 |
Teacher
Training Online Newsletter
|
|
Teacher
Training Online Newsletter
|
Topics:
Welcome to the Model Teacher Training Project
Who is the Gifted Child Society?
Honors and Advanced Placement for GT Students
Differentiation in the Classroom
WELCOME TO THE
GIFTED CHILD SOCIETY’S MODEL TEACHER TRAINING PROJECT
This newsletter and a new chatroom constitute Phase III of the Gifted Child Society's
New Jersey Model Teacher Training
Project .
Phase I was the
selection and training of thirty Gifted Child Society (GCS) Fellows selected by the Gifted Child Society based on professional
excellence, leadership, and regional representation. The “Fellows” spent one
week in July 1999 at Confratute at the University of Connecticut. Confratute is
one of the nation’s leading institutes for teaching the gifted. An additional 20 Fellows were chosen
in 2001 to attend Confratute. Twenty more Fellows will be chosen in 2003.
Applications to all district public school superintendents will be mailed in
January 2003. They are asked to nominate an educator from their district to
apply for the GCS Fellowship.
Phase II: On October
2, 1999, the GCS offered a statewide tuition-free Saturday Conference in Princeton, New Jersey, which was attended by 350
educators from across the state. Well-known keynote speakers addressed the
entire group, there were breakout sessions on specific aspects of giftedness,
and a networking session. A second teacher training conference was held in
September 2001 where professional development credits were offered. On September
20, 2003 another teacher training conference in education of the gifted will be
held at the East Brunswick Hilton. Details will follow in the near future.
You are now looking at Phase III
of the project. The on-line newsletter you are reading and our future chatroom
are intended to enhance the training started at Confratute ‘99.
Phase IV of the project will be a book that documents and evaluates the entire Project. It will include participants’ findings and anecdotes. This book will serve as a blueprint for other states to use in training their teachers in education of the gifted.
WHO IS THE GIFTED CHILD SOCIETY?
The Gifted Child Society is a 45-year-old non-profit parent group which has served over 60,000 gifted students with out-of-school educational programs. These programs include Saturday Workshops, the six-week Summer Super Stars day camp, statewide teacher training conferences, parent conferences, and others. In 1975, the Gifted Child Society was named a National Demonstration Model by the U.S. Department of Education. We pride ourselves on our public school supportive philosophy.
How
Fellows are
Selected:
In January, each local
district superintendent in New Jersey will be invited to nominate one teacher to be
considered to become a “Gifted Child Society Fellow.” The “Fellows” will
be selected by the Gifted Child Society, based on professional excellence,
leadership, and regional representation. These GCS Fellows spent one week in
July at Confratute at the University of Connecticut.
Confratute is one of the nation’s
leading institutes for teaching education of the gifted. It is a total
immersion, live-in experience offering K-12 teaching that cuts across all school
activities, curricular areas, grade levels, and grouping. GCS Fellows have
become a cadre of leaders who have committed themselves to passing along their
training in the form of in-service training, program development, and joint
planning in their districts and regions. Each Fellow’s training, including
meals and room, was on a full scholarship basis, subsidized by the Gifted
Child Society.
Letter from
GCS Fellow Janet Armstrong, teacher, Denville:
What an honor it was to have been
selected as a fellow of the Gifted Child Society. My heartfelt thanks are
extended to you for the incredible opportunity to attend Confratute at the
University of Connecticut. The education I received there was invaluable and has
left an indelible impression which will impact my teaching.
During the week, I attended forums,
keynote addresses and three strands. Thanks to the Thinking Strand, I have
already become a lateral thinker and have created many thinking opportunities
with my own children, using newly discovered techniques. I attended the
Perfectionism Strand to better my knowledge as an educator and also to examine
my own perfectionistic tendencies. The information I received, specifically the
why’s and how’s of perfection, were extraordinary on both a professional and
a personal level.
I plan to create two teacher in-service
workshops based on the Thinking and Perfectionism Strands. My principal and I
have already discussed their development and she is delighted! I will keep you
informed as to their progress.
Janet Armstrong
E-mail form
GCS Fellow Janet Armstrong, teacher, Denville:
Thought I’d let you all know that I
have developed a Thinking Skills Workshop with our gifted and talented teacher,
Sheila Ahearn, which we are in the process of offering in our district. We have
a series of inservice courses and our Curriculum Supervisor asked us to run this
particular workshop this spring. We have two more sessions to go (out of five).
Our workshop was originally adapted
from Greg Murin’s “Thinking Skills Workshop”, which Sheila and I both
attended last summer at Confratute. We’ve presented a variety of ways to get
our kids thinking in the Gifted and Talented program and in the regular
classroom. We’ve also discussed stress management as related to students and
teachers, as well as learning styles and multiple intelligences. The field of
thinking is endless! We’ve delineated critical thinking, creative thinking,
and metacognition. It’s been rewarding to turn-key our learning to twenty two
teachers in Parsippany Troy Hills.
Janet
Armstrong
Letter from
GCS Fellow Mary Jane Parke, teacher, North Arlington:
I have returned from attendance at the
first week of Confratute energized, enlightened, stimulated, and ready for
action. Confratute was by far one of the most rewarding professional experiences
of my career. Enlightenment began from those first moments of filling out the
Interest-A-Lizer and continues as I sort through my notes and resources planning
for the new school year.
Orchids to those Gifted Child Society
members who supported the Fellowships and saw to so many details to make the
program a memorable and effective experience. I noticed every effort from the
GCS congratulatory letters, the local press coverage arranged by the GCS, the
bag of books presented to the Fellows labeled with each name, the impressive
certificates Fellows were awarded by the GCS Director and the welcome lunch
attended by Dr. Renzulli. In addition I am grateful for the opportunity to room
with other GCS Fellows and to share and learn from them.
I am in the preliminary stage of
planning training. I have provided my superintendent with an outline of
possibilities. In addition, I have contacted the Chair of the Literacy
Department at New Jersey City University, and we are exploring workshop
presentation possibilities at their future conference and for guest lecturing in
a class.
The
ABC’s of Contraftute ’99 (For One GCS Fellow):
Advice
for modifying the curriculum for above average ability students
Bibliographies
of best books for gifted and talented students
Counseling
high ability students through literature
Differentiation
through SEM
Examine
facts from new angles
Fitness:
1001 ways to stay in shape
Gifted
females: Obstacles, Challenges, Choices
How
to teach research skills through IIM
Integrating
creativity training into history and language arts classes
Joining
nightly debriefing sessions to share information and knowledge
Knowledge:
How to use fairy tales to promote critical thinking and creative problem solving
Listening
to Confra-Chorus (included a GCS Fellow)
Materials
Fair
Newsletters
that educate and illuminate
Opportunity
to network with teachers from all over the USA
Puppetry:
a dynamic classroom tool
Quote
of the day
Renzulli
and Reis: Approaching the new
millenium: reflections and directions
Strategies
to increase and develop creativity in the classroom
Type
I, Type II, and Type III processes
Underachievement
in high ability students
Videotherapy
to counsel high ability students
Word
of the Week
eXamining
gifted and talented programs
Yale
professor, Dr. Robert Sternberg, explains the theory of Successful Intelligence
Zany
antics of mine.
Mary
Jane Parke
Letter from
GCS Fellow Nancy Ireland, Mt. Laurel:
I wanted to update you as to my
activities. I will be presenting a workshop for gifted children ;at the New
Jersey Association for Gifted Children’s convention in March. Thanks to my
training at Confratute, my district is highlighting the twice exceptional child
as its enrichment focus this year. I will be presenting staff development
training in this area to my district’s teachers this summer. I have also used
many new knowledge to counsel several parents and students around the state with
these concerns.
Our south Jersey Consortium continues
to meet bimonthly. Babs Bennett, another GCS Fellow, leads this effort. I think
this group is an important link between several regions of South Jersey and look
forward to its continuation.
Nancy Ireland
Honors
and Advanced Placement for GT Students
By Rachel Sytsma University of Connecticut
Advanced Placement (AP) and Honors courses have merit, as they have successfully filled an important niche in American high schools. Both types of courses have addressed the needs of many of our country's most academically advanced and ambitious young people. The presence of AP and Honors courses in high schools across the nation is commendable, encouraged and valued. However, these courses are, in fact, courses. And as such, both Advanced Placement and Honors courses are subject to curriculum objectives, traditional testing and expectations revolving around teaching to the average in each respective class. In any given AP or Honors course, a range of student abilities exists. Certainly not all AP and Honors students earn the same grades. Therefore, some students are maximally challenged whereas some are not. Furthermore, performance in these courses is typically monitored closely, creating an environment in which providing curriculum alternatives seems more risky than in many traditional classes.
This article discusses provisions for students who are not maximally challenged in some of our most rigorous academic options at the high school level, such as Advanced Placement and Honors courses. It is possible (in fact, beneficial) to provide alternative, high-end learning options for students in these courses without sacrificing the integrity of the course, student performance on exit exams or excessive teacher time (Reis & Renzulli, 1992). Ideas for meeting the needs of our highest-performing AP and Honors students will be provided in this article, as will several key instructional strategies including: pretesting for curriculum compacting, utilization of interest-based learning, use of academic contracts, and the value of extra-academic professional interaction.
Pretesting is an ideal way of identifying students in advanced classes who may be ready for alternative work. Some teachers believe there is not enough time in rigorous courses for pretesting, but pretesting has been shown to be a valuable method for: (a) introducing new materials and concepts, (b) assessing students' prior knowledge and proficiency and (c) providing an objective method for making alternative learning options available. Pretests can be constructed from objective tests provided with either a relevant textbook or through resources available in the curricular framework (e.g., Advanced Placement courses often offer study guides utilizing questions from past tests). Some teachers use previous years' tests or add subjective components to ready-made objective tests.
Implementation of pretesting is flexible; the teacher may choose to notify students in advance of upcoming units and pretests and may make the pretesting experience itself valuable by allowing students to use the pretest as a study aide and/or promising a small percentage of replicated questions from the pretest on the unit evaluation. Pretests are intended for all students. Therefore, it is important to provide a secure environment for pretesting situations; pretests scores should not count toward the course grade, as they are intended for diagnostic purposes.
Individual teachers need to decide what cutoff score is appropriate for determining mastery; appropriate mastery scores may differ based on the curricular area (e.g. mastery in a sequential content such as math is likely to require a higher score than in non-sequential content areas). One must remember that perfect scores are not necessary because students will still be learning within the tested topic; the only difference is that some students will be learning the material in a more advanced and/or alternative way.
Curriculum compacting (Reis, Burns & Renzulli, 1992), one advanced, alternative way to learn, is the ultimate goal of pretesting. This technique streamlines the curriculum to maximize learning, challenge, and minimize redundancy of previously mastered material. When using curriculum compacting in high schools, the teacher should meet individually with students whose pretest scores suggest mastery and invite them to conduct alternative work. The student may or may not choose to accept the invitation for alternative work. Such decisions should be made on a unit-by-unit basis, and the teacher should continue to extend invitations for alternatives each time a student achieves mastery level on a pretest.
If the student accepts the invitation, his/her interests should be incorporated into the design of the alternative work. Research suggests that students maximize curiosity, productivity and engagement when their interest are taped (Renzulli, Baum, Hebert & McCluskey, 1999; Renzulli & Reis, 1994). In this case, students may have ideas about specific areas to investigate or they may have clear ideas about how they would like to convey new knowledge gained (e.g. a multimedia presentation, community involvement, written or oral presentation, designing and teaching a lesson, etc.). Previous research has indicated that the number of students displaying mastery can range form 3 to 8 in an average-size (18-28 students) classroom (Renzulli & Reis, 1994). At the high school level, there may be times when no one shows mastery and times when a small group does. Teachers may choose to allow teamwork work or may wish to keep all work independent.
Because of time constraints, the quickest way to design and initiate an interest-based project is this: (1) identify 3-5 major objectives of the unit; (2) share those objectives with the student; (3) give the student 24 hours to write up to five proposed alternative learning projects that address the main unit objectives; (4) decide which project is most satisfying to you as teacher (refining wherever necessary); and (5) give the student another 24 hours to add a materials list, resources list and daily schedule. Within no more than 2 days from the pretesting, the student should be starting the advanced project!
Student work location and the grading protocol should also be decided. These can be addressed in an academic contract. Contracts clearly state all details about the alternative work, including method of evaluation of the project, student responsibilities, the aspects of the regular curriculum students are required to do during the course of their projects, where the student will work during class time (including how attendance will be checked if students work outside the classroom), and any other specifics that the teacher deems important. The contract may be signed by the teacher, student, student's parent/guardian, student's guidance counselor, the gifted and talented consultant (if one exists) and the principal. Contracts convey seriousness, provide clarity for all involved and specify consequences if students fail to act responsibly.
Teachers set the parameters for independent work. Many teachers of advanced science courses still require students to be present for all labs during alternative work. Some teachers require students to do the regular homework at their own pace, providing time for alternative work in lieu of the unit test, while some count the project as the total value of all homework assignments plus the test. Other teachers exempt students who have displayed mastery from all regular class work in that unit and allow students time to focus on the independent work. In this situation, teachers give the student with mastery an "A" on all homework and testing for that unit. The love of learning is the goal with compacting; it is easy to get too preoccupied with the details and forget that students who have the ability to display mastery should be afforded an opportunity to nurture a love of learning.
The community should be involved and expertise in the field used whenever possible. Liza, a junior in AP Environmental Science, won the water quality competition for Science Olympiad. She pretested out of the unit on water quality. In lieu of regular work during that unit, Liza contacted and worked with a local environmental group to design a teaching lesson on local exotic species, a lesson that she ultimately taught to both her own AP class and a group of younger students for whom the environmental group was preparing a presentation. The connections Liza made led to an ongoing relationship with the local group, continued public service and winning a competitive scholarship to scholarship to study during the summer with professors in limnology.
It is important to remember that secondary advanced classes involve groups of students, and every group has a range of student differences (Systma, 1997). Ultimately, there is no such thing as a homogeneous AP or Honors classroom. The special needs of our highest performing students must be considered even with advanced courses.
References
1. Reis, S.M., Burns, D.E., and Renzulli, J.S. (1992). Curriculum compacting: The complete guide to modifying the regular curriculum for high ability students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
2. Reis, S.M. & Renzulli, J.S. (1992). Using curriculum compacting to challenge the above-average. Educational Leadership.
3. Renzulli, J.S., Baum, S.M. Hebert, T., & McCluskey, K.W. (1999). Reversing underachievement through enrichment. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 7(4), 217 - 223.
4. Renzulli, J.S. &Reis, S.M. (1994). Research related to the schoolwide enrichment triad model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 7 - 19.
5. Sytsma, R.E. (1997). Gifted and talented programs in the high school: A framework for implementation. Unpublished master's thesis, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI, USA.
By Deborah E. Burns, Ph.D.
University of Connecticut
During
the last twenty-three years, hundreds of teachers and administrators have
implemented one of more of the components of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli
& Reis, 1980, 199X) in their building or school district.
As
many readers already know, the Schoolwide Enrichment Model includes four
components designed to increase academic success and address the development of
individual students’ interests, strengths, and talents.
These
four services, specifically known as: 1) the Total Talent Portfolio, 2)
Curriculum Development and Remodeling, 3) Curriculum Differentiation, and 4)
Enrichment Teaching and Learning, were based on "best practices"
research in gifted education. These four services are offered to students in
order to: a) increase academic achievement, b) enhance motivation for learning,
c) help students become more self-directed, and d) address talent
development. The Evolution of SEM.
Although
these four services were originally researched and designed for use in
traditional gifted education programs, additional settings and audiences have
been proposed since the mid 1980s.
Related
research on the strong correlation among factors that contribute to high grades
and tests scores (e.g.,
socioeconomic status, parental education levels, native language, and learning
opportunities) suggest that academic or real world gifts and talents are not
merely inherited and not necessarily fixed.
More
likely, talents are developed over time, given a supportive environment and
appropriate growth opportunities. Complimentary studies regarding multiple
intelligence, the existence and importance of cognitive skills not measured by
traditional IQ tests, and our growing ability to teach individuals how to
improve their cognitive performance, adds credence to this point of view.
This
perspective does not, however, suggest that all students can or should receive
the same services at the same time, nor that all students are already
"gifted." Instead, this position proposes that manifest gifted
behaviors are behaviors developed over time.
Similar behaviors could be developed in a greater number of students,
given the same supportive opportunities and experiences previously offered to
identified "gifted" students.
Gifted
behavior is evident by observing a person’s response to an opportunity; it is
not synonymous with the opportunity itself. As more and more teachers and
administrators began experimenting with the use of SEM components with all
students in a given school it became increasingly clear that the regular
classroom and the grade level curriculum were major factors that had to be
addressed in order to achieve successful outcomes. As we worked with these colleagues, we discovered several
themes that consistently emerged from these implementation efforts.
First,
we have come to appreciate the importance of identifying and celebrating the
exemplary practices that already exist in a classroom or a school. We also
learned that the change process works best when teachers have the opportunity to
choose additional professional growth opportunities that are aligned with their
needs, their learning rate and style, and their past accomplishments.
In
addition, we recognized that teachers who are attempting to improve the quality
of their curriculum need the active, frequent, long term, nonjudgmental, and
practical support of their administrators, curriculum specialists, and grade
level colleagues.
This
support takes many forms; and a workshop is only a single aspect in establishing
this support system. Last, and most important is a continuing relationship with
a collegial, practical, and dependable coach, demonstrated progress in small
steps, the elimination of competing priorities that fracture staff attention,
and the allocation of sufficient time for planning, implementing, problem
solving, refining and measuring student effects. SEM and Curriculum
Differentiation.
These
themes are extremely important to educators who want to address curriculum
differentiation in order to meet the needs of gifted education students in the
regular classroom. Although it is easy enough to define differentiation, to
share examples, and to overview various strategies for designing pre-assessments
and differentiated lessons, the hard work is in the implementation of these
concepts and techniques! Just how do you take a promising idea and turn it into
a reality for as many teachers and students as possible? Four simple rules of
thumb make it easier to achieve these goals.
One
of the first things we have to remember is that we can’t just sit on our
laurels. Most of us can cite numerous examples of our previous differentiation
efforts. Although we should share and celebrate these accomplishments, it is
also important to recognize that there is always more than we can learn about
and implement when it comes to differentiation.
If
an educator already has experience with contracts, alternatives, or open-ended
products, they might choose another facet of differentiation, such as
pre-assessment, differentiated teaching, or tiering, as the focus for future
professional growth goals. If another educator has a long history of success in
helping struggling learners, they might turn their attention to meeting the
needs of high ability students, or to working with students with low levels of
effort or motivation.
Second,
we need to remember the old adage, "One step at a time". In this case
we are referring to the benefits we accrue when we keep things small and measure
progress within a realistic timeframe. When it comes to differentiation, if we
attempt to do too much, too soon, we often experience an overwhelming
frustration that makes it unlikely that differentiation will ever become a
standard facet in many of our curriculum units.
A
focus on an individual student, an individual unit, or a specific
differentiation technique is an easy way to "divide and conquer". When
we try to accomplish too much, disappointment and avoidance often result. A
better approach might be to recognize other competing priorities and time
demands and set small goals that are realistic and achievable.
Third,
we need to remember that two heads really are better than one! Whenever
possible, we should work with other colleagues, not alone, as we plan for or
evaluate our differentiation initiatives. Another person’s perspective,
encouragement, resources, or ideas can often solve problems or eliminate
obstacles that seemed insurmountable.
Ask
for help from other teachers, curriculum specialists, parents, administrators,
or the librarian. Then, return that help and reciprocate when they need your
ideas, expertise, or perspective. Cooperation and collaboration usually lightens
the load and leads to enhanced practices for all involved.
Fourth,
we need to take time to gather information and analyze the impact of our
efforts. Action research can be used to assess pre and post instructional scores
of students who participated in a differentiated unit. Interviews with students,
surveys, or their journal entries can also shed light on their reactions to
differentiated lessons, resources, or assignments. Often, their reactions, or
their parents’ reactions, are powerful enough to compel us to greater use of
differentiation strategies. Their perspectives about differentiation can also
help us deal with our concerns and worries about perceptions of fairness and
challenge.
Curriculum
differentiation addresses variations in students’ cognitive abilities, prior
knowledge, motivation, product preferences, and learning styles in order to
increase academic success and achievement. Using carefully, differentiation can
have a major impact on students’ academic success and effort. We appreciate
your interest in this strategy and we invite your increased involvement. Revise
and piggyback on the procedures and tools shared with you, and create some of
your own products that are even better and more effective. If time permits,
share your refinements with others, so that we may all grow and learn and, in
the end, make school a better place for all of our students.
If
you would like to respond to Dr. Burns’ article, please do so by E-mail to admin@gifted.org,
or provide a comment on our discussion
forum.
We
are planning to follow up our successful 1999 Teacher Training Conference in
Princeton with another Teacher Training Conference on September 29, 2001,
in New Brunswick. We will post more information on this conference as it becomes
available.
Two NJ Assembly Bills Seek to
Identify K-12 Gifted Students, Establish and Fund Gifted Programs.
The
NJ State Assembly is currently working on two bills that, if enacted, could have
an impact on gifted education in our public schools.
Assembly
Bill No. 1445 would mandate that every New Jersey K-12 public school identify
and provide appropriate curricula for their academically advanced and gifted
students. A companion Assembly Bill, No. 1454, would provide that the first $5
million of unclaimed State Lottery prize money be used annually to establish and
supplement public school gifted programs.
Both
bills have been through the Assembly Education Committee and No. 1454, the
funding bill, has also been through the Assembly Appropriations Committee. At
present (February, 2000), the co-sponsors of the bill are looking into the
possibility of combining the two bills, so it is not certain how they will be
worded when submitted to the full Assembly.
If
you’d like to check the present wording of these two bills, you can find them
at the NJ State Assembly’s website (http://www.njleg.state.nj.us).
For Bill No. 1445 (mandate for schools to identify and develop programs for
gifted students), go to http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2000/Bills/a1500/1445_il.htm.
For the funding bill, No. 1454, go to http://wwwnjleg.state.nj.us/2000/Bills/a1500/1454_il.htm.
We
are told by the office of Assemblyman Francis J. Blee (Atlantic County), a
sponsor of both bills, that the prospects for the bills seem good. Both bills
have made it through committee, which demonstrates that there is support.
However, the two bills are now being considered for combining into one bill, so
their final outcome is not clear at present.
If you’d like to express your support for or comments on one or both of these bills, write or call Assemblyman David W. Wolfe (Republican), Chair, NJ Assembly Education Committee, 852 Highway 70, Brick, NJ 08724; 732-840-9028.
As
of mid-February 2000, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate are each
considering a version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the
umbrella federal law that addresses K-12 education. The House passed its version, H.R. 2, which includes the text of H.R.
637, The Gifted and Talented Education Act. This now goes to the Senate to await
consideration there.
But
the Senate version of ESEA is still in the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor & Pensions. It is not yet decided whether S.505, The Gifted
and Talented Students U.S. Education Act of 1999 will be included in the Senate
version of ESEA..
YOUR HELP IS NEEDED. Please
contact our NJ Senators and urge them to become co-sponsors of S.505. Be sure to
tell them how federal funds for gifted education can make a difference in our
state, and be sure to ask for a written response. The more support that is
generated for S.505, the more likely it will be included in ESEA. Senate support
is also needed to obtain sufficient funding from the Appropriations Committees
next year to fully implement the grant program.
To
maximize the interactivity of on-line communications, we welcome your comments,
suggestions, and questions. Please e-mail them to admin@gifted.org.
©Copyright 1999, 2000 by the Gifted Child Society