Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Gifted education


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Gifted education

  1. 1. Identifying GiftedIdentifying Gifted StudentsStudents Annotated Bibliography Donna Wallis
  2. 2. IntroductionIntroduction  Whilst objective testing measures such as IQ testing are often utilised for identifying gifted students, many students have gifts which could not be measured accurately in this way.  A multiple criteria system provides a method of identifying many different types of gifted students.  The selected readings should make you aware of some of the contemporary issues in identification and may confirm or even challenge your perceptions about identifying gifted students and the use of different tools for identification.
  3. 3. identifying Twice Exceptionalidentifying Twice Exceptional StudentsStudents Bianco, M & Leech, N.L., (2010). Twice-exceptional learners: effects of teacher preparation and disability labels on gifted referrals. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33 (4), 319-334. In this study, the authors investigate whether disability labels affect student referrals for gifted programs by teachers with special education, gifted or general teaching qualifications. The study concludes that special education teachers are the least likely to put forward students who have disability labels for gifted programs, but that all teachers are less willing to refer students with disability labels for gifted programs. Factors that may impact the results of this study include the limited socio economic background (middle to high) of the schools participating and that teacher referral decisions were based on limited information. This research has serious implications for twice exceptional learners who may not be included in gifted programs because of their disability. This study also clearly indicates that all teachers need to have some professional development, preferably at the teacher training level, in catering for giftedness and twice exceptionalities.
  4. 4. Are Identification systems basedAre Identification systems based on our beliefs and practices?on our beliefs and practices? Brown, S.W., Renzulli, J.S., Gubbins, E.J., Siegle, D., Zhang, W., Chen, C.H., (2005). Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49 (1), 68-79. The authors conducted a national survey to determine whether identification systems for gifted students are based on current beliefs and practices about giftedness. The survey items were designed based on a review of literature and the work of Marshall Sanborn, all of which see identification procedures as requiring more than just objective intelligence tests. The authors conclude that assumptions about gifted and talented students influence the way we screen for them and that more flexible identification systems need to be developed to identify the many different types of gifted and talented students. Whilst Renzulli as one of the authors is well established in the field of gifted education, this study has some limitations with an approximate 50% response rate to the survey and the 5 factors surveyed having quite low reliability estimates. This article should make teachers question whether the identification system currently being used in their school is in line with current beliefs and practices about gifted students.
  5. 5. Identifying young gifted childrenIdentifying young gifted children Gross, M., (1999). Small poppies: Highly gifted children in the early years. Roeper Review, 21(3), 207-214. The author examines a range of research on gifted children in the early years but also clearly sets out ways in which highly gifted young children are not being catered for or identified because of their age and a lack of teacher understanding of which identification processes should be utilised. This is an excellent summary of how the identification and needs of highly gifted young children differ from those of the moderately gifted, outlined in a sample of case studies. It is written by Professor Miraca Gross, Emeritus Professor of Gifted Education at the University of NSW. It is intended for both American and Australian audiences and would be useful in helping to establish an identification process for younger students who can often be overlooked on the assumption that their gifts are hard to diagnose at an early age.
  6. 6. Non Verbal Testing forNon Verbal Testing for Identification of studentsIdentification of students Lohman, D.F. & Gambrell, J.L., (2012). Using nonverbal tests to help identify academically talented children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30 (1), 25- 44. In this article, the authors explore the use of a range of nonverbal tests for identification of students particularly those who are ELL (English Language Learners), from low socio economic backgrounds and minority students. The authors discuss a range of tests and identify that single format figural reasoning tests may be less effective in identifying gifted students than picture based formats. Whilst this paper is quite complex, it does indicate important issues with regard to nonverbal tests and their usage. Caution should be exercised as the author of this paper, David Lohman, identifies himself as the author of the Cog AT test, sections of which are discussed in this report. The report provides an interesting table of advantages and disadvantages of nonverbal testing and makes inferences about taking into account a student’s opportunity to learn when identifying giftedness in students from other cultural backgrounds and minorities.
  7. 7. Peer Nomination formsPeer Nomination forms Masse, L. & Gagne, F., (1996). Should self nominations be allowed in peer nomination forms?. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40 (1), 24-31. Report of a study conducted by Masse and Gagne into the impact of allowing students to self nominate on peer nomination forms. Mixed ability students from both primary and high schools were asked to complete a peer nomination form (in which they could self nominate) identifying students in a range of abilities based on Gagne’s differentiated model of giftedness and talent. The results showed a high frequency of self nomination, more so in primary students than high school students, however, this self nomination did not show any significant impact on the identification process. There have been relatively few studies on this topic in terms of giftedness so comparisons are difficult. This is a useful but limited source, however, as the authors themselves note this study was completed in an artificial environment where these nominations did not lead to inclusion in any gifted programs. The study was also done in only one cultural context and would require confirmation from other cultural contexts to enhance its reliability, however, it does indicate that self nomination does not impact identification of gifted students when using peer nomination forms.
  8. 8. Parent checklistsParent checklists Silverman, L.K., Chitwood, D.G. & Waters, J.L., (1986). Young gifted children: can parents identify giftedness? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 6 (1), 23-38. In this study, the authors published a checklist in a newspaper and tested the IQ of young children whose parents responded to the checklist and identified many of the gifted characteristics in their own children. They found that over 90% of the children tested on the basis of the checklist were in the gifted range. Of particular interest was that those children who were tested and found not to be gifted had suffered from some type of ear infections early in their lives. Whilst the study is somewhat dated, particularly some of the language used eg gifted/handicapped, the results demonstrate that given a framework of characteristics to select from, parents’ knowledge of their children’s capabilities should form part of the identification process.
  9. 9. ConclusionConclusion It is hoped that these articles have raised awareness of some contemporary identification issues and given cause for thinking about personal perceptions of some of these methods.
  10. 10. ConclusionConclusion It is hoped that these articles have raised awareness of some contemporary identification issues and given cause for thinking about personal perceptions of some of these methods.