Renoir & Poetic Realism

My first attempt writing about cinema. Really wish I had a proper copy of the movie rather than the dodgy, cropped version on YouTube. One day.

Renoir’s Rules of the Game as an exemplar of poetic realism

The evolution of the Poetic Realist style, provided the French film industry of the 1930’s an authentic outlet for the first time since sound was introduced. Poetic Realism captures the lives of French men and women in a way that is considered to be authentic in nature. The time period during which it flourished was a time of social and political upheaval, seeing the rise of fascism both within and outside France’s borders. Director’s such as Jean Renoir used the medium of film to express both political views, leaning very much to the left, and the lives of French people in a Realist manner. His celebrated film Rules of the Game (1939) demonstrates the Poetic Realist style, exploring lives determined by their social circumstances. A film that reflects the society that produced it.

Poetic realism pushed back against the tide of filmed theatre. Furthermore, it was a rebellion against the idealistic, even romantic, nature of films such as Under the Roofs of Paris (1930). While making René Clair internationally famous, the film failed to capture the imaginations of Parisians due to the romanticised veil draped across its characters (Lanzoni, 2015). Rather than romanticising life, the poetic realist style was romantic, in the tradition of romanticism. Quoting Victor Hugo “the character of drama is reality…” Beatrice Young (1932) acknowledges that reality is distorted by reflecting only the better nature and pleasantries of the world. At a time in which the invention of sound in cinema was forcing a re-imagination of what cinema could do, in a climate of financial depression and rising fascism, it was natural for artists of all types to want to reflect this reality. Directors were no different.

Through this lens, the idea of poetic realism becomes less of a “contradiction” (Lanzoni, 2015) and more of a natural fit. The directors, like the poet, consider the world and reflect their perceptions of it to an audience. The tradition of art holding a mirror to society. The results of this attitude created a “heightened reality…more real than the real, more credible than the documentary” (Crisp, 2015). An exposé of the lives of the subjects.

These lives were explored through complete characters rather than caricatures, or stereotypes, in a realistic setting. Life was shown through an attention to mise-en-scéne not explored in filmed theatre (Lanzoni, 2015). The importance of camera placement and the sets themselves became vitally important to the story telling, bringing both realism and expressionism to the screen. Plots included the working class, not as some romanticised figure undertaking laborious yet noble work, but as a character with their own hopes and dreams (Lanzoni, 2015). The bourgeoisie were likewise complete, neither to be despised or admired, to be appreciated by the viewer in their own right.

A variety of themes were explored though there are some common tendencies. From Carné’s François in Daybreak to Renoir’s mix of characters in Rules of the Game, protagonists and antagonists alike confront life changing dilemmas, namely love and the pursuit of affection. Tragedy often ensues, highlighting the hopeless quest for a perfect love or even, at times, happiness (Lanzoni, 2015). Coupled with a socially conscious perspective, the focus on relatable themes resonated with mainstream audiences (Smith, 2011).

Techniques developed upon those explored before the advent of sound, creating a new aesthetic quality. “Chiaroscuro lighting, background artifices, evocative visual imagery, and wittiness of dialogue” (Lanzoni, 2015) created this distinctive style. Actors occupied the screen in a dominant fashion, creating representations in their own right.

Jean Renoir is a name synonymous with poetic realism, perhaps only rivalled by Marcel Carné. Son of Pierre Auguste, he began film making at the end of World War I, directing his first film, Backbiters, in 1924 (IMDb, 2018). Many critics consider Renoir to be among the finest directors of all time. James Leahy (2003) states that in “Renoir’s art, every line of dialogue, every action, every detail of dress, gesture, posture and setting needs to be taken into account” in order to prevent misunderstanding of characterisation and theme. Renoir’s attention to detail is conveyed through his belief that directing was in many ways similar to being a chef; while it is the chef that brings it all together it is the many staff that produce the various ingredients (Leahy, 2003). Considered his greatest masterpiece of the poetic realism era, Rules of the Game stands as one of the most influential films ever made.

A commentary on French society, Rules of the Game is a metaphor for how Renoir saw the culture around him. Rather than celebrating the hero as in other films of the style, Renoir crushes André right at the start of the film. His devastation, the death of his love in the film’s beginning, is mirrored by his death at the end. Crisp (2015) suggests that the fact the hero is an aviator is a personalisation, reflecting Renoir’s own life. That the hero, the outsider, is rejected by all, his death seen as but an accident, is best summarised by the Marquis telling his guests just that (Cardullo, 2011). Their willing acceptance of this explanation highlights the perception that playing by the rules of the game is more important than what is just.

Renoir’s pre-war snapshot of aristocratic life, much heralded now, was, at the time of its release, rejected by audiences. While Crisp (2015) might call it “one of the most nearly perfect films ever made”, others deemed it too depressing, leading to the reediting of Rules of the Game (Lanzoni, 2015). While the view of many commentators is challenged by Crisp (2015), there is no doubt that Rules of the Game gained greater recognition and acclaim in the decades following. A distribution that was interrupted by World War II certainly did not help.

The aesthetic features certainly match the style of poetic realism, though, at the same time, reflect Renoir’s sensibilities and vision. Long takes and extreme depths of field allow the viewer to feel that they are part of the scene, just standing out of shot. As such, the viewer is able to pick and choose what they focus on: the dialogue in the foreground of the shot, or the action behind it all (Smith, 2011). The setting itself served both an emotive and aesthetic purpose for Renoir. The Chateau and Sologne region were of a grace noticed by himself and his father before him (Sesonske, 1980) and serve as a backdrop that highlights the aristocratic sensibilities of the film’s main characters. These elements contribute to the creation of a space for Renoir to insert his social commentary.

While many films of the poetic realism style focus on the struggles of the working class, in Rules of the Game Renoir has cast a satirical gaze across the aristocratic class and their associated hangers on. Renoir created a “compelling assessment of French society gone astray on the eve of conflict” (Lanzoni, 2015), a society more concerned with petty loves and propriety than the world collapsing around them. Renoir placed the responsibility for the imminence of war directly onto the bourgeoisie therefore making them a target for his satire (Crisp, 2015). While surely accurate to an extent, this did little to please certain members of his audience at the time. Perhaps a little too close to home.

The dialogue itself is witty at a first viewing with more to offer from those subsequent. The plot is carried through the many twists and turns taken as the characters delve deeper and deeper into their intertwined world. The exploration of unrequited, then requited, then unrequited love ad nauseum of the “upstairs” aristocrats is reflected by those “downstairs”, though in a far more vulgar fashion (Cardullo, 2011); the pursuit of Lisette by Marceau provides a striking example of the latter, being almost slapstick in nature. The weight Renoir gives to the dialogue drives the narrative along in a manner archetypal of poetic realism.

While there are a number of scenes that could be looked at in order to further explore the film and how Rules of the Game shows the poetic realism style, the forthcoming focus will be on two crucial scenes. The hunting scene is probably the most dramatic and memorable of the whole movie. It is a hinging point for all that comes after. The very first scene, as André Jurieux lands after his heroic journey, gives clues to the drama to come. The audience realises at once the depth of feeling and it highlights Renoir’s deeper message that lays hidden behind the love story.

The hunt scene is the most action packed scene of Rules of the Game with much in the way of technique and symbolism. The use of medium close ups out to medium long shots places the viewer within the hunting party, catching snippets of conversation ranging from the mundane to the intimate. The montage of the death of rabbits and birds is contrasted with the longer takes within that scene and throughout the film. This positions the viewer to reflect on the casual nature in which the hunters make their kills.

The critical plot point within this scene sees Christine confirming her suspicions regarding the Marquis and Genevieve. Although she must have had her suspicions, this realisation changes her intended course of action. Of course, Octave is there, playing the imp on the boundary of mischief. Similar to Macbeth’s Ross. There is an element of dramatic irony here, as the viewer is aware that the kiss shared between the Marquis and Genevieve is a parting one. Spying from Christine’s point of view, through the ocular lens, creates a medium shot, peering at a supposed intimate moment. The close up of Christine and Octave ends the scene, linking them together in the viewers mind.

The opening credit sequence finishes with the lines “If Cupid was given wings / was it not to flitter”, setting the scene for the romantic farce to come. Renoir has the hero surrounded with well-wishers proclaiming the accolades due a hero, creating a busy scene of jubilation. Again, the use of a range of medium long shots places the viewer in the crowd. André himself is seen to be a reluctant hero with a small, tired smile on his face. The dynamic nature of the camera as it follows the crowds and the plane further imbues the sense of excitement.

The weight of the movie begins to evolve from the interview with André. At this stage the viewer is as unaware of Octave’s role in André’s love life as André is himself. The smile leaves his face as he learns of the absence of Christine. In the forthcoming interview he is clear in his disappointment, calling her “disloyal”. This open frankness is perhaps the last seen in the film. André’s nature is a counterpoint to the duplicitous nature of the other characters in the film.

Renoir has brought all of his directorial skills to Rules of the Game, creating a film that works as well today as it did when first released. In style, aesthetics and content Rules of the Game is an exemplary illustration of the poetic realism style. Renoir has used the lives of his characters to create a social commentary on the state of French culture on the eve of World War II. In doing so he has inspired many future directors through a film that stands the test of time.

References

Cradullo, B. 2011. Re-reading the rules: Renoir’s La Régle du jeu reconsidered. Post script. Retrieved 19 December 2018.

Crisp, C. 2015. French cinema – a critical filmography. Indiana University Press.

Internet Movie Database (IMDb). 2018. Jean Renoir. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0719756/

Lanzoni, Rémi. 2015. French cinema: from its beginnings to the present. Bloomsbury Academic, New York.

Leahy, J. 2003. Renoir, Jean. Retrieved from Senses of cinema. Website: http://sensesofcinema.com/2003/great-directors/renoir/

Renoir, J. 1939. La régle du jeu. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK0beGXqZBI&t=3036s

Sesonske, Alexander (1980). Jean Renoir: The French Films, 1924–1939. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Smith, M. 2011. The poetic realism of Jean Renoir. Retrieved from White city cinema. Website: https://whitecitycinema.com/2011/07/07/the-poetic-realism-of-jean-renoir/

Young, B. 1932. What is mean ty romanticism in France with special reference to the drama. The modern Language Journal, Vol, 16, No 5. Retrieved Wednesday 19 December 2018.

A look at identification of Gifted and Talented students in Australia

I have been told that this is a touch too opinionated. Perhaps. Maybe that is just me though.

Uncovering Gifted and Talented Students in the Australian Educational Context.

There is an attitude in Australia, perhaps the egalitarian streak that runs through the culture, which sees those with gifts and talents, unrelated to sport, as suspect. Unless your gifts and talents are useful on the sporting field, stay in your box/room/lab. This attitude influences policy. There are many historical reasons for the pervasiveness of this way of thinking, however the effect is real and is felt by students across the country. Without clear policies regarding gifted and talented students, identification will continue to be stifled and students will continue to mask their talents. It is imperative that this be changed.

Identification methods in Australia

In a review of gifted and talented identification methods and policy in Australia, Slater (2018) found a general lack of consistency. While there is direction provided, nationally, by the Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA), it is left to the state education bodies to implement policy and syllabus based on state level priorities. Outside of New South Wales and South Australia, policy regarding identification is vague at best, with Victoria having no policy at all (Slater, 2018). This is inconsistent with the aims of the Melbourne Declaration.

The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA 2008) calls for both equity and excellence in education (Hyde, Carpenter, Conway, 2014). Without clear policy and direction, it is hard to see how these goals could possibly be met for the gifted and talented. There is a distinct need to make a change. Without direction from education departments, regions and schools, there is no imperative for teachers to act. Considering the change that has happened spheres of working with students with disabilities and from diverse backgrounds – rightfully so – it can be seen that with direction, and directives, change can occur.

While not perfect, New South Wales has a comprehensive policy and systems that aims to cater to the needs of the gifted and talented students in that state. The New South Wales policy embraces Gagné’s model of gifted and talented, encompassing a broad definition throughout a number of spheres (Department of Education & Training, 2004). This policy places the requirements of identification on the individual school, providing the scope to develop programs to fit the local context. Rather than a specific method for identifying gifted and talented students, a series of guidelines is provided, which states the process must: be school-wide, use multiple criteria, be inclusive, dynamic, ongoing and several more (Department of Education & Training, 2004). It would seem that the scope is there to capture a wide range of gifted students.

In South Australia, the other state with a comprehensive policy identified by Slater (2018), the identification process involves a number of subjective and objective measures (Department for Education and Child Development, 2016). There is an acknowledgement that the identification process can be a difficult one, with a number of factors impacting upon the visibility of gifted and talented students. Also highlighted is the need for identification not to be an end in itself, rather it should be ongoing and the “impetus for providing appropriate and personalised learning programs (Department for Education and Child Development, 2016). Identification might include observations and interviews, interest surveys, standardised attainments tests and standardised achievement tests such as Raven’s standard progressive matrices. The front line of all this remains the teacher.

Western Australia places the emphasis of identification on the parents. With no clear policy document regarding gifted and talented available, it would seem that it is up to parents and primary teachers to recommend that student sit the testing required to gain access to the states’ selective high schools. The Academic Selective Entrance Test (ASET) is required to be sat by all students seeking acceptance, with additional requirements dependant on the specific program/s being applied for (Department of Education, 2018). While the programs themselves seem broad in their scope and therefore opportunity, the application process is slanted towards those clearly showing their potential rather than identifying students that may slip through the net.

Talent Masks – The hidden gifted and talented

What the majority of the policy documents discussed above leave out is the fact that gifted and talented students are not always apparent. Unsurprisingly, in a cultural climate that does little to celebrate the academically talented, or anyone that is different to the norm, it is not surprising that many talented students hide their capabilities. Reporting in the Sydney Morning Herald, Jennifer Jolly (2016) compares Australia’s obsession with the success, or otherwise, of our sporting teams, with little concern shown towards declining academic success of “our best and brightest young students barely rates a mention”. If the nation places so little emphasis on academic or cultural success, why should the individual?

Montgomery (2009) highlights the extent of underachievement, stating that 80% of students are underachieving with astonishing regularity. Overcoming this should be a primary focus of any plan to identify gifted students. In order to do so, teachers need to be conscious of the reasons why students may choose hide behind a mask. The values of a student’s peers and wider culture are a primary reason for the desire to hide potential away.

That Australians broadly consider all to be equal is a wonderful aspect of the culture in many ways. It builds community. Conversely, this egalitarian approach to life has a tendency to develop “a profound unease with ‘further privileges for the already privileged’” (Jericho, n.d.). Particularly throughout middle school years – 7 to 9 – students become more and more reliant on their peers for validation, seeking to create their own identities through the eyes of those around them (O’Donnell et al., 2012). The desire and need to fit in leads to making adaptions in order not to call attention to individual differences.

Of course, in the modern Australian context, there are a plethora of communities and sub-cultures that have their own impact on a student’s desire to be seen as someone standing out from the crowd. Australian indigenous groups place particular importance on family, community and culture, with those over-riding the educational requirements of modern schooling. Chaffey, Bailey and Vine (2003) provide an example of how such barriers may be overcome. Working with and within communities, a model has been developed that provides dynamic, culturally appropriate, opportunities to test and work with gifted indigenous students. The dynamic nature of their testing overcame the masking of the underachievers and found gifted rates similar to those in other communities (2003). This is proof that cultural barriers may be overcome.

Considering all of this, it is apparent that there is a need for identification of gifted and talented students to take into account that students may not wish to be seen as such. Therefore, identification methods need to screen students in ways that at once both effective and non-confrontational. Fun would be an added bonus. There are several options that may be utilised.

First and foremost, as identified by those Australian education departments with policies, the teacher and the parents are at the forefront of gifted and talented identification. Conversations with parents can lead to a greater understanding of the student’s strengths and interests in ways that may not be possible simply conversing with the student themselves. Parents often have insights that may not be readily apparent to the child. Teachers must use their observational skills and basically get to know their students. This can be built further with the use of checklists, such as those outlined by Montgomery (2009). While such checklists may be aimed at identifying underachievement rather than potential giftedness specifically, it is hardly a waste of the teacher’s time to consider their students under such a light.

One potential screening tool that leaps out is the Ideal Computer test (Shavinina, 2009). Using the concept that the students have access to a computer, which has all the answers to any questions they may possibly ever wish to ask, students are able to spend some time developing their questions in what would appear to be engaging exercise. Certainly non-confrontational, the number of questions and depth of insight sought by the students may be scaled by the teacher to at least give some indication of potential. Of course, there will always be students who will not even willingly participate in something so simple, but as an entry point to screening, it would seem to have a number of advantages over more traditional and complex forms.

Conclusion

The importance of identifying students with potential giftedness or apparent talents cannot be understated. Like all students, they have a right to an education that is challenging ad engaging. It is to society’s benefit that these students reach their potential, giving them the opportunity to lift the potential of communities and the country as a whole. That it is a difficult task to identify those that perhaps wish to remain hidden in the crowd, should not deter educational bodies from doing so. There is an opportunity within this country to celebrate all forms of achievement equally. The dearth of policy regarding the gifted and talented is something to be worked upon by all, to the benefit of all.

References Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA). Gifted and Talented Students. Retrieved from: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/student-diversity/gifted-and-talented-students Chaffey, G., Bailey, S., & Vine, K. (2003). Identifying high academic potential in Australian Aboriginal children using dynamic testing. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education 12(1), pp. 42-55. Department of Education. (2018). Guidelines for Parents Gifted and Talented Selective Entrance to Secondary Schools and Programs. Government of Western Australia Department of Education and Child Development. (2016). Gifted and talented children and students policy. Government of South Australia. Department of Education and Training. (2004). Policy and implementation strategies for the education of gifted and talented students. State of NSW. Hyde, M., Carpenter, L., Conway, R. (2014). Diversity, Inclusion & Engagement (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Jericho, A. (n.d.). Inquiry into the Education of Gifted and Talented Children. Board for Lutheran Schools. Jolly, J. (2016). Gifted and talented students are neglected by our schools. Retrieved from: https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/gifted-and-talented-students-are-neglected-by-our-schools-20160928-grqd6c.html Montgomery, D. (2009). Able, gifted and talented underachievers (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley. O'Donnell, M., Dobozy, E., Bartlett, B., Bryer, F., Reeve, J., Smith-Wiley, J. (2012). Educational Psychology: First Australian Edition. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. Shavinina, L. (2009). International handbook on giftedness. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Slater, E. (2018). The identification of gifted children in Australia: The importance of policy. TalentEd, 30, 1–16.

Provisions for the gifted and talented

No post last week due to writing an essay. If anyone really wants that I could post it. Looking at provisions for the gifted this week and I have focused on groups. There seems to be a lot of evidence that ability, not result, grouping is a valid and powerful tool in learning. I have heard otherwise many times, but never with supporting evidence, so I know which was I am leaning.

Provisions for the gifted and talented

I feel I am starting to get repetitive. The idea that gifted students should not have the opportunity to participate in an education that provides the scope for them to express their abilities is discriminatory. It is equitable to provide for the needs of all students. This might start with provisions and grouping.

As usual when sifting through the topic readings, I found myself reflecting upon how these ideas might impact my own teaching practice and/or how I might use them to begin conversations with colleagues. My first thought, from the first reading, was ‘der’. Not terribly insightful perhaps, though neither was the final line of the abstract from Vogl and Preckel (2014) on full time ability grouping. Apparently “children in gifted classes”, so a homogenous grouping with, it can be assumed an enthusiastic teacher, are more interested in school and have better teacher relationships. I have seen, this year at my school, the same thing work with strugglers in English, who were given the opportunity to work closely with a teacher whose passion is such students.

These students were chosen for their potential to respond to a focused program and all were seen to have success, also reporting greater satisfaction with their class. The fear of discrimination often puts a halt to programs that group students due to ability. Fielder, Lange and Winebremer (2002) highlight the myths around grouping, identifying that there is a distinct difference between grouping and tracking. The first has a subjective element, requiring the facilitators of the grouping to make a number of observational judgements. Tracking is simply looking at grades. In my context, the addition of particular students to year 10 extension English classes is an example. We have been asked to utilise a level of insight to gauge student potential, at times seeing past effort and behaviour.

The idea behind these classes is providing the opportunity for capable students to engage in a level of higher order thinking, not always achievable in a more mixed ability class. While not specifically for gifted and talented students, they are able to more readily learn the critical literacies that will be required in senior English. One of the more exciting things this week, is starting to see how I might better differentiate these particular classes. I will return to this in a paragraph or two. Maybe three.

Whether we group by the class load or simply within the class, it is important to consider why we should do so. We know there are gifted and talented student in our classrooms, but choose, or are forced, to ignore the fact (Page, & Keith, 1996). Largely this comes back to the fears discussed earlier or simple anti-elitism. Neither of which would be apparent if we were talking about a school based sport program.

Another, perhaps more valid, concern is that students from differing cultural or socio-economic backgrounds may be left out of such groupings. If we are considering students on ability shown by standard testing and class assessment alone – tracking – this may be a real issue. Such assessment may indeed be biased in nature due to the background of the student. This bias is not in the grouping but in the inflexibility of the way students are judged. So the issue is one of identification rather than grouping, provisions or programs.

I have read and heard the concern that less gifted students may miss out on benefitting by being with their gifted peers. Such an argument has been presented many times as an argument against the extension English classes mentioned earlier. Bailey (2004) and many a coaching manual identify the most powerful role models are peers that are “similar or just a little better.” Students pick up more in an homogenous groupings. Another concern is the idea that grouping on ability makes the less gifted feel even less capable. This myth is dispelled by the fact that students exhibit “higher self-concepts when ability grouped than in mixed ability classes” (Bailey, 2004). There are no feelings of superiority or incapability when compared to peers if they are at a similar level.

So back to my own class. Continuing with the Bailey (2004) reading, the idea of cluster groups is rather appealing. Within the classroom it is possible to organise seating to facilitate grouping based on potential. Thinking of this year’s extension class, there would have been a nice little group of five or six that could have facilitated higher level thinking and discussion, rather than my having to have the same conversation many times. Used well, these groups could be effective in reducing forced choice – ‘do I dare show my talents?’ – issues. Part of a dynamic seating plan, in the English classroom groups might change depending on the unit: analytical versus creative for example.

Considering enrichment models, an idea that does appeal to me is the breakdown of problem/solution types by Dr June Maker (Rogowski, 2012). It identifies that certain tests favour certain types of thinkers. Problems and solutions range from closed to open, structured heavily to freeform. I am left wondering how difficult it might be to create a test based on a short text that encompasses all question types. This might help in structuring lessons to cater for the differing thinking styles within the classroom and therefore grouping.

In regards to the other models identified, my inner cynic comes to the fore. Both Betts Autonomous Learner model and Renzulli’s Three Ring model (I want to say circus. A poor choice of name.) offer some great ideas (Bannister-Tyrrell, Merrotsy, Jones, & Gunn, 2016), but seem to fall into the same trap that programs of all types do: ‘this is the way to paradise, there is no other’. A slight over-statement perhaps, it is never said as clearly as that, but the sentiment is common. It is funny how there is almost always a catchy program title and money to be paid for such things.

There is no one solution to any goal, rather some common philosophical points that provisions must fall under. This is as true in the classroom as on the running track. It is bewildering to me why education departments are not flexible in the way that teachers are expected to be flexible in the classroom. Buying in to a program is great, however when evidence points to another proven direction, or the results are not as advertised, persisting is foolhardy. Just as a teacher needs to be constantly seeking knowledge and improvement, so do our departments.

Gifted and Talented Underachievers

It was hard to choose a path to take with this topic. As I look around the shed, I am pretty sure I can spot a couple of twice exceptional folk at least. Thinking of Tristan in particular, his knowledge and interests have little to no relevance to his schooling. There are only so many subjects that look at Finnish snipers of WWII. One of Bron's clients, is a young man who's profound ASD covers the brilliant mind from all but the most observant.

Instead of 2E, I have stuck with my own domain. Even if the 10% figure proclaimed by Gagne is off, say 5% of the community is likely to be gifted, that is still 5 or 6 students in my classes each year. As I researched and wrote the post, names kept jumping out at me. Anyway, here it is.

Gifted & talented topic 3: Under achievement
“80% of pupils underachieved a large part of the time… underachieving by at least one standard deviation”(Montgomery, 2009). Before we even consider gifted and talented, this statistic is frightening enough. Therefore, I am wondering how we are to readily find the invisible underachievers. This leads straight to another question, known as the forced choice dilemma: ‘do I fit in or do I let my gifts show?’

Simply watching the reaction of year nine students as they, or their peers, receive awards on parade – assembly south of the border – tells me that this social dilemma is very real and active. Gifted or not. A student I know quite well received a behaviour and effort award last week. As she walked up to receive the award, with a number of other students, her peer group giggled and she looked incredibly embarrassed, double folding the award as soon as it was in her hands as if covering up the evidence. Gifted students are just as likely, if not more so, to want to hide.

If talent is not valued by the peer culture, the potential and/or interests are likely to be hidden “behind a talent mask”(Bannister-Tyrrell, Merrotsy, Jones, & Gunn, 2016), though there are some that have found ways to get past the mask. While away from my realm of influence as a teacher, the Wii Gaay project (Merrostsy, 2006) – targeted at indigenous year three students – leads to a relaxed learning environment with a focus on “intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy enhancement.” The program is holistic in nature and success is ensured through “scaffolding and supported by performance and attributional feedback.” The holistic nature of the program is a key factor. Whether gifted or not, students succeed where they feel safe and comfortable. Though sometimes even this is not enough for students to make the leap.

Another year nine student I have taught spent most of the year doing the bare minimum to get by in English. In term three, a peer was moved to another class and another started spending more and more time away from school. She is more or less an outsider with the rest of the class. Her term three assessment was wonderful; the first A she had achieved in a long time. At the start of term four, she was still flying. Her contributions to classroom conversations were exceptional, leading the class in a lot of ways. She started the assessment well ahead of the majority of the class and I was expecting something special. Then came ‘I don’t know what to write’. Her planning was complete, the ideas within showing excellent analysis. In the end, she reverted to the bare minimum. Despite the support, the conversations, the scaffolding, she believes that term 3 was an outlier.

Self-efficacy is another of the key factors (Chaffey, Bailey, & Vine, 2003). The power of the mind to limit its own ability is profound. This is just one of the reasons why, when addressing underachievement, the intervention must be: long term and holistic, involve the school and the community, and address cognitive and affective development (Bannister-Tyrrell, Merrotsy, Jones, & Gunn, 2016). The time and energy must be spent ensuring that our school systems build students up. This needs to start in the individual teacher’s classroom, particularly when the system is not up to the job.

So what can the teacher control? Thankfully, there are many things. A student’s sense of comfort and order has a primary role in their ability to learn (Marzano & Pickering, 1997). Teacher/student relationships go a long way in developing this comfort. I am privileged to witness some wonderful teachers, of various teaching styles, build excellent relationships with students that others look past or even burn through. I like to think that the relationships – comfort – part of the equation is a pro within my skillset. The order is less so. The bit that I think we all struggle with is finding the student’s motivation.

Motivation needs to overcome intrinsic barriers. If we could just bribe our students to success, teaching would be a lot easier. I found this particularly insightful: “extrinsic rewards such as gifts and prizes actually caused a decline in motivation to learn” (Montgomery, 2009). I know a number of parents who pay for A’s. Positive support and self-directed creative work increases intrinsic motivation in the gifted learner and I dare say students in general. Montgomery highlights that when “challenging questioning, problem based learning and thinking skills are promoted” gifted students, and their peers, are more able to be engaged and motivated, forming an extrinsic factor within the teacher’s control. I will be reading more of her book, Able Gifted and Talented Underachievers, over the next few weeks.

Finally, it is important that we, as teachers, parents and a community, try to engage all students, particularly the gifted and talented. Studies like that of Barbara Black (1984) highlight the importance of unlocking a student’s potential. Without doing so, we risk losing more students. This is a loss for the student themselves and us as a community. Below I have added a list of characteristics from the Montgomery book. As I read through them, the second student I mentioned here jumped out at me. I hope I have the opportunity to teach her again in year ten.

A smattering of thoughts on gifted & talented characteristics and identification

Characteristics and Identification – Topic 2

A non-assessment post, so a bit more of a collection of thoughts rather than anything else. There may or may not be wine involved too, so excuse an grammatical lapses.

As I am reading my notes and quotes for the week, I cannot help but come to a number of conclusions; though maybe suspicions might be more apt.

Firstly to the question of: what is gifted and/or talented? My understanding, and therefore my usage, at this stage is that talented is the expression of gifted. Or, that gifted is potential and talent the application. As to identification itself, many of the listed characteristics, in Sayler scales for example, seem readily achievable.

I am still looking for a very basic screening tool. Neihart and Betts profiles (2010) offer a marking criteria of giftedness, but this is not quite what I am looking for. Historically, the purpose seems to have been to simply identify the high IQ types so that they could be offered extension, or even to be celebrated. Gazed upon like gazelles in a park. Instead, Gifted and talented students need to be identified simply because it is right and just to do so. It is to their benefit, as well that of the school and wider society.

Making this more important is the fact that typical features of the gifted and talented can be two sided. Brian Cooper (2012) speaks of smooth sailing and rough seas (a metaphor I feel the need to unnecessarily extend) – hinting at the changeable ocean  that is gifted life – (sorry), highlighting just some of the challenges that need to be considered. Looking at analytical skills alone, the ability to identify relationships readily can lead to connecting to inappropriate or overly personal topics (Cooper, 2012). Everything has a flipside.

But how are we to identify those with potential? In sport, the potential is readily apparent. Good movement cannot be hidden and those that thrive in that way have a tendency to feel the need to express their skills. Hidden intellect, or academic talent, is readily masked and requires the teacher to be actively searching. In my own school environment, a model of identification needs to be one that identifies, in particular, those that are hidden amongst their peers. I am hoping one becomes apparent to me before school returns next year, rather than continuing to look at children with suspicion. “Are you the one I am looking for?”

“Identification should be an essential part of any school policy for gifted and talented” (Merrotsy, Bannister-Tyrrell, Jones, & Gunn, 2016). I would argue that it should simply be embedded in school policy. Identifying student needs should be a priority for all. A number of short courses have been identified that assist teachers in identification. Merrotsy et al (2016) state that, teachers without a minimum of twelve hours training in gifted identification, are likely to miss many potentially gifted students. They also point out that Gayle Gear (University of Alabama) has devised a short course that leads to identification success rates of 85%. I cannot help but think that some of the repetitive, ineffectual professional development that teachers currently undertake should spent on such programs. At least for teachers interested in the topic.

It is important to remember that giftedness is a construct. Fraser et al (1995) expand on this idea, “Giftedness is psychological construct that cannot be measured accurately”. It requires observation and some sort of agreed upon indicators. There are “certain fundamental and identifiable traits, aptitudes and behaviours”. These indicators should be what prompts further investigation as well as program design.

Focussing on the aptitudes, Shavinina (2009) equates aptitude with readiness to learn and identifies four: prior knowledge and skill, interest, ability to reason symbol system, & persistence in the type of learning environment. This is applicable to all students, though is crucial for the gifted student. Thoughts from this reading of Shavanina continue below.

Exceptionality, or perceptions of it, depends largely upon the norm group. The high flyer within the class or cohort may simply be that; not necessarily gifted, simply a bright student. This does not mean that the opportunity to extend the student is not the same, or not to be taken. Returning to last topic’s idea of the gifted continuum, the high flyer has their place and should have the opportunity to challenge their capabilities at a suitable level.

How useful is an arbitrary demarcation anyway? “The majority of students who would be classified as gifted one year would not be so classified a few years later.” The only survivors are likely to be the extreme outliers. Again, while being somewhat mindful of my own confirmation bias, this indicates the importance of not saying ‘here is the line you must cross’. It also raised the question whether segregated differentiation for gifted students is the answer. Who will miss out? Knowing the way kids, and many if not most adults, see arbitrary lines in the sand, it will become ‘beyond this lies smart’. Be on the wrong side of it and be condemned to the stupid masses.

I am still left with: what am I to do? What difference can I make? I am liking the idea of a really basic and simple screening tool for the start of each year. On occasion I have been known to add bonus questions to the board, for those ahead of the class. I am wondering if I was able to target this with some degree of accuracy, if I might see more students taking the opportunity to challenge themselves.

The next topic looks at the underachievers, a type of student that I am sure that surrounds me. I am very much looking forward to this. I have also been reminded, while marking assessment, that there are many students whose ideas are A’s while their writing is a C level or below. Another challenge to ponder upon, but one that I am very happy that, as an English faculty, we are seeing improvements with our dedicated work with Prof. Ian Hunter’s sentence, paragraph and essay structures.

More to come in a couple of days.

Back to studying again

Right, so an explanation maybe required. It has been a long time since I last posted anything in this blog. That is for a number of reasons, but primarily laziness winning out over my good intentions. Having just started studying again - MA: English through UNE - it seems a good time. Also, one of my first units has reflective writing as one of the assessments. I have been intending to do this as part of my teaching practice anyway, so here we are.

Below is my first post for EDLT481 Education of the Gifted and Talented. I enjoyed writing it and it is wonderful to have the requirement to consider these issues rather than it simply feeling like something I should do.

Myths lead to misunderstanding, leading to missed opportunities

The more that I read and reflected in topic one, the more I came to believe the title of this little thought bubble. Having said that, it is probably giving a brief overview of the basis of my, potential, biases. I am the parent of four very intelligent children – not claiming gifted at this stage – three of whom, the boys, have Asperger’s. My eldest finished high school last week and will achieve a good OP and received an A on the QCS test, without breaking an academic sweat. A great teacher arrived too late in his special interest area, ancient history, to really challenge him. The second son is in year seven, likes school well enough, but is showing nothing of his potential. His teachers know he is more than capable; his Aspiness gets in the way. Sorry, but this waffly disclaimer goes on for another paragraph.

For myself, I was in the first selective cohort at Gosford High. Like a number of my friends, I struggled. Topic one’s readings have provided some confirmation – confirmation bias perhaps – as to why that was. Why some of my friends, who have gone onto achieve wonderful things in their chosen fields, dropped out of school. Which is what I ended up doing, early on in year eleven. I have come believe that there were number of factors that affected my approach to education at that stage. The most glaring of which is the myths that, “Gifted children will do fine on their own” and that there is a distinct model of a gifted student as the earlier paradigms would seem to assume (Bannister-Tyrrell, Merrotsy, Jones, & Gunn, 2016).

Beginning with the second myth first, the Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA)(n.d.) is quite clear on the fact that students showing gifted and talented traits can be quite varied across a number of areas. Importantly, the same document states that students are entitled to “rigorous, relevant and engaging learning opportunities”. I am left wondering how that can be achieved in the current system where everything must be measured. There is nothing wrong with being results orientated, but a grade, or NAPLAN score, should not be the only measure of a good education.

No method is perfect, or can accomplish every goal, though at least Gagné has provided a source that encourages a different approach. The 2008 Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) begins to do more than simply separate gifts and talents. By breaking away from the paradigm that says IQ is paramount, the opportunity arises to identify a range of talents. Even more significantly, Gagné has identified a number of factors or influences that contribute to the realisation of the gifted student’s potential. While still showing some limitations, this goes a long way to acknowledging the fact that one gifted and talented student is not the same as the next. There is no simple equation.

Another approach might go further to destroy this myth. We have seen in the last ten years or so greater recognition that the Autism spectrum is just that, a spectrum. I believe that this approach should be applied to giftedness. Approaching giftedness as a continuum provides the opportunity to begin to the gifted and talented student as an individual rather than a specific group. This approach lends itself immediately to appropriate differentiation. As seen in British Columbia (Laine & Stanley, 1989), a continuum rather than a dichotomous approach can be an incredibly effective method of establishing programming for the gifted and talented. It is a system through which all students can profit.

This system asks the question, ‘what can we do with what we have?’ Bypassing the limitations of funding and resourcing, using a continuum approach has allowed students to access extension, or even different curriculum as required, on an individual basis, creating provisions within the “students’ daily lives”(Laine & Blank, 1989). The programming is designed to develop students to be “more independent managers of their own education”, and provides opportunity for counselling rather than extension if that is what is required by the individual. This article only provides an overview of the program, so I am very interested in exploring this further.

An individual approach that exists along a continuum addresses both of the myths identified earlier in this ramble. When a student is considered in this way, it is possible to differentiate quite specifically. Another personal belief that all of this reinforces, is that the current method of segregating students due to their age is outdated. If all truly exist on a continuum and, as the Melbourne Declaration (2008) states, all students have a right to an education that meets their needs, progressing students through their education based on their turning another year older rather than attaining mastery of a skill or knowledge area is at once holding students back while leaving others behind.

There are ways to address these issues, but while funding models and governmental policy stays firmly rooted in the past, the status quo will remain. While this is a problem, it does take me to another thought that plagued me throughout this topic. What can I do as an individual teacher, in my smallish school, in a regional area? Ideas are brewing away. I look forward to exploring these issues as the unit progresses.

References other than topic readings

Laine, C.J., & Blank, S.S., (1989) Integrative Program Policy for the Gifted: Continuum or Dichotomy? Canadian Journal of Education Vol. 14 No. 1