Summer Enrichment Workshop (SEW): a quality component of the University of Alabama's gifted education preservice training program.Da Wild, Da Crazy, Da Vinci Do you like to draw? Paint? Sketch? Leonardo da Vinci did! He was not only a famous artist, but also an ingenious inventor. Learn about his art and become an artist yourself Invent your own toy, paint a self-portrait, and create your very own secret code. Join us as we experience the life and talents of Leonardo da Vinci! Every student, including the highly able learner, deserves an excellent teacher, and every teacher has a right to a high quality preservice training program (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Sparks, 2002, 2006). For 29 years, faculty members of the Gifted and Talented Master's Degree program at the University of Alabama (UA) have crafted an excellent clinical practicum, the Summer Enrichment Workshop (SEW), which culminates the 30-hour MA preservice training program in gifted and talented (GT). Although other types of practicum experiences are embedded in the MA program, SEW allows UA faculty to observe GT teacher interns daily. During an intense 3-week experience, faculty can make judgments about both the breadth and depth of the GT intern's knowledge and skills in evaluating students' needs, planning and delivering engaging instructional units, and assessing and reflecting on their experiences. Specifically, the GT interns create, differentiate, and fine-tune the delivery of two 30-hour minicourses developed to (a) respond to GT students' needs, interests, and abilities; (b) integrate the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM; Renzulli & Reis, 1997), Talents Unlimited model (TU; Schlichter & Palmer, 1993), as well as other pedagogical skills; and (c) apply a variety of authentic assessment strategies to evaluate themselves and their students. PARTICIPANTS Interns The primary purpose of SEW is to provide an annual comprehensive clinical experience for approximately 15 GT interns (hereafter called interns). The 3-hour course is designed for interns who are completing a master's degree or class A certification; most already hold teaching positions in the state of Alabama. To maintain a low teacher--student ratio in implementing quality differentiated instruction (National Association for Gifted Children, 1994; Tomlinson, 2001, 2005) for all 250 students, in SEW 2006, six teachers who had demonstrated outstanding success as interns in previous summers were invited to participate as paid teachers in the program. Their minicourses matched the quality of the SEW 2006 interns' units; however, the six certified teachers were not required to participate in the observation-feedback supervision cycle. (They were not included in the study.) Apprentices In addition, the program serves other needs. The university has carefully crafted a multiple abilities program (MAP), which is a five-semester (2 years and 1 summer) hands-on, student-centered, class B certification, undergraduate, preservice teacher program that continuously develops teaching competences in both general and special education. As a component of MAP, approximately 20 undergraduates are assigned as apprentices (hereafter called apprentices) to work with the SEW interns. For example, in SEW 2006, 15 interns and 21 apprentices were introduced to each other in January 2006 and collaborated through June 2006. Apprentices assisted interns in developing exciting units, transforming classrooms into creative environments related to the instructional units' themes, coteaching minicourses, and using a variety of assessments to evaluate student learning. Students Finally, the program also serves as an exciting, 3-week, 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, hands-on, interest-based summer enrichment experience for approximately 250 students (grades K-9; hereafter called students) who are enrolled in gifted programs in Tuscaloosa and surrounding counties, one of the poorest geographical areas in Alabama. Participating each summer in SEW minicourses allows gifted and talented students to interact with a larger, diverse group of their intellectual peers than is available to them during the school year. Identification of gifted students in Alabama is consistent, based on a matrix system with criteria for determining gifted behavior. In addition, students who are not formally identified as gifted but who are above average in ability can participate in SEW when recommended by a teacher or principal, who must provide documentation supporting gifted behavior or outstanding talent in a specific area. Many gifted students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are provided full scholarships to the program. Fifteen students are assigned to each minicourse on a first-come, first-served basis. The exact number of minicourses in a given year is determined by the number of students who register at each level for the program (K-1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-8). Master Teachers Master teachers, considered masters of their craft in teaching gifted and talented students, are carefully selected to supervise the interns. Their long-term experience with SEW has prepared each to nurture three assigned interns and to coach them through daily observations and feedback sessions. Master teachers value the experience because they can share their expertise, and they enjoy the challenge of addressing the varied needs of the interns. The apprentices are also supervised by master teachers who have worked in the program for several years and who are considered experts in the areas of general and special education. Administrative Assistant An administrative assistant, a 10-year veteran of the program, plays an important role in ensuring that SEW runs smoothly. This important staff member makes initial contacts with the building principal at the school where the workshop is held, makes room assignments, orders curricular materials and school supplies, manages all bookkeeping, makes announcements on the PA, leads supervision of students as they arrive and leave the school each day, organizes and implements snack and carpool routines, assures an efficient student check-out system, compiles the instructional units into a CD for each intern, and assists the program director with trouble-shooting, as needed. Program Director Finally, the SEW director, a UA faculty member who leads all planning, implementation, and evaluation, is accountable for the entire program. The main duties include selecting, training, and supervising the master teachers; preparing the interns; teaching the corequisite advanced thinking skills course; matching apprentices with the interns; evaluating the interns and the entire program; managing discipline problems; addressing parents' issues; publicizing the event; and recruiting students. THE PROBLEM During a time when teaching has become more complex, some politicians are claiming that anyone can teach, that teachers just need to know a little content and a few tricks of the trade in order to succeed (Darling-Hammond, 2006). This belief has never been further from the truth. Students who succeed or excel in the 21st century require a group of skills and knowledge that teachers did not need to acquire when they, themselves, were in school. However, with information increasing exponentially, classrooms with wide diversity in students, and accountability expectations, today's teacher is expected to juggle more complex problems than ever before. This challenge presents a tremendous dilemma for teacher preservice training programs, and some, in an effort to cut back on expenditures, are denying preservice teachers the experiences that they need to succeed in complex situations. Darling-Hammond (2006) argues that rather than omitting intense clinical experiences and watering down programs that ultimately lead to dissatisfaction and undermine the educational system, we must embed purposeful clinical supervision experiences in preservice training programs that produce competent teachers who function like veterans, organizing classrooms to teach diverse learners challenging content and processes. Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005) contend that to the contrary, many preservice training programs are not being planned to address the problems that the 21st-century classroom teacher will face. Instead, many higher-education programs are cutting back or eliminating teaching experiences that provide immersion into diverse classrooms, alongside veteran teachers with expertise to mentor interns to success. In many cases, internships are conducted only at the teachers' respective schools. Therefore, university faculty may travel widely to make observations and do not see consecutive days of planning, teaching, and evaluating students. In consequence, these occasional observations often lack rigor and may not be typical of what transpires in the classroom on a daily basis. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the Summer Enrichment Workshop (SEW) on the effects of interns' knowledge and preparation to teach. Specific research questions included: 1. Does the SEW clinical experience, specifically the observation feedback cycle, have a significant effect on interns' knowledge and teaching, for example, the TU model? 2. Does the SEW clinical experience, specifically the observation feedback cycle, have a positive effect on interns' success in learning the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to be effective teachers in today's diverse classrooms? THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND PERSPECTIVES Quality Teacher Preservice Training Programs Every student, including the highly able learner, has the right to an excellent teacher, a challenging curriculum, and appropriate pedagogy required to master it (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Sparks, 2002, 2006). Therefore, teacher preservice-training programs that lead to certification in gifted and talented education (GT) should ensure that graduates have mastered the curricular knowledge and the pedagogical skills needed to serve highly able learners (Clinkenbeard & Kolloff, 2001; Cross & Dobbs, 1987; Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002; Davison, 1996; Gallagher, 2000; Ginocchio, 1990; Hall, 1983; Lieberman, 1995; Meade, 1991; Mertens, 1983; Parker & Kames, 1987; Robards, 1983; K. B. Rogers, 1989; Sullenger, Cashion, & Ball, 1997; Taplin, 1996; Toll, 2000). Teachers need highly refined knowledge and skills to assess student learning. In addition, they need to develop an instructional toolbox that includes a wide repertoire of strategies that they know how and when to use for different purposes. Teachers must practice good decision-making to follow up on diagnosis of problems to meet unpredictable learning needs of students. They must become good collaborators, to share responsibility of their colleagues' practice, as well as their own, in order to ensure that all students achieve their full potential. Learning to teach means leaming to respond to complex issues in a typical classroom. Excellent teacher preservice training programs require interns to spend extensive time in the field, in schools, as they examine and apply concepts that they are learning in their course work. They experience powerful learning when they work alongside masters of their craft who provide extensive, expert models of responsive teaching. One of the components of effective teacher preservice training programs recommended by the National Academy of Education Committee on Teacher Education (Darling-Hammond, 2006) is extended clinical experiences, including supervised practicum and student teaching opportunities "that are carefully chosen to support the ideas presented in simultaneous, closely interwoven course work" (p. 305). National Association for Gifted Children/Council for Exceptional Children/The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education Teacher Preparation Standards A common feature of preservice training programs that produce graduates who are extraordinarily well prepared from the first days in their classrooms includes clearly defined standards of professional practice and performance that can be implemented to guide and evaluate course work and clinical practice (Darling-Hammond, 2006). The field of gifted education has a new set of teacher preparation standards that are the result of a 3-year effort of task force representatives from the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), and The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE; VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). The new standards include 70 indicators (32 knowledge and 38 skills) that establish a blueprint against which teacher educators can measure program quality in 10 areas: foundations, characteristics of learners, individual learning differences, instructional strategies, learning environments and social interactions, language and communication, instructional planning, assessment, professional and ethical practice, and collaboration. VanTassel-Baska and Johnsen (2007), who are spokespersons for the task force, underscore the importance of alignment of GT teacher preservice training programs with the national standards: Teacher standards for gifted education are a necessary feature of ensuring that the top learners in our society are adequately identified and nurtured in the context of school settings. [I]t is essential that teachers are educated in relevant theory, research, pedagogy, and management techniques important to developing and sustaining classroom-based opportunities to learn for these students. (p. 182) CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS: THE WHAT AND HOW OF TEACHING Effective teacher preservice training programs provide integration between courses and clinical experiences. Based on strong learning theory, courses are sequenced, with subject matter and pedagogy tightly woven (Darling-Hammond, 2006). Prior to SEW in prerequisite courses, interns become grounded in the SEM (Renzulli & Reis, 1997) and the TU (Schlichter, 1979, 1981, 1986b, 1987, 1997; Schlichter & Palmer, 1993, 2002; Schlichter, Wetzel, & Newman, 2007), which undergird the entire UA master's program. Interns learn to develop instructional menus that are comprehensive listings of (SEM) activities (Type Is, IIs, IIIs; Renzulli, 1977). Type I activities offer students exposure to content areas not normally covered in the regular classroom through speakers, field trips, books, student-teacher discussions, videos, PowerPoint presentations, and interest development centers. A second type of enrichment (Type II training) teaches higher-order thinking skills (HUTS), as well as how to processes that professionals employ in their respective fields of work. Based on the work of Dr. Calvin Taylor at the University of Utah, the TU model increases student metacognitive capacity and performance in specific work-related thought processes, including productive thinking (PT), communication (C), forecasting (F), decision making (DM), and planning (PL). Through consistent, precise practice of the subskills and metacognitive language of each talent, students become aware of thought patterns required to make meaning of the academic information. Simultaneously, students acquire the complex skills and processes of the Talents and also master the integrated content in which they are embedded. (See Talents and subskills in Appendix A.) Type III enrichment activities include opportunities for individual or small-group investigations of real problems that result in real-world products and services (Newman, 1993, 1995, 2004, 2005, 2006; Newman & Zupko, 2006). Because 3 weeks is not adequate time for SEW students to develop genuine Type Ills, products and presentations (Type II/Type II 1/2; Renzulli & Reis, 1997) are created as culminating activities for the minicourses and are shared with parents on the last day of SEW--Parents' Day. For example, middle school students studying the physics of toys used their knowledge and skills to create toy prototypes appropriate for youngsters with varying disabilities and handicaps. After interns have mastered the integration of Talents processes with Type Is, Type IIs, and Type II 1/2s, they are introduced to the concept of curriculum development through such models as Backward Design (McTighe & Wiggins, 1999; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), ConceptBased Curriculum and Instruction (Erickson, 2000, 2002, 2006), Curriculum Mapping and Interdisciplinary Curriculum (Jacobs, 1989, 1997, 2004), Interdisciplinary Units of Study (Beecher, 1995), and Problem-Based Learning (VanTassel-Baska, 1998). In collaboration with an apprentice, the master teacher, and/or the UA faculty member, each intern chooses a curriculum model or a combination of models that best fits the selected minicourse topic. From this point, the Type I, Type II, and Type II 1/2 menus must align with specific concepts, skills, and attitudes related to essential questions (Jacobs, 1997). Interns learn how to construct purposeful curriculum and they learn that a unit is not merely a loosely connected string of activities but a tightly woven alignment of carefully selected, thoughtful and purposeful experiences that relate and make sense. In addition to being "engaging" (Schlechty, 1997), the minicourses also must be crafted to provide appropriate challenges for gifted students and must also be differentiated (Heacox, 2003; Tomlinson, 2005; Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006) to address learning needs of students within a class, as well as students' abilities at two developmental levels. For example, each intern must design and teach one minicourse for secondary-aged (middle/junior high) students or upper-elementary students, and one course must be appropriate for lower-elementary or primary students. In addition, lessons must exemplify the best practices in curriculum and instructional pedagogy shared by all good teachers: purposeful, hands-on, constructivist, and inquiry-based experiences where students are engaged in active learning and relating new learning to knowledge they have already stored. The minicourses undergo numerous revisions through collaboration of the interns, apprentices, master teachers, and university faculty. Clinical Observation-Feedback Cycle Clinical supervision--i.e., the observation-feedback cycle (Acheson & Gall, 1996; Glickman, 2002)--is designed with several distinct phases to carefully monitor the interns who teach in SEW. Through this process, interns and apprentices are provided feedback about the quality of their planning, teaching, evaluating, and reflecting. Feedback is information provided by an observation regarding aspects of one's knowledge and ability (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). It is delivered after a learner has responded to initial instruction and provides information regarding some aspect of the learner's task performance. Feedback is most powerful when it addresses faulty interpretations of the task, as opposed to dealing with the total performance. When it is combined with more of a correctional review, the feedback and instruction become intertwined until the process itself takes on the "forms of new instruction, rather than informing the student solely about correctness" (Kulhavy, 1977, p. 212). In SEW, the observation-feedback cycle is as follows: the master teachers hold individual preobservation conferences with the interns or apprentices to determine a focus for an individual observation by establishing the contextual content of the lesson and the appropriate instructional strategy that will be taught by following the sequential lesson plan format (see Appendix B): motivation/warm-up, teacher talk, student response, and reinforcement (Talents Unlimited, 1974b). Master teachers use the Teacher Self-Rating Scale (Talents Unlimited, 1974b; see Appendix C), which is aligned with the TU lesson plan as the organizational and evaluation tools in this process. During the observations, the master teachers collect data on the pedagogical strategies, agreed upon in the preconference, and make notes about lesson content. From this information, they construct observation narratives, in which they identify general strengths observed during the lessons, as well as specific corrective feedback that addresses faulty interpretation for teaching the lesson. Ideally, the postobservation conference is held later the same day. During the postconferences, the master teachers invite the interns to share their reactions about the lesson observed. The master teachers apply reflective listening, probing, and other appropriate clinical supervision skills to validate the interns' ideas and to elicit additional information (Knight, 2007). They share the narrative with the interns as a stimulus for further reflection, and the interns write a follow-up critique that identifies the corrective feedback that is applied and observed the next day, to be incorporated into the intern's repertoire of instructional strategies. During the 3-week SEW experience, the master teacher and the UA faculty program director each complete two observation-feedback cycles with each intern. Theoretical and research support for the feedback component of the observation cycle can be found in the literature on peer coaching, feedback, clinical supervision, and student and teacher learning (Barnett, 1990; Costa, 2007; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Joyce & Showers, 1980, 1996, 2002; Keedy & Rogers, 1991; Knight, 2007; Lock, 2007; Loucks-Horsley, 1995; Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989). Each of these approaches is based on the tenet that when teaching is observed objectively, powerful improvement can result from reflective feedback on the performance. For example, Hattie's studies showed that the "highest effect sizes involved students [interns] receiving information feedback about a task and how to do it more effectively" (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 84). The average typical effect of schooling was .40 (SE = 0.05), whereas the average effect size of feedback was 0.79, twice the average effect. METHODS AND PROCEDURES Sample The SEW internship is a 3-hour course designed for interns who are completing a master's degree or class A certification; most already hold teaching positions in the state of Alabama. The sample of interns for this study included 17 who participated in SEW 2004 and 15 who participated in SEW 2006 for which this researcher served as SEW director. Assessment: Summer Enrichment Workshop Practicum Requirements During the 3-week SEW experience, interns taught two minicourses through which they demonstrated a variety of instructional skills. However, the focus was mastery (Beyer, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c) of the TU model thinking skills clusters (Schlichter, 1986a) and moving toward "executive control" of these processes (Flavell, 1979; Showers & Joyce, 1996; see Appendix C). Evaluation of the interns fell into three distinct phases. Approximately one quarter of their summative evaluation was derived from the planning activities including: writing descriptions of their minicourses to attract participants, developing written instructional menus of Type I, Type II, and Type II 1/2 activities; identifying primary resource persons and materials; creating a theme board for teaching TU; assembling the materials and tasks for a Type I Interest Development Center (Renzulli & Reis, 1997); and designing an inviting poster to be placed by the classroom door to help students locate the class. One half of each of the intern's SEW evaluation was based on the implementation activities including teaching the two 3-week minicourses using the instructional menus to develop students' potential for gifted behavior; participating in daily evaluation/planning sessions (Purcell, Burns, Tomlinson, Imbeau, & Martin, 2002) with a master teacher; and keeping a daily observation log about each student. The remaining quarter of the interns' SEW evaluation was derived from their assessments of their students and self-evaluation of their own performance. Evaluation activities included creating a multimedia journal for each student showing specific examples of demonstrated behaviors in above-average ability, creativity, and task commitment (Renzulli, 1986; Renzulli & Reis, 1997); developing and conducting surveys by which their students evaluated the quality of their two minicourses; completing university evaluation forms about the SEW experience and their apprentices; and participating in a comprehensive exit interview. Program Evaluation Data Sources and Related Procedures During the summers of 2004 and 2006, the principal investigator of this study served as the director of SEW and collected data related to this study: (a) how well the program aligned with NAGC, CEC, and NCATE Teacher Preparation Standards (CEC-TAG, 2006); (b) how the interns received and incorporated feedback about their teaching in SEW; and (c) how the exit interviews and other documentation provided quantitative and qualitative data regarding interns' learning. Teachers' Self-Appraisal of Knowledge and Preparation to Teach Talents Unlimited Higher-Order Thinking Skills (Crump, Schlichter, & Paulk, 1988) Evaluation of the impact of SEW (particularly the clinical feedback cycle) on interns' knowledge and preparation to teach Talents was documented with a feedback instrument employing a 5-point rating scale (see Appendix D). Specific items for each of the Talents and for the Talents model as a whole were included in the rating scale. Interns were asked to rate their understanding of the skills of each talent and their preparation to use the skills in the classroom. The instrument was distributed to 32 interns prior to the SEW sessions and at the end of the SEW 3-week sessions. Twenty-eight sets of complete pre and post data were returned. The 15 questions on the pre- and postadministrations of the instrument were analyzed using the Wilcoxon matched pair statistic. SEW Intern Exit Interview SEW 2004 and 2006 exit interviews were conducted by the program director with each master teacher and small group of three interns. (Exit interviews were also held with master teachers and their apprentices; however, the data from those interviews were not included in this study.) The exit-interview prompts, which included 13 open-ended prompts addressing the SEW program's impact on intern learning, were used to elicit discussion about the SEW experience. In addition, interns prepared written reflections for each of the 13 prompts, prior to participating in the exit interview sessions, which were recorded in copious notes. Themes from the interviews were coded, and general categories created the Exit Interview Survey, which was e-mailed to the 32 interns who participated in the 2004 or 2006 SEW sessions. Thirty-two completed Exit Interview Surveys were returned, and the results were tabulated into percentages. Table 1 provides a sample of that data. NAGC/CEC/NCATE Teacher Preparation Standards Current NAGC-CEC, Gifted and Talented Teacher Preparation Standards (CEC, NAGC) emphasize state-of-the-art, research-based best practices in the field of gifted education. For this analysis, all SEW assignments, practices, and policies were examined to determine the extent to which the standards were present in this practicum experience. Results consisted of tallies of data that were translated into percentages. Coaching: Observation-Feedback Cycle Data Qualitative analysis of master teachers' evaluations and evaluation narratives, interns' reflection critiques, and other documentation provided the observation--feedback data for this aspect of SEW. Each intern participated in four formal observations for which data were recorded in narrative format as well as on a variety of other forms, including the Talents Teacher Self-Rating Scale (see Appendix C). Thus, for both summer sessions, approximately 80 complete feedback cycles comprised the data for this analysis. A portion of a sample postobservation reflection critique is included in the results section of this study. Data Analysis Intern's ratings of the various components of the workshops and of their understanding and competency in using the skills of each talent were tabulated. The 15 questions on the pre- and postadministrations of the Teachers' Self-Appraisal of Knowledge and Preparation to Teach Talents Unlimited Higher Order Thinking Skills (Crump et al., 1988) were analyzed using the Wilcoxon matched pair statistic. All 15 matched pair analyses indicated that there were statistically significant differences in pre- and post-distributions (see Table 2). In addition, through the triangulation processes, qualitative and descriptive data from exit interviews, observations, pre- and postobservation conferences, and interns' reflective critiques were combined with quantitative data to assess interns' learning at SEW. FINDINGS FROM THE DATA: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Teachers' Self-Appraisal of Knowledge and Preparation to Teach Talents Unlimited Higher Order Thinking Skills Data in Table 2 (a-e) compare general aspects related to the preimplementation and postimplementation workshop ratings. Items related to clarity of workshop objectives, effective and interesting presentation of training activities, relevance of ideas and concepts to classroom teaching, sufficient opportunity for discussion and questioning, and understanding of purposes of multiple-talent teaching were consistently rated higher in the postimplementation ratings, as compared to the preimplementation ratings by both groups of interns (Summer 2004 and Summer 2006): p < .001. Data in Table 2 (Items f--o) compare preimplementation and postimplementation workshop ratings on items that noted interns' appraisals of understanding and preparation to teach each of the higher-order thinking skills clusters (Talents). The results of the analysis of data from the Teachers' Self-Appraisal of Knowledge and Preparation to Teach Talents Unlimited Higher-Order Thinking Skills demonstrated significant differences in the ratings for the two workshop sessions, showing that the interns believed that after the SEW experience, they understood "the skills of the Talent processes" and that [they] were well prepared to teach all Talents (p < .001 level). Statistical data were corroborated by qualitative data discussed below. SEW Exit Interview Data Data collected from interns (see Table 1) indicated that SEW was a positive, quality experience in their growth as professional teachers of children with gifts and talents. Although they considered it to be one of the most intense, challenging times in their lives, the interns also recognized that the experience gave them an opportunity to synthesize and apply the majority of content and skills learned during their master's program. Interns singled out "learning to teach Talents" as one of the most important benefits of SEW. These data were corroborated by the statistical data in Table 2. As to their growth in knowledge and skills in teaching other instructional strategies, learning to integrate synectics (Synectics, Inc., 1978), multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983/1994), and Bloom's taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) into their teaching were important developments for the interns. They also claimed that they grew in their understanding of the SEM (Renzulli & Reis, 1997) and how to craft Type I, II, and II 1/2 lessons. Most interns also improved in SEM's curriculum compacting component (Reis & Renzulli, 1992) and grew to understand the importance of daily assessment of their students' knowledge prior to teaching a lesson. Teacher Preparation Standards The UA master's-level gifted and talented program has earned Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) and NCATE accreditation, and it addresses all of the NCATE teacher-preparation standards. Although SEW is only one component of the entire MA GT teacher preparation program, its quality is attested to in that it provides the context in which many of the NAGC/CEC/NCATE national standards are addressed. For example, an analysis indicated that 60% of the knowledge indicators were aligned with the SEW program (22% had a major emphasis in SEW and 38% were addressed in a minor capacity; major emphasis refers to indicators that are evaluated; minor emphasis refers to indicators that are present in SEW but are not formally evaluated). Of the 38 skill standards, the SEW experience was aligned with 69% (37% were a major focus of the program; 32% were addressed in a minor capacity). SEW also demonstrated a strong alignment (86%) with the learning environments and social interactions standards in which "educators of the gifted actively create learning environments that foster cultural understanding, safety and emotional well being, positive social interactions, and active engagement" (CEC, NAGC, 2006, p. 2). SEW showed an even stronger alignment (100%) with the instructional standard in which "educators of the gifted possess a repertoire of evidence-based curriculum and instructional strategies to differentiate for individuals with gifts and talents" (CEC, NAGC, 2006, p. 2). These findings corroborate other data that demonstrated that SEW is a high-quality experience. Although the national standards are intended to measure an entire teacher-education preparation program, the fact that so many of the standards are addressed in this one course attests to the excellent quality of SEW. Coaching: Observation--Feedback Cycle Data One of the major objectives for the SEW experience is for interns to move toward "executive control" (Flavell, 1979; Joyce & Showers, 1996; Joyce, Showers, & Rolheiser-Bennett, 1987) in teaching the TU model. The interns had received a one-day training session on the TU model in their earlier methods course, and assignments required them to practice the processes with students at their respective schools. In an SEW corequisite course (Advanced Thinking Skills-SPE 585), interns revisited the TU model, and SEW provided them a supportive, risk-free environment to practice Talents processes day after day for 3 weeks with immediate corrective feedback. For example, a master teacher observed the intern who taught the da Vinci Code minicourse as she facilitated a lesson that incorporated Communication #3 Talent. This lesson asked the students to list many different similes to describe Mona Lisa's smile: Mona Lisa's smile is as peculiar as --. In the postobservation conference, the master teacher pointed out an important correction that made a significant impact on the intern's competency in teaching the talent. In the intern's reflective journal, she wrote:
The students were enthusiastic and motivated; however, I
had not taught the lesson exactly right. I learned that I
should have used THE SAME STIMULUS ("Mona Lisa's
Smile") in the first blank of the simile sentence stem, and to
think of MANY, DIFFERENT comparisons in the form of
similes for the second blank. I created a think sheet that
included a list of 15 of sentence stems:
"Mona Lisa's smile is as peculiar as --. "
"Mona Lisa's smile is as peculiar as -- ."
"Mona Lisa's smile is as peculiar as --."etc.
The next day I taught the Talent again, and this time I realized
how to facilitate the lesson correctly. Having the master teacher
in the room was comforting because she was always so kind and
professional in her feedback at the postobservation conferences.
Getting the immediate, corrective feedback that I could practice
the next day helped me to learn quickly to make the corrections.
These data are corroborated by other research studies that demonstrate that 8-10 direct teaching experiences with feedback are required to master "executive control" of teaching a thinking-skill process. According to Beyer (2001a), Showers and Joyce (1996), and Liberman (1995), teachers need a risk-free environment and between 8 and 10 practice and feedback sessions to master their teaching of thinking-skills processes. The 3-week SEW experience of teaching two classes a day with immediate feedback from master teachers and university faculty provided the necessary ingredients for teachers to understand the processes and to feel competent in teaching all of the Talents. The 3-week SEW program provided interns more time to practice and internalize the knowledge and skills of the TU model, which the one day's training in the methods course did not provide. "Reflection and analysis are central to teacher growth" (Loucks-Horsley, 1987, p. 61). Throughout the 3 weeks, through qualitative analysis of interns' observation narratives, postobservation reflective critiques, interviews, students' talent think sheets, and notes for students' journals, interns perceived several benefits of SEW. A first realization was that another person's observation could enhance the interns' reflections on their teaching. "Having a gifted master teacher with me daily as a 'guide' was a great plus. Her encouragement, support, ideas, and expertise were greatly needed and appreciated!" (Newman, 2007). The interns truly appreciated being given an objective view of how they were performing with students. We had better, more immediate feedback and could implement changes the next day, given additional feedback. This kind of immediate improvement would not have been possible in an itinerant observation model when a supervisor comes only two times a semester! (Newman, 2007) I could take my experiences at SEW, improve my plans and techniques, and use them with my students (rather than using my students as "guinea pigs"). They [students] got the benefit of an experienced teacher, rather than one just "feeling her way around" in gifted education. (Newman, 2007) One of the strongest points or SEW is that we were continuously observed. The observations were conducted daily and were not just snapshots of our teaching. This [process] allowed more accurate evaluations and provided opportunities for self-reflection and immediate growth. When we had questions or problems, we got immediate, expert feedback and didn't have to wait weeks for a supervisor to come and assist us. (Newman, 2007) I think SEW provided the University instructor a better understanding of the interns' abilities, as compared to itinerant observations. Single observations of lessons are easy to get through. A person might "fake" [his] way through a program that does not have this type of constant, intense observation, but there is really no way that could happen during SEW. (Newman, 2007) SEW is also superior to onsite internships because it is a better indicator of an intern's ability to manage a classroom with diverse learning issues. (Newman, 2007) I was able to use all the resources of the University, which would have been impossible at my school. (Newman, 2007) Second, interns came to realize that observation and assessment of instruction could provide data on which to base their reflection and analysis of student learning. For example, one intern who had never experienced using centers in teaching learned and implemented the process and upon reflection noted improved student engagement and learning as she recorded notes for individual student journals. Another plus of the program was that the interns could learn from other interns. Some of the interns were already experienced in teaching gifted students, prior to their participation in SEW. "We constantly bounced ideas off each other and master teachers. At the schools in my system, there is only one gifted teacher per school. I cannot walk down the hall and say to another gifted teacher, 'Look at this and tell me what to do to teach this better'" (Newman, 2007). Interns also experienced camaraderie with the participants. "Gifted education is very isolating ... the best byproduct of SEW was the relationships I forged. Even though we are geographically far apart, we still collaborate through e-mail, gather for 'share' days, and feel less isolated" (Newman, 2007). A third realization was that observation and reflection benefited both involved parties--the intern and the master teacher who was observing. The interns benefited by receiving helpful data-based feedback. The master teachers benefited by observing interns, consulting with the program director in preparing postobservation feedback, and discussing the experiences. Finally, the interns saw the observation feedback process work as they saw themselves improve. Because the SEW 3-week observation period provided so many observations and conferences, there was enough time for teachers to see changes in their teaching practices and improvements in their students' responses (Baker & Showers, 1984). Not all interns earn a passing grade for the SEW experience. For example, in the past 6 years, four students have failed to meet the requirements of the program. When this occurs, the intern is asked to repeat the experience but is not required to pay tuition for the second attempt. Because most interns cannot afford the repeated expense of renting housing and moving to Tuscaloosa for a month, they are allowed to engage in a one-semester or year-long internship at their respective school, with close supervision, support, and monitoring by the SEW program director and mentoring by a veteran teacher at their school or district. Usually, this one-on-one supervision combined with time for additional planning, student reflection, and growth results in success of the student's mastering the course objectives. However, there has been one instance when a student did well on the knowledge skills of planning and writing curriculum but never met the instructional skill standards of teaching. The student was counseled into another field that did not require teaching. Again, the 3-week comprehensive, intense experience of daily performance provides sufficient opportunity for the university faculty member to make a determination regarding each intern's mastery of the course objectives. The interns who are successful report improved self-confidence, self-esteem, and self-efficacy. Overwhelmingly, they have learned to collaborate with, to work interdependently with, and to trust the apprentices, the master teachers, the university faculty, and the other interns. PUTTING THE RESEARCH TO USE: IMPLICATIONS As Darling-Hammond (2006) contends, we have learned much about how to create stronger, more effective teacher education programs. Though there are many alternative paths to consider in preparing teachers to teach, UA's SEW provides the assurance of a high-quality program that results in rapid, quality growth for its interns. The alignment of SEW with national standards assures everyone involved--i.e., parents, teachers, students, master teachers, interns, apprentices, and university faculty members--that this is a quality program. In addition, tight alignment among courses and between course and clinical experiences is definitely a factor of interns' success, as well as the intense supervision and observation feedback cycle. Moreover, the longevity of the program is important, of having the same master teachers and other important staff members involved with the program from year to year. Because the staff members have supervised so many SEW interns in the past and are experts in the TU model, SEM, and other curriculum and instructional models, they have a good sense of the developmental stages through which interns progress as SEW unfolds. Having more than one set of eyes--i.e., different perspectives from the master teachers and university faculty members--is also an asset. The 3-week practicum allows staff enough time to observe how interns follow through on feedback and correction of problems. In addition, university faculty and master teachers can predict when fatigue will set in and can actively work to counteract interns' feelings of doubt or anxiety that arises if stress becomes too intense. That SEW offers interns so many opportunities to apply knowledge and skills learned throughout their master's program is another contributor to intern growth. Daily collaboration with other interns and apprentices, coteaching experiences, and opportunities to develop leadership in working with undergraduate apprentices--all are critical in improving knowledge and skills in learning to teach effectively and to manage complex classrooms. The clinical supervision observation--feedback cycle also contributes to program quality and interns' growth. Coaching and corrective feedback on planning, teaching, and student evaluation skills help interns to become confident about using the TU model, the Schoolwide Enrichment Model, Synectics, the higher-thinking levels of Bloom's taxonomy, multiple intelligences, and other curriculum and instructional strategies and models. The process promotes reflective thinking, as the interns collaborate and react to the university faculty and master teachers' narratives that provide support and critical corrective feedback. Their thinking is sharpened, and four cycles of observation feedback in 3 weeks promotes high levels of growth, as is demonstrated by the statistically significant higher scores (see Table 2) on the Teacher Self-Appraisal of Knowledge and Preparation to Teach Talents Unlimited Higher Order Thinking Skills instrument and by qualitative analysis of reflective critiques and other documentation. These data underscore the need for well-planned, in-depth preservice teacher-training programs to prepare teachers for success in implementing the teaching of higher-order thinking skills. CONCLUSION To ensure that all students are learning from excellent teachers and that quality teacher preparation is available to all teachers, we must set and implement high standards of goal setting and how we know when we are successful. Quality requires that we use data from many sources and that we continually improve on each SEW summer's experience, rather than just replicating last year's success. Excellence requires hard work, a strong work ethic, an attitude of no excuses--that we will do whatever it takes to ensure that our interns achieve the highest levels of performance. SEW has a unique niche in western Alabama, one that is constantly being refined and redefined in response to data collected annually, refined goal setting, and team work. Continuous quality improvement in our interns' teaching and learning is our goal. APPENDIX A TALENTS UNLIMITED KID TALK Productive Thinking 1. Think of many ideas. 2. Think of varied ideas. 3. Think of unusual ideas. 4. Add to your ideas to make them better. Communication 1. Give many, varied single words to describe something. 2. Give many, varied, single words to describe someone's/something's feelings. 3. Think of many, varied comparisons in the form of a simile. 4. Let others know you understand how they feel by sharing a personal experience. 5. Make a network of ideas using many, varied complete thoughts in oral or written language. 6. Show your feelings, thoughts, and needs without using words. Forecasting 1. Make many, varied predictions about the causes of a situation. 2. Make many, varied predictions about the effects of a situation. Decision Making 1. Think of many, varied things you could do. Alternatives 2. Think of the many, varied questions you need to ask about these things you could do. Criteria 3. Use your answers to help you make a decision. Weighing 4. State your final decision. Decision 5. Give many, varied reasons for your decision. Reasons Planning 1. Think of what you are going to plan so someone will know what your project is. 2. Think of all the materials and equipment you will need for your project. 3. Think of all the steps needed to complete the project and put the steps in order. 4. Think of any problems that could keep you from completing the project. 5. Think of ways to improve your plan. APPENDIX B TALENTS UNLIMITED LESSON PLAN [] Pre [] K [] 1 [] 2 [] 3 [X] 4 [X] 5 [] 6 [] 7 [] 8 [] 9 [] 10 [] 11 [] 12 [X] Productive Thinking: Communication: Forecasting: Transformations, [] Single words something [] Causes identification of items, [] Single words feelings [] Effects strategies, design, [] Similes [] Planning topics, locations/ [] How others feel [] Decision Making sources, functions/ [] Networks recycling, examples, [] Without words other Motivation [] Introductory [X] Midway [] Follow-up Academic Context: Language Arts: Writing-Choosing a topic for a crime scene radio play. Students have listened to radio plays, decided what made them good, listed sound effects and discussed why they were important "props" included in the play, and reviewed how mysteries build to a climax before the "solution" is presented. Thinking Process Warm-up: Review the four productive thinking skills (Use KID TALK Chart) Teacher Talk "Think of many, different, and unusual topics for a 5-10 minute crime radio play. Try to think of ideas that "no other group will list. Keep adding to your list of ideas until you are instructed to stop. (Your topic idea may be to transform a story you are already familiar with or story book characters into a crime radio play, or it may be something completely original.) Extension: Student groups will choose one idea to pursue and write a complete radio play script. Student Response Delivery System: Organizational Strategy: [] Oral [] Total group [] Pictorial with labels [X] Small group [X] Written [] Individual [] Psychomotor Reinforcement Praise students for exhibiting the desired Talent behaviors. APPENDIX C TEACHER SELF-RATING SCALE (REVISED) Name -- Grade Level -- Content Area/Concepts -- Date -- Talent -- Motivation Academic Context I feel that this talent activity enhanced student understanding of the academic concept to this degree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Low High Thinking Process Warm-Up I feel that my use of the Talents theme board and the selected process warm-up strategy was effective to this degree in helping students focus on the thought processes they would use. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Low High Teacher Talk I feel that my directions (including academic context; talent name [and behavior, where appropriate]; talent cue words; and identification of student response strategy) were effective to this degree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Low High Student Responses I feel that I was successful to this degree in stimulating the student behavior(s) I intended to emphasize: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Low High Reinforcement I feel that my use of oral praise and nonverbal encouragement positively reinforced students to this degree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Low High APPENDIX D TEACHERS' SELF-APPRAISAL OF KNOWLEDGE AND PREPARATION TO TEACH TALENTS UNLIMITED HIGHER ORDER THINKING SKILLS (SAMPLE PAGE) Productive Thinking F. Do you understand the skills of the Talent? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Low Clearly understood G. Are you prepared to teach Talent? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Low Well prepared Decision Making H. Do you understand the skills of the Talent? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not at all Clearly understood I. Are you prepared to teach the Talent? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not at all Well prepared Planning J. Do you understand the skills of the Talent? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not at all Clearly understood K. Are you prepared to teach the Talent? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not at all Well prepared Forecasting L. Do you understand the skills of the Talent? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not at all Clearly understood M. Are you prepared to teach the Talent? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not at all Well prepared Communication N. Do you understand the skills of the Talent? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not at all Clearly understood O. Are you prepared to teach the Talent? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not at all Well prepared (Please circle the number that represents your evaluation of each item) Received 28 April 2007; accepted 21 November 2007. REFERENCES Acheson, K. A., & Gall, M. D. (1996). Techniques in the clinical supervision of teachers: Preservice and inservice applications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Baker, R. G., & Showers, B. (1984, April). The effects of a coaching strategy on teachers' transfer of training to classroom practice: A six-month follow-up study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Barnett, B. (1990). Overcoming obstacles to peer coaching for principals. Educational Leadership, 47(8), 62-64. Beecher, M. (1995). Developing the gifts and talents of all students in the regular classroom. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Beyer, B. K. (2001a). Practical strategies for direct instruction in thinking skills. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (pp. 393-400). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ACSD). Beyer, B. K. (2001b). Putting it all together to improve student thinking. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (pp. 417-425). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ACSD). Beyer, B. K. (2001c). Teaching thinking skills: Defining the problem. In A.L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (pp. 35-41). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ACSD). Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: McKay. Clinkenbeard, P. R., & Kolloff, P. B. (2001). Ten suggestions for including gifted education in preservice teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 36, 214-218. Costa, A. (2007, November). Five thoughts for a more thought-full curriculum. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Charlotte, NC. Council for Exceptional Children, National Association for Gifted Children (CEC, NAGC). (2006). NAGC-CEC teacher knowledge and skill standards for gifted and talented education. National Council of Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Retrieved March 8, 2007, from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=1862 Council for Exceptional Children--Association for the Gifted (CEC-TAG). (2006). Issues addressed in the NAGC-CEC teacher preparation standards in gifted education. National Council of Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Retrieved March 8, 2007, from http:// www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=1865 Cross, J. A., & Dobbs, C. (1987). Goals of a teacher training program for teachers of the gifted. Roeper Review, 9, 170-171. Crump, D., Schlichter, C., & Paulk, B. (1988). Teaching HOTS in the middle and high school: A district-level initiative in developing higher order thinking skills. Roeper Review, 10, 205-211. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. New York: Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 300-314. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 286-302. Davison, J. (1996). Meeting state mandates for gifted and talented: Iowa teacher preparation programs. Roeper Review, 19, 41-46. Erickson, H. L. (2000). Stirring the head, heart and soul: Redefining curriculum and instruction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Erickson, H. L. (2002). Concept-based curriculum and instruction: Teaching beyond the facts (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Erickson, H. L. (2006). Concept-based curriculum and instruction for the thinking classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911. Gallagher, J. J. (2000). Unthinkable thoughts: Education of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 5-12. Gardner, H. (1994). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1983) Ginocchio, F. L. (1990). Teacher-clinicians put credibility into staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 11 (2), 16-18. Glickman, C. (2002). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ACSD). Hall, E. G. (1983). The learning center approach to teacher training. Roeper Review, 6, 30-32. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. Heacox, D. (2003). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and teach all learners, grades 3-12. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit. Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ACSD). Jacobs, H. H. (1997). Mapping the big picture: Integrating curriculum and assessment K-12. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ACSD). Jacobs, H. H. (2004). Getting results with curriculum mapping. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ACSD). Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservice training: The messages of research. Educational Leadership, 37, 379-385. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53, 12-16. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ACSD). Joyce, B., Showers, B., & Rolheiser-Bennett, C. (1987). Staff development and student learning: A synthesis of research on models of teaching. Educational Leadership, 45(2), 11-23. Keedy, J. L., & Rogers, K. (1991). Teacher collegial groups: A structure for promoting professional dialogue conducive to organization change. Journal of School Leadership, 1, 65-73. Knight, J. (2007, March). Conversations can kick off the coaching. Teachers Teaching Teachers, 2, 6. Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Review of Educational Research, 47, 211-232. Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 591-596. Lock, K. (2007, October). Dear colleague, please come for a visit. Teachers Teaching Teachers, 2, 2. Loucks-Horsley, S. (1987). Professional development and the learner centered school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Loucks-Horsley, S. (1995). Professional development and the learner centered school. Theory Into Practice, 34, 265-271. McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (1999). Understanding by design handbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ACSD). Meade, E. J. (1991). Reshaping the clinical phase of teacher preparation. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 666-669. Mertens, S. (1983). Is there a place for a teacher education gifted education? Roeper Review, 6, 13-17. National Association for Gifted Children. (1994). Differentiation of curriculum and instruction. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 172-175. Newman, J. L. (1993). The Talents Unlimited model and its effect on students' creative productivity. In C. L. Schlichter & R. Palmer (Eds.), Thinking smart: A primer of the Talents Unlimited model (pp. 141-158). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Newman, J. L. (1995). The Talents Unlimited model and its effects on students' creative productivity. In E. Jean Gubbins (Ed.), Research related to the enrichment triad model (NRCGT Rep. No. RM95212, pp. 93-105). University of Connecticut, et al., National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Newman, J. L. (2004). Talents and investigative research: What works! Mobile, AL: Talents Unlimited International. Newman, J. L. (2005). Talents and type III's: The effects of the Talents Unlimited model on creative productivity in gifted youngsters. Roeper Review, 27, 84-90. Newman, J. L. (2006). Talents for type Ills: A guide for helping students become better creators, decision makers, planners, predictors, and communicators. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Newman, J. L. (2007). [Transcripts of interviews with GT interns]. Unpublished raw data. Newman, J. L., & Zupko, S. L. (2006). TALENTed and type In: An effective learning strategy for gifted students who are learning disabled. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 2(5), Article 4. Retrieved August 13, 2006, from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol2/iss5/art4 Parker, J. P., & Karnes, F.A. (1987). Graduate degree programs in education of the gifted: Program contents and services offered. Roeper Review, 9, 172-176. Purcell, J. H., Burns D. E., Tomlinson, C. A., Imbeau, M. B., & Martin, J. L. (2002). Bridging the gap: A tool and technique to analyze and evaluate gifted education and curricular units. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 306-321. Reis, S., & Renzulli, J. (1992). Using curriculum compacting to challenge the above-average. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 51-57. Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53-92). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how-to guide for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Robards, S. N. (1983). Teacher education: Reality and challenge. Roeper Review, 6, 6-7. Rogers, K. B. (1989). Training teachers of the gifted: What do they need to know? Roeper Review, 11, 145-150. Schlechty, P. C. (1997). Inventing better schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schlichter, C. L. (1979). The multiple talent approach to the world of work. Roeper Review, 2, 17-20. Schlichter, C. L. (1981). The multiple talent approach in mainstream and gifted programs. Exceptional Children, 48, 144-150. Schlichter, C. L. (1986a). Talents Unlimited: An inservice education model for teaching thinking skills. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 119-123. Schlichter, C. L. (1986b). Talents Unlimited: Applying the multiple talent approach in mainstream and gifted programs. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 352-390). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Schlichter, C. L. (1987). Thinking skills instruction for all classrooms. Gifted Child Today, 10(2), 3-8. Schlichter, C. L. (1997). Partners in enrichment: Preparing teachers for multiple ability classrooms. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 29(4), 4-9. Schlichter, C. L., & Palmer, W. R. (Eds.). (1993). Thinking smart: A primer of the Talents Unlimited model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Schlichter, C. L., & Palmer, W. R. (2002). Talents Unlimited: Thinking skills instruction as enrichment for all students. Research in the Schools, 9(2), 53-60. Schlichter, C. L., Wetzel, K., & Newman, J. L. (2007). Talents Unlimited handbook. Unpublished manuscript, University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa. Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12-16. Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Sparks, D. (2006). Learning for results. Thousand Oaks, CA: National Staff Development Council/Corwin Press. Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Five models of staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 10(4), 44-50. Sullenger, K., Cashion, M., & Ball, M. (1997). Working towards new understandings and practices: A summer institute on gifted education. Roeper Review, 20, 50-53. Synectics, Inc. (1978). Making it strange: A new design for creative thinking and writing. New York: Harper and Row. Talents Unlimited. (1974a). Talent lesson plan. Mobile, AL: Division of Curriculum and Instruction, Mobile County Public Schools. Talents Unlimited. (1974b). Teacher self-rating scale. Mobile, AL: Division of Curriculum and Instruction, Mobile County Public Schools. Taplin, M. (1996). Student teachers providing programmes for gifted and talented children: A co-operative venture between university and schools. Gifted Education International, 11(2), 95-99. Toll, M. F. (2000). The importance of teacher preparation programs to appropriately serve students who are gifted. Understanding Our Gifted, 12(2), 14-16. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ACSD). Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ACSD). Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction & understanding by design: Connecting content and kids. Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ACSD). VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). A study of problem-based learning in teaching educational administration courses. In R. Muth & M. Martin (Eds.), Toward the year 2000: Leadership for quality schools (pp. 279-288). Lancaster, UK: Technomic. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Johnsen, S. (2007). Teacher education standards for the field of gifted education: A vision of coherence for personnel preparation in the 21st century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 182-205. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ACSD). Address correspondence to Jane L. Newman, EdD, Assistant Professor, The University of Alabama, College of Education, Gifted and Talented Education Program, Box 870232, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487. E-mail: jnewman@ bamaed.ua.edu Jane L. Newman, EdD, is an Associate Professor at The University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. She is the coordinator of the Gifted and Talented Program and also teaches in Educational Leadership. She is the Director of Summer Enrichment Workshop (SEW). E-mail: jnewman@bamaed.ua.edu Sr. Madeleine Gregg, fcJ, PhD, is a Professor at The University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, where she is coordinator of the undergraduate Multiple Abilities Program (MAP). E-mail: mgregg@bamaed.ua.edu John Dantzler, has a PhD in educational research. He is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Studies at The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Alabama. E-mail: dantzler@uab.edu
TABLE 1
Intern Exit Interview Survey
Comment Percent
l. How do you feel about your SEW experience overall?
One of the most intense, challenging times in my life 94
Most important part (comprehensive) of the master's 88
gifted and talented degree
An opportunity to synthesize learning in GT MA program 100
Improved self-confidence, self-esteem, and self-efficacy 94
Once I survived SEW, I can conquer most anything 94
2. What new things did you learn about yourself and your
teaching?
Contributed to a quality instructional experience for my 100
students
Learned to teach Talents 94
Learned to teach Synectics 88
Learned to teach Bloom's taxonomy 81
Learned to collaborate 94
Learned to work interdependently with the MAP 94
apprentices, the master teachers, and the other
GT interns
3. How did you grow as a teacher of gifted students as a
result of SEW?
Learned what quality curriculum looks like 88
Learned what quality instruction looks like 88
Recognized attributes of gifted behavior 88
Learned to give "150%" 88
Became "expert" in the content area for minicourses 94
Learned to orchestrate a variety of instructional 94
strategies to create an active, constructivist
classroom
Learned to differentiate instruction 89
4. What important lessons did you learn about collaboration?
Learned the value of collaborating with everyone 94
Learned to develop trust in master teachers, university 88
faculty, GT interns, MAP apprentices
5. What did you learn about implementing the Schoolwide
Enrichment Model?
Learned to write quality lessons and units integrating 94
Type Is, IIs, and II'/zs/IIIs
Learned to evaluate instructional growth in teaching and 88
debriefing
Learned to implement curriculum compacting 75
Learned importance of daily assessment and 88
differentiation
6. What did you learn about teaching Talents Unlimited?
Saw significant growth in my knowledge of how to teach 94
using Talents Unlimited
Saw growth in my skills of actually teaching each Talent 94
Learned how to orchestrate teaching with the Talents and 94
SEM models
Learned to implement all of the components and small 94
details of a Talents lesson plan
Note. N = 32.
TABLE 2
Pre-Post Talents Unlimited Survey Comparison
Negative Positive
N = 28 differences differences
a. Course objectives clear 0 23
b. Activities presented effectively 0 25
c. Concepts relevant to classroom 0 23
d. Opportunity for questions, discussion 0 19
e. Clear understanding of Talents' teaching 0 23
purpose
f. Understand PT skills 0 18
g. Prepared to teach PT 0 22
h. Understand DM skills 0 22
i. Prepared to teach DM 0 23
j. Understand PL skills 1 25
k. Prepared to teach PL 1 23
l. Understand F skills 0 26
m. Prepared to teach F 0 24
n. Understand C skills 0 23
o. Prepared to teach C 0 22
N = 28 Ties Z P
a. Course objectives clear 5 4.34 <.001
b. Activities presented effectively 3 4.51 <.001
c. Concepts relevant to classroom 5 4.33 <.001
d. Opportunity for questions, discussion 9 3.94 <.001
e. Clear understanding of Talents' teaching 5 4.33 <.001
purpose
f. Understand PT skills 10 3.84 <.001
g. Prepared to teach PT 6 4.28 <.001
h. Understand DM skills 6 4.31 <.001
i. Prepared to teach DM 5 4.42 <.001
j. Understand PL skills 2 4.40 <.001
k. Prepared to teach PL 4 4.19 <.001
l. Understand F skills 2 4.62 <.001
m. Prepared to teach F 4 4.45 <.001
n. Understand C skills 5 4.56 <.001
o. Prepared to teach C 6 4.35 <.001
Note. * p < .001.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion