[Ohiogift] Grouping the gifted and talented learner

[Mark Bohland]

This article comes at a good time.  HELP!

Our district is asking the following questions, and I would appreciate any
insight/input from any here who have experience/understanding.

Let's assume that mathematically gifted students are identified at an early
age.
Assume also that they are then single subject accelerated.
The buildings are large enough that math classes can be coordinated so
these single subject accelerated students can simply walk across the hall
for math class with the math teacher in another grade level. Second graders
go to the third grade classroom for math etc.

When students get to 5th grade ... ready for 6th grade math they are being
served by a GIS in their own building rather than transporting them to a
Middle school.

So far all is well. --- However these questions have arisen - particularly
in terms of the 4th graders in a 5th grade classroom:

Is this really the best place for them?
Since there are not enough single subject accelerated students to fill a
class, the teacher still has typical students and possibly a few struggling
students in the same class. Can a teacher with this diverse classroom,
still meet the needs of gifted math students who are beginning to develop
confidence and fluency?
Can most teachers, not trained as a GIS recognize & meet the needs
particular needs of gifted students?

Since a GIS cannot effectively serve more than two buildings per day, would
it make sense for him/her to teach both 5th grade and 6th grade math (to
age-wise 4th & 5th graders)?

BIG QUESTION !!!!!
Does having the same group of gifted students studying math with the same
teacher for two years in a row, accrue any benefit to those students?

Thanks for your input.

Mark



On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Art Snyder via Ohiogift <
ohiogift at lists.osu.edu> wrote:

> Everyone:
>
> To group or not to group?
>
> In the Roeper Review, gifted expert *Karen B. Rogers presents an
> extensive article on **grouping gifted and talented students*. At more
> than 5,000 words, the study is re-presented by the Davidson Institute and
> discusses the topic and addresses an array of questions. These include:
>     *What are possible grouping options to consider when grouping gifted
> learners?*
> *    What are the academic effects of these grouping options for gifted
> learners?*
> *    What are potential social and psychological effects of these grouping
> options?*
> *    Are there some concerns we should have about grouping gifted learners
> together?*
> *    What might be the costs of not providing grouping for gifted
> learners?*
>
> *The introductory section of the article is pasted below*, for your
> convenience. To read the article in its entirety (a printer-friendly
> version is clickable), go here:
> http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10173.aspx
>
> Jean Kremer
> *(via Art Snyder)*
> ****************************************************
>
> *Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers*
> *Rogers**, K. B.*
> *Roeper Review*
> *Vol. 16, No. 1*
> *September 1993*
>
> This article by Karen B. Rogers offers a synthesis of the research on
> ability grouping. Rogers addresses five questions about the academic,
> psychological and socialization effects on gifted learners of grouping for
> enrichment, cooperative grouping for regular instruction and grouping for
> acceleration. She includes extensives answers for each.
> Five questions about the academic, psychological, and socialization
> effects on gifted and talented learners of grouping for enrichment,
> cooperative grouping for regular instruction, and grouping for acceleration
> are addressed. The conclusions drawn from 13 research syntheses on these
> practices, conducted in the past 9 years are described. In general, these
> conclusions support sustained periods of instruction in like-ability groups
> for students who are gifted and talented.
>
> Perhaps this title is presumptive: questions and answers. Certainly anyone
> can produce the questions educators have about the effects of grouping the
> gifted. But there must be some presumption in any one writer claiming to
> have the answers as well. Can one talk about differing group configurations
> without first clarifying the purposes for that grouping? For example, are
> we inquiring about grouping for enrichment or grouping for the
> acceleration of content, or grouping for effect? And when we ask about
> grouping the "gifted," in particular, are we referring to highly-able
> students (defined by some researchers as the top third of grade level
> performance) or are we talking about the gifted, defined as performing or
> capable of performing at extraordinary levels in specific ability domains?
> Even a cursory survey of recent articles reveals that these questions have
> not always been asked before answers about the grouping issue have been
> given.
> Why has ability grouping become such a big issue in the last 5 years? Why
> have so many well-intentioned educational researchers blamed ability
> grouping for the widespread ills currently plaguing American schools? As
> educational leaders have struggled to find the answer to our country's
> educational woes, we have seen the implementation of a plethora of whole
> group and cooperatively structured instructional strategies to be applied
> to heterogeneous groups of students, each guaranteed to solve our problems.
> Educators have learned how to implement Madeline Hunter's MP, Metra
> Companion Reading, group-based mastery learning, assertive discipline, and
> cooperative learning programs for what is believed to be the empirically
> supported betterment of all classroom learners, regardless of achievement
> or ability level.
> Elimination of ability grouping has hit the gifted education movement very
> hard. Joyce Van Tassel-Baska (1991) has suggested that grouping and
> cooperative learning issues may be even more damaging to gifted education
> than just losing opportunities for intellectual peers to learn together.
> These issues may, in fact, be diverting us, as well as general educators,
> from focusing on the curricular and instructional needs of gifted learners.
> Gifted educators are now confronted with shoring up the erosion of years of
> effort: fighting the loss of high ability reading or math groups, the
> elimination of gifted pull-out or resource programs of enrichment, and the
> removal of Advanced Placement and enriched or honors classes. There is
> little time left over for constructing innovative differentiation for their
> gifted and talented charges.
> The issue basically under debate-like-ability grouping versus
> mixed-ability grouping- has become a heated and emotional one. Both sides
> believe that whatever decisions they make are, of course, in the best
> interests of the majority of students. With the concern for "at risk"
> students of high priority nationally, educators continue to search for a
> method that will keep these students involved and successful in school. As
> Oakes (1990) and George (1988) have argued, all students, especially our
> "at risk" ones, must be given full access to the knowledge society
> considers "high status," if we are to ensure them choices for their
> futures. Unfortunately, this focus may have diverted needed attention from
> the majority of American students who have been well-served by our schools
> and from the minority who have been chronically underserved academically.
> Knowing that we will not be able to answer the larger questions that
> accompany these priorities, we should probably concentrate on the problem
> at hand-understanding the general effects of grouping and not grouping
> gifted learners. There are five major questions about grouping to consider,
> each of which this article attempts to answer:
> *What are possible grouping options to consider when grouping gifted
> learners?*
> *What are the academic effects of these grouping options for gifted
> learners?*
> *What are potential social and psychological effects of these grouping
> options?*
> *Are there some concerns we should have about grouping gifted learners
> together?*
> *What might be the costs of not providing grouping for gifted learners?*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ohiogift mailing list
> Ohiogift at lists.osu.edu
> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20160222/76948d4a/attachment.html>