Identification of Gifted and Talented Students - Annotated Bibliography


Published on

This powerpoint presentation was designed as an assignment towards a Certificate in Gifted Education. It is an annotated bibliography of six primary sources associated with issues surrounding the identification of Gifted Learners

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Identification of Gifted and Talented Students - Annotated Bibliography

  1. 1. COURSE 2 – IDENTIFICATION OF GIFTED LEARNERS Assignment 1 – Annotated Bibliography By Kirstie O’Connor
  2. 2. INTRODUCTION: The identification of gifted students can be daunting and challenging task, especially for educators who are new to the field. The purpose of the following annotated bibliography is to provide a ‘helping hand’ for teachers to begin to understand the issues surrounding the identification of gifted learners.
  3. 3.  Erwin, J. O. & Worrell, F. C. (2012). Assessment practices and the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted and talented education. Journal of Pyschoeducational Assessment. 30, 74-87. Erwin and Worrell offer a comprehensive discussion of the issues surrounding the underrepresentation of minority students in GATE programs in the United States. Their own study examined the socio-economic and cultural backgrounds of students selected for enrichment Summer programs based multiple criteria, concluding that underrepresentation was indicative of a prolific and concerning achievement gap. In contrast, McBee (2006), cited below discusses underrepresentation as the result of inequalities in the process of nomination rather than assessment tools. Of the sources listed here, Erwin and Worrell provide substantial introductory knowledge surrounding the construct of giftedness and the means and reliability of various assessment practices, making this source useful for those whose knowledge of this area is limited.
  4. 4. Massé, L. &Gangé, F. (1996). Should Self-Nominations be allowed in peer nomination forms? Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(24), 24-30. In this article Massé and Gagné consider whether the use of self-nominations in peer nomination forms is a valid method to identify gifted learners. Extending on the work of Dove (1986), this study examined the correlation between self-nominations, peer- nominations and teacher nominations and considered twelve descriptions of abilities in a sample of 392 French-Speaking students. Ultimately, the conclusion drawn was that self-nominations had no detrimental impact and that they should be utilised. This study was aware of its own limitations due to the narrow sample and its culturally specific context. Although it provides an interesting view on self-nomination as a tool for identification, further consideration should be given, and it would not be recommended that self- nomination be used as an isolated measure of identification.
  5. 5. McBee, M. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Advanced Academics. 17. 103-111. McBee’sanalysis of the source of referrals for gifted programs in the state of Georgia adds to the discussion of the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted programs; his research indicates that this may be caused not by issues surrounding assessment, but rather by inequalities in nominations. The chosen sample and the screening process used in this study strove to attain reliable data. McBee was unable to reach a definitive conclusion regarding ability distribution without further examination and expensive alterations to existing nomination processes, but sought to represent both sides of the argument. For this reason, McBee’s study is useful in context with the existing rhetoric surrounding underrepresentation of minority students and for examining the approach of school systems. In considering teacher nominations this research should be considered alongside Siegle and Powell’s (2004), cited below, study of teacher biases.
  6. 6. Siegle, D. and Powell, T. (2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly. 48(1). 21-29. This study explored teacher biases and their role on the identification process, revealing that if gender biases are present, they are minimal; however it alsohypothesisedthat educators seemed to privilege particular traits of giftedness over others. One interesting point was that gifted and talented specialists seemed to more likely to identify students, and to focus on student strengths rather than areas of weakness. The researchers identified the limitations of the study due to its narrow and skewed sample, with all participants having some knowledge and a perceived interest in gifted and talented education, and made recommendations for how subsequent studies could increase the validity of the data. For an educator new to the area, this article could be useful in promoting critical reflection on their own biases and consideration of how they identify students.
  7. 7. Silverman, L. K. (1989, October). Lost: One IQ point per year for the gifted. Paper presented at the National Association for Gifted Children 36th Annual Convention, Cincinnati, OH. Silverman considers of the difficulties and negative impacts on the highly and profoundly gifted when Intelligence Quotients norms are condensed in order to adhere to a standard curved distribution. Silverman stresses the existence of a discrepancy between the theoretical and actual distribution of high capabilities and that revised psychometric testing makes it increasingly difficult to differentiate the highly and profoundly gifted. The recommendation is made that a variety of testing techniques are used. As the purpose of this source is to consider the impact on changing norms on the highly gifted, it does not include an explanation of the function or implementation of psychometric testing. Some prior knowledge of this area is required in order to fully comprehend Silverman’s argument.
  8. 8. Silverman, L. K., Chitwood, D. G. and Waters, J. L. (1986). Young gifted children: Can parents identify Giftedness? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 6, 23-38. This study, despite its small sample size of twenty one children tested in Denver Colorado offers interesting insight into the validity of a parent’s ability to identify traits of giftedness in their child when provided with a list of sixteen specific characteristics associated with giftedness. The study revealed an accuracy of the parents with over 90% of these children formally identified as at least mildly gifted. Of greater interest however is the hypothesis proposed 100% of the subjects not identified as gifted were subject to early and habitual ear infections, with the implication being that this may have caused an auditory processing difficulties. This study is significant for educators as it may encourage them educators to be more aware of the ability of the parents to recognise their child’s ability, and to not discount such suspicions.
  9. 9. WHERE TO FROM HERE?  The above is just a small sampling of the information surrounding gifted and talented education. This is a dynamic area that continues to be of interest to researchers and that continues to raise ongoing questions of which there are no easy answers.  To find out more about this area, please speak to me as the Gifted and Talented Coordinator; I have many more resources available.
  10. 10. OR……  Alternatively, you may wish to undertake studies of your own, such as the Certificate of Gifted Education from GERRIC at the University of New South Wales:  au/about-us/gerric/for-educators/ coge/