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

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

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.

Who are we teaching? The gifted learner Quality learning environment 4

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)

Renzulli (1977, 1986, 1995, 1997)

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

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

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)

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

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 + ?

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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.

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

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)

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)

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

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

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, http://gleigh.tripod.com/brightvG.htm

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.

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

Others Webquests http://webquest.org/ Strategies for webquests http://webquest.sdsu.edu/necc98.htm Filamentality http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/fil/ CAP http://www.cap.nsw.edu.au/bb_site_intro/bbcap_intro.html

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.

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

School leaders Listen Promote Acclaim Celebrate