@ 154 Journal for the Education oj the Gifted Jum compacting study (Research Report No. 93106). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Rejskind, F. G, (1994). Gendered relations: Perceptions of male and female university science students. In ].Gallivan, S. Crozier, & V. Laland (Eds., Women, gitls, and achievement (pp. 185-195) North York, ON: Captus Press. Renzulli, J.S., & Reis, S. M. (1994). Research related to the school- wide enrichment triad model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 7-20. - Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9-26. Robinson, A. (1991]. Cooperative learning and the academically talented student (Research-Based Decision Making Series Rep. No. 9106}. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner (Research-Based Decision Making Series Rep. No. 9101}. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, &., & Ward, V. 8. (1991) Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis. New York: Teachers College Press. Shore, B. M., & Rejskind, FG. (1992), Gifted and general educetion in Canada: Finding a shared agenda, Exceptionality Education Canada, 2, 77-93. Subotnik, R.'F., & Arnold, K. D. (1995). Passing through the gates: Career establishment of talented women scientists. Roeper Review, 18, 55-61 Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1992). Contributions of gifted education to general education in a time of change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 183-189. Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F.X, Jr, Dobyns, SM, & Salvin, T. J. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular class- rooms (Research Report No. 93104). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Willings, D. (1980). The creatively gifted. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead-Faulkner, Good Teaching for One and All: Does Gifted Education Have an Instructional Identity? Carol Ann Tomlinson Educators of the gifted rationalize offering special curricula for gyted learn ers bused on (a) the nature of the learning environment established for these earners; (b) constructivist principles of content, process, and product, and/or (c) use of a range of instructional strategies associated with programs for ‘gifted leamets. General educators find such defenses for gifted education li tle more than an argument for “sood education.” This essay proposes un alternate model of curriculum and insteuction suited to advunced learners Use of such a model should strengthen both educationul practice and research focused on talent development in gifted students A Question of Instructional Identity “Look,” he commanded, “what goes on in so-called gifted classes 1s nothing more than what should be going on in all classes. But some how, we've given ourselves permission to save it for a bunch of kids who are already ahead of the game anyhow.” With these words, an angry elementary principal reflected the view of many educators that what passes for “good instruction for the gifted” is what should be available for all learners. In short, what's good for gifted students is good for most students, ‘A companion objection was voiced recently by a nationally prominent educator who said, “When I look at what goes on 1 classes for gifted students, I see field trips and board games and out of-context instruction about problem solving. It’s nothing that should not be going on with any learners, but it gets talked about like it’s new clothes for the emperor." in short, what pas instruction for the gifted in some environments doesn't belong anyone's lexicon of schooling. Carwl Ann Tomlinson is Associate Professor of Educational Leadership, Foundations, and Policy at Curry School of Education, University of Vijun Charlotesvle Journal forthe Education of the Gifted. Vol, 20, No. 2, 1996, pp. 185-174. Copyrnlt {61996 The Association forthe Gilted, Reston, VA 22091@ @ 156 Journal for the Education of the Gifted Although these arguments may be loaded with personal ill feel- ings about the concept of giftedness, our nation is experiencing ‘ongoing schizophrenia regarding equity and excellence; and pro- nouncements are often based more on anecdote than careful study. Is there, in fact, a curriculum and instruction uniquely appropriate for gifted learners? If the answer.is "yes," it should function as a. standard for working with advanced Jearners in homogeneous and, “heterogeneous settings alike, If the answer is “no,” the field is obliged to fold ita rents and abandon the instructional landscape. It ‘comes down to a question of identity. Is there any important differ- tence between good education forall learners and good education for gifted learners? This essay will propose that: (a) there arc essential commonalities between good instruction in general and good instruction for highly able learners, (b) there are essential differences 1s well, and (c) both the likenesses and differences provide us with fruitful directions for inquiry about curriculum and instruction for both practitioners and research T do not propose that the ideas I present are wholly mine. My thought has been shaped over many years by formidable thinkers both inside and outside the field of gifted education, including: Jerome Bruner (1966), Carolyn Callahan (e.g, 1996, David Clark eg., 1991], Sandra Kaplan (e-g., 1979), June Maker (e.g., 1982; and writing with Aleene Nielson & Judy Rogers, 1994), Harry Passow (e.g., 1982), Philip Phenix (1986), Joe Renzulli (eg, 1988, 1994), Lee Shulman (1987), Joyce VanTassel-Baska (e.g., 1994), Virgil Ward (1980), and a host of others who seek to understand and articulate both what it means to teach well and what it means to teach gifted learners well. What I hope to do is bring together a number of ideas ina form that continues {not ends) an important conversation about teaching and learning. How Did We Come to This Place? For much of this century, general education was premised on a behaviorist view of teaching and learning—present and recall, drill and practice, reward and punishment, part to whole. For at least three decades, however, the field of gifted education has been shap- ng, its principles of teaching and learning on the precepts of a “newer” vision of learners and learning proposed by cognitive psy- chologists and not upon behaviorism. Educators of the gifted sug- gested that Icarners become engaged with solving real problems, addressing products to real audiences, functioning consistently at Good Teaching for One and All high levels of thought, making connections among discipl learning basic sills in context eather than in isulatiay fanctuonay ike professionals in a given field, dealing with anibiguitics ond fuzzy problems, and soa ny ang wath amlagunicy and Tam not aware of any literature in the field of gifted educ.sin arguing that these principles be reserved for wleniitied yatta learn ers. On the contrary, Harry Passow, Virgil Ward, andl jaw Reusall, for example, have consistently argued that these prnciples yven good teaching and learning in general. The problem sects tlc we the paucity of communication or collaboration between pencil educators and educators ofthe gifted at any level. Particularly within the last decade, general edu atioa has muved much more toward a pedagogy rooted in the findings of exp chology including bs serch] and constroniocs Nenana this view of education seek forall learners student-centered cle rooms where learners become engaged in solving relevant prohleins make sense of important ideas, employ consistently higllevel than ing, demonstrate competency through application of undesstanling and skills, and develop a sense of empowerment through leatinny Clearly educators of the gifted who have seen the heutciuts ul ths approach to curriculum and instruction must be aflizmeidby the wile spread acceptance of these principles and practices “ When general educators say, "Now that we use higle-level sunk ing in the classroom for everyone, we no longer need spect po sions for gifted learners," educators of the gifted must be able specify, for example, how an analysis task that may be appropriately challenging for a struggling young math student may simeleanc, ‘ously be inappropriate for a classmate quite advanced in matheinat ical understanding. The field of gifted education fins ita something ofan Mentty criss, no because er dass lave subscribed to an instructional protocol similar wo that aluptedl eat lier in programs for advanced learners, not because elective tel ing for highly able learners is identical to effective teaching, ov al learners, but because as a field we have not conveyed cllectivel enough how we do what we do (when we do well) , What Makes Instruction Appropriate for Gifted Lear One way of answering this question is wo examine several elects of curriculum and instruction as well as corresponding, prise 1 that have long typified effective and defensible progsams oi advanced learners. We can then determine which elements fleas isiy@ @ 158 Journal for the Education of the Gifted environment, principles of content, process, and product; and {nsteuctional strategies) seem appropriately reserved for use with gifted learners. ‘Are Certain Learning Environments Uniquely Appropriate for Gifted Learners! ‘At their best, educators of the gifted have worked with students to develop learning environments that are student centered, active, and responsive to learner interests and needs. These environments have been predicated upon continual assessment of pupil profiles, a clarity about high expectations, and a sense that the teacher {although strong in knowledge base) serves most effectively as a facilitator of learning rather than as a fountain of data. Further, good" classes for gifted students have sought to extend learning beyond the classroom into the ill-structured problems encountered in the world outside school. ‘Although these and other learning-environment goals have been ‘easier to describe than to achieve, the goals have nonetheless shaped the aspirations of gifted education. Although such environments seem essential to the realization of talent, I cannot conceive ‘of con- vincing arguments to be offered on behalf of restricting such envi- ronments to identified students; thus, I would conclude that it is not, the nature of the learning environment that makes a classroom ‘uniquely appropriate for gifted learners, Are Certain Principles of Content, Process, ‘and Product Uniquely Appropriate for Gifted Learners! In regard to “content” (what we want students to know and under- stand of what we teach], educators of the gifted have, at their best, Sought to guide students through exploration of subject matter that is “rich” [i.e., relevant, coherent, powerful, transferable, challeng- ing, and interesting). They have focused on concepts and principles central toa given domain or inquiry rather than on accumulation of isolated and disjointed facts. They have also attempted to teach skills as they are needed for a legitimate application. ‘High-level critical thinking and creative thinking have been the hallmarks of “process” (how students come to “own” ideas and skills and strategies used by teachers to focus student thinking] for ‘advanced learners. Flexibility of approaches as well as appropriate ness of strategies to the inquiry at hand have also defined appropri- ate instruction for learners served in programs for the gifted. oO Good Teaching jor One aud All sy Further, students have been positioned ws discuver Principles rather than receiving them in pepackcel oar 8 regard to how students demonstrate understand wovlucts,” gifted earners have heen asked ta set ss prolervonnle who identify problems, address the problems with a tameal aa priate methodologies, establish challenging sandals for ence ani defend their work before knowledgeable, interested Giited students have been cast as producers rather than ena ries of knowledges ie Ufind it difficule co argue against those schiwl « to econfiguce schools and clastooms inrplate uliocallcotieg find sac expectation for higlevel an eng sient gece and products on a sustained and regular basis. Althaugh I cleanly ean agent for why thea ea st snl enchmarks are necessary for development of advanced talevt would also have to support similar argunnents aoe hoe otha for learning in general. Ubelieve that our best under stanclay of lean ers and learning would commend these principles ol concen Precess, and product as beacons for improving curriculum an instruction forall learners Beceem and ands for suuceesy, Are Certain Instructional Strategies Uniquely Appropriate for Gifted Learners Strong and defensible instruction for gifted learners h employed wide range of states designed tases huh le stuilents in achieving goals of content, process, and privet, als those noted above. Strategies associated with creative pine tury {e, problem solving, synectics, moiphologeal analyse buaunterny ing|as well as those associated with critical thought fe, delve sraphic organizers, mind mapping] have been standad fare 1 lng Guality classes for gifted learners. Use uf a wide array sl sexe Strategies and independent stily procedres have hean emlovcl ve meld critical and creative thinking in areas of stuieut talent al intrest. know of no sateny on tis ht for snr ames on sys ied thai appear inappropriate for any given lestnet wlicn app ately matched to learning goals and the nature ofthe twist ened Twa statis have ba nos ley ssn wa vo tion of gifted learners: subject matter acceleration [within sa between gees or classes und compacting fn lectern Even these two strategies can benefit a wide ange al lent nots & a chance, many eager learners will “stuly ahead” su they van toot out ofa spelling or math unit o¢ "buy tune” to wurk seth eajoee160 Journal for the Education of the Gifted or enriched learning tasks. Although acceleration has been shown to be efficacious with advanced learners (c.g, Kulik & Kulik, 1991), educational leaders, such as Henry Levin (1990), offer convincing evidence that even “remediation” is best accomplished through a kind of acceleration not altogether unlike that advocated for advanced learners (e.g., Maker, 1982). In that mode, struggling learn- ers focus on essential concepts, principles, and skills of a unit or subject, ensuring their power to move ahead in understanding, rather than drilling a parade of facts and rehearsing a stream of skills out of context. Not only does the former approach allow for more rapid-pace learning, it also supports meaning making. ‘Based on current understandings of how students learn, there appear no particular teaching or learning strategies per se that are exclusively suited to the needs of gifted leamers. Once again, good teaching in gen-_ eral would be marked by appropriate use of afull range of strategies. An Alternative Proposal If optimal learning environments for most students {including the gifted) are similar, principles that govern creation of engaging con- tent, processes, and products could be shared by most if not all earners, and a broad repertoire of instructional strategies could be effectively (and ineffectively) applied with a broad range of learners. In that case, defining instruction for gifted students solely with those descriptors seems misdirected. What, then, might curricula and instruction uniquely appropriate for students identified as gifted look like? How can the ficlds of gifted education and general education be aligned in pursuit of applying the best practice in a range of academic settings and still deal with the realities that youngsters enter classrooms with varied readiness levels, interests, and learning profiles! Figure 1 is offered as a model for continuing discussion regarding both the similarities and the differences between instructional elements involved in gen- eral “good education” and “good education for gifted or advanced learners." Following an overview of elements of the proposed model, examples of how it could be applied are provided Elements of the Model Shared by General Education and Gifted Education Around the perimeter of the model are four learning-environment descriptors related to the roles of both teacher and student, All stu @ Good Teaching for One ant AL Lol dents would benefit from learning environments that (a) ate active in their orientation (students as doers rather than prinauly as receivers}; (b} employ continual assessment of student realiness understanding, interest, and learning profile as a meas ul ese alatiny, student growth; [c} stress flexible grouping patterns ex, students working independently, as part of a whole class, and ina vanity of groups}, and (d) communicate clear expectations fur sind put toward continual growth in understandings and skilly or ctl and vidual, no matter the learner’s beginning point, No deat there ate other environmental descriptors that interested sealers could (ad f hope will] place alongside the four currently propused ‘The top tier of boxes in the model [above the dotted lines} includes some principles that would govern development aud implementation of curriculum and instruction it eltective class rooms serving a full range of learners. Content, for example, will likely be understood, retained, and used better by students when * it focuses on the key concepts and prineyples ut wield and + students sce a purpose or use for it Processes (or activities that help students make seuse of wleas) should be focused on key concepts, principles, anu skills; prompt high-level vs. rote} interaction with leis, appear useful to the learners involved in them; 1 require students to engage appropriately in buth critical and creative cognition and metacognition, Finally, products appear more engaging, powerful, and passion pro ducing when they are based on real issues or problems, require students to use {and extend) mast/all uf uie hey insights, skills, and understandings central (o the question or topic at hand, * necessitate that the student learn and use the skills and standards of a professional in the ficld, + have the student share outputs with important inilicns os and + prompt the student to draw on spectal snterestssind (ales by encouraging muluple modes of expression Again, various educators will wish to modily the corte Hts i three boxes that sample principles uf powerful content, proace + aunt product shared by effective classtoonrs af all sorts@ ® Journal for the Education of the Gifted Good Teaching for One anid Al 16s Beneath the dotted line are sample instructional strategies The lists are meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive, ‘These strategies arc uscful to teachers in creating rich, stuxlent centered learning experiences without assuming that all same readiness levels, interests, or learning profiles sarnets have the What Makes Curriculum and Instruction Uniquely Appropriate for Gifted Learners! and Talent Development Gifted learners themselves are a heterogenesius group, and 1 une ze-fits-all formula will satisfy their full range ef necds any more than single-size approaches work well with uther hetcroxeneuns groups. However, students with high ability ina javen sphere de fend to have some common learning characteristics, suet as speed of learning, depth of insight, and persistence in their aveay of sntet est, Learning experiences well suited tw these students wall caune their brains to function at a level of moxterate arousal nesthiet una state of anxiety nor relaxation (Csikszentmihaly, Rathunde, & Product eres Grouping Figure 1 Flexible Whalen, 1993; Sylwester, 1995} The lower portion of Figure 1 (beneath the boxes} demonstrates how teachers and curriculum developers may think about nioily ing employment of content, process, product, and steateyses address learners’ varying profiles, while stil employing best instruc tional practice with all learners. The nine paitings sepresent con tinua and are drawn to resemble the sliding butions on a picee wt equipment such as a compact disc player oF stereo. By slicing the buttons to the left or right on such an instrument, the listener can adjust elements of sound to match the needs of a composition, sul sis & pas ij re Ea mm ‘APlanning Model for Academic Diversity Continual Arsetsment and ence, mood, and so on. By adjusting the elements of instauction along the nine continua, the educator can ensure that varied learn ts take part in learning experiences likely to stretch ther ay snl viduals, While there may be some overlap among some of the concn each one denotes a way of thinking about curriculuin axl nstiuc tion that is at least, in part, separate and discrete frum the others Other things being equal, positioning the buttons fasthet «the right of the continua makes a task more appropriate for stustenty with advanced talent and interest in a given area ancl less appiop ate for students with fess talent, interest, or buth wi dat aie | Regardless of the posituming of the buttons, however, ll saute ut i "| Content ul | | Ce Hn woyoINaHO 241¥ | | | 3 tte should work with content and activities that sre concept lee rh evant, engaging, and so on@ 164 Journal jor the Education of the Gifted A Look at the Nine Pairings 1 Foundational to Transformational. When a student is struggling with a new task or topic, itis helpful if the con tent of activities are foundational. However, a student who already grasps key principles and skills is ready to modify them for use in other settings, thus, the student needs to. ‘work with information, ideas, materials, and applications. that prompt him or her to transform or adapt understand- ings or skills. For example, a middle school class is study- ing varied “truths” about the Civil War. All of the students will read the textbook, watch a video about two soldiers. the same age with very different views about the times, and participate in an interview with a man and woman who take part in Civil War reenactments. One group of students will then examine other grade-level supplemen tary resources to help them develop two generalizations— one about differing points of view on states’ rights during, the Civil War and one on differing points of view on the economy during that time. They will then create a flag or banner that represents the feelings of one side or the other fon those two issues. Another group of students will exam- ine supplementary resources, including replicas of newspa- pers of the era (containing editorials and political cartoons}. Students in the second group will also develop generalizations, and then a political cartoon representing the feelings of one side or the other on the two issues. Both the materials and representations of the latter group are somewhat more transformational than those of the former, although both groups are dealing with the same core understandings and both are working at a high level of thought, Concrete to Abstract. When a learner is unclear about the meaning of an idea, concrete learning experiences are needed. These may come in the form of visiole representa tions, real-life examples, straightforward applications, or the use of manipulatives that help the student grasp the inner workings of the idea. Students already advanced in their grasp of the ideas are ready to work with implications or extensions of the ideas. For instance, sume middle school students who are learning about principles govern- ing wind and water current may grasp the principles best by participating in a series of (concrete, hands-on) experi- ments designed to help them encounter, discover, and @ Good Teaching for One and AIL leh articulate the principles themselves. Other stuilents at le class may be able to begin working frum a list of the {abstract) principles and apply them to foreca Simple to Complex. Students coping with ideas Uhat tay their readiness levels and skills may learn better if they int tially work with resources, research tasks, issues, poh lems, skills, or goals that are simpler in nature —deahn with’ fewer meanings, implications, and extensions Advanced learners will be appropriately challenges! hy tasks requiring complex resources, research tusks, 1 problems, skills or goals (ic, dealing with multiple mean ings, implications, and extensions}. For example, in pve mary class where students arc learning about values of money by operating a class store, one student may te vealy to make change for transactions. Another may be reauly 1 keep ledger sheets showing costs and profits over time Similarly, some students in a forcign lam asked to complete sentences in which key nouuts, verbs, ot adjective endings are missing. Others may be asked to jew crate a meaningful sentence that begins with an article, followed by two descriptive adjectives and a nuwn, fol Jowed by a verb phrase interrupted by an adver, and cud ing with a prepositional phrast Few Facets to Multifacets. A task that 1s mulutacetes in instructions, aumber of connections amwing disciples and steps required for completion may be exhularatig U9 0 ner with advanced and fluid understanding. at are because it calls on multiple understandings v1 skills A task focused on the same concept, but with fewer dive tions, connections, or steps in development may be nunte appropriate for a learner with a more b: standings or skills. For instance, some third graders unay be ready for a three- or four-step word problem, while hss advanced peers need to work longer with so step prob ems. Similarly, all students in a ninth-grade class aay «1 ate interior monologues based on a novel's chtactet, three students with particular skills in both writin; tl ‘oral presentation may benefit from the aditwrsal sts ps making an oral interpretation to the elass tor the sb sion and analysis, Smaller Leap to Greater Leap, Nu chad shun be Joke dt do assignments devoid of significant mental leap All weelass may be166 @ Journal for the Education of the Gifted learners should be aided in drawing conclusions, predicting, outcomes, making connections, and so on. Nonetheless, 4 struggling learner may initially be encouraged to make rel- atively smaller leaps of transfer, insight, or application than a learner advanced in the same area, For example, an elementary class read a story in which the main character ‘was endangered because he failed to think about the sig- nificance of small but important events. Some of the stu- dents in the class were asked to make a connection with times in their lives or lives of friends when they over: looked or heeded important signals or clues and then depict the consequences of doing so. More advanced read. ers were asked to select a character from a favorite story or book and examine that character's sensitivity to clucs in his or her world. The students were then assigned to describe what might occur if the student-selected charac- ter were substituted for the story's main character. No stu- dent was asked simply to summarize events in the story. All were asked to make connections between themes in the story and life beyond the story. Students in the second, group, however, had to make a relatively greater leap of application or insight in order to complete the task. ‘More Structured to More Open. Although all learners need to grow steadily in their comfort with open-ended tasks, advanced learners can typically be prompted to deal with more open approaches than peers who are not yet sure of their footing in a given area. One junior high student might be asked to critique a poem by first completing a matrix or list of questions designed to guide the process. Another student with more advanced language-related skills may simply be asked to provide a critique and rationale for the critique. The latter student would be working with a more open-ended task. Clearly Defined or Fuzzy. Problems that lack clarity in def- inition are more demanding than those in which elements, parameters, constraints, or steps are clearer. Students ben: efit from working problems that slightly exceed their reach, For advanced learners, that includes messy or ill: defined problems that require complex analyses, multiple ‘manipulations, forays into the unknown, and intense test- ing of options. Less advanced learners may work best on problems or issues with less ambiguity. For example, sev- enth graders are studying a changing neighborhood near % oO Good Teaching for One and All lor their school. Less advanced learners may examine Owu pro posals for preserving a historic house in the area, evaluate the appropriateness of each proposal based on preestal lished economic and aesthetic criteria, and snake 4 bial recommendation to policy makers. A more advanced op may examine impact on the neighborhood of possible future demographic shifts that might be predicted by pat terns in the city as a whole; patterns in otlwr e1tics, un trends forecast by futurists, making and defending, recon mendations to policy makers regarding a master plas for community change Less Independence to Greater Independence. These 15 90 correlation between talent and independence. Many advanced learners are independent learners relitive te mates; others are not. When a student plans, sets gusts, establishes timelines, and assesses proxcess with litle ut no supervision, he or she needs to be accorded opportunt ties to develop and execute independent plans—as well as to receive guidance on how to further hone :he skills of independence. A student likely to flounder or fail withiut assistance in goal setting, managing time, andl su vn nels less independence in work arrangements anu more help i moving from dependence on external support stiuctites toward dependence on internal ones, During second semester, members of an eighth-grade cl. month-long projects with specifically desy 3s witked on rated Lean outcomes. The class and wacher develuped general ens for quality production. All students ncgotiated with the teacher additional criteria specifically suited to thei tal ents and needs. Students also developed tumelines fue progress. With some highly independent learncty, the teacher simply approved the timelines and ensured tht peer critique session was included at least one week prior to the duc date. With less independent learners, the tes let ‘ensured inclusion of multiple check-in dates wth spec tic goals to be met by each date as well as correspeuduy. jos uct reviews by both peers and teacher. Slower to Quicker. There are times when «stanly 0 dent needs to work quickly through an area of sidy_tlhat is, investigate essential points an a complex tapre dal hen move along to another area of study that 15 nian twits mental in the scope of learning At other tinies, .110p sling student can conquer complex matettal 1! sxbitn ial® @ 168 Journal for the Education of the Gifted time is provided so he or she can work more slowly than, classmates are working. Similarly, advanced learners often benefit from a brisker pace of study and thought in their talent areas than other students need. Sometimes, how- ever, it is important for them to linger longer on a given, study in order to satisfy a need for depth or breadth of study. In first grade, students studied outer space for two weeks. At the end of that period, most of the students were ready to move on to other topics. Two students, however, still had questions they wanted answered, so the teacher extended their study by helping them select books and related task options at the writing and science learning centers. These two students are examples of advanced learners who need to work more slowly than age peers on a given exploration. ‘An Expanded Case in Point A heterogeneous group of third-grade students is engaged in data collection and analysis. Their teacher wants them all to learn to conduct an effective survey on a topic of their choice, focus the sur- vey on an appropriate group of respondents, develop categories according to which data can be sorted, and report the findings. Some students with more advanced mathematics skills will learn basic descriptive statistics of mean, median, and mode. Their surveys will be conducted with multiple groups of respondents so that descriptive statistics can be appropriately applied in data analysis. Still other students with advanced language skills will use open- ‘ended responses on their surveys and will learn basic coding princi- ples from qualitative research, which they will use in data analysis. ‘All students in the class will be working with concept-based and principle-driven study. On some aspects of their survey and analy- s, students will work alone. At other times, they will work in interest-based groups. At still other points, they will work with stu- dents of similar readiness. Often the class will work as a whole to learn new skills or to share progress in their work. Sometimes (as in the case of learning mean, median, and mode) students will mect with the teacher for small-group direct instruction on topics appro- priate for their readiness and interests. All students will be active earners, and progress will lead to application of skills and insights. All students will function at consistently high levels of thinking; all will learn the skills of a professional in the course of their work; all will have choices to make and can focus on areas of interest. ® Good Teaching for One and All boy Assignments (including the survey assignment) for aslvanced learners, however, are more abstract (e.g,, the cuncepts ol ican, ‘median, and mode or the principles of qualitative research cuuling complex (eg,, the advanced mathematics or advanced language use required}, open-ended (e.g,, the open-ended responses lean! te less certain outcomes), and multifaceted [because of the range ul mathe matical or language manipulations required}. It 1s nut the learning, environment; the principles guiding content, process, or pruduct, nor the specific instructional strategy employed that makes sane ul the product assignments better suited to learners advanced 1 Lan ‘guage or math, Rather, itis the high level of abstraction, complex ity, problem ambiguity, structure, insight necded, and so un that makes curriculum and instruction‘a good match for learners yitted in a particular area. A Tale of Two Settings Both Tia and James are fourth graders with advanced reauliness lev els in language arts and science, and both are working with class mates on a study of living things. Currently both are exploring the generalization that all living things need and use water to survive Over the next two or three days, both students will gather informa. tion about how one or more living things necd and tse water, hth will have choices to make about ways in which they conduct their exploration and express their findings, and boch will conteihute new understandings to a larger body of data being amassed by their class asa whole. Tia and James arc, thus, both warking in active environ ‘ments that usc flexible grouping patterns. Both are working, with concept- and gencralization-based content and process and with ideas that are transferable and powerful. Their current activity 1 highly focused on the concept and principle at hand, Both fuurth graders are working at analysis and synthesis levels, In fact, huh have been able to compact out of a current language arts unit and both have elected to use some of the time they have saved tw wok ‘on their exploration. It would appear that Tia and James are working with relatively interchangeable learning experiences this weck. A look at thevt spe cilic assignments, however, indicates important differences James assignment reads, “Use our book corner anid the CL) KOM, at computer M1 to find at least three different resins why a hug, must have water during each stage of its hfe eycle. Create a visual that shows the stages of the life cycle and uses ul waver in each stage. Be sure your visuals are labeled appropriately su that suri wae@ @ 170 Journal for the Education of the Gifted who has not completed your investigation would understand the changes both in life cycle stages and in water use over time. At the draft stage, check out your visual with someone who has a different assignment to see if he or she understands. Make necessary revi- sions in your final visual.” ‘Tja’s assignment reads, “Using computer, print, and people resources, find out about the desert tortoise and the kangaroo rat. Hypothesize how desert animals need and use water. Check out ‘your hypothesis with another student and then with the teacher or another adult who can help you analyze it. Revise your hypothesis ‘as necessary. Next, test your revised hypothesis by finding out about at least two other desert animals. Revise your hypothesis again as needed (and test again if you feel the need to do so). Keep a record of your thinking as it changes. Develop a visual that shows the simi- larities and differences between how desert and nondesert animals need, get, and use water. Accompanying your visual should be a statement that reflects your hypothesis. Be sure you deal with ways nature deals with the paradox of needing water to live in places without water.” Despite their similarities, Tia’s assignment is more abstract than James’ in that it requires multiple evolutions of thought at a hypothesis or theory level. It is more complex in the range of resources available and the nature of the problems addressed. It has ‘more steps or facets in development. It likely requires greater leaps of insight, particularly in dealing with the paradoxical nature of the desert animal's quest for water and adaptation for that purpose. Tia’s task is also more open in regard to decisions about resources, and the problem with which she is dealing is fuzzier or less defined for her than is James’ It does not matter whether Tia is in a special class for learners identified as gifted or in a heterogeneous setting, her assignment is clearly more advanced than James’ assignment. Both are in active environments, both are dealing with content that is theme- or con- cept-based, and both must use high-level thinking. What makes Tia’s task more appropriate than James’ for a learner gifted (and interested) in science and language arts is that it is more abstract, complex, open, and multifaceted than James’. Implications for Practice and Research It is not the environmental conditions; the principles governing rich content, processes, or products, nor the use of any individual @ Good Teaching for One and All mn instructional strategy (or set of instructional strategies) that detiney appropriate curriculum for gifted learners. Rather, 11 the antensity with which those elements are applied to learning experiences iif response to a child's readiness, interests, or leasning profile: Atleast two fruitful avenues for exploration could be available for educators of the gifted: 1. Testing such a model as a defensible measuring rol vl appropriate instruction for advanced leaenets, nud 2. Using such a model to guide inguiry into the effects otal ent development in high-ability learners of educational programs and practices characterized! by a rightward dice: tion on one or more of the continua vs. those pitched in a more leftward direction. Some Implications for Assessing Practice Teachers with responsibility for curriculum and instruction tor sifted learners often defend their practice by relying on particular environmental conditions (e.g., learning beyond the claysiuom active learning), curricular principles (e.g., theme/concept-based instruction, use of high-level thinking, real products for ical swt ences}, instructional approaches (eg,, compacting, dependent study, use of multiple intelligences}, or a combination of the dive Such descriptions are insufficiently defensible against aiysuments made by educational reformers. Our best knowlege of teaching uid learning leads us to believe that most, if not all, students would ber fit from application of these principles and procedures, It the observation of this author that depending on such descriptions allows compacting to become a lurch-and-halt movement thioigh unchallenging basic curriculum, followed by meandering thiuuigh insubstantial time fillers, until the base curriculum kicks 1n ays ‘Acceleration evolves into rapid movement through disjounted dat often without peer companionship or teacher support. Multiple intelligence approaches become no more than :revisitanon uf learn ing style theory. They have more to do with a preference fur mov while learning (vs. sitting still) rather than advancing development of genuine kinesthetic ability or a liking for doodling, sather than systematic cultivation of visual-spatial talent Use of a mode! such as the ane represented in Fagune Fuld pi vide a more defensible yardstick for assessing, the surtability ul us riculum and instruction for the gifted and a more precise vir ability for describing it. An assignment for advanced leaenets % 4yptutiate when it is at a level of transformation, abstractness, contpl sity@ @ 172 Journal for the Education of the Gifted multifacetedness, mental leap, openness, and ambiguity. This leads learners to stretch slightly beyond their comfort zones. Pacing and the independence required should be adjusted to the nature of the task and the learner as well. By implication, these same learning experiences should be too demanding for students less advanced in that particular area at that particular time. ‘Some Implications for Research ‘Use of a model similar to the one proposed here could guide lines of inquiry related to the advantages and disadvantages of homogeneous or heterogeneous instruction of gifted learners. For example, in what, ways are products generated by seventh graders with advanced abil- ity/readiness similar or dissimilar when created in homogencous classes and in heterogeneous settings? The products could be assessed by experts in curriculum and gifted education based on, among other things, degree of transformation, abstractness, inde- pendence, mental leap, etc., and evidenced in both the final products themselves and process interviews conducted with students throughout the product-production period. In regard to instruction of advanced learners in heterogeneous settings, the model could provide vocabulary and direction for examination of important issues, such as quality of instruction experienced by academically diverse learners [including the gifted) in mixed-ability classrooms, ways in which teachers in heteroge- neous settings come to understand and respond to learning needs of academically diverse students; ways in which initiatives as contin- uous progress, interdisciplinary instruction, and portfolio assess- ment are applied to gifted learners and with what results; how teachers in heterogeneous settings adapt to a need to develop and implement inquiries, problems and products at an expert level; learning profiles of high-ability students from low economic, ‘minority backgrounds, or both, and impacts of well-designed, differ- entiated heterogeneous settings on this latter group of students ‘compared with well-designed special classes. Conclusion ‘There are no environmental modifications; principles of content, process, or product; or instructional strategies uniquely appropriate for gifted learners. Custiculum and instruction for gifted learners will be uniquely appropriate for those learners when teaching and @ Good Teaching Jor One and All Im learning are at a level of transformation, abstructness, complerity, mubsifacetedness, mental leap, open-endedness, problem ambiguity, independence, or.pace suited to, advaneed. Jearming. capacity Developing and describing learning experiences for advances! learn rs in these terms is not only more defensibly but has the putestial to guide educational practice and inform edu ational research, References Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cantbuste, MA Harvard University Press. Callahan, C. (1996) A critical self-study of gifted education. Llealthy practice, necessary evil, or sedit.on? Journal for the Ladue atunt of the Gifted, 19, 148-163 Clark, D. (1991). My incomplete agenda for education In D. Burleson, (Ed.), Reflections: Personal essays by 33 cistunguishvil educators (pp. 52-61). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta kappa Educational Foundation, Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, $.(1993), Tulented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, S. (1979). Inservice training manual for developing curnicu Jum for the gifted/talented. Ventura, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and Talented Kulik, J, & Kulik, C, (1991). Ability grouping and gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds., Handbook of gifted education (pp. 178-196]. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Levin, H. (1990, November). Accelerating the progress of ALI. stu dents. Paper presented at the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government Educational Policy Seminar, Albany, NY. Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted! Austin, ‘TX: PRO-ED. Maker, C. J, Niclson, A., & Rogers, J. (1994). Giftedness, diversity and problem-solving. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(1), 19 Passow, H. (1982). Differentiated curricula for the gafted/talentisl A point of view. In Curricula for the gifted: Selected proweesings 0 the First National Conference On Curricula Bor The Cifted sind Talented (pp. 4-19}, Ventura, CA: National/State Leadesstup Training Institute on the Gifted snd Talented Phenix, P. (1986). Realms of meaning: A philosophy of te cuern wins for geneval education. Ventura, CA: Natwnal/State Laas shi ‘Training Institute on the Gifted and Talented® @' 174 Joumnai for the Education of the Gusto ¥. (3988) The multiple menu model fos cv Mlitler centiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. Gifte) Child ‘Quarterly, 32, 298-309. Renzulli, . (1994), Schools for tatcnt development: A practical lar for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. ‘Shulman, L. (1987). Knowlzdge and teaching: Foundauons of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 1912), 4-14. Sylwester, R. 1995]. 4 celebration of reurons: An educator's guide to the human brain. Alexandria, VA: Associatian for Supervision and Curriculum Development. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for the ‘gifted. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Ward, V. (1980). Differential education for the gifted. Ventura, CA: ‘National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and Talented, ® Establishing the Foundations fora Talent Development Schoo Applying Principles to Creating an Ideal Rena F, Subotnik & Laurence J. Coleman, A talent develupment prograrn (FDU) was formulated ua regis to posium thar explored the distinctiveness uy gifted educate Education. The proposal acksossledges Hatt sites vil tal fre atypical Ieatnets, that many of these nevals «an bi i Ful ‘piroptiate for all cluldeen, and thar they teats oyetintics sos vi Speed and depth of study and for addressing sndivuliall sts. atl iremerging talent. A‘TDP should be established at every s voto. ment and extend the general education progean Selwiols «ot ol quately address the needs of gifted and talented learners bis th organized on notions of development that ave largely antitbetal 0s shit ssknown about taleat developnicas. The 1D sunk br thtie shila inquiry and apprenticeships for thase wath the potential stl ssa transform various domauns ros sewed eel «hihi This essay evolved from a symposium held at the 1974 cunterenee of the National Association for Gifted Children entitled, "Calted Programming, Instructional Strat nseling Feclunngues Are Uniquely Appropriate to Gilted Learners, Prove it!” Panelists from the session were invited to develop thew pivsemtatiius inter articles for a special issue in the Journal for th: bali atw wt the Gifted. Our piece was to be a summary and retle sentations, instead, it has turned into a coneeptuithatvon ol asst we viewed to be an ideal talent development proxy aa ‘The scholars who contributed to this issue, Cara Poth Bruce Shore and Marcia Delcourt, and Nancy Itabinssn, lou the concept of uniqueness problematic, They ackauvwlese that jatted and talented children ate atypical learners, yet they present support for why many of their needs can be met with steategies anal tech oat an the pre vat as Poe of Tetuneses has uate Pon Hunter College, New York Cay. arene Esrly Childhood tawcation Ute at The Univers ual for the Esbucutan of the Cited Yok 20, No. 2.1%. gy A He? voy ci