Is Your School Using Best Practices for Instruction?

by Paula Olszewski-Kubilius, PhD

Gifted education, like many other educational fields, is often an unfortunate victim of “fads”—new instructional practices that promise to be the panacea for age-old problems. Teachers who are on the front line often do not have access or the time to digest research articles about the effectiveness of new instructional practices. But schools seeking to effectively serve gifted learners have a real need to know which practices, out of the many promoted as beneficial, have “proven” effectiveness for the advanced student.

Fortunately, there is a solid research base for many instructional practices that educators can use to design effective programs for gifted students:

The talent search model of identification
The Talent Search model has a very solid research base to support it (see the Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9 (3) 1998 ). This protocol, which is exemplified in the Northwestern University's Midwest Academic Talent Searches, involves a two-tiered system of identification: initial identification of gifted learners via on-level achievement test scores, followed by off-level testing using tests such as the SAT or ACT (EXPLORE or PLUS for younger students) matched to domains of ability (verbal or mathematical). Extensive research verifies the appropriateness of using the 95th percentile on in-grade achievement tests to identify children for further off-level testing; the validity of SAT or ACT in terms of predicting future performance in school and career; and the validity of SAT or ACT scores for selection into accelerated courses and programs. Talent Search testing has been implemented across the US and is available through CTD as well as through the Talent Identification Program of Duke University, the Rocky Mountain Talent Search at Denver University, and the Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University, and several state-specific programs. The university-based programs all offer additional educational opportunities to students who test through them including summer programs, distance learning, weekend classes, etc.

Nonverbal testing for minority students
Nonverbal tests of ability are better at identifying students of color who are gifted. Research has shown that tests such as the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) or the Ravens Progressive Matrices identify more children of color as gifted than traditional IQ tests and approximately equal these students’ representation in the school population (Sacuzzo, Johnson and Guertin, 1994). Yet, these tests are rarely used as special provisions in schools with high populations of minority children. School districts with large populations of minority students and/or students for whom English is a second language need to incorporate nonverbal testing into their identification protocol. Our research at the Center for Talent Development using the NNAT and Ravens suggests that nonverbal tests should be used in conjunction with other “traditional” tests to capture all students who need special services because of advanced abilities.

Homogenous grouping preferred to within-class cluster grouping
Given the current trend to serve gifted students within the regular classroom, research that investigates the effectiveness of this arrangement is significant. A very carefully done study by Marcia Delcourt and her associates (1994) compared full time special schools for the gifted, homogeneously grouped classes, pull out programs, and within-class cluster grouping. Compared to within-class clusters of gifted students and to gifted students receiving no services at all, the student in the special schools, homogenous classes, and pull-out programs showed substantially higher levels of achievement. Most importantly, the gifted student in the within-class clusters scored lower than gifted students receiving no programs. Also, the achievement of the non-gifted students who remained in the regular classroom did not suffer because of the removal or absence of the gifted students. The authors caution that unless done effectively, within-class cluster grouping can disintegrate into no programming at all for gifted students.

Another well-constructed study by Archambault and associates in 1993 investigated how teachers respond to the special needs of gifted students in their classrooms. Although the teachers in this study were very experienced, with an average of 10 years in the classroom, they made few real accommodations for gifted students and were no more likely to use special instructional techniques (such as differentiated assignments or pre-testing) with these students than with the non-gifted children in their classrooms.

Finally, sophisticated analyses across hundred of studies involving homogeneous grouping of gifted students shows that ability grouping or “homogeneous grouping” for acceleration or enrichment results in significant gains in achievement for gifted students (not so for other students). Additionally, full-time grouping with other gifted students has little effect on students’ self esteem (the “little fish is a big pond syndrome”); any negative effects are slight and transitory. Ability grouping for gifted students produces a moderate increase in positive attitudes toward the subjects studied (Kulik, 1992, Rogers, 1991).

Accelerative models
There is ample research to support accelerative practices for gifted children including fast-paced classes (Olszewski-Kubilius, 1998); early access to advanced content (Olszewski-Kubilius, 1998); early entrance into kindergarten or first grade (Cornell et al, 1991: Proctor et al, 1986), early college entrance (Olszewski-Kubilius, (1995), grade skipping (Rogers, 1991; Southern and Jones, 1991). Despite the substantial body of research supporting acceleration, acceleration—in any form—is rarely used in schools. This is primarily because of beliefs on the part of educators that acceleration is harmful to children’s social and emotional development. However, there is no solid research evidence that this belief is true.

Curriculum Compacting
The elimination of material that gifted children already know before instruction begins, a practice known as curriculum compacting, has been shown to be very effective with gifted learners. Specifically, Reis et al (1993) showed that with elementary and middle school children, elimination of as much of 50% of the regular content was not detrimental to gifted students’ achievement as assessed on off-level tests. In several content areas, gifted students who had received compacting scored higher than gifted students who had not. However, their teachers had difficulty choosing appropriate replacement activities for the time saved by curriculum compacting. This study suggests that teachers need training, continued support in the form of mentoring from master teachers, and additional instructional and curricular resources, in order to implement curriculum compacting effectively.

Finally, the most recent research is showing that when a good educational fit is achieved, gifted students’ mental health is comparable to that of non-gifted students. Many personality and social-emotional characteristics have been attributed to gifted children (including increased sensitivity, perfectionism, lack of social skills) that could put them at risk for good mental health development. However, researcher Maureen Neihart has shown that contrary to popular belief, gifted children are no more likely to be depressed or anxious compared to non-gifted children (Neihart, 1999). Similarly, children with very high IQ’s are not inherently less socially skilled compared to gifted children with lower IQ’s; rather, lack of social competence is associated with the lack of opportunity to interact with others of similar abilities and interests and is more likely with very high IQ children because of the frequent mismatch between their abilities and appropriate educational environments (Neihart, 1999).

Resources

Archambault Jr., F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Storrs, CT: The University of Connecticut.

Cornell, D. G., Callahan, C. M Bassin, L. El, & Ransay, Sl G. (1991). Affective development in accelerated students. In W. T. Southern and E. D. Jones (Eds.) The academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 74-101). New York; Teachers College Press.

Delcourt, M. A. B., Loyd, B. H., Cornell, D. G., & Goldberg, M. D. (1994). Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on student learning outcomes. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Storrs, CT: The University of Connecticut.

Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Research Based Decision Making Series. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

Neihart, M, (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say? The Roeper Review, 22 (11), 10-17.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1998). Research evidence regarding the validity and effects of talent search educational programs. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9 (3), 134-138.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1995). A summary of research regarding early college entrance. Roeper Review, 18 (2), 121-125.

Proctor, T. B., Black, K. N., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1986). Guidelines for early admission to elementary school. Psychology in the Schools, 25, 41-43.

Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. M., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, Fl, Hebert, T., Plucker, J., Purcell, J. H., Rogers, J. B., and Smist, J. M. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January? The curriculum compacting study. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Storrs, CT: The University of Connecticut.

Rogers, K. B. (1991).The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner. Research Based Decision Making Series. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

Sacuzzo, D. P., Johnson, N. E. & Guertin, T. L. (1994). Identifying underrepresented disadvantaged gifted and talented children: A multi-faceted approach. Volumes 1 and 2. ERIC Report 368095.

Southern, W. T. & Jones, E. D. (1991). The academic acceleration of gifted children. New York: Teachers College Press.