Meeting the needs of gifted and talented students in mainstream classrooms

Meeting the Needs of the Gifted and Talented in a Mainstream Classroom Setting

Qualitative research

Does teacher instruction challenge the needs of the gifted and talented in a mainstream classroom?

Special needs instruction for low-performing students has become an increasingly important aspect of the modern national conversation on education, given the growing, evident need for additional support for students with autism, attention-deficit disorder, and ESL students. However, the presence of gifted and talented students at the other end of the differential learning spectrum is often forgotten. Because these students are not evidently being 'left behind' in the debate regarding standardized assessment and testing, their needs are often ignored. Teachers may assign some students more challenging work for 'extra credit' but the specific needs of the gifted and talented, it was hypothesized in this research study, are not fully addressed.

To understand how gifted and talented education is perceived and implemented, a qualitative study of teachers at a middle school (School 'A') with a population consisting of 282 students was embarked upon, to better assess the current state of gifted and talented educational instruction and current needs of the population

School demographics

The middle school population consisted of 178 females and 104 males. The gifted and talented population numbered 72: 38 females and 34 males. Teachers are officially encouraged to identify gifted and talented students, according to the school's stated policy.

Methodology

A combination of discussion 'focus groups' with teachers and observations of classroom interactions were used for the study. This approach was specifically deployed to assess any discrepancies between teachers' self-perceptions of their pedagogical styles and their actual interactions with students in the classroom. Participant observations were not deployed, so as not to influence the teacher's regular interactions with the students. Additionally, the regular classroom day might have been disrupted by a participatory approach, given that the classrooms often encompassed special needs students, gifted and talented students, and 'regular' students, and sometimes an aide to assist with students who had special needs.

For the focus groups, eleven teachers were selected: 3 in mathematics; 3 science and social studies instructors; 2 language arts / literacy teachers; and 3 bilingual teachers who taught all subjects to ESL students. All teachers were ranked by the school, based upon student test scores and other measures of excellence, as highly qualified.

Three focus groups were conducted: one in late September, on in mid-October, and the third in early November. The two observations conducted by the researcher took place in mid-October and mid-November

Focus group findings

All staff members agreed with the idea of classifying certain students as gifted and talented, or students who were said to demonstrate exceptional natural talent, intellect, and maturity. This emphasis on student maturity in the agreed-upon definition of giftedness suggests that gifted children have an additional perspective and intellectual orientation that requires nurturing. All teachers were aware that they were required to differentiate instruction to meet the needs of the gifted and talented, just as they were for special needs students. However, none of the staff members was aware of any specific district policy regarding students who were gifted and talented. None of the staff members knew that the district had a gifted and talented supervisor or a program for such students. When asked how they identified a student as gifted and talented, they stated that the only way they knew of to do so was using standardized testing results on the NJASK. Those students who scored Advanced Proficient on the test were classified officially as gifted and talented.

The reasons for teacher's lack of awareness should not be surprising, given that none of teachers had ever been offered additional instruction or professional development specific to the gifted and talented. The school / administration did not provide instruction on how to deal with gifted and talented students during staff professional development days. The teachers were given professional development instruction solely to deal with students with special (remedial) needs. Teachers were told to identify the gifted and talented if they felt a student showed a unique aptitude but were not given specific instruction as to how to do so.

For students who had tested as Advanced Proficient on the NJASK, teachers staid they did strive to make their instructional plan more challenging, enlightening, and intriguing to gifted and talented students. They said they tried to group students of similar ability together and give the gifted students more challenging work and when assigning individual projects such as reading novels and open-ended math problems. They said they gave the gifted work that was above grade level, in contrast to the student's peers.

While the teachers claimed to differentiate instruction and said that this was adequately met by in-class tracking, they also admitted to feeling overwhelmed by the differentiated needs of the students in their classroom, and had difficulty accommodating the needs of students above, at, and below grade level within one lesson plan.

Observational results

The lack of differentiated instruction was immediately obvious during the two walk-through observations conducted at the school. Students were not identified as gifted and talented during group activities, despite the fact that teachers said that this was done. When working in groups, all students were given the same amount and type of work. There was no evidence that gifted and talented were given more challenging work. Students who completed the work early often disrupted the class while the teacher was trying to assist others students. Even when working independently, students were not given differentiated materials to reflect their different levels of ability. Even when an inclusion teacher or other resource support was present, teachers focused more on encouraging the special needs students to perform at grade level.

Conclusion

Teachers are under tremendous pressure today to meet standardized benchmarks of achievement set for their students. Their rankings as educators and the performance ratings of the schools depend upon standardized test performance. Thus, there is a great incentive to try to ensure that special education students perform to a higher standard, while students whose performance is expected to be strong are ignored. Balancing the differentiated needs of the gifted and special needs students is a seemingly impossible challenge.