The Extent, Nature and Effectiveness of Planned Approaches in ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Anecdotal evidence indicates that the nature of withdrawal or pull-out programmes in New Zealandmirrors international literature. Pull-out programmes may be enriched or accelerated, but it seems thatthe most common practice is an enrichment-orientation (Borland, 1997b; Rogers, 2002b), withRenzulli’s Enrichment Triad Model being reported as the most often utilised curricular framework(Winner, 1996a). Apart from content differentiation, pull-out programmes also tend to focus oncreative and critical thinking, complex problem solving, independent or small group learning, andcreative productivity (Moon, Feldhusen, & Dillon, 1994). Winner (1996a) indicates that pull-outprogrammes offer active, hands-on, project-based learning. Additionally, it is recommended that pulloutprogrammes, like all other provisions for gifted students, provide a psychological support system(Delisle, 1995).Reid (1996) raises concerns over the nature of gifted and talented programmes in New Zealand,including pull-out programmes, indicating that the buzz words related to content, process, and productdifferentiation are seldom defined, but “… provide a nice warm feeling of worthiness and wellbeing”(p. 379). Similarly, Winner (1996a) questions the value of provisions which might be “too superficial,too short, and too unsystematic” (p. 262). Rogers (2002b) describes the typical approach of theseprogrammes as a ‘potpourri.’ However, if educators heed the advice of the Ministry of Education,then differentiated pull-out programmes will not be ‘more of the same,’ but incorporate “well-thoughtout,meaningful learning experiences that capitalise on students’ strengths and interests” (Ministry ofEducation, 2000, p. 36).Outcomes for StudentsThe review of the literature found some descriptive reports of pull-out provisions within New Zealand.For example, there are New Zealand-based case studies of pull-out programmes reported on Te KeteIpurangi: The Online Learning Centre: College Street Normal School; Mairehau Primary School;Leeston Consolidated School; and Harley Street School. The 1998 Education Review Office report,Working with Students with Special Abilities, describes several case study schools employing thisprovision. Tall Poppies magazine also regularly features descriptive reports of pull-out provisions forgifted students. This review of the literature, however, did not yield any substantive reports of theeffectiveness of pull-out programmes for gifted and talented students. It seems that the situation hasnot changed much since 1996 when Reid wrote, “… there have been a handful of articles written about‘programmes’ for gifted children, but these are long on description, unsupported opinion, andunsubstantiated conclusions on outcomes, and they are woefully short on quantitative and/orqualitative evidence of effectiveness” (p. 378).Despite the fact that pull-out or withdrawal programmes are the most common provision worldwide,the research related to the effectiveness of this approach in enhancing cognitive and affectiveoutcomes for gifted and talented students is rather limited. As Delcourt et al. (1994) report in regardsto research on programme effectiveness:Although there are many theoretical articles, and articles which describe the curricula orgoals of different kinds of gifted programs, there are few studies which have directlyexamined how students change over time after entering a gifted programmes. Research onthe effects of gifted programs is generally sparse, unsystematic, and far from conclusive(p 3).This is certainly the case regarding national and international research on pull-out programmes:Rogers (2002a) in her research synthesis cites one meta-analysis, and this review of the literatureyielded a very limited number of other forms of reported research.An international perspective. Moon et al. (1994) report empirical research which indicates thatstudents in pull-out programmes make moderate gains in achievement, critical thinking, creativity,encouragement of interests, and interaction with other gifted students. Some of these studies wereincluded in a meta-analysis and review of the research on pull-out programmes conducted by Vaughn,Feldhusen, and Asher (1991). The meta-analysis included nine studies using true or quasiexperimentaldesigns and a control group of gifted students. They concluded that pull-out programmes94
have significant but varying positive effects upon students’ academic achievement (overall effect sizeof .65), critical thinking (overall effect size of .44), and creative thinking (overall effect size of .32).They also found that pull-out programmes did not appear to have negative effects on self-concept(overall effect size of .11). It is important to note that the moderately positive effects uponachievement and critical thinking are contingent upon the emphasis placed upon these in pull-outprogrammes. Furthermore, Rogers (2002a) reports that the greatest gains in achievement occur whenthe pull-out programme is an extension of the regular classroom curriculum.Winner (1996b) comments on the modest gains in achievement which result from pull-outprogrammes, stating that “probably students of any ability level would benefit from the kinds of openended,project-based learning that goes on” (p. 44), emphasising that none of the studies to date haveproven otherwise. She purports that the studies compared gifted students in pull-out programmes withsimilarly gifted students not in such programmes, and these two groups were not randomly assigned.“Only with random assignment can we be sure that gains experienced by the children in the pull-outgroup are due to the programmes, and not to pre-existing differences between the two groups ofchildren” (Winner, 1996a, p. 262). However, as Reid (1996) points out, research of this nature createsethical dilemmas, and perhaps for that reason, the type of research Winner calls for has not beencarried out.Another factor to consider in relation to the modest gains in achievement is the relationship betweenthe nature of pull-out programmes and the measures of achievement utilised in studies ofeffectiveness. Kulik (2003) comments that such modest gains are in fact quite remarkable given thatmost programmes “…do not ordinarily provide more work on the basic skills … However, thestandardised achievement tests used to evaluate the effects of most enrichment programs stress basicskills” (p. 275).Moon et al. (1994) conducted a study to investigate the long-term effects of a pull-out programmewhich used the Purdue Three-Stage Model as a framework. Their study found that gifted and talentedstudents perceived benefits by way of enhanced creative and critical-thinking skills, problem solvingskills, and motivation to pursue their own goals, and, furthermore, that these attitudes and skills weretransferable to other learning situations. The students also reported enjoyment of the variety and paceof enriched learning activities. Some students indicated short-term or mild effects associated withmissed instruction. However, they further report that in regard to self-concept, the research findingsare mixed, with some research indicating neutral or positive effects and others reporting negativeeffects. They conclude that pull-out programmes “can have positive effects on both cognitive andaffective development if the curriculum is differentiated to match the needs of gifted learners” (Moonet al., 1994).Delcourt et al. (1994) report research which examined the outcomes for primary age students in pulloutprogrammes which did offer the differentiation Moon and his colleagues describe. They describepull-out programmes which consisted of units of study normally not found in the ‘regular curriculum’and with a scientific orientation. Further, these programmes placed strong emphasis uponindividualised pursuit of investigative study. They concluded that students in these programmesdemonstrated higher academic achievement than their gifted peers who were not involved, especiallyin the areas of reading comprehension, science, and social studies, yet lower achievement inmathematics. Furthermore, the perceived social acceptance of the students was not negatively affectedby their participation in the pull-out programmes, in fact, it was greater than that of gifted students inseparate classes and special schools.Moon and Feldhusen (1993) conducted a small-scale longitudinal study which investigated theaccomplishments and future plans of secondary students who had participated in an enrichment pulloutprogramme during primary school. This exploratory qualitative investigation revealed that for themost part, the gifted students showed evidence of high ability, creativity, and accomplishment duringtheir secondary education. The participating students also had moderate to high educational and careergoals. The researchers concluded, “The study provides support for the belief that there is a relationship95
Page 1 and 2:
The Extent, Nature and Effectivenes
Page 3 and 4:
iii
Page 6 and 7:
AcknowledgementsThe research team w
Page 8 and 9:
viii
Page 10 and 11:
The Nature and Extent of Identifica
Page 12 and 13:
Table 28. School-Based Provisions:
Page 14 and 15:
policy (Ministry of Education, 2002
Page 17 and 18:
Introduction to the Literature Revi
Page 19 and 20:
national and international theory a
Page 21 and 22:
literature in relation to New Zeala
Page 23 and 24:
DEFINITIONS AND CHARACTERISTICSTher
Page 25 and 26:
It is also important to remember th
Page 27 and 28:
classroom. She further recommends t
Page 29 and 30:
combination. The desirable approach
Page 31 and 32:
identification and the opportunitie
Page 33 and 34:
words, teacher identification in yo
Page 35 and 36:
Tests of intelligence. Tests of int
Page 37 and 38:
2003). The bias reported in these t
Page 39 and 40:
mentioned, it must be recognised th
Page 41:
that ‘all parents think their chi
Page 46:
The adaptations made to content, pr
Page 49 and 50:
same time, relationships can be bui
Page 51 and 52:
6. The classroom has a comfortable,
Page 53 and 54:
Freeman (1998) conceives enrichment
Page 55 and 56: egular classroom can also alleviate
Page 57 and 58: • These learners should have oppo
Page 59 and 60: learning there seems to be reluctan
Page 61 and 62: Swiatek (2002) concludes that the S
Page 63 and 64: Perhaps in the historical debate ov
Page 65 and 66: The New Zealand Curriculum recognis
Page 67 and 68: Stocktake Report to the Minister of
Page 69 and 70: The model reflects many of the prin
Page 71 and 72: • The establishment of learning g
Page 73 and 74: challenging for them” (Fielder et
Page 75 and 76: (1986) believe that if grouping is
Page 77 and 78: EDUCATING GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDE
Page 79 and 80: and exposure to higher level thinki
Page 81 and 82: 5. Ensure the student is equipped a
Page 83 and 84: • A documented programme for an i
Page 85 and 86: There are some suggestions that IEP
Page 87 and 88: Potential Weaknesses• Time consum
Page 89 and 90: always be concerned to protect stud
Page 91 and 92: Similar findings were reported by J
Page 93 and 94: Potential Strengths• Working in t
Page 95 and 96: Kaplan (1999) outlines the followin
Page 97 and 98: Potential weaknesses of learning ce
Page 99 and 100: Developed specifically as a model f
Page 101 and 102: earlier in this review of the liter
Page 103 and 104: • A practical option for small or
Page 105: programmes of this nature. Macleod
Page 109 and 110: • Missed instruction (Cox & Danie
Page 111 and 112: describe American secondary schools
Page 113 and 114: felt that instruction was more stud
Page 115 and 116: Recommendations for Effective Pract
Page 117 and 118: Outcomes for StudentsEarly entry is
Page 119 and 120: difficulties, Cornell et al. (1991)
Page 121 and 122: opportunities for acceleration and
Page 123 and 124: Burns and Lewis (2000) conducted a
Page 125 and 126: way, competitions allow students a
Page 127 and 128: hundred and sixteen of these Olympi
Page 129 and 130: her wings so that those special abi
Page 131 and 132: programmes: establish a “definiti
Page 133 and 134: determine what features are essenti
Page 135 and 136: their responses (Harrison, 2003). O
Page 137 and 138: ideas beyond the school curriculum,
Page 139 and 140: • Narrow selection criteria inclu
Page 141 and 142: Culture free and culture fair tests
Page 143 and 144: In her examination of successful pr
Page 145 and 146: potential (Torrance, 1984). Mentors
Page 147 and 148: Provisions: ProblemsShortage of cul
Page 149 and 150: content and context of learning is
Page 151 and 152: concept/phenomenon, threat of isola
Page 153 and 154: Similarly, Doidge (1990) recommends
Page 155 and 156: cooperative team approach is helpfu
Page 157 and 158:
student outcomes is briefly discuss
Page 159 and 160:
a link between programme evaluation
Page 161 and 162:
• Community and parental contribu
Page 163 and 164:
Cathcart (1996) states that, “som
Page 165 and 166:
• Is passionate about discipline,
Page 167 and 168:
Whilst all of these are promising p
Page 169 and 170:
THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF IDENTIFICA
Page 171 and 172:
profiles or cumulative work folders
Page 173 and 174:
QuestionnaireThis purpose of the qu
Page 175 and 176:
questionnaire the quality of these
Page 177 and 178:
• Income Support Payments Receive
Page 179 and 180:
of these schools reported one, wher
Page 181 and 182:
Table 9. Written Policies and Proce
Page 183 and 184:
We are very much in our conception
Page 185 and 186:
Table 11. School-Based Concept or D
Page 187 and 188:
Some schools recognised the potenti
Page 189 and 190:
Table 12. Formal Identification by
Page 191 and 192:
The frequencies for this section ar
Page 193 and 194:
Table 17. Identification Methods: C
Page 195 and 196:
Table 19. Identification Methods: S
Page 197 and 198:
Summary: Formal Identification of G
Page 199 and 200:
Table 24. Community-Based Provision
Page 201 and 202:
Table 25. School-based Provision by
Page 203 and 204:
Provisions: Intellectual/Academic.
Page 205 and 206:
Table 31. Provisions: Gifted and Ta
Page 207 and 208:
primary schools are making schoolwi
Page 209 and 210:
Resource provision, staffing, is a
Page 211 and 212:
Case StudiesTo add richness to this
Page 213 and 214:
7. Measures to ensure identificatio
Page 215 and 216:
Table 36. Profile of School A.Overa
Page 217 and 218:
intelligences, inquiry learning, an
Page 219 and 220:
School B’s JourneyThis full prima
Page 221 and 222:
Table 38. Profile of School C.Overa
Page 223 and 224:
included. Teachers chose which acti
Page 225 and 226:
School D’s JourneyWhile it is dif
Page 227 and 228:
Table 40. Profile of School E.Overa
Page 229 and 230:
isks. As part of this inclusive phi
Page 231 and 232:
School F’s JourneyPrior to the pr
Page 233 and 234:
Table 42. Profile of School G.Overa
Page 235 and 236:
School electives and the annual sch
Page 237 and 238:
School H’s JourneyThe gifted and
Page 239 and 240:
School I’s JourneyThe journey for
Page 241 and 242:
Table 45. Profile of School J.Overa
Page 243 and 244:
community who may be able to suppor
Page 245 and 246:
IdentificationDuring the in-depth i
Page 247 and 248:
1. A talent detector form that asks
Page 249 and 250:
The process in one school for the i
Page 251 and 252:
Have an established gifted register
Page 253 and 254:
Withdrawal programmes. The ‘succe
Page 255 and 256:
It’s actually releasing children
Page 257 and 258:
Difficulties. Providing for gifted
Page 259 and 260:
Knowing that Mäori kids like team
Page 261 and 262:
To counteract the previously mentio
Page 263 and 264:
classroom teacher for inclusion in
Page 265 and 266:
additional funds for competitions,
Page 267 and 268:
classes during Enrichment. The coor
Page 269 and 270:
One of the main day to day operatio
Page 271 and 272:
The intermediate school teachers of
Page 273 and 274:
cluster programme, as well as press
Page 275 and 276:
not all students could participate,
Page 277 and 278:
levels of schooling, and overall or
Page 279 and 280:
The rationale for professional read
Page 281 and 282:
DiscussionThe purpose in this resea
Page 283 and 284:
Schoolwide organisation of gifted a
Page 285 and 286:
inclusive nature of giftedness and
Page 287 and 288:
provisions in their procedures. Mee
Page 289 and 290:
ConclusionsThis section of the rese
Page 291 and 292:
eflect the core principles of gifte
Page 293 and 294:
ReferencesAdams, C., & Cross, T. (1
Page 295 and 296:
Betts, G. (1985). Autonomous Learne
Page 297 and 298:
Callahan, C.M., Hunsaker, S.L., Ada
Page 299 and 300:
Cross, T. (1994). Alternative inqui
Page 301 and 302:
Feldhusen, J.F. (1997). Educating t
Page 303 and 304:
Freeman, J. (1998). Educating the v
Page 305 and 306:
Heller, K.A., & Schofield, N.J. (20
Page 307 and 308:
Kaufmann, F.A., Harrel, G., Milam,
Page 309 and 310:
Lewis, G. (2002). Alternatives to a
Page 311 and 312:
McGee, C., Jones, A., Cowie, B., Hi
Page 313 and 314:
Montgomery, W. (2001). Creating cul
Page 315 and 316:
Plunkett, M., & Harvey, D. (1995).
Page 317 and 318:
Renzulli, J.S. (1986). Systems and
Page 319 and 320:
Robinson, A. (1991). Cooperative le
Page 321 and 322:
Slavin, R.E. (1988). Synthesis of r
Page 323 and 324:
Timutimu-Thorpe, H. (1988). E awhi
Page 325 and 326:
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2000). Theory
Page 327 and 328:
APPENDIX ALiterature Review Templat
Page 329 and 330:
Section 2: THEORY-BASED REFERENCES
Page 331 and 332:
APPENDIX BSchool Questionnaire20033
Page 333 and 334:
321
Page 335 and 336:
323
Page 337 and 338:
325
Page 339 and 340:
APPENDIX CInformation Sheets andInt
Page 341 and 342:
The Extent and Nature of Identifica
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
As compensation for your school’s
Page 347 and 348:
APPENDIX DConsent Forms335
Page 349:
show all

The Extent, Nature and Effectiveness of Planned Approaches in ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?