Best Practices in programming services for learners with gifts and
Transcript of Best Practices in programming services for learners with gifts and
BEST PRACTICES IN
PROGRAMMING SERVICES FOR
LEARNERS WITH GIFTS AND
TALENTS
Karen B. Rogers
University of St. Thomas – Minneapolis, MN
Let‟s Build on Carolyn‟s Work From the
Last Meeting: “The House”
Once we know our philosophy (or vision),
our operational definitions of giftedness,
our program goals and objectives, we are
ready to work simultaneously on:
Student screening and identification
Program design (service delivery)
Program services
Rogers, 2010
Let‟s Build on Carolyn‟s Work From the
Last Meeting: “The House”
“Use a process that informs decision-making around the type of curriculum, instruction, service delivery model that will provide the most appropriate education” [for these learners]
“Use multiple indicators” [that tell us who is the „best fit‟ for the curriculum, instruction, service delivery options we are establishing]
Ensure that twice exceptional, underachievers, and traditionally underserved students with gifts and talents [are included in the decision-making process]
Rogers, 2010
Let‟s Build on Carolyn‟s Work From the
Last Meeting: “The House”
Program design focuses on providing an array of services integrated into the school day
Not every learner with a gift or talent will fit into each of the services in the array, but there will be at least one service which will be a “perfect match”
Depending upon the intensity of the gift(s) and/or talent(s) of the learner, he or she will need fewer or more of the options in the array.
Intensity can be judged by how much need there is for a learner to work beyond the “regular curriculum and state standards”
Rogers, 2010
Let‟s Build on Carolyn‟s Work From the
Last Meeting: “The House”
Need to focus on what our learner-centered goals will be via the array of program services, such as:
Daily challenge in area(s) of talent
Articulated, scope & sequence of challenge (on a consistent but not necessarily daily basis) in all academic core areas
Daily block of time with “true” intellectual/academic peers for learning and for socialization/affective support
Development of leadership skills
Development of positive motivational, attitudinal behaviors (e.g., persistence, willingness to be challenged, independence in thought and action, willingness to put forth effort, internal locus of control)
Opportunities for flexible progression through “regular curriculum/state standards
Classical and cultural “literacy” in humanities, languages, science, mathematics, English – knowing the “big ideas” of these domains
Rogers, 2010
Defining Our Terms
Program Services – ways in which learners with gifts and talents are organized in order to receive differentiated curriculum and instruction; can include both how learners are put together to “work” as well as who will have responsibility for providing designated learning experiences within this organizational structure
How learners will be grouped
How learners will be individualized
How learners will be accelerated
Where learners will “meet” for their differentiated learning experiences
When learners will “meet” for their differentiated learning experiences
What kind of learning environment will be established when differentiated learning experiences take place
Rogers, 2010
Defining Our Terms
Teaching-Learning (Instructional) Models – the structural framework that serves as a guide for developing specific learning activities and environments (Maker). There are 4 families of instructional models:
Social interaction models (SI) – focus on relationship of individual to society and to other groups
Information processing models (IP) – focus on ways to handle information, organize date, sense problems, generate solutions
Personal development models (PD) – focus on development of self well-being and actualization
Behavior modification and cybernetic models (BCM) – focus on changing behaviors based on effective sequencing of learning tasks, manipulation of antecedents and consequences
Rogers, 2010
Defining Our Terms
Curriculum (Models) – qualitatively “different” plan (i.e., an articulated K-12 scope and sequence) of knowledge, skills, and dispositions outcomes for a target group (e.g., GT learners) in specified educational settings. Plan includes modifications that will be made to “regular” curriculum/standards in curriculum aspects of:
Content - ideas, concepts, information, facts made available to learners
Processes of learning (and being taught) – ways in which knowledge is presented, questions asked, ways in which learners must think and learn
Product – ends expected of learners after engagement in differentiated learning experiences
Rogers, 2010
Building on the K-12 Gifted
Programming Standards (NAGC)
Standard 1: Learning and Development
Students become aware of own interests, strengths, gifts, learning preferences
Students exhibit achievement-oriented identities
Students are matched to activities related to their developmental and culture-based learning needs
Students demonstrate respect for diversity in ability, strengths, and goals
Students engage in “pertinent” out-of-school opportunities matching needs, interests
Students use tools that help them plan for college and career
Rogers, 2010
Program Services, Instructional Models,
Curriculum That Address Standard 1
Program Services Instructional Models Curriculum
GT “Home Room” in which
self-assessments,
academic/career planning,
goal setting experiences
are provided (can be a
resource room/pullout
program at elementary
level, home room GT-
designated teachers who
“stick” with students
throughout middle school or
throughout high school
years
Designated “GT Counselor”
who specializes in issues,
concerns, support of GT
learners K-12
Small group discussion
around resonating themes –
SI Model
Bibliotherapy (Halsted,
Baskin) – SI Model
Type 1 (SEM) activities
focused on identifying
strengths, interests,
preferences - PD Model
Betts small group activities
on understanding
giftedness, group building,
self-development, inter-
personal skills,
organization, product
development - PD Model
“Jean Sunde Petersons‟
“Talking with Teens”
discussion activities (C,P)
Betts‟ Autonomous Learner
Model components on
“Orientation” and
“Individual Development”
(C, P, Pr)
Scope & sequence of eta-
cognitive, self-awareness,
perspective-taking,
affective scaffolding
“topics” to be provided
year by year to GT
learners (C)Rogers, 2010
Building on the K-12 Gifted
Programming Standards (NAGC)
Standard 2: Assessment
Development of environments and instructional activities that encourage expression of diverse characteristics and behaviors associated with giftedness
Use of multiple assessment to measure diverse abilities, talents, strengths in order to provide equitable access to program services based on educational need and “fit” to service
Development of student profile to plan appropriate interventions
Use of appropriately complex performance-based assessments to measure “real” progress of students in services provided
Rogers, 2010
Program Services, Instructional Models,
Curriculum That Address Standard 2
Program Services Instructional Models Curriculum
Data Collector for each
identified GT learner
passed from year to year
to next grade level
Centralized identification
protocol (self-selection Is
not an option) supervised
by central office personnel
Systematic compaction
plans for each GT learner
Systematic “matching” of
GT behaviors/needs with
program options
Out-of-level progress
monitoring via tests, tasks
Matching learner needs to
program options - BCM
model
Tiered system of
identification starting at K
with whole group
enrichment experience
observations for “potential”
Grade 2 group/individual
measures of ability and
achievement – BCM model
Grade 6 performance
assessments for placement
in advanced learning
opportunities – BCM model
Collection of cognitive
functioning, learning
strengths, interests and
attitudes, personal
characteristics, reading
interests, and outside of
school interests (Pr)
Documentation of actual
out-of-level progress (Pr)
Documentation of
compaction and how
“bought time” was spent by
learner (Pr)
Rogers, 2010
Data Collector - Side One
Cognitive
Functioning
Data
Learning
Strengths
Interests and
Attitudes
Rogers, 2010
Data Collector - Side Two
Personal
Characteristics
Books
Read/Reading
Interests
Outside of
School
Experiences
Rogers, 2010
Matching for Ability Grouping Options
Cognitive Functioning - is processing and achieving well above most others at grade level
Learning Strengths - learns easily and well in most subjects at school
Learning Preferences - prefers to work at fast pace, though not necessarily alone
Personal Characteristics - academically motivated, comfortable with competition, self-accepting
Interests/Attitudes - likes academic work even outside of school
Books - reads widely and at advanced levelsRogers, 2010
Matching for Performance Grouping Options
Cognitive Functioning - is achieving well beyond others at current grade level
Learning Strengths - learns quickly and easily in most academic areas
Learning Preferences - prefers fast paced, challenging work, though not necessarily alone
Personal Characteristics - is academically motivated, accepting of others, self-accepting, independent
Interests/Attitudes - likes academic work even outside of school
Books - reads widely and at advanced levelsRogers, 2010
Matching for Compacted Curriculum
Cognitive Functioning - is achieving at substantially higher level in some subjects than most classmates
Learning Strengths - pre-assessment shows actual levels of mastery in subject or subjects
Learning Preferences - willing to work alone or in small group on self-instructional tasks
Personal Characteristics - motivated to learn, persistent, independent
Interests/Attitudes - has high interest in area to be compacted, boredom with routine learning
Books - reads deeply in specific area of strength
Rogers, 2010
Matching for Independent Learning
Cognitive Functioning - is processing, achieving well beyond grade level in specific academic area
Learning Strengths - strong in planning and organizational skills, as well as in specific subject
Learning Preferences - enjoys variety of delivery methods and challenge
Personal Characteristics - is self-directed, independent, motivated to learn
Interests/Attitudes - strong specific interests, time to supplement learning outside of school
Books - reads deeply in specific interest, strength Rogers, 2010
Matching for Acceleration: Grade-Based
Cognitive Functioning - needs to learn more in a year than 1 year’s curriculum in most subjects
Learning Strengths - shows strengths in every academic area
Learning Preferences - prefers to work alone and at own pace
Personal Characteristics - is independent and persistent
Interests/Attitudes - likes academic work, has wide-ranging interests
Books - often reads books well beyond age and “appropriately developmental” level
Rogers, 2010
Matching for Acceleration: Subject-Based
Cognitive Functioning - is performing well above age peers in specific academic area or areas
Learning Strengths - more than 2 grades ahead in specific area or areas
Learning Preferences - enjoys variety of delivery methods and challenges in that specific area
Personal Characteristics - is self-directed, independent, and motivated to learn
Interests/Attitudes - strong passion in specific area(s) with little time to pursue this outside of school
Books - reads extensively in specific passion areaRogers, 2010
Building on the K-12 Gifted
Programming Standards (NAGC)
Standard 3: Curriculum Planning and Instruction
Continuous, comprehensive scope and sequence to develop differentiated plans for PK-12 learners
Modification/replacement of standard curriculum to meet needs of GT learners including those who are 2e, culturally diverse, economically disadvantaged, ELL, highly gifted
Provision of challenge, in-depth learning, complex, qualitatively different curriculum content
Infusion of interest development, critical thinking, creative thinking, problem solving, inquiry experiences and delivery in highly challenging, differentiated curriculum
Selection of effective, research-based, high quality curriculum resources for designed learning experiences
Rogers, 2010
Program Services, Instructional Models,
Curriculum That Address Standard 3
Program Services Instructional Models Curriculum
Selection of at least 2
ability-grouped and 2
performance grouped
options in which curriculum
will be implemented
Selection of at least 2
grade-based and 2
subject-based acceleration
options in which curriculum
will be implemented
Selection of at least 2
individualization (for single
learner) and 2 flexible
progress (single or small
group of learners) options
in which curriculum will be
implemented
Provision of “gifted” work
in big ideas, critical
thinking, creative thinking,
discovery learning, interest
development, exposure
enrichment –IP model
Provision of advanced
content/skill provision via
fast pace, limited review,
in-depth study of talent
area, whole-to-part
concept learning, reflection
and analysis, self-
instructional experiences –
IP model
Philosophy for Children, Jr.
Great Books, Literature
Circles, Writing Workshops,
College of William & Mary
curriculum in social studies,
science, math, language
arts – (C,P, Pr)
Subject accelerated content
and skills in next or several
levels “up” (C, Pr)
Use of curriculum
development models to
develop units of instruction
– Betts, Bruner, Bloom,
Maker, Kaplan, Treffinger,
Williams, Kohlberg, Parnes,
Taba, etc. (C, P, Pr)Rogers, 2010
Program Services, Instructional Models,
Curriculum That Address Standard 3
Program Services Instructional Models Curriculum
Process skill training in
inquiry/investigative skills
(discovery), freedom of
choice, group interaction,
planning, organization/
management, research,
communication skills
Content modifications of
abstraction, complexity,
variety, organization, study
of people, methods of
inquiry, content telecoping,
acceleration, sophistication,
novelty, ethics, arts
integration, the classics (big
ideas of domains)
Process modifications of
HOTS, open-endedness,
variety pacing, service
projects
Product modifications of
real world problems, real
audiences, transformational
productsRogers, 2010
Matching Instructional Delivery with Area
Fast Pacing Math, science, foreign
language
Target teaching of gaps
In-depth learning
Concept-based learning
Science.History Humanities, language
arts, social studies
Whole -to-part Math, science Literature, social
studies
Elimination of drill and
repetition
Math, science, spelling,
geography
Literature, social
studies
Self-instructional
learning
Math, spelling,
geography
Some areas of social
studies
Reflection and analysis Science Humanities, language
arts, social studies
Rogers, 2010
Curriculum Development Models
Model Content Mods. Process Mods. Product Mods
Betts Autonomous
Learning Model –
PD and SI model
Orientation to
Giftedness,
Individual
Development
Enrichment,
Seminars, In-depth
Study
HOTS
Open-endedness
Discovery
Freedom of Choice
Group interaction
Variety
Pacing
Real World
Problems
Real Audiences
Transformational
Products
Bloom‟s Taxonomy
of Cognitive
Objectives
BCM and IP model
Factual
Conceptual
Procedural
Meta-cognitive
Know
Understand, Apply
Analyze, Evaluate
Create
Products leveled by
6 learning and
thinking processes
Bruner‟s Structure of
the Discipline
IP model
Big ideas of the
domain or discipline
Abstraction,
complexity, Study of
People, Methods of
Inquiry
Discovery
Intuition
HOTS
Real Problems
Transformational
Products
Rogers, 2010
Curriculum Development Models
Models Content Mods. Process Mods. Product Mods.
Kaplan‟s Layered
Differentiation
Model
IP model
(Origin, contribution,
parallel, paradox,
convergence of
concepts) in layers
L2:Differentiated
Core
L3: Classical
L4: Individualized
L5: Theme
L6: Generalization
Patterns,
associations,
language of
discipline, trends,
details, unanswered
questions, rules,
ethics, big ideas,
over time, points of
view, connections
Transformational
Products
Kohlberg‟s Stages
of Moral Reasoning
Model
BCM and SI model
Ethical Dilemmas
from current events,
scenarios, religion,
philosophy, science,
literature,
humanities
Individual, small
group discussion/
analysis,
application,
evaluation of
personal ethical
choices
Personal movement
to higher level of
moral reasoning by
exposure to higher
reasoning level
Rogers, 2010
Curriculum Development Models
Models Content Mods. Process Mod. Product Mods.
Maker DISCOVER
Model
IP model
Problems to solve
along a continuum
of clarity (6 types)
Infusion of the arts
Integration of
cultures and
languages
HOTS
Open-endedness
Active learning
Real problems
Transformational
products
Parallel Curriculum
Model
IP model
Core – concepts of
the disciplines
Connections
Practice
Identity
Ascending
intellectual demand
– from novice to
expert at each
content stage
Personal
applications at
Identity parallel
Real world
problems and
solutions at Practice
parallel
Rogers, 2010
Curriculum Development ModelsModels Content Mods. Process Mods. Product Mods.
Parnes Creative
Problem Solving
Model
IP and BCM model
“Fuzzy” problem or
situation defined by
Mess finding
Data finding
Problem finding
Idea finding
Solution finding
Acceptance finding
Brainstorming
Evaluation
Discovery
Analysis
Problem solving
Real World
problems
Transformational
Products
Problem-Based/
Project-Based
Learning
IP model
Ill-structured
problem is given for
learners to “work
through” in learning
about given concept
or field
Inquiry
Discovery
Researching
Problem solving
Real World
problems
Transformational
Products
Rogers, 2010
Curriculum Development Models
Models Content Mods.. Process Mods. Product Mods.
Purdue 3-Stage
Model
IP model
Maximum content
achievement
Exposure to variety
of disciplines
Focus on Reading
across content areas
HOTS
Problem solving
Creative thinking
Pacing
Imagery,
imagination
Real World
Problems
Real audiences
Individual
investigations
Renzulli SEM Model
IP model
Exposure to variety
of disciplines in
development of
interests, talents
Taxonomy of 255
critical, creative,
and productive skills
Real World
individual
investigations
Real audiences
Transformational
Products
Rogers, 2010
Curriculum Development Models
Models Content Mods. Process Mods. Product Mods.
Taba Teaching
Strategies Model
IP and BCM model
Big ideas, concepts,
generalizations of
content areas
Inquiry process –
structured series of
questions at 4 levels
for learners to
“discover” big idea
Real World
Problems
Talents Unlimited
Model
IP model
Academic talent Productive thinking
Decision making
Planning
Forecasting
communication
Transformational
products
Treffinger Levels of
Service Model (S-D
Learning Model)
BCM model
Student centered
differentiation
experiences offered
to all, many some,
few by ascending
complexity
Critical thinking
Creative thinking
Self-direction
Transformational
products
Rogers, 2010
Curriculum Development ModelsModels Content Mods. Process Mods. Product Mods.
VanTassel-Baska
Integrated
Curriculum Model
IP model
Content Knowledge
(accelerated)
Organizing Concept
Interdisciplinary
connections of
concept
Critical Thinking
Conceptual
Reasoning
Research skills
Problem finding
Problem solving
Real world
problems
Transformational
products
Williams Cognitive-
Affective Interaction
Model
IP model
18 teaching
strategies applied
to any content area
Fluency
Flexibility
Elaboration
Originality
Risk taking
Curiosity,
complexity
Imagination
Transformational
products
Clark‟s Integrative
Education Model
IP model
Challenging content
presented visually,
spatially, verbally
Open-endedness
Intuition
Affective scaffold
Transformational
products
Rogers, 2010
Matching Modified Curriculum with Area
Content Abstraction Literature, History,
Humanities
Science, Social Studies
Complexity Math, Science Literature, Social
Studies
Multi-disciplinarity Science Literature, Humanities,
Social studies
Study of People Social Studies, Science Literature, Humanities
Methods of Inquiry Science Humanities, social
studies
Open-endedness Literature, Humanities Social Studies
Rogers, 2010
Matching Modified Curriculum with Area
Proof and Reasoning Science, Math Literature, Social
Studies
Discovery Learning Science Social Studies,
Humanities
Real World Problems Science, Math Literature, Social
Studies, Humanities
Transformational
Products
Science Social Studies
The “Classics” Literature, Humanities Science, Art, Music,
Theater
Memory Work Science History, Geography
Rogers, 2010
Matching Modified Curriculum with Area
Social Issues,
Ethics Discussions
Social Studies,
Humanities
Literature, Science
Problem-Based
Tasks and Projects
Science, Math Social Studies,
Humanities
Service Learning Social Studies,
Humanities,
Science
Literature
Planning, Research
Organization, Test-
taking Training
Science, Math Social Studies,
Humanities
Communication
Skills Training
Literature Social Studies.
Science
Arts-Integration Criticism History, aestheticsRogers, 2010
Building on the K-12 Gifted
Programming Standards (NAGC)
Standard 4: Learning Environments
Meaningful challenge to develop learner‟s personal competence
Opportunities for interaction with intellectual and artistic/creative peers
Opportunities for independent work
Opportunities for leadership skill, social responsibility development
Opportunities to develop appreciation for language and cultural diversity
Access to oral, written, artistic forms of communication cultural literacy resources
Rogers, 2010
Program Services, Instructional Models,
Curriculum That Address Standard 4Program Services Instructional Models Curriculum
Daily provision of
challenge in talent area(s)
Daily blocks of time with
intellectual peers for
learning and socializing
Consistent block of time
with artistic/creative
peers for learning and
socializing
Provision of leadership
skills programs
Access to multiple foreign
language learning
Provision of cultural
literacy opportunities
Provision of IS
opportunities
Teacher as “guide on the
side” not “sage on the
stage”
Project-based learning for
leadership, communication
development
Accelerated pacing and
content in talent area
daily classes with
elimination of excess drill
and review
Accelerated pacing and
content in multiple
language learning classes
Use of developed
curriculum units specifically
geared for GT learners
Discipline-Based Arts
Education integrated into
curriculum
Scope & sequence of
social skills development
experiences for GT
learners
Rogers, 2010
Building on the K-12 Gifted
Programming Standards (NAGC)
Standard 5: Programming
Accelerative options for enhancing performance
Grouping options for enhancing performance
Individualized options for enhancing performance
On-line learning and technology for enhancing performance
Scope and sequence of talent development plans for
specific talent areas
Specific counseling access relevant to interests, strengths,
values
Provision of mentorships, internships, vocational experiences
relevant to student‟s talent area(s)
Rogers, 2010
Program Services, Instructional Models,
Curriculum That Address Standard 5Program Services Instructional Models Curriculum
Selection of at least 2
ability-grouped and 2
performance grouped
options in which curriculum
will be implemented
Selection of at least 2
grade-based and 2
subject-based acceleration
options in which curriculum
will be implemented
Selection of at least 2
individualization (for single
learner) and 2 flexible
progress (single or small
group of learners) options
in which curriculum will be
implemented
Counselor provided
discussion group sessions
with small groups of GT
learners centered on
ability-related, socially-
related issues
Access to on-line
coursework for GT students
who have exhausted what
school level can provide
Talent development plan
that allows for flexible
progress for students with
extraordinary talents or
gifts
Centralized co-curricular
academic competition
“scope & sequence with
formal identification
process for inclusion
Rogers, 2010
Building on the K-12 Gifted
Programming Standards (NAGC)
Standard 6: Professional Development
Educators trained to develop talent on daily basis
Provision of adequate resources to support gifted and talent
development services
Provision of GT social-emotional needs training
Rogers, 2010
Program Services, Instructional Models,
Curriculum That Address Standard 6
Program Services Instructional Models Curriculum
Monthly provision of book
study groups, on-line
coursework with or without
credit, in-services for all
teachers with GT learners
in their classrooms
Yearly stipends for
purchase of differentiated
resources for use with GT
learners
Paid writing and prep time
for teachers with GT
learners in their classrooms
Peer coaching model for
teachers learning to work
with GT learners
Role playing and
simulations for dealing with
social and emotional issues
in GT learners
Modeling of Jean Sunde
Peterson‟s discussion group
activities
Teacher “talent
development” plans for
acquiring knowledge, skills,
dispositions needed to be
effective with GT learners
Rogers, 2010
A Quick Tour of Our Research Base
Research on the Nature of the Learner
Research on Instructional Management Strategies
Grouping
Acceleration
Individualization
Research on Differentiated Instructional Delivery
Teaching to preferences and interests
Teaching to the qualitative differences in GT learners
Research on Differentiated Curriculum strategies
Research on GT Teacher “Effectiveness”
Rogers, 2010
What We Know About the Nature of the Gifted
Learner
Giftedness can be expressed in multiple forms. The corollary to this is that a single program does not fit all gifted learners. An array of services that will build and develop potential into high performance in a domain will be necessary in any “gifted” program. Programs for developing giftedness might include philosophy courses, Jr. Great Books, critical thinking skills, exposure enrichments, writing workshops, art education, etc.--experiences that open the minds of high potential learners to what‟s out there to be learned.
Talent can be expressed in multiple forms. The corollary to this is that a single “talent development” program does not serve all talent areas. An array of services, starting with daily challenge in the academic core areas (talented students need only participate for their own talent area) must be provided. We will need accelerated math classes, advanced English and writing classes, honors science classes, and advanced social studies classes on the menu for those who perform at extraordinary levels in those respective areas.
Rogers, 2010
Gagné‟s Differentiated Model of
Giftedness and Talent
CATALYSTS
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (D)
Informal / formal learning & practicing
INTRAPERSONAL (I)
PHYSICAL / MENTAL CHARACTERISTICS
(Appearance, handicaps, health)
(Temperament, personality traits, well-being)
SELF-MANAGEMENT (Maturity)
AWARENESS OF SELF / OTHERS
(Strengths & weaknesses, emotions)
MOTIVATION/VOLITION
(Needs, interests, passions, values)
(Resource allocation, adaptive strategies, effort)
Positive/
negative
impacts
CHANCE (C)
NATURAL
ABILITIES (NAT)
DOMAINS (G)
(Examples of sub-domains)
INTELLECTUAL (Gi)
General intelligence (g factor)
Fluid, crystallized reasoning
Verbal, numerical, spatial
Memory, sense of observation
CREATIVE (Gc)
Inventiveness (problem-solving)
Imagination, originality (arts),
retrieval fluency
SOCIAL (Gs)
Communications (tact,
perceptiveness, eloquence)
Influence (leadership,
persuasion)
PHYSICAL (Gp)
Sensory (visual,auditory.
affective, etc.)
Motor (power, endurance,
balance, coordination, etc.)
GIFTEDNESS (G)= top 10%
MILEAU (physical, cultural, social, familial, etc.)
PERSONS (parents, teachers, peers, mentors, etc.)
PROVISIONS (programs, activities, services, etc.)
EVENTS (encounters, awards, accidents, etc.)
ENVIRONMENTAL (E)
Positive/
negative
impacts
TALENT (T)= top 10%
SYSTEMATICALLY
DEVELOPED COMPETENCIES
(SYSDEV)
FIELDS (T)
(Examples relevant
to school-age youths)
ACADEMICS (language,
science, humanities, etc.)
ARTS (visual, drama, music,
etc.)
BUSINESS (sales,
entrepreneurship,
management, etc.)
LEISURE (chess, video games,
puzzles, etc.)
SOCIAL ACTION (media,
public office, etc.)
SPORTS (individual & team)
TECHNOLOGY (trades & crafts,
electronics, computers, etc.)
Rogers, 2010
Who the Gifted Learner is Has Become Clearer
The gifted mind is more likely to be decontextualist in acquiring new
learning than constructivist: It‟s a different kind of “wiring”!
Effective learning is most likely to occur when the gifted learner is taught
concepts, principles, generalizations, and works on issues or problems (but
all this is supported with adequate access to facts, details, vocabulary, basic
knowledge)
Effective learning is most likely to occur when the concept is taught whole-to-
part, rather than part-to-whole
The gifted mind tends to learn at a significantly faster rate than more
“normal” learners (8 times faster than those 2 SDs below average)
The gifted mind is more likely to accurately retain what has been
learned when not forced to drill and review it once mastery is
demonstrated
Rogers, 2010
What We Don‟t Know About the Nature of
Giftedness and Talent
How to “find” giftedness (and talent also) in traditionally underserved populations, such as culturally diverse, economically disadvantaged, ELL, twice exceptional.
Javits grants have spent millions in trying to find means for identifying these students.
The “hope” has been that culture fair and non-verbal tests would be the saving grace, but there is much controversy about the way these tests have been standardized, often to the detriment of mainstream and more traditional higher order thinkers and performers, especially those with verbal gifts.
How to “serve” giftedness (and talent also) in traditionally underserved populations such as diversity, economic differences, ELL, 2X.
Javits grants have spent millions in trying to find program models that will work, with varying results
Some glimmers of hope in College of William & Mary curricula in all academic core areas, SEM-R, M3 curricula
Rogers, 2010
What We Know About Instructional Management
for Gifted Learners
Ability and performance grouping provide sizeable academic gains in almost every grouping permutation. The research is clear and consistent on this. We should offer at least two different forms of this grouping in every setting but there is a huge menu of grouping options from which to choose.
Individualization is more than just an ideal or a word that bears little relationship to the realities of the classroom. Efforts must be made to provide unique “plans” for individual learners (e.g., independent study, compacting, mentorships, on-line courses, credit for prior learning, testing out.
Individualization can also be thought of as flexible progress through the k-12 curriculum, which also implies acceleration must be provided in some form or other. Efforts must be made to offer programs and courses such as Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, dual enrollment, non-graded classrooms, Talent Search opportunities, summer college programs, and Saturday programs.
Rogers, 2010
Research on Instructional Management: Grouping Permutations
Full-time ability grouping (ES= .49,.33, 1.05)
Regrouping for specific instruction (ES= .34, .79)
Cluster grouping of GT students (ES= .59, .44)
Pull-out grouping (ES= .45,.44,.32)
Within class ability grouping (ES= .34)
Cross-graded classes (ES= .45,.46)
Mixed ability cooperative groups (ES= 0)
Like ability cooperative groups (ES=.28)
Rogers, 2010
Research on Instructional Management:Individualization
Non-graded classrooms (ES= .38)
Multi-grade classrooms (ES= .19)
One-to-one mentoring/tutoring (ES= .57)
Compacting (ES= .83,.26)
Credit for prior learning (ES= .56)
Talent Development (LO)
IEPs or ILPs (LO)
Independent Study (ES= 0)
On-line computer coursework (ES= .74)
On-line individualized coursework (ES= 2.35)
Rogers, 2010
Acceleration for Gifted Learners
Grade-Based Acceleration
Grade skipping ES=.32
Grade telescoping ES=.40
Early college adm. ES=.30
Radical college ad. ES=2.00
Subject-Based Acceleration
Subject accel. ES=.57
AP ES=.64
IB ES=.54
On-line courses ES=.74
Ind. Study ES=2.35
Res. HS ES=1.04
Mentorship ES=.22, 2.00
Early entrance ES=.30
Dual enrollmt. ES = .22
Compacting ES=.83, .20
Non-graded ES=.38
Rogers, 2010
What We Know About Instructional Delivery and
Differentiation (Research-based)
Fast pace in math, science, foreign language learning
Elimination of practice and review once mastery is achieved
Whole-to-part delivery of content and skills
Pre-assessment (compacting, compacting, compacting) is a regular procedure before new units of instruction are introduced
Tiered assignments
Tiered expectations and assessments
Dual grading systems (normative, self-comparative)
Need for independent learning, in-depth learning on a regular basis
Need for like performing groups on a regular basis
Corrective, specific feedback on products, performances
Rogers, 2010
What We Know About Curriculum Differentiation
The “general” curriculum must be modified constantly for more:
Difficulty, abstraction, stronger ties to human issues and problems, concept-
based organization, stronger links with methods practicing professionals use,
linking of content across multiple disciplines, and content telescoping
Open-ended processing, higher order thinking, supporting arguments with
evidence, problem-based and inquiry learning experiences, applications of
memory-related content (memory strategies)
Focus on real world problems, real audiences for solutions, transformational
products
Must find room in the crowded general curriculum for (1) big ideas of
science and mathematics; (2) philosophy; (3) general principles of all arts
domains; (4) historical perspectives throughout (across time); (5) multiple
language learning; (6) keyboarding speed and accuracy; (7) the “classics”
of literature.
Rogers, 2010
What We Know About Teacher Effectiveness
When students are asked, they point out the professional behaviors of effective teachers rather than personality characteristics, especially the older ones.
Cover what they promise to teach
Use humor in line with subject matter
Don‟t require practice on content and skills already mastered
Provide immediate, corrective feedback
Pick up the pace in their presentation of new material, BUT are organized and clear in their presentations as well
Perceive bright learners as individuals and are excited by them
Accommodate individual learners‟ academic needs
Pre-assess units and subjects so students don‟t have to repeat what is already mastered
Provide a scaffold (whole concept up front) and then follow up with analysis and reflections on the big idea(s)
Rogers, 2010
What We Know About Teacher Effectiveness
There are some important personality characteristics
as well, however, including:
Patience, equanimity
Sense of humor in line with the subject matter
Fairness but firmness
Facilitator not “sage on the stage”
Genuine enthusiasm for what is being taught
Genuine liking for giftedness and talent when seen
Rogers, 2010
So What Does This Mean to the GT Program
Provision?
What changes/choices will need to be made to how GT students will be identified and served through an “array” of services?
How do you make choices about which instructional management strategies to select and which to leave alone?
How do you ensure that all teachers of GT learners use differentiated instructional delivery and curriculum differentiation strategies with fidelity?
How do you provide support for all teachers of GT learners so they have a chance of carrying out our expectations?
How do you document that your choices have been “effective” ones?
Rogers, 2010
Last Words From Me…
We know a lot but we still have many challenges to overcome.
How can we make the most of what we know from the research
to make changes for gifted and talented learners, even if it is
one small step at a time?
How can we contribute to our research base with the
experimental practices we try with gifted and talented
learners. We all need to know what is being done and learn
from the successes as well as the failures!
Go forth and multiply…
Rogers, 2010
Last Words From Others
From Albert Lee Cox, Grade 8 Student:
It is not enough to be good if you have the ability to be better. It is not enough to be very good, if you have the ability to be great.
And what does this say about his teachers?
The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires.
(William Arthur Ward, author)
Rogers, 2010