Gifted Students, Research Paper Example

A New Paradigm for Identifying and Teaching Gifted Students:

In recent decades the approach to K-12 education has shifted towards a differentiated model that endeavors to better meet the needs and match the skills of individual students. This shift has had significant implications for accelerated education, an area in which students of color and students with disabilities have traditionally been underserved. This paper examines a cross-section of current literature on the subject of accelerated education in the context of differentiated classrooms, and offers a summation of several key ways in which accelerated education programs may be redesigned to address the needs of a diverse student population.

According to Bianco (2010) “gifted education is in poor health.”Criticisms have been leveled that point to flaws, deficits, and potential harmful outcomes arising from inadequate, ineffective, or inappropriate implementation of accelerated education programs. Among the most common criticisms of accelerated education programs are concerns that some students who are offered such programs will be at risk for negative consequences in terms of social or emotional development. In recent years, a growing chorus of voices has criticized long-standing approaches to accelerated education for a demonstrating a lack of cultural sensitivity; in brief, these critics assert (correctly) that intellectually gifted students of color and students with disabilities are underrepresented in accelerated-education programs. In addition to these criticisms are concerns that stakeholders responsible for making decisions about the educational and academic services offered to gifted students –including teachers, school counselors, school administrators, and parents- lack the appropriate training and information needed to make effective decisions. This paper examines a cross-section of literature that discusses these and other concerns about accelerated education, identifies practices intended to ameliorate the problems associated with current standards, and discusses a number of new approaches to accelerated education.

The term “accelerated education” is used to describe a broad array of different educational approaches, programs, and services. According to Wood et al (2010) there are approximately eighteen different educations frameworks that comprise the overarching realm of accelerated education, though of these eighteen, there are several distinct types that are most commonly available to intellectually gifted students. Wood et al provide the following working definition of accelerated education: “(it) essentially describes practices that adjust the pace of instruction to match students’ abilities, provide students with the appropriate level of challenge, and reduce the time needed for students to complete their schooling” (2010). The most common approaches to accelerated education identified by Wood et al are grade skipping, placement in specific classes (wherein gifted students receive accelerated instruction in particular fields of study), advanced placement (wherein students are provided accelerated instruction for all or most of their courses), International Baccalaureate (IB), dual enrollment (wherein students attend high school classes and college classes), and early enrollment in kindergarten or college (2010).

In their article “School Counselors’ Perceptions and Experience with Acceleration as a Program Option for Gifted and Talented Students,” Wood et al examine the roles played by school counselors when making determinations about students’ eligibility for and placement in accelerated education programs. The authors note that school counselors typically offer consultation and other input during the decision-making processes about identifying gifted students and placement in accelerated education programs; according to their research, school counselors often lack appropriate training and information needed to make appropriate decisions about accelerated education. In the absence of such training, school counselors may not be offering the most effective or appropriate suggestions and advice to parents and other stakeholders; Wood et al suggest that such training should be an integral component of the overall training school counselors receive during their own educational and certification processes (2010).

In the article “Outsiders Looking In? Ensuring that Teachers of the Gifted and Talented Education and Teachers of Students with Disabilities are Part of the ‘In-Crowd’,” Henley et al address a similar subject: the problems and challenges faced by teachers who are tasked with providing educational instruction to gifted students. The authors note that many teachers of gifted students (as well as students with disabilities) experience a sense of “isolation from (the rest of the) teaching staff,” while exceptional students face similar challenges, often feeling isolated from “the (general) instructional program” and the “student body” (Henley et al, 2010). The authors identify several key ways in which issues of this nature might be surmounted; among the most significant positive factors is the need for effective leadership from the top down starting with school principals. In order to break down the sorts of barriers that can leave teachers of gifted students feeling isolated, principals can develop and implement mentoring programs that tap into the reservoir of “human capital” in the school (Henley et al, 2010). Such programs can establish strong working relationships and open lines of communication between the school’s population of classroom teachers and the instructors of exceptional students.

Beyond such programs intended to facilitate communication and collaboration, principals and other school leadership stakeholders can provide appropriate training and professional support to classroom teachers and teachers of exceptional students. In an era where inclusiveness has become the watchword in classrooms across the country, it is paramount that classroom teachers and teachers of exceptional students develop the capacity to support the other in order to meet the needs of all students. Classroom teachers are faced with trying to meet the needs of all students, preparing students for assessment testing, and other whole-class challenges and goals. Teachers of exceptional students must be properly trained and otherwise equipped to offer collaborative and responsive support to classroom teachers, as opposed to providing instruction entirely apart from the general classroom instructional program. Concurrently, classroom teachers must be give the tools and training necessary to ensure that they provide a supportive, inclusive environment not just for exceptional students, but for their instructors as well.

Bianco (2010) examines the relationship between classroom teachers, teachers of gifted students, and the overall context and environment in which gifted students are provided instructions, and offers suggestions about how Response to Intervention (RTI) frameworks might be modified to address the needs of gifted students. As the author notes, RTI frameworks were initially developed for the purpose of addressing the needs of struggling students. The RTI approach brings to bear the talents and skill sets of classroom teachers, teachers of exceptional students, school counselors, and others to provide individualized planning and support for struggling students. Bianco asserts that such an approach can be repurposed to strengthen the education and classroom support offered to gifted students. According to the author, students with disabilities and gifted students both face unique challenges, and also pose unique challenges for teachers and administrators; with this in mind, moving from an RTI system based on “perceived deficits” to a “strength-based system” may allow the fundamental components of the RTI framework to be used to support the needs of gifted students.

Like many other researchers, Bianco notes that students with disabilities, students of color, and other exceptional students are “underrepresented (in) gifted populations” within many schools. As the approach to education shifts more and more towards a model based on inclusiveness, cultural sensitivity, and the embrace of diversity, it is imperative that programmatic approaches to gifted education are shaped to meet the needs of all gifted students. Bianco describes RTI as a “collaborative, multi-tiered, problem-solving and intervention process” (2010); in this context, it is possible to see how such an approach could be helpful to all exceptional students, rather than only those with perceived deficits. The author asserts that teachers and other actors must avoid perceiving students with challenges only through a “deficit lens” (Bianco, 2010), and only in terms of what struggling students cannot do. Underrepresented members of the gifted population, such as students of color, may benefit from RTI approaches that play to their strengths, rather than their deficits; moreover, culturally-sensitive approaches may determine that many challenged students should be recommended for gifted testing and other such assessments (Bianco, 2010).

As authors such as Bianco make clear, it is important to identify those students who can benefit from some form of accelerated education; in the article “Using CBM to Identify Advanced Learners in the General Education Classroom,” Sulak (2014) addresses the challenges that teachers and other stakeholders face when attempting to make such identifications. As Sulak notes, “giftedness can be represented by potential” (2014), although such potential can be difficult to recognize if it is not manifested in outward behavior, academic achievement, or other clear signs. Moreover, the sorts of behaviors that serve as markers for potential, or that identify intellectually gifted students, may only be manifested if these students are offered the kinds of differentiated or accelerated instruction that cultivate such behaviors (Sulak, 2014). The author points to the “absolutist paradigm” (2014) that has long underpinned accelerated education programs; such a paradigm has largely been shaped around assessment testing and other methodologies that can leave “traditionally underserved populations” (2014) excluded from these sorts of educational opportunities. Sulak suggests that curriculum-based measurements (CBM) that are “connected to the instructional programming” (2014) should be used to indentify gifted students.

As the author describes it, such CBM eschew the use of “labels” in favor of assessments based on individual students’ needs (Sulak, 2014). Traditional methods of identifying gifted students, such as intelligence testing and other “normative procedures” can fail to recognize the “undeveloped talents and gifts” in traditionally underserved populations (Sulak, 2014). According to Sulak, giftedness is not a dichotomy or a binary choice between gifted or not gifted; rather, giftedness exists on a spectrum, with each student having his or her own individual strengths and weaknesses (2014). In this context, argues the author, it is necessary to use performance-based assessment, coupled with individualized and differentiated instruction, to identify which students demonstrate gifted potential. Once identified, asserts Sulak, it is important to continue to provide differentiated accelerated instruction, as opposed to taking a one-size-fits-all approach (2014). In short, it is not just the traditional assessment paradigm that the author challenges; it is also the traditional accelerated-education paradigm in which gifted students are treated as a monolithic bloc as opposed to individual students with individual needs.

While much of the extant research and literature involving accelerated education is framed through the lenses of teachers, counselors, and administrators, a growing body of work is being devoted to examining the arena of accelerated education from the perspective of gifted students themselves. The article “It’s All a Matter of Perspective: Student Perceptions on the Impact of Being Labeled Gifted and Talented” addresses this issue, with consideration for “the changed perception that occurs in teachers, family members, and peers when children are identified as gifted” and the ways that such changed perceptions can have an impact on gifted students (Berlin, 2009). The author asserts that the perceptions of students about being gifted are “strongly positive;” concurrently, however, many gifted students view being gifted as “strongly negative in terms of social relationships with others” (Berlin, 2009). According to the author, much of the prior research into this issue has been hampered by small sample sizes and other limitations, a deficit this article seeks to redress.

One of the limitations addressed by the author is that much of the early research about the impact of being labeled as gifted was conducted when such students were typically viewed as “a single collective group” (Berlin, 2009); the more contemporary shift towards viewing gifted students according to the individualized talents and needs has in some ways further undermined the veracity of such research (Berlin, 2009). The author is interested to learn both about the impact on students when they are labeled as gifted, as well as how such labels are now applied and considered in a more contemporary educational context. According to the research findings, gifted students tend to receive “mixed messages” about being gifted, even in more current educational frameworks (Berlin, 2009).

The article frames the issue in terms of the perceptions of peers, family members, teachers, and self; according to the author, the perceptions of these first three groups can have a significant impact on the fourth. Peer perceptions about gifted students are not always unfavorable, though additional factors –such as a perceived lack of interest in sports or other activities in which many members of peer groups may engage- can combine to build a sense of social stigma around gifted students. Berlin identifies a number of negative factors within the context of parents and other family members when students are identified as gifted; among these can be such problems as heightened anxiety and lower self-concept in the gifted student (Berlin, 2009). The siblings of non-gifted students also demonstrate higher levels of poor adjustment and issues with self-concept (Berlin, 2009). The perceptions teachers have of gifted students are directly related to the amount and extent of training and professional support they have received regarding accelerated education (Berlin, 2009); the more well-trained the teacher, the greater the likelihood that he or she will have positive perceptions about gifted students.

The preceding discussion of perceptions is, of course, generalized, and each students who is labeled as gifted will be perceived differently by peers, family members, and teachers. Moreover, the impact that being labeled gifted, as well as the impact of external perceptions will have on each student varies considerably. While some students report negative self-perceptions resulting from being labeled as gifted, others report that the advantages and positive consequences of being identified as gifted outweigh any negative consequences (Berlin, 2009). What most gifted students agree on, however, is that being labeled as gifted did prompt changes in their self-perception; the differences are seen in the fact that whether these changes are positive or negative varies significantly.

The issue of labels such as “gifted,” and the impact and effects they have on students and on educational stakeholders is more fully explored in the article “Children With Gifts and Talents: Looking Beyond Traditional Labels.” In this article, Gates (2010) asserts that labels are often “misused” in gifted education, as such labels are framed around classifications underpinned by IQ tests and other normative approaches to assessment of gifted students. The use of labels in such contexts serves to reinforce traditional and often outmoded frameworks for providing gifted education. As is the cae with many other researchers, Gates supports a paradigm shift away from such narrow means of identifying gifted students, and towards one that is more culturally sensitive and inclusive (Gates, 2010). The author also addresses the issue of external perceptions and self-perceptions of gifted students, further bolstering the notion that being labeled as gifted can have the effect of promoting negative social consequences (Gates, 2010).

It is clear that several common themes run through each of these articles; although each author or set of authors seeks to examine the issues of accelerated education and gifted students through different specific perspectives, a consensus can be see emerging about the need to establish new, more inclusive, and more individualized approaches to identifying and teaching gifted students. The model of viewing gifted students and their educational framework as being separate and apart from the general education classroom has had some demonstrable negative effects: teachers of gifted students feel isolated from the larger educational environment; gifted students suffer negative social consequences; students of color and students with disabilities are underrepresented in accelerated education programs. As classrooms move towards providing differentiated and individualized, and inclusive education and instruction to students, the outmoded framework of isolative approaches to identifying and teaching gifted students must be replaced with one that recognizes and cultivates the intellectual potential in all students.

References

Berlin, J. (2009). It’s all a Matter of Perspective: Students Perceptions on the Impact of Being Labeled Gifted and Talented. Roeper Review, 32(4), 217-223.

Bianco, M. (2010). Strength-Based RTI: Conceptualizing a Multi-Tiered System for Developing Gifted Potential. Theory Into Practice, 49(4), 323-330.

Gates, J. (2010). Children With Gifts and Talents: Looking Beyond Traditional Labels.Roeper Review, 32(3), 200-206.

Henley, J, Milligan, J, McBride, J, Neal, G, Nichols, J, & Singleton, J. (2010). Outsiders

Looking In? Ensuring that Teachers of the Gifted and Talented Education and Teachers of Students with Disabilities are Part of the ‘In-Crowd’. Journal Of Instructional Psychology, 37(3), 203-209.

Sulak, T. (2014). Using CBM to Identify Advanced Learners in the General Education Classroom. Gifted Child Today, 37(1), 25-31.

Wood, S., Portman, T. A. A., Cigrand, D. L., & Colangelo, N. (2010). School counselors’ perceptions and experience with acceleration as a program option for gifted and talented   students. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(3), 168-178.