Challenges in Education of Gifted Children in Australia - Essay Example

Introduction: Education for gifted children has posed a particular challenge to educators in Australia. As the Education Minister Lynne Kosky reviews educational policy, Dunn (2005) highlights the debate raging among educators on selective education[1]. While most educators agree that every child needs to derive the best advantage out of the educational system, yet the debate arises in the area of gifted children. Should sports education for example, be focused upon the gifted few while the rest of the majority are largely relegated to the sidelines?[1;12]. Traditional methods of teaching are concentrated on maintaining homogeneity and teacher centered instruction. But such rigid systems have been found to be counter productive as far as gifted children are concerned, placing them on a different level as compared to the average child, which results in isolation and/or social problems that affect their grades and produce under achievers[15]. On the other hand, the creation of specialized education for a select few poses the threat of elitism[9:91] and the eschewing of the social function of schools in favor of competitive education.[1]. While some educators contend that special education is “a healthy psychological experience” that nurtures talent, others feel that children run the risk of “narrowing their focus” too soon[1]. In fact, the very concepts of what exactly constitutes “talent”, “creativity” and “giftedness” itself are at issue among educators, adding fuel to the hothouse debate about educational policies and the role of teachers in the classroom, in ensuring that children’s educational needs are met in the best possible way. Giftedness vs. talent: Bragett(1997) proposes that giftedness is innate ability that remains unchanging over time; but the maturation and development of the innate gifted nature is influenced by the development concept model, which moots that giftedness will be conditioned by the environment[2:67]. The factors affecting the development process are child rearing techniques, nature of peers and other influences, the kind of school and teachers, profession and job training and inherent motivation and self esteem. [2:67]. Tassel (2001) characterizes giftedness as above-average intellect in terms of inherent aptitude, while talent is the demonstration of that giftedness in the form of above average achievement in performance [13: 20]. While giftedness is inherent and requires catalysts such as (a) inner strengths of the individual, i.e, motivation and (b) environmental factors such as parental involvement in order to develop the ability, talent is developed through the process of learning, training and practice[13: 20]. Erickson(1996) however disputes the concept of talent development from innate ability; he does not believe inherent ability is necessary for the development of talent, rather he contends that competence is developed through experience, instruction and practice as is the case for example, in a chess game[5]. He is of the view that what matters most is the kind of learning that takes place and therefore the role of the teacher is critical in talent development [6]. The role of mentors in the development of talent has been emphasized by Pleiss and Feldhusen (1995) in the field of scientific research[11]. Mentorships are however important in talent development in any field, because of the availability of a knowledgeable adult who is able to guide the student, inculcate and incubate latent abilities in order to develop high levels of professional competence[11]. (Here I have removed a sentence which did not tie up this Para to the next Para) The development of talent, innate or otherwise, has been attributed to be the fruit of hard work rather than creativity alone[10]. While creativity undoubtedly facilitates the development of talent and giftedness, there have been some misconceptions about the process of creativity itself, which has been attributed to be something magical that some people possess while others do not[13]. However Osche (1993) completed a comprehensive review of the literature on creativity and concluded that it was the element of hard work that made the difference in whether creative people were able to be productive and develop their talent or not [10]. This is corroborated by Erickson’s research with chess players[5] and Bragett (1997), in a discussion about the development model that aids giftedness, states that potential in gifted children may not be fully realized in the classroom when they tend to chafe at the slowness of others, are quick and impatient, make careless mistakes, rush their work and lose interest too quickly – all of which undermines the efforts to nurture their inherent abilities[2]. Education in Australia is based upon an egalitarian philosophy, that has continued down since World War II, based upon the concept that education should be accessible to everyone on an equitable basis [4:137]. Its guiding principle is the social function that is performed by education [1] wherein the basic aim and purpose of education is to enable a person to integrate well into society and get along with others[1]. The belief that “all children have gifts and talents” [9:99] has been the prevailing belief, hence provisions for special education in Australia have been spasmodic at best [4:139], although some of the policies of the New South Wales Government have emphasized the need to identify students with special needs from disadvantaged groups [9:95]. The debate of equity vs. excellence is conditioned by the perception of democracy in education [9:94]. But when a child is far ahead of its peers, it can only be motivated through the provision of additional opportunities to enrich the fund of knowledge, ability and skill, which poses a teaching challenge and must be addressed to ensure that every child benefits from the educational process and achieves the excellence it is capable of. [4:141]. Identifying giftedness: In the fostering of creativity in the classroom, a student’s initial efforts can be nurtured or crushed through the feedback of the teacher, when such feedback is judgmental [13]. Therefore the teacher’s role in fostering creativity must be to geared towards provoking feedback to make the student think and develop his/her creative product while simultaneously refraining from any kind of judgment, which could have a negative effect and hinder the development of creativity[13:22]. At the classroom stage, no definitive judgments are possible about who will grow up to become truly creative, therefore a teacher can at best encourage all her students to be creative in their own way without attributing her own judgmental bias in her outlook[13:22]. The identification of giftedness is usually based upon some objective assessment. Most often it may be a score on a standardized test or an IQ that is higher than the normal range, which are indicative of enhanced ability [4]. Terman et al (1925) also demonstrated that consistently high academic achievement is yet another indication of giftedness, and that gifted children are not necessarily “mad” or “abnormal” as per the popular belief.[14] Additionally, a psychologist’s report or an expert’s opinion are equally effective in terms of identifying which students in a class are gifted.[2]. A teacher’s method of classroom management will determine to a great extent her talent in fostering the child’s ability, while simultaneously ensuring that the weaker children are given added instruction and those with latent talent are identified [2]. However, the limitations of academic and IQ testing have been pointed out by Gowan and Torrance (1971) who highlight at least three definite areas of giftedness which are not revealed through IQ and academic testing methods[7]. They are (a) non verbal fluency and spatial creativity (b) creativity in artistic non verbal, non rational fields such as the arts and music (c) high creativity in small groups, which is however inhibited in a large classroom environment[7]. Testing for giftedness: How can a child be tested to determine whether or not he/she is gifted? Teacher skills are vital in identifying and promoting the talents of special children within a classroom setting. Bragett (1997) proposes five criteria that a teacher needs to pay special attention to in order to arrive at a development model that will help to temper the inherited abilities of the child to make them shine and contribute to their overall development. The five salient issues are (a) identification of the innate ability of a gifted child (b) Modification of the curriculum (c) Class management and organization (d) teaching strategies and skills (e) School organization[2:67]. The teacher’s role: The teacher is faced with a complex role – whether to assign a uniform system of grading that renders homogeneity in teaching without regard to individual needs or to develop a more flexible teaching strategy. In the quest for excellence, the teacher needs to identify the gifted child/children who possess inherent skills that are at a level much higher than the rest of the class [4:140]. But at the same time, the goals of equity in education must also be maintained. Among the same group of students, there may be some above-average students who are gifted in some areas but are lacking in others. On the other side of the coin is the entire pool of average children, some of whom possess the latent ability to go on and be very successful in their lives through the gradual assimilation of a cumulative intelligence and ability that is acquired over a period of several years[2]. Thus even as the teacher is encouraging the gifted child to perform at a level ahead of his/her class, she is simultaneously trying to identify and reveal the pool of latent talent in her majority average students. At the lower end of the spectrum are the dull students, who may also possess latent sparks of giftedness which are not evident through traditional methods of testing, since such children may come from poor families with poorly developed verbal fluency and critical thinking and communication skills[4:132]. But the teacher’s job is to encourage and bring out the latent giftedness in these children as well. In fact, Australia is focusing its attempts to identify giftedness to children from poorer sections of society since the education of gifted children is seen as a social issue rather than an educational necessity.[6:93]. In terms of modification of the curriculums proposed by Bragett (1997), two options may be explored (a) whether the gifted child is interested in moving up to a higher class or (b) whether the child is content to remain in the same class but study more advanced concepts. Implementing a differentiated curriculum provides scope for the gifted child to progress more rapidly than his/her peers[2]. Tassel Baska also stresses the value of the differentiated curriculum, whereby advanced concepts are taught to gifted children [13]. But the potential liability in implementing an enhanced curriculum for the gifted children is the lack of subsidiary, composite skills such as ability to read write, or calculate well, inability to research materials, think critically and logically or poor communicative and psychomotor skills[14]. All these are necessary adjuncts to ensure that the inherent abilities are developed satisfactorily. Therefore, an inherent ability in one area will have to be supplemented through additional training in the subsidiary areas[2]. This is where a distinction must be made in the role of the teacher – some teachers function as take-charge teachers and determine the mode of instruction and the interactions that take place in the class, while others adopt the role of the facilitators, playing down the role of direct teacher instruction[2]. Undoubtedly, the direct method lessens the load on the teacher in terms of assigning grades but does the homegenity really answer the individual needs of the entire class?[6] The direct instructional method introduces homogeneity, it employs the method of direct instruction to the entire class as one group, while on the other hand, the facilitator -teacher divides the class into groups and allows them to interact with each other, placing no limits or arbitrary curriculum levels up to which a particular group may progress within a particular lesson[2]. Such subdivisions are useful in that they make the classroom interactions more interesting for the students. While the more intelligent ones are grouped together and help each other, relishing the lessons because they don’t get bored from having to restrict the learning experience[4], the weaker students get an opportunity to become more thorough in their concepts with added attention from the teacher who circulates within the groups, allowing them to modulate their own progress[2]. How effective is organizational change in the school in terms of enhancing opportunities for gifted students? Bragett(1997) states that initiating the processes of developing giftedness through changes in the school organization – for example by introducing multi age classes or special classes are not beneficial or positive in their effect. The criticism of others is based on the uneven development in a few areas, at the expense of all round development[1]. While some researchers have advocated the development of special education for those who are gifted for example in sports, Small (1999) argues that implementing an educational sports policy geared towards fostering the excellence of a few at the expense of the many makes for bad educational policy [12:105]. Braget (1997) argues that true changes can only be brought about by addressing the need for changes in the curriculum [2] Development of giftedness in the underachievers: Perhaps the most famous example of a gifted student who remained an under achiever during his school years is Albert Einstein. Tassel Baska notes that gifted children with an IQ above 130 are often inattentive, restless, low in attendance and sometimes deviant in behavior[13]. Gross (1993) explains this as a function of low self esteem, that results in gifted children because they are aware that they are different from their peers and that they are disliked precisely for that reason[8:260]. Gifted students may be underachievers with grades below C, while they are capable of much better work[15]. In some instances the lapse in performance may be temporary and may be seen to be the result of a particular environmental factor while in other cases, the child is a chronic underachiever. Whitman (1980) identifies several factors in the classroom that contribute to the underachiever’s poor performance; (a) lack of respect (b) competitive social environment (c) rigidly controlling teacher (d) inflexibility of teaching style (e) uninspiring curriculum (f) stress on eternal evaluation and (g) excessive criticism[15:192-3]. This poses a challenge for the teacher who must then assess when such a child is ready to receive instruction and how best such a child may be intrinsically motivated to achieve his/her potential. It is the teacher’s responsibility to make the classroom environment a non threatening one, so that the child can be motivated to achieve his/her full potential without fear of criticism[13]. Conclusion: Education targeted at gifted children, education that essentially singles them out for preferential treatment and sets them apart from the majority, has been a policy that many educators oppose as “elitist”[9:91]. Carey (1994) of the Australian Education network satirically comments that special education for gifted children is like “educational apartheid” and segregates the gifted few from the majority of the “great unwashed” [3:18-22]. Yet, other educators such as Bragett(1997) and Tassel (2001) have identified the need for a diversified curriculum, specifically to address the needs of gifted children who are under achievers but could make a valuable contribution to the country. Other researchers such as Ericsson (1996,1997) have extolled the virtue of hard work and practice as the tool for achievement of excellence and development of talent and this standard can be applied uniformly to the entire population without any need to separate out the gifted children, who also benefit from hard work and perseverance. In the debate of excellence vs. equity, there can however be no doubt that the traditional systems of education need modifications and provision must be made for the different needs of a wide range of intellectual ability among the same age groups. The role of the teacher has to undergo a transformation in order to adapt from the old, traditional teacher centered classroom, into the role of a facilitator, who aids the children in their process of acquisition of education, providing opportunities for everyone – not only gifted children – to identify and develop their latent talents. Bibliography: [1] Dunn, Amanda. (2005). “In a class of their own”. The Age. [Online] Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/In-a-class-of- their-own/2005/05/07/1115422845129.html?from=moreStories ; accessed 10/26/2005 [2] Bragett, E.J. (1997) “A developmental concept of giftedness implications for the regular classroom .” Gifted Education International 12(2) pp 64-71. [3] Carey, M. (1994) “New fashioned Apartheid?” Education Links, 47 pp18-22 [4] Casey K. (1994) . “Teaching children with special needs.” NSW: Social Science Press. [5] Ericsson, K.A. (1996). “Expert and exceptional performance, evidence of Maximal adaptation to task constraints.” Annual Review of Psychology; 17, pp 273-305. [6] Ericsson, K.A. and Linder D. (1997). “The road to excellence: The acquisition of Expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games. Contemporary Psychology, 42,12,1117. [7] Gowan, J.C., Khatena, J., & Torrance, E.P. (Eds.) Educating the ablest: A book of readings on the education of gifted children (2nd ed.). Itasca IL: F.E. Peacock, 1979. [8] Gross, M. (1993) “Exceptionally gifted children”. London: Routledge [9] Gross, M.U. (1999). “Critical dialogue: Inequity in equity: The paradox of gifted children in Australia. Australian Journal of Education. 43(1), pp 87-93. [10] Osche (1993) R (1990). “Before the gates of excellence: the determinants of creative genius.” Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University press [11] Pleiss M E and Feldhuesen, J.F. (1995) “Mentors, role models and heroes in the lives of gifted children.” Educational Psychologist, 30, 3, 159 [12] Small Robin. (1999). “In the interest of the child: assessing the arguments for gifted education: response to Miraca Gross.” Australian Journal of Education, April 1, pp 87. [13] Tassel, Baska J. (2001). “The talent development process: what we know and what we don’t know.” Gifted Education International. (16), pp 20-28 [14] Terman, L. M. (1925). “Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children.” Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. [15] Whitmore, J.R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict and underachievement. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Read More