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)

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.

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