Working towards new understandings and practices: a summer institute on gifted education.

Although ideas about giftedness and gifted education are changing within the academic community, we were concerned that these changes were not reaching teachers. The traditional definition of giftedness excluded many gifted people (Renzulli and Reis, 1985). In the same light, the whole conception of intelligence has been re-examined and broadened (Gardner, 1983; Sternberg and Davidson, 1986). Giftedness is now described as outstanding abilities which can be demonstrated in areas as diverse as leadership, creativity, artistic ability or a specific academic talent and require special nurturing (Davis and Rimm, 1994). Without an understanding of these new definitions of giftedness and intelligences, teachers have difficulty identifying gifted students (Gallagher, 1994; Gear, 1978) and continue to conceptualize the concept of giftedness narrowly as meaning a very high IQ score.

The topic of gifted education receives only passing attention in most undergraduate teacher education programs. In this province, preservice teachers receive limited exposure to the evolving ideas about gifted education and there are few mechanisms in place for practicing teachers to be exposed to these ideas. Moreover, regardless of how giftedness is defined, within this province gifted students tend to be marginalized and little heed is paid to their needs. Despite the lack of formal recognition of giftedness as an educational priority, individual teachers are concerned and seeking new teaching strategies. In response, we designed a 3-week, 6 credit, summer institute entitled, Teaching Gifted and Talented Students as part of the University of New Brunswick's summer school program.

The Institute

We set out to create a learning experience that challenged teachers notions of giftedness and gifted learners, while also challenging them to change their practices. The nature of the Institute is best described through examining its purpose, structure, and participants.

Our Purpose

Our primary purpose was to expose teachers to the evolving understandings of giftedness and gifted learners. We believed teachers here, as elsewhere, subscribe to the common myths that giftedness is synonymous with prodigy, gifted students will make it on their own, or gifted students do everything well, or they are social outcasts. Additionally, the school districts tend to be largely rural, sparsely populated and by most standards, poor. Consequently, only a small minority have the resources to designate a person with even part time responsibilities for this population.

In designing the Institute, we chose to use lectures, discussions of case histories, videos and readings to introduce participants to these ideas. They were encouraged to share their reactions in smaller group discussions.

Another purpose was to create the critical link between theory and practice. To accomplish this, we invited a number of guest presenters, included group projects, and developed specific assignments. Guest presenters modelled teaching strategies they had developed and implemented, often under less than optimal circumstances. The emphasis of group projects was on the practical rather than the theoretical. For example, students were asked to differentiate a unit of study for different levels of learners in their classrooms.

Assignments encompassed both individual and group responsibilities and were orientated to the reality of each participant's teaching situation. In one assignment, students were asked to develop their own model to identify gifted students. As a culminating activity, teachers were asked to specify in concrete terms, ways in which they planned to utilize the knowledge and insights from the Institute in the real world of their classrooms. This Teaching Plan was an individual assignment and students were asked to be honest and realistic in their planning and goal setting.

Our final purpose was to create a culture of sharing and learning, a community of learners as opposed to many traditional course structures that result in isolation and competition. Ultimately, we hoped such a community would endure beyond the scope of the Institute. In addition, we believed it was important to help people cope with the intensity and demands of the Institute. We also believed that if the overall experience was a positive one, teachers would be more likely to carry their ideas back to the classroom.

To create this culture, we looked for activities that promoted interaction, such as, discussion groups, presentations of group projects to the class, a variety of temporary working groups and the informal activities described earlier. Offering the course on a credit/noncredit basis and using pass/fail assessment were further steps to reduce undue stress and competition.

The Institute Structure

Although the Institute was somewhat similar to our traditional university courses, it was different in a number of ways. For example, the Institute was offered on a credit/noncredit basis as previously mentioned. It combined lectures, small-group work, discussions, and guest presentations by practitioners in the field over an eight hour period each day. The Institute included formal (more traditional) and informal contexts for learning.

A typical day began at 8:30 in the morning and generally contained at least three of the four types of activities designed for the Institute. The types of activities chosen were: lecture, as an opportunity to share new ideas and raise issues from within the academic community; presentations, as a means of modelling specific teaching strategies for gifted learners and of identifying successful programs already in place within the province; small group discussions, to provide participants with an opportunity to not only react to ideas, issues, and challenges raised within the lecture and readings, but by sharing their experiences and concerns establish a network of colleagues who shared similar concerns and challenges; and group projects, as a way of problem solving and identifying strategies that might address the concerns participants brought to the course. After a brief closing discussion, the day ended at 4:30 each afternoon.

Throughout the Institute, a number of informal activities were included to allow participants to become acquainted, extend discussions and interactions initiated by formal class activities, and promote networking. These activities included coffee breaks, lunches, special events like a pizza party and salmon barbeque, and Friday after-class gatherings at a local restaurant. In addition, participants shared in ways which we had not orchestrated; e.g., some lived in the same dorms and several groups car pooled a considerable distance on a daily basis.

Institute Participants

Of the 50 people attending, 7 were from schools and districts with an interest in gifted education; 43 were from schools and districts with no known interest. There were 35 women participating in the Institute and 15 men. Thirty-nine were the only people from their school while 12 had one or more school colleagues attending. Although 9 were not returning to schools because they had academic leaves or new positions, 41 did return to their schools. All participants were certified New Brunswick teachers from all school levels with a majority coming from elementary schools.

Why a Follow-up Evaluation

Although summer schools are a major feature on the landscape of professional education in New Brunswick, follow-up is rare, making it difficult to assess their effectiveness and impact. As we shared an interest in raising awareness of gifted learners and addressing their needs, we were particularly interested in what changes in beliefs and attitudes had actually occurred eight months later. Were steps being taken to identify and work with gifted learners? Were teachers able to translate their written plans into practice? What kind of things supported or were barriers to their success? Was an Institute sufficient or was some type of ongoing interaction necessary? In what ways do future summer Institutes need to be changed?

We conducted the evaluation using a questionnaire and interviews, as most Institute participants lived a considerable distance from the university and since we wanted everyone to have an opportunity to provide comments. Of the 50 Institute participants, 25 participants responded. Several sent copies of activities and ideas they had used in their classrooms.

Was the Institute a Success?

To determine whether the Institute was a success, we focused on teachers' beliefs about giftedness, implementation of Teaching Plans, and teachers' comments about the structure of the Institute. We wanted to know from the participants what worked and what didn't.

Teachers' Beliefs about Giftedness

The Institute was most successful in changing teachers awareness of giftedness and recognizing the needs of gifted learners. We asked participants to rate on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 meaning totally revised and 10 meaning no change in beliefs, the influence the Institute had on' their beliefs about giftedness. Twenty-two of the participants indicated their beliefs about giftedness and gifted learners changed in some way; most circled 1, 2, 3, or 4. The remaining three said the course confirmed rather than changed their beliefs.

The major changes participants described were a broader and more encompassing definition of giftedness beyond simple high academic achievement. They also described a greater sensitivity to the needs of these students including a recognition that virtually all giftedness requires nurturing. Many teachers mentioned that they were better able to identify more of their students as gifted and to understand the problems gifted students faced in the classroom.

Representative comments best convey/express these changes in awareness:

I could read and reread those

forms and handouts, always revising

my strategies. I see many more

kids in my class who I recognize

as gifted in some direction. I hope

I am able to connect better with

them and their strengths.

I now realize that giftedness is

not just for geniuses and does not

always display itself on a daily

basis and that many gifted students

don't even know that they

are gifted. Secondly, I now realize

that gifted students need help to

realize their gifts and display them

more frequently.

I didn't realize the impact

bored Gifted & Talented students

were having on my classroom discipline.

Implementing Individual Teaching Plans

The implementation of each person's Teaching Plans, our culminating assignment, was a qualified success. With two exceptions, teachers were unable, or only partially able to implement their Teaching Plans. The adoption of specific teaching strategies was the most common aspect of the plans reported. These strategies included Talents Unlimited (although, this is not a strategy exclusively for gifted students), some curriculum compacting, and a couple differentiated curriculum for bright students.

Another group of activities reported by teachers were not part of their teaching plans, but arose from opportunities in the school and from being generally more aware of the needs of bright students. For example, one participant wrote, I have asked my principal for permission to rearrange my classes to work with gifted students on a school newspaper. A fifth grade teacher described changes in practice this way, I was more conscious of what to look for. I also really took the time for these kids, instead of wasting their time on things they already knew. I'd work with these kids and let them choose things to do; in the past I'd just have given them more work.

The third kind of activity reported, again, not foreseen in their teaching plans, was taking on an advocacy role at both the district and school level and experiencing the satisfaction and frustration that comes with this roll. In the words of one participant, After coming back to the district we were able, with the help of our elementary supervisor, to see a district enrichment committee started with a representative from each school. I've spoken to Home and School and hope to have a meeting set up soon to get their support to start an enrichment program next Fall in our school. At the same time, many also expressed frustration and even anger in their responses. One wrote, It must be a school thing, not just a classroom thing. These children are wonderful and I have such high expectations because of their potential and nothing happens for them in school - why can't others see their potential ? I'm frustrated. Another, who came from a school where other staff also attended the Institute, wrote, Within us we have to be more forceful- I think we have to work better as a group to promote and educate the rest of our colleagues.

The two teachers who were able to implement most of their plan included several pages of activities and a description of the kind of program they were trying to implement in their schools. One of these teachers had a long term interest in gifted students, but reported the Institute validated her thinking and provided her with the confidence to implement her ideas. She began with letters to parents about changes in her program and opportunities for students and continued with activities and teaching plans for individual learners.

The other teacher was a part time administrator, who developed an individualized approach to teaching his classes and became a school leader in recognizing and sharing activities and opportunities for gifted students. He wrote, We discussed the different types of activities that we were currently doing within the school, level and whether they were 1,2, & 3 type. We also had teachers at our monthly staff meetings, pass in a brief summary of some of the enrichment activities that they had done during the previous month, or some that were coming up over the next month so that we could share with other staff members. We really tried to promote the idea of motivating the learner in the classroom. This teacher-administrator and his principal went so far as to serve breakfast to the staff once a month in recognition of their extra work developing gifted activities.

We wondered what had hindered or promoted teachers' ability to implement their plans. When asked, teachers listed: administrative and peer support; additional or changed responsibilities, e.g. assigned to new schools or new grades or new positions as administrators or resource persons; changes in school structure and policy, e.g. implementation of middle school model or introduction of new standardized testing in the elementary schools; and personal responsibilities, e.g. courses at the university and new babies.

Not surprisingly, the majority of respondents believed that administrative support at both the district and school levels was crucial. Most of these responses described the administration as either unsupportive or disinterested. However, even those participants who described their administrators as supportive qualified their responses. For example, the two teachers who had been able to implement almost all their plans described their administrators as supportive. One person qualified the support as lip service, without providing the time or resources to develop the ideas and the other person described being questioned jokingly about the time involved outside the school and classroom in preparing certain activities.

The Institute Structure

Participants described most aspects of the Institute as effective and rewarding. Variety, opportunities for interaction, group work and the emphasis on practicality, and final assessment were mentioned most often when we asked participants to describe the strengths of the Institute.

Participants liked the variety of activities, learning strategies, projects, and assignments. They liked the changes in pace and the inclusion of informal activities into what is traditionally defined as class time and the extension of class activities into the traditional out of class time. They also liked the structure of the Institute varying from one day to another.

A number of participants listed the opportunities for interaction among themselves and other participants and, particularly, with the instructors as a strength. Participants said the informal events also contributed to the comeraderie among participants and instructors and seemed to be a large part of the overall positive feelings people have about the Institute experience.

Teachers remarked that they liked listening to the experiences of their peers and getting feedback from them. Although assignments were assessed on an individual basis, participants were encouraged to share ideas and insights. In a related vein, guest presentations by a peer group of teachers who were involved in various aspects of gifted education were also well received. Only one person indicated a preference for the traditional lecture/assignment/ essay format.

Most participants strongly supported grading on a credit/noncredit basis, remarking that while they worked very hard, they also experienced less stress and the general atmosphere was less competitive than traditional courses. Others said the Institute provided them with an opportunity for reflection and personal assessment. Only one person wrote they would prefer a letter grade.

When we asked for suggestions to improve the Institute, there were real concerns about the time frame. While some participants wrote they liked the intensity and focus of the Institute, most felt overwhelmed and some were exhausted by the eight-hour days in the classroom plus numerous other hours reading and working on assignments required to complete the course in three weeks. Some had only to walk a short distance to the university residence they rented, while others faced a one or two hour drive home. Regardless of where they stayed, participants indicated they spent much of this time working on readings, projects and their individual teaching plans. Most comments on improving the Institute included suggestions how or requests to rethink the time frame.

Two other suggestions were made for improving the Institute. First, even though participants commented on and valued the development of models and lessons, a number of them wanted even more emphasis on practical activities and modelling by teachers. Secondly, a few suggested cutting back on the readings and decreasing the number of the assignments.

Discussion

We believe that the Institute was a success despite our failure to recognize the need for ongoing support. We were most successful in changing teachers' beliefs and in creating a culture of learning and sharing. Even though changes in practice were more modest, we were both surprised and pleased that participants were able to implement their plans to the extent that they did. The fact this group of teachers maintained a level of interest that enabled them to initiate an unmandated change impressed us as being quite remarkable.

Given the overwhelmingly supportive comments of those who responded, we retained most aspects of the Institute's content and structure. However there were aspects we did change. We decided to:

* focus more heavily on strategies that can be used in the classroom and integrated into individual teaching styles and de-emphasize models of gifted education which rely on district or even whole school involvement.

* increase the involvement of classroom teachers who are successfully using various strategies.

* extend the Institute to four rather than three weeks enabling us to shorten the day and meet four, rather than five days a week.

We also took another step because we recognized most teachers lacked administrative and peer support. We identified activities to provide that support in other ways.

* publishing a newsletter to share information about what teachers are doing in different locales/schools, trends in gifted education, and upcoming events.

* establishing a province-wide electronic network of Institute participants and others known to have particular interest in this area.

* beginning regional meetings as a way to rekindle enthusiasm, model teaching strategies, and share resources. With each next Institute, we look forward to expanding the number of teachers who feel able to identify gifted learners and offer effective programs of study for their gifted students. As well, we want to build on the ideas and changes initiated by this first group of educators.

REFERENCES

Davis, G. & Rimm, S. (1994). Education of the gifted and talented. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gallagher, J. (1994). Teaching the Gifted Child. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

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

Gear, G. (1978). Effects of training on teachers' accuracy in the identification of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 90-97.

Renzulli, J. & Reis, S. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model. Mansfield Center: Creative Learning Press.

Sternberg, R. & Davidson, J. (Eds) (1986). Conceptions qiftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press.

RELATED ARTICLE: A `To Do' List for Creating A Summer Institute on Gifted Education

* provide a variety of learning experiences

* include a mixture of formal and informal activities/events

* provide opportunities for participants to interact with peers and instructors

* maintain a balance of time allowing for intensity and focus, reflection, and participants personal lives

* provide sufficient theoretical background, but keep a strong emphasis on practice

* provide opportunities for later networking, e.g. familiarity with other teachers and resource persons in the local district

* keep in mind an institute has limited impact unless it is part of a number of ongoing experiences

Karen Sullenger, Associate Professor of Special Education, University of New Brunswick, has been working on research in teacher change. Marie Cashion, Professor of Special Education, University of New Brunswick, is interested in both gifted learners and students with learning disabilities. Marilyn Ball, Director of Education at a local district in New Brunswick is an advocate and supporter of education for gifted and talented learners.

Manuscript submitted June, 1996. Revision accepted March, 1997.