Differentiation models part 2 - Handa

The second part of the review. Though I am still sorting out how this will actually look in the classroom, I am thinking that Handa's model has much to offer all students. Starting from a core set of outcomes, products and learning, extension can then be added on. Most teachers would already be doing something similar for struggling or students with learning difficulties, so it is really adding to spectrum of learning rather a whole separate thing. Anyway, the course has been incredibly interesting and will certainly be leading a change in my teaching practice this year. Apologies for the readability of the reference list. I will figure that out one day.

Handa’s Learner-Centred Differentiation Model

Manoj Chandra Handa was a New South Wales English teacher when he developed the Learner-Centred Differentiation Model (Bannister-Tyrrell, Merrotsy, Jones, & Gunn, 2016). Based on research of the efficacy of a number of other models, with a particularly close relationship to the work of June Maker, and drawing together the work of many theorists, Handa has created a model designed for Australian schools in particular. He has built on Maker’s four elements of differentiation with the addition of the outcomes element.

Handa begins with highlighting the need for a paradigm shift in education both in and out of the classroom. The teacher becomes the “scaffolder of learning” (Handa, 2009) facilitating the progression from learner to “autonomous thinker”. He focusses on the idea that the first question that needs to be asked is: “How will students learn this?”

This increased focus on outcomes is an advantageous one, fitting in with the Australian Curriculum. The Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA) sets the standards that all students must reach at year level up to year ten (ACARA, 2016). This highlights the importance of front ended assessment tasks; the focus of the assessment outcomes then dictate the learning within a particular unit. The core components are considered first, considering the why, what and hows of the unit, then complexity and extension built onto this scaffold (Handa, 2009). There is then a focus on productive rather than reproductive thinking which shows and allows creativity.

The core focus of the Learner-centred Differentiation Model is the development of thinking processes. Rather than a focus on taught content, the student is encouraged to consider concepts which can then be filled with relevant content as required (Handa, 2009). Conceptual thinking leads to a deeper understanding of information, which in turn leads to the ability to evaluate, transfer learning, and creatively solve problems. Handa argues that critical thinking about concepts is “analysing, evaluating and being creative progressively”. This focus does not necessarily only address the needs of gifted students. It can be applied to a mixed ability classroom with equal, if not greater, success.

Rather than artificially compressing the curriculum, the Learner-centred Differentiation Model, encourages the use of cognitive technologies. The whole to part manner of learning “concepts, issues and generalisations first, then facts and topics” (Handa, 2009), is aided through the thoughtful use of technology as a research and teaching tool. Tools such as virtual classrooms, allow students to explore at their own pace. Discovery learning leads to students acquiring knowledge unique to themselves. Killen (2013) highlights that learners learn better when solving problems, with the preference being for there to be a real need to solve the problem. Unlike the perception of student lead or research based exploration held by some educators, that sees the student flounder in the shallows of learning (Di Biase, 2018), Handa emphasises the importance of scaffolding systems and purpose. At the same time, the ability to move more quickly through the core curricula, allows more time for thinking and analysis. This model, seen more as guidelines than prescriptive rules encompasses the ability to allow all to participate, the nature of student enquiry providing natural differentiation.

This development of a cognitive and conceptual approach to learning leads to the opportunity to demonstrate learning through a wide range of products. These products may be both formative and cumulative in nature, and should aim to push students out of their comfort zones in order to challenge them so take risks (Handa, 2009). Marking criteria should be deeply understood by student or, even better, developed by them and the product should “convey a genuine application of synthesis and analysis”. That learning should have some connection to the real world should be a given, particularly for middle years learners (Bahr, 2005). With this emphasis on problem solving leading to a variety of products being produced, the Learner-centred Differentiation Model is accessible by all students.

As stated earlier, Handa’s model is built upon the base of the work done by June Maker over many years (Bannister-Tyrrell, Merrotsy, Jones, & Gunn, 2016). Combined with Maker’s Problem Solving Continuum (Rogowski, 2012), there is the opportunity for teachers to differentiate readily in the mixed ability classroom, providing individualised learning for all. That Handa has addressed the principles outlined by Maker is outlined in his model’s structure. There are modifications in the areas of content, process, product and the learning environment. That there is the addition of outcomes adds to the model’s ability to be readily implemented into an existing curriculum system.

While Handa speaks of the importance of leadership within education, it is not necessarily in traditional school leadership roles. Rather there is a focus on the classroom teacher who is effective in the classroom and influences others throughout the school (Handa, 2009)(Handa, 2013). The focus is on networks rather than hierarchies. This is part of the thinking that has the potential to lead change from within, rather than waiting for departmental directive. The effect of this is the empowerment of individual, or small groups of teachers. While there is still a need for support or at least to be unshackled by the traditional school leadership, there is much a teacher can do within their own classroom. This requires teachers to be prepared to take a chance, stepping outside their comfort zone, in order to drive measurable change that can then lead broader uptake within the school community.

The Learner-centred Differentiation Model is a flexible model that could be adapted across a whole school district or simply aspects into an individual classroom. This aspect potentially offers solutions that other models are unable to due to more complex, whole school, requirements. There is the scope for individual teachers to become leaders within their schools, demonstrating how these processes can be used to deliver differentiation across the whole class.

Final Thoughts

There is a real need within schools to deliver individualised teaching for all ability levels. Masters (2019) identifies that education needs to be in line with 21^st century needs and the importance of flexible methods of learning and teaching. Many of the models focused on developing the gifted and talented student hold both of these points as vital foundations of their structure. In the end, it is up to the individual teachers, faculties, schools and regions to identify their own needs and the model that will work best in their individual context (Karnes & Bean, 2008). Both Renzulli and Handa have developed models that are proven to work in the real world, though are only two of many models and means of addressing the needs of students in the education setting. This is an area that needs continual development for both students and society at large.

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

Di Biase, R. (2018). Moving beyond the teacher-centred/learner-centred dichotomy: Implementing a structured model of active learning in the Maldives. Compare, 1-19.

Handa, Manoj Chandra. (2009). Learner-centred Differentiation Model: A New Framework. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 18(2), 55-66.

Handa, Manoj Chandra. (2013). Leading differentiated high-performance learning. Australian Educational Leader, 35(3), 22-26.

Jericho, A. (n.d.). Inquiry into the Education of Gifted and Talented Children. Board for Lutheran Schools.

Karnes, F. A., & Bean, S. M. (2008). Methods and materials for teaching the gifted. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.une.edu.au

Masters, G. (2019). Big Five Challenges in School Education. https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/columnists/geoff-masters/big-five-challenges-in-school-education. Accessed on 26th January 2019.

Bannister-Tyrrell, M., Merrotsy, P., Jones, M., & Gunn, I. (2016). Education for the Gifted and Talented – Topic 5: Differentiation. Armidale, Australia: University of New England. Retrieved from http://www.une.edu.au

Rei, S., & Renzulli, J. (1989). The Secondary Triad Model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(1), 55-77.

Renzulli, Joseph S., & Renzulli, Sally Reis. (2010). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A Focus on Student Strengths and Interests. Gifted Education International, 26, 140-3), p.140-157.

Differentiation

A particularly long post this time around looking at differentiation. I have included some headings so you can skip ahead as you like. There are a couple of hyperlinks embedded and the thrown together references at the bottom. Please feel free to comment.

Upon my pulpit

There is much to consider in this week’s topic, so please bear with me. Rather than focus too much on a particular model of differentiation for giftedness here, I will concentrate on differentiation more broadly. This is for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I do not feel I have come to terms with the varying models sufficiently at this point, although Handa’s Learner-centred differentiation model does strike a chord. Secondly, as I have done throughout these posts, my focus is on the class as a whole and how I might better serve them all. Which is the reason that Handa strikes a chord, but more on that at a later date.

I will begin with a quote I have saved as a sticky note for just such an occasion. “Differentiation is something we in the teaching profession have put out there to placate parents [and] on a good day you can do it if you’ve given up your weekend to plan a lesson, but when push comes to shove you teach to the middle and that’s the reality” (McGowan, 2018). At the time I saved this, I believed it wholeheartedly. I have watched fellow teachers struggle to find the time to prepare, feeling that they are failing their students if they have not provided a variety of scaffolds for each lesson. In some ways this is a worthy goal. In a very real way, it leads to frustration, burn-out and hating the job. I have felt for a while that differentiation need not be that way; it could be much simpler. This week’s readings have confirmed – confirmation bias perhaps – just that.

Just a quick aside before coming back to that.

There are two common approaches/scaffolds/myths dragged out whenever we start talking about differentiation: Bloom’s Taxonomy and Gardener’s Multiple Intelligences. Dealing with Gardener first, while we all have differences, the idea that parts of the brain work in isolation from others is a myth. Geake (2007) outlines that increased intelligence requires increased levels of interconnectivity across the whole brain and includes all senses. He goes on to state that neuroimaging does “not support multiple intelligences; in fact, the opposite is true”. The kind of thinking that unreservedly embraces multiple intelligences, is the same kind that also says ‘you can’t do this because this is the way you think. The same is true with the polarised brain, left vs right thinking. Intelligence is dynamic.

We recently had an excellent example of the dangers of this with one of our Aspies at home. My wife mentioned that an activity – a slackline – would be good for my son to help with his spatial awareness. While I was setting it up for him a few days later he told me that he would struggle with it due to his lack of spatial awareness. This sort of negative self-prophesy highlights the importance of both words and how easy it is for kids to put themselves into a labelled box. Even if they have to build it themselves.

Bloom's taxonomy is upside down

It was very interesting to learn that there is a more updated and detailed version of Bloom’s Taxonomy. This detail, discussed by Krathwohl (2002), offers detail missing from the original that I look forward to coming to grips with as I plan for this year. Even more exciting was the idea of flipping the table upside down. Shelley Wright (2012) detailed the concept in her response to the revised taxonomy and I feel there is much to offer. Simply put, putting creativity first is a win. So often we associate the synthesis of ideas with our high flyers. In the final weeks of last term I was provided with an example, by my students, of how this is not necessarily true.

To prepare my year 9’s for the first unit of year 10, we began to look at poetry. On the final day of that class, I gave them a range of poems including this one by Ezra Pound.

In a station of the Metro

The apparition of these faces in the crowd:
Petals on a wet, black bough.

Their task was simply to gather meaning from the poem without any external help. The focus was totally on their own interpretations. None of them knew what a bough was, but, once this was out of the way, it was the students that had struggled for C’s all year who provided the most insight. Allowed to be creative and being assured that whatever meaning they made from the poems would be “right” in my eyes, the so called strugglers flew past my A and B students.

Creating the meaning then learning how to justify it, even if their creation turns out to be off the mark, teaches creativity, content and an attitude that is more likely to take an academic risk. In this case, simply because there was no risk at all, students stuck their necks out and had a go. I know that I struggled to get started back at studying this trimester because the risk is there, particularly in this format, that my response might be wrong. Allowing, as much as possible, for the content to be built on top of the creativity – the risky part – provides a scaffold for greater success when the time for summative assessment comes around.

Differentiation

Returning, at last, to differentiation it needs to be stated again that “it is physically impossible for any teacher to differentiate every activity, or every lesson every day” (Bannister-Tyrrell, Merrotsy, Jones, & Gunn, 2016). There must be a clear understanding of learning needs, best practice, and what good and effective differentiation actually looks like. A lack of understanding leads to the issues that I described earlier on the teacher side and ineffective learning on the that of the student. Differentiation should be providing a match between student needs and curriculum requirements. It can be as simple as providing as providing a sentence starter to get a student writing or more scaffolding for those that need it at assessment time. It is not meant to become burdensome. That does not help anybody.

Is differentiation a load of rubbish?

The misapplication of differentiation leads to response like that of James Delisle (2015). While I disagree with his position, many of his points are valid. Differentiation can be difficult at times and does add, some, work. Likewise, it is hard not to agree that the provisions for “kids on the edge” have disappeared and they should make a comeback – of sorts. His mistake is to place differentiation up against streaming or focused classes. Teachers can, and should, differentiate. With a class of B students there will be a need to address different areas of struggle and ready success. Delisle is heading towards a dichotomous argument that does not need to be has and that does not help his, or the student’s case.

In his response to Delisle, Grant Wiggins (2015) states much that I agree with, though I feel he misses something as well. Dismissing Delisle’s writing as a rant is unhelpful as well. We continually, as teachers, call for effective strategy and implementation from above, whether it be from the department we work under or school admin, while knowing that the real change we seek is unlikely to be forthcoming. Therefore it is up to us. Rather than looking at the limitations of our situations, teachers who want to see change, to implement effective strategies, need to be looking at what they can do. Prove it works. Change what you can. Once that classroom door shuts, the class is ours.

Heading away from the sermon and back to differentiation in the classroom.

Joyce VanTassel-Baska (2011) highlights that design for gifted students should be standards and discipline based, offering “advanced challenge, in depth thinking and doing, and abstract conceptualization”. Upon reading this, I came back to the thoughts of an earlier post considering students as being on a continuum. As such, so should the curriculum be. If these are the goals for the gifted, should they not be the goals for the rest of the cohort? Of course, student responses will be different and the scaffolding will change, but should we not be aspirational on our students’ behalf? Especially for those who cannot or will not be so for themselves, I think the answer needs to be yes.

References

Bloom’s flipped https://plpnetwork.com/2012/05/15/flipping-blooms-taxonomy/

Bloom’s revised https://www.depauw.edu/files/resources/krathwohl.pdf

Geake 2008 Brain myths http://amyalexander.wiki.westga.edu/file/view/neuromythologies-p.pdf

Delisle J 2015 Differentiation does not work https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/01/07/differentiation-doesnt-work.html

VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education.  Gifted Child Quarterly, 51,  342-358.

Handa, Manoj Chandra. Learner-centred differentiation model : a new framework. [online]. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education; v.18 n.2 p.55-66; December 2009.

McGowan, M. 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/01/kids-arent-widgets-the-radical-thinking-that-offers-a-way-forward-after-gonski

Bannister-Tyrrell, M., Merrotsy, P., Jones, M., & Gunn, I. (2016)

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.

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