Presentation by Elissa F. Brown, PhD Rutgers University 2014 Gifted Education Conference

1. 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.
Elissabrown21@gmail.com
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 1

2. 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

3. 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.
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.
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 3

4. 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?
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 4

5. Characteristics of Giftedness
that 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
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 5

6. Characteristics of Giftedness
that impact instructional practices (cont.)
• 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• May become “bored”, withdrawn, isolated,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
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 6

7. Key Linkages of Special Education and General
Education in Program Development for the Gifted
Gifted
Education
General
Education
Special
Education
Curriculum
Evaluation
Instructional
Processes
Philosophy & Goals
Materials/Resources
Identification/Assessment
Program Administration
Grouping Strategies
Teacher Training
Advocacy
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 7

8. Decision Tree: Macro
Acceleration Enrichment
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 8

9. 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
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 9

10. 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)
• Teacher qualifications
• Program articulation
• “Natural” transition points
• Non-intellective
characteristics
• Flexibility
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 10

11. 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.
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 11

12. 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
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 12

13. 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
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 13

14. 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
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 14

15. Issues in Acceleration
• Consider the degree of giftedness and specific aptitude(s)
• Teacher qualifications
• Program articulation
• “Natural” transition points
• Non-intellective characteristics
• Flexibility
• Unintended Consequences
• Pacing and Curriculum considerations
• Competing political philosophies
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 15

16. Enrichment
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 16

17. 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
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 17

18. 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
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 18

19. 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
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 19

20. 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
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 20

21. Acceleration and Enrichment
Then
Enrich
Accelerate
First
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 21

22. 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..)
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 22

23. Grouping or Placement Options
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 23

24. 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
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 24

25. 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
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 25

26. Grouping Models:
Strengths & Weaknesses
(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
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 26

27. Grouping Models:
Strengths & Weaknesses
(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
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 27

28. Grouping Models:
Strengths & Weaknesses
(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
• Research support
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)
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 28

29. Grouping Models:
Strengths & Weaknesses
(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
• Research support
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
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 29

30. 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)
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 30

31. 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)
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 31

32. 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

33.  Check List for decision making
Grouping Teacher
Capacity
Cost
(H, M, L)
ID
alignment
Local
context/P
olitics
Availability
of
Resources
Other
Cluster
Pull-Out
Subject
Grouping
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 33

34. Contact Information
• Dr. Elissa F. Brown
elissabrown21@gmail.com
Cell: (757) 593-2224
Dr. E. Brown, Hunter College, New York 34