Educational Psychology Aspects of Gifted
Students:
Curricular and Legal Ramifications for Illinois Public Schools
University Laboratory High School, Urbana, IL, USA
This paper was written in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Dr. Thomas Anderson's EdPsy 399 OL course and is the culminating assignment of the University of Illinois College of Education's Curriculum, Technology and Education Reform M. Ed. program.
Introduction - The Controversy and the State Mandate
Mere mention of the term "gifted" or "academically talented" in conversation brings about a broad continuum of responses. Neither the term"gifted" nor the term "academically talented" are clearly defined in common usage. Within some education settings the terms are used interchangeably, while in others the term "academically talented" is considered to be only one of a number of possible talents grouped collectively under the umbrella term "gifted." Interestingly, a number of educational psychologists consider the terms to refer more to a social construct than a distinct entity of nature (Sapon-Chevin, 1996, Oakes, 1985, Gallagher, 2000).
Beyond the difficulties implicit in defining these terms, there is a great deal of controversy regarding the assignment of either term to individual students. The majority of these concerns center around labeling methodology and racial, ethnic and/or cultural equity. Those concerned with labeling often believe that either designation serves only to further separate those who come into the educational setting with the intrinsic advantages of economically and/or educationally favored backgrounds (Gallagher, 2000). Those concerned with equity make clear their concerns that test results of K-12 students show disproportionately few African-American and Hispanic gifted students and disproportionately high numbers of Caucasian and Asian gifted students (Gallagher and Gallagher, 1994). This conflicts with the American ideal of political equality and democracy, though there are implicit difficulties when one begins to ignore naturally occurring differences and refuse to accommodate those differences between individuals in the name of equality (Howley, et al., 1996). Many critics contend the designations have an "all or none" aspect in terms of inclusion, though the "all or none" aspect is apparent in every other aspect of our educational system including cut policies of athletic teams and the try-outs required for many activities in the arts (Gallagher, 2000).
Regardless of personal viewpoints, the reality is that there are a number of characteristics which accompany those who are designated as "gifted" or "academically talented, " and the state of Illinois mandates that the needs of these students be met. According to Article 5/14A-2 of the 1996 Illinois School Code, "gifted children" and "talented children" are defined collectively as "children whose mental development is accelerated beyond the average or who have demonstrated a specific aptitude or talent and can profit from a specially planned educational services to the extent they need them." According to the 1996 Illinois School Code, the term "gifted" includes children with exceptional ability in academic subjects, high level thought processes, divergent thinking, creativity and the arts. The Illinois State Board of Education financially supports a statewide program which identifies such children, beginning at the kindergarten level. Section 5/14A-3.1 of the 1996 Illinois School Code requires that each school district develop a plan which either provides or makes available appropriate programs for all gifted and talented pupils. Each district is compensated on a per-pupil basis for these programs, while being restricted to identification of a maximum of 5% of the school district population as "gifted" or "academically talented." Additionally, Section 5/2-3.61 outlines summer school grants which are appropriated by the state for these children as well as students deemed "remedial", designating both "gifted" and "remedial" students as special needs populations (1996 Illinois School Code).
Given the clear mandate set forth by the state of Illinois and assuming identification has already occurred, how do we best proceed with the development and integration of programs which meet the academic, psychological and social needs of this designated population? A large body of research and a number of education journals are specifically dedicated to teaching this population, and this body of research should be taken into account in structuring state mandated programs for gifted and academically talented students. Coleman, et al. summarize a number of the perennial debates regarding education of gifted students, centering their discussion largely around 1) definition, 2) identification, and 3) curriculum (Coleman, et al., 1997). Since the focus of this paper is Illinois public schools, the definitions of "gifted" and "academically talented" used are those specifically stated by the Illinois State Board of Education. Identification of gifted students is based on established statewide tests, such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Assuming the definition and identification methodology to be established, the emphasis of this paper is what education research tells us about the issues and accompanying strategies determined to be most useful in working with this designated population. This paper's major areas of examination center around recent literature dealing specifically with 1) Psychological and Emotional Aspects of Gifted Students, 2) Impacts of Various Gifted Program Approaches, and 3) Teacher Preparation and Approach. The paper culminates with a number of conclusions and recommendations based on current gifted education literature.
Psychological and Emotional Aspects of Gifted Students
A vast number of gifted students psychological and emotional studies have been performed throughout the world, and this continues to be an area of extensive study. Some studies look at designated students broadly across the range of grade levels, while others are restricted to a single grade or several grade levels. Both types of studies are valuable and necessary for an understanding of the collective psyche of these students. In fact, the narrow age range studies are exceptionally valuable in that their findings may give teachers the opportunity to anticipate some of the times that tend to be more difficult for virtually all children, regardless of designation.
Broad Age Range Studies
The greatest value of broad age range studies is that they allow us to examine broad characteristics of students designated gifted or academically talented. These studies make clear the fact that gifted and academically talented students are in many ways identical to their peers in psychological and emotional makeup.
In a particularly noteworthy 2000 study, Lewis and Knight surveyed 368 gifted students in grades 4 -12. Prior to this study, researchers had generally found that there were no global differences between male and female gifted students in terms of self-concept based on the Pier's-Harris Self-Concept Scale. Lewis and Knight looked closely at the subscales of Pier's-Harris Self-Concept Scale in an attempt to determine whether differences between the genders were masked by past studies' focus on the overall (global) result, with scant attention paid to analysis of subset results. Lewis and Knight's analysis of subset data indicated significant gender differences in three of the sub-scales: Behavior, Intellectual and School Status, and Anxiety. Across all grade levels, girls rated themselves higher on the Behavior and Intellectual and School Status self-concept subscales, whereas boys ranked themselves higher on the Anxiety subscale. Looking more narrowly, it was observed that gifted junior high school students consistently rated themselves lower than did elementary or high school students, mirroring responses of the general population (Lewis and Knight, 2000).
Five years prior, Oram, et al. studied the relationship between academic aptitude and psychosocial adjustment in students enrolled in gifted programming. The three groups comprising the study population consisted of 1) 151 second grade students participating in public school gifted programming, 2) 264 fifth to eleventh graders attending a university summer enrichment program, and 3) sixty young women enrolled in an early college entrance program. Their results indicate no evidence of any relationship between high aptitude scores and social maladjustment, contradicting the societal myth of the bright but maladjusted "gifted" student (Oram, et al., 1995).
Studies of Gifted Pre-K and Elementary School Students
Review of the past eight years of Gifted Child Quarterly, gifted text holdings of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Education Library and an ERIC database search reveal a number of studies involving students in this age group. Upon initial examination, the titles and abstracts often appear noteworthy, though critically reading the articles often leads to some concern regarding the validity of the findings and their applicability outside of the focus population. The information obtained is typically quite narrow in scope and based on qualitative research methodologies which are questionable (e.g. making conclusions based on a small sample of gifted students without any observation of control groups of their average ability peers).
Some, such as Vallerand, et. al.'s study group of 135 French Canadian 4th through 6th graders, indicate that the designated students perceived themselves as being more competent and intrinsically motivated than did regular students. Interesting, though not terribly useful.
Others, such as Tucker, et al.'s 1997 "Psychological Intensities in Young Gifted Children," initially appear to be potentially quite useful based on title and abstract. This "research study" involved eighteen students in a private school for the gifted and did not include a control group of students of normal peers. The central premise of this study is that Dabrowski's classic study which concluded that gifted school age children showed exceptional psychological intensities, could be extended to very young students who were designated academically gifted. "Gifted" in this situation was defined a those with IQs above 130. This qualitative study focused on the behaviors of five students, all of whom were scored as overexcitable in one or more of five possible categories: psychomotor, imaginational, emotional, intellectual and sensual. The combination of poor research methodology, biased qualitative results which matched what was predicted, and a lack of comparison to other groups outside of this single population result in a study which others will make reference to, though its weaknesses are apparent throughout the study so that the study which appears to have so much value in its title becomes nothing more than an assemblage of poorly conceived thoughts.
Studies of Gifted Middle School Students
Review of the past eight years of Gifted Child Quarterly shows a large number of studies involving students in this age group which assess a wide variety of psychological and emotional implications. The emphasis on working with students in early middle school years are much more useful in development of educational programming than those centered on young students for the reasons outlined above in the first paragraph of the previous section.
Sayler, et al's 1993 study examined the impacts of acceleration, placement in gifted classes, and retention within a regular classroom in terms of social, emotional and behavioral adjustment. Traditionally, many feared that accelerated students have a higher likelihood of not doing well socially and/or suffering adjustment problems as a result of the acceleration. On most variables examined in this study, accelerated students reported they felt good about their social and emotional adjustment, and considered themselves well behaved. On most variables measured, student self-ratings were higher than those of regular (control) students and as high or almost as high as those students in gifted classes who were not accelerated, clearly contradicting the stereotype of the maladjusted accelerated student.
Studies of Gifted High School Students
Review of the past eight years of Gifted Child Quarterly shows a large number of studies involving students in this age group. The majority of studies examine both psychological and emotional impacts of various types of programming. Because the mental and emotional impacts are relatively meaningless without provided program information, the majority of these studies are discussed below in the sections pertaining to the impacts of different types of programming.
Impacts of Various Gifted Program Approaches
Historically, the instructional needs of gifted students has been addressed in three different manners. The first way, and again most common way, to deal with their instruction is to place those students in the same classroom as their average ability peers, assigning them identical work and making no provision for their demonstrated differences. The second way is to provide occasional enrichment or acceleration opportunities with other high ability peers apart from their average ability peers. This type of program is designated a "pull-out program." The third, and most controversial type of program, involves placement of students in self-contained classrooms made up of gifted students who collectively take part in a learning program in which virtually all aspects are accelerated and/or enrichment opportunities are built into the curriculum, while interaction with the rest of the student body is limited.
Mixed Ability Classrooms
Based on a review of the literature, it appears that mixed ability classrooms do not work to the advantage of gifted students. This line of thinking is supported by the work of Shula and Richards (1997), Lando, et al. (1997) and Rogers (1991).
Shula and Richards study of 28 classes of sixth, seventh and eighth graders indicates that nonidentified students generally exhibit more positive attitudes toward cooperative learning than do students considered gifted, attributing this attitudinal difference to their observation that the brightest students resent repeating information already learned. The further implications of this study include limiting the recruiting of the best students to serve as peer tutors and using cooperative learning sparingly, and in conjunction with other approaches. It was observed that boys exhibit more positive attitudes toward cooperative learning endeavors than do girls (Shula and Richards,1997).
Lando et al.'s study of 32 eighth graders showed that homogeneously congregated gifted children shared knowledge and exchanged constructive knowledge and prosocial feedback significantly more often than did homogeneously grouped nonidentified students and or heterogeneously mixed gifted and non-gifted students. Within the mixed groups the gifted children tended to congregate among themselves. It was found that the groups they formed were more likely to mutually support one another and, unlike their nonidentified peers, encourage each other in the face of difficulty. It appears that the academic losses of gifted students in mixed situations are great in comparison to the moderate academic gains in nonidentified students. In fact, Lando et al. observed that nonidentified students do not always gain in the mixed situation either (Lando, et al., 1997).
Roger's 1991 study examined claims regarding the academic superiority of mixed ability grouping, and comes out with the strongest statements regarding the impact of this grouping strategy on gifted students. In her findings, Rogers states explicitly that academically talented students in a heterogeneous environment do not make strides in this setting relative to those made by academically talented students in either homogeneous ability classrooms or cluster grouped with students of equal ability.
On the other hand, Schack's 1993 study investigated the effects of a creative problem solving curriculum aimed at gifted students on students of varying capabilities. This study indicated that students at all levels showed significant gains in problem solving ability. The new curriculum increased the level of challenge across grade levels. Interestingly, teachers acknowledged gains in creativity and group work for the honors/gifted students, while the problem-solving gains for the average students went unrecognized.
Pull-Out Programs
Because pull-out groups work together only during designated times, the pull out students experience several different classroom dynamics. Along with the opportunity to work in a number of different situations with students of similar as well as divergent abilities, children participating in pull-out programs must balance their social relationships within each group so that they can satisfy their own needs for inclusion and belonging.
In an attempt to better understand potential concerns, Cohen, et al. studied classroom peer relationships of fourth, fifth and sixth graders. Relative to their classmates, children participating in the pull-out program a) were evaluated by their peers as having greater social acceptability and social competence, b) demonstrated greater awareness of reciprocity in friendships, and c) were perceived less often to be an aggressor or a victim of aggression. On the other hand, these children did not have more friends or more best friends than the children who were not in the program, though they had more valued positions within the peer network. On a positive note, Cohen et al. conclude that the overall impact of the pull-out program was enhanced peer relations broadly in the classroom among all students, both identified and unidentified (Cohen, et al., 1994).
What about the long-term effects of inclusion in a pull-out classroom? Moon, et al. addressed this by studying responses from high school seniors and their parents regarding the long-term impact of the program on the cognitive, affective, and social development of the students, improving thinking skills and abilities. The responses were consistently extremely positive from virtually all of the large number of respondents.
Self-Contained Classrooms
Wright et al. performed a study which used a combination of interviews and the Harter Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents (HSSPA) to study transition from a mixed classroom setting into a self-contained classroom for high ability students. At the end of the year, scores for the girls went up, whereas the scores for the boys went down. The authors of the study conclude that the decrease in the boy's scores may have been due to unrealistically high scores at the start for many of the boys, who came to better understand their capabilities during the single year transition program. Some of the boys set their sites for lower goals due to the competition and how they saw themselves in a group of very talented students. Girls, on the other hand, showed consistently strong responses and increases in self-worth as the program continued. Much of this was attributed to a structured, organized peer group. A number of the students felt that typical pressures regarding conforming to societal standards (e.g. dressing to conform to a large group standard) were reduced significantly. On the negative side, schoolwide popularity did not tend to occur for any of the students involved in the self-contained program. Students of both sexes considered the close friendships developed in the program to be key in their success. In general, the students enjoyed their personal interactions and relationships, while concurrently being in a program that met their academic needs and desires, highlighting the importance of balancing affective growth with cognitive development of gifted adolescents (Wright, et al., 1997).
Teacher Preparation and Approach
Finally, development of a program worthy of assessment requires teachers who have the creativity, know how, commitment, and school backing to address the needs of these students. The literature in this area is not terribly extensive, though the body of research does yield some noteworthy information in terms of teacher preparation and mentoring, as well as approach in working with gifted students.
Moon, et al. performed a three year study in which preservice teachers' attitudes, beliefs, and practices were regularly assessed. Their research showed that classroom situations in which teachers receive curricula which address diversity, stress independent and small group work, and include a significant mentoring component help teachers become more responsive to the needs of their students. This study made clear the need for novice teachers to set well-defined short- and long-term goals for differentiated instruction if truly valuable learning was to become a reality. Ironically, Moon, et al. learned that teacher education courses make significantly less impact than did programs and workshops which encourage teachers to challenge their fundamental beliefs. As student teachers venture into their own classrooms, it is essential that novices obtain the support and guidance of key players in the system to modify strategies and develop a repertoire of teaching skills that allow them to meet the needs of all of their students (Moon, et al., 1999).
Reis, et al. focused specifically on compacting of curriculum for gifted students. Compacting was defined as a system which "either eliminates repetition of previously mastered information or streamlines work that may be mastered at a pace commensurate with student abilities." Time gained can be used to provide appropriate enrichment and acceleration activities. This 1994 study focused on three groups of teachers who received different levels of training and support. Results indicate that teachers with as little as ten hours of training (including a videotaped inservice, books, simulations and peer coaching) in this area were able to eliminate 42-54% of typical content for high ability students and allow those students to explore those areas in greater depth, whereas those without the training had greater difficulty compacting workload and were less inclined to do so with consistency or regularity. Further, Tsai examined curriculum compacting in mathematics, finding that high ability students performed as well as before with a much shorter time requirement for task completion and were more attentive during class (Tsai, 1997).
Conclusions
Based on the literature and the state mandate, a number of general statements can be made. Gifted education has been seen as a luxury and has often not been considered a high priority in many school school systems throughout the state because the majority of these students do achieve in a normal classroom setting. Based on the current Illinois state allotment of $250 per child, many do not see gifted education as a priority and consider the mandate to be essentially nothing more than an unfunded mandate (MacClellan, 1999). The statement made by the state of Illinois is clear, however. The literature supports the state's mandated position, indicating very strongly that gifted students progress much more rapidly, and are more enthusiastic about their education and studies, when allowed the option to be involved in pull-out programs at a minimum. The impacts of keeping these students in mixed level classrooms, particularly those which emphasize cooperative learning, range from minimal to negative for the gifted students, and are not much better for their grade-level performing classmates. Teachers can take advantage of this information by clustering students of high ability, though the clustering need not need always exclude their non-identified classmates. In our state's efforts to teach to a diverse population, it is essential that teachers be able to aim all students toward achieving their potential. To do so requires that teachers have the appropriate background and support from their administration and that administrations provide some options which allow gifted students to work with others of similar ability to achieve that potential. Gifted education does not need to be an all-or-none proposition. Clustering can be done at no cost. Resources for clustered students can typically be purchased inexpensively using state allotted funds. Funds are available for summer camps for designated students. The possibilities are achievable if only we take the time to begin small-scale planning and take the idea that we have the ability to educate all of our students to higher levels more seriously.
References
Cohen, Robert, et al. (1994). Classroom peer relations of children participating in a pull-out enrichment program,Gifted Child Quarterly, 38 (1) 33-37.
Coleman, et al. (1997). Perennial debates and tacit assumptions in the education of gifted children.Gifted Child Quarterly, 41 (3), 105-111.
Gallagher, J. and Gallagher, S. (1994). Teaching the gifted child (4th ed.). Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gallagher, J.J. (2000). Unthinkable thoughts: Education of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(1), 5-12.
Lando, et al. (1997). Intellectual contributions and mutual support among developmentally advanced children in homogeneous and heterogeneous work/discussion groups, Gifted Child Quarterly, 41 (2) 44-57.
Lewis and Knight (2000). Self-concept in gifted youth: An investigation employing the Piers-Harris subscales, Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(1), 45-53.
MacClellan, Sherri, Gifted Specialist for the Urbana, IL School District (District #116), personal conversation, November, 1999.
Moon. Sidney M., et al., (1994) Long-term effects of an enrichment program based on the Purdue three-stage model,Gifted Child Quarterly, 38 (1) 38-48.
Moon, Sidney M., et al. (1999). The effects of mentoring relationships on preservice teachers' attitudes toward academically diverse students,Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(2) 56-62..
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Oram, et al. (1995). Relations between academic aptitude and psychosocial adjustment in gifted program students,Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(4), 236-244.
Ramsay, Shula G. and Herbert C. Richards (1997). Cooperative learning environments: Effects on academic attitudes of gifted students, Gifted Child Quarterly, 41 (4) 160-168.
Reis, et al. (1994). The impact of staff development on teachers' ability to modify curriculum for gifted and talented students,Gifted Child Quarterly, 38 (3) 127-135..
Rogers, Karen B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner, Office of Education Research and Improvement, Washington, DC.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1996). Beyond gifted education: Building a shared agenda for education reform. Journal for Education of the Gifted, 19, 194-214.
Sayler, et al. (1993). Social, emotional. and behavioral adjustment of accelerated students, students in gifted classes, and regular students in eighth grade, Gifted Child Quarterly, 37 (4) 150-154.
Schack, Gina (1993). Effects of a creative problem-solving curriculum on students of varying ability levels, Gifted Child Quarterly, 37 (1) 23-31.
The School Code of Illinois/1996, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, MN, USA.
Tsai, Den-Mo (1997). An enrichment model: A study of developing a pilot program for gifted students. Taiwan.
Tucker, et al. (1997 ). Psychological intensities in young gifted children,Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(3), 5-14.
Vallerand, et. al. (1994). A comparison of the school intrinsic motivation and perceived competence of gifted and regular students, Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(4), 172-175.
Wright, Paul B. et al. (1997). The self-concept of gifted adolescents in a congregated program, Gifted Child Quarterly, 41 (2), 22-33.
Created 1/30/00. Last modified 4/21/00.