Diane Valich
While gifted and talented students very often are capable of and enjoy working alone, they also need the stimulation and interaction of other children. There should be the opportunity for these students to work and learn together in groups of varying sizes.
The project involves three phases. It is a mentorship-type program, where students are mentors for students, in Phases 1 and 2, and then adults become mentors for students in Phase 3. I decided to begin slowly and to introduce one phase at a time, after reading Villanova's writing on the Esperance PEAC Telematics Project. 'The … project fell into three phases in its initial year of operation as we attempted to ease into it gradually and discover whether its use was appropriate in Gifted and Talented Education' (Villanova, 1993, 26).
Phase 1 involves the introduction of a Mentor/Buddy program, where the six Year 4 students in my Primary Extension class will be mentors for students in Years 1 and 2 who fall within the giftedness construct, but are not experiencing extension outside the regular classroom.
Phase 2 will begin in Term 4, when Phase 1 has been assessed. It involves the same idea, with the inclusion of the six Year 5 students in my Primary Extension class becoming mentors for students in Years 1 and 2 needing extension.
Phase 3 involves a Mentorship program, between retired people in our local community and the students who will be in my Extension class in Year 6 at the start of the 1998 school term. An individual mentor who can offer expertise in a specific area will be selected for each individual student. Because the students are still in primary school emphasis will be towards hobbies and interests, rather than career choices.
The focus of the program is to be on learning goals rather than performance goals. Students should be motivated to enjoy their learning and to master skills, rather than worrying about their levels of performance in relation to the judgements of teachers or parents. Being performance-oriented can limit students as they will be less willing to experiment, take risks or spend extra time thinking, because they want to 'get the job done'. In this program students, as mentors and buddies, will be encouraged to explore ideas and information, to think laterally, to be curious and ask open-ended questions, not simply complete the work that 'HAS to be done'. In other words, students will develop a love for learning, explore the limits of their potential and will be excited about their world.
'Gifted and Talented youth need peer models who are actively involved in intellectual activity and processing' (Van Tassel-Baska, 1994, 370). This project will give the students in my class who are being extended, as well as the students they work with, the opportunity to enrich their educational experience through cooperative learning arrangements.
To develop a richer learning environment, through a long-term program that focuses on:
Other goals include:
Both the Year 4 mentors and their Year 1 and 2 buddies will be challenged in various ways. Even though skills may have been mastered previously by the Year 4 mentors, there is a vast difference between mastering the skill yourself and being able to teach and extend someone else in those same skills. It will be necessary for the mentors to understand concepts, be able to transfer information as well as ideas and communicate skills through speaking, listening and teaching. Student buddies will be challenged to extend their learning beyond the textbook, the familiar classroom surroundings and the security of their classroom teacher. Socialisation skills are also needed for the students to work cooperatively together, especially with an age gap between them of two or more years.
By the end of the semester, students in Year 4 will be able to:
By the end of the semester students in Years 1 and 2 will be able to:
1. The role of the teacher
There are two main roles to embrace, both of which are equally important. Firstly, the students will need direction; they cannot be expected to begin a new venture without guidelines, suggestions and direct teaching in relation to managing, focusing and planning, especially at the beginning (Johnsen & Ryser, 1996, 388).
I will be present at every session and will spend time with the Year 4 mentors beforehand, to discuss the details of each activity. Direct instruction will also involve the completion of a Management Plan by each mentor, in consultation with his or her buddy. This plan will include a brief outline of each week's activities for the term, with a space for comments at the end of each lesson.
Secondly, I need to adopt a collaborative rather than an advocacy role, where I am willing to embrace risk and allow new ideas and methods to be tried. Strict control methods will not work! The environment will need to be non-structured, so that students are free to work on the floor, at a desk or even outside. I believe that the leadership of the teacher is critical to the program's success.
2. Teacher support
The teachers in Years 1 and 2 will work with me as a team. I need to be accountable to them, as a safety valve, so that my ideas are discussed, reviewed and refined, for the most effective outcomes. Johnsen & Ryser reminded me of researcher's bias, so it will be important for me to interview the Year 1 and 2 teachers regularly, as well as have informal chats about their students' progress. I will need to know whether the program has shown noticeable positive effects in attitude, maturity and academic progress within their classroom environment (Johnsen & Ryser, 1996, 397&endash;404).
Treffinger speaks about meaningful learning experiences for each child as essential. Feldhusen and Treffinger agree that gifted students should be as involved as possible with the planning, processes and evaluation of the tasks. They list activities such as open-ended learning activities, higher-level thinking tasks and problem-solving projects as essential components of a successful gifted program (Chmiliar, 1993, 24).
Year 4 students, in their role as mentors, would be developing productive-thinking skills through generating ideas; gathering, organising and analysing information; making inferences, deductions, choices and decisions; solving problems, both academic and social. Active enquiry, observation, communication and investigation time will be components of the program for both mentors and buddies. Year 1 and 2 buddies will develop in many of the areas I have listed for Year 4, through their interaction with them and through joint decision-making and planning.
According to Renzulli's Type II Enrichment, process skills will be developed as a response to students' interests rather than pre-planning. Therefore, much communication of ideas and interests will be encouraged throughout the program. As students react and respond to the experiences they have each week and this new approach to their learning, other ideas, interests and ways of learning will emerge that will be incorporated into future planning. I think that programming for them should be short-term and should allow for variations and flexibility along the way.
Critical to the success of the program will be the level of enthusiasm of the students and the ideas described above will help motivate them as well as increase the efficacy of their learning.
Student mentors and their buddies will meet in my classroom for a weekly, 30-minute lesson, on Thursday afternoons.
Although the program has only been trialled for one term at the time of writing, assessment strategies show positive outcomes. At the outset, it is important to say that all the students involved in the program are very excited about it and definitely want it to continue. They also want to include more students! This became obvious towards the end of term, when my Extension Class had a Roman Banquet Day on Thursday, Week 9. My Year 4 mentors suggested inviting their buddies to the banquet so they wouldn't miss out on spending time with them. Also, I was absent from school during the whole of Week 10 and the program continued without me! Year 4 mentors prepared their activities without my usual guidance and had no difficulty with the normal arrangements.
This model effectively structures evaluation in a well-sequenced, easy-to-follow way. The evaluation is tied to the initial plan for the project and includes three steps: Input (Resources), Process (Activities) and Outcome (Objectives). I have decided to use this method, as 'good evaluation is the only way to determine the most effective way to enhance the education of gifted learners. It is also the only way to prove to sponsors and decision-makers that the program has indeed accomplished its objectives' (Davis & Rimm, 1994, 431).
The use of my classroom while Years 5 and 6 were in the library, operated very well. At 2:25pm, Year 4 were dismissed from the library, after a lesson there, to collect their buddies and take them to our classroom for a 2:30pm start. During this 5 minutes, I would give Years 5 and 6 their final instructions.
There were no problems organising and using books and materials. The Year 4 mentors were extremely resourceful and time was given during the week for them to plan their activities, find the materials they needed and complete their preparations. In fact, I was very pleasantly surprised at their initiative in planning and preparing; eg C. and M. sent away for project kits during the holidays, so they can do a project on a topic that interests both them and their buddies this term. Others selected books from our school library and wrote out comprehension and quiz questions after reading. Designing, drawing and cutting up the jigsaw puzzles took ages to complete!
The only real difficulty we experienced with equipment related to the use of the computer. We only have one computer in our classroom and each pair indicated that they wanted to use it! With only half an hour per week, nothing could really be achieved. We decided to write drafts of stories on paper and use the computer for publishing, but that would still take a few weeks to complete. Year 4 mentors became impatient and wanted to type for their buddies, just to get things finished. To help, I suggested that they type one sentence each; this term, we might use the computer to teach skills like using Paintbrush or trying different fonts etc rather than for word processing.
Students were encouraged to plan activities across all Key Learning Areas, keeping the interest of their buddies in mind. Activities included:
Students are already excited about this term and have planned a group game outside, as well as a project about dolphins. They have checked their Management Plans, to make sure of a variety of activities.
The rationale, goals and objectives outlined above are the basis for the formative and summative strategies I used. I constantly had these in mind as I worked with the students and observed them in action. Tomlinson and Callahan state that 'evaluation should proceed through four stages: preparing for the evaluation, designing data collection and analysis, conducting the evaluation and reporting findings and follow-up' (Tomlinson & Callahan, 1994, 46). I have followed these steps from the beginning of the program and, because of this approach, I have already found a wealth of information and insights that have not only been valuable for me in the ongoing planning of the program, but have interested my support staff, other staff members and parents curious about the program's effectiveness.
The strategies I have used have been: anecdotal records, which include operational skills in my Personal Log; regular observation; discussion with students at the beginning and end of each session; use of a Management Plan; use of a Field Test Evaluation Form, which was completed by mentors and their buddies at the beginning of Term 4. I also interviewed my peer support teachers for their thoughts and recommendations. A record of each student's work was filed in a folder for each mentor and buddy to refer to regularly. Management Plans were also kept in the folder, for easy access. Therefore I could often check the variety and level of activities being completed.
Specific outcomes (keeping in mind that field testing has only been operational for a limited time during one term)
1. All students have certainly been challenged in a variety of ways:
Most children seemed to work well together. However, when F. (Year 2) and Ja. (Year 4) were absent one week, M. and Jo. worked together and really enjoyed themselves. They decided they were better suited to each other and wanted to swap pairs permanently. After discussion between the students and their Year 2 teacher as well as with me, each of them resumed working with their original partner the following week and found that, even though it was more challenging, friendships were built that otherwise would not have developed. I followed my peer teachers' strong opinion that it was better for the original pairs to stay together for at least one term and try to work through any difficulties they might have because of their very different personalities.
2. Much communication and joint decision-making has taken place. The communication has been very positive, with a working chatter in the room combined with laughter and sharing of thoughts. It has been great to see the students making decisions together, trying not to be bossy, listening to each other and planning the next week's details so that both the mentor's and buddy's ideas are included. Students have taken my gentle reminders and helpful hints in a positive way; eg Ma. knows that he has a dominant personality and likes to 'be in charge', but he is a willing listener and is able to follow my advice without stress.
3. All students have enjoyed working through a variety of activities and have had plenty of time for active enquiry, observation and investigation.
4. Students in Year 4 have encouraged effort rather than results in their buddies and I have done the same with them. The sharing time in the last five minutes, when they show their completed work and discuss what they've been doing, has been very positive. They look forward to seeing each other's achievements and even use ideas they've seen work for another pair.
5. The nature of the program has released the perfectionists in the group from the pressures of perfectionism in the academic area. By helping someone else and having fun along the way, Me. (Year 4) and K. (Year 1) have benefited from working with a partner who isn't a perfectionist. I have seen patience growing - slowly!
6. The Management Plan has helped the mentor/buddy pairs to think through the area of interest they have selected. It's a good evaluation tool as well, because it demonstrates to the teacher, the student's thought processes. It has supported the thinking behind Renzulli's Enrichment Triad Model, on which I based my program, because its aim is to meet the needs of the individual learner by developing a framework of their needs, based upon the area of interest they wish to develop.
7. Although the Management Plan is a good idea which we will continue to use, I have realised that the weekly activities do vary and are adapted to the interests of the students. It is the same when I plan a term's work, but allow for variations as the unit progresses, because of students' interests, questions etc. J. (Year 1) loves football and the single activity about football turned into a booklet, where J. (Year 4) encouraged his buddy to write as well as draw. Thus, process skills can be developed from students' school and out-of-school experiences. Some activities didn't work very well and were not continued; some lasted too long, like Ma.'s maths activities; some were completed quickly without having anything else to go on with, like J.'s puzzle. This term, the Management Plan will be used to plan ahead as well as allow for variations and change along the way.
8. Maker suggests that 'regardless of the way we defined the problems or explained the tasks, the gifted individuals tended to interpret them in their own ways and place their own structure on the problems - either in addition to ours or instead of ours' (Maker, 74). I discovered this too! Year 4 mentors were extremely creative and inventive with a variety of ideas in operation. They would listen to an idea if they were having some difficulty, then think about it, adjust and, most often, change it!
9. Year 4 mentors have had to adapt their instruction to their buddies' interests, skill levels and attention span. Therefore, it seems obvious that the greatest benefits from the program have been for the Year 4 students. However, the Year 1 and 2 teachers have noted that the greatest benefit for their students has been increased self esteem as well as a greater desire to work on tasks without being asked. They are more keen to 'have a go' and their self confidence has improved. Whether this is as a direct result of the program or not is difficult to assess because the students only meet for half an hour, once a week. This term's assessment should give more accurate findings.
One concern that the Year 1 and 2 teachers commented on is the negative reactions from other class mates, where jealousy and feelings of favouritism have caused some difficulties. More students will be involved in the program this term, so that might ease the situation. At the moment, the teachers are keeping the whole thing 'low-key' and encouraging the buddies to do the same.
10. The results of the Field Test Evaluation form, which was modified from a similar form by Van Tassel-Baska (1994, 46), have pin-pointed the strengths and weaknesses of the program thus far.
It is worth noting that the students showed competence in Productive Thinking skills through the way they answered the questions on the form itself. It is not an easy task completing an evaluation form and, although I explained its format, I did not read through every question. Students were able to ask me for help if they needed it. I used the activity itself as an assessment tool and was surprised at the level of maturity the students exhibited as well as the skills they demonstrated.
11. I think it is essential that a teacher is present for the whole time, in order to set standards of behaviour and give advice when necessary; eg when tasks are completed quickly and nothing else has been planned or when students have a personality clash. The teacher involvement at the beginning and end of each session helped to calm the students, especially the younger ones, and set a clear working tone.
All the students were actively involved in the program, from specific tasks to ongoing assessment and evaluation. Their independent study and research skills (Year 4), positive attitudes and self concepts are developing to a pleasing extent. Parental comments have been encouraging, though no structured evaluation has taken place at this early stage. They will certainly be more involved before organisation for 1998 takes place.
Phase 1 will continue in term 4, with the same structure as in term 1.
Phase 2, where students in my Year 5 class will be mentors for Year 1 and 2 students, has begun this term. It will be organised in the same way as for Phase 1.
Phase 3 organisation will begin this term. Adult mentors will be used to provide the students in my Year 6 Extension class with a resource person who can offer expertise in a specific area to a degree which the regular classroom teacher and school organisation cannot. Mentors will be retired persons from the church family who are trustworthy and have similar interests to the students involved. The focus will be on hobbies and interests rather than career choices, although the two may very well link together. Mentors will meet with the students, one on one, during school hours for one day per fortnight next year. The factors I need to consider when using a mentor are:
1. Regular commitment.
2. Ability to communicate with children of this age.
3. Expertise supplemented by resources.
4. 'Teaching' factor implicit in the use of a mentor, so that it is not a 'one-off' special visit. There must be continuity and a learning facet.
I am considering giving students a more structured guideline for their activities. At the moment, they are simply based on students' interests with some teacher suggestion and intervention.
1. Piaget's Developmental Thinking Processes for Early Childhood gives four sections to focus on - Classification, Seriation, Conservation and Reversibility:
(a) Classification activities include: jigsaw puzzles; finding the main idea in a story; grouping objects by common elements; composing descriptive titles for pictures or stories.
(b) Seriation activities include: arranging objects in sequential order; retelling events in a story in correct order.
(c) Conservation activities include: recognising that a letter can be upper or lower case; recognising equal groups even though objects within a group may be re-arranged.
(d) Reversibility activities include: recounting story events in reverse order; doing simple subtraction problems; retracing one's own steps or actions in order.
2. I would also like to focus on cognitive and affective processes in a more specific way. Perhaps students could select activities from the following starters:
(a) Cognitive - fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration
(b) Affective - curiosity, complexity, risk-taking, imagination.
Perhaps, activity suggestions could be listed onto cardboard and student pairs could select at least some of them during the term, so the activities become more sequential and less haphazard. I am not sure what to do here, because the pairs have enjoyed and benefited from their own decision-making and have made choices across the curriculum without any specific lists being given.
I continue to be excited about the program and feel like a pioneer! Van Tassel-Baska uses the term 'field-testing' and says that 'there is often a leap of faith that occurs with the development of a curriculum piece' (Van Tassel-Baska, 1994, 375). I like this statement! Through this field-test, I have been able to monitor a new idea within our school in a systematic way and, so far, it seems to be a success. It will be 'all systems go' for 1998!
Borland, J.H. (1989) Evaluating programs for the gifted. In Planning and Implementing Programs for the Gifted. New York: Teachers College Press, 195-220.
Chmiliar, P. (1993) Research exchange networks. Agate, 7 (2), 24-27.
Davis, G.A. & Rimm, S.B. (1994) Education of the Gifted and Talented. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gray, T. (1995) Technet: Walking lessons. TalentEd, 53, 10-15.
Huggins, L. (1995) Peer identification of GATS. TalentEd, 48, 1-2.
Johnsen, S.K. & Ryser, G.R. (1996) An overview of effective practices with gifted students in general-education settings. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19 (4), 379-404.
Maker, C.J.
Taylor, M. A. (1992) How to stop girls getting M.A.D. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 1 (1), 15-19.
Tomlinson, C. A. & Callahan, C. M. (1994) Planning effective evaluations for programs for the gifted. Roeper Review, 17 (1), 46-51.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1994) Comprehensive Curriculum for Gifted Learners. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Villanova, L. (1993) The Esperance PEAC telematics project. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 2 (2), 25-28.
Diane Valich is a teacher in Sydney.