Maximizing achievement for potentially gifted and talented and regular minority students in a primary classroom.

One of the greatest challenges for an elementary teacher in an inclusive classroom is to meet the cognitive, emotional, and social needs of regular and potentially gifted and talented (GT) students, especially those from culturally and linguistically different (CLD) backgrounds. This article documents an attempt to meet these needs.

The first author was an English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) teacher in a school where typically bright CLD students were not nominated for the district's gifted and talented (GT) program until they were well into the third or fourth grade, after they had become fluent enough in academic-level English to demonstrate their abilities to their teachers in that language. By that time, they were in a sense "behind" the native speakers of English in the district who had been selected for the GT program by the second grade. Mrs. Uresti learned about this situation while studying for a master's degree in gifted education, and she believed that she could adapt a particular GT approach she had studied. The Autonomous Learner Model (ALM) (Betts, 1985; Betts & Kercher, 1999) might be able to effect sufficient talent development among the students that all potentially gifted students in her classroom could be nominated for the GT program with a reasonably good likelihood of their being accepted into the program by the end of first grade, which corresponds to the time that the district selects children for its gifted school magnet program.

Focus of the Study

This "proactive" case study--a term from Schmuck's (1997) typology of action research--documents the implementation of three parts of the ALM by a first grade ESL teacher, parts easily adapted for an inclusive classroom, and describes the results. It is possibly the first study of the ALM's applicability to a mixed class of Spanish-speaking, English-language learners and bilingual or English-proficient children in a school where few students, especially CLD students, were ever nominated for the GT program until much later in their school careers. Can the ALM be successfully adapted to facilitate sufficiently high student achievement in an ESL classroom to promote the early identification of CLD and other students for the district's GT program?

Adapting the Curriculum: General Provisions

A teacher in an inclusive classroom can use several techniques that will facilitate all students' general learning while accommodating the potentially gifted child. Curriculum compacting, curriculum differentiation, and independent study are a few examples.

"Compacting" the curriculum (Renzulli, 1977) allows students who demonstrate mastery quickly to omit the corresponding parts of the regular curriculum or to move through the curriculum at a faster rate (Clark, 1997; Smutny, Walker, & Meckstroth, 1997). Differentiation adapts the curriculum to the unique needs of the learners by making modifications in complexity, depth, and pacing. Differentiation may also include a judicious selection from the curriculum, especially skills that subsume other skills, rather than covering all objectives in all areas in a lockstep fashion (Clark & Kaplan, 1981; Feldhusen & Treffinger, 1985; Renzulli; Van Tassel-Baska, 1986). The student and teacher reflect on what the student can already do, then select topical units from the curriculum, rather than attempting to "cover everything" (Gardner, 1983).

Many experts in gifted education have addressed the importance of student-centered activities and of giving students time to pursue their own interests during the school day. Delisle (1999), for example, spoke about giving children "instead of" not "more of" activities. "Instead" gives the child the opportunity to plan her or his individual learning. Van Tassel-Baska (1986) and Clark (1997) indicate the importance of student choice in the curriculum (and the associated self-discovery) for maintaining motivation in academics and meeting the personal and interpersonal needs of the child. Smutny, Walker, and Meckstroth (1997) describe this as a balance between total group instruction and individualized learning time, an accommodation to preferred learning style and intellectual modality. Torrance (1962) demonstrated that students who are given the opportunity to learn what they want to learn, instead of what they have to learn, "fall in love" with their topics, go beyond the level of interests or hobbies and develop "passions." As a result the children spend weeks and even years pursuing knowledge in these areas (Goertz & Betts, 1994).

The Autonomous Learner Model

The ALM, developed by Betts (1985) and Betts and Kercher (1999), was designed to teach learners the skills and sense of responsibility to initiate their own learning and evaluate its outcomes. Originally intended for use in the secondary setting, this model has elements that permit its adaptation to the primary classroom. The ALM consists of five dimensions: Orientation, Individual Development, Enrichment Activities, Seminar, and In-depth Study. The gifted learner advances through the five dimensions to become an autonomous learner.

The Center for Autonomous Learning (hereinafter referred to as the Center) can be student-created, teacher-created, parent-created, or the result of combined efforts. As the students learn to select their own content areas and meet their individual needs, they acquire process skills, such as higher level thinking skills, which are integrated, reinforced, and demonstrated in the Center's process (Goertz & Betts, 1994). The Center is built on the theory that students learn best through a guided process that requires them to design and carry out their own learning. In the authors' experience, such personalized learning (Bernal, 1994; Littky & Allen, 1999) complements the learning-motivational styles of Mexican American students.

The Setting: Near the U.S.-Mexico Border

This case study took place in a first grade classroom located in a mixed urban and rural school district in south Texas. This intact group consisted of 24 Hispanic students, 12 native speakers of Spanish who were learning English and 12 who were either English-Spanish bilinguals or English monolinguals. None of the students had been identified as needing special educational or GT services when the school year began, but the class is one where English is taught as a second language (ESL). All of the students qualified for free lunch.

This classroom compared favorably to other first grades in the school district, which on average were 95 percent Hispanic, 86 percent economically disadvantaged, and 65 percent English-language learners. The teacher, Mrs. Uresti, is a native speaker of English who learned Spanish as a second language. Standardized tests are not ordinarily administered in the district, but in the past, first grade classes, by and large, scored below the national average. Given the proportion of children at the level of poverty, this is not a surprising finding.

Getting Started

Three dimensions of the ALM--Orientation to the Center, Individual Development, and Enrichment Activities--were implemented in this trial. The Orientation to the Center began for the class as students experienced some group building and group problem-solving activities halfway through the fall semester. Group building involved affective exercises like "Temperature Reading," an activity in which children share their emotional "temperatures" and learn to read one another's thermometers. Group problem solving allowed the children to decide on a problem and work toward a solution as a group. The students chose to study classroom discipline. Their solution included ways to remind friends of classroom rules politely. The teacher took their lead, and in the end they rewrote the classroom rules and consequences in a cooperative group of the whole, with the teacher acting as scribe, and added a constitution that outlined the rights of all the students.

The second dimension of the ALM, Individual Development, consisted of activities that promote self-understanding. Each student completed a simple learning style inventory and kept a daily journal, activities designed to create the foundation for the children to transition into a less structured environment. The teacher and students first created a center together. After that, a rotating schedule was developed that permitted five to six children at a time to run their own centers while the others continued with the regular class.

Individualized Enrichment Activities

To implement the third dimension of the program, Enrichment Activities, the teacher set up individual interviews to assist each child in choosing a topic for individual enrichment. Deciding on a topic can be difficult for any child, but it can be especially difficult for a gifted child who has many interests. The Center contains two forms that simplify this task. The Information Please form helps learners to focus on clues of interests, strengths, and feelings. The Bull's Eye Target is used to brainstorm and narrow down to a single topic. With the Bull's Eye Target the learner prioritizes choices, placing the subjectively most favored choices in the "1" category.

Through individual interviews the teacher also discussed possible Center activities that the student might do at home. The teacher decided to send a contract home for the students' parents to sign, so she prepared one in both English and Spanish. All of the parents agreed to support the students' chosen activities, and several wrote or called Mrs. Uresti, excited about the "new" homework assignments.

Once students selected a topic, they determined what questions needed to be asked and whom to address. The students were given mini-lessons on how to write a question that would elicit responses beyond "yes" or "no": who, what, what if, when, where, why, and how. Eli, a student who created a center about Jupiter, began the research process by writing questions about his topic. The teacher initially acted as scribe to facilitate Eli's and the other students' journey through the Center process, especially the English-language learners. Later in the year the first grade students were all able to write the written questions, albeit with creative spellings, with little or no assistance.

The students then began collecting data. The Center provided the People Forms, where the learners listed people who may have information on the topic. For example, Eli listed astronomers and NASA personnel who might be able to help him with the Jupiter project. The teacher taught students how to use the telephone book to find the names, addresses, and phone numbers of their sources.

Mock interviews were conducted among classmates before they spoke with specialists from their topical area. They wrote down key questions. (Spoken and written English were thus practiced by the English-language learners.) Some of the actual interviews took place away from school. The students read as much as they could of the additional material they picked up from their human resources.

Once the People Forms were completed, students thought about other sources of information. Eli, for example, listed library materials and Internet searches to get specialized information on his topic. He also planned additional information-gathering activities:

1. Visit a local planetarium.

2. View a video about Jupiter.

3. Observe a Jupiter simulator.

Odessa, an inquisitive and creative student, chose problems of environmental pollution. She listed possible people she could interview, such as the local waste collection agency director and the director of the recycling process. Odessa listed books and videos on her Materials Form.

The students gathered what for first graders appeared to be an immense amount of materials for their centers. Each student was given a soda flat that stored materials and doubled as a resource file for notes, clippings, pictures, completed interview forms, and other materials related to the topic that he or she studied.

Eli surfed the Internet, browsed the computerized card catalog, read books, interviewed a local astronomer, and read about the Jupiter simulator at the Ames Research Laboratories. Odessa conducted a survey to gain information about the recycling practices of the teachers in her school. Kandra read books and spoke to local veterinarians and pet shop owners about the care of cats. Clarissa's parents drove her to San Antonio, where she spoke with amusement park specialists who develop ideas for new rides at Fiesta Texas. Gisela spoke with marine biologists to answer questions about dolphins. John spoke with local zookeepers about the habits of lions. Angelica also spoke to zoo personnel and local wildlife experts about exotic bird species. The students used a scripted question sheet to refer to while interviewing in person or over a conference line, so they were free to ask questions, while an adult--a parent, usually--acted as scribe.

The next step was to complete the Activity Cards. Eli used a verb chart and a product chart to facilitate his work. The verb list served as a suggestion source about the process, and the product list had ideas for ways to present the information.

Producing, Presenting, Evaluating

The final steps, Presentation and Evaluation, not only put closure to the students' Center experiences but also gave them opportunities to reflect on how they learned, so that they were able to talk to other students about formulating questions, gathering and organizing information, and developing a final product. Each student selected an audience. Eli decided to read aloud the book he had written and then discussed facts about Jupiter. Odessa chose to do a commercial and share ideas about reducing local pollution. The commercial was videotaped and played to the class. Kandra presented a three-dimensional display that showed items needed for caring for a cat. John, who had written about lion characteristics and habits, drew a poster and held a question and answer session with the class. Gisela presented her watercolor painting with written descriptions and discussed dolphin activities in the ocean and at water parks. All the children chose to present to the class and some went on to present to their families, church groups, and clubs such as the 4-H and local Kennel Club.

The first grade students utilized a multitude of media to complete their centers. As the learners wrote books, pamphlets, and surveys, their writing skills were honed. The students selected chalk, oil pastels, watercolors, and colored pencils for their illustrations and learned art techniques. Science skills were also cultivated as learners designed and carried out experiments to test their own theories and to answer questions about their topics. An example is Odessa's experiment, in which she placed index cards spread with petroleum jelly around her home to compare the amount of pollution that the cards picked up in different areas.

Finally, each of the students and Mrs. Uresti completed evaluation forms. The students' own evaluations helped them reflect on their progress, and the teacher gave feedback on the skills each student utilized in the Center process. These exercises also seemed to educe ideas for the students' next Center topic.

Results on Standardized Tests

The class was exposed to the ALM for a 24-week period. These students were then given one of two standardized tests, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, Form M (ITBS-M; Riverside Publishing, 1996) or the Spanish Assessment of Basic Education, Second Edition (SABE-2; CTB Macmillan/McGraw-Hill, 1994), depending on their individual levels of language proficiency. Twelve of the students took the ITBS; 12 took the SABE-2.

Table 1 summarizes the results of the achievement testing. The highest average NCE score was in Spanish reading (62.8), which also had the smallest standard deviation (12.2). These results were doubtlessly due to the fact that the lowest NCE on the SABE reading scale was 53, which is surprising, because it means that the lowest reader in Spanish scored in the average range. It is also noteworthy that the standard deviations on the (English) ITBS reading, language, and mathematics tests were somewhat greater than on the SABE and greater than the NCE scale's standard deviation, 21.06, which suggests greater variability in achievement in the English-proficient group than in the group of English-language learners (ELLs). Indeed the lowest scores earned by the ELLs on the SABE-2 were higher than the lowest scores earned by English-proficient students on the ITBS.

Internal comparisons were planned. Cross-group comparisons might have been interesting under the assumption that the two sets of variables of language, mathematics, and reading were covered in both tests (ITBS and SABE). However, the power (Cohen, 1969) necessary for these small numbers of students to yield reliable comparisons (for alpha = .05) would have required a critical value of Cohen's d (a measure of effect size) to equal .85 of a standard deviation, and it was believed that none of the differences between the two groups of 12 students, represented by ITBS and SABE-2 scores, would be sufficient to the task. Given the assumptions and the low power of the statistic, cross-group comparisons were not made.

Within each of the groups, however, the students who took the ITBS scored significantly higher, on average, in Reading and Language scores than in Mathematics (t = 2.710, p = .02, v = 11; and t = 5.562, p < .001, respectively). For those who took the SABE-2, the average Reading score in Spanish was significantly higher than the Language and Mathematics scores: t = 3.465, p = .005, v = 11 (reading vs. language effect size = .70) and t = 3.642, p = .004 (reading vs. math effect size = .89).

The strengths of the English-proficient and English-learning groups were different, but neither group was on average weak. The students who took the ITBS scored an average NCE of 47, which corresponds to the 44th national percentile, while the Spanish-dominant students scored an average NCE of 54 on the SABE-2, which corresponds to the 57th percentile.

For a first grade class in this school to achieve, on average, scores as high as the middle range on nationally standardized tests was an unusual, but happy event. There is, of course, no way to ensure that these good mean scores were due directly to the abbreviated implementation of the model, as the assignment of students was beyond the control of the teacher and because pretests were not administered nor comparison samples obtained. What we believe that we know "for sure" is that the atmosphere in Mrs. Uresti's classroom changed radically during the last 24 weeks of school, when she began using centers and individualized projects and instruction, and that the parents noticed changes in their children's behaviors and attitudes as well.

What Happened to the Students Along the Way?

A surprising advantage of the Center was the effect it had on the students who were learning English as a second language. ESL students became willing to take certain risks with their English language development. Angelica, a bright but sometimes shy and withdrawn child, attempted to read, write, and speak more English as she advanced through the Center process. She chose to leave the comfort zone of her native language by making her presentation in English. She could, however, also explain her project in Spanish.

The Center allowed for high-level abilities to be demonstrated through behaviors that are characteristic of many Hispanic children, such as analogous reasoning and quick learning through experience. Some Mexican American children are taught in their homes to avoid individual competition, independence, and self-direction. The Orientation and Individual Development dimensions gave these children a chance to become comfortable making their own choices and exercising new levels of independence in their learning at school, apparently without sacrificing their familial protocol or having to engage in direct competition.

Summary of Effects of Modified ALM on Students, Parents, and School

The performance of this first grade class suggests that the students reacted favorably to the self-directed learning environment provided by the teacher, who also believed that her students learned to formulate questions and develop new ideas from their independent investigations. Vocabulary in English and Spanish increased naturally as the students gained new knowledge about their chosen topics, and fluency in English seemed to incorporate the advanced thought processes. These results mirror studies by Barton (1976), who found that elementary students and their teachers in a heterogeneous classroom were able to move from a command style to a self-directed style and assume responsibility for carrying out much of their own learning, and by Anstrom and Kindler (1996), who found that active learning with an emphasis on authentic discourse is a particularly effective method for second language acquisition.

The teacher received positive phone calls and letters from parents who welcomed the opportunity for their students to do something new, something beyond traditional assignments. Parents also reported that their students were eager to attend school each day because they wanted to continue with their Center activities. One mother thanked Mrs. Uresti, because her son had gone from being a discipline problem at school to a star student who loved school. It should be noted that the parents, whose incomes were marginal to poor, were very supportive of their students' independent study activities, which in many cases involved family trips of several hundred miles.

The school principal expressed doubt when first approached about the implementation of the Center from the ALM. He was concerned that young students require more direct teaching to be successful and would waste important learning time. However, he was ultimately pleased to see an increase in the use of higher order thinking skills, greater motivation, and better scores on nationally standardized achievement tests than he had seen in a long time. Use of the described techniques actually gave the teacher the time to work with students who needed extra help or who required a more structured learning environment. Mrs. Uresti, now in a new role, conducts workshops regularly for bilingual and ESL teachers on the ALM.

Finally, Mrs. Uresti nominated five of the first grade children for the GT program. She submitted a portfolio on each of the children, which documented their levels of achievement on the standardized tests and included samples of their work on the projects in her class. The students were then tested with the Raven's Progressive Matrices, a test of general intelligence that does not require reading or speaking. Three of the five students were subsequently selected for the GT program. Significantly, all three were CLD students, one of whom had begun the first grade year as limited-English proficient. An informal follow-up of these three GT children a year later indicated that they were all doing well at the magnet GT elementary school in the district.

Conclusions

Three dimensions of the Autonomous Learner Model--Orientation, Individual Development, and Enrichment Activities--were implemented in an ESL first grade classroom. On the whole, most of the learners in Mrs. Uresti's classroom achieved success in the academic areas of language, reading comprehension, and mathematics, as evidenced by generally average performances on either the Iowa Test of Basic Skills or the Spanish Assessment of Basic Education. The implementation of the described techniques afforded the young students a highly individualized, motivating, and satisfying learning opportunity, one that we believe is highly compatible with the cultural background of these students. What is more, three of the 24 students in her class were selected for the GT program by the beginning of the second grade. Treffinger' s (1980) assertion that children learn better if involved in their own learning was demonstrated by this first grade class, as was Maker's (1982) finding that students are more motivated to learn if they direct their learning through choice and design. Perhaps personalizacion would be the better word in the case of these Mexican American students.

This was not a controlled study where the components of variance in student achievement could be sorted out. But this case study showed that this adaptation of the ALM can work with Mexican American students, including students of limited-English proficiency, in an ESL class taught by a bilingual teacher who enthusiastically implements the components of the model and organizes the parents to take a very active role in their children's learning activities. It is clear that after 24 weeks the students in this class developed skills of independence, responsibility, creativity, and resourcefulness, and demonstrated higher order thinking skills. Moreover, self-directed learning and the Center activities seemed to cultivate the potential giftedness in some of the children, so that they could be identified as gifted early enough in their schooling to take full advantage of the opportunities afforded by the district's GT program.

Results (in Normal Curve Equivalents) of Testing
with the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and the
Spanish Assessment of Basic Education (SABE)

                 ITBS       ITBS     ITBS    SABE       SABE     SABE
                Reading   Language   Math   Reading   Language   Math

M NCE            50.3       58.0     33.1    62.8       51.8     48.8
S.D.             28.0       28.0     24.6    12.2       19.1     19.1
M Percentile     50         64       21      72         53       48
Max NCE          87         91       77      86         77       89
Min NCE          11          3        1      53         22       16

REFERENCES

Anstrom, K., & Kindler, A. (1996). Federal policy, legislation, and educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Barton, B. (1976). Toward the development of self-directed learner: A pilot study. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Bernal, E. M. (1994, April) Finding and cultivating minority gifted/talented students. Paper presented at the National Conference on Alternative Teacher Certification, Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 391 345)

Betts, G. (1985). Autonomous Learner Model for the gifted and talented. Greeley, CO: Autonomous Learning Publications and Specialists.

Betts, G., & Kercher, J. (1999). Autonomous Learner Model for the gifted and talented. Greeley, CO: Autonomous Learning Publications and Specialists.

Clark, B. (1997). Growing up gifted (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Clark, B., & Kaplan, S. (1981). Improving differentiating curricula for the gifted/talented. Los Angeles: California Association for the Gifted.

Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic.

CTB Macmillan/McGraw-Hill (1994). Spanish Assessment of Basic Education (2nd ed.). Monterey, CA: Author.

Delisle, J. (1999). Informal presentation on GT curriculum. Presented at Education Service Center, Region One, in Edinburg, TX.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Creative thinking and problem solving in gifted education (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Goertz, J., & Betts, G. (1994). The Center for Autonomous Learning. Greeley, CO: Autonomous Learning Publications and Specialists.

Littky, D., & Allen, F. (1999, September). Whole-school personalization, one student at a time. Educational Leadership, 57 (1), 24-28.

Maker, J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems.

Renzulli, J. (1977). The Enrichment Triad. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Press.

Riverside Publishing. (1996). Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Itasca, IL: Author.

Schmuck, R. A. (1997). Practical action research for change. Arlington Heights, IL: IRI / Skylight.

Smutny, J., Walker, S., & Meckstroth, E. A. (1997). Teaching young gifted children in the regular classroom. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publications.

Treffinger, D. (1980). Encouraging creative learning for the gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: Ventura County Supt. of Schools, LTl Publications.

Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1986). Effective curriculum and instructional models for talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30 (4), 164-169.

Ronda Uresti is the coordinator for Gifted Education, North Central Ohio Service Center, and a doctoral student in educational leadership. Dr. Jeanie Goertz is an educational consultant for Gifted Programs and Services, Office for Exceptional Children, Ohio Department of Education. Dr. Ernesto M. Bernal is a full time educational consultant and vice president of the San Antonio Gifted Education Foundation, which promotes educational opportunities for gifted children in south-central Texas from all ethnic and socioeconomic groups.

Manuscript submitted September, 2001.

Revision accepted November, 2001