admin ppt 2014 leading change - vanderbilt university•...
TRANSCRIPT
7/15/14
1
Leading Change: Designing Effec6ve Programs and Services for Gi?ed Learners
Vanderbilt Programs for Talented Youth Peabody College
Vanderbilt University
Tamra Stambaugh, PhD Megan Parker-‐Peters, PhD, NASP
Agenda
• The state of gi?ed educa6on: Where are we as a na6on?
• How do we best iden6fy gi?ed students? • How do we create exemplary programs for gi?ed students?
• What does effec6ve curriculum and instruc6on look like?
• How do we measure progress?
Common Myths in Gi?ed Educa6on
• Accelera'on op'ons such as early entrance, grade skipping, and early exit tend to be harmful for gi:ed and talented students.
• Gi:ed students are less emo'onally and socially adjusted than the general popula'on.
• A combina'on of RTI, the Common Core State Standards and differen'a'on will meet the needs of gi:ed students.
• Gi:ed students make everyone else in the classroom smarter by providing a role model.
• High school student’s needs are met through AP, IB, and honors courses.
• All children are gi:ed.
7/15/14
2
Current/Ongoing Discussion in Gi?ed Educa6on
• Equity vs Excellence • Human Capital Investment
– Na6onal Economic Advancement • GNP and Economics
– Na6onal Security and Sustainability • The Achievement/Excellence Gap • Talent Iden6fica6on vs Development
Some may not make intended gains.
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3 4 5 6 7 8
Student AStudent BStandard
We must expect progress for all students. --Value Added Assessment: Battelle for Kids, 2005
Student A
Student B
Proficient
Na6onal Reports • 5% of academically advanced students get one-‐one a]en6on from
their teacher • NAEP performance of our na6on’s top students is “languid” • Advanced students make minimal gains in math and reading over
6me– especially when compared to students in the bo]om 10% -‐ who are making steady gains.
» High Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB
• The majority of US students could and should be doing college-‐level work by age 16 when compared to the levels of work from other na6ons
» Na6onal Center on Educa6on and the Economy, 2006/Tough Choices
• TN is ranked 43rd of 50 states based on the highest percentage gap between those of poverty and wealth on the NAEP, 2011 grade 4 math
• In TN, less than 5% of students score advanced on the NAEP (bo]om ¼ of state for their advanced learners)
» Talent on the Sidelines, 2013
7/15/14
3
Federal Educa'on Budget 2007
h]p://nagc.org.442elmp01.blackmesh.com/sites/default/files/key%20reports/2014%20Survey%20of%20GT%20programs%20Exec%20Summ.pdf
Gi?ed Students Perform Well on College Entrance Exams Earlier Yet Spend 90% of Time in General Educa6on
Classrooms With Li]le to No Differen6a6on (NAGC, 2011)
• Studies demonstrate that the IQ and test scores of those within the top ten percen6le had a decisive effect on GDP and STEM achievement compared with na6onal IQ. – an increase of one IQ point per person in the intellectual class raises average per capita GDP by US $468 compared with only $229 by those from the mean group.
– (Gelade 2008; Rindermann and Thompson 2011).
» Eng, N. In Society (May/June 2013, Vol. 50, Issue 3)
7/15/14
4
• Hanushek and Woessmann’s (2009) calcula6ons suggested that the top 5 % of students who increased their interna6onal scores by ten percentage points would have over four (mes greater impact on a na6on’s annual economic growth compared with those at the basic literacy level (1.3 vs. 0.3 percentage point annual growth, respec6vely).
• Taken together, these studies suggest that the current lack of investment in academically high-‐poten'al students, par'cularly in the STEM fields, will have consequences for the U.S. economy. NCLB’s current focus on low-‐achievers is admirable but outdated in a global and technological world. More resources are needed to accurately iden'fy and rigorously develop academically high poten'al students, especially those who may have certain disadvantages such as a language barrier.
• Eng, N. In Society (May/June 2013, Vol. 50, Issue 3)
Components of Effec6ve Programs
Student Area of Talent
Accelerated Curriculum
and Instruc6on
Effec(ve Program and
Placement
Personnel Prepara6on
Use of Data and Assessment
Best Prac6ces in Iden6fica6on
7/15/14
5
Best Prac6ces: Assess Your System
Iden'fica'on allows us to find and provide
talent development interven'ons for students who have advanced poten'al in one or more areas when compared to those of similar age,
grade, or background.
Generaliza(on #1: Mul(ple Measures, Mul(ple Opportuni(es and Mul(ple Qualified Persons Are Needed
for a Fair and Equitable ID Process Tradi6onal
• Intelligence tests • Achievement tests • Ap6tude tests (domain
specific) • Grades • Teacher
recommenda6ons
Nontradi6onal • Non-‐verbal ability tests • Crea6vity tests • Student poroolios • Out-‐of-‐Level • Performance by audi6on • Performance-‐based
assessment • Parent/peer/community
recommenda6ons
Tradi(onal Assessments Need Appropriate Interpreta(on by Knowledgeable Individuals
• Tradi6onal IQ measures: provide assessments of verbal, reasoning, processing, memory – WISC, Stanford Binet, KABC – Important that psychologist is knowledgeable of giPed students’ score paRerns • GAI • WISC Processing Speed
– May require more background knowledge to show advanced abili6es (culture loading)
• Out of Level Tes6ng Reduces Ceiling Effects – especially for highly gi?ed students – SAT/ACT/Explore
7/15/14
6
Iden(fica(on: How To Find More At-‐Risk Students • Nonverbal measures or Subtests on Full Ba]ery IQ Assessments are best used for students with limited English proficiency, underachievers, and SOME students of poverty, and culturally diverse students – Nonverbal Ability Assessments: UNIT, Leiter, TONI
• Group Assessments: Subtests on Cogni6ve Abili6es Test; Naglieri controversy
• Individual KBIT as a brief screener found more students of poverty than the UNIT in our study
• Cross-‐ba]ery Assessments are best for 2e or when you want to focus assessment on specific areas of cogni6on – Take subtests from several assessments so that more data can be provided on key areas
Equitable Iden6fica6on • 20% Rule Equity Index
– X% of students by race/ethnicity/poverty in the district x .80 = amount that should be iden6fied within the district
• Office of Civil Rights Website: h]p://ocrdata.ed.gov/ Ford (2013). Recrui6ng and retaining culturally different students in gi?ed educa6on. Waco: Prufrock Press. (**Nominated for 2014 NAACP Image Award for Literature-‐Instruc6on**)
Performance-‐Based Assessments find 17-‐23% more poor and culturally diverse students
• Emphasize problem solving and advanced thinking, not prior learning, open-ended, emphasize thinking process
• Tear apart the numbers on the paper strip that you have been given: 1, 5, 6, 4, 12, and 8. Use some or all of the first five numbers to get an answer of 8. You may change the order of the numbers and you may use addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division. Show all the solutions you can find: Using 3 numbers: Using 4 numbers: Using 5 numbers:
• Source: VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Avery, L. (2002). Using performance tasks in the identification of economically disadvantaged and minority gifted learners: Findings from Project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 110-123.
7/15/14
7
Group Ac6vity
• Use group scores to determine which students you should refer.
Generaliza(on #2: Different Students Need Different Tests at
Different Times – No One Magic Test or Window for Assessment
IQ >=120
IQ >=130
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent District Identified Gifted
94 37.2% 29 45.4%
Athena Identified Gifted
159 62.8% 35 54.6%
Total 253 100% 64 100%
Generaliza(on #3: Be Inclusive, not Exclusive
Use Local Norms
Screen (Individual, Whole Grade Assessment at Key Times, Referral, Mul6ple Criteria) Lower Threshold Inclusive not Exclusive
Iden6fy using Mul6ple Measures Gather more informa6on: Checklists, observa6ons, work samples that show thinking and reasoning abili6es, completed projects LOCAL NORMS FOR IDENTIFICATION – BUILDING NORMS IF LARGE DISTRICT WITH VARIED POPULATION
Match Service to ID Appropriate Placement and Interven6on Matched to Student Iden6fica6on and Talent Development
7/15/14
8
Generaliza(on #4: Use Valid and Reliable Measures for Assessment; Provide Training
• Checklists are not as accurate of a measure if teachers have not been provided with specific training on the tool; they are also long, subjec6ve, and not as likely to be turned in; may miss large underrepresented popula6ons
• Teacher and district-‐based items need to be piloted and analyzed for reliability and validity
• Teachers need professional development on how to iden6fy gi?ed students in their school/classroom – including underrepresented popula6ons (2E, culturally diverse, poor, crea6ve)
Checklists and Scales Instruments supported by SOME research
– Scales for Iden6fying Gi?ed Student (SIGS) – Gi?ed Ra6ng Scales (GRS-‐S/P) – Gi?ed Evalua6on Scales – 2 (GES-‐2 now 3) – Scales for Ra6ng the Behavioral Characteris6cs of Superior Students (SRBCSS)
– Gentry, Peters, Paeria, 2010
Case Study Ac6vity
• Your superintendent has just informed you that your district will be using RTI to iden6fy and serve gi?ed students.
• Using your knowledge about best prac6ces for iden6fica6on of gi?ed students, consider how your district will now find and serve gi?ed students.
• With a partner or small group, discuss the implica6ons of using RTI with gi?ed students in your district.
7/15/14
9
Program Design and Service Delivery
Rate Your District/Building
Gi:ed students are not all alike. They vary in respect to general ability, domain specific-‐ap'tude, interests, predisposi'ons, mo'va'on and personality. Thus one program or service is insufficient to respond to their diverse learning needs. J. VanTassel-‐Baska
Quali6es of Exemplary Gi?ed Programs • Well-‐ar6culated goals/outcomes/policies • Curriculum alignment and adapta6on to standards
– Scope and Sequence/ver6cal alignment, K-‐12 – Accelerated, Research-‐Based Curriculum – Appropriate Instruc6onal Strategies – Daily Services
• Well ar6culated procedures and organiza6onal arrangements – Grouping -‐ MANAGEMENT – Accelera6on -‐ INSTRUCTION
• Tied to the general school emphases with modifica6ons • Ongoing communica6on of stakeholder groups • Inclusive of school popula6on • Con6nuum of services, K-‐12
7/15/14
10
Consider Your Program
• What is your philosophy of gi?ed? • What are the goals of your program? • How do you measure progress of your goals? • How do your goals match student iden6fica6on? • What conceptual framework or model suits your philosophy, goals, and frameworks?
• How do students matriculate and accumulate knowledge in gi?ed programs, K-‐12?
PHILOSOPHY, GOALS, AND PROGRAMMING SHOULD BE ALIGNED AND BASED UPON A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Renzulli and Three-‐Ring Concept of Gi?ed, 1972
§
Task Commitment
Above Average Ability
Creativity
Kids will not exhibit gifted behaviors at all times, Type I, II, III
7/15/14
11
Gagne’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent, DMGT1986
PERSONALITY
Autonomy Self-‐Confidence Self Esteem, etc.
SIGNIFICANT FACTORS Persons Places
Interven6ons Events Chance
GIFTEDNESS Aptitude Domains Intellectual { Creative { Socioaffective { Sensorimotor { Others {
___ ___ ___
___ ___ ___
___ ___ ___
___ ___ ___
___ ___ ___
MOTIVATION Initiative Interests
Persistence
ENVIRONMENTAL CATALYSTS
INTRAPERSONAL CATALYSTS
TALENT
Fields of Talent (sample)
Arts Athletics & Sports
Business & Commerce Communications Crafts & Trades
Education Health Services
Science & Technology Transportation
Learning/Training/Prac'ce
Sample Gi?ed Program Goals
• To provide mastery of basic content at a pace and depth appropriate to the capacity of able learners
• To promote cri6cal thinking and reasoning abili6es • To provide an environment that encourages divergent thinking • To develop high-‐level oral and wri]en skills • To develop research skills and methods • To enhance opportuni6es for future planning and development • To develop an understanding for systems of knowledge, themes,
issues, and problems that frame the external world • To understand themselves, their abili6es, and steps needed in
career and social/emo6onal development
Curriculum Goal n To develop critical
thinking n To develop creative
thinking
n To develop research skills
n To understand broad
overarching interdisciplinary concepts
Teaching Strategy Ø Paul model of
reasoning Ø Questioning model
Ø Concept mapping Ø Creative problem
solving model Ø W&M research model Ø Problem-based learning Ø TABA model for
concept development
7/15/14
12
Sample curriculum goal: To develop critical thinking Sample outcomes and objectives • Analyze different points of view on a given issue • Draw appropriate inferences, given a set of data
• Forecast consequences and implications of a given decision or action
Center for Gifted Education The College of William and Mary
Sample Assessment
Outcome: • Analyze different points of view on a given issue or topic
Assessment: • Given the issue of human cloning, iden6fy three different
stakeholders in society who would have different perspec6ves on this issue. Summarize each of their perspec6ves in a paragraph.
Designing Appropriate Programs
Iden6fy Areas of Student Talent and Advanced Func6oning
Provide A Variety of Placement Opportuni6es to Maximize Poten6al
Provide Accelerated Curriculum/ Instruc6on
Measure Progress and Growth to Determine Next Steps
7/15/14
13
Instruc6on vs Program Design
Compac6ng – Differen6a6on-‐Grouping = Higher Level Ques6ons Accelerated Curriculum
Cri6cal Thinking Crea6ve Thinking Issue-‐Based Study Advanced Concepts
Pacing Whole to Part
Pull Out Cluster Grouping
Self-‐Contained Classes In-‐Class Differen6a6on Flexible Skill Groups
Groups School Within A School
Special School
Posi6vely impact gi?ed student learning when
effec6vely used
together
Most Common Service Delivery/Grouping Op6ons
• Cluster Grouping with In-‐Class Differen6a6on • Pull-‐Out • School Within A School • Self-‐Contained by Subject Area • School for the Gi?ed
Combina6ons of Op6ons Listed Above Based on Flexible, Skill-‐Based Grouping
Types of Grouping Arrangements for Gi?ed Students
• Within class by subject areas • (ES =. 34 with pre-‐assessment and accelera6on)
• Cross grade by subject areas (ES = .45) • Clustered in one classroom (ES = .62) • Special classes organized around accelerated and/or enriched curriculum
(ES = .65 if content related) • Full6me self-‐contained classes delivering an integrated comprehensive
curriculum (ES = .49 – elementary; .33 -‐ secondary) Rogers, 1998
7/15/14
14
Cluster Grouping Placement One to Five Method
Gifted High Middle Low Very Low
8 8
0 8
14 14
8 0
0 8 8
14 14
8 8
0
0 8 14 14
0 8
8 8
Considera6ons for Grouping
• Timeframes for grouping • Subject Areas • Teacher qualifica6ons • Documenta6on of student growth • Tailoring instruc6on • Flexibility • Type of grouping most beneficial for student & district
Review the Handout
• Which models will work best in your school/building?
• What steps can you take to ensure the non-‐nego6ables are met?
• How can you jus6fy this model given your popula6on of gi?ed students?
7/15/14
15
GENERALIZATIONS Placement is only as
good as the accelerated curriculum and
instruc6on provided.
Grouping/placement on its own is not a SERVICE
or appropriate accommoda6on.
Goodness of fit for the student and the school
environment are important.
There is no one right or wrong service delivery
op6on – mul6ple op6ons should be
considered.
Gi?ed students need appropriate challenge and interac6on with like peers daily.
THINKING ABOUT CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION FOR THE GIFTED
Research on Instruc6onal Delivery: Instruc6onal Processes
• Gi?ed students tend to use higher order thinking even without training, but benefit significantly from being trained
• Gi?ed students prefer a structured learning environment (desks, tables, etc) but open-‐ended tasks and assignments
• Pull-‐out op6ons are most effec6ve when focused on accelera6ve content versus isolated cri6cal or crea6ve thinking skills
– Rogers (2002)
7/15/14
16
Research on Instruc6onal Delivery: Instruc6onal Pacing
• The learning rate of children above 130 IQ is approximately 8 6mes faster than for children below 70 IQ
• Gi?ed students are significantly more likely to retain science and math content accurately when taught 2-‐3 6mes faster than “normal” pace
• Gi?ed students are decontextualists in their processing, rather than construc6vists; therefore it is difficult to reconstruct “how” they came to an answer
Rogers (2002)
Litmus Test: Gi?ed vs General Services
• WOULD all students want to do this?
• COULD all students do this at this point and 6me?
• SHOULD all student do this?
» Harry Passow
Accelera6on, Enrichment, or Both?
7/15/14
17
Gi?ed Student Learning
Accelerated then Enriched
Content
Advanced Concepts
(Big Ideas of the Discipline)
Advanced Products to
Show Understanding
Advanced Processes
(Cri6cal & Crea6ve Thinking/ Depth &
Complexity)
Qualified Teachers and Grouping with Like Peers
Differen6a6on for All vs. Gi?ed
Enrichment Higher Level Thinking Ac6vi6es Based on Learning styles
Choice Interest Explora6on
Exposure Based on Pre-‐assessment
Accelera6on Pacing
Whole to Part Advanced Concepts/
Skills Advanced Curriculum
Complex and Integrated Curriculum Compac6ng with Accelerated Content
•
Curriculum Compac6ng Is Only As Good As What Happens A?er Time Is Bought
7/15/14
18
Instruc6onal Management and Accelera6on Research
• Grade Skipping (ES=.49) • Early Entrance to School (ES = .49) • Subject Accelera6on (ES = .57) • Grade Telescoping (ES = .40) • Concurrent Enrollment (ES = .22) • AP Courses (ES = .27) • Early Admission to College (ES = .30) • Credit by Examina6on (ES = .59)
» Rogers, 1998
A Non-‐Example of Accelera6on
A Na6on Deceived: Meta-‐Analy6c 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 indis6nguishable from that of bright, older non-‐accelerated students.
7/15/14
19
A Na6on Deceived: Meta-‐Analy6c Findings (cont.)
• Accelera6on has the highest overall academic effects when compared to other provisions.
• Accelera6on posi6vely affects student’s long-‐term educa6onal 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 aztudes when accelerated and social-‐emo6onal well-‐being. However, most studies do suggest that accelera6on does not prohibit students from par6cipa6ng in extra-‐curricular ac6vi6es as desired.
» Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004
Making Decisions About Accelera6on
Considera6ons for Accelera6on
• Consider the degree of gi?edness and specific ap6tude(s)
• Teacher qualifica6ons • Program ar6cula6on • “Natural” transi6on points • Non-‐intellec6ve characteris6cs • Flexibility • School and family supports
7/15/14
20
Thinking About Policies and Procedures
• Grouping • Accelera6on • Iden6fica6on and Service Delivery
– Who, what, when, where, how – Ar6cula6on at varying levels – Access and withdrawal – Equity
• Service Personnel Requirements • Professional Development at All Levels
– Ongoing – Sustainable – Embedded within larger school context – Embedded within other areas
• Evalua6on and Accountability for Teachers and Administrators • Evalua6on of Programs
Keys to Building/District Change in Curriculum and Instruc6on
• Define and ar6culate key terms with specific examples – Thinking, differen6a6on, rigor – Use a conceptual framework/model to assist with term defini6on
• Use the same models across grade levels • Personnel prepara6on and a variety of assessment data undergird all change
• Communica6on of services and models is ongoing and linked to larger school ini6a6ves
• VanTassel-‐Baska & Stambaugh, 2007
Considering Curriculum and Instruc6on
Put good curriculum in the hands of good teachers and
teach them how to use it
Provide resources and
coaching
Select a model and create and assess all tools based on that
model
(PD, planning, evalua6on)
Systemic and builds over 6me
7/15/14
21
!"#$%&'%(%)&*)+,-%"
./0%1/% .2/0#)&.-+$0%,
3#-4%5#-0/, 6%#$0178'#17+#7%&9"-,
!"# $%&'()*+,-.%/&0+1)/(0)(+
20/*3+4$%56%&)7+$%(338+
9/*:+;(0(%.-+(<5).*/&0+
3)/(0)(+*&+6/--+;.=3
>?@ A(0*&%/0;+A.*:(B.*/).-+
A/0<3+453(+.+;%.<(+5=8
C0D(3*/;.*/&03+/0+>5BE(%3+
F.*.+.0<+1=.)(+423(+.+;%.<(+
5=8
Supplemental: Marcy Cook Math
• .+::)%5%1-#);&G.)&EH3+I.<<(%+
4$%56%&)7+$%(338+
• J/--/.B+.0<+A.%K+I.0;5.;(+@%*3+
20/*3+4!(0<.--+
L50*8+
• .+::)%5%1-#);&>&D(-+M>.D/;.*&%3+
4J/--/.B+.0<+
A.%KN+,OPQ8+
• G%R+P%(.*+S&&73+
• .+::)%5%1-#);&A/):.(-+,-.K+
T:&B=3&0+P%.BB.%+S&&73+
U"V J/--/.B+.0<+A.%K+
$%&E-(B"+S.3(<+1)/(0)(+
20/*3+4!(0<.--+L50*8+
9/*:+;(0(%.-+(<5).*/&0+
3)/(0)(+*&+6/--+;.=3
.+::)%5%1-#);
J/--/.B+.0<+A.%K+1&)/.-+
1*5</(3+20/*3+4!(0<.--+
L50*8+
1:(-.;:+P.--.;:(%+20/*3+
W&K.-+O/%(9&%73+
A(0*&%/0;+A.*:(B.*/).-+
A/0<3+453(+.+;%.<(+5=8
Supplemental: Marcy Cook Math+
C0D(3*/;.*/&03+/0+>5BE(%3X+
F.*.X+.0<+1=.)(+453(+.+;%.<(+5=8
,&00()*(<+A.*:+&%+A.*:+
C00&D.*/&03+4;%.<(3+Y"ZN+53(+
9/*:+;%.<(3+V+.0<+Y8
Y"Z
J/--/.B+.0<+A.%K+
$%&E-(B"+S.3(<+1)/(0)(+
20/*3+4!(0<.--+L50*8+.0<+
B/<<-(+3):&&-?:/;:+
3):&&-+.))(-(%.*/&0
.+::)%5%1-#);P%((0:.D(0+$%(33+[/(9=&/0*3+1(%/(3
1:(-.;:+P.--.;:(%+20/*3+
W&K.-+O/%(9&%73
@))(-(%.*(<+A.*:+T%.)7+6&%+
A/<<-(+1):&&-+4=%("+.-;(E%.N+
.-;(E%.8
A.*:\+T:(+L5B.0+Q0<(.D&%
www.prufrock.com www.educa6on. wm.edu/centers/cfge www.kendallhunt.com
Data Sources for Assessing Student & Program Impact
• Descrip(ve – Advanced Placement
Scores – Contest Par6cipa6on – Dual Enrollment – SAT and ACT Scores – Talent Searches – Na6onal Merit
Scholars – State Assessment
Advanced Pass Rates – Teacher Observa6ons
• Compara(ve – Achievement Tests
Between Years – Value Added
Approaches Over Time
– Contest Comparisons with Like Schools
– State Assessment Sub-‐group Comparisons or Pass/Fail for Served v. Not Served
• Perceptual – Parent, Student, and
Teacher Surveys – Focus Groups – Qualita6ve Verbal
Feedback
Making Decisions Based on Compe6ng Priori6es
• Use data currently collected • Tie in to larger school ini6a6ves as appropriate • Professional development for all at key 6mes
– educate • Get a seat at the table for curriculum and instruc6onal decisions and policies
• Include parents as partners • Define key terms -‐ opera6onally • Set goals and outcomes with frameworks and measures
7/15/14
22
Ac6on Planning
www.nagc.org www.pty.vanderbilt.edu