Gifted Education in Today’s Schools:

An Interview with Carolyn Callahan, PhD

Is there a disconnect or mismatch between practice and research in gifted education? If so, why does this occur?

Yes, as in most fields of education, there are areas of disconnect and mismatch. This occurs for at least three reasons. One, as in all areas of education, the practitioners often do not read the research because it is not written in practitioner-friendly language. The National Research Center for the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT) at the University of Connecticut (Storrs, CT) has made efforts to create reports for the researchers AND to produce documents from those reports that are useable by practitioners (available at www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt.html). The key now is to get them in the hands of decision-makers —be they administrators making program decisions or teachers making classroom instructional decisions.

The second reason for a disconnect is that research often tells us things that are counter-intuitive or not in alignment with our beliefs. Since beliefs and intuition are so hard to challenge successfully, the research may be dismissed. For example, the literature on acceleration would suggest that when acceleration is implemented carefully with the appropriate children, negative social or emotional consequences are not a danger, but administrators and teachers will tell you bluntly that they are sure that those consequences are very likely.

Finally, old practices are very entrenched. The possibility of adopting new approaches suggested by research is often limited by conceptions of giftedness based on programming and identification decisions made 20 or more years ago. Fears that political dogfights over a program issue may bring the whole notion of gifted programming into question will sometimes prevent open discussion of change. And, finally, the fear of change itself and comfort in the "way we've always done it" stymies adopting new ideas based on the research.

How would you characterize the state-of-the-art research on instruction and curriculum in gifted education? What research directions are most promising? What is most lacking?

One of the disturbing issues in gifted education is the lack of a long and comprehensive history in terms of time or breadth and replicated research. Because of limited funding, we have tended to do static research on characteristics of the gifted and their teachers.

One glaring hole in our research is the lack of research on best practice in the classroom. We have many theories and recommendations based on lists of characteristics of the gifted. But the actual research on the effects of recommended practices in curriculum and instruction is more rare. Scattered studies abound, but the body of literature is very weak overall. Hence, the state-of-the-art of research on instruction and curriculum in gifted education is that it is in its infancy and very limited.

The development of large-scale research programs has been very difficult for several reasons. First, the field has been under-funded in the areas of research that would support longitudinal research studies. There have been some important studies such as Sternberg's research on the positive effects of matching areas of intellectual potential with curricular intervention, VanTassel-Baska's research on the impact of the William and Mary curricular units, the NRC/GT research on the importance of compacting, etc. (see Resources, below). But these need a history of replication and more longitudinal impact studies. And we need to carefully specify the relationships between effective curriculum and the definition of giftedness used, as Sternberg did in his work. Because of the widely varying conceptions of giftedness, our research efforts need to look back to the old “aptitude by treatment interaction” research (where we examine the effects of different instructional strategies on learners with different levels and types of abilities) for some guidance.

Many schools are moving towards differentiation in the regular classroom rather than specialized gifted programs. How effective is differentiation in the regular classroom? Under what conditions can it be used successfully?

Differentiation in the regular classroom by itself is not a gifted program. It may allow for the successful educational modification of the curriculum for some gifted students, but it is only one aspect of a gifted program and will only work under very specific conditions. There is a wide range of variance among gifted students and one service delivery option is unlikely to meet the needs of all gifted students. The model of differentiation in the regular classroom has the advantage (when appropriately implemented) of offering instruction that is integrated with the school curriculum and the school day, of being more than a "once-a-week" shot of high level challenge (like many pull-out programs), and of offering the opportunity for teachers and children to work flexibly to address the ever changing needs of gifted students.

Unfortunately, administrators opt for this service delivery model without a full understanding of the conditions that must be in place for effective implementation. Among the minimum conditions under which differentiation can work are:

1. Teachers must be advanced in their understanding and knowledge of the disciplines and in the use of multiple instructional strategies. For most teachers, achieving this level requires extensive and in-depth staff development in both the content area and instructional strategies.
2. Teachers must have an ability to adopt a philosophy of teaching that is student centered rather than teacher centered.
3. There must be time in teachers’ days to plan the instruction necessary. The normal planning time allotted to teachers is not sufficient.
4. There must be outside resource supports to identify reading materials, help develop alternative learning tasks, etc.
5. Students need to be cluster grouped. There must be a critical mass of gifted students in the classroom to trigger the teacher response that it is worth the time and effort to develop alternative learning tasks.
6. Teachers must feel free of the burden of the high-stakes testing trap which leads them to focus all their energy on achieving minimums with the most marginal students.
7. Administrators must become proficient in understanding differentiation in order to be effective support systems and to hold teachers appropriately accountable for the differentiation in the classroom.

What advice would you give a school seeking to design a new program for its gifted students? What common mistakes do schools make when designing gifted programs, and how can these mistakes be avoided?

The first mistake is to think in terms of "A" program rather than of an array of services for gifted students. As I said before, the most significant question is not: "Which model for delivery of services is the best model?" Rather, planning should center around addressing the question: "Which services are needed for which gifted students in the population we are trying to serve?" There may be some students who are served by being accelerated in the next grade level's mathematics class, some who are best served by a differentiated classroom experience, some who need the support of a resource room, and some who need a self-contained classroom. Schools should include the full range of services that it can reasonably afford and/or has the resources to offer. The differentiated classroom can serve as a base, supplemented by resource room or pull-out services, and special classes if necessary and justifiable, mentorships as appropriate, and acceleration for those students who are best suited for that program option.

The second mistake is assuming that the responsibility for "growing" gifted kids lies with the parents and it is our job to spot the best and pick them for our programs. It is the responsibility of schools to be part of the talent development process in the very early years to ensure that all gifted children have the opportunity to bloom.

What are the most important criteria for schools to consider when evaluating the effectiveness of their existing programs and services for gifted students?

The most important criteria, and the most often ignored, are those relating to student outcomes. Programs must be able to specify how the students who are served by the program options offered will be different because they participated in this program. What will students know, understand, and be able to do that they would not have known, understood, or been able to do? Affective dimensions are also important. Programs should not produce higher achieving students who have come to hate school, or who are now perfectionistic, or who now have poor self-concepts! There are, of course, many other areas that must be considered in an appropriate evaluation plan or we will never know what it was that we were doing that brought about the results—good or bad—so we will not be able to make appropriate modifications. But an “apparently” well-designed program that does not impact the students in specified and positive ways is not well designed.

Resources:

Reis, Dr. Sally M. and others. Why Not Let High Ability Students Start School in January? The Curriculum Compacting Study. National Research Center for the Gifted and Talented. University of Connecticut. Storrs, CT. www.gifted.uconn.edu

Sheffield, Dr. Linda Jensen. The Development of Gifted and Talented Mathematics Students and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards.

Sternberg, R. J., Ferrari, M., Clinkenbeard, P. R., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1996). Identification, instruction, and assessment of gifted children: A construct validation of a triarchic model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 129-137.

Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1988a). Teaching for successful intelligence raises school achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 667-669.

Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1988b). Teaching triarchiacally improves school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 1-11.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2002). Assessment of gifted students’ learning in the language arts. The Journal for Secondary Gifted Education. 13. 67-72.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Zuo, L., Avery, L.D., & Little, C. A. (2002). A curriculum study of gifted student learning in the language arts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, (1) 30-44.