Blog Archives

How to cater for gifted students – differentiating the curriculum. By Liana Chandler (Bach EC, M.T & M. Ed. Sp.)

25/11/2014

The purpose of differentiating the curriculum is to provide appropriate learning opportunities for gifted and talented students. Three important characteristics of gifted students that underscore the rationale for curriculum differentiation (Van Tassel–Baska, 1988) are the capacity to:

learn at faster rates
find, solve and act on problems more readily
manipulate abstract ideas and make connections.

What is curriculum differentiation?

Gifted students need the opportunity to work through the curriculum at a faster pace and need less time on basics and revision. A differentiated curriculum is a program of activities that offers a variety of entry points for students who differ in abilities, knowledge and skills. In a differentiated curriculum teachers offer different approaches to what students learn (content), how students learn (process) and how students demonstrate what they have learned (product).

Pre-testing

The creation of a differentiated curriculum requires some pre-planning. It is important to find out what the students already know and their level of skill attainment. There are different ways that students' prior knowledge can be determined, for example, brainstorming or producing a concept map or a series of questions on a test. These types of pre–tests can provide valuable information about individual differences in ability within the class. The curriculum can then be compacted to delete outcomes that have already been achieved if some students demonstrate mastery of them.

Curriculum models

A program should strive for the optimal match between learner capacity and level of experiences provided. Some children have greater facility with abstract thought, critical reasoning and meta–cognitive skills than others (Braggett et al., 1999). This means that to avoid underachievement a curriculum needs to be developed that will both challenge and stimulate students appropriately.

There are numerous models of curriculum differentiation that can be applied creatively to produce programs that provide flexibility and choice, for the range of individual differences in the classroom. These models show how content, teaching and learning processes and products can be fine-tuned to meet the needs of gifted students. The challenge is to use the models in a considered way to create exciting opportunities for gifted students.

Writing programs for gifted students

Gifted students can be catered to by providing extension and enrichment opportunities and through accelerative practices.

What are extension and enrichment?

Extension means providing opportunities at a greater level of challenge to the student. A combination of practices including acceleration, grouping and differentiation of the curriculum enable gifted students to access meaningful learning opportunities. Substantial gains in learning can be made when gifted students are grouped together and when they are accelerated but this can only be achieved if they have access to a developmentally appropriate curriculum ( Rogers , 2002).

Enrichment means providing breadth to the curriculum at the same level of challenge to the student. All students should have access to enrichment at the appropriate intellectual level. However, appropriate enrichment for gifted students would not be suitable for all students. This is because the activities would not match the learning needs of every student.

When creating programs for gifted students it is important to discover their current level of knowledge, skills and understanding. This means determining their level of achievement of learning outcomes. Some students may not have achieved a substantial number of outcomes at their stage level but may benefit from exposure to a more demanding curriculum. This means that outcomes need to be differentiated to cater for the need of a more abstract curriculum, a faster pace of learning and the ability to make connections across disciplines.

Students who have achieved substantially at their stage level should have the opportunity to access outcomes at higher stages. This needs to be made explicit and written into programs.

The learning environment

Environmental conditions are also important for gifted students to maximise learning. Teachers of the gifted devote less time to instruction and more time to questioning. They tend to ask many divergent questions and use questions to stimulate discussions and to understand thought processes. Most teachers rely heavily on feedback but some teachers of the gifted avoid doing this. They behave like counsellors: attentive and interested but not judgmental. This stimulates self–evaluation and reduces dependency on teacher reinforcement. Teachers of the gifted also control the classroom differently, using humour, non-verbal cues and unobtrusive ways of refocusing students' attention on tasks. There seems to be more equality among gifted students and teachers than among the general school population (Silverman,1988).

Bibliography

Anderson , L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J. & Wittrock,M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York : Longman.

Braggett, E., Morris, G. & Day, A. (1999). Reforming the middle years of schooling. Highett, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow Education.

Cochrane, P. (1992). Simpson and the donkey: The making of a legend. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Gross, M. U. M. (2000). Issues in the cognitive development of exceptionally and profoundly gifted individuals. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 179-192 ). New York: Pergamon.

Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re–forming gifted education: Matching the program to the child. Scottsdale: Great Potential Press.

Kaplan, S. N. (1993). The grid: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 180-193). Highett, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow Education.

Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Austin: Pro-Ed.

NSW Department of Education and Training. (2003) Quality teaching in NSW public schools: Discussion paper. Sydney .

Silverman, L. K. (1988). The gifted and talented. In E. L. Meyen & T. M. Skrtic (Eds.), Exceptional children and youth (3rd ed., pp. 263-291). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.

Tomlinson, C. A. & Allan , S. D. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools and classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Van Tassel–Baska, J. (1988). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. Boston, MA.: Allyn & Bacon.

Williams, F. E. (1993). The cognitive-affective interaction model for enriching gifted programs. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 461-484). Highett, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow Education.

1 Comment

How Teacher Expectations Can Affect Children’s Performances. By Liana Chandler (Bach EC, M.T & M. Ed. Sp.)

11/11/2014

0 Comments

The term "self-fulfilling prophecy" is apt because once an expectation develops, even if it is wrong, people behave as if the belief were true. By behaving this way, they can actually cause their expectations to be fulfilled. Self-fulfilling prophecies occur only if the original expectation was mistaken and a change was brought about in the student's behaviour as a consequence of the expectation.

Researchers have studied the ways in which teachers' beliefs about students affect their behaviour toward students. Some kinds of differential behaviour toward students who vary in their mastery of the curriculum are appropriate and productive. Giving some students more advanced material than others is clearly necessary when there is variability in student skill level, and students need different amounts and kinds of teacher assistance and attention. Nevertheless, most of the teacher behaviours described below, which have been shown to be associated with high versus low expectations, cannot be defended as appropriate accommodations to individual student needs.

Teacher Behaviour toward High- and Low-Expectation Students

Rosenthal (1974) divided teacher behaviour associated with high or low expectations into four categories: socioemotional climate, input, output, and affective feedback. Examples of each of the four categories are described below.

Socioemotional Climate

smiling and nodding
friendliness

Input

distance of seat from teacher
amount of teacher interaction
amount of information given to learn or problems to complete
difficulty and variability of assignments

Output

calling on during class discussions
providing clues, and repeating or rephrasing questions
wait time for student response to teacher question
level of detail and accuracy of feedback

Affective Feedback

amount of criticism
amount (and basis) of praise
pity or anger expressed for low performance

Some of these differential behaviours have direct effects on learning, and consequently widen the gap between relatively low- and high-achieving students. For example, students who are given more opportunities to learn, more clues, and who are called on more frequently should learn more than students who are given fewer such opportunities. Other teacher behaviours, such as those affecting the social-emotional climate or affective feedback, influence learning indirectly by affecting students' own beliefs about their competencies, their expectations for success, and consequently their effort and other achievement behaviours.

Teachers may also develop closer relationships with children who are high-achievers. Students like Safe Sally are often seen as easier to teach; they typically present fewer behavioural problems, and they may be more oriented toward pleasing the teacher. A positive, respectful relationship with the teacher gives students the sense of security they need to be active participants in class, ask questions, and seek challenges-which in turn promote learning. Teachers are less likely to develop a close relationship with Alienated AI, even though such a relationship might make a substantial difference in his attachment to school.

Teachers vary greatly in the degree to which they treat low- and high-expectancy students differently, and also in the nature of their differential treatment. Some teachers pay more attention to high-expectancy students, and some teachers engage in "compensatory" behaviours, focusing more on low-expectancy students.

Even behaviours designed to provide extra support for low-expectancy students, however, can undermine learning. First, such compensatory behaviour is sometimes accompanied by subtle negative behaviours or expressions. Babad (1992) found that teachers often displayed negative emotions (e.g., hostility, tenseness, anxiety, condescension), while they invested greater time and attention to relatively low-achieving students. Second, low-performing students can interpret teacher behaviour that is meant to protect their feelings or to help them learn as evidence of their low competence, and this in turn lowers their own expectations and effort. Behaviour reflecting teachers' best intentions, ironically, can do the most harm.

Well-Meaning but Counter-Productive Teacher Behaviours

Consider, for example, the research on pity and anger. Children as young as six years understand that anger is aroused when another's failure is attributed to controllable factors, such as lack of effort, and by about the age of nine years children understand that pity is aroused when another's failure is perceived to be caused by uncontrollable causes. Graham (1984a) demonstrated in an experiment that expressing pity or sympathy, which is usually meant to protect students' feelings about themselves, can actually have the opposite effect. In her study an experimenter expressed either mild anger or sympathy to children who had experienced failure. Children who had the sympathetic experimenter were more likely to attribute their failure to a lack of ability than children who had an angry experimenter. The latter were more likely to attribute their failure to a lack of effort. Children who received sympathy also had lower expectations for success in the future than children who received an angry response from the experimenter. By simply expressing an emotion, the experimenter influenced children's perceptions of the cause of their failure and their expectations regarding future outcomes. And the sympathetic emotion had the more negative effects.

This process can be illustrated by a teacher's likely responses to Santos and Hannah for turning in a math assignment that is only half completed. Santos' teacher, believing that he is capable of finishing the task, attributes the incomplete paper to his typical half-hearted effort. With an exasperated voice, the teacher threatens Santos with punishment: "If you don't finish your assignment tomorrow, you'll stay after school until it is finished." Santos knows that the teacher is angry because she assumes that he didn't exert much effort and could have finished the assignment if he had tried. The teacher's emotional response, therefore, serves to reinforce Santos' confidence in his ability.

A different reaction might occur in Hannah's case. Her teacher is likely to believe that she is unable to do any better, and might sympathetically tell her not to worry about not being able to complete that task. Hannah interprets the teacher's sympathy as evidence of the teacher's low perceptions of Hannah's competence, thus reinforcing her own doubts about her ability to do the assigned work.

Findings on the effect of teachers' emotions are particularly relevant to student populations that are often viewed as having low competencies, such as learning-disabled students. In fact, one study found that teachers expressed more pity and less anger for children described as having a learning disability than for children who exerted the same effort and had the same outcome but were not given the LD label (Clark, 1997).

A related counter-intuitive finding concerns the effect of praise. In some circumstances there appear to be negative side effects of praise, at least for older children and adults. Praise for successful performance on an easy task can be interpreted by a student as evidence that the teacher has a low perception of his or her ability. As a consequence, it can actually lower rather than enhance self-confidence. Criticism following poor performance can, under some circumstances, be interpreted as an indication of the teacher's high perception of the student's ability.

Praise and criticism can have these paradoxical effects because of their link with effort attributions, and because people perceive effort and ability to be inversely related. Recall that if two students achieve the same outcome, the one who tried harder is judged by children over the age of about eleven years as lower in ability. Research has shown, accordingly, that children approximately (but not below) the age of 11 rate a child who was praised by the teacher as lower in ability than a child who was not praised, and they rate a child who was criticized as higher in ability than a child the teacher did not criticize.

The potential for negative effects of praise and positive effects of criticism on children's self-confidence was also shown in a naturalistic study by Parsons et al. (1982). They found in the 20 fifth- to ninth-grade mathematics classrooms they observed that the amount of criticism of the quality of students' work was positively related to students' self-perceptions of their math ability and future expectations, unless the criticism was in reaction to a student-initiated question. Praise related to work was positively associated with math self-concept for boys but not for girls. The researchers concluded that teachers who believe they should avoid criticism and give praise freely overlook the power of the context and of students' interpretations of the meaning of the message. They suggest that well-chosen criticism can convey as much positive information as praise.

Helping behaviour can also give students a message that they are perceived as low in ability, and it can undermine the positive achievement-related emotions associated with success. Meyer (1982) describes a study by Conty in which the experimenter offered unrequested help either to the subject or to another individual in the room working on the same task. Subjects who were offered help claimed to feel negative emotions (incompetence, anger, worry, disappointment, distress, anxiety) more, and positive emotions (confidence, joy, pride, superiority, satisfaction) less than subjects who observed another person being helped. Graaham and Barker (1990) report that children as young as six years rated a student they observed being offered help as lower in ability than another student who was not offered help.

Again, an attributional analysis explains the effect of help on ability judgments and emotional reactions. Research has shown that in a variety of contexts people are more likely to help others when their need is perceived to be caused by uncontrollable factors, such as low ability, than when their need is attributed to controllable factors such as insufficient effort. This was shown in a classroom study by Brophy and Rohrkemper (1981), in which teachers expressed a greater commitment to helping "problem" students when the causes of need were presumed to be uncontrollable, such as low ability or shyness, than when the problems were attributed to controllable factors, such as lack of effort.

There are many other ways teachers can unintentionally communicate low expectations. Good and Brophy (1978) describe the behaviour of a physics professor who believed that females have difficulty with physics. To avoid embarrassing them, he never called on them to answer a mathematical question or to explain difficult concepts. He also showed his concern by looking at one of the girls after he introduced a new point and asking, "Do you understand?" (p. 75). Such "helpful" behaviour undoubtedly gave the females in the class a clear negative message about the teacher's perception of their competencies. I observed another example of a teacher unintentionally conveying low expectations in a fifth-grade classroom. The teacher exclaimed happily to a student who completed a math problem at the board, "Scott, I didn't think you'd get that!" I believe she meant the comment as praise, but the message that she expected him to fail was clear.

Ability Grouping and Tracking

Although ability grouping can help teachers differentiate instruction, simply assigning a student to a group can create a self-fulfilling prophesy. Even though teachers are usually responsible for students' reading group placement, there is evidence that by the end of the year the placement itself predicts teachers' as well as parents' perceptions of students' competencies, over and above the effect of students' initial skills. Weinstein (1976) found that the reading group to which students were assigned explained 25 percent of the variance mid-year achievement over and above the students' initial readiness score. Henk and Melnick (1998) found also that reading group assignment was frequently referred to by elementary school age children when asked questions about how they evaluated their reading ability. That ability grouping is used more frequently for reading than for math instruction may explain why some studies find that teacher expectations have a stronger impact on reading achievement than on math achievement.

Ability group placement affects learning in part because teachers often perceive all members of a group as equivalent, despite the considerable variation that usually exists within groups. Because teachers' expectations are influenced by group placement itself, they often do not monitor individual progress as much as they should, and they do not adjust instruction or move a student to another group when the student would benefit from different instructional input.

A second problem with ability grouping is that teachers vary the nature and pace of instruction between groups more than is necessary or appropriate. In general, studies find that students in high level reading groups receive more effective instruction than students in low level reading groups. Reading lessons for higher groups have been observed to be more loosely structured, to involve more meaningful questions and opportunities to connect reading to personal experiences, and to be more fun. Decoding skills, rather than meaning, are often stressed more with the "low" group.

Similarly, there is evidence indicating that students in low tracks are taught differently than students in high tracks. Again, some differences, such as the pace of the curriculum, may reflect appropriate accommodations to students' learning styles. But many differences in teacher behaviour toward students are unnecessary and constrain the achievement of students in the low track.

Consider, for example, Oakes' (1990) analysis of survey data from 6,000 math and science classes in 1,200 elementary, junior high, and senior high schools in the United States. Teachers of low-ability math and science classes claimed to emphasize students' own interests less than other teachers. They also put less emphasis on developing inquiry skills and problem solving, developing skills in communicating math and science ideas, and preparing students for further study in math and science. She reports, furthermore, that in secondary schools, students in low-ability track science and math classes spent more time engaged in solitary seatwork, doing worksheets and taking tests or quizzes, than did students in high-ability track classes. In science classes they spent less time engaged in hands-on activities and more time reading. In a previous study, Oakes and Goodland (1985) found that teachers of high-track classes more often included competence and autonomous thinking among the most important curricular goals for students.

Further research suggests that students in different tracks experience differences in teachers' behaviour. Vanfossen, Jones, and Spade (1987), for example, report from national survey data that college-track students were more likely than other students to describe their teachers as patient, respectful, clear in their presentations, and enjoying their work. These differential behaviours are not necessary, and they undoubtedly exacerbate the existing differences between high and low achievers.

0 Comments

What does it mean by Literal, Inferential and Applied Comprehension? By Liana Chandler (Bach EC, M.T & M. Ed. Sp.)

3/11/2014

2 Comments

Lately I have been getting a lot of enquiries regarding comprehension skills. The main theme all of these enquires follow are their child is struggling with comprehension, how can they help them. It is very important to know exactly what type of comprehension they appear to be struggling with and most parents are not informed of this. I have put together this information in the hopes of making this area a little clearer.

Comprehension is, understanding what is being said or read. When it comes to reading, it is an active process that must be developed if a learner is to become a proficient reader. Effective reading skill development is further accomplished when the learner becomes proficient in literal, inferential and applied comprehension.

Literal comprehension involves what the author is actually saying. The reader needs to understand ideas and information explicitly stated in the reading material. Some of this information is in the form of recognising and recalling facts, identifying the main idea, supporting details, categorizing, outlining, and summarizing. The reader is also locating information, using context clues to supply meaning, following specific directions, following a sequence, identifying stated conclusion, and identifying explicitly stated relationships and organizational patterns. These organizational patterns can include cause and effect as well as comparison and contrast. For example, some questions and activities may include:

1. What words state the main idea of the story?
2. How does the author summarize what she/he is saying?
3. Outlining the first paragraph of the story.
4. What happened first, second and last?
5. How are these things alike? How are they different?
6. What things belong together?

Inferential comprehension deals with what the author means by what is said. The reader must simply read between the lines and make inferences about things not directly stated. Again these inferences are made in the main idea, supporting details, sequence, and cause and effect relationships. Inferential comprehension could also involve interpreting figurative language, drawing conclusions, predicting outcomes, determining the mood, and judging the author’s point of view. The following questions are usually asked:

1. What does the author value?
2. What is the theme?
3. What effect does this character/event have on the story?
4. How do you think this story will end?

Applied comprehension concerns itself with why the author says what he or she says. This high level of comprehension requires the reader to use some external criteria from his/her own experience in order to evaluate the quality, values of the writing, the author’s reasoning, simplifications, and generalizations. The reader will react emotionally and intellectually with the material. Because everyone's life experiences are varied, answers to some of the following questions will vary:

1. Could this possibly happen?
2. Is this argument logical?
3. What alternatives are there?
4. Is this a fact or an opinion?
5. Do you agree or disagree with the author?
6. What is the best solution to this problem?

To conclude, literal, inferential and applied comprehension is what makes a skilled, strong reader. This skill must be learned and developed. It does not just happen. With that thought in mind, it has also been shown that strong readers make good writers. Sustained exposure to the English language does allow for an expanded vocabulary and knowledge of correct grammar usage. When this is combined with literal, inferential and applied comprehension, it enables writers to better express themselves.

2 Comments

About ALA

The Australian Literacy Academy (ALA) is a private English tutoring centre in Castle Hill, NSW dedicated to helping children of all levels and spectrums reach their full potential in the area of literacy: reading, writing, spelling, comprehension and speaking and listening.

How to cater for gifted students ­– differentiating the curriculum. By Liana Chandler (Bach EC, M.T & M. Ed. Sp.)

How Teacher Expectations Can Affect Children’s Performances. By Liana Chandler (Bach EC, M.T & M. Ed. Sp.)

What does it mean by Literal, Inferential and Applied Comprehension? By Liana Chandler (Bach EC, M.T & M. Ed. Sp.)

About ALA

Archives

Categories

How to cater for gifted students – differentiating the curriculum. By Liana Chandler (Bach EC, M.T & M. Ed. Sp.)