data-based decision making: tools for determining best practices in grouping and service delivery

Data-based decision making: Tools for determining best practices

in grouping and service delivery

2014 Rutgers Gifted Education Conference

11/20/14

Elissa F. Brown, Ph.D.

Elissabrown21@gmail.com

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 1

2

“With all the educational

reform that has taken place since

the turn of the century,

how come so little has changed?”

Larry Cuban

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York

Brown, E. & Stambaugh, T. (2014). Placement of students who are gifted. In J. Bakken, F. Obiakor, and A. Rotatori, (Eds.) Gifted Education Current Perspectives and Issues, Advances in Special

Education, vol. 26, pp 41-69.

The placement or program model fundamentally serves as a vehicle to group or organize students

together but programming, in practice, sometimes referred to as a service delivery

model, is not the same thing as service. Placement is a management strategy. It must be coupled with curriculum and instructional

modifications in order for substantial and positive academic and social-emotional effects

to occur for gifted and talented students.

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 3

Standard 5. Programming

Is a properly funded continuum of services provided that offers a variety of programming and learning options that are collaboratively developed and implemented and that enhance student performance in cognitive and affective areas?

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 4

Characteristics of Giftednessthat impact instructional practices

• May be developmentally advanced in one or more areas (uneven development)

• Learn at a faster pace in selected areas

• Ask and explore complex abstract questions and issues

• Experience complex social relationships and issues

• Desire individual responsibility

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 5

• Are sensitive

• Are hypercritical of self and others (high expectations)

• Question authority

• May be introverted

• May experience learning problems and underachievement for the first time

• May become “bored”, withdrawn, isolated, and display low self-concept

Characteristics of Giftednessthat impact instructional practices (cont.)

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 6

Key Linkages of Special Education and General Education in Program Development for the Gifted

Gifted Education

General Education

Special Education

CurriculumEvaluationInstructional ProcessesPhilosophy & GoalsMaterials/Resources

Identification/AssessmentProgram AdministrationGrouping StrategiesTeacher TrainingAdvocacy

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 7

Decision Tree: Macro

Acceleration Enrichment

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 8

Why do we accelerate?1) Acceleration matches the level and complexity of the

curriculum with the readiness and motivation of the child.

2) Acceleration has one of the longest and most robost research bases in the gifted field.

3) Acceleration is consistently effective with gifted students.

4) Accelerations allows for more tailored instructional planning.

5) Acceleration facilitates individual learning at an appropriate level of challenge (eg meets individual needs)

Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Templeton Foundation

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 9

Issues in Grouping & Acceleration

Grouping

• Timeframes for grouping

• Subject Areas

• Teacher qualifications

• Documentation of student growth

• Tailoring instruction

• Flexibility

• Type of grouping most beneficial for student & district

Acceleration

• Consider the degree of giftedness and specific aptitude(s)

• Teacher qualifications

• Program articulation

• “Natural” transition points

• Non-intellective characteristics

• Flexibility

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 10

A Nation Deceived: Meta-Analytic Findings

• Bright students almost always benefit from accelerated programs based on achievement test scores.

• When compared to same-age, intellectual peers, those students who were accelerated performed almost one grade level higher academically.

• When compared to older, non-accelerated students, the accelerated student performance was indistinguishable from that of bright, older non-accelerated students.

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 11

A Nation Deceived: Meta-Analytic Findings (cont.)

• Acceleration has the highest overall academic effects when compared to other provisions.

• Acceleration positively affects student’s long-term educational plans and accelerated students earn more advanced degrees.

• Self-esteem may temporarily drop when accelerated.• There are too few studies to make inferences about student

attitudes when accelerated and social-emotional well-being. However, most studies do suggest that acceleration does not prohibit students from participating in extra-curricular activities as desired.

» Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 12

Some Types of Acceleration

• Early admission to kindergarten• Early graduation from High School• Grade-Skipping• Subject-Matter Acceleration• Curriculum Compacting• Telescoping Curriculum• Correspondence Courses• Advanced Placement Courses• Concurrent/Dual Enrollment• Credit by Examination

Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Templeton Foundation

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 13

Instructional Management and Acceleration Research

• Grade Skipping (ES=.49)• Curriculum Compacting (ES = .83)• Early Entrance to School (ES = .49)• Subject Acceleration (ES = .57)• Grade Telescoping (ES = .40)• Concurrent Enrollment (ES = .22)• AP Courses (ES = .27)• Early Admission to College (ES = .30)• Credit by Examination (ES = .59)

» Rogers, 1998

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 14

Issues in Acceleration

• Consider the degree of giftedness and specific aptitude(s)

• Teacher qualifications

• Program articulation

• “Natural” transition points

• Non-intellective characteristics

• Flexibility

• Unintended Consequences

• Pacing and Curriculum considerations

• Competing political philosophies

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 15

Enrichment

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 16

Why do we enrich?

• Most curriculum models ascribe to a broader conception of gifted (beyond domain specific)

• Proponents of enrichment approaches tend to see process skills (eg critical thinking, problem-based learning) as central to learning

• Enrichment models place high value on student products and performances

• Breadth over depth approach

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 17

Forms of Enrichment

• Focus on “thinking processes” in content areas• School-wide Enrichment Model (SEM) Renzulli &

Reis; contains 3 tiers of enrichment experiences driven by student interests and learning styles. Most widely adopted service delivery model employed in gifted programs (Type I, II, III)

• Competitions (OM, FPS, etc) are forms of enrichment

• Student products (where choice was provided)• Inquiry-based approaches

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 18

Issues with Enrichment

• Having enough resources to “broaden” a topic

• Teacher qualifications/training

• Teacher flexibility to broaden vs following a prescribed course of study-curriculum coverage

• Documenting student growth

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 19

Research Evidence

• Some evidence examining the use with under-served populations as an antidote to underachievement (Ford 1999; Johnsen, 2000)

• Two SEM longitudinal studies-students maintained career goals; teacher attitudes toward student work was positive

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 20

Acceleration and Enrichment

Accelerate First

Then Enrich

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 21

Program Provisions: Within School

• Full-time ability grouping• Special schools• Full-time gifted classes (school-within-a-school)• Cluster grouping• Pull-out grouping• Regrouping for instruction or ability grouping for instruction• Cross-grade grouping• Cooperative groups (based upon interest, ability, strengths)• Consultative model• Extracurricular enrichment options (OM, MathOlympiad..)

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 22

Grouping or Placement Options

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 23

Intensity of grouping placements

General Education

(heterogeneous)

Pull-out (enrichment)

Cluster (academic)

Self-contained (classrm each grade level)

Subject Grouping or

Joplin

Full-time centers/schools

Intensity of service delivery grouping placements

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 24

Grouping Models: Strengths & Weaknesses

(Academic Subject Grouping)Strengths

• Can accommodate a broad range of specific academic ability

• Honors uneven developmental patterns

• Allows ease of teacher planning of course syllabi & implementation

• Research support

• Typical model for secondary schools

Weaknesses

• May be limited by subjects and/or qualified student population

• May become diffused if other students are placed into class based upon insufficient numbers

• May not differentiate curriculum sufficiently

• Effect size is limited unless curriculum is differentiated

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 25

Grouping Models: Strengths & Weaknesses

(Cluster Grouping)

Strengths• Full-time opportunity for

curriculum differentiation• Built-in peer group• Research support• Flexibility for teacher to

group and regroup based upon instructional need

Weaknesses• Tendency to teach whole

class and ignore cluster’s level of functioning

• Limits gifted peer interactions

• Requires teacher to develop and implement multiple instructional plans

• Must have minimum of 3-4 to be effective, fewer students lose effectiveness

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 26

Grouping Models: Strengths & Weaknesses

(Pull-Out)Strengths

• Built-in opportunities for peer interaction

• Curriculum focus on in-depth, enrichment, or specific area of learning

• One instructional plan required

• Typically, teacher qualified in gifted education

• Limited research support

Weaknesses

• Limited contact time

• Fragmented from normal school day

• Lack of integration with district curriculum

• Minimizes interactions with peer group

• Part-time differentiation of curriculum

• Only “gifted” 1 hour/week

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 27

Grouping Models: Strengths & Weaknesses

(Joplin Plan: Grouping by subject

across grade levels)

Strengths

• Accommodates level of learning regardless of age

• Allows for focused teaching

• Ensures content acceleration as a major mode of delivery

• Research support

Weaknesses

• May not provide satisfactory peer group

• Limited to core content areas of curriculum

• Lack of teacher capacity to accelerate, or limited content expertise

• Scheduling difficulty (multiple grade levels)

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 28

Grouping Models: Strengths & Weaknesses

(Full-Time Grouping: Center or School-based)

Strengths

• Ability to deliver a comprehensively differentiated program

• Intellectual peer group interactions

• Flexibility to group and regroup based on several variables

• Research support

Weaknesses

• Political perceptions are more extreme

• Must have qualified teachers in gifted education (resource issue)

• Students may be geographical removed from home “community”

• Possible transportation issues

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 29

Research on Grouping Options

• Full-time Ability grouping (Centers)-Differential placement and treatment ES .49, .85

• Cluster grouping-Partial differential placement, differential

treatment ES .62, .33

• Mixed Ability cooperative groups -No differential placement or treatment ES 0

• Subject Grouping-Differential placement and treatment ES .34, .79

Rogers (2002), Kulik& Kulik (1992)

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 30

Research on Instructional Delivery: Instructional Processes

• Gifted students tend to use higher order thinking even without training, but benefit significantly from being trained

• Gifted students prefer a structured learning environment (desks, tables, etc) but open-ended tasks and assignments

• Academically gifted students tend to be uncomfortable taking risks or dealing with ambiguity; therefore a need for teaching divergent thinking and production exists

K. Rogers (2002)

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 31

Research on Instructional Delivery: Instructional Pacing

• The learning rate of children above 130 IQ is approximately 8 times faster than for children below 70 IQ

• Gifted students are significantly more likely to retain science and math content accurately when taught 2-3 times faster than “normal” pace

• Gifted students are decontextualists in their processing, rather than constructivists; therefore it is difficult to reconstruct “how” they came to an answer

K. Rogers (2002)Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 32

Check List for decision making

Grouping TeacherCapacity

Cost(H, M, L)

IDalignment

Localcontext/Politics

Availabilityof Resources

Other

Cluster

Pull-Out

SubjectGrouping

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 33

Contact Information

• Dr. Elissa F. Brown

elissabrown21@gmail.com

Cell: (757) 593-2224

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 34