Going along with the definition of giftedness as "asynchronous development," a teacher must accept that gifted students, although gifted in one area, may be deficient in others. A student may be reading at a post-high school level, but her emotional development may be more around a 4th or 5th grade level. Again, many gifted students do not exhibit this behavior, but many do as well, and certainly in my classroom, I was confronted time and time again by students acting up despite superior gifts in a particular area and excellent work ethic.
I hypothesized that many gifted students still operated within a basic fear-based 2nd level Maslow interpretation of the world. Particularly in a school and peer culture that did not always celebrate student achievement, these students felt fearful that their gifts set them apart from "belonging" -- that most essential of social desires. Teachers, as much as we would like to have our words resonate with students, are decidedly not peers, and the words and attitudes of peers have much to do with this sense of belonging.
My goal, then, was to ensure that gifted students were properly supported for emotional and social growth and this meant setting up healthy peer interactions. I aimed here at cooperative learning (Johnson et al. 1988) as a technique to get students to talk to each other and depend on each other in a reinforcing form. For example, students would all work together to try to solve a mystery, with clues in each of the readings. This activity allowed each student to participate, but also allowed gifted students some ability to show off -- to demonstrate how to glean important details from text and to explain it to the rest of the group. By making their skills an asset rather than a possible detriment, I was more able to take them into a "safe" zone, and even though my time observing the students was limited by this point, this activity worked well to get gifted students out of a fearful mode and into a respectful and cooperative one. I will look for more of these sorts of cooperative activities in which all parties come together to construct a cohesive whole as a way to foster positive reinforcement and safe environments for developing group dynamics and personal visions of self-worth and identity.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Individual cognitive growth
One misconception about gifted students is that they will excel no matter what, so it's better to focus our attention on the students who are hampered from completing their tasks effectively. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Gifted students drop out at similar rates as non-gifted students, often perform similarly grade-wise (although this is oft-debated) and develop in the same fits and starts as any adolescent. Neglect of a gifted student will lead to similar results as neglect of a non-gifted student.
In order to address this, I felt it important to look at the cognitive needs of gifted students and test them accordingly in my classroom, while continuing to teach every student. Information processing is different for different students, but I found that a number of gifted students overestimate how much information processing ability they have. When a concept or skill does not come easily, frustration can quickly set in. Particularly when you're used to breezing through your far-below-grade-level reading material, the prospect of a challenge can be nerve-wracking.
I began to realize that I could not simply plop down more work in front of a student and expect him or her to complete it simply because he or she had the ability to do so. I decided that scaffolding the material would help gifted students understand just as it did for non-gifted students. Those hypothetical units of attention are not vastly different in function than the same hypothetical units on other students; thus, the teaching methodology for gifted students would not necessarily have to differ. Recall that this was the main difficulty I had to approach in the original dilemma -- how do you teach gifted students without going insane creating more work? Teaching the same way with advanced material certainly seemed like a prospect that would fit.
Also of note, however, is that some gifted students are extremely advanced in one area and not in another. Asynchronous development is one of the hallmarks of gifted students (Coleman, 2005). As a result, gifted educators recommend a variety of more open-ended assignments that can help gifted students learn on their own. Unfortunately, the frustration the students felt as they reached basic cognitive barriers was often enough to discourage them. This led me to reconsider my approach, and consider whether such extension was too taxing on them. Even open-ended projects needed structure to ensure that a student did not overload on material or skills. Most gifted students did not suffer from a data-based deficiency, but when they did, it was necessary to lay basic groundwork first.
In order to address this, I felt it important to look at the cognitive needs of gifted students and test them accordingly in my classroom, while continuing to teach every student. Information processing is different for different students, but I found that a number of gifted students overestimate how much information processing ability they have. When a concept or skill does not come easily, frustration can quickly set in. Particularly when you're used to breezing through your far-below-grade-level reading material, the prospect of a challenge can be nerve-wracking.
I began to realize that I could not simply plop down more work in front of a student and expect him or her to complete it simply because he or she had the ability to do so. I decided that scaffolding the material would help gifted students understand just as it did for non-gifted students. Those hypothetical units of attention are not vastly different in function than the same hypothetical units on other students; thus, the teaching methodology for gifted students would not necessarily have to differ. Recall that this was the main difficulty I had to approach in the original dilemma -- how do you teach gifted students without going insane creating more work? Teaching the same way with advanced material certainly seemed like a prospect that would fit.
Also of note, however, is that some gifted students are extremely advanced in one area and not in another. Asynchronous development is one of the hallmarks of gifted students (Coleman, 2005). As a result, gifted educators recommend a variety of more open-ended assignments that can help gifted students learn on their own. Unfortunately, the frustration the students felt as they reached basic cognitive barriers was often enough to discourage them. This led me to reconsider my approach, and consider whether such extension was too taxing on them. Even open-ended projects needed structure to ensure that a student did not overload on material or skills. Most gifted students did not suffer from a data-based deficiency, but when they did, it was necessary to lay basic groundwork first.
Individuals in communities
Although this week's reading was about Individuals in Communities, it also featured a module about Intelligence that seemed pertinent, so I'll discuss that.
I have many intellectual problems with Gardner's multiple intelligences (mostly anecdotal evidence, no clear application of model, variability and generality of terms, etc.), but gifts in the classroom can certainly manifest in different ways. One thing that becomes clear as I read the literature surrounding intelligence and gifted students is that the number of learning styles is as vast as the number of students. Convergent vs. divergent thinkers, for instance, can take a problem and come up with totally different solutions, and I found myself wondering how to help bring out those different modalities of cognitive thought in the classroom.
One step was to try to address the tendency towards impulsivity among the students. As deferred gratification research shows (see Mischel marshmallow experiment, 1990 and others), children who demonstrate delayed gratification are able to plan better for their lives. This seems to corroborate findings that impulsivity damages the reflective process necessary for true intelligence, or at the very least, well-applied intelligence. One step that helped was looking for more open-ended problem-based questions that forced students to take a longer time to think about it. For example, I might give students a bonus question on a quiz such as "What is the difference between good and evil? Justify your answer." For students who responded, I left another prompt, pushing that student farther and challenging his or her response, with the possibility for extra credit if a journal response was written. Many of my gifted students love to be right immediately, rushing for an answer, but such a process often demonstrated to them the value of taking it slow. When students responded impulsively, I often paused for up to a minute, waiting for students to write out or think about their answers before blurting them out.
Trying to short-circuit this impulsive process is often difficult, particularly with precocious gifted students who like to be right and like to be right right away. By affording them the occasional pause, however, I was more able to corral their thinking, but I often wonder whether this kind of support does any good. Mischel himself notes that it is next to impossible to know how well these tricks and forced reflections work, because of many other factors such as home life. At least in the academic setting, however, these pauses and reflective moments not only forced gifted students to reconsider their answers, but also allowed non-gifted students who might otherwise not raise their hands or give a response some time to formulate a better one. Again, I'm unsure as to how well this worked to curb impulsivity, but it was an experiment.
I have many intellectual problems with Gardner's multiple intelligences (mostly anecdotal evidence, no clear application of model, variability and generality of terms, etc.), but gifts in the classroom can certainly manifest in different ways. One thing that becomes clear as I read the literature surrounding intelligence and gifted students is that the number of learning styles is as vast as the number of students. Convergent vs. divergent thinkers, for instance, can take a problem and come up with totally different solutions, and I found myself wondering how to help bring out those different modalities of cognitive thought in the classroom.
One step was to try to address the tendency towards impulsivity among the students. As deferred gratification research shows (see Mischel marshmallow experiment, 1990 and others), children who demonstrate delayed gratification are able to plan better for their lives. This seems to corroborate findings that impulsivity damages the reflective process necessary for true intelligence, or at the very least, well-applied intelligence. One step that helped was looking for more open-ended problem-based questions that forced students to take a longer time to think about it. For example, I might give students a bonus question on a quiz such as "What is the difference between good and evil? Justify your answer." For students who responded, I left another prompt, pushing that student farther and challenging his or her response, with the possibility for extra credit if a journal response was written. Many of my gifted students love to be right immediately, rushing for an answer, but such a process often demonstrated to them the value of taking it slow. When students responded impulsively, I often paused for up to a minute, waiting for students to write out or think about their answers before blurting them out.
Trying to short-circuit this impulsive process is often difficult, particularly with precocious gifted students who like to be right and like to be right right away. By affording them the occasional pause, however, I was more able to corral their thinking, but I often wonder whether this kind of support does any good. Mischel himself notes that it is next to impossible to know how well these tricks and forced reflections work, because of many other factors such as home life. At least in the academic setting, however, these pauses and reflective moments not only forced gifted students to reconsider their answers, but also allowed non-gifted students who might otherwise not raise their hands or give a response some time to formulate a better one. Again, I'm unsure as to how well this worked to curb impulsivity, but it was an experiment.
Engaging other students
Academically gifted students, particularly those in my classroom, often feel disconnected from other students in the classroom. Peer effects can lead to one student enduring the ridicule of others, or simply receding from the class into a book in the corner. Peer groups that these gifted students develop often prevent them from participating fully in class as well, as they would rather participate in the same level of activities with their friends even if those activities are ill-suited to their level of academic achievement/ability.
Although I find much of the "biological temperament" research to be malarkey, I also understand that in high school, there's only so much a teacher can do to affect this temperament. (After all, if only 10% of students are "difficult" why do those 10% seem to constitute 50% of my classroom?) Nevertheless, I found that gifted students could vary widely in temperament and this led me to differentiate activity for them based on individual needs. Some students preferred quiet reading time followed by research and writing. Others preferred leadership in groups and helping others learn. Gifted students are highly adaptive, in general, although this adaptivity can lead them to avoid hard work by simply completing marginally satisfactory work quickly (Coleman et al., 2005). As a result, I found myself trying to test these students by putting them in adverse situations -- leading groups, presenting to the class, reading and analyzing difficult texts -- because it provided them with the necessary challenge to continue going through similar experiences of adversity as their classmates were.
One element of negative behavior comes in the form of bullying against students who achieve in the classroom (not always those who are "gifted" by traditional definitions, but often simply those who complete classwork and participate). Although anti-bullying material is great, I often wonder if we can't focus attention on the bullied target as well. For one student in particular, "Olivia," I found it helpful to ask one of my senior students who endured similar judgment, to come speak to our sophomore class about her experiences in adjusting to high school and the damage that bullying caused her. I then allowed them to talk briefly to each other in order to break through Olivia's isolation. Although this was not wholly effective, it was a turning point for Olivia to begin building self-esteem and become a more involved classroom member.
Although our school frowns upon ability groups in general, I think it's important for students to begin working in a variety of different groupings -- sometimes randomly, sometimes by choice, and sometimes by a specific criterion (a topic of research, for example). For many of these gifted students, the next stage of life will be a "little fish/big pond" experience. I tried to apply some of the lessons of accelerated curriculum in gifted students (see Pollins, 1983 or Delisle, 2003) by having occasional activities where gifted students would tackle a difficult passage, an activity that they would relish and that provided enough challenge that they could not simply breeze through it.
Although I find much of the "biological temperament" research to be malarkey, I also understand that in high school, there's only so much a teacher can do to affect this temperament. (After all, if only 10% of students are "difficult" why do those 10% seem to constitute 50% of my classroom?) Nevertheless, I found that gifted students could vary widely in temperament and this led me to differentiate activity for them based on individual needs. Some students preferred quiet reading time followed by research and writing. Others preferred leadership in groups and helping others learn. Gifted students are highly adaptive, in general, although this adaptivity can lead them to avoid hard work by simply completing marginally satisfactory work quickly (Coleman et al., 2005). As a result, I found myself trying to test these students by putting them in adverse situations -- leading groups, presenting to the class, reading and analyzing difficult texts -- because it provided them with the necessary challenge to continue going through similar experiences of adversity as their classmates were.
One element of negative behavior comes in the form of bullying against students who achieve in the classroom (not always those who are "gifted" by traditional definitions, but often simply those who complete classwork and participate). Although anti-bullying material is great, I often wonder if we can't focus attention on the bullied target as well. For one student in particular, "Olivia," I found it helpful to ask one of my senior students who endured similar judgment, to come speak to our sophomore class about her experiences in adjusting to high school and the damage that bullying caused her. I then allowed them to talk briefly to each other in order to break through Olivia's isolation. Although this was not wholly effective, it was a turning point for Olivia to begin building self-esteem and become a more involved classroom member.
Although our school frowns upon ability groups in general, I think it's important for students to begin working in a variety of different groupings -- sometimes randomly, sometimes by choice, and sometimes by a specific criterion (a topic of research, for example). For many of these gifted students, the next stage of life will be a "little fish/big pond" experience. I tried to apply some of the lessons of accelerated curriculum in gifted students (see Pollins, 1983 or Delisle, 2003) by having occasional activities where gifted students would tackle a difficult passage, an activity that they would relish and that provided enough challenge that they could not simply breeze through it.
Community Building
With the stratification of each class, communities invariably develop segregated by ability levels. As far as gifted students go, behavioral problems are not as prevalent, but still occur. Often, these students act more as instigators rather than aversive disruptions themselves. They also see past basic reward/punishment schema, and will joust with me verbally in an attempt to gain power in the classroom.
Usually I deflect this with sarcasm, but these students show the limitations of the praise/punish model that educational behavioral theory builds upon. That said, we do need to look at different types of praise and punishment that gifted students respond to.
For instance, in my classroom, I often find it difficult to convince gifted students to voluntarily help with a more difficult task or to aid other students (rather than merely distracting them). Traditional positive reinforcement (more points! token economy! etc.) was generally ineffective, as these students understood and had been taught that their apathy was all right, so long as they did not cause additional problems. One research-based tool that worked well was the Premack reinforcement -- a highly preferred activity (such as iPod listening or a large chart paper pad for student drawing) could work as an incentive for a less preferred activity (teaching a mini-lesson on comma splices, or reading a much higher-level text about the same topic). Using one positive activity to reinforce another positive activity helped the student ensure that both were completed effectively. In addition, it created a habit by which gifted students knew their options if they completed an assignment early or wanted a differentiated assignment.
Usually I deflect this with sarcasm, but these students show the limitations of the praise/punish model that educational behavioral theory builds upon. That said, we do need to look at different types of praise and punishment that gifted students respond to.
For instance, in my classroom, I often find it difficult to convince gifted students to voluntarily help with a more difficult task or to aid other students (rather than merely distracting them). Traditional positive reinforcement (more points! token economy! etc.) was generally ineffective, as these students understood and had been taught that their apathy was all right, so long as they did not cause additional problems. One research-based tool that worked well was the Premack reinforcement -- a highly preferred activity (such as iPod listening or a large chart paper pad for student drawing) could work as an incentive for a less preferred activity (teaching a mini-lesson on comma splices, or reading a much higher-level text about the same topic). Using one positive activity to reinforce another positive activity helped the student ensure that both were completed effectively. In addition, it created a habit by which gifted students knew their options if they completed an assignment early or wanted a differentiated assignment.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Dilemma post
I am Peter Chen, and I am a 10th/12th grade English Language Arts teacher at ASPIRA Mirta Ramirez Charter School in Humboldt Park.
My dilemma is one that I try to ignore in the classroom in general. Gifted students -- or at the very least, competent students -- find themselves frustrated by the level of work given in the class as well as the level of behavior/immaturity in their classmates. This is not anything new, and I have tried a variety of different techniques to help integrate high achievers with the general learning environment.
I worry, in particular, because many of these students have the most potential to succeed in four-year colleges and professional careers beyond, but our school provides woefully little support for them to actually achieve those high levels. There's no reason that one of these students should end up at college unprepared, but because of the level of work and the blind eye we eagerly turn, they often end up overmatched by college classes and unused to the amount of work necessary to succeed.
Unfortunately, the extra projects and alternative assignments are not always possible, and the most successful projects I have done with these students take the most time (I am in a similar situation with low-level ELL students and students with learning disabilities). In the meantime, I must continue to aim class at the middle 80% of the students in the class, without detracting from the skills they need to learn and think at high levels.
My dilemma, then, is how to divide my time between my various groups of students. How can I provide successful support for gifted or high-achieving students without losing my mind and losing control of my classroom as I pay attention to a small group of students?
My dilemma is one that I try to ignore in the classroom in general. Gifted students -- or at the very least, competent students -- find themselves frustrated by the level of work given in the class as well as the level of behavior/immaturity in their classmates. This is not anything new, and I have tried a variety of different techniques to help integrate high achievers with the general learning environment.
I worry, in particular, because many of these students have the most potential to succeed in four-year colleges and professional careers beyond, but our school provides woefully little support for them to actually achieve those high levels. There's no reason that one of these students should end up at college unprepared, but because of the level of work and the blind eye we eagerly turn, they often end up overmatched by college classes and unused to the amount of work necessary to succeed.
Unfortunately, the extra projects and alternative assignments are not always possible, and the most successful projects I have done with these students take the most time (I am in a similar situation with low-level ELL students and students with learning disabilities). In the meantime, I must continue to aim class at the middle 80% of the students in the class, without detracting from the skills they need to learn and think at high levels.
My dilemma, then, is how to divide my time between my various groups of students. How can I provide successful support for gifted or high-achieving students without losing my mind and losing control of my classroom as I pay attention to a small group of students?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)