|
|
 |
edusearch articles |
|
|
|
|
| Identifying Gifted Students. |
|
| Author : David Farmer
|
|
| Created : 15 Feb 2002
|
| Last Revision : 15 Feb 2002
|
The general approach to identification has changed over the past few decades with this partly reflecting the change in definitions of giftedness, and even of intelligence. Some have argued intelligence is no better defined that as what intelligence tests measure. This is not the case - the words intelligence and intelligent have meaning in common communication, and are generally understood along the lines of a capacity to see patterns in, and thus be able to analyse and understand, complex phenomena.
But the concept of intelligence has recently been given broader and more differentiated meanings such as with the recognition of specific and non-traditional talent areas and the popularising of concepts of "emotional intelligence" and "multiple intelligences". This is a positive movement away from the earlier unitary view of intelligence and giftedness (where a gifted child was considered to have superior aptitudes in all fields of intellectual endeavour). Multi-faceted definitions of giftedness now are common, which include children with exceptional capacity in one or more broad areas of skill. Some skill areas present difficult measurement issues, particularly of capacity rather than achievement, but within this constraint the top 2-5% of the population in one of the fields are generally regarded as gifted.
With this still emerging definition of intelligence and giftedness, identification of gifted children is not simple. Nor however is it dispensable given that many of these children need appropriate educational response to ensure that they can cope with and succeed in education.
Moreover potential does not always show in achievements. There can be many impediments that block or misdirect the development of the ability. Gagne (1995) has developed this understanding of the role of the child's motivation and of the factors in the child's environment (family, school, peers, etc) that may hinder (or facilitate) the child's ability being realised into achievements. Not all gifted children are achievers. No wonder then, that even teachers are not typically good at identifying gifted children, although research suggests that, with training in gifted and talented education, teachers can significantly improve their record at identification (Gear 1978, Pegnato & Birch 1959).
Consequently a multi-faceted approach to identification is important. It is not simply a matter of IQ testing - rather use of multiple criteria from a variety of sources is generally most effective, with inclusion of a child in the event of doubt. A school, looking particularly for academic giftedness, might use all of the following:
behavioural checklists (there are many lists of characteristics that students gifted in one or more areas may exhibit),
teacher nominations (these are far more accurate with pre- and inservice training in gifted education),
parent nominations (via parent questionnaire as to the child's characteristics, interests and home achievements at time of enrolment, and an openness throughout the student's time at the school for the parent to raise concerns and highlight any discrepancies between home and school performance),
peer nominations (with questions such as "who would you turn to with such and such a problem?"),
self nominations (made easier when specific programs are advertised and open to the whole school - well-hidden talents can be discovered this way),
standardised tests,
IQ testing (including tests which are designed to minimise culture or language bias, eg Ravens), and
creative and critical thinking tests (such as theTorrance and Langrehr set of tests).
Identification by parents is often accurate, despite the myth that parents always think their children are bright. Parents are in the best position to know the child and its inner strivings, and their major difficulties are often not having a ready comparison (particularly in the case of only or eldest children), and of overcoming, when appropriate, the desire not to appear to be "pushy". Behavioural checklists often assist with the first difficulty, and a consideration of the alternatives, particularly with problems at school, generally encourages some sort of advocacy role.
A good coverage of the issues of identification is also provided as part of the 1988 Senate Select Committee Report. keith McGuinness has also constructed an excellent extended article on questions about testing and assessment.
David Farmer
|
| Comments on this article:
| |
|
|
