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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In relation to gifted students themselves, opponents of ability grouping argue that, for example, giftedand talented students are seen as being able to help other children by teaching and setting an example.Winner (1996a), an advocate of ability grouping, believes this to be a strategy which is perceived bysome as having academic benefits, by giving opportunities to consolidate their learning, and socialbenefits, by helping them interact with students of all levels of ability. She reports that opponents oftenargue that grouping students will result in arrogance and elitism amongst the gifted and talentedstudents, and so, gifted and talented students are seen as needing opportunities to appreciate diversitywithin society, which mixed-ability grouping provides (Rogers, 2002a).A Summary of the Arguments in Support of Ability GroupingProponents of ability grouping also argue points of equity, with Winner (1996a) stating that theelimination of ability grouping is “caving in to a simplistic egalitarian agenda” (p. 242). Rogers(2002a) believes that the elimination of ability grouping is not in fact democratic, but egalitarianism atits worse. Fiedler et al. (2002) argue that equality in education does not require all students having thesame experiences, on the assumption that heterogeneous grouping often results in fewer opportunitiesfor individualised, differentiated instruction. They state that a democratic position promises equalopportunity for the actualisation of potential, describing the inequity in denying gifted and talentedstudents an appropriate education. Feldhusen and Moon (1992) believe that heterogeneity is inherentlyunjust in its potential to treat ‘unequals’ equally. Rogers (2002a) and Fiedler et al. (2002) describeanother injustice, which might be called ‘The Ned Kelly Effect’: taking from the rich to give to thepoor. These writers see little justice in eliminating opportunities at the expense of gifted and talentedstudents for the benefit of all others.To every concern raised by opponents of ability grouping, it seems advocates have a response. Forexample, in regards to under-representation of culturally diverse students and those from lower socioeconomicgroups, Winner (1996a) claims that elimination of ability grouping will have the mostdetrimental effects upon students of minority cultures and lower income families, because their parentshave no options apart from what the public school system offers. Fiedler et al. (2002) point toproblems with identification, rather than ability grouping, stating that “Eliminating ability groupingbecause of inequitable identification procedures is tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bathwater” (p. 5). Educators of gifted and talented students readily recognise the potential negative, eveninequitable, outcomes for other students, acknowledging the need to address these concerns (Rogers,2002a).The assumption that the presence of gifted students advantages all others is also questioned. Fiedlerand her colleagues (2002) cite research which indicates that students model their behaviour on othersof similar ability, as opposed to those of far greater ability. In fact, they raise concerns regarding theeffects to self-perceived competence and capabilities of students of lower ability who are placed inheterogeneous groups with gifted and talented students. Allan (1991) supports this view, in fact, shequestions the notion that lower ability students will look up to those with special abilities. As shestates, “students gain most from watching someone of similar ability ‘cope’” (p. 64). Van Tassel-Baska (1992a) points out that the benefits for gifted and talented students of ‘serving those lessfortunate’ are not clear. Feldhusen (1986) reports that when gifted and talented students are notpresent, other students get a chance to be the top performers – a new cream rises. Shore and Delcourt(1996) conclude, “there is emerging evidence that other children are not necessarily advantaged by thepresence of gifted children in their classrooms nor disadvantaged by their absence” (p. 152).Proponents of grouping by ability also point to negative effects upon gifted and talented students ifgrouping is abandoned. Winner (1996a) believes that elimination of ability groups will set a ‘lower’standard – mediocrity – and this will have negative effects upon gifted students. Goldring (1990) feelsthat students not ability grouped risk rejection by peers in heterogeneous grouping situations, thedevelopment of behavioural problems and manifestation of underachievement. Fielder et al. (2002)raise concerns that gifted and talented students who are a ‘minority of one’ in a mixed-ability settingmay feel odd, or even arrogant. They warn that by not ability grouping gifted and talented students anair of snobbery might be created, increasing the possibilities of elitism. Rogers (2002a) and Feldhusen62
(1986) believe that if grouping is abandoned then a conceivable result could be ‘substantial declines’in the levels of achievement and positive schooling attitudes of gifted students.The final argument put forward by proponents of ability grouping relates to the body of researchwhich supports this approach. As Van Tassel-Baska (1992a) states, “To suggest there is evidence tosupport the elimination of ability grouping gifted students is to ignore the existing body of research”(p. 70). Kulik (1991) raises concerns over the ‘blanket condemnation’ of ability grouping, based uponhis view that research results related to this practice are often misinterpreted. He believes that theresearch findings are all too often ‘twisted’ to fit personal and political philosophies. Allan (1991)highlights another issue related to some of the research on ability grouping: the systematic omission ofgifted and talented students and/or programmes designed for meeting their needs.Although it is essential that each form of ability grouping be examined separately, there is a generalresponse given by advocates of homogeneous ability grouping. Firstly, achievement levels for giftedand talented students are enhanced by some forms of ability grouping (Van Tassel-Baska, 1992a).Furthermore, Kulik and Kulik (1992) point out that there are clear and consistent academic benefits,especially for gifted students. They go on to report that students in low ability groups are not harmedacademically, and in fact make academic gains. However, ability grouping that does not entaildifferentiated instruction, based upon students’ levels of readiness, does not result in these academicgains (Van Tassel-Baska, 1992a). Allan (1991) found no evidence of academic harm to any studentsas a result of ability grouping.Secondly, Kulik and Kulik (1992) report that effects of ability grouping on self-concept are slightlypositive for lower ability students and slightly negative for gifted and talented students; however, theybelieve this is simply the result of gifted students being less satisfied when taught with theirintellectual peers. Fiedler et al. (2002) contend that in order to develop “a realistic appraisal of theirown ability, students need to measure themselves with appropriate yardsticks” (p. 109). In regards toattitudes toward learning, Kulik and Kulik’s (1991, 1992) research also indicates that grouping byability produces positive effects for all learners.Kulik and Kulik (1992) state that schools “… would be harmed by the elimination of programs thattailor instruction to the aptitude, achievement, and interests of groups with special educational needs”(p. 76). This sentiment is echoed throughout the gifted education literature, as reported in this review.Regardless of its shape or form, if ability grouping is to be effective for gifted and talented students,the following recommendations must be considered:• Ability grouping should be viewed as a fundamental approach to providing for gifted andtalented students, not simply an organisational framework. As a basic provision, groupingmust include qualitatively differentiated instruction (Van Tassel-Baska, 1992a).• Ability grouping should be flexible (Van Tassel-Baska, 1992a). Rigid, inflexible groupingshould be eliminated (Gamoran, 1992).• Ability grouping should be employed across all areas of the curriculum, giving gifted andtalented students opportunities for interaction with like-minded peers (Van Tassel-Baska,1992a).• Grouping by ability should allow opportunities for both small group and independent learning(Van Tassel-Baska, 1992a).Ability Grouping Across the Continuum of ProvisionsOne of the purposes in this literature review is to examine the effectiveness of provisions in relation toaffective and cognitive outcomes for gifted and talented students. Given that ability grouping can takemany shapes and forms, one can conclude that any provision for gifted and talented students willentail homogeneous ability grouping. Each type of provision, whether within-class or school-based,63
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: challenging for them” (Fielder et
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 and 106: programmes of this nature. Macleod
Page 107 and 108: have significant but varying positi
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?