From Roeper Review, Sept 1980
Individualizing For The Gifted Student And Others Too!
Robert L. Fizzell
Alternative programming has the potential for meeting the needs of the gifted together with the needs of other students.
Recently I was presented with an interesting dilemma. After having been removed for nearly seven years from working in traditional schooling, I had ceased to think in terms of gifted, regular, and slow students. Within the alternative schools where I worked, all youth were recognized as individuals with differing learning interests and needs. Then, at a workshop to develop statewide plans for services to children. I was brought back to the reality of everyday life. One of the members of my group began to demand improved services for gifted children.
My first reaction was one of surprise, since I had not heard of the issue for so long. Then, it shifted to one of anger: Why should those who are already blessed be given more? After all, the focus of our discussion at the time was on the unserved handicapped children. Finally I worked past the emotions, but was then confronted with an even more perplexing problem.
Obviously, something really was wrong if special programs were desired for the gifted. Recalling traditional schooling, I knew the request was legitimate. But, why weren't we in alternative education meeting it?
Alternative schooling programs certainly should be meeting these needs.
Alternative education starts from the assumptions that:
Different people respond differently to different stimuli - "My pleasure is your poison!"
There are different, equally valid, ways to learn any given subject - "There's more than one way to skin a cat."
Alternative education claims to be designing programs that permit each child to grow as fast as he can. For four years, I ran such a program and visited many others, so I know it can be done. Yet, in this person's eyes, alternative education was not meeting the needs.
Again, I was frustrated, angered. Why didn't he see that alternative education was the answer? Obviously, if he didn't see it, it was because we hadn't shown it to him. I began to review our performance. In fact, most of the "alternative schools" around today are not for the gifted. They are boring, substandard asylums for students who, by mutual agreement, could no longer attend the traditional schools. Whatever they are educating students to, it certainly is not what we want for regular students, let alone for gifted ones.
What had happened?
Slowly, I came to realize that once again a grand idea was being diluted, destroyed by the overwhelming force of traditional schooling. From individualized programming for all to reach their full potential, alternative schooling was becoming a dumping ground of inferior programs to channel "undesirables" into social oblivion. Clearly, in the eyes of the average citizen, alternatives were at the opposite end of the spectrum from programs for the gifted.
Yet, this need not be. For the past seven years, I have been conducting careful research on the assumptions of alternative education. I have sought to determine whether there are, in fact, systematic differences between students which relate to different rates of success in different learning environments. If intelligence were the only significant variable, we would find that the students who do well in one program would also be the top students in another program with similar objectives and standards, but with different structure and procedures.
Research on Individualizing
Research has shown that this is not the case. I have found that the students who do well in one program are significantly different from those who do well in another (Fizzell, 1975; Fizzell, 1979). Not only are they different, but these differences are systematically related to characteristics of the specific programs in which they succeed. What I have found is that there are about 14 variables which relate to the probability of success for a particular student in a particular school. Six of these relate directly to academic interests and preferences, while the other eight are related to social or psychological needs or preferences.
To begin with the academic factors, which includes such familiar areas as learning styles or cognitive style, as well as ability, achievement levels, and curricular preferences, I have identified five main variables which are important in evaluating how a student will relate to a schooling situation. IQ is not included, as it has been of little value. It appears that IQ is really only important as a limiting factor in the lowest two percent. In all other cases, other variables play an overriding role. I do look briefly at achievement level as it is important for placement level, although it does not relate directly to type of school. The other academic variables are: Instructional Mode, Conceptual Approach, Perceptual Preference, and Curricular Interests.
Instructional Mode permits at least four main possibilities. Most common is the traditional method of group instruction. The main characteristics of this, of course, are the predominantly one way relationship with little flexibility, and the pattern of much peer exposure but minimal peer interaction for academic goals. Tutorial is probably the next most readily recognized instructional mode. It continues the predominantly hierarchical relationship, but involves maximum flexibility and feedback and little or no peer contact. The other two forms are self-instruction and peer study group. Self-instruction is not at all unfamiliar to us, but we do not generally recognize it as a legitimate means of formal education except in limited instances of independent study. In self-instruction, the flow of information is controlled entirely by the student. Evaluation, certification and standards, however, may remain with the institution. Peer study is popular in many of the school-within-a-school alternatives today where groups of students join together to investigate and study with minimal authoritative leadership. This is similar to independent study but emphasizes group control and responsibility and interaction.
Conceptual Approach has two aspects, each of which forms a continuum: Abstract–Concrete; Passive–Active. The combination of these describes the way in which the student prefers to organize and process information. The theoretician is active/abstract; the research scientist is active/balanced. Many other combinations are possible. This variable is well developed in the work of Tony Gregorc (1977).
Perceptual Preference describes the learner's bias towards receiving information through auditory, visual, or tactile/kinesthetic senses. While most people who do well in traditional schools fall somewhere around the middle of the Auditory–Visual line with only slight preference toward tactile, others prefer strikingly different approaches, deaf and blind persons representing two extremes.
Perceptual preferences have been long recognized as being significant to learning. Joseph Hill and his colleagues designed a very sophisticated instrument to investigate this area (Radike, 1973). Also, investigators in the area of special education, such as Kephart, have recognized the importance of this factor
Curricular Interests are basically viewed as a focus on Liberal Arts, General Studies, or Special Interests. Too often these areas have been associated with ability and cultural values and have, therefore, not been dealt with effectively. Educators have assumed that the only real schooling was Liberal Arts and have ignored the fact that most people really want one of the others.
The next variable is both an academic one and a more general social characteristic or personality trait. This is the person's preferences regarding the temporal organization of their activities. Time Preferences involves four distinct aspects. First, people differ in their willingness to deal with things in segmented versus concentrated approach. Traditionally, school has operated on the factory system model of segmented time. That is, the work day is divided into separate periods and the task must fit the time. When the period ends the task changes regardless of the end product. To many people this is at least frustrating, and often it is impossible. They prefer what I have called "concentrated time." They simply cannot let themselves become involved in a task if they believe they will not be able to see it through to closure. Many students who have trouble in regular school show this trait. I am quite familiar with one gifted youth who could not function in traditional school because he would stay with one subject all day, leading to constant conflict with the teachers.
The second aspect of Time Preference is scheduling: externally imposed, self-imposed, or spontaneous. I have worked with students who often rejected imposed schedules, but who did quite well with self-scheduling; they accomplished little with spontaneity. As a student, I personally fall right in the middle of the triangle, while most successful traditional school students tend toward the imposed schedule.
A third aspect of time preferences raises some interesting questions. This is the part of the day during which the student prefers to attend school: all day, morning only, afternoon only, or evening only. Often this choice is dictated by outside factors such as a job, the need to baby-sit, or other such problems. Other times it is simply a desire to go to school as little as possible. This problem will be largely eliminated if students are in a program which better suits their needs so that school is not so intolerable. However, at times it is a reflection of diurnal rhythms. Some people really seem to function best early in the day or late in the day, rather than 8:00 to 3:00.
The third and fourth aspects of time preferences reflect a second area of factors that are external impinging factors. I used to assess many of these individually, but discovered that it was not worth the trouble, because they are covered by time preferences. External factors, such as problems in the home or community or emotional or personal problems, often require some students' attention. These problems are a concern to the extent depending on the significance of interruptions. Also, these students may want some counseling.
Counseling Needs assesses the student's desire or need for someone with whom he/she can talk on a personal basis and who will provide guidance and support. This is a continuum from almost no need to the socially or emotionally maladjusted child who requires therapeutic support.
The third category of factors is the students' social preferences. It is important to remember our own experiences in school and recognize that social environment is very important. Social Needs are expressed by three variables: Personal–Impersonal; Competitive–Noncompetitive and Social Orientation. Each individual has a particular combination of these which is most comfortable to him or her. Students who are most comfortable in traditional schools prefer a somewhat competitive and impersonal atmosphere. Students in the school I operated are near the opposite end on both of these.
In Social Orientation one looks at the types of interpersonal relations which the student finds most comfortable and most rewarding. A balance between mild adult and mild peer orientation is characteristic of most successful students in traditional schools. My independent study students were generally more self-oriented with some preference for adult relations.
Depending on the student's biases on these variables, the structure of a particular educational program may or may not be able to meet his needs, In the typical case, it appears that only a couple of the variables are really critical for any one student. Sometimes it is time structure; other times it might be social environment. Whatever it is, if the schooling program is in conflict with the student's interests or needs, the student will not be able to participate and progress satisfactorily.
Basic School Types
It might appear from the many possible combinations of these variables that an infinite variety of programs would be needed. Fortunately, one need not worry about creating such a monster, for the variables are not totally independent and cluster around a few personality types. There are only about a dozen basic program types required to deal with the observed variety. For example, many students who prefer group instruction also frequently prefer abstract conceptualization and a somewhat impersonal atmosphere. For them traditional schooling is fine. A factor analysis is now being conducted to validate these patterns, and the evidence appears to be quite strong.
In specifying the required programs, it is best to begin with Instructional Mode. The organizational structure required for one instructional mode is generally in conflict with that for other modes, so they lead to separate schools. Also, within each instructional mode it appears that there are distinct sets of subpatterns which make it appropriate to group these programs together. Thus, one begins with four classes of schools, each of which emphasizes one mode, but does not exclude others.
Figure 1 -- Basic School Types
Directed Study Peer Group Study
Large, rigid schedule Liberal arts, segmented
Large, flexible schedule Liberal arts, concentrated
Small, rigid schedule General studies, segmented
Small, flexible schedule General studies, concentrated
Self-contained classroom Special studies
Self Instruction Tutorial
Personalized Personalized
Strong peer interaction Impersonal, with or without -
Impersonal strong peer interaction
Figure 1 shows how the other variables align to form the primary types of schools. In each case some of the variables are not noted, as they become important only in dealing with individual students and do not require changes in the structure of the school. In most cases size is the most important factor after Instructional Mode. Size affects how personal the social atmosphere will be and the amount of peer interaction possible. Beyond this, the next most important factor is whatever is most difficult to absorb as individual variation within the particular structure. For example, with group instruction, it is not possible to have rigid scheduling and flexible scheduling in the same school; in peer study groups common curricular interests are important.
Additional factors which might modify any of these programs are provisions for time needs and counseling services. These would not greatly change the program, but could be important to some students and relate to structure and cost.
It must be kept in mind that each school type would not only permit, but actually encourage, internal variations, The classification represents major emphasis, not exclusive style. It would appear to be necessary for every student to learn to function in a variety of modes, even while one is most comfortable and most efficient.
It is worth briefly noting how complementary the different school types are to each other in terms of operational economy. While tutorial programs would be very expensive due to their low staffing ratio, this could be balanced by a much higher ratio in traditional schools. Group instruction can function well at 50:1 when only those students who want it are in the class. The different types are also complementary in that, while some have great material and facilities demands, others may be run with nothing more than office space.
Implications for Gifted
There is no evidence that these variables are related to giftedness. That means that knowing that a child is gifted does not tell us what kind of schooling program he/she needs. It does appear that higher ability — especially when associated with higher self-esteem — permits greater flexibility. That is to say, more capable children who are confident of their learning abilities will survive in a variety of programs. However, they will probably thrive in only those which most closely fit his/her needs and interests; different students do better in different programs - even gifted children.
The answer is clearly to provide a range of alternative programs which will permit each child to find the schooling environment which is most suitable to his/her needs, a school which is at his/her developmental level, and which offers the proper structure and presents the subject matter in the appropriate style. As indicated above, about a dozen different options would probably be needed to meet all students' needs.
Putting It Into Practice
If the people interested in programs for the gifted began to push for alternatives, two very interesting and beneficial outcomes would occur. First, there would be the potential for a broad based alliance. This one objective could unite interests in gifted with interests in drop-outs and truancy prevention, interests in competency based programming, and those concerned with the slow learner and the "unmotivated." An alliance of these dimensions would be hard to beat! Rather than competing for educational dollars for their special interests, these groups will find that the same dollar can serve them all. Furthermore, they will be strong enough to ensure that the schools recognize their demands.
One would also be able to deal with the problem of quality in alternative programs. True alternative schooling programs must have the same standards as traditional schooling — and I mean the same standards for an "A" or a "B." In a good system of alternatives, all programs must be mastery oriented. There will be no excuse for a student to just be "getting by." School systems have justified the existing inferior programs, as "being at the student's level." It is like setting the high jump bar at one foot and never raising it. These schools present no challenge and lead the student to no real success.
If the above mentioned coalition of interest groups were to demand alternative programs, quality would be assured. There would be no rationalization for inferior programs. Those persons seeking services for the gifted would not tolerate it. The other groups would be supported in their belief that the students having problems (some of whom are gifted) are capable of — and have a right to — a real education.
Perhaps, this is too optimistic. Yet, the potential is there. Those who have seen good alternative schools in operation know that they can lead a broad spectrum of students to mastery level work and to experiencing real joy in learning. If alternative education is to survive the current threat of being absorbed by the schooling systems as a dumping ground, and if sufficient programs for all gifted are to be developed, then perhaps they must join forces. It would certainly be interesting to finally see real individualization and a real example of congruence of a special interest and the general welfare.
References
Fizzell. Robert L. Reschooling Society. Ph.D. Dissertation. Northwestern University, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 1975.
Fizzell, Robert L. The Truants Alternative Program: An Evaluation Report. Illinois Office of Education, 1979.
Gregorc, Anthony F. and Helen Ward. "A New Definition for Individual." NASSP Bulletin. February 1977, pp. 20-26.
Radike, Floyd W., Ed. Handbook for Teacher Improvement Utilizing the Educational Sciences. East Lansing, Michigan. 1973.
|
|