Introduction
Research concerning the theoretical approaches that teachers can employ to foster full learning potential of gifted students provides evidence pertaining to some myths about the applicability of some educational programmes for gifted students. One of the myths is the perception that the programmes foster segregation of students into different groups based on their achievement levels and abilities, which are then replicated in their work environments (Loveless, 1998, p.17). This paper confirms that optimal achievement and development of students’ abilities are only possible upon development of programmes to ensure that students with gifts in certain areas of curricular learning and co-curricular activities develop their talents in education. This development occurs when they interact and/or compete with students with similar abilities. Placing students in groups that have similar achievements and ability levels in learning highlights the necessity of acceleration programmes.
Acceleration and enrichment programmes are important where gifted students display their learning abilities that place the student one grade or even two grades ahead of his or her current grade (Loveless, 1998). Nevertheless, some gifted students may fail to yield good performance and achievement in areas of their strength. In such situations, counselling and mentoring programmes are important in helping to unveil the abilities of gifted students. Where students are in a grade with regard to their age, but not meeting their learning abilities and achievements, low learning motivation may influence full development of their talent potential.
This paper presents ability grouping or achievement grouping, acceleration, mentoring, and counselling as important aspects that can be incorporated in any programme that seeks to address fully the needs of gifted students. It uses the four aspects to evaluate and analyse the ability and levels of a typical school programme (discussed in the context section) to meet the needs of students. The evaluation draws from existing scholarly literature on mentoring, counselling, acceleration, achievement grouping, and ability grouping programmes.
Overview of Context
The discussion of this paper draws from a typical school programme scenario for enhancing learning abilities of gifted students. In this context, gifted students refer to “those students with abilities that are sufficiently above the average learner that they require special provisions to achieve their potential” (Cox & Neil, 1984, p.47). The school is a comprehensive institution located in an urban area. It teaches 880 students from multicultural backgrounds, mainly Caucasian, Asians, and Islanders. It celebrates higher regard for its exemplary performance in sports, cultural pursuits, and technology areas.
The school appreciates the contribution of gifted students in respective areas in making it reputable. There are concerns of increasing and/or enhancing the abilities and achievement levels of gifted students. The school recognises that this goal is only achievable if students are taught by teachers who can act as good role models (mentors) in respective areas of students’ strength. In the recent past, this concern culminated into undertaking of a programme of professional development for teachers in areas of gifted education over the last two years. The programme focused on identification together with in-class curriculum differentiation.
The school developed a draft policy for gifted education through the effort of small focus groups comprising interested staff members during the process of administration of the professional development programme. Even after undergoing the development programme, classrooms are still dominated by students of mixed abilities and cultural diversity. The school has a counsellor working full time. He spends most of his time addressing concerns such as behavioural issues and low intellectual capacity, which the school thinks are a major impediment for collective good performance of students. Staff members express their concerns of over concentration on academic achievement by students from some cultural groups. This situation creates problems of stereotyping of students from specific cultural settings in the school.
The main challenge of the school is how to address these issues in the context of mentoring, counselling, acceleration, achievement grouping, and ability grouping theoretical discourses as they apply to gifted students. Table 1 below suggests some possible changes that have been backed by scholarly evidence that the school can adopt.
Evaluation Table.
Discussion
From the assessment of the current situation, the school needs to improve in the areas of ability groupings, acceleration, mentoring, and counselling as suggested in the table above. The effectiveness of the suggestions in enabling the programme for gifted students to deliver on the needs of students depends on the findings of the effectiveness of gifted students’ school programme as documented in the literature on programme for enabling gifted students to achieve their full potential. The subsequent sections evaluate the programmes adopted in the school within the context of the available literature.
Ability Grouping
Ability grouping for students receives support and criticisms from various studies on the best educational programme for gifted students. According to Colangelo, Gary, and Allyn (1996, p. 206), “ability grouping, commonly practiced in elementary schools, is assumed when students of similar ability or achievement level within a class are grouped for instruction”. Jarosewich (2012), a researcher on Duke’s talent and ability identification programme, claims that early literature on ability grouping contended that ability grouping translated into placement of some students in lower academic tracks that were administered by less experienced or even less talented teachers. This situation led to inequitable and disproportionate education for different students. Such a claim may explain and justify the mixed ability classes approach used in the school discussed in the overview section.
In the context of the current approaches to grouping of students according to their abilities, the programme adopted by the school hinders students from achieving their full potential to the extent that differentiation of curriculum to cater for students with high learning abilities is nonexistent. According to research findings by Rongers (2002), the claims against ability grouping raised by Jarosewich (2012) were valid for grouping programmes for more than four decades ago. As evidenced by the case of School District of Waukesha (2010), the current ability-grouping programme reflects ethnicity, influences of social classes, and racial sensitivity while arriving at group placement decisions.
The success of ability grouping at the school in meeting the needs of gifted students depends on whether appropriate changes are made on the curriculum to address different needs. Experimental research by Touron (2005) found that ability grouping by itself produces no significant impact on enhancing learning among gifted students. The needs of the gifted students are only met when appropriate changes such as incorporation of acceleration coupled with instruction enrichment are made on the curriculum (Touron, 2005). In the school, these provisions are not incorporated. Students of mixed abilities receive same instructions irrespective of their talents and gifted areas.
Although ability grouping that is followed by the corresponding curriculum differentiation may help in making the programme used in the school meet the needs of gifted students, consideration of the impacts of ability grouping on self-esteem are of paramount importance. Kulik (1992) conducted a research based on meta-analysis of 13 studies investigating the impacts of ability grouping on various groups of students. The researcher found, “on average, students of high ability tend to lose a bit of their self-esteem when placed in classes with others of equal ability” (Kulik, 1992, p.95). Slow learners gain only minimal self-esteem when they are placed in classrooms consisting of students of equal learning ability. This finding suggests that ability grouping can be done in a school with minimal implications on average and lowly gifted students’ self-esteem.
When gifted students are grouped together and appropriate curriculum differentiation done, the potential for meeting the needs of the students raises. Brody and Mills (2005) worked on a summary of research findings on the impacts of a summer programme that was specifically designed for gifted students’. The authors’ conclusions supported this assertion. The research reported a positive correlation between the summer programme and increased academic achievement, higher social development, and achievement of gifted students’ goals. This proves the effectiveness of ability grouping together with enrichment programme in enhancing the capacity of a school to meet the needs of gifted learners.
Achievement Grouping
Some students may be gifted. However, even if they are grouped according to their abilities, they cannot still realise high achievements due to various underlying challenges. Baum and Owen (2004), Kay (2003), and Lovecky (2004) discuss a myriad of challenges such GT/SLD, GT/ASD, Twice Exceptional, GT/AD/HD, GT/EBD, and GT/other, which hinder students from optimal achievements. Depending on the underlying conditions impairing optimal achievement of students, special instruction programmes can be developed. Referring to the school used as the case study, evidently, it has not incorporated effective programmes for enhancing achievement of students with challenges such as GT/AD/HD and GT/EBD among others. The staff people at the school express concern on the limitation of academic achievement on some cultural groups in the school. This observation implies that the programme is unable to address the needs of students to the extent that it focuses on differences such as race and ethnicity among students, which no scholarly evidence documents on their impacts on students’ achievement levels.
In the school, administrative planning or intervention is important in ensuring that gifted students make profound progress in their academic and co-curricular achievements in their gifted areas. Identification of problematic areas that hinder its ability to meet the needs of students through models for solving problems such as the one discussed by Treffinger and Firestein (1989) is important. Although the school celebrates high academic achievement amid mixed ability class systems, scholarly evidence suggests a negative implication of the system on students who are exceptionally high achievers.
Brulles, Cohn, and Saunders (2010) confirm that when a school records high achievements, parents and educators create an assumption that all students including those scoring high grades on various standardised achievement exams learn equally as those scoring low grades. In this context, the school fails to meet the needs of gifted students. According to Brulles et al. (2010, p. 328), “many gifted students have mastered the majority of grade level standards prior to receiving instructions”. Winebrenner (2001) suggests that high achievers require curriculum that is more challenging than the standardised prospectus that is used in a given grade level. This case underlines the importance of curriculum differentiation, enrichment, and acceleration programmes to meet the needs f high achievers.
In the school, the achievement grouping can be implemented through grouping students into five clusters. Group 1 consists of gifted students who include the unproductive, those who are not fluent in English, and the exceptionally gifted students. The group also includes GT/SLD, twice exceptional students, and GT/ASD students. Group 2 comprises the high average students. This group comprises “highly competent and productive students who achieve well in school” (Gentry & MacDougall, 2008, p.51). The third group constitutes the average students. Such students achieve at an average standard grading level. Group 4 has all students who achieve low grades despite the fact that they can achieve better grades under special support. Group 5 constitutes students struggling in various subjects. They score very low grades, well below proficiency levels that are established by academic measures.
After clustering the students into achievement groups as suggested above, their placement in separate classes follows. Teachers take up classes depending on the achievement levels and abilities of the students. This placement method ensures, “no teacher has the full spectrum of abilities narrowing the range of achievement levels in every class and allows other teachers to focus their efforts more productively” (Winebrenner & Brulles, 2008, p.75). It ensures that teachers adjust curriculum, including acceleration to meet specific learning needs of students depending on their achievement levels that are dictated by their capacity to grasp faster and even reading and understanding ahead of the designated time for the curriculum for a particular grade.
Acceleration
The school does not have any acceleration programme. Acceleration programmes are important in meeting the needs of gifted students. As Brulles et al. (2010) reveal, highly gifted students master standard curriculum requirements for a given grade in relation to low achievers. This observation implies that they require more challenging tasks if an education programme has to deliver on their needs. Maggio and Sayler’s (2013, p. 21) research supports this assertion by evidencing that in mathematics, programmes that work well for the majority of students in a class miss “educational needs for mathematically precocious students”. Accelerated programmes allow students who have mastered learning outcomes of a given level faster than others to move on with the next grade even before the elapsing of time that is dedicated for a given grade. This way, the learning potential of given students does not go into waste.
Accelerated programmes vary from common service delivery to identified students in a classroom setting through minimal instructions to giving instruction to such students in special schools. Irrespective of the adopted approach, Hertberg-Davis (2009, p. 252) observes, “Gifted programmes often have a “one size fit all” approach”. This means that for a group of students, the programme consolidate several talented students into one programme, yet their ability levels may differ. Assouline and Lupkowski-Shoplik (2003) confirm that such an approach does not meet specific needs of various mathematically precocious learners.
Extending the above claims to the school, grouping of students in terms of achievement and abilities needs to be followed by acceleration programmes for gifted students with a particular focus on the specific areas of talent for each student. Feldhusen and Kolloff (1978) support this approach by adding that further testing of gifted students who are scheduled for acceleration is needed to provide verification for advanced learning status. This aids in the development of instructional approaches that have the capacity to advance students and/or develop their capacity to respond to challenges of higher levels.
Mentoring
Mentoring encompasses one of the crucial aspects of gifted programmes, which help to unveil hidden gifted potentials (Winebrenner & Brulles, 2008; Brulles et al., 2010). Mentoring programmes need to clear and separate myths from facts. In the school, a mentoring programme for teachers was conducted with the goal of enabling teachers identify talented and gifted students in the effort to seek strategies of their development. However, academic achievement is limited to cultural groups. There is a challenge of stereotyping some cultural groups. This situation hinders the stereotyped student from unleashing his or her potential due to the creation of false perception that academic achievement is limited to persons of a particular race. A school with such challenges needs effective mentoring programmes to demystify this myth.
The main challenge that the school faces includes determining how mentoring programmes for gifted students should appear. Olenchak (2002, p.213) provides an insight into solving this challenges by reckoning “mentoring relationship with a positive adult role model is extremely beneficial for a gifted adolescent male”. The researcher also highlights the importance of internships, field trips and service learning opportunities in mentoring programme adapted for underachieving students coupled with unmotivated students.
Hébert and Schreiber (2010) argue that any mentoring programme depends on characteristics of its target population. Stanley and Brody (2001) confirm this assertion by conducting a research, which identifies various considerations for the development of mentoring programmes for gifted students. The researchers report that gifted students’ mentoring programmes need to allow students to create connections, enhance normalisation of passions, create achievement in academics, and unlock flows (Stanley & Brody, 2001). Creating connections through mentoring programmes can help in the elimination of academic achievement stereotyping and motivate potentially gifted students.
Counselling
In the school, counselling mainly dwells on behavioural issues and intellectual capacity. This implies that counselling students on the best learning techniques in different gifted areas such as mathematics, visual and performing arts, sports, and leadership among others is neglected or given inadequate attention, yet the goal of any education programme is to ensure that students develop their full potential in various areas of learning. According to Burton (2012), students (girls and boys) possess several common characteristics akin to their similar emotional, cognitive, moral, and social development. Within each group, say boys, research provides evidence that gifted boys also share some common characteristics with other groups of non-talented boys who encounter challenges stemming from their exceptional abilities together with personality traits (Neu & Weinfeld, 2007).
The above claim suggests that the school needs to adopt and spend time counselling in areas that are relevant to the characteristics of different students, rather than just over emphasising behaviours and intellectual capacity. While addressing counselling to the gifted students, the school needs to focus on specific needs of each group of students. For instance, for gifted males (boys), the counsellor needs to engage them in the process of counselling, identifying their most preferred media, and adopting appropriate helping styles (Burton, 2012).
The counselling programme needs to respond to various challenges that are encountered by gifted students. According to Colangelo and Gary (2002), these challenges include nervousness troubles, despair, and separation. Counselling programme also needs to deploy similar mechanisms of building self-concepts that are deployed in the counselling of non-gifted students since gifted students do not have inflated self-concepts in comparison with their peers (Colangelo & Gary, 2002). In the effort to enhance achievement for gifted students, counselling programmes also need to focus on the mechanisms of handling the challenges of social–psychological tension. These challenges are the main causes of underachievement among many gifted students (Colangelo Gary, 2002).
Conclusion
Teachers and educational programme developers contend that gifted students need to be placed in special learning programmes to enable them learn and develop their skills to their full potential, which may not be achieved by their peers. Gifted students usually possess higher learning abilities, a higher capacity to think, and superior achievement standards in comparison with other students of equal age or grade. Hence, they possess an advanced potential than expected for an average student. This implies that they do not need to be treated in the same manner with other students for them to develop their learning potential. One of the ways of accomplishing this goal is by placing gifted students of the same learning ability in the same group to enhance sharing of knowledge and skills. This strategy calls for an achievement grouping and ability alignment approach to enhance attainment of the full potential of gifted students. Mentoring and counselling programmes that reflect the needs of each group are important in constructing self-image and boosting motivation for learning to achieve the full potential of talented students.
References
Assouline, S., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2003). Developing Mathematical Talent: A guide for Challenging and Educating Gifted Students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Baum, S., & Owen, V. (2004). To be Gifted and Learning Disabled Strategies for Helping Bright Students with AD, ADHD and more. Mansfield Centre, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Brody, L., & Mills, C. (2005). Talent Search Research: What have we learned? Journal of the European Council for High Ability, 17(3), 97-111.
Brulles, D., Cohn, S., & Saunders, R. (2010). Improving Performance for Gifted Students in a Cluster Grouping Model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(2), 327-350.
Burton, M. (2012). Talk is Cheap: Exploring Alternative Strategies for Counselling Gifted Adolescents Males. Gifted Child Today, 35(1), 208-214.
Colangelo, N., Gary, D., & Allyn, B. (1996). Handbook for Gifted Education. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Colangelo, N., & Gary, D. (2002). Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd Ed). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Cox, J., & Neil, D. (1984). Comprehensive Programme for Able Learners. Gifted Child Today, 7(1), 47-53.
Feldhusen, J., & Kolloff, M. (1978). A Three Model for Gifted Education. Gifted Child Today, 1(1), 3-57.
Gentry, L., & MacDougall, J. (2008). Systems and models for developing programme for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Centre, CT: Creative Learning Press.
HĂ©bert, P., & Schreiber, C. (2010). An Examination of Selective Achievement in Gifted Males. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(2), 570-605.
Hertberg-Davis, H. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programme and is sufficient. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 251-253.
Jarosewich, T. (2012). Ability Grouping and Gifted Children. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Kay, E. (2003). Identifying and Meeting Needs of Twice Exceptional Students. Gilsum, NH: Avocus Publishing.
Kulik, J. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives. University of Connecticut: The National Research Centre on the Gifted and Talented.
Lovecky, D. (2004). Different Minds: Gifted Children with ADHD, Asperser Syndrome, and other Learning Deficits. New York, NY: Kingsley Publishers.
Loveless, T. (1998). The tracking and Ability Grouping Debate. Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation.
Maggio, R., & Sayler, M. (2013). Trying Out Acceleration for Mathematically Talented Fifth Graders. Gifted Child Today, 36(1), 20-29.
Neu, W., & Weinfeld, R. (2007). Helping boys succeed in school: A practical guide for parents and teachers. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Olenchak, F. (2002). Being a gifted Boy: What we have learned. Duke Newsletter, 2(4), 12-15.
Rongers, B. (2002). Re-forming Gifted Education: Helping Parents and Teachers to Match the Programme to Child. Schottsale, AZ: Great potential Press.
School District of Waukesha. (2010). Gifted and Talented Programme Guide. London: School District of Waukesha.
Stanley, J., & Brody, L. (2001). History and Philosophy of the Talent Search Model. Gifted and Talented International, 16(2), 94-96.
Touron, J. (2005). The Centre for Talented Youth Model. Journal of the European Council for High Ability, 16(1), 65-73.
Treffinger, D., & Firestein. (1989). Update: Guidelines for Effective Facilitation of Creative Problems Solving. Gifted Child Today, 12(1), 35-39.
Winebrenner, S. (2001). Teaching Gifted Kids in the Regular Classroom. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.
Winebrenner, S., & Brulles, D. (2008). Cluster Grouping Handbook: Using Cluster Grouping to Challenge Gifted Students and Improve School wide Achievement. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.