Experiencesof a Gifted and Talented Enrichment Cluster for Key Stage One pupils
Anne Morgan
Sheffield Hallam University, Centre for Education Research ()
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2006
Abstract
There has been an increased commitment to gifted and talented education in the UK in recent years, with a national strategy of grant funded programmes. However, concerns have been raised about the criteria used to identify children as gifted and talented and about the detrimental effects of withdrawing children from mainstream classes in order to attend gifted programmes. In addition, research into the effectiveness of gifted programmes is relatively limited.
This paper investigates parents', teachers' and children's experiences and views of the impact of a programme for gifted and talented pupils. Children nominated for the programme, an enrichment cluster for pupils aged five to seven (Key Stage One), were withdrawn from their mainstream classes for one afternoon per week. Methods included a survey of mainstream teachers (n=15), interviews with parents (n=17) and a variety of activities with pupils (between 16 and 24 children). Results showed that teachers were largely comfortable with their identification judgements. Children and parents rated the cluster highly, particularly the varied teaching and learning styles and opportunities for interaction with other gifted children. There were few concerns regarding withdrawal of children from mainstream school in order to attend. All parents felt that their children had benefited from attending the cluster and around half said there had been an impact on their social and academic development. Similarly, around half of mainstream teachers said attending the cluster had benefited children socially and academically.
Introduction
The education of 'gifted and talented' pupils is an area that has seen increasing attention in recent years. In the UK, a set of four grant-funded programmes have formed part of a national strategy; these include masterclasses, summer schools, independent/maintained school partnerships and one strand of the Excellence in Cities government initiative (Ofsted, 2001). More recently, the DfES has set out guidelines for effective provision for primary aged pupils, which advocate personalised education, tailored to the child's needs (DfES/NAGTY, 2006). Such provision may be offered in a wide range of formats, includingdifferentiation within mixed-ability contexts, enrichment, acceleration, curriculum compacting, grouping (ability grouping, co-operative learning groups, cluster grouping), mentorship and distance learning (Hewston et al., 2004).
Enrichment is an important part of gifted children's education in both the UK and the USA (White et al., 2003); it has been defined as the ‘broadening of the school curriculum to provide increased opportunities … for pupils to widen their experiences, extend their vision, improve the quality of their school experiences and increase their choices’ (Wallace & Pierce, 1992, p.64). Enrichment includes a wide range of activities, such as field trips and artistic creations, but may also refer to 'add-on' activities such as masterclasses and summer schools. Influential writers such as Renzulli (1997, 2000) have emphasised the importance of pupils coming together on a weekly basis to work co-operatively in 'enrichment clusters', in which 'authentic learning (is) applied to real-life problems' (Renzulli, 1997, p.1).
This paper explores parents', teachers' and pupils' experiences of one enrichment cluster for Key Stage Onepupils and investigates their perceptions of its impact. Implications for future policy, practice and research are also discussed.
The identification of gifted and talented pupils
There are a number of key issues for gifted and talented education that have received attention from researchers and are of interest to the current study. Firstly, it is important to clarify what is meant by 'gifted and talented'. The phrase was adopted by Excellence in Cities to define very able pupils; 'gifted' refers to pupils who achieve highly (in the top 5%) in one or more academic subject. ‘Talented’ refers to those achieving similarly highly in practical and creative areas/subjects, such as sport, music, visual arts and/or performing arts.
There has been concern that it can be very difficult to correctly identify gifted and talented children, and much critical debate around the criteria used to identify such pupilshas ensued (for example Brown et al., 2005; Lohman, 2005; Scott and Delgado, 2005). There is some evidence that teachers are not confident with identification procedures involving teacher observation and judgements(Welding, 1998). As a result, a number of researchers suggest that identification of children should be by multiple criteria (Freeman, 1998; Pocklington et al., 2002; Teare, 1997), such as teacher appraisal, standardised tests, rating scales and checklists (George, 1992).
A number of commentators have noted that high functioning children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) are often identified as gifted and talented (Donnelly and Altman, 1994; Rimland, 1995). Gifted children with autism ‘often possess a unique mixture of talents and deficits’ (Cash, 1999, p. 22); these children can be thought of as ‘twice-exceptional learners’ (Cash, 1999). Others have observed that some children with outstanding academic ability may show uneven development (Rotigel, 2003); for example, often their emotional development is average, leading some to suggest that gifted children experience an ‘internal dyssynchrony’ (Callahan, 1997; Lee, 2002). Because of this dyssynchrony, gifted children may find it difficult to find peers who share similar interests (Rotigel, 2003).
The education of gifted and talented pupils
Some have identified potential concerns regarding enrichment programmes, particularly where these is offered as 'pull-out' provision, that is, where children are taken out of their normal mainstream classes in order to attend (Montgomery, 2001; Hewston et al., 2005). It has been noted, for example, that able pupils who receive separate classes may feel isolated or different (Herzog, 2003; Wright & Leroux, 1997), and their withdrawal can cause problems with their peer-groups(Teare, 1997). One US study of gifted and talented pupils in grades 5 to 11 found that a small number of pupils preferred not to attend pull-out programmes, precisely because they were more challenging; they preferred mixed ability classes because they were easier and could attain higher class rankings with less work (Adams-Byers et al., 2004). Few have sought mainstream teachers' views of withdrawing pupils in order to attend gifted programmes.
A key issue for gifted and talented education is the effectiveness of the provision; this is usually conceptualised as the success of programmes in enhancing the academic attainment of pupils, although other outcomes, such as enhanced motivation, self-esteem and relationships should also be considered.There have been two prominent reviews of literature to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of gifted and talentedprovision (Hewston et al., 2005; White et al., 2003).Both conclude that there isa lack of empirical rigour in studies of gifted programmes, with the result that evidence based policy and practice is lacking. Similarly, a meta-analysis,of mainly US studies, reported that methodological standards were 'troubling' (Ziegler and Raul, 2000, p.113), with less than a quarter utilising control groups. One potential reason for the lack of empirical evaluations is the difficulty in incorporating rigorous methodological approaches in such studies; recruitment of large samples of gifted pupils is difficult due to the extremely small numbers of pupils fulfilling the 'gifted and talented' criteria among the general population (Ziegler and Raul, 2000).
Few have addressed the question of effectiveness through seeking parents' and teachers’ perceptions of impact, even though this may be a valid alternative to empirical research. Results from the few studies that have been conducted are promising; Olszewski-Kubilius and Lee (2004) found that parents felt their children's academic development had been enhanced through attending an enrichment programme in the US, possibly because pupils report activities in gifted programmes to be more engaging and stimulating than school activities Herzog (2003). A study of mainstream teachers found that those who were provided with information about an acceleration programme for gifted pupils expressed more positive opinions about pupils’ social competence and school achievement (Hoogeveen et al., 2005).
Rather more studies have reported benefits for gifted and talented provision in terms of attitudes to learning, as well as social and emotional benefits. In a longitudinal study of 70 pupils, Freeman (1991)acknowledged that it was difficult to ascertain whether the activities impacted upon children's academic development. She found that one of the most important outcomes of out-of-school enrichment activities, however, was that they allowed gifted pupils to be with like-minded children. Others have reported similar findings, with the outcome that there is a positive impact upon children's peer relationships (Cohen et al., 1994; Moon, 1995). Such relationships may also provide children with intellectual, social and emotional support(Hoover et al., 1993). Other benefits include a positive influence on self-esteem and motivation (Ofsted, 2001), self-image (Herzog, 2003; Wright & Leroux, 1997) pupil and teacher attitudes (Olenchak & Renzulli, 1989). Conversely, parents whose children had participated in an enrichment programme that ceased to operate, perceived that their children were experiencing a decline in energy, curiosity and motivation to achieve at high levels (Purcell, 1993).
We have identified asmall number of studiesthat have sought the perceptions of parents (Olszewski-Kubilius and Lee, 2004; Purcell, 1993), pupils(Adams-Byers et al., 2004; Sayler and Brookshire, 1993) and mainstream teachers (Hoogeveen et al., 2005) with regard to gifted programmes. These studies have yielded some important findings, and we contend that such views are important for the future development of gifted provision. Others agree that what is needed is more research which 'considers practitioners' and pupils' views on gifted education so that more appropriate targets are more likely to be created' (White et al., 2003, p7).
The majority of gifted programmes in the UK (for example, the Excellence in Cities initiative)have, up until recently, focused on secondary aged pupils, and a number of writers have commented that it is now necessary to build on policies and strategies aimed at improving skills and attitudes at an earlier stage (Kendall et al., 2005). The contention that gifted and talented pupils may be among the most underachieving in schools (DfES/NAGTY, 2006) has led some to call for prioritising gifted and talented provision for children much earlier; possibly before they enter school (Scott and Delgado, 2005).
The literature highlights a number of issues for future research. Few studies have investigated the impact of identifying young children (that is, lower primary) as gifted and talented and referring them to withdrawal programmes. Whilst there are difficulties in conducting empirical studies into the effectiveness of gifted programmes, there are other valid methods of assessing impact. Indeed, the perspectives of those most closely involved in such programmes have largely been overlooked, but we contend that these are important and should be considered in the development of such programmes.
The enrichment cluster
Cluster origins and rationale
The cluster aims to provide weekly enriched learning sessions for able children, particularly those who have difficulty coping school due to problems with socialisation or engagement. Children from Reception (aged 5 years) to Year 2 (aged 7 years) come together for one afternoon per week during term time, with the aim of enhancing their creativity, social/emotional development and their ability to work as part of a group.
The extent to which programmes are based on theoretical models is an important consideration which is all too frequently overlooked; one USsurvey investigating the extent to which teachers of gifted and talented programmes drew upon theoretical models for gifted education found that over half of teachers reported did not follow a theoretical framework (Bain et al., 2003). The cluster that is the subject of the current study used three influential theories in its development, and continues to apply these to its practice; they are Gardner's (1999) theory of multiple intelligences, Bloom's (1984) taxonomy of levels for intellectual behaviour and Renzulli's (1986) three-ring conception of giftedness.
Gardner's (1999) theory of 'multiple intelligences' contends that the traditional notion of intelligence, based on IQ testing, is far too limited. Gardnersuggests that every person possesses eight ‘intelligences’, which account for a much broader range of potential. These include linguistic intelligence, logical-mathematical intelligence, kinaesthetic intelligence, musical intelligence, spatial intelligence, interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence. Each person has their own unique blend of these intelligences. Schools generally tend to focus on linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences, although, Gardner argues they should pay equal attention to artists, musicians, dancers, athletes and designers. The theory of multiple intelligences fits well with personalised learning; that each child is different in their abilities, interests and how they learn.
Bloom (1984) devised a taxonomy of levels for intellectual behaviour in learning.This classification comprised three overlapping domains: the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective. Within the cognitive domain, six levels were identified: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. The third theory that underpins pedagogy and practice in the cluster has been developed specifically with respect to gifted learners. Renzulli (1986)contends that gifted behaviour consists of behaviours that reflect an interaction among three basic clusters of human traits - above average ability, high levels of task commitment, and high levels of creativity.
Cluster implementation
Children are identified as gifted and talented and referred to the cluster by their mainstream schools. The cluster covers six different subjects over the course of the academic year (one per half term); these are ICT, art, German, philosophy for children, music and science. At least one activity within each subject is geared 'toward the production of a product or service' (Renzulli, 1997); so, for example, in German, children spent five sessions working on and rehearsing a German play, and in the final session performed and filmed the play to take home on a CD for family and friends.
Theoretical frameworks, described above, are applied to the setting in a variety of ways; these include assessment measures used when children are nominated for the cluster, which are based on Renzulli’s (1986) three ring conception of giftedness; evaluation sheets which relate to Bloom's (1984) higher level thinking; and designing activities to address different areas of intelligence, as identified in Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (1999) by including opportunities for creative as well as academic development.
The cluster is supported by a large number of staff (at least six, including the cluster teacher). In the year of the study, the number of children attending the provision varied between 18 and 24. Children are transported to and from the cluster by minibus or taxi.
Research questions
(1) What are parents and teachers perspectives of G&T identification and children’s referral to the cluster?
We have seen, in the introduction, that there has been much critical debate around the identification of G&T children in recent years. What has received much less attention, however, is how parents and teachers perceive identification and whether teachers are confident with their own nominations (one study suggests that secondary school teachers are not). In particular, this study will seek to address teachers’ perspectives on their own identification judgements.
(2) What are perspectives on withdrawing children from school in order to attend the cluster?
A number of researchers have identified potential concerns regarding enrichment cluster provision, in which children are withdrawn from mainstream classes in order to attend. In particular, research suggests that older pupils may feel isolated or different and their withdrawal may cause social problems with their peers. However, little is known about the effects on younger children. In addition, researchers have tended to overlook teachers' views of pupils' regular withdrawal from lessons.
(3) How do children, parents and teachers perceive the cluster experience?
More research that considers the perceptions of parents, children and teachers is needed in the area of gifted and talented education. Studying such views contributes to our understanding of the meaning of programmes to parents and schools, although it is important to guard against potential sources of invalidity. Asking parents for their views 'makes researchers prey to being given selective, partial, filtered information' (Wolfendale, 1999: p.165). Interviews and surveys should be designed to make it easy for parents and teachers to voice critical views and to permit unexpected responses.
(4) Does the cluster have an impact upon children’s academic attainment or social development?
A number of studies which sought to address this issue from an empirical standpoint have proved methodologically weak, for example by not utilising control groups or using comparison groups that were very different from programme groups. The difficulty involved in conducting valid and reliablerandomised control trials of gifted programmes leads us to contend that alternative methods should be employed, such as seeking the perspectives of parents and teachers regarding impact.
Methods
Sample
The cluster catered for 18 children in September 2005; this had risen to its maximum capacity of 24 by July 2006, 12 of whom were boys and 12 girls. While the enrichment cluster is targeted at Key Stage One pupils, the majority (21 out of 24) were in Year 2 (that is, aged six and seven). Two of the remaining children were Year 1 pupils (aged five and six); one was of Reception age (five years). The majority of G&T children attending the cluster did not have social or emotional difficulties, although a third were on the special needs register with ASDs, social, emotional or behavioural problems.
Parent interviews
Seventeen parents were interviewed between February and March 2006. A total of 20 parents agreed to be interviewed, although it was not possible to contact three parents (after several unsuccessful attempts). The majority of respondents (14) were mothers and three were fathers.