing.
  • Bai, H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2008). Teacher educators’ beliefs and technology uses as predictors of preservice teachers’ beliefs and technology attitudes. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(1), 93-112.
  • Berman, K., Schultz, R., & Weber, C. (2012). A lack of awareness and emphasis in preservice teacher training: Preconceived beliefs about the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 18-26.
  • BouJaoude, & El-Hage. (2016). Science education research and practice in Lebanon: Current status, challenges, and future prospects. In M. H. Chiu (Ed.), Science education research and practice in Asia (pp. 41–54). Springer.
  • Burrell, M., Horsley, J., & Moeed, A. (2017). Identification of, and academic provision for high-ability science students: What does the literature say? European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(2), 110-118.
  • Callahan, C. M., Plucker, J. A., Gluck, S., & Rodriguez, C. (2020). Inclusion of academically advanced gifted students. In J. M. Kauffman (Ed.), On educational inclusion: Meanings, history, issues, and international perspectives (pp. 176-194). Routledge.
  • Center for Educational Research and Development (CERD) (1999a). Building up mathematics: Grade 5 basic education. National Center for Educational Research and Development (NCERD).
  • Center for Educational Research and Development (CERD) (1999b). Science for life: Grade 5 basic education. National Center for Educational Research and Development (NCERD).
  • Center for Educational Research and Development (CERD). (1997). Lebanese national curriculum. National Center for Educational Research and Development (NCERD).
  • Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(5), 1847–1868.
  • Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120-123.
  • Colangelo, D., & Davis, G. A. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of gifted education. Allyn & Bacon.
  • Collins, K. H., & Roberson, J., J. (2020). Developing STEM identity and talent in underrepresented students: Lessons learned from four gifted black males in a magnet school program. Gifted Child Today, 43(4), 218-230.
  • Collins, K. H., Joseph, N. M., & Ford, D. Y. (2019). Missing in action: Gifted black girls in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Gifted Child Today, 43(1), 55-63.
  • Cooper, C. R. (2009). Myth 18: It is fair to teach all children the same way. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 283-285.
  • CRDP. (2013). Education in Lebanon: Current legislative framework and proposed recommendations. Center of Research and Development.
  • Curtis, J. (2005). Preservice teachers’ attitudes toward gifted students and gifted education [Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University].
  • David, H. (2018). Gifted education in the Middle East. In S. I. Pfeiffer, M. Foley, & E. Shaunessy-Dedrick (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 113-129). American Psychological Association.
  • Fiedler, E. D., Lange, R. E., & Winebrenner, S. (2002). In search of reality: Unraveling the myths about tracking, ability grouping, and the gifted. Roeper Review, 24(3), 108-111.
  • Frayha, N. (2009). The negative face of the Lebanese education system.
  • Gallagher, S. (2007). Reflections from the deep end: Primary school teachers’ experiences of gifted education. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 16(1), 20-29.
  • Gross, M. U. M. (1999). Critical dialogue inequity in equity: The paradox of gifted education in Australia. Australian Journal of Education, 43(1), 87-103.
  • Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis. SAGE Publications.
  • Harrison, C. (2004). Giftedness in early childhood: The search for complexity and connection. Roeper Review, 26(2), 78-84.
  • Henderson, L. (2006). Reform and its impact on gifted students. TalendEd, 24(1), 33-44.
  • Heyd-Metzuyanim, E., & Hess-Green, R. (2020). Valued actions and identities of giftedness in a mathematical camp. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18, 1311-1331.
  • Jabbour, K. (2013). Issues that restrain teachers from adopting active learning instruction in Lebanese schools. Topologik-Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Filosofiche, Pedagogiche e Sociali [Topologik-International Journal of Philosophical, Pedagogical and Social Sciences], 13, 135-151.
  • Jeon, K., Park, D., & Park, J. (2019). The development and validation of the GI-ALE instructional model for the emerging collective intelligence of the scientifically gifted student. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 5, 18.
  • Kang, D. Y. (2019). Past, present, and future of gifted science education in Korea: A historical perspective. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 5, 12.
  • Kaplan, S. (2009). Myth 9: There is a single curriculum for the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 257-258.
  • Kelly, A. V. (2009). The curriculum: Theory and practice. SAGE.
  • Kitano, M., & Kirby, D. (1986). Gifted education: A comprehensive view. Little Brown & Company.
  • Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
  • Maker, C. J., & Shiever, S.W. (2010). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners. PRO-ED, Inc.
  • Maker, C. J., Muammar, O., Serino, L., Kuang, C. C., Mohamed, A., & Sak, U. (2006). The DISCOVER curriculum model: Nurturing and enhancing creativity in all children. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 3(2), 99-121.
  • Matheis, S., Keller, L., Kronborg, L., Schmitt, M., & Preckel, F. (2019). Do stereotypes strike twice? Giftedness and gender stereotypes in teachers’ beliefs about students’ characteristics in Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(2), 213-232.
  • Matheis, S., Kronborg, L., Schmitt, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Threat or challenge? Teacher beliefs about gifted students and their relationship to teacher motivation. Gifted and Talented International, 32(2), 134-160.
  • McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2007). What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246-255.
  • Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
  • Miller, E. M. (2009). The effect of training in gifted education on elementary classroom teachers’ theory-based reasoning about the concept of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(1), 65-105.
  • Moon, S. M. (2009). Myth 15: High-ability students do not face problems and challenges. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 274-276.
  • Moon, T. R., Callahan, C. M., Tomlinson, C. A., & Miller, E. (2002). Middle school classrooms: Teachers’ reported practices and students’ perceptions. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  • Morris, M., Slater, E., Fitzgerald, M. T., Lummis, G. W., & van Etten, E. (2021). Using local rural knowledge to enhance STEM learning for gifted and talented students in Australia. Research in Science Education, 51(Suppl 1), S61-S79.
  • Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (2016a). TIMSS 2015 international results in science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
  • Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (2016b). TIMSS 2015 international results in mathematics. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
  • Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
  • Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1-13.
  • Ornstein, A., & Hunkins, F. (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. Pearson.
  • Osta, I. (2007). Developing and piloting a framework for studying the alignment of mathematics examinations with the curriculum: The case of Lebanon. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(2), 171-198.
  • Ozdemir, D., & Bostan, M. I. (2021). A design based study: Characteristics of differentiated tasks for mathematically gifted students. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 125-144.
  • Peterson, J. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social and emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 280-282.
  • Pfeiffer, S. I. (2013). Lessons learned from working with high-ability students. Gifted Education International, 29(1), 86-97.
  • Plunkett, M., & Kronborg, L. (2019). Teaching gifted education to pre-service teachers: Lessons learned. In S. R. Smith (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness and talent development in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 1-20). Springer.
  • Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85-129.
  • Rimm, S., Siegle, D. B., & Davis, G. A. (2018). Education of the gifted and talented. Pearson.
  • Rodriguez, A. (2012). An analysis of elementary school teachers’ knowledge and use of differentiated instruction [Doctoral dissertation, Olivert Nazarene University].
  • Salloum, S. (2021). Intertextuality in science textbooks: Implications for diverse students’ learning. International Journal of Science Education, 43(17), 2814-2842.
  • Salloum, S., & BouJaoude, S. (2019). The use of triadic dialogue in the science classroom: A teacher negotiating conceptual learning with teaching to the test. Research in Science Education, 49, 829-857.
  • Sarouphim, K. (2015). Slowly but surely: Small steps toward establishing gifted education programs in Lebanon. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(2), 196-211.
  • Savelsbergh, E. R., Prins, G. T., Rietbergen, C., Fechner, S., Vaessen. B. E., Draijer, J. M., Bakker, A. (2016). Effects of innovative science and mathematics teaching on student attitudes and achievement: A meta-analytic study. Educational Research Review, 19, 158-172.
  • Shuyab, M. (2016). Education for social cohesion attempts in Lebanon: Reflections on the 1994 and 2010 education reforms. Education as Change, 20(3), 225-242.
  • Taylor, T., & Milton, M. (2008). Teacher education in catering for gifted learners. Gifted, 149, 11-13.
  • Tirri, K. A., Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Adams, A. M., Yuen, M., & Lau, P. S. (2002). Cross-cultural predictors of teachers’ attitudes toward gifted education: Finland, Hong Kong, and the United States. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26(2), 112-131.
  • Tomlinson, C. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms. ASCD.
  • Tyler, R., & Osborne, J. (2012). Student attitudes and aspirations toward science. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 597-626). Springer.
  • VanTassel-Baska, J. (2021). Curriculum in gifted education: The core of the enterprise. Gifted Child Today, 44(1), 44-47.
  • VanTassel-Baska, J., Hubbard, G. F., & Robbins, J. I. (2020). Differentiation of instruction for gifted learners: Collated evaluative studies of teacher classroom practices. Roeper Review, 42(3), 153-164.
  • Winebrenner, S. (2009). Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom: Strategies and techniques every teacher can use to meet the academic needs of the gifted and talented. Free Spirit Publication.
  • Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications. SAGE.
  • Zeitoun, S., & Hajo, Z. (2015). Investigating the science process skills in cycle 3 national science textbooks in Lebanon. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(3), 268-275.