Experiences of a Gifted and Talented Enrichment Cluster for Key
Stage One pupils
Anne Morgan
Sheffield Hallam University, Centre for Education Research
(a.morgan@shu.ac.uk)
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual
Conference, University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2006
Abstract
There has been an increased commitment to gifted and talented education in the
UK in recent years, with a national strategy of grant funded programmes.
However, concerns have been raised about the criteria used to identify children
as gifted and talented and about the detrimental effects of withdrawing children
from mainstream classes in order to attend gifted programmes. In addition,
research into the effectiveness of gifted programmes is relatively limited.
This paper investigates parents', teachers' and children's experiences and views
of the impact of a programme for gifted and talented pupils. Children nominated
for the programme, an enrichment cluster for pupils aged five to seven (Key
Stage One), were withdrawn from their mainstream classes for one afternoon per
week. Methods included a survey of mainstream teachers (n=15), interviews
with parents (n=17) and a variety of activities with pupils (between 16 and 24
children). Results showed that teachers were largely comfortable with their
identification judgements.
Children and parents rated the cluster highly,
particularly the varied teaching and learning styles and opportunities for
interaction with other gifted children. There were few concerns regarding
withdrawal of children from mainstream school in order to attend. All parents felt
that their children had benefited from attending the cluster and around half said
there had been an impact on their social and academic development. Similarly,
around half of mainstream teachers said attending the cluster had benefited
children socially and academically.
1
Introduction
The education of 'gifted and talented' pupils is an area that has seen increasing
attention in recent years. In the UK, a set of four grant-funded programmes have
formed part of a national strategy; these include masterclasses, summer schools,
independent/maintained school partnerships and one strand of the Excellence in
Cities government initiative (Ofsted, 2001). More recently, the DfES has set out
guidelines for effective provision for primary aged pupils, which advocate
personalised education, tailored to the child's needs (DfES/NAGTY, 2006). Such
provision may be offered in a wide range of formats, including differentiation
within mixed-ability contexts, enrichment, acceleration, curriculum compacting,
grouping (ability grouping, co-operative learning groups, cluster grouping),
mentorship and distance learning (Hewston et al., 2004).
Enrichment is an important part of gifted children's education in both the UK and
the USA (White et al., 2003); it has been defined as the ‘broadening of the school
curriculum to provide increased opportunities … for pupils to widen their
experiences, extend their vision, improve the quality of their school experiences
and increase their choices’ (Wallace & Pierce, 1992, p.64). Enrichment includes
a wide range of activities, such as field trips and artistic creations, but may also
refer to 'add-on' activities such as masterclasses and summer schools.
Influential writers such as Renzulli (1997, 2000) have emphasised the
importance of pupils coming together on a weekly basis to work co-operatively in
'enrichment clusters', in which 'authentic learning (is) applied to real-life
problems' (Renzulli, 1997, p.1).
This paper explores parents', teachers' and pupils' experiences of one
enrichment cluster for Key Stage One pupils and investigates their perceptions of
its impact. Implications for future policy, practice and research are also
discussed.
The identification of gifted and talented pupils
There are a number of key issues for gifted and talented education that have
received attention from researchers and are of interest to the current study.
Firstly, it is important to clarify what is meant by 'gifted and talented'. The phrase
was adopted by Excellence in Cities to define very able pupils; 'gifted' refers to
pupils who achieve highly (in the top 5%) in one or more academic subject.
‘Talented’ refers to those achieving similarly highly in practical and creative
areas/subjects, such as sport, music, visual arts and/or performing arts.
There has been concern that it can be very difficult to correctly identify gifted and
talented children, and much critical debate around the criteria used to identify
such pupils has ensued (for example Brown et al., 2005; Lohman, 2005; Scott
and Delgado, 2005). There is some evidence that teachers are not confident
with identification procedures involving teacher observation and judgements
(Welding, 1998). As a result, a number of researchers suggest that identification
2
of children should be by multiple criteria (Freeman, 1998; Pocklington et al., 2002;
Teare, 1997), such as teacher appraisal, standardised tests, rating scales and
checklists (George, 1992).
A number of commentators have noted that high functioning children with Autistic
Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) are often identified as gifted and talented (Donnelly
and Altman, 1994; Rimland, 1995). Gifted children with autism ‘often possess a
unique mixture of talents and deficits’ (Cash, 1999, p. 22); these children can be
thought of as ‘twice-exceptional learners’ (Cash, 1999). Others have observed
that some children with outstanding academic ability may show uneven
development (Rotigel, 2003); for example, often their emotional development is
average, leading some to suggest that gifted children experience an ‘internal
dyssynchrony’ (Callahan, 1997; Lee, 2002). Because of this dyssynchrony,
gifted children may find it difficult to find peers who share similar interests
(Rotigel, 2003).
The education of gifted and talented pupils
Some have identified potential concerns regarding enrichment programmes,
particularly where these is offered as 'pull-out' provision, that is, where children
are taken out of their normal mainstream classes in order to attend (Montgomery,
2001; Hewston et al., 2005). It has been noted, for example, that able pupils who
receive separate classes may feel isolated or different (Herzog, 2003; Wright &
Leroux, 1997), and their withdrawal can cause problems with their peer-groups
(Teare, 1997). One US study of gifted and talented pupils in grades 5 to 11
found that a small number of pupils preferred not to attend pull-out programmes,
precisely because they were more challenging; they preferred mixed ability
classes because they were easier and could attain higher class rankings with
less work (Adams-Byers et al., 2004). Few have sought mainstream teachers'
views of withdrawing pupils in order to attend gifted programmes.
A key issue for gifted and talented education is the effectiveness of the provision;
this is usually conceptualised as the success of programmes in enhancing the
academic attainment of pupils, although other outcomes, such as enhanced
motivation, self-esteem and relationships should also be considered. There have
been two prominent reviews of literature to assess the evidence for the
effectiveness of gifted and talented provision (Hewston et al., 2005; White et al.,
2003). Both conclude that there is a lack of empirical rigour in studies of gifted
programmes, with the result that evidence based policy and practice is lacking.
Similarly, a meta-analysis, of mainly US studies, reported that methodological
standards were 'troubling' (Ziegler and Raul, 2000, p.113), with less than a
quarter utilising control groups. One potential reason for the lack of empirical
evaluations is the difficulty in incorporating rigorous methodological approaches
in such studies; recruitment of large samples of gifted pupils is difficult due to the
extremely small numbers of pupils fulfilling the 'gifted and talented' criteria among
the general population (Ziegler and Raul, 2000).
3
Few have addressed the question of effectiveness through seeking parents' and
teachers’ perceptions of impact, even though this may be a valid alternative to
empirical research. Results from the few studies that have been conducted are
promising; Olszewski-Kubilius and Lee (2004) found that parents felt their
children's academic development had been enhanced through attending an
enrichment programme in the US, possibly because pupils report activities in
gifted programmes to be more engaging and stimulating than school activities
Herzog (2003). A study of mainstream teachers found that those who were
provided with information about an acceleration programme for gifted pupils
expressed more positive opinions about pupils’ social competence and school
achievement (Hoogeveen et al., 2005).
Rather more studies have reported benefits for gifted and talented provision in
terms of attitudes to learning, as well as social and emotional benefits. In a
longitudinal study of 70 pupils, Freeman (1991) acknowledged that it was difficult
to ascertain whether the activities impacted upon children's academic
development. She found that one of the most important outcomes of out-ofschool enrichment activities, however, was that they allowed gifted pupils to be
with like-minded children. Others have reported similar findings, with the
outcome that there is a positive impact upon children's peer relationships (Cohen
et al., 1994; Moon, 1995). Such relationships may also provide children with
intellectual, social and emotional support (Hoover et al., 1993). Other benefits
include a positive influence on self-esteem and motivation (Ofsted, 2001), selfimage (Herzog, 2003; Wright & Leroux, 1997) pupil and teacher attitudes
(Olenchak & Renzulli, 1989).
Conversely, parents whose children had
participated in an enrichment programme that ceased to operate, perceived that
their children were experiencing a decline in energy, curiosity and motivation to
achieve at high levels (Purcell, 1993).
We have identified a small number of studies that have sought the perceptions of
parents (Olszewski-Kubilius and Lee, 2004; Purcell, 1993), pupils (Adams-Byers
et al., 2004; Sayler and Brookshire, 1993) and mainstream teachers (Hoogeveen
et al., 2005) with regard to gifted programmes. These studies have yielded some
important findings, and we contend that such views are important for the future
development of gifted provision. Others agree that what is needed is more
research which 'considers practitioners' and pupils' views on gifted education so
that more appropriate targets are more likely to be created' (White et al., 2003,
p7).
The majority of gifted programmes in the UK (for example, the Excellence in
Cities initiative) have, up until recently, focused on secondary aged pupils, and a
number of writers have commented that it is now necessary to build on policies
and strategies aimed at improving skills and attitudes at an earlier stage (Kendall
et al., 2005). The contention that gifted and talented pupils may be among the
most underachieving in schools (DfES/NAGTY, 2006) has led some to call for
4
prioritising gifted and talented provision for children much earlier; possibly before
they enter school (Scott and Delgado, 2005).
The literature highlights a number of issues for future research. Few studies
have investigated the impact of identifying young children (that is, lower primary)
as gifted and talented and referring them to withdrawal programmes. Whilst
there are difficulties in conducting empirical studies into the effectiveness of
gifted programmes, there are other valid methods of assessing impact. Indeed,
the perspectives of those most closely involved in such programmes have largely
been overlooked, but we contend that these are important and should be
considered in the development of such programmes.
The enrichment cluster
Cluster origins and rationale
The cluster aims to provide weekly enriched learning sessions for able children,
particularly those who have difficulty coping school due to problems with
socialisation or engagement. Children from Reception (aged 5 years) to Year 2
(aged 7 years) come together for one afternoon per week during term time, with
the aim of enhancing their creativity, social/emotional development and their
ability to work as part of a group.
The extent to which programmes are based on theoretical models is an important
consideration which is all too frequently overlooked; one US survey investigating
the extent to which teachers of gifted and talented programmes drew upon
theoretical models for gifted education found that over half of teachers reported
did not follow a theoretical framework (Bain et al., 2003). The cluster that is the
subject of the current study used three influential theories in its development, and
continues to apply these to its practice; they are Gardner's (1999) theory of
multiple intelligences, Bloom's (1984) taxonomy of levels for intellectual
behaviour and Renzulli's (1986) three-ring conception of giftedness.
Gardner's (1999) theory of 'multiple intelligences' contends that the traditional
notion of intelligence, based on IQ testing, is far too limited. Gardner suggests
that every person possesses eight ‘intelligences’, which account for a much
broader range of potential.
These include linguistic intelligence, logicalmathematical intelligence, kinaesthetic intelligence, musical intelligence, spatial
intelligence, interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence. Each
person has their own unique blend of these intelligences. Schools generally tend
to focus on linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences, although, Gardner
argues they should pay equal attention to artists, musicians, dancers, athletes
and designers. The theory of multiple intelligences fits well with personalised
learning; that each child is different in their abilities, interests and how they learn.
Bloom (1984) devised a taxonomy of levels for intellectual behaviour in learning.
This classification comprised three overlapping domains: the cognitive,
psychomotor, and affective. Within the cognitive domain, six levels were
5
identified: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation. The third theory that underpins pedagogy and practice in the cluster
has been developed specifically with respect to gifted learners. Renzulli (1986)
contends that gifted behaviour consists of behaviours that reflect an interaction
among three basic clusters of human traits - above average ability, high levels of
task commitment, and high levels of creativity.
Cluster implementation
Children are identified as gifted and talented and referred to the cluster by their
mainstream schools. The cluster covers six different subjects over the course of
the academic year (one per half term); these are ICT, art, German, philosophy for
children, music and science. At least one activity within each subject is geared
'toward the production of a product or service' (Renzulli, 1997); so, for example,
in German, children spent five sessions working on and rehearsing a German
play, and in the final session performed and filmed the play to take home on a
CD for family and friends.
Theoretical frameworks, described above, are applied to the setting in a variety
of ways; these include assessment measures used when children are nominated
for the cluster, which are based on Renzulli’s (1986) three ring conception of
giftedness; evaluation sheets which relate to Bloom's (1984) higher level thinking;
and designing activities to address different areas of intelligence, as identified in
Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (1999) by including opportunities for
creative as well as academic development.
The cluster is supported by a large number of staff (at least six, including the
cluster teacher). In the year of the study, the number of children attending the
provision varied between 18 and 24. Children are transported to and from the
cluster by minibus or taxi.
Research questions
(1) What are parents and teachers perspectives of G&T identification and
children’s referral to the cluster?
We have seen, in the introduction, that there has been much critical debate
around the identification of G&T children in recent years. What has received
much less attention, however, is how parents and teachers perceive identification
and whether teachers are confident with their own nominations (one study
suggests that secondary school teachers are not). In particular, this study will
seek to address teachers’ perspectives on their own identification judgements.
(2) What are perspectives on withdrawing children from school in order to attend
the cluster?
A number of researchers have identified potential concerns regarding enrichment
cluster provision, in which children are withdrawn from mainstream classes in
order to attend. In particular, research suggests that older pupils may feel
6
isolated or different and their withdrawal may cause social problems with their
peers. However, little is known about the effects on younger children. In addition,
researchers have tended to overlook teachers' views of pupils' regular withdrawal
from lessons.
(3) How do children, parents and teachers perceive the cluster experience?
More research that considers the perceptions of parents, children and teachers is
needed in the area of gifted and talented education. Studying such views
contributes to our understanding of the meaning of programmes to parents and
schools, although it is important to guard against potential sources of invalidity.
Asking parents for their views 'makes researchers prey to being given selective,
partial, filtered information' (Wolfendale, 1999: p.165). Interviews and surveys
should be designed to make it easy for parents and teachers to voice critical
views and to permit unexpected responses.
(4) Does the cluster have an impact upon children’s academic attainment or
social development?
A number of studies which sought to address this issue from an empirical
standpoint have proved methodologically weak, for example by not utilising
control groups or using comparison groups that were very different from
programme groups. The difficulty involved in conducting valid and reliable
randomised control trials of gifted programmes leads us to contend that
alternative methods should be employed, such as seeking the perspectives of
parents and teachers regarding impact.
Methods
Sample
The cluster catered for 18 children in September 2005; this had risen to its
maximum capacity of 24 by July 2006, 12 of whom were boys and 12 girls.
While the enrichment cluster is targeted at Key Stage One pupils, the majority
(21 out of 24) were in Year 2 (that is, aged six and seven). Two of the remaining
children were Year 1 pupils (aged five and six); one was of Reception age (five
years). The majority of G&T children attending the cluster did not have social or
emotional difficulties, although a third were on the special needs register with
ASDs, social, emotional or behavioural problems.
Parent interviews
Seventeen parents were interviewed between February and March 2006. A total
of 20 parents agreed to be interviewed, although it was not possible to contact
three parents (after several unsuccessful attempts). The majority of respondents
(14) were mothers and three were fathers.
Teacher surveys
Fifteen teachers of children attending the cluster completed questionnaire
surveys. At the time the surveys were sent out (March 2006), 23 children from
7
16 Rotherham schools attended the cluster. A total of 29 questionnaires were
sent out to class teachers and G&T co-ordinators in all of these schools. Fifteen
completed questionnaires were received from 12 schools; therefore the views of
three-quarters of all schools with children attending the cluster are represented.
Just four schools chose not to respond. In questions that related to individual
children (such as benefits for children) totals were 18, since three teachers had
two children in their classes who attended the cluster and teachers were asked to
report on each child who attended. Seven respondents were class teachers,
three were G&T co-ordinators and five were both class teachers and G&T coordinators.
Activities with children
These included interviews, rating activities, such as the 'pots and beans' activity
(O'Kane, 2000) and discussions around photographs taken by children.
Findings
(1) What are parents' and teachers' perspectives of G&T identification and
children’s referral to the cluster?
The majority of parents (n=14) said that the reason for children's referral was due
to their gifted and talented label. Several parents specified a particular academic
subject in which they excelled; some mentioned advanced literacy or numeracy
skills, and one mother felt that her son's skills 'were putting him beyond what the
school could easily cater for'. Only three parents of children with additional
problems identified these as reasons for referral, even though the cluster
particularly aims to provide opportunities for children who have difficulty coping at
school due to problems with socialisation or engagement. One parent said she
did not know why her daughter had been referred.
The referral process typically involved meeting with the G&T consultant teacher
and then organising a meeting with parents. Without exception, teachers
reported the process of referral positively; typically they found the process 'simple
and straightforward', 'easy' or 'efficient'. Only three teachers felt that the process
could be improved; suggestions included a visit for the child and parents before
attending and providing a reminder as to when children should start attending.
Two-thirds of teachers said they felt very confident in referring children to the
cluster, and a third said they felt reasonably confident in doing so. Reasons
given included increased confidence in their ability to correctly identify children as
gifted and talented through teaching such children. Those who were reasonably
confident were unsure how the gifted children in their classes compared with
other gifted children outside their schools.
8
(2) What are perspectives on withdrawing children from school in order to attend
the cluster?
Parents and teachers were asked for their opinions about children being
withdrawn from mainstream school in order to attend the cluster. None of the
teachers objected to children's withdrawal; some said that the benefits
outweighed the drawbacks of such an arrangement. One teacher commented
that she would like to be able to offer all the children in the class the same
experiences and activities. A teacher of a child with behavioural issues said that
other children benefited when the child was at the cluster and that the other
children in the class were calmer when the child was absent. One teacher said
that the child needed reassurance that she was not missing anything important at
school. None of the children reported any problems regarding their withdrawal
from school.
In general, parents too were largely unconcerned about their children's
withdrawal from school. Two commented that attending the cluster after school
would have been too tiring for such young children. A small number (n=2)
reported initially having concerns about their children missing out on the school
curriculum, although they had been reassured by school teachers or
headteachers that the work of children who had attended in previous years had
not suffered. Other parents (n=2) originally had concerns that attending the
cluster might cause problems with peers because it might single children out as
being different. However, none of the parents had experienced any difficulty over
the duration of the year, and in general this was perceived to be because
children were so young. One teacher said that classmates were interested to
hear about children’s experiences at the cluster.
(3) How do children, parents and teachers perceive the cluster experience?
Children enjoyed attending the cluster; attendance was high and most children
completed the weekly homework tasks regularly. All children gave the cluster the
maximum '5' points overall and commented positively on cluster activities.
Typically they reported that the activities at the cluster (or 'thinking club') were
more fun than those at school, for example, 'it's more fun here' and 'at thinking
club you do different things - not just literacy and numeracy'. Children also rated
cluster activities; the most popular was a computer game that encourages
individualised learning, 'Zoombinis' (mean rating 4.9). The majority of other most
highly rated activities also had an IT element. Activities that involved the most
planning and specialist teacher support (such as working in groups with the
teacher to create a German play and debating philosophical questions during
‘Philosophy for Children’) were not rated so highly by children (with mean ratings
of 3.6 and 3.0 respectively), although adults might perceive these activities to be
the most valuable since they were designed to encourage group work, turntaking, co-operation, debate and higher level thinking skills.
9
Parents were very positive about the cluster experience. They were asked to
identify what they considered to be the best thing about the cluster. The
opportunity to socialise with other G&T children was cited as the most important
thing by six parents. The benefits the cluster provided for children were
mentioned by four parents. Others said that the range of subject areas were a
particular strength of the cluster (n=3), such as German and Philosophy for
Children (P4C) which were seen as being very different from subjects offered by
schools. Parents also thought highly of the teaching and learning environment at
the enrichment cluster (n=5). While several said that their children struggled to
concentrate at school, the cluster adopted a style that facilitated learning. It was
seen to be imaginative and challenging; generally 'more fun' than school.
Box 1 provides some of the comments offered by parents and teachers relating
to the perceived value of the cluster overall.
Box 1: General views of the cluster - Parents and teachers
Almost half of parents interviewed mentioned the value of interacting with
other gifted and talented children as being one of its main strengths. Typical
comments included:
'the best thing, out of all of it, is that it puts them in with a
peer group that they can learn from and relate to outside of
the classroom environment'
A teacher commented positively on the cluster and noted that it offered
provision that would not be possible to offer within school, saying:
'Very pleased with cluster group. Feel they offer
opportunities that extend and develop the children's
abilities. It is well organised and resourced'
Some parents and teachers acknowledged the cost of the cluster, while
stressing its value. Comments included:
'I feel it's excellent provision. I realise, with the
transportation it's quite a funding drain, but I feel it's the
only way to deliver it'.
There were very few negative comments about the cluster from parents. When
asked to identify the worst thing about it, almost half were unable to say anything
negative at all. For one parent, the worst thing was that her child would be
unable to attend next year, since the cluster caters only for children in Key Stage
One and for another, the cluster did not occur regularly enough. One mother felt
it was a shame that children were introduced to a new language, which they
enjoyed, but that teaching in this subject was not continued.
Linking with the previous research question, two parents considered that missing
an afternoon of school each week was the most negative feature, with one being
anxious about 'social isolation from his school, by missing out on a particular
10
chunk of the week; by being seen to leave every week and children not
necessarily understanding why'. However, the same mother added that the
school had made attempts to address this and it was not a problem at present.
Teachers were given the opportunity to make comments about the cluster in an
open response question, and ten chose to do so. Half of the comments offered a
positive endorsement of the cluster. Three teachers made suggestions for the
development of the cluster; one felt that it should continue to operate during
school time and should be extended into Key Stage Two. Another suggested
she was keen to visit the cluster in order to observe and to be able to follow up
activities in the classroom, since she would like to visit to develop links in class.
In general, parents felt reasonably well informed about curriculum and activities.
Two parents felt that more information could be given; of these, one said she
would like to receive a report about her child's progress at the end of the year.
One parent said she felt informed about what children were doing at the cluster
but not about why they were doing it.
Teachers were asked to comment on the extent to which they felt informed about
the cluster curriculum and pedagogy, cluster activities and children's progress at
the cluster. While most teachers felt reasonably well informed about the
curriculum (n=11) and activities (n=10), almost half (n=7) did not feel well
informed about children’s progress. Most felt that communication could be
improved (n=11) through, for example, providing more written feedback on
children’s progress or holding meetings to discuss progress.
(4) Does the cluster have an impact upon children’s academic attainment or
social development?
Parents and teachers were asked several questions to elicit their views about the
impact of the cluster. Almost all parents (n=16) felt that their children had
benefited (one felt unable to comment on benefits). There were a wide range of
perceived benefits, from having enjoyed the experience, to outcomes such as
being calmer, better able to concentrate and more confident.
More specifically, parents and teachers were asked to judge whether the cluster
had impacted at all upon children's social or emotional development. A higher
proportion of parents reported positive outcomes than teachers (that is, nine
parents but only seven teachers) (see Figure 1). Some parents said their
children now related better to other children (n=4) and others said that their
children's behaviour had improved since attending the cluster (n=2), particularly
their behaviour in school. One said that his son, who was suspected as having
Asperger's Syndrome, was having problems in school, although he was coping
much better since attending the cluster.
11
Figure 1: Parents' and teachers' responses to 'Has the cluster had any
impact upon the child's social or emotional development?'
20
2
3
15
9
5
10
5
9
7
0
Social/emotional impact
(Teachers)
Yes
No
Social/emotional impact
(Parents)
Not sure
Two parents of children with no behavioural problems said their children's
confidence had improved as a result of attending the cluster. The mother of one
child with autism felt that her son had benefited through the high adult-child ratio
and small group working at the cluster. Box 2 shows the responses of parents
and teachers who felt that the cluster had benefited children in the area of
social/emotional development. Parents who felt that there had been no impact
on social or emotional development tended to be those with children not reported
to have behavioural difficulties or ASD. Parental comments included remarks
such as:
'she's really socially outgoing anyway, so I can't say I've
noticed a massive change in her'.
However, as the case of Molly in Box 2 shows, not all positive responses were
from parents of children with complex behavioural issues.
Teachers who felt that the cluster had impacted positively upon children's
behaviour (n=7) tended to comment that children were happier, more secure,
more motivated and/or better able to relate to their peer group. One reported
that both pupils in her class who attended G&T had become more co-operative
when working alongside other children. Another teacher said that she felt her
two G&T pupils had developed a sense of belonging as a result of attending.
One teacher acknowledged that both the children in her class had benefited in
general terms, although they still needed support in continuing to develop
positive attitudes towards other children and adults.
Three parents and two teachers felt unable to say whether attending the cluster
had resulted in positive social outcomes for their children. Some felt that children
had shown changes, but that these may be down to maturity rather than the
effects of the cluster.
12
Box 2: Cluster impact on children's social/emotional development Parents' and teachers' views
Ben
Ben's mother and teacher both felt that Ben's social skills had developed as a
result of attending the cluster. His mother said that:
'his ability to interact with groups of children he doesn't
know well has improved. And to cope with disagreeing with
someone'.
Ben's teacher also felt that he now interacted with his peer group better,
saying:
'Ben seems happier in himself and more confident. He
relates better with his peers and shows more initiative'
Molly
Molly was an outgoing child who was not reported to have social or
behavioural issues. However, her mother felt that she had become more
confident as a result of attending the cluster. Her teacher too, acknowledged
that there had been some positive changes:
'She draws upon her experiences and refers to them at
school. She really enjoys learning and is eager to share
her ideas'
On average, children rated their learning at the cluster slightly higher than their
learning at school. One child explained that he was frustrated at school; in
particular he felt that there was a lot of repetition in school lessons. He compared
this with learning at the cluster:
'We’re learning the whole time at thinking club. It’s not just like
reading and writing and stuff. We’re having fun while we’re
learning at thinking club, so it makes learning easier'.
This child was not alone in describing his cluster experiences more favourably
than school lessons. Ella also suggested that she found some of her school
lessons repetitive, stating, 'teachers at school always teach you the same things'.
Another child felt that the reason he learned so much at the cluster was that
more time was given to ICT than at school; he said: 'I learn a lot because we do a
lot on the computers, and you have more time than you do at school on it'.
While almost all parents said there were benefits in attending the cluster, most
were more cautious when asked to comment specifically on whether they thought
the cluster had impacted upon children's academic achievement. A total of nine
parents did not think that their children had benefited academically, or felt unable
to comment (as shown in Figure 2).
13
Figure 2: Teacher and parent responses to 'Has the cluster had any impact
upon the child's academic or creative development?'
20
15
1
5
7
4
10
5
9
8
Academic/creative impact
(Teachers)
Academic/creative impact
(Parents)
0
Yes
No
Not sure
Eight parents said that their children had made gains in a number of areas; for
example, learning new knowledge (n=3), enhanced motivation (n=2) or
confidence (n=2). Another mentioned improved concentration.
Four parents felt unsure as to whether the cluster had influenced academic
outcomes for their children; one said she could not comment without talking to
the class teacher. Of those who felt there had not been any real impact (n=5),
one said that while she felt her daughter was challenged at the cluster more than
at school, she did not think that it had impacted upon her academic development.
There were a number of teacher comments relating to cluster impact upon
children's academic or creative development. Some related to a general
improvement in children's ability to apply themselves (see Box 3), to
development of skills, such as problem solving, or to specific knowledge, such as
German language.
14
Box 3: Cluster impact on children's academic or creative
development - Teachers' views
One teacher said that her G&T pupil was more inclined to apply himself
since he had started attending the cluster. She commented that he was
'more prepared to work hard at things that were not immediately obvious'.
In addition, she felt he had become more motivated when undertaking art
activities; 'I can persuade him to take greater care over artwork now maybe he has a wider idea of his strengths'
Two teachers felt that children had acquired skills through attending the
cluster that were transferable to other areas, for example:
'In problem solving "thinking laterally" skills'
‘Able to apply knowledge learnt to solve problems.
Another teacher mentioned the specific knowledge that children had
acquired from attending the cluster, such as:
'More broad knowledge of different curricular areas,
e.g. German, IT'
Two parents perceived that while there had been benefits for their children, they
themselves had benefited too. Both were parents of children with behavioural
problems or ASD. For example, one mother who felt her son's behaviour had
improved dramatically as a result of attending the cluster also commented on the
support she and her husband had received from cluster staff, as well as parents
of other children who attended. She said, 'to speak to other people who have
children who do similar sorts of things - it makes you feel better as a parent. And
you deal with your child better, I think because of that'.
This mother was very grateful to the support she and her husband had received
over the three years her son had been attending the cluster, saying:
'I look back now to three years ago, to how terrible everything
was, and that (the cluster) were a real lifeline to us'.
Conclusions
This paper has reported on children's, parents' and teachers' perceptions of a
gifted and talented enrichment cluster. The study highlights a number of
interesting findings, some of which do not support previous research. For
example, while a minority of teachers reported lacking confidence in their own
ability to identify children as gifted and talented, as in Welding's (1998) study, the
majority were confident in making such judgements. One possible reason could
be the age of the children; in the present study children were much younger than
15
Welding's secondary aged children. In general, teachers found the process of
referral straightforward.
It might be expected on the basis of previous research (Herzog, 2003; Teare,
1997; Wright & Leroux, 1997) that children would experience difficulties with
classmates at school or feelings of isolation as a result of attending the cluster.
However, this was not the case. While a number of parents had concerns in this
area initially, these were not realised. One teacher reported that one child
needed some reassurance, although no other teachers reported any concerns.
A possible reason for this is the young age of the children; previous studies in
this area have sought perceptions of older children and their parents. Younger
children are perhaps more likely to accept the withdrawal of gifted classmates
without questioning it; indeed, as one parent reported, 'parents are more
interested than the children'.
The cluster was viewed very positively by parents and children in particular. For
parents there were two main benefits: providing opportunities for children to
interact with ‘like’ children, a finding that supports previous research (Freeman,
1991) and providing challenging learning opportunities. Children thought that
cluster activities were fun and particularly enjoyed IT based activities that
encouraged individualised learning; this confirms Herzog's (2003) research. The
majority of teachers valued the cluster, although most felt that communication,
particularly regarding children’s progress, could be better. It is important that this
is addressed, as teachers who are informed about gifted programmes may be
more inclined to report positive social and academic outcomes for pupils
(Hoogeveen et al., 2005).
Perceptions about the effects of the cluster were generally positive, with virtually
all parents reporting benefits. Around half of parents and teachers felt there had
been specific social and academic outcomes for children, a proportion similar to
other research in the area (Olszewski-Kubilius and Lee, 2004). In general,
parents of children with socialisation or engagement issues more frequently
reported positive cluster effects.
The findings of this study lead us to suggest a number of important implications
for gifted and talented policy, practice and research.
Firstly, the varied teaching and learning styles that differed from school activities
were valued by parents, teachers and children. Perhaps because there were
fewer curriculum pressures than at school, activities were designed to be more
inquiry oriented and to encourage debate and co-operative working. Cluster
activities were reported to have particularly positive effects for children with
additional issues such as ASDs or behavioural problems; the high staff-child ratio,
emphasis on individualised learning and flexibility tended to suit such children.
Consequently, children often perceived the activities as being more 'fun' than
school activities. Linked to this issue is the fact that cluster practices were
16
underpinned by strong theoretical foundations, such as Renzulli (1986), Bloom
(1984) and Gardner (1999). Recent evidence (Bain et al., 2003) suggests that
many gifted programmes do not draw upon theoretical models; it may be argued
that this is essential if programmes are to be successful and sustainable.
Secondly, there is some evidence that the nature of the G&T programme was
significant. The fact that the provision was offered as a ‘cluster’ group meant that
children were given the opportunity to interact with other G&T children,
something which parents, in particular perceived to be very important. This
supports previous research (Freeman, 1991). However, none of the negative
effects of withdrawal reported elsewhere (Herzog, 2003; Wright & Leroux, 1997)
were apparent in this study, and teachers had few concerns about children’s
withdrawal. This may be due, at least in part, to the young age of the children
who participated in this programme.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank cluster staff, parents, teachers and children for participating
in the evaluation. I am also grateful to Ben Willis and Claire Wolstenholme who
contributed to the literature review.
References
Adams-Byers, J., Whitsell, S. & Moon, S. (2004). Gifted students' perceptions of
the academic and social/emotional effects of homogeneous and
heterogeneous grouping. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 7-15.
Bain, S., Bourgeois, S. & Pappas, D. (2003). Linking theoretical models to actual
practices: a survey of teachers in gifted education. Roeper Review, 25(4),
166-172.
Bloom, S. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Brown, S. et al. (2005). Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and
talented students. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(1) 68-79.
Callahan, C. (1997). Giftedness. In G. Bear, K. Minke & A. Thomas (Eds.).
Children’s needs II. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Cash, A. (1999). A profile of gifted individuals with autism: the twice exceptional
learner. Roeper Review, 22(1), 22-27.
17
Cohen, R., Duncan, M. & Cohen, S. (1994). Classroom peer relations of children
participating in a pull-out enrichment program. The Gifted Child Quarterly,
38(1), 33-44.
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) / National Academy for Gifted and
Talented Youth (NAGTY) (2006). Effective provision for gifted and talented
children in primary education (Working document) [online] Available:
http://www.nagty.ac.uk/about/media_room/gifted_and_talented/primary_e
d_guidelines_published.aspx (June 2006).
Donnelly, J & Altman, R. (1994). The autistic savant: recognising and serving the
gifted student with autism. Roeper Review, 16(4), 252-256.
Freeman, J. (1991). Gifted children growing up. London: Cassell.
Freeman, J. (1998). Educating the very able: Current international research.
London: Stationary Office Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: multiple intelligences for the 21st
century. New York: Basic Books.
George, D. (1992). The challenge of the able child. London: David Fulton
Publishers.
Herzog, N. (2003). Impact of gifted programs from the students' perspectives.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 131-143.
Hewston, R., Campbell, R., Eyre, E., Muijs, D., Neelands, J. & Robinson, W.
(2004). A baseline review of the literature on effective pedagogies for
gifted and talented students: Occasional paper 5. National Academy for
Gifted and Talented Youth (NAGTY).
Hoogeveen, L., van Hell, J. & Verhoeven, L. (2005). Teacher attitudes toward
academic acceleration and accelerated students in the Netherlands.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(1), 30-57.
Hoover, S., Sayler, M. & Feldhusen, J. (1993). Cluster grouping of gifted students
at the elementary level. Roeper Review, 16(1), 12-15.
Kendall, L. et al., (2005). Excellence in Cities: The National Evaluation of a policy
to raise standards in urban schools 2000-2003. (DfES Research Report
675A) London: DfES.
Lee, L. (2002). Young gifted girls and boys: perspectives through the lens of
gender. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3(3), 383-399.
18
Lohman, D. (2005). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying academically
gifted students: an aptitude perspective. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(2),
111-138.
Montgomery, D. (2001). Teaching the more able: an update. Gifted Education
International, 15(3), 162-80.
Moon, (1995). The effects on an enrichment programme on the families of
participants: a multiple case study. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(4), 198211.
O'Kane, C. (2000). The development of participatory techniques: facilitating
children's views about decisions which affect them. In P. Christensen and
A. James (Eds.) Research with children. London: Falmer Press.
Ofsted (2001). Providing for gifted and talented pupils: an evaluation of
Excellence in Cities and other grant-funded programmes. London: Office
for Standards in Education.
Olenchak, R. & Renzulli, J. (1989). The effectiveness of the schoolwide
enrichment model on selected aspects of elementary school change. The
Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(1), 36-44.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. & Lee, S. (2004). Parent perceptions of the effects of the
Saturday enrichment program on gifted students' talent development.
Roeper Review, 26(3), 156-165.
Pocklington, K., Fletcher-Campbell, F., & Kendall, L. (2002). The gifted and
talented strand of EIC [online]. Available:
http://www.nfer.ac.uk/reserach/documents/EIC/04(1)-2002.doc (February
2005)
Purcell (1993). The effects of the elimination of gifted and talented programs on
participating students and their parents. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 4,
177-187.
Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental
model for creative productivity. In Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. (Eds.),
Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53-92). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Renzulli, J. (1997). How to develop an authentic enrichment cluster. National
Research Centre on the Gifted and Talented. ERIC Document
reproduction service No. ED 420594.
19
Renzulli, J. (2000). Meeting the enrichment needs of middle school students.
ERIC Document reproduction service No. EJ601242.
Rimland, B. (1995). Researching the gifted student with autism. Autism
Research Review International, 9(2), 2.
Rotigel, J. (2003). Understanding the young gifted child: guidelines for parents,
families and educators. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(4), 209213.
Sayler, M. & Brookshire, W. (1993). Social, emotional and behavioural
adjustment of accelerated students, students in gifted classes and regular
students in eighth grade. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 150-154.
Scott, M. & Delgado, C. (2005). Identifying cognitively gifted minority students in
preschool. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(3), 199-210.
Teare, B. (1997). Effective provision for able and talented children. Stafford:
Network Education Press.
Wallace, B.& Pierce, J. (1992). The changing nature of giftedness: an
examination of various strategies for provision. ERIC Document
reproduction service No. EJ459603.
Welding, J. (1998). The identification of able children: a comprehensive school
study of the issues involved and their practical implications. Educating
Able Children, 2, 3-10.
White, K., Fletcher-Campbell, F. and Ridley, K. (2003). What works for gifted and
talented pupils: a review of recent research (LGA Research Report 51).
Slough: NFER.
Wolfendale, S. (1999). Parents as partners in research and evaluation:
methodological and ethical issues and solutions. British Journal of Special
Education, 26(3), 164-9.
Wright, P. & Leroux, J. (1997). The self-concept of gifted adolescents in a
congregated program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(3), 83-94.
Ziegler, A. & Raul, T. (2000). Myth and reality: a review of empirical studies on
giftedness. High Ability Studies, 11(2), 113-136.
20