Role of Assessment In Providing Rigor For Gifted Learners

What role does assessment play in providing rigor and challenge for gifted learners?  In what ways can data best contribute to the teaching and learning of gifted students?

The purpose of assessment is to gather information that guides instruction and benefits the student.  By varying forms of assessment, it is easier to identify specific educational needs for gifted students.  When using traditional assessments like tests or quizzes, I incorporate open-ended questions and higher-level questions.  Other assessments that we use in our class include technology-based assessments, research projects, choice boards/tic-tac-toe boards, journal entries in their interactive student notebooks, foldables, graphic organizers, tickets-out-the-door, formative assessments such as “thumbs up” or whiteboard “Show What You Know,” and student choice to exhibit their creativity.  We are constantly assessing, whether it be formally or informally.  Pre-assessments are extremely crucial when customizing instruction and for making modifications for gifted students.  In our class, we use technology such as Kahoot or Padlet to quickly assess the students’ understanding.  The students also take ownership in their own learning through various self-assessments such as rubrics, journal responses, questionaires, and checklists.

To establish and encourage rigorous assessments for the gifted learner, high expectations from the student and the teacher are essential.  In my experience, gifted students respond more positively to high expectations when they find value in the tasks they are completing.  I feel that motivation and engagement are linked together, and are critical in developing successful students.  By incorporating authentic assessments linked to the students’ interests, student motivation and engagement increases.  In addition to high expectations, gifted students need encouragement to help them fulfill these expectations.  A sense of belonging and a respectful environment are essential for gifted learners to succeed.  When the students know you care about them and respect them, they are more apt to take risks and be passionate about their choices.

Student choice is a powerful motivator for the gifted learner.  To maintain opportunities for rigor, gifted students must be given the opportunity to help design the content or process and product rather than just completing a teacher-created assignment.   In our classroom, students are given the opportunity to explore their own interests through inquiry-based projects.  By choosing topics that interest them, the gifted students delve into their activitiess with greater complexity and depth.

Additionally, in our classroom, I constantly assess the students informally through class discussions that center around questioning, with a focus on higher-level thinking skills.  While utilizing question stems from Bloom’s Taxonomy is important for all students, it is especially critical to implement a class atmosphere for gifted students wherein constant high-level questioning occurs.  The complexity of high-level thinking should be raised for gifted learners and questions should be relevant to real world situations to challenge them.

By implementing more complex forms of assessment that challenge gifted students to think and demonstrate a deeper understanding, rigor is increased.  Beyond the simple recalling of answers, more complex assessments evoke answers that are beyond grade level.  Assessments that we use in our class include inquiry-based projects, individual and group activities that encourage creativity and greater depth.  Students also create journal entries, detailed graphic organizers and foldables to demonstrate their knowledge.  Many of the assignments, such as their choice boards, encourage student choice of assessment. 

Data can best contribute to the teaching and learning of gifted students through utilizing assorted forms of assessments.  By assessing gifted students in different ways, a more comprehensive instructional plan can be developed based on their individual needs.  Data that identifies their depth of understanding, their interests, their creativity, and their strengths and weaknesses through diverse forms of assessment is essential in differentiating the curriculum for gifted students.

Campbell, D. (2000). Authentic Assessment and Authentic Standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 405-407.

Kelly, Deirdre (September, 2011).  Differentiating Instruction for Gifted Learners: A Resource for Classroom Teachers, Lake Sybelia Elementary

Kingore, B. (Winter 2011). Differentiating Instruction to Promote Rigor and Engagement for Advanced and Gifted Students. Tempo, XXXI (3), 9-15.

Tomlinson, C. (1997). It Means to Teach Gifted Learners Well. Instructional Leader. Retrieved April 18, 2015, from http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-education-practices/what-it-means-teach-gifted-learners-well

Characteristics and Challenges of a Differentiated Classroom

The key to a differentiated classroom is getting to know your students well enough to design lessons and units of instruction that will best meet his/her needs.   Differentiated classrooms utilize a variety of instructional strategies, offer a shared responsibility for learning, are student-centered, offer a variety of assignments measure student success by growth, include on-going assessments, assess authentically, and most importantly offer students a choice.  Differentiated instruction not only provides additional ways for students to take in new information, but increased ways to demonstrate what they have learned.  A differentiated classroom frequently give choices to students concerning topics of study, approaches to learning, ways of presenting evidence of learning, and learning environments while keeping constant with grade-level standards.  A differentiated classroom is not uniform lectures, repetitive activities, and homework assignments involving only memorization or recall.  Rather it’s student-centered, where students are not embarrassed by individual differences or learning difficulties.  Those individual differences are embraced, and as a result, teachers vary their instructional practices in response to their students’ learning styles and readiness levels to provide appropriate degrees of academic challenge. The goal is to work with students at their current level and to make provisions for those who need modifications, whether it be for special needs or to challenge gifted learners.

The greatest obstacles that I see in trying to authentically differentiate in my classroom are time, resources,  and grading practices.  Obviously the amount of time needed to dedicate to differentiation is enormous, especially in the beginning stages. Creating a variety of assignments that are both student-centered and engaging, while remaining authentic, is time-consuming.  Asking myself “does this assignment accurately asses what I want them to learn and know how to do” about multiple assignments in varying degrees of difficulty is a daunting task to undertake weekly or even daily.  Another obstacle to effectively differentiating in the classroom is the amount of resources, rather the over-abundance of resources available.  Many times I struggle with researching new ideas and activities, especially in interest areas that differ from my own, because there are too many ideas to comb through.  I can get “lost” for hours searching for ideas of how to modify or differentiate assessments and classroom activities.   I also struggle with how to grade differentiated assignments.  When the method of differentiation is in the final product or type of assessment, I often agonize on what is fair for grading purposes.  For many students, and more importantly-their parents, the grade is more valuable than the journey they took to get there.  Until we change the mind-set of many parents and students that not all activities must be assigned a grade, determining how to grade differentiated assignments will remain difficult. 

The most considerable challenge that I face is the enormous variation in the academic level of students coming into my classroom.  Consequently, a “one-size-fits-all” classroom is not an option if I want to successfully grow the students that enter my classroom and provide them with valuable educational experiences.  “Differentiated instruction is effective instruction that is responsive to students’ readiness, interests and learning preferences.  All three characteristics of the learner—readiness, interests and preferences—allow educators and students to build new learning through connections to existing knowledge and preferred ways of working.” (Edugains)  I reflect on what it was like for me when I was the student or how I felt in staff development sessions in which I gained valuable knowledge and I try to plan units, activities, lessons, assessments,  and projects that will be meaningful for the students in my classroom based on their interests and ability levels.  Oftentimes this includes students working by themselves, in random groups, or in groups according to similar readiness, similar interests, or similar learning profiles.  With the inconsistent levels of student ability and diverse learning styles and interests, differentiation is imperative to ensure that all learners’, from the below-grade level students all the way to the gifted learners, needs are being met. The ability to systematically and thoroughly meet the needs of the individual learner is central to the work we do as educators. (Edugains)

Characteristics of a Differentiated Classroom. (n.d.) Retrieved March 15, 2015, from http://pdsupport.cmswiki.wikispaces.net/Characteristics of a DIfferentiated Classroom




Differentiated Instruction. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2015, from http://www.edugains.ca/resourcesDI/Brochures/DIBrochureOct08.pdf




Taking Center Stage, Sacramento: California Department of Education, 2001, pp.140, 141. Retrieved March, 16, 2015.


Willoughby, J. (n.d.). Differentiating Instruction: Meeting Students Where They Are. Retrieved March 16, 2015.

The Schoolwide Enrichment Model In Connection With Creativity

The Schoolwide Enrichment Model is based upon a vision that "schools are places for talent development” providing the flexibility for each individual school to develop its own unique program.  (Gibson & Efinger, 2001)  The School Enrichment Model encourages higher learning standards and enriched learning experiences for all students, not just those identified as academically gifted.  The three goals of the SEM are developing talents in all children, providing a broader scope of advanced enrichment experiences, and providing follow-up opportunities for students based on their own areas of strength and interests.  Because the SEM model encourages high levels of student engagement and is based on the students’ interests, it inspires creativity and individual expression.  

Evident by over 20 years of research of topics such as student creative productivity, the SEM is perceived as effective by key groups of educational professionals as well as students and their parents. (NEAG Center) Curriculum driven by student preference and learning styles enables greater student creativity because the students are interested in what they are learning and have ownership in their own education.  

Through it’s focus of concepts and interdisciplinary curriculum, the SEM provides opportunities for students to “exchange traditional roles of lesson-learner for more challenging and demanding roles that require hands-on learning, firsthand investigations, and the application of knowledge and thinking skills to complex problems.” (Renzulli, 1995)  This process of student engagement promotes higher student involvement and creativity, while challenging students by increasing the number of in-depth learning experiences.  Because redundant material is removed and the curriculum is compacted based on student need, more time and resources are available for enrichment opportunities based on concepts and ideas which foster creativity in the students. 

“Three structural components help teachers apply Enrichment Learning and Teaching to the learning process. Type I and Type II enrichment experiences should identify situations that may lead to Type III experiences; which are the most advanced type of enrichment in the model and are pursued only on a voluntary and self-selected basis.” (Gibson & Efinger, 2001)  While all students can benefit from Type I activities (ie guest speakers, interest groups, demonstrations, etc.), gifted students benefit from Type II activities by developing higher-level thinking skills and research skills.  Type III enrichment activities foster gifted students’ creativity by engaging them in real-world problem solving situations. (Renzulli  1995)  Though this model can be used with all students, regardless of their ability level, enrichment is differentiated because gifted ability students will participate in higher level Type III activities whereas lower ability students will focus more on Type I or II activities.  Critical thinking skills, leadership skills, communication skills, problem solving skills and research skills, in addition to student creativity are all essential components of a successful gifted education program.  Through solving real-world problems based on their interests and what they view as important, students find the curriculum more meaningful and enjoyable, therefore they become engaged and committed to their learning and their creativity, as well as their self-confidence, flourishes.

Student learning is most satisfying when the students’ interest and abilities are maximized through real and relevant learning experiences.  Renzulli makes four basic assumptions about the nature of student learning.  First, each learner is unique and their learning experiences reflect their abilities, interests and learning styles.  Secondly, learning is most effective when students enjoy school, and thirdly when the content is presented within the context of a real-world problem.  Last of all, “formal instruction is best used to enhance student construction of meaningfulness.”  (Renzulli 1995) By making the student’s education relevant and important to him/her, the SEM enables independent and engaged learners who enjoy school and allow their creativity to thrive rather than passive learners dependent on his/her teacher for all instruction.  

Renzulli, J. S., & Purcell, J. H. (1995). A Schoolwide Enrichment Model. The Education Digest, 61(4), 14-16.

“Revisiting the Schoolwide Enrichment Model- An Approach to Gifted Programming” by Gibson and Efinger, Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. 33, No. 4, 2001, 48-53. Copyright 2006 by The Council for Exceptional Children.

"Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM)." gifted.uconn.edu. Neag Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Web. 21 Feb. 2015. <http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/>.

Should Gifted Teachers Be Identified as Gifted Students

Just as all students are diverse and prefer certain learning environments, various teachers have distinctive teaching styles and reach their students in different ways. While there are many characteristics that teachers, who are themselves identified as being gifted, share with their gifted students, I don’t believe that being identified as gifted is a requirement to be a successful teacher of the gifted.  Saying that all teachers who teach gifted students should be gifted themselves is a difficult generalization to make. 

In my opinion as an educator, there  are misconceptions that some teachers, who are not identified as being gifted, have that can be destructive when teaching gifted students.  Comments such as “gifted students do just fine on their own,” “gifted students are know-it-alls who think they are better than others,”  “gifted students get an unfair advantage because those classes have better behavior,” or the school of thought that you just give them more work if they finish theirs early or allow them to act as a tutor for other students are all examples of negative stereotypes of gifted students that I’ve witnessed as an educator. “The characteristics of effective teachers of the gifted have been examined by many researchers over the past 40+ years (Bishop, 1968; Chan, 2001; Freehill, 1974; Hansford, 1985; Maddux, Samples-Lachman & Cummings, 1985; Mills, 2003; Newland, 1962; Renzulli, 1992; Torrance & Myers, 1970; Wendel & Heiser, 1989; Whitlock & DuCette, 1989). While there seems to be a general consensus regarding the personal and professional characteristics of successful teachers of the gifted this research has typically focused on the identification of those teacher characteristics that seem to benefit gifted students in the classroom. (Table 1.) Little research exists that examines how these identified characteristics might actually be cultivated through teacher education and professional development.” (Stephens 2009 )

Unfortunately very few teacher preparation programs provide instruction on the specific needs of gifted students.  Because of this dilemma, the majority of teachers in classrooms today have not been trained to meet the learning needs of these students so they rely on their own educational experiences as students.  Being identified as gifted certainly is beneficial for many teachers as it oftentimes allows them to be empathetic to their students’ emotional and education needs and situations.  A teacher identified as being gifted may have a better understanding of what it means to be a gifted student and he/she can plan their classroom management accordingly.  On the flip side, not all teachers identified as being gifted are gifted at teaching.  Additionally, not all gifted students prefer identical learning environments.  As a result, those students may flourish with a teacher who was not formally identified as being gifted, but instead has a favorable teaching style for their particular preference.  Primarily, teachers must be able to recognize students with high-abilities in order to provide them with more depth and complexity in instruction.  Gifted students require educational content that is relevant to their own lives and educational opportunities that allow them to process ideas at an elevated level.  In order to provide that, a teacher has to have a desire to pace their instruction to the student’s individual needs; provide both structure and choice, and respect the students and their ability to learn at an increased paced-not merely be identified as gifted themselves.  In my opinion, empathy for gifted students can certainly be nurtured in any teacher who has a desire to successfully and teach the gifted student as a whole being. 

National Standards in Gifted and Talented Education (n.d.). Retrieved January 23, 2015, from http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/national-standards-gifted-and-talented-education


Stephens, Kristen R. (2009) "Can Empathy for Gifted Students Be Nurtured in Teachers?," Gifted Children: Vol. 3: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/giftedchildren/vol3/iss1/2

Student Profile Analysis: Josh

I just made a new Voki. See it here:

http://goo.gl/BxDEMv

Gifted Characteristics

• has a strong curiosity and is inquisitive on a variety of topics
• is a zealous reader of many different genres
• thinks and processes information quickly and logically
• is observant and empathetic
• can recall facts and has a powerful memory
• understands sarcasm and humor
• is creative
• is responsible and a good leader 
• enjoys research and gaining new knowledge
• questions authority
• is morally conscience
• is self-motivated

Classification
I would classify “Josh” as a Social Leader.  He is an excellent leader and communicator among his classmates.  He previously attended the Summer leadership academy in Davidson County.  He is also a leader on the football field.  One of his coaches stated that he is always the first player back to practice after a water break, helps guide other players who are struggling and inquires on what he can do to play more effectively.  In the classroom, “Josh” takes a leadership role when working in small groups and during whole class instruction and discussion.  He very social (in a good way), is well-liked and seems to get along with students of all levels and backgrounds.

Gifted Program Setting
Josh is grouped with other high-performing students in the accelerated or advanced class for all of his core subjects.  

School Life
“Josh” appears to “have it all”-intelligence, popularity, and athleticism.  However, he is very complex.  He battles a fine line between being inquisitive toward teachers and being disrespectful.  While he is viewed as helpful and encouraging to some classmates, others see him as arrogant and condescending.  He is always willing to offer an answer, most of the time before others have had a chance to get their answer.  Occasionally I see an eye roll or two from his classmates.  I love having him as a student and enjoy his questions, his eagerness for new knowledge and complex thought processes.  But there are some teachers who view him as a know-it-all who always wants to argue.  He likes to know the "why" and the meaning behind answers.  I think he makes me a better teacher because he keeps me on my toes and encourages others to gain a deeper understanding. 

Ideal Learning Environment

In an ideal setting, “Josh” would profit intellectually from a smaller class size, a variety of readily available technology, and more authentic instruction.  He's in a class of 29 students now and that's much too large.  A I don't think we have an appropriate learning environment for "Josh" in Davidson County.  He already takes advantage of the extras that we offer (Leadership Academy, Duke TIP, Alpha Mu Math Society competition, Battle of the Books, etc.)  I'm torn on where the best location is for "Josh" to gain his formal education.  He's well-rounded and excels in all subjects, but the School of Math and Science may be a good choice for "Josh".