Teaching underachieving gifted children metacognitive strategies

Transcriptie

1 Teaching underachieving gifted children metacognitive strategies The development of a new program Author: E.H.J. Gommans Supervisor: dr. W.A.M. Peters Date: October, 27, 2006 Ortho Pedagogy: Learning & Development Radboud University Nijmegen

2 Teaching underachieving gifted children metacognitive strategies The development of a new program Master thesis of E.H.J. Gommans Supervisor: dr. W.A.M. Peters October, 2006 Pedagogical Sciences Learning and Development Radboud University Nijmegen Liesbet Gommans

3 Preface In the past year I was trained at the CBO (Centre for the Study of Giftedness) Nijmegen, the Netherlands, in administering psychological examinations with mostly gifted children. The CBO also gave me the opportunity to develop the program which is discussed in this thesis; this was coordinated by my supervisor dr. Willy Peters. Every bit of the internship was well worth working for. I ve learned a great deal! It became more and more obvious to me that gifted children need a different approach from regular intelligent children, for they are looking for different things and want to know different things. Besides, it is important to state that they need, as any child does, a positive perspective. They need to know their strengths and weaknesses, but with an emphasis on the strengths. These strengths may help them overcome their weaknesses. During this past year I received help from many people, which I want to acknowledge here, to start with my supervisor dr. Willy Peters who taught me a lot about gifted children and the approach they need. We have the same point of view in many things and that makes it easy to work together, if I may say so. He gave me great tips and the product of our cooperation is a useful program for Dutch remedial teachers in primary school. I m a practical oriented person, and I enjoyed working on this practical thesis very much. I also want to thank all the colleagues from the CBO. Special acknowledgement is needed for dr. Els Schrover who learned me many things about games in combination with the gifted children. My thesis was corrected into better English, by drs. J. Verschuren, this made me smile a lot during the last improvements, thanks for both! Any flaws you might find in my English are obviously my responsibility. Furthermore, I want to acknowledge the parents and the child I worked with during this past year. They taught me many practical things. And I want to acknowledge the participants and the children of this thesis for their feedback, efforts, and time. I realise it is hard to be one of the first people to work with a newly developed program. I did not know for sure how much time and efforts it would ask of them, but they nevertheless completed the program. My parents, brothers, their girlfriends and my boyfriend deserve special acknowledgement, for they supported me through this last year of university. They noticed I really enjoyed my training at the CBO, and let me therefore take the time I needed to complete this thesis. You are the best! And last, but certainly not least I want to thank all my friends for their support, listening ears, and their stories about internships and theses. We did it (or will do it)! Let the future begin! Liesbet Gommans October 2006 Liesbet Gommans 2

4 Table of Contents Preface... 2 Table of Contents... 3 Abstract Introduction Development Gifted Development Giftedness Intelligence Underachievers and Underachievement Available Programs for Gifted and Talented Children Dynamic Assessment Metacognition and the Use of Games Protocols, Standardized or Manual Treatments Critical Thinking Remedial Teaching Hypotheses Method Participants Apparatus Procedure Program Design Results Data Analysis Results Feedback Content Oriented Feedback Organisational Feedback Measurements Measurements of Set Measurements of Production of Ideas Conclusion Discussion References Enclosures Appendix A Pilot-program Appendix B Figures of Measurements Liesbet Gommans 3

5 Teaching underachieving gifted children metacognitive strategies The development of a new program E.H.J. Gommans Pedagogical Sciences, Radboud University Nijmegen Abstract A program was created for (remedial) teachers to individually teach underachieving gifted children, with problems in their attitude towards work or study in school, how to learn. The learning of metacognitive strategies, e.g. strategic abilities and critical thinking, are highlighted in the program, with the aid of a strategic game that can be played individually. Also the transfer to schoolwork is specified. This thesis was the first test of the program. Eight (remedial) teachers participated with nine children. The teachers expressed contentoriented and organisational feedback and this will be implemented in a new version of the program. A conclusion from the feedback is that it is advisable to hand out more information about the program before it starts. The children were measured in three sessions (the first, the sixth, and the last) and the results of the spatial measurements overall, show that the correct answers of most children increased over time with training. The mean time of responding of most children decreased. The standard deviation of mean responding time of most children decreased. The results of the verbal measurements overall, show that the standard scores of all but two children increased. 1 Introduction Charlie is a boy who is interested in everything that goes on around him. When he was just a baby, he looked around him very much and often got overexcited by the input. Since his childhood he has always asked questions to gain the information he wanted. He now also reads books to learn even more by himself and he likes television programs which can explain the way in which specific things work. His parents are proud of him and think he is a great kid, very curious and eager to learn, so they take him to all sorts of places in which he is interested. Steve is a difficult boy to teach anything in a room with many other children, because his behaviour is very outgoing. He cannot e.g. wait his turn in a group discussion; he always wants to have the floor. He asks a lot of questions just when he wants to and he keeps other children from their work. It is probable that he is hyperactive, perhaps on account of Liesbet Gommans 4

6 oversensitiveness for sugar or chocolate. The peculiar thing about Steve is that he doesn t seem to be doing anything in the classroom, he is always late in finishing his school work, and yet he scores straight A s for his tests. Charlie and Steve seem to be two different children, but they are one and the same child. At home curious and eager to learn, in the classroom generally described as being easily distracted and lazy. Is it Steve s behaviour or Steve s environment that needs to change in order for him to become a better pupil? It is a matter of point of view. If Steve is looked at from the point of adaptability to the school curriculum, he fails badly, and then the conclusion would be he has to change considerably. But if he is looked at from the point of challenge, where the parents gratify his curiosity and eagerness to learn, while school does not meet his needs in challenging curricula, then the conclusion would be that his environment has to change considerably. 1.1 Development In order to understand the development of gifted and talented children, information about regular development can be convenient. Development is a construct which can be viewed in four different (theoretic) ways according to Mönks and Mason (1993). The first is called the biologically oriented theory. The advocates state that development and evolution are synonyms. Development is growth and maturation of the organism (p. 90). The second is the milieu-oriented theory which concentrates on the influence that one s surroundings have on people s development. They state that development is an ongoing social learning process (p. 90). The third is the psychodynamic theory which agrees with the milieu-oriented theory as it comes to the influences of the environment on development. This theory however considers the socioaffective component of personality and its development [ ] fundamental (p. 91). The fourth and last is the interactionist theory. It is a synthesis of the different aspects mentioned in the first three theories, amounting to the main idea that development only takes place when the child interacts with his environment (p. 91). 1.2 Gifted Development The four theoretic views of development have influenced the way in which theories of giftedness are created. Mönks and Mason (2000) state that knowledge of developmental theories is necessary to understand what is behind a definition (p. 144). This thesis is Liesbet Gommans 5

7 mostly based on the interactionist theory, for this is the only theory which combines the aspects of the other theories. A child is born with certain capacities and these can be optimized when it is receptive to its environment, in other words, when it learns (see e.g. Heller, Perleth & Lim, 2005). There are different views about gifted development. Mönks and Mason (2000) support the interactionist theory by stating that Psychological development includes cognitive as well as social and personality aspects. Furthermore, it is a dynamic and life-long process; the interaction between the nature of the individual and the environment determines the motives that emerge and the kinds of behaviour patterns that will become manifest (p. 144). Feldman (2000, in Mönks & Mason, 2000), however, has a different view which cannot easily be classified in one of the four theories. He states that developmental activity can occur on a continuum from universal (in all children) to non-universal (manifested relatively more in gifted children) (p. 144). This dimension is based on the uniqueness of the domains of knowledge and experience across age, background, and culture (p. 144). Feldman claims that this view is more appropriate than other views to understand gifted development and therefore to conduct research in this field. 1.3 Giftedness An example of a definition of giftedness is: Giftedness is an individual potential for exceptional achievement in one or more domains (Mönks & Mason, 2000). Compact as it is it seems to say it all. This definition is most suitable for research purposes. Mönks and Mason (2000) do not elaborate the specific domains. The model of Heller The Munich Model of Giftedness (e.g. in Heller, Perleth & Lim, 2005) can be helpful at this stage. This model shows that a child is born with different kinds of abilities and that there are other personality characteristics and environmental conditions which contribute to the performance of the child (Heller et al., 2005). To phrase a definition about giftedness which would cover the entire field, is probably an impossible job. Researchers with different theoretic views define giftedness, or the characterizations highly able and talented, differently. Mönks and Mason (2000) state that devising a definition about giftedness is difficult since there are various contexts. Examples of contexts Mönks and Mason (2000) mention are process, key elements of giftedness, provisions for the gifted, or education of the gifted (p. 144). Liesbet Gommans 6

8 In paragraph 1.1 Mönks and Mason s (2000) four different theoretic views of development were quoted. This is engrafted onto the four clusters Hany (1987, in Mönks & Mason, 2000) suggested for the definitions of giftedness. He states the first cluster is innate or genetic-oriented definitions, whose adherents (for example Terman) state that intelligence [ ] is genetically determined and therefore stable over time (p. 144). The second cluster is cognitive models, whose supporters laid the focus on thought process memory and related skills (p. 145). Sternberg is one of the main authors of this model. He (e.g. Sternberg, 2005) considers the insight of children and their reaction to novelties in task performance as a main characteristic. Furthermore his idea of successful intelligence, and the subdivision in analytic, creative and practical aspects, contributes to the search for answers to the developmental processes underlying giftedness (Mönks & Mason, 2000). The third cluster is achievementoriented models in which personality traits like motivation and environmental appropriate conditions are thought to be very influential. Renzulli is one of the most influential authors of this cluster. In his Three Ring Conception of Giftedness (see e.g. Renzulli, 1998) he describes what makes giftedness. He mentions (1) above average ability, (2) task commitment, and (3) creativity as the core characteristics. The fourth and last cluster systemic models, asserts that not only social systems (as family or peers) have influence on the development of children, (and therefore also on gifted children) but also other systems like the economic situation, the political orientation, and the culturally dominant values and beliefs (p. 147). The compact definition from Mönks and Mason (2000) is useful for research, but it does not mention specifically the children s characteristics needed to be studied. That was a reason for the U.S. Department of Education (1993, in Reis & Small, 2001, pp. 4-5) to write the following definition: Children and youth with outstanding talent perform or show the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with others of their age, experience, or environment. These children and youth exhibit high performance capability in intellectual, creative, and/or artistic areas, possess an unusual leadership capacity, or excel in specific academic fields. They require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the schools. Outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor. This definition describes the ideal theory with respect to gifted children in a school situation. However, the awareness of the need to put this theory into practice will certainly be enhanced if the educators and teachers know what kind of characteristics gifted and talented children show or own, for it will help teachers to better understand and meet the educational needs Liesbet Gommans 7

9 from and for these children (Reis & Small, 2001). A problem which evolves from this point of view is that gifted and talented children are not a homogeneous group (Reis & Small, 2001); they are many, varied, and unique (p. 2). Researchers agree there is not a gifted child, who represents the many gifted children; they vary in strengths and talents just as much among each other as average children do (Schmitz & Galbraith, 1985, in Reis & Small, 2001). Nevertheless besides variations, gifted and talented children show equivalent characteristics (Reis & Small, 2001). These characteristics may however vary by gender, or socio-cultural group, or they may be manifested differently among gifted children with disabilities, with different linguistic backgrounds, or among previously high-achieving students who have begun to underachieve (Reis & Small, 2001, pp. 2-3). But still, teachers are better able to provide suitable opportunities for the special gifts and talents in the students they serve (Reis & Small, 2001, p. 3) when they know more about generally recognized characteristics of these children. Betts and Neihart (1988) divide these characteristics in six profiles. It is necessary to state in advance that the profiles are not intended to define a child, for young children s characteristics, behaviours and needs change frequently (Betts & Neihart, 1988). Type I: The Successful. These children have adopted the appropriate behaviours in the classroom and at home. They are good learners and achieve well on classroom- and intelligence tests. They rarely display behavioural problems, for they mostly seek approval from adults, such as teachers and parents. These children make it their goal to do as little as possible to receive the credits they seek (Betts & Neihart, 1988). Goertzel and Goertzel (in Betts & Neihart, 1988) concluded in 1962 that these children seem to lose their creativity and autonomy when they grow up. Type II: The Challenging. These children are the divergently gifted (Betts & Neihart, 1988, p. 249). They possess a great deal of creativity; they may seem to be obstinate, tactless, or sarcastic. These children question and challenge authority. They do not conform to the system like the successful do (Betts & Neihart, 1988). Interactions with these children often end in conflicts. Appropriate interventions are necessary to prevent these children from becoming drop-outs (Type IV) (Betts & Neihart, 1988). Type III: The Underground. These children hide their giftedness, mostly girls from middle schools. They want to fit in at school, they do not want to be different, and they want to fit in with non-gifted peers. They often feel insecure and anxious. These children benefit most if they are accepted as they are (Betts & Neihart, 1988). If boys hide their giftedness, it most often reveals itself in high school in response to the pressure to participate in athletics (Betts & Neihart, 1988, p. 249). Liesbet Gommans 8

10 Type IV: The Dropouts. Usually these high school students are angry with teachers and themselves, for school did not bring them what they were seeking for and they feel rejected (Betts & Neihart, 1988). Often their interests lie outside the school curricula. They do not receive support for their interests and talents. Some of these children were characterized as challenging in upper elementary school or junior high (Betts & Neihart, 1988). The dropouts need to work closely with an adult they can trust (p. 252). Individual guidance is necessary because they are bitter and resentful as a result of feeling rejected and neglected (p.252) Furthermore they have low self-esteem and they have often lost their confidence in adults (Betts & Neihart, 1988). Type V: The Double-Labeled. These children are gifted and are furthermore physically or emotionally handicapped, or have an additional learning disability. Most programs do not identify these children as being gifted. Differentiated curricula, tailored to their special needs, are not provided to these children either. These children do not want to fail and are unhappy if they do not live up to their own expectations. School systems tend to focus on their weaknesses and fail to nurture their strengths or talents (Betts & Neihart, 1988, p. 252). Type VI: The Autonomous Learner, these children look a lot like The Successful, they have effectively adapted to the school system. The difference is that these children seek new opportunities for themselves, to make the curriculum more challenging. They do not work for the system: they make the system work for them (Betts & Neihart, 1988, p. 252). These students act for themselves, they do not need others to propose changes for them. These six profiles (see Betts & Neihart, 1988, for a extensive report of the profiles) show the variety of gifted and talented children and students (Betts & Neihart, 1988). These profiles can help teachers in the perception of the various characteristics of giftedness. 1.4 Intelligence It is difficult to state what intelligence precisely implies. In this thesis, Sternberg s view on intelligence (2005; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004) is adopted. Sternberg is the main author of the cluster cognitive models (Hany, 1987, in Mönks & Mason, 2000). Furthermore his theory of successful intelligence can be perceived on the interface between three out of four clusters of giftedness (Hany, 1987, in Mönks & Mason, 2000): the cognitive models; the achievementoriented models, Sternberg focused on the eventual achievements of the gifted children, (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004; Sternberg, 2005); the systemic models, Sternberg does not Liesbet Gommans 9

11 exclude the environmental factors in the eventual successful intelligence (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004; Sternberg, 2005). Sternberg states that being intelligent is a virtue, but if someone doesn t know how to put it into action, he is not successfully intelligent. He (Sternberg, 1997a or 1999 in Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004) described this phenomenon as follows: successful intelligence is the use of an integrated set of abilities needed to attain success in life, however an individual defines it, within his or her sociocultural context. Thus, there is no definition of intelligence. People are successfully intelligent by virtue of recognizing their strengths and making the most of them at the same time they recognize their weaknesses and find ways to correct or compensate for them. Both are important. On one hand, students need to learn to correct aspects of their performance in which they are underperforming. On the other hand, they have to recognize that they probably will never be superb at all kinds of performance. [ ] people find their own unique path to being intelligent. Successfully intelligent people adapt to, shape, and select environments. In adaptation, they change themselves to fit the environment (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004, p. 274). Successful intelligence implies that intelligence grows through interaction between a child and its environment (Sternberg, 2005; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004). It is therefore linked with the developmental theory of interactionism. The ideas of giftedness and successful intelligence are comparable. The main ideas most teachers have of giftedness and gifted children, is that of successful intelligence. The problem is that many gifted children have difficulties in living up to this successful potential. The standard curricula in school are mostly not exciting, difficult and challenging enough to assure that these children can shift their boundaries. Betts and Neihart (1988) write about the successful: Gifted young adults who may underachieve in college and later adulthood come from this group. They do not possess the necessary skills, concepts, and attitudes necessary for life-long learning. They are well adjusted to society but are not well prepared for the ever-changing challenges of life (p. 249). These children do not learn how to learn, and that makes them vulnerable in later life. It is important for every child to reach his boundaries and to learn, which is not different for gifted children. 1.5 Underachievement and Underachievers The definition of the U.S. Department of Education (Reis & Small, 2001) specifically includes one gifted problem : underachievement. They write about children who perform well, but also describe the children who show the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment (p. 4). Many children are not recognized as being gifted Liesbet Gommans 10

12 because of this phenomenon. Neumeister and Hébert (2003) enumerate influences that contribute to the onset of underachievement: One category of these influences includes individual factors, such as personality (Gonzales & Hayes, 1988), achievement orientation (Laffoon, Jenkins-Friedman, & Tellefson, 1989), or lack of study skills (Baker, 1996). A second category, family factors, includes lack of role models (Hébert, 2001), lack of family structure (Rimm, 1995), parental characteristics (Rimm) and family dysfunction (Hébert, 2001); Rimm & Lowe, 1988). Another category, school factors, incorporates inappropriate curricula (Fehrenbach, 1993), school environment (Ford, 1996), and teacher expectations that are too high or too low (Clinkenbeard, 1991; Ford). Finally, social factors include an inappropriate peer group (Colangelo, 1997; Rimm, 1995), minimal involvement in extracurricular activities (Colangelo, Kerr, Christiansen, & Maxey, 1993), and time-intensive involvement in after-school employment (Dornbusch, Steinberg, & Fegley, 1993) (pp ). When children and adolescents are identified as underachiever, this is often not due to the influences that contribute to the onset of underachievement, but to the behavioural patterns a child or adolescent shows (Neumeister & Hébert, 2003). As behaviours the authors mention an incompetence to complete school duties and inattentiveness in class. To change this pattern, they state it is necessary to look beyond those behavioural patterns and examine the attitudes that are the basis of those behaviours. A reason for a child to display these problem behaviours can be a failure to spontaneously and appropriately engage in task-relevant cognitive and behavioural strategies (Meichenbaum, 1977, pp ). Peters (personal communication, 2005) calls it a healthy reaction to an unhealthy environment. Underachievers are likely to display these behaviours; they score at A-level for tests, but in non-test settings in the classroom they do not know how to cope with the interruptions and distractions which are present there. In short it can be said that this child does not know how to address its meta-cognitive strategies (Meichenbaum, 1977) (see paragraph 1.8). Characteristics of underachieving children can be shown in a similar way as the characteristics mentioned about giftedness in paragraph 1.3. Whitmore (1980 in Butler-Por, 1993) created a check-list in which approximately twenty characteristics of gifted underachievers became apparent. Her statement is that if a child exhibits ten or more of these characteristics, more evaluation is needed to identify a child as a gifted underachiever (Whitmore, 1980 in Butler-Por, 1993). Some of the characteristics Whitmore (1980, in Butler- Por, 1993) mentions are: daily work frequently poorly done and incomplete; large gap between oral and written work; superior understanding and retention of concepts when interested; excellent general knowledge; highly imaginative and creative; poor test performance, achieving at or below grade level expectations in one or all the basic Liesbet Gommans 11

13 skills; persistent dissatisfaction with work accomplished; avoiding trying new activities to prevent imperfect performance; evidences self criticism and perfectionism; shows initiative in pursuing self-selected assignments at home; has a wide range of interests and special expertise; low self-esteem and tendencies to withdraw or behave aggressively in the classroom; shows sensitivity in perceptions of others and life in general; ends to set unrealistic self-expectations; dislikes practice work, drill or memorization; easily distracted; unable to focus concentration and efforts on tasks; has poor attitudes towards school; resists teachers efforts to motivate or discipline behavior; has difficulty in peer relationships (p. 659). These characteristics may prove to be convenient in the identification of underachieving gifted children. 1.6 Available Programs for Gifted and Talented Children Gifted children may participate in programs especially designed for them. There are three sorts of these so-called gifted programs. Firstly they may participate in enrichment programs, secondly the school curriculum may be compacted for them, and thirdly they may accelerate. There are part-time and full-time gifted programs, each of which claim to provide instructions for gifted children to satisfy their needs and live up to their potential (Heller, Perleth, and Lim, 2005). Pull-out programs, such as educational enrichment, honours classes, after-school programs, specialized camps, and summer schools featuring special coursework are examples of part-time gifted programs. The enrichment program of Renzulli (1977), the Enrichment Triad Model, will be summarized here as an example of how an enrichment program can take place. Renzulli (1977) recommended two program objectives for guiding the education of gifted and talented students (p. 5). The first implies that it is important for children to spend the majority of time in the gifted program to check out their own interests as deeply and extensively as they desire; while the children may also pursue these interests with their own preferred styles of learning (p. 5). The second program objective is an objective for teachers of the gifted program. These teachers should provide each student with assistance in (1) identifying and structuring realistic solvable problems that are consistent with the student s interests, (2) and acquiring the necessary methodological resources and investigative skills that are necessary for solving these particular problems and (3) finding appropriate outlets for student products (p. 10). Renzulli (1977) furthermore divides the subject matter for programs for gifted and talented students in three different types of enrichment. Type I General Exploratory Activities Enrichment and Type II Group Training Activities Enrichment (p. 13) Liesbet Gommans 12

14 are supposed to be relevant for all learners. Renzulli (1977) however states the importance for gifted children to experience these two types of enrichment. Firstly because they learn strategies to expand their interests and they develop thinking and feeling processes. Secondly because these two types of enrichment represent logical input and support systems for Type III Enrichment [Individual and Small Group Investigations of Real Problems red.] which is considered to be the only type that is appropriate mainly for gifted students (p. 13). There are two different approaches of enrichment: breadth enrichment and depth enrichment. Renzulli s Type III Enrichment (1977) is an example of depth enrichment, which means that the children become experts in one particular topic. Breadth enrichment is an extension of the standard curriculum in the classroom, with for example a Spanish or Physics course. In summer courses, organised by European and American universities, breadth and depth enrichment are mostly combined. Enrichment programs can be combined with compacting the standard curriculum. Compacting means that the regular curriculum is modified by eliminating portions of previously mastered content (Renzulli & Reis, p. 7) and this results in extra time for the children to participate in enrichment programs. Acceleration is the third option mentioned above. This option has research support, but is still not readily used in gifted programs (Borland, 2005). Acceleration, though, may also be employed without gifted programs. In a school with a differentiated curriculum this is easily done. The children need not be tested, when they are ahead in, e.g. mathematics, they should be able to work on their level (Borland, 2005). When children are enrolled in a gifted program, it has been made sure that these children possess the core characteristics of a gifted child (Renzulli, 1998) which are: high intelligence, high creativity, and high motivation. Moreover most of these children possess the criterion characteristics of gifted children, such as: IQ of 130 or more, A-level test scores or a nomination by their teacher (Renzulli & Reis). It is obvious that some of the core and the criterion characteristics overlap. Next to the core and criterion characteristics, the additional characteristics such as achievement motivation, hope for success vs. fear of failure, control expectations, thirst for knowledge, ability to deal with stress, self-concept (Heller et al., 2005) need to be mentioned, because when a child has all these characteristics, with an emphasis on the additional ones, it should be able to profit from a gifted or talented program (Heller et al., 2005). Gifted children who show the core or criterion characteristics are most readily identified for participation in gifted programs. But what if these children do not show the Liesbet Gommans 13

15 additional characteristics? For instance the underachievers should be mentioned here, see the previous paragraph, for they do not live up to the expectations which the core or criterion characteristics lay upon them. One of the possible problems is, that the child never had any training in e.g. problem solving strategies, for it says I just know everything and I don t have to learn, for I know everything. They do not fit into the gifted program easily; they need to learn the basics, the additional characteristics, first. This basic training is now designed in a program which will be clarified in Chapter Dynamic Assessment Learning potential can be measured with different methods. Dynamic assessment (DA) is a frequently used method. The concept of the original idea of the assessment of the zone of the proximal development (ZPD) as an opposite to the actual level of development (ALD) (Vygostsky, 1978, in Brown & Ferrera, 1985) is currently better known as DA. DA is currently emerging because conventional intelligence tests can result in an underestimation of their [the children s red.] real intellectual potential (Hamers & Resing, 1993, p. 27). Vygotsky (in Keenan, 2002) was interested in the knowledge of a child s cognitive possibilities and not so much in what a child could do in one specific moment. The ALD is determined trough psychometric standardized tests. Vygotsky (1978 in Hamers & Resing, 1993) describes the ZPD as: the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (pp ) (p. 28). The theory of Vygotsky, and particularly the ZPD, is being taught in at least one Teachers' Training College (for Primary Education) in the Netherlands, for the ZPD is very useful for differentiation of the curriculum in the regular classroom (Van der Veen & Van der Wal, 1997). The ZPD is assessed through DA. The interaction between the child and an adult or capable peer is inextricably bound up with the establishment of the ZPD. The interaction between assessor and trainee about the strategies that can be used in solving a specific problem is central in this approach. In addition the assessor can help the trainee figure out problems which he cannot handle by himself (Vygotsky in Keenan, 2002). Vygotsky s theory of the ZPD emphasizes the necessity of social interaction between assessor and trainee. The width of the ZPD, and therefore the learning potential, is based on the amount of help the child needs from the adult or knowledgeable peer (Brown & Ferrera, 1985). Furthermore, Liesbet Gommans 14

16 The analysis of a child s activity in the ZPD could be extremely useful in producing a qualitative assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a child s mental activity and in identifying the types of assistance that are needed to move the child to more advanced levels of development (Minick, 1987, p. 136). DA is an interactive way of determining strengths and weaknesses of children (and from adolescents and adults) compared to the more psychometric, static, tests. A dynamic assessment session provides information regarding the amount and nature of improvement that took place and the assistance needed for the child to perform the task independently (Brown and Ferrera, 1985, in Kanevsky, 2005, p. 284). Furthermore, DA is a methodology and adds up, together with static assessment, to a multi-dimensional identification processes and educational planning (Kanevsky, 2005, p. 284). The best results of DA are visible in research with children, adolescents and adults, who are likely to experience academic problems (Campione & Brown, 1987, p. 82). Sternberg and Grigorenko (2002), however, describe two case studies in which they stress dynamic testing to reveal hidden potential in rural Tanzanian children. Because most standardized tests are not culture-free, the picture the standardized tests show may provide a dramatic underestimate of the potential level of these children (Campione & Brown, 1987). Sternberg and Grigorenko (2002) show that dynamic testing provides a possibility to establish the learning potential of these children. This can be equally so for gifted children. Gifted children mostly perform well on a standardized test, but what if they do not live up to their potential? On that point DA can be a possible means with which to establish their ZPD. Children have to develop their talents, and they can only do so when they are challenged to their utmost. Ordinary intelligent children meet their boundaries in the standard curriculum, but for gifted children it is necessary to seek for these limits (see paragraph 1.4; 1.8). 1.8 Metacognition and the Use of Games Metacognition refers to people s ability to know and control their own mental functioning (p. 422, Flavell, 1979; Martí, 1995; Simons, 1996 in Saldaña, 2004). Or in other words, metacognition is the cognition about cognition. Metacognition includes both knowledge about one s own cognitive abilities and limitations, and the capability to self-regulate thinking processes (Saldaña, 2004, p. 423). As was stated earlier, it is important for (gifted) children to know how they learn (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004), so they and their teachers can adjust assignments to their favourite, or more problematic, strategy. Liesbet Gommans 15

17 The problems children have with learning new strategies and in the transfer of the use of these strategies to different contexts are related to metacognition (Saldaña, 2004). One way in which cognitive processes can be assessed is through dynamic assessment. See paragraph 1.7. The use of different tasks in dynamic assessment is very common, an example is: Raven s Progressive Matrices (Budoff, 1987; Carlson and Wiedl, 2000; Fernández- Ballesteros and Calero, 2000; Feuerstein et al., 1979; Guthke and Beckmann, 2000b; all in Saldaña, 2004). The game Master Mind has been used in different studies for different fields, for example to determine the best possible solution strategies (Nelson, 1999 in Saldaña, 2004, p. 424), the processes which are involved in successfully solving the game, and as a sample of logic reasoning tasks (Best, 1990 in Saldaña, 2004, p. 425). It was used earlier as an assessment task to study the results of cooperative learning (Georgas, 1985 in Saldaña, 2004, p. 425). Saldaña used the game in a successful attempt to study the usefulness of this game in the assessment of metacognition. A problem in using games is whether or not and/or to what extent there is assistance. Since it is being used dynamically, assistance should be centred on the processes involved in the game and therefore on metacognition. In particular, assistance focussed on planning, supervision and revision of aims and strategies and metacognition of persons, task and strategies (Saldaña, 2004, pp ). Next to the dynamic scores, non-dynamic scores, such as the number of moves to solutions or number of errors in management of information (Saldaña, 2004, p. 432) are useful in the determination of differences between two comparable subgroups. Differences in the number of information-use mistakes in university students of high and low processing ability were found (Hussy, 1991 in Saldaña, 2004) and the same applied for children with and without learning disabilities (Fritz and Funke, 1990 in Saldaña, 2004). There is a clear relationship between cognitive development and performance on Master Mind (Saldaña, 2004). Games are also used in the Working Forward Lab, a specific enrichment program at the Centre for the Study of Giftedness (CBO) Nijmegen. Schrover (personal communication, 2006) says that intelligent children have an innate desire to protect themselves against disappointments. All the more so because they are usually not accustomed to having any difficulties with their schoolwork. Schrover uses games in the enrichment program to take this anxiety away, because most children like games and find them challenging and not defiant. Games make it possible to push children towards and across their boundaries in a fun way. Liesbet Gommans 16

18 1.9 Protocols, Standardized or Manual Treatments One way to define a protocol is a gradually specified treatment on which a therapist founds a therapy for a specific problem. Mostly it is written for diagnostic means or treatments of specific disorders (Keijsers, Van Minnen, & Hoogduin, 2004). Standardized treatment is an upcoming treatment style in the field of ambulatory clinical psychology and in youth care. In clinical psychology it is used for problems or disorders such as alcoholism and depression (Keijsers et al. 2004). In youth care standardized treatments are used for children who have suffered from e.g. sexual abuse or have problems or disorders such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Prins & Pameijer, 2000). Working with the assistance of standardized treatments and guidelines is a logical consequence, seeing the recent developments in research (Prins & Pameijer, 2000). In the Netherlands social workers, psychologists, and other concerned caretakers have to work closely together, and for that reason it is helpful if the different people use the same diagnostic, indicative, or treatment style (Prins & Pameijer, 2000; Keijsers, Van Minnen, & Hoogduin, 1999). Constructive communication is only possible if people act in the same frame of reference. It is also important to guard the quality of the treatments, and that is facilitated by the use of protocols (Prins & Pameijer, 2000). However, apart from advocates standardized treatments also have opponents. Rispens, (2000 in Prins & Pameijer, 2000) states that standardized treatments obstruct the working relationship between child and therapist and they undermine the creativity of the therapist. He states that protocols should not be used rigidly. Other opponents state that the individual needs of the clients are lost in protocols. They state that clients have more complex problems than the design of the protocol may define (Prins & Pameijer, 2000). According to Prins & Pameijer (2000), protocols are meant to be based on general, standardized guidelines which may be applied to a group of children with the same problem or disorder, but they will be specified in an individual manner for example with respect to developmental specific characteristics (see Kendall, Chu, Gifford, & Nauta, 1998, in Prins & Pameijer, 2000). Keijsers et al. (2004) have categorized the criticism and comments on the standardized treatment protocols and the authors have refuted them all. The first remark is about the therapist having his hands tied, for the protocol forces them into a step by step pattern. The second comment is that too little advantage is taken from the individual therapists expertise. The third remark states that the patient-therapist relationship can change awkwardly on behalf of a protocol. The fourth comment is the generalisabilty of the protocols to all patients with Liesbet Gommans 17

19 the same disorder. The patients in real-live practices are more heterogenic, more complex, and suffer more from their disorder than the patients who have participated in the researches. The fifth comment is about the context of the treatments; in academic practices there is more knowledge available about the protocols than in regular practices. The academic practices are often coordinated by experts in a specific disorder. The sixth remark states that there exists resistance of the field against the use of protocols. The field in its entirety would not be ready for standardized treatments which are scientifically founded, for it is a whole new view on therapies. Keijsers et al. (2004) suggest three important points which will contribute to a successful implementation of a protocol. The first point, education and training of the therapists is very important. Second, flexibility, the ability to make choices, and the integrity of the therapist are most useful for the realization of the treatment. Third and last it is important that the protocol is user-friendly. It is important that the authors of a protocol are a team of developers and users. Summarized, it is important that standardized treatments or protocols should inspire therapists to a flexible and creative approach (Keijsers et al., 2004) Critical thinking Critical thinking is important in helping children become people who are unbiased, have intellectually sound standards for belief, for truth, for validity. They need to cultivate habits and traits which integrate these standards into their lives (Paul, 1990, p. 1). Learning can be divided into higher and lower order learning. Higher order learning multiplies comprehension and insight; lower order rote memorization multiples misunderstanding and prejudice. Higher order learning stimulates and empowers, lower order discourages and limits the learner (Paul, 1990 p. 2). Paul (1990) furthermore states that most instructions used in schools, mostly unintentionally, lean on lower order learning, where they should, at least partly, use higher order learning. Therefore the better students have properly developed the techniques to memorize and perform on the level school expects from them and the opposite applies to the poorer students (Paul, 1990). But few students understand what it means to think through the content of a subject analytically, few use critical thinking as a tool for acquiring knowledge (Paul, 1990, p. 2). D Angelo (1971) describes critical thinking as a process of evaluating statements, arguments, and experiences (p. 7). He also mentions that to make this description Liesbet Gommans 18

20 operational, all the attitudes and skills should be mentioned in the evaluating process. The attitudes D Angelo mentions are: intellectual curiosity, objectivity, open-mindedness, flexibility, intellectual scepticism, intellectual honesty, being systematic, persistence, decisiveness, and respect for other viewpoints (pp. 7-8). D Angelo prefers an important role for the teacher in creating an atmosphere to foster the critical attitudes in the children. Especially group discussions about all sorts of topics play a huge role in attaining these attitudes. The teacher is supposed to utilize these attitudes, for he can easily be a model for the children Remedial teaching People with (severe) learning problems are entitled to an adapted and more adequate school curriculum (Ruijssenaars, 2001). An advice like you have to focus better to a child with dyslexia or try harder to a child with mathematical problems, will not make these children better readers or arithmeticians. It is therefore important that there will be a considerable improvement in the professional s approach (Ruijssenaars, 2001). Remedial teachers work individually or in small groups with children with learning problems. Which way is used depends on the problems of the child(ren) and the personalities of these children. Therefore the work of a remedial teacher requires considerable creativity (Ruijssenaars, 2001). When a child performs inadequately at school, it is mostly not necessary to immediately consult a psychologist or pedagogue (Ruijssenaars, 2001). Remedial teachers are capable of the remediation of problems, but when the problem appears to be persistent even with remediation or when the behaviour of the child does not improve, a psychologist or pedagogue could perform a psychological examination in order to try to reveal the cause(s) of the problem(s), which might help the remedial teacher to find a better, and more suitable approach (Ruijssenaars, 2001). Most remediation programs have empirical support and work according to a certain protocol, whereas other problems need more creativity and other personal skills from remedial teachers (Ruijssenaars, 2001). Remedial teachers deal mostly, as is stated, with children with learning problems, but the gifted children in schools are their responsibility too. When schools are aware of the problems which giftedness can give, an enrichment class is a frequently used option. These classes challenge the children, and that is sometimes enough to trigger them to work better in the classroom. There is no manual for remediation of the problems which can occur in Liesbet Gommans 19

21 children who are gifted. Some specific problems which occur in gifted children are put together in the program which will be discussed in Chapter 2. This could be an addition to the remedial programs which already exist. It has not yet been empirical supported, but a beginning has been made in this study. Timmerman (2002) wrote a manual for (remedial) teachers to guide children with concentration problems, on the basis of the Self Instructional Training of Meichenbaum (1977). This manual is commonly used in the Netherlands with e.g. children with ADHD (Timmerman, 2002). In practice with gifted children who show a low concentration, it is striking that this training does not work for them. These children found this method overall to slow (Klinical Practica Reports, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005). However, the basis of this program which Timmerman (2002) suggests should also be useful for gifted children Hypotheses The program has been designed for gifted children of primary schools in the Netherlands who underachieve, and show for example the following behaviours: easily distracted; unable to focus concentration and efforts on tasks; has poor attitudes towards school; resists teachers efforts to motivate or discipline behavior; has difficulty in peer relationships (Whitmore, 1980 in Butler-Por, 1993, p.659). The program can be implemented in remedial teaching settings. The main question in this thesis is whether and in what way Dutch primary school teachers think the program is useful in Remedial Teaching settings, and what sort of contentoriented and organisational improvements can be made through the feedback from the teachers. A side question is whether the gifted children, with whom the participants worked, show progress in scores on verbal and spatial measurement during the sessions. It is to be expected that the standard scores of the verbal measurement Production of Ideas increase over the three measurements. Furthermore it is to be expected that the correct answers of the spatial measurement Set will increase over the three measurements, and that the mean time and the standard deviation of time of Set will decrease over the three measurements. Both measurements are based on dynamic assessment (see paragraph 1.7). Liesbet Gommans 20