Meeting the Needs of Gifted Students Through Online Programs

In an age so dependent on technology, online courses, programs, and schools have become the latest venue in serving the educational needs of children and adults. More than half of the states now have virtual schools and others are being developed each year. There are even states, such as Ohio, where virtual schools are developing programs, such as the Advanced Learner Program, specifically for gifted learners. This leads us to question whether online courses, programs, and schools meet the needs of gifted learners, and if so how might that best be accomplished?

In order to address that question, it is important to begin the discussion with the characteristics of gifted learners. There are varied collections of descriptors and it is helpful to think about gifted learners in light of their unique characteristics as they pertain to cognitive, social, and emotional differences. No two gifted children are alike. They have different learning styles, personalities, likes and dislikes, abilities, backgrounds, and experiences. Some of the more common descriptors include the ability to make connections, rapid learning, superior analytic ability, keen observation, logical thinking, ability to manipulate symbol systems, advanced language development, overexcitabilities (inborn intensities indicating a heightened ability to respond to stimuli), keen power of observation, and emotional intensity (Davis & Rimm, 2004). It is essential that teachers and parents recognize and understand these characteristics to best meet the educational needs of gifted learners.

The characteristics of gifted learners imply specific instructional needs in the classroom. To provide appropriate and challenging educational experiences for gifted students, educators need to consider differentiating instruction by varying the:

1. Content: Instructors differentiate the sources students apply to learning by utilizing multiple resources and examples in various media formats;

2. Process: Instructors differentiate how students will learn by planning and/or structuring various learning activities and student groupings; and

3. Product: Instructors differentiate the output (how students demonstrate what they have learned) by providing different options for completing assignments.

Instructors should also vary the content, process, and product based on their students’ learning profile (learning style), interest (motivation), and/or readiness (background knowledge) (Tomlinson, 1999).

In order to consider the appropriateness of online courses, programs, and schools for the gifted, we need to bear in mind what is needed in light of differentiating for gifted and talented learners. The following are key principles guiding effective differentiation (Tomlinson & Cooper, 2006) with applications to the gifted learner that include references to the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards (2000):

• The teacher is clear about what is significant in the subject matter. Content for gifted learners needs to consist of more complex concepts and abstract ideas. Such content can be modified through the use of acceleration, compacting, variety, reorganization, increased depth, complexity, and flexible pacing. The NAGC Standards for Curriculum and Instruction (NAGC, 2008) suggest that: regular classroom curricula and instruction must be adapted, modified, or replaced to meet the unique needs of gifted learners; the instructional pace must be flexible to allow for the accelerated learning of the gifted student; and educational opportunities for subject and grade skipping must be provided.

• The teacher understands, appreciates, and builds upon student differences. Since no two gifted children are alike, it is imperative that a positive learning environment is created to support a diversity of learners.

• Assessment and instruction are inseparable. Pre-assessment informs the teacher of the gifted student’s interest, preferred ways of learning, and prior knowledge about the subject matter. Formative assessment allows the teacher to continue working with particular strengths of students. Summative assessment provides data about student growth and the need to refine future instructional plans by the teacher.

• The teacher modifies content, process, and product in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile. Students differ in their readiness to learn, in their particular interests, and in how they learn (Tomlinson, 1995; Tomlinson et al., 2003). Readiness to learn refers to a student’s proximity to a learning goal or task. Teachers need to push a student into his or her zone of proximal development and support learning by providing a slightly more complex task with a goal of mastering new learning and reaching independence. Considering student interests helps connect the student to learning. When students are more interested in what they are learning it is more likely that their motivation will be increased. Determining the learning preference or learning profile for students is also important. The term learning profile refers to a student's preferred mode of learning that can be affected by a number of factors, including learning style, intelligence preference, gender, and culture. Teachers who relate to how their students best learn help to ensure learning efficiency. Tomlinson et al. (2003) suggest that teachers who work toward understanding the learner’s needs set their students up for success.

• All students participate in respectable work. The NAGC Standards for Curriculum and Instruction (NAGC, 2008) support that learning opportunities must consist of a continuum of differentiated curricular options, instructional approaches, and resource materials. All tasks should be engaging and challenging for students encouraging high levels of thinking with a focus on essential understandings.

• Students and teachers collaborate in learning. Emphasis on gifted students becoming self-directed learners encourages responsibility in the learning process.

• The teacher balances attention to individuals and to the class as a whole. Gifted students participate in a community of learners where individual needs are balanced with the needs of the group or the class as a whole.

• Flexibility is the hallmark of a differentiated classroom. Modification of learning experiences for students requires the flexibility of various classroom elements including pacing, timing, resources, grouping, and so on.

• Differentiation must always be a “way up,” never a “way out.” High expectations support the need to extend the capabilities of students along with support systems that provide the foundation for success.

• Goals of a differentiated classroom are maximum individual growth and success. Emphasis is placed on self-growth versus competition within the classroom. Gifted students strive to challenge themselves to be more proficient.

According to the Center for Digital Education, in their report Online Learning Policy Survey: A Survey of the States (2009), 25 states now run statewide online initiatives. This is an increase of 10 states with such initiatives in 2008. Thus, it is imperative that educators and parents be concerned about whether or not such online opportunities are available for their students and are able to meet the needs of gifted learners. Although Milman (2009) discusses how content, process, and product of instruction can be differentiated, no attempt has been made to determine the alignment or fit of the online standards. Little research has been conducted on the use and effectiveness of distance learning with gifted students. Wallace (2009) recently studied distance learning outcomes for gifted students who ranged in ages from 5 to 17. The study suggests that distance education can be an effective approach to accelerate or enrich the academic opportunities of gifted students. Because distance learning programs vary greatly, this finding cannot be generalized.

Determining alignment using International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL) National Standards for Quality Online Programs, the National Standards for Quality Online Teaching, or the National Standards for Quality Online Courses, taking into consideration the components and key principles of differentiation outlined in this article is crucial to this evaluation. Table 1 provides an overview of the similarities and differences outlined in the Quality Online Programs (available at http://inacol.org/research/nationalstandards/index.php) with the Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programs Standards developed by the National Association for Gifted Children in 2000 (available at http://www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/PDF/Standards_PDFs/k12%20GT%20standards%20brochure.pdf). Both sets of standards have been designed to specify approaches of high quality and establish standards for excellence.

While considering the comparisons in Table 1, a remaining major concern is determining the appropriateness of online programs for varying grade levels. Early programs focused on secondary students only. Increased implementation of virtual programs, however, has roused the interest of parents of younger students who see the online academies as a strategy for accelerating instruction. Many school districts have begun to examine the virtual classes as being a cost effective method for increasing student options.

Florida has led the way with groundbreaking legislation that originally funded the Florida Virtual School (FLVS) as a grant-based pilot project in 1997, which led to the state’s first Internet-based public high school. The two pilot programs (FLVS and the Connections Academy) were funded in 2003 with specific guidelines including:

• All curriculum and course content must conform to Florida Sunshine State Standards.

• All students in Grades 3-8 must take the state assessment tests.

• All Grade K-2 students must participate in locally-administered assessments.

• All teachers must be appropriately certified.

In 2008 the Florida legislature created the School District Virtual Instruction Program, requiring each school district to offer a virtual instruction program for students in Grades K-12 in the 2009-10 school year. Information about these programs is available at http://www.fldoe.org/schools/vir-tual-schools/districtVIP.asp. There are some consistent concerns about the relevance of the programs for gifted learners:

• The continued need for parent involvement.

• The assurance that the teacher has the core content and technology expertise.

• Is a program focused on independent work conducive to meeting the needs of students who may already choose isolated lives?

• How do we assure that the courses are differentiated with integrity and the quality of content to be appropriate for advanced learners?

Ohio’s requirement for virtual courses specifically for gifted students indicates the online programs must be written into the student’s educational plan, align with the student’s area of gifted strength and area of identification, have explicit eligibility criteria, and be differentiated for students who are gifted.

Most virtual programs are popular because they offer “courses not otherwise available at the school” or because they meet the “needs of a specific group of students” (International Association for K-12 Online Learning, n.d.). These are positive rationales for programs or courses for students who are gifted. Gifted students are among the most likely to be underserved and insufficiently challenged by the general curriculum.

Online learning is a reform of education. Students who are gifted are drawn to the virtual programs because it allows them to work on their own schedules, adjust the pace as needed to suit their learning style, and be flexible about adjust ing the schedule and demands to suit their own preferences—options not typically available in traditional education programs. In particular, online learning fosters pre-assessment, which has always been advocated for students who are gifted. Pretesting determines what the student already knows and indicates educational gaps so education can be personalized. The student is encouraged to explore and seek new information, often at higher levels.

As evidenced in Table 1, while virtual school programs may not consciously be avoiding any reference to gifted and talented learners, it will take a conscious effort to include language in program standards related to this specific population of learners.

There has been little research conducted on the use and effectiveness of distance learning with gifted students. It cannot be assumed that the nature of the online learning environment is an appropriate match for gifted learners. Although the availability of courses when the school cannot otherwise offer them is a positive factor for many gifted students, there are still considerations that merit further investigation.

• Can instruction be effectively differentiated for gifted learners in an online learning environment? How might a better alignment or fit of the online course and/or state standards and gifted standards be made?

• What impact does the isolation of the student taking one or more virtual courses and working independently have on the student socially and/or emotionally?

• What opportunities can online programs provide for a gifted learner to work with other gifted students?

• Can the learning needs of students who might be twice exceptional (gifted and learning disabled) be met in an online learning environment?

• Also worth a closer examination is the intensity and rigor of virtual courses as compared to similar courses. Are instructors of the virtual programs as expert in the content area as they must be in the technological aspects of facilitating the course? How well prepared are students for eventual assessment by the state and/or national assessments?

• What role, if any, can teachers in online learning environments play in identifying gifted learners?

• What administrative and/or teacher training is necessary for those working specifically with gifted students in online courses, programs, or schools?

• What role do parents play in the education of their gifted child in online learning? What support and resources are offered to gifted learners and their parents in an online learning environment?

• How might support services be improved for gifted learners in an online educational environment?

• Are program services to gifted children evaluated differently in an online learning environment?

• How can online and gifted educators collaborate to increase the effectiveness of the learning experience for the gifted child?

Finally, it is reassuring to note that there are similarities in the philosophies espoused in the two sets of standards. This common ground provides the basis for further discussion related to the questions raised above. With that in mind, meeting the needs of gifted students through online programs can result in a positive outcome for all those involved.