PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

Person Centered Planning:

Cuba-Rushford After School Enrichment
Andrea M. Claire
St. Bonaventure University

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

2
Abstract

The idea of a PCP or person centered plan is to address the needs and future plans of a student,
however in this situation the PCP is addressing the needs and future of the after school
enrichment program at Cuba-Rushford elementary school with a focus on the students who
participate in the program. Along with the PCP is a literature review that focuses on increasing
gifted student motivation. Every student in the program has been chosen based on their advance
academic standing and their potential to be gifted. The main outcome of the PCP is to have a
meeting with those involved in the program. The persons that attended the meeting include two
of the teachers who plan the program, the students, and one parent. The meeting addresses
problems and helps to find solutions to the problems. You will find a great deal of planning and
detail went into the meeting before, during, and after. There is another follow up meeting
scheduled to assess the effectiveness of the plan made and to make any necessary changes. The
biggest solution that was found during the PCP was providing student choice. Student choice
has been proven to increase student motivation among gifted students. With the research done,
and the suggestions from the meeting, the program is progressing with success. The program is
improving and the students are benefiting much more now that the PCP was implemented.
Throughout this PCP experience, as a facilitator, I found that this type of meeting is really
beneficial and creates a sense of community.

Keywords: PCP, person centered planning, collaboration, facilitation, increasing gifted

student motivation, gifted education, enrichment, SEM (Schoolwide Enrichment Model)

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

3
Introduction

Background Information on Meeting Goal and Justification

This program is in its first year so the ideas and implementation of the program is all in
questions and changing to try and better meet the needs of the students. When I first entered the
program as an assisting teacher, it was very chaotic and the students had no boundaries, goals, or
structure. The program was a basic free for all with poorly planned activities that didnt engage
the students. This is what I am trying to address in this PCP. My focus is to involve the teachers,
students, and parents in the process of finding the best solution to the problem of how the after
school program should be ran and what types of activities should the teachers be planning.
What Is the Program/Who Are the Students
The focus of this person centered plan was on the after school enrichment program at
Cuba-Rushford Elementary school. This program was just implemented this school year and is
in the beginning stages of development. The program consists of a book club and STEM
enrichment activities. The program meets every Monday after school from 2:45pm-4pm for the
book club. During the book club students have been reading an above grade level book and
complete activities based on their reading. All students are reading a different book and the book
was chosen by the student. The STEM activities are done every Tuesday and Thursday after
school from 2:45pm-4pm. The STEM activities include a variety of teacher prepared lessons
revolving around science and technology with math integrated into the lessons. There are a total
of 12 students who attend the program (the number has dropped since the beginning of the
program which I will touch on in my rationale). On Mondays for the book club there are 3
teachers, on Tuesdays there are 3 teachers, and on Thursdays there are 2 teachers running the

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

program and planning for the day. At the beginning of the program teachers in the school
recommended students who they perceived to be gifted for the program, and then the parents had
to sign consent for them to enter the program.
Cuba-Rushford Elementary is a small, rural school with a low diversity rate. The school
is in a poverty stricken area which results in no funding for the program. The teachers planning
the activities are required to make, plan, and buy everything they need for the lessons.
The students who have entered the program were selected by their teachers who see them
as being gifted or advanced academically. Once observing in the program I found that most of
the students in the program are able to do work at least one, if not two, grade levels above their
own (sometimes with guidance).
Literature Review
Increasing Gifted Student Motivation
In the words of a student, to be gifted means a student who is able to comprehend
complex material, excels in academic and/or interest areas, and has a motivation to learn.
(Delisle, 1987) Efinger and Gibson state that to be gifted a student must possess three factors:
ability, task commitment, and creative expression, all three of which are applied to the area of the
students giftedness. (Efinger and Gibson, 2001)
Student motivation for gifted students. Teaching students with giftedness can be a
tedious job for teachers if the students arent motivated to learn. In general, gifted students are
willing to complete any task given to them, even if this task is tedious or redundant. It is the
teachers job to make the work engaging and help the student remain engaged. (Clinkenbeard,

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

2012) Many gifted students lack the motivation to learn and typically are underachieving
academically. In one study it was shown that 38 percent of gifted students were underachieving,
although a lack of motivation is not proven to be the only cause, it does play a major role. Since
many gifted students are underachieving any screenings given to pin-point gifted students may
be overlooking the majority of gifted students. This is why increasing gifted student motivation
is so important. (Alber, Ford, and Heward, 1998)
Gifted student motivation can be divided into two main categories, a characteristic or trait
and an environmental factor that can be influenced. (Feldhusen, Moon, and Yun Dai, 1998)
Based on research, both characteristics and environment have an impact on gifted student
motivation.
Influences on gifted Student motivation. Clinkenbeard gives teachers many ideas on
increasing gifted students motivation, they include, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, setting
goals, self-perceptions, and attribution techniques. She also goes into detail about a specific
model teachers can use with their gifted students called TARGET. (Clinkenbeard, 2012)
Intrinsic motivation is one of the best ways to influence gifted students. Many gifted
students have a natural will to learn so they are more likely to respond to intrinsic motivations.
Many teachers try to use extrinsic measures to influence their underachieving gifted students,
however since gifted students have a strong desire to learn, they are unlikely to work. Appealing
to a students intrinsic interests, or what they are most interested in, is the best way to have a
long-term effect on those gifted students. (Clinkenbeard, 2012) One study that followed
children from infancy to age 9 proved that students who scored higher than a 130 IQ had a high

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

sense of intrinsic motivation, and this remained constant throughout the study. (Feldhusen,
Moon, and Yun Dai, 1998)
Every student is going to be influenced by their own perceptions of their learning. Gifted
students however, are more likely to have a high sense of self-efficacy and self-concept that
means these factors have a stronger influence over these students. So, improving a gifted
students self-perception will inadvertently increase their motivation to learn. (Clinkenbeard,
2012)
Phillip and Lindsay found that students need to be encouraged inside and outside the
classroom. Providing students with a challenge in both settings can be difficult. One study
showed that students understood this dilemma, and were not expecting this challenge to be
constant. The study showed little impact on the students motivation to learn as long as the
challenge was there most of the time. Students also said that the more time they were given
outside of school to devote on their interests and talents, the more motivated they were
academically. The home life of a gifted student was seen as an important factor that influences
students motivation to learn and participate in academics in the capacity that they are capable of.
This ultimately leads to the idea of student choice, which in one study showed that 5 out of 13
girls and 7 out of 8 boys claimed that having choice increased their motivation to learn.
(Housand and Housand, 2012)
While participating in things that interest them, students develop relationships with other
students who share those interests. This gives students peers at their own ability level, giving
them social skills that may cause learning in the classroom to become easier. (Phillips and
Lindsay, 2006) Being around others with similar abilities increases students feelings of

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

belonging and acceptance, which is related to increased engagement and intrinsic motivation.
(Housand and Housand, 2012)
Attribution is also an important factor for gifted students to be aware of. Attribution is
the idea that students search for the reasons that led to their successes or failures. This is
important for gifted students to have because they are able to take the attributions and really
implement those decisions in their future work. (Clinkenbeard, 2012) Along with students
having purposeful feedback, students should be given choices that incorporate their interests.
This will also help keep the students motivation to learn, and increase their desire to have
attribution. (Lindsay, Phillips, 2006) Giving students a choice on what they are learning should
also be tied into student interest. This is a simple and easy way for teachers to maintain gifted
student motivation, make the learning about what they like! An easy way to do this is internet
based learning, it provides students with enough choices to focus on a topic they are interested
in, and it is student-centered. (Alber, Ford, and Heward, 1998)
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is another important factor when looking into
gifted students motivation. When a teacher hears LRE the thought of students with disabilities
is automatic, however, all students are seen under the law (in 20 states) as requiring the least
restrictive environment to learn. With gifted students LRE is different than all other students,
because it is not as much the environment the students are in, but the instruction the students
are receiving that matters. Many gifted students have mastered at least half of the coming school
years curriculum before it even begins and many teachers are unwilling to make provisions for
these students. (Gallagher, 1997)

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

Models Used to Increase Gifted Student Motivation. Clinkenbeard goes into detail
about a model called TARGET that is meant to emphasize the use of classroom structure and
organization to influence a students mastery of goals and motivational related outcomes.
TARGET stands for task (appropriate difficulty level of tasks), authority (students have shared
decision making), recognition (provide extrinsic and intrinsic rewards), grouping (heterogeneous
and flexible grouping), evaluation (criterion-referenced), and time (appropriate time to complete
tasks). Each of these is need to insure gifted students reach their full potential and remain
motivated to learn. (Clinkenbeard, 2012)
The most common model used to teach gifted education is Renzulis SEM or Schoolwide
Enrichment Model. This model is explained in detail in Efinger and Gibsons (2001) article.
They state that there are three types of enrichment and that all three should be evident in an
enrichment program. The first type is the exploratory phase of learning. This exposes students
to new topics and provides topics that are not typically covered in the everyday curriculum. The
second type of enrichment goes a step further and is meant to increase higher-order thinking
skills that include developing research skills. Finally the third type of enrichment is relating that
learning to real world situations. This requires students to become fully engrossed in a topic,
they are becoming the experts. SEM also requires some additional supports in order for it to be
truly successful. The following is a list of what should be present in a school system for SEM to
be functional: professional development, curriculum resources and materials, an enrichment
specialist, an enrichment team, parent training, and a democratic management approach. The
basic principles of SEM are that every learner is unique, learning should be enjoyed, and
learning is more meaningful when connected to the real world. If implemented properly, the

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

SEM approach to teaching gifted students will increase their motivation to learn immensely.
(Efinger and Gibson, 2001)
The PCP Meeting
Pre-Planning
Before I could find the solutions to my problem, I needed to get together with the
teachers of the program, the students in the program, and some of the parents who had concerns
with the programs effectiveness. In order to do this I had to send out a letter to everyone that
could be involved to see if anyone was actually interested in being a part of this process (see
Appendix A for a copy of the letter). It only seemed natural to suggest having the meeting
during one of the scheduled after school sessions, since most of the teachers and students would
already be attending, however the parents who responded to the letter were unable to meet at that
time. In order to accommodate for the patents, all who would be involved planned a date that
meet everyones scheduling needs.
After all of the participants and I scheduled the date of the meeting and the place, I then
decided on an agenda for the meeting. Since I am one of the teachers in the program, I had a
pretty basic idea of what the problem was and different ways to solve it, however, I wanted to
make sure my opinions of this stayed at bay and the parents and students opinions were heard.
This program is for them, not the teachers. I sent all of the participants the agenda for the
meeting a few days before, as a reminder of the meeting and so they come prepared of what to
expect from the meeting (see Appendix B for a copy of the agenda).
I then decided it would be a good idea to come to the meeting with some examples of
successful enrichment models and some research information about what they are. The research

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

10

done for the above literature review was also used during the meeting as reference for
participants to refer to if they were not informed about gifted education or enrichment models.
The articles were gathered and distributed among the table for participants to look through before
the meeting started.
Agenda/What Happened In the Meeting
Introduction. At the beginning of the meeting it was necessary for all of the participants
and myself to introduce ourselves. This was vitally important for all of the participants to see
how each other connected to the enrichment program. At the meeting there were 3 of the
program teachers, one being myself. The other two teachers are both graduate students at St.
Bonaventure University, one of which was at the inception of the program and the other entered
the program when I entered the program. Most of the students who are in the STEM portion of
the program were present and each of them stated their interest in the program and what grade
level they were in. Then the one parent that attended the meeting introduced herself. After the
introductions were made, I let everyone know that because this meeting is meant to focus on the
reason why we are all here, there has to be some ground rules so we all dont get off track or lose
focus.
Setting the rules. I created a rules sheet before the meeting (see Appendix C for a copy
of the rules sheet). I handed out copies of the rules sheet to everyone and asked for them to take
a minute and read over the rules. I then opened up the table for questions about the required
rules. Everyone agreed that the rules were purposeful, so I moved on to asking if anyone had
additional rules they thought were important to add to our list. Some of the students agreed that
we should make do not interrupt someone when they are talking which I thought was a great

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

11

thing for them to bring up as a rule, because I know that this is one of the issues the other
teachers will be addressing during the meeting. The parent present at the meeting decided that
she wanted to be able to press pause on the meeting if someone didnt understand what was
being said or needed clarification on words or ideas being mentioned. Everyone agreed that this
was a great idea since not everyone is fluent in enrichment programs ideas and philosophies.
One of the teachers brought up the idea of letting everyone answer a question posed or topic
being discussed before allowing for counter claims and that people should write down their
thoughts if they are worried they will forget. So, in light of this new rule I gave everyone a pen
and sticky note so they could track their thoughts while others were talking.
Identify the problem. Now that everyone was clear on the rules, it was time to identify
the problem. I began by asking everyone to go around the table and describe why they thought
this meeting was important, why were we all there. The teachers present each mentioned that the
program had a number of students that were not behaving properly, which was ultimately
inhibiting their ability to plan and implement stimulating activities. The parent involved said that
her main concern was that her son was coming home crying and simply not enjoying the
program. She wanted to make sure the program was benefiting him and not a waste of his time
or hers. Many of the students stated that they were bored, didnt like the activities, didnt like all
of the yelling, and/or didnt find the work challenging. After all of the discussion was settled
about why everyone thought the meeting was important, as the facilitator, I restated what was
said. I said, We have identified many issues that need to be addressed in our meeting today,
there are some concerns about student behavior, the effectiveness of the program, and the
challenge level of the activities, is there anything else that is of concern to anyone? There was
nothing else mention, so I transitioned into setting the goal for the meeting. Before this I

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

12

reminded everyone to save their thoughts about peoples concerns and that we would be
discussion this during the group discussion.
Set a meeting goal. This part of the meeting is essential for the end goal, the planning
part of the meeting, so to begin this part of the meeting I remind everyone that this is a
unanimous goal that everyone is going to be working towards during the meeting. To start I gave
everyone a prompt, After this meeting is over, I will be confident that this program is Some
of the students answered with things like going to be fun!, going to teach me things I dont
learn in class., and going to focus on what I want to learn.
Group discussion. The group discussion is the largest portion of the meeting. To begin
this section I remind everyone the purpose of this discussion, to express concerns, feelings,
thoughts, ideas, and possible solutions, and that all opinions expressed will be talked through.
For this section of the meeting I decided to use a variation on the force-field technique (Bens and
Wiley, 2005). I explained to everyone the chart (that was posted on chart paper) had two sides,
the positives and the negatives (see Appendix D for a copy of the chart). This is how we will
categorize the meeting. Such things as expressed ideas and possible solutions would likely go on
the positives side and fears and concerns would go on the negatives side. After everyone fully
understood the chart and how it was being used, I prompted everyone with Tell me more about
what you want this program to achieve for you personallythis is your chance to get all of your
hopes and/or concerns on the table before we address them later. Since my main focus is on the
students opinions, I asked them to begin. (As the discussion went on I had one of the other
teachers help me scribe what was being said directly onto the chart.) Many of the students
werent sure what to say or where to start so I asked them to tell everyone about things in the
program that we are doing well already (straight from the chart). One of the students spoke up

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

13

and said that she likes the extra time to do homework. Another student then raised his hand
and said he liked when we used the iPads. I then opened it up to the rest of the participants to try
and encourage more discussion about what we are doing well in the program. One of the
teachers suggested that the programs book club is going really well, that there are fewer students
in that section. This prompt was very hard to get the participants to engage in because this was
indeed our problem, the program wasnt working the way it was. So, to transition I said So, it is
clear the program needs some help, before we can say Lets do this! we need to figure out what
isnt workingwhat are the things we arent doing so well in the program? The one parent in
the meeting spoke up immediately, saying that she didnt think the program was benefiting her
son, that he wasnt learning anything. Now this was a heavy statement and I could see the
teachers becoming annoyed so before anyone could speak I reminded everyone to use their
sticky notes and that there would be time for a rebuttal of sorts. A student mentions the yelling in
the room and another one mentions that the lessons are not challenging and she gets bored really
fast. The teachers jump in and bring up the behavior problems which are causing the entire
lesson to falter because all of their attention has to be on the behavior problems. Since many of
the participants have things to say in rebuttal to some of the feels expressed I decide to open up
the discussion to allow for concerns with things that have been mentioned, I emphasize that these
concerns will also be noted on our chart. The teachers are the first to say that they feel like they
are putting a lot of effort into planning these activities, but the students arent following rules or
instructions which is causing a lot of behavior problems. They go on to say that they feel the
students would be learning and benefiting from the program if they werent causing so many
problems. The parent jumps in and says that the teachers should be handling the behavior
problems and that this should not be impacting her sons learning. At this point I redirect because

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

14

I can see the two getting upset, I say that I understand your concerns; you feel (teacher) that
your lessons would be successful if the students behavior was improved and as a parent you feel
that this is the teachers responsibility to address this and ensure the lessons success. I want to
hear the students thoughts on this so I ask them to give their input. They bring up that the
teacher yells a lot, and that they lose interest in the lessons. The students say that they would not
be so distracted if they had fun and engaging lessons to do that peaked their interests. The
teacher directed a question to the students, So, if I gave you more of a choice in what we learn,
you would be less likely to act out during the lessons? and many of the students agreed. This
was our first solution, to give the students more choice. In theory, student choice has been
proven to increase gifted student motivation (Phillips and Lindsay, 2006).
To continue the great progress we were making toward bettering the program to best
benefit the students I decided to begin again with a prompt, Take a moment to look through the
materials I have brought, then if you think of a suggestion that could help or a concern raise your
hand so we can all address it. At this time I gave them 5 minutes to browse through the
material. The parent at the meeting noticed that one of the articles talked about students
learning inside and outside of the classroom, she suggested that maybe the teachers could plan to
send some things home for the students to do. A sort of homework, she said, that would get them
interested and curious about what the next activity was going to be. The teachers jumped in and
said something like a hook, to get them excited. This was great because it was proven in Phillip
and Lindsay (2006) that the more access students have to the things that interest them the deeper
their connection goes.
At this point I remind everyone that we only have 20 more minutes in the meeting and we
need to wrap up our discussion portion so we have time to talk about our goals and set up a

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

15

future plan. I ask the group Are there any other ideas that you have to help better the program
for the students? The students suggest that instead of doing random lessons, they focus on a
topic and do all sorts of things surrounding that topic. This relates a lot to SEM, an article in
which I take out to reference (Efinger and Gibson, 2001). SEM focuses on going deeper into the
material by exploring, higher order thinking, and real world experiences. The teachers then
mention that they can provide students with a choice of topics and then create lessons around the
topic, however if they are going to do experiments they will need help with providing materials
for the students to use. The parent and students suggest that they might be able to bring their
own materials if the teachers give them advanced notice. The teachers agree.
At this point the time is winding down and I redirect everyone by restating the ideas we
came up with.
Program goals. In order for all of these solutions to take place, we need to set up a
program goal. The students are the main focus so I ask them to come up with the goal and the
rest of us would make suggestions off of that. I give them a prompt This enrichment program
will the students responded with help me think deeper on topics I am interested in do not
have the chance to learn about in school. This is a great start! The parent makes a comment
about adding in something about the students being engaged and the program being a benefit
while the teachers mention the behavior deal they made. Ultimately the goal for the program
was The enrichment program will benefit students by increasing their motivation to learn about
topics they have chosen and the teachers have provided experiences for, the students will be fully
engaged and participate in all activities.

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

16

Determine the plan. This section of the meeting was relatively easy to accomplish. I
had created a table for ease of access (see Appendix E for a copy of the plan sheet). The sheet
was filled out as a who is going to do what by when with an added column for a follow up
meeting which was set for the last day of the program before the winter break. This was agreed
upon because it gave enough time for the teachers to gather data as to whether or not the new
solutions were working.
Reflection
The meeting went a lot better than I expected. I think because the teachers were my own
colleagues and the parent and students were there for the betterment of the program it was easy
for me to take a leadership role. They all seemed to respect the fact that I wanted to better the
program and that this would help in some way. It was interesting to me to see that the students
were able to give so much input into the meeting. I wasnt expecting the students to say too
much or want to really be involved in the meeting; however they were very involved and willing
to give their opinion. I found that giving the students prompts to answer was very helpful in
guiding their thinking. In a way the students were the ones to really give the suggestions that
were used as a solution.
I was really hoping to have more of an input from the parents; however with only one
parent wanting to be involved it was difficult to really get an understanding of the parents
perspective because one parents views cannot be used to determine all the parents opinions. I
was pleased that the parent that showed up for the meeting wasnt afraid to voice her opinion
about her concerns for her son's experience in the enrichment program.

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

17

I found that the hardest thing for me to do was be un-biased, being that I am one of the
teachers in the program. I think that it would have been easier for me if this meeting had been
done right when I had started teaching the program; however I had been putting effort into the
program for a few weeks at the point of this meeting. I had to really focus all of my attention on
being the facilitator and not a teacher of the program. Having the prompts really helped me to
guide the meeting and stopped me from putting my own input in.
Outcome of the Meeting
The meeting had a great outcome! The kinks in the program are still being worked out.
However, the plan made at the meeting has been in place for a few weeks and seem to be making
an impact on the students learning and behavior. The implementation of the program lasting
throughout the rest of the year seems to be looking good. Before the meeting, the program was
in question as to whether or not it would be brought back in January.
The teachers have seen an improvement in the students behaviors, however only with
certain activities. It seems that there are still a few students who act out, and this isnt because of
the program. These few students are in question for removal from the program because of their
extreme non-compliance which is not just a problem for the program, but during the students
entire day.
The teachers will continue to monitor the progress of the program. As mentioned in the
plan the teachers gave the students a choice sheet (see Appendix F for a copy) and have been
giving the students evaluations to fill out for activities to assess their interest level with the
activities being planned (see Appendix G for a copy of a students evaluation). These
evaluations are for the teachers to assess how the activities they are planning engage the
students interests.

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

18
The Plan

At the end of the meeting the group created a plan on a chart (see Appendix E for a copy
of the plan). The plan includes things such as: the teachers creating engaging lessons, the
students monitoring their behavior, and the parents providing materials when needed. As a part
of the plan we also decided to have another follow up meeting towards the end of the program in
December. This was to address issues still present and discuss the positives that came from the
first meeting.
The main goal of the meeting was to address the concerns of the students behavior, the
challenge level of the activities, and the effectiveness of the program. When looking at the plan
keep in mind that it is made to be followed up by another meeting. The idea of the plan is to
collect evidence that the above suggestions are working. If they prove to not work, then this will
be addressed in the second meeting. The students are responsible for monitoring their behavior
and participating in the student choice activities. The teachers are responsible for providing
student choice and engaging activities along with collecting evidence for the next meeting. The
parent that attended the meeting is responsible for keeping in contact with the teachers, and
providing materials when needed. The parent also agreed to connect the after school topics to
things the student is doing at home to connect the two. My responsibilities, as the facilitator,
were to collect evidence for the next meeting and keep everyone informed on what was
happening.
Conclusion
The after school enrichment program for gifted 4th and 5th grade students is in the
beginning stages of development and in need of improvements. The PCP was implemented to
help better the program to benefit the students participating. The meeting included 2 of the

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

19

teachers involved, one parent, and many of the students that attend the STEM portion of the
program. The meeting addressed the problem that the students behavior was poor, the activities
werent challenging the students, and that the program overall wasnt benefiting the students.
Throughout the meeting solutions and suggestions were made that all pertained to increasing
gifted student motivation. The main point that was touched upon during the meeting was the
idea of student choice (Phillips and Lindsay, 2005). Everyone agreed that student choice was the
best way to increase the students motivation and ultimately improve the effectiveness of the
program. The participants of the meeting came up with a plan of action that is being followed
and the effectiveness of this plan will be addressed at a follow up meeting that will be held on
12/18/14 with the students and teachers of the program (the attendance of the parent is not set
yet). Overall, the main point of the meeting that was backed up by the literature review was
student choice. This seems to be the best solution to the problem at hand.

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

20

Appendix A
PCP Letter

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

21

Appendix B
Meeting Agenda

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

22

Appendix C
Rules Sheet

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

23

Appendix D

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

24
Force Field Chart

Appendix E

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

25
The Plan Sheet

Appendix F

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

26
Student Choice Sheet

Appendix G

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

27

Example of Student Evaluation

References

PERSON CENTERED PLANNING

28

Alber, S. R., Ford, D. Y., Heward, W. L., (1998). Setting motivation traps for underachieving
gifted students. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 21(2), 28-30, 32-33.
Bens, I., Wiley, J. (2005). Systematic problem solving. Facilitating with ease, n.p.
Clinkenbeard, P. R. (2012). Motivation and gifted students: Implications of theory and research.
Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 622-630.
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.sbu.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=719d49b75aab-42c6-a164-c7b2a2c640a2%40sessionmgr112&vid=0&hid=114
Delisle, J. R. (1987). Gifted children speak out. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing, Inc.
Efinger, J., Gibson, S. (2001). Revisiting the schoolwide enrichment model-An approach to
gifted programming. Teaching exceptional children, 33(4), 48-53.
Feldhusen, J. F., Moon, S. M., Yun Dai, D. (1998). Achievement motivation and gifted students:
A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 45-63.
Gallagher, J. J. (1997). Least restrictive environment and gifted students. Peabody Journal of
Education, 72(3/4), 153-165.
Housand, A. M., Housand, B. C. (2012). The role of technology in gifted students motivation.
Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 706-715.
Phillips, N., Lindsay, G. (2006). Motivation in gifted students. High ability studies, 17(1), 57-73.