[Ohiogift] Grouping the gifted and talented learner

Mon Feb 22 11:35:26 EST 2016

I think the University of Iowa studies ("How America's Schools hold back their brightest students"/nationdeceived.org) including their footnoted  research booklet with international researchers, have shot holes in the argument that mixed age groups are a problem for all gifted students - maybe for some, but not all.  You would think same age, mixed ability would be more frustrating or create more problems for most.   I think this study has been updated in recent years, according to a post on ohiogiftlist.  I  have had personal experience in my family across at least 3 generations for grade/class acceleration beginning in first grade.. if anything, I think we needed more not less class/grade acceleration.

Mary Collier

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Bohland via Ohiogift <ohiogift at lists.osu.edu>
To: ohiogift <ohiogift at lists.osu.edu>
Sent: Mon, Feb 22, 2016 5:42 am
Subject: Re: [Ohiogift] Grouping the gifted and talented learner

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 presentsan extensive article on grouping giftedand talented students. At more than 5,000 words, the study is re-presented bythe Davidson Institute and discusses the topic and addresses an array ofquestions. These include:
    What are possible groupingoptions to consider when grouping gifted learners?
    What are the academic effectsof these grouping options for gifted learners?
    What are potential social andpsychological effects of these grouping options?
    Are there some concerns weshould have about grouping gifted learners together?
    What might be the costs of notproviding grouping for gifted learners?

The introductory section of the article is pasted below, foryour convenience. To read the article in its entirety (a printer-friendlyversion 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

_______________________________________________
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/e37aa016/attachment.html>