Lannie Kanevsky

To Produce or Not To Produce? Understanding Boredom and the Honor in Underachievement.

This study explores factors contributing to the boredom of gifted high school students who had gradually disengaged from classroom learning. Evidence from three case studies provides a rich sense of the complexities of this process. The core findings: (1) learning is the opposite of boredom, and (2) learning is the antidote to boredom. Five interdependent features emerged from the interviews that distinguished boring from learning experiences: control, choice, challenge, complexity and caring teachers. The extent to which these five Cs were present determined the extent of students’ engagement and productivity. Participants attributed their increasing boredom to a gradual decline in the five Cs in middle and high school. They reported a growing sense of moral indignation toward the activities they were offered as an “education.” They felt the honorable action in response to an inappropriate curriculum was to disengage from it and quit producing. It is recommended that interventions designed to re‐engage bored high potential students begin with a clear understanding of each students boredom and then offer each a differentiated curricula rich in the five Cs.

Deferential Differentiation What Types of Differentiation Do Students Want

Deferential differentiation occurs when the curriculum modification process defers to students’ preferred ways of learning rather than relying on teachers’ judgments. The preferences of 416 students identified as gifted (grades 3-8) for features of differentiated curriculum recommended for gifted students were compared with those of 230 students not identified as gifted. While thinking of their favorite school subject, they responded to the 110 items on the Possibilities for Learning survey. Most and least popular items are reported in nine thematic categories (pace, collaborative learning, choice, curriculum content, evaluation, open-ended activities, expert knowledge, teacher/student relationship, and sharing learning). Self-pacing, choice of topic, and choice of workmates were most popular with students in both groups. Compared with nonidentified students, more of the students identified as gifted wanted to learn about complex, extracurricular topics and authentic, sophisticated knowledge and interconnections among ideas; to work with others some of the time; and to choose the format of the products of their learning. More students identified as gifted also disliked waiting for the rest of the class and asking for help. Overall, the groups’ preferences differed in degree rather than kind, and reflected cognitive abilities frequently cited as distinguishing characteristics of learners with high ability.

Learning Potentials of Gifted Students.

Research on the sources of differences in the learning potentials of gifted and nongifted students is synthesized in a dynamic model. Group differences between gifted and nongifted students are examined as well as inter‐individual differences between gifted students and intra‐individual differences within a gifted student. Three sets of factors contribute to these differences: intellectual, non‐intellectual, and environmental. Intellectual factors are further discussed in three clusters: general knowledge, information processing efficiency and metacognitive skills and knowledge. The results of studies describing the independent and interactive contributions of these factors to learning potential are described, as well as their implications for the education of gifted students.

Nurturing Gifted Students' Metacognitive Awareness: Effects of Training in Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Classes.

Grouping students for instruction according to intellectual ability remains a contentious practice. This small, classroom‐based study investigated the impact of classmates of the same or different intellectual abilities on the responses of six gifted students to five sessions of metacognitive awareness training activities. Three students were enrolled in a homogeneous gifted class and three in a heterogeneous (mixed‐ability) class. In each session the teacher/researcher asked students to develop and discuss a machine analogy for their mind while solving a problem. Their drawings, written products and interview responses were analyzed. Individual differences were clearly evident before and after instruction. All students’ awareness of their minds activity improved. They were more aware of the complexity of their thinking, reported a greater understanding of differences in their own thinking related to differences in the tasks, and gained an appreciation for differences in the problem‐solving processes of ...

Instructional Cases: Learning from the Dilemmas of Practicing Teachers.

Based on Shulmans (1991) model, one elementary and two secondary teachers from The Roeper School for gifted students present instructional dilemmas that exemplify the complex nature of teaching. A description of the model and process of case writing establishes the context. Each teacher‐authored case is followed by expert commentaries from within and outside the field of gifted education. The commentaries serve to extend our thinking about the dilemmas embedded in each case and raise questions for further reflection. The editors welcome correspondence on the potential usefulness of instructional cases and commentaries for supporting reflective practice among pre‐service and practicing teachers of the gifted and encouraging dialogue among practitioners and researchers in gifted education and in the subject matter fields.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CHILDREN'S LEARNING IN THE ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT 1

Both IQ and age related differences in the zones of proximal development of 89 four to eight year olds were investigated. Each child was asked to learn, transfer and generalize a strategy for solving the Tower of Hanoi puzzle. The speed, efficiency, accuracy and extent of support needed were analysed. Multivariate analyses of variance were performed on the data from each task. The benefits of high IQ were not as consistent as those of chronological age. They were most apparent in the learning and generalization tasks. Some high IQ children created challenges of their own in the unchallenging transfer task, or became bored. Two practical implications became apparent: the range of learning potentials in classes of children grouped by chronological age poses a formidable challenge for educators, and the learning of highly able children may detoriorate when they are offered the same curriculum as their peers. 1Acknowledgement This research has been supported in part by the Social Sciences and Humanities Counc...