Mixed Ability Teaching in Higher Education

Mixed-ability Teaching in HEDr Linda Rush Vice Dean (Primary ITE & QA)

More than I am…A life without risks is just as good as death,But in my lifetime I want to take risks, I need to,Is it too much to ask to want to become more,More than I am, more than they tell me I can be…

StructurePre-amble

Aims &objectives

Positional Statement

Key concepts: Gifted; Mediation; Time

PhD Findings & interim findings of recent enquiry into tutor and student perceptions of academic experience

Discussion Points: Translating practice in schools to HE context

Implications for Faculty

Pre-amble

Larger classes

Greater spread of ability & motivation

Under-resourcing

Market-driven courses

(Biggs 2004, p. 9)

Pre-ambleThe increasing diversity of the

student body in age, ethnicity, ability and vocational expectations poses a number of challenges for academics used to more homogenous groups of students

(Biggs 2004, p. 2; Northedge 2003, pp 17, 19).

Pre-amblePhD study (Rush, 2002) - ‘effective school

teachers’ mediation and promotion of the ‘more able’ child’s learning in ordinary (mixed-ability) classroom settings.

To mediate: "all those points where contact is made between people [plus other facilitating devices] which renders learning outcomes possible" (Fontanna, 1995 p. 283)

Pre-amble

Pre-ambleThe university lecturer is in much the same situation

as the school teacher who deals with gifted students in the regular classroom, needing to simultaneously with normative students – who range from those barely scraping by to those doing well what is expected of them – as well as gifted learners who grasp the material rapidly and accurately, who evidence deep understanding and special insights, and who will be challenged only by going beyond the material that is appropriate for the rest of the class…

Robison (1997, pp 226-227 )

Objectives are to consider:

definitions of high ability/giftedness

what it means to be a successful lifelong learner

the role of lecturers in ordinary classroom settings

the use and management of teaching time

a framework of teaching and learning - an orientational device which allows teachers to recognise the boundaries and borderlines of their interactions with learners, and a prospective device which allows teachers and learners to develop the qualities of their interactions in the future.

Positionality:

‘Plasticity’ of the human brain

Ability & environment are deeply intertwined

Interested in the basis for intellectual superiority

Belief that everyone can be ‘more able’

Conscious of ‘potential ability’

Prospective view of ability and the role of assessment in respect of this

Key Question/Task

What’s your view of high ability or giftedness within the context of HE (Maybe helpful to consider an actual student or group of students).

Do you bother to identify or make yourself aware of students with high ability or giftedness?

How do you go about identifying high ability or giftedness?

How do we get to know our students?

PhD findings: More Able child profiles – identification

All teachers used tests of intelligence to identify the cognitive ability of children in their class & Assessment Tasks

Teachers also made specific reference to the quality of the children’s work being a useful indicator of ability

Recognised ability through teacher observation

Areas of ability highlighted: cognitive; technical; practical

PhD findings: More Able child profiles – ‘demonstrated achievement’ & ‘potential ability’

Some teachers stated that the high performers were not necessarily the more able…

Teachers also recognised individuals as having the potential to be more able: ‘needs to be pushed’, ‘doesn’t always do his best’, ‘doesn’t always give the extension’, ‘will do as little as possible’.

PhD findings: More Able child profiles – personalities & learning characteristics

‘amazing humour’

‘very serious . . . an absolute perfectionist’

‘laid back . . . very good at seeing patterns and things . . . he will tease you and kind of challenge you’

‘deep thinking’

‘Can be quite difficult, obstructive at times . . . eccentric in some of his behaviours’

‘stolid plodder’


most able liked to get their work right and that they didn’t like failing

‘Perfectionism’ was used more than once to describe these individuals

tend to give up if he didn’t get what he was doing right first time

some enjoyed working with others…

always challenging things – not to undermine the teacher but ‘purely out of curiosity’


‘had his own agenda…he will come back at me with a counter idea’

enjoyed bringing in his ‘own ideas not directly related to [in class] projects’

ability to ‘think of where a problem is going’

motivated by challenging work

some were confident to be challenged and questioned, and to question themselves

others were quite shy or particularly

All teachers also recognised that a straightforward correlation between ability and achievement does not exist

’

Giftedness:

literature on the more able indicates that they think differently from others…

they are Gestaltist in their thinking.

'in contrast to the less gifted who use either atomistic or serialistic strategies of perceiving information, the more gifted have an analytic strategy’. (Merenheimo, 1991, cited in Freeman1998, p. 23)

Giftedness:

Metacognitive

Self-regulating

Underpinning this thinking is the notion of 'individualisation’

Renzulli’s model of giftedness

Information processing psychologists see intelligence as steps or processes people go through in solving problems. One person may be more intelligent that another because he or she moves through the same steps more quickly or efficiently, or is more familiar with the required problem solving steps.

Advocates of this view (e.g. Sternberg, 1979) focus on:

how information is internally represented

the kinds of strategies people use in processing that information

the nature of the components (e.g. memory, inference, comparison) used in carrying out those strategies

how decisions are made as to which strategies to use

Urban’s model of giftedness

Key Points:

No general agreement about the nature of intelligence and that of being more able or gifted

An artificially constructed concept

Identification of ability needs to be carried out in a useful way – not just to classify individuals

A concern about ability is a concern about student developing as individuals so that their potential is translated into achievement

Cigman’s (2006, p. 200) four-fold distinction:1. The child who is very bright, and

benefits from propitious environment

2. The child who is very bright, but lacks a propitious environment

3. The trophy child, who achieves highly as a result of a pressured environment, but who seems not bright, and strained or alienated by the experience

4. The child seems 'not bright', and lacks a propitious environment.

Giftedness: Broader perspectives

Cigman (2006) Suggest two 'loose' criteria or 'indicators' of giftedness:

exceptional or remarkable insight, shown in unsystematic ways...occasional brilliance, unsteady concentration or performance

a passion for learning

ELLI’s seven ‘learning dimensions’

1.Growth orientation v being stuck and static

2.Meaning making v data accumulation

3.Critical curiosity v passivity

4.Creativity v rule bound

5.Learning relationships v isolation

6.Strategic awareness v robotic

7.Resilience v dependence

Claxton’s Positive Learning Claxton’s Positive Learning DispositionsDispositions

Resilient Resourceful Reflective Reciprocal

Curious (proactive)

Questioning (“How come?”)

Clear-thinking (logical)

Collaborative (team member)

Adventurous (up for a challenge)

Open-minded (‘negative capability’)

Thoughtful (Where else could I use this?)

Independent (can work alone)

Determined (persistent)

Playful (“Let’s try ...”)

Self-knowing (own habits)

Open to feedback

Flexible (trying other ways)

Imaginative (could be ...)

Methodical (strategic)

Attentive (to others)

Observant (details / patterns)

Integrating (making links)

Opportunistic (serendipity)

Empathic (other people’s shoes)

Focused (distractions)

Intuitive (reverie)

Self-evaluative (“How’s it going?”)

Imitative (contagious)

Pedagogic implications of teaching the more able

Students encouraged to take control of their own learning

Teacher to involve the learner explicitly as a partner in the learning process

Notion of 'open discourse’

Assessment is not something that is done to them but done with and by them

Collaborative and open-ended enquiry is promoted

This type of pedagogy can be seen in terms of a particular type of mediatory power in teaching/learning interactions

Critical enquiry into academic experience:Distance Pragmatic Anxious Vital

Isolated Reluctance Technical Curious

Structurally enforced divisions

Detachment Assessment Engaged

Lack of proximity

Disconnect Nurturing Developmental

Static Transmissive

Reassurance

Personal

Space Low expectation

Shock Connected

Apprehension

Autonomous

Novice Guided

Scaffolded

Integrated

Social

Informative

Space

Degrees in variation in meaning & understanding: Absent

I don’t know because we never have them for that long because they, because your modules are so small that you only say have like a ten week period at the most with them, you never really get that close to them.

This year it’s been difficult, we’ve had a lot of absences this year, nobody really cares this year…you sort of get this feeling that no one actually wants to be there.

Degrees in variation in meaning & understanding: Reluctant

There’s almost an expectation that they will be spoon fed, tell me what to read, tell me exactly which bit, in fact photocopy it for me and give it me but don’t expect me to go and find one. That independence and that responsibility and that responsibility of wider learning I don’t see it, I don’t see a love of, in 75%, I don’t see a love of learning for its own sake.

I don’t know – I really wouldn’t know what my tutors perceptions are [of me as a learner], because you don’t really get any feedback in that area. I mean you get feedback on your essays, obviously your written work but it doesn’t really comment on how they see you as a learner.

Degrees in variation in meaning & understanding: Instrumental

Yes, I mean they do give you, they do give you as much information as you need to go into your assignment but especially for people who have never done an assignment before…I mean I have, I feel that if I hadn’t done an assignment, I wouldn’t know where to start and you’ll get, every now and then, our group are quite vocal and we will say ‘look we need some more tuition on that’ we will push for it and we do get it so I can’t say that they just leave you completely.

I find that a lot of them aren’t focused and are sort of a bit scared in case they don’t do well and there is a lot of statements like ‘ I don’t think I’m clever enough’, and I’d say that’s probably as much as 30 or 40% who will lack confidence, sort of to the point where you know I am having to reach out to them and supporting them, you know, not over the top or anything but just reminding them what we’ve got across the university in terms of what’s available for them.

Degrees in variation in meaning & understanding: Vital

It has but at the moment this year, the 3rd year, we’re doing live campaign at the moment so though the tutors are monitoring us they are letting us go for our own devices as well, they are helping us and at the same time giving us guidance, but at the same time, we’re 3rd years now, we’ve been in the PR environment, we’ve all done placements do we’ve got a knowledge of what to do and what’s right and what’s wrong, what’s ethical what isn’t.

At the moment they are writing a literature review and we’re doing, they wrote a research scaffold and we peer-reviewed each others research scaffold so they, you know, got in to small groups to [review] each others so that way I was trying to encourage them to be critical of each others work and encourage them to read each others work

Degrees in variation in meaning & understanding: Absent – Reluctant – Instrumental - Vital

In more complete views, relationships exist not only between tutor - student but also between student – student. Spaces are actively constructed – scaffolded situations to generate autonomous learning.

In less complete, distance is created by institutional organisation such as modularisation. Distance between learner and tutor can be viewed as favourable and less favourable where it is actively constructed or where it happens accidentally and unconsciously.

A sense of movement - from inertia and a lack of recognition of the potential for transformation - to vitality and active expectation of meaningful participation.

Risk factors that jeopardise highly able students at University:

A habit at being at the top of the class with very little effort and, therefore poor study and time-management skills

“Culture shock” on encountering for the first time other classmates of equal or even higher accomplishment and the stress of coping with one’s first grade B


An “entity theory” as opposed to an “incremental theory” of intelligence, often buttressed by long experience with too little challenge, which holds that ability must be less if effort is needed to achieve one’s ends…

Not yet having sorted out a clear picture of ultimate strengths and preferences…

Because of inexperience in ever having to ask for help, not knowing how to frame questions…


Coming from a family or group outside the educational mainstream without the tacit knowledge and skills needed to operate within the complex systems of undergraduate and graduate or professional education

For some gifted students, especially those from minority groups, dealing with issues of integrating their academic lives with their social lives

All the hazards other students face: homesickness, financial stresses anonymity of large classes, making new friends, coping with room mates, using time effectively, selecting classes and activities judiciously etc

Key Question/Task

Do you recognise such students at Hope?

In what ways do your highly able students (drawing on earlier identification and definitions) fit within the above categories?

Pedagogic implications of teaching the more able

Students encouraged to take control of their own learning

Teacher to involve the learner explicitly as a partner in the learning process

Notion of 'open discourse’

Assessment is not something that is done to them but done with and by them

Collaborative and open-ended enquiry is promoted

This type of pedagogy can be seen in terms of a particular type of mediatory power in teaching/learning interactions

Learning through interaction models




PhD findings: Involving the more able as partners in the learning process

Allowing the pupils to extend in-class learning further than anticipated or planned for.

Flexible time – frame for pupils to work within.

Modification of planning or learning to take into account the interests of pupils.

Co-operative and collaborative learning promoted.


Whole class, self and peer assessment.

Questions asked or problems set allow for personal interpretation.

Method(s) and solution(s) of problems set are unknown to both teacher and learner.

Inclusive use of language.

Interactive displays.


Availability of independent activities.

Whole class discussion where pupils as well as teacher have to explain their ideas, and where the process of learning is analysed

The promotion and support (in terms of time and resources) of independent study, the focus of which is decided by the student or group of pupils

To varying degrees the roles of ‘teacher’ & ‘learner’ were floating:

Expectations were made clear to the pupils that they were dual partners in the learning process

Pupils’ contributions were frequently volunteered rather than elicited and were always valued

Pupils were encouraged to co-construct one another’s learning at whole class and group level

Discussion was allowed to shift in an unpredictable manner

Inclusive use of language was deployed ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘our’

Manner and tone of teacher whilst demanding was warm and friendly

The transfer of ability from shared to individual (more able)

Focusing the students on the learning or given session

Reviewing prior learning

Socratic questioning - here, the questioning is not used to teach new knowledge, but to help students to know and use what they already have

Proleptic instruction - involves the learner in carrying out simple aspects of a task (in context) as directed by the expert or teacher

Differentiated tasks introduced and discussed for students to work through independently of teacher.


Key Points:• Learners spent a significant amount of time working independently of teacher• Dyadic interaction between teacher and learner was rare•High proportion of interaction in context of whole-class teaching

Most effective whole class teaching practice displayed the following characteristics:

Teacher

Central to discourse is a problem or issue to be explored

Method and solution to problem or issue not necessarily known

Questions raised are immediately probing

Rarely gives answers – children encouraged to arrive at answers via successive questioning, drawing on other children to clarify, synthesise and elaborate

Most effective whole class teaching practice displayed the following characteristics: Teacher

Questions raised or problems set allow for personal interpretation

Assessment is formative and integral to the process of learning

Maximum reporting, minimal recording

Periodic synthesising and elaborating of children’s ideas as a prelude to scaffolding

Most effective whole class teaching practice displayed the following characteristics: Learner

Expects to take on a dual role in the learning process – to work through tasks set in partnership with the teacher

Will interrupt teacher talk freely

Voluntarily support peers

Expects to explain and share their ideas

Hypothesises

Decides to how to progress through tasks or the learning

Key Question/Task

How do you manage to mediate and promote the learning of your highly able students during non-contact?

How do you promote interactive learning during lectures?

Implications for seminar teaching?

Teaching the Gifted Undergraduate: Key strategies

Poerksen (2005) suggests four role models for tutors who wish to develop and sustain such an epistemic culture.

1. The Socratic teacher

2. The moderator

3. Learning as cooperative researcher

4. The perturbation agent


identification

promote a “gifted friendly” atmosphere

gifted university class-mates can be introduced to one another and encouraged to form a study group.

“Compacting” the curriculum

use of designated adviser


The programme coordinator/module tutor can serve as a strategic counselor to the students

Select modules (equating to 20%-25% of their total course work) comprising special units of study, seminars, colloquiums and independent study

Seminar methods are characterized by Socratic discourse

Requirement to engage with a research project, a creative project or a thesis. Such projects are accomplished through independent study with a faculty member


Notion of honors contract and honors semester. Students electing an honors contract select their own curriculums with the guidance of faculty members.

Mentorships and Research Opportunities

Recognition for high achievement

The Role of Universities and Colleges in Educating Gifted Undergraduates

• Accelerating vs Enrichment

• Early identification & merit-based scholarships for entering students

• Academic advising

• Early identification

• Career planning

Key References:

Baxter Magolda, M.B. 1992. Students’ epistemologies and academic experiences: Implications for pedagogy. Review of Higher Education 15, no. 3: 265–87.

Biggs, J. (2004), Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. 2nd edn. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press

Bransford, J., A. Brown, and R. Cocking, eds. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and School Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education of the National Research Council National Academy Press.

Cigman, R. 2006. The Gifted Child: A Conceptual Enquiry. Oxford Review of Education, 32, no. 2: 197-212

Key References:

Claxton, G. 2007. Expanding Young People’s Capacity to Learn. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53, no. 2: 115-134.

Daly, A., Penketh, C., and Rush, L. 2009 ‘Academic preparedness: Student and tutor perceptions of the ‘academic experience’’. Society for Research in Education (SRHE) Conference proceedings.

Fontana, D. 1995. Psychology for Teachers, 3rd Ed, Revised and updated, London: The British Psychological Society

Fredricksson, U., and B. Hoskins. 2007. The development of learning how to learn in a European context. The Curriculum Journal 18, no. 2: 127–34.

Key References:

Lucas, L., and P.L. Tan. 2005. Developing reflective capacity: The role of personal epistemologies within undergraduate education. Research seminar discussion paper, Fourteenth Improving Student Learning Symposium, September 4–6, University of Bath.

Moon, J. 2005. We seek it here . . . a new perspective on the elusive activity of critical thinking: A theoretical and practical approach. ESCalate discussion paper. Available online at: http://escalate.ac.uk/index.cfm?action1⁄4resources.search&q1⁄4criticalþthinking&rtype1⁄4itehelp&rtype1⁄4project& rtype1⁄4publication&rtype1⁄4resource&rtype1⁄4review

Moseley, D., Elliot, J., Gregson, M., and Higgins, S,. 2003. Thinking skills frameworks for use in education and training. British Educational Research Journal 31, no. 3: 367-390

Key References:

Northedge, A. (2003), ‘Rethinking Teaching in the Context of Diversity’, Teaching in Higher Education, 8.1, 17-32

Perry, W.G. 1970. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Poerksen, B. 2005. Learning how to learn. Kybernetes 34, no. 2/3: 471–84.

Putnam, R.T., and H. Borko. 2000. What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher 29, no. 1: 4–15. Rawson, M. 2000. Learning to learn: More than a skill set. Studies in Higher Education 25, no. 2: 225–38.

Key References:

Robinson, M. Nancy. 1997. The Role of Universities and Colleges in Educating Gifted Undergraduates. Peabody Journal of Education. 72, no. 3/4, Charting a New Course in Gifted Education: Parts 1 and 2 (1997), 217-236

Rush, L., and Fisher, A. 2009. Expanding the capacity to learn of student teachers in Initial Teacher Training. ESCalate, Academic online paper (http://escalate.ac.uk/5802).

Rush, L. 2009. Bridging the gap between theory and practice: one tutor’s endeavors to embed and enact a distinctive pedagogic approach to learning-to-learn (L2L). NEXUS Journal 1: 197-212. Edge Hill University, Centre for Teaching and Learning Research (CLTR)

Key References:

Fisher, A and Rush, L. 2008. Conceptions of learning and pedagogy: developing trainee teachers’ epistemological understandings. The Curriculum Journal. 19, No. 3 pp 227-238. Routledge.

Rush, L. 2002. An Exploration into how Effective Upper key Stage Two Teachers Manage to Intervene with More Able Children in the Classroom Setting Ph.D.

Schommer-Aitkins, M.A. 2002. An evolving framework for an epistemological belief system. In Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing, ed. B.K. Hofer and P.R. Pintrich. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wingate, U. 2007. A Framework for Transition: Supporting ‘Learning to Learn in Higher Education, Higher Education Quarterly, 0951-522461. No. 3: 391-405

Documents

Mixed Ability Teaching in Higher Education