Self-advocacy: encouraging students to become partners in differentiation.

There are myriad means to an appropriately challenging educational experience for gifted adolescents including Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), distance learning, virtual schools, online courses, independent study, and differentiated instruction in the regular classroom. However, these opportunities are ineffective if students do not willingly engage in them. For their education to be personally meaningful, gifted students must be allowed to make choices. Much research has focused on the value of allowing students this ownership. Providing them with choices has been identified as a primary motivational tool that encourages learning (Gentry & Springer, 2002). Pintrich and DeGroot (1990) found that self-regulated learning that included choice led to higher self-efficacy and improved academic performance for middle school students.

Teachers, of course, play the key role in providing choices and helping students select them. Tomlinson (2001) noted that teachers in differentiated classrooms understood the need to help students take increasing responsibility for their own growth, encouraging them to be active in making and evaluating decisions. Writing on the needs of students with disabilities, Ferguson (2001) stated:

For all students to achieve the schooling outcome of active, meaningful participation in their community, they must each receive an education that has been uniquely tailored or personalized to their abilities, interests, and communities. [Teachers] must look to the activities and patterns of the lives students are leading as an important curricular source, and then overlap and embed real-life learning goals into the curriculum ... [including] activities they enjoy or are even passionate about and activities they would like to explore. (p. ii)

Although it is important for teachers to believe in student choice and to create varied learning opportunities, it is just as important for students to understand their specific personal educational needs and to develop the skill to advocate for themselves. Weimer (1994) reports that one school district taught self-advocacy skills to its students with learning disabilities, including an awareness of one's disability, test modifications, and adult independence skills. Phillips (1990) also describes interviews with ninth and tenth grade students with learning disabilities, their parents, and their resource teachers which indicated that self-advocacy is effective in developing awareness of educational opportunities. In fact, an ERIC search of the key words "student self-advocacy" returned 78 hits. While 77 of those articles dealt with self-advocacy of people with disabilities, only one was geared toward gifted students. Yet Karnes and McGinnis (1996) contend that children with high intellectual ability are especially ready to take charge of their own education, citing several studies which conclude that a more internal locus of control (the feeling that control of one's life rests in one's own hands) is associated with giftedness. Robinson (1996) relates that counseling for highly gifted students must help them understand their own intellectual achievement and the means to be effective self-advocates within the educational system. Delisle and Galbraith (2002) wrote:

   Some students know their needs and interests at least
   as well as their teachers do, and this is especially true
   with gifted students ... As teachers, we can help our
   students to become more than passive recipients of our
   teaching. With some enlightened self-exploration into
   their own educational agendas, your students will
   become partners with you in an enterprise that was
   never meant to be a one-way street: education. (p. 149)

Self-advocacy may also be the key to success for gifted students considered to be underachieving. Winebrenner (2001) writes, "The most common complaint about underachievers is, 'They won't do their work.' In my experience, the reality is that they won't do the teacher's work, but would be very happy to work on what is meaningful for them" (p.22). Glasser (1996) found that the issue of choice was crucial for addressing motivation and student achievement. However, he added that providing choices in the classroom requires that teachers share power with students, thus encouraging decision making and ownership of learning. Schultz (2002), too, contends that students and teachers need to plan together for achievement:

   [We must] move away from the "fix the broken" mentality
   of working on students, to one of working with
   students to develop understanding and learning ... and
   no longer focus on how to conform these learners to
   the educational system as it exists. Broadening the
   focus can provide and enhance understanding and
   promote additional dialogue between gifted underachievers
   and individuals attempting to meet these
   diverse learners' needs. (pp. 204-5)

If gifted students are capable of self-advocacy, why don't they do it? Perhaps it is because they have been conditioned to believe that only struggling students have special academic needs. Croft (1999) points out two commonly held myths about gifted education:

   1. Many policy makers suggest that gifted students
   don't need special services--they'll get by. The reality
   is that gifted students need carefully conceived special
   programming to help them develop their
   differentiated abilities. 2. All too often, gifted education
   programs are accused of being elitist. [The reality
   is that] well-articulated programs for highly able
   learners are no more elitist than are interventions for
   any other exceptional students; equality suggests providing
   essential curriculum to all students, but equity
   demands the provision of sufficiently challenging curriculum
   to gifted students.

Delisle (2001) asserts that "in our rush toward egalitarianism as regards the concept of giftedness, we have lost sight of what should be our primary vision--the gifted child who cries out for attention" (p.14). All too often gifted students do not feel they have permission to ask for what they need, and only gain our attention finally when in desperation they do "cry out," frequently in inappropriate ways. Finn (2002) theorizes that although gifted children may be forthright about stating their needs, their egotism keeps them from being either subtle or tactful. "Turning this into effective self-advocacy is a complex effort," he writes. Without training, a "child's naive efforts tend to antagonize others. The child may become inappropriately manipulative, or may learn to stop attempting to self-advocate at all."

Student success depends on gifted educators providing such training. Galbraith and Delisle (1996) enumerate three steps students can take toward changing this phenomenon: 1) be informed and know your rights; 2) identify your needs, interests, and ideas; and 3) prioritize your needs and interests, choosing the top two or three to plan your strategy around. They go on to list ten important tips for students to use when talking to teachers about their needs. They advise students, "If you're dissatisfied with a particular assignment, class, or other aspect of school and you don't ask for something different, no one else is going to ask for you" (p.145).

For gifted students to receive an appropriate education, educators must not only provide challenging opportunities, they must also help those students understand their needs, know the options, and become proficient at advocating for themselves.

Line of Inquiry and Rationale 

Although more and more teachers are becoming proficient in differentiating instruction, many still struggle with identifying exactly when and how their individual students require that differentiation. Since neither parents nor teachers can read minds, students must communicate what they are thinking and feeling. In other words, they must self-advocate. This action research examined the ways in which participation in issues seminars and related interventions affected students' interest in and willingness to self-advocate.

What is Self-Advocacy?

Self-advocacy is the process of recognizing and meeting the needs specific to one's learning ability without compromising the dignity of oneself or others (Brinckerhoff, 1994). It includes four key elements: understanding one's rights and responsibilities; developing one's learner profile by assessing abilities and interests, strengths and weaknesses, learning styles and habits; becoming aware of available options and opportunities; and connecting with advocates who can help accomplish what needs to be done. The typical adolescent urge for less dependence on parents makes it particularly important for students in the middle grades to learn to advocate for themselves. Yet as the research indicates, most students must be taught how to self-advocate.

What Is An Issues Seminar?

The Issues Seminar (Barlow, 1996) is a program designed to provide adolescent students with information and discussion about the social, emotional, and academic issues unique to gifted individuals. Barlow and a team of middle school educators created six modules for use with students over the course of three years. Each module requires approximately seven class periods of group time, individual reading and journaling, and daily assignments completed by students and their parents. Module topics include understanding intelligence, myths and gripes, perfectionism, gender issues, planning ahead, and student reflections.

Methodology

In this study, 23 seventh grade accelerated students were surveyed at the beginning of the year to assess their familiarity with differentiation strategies, comfort level in asking a teacher to modify work, current frequency of self-advocacy, and interest in finding out more about differentiation. Parents completed a similar survey on their familiarity with differentiation strategies and their comfort level and frequency in asking a teacher to modify work for their children. All students then participated in five introductory issues seminars, each lasting one class period, facilitated by the district gifted education coordinator. Two of the Barlow modules became the foundation for the seminars: (1) Module 6A: What is Intelligence helped students explore the differences between the attributes of intelligence and the attributes of good character, the definitions and characteristics of intelligence, and the ways in which people of high intelligence may differ from others; (2) Module 8A: Planning Ahead defined early emergence and muhipotentiality and helped students explore the impact of these concepts on high school, college, career, and life planning. Students assessed their abilities, learned their rights and responsibilities, met advocates, and discovered a variety of educational options, as well as tools and procedures for self-advocating. Following the seminars, all students were invited to participate throughout the school year in further interventions aimed at increasing their interest in and ability to self-advocate. Fifteen students chose to read Gifted Kids Survival Guide: A Teen Handbook (Galbraith & Delisle, 1996) and met for small group discussions with Delisle in February. Sixteen students elected to have individual conferences with the seminar facilitator during second semester. Because participation in the book discussion group and the conferences was voluntary, 9 students chose no interventions beyond the seminars. At the end of the year, all 23 original seminar students once again completed the survey of their perceptions of differentiation and self-advocacy, also indicating any plans they had for changing the normal school experience to better meet their educational needs. Data came from the 23 sets of surveys, each of which included a student pre-assessment, parent survey, and student post-assessment.

Results

To What Extent are Students Aware of the Differentiated Opportunities That Exist?

Before the seminars, over half of the students indicated that they were not familiar with 5 of the 12 options(see Table 1). The only options that every student recognized were accelerated classes/groups and independent projects. Student reflections also indicated limited knowledge of the possibilities. Nineteen students described only their experience with accelerated reading and math groups. Elementary pull-out programs, grade acceleration, Midwest Talent Search, and working with a like-ability peer were mentioned by one student each.

On the post-survey at the end of the year, students again indicated their familiarity with the various options. Most notable were the increases in student awareness of learning contracts, mentors, grade acceleration, summer programs, classes at the technical school or university, and online/correspondence courses (see Table 1).

Which Differentiated Options are Students Interested in Pursuing?

Pre-seminar survey responses indicated that students were most interested in accelerated classes and groups. A few students said they would like to try independent projects, mentorships, and online/correspondence courses (see Table 2).

At the end of the year students showed much greater interest in trying a variety of options. Although the most popular was still accelerated classes, interest in subject acceleration and independent projects rose significantly. During interviews, 3 students proposed mentorships, and 2 asked for assistance finding information about online computer programming courses. Also, the number of total student responses indicating interest in any of the differentiated options rose from 31 to 65 (see Table 2).

To What Extent are Students Comfortable Asking for Differentiation Before and After Interventions?

Almost all students appear to have gained in their level of comfort in self-advocating, regardless of the interventions they participated in. The exception is the group who did not attend the Delisle discussion but did have individual interviews. At the end of the year, fewer of the students in that group felt uncomfortable, but fewer also felt very comfortable. In fact, the vast majority of each intervention group ended up feeling "okay" or "very comfortable." It is notable that those students who attended only the seminar reported the greatest increase in their comfort level, with 89% of them rating themselves from "okay" to "very comfortable." The breakdown by groups that participated in various interventions is shown in Table 3.

To What Extent are Students Comfortable With Their Parents Advocating for Them?

Table 4 presents the level of comfort students felt in self-advocating before and after interventions, in comparison to their comfort in having their parents advocate for them, using the scale of 0 (very uncomfortable) to 10 (very comfortable). During the conferences and interviews, the 16 participating students each reported that they were more comfortable self-advocating than having their parents advocate for them. Following the interventions, 21 students felt more comfortable advocating for themselves than having their parents advocate.

Curiously, the surveys showed that in the final analysis 3 students felt less comfortable self-advocating. In later interviews they each said that discomfort was caused by doubts that they had exceptional academic needs that warranted accommodations. With further discussion they gained confidence in their abilities and assured the interviewer that they would seek help if needed.

To What Extent are Students Interested in Learning About Self-Advocacy?

In general, before the seminar the majority of students (61%) were interested in finding out more about taking charge of their own education. In fact, 83% of them said they were "somewhat" or "very interested" in self-advocacy (see Table 5). Additionally, observation of students during the seminar indicated very high interest from all students in finding out more about their personal learning profiles and the appropriately corresponding opportunities.

Since both participation in the discussions with Delisle and the individual conferences were voluntary, students' participation in them could be considered to be showing further interest in self-advocacy. Fifteen students met with Delisle; 16 students had individual conferences.

Following these interventions, the only group that increased its interest in finding out more about self-advocacy were the students who hadn't participated in any programming beyond the seminar. Said one student, "I wish now that I had gone to the groups. I feel like I might have missed out on something." In the final survey, the groups that had experienced more interventions had 15-30% fewer students interested (see Table 5). During the conferences, 8 of these students indicated that we had covered the topic thoroughly and that they had no new questions or concerns to investigate regarding self-advocacy. As Molly said, "I now know how to get what I need and know who to go to for help."

To What Extent Did Student Perceptions About Self-Advocacy Change During the Program?

As shown in Table 6, based on the data derived from student responses in the pre- and post-seminar surveys, individual student interest in learning more about self-advocacy generally decreased. But comfort level increased and frequency of self-advocacy increased or remained the same.

Do Students' Actions Indicate Self-Advocacy?

In their final reflections, students responded to the question, "What are some ways you plan to change the normal school experience to better meet your needs?" Eleven students said their only plan for differentiation was to take accelerated classes the next year. Registration records show that they all had followed through; in fact each student in the research group signed up for at least one accelerated class. Nine of them registered for all four accelerated core classes. Additionally, 19 students described other types of differentiation they would request, including independent projects, mentorships, group projects, summer science camp, and online computer courses.

Analysis

Data collected on three of the four components of self-advocacy indicates an increase in students' interest in and willingness to self-advocate. (The fourth component, understanding rights and responsibilities, was covered in the seminar and interventions but student understanding was not assessed for this research.) While it is difficult to take into account every contributing variable, it appears the interventions are responsible for some of this growth.

1. Students increased their understanding of their learner profile.

In interviews, students (identified below by pseudonym) revealed that following the seminar self-assessment activities they better understood themselves as learners, illustrated by several specific examples: Kelly now realizes that despite exceptionally high standardized reading scores she has little interest in English and would rather find challenges in other areas. Jason is sometimes overwhelmed by too many academic challenges. Carl, who is twice exceptional (G/T and ED), recognizes abilities which had been overshadowed by his disability. Twins Blair and Anna, whose similarities are obvious, are now more comfortable celebrating their differences. Dennis knows that his high creativity may contribute to his general disorganization. Carol, who has been grade accelerated, understands that means she has varied peer groups--some based on age, some on intellect, and some on interests. Students added to their learner profiles by recognizing their preferences for specific strategies and by assessing their comfort in talking to teachers about modifications (see Table 3).

Students were highly interested in this self-analysis and the resulting peer comparisons. It would be beneficial for them to repeat this assessment each year, recording changes and reflecting on their growth. In this informal setting, they were very eager to share their learner profile with the teachers who were present, indicating also a certain comfort level in selfadvocacy.

2. Students increased their understanding of available options.

In the beginning, the only differentiated activities clearly understood by all students were accelerated groups/classes and independent projects, the most commonly used options in many schools. Following the seminar, a greater number of students were familiar with the various options (see Table 1), and they also showed increased interest in trying a variety of experiences (see Table 2). During conferences, students who previously had been unfamiliar with a particular option expressed interest in pursuing it: Christine wanted to find a mentor in architecture; Lauren was looking for a summer program in science; Toua explored online math and computer courses; Jordan investigated taking the ACT as an 8th grader. Students also discussed ways to make experiences more satisfying and to find alternatives to those they disliked (Table 2). All 3 students who initially said they disliked mentorships admitted they didn't understand what they were. When it was explained, one of them wanted to pursue it. Many students (45% of those who had tried it) indicated on the survey that they did not like independent study. Teacher observations during a seminar activity, however, showed that all 23 students were interested in doing independent projects if they could control what, how, and with whom they were studying. It is possible that teachers falsely assume that gifted students innately know how to structure independent high quality intellectual work. If teachers continue frequent use of this alternative, they must find ways to help students do it more successfully.

3. Students increased their connections with advocates.

To a greater extent, students are communicating with the people who can help them get what they need--their parents, their teachers, and the G/T coordinator. Most students reported that when they brought home the parent survey, they talked to their parents about the seminar topics. For some, this was the first time they communicated about their special needs. Not surprisingly, the students generally feel uncomfortable having their parents intervene for them (Table 4), although parents probably would advocate since the vast majority of them indicated in a separate survey that they were comfortable doing it. At this age, most students would rather work directly with the teacher or other advocate.

Following the interventions, 70% of students said they felt comfortable asking a teacher to modify something for them (see Table 3), indicating a willingness to talk to the teacher about their needs. Nineteen students reported that they had actually requested differentiation from at least one teacher, compared to only 10 students who had asked prior to the seminar. However, while the number of self-advocating students seems to have increased, the frequency with which they asked a teacher for modifications seems to have decreased (see Table 6). There are three possible explanations: the accelerated classes may be better at meeting the students' needs; students' learner profiles may have assured them that they don't currently need modifications; students may be content with less challenging, less interesting work. The only group that said they had increased the frequency of their self-advocacy was comprised of students who had taken part in the seminar, but no other programming. Before the seminar, all of them felt they had never or almost never self-advocated. However, at the end of the year almost half of those students (44%) changed their responses from "never ask" to "occasionally ask" for modification.

The school's G/T advocate (who is also a classroom teacher) attended the seminar sessions, interacting personally with many of the students for the first time. Following this, several students chose to meet with her for lunchtime discussions and joined her in an end-of-the-year program evaluation. These same students voluntarily conferred at the start of the following school year.

During the interventions, students also sought the advocacy of the G/T program coordinator who had facilitated the issues seminar. Maria had never before been formally identified as gifted and had many questions about what that meant for her. Christine asked for help in setting up the architectural mentorship. Jordan, who was at first reluctant to take accelerated English, wanted reassurance that he indeed had a talent for writing. Carl needed help bringing the G/T perspective to his IEP meeting. Mitch couldn't accept a summer scholarship because of a family commitment, but asked for assistance in contacting the donor to see if there were other possibilities. Stacy even advocated for another student who she knew needed guidance and support.

Implications

Interpretation of the data gave direction to the ongoing action research, a process characterized by spiraling cycles of reflecting, planning, data collecting, analyzing, replanning, acting, data collecting, and the like (Schmuck, 1997). The following findings should be considered during the next cycle:

1. After direct instruction in gifted and talented issues, students need periodic reminders of their rights and responsibilities as they work their way through the remaining school years.

2. Varied communication is key. Post cards, registration materials, informal lunch time discussion groups, and even casual hallway encounters can all remind students that the G/T staff and guidance counselors are their advocates.

3. Presentations to parent groups and newsletter articles can help parents understand their advocacy role, but it is also important to share these communiques with classroom teachers so they are aware of what parents are attempting.

4. All teachers and counselors should be trained in appropriate ways to respond when children attempt self-advocacy and provided with support in creating alternatives.

5. Students should reassess their learner profiles annually, comparing the results and reflecting on their growth and change.

Conclusions

Actual self-advocacy is hard to document over a relatively short time period because it is an ongoing process that students consciously or subconsciously must use if and when they need it throughout their lives. Also, due to the nature of action research, the 23 students studied were all from one grade within one school. However, within the limits of this study, the data seem to reflect an increase in students' interest in self-advocating. They have become aware of their need to ask for options and have developed some of the beliefs, skills, and confidence that will allow them to do so.

It may be that the greatest gain for the students came through working closely with the G/T staff. Collecting the data meant that the seminar facilitator spent increased time with them--talking informally and building personal relationships. Students felt understood and valued for their abilities, and they saw her as a "neutral" teacher--to whom they owed no homework, from whom they got no grade. They had conversations not usually held with their regular teachers. They voiced their complaints about school, expressed fears about failure, and shared personal projects with great excitement. Throughout the following summer parents and students called and e-mailed for help in making decisions about courses for the next year, applying for summer programs, and just to say "hello." Neihart (2002) reported that "the single most powerful predictor of positive outcomes for vulnerable children is a relationship with a caring adult" (p. 114). It is probable that the most important part of the gifted educator's job is connecting with individual students. It is this personal contact that will best support students as they learn about themselves and choose those experiences that are most appropriate for their growth.

Awareness of Differentiated Options

N=23                                  Pre-Seminar    End of Year

Pretestinq and compacting                 13             23
Independent projects                      23             23
Learning contracts                         0             16
Accelerated classes/groups                23             23
Independent study                         20             23
Different assignments                     19             23
Mentors                                    0             17
Subject acceleration                      15             23
Grade acceleration                         1             23
Summer programs                            0             15
Online/Correspondence courses              0             21
Dual enrollment/University classes         0             15

Table 1

Interest in Differentiated Options

N=23                                  Pre-Seminar    End of Year

Independent projects                       2             11
Accelerated classes/groups                23             23
Independent study                          0              4
Mentors                                    3              5
Subject acceleration                       0             14
Online/correspondence courses              3              6
College or tech. school classes            0              2
Total number of responses                 31             65

Table 2

Comparison of Comfort in Self-Advocacy

How comfortable are you asking a teacher to modify something for you?

                                    Before Seminar
                                Very     Okay    Very
                               Uncomf            Comf

All students                    52%      22%      26%
Attended Small Group            46%      23%      31%
Attended Ind. Conference        50%      20%      30%
Attended Small Group and
  Ind. Conference               57%      14%      29%
No additional interventions     67%      11%      22%

                                         End of Year
                                Very     Okay    Very
                               Uncomf            Comf

All students                    30%      35%      35%
Attended Small Group            27%      33%      40%
Attended Ind. Conference        36%      36%      28%
Attended Small Group and
  Ind. Conference               33%      33%      33%
No additional interventions     11%      44%      45%

Table 3

Individual Student Comfort with
Self-Advocacy and Parent Advocacy

Scale: 0 (very uncomfortable) to 10 (very comfortable)

Student          Comfort with            Comfort with
             self-advocacy (pre)     self-advocacy (post)

Eric                  0                       2
Jamie                 0                       3
Jason                 0                       3
Beau                  0                       3
Jeremy                0                       4
Natalie               0                       5
Maria                 1                       1
Kelly                 1                       2
Nicole                1                       6
Carol                 1                       7
Sarah                 2                       7
Carl                  3                       5
Bauj                  5                       5
Christine             5                       7
Cassie                5                       7
Chris                 5                       7
Dennis                6                       3
Nick                  7                       9
Molly                 9                       6
Tina                  9                      10
Kari                 10                       5
Jacob                10                       5
Stacy                10                      10

Student          Comfort with
               parent advocacy

Eric                  0
Jamie                 0
Jason                 0
Beau                  5
Jeremy                1
Natalie               1
Maria                 0
Kelly                 1
Nicole                5
Carol                 6
Sarah                 7
Carl                  2
Bauj                  3
Christine             0
Cassie                0
Chris                 0
Dennis                1
Nick                  4
Molly                 0
Tina                  2
Kari                  0
Jacob                 2
Stacy                 1

Table 4

Comparison of Interest in
Learning about Self-Advocacy

How interested are you in finding out more about taking charge of
your own education?

                                       Pre-Seminar
                               Not     Somewhat    Very

All students                   17%       22%       61%
Attended Small Group            0%       23%       77%
Attended Ind. Conference       10%       30%       60%
Attended Small Group and
Ind. Conference                 0%       29%       71%
No additional interventions    33%       22%       45%

                                       End of Year
                               Not     Somewhat    Very

All students                   22%       35%       43%
Attended Small Group           13%       40%       47%
Attended Ind. Conference       14%       43%       43%
Attended Small Group and
Ind. Conference                11%       33%       56%
No additional interventions    22%       45%       33%

Table 5

Change in Individual Student
Perceptions and Actions
from Pre-Seminar to
End of School Year

N=23         Interest    Comfort       Frequency
                                    of Self-Advocacy

Increased        5          16               9
Unchanged        7           3              11
Decreased       11           4               3

Table 6

REFERENCES

Barlow, M. (1996). Issues seminar: A discussion program for academically talented middle school students. Produced by the Whimall (WI) School District. 5000 S. 116th Street. Greenfield, Wisconsin, 53228.

Brinckerhoff, L. (1994). Developing effective serf-advocacy skills in college-bound students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic. 29, 229-238.

Croft, L. (1999). Six maddening myths of gifted education. ITAG News Magazine, 25 (1), TF-1-TF-4.

Deiisle. J. (2001). In praise of elitism. Gifted Child Today, 24(l) 14-15.

Delisle. J., & Galbraith, J, (2002). When gifted kids don't have all the answers. Minneapolis: Free Spirit.

Ferguson, D. (2001). Designing personalized learning. Alexandria. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Finn, K. (2002, May). Self-advocacy. Report presented at the Beyond IQ: Paradoxes and Oxymorons Conference. Wakefield, MA.

Galbraith, J., & Delisle, J. (1996). The gifted kids survival guide: A teen handbook. Minneapolis: Free Spirit.

Gentry, M., & Springer. P. (2002). Secondary student perceptions of their class activities regarding meaningfulness, challenge, choice, and appeal. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education. 13. 192-204.

Glasser, W. (1996). Then and now: The theory of choice. Learning, 25, 20-22.

Karnes, F., & McGinnis. J. (1996). Self-actualization and locus of control with academically talented adolescents, Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 7, 369-372.

Neihart, M. (2002). Risk and resilience in gifted children: A conceptual framework. In M.

Neihart. S. M. Reis, N. M, Robinson, & S. M, Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 113-122). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Phillips, P. (1990). A self-advocacy plan for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 466-71.

Pintrich, P. & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.

Robinson. N, (1996). Counseling agendas for gifted young people: A commentary. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 20, 128-37.

Schmuck, R. (19971. Practical action research for change. Arlington Heights, IL: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing.

Schultz, R.A. (2002). Understanding giftedness and underachievement: At the edge of possibility. Gifted Child Quarterly. 46. 193-208.

Tomlinson. C. (20011. How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms, (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Weimer, B. 119941. Serf-advocacy: A working proposal for adolescents with special needs. Intervention in School and Clinic. 30(1), 47-52.

Winebrenner, S. (2001). Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom (rev. ed.). Minneapolis: Free Spirit.

Deborah Douglas has coordinated gifted and talented education for the Manitowoc (WI) Public School District for 10 years. Prior to that she served as gifted program resource teacher and high school English teacher. As an adjunct instructor and frequent presenter at conferences and workshops, she encourages other teachers of gifted students to reflect on and improve their practice through action research. E-mail: [e-mail]

Manuscript submitted June 27, 2003.

Revision accepted September 08, 2003.