3 Knowledge, research and experience

The Committee has been asked to prepare a knowledge base providing national and international research and experience. The knowledge base has been compiled from relevant research as found in statistics, public documents, research reports, scientific articles, textbooks, public reports and experience from the practice field in Norway and some selected countries.

High achieving students are highlighted in several contexts, and some available data material on this student group is presented in this chapter. The Committee believes that the findings illuminate some characteristics of high achieving students that should be considered together with what we know about students with higher learning potential. Wendelborg and Caspersen (2016) have examined in 2013 and 2014 whether high achieving students1 stand out from the other students when it comes to the perception of their own learning environment.2 International studies have something to say about Norwegian students who are high achievers compared to other countries, and what is characteristic of these students. The results also show some features in the teaching practices of Norwegian teachers the Committee finds relevant to point out.

The Committee points out that the findings from the analysis by Wendelborg and Caspersen of the Student Survey and the international studies providing information about learning outcome, do not comprise the entire group of students covered by the mandate. Students with unused potential will not appear in the findings. Moreover, tests alone are not sufficient tools for identifying learning potential. It is necessary to obtain information from other research findings, observation and information (dialogues) which indicate something about the learning potential of the students. This is particularly important for students with higher learning potential who may not always be able to show their competence in tests and mock exams, but rather in other ways.3

To acquire knowledge about circumstances that must be present if students with higher learning potential are to have a good school programme, the Committee has consulted international research. The Committee has also cooperated with the Knowledge Centre for Education which has prepared a research summary of pedagogic measures for students with higher learning potential. The Committee has also looked at the experiences of some selected countries with comparable school cultures, such as Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Scotland. England and Wales, with extensive experience in differentiating instruction for students with higher learning potential are also highlighted in the report.

3.1 Research and experience relating to students with higher learning potential in Norway

There is some literature on students with higher learning potential, but the quality of what has been published is variable, and only a few truly informative empirical studies are available.4 This indicates that this group of students has not been on the agenda of research environments in Norway. The Committee can, however, point to the work of Arnold Hofset, who already at the end of the 1960s called for more focus on and differentiated instruction for students with higher learning potential in his doctoral thesis. He expressed concern about their future in school: “In general there is a significant waste of the time and abilities of the gifted children in primary school. The differentiated instruction they are given is inadequate. School sets too low academic demands to make the instruction engaging for them. It exercises a pressure towards average levels and tempo, and the danger is that many will eventually adapt to this. This is taking place in a period of life which is highly important for establishing work habits and aspiration levels, and attitude about oneself and school and education”.5

According to the author, this was due to the “philosophy of equality” that was present in the Norwegian school system and the controversy about differentiating instruction for the gifted children. Even if the general curriculum from 1939 stated that the “goal for the education is not to help students with different abilities and talents to become equally good at the school achievements, but to give the students an education which in the best possible manner corresponds to their abilities and talents”, the Norwegian school often saw equal and fair instruction as the same thing and practised the idea that all students had to learn the same things at the same pace.6

In recent years, this student group has received more and more attention through blogs, newspaper articles, Norwegian academic literature7 and parent groups, such as Lykkelige barn. Experiences from Norway and other countries and from international literature show that there needs to be more acknowledgement of students with higher learning potential, and that they must be given an education that provides for their needs.8 Input received by the Committee confirms this and may be collated with relevant literature about students with higher learning potential. The input shows examples of opinions in the Norwegian context.

To obtain more knowledge about what students believe school can do to give students with higher learning potential a better school education, the Committee has obtained input from the Student Union Organisation and from students across Norway.

Several student voices are represented through input from Forandringsfabrikken [the Change Factory] which has met with more than 50 students with higher learning potential from different areas of Norway. The students (SkoleProffene – the school pros) state that they know much about how teachers can make classrooms more secure, and that teachers have much to gain from cooperating with them on how to achieve a good classroom environment. Many students talk about the difficulties of learning in a classroom where they do not feel secure.

Textbox 3.1 Forandringsfabrikken – the Change Factory

The Change Factory is a national foundation which invites children and young people from across Norway to share experiences and offer advice for change. The young people call themselves “pros” because they are professionals of the systems and have vital knowledge about how assistance systems and school can improve for them. The advice is presented to the national authorities, government ministries, directorates and researchers and experts in education institutions and Storting [the Norwegian Parliament] – always by the pros themselves.

The Change Factory has twelve years of experience of cooperating with children and young people on developing the quality of the systems. The goal is that the systems will build on the knowledge provided by those who know how the systems work and who have to use them.

The Change Factory has developed Change Philosophy, Change Keys and Change Methods (visual, participatory methodology). The Change Factory is working to ensure that the knowledge of children and young people is valued as highly as knowledge from research and experts. In the project Lyst til læring [The Desire to Learn], 3000 students from 40 Norwegian schools have shared their experiences and provided their advice. In the first part of the project the students have related what makes them learn well, and what they believe must be done differently for them to learn even better. In the second part of the project the Change Factory has mapped in-depth method development for four target groups, where one of the groups is extraordinarily gifted children. In cooperation with students and teachers, they will tailor ways of working, ways of learning and frameworks for better daily conditions at school for more students.

Source www.forandringsfabrikken.no, input from SkoleProffene

3.2 What do we know about high achieving students in Norway?

There are no central tests designed to provide knowledge about achievements on high and advanced levels in primary and secondary education and training or upper secondary education and training. The national tests are the only central tests we have in Norway which give information about students on different levels, and which also give information about development over time.9 As these tests were not designed to map students on high and advanced levels, they cannot be used for that purpose. See Box 3.2 for an overview of the tests. International studies may, on the other hand, be used to provide information about students' subject competence in selected subject areas. The Committee points out that the results from PISA 2015, TIMSS 2015, TIMSS Advanced 2015 and PIRLS 2016 were not published when this report was written. Nonetheless, the Committee would like to point to the results we have so we can refer to what characterises students on high and advanced levels in Norway in the subject areas that are measured by international studies.

3.2.1 Learning outcomes

In recent years, much attention has been paid to the fact that Norway had few students on high and advanced levels in international studies. In general, the results of Norwegian students were declining before the introduction of the Knowledge Promotion curriculum. There was a large decline from 1995 to 2003 in TIMSS, from 1995 to 2008 in TIMSS Advanced and a drop in PISA from 2000 to 2003. The negative development was stopped and followed by improvement in primary and secondary education and training in the period after the introduction of the Knowledge Promotion curriculum. The analysis of the results also shows that there is greater pressure on learning in Norwegian schools in 2011 than in 2007, and that students in schools that have greater pressure on learning achieve better than students in schools with lower pressure on learning. These facts notwithstanding, students do not perform as well as they did in 1995. This applies to years 4 and 810 in natural science, and to year 8 in mathematics.11 The results also show that Norway has fewer students with high achievements in 2011 than in 1995, and the TIMSS reports question whether school fails students with high achievement potential.12

Mathematics

Norway and Sweden have fairly similar results in mathematics with very few students on advanced levels and quite a few on low levels or under the low level, see Figure 3.3. Sweden, however, has a few more students on high levels. The development in Norway and Sweden may suggest that neither of these countries is addressing the issue of students with higher achievement potential well enough. In both countries, the last 10 to 15 years have seen a marked negative development in the proportion of students with high achievement. There are clear indications that both countries have challenges when it comes to giving students differentiated instruction that is adapted to each student's abilities and potential, as is embedded in Acts and subject curricula. Other countries have far more students on the two highest levels, advanced level and high level, than in Norway and Sweden. The area where Norwegian students perform by far the poorest in mathematics is algebra.13

Source Grønmo et al. 2012

Analyses from TIMSS and PISA show that there is good reason to refer to a Nordic profile, an English-language profile, an East European profile and an East Asian profile. These profiles may in turn be divided into two main types: One attaches most importance to everyday mathematics as is done in the Nordic and English-language profiles. The other attaches more importance to abstract mathematics, as do the East European and East Asian profiles.14 This in turn is linked to responses from the teachers as to what they attach importance to in their teaching. Even if the Finnish students achieve far better than Norwegian and Swedish students, the Finns also perform the lowest in algebra.15 This indicates that the content of the subject curricula impacts the student results, and the Committee finds that this needs to be considered in the renewal of the Knowledge Promotion curriculum.

A study of the competence of student teachers at the end of their studies in 2008 showed that Norwegian student teachers had very poor knowledge in algebra.16 Students who perform well in the mathematics subject often need this type of knowledge in further studies or vocations.17 In 2008, NOKUT conducted a study of drop-outs in engineering subjects. The study concluded that the main reason for the heavy non-completion rate was that the students did not have basic knowledge in algebra.18

The first national sub-examination in mathematics was held in December 2015. NOKUT published the results of this in March 2016. Of the student teachers who completed the sub-examination, approximately 70 per cent achieved the grade C or better.19

On 21 June 2016, NOKUT published results of student teachers' national subject-area examination in mathematics from May 2016. All in all, 997 students in the primary school teacher education sat for examinations in teaching knowledge about fractions, decimal numbers and percentage calculation. The national grade distribution shows that as many as 37 per cent of the student teachers failed this examination, while only 0.6 per cent achieved the highest grade. The average grade was E, see Figure 3.4. The numbers per each teacher training institution show dramatic differences across the country.20

Source NOKUT 2016a

The Committee sees that content and quality in teacher training may help explain the results achieved by Norwegian students in mathematics. The knowledge student teachers bring to their studies is also important.

Natural science

In natural science, the results show a positive trend from 2003 to 2011, but the results in years 4 and 8 both show that Norway has lost a large proportion of the students who achieve the highest competence levels in natural science. In year 8 it appears that schools have had little success in differentiating the instruction for those who are struggling in the subject. In natural science, physics would appear to be the area where Norwegian students achieve the lowest.21 If we compare the natural science achievements of Norwegian students with their student peers in the other Nordic countries, the Norwegian achievements are better than the Danish and Swedish results, but markedly weaker than the achievements of the Finnish students,22 see Figure 3.5. When we compare with Sweden and Finland, we should also consider the fact that their students are one year older than the Norwegian students. In Japan, Finland and Slovenia, students achieve clearly higher, with a larger proportion on the two highest levels and a markedly lower proportion on the low level or under.23

Source Grønmo et al. 2012

Reading

The main picture in reading is relatively similar across studies with data from the end of the 1990s and early 2000s and onwards. Norwegian school has on average seen progress in the last ten years. This is mainly because fewer students achieve on the lowest levels, even if we have not had more students achieve on high and advanced levels. In year 5 in Norway, developments are stable from 2006 to 2011 for the best and the weakest groups, while there is a moderate increase in the proportion of students with medium and good reading skills. Denmark has approximately the same development as in Norway in year 5: stable in the top and bottom, and development towards generally improved reading skills on the intermediate levels. In Sweden, we see that the decline in reading skills from 2006 to 2011 is also reflected in the shifts in mastering levels, with fewer on top and more on the lowest levels.24

Digital skills

Norwegian students have good digital skills compared to students in other countries, and the teachers are positive to using technology in their teaching. The results from the ICILS study of digital skills from 2013 show that Norwegian students are among those achieving highest of the countries in the study. The purpose of the ICILS study was to examine the ICT competence of students, with focus on the individual ability to explore, create and communicate by means of digital tools at home, in school and in society in general. Only the Czech Republic had significantly higher averages than Norway. The group of countries with high achievements also includes Australia, Poland, South Korea and Denmark. The distribution around the national average, i.e. the variation in student results, is relatively modest in Norway compared to several of the other countries in the study.25

Results – upper secondary education

The analyses from TIMSS Advanced 200826 showed a marked decline in the achievement of Norwegian students in both mathematics and physics in the final year in upper secondary education. The decline occurred as the same time as the proportion of students in Norway who chose in-depth studies declined in both subjects. Considering all the measures that have been launched to increase recruitment to natural science, this result is unsettling, both in terms of student achievements and the recruitment to the subjects. Even though there is a clear decline in physics, the average score for Norwegian students continues to be relatively good compared to students in other countries. In mathematics, the Norwegian achievements were, on the other hand, significantly lower than the international average. The decline in physics in 2008 was due in the most part to students being unable to master basic algebra.27

3.2.2 Students on high levels in mathematics master problem solving well

An analysis of PISA results in the Nordic countries where the focus has especially been on high achieving students shows that there are a number of differences between students with medium and high achievements. The analysis shows that high achieving students come from homes which have as a rule higher education levels, greater cultural capital and higher socio-economic status. There are also differences between high achieving students and students whose performance is on a medium level in the manner they study and acquire knowledge in mathematics and the relationship they have to the subject and school. High achieving students use more control, in-depth and memory strategies and less group work. They are also more motivated by competitive learning situations, and have a more positive attitude to school and teachers, are more self-driven and exhibit greater self-confidence in the subject.28

The students characteristically have a high level of self-confidence in the subject, and they learn mathematics in another way than students with average results. High achieving students try harder to find information if there is something they do not understand, and they work harder to understand new concepts by relating them to something they know from before. High achieving students review modelling examples less often to remember how to solve mathematics tasks than the average students. They are also less interested in determining what the most important things to remember are when they are studying for a mathematics test. This coincides with results from PISA 2012, which showed a strong link between achievements in mathematics, reading and natural science and achievements in problem solving. This applies to students in the OECD countries and to Norwegian students.29

High achieving students also have higher internal and external motivation, stamina, self-perception and expectation of mastering than the average student. These results are confirmed for all the Nordic countries.30 The Student Survey from 2013 and 2014 shows that the highest achieving students, here measured as students with the grade 6 in the four subjects written Norwegian first-form language, mathematics, social science and natural science, have slightly lower motivation than the results would indicate. The highest achieving students therefore do not follow the pattern to the same degree when it comes to the link between motivation and results.31

Another finding worth noting is that Norwegian students generally have lower stamina in terms of mathematics than the OECD average and the other Nordic countries. Almost 60 per cent of the students respond, for example, that they know the feeling of students who easily give up when working with a difficult task.32

Source Wendelborg and Caspersen 2016

3.2.3 The students' assessment of the learning environment

Using the Student Survey, Wendelborg and Caspersen (2016) examined how the responses from high achieving students are different from the other students. The results, from 2013 and 2014, provide a description of how high achieving students score on the indices presented in Skoleporten (the School Portal), as well as of how they score on key learning environment variables, such as effort, perception of relevance and perception of various types of negative incidents (offences).33

To identify high achieving students in the Student Survey, Wendelborg and Caspersen (2016) have used self-reported grades in the subjects of written Norwegian first-form language, mathematics, social science and natural science. High achieving students have the grade 6 in all these subjects. English is excluded because 100 000 fewer students have reported their grade in this subject. Furthermore, grades in physical education and arts and crafts have not been included. The analyses comprise the Student Surveys from 2013 and 2014. In student surveys carried out prior to 2013, it is not possible to identify students who were awarded a 6 in all subjects because the response category was “5 or 6” for the question pertaining to which grade they were awarded in the subject. In 2013 and 2014 the students had the opportunity to respond either “5” or “6”. In the Student Survey for 2015, the question about grades has been removed, and thus it is impossible to determine how high achieving students stand out from the other students. The students who are weakest (students with grades under 3 in written Norwegian first-form language, mathematics, social science and natural science) and the students who were strongest in these subjects (the grade 6), are bullied more than students scoring grades of 3 to 5. These students also have the lowest level of well-being in school. They are more vulnerable to be made fun of or teased, to be excluded, to be told lies about, to receive threats and to experience physical attacks. Figure 3.6 shows results per question from 2014.34

The results of the analysis also show that the high achieving students do not follow the same pattern to the same degree when it comes to the connection between motivation and results. It also appears that the motivation of high achieving students is affected to a relatively high degree by which class they attend, and that the class has more significance than the school. Hence, the teacher and co-students are the ones who have impact on the student's motivation. There is little change in the numbers from 2013 to 2014. The analysis also shows that the students with high achievements score the lowest of all the students on support from the teacher, and they also score lowest when asked whether they are given adequate academic challenges in school in both 2013 and 2014. The questions connected to the principles in Assessment for learning scored significantly higher for high achieving students than for the other students. In 2013 the high achieving students differ substantially from all other students. These results show that students with good achievement results master working with the principles of good formative assessment.35

It is important to point out that the Student Survey shows responses from the students. There may be several factors that influence their responses, and the questions only cover some areas. Nonetheless, the Committee finds that the responses reveal the same trends that have been stated in the input and been found in the school visits.

3.3 Norwegian teachers' teaching practice

Student results are influenced by the teaching practices of teachers, and it is thus interesting to examine findings that point out the tendencies resulting from teaching practices in Norway compared to other countries.36 Results from TIMSS Advanced reveal that Norwegian students in upper secondary education score far below the international average on “discussing strategies for problem solving” and on “discussing reasoning”. Here there is similarity with the results for both years 4 and 8 in primary and lower secondary education and training, where Norwegian students score lower than the international average on the corresponding question about how often they needed to “explain their answers”.37 This might indicate that two of the most important learning strategies highlighted in articles about developing mathematical understanding – training of skills and discussion about concepts and solution methods – are less used in Norwegian school than in other countries.38

The analyses of Norwegian data from the TIMSS Advanced study show that training procedures aiming to make important skills automatic, and discussing and reflecting on answers and problem-solving methods, appear to be treated as less important in Norwegian school than in other countries.39 Another important finding the Committee would like to point out is that the results from TIMSS and TIMSS Advanced suggest that teaching in Norway appears to have a more unilateral focus on individual ways of working, and this is a stronger focus than in other countries. In Norway, differentiated instruction as individualisation is seen in the same light as individual work, individual guidance and the students' choices, and without plenum teaching.40 Literature on students with higher learning potential points out the need for individualised guidance and support for this student group, but this does not mean individual work methods where the students only work on their own. It is also important that the teacher chooses work methods that require the students to cooperate with others.41 The Committee believes that there is a need for varied forms of teaching which take each student's abilities into consideration, but which also encourage cooperation and discussion. A unilateral focus on individual work where one shies away from other methods, such as class discussion, may detrimentally affect all students, but particularly students with higher learning potential who need teaching which opens for reflection and in-depth learning, as, for example, through problem solving.42

Figure 3.7 shows that Norway scores low on methods such as students explaining their answers themselves and finding ways of solving complex problems in mathematics. Teaching methodology literature frequently points out that explaining and arguing in mathematics is a good way of increasing the students' understanding of the subject.43

Source Grønmo et al. 2014. The figure has been adjusted.

The TALIS survey of 2013 shows that Norwegian teachers claim that they lack the competence to promote their students' metacognition and self-regulation. When asked whether they need more competence in learning techniques that expand the interdisciplinary competence of the students, such as problem-solving and learning to learn, more than half of the teachers responded that they needed competence-raising assistance in this area. The need was greatest on the primary-school level.44 Another study points out teachers' lack of competence in how to train strategies for reading proficiency.45 The TALIS survey of 2013 also shows some interesting findings informing us about how Norwegian teachers assess how they master various aspects of the instruction they give. Self-efficacy is a measure that is often used to ascertain an individual's confidence in his or her own abilities and skills, and appears to be connected to how teachers master classroom management and management of students' learning.46

The TALIS survey measures three aspects of self-efficacy: mastering teaching, the ability to involve the students and mastering situations in the classroom. Norway scores relatively low on mastering the instruction. This especially applies to the ability to involve students compared to other countries. Norwegian teachers particularly stand out when it comes to the response to one statement: “I manage to motivate students who display weak interest in schoolwork”. Only 39 per cent of Norwegian teachers in lower secondary school believe that they manage to do this generally or fairly well. In comparison, the average proportion for all TALIS countries was as high as 71 per cent, and in Denmark as high as 82 per cent. Knowing that Norway is one of the countries reporting a relatively high number of students with special education needs, this is a result worth noting. Interestingly, it appears that it is in subject areas where students traditionally are not removed from the classroom for remedial teaching that teachers' self-efficacy linked to the learning motivation of their students is lowest.47 Students with higher learning potential may be in both the upper section of the group of students – high achieving students – and the lower section – low achieving students – because they are not encountering an instruction that motivates them. The fact that teachers respond that they are unable to involve students who are not interested in schoolwork may indicate that more knowledge is needed about teaching methods that can motivate all the students.

3.4 Research and experiences from other countries

On the international level, students with higher learning potential have received more attention over the last ten years. In 1994, the European Commission placed this issue on the agenda and urged countries to develop differentiated instruction for students with higher learning potential and adapt the teaching to their development needs within the framework of their own education policy.48

At the end of the 1990s, the public authorities in Great Britain introduced a number of initiatives for students with higher learning potential, formulating clear expectations about how schools must provide instruction aimed at these students.49 Germany, Austria and the German-speaking region of Switzerland have assumed that students with higher learning potential are sufficiently challenged by traditional teaching. It was not until the middle of the 1990s that instruction especially adapted for students with higher learning potential become a political priority in Austria.50 In Denmark, a working group was convened in 2010 to map and evaluate talent development projects. In 2015, the education authority in Sweden (Skolverket) developed resources and guidance material for teachers and educators for “särskilt begåvade” (particularly gifted) children.51

An international questionnaire that compares how representatives from different levels of school systems across the world see measures for students with higher learning potential,52 refers to some common development features in recent years. Many countries have abandoned the idea of categorising students and are rather working to provide learning-stimulating and differentiated instruction in the regular classroom. Environmental factors are highlighted as important for students with higher learning potential.53

3.4.1 International Research Summary from the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for Education

The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for Education has on assignment for the Committee summarised relevant and recent research from the period 2010 to 2015. The aim of the research summary is to answer the following research question: What characterises good educational measures for gifted students and students with higher learning potential?54 The Committee has not been especially interested in looking at an individual country, but rather in looking at several countries and main trends. The countries mentioned in the summary are primarily those dealt with in the nine included literature reviews. They cover several key themes in the research on gifted students and students with higher learning potential, including how schools may identify students with higher learning potential, characteristics of this heterogeneous group of students and what research shows may be good teaching programmes for these students. The summarised research does not provide the grounds for categorical recommendations as to what teachers should do, but shows requirements for and characteristics of good educational practices for students with higher learning potential.55

The research summary refers to four important requirements the education system must address to satisfy the learning and development needs of students with higher learning potential in a good way. These requirements concur with the input the Committee has received, and may be summarised as follows:

• Acknowledgment that students with higher learning potential56 need supervision

• Cooperation across institutions

• Differentiated instruction

• Flexible infrastructure

In addition to these requirements, the value of quality implementation is also mentioned.

The research summary attaches importance to how the stakeholders on all levels in the Norwegian education system must accept that these requirements translate into responsibilities and obligations for all those with functions in the system. The Committee also points out that expectations must be placed on the various levels, so that all levels can indeed cooperate on creating an excellent learning environment for all students – including those with higher learning potential. Chapter 7 describes this cooperation in more detail.

The first requirement refers to acknowledging that students with higher learning potential need follow-up, meaning that they must be identified and their needs must be addressed. Giving these students what they need in the education system requires a uniform system of concepts and a terminology which acknowledges, defines and describes what it means to have higher learning potential, and the diversity represented by this group. The value of having regulations and rules that enable differentiated instruction that can satisfy student needs is also mentioned here. Acknowledging that students with higher learning potential need supervision requires knowledge about them and what they need. The Committee describes the value of identification and acknowledgment in Chapter 5.

The second requirement refers to cooperation across institutions. Cooperation between professions and institutions is important when identifying students with higher learning potential and when developing and providing teaching measures for this group of students. The Committee examines the value of cooperation across institutions in Chapter 7.

The third requirement refers to differentiated instruction. The research summary points out that options must be expanded on the policy and administrative levels so that school owners and individual schools can initiate measures for this student group. The summary shows that many of the studies they included in the literature reviews examine measures that are quite easy to implement within the basic education programme. It describes what characterises good educational measures for students with higher learning potential, and points out some specific organisational, educational, social and learning-promoting measures the Committee has assessed and considered in comparison to the current legal options in the Norwegian context. This will be discussed more in Chapter 6.

The fourth requirement refers to infrastructure which ensures flexibility in the education pathway from day care, through primary school, lower secondary school, upper secondary education and to higher education. As the importance of the social aspect is highlighted in the research summary, what occurs in the transitions between the schools, day care-primary school, primary school-lower secondary school, lower secondary school-upper secondary education, becomes a key aspect.

In addition to the four requirements, the research summary also attaches importance to the quality of the implementation. The Committee sees the implementation as structured and on-going development work in a professional environment. This is described in Chapter 7. The summary also concludes that the need for more research is important, specifically on students with higher learning potential, and that knowledge about them must be linked to the teacher-training institutions. The research summary shows that most teachers do not acquire knowledge about these students through their teacher training or further education and continuing professional development (CPD). Bearing this in mind, the researchers ask whether schools have the necessary competence to deal with students with higher learning potential on their premises.57

3.4.2 What we can learn from Denmark

The Committee has looked to Denmark, which in 2011 produced a similar report. The work on the report was led by Stefan Hermann, one of the members of the Jøsendal Committee. The Danish talent report reached the following conclusion when it was published in 2011: “A lift in the effort for talented pupils is not only measured on the OECD's ranking lists, but also in the arts and crafts class in primary school”.58 The Jøsendal Committee shares this view. What is needed is differentiated instruction that lifts all students, whatever the subject.

The aim of the Danish working group was both to map and evaluate talent-development projects that were partially funded by the central authorities since 2005 and propose a strategy for talent development across the Danish education system (not including the universities).

The report pointed out that successful talent development is a product of successful professional cooperation (in terms of leadership, organisation, pedagogy, didactics). The working group concluded that there are clear characteristics of what good quality teaching is, including teaching of students with higher learning potential.

In the same way as the Jøsendal Committee, the Danish working group applied a broad definition of learning potential. It covers what (talent), where (from arts and crafts to natural science) and why (well-being, competitiveness and social mobility). The point is that talent is not only a cognitive property, an inherent gift, but also acquired and practical. The working group did not want to look for talent only in the most typical areas, such as languages and mathematics, but also in practical and art subjects, and in interdisciplinary domains. Talent development should also not only be a response to keener global competition and the pressure on the school and education system. It should aim to provide a better school programme for all children. Many gifted and talented children and young people are not given the training and the education that support their learning potential optimally.

The Danish working group saw talent development in Danish education and primary school not only as a question of legislation and rules. Danish school legislation still provides many options, and many other stakeholders than politicians and ministers have great importance for the education of children and youths. Talent development should not primarily be intensified through increased funding. While this may indeed be necessary, more money in itself is not the full answer. In conclusion, it was the view of the Danish working group that improved efforts for talented students most likely depend on more and better research knowledge about how to provide better talent development. It is important, however, to point out that the need to find good methods must not be overestimated. Research will probably not be as precise and detailed on actions that this will be a decisive point.59

In addition to the talent report, the Committee has looked at another report highlighting measures for “highly gifted children” and which can be considered in the context of what the Committee describes as students with exceptional learning potential.60 This report, entitled Indsatser målrettet højt begavede børns faglige udvikling og trivsel [Efforts focusing on highly gifted children's development and well-being], highlights such issues as group differentiation and differentiated instruction as important for the students. KORA's61 analysis, based on interviews with students, researchers, school professionals and local authorities, reviewed a total of 845 Danish and international studies. Of these, only 30 studies were assessed as relevant, and only 11 had the necessary research quality.62

3.4.3 What we can learn from Finland

Like the other Nordic countries, Finland has a long tradition for linking special measures in education to the responsibility of taking care of the weakest in society. Proposals for measures for gifted and talented students have therefore been rejected as elitist and have to some degree been perceived as counteracting the equality principle. The attitude has been that those with the most resources manage on their own.63 Even so, Finland has many students who have high achievements in international studies.

The Committee does not draw any conclusions as to why Finland has more students on high and advanced levels in international surveys, but we refer to some central features of the Finnish system. For example, Finland stands out in comparison to other countries because of the high quality of its teachers.64 Finnish teachers need a five-year master's degree to teach, and this has been the case for more than 40 years. The teaching profession enjoys high status in Finland. This is reflected in the stiff competition for a place in the teacher training institutions, which in addition to high requirements for good grades also includes interviews and admissions testing. In Finland, the best teachers are assigned to the youngest children, which ensures the necessary early intervention, and the students receive extra help and support if they need it. How Finnish teachers work with differentiated instruction may also influence student achievements. A doctoral degree study comparing teacher training in Norway and Finland found that Norwegian teachers focused on group processes and classroom management, while the Finns had stronger focus on individual differences between students, and on how to help each individual child in different ways in the learning process.65 Since 2007, talent and creativity have been specified as national goals.66

Even if students with higher learning potential are not especially mentioned in Finnish governance documents, they are covered by the legislation in force and regulations relating to an inclusive school, where measures have been initiated to satisfy the needs of this student group. Recently, the Finnish school system has become more flexible. There are, for example, opportunities for early school start, advancing a grade, accelerating school and grouping students according to abilities. Schools without grades have also been introduced, parents may choose the school for their children, and the idea of establishing special schools, summer schools and separate education programmes for students with higher learning potential is being discussed.

3.4.4 What we can learn from England and Wales

Talent development was put on the political agenda in England in the mid-90s. The official English policy places requirements on primary schools where they are required to document how they adapt the instruction for students with higher learning potential, using for example a differentiated approach.67 In England, NACE (National Association for Able Children in Education) has played a crucial role for schools and authorities. After its foundation in 1983, NACE has become recognised nationally and internationally as the leading independent educational organisation in Great Britain when it comes to students with higher learning potential. Using its comprehensive member network, NACE provides guidance, support and training of high quality, which makes it possible for teachers to get the best out of students with higher learning potential in the regular classroom, whilst all students have the opportunity to flourish and achieve good results.

The Committee has had meetings with NACE, represented by professor Joan Freeman and Johanna Raffan, who outlined how the school system in England is turning way from segregation measures and labelling student abilities. Instead, schools are focusing on accommodating the students in the regular classroom using systematic work with progression and in-depth learning.

NACE has also had important input on the schools' work with students with higher learning potential in Wales. The authorities in Wales have established networks of schools, districts and universities to create meeting arenas where solutions can be found on how to differentiate instruction so that students can develop and exploit their learning potential, see Box 3.6.

Seren is a network of regional communication centres in Wales aiming to help students with higher learning potential in upper secondary school (most often aged 16 to 18) to achieve their academic potential and be admitted to one of the leading universities.68

The Committee's visit to schools in England and Wales showed examples of practices which focus precisely on in-depth learning and progression in a flexible infrastructure.

3.5 Summary and assessment

The analyses from the international studies up to the present show that few Norwegian students achieve on high and advanced levels compared to other countries. The Committee points out, however, that the results referred to do not necessarily reflect the achievement of students with higher learning potential. Nonetheless, the results provide relevant information about the knowledge students have in some given subject areas. We know that Norwegian students have improvement potential in algebra and physics, and that these are areas which have not been given much priority, neither in teacher training nor in mathematics education. The content of the subject curricula helps to determine what teachers focus on in their teaching, and the results show a one-sided approach in terms of teaching methods. This means that arguments and discussions, and training in basic skills tend to have this unilateral focus. The TALIS survey 2013 shows that Norwegian teachers want to have more competence so they can promote the students' metacognition and self-regulation. The Committee asks whether teachers' somewhat unilateral teaching practice and need for competence to promote student learning strategies influences the degree to which many Norwegian students acquire the tools they need to solve tasks on high and advanced levels. The results also show that Norwegian students have the lowest stamina level in mathematics in the Nordic countries, which will influence whether they will reach the highest levels.

The results from the Student Survey show that the students with the highest and lowest grades have a lower degree of well-being than the other students.

The Committee's interpretation is that there may be several reasons why the group of students with best results do not have the same sense of well-being as the students with grades 4 and 5. One possible reason the Committee finds is that they are not given the challenges they need. Not being seen and acknowledged for their strengths will also influence how they are received in the school's social environment. This is consistent with input the Committee has received. The analyses from TIMSS 2011 show that a learning environment characterised by well-being and high expectations for the students influences student results in a positive direction. Input from schools and students confirms that students with higher learning potential may feel left out, have low motivation, and feel that they are not given the challenges they need.

The research summary shows the need for more knowledge about the students, and that they need differentiated instruction that fits their aptitudes and needs. More research is needed on teacher knowledge about and attitudes to students with higher learning potential and on how to ensure good teaching measures for these students.

The Committee recommends that research environments conduct high quality research on students with higher learning potential in close connection and cooperation with teacher training institutions and schools. The national authorities must therefore concentrate their resources on research dedicated to this student group. The Committee believes that critical factors are strong research environments and strong links between research, teacher training and school, which must be strengthened to have an impact on practices in the classroom. The national authorities should ensure that research is coordinated and presented to the sector.

Even if learning occurs in the encounter between teacher and student, it is important to underline that the responsibility for giving students with higher learning potential varied and differentiated instruction belongs to more stakeholders in the education system than just the teacher. This is one of the main points in the research summary, where cooperation between the different levels and stakeholders is seen as a necessary and important factor. The Committee sees the need to clarify the expectations for the various stakeholders in the education system when it comes to providing a better school programme for students with higher learning potential. Input to the Committee reveals the call for more knowledge and competence, including the need for tools and practical advice on teaching practice and differentiated instruction.