Managing the Learning of Gifted & TalentedDr Linda Rush Vice Dean (Primary ITE & QA)

More than I am…A life without risks is just as good as death,But in my lifetime I want to take risks, I need to,Is it too much to ask to want to become more,More than I am, more than they tell me I can be…

Objectives:definitions of high ability/giftednesswhat it means to be a successful lifelong learner the role of the teacher in ordinary classroom

settings the use and management of teaching timea framework of teaching and learning - an

orientational device which allows teachers to recognise the boundaries and borderlines of their interactions with learners, and a prospective device which allows teachers and learners to develop the qualities of their interactions in the future.

Positionality:‘Plasticity’ of the human brainAbility & environment are deeply

intertwinedInterested in the basis for intellectual

superiorityBelief that everyone can be ‘more able’

Conscious of ‘potential ability’

Prospective view of ability and the role of assessment in respect of this

Key Question/Task

What’s your view of high ability or giftedness (Maybe helpful to consider an actual student or group of students).

Do you bother to identify or make yourself aware of students with high ability or giftedness?

How do you go about identifying high ability or giftedness?

How do we get to know our students?

PhD findings: More Able child profiles – identification

All teachers used tests of intelligence to identify the cognitive ability of children in their class & Assessment Tasks

Teachers also made specific reference to the quality of the children’s work being a useful indicator of ability

Recognised ability through teacher observation

Areas of ability highlighted: cognitive; technical; practical

PhD findings: More Able child profiles – ‘demonstrated achievement’ & ‘potential ability’

Some teachers stated that the high performers were not necessarily the more able…

Teachers also recognised individuals as having the potential to be more able: ‘needs to be pushed’, ‘doesn’t always do his best’, ‘doesn’t always give the extension’, ‘will do as little as possible’.

PhD findings: More Able child profiles – personalities & learning characteristics

‘amazing humour’ ‘very serious . . . an absolute perfectionist’ ‘laid back . . . very good at seeing patterns

and things . . . he will tease you and kind of challenge you’

‘deep thinking’ ‘Can be quite difficult, obstructive at times

. . . eccentric in some of his behaviours’

‘stolid plodder’

PhD findings: More Able child profiles – personalities & learning characteristics

most able liked to get their work right and that they didn’t like failing

‘Perfectionism’ was used more than once to describe these individuals

tend to give up if he didn’t get what he was doing right first time

some enjoyed working with others…always challenging things – not to

undermine the teacher but ‘purely out of curiosity’

PhD findings: More Able child profiles – personalities & learning characteristics

‘had his own agenda…he will come back at me with a counter idea’

enjoyed bringing in his ‘own ideas not directly related to [in class] projects’

ability to ‘think of where a problem is going’

motivated by challenging work some were confident to be challenged and questioned, and to

question themselves others were quite shy or particularlyAll teachers also recognised that a straightforward correlation

between ability and achievement does not exist

’

Formal definitions of giftedness:literature on the more able

indicates that they think differently from others…

they are Gestaltist in their thinking.'in contrast to the less gifted who

use either atomistic or serialistic strategies of perceiving information, the more gifted have an analytic strategy’. (Merenheimo, 1991, cited in Freeman1998, p. 23)

Giftedness:Metacognitive – knowing how you know things & the processes by which you think

Self-regulating – autonomous learning, being able to prepare & supervise one’s own learning

Underpinning this thinking is the notion of 'individualisation’

Renzulli’s model of giftedness

Information processing psychologists see intelligence as steps or processes people go through in solving problems. One person may be more intelligent that another because he or she moves through the same steps more quickly or efficiently, or is more familiar with the required problem solving steps.

Advocates of this view (e.g. Sternberg, 1979) focus on: how information is internally

representedthe kinds of strategies people use in

processing that informationthe nature of the components (e.g.

memory, inference, comparison) used in carrying out those strategies

how decisions are made as to which strategies to use

Urban’s model of giftedness

Cigman’s (2006, p. 200) four-fold distinction:1. The child who is very bright, and

benefits from propitious environment2. The child who is very bright, but

lacks a propitious environment3. The trophy child, who achieves highly

as a result of a pressured environment, but who seems not bright, and strained or alienated by the experience

4. The child seems 'not bright', and lacks a propitious environment.

Giftedness: Broader perspectives

Cigman (2006) Suggest two 'loose' criteria or 'indicators' of giftedness:

exceptional or remarkable insight, shown in unsystematic ways...occasional brilliance, unsteady concentration or performance

a passion for learning

Key Points:No general agreement about the

nature of intelligence and that of being more able or gifted

An artificially constructed conceptIdentification of ability needs to be

carried out in a useful way – not just to classify individuals

A concern about ability is a concern about student developing as individuals so that their potential is translated into achievement

Key Question/Task

Do you recognise such students in your classrooms?

In what ways do your highly able students (drawing on earlier identification and definitions) fit within the above categories?

ELLI’s seven ‘learning dimensions’

1.Growth orientation v being stuck and static

2.Meaning making v data accumulation3.Critical curiosity v passivity4.Creativity v rule bound5.Learning relationships v isolation6.Strategic awareness v robotic7.Resilience v dependence

Claxton’s Positive Learning Claxton’s Positive Learning DispositionsDispositions

Resilient Resourceful Reflective Reciprocal

Curious (proactive)

Questioning (“How come?”)

Clear-thinking (logical)

Collaborative (team member)

Adventurous (up for a challenge)

Open-minded (‘negative capability’)

Thoughtful (Where else could I use this?)

Independent (can work alone)

Determined (persistent)

Playful (“Let’s try ...”)

Self-knowing (own habits)

Open to feedback

Flexible (trying other ways)

Imaginative (could be ...)

Methodical (strategic)

Attentive (to others)

Observant (details / patterns)

Integrating (making links)

Opportunistic (serendipity)

Empathic (other people’s shoes)

Focused (distractions)

Intuitive (reverie)

Self-evaluative (“How’s it going?”)

Imitative (contagious)

Pedagogic implications of teaching the more ableStudents encouraged to take control of their

own learningTeacher to involve the learner explicitly as a

partner in the learning processNotion of 'open discourse’

Assessment is not something that is done to them but done with and by them

Collaborative and open-ended enquiry is promoted

This type of pedagogy can be seen in terms of a particular type of mediatory power in teaching/learning interactions

PhD findings: Involving the more able as partners in the learning process

Allowing the pupils to extend in-class learning further than anticipated or planned for.

Flexible time – frame for pupils to work within.

Modification of planning or learning to take into account the interests of pupils.

Co-operative and collaborative learning promoted.

PhD findings: Involving the more able as partners in the learning process

Whole class, self and peer assessment.

Questions asked or problems set allow for personal interpretation.

Method(s) and solution(s) of problems set are unknown to both teacher and learner.

Inclusive use of language.Interactive displays.

PhD findings: Involving the more able as partners in the learning process

Availability of independent activities.Whole class discussion where pupils as

well as teacher have to explain their ideas, and where the process of learning is analysed

The promotion and support (in terms of time and resources) of independent study, the focus of which is decided by the student or group of pupils

To varying degrees the roles of ‘teacher’ & ‘learner’ were floating:

Expectations were made clear to the pupils that they were dual partners in the learning process

Pupils’ contributions were frequently volunteered rather than elicited and were always valued

Pupils were encouraged to co-construct one another’s learning at whole class and group level

Discussion was allowed to shift in an unpredictable manner

Inclusive use of language was deployed ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘our’

Manner and tone of teacher whilst demanding was warm and friendly

Key Question/Task

How do you manage to mediate and promote the learning of your highly able students during non-contact?

How do you promote interactive learning?

Key References:

Baxter Magolda, M.B. 1992. Students’ epistemologies and academic experiences: Implications for pedagogy. Review of Higher Education 15, no. 3: 265–87.

Biggs, J. (2004), Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. 2nd edn. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press

Bransford, J., A. Brown, and R. Cocking, eds. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and School Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education of the National Research Council National Academy Press.

Cigman, R. 2006. The Gifted Child: A Conceptual Enquiry. Oxford Review of Education, 32, no. 2: 197-212

Key References:

Claxton, G. 2007. Expanding Young People’s Capacity to Learn. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53, no. 2: 115-134.

Daly, A., Penketh, C., and Rush, L. 2009 ‘Academic preparedness: Student and tutor perceptions of the ‘academic experience’’. Society for Research in Education (SRHE) Conference proceedings.

Fontana, D. 1995. Psychology for Teachers, 3rd Ed, Revised and updated, London: The British Psychological Society

Fredricksson, U., and B. Hoskins. 2007. The development of learning how to learn in a European context. The Curriculum Journal 18, no. 2: 127–34.

Key References:

Lucas, L., and P.L. Tan. 2005. Developing reflective capacity: The role of personal epistemologies within undergraduate education. Research seminar discussion paper, Fourteenth Improving Student Learning Symposium, September 4–6, University of Bath.

Moon, J. 2005. We seek it here . . . a new perspective on the elusive activity of critical thinking: A theoretical and practical approach. ESCalate discussion paper. Available online at: http://escalate.ac.uk/index.cfm?action1⁄4resources.search&q1⁄4criticalþthinking&rtype1⁄4itehelp&rtype1⁄4project& rtype1⁄4publication&rtype1⁄4resource&rtype1⁄4review

Moseley, D., Elliot, J., Gregson, M., and Higgins, S,. 2003. Thinking skills frameworks for use in education and training. British Educational Research Journal 31, no. 3: 367-390

Key References:

Northedge, A. (2003), ‘Rethinking Teaching in the Context of Diversity’, Teaching in Higher Education, 8.1, 17-32

Perry, W.G. 1970. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Poerksen, B. 2005. Learning how to learn. Kybernetes 34, no. 2/3: 471–84.

Putnam, R.T., and H. Borko. 2000. What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher 29, no. 1: 4–15. Rawson, M. 2000. Learning to learn: More than a skill set. Studies in Higher Education 25, no. 2: 225–38.

Key References:

Robinson, M. Nancy. 1997. The Role of Universities and Colleges in Educating Gifted Undergraduates. Peabody Journal of Education. 72, no. 3/4, Charting a New Course in Gifted Education: Parts 1 and 2 (1997), 217-236

Rush, L., and Fisher, A. 2009. Expanding the capacity to learn of student teachers in Initial Teacher Training. ESCalate, Academic online paper (http://escalate.ac.uk/5802).

Rush, L. 2009. Bridging the gap between theory and practice: one tutor’s endeavors to embed and enact a distinctive pedagogic approach to learning-to-learn (L2L). NEXUS Journal 1: 197-212. Edge Hill University, Centre for Teaching and Learning Research (CLTR)

Key References:

Fisher, A and Rush, L. 2008. Conceptions of learning and pedagogy: developing trainee teachers’ epistemological understandings. The Curriculum Journal. 19, No. 3 pp 227-238. Routledge.

Rush, L. 2002. An Exploration into how Effective Upper key Stage Two Teachers Manage to Intervene with More Able Children in the Classroom Setting Ph.D.

Schommer-Aitkins, M.A. 2002. An evolving framework for an epistemological belief system. In Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing, ed. B.K. Hofer and P.R. Pintrich. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wingate, U. 2007. A Framework for Transition: Supporting ‘Learning to Learn in Higher Education, Higher Education Quarterly, 0951-522461. No. 3: 391-405