Research-Based “Essentials” of Gifted Education Services

Transcript Research-Based “Essentials” of Gifted Education Services

Re-Forming Gifted Education: What the Research Tells Us About Best Practices in Service Delivery for Gifted Programs

Presented by Denise Lucht and Lori Comallie- Caplan

Re-Forming Gifted Education

Karen B. Rogers, Ph.D.

University of St. Thomas Minneapolis, MN 55403

What the Research on Best Practices Covers (1861-1998)    Ability comparison research studies (GT vs. GT) on instructional management    Individualization Grouping Acceleration Comparative research studies (GT vs. Reg) on instructional delivery  GT learner preferences  GT learner differences that require a different delivery Comparative research studies (GT vs. Reg) on curricular adaptations  Content modification   Process modification Product modification

Understanding Effect Size     Every known study on a single instructional strategy is located and an effect size is calculated for each study.

Effect size is calculated by subtracting the achievement gain of a control group from the achievement gain of the group involved in the treatment. The groups are equivalent. This remainder is divided by the pooled standard deviation of the two groups (the averaged amount that each group differs from its mean).

All the effect sizes are then averaged to produce the average effect size -- an estimate of the actual impact on achievement that the strategy under study has.

In simple terms, effect size can be translated as the number of grade equivalent months of additional achievement one group makes beyond the expected one year’s gain designed into an achievement test. Hence, an effect size of .30 = 3 grade equivalent months of achievement a treatment group made that their equivalent control group did not. Effect sizes of .30 or higher are considered a “substantial” gain. Translated another way, it means the treatment group made approximately 15 months progress in 12 months’ time.

Management Options (Individualization)  Individualization   Unique plan for individual child  Education plan    Compacting Mentorship/one-to-one tutoring Independent study Flexible progression through general K-12 curriculum     Non-graded classes Multi-grade classes Credit for prior learning Testing out

Research on Instructional Management: Individualization         Non-graded classrooms Multi-grade classrooms One-to-one mentoring/tutoring Compacting Credit for prior learning Talent Development IEPs or ILPs Independent Study (ES= .38) (ES= .19) (ES= .57) (ES= .83,.26) (ES= .56) (LO) (LO) (ES= 0)

Management Options (Grouping)   Grouping by ability     Cluster grouping Special full-time schools/classes (school within a school) Send-out programs Like ability cooperative learning Grouping by Performance       Cluster grouping Send-out programs Like performing cooperative learning Regrouping for advanced/honors/accelerated specific subjects Within class performance grouping (flexible grouping) Cross-graded classes

Research on Instructional Management: Grouping Permutations         Full-time ability grouping Regrouping for specific instruction Cluster grouping of GT students Pull-out grouping (ES= .49,.33) (ES= .34, .79) (ES= .62) (ES= .65,.44,.32) Within class ability grouping Cross-graded classes Mixed ability cooperative groups Like ability cooperative groups (ES= .34) (ES= .45,.46) (ES= 0) (ES=.28)

Management Options (Acceleration)   Grade-based Acceleration (shorten time in school)    Grade skipping Grade telescoping Early admission to college Subject-based Acceleration (advanced exposure early)       Early admission to school Concurrent/dual enrollment Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate programs Mentorships/one-to-on tutoring Subject acceleration Credit by examination

Research on Instructional Management: Acceleration Permutations         Grade Skipping Early Entrance to School Subject Acceleration Grade Telescoping Concurrent Enrollment Advanced Placement courses Early Admission to College Credit by Examination (ES= .49, .31) (ES= .49) (ES= .57) (ES= .40) (ES= .22) (ES= .27) (ES= .30) (ES= .59)

Instructional Delivery Options  Teaching to GT learner preferences and styles  Independent learning   Self-instructional materials, programmed instruction Self-structured projects     Conceptual, closure discussions (limited by modality) Simulations and games (competitive benchmarks) Multi-modal lectures (auditory, visual) Hands on for new learning acquisition only

Instructional Delivery Options  Teaching to learning differences  Pacing (2-3 times faster)   Elimination of excess drills & review (2-3 reviews only) Whole-to-part conceptual teaching    Depth of content Opportunity for reflection, analysis Daily challenge in talent area

Research on Instructional Delivery: Projects, Independent Study, Hands On      Preference for self-structured tasks and self-imposed deadlines Preference for working on projects alone or with one like ability peer Preference for self-instructional tasks (programmed instruction), games or simulations Greatest preference for independent study projects that are reading/content acquisition-based Greater interest in learning “something new and different,” rather than doing hands on things

Research on Instructional Delivery: Lecture, Discussion, Mentoring/Tutoring     In lecture situations, GTs tend to be multi-modal (visual and auditory) in their acquisition, processing For auditory GTs, there is a love of discussion; for more visual GTs, discussion is not a favorite Mentorships among GT students, which further their understanding in a specific field result in socialization effects (ES= .47) and self-esteem effects (ES= .42), as well as academic effects (ES= .57) One-to-one tutoring, with a focus on advancing, not remediating knowledge, results in an ES of 2.00

Research on Instructional Delivery: Pacing, Process Modifications     The learning rate of children above 130 IQ is approx imately 8 times faster than for children below 70 IQ GT students are significantly more likely to retain science and mathematics content accurately when taught 2 3 times faster than “normal” class pace GT students are significantly more likely to forget or mislearn science and mathematics content when they must drill and review it more than 2-3 times GT students are decontextualists in their processing, rather than constructivists; therefore it is difficult to reconstruct “how” they came to an answer

Research on Instructional Delivery: Instructional Process Modifications    GT students tend to use more higher order thinking even without training, but benefit significantly from being trained in these skills GT students prefer a structured learning environment (desks, tables, etc.) but open-ended tasks and assignments Academically or intellectually GT students tend to be uncomfortable taking risks or dealing with ambiguity; therefore there is a need for teaching creative thinking and encouraging divergent production

Research on Instructional Delivery: Instructional Process Modifications    The greatest academic benefits of “discovery” learning have been attained with GT students, particularly if the learning was Brunerian (teaching of major ideas and concepts) GT students tend to mistrust the benefits of small group learning; care must be taken that the tasks demonstrate that the group can “do better” than the individual GT students perform significantly more highly when the majority of their time is spent in true peer interactions (academic core areas only)

Research on Instructional Delivery: Instructional Process Modifications  Teachers who are extensively trained in GT education produce significantly higher academic and self-esteem effects for GT students

Curriculum Adaptations (Content) 

Modifications of Content

 Abstraction  Complexity  Multi-disciplinary  Organization  Study of people  Methods of inquiry

Curriculum Adaptations (Process) 

Modifications of Process

 Higher order thinking, critical skills training, problem solving  Open-ended thinking  Proof and reasoning  Value of group production  Discovery,shared inquiry, problem- based learning

Research on Curriculum for the Gifted: Content Modifications  Of the three forms of enrichment (Kaplan), “concept development” (In-depth exploration of a concept) is the most effective, followed by “extension” (going broader and deeper with the regular curriculum), followed by “exposure” curriculum (introduction to new ideas and interest areas). No matter which form is implemented, however, it must be programmatic (an integral part of the school curriculum and day), not provisional (an add on) (Tannenbaum)

Research on Curriculum for the Gifted: Content Modifications    Affective support and small group self-esteem building sessions are beneficial to remediate loneliness and social isolation (LO) Career and college placement counseling is significantly beneficial and are research supported Direct training in creative thinking skills results in significant divergent production effects

Curriculum Adaptations (Product)  Modifications of Product  Real world products  Real audiences/authentic assessments  Systematic, corrective feedback  Individual benchmark setting

Research on Curriculum for the Gifted: Product Modifications     “Real World” problems and products are supported by literature only A variety in production requirements improves motivation and self-direction (LO) “Real audiences” as the form of evaluation of products and performances are supported by literature only, but “realistic,” corrective feedback produces significant positive effects for GT learners High, but specific, expectations for performance result in significant “cognitive dissonance” but with significant rises in academic self-esteem

So, What are the Best Practices for the Academically Gifted?

      Accelerated pace to instruction Telescoping of learning time (compacting, 2/3 rule, acceleration) Whole-to-part concept teaching In-depth learning of topics, opportunity for reflection Complexity of content in all academic domains (coverage) Competition, “benchmarks” of progress