Education with inclusion has been a wide area of exploration within school environments and debated on how this can be carried out efficiently and effectively within the classroom. The school in question to have been observed is smaller than the average-sized secondary school, but student numbers are increasing year by year. Majority of students are of White British ethnicity and very few students are at the early stages of learning English as an additional language. The number of students who have a disability or special educational needs and are supported at school action is below average. Those students supported at school action plus or with a statement of special educational needs is just below average. The percentage of students supported by the pupil premium is just below the national average at 23.3%. This data was collected from various sources in conversation with members of staff when asked about the school but one area of information I noticed was overlooked in comparison; high achieving pupils or as the school categorises them ‘Gifted and Talented’.
The idea of ‘Gifted and Talented’ and it’s many differentiations within the education sector may seem an area of confusion and contradiction; most theorists, practitioners and academics present the concept as a vehicle for high achievers within the student sector.
Ogilvie (1972), stated that ‘to be gifted is to be outstanding in general or specific abilities in a relatively broad or narrow field of endeavour.’ His ideas are discussed by George (2013) to have 6 key areas to focus upon when identifying high achievers:
These factors, particularly creativity, can be hard to measure within a scale of success as is there substantially a way in which this idea can be truly measured effectively to allow catering for students within the classroom? I have noticed through my practice that these measurements are reliant on the teacher’s viewpoint of success within this area and ultimately gives the control and responsibility of assessment back to the educator.
These areas are then discussed within the education faculty of how they are measured and in what percentage are they judged to determine the classification of these students. It is because of this classification; concerns have been raised on whether these abilities can be judged and assessed and how they can. Cooper (2011) addresses the idea of relationships within teaching and how they can maximise results within achievement and the social education of students. The three main areas of focus are:
I have noticed particularly that students rely heavily on these relationships to effectively achieve to their full potential. These relationships formed particularly with their teacher, allow the greater chance of risk taking and being effective towards their potential as the ‘Gifted and Talented’ branding addresses them to be.
Feldhausen and Moon (1992) discuss the idea of grouping students per ability is a way of making sure that engagement within the task is effective and motivation does not waiver during the learning. Slawein and Karweit (1984) research against these groups show that allocation of mixed-ability students can excel the talents and skills of high ability thinkers.
Allowing the structure of groupings particularly with new topics, Feldhausen and Moon (1992) discuss the moments of preparation to education for the students and how they may approach each topic differently depending on several factors such as prior knowledge and interest and engagement with content. These ideas have been debated by teachers and how they can illustrate their achievement and standard to the highest potential but also making sure that the other children are not shadowed by this standard. The main concern which I noticed through my practice is whether the mixed ability of groups is a hindrance towards the high achievers, slowing their possible potential by being an example to other students, or whether they should be collected together in group work to create a prime example of extensive work for other students to see the example through that way.
Slavin (1990) discusses the advantage and disadvantage of separating these ability markers within education for the students listing for the teacher to adapt their instruction to the needs of the group but most interestingly it is seen to reduce failure. The idea of failure is stigmatised towards low achieving and not being able to be a high achieving trait. Disadvantages discussed contain mostly ideas for the teacher being unable to differentiate the work for different levels of ability and objecting towards the low-achieving or ‘slower’ students.
In relation to the area of Gifted and Talented students in drama, people assume that the confident, outspoken children are clearly the most skilled and intellectual of the cohort. The identification of how these traits work within the subject allow the teacher to create that strong relationship allowing the education of the student to excel. Two of these factors that I believe are key for identification are discussed by CfSA (2008):
These factors, relate very closely to the identification of general high achievers across the academic scope with direct correlation towards the social interaction and leadership skills. These ideas became quite strongly apparent within my placement school particularly noticing the large percentage of drama-skilled students being classified as ‘Gifted and Talented’ for whole school cohort across all subject areas but questioned strongly about the inclusion with subject specific students; what measurements are being looked at that separate the whole school cohort and the subject specific with their skills and is there any major differences within their academic level?
Student A is a 15-year old student that has been identified by the Gifted and Talented Co-ordinator as whole school classification, being assessed with a reading aged of 18-19 years and spelling age of 17 years. In similar fashion, Student B is a 15-year old student that has not been formally identified across the school classification as Gifted and Talented but is subject-specifically talented within drama but their subject teacher (who in coincidence happens to be the Gifted and Talented Co-ordinator for the school) with a reading age of 15 years and spelling age of 16 per government standardised tests.
Student A and B are both in the advanced English class receiving the same lesson and sitting on opposite sides of the room. Noticing the seating plan of the class room, the students of high ability and indeed the ‘Gifted and Talented’ cohort were paired with students of a lesser ability in comparison which was an interesting factor towards the lesson.
The class teacher asked the students to discuss the themes of a poem studied and how the language used is related to the points made. In vocal feedback, the class teacher asked pairs for example work and the form of answer given was that the less able student highlighted the theme and the high achieving student confidently identified the language in relation to the them
e. These connections given refer to my earlier research of how the groupings of students can affect the learning of others and the engagement level. This choice made by the teacher allowed by Students A and B feedback their experiences and ideas within their pairs, collaboratively with other students achieving that inclusion for the ‘Gifted and Talented’ children but the question I raise is that will this effectively create an inclusive environment for all to stretch and challenge their understanding within the subject?
The student’s timetables relating to their GCSE options, show a preference to either a creative-led or an academic-led subject with Student A choosing Creative and B choosing majority Academic with Drama being the linking factor between their option timetables. In relation to research, it would be hypothesised that the ‘Gifted and Talented’ student would choose a pathway led by academic subjects but in fact this was not the case. Student A is aware of their Gifted and Talented status by a badge upon their register and upon their physical uniform whereas Student B is notified of their abilities within Drama but not deemed to be compulsory to inform them of this. In discussion with the students, they addressed their choices of subject to be favourable to what they believe they are good at and what will bring them the most enjoyment throughout their school life in their relationships with the staff. This awareness of the student’s reasoning behind decisions helped build upon a relationship in the faculty and the presence of the student within the subject’s ethos within the school explaining ‘before motivation can take place, a strong foundation of mutual trust and respect must be laid. That foundation is possible only when based on personal relationships with every student.’ (Scheidecker and Freeman, 1999)
With observing Student A in an Art lesson, the relationship that the student had with teacher was strong one. Being able to independently work and have critical discussions with the teacher about their choice of work gave the student the confidence to challenge opinion and justify their choices behind their work. In conversation with the class teacher, they allow the student to honestly exclaim their justifications to them to establish a trust in honesty within the relationship and a positive rapport to maximise their passion for the subject. This is clearly an endearing factor in which student admire for their teacher, making choices not just on their ability but also having the acknowledgement for their achievement and effort. The ability to create these individual learning plans allow the stronger relationship correlate to a stronger achievement rate within the subject area.
Within my lessons teaching students A and B within Drama, I chose the areas of enquiry I have written about previous in this essay: Developing a teacher-student relationship and pushing the high achievers learning to further develop independently with tasks. Students throughout my lesson were required to be placed in small groups of 2-3 to explore play text and Stanislavskian techniques which was a topic area unfamiliar to the cohort. I chose to place these students within mixed ability groups to access a difference in opinion. I chose not to just merely make my judgement upon whether they are skilled expert or beginner level on their drama skills but through my previous experiences of developing relationships and understanding each student’s personal journey. This allowed me to access areas of understanding from the student’s that even they did not fathom of reaching. These moments of realisation of achievement between the students within peer-to-peer relationships became clear with the confidence and development of skills in all students; Gifted and Talented, low and high achieving. I noticed in succession within using this strategy, the students responded more positively and with strong engagement. During my scheme of work, you can see throughout my lesson plans (Appendices 3-11) that the material of choice requires a large amount of trust from the students to access quite emotional and tasking content socially, morally and ethically. These ideas of exploring content containing themes of domestic abuse, relationships and interactions of archetypal characters allowed the students to expand their knowledge within a comfortable environment; feeling secure within the classroom helps reaffirm the importance of developing that professional relationship between the student and teacher.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1954) (Appendix 1) illustrates the importance of addressing how these relationships can help the achievement of students and feeling like risks may be taken to further their line of enquiry. You can see through my lesson plans that catering individual tasks to students to focus on can work effectively to achieve growth and progress within the student’s understanding of the objectives and tasks. These personalised learning tasks catering for the needs of the children help identify the areas of their learning that needs more attention and praising their efforts for finished products. In relation to this, positive self-worth is an essential asset of social and emotional well-being as people; children though can be deemed to be on a wider spectrum of this. Students whose emotional identity may struggle to develop these vital feelings of self-esteem, self-worth and critical self-evaluation unless supported by a strong example of non-judgement and personal attention.
Throughout my practice as a teacher, I began to understand the emotional needs and indeed yearn from the students for stability and praise towards their own needs as well as a passion to please the educator with the expectations of them. The conclusion of the scheme and my leaving of the placement included me preparing an individually tailored letter (Appendix 12) highlighting my purpose and knowledge of their abilities as a pupil. This reinforces the knowledge of my students as a professional of their needs in education and how they can progress within their own individual learning. These responses from myself were received with gratitude from the students including quite emotional responses of how much they started to reflect and understand upon their learning which is related to my research on Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Domains (1956) (Appendix 2). Bloom’s hierarchical response help develop the areas of learning and how students will approach their education through the eyes of how engaged they can be.
Throughout my practice, I will continue to develop these pupil-teacher relationships with my students as these have proven effective towards the achievement levels and creating progress within topics. The factors of identifying high achievers and specific ‘Gifted and Talented’ individuals remain a vague structure to allow identification towards teacher’s making decisions on how to cater for the individual learner. Through my practice, I must be more aware of how these individual plans can cater for increased numbers of children and tracking progress with assessment allowing students to flourish and be aware of their achievements in progress and attainment.