Overcoming Lethargy in Gifted and Talented Education with Contract Activity Packages “I’m Choosing to Learn!” JANET CARAISCO

Abstract: In this article, the author compares the potential academic and attitudinal gains of a gifted and talented population using different instructional methods. It has been found that instruction for identified high-achieving students must be different than that of general education students. Gifted and talented students cannot maximize learning opportunities unless they are appropriately challenged and motivated to learn. When gifted learners are lethargic and disinterested in learning, better-matched instruction is needed. Using contract activity packages with a gifted and talented population will support high-end learners in the classroom. During this project, the contract activity packages method of instruction provided the children with choice, flexibility, and challenged them at a higher level than they experienced through traditional lessons.

ing the same gains as children in the general education setting. What is going on? What can you do as the instructional leader of the building to support student learning in the self-contained gifted and talented classrooms? What resources are available to enhance and enrich instruction for this special population? Definitions of Gifted and Talented “Many gifted children become bored or irritated in school precisely because they are required to follow the same rules in the same way and in the same amount of time as everyone else” (Dunn, Burke, and Whitely 2000, 6). Teaching identified gifted and talented students with the same curriculum and instructional methods as general education students leads to apathy and disinterest in learning. These barriers to learning can also lead to reduced performance on standardized tests. School districts around the United States have found that gifted children are failing to meet expected growth targets. Even more distressing, educators are finding that some of these gifted children are regressing in skills (Clark 2005). The New York City (NYC) Department of Education (DOE) has begun a comprehensive restructuring of academic programs for identified gifted and talented learners. Former NYC DOE Deputy Chancellor for Teaching and Learning Carmen Fariña challenged superintendents throughout the NYC school system to provide expanded opportunities for children enrolled in gifted and talented programs. In February 2005, NYC DOE Chancellor Joel Klein directed regional superintendents and local school communities to implement a coherent gifted and talented program that would strengthen and

Keywords: contract activity packages, gifted and talented elementary students

I

magine you are the principal at the local community school. Every day you conduct your daily walkthrough and you start to notice a puzzling pattern. When you visit the self-contained gifted and talented classrooms, you see children simply going through the motions of learning. These are the brightest children in each grade and yet, they are the least engaged in the lessons and in each other. There is more bickering between students and when you question the children on their learning, they seem lethargic and bored. When you return to your office, you pull out your student achievement data from last year’s standardized state tests. You notice that although the self-contained gifted and talented children have done well in both English language arts and mathematics, their scores have dipped over the years. These children are not mak-

Janet Caraisco is the principal of a New York City Department of Education K–5 elementary school. She is also an adjunct instructor of instructional technology and a doctoral student at St. John's University, New York. Copyright © 2007 Heldref Publications 255

256

The Clearing House

expand opportunities for these students throughout the city. In a speech to educators at the Hunter College Center for Gifted Studies and Education on February 16, 2005, Fariña (2005) stated, “Today in New York City, we have a wide array of gifted and talented programs in some districts and no offerings in other districts. Going forward, we will increase opportunities for students in traditionally underserved areas while maintaining and increasing support for existing gifted and talented programs” (4). On February 16, 2005, the NYC DOE announced plans to expand and improve professional development opportunities for teachers in gifted and talented programs and to develop a standardized, citywide admissions test for kindergarten and first-grade students by September 2007 (NYC DOE 2005). Although many students identified as being gifted and talented enter formal education with high motivation and persistence, they are not sustaining that momentum. Because of that, school districts are being charged with ensuring systematic and sequential instruction for these children, instruction that must be designed specifically to meet the unique needs of gifted and talented children. The goal is to effectively motivate this special group of learners and to support their needs. The federal government classifies gifted and talented students as those who have been identified by a professionally qualified person, who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high performance. As per Public Law 91–230, Section 806 (DOE 1981), “These are children who require differentiated educational programs and/or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize their contribution to self and society.” New York State Chapter 740 of the Laws of 1982, Article 90 defines gifted students as: Pupils who show evidence of high performance, capability and exceptional potential in areas such as general intellectual ability, specific academic aptitude, and outstanding ability in visual and performing arts. Such definition shall include those pupils who require educational programs or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize their full potential. (New York State Assembly 2007, Section 4452)

I realized that as the principal of a K–5 elementary school housing a self-contained gifted and talented program, it was imperative for me to study the effectiveness of our current instruction for gifted and talented students. It was critical for the educators in my building to waylay lethargy and to infuse excitement back into the curriculum. High-achieving students are the most neglected population in any school setting. Although these children are scoring in the top ninty-fifth percentile on standardized tests, they still require special consideration to increase their productivity, their learning, and ultimately, their achievement on benchmark assessments.

July/August 2007

I found several problematic areas in our gifted and talented program that needed to be addressed: (a) we were not assessing learning styles using a reliable measuring instrument; (b) we were not differentiating instruction on the basis of learning preferences; and (c) students did not have the opportunity to learn in different modalities. In the spring of 2006, I began an analysis of the instructional materials and teaching methods currently used with students in my gifted and talented classrooms. The results surprised me. I set out on this research project with the goal of helping the gifted and talented teachers in my building better understand the learning preferences of their students. In the end, the results of my research project provided us with data for future modifications of instructional materials and methods to support both the attitudes of gifted and talented students toward curriculum and their subsequent achievement gains. Current Thinking in Gifted and Talented Education I began my research by reviewing the current thoughts on gifted and talented learners. An enormous quantity of information on gifted and talented education exists in professional journals, books, and on the Internet. Taking a cue from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, I narrowed my search by focusing only on scientifically researched studies by highly qualified educators. I discovered that a great deal of award-winning, international research had been conducted by Dr. Rita Dunn and the St. John’s University’s Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching Styles (Dunn 1998; http://www.learningstyles .net). Dr. Dunn and her research teams have spent more than three decades gathering information on the academic needs of gifted and talented children and testing the instructional methods best suited for learning preferences. Researchers have found that academically gifted students prefer to learn through independent study or with an authoritative teacher, unlike general education students who show preferences for cooperative learning and small group instruction. Gifted and talented students tend not to want to learn with classmates. Conventional schooling can inhibit high-achieving students from mastering academic skills when the students do not perceive instructional practices as enjoyable or appropriate. Gifted and talented children find accomplishment through learning new and difficult material. When instruction is not at an appropriate challenge level for gifted students, these learners may become apathetic, find themselves depressed and angry, and exhibit problematic behaviors (Bender 2006). Motivation is highly important for gifted children. Dunn, Burke, and Whitely (2000) concluded, “The

Vol. 80, No. 6

Overcoming Lethargy in GT Education

relationship between interest and motivation is crucial for talented youngsters who often spend hours, days, weeks, or years deeply involved in what absorbs them. Indeed, that sustained interest over time is an essential factor in giftedness and talent development in young people” (6). Gifted and talented children can be either analytic learners or global learners. Although high-achieving analytic learners fit into the traditional model of schooling and conform to the behaviors and requirements expected of them, high-achieving global learners can become disillusioned by traditional teaching methods and may not conform to the standardized behavior often required by teachers (Dunn 1989). Gifted students learn differently from their classmates in at least five important ways: 1. learn new material in much less time than others 2. tend to remember what they have learned, making spiral curriculums and reviewing previously mastered concepts boring and unpleasant 3. perceive ideas and concepts at more abstract levels than others do 4. become keenly interested in specific topics and want to stay with those topics until they feel satisfied that they have learned as much as they possibly can about them 5. able to attend to many activities at the same time (Dunn, Burke, and Whitely 2000). Research indicates that children identified as gifted and talented have different learning styles than underachieving students; however, gifted and talented students do tend to have similarities to other identified gifted and talented students in their learning preferences. In a study conducted across nine diverse cultures, children identified as gifted and talented within the subcategories of athletics, art, dance, leadership, literature, mathematics, or music had learning styles similar to other gifted and talented children in the same subcategory (Dunn 1993). It follows that instruction for gifted and talented students must be differentiated to meet their needs. It is arbitrary, capricious, and unfair to require that children who think creatively, faster, and more divergently than their peers must (a) sit and wait until everyone else has finished the class assignment, (b) help slower children who take longer than everyone else, (c) work at an academic level of the average child in the class instead of competing with their equally talented or gifted peers (Dunn, Burke, and Whitely 2000, 6). A study by the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRCGT) found that in elementary classrooms across the United States gifted students received the same type of instruction and material, at the same pace as their classmates, more than 80 percent of the time (Bender 2006). This research confirms the need for specialized instruction that meets the learning preferences of gifted

257

and talented students. One instructional method that has shown statistical significance in academic gains with high-achieving students is contract activity packages (CAPs). CAPs (Dunn and Dunn 1992) enable motivated, independent, or nonconforming students to learn effectively, efficiently, and enjoyably. Students for whom CAPs are the best way to learn achieve significantly higher achievement and attitudinal test scores with this approach than they do traditionally (Dunn 1993; Dunn and Griggs 2003; Santano 1996a). Researchers have conducted studies that show statistically significant improvements in achievement using CAPs with gifted and talented students. Santano (1996b) studied sixty-five fourth-grade students enrolled in self-contained gifted and talented classes. These students were taught four different social studies lessons—two using traditional lessons and two using CAPs. Santano’s findings showed a significant increase in the mean achievement scores between the pre- and posttests for those lessons taught using CAPs compared with the pre- and posttest scores of those lessons taught traditionally (Santano 1996a). Santano also measured students’ attitudes toward the curriculum with a semantic differential scale. The semantic differential scale uses twelve word pairs to assess students’ attitudes toward instructional methods (Ingham 1989; Pizzo 1981). Method Research Questions In the next step of my research project, I identified two test questions using a sample from my own gifted and talented student population: Will there be a significant difference in the science achievement of fourth grade gifted and talented students taught through traditional methods compared with those taught with CAPs? Will there be a significant difference in the attitude toward curriculum of fourth grade gifted and talented students taught through traditional methods compared with those taught with CAPs? Population and Sample I selected the twenty-five subjects for my study from a population of gifted fourth-grade students currently enrolled in a self-contained gifted and talented class in a NYC elementary school. The students in this school are 38.3 percent Caucasian, 8.5 percent black, 9.6 percent Hispanic, and 43.6 percent Asian and Other, which is representative of the demographically diverse population found in the local neighborhood. These students were identified as gifted based on the administration of the OLSAT School Ability Test in the spring of 2002. These scores align with the Standford Binet I.Q. The OLSAT considers a score of 130–133 as the top 2 percent. The Standford Binet considers 133 as gifted. The OLSAT has a fifteen-point standard deviation whereas

258

The Clearing House

July/August 2007

the Standford Binet has a ten-point standard deviation. Children with an OLSAT score of 1 point above a score of 116 were given the Standford Binet I.Q. Test. I admitted children who received a score of 133 (with consideration for the ten point SD) into the program. We administered these tests in the spring semester.

3. Semantic differential scale 4. Pre- and posttest: Unit A, Chapter 5, “What are the digestive and nervous systems?” 5. Pre- and posttest CAP: “How does the body defend itself?”

Instrumentation

The entire population of students in the self-contained gifted and talented fourth-grade class participated:

This research project used the following: 1. The administration of the Our Wonderful Learning Styles (OWLS) Inventory (http://www.owlstest.com) in February 2006 to assess students’ learning preferences. This assessment asks the students a series of questions that identify each student’s preferences for twenty-five different elements. Examples include each student’s preference for bright or soft lighting, sound versus quiet, seating, pictures versus words, and learning alone, with peers, or directly with the teacher. This learning-style approach was developed more than thirty-four years ago and has been used in thousands of classrooms around the world to help students improve their grades and better enjoy schooling. It has been proven to increase aptitude and achievement scores in hundreds of studies (http:// www.learningstyles.net). 2. Computerized OWLS analyses for each child. After we tested the children, I was able to print out the individual results for each child. My goal in administering this assessment was to help better plan our instructional techniques for our gifted and talented students based on their learning styles. Students took this assessment in the computer lab and it took approximately thirty minutes to complete. The assessment is specifically designed for children in grades 1–4 and includes child-friendly passages and questions. 3. Pre- and posttest scores from traditionally taught lesson. 4. Pre- and posttest scores from CAP lesson. 5. Posttraditional lesson and post-CAP lesson scores from the semantic differential scale toward science curriculum and instruction. We assessed the student’s attitudes toward science instruction and curriculum using this scale. Teachers administered the questionnaire to the students after they taught a unit of instruction traditionally and again after they taught a unit of study using contract activity packages. Materials I planned and assessed the materials for this project with the assistance of the fourth-grade self-contained gifted and talented teacher. They included the following: 1. Scott Foresman Science: See Learning in a Whole New Light. 2006. Unit A, Chapter 5, Lesson 3, “What are the digestive and nervous systems?” (Cooney et al. 2006). 2. CAP: “How does the body defend itself?”

Procedures

1. We administered the OWLS learning styles assessment to the students. 2. Students completed a pretest on Unit A, Chapter 5, Lesson 3, “What are the digestive and nervous systems?” 3. We taught students a traditional science lesson using Scott Foresman Science: See Learning in a Whole New Light. 2006. Unit A, Chapter 5, Lesson 3, “What are the digestive and nervous systems?” 4. We administered the semantic differential scale to students to assess their attitudes toward science instruction and curriculum. 5. Students completed a posttest on Unit A, Chapter 5, Lesson, “What are the digestive and nervous systems?” 6. Students completed a pretest on Unit A, Chapter 5, Lesson 4, “How does the body defend itself?” (Cooney et al. 2006). 7. We taught students through the use of a CAP, “How does the body defend itself?” 8. We administered the semantic differential scale to students to assess their attitudes toward science instruction and curriculum. 9. Students completed a posttest on Unit A, Chapter 5, Lesson 4, “How does the body defend itself?” Findings We conducted analysis of variances (ANOVA) and correlations tests for each instructional situation. There were statistically significant improvements in both gains (α = .05) and final test scores (α = .01) when using the CAP method of teaching compared with a traditional method of teaching. There was also a statistically significant increase in positive attitude toward science learning when using the CAP method compared with the traditional method (α = .05; see figures 5, 6, and 7). Students were highly engaged during the CAP unit of study compared with the traditional lessons. During the traditional lessons, children sat at their desks and responded to the teacher’s questions when prompted to do so. The classroom teacher, Janet Strunk, observed the students to be disconnected from the lessons and bored. During the CAP unit, students found great satisfaction in having a choice in how they would learn the material. They were

Vol. 80, No. 6

Overcoming Lethargy in GT Education

excited to participate in skits, create poems, and make mobiles. Children felt empowered in their learning because they had a choice in with whom they would work, how they would learn, and the way they would show evidence of that learning. The classroom teacher felt the only drawback to the CAP lesson was the increased volume of student voices in the classroom. She had to continually remind students to use classroom-appropriate voices. The teacher did note that some of the children were frustrated during the CAP unit because the nature of the projects did not allow them to be absolutely perfect in their presentation. As we know from our gifted learners, many of the children tend to be perfectionists in their work and are highly critical of their own performances. We designed the CAP unit of study so that children were completing projects under a specified time. The goal of the learning was the acquisition of science knowledge and application, not artistic ability. The teacher felt the CAP unit of study was an opportunity for the children with perfectionist tendencies to work through their compulsive behavior in a meaningful and structured way. Conclusion The purpose of my research project was to compare the potential academic and attitudinal gains of a gifted and talented population using different instructional methods. It is clear from the cited literature on the topic of gifted and talented education and from the significant findings from my research project that instruction for identified high-achieving students must be different than that of general education students. Gifted and talented students cannot maximize learning opportunities unless they are appropriately challenged and motivated to learn. When I conducted my daily walk-through and witnessed lethargy and disinterest in learning in my self-contained gifted classes, I realized that we needed better matched instruction for this special population of learners. Using CAPs with the gifted and talented population was a perfect match. The CAP method of instruction provided the children with choice, flexibility, and challenged them at a higher level than they experienced through traditional lessons. The findings from my research project will support me in creating professional development opportunities for the gifted and talented teachers in my building to align instructional methods with students’ learning preferences. The results of this research will allow the entire staff to better understand the learning preferences of our gifted and talented students and provide data for future modifi-

259

cations of instructional materials and methods to support both the attitudes of gifted and talented students toward curriculum and their subsequent achievement gains. REFERENCES Bender, S. 2006. Struggles of gifted children in school: Possible negative outcomes. Gifted Education Press Quarterly 20 (2): 10–13. Clark, L. 2005. Gifted and growing: A district’s computerized adaptive testing approach revealed something unexpected—that the brightest students showed minimal growth. Educational Leadership 63 (3): 56–60. Cooney, T., J. Cummins, J. Flood, B. K. Foots, M. J. Goldston, S. G. Key, D. Lapp, S. A. Mercier, K. L. Ostlund, N. Romance, W. Tate, K. C. Thornton, L. Ukens, S. Weinberg. 2006. Science: See learning in a whole new light. Illinois: Pearson. Department of Education. 1981. Third annual report to Congress on the implementation of Public Law 94-142: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Washington, DC: Department of Education. Dunn, R. 1989. Teaching gifted students through their learning style strengths. International Education 16 (51): 6–8. ———. 1993. The learning styles of gifted adolescents in nine culturally diverse nations. International Education 20 (64): 4–6. ———. 1998. International Learning Styles Network. http://www .learningstyles.net (accessed March 7, 2006). Dunn, R., K. Burke, and J. Whitely. 2000. What do you know about learning style? A guide for parents of gifted children. National Association for Gifted Children. http://www.nagc.org/Publications /Parenting/styles.html (accessed March 7, 2006). Dunn, R., and K. Dunn. 1992. Teaching elementary students through their individual learning styles: Practical approaches for grades 3–6. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Dunn, R., and S. A. Griggs. 2003. Synthesis of the Dunn and Dunn learning-style model research: Who, what, when, where, and so what? Jamaica, NY: St. John’s University’s Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching Styles. Fariña, C. 2005. Speech presented at Opening of Hunter College Center for Gifted Studies and Education. http://schools.nyc .gov/Administration/mediarelationsPressReleases/2004-2005/2-16 -2005-13-48-21-467.htm (accessed June 5, 2007). Ingham, J. 1989. An experimental investigation of the relationships among learning style perceptual strength, instructional strategies, training achievement, and attitudes of corporate employees. PhD diss., St. John’s Univ., 1990. Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts International, publ. nr. AAT 9017236, DAI-A 51/02 (Aug 1990): 380A. New York City Department of Education. 2005. Department of Education accounces comprehensive citywide approach to gifted and talented education in elementary schools. http://schools.nyc.gov/Administration /mediarelations/PressReleases/2004-2005/2-16-2005-13-48-21-467 .htm (accessed June 5, 2007). New York State Assembly. 2007. http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/ menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS (accessed June 5, 2007). Pizzo, J. 1981. An investigation of the relationship between selected acoustic environments and sound, an element of learning style, as they affect sixth-grade students’ reading achievement and attitudes. PhD diss., St. John’s Univ., 1981. Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts International, publ. nr. AAT 8119620, DAI-A 42/06 (Dec. 1981): 2475A. Santano, T. 1996a. Effects of contract activity packages on social studies achievement and attitude test scores of fourth-grade gifted students. PhD diss., St. John’s Univ., 1996. Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts International, publ. nr. AAT 9634690, DAI-A 57/06, (Dec. 1996): 2346A. ———. 1996b. Effects of contract activity packages on social studies achievement of gifted students. Journal of Social Studies Research 23 (1): 3–10.

DIRECTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTORS SCOPE THE CLEARING HOUSE, a peer-reviewed journal, publishes material of interest to middle level and high school teachers and administrators, as well as postsecondary education faculty members and their students. The journal contains articles reporting on useful practices, research findings, and experiments. We also publish a limited number of first-person accounts and opinion pieces on controversial issues. Consideration is given to articles dealing with educational trends and philosophy; preservice and inservice education; effective schools; curriculum; learning styles; discipline; guidance and counseling; community involvement; education of students with disabilities; teaching and learning climate; gifted and talented programs; international education; instructional leadership; instructional techniques; teaching with computers; testing and measurement; and school law. 1. We prefer manuscripts that do not exceed 3,500 words. We also accept short pieces of roughly 600 words. 2. Contributors should visit http://mc.manu scriptcentral.com/heldref/tch for submission information and guidelines. 3. The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., University of Chicago Press 2003, should be used as a style reference in preparing contributions that require documentation. (For example, a book reference would be in this format: Slavin, R. E. 1990. Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. A journal article would be listed this way: Kapland, J. L., and E. D. Luck. 1977. The dropout phenomenon as a social problem. Educational Forum 47 (5): 41–56.) 4. Avoid explanatory notes whenever possible

by incorporating their content in the text. For essential notes, identify them with consecutive superscripts and list them in a separate section titled NOTES at the end of the text. 5. References should be listed alphabetically according to the author’s last name at the end of the manuscript. In the text, reference citations should be in parentheses: (author, date) or (date). 6. Accepted contributions normally are published within six months of acceptance. Authors receive two complimentary copies of the issue in which their article appears and permission to reproduce additional copies of that article. Reprints are available through the journal. 7. We reserve the right to edit for content, grammar, and style.

Submit manuscripts to: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/heldref/tch Phone (202) 296-6267 • Fax (202) 296-5149 www.heldref.org