best practices in programming services for learners with ... · best practices in programming...

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



“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



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



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



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




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



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




Selection of at least 2

ability-grouped and 2

performance grouped

options in which curriculum

will be implemented


grade-based and 2

subject-based acceleration


will be implemented


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




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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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



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


Curriculum That Address Standard 5Program Services Instructional Models Curriculum


ability-grouped and 2

performance grouped


will be implemented


grade-based and 2

subject-based acceleration


will be implemented


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



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




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

best practices in programming services for learners with ... · best practices in programming...

Documents