Data-based Decision Making: Tools for Determining Best Practices in Grouping and Service Delivery

Data-based decision making: Tools for determining best practices

in grouping and service delivery

2014 Rutgers Gifted Education Conference

11/20/14

Elissa F. Brown, Ph.D.

[email protected]

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 1

mailto:[email protected]

2

“With all the educational

reform that has taken place since

the turn of the century,

how come so little has changed?”

Larry Cuban

Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York

Brown, E. & Stambaugh, T. (2014). Placement of students who are gifted. In J. Bakken, F. Obiakor, and A. Rotatori, (Eds.) Gifted Education Current Perspectives and Issues, Advances in Special

Education, vol. 26, pp 41-69.

The placement or program model fundamentally serves as a vehicle to group or organize students

together but programming, in practice, sometimes referred to as a service delivery

model, is not the same thing as service. Placement is a management strategy. It must be coupled with curriculum and instructional

modifications in order for substantial and positive academic and social-emotional effects

to occur for gifted and talented students.


Standard 5. Programming

Is a properly funded continuum of services provided that offers a variety of programming and learning options that are collaboratively developed and implemented and that enhance student performance in cognitive and affective areas?


Characteristics of Giftednessthat impact instructional practices

• May be developmentally advanced in one or more areas (uneven development)

• Learn at a faster pace in selected areas

• Ask and explore complex abstract questions and issues

• Experience complex social relationships and issues

• Desire individual responsibility


• Are sensitive

• Are hypercritical of self and others (high expectations)

• Question authority

• May be introverted

• May experience learning problems and underachievement for the first time

• May become “bored”, withdrawn, isolated, and display low self-concept

Characteristics of Giftednessthat impact instructional practices (cont.)


Key Linkages of Special Education and General Education in Program Development for the Gifted

Gifted Education

General Education

Special Education

CurriculumEvaluationInstructional ProcessesPhilosophy & GoalsMaterials/Resources

Identification/AssessmentProgram AdministrationGrouping StrategiesTeacher TrainingAdvocacy


Decision Tree: Macro

Acceleration Enrichment


Why do we accelerate?1) Acceleration matches the level and complexity of the

curriculum with the readiness and motivation of the child.

2) Acceleration has one of the longest and most robost research bases in the gifted field.

3) Acceleration is consistently effective with gifted students.

4) Accelerations allows for more tailored instructional planning.

5) Acceleration facilitates individual learning at an appropriate level of challenge (eg meets individual needs)

Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Templeton Foundation


Issues in Grouping & Acceleration

Grouping

• Timeframes for grouping

• Subject Areas

• Teacher qualifications

• Documentation of student growth

• Tailoring instruction

• Flexibility

• Type of grouping most beneficial for student & district

Acceleration

• Consider the degree of giftedness and specific aptitude(s)


• Program articulation

• “Natural” transition points

• Non-intellective characteristics

• Flexibility


A Nation Deceived: Meta-Analytic Findings

• Bright students almost always benefit from accelerated programs based on achievement test scores.

• When compared to same-age, intellectual peers, those students who were accelerated performed almost one grade level higher academically.

• When compared to older, non-accelerated students, the accelerated student performance was indistinguishable from that of bright, older non-accelerated students.


A Nation Deceived: Meta-Analytic Findings (cont.)

• Acceleration has the highest overall academic effects when compared to other provisions.

• Acceleration positively affects student’s long-term educational plans and accelerated students earn more advanced degrees.

• Self-esteem may temporarily drop when accelerated.• There are too few studies to make inferences about student

attitudes when accelerated and social-emotional well-being. However, most studies do suggest that acceleration does not prohibit students from participating in extra-curricular activities as desired.

» Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004


Some Types of Acceleration

• Early admission to kindergarten• Early graduation from High School• Grade-Skipping• Subject-Matter Acceleration• Curriculum Compacting• Telescoping Curriculum• Correspondence Courses• Advanced Placement Courses• Concurrent/Dual Enrollment• Credit by Examination

Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Templeton Foundation


Instructional Management and Acceleration Research

• Grade Skipping (ES=.49)• Curriculum Compacting (ES = .83)• Early Entrance to School (ES = .49)• Subject Acceleration (ES = .57)• Grade Telescoping (ES = .40)• Concurrent Enrollment (ES = .22)• AP Courses (ES = .27)• Early Admission to College (ES = .30)• Credit by Examination (ES = .59)

» Rogers, 1998


Issues in Acceleration

• Consider the degree of giftedness and specific aptitude(s)


• Program articulation

• “Natural” transition points

• Non-intellective characteristics

• Flexibility

• Unintended Consequences

• Pacing and Curriculum considerations

• Competing political philosophies


Enrichment


Why do we enrich?

• Most curriculum models ascribe to a broader conception of gifted (beyond domain specific)

• Proponents of enrichment approaches tend to see process skills (eg critical thinking, problem-based learning) as central to learning

• Enrichment models place high value on student products and performances

• Breadth over depth approach


Forms of Enrichment

• Focus on “thinking processes” in content areas• School-wide Enrichment Model (SEM) Renzulli &

Reis; contains 3 tiers of enrichment experiences driven by student interests and learning styles. Most widely adopted service delivery model employed in gifted programs (Type I, II, III)

• Competitions (OM, FPS, etc) are forms of enrichment

• Student products (where choice was provided)• Inquiry-based approaches


Issues with Enrichment

• Having enough resources to “broaden” a topic

• Teacher qualifications/training

• Teacher flexibility to broaden vs following a prescribed course of study-curriculum coverage

• Documenting student growth


Research Evidence

• Some evidence examining the use with under-served populations as an antidote to underachievement (Ford 1999; Johnsen, 2000)

• Two SEM longitudinal studies-students maintained career goals; teacher attitudes toward student work was positive


Acceleration and Enrichment

Accelerate First

Then Enrich


Program Provisions: Within School

• Full-time ability grouping• Special schools• Full-time gifted classes (school-within-a-school)• Cluster grouping• Pull-out grouping• Regrouping for instruction or ability grouping for instruction• Cross-grade grouping• Cooperative groups (based upon interest, ability, strengths)• Consultative model• Extracurricular enrichment options (OM, MathOlympiad..)


Grouping or Placement Options


Intensity of grouping placements

General Education

(heterogeneous)

Pull-out (enrichment)

Cluster (academic)

Self-contained (classrm each grade level)

Subject Grouping or

Joplin

Full-time centers/schools

Intensity of service delivery grouping placements


Grouping Models: Strengths & Weaknesses

(Academic Subject Grouping)Strengths

• Can accommodate a broad range of specific academic ability

• Honors uneven developmental patterns

• Allows ease of teacher planning of course syllabi & implementation

• Research support

• Typical model for secondary schools

Weaknesses

• May be limited by subjects and/or qualified student population

• May become diffused if other students are placed into class based upon insufficient numbers

• May not differentiate curriculum sufficiently

• Effect size is limited unless curriculum is differentiated



(Cluster Grouping)

Strengths• Full-time opportunity for

curriculum differentiation• Built-in peer group• Research support• Flexibility for teacher to

group and regroup based upon instructional need

Weaknesses• Tendency to teach whole

class and ignore cluster’s level of functioning

• Limits gifted peer interactions

• Requires teacher to develop and implement multiple instructional plans

• Must have minimum of 3-4 to be effective, fewer students lose effectiveness



(Pull-Out)Strengths

• Built-in opportunities for peer interaction

• Curriculum focus on in-depth, enrichment, or specific area of learning

• One instructional plan required

• Typically, teacher qualified in gifted education

• Limited research support

Weaknesses

• Limited contact time

• Fragmented from normal school day

• Lack of integration with district curriculum

• Minimizes interactions with peer group

• Part-time differentiation of curriculum

• Only “gifted” 1 hour/week



(Joplin Plan: Grouping by subject

across grade levels)

Strengths

• Accommodates level of learning regardless of age

• Allows for focused teaching

• Ensures content acceleration as a major mode of delivery


Weaknesses

• May not provide satisfactory peer group

• Limited to core content areas of curriculum

• Lack of teacher capacity to accelerate, or limited content expertise

• Scheduling difficulty (multiple grade levels)



(Full-Time Grouping: Center or School-based)

Strengths

• Ability to deliver a comprehensively differentiated program

• Intellectual peer group interactions

• Flexibility to group and regroup based on several variables


Weaknesses

• Political perceptions are more extreme

• Must have qualified teachers in gifted education (resource issue)

• Students may be geographical removed from home “community”

• Possible transportation issues


Research on Grouping Options

• Full-time Ability grouping (Centers)-Differential placement and treatment ES .49, .85

• Cluster grouping-Partial differential placement, differential

treatment ES .62, .33

• Mixed Ability cooperative groups -No differential placement or treatment ES 0

• Subject Grouping-Differential placement and treatment ES .34, .79

Rogers (2002), Kulik& Kulik (1992)


Research on Instructional Delivery: Instructional Processes

• Gifted students tend to use higher order thinking even without training, but benefit significantly from being trained

• Gifted students prefer a structured learning environment (desks, tables, etc) but open-ended tasks and assignments

• Academically gifted students tend to be uncomfortable taking risks or dealing with ambiguity; therefore a need for teaching divergent thinking and production exists

K. Rogers (2002)


Research on Instructional Delivery: Instructional Pacing

• The learning rate of children above 130 IQ is approximately 8 times faster than for children below 70 IQ

• Gifted students are significantly more likely to retain science and math content accurately when taught 2-3 times faster than “normal” pace

• Gifted students are decontextualists in their processing, rather than constructivists; therefore it is difficult to reconstruct “how” they came to an answer

K. Rogers (2002)Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 32

Check List for decision making

Grouping TeacherCapacity

Cost(H, M, L)

IDalignment

Localcontext/Politics

Availabilityof Resources

Other

Cluster

Pull-Out

SubjectGrouping


Contact Information

• Dr. Elissa F. Brown

[email protected]

Cell: (757) 593-2224


mailto:[email protected]

Data-based Decision Making: Tools for Determining Best Practices in Grouping and Service Delivery

Education

Transcript of Data-based Decision Making: Tools for Determining Best Practices in Grouping and Service Delivery