Аннотация
The article examines teacher preparation for working with gifted learners in inclusive education by positioning differentiated instruction as a structuring principle of professional readiness. The study aimed to develop and pilot a theoretically grounded preparation model that connects inclusive pedagogy, gifted education, and differentiated instructional design within a unified framework of teacher education. The empirical part of the study used a one-group pretest–posttest pilot design with future teachers from two universities in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The final matched sample included 79 participants who completed a semester-based module focused on differentiated support for gifted learners in heterogeneous classrooms. The module addressed giftedness as a dynamic and context-sensitive developmental phenomenon and included work with learner profiles, cognitively complex tasks, flexible pacing, enrichment, formative assessment, and socio-emotional responsiveness. The results showed statistically significant within-group increases in self-reported professional readiness across the measured domains. The most pronounced gains were observed in gifted-specific readiness, particularly in identifying and developing gifted potential, designing cognitively complex tasks, and managing differentiated instruction and assessment. Regression analysis indicated that gains in gifted-specific readiness were most strongly associated with improvement in differentiated instructional readiness. Within the limits of a one-group self-report pilot design, the findings suggest that preparation for inclusive gifted education may need to move beyond general inclusive attitudes toward a more differentiated pedagogical repertoire. Such preparation may support future teachers in connecting participation, challenge, support, and socio-emotional responsiveness in mixed-ability classrooms. The study contributes to teacher education research by offering preliminary evidence on differentiation as an operational link between inclusive education and gifted education. Its conclusions remain cautious, as the study relied on self-report measures and did not include a control group, random assignment, observed teaching practice, or direct learner-level outcomes.