1. Educational Leadership for Gifted Students
The Gifted Learner
Dr Elizabeth Maxwell
Sydney Girls High School

2. Module Aims
This module will enable students to explore and to develop an understanding of:
Practical strategies that recognise and actively engage the cognitive and affective characteristics and learning needs of gifted and talented students in the classroom
the role of technology in Gifted and Talented education 2

3. Module Outcomes
By the end of this module students will have developed:
a broad understanding of the rationale for and means of catering to the needs of GATS
some competency in promoting gifted education classroom strategies that promote/ support/ foster leadership.

4. Who are we teaching? The gifted learner Quality learning environment4

5. Varying definitions of giftedness
DeHaan & Havinghurst – intellectual ability, creative thinking, scientific ability, social leadership, mechanical skills, fine arts
S. P. Marland – intellectual ability, aptitude, creative thinking, leadership, psychomotor, visual/ performing arts
Joseph Renzulli – ability, commitment and creativity
Feldhusen – complex set of variables (1986)
Françoys Gagné– above average potential (top 10% of population, across one or more domains of ability) (Gagné, 2003)
Abraham Tannenbaum (1983)– ‘sea star’ model (interaction of personality attributes and environment) – general ability, special aptitude, non-intellective requisites, environmental supports, chance
Tannenbaum (2003) – producers and performers
Howard Gardner – multiple intelligences
Linda Silverman – abstract reasoning ability Robert Sternberg – 5 prerequisites
(Gross et al, 2005)

6. Renzulli (1977, 1986, 1995, 1997)

7. Howard Gardner: Multiple intelligences (1983, 1999)
Domains
Spatial
Linguistic
Logical-mathematical (IQ testing)
Bodily-kinesthetic
Musical
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
Naturalistic
Existential 7

8. Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory (1985)
Analytic, synthetic and practical giftedness + wisdom
Analytical
Creative
Practical

9. Sternberg’s Pentagonal Implicit Theory (1995)
Five prerequisites for giftedness
Excellence – superior skill or attribute
Rarity
Productivity
Demonstrability
Value
(Sternberg, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005)

10. Definition
Gifted students are those whose potential is distinctly above average in one or more of the following domains: intellectual, creative, social and physical.
Talented students are those whose skills are distinctly above average in one or more areas of human performance.
(Françoys Gagné, 1995) 10

11. What is intelligence?
A single concept - ‘g’ = ability to think abstractly (scales by Binet & Terman, 1916, 1954)
A multidimensional concept (Guilford, 1967; Sternberg, 1981, 1982)
fluid intelligence
crystallised intelligence
Intelligence (Gardner, 1983, 1993, 1999, 2000)
product of genes + environment
Ways of processing information and thinking
Measurement/ testing – IQ + ?

12. Characteristics of the Gifted Learner
Cognitive and Affective
superior insight
ability to draw inferences
intuitive
exceptional thinking skills & problem-solving abilities
sense of humour
independent
highly motivated — self-selected tasks

13. Cognitive characteristics
Complex thought processes
Facility for abstraction
Passion for learning
Intellectual curiosity
Superior across an array of cognitive tasks as early as pre-school
Rapid learning rate
Divergent-thinking/ creativity
Vivid imagination – ability to generate original ideas
Power of concentration
Well-developed memory
Preference for independent work
Multiple interests
(Silverman, 1993; VanTassel-Baska, 1995)

14. Affective characteristics
(VanTassel-Baska, 1995)
Mature moral reasoning
Early concern with moral, ethical or religious issues (death)
Strong sense of justice
Keen sense of humour
Emotional intensity
High levels of energy
Perfectionism

15. Affective characteristics (cont)
Social – emotional concerns (Gross et al, 2004)
Identity
Autonomy
Intimacy
Sexuality
Achievement
Self-concept & self-esteem (impacted by ability grouping)
Resilience
Altruism and idealism
Strong attachments & commitments
Aesthetic sensitivity
Adolescents
Emotional maturity
Social comparisons

16. GATS and Creativity
Key themes & challenges (Treffinger, 2002, 2007a, 2007b)
Justification
Definitions
Characteristics
Assessment
Nurture (Davis, 2003; Sousa, 2006; Sternberg, 2000; Torrance, 1987)

17. Creativity - Justification
Ongoing debate between content and process
Lifelong importance in work and life
At risk of obsolescence without creativity (Sternberg, 2000)
Certainty of change – creativity modifiable

18. Creativity - Definitions
Guilford (1950, 1967)
concepts of convergent and divergent thinking abilities
Flexibility, fluency, originality and spontaneity
Sensitivity to problems
Improvisation/ elaboration
Issues of breadth, complexity and diversity Domain
Skills/ processes across content and talents
Modifiable ability or expertise (Sternberg, 2000)

19. Creativity - Characteristics
Importance of sustained interest, passion and intensity
Extend beyond traditional cognitive views of divergent thinking
Longitudinal vs snapshot in time
Group vs individual creativity
Aside from cognitive abilities and personality traits, involve style preferences

20. Steps for creative decision-makers
(Sternberg, 2000)
Redefine problems
Analyse own ideas
Sell your ideas
Knowledge is a double-edged sword
Surmount obstacles
Take sensible risks
Willingness to grow
Believe in yourself
Tolerance of ambiguity
Find what you love to do and do it.

21. Creativity - Assessment
Problematic – not one single score
Multiple sources
Multidimensional – assessment to correspond to definition etc.
Present creative environments
Torrance tests of creative thinking
Element in the Renzulli-Hartman scale for rating behavioral characteristics or superior students

22. Creativity - Nurture
Importance of culture and climate for nurturing creativity
Systematic framework
Teachers explain decisions, describe examples, create opportunities
6 thinking hats, CoRT Thinking, etc.
Boundless – cross-cultural
Valid for all students – different outcomes with GATS
Mentoring
Self-directed learning (Torrance, 2007)

23. Socio-affective Peer relationships Leadership
Current planning/ involvement
Future
Consequences of grouping options
Emotional intelligence (Piechowski, 2003; Arnold, 2005)
Moral reasoning (Lovecky, 1997; Hoffman, 2000; Pagnin & Andreani, 2000; Hay 2008)
Non-intellective traits (catalyst – values)

24. Over-excitabilities Intellectual Psychomotor Emotional Imaginational
Sensual
(Dabrowski, 1964; Piechowski, 1991)

25. Special populations Twice/ Dual exceptional (visual spatial learners
Rural
Indigenous
Gender
Needs (Konza & Moroney, 2002)
Learning (Silverman, 1998)
Instruction

26. A Bright Child.... A Gifted Child.... Knows the answer
In general....
A Bright Child....
A Gifted Child....
Knows the answer
Asks the questions - sometimes deep probing questions of an abstract nature.
Is interested
Is highly curious
Is attentive
Is mentally and physically involved
Has good ideas
Has wild, silly ideas
Works hard
Plays around, yet tests well
Answers the questions
Discusses in detail, elaborates
Top Group
Beyond the group
Listens with interest
Shows strong feelings and opinions
Learns with ease
Already knows
6-8 repetitions for mastery
1-2 repetitions for mastery
Understands ideas
Constructs abstractions
Brain food, accessed 5/12/10,

27. Enjoys peers
Prefers adults or older children or seeks out other very bright or gifted peers
Grasps the meaning
Draws inferences and opens up new questions
Completes assignments
Initiates projects
Is receptive
Is intense
Copies accurately
Creates a new design
Enjoys school
Enjoys learning - but may hate school.
Absorbs information
Manipulates information
Technician
Inventor - Loves construction toys
Good Memoriser
Good guesser - draws on vast information store
Is alert
Is keenly observant - seems to remember fine details
Is pleased with own learning
Is highly self-critical - can be perfectionistic to the point of tantrums when young
Enjoys straight-forward and/or sequential presentation
Thrives on complexity - needs the whole picture. Requires a gestalt approach.

28. The gifted population vulnerable (Silverman, 1993) underachievers
students with learning difficulties
students with physical disabilities
conduct-disordered students
students from non-English speaking backgrounds
Indigenous students
socio-economically disadvantaged students
students disadvantaged by gender inequity
geographically isolated students
(Gross et al, 2004)

29. Identification Multiple criteria Subjective measures
Nomination
Parent
Teacher
Peers
Objective measures
Psychometric testing
Standardised achievement tests
Teacher/ school assessment
Off-level testing
Diverse populations – socially/ culturally
Aptitude
Self

30. Distinction between experts & novices
Possesses schemas for encoding elements into a single entity
Skills acquisition without needing to recall the rule
Automation important for complex problem-solving (domains of expertise)
Work forwards
No access to relevant schemas
Attempt to remember & process individual elements
Need to apply cognitive capacity to efficient problem-solving
Work backwards
(Chi et al., 1982; Cooper, 1990; Wilson & Cole, 1996; Schneider & Shiffrin, 1997; Touvinen, 1997; Kalyuga, Chandler & Sweller, 1998; Sweller, 1999)

31. Catalysts Intrapersonal Environmental Motivation Confidence
Surroundings
People
Provisions
Events
(Gross et al, 2004)

32. Intrapersonal catalysts
(Rogers, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2010; Kanevsky, 1999)
“…giftedness does not develop in a vacuum” – need for nurturing (Silverman, 1993; VanTassel-Baska, 1995)
Betts and Neihart (1988, 2010)
Successful (90%?), challenging, underground, dropouts, double labelled, autonomous
Leadership (Renzulli, 2003; Tannenbaum, 2003)
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Affective learning – self-concept, moral reasoning, career aspirations, social adjustment

33. Motivation Developmental perspective (Ainley, 2002)
Intrinsic and extrinsic
Mastery of goals & task involvement
Performance goals
Fostering autonomous learners (Betts, 2004; Neihart & Betts 2010)

34. Underachievement Kanevsky and Keighley (2003) 5 Cs for turning off
Control (self-determination)
Choice
Challenge
Complexity
Caring
Distinguishing features of academic self-perception and learning preferences

35. Styles of learning Silverman (1998)
Learning styles – are not abilities
preferred way of
processing information
dealing with tasks
Silverman (1998)
Auditory sequential
Visual Spatial
GATS more likely to process information simultaneously rather than sequentially
Thinking styles = theory of self-government
creative vs executive (my way vs tell me what to do)
(Sternberg 1988, 1997; Zhang and Sternberg, 2006)

36. Cognitive psychology – key elements
learning is an active and not a passive construct
frameworks operate within memory to organise knowledge
practice is important for the development of expertise
metacognition contributes to effective learning (Shore & Dover, 1987)
connectivity of these elements is essential for learning
(Bruning et al., 2004)

37. Cognitive architecture
(Bruning et al., 2004, p. 38)
Working memory
Long-term memory
Schema construction – forte of GATS

38. Prior knowledge
Essential variable in learning process (Dochy, Segers & Buehl, 1999; Mayer, 1998)
Dynamic and organised into schemas
Includes declarative (Factual) and procedural knowledge
Implicitly and explicitly recalled
Inferences more important than facts – personalised learning
Schematic knowledge (prior understanding of problem types) allows for interpretation of new knowledge
Initial presentation crucial to solution process 38

39. Expertise
Derived from possessing schemas that facilitate recognition of the problem itself (Sweller, 1999)
Automation – distinction between accuracy & speed (Drommi, Ulfert & Shoemaker, 2001)
Deliberate practice (Ericsson & Charness, 1994)
(Mayer, 2003; Sternberg, 2000, 2003a, 2003b)

40. Processes of problem-solving
GATS = “decontextualists” (Sternberg, 1985)

41. Importance of thinking:
Divergent thinking
Type of “thinking” question
eg, thinking is analytical in nature
look at data, internalise it and put it into some framework
key - evaluation of data
a student’s ability to pass judgement on data

42. Divergent/ critical thinking cont.
Types of critical thinking from students
An intuitive response
A more evaluative thinking
A more rational basis requiring evidence and elements of reasoning
The highest levels of creative thinking - generating new ideas or concepts
All of these plus metacognitive acknowledgement affect how these types of thinking helped/hindered their learning
(Green, 2009)

43. Self-regulated learning in high-achieving students
Dai & Feldhusen (1999) analysis of Thinking Styles Inventory
Discovery learning suits learning styles of some learners
Opposite styles tend to be mutually exclusive
Possible correlation between personalities of introverts and extroverts and their learning style impedes or facilitates learning in guided discovery
Possible impact of GATS underachievers

44. Session 2 Programs and provisions Acceleration
Curriculum differentiation
Independent study
Technology for GATS

45. VanTassel-Baska. (2004). Curriculum for gifted and talented students
VanTassel-Baska. (2004). Curriculum for gifted and talented students. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

46. Curriculum provision to match the needs of the gifted students
challenge
pace
complexity
explicit instruction and scaffolding but not the degree of support and repetition required by less able students
(NSW Department of Education and Training, 2004)

47. Planning for learning
Criteria to evaluate the suitability of any curriculum or program for gifted learners:
Would all students be involved in such learning experiences?
Could all students participate in such learning experiences?
Should all students be expected to succeed in such learning experiences?
(Passow, 1988)

48. Planning for strengths
pose open ended questions
problem finding and problem solving
discussion and debate
individual reading and writing
futures/speculation
individual research and experimentation
(NSW Department of Education and Training, 2004) 48

49. Unit planning Curriculum compacting: identifying the outcomes
pre-testing the outcomes
eliminating areas of repetition
streamlining the learning experience
offering enrichment/extension/acceleration
documenting the process

50. Models of curriculum differentiation
Bloom’s (1956) - Taxonomy of educational objectives
Anderson/Krathwohl (2001) - Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing
Maker (1982) - content-process-product-learning environment model
Williams (1993) – Cognitive- affective interaction model
Kaplan’s (1993) - Content-process-product model
Osborn-Parnes (1950s) - Creative problem solving model
Kohlberg (1971) – Moral reasoning stages model
Renzulli & Reis (1985) – Schoolwide enrichment model
Taylor (1968) – Multiple talents model

51. Guided inquiry Outcomes Construct meaning
Think creatively, be innovators
Solve problems
(Kuhlthau & Heinstrom, 2005)

52. Effective teaching (intellectual engagement) characterised by:
Thoughtful design of learning tasks that include the following features:
They require and instil deep thinking
They immerse the student in disciplinary inquiry
They are connected to the world outside the classroom.
They have intellectual rigour.
They involve substantive conversation.
(Todd, 2009)

53. Research synthesis
Rogers (1991, 1999, 2004, 2010) – best practices
Ability comparisons
Instructional management and persuasive/program description, theoretical
Individualisation
Grouping
Acceleration
Instructional delivery
Learner preferences & differences
Curricular adaptations
Content, process, product 53

54. Instructional delivery
GATS more likely to retain science, mathematics & foreign language content – when taught 2-3 times faster than “normal” class pace
GATS more likely to forget/ mislearn science, mathematics & foreign language content – when drilled & reviewed more than 2-3 times after mastery
Compacting = 2/3 rule
Whole to part concept teaching

55. Rogers conclusions Instructional management – moderate correlation
Research (lots) vs literature (more)
Grouping ≠
Individualisation / acceleration √
Instructional delivery - less documentation
Curriculum
Research = 1/10th literature
GAT emphasis – how to organise learners not so much how or what they will be taught

56. Implications Significance of:
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in changing mental load (Gagné, 2003; Paas, Tuovinen & van Merriënboer, 2003)
interaction between individual and subject matter (Kuhn, 2007)
flexibility, variety of problem-solving strategies important (Kuhn, 2007; Treffinger, 2005; VanTassel-Baska, 2003)

57. Considerations level and types of resources
higher degree of complexity of content
development of higher level cognitive process
complex & abstract concepts
quality not quantity
student-selected content according to interest 57

58. Additional strategies
Using pre-assessment to compact the core (Pt 2 Module 5A)
Using tiered assignment or assessment tasks (Pt 2 of Module 5B)
Accelerating the pace to allow for independent study (Extension level of this module)
Flexible grouping
Designing independent research tasks (Pt 2 Module 5B)
(Gross et al, 2004)

59. Technology - Instruction
Tertiary institutions no longer regard information literacy as a future goal but as assumed knowledge
Internet = environment for students to explore and evaluate information
Internet = a vital link for planning extension & enrichment programs for gifted students (rural)
Learner-centred learning

60. Democratisation of opportunity
Students driving the digital revolution in education (Spender, 2007)
Rural and remote students
Virtual schools
Tutors via videoconferencing
Mentors

61. e-learning – just-in-time
The capacity for analytical and critical thinking and for creative problem-solving
Learning less dependent on memorisation
The ability to engage in independent and reflective learning
Information literacy
The capacity for enterprise, initiative and creativity
An appreciation of, and respect for, diversity
The skills required for collaborative and multidisciplinary work
An appreciation of, and a responsiveness to, change

62. Technology in gifted education
Individualised learning – project based
Student preference for independent learning and domain specific focus
Extension and enrichment opportunities e.g. acceleration
Internet conduit for: connecting GATS, resources, opportunities
Acquirers/ retrievers/ constructors/ presenters (Stettler, 1998)
Increase in personal productivity
Exposed to emerging innovations
Creatively differentiated curricula
Cognitive load high in online environment (van Merriënboer & Ayers, 2005)

63. Learner-centred learning
Domains and factors influencing this:
Cognitive and metacognitive
Creative
Social
Affective – Introverts and extroverts
Individual personality
Paradigm shift of leadership
(Handa, M. C., 2009)

64. GATS learning in a digital age
Creative problem solving – GATS rarely adopt a single strategy -choices tend to be domain driven rather than metacognitive information
Higher-order thinking skills - strategic thinking
Interpretative analysis
Adaptation to rapid change
Time management
Pace of learning
Self-directed – establishes own goals makes own decisions
Increase motivation/ ownership
Arena of acceptance
Risk-takers – does not limit potential of learner
Access course content at appropriate level

65. GATS learning in a digital age (cont)
Flexibility of new media
Producers vs repositories
Positioned to discover rather than receive key concepts & principles
Divergent thinking/ creativity - including students gifted in technology (Siegle, 2004)
Analytical thinking – problem ambiguity, structure, insight
Self-directed
Intellectual curiosity
Facility for abstraction
Complex thought processes
(Silverman, 1993; VanTassel-Baska, 1993; Rogers, 2002; Davis and Rimm, 2004)

66. Online extension & cognition
Matching GATS with appropriate programming e.g.
Web quests
Wikis
Blogs
Podcasts
Virtual worlds and Avatars
Web pages and design
Online databases
Gender cognitive efficiencies (McLester, 1998; O’Boyle, 2002)

67. Multi-media learning: Instructional design methods across different media
Guided inquiry – simulations
Graphic organisers/ concept maps
Problem solving with spreadsheets
Project-based learning (Brooks-Young, 2008)
Visual literacies
CAD software
Music
E-books

68. Centre for Learning Innovation (CLI) – differentiation tools
Digital media
Smart light technology
Documentaries
Spreadsheets for Mathematics
Activstudio support for teachers (IWB)
What’s your story? (Eng digital stories - Belonging)
The world of languages online
Graphics technology tools
Seeing Australia on screen

69. Others Webquests http://webquest.org/ Strategies for webquests
Filamentality
CAP

70. Thinking skills summary
Thinking skills that a longer term WebQuest activity might require include these (from Marzano, 1992): 1. Comparing: Identifying and articulating similarities and differences between things. 2. Classifying: Grouping things into definable categories on the basis of their attributes. 3. Inducing: Inferring unknown generalizations or principles from observations or analysis. 4. Deducing: Inferring unstated consequences and conditions from given principles and generalizations. 5. Analysing errors: Identifying and articulating errors in one's own or others' thinking. 6. Constructing support: Constructing a system of support or proof for an assertion. 7. Abstraction: Identifying and articulating the underlying theme or general pattern of information. 8. Analysing perspectives: Identifying and articulating personal perspectives about issues.

71. Instructional quality
Learn from those already familiar with online delivery
rural and remote students (Belcastro, 2002)
Frameworks for instruction
Direct instruction vs discovery learning
Bi- and Multimodal
Extraneous information
Cognitive load

72. School leaders
Listen
Promote
Acclaim
Celebrate