The Journal of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children

Recommendations

Info

such as those associated with overexcitabilities (Piechowski, 2006) that may be mistaken for immaturity or ADHD or similar disorders (Webb, 2001), and the understanding that such behaviour can often be addressed by focusing on the child’s cognitive needs. In regards to acceleration, it appears that there has been something of a cognitive shift since previous research (Southern, Jones, & Fiscus, 1989; Townsend & Patrick, 1993) documented the negative attitudes common among educators at that time. While gradeskipping is still something of a contentious issue, more teachers in the present study supported the strategy than opposed it. Similar findings emerged in relation to early entry, and single subject acceleration was welcomed as a useful strategy for gifted students by the vast majority of the participants. These results are similar to those reported by Hoogeveen, van Hell and Verhoeven (2005) who found more positive attitudes towards acceleration among teachers in the Netherlands, although there were still commonly reported concerns about the social and emotional adjustment of accelerated students. In a similar pattern, part-time models of ability grouping were also favoured over fulltime strategies by the teachers in this study. Previous research has exposed mixed results concerning the attitudes of teachers towards ability grouping and it appears that the particular strategy being considered is important. The almost universally positive attitudes expressed towards withdrawal grouping in the current study may be as much a reflection of the concern and trepidation of teachers about appropriately differentiating the curriculum in the classroom for their gifted students as it is about References recognising the value of such a strategy for those students. Predictably, the idea of a fulltime self-contained gifted class attracted reservations regarding the fears of elitism, although the other full-time strategy of cluster grouping was viewed more positively. While there was some disparity between the views of classroom teachers and the views of executive staff regarding the practice of cluster grouping, the majority of participants were optimistic about the possibilities afforded by such a strategy and the potential for both social and academic growth for students in a gifted cluster. Where negative attitudes were expressed, it is important to examine the reasons for these. Concerns about acceleration were inclined along the socialisation dimension, with teachers expressing fears that the social and emotional development of accelerated students would suffer adverse effects. These concerns may be alleviated by research evidence or by personal experience where acceleration has been a success. Part-time models of acceleration such as subject acceleration, or less disruptive forms of acceleration, such as early entry, are also seen as a useful compromise where the academic needs of students can be met without as many associated fears of social dysfunction. However, concerns about ability grouping are based on fears of elitism, or the appearance of elitism. Even where teachers themselves recognise the benefits of ability grouping strategies, they were still concerned about the appearance of elitism by other members of the school community. Such concerns are apparently much more deeply entrenched in the Australian psyche (Gross, 2006a) and consequently may be much harder to overcome. Adams-Byers, J., Whitsell, S. S., & Moon, S. (2004). Gifted students perceptions of the academic and social/emotional effects of homogenous and heterogenous grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 7-20. Bain, S., Bliss, S., Choate, S., & Brown, K. (2007). Serving children who are gifted: Perceptions of undergraduates planning to become teachers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 450-481. Bain, S., Choate, S. M., & Bliss, S. L. (2006). Perceptions of developmental, social, and emotional issues in giftedness: Are they realistic? Roeper Review, 29(1), 41-48. Battistich, V., Watson, M., Solomon, D., Lewis, C., & Schapps, E. (1999). Beyond the three R’s: A broad agenda for school reform. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 415-432. Chessor, D., & Whitton, D. (2008). The impact of grouping gifted primary school students on self concept and achievement. TalentEd, 25(2), 7-19. Clark, B. (2008). Growing up gifted (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City: Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Cross, T. (1997). Psychological and social aspects of educating gifted students. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3&4), 180-200. Davis, G., & Rimm, S. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gifted and Talented International – 26(1), August, 2011; and 26(2), December, 2011. 21
The World Council for Gifted and Talented Children Department of Education, Training and the Arts (2004). Framework for gifted education. Brisbane: The State of Queensland. Douthitt, V. (1992). A comparison of adaptive behaviour in gifted and non-gifted children. Roeper Review, 14(3), 149-151. Fiedler, E., Lange, R., & Winebrenner, S. (2002). In search of reality: Unravelling the myths about tracking, ability grouping, and the gifted. Roeper Review, 24(3), 108-111. Freeman, J. (2006). Giftedness in the long term. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 384-403. Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., & Karns, K. (1998). High-achieving students’ interactions and performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogenous and heterogenous pairings. American Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 227-267. Gagné, F., & Gagnier, N. (2004). The socio-affective and academic impact of early entrance to school. Roeper Review, 26(3), 128-138. Gallagher, S. (2010). Inventing the wheel: Portraits of acceleration and grouping provisions for the socioemotional and intellectual needs of gifted students in Queensland Primary Schools. PhD thesis, University of New England, Armidale, Australia. Gallagher, S., Smith, S., & Merrotsy, P. (2010). Early entry: When should a gifted child start school? Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 19(1), 16-23. Gallagher, S., Smith, S. & Merrotsy, P. (in press). You turn up the first day and they expect you to come back! Gifted students’ perspectives on school and being smart. Gifted and Talented International. Gallagher, S., Smith, S. & Merrotsy, P. (under review). In the dark: Perspectives of parents of gifted students in Queensland primary schools. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education. Geake, J., & Gross, M. U. M. (2008). Teachers’ negative affect towards academically gifted students: An evolutionary psychology study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3), 217-231. Gentry, M., & Owen, S. (1999). An investigation of the effects of total school flexible cluster grouping on identification achievement and classroom practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 224-243. Goldring, E. (1990). Assessing the status of information on classroom organisational frameworks for gifted students. Journal of Educational Research, 83(6), 313-326. Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. New York: Routledge. Gross, M. U. M. (1997). How ability grouping turns big fish into little fish - or does it? Of optical illusions and optimal environments. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 6(2), 18-30. Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Gross, M. U. M. (2006a). To group or not to group: is that the question? In C. Smith (Ed.), Including the gifted and talented: Making inclusion work for more gifted and able learners (pp. 119-137). Abingdon: Routledge. Gross, M. U. M. (2006b). Exceptionally gifted children: Long term outcomes of academic acceleration and nonacceleration. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(4), 404-429. Halsted, J. (2002). Some of my best friends are books (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Hollingworth, L. (1942). Children over 180 IQ. New York: World Book. Hoogeveen, L., van Hell, J., & Verhoeven, L. (2005). Teacher attitudes toward academic acceleration and accelerated students in the Netherlands. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(1), 30-59. Howley, C., Howley, A., & Pendarvis, E. (1995). Out of our minds: Anti-intellectualism and talent development in American schooling. New York: Teachers College Press. Kitano, M. (1990). Intellectual abilities and psychological intensities in young children: Implications for the gifted. Roeper Review, 13(1), 5-10. Kulik, J. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives. University of Connecticut: National Research Centre on the Education of the Gifted and Talented. Kulik, J. (2004). Meta-analytic studies of acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M.U.M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 13-22). Iowa City: Belin- Blank International Centre for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Lewis, E., & Milton, M. (2005). Attitudes of teachers before and after professional development. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 14(1), 5-14. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Neihart, M. (1998). Preserving the true self of the gifted child. Roeper Review, 20(3), 187-191. Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22(1), 10-17. NSW Department of Education and Training. (2004). Policy for the education of gifted and talented students. Sydney: NSW DET. Piechowski, M. (2006). ’Mellow out,’ they say. If I only could: Intensities and sensitivities of the young and bright. Madison: Yunasa Books. Plunkett, M. (2000). Educating teachers to meet the needs of gifted students: An option or a necessity? TalentEd, 18(1 & 2), 9-13. Robinson, N. (2004). Effects of academic acceleration on the social-emotional status of gifted students. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M.U.M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 59-68). Iowa City: Belin-Blank Centre for Gifted Education and Talent Development. 22 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 19 and 20: Name Full-time Gifted Class Gail* A
Page 21: 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 73 and 74:
The World Council for Gifted and Ta
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?