managing the advanced learner by dr. linda rush
TRANSCRIPT
More than I am
…A life without risks is just as good as
death,
But in my lifetime I want to take risks, I need
to,
Is it too much to ask to want to become
more,
More than I am, more than they tell me I
can be…
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 2
Managing the Advanced
Learner
Dr Linda Rush, Director of Teacher Training
7 May, 2015
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 3
Objectives: 1. To share definitions of advanced learner / high
ability/giftedness
2. To discuss definitions in terms of the characteristics associated with being a successful lifelong learner
3. To consider the role of the teacher in ordinary classroom settings
4. To focus on the use and management of teaching time
5. To offer a framework - an orientational device which allows teachers to recognize the boundaries and borderlines of their interactions with (advanced) learners, and a prospective device to help develop the qualities of interactions in the future.
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 4
Positionality: • ‘Plasticity’ of the human brain
• Ability & environment are deeply intertwined
• Interested in the basis for intellectual
superiority
• Belief that everyone can be an ‘advanced learner’
• Conscious of ‘potential ability’
• Prospective view of ability and the role of assessment in respect of this
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 7
Key Question/Task • What’s your view of high ability or giftedness
(Maybe helpful to consider an actual student or
group of students).
• Do you bother to identify or make yourself aware
of students with advanced learner
characteristics?
• How do you go about identifying your advanced
learners?
• How do we get to know our students?
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 8
PhD findings: More Able child profiles – identification
• All teachers used tests of intelligence to identify
the cognitive ability of children in their class &
Assessment Tasks
• Teachers also made specific reference to the
quality of the children’s work being a useful indicator of ability
• Recognized ability through teacher observation
• Areas of ability highlighted: cognitive; technical;
practical
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 9
PhD findings: More Able child profiles –
‘demonstrated achievement’ &
‘potential ability’ • Some teachers stated that the high performers
were not necessarily the more able…
• Teachers also recognized individuals as having
the potential to be more able: ‘needs to be
pushed’, ‘doesn’t always do his best’, ‘doesn’t always give the extension’, ‘will do as little as
possible’.
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 10
PhD findings: More Able child profiles – personalities & learning characteristics
• ‘amazing humour’
• ‘very serious . . . an absolute perfectionist’
• ‘laid back . . . very good at seeing patterns and things . . . he will tease you and kind of
challenge you’
• ‘deep thinking’
• ‘Can be quite difficult, obstructive at times . . .
eccentric in some of his behaviours’
• ‘stolid plodder’
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 11
PhD findings: More Able child profiles – personalities & learning characteristics
• most able liked to get their work right and that they didn’t like failing
• ‘Perfectionism’ was used more than once to describe these individuals
• tend to give up if he didn’t get what he was doing right first time
• some enjoyed working with others…
• always challenging things – not to undermine the teacher but
‘purely out of curiosity’
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 12
PhD findings: More Able child profiles – personalities & learning characteristics
• ‘had his own agenda…he will come back at me with a counter idea’
• enjoyed bringing in his ‘own ideas not directly related to [in
class] projects’
• ability to ‘think of where a problem is going’
• motivated by challenging work
• some were confident to be challenged and questioned, and to question themselves
• others were quite shy or particularly
• All teachers also recognized that a straightforward correlation between ability and achievement does not exist
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 13
Formal definitions of giftedness:
• literature on the more able indicates that they think differently
from others…
• they are Gestaltist in their thinking.
• 'in contrast to the less gifted who use either atomistic or
serialistic strategies of perceiving information, the more gifted
have an analytic strategy’. (Merenheimo, 1991, cited in Freeman1998,
p. 23)
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 14
Giftedness:
• Metacognitive – knowing how you know things & the
processes by which you think
• Self-regulating – autonomous learning, being able to prepare
& supervise one’s own learning
• Underpinning this thinking is the notion of 'individualisation’
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 15
• possible’.
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 16
Renzulli’s model of giftedness
• Information processing psychologists see
intelligence as steps or processes people go
through in solving problems. One person may be
more intelligent that another because he or she
moves through the same steps more quickly or
efficiently, or is more familiar with the required
problem solving steps.
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 17
Advocates of this view (e.g. Sternberg,
1979) focus on:
• how information is internally represented
• the kinds of strategies people use in processing
that information
• the nature of the components (e.g. memory,
inference, comparison) used in carrying out
those strategies
• how decisions are made as to which strategies
to use
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 18
Urban’s model of giftedness
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 19
Cigman’s (2006, p. 200) four-fold distinction:
1. The child who is very bright, and benefits from
propitious environment
2. The child who is very bright, but lacks a
propitious environment
3. The trophy child, who achieves highly as a result
of a pressured environment, but who seems not
bright, and strained or alienated by the experience
4. The child seems 'not bright', and lacks a
propitious environment.
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 20
Key Points: • No general agreement about the nature of
intelligence and that of being more able or gifted
• An artificially constructed concept
• Identification of ability needs to be carried out in a
useful way – not just to classify individuals
• A concern about ability is a concern about student
developing as individuals so that their potential is
translated into achievement
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 21
Key Question/Task
• Do you recognize such students in your classrooms?
• In what ways do your highly able students (drawing on earlier
identification and definitions) fit within the above categories?
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 22
Giftedness:
• Metacognitive – knowing how you know things & the
processes by which you think
• Self-regulating – autonomous learning, being able to prepare
& supervise one’s own learning
• Underpinning this thinking is the notion of 'individualisation’
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 23
ELLI’s seven ‘learning dimensions’
1.Growth orientation v being stuck and static
2.Meaning making v data accumulation
3.Critical curiosity v passivity
4.Creativity v rule bound
5.Learning relationships v isolation
6.Strategic awareness v robotic
7.Resilience v dependence
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 24
Claxton’s Positive Learning Dispositions
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 25
Resilient Resourceful Reflective Reciprocal
Curious (proactive)
Questioning (“How come?”)
Clear-thinking (logical)
Collaborative (team member)
Adventurous (up for a challenge)
Open-minded (‘negative capability’)
Thoughtful (Where else could I use this?)
Independent (can work alone)
Determined (persistent)
Playful (“Let’s try ...”)
Self-knowing (own habits)
Open to feedback
Flexible (trying other ways)
Imaginative (could be ...)
Methodical (strategic)
Attentive (to others)
Observant (details / patterns)
Integrating (making links)
Opportunistic (serendipity)
Empathic (other people’s shoes)
Focused (distractions)
Intuitive (reverie)
Self-evaluative (“How’s it going?”)
Imitative (contagious)
Pedagogic implications of teaching
the more able • Students encouraged to take control of their own learning
• Teacher to involve the learner explicitly as a partner in the
learning process
• Notion of 'open discourse’
• Assessment is not something that is done to them but done
with and by them
• Collaborative and open-ended enquiry is promoted
• This type of pedagogy can be seen in terms of a particular
type of mediatory power in teaching/learning interactions
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 26
PhD findings: Involving the more able as partners in the learning process • Allowing the pupils to extend in-class learning
further than anticipated or planned for.
• Flexible time – frame for pupils to work within.
• Modification of planning or learning to take into
account the interests of pupils.
• Co-operative and collaborative learning
promoted.
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 27
PhD findings: Involving the more able as partners in the learning process
• Whole class, self and peer assessment.
• Questions asked or problems set allow for
personal interpretation.
• Method(s) and solution(s) of problems set are
unknown to both teacher and learner.
• Inclusive use of language.
• Interactive displays.
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 28
PhD findings: Involving the more able as partners in the learning process
• Availability of independent activities.
• Whole class discussion where pupils as well as
teacher have to explain their ideas, and where the
process of learning is analysed
• The promotion and support (in terms of time and
resources) of independent study, the focus of which
is decided by the student or group of pupils
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 29
To varying degrees the roles of
‘teacher’ & ‘learner’ were floating: • Expectations were made clear to the pupils that they were
dual partners in the learning process
• Pupils’ contributions were frequently volunteered rather than
elicited and were always valued
• Pupils were encouraged to co-construct one another’s
learning at whole class and group level
• Discussion was allowed to shift in an unpredictable manner
• Inclusive use of language was deployed ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘our’
• Manner and tone of teacher whilst demanding was warm and
friendly
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 30
Key Question/Task
• How do you manage to mediate and
promote the learning of your highly
able students during non-contact?
• How do you promote interactive
learning?
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 31
Key References
Baxter Magolda, M.B. 1992. Students’ epistemologies and academic experiences: Implications for pedagogy. Review of Higher Education 15, no. 3: 265–87.
Biggs, J. (2004), Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. 2nd edn. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press
Bransford, J., A. Brown, and R. Cocking, eds. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and School Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education of the National Research Council National Academy Press.
Cigman, R. 2006. The Gifted Child: A Conceptual Enquiry. Oxford Review of Education, 32, no. 2: 197-212
Claxton, G. 2007. Expanding Young People’s Capacity to Learn. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53, no. 2: 115-134.
Daly, A., Penketh, C., and Rush, L. 2009 ‘Academic preparedness: Student and tutor perceptions of the ‘academic experience’’. Society for Research in Education (SRHE) Conference proceedings.
Fontana, D. 1995. Psychology for Teachers, 3rd Ed, Revised and updated, London: The British Psychological Society
Fredricksson, U., and B. Hoskins. 2007. The development of learning how to learn in a European context. The Curriculum Journal 18, no. 2: 127–34.
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 34
Key References: Lucas, L., and P.L. Tan. 2005. Developing reflective capacity: The role of personal epistemologies within undergraduate education. Research seminar discussion paper, Fourteenth Improving Student Learning Symposium, September 4–6, University of Bath.
Moon, J. 2005. We seek it here . . . a new perspective on the elusive activity of critical thinking: A theoretical and practical approach. ESCalate discussion paper. Available online at: http://escalate.ac.uk/index.cfm?action1⁄4resources.search&q1⁄4criticalþthinking&rtype1⁄4itehelp&rtype1⁄4project& rtype1⁄4publication&rtype1⁄4resource&rtype1⁄4review
Moseley, D., Elliot, J., Gregson, M., and Higgins, S,. 2003. Thinking skills frameworks for use in education and training. British Educational Research Journal 31, no. 3: 367-390
Northedge, A. (2003), ‘Rethinking Teaching in the Context of Diversity’, Teaching in Higher Education, 8.1, 17-32
Perry, W.G. 1970. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Poerksen, B. 2005. Learning how to learn. Kybernetes 34, no. 2/3: 471–84.
Putnam, R.T., and H. Borko. 2000. What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher 29, no. 1: 4–15. Rawson, M. 2000. Learning to learn: More than a skill set. Studies in Higher Education 25, no. 2: 225–38.
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 37
Robinson, M. Nancy. 1997. The Role of Universities and Colleges in Educating Gifted Undergraduates. Peabody Journal of Education. 72, no. 3/4, Charting a New Course in Gifted Education: Parts 1 and 2 (1997), 217-236
Rush, L., and Fisher, A. 2009. Expanding the capacity to learn of student teachers in Initial Teacher Training. ESCalate, Academic online paper (http://escalate.ac.uk/5802).
Rush, L. 2009. Bridging the gap between theory and practice: one tutor’s endeavors to embed and enact a distinctive pedagogic approach to learning-to-learn (L2L). NEXUS Journal 1: 197-212. Edge Hill University, Centre for Teaching and Learning Research (CLTR)
Fisher, A and Rush, L. 2008. Conceptions of learning and pedagogy: developing trainee teachers’ epistemological understandings. The Curriculum Journal. 19, No. 3 pp 227-238. Routledge.
Rush, L. 2002. An Exploration into how Effective Upper key Stage Two Teachers Manage to Intervene with More Able Children in the Classroom Setting Ph.D.
Schommer-Aitkins, M.A. 2002. An evolving framework for an epistemological belief system. In Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing, ed. B.K. Hofer and P.R. Pintrich. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wingate, U. 2007. A Framework for Transition: Supporting ‘Learning to Learn in Higher Education, Higher Education Quarterly, 0951-522461. No. 3: 391-405
Presentation Title Goes Here (See Header & Footer To Edit This Text) 38