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 models part 1 - Renzulli

The final essay for Education of the Gifted and Talented. It is two parts due to the length. The first part looks Renzulli's Schoolwide Enrichment Model. The second Handa's Learner Centre Differentiation Model. While both have much to offer, I feel that Handa has developed a model that is adaptable and provides an individual teacher with the ability to more effectively differentiate for all students.

Introduction

There are a number of different models of gifted differentiation promoted throughout the education universe. While many of these are interrelated in both concept and creators, the effectiveness of any given teaching strategy is, in the end, dependant on the ability of a teacher to implement the strategy in the classroom. In modern education in Australia, there is much variation between states and school regions and/or districts in approach to the identification and teaching of gifted students. With that in mind, it is the purpose of this paper to consider the effectiveness of two models for differentiation: Renzulli’s Enrichment Triad Model, with a focus on the secondary model, and Chandra Handra’s Learner-Centred Differentiated Model.

Renzulli’s Schoolwide Enrichment Model

Renzuli introduced the world to the concept of the Triad Model of gifted development in 1977. Since then, following many trials and research, he and his team have developed the Schoolwide Enrichment Program. Originally, the model was designed for the top ten percent of the student population, though this has since been broadened to up to twenty percent in order to create a larger talent pool (Reis & Renzulli, 1989). This talent pool forms the basis of the gifted education structure within the school. Called the Revolving Door Identification Model, this is not a static group due to students having the ability to move in and out as appropriate (Gibson & Effinger, 2006). While this model of identification is aiming for inclusivity and flexibility, there is little here in place for the under-motivated student, rather it is relying on intrinsic motivation.

Once students are in the talent pool, they engage in lessons based around the enrichment triad. After being orientated to the services that are available, they progress to the differing styles of lessons, called types (Reis & Renzulli, 1989). Type one looks at content outside of the regular curriculum, type two at “process orientated teaching activities” (Reis & Renzulli, 1989), and type three sees the students engage in self-directed study that leads to the students becoming investigators creating their own product. The need to create such classes is a hurdle for schools to overcome.

The requirement for schools to significantly alter their structure provokes a number of challenges to the successful implantation of Renzulli’s Schoolwide Enrichment Model. Although there is some scope for flexibility in implementation, such as the guidance provided by Barbara Moller (1986) in implementation and the development of buy-in from invested parties, there remains a need for student and teacher to largely step away from the curriculum. The curriculum itself is to be compacted using services provided by Renzulli Learning™, enabling students to get on with learning the “Renzulli Learning System Profiler” (Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010) has identified. It is a system that requires investment of both the entire staff and part of the school’s budget.

The change within the school is to begin with a small group of teachers. Renzulli identifies this group as the interdisciplinary planning team, whose job is to develop the program to fit the needs of the school and the students (Reis & Renzulli, 1989). Renzulli highlights a major potential weakness in the model when he refers to the importance of having the whole faculty on board. Negativity within the faculty can destroy the chances of success for a program before it even gets going. The implementation of a program of this scale also requires that administration and regional directors are on board. While this should not by itself dissuade a school or faculty from looking at this model, it is an aspect that needs to be considered.

This issue is not helped by the nature of the segregation, particularly in the Australian context. There is a tendency in Australia to see gifted education as helping those who do not require it (Jericho, nd). That being good at school is good enough. The requirement for separate classes for gifted students within the school environment is generally frowned upon with little regard to the efficacy, or otherwise, of said classes. Renzulli (2006) identifies the need for effective change, requiring all parties within a school community, and further afield, to be supportive and involved. Again, this should not necessarily been seen as a block to the implementation of any program, however it is a potential obstacle.

When considered through the lens of June Maker’s principles (Bannister-Tyrrell, Merrotsy, Jones, & Gunn, 2016), the Schoolwide Enrichment Model kicks many goals. With curriculum content being compacted, this allows scope for students and the facilitating teacher to cover content more closely aligned with student interests. The goal of this differentiation of content is to take the student from a narrow band of interest/s, to a broader understanding of interrelated concepts and knowledge (Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010). The type two classes set students up for success, utilising a range of discovery, research and learning processes. The aim of the type three group is that students will produce a product that is truly their own; the result of a student lead project. An essential part of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model is the modification of the learning environment, requiring all invested parties to welcome large changes to curriculum and learning construction. All of Maker’s principles are catered for.

The Schoolwide Enrichment Model has much to offer, while asking much of the school at the same time. There are a number of, potentially high, hurdles for a program of this scope to be put in place. There are limits to what schools can do as well as limits to this model. Though called schoolwide, there is little for those not meeting the requirements of the talent pool. Instead, it is focused on gifted services and the “development of gifted and creative behaviours” in students with the potential to benefit from such a program, as well as “some type of enrichment for all students” (Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010). A bit like trickle down schooling. In the current Australian context, it would seem there is much to hamstring such a model.

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.

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.