The Journal of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children

Recommendations

Info

positive attitude towards acceleration highlighted the risks associated with not accelerating, such as disengaging from school, boredom and frustration. Given the preoccupation with keeping children with their same-age peers, it can be seen why part-time acceleration strategies were regarded more favourably by the participants in the current study. However, despite the positive attitudes demonstrated towards single subject acceleration, many teachers also recognised that this may be a more difficult strategy to implement as it relied on whole-school cooperation and coordination in order to be effective. A common timetable and effective communication between teachers were two of the factors that were highlighted as being important in successful subject acceleration. While being generally positive overall, teachers were prepared to accept grade-skipping if a child showed appropriate levels of maturity, and would consider early entry if a child demonstrated readiness. ‘Maturity’ and ‘readiness’ are nebulous concepts that are not easily defined, and it is not clear whether these teachers would recognise a ‘mature’ or ‘ready’ gifted child, given their relative lack of knowledge of social and emotional characteristics of gifted children. However, a positive attitude is a prerequisite for implementing any of these strategies (Rogers, 2002), and those were clearly in evidence. Attitudes towards ability grouping In a similar pattern to that observed with acceleration, teachers generally favoured part-time models of ability grouping over full-time ones. Refer to Figure 2. Within-class ability grouping was universally popular across all schools, with most teachers suggesting that they already grouped by ability within their own classrooms, most commonly for reading and sometimes for mathematics, although this was a general instructional practice, and not one targeted at gifted students. However, a couple of teachers were questioning the efficacy of such grouping practices for the slower learners in their classes, whilst also wrestling with their own conviction that mixed ability grouping would not benefit high ability learners. So, this year we’re trialling – it actually is working at the moment. We’ve got mixed ability and those bottom kids are actually being pulled up a bit by the better kids but in saying that, I don’t know if we’re actually extending the better kids with what we’re doing. (Frances) From the comments surrounding withdrawal programs it appears that many teachers were anxious to develop a sense of shared responsibility regarding gifted students, so that they did not feel they had to carry the burden alone. Other teachers spoke of the positive benefits such a program could have for the students. Being able to focus on an area of specific strength or interest, and interacting with others of a similar ability were frequently mentioned as being particularly attractive features of a withdrawal program. The one lone voice who rated withdrawal programs negatively was a classroom teacher who felt that the school day already suffered from an excess of interruptions, which had a deleterious effect on the focus of the classroom. While some commentators (Sapon-Shevin, 1994; Scott, 2008) have suggested that any move to educate gifted children separately, including withdrawal programs, is elitist, there was no suggestion of that from these teachers. In fact, most teachers seized on the suggestion of withdrawal programs as being an effective way to meet the academic and social needs of gifted students without the accompanying danger of elitism that some of them associated with full-time strategies. It has been suggested that one danger of withdrawal programs can be the tendency to absolve classroom teachers of the responsibility to provide appropriate differentiation strategies for the gifted students in their classes because the students’ needs are being met by the withdrawal program (Rogers, 2002). There may be an element of that amongst some of these teachers, but it seems to be borne out of trepidation rather than reluctance. Part-time across class ability grouping was also rated positively by all but one of the participants: the Primary school principal from Kingfisher Independent School was opposed to this model, although a form of it was currently in use at the school. His concerns were that such a model would not be good for the lower ability children. However, other teachers who had experienced similar models of grouping had found it to be successful, and one or two teachers even suggested that they would like to see a similar model implemented for the benefit of children who required learning support. Gifted and Talented International – 26(1), August, 2011; and 26(2), December, 2011. 17
Name Full-time Gifted Class Gail* Amanda Barbara Emily Charlotte Debra Frances Henry† Nancy Linda Ingrid Julie* Kevin Mike† Estelle Yvette Xavier Anna Byron† Zachary Declan Cherry* Rachel Veronica Ursula† William Scott Timothy† Oliver* Philip† Within- Class Grouping Pelican Point State School Black Swan State School Heron Haven State School The World Council for Gifted and Talented Children Part-time Grouping Kingfisher Independent School Withdrawal Programs Cluster Grouping † Principal or Deputy Principal .* GEM or person responsible for implementing gifted education programs. Key Positive= Negative= Undecided= Figure 2: Teacher views of ability grouping. 18 Gifted and Talented International – 26(1), August, 2011; and 26(2), December, 2011.
Page 1 and 2: ��
Page 3 and 4: The World Council for Gifted and Ta
Page 7 and 8: Book Reviews The World Council for
Page 9 and 10: Examining Opinions and Challenging
Page 11 and 12: Finally, many thanks go to Kevin La
Page 17: The World Council for Gifted and Ta
Page 25 and 26: About the Authors The World Council
Page 29 and 30: Table 4: The results of the (2x2) t
Page 31 and 32: About the Author The World Council
Page 33 and 34: undertaking the unit, with many com
Page 37 and 38: Figure 1: Pre & post scores for ite
Page 43 and 44: (1 st , 3 rd & 4 th were negatively
Page 45 and 46: Conclusions The World Council for G
Page 53 and 54: egulated and possible with almost n
Page 63 and 64: About the Authors The World Council
Page 65 and 66: This article argues that competitio
Page 69 and 70:
The World Council for Gifted and Ta
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
inborn. In the case of Vietnam, ano
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
the exam. This implied that success
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ). S
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
About the Authors The World Council
Page 101 and 102:
What is measurement invariance and
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Conclusions The World Council for G
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
learning strategies employed and le
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
students have little choice in the
Page 121 and 122:
Appendix 1 Interview schedule Quest
Page 123 and 124:
sufficiently address their individu
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
About the Authors The World Council
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Conclusions The World Council for G
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Statistics The World Council for Gi
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
show all

The Journal of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children

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

Delete template?

Save as template?