"Contact Us Next Year": Tracing Teachers' Use of Gifted Practices.

A Previous article reported that teachers attending a summer institute on gifted education said they changed their beliefs about gifted learners (Cashion & Sullenger, 1996). However, a year after the institute only a few participants described any major changes in teaching practice, such as integrating strategies for gifted learners as part of their teaching. Even so, almost all participants did try specific activities for gifted students when they returned to the classroom. When several teachers said to, "Contact us next year," we took them up on their offer. This study traces the accomplishments by these teachers during the second year following the institute. The information sought was whether they began, or continued to develop, activities and programs for gifted learners in their schools. The major focus was to determine whether interest had diminished or increased over time, and if there were factors that encouraged or discouraged these teachers.

The summer institute was an intensive four week course that focused on current definitions of giftedness, the identification of gifted learners, and most significantly, teaching strategies that could be used in the regular classroom. Participants were asked to develop an implementation plan specifying how they planned to put into use what they had learned.

Fifty teachers, administrators, and resource persons attended the institute: seven from schools and districts with some support for gifted education and 43 from schools and districts with no known interest. Nine did not return to schools because they had academic leaves or new positions. One participant was an administrator and six were resource persons.

Gifted education in this largely rural, eastern Canadian province is a low educational priority. Only four of the 18 English school districts have a person responsible for the gifted population, each of whom is responsible for up to 20 widely scattered schools. Recently, the province produced and distributed to all schools a document entitled, Gifted & Talented Students: A Resource Guide for Teachers, (1997). However, there was no accompanying mandate requiring that these recommendations be implemented. To address this situation the provincial government set aside some monies for enrichment programs. However, the guidelines do not require that the programs be limited to, or target only gifted learners.

Given this, climate, it was encouraging to note the teachers accomplishments the first year following our institute, and their determination to continue in year two. Participants shared information about what keeps them going and what challenges, and sometimes discourages them.

Research Methods

Two years after attending the summer institute, the participants received a second survey and a copy of the published article describing their responses to the first survey. The first survey focused on what teachers took from the institute, what they found valuable for teaching, and whether they had been able to implement their teaching plans. The second survey focused on whether they agreed with our interpretation of their experience and what they were able to accomplish during the second year following the institute. Questions asked were: Have your beliefs about giftedness and gifted learners changed during this second year since the institute? If so, in what ways? Have you been able to continue or begin the implementation of your plans for working with gifted students? and, Would you comment on the main strategies you are using and indicate how often you use them? We also asked if we were missing anything or had not given something full consideration.

A descriptive analysis approach was used that was similar to Strauss's (1987) diagramming to identify, describe and verify subcategories. As with the first survey, questionnaires were returned anonymously except in those cases in which teachers identified themselves. Since the questionnaires were anonymous, it was not known whether the same subset of participants submitted responses each year. However, based on comments participants made, it was determined that the majority of responses were from the same participants.

Ten telephone interviews were also completed to gather additional information; such as, the most challenging part of trying to implement new ideas on their own or whether there is a limit to the kinds of new ideas teachers can implement on their own.

After reviewing the 10 interview transcripts for accuracy, the same coding scheme from the questionnaires was used for our analysis. Diagrams were revised as categories were dropped, combined and created and new relationships among categories became apparent. During this process, the question asked was: What makes us believe this is what's going on?

Three areas of accomplishments emerged from the analysis. To better understand the ways in which ideas and activities changed during the second year, teaching strategies and activities teachers reported each year were compared.

A positive, though unintended influence on teachers' progress may have been the regular contact and follow up with participants. Although this contact has been infrequent and is probably not an overriding factor in determining change, the knowledge that "someone wants to know and will be asking" cannot be totally discounted either.

Findings: Tracing Change

Most teachers came to the summer institute with concerns about gifted learners in their classes or a curiosity about gifted education. During the interviews, they were asked if they enrolled because they had concerns about gifted learners or because this was the only course that fit their schedule. Everyone's response was similar to this person's, I would probably say most took it because they had the interest, because I think it's out there and we've got to deal with it (giftedness) and we haven't. Tracing changes these teachers made two years after returning to their classrooms suggests the changes in practice were increasingly more varied in kind and number while the process of change was deliberate and paced.

Accomplishments

Despite the atmosphere created by continued cutbacks to education and shrinking staff numbers, teachers increased their accomplishments. Additionally, it seemed remarkable that no one reported being able to do less in the second year than they had in the first especially given the large number of systemic changes introduced during both of these past two years. Only two teachers reported little or no change. One of these remarked, While certain strategies remain, time is eroding the many ideas I had when I finished the institute.

Teachers reported three kinds of change in practice -- changes focussing on the whole class; changes involving specific individuals, often gifted students; and changes in their roles as advocates for gifted students and programs. A comparison of the strategies and practices reported by participants in years one and two is presented in Table I. It is likely that some teachers who added strategies in their second year still continued with practices they reported in their first year, even though this was not explicitly stated.

Table 1

A Comparison of Strategies and Practices Reported by Participants One and Two Years after the Institute on Giftedness

Strategies Reported in Years 1 & 2 by Category of Use

                                                   Year 1   Year 2
                                                   (N=25)   (N=27)
1. Whole Group Strategies
 * Talents Unlimited                                 6        6
 * School-wide Enrichment Model - Types I and II     3        7
 * Promoting Higher Level Thinking Skills           (*)       4
 * Enrichment Clusters                              (*)       2
 * Teaching Multiple Intelligences                  (*)       1
 * Providing More Student Choice                     3       (*)
2. Strategies Primarily for Individual Students
 * Curriculum Compacting (mostly math)               3        8
 * Differentiating Curriculum                       (*)       2
 * Independent Studies                              (*)       6
 * Mini Courses                                     (*)       2
 * Subject Area Acceleration                         1        2
 * Using Mentors                                    (*)       4
 * Enrichment Pull Out.                              3        2
 * Formation of a "Talent Pool"                     (*)       2
3. Advocacy
 * Joining School or District Committees             3        2
 * Staff Education                                   1        2
 * Working Individually with other Teachers         (*)       3

(*) Indicates no response

Whole Group Strategies

In the second year, the number of group oriented, whole-class strategies reported by teachers almost doubled. This category of practices was the most widely introduced change in year one with Talents Unlimited being the most frequently reported. Six teachers adopted this program and three reported using Types I and II activities from Renzulli's Schoolwide Enrichment Model. In the second year there were 20 reports of whole group practices. Participants continued using Talents Unlimited and Types I and II of the SchoolWide Enrichment model. However, a number of other strategies were also introduced (see Table 1). While the strategy, Providing More Student Choice, was not mentioned in year two, it may be that this had been introduced in year one and had become integrated into general teaching and was no longer considered a gifted practice.

It seems clear teachers were more comfortable using more of these strategies with students who demonstrated a varying range of interests and capabilities. This broadening focus is also reflected in the teachers' responses: I think it's because you're reaching the gifted ones and all students. You have to look at every child and I still keep thinking about multiple intelligences, and I can see talent even in some of my learning disabled students ... It's just good teaching actually. Another, when talking about getting all students involved in individual projects remarked, I think a lot of the things that I do are directed towards the whole class, but they help the gifted even more. They can work on their own goals and develop their ideas that much more. Another wrote, We all become better teachers for all our charges (students) rather than for just one segment of the population.

Strategies Primarily for Individual Students

There was also more reference to efforts to meet the needs of individual students, many of whom could be considered gifted. In year one there was a total of seven reports of implementing these practices; in year two there was a fourfold increase. The most striking changes were in curriculum compacting, use of mentors and independent studies. Some specific examples of these independent studies include NASCAR racing, play writing and establishing a school art gallery. One teacher who described her year as the most difficult one of my 25 years of teaching, still found the interest and energy to enlist her sister, an unemployed teacher, to work with a group of students who had a particular interest in drama.

The growing use of both teacher-developed and more formalized strategies suggests the theories and ideas about meeting the needs of individual learners were being integrated into individual teacher's thinking and teaching style. This was suggested as well by the comments. One wrote, Once a repertoire is broadened, it is here to stay. It has been an eye opener to loosen up `control' over learning. Another wrote, I have attempted to incorporate these methods. The small successes I have experienced encourage me to continue. A third teacher stated quite directly that enthusiasm may dim over time but this may be due to new teaching practices becoming more ingrained. Finally, one teacher wrote, It seems that my teaching in general improved greatly after the institute ... it opened my mind in many ways. The `domino effect' has made me a more effective, confident and much happier teacher.

Advocacy & Leadership

There was an increase from four reports in year one to seven in year two regarding advocacy and leadership. The most noticeable change was in working individually with other teachers with none reporting this in year one and three in year two. However, most teachers focused their energy and resources on their students. The few administrators in this study adopted primary advocacy roles in their schools. The two enrichment teachers also described advocacy as a critical aspect of maintaining their programs. The most striking example of leadership reported was one teacher's work to define and undertake the position of enrichment teacher in her district.

Commitment to Change

When asked, What keeps you committed?, teachers responded that their students are what kept them committed. Their students' successes are the criteria they use to determine whether they will continue to use, or discard, an activity or practice. In the words of one teacher, With the program I'm doing now, it's a hard struggle sometimes but when you see that they're being successful and moving ahead it makes you want to keep going. Teachers also described what they wanted to achieve which suggests in part what they counted as success. Some teachers indicated they wanted to motivate bored students, and others that they wanted to create excitement and enjoyment. For some, success was identifying the areas in which each student was talented.

Teachers also described feeling compelled and in a few cases pushed to expand the scope of their changes. Thus feelings of obligation may be a third contributor to remaining committed. One teacher wrote, ... my conscience will not allow me to ignore following through on change. However, a less positive side to feeling compelled is guilt. One teacher spoke insightfully about her guilt and frustration. There is always the guilt. I never feel that I have met these students' needs; there is frustration, that no one at the district level, or my school level will get off the fence.

The tone and language of the teachers' comments suggest increased self confidence is another important component of remaining committed. For example, I became more vocal at staff meetings regarding giftedness, because I knew what I was talking about; I haven't back slid in my beliefs, interest, or commitment -- I am still working on doing a better job; and finally, I'm more confident with both the gifted and the challenged.

In a related vein, all 25 teachers agreed that change evolves rather than explodes in the classroom. They argued their points saying things like: Next year I will add to it. I do believe in taking things slowly so that I feel comfortable; I also think I increased the use of practices that I used sporadically; and I am cautious when implementing change. According to these teachers, initiating and directing change by oneself is a process of small steps that take time to implement. For example, one teacher wrote, They kind of start small, with some little idea and when they see it works they gradually build on it.

Overcoming Obstacles

Teachers also pointed out the difficulties they faced in trying to implement their ideas, and in some cases diminished their commitment. Teachers described feelings of isolation, needing a driving force and preferring to work in teams with other teachers. They felt constricted by school structures, and restrictions, like class size were also burdensome.

Lack of time, mentioned as another obstacle was described in two ways. One concern was the difficulty accomplishing everything within the boundaries of professional time. Teachers said even if they were allowed to pursue certain activities during the school day, all of the planning and organizing had to be done on their own time. When these teachers described planning and organizing, they described the usual things like contacting and arranging, but there was also the time involved in getting permission from the district. One teacher wrote: We have to write something out and then they have to look at it and revise it, send it back ... it just takes so long to get things organized.

Another concern was finding time in the school day to do all the things they wanted to for all the students. One enrichment teacher indicated she only saw the students once or twice a week and often she had to move on before everyone's project was completed, while the other enrichment teacher described trying to run programs in 24 schools. One classroom teacher described her frustration this way: ... there are kids in my classroom and they're just sitting there and they're never going to reach their potential because there just isn't the time.

Fear was sometimes mentioned as an obstacle. For example, both enrichment resource teachers in this study indicated that fear of failure or fear that strategies were too complex, made classroom teachers reluctant to try these activities. However, after modelling the activities themselves, both also indicated teachers said things like: I love that, I'm going to start using that all the time and Oh, is that all there is? I can do that.

The need for support was reiterated often and poignantly. Teachers sought support: in resource teachers to model strategies and provide encouragement; to help locate materials and mentors; and to create a provincial newsletter or website to keep people connected and informed. In fact, several teachers remarked that the simple act of completing an interview left them feeling revived and recommitted. Although some people may possess the singlemindedness and determination to forge ahead no matter, most clearly require support in some form to stay the course, and all appreciate it.

Finally, a few teachers wrote of being discouraged, as in the case of one teacher who wrote: I have found it very difficult to do some of the things I wanted to merely because time wise it was impossible and the school structure is not conducive to certain projects and activities. Others were dissatisfied with their progress. One described her progress as inconsistent and I am unhappy with that. Some of these teachers, although discouraged, spoke with a sense of commitment that they had not given up on themselves or their ideas. One teacher wrote, So my progress has not been satisfactory by my own standards. It will improve and I will be a more effective, confident and much happier teacher.

Discussion

This study questioned whether some teachers' claim that next year they would be able to implement more of the practices they envisioned was a sign these practices would flourish. Their predictions were true in that practices increased in number and more teachers reported using a variety of strategies. In addition there was a shift from using isolated, packaged activities to more complex strategies: moving from general to more specific strategies for gifted learners; looking beyond their own capabilities and resources to provide experiences and support; and meeting the needs and considering the interests of individual students.

The gifted education research describing expert-novice and trained-untrained, provided a context to understand the shift in these teachers' practices. Some are becoming expert despite limited training. Their practices could be categorized with those Hanninen (1988) characterizes as "expert": emphasizing learning alternatives such as curriculum compacting; utilizing community resources; and tying together non-academic and academic interests. Hansen and Feldhusen (1993) describe similar practices: fostering higher level thinking; allowing for student self-direction; and providing a variety of learning experiences in their description of "trained" (vs untrained) teachers of the gifted.

Many teachers also reported using gifted strategies, such as, curriculum compacting, independent studies and mentors, to meet the needs of a wide range of students, not all of whom were identified as gifted. The generalization of these gifted strategies to a broad segment of the school population has been previously reported by Reis and Westberg (1994). Although most of the teachers' changes were modest they continued their efforts, adding to their repertoires. A few teachers described a revisioning and broadening of their teaching practices that encompassed their entire professional approach; for example, the teacher who spoke of how her teaching in general improved after the institute, making her a "more confident, effective, and happy teacher." During the second year many teachers appeared to build on their first year experiences which enabled them to increase the strategies they used in number, scope and originality. This is consistent with Guskey's (1986) position that experiencing success in the implementation of new teaching practices sustains change and increases levels of confidence.

However, it should be noted that this group of teachers was clearly spread along a continuum with some teachers using a single, packaged, whole group strategy, some using a wider array of whole group and individual strategies, and a few integrating many strategies and addressing the needs of individual students in innovative ways. This latter group, composed of administrators and resource teachers, seems to have had both the interest and opportunity to work with gifted students.

Primarily, it was encouraging that so many teachers were still willing to focus part of their energy on gifted education. They seemed committed to continue their efforts to try new ideas and activities, even a few who were disappointed in their progress seemed determined to keep trying. Bell and Gilbert (1994) found teachers continued to change despite feeling uncomfortable with change and their progress, because they felt better about themselves as teachers and their students' learning (p.495). At the same time it was disappointing that teachers were still struggling with the same challenges two years after the study. Even teachers who were successful described things that continued to hinder their work. A few gave up specific plans because their ideas were rejected outright. Those who failed to implement their plans or were dissatisfied reported not being, or only grudgingly being supported. Teachers also perceived they did not have a lot of latitude and there was a lot of bureaucracy and not that much autonomy. One enrichment teacher felt she had to constantly lobby to maintain her position and to prevent programs being discontinued.

Teachers also still felt isolated. They had to sell their ideas. A few were advocates in their schools, but more teachers commented on the need for a leader to champion their work. Some seemed to believe that the lack of understanding about giftedness and gifted education made it difficult for them to talk about and share their ideas with peers and principals.

These teachers' experiences clearly support the argument that introducing new ideas takes time. Trying new ideas requires getting approval, looking for evidence of success and harm to learners, locating resources, and maintaining one's own energy and commitment. In a study of teachers involved in implementing a number of new innovations as part of a school reform agenda, Adelman and Walking-Eagle (1997) specifically looked at the notion of time. They described time in terms of three phases of school reform: the first phase involves time to learn about and practice strategies; the second phase requires time to introduce and institutionalize ideas and practices; while the third phase requires time to reflect. They argued reform initiatives create problems for teachers at each phase: in the implementation phase time is a problem in that it competes with time to teach, including the trade offs among the mandated initiatives and teachers own beliefs about what is needed. Time to share practices with others which often means others know of, but not about, the new ideas teachers are trying to implement. Still another problem is that some don't want to commit their personal time.

Adelman and Walking-Eagle also contend, While many reforms have floundered when they could not produce results in a short time frame, many others have sunk from the exhaustion of those swimming upstream (p. 101). They go one to say, The early risk takers who possess the self-motivation and energy to model or pilot new classroom practices can become frustrated and tired of urging colleagues to follow in their footsteps (p. 102). Pace (1992) described time as a major barrier to maintaining the existing curriculum while changing instruction. In this study, the conflict was more trying to implement new mandated changes along with those the teacher wanted to initiate. Teachers reacted differently to these tensions. Some teachers were willing to give time to make these changes; others saw the constraints as an overwhelming, nonnegotiable barrier; while still others negotiated tradeoffs with the administration and/or within their curriculum.

Contact us next year, suggests teachers are putting off both implementing new ideas and the intrusions of researchers. However, the phrase is realistic and reflective of the process of implementing new ideas. There is growing research that the amount of time needed to implement and become comfortable with new teaching approaches and strategies is vastly underestimated. In her book, Stirring the Chalkdust: Tales of Teachers Changing Classroom Practice, Wasley concluded, These teachers demonstrate that change is not a single "Ah-ha" or two or three gestalt-like events; it is instead, a continuous process that includes recognizing a problem, learning about it, experimenting with potential solutions, integrating those that work, reflecting on what's lacking or missing and beginning again (p. 208). She echoed our own reaction when she wrote, Change takes more time than any of us who long ago recommended ongoing support, imagined (p. 208).

The question of why the institute appears to have worked well for some and so well for a small number is complex and any answer is largely speculative. The few resource teachers may have been empowered by the opportunity to use what they learned. To a lesser extent this was true of administrators. Others may have found their own sources of support, some may have been inspired by the needs of a particular student or group of students; for some others the institute may have been a teachable moment in their professional lives for a number of interrelated reasons.

REFERENCES

Adelman, N.E. and Walking-Eagle, K.P. (1997). Teachers, time and school reform. In A. Hargreaves (Ed), Rethinking Educational Change with Heart and Mind: 1997 ASCD Yearbook. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Ball, M. & Cashion, M. (1997). Gifted and Talented Students: A Resource Guide for Teachers. Fredericton, NB: Educational Services Division.

Cashion, M. & Sullenger, K. (1996). What does it mean to be gifted: Changing beliefs, changing practice. East Lansing, MI: Educational Research Information Centre (ERIC).

Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15, 5-12.

Hanninen, G. E. (1988). A study of teacher training in gifted education. Roeper Review, 10(3), 139-144.

Hansen, J. & Feldhusen, J. (1993). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly. 38, 3, 115-121.

Pace, G. (1992) Stories of teacher-initiated change from traditional to whole-language literacy instruction. The Elementary School Journal 92(4), 461-476.

Reis, S. & Westberg, K. (1994). The impact of staff development on teachers' ability to modify curriculum for gifted and talented students, Gifted Child Quarterly, 38 (3), 122-135.

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

Wasley, P. (1994) Stirring the Chalkdust: Tales of Teachers Changing Classroom Practice. New York; Teacher's College Press.

Manuscript submitted October, 1998.

Revision accepted June, 1999.

Karen Sullenger is an associate professor of education in the Faculty of Education, University of New Brunswick. Her areas of special interest are science education and teacher change. Marie Cashion is a professor of special education in the Faculty of Education, university of New Brunswick. Her special interests are gifted education and advocacy on behalf of gifted students.