Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers - 7 views
-
September 1993
-
Laura Hance on 13 Apr 10I am concerned with the date of this article. Are her points still relevant?
-
Suzanne Palmer on 20 Apr 10I absolutely believe they are. I have read many more recent articles and journals that continue to support Rogers findings. I think that the organization of the article is reader-friendly addressing the different types of groupings as well as the social and emotional impact on students.
-
Eric Calvert on 22 Apr 10In 2002, Rogers published a book (Re-Forming Gifted Education) covering similar territory but incorporating data from students between 1993 and 2002. Her conclusions in the more recent work were pretty consistent with the article from 93. The College of William and Mary also did an independent survey of the literature just a few years ago for the State of Ohio comparing pros and cons of different gifted service delivery models. In a nutshell, their summary was that models that include grouping elements, provide access to advanced content at a faster than typical pace, and are focused on a specific content area (vs., say, a general purpose pull-out "enrichment" program) tend to produce the biggest learning gains and are among the least costly models to implement. (Thus, I would wager that the reconfiguration of the middle school programs you all started this year will ultimately pay big dividends for kids down the road if you keep working together on differentiating curriculum and gradually articulating the program down to lower grade levels.)
-
-
have used one of the latter two approaches to research.
-
Gifted educators are now confronted with shoring up the erosion of years of effort:
-
I think that we all know how hard it is to get something back that has been cut from budget. Gifted programming of any kind is often one of the first things cut from a budget when there needs to be cuts. Gifted can be an easy target in Ohio because gifted programming is currently not mandated and often times the test scores of our identified students show they are doing "OK".
- ...11 more annotations...
-
from the minority who have been chronically underserved
-
in which the top 5-8 gifted learners at a grade level
-
Is she saying here that only the top 5-8 students per grade level would be served using this model? If not, it would seem that each building would need almost all teachers to be a trained teacher of the gifted in order to be able to service all students with a gifted ID.
-
Yes, I believe that is what she is saying. In most of the research I have done in clustering, it is recommended to have 5-7 in an identified area together. We began clustering in reading and math in our 4th and 5th grade classes this year throughout the district. We found that the majority of the buildings had enough students to support a cluster either in reading and/or math and the training of that teacher. In 2 of our larger buildings, they actually had enough where they could have a couple of math and reading classes with a cluster of math or reading identified students.
-
-
substantial academic gains in reading and some evidence of similar gains in mathematics for students of all ability levels.
-
a small decline in self-esteem for subject acceleration,
-
Teachers of 6th grade Pre Algebra have been concerned with some of the stress-levels exhibited by students - such as pulling out eyelashes and the inability to cope with not understanding a specific concept.
-
Interesting, there are a couple of things to consider with the behaviors exhibited by these gifted students. For some of our brightest students, it can be difficult for them when they are faced with something that is a challenge for them for the first time. Many of our gifted learners exhibit characteristics of perfectionism as well. I hope that these teachers are working with our middle school coordinators to address some of these social and emotional concerns. If not, that is something that I would strongly recommend.
-
-
She found greater numbers of ethnic minorities and the economically disadvantaged in the lower track classes.
-
This would be my concern with ability grouping at all levels. While it may be appropriate for gifted learners, I do think the lower track can give students all the opportunities that should be afforded them.
-
I agree. That is a nice benefit of clustering. I recently read The Cluster Grouping Handbook which talks about the appropriate way to cluster students and I think the way Susan Winebrenner has done it really makes sense to help raise the bar for all students.
-
-
It is important that we change this situation, seek to understand its causes, while at the same time we continue to provide appropriate ability grouping options to our identified gifted and talented.
-
appreciate the diversity in their society
-
It is important to note that the coverage vs. mastery dilemma exists in all whole-class group-paced instruction
-
This in turn may lead to an even more precipitous decline in national test scores than we have already been witnessing since the 1960s.
-
Just as we readily acknowledge the complexity of the learning process, we must acknowledge that no simple solution