Distinguishing Levels of Giftedness: What Does it Mean for our Practice? Angela Chessman, Senior Curriculum Adviser, Gifted and Talented Students Program, NSW Department of Education and Training What is giftedness? There is a plethora of definitions of giftedness and talent (Gross, 1994). A useful working definition that focuses on potential not performance, and ability not achievement is that of Francoys Gagné (1993, 1995). Gagné proposes a distinction between giftedness and talent that is both natural and grounded in research on human abilities (Gross, 1993). Giftedness corresponds to potential that is distinctly above average in one or more domains of ability and talent refers to performance that is distinctly above average in one or more fields. Gagné s model includes five aptitude domains: intellectual, creative, socio-affective, sensorimotor and a category called others for those aptitudes that have yet to be discovered. Students may be gifted in one or more of these domains of ability and these abilities may combine in different ways to produce specific talents (Gagné, 1993, 1995). Gagné (1993, 1995) also considers that personal and environmental factors may facilitate or hinder the translation of giftedness into talent. At the centre of his model Gagné includes a set of catalysts that are important in this regard. These catalysts include environmental factors such as family and school, personality factors (autonomy, selfconfidence, self-esteem) and motivation (initiative, interests, persistence). Gagné s thesis is that these catalysts are critical in activating the translation of giftedness into talent, and central to this translation are the very important mediating effects of systematic training and practice. Degrees of potential The gifted and talented population can be divided on two dimensions: that of domain (Gagné, 1993) and that of ability within domain (Gross, 1993; Gagné, 1998). Many educators assume that the gifted are a homogeneous group, which results in misidentification, inadequate curriculum provision and incorrect grade placement (Gross, 2000). The intelligence quotient, which can be derived from various psychometric tests, provides a useful if somewhat simplistic taxonomy of the levels of giftedness. Table 1 illustrates a classification of levels of giftedness and indicates the frequency with which children with particular IQs are found in the general population. IQ tests profile a student s strengths and weaknesses and can reveal discrepancies between chronological and mental age. Children with an IQ in the gifted range are likely to be adept at many cognitive tasks (Gross, 2000).
Table 1: IQ and levels of giftedness (Gross, 2000) Level of giftedness IQ range Prevalence Mildly 115 129 > 1:40 Moderately 130 144 1:40-1:1000 Highly 145 159 1:1000-1: 10 000 Exceptionally 160-179 1:10 000-1:1 million Profoundly 180 + < 1:1million General characteristics of gifted children In general, gifted children display cognitive behaviour different from the norm at an early stage. The gifted child has the ability to use abstract thought at an earlier age than usual, process information quickly and display persistence in an area of interest, and has unusually well developed memory, early language development, curiosity, preference for independent work and the ability to generate original ideas. Affective characteristics observed in the gifted include concern with justice, mature moral reasoning, a keen sense of humour and high levels of energy coupled with emotional intensity. These attributes can enable optimal development if properly nurtured but otherwise may be hidden or have a negative effect (Baska, 1989). Silverman (1993a) provides a useful generalisation of the intellectual and associated personality characteristics of the gifted group (Appendix 1). She states that although these traits are typical of gifted students, different patterns of characteristics are found because children differ in intellectual level, specific abilities and degree of mental activity. In general, the distinguishing features of the gifted exist in a higher degree of intensity and energy in the more highly gifted (Clark, 1992; Gross 2000). The gifted child s advanced cognitive development is associated with a high level of emotion, and consequently gifted children have a much greater range of emotional responses than the average child. Gifted children not only think differently but also feel differently. The gifted are characterised by uneven development where chronological, emotional and mental ages are asynchronous and this brings with it unusual emotional experiences (Silverman, 1993b). Many highly gifted children develop to an unusual degree transfer components or the skills required for generalizing concepts from one context to another (Gross, 1998). Another striking ability of the exceptionally and profoundly gifted students is their capacity for dual processing. Some children have the ability for parallel processing which means that they can be attending to one problem while thinking about the solution to another. This cognitive style may be invisible to teachers and unfortunately may appear to be distractibility in the child (Gross, 1998). A difference has also been observed between moderately and extremely gifted children in reading interests. Extremely gifted children prefer novels and non-fiction texts that are usually selected by students 5-7 years their senior. They seek books on social and ethical issues. However, extremely gifted children will often conform for peer acceptance and so conceal these interests in class (Gross, 2000). A consequence of rapid cognitive development is the ability to think about abstract issues quite early, but without the emotional means to cope with ideas that may be disturbing. This may produce confusion and fear in the child (Diessner, 1983; Levine and Tucker 1986). 2
Two reviews of the social and emotional development and adjustment of gifted children have provided a summary of research and an understanding of the limitations of the work. Janos and Robinson (1985) reviewed studies over a 60-year period from the time of Terman s monumental work Genetic Studies of Genius in 1925. Robinson and Noble (1992) provided an update on more recent research. They found that most studies were of children who were advanced in general intellectual ability and showed a substantial relationship between intelligence and psychological and social maturity. Concepts such as maturity and adjustment are difficult to define, and the few studies of affective maturity have been on moderately gifted students. The gifted are usually well adjusted, but certain emotional and behavioural issues become increasingly problematic the more highly gifted the person (Lovecky, 1993). Specific areas of vulnerability are heightened sensitivity, emotional intensity and reactivity, perfectionism, feeling different, and asynchronous development of intellectual, social and emotional skills. Janos and Robinson (1985) explored the question of whether being socially at ease and making compatible friendships is made more difficult by having high intellectual ability. Moderately gifted children are able to find peers but the highly gifted, being rare in the population, experience problems if there is a mismatch between their educational placement and their emotional maturity. Gifted children have a preference for playmates who are older or on the same intellectual level (Janos and Robinson, 1985). Children s moral reasoning, interests, attitudes and knowledge develop more in line with mental age than chronological age (Gross, 2000). Studies of moral judgment with tools such as the Defining Issues Test (Rest, 1986) have shown that gifted children have advanced moral development (Janos and Robinson, 1985; Robinson and Noble, 1992; Chovan and Freeman, 1993; Narvaez, 1993). However, this is not sufficient for the expression of highly principled behaviour. Moral reasoning is integrally connected to both intellectual development and social learning. A necessary condition for its expression is education and exposure to appropriate role models and the opportunity to belong to a community that allows discussion about moral issues and concerns (Diessner, 1983; Pagnin and Andreani, 2000). Designing interventions that stimulate learning and diagnose ability Curricula designed for the majority of pupils cannot be expected to be suitable for gifted students. Curricula for gifted children must be based on their advanced accomplishments and interests and therefore include different content and learning opportunities (Van Tassel-Baska, 1988). The needs of gifted learners encompass cognitive, affective, social and aesthetic areas of curriculum experiences, and gifted learners are best provided for by an approach that encompasses accelerated and advanced learning and enriched and extended experiences (Van Tassel-Baska, 1993). The program should strive for the optimal match between learner capacity and level of experiences provided. When both personal skill level and challenge level are correspondingly high, adolescents experience a state of flow which allows for optimal learning. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1987 in Van Tassel-Baska, 1993, p. 366) 3
Enrichment and counselling interventions and particularly acceleration are all important for gifted learners, but the approaches that are most effective under particular circumstances still need to be more fully determined. Much of the emotional difficulty experienced by the intellectually gifted arises from the conflicting needs for intimacy and achievement (Gross, 1989). Ability and achievement testing are critical both for the appropriate placement of gifted students and for successful delivery of a curriculum to suit their needs. Better measures of student potential are needed. Some tests, such as group IQ tests, have a ceiling effect with clustering of scores at the upper limit (Hansen, 1992); they are useful only for screening. Many have a ceiling of IQ 135 and a floor of IQ 65 (Gross, 1998). There is usually little follow up to tease out the child s ability. A student who scores at the ceiling of a group intelligence test should sit for an individual IQ test. Currently, the Stanford-Binet L-M should be retained for discriminating ability levels of highly able students (Silverman and Kearney, 1992). An alternative strategy is to employ a form of off-level testing. The requirements for off-level testing are that: the tests have good reliability and validity the tests have sufficient ceiling (if tests with sufficient ceiling are unavailable then tests intended for older students can be used) the tests are used to diagnose learning needs off-level testing is used in the context of a multi-criteria approach to identification. (Hansen, 1992) Students should also be given opportunities to display what they can do; this can be achieved by providing appropriate challenges. Both acceleration and grouping are integral parts of a program for the gifted (Van Tassel-Baska, 1992). When gifted students are grouped they learn faster and more effectively, develop a better attitude to ability and to school, and are less tempted to underachieve (Kulik and Kulik 1984, 1992). Pressey (1949) defined acceleration as "progress through an educational program at rates faster or ages younger than normal" (Southern and Jones, 1991). This encompasses many practices including grade-skipping, subject acceleration and curriculum compacting (Gross, 1986). Acceleration relies on three assumptions: gifted students learn more quickly than non-gifted adapting the pace of instruction will meet some of the needs of gifted students curriculum content (across all levels) is appropriate and challenging but gifted students are denied timely access to it because of artificial and inappropriate age/grade barriers. The criteria for accelerated advancement are higher than average achievement and the ability to master material faster than age-level classmates (Southern, Jones and Stanley, 1993). The NSW Department of School Education in its 1991 policy emphasised accelerated progression as an important strategy for gifted students. The NSW Board of Studies has also developed in conjunction with the 1991 policy a set of guidelines and model strategies published in Guidelines for accelerated progression of gifted and talented students, which was revised in 2000 and has incorporated international 4
guidelines for Australian use. The types of accelerative interventions are outlined in Appendix 2. A complication is that parents, educators and researchers tend to make generalisations about acceleration across all types of options. Although differentiation of the curriculum may be sufficient to meet the needs of the mildly and moderately gifted it is not a panacea for the highly to profoundly gifted group. Curriculum compacting can relieve students of the boredom of unchallenging work in basic skill areas, and allow them to master the curriculum in an economical and efficient manner. Curriculum compacting should usually be combined with other accelerative strategies to cater appropriately for the children s level of ability. The success of curriculum compacting depends on accurate diagnosis of what children have already learnt and the teacher s ability to provide a differentiated curriculum (Rogers, 2002). Early school admission is a viable method of providing for the academic and social needs of young gifted children (Proctor, Black and Feldhusen, 1986, 1988). It is recommended that underage students be permitted to enter a grade where they can perform above the mean level. Children who are independent, motivated, enjoy visual and small motor activities, like academic work and are socially mature and emotionally stable make good candidates for early entry to school (Rogers, 2002). Reviews by Kulik and Kulik (1984, 1992), and Southern, Jones and Fiscus (1989) have laid to rest fears that grade skipping causes academic harm. There is less controversy, for example, about grade skipping in secondary school than early entrance to elementary school (Southern, Jones and Stanley, 1993). Radical acceleration means moving students ahead of their cohort by three or more years. Its success for exceptionally and profoundly gifted children is well documented (Gross, 1993). Gross s study shows that a carefully monitored individual program of several grade skips, in combination with subject acceleration, can produce a child more fulfilled academically and socially (Gross, 1993, 1994). However, educators are reluctant to accelerate exceptionally gifted children. In this study, only nine of 40 students were allowed to radically accelerate. An example of the anecdotal evidence that has been collected about grade skipping is a mother s account of the experience of her daughter, Jessica, who was grade skipped from the end of grade 6 to the end of grade 7 (Merlin, 1995). Although Jessica had received other interventions such as subject acceleration, the grade skip was the most dramatic. Jessica took three months to adjust to grade 7 and the curriculum changed from being boring to very exciting. A new social life opened up and Jessica had more opportunity for intellectual independence. Her mother notes that in her experience it is important that an open and honest dialogue between parent and child is maintained, that the child should not be pushed, that educators are found who can be trusted to talk about educational issues, and outside help is enlisted to prevent or fill any educational gaps (Merlin, 1995). In the foregoing discussion, subject acceleration has been mentioned as being employed in combination with radical acceleration. Grade skipping can also be implemented for a few subjects or just a single subject. Rogers (2002) advises that subject acceleration works for those students who are achieving well beyond others at same grade level. It is 5
suitable for students who are self-directed and who have a strong preference for independent study. Opposition to early entrance to college centres on the personal, social or psychological development of the accelerand. The consensus of studies of adjustment of early entrants to college is that associated fears are not well founded. Early entrants adjust to university life quickly and are provided with more time to pursue a broader range of academic subjects. They also have more time to pursue their careers and the creative application of their knowledge. Failure to advance these students may deprive them of the opportunity to develop their potential (Sayler, 1994). Small rural schools contain only a few gifted students and the problem is how to provide for them (Benbow, 1992). Rural schools have difficulties transporting students, have fewer resources and tend to be more conservative in outlook (Jones and Southern, 1992). Consequently gifted students in rural areas are frequently underserved and therefore at great risk of underachievement (Benbow, 1992). Acceleration is recommended as a suitable option for these gifted students. Although Benbow (1992) notes that acceleration tends to be synonymous with grade skipping, she, like Van Tassel-Baska (1992), sees it as a placement that allows curricular flexibility or flexible pacing. This means use of the curriculum or resources designed for older students with young, but academically advanced, students. The highly gifted may also benefit from mentoring. This provides an opportunity for a student to interact with a specialist in an area of intense interest. Rogers (2002) indicates that students with a high need for achievement, who are independent in thought and action and display a strong interest in a specific academic area, are ideal candidates for mentoring opportunities. Most research has concentrated on the effects of interventions for moderately gifted students. Because highly to profoundly gifted students are rare in the population, little is known of the effects of grouping on their outcomes. When recognised, these students are usually catered for by radical grade acceleration and the development of individualised educational programs. A study of the efficacy of grouping highly to profoundly gifted fourth and fifth graders indicated that they made substantial emotional, social and cognitive gains (Moon, Swift and Shallenberger, 2002). The students reported feeling more challenged and better accepted by their classmates and enjoying school more. The ability to work cooperatively improved throughout the year of this study. This was attributed to a learning environment where a differentiated curriculum was combined with grouping with intellectual peers (Moon, Swift and Shallenberger, 2002). Children model on or learn best from students of similar ability and when gifted children are grouped together they lose the reluctance for collaborative enterprise that is often observed in mixed ability settings (Gross, 2000). However, the experiences of some children at the lower IQ end of the class were not completely positive, suggesting the need for even further differentiation of the curriculum. Information needs to be collected from participants and parents about the educational, emotional and social effects of full time self-contained classes. It is important to focus upon the individual needs of gifted students and learn more about the differential effects of interventions (Moon, Swift and Shallenberger, 2002). 6
. Few investigators have studied heterogeneity within gifted populations. Shaywitz et al. (2001) compared the behaviour of boys from a mildly to moderately gifted (IQ 124-139) group, a highly gifted (IQ 140-154) group, a learning disabled group and a non-gifted average group. They found that the highly gifted group, rather than the mildly gifted, exhibited behaviours similar to the learning disabled group. They concluded that these findings supported the view that there is socially optimal intelligence (Hollingworth, 1926, 1942). The highly gifted are a vulnerable group prone to increased activity, distractibility and impulsivity similar to children with learning difficulties. Parents and teachers both viewed these highly gifted boys as being a challenge. Clearly, further research into the environmental determinants of these effects is needed. There is also a need to understand how cognitive and non-cognitive characteristics affect talent development and determine which variables need to addressed when designing programs for our gifted students. Much less is known about non-cognitive effects than the cognitive outcomes of gifted programs (Moon, Swift and Shallenberger, 2002). An important consideration is the match between task complexity and the level of student skill. Student engagement in what are called flow experiences is linked to the idea that an appropriate educational fit needs to be found for individual students. Different qualities in teachers may be important at different stages of talent development, and there may be various pathways through different domains of talent development. More understanding of this is needed so that educational practice is tailored more specifically to meet individual student needs (Landvogt, 2001). References Baska, L. K. (1989). Characteristics and needs of the gifted. In J. Feldhusen, J. Van Tassel-Baska, & K. Seeley (Eds), Excellence in educating the gifted (pp.15-28). Denver: Love Publishing Company. Benbow, C.P., (1992). Meeting the needs of the gifted in rural areas through acceleration. Gifted Child Today, March/April, 15-19. Board of Studies (New South Wales). (2000). Guidelines for accelerated progression. Sydney: Board of Studies. Chovan, W. & Freeman, N.L. (1993). Moral reasoning and personality components in gifted and average students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77(3), 1297-1298. Clark, B. (1992). Growing up gifted(4th ed.) Columbus: Merrill. Diessner, R. (1983). The relationship between cognitive abilities and moral development in intellectually gifted children. The Gifted Child Today, May/June, 15-17. Gagné, F. (1993) Constructs and models pertaining to exceptional human abilities. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Monks, A. H. Passow (Eds) International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. New York: Pergamon. Gagné, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: a developmental model and its impact on the language of the field. Roeper Review 18(2), 103-11. Gagné, F. (1998). A proposal for subcategories within gifted or talented populations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 87-95. Gross, M.U.M. (1986). Planning defensible programs for gifted and talented students: rejecting the myths, accepting the realities. Paper presented to the joint conference of A.C.E. and A.C.E.A. Adelaide. 7
Gross, M.U.M. (1989). The pursuit of excellence or the search for intimacy? The forced choice dilemma of gifted youth. Roeper Review, 11(4),189-194. Gross, M.U.M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. London: Routledge. Gross, M.U.M. (1994). Radical acceleration. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5(4), 27-34. Gross, M.U.M. (1998). Issues in assessing the highly gifted. Understanding Our Gifted, Winter, 3-8. Gross, M.U.M. (2000). Issues in the cognitive development of exceptionally and profoundly gifted individuals. IN K.A. Heller, F.J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R.F. Subotnik (Eds) International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent(second edition). New York: Pergamon. Hansen, J.B. (1992). Discovering highly gifted students. Understanding Our Gifted, 4(4), 7-13 Hollingworth, L.S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York: Macmillan. Hollingworth, L.S. (1942). Children above IQ 180Stanford Binet: Their origin and development. New York: World Books. Janos, P.M. & Robinson, N.M. (1985). Psychosocial development in intellectually gifted children. In F.D. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds). The gifted and talented; developmental perspectives (pp.149-195). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Jones,E.D. & Southern, W.T. (1992). Programming, grouping, and acceleration in rural school districts: A survey of attitudes and practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2). 112-117. Kulik, J.A. & Kulik, C.C. (1984). Effects of accelerated instruction on students.review of Educational Research, 54(3). 409-425. Kulik, J.A. & Kulik, C.C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73-77. Landvogt, J. (2001). Affecting eternity: Teaching for talent development. Roeper Review, 23(4). 190-196.mmm Levine, E. & Tucker, S. (1986). Emotional needs of gifted children: A preliminary, phenomenological view. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 11(3), 156-165. Lovecky, D. V. (1993). The quest for meaning: counseling issues with gifted children and adolescents. In L.K. Silverman (Ed) Counseling the gifted and talented (pp.29-50). Denver: Love Publishing Company. Merlin, D.S., (1995). Adventures in Acceleration: A mother s perspective. Gifted Child Today, July/August. 14-17. Moon, S.M., Swift, M., Shallenberger, A. (2002). Perceptions of a self-contained class for fourth- and fifthgrade students with high to extreme levels of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly46(1), 64-79. Narvaez, D. (1993).High achieving students and moral judgment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, Spring 16(3), 268-279. NSW Department of School Education. (1991). Policy for the education of gifted and talented students. Sydney: Department of School Education, NSW. Pagnin, A. & Andreani, O.(2000). New trends in research on moral development in the gifted. IN K.A. Heller, F.J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R.F. Subotnik (Eds) International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent(second edition). New York: Pergamon. Proctor, T.B., Black, K.N. & Feldhusen,J.F. (1986). Early admission of selected children to elementary school: A review of the research literature. Journal of Educational Research, 80(2), 70-76. Proctor, T.B., Black, K.N. & Feldhusen, J.F. (1988). Early admission to elementary school; Barriers versus benefits. Roeper Review, 11(2), 85-87. Rest, J. (1986). DIT Manual. Third Edition. Center for the Study of Ethical Development. 8
Robinson, N.M. & Noble, K. D. (1992). social-emotional development and adjustment of gifted children. In M. Wang, M. Reynolds, & H. Walberg (Eds) Handbook of special education: research and practice:4. London:Pergamon Press. Rogers, K.B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: Matching the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press Inc. Sayler, M.F.,(1994). Early college entrance: a viable option. In J.B.Hansen & S. M. Hoover (Eds). Talent Development Theories & Practice, Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt. Silverman, L.K. & Kearney, K. (1992). Don t throw away the old Binet. Understanding Our Gifted, 4(4),8-10 Silverman, L.K. (1993a). A developmental model for counseling the gifted. In L.K. Silverman (Ed.) Counseling the gifted and talented. (pp. 51-78) Denver: Love Publishing Company. Silverman, L.K. (1993b). The gifted individual. In L.K. Silverman (Ed.) Counseling the gifted and talented. (pp. 3-28) Denver: Love Publishing Company. Shaywitz, S.E., Holahan J.M., Freudenheim, D.A., Fletcher J.M., Makuch, R.W. & Shaywitz, B. A. (2001) Heterogeneity within the gifted: higher IQ boys exhibit behaviours resembling boys with learning disabilities. Gifted Child Quarterly45(1), 16-22 Southern, W.T., Jones, E.D. & Fiscus, E.D. (1989). Practitioner objections to the academic acceleratiom of young gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(1), 29-35 Southern, W.T. & Jones, E.D. (1991). The academic acceleration of gifted children. New York: Teachers College Press. Southern, W.T., Jones, E.D. & Stanley, J.C. (1993). Acceleration and enrichment: the context and development of program options. In K.A.Heller,F.J. Monks, A.H. Passow (Eds) International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. New York: Pergamon Press. Van Tassel-Baska, J. Feldhusen, J., Seeley, K., Wheatley, G., Silverman, L., & Foster, W. (1988). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. A comprehensive guide to planning and implementing an effectve curriculum for gifted learners. Boston:Allsyn and Bacon. Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1992). Educational decision making on acceleration and grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2). 187-191. Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1993). Theory and research on curriculum development for the gifted. In K.A.Heller,F.J. Monks, A.H. Passow (Eds) International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. New York: Pergamon Press 9
Appendix 1 INTELLECTUAL CHARACTERISTICS PERSONALITY exceptional reasoning ability intellectual curiosity rapid learning rate facility for abstraction complex thought processes vivid imagination early moral concern passion for learning powers of concentration analytical thinking divergent thinking/creativity keen sense of justice capacity for reflection insightful need to understand need for mental stimulation perfectionism need for precision/logic excellent sense of humour sensitivity/empathy intensity perseverance acute self-awareness nonconformity questioning rules/authority tendency to introversion Silverman, L.K. (1993). A developmental model for counseling the gifted. In L.K. Silverman (Ed.) Counseling the gifted and talented. (pp. 51-78) Denver: Love Publishing Company. 10
Appendix 2 Table 2 : Types of acceleration based on recognition of readiness/ superior achievement 1. Early entrance to kindergarten The student is admitted to school prior to the age specified for normal entry 2. Grade skipping The student is moved ahead of normal grade placement 3. Continuous placement The student is given material deemed appropriate for current achievement as the student becomes ready 4. Self-paced instruction The student is given materials that allow him/her to proceed at self selected pace (on-line learning) 5. Subject-matter acceleration The student is placed for part of the day with students at more advanced levels 6. Combined classes The student is placed in classes where two or more grade levels are combined to allow younger children to interact academically and socially with older children 7. Advanced placement The student takes a course in high school that prepares him/her for taking an examination that can confer college credit for satisfactory performance e.g. Olympiad training 8. Correspondence courses The student takes high school or college courses by mail 9. Credit by examination The student receives credit upon successful completion of an examination e.g. Distinction courses 12. Acceleration in college The student is admitted with full standing to an advanced level of instruction at least one year early Table 3: Types of acceleration based on the recognition of need for faster pace 1. Curriculum compacting The student is given less drill, repetition and moves faster through the curriculum 2. Telescoping curriculum The student spends less time than usual in a course of study 3. Mentorships The student learns with a mentor who provides skills in a specialised area at the appropriate pace 4. Extracurricular programs Course work or summer programs e.g. fast-paced language or science courses 5. Early graduation The student graduates from high school or college in less than usual time. Southern, W.T., Jones, E.D. & Stanley, J.C. (1993). Acceleration and enrichment: the context and development of program options. In K.A.Heller,F.J. Monks, A.H. Passow (Eds) International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. New York: Pergamon Press. 11