A Research-Based Primer on Terminology and Educational Options for Gifted Students

by Paula Olszewski-Kubilius, Ph.D. & Lisa Limburg-Weber, Ph.D.

Gifted coordinators are often called on to suggest program options for individual students or groups of students. Fortunately, there is a strong research base on options in gifted education that can help guide these decisions. The following article summarizes research evidence and recommendations regarding the program options outlined in the “At-A-Glance: Program Options” chart.

Differentiation of instruction

At the broadest level, differentiation involves two factors: the pacing of instruction, and the level of the content to be studied. “Pacing of instruction” refers to how much time is spent learning new concepts or new content. There is ample research (see below) to show that gifted students learn at a faster rate. They do not need as much practice to acquire new concepts and can often make connections between concepts within or across subject areas readily. Pacing of instruction is an important component of keeping gifted students engaged in learning, motivated, and challenged. Boredom in the classroom for gifted learners is frequently a result of a too-slow pace of instruction. A second component of differentiated instruction for gifted students is the level of the content to be studied. Because of their ability to learn rapidly, gifted students are often ready for content that would be considered advanced for their age.

At a secondary level, curriculum differentiation also involves decisions about content, process/product and issues/themes (see the Integrated Curriculum Model of VanTassel-Baksa and Little, 2003). Content refers to the material that is actually selected to be taught to students. Process refers to the skills that students are expected to acquire and/or use. Product goes hand in hand with process and refers to the ways in which students will both acquire the content (such as conducting an internet search) and display their understanding (such as an oral presentation). Products are also what we evaluate to assess student mastery and learning. Issues and themes refers to the overarching concepts that are central to the discipline and that connect topics within the subject area or across subject areas. For gifted students, a conceptually oriented curriculum is particularly appropriate given their ability to perceive and discern higher level concepts readily.

Enrichment Versus Acceleration

A lot of time and energy is often spent deciding whether differentiation should focus on acceleration versus enrichment for gifted learners. In reality, the distinction between these two is often blurred as high quality enrichment often results in acceleration and typically involves advanced content.

Enrichment typically refers to the broadening of the scope of the curriculum beyond what is typically covered in the school curriculum and/or increasing the depth of study. Enrichment does result in greater gains in learning for gifted students compared to gifted students who do not receive enrichment (see Rogers, 1991). Acceleration, on the other hand, typically refers to faster progress through the typical grades of schooling, e.g. completion of grades 1 through 8 in 6 or 7 years.

Acceleration is usually thought of as grade skipping. In reality, there are many different forms of acceleration-including early entrance to any level of schooling, self-paced instruction, grade skipping, concurrent enrollment in two levels of schooling simultaneously, credit by examination, extra-curricular programs, and curriculum compacting or compression of curriculum into shorter periods of time. (See Southern and Jones, 1991 for a list of 17 different accelerative strategies). However, all accelerative options can be divided into two categories. Some accelerative options enable students to study advanced material earlier than usual (such as early entrance to any level of schooling, grade skipping, or placement in the next grade for a particular subject). Other accelerative options involve compression of learning into a shorter time frame (such as fast-paced classes and telescoping in which two years of study are compacted into one year). Very gifted students, such as those in the C-Range of scores (see page XXXX) will likely need a combination of both categories of acceleration-advanced content and a quicker pace of instruction.

The decision about whether to provide enrichment or acceleration to students is dependent upon several factors, including the level of ability of the student to think and reason in the subject area and the mesh between the student and an accelerated placement. The more advanced the students' abilities are, the more likely some form of acceleration is appropriate. Factors such as the students' physical size (i.e. ability to blend in with older children), comfort with older peers, and support from family and teachers affect a student's compatibility with some form of acceleration. Compatibility varies with the type of acceleration. For example, blending in with older students is not a concern with a fast-paced class in which students are all the same age, but will be an issue with grade skipping.

Is Acceleration a Good Idea?

Proponents of accelerative strategies list many benefits for students, including less emphasis on needless repetition and drill, reduction of boredom, a closer match between level of instruction and level of achievement, increased productivity in careers where early contributions are important, increased opportunity for academic exploration, and more appropriate level of challenge that engenders the acquisition of good study habits and avoidance of underachievement (Southern et al., 1993). Opponents of acceleration give the following as negative consequences of acceleration: academic problems stemming from gaps in content preparation; a “specious precocity” due to knowledge without appropriate experience; an undue focus on learning the right answers and short shrift to creativity and divergent production; social adjustment problems as a result of a reduction of time for age-appropriate activities; rejection by older classmates; less opportunity to acquire social skills via interaction with same aged peers; reduced extracurricular opportunities such as participation in sports or athletics due to age ineligibility; and emotional adjustment problems due to stress and pressure to perform (Southern et al., 1993).

Despite the fact that acceleration is a cornerstone of gifted education, it is used rather infrequently by educators to accommodate gifted children. This is unfortunate because the research evidence about the effects of acceleration is both very positive and substantial. Specifically, forms of acceleration such as full time classes, fast paced classes, and subject acceleration, result in increased learning when accelerated students are compared to gifted non accelerated students. See Kulik (1992) and Rogers (1991) for a summary of the results of many studies on acceleration, Rogers (2000) for the results of studies on various forms of acceleration, and Southern and Jones (1991) for a comprehensive review of research on all forms of acceleration.

Research regarding forms of acceleration that involve compression of learning into shorter time periods is also positive. See Olszewski-Kubilius (1998) for a summary of research on fast-paced instruction and Reis, Westberg, Kulikowich, and others (1993) for research on curriculum compacting.

The decision regarding how much to accelerate is difficult. In practice, acceleration such as grade skipping is generally done very conservatively, one or two years at most. Off- level testing within the subject or domain (math, verbal, or science) can provide the best information regarding how accelerated a placement a student needs.

What Program Formats Are Most Effective?

In-class clustering of gifted students for instruction is a very efficient way to meet the needs of students for advanced curricula without removing them from their heterogeneous classroom. This option would be preferable when there are too few students (for example, in smaller schools) who need special accommodations to warrant a special class. It may also be the option of choice for gifted students who want to stay connected with their same age peers.

Research evidence about the effectiveness of in-class clustering of gifted students for instruction is not strong. Delcourt et al (1994) compared the achievement of 2nd through 6th graders in various program types including in-class clusters, separate classes, full time schools and pull out programs. When previous achievement was taken into account, students in all the other program types scored higher on off-level achievement tests compared to students grouped into in class clusters. In-class clusters will only be successful if students receive a differentiated curriculum. The challenge of this particular kind of program is that teachers must spread themselves over different groups of learners who can be quite disparate in terms of their ability levels and previous knowledge.

Despite the potential drawbacks, in-class clustering remains a viable option for serving gifted children if teachers have the necessary and appropriate resources to assess students' ability, provide a differentiated curriculum, and evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The best approach for in-class cluster grouping is to assess students for their reasoning ability in the subject area via an off-level test and also assess them for their knowledge of the specific content to be taught in the class.

Pull-Out or Resource programs are the most frequent type of program provided to gifted students. Typically, these programs involve having gifted students leave the classroom weekly for several hours to receive special instruction. Part-time programs such as resource room and pull-out programs have the advantage of giving students contact with both age-mates and intellectual peers in a single day. However, being “pulled out” of the regular classroom for a program makes the gifted students conspicuous which they may not like. Part-time programs often fall victim to providing superfluous content as administrators struggle to define the curriculum for these programs and typically opt to not intrude on the traditional school subjects. And, typically, programs may involve only 2 to 4 hours of instruction and so are quite minimal in scope and impact. Partial, pull-out type programs can be logistical and scheduling nightmares, raise the ire of teachers whose students are being “pulled out”, and are expensive as they typically require an additional teacher (Borland, 1989). Pull-out or resource programs are probably most effective if they involve at least a minimum of 5 hours per week and are used to enable students to pursue an independent project or interest.

Homogeneous or ability grouping is one of the major strategies for dealing with gifted students in schools. It involves putting students who are gifted together for instruction for one or more subjects. As with the research on acceleration, the research evidence about the efficacy of ability or homogeneous grouping is strong, yet educators are ambivalent about the practice. Concerns about ability grouping have to do with whether ability grouping negatively affects students who are not in the highest group and specifically whether it lowers their achievement (due to a generally lowering of the intellectual level of the classroom when very bright students are removed or lowered teacher expectations or poorer instruction) and/or self-esteem. The main concerns often voiced by educators of the gifted (but not by educators in general) involve whether placement with other bright students lowers individual gifted students' self esteem, stresses them with unrealistic performance demands, or affects their sociability with less-bright children.

Despite the concerns, the research on ability grouping mainly addresses only two issues-academic performance and self esteem. The results of the research can be summarized as follows: students who are homogeneously grouped with other gifted students for instructions, whether they receive enrichment or some kind of accelerated instruction, typically perform better on achievement tests compared to gifted students who are not in such classes. The achievement gains are not a result of the grouping alone but a result of the advanced and enriched instruction, the faster pace of instruction, and the stimulation from intellectual peers. Also, students in the accelerated or enrichment classes experienced only small and temporary declines in their self esteem as a result of being with their intellectual peers (Kulik, 1992; Rogers, 1991).

It is often said that in a typical heterogeneous classroom, the actual grade levels of different students can range from 1 to 6 years or more. This means that a class of 7th graders can have children working 1 to 2 years below grade level and as well as children working 4 to 5 years above grade level. Homogeneous grouping of gifted students reduces the variability among students or the range of grade levels among students but it will not completely eliminate this variance. Teachers may still need to use in-class cluster grouping within a homogeneously grouped class of gifted students.

Homogenous grouping can be implemented for single subjects, accommodating students with exceptional ability in only one or two areas, or can be a full time placement. Full time programs, whether they involve special schools or a school-within-a-school, give students maximal exposure to intellectual peers and thus, peer support for high achievement. See Olszewski-Kubilius & Limburg-Weber, 1999 for a description of special high schools in the US).

Options for Access to Advanced or College Content

Programs that are considered appropriate for gifted students at the secondary level include those providing early access to college content. Best known among these is the Advanced Placement (AP) program of the College Board, which enables students to take college level courses while in high school and, via examination, earn college credits.

In almost half the states within the US, another option for early access to college content is dual enrollment (also known as concurrent enrollment, or post-secondary option) The legislation across states varies considerably (McCarthy, 1999; Olszewski-Kubilius & Limburg-Weber, 1999), but typically requires high schools to use their per-pupil state funds to pay part or all of the college tuition. AP and dual enrollment typically begin in the junior or senior year, but some gifted students will be ready for these options earlier, in their sophomore or even freshman year of high school.

Another option is early entrance to college. Many students across the US leave high school a year early and enter college; most colleges and universities accept younger students. However, a dozen or so special early college entrance programs exist which take students two to four years early, providing special support systems and/or living arrangements (Olszewski-Kubilius & Limburg-Weber, 1999). The research on early admissions to college is positive regarding both the academic performance and emotional-social adjustment of early entrants (See Olszewski-Kubilius, 1995).

Finally, some students may have access to the International Baccalaureate Program (IB), a two-year program of advanced courses taken in the junior and senior years. The IB program emphasizes multi-cultural perspectives and foreign language proficiency and is an international program designed to prepare high school students to be able to pursue college or university coursework at any institution world-wide (Tookey, 1999).

Extra-Curricular Programs

Other programmatic options for gifted secondary students include competitions and internships. (See Olszewski-Kubilius & Limburg-Weber, 1999 for resources). There is research evidence to show that competitions play a significant role in the development of scientific and mathematical talent (Subotnik, Miserandino & Olszewski-Kubilius, 1997). The benefits of internships are primarily in the opportunities to participate in significant adult work and to connect with professionals who can assist with career and educational planning (Olszewski-Kubilius & Limburg-Weber, 1999).

Finally, study abroad, distance learning, and summer programs, particularly those designed for gifted students, can provide tremendous learning opportunities. While research evidence about the long-term effects of participation in gifted programs is scant, the most substantial body of research exists surrounding the positive effects of participation in talent search sponsored educational programs (see Olszewski-Kubilius, 1998 for a review of this research). It is likely that participation in outside-of-school educational programs that offer advanced and accelerated courses provides both social support for achievement and a safe setting in which to risk taking challenging courses. Achieving success in classes such as these does much to bolster students' confidence thereby increasing the possibility that they will pursue advanced courses in their home school setting.

Bibliography

Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. 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.

McCarthy, C. (1999). Dual enrollment programs: Legislation help high school students enroll in college courses. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11 (2), 24-32.

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.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. & Limburg-Weber, L. (1999). Designs for excellence: A guide to educational program options for academically talented middle school and secondary school students. Center for Talent Development, Northwestern University.

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. (1999). Is creativity quantitatively measurable? In A. S. Fishkin, B.

Cramond, and P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.) Investigating creativity in youth (pp. 217-237). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

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.

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

Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D., & Stanley, J. C. (1993). Acceleration and enrichment: The context and development of program options. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, and A. H. Passow (Eds.) International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 387-410). New York: Pergamon Press.

Subotnik, R.F., Miserandino, A., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1997). Implications of the Mathematics Olympiad studies for the development of mathematical talent in schools. International Journal of Educational Research, pp. 563-573.

Tookey, M. E. (1999/2000). The International Baccalaureate program: A program conducive to the continued growth of the gifted adolescent. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11 (2), 52-66.

VanTassel-Baska, J. and Little, C. A. (2003). Content based curriculum for high ability learners. Waco, Tx: Prufrock Press.