This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 27 November 2014, At: 04:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

The Teacher EducatorPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20

Lessons learned fromgifted children aboutdifferentiationF. Richard Olenchak aa College of Education , University of HoustonPublished online: 20 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: F. Richard Olenchak (2001) Lessons learned from giftedchildren about differentiation, The Teacher Educator, 36:3, 185-198, DOI:10.1080/08878730109555263

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878730109555263

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,

reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 04:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

LESSONS LEARNED FROM GIFTED CHILDRENABOUT DIFFERENTIATION

F. Richard OlenchakCollege of Education, University of Houston

AbstractDifferentiation of curricula and instruction has long been an acceptedprinciple in educating gifted and talented students. Despite its history,definitions and practices continue to vary widely. Current differentiationpractices in schools, if present at all, tend to provide instructional andcurricular modifications ensuring that teaching and/or curricula aredistinct from those provided other learners, differentiation beingdetermined primarily through needs of the gifted as a group. In thisarticle, four gifted and talented students, aged 9 to 12, are studied overa 1- to 3-year period to examine the nature of their educations and thedifferentiation offered to them. Based on problems in these students'school programs that were unearthed through the case studies, systematicinterventions were implemented to improve differentiation for eachstudent on a personal level. Results support personalized differentiationas the optimal means for accommodating the needs of the diversity ofgifted and talented youth in schools.

Differentiation, a precept to which educators of gifted and talentedstudents have long adhered, loosely refers to accommodationstrategies for maximizing school experiences of students with highability. Despite a history spanning at least three decades, and nearlythat long of experimentation and implementation, the literatureabout differentiating education for gifted and talented studentsremains inconclusive, and even the notion of differentiation itselfcontinues to generate inconsistent interpretations in practice. To setthe stage for both a report of the current study as well as a discussionof new concerns about differentiation and how it is orchestrated, asynopsis of literature, that is partitioned historically, follows.

From Whence Differentiation Has Come: Past LiteratureIn 1961 Wards efforts were to create a curricular framework that

would honor the traditional disciplines of study. His work soughtalso to account for the educational needs of gifted students as agroup. Such learning traits as intellectual curiosity, rapid learningrate, and analytical thinking ideally would be acknowledged in a

185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 04:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

curriculum that provided meaningful structure to academic study,emphasizing systems of thought and landmark innovations inthinking and de-emphasizing individual skills and topics. Despite itsvalue, the model, without further definition, ultimately proved tooabstract for simple translation into practice, though Ward himselfoperationalized his model at the North Carolina Governor's School(Ward, 1979).

Later efforts evolved that concentrated largely on gifted learners'individual interests and needs. Approaches such as the EnrichmentTriad Model (Renzulli, 1977), the Purdue Three-Stage Model(Feldhusen & Kolloff, 1978), the Individualized ProgrammingPlanning Model (Treffinger, 1986), and the Autonomous LearnerModel (Betts, 1991) all concentrated on modifications of content,process, and product at a personal level. Although these modelsinitially gained quick acceptance in classrooms because of thedifferentiated instruction they provided for individual giftedstudents, there remained concern that perhaps modification of thecontent dimension left too much to teachers' imaginations.

In seeming response, several waves of curriculum differentiationapproaches emerged. Kaplan (1979), Maker (1982), VanTassel-Baska(1986), and large state associations for gifted and talented education(California Association for the Gifted, 1981; Curry & Samara, 1993)developed strategies for adjusting content curricula based on thecharacteristics and needs of gifted and talented students as they differfrom other students as a group. In each of these efforts, educatorsendeavored to upgrade the depth and complexity of standardcurricula to accommodate the sophisticated learning characteristics ofgifted students. Although differentiation of instruction was certainlyembraced indirectly in these models, emphasis was decidedly ondifferentiation through curricular adjustments and less aimed atteaching itself.

Where Differentiation Stands: Recent LiteratureThough not mutually exclusive, two clear perspectives on

differentiation seemed to emerge: one aimed primarily atdifferentiating instruction and one targeted specifically ondifferentiating curriculum. The former concentrated on providingteachers with techniques for adjusting classroom activities with thetraits of gifted students in mind, whereas the latter aimed to createcurricular enhancements of a more rigorous nature, again guided bythe characteristics of gifted and talented pupils.

186

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 04:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Recognizing the need to balance educational accommodationswith equal attention to both instruction and curriculum, Renzulli(1998) presented the Multiple Menu Model as a means throughwhich educators could develop appropriate curricula for gifted andtalented students as a group. When coupled with the features of theSchoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli & Reis, 1997),accommodations for high-ability pupils not only could addressdifferentiation of curricula but also differentiation of instruction.Moreover, such differentiation, if implemented as designed, wouldinevitably address needs of gifted pupils on a personal level,individual traits would be accommodated as well as those associatedwith gifted students as a group. In a more recent work, Renzulli andReis (1998) underscored the need for consideration of theindividuality of gifted students as not only a gauge for developmentof differentiated curricula but also a foundational step in developingstudent talent.

Reflecting Renzulli's (1998) effort to amalgamate differentiationof instruction with differentiation of curricula, Dinnocenti (1998)assessed appropriate educational accommodations for gifted andtalented students. As in the past, differentiation was described asembracing adjusted content, processes, and products, but Dinnocentiadded "artistic modification," a term Renzulli used in the MultipleMenu Model to capture teachers' personal interests, experiences, andpassions related to the content at hand.

Nonetheless, with the high-stakes testing and inclusiveeducational movements prevalent throughout education in the1990s, differentiation for high-ability youth became increasinglydirected at ensuring superior achievement on standardized tests andat enabling teachers to serve gifted and talented students throughtechniques based in the "regular" classroom. Curry and Samara's(1993) differentiation system was explicitly designed to attachcurricular modifications to the knowledge and skills measured bystate-based testing in Texas, whereas Tomlinson (1995) addressedaccommodation through differentiated instruction in classroomsof diverse abilities. Further expanding the notion of differentiation,in a later work Tomlinson (1999) addressed differentiation as amechanism for serving entire classrooms of students of all abilities.

In spite of these numerous initiatives to serve gifted andtalented students, recent studies have revealed that educationalaccommodations remain nebulous at best and nonexistent at worst.In two expansive examinations of classroom adjustments for gifted

187

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 04:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

and talented students, it was concluded that differentiation—either in instruction or curriculum—was virtually nonexistent(Archambault et al., 1993; Westberg, Archambault, Dodyns, &Slavin, 1993). These studies, encompassing surveys of nearly 4,000teachers and structured observations of almost 50 classrooms acrossthe nation, conclusively presented a picture of girted and talentedstudents without meaningful classroom adjustments and teachersunable or unwilling to make those adjustments.

Several studies within the last two years further clarify thecircumstances in which gifted and talented pupils are likely to findthemselves with regard to educational differentiation. Hertzog(1998), in exploring the notion that differentiation occurs primarilyin learners' responses to stimuli, focused on providing open-endedactivities in classrooms. She found that differentiation did notnecessarily align with students' abilities: that gifted and talentedstudents were not always the only ones to demonstrate sophisticatedresponses to open-ended classroom work. However, she did concludethat differentiation through responses typically was delineated bygreater depth of knowledge and expression, complex skill levels, andstudent utilization of personal learning styles to guide how learningdeveloped and culminated. Hence, differentiation could be viewed asserendipitous so long as teachers provide appropriate stimuli fordepth, complexity, and styles—in this case, open-ended assignments.

In probing teachers' perceptions of differentiation, Ehlers andMontgomery (1999) found that educators tend to accommodate theneeds of gifted students based on three issues: student academicneeds, teacher practices, and classroom processes. Whereas two-thirdsof these categories are largely removed from individual students andtheir identities, the third—student academic needs—might generatehope that at least some teachers see students and their personalacademic situations as rudders for steering differentiation. However, astudy that examined teachers ability to set learning goals for giftedpupils serves to dash that hope (Davalos & Griffin, 1999). Theresearchers found that a number of classroom teachers, who weretrained to tailor instruction and curricula to the personal needs ofindividual gifted students, chose to set educational goals that wereeasy to implement as opposed to selecting goals that might be moreappropriate to individual student needs. The study concluded that,by focusing on goals for their ease of implementation, teachers'efforts to differentiate ultimately had little or no impact oncurriculum or instruction for gifted students.

188

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 04:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

In two studies that preceded the present investigation, Olenchak(1999, 2000) found that educators view differentiation for giftedand talented pupils globally: altering curricula and/or instructionfor high-ability students based almost exclusively on how they aredifferent as a group from other students, personal-level differentiationbeing rare. In the first study, several case studies of elementary andmiddle school students revealed that differentiation, as it wasimplemented for them, was not meaningful. In the second study, 100school districts representing 20 states, with each district claiming toprovide differentiation for gifted and talented students, participatedin an open-ended survey to probe the nature of differentiation.Results were uplifting in that 78% of the districts describedintentional review of curricula in an effort to develop morechallenging components, and 61% described curricula that wereactivity-oriented and designed to stimulate unique products.Unfortunately, results also were discouraging in that only 3% of thedistricts described any curricular and instructional differentiationthat took place on a personal level, group differentiation dominatingthe sample.

Out of the Mouths of Babes: The Current StudyTo enhance understanding about differentiation, the current

investigation entailed development of detailed case studies of fouryoung people, all identified as gifted and talented and representingboth genders, three racial/ethnic groups, and a diversity ofsocioeconomic strata. A combination of methods, widely accepted inqualitative research (Fetterman, 1989; Spradley & McCurdy, 1972;Stake, 1995), was used. These included: observations ranging fromweekly to monthly over 1 to 3 years; quarterly interviews of studentsand adults from 1 to 2 hours each; and analysis of documentsembracing field notes as well as students' journals and school records.Thereafter, data were transcribed, coded, and analyzed to arrive atcritical themes using accepted methodology (Stake, 1995; Strauss,1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The following segments summarizethe cases of these four gifted and talented students and theireducational circumstances with respect to differentiation.

AmandaFrom a lower-middle class, Caucasian family, Amanda is a 14-

year-old 9th grader who lives with her mother, stepfather and twosiblings. A middle child, she was identified for participation in her

189

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 04:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

school district's gifted and talented program during the middle of her2nd-grade year. Now attending a high school of approximately 1,800students in a suburban area in the Southeast, she has few friends andhas already developed a history of brooding and isolation that herteachers fear. As a result, there have been three referrals for specialeducation services for students who have behavior disorders, butAmanda's parents refuse to allow screening. They consistently claimthe problem is the school and its programs for their daughter.

Increasingly truant, Amanda demonstrates avid interest incomputers and computer games. At home and during the periods sheleaves school for a computer arcade, she spends hours working onsoftware of her own creation or accessing internet chat sites for otherswho are, as she puts it, "cyberheads." Although the nature of herschool differentiation has been characterized by placement in specialclass sections designed for high-ability students and specializedassignments designed to enhance challenge, she risks losing thosepreferential accommodations because of her poor attendance andacademic malaise. Despite the school's awareness of her computerabilities, the pre-collegiate track into which Amanda is placed allowslittle or no flexibility, and computers and their peripherals are largelyacknowledged as means rather than as ends. Although the schoolattempted to place Amanda with a teacher who runs the school'scomputer club, she found that her interests did not correspond withhis, notwithstanding his efforts to integrate technology into herassignments. Says Amanda:

You know, this differentiation thing is only a way for teachers to relievetheir guilt. All it amounts to me is more work that has little meaning tomy life. Schools make it easier to be stupid than gifted—maybe that'swhere I should head and wait until I'm done with the school game to usewhat God gave me.

JacobThe eldest of five children who resides with a grandmother who

has physical disabilities, Jacob is proud of his African-Americanheritage. In spite of identification with learning disabilities andeventual retention in 1st grade for decoding problems, by 3rd grade,his teacher referred him for gifted education services because "he is aspark—such an incredible thinker." Unfortunately, his IQ score fell 5points shy of the district's cut score, and no follow-up services of anytype were provided thereafter. He is currently 12 and in the 5 th gradein an economically disadvantaged area of a large city in theSouthwest.

190

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 04:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Due to his reading problems, Jacob continues to experienceacademic problems in all areas, and incidents of acting out whenhe is challenged have increased noticeably during the past year.Responsibilities for tending to his younger siblings have increased,and he has increasingly been tardy or truant. He often refuses tocomplete class assignments because he says he "has no interest."Much of Jacob's school program is, in fact, differentiated; he spendslarge segments of each school week on specialized materials designedto remediate his reading deficits. While teachers express fear that hehas developed links to gangs, there has been no effort whatsoever toclarify the interests he uses to excuse himself from classroom taskcompletion and no programming to develop the "spark" his 3rd-grade teacher acknowledged. Jacob comments:

I don't get what they want from me. It's like, you know, not a real thingin school but to keep working on the same old stuff over and over. It's likeit doesn't take the first time, so they do it to you again. But away fromhere, I have lots of kids after me to work with them because I know howto get stuff done.

MelissaLiving in a two-parent home in a middle class suburban-like area

inside the city limits of a large Southwestern city, Melissa wasidentified for gifted and talented educational services during 1stgrade. Now in 4th grade at one of the most diverse elementaryschools in the community, she speaks English and Spanish with equalfluency at home and at school and is known schoolwide for heracademic and athletic achievements. For the past three years,classroom differentiation has been implemented for the cluster groupof gifted students with whom Melissa is placed. The cluster,comprising approximately one-fourth of the enrollment in anotherwise heterogeneous classroom, is preferentially assembled with aspecially trained teacher each year.

Having played successfully on various community-sponsoredsports teams and being elected by her peers to school leadershippositions, Melissa continues to be extremely popular. However, heracademic standing has recently declined, she has become far moodierand more confrontational than ever before, and her parents andteachers alike have noted behaviors and traits similar to depression.As Melissa's academic performance began to wane, she increasingly"spouted off" to teachers and even earned her first school suspensionfor leaving lunch without permission, spending the remainder of theday at a library over a mile away. Frightened by this behavior, her

191

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 04:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

parents have initiated family counseling, but they decline to involvethe school in any way. Some teachers see her behavior as warranting areferral for special education, but thus far, no teacher has submittedthe forms to school authorities. As Melissa sees her situation:

School was really good for me until they started to give me different workbecause I am in the gifted program. I want out of this! It's just harder, andit really doesn't do anything for me but stress me out. Get me out of herebefore I go crazy! I used to love school; now I hate it.

NathanAlthough his father deserted the family for unknown reasons

when Nathan was just 5, he enjoys a happy life with his mother andtwo older brothers. At 15 and in the 9th grade at a large,comprehensive high school in a university town in the Southeast,Nathan was identified for the school system's gifted and talentedprogram when he was in the 2nd grade. Attributable toorganizational problems, he was identified for services for studentswith learning disabilities in the 7th grade and has since occasionallyreceived special assistance in that regard. A young man with but a fewfriends, he spends most of his free time in musical and athleticpursuits related to school.

Having experienced difficulty adjusting to the high schoolenvironment because, "it's just too big and impersonal," Nathan'sstrong background in music and athletics seems overshadowed bydeclining academics. Although his previous academic performancewas never in keeping with his assessed high ability, Nathan alwaysmanaged to produce slightly above-average results, but those daysappear to be over. He feels inappropriately challenged by his newschool environment and by the expectations of rigorous pre-Advanced Placement classes. Differentiation for Nathan is restrictedto those classes, the prescribed curricula in them, and instruction thatis gauged largely to the needs of a mythical "fast track" group. AsNathan's academics falter, his mother worries about whether or notthe school should reinstate regular learning disabilities services forhim, and his teachers worry that he may be falling in with a group ofsuspected drug-users. Nathan assesses:

Have you ever felt as though your identity was out of alignment—likewheels on a car? I think my school has decided that identities are likewheels and must all be aligned just alike. I am afraid my pre-AP programis intended for identity wheels that are different sizes than mine. Thealignment is the wrong size for me.

192

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 04:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Caring for Babes: Interventions ExtendingFrom the Current Study

Given the generalized, group nature of the differentiatedprograms in which each of the four students was involved, specificsteps were taken to develop and implement intervention plans that,to the greatest extent possible, would allow for differentiation ona personal level. Using Renzulli and Reis' (1997) guidelines foranalyzing student strengths, each youngster's interests were assessedusing formal instruments as well as interviews and experientialobservations. Thereafter, energies were dedicated to locating mentorsto work alongside each of the four students; because of thedisassociation that appeared to be developing with school, intentionaleffort was made to identify mentors from each student's school.

Utilizing the Personalized Talent Development Plan (PTDP), anindividualized strength profile served to fuel creation of a personallytailored program differentiated around each students areas of abilityand interest. The PTDP was the centerpiece of each pupil's programat school in that it emphasized activities aimed at enhancing real-world thinking and action, school time dedicated to affectivedevelopment and self-identification, group and individualizedcounseling targeted at time and talent management, and recognitionof out-of-school accomplishments. At the same time, academicweaknesses received school attention but were de-emphasized relativeto strengths. Eventually, each student's school program came toreflect not only differentiation of curricula and instruction based onneeds accorded gifted and talented students as a group, but also eachprogram embodied components that were fine-tuned on a personalbasis.

To illustrate how each of the interventions came about, revisitJacob's plight: numerous family and home obligations promptingtardiness and truancy; the school's concentration on his readingdeficiencies and virtual disregard for his abilities and interests; andthe evident inability or unwillingness of the school to acknowledgehis successes away from the classroom. Using a combination offormal and informal interest assessments, it was concluded that Jacobwas likely to gravitate to the sciences—particularly to those dealingwith nature and the environment—and to leadership experiences andfootball. Thereafter, mentors were sought to facilitate developmentand implementation of Jacobs PTDP (see Appendix).

193

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 04:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Post-Intervention DataIn each case, the students demonstrated positive changes in their

school behavior. After a full school year using the PTDP with eachstudent, improvements were at least noteworthy and occasionallywere remarkable.

Amanda, working with a school secretary who shares her interestin computers, also spends several hours weekly in group and privatecounseling directed at talent development and problem resolutionstrategies. Although the secretary does not possess the sophisticatedsoftware development skills that Amanda does, she nonetheless is anoutstanding mentor because she previously worked at a software firm.In fact, Amanda says, "What that woman knows about software isawesome!" During the year of PTDP implementation, Amanda'struancy gradually decreased to the point that it is no longer aproblem. She is hoping to continue working with her mentor duringlunch times on development of a new software package thatintegrates characteristics of computer games with information aboutteen problems.

Jacob, whose initial PTDP is depicted above, is all but a totallynew student. His mentor, a teacher, an amateur environmentalist andnature activist, continues to coach him in addressing a serious erosionproblem on the school's grounds. Jacob has researched the problem,spoken with experts about it, and is in the midst of developing aseries of innovations that will curb the erosion and enhance theschool's property. In addition, group and private counseling are majorcomponents of his PTDP, and curriculum compacting (Renzulli &Reis, 1997) is implemented to create additional project time. Tooffset his home responsibilities, the school counselor contacted socialservice agencies to arrange for preschool and before schoolopportunities for his younger siblings. Finally, Jacob was electedschool safety patrol captain because his peers felt that his addressingthe erosion situation demonstrated his genuine concern for theirwelfare. Upon his election, he screamed, "Wow! I really count aroundhere!"

Melissa has been paired with a teacher who shares her interestsin academics, reading, languages, and athletics. They meet duringcompacted language arts classroom time, when Melissa is freed byvirtue of showing early mastery of the material. The mentoringteacher is freed from her own classroom duties for scattered half-hoursegments by an arrangement with the school's assistant principal, whoexplained, "I'd rather drop things to teach a group of [the mentoring

194

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 04:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

teacher's] kids than to chase after a single child who has disappearedfrom the campus." Although Melissa's family remains private abouther counseling, her parents have been encouraged to interact with theschool counselor in making sure that there are consistent approachesused in handling Melissa's moodiness, which is less frequent.

Nathan has been placed in a mentorship with his high school'sbasketball coach, who is also an amateur musician. Although Nathanwas not as interested in basketball as in some other sports, thementor's expertise in music and athletics has served to stimulateNathan to write a musical composition that was performed by theschool pep band at a basketball game. Not only was Nathan's workrecognized, he was given a standing ovation; Nathan responded,"Differentiation let me do this." Time for his musical work with thebasketball coach has been carved from a daily before-school "extraperiod." In addition, Nathan has been placed with teachers who havebeen trained not only in the pre-AP curriculum but who are alsowell-versed in in-classroom differentiation strategies for personalizingcurricula and instruction.

Implications and ConclusionsBased on the current study of four gifted students and the

interventions that changed their school circumstances, severalimportant themes emerge. First, to be truly effective, differentiationfor gifted and talented students must eventually become personalized.Second, involvement of gifted and talented students with school-based mentors who share their interests, dreams, and passions iscritical for identity development and clarification. And finally,schools must purposefully schedule activities so that talentdevelopment serves as the focal point in programs for gifted students.

In spite of nearly 40 years of theory, practice, and research,differentiation remains a concern in educating gifted and talentedstudents. Although few would argue that differentiation of sometype, at least some of the time, is not only appropriate but alsonecessary for high-ability pupils, the nature of differentiation, itsinterpretation, and its implementation are controversial. Whetherdifferentiation is perceived as adjustments to instruction,modifications of curricula, or both, recent research confirms that it isseldom carried out. Most troublesome is that differentiation rarelyappears to depart from adjustments designed around some imaginedset of group needs or characteristics.

If schools and teachers persist in the easy-way-out, group-think,teacher-based approaches for differentiating curricula and instruction

195

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 04:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

for gifted and talented students, it is likely that young people likeAmanda, Jacob, Melissa, and Nathan will continue to become lost ineducational bureaucracy. Teachers who are not prepared to focus onneeds of students at a personal levelwill not be able to provideeffective differentiation of curricula and instruction for gifted andtalented students. Nathan summarizes the need for well-trainedteachers thusly:

Teachers have to begin to look beyond a group, whether it is thebig group or just the little group of kids who have unique schoolneeds. Differentiation has to mean something more than justchanging the class around the groups needs. If it doesn't, then kidslike me may not belong in school at all. Then, where will we go, andwhat will we do?

References

Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S., Hallmark, B.W., Zhang,W., & Emmons, C. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students:Findings from the classroom practices survey. Journal for the Education of theGifted, 16, 103-119.

Betts, G. (1991). The Autonomous Learner Model for the girted andtalented. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education(pp. 142-153). Boston: Aliyn and Bacon.

California Association for the Girted. (1981). Improving differentiatedcurricula for the gifted/talented: A reference and workbook for educators and parents.Canoga Park, CA: Author.

Curry, J., & Samara, J. (1993). Curriculum guide for the education of giftedhigh school students. Austin, TX: Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented.

Davalos, R., & Griffin, G. (1999). The impact of teachers'individualization practices on gifted students in rural, heterogeneous classrooms.Roeper Review, 21(4), 308-314.

Dinnocenti, S. T. (1998). Differentiation: Definition and description forgifted and talented. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted andTalented.

Ehlers, K., & Montgomery, D. (1999, March). Teachers' perceptions ofcurriculum modification for students who are gifted. Paper presented at the annualconference of the American Council on Rural Special Education, Albuquerque,NM. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 439 750)

Feldhusen, J., & Kolloff, P. (1978, January-February). A Three StageModel for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 3-5, 53-57.

Fetterman, D. M. (1989). Ethnography: Step by step. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Hertzog, N. B. (1998). Open-ended activities: Differentiation throughlearner responses. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(4), 212-227.

Kaplan, S. N. (1979). Inservice training manual: Activities for developingcurriculum for the gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: Office of the VenturaCounty Superintendent of Schools.

196

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 04:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Austin, TX:Pro-Ed.

Olenchak, F. R. (1999). Does one size ever fit all? A case for individualizingcurricula for girted and talented students. Understanding Our Gifted, 11(3),18-23.

Olenchak, F. R. (2000). Differentiating curriculum for gifted and talentedstudents: What is it in practice? A poll of 100 school districts. Research andDevelopment, 18(4), 2-4, 6-7.

Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The Enrichment Triad Model: A guide for developingdefensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: CreativeLearning Press.

Renzulli, J. S. (1998). The Multiple Menu Model for developingdifferentiating curriculum for gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(3),298-309.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: Ahow-to guide for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative LearningPress.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1998). Talent development throughcurriculum differentiation. NASSP Bulletin, 82(595), 61-64.

Spradley, T. S., & McCurdy, D. W. (1972). The cultural experience.Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Groundedtheory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Instruction for advanced learners in the mixed-ability middle school classroom. ERIC Digest E536. Reston, VA: ERICClearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, Council for ExceptionalChildren. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. EC 304428)

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to theneeds of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

Treffinger, D. (1986). Fostering effective, independent learning throughindividualized programming. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models fordeveloping programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 429-468). Mansfield Center,CT: Creative Learning Press.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1986). Effective curriculum and instructional modelsfor the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 164-169.

Ward, V. S. (1961). Educating the gifted: An axiomatic approach.Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Ward, V. S. (1979). The Governor's School of North Carolina. In A.H.Passow (Ed.), The gifted and the talented: Their education and development (Vol.78, pp. 209-217). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Westberg, K. L, Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Slavin, T. J.(1993). An observational study of classroom practices used with third- andfourth-grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120-146.

197

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 04:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Appendix

PERSONALIZED TALENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Beginning.

Student Tacob

Classroom Teacher(s)

Mentor Ms. Cattell

. and Ending.

Date September 9, 1998

Ms. Murray: Mr. Brunei Grade 5

Updates lunch of I sr Mon, monthly

Current Interests football, envirnnrnpnt/ourrloors/natnrp. sr.ipnr.ps.

Talent DevelopmentActivities

1. Weekly activity periodfor work with Ms. Cattellon project to addresserosion behind school

2. Additional project timeafter school at leastthree days weekly

3. Weekly lunch grouprap session withMs. Rodriguez

4. Private rap withMs. Rodriguez beforeschool once weekly

5. Compacting insciences as possibleto create additionalproject time

6. Participation in youthleadership developmentprogram arranged byMr. Brown weeklybefore school

Frequency &Location

Activity periodweekly; Mrs.Cattell's room& outside

Mrs. Cattell's room& outside M, W,andTh

Counseling officeTuesdays

Counseling officeWednesdays

As determined bypretesting at start ofevery new unit

Fridays inMedia Centerthroughout year

GuidingAdult

Mrs. Cattelland others asneeded &appropriate

Mrs. Cattelland others asneeded &appropriate

Mrs.Rodriguez

Mrs.Rodriguez

Mr. Brunei

Mr. Brownwith others asappropriate

ProposedOutcomes &

Dates

Development ofsolution to erosion;development of planto implementsolution; "selling" ofplan to funding

agencies—aim rorconclusion Fall, '99

New friendships—continuing

Self-managementskills—continuing

Better sciencework & freedtime for project—continuing

Involvement instudent council& safety patrol—Fall, 1999

Student's Signature

Parent's Signature

Mentor's Signature

Signatures of School Faculty Involved

Signature of School Administrator

198

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 04:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014