GATE Students
From Wikipedia
Gifted education (also known as gifted and talented education (GATE), talented and gifted programs (TAG), or G/T education) is a broad group of special practices, procedures, and theories used in the education of children who have been identified as gifted or talented.
The main approaches to gifted education are enrichment and acceleration. An enrichment program teaches additional, related material, but keeps the student progressing through the curriculum at the same rate as other students. For example, after the gifted students have completed the normal work in the curriculum, an enrichment program might provide them with additional information about a subject. An acceleration program advances the student through the standard curriculum faster than normal. This is done through many different approaches.
There is no standard global definition of what a gifted student is; multiple definitions exist. Most definitions select the students who are the most skilled or talented in a given area, e.g., the students with the most skill or talent in music, language, logical reasoning, or mathematics. The percentage of students selected varies, generally with 10% or fewer being selected for gifted education programs. However, since students vary in their aptitudes and achievements, a student who is not gifted in one area, such as music, may be considered gifted in another, such as language. Consequently, even if all programs agreed to include only the top 5% of students in their area, more than just 5% of students would be identified as gifted.
Gifted behaviour occurs
in certain people,
at certain times,
under certain circumstances.
~Joe Renzulli
in certain people,
at certain times,
under certain circumstances.
~Joe Renzulli
Video above...
Joseph S. Renzulli is a leader and pioneer in gifted education and applying the pedagogy of gifted education teaching strategies to all students. The American Psychological Association named him among the 25 most influential psychologists in the world. He received the Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Award for Innovation in Education, considered by many to be “the Nobel” for educators, and was a consultant to the White House Task Force on Education of the Gifted and Talented. His work on the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness, the Enrichment Triad Model and curriculum compacting and differentiation were pioneering efforts in the 1970s, and he has contributed hundreds of books, book chapters, articles, and monographs to the professional literature, many of which have been translated to other languages. Dr. has received more than $50 million in research grants and several million dollars of additional funding for professional development and service projects. Dr. Renzulli established UConn’s annual Confratute Program with fellow Educational Psychology Professor Sally Reis. This summer institute on enrichment-based differentiated teaching has served more than 35,000 teachers from around the world since 1978. Dr. Renzulli also established the UConn Mentor Connection, a summer program that enables high-potential high school students to work side by side with leading scientists, historians, and artists and other leading edge university researchers. He is also the founder along with Dr. Reis of the Joseph S. Renzulli Gifted and Talented Academy in Hartford, Connecticut which has become a model for local and national urban school reform for high potential/low income students. His most recent work is an online personalized learning program that provides profiles of each student’s academic strengths, interests, learning styles, and preferred modes of expression. This unique program also has a search engine that matches multiply coded resources with student profiles. Teachers also use the program to select and infuse high engagement enrichment activities into any and all standardized curriculum topics.Joseph Renzulli, PhD., and Sally Reis, PhD., talk about why they wrote LIGHT UP YOUR CHILD'S MIND, the major themes of the book, and some advice for parents on raising motivated kids.
Joseph S. Renzulli is a leader and pioneer in gifted education and applying the pedagogy of gifted education teaching strategies to all students. The American Psychological Association named him among the 25 most influential psychologists in the world. He received the Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Award for Innovation in Education, considered by many to be “the Nobel” for educators, and was a consultant to the White House Task Force on Education of the Gifted and Talented. His work on the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness, the Enrichment Triad Model and curriculum compacting and differentiation were pioneering efforts in the 1970s, and he has contributed hundreds of books, book chapters, articles, and monographs to the professional literature, many of which have been translated to other languages. Dr. has received more than $50 million in research grants and several million dollars of additional funding for professional development and service projects. Dr. Renzulli established UConn’s annual Confratute Program with fellow Educational Psychology Professor Sally Reis. This summer institute on enrichment-based differentiated teaching has served more than 35,000 teachers from around the world since 1978. Dr. Renzulli also established the UConn Mentor Connection, a summer program that enables high-potential high school students to work side by side with leading scientists, historians, and artists and other leading edge university researchers. He is also the founder along with Dr. Reis of the Joseph S. Renzulli Gifted and Talented Academy in Hartford, Connecticut which has become a model for local and national urban school reform for high potential/low income students. His most recent work is an online personalized learning program that provides profiles of each student’s academic strengths, interests, learning styles, and preferred modes of expression. This unique program also has a search engine that matches multiply coded resources with student profiles. Teachers also use the program to select and infuse high engagement enrichment activities into any and all standardized curriculum topics.Joseph Renzulli, PhD., and Sally Reis, PhD., talk about why they wrote LIGHT UP YOUR CHILD'S MIND, the major themes of the book, and some advice for parents on raising motivated kids.
Identifying gifted children
The term "Gifted Assessment" is typically applied to a process of using norm-referenced psychometric tests administered by a qualified psychologist or psychometrist with the goal of identifying children whose intellectual functioning is significantly advanced as compared to the appropriate reference group (i.e., individuals of their age, gender, and country). The cut-off score for differentiating this group is usually determined by district school boards and can differ slightly from area to area, however, the majority defines this group as students scoring in the top 2 percentiles on one of the accepted tests of intellectual (cognitive) functioning or IQ. Some school boards also require a child to demonstrate advanced academic standing on individualized achievement tests and/ or through their classroom performance.
Identifying gifted children is often difficult but is very important because typical school teachers are not qualified to educate a gifted student. This can lead to a situation where a gifted child is bored, underachieves and misbehaves in class.
Individual IQ testing is usually the optimal method to identify giftedness among children. However it does not distinguish well among those found to be gifted. Therefore, examiners prefer using a variety of tests to first identify giftedness and then further differentiate. This is often done by using individual IQ tests and then group or individual achievement tests. There is no standard consensus on which tests to use, as each test is better suited for a certain role.
The two most popular tests for identifying giftedness in the school-age population are the WISC IV and the SB5. The WIAT III is considered the most popular academic achievement test to determine a child's aggregate learned knowledge.
Although a newer WISC version, the WISC V, was developed in late 2014, the WISC IV is still the most commonplace test. It has been translated into several languages including Spanish, Portuguese, Norwegian, Swedish, French, German, Dutch, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and Italian. The WISC-IV assesses a child's cognitive abilities, with respect to age group. Coupled with results from other tests, the WISC accurately depicts a child's developmental and psychological needs for the future.
The SB5 is an intelligence test that determines cognitive abilities and can be administered to persons in virtually any age group. It assesses a series of intelligence indicators including fluid reasoning, general knowledge, quantitative reasoning, spatial processing, and working memory. The SB5 makes use of both verbal and nonverbal testing.
The WIAT-III cannot assess all components of learned knowledge, but does give an understanding of a child's ability to acquire skills and knowledge through formal education. This test measures aspects of the learning process that take place in a traditional school setting in reading, writing, math, and oral language. Although the WIAT-III tests a wide range of material, it is designed primarily to assess children's learning before adolescence.
Versions of these tests exist for each age group. However it is recommended to begin assessment as early as possible, with approximately eight years of age being the optimal time to test. Testing allows identification of specific needs of students and help to plan an education early.
Out-of-group achievement testing (such as taking the SAT or ACT early) can also help to identify these students early on (see SMPY) and is implemented by various talent search programs in use by education programs. Out-of-group testing can also help to differentiate children who have scored in the highest percentiles in a single IQ test.
Testing alone cannot accurately identify every gifted child. Teacher and parent nominations are essential additions to the objective information provided by grades and scores. Parents are encouraged to keep portfolios of their children's work, and documentation of their early signs of gifted behavior.
The Cyprus Experiment
Map of CyprusWhat happens when you take a bunch of high IQ individuals, send them on an island and let them organize themselves? Will they become a superpower, solve the world’s problems? Seems like an Utopia isn’t it? In one of my previous posts I was writing about how high IQ individuals tend to think over the long term, have higher incomes, to be more cooperative and to be better informed citizens.
Well, this thought experiment was carried out by Aldous Huxleyin his book Brave New World: the Cyprus Experiment. Let’s see how Aldous Huxley imagined such an experiment would go.
“Well, you can call it an experiment in rebottling if you like. It began in A.F. 473. The Controllers had the island of Cyprus cleared of all its existing inhabitants and re-colonized with a specially prepared batch of twenty-two thousand Alphas. All agricultural and industrial equipment was handed over to them and they were left to manage their own affairs. The result exactly fulfilled all the theoretical predictions. The land wasn’t properly worked; there were strikes in all the factories; the laws were set at naught, orders disobeyed; all the people detailed for a spell of low-grade work were perpetually intriguing for high-grade jobs, and all the people with high-grade jobs were counter-intriguing at all costs to stay where they were. Within six years they were having a first-class civil war. When nineteen out of the twenty-two thousand had been killed, the survivors unanimously petitioned the World Controllers to resume the government of the island. Which they did. And that was the end of the only society of Alphas that the world has ever seen.”
Note: in the book the Alphas were the high IQ social caste of the society and they usually had positions of leadership, they made the decisions and exercised control over the other classes. The population growth was controlled and “modeled on the iceberg-eight-ninths below the water line, one-ninth above.” The Alphas were males and females and the term alpha isn’t exactly the same as the one used to describe a group with a hierarchical structure in which the alpha male – the stronger, more dominant and aggressive male – is at the top of it.
This is quite an interesting thought experiment. Would it work in real life?
Even though higher-IQ people can better understand the minds of others and tend to cooperate they might end up squabbling: “If an entire group of individuals with higher IQs are together for a reasonably long period of time, we should expect them to find more win-win outcomes, growing a bigger pie that they can squabble over later.”
Resentment – because some will get the short end of the stick and end up doing menial and trivial tasks – big egos, low agreeableness, and the Peter Principle can lead to conflict situations. The Peter Principle is a concept in management that states that the selection for a candidate is based on the success in his current role rather than the intended role, candidates are promoted until they reach a level of incompetence.
Peters Principle. Source: Nevit Dilmen, CC0.Possible solution: initial rotation system which should determine if the candidate is fit for the role and also likes his new job – this should improve the level of work satisfaction. Some people might discover that they love working with the land, with animals, to work in factories, to work outdoors, to work with people instead of working with machines, to work with machines instead of working with people. Some people might actively want to change their demanding, stressful jobs with something less stressful and demanding. Some people might want a professional reconversion and to learn new skills – high IQ people usually need to be intellectually stimulated and learning new skills is a great way to do that. Menial and repetitive tasks will almost certainly be replaced with automated processes.
Another possible solution: better control over the initial parameters and variables in the experiment. Instead of letting the folks battle over jobs and job titles, let them be established beforehand. After all, intelligent people can be found in all walks of life. Take Christopher Langan (195 I.Q. Score?)for example. He is considered one of the smartest men in the world yet he has a humble CV: he took labour-intensive jobs, worked as a construction worker, cowboy, Forest Service Ranger, farmhand and bouncer. He is now living quietly happy on his ranch in Missouri. I’m sure that he is not the only intelligent individual content with his lower socio-economic status, not all people want to be in high paying stressful, leadership positions.
I don’t think that the experiment would work if you have a bunch of high IQ, dominant, ambitious, Machiavellian, disagreeable, conditioned and brainwashed to believe that they are the top dogs and rightful rulers; you take them, put them on an island and hope for the best. Huxley wasn’t aware of DNA or genetic editing with CRISPR-Cas9 at his time, his characters were made after an industrial, chemical process but I think that his thought experiment has a lot of substance and reveals the potential perils of having a race of Übermensch with the traits that I mentioned earlier.
“Because we have no wish to have our throats cut,” he answered. “We believe in happiness and stability. A society of Alphas couldn’t fail to be unstable and miserable. Imagine a factory staffed by Alphas-that is to say by separate and unrelated individuals of good heredity and conditioned so as to be capable (within limits) of making a free choice and assuming responsibilities. Imagine it!” he repeated.
I don’t know of any Cyprus Experiments carried in real life and until such an experiment is carried out we can only speculate. My opinion is that a high IQ society would have better chances of survival and success than Huxley thought it would. In order for that success to happen the condition would be to have some variance in the personalities of the candidates, variance in their Big Five Personality Traits: extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. Natural genetic variance does a great job in this regard.
Map of CyprusWhat happens when you take a bunch of high IQ individuals, send them on an island and let them organize themselves? Will they become a superpower, solve the world’s problems? Seems like an Utopia isn’t it? In one of my previous posts I was writing about how high IQ individuals tend to think over the long term, have higher incomes, to be more cooperative and to be better informed citizens.
Well, this thought experiment was carried out by Aldous Huxleyin his book Brave New World: the Cyprus Experiment. Let’s see how Aldous Huxley imagined such an experiment would go.
“Well, you can call it an experiment in rebottling if you like. It began in A.F. 473. The Controllers had the island of Cyprus cleared of all its existing inhabitants and re-colonized with a specially prepared batch of twenty-two thousand Alphas. All agricultural and industrial equipment was handed over to them and they were left to manage their own affairs. The result exactly fulfilled all the theoretical predictions. The land wasn’t properly worked; there were strikes in all the factories; the laws were set at naught, orders disobeyed; all the people detailed for a spell of low-grade work were perpetually intriguing for high-grade jobs, and all the people with high-grade jobs were counter-intriguing at all costs to stay where they were. Within six years they were having a first-class civil war. When nineteen out of the twenty-two thousand had been killed, the survivors unanimously petitioned the World Controllers to resume the government of the island. Which they did. And that was the end of the only society of Alphas that the world has ever seen.”
Note: in the book the Alphas were the high IQ social caste of the society and they usually had positions of leadership, they made the decisions and exercised control over the other classes. The population growth was controlled and “modeled on the iceberg-eight-ninths below the water line, one-ninth above.” The Alphas were males and females and the term alpha isn’t exactly the same as the one used to describe a group with a hierarchical structure in which the alpha male – the stronger, more dominant and aggressive male – is at the top of it.
This is quite an interesting thought experiment. Would it work in real life?
Even though higher-IQ people can better understand the minds of others and tend to cooperate they might end up squabbling: “If an entire group of individuals with higher IQs are together for a reasonably long period of time, we should expect them to find more win-win outcomes, growing a bigger pie that they can squabble over later.”
Resentment – because some will get the short end of the stick and end up doing menial and trivial tasks – big egos, low agreeableness, and the Peter Principle can lead to conflict situations. The Peter Principle is a concept in management that states that the selection for a candidate is based on the success in his current role rather than the intended role, candidates are promoted until they reach a level of incompetence.
Peters Principle. Source: Nevit Dilmen, CC0.Possible solution: initial rotation system which should determine if the candidate is fit for the role and also likes his new job – this should improve the level of work satisfaction. Some people might discover that they love working with the land, with animals, to work in factories, to work outdoors, to work with people instead of working with machines, to work with machines instead of working with people. Some people might actively want to change their demanding, stressful jobs with something less stressful and demanding. Some people might want a professional reconversion and to learn new skills – high IQ people usually need to be intellectually stimulated and learning new skills is a great way to do that. Menial and repetitive tasks will almost certainly be replaced with automated processes.
Another possible solution: better control over the initial parameters and variables in the experiment. Instead of letting the folks battle over jobs and job titles, let them be established beforehand. After all, intelligent people can be found in all walks of life. Take Christopher Langan (195 I.Q. Score?)for example. He is considered one of the smartest men in the world yet he has a humble CV: he took labour-intensive jobs, worked as a construction worker, cowboy, Forest Service Ranger, farmhand and bouncer. He is now living quietly happy on his ranch in Missouri. I’m sure that he is not the only intelligent individual content with his lower socio-economic status, not all people want to be in high paying stressful, leadership positions.
I don’t think that the experiment would work if you have a bunch of high IQ, dominant, ambitious, Machiavellian, disagreeable, conditioned and brainwashed to believe that they are the top dogs and rightful rulers; you take them, put them on an island and hope for the best. Huxley wasn’t aware of DNA or genetic editing with CRISPR-Cas9 at his time, his characters were made after an industrial, chemical process but I think that his thought experiment has a lot of substance and reveals the potential perils of having a race of Übermensch with the traits that I mentioned earlier.
“Because we have no wish to have our throats cut,” he answered. “We believe in happiness and stability. A society of Alphas couldn’t fail to be unstable and miserable. Imagine a factory staffed by Alphas-that is to say by separate and unrelated individuals of good heredity and conditioned so as to be capable (within limits) of making a free choice and assuming responsibilities. Imagine it!” he repeated.
I don’t know of any Cyprus Experiments carried in real life and until such an experiment is carried out we can only speculate. My opinion is that a high IQ society would have better chances of survival and success than Huxley thought it would. In order for that success to happen the condition would be to have some variance in the personalities of the candidates, variance in their Big Five Personality Traits: extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. Natural genetic variance does a great job in this regard.
NAGC-CEC Teacher Preparation Standards in Gifted Education
The 2013 teacher preparation standards delineate important emphases within a program of study in gifted and talented education for pre-service or in-service educators seeking their initial preparation in this field. Each set of underlying emphases is described by knowledge and skills essentials to the work of personnel preparation and provides additional text elaborating on the intent and scope of the standard.
Standard 1 begins with a gifted professional’s understanding of individual learning differences focusing on how language, culture, economic status, family background, and/or disability impacts
the learning of individuals with gifts and talents. Based on these understandings gifted education professionals respond to learners’ individual needs.
Standard 2 emphasizes the nature of multiple learning environments for gifted learners. This includes creating safe, inclusive, and culturally responsive environments for all learners. These environments provide the framework for a continuum of services that respond to individual’s gifts, talents, motivations, cultural, and linguistic differences.
Standards 3, 4, and 5 focus on gifted education professionals’ knowledge and implementation of the learning process. Standard 3 emphasizes educators’ knowledge and use of core and specialized curricula to advance learning for individuals with gifts and talents. Standard 4 concentrates on assessment, both for identifying individuals with gifts and talents and also the types of assessment used to differentiate and accelerate instruction. Standard 5 focuses on the selection, adaption, and planned use of a variety of evidence-based instructional strategies to advance learning of gifted and talented individuals.
Standard 6 emphasizes the use of foundational knowledge of the field and professional ethical principles as well as national Pre-K-Grade 12 gifted education programming standards to inform gifted education practice to engage in lifelong learning, and to advance the profession.
Standard 7 focuses on gifted education professionals’ collaboration with families, other educators, related-service providers, individuals with gifts and talents, and personnel from community agencies in culturally responsive ways to address the needs of individuals with gifts and talents across a range of learning experiences.
The 2013 teacher preparation standards delineate important emphases within a program of study in gifted and talented education for pre-service or in-service educators seeking their initial preparation in this field. Each set of underlying emphases is described by knowledge and skills essentials to the work of personnel preparation and provides additional text elaborating on the intent and scope of the standard.
Standard 1 begins with a gifted professional’s understanding of individual learning differences focusing on how language, culture, economic status, family background, and/or disability impacts
the learning of individuals with gifts and talents. Based on these understandings gifted education professionals respond to learners’ individual needs.
Standard 2 emphasizes the nature of multiple learning environments for gifted learners. This includes creating safe, inclusive, and culturally responsive environments for all learners. These environments provide the framework for a continuum of services that respond to individual’s gifts, talents, motivations, cultural, and linguistic differences.
Standards 3, 4, and 5 focus on gifted education professionals’ knowledge and implementation of the learning process. Standard 3 emphasizes educators’ knowledge and use of core and specialized curricula to advance learning for individuals with gifts and talents. Standard 4 concentrates on assessment, both for identifying individuals with gifts and talents and also the types of assessment used to differentiate and accelerate instruction. Standard 5 focuses on the selection, adaption, and planned use of a variety of evidence-based instructional strategies to advance learning of gifted and talented individuals.
Standard 6 emphasizes the use of foundational knowledge of the field and professional ethical principles as well as national Pre-K-Grade 12 gifted education programming standards to inform gifted education practice to engage in lifelong learning, and to advance the profession.
Standard 7 focuses on gifted education professionals’ collaboration with families, other educators, related-service providers, individuals with gifts and talents, and personnel from community agencies in culturally responsive ways to address the needs of individuals with gifts and talents across a range of learning experiences.
Cognitive:
Keen power of abstraction
Interest in problem-solving and applying concepts
Voracious and early reader
Large vocabulary
Intellectual curiosity
Power of critical thinking, skepticism, self-criticism
Persistent, goal-directed behavior
Independence in work and study
Diversity of interests and abilities
Creative:
Creativeness and inventiveness
Keen sense of humor
Ability for fantasy
Openness to stimuli, wide interests
Intuitiveness
Flexibility
Independence in attitude and social behavior
Self-acceptance and unconcern for social norms
Radicalism
Aesthetic and moral commitment to self-selected work
Affective:
Unusual emotional depth and intensity
Sensitivity or empathy to the feelings of others
High expectations of self and others, often leading to feelings of frustration
Heightened self-awareness, accompanied by feelings of being different
Easily wounded, need for emotional support
Need for consistency between abstract values and personal actions
Advanced levels of moral judgment
Idealism and sense of justice
Behavioral
Spontaneity
Boundless enthusiasm
Intensely focused on passions—resists changing activities when engrossed in own interests
Highly energetic—needs little sleep or down time
Constantly questions
Insatiable curiosity
Impulsive, eager and spirited
Perseverance—strong determination in areas of importance
High levels of frustration—particularly when having difficulty meeting standards of performance (either imposed by self or others)
Volatile temper, especially related to perceptions of failure
Non-stop talking/chattering
Keen power of abstraction
Interest in problem-solving and applying concepts
Voracious and early reader
Large vocabulary
Intellectual curiosity
Power of critical thinking, skepticism, self-criticism
Persistent, goal-directed behavior
Independence in work and study
Diversity of interests and abilities
Creative:
Creativeness and inventiveness
Keen sense of humor
Ability for fantasy
Openness to stimuli, wide interests
Intuitiveness
Flexibility
Independence in attitude and social behavior
Self-acceptance and unconcern for social norms
Radicalism
Aesthetic and moral commitment to self-selected work
Affective:
Unusual emotional depth and intensity
Sensitivity or empathy to the feelings of others
High expectations of self and others, often leading to feelings of frustration
Heightened self-awareness, accompanied by feelings of being different
Easily wounded, need for emotional support
Need for consistency between abstract values and personal actions
Advanced levels of moral judgment
Idealism and sense of justice
Behavioral
Spontaneity
Boundless enthusiasm
Intensely focused on passions—resists changing activities when engrossed in own interests
Highly energetic—needs little sleep or down time
Constantly questions
Insatiable curiosity
Impulsive, eager and spirited
Perseverance—strong determination in areas of importance
High levels of frustration—particularly when having difficulty meeting standards of performance (either imposed by self or others)
Volatile temper, especially related to perceptions of failure
Non-stop talking/chattering
Above At Exeter, Harkness is not just a way of learning... It’s a way of life. It begins in the classroom and extends beyond it, to field, stage and dormitory. It’s about collaboration and respect, where every voice carries equal weight, even when you don’t agree.
The Harkness table, Harkness method, or Harkness discussion is a teaching and learning method involving students seated in a large, oval configuration to discuss ideas in an encouraging, open-minded environment with only occasional or minimal teacher intervention.
What I have in mind is [a classroom] where [students] could sit around a table with a teacher who would talk with them and instruct them by a sort of tutorial or conference method, where [each student] would feel encouraged to speak up. This would be a real revolution in methods.[2]Harkness learning can vary, most notably between humanities subjects such as English and history and technical subjects such as math or physics.[3] There are general principles and goals, however, that go along with that method regardless of subject matter. The main goal is to encourage students to come up with ideas of their own and learn good reasoning and discussion skills. Depending on style, the teacher may interact very little, interjecting only to guide the discussion.[4]
Whole Group Discussion Method[edit]The Whole Group Discussion Technique follows the Harkness Method. It involves interaction throughout the class instead of the teacher simply delivering a lecture with students listening. Many teachers today prefer this approach because of heightened communication between the mentor and students.[5] There are advantages and disadvantages in using this method. Auditory learners find this style more interesting. They are able to keep information completely since sounds reinforce the information. This process includes use of musical notes, memorization of lists, voice recordings, and chants for memorizing history terms.[6] Teachers are able to check what students retain through questioning. Students can concentrate on their lessons and feel more at ease in asking questions during discussions.
However, the Whole Group Discussion approach calls for effective classroom management by teachers. Otherwise, it may be too disturbing for them to implement ground rules for students.[7] There are also downsides for students who are not good in taking notes. They must first learn the strategies in proper note-taking in the classroom.[8] There are strategies in effective implementation of Whole Group Discussions. The Think-Pair-Share is commonly used for lower elementary pupils to persuade the children in acquiring listening and speaking skills.[9] Philosophical Chairs is another strategy wherein teachers read sentences or topics with only two likely responses. It is either agree or disagree. Each group of students defends the position it adopted.[10] Fishbowl is one of the most popular classroom discussion techniques. A group of two up to four students sit facing one another at the center of the classroom. The other students sit around their peers. Those at the middle discuss the selected subject matter or question while the others take notes related to the dialogue.[11] The other strategies include Concentric Circles Strategy,[12] Gallery Walk,[13] Pyramid Strategy,[14] and Carousel Walk.[15]
The Harkness table, Harkness method, or Harkness discussion is a teaching and learning method involving students seated in a large, oval configuration to discuss ideas in an encouraging, open-minded environment with only occasional or minimal teacher intervention.
- Harkness method is in use at many American boarding schools and colleges and encourages classes to be held in a discursive manner. The style is related to the Socratic method. Developed at Phillips Exeter Academy,[1] the method's name comes from the oil magnate and philanthropist Edward Harkness, a graduate of St. Paul's School, who presented the school with a monetary gift in 1930. It has been adopted in numerous schools, where small class-size makes it effective, but it remains impractical for larger classes. There are also downsides for students who are not good in taking notes. They must first learn the strategies in proper note-taking in the classroom. Harkness described its use as follows:
What I have in mind is [a classroom] where [students] could sit around a table with a teacher who would talk with them and instruct them by a sort of tutorial or conference method, where [each student] would feel encouraged to speak up. This would be a real revolution in methods.[2]Harkness learning can vary, most notably between humanities subjects such as English and history and technical subjects such as math or physics.[3] There are general principles and goals, however, that go along with that method regardless of subject matter. The main goal is to encourage students to come up with ideas of their own and learn good reasoning and discussion skills. Depending on style, the teacher may interact very little, interjecting only to guide the discussion.[4]
Whole Group Discussion Method[edit]The Whole Group Discussion Technique follows the Harkness Method. It involves interaction throughout the class instead of the teacher simply delivering a lecture with students listening. Many teachers today prefer this approach because of heightened communication between the mentor and students.[5] There are advantages and disadvantages in using this method. Auditory learners find this style more interesting. They are able to keep information completely since sounds reinforce the information. This process includes use of musical notes, memorization of lists, voice recordings, and chants for memorizing history terms.[6] Teachers are able to check what students retain through questioning. Students can concentrate on their lessons and feel more at ease in asking questions during discussions.
However, the Whole Group Discussion approach calls for effective classroom management by teachers. Otherwise, it may be too disturbing for them to implement ground rules for students.[7] There are also downsides for students who are not good in taking notes. They must first learn the strategies in proper note-taking in the classroom.[8] There are strategies in effective implementation of Whole Group Discussions. The Think-Pair-Share is commonly used for lower elementary pupils to persuade the children in acquiring listening and speaking skills.[9] Philosophical Chairs is another strategy wherein teachers read sentences or topics with only two likely responses. It is either agree or disagree. Each group of students defends the position it adopted.[10] Fishbowl is one of the most popular classroom discussion techniques. A group of two up to four students sit facing one another at the center of the classroom. The other students sit around their peers. Those at the middle discuss the selected subject matter or question while the others take notes related to the dialogue.[11] The other strategies include Concentric Circles Strategy,[12] Gallery Walk,[13] Pyramid Strategy,[14] and Carousel Walk.[15]
