- Email: [email protected]
Teaching Gifted Children in Regular Classroom in the USA
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 143 (2014) 147 – 151
CY-ICER 2014
Teaching Gifted Children in Regular Classroom in the USA Nadezhda Pavlovna Pomortseva* Institute of International Relations, History and Oriental Studies, Kazan Federal University, 18 Kremlin St., Kazan, 420008, Russia
Abstract Research indicates that throughout the last thirty years most of gifted students in the USA receive basic education in the regular middle schools. During this period a number of strategies have been developed to meet the unique academic needs and interests of high-ability American learners. The purpose of this paper is to select the most wife-spread practices and classify them according to the degree of inclusion of gifted and talented students into the mainstream so that the results could be applied worldwide.
© 2014 2014 The Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article © Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of CY-ICER 2014. Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of CY-ICER 2014.
Keywords: gifted education, middle school, and mainstream, USA. 1. Introduction One of the most crucial questions for American educators today is how teachers can develop instruction that will be challenging and exciting enough to meet the unique academic needs of students of different abilities and still hold together the mainstream class. 1.1. Literature review Research tells us that a large majority of gifted and talented students spend most of their day in regular classroom settings. Unfortunately, instruction in the regular classroom is generally not tailored to meet their unique needs (Archambault, 1993; Cox, Daniel, & Boston, 1985; Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993, cited in Parke, 2003). This situation is putting gifted students at risk of failing to achieve their potential. Achievement scores below what might be expected from American brightest population provide the evidence (Callahan, 1990;
* Correspomding name: Nadezhda P. Pomortseva. Tel.: +7-919-637-0867 E-mail address: [email protected]
1877-0428 © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of CY-ICER 2014. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.377
148
Nadezhda Pavlovna Pomortseva / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 143 (2014) 147 – 151
Kantrowitz & Wingert, 1992; Ness & Latessa, 1979, cited in Parke, 2003). It turns out, regular schools determined to teach high–ability learners face a double challenge. Firstly, GT students expect a full service education here if the society in its turn expects these students to thrive as much as they are able to. Secondly, these students must be involved in educational experiences that are challenging and appropriate to their needs and achievement levels (Parke, 1996). 1.2. Assumptions Though some discrepancies do exist between the middle school education policy and the gifted education they still have much in common. This was determined by Tomplinson (1995) who assigned 3 directions of shared interests and concerns between the two institutions. First, both groups advocated education that: (1) is theme based, (2) is interdisciplinary, (3) fosters student selfdirection and independence, (4) promotes self-understanding, (5) incorporates basic skills, (6) is relevant to the learner and thus based on study of significant problems, (7) is student-centered, (8) promotes student discovery, (9) values group interaction, (10) is built upon student interest, (11) encourages critical and creative exploration of ideas, and (12) promotes student self-evaluation (e.g., Currier, 1986; Kaplan, 1979; Maker & Nielson, 1995; Stevenson, 1992, cited in Tomplinson (1995). Second, specialists in gifted education would definitely share the ideas expressed in Turning Points (Carnegie Task Force on the Education of Young Adolescents, 1989, cited in Tomplinson (1995) that middle school programs should: (1) create small communities of learning within larger school settings, (2) teach a solid academic core, (3) ensure success for all students, (4) enable educators closest to students to make important decisions about teaching and learning, (5) staff middle schools with teachers trained to work effectively with early adolescents, (6) promote health and fitness, (7) involve families in the education of learners, and (8) connect schools with communities. Finally, there is a common concern for the cognitive and affective welfare of early adolescent learners. Both groups also understand that there is great variability in the academic, social, emotional, and physical development of the early adolescent group. Both also subscribe to the reality that early adolescents are subject to change, including spurts in physical growth, new interests, and intellectual awareness. And both believe that all middle school students should take part in challenging learning experiences. 1.3. Classification of the Most Successful Grouping Practices In this paper we will concentrate on pros and cons of the most successful grouping practices that allow meeting the unique need of gifted children in the regular middle schools in the USA. Having researched into the problem we found a variety of grouping forms. We also made an attempt to classify them according to the degree of inclusion of GT students into the mainstream. 1. GT students in the regular class: 1) ‘full inclusion’; 2) ‘cluster’ grouping 2. GT students in the regular school: 1) ability grouping; 2) ‘special’ classes; 3. Gifted education is mostly provided out-of-school: 1)’pull-out’ programs; 2) mentorships; 3) academic contests, competitions etc 1.1) ‘Full inclusion’ (Johnson et al., 1992) is a form of grouping that allows involving small groups of learners into a particular problem-solving task. Traditionally, in a regular class, students are grouped in the so-called ‘mixedability’ teams – heterogeneous groups of 5-6 students where one or two are very successful students, two-three – ‘average learners’ and one-two ‘underachievers’. The main principle of such grouping practices determines that all students are able to understand, learn and practice basic concepts of a topic though cooperation with others. Johnson etc (1992) argue that this way learners realize their dependence on each other as well as develop particular
Nadezhda Pavlovna Pomortseva / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 143 (2014) 147 – 151
149
communication skills and team spirit. It is quite evident that this grouping practice is truly viable for problem-solving activities outside the main curriculum but is hardly able to substitute the basic instruction. As for GT students the greatest advantage of ‘full inclusion’ seems to be building and improving communication skills, team spirit, in particular. The gifted child's social development is enhanced when an appropriate peer group is found (Devlin et al., 1996). On the other hand their academic needs and interests are sacrificed as the curriculum is limited in content and pace; there is no true differentiation and this can lead to demotivation. Thus we have to agree with Devlin etc (1996) that ‘full inclusion’ is justified only if social situation in class is at stake. 1.2). However, deeper research into the problem let us presuppose that GT students can learn vital communication skills via homogeneous grouping. Here GT learners practice important social skills but with students of similar ability. This type of grouping is called a cluster. In most schools high-ability students make up as many as 5-6 people per grade. So they can be grouped in ‘a cluster’ within a particular mainstream class with the teacher, a specialist in gifted instruction. Rogers (2014) is sure GT students are most likely to flourish in a like-ability group. The researcher states that this technology gives learners with high potential a real opportunity to improve their knowledge and skills and to practice deeper understanding. Moreover, this strategy can be provided when instructors do not have to serve students of extremely different levels of potential and achievement. Evidently, cluster grouping is an option not a substitution for exiting gifted enrichment programs; they correlate like form and contents. However, a cluster is quite a stable grouping form and according to many respectable researchers in the field is more efficient (Devlin, 1996; Renzulli, 2000; Rogers, 2014 etc). It can be assumed that ‘a cluster’ is likely to be a most successful strategy of teaching GT students in a regular class. Firstly, high-potential learners feel more comfortable within a homogeneous group of those with similar abilities, so-to-say ‘equal best’. Secondly, working environment in the mainstream class is sure to improve since a GT student no longer remains the only high achiever; he/she is joined by a few others in a cluster and assigned quite challenging tasks. Thirdly, we can expect a case of true differentiation here, as a specially trained teacher will work with this group. Finally, it is budget-friendly to place 4-6 GT students of a grade in the same class. 2.1). Flexible ability grouping is practiced in several American states (Louisiana, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas and others) to provide gifted education within the regular middle school premises. During a school day learners are placed in different groups to study different school subjects at their level of achievement and potential, so this is a flexible grouping strategy. So GT learners move within different age level groups throughout a school week, taking a few classes with mainstream students of their age (Welch, 2000). American researchers (Rogers, 2014; Delcourt et al., 1994) advocate ‘flexible grouping’ as an extremely productive strategy for GT students: they benefit enormously from this constant regrouping; at every lesson they are placed in a group according to their level of ability and aptitude in a particular subject. It is also reported that achievement figures boost within the rest of the mainstream class and new academic leaders tend to emerge. We see, ’flexible grouping’ perfectly corresponds to ‘age free’ instruction principle (Barber, 2009) as a well as to L.D. Silverman’s (Silverman, 2013) concept of giftedness as asynchronic development. 2.2). GT students are placed in ‘special’ classes within a regular middle school where they study most of the subject expect for PT, Art and a few others. It stands to reason the amount of learners in the ‘special‘class is considerably smaller than in the mainstream one. The gifted specialist preoccupied with this class is to differentiate the curriculum at large so as the unique abilities and aptitudes of each student (which can vary in different fields of knowledge) could be met. The basic differentiation technologies that are applied in such classes are ‘flexible pacing’ and ‘curriculum compacting’ and, of course, individual teaching and learning approach (Renzulli et al., 2000). It goes without saying ‘special‘ classes cannot but provoke the majority to speak about elitism in gifted education, which, consequently, puts double pressure on high-potential learners: first, through high expectations because of their extreme abilities; second, it breeds alienation in already quite vulnerable gifted adolescents. 3.1). Gifted Enrichment ‘Pull-Out’ programs and ‘resource rooms’ (centers) are quite a wide-spread gifted education tool in regular middle American schools. Usually GT students of a mainstream school attend these programs on a weekly basis. The task of a gifted specialist working with students in the ‘pull-outs’ is determined by
150
Nadezhda Pavlovna Pomortseva / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 143 (2014) 147 – 151
the unique abilities and interests of their learners. According to Welch (2000) ‘pull-outs’ allow high-potential students to learn about their abilities and to learn about the ways to differentiate their curriculum accordingly. Rogers (1991) suggests differentiation in the following: 1) general curriculum; 2) particular field of knowledge; 3) critical thinking skills; 4) arts and art. Moreover, in these ‘resource rooms’ GT students get to know others of similar abilities which seems to be of great importance for mostly alienated gifted adolescents. Osborn (2009) says that gifted enrichment ‘pull-out’ program is the hardest type of gifted programming to advocate against charges of elitism. Why cannot all learners enjoy field trips, the fun activities, in depth-studies, hands-on puzzles and problems that are typical of the gifted pull-out program? Why should others do endless repetition of the classroom? The answer seems to be clear– because GT students are capable to learn basic curriculum much faster than the rest of the class, so they simply do not need this endless repetition. Osborn (2009) also answers the second important question - if the gifted enrichment pull-outs really meet the educational needs of the gifted child? In most schools, the gifted enrichment pull-out is the only type of a gifted program. But nowadays even they are put at risk through budget cutting according to the recent changes in the education policy in the USA (Loveless, 2009). 3.2). An exciting and longstanding strategy of developing gifts and talents of American middle school students in the long run is mentorships. Farmer (2001) states that mentoring allows educational needs of talented students to be met even when they fall outside the school curriculum and outside the expertise of the students' teachers. This is achieved by linking the student with an experienced person from the appropriate field of knowledge. Relating to experts outside the school environment also requires the students to become more responsible for their own learning, with students establishing goals with their mentor, and generally learning by doing. Farmer (2001) emphasizes that mentoring best suits students who have already shown some dedication and commitment to the area of interest, such as in already working independently on "real problems or projects" in the area. Self-motivation (at least in the subject area) and organization are also key attributes if the student is to gain from the less structured mentor arrangement. Undoubtedly, mentor relationships with dedicated scholars, artists, scientists, or businesspeople are highly suitable for gifted adolescents, particularly those who have mastered the essentials of the high school curriculum. LashawayBokina (1999) reports that such students may receive more options and alternatives than they can consider. Parents often notice that mentors have a maturing effect: Students suddenly develop a vision of what they can become, find a sense of direction, and focus their efforts. 3.3). A special attention should be given to the numerous school academic contests and competitions which have recently boosted in the USA. We deliberately refer them to a gifted education strategy. The point is GT students are selected and placed in the teams at the very beginning of their school life and keep with them throughout their 12 school years guarded by highly-able and equally highly-demanding specialists in the field. Thus it is hard to deny the influence of such education technology not only on the developing a student’s GTs, but also on their personality. The basic principles of academic contests training are well–known to general public. So we would like to discuss two main drawbacks, reported by Welch (2000): first, most schools limit the members of the teams to those identified as gifted leaving behind the potential of other gifted categories (e.g., GT learning disabled); second, in many school districts, these teams have become the only type of gifted enrichment programs with most of the GT education budget allocated to training the contents participants. 1.4. Conclusion and Recommendations for Future Research To sum, whatever teaching strategy (a variety of strategies) the administration of a school might decide to implement the one thing is quite clear: GT students benefit from participating in activities that are different from those designed for other students. Such alternative activities should extend basic concepts and allow learners to connect their personal interests to the course curriculum. It should also be mentioned that since gifted students are as far removed from the ‘norm’ as are the students with considerable learning disabilities, it is necessary for mainstream teachers to receive special training in gifted instruction. These implications determine the directions for further research into the problem of effective teaching GT students in the regular classroom in the USA. References
Nadezhda Pavlovna Pomortseva / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 143 (2014) 147 – 151 Barber M. (2009) Neither Rest Nor Tranquility Education and the American Dream in the 21st Century / Wested, San Francisco, CA/ retrieved, 2012, from http://www.smhc-cpre.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/neither-rest-nor-tranquility.pdf Carolyn K. (2012) Is Gifted Education Elitist? / retrieved, 2014, from http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/elitist.htm Delcourt M., Loyd B., Cornell D., Goldberg M. (1994) Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on student learning outcomes // The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. – 1994/ retrieved, 2012, from http://www.sp.uconn.edu/nrcgt/news/spring94.htm Devlin B., Winebrenner S. (1992) Cluster Grouping Fact Sheet: How to Provide Full-time Services for Gifted Students on Existing Budgets // The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented– 1992 / retrieved, 2002 , from http://www.sp.uconn.edu/nrcgt/news/ spring92.htm Fisher T. (2013) 'Same' and 'Equal' Are Not Congruent Terms // Education Week. – 2013. – August, 24 / retrieved, 2014, from http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/unwrapping_the_gifted Johnson D.W., Johnson R.T. (1992) What to Say to Advocates for the Gifted? / D.W. Johnson, R.T. Johnson // Educational Leadership. – 1992. # 10. Lashaway-Bokina N. (1999) Mentorship at Its Best / Edinburg Consolidated Independent School District Edinburg, TX. – 1999/ retrieved, 2012, from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/newsletter/fall99/fall994.html Loveless T., Petrilli M.J. (2009) Smart Child Left Behind // New York Times. – 2009. – August, 27/ retrieved, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/opinion/28petrilli.html?_r=3 NAGC Position Statement: Ability Grouping / retrieved, 2014, from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?Id=382 Osborn J. B. (2014) Gifted Children: Are Their Gifts Being Identified, Encourage, or Ignored? /retrieved, 2014, from http://www.aboutourkids.org/articles/ Parke B. N. (1996) Challenging Gifted Students in the Regular Classroom // ERIC EC Digest #E513 1996/ retrieved, 2002, from http://eric.hoagiesgifted.org Parke B. N. (2003) Discovering Programs for Talent Development // Educational Studies Faculty Publications.- 2003 / retrieved, 2014, from http://opus.ipfw.edu/educat_facpubs/40/ Renzulli J. S., Richards S. (2000) Gifted in the Middle: Addressing the Needs of Gifted Middle Schools Students // Principal. – 2000. - #79(4)/ retrieved, 2012, from http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/middleschools.html Rogers K. B. (1991) The Relationship of Grouping Practices to the Education of the Gifted and Talented Learner / University of St. Thomas. 1991/ retrieved, 2012, from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rbdm9102/rbdm9102.pdf Rogers K. B. (2014) Full-Time Ability Grouping of Gifted Students: Impacts on Social Self-Concept and School-Related attitudes // Gifted Child Quarterly. – 2014. - January 1, 58. – PP. 51-68. Silverman L. K. (2013) Do Gifted Students Have Special Needs? / retrieved, 2013, from http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/Articles/instruction/instruction_index.html Smurty J. F. (2000) Teaching Young Gifted Children in the Regular Classroom // ERIC EC Digest #E595. – 2000. - May / retrieved, 2014, from http://eric.hoagiesgifted.org Tomlinson C. A. (1995) Gifted Learners and the Middle School: Problem or Promise? // ERIC EC Digest E535. - 1995/ retrieved, 2013, from http://hoagiesgifted.org/eric/e535.html Welch D. (2000) Gifted Education: Making a Positive Difference. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Division of School Improvement. – Gifted Education Programs. – 2000/ retrieved, 2012, from http://www.dese.atate.mo.us/divimpove /gifted.html
151
ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 143 (2014) 147 – 151
CY-ICER 2014
Teaching Gifted Children in Regular Classroom in the USA Nadezhda Pavlovna Pomortseva* Institute of International Relations, History and Oriental Studies, Kazan Federal University, 18 Kremlin St., Kazan, 420008, Russia
Abstract Research indicates that throughout the last thirty years most of gifted students in the USA receive basic education in the regular middle schools. During this period a number of strategies have been developed to meet the unique academic needs and interests of high-ability American learners. The purpose of this paper is to select the most wife-spread practices and classify them according to the degree of inclusion of gifted and talented students into the mainstream so that the results could be applied worldwide.
© 2014 2014 The Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article © Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of CY-ICER 2014. Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of CY-ICER 2014.
Keywords: gifted education, middle school, and mainstream, USA. 1. Introduction One of the most crucial questions for American educators today is how teachers can develop instruction that will be challenging and exciting enough to meet the unique academic needs of students of different abilities and still hold together the mainstream class. 1.1. Literature review Research tells us that a large majority of gifted and talented students spend most of their day in regular classroom settings. Unfortunately, instruction in the regular classroom is generally not tailored to meet their unique needs (Archambault, 1993; Cox, Daniel, & Boston, 1985; Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993, cited in Parke, 2003). This situation is putting gifted students at risk of failing to achieve their potential. Achievement scores below what might be expected from American brightest population provide the evidence (Callahan, 1990;
* Correspomding name: Nadezhda P. Pomortseva. Tel.: +7-919-637-0867 E-mail address: [email protected]
1877-0428 © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of CY-ICER 2014. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.377
148
Nadezhda Pavlovna Pomortseva / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 143 (2014) 147 – 151
Kantrowitz & Wingert, 1992; Ness & Latessa, 1979, cited in Parke, 2003). It turns out, regular schools determined to teach high–ability learners face a double challenge. Firstly, GT students expect a full service education here if the society in its turn expects these students to thrive as much as they are able to. Secondly, these students must be involved in educational experiences that are challenging and appropriate to their needs and achievement levels (Parke, 1996). 1.2. Assumptions Though some discrepancies do exist between the middle school education policy and the gifted education they still have much in common. This was determined by Tomplinson (1995) who assigned 3 directions of shared interests and concerns between the two institutions. First, both groups advocated education that: (1) is theme based, (2) is interdisciplinary, (3) fosters student selfdirection and independence, (4) promotes self-understanding, (5) incorporates basic skills, (6) is relevant to the learner and thus based on study of significant problems, (7) is student-centered, (8) promotes student discovery, (9) values group interaction, (10) is built upon student interest, (11) encourages critical and creative exploration of ideas, and (12) promotes student self-evaluation (e.g., Currier, 1986; Kaplan, 1979; Maker & Nielson, 1995; Stevenson, 1992, cited in Tomplinson (1995). Second, specialists in gifted education would definitely share the ideas expressed in Turning Points (Carnegie Task Force on the Education of Young Adolescents, 1989, cited in Tomplinson (1995) that middle school programs should: (1) create small communities of learning within larger school settings, (2) teach a solid academic core, (3) ensure success for all students, (4) enable educators closest to students to make important decisions about teaching and learning, (5) staff middle schools with teachers trained to work effectively with early adolescents, (6) promote health and fitness, (7) involve families in the education of learners, and (8) connect schools with communities. Finally, there is a common concern for the cognitive and affective welfare of early adolescent learners. Both groups also understand that there is great variability in the academic, social, emotional, and physical development of the early adolescent group. Both also subscribe to the reality that early adolescents are subject to change, including spurts in physical growth, new interests, and intellectual awareness. And both believe that all middle school students should take part in challenging learning experiences. 1.3. Classification of the Most Successful Grouping Practices In this paper we will concentrate on pros and cons of the most successful grouping practices that allow meeting the unique need of gifted children in the regular middle schools in the USA. Having researched into the problem we found a variety of grouping forms. We also made an attempt to classify them according to the degree of inclusion of GT students into the mainstream. 1. GT students in the regular class: 1) ‘full inclusion’; 2) ‘cluster’ grouping 2. GT students in the regular school: 1) ability grouping; 2) ‘special’ classes; 3. Gifted education is mostly provided out-of-school: 1)’pull-out’ programs; 2) mentorships; 3) academic contests, competitions etc 1.1) ‘Full inclusion’ (Johnson et al., 1992) is a form of grouping that allows involving small groups of learners into a particular problem-solving task. Traditionally, in a regular class, students are grouped in the so-called ‘mixedability’ teams – heterogeneous groups of 5-6 students where one or two are very successful students, two-three – ‘average learners’ and one-two ‘underachievers’. The main principle of such grouping practices determines that all students are able to understand, learn and practice basic concepts of a topic though cooperation with others. Johnson etc (1992) argue that this way learners realize their dependence on each other as well as develop particular
Nadezhda Pavlovna Pomortseva / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 143 (2014) 147 – 151
149
communication skills and team spirit. It is quite evident that this grouping practice is truly viable for problem-solving activities outside the main curriculum but is hardly able to substitute the basic instruction. As for GT students the greatest advantage of ‘full inclusion’ seems to be building and improving communication skills, team spirit, in particular. The gifted child's social development is enhanced when an appropriate peer group is found (Devlin et al., 1996). On the other hand their academic needs and interests are sacrificed as the curriculum is limited in content and pace; there is no true differentiation and this can lead to demotivation. Thus we have to agree with Devlin etc (1996) that ‘full inclusion’ is justified only if social situation in class is at stake. 1.2). However, deeper research into the problem let us presuppose that GT students can learn vital communication skills via homogeneous grouping. Here GT learners practice important social skills but with students of similar ability. This type of grouping is called a cluster. In most schools high-ability students make up as many as 5-6 people per grade. So they can be grouped in ‘a cluster’ within a particular mainstream class with the teacher, a specialist in gifted instruction. Rogers (2014) is sure GT students are most likely to flourish in a like-ability group. The researcher states that this technology gives learners with high potential a real opportunity to improve their knowledge and skills and to practice deeper understanding. Moreover, this strategy can be provided when instructors do not have to serve students of extremely different levels of potential and achievement. Evidently, cluster grouping is an option not a substitution for exiting gifted enrichment programs; they correlate like form and contents. However, a cluster is quite a stable grouping form and according to many respectable researchers in the field is more efficient (Devlin, 1996; Renzulli, 2000; Rogers, 2014 etc). It can be assumed that ‘a cluster’ is likely to be a most successful strategy of teaching GT students in a regular class. Firstly, high-potential learners feel more comfortable within a homogeneous group of those with similar abilities, so-to-say ‘equal best’. Secondly, working environment in the mainstream class is sure to improve since a GT student no longer remains the only high achiever; he/she is joined by a few others in a cluster and assigned quite challenging tasks. Thirdly, we can expect a case of true differentiation here, as a specially trained teacher will work with this group. Finally, it is budget-friendly to place 4-6 GT students of a grade in the same class. 2.1). Flexible ability grouping is practiced in several American states (Louisiana, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas and others) to provide gifted education within the regular middle school premises. During a school day learners are placed in different groups to study different school subjects at their level of achievement and potential, so this is a flexible grouping strategy. So GT learners move within different age level groups throughout a school week, taking a few classes with mainstream students of their age (Welch, 2000). American researchers (Rogers, 2014; Delcourt et al., 1994) advocate ‘flexible grouping’ as an extremely productive strategy for GT students: they benefit enormously from this constant regrouping; at every lesson they are placed in a group according to their level of ability and aptitude in a particular subject. It is also reported that achievement figures boost within the rest of the mainstream class and new academic leaders tend to emerge. We see, ’flexible grouping’ perfectly corresponds to ‘age free’ instruction principle (Barber, 2009) as a well as to L.D. Silverman’s (Silverman, 2013) concept of giftedness as asynchronic development. 2.2). GT students are placed in ‘special’ classes within a regular middle school where they study most of the subject expect for PT, Art and a few others. It stands to reason the amount of learners in the ‘special‘class is considerably smaller than in the mainstream one. The gifted specialist preoccupied with this class is to differentiate the curriculum at large so as the unique abilities and aptitudes of each student (which can vary in different fields of knowledge) could be met. The basic differentiation technologies that are applied in such classes are ‘flexible pacing’ and ‘curriculum compacting’ and, of course, individual teaching and learning approach (Renzulli et al., 2000). It goes without saying ‘special‘ classes cannot but provoke the majority to speak about elitism in gifted education, which, consequently, puts double pressure on high-potential learners: first, through high expectations because of their extreme abilities; second, it breeds alienation in already quite vulnerable gifted adolescents. 3.1). Gifted Enrichment ‘Pull-Out’ programs and ‘resource rooms’ (centers) are quite a wide-spread gifted education tool in regular middle American schools. Usually GT students of a mainstream school attend these programs on a weekly basis. The task of a gifted specialist working with students in the ‘pull-outs’ is determined by
150
Nadezhda Pavlovna Pomortseva / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 143 (2014) 147 – 151
the unique abilities and interests of their learners. According to Welch (2000) ‘pull-outs’ allow high-potential students to learn about their abilities and to learn about the ways to differentiate their curriculum accordingly. Rogers (1991) suggests differentiation in the following: 1) general curriculum; 2) particular field of knowledge; 3) critical thinking skills; 4) arts and art. Moreover, in these ‘resource rooms’ GT students get to know others of similar abilities which seems to be of great importance for mostly alienated gifted adolescents. Osborn (2009) says that gifted enrichment ‘pull-out’ program is the hardest type of gifted programming to advocate against charges of elitism. Why cannot all learners enjoy field trips, the fun activities, in depth-studies, hands-on puzzles and problems that are typical of the gifted pull-out program? Why should others do endless repetition of the classroom? The answer seems to be clear– because GT students are capable to learn basic curriculum much faster than the rest of the class, so they simply do not need this endless repetition. Osborn (2009) also answers the second important question - if the gifted enrichment pull-outs really meet the educational needs of the gifted child? In most schools, the gifted enrichment pull-out is the only type of a gifted program. But nowadays even they are put at risk through budget cutting according to the recent changes in the education policy in the USA (Loveless, 2009). 3.2). An exciting and longstanding strategy of developing gifts and talents of American middle school students in the long run is mentorships. Farmer (2001) states that mentoring allows educational needs of talented students to be met even when they fall outside the school curriculum and outside the expertise of the students' teachers. This is achieved by linking the student with an experienced person from the appropriate field of knowledge. Relating to experts outside the school environment also requires the students to become more responsible for their own learning, with students establishing goals with their mentor, and generally learning by doing. Farmer (2001) emphasizes that mentoring best suits students who have already shown some dedication and commitment to the area of interest, such as in already working independently on "real problems or projects" in the area. Self-motivation (at least in the subject area) and organization are also key attributes if the student is to gain from the less structured mentor arrangement. Undoubtedly, mentor relationships with dedicated scholars, artists, scientists, or businesspeople are highly suitable for gifted adolescents, particularly those who have mastered the essentials of the high school curriculum. LashawayBokina (1999) reports that such students may receive more options and alternatives than they can consider. Parents often notice that mentors have a maturing effect: Students suddenly develop a vision of what they can become, find a sense of direction, and focus their efforts. 3.3). A special attention should be given to the numerous school academic contests and competitions which have recently boosted in the USA. We deliberately refer them to a gifted education strategy. The point is GT students are selected and placed in the teams at the very beginning of their school life and keep with them throughout their 12 school years guarded by highly-able and equally highly-demanding specialists in the field. Thus it is hard to deny the influence of such education technology not only on the developing a student’s GTs, but also on their personality. The basic principles of academic contests training are well–known to general public. So we would like to discuss two main drawbacks, reported by Welch (2000): first, most schools limit the members of the teams to those identified as gifted leaving behind the potential of other gifted categories (e.g., GT learning disabled); second, in many school districts, these teams have become the only type of gifted enrichment programs with most of the GT education budget allocated to training the contents participants. 1.4. Conclusion and Recommendations for Future Research To sum, whatever teaching strategy (a variety of strategies) the administration of a school might decide to implement the one thing is quite clear: GT students benefit from participating in activities that are different from those designed for other students. Such alternative activities should extend basic concepts and allow learners to connect their personal interests to the course curriculum. It should also be mentioned that since gifted students are as far removed from the ‘norm’ as are the students with considerable learning disabilities, it is necessary for mainstream teachers to receive special training in gifted instruction. These implications determine the directions for further research into the problem of effective teaching GT students in the regular classroom in the USA. References
Nadezhda Pavlovna Pomortseva / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 143 (2014) 147 – 151 Barber M. (2009) Neither Rest Nor Tranquility Education and the American Dream in the 21st Century / Wested, San Francisco, CA/ retrieved, 2012, from http://www.smhc-cpre.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/neither-rest-nor-tranquility.pdf Carolyn K. (2012) Is Gifted Education Elitist? / retrieved, 2014, from http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/elitist.htm Delcourt M., Loyd B., Cornell D., Goldberg M. (1994) Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on student learning outcomes // The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. – 1994/ retrieved, 2012, from http://www.sp.uconn.edu/nrcgt/news/spring94.htm Devlin B., Winebrenner S. (1992) Cluster Grouping Fact Sheet: How to Provide Full-time Services for Gifted Students on Existing Budgets // The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented– 1992 / retrieved, 2002 , from http://www.sp.uconn.edu/nrcgt/news/ spring92.htm Fisher T. (2013) 'Same' and 'Equal' Are Not Congruent Terms // Education Week. – 2013. – August, 24 / retrieved, 2014, from http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/unwrapping_the_gifted Johnson D.W., Johnson R.T. (1992) What to Say to Advocates for the Gifted? / D.W. Johnson, R.T. Johnson // Educational Leadership. – 1992. # 10. Lashaway-Bokina N. (1999) Mentorship at Its Best / Edinburg Consolidated Independent School District Edinburg, TX. – 1999/ retrieved, 2012, from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/newsletter/fall99/fall994.html Loveless T., Petrilli M.J. (2009) Smart Child Left Behind // New York Times. – 2009. – August, 27/ retrieved, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/opinion/28petrilli.html?_r=3 NAGC Position Statement: Ability Grouping / retrieved, 2014, from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?Id=382 Osborn J. B. (2014) Gifted Children: Are Their Gifts Being Identified, Encourage, or Ignored? /retrieved, 2014, from http://www.aboutourkids.org/articles/ Parke B. N. (1996) Challenging Gifted Students in the Regular Classroom // ERIC EC Digest #E513 1996/ retrieved, 2002, from http://eric.hoagiesgifted.org Parke B. N. (2003) Discovering Programs for Talent Development // Educational Studies Faculty Publications.- 2003 / retrieved, 2014, from http://opus.ipfw.edu/educat_facpubs/40/ Renzulli J. S., Richards S. (2000) Gifted in the Middle: Addressing the Needs of Gifted Middle Schools Students // Principal. – 2000. - #79(4)/ retrieved, 2012, from http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/middleschools.html Rogers K. B. (1991) The Relationship of Grouping Practices to the Education of the Gifted and Talented Learner / University of St. Thomas. 1991/ retrieved, 2012, from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rbdm9102/rbdm9102.pdf Rogers K. B. (2014) Full-Time Ability Grouping of Gifted Students: Impacts on Social Self-Concept and School-Related attitudes // Gifted Child Quarterly. – 2014. - January 1, 58. – PP. 51-68. Silverman L. K. (2013) Do Gifted Students Have Special Needs? / retrieved, 2013, from http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/Articles/instruction/instruction_index.html Smurty J. F. (2000) Teaching Young Gifted Children in the Regular Classroom // ERIC EC Digest #E595. – 2000. - May / retrieved, 2014, from http://eric.hoagiesgifted.org Tomlinson C. A. (1995) Gifted Learners and the Middle School: Problem or Promise? // ERIC EC Digest E535. - 1995/ retrieved, 2013, from http://hoagiesgifted.org/eric/e535.html Welch D. (2000) Gifted Education: Making a Positive Difference. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Division of School Improvement. – Gifted Education Programs. – 2000/ retrieved, 2012, from http://www.dese.atate.mo.us/divimpove /gifted.html
151