Kata Kunci
educational technologies
mixed-ability classrooms
differentiated learning
qualitative case study
Cara Mengutip
Abstrak
This qualitative case study examines how teachers perceive and implement digital educational technologies in Gifted STEAM Education within a mixed-ability learning context involving gifted and non-gifted students. The study was situated in an annual professional development program on Gifted STEAM Education and involved six purposively selected teachers with experience in STEM/STEAM Education and/or Gifted Education. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, mini focus groups, overt observation, field notes, and textual documents, and were analyzed using thematic analysis. The findings show that teachers viewed digital technologies not as neutral technical resources, but as pedagogical mediators that could shape inquiry, differentiation, participation, and creative production. Meaningful technology integration required explicit digital-skill goals, structured guidance, and formative monitoring. Digital tools supported Gifted STEAM learning when they were connected to interdisciplinary inquiry, design activities, multimedia production, creative expression, and differentiated forms of participation. Equity was understood as a multidimensional concern involving device access, meaningful participation, differentiated support, role distribution, ethical use, data protection, and equivalent non-digital pathways. Implementation, however, was limited by inadequate infrastructure, outdated equipment, software incompatibility, unstable internet access, time pressure, unequal access, and institutional ambiguity. The study contributes to the literature by clarifying how digital technologies can support inclusive differentiation, interdisciplinary integration, and ethical digital practice in Gifted STEAM Education. The findings should be interpreted in light of the small sample, the specific professional development context, the non-formal educational setting, and the limited transferability of a single qualitative case study.
Abstract viewed: 14 times
PDF downloaded: 7 times
Referensi
[1] D. Y. Dai, “A history of giftedness: Paradigms and paradoxes,” in Handbook of Giftedness in Children: Psychoeducational Theory, Research, and Best Practices, 2nd ed., S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, and M. Foley-Nicpon, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018, pp. 1–14, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_1.
[2] J. S. Renzulli, “What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition,” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 92, no. 8, pp. 81–88, 2011, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109200821.
[3] R. J. Sternberg, “Giftedness does not reside within a person: Defining giftedness in society is a three-step process,” Roeper Review, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 50–60, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2022.2145400.
[4] L. A. Thompson and J. Oehlert, “The etiology of giftedness,” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 298–307, 2010, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.11.004.
[5] A. Szymanski, “Social and emotional issues in gifted education,” in Critical Issues and Practices in Gifted Education, 2nd ed., C. M. Callahan and H. L. Hertberg-Davis, Eds. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2021, pp. 417–429, doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003233961-31.
[6] R. Gotlieb, E. Hyde, M. H. Immordino-Yang, and S. B. Kaufman, “Cultivating the social–emotional imagination in gifted education: Insights from educational neuroscience,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1377, no. 1, pp. 22–31, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13165.
[7] Z. Özer and R. E. Demirbatır, “Enhancing the creative potential of gifted students through STEAM-based music activities,” Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 399–431, 2026, doi: https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.1729415.
[8] F. Coştu, “Promoting gifted students’ creativity through design-based STEM activities,” Research in Science & Technological Education, pp. 1–31, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2025.2595206.
[9] E. D. Milakis, “The role of educational games in developing cognitive, social, and creative skills in gifted STEAM education,” International Journal of Communication and Information Technology, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 88–97, 2025, doi: https://www.doi.org/10.33545/2707661X.2025.v6.i1b.118.
[10] A. Leavy, L. Dick, M. Meletiou-Mavrotheris, E. Paparistodemou, and E. Stylianou, “The prevalence and use of emerging technologies in STEAM education: A systematic review of the literature,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1061–1082, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12806.
[11] E. D. Milakis, C. C. Argyrakou, A. Melidis, and J. Vrettaros, “ChatGPT and AI chatbots in education: An umbrella review of systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and meta-analyses,” International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, vol. 19, pp. 100–119, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.46300/9109.2025.19.11.
[12] J. S. Renzulli, “The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity,” in Conceptions of Giftedness, R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson, Eds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 53–92.
[13] F. A. Karnes and S. M. Bean, Eds., Methods and Materials for Teaching the Gifted, 5th ed. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2021.
[14] A. Ziegler, H. Stoeger, and W. Vialle, “Giftedness and gifted education: The need for a paradigm change,” Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 194–197, 2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212456070.
[15] K. M. Rudasill, J. L. Adelson, C. M. Callahan, D. V. Houlihan, and B. M. Keizer, “Gifted students’ perceptions of parenting styles: Associations with cognitive ability, sex, race, and age,” Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 15–24, 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212460886.
[16] F. C. Worrell, R. F. Subotnik, P. Olszewski-Kubilius, and D. D. Dixson, “Gifted students,” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 70, pp. 551–576, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102846.
[17] National Association for Gifted Children. 2019 Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards [Internet]. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children; 2019. Available from: https://assets.noviams.com/novi-file-uploads/nagc/Resources/nagc_2019_prek-grade_12_gift.pdf
[18] R. Root-Bernstein, “Arts and crafts as adjuncts to STEM education to foster creativity in gifted and talented students,” Asia Pacific Education Review, vol. 16, pp. 203–212, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9362-0.
[19] S. M. Reis and J. S. Renzulli, “Current research on the social and emotional development of gifted and talented students: Good news and future possibilities,” Psychology in the Schools, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 119–130, 2004, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10144.
[20] J. A. Huss, “Gifted education and cooperative learning: A miss or a match?” Gifted Child Today, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 19–23, 2006, doi: https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2006-13.
[21] J. VanTassel-Baska and E. F. Brown, “An analysis of gifted education curriculum models,” in Methods and Materials for Teaching the Gifted, 5th ed., F. A. Karnes and S. M. Bean, Eds. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2021, pp. 107–138, doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003236603-7.
[22] A. Riga and K. Malafantis, “Gifted students within the Greek educational context: Challenges and perspectives in the frame of contemporary inclusive European education,” European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 112–118, 2023, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2023.4.1.568.
[23] R. W. Bybee, The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities. Arlington, VA, USA: NSTA Press, 2013.
[24] G. Yakman, “STEAM education: An overview of creating a model of integrative education,” in Proc. Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology (PATT-19) Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2008.
[25] V. A. Segarra, B. Natalizio, C. V. Falkenberg, S. Pulford, and R. M. Holmes, “STEAM: Using the arts to train well-rounded and creative scientists,” Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, vol. 19, no. 1, Art. no. 19.1.46, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1360.
[26] A. M. Roussou, C. C. Argyrakou, and E. D. Milakis, “Integrating STEAM and theatrical methods in early childhood environmental education: A framework for holistic learning,” International Journal of Geography, Geology and Environment, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 19–42, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.22271/27067483.2025.v7.i2a.336.
[27] M. Rafti, E. D. Milakis, C. C. Argyrakou, D. G. Vangeli, and M. C. Katsarou, “Hands-on STEAM programming: Microteaching with Micro:bit for enhanced learning,” Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1–20, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.58536/j-hytel.172.
[28] E. D. Milakis, C. C. Argyrakou, and A. Samala, “Artificial intelligence in gifted STEAM education: Teachers’ perspectives on differentiation, inclusion, and creativity in mixed-ability classrooms,” in Teacher Perspectives and Responsible Practice for Integrating AI in the Classroom, S. Papadakis, Ed. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global, 2026, doi: https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-2600-0101-1.ch008.
[29] E. Markasioti and C. C. Argyrakou, “Co-teaching in STEAM education: A theory-driven alignment framework for transdisciplinary learning with responsible AI integration,” International Journal of Computing and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6, no. 2, Art. no. 262, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.33545/27076571.2025.v6.i2d.209.
[30] C. C. Argyrakou, E. D. Milakis, A. Vasilara, and A. Lalou, “From text analysis to environmental action: An interdisciplinary learning scenario for primary education,” International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 1005–1014, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8421396.
[31] E. D. Milakis, “Teachers’ insights on intercultural inclusion in gifted STEAM education,” International Journal of Humanities and Education Research, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 432–443, 2025, doi: https://www.doi.org/10.33545/26649799.2025.v7.i1e.172.
[32] E. D. Milakis, “Collaborative project-based learning as a pedagogical strategy for inclusion in gifted STEAM education: Teachers’ perspectives from mixed-ability classrooms,” International Journal of Multidisciplinary Trends, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 92–105, 2025, doi: https://www.doi.org/10.22271/multi.2025.v7.i5b.690.
[33] E. D. Milakis, C. C. Argyrakou, T. Loukisas, D. G. Vangeli, M. C. Katsarou, and A. Lalou, “Comparative analysis of large language models as AI assistants for educational assessment: A case study in STEAM education,” International Journal of Computing and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 51–55, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.33545/27076571.2024.v5.i2a.97.
[34] O. Shatunova, T. Anisimova, F. Sabirova, and O. Kalimullina, “STEAM as an innovative educational technology,” Journal of Social Studies Education Research, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 131–144, 2019.
[35] V. Hlukhaniuk, V. Solovei, S. Tsvilyk, and I. Shymkova, “STEAM education as a benchmark for innovative training of future teachers of labour training and technology,” in Society. Integration. Education. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, vol. 1, 2020, pp. 211–221, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17770/sie2020vol1.5000.
[36] G. Kaymakcı and S. Can, “Bibliometric analysis of the articles on STEM/STEAM education in gifted students,” Uluslararası Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 11, no. 21, pp. 275–308, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.1258457.
[37] G. S. Kim and S. Y. Choi, “The effects of the creative problem solving ability and scientific attitude through the science-based STEAM program in elementary gifted students,” Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 216–226, 2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2012.31.2.216.
[38] H. Kang and H. Seo, “The development and application of a life science-based STEAM program for middle school science gifted students,” Korean Science Education Society for the Gifted, vol. 5, pp. 162–173, 2013.
[39] Y. Yang and M. Yoo, “The effect of mathematics-based STEAM program using big data on the creative problem-solving abilities, mathematics career orientation and STEAM core competencies of middle school gifted students,” Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, vol. 27, pp. 607–629, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2017.27.4.607.
[40] H. E. Wilson, “Integrating the arts and STEM for gifted learners,” Roeper Review, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 108–120, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1434712.
[41] H. R. An and M. H. Yoo, “Analysis of research trends in STEAM education for the gifted,” Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 401–420, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2015.25.3.401.
[42] C. Conradty and F. X. Bogner, “From STEM to STEAM: Cracking the code? How creativity & motivation interacts with inquiry-based learning,” Creativity Research Journal, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 284–295, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1641678.
[43] Ç. Nalçaoğlu, A. Doğru, and S. Yaprak, “The effect of STEAM-based activities on collective creativity of gifted students in science classes,” Journal of Educational Philosophy and Sociology, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 31–57, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.29329/jeps.2025.1332.2.
[44] M. I. Gómez-León, “Side effects of technological practices on 21st-century skills of gifted students,” International Journal of Sociology of Education, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 124–145, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.17583/rise.16879.
[45] CAST. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0 [Internet]. Wakefield, MA: CAST; 2024. Available from: https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
[46] J. M. Spector, “Emerging educational technologies and research directions,” Journal of Educational Technology & Society, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 21–30, 2013.
[47] N. Hockly, Focus on Learning Technologies. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2016.
[48] S. Li, “The historical evolution of educational technology: From the printing press to online education,” Innovation Humanities and Social Sciences Research, vol. 10, pp. 220–225, 2023.
[49] Z. Lavicza et al., “Developing and evaluating educational innovations for STEAM education in rapidly changing digital technology environments,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 12, Art. no. 7237, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127237.
[50] T. Glushkova, K. Gurba, T. Hug, N. Morze, T. Noskova, and E. Smyrnova-Trybulska, “New technologies in personalisation of STEM and STEAM education: International context,” International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 591–615, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCEELL.2022.125730.
[51] B. Haas, Z. Lavicza, T. Houghton, and Y. Kreis, “Can you create? Visualising and modelling real-world mathematics with technologies in STEAM educational settings,” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, vol. 52, Art. no. 101297, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2023.101297.
[52] N. Alhosani, A. Mohamed, H. Elhoweris, and H. Almarashdi, “Empowering young minds: The impact of an innovative enrichment program on gifted students’ STEAM skills development,” European Journal of STEM Education, vol. 10, no. 1, Art. no. 27, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/17383.
[53] Miao F, Holmes W. Guidance for generative AI in education and research [Internet]. Paris: UNESCO; 2023 [cited 2026 Jun 11]. Available from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693
[54] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2023.
[55] F. Pettersson, “Understanding digitalization and educational change in school by means of activity theory and the levels of learning concept,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 26, pp. 187–204, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10239-8.
[56] R. King, “The utility of pragmatism in educational research,” Creative Education, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 3153–3161, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2022.1310199.
[57] V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, 2006, doi: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
[58] G. Falloon, “From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC) framework,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 2449–2472, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4.
[59] A. McDonagh, P. Camilleri, B. K. Engen, and O. McGarr, “Introducing the PEAT model to frame professional digital competence in teacher education,” Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 5–17, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.4226.
[60] J. Cabero-Almenara, F. D. Guillén-Gámez, J. Ruiz-Palmero, and A. Palacios-Rodríguez, “Classification models in the digital competence of higher education teachers based on the DigCompEdu Framework: Logistic regression and segment tree,” Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 49–61, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135472.
[61] M. Ghomi and C. Redecker, “Digital competence of educators (DigCompEdu): Development and evaluation of a self-assessment instrument for teachers’ digital competence,” in Proc. 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2019), vol. 1, 2019, pp. 541–548, doi: https://doi.org/10.5220/0007679005410548.
[62] H. H. Wang, M. Charoenmuang, N. A. Knobloch, and R. L. Tormoehlen, “Defining interdisciplinary collaboration based on high school teachers’ beliefs and practices of STEM integration,” International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0201-4.
[63] M. Johannesen and L. Øgrim, “The role of multidisciplinarity in developing teachers’ professional digital competence,” Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 244–258, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.3735.
[64] A. Calderón and D. Tannehill, “Enacting a new curriculum models-based framework supported by digital technology within a learning community,” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1–15, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X20962126.
[65] J. Castaño-Muñoz, E. Colucci, and H. Smidt, “Teacher collaboration and students’ digital competence: Evidence from the SELFIE tool,” European Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 1–18, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1938535.
[66] M. Sailer, J. Murböck, and F. Fischer, “Digital learning in schools: What does it take beyond digital technology?” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 103, Art. no. 103346, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103346.
[67] M. J. Capp, “Exploring the interrelationship between Universal Design for Learning and Differentiated Instruction: A systematic review,” Educational Research Review, vol. 29, Art. no. 100306, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100306.
[68] K.-T. Lindner and S. Schwab, “Differentiation and individualisation in inclusive education: A systematic review and narrative synthesis,” International Journal of Inclusive Education, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1813450.
[69] S. Vanbecelaere et al., “Technology-mediated personalised learning for younger learners: Concepts, design, methods and practice,” in Proc. Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC 2020), 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3397617.3398059.
[70] T. K. F. Chiu and C. P. Lim, “Strategic use of technology for inclusive education in Hong Kong: A content-level perspective,” ECNU Review of Education, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 650–669, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120930861.
[71] M. J. Koehler and P. Mishra, “What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?” Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 60–70, 2009.
[72] T. Valtonen, S. Pontinen, J. Kukkonen, P. Dillon, P. Väisänen, and S. Hacklin, “Confronting the technological pedagogical knowledge of Finnish Net Generation student teachers,” Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 3–18, 2011, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2010.534867.
[73] K. Karatas and I. Arpaci, “The role of self-directed learning, metacognition, and 21st century skills predicting the readiness for online learning,” Contemporary Educational Technology, vol. 13, no. 3, Art. no. ep300, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/10786.
[74] W. Holmes et al., “Ethics of AI in education: Towards a community-wide framework,” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 32, pp. 504–526, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1.
[75] A. Nguyen, H. N. Ngo, Y. Hong, B. Dang, and B.-P. T. Nguyen, “Ethical principles for artificial intelligence in education,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 28, pp. 4221–4241, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11316-w.
[76] L. Hakimi, R. Eynon, and V. A. Murphy, “The ethics of using digital trace data in education: A thematic review of the research landscape,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 91, no. 5, pp. 671–717, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211020116.
[77] S. Akgun and C. Greenhow, “Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings,” AI and Ethics, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 431–440, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00096-7.
[78] E. B. Mandinach and J. B. Jimerson, “Data ethics in education: A theoretical, practical, and policy issue,” Studia Paedagogica, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 9–29, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2021-4-1.
[79] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “An implementation framework for effective change in schools,” OECD Education Policy Perspectives, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1787/4fd4113f-en.
[80] Hellenic Republic, Ministry of Digital Governance, Digital Transformation Bible 2020–2025, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://digitalstrategy.gov.gr/vivlos_pdf.
Artikel ini berlisensi Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Hak Cipta (c) 2026 Emmanouil D. Milakis, Constantina Corazon Argyrakou, Eleni Chantzouli