NAGC Handouts

Folks

I promised participants in my sessions at the NAGC Convention that I would post my handouts. Following is the handout from the researach session on Teachers' Beliefs about Culturally, Linguistically, and Economically Diverse Gifted Students.

Teachers’ Beliefs About Culturally, Linguistically, and Economically Diverse Gifted Students

Catharina F. de Wet
University of Connecticut, 2006

The purpose of this study was to investigate teachers’ beliefs about culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse (CLED) gifted students. There is no baseline information about what teachers believe about CLED students’ potential. Given the importance of teachers in identifying and serving gifted students, it is important to investigate what beliefs teachers hold about CLED students that would impact their inclusion in gifted programs.
Although there is a body of research about teachers’ beliefs concerning various groups of students, there has been no study of what teachers believe about the abilities and potentials of CLED gifted students. The nature and influences related to teachers’ beliefs about CLED students is not known.
According to the study on assumptions underlying the identification of gifted students (Brown et al., 2005, GCQ), most teachers do support a broadened definition of gifted students. Additionally, “[t]hey favor the use of individual expression criteria, ongoing assessment, multiple criteria for identification, and consideration of contextual factors” (p. 68). However, there are several questions that need to be addressed: Why have identification procedures not significantly changed? Why are there so few CLED students included in gifted programs? Do teachers believe that CLED students have the ability to perform at high academic achievement levels? Should identification procedures change to include more CLED gifted students? Should gifted programs change to accommodate the strengths and needs of CLED gifted students? To answer these questions, this study was designed to provide baseline data on a national scale that directly address these questions about what teachers believe about the potential of CLED gifted students and their involvement in gifted programs. These questions were operationalized for this study into the following four research questions:
Research Question 1: What are teachers’ core beliefs about culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse (CLED) gifted students regarding their abilities, perspectives involving CLED students in gifted programs, and the benefits of including CLED students in gifted programs?
Research Question 2: Are the population means the same or different for the scores on the dependent variables with respect to the heterogeneity of the school population in which responding teachers serve (White or CLED), training teachers have had (general classroom, bilingual, and/or gifted education), and existence of a mandate for gifted education (with or without)?
Research Question 3: What influences the formation of teachers’ beliefs about CLED gifted students?
Research Question 4: What barriers do teachers perceive to the identification and full participation of CLED students in gifted programs?
Methodology
The newly developed Teachers’ Beliefs About Culturally, Linguistically, and Economically Diverse Gifted Students Survey (De Wet, 2005) was administered to a stratified, random sample of 4,000 teachers. The survey consists of 21 demographic questions relating to gender, ethnicity, and age information as well as the experience and training of participants, followed by a 30-item, 5-point Likert scale survey, asking participants to respond on a scale of 1(Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). In Section 3, two open-ended questions probe the influences that formed teachers’ beliefs about CLED students, and perceived barriers to the inclusion of CLED students in gifted programs. The last part of the instrument includes a request for permission to interview participants by phone or in person.
Teachers surveyed came from 8 states, 4 with (FL, GA, TX and VA) and 4 without mandates for gifted education (CA, CO, IL, MA). Five hundred teachers (grades 3-5) were selected from each of the 8 states. A disappointing 308 surveys were returned representing a low 7.7% response rate.
Results
Respondents believed that it would benefit gifted programs if CLED students are included, above average abilities are found in all economic strata and cultural groups, and IQ and standardized tests do not accurately reflect CLED students’ abilities. Analysis of demographic information was based on N = 308. An overwhelming number of respondents were White (83.8%) and female (90.3%). These percentages agree with National Center for Education Statistics (2005) data about the national teacher workforce. Teachers who responded to this survey were mostly older with the largest percentage (32.5%) in the age group between 51 and 60, with more than a third having over 20 years of teaching experience, and more than 50% holding a master’s degree. Teachers who responded to the survey were working in 3rd grade (20%), 4th grade (23%), 5th grade (31%), as gifted specialists (28%), and as bilingual education specialists (17%). There were a number of teachers with no specialized training. Fifty five (17.9%) teachers indicated that they had no gifted education training, and 76 (24.7%) said that they had no bilingual education training, while 5% of teachers had neither gifted nor bilingual training. There were 80 teachers certified as bilingual teachers and the same number was certified in gifted education, while 12 teachers, or 4 % held certification as both gifted and bilingual education teachers.
Three factors resulted from factor analysis of the survey, explaining 37% of the variance: Benefits of Including CLED Students in Gifted Programs (n = 10, α = .876), Universality of Abilities (n = 6, α = .734), and Assessment of Abilities (n = 6, α = .717). One-way MANOVAs did not yield significant group differences between mean scale scores on the factors for heterogeneity of schools where respondents worked (White or diverse) or type of training respondents had (no specialized training, bilingual only, gifted only, and bilingual and gifted training). Significant group differences were found on three factors as a result of whether respondents worked in a state with a mandate for gifted education or not.
Teachers believed that formation of their epistemological beliefs about CLED students were influenced by personal experiences with diverse populations or specific students. Teachers ascribed their experience to five categories of sources: (a) general and/or specific teaching experience; (b) specific students who influenced them, often accompanied by a personal story; (c) general life experience with children or minority populations; (d) family relationship with a CLED student or personal experience as a CLED student; and (e) training. Personal experiences colored the perceptions of all the respondents.
Respondents also believed that barriers exist to the inclusion of CLED students in gifted programs. Teachers responded with five categories of perceived barriers: (1) No barriers; (2) Systemic barriers; (3) Student limitations; (4) Teacher issues; and (5) Family issues. The most often mentioned barriers were ineffective and inappropriate identification procedures, the language barrier, and the need for teacher training.
Respondents to this study recognized two conflicting realities: the need to identify students who can perform in existing gifted programs and the need to include more CLED students in gifted programs. On the one hand, some respondents believed that students who do not qualify for gifted programs in the “standard fashion” cannot be successful in gifted programs. There was a recognition that CLED students have limitations that hinder their successful inclusion in gifted programs: limited English proficiency, “holes” in background knowledge, limited knowledge of “White,” American experiences, the things “that can be considered normal.” On the other hand, they recognized that CLED students have strengths and abilities that are not identified by existing identification procedures: culturally biased tests, the use of English language tests with students who are not proficient in English, the use of English language-rich performance measures like writing samples limit the inclusion of CLED students in gifted programs. Respondents wanted identification procedures to change to accommodate larger numbers of CLED students, but their perceptions of the characteristics of gifted students and gifted programs indicated that they equated giftedness with high academic achievement. One teacher summarized this conundrum: “They often have trouble keeping up with rigorous academic standards. The teacher’s dilemma – do I lower the standards?”
A few respondents seemed to understand that there is a solution to the dilemma - changing gifted programs to capitalize on CLED students’ strengths, and to support their limitations, or at least adding options to the services offered that would suit the strengths and limitations of CLED gifted students. Some suggestions of respondents to this study were:
· Try new, innovative techniques
· Adjust the pace of instruction to accommodate for their language differences
· Create gifted programs taught in foreign languages
· Adjusting curriculum to fit the diverse and multicultural nature of CLED students
· Give CLED students opportunities to gain the cultural and academic background knowledge they lack
· Bilingual gifted education teachers, or at the very least teachers who have been trained to work with English language learners.


This study is significant because it provides baseline information about teachers’ beliefs, gives insight into why CLED students are still under identified, and a reliable instrument was developed to assess teachers’ beliefs about gifted CLED students.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Curricular and Instructional Strategies for Diverse Gifted Students
1. Principles of Effective Curriculum
Student learning based on
Characteristics of the learner;
Time devoted to learning an objective;
Quality of instruction
This presentation: Quality of Instruction mediated by characteristics of learners
Effective, challenging curriculum
Targeted and deliberate instruction
2. Characteristics of learners
Capacity to learn at faster rates
Capacity to find, solve, and act on problems more readily
Capacity to manipulate abstract ideas and make connections more easily (VanTassel- Baska & Stambaugh, 2006)
Also variations in:
Strengths, Scope of abilities, Interests, Style preferences, Opportunities,
Background or prior knowledge, Approaches to learning

3. Effective Curriculum
Help students along continuum of expertise (National Research Council, 2000)
Built on fundamental nature of discipline/subject (Renzulli, 2005)
Create independent learners – responsible for own learning
Enhance student motivation, curiosity, self-confidence, self-reliance, self-knowledge
Learning result of thinking – all students able
Learning should include deep understanding:
Flexible, active use of knowledge (Perkins, Project Zero)

4. Three Kinds of Knowledge
To-be-presented knowledge
Just-in-time knowledge (Renzulli)
Throw-away knowledge (Glasser)

5. Hallmarks of Effective Curriculum
Teaching for understanding
Usefulness of knowledge
Learning skills and strategies
Inquiry- or problem-based curriculum
Product Focus
Big Ideas
Escalating intellectual engagement with materials
Culturally responsive

6. Teaching for understanding
Knowledge
Knowing the facts
Knowing a body of coherent facts
Verifiable claims
Knowing something is right or wrong
Responding on cue
Understanding
Knowing meaning of facts
Knowing the theory that provides coherence
Fallible and in-process theories
Matter of degree and sophistication
Judging when to respond and with what

7. Usefulness of knowledge
Usefulness in real world
Focused on useful skills
Students can show haw what they have learned can be used (Glasser)
Relevance to life experiences
Creative productive work (Renzulli)
Authentic language and methodology
Authentic products
Authentic audiences

8. Learning skills and strategies
Learning skills and strategies more than facts
Higher order thinking skills – creative, analytical, critical thinking
How-to skills (Type II – Renzulli)
Conspicuous and explicit teaching of strategies

9. Thinking Skills
Trends
Setting goals
Developing hypothesis
Testing generalizations
Inductive and deductive reasoning
Fantasy/reality
Fact/opinion
Advantages/disadvantages
Identifying point of view
Examining viewpoints
Determining bias
Judging accuracy
Determining relevance
Credibility of sources
Recognizing assumptions/fallacies
Drawing conclusions
Identifying attributes
Compare/contrast
Classify
Setting criteria
Sequencing
Relationships
Patterns
Predicting
Cause/effect
Analogies/metaphors
Formulating
Summarizing
Infering

10. Inquiry- or Problem-Based Learning
Occurrence, object, issue
Involves doubt, uncertainty, or difficulty
Ask students to identify own questions and find own solutions
Explicit attention to
authentic problem solving,
hands-on learning
self-directed inquiry
Outcome: creation of a product

11. Product Focus
Tangible evidence of learning (Maker & Nielsen)
Products may be
Written
Visual
Performance
Oral
Multicategorical
Service

12. Big Ideas
Are timeless
Are universal
Are abstract
Are broad
Examples:
Patterns Change
Systems Conflict
Structure Power
Relationships Adaptation

13. Escalating Intellectual Engagement
Acceleration
Complexity
Depth
Challenge
Creativity
Abstractness
Acceleration
Increase pace of learning
Cover objectives faster
Assign fewer tasks to master objectives
Compacting
Standards-based skills assessed earlier or before teaching
Teach only what needs to be learned
Complexity
Use multiple higher-level skills
Add more variables to study
Require multiple resources
Link study across disciplines
Changes over time
Different points of view
Depth
Study a concept in multiple applications
Conduct original research
Develop a product
Use language of the discipline
Details of concept, theory, principle, or fact
Patterns – recurring events represented by details
Trends – factors influencing events
Unanswered questions
Rules – structure or order of things, n atural or man-made
Ethics – dilemmas or controversial issues
Big ideas – generalizations and principles
Challenge
Advanced resources
Sophisticated content stimuli
Origins – catalysts, roots, causes, beginnings
Contributions – achievements, consequenses, effects
Parallels – comparable, similar, analogous relationships
Paradoxes – fallacies or incongruities
Convergence – meeting points
Cross-disciplinary applications
Explicit reasoning
Creativity
Creative problem solving
Fluency, originality, flexibility
Design a model based on principles or criteria
Provide alternatives for tasks, products, and assessments
Emphasize oral and written communication to authentic audience
Abstractness
Use macroconcepts for connections across disciplines
Use macroconcepts for connections within topic
Determine own generalization for concepts
Culturally Responsive
Rooted in understanding of culture
Integrates diverse ways of knowing, understanding, representing information
Multicultural viewpoints
Relevance to students’ experiences
Safe environment to explore and express cultural differences and viewpoints

14. Hallmarks of Effective Instruction
Provide transitional curriculum
Curriculum that balances basic and higher-order skills
Explicit teaching of strategies and skills
Use native language and culture as instructional aid and processing medium
Instruction that enhances understanding:
Teaching metacognitive strategies
Using routines
Making instruction comprehensible
Adjust vocabulary and level of English
Teach required "prior" knowledge if necessary
Give opportunities for practice
Provide transitional curriculum
Teach required "prior" knowledge when necessary
Explicitly teach "lingo," knowledge necessary to navigate system
Explicitly make connections between students’ lives and school
Use many and varied exploratory, exposing activities (Renzulli’s Type I enrichment)
Balance basic and higher order skills
Use hands-on learning experiences
Use concrete experiences to connect to the abstract
Use visual aids
Pictures
Graphic organizers
Manipulatives
Use mentors
Start with student strengths
Native language
Native language support
Academic language scaffolding
Cooperative learning – opportunities for students to discuss process with each other
Opportunities to practice discourse
Dialogue journaling
Instruction to enhance understanding
Teach metacognitive strategies
Use routines
Make instruction comprehensible
Adjust vocabulary and level of English
Explain and demonstrate what students will be doing
Teach required "prior" knowledge if necessary
Opportunities for practice
Opportunities for self-directed activities

15. Internet Resources
Renzulli Learning Systems (www.renzullilearning.com)
Webquests (www.webquest.org)
Filamentality (www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/fil/)
Wiseman Tech (www.wisemantech.com)
Dr. Hotlist (www.districtadnministration.com)
My blog (http://oneviewgt.blogspot.com)


References
Erickson, E. L. (2002). Concept-based curriculum and instruction: Teaching beyond the facts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kaplan, S. (2005). Layering differentiated curricula for the gifted and talented. In F. A. Karnes, & S. M. Bean (Eds), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (2nd ed). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Karnes, F. A., & Bean, S. M. (Eds.). (2005). Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (2nd ed). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. (ISBN: 1-59363-022-0)
Renzulli, J. S. (2005). Equity, excellence, and economy in a system for identifying students in gifted education programs: A guidebook (RM05208). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 160-166.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (3rd Edition). Boston, MA: Pearson
Wiggins, G. P. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding By Design, Expanded 2nd Edition. Alexandria, VA: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Renzulli, J. S., Leppien, J. H., & Hays, T. S. (2000). The Multiple Menu Model: A Practical Guide for Developing Differentiated Curriculum. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.