Mieke Goos *, Jessica Gabbano , Anna Martens

456’S GOT TALENT!

Mieke Goos *, Jessica Gabbano **, Anna Martens ***

* PhD, teacher educator, University College Leuven-Limburg, Hertogstraat 178, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium, , ** student special needs teaching, University College Leuven-Limburg, Hertogstraat 178, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium, , *** primary school teacher, Basisschool Viejool, Schoolstraat 18, 3941 Hechtel-Eksel, Belgium,

ABSTRACT

This study was set up within the context of the current reform of Flemish secondary education, a reform of a system with four tracks with an academic, technical, artistic, resp. vocational orientation and over 300 study programs, to a system with five interest domains and a reduced amount of study programs, to be chosen from Grade 9 onwards. According to matching theory, decision-making theory, social-cognitivism, contextual developmental theory, and sociology, many factors predict students' educational/vocational choice, the most influential being their abilities and interests. According to vocational developmental research, choosing an education/vocation starts in early childhood, with choice alternatives conflicting with the self-concept progressively eliminated with time, due to improvements in self-reflection skills. The aim of this study was to offer students of Grade 4, 5, and 6 of two Flemish primary schools a series of talent-oriented workshops, in order to help them develop a more accurate self-concept and thus to smoothen their transition to secondary school. Results show that, after the 16-week period of the study, (a) Grade 5 and 6 students (as compared to Grade 4 students) became pretty accurate in their self-perceptions, as shown by high student-teacher consistency in student ability ratings and a high percentage of correctly student-detected new abilities, (b) students and teachers disagreed most regarding students’ linguistic abilities, creativity, bodily-kinaesthetic abilities, and philosophical skills, and (c) students rated themselves increasingly higher in terms of well-being. This seems to suggest that a talent-oriented approach might enhance students’ ability awareness and well-being in school.

INTRODUCTION

Throughout their school career, students have to make many educational/vocational choices. In Flanders (i.e., the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium), many of these choices are transition-related, as our educational structure forces students to choose (a) a limited package of optional subjects in Grade 7 and 8 (next to the common core curriculum), (b) a track from Grade 9 onwards, with the four track possibilities being the academic track (offering a broad general/theoretical education), the technical track (offering technical/theoretical education), the artistic track (offering broad general education with active arts practice), and the vocational track (offering practice-oriented education aimed at a specific profession), and (c) a study program within their chosen track, from Grade 9 onwards, with over 300 study programs to choose from.

About 30% of Flemish children question their choice made when switching from Grade 6 (primary school) to Grade 7 (secondary school; Vandenberghe, Cortois, de Bilde, Verschueren, & Van Damme, 2011). Once in secondary school, about 26% of Flemish students repeat (at least) one grade (Vlaams Ministerie van Onderwijs en Vorming, 2016) and about 20% of Flemish students switch from the ‘more difficult’ and ‘more socially desirable’ academic track towards the technical, artistic, or vocational track (Duquet, Glorieux, Laurijssen, & Van Dorsselaer, 2005). This seems to suggest that making educational/vocational choices is quite difficult for many students. The present study aims to help students in making better considered choices, by offering them a series of talent-oriented workshops in Grade 4, 5, and 6.

Theoretical framework

In the literature, five theoretical perspectives on educational/vocational choices exist, that is (a) a matching perspective (e.g., Holland, 1997), (b) a decision-making perspective (e.g., Germeijs & Verschueren, 2007; Taborsky, 1994), (c) a social-cognitive perspective (e.g., Eccles, 2005; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994), (d) a contextual developmental perspective (e.g., Ginzberg, Ginsburg, Axelrad, & Herma, 1951; Gottfredson, 1981; Super, 1980), and (e) a sociological perspective (e.g., Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Breen, & Goldthorpe, 1997). We consider these five perspectives as complimentary, as each perspective focuses on a specific piece of the complex ‘choice puzzle’ (for a visual summary, see Figure 1). In this paragraph, we will briefly describe how each perspective adds his piece to that complex puzzle.

According to the first perspective (i.e., the matching perspective), one is most successful and satisfied in a track (or study program) when the possibilities and demands of that track (or study program) match with one’s interests and abilities (Holland, 1997). Occupational interests and abilities have been studied as predictors of educational/vocational choice for decades and several reviews have confirmed their importance (e.g., Tinsley, 2000).

According to the second perspective (i.e., the decision-making perspective), one is most successful and satisfied in a track (or study program) when the choice process proceeding that track (or study program) decision was completed in a thoughtful and successful way. Making an educational/vocational choice implies a long process in which several consecutive steps need to be taken (see upper part in Figure 1): one needs to (a) orient oneself to choosing (i.e., one needs to be aware of the need to make a decision and one needs to be motivated to engage in the career decision-making process), (b) explore oneself in terms of one’s interests and abilities (see also matching perspective), (c) explore all possible choice alternatives broadly (i.e., one needs to gather general information about the alternatives), (4) explore a reduced set of choice alternatives in-depth regarding their possibilities and demands, (5) decide, and (6) show commitment to that decision (Germeijs & Verschueren, 2007). Evidence for the importance of all steps being taken carefully has been provided by many empirical studies (e.g., Gati & Asher, 2001; Germeijs & Verschueren, 2006).

Figure 1. Theoretical framework.

According to the third perspective (i.e., the social-cognitive perspective), fourth perspective (i.e., the contextual developmental perspective), and fifth perspective (i.e., the sociological perspective), one is most successful and satisfied in a track (or study program) when the choice for that track (or study program) was made under supportive personal and environmental conditions (see bottom part in Figure 1). The following personal and environmental conditions have been detected by research to be important predictors of educational/vocational choice: self-perceptions (i.e., self-concept, self-efficacy beliefs, and self-confidence), career adaptability (i.e., general problem solving skills, strategies to deal with choices in general), personality (i.e., indecision, extraversion, conscientiousness), gender, subject provision at school, subject allocation at school, performance feedback by peers and teachers, availability of role models, gender socialization and stereotyping, support during the decision-making process (e.g., availability and quality of information regarding choice alternatives, refusal or approval of certain choice alternatives by peers and parents), timing of course selection, school composition, family SES, job availability, and lack of socio-structural barriers (e.g., Boone & Van Houtte, 2013; Korpershoek, Kuyper, Van der Werf, & Bosker, 2010, 2011; Lyn, Care, & Ainley, 2011; Lyons, 2006; Nagy, Garrett, Trautwein, Cortina, Baumert, & Eccles, 2008; Pinxten, De Fraine, Van Den Noortgate, Van Damme, & Anumendem, 2012; Sheu, Lent, Brown, Miller, Hennessy, & Duffy, 2010; Smyth, & Hannan, 2006; Van Langen, Rekers-Mombarg, & Dekkers, 2006, 2008).

According to the fourth perspective (i.e., the contextual developmental perspective) – and especially worth stressing in the context of the current study – one’s educational/vocational decision-making process is a lifelong choosing process, starting already in early childhood (Hartung, Porfeli, & Vondracek, 2005). With time, one’s self-reflection skills improve, and as such, one’s self-concept becomes more realistic and differentiated, allowing choice alternatives conflicting with the self-concept to be progressively eliminated, especially from age 8 onwards (Gottfredson, 1981).

Talent-oriented approach in Flemish primary education

It should therefore not come as a surprise that many primary schools in Flanders nowadays start offering talent-oriented workshops related to a variety of subjects, in order to help students better detect their interests and abilities before switching to secondary school. Several small-scale experiments have been conducted (e.g., http://www.ark123.be/blikopeners/talenten; http://www.aarschot.be/leven-welzijn/onderwijs/website-talentenarchipel; http://www.houthalen-helchteren.be/presentatie-focus-op-talent; http://www.bs-willemtell.com/projecten/proeftuinen/), based on the work of Aerden (2010) and Heylen (2013). These efforts are supported by the Flemish government, in the light of the planned reform of secondary education which has the intention of making student choose an interest domain instead of a track (Vlaams Parlement, 2013).

Aim of this study

The aim of this study is to offer students of Grade 4 to 6 in two schools where such talent-oriented approach did not yet exist, a series of workshops, in order to help them develop a more accurate self-concept and thus to smoothen their transition to secondary school. Focus is on students’ ability in several subjects, rather than their interest in it, because recent research has proven the former to have the largest impact among Flemish Grade 8 students (Pinxten et al., 2013).

Research questions

The present study will address the following three research questions:

(a)  Are students in Grade 6 (in comparison to those in Grade 4 and 5) more accurate in detecting their abilities?

(b)  In which areas do students and teachers (dis)agree on students’ ability?

(c)  Does students’ well-being increase when applying a talent-oriented approach in class?

METHOD

Participants

This study was set up in two small primary schools in Flanders, as part of the Bachelor thesis project of Gabbano and Martens. Participants were 15 students from Grade 4 of Basisschool [primary school] Boseind in Neerpelt, 9 students from Grade 5 and 6 of Gemeentelijke Basisschool [primary school] Maasmechelen, their teachers, and their parents. Students ranged in age from 10 to 12 years.

Study design

This study was an exploratory intervention study, without controls, consisting of two main stages. In the first stage of the study (March 2015), eight talent-oriented workshops were offered to the students by Gabbano and Martens, during a two-week period. Each workshop lasted 50 to 100 minutes. Designing of these workshops was done within the multiple intelligences framework of Gardner (1983), inspired by research done by Aerden (2010) and Heylen (2013). An overview of the workshops and their content can be found in Table 1.

In the second stage of the study (April – May 2015; three-week period), ‘regular’ classes were offered to the students by Gabbano and Martens (as part of Gabbano’s and Martens’ final pre-service internship). Many differentiation techniques were applied overall in these classes, but particular attention was paid to talent-related differentiation, integrating students’ talents detected in the first stage.

Table 1

Talent-oriented workshops as offered in the 456’s got talent intervention

Workshop / Content
Self smart / Students were asked several philosophical questions, such as ”Will you be a champion in the future?”, ”What does one need to become a champion?”, ”Can anyone become a champion in any domain?” etc. Students were stimulated to raise arguments and contra-arguments and to listen to and react upon others’ arguments and contra-arguments.
People smart / Students were given the responsibility to take care of a boiled egg as if it was their baby, for three consecutive days.
Music smart / Students were learnt the Cup-song by Anna Kendrick (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmSbXsFE3l8), with the goal of recognizing, memorizing, and producing rhythmic patterns.
Body smart / Students were learnt the haka, while being stimulated to produce own moves and cries as much as possible.
Picture smart / Students were stimulated to create their own Keith Haring men and to attach these men to the walls, stairs, and doors of the school building.
Nature smart / Students were grouped and given a step-by-step plan to create a lip balm, a lava lamp, and bath salts. The workshop’s goal was to read the plan, execute the steps as indicated, observe, and conclude based on observations (scientific inquiry approach).
Logic smart / Students were given three games stimulating their reasoning and analytical skills: (a) Rummikub, (b) Lego (with a construction assignment), and (c) a game-creation game.
Word smart / Students were stimulated to create a class journal. Each student was asked to pick a last-week news fact which they found interesting or worthwhile telling something about, and to write an article about that news fact, either alone or in collaboration with a classmate.

Measures

Perceived student ability

Students’ ability was evaluated by a variety of measurements. At the start of the study (i.e., before the intervention took place), students, teacher, parents, and peers were asked to answer the following question: “What is/are your talent(s)? What is/are the talent(s) of [this child]?”. Answers were collected per child and visualized/summarized on a giant wall paper in the classroom. During the study, students and Gabbano/Martens rated students’ ability shown in each workshop. Rating was done on a 5-point-likert scale, with values ranging from 0 (--) to 4 (++). Averages were calculated per workshop, per rater, per grade, and overall. At the end of the study (i.e., after the intervention took place), students were asked to answer the following question: “What is your biggest, newly-discovered talent?”. This answer was compared with the answers given before the project (by and during the project. A student was considered to have an accurate self-perception when he/she identified an ability that (a) was not a talent mentioned before the onset of the study by either him/herself, the teacher, his/her parents, or his/her peers, and (b) was rated with a ++-score during the study, by either him/herself or the teacher.

Student well-being

Students’ well-being before, during, and after the study was evaluated by a Dutch student questionnaire developed and validated by De Lee and De Volder (2009). This questionnaire contains 28 items, to be rated on a 4-point-likert-scale, with values ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (always). Subscales measure students’ (a) satisfaction in school (4 items), (b) engagement (4 items), (c) academic self-concept (6 items), (d) social relationships (6 items), and (e) perception regarding the pedagogical climate (8 items). For each subscale, scale scores were computed by averaging students’ item scores. An overall well-being score was also calculated.

Data analysis procedure

Student ability averages were compared per grade, rater, and workshop, by means of a series of analyses of variance. Analyses were conducted in SPSS 20.

Students’ growth in well-being throughout the study was estimated by means of a series of two-level growth curve models, with measurement occasions at level 1 and students at level 2. A stepwise sequential modelling approach was used, in which each successive model reflected an increased complexity. As a first step, a model without any predictors was fitted (Model 0) as a baseline for subsequent model comparison. In a second step, time was added to the baseline model (Model 1) in order to examine well-being growth trough time. Finally, in a third step, grade dummies and time*grade dummies were added to the previous model (Model 2), in order to detect differences in well-being status at the start of the study and wellbeing growth during the study. This approach was used for the overall well-being score, as well as for the 5 scale scores. Analyses were conducted in MLwiN 2.27.